Stannis said that siding with Robert over his duty to the king was "the hardest decision he ever had to make." The fact that even Stannis was against King Aerys should tell you how awful he was.
@@eurongreyjoy1008 not true that's the point of that statement, that stannis was chose his brother who didn't love him much over this mad king. If it was some rando king who wasn't mad stannis wouldn't have picked him.
@@kabeerchawla4776 stannis is a man of duty but the only time he had to choose between duty and blood he chosed blood thats the whole point. no matter who the king was he would have chosen robert in this situation. of course if robert was a sociopath killer who went lets say and murdered the prince for no reason and then king wanted his head stannis wouldnt have backed him sure but you rly dont get the meaning of this. try read some books
@@eurongreyjoy1008 the mad kings legitimately was in question. Lord's pledge loyalty in exchange for the kings protection. Leyanas supposed kidnapping and the kings cruel defense of it was the cause of it. Despite this cruelty and abdication of duty, Stannis found it difficult to pick between him and Robert. If the king wasn't mad I doubt Stannis would have sided with his brother. He's described as a very cold character who doesn't even enjoy fucking his wife. We will never know who he would have chosen if aeryes wasn't mad but I don't think it's obvious he would have gone along with Robert
@@kabeerchawla4776 mate if the king wasnt mad in this same situation then he wouldnt have asked for ned's and robert's heads imao no way to for you to make an argument about if that and if this imao
@Last Drop Falls I agree with everything except the witch doesnt say her younger brother is going to kill her in the show they say a women more beautiful then Cersei aka Danny. And they kind of did get blackballed from Hollywood they got fired from star wars because of the response of season 8 and currently aren't working on anything that I'm aware of. But I agree with everything else
There is no such thing as a reasonable rebellion in medieval age, because you were told to 1) always follow the king’s orders 2) always be good. These two things are in necessary contradiction. So you will be in the wrong no matter what you do. This is exemplified by Jamie I’m the books.
Pavel Shliaha Not necessarily. A feudal contract goes two ways - you agree to be your sovereign's vassal in exchange for his protection. If the king doesn’t end up keeping his end of the deal, why should you stay bound by the contract? He literally demanded the death of two of his chief vassals (Lord Stark of Winterfell, Lord Baratheon of Storm's End), not to mention how he burned the previous Lord of Winterfell (and his heir) alive. Ned and Robert owed him nothing.
@@enderman_666 *A feudal contract goes two ways - you agree to be your sovereign's vassal in exchange for his protection. If the king doesn’t end up keeping his end of the deal, why should you stay bound by the contract?* True to a point, because the second the concept of Divine Right to Rule began to spread (essentially identifying the king as a ruler chosen by god for the role), rebelling against your king was considered rebelling against god; and we all know how that ended in those times. Of course, it's more complicated than that because if the king had bad relations with the church (and a lot of them did), or the church actively disliked him (again, many instances of that) then the church might be interested in seeing him replaced with someone else who would be more accomodating towards it. But if the king was friends with the pope you could guarantee anyone rebelling against him would be instantly excommunicated - and that wasn't something to take lightly in that era. And even in the cases where the church might not be actively involved for whatever reason, the claimer for the throne would have to come from a direct royal bloodline. It wouldn't end with some random leading rebelling noble in the throne. Usurpations (someone without a true claim to a throne getting crowned) were VERY rare in medieval eras, unless the usurper could show some kind of valid hereditary rights. And a very large reason for that was Divine Rule. If you had no legitimate blood claim on a throne, if you took it you'd be in for a ride. And that included kings too, a king who laid hands on another kingdom without a legitimate claim to it's throne could immediately be excommunicated for the feat. His "divine right" to rule extended to his realm, and his realm alone.
It would depend on whether or not the Mad King would allow his subjects to keep dogs in Bayonne, New Jersey section 8 apartments, and whether or not these apartments featured a decent view of the Kill Van Kull.
If my beloved sister went missing and I was told she was kidnapped by the prince (who was married and had his own kids) and taken as prisoner and raped repeatedly, then had my father and brother murdered by the King brutally and without legitimate cause and then received a raven from the king saying that I was to come to king’s landing and face punishment for the crime of treason, I would be like WTF, especially because House Stark faithfully served House Targaryen without issue or scandal for 300 years and suddenly my father was gone, my brother was gone and my sister is off somewhere getting raped by the prince. I would absolutely be like fuck the king and go to war
What if your beloved son found a woman he loved so deeply that he would abandon his royal duties and give up everything he had to be with her, then had one of your sworn vassals come and openly threaten to murder your son and demand that he give up the love of his life so she could be forced to marry a drunken whoremonger? Would it be unreasonable, then, to have that vassal executed for blatant treason, or at the very least sent to the Wall and demanding a new oath of fealty from his successor? It is always a matter of perspective, and one must be careful to consider both points of view in any situation such as this.
As a writer you never want to kill the enigma the audience has by giving absolute answers, you always want to indulge them into thinking about your stories more and more
That was a question about his personal evaluation and opinion on an event. Answering it wouldn’t reveal any information from the story, and no enigma would be killed.
Because he is a lazy fook ?! Thats why. And this is not being thoughtful. This is being a bullshiter. He is the one who wrote the books. He created the whole story. HE IS the one who could answer to all the questions. But not. He is bullshitting around.
Indeed. That similar question came up in Code Geass. Zero asks the knight if he faced an evil he could not destroy by just means, would he taint his hands with evil to defeat that evil or would he stand steadfast and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil. It’s a paradox, in any scenario evil comes out on top. However, Zero proposed to become a even greater evil to destroy evil which he indeed did.
If you know with 100 percent certainty that something is evil then in theory there is no limit on how and to what extent you should oppose it, but of course the odds that someone is 100 percent certain of anything and is not a zealot are roughly zero.
Started on a misunderstanding, turned justified by cruelty and ended in brutality. I think most view it as overall positive just because they were the winners of the conflict. Also the Targaryens were originally foreign invaders so their ousting gave Westeros a strengthened government due to representation, better cultural/religious cohesion, and state influence. (Other houses could better work with the crown) Ned would probably see it your way, though. I think anyone that fought in it would classify it as a mess
What are you talking about? Killing Raeghar at the trident? Raeghar took Lyanna, which either complicit or not is grounds for Robert to fight. Was Jaime wrong for killing the Mad King? Sure camping and back stabbing is whack but the dude was about to burn the Capitol of Westeros down out of butthurt. Were Ned and Robert wrong for fucking up the Greyjoys? No, those dudes are total douches. Other than the Lannisters the war went perfectly.
Alan Hagerty at this point the Targaryens had been around for more than a thousands years on Westeros. The andals who inhabit all south of the neck were also foreign invaders, so your logic about a strengthened government is funny. The part of the war that made it brutal had mostly to do with the Lannister’s, and that was their own agenda and Robert Baratheon agreed with their ruthless actions.
Aragon had yet to take stock of his realms economy and so it was not yet determined what the tax rate would be... the story simply ends before we get there :)
@@anne-kathrinhohlig1466 maybe that combination of genes won't win many spelling bee's, but its also very unlikely they will produce mass murdering psychopaths like a certain other inbred family has a tendency to do 😉
Bran was right though. It was built on a lie. The only reason his Grandfather and Uncle went to Kings Landing to confront the mad King was because they though Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna. When the truth was, she ran away with him
From the Stark’s perspective, it would be justified, especially after the liege and heir were tortured and murdered. Not even Jamie Lannister believed those men should have died.
@@octavian2381 After said heir apparently kidnapped his sister and disappeared. Maybe that wouldn't have happened if R+L had at least left a message clarifying things. But instead, hothead Brandon justifiably believed that his younger sister was been held captive and raped. In any case, the Mad King's response only worsened the situation. Murdering Brandon companions and their fathers without trial, burning Brandon's father alive and making Brandon strangle himself in a sick game and then demanding the death of Brandon's younger brother. Tell the whole story friend.
ShadowShroud7 ShadowShroud7 Ned could’ve held up in The Eyrie with Jon and Robert while Stannis and Benjen ruled in their stead. What would you do if someone came into your house and shouted death threats at your son? Brandon killed himself, he should’ve figured out he wouldn’t have enough rope to save his father, and even if he did Rickard would’ve looked like The Hound.
@@octavian2381 Fact is, the king still unjustly called for their deaths when they had done nothing wrong. Was Jon supposed to turn over his entrusted wards and foster sons to a mad man to die? No, the rebellion was justified and inevitable. Fact is, the Mad King cruelly murdered Brandon, Rickard and their companions. Perhaps Brandon should've had a cooler head. But the circumstances justify his anger. A wiser and saner king would not have murdered Brandon and his father without trial or just cause. If someone came into my house demanding my son's death, I wouldn't like it either. However, I wouldn't murder the person in cold blood, I wouldn't do the same to his father or all of their companions. I would not demand the deaths of innocent parties. So again, the facts on the ground paint Aerys in the wrong. You never addressed Rhaegar taking Lyanna and the lack of communication that made people believe that Rhaegar was holding her against her will and raping her. How would you feel if a married man ran off with your sister without so much as a note...yada, yada...even if one argues that Brandon was an idiot, you can't ignore why he acted the way he did in the matter of his sister's disappearance.
ShadowShroud7 I really don’t like how he did it. He could’ve killed both of them just as easily with Arthur Dayne. Jon didn’t have to rebel either. He could’ve sent ravens to everyone proclaiming Rhaegar as king, or even better saying that Aerys was dead.
Dac Cimon What should they have done? Walked into the Red Keep and gave Aerys their heads? Don’t forget he The Mad King also killed Ned’s dad and brother. Was he supposed to take that sitting down?
@@TheMrprobadass well.......it is the right of a king to kill his subjects did not ned himself someone of great honor and justice behead those under his command and theres also the matter of so the king was crazy but what right did robert and ned have to deny the throne to its rightfull owner hell the whole story starts because robert is afraid of the mad kings heirs taking the throne
I’m thinking Ned was the one asking the huge amount of ethical questions about the war I think Robert was more like “FUCK YA!!! LET GO TO BATTLE AND FIGHT IN A WAR! WHOOOOOO!!!
@@abrarbw We need to be a little pessimistic about that, maybe next year? But I can't help it too, George keeps mentioning TWOW on his blogs in which he rarely do. I hope he can finish the books.
Judging from his frequent "not a blog" posts, I have a strong feeling that TWOW will hit the shelves pretty soon. (This is what I tell myself every night. Please don't take this away from me too. 😭)
@Christian Morgan Exactly, it wasn't just Brandon & Lord Rickard either but also their friends, squires & household guards. 200 men rode south & they were all killed without even getting a trial, only Ethan Glover survived (Ned's men found him in the dungeons after the sack of King's Landing). Not only that but Aerys demanded Jon Arryn send him Ned & Robert's heads or be lablled a traitor, what had they done wrong at that point? Nothing, just two 17-18 year olds hanging out with their foster father in The Vale so Jon Arryn had to either break guest right & kill his foster sons or be labelled a traitor to the crown. Calling the banners was his only real option.
It would greatly depend on the individual. Take the Revolutionary War. I would have fought for the King because i share blood ties with King George and I would have benefited more from England ruling over America than George Washington ruling over America. But to George Washington he would have more to gain from betraying his King and Country
Its nice to see a group of people who understand the real world correlations George seeks for us to consider and not brainlessly whine that Daenerys didnt end up on the throne. The ending was quite satisfying to me aside from the fact that it was clearly rushed.
@Vitruvius yes and it doesnt matter if lyanna was kidnap or not ,how would that end well? Like he offended both the starks,the baratheons and the baratheons at the same time ,he would make a terrible king just by this dumb move
@@brendanmckee3553 Yeah I meant that Mitchell probably is Tv show only. I am aware that he's in the books, he's actually far more prominent there. That's why Im assuming Mitchell likely only watched the show where the Blackfish is not nearly as prominent, so it easy to forget him
When he says he doesn’t often like when writers give answers because he finds them often too simple and disappointing I can’t help but think about Season 8 The way they handled bran in S7 and 8 is appalling, the way they handled the Night King and Wight Walker storyline is incredibly disappointing, FAR too simple and not only simple, but we only got one episode of them being a threat until they were just forgotten about.... It’s such a shame, the world and characters and writing was all so deep and rich and then just devolved into a shell of its former self...what a shame
ARCtrooperblueleader a lot of people feel that way and I somewhat agree, I still enjoy season 5 although it was definitely a dip in quality, I thought Season 6 was extremely good, (felt a bit different from Other seasons, but I thought it was excellent), then Season 7 I enjoyed parts but found it to be where things started to feel more simple and shallow, a liked a lot of S7 but disliked a lot too (this is when I felt my love for the show to dwindle down extremely) Season 8 of Thrones also had things I liked, but so many more things I didn’t, and just ruined it completely for me Back in Season 6 Bran’s story had actual content and progression to it, everything with him and bloodraven was new, exciting, actually interesting, (you know, actual content) but after season6 they did nothing of any substance with him or his powers (just wanted to rant more about that particular story thread)
Doesn’t like to give answers, eh? I guess that explains why he’s been failing miserably at writing his own series for the last 20 years. ASOIAF books 4 & 5 are bloated, constipated shite in comparison to the first three books.
@@MasonOfLife Lol wtf are you talking about? The way they handle s7 and s8 brain? This overrated game of cocks was bad since s5. Characters had convinience after convinience and it was really bad since the show was never like that to begin with. No to mention this teleportation, I still remember people criticizing the show since s5 about this. Personally I HATED IT since S2, because they ruined Stannis, I have read the books and if I tell you that I already knew since then with changing Stannis they going to ruin the show are you going to believe it? It was obvious since then it was going to be a fanfiction.
Bart Simpson people are allowed to disagree, some consider Man of Steel to be a bad movie, some think it’s good, same with anything, people appreciate different aspects and see things differently, the same way I can go for a walk in the park and find it so nice enjoying the weather and the wind, listening to the birds and feeling the sunshine, another person might find a walk in the park extremely boring, for me Season 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are good Season 5, 7 and 8 are significantly worse (with things to enjoy, but still disappointing) But it’s cool if you hated everything, I personally can enjoy things even when they stop being “as good”, but when they self destruct like in S8 or drop the ball so hard like in S7 is when I feel my interest die in a puddle of disappointment
I think GRRM does a really good job of leaving it to the reader to decide what was and wasn't justified. Not only Robert's Rebellion but the Targaryens conquering the seven kingdoms, and Dany's conquering of Slavers Bay. Good came out of all of them, but so did horror, bloodshed, and the deaths of thousands.
Indeed. To boot, you might even consider the justified middle ground, by deposing the Mad King but trying to keep the dynasty up, essentially saying they hold him and him alone responsible, but alas such reasonings are also questionable and to some might feel like doing very little. Ultimately any possible outcome had shades of grey, and every possible outcome would have had its reasons for occurring. Fascinating isn't it?
Just listening to this man talk, I can see now why almost everything he writes is gold. If you are an armchair historian, or just a basic history nerd; the works of this man are great delights that I look forward to exposing myself to more.
I would love if George wanted to get interviewed by some major book fans from the general online fandom some day. A convo between him and LML would be great!
I feel there's still too much missing info on Rhaegar to decide if he was worth supporting & still staying loyal to the Targaryens for. Rape allegations aside, he humiliated his wife at the tourney & then left her & his children alone with the mad king to go off and be with Lyanna. And Lyanna was only 14 when grown & married Rhaegar took an interest in her. We aren't even sure what his motivations were, lust/love or some weird prophecy fulfillment, but neither is really a good look for a prince who would be king. He insulted & enraged the North & Dorne & the Stormlands, and at a time when the realm needed a steady hand more than ever with his father's increasing psychoticness. Rhaegar could have been the man to support to keep the realm at peace, but despite all the flattering things said about him by those close to him and the attempts to clear his name of the rape story, he still made very questionable decisions & who he really was or what his goals were is still very murky.
@@philipsalama8083 because before everything went to shit everyone in the realm saw him as the perfect prince (he hadn't done anything yet) which was why they tolerated the mad king so long. Cause they knew Rhaegar would succeed him. Rhaegar ruined the perfect position he was in and destroyed his dynasty, his family, caused a rebellion/civil war and "kidnapped" a little girl who was already betrothed.
