[aDwD spoilers] Revisiting Rhaegar

[Salander]

You're using hindsight to argue Rhaegar should have tried it. Not exactly the best position to argue from.

No I'm not. I'm using basic strategy - whether it be military or diplomacy - something Rhaegar would have been schooled in.

The war could easily have turned out differently. The rebels and the loyalists were fairly evenly matched; in fact, the loyalists may even have been just a bit stronger (I seem to recall they had more men on the Trident). And IIRC, the rebels were actually losing the Trident until Rhaegar fell. But yes, we should just assume the outcome that ended up happening was inevitable, and that Rhaegar should have seen it and acted in exactly the way you think he should have acted. *sarcasm*

Furthermore, you keep saying that it would be good strategy for Rhaegar to do this. Well, I've given a strategic rationale for why Rhaegar would not have tried it. You have yet to truly contest this rationale. All you keep saying is, "he should have tried it" and "it turned out badly for him in the end." None of this truly addresses my main point, that from Rhaegar's perspective, offering a truce in exchange for practically everything the rebels want sets a terrible precedent, and may end up being counterproductive. Now, if you disagree with this strategy, then you need to take it up with Tywin and Robb and Stannis, all of whom have used the same rationale to refrain from offering real truces.

Well, you've made up a rationale which doesn't really explain why Rhaegar would have ignored just about all military, political and diplomatic solutions to avoid a civil war. Except he didn't and you don't think he should have even tried.

Uh, we only have direct evidence that two people don't think well of Rhaegar. And I'm not sure why you brought up that there are people who don't think of him at all. Obviously there are, but since they have nothing to say about him, there's no point in using them as evidence.

Seriously: and your point is? As I stated earlier: there are a whole heap of characters who don't think of him at all. I maintain your point of view on this is selective and you seem to make up your own criteria as you go along as to who counts and who doesn't, and why they do or don't.

I've offered reasons for why I disregard certain characters' opinions on this issue. If you have an issue with my reasons, then you should address those reasons specifically, as you have with Bran's account. And seeing as how people's accounts of Rhaegar differ, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions about Rhaegar's character without accepting some testimonies but not others.

This is just repetitive now and relies on consensus of agreement with your interpretation. As indicated on multiple threads: I don't agree with your position. I understand it, but it is too heavily weighted in favour of the romantic trope.

Where did Catelyn learn about Ashara Dayne possibly being Jon's mother? Winterfell's servants whisper rumors to each other all the time. And as a climber, Bran is in a good position to overhear things that people don't intend him to hear.

Yes, and he got the manner of Rickard's death wrong. So clearly he doesn't truly know the full history.

Or someone might have told Catelyn, it might have been gossip from the servants, a letter from her sister - or really none of us know because the author never informs us. In the absence of information, I'm not going to make something up. I'd run the probabilities, but I wouldn't attach myself to a particular line of argument as if it was truth.

Are you referring to Cersei's memory of Rhaegar being cheered by the smallfolk? Hmmm, I could have sworn there was some other account of Rhaegar's popularity among the common people. But the closest thing I can think of is the Elder Brother's reference to the singers describing the Trident as a battle between two men over a woman they both claimed to love.

Yep. That's the one and I remember the song too (as said earlier and multiple times now, there were love songs about Marg and Renly, but Renly loved Marg's brother). I do, however, agree that both men loved Lyanna. There is no account of how Lyanna felt in return for either of these men.

Notice I said that Catelyn and Hoster call Brandon these things for what he did. And notice that I used the word "stupid" in reference to what he did. I'm talking about his actions, not his character as a whole.

You've just attempted a pretty brazen feat here, Salander. You've twisted my words so as to make it seem like I said something that I in fact did not say, all while quoting me directly. I'm honestly sort of impressed by your chutzpah.

Yes, I did notice that and I also noted you called him "stupid". You've only gone on to clarify your view of him when queried.

I didn't twist your words. I cited your post and even pointed to its page number on this thread. I don't think you can complain about "twisting" words when you appear to interpret (or twist - if that is your phrase of choice) everything into a positive light that has ever been recounted about Rhaegar.

[Dragonfish]

No I'm not. I'm using basic strategy - whether it be military or diplomacy - something Rhaegar would have been schooled in.

You pointed out that Rhaegar ought to have asked for a truce because the war turned out badly for him. That's arguing from hindsight.

Well, you've made up a rationale which doesn't really explain why Rhaegar would have ignored just about all military, political and diplomatic solutions to avoid a civil war. Except he didn't and you don't think he should have even tried.

Avoid a civil war? The war was already in full swing by the time Rhaegar got back. There was no avoiding anything at this point.

