Robert's Rebellion as Just War

[Lala]

First things first. Congratulations, Lala, this was quite interesting analysis. Beautifully written piece... I really enjoyed reading this...

As a pacifist, I have trouble to comprehend the concept of "just war". Especially given the past history of my nation, I sincerely doubt that any war can be called "just". But, I also understand the need of self-defense, as Morienthar noted that this war can be seen that way.

Thank you~ I had a lot of fun writing it and revisiting the theory of just war from my sophomore political science class (something about how the U.S. fighting wars to spread democracy can never ever be just war because no~ luckily Wellesley is such a liberal uni that my prof was in full agreement)

My main issue with inflexible pacifism (which I'm not saying you espouse~) is that it is occasionally impossible to envision alternate solutions to the situation if the opposing party is intent upon aggression (i.e. Nazi Germany) and therefore, it is consequently necessary at times for war to occur.

The biggest issues I have with assessment that RR was "just war" are these:

1. War as a last resort. Although we have the impact that RR was inevitable due to Aerys' paranoia, and his executions of not just Starks, but so many highlords, we actually haven't heard about effort to evade war. Aerys sent demands, and Jon Arryn responded by summoning the bannermen. There were no official negotiations, or at least, we know none of. Simply, this war perhaps could have been evaded if there were some effort from both sides to talk about consequences of the actions that happened.

My main reasoning for why the war was a last resort is that given Aerys and his past behavior, it is unlikely that any effort to resolve the conflict in a non-violent manner would have been met with an equal level of engagement from Aerys. It is more likely that those who had tried to negotiate with Aerys (like Brandon and Papa Stark whose name I never remember) would have met the same fate. So while we can argue that because they did not try other avenues, war was not technically a last resort, I prefer to view it as a situation in which the probability of other avenues succeeding or, at least, not having lethal consequence for Jon Arryn or his ward, were significantly low enough to rule them out as alternatives.

2. Proper authority. As far as we know, there was someone who could have replaced Aerys, and who was beloved by everyone - Rhaegar. With exception of Robert and Ned, at that moment, Rhaegar was regarded highly by everyone in Westeros. Not to mention that we have indications he wanted the change, and possible Harrenhall plot. So, there was a route to take Aerys down without war.

About taking Aerys down without a war - I'm not quite clear on this aspect of just war theory (my political science interest is relatively amateur, economics major by training~), but given that just war theory is founded in Biblical traditions of "holy war" as well as traditional conceptions of "honorable war," I would venture to say that conducting war against Aerys is considered more just than dishonorably conducting a coup d'etat. Whereas war is fought as a battle of equals utilizing established rules/conventions, a coup d'etat entails completely blindsiding the opponent, with no preamble of your intent. I think it's also important to remember, wrt Rhaegar, that his "kidnapping" of Lyanna is a partial trigger that set the sequence of events into motion, so there is very little reason to believe that Ned or Robert would have trusted him as an alternative to Aerys.

3. Contractual nature of loyalty. The best example, and I wonder why you didn't mention it, is Wylla Manderly's speech about promise made to Starks. In her speech, we see all the nuances of the contractual loyalty through oaths. Also, the interpretation that Aerys betrayed his subjects is completely valid, but not House Targaryen. Arys had an heir, capable of ruling who didn't betray his subjects. So, if the war was about deposing Aerys, the assessment about "just war" would be valid, but here we have something far different. It was about deposing House Targaryen, which by some laws was the ruling House of Westeros.

I'm embarrassed, but I honestly hadn't thought of it at all. It's such a lovely quote I can't believe it slipped my mind.

This is why I would go on to argue that RR fails to uphold the nature of just war potentially jus in bellio and most certainly jus post bellum. Essentially, RR can be argued to have gone too far - the removal of the entire Targaryen dynasty was not necessary to achieve an end to injustice. However, because Rhaegar died on the Trident, he is arguably no longer an option by the conclusion of the war. However, the persecution of the remaining Targaryens (even though there was no longer a viable ruler among them) as well as the lack of an inquiry into the unjustified deaths of Elia and her children cause RR to completely fall apart jus post bellum - while I argue that the war was a war with just cause, I also firmly believe that Robert and Jon Arryn (less so Ned, who had little role in the rule of the 7K post RR) failed to uphold justice after the war.

4. Reasonable chance of success. I have to disagree with this. United armies of North/Vale/Riverlands and Stormlands, with half of their bannermen fighting against them had no reasonable chance of success. Especially, if at the beginning, they believed will face the power of Reach, Dorne, Westerlands and Crownlands.

Robert;s rebellion can be seen as "just war", but in many ways, it wasn't as nearly as just as some would think.

