Rickard Stark, Jon Arryn, and Hoster Tully we’re completely justified.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

If you are like I, then you believe the theory that the Lords of the North, Riverlands, Vale, and Stormlands were planning on seceding from the 7K. 
 

The Targaryen rule of Westeros was only ever as legitimate as their ability to keep it together. Not only that, the Targaryens routinely abused their power and subjects as much as they helped Westeros. The North being the perfect example. Ending the right of first night was a good thing, though it was a dying tradition anyway. But immediately giving the Gift to the NW essentially took farmland away from the Northern lords, and gave it to a group that could never use it. Lest we also forget before that how Lords Jaehaerys sent to the Wall rebelled again and killed a Stark Lord. And then the Dance of the Dragons where the North had a poor harvest, that could’ve been aided by the land, and the civil war made sure that the rest of 7K couldn’t help.

In short, they were absolutely in the right to rebel against the weak and ineffectual Targaryens of their time.

[Hippocras]

I don't remember seeing anything about the Gift being a source of animosity against the crown for the North, but it seems to be a common theme on these forums. Why do people believe this? The Gift was to support the Watch, which the North itself supports. There used to be more of the Watch. The difficulties using the land to its full potential are more recent, due to low support for the Watch from the South.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Hippocras

[The hairy bear]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

I don't remember seeing anything about the Gift being a source of animosity against the crown for the North, but it seems to be a common theme on these forums. Why do people believe this?

From the World of Ice and Fire:

Letters from Lord Stark’s brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid.

and

Later still, it was said that the Starks were bitter at the Old King and Queen Alysanne for having forced them to
carve away the New Gift and give it the Night’s Watch; this may be one reason for why Lord Ellard Stark sided
with Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys at the Great Council of 101 AC.

[Hippocras]

14 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

From the World of Ice and Fire:

Letters from Lord Stark’s brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid.

and

Later still, it was said that the Starks were bitter at the Old King and Queen Alysanne for having forced them to
carve away the New Gift and give it the Night’s Watch; this may be one reason for why Lord Ellard Stark sided
with Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys at the Great Council of 101 AC.

ok. Thanks.

For the record though, I doubt that version of why the Starks supported Rhaenyra. I think her Vale ancestry is more relevant there.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Hippocras

[The hairy bear]

@Hippocras

You misread Yandel's quote. It's not talking about the Starks support of Rhaenyra during the Dance, but of Rhaeny's and her children during the Great Council of 101. I think it's an hypothesis that makes sense.

[Hippocras]

37 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

@Hippocras

You misread Yandel's quote. It's not talking about the Starks support of Rhaenyra during the Dance, but of Rhaeny's and her children during the Great Council of 101. I think it's an hypothesis that makes sense.

Yes, sorry. Tired.

Still think there is more to that decision on their part than bitterness though. Their relationship with the Vale was constantly changing but always relevant. Aemma's father was Rodrik who descended from Humbert who was married to a Royce. A family the Starks have multiple links to. Their decision might have been partly related to the deteriorating relationship between Daemon and Rhea, as Daemon would be in direct line to the throne if Viserys was chosen. Then later the dynamics changed as they were more opposed to the Hightowers than to Daemon. It might also have been related to a relationship with Corlys who they may have met with when he did his Northern Ice Wolf voyage.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Hippocras

[X-Buster]

8 hours ago, Lady Stonehearts Simp said:

If you are like I, then you believe the theory that the Lords of the North, Riverlands, Vale, and Stormlands were planning on seceding from the 7K. 
 

The Targaryen rule of Westeros was only ever as legitimate as their ability to keep it together. Not only that, the Targaryens routinely abused their power and subjects as much as they helped Westeros. The North being the perfect example. Ending the right of first night was a good thing, though it was a dying tradition anyway. But immediately giving the Gift to the NW essentially took farmland away from the Northern lords, and gave it to a group that could never use it. Lest we also forget before that how Lords Jaehaerys sent to the Wall rebelled again and killed a Stark Lord. And then the Dance of the Dragons where the North had a poor harvest, that could’ve been aided by the land, and the civil war made sure that the rest of 7K couldn’t help.

In short, they were absolutely in the right to rebel against the weak and ineffectual Targaryens of their time.