And I'm not sure how you go from "he didn't propose a truce" to "he ignored just about all military, political, and diplomatic solutions." Especially since a military solution is basically the opposite of a truce.

In any event, I have already explained why it would have been strategically ill-advised to propose a truce: 1) offering a truce in which you give the rebels practically everything they want only encourages more rebellion in the future; 2) offering a truce might embolden the rebels further, because it would make the loyalists look week; 3) if Aerys gets wind that Rhaegar is proposing a truce in which one of the stipulations is that Aerys be deposed, then that'll drive a wedge between loyalist forces that could end up leading to rebel victory anyway. Now add in the fact that any truce was probably not going to be accepted in the first place (because who is going to yield while a man called "the Mad King" is still on the throne?), and it becomes clear that there are plenty of strategic reasons why Rhaegar would not have offered a truce.

Now, do you have any points that rebut these strategic considerations? Or would you rather insist that he should have offered a truce, without any justification other than the fact that you think he should have?

Seriously: and your point is?

My point is that I don't understand what your point is. Why are you bringing up the fact that many characters don't think about Rhaegar at all? If they don't think of Rhaegar at all, then there's no reason to include them in the debate. What exactly are you trying to demonstrate here?

This is just repetitive now and relies on consensus of agreement with your interpretation. As indicated on multiple threads: I don't agree with your position. I understand it, but it is too heavily weighted in favour of the romantic trope.

So you don't agree with me because you don't like how the story would turn out if I were right? And I'm supposed to be the biased one here?

Or someone might have told Catelyn, it might have been gossip from the servants, a letter from her sister - or really none of us know because the author never informs us.

Are you talking about where Catelyn found out about Ashara? Because we are specifically told that she heard about her from her maids, who had themselves heard of Ashara from Ned's soldiers.

Yes, I did notice that and I also noted you called him "stupid".

No, I said, "whatever he did, it was rash and stupid." Notice that I'm calling what he did stupid, I'm not saying he was stupid in general. Seriously, read what people actually write.

[Silverin]

Yep. That's the one and I remember the song too (as said earlier and multiple times now, there were love songs about Marg and Renly, but Renly loved Marg's brother). I do, however, agree that both men loved Lyanna. There is no account of how Lyanna felt in return for either of these men.

About how much we can put public opinion about characters as proof, here are some where we both know the people and the "legends":

1. As you mentioned Marg&Renly. To those who knew him, knows that this is not true.

2. Robert Baratheon: About him during the time of the rebellion everyone was talking fondly of him. Ned loved him as a brother, the public people cheered for him, he was a great inspiration for his soldiers, he was said to be someone who was followed by a lot. His fathering bastards was looked as something forgivable it didnt take away his "radiance" in the eyes of public opinion. And don't forget that the BwB members at the beginning were protecting the realm in KIngs Robert name even after his death, they were extramly loyal to him. Even Barristan prises him in front of Dany, saying that he was chivalrious...

3. Ned the traitor: What Dany hears about the rumors that reach her is that Ned is indeed a traitor and deseerved to die.

4. Tyrion the devil: No matter how much he tried to improve the financial situation in KL, or how much he did to save it from Stannis, his public image is probably the worst anyone ever had.

5. Sandor: In AFfC you hear all the rumors what horrible things the Hound and his men did to that town and how he raped young girls etc...

6. Cat and Brienne as the possible killers of Renly.

7. Theon is the one that burned Winterfell.

8. Sansa is a treeworshipper, and so do all the people of the North....and this is conted as something negative.

9. Tywin was actually really liked while he was Hand under Aerys rule.

10. Gregor Clegan was knighted by Rhaegar.

“My father told everyone my bedding had caught fire, and our maester gave me ointments. Ointments! Gregor got his ointments too. Four years later, they anointed him with the seven oils and he recited his knightly vows and Rhaegar Targaryen tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘Arise, Ser Gregor.’ “

At that time the public opinion of Gregor was obviously much better.

11. Margarey. The thing is not wether she is quite good or not. She is about just what makes the public think that someone is oh so great, and she plays with this aspect wonderfully. The Tyrells gave food for the people who were starving. She did went among them, she was probably very polite not arrogant with them. She visits the Sept constantly. And because of this the people of KL are so fond of her, than when the High Septon jailed her, they were protesting against him to let their fav out. They didnt do the same for Cersei. I just wanted to pointed out that it actually does not make that hard to establish a popular picture of you, and she could be still a huge scheemer.

So that is how much we should take a public opinion.

[Salander]

You pointed out that Rhaegar ought to have asked for a truce because the war turned out badly for him. That's arguing from hindsight.

