Robert's Rebellion as Just War

[mrunderhill]

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.

Well Rhaegar did do the kidnapping and then disappeared for a year only to return to lead his father's forces.

[Mladen]

Well Rhaegar did do the kidnapping and then disappeared for a year only to return to lead his father's forces.

True, but no one in that conundrum mentioned Rhaegar. Simply, no one cared. they were arming before they even fully explored the possibility of peace.

[mormont]

The problem with Aerys' point of view, in my opinion, is that he perverted justice. Because Brandon publicly threatened Rhaegar's life, Aerys did have the right to place Brandon on trial, but instead of adhering to the accepted system of justice, Aerys instead chose an obscene farce of trial by combat which was, in truth, a form of brutal torture. Essentially, Aerys not only violated his oaths to uphold justice, breaking the social contracts, he went ahead and acted unjustly.

Can't argue with that, except to note that the King, after all, is the source of law and justice in a feudal monarchy. As for the 'accepted system of justice' - we know little about that, but it does seem that summary punishment is part of that system, particularly by royalty. Aerys might argue that his executions were therefore not necessarily a breach of oath, certainly as far as Brandon went. Unpleasant, but not unjust. The bigger issue is Rickard and Aerys' reasons for killing him: but if he was holding Rickard responsible for Brandon's actions, as his father and head of his House, an argument could perhaps be constructed for that as merited also.

As I've noted before, there's no corpus of written law in Westeros. To build an argument that these actions were 'unjust', we have to rely mostly on concepts of fairness, or due process: 'natural justice'. One might argue that the concept of 'natural justice' is at least to a degree anachronistic. Nevertheless, it seems to be extant in Westeros: Ned appeals to such principles, and so do others. So there is a basis there for the argument. However, largely, the view in Westeros seems to be simpler than that - it seems to be 'we won, so we define what was just or unjust'. There's disagreement between Robert and Ned on this, after all, and it goes to the heart of the issue you've identified as most problematic:

"What did we go to war for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

"To put an end to Targaryens!"

[Pero the first of His name]

True, but no one in that conundrum mentioned Rhaegar. Simply, no one cared. they were arming before they even fully explored the possibility of peace.

I agree.

As I said, Hoster and Jon seemed like they wanted that war for a while;)

It is interesting how many people are honourable men allowed to kill if they simply declare war and have some sort of rights.

[Knight Of Winter]

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.

Maybe it would be an ideal solution, but medieval wars didn't work that way. Never once did I read of medieval rebellion where rebels successfully overthrew the old king only to put his heir on the throne, obvious exceptions being cases where heir was either a child which could be manipulated or part of the rebellion from the start. And Rhaegar, being intelligent 20-something young man - was neither.

Even if Jon Arryn&co did exactly that - deposed Aerys and installed Rhaegar (pretty unlikely, since Rhaegar fought against them), what do you believe Rhaegar would think: You rebeled against my dynasty. If I don't react, it would set a dangerous precedent that anyone can rebel against Targs with impunity or Yeah, you deposed my dad, but since he was nuts - we'll forget about your crime ?

[Mladen]

I agree.

As I said, Hoster and Jon seemed like they wanted that war for a while;)

It is interesting how many people are honourable men allowed to kill if they simply declare war and have some sort of rights.

I am not sure about Hoster. He wasn't that willing to enter the war so easily. Only after he married his daughters to rebels, he joined his forces with them. Lysa even said that Jon married her because Jon needed armies.

[Mladen]

Maybe it would be an ideal solution, but medieval wars didn't work that way. Never once did I read of medieval rebellion where rebels successfully overthrew the old king only to put his heir on the throne, obvious exceptions being cases where heir was either a child which could be manipulated or part of the rebellion from the start. And Rhaegar, being intelligent 20-something young man - was neither.

Even if Jon Arryn&co did exactly that - deposed Aerys and installed Rhaegar (pretty unlikely, since Rhaegar fought against them), what do you believe Rhaegar would think: You rebeled against my dynasty. If I don't react, it would set a dangerous precedent that anyone can rebel against Targs with impunity or Yeah, you deposed my dad, but since he was nuts - we'll forget about your crime ?