This is absolutely wrong.  Westeros was a backwards place with the lords always fighting among themselves.  The common people were suffering under their rule.  The Targaryens brought order to Westeros. 

The only thing we can agree on is the existence of an evil conspiracy on the parts of those families to rebel.  We are in agreement.  King Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Robert and Eddard were knowing and willing participants to treason and deserved to die for it.  Lyanna, if she was found, should be given a chance to condemn her family.  Is she refuses she gets the axe. 

The Starks got their way and placed their friend Robert on the throne.  Time has shown what a disaster that was.  Westeros is in a very bad way because of Baratheon and Stark incompetence at governing.  Westeros was never this bad during the 300 year rule of the Targaryens.  Westeros needs Daenerys Targaryen.  Baratheon and Stark are not up to the job of governing a kingdom. 

[Corvo the Crow]

There may have been some conspiracy to depose Aerys but NRVS secession bloc really doesn’t hold water, especially when you start poking a hole or two. Robert in a secret alliance… really? Robert? He only wished to marry Lyanna because Ned had male parts.
 

Hoster only joins the rebellion at a price of both her daughters getting husbands, even though he was much humiliated himself with Rhaegar abducting a highborn lady in his lands especially considering that highborn lady being the sister of her future son in law and  his future son in law was killed a few short days before his marriage.

Jon Arryn only became involved because Aerys forced his hand by first killing his heir and then posing a threat for Jon’s foster sons, his wards that Jon Arryn was honor bound to protect.

[The hairy bear]

9 minutes ago, X-Buster said:

Westeros was a backwards place with the lords always fighting among themselves.  The common people were suffering under their rule. The Targaryens brought order to Westeros.

During the Targaryen rule we have had: the wars of Conquest, the war between Maegor and Aegon the Uncrowned, the Faith militant uprising, four Dornish wars, the Dance of Dragons,the Conquest of Dorne, five Blackfyre Rebellions, the Peake Uprising, Tywin's war against the Reynes,...

The idea that unified Westeros has been an oasis of peace, friendship and neighborly harmony is blatantly false.

9 minutes ago, X-Buster said:

King Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Robert and Eddard were knowing and willing participants to treason and deserved to die for it.  Lyanna, if she was found, should be given a chance to condemn her family.  Is she refuses she gets the axe.

Aerys didn't have evidence for any of that. Neither do you.

9 minutes ago, X-Buster said:

Westeros was never this bad during the 300 year rule of the Targaryens. 

During the last years of Maegor's reigh or the Dance of Dragons, to name a couple of examples, Westeros was clearly in a worse spot.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, X-Buster said:

The common people were suffering under their rule. 

Common people suffer under Targaryen rule as well, aside from maybe Aegon V, who was clearly the exception not the rule. No pre-Targaryen ruler that we know of was burning people alive for fun and sexual pleasure.

2 hours ago, X-Buster said:

The only thing we can agree on is the existence of an evil conspiracy on the parts of those families to rebel.

What evil conspiracy? I would like to see textual evidence for a conspiracy that is not Barbrey Dustin, and evidence that it is 'evil'. How is it evil to want to succeed from your psycho ruler who gets off by burning people alive?

2 hours ago, X-Buster said:

Robert and Eddard were knowing and willing participants to treason and deserved to die for it.

Proof?

2 hours ago, X-Buster said:

King Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickard.

But he didn't just like that. They had a right to a proper trial by combat, not that perverted shitshow that Aerys orchestrated.

2 hours ago, X-Buster said:

Westeros was a backwards place with the lords always fighting among themselves. 

Lords continued to do that after the Targaryens took power. And the Targaryens always fight amongst themselves too.

[maesternewton]

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

During the Targaryen rule we have had: the wars of Conquest, the war between Maegor and Aegon the Uncrowned, the Faith militant uprising, four Dornish wars, the Dance of Dragons,the Conquest of Dorne, five Blackfyre Rebellions, the Peake Uprising, Tywin's war against the Reynes,...

The idea that unified Westeros has been an oasis of peace, friendship and neighborly harmony is blatantly false.

Indeed, that is true that wars did not cease to plague the realm under Targaryen rule, yet the consolidation of Westeros by the Targaryens into one kingdom, lessened them. 

