Robert's Rebellion as Just War

[viking warrior]

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.

Before the war had begun, they were all counting on their bannermen's full support. Nevertheless, the North was fully united, most of the Stormlands also united, only the vale and the Riverlands had major turmoils. but give the fact that the rebell's total strength surpasses 200k as opposed to the loyalist's 185k (including the Westerlands in this figure) it had a very high chance of success.

[Mladen]

Before the war had begun, they were all counting on their bannermen's full support. Nevertheless, the North was fully united, most of the Stormlands also united, only the vale and the Riverlands had major turmoils. but give the fact that the rebell's total strength surpasses 200k as opposed to the loyalist's 185k (including the Westerlands in this figure) it had a very high chance of success.

How did you get to these numbers? 200k on rebel side? You do know that on battle of Trident, rebels had 35 000 men? These numbers you presented us make no sense.

[Lala]

What I'm saying, which does not contradict you at all, is that the Targaryen's were Kings for Magic's will, not for their own lords support and consensus.

This thin detail is much important when one wants to question whether or not his own King can or can not do something.

And he could do anything, for the way their kingdom was conceived.

Too unfortunate the Kingdom was mature enough for a shift toward democracy, but this does not change the fact that the establishment of Aerys was pure dictatorship, and in a Dictatorship the dictator dictates and the lord obeys or rebels. That's it, simple.

The fact is here we are questioning whether or not Jon Arryn is a rebel, and under a Dictatorship - no matter what - he is to be appointed as a rebel. I can't see why you fail to see this. It is another issue altogether whether or not Arryn was a good man and tried to improve the world for the good of many who were scared of this Dictator. An entire different issue.

This is the flaw in your argument - the 7K are not a dictatorship, but a feudal monarchy. Unlike an absolute monarchy (i.e. Louis XIV in France) a feudal monarchy, by definition, encompasses restrictions upon the powers of both the monarch and his nobility. This is why documents like the Magna Carta, the result of a 13th? century civil war against an English feudal king, are documents which enforce a written recognition and expansion of the implied, traditional rights of the nobility. Tbh, this is why the Magna Carta, a cornerstone of the English constitution, exists - it is a document which codifies feudal conceptions of "rule of law" and would never have been written under an absolute monarchy.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

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...

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.

I think your first argument fails because the Targs had no right it they took it because they could. And it's not like Aegon was elected it was swear fealty or die. I also believe Brandon's punishment was unlawful, no way should someone be put to death for saying they are going to kill someone.....overkill (and keep in mind Brandon thinks his sister was taken against her will)

[Max Berg]

This is the flaw in your argument - the 7K are not a dictatorship, but a feudal monarchy. Unlike an absolute monarchy (i.e. Louis XIV in France) a feudal monarchy, by definition, encompasses restrictions upon the powers of both the monarch and his nobility. This is why documents like the Magna Carta, the result of a 13th? century civil war against an English feudal king, are documents which enforce a written recognition and expansion of the implied, traditional rights of the nobility. Tbh, this is why the Magna Carta, a cornerstone of the English constitution, exists - it is a document which codifies feudal conceptions of "rule of law" and would never have been written under an absolute monarchy.

Good Point. Though I believe that IF Aerys did have still his dragons, you would have been stood corrected.

That it is why I said "society was ready for a shift toward more democratic ideas", because the preternatural excuse for Targaryens to be the unique rulers of Westeros died together with their Dragons. As long as they had the Dragons, they didn't need approval of their feudals people which is - as you say - at the basis of a feudal system. So in practice their kingdom was a dictatorship, and only formally organized as a feudal system. Unless your firmly believe anyone stood a real chance against bunch of dragons, which is not. We know by history that dragons could slay thousands of men with some breath of theirs.

When Aerys did rule, he still ruled with the mindset of his ancestors which is "I am the king I can do whatever I believe it is better for my kingdom". The fact is, his ancestors had dragons, he did not. Therefore reality proved him wrong soon enough when he challenged it by behaving in a way lords wouldn't accept. Still, under its formal circumstances, what Arryn did is rebelling against an establishment that was still self-considering as absolute.

Finally, I strictly believe that - just or not - in the eyes of the previous establishment each and every man that refutes it and tries to overthrow it is to be semantically named "rebel". Aerys wasn't an usurper, was he?

I believe I reached a point in which it is come to beliefs, so I will let go.

