Robert's Rebellion as Just War

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, sorry. I'm just rejecting the idea that JWT is a no-go for a feudal-ish setting, given that it both predates feudalism and is elastic enough to be pertinent in a social, geographic and political context beyond that in which it was first conceived. That's all.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

And Hobbes would've been A-OK with Aerys right up until he coughed funny and Aerys had him burned alive. I do agree that Hobbes is a weird example to use where JWT is concerned.

[Chaircat Meow]

And Hobbes would've been A-OK with Aerys right up until he coughed funny and Aerys had him burned alive. I do agree that Hobbes is a weird example to use where JWT is concerned.

Indeed. Although Hobbes did think he would have the right to resist that, as you can't forfeit your right to self preservation. He'd say it doesn't follow from that that the ruler can be deposed for injustice.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Indeed. Although Hobbes did think he would have the right to resist that, as you can't forfeit your right to self preservation.

I'm sure Ned, Robert and Jon would agree.

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm sure Ned, Robert and Jon would agree.

Aerys didn't threaten Jon's life, so he can't get out under the self preservation idea, nor can Hoster, or any of the bannermen.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Aerys didn't threaten Jon's life, so he can't get out under the self preservation idea, nor can Hoster, or any of the bannermen.

So Arryn should have given over two innocent people to be executed, no questions asked.

[Chaircat Meow]

So Arryn should have given over two innocent people to be executed, no questions asked.

I was explicating how Leviathian applies in this instance.

My own opinion is that I can't really blame Jon, Ned and Robert for raising their banners and opposing the king. They may well have brought harm to more people that way than if they just slipped away over the seas though.

I do think they more or less broke the social contract when they declared Robert king before the Trident. That was turning justified resistance to unreasonable commands into a scheme to destroy (by death, exile, or demotion) the whole ruling dynasty. Noble families are always going to throw up some fruitcakes now and again, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to drive the whole house into exile (or kill them). Do as you would be done unto, and all that. The Starks wouldn't like it if their 8,000 year old line came to an end because rather than removing an unsuitable liege and supporting his son/daughter/grandson, the Boltons/whoever, wiped half of the family out, and stripped them of their lands. So Dany is right to think they are usurpers.

[Lala]

I was explicating how Leviathian applies in this instance.

My own opinion is that I can't really blame Jon, Ned and Robert for raising their banners and opposing the king. They may well have brought harm to more people that way than if they just slipped away over the seas though.

I do think they more or less broke the social contract when they declared Robert king before the Trident. That was turning justified resistance to unreasonable commands into a scheme to destroy (by death, exile, or demotion) the whole ruling dynasty. Noble families are always going to throw up some fruitcakes now and again, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to drive the whole house into exile (or kill them). Do as you would be done unto, and all that. The Starks wouldn't like it if their 8,000 year old line came to an end because rather than removing an unsuitable liege and supporting his son/daughter/grandson, the Boltons/whoever, wiped half of the family out, and stripped them of their lands. So Dany is right to think they are usurpers.

I do agree that while I think RR generally acquits itself wrt jus ad bellum, it does appear to fall apart where jus in bellio and jus post bellum are concerned. This thought bunny was really more of a response to the normative criticism in a number of threads dismissing RR as a war that is justified solely in the context of its victory - claiming that the participants had not rightful/just cause for rebellion.

I honestly used both Hobbesian and Lockesian definitions of "rightful authority" because they were both cited in the resource I used to refresh my memory of just war. What I do try to argue is that because of the nature of "rightful authority" in a medieval society (looking at both the form of social contracts in Westeros as well as historic medieval European tradition), RR can arguably be renamed Robert's War in a Hobbesian framework of "rightful authority" since "rightful authority" in a feudal society does not begin and end with the king (since he is not an absolute monarch). It may not be a completely valid argument (my political science training is more amateurish since they come from a handful of high school and college courses/personal reading), but I was writing at 3 am and felt like branching off into the very nature of "power" and "authority" in Westeros and what we can infer about them based on the "oaths as social contract" system of government.

[Twookus Stark]

You say that Robert, Jon, and Ned had no right to destroy or force the Royal family into exile but you also suggest that they should have let themselves be exiled rather than fight. I don't get that.

[lareine]

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.

First, my complements to the writer of the OP; it was very well written and intelligent.