Yes, but we have reason to doubt Rhaegar conspired against his own father in Harrenhall, and that all the lords in Harrenhall knew that. Rhaegar wasn't his father, and supporting Rhaegar;s claim over Aerys' could leave Aerys without allies and we ight have never seen the Rebellion. But, issues rebels had with Rhaegar was no of political but personal nature.

[Pero the first of His name]

Ned and Robert almost seem like they know much when they remember about the war...

Listen to Jon, Hoster, Varys and Aerys and then you will know the war.

Ned and Robert mostly just did what was expected, you could almost say they were manipulated.

[The Frosted King]

Peace isn't a thing to be taken out of a pocket at will.

What good is a peace if the plow must be reforged into a blade on the morrow?

Ned and Robert running to discuss a peace promptly after the unlawful murder of so many important people is unrealistic, pointless and ultimately extremely stupid.

It's no true peace, since the distrust is still obviously there.

Peace is won through battle, and honestly only a person with their head in the clouds or buried in sand would think otherwise.

You'll accept a peace or gorge on steel is the reality.

[Knight Of Winter]

Yes, but we have reason to doubt Rhaegar conspired against his own father in Harrenhall, and that all the lords in Harrenhall knew that. Rhaegar wasn't his father, and supporting Rhaegar;s claim over Aerys' could leave Aerys without allies and we ight have never seen the Rebellion. But, issues rebels had with Rhaegar was no of political but personal nature.

Just so, but where was Rhaegar when Aerys killed Brandon and Rickard, or when Jon Arryn called his banners? If he was nearby, maybe he could have done what you suggest - uniting rebels under him and deposing Aerys peacefully. Alas, Rheagar was more concerned about creating third head of the dragon than overthrowing his mad father.

With Rhaegar away, rebels simply couldn't include him in his plans. Not to mention Robert also had personal vendetta against him.

[Greymoon]

To the OP.

Isn't that a bit anachronistic? Of course it’s a fantasy world, but I’m not sure Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn would care for the definition of a ‘Just War.’

Besides, between Cicero, Aquinas, Stanislaw of Skarbimierz and the later Catholic teachings of the 20th century, the theory of Just War had time to be changed and shaped and interpreted. A look back of the history of the concept - a history of ideas, then - might well lead to the conclusion that though the concept has existed in roman philosophy and was studied by scholastics in medieval universities, it was not necessary relevant to medieval warfare.

I'm not a specialist on this topic, but I've written an essay on 'Roman law' during the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor. The royal court definitely made ample use of roman terminology - but the law as it was applied, was a syncretism of roman concepts and customary law. And while it’s true that the scholars from Bologna studied the Corpus Iuriis Civiliis at length, such laws only found resonance in the public much later.

Also, I’m not certain that there is a codified text of laws in Westeros...If there is no codified text of law, can there be a definition of just war? The justice we’ve seen applied, the oaths you have mentioned, all this rather sounds like informal customary law.

[Lala]

To the OP.

Isn't that a bit anachronistic? Of course it’s a fantasy world, but I’m not sure Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn would care for the definition of a ‘Just War.’

Besides, between Cicero, Aquinas, Stanislaw of Skarbimierz and the later Catholic teachings of the 20th century, the theory of Just War had time to be changed and shaped and interpreted. A look back of the history of the concept - a history of ideas, then - might well lead to the conclusion that though the concept has existed in roman philosophy and was studied by scholastics in medieval universities, it was not necessary relevant to medieval warfare.

I'm not a specialist on this topic, but I've written an essay on 'Roman law' during the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor. The royal court definitely made ample use of roman terminology - but the law as it was applied, was a syncretism of roman concepts and customary law. And while it’s true that the scholars from Bologna studied the Corpus Iuriis Civiliis at length, such laws only found resonance in the public much later.

Also, I’m not certain that there is a codified text of laws in Westeros...If there is no codified text of law, can there be a definition of just war? The justice we’ve seen applied, the oaths you have mentioned, all this rather sounds like informal customary law.

I'm a little tired so I'll go back and respond the other posts at a later date =)

It's important for me to make it clear that I take a partially intrinsicist view towards justice (as opposed to a consequentialist one), so I believe that there are intrinsic, inalienable conceptions of justice in human society that are generally valid across time and geography. This view is partially motivated by my certain knowledge that concepts like rule of law existed in both European and Chinese society predating any meaningful exchange of ideas between the two cultures, implying that certain views of justice can be perceived as intrinsic to human society. Consequently, I believe that an application of the modern definition of just war is still meaningful in Westeros because while our understanding and definitions of just war may have been refined and sophisticated, the fundamental notion of justice remains constant across time and space (and literature).