[Mladen]

I think your first argument fails because the Targs had no right it they took it because they could. And it's not like Aegon was elected it was swear fealty or die. I also believe Brandon's punishment was unlawful, no way should someone be put to death for saying they are going to kill someone.....overkill (and keep in mind Brandon thinks his sister was taken against her will)

And now we go too far. According to Westerosi laws, Targaryens were rightful rulers of Iron Throne, and what rebels planned was indeed a treason. Reasonable treason, but nonetheless, a treason. As for Brandon, we know that threatening Royal personna is also a crime punishable by death. Aerys was mad and didn't see the consequences of his actions, but that doesn't change the fact Brandon did a wrong thing. Aerys had no right of killing Rickard or demanding Ned's and Robert's heads, but Brandon's actions led to his demise. There were other ways to handle this situation, and he chose the worst.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Guys like SeanF have already said most of what I would have, but just chiming in to say that, having academic experience studying Just War Theory and also applying it to historical and modern engagements, I would say that RR qualifies up until Elia and her children were murdered. Seeing as St. Augustine is pretty much the figurehead of JWT, so to speak, I don't buy the argument that it's anachronistic for a feudal system. Nor do I accept the frankly bizarre notion that feudalism isn't a two-way street.

As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, a person's attitude toward RR in terms of whether it was justified seems to strongly coincide with whether they are pro- or anti-Targaryen.

[viking warrior]

How did you get to these numbers? 200k on rebel side? You do know that on battle of Trident, rebels had 35 000 men? These numbers you presented us make no sense.

If you have visited any of the previous military threads, you would know that the generally accepted estimates of army sizes of the different kingdoms amount into the tens of thousands.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/94868-battle-of-the-trident/#entry4836669

The estimate is as following

the North: 60k

the Vale: 50k

the Stormlands: 35k

the Riverlands: 50k

= 195k

the Westerlands: 50k

the Reach: 100k

Dorne: 25k

the crownlands: 20k

=195k

I was kinda off concerning the loyalists

[Chaircat Meow]

Guys like SeanF have already said most of what I would have, but just chiming in to say that, having academic experience studying Just War Theory and also applying it to historical and modern engagements, I would say that RR qualifies up until Elia and her children were murdered. Seeing as St. Augustine is pretty much the figurehead of JWT, so to speak, I don't buy the argument that it's anachronistic for a feudal system. Nor do I accept the frankly bizarre notion that feudalism isn't a two-way street.

As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, a person's attitude toward RR in terms of whether it was justified seems to strongly coincide with whether they are pro- or anti-Targaryen.

Where does St. A say that inferior magistrates can depose an emperor for injustice? Aquinas couldn't even make up his mind whether the Pope could depose kings, so I rather doubt he thought the nobility could.

Also, getting to depose your king because he is unjust is nothing to do with 'feudalism,' whatever that is anyway.

[Nyrhex]

And now we go too far. According to Westerosi laws, Targaryens were rightful rulers of Iron Throne, and what rebels planned was indeed a treason. Reasonable treason, but nonetheless, a treason. As for Brandon, we know that threatening Royal personna is also a crime punishable by death. Aerys was mad and didn't see the consequences of his actions, but that doesn't change the fact Brandon did a wrong thing. Aerys had no right of killing Rickard or demanding Ned's and Robert's heads, but Brandon's actions led to his demise. There were other ways to handle this situation, and he chose the worst.

On the contrary. Brandon tried to keep it private. Rhaegar had kidnapped his sister. Brandon came to KL to get justice. Aerys accepted that his son can kidnap a daughter of a lord paramount. He denied justice from Brandon and the Starks. He then murdered Brandon, his father, his companions, thier fathers, 200 of Winterfell's best, and an untold number of other retinues without trial. He murdered Jon Arryn's heir, then had the gall to demand two others under the protection of Jon Arryn. It's a just war by all the laws of Westeros. Does the murder of Elie and her children make it any less right? Hell no. It was an action at the end of the war. The reason for the existance of the war was fully legitimate.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Where does St. A say that inferior magistrates can depose an emperor for injustice? Aquinas couldn't even make up his mind whether the Pope could depose kings, so I rather doubt he thought the nobility could.

Also, getting to depose your king because he is unjust is nothing to do with 'feudalism,' whatever that is anyway.

Where does anything say that a king can have anyone killed he wants without any regard for the rule of law?

[Lonin]

This is the flaw in your argument - the 7K are not a dictatorship, but a feudal monarchy.

first props to the OP for an interesting topic.

However, I am not sure the 7K operate as a feudal monarchy - its a lot more like an absolute monarchy. In text no one seems to doubt that the king is the absolute ruler. In text, No one seems to question Aery's 'right' to execute Rickard and Brandon - many comment that Aery's was cruel and mad - but none seem to question his right to rule as he wishes.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

first props to the OP for an interesting topic.

However, I am not sure the 7K operate as a feudal monarchy - its a lot more like an absolute monarchy. In text no one seems to doubt that the king is the absolute ruler. In text, No one seems to question Aery's 'right' to execute Rickard and Brandon - many comment that Aery's was cruel and mad - but none seem to question his right to rule as he wishes.

In all likelihood because they risked being killed themselves. It was fear. And the rebels said, "No, this is no way to live" and overthrew the pyromaniac fruitcake sadistic freakshow. They did what, no doubt, many people wanted to do or thought should be done, but didn't have the conviction to stick their necks out and do it.