There is one thing I am curious to know; are there are any mentions in the texts that Westeros has anything similar to the Magna Carta? Is there ever any mention at all of formal, codified restrictions placed on the Kings authority there? I ask because even though feudal England had restrictions on the monarchs power, this was not the case in most other European kingdoms. England was more of the exception rather than the rule. Even in late Medieval England, the liberties the Magna Carta gave could not always be relied upon, especially if the monarch was very powerful. The early Tudor monarchs Henry VII and Henry VIII certainly didn't pay it much mind.

[Mladen]

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.wester...t/#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

First, Robb couldn't have gathered army of 100k with North and Riverlands... He had 20 000 men, also add to that another 20k that left in the North, that would be only 40 000 in the North. Riverlords couldn't have gathered more than 30 000 men. When Stannis took Renly's army, it was said he got 20 000 Stormlands' soldiers. And as for Vale, I do believe the right number is approximately 35-40k. There couldn't have been more than 130k, then you have to exclude all those who refused to be on rebels' side, and that leaves you with 110-120k

On the contrary, royalists had full force of the Reach - 80k, Dorne, which has 20-30k, Westerlands around 50k, and Crownlands around 10-15k. All in all, Aerys could have counted at the beginning on force of 160k.

What we know from books, the entire Wo5K speaks a lot differently from the numbers you gave. Also never forget that it was believed that royalists will prevail. That's why so many Houses didn't involve in confrontation in the first place.

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.

Thing is Brandon took a party and shouted for Rhaegar. He didn't came for justice, he came to settle the score. Rickard was smarter, but then Aerys' madness showed its teeth. I am not justifying Aerys, but we have to realize that entire thing could have been dealt more appropriately. I am sure that Small Council must have been against the war, and they could have tried to influence Aerys, and Jon Arryn wasn't fool either. I mean, we don't have specifics, but from what we know, it seems like everyone was so keen to jump into war. As OP said, the war is just only when it is last resort. Somehow i am not sure whether we can claim with certainty that in this case war was that just. Not to mention Robert's infamous answer when Ned asked what they fought against, if not to end the madness - "To put an end to Targaryens". That doesn't sound that noble or just. Furthermore, the entire justification of the war ended with murderings Tywin commited in Robert's name. Then with Robert who was completely fine with what's done, without even pretending that murderings of innocent woman and her 2 children matters anything. The end of war is as important as the beginning. Because at the end, you see all the mistakes made throughout entire war.

[Non-canon Name]

Just war theory doesn't have anything to do with a King's actions towards a couple people. This thread is literally sophomoric.

[Pod The Impaler]

A careful examination of RR using the framework of jus ad bellum to determine the justice of the war shows that because of Aerys' actions leading up to the war, the participants were provided with both the requisite just cause as well as the requisite authority necessary for a declaration of just war. However, a preliminary analysis of the unnecessary deaths of Elia and her children immediately throw doubt on the validity of jus in bellum and jus post bellum wrt to RR. Therefore, while it is valid to assert that RR was justified from a jus ad bellum perspective, it is important to note that the actual conduct of the war as well as the "perpetuation" of justice after the war potentially undermine its justice.

To the OP:

Yes, I agree. Aerys had lost the legitimacy to govern. A king who cannot or will not protect his people is one thing - a king who actively endangers and menaces them is quite another. They owed him no loyalty after what he'd done, especially how he arbitraily executed Rickard and Brandon Stark, and planned to do so with Eddard, Robert, and probably Jon Arryn also.

However, I have to also acknowledge that his heir Rhaegar also ruined the crown's legitimacy. He simply took someone who was one lord's daughter and another's betrothed, because he felt like it. If that is the precedent, should any lord feel his family safe? Should any lord consider law or contract sacred or inviolable if the sovereign does not do so ? Being royal is not just some "get out of jail free" card.

Put plainly, there was no longer any reason to obey that was not outweighed by the need to disobey.