@@philipsalama8083 makes for a more fun story if the character isn't such a bad guy but through both mistakes and circumstance ends up in a tragic position for all involved. How much of a bastard he even is up to question, since we don't even know the exact nature of the reason for his actions, even his last comment before riding to the battle that would end up taking his life was basically "we need to talk about something real important that's been a secret up to now. We'll discuss it when I come back" which DOES leave some mystery there. Also implied was that he planned to depose his father before the Rebellion happened, which again occurred at least partly due to his actions, so once more a mess created by a character who people otherwise held in awe even after his death, about the only person who consistently speaks ill of him afterwards is Robert. Even freaking Littlefinger and Cersei, for different reasons, reminisce fondly of him. So yeah, the romantic part is owed to the mystery, about his character, about his actions, about his motivation. Also because we know his enemies and their worst flaws, allows us to give the benefit of the doubt to Rhaegar. Whether from that you consider him a villain fallen from grace by his own mistakes and selfishness or a tragic hero who in another life could have been a big unifying figure or simply an outright spoiled bastard who squandered his one chance make things right by his whims is up to you... and everybody else who reads the story. That's the charm of it
No there isn’t you idiot because he wasn’t the king and even if he was what he had just done was high treason, members of the royal family engaging in infidelity in game of thrones is an act of treason and leaving your wife without the kings leave to marry someone else when you’re the crown prince caused other princes to have to give up their birthright and that’s only because their father had been allowed to marry for love and couldn’t morally be against his kids doing the same
Big tragedy of miscommunication. The realistic choice was never rebels vs Aerys. It was rebels vs Rhaegar and due to lack of reliable information, dude seemed to be pretty fishy, with the whole kidnapping, cheating on his wife and then dissapearing no one knows where without any explanation to diffuse the situation. Aerys ups the whole drama by frying people and you get a recipe for disaster.
Kirill Frusin, yes gawainthefirst might have watched that movie and took the quote there. that must be it. we need to figure out who the writer is for national treasure and he/she can run for office. clearly they are in the wrong profession.
she said his name I was like damnnnn I know that dude!! and he asked a p good question that's right on his topic of mythology and symbolism blah blah blah. George definitely avoided saying how the myths pertain to the story but if I'm reading between the lines I think he was happy someone noticed it
He is! He's hiding in his fortress of solitude (tended to by an assistant), away from civilization, and, according to him, writing every day (that might not sound impressive, but that's not actually guaranteed with GRRM).
Was it justified? Well... - The crown prince to the Iron Throne (seemingly) abducted one of the children of his future vassals and took her to parts unknown without consulting anyone. - When the (understandably) angry and pissed off Warden of the North and his future heir came down to the capital to have words and attempt to reason with the king about the actions of his son, the fucking lunatic denied them the right to a fair trial, burned the Lord Paramount alive with wildfire, cooked him alive, while his son was placed in a torture device that slowly strangled him as he attempted to reach a sword that was out of reach that could have allowed him to save his father from the hellish fate of being burned alive until he died. - THEN the Mad King demands the heads of the son of the vassal who he had just burned alive and the head of the kid who was betrothed to the woman that his son (seemingly) abducted. The protector of the kids (Jon Arryn) says "Fuck that." and decides to *protect* the kids that he was sworn to defend and raise his banners to fight against the obvious tyrant on the throne. - NEXT, this leads to a civil war in which the kids who the king wanted dead are simply fighting for their lives against the throne, and thousands die. - AND THEN when the "perfect" son of the Mad King turns up again, he does not pursue any actions against his (clearly fucking insane) father, and still decides to fight against the kids that his Father wanted dead. He fights dies in the Battle on the Trident, because literally everyone overestimated how great he actually was, and despite the guys obsession with prophecy, he got his prick bit off and a war hammer to the chest for his trouble. - FINALLY, in one last act of spite and hatred, the Mad King decides to take his subjects (which he was supposed to protect, by the law of Westeros) with him to the grave by burning his entire capital city to the ground. He does this out of a mad belief that his bloodline combined with the blood of innocents would allow him to come back from death itself as an unholy dragon that would have the ability to burn his enemies to ash and dust. This doesn't happen, because someone on his side actually got a clue for once, and kills him like the mad dog he really was. I'd say that Robert's Rebellion was completely justified. Fuck the Targaryens.
"When the angry Warden of the North and his future heir came down to the capital to have words and attempt to reason with the king" 1. Only Brandon came accompanied by a retinue, Rickard stayed in the Riverlands. 2. Brandon did not try to reason with the king, he was literally yelling for Rhaegar to come out and fight to the death. Edit: Half of your list occurs AFTER the rebellion started, and are therefore irrelevant regarding the validity of starting the rebellion.
@@tabulldog2743 Yes, and Rickard's late arrival is not only not the only thing you got wrong, but is actually the less important thing I pointed out that you got wrong. They did NOT show up looking to talk, Brandon showed up looking to kill Rhaegar. That's treason. Edit: You only addressed 1 of the 3 things I pointed out. Were they denied a fair trial and killed cruelly? Yes. That's not the argument I'm trying to make though.
RichieNicksMusic Yeah Brandon was a hotheaded asshole, not arguing that, but the actions of the targaryens in this situation are way worse than that of the Starks.
@@tabulldog2743 Again, not the point. You were factually wrong about what happened, and you list things that came after war broke out as justification for war breaking out. Are you being intentionally obtuse or something?
YES, IT WAS. Lyanna's feelings of disgust for Robert were irrelevant, because her betrothal to him was a legally binding promise between families and she didn't have her father's permission to break it off. Rhaegar greatly slighted the Houses Stark and Baratheon, two families who value honour above all else, when he spirited Lyanna away, and so, Robert was completely entitled to his rage. However, the abduction wasn't enough to incite the Rebellion. What happened next (The Mad King killing Brandon and Rickard Stark, and calling for Robert's head in response to the demands for accountability from Rhaegar)..... DID.
Yes. But Robert was still a Bad fat sack of shit. The way he treated Stannis and how useless king he was. Lyanna really dodged a bullet. And how obnoxious drunk he was. Tywin just should had assasinated Robert and then married Cersei to Stannis.
I would say Robert, Ned, and Jon were justified in rebelling against the Mad King. Lyanna was believed to have been kidnapped by the Crown Prince, the king locks up and murders the family who want to know what's going on and then calls for the head of two people who did nothing wrong. I also don't think it's just about Rhaegar and Lyanna for Robert. Considering that Ned is his best friend and future in-law as well as what happened with his parents, I'd think then calling for his head is like "come and get it chump!:
mr illis because as far as he knew, the Crown Prince kidnapped just sister. The cooler head should have been the king or even his Hand saying we need to get ahold of Rhaegar and get to the bottom of this. Imprisoning Brandon wasn’t “wrong” but then it just degraded to madness.
@@BucketThinkTank14657Nerd well they would have cooler heads if mad king's advisers weren't busy metaphorically sucking him dry including his kingguard whose justification for his every action he is the king.
Whoa, tough one....If I'm remembering right, there is somewhere a suggestion that Rhaegar was planning to gather support for removing his father from power, at the time of the Harrenhal tournament...I would certainly have supported him. As to the actual rebellion, we have to remember that the issues were bigger than the Robert-Lyanna-Rhaegar thing....It was actually Jon Arryn whose decision cast the die for war (if I remember rightly): he was put in the impossible position of having to surrender his Ned and Robert to Aerys or to rebel. Given that it was clear by that point that Aerys could murder anyone at anytime out of paranoid fancy....What would anyone do in Jon Arryn's place? No easy answers as George says.
Arryn had just lost his heir to Aerys at the same time. And Arryn didn't need to assume Aerys would murder Ned and Robert; Aerys didn't just summon them, he called for their heads.
@@arun7998 It was necessary, but you have to think of what it led to. The systematic destruction of House Targaryen, the only power strong enough to hold the noble Houses united, and the subsequent destruction of the economy and the fall of many lesser Houses. What sin did the children of House Targaryen commit? Why where they killed? And what of those that remained loyal to the rightful king? Where they at fault too? Why where they slaughtered? And what of Ellia Martel and her children? Wouldn't be better to try and come to an agreement with Rhaegar and dethrone the king? But at the same time he slighted Robert and Robert was the charismatic leader they needed to start the rebellion. Ned didn't want the throne and Jon Arryn was too old. So, in the end what was the right answer?
Rhaegar was going to do something, he told Jaime that he would return to the capital after his fateful battle and that there would be changes, but of course, Robert killed Rhaegar in that battle
kpetalis true even though the war was justified if led to tremendous loss What they needed was a good King after the revolt which they didn't. The death of Elia and her children was for Tywin to show his loyalty to Robert
To be fair the Targaryeans killed two Stark family members and thought another had been kidnapped and rape. I mean...who stays loyal after that? At that point the leader has broken trust first.
I'm also a history buff and he's absolutely right! I've been looking into Alfred the Great and his children Edward the elder and Athelsten the lady of Mercia recently in my study of the formation of Scotland and England. And most historians have different opinions. The fact that Alfred was the youngest son of King Aethelwulf, and not expected to be king of wessex is not in dispute. Nor is his role in setting the foundations for the formation of England. But his son Edward's achievements are overlooked probably because of his sister. In the 9th century a woman ruler of a saxon kingdom and the fact that she was an accomplished warrior and led men into battle is unique, and most historians concentrate on her, and her many battles with the vikings, and diminish Edward. But it was Edward's son Athelstan who was the first king of all England. It's also annoying that few historians mention that two kingdoms were cross border. Both Strathclyde which was incorporated into the kingdom of Scotland and Northumberland both included large parts of modern day Scotland and England. Northumberland especially is seen as an English saxon kingdom but very few historians include that it went as far north as the firth of forth and included Scotlands capital Edinburgh. Or that Strathclyde included large parts of modern north east England.
Well didn't aerys call for the head of Ned and Robert for no reason? Didn't he burn alive a high lord? And made the heir of that lord kill himself trying to save his father? Didn't Raeghar take off with a 14 year old girl? Regardless of them loving each other I think that yes the rebellion was justified
It's still not so cut and dry. The mad king needed to be dealt with and what he did to the Starks was the real catalyst for the rebellion...not the love triangle.
@@thomasmartin4281 It could be argued that Brandon was guitly, though honestly given the circumstances death was exagerated, but what aerys did to Rickard and his guard when they got to KL; was the main reason for the rebellion, not Brandon's arrest But even then the rebellion hadn't started yet, the rebellion started when aerys told jon arryn to execute Ned and Robert, who were mere boys then Aerys deserved to be toppled, he abused his power, and broke his obligations towards his subjects
@@jimsty7550 I'm still not convinced they loved each other, but we will see but I said regardless of the love triangle, how is it not cut and dry? It's pretty obvious to me that the Targs needed to be toppled
Magofire yeah, I think the rebellion wouldn’t have happened if Aerys even had stopped at killing Richard/Brandon. But he then threatened two other kingdoms
The executions of Brandon and Richard were evil. The slaughter of the Targaryen children was inhumane. The Mountain is a Knight, and the Hound isn’t. It is simply a twisted world.
Well in a way the Superhero stories such as Superman and Spiderman 'are' new age mythologies. Some people - myself included - might feel chagrin for her transposing those two in the same breath as much more traditional and archetypal stories that, as spoken tales, have been reiterated for centuries ... but she isn't particularly wrong. Probably why GRRM responded as he did haha
@@Vesnicie Comics have been around for a while and I think in this context she’s right. An average American can probably tell you the hero’s journey of Spider-Man better than they can for Paul Bunyan. It’s in the consciousness of American society just like folklore is.
@@laurentiu2704 Fair point, no doubt Robert was a terrible king but at the same time a lot of nobles leave finances up to the Maesters or someone like LF. Even Tyrion, one of the smartest people in the series can't make any sense of LF's books when he takes over as Master of Coin because they've been cooked so much
They weren't starving under Robert's reign, they are only starving after Robert was murdered and a war broke out, that's not his fault. Having a lot of gold wouldn't have stopped the suffering in any case, since that's being caused by the war.
@@Rattenhoofd "Ned was stunned. “Are you claiming that the Crown is three million gold pieces in debt?” “The Crown is more than six million gold pieces in debt, Lord Stark. The Lannisters are the biggest part of it, but we have also borrowed from Lord Tyrell, the Iron Bank of Braavos, and several Tyroshi trading cartels. Of late I’ve had to turn to the Faith. The High Septon haggles worse than a Dornish fishmonger.” Ned was aghast. “Aerys Targaryen left a treasury flowing with gold. How could you let this happen?” Littlefinger gave a shrug. “The master of coin finds the money. The king and the Hand spend it.” “I will not believe that Jon Arryn allowed Robert to beggar the realm,” Ned said hotly. Grand Maester Pycelle shook his great bald head, his chains clinking softly. “Lord Arryn was a prudent man, but I fear that His Grace does not always listen to wise counsel.”
Idk if it's said enough so I'll say it once more... this man is amazing to listen to. So calming, so witty, so clever, so insightful. He's one of my wise old men like from a fairy-tale, the ones you fall silent for to hear speak, the ones who earn respect. Him and David Attenborough are my adoptive wise old men granddads.
I think Martin touches on an important point here. I think if the question had been "Do you think Ned and Robert thought their rebellion was justified," he probably would have said yes. But that's not really a question we feel the need to ask -- it's tautological. His answer is very emblematic of the series as a whole. There are no definite or "true" answers, and that's more what the question was wanting. Does the author think the rebellion was justified? I'd argue he'd say that whether it was justified depends on who you ask. It depends on what boundaries you draw, what lines you won't cross as a person. Viserys would argue the rebellion was completely unjustified. Tywin would have his own opinions, but we might not take him at his word. I think he calls out that while we often read stories that give us clear-cut dilemmas where we can feel good about ourselves for siding with the "good guys", his story is far more complex in that manner, largely because he believes that in the real world, we don't get the luxury of knowing definitively whether or not the choices we made were "right".
If it wasn't for Cersei, Robert's reign would've been long and prosperous. Robert was a warrior, not a king and he knew it, hence why he left rulling to Jon Arryn which was smart and fair. The Mad King was about 38 years old when Jaime killed him and still had decades of rulling left. He was about to cripple 2 if not 3 great houses by killing their lord paramounts and the heirs to those kingdoms (he killed Rickard and Brandon leaving North in the hands of the innexperienced Ned, though Ned came through and became a good ruler. He called for Robert Baratheon's head which would leave Stormlands in hands of Stannis who was even younger then Robert- about 13/14 at the time. He killed Jon Arryn's heir and that would cause a problem for the line of succesion of the Vale. He probably would've called for Lord Hoster Tully's head given that he was allied with the North and that would leave the Riverlands with a 6/7 year old as their Lord paramount (we know the Blackfish was a rebel and I don't see him being Lord Paramount & making marriage alliances). He was holding Elia Martell of Dorne hostage which was the only reason Dorne didn't ally with the Rebels. He had ticked of Tywin Lannister by stealing his heir Jaime which was his ultimate undoing.) As for Rheagar, he proved himself an uncompetent and irresponsible ruler by running away with Lyanna Stark to make the third head of the dragon (he was obsessed with prophecies, again not an admirable trait for someone who was destined to rule)with a pretty teenage girl while leaving his heir, his younger brother(who was second in line after Rhaegar's son), his mother & not to mention his wife (whom he dishonoured in front of all 7 kingdoms at Harrenhal to gaing Lyanna's favour, causing the anger of 3 great families) and 2 year old daughter in the hands of a known madman who held absolute power as king at the time. Lyanna was about 15, give or take and although she was as selfish as Rheagar I don't believe she would've married him if he didn't to an extent manipulate her, given her disgust of Robert and his whoring ( I don't get how sge could be with a married man willingly, but hey, hypocrisy at its finest). I don't think Rhaegar was the perfect prince everyone made him out to be. I'll give him credit, we know he tried to put his father down with a secret council in Harrenhal,but the nobles wouldn't have agreed because he had no army of his own and they would've been named traitors if they supported him, so he *failed*.A rebellion was bound to happen, sooner or later. The Westerosi have always seen Targaryens as foreigners, especially Notheners, because the Dragonlords just took over their land, causing hundreds of thousands of people to die (e.g. The field of Fire) and they always saw themselves as godlike creatures that were better than the Westerosi nobles and folk, because of their Valyrian blood. In my opinion, it's better that Robert's rebellion happened, rather than having a full-out destruction of the continent and having way more people die by bottling the rage of the lords and ladies over the next few years/decades. I think that a Targaryens are just not meant to sit on the Irone Throne if they don't want to ally with other families through mariage (like some of the best Targaryen rulers have done) just to keep their bloodlines pure, which is one of the causes for their madness (again not all Targaryens were mad).