To be honest, I have zero military knowledge. Every time I had to study battles in history class my mind would wander. This is debatable by those who have more knowledge than me, I'm simply judging by the fact that RR was able to reach the decisive battle of the Trident without Lannister support as my basis.

[SeanF]

Yes, to defend, but not to lead offensive war. There's difference. ned could have gone to Winterfell, declared independent North, sealed the Neck, and Taragryen army couldn't reach him. Jon Arryn could have done the same. But, no, they started a war to depose Aerys and claim the trone.

I think the outcome would have been much the same. A decisive battle on the Trident.

[Morienthar]

But the rebel leaders weren't Heads of State, or Heads of Government.

In our world we wouldn't necessarily grant citizens of a nation the right to rebel and depose their government because they thought its actions unjust (we have tended to be of this opinion recently though, of course, in many parts of the middle east).

But it has happened several times.We just call them Revolutions/Freedom Struggles rather than Rebellions.It's mainly a matter of perspective.

[Chaircat Meow]

They are Lords Paramount, which is close enough to being a Head of State/Head of Government, in my view. They rebelled against their overlord, because he wanted to kill them.

So Ned gets a right to endanger thousands of lives because he wants to resist the king's sentence, but no one less blue blooded does? Not to mention that those titles were by the king's grant.

Anyway, obviously we are not going to get anywhere here.

[David Selig]

Isn't self-defence a legitimate reason to rebel? And, why do you assume that the followers of the rebel lords were reluctant to participate?

If they want to rebel on their own, that's one thing. But when they force others to join (as all of them did), that's when I have a big problem with it. All of them except Ned had to fight some of their own bannermen who didn't want to join the rebellion and the other bannermen knew if they don't join, they'd be attacked too. Then there's the issue of the smallfolk who were forced to join the armies of the rebels against their will, who couldn't care less who the king was and had no desire whatsoever to get involved in the struggle for power between the nobles.

[Lala]

They are Lords Paramount, which is close enough to being a Head of State/Head of Government, in my view. They rebelled against their overlord, because he wanted to kill them.

Mhm~ Also I'm inferring (because Westeros is a feudal society) the relationships between king and lords from medieval European societal structures - namely using the Magna Carta as a frame of reference for RR.

[SeanF]

Where Robert's rebellion goes wrong is in relation to ius post bellum. The murder of Elia and her two children was a war crime by any standard, and should have been punished, not rewarded.

[Lala]

If they want to rebel on their own, that's one thing. But when they force others to join (as all of them did), that's when I have a big problem with it. All of them except Ned had to fight some of their own bannermen and the other bannermen knew if they don't join, they'd be attacked too. Then there's the issue of the smallfolk who were forced to join the armies of the rebels against their will, who couldn't care less who the king was and had no desire whatsoever to get involved in the struggle for power between the nobles.

This is a discussion of jus in bellio - which I do agree is more open to interpretation (I honestly did not pay too much attention to how RR actually went down because battles bore me - I basically know what happened before and after and have a very vague knowledge of what happened during). You are arguing that the conduct of the war was unjust - which I do not dispute (in fact, I point out the deaths of Elia and her children in the OP as examples of why jus in bellio may not be established for RR). However, in just war theory, it is important to note that a war can be justified, but conducted unjustly and vice versa - unjustified, but conducted justly. So while we can argue that RR was conducted in an unjust manner, the conduct of the war does not alter its justification (the just reasons for going to war)

[SeanF]

If they want to rebel on their own, that's one thing. But when they force others to join (as all of them did), that's when I have a big problem with it. All of them except Ned had to fight some of their own bannermen who didn't want to join the rebellion and the other bannermen knew if they don't join, they'd be attacked too. Then there's the issue of the smallfolk who were forced to join the armies of the rebels against their will, who couldn't care less who the king was and had no desire whatsoever to get involved in the struggle for power between the nobles.

Were the Smallfolk conscripts, or volunteers? We aren't given that information. But, there's plenty of evidence within the text itself that many of the Smallfolk are strongly committed to their lords, and treat their lords' quarrels as their own. Stannis' soldiers seem to be devoted to him; the Mountain Clans are happy to march on Winterfell to rescue "the Ned's daughter." The BWB treat Lady Stoneheart's vengeance as being their vengeance, and so on.

[Lala]

Where Robert's rebellion goes wrong is in relation to ius post bellum. The murder of Elia and her two children was a war crime by any standard, and should have been punished, not rewarded.

Fully agree with this~ Arguably Robert's unwillingness to commit to his responsibilities as a king also fail the requirements of jus post bellum (it would be interesting to extend this analysis to Dany's actions in Slaver's Bay).