[Chaircat Meow]

Where does anything say that a king can have anyone killed he wants without any regard for the rule of law?

I don't understand the pertinence of the question. The king/emperor doing something he shouldn't has not always been thought to generate an immediate right to revolt in his/her subjects. Aquinas, for instance, had a distinction between being under the directive power of the law, and the coactive power of the law. If you were under the directive power you were morally obliged to obey it, but only God would enforce it. Coactive meant human authorities could enforce it. Kings could be considered only under the directive force of the law.

I am actually curious, seeing you're an expert on this, and I'm not, what war was St. A thinking about when he originated Christian JWT? I don't even know where he says this (City of God ..?). The Emperors at this time were not a savoury bunch, they had Julian, Valentinian, (who was ok religion wise but was a tyrant in matters of tax) Theodosious who banned practice of paganism in various ways, etc. Use of torture was routine in the Roman justice system, often based on hilariously stupid accusations of astrology plots, which were presumed to be directed at the Emperor's life. I just find it very odd St. A can ever have meant to encourage resistance to the Roman government. I assumed he was trying to reassure Christian Roman soldiers (or Emperors) that it wasn't sinful to fight, because in some cases they would be upholding justice. And the Romans needed to fight at this stage, as they were invaded left, right and centre but some Church fathers had felt Christians should not be in the army.

Same kind of thing goes for St. Aquinas. So while JWT is obviously an old concept, using it to justify deposition of a ruling family is stretching what its proponents were probably trying to say, I would have thought.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

The OP has already framed RR and broken it down by the basic JWT tenets (jus ad bellum, in bellum, post bellum). It's right there for you to consider. The idea is that the tenets are not restricted to a specific place and/or time, but are broad enough to apply to today's conflicts and others throughout history. That's how it's survived as a doctrine in the first place -- it's fairly adaptable. We did a workshop with it where the Iraq War was concerned, for example. Acting like it should be restricted to its original Christian-based political context is to sell it short, frankly.

I think realism probably better explains both Aegon's conquest and RR --the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must -- but I don't think framing RR in JWT is out of line, especially given that so much discussion on here is based on tackling RR from a normative standpoint.

[Chaircat Meow]

The OP has already framed RR and broken it down by the basic JWT tenets (jus ad bellum, in bellum, post bellum). It's right there for you to consider. The idea is that the tenets are not restricted to a specific place and/or time, but are broad enough to apply to today's conflicts and others throughout history. That's how it's survived as a doctrine in the first place -- it's fairly adaptable. We did a workshop with it where the Iraq War was concerned, for example. Acting like it should be restricted to its original Christian-based political context is to sell it short, frankly.

I agree we can look at modern JWT and think about how wars could be justified according to it. However, you did claim that its application was not 'anachronistic' to a feux medieval setting because St. A came up with it, and I was pointing out using JWT to justify an attack on an unjust authority one is otherwise obliged to obey is unlikely to be what he had in mind.

edit: also, the whole idea of 'rightful authority,' behind this is obviously the elephant in the room. The contemporary context determines a 'rightful authority,' because political structures are historical entities, so extracting this from westerosi morality/custom with the old, 'it was written for us,' is not going to wholly work in this instance.

[Rickeen Baratheon]

Is any war ever just? Although I do love the topic! I am in no way derailing or such; but, it is the smallfolk who suffer and the common men and women. Which is the message I got from reading the series, especially Arya and Brienne's chapters.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Is any war ever just? Although I do love the topic! I am in no way derailing or such; but, it is the smallfolk who suffer and the common men and women. Which is the message I got from reading the series, especially Arya and Brienne's chapters.

Yea thats why its hard to tackle this subject given the little amount of POVs we have that were present durin RR, and also no POV of commonfolk

[Twookus Stark]

Rhaegar kidnapped Ned's sister(at least they thought he did). Aerys killed Ned's brother and father. and the guy is supposed to what, run away?

[Chaircat Meow]

It was strange how Thomas Hobbes was used in the OP. Hobbes, if anything, is more or less an anti-JWT, at least wrt its application to civil wars. According to Hobbes no act of the ruler to his/her subjects can ever be unjust. This is because they own all his actions, as he impersonates them, and represents their interests; in affect, acting always on their behalf. He is also possessed of all the original 'right of nature,' and the subjects have surrendered all of their own. Hobbes thought if a ruler was unjust he only sinned against God.

The point of this was because, in Hobbes's system, war itself is the great evil to be avoided, not unjust rulers. No matter how bad the government is, Hobbes believed the descent into civil war to resolve the situation had to be always, rationally, assumed to be medicine that was worse than the disease. War therefore, can never be a rational instrument, for him, to correct a bad government. So there can be no 'just' wars waged by subjects against their governors. They will all, necessarily, be irrational and contrary to the laws of nature.