Nope. I stated he should have attempted to negotiate and offer terms. I stated this over and over again: to avoid, mitigate, create stability in the realm. I don't believe I have ever written "truce". I will go and check this, but I don't think it's a term I would have written it in this context. Why? Because it has a particular military, diplomatic and political connotation.

Avoid a civil war? The war was already in full swing by the time Rhaegar got back. There was no avoiding anything at this point.

And I'm not sure how you go from "he didn't propose a truce" to "he ignored just about all military, political, and diplomatic solutions." Especially since a military solution is basically the opposite of a truce.

See above. His first plan should have been to avoid, his second to negotiate, his third to try to compromise and his last to engage in the civil war.

In any event, I have already explained why it would have been strategically ill-advised to propose a truce: 1) offering a truce in which you give the rebels practically everything they want only encourages more rebellion in the future; 2) offering a truce might embolden the rebels further, because it would make the loyalists look week; 3) if Aerys gets wind that Rhaegar is proposing a truce in which one of the stipulations is that Aerys be deposed, then that'll drive a wedge between loyalist forces that could end up leading to rebel victory anyway. Now add in the fact that any truce was probably not going to be accepted in the first place (because who is going to yield while a man called "the Mad King" is still on the throne?), and it becomes clear that there are plenty of strategic reasons why Rhaegar would not have offered a truce.

Now, do you have any points that rebut these strategic considerations? Or would you rather insist that he should have offered a truce, without any justification other than the fact that you think he should have?

In any event, now you're constructing counter points to arguments I've never made.

My point is that I don't understand what your point is. Why are you bringing up the fact that many characters don't think about Rhaegar at all? If they don't think of Rhaegar at all, then there's no reason to include them in the debate. What exactly are you trying to demonstrate here?

Clearly. What I am doing is showing you the error in your conclusions and the way in which you are using selective evidence to bolster your already well established position. This isn't about finding out what the "truth" is. It's about sanitising Rhaegar.

So you don't agree with me because you don't like how the story would turn out if I were right? And I'm supposed to be the biased one here?

I don't agree with your arguments because I believe you are heavily vested in one interpretation (without considering all the evidence) and are discounting all possible alternatives for ifs, wishes and maybes. That's not the type of approach I take to any form of analysis.

Are you talking about where Catelyn found out about Ashara? Because we are specifically told that she heard about her from her maids, who had themselves heard of Ashara from Ned's soldiers.

Partially - I was discussing information gathering in general and how we don't know where Bran got his information from because the author didn't disclose that.

No, I said, "whatever he did, it was rash and stupid." Notice that I'm calling what he did stupid, I'm not saying he was stupid in general. Seriously, read what people actually write.

Right back at you. Your qualification only came once queried. You didn't qualify it in your original post.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Maybe Aerys held onto Elia and Rhaenys precisely because he knew that Rhaegar might try to depose him in order to end the war.

[Dragonfish]

Nope. I stated he should have attempted to negotiate and offer terms.

And as a justification, you cited the fact that things turned out badly for him. Seriously, here are your exact words: "Rhaegar should have tried it because things turned out so well for him without doing it huh?"

You also said in an earlier post: "It's called strategy because getting killed and being thrown off the throne was the worst result for the Targs."

You have consistently used the fact that the war turned out badly for Rhaegar to justify your belief that he ought to have negotiated. That is arguing from hindsight.

I stated this over and over again: to avoid, mitigate, create stability in the realm. I don't believe I have ever written "truce". I will go and check this, but I don't think it's a term I would have written it in this context. Why? Because it has a particular military, diplomatic and political connotation.

What else would Rhaegar be negotiating toward, if not an end to hostilities? And what else would you call an end to hostilities, if not a "truce"?

In any event, whether it's "truce", "peace deal", "negotiation", whatever word you want to use, my points remain the same.

See above. His first plan should have been to avoid, his second to negotiate, his third to try to compromise and his last to engage in the civil war.

We're talking about Rhaegar's actions after he came back from the south. At that point the war had already begun, and the rebels had won some important victories. There was no "avoiding" anything. The war was already in full swing.

And your reference to a "military solution" that Rhaegar didn't try still doesn't make sense. "Military solutions" entail using your military to fight, which is exactly what Rhaegar did.

In any event, now you're constructing counter points to arguments I've never made.

Here's what you said: "...what he could have offered was the return of Lyanna, compensation, Aerys abdicating and peace in the realm. To not even try is misguided arrogance and his strategy worked out so well for all of the Targs in the end ..."

In what way do my points above not address what you said? If your hang-up is the use of the word "truce", just replace it with the word "negotiations", and the points remain the same.