[Lummel]

...ETA: Like I don't even like Robert Baratheon. I filled out this meme about ASoIaF on tumblr and he's the character I would slap. But it really bothers me when people say that RR wasn't just war and that Robert was a traitor/what not because it's really not true.

Yes, but that just reflects how similar Westeros is to the feudal, southern Italian world of St Thomas Aquinas where the purpose of law and religious theory is to slap a varnish of respectability on the way of life and behaviours of the feudal nobility - to which our Tom belonged after all.

I know that just war theory goes back to Rome as well - but then the Romans spent a good chunk of their history waging violent expansionist wars against their neighbours first in Italy then throughout the Mediterranean basin, naturally they came up with a legal theory that said that what they did was perfectly proper, just and correct! ;)

[Mladen]

They are Lords Paramount, which is close enough to being a Head of State/Head of Government, in my view. They rebelled against their overlord, because he wanted to kill them.

They were entitled to fight for their lives, or to keep their realms safe. They weren't entitled to claim the throne. It would be ;ike we say Boltons were entitled to betray Starks...

My main reasoning for why the war was a last resort is that given Aerys and his past behavior, it is unlikely that any effort to resolve the conflict in a non-violent manner would have been met with an equal level of engagement from Aerys. It is more likely that those who had tried to negotiate with Aerys (like Brandon and Papa Stark whose name I never remember) would have met the same fate. So while we can argue that because they did not try other avenues, war was not technically a last resort, I prefer to view it as a situation in which the probability of other avenues succeeding or, at least, not having lethal consequence for Jon Arryn or his ward, were significantly low enough to rule them out as alternatives.

Problem is, neither Brandon nor Rickard had any diplomatic intentions. They weren't negotiating. Brandon threatened Rhaegar's life, and according to the law, he got what he should have. As for Rickard, it's a bit different. i imagine Rickard went to KL to negotiate but Aerys had no desire to listen him. So, only Rickard's murdering was unlawful. What Brandon did, was, indeed punishable crime.

About taking Aerys down without a war - I'm not quite clear on this aspect of just war theory (my political science interest is relatively amateur, economics major by training~), but given that just war theory is founded in Biblical traditions of "holy war" as well as traditional conceptions of "honorable war," I would venture to say that conducting war against Aerys is considered more just than dishonorably conducting a coup d'etat. Whereas war is fought as a battle of equals utilizing established rules/conventions, a coup d'etat entails completely blindsiding the opponent, with no preamble of your intent. I think it's also important to remember, wrt Rhaegar, that his "kidnapping" of Lyanna is a partial trigger that set the sequence of events into motion, so there is very little reason to believe that Ned or Robert would have trusted him as an alternative to Aerys.

And wehave seen how traditional view on "holy war" has been changed over the centuries. From so-called "holy war" against science in Europe, to 9/11, we have witnessed that motifs behind every war are less spiritual, and more human. With possibility that Rhaegar was indeed in conversations with all the lords of Westeros to depose his father, and proclaim him a King, one should argue that rebels did have a way out that didn't include war. But Robert's jealousy and rage, with Ned's and Jon's grief made deadly combination that resulted in war.

Essentially, RR can be argued to have gone too far - the removal of the entire Targaryen dynasty was not necessary to achieve an end to injustice. However, because Rhaegar died on the Trident, he is arguably no longer an option by the conclusion of the war. However, the persecution of the remaining Targaryens (even though there was no longer a viable ruler among them) as well as the lack of an inquiry into the unjustified deaths of Elia and her children cause RR to completely fall apart jus post bellum - while I argue that the war was a war with just cause, I also firmly believe that Robert and Jon Arryn (less so Ned, who had little role in the rule of the 7K post RR) failed to uphold justice after the war.

I completely agree about post-war reprecutions. I mean, Robert could have an easy solution. Imprison Clegane and Lorch and execute them or even sent them to Wall, spare Tywin and Jaime, and therefore show you are just man. But, no, he gave full pardon to everybody involved in Sack of KL's monstruosities. Robert could have achieved peace with the deaths of only 2 unimportant men, and most likely Dorne would have never plotted against him.

To be honest, I have zero military knowledge. Every time I had to study battles in history class my mind would wander. This is debatable by those who have more knowledge than me, I'm simply judging by the fact that RR was able to reach the decisive battle of the Trident without Lannister support as my basis.

Yes, but even without Lannisters, there were no certainty in outcome. Also, we were talking about situation pre-rebellion, and rebells should have expected Tywin to side with Aerys. Only when Tywin wasn't leaving CR, rebels realized they might have chance and started sending birds to Tywin.

