Aerys Targaryen was a good King

[Wise Fool]

Yeah no. Not a good king at all. Most of the arguments in favor seem to boil down to "I believe he was a good king, that what he did was justified" etc. Well, I believe he wasn't and that nothing he did was justifiable, so there. Argument refuted on same grounds it is given.

[Will to Power]

I actually admire Aerys' attempt to burn down King's Landing. The Targaryen dynasty with all it's magnitude was going down. When you see trash taking over your belongings you might just get mad. If Aerys couldn't have King's Landing, the superb architectural feat built by his ancestors, and the Iron throne, which was his birthright, then no one could. I look forward to owning a domain which has belonged to my family for nearly 300 years. I'll burn down every structure, pump nearby lake full of mercury and poison every single acre of soil so that no plant shall grow there for the next century before I ever give it up.

[TORMUNDSMEMBER10]

Oh dear god, this can't possibly end well...

my thoughts exactly *fetches popcorn*

[ellisg]

Aerys was an awful king. Not to bad to begin with, but if half the Kingdom rebels against you it says that you're doing something wrong. Not just that but also Tywin ruled through him and he burned people for no reason. Yes the crown wasn't in a bad financial state when his rein ended but I live in a country that is suffering financially at the moment and I can't speak for everyone but I'd rather live through tough financial times than with a ruler that orders the capital to be burned to the ground once he feels his time is up!

[Wales338]

Well it is a tad disturbing that someone can seriously believe a man who planned to murder thousands was a good king. A Kings job is to provide protection in exchange for fealty. With the murder of Lord Stark and the attempted murder of both Eddard, Robert, as well as the thousands of residences of Kings Landing Aerys is no longer providing that protection so he cannot be considered a good king.

[Anya_]

I think Aerys II was a real visionary.

1. He was a true feminist by supporting the execution of known womanizer Brandon Stark.

2. He let his son have a second marriage for love.

3. He exemplified anti-racist attitudes by allowing Dornishmen to die for him as equally as Andals.

4. He fought against monogamist patriarchy by trying to do Tywin's wife.

5. He was a patron of the sciences. Especially chemistry.

:agree:

[Lord Pentragon]

It was Tywin as Hand who ruled in all but name, Aerys blundered in everything he possibly could. The only good thing mentioned about him was that his "reign started promisingly" and even that not in detail. Oh first post :P

:agree: there there..

[BlueEyedCrow]

He WAS a good king, but after the Defiance at Duskendale he started to lose it.

[Oblivian]

Aerys may not have been a good person, but the debate is whether he was a good king. Dany was a good person but an awful queen. The small folk seemed to miss him, as we learn from Arya's time in the Riverlands. The treasury was overflowing with gold, and until the end the realm was peaceful. There was a rebellion against him, but many kings had rebellions against them. Dareon was called 'the good', yet the first Blackfyre rebellion was against him. Egg's father was killed by a rebel lord, and Egg's reign was described as 'troubled'.

Aerys was paranoid for some reason, maybe it had to do with half his small council working against him. And Rickard Stark's 'southron ambitions' probably didn't make him very comfortable either. We even learn at the end of AFFC that the Citadel was even trying to get rid of the Targaryens. And do we really know that Rhaegar wasn't conspiring against him? He overreacted in the end, but he may have had reasons to be uncomfortable. Who wouldn't be in his situation?

[The_Kingslayer]

He reminded me of Darth Sidious

[BryndenStark]

Seriously...what? ....:| OP, I'm not sure whether you understand the prerequisites to being a good ruler. I'm not even understanding in what sense of the word he was 'good'...I think you're perhaps trying to argue FOR him being an effective ruler rather than a benevolent, duty-bound king. Because that's exactly what a good king needs - to uphold his duties. A king must always put the people before himself, considering he rules over them; for eternal obedience from his subjects, he must protect them - not burn them alive for little reason other than sexual gratification. His decision to disregard his subjects - when they're at their most vulnerable - completely goes against his role as king and protector. His duty to his people.