Alas, our knowledge of the pre-Conquest era remains scarce, but it is most certain that the number of conflicts that took place before the Conquest exceed the battles that transpired during the Targaryen dynasty's reign.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, maesternewton said:

Indeed, that is true that wars did not cease to plague the realm under Targaryen rule, yet the consolidation of Westeros by the Targaryens into one kingdom, lessened them. 

It's fair to say that the frequency of wars post-Conquest probably decreased compared to pre-Conquest, but in exchange the scale of conflicts increased significantly. So whether the effects of war on the populous really lessened is debatable.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

1 hour ago, maesternewton said:

Indeed, that is true that wars did not cease to plague the realm under Targaryen rule, yet the consolidation of Westeros by the Targaryens into one kingdom, lessened them. 

Alas, our knowledge of the pre-Conquest era remains scarce, but it is most certain that the number of conflicts that took place before the Conquest exceed the battles that transpired during the Targaryen dynasty's reign.

They likely went from minor border skirmishes, with the occasional war, to intercontinental wars with much larger forces

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

11 minutes ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

They likely went from minor border skirmishes, with the occasional war, to intercontinental wars with much larger forces

It's like when you transition to teenage years, fights are less frequent than during childhood but they are more consequential. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

5 minutes ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

It's like when you transition to teenage years, fights are less frequent than during childhood but they are more consequential. 

Fights as a teenager bruises & cuts maybe with a broken bone or two if it’s bad. Fights as adults usually ends with hospital trips and jail time and a death if it’s really bad.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

8 hours ago, X-Buster said:

This is absolutely wrong.  Westeros was a backwards place with the lords always fighting among themselves.  The common people were suffering under their rule.  The Targaryens brought order to Westeros. 

The common people would like a word

[maesternewton]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's fair to say that the frequency of wars post-Conquest probably decreased compared to pre-Conquest, but in exchange the scale of conflicts increased significantly. So whether the effects of war on the populous really lessened is debatable.

 

19 minutes ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

Fights as a teenager bruises & cuts maybe with a broken bone or two if it’s bad. Fights as adults usually ends with hospital trips and jail time and a death if it’s really bad.

I don't think these are accurate assumptions. 

The Starks and the Arryns were constantly on conflict over the sisters. They were at war several times.

In the south, the Westerlands, the Reach and the Stormlands all invaded each other frequently over petty border issues. The borders were constantly changing and the smallfolk got the short end of the stick. 

If the Reach invaded the Westerlands, the Stormlands would take advantage of that and invade the Reach, vice versa. A conflict between two Kingdoms could spiral to involve 3 or even 4.

 

[James Arryn]

9 hours ago, X-Buster said:

This is absolutely wrong.  Westeros was a backwards place with the lords always fighting among themselves.  The common people were suffering under their rule.  The Targaryens brought order to Westeros. 

The only thing we can agree on is the existence of an evil conspiracy on the parts of those families to rebel.  We are in agreement.  King Aerys had the right to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Robert and Eddard were knowing and willing participants to treason and deserved to die for it.  Lyanna, if she was found, should be given a chance to condemn her family.  Is she refuses she gets the axe. 

The Starks got their way and placed their friend Robert on the throne.  Time has shown what a disaster that was.  Westeros is in a very bad way because of Baratheon and Stark incompetence at governing.  Westeros was never this bad during the 300 year rule of the Targaryens.  Westeros needs Daenerys Targaryen.  Baratheon and Stark are not up to the job of governing a kingdom. 

“They make a desert and call it peace.”

~ Calgacus, but really Tacitus, talking about Rome/every imperial power ever. 
 

To be fair, though, the Starks Arryns et al are also guilty of the same sin with their own subjects. Voluntary feudalism isn’t really a thing. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by James Arryn

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, maesternewton said:

I don't think these are accurate assumptions. 

Why would it not be accurate to say the scale of war in Westeros has increased? Pre-Conquest you would have two or three kingdoms fighting each other per war. Post-Conquest you have half the continent against the other half, foreign invasions, etc...

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

I also forgot to add how Rhaenys forced Torrhen to marry his daughter to Ronnel Arryn, which eventually led to her murder via Jonos Arryn