The overall point I'm making is that there are strategic reasons why Rhaegar would not have offered to negotiate, especially considering that the rebels were probably never going to acquiesce until the king was deposed. You, however, continue to insist that Rhaegar not trying it was "arrogant," while offering no justification other than hindsight and the fact that you think he ought to have tried it. I'm sorry, just because someone doesn't do what you think he should do, that doesn't make him arrogant.

Clearly. What I am doing is showing you the error in your conclusions and the way in which you are using selective evidence to bolster your already well established position. This isn't about finding out what the "truth" is. It's about sanitising Rhaegar.

Ok...but this doesn't answer my question. Why are you bringing up the fact that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? What's the point of this?

Right back at you. Your qualification only came once queried. You didn't qualify it in your original post.

I clearly said in my original post that it was what Brandon did that was rash and foolish. Don't blame me because you read too much into this.

[Salander]

And as a justification, you cited the fact that things turned out badly for him. Seriously, here are your exact words: "Rhaegar should have tried it because things turned out so well for him without doing it huh?"

You also said in an earlier post: "It's called strategy because getting killed and being thrown off the throne was the worst result for the Targs."

You have consistently used the fact that the war turned out badly for Rhaegar to justify your belief that he ought to have negotiated. That is arguing from hindsight.

Uh-huh and I have consistently queried his strategic nous in not seeking a way in which to negotiate with the rebels. All leaders should attempt to avoid and/or mitigate the carnage of a civil war.

The discussion of strategies, however, arose in a particular context on this thread. You gave a number of convoluted explanations as to why you think he didn't do it, which reinforces your belief that Rhaegar was acting honourably. I have maintained that I fail to see the logic in Rhaegar not attempting to negotiate with the rebels - except short sightedness, arrogance and an incredible strategic blunder. The end result reinforces Rhaegar's failure to attempt to mitigate the civil war.

What else would Rhaegar be negotiating toward, if not an end to hostilities? And what else would you call an end to hostilities, if not a "truce"?

In any event, whether it's "truce", "peace deal", "negotiation", whatever word you want to use, my points remain the same.

Of course he would be negotiating to end hostilities, but he would be doing it from a position of power. I think you need to have a look at the history of "truces", especially in terms of medieval military battles. The term, as are clarifications and qualifications, important.

We're talking about Rhaegar's actions after he came back from the south. At that point the war had already begun, and the rebels had won some important victories. There was no "avoiding" anything. The war was already in full swing.

And your reference to a "military solution" that Rhaegar didn't try still doesn't make sense. "Military solutions" entail using your military to fight, which is exactly what Rhaegar did.

I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about Rhaegar's actions from Harrenhal and right throughout the civil war.

Here's what you said: "...what he could have offered was the return of Lyanna, compensation, Aerys abdicating and peace in the realm. To not even try is misguided arrogance and his strategy worked out so well for all of the Targs in the end ..."

In what way do my points above not address what you said? If your hang-up is the use of the word "truce", just replace it with the word "negotiations", and the points remain the same.

Uh-huh, but nowhere do I say truce and for the reasons set out above. Surely, an attempt at peace would have been for the good of the realm? I stand by what I said. I think I've even reiterated it up above. If Rhaegar had no interest in trying to negotiate or secure peace, then he was acting, himself, like a tyrant.

The overall point I'm making is that there are strategic reasons why Rhaegar would not have offered to negotiate, especially considering that the rebels were probably never going to acquiesce until the king was deposed. You, however, continue to insist that Rhaegar not trying it was "arrogant," while offering no justification other than hindsight and the fact that you think he ought to have tried it. I'm sorry, just because someone doesn't do what you think he should do, that doesn't make him arrogant.

I know and for all the reasons I've stated time and time again: I don't agree with you. Not trying to bring about a resolution for the betterment of your realm, when you are in a position to do so, is the height of arrogance.

Ok...but this doesn't answer my question. Why are you bringing up the fact that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? What's the point of this?

I clearly said in my original post that it was what Brandon did that was rash and foolish. Don't blame me because you read too much into this.

In the part of the post I quoted, you stated he was "rash and stupid".

There is a certain irony in being told not to read too much into it. I'm not the poster who has constructed a fantasy scenario, with no textual evidence to support it, in order to maintain a romantic narrative trope.

[Dragonfish]

Uh-huh and I have consistently queried his strategic nous in not seeking a way in which to negotiate with the rebels. All leaders should attempt to avoid and/or mitigate the carnage of a civil war.

I agree. And sometimes the best way to handle challenges to your reign is to put them down firmly, rather than negotiating a peace in which you give them practically everything they want.

The discussion of strategies, however, arose in a particular context on this thread. You gave a number of convoluted explanations as to why you think he didn't do it, which reinforces your belief that Rhaegar was acting honourably. I have maintained that I fail to see the logic in Rhaegar not attempting to negotiate with the rebels - except short sightedness, arrogance and an incredible strategic blunder. The end result reinforces Rhaegar's failure to attempt to mitigate the civil war.