[Nyrhex]

Thing is Brandon took a party and shouted for Rhaegar. He didn't came for justice, he came to settle the score. Rickard was smarter, but then Aerys' madness showed its teeth. I am not justifying Aerys, but we have to realize that entire thing could have been dealt more appropriately. I am sure that Small Council must have been against the war, and they could have tried to influence Aerys, and Jon Arryn wasn't fool either. I mean, we don't have specifics, but from what we know, it seems like everyone was so keen to jump into war. As OP said, the war is just only when it is last resort. Somehow i am not sure whether we can claim with certainty that in this case war was that just. Not to mention Robert's infamous answer when Ned asked what they fought against, if not to end the madness - "To put an end to Targaryens". That doesn't sound that noble or just. Furthermore, the entire justification of the war ended with murderings Tywin commited in Robert's name. Then with Robert who was completely fine with what's done, without even pretending that murderings of innocent woman and her 2 children matters anything. The end of war is as important as the beginning. Because at the end, you see all the mistakes made throughout entire war.

Rhaegar kidnaped Brandon's sister. A teen girl. Brandon had every right to demand justice. He tried to keep it personal. He demanded Rhaegar to come out of the Red Keep and face the consequences of his actions - not to turn it into a political issue. It was not a threat to the crown prince. It was bringing justice to the crown prince. Rickard was the dumber of the two. His daughter kidnaped. His son went to KL to get her back and restore the family's honour, and is instead arrested with all his followers by the king? Rickard should have not expected justice. He should have brought an army with him that instant. The moment Aerys ignored his son's wrongdoing and arrested men who were seeking justice, because "it's ok when the royal family does it, including kidnap and murder", that is when he broke his feudal obligation to provide justice the first time. After that he did it again, with killing all those lords, thier sons and retinue.

There is no way the matter would have been dealt differently. Aerys made no move to return Lyanna before the rebellion, and when Rhaegar was there we see no indication that Aerys cared where she is or why Rhaegar took her. War could have broken right after Lyanna was kidnaped. Brandon tried to keep it on a low fire, and only deal with Rhaegar. He was imprisoned. Rickard could have declared war when his daughter was kidnaped, and his son was arrested instead of getting justice. He went to KL to try and save his son, and demand justice from Aerys one more time. Aerys burned him alive. Ned hears that Aerys demands his head as well, Jon Arryn hears that his heir was murdered without trial, Robert hears that Aerys want's his head as well just because he had a marriage contract between him and Lyanna, whom Rhaegar had kidnaped. That war was a last resort if ever there was one.

The Targaryens have become so depraved, that they though they can take the liberty to change the laws of fielty to become absolute monarchs, that can kidnap, rape and kill thier subjects at will. They had to go. The murder of Elia and her children is just three more deaths. It does'nt matter if they die or go to the Silent Sisters or take the Black. They had no place at court, and could not be allowed to keep a political potential. Thier deaths means nothing as to the justification of the rebellion.

[Mladen]

Rhaegar kidnaped Brandon's sister. A teen girl. Brandon had every right to demand justice. He tried to keep it personal. He demanded Rhaegar to come out of the Red Keep and face the consequences of his actions - not to turn it into a political issue. It was not a threat to the crown prince. It was bringing justice to the crown prince. Rickard was the dumber of the two. His daughter kidnaped. His son went to KL to get her back and restore the family's honour, and is instead arrested with all his followers by the king? Rickard should have not expected justice. He should have brought an army with him that instant. The moment Aerys ignored his son's wrongdoing and arrested men who were seeking justice, because "it's ok when the royal family does it, including kidnap and murder", that is when he broke his feudal obligation to provide justice the first time. After that he did it again, with killing all those lords, thier sons and retinue.

But the thing is Brandon hadn't gone to KL for justice. His exact words were "Come out and die". There were no talking, no asking questions, not even the benefit of a doubt for what might have happened. Brandon came for blood, not justice, and let not pretend like he had noble motifs here. He was enraged, and rightfully so, but he had no right to do what he did. He didn't just jeopardize his own life, he endangered his companions and made Rickard's and entire House's position much weaker than it was before his actions. If he wanted justice, there was Aerys, he could get the audience with the King and ask for solution. Would it work? I doubt, but he never considered other way. Rickard was the only cool-headed man in that conundrum, but his efforts were destroyed by Aerys' madness and paranoia fueled with Brandon's threats.

Rickard could have declared war when his daughter was kidnaped, and his son was arrested instead of getting justice. He went to KL to try and save his son, and demand justice from Aerys one more time. Aerys burned him alive.

One more time? What Brandon did could not be, in any way considered as "demand for justice". It was unrational, hasty move. You all seem to forget that threatening Royal personna is indeed a crime. Aerys imprisoning Brandon isn't that big of a crime due to Brandon's words, but what he did to Rickard is crime beyond justification.