You keep arguing about how many of his actions were justified but that too I'm questioning - in what sense was it justified exactly?...They certainly wasn't morally justified by any means. Killing people for pointless reasons is akin to that of psychotic-ism, certainly not deriving from a selfless or rational stand-point. Never should a king lightly forsake his subjects' lives without just reason of the highest order - like extinguishing a threat to the realm. Even then, deciding whether a person should live or die is a decision not to be taken lightly - one that requires other viewpoints in order for decision finalisation and a good king always consults his council in matters of utmost importance. Now if we're arguing whether any of his shortcomings were rationally justified due to defeatism and shock, maybe we'll reach an understanding. To some extent anyhow.

I can understand that the throne represents many things - the kingdom, ascension in rank, duty and above all, the element that would make you king. To destroy both the throne and the city which it resides in, Aerys aimed to destroy Robert's eventual goal and what he was fighting for. To rob Robert of the very thing many of his comrades died to claim. However, what Aerys failed to see is that the throne does not make the king - a true king does not need such trivial luxuries. A good king does not need to remind others that he is the king. A wise king would've handled matters in a much more delicate way to quell chances of rebellion sparking. Aerys failed to see the consequences of his petty point-scoring tactic - it's all well and good that he aimed to destroy Robert's goal but what made it irrational was the fact that he still viewed himself as the king. Taking out his remaining subjects effectively ends his reign as king. He would be forsaking the lives of his remaining subjects because he couldn't allow Robert to gain something that's not the 'be all and end all' of kings. Where is the logic?

...In the end, he simply would've "one over on ol' drunky" - nothing more, nothing less. He still would've lost, he still would've been dethroned and worst of all, Robert would still have been king. Dragonstone perhaps could've been a viable alternative for a place of power. I don't feel as though using Robert to somehow makes Aerys seem better in comparison - in fact, you're not doing yourself any favours there. Robert claims the moral high ground there - the guy may've been a useless lout, drunk as hell, at best indifferent to his duties as king and an abusive person whilst drunk ...but at least he didn't plan to kill his subjects. Heck, the guy didn't even kill any of his former foes - he understood the purpose of helping your enemies to their feet so bitterness and cruelty didn't create the elements for rebellion V2.

All in all, Aerys may've been a shrewd king, amusing at times and equally baffling - but no. He was not a good ruler. Even in the face of defeat, good kings never forsake the lives of their subjects - Stannis didn't, Robb didn't and best example of all, Torrhen Stark didn't even though he had superior numbers. He swallowed his pride despite what he was giving up. Aerys did not and was stubborn to the end. If a good king cares about the fate of his people, how does Aerys fit under this category exactly?

[Darth Visenya]

He reminded me of Darth Sidious

Darth Sidious was:

A.Sane

B.Brilliant

C.Powerful

Aerys Targaryen was:

A.Mad

B.Deluded and easily manipulated

C.Scared of his own shadow

Apart from that, their similarites are astounding.

[Darth Visenya]

Seriously...what? ....:| OP, I'm not sure whether you understand the prerequisites to being a good ruler. I'm not even understanding in what sense of the word he was 'good'...I think you're perhaps trying to argue FOR him being an effective ruler rather than a benevolent, duty-bound king. Because that's exactly what a good king needs - to uphold his duties. A king must always put the people before himself, considering he rules over them; for eternal obedience from his subjects, he must protect them - not burn them alive for little reason other than sexual gratification. His decision to disregard his subjects - when they're at their most vulnerable - completely goes against his role as king and protector. His duty to his people.

You keep arguing about how many of his actions were justified but that too I'm questioning - in what sense was it justified exactly?...They certainly wasn't morally justified by any means. Killing people for pointless reasons is akin to that of psychotic-ism, certainly not deriving from a selfless or rational stand-point. Never should a king lightly forsake his subjects' lives without just reason of the highest order - like extinguishing a threat to the realm. Even then, deciding whether a person should live or die is a decision not to be taken lightly - one that requires other viewpoints in order for decision finalisation and a good king always consults his council in matters of utmost importance. Now if we're arguing whether any of his shortcomings were rationally justified due to defeatism and shock, maybe we'll reach an understanding. To some extent anyhow.