As I said before, the war could very easily have ended differently. It was not inevitable that Rhaegar would die.

But at least you admit you're arguing from hindsight.

I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about Rhaegar's actions from Harrenhal and right throughout the civil war.

You need to go back and re-read how this conversation began. Geddus came in here and asked why Rhaegar did not broker a peace with the rebels after he came back from the Battle of the Bells. I explained why he wouldn't. You then came in here and contested this. If your intention was to argue about Rhaegar's actions from Harrenhal onward, instead of from the Battle of the Bells onward, then it was your job to spell that out.

Regardless, the entire point that I'm trying to make is that once Rhaegar returned from the south, there really was no solution except to defeat the rebels in the field. That's all.

Not trying to bring about a resolution for the betterment of your realm, when you are in a position to do so, is the height of arrogance.

The entire point I'm making is that offering to broker a peace may itself have been counterproductive to the safety of the realm. You have yet to address this argument satisfactorily.

Also, I noticed you didn't really answer one of my questions: Why are you bringing up the fact that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? What's the point of this?

In the part of the post I quoted, you stated he was "rash and stupid".

NO I DIDN'T. I specifically said, "whatever he did, it was rash and stupid." How exactly can you possibly claim you are not putting words in my mouth when you repeatedly claim I said one thing when in fact I said something completely different?

[Salander]

I agree. And sometimes the best way to handle challenges to your reign is to put them down firmly, rather than negotiating a peace in which you give them practically everything they want.

The material point is, as far as we are aware, he didn't try. I find that curious and more than a little arrogant, naive and strategically bereft.

As I said before, the war could very easily have ended differently. It was not inevitable that Rhaegar would die.

But at least you admit you're arguing from hindsight.

But it didn't end differently and as Jorah quoted: Rhaegar died. I'm more interested in the reasons how events turned out that way and what strategic blunders occurred (Connington gives an account of one), but Rhaegar's failure to negotiate with the rebels (as far as we are aware) is another one.

I'm not arguing from hindsight, Dragonfish. I'm questioning the end result and why events turned out that way. There's a difference.

You need to go back and re-read how this conversation began. Geddus came in here and asked why Rhaegar did not broker a peace with the rebels after he came back from the Battle of the Bells. I explained why he wouldn't. You then came in here and contested this. If your intention was to argue about Rhaegar's actions from Harrenhal onward, instead of from the Battle of the Bells onward, then it was your job to spell that out.

Nope. I don't think I do.

Regardless, the entire point that I'm trying to make is that once Rhaegar returned from the south, there really was no solution except to defeat the rebels in the field. That's all.

Nope. There were other alternatives that he didn't take. For whatever reasons and factors that attributed to the outcome, Rhaegar took the field, lost and died, thus, ending (for the time being) the Targ line on the throne.

The entire point I'm making is that offering to broker a peace may itself have been counterproductive to the safety of the realm. You have yet to address this argument satisfactorily.

Also, I noticed you didn't really answer one of my questions: Why are you bringing up the fact that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? What's the point of this?

And my query stands: why didn't he try to negotiate? You've offered convoluted explanations without any textual evidence - so you really don't need to go over this again. The key point, on evidence, is that he didn't which is a strategic blunder.

Why am I bringing up that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? Seriously? Because you have placed so much stock on what is said, by whom, whether they are reliable or biased (on your own selective criteria), but you appear to ignore the fact that many people don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar at all. Which means? A myriad of things. It may mean they accept the fact he is an abducting, raping, arrogant, lunatic, melancholic fool, he got what he deserved, what happened to him was tragic or he might be irrelevant to their day to day lives, they may think he's a good person, they may not. You have placed an enormous amount of weight on what people think (and whether their "thinking" reinforces your own point of view), but have ignored the fact that many of the characters in the series have no opinion of Rhaegar whatsoever.

NO I DIDN'T. I specifically said, "whatever he did, it was rash and stupid." How exactly can you possibly claim you are not putting words in my mouth when you repeatedly claim I said one thing when in fact I said something completely different?

I think you're splitting hairs on this. You didn't qualify in your original post the difference between character and actions. I've never claimed to be putting words in your mouth. That's your claim and once again, you have tried to counter an argument that I didn't pose in the first place by saying I claimed something that I never did..

[Dragonfish]

The material point is, as far as we are aware, he didn't try. I find that curious and more than a little arrogant, naive and strategically bereft.

I have already offered a strategic rationale for why he wouldn't have tried.

I'm not arguing from hindsight, Dragonfish. I'm questioning the end result and why events turned out that way. There's a difference.