That doesn't adress GRRMs caveats though. Think about it this way: Trump is an evil person who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths, many more ruined livelihoods and basically redistributed wealth from those who need it to those that don't need it. He is very much a mad king, just put in a different frame of reference. What GRRM poses here is the question, whether a violent revolution is the way to go and while it's easy to answer in a fictional context (blood shed in fiction doesn't hurt anyone), reality is a lot harder to assess. Robert wasn't a good king and even with Jon Arryn's council, he still messed up royally (if you pardon the pun). Also, let's be very clear about how to properly read ASoIaF: sure, the PoV characters are mostly highborn, but the story is also about how that impacts actualy people, the 99% - and they get fucked by every rebellion, every would-be king, every (self-)righteous asshole who thinks that it's either their birth right to have hundreds of thousands of people die because of them or think that them being responsible for all that slaughter will lead to something good. It's still an open question, mind you. GRRM doesn't deny Aerys' villainy, but to claim that the lives of a few noblemen are more important than those of ultimately millions of regular folks is just ignorant.
DrZaius3141 I agree with the nobles and common people stuff, you wrote but the Mad king was actually ready to Blow up the whole city of kings landing probably half a million people because he thought that he would become a dragon, plus leave the rebels only ruins so you see what Targaryen blood did there!
Considering the mad King kept killing high ranking nobles a rebellion would have happened with a high likelyhood from either of the great houses. And even if not, the political instability by getting rid of part of current power structure would have left a power vacuum that the crazy king couldn't have filled in with his incompetency which invetibly would have lead to civil strife and violence and many deaths. So trying to stop him early on was the best option if you cared about killing the least amount of people. Of course it's not as if nobles cared about the death of their subjects to much as long as it wasn't bad for their personal power. The only option without major conflict I can think of is if they managed to get the royal heir to betray his father and install him as the new king.
Looking back, I'd say the biggest mistake Ned, Robert and Jon made was not putting laws in place to allow for a monarch to be lawfully removed from power should they become as corrupt as the Mad King. They had just won a war, but they didn't take steps to safeguard Westeros from it happening again.
Yea I guess Ned and Jon put too much trust in Robert. Look at how shocked Ned was to see how much of a useless king Robert had become; not doing shit but drinking, whoring, hunting, and bankrupting the entire continent. And how Robert was willing to murder an innocent 14 year old girl because of who her father was. Ned himself said "Then we are no better than the Mad King". I think the question GRRM was trying to pose there was "is it possible for a ruler to rule effectively without being corrupt"?
It was for sure Justified. At first The Mad King's Son, Rhaegar was thought to have kidnapped Lyanna. At first They demanded justice and for her to be safely returned. Aerys' reaction was to kill the lord of Winterfell and his heir. That's reason enough to say 'fuck this you're going down'. in my opinion. But oh no, Aerys didn't stop there. He then called for Robert and Ned's heads and asked their foster father, Jon Arryn, to kill them and send him their heads, yes 100% if not 200% justified because at that point there's no going back, at that point they're defending themselves.
but they didnt have to kill every single Targaryen (or try to) and they didnt have to sit Robert on the throne, they easily could have had their rebellion and then chosen amongst themselves which Targaryen they would prefer on the iron throne and seat him(or her) there, as the Founding Fathers of the united states did with their president once they had earned their independence from The Crown.
@@sergeantsonso3490 The brutality of the end of the war (killing the Targaryens babies and etc) was unjustified and unnecessary, but it would be stupid to put the Targaryens back on the throne after a WHOLE fucking war and rebellion against them.
It definitely wasn't justified, from the points you're making. How many thousands and thousands died, simply to protect the lives of a few men? How many broken families, so that the aristocrats could keep their heads?
@@TheSuperRatt ask yourself the same thing for rhaegar was kidnapping a 14 year old a good idea for the realm it caused thousands to die not Robert rhaegar and aerys caused this retard the mad king murdered others before this to
I'd say Roberts rebellion was more similar to Henry of Bollingbroke's rebellion against King Richard II. As a side note the magna Carta is not nearly as significant in terms of limiting power as people make it out, the provisions of Oxford however which was instituted due to Simon de Monfort's rebellion during the reign of John's successor Edward II was a far greater restriction on the power of the King.
King John wasn't even remotely as bad as Aerys. John problem was mostly that he was a weak king not that he was a psycho like Aerys and the nobility took advantage of it. The magna carta only later acquired the symbolical importance that it has for the idea of democracy, at the time was just a redistribution of power from the monarchy to the nobility.
occam's razor is more about accepting the thesis with fewer assumptions. it's why we ignore conspiracy theorists until they have evidence. don't see the relevance of it here.
@@afaultytoaster Point being that you don't need to overthink the Rebellion to justify it. Aerys and to a lesser extend, Rhaegar was most at fault for provoking the war through his actions. Robert, Ned and Jon were literally fighting for their lives when Aerys called for Jon to hand over Robert and Ned to die even though they'd done nothing wrong. And this is after Aerys murdered Ned's father and brother. And this is after Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna without a word. Thus my original post, the simple answer is sometimes the right one. Here, the simplist conclusion that can be made with the fewest assumptions is that the Rebellion was justified based on the actions and facts on the ground.
@@ShadowShroud7 a justification is a question of values, though, not facts on the ground. values and facts are different realms entirely (hume's guillotine)
@@afaultytoaster Where exactly are you going with this? I feel like the goal posts are being moved here. My point is that Aerys objectively did more to provoke the rebellion than his foes did to start it. Through his actions, his opponents were forced to fight for their lives. Therefore, the Rebellion was justified whether from a value-based or factual based perspective. You have to ignore various events, actors, and actions along with common decent morality (and don't you dare tell me that burning a man alive while making his son strangle himself to death to save him isn't evil) to try and make the Targaryens the good guys of the situation. But I digress.
What I love about his answer is how it completely relates to Ned's identity as a whole, as well as his journey in Book 1. It is very clear that Robert wanted to fight, and that while Lyanna seems to him to be the reason why, he is actually looking for a scrap. And Jon Arryn fought because those two where his sons, in his eyes. Whether or not it was right, it is not important. So, in the end, the decision to fight this particular war, is a question about Ned and his family and his honor. And when he sees that Lyanna has had a son with Rhaegar, and she makes him promise to protect him, he realizes how senseless this whole endeavor also was. He will have to protect the son of the man who apparently abducted his sister, who is also the grandson of the man who murdered his father and brother. And all of this resulted in the murder of those two small children, Aegon and Rhaenys. This is why Ned's discovery of Cersei's infidelity and her offspring's origin is hard for him, and why he decides not to partake in the attempt to murder pregnant Daenerys, or not to mistreat Theon for that matter: because he knows that it is his duty to protect Jon, as an innocent "child", of the brutality of their feudal code on blood. Framing Ned as just an "honorable" guy, as a lot of people do, is wrong: he is not Stannis. He is a loving father and husband, and as such, extends that code to his behavior overall, to his detriment since his mercy will never be enough for Cersei, for the Lannisters in general.
Is no one gonna talk about how Rickard Stark (Neds father) asked for a trial by combat? And he was granted a trial by combat He had his armour on and everything expecting to fight one of the kings guard Instead he was subdued and tied to a stake and aerys told him his opponent was "Fire" In that hall as Lord stark burned and Bryndan reached for the sword to save his father from the pain No lord or lady said a word Only the mad king laughed That alone shows you the entire realm was smelling war coming Even the kingsguard such as Arthur Dayne, gerald hightower and barriston selmy saw it as barbaric And they also stood guard outside aerys private chambers hearing him rape his wife every night and also her sobbing following the ordeal The dude deserved everything that happened to him Lyanna stark is one cold, arrogant and selfish bitch She destroyed so many lives because of "muh love" She criticised robert for not staying in 1 bed lol Lyanna cheated with a married man with 2 kids
Sadly I feel like you're going off the show storyline about lyanna. (If I'm wrong correct me please) but in the books, there's no jon snow being revealed as lyannas son, there's no bran seeing the marriage between the targaryen prince, all we have is little hints. Calling lyanna a selfish bitch is wrong for what Martin is speaking on. As it sits for all we know she was kidnapped and raped. There's no love story so far. (Again please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
@Dawn Kyle because Jon was still his sister's son, because Jon wasn't responsible for the sins of his father, but most important to Ned's character, because he promised he would and MUH HONOR.
@@Nipptwistyy It hasn't been said outright in the books that Jon is Lyanna's son but that's pretty clear by now. What is more a purely show canon thus far is that she left willingly and married Rhaegar. Whether or not that checks out makes a huge difference, morally. If she was kidnapped and raped she's a victim, if she went willingly she is a selfish bitch. Although, to be fair, she was like 16 years old, so it's hard to hold it against her that she was stupid and naive and didn't care about the consequences because she was in love. And Rhaegar was of course ultimately the bad guy, in his selfishness he abandoned his own family and caused a war that all but destroyed his entire bloodline and thousands of innocent deaths, and he was certainly old enough to know better.
Trembling Colors He was gonna actually, he had assembled a council and after he took Lyanna he was to return to enact the plan, but then the Rebellion happened. He held off on it because he was obsessed with the prophecy
It’s truly lovely to be reminded of why I have always loved A Song if Ice and Fire so much. With the near decade since the release of the last book, and the lingering bad taste of the last 3 or 4 seasons of the show, I had grown somewhat disenchanted with the series. But George is not only a master of his craft, but a thoughtful and intelligent commenter on politics and history. That’s what makes the series so good for me. It’s not just the fantastic writing and the engaging characters, but the nuanced, multi-layered, and complex history and cultures of Westeros and Essos that makes it all so believable. When Robert claimed the Iron Throne, it was nothing like “The Return of the King.” It was an ambitious military leader who wielded a great deal of power seizing a great deal more. As George says, the Mad King was obviously a dumpster fire of a ruler and the only real way to get rid of him was to overthrow him. But personal motivations among Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were what ultimately triggered the rebellion, motivations that the small folk could not have cared less about. And besides, even though dumping the Mad King was good for pretty much everyone, was all the death and destruction it took to overthrow him worth it? These are not easy questions. Plus, and I really do love this, George acknowledges that we interpret these events with our own value systems, which were not the pseudo European-Medieval values of Westeros. Just fantastic stuff
I got fully invested into ASOIAF straight after I lost any interest in World of Warcraft's story, mainly because Martin has mastefully developed BY HIMSELF what literal hundreds of people at Blizz havent been able to: telling a complex war story from opposing POVs. Also, the concept of the "rebels at the reins" is amazing and, more times than not overlooked in fantasy, sci-fi and sci-fantasy. Like, yeah, "emperor/king bad" so "rebels good" but what the fuck happens next? Well, as told by Martin, its something very fucking complicated to the point of even making ASOAIF, in a sense, the spiritual successor of SW after RotJ. Ps. One of the things I didn't like about the show was how unrepresented some Houses were in comparison to others. Just that
While i absolutely agree with everything you said I would add that even if Robert and Ned had their personal grievances, they were fighting for their lives. I believe no one should be expected to forfeit their own lives "for the good" of strangers, even if their the majority or innocent. i know, Ned and Boby were noble and only two boys, the common folk couldn't care less, but still they were just innocent boys and expect them to die just to avert a war is unreasonable (for me at least). And Ned would end up being probably the most beloved administrator and warden of the north, beloved and respected by almost every one years after his death, imagine the amount of people he saved or improved their lives just by being a Lord Paramount. Fuck Aerys btw
Not for masks, although a mask order should be resisted. Extensive lockdowns(month or longer) should start violence because that puts the poor in danger of mass starvation. As for the Fentanyl Floyd situation, no violence is necessary for that.
@@somersault1123 Even if there is any mass starvation, the action should be helping the poor, not blaming on lockdown. Why should a mask order be resisted? It's a respiratory tract disease and wearing a mask does not hurt. Maybe you can get through it like a flu, but you could pass it to someone who can survive it.
Given the alternative was execution (Aerys specifically wanted the heads of Robert AND Ned before they had done anything), I'd say it was. If your King is literally insane and has killed your family or threatened to have them killed - of course.
There was going to be a rebellion no matter which way it went. By keeping their relationship quiet, Rhaegar & Lyanna, caused two major offenses to two different great Houses that would’ve been settled by nothing less than war. The Starks believed her kidnapped against her will and demanded justice, only for the head of their House AND his heir to be killed. The Martells would’ve been greatly offended if Rhaegar set aside his marriage to Elia for Lyanna and would’ve started a war for her.
I do believe Aerys was justified in imprisoning Brandon, he had just waltzed into King's Landing unannounced threatening Rhaegar, the heir, over the supposed kidnapping of Lyanna. Which considering the circumstances was reasonable to believe. Nobody knew where on earth she was and she hadn't told anyone what was happening. But the horrific killing of both Brandon and Rickard Stark, the latter of which had done nothing wrong and had willingly come to King's Landing on Aerys' orders, was a massive abuse of Aerys' power and broke the trust people had in him. If he could kill one lord paramount on a whim, potentially nobody was safe. Then there was the order Aerys gave regarding Ned and Robert, both of which had also done nothing wrong. While yes, what happened in King's Landing near the end of the war was almost entirely unjustifiable, the start of the war surely was. At least in my opinion.
For me, it's not a hard question. If I were asked the same question: The Mad King had to go - if I was a rich character in GoT I'd hire the faceless men or other assassins. Let Rhaegar rule. But I'm not rich in real life so let's say I was a commoner in Got. Would I even care if the war is justified? Probably not, who gives a fuck about the affairs of lords and kings. If I was a northerner, let's say a minor lord, I would sharpen my sword the moment I heard of Lord Rickard's death because of anger and justice. When the systems fails you, you have the right of rebellion. I doubt they have this in Westeros but if we were to apply our own political philosophy, yeah it would be justified.
But war is costly in gold and lives, does that not dissuade you? Who are you to exchange someone's else blood for justice? My post is a minor lord. Both my subjects and I follow Eddard's commands. Now, if I was in Eddard's shoes, what would have I thought of the question. After what has happened to me and the ridiculous demands made, Targaryen rule must end. If men die, so be it because that's the world we live in. Lordlings leads, and soldiers takes or die trying.
Dammit I wish he would finish The Winds of Winter… But it is just so hard to be mad at George. He’s just such a likable person and so intelligent 🤷♂️🧏♂️
Honestly, I would have liked to have seen an HBO miniseries with Robert’s Rebellion. They already had a solid actor cast as young Eddard Stark, they had a Lyana Stark, they had Rhaegar Targaryen, the Mad King etc., and all that from Bran’s flashbacks...sorry Three-Eyed Raven visions of the past. And Robert’s Rebellion is a complete story...unlike “A Song Of Ice And Fire”....whose last new addition...came out nine years ago, this April in 2011...
Mad King, Executes family of Jon, Ned and Robert, then demands Ned and Robert's heads from the guy who's heir he just murdered. Aerys was fine with murdering a million innocent bystanders and was barely being restrained from destroying the realm. Yeah...gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Rebels were VERY justified.
@@dansomething7742 no, though he did try as he ordered Robert's head sent to King's Landing along with Ned's head by Jon Arryn. Although since a betrothal is pretty much an engagement, the Starks were basically Robert's family.
Rhaegar was about to remove his father. The rebels were proven traitors. The rebels slew old men, raped women, and murdered babes in their mother's arms. Brandon, his father, and their 200 men-at-arms were executed justly, the deal with Jon, Ned, and Robert is idiotic, Aerys would've never risked war, plus The Eyrie is impregneble as well as the Bloody Gate. They saw an opportunity to throw out their rightful king, and they took it.
@@octavian2381 Rhaegar should have removed his father first and THEN considered worrying about what the hell he would do afterwards. At first the "rebels" were- at absolute worst- pissant regional lordlings peeved about their precious political machinations being upset and coming to carry out a feud against the Heir Apparent, and at best justifiably aggrieved people responding to an unlawful elopement and what they thought at the time was done by terror and force. That doesn't make them saints, but it does make them armed petitioners at Kings' Landing coming to bitch to the Crown. You know, the kind of people the Crown is duty bound to assess and deal with. The slaying of old men, raping of women, and murdering babies happened AFTER Aerys had started the war and AFTER The farcial, pseudo-judicial murder of an entire, lawful retinue AS WELL AS a Lord Paramount who was basically told "Come Answer for your Hotheaded Kid" only to be BURNT TO FUCKING DEATH. Do I have to explain to you how REBELS DO NOT ANSWER COURT SUMMONS BY THE SIDE THEY ARE REBELLING AGAINST?!?! And Aerys KNEW They weren't rebels or traitors at the time because he USED THIS to lure Rickart and others to their death. At most Aerys might have been able to justify executing Brandon and his entourage for attempting to murder Rhaegar (though this would have STILL been massively cruel overkill). But by luring RIckart and their other fathers in and then torturing and murdering them in a cruel parody of feudal justice AND THEN doubling down by demanding the heads of people linked only by blood to the "guilty" he showed that there was no justification. He was no rightful king.
