Theda Baratheon Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't necessarily think the Rebellion was selfish at all; when you threaten a Lord, you threaten a region as others have said above. In some ways it is in the best interest of the peoples to support their Lord's in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAndFullOfTurnips Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Jorah was a minor lord...True, but you could still flee. Although Ned would sooner get his head off than flee. I think the option was obviously die an unjust death or rebel...So the obvious choice is to rebel. Especially considering the king was a mad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rise of Dorne Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 If you subscribe to the Southron Ambitions school of thought the Great Lords were already moving to remove Aerys with a great council and replace him with Rhaegar. That's why Rhaegar told Jamie changes were in the offing when he returned from the trident. I'm sure I would have rebelled too, but there's nothing moral about it. There are certainly more moral ways to deal with it. Ned could have gone beyond the wall, Robert could have joined a sell sword company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrrhus of Epirus Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The king has a duty to his people as much as his people have a duty to him. Aerys failed his duty, he called for the heads of two innocent parties, and they rose in rebellion. Completely justifiable IMO. This wasn't done out of ambition, or greed, nor was it for glory or riches, but to protect themselves and their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't necessarily think the Rebellion was selfish at all; when you threaten a Lord, you threaten a region as others have said above. In some ways it is in the best interest of the peoples to support their Lord's in this way. I bet everything I own that the vast majority of the small folk would much rather have ned and Robert dead than get involved personally in a war. And rightly so - why should they defend their oppressors and risk their lives for them? What has Ned or Robert done for their regions up until this point? Absolutely nothing except benefit from the taxes which the small folk pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paytheironicprice Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Thats more a result of the feudal system in place rather than "Robert ORDERED thousand of men to their deaths." Keep in mind for the knights at least, fighting is their profession, its the life they've chosen. The peasants have a bit more of a case as they are conscripts, akin to present day draftees. Taking all that into consideration... I still say the rebellion was justified, and even the peasants had to do their part. Think of national defense, mutually providing protection is a two way street. Robert protects his people as their Lord, and when he has his life threatened his subjects must in turn do their part. As a whole, by working together, they are safer than they would be on their own. Thats why we have national defense in present day society as well.Exactly. It isn't fair at all to apply modern-day views to what is essentially a medieval world in ASOIAF. To many people, their lords were their providers and protectors, and if you were a noble or highborn, he might even be a personal friend. From what we have been told about (pre-weight-gain) Robert, he was very well liked by the people of the Stormlands, which would lead common folk to rally to his cause as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naathi Prince Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Jorah was a minor lord...and I doubt the Bear Islanders would have fought for him if he was condemned due to slaving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAndFullOfTurnips Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 and I doubt the Bear Islanders would have fought for him if he was condemned due to slavingWell there's also the difference of Jorah breaking the law compared to Robert and Ned just being targets of a nutjob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonin Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One could argue that Rhaegar was in the process of making changes, removing Aery's from power, and that there would have been less death and destruction. Me, I prefer Robert's Rebellion, Aery's was cruel and brutal, time for a new royal family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrrhus of Epirus Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 One could argue that Rhaegar was in the process of making changes, removing Aery's from power, and that there would have been less death and destruction.Me, I prefer Robert's Rebellion, Aery's was cruel and brutal, time for a new royal family.One could also argue that Rheagar was a little Mad King in the making, having kidnapped a Lord Paramount's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Just to clarify - Jorah's head was demanded and he fled. That would be the other option, not that I'm suggesting they should have fled. He fled but Ned hadn't moved against Maege and her daughters... I bet that even if Robert and Ned had fled Aerys whould be after Benjen and Stannis and Renly.Not to mention that Jorah was a minor lord not a liege... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAndFullOfTurnips Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 He fled but Ned hadn't moved against Maege and her daughters... I bet that even if Robert and Ned had fled Aerys whould be after Benjen and Stannis and Renly.Not to mention that Jorah was a minor lord not a liege...I was merely pointing out what the alternative to rebelling would be (Without dying of course), which is to say that it would have been a terrible idea to do anything but rebel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rise of Dorne Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The reality is as far as we know Aerys was mostly interested in torturing nobles. He wasn't Hitler. The smallfolk remember Aerys reign well, because he and Tywin, Tywin mostly didn't allow the type internecine warfare Westeros has known for most of its history. Certainly, it isn't "justifiable" to ask thousands of people to sacrifice themselves on the pyre of your Lordly leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 The king has a duty to his people as much as his people have a duty to him. Aerys failed his duty, he called for the heads of two innocent parties, and they rose in rebellion. Completely justifiable IMO. This wasn't done out of ambition, or greed, nor was it for glory or riches, but to protect themselves and their people. :agree: I like how you put it. Where is like button?The reality is as far as we know Aerys was mostly interested in torturing nobles. He wasn't Hitler. The smallfolk remember Aerys reign well, because he and Tywin, Tywin mostly didn't allow the type internecine warfare Westeros has known for most of its history. Certainly, it isn't "justifiable" to ask thousands of people to sacrifice themselves on the pyre of your Lordly leave. Yet he wanted to burn KL ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Yes, but who knows about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W.Kane Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 it was a justified rebellion.a king must rule justly and protect the realm and its people , these are his duties, Mad king was ruling unjustly and ruining the realm and killing its people. he had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Yes, but who knows about that?You mean about wildfire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar1 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I bet everything I own that the vast majority of the small folk would much rather have ned and Robert dead than get involved personally in a war. And rightly so - why should they defend their oppressors and risk their lives for them? What has Ned or Robert done for their regions up until this point? Absolutely nothing except benefit from the taxes which the small folk pay.Well for Robert even some lords didn't join him , and probably most of small folk would see him dead but they had joined the rebellion because of their lords . As for the northen small folk I bet my life that the majority wanted to go with Ned to a war , they know very good how much did The Starks fought for them and their lands for thousands of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Jorah was a minor lord...Who actually committed a crime, I think it's nuts to say it wasn't justified to get rid of a king who was trying to have innocent people executed. I've pointed this out in another thread but Aery's was a man who would have burned down Kingslanding rather than lose, the peasantry had as much to gain with his downfall as the high lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naathi Prince Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The reality is as far as we know Aerys was mostly interested in torturing nobles. He wasn't Hitler. The smallfolk remember Aerys reign well, because he and Tywin, Tywin mostly didn't allow the type internecine warfare Westeros has known for most of its history. Certainly, it isn't "justifiable" to ask thousands of people to sacrifice themselves on the pyre of your Lordly leave.Feudalism is a societal contract. It isn't a fair one, sure, but there is an agreement, the lord protects the smallfolk from outlaws and raiders and the like, the smallfolk help the lord by ensuring he is supplied. Don't like it? Thank your lucky stars you were born in the twentieth century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.