You specifically said the following: "It's called strategy because getting killed and being thrown off the throne was the worst result for the Targs."

You used the word "because", meaning you were using the fact that Rhaegar lost as justification for why he should have negotiated. That is arguing from hindsight. Rhaegar does not have the gift of hindsight as you do, so the strategic considerations are different for him.

Nope. I don't think I do.

You're the one who misunderstood what the argument was about when you came back into this thread. If you wanted to change the premise of the debate, you needed to make it explicit. Deal with it.

And my query stands: why didn't he try to negotiate? You've offered convoluted explanations without any textual evidence - so you really don't need to go over this again. The key point, on evidence, is that he didn't which is a strategic blunder.

As you say, I've offered reasons. No, I don't offer direct textual evidence for them, but then again you have no textual evidence that Rhaegar didn't offer to negotiate, so the entire premise of this whole debate is based on one massive assumption.

That said, we do have examples from throughout the books of people refusing to offer terms for various strategic reasons. So that is evidence that refusing to offer terms is itself a part of strategy. You, however, continue to insist that not offering terms is somehow automatically bad strategy. I'm sorry, but I find this argument incredibly unpersuasive.

Why am I bringing up that some characters don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar? Seriously? Because you have placed so much stock on what is said, by whom, whether they are reliable or biased (on your own selective criteria), but you appear to ignore the fact that many people don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar at all. Which means? A myriad of things. It may mean they accept the fact he is an abducting, raping, arrogant, lunatic, melancholic fool, he got what he deserved, what happened to him was tragic or he might be irrelevant to their day to day lives, they may think he's a good person, they may not. You have placed an enormous amount of weight on what people think (and whether their "thinking" reinforces your own point of view), but have ignored the fact that many of the characters in the series have no opinion of Rhaegar whatsoever.

I ignore the people who don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar because their point of view doesn't contribute anything to the debate whatsoever. How can we gauge their opinions of Rhaegar when they never offer them? Seriously, this is one of the most inane points I've ever seen on these boards.

I think you're splitting hairs on this. You didn't qualify in your original post the difference between character and actions. I've never claimed to be putting words in your mouth. That's your claim and once again, you have tried to counter an argument that I didn't pose in the first place by saying I claimed something that I never did..

Even after I qualified my post, you said this, "Yes, I did notice that and I also noted you called him 'stupid'." You continued to claim that I was calling him stupid, when I had already explained that I was calling his actions stupid. So no, you are putting words in my mouth.

[Geddus]

See Tyroshi Sellsword's point above: it's a bad idea to ride horseback while pregnant. You could lose the child if you fall. And hell, there might also be complications simply from the act of riding the horse as well.

As I already said, Lyanna couldn't have been pregnant for long when Rhaegar returned to KL. I can't believe she was already bedridden.

Also, I don't think women are discouraged from traveling in the first stages of pregnancy.

Where else would Lyanna have gone? And remember, any letter would be considered or suspected to be fake, especially if it said that she went willingly with Rhaegar. She would have to meet Ned in person in order to explain things to him.

That's what I was suggesting, that she met Ned in person. Things change if there were reasons other than pregnancy for sealing her in the ToJ.

Look, this is just basic strategy here. You do not propose a truce to a rebellion you think you can beat, because 1) you're only encouraging further rebellion down the line, and 2) you run the risk of making yourself look weak and emboldening the rebels further.

But what the rebels wanted (except for Robert, probably, but Jon and Ned could have easily reined him in) was deposing Aerys, which apparently was the same thing Rhaegar wanted. I think since both parties had a common goal, a diplomatic solution could still be found, or at least tried, without any side looking weak.

Nonetheless, we know more about what Brandon did than what Rhaegar did.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. In my opinion, Jaime's line tells us almost nothing about Brandon's actions.

[Salander]

I have already offered a strategic rationale for why he wouldn't have tried.

Yes which is totally unsupported by any textual evidence and one that I don't find convincing (as said now - ad nauseum).

You specifically said the following: "It's called strategy because getting killed and being thrown off the throne was the worst result for the Targs."

You used the word "because", meaning you were using the fact that Rhaegar lost as justification for why he should have negotiated. That is arguing from hindsight. Rhaegar does not have the gift of hindsight as you do, so the strategic considerations are different for him.

I was actually being sarcastic, but I still maintain: getting killed, being thrown off the throne and your line pretty much ending its rule that way because you didn't try to negotiate is NOT a good result. I just don't think you can pretty that up - any way you try.

You're the one who misunderstood what the argument was about when you came back into this thread. If you wanted to change the premise of the debate, you needed to make it explicit. Deal with it.