The Targaryens have become so depraved, that they though they can take the liberty to change the laws of fielty to become absolute monarchs, that can kidnap, rape and kill thier subjects at will. They had to go. The murder of Elia and her children is just three more deaths. It does'nt matter if they die or go to the Silent Sisters or take the Black. They had no place at court, and could not be allowed to keep a political potential. Thier deaths means nothing as to the justification of the rebellion.

Actually, with possibility that Lyanna wasn't abducted, and the fact Brandon did something punishable, in this sitiation Starks bare the same responsability as the Targaryens. As for Elia, the entire justification of war fails when her fate became public knowledge. For that moment, when Robert gave pardon to those that killed Elia and her children, showed that he is no better than those that preceeded him. He became the absolute ruler and he was the one to decide who shall be punished and who shall walk free. Not even punishing those that actually killed them - Clegane and Lorch, Robert sent clear message about RR. It wasn't for the good of the realm... At least, not from his side... And that seals the story of "just war"

[viking warrior]

First, Robb couldn't have gathered army of 100k with North and Riverlands... He had 20 000 men, also add to that another 20k that left in the North, that would be only 40 000 in the North. Riverlords couldn't have gathered more than 30 000 men. When Stannis took Renly's army, it was said he got 20 000 Stormlands' soldiers. And as for Vale, I do believe the right number is approximately 35-40k. There couldn't have been more than 130k, then you have to exclude all those who refused to be on rebels' side, and that leaves you with 110-120k

On the contrary, royalists had full force of the Reach - 80k, Dorne, which has 20-30k, Westerlands around 50k, and Crownlands around 10-15k. All in all, Aerys could have counted at the beginning on force of 160k.

What we know from books, the entire Wo5K speaks a lot differently from the numbers you gave. Also never forget that it was believed that royalists will prevail. That's why so many Houses didn't involve in confrontation in the first place.

The thing here is that you downplay my rebell numbers while you slightly increases the loyalists, as for my estimates, they are pretty spot on, but I can only assume that you haven't bothered to read a lot of military threads. Arguments you have put forth here are not new ones, many times have they been made then swept away by the more military minded forum members.

This should get you started:

[Mladen]

The thing here is that you downplay my rebell numbers while you slightly increases the loyalists, as for my estimates, they are pretty spot on, but I can only assume that you haven't bothered to read a lot of military threads. Arguments you have put forth here are not new ones, many times have they been made then swept away by the more military minded forum members.

This should get you started:

http://asoiaf.wester..._army stregnths

First, don't assume I haven't read something merely on disagreeing with you. Arguments I presented are strictly in line of what we know from the books. So, unless you have your own formed opinion based on textual evidence, don't bother presenting me with someone else's. I have read those threads, and the best analyzer is Free Northman, and with his calculation the numbers are still on Royalists. Also, there are written proofs that dispute your claim about rebels being stronger in any moment than royalists, with the fact neoither Jon, Hoster or Robert could have counted on support of all the Houses of their regions.

[Nyrhex]

But the thing is Brandon hadn't gone to KL for justice. His exact words were "Come out and die". There were no talking, no asking questions, not even the benefit of a doubt for what might have happened. Brandon came for blood, not justice, and let not pretend like he had noble motifs here. He was enraged, and rightfully so, but he had no right to do what he did. He didn't just jeopardize his own life, he endangered his companions and made Rickard's and entire House's position much weaker than it was before his actions. If he wanted justice, there was Aerys, he could get the audience with the King and ask for solution. Would it work? I doubt, but he never considered other way. Rickard was the only cool-headed man in that conundrum, but his efforts were destroyed by Aerys' madness and paranoia fueled with Brandon's threats.

It is justice. Rhaegar kidnaped his sister. By marriage Tyrion is Robert's family, yet Ned can still use the argument that Tyrion had commited a crime against his family, and can judge him on his own.

One more time? What Brandon did could not be, in any way considered as "demand for justice". It was unrational, hasty move. You all seem to forget that threatening Royal personna is indeed a crime. Aerys imprisoning Brandon isn't that big of a crime due to Brandon's words, but what he did to Rickard is crime beyond justification.

Not when it's a punishment for a crime the prince commited.