I can understand that the throne represents many things - the kingdom, ascension in rank, duty and above all, the element that would make you king. To destroy both the throne and the city which it resides in, Aerys aimed to destroy Robert's eventual goal and what he was fighting for. To rob Robert of the very thing many of his comrades died to claim. However, what Aerys failed to see is that the throne does not make the king - a true king does not need such trivial luxuries. A good king does not need to remind others that he is the king. A wise king would've handled matters in a much more delicate way to quell chances of rebellion sparking. Aerys failed to see the consequences of his petty point-scoring tactic - it's all well and good that he aimed to destroy Robert's goal but what made it irrational was the fact that he still viewed himself as the king. Taking out his remaining subjects effectively ends his reign as king. He would be forsaking the lives of his remaining subjects because he couldn't allow Robert to gain something that's not the 'be all and end all' of kings. Where is the logic?

...In the end, he simply would've "one over on ol' drunky" - nothing more, nothing less. He still would've lost, he still would've been dethroned and worst of all, Robert would still have been king. Dragonstone perhaps could've been a viable alternative for a place of power. I don't feel as though using Robert to somehow makes Aerys seem better in comparison - in fact, you're not doing yourself any favours there. Robert claims the moral high ground there - the guy may've been a useless lout, drunk as hell, at best indifferent to his duties as king and an abusive person whilst drunk ...but at least he didn't plan to kill his subjects. Heck, the guy didn't even kill any of his former foes - he understood the purpose of helping your enemies to their feet so bitterness and cruelty didn't create the elements for rebellion V2.

All in all, Aerys may've been a shrewd king, amusing at times and equally baffling - but no. He was not a good ruler. Even in the face of defeat, good kings never forsake the lives of their subjects - Stannis didn't, Robb didn't and best example of all, Torrhen Stark didn't even though he had superior numbers. He swallowed his pride despite what he was giving up. Aerys did not and was stubborn to the end. If a good king cares about the fate of his people, how does Aerys fit under this category exactly?

Ever get the feeling you've been trolled?, well now you do.....

[Tim Thomason]

He was good until he started to lose his mind.

This is a joke thread, but I don't think this point is seriously true. One of Aerys' first acts as King was to appoint Tywin Lannister as his Hand. This isn't Tywin Lannister, Lord Paramount of the Westerlands (that happened five years later), but Tywin Lannister, young heir to Lord Tytos Lannister. The *only* thing Tywin was known for is the utter destruction of the Reynes and Tarbecks.

Tywin kind of eschewed his own reputation by giving Westeros 20 years of peace and prosperity, but it wasn't due to Aerys' wisdom and counsel.

[Dukhasinov]

Tim hit the nail on the head. Aerys did not rule for decades over a peaceful and prosperous kingdom; Tywin Lannister did! Tywin ran the realm as Hand while Aerys lurked around the Red Keep jumping at his own shadow. Remember that Illyn Payne lost his tongue for expressing this opinion. One could make the argument that the execution of Rickard and Brandon Stark was legally justified. They did storm into the Red Keep demanding the head of the Heir Apparent. And judging people without a trial doesn`t seem to be that unusual in Westeros. Remember, Ned Stark sentenced Gregor Clegane to death in absentia. But whether or not it was justified, it was monumentally stupid. I think even Cercei could have grasped the fact that this would lead to civil war. His son had made off with a woman that was the daughter of one of his most powerful Lords Paramount, and the betrothed of another. Also recall that it was far more than half the realm that declared for Robert. Robert`s Rebellion was actually pretty one sided. Robert had the Stormlands, the North, the Riverlands, and the Vale. The Iron Throne had Dorne, the Crownlands, and the Reach. And the Reach`s support was halfhearted at best.

[Ludd]

I thought that when young Arys was quite charming, but as he grew older paranoia set in until after Duskendale he was frankly bonkers.

His reign was peaceful and prosperous because he chose wisely in a strong but competent hand.

Then paranoia set in and he started to lose the plot. He upset Tywin and competency ended.

[sansa's sworn sword]

I think Aerys II was a real visionary.

1. He was a true feminist by supporting the execution of known womanizer Brandon Stark.

2. He let his son have a second marriage for love.

3. He exemplified anti-racist attitudes by allowing Dornishmen to die for him as equally as Andals.

4. He fought against monogamist patriarchy by trying to do Tywin's wife.

5. He was a patron of the sciences. Especially chemistry.

yep a true king.