[mrunderhill]

Where Robert's rebellion goes wrong is in relation to ius post bellum. The murder of Elia and her two children was a war crime by any standard, and should have been punished, not rewarded.

War crimes are for the losers.

When we analyse every war compared to the Just War, initially put forward Aquinas they all fall short.

As for Jus ad Bellum, I think we can say the rebels had fair cause to go to war. People question about what the oaths to a king entail, but if they allowed the king to kill you indiscriminately at their will, which great Lord would sign this? The King had a responsibility to his people and probably the Faith to be a just king. Fighting to remove a tyrant and save your own life is as good a reason as you are going to get.

At that point time the war was close to the last choice and was declared by the legal authorities ie the Lord Paramounts : Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark and Hoster Tully.

In the right intention, probably not, because there was no real reason to place Robert as king over Aegon or Viserys.

The probability of success was also pretty low.

As for the Jus in Bello, which war is?

[danm_999]

In the end thousands of people died so Ned and Bob could stay in Westeros, retain or increase their power and have their vengeance. I don't see this as justified at all.

Ned and Bob leaving Westeros doesn't fix the fundamental problem; there's a crazy person running the realm. The demand for their execution is simply the catalyst, it is not the cause.

Aerys will not get better. He will not get un-crazy. He will not stop seeing shadows and whispers plotting against him (and if he does for some reason, Varys is there to help him along). Tomorrow he might think Mace Tyrell is plotting against him. Or he might become rankled towards Tywin for quitting the Handship. He will start some more trouble even if Ned and Bob, and all their family, leave Westeros, because he's an unstable person with a huge amount of power, working within a system where diplomatic incidents and big egos are a dollar a dozen.

Only Rhaegar really could have removed him without a massive war (and maybe even then there would have been a massive war, Aerys was extremely distrustful of Rhaegar), but for whatever reason he seemed rather uninterested or unable to do so.

[mrunderhill]

They were entitled to fight for their lives, or to keep their realms safe. They weren't entitled to claim the throne. It would be ;ike we say Boltons were entitled to betray Starks...

Depends on what the wording on the claim to the throne was. If they claimed Aerys was mad and therefore all his descendants were barred from the succession then they actually do have some claim.

[Knight Of Winter]

First they came for Darklyns, and I didn't speak out, for I wasn't a Darklyn.

Then they came for Brandon and Rickard, and I didn't speak out, for I wasn't a Stark.

Next they came for Robert and Ned, and I didn't speak out, for I wasn't a Stark or Baratheon.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

I completely agree with Lala's OP - Jon, Ned and Bob had every cause to rebel against crazy murderous monarch killing his subjects indiscriminately. One of main problems here is society of Westeros (and whole institution of king) itself,where the only way of deposing a unjust tyrant is war - there are no other more peaceful options.

[Pero the first of His name]

Let's put a spin on it.

What if Varys told Aerys about Southron Ambitions (not very far-fetched I believe)?

It could be that Aerys just seized the chance to remove the treasonous lords (in a bad way though).

And Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully were partly happy to seize the moment and get the war they wanted. But sad Rickard and his son had to die for it.

I will not go as far as to say Aerys put the Lyanna idea in Rhaegar's mind but I had that thought too.

What I wanted to say is:

1. It is hard to judge without all the facts

2. It is hard to set the time when the case begins

[Mladen]

Depends on what the wording on the claim to the throne was. If they claimed Aerys was mad and therefore all his descendants were barred from the succession then they actually do have some claim.

Well, if they claimed Aerys was mad, there were someone after him in line... Aerys' madness isn't a reason to go against entire family. And I don't see how Aerys' madness would bar his sons from line of succession.

[mrunderhill]

Well, if they claimed Aerys was mad, there were someone after him in line... Aerys' madness isn't a reason to go against entire family. And I don't see how Aerys' madness would bar his sons from line of succession.

Actually it is, especially if Rhaegar had to be removed for his part in the war. Once Aerys and Rhaegar are dead you have Aegon and Viserys. Both are little boys/babes and there is a precedent of the rightful heir of a mad Targaryen being replaced.

[Mladen]

Actually it is, especially if Rhaegar had to be removed for his part in the war. Once Aerys and Rhaegar are dead you have Aegon and Viserys. Both are little boys/babes and there is a precedent of the rightful heir of a mad Targaryen being replaced.

Why would be Rhaegar removed? He wa shighly regarded by everyone in the Kingdoms, or almost everyone... Peace could have been achieved if they only talked... Well, boys will be boys... I wonder how would Hoster Tully deal with this situation.