Eric Van De Hey “come answer for your hotheaded kid”? The actual quote was “come out and die.” Aerys was completely justified in executing the entire party, he had no knowledge of what Rhaegar was doing, and some lords busted up in King’s Landing demanding the head of the heir.
Even if Lyanna and Rhaegar's relationship was legitimate, which it very well might not be (I think it was more of obsession/Stockholm syndrome fuelled relationship), still, both Aerys and Rhaegar deserved to die and lose their crown. Aerys because, I don't even need to say that, do I? And Rhaegar because he either didn't know Starks would come to Red Keep and his father would kill them, therefore he's unforgivably stupid, or he knew that and willingly let it happen, therefore he's directly responsible for their deaths, or he knew it and was just too much of a coward to do anything about it, therefore, he maybe shouldn't have do the whole kidnapping thing in the first place, if he was not ready to face the consequences.
Nah rhaegar was more into prophecy and books than anything like aerys 1 who wasn't a great ruler. At least, in aerys case he had a great hand in bloodraven who would have been rhaegar's hand. If it was tywin that's good but his other option was his yes man who was in love with him jon connington.
Rhaegar pissing off Robert wasn't what caused Robert's Rebellion. George even said it in the video. It was caused by Aerys killing Brandon and Rickard Stark and then asking Jon Arryn to send Ned and Robert's severed heads to Kings Landing.
@@Xob_Driesestig he did not kidnap her. She left with him. Rhaegar was married to Elia of Dorne, and Rhaegar discovered when he was younger some kind of prophecy. It was this prophecy that led him to do what he did. Besides, did you want him to set aside Elia? How would that have gone down? It was the prophecy that led him to his down fall, and how do we know this? Simple: 1: Barriston Selmy tells Danny about Rhaegar's past and how he was very bookish. He discovered something in the library which changed everything. 2: Danny saw a vision of Rhaegar telling a young girl holding a baby that the child already has a song, the song of ice and fire, and there will be another. 3: The Reeds tell Bran about the tourney at Harrenahall and it was clear that it was Lyanna. Rhaegar was sent to find her, and something happened there. 4: Jojen Reed tells Bran that if ice can burn then love can hate. The chapters containing the Reeds have a deeper meaning about the overall story of ASOIF as they are the only ones that keep on referencing the title of the book. That's my opinion anyway.
Yes everyone knows about how he was obsessed with being the hero of the prophecy. And while that is suspect in itself, that's not really the main point. He wouldn't have been a great king because the monarchy was inherently unstable and horrible. On top of that is Rhaegar's behavior as described in the post.
I don’t read the books but for the sake of the fans that do and the fans that were disappointed by the TV show’s ending I hope he can consolidate his last 2 books and finish the series
What a lot of fans dont get is that the last 2 books may represent over a third of the entire length of the series, and much more impactful plot points than anything within AFFC or ADWD. the wait is hardly justifiable, but it's not like it was ever gonna be a walk in the park for George.
The main problem with Robert’s Rebellion that makes it so morally grey is that it was ROBERT’s Rebellion. Robert was the last guy who should’ve been made king after the war. The war would be much less morally grey if it ended with someone like Jon Arryn or Ned Stark being given the crown. Sadly, Robert was the only war leader with Targaryen blood and was therefore the only candidate for the crown.
I've seen people say that Jon or Ned would have been better kings, but I think Bobby Bar is totally underrated. It's said in aCoK that 'Stannis was raw iron, Renly was copper, but Robert was the "true steel."' Basically he was a dude who was born to be king. The fact that he and Aerys were alive at the same time was pure luck of the draw, because Robert was bound to rebel against Aerys from the moment he was born. Against a King Aegon V, Robert's Rebellion would have been crushed into dust along with the rest. Because Robert had actual cause and opportunity, he was able to seize the crown. For the time he ruled, he did a _fucking_ good job. If he had done any worse, he would have had rebellions on rebellions. Ironically, then he wouldn't have gotten fat and drunk. He fell off because he was so bored by having all he ever wanted, and plagued by the "one that got away." He blamed all his unhappiness on the loss of her, when he was really just bored. He was still the same Robert who lived by the mantra, "I want it all." It's just that all he had left to get was more food, more booze, and more whores. The only rebellion he had, he absolutely mauled immediately. LOL Jon Arryn was a famously cautious leader, which made him the ultimate hand of the king, but Robert's boldness is what got him the crown. Ned was as honorable as humanly possible, but Robert's roguish side is what would have kept the crown forever. Had Robert lived a month - a week - shit, maybe a _day_ longer, Daenerys would have been killed. She was the only problem he had left to solve, and he was going to solve it. When he died, the realm became so entangled with civil war that the small council no shit, actually, and for good reason, _sort of forgot about Daenerys._ I dunno. I just think of Robert as underrated and I think that point goes missed a lot. While it disagrees with your comment, I don't mean to say, "no, no, no, you _fool!"_ I kinda hope you respond because I'm interested in your take! If you think I'm totally off, tell me.
@@alec6583 Yeah, I completely disagree. Robert was a terrible king. Great warrior, inspiring war leader, fun friend, and a terrible king. Firstly, the “True Steel” quote has nothing to do with Robert being born to be king. That quote comes from Donal Noye who was the armorer for house Baratheon before eventually leaving to join the wall. Donal forged Robert’s weapons and was very obviously a fan of Robert. It’s also important to note that Donal never saw Robert after he became king and doesn’t know what Robert is like during the books. You can’t say Robert’s rule prevented rebellion when the Greyjoy Rebellion literally happened under his rule. Robert did not prevent rebellion, like… at all. Any disputes that were solved under Robert’s reign were largely because of Jon Arryn’s wise judgement as hand. Robert’s obsession with the Targaryens was a problem, not a good thing, and Daenerys was most definitely not his only remaining problem lol. Robert was so focused on the young, weak, and meaningless Daenerys that he was completely blind to the scheming Lannisters and Tyrells that were the true threat to peace in Westeros. Robert also put the realm into an obscene amount of debt to both the Lannisters and Iron Bank. I don’t think Robert is evil or anything, but he was most certainly a bad king, and I think that’s kinda the point. The tragedy of Robert Baratheon as a character is that his glory days were before the crown was put on his head. He thought he desired a crown, but once he had the crown he realized that his true destiny should’ve been to live with his warhammer in his hands, not a crown on his head.
On a more serious note: tha common folk didn't really suffer too much from Aeris reign and certainly wouldn't have from Raegars reign. Yes, looking at it from Roberts perspective or from a nobles perspective (which most POV'S are in a song of ice and fire) it somehow makes sense that Robert did nothing wrong. If you look at it from the bigger question, you'd have to ask yourself: was it really worth drawing hundreds of thousands of people into a war, have them live through loss of life, family, property, existence, rape, raids, starvation and so forth because Raegar took Lianna (even if we assume that he DID rape her) It seems quite clear cut from the perspective of nobility, but if you look at the way it impacted the lives of the big majority of westeros who haf nothing to do with any of it and lived a relatively peaceful life, Roberts Rebellion isn't that clear cut "ethical and moraly right" anymore than it may seem when you only look at it from the perspective of people you know and saw living. Only because you don't know 99,9% of the people who are the ones to ACTUALLY suffer from the war, started from someone who'd shrug at best if someone kidnapped and raped your fiancee doesn't make their stance on it in regards to the question if it was unthical or morally wrong invalid I'm not saying that it was moraly wrong or moraly right. My point here is: it IS a grey area and in no way easy to answer with a simple yes or no
@@ValatY it wasn't just about Rhegar and Lyanna. Aryes killed Neds father and brother. After the Trident Aryes ordered the entire city burned to the ground. He was literally mad and needed to be usurped. If it wasn't this rebellion, it could have been anything else that tipped him over the top. There was no "wait till Rhegar becomes king, he'll be better". Bullshit, he proved he was no wiser than his father with that selfish act. On the note on the tounge in cheek "dibs" comment: they were betrothed and Rhegar was married with children. Robert was also operating undert the info that Lyanna was kidnapped, not that she eloped. Rhegar and Lyanna knew exactly what would happen if they forsake their responsibility to their families, and they did it anyway. Selfish assholes the both of them, the rebellion is 100% on them.
I don't think is as much as opposing the mad king was not justified, but more that if that was really the best way to go about it. Obviously there was no way to bring him down democratically, but you can make the argument that if they swayed more people to their side before doing the deed the system that was left wouldn't have been so messed up. A lot of the king's allies also had personal motivations instead of political, so maybe if Robert's rebellion wasn't so much based on vendetta those people wouldn't have enough of a bone to pick to sidw with the mad king.
I’m surprised he didn’t bring up Jamie Lannister as an example of justification. I love Jamie’s complexity how he’s bothered by the name Kibg Slayer and presumed to be nothing but an opportunist for his family when deep down he’s got a real heart.
Robert's Rebellion at first was not justified with Lyanna's disappearance with Rhaegar, there is an argument if it was with the execution of Brandon because he demanded Rhaegar's head to a person who is known to be Mad. However, the justification came when Rickard died and Aerys demanded the heads of Robert and Ned. The thing with Rhaegar is that no one knows what truly happened between him, ella and lyanna. So, I will assume that Rhaegar is not as cruel as he is potrayed by other game of thrones fans.
Man the starks are not fit to rule the north they have no sense whatsoever. Lianna runs of rhaegar not even thinking of the perception of it. Brandon threatens the life of the heir of the throne to the mad king and ned warns cersie about what he had discovered
@@last7509 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer Lucifer is Greek for Venus and has little to do with the devil in Christianity. It all has to do with a misenterpretation of Hebrew in the King James version of the bible. It's also a youtuber who makes some of the best ASOIF videos in existence. So don't get your pantys in a bunch. I nor him are Satan worshippers. It says what Lucifer means in his very name. It makes me laugh realizing how Christians are usually the most ignorant about the bible. Get a grip.
@@last7509 one of the first thing LML did was a huge essay about mythical astronomy, and part of it was about how azor ahai was probably a really shitty dude. like the literal devil kinda shitty. his sword was lightbringer, and lucifer directly translates to lightbringer (lux=light, ferre=carry). LML isn't calling praise on satan, although that's a whole nother debate
Was the war justified? Yes. Was the aftermath justified? Much harder question to answer. Inarguably Ned was the one who was most aggrieved by the actions of the Targaryens. From his POV, his sister was kidnapped and raped repeatedly by the Prince, and his brother and father were unjustly tortured and murdered by the King. He should have been given the throne at the end, not Robert. But Ned was probably told something by Lianna that changed his perspective in the end. And they argued that Robert had Targ ancestry, so he had a legitimate claim. They couldnt just give the throne to the next Targ heir, because that would probably just lead to retribution for the rebellion later on.
Why does Ned losing his family mean he’s entitled to the throne? And Robert wasn’t just given the throne after the fact, he stated his intention to claim the throne while the rebellion was underway.
Stannis said that siding with Robert over his duty to the king was "the hardest decision he ever had to make." The fact that even Stannis was against King Aerys should tell you how awful he was.
no matter who was the king stannis whould have sided with his brother. has nothing to do with a specific king
@@eurongreyjoy1008 not true that's the point of that statement, that stannis was chose his brother who didn't love him much over this mad king. If it was some rando king who wasn't mad stannis wouldn't have picked him.
@@kabeerchawla4776 stannis is a man of duty but the only time he had to choose between duty and blood he chosed blood thats the whole point. no matter who the king was he would have chosen robert in this situation. of course if robert was a sociopath killer who went lets say and murdered the prince for no reason and then king wanted his head stannis wouldnt have backed him sure but you rly dont get the meaning of this. try read some books
@@eurongreyjoy1008 the mad kings legitimately was in question. Lord's pledge loyalty in exchange for the kings protection. Leyanas supposed kidnapping and the kings cruel defense of it was the cause of it. Despite this cruelty and abdication of duty, Stannis found it difficult to pick between him and Robert. If the king wasn't mad I doubt Stannis would have sided with his brother. He's described as a very cold character who doesn't even enjoy fucking his wife. We will never know who he would have chosen if aeryes wasn't mad but I don't think it's obvious he would have gone along with Robert
@@kabeerchawla4776 mate if the king wasnt mad in this same situation then he wouldnt have asked for ned's and robert's heads imao no way to for you to make an argument about if that and if this imao
"would you stay loyal to the mad king?"
"I lived in Chigago for 10 years"
Yeah exactly
*Chicago
@@TheSaiyanPrincess89 thanks. I don't think anyone knew what "Chigago" was meant to be until you came along
@@TheMightofDab In the 60's. While protests against an unjust war created a turbulent landscape.
LMFAOOO YES
GRRM put more thought into this single answer than D&D did for season 8.
What you mean? Season 8 was awesome. And what does dungeons and dragons have to do with this?
JoyfulUniter he was being sarcastic 😂🤦🏿♂️
@@JoyfulUniter dude, if you don't get that obvious sarcasm... I will have to think that deep down, you liked season 8
@@Elegantwoes If you didn't like season 1 then why did you watch the entire series? The first season was awesome, season 8.... wasn't.
@Last Drop Falls I agree with everything except the witch doesnt say her younger brother is going to kill her in the show they say a women more beautiful then Cersei aka Danny. And they kind of did get blackballed from Hollywood they got fired from star wars because of the response of season 8 and currently aren't working on anything that I'm aware of. But I agree with everything else
Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned. This followed Aerys’s torture of Rickard and Brandon Stark. Sounds like a reasonable rebellion to me.
I agree.
There is no such thing as a reasonable rebellion in medieval age, because you were told to 1) always follow the king’s orders 2) always be good. These two things are in necessary contradiction. So you will be in the wrong no matter what you do. This is exemplified by Jamie I’m the books.
Pavel Shliaha
Not necessarily. A feudal contract goes two ways - you agree to be your sovereign's vassal in exchange for his protection. If the king doesn’t end up keeping his end of the deal, why should you stay bound by the contract? He literally demanded the death of two of his chief vassals (Lord Stark of Winterfell, Lord Baratheon of Storm's End), not to mention how he burned the previous Lord of Winterfell (and his heir) alive. Ned and Robert owed him nothing.
@@enderman_666 *A feudal contract goes two ways - you agree to be your sovereign's vassal in exchange for his protection. If the king doesn’t end up keeping his end of the deal, why should you stay bound by the contract?*
True to a point, because the second the concept of Divine Right to Rule began to spread (essentially identifying the king as a ruler chosen by god for the role), rebelling against your king was considered rebelling against god; and we all know how that ended in those times.
Of course, it's more complicated than that because if the king had bad relations with the church (and a lot of them did), or the church actively disliked him (again, many instances of that) then the church might be interested in seeing him replaced with someone else who would be more accomodating towards it. But if the king was friends with the pope you could guarantee anyone rebelling against him would be instantly excommunicated - and that wasn't something to take lightly in that era.
And even in the cases where the church might not be actively involved for whatever reason, the claimer for the throne would have to come from a direct royal bloodline. It wouldn't end with some random leading rebelling noble in the throne. Usurpations (someone without a true claim to a throne getting crowned) were VERY rare in medieval eras, unless the usurper could show some kind of valid hereditary rights. And a very large reason for that was Divine Rule. If you had no legitimate blood claim on a throne, if you took it you'd be in for a ride. And that included kings too, a king who laid hands on another kingdom without a legitimate claim to it's throne could immediately be excommunicated for the feat. His "divine right" to rule extended to his realm, and his realm alone.
Exactly
would you stay loyal to the targeryens?
GRRM: well you see, there are two types of writers the architects and the gardeners
we saw too many interviews with George :)
@@laurentiu2704 That is EXACTLY what you would expect Daenerys Targaryen to say, too, xD
@Zeraph - Lol
Lmao yesss... I love that I'm not the only person who sits around watching his interviews
It would depend on whether or not the Mad King would allow his subjects to keep dogs in Bayonne, New Jersey section 8 apartments, and whether or not these apartments featured a decent view of the Kill Van Kull.
If my beloved sister went missing and I was told she was kidnapped by the prince (who was married and had his own kids) and taken as prisoner and raped repeatedly, then had my father and brother murdered by the King brutally and without legitimate cause and then received a raven from the king saying that I was to come to king’s landing and face punishment for the crime of treason, I would be like WTF, especially because House Stark faithfully served House Targaryen without issue or scandal for 300 years and suddenly my father was gone, my brother was gone and my sister is off somewhere getting raped by the prince. I would absolutely be like fuck the king and go to war
What if your beloved son found a woman he loved so deeply that he would abandon his royal duties and give up everything he had to be with her, then had one of your sworn vassals come and openly threaten to murder your son and demand that he give up the love of his life so she could be forced to marry a drunken whoremonger?
Would it be unreasonable, then, to have that vassal executed for blatant treason, or at the very least sent to the Wall and demanding a new oath of fealty from his successor?