Actually, with possibility that Lyanna wasn't abducted, and the fact Brandon did something punishable, in this sitiation Starks bare the same responsability as the Targaryens. As for Elia, the entire justification of war fails when her fate became public knowledge. For that moment, when Robert gave pardon to those that killed Elia and her children, showed that he is no better than those that preceeded him. He became the absolute ruler and he was the one to decide who shall be punished and who shall walk free. Not even punishing those that actually killed them - Clegane and Lorch, Robert sent clear message about RR. It wasn't for the good of the realm... At least, not from his side... And that seals the story of "just war"

Brandon did nothing punishable. He acted within his rights. His family member was kidnaped. He is honour bound to punish that person. If Rhaegar indeed did not kidnap Lyanna, there was no reason for hiding, and had he been in KL, he could have walked out and said so. He prefered to hide.

And the argument that the war was not just based on Elia's murder is laughable. Aery murdered a lord paramount, two heirs of such, hundreds of people with no trial, demanded innocent men to be killed by a man who was thier protector. He accepted that a prince can kidnap a girl with impunity, while there is no such law. He broke the feudal contract with all of his subjects. Some stayed loyal because they are short sighted and prefer to stick with a tyrant because they get something out of it, but don't realize that it could be them next.

Robert should have done alot of things. That does not mean that the war itself was not justified.

[viking warrior]

First, don't assume I haven't read something merely on disagreeing with you. Arguments I presented are strictly in line of what we know from the books. So, unless you have your own formed opinion based on textual evidence, don't bother presenting me with someone else's. I have read those threads, and the best analyzer is Free Northman, and with his calculation the numbers are still on Royalists. Also, there are written proofs that dispute your claim about rebels being stronger in any moment than royalists, with the fact neoither Jon, Hoster or Robert could have counted on support of all the Houses of their regions.

Even though I too has Free Northman in high regards, it is still worth mentioning that his estimates vary from thread to thread, with the newer ones being closer to my numbers. As for the loyalty of Jon, Hoster or Robert's bannermen. They weren't wrong to assume that they had their full loyalty.

The thing about the Lannisters is that they were a wild card, after Aerys humiliated Tywin and made his son a kingsguard.

[Mladen]

It is justice. Rhaegar kidnaped his sister. By marriage Tyrion is Robert's family, yet Ned can still use the argument that Tyrion had commited a crime against his family, and can judge him on his own.

But Catelyn only imprisoned Tyrion in Robert's name, and she took him to the trial. Brandon wanted blood. These two cases are not comparable.

Not when it's a punishment for a crime the prince commited.

And who is Brandon? Just her brother. After all, Lyanna had a father, who was Warden of the North. If anyone had right to do what Brandon did, it was Rickard.

Brandon did nothing punishable. He acted within his rights. His family member was kidnaped. He is honour bound to punish that person. If Rhaegar indeed did not kidnap Lyanna, there was no reason for hiding, and had he been in KL, he could have walked out and said so. He prefered to hide.

He did something punishable, and he had no rights to do what he has done. That was on Rickard, not Brandon. Also, what was within his rights is to go to King and ask him, not to shout and demand someone's death. Also, Rheagar wasn't in KL at the time.

And the argument that the war was not just based on Elia's murder is laughable. Aery murdered a lord paramount, two heirs of such, hundreds of people with no trial, demanded innocent men to be killed by a man who was thier protector. He accepted that a prince can kidnap a girl with impunity, while there is no such law. He broke the feudal contract with all of his subjects. Some stayed loyal because they are short sighted and prefer to stick with a tyrant because they get something out of it, but don't realize that it could be them next.

Is it? And why would deaths of two men make this war just, if the deaths of innocent doesn't make it? It is laughable to presume that some deaths count and others don't.

Even though I too has Free Northman in high regards, it is still worth mentioning that his estimates vary from thread to thread, with the newer ones being closer to my numbers. As for the loyalty of Jon, Hoster or Robert's bannermen. They weren't wrong to assume that they had their full loyalty.

The thing about the Lannisters is that they were a wild card, after Aerys humiliated Tywin and made his son a kingsguard.

Please explain me how in God's name, Robb Stark could have gathered 110k men from North and Riverlands? Just that, nothing more...

Also, as far as rebels knew, Lannisters would side with the royalists. Only when it became obvious that Tywin is keeping his armies out of the war, rebels started calling him. In no point of the war, rebels had numbers on their side...