No. I didn't. This thread has gone off onto all sorts of tangents. I don't think you can argue for clarity and structure when you fail to provide many in your posts.

As you say, I've offered reasons. No, I don't offer direct textual evidence for them, but then again you have no textual evidence that Rhaegar didn't offer to negotiate, so the entire premise of this whole debate is based on one massive assumption.

You've offered ifs, buts and maybes, wish-lists and improbabilities based on the way you read everything that Rhaegar does in a positive light. I've also been the poster time and time again pointing out to you that you have no textual evidence for your arguments and qualifying mine with phrases such as "on evidence" or "so far". Sorry, but your comment actually made me laugh out loud.

That said, we do have examples from throughout the books of people refusing to offer terms for various strategic reasons. So that is evidence that refusing to offer terms is itself a part of strategy. You, however, continue to insist that not offering terms is somehow automatically bad strategy. I'm sorry, but I find this argument incredibly unpersuasive.

Yes. We do have some instances, but there's no textual evidence (once again) to support (one way or the other) that it applies in this situation.

I maintain, on the information to hand so far in the series and also, the outcome of the war, that it appears Rhaegar made huge strategic blunders. I may be way off base here, but I kind of thinking LOSING means that your strategy wasn't as good as the other sides ...

I ignore the people who don't offer an opinion of Rhaegar because their point of view doesn't contribute anything to the debate whatsoever. How can we gauge their opinions of Rhaegar when they never offer them? Seriously, this is one of the most inane points I've ever seen on these boards.

To be fair, you ignore all opinions that are offered in the texts, unless they coincide with your own. It isn't an inane point. It's actually part of literary analysis, but if you can't see its relevance - so be it.

Even after I qualified my post, you said this, "Yes, I did notice that and I also noted you called him 'stupid'." You continued to claim that I was calling him stupid, when I had already explained that I was calling his actions stupid. So no, you are putting words in my mouth.

And I did notice that. You called him "rash and stupid". I don't think you can argue your content. What you are arguing is context. BTW: We're typing. How can I be "putting words in your mouth"? If you don't like how your posts may be interpreted, qualify them.

[Dragonfish]

As I already said, Lyanna couldn't have been pregnant for long when Rhaegar returned to KL. I can't believe she was already bedridden.

Also, I don't think women are discouraged from traveling in the first stages of pregnancy.

I'm not talking about the late stages of pregnancy, I'm talking about all stages. Riding on horseback while pregnant, at whatever point in the pregnancy, is dangerous for the baby.

That's what I was suggesting, that she met Ned in person. Things change if there were reasons other than pregnancy for sealing her in the ToJ.

Yes, and as I said, the only way for Lyanna to get to Ned is to travel across a war-zone. And even then she's not guaranteed to find him, because he's probably not going to stay in one place for too long.

But what the rebels wanted (except for Robert, probably, but Jon and Ned could have easily reined him in) was deposing Aerys, which apparently was the same thing Rhaegar wanted. I think since both parties had a common goal, a diplomatic solution could still be found, or at least tried, without any side looking weak.

Yes, and as I said (I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread) all Rhaegar can offer are promises that he will depose his father. The rebels aren't just going to put down their arms because the Crown Prince promises he's going to get rid of his own father.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. In my opinion, Jaime's line tells us almost nothing about Brandon's actions.

Well, he tells us that Brandon came into the throne room and shouted for Rhaegar to come out and die. That sounds pretty specific to me.

[Dragonfish]

Yes which is totally unsupported by any textual evidence and one that I don't find convincing (as said now - ad nauseum).

You have no textual evidence that Rhaegar refused to negotiate, or that he did so out of arrogance. So who's the one assuming things here?

I was actually being sarcastic, but I still maintain: getting killed, being thrown off the throne and your line pretty much ending its rule that way because you didn't try to negotiate is NOT a good result. I just don't think you can pretty that up - any way you try.

Right, but that doesn't mean that offering to negotiate would have yielded a better result, as I've already explained. You, however, seem to be operating under the assumption that offering to negotiate would have automatically yielded a better result, and that this fact ought to have been clear to Rhaegar at the time. Simply put, this is faulty logic.

Yes. We do have some instances, but there's no textual evidence (once again) to support (one way or the other) that it applies in this situation.

Nonetheless, it is evidence that people can decide not to offer to negotiate for reasons of strategy, and not simply because they are arrogant. So why are you assuming that Rhaegar not offering to negotiate was an act of arrogance?

To be fair, you ignore all opinions that are offered in the texts, unless they coincide with your own. It isn't an inane point. It's actually part of literary analysis, but if you can't see its relevance - so be it.

None of which explains why my leaving out people who have no opinion of Rhaegar is selectively reading the text. Why would I include people who literally have no opinion that is relevant to the debate?