It is always a matter of perspective, and one must be careful to consider both points of view in any situation such as this.
Word. Fealty goes both ways. Screw the Targ degenerates. Their dynaaty deserved to be destroyed.
House Stark really was the chillest house the Targaryen's had to deal with for those 3 centuries.
@@concept5631 Ha. “Chillest” house.
@@Prodigi50 Yas
As a writer you never want to kill the enigma the audience has by giving absolute answers, you always want to indulge them into thinking about your stories more and more
That was a question about his personal evaluation and opinion on an event. Answering it wouldn’t reveal any information from the story, and no enigma would be killed.
But since he is the creator of the show, his "opinions" would be taken as fact
That sounds more like how a stripper operates.
As opposed to a prostitute, who actually gives the customer what they pay for.
Nah f that, I NEED the answers.
For example, the Garfield character arc is shamefully left unconcluded
In a weird way it's kinda like being a God knowing all the answers when you are the writer
When you realize how thoughtful he is it’s very easy to understand why he’s not finished the books yet.
And when he does (because he will and I am optimistic) it will be glorious.
@@MetalCharlo He will finish Winds of winter, he won't live to finish a dream of spring
Still praying for Winds
@@bananatiger3063 at least I hope he has a general point of view how tot ale the story n some one can finish it exactly how he wanted it to be
Because he is a lazy fook ?! Thats why. And this is not being thoughtful. This is being a bullshiter. He is the one who wrote the books. He created the whole story. HE IS the one who could answer to all the questions. But not. He is bullshitting around.
“Is violence ever justified to oppose evil in the world? Is so to what extent...?”
He states it so cleanly.
Indeed. That similar question came up in Code Geass. Zero asks the knight if he faced an evil he could not destroy by just means, would he taint his hands with evil to defeat that evil or would he stand steadfast and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil. It’s a paradox, in any scenario evil comes out on top. However, Zero proposed to become a even greater evil to destroy evil which he indeed did.
I thought that questions was already answered with a big YES in 1945...
If you know with 100 percent certainty that something is evil then in theory there is no limit on how and to what extent you should oppose it, but of course the odds that someone is 100 percent certain of anything and is not a zealot are roughly zero.
if*
Learn how to speak English
The war was justifiable, the ending wasn't and Ned Stark knew it
Started on a misunderstanding, turned justified by cruelty and ended in brutality. I think most view it as overall positive just because they were the winners of the conflict. Also the Targaryens were originally foreign invaders so their ousting gave Westeros a strengthened government due to representation, better cultural/religious cohesion, and state influence. (Other houses could better work with the crown)
Ned would probably see it your way, though. I think anyone that fought in it would classify it as a mess
Alan Hagerty reminds me of the beef between biggie and pac
What are you talking about? Killing Raeghar at the trident? Raeghar took Lyanna, which either complicit or not is grounds for Robert to fight.
Was Jaime wrong for killing the Mad King? Sure camping and back stabbing is whack but the dude was about to burn the Capitol of Westeros down out of butthurt.
Were Ned and Robert wrong for fucking up the Greyjoys? No, those dudes are total douches.
Other than the Lannisters the war went perfectly.
Alan Hagerty at this point the Targaryens had been around for more than a thousands years on Westeros. The andals who inhabit all south of the neck were also foreign invaders, so your logic about a strengthened government is funny. The part of the war that made it brutal had mostly to do with the Lannister’s, and that was their own agenda and Robert Baratheon agreed with their ruthless actions.
Anactofgod you’re mixing up the Greyjoy rebellion and Roberts rebellion lol...
“Would you stay loyal to the mad king”
“What was Aragorns tax policy?”
I have a feeling it might burn all your money
Aragon had yet to take stock of his realms economy and so it was not yet determined what the tax rate would be... the story simply ends before we get there :)
Actually major part of Aerys madness was due his capture at duskendale because the lord wanted lower taxes
Well in the simerillion has Aragorn rule for a 100 years in peace which seems very unlikely
Aerys: *strangles Bran’s uncle and burns his grandfather to death*
Bran: *is literally omniscient*
Also Bran: RoBeRt’S ReBeLlIoN wAs BuIlT oN a LiE
A misunderstanding.
@Aspiring Marauder especially his head because he is half tully and half stark. both houses who arnt famed for their intelligent members.
Somehow, one of the Stark kids became my least favorite characters... the fuck happened? lol
@@anne-kathrinhohlig1466 maybe that combination of genes won't win many spelling bee's, but its also very unlikely they will produce mass murdering psychopaths like a certain other inbred family has a tendency to do 😉
Bran was right though. It was built on a lie. The only reason his Grandfather and Uncle went to Kings Landing to confront the mad King was because they though Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna. When the truth was, she ran away with him
From the Stark’s perspective, it would be justified, especially after the liege and heir were tortured and murdered. Not even Jamie Lannister believed those men should have died.
Brandon Stark rode to King's Landing demanding the Heir to Westeros be executed.
@@octavian2381 After said heir apparently kidnapped his sister and disappeared. Maybe that wouldn't have happened if R+L had at least left a message clarifying things. But instead, hothead Brandon justifiably believed that his younger sister was been held captive and raped.
In any case, the Mad King's response only worsened the situation. Murdering Brandon companions and their fathers without trial, burning Brandon's father alive and making Brandon strangle himself in a sick game and then demanding the death of Brandon's younger brother.
Tell the whole story friend.
ShadowShroud7 ShadowShroud7 Ned could’ve held up in The Eyrie with Jon and Robert while Stannis and Benjen ruled in their stead. What would you do if someone came into your house and shouted death threats at your son? Brandon killed himself, he should’ve figured out he wouldn’t have enough rope to save his father, and even if he did Rickard would’ve looked like The Hound.
@@octavian2381 Fact is, the king still unjustly called for their deaths when they had done nothing wrong. Was Jon supposed to turn over his entrusted wards and foster sons to a mad man to die? No, the rebellion was justified and inevitable.
Fact is, the Mad King cruelly murdered Brandon, Rickard and their companions. Perhaps Brandon should've had a cooler head. But the circumstances justify his anger. A wiser and saner king would not have murdered Brandon and his father without trial or just cause.
If someone came into my house demanding my son's death, I wouldn't like it either. However, I wouldn't murder the person in cold blood, I wouldn't do the same to his father or all of their companions. I would not demand the deaths of innocent parties.
So again, the facts on the ground paint Aerys in the wrong.
You never addressed Rhaegar taking Lyanna and the lack of communication that made people believe that Rhaegar was holding her against her will and raping her. How would you feel if a married man ran off with your sister without so much as a note...yada, yada...even if one argues that Brandon was an idiot, you can't ignore why he acted the way he did in the matter of his sister's disappearance.
ShadowShroud7 I really don’t like how he did it. He could’ve killed both of them just as easily with Arthur Dayne. Jon didn’t have to rebel either. He could’ve sent ravens to everyone proclaiming Rhaegar as king, or even better saying that Aerys was dead.
The Mad King demanded the heads of Ned and Robert from Jon Arryn. That is a great reason to go to war against him.
Agreed
How many lives are you ready to sacrifice to saves your's?
He also killed Jon Arryn's nephew and heir.
Dac Cimon What should they have done? Walked into the Red Keep and gave Aerys their heads? Don’t forget he The Mad King also killed Ned’s dad and brother. Was he supposed to take that sitting down?
@@TheMrprobadass well.......it is the right of a king to kill his subjects
did not ned himself someone of great honor and justice behead those under his command
and theres also the matter of so the king was crazy but what right did robert and ned have to deny the throne to its rightfull owner
hell the whole story starts because robert is afraid of the mad kings heirs taking the throne
I’m thinking Ned was the one asking the huge amount of ethical questions about the war
I think Robert was more like “FUCK YA!!! LET GO TO BATTLE AND FIGHT IN A WAR! WHOOOOOO!!!
This.
@here it comes the mighty duster!
Yeah point made
Just saying rob probably wasn’t one of them😂
Bobby should've never gotten the Throne. Should've just thrown the damn thing into the Blackwater and disbanded the Seven Kingdoms.
@here it comes the mighty duster! No.
He should have been born a dothraki 😂
Hopefully he will get a lot of writing done in quarantine
Yeah. He even has a blog about it on his website
What is his website good ser
I have a feeling that we'll be getting TWOW this year.
@@abrarbw We need to be a little pessimistic about that, maybe next year? But I can't help it too, George keeps mentioning TWOW on his blogs in which he rarely do. I hope he can finish the books.
Judging from his frequent "not a blog" posts, I have a strong feeling that TWOW will hit the shelves pretty soon.
(This is what I tell myself every night. Please don't take this away from me too. 😭)
Glad you're still posting Aeg
My ancestor shall never disappoint
egg*
Almighty Egg Gang.
@Robo college google drive got leaked to professors. Needed to stay in to save some files
I suppose if you are to ask if Robort' s Rebellion was justified, you have to ask if any rebellion in history was justified.
@Christian Morgan Exactly, it wasn't just Brandon & Lord Rickard either but also their friends, squires & household guards. 200 men rode south & they were all killed without even getting a trial, only Ethan Glover survived (Ned's men found him in the dungeons after the sack of King's Landing). Not only that but Aerys demanded Jon Arryn send him Ned & Robert's heads or be lablled a traitor, what had they done wrong at that point? Nothing, just two 17-18 year olds hanging out with their foster father in The Vale so Jon Arryn had to either break guest right & kill his foster sons or be labelled a traitor to the crown. Calling the banners was his only real option.
DEEP.
It would greatly depend on the individual. Take the Revolutionary War. I would have fought for the King because i share blood ties with King George and I would have benefited more from England ruling over America than George Washington ruling over America. But to George Washington he would have more to gain from betraying his King and Country
Its nice to see a group of people who understand the real world correlations George seeks for us to consider and not brainlessly whine that Daenerys didnt end up on the throne.
The ending was quite satisfying to me aside from the fact that it was clearly rushed.
@Vitruvius yes and it doesnt matter if lyanna was kidnap or not ,how would that end well? Like he offended both the starks,the baratheons and the baratheons at the same time ,he would make a terrible king just by this dumb move
Poor Brendan Fish with his normal name getting roasted within 3 seconds of the video getting started 😂
His name was Brendan B. Fish, a stand in for Brynden “Black” Fish, a Tully.
@@brendanmckee3553 Lowe him he's show only
@@ishanabhi4540 He's in the books as well.
@@brendanmckee3553 Yeah I meant that Mitchell probably is Tv show only. I am aware that he's in the books, he's actually far more prominent there. That's why Im assuming Mitchell likely only watched the show where the Blackfish is not nearly as prominent, so it easy to forget him
@@ishanabhi4540 Ah! My mistake.
When he says he doesn’t often like when writers give answers because he finds them often too simple and disappointing
I can’t help but think about Season 8
The way they handled bran in S7 and 8 is appalling, the way they handled the Night King and Wight Walker storyline is incredibly disappointing, FAR too simple and not only simple, but we only got one episode of them being a threat until they were just forgotten about....
It’s such a shame, the world and characters and writing was all so deep and rich and then just devolved into a shell of its former self...what a shame
@Yeah - To me, the series fell off the rails by the fifth season.
ARCtrooperblueleader a lot of people feel that way and I somewhat agree, I still enjoy season 5 although it was definitely a dip in quality, I thought Season 6 was extremely good, (felt a bit different from Other seasons, but I thought it was excellent), then Season 7 I enjoyed parts but found it to be where things started to feel more simple and shallow, a liked a lot of S7 but disliked a lot too (this is when I felt my love for the show to dwindle down extremely) Season 8 of Thrones also had things I liked, but so many more things I didn’t, and just ruined it completely for me
Back in Season 6 Bran’s story had actual content and progression to it, everything with him and bloodraven was new, exciting, actually interesting, (you know, actual content) but after season6 they did nothing of any substance with him or his powers (just wanted to rant more about that particular story thread)
Doesn’t like to give answers, eh? I guess that explains why he’s been failing miserably at writing his own series for the last 20 years. ASOIAF books 4 & 5 are bloated, constipated shite in comparison to the first three books.
@@MasonOfLife Lol wtf are you talking about?
The way they handle s7 and s8 brain?
This overrated game of cocks was bad since s5. Characters had convinience after convinience and it was really bad since the show was never like that to begin with. No to mention this teleportation, I still remember people criticizing the show since s5 about this.
Personally I HATED IT since S2, because they ruined Stannis, I have read the books and if I tell you that I already knew since then with changing Stannis they going to ruin the show are you going to believe it?
It was obvious since then it was going to be a fanfiction.
Bart Simpson people are allowed to disagree, some consider Man of Steel to be a bad movie, some think it’s good, same with anything, people appreciate different aspects and see things differently, the same way I can go for a walk in the park and find it so nice enjoying the weather and the wind, listening to the birds and feeling the sunshine, another person might find a walk in the park extremely boring, for me
Season 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are good
Season 5, 7 and 8 are significantly worse (with things to enjoy, but still disappointing)
But it’s cool if you hated everything, I personally can enjoy things even when they stop being “as good”, but when they self destruct like in S8 or drop the ball so hard like in S7 is when I feel my interest die in a puddle of disappointment
I think GRRM does a really good job of leaving it to the reader to decide what was and wasn't justified. Not only Robert's Rebellion but the Targaryens conquering the seven kingdoms, and Dany's conquering of Slavers Bay.
Good came out of all of them, but so did horror, bloodshed, and the deaths of thousands.
Indeed. To boot, you might even consider the justified middle ground, by deposing the Mad King but trying to keep the dynasty up, essentially saying they hold him and him alone responsible, but alas such reasonings are also questionable and to some might feel like doing very little.
Ultimately any possible outcome had shades of grey, and every possible outcome would have had its reasons for occurring. Fascinating isn't it?
Just listening to this man talk, I can see now why almost everything he writes is gold.
If you are an armchair historian, or just a basic history nerd; the works of this man are great delights that I look forward to exposing myself to more.
Hell yeah LML got a question answered by the man himself
I would love if George wanted to get interviewed by some major book fans from the general online fandom some day. A convo between him and LML would be great!
th-cam.com/channels/XNXT2MxtKPhsBmhFWE6xsg.html I think that is this guy
I feel there's still too much missing info on Rhaegar to decide if he was worth supporting & still staying loyal to the Targaryens for. Rape allegations aside, he humiliated his wife at the tourney & then left her & his children alone with the mad king to go off and be with Lyanna. And Lyanna was only 14 when grown & married Rhaegar took an interest in her. We aren't even sure what his motivations were, lust/love or some weird prophecy fulfillment, but neither is really a good look for a prince who would be king. He insulted & enraged the North & Dorne & the Stormlands, and at a time when the realm needed a steady hand more than ever with his father's increasing psychoticness. Rhaegar could have been the man to support to keep the realm at peace, but despite all the flattering things said about him by those close to him and the attempts to clear his name of the rape story, he still made very questionable decisions & who he really was or what his goals were is still very murky.
Rhaegar is an absolute bastard of a character. I don't understand why the story and fanbase seem to treat him as a romantic hero.
@@philipsalama8083 because before everything went to shit everyone in the realm saw him as the perfect prince (he hadn't done anything yet) which was why they tolerated the mad king so long. Cause they knew Rhaegar would succeed him. Rhaegar ruined the perfect position he was in and destroyed his dynasty, his family, caused a rebellion/civil war and "kidnapped" a little girl who was already betrothed.
@@philipsalama8083 makes for a more fun story if the character isn't such a bad guy but through both mistakes and circumstance ends up in a tragic position for all involved.
How much of a bastard he even is up to question, since we don't even know the exact nature of the reason for his actions, even his last comment before riding to the battle that would end up taking his life was basically "we need to talk about something real important that's been a secret up to now. We'll discuss it when I come back" which DOES leave some mystery there. Also implied was that he planned to depose his father before the Rebellion happened, which again occurred at least partly due to his actions, so once more a mess created by a character who people otherwise held in awe even after his death, about the only person who consistently speaks ill of him afterwards is Robert. Even freaking Littlefinger and Cersei, for different reasons, reminisce fondly of him.
So yeah, the romantic part is owed to the mystery, about his character, about his actions, about his motivation. Also because we know his enemies and their worst flaws, allows us to give the benefit of the doubt to Rhaegar. Whether from that you consider him a villain fallen from grace by his own mistakes and selfishness or a tragic hero who in another life could have been a big unifying figure or simply an outright spoiled bastard who squandered his one chance make things right by his whims is up to you... and everybody else who reads the story. That's the charm of it
No there isn’t you idiot because he wasn’t the king and even if he was what he had just done was high treason, members of the royal family engaging in infidelity in game of thrones is an act of treason and leaving your wife without the kings leave to marry someone else when you’re the crown prince caused other princes to have to give up their birthright and that’s only because their father had been allowed to marry for love and couldn’t morally be against his kids doing the same
Big tragedy of miscommunication. The realistic choice was never rebels vs Aerys. It was rebels vs Rhaegar and due to lack of reliable information, dude seemed to be pretty fishy, with the whole kidnapping, cheating on his wife and then dissapearing no one knows where without any explanation to diffuse the situation. Aerys ups the whole drama by frying people and you get a recipe for disaster.