In addition, I always read ASoIaF with the mental framework that GRRM wrote the series with a modern 21st century audience in mind and that we are meant to analyze the series using a 21st century set of moral constructs - i.e., we are supposed to be able to recognize and criticize acts of marital rape and spousal abuse. Therefore, I am not focusing solely on discussing the justice of RR from a Westerosi perspective, but am also examining the justice of RR from the perspective of a modern reader - does RR fulfill our modern understanding of "just cause"? Were the subsequent actions taken by the victors just from a modern framework of morality? Both sides of the conversation are important, because I do not believe that GRRM wants readers to adopt a medieval mindset when reading ASoIaF. Rather, I think he wants us to actively use our modern morality and perceptions to engage with the pseudo-medieval content.

[Lonin]

Note also that RR was not a "popular uprising" of the people. It was nobles that objected to Aerys treatment of other nobles. The realm as a whole seemed well off under Aerys rule. Its probably true that a majority of the populace supported Aerys (or lived in regions that supported Aerys).

I think the case for a "just war" is hard to make. That said, Aerys was a cruel mentally unstable ruler that needed to be replaced.

I also don't think GRRM wrote asoiaf to explore the concepts of a just war.

[zamieo]

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.

So what if he was highly regarded? It was Rhaegar's "abduction" of Lyanna that acted as the catalyst for the war to begin with. You keep saying that Brandon deserved his punishment, but you mention no punishment for kidnapping someone's bride-to-be and a daughter and a sister to others.

[Mladen]

Just so, but where was Rhaegar when Aerys killed Brandon and Rickard, or when Jon Arryn called his banners? If he was nearby, maybe he could have done what you suggest - uniting rebels under him and deposing Aerys peacefully. Alas, Rheagar was more concerned about creating third head of the dragon than overthrowing his mad father.

With Rhaegar away, rebels simply couldn't include him in his plans. Not to mention Robert also had personal vendetta against him.

Rhaegar was away but there was not one idea of solving this peacefully. No ome has occured that evading war that would end up with thousands of dead is truly a just thing to do. Yes, criticism over Rhaegar's actions stands, but let we not fool ourselves into believing that Robert's motifs was so noble. RR, at least for him, wasn't about better Kingdom, and he prove that for 15 years of his reign, but a personnal vendetta against one and self-defense against other man.

So what if he was highly regarded? It was Rhaegar's "abduction" of Lyanna that acted as the catalyst for the war to begin with. You keep saying that Brandon deserved his punishment, but you mention no punishment for kidnapping someone's bride-to-be and a daughter and a sister to others.

We could argue that abduction, if ever happened, was a catalyst, but there are so many other elements in this story - Brandon's foly, Aerys' madness etc... Also, the war wasn't abut Lyanna, it was about self-preservation. Why Robert, that great warrior and knight started a war only when his head was asked? Why Lyanna's "abduction" wasn't a good reason for that? As for Brandon, I don't keep saying he deserved his punishment, but he did acted rather foolishly, and he was no child. He was a grown-up man who must have known that his actions will have reprecutions. He sent another three men to their deaths just because he wasn't thinking clearly... People always forget he wasn't alone when he was in KL.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

This is a very touchy subject, I don't think we have a lot of info and views of other people in westeros to come to conclusion.

But anyway good post Lala.

[Knight Of Winter]

Rhaegar was away but there was not one idea of solving this peacefully. No ome has occured that evading war that would end up with thousands of dead is truly a just thing to do. Yes, criticism over Rhaegar's actions stands, but let we not fool ourselves into believing that Robert's motifs was so noble. RR, at least for him, wasn't about better Kingdom, and he prove that for 15 years of his reign, but a personnal vendetta against one and self-defense against other man.

That was one of the problems with Aerys - he was so nuts that one couldn't argue with him in a peaceful way. I don't think Jon Arryn could have kept peace with the king without giving in his demands to hand over Ned and Bob (which Jon would never do). Sitting on a negotiation table and arguing reasonably aren't exactly phrases you could apply to Aerys Targaryen. In short, given Aerys's personality, Jon's options were limited - he could either rebel or hand over his wards.