BTW: We're typing. How can I be "putting words in your mouth"?

It's an expression. What else was I supposed to say, that you were putting words in my fingers?

And I did notice that. You called him "rash and stupid". I don't think you can argue your content. What you are arguing is context...If you don't like how your posts may be interpreted, qualify them.

I did qualify them, yet you continued to insist that I said one thing when in fact I said another. You've done so again in this very post, when you claim I "called him 'rash and stupid,'" when I have already pointed out that I called his actions rash and stupid (and really, are you arguing that his actions weren't rash and stupid?).

[Silverin]

I'm not talking about the late stages of pregnancy, I'm talking about all stages. Riding on horseback while pregnant, at whatever point in the pregnancy, is dangerous for the baby.

About this, I have one word to say: DANY

It may be really dangerous in real life but it does not mean GRRM included it as a reason for why she didn't leave the ToJ. It sounds strange but authors are people as well.

[SFDanny]

Sorry, SFDanny, but this is just pure speculation. As argued previously, I can't see any great conspiracy or threat from Rickard trying to forge alliances and get great marriages for his children. How does this suddenly end up as a potential conspiracy to overthrow the throne? Ironically, these were the very houses that rebelled, but even then, Arryn & Co had to talk their bannermen and allies into it because of Aerys murdering Rickard & Co. It doesn't appear to me to be a large conspiracy building to overthrow the monarchy UNTIL Aerys killed Brandon, Rickard & Co and then called for the heads of Robert and Ned.

The main point I agree with you on is that Aerys was insane and paranoid. He was also cruel, murderous, a wife beater and rapist, and a tyrant.

Of course it's speculation! That's what we are all doing here, including you, speculating on the possibilities of what this or that means in this series of books. I notice, however, when you do it is "close reading" based on "textual evidence" and when others do it it is "speculation." Pardon me, if I take issue with your characterization with some of my own. You see, what you call "close reading" I see as surface reading. Ignoring clues the author puts there for the reader to pick up on in an actual "close reading" of the text.

But to your points about my theory, or rather a theory I share with other readers, if one places oneself in the Targaryen point of view I don't see how a sane Targaryen partisan could help but see the growing power bloc being built through marriage alliances as a growing threat to Targaryen rule. I assume one sees marriages between different families as political alliances - at least in most cases. We see this time and again in the series (e.g. the entire Sansa story line, Lady Dustin's discussion of her father's ambitions to marry her off to a Stark, etc. etc.) The unusual cases are those where people actually marry for love. Looking from this perspective we see Rickard announcing a betrothal of his heir to a daughter of House Tully, and his own daughter to the Lord of Storm's End. If we add these two events to Lord Rickard having his second son fostered with the Lord of the Vale and we have a growing web of alliances between the Great Houses - potentially an alternative power bloc to that of the Iron Throne. Note that all of this is based on "textual evidence." There is no need to "speculate" that these events happened. We could add Jaime's little visit to Riverrun in which he is introduced to Lysa Tully as a potential wife to the pile of possible alliances between houses and instead of four Great Houses, the Targaryens are looking at a possible alliance of FIVE of the Great Houses. In fact, when the rebellion does occur this is precisely what happens. And also please note that all of this, excepting the actual rebellion itself, takes place before Aerys kills Brandon and Rickard.

No king could help but take notice of such developments. Certainly Aerys did. We know this from the Ser Barristan's remarks about how Aerys viewed the gathering at Harrenhal, and we know this from Meera Reed's story of the Knight of the Laughing Tree concerning Aerys view of "northerners" not being friends of his - again all based on "textual evidence." We know that Aerys was concerned about his Great Lords' ambitions. We also know from Lady Dustin's remarks about Lord Rickard's "Southron ambitions" that she ties Lord Rickard's ambitions directly to Brandon's betrothal to Catelyn. Again as stated in the text. If one ties these things together, not really even a particularly "close reading" of the clues but by not ignoring them either, then it becomes clear that Aerys might well had reason for his "paranoia." Or as the old question goes, is it paranoia if they really are out to get you? So, to your last point, yes, we agree on what Aerys ends up being, but that doesn't mean he can't also be right in his view of the threats to his rule.

One can read all of this in a different way; either by ignoring clues, or by coming up with other explanations for them, but I think it is clear two things are happening. A new powerful alliance of Great Houses is forming and the Targaryens see it as a threat to their rule. And why not? Why shouldn't the Starks want to rid themselves of Targaryen overlords? There are no dragons to set their armies to flame and force them back to their knees. And why shouldn't the Targaryens take note of a new and developing threat to their weakened hold on the Seven Kingdoms? It doesn't take Machiavelli to see the cross purposes of both parties.