“When a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...”
hmm that sounds oddly familiar. where did i read that before?
matt knauf national treasure?
Kirill Frusin, yes gawainthefirst might have watched that movie and took the quote there. that must be it. we need to figure out who the writer is for national treasure and he/she can run for office. clearly they are in the wrong profession.
You'll find it in the Constitution of the United States
@@wendymiller3364 No! They got it from National Treasure! Our founding father Nicolas Cage is wise beyond his years.
Lucifer Means Lightbringer got a question in. He's prob one the best channels covering ASOIAF
Also alt shift x
she said his name I was like damnnnn I know that dude!! and he asked a p good question that's right on his topic of mythology and symbolism blah blah blah. George definitely avoided saying how the myths pertain to the story but if I'm reading between the lines I think he was happy someone noticed it
ajaxmajor Hahahah sane I kinda lost my shit for a second I was like waiiiiit he got a question in??
I was like EEEY MA BOY GOT IN
I listen to him everytime I drive long distance. Love his podcasts.
I hope he’s drinking pure health potions... don’t die before finishing the series, George!
When A Dream of Spring comes out he will be close to 90 years old.
@@Bartleby1892 He just has to follow the TV series to figure out how it turns out. That'll be easy.
Mac Tek probably a joke but the books are so different from the movie, it might end in a similar way but the way they get there will be different
He's pretty old, obese and with health problems. Perfect candidate for the coronavirus. Hopefully he survives.
Too much essence of night shade...
I hope george is hiding in a bunker somewhere. For safety of course, not because I want him to get writing. Ok maybe that's why.
Oh shit, I didn't even think of GRRM and coronavirus
He is! He's hiding in his fortress of solitude (tended to by an assistant), away from civilization, and, according to him, writing every day (that might not sound impressive, but that's not actually guaranteed with GRRM).
I think the only thing that might have forced him to get on with Winds of Winter is a global pandemic forcing everyone to remain indoors LOL
Imagine he gets covid and dies.
And the books end in a clifhanger...
@@LolLol-pq5fp im from the future. Hes still not doing anything
Was it justified? Well...
- The crown prince to the Iron Throne (seemingly) abducted one of the children of his future vassals and took her to parts unknown without consulting anyone.
- When the (understandably) angry and pissed off Warden of the North and his future heir came down to the capital to have words and attempt to reason with the king about the actions of his son, the fucking lunatic denied them the right to a fair trial, burned the Lord Paramount alive with wildfire, cooked him alive, while his son was placed in a torture device that slowly strangled him as he attempted to reach a sword that was out of reach that could have allowed him to save his father from the hellish fate of being burned alive until he died.
- THEN the Mad King demands the heads of the son of the vassal who he had just burned alive and the head of the kid who was betrothed to the woman that his son (seemingly) abducted. The protector of the kids (Jon Arryn) says "Fuck that." and decides to *protect* the kids that he was sworn to defend and raise his banners to fight against the obvious tyrant on the throne.
- NEXT, this leads to a civil war in which the kids who the king wanted dead are simply fighting for their lives against the throne, and thousands die.
- AND THEN when the "perfect" son of the Mad King turns up again, he does not pursue any actions against his (clearly fucking insane) father, and still decides to fight against the kids that his Father wanted dead. He fights dies in the Battle on the Trident, because literally everyone overestimated how great he actually was, and despite the guys obsession with prophecy, he got his prick bit off and a war hammer to the chest for his trouble.
- FINALLY, in one last act of spite and hatred, the Mad King decides to take his subjects (which he was supposed to protect, by the law of Westeros) with him to the grave by burning his entire capital city to the ground. He does this out of a mad belief that his bloodline combined with the blood of innocents would allow him to come back from death itself as an unholy dragon that would have the ability to burn his enemies to ash and dust. This doesn't happen, because someone on his side actually got a clue for once, and kills him like the mad dog he really was.
I'd say that Robert's Rebellion was completely justified. Fuck the Targaryens.
"When the angry Warden of the North and his future heir came down to the capital to have words and attempt to reason with the king"
1. Only Brandon came accompanied by a retinue, Rickard stayed in the Riverlands.
2. Brandon did not try to reason with the king, he was literally yelling for Rhaegar to come out and fight to the death.
Edit: Half of your list occurs AFTER the rebellion started, and are therefore irrelevant regarding the validity of starting the rebellion.
RichieNicksMusic Rickard came later when he heard about what happened good correction. They were still denied their right to a fair trial tho.
@@tabulldog2743
Yes, and Rickard's late arrival is not only not the only thing you got wrong, but is actually the less important thing I pointed out that you got wrong.
They did NOT show up looking to talk, Brandon showed up looking to kill Rhaegar. That's treason.
Edit: You only addressed 1 of the 3 things I pointed out.
Were they denied a fair trial and killed cruelly? Yes. That's not the argument I'm trying to make though.
RichieNicksMusic Yeah Brandon was a hotheaded asshole, not arguing that, but the actions of the targaryens in this situation are way worse than that of the Starks.
@@tabulldog2743
Again, not the point.
You were factually wrong about what happened, and you list things that came after war broke out as justification for war breaking out.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or something?
YES, IT WAS. Lyanna's feelings of disgust for Robert were irrelevant, because her betrothal to him was a legally binding promise between families and she didn't have her father's permission to break it off. Rhaegar greatly slighted the Houses Stark and Baratheon, two families who value honour above all else, when he spirited Lyanna away, and so, Robert was completely entitled to his rage. However, the abduction wasn't enough to incite the Rebellion. What happened next (The Mad King killing Brandon and Rickard Stark, and calling for Robert's head in response to the demands for accountability from Rhaegar)..... DID.
100% THIS!
relax kid
Well said!
Cole Jordan and the heir to the vale,
Yes. But Robert was still a Bad fat sack of shit. The way he treated Stannis and how useless king he was. Lyanna really dodged a bullet. And how obnoxious drunk he was. Tywin just should had assasinated Robert and then married Cersei to Stannis.
I would say Robert, Ned, and Jon were justified in rebelling against the Mad King. Lyanna was believed to have been kidnapped by the Crown Prince, the king locks up and murders the family who want to know what's going on and then calls for the head of two people who did nothing wrong.
I also don't think it's just about Rhaegar and Lyanna for Robert. Considering that Ned is his best friend and future in-law as well as what happened with his parents, I'd think then calling for his head is like "come and get it chump!:
The next in line for lord of the north threatened the Crown Prince.
They were executed for treason.
The Lord of the north for not controlling his son.
mr illis because as far as he knew, the Crown Prince kidnapped just sister. The cooler head should have been the king or even his Hand saying we need to get ahold of Rhaegar and get to the bottom of this. Imprisoning Brandon wasn’t “wrong” but then it just degraded to madness.
@@BucketThinkTank14657Nerd well they would have cooler heads if mad king's advisers weren't busy metaphorically sucking him dry including his kingguard whose justification for his every action he is the king.
Whoa, tough one....If I'm remembering right, there is somewhere a suggestion that Rhaegar was planning to gather support for removing his father from power, at the time of the Harrenhal tournament...I would certainly have supported him. As to the actual rebellion, we have to remember that the issues were bigger than the Robert-Lyanna-Rhaegar thing....It was actually Jon Arryn whose decision cast the die for war (if I remember rightly): he was put in the impossible position of having to surrender his Ned and Robert to Aerys or to rebel. Given that it was clear by that point that Aerys could murder anyone at anytime out of paranoid fancy....What would anyone do in Jon Arryn's place? No easy answers as George says.
Arryn had just lost his heir to Aerys at the same time.
And Arryn didn't need to assume Aerys would murder Ned and Robert; Aerys didn't just summon them, he called for their heads.
Well the revolt was justified if even the heir wanted his King dead
@@arun7998 It was necessary, but you have to think of what it led to. The systematic destruction of House Targaryen, the only power strong enough to hold the noble Houses united, and the subsequent destruction of the economy and the fall of many lesser Houses. What sin did the children of House Targaryen commit? Why where they killed? And what of those that remained loyal to the rightful king? Where they at fault too? Why where they slaughtered? And what of Ellia Martel and her children?
Wouldn't be better to try and come to an agreement with Rhaegar and dethrone the king? But at the same time he slighted Robert and Robert was the charismatic leader they needed to start the rebellion. Ned didn't want the throne and Jon Arryn was too old.
So, in the end what was the right answer?
Rhaegar was going to do something, he told Jaime that he would return to the capital after his fateful battle and that there would be changes, but of course, Robert killed Rhaegar in that battle
kpetalis true even though the war was justified if led to tremendous loss
What they needed was a good King after the revolt which they didn't.
The death of Elia and her children was for Tywin to show his loyalty to Robert
"would you stay loyal to the mad king?" "I lived in chicago for many years"
wow, BryndenBFish AND LmL... this person knows how to pick questions. Wonder if she knows who they are
I was wondering if anyone else would catch the Lucifer means lightbringer tweet
To be fair the Targaryeans killed two Stark family members and thought another had been kidnapped and rape. I mean...who stays loyal after that? At that point the leader has broken trust first.
Those few dislikes must be loyalists of the mad king.
Riding for the dragon's dawn!
The fact that there are actually readers who support Aerys shows how every character is likeable, to a certain margin.
Joseph Stalin
Or how some people aren't right in the head.
@Gerrit Peacock (Y)
How about writing something original.
I'm also a history buff and he's absolutely right! I've been looking into Alfred the Great and his children Edward the elder and Athelsten the lady of Mercia recently in my study of the formation of Scotland and England. And most historians have different opinions. The fact that Alfred was the youngest son of King Aethelwulf, and not expected to be king of wessex is not in dispute. Nor is his role in setting the foundations for the formation of England. But his son Edward's achievements are overlooked probably because of his sister. In the 9th century a woman ruler of a saxon kingdom and the fact that she was an accomplished warrior and led men into battle is unique, and most historians concentrate on her, and her many battles with the vikings, and diminish Edward. But it was Edward's son Athelstan who was the first king of all England. It's also annoying that few historians mention that two kingdoms were cross border. Both Strathclyde which was incorporated into the kingdom of Scotland and Northumberland both included large parts of modern day Scotland and England. Northumberland especially is seen as an English saxon kingdom but very few historians include that it went as far north as the firth of forth and included Scotlands capital Edinburgh. Or that Strathclyde included large parts of modern north east England.
Hey, it's BryndenBFish
Why even ask, Jeff, you have the book alreaady.
r/asoiaf stand up!
Well didn't aerys call for the head of Ned and Robert for no reason?
Didn't he burn alive a high lord? And made the heir of that lord kill himself trying to save his father?
Didn't Raeghar take off with a 14 year old girl? Regardless of them loving each other
I think that yes the rebellion was justified
It's still not so cut and dry. The mad king needed to be dealt with and what he did to the Starks was the real catalyst for the rebellion...not the love triangle.
Brandon did directly threaten to kill Rhaegar, saying “come out and die” but the reaction by Aerys was....slightly disproportionate
@@thomasmartin4281 It could be argued that Brandon was guitly, though honestly given the circumstances death was exagerated, but what aerys did to Rickard and his guard when they got to KL; was the main reason for the rebellion, not Brandon's arrest
But even then the rebellion hadn't started yet, the rebellion started when aerys told jon arryn to execute Ned and Robert, who were mere boys then
Aerys deserved to be toppled, he abused his power, and broke his obligations towards his subjects
@@jimsty7550 I'm still not convinced they loved each other, but we will see
but I said regardless of the love triangle, how is it not cut and dry?
It's pretty obvious to me that the Targs needed to be toppled
Magofire yeah, I think the rebellion wouldn’t have happened if Aerys even had stopped at killing Richard/Brandon. But he then threatened two other kingdoms
The executions of Brandon and Richard were evil. The slaughter of the Targaryen children was inhumane. The Mountain is a Knight, and the Hound isn’t. It is simply a twisted world.
This guy is a genius when it comes to story telling, his attention to detail is amazing
5:35 GRRM: Robinhood, King Arthur
Anchor: Spiderman, Superman
GRRM: uuhh... right
Well in a way the Superhero stories such as Superman and Spiderman 'are' new age mythologies. Some people - myself included - might feel chagrin for her transposing those two in the same breath as much more traditional and archetypal stories that, as spoken tales, have been reiterated for centuries ... but she isn't particularly wrong.
Probably why GRRM responded as he did haha
Yeah that annoyed me too. Comics haven't yet stood the test of time. And they're all pretty derivative too.
@@Vesnicie Comics have been around for a while and I think in this context she’s right. An average American can probably tell you the hero’s journey of Spider-Man better than they can for Paul Bunyan. It’s in the consciousness of American society just like folklore is.
@@Vesnicie I promise you spiderman and superman will stand the test of time much, much longer than fucking Paul bunyon
@@chedc28 nobody will give a fuck about your little spandex super heroes in 100 years lmfao. Can't wait for this dumb ass superhero fad to die out
Look how many people are starving under Joffrey and Tommen reign. Robert wasted all the money left from Aerys and Tywin.
Robert didn't waste it, Littlefinger embezzled it.
@@ViolentMessiah666 And what kind of king lets that happening. After all Robert was king and not Littlefinger.
@@laurentiu2704 Fair point, no doubt Robert was a terrible king but at the same time a lot of nobles leave finances up to the Maesters or someone like LF. Even Tyrion, one of the smartest people in the series can't make any sense of LF's books when he takes over as Master of Coin because they've been cooked so much
They weren't starving under Robert's reign, they are only starving after Robert was murdered and a war broke out, that's not his fault. Having a lot of gold wouldn't have stopped the suffering in any case, since that's being caused by the war.
@@Rattenhoofd "Ned was stunned. “Are you claiming that the Crown is three million gold pieces in debt?”
“The Crown is more than six million gold pieces in debt, Lord Stark. The Lannisters are the biggest part of it, but we have also borrowed
from Lord Tyrell, the Iron Bank of Braavos, and several Tyroshi trading cartels. Of late I’ve had to turn to the Faith. The High Septon haggles
worse than a Dornish fishmonger.”
Ned was aghast. “Aerys Targaryen left a treasury flowing with gold. How could you let this happen?”
Littlefinger gave a shrug. “The master of coin finds the money. The king and the Hand spend it.”
“I will not believe that Jon Arryn allowed Robert to beggar the realm,” Ned said hotly.
Grand Maester Pycelle shook his great bald head, his chains clinking softly. “Lord Arryn was a prudent man, but I fear that His Grace does
not always listen to wise counsel.”
Idk if it's said enough so I'll say it once more... this man is amazing to listen to. So calming, so witty, so clever, so insightful. He's one of my wise old men like from a fairy-tale, the ones you fall silent for to hear speak, the ones who earn respect. Him and David Attenborough are my adoptive wise old men granddads.
I think Martin touches on an important point here. I think if the question had been "Do you think Ned and Robert thought their rebellion was justified," he probably would have said yes. But that's not really a question we feel the need to ask -- it's tautological. His answer is very emblematic of the series as a whole. There are no definite or "true" answers, and that's more what the question was wanting. Does the author think the rebellion was justified?
I'd argue he'd say that whether it was justified depends on who you ask. It depends on what boundaries you draw, what lines you won't cross as a person. Viserys would argue the rebellion was completely unjustified. Tywin would have his own opinions, but we might not take him at his word.
I think he calls out that while we often read stories that give us clear-cut dilemmas where we can feel good about ourselves for siding with the "good guys", his story is far more complex in that manner, largely because he believes that in the real world, we don't get the luxury of knowing definitively whether or not the choices we made were "right".
" The personal always informs the political."