Well, rebel leaders had different motivations when calling their banners. Jon did it to protect Ned and Bob, Eddard so he could depose king and stop killing children, Robert to retrieve Lyanna and get his revenge on Targs and Hoster out of opportunism.

[Max Berg]

Actually under the Lockesian interpretation of "rightful authority" both Hoster and Jon possessed all of the requirements for conducting just war as well since Aerys' behavior had caused him to "give" all of his subjects the "rightful authority" to rebel/declare war (corrupt, inept, or abusive government). Basically my argument is that Robert's Rebellion is not necessarily an actual rebellion, but rather a justified war against an aggressor. This is purely for the theoretical sake of establishing their Hobbesian "rightful authority" (since Hobbes does not believe that subjects can ever rightfully rebel against a ruler). If we adhere to the more commonly accepted and flexible Lockesian interpretation, then all of the participants in RR have "rightful authority" and we can go ahead and call RR "rightful rebellion."

He was their damn King, where is the aggression?

He is a King thanks to Gods and Dragons gift, it is from him that originates the power and the right to rule that all the other lords have, not the contrary.

Hence Aerys had all the rights he wanted to act just like he did.

I think you're confusing his power establishment coming from above with other forms of leadership, which sustainment is supposed to come from below (the masses).

Also, Roman Empire rhetoric was heavily based on the ancient tradition of existence of the senate assembly which was somehow initially there to empower the Caesar. It was only as time went by, toward the end of Roman's Empire, that its organizational system shifted completely toward total dictatorship sustained by Gods will just as it was fashion in the eastern countries. Aerys Targaryen Kingdom falls in the latter category, so you can't put into discussion anything he commands without being a fucking rebel.

That was one of the problems with Aerys - he was so nuts that one couldn't argue with him in a peaceful way. I don't think Jon Arryn could have kept peace with the king without giving in his demands to hand over Ned and Bob (which Jon would never do). Sitting on a negotiation table and arguing reasonably aren't exactly phrases you could apply to Aerys Targaryen. In short, given Aerys's personality, Jon's options were limited - he could either rebel or hand over his wards.

Well, rebel leaders had different motivations when calling their banners. Jon did it to protect Ned and Bob, Eddard so he could depose king and stop killing children, Robert to retrieve Lyanna and get his revenge on Targs and Hoster out of opportunism.

Jon should have given him those two boys' heads as a gift with the faster rider leaving for KL.

It is the first time I hear that a general that refuses orders from his superiors should be appointed for "being just".

[The Frosted King]

He was their damn King, where is the aggression?

He is a King thanks to Gods and Dragons gift, it is from him that originates the power and the right to rule that all the other lords have, not the contrary.

Hence Aerys had all the rights he wanted to act just like he did.

I think you're confusing his power establishment coming from above with other forms of leadership, which sustainment is supposed to come from below (the masses).

Also, Roman Empire rhetoric was heavily based on the ancient tradition of existence of the senate assembly which was somehow initially there to empower the Caesar. It was only as time went by, toward the end of Roman's Empire, that its organizational system shifted completely toward total dictatorship sustained by Gods will just as it was fashion in the eastern countries. Aerys Targaryen Kingdom falls in the latter category, so you can't put into discussion anything he commands without being a fucking rebel.

Jon should have given him those two boys' heads as a gift with the faster rider leaving for KL.

It is the first time I hear that a general that refuses orders from his superiors should be appointed for "being just".

He was their overlord.

The ties that bind vassals and overlords work both ways.

You treat me fairly, i'll obey and serve you, both financially and militarily.

Some men take more than others, and others give more than others.

Aerys took too much, so the abused parties fought back.

No man is truly free to do as he pleases.

Aerys learned that, as did Joffrey.

Aerys idea of his power was vastly different from the realms interpretation.

Law isn't law.

It should flow from common mores and graces.

Be serious.

[Max Berg]

He was their overlord.

The ties that bind vassals and overlords work both ways.

You treat me fairly, i'll obey and serve you, both financially and militarily.

Some men take more than others, and others give more than others.

Aerys took too much, so the abused parties fought back.

No man is truly free to do as he pleases.

Aerys learned that, as did Joffrey.

Aerys idea of his power was vastly different from the realms interpretation.

Law isn't law.

It should flow from common mores and graces.

Be serious.

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.