If it wasn't for Cersei, Robert's reign would've been long and prosperous. Robert was a warrior, not a king and he knew it, hence why he left rulling to Jon Arryn which was smart and fair. The Mad King was about 38 years old when Jaime killed him and still had decades of rulling left. He was about to cripple 2 if not 3 great houses by killing their lord paramounts and the heirs to those kingdoms (he killed Rickard and Brandon leaving North in the hands of the innexperienced Ned, though Ned came through and became a good ruler. He called for Robert Baratheon's head which would leave Stormlands in hands of Stannis who was even younger then Robert- about 13/14 at the time. He killed Jon Arryn's heir and that would cause a problem for the line of succesion of the Vale. He probably would've called for Lord Hoster Tully's head given that he was allied with the North and that would leave the Riverlands with a 6/7 year old as their Lord paramount (we know the Blackfish was a rebel and I don't see him being Lord Paramount & making marriage alliances). He was holding Elia Martell of Dorne hostage which was the only reason Dorne didn't ally with the Rebels. He had ticked of Tywin Lannister by stealing his heir Jaime which was his ultimate undoing.) As for Rheagar, he proved himself an uncompetent and irresponsible ruler by running away with Lyanna Stark to make the third head of the dragon (he was obsessed with prophecies, again not an admirable trait for someone who was destined to rule)with a pretty teenage girl while leaving his heir, his younger brother(who was second in line after Rhaegar's son), his mother & not to mention his wife (whom he dishonoured in front of all 7 kingdoms at Harrenhal to gaing Lyanna's favour, causing the anger of 3 great families) and 2 year old daughter in the hands of a known madman who held absolute power as king at the time. Lyanna was about 15, give or take and although she was as selfish as Rheagar I don't believe she would've married him if he didn't to an extent manipulate her, given her disgust of Robert and his whoring ( I don't get how sge could be with a married man willingly, but hey, hypocrisy at its finest). I don't think Rhaegar was the perfect prince everyone made him out to be. I'll give him credit, we know he tried to put his father down with a secret council in Harrenhal,but the nobles wouldn't have agreed because he had no army of his own and they would've been named traitors if they supported him, so he *failed*.A rebellion was bound to happen, sooner or later. The Westerosi have always seen Targaryens as foreigners, especially Notheners, because the Dragonlords just took over their land, causing hundreds of thousands of people to die (e.g. The field of Fire) and they always saw themselves as godlike creatures that were better than the Westerosi nobles and folk, because of their Valyrian blood. In my opinion, it's better that Robert's rebellion happened, rather than having a full-out destruction of the continent and having way more people die by bottling the rage of the lords and ladies over the next few years/decades. I think that a Targaryens are just not meant to sit on the Irone Throne if they don't want to ally with other families through mariage (like some of the best Targaryen rulers have done) just to keep their bloodlines pure, which is one of the causes for their madness (again not all Targaryens were mad).
Well said.
That doesn't adress GRRMs caveats though. Think about it this way: Trump is an evil person who is responsible for many unnecessary deaths, many more ruined livelihoods and basically redistributed wealth from those who need it to those that don't need it. He is very much a mad king, just put in a different frame of reference. What GRRM poses here is the question, whether a violent revolution is the way to go and while it's easy to answer in a fictional context (blood shed in fiction doesn't hurt anyone), reality is a lot harder to assess. Robert wasn't a good king and even with Jon Arryn's council, he still messed up royally (if you pardon the pun).
Also, let's be very clear about how to properly read ASoIaF: sure, the PoV characters are mostly highborn, but the story is also about how that impacts actualy people, the 99% - and they get fucked by every rebellion, every would-be king, every (self-)righteous asshole who thinks that it's either their birth right to have hundreds of thousands of people die because of them or think that them being responsible for all that slaughter will lead to something good.
It's still an open question, mind you. GRRM doesn't deny Aerys' villainy, but to claim that the lives of a few noblemen are more important than those of ultimately millions of regular folks is just ignorant.
DrZaius3141 so you actually compare Trump to the Mad King?
woooooow..
DrZaius3141 I agree with the nobles and common people stuff, you wrote but the Mad king was actually ready to Blow up the whole city of kings landing probably half a million people because he thought that he would become a dragon, plus leave the rebels only ruins so you see what Targaryen blood did there!
Considering the mad King kept killing high ranking nobles a rebellion would have happened with a high likelyhood from either of the great houses. And even if not, the political instability by getting rid of part of current power structure would have left a power vacuum that the crazy king couldn't have filled in with his incompetency which invetibly would have lead to civil strife and violence and many deaths. So trying to stop him early on was the best option if you cared about killing the least amount of people. Of course it's not as if nobles cared about the death of their subjects to much as long as it wasn't bad for their personal power.
The only option without major conflict I can think of is if they managed to get the royal heir to betray his father and install him as the new king.
That man is a genius. So well-read, articulate and cultivated.
Yeah he should maybe write a book series of political drama with fantasy in them
Looking back, I'd say the biggest mistake Ned, Robert and Jon made was not putting laws in place to allow for a monarch to be lawfully removed from power should they become as corrupt as the Mad King.
They had just won a war, but they didn't take steps to safeguard Westeros from it happening again.
Yea I guess Ned and Jon put too much trust in Robert. Look at how shocked Ned was to see how much of a useless king Robert had become; not doing shit but drinking, whoring, hunting, and bankrupting the entire continent. And how Robert was willing to murder an innocent 14 year old girl because of who her father was. Ned himself said "Then we are no better than the Mad King". I think the question GRRM was trying to pose there was "is it possible for a ruler to rule effectively without being corrupt"?
Stannis rebelled, so yes.
The real question is: is stannis a homosexual man?
Shadow Man why do my feet smell rancid? Lots of unanswered questions here....
Sir Knight Errant (you can be gay and manly)
@@rhaenyslys asexual
Shoutout to Lucifer Means Lightbringer!
- 05:00
It was for sure Justified. At first The Mad King's Son, Rhaegar was thought to have kidnapped Lyanna. At first They demanded justice and for her to be safely returned. Aerys' reaction was to kill the lord of Winterfell and his heir. That's reason enough to say 'fuck this you're going down'. in my opinion. But oh no, Aerys didn't stop there. He then called for Robert and Ned's heads and asked their foster father, Jon Arryn, to kill them and send him their heads, yes 100% if not 200% justified because at that point there's no going back, at that point they're defending themselves.
but they didnt have to kill every single Targaryen (or try to) and they didnt have to sit Robert on the throne, they easily could have had their rebellion and then chosen amongst themselves which Targaryen they would prefer on the iron throne and seat him(or her) there, as the Founding Fathers of the united states did with their president once they had earned their independence from The Crown.
@@sergeantsonso3490 The brutality of the end of the war (killing the Targaryens babies and etc) was unjustified and unnecessary, but it would be stupid to put the Targaryens back on the throne after a WHOLE fucking war and rebellion against them.
It definitely wasn't justified, from the points you're making. How many thousands and thousands died, simply to protect the lives of a few men? How many broken families, so that the aristocrats could keep their heads?
@@TheSuperRatt well they werent really aristocrats but go off pseudocommie. close enough.
@@TheSuperRatt ask yourself the same thing for rhaegar was kidnapping a 14 year old a good idea for the realm it caused thousands to die not Robert rhaegar and aerys caused this retard the mad king murdered others before this to
Interestingy the magna carta was the product of a rebellion not unsimilar to Robert´s.
I'd say Roberts rebellion was more similar to Henry of Bollingbroke's rebellion against King Richard II. As a side note the magna Carta is not nearly as significant in terms of limiting power as people make it out, the provisions of Oxford however which was instituted due to Simon de Monfort's rebellion during the reign of John's successor Edward II was a far greater restriction on the power of the King.
“Dissimilar”~ Stannis
And instead in the show we got the Holy Roman Empire
Isaac Lyons johns successor Edward II? You just left out Henry III (it’s Henry iii vs Simon demontford) and Edward I
King John wasn't even remotely as bad as Aerys. John problem was mostly that he was a weak king not that he was a psycho like Aerys and the nobility took advantage of it. The magna carta only later acquired the symbolical importance that it has for the idea of democracy, at the time was just a redistribution of power from the monarchy to the nobility.
Ever heard of the concept of Occam's Razor? Sometimes the most simple answer is the right one. IE: Aerys dug his own grave.
occam's razor is more about accepting the thesis with fewer assumptions. it's why we ignore conspiracy theorists until they have evidence. don't see the relevance of it here.
@@afaultytoaster Point being that you don't need to overthink the Rebellion to justify it. Aerys and to a lesser extend, Rhaegar was most at fault for provoking the war through his actions. Robert, Ned and Jon were literally fighting for their lives when Aerys called for Jon to hand over Robert and Ned to die even though they'd done nothing wrong. And this is after Aerys murdered Ned's father and brother. And this is after Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna without a word.
Thus my original post, the simple answer is sometimes the right one. Here, the simplist conclusion that can be made with the fewest assumptions is that the Rebellion was justified based on the actions and facts on the ground.
@@ShadowShroud7 a justification is a question of values, though, not facts on the ground. values and facts are different realms entirely (hume's guillotine)
@@afaultytoaster Where exactly are you going with this? I feel like the goal posts are being moved here. My point is that Aerys objectively did more to provoke the rebellion than his foes did to start it. Through his actions, his opponents were forced to fight for their lives. Therefore, the Rebellion was justified whether from a value-based or factual based perspective. You have to ignore various events, actors, and actions along with common decent morality (and don't you dare tell me that burning a man alive while making his son strangle himself to death to save him isn't evil) to try and make the Targaryens the good guys of the situation.
But I digress.
What I love about his answer is how it completely relates to Ned's identity as a whole, as well as his journey in Book 1. It is very clear that Robert wanted to fight, and that while Lyanna seems to him to be the reason why, he is actually looking for a scrap. And Jon Arryn fought because those two where his sons, in his eyes. Whether or not it was right, it is not important. So, in the end, the decision to fight this particular war, is a question about Ned and his family and his honor. And when he sees that Lyanna has had a son with Rhaegar, and she makes him promise to protect him, he realizes how senseless this whole endeavor also was. He will have to protect the son of the man who apparently abducted his sister, who is also the grandson of the man who murdered his father and brother. And all of this resulted in the murder of those two small children, Aegon and Rhaenys. This is why Ned's discovery of Cersei's infidelity and her offspring's origin is hard for him, and why he decides not to partake in the attempt to murder pregnant Daenerys, or not to mistreat Theon for that matter: because he knows that it is his duty to protect Jon, as an innocent "child", of the brutality of their feudal code on blood. Framing Ned as just an "honorable" guy, as a lot of people do, is wrong: he is not Stannis. He is a loving father and husband, and as such, extends that code to his behavior overall, to his detriment since his mercy will never be enough for Cersei, for the Lannisters in general.
Is no one gonna talk about how Rickard Stark (Neds father) asked for a trial by combat? And he was granted a trial by combat
He had his armour on and everything expecting to fight one of the kings guard
Instead he was subdued and tied to a stake and aerys told him his opponent was "Fire"
In that hall as Lord stark burned and Bryndan reached for the sword to save his father from the pain
No lord or lady said a word
Only the mad king laughed
That alone shows you the entire realm was smelling war coming
Even the kingsguard such as Arthur Dayne, gerald hightower and barriston selmy saw it as barbaric
And they also stood guard outside aerys private chambers hearing him rape his wife every night and also her sobbing following the ordeal
The dude deserved everything that happened to him
Lyanna stark is one cold, arrogant and selfish bitch
She destroyed so many lives because of "muh love"
She criticised robert for not staying in 1 bed lol
Lyanna cheated with a married man with 2 kids
Sadly I feel like you're going off the show storyline about lyanna. (If I'm wrong correct me please) but in the books, there's no jon snow being revealed as lyannas son, there's no bran seeing the marriage between the targaryen prince, all we have is little hints. Calling lyanna a selfish bitch is wrong for what Martin is speaking on. As it sits for all we know she was kidnapped and raped. There's no love story so far. (Again please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
@Dawn Kyle because Jon was still his sister's son, because Jon wasn't responsible for the sins of his father, but most important to Ned's character, because he promised he would and MUH HONOR.
@@Nipptwistyy It hasn't been said outright in the books that Jon is Lyanna's son but that's pretty clear by now. What is more a purely show canon thus far is that she left willingly and married Rhaegar.
Whether or not that checks out makes a huge difference, morally. If she was kidnapped and raped she's a victim, if she went willingly she is a selfish bitch. Although, to be fair, she was like 16 years old, so it's hard to hold it against her that she was stupid and naive and didn't care about the consequences because she was in love.
And Rhaegar was of course ultimately the bad guy, in his selfishness he abandoned his own family and caused a war that all but destroyed his entire bloodline and thousands of innocent deaths, and he was certainly old enough to know better.
Sérgio Alves plus if Rhaegar was worth a shit he would have deposed his father
Trembling Colors He was gonna actually, he had assembled a council and after he took Lyanna he was to return to enact the plan, but then the Rebellion happened. He held off on it because he was obsessed with the prophecy
Why does it look like their table decoratives belong in a catholic church?
Happy Dragneel probably trying to look all medieval
It’s truly lovely to be reminded of why I have always loved A Song if Ice and Fire so much. With the near decade since the release of the last book, and the lingering bad taste of the last 3 or 4 seasons of the show, I had grown somewhat disenchanted with the series. But George is not only a master of his craft, but a thoughtful and intelligent commenter on politics and history.
That’s what makes the series so good for me. It’s not just the fantastic writing and the engaging characters, but the nuanced, multi-layered, and complex history and cultures of Westeros and Essos that makes it all so believable. When Robert claimed the Iron Throne, it was nothing like “The Return of the King.” It was an ambitious military leader who wielded a great deal of power seizing a great deal more. As George says, the Mad King was obviously a dumpster fire of a ruler and the only real way to get rid of him was to overthrow him. But personal motivations among Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn were what ultimately triggered the rebellion, motivations that the small folk could not have cared less about. And besides, even though dumping the Mad King was good for pretty much everyone, was all the death and destruction it took to overthrow him worth it? These are not easy questions. Plus, and I really do love this, George acknowledges that we interpret these events with our own value systems, which were not the pseudo European-Medieval values of Westeros. Just fantastic stuff
I got fully invested into ASOIAF straight after I lost any interest in World of Warcraft's story, mainly because Martin has mastefully developed BY HIMSELF what literal hundreds of people at Blizz havent been able to: telling a complex war story from opposing POVs.
Also, the concept of the "rebels at the reins" is amazing and, more times than not overlooked in fantasy, sci-fi and sci-fantasy. Like, yeah, "emperor/king bad" so "rebels good" but what the fuck happens next? Well, as told by Martin, its something very fucking complicated to the point of even making ASOAIF, in a sense, the spiritual successor of SW after RotJ.
Ps. One of the things I didn't like about the show was how unrepresented some Houses were in comparison to others. Just that
While i absolutely agree with everything you said I would add that even if Robert and Ned had their personal grievances, they were fighting for their lives. I believe no one should be expected to forfeit their own lives "for the good" of strangers, even if their the majority or innocent. i know, Ned and Boby were noble and only two boys, the common folk couldn't care less, but still they were just innocent boys and expect them to die just to avert a war is unreasonable (for me at least). And Ned would end up being probably the most beloved administrator and warden of the north, beloved and respected by almost every one years after his death, imagine the amount of people he saved or improved their lives just by being a Lord Paramount.
Fuck Aerys btw
this guy writes like he talks -- builds on a story super fast, and actually tells the damn story super slow
He's built such a realised world that it can be discussed like this stuff really happened
I know right 😂
"There was an altercation in Vietnam" lol
These are the questions we re dealing with in 2020. What level of oppression deserves violence?
Not for masks, although a mask order should be resisted. Extensive lockdowns(month or longer) should start violence because that puts the poor in danger of mass starvation. As for the Fentanyl Floyd situation, no violence is necessary for that.
@@somersault1123 Hey bro. Your opinion sucks
@@somersault1123 Mass starvation? Where?
@@somersault1123 Even if there is any mass starvation, the action should be helping the poor, not blaming on lockdown.
Why should a mask order be resisted? It's a respiratory tract disease and wearing a mask does not hurt. Maybe you can get through it like a flu, but you could pass it to someone who can survive it.
@@brendonferguson5726 no u. He’s right
Given the alternative was execution (Aerys specifically wanted the heads of Robert AND Ned before they had done anything), I'd say it was. If your King is literally insane and has killed your family or threatened to have them killed - of course.
He’s talking about folktale figures and she felt the need to insert Spider-Man and Superman lol.
This is why the books are never going get get finished. To much time spent on panels and answering stupid question instead of writing.
Authors/creators that like to make their audience wrestle with the questions are the best
There was going to be a rebellion no matter which way it went. By keeping their relationship quiet, Rhaegar & Lyanna, caused two major offenses to two different great Houses that would’ve been settled by nothing less than war. The Starks believed her kidnapped against her will and demanded justice, only for the head of their House AND his heir to be killed. The Martells would’ve been greatly offended if Rhaegar set aside his marriage to Elia for Lyanna and would’ve started a war for her.
The thing I love about these stories is that we can have debates about these things as if they were historical events
I do believe Aerys was justified in imprisoning Brandon, he had just waltzed into King's Landing unannounced threatening Rhaegar, the heir, over the supposed kidnapping of Lyanna. Which considering the circumstances was reasonable to believe. Nobody knew where on earth she was and she hadn't told anyone what was happening. But the horrific killing of both Brandon and Rickard Stark, the latter of which had done nothing wrong and had willingly come to King's Landing on Aerys' orders, was a massive abuse of Aerys' power and broke the trust people had in him. If he could kill one lord paramount on a whim, potentially nobody was safe. Then there was the order Aerys gave regarding Ned and Robert, both of which had also done nothing wrong. While yes, what happened in King's Landing near the end of the war was almost entirely unjustifiable, the start of the war surely was. At least in my opinion.
For me, it's not a hard question. If I were asked the same question:
The Mad King had to go - if I was a rich character in GoT I'd hire the faceless men or other assassins. Let Rhaegar rule.
But I'm not rich in real life so let's say I was a commoner in Got. Would I even care if the war is justified? Probably not, who gives a fuck about the affairs of lords and kings.
If I was a northerner, let's say a minor lord, I would sharpen my sword the moment I heard of Lord Rickard's death because of anger and justice. When the systems fails you, you have the right of rebellion. I doubt they have this in Westeros but if we were to apply our own political philosophy, yeah it would be justified.
But war is costly in gold and lives, does that not dissuade you? Who are you to exchange someone's else blood for justice? My post is a minor lord. Both my subjects and I follow Eddard's commands.
Now, if I was in Eddard's shoes, what would have I thought of the question.
After what has happened to me and the ridiculous demands made, Targaryen rule must end. If men die, so be it because that's the world we live in. Lordlings leads, and soldiers takes or die trying.
Dammit I wish he would finish The Winds of Winter… But it is just so hard to be mad at George. He’s just such a likable person and so intelligent 🤷♂️🧏♂️
That’s so cool that she asked a question from LmL.
Honestly, I would have liked to have seen an HBO miniseries with Robert’s Rebellion. They already had a solid actor cast as young Eddard Stark, they had a Lyana Stark, they had Rhaegar Targaryen, the Mad King etc., and all that from Bran’s flashbacks...sorry Three-Eyed Raven visions of the past. And Robert’s Rebellion is a complete story...unlike “A Song Of Ice And Fire”....whose last new addition...came out nine years ago, this April in 2011...
I mean even if Ned and Robert didn't feel like starting a rebellion the Mad King still wanted them dead so they didn't have much of a choice.
His answer is why this book series is amazing
Mad King, Executes family of Jon, Ned and Robert, then demands Ned and Robert's heads from the guy who's heir he just murdered. Aerys was fine with murdering a million innocent bystanders and was barely being restrained from destroying the realm.
Yeah...gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Rebels were VERY justified.
Did he kill any of Roberts family?
@@dansomething7742 no, though he did try as he ordered Robert's head sent to King's Landing along with Ned's head by Jon Arryn. Although since a betrothal is pretty much an engagement, the Starks were basically Robert's family.
Rhaegar was about to remove his father. The rebels were proven traitors. The rebels slew old men, raped women, and murdered babes in their mother's arms. Brandon, his father, and their 200 men-at-arms were executed justly, the deal with Jon, Ned, and Robert is idiotic, Aerys would've never risked war, plus The Eyrie is impregneble as well as the Bloody Gate. They saw an opportunity to throw out their rightful king, and they took it.
@@octavian2381 Rhaegar should have removed his father first and THEN considered worrying about what the hell he would do afterwards.
At first the "rebels" were- at absolute worst- pissant regional lordlings peeved about their precious political machinations being upset and coming to carry out a feud against the Heir Apparent, and at best justifiably aggrieved people responding to an unlawful elopement and what they thought at the time was done by terror and force. That doesn't make them saints, but it does make them armed petitioners at Kings' Landing coming to bitch to the Crown.
You know, the kind of people the Crown is duty bound to assess and deal with.
The slaying of old men, raping of women, and murdering babies happened AFTER Aerys had started the war and AFTER The farcial, pseudo-judicial murder of an entire, lawful retinue AS WELL AS a Lord Paramount who was basically told "Come Answer for your Hotheaded Kid" only to be BURNT TO FUCKING DEATH.
Do I have to explain to you how REBELS DO NOT ANSWER COURT SUMMONS BY THE SIDE THEY ARE REBELLING AGAINST?!?! And Aerys KNEW They weren't rebels or traitors at the time because he USED THIS to lure Rickart and others to their death.
At most Aerys might have been able to justify executing Brandon and his entourage for attempting to murder Rhaegar (though this would have STILL been massively cruel overkill). But by luring RIckart and their other fathers in and then torturing and murdering them in a cruel parody of feudal justice AND THEN doubling down by demanding the heads of people linked only by blood to the "guilty" he showed that there was no justification. He was no rightful king.
Eric Van De Hey “come answer for your hotheaded kid”? The actual quote was “come out and die.” Aerys was completely justified in executing the entire party, he had no knowledge of what Rhaegar was doing, and some lords busted up in King’s Landing demanding the head of the heir.
Even if Lyanna and Rhaegar's relationship was legitimate, which it very well might not be (I think it was more of obsession/Stockholm syndrome fuelled relationship), still, both Aerys and Rhaegar deserved to die and lose their crown. Aerys because, I don't even need to say that, do I? And Rhaegar because he either didn't know Starks would come to Red Keep and his father would kill them, therefore he's unforgivably stupid, or he knew that and willingly let it happen, therefore he's directly responsible for their deaths, or he knew it and was just too much of a coward to do anything about it, therefore, he maybe shouldn't have do the whole kidnapping thing in the first place, if he was not ready to face the consequences.
Nah rhaegar was more into prophecy and books than anything like aerys 1 who wasn't a great ruler. At least, in aerys case he had a great hand in bloodraven who would have been rhaegar's hand. If it was tywin that's good but his other option was his yes man who was in love with him jon connington.
Of course the beauty of GRRMs plotline is that Rhaegar would have been a great king if he hadnt pissed off Robert.
Would he be?
www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/77f9ue/spoilers_published_rhaegar_was_either_an_idiot_or/?
Rhaegar pissing off Robert wasn't what caused Robert's Rebellion. George even said it in the video. It was caused by Aerys killing Brandon and Rickard Stark and then asking Jon Arryn to send Ned and Robert's severed heads to Kings Landing.
Which was caused by the kidnapping, no kidnapping no dead Stark.
Plus all the other points still stand.
@@Xob_Driesestig he did not kidnap her. She left with him.
Rhaegar was married to Elia of Dorne, and Rhaegar discovered when he was younger some kind of prophecy. It was this prophecy that led him to do what he did. Besides, did you want him to set aside Elia? How would that have gone down?
It was the prophecy that led him to his down fall, and how do we know this? Simple:
1: Barriston Selmy tells Danny about Rhaegar's past and how he was very bookish. He discovered something in the library which changed everything.
2: Danny saw a vision of Rhaegar telling a young girl holding a baby that the child already has a song, the song of ice and fire, and there will be another.
3: The Reeds tell Bran about the tourney at Harrenahall and it was clear that it was Lyanna. Rhaegar was sent to find her, and something happened there.
4: Jojen Reed tells Bran that if ice can burn then love can hate. The chapters containing the Reeds have a deeper meaning about the overall story of ASOIF as they are the only ones that keep on referencing the title of the book.
That's my opinion anyway.
Yes everyone knows about how he was obsessed with being the hero of the prophecy. And while that is suspect in itself, that's not really the main point. He wouldn't have been a great king because the monarchy was inherently unstable and horrible. On top of that is Rhaegar's behavior as described in the post.
Interviewer: reads first question
Also interviewer: puts on glasses AFTER reading the first question
Wow that’s literally me
Short sightedness
GRR Martin is like a Tolkien Elf
“Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.”
I don’t read the books but for the sake of the fans that do and the fans that were disappointed by the TV show’s ending I hope he can consolidate his last 2 books and finish the series
What a lot of fans dont get is that the last 2 books may represent over a third of the entire length of the series, and much more impactful plot points than anything within AFFC or ADWD. the wait is hardly justifiable, but it's not like it was ever gonna be a walk in the park for George.
BryndenBfish I love u dude! What a beautiful question
Personally I believe the rebellion was justified, Aerys was a maniac that needed to be stopped.
Rebelling against the mad king was just, killing every remaining Targaryen was not
"I like to make the reader wrestle with the question." That's what makes him such a good writer.
The main problem with Robert’s Rebellion that makes it so morally grey is that it was ROBERT’s Rebellion. Robert was the last guy who should’ve been made king after the war. The war would be much less morally grey if it ended with someone like Jon Arryn or Ned Stark being given the crown.
Sadly, Robert was the only war leader with Targaryen blood and was therefore the only candidate for the crown.
I've seen people say that Jon or Ned would have been better kings, but I think Bobby Bar is totally underrated. It's said in aCoK that 'Stannis was raw iron, Renly was copper, but Robert was the "true steel."' Basically he was a dude who was born to be king. The fact that he and Aerys were alive at the same time was pure luck of the draw, because Robert was bound to rebel against Aerys from the moment he was born. Against a King Aegon V, Robert's Rebellion would have been crushed into dust along with the rest. Because Robert had actual cause and opportunity, he was able to seize the crown. For the time he ruled, he did a _fucking_ good job. If he had done any worse, he would have had rebellions on rebellions. Ironically, then he wouldn't have gotten fat and drunk. He fell off because he was so bored by having all he ever wanted, and plagued by the "one that got away." He blamed all his unhappiness on the loss of her, when he was really just bored. He was still the same Robert who lived by the mantra, "I want it all." It's just that all he had left to get was more food, more booze, and more whores. The only rebellion he had, he absolutely mauled immediately. LOL
Jon Arryn was a famously cautious leader, which made him the ultimate hand of the king, but Robert's boldness is what got him the crown. Ned was as honorable as humanly possible, but Robert's roguish side is what would have kept the crown forever. Had Robert lived a month - a week - shit, maybe a _day_ longer, Daenerys would have been killed. She was the only problem he had left to solve, and he was going to solve it. When he died, the realm became so entangled with civil war that the small council no shit, actually, and for good reason, _sort of forgot about Daenerys._
I dunno. I just think of Robert as underrated and I think that point goes missed a lot. While it disagrees with your comment, I don't mean to say, "no, no, no, you _fool!"_ I kinda hope you respond because I'm interested in your take! If you think I'm totally off, tell me.
@@alec6583
Yeah, I completely disagree. Robert was a terrible king. Great warrior, inspiring war leader, fun friend, and a terrible king.
Firstly, the “True Steel” quote has nothing to do with Robert being born to be king. That quote comes from Donal Noye who was the armorer for house Baratheon before eventually leaving to join the wall. Donal forged Robert’s weapons and was very obviously a fan of Robert. It’s also important to note that Donal never saw Robert after he became king and doesn’t know what Robert is like during the books.
You can’t say Robert’s rule prevented rebellion when the Greyjoy Rebellion literally happened under his rule. Robert did not prevent rebellion, like… at all. Any disputes that were solved under Robert’s reign were largely because of Jon Arryn’s wise judgement as hand.
Robert’s obsession with the Targaryens was a problem, not a good thing, and Daenerys was most definitely not his only remaining problem lol. Robert was so focused on the young, weak, and meaningless Daenerys that he was completely blind to the scheming Lannisters and Tyrells that were the true threat to peace in Westeros.
Robert also put the realm into an obscene amount of debt to both the Lannisters and Iron Bank.
I don’t think Robert is evil or anything, but he was most certainly a bad king, and I think that’s kinda the point. The tragedy of Robert Baratheon as a character is that his glory days were before the crown was put on his head. He thought he desired a crown, but once he had the crown he realized that his true destiny should’ve been to live with his warhammer in his hands, not a crown on his head.
I lost my fiancé, but I gained a crown instead
@@alec6583 Robert was a shitty king without Jon Arryn Robert would have fucked up badly enough where likely rebellion would have happened again
"Gods, I could write then."
OK I challenge anybody here to give me one good reason why Robert's rebellion was in any way unethical or morally wrong
Yeah, he called dibs on Lianna.
Fuck Rhaegar
On a more serious note: tha common folk didn't really suffer too much from Aeris reign and certainly wouldn't have from Raegars reign.
Yes, looking at it from Roberts perspective or from a nobles perspective (which most POV'S are in a song of ice and fire) it somehow makes sense that Robert did nothing wrong.
If you look at it from the bigger question, you'd have to ask yourself: was it really worth drawing hundreds of thousands of people into a war, have them live through loss of life, family, property, existence, rape, raids, starvation and so forth because Raegar took Lianna (even if we assume that he DID rape her)
It seems quite clear cut from the perspective of nobility, but if you look at the way it impacted the lives of the big majority of westeros who haf nothing to do with any of it and lived a relatively peaceful life, Roberts Rebellion isn't that clear cut "ethical and moraly right" anymore than it may seem when you only look at it from the perspective of people you know and saw living.
Only because you don't know 99,9% of the people who are the ones to ACTUALLY suffer from the war, started from someone who'd shrug at best if someone kidnapped and raped your fiancee doesn't make their stance on it in regards to the question if it was unthical or morally wrong invalid
I'm not saying that it was moraly wrong or moraly right.
My point here is: it IS a grey area and in no way easy to answer with a simple yes or no
@@ValatY it wasn't just about Rhegar and Lyanna. Aryes killed Neds father and brother. After the Trident Aryes ordered the entire city burned to the ground. He was literally mad and needed to be usurped. If it wasn't this rebellion, it could have been anything else that tipped him over the top. There was no "wait till Rhegar becomes king, he'll be better". Bullshit, he proved he was no wiser than his father with that selfish act.
On the note on the tounge in cheek "dibs" comment: they were betrothed and Rhegar was married with children. Robert was also operating undert the info that Lyanna was kidnapped, not that she eloped. Rhegar and Lyanna knew exactly what would happen if they forsake their responsibility to their families, and they did it anyway. Selfish assholes the both of them, the rebellion is 100% on them.
I don't think is as much as opposing the mad king was not justified, but more that if that was really the best way to go about it. Obviously there was no way to bring him down democratically, but you can make the argument that if they swayed more people to their side before doing the deed the system that was left wouldn't have been so messed up.
A lot of the king's allies also had personal motivations instead of political, so maybe if Robert's rebellion wasn't so much based on vendetta those people wouldn't have enough of a bone to pick to sidw with the mad king.
It wasn't... Robert was lied to by everyone
I’m surprised he didn’t bring up Jamie Lannister as an example of justification. I love Jamie’s complexity how he’s bothered by the name Kibg Slayer and presumed to be nothing but an opportunist for his family when deep down he’s got a real heart.
No wonder he can’t finish the book, he’s still answering this question 😂
The second question is that from the GoT TH-camr with the same name?
Robert's Rebellion at first was not justified with Lyanna's disappearance with Rhaegar, there is an argument if it was with the execution of Brandon because he demanded Rhaegar's head to a person who is known to be Mad. However, the justification came when Rickard died and Aerys demanded the heads of Robert and Ned.
The thing with Rhaegar is that no one knows what truly happened between him, ella and lyanna. So, I will assume that Rhaegar is not as cruel as he is potrayed by other game of thrones fans.
Man the starks are not fit to rule the north they have no sense whatsoever. Lianna runs of rhaegar not even thinking of the perception of it. Brandon threatens the life of the heir of the throne to the mad king and ned warns cersie about what he had discovered
Shout out to Lucifer Means Lightbringer. You and Quinn, keep up the great work!
now that Ive lived to see a time when people openly praise satan, Im assured the future will be fine... 😐
@@last7509 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Lucifer is Greek for Venus and has little to do with the devil in Christianity. It all has to do with a misenterpretation of Hebrew in the King James version of the bible. It's also a youtuber who makes some of the best ASOIF videos in existence. So don't get your pantys in a bunch. I nor him are Satan worshippers. It says what Lucifer means in his very name.
It makes me laugh realizing how Christians are usually the most ignorant about the bible. Get a grip.
@@last7509 one of the first thing LML did was a huge essay about mythical astronomy, and part of it was about how azor ahai was probably a really shitty dude. like the literal devil kinda shitty. his sword was lightbringer, and lucifer directly translates to lightbringer (lux=light, ferre=carry). LML isn't calling praise on satan, although that's a whole nother debate
I will stand with the LML side of your comment! He's the best! :)
Robert’s rebellion was more than justified.
Robert’s actual reason for rebelling was not.
However we have the benefit of hindsight.
GRRM is one of the greatest interviewees of all time, it's so easy to stumble into a wormhole of his interviews and suddenly it's been 3 hours lol
05:27 Sometimes, the table breaths. Pay attention 😂
“There was an altercation going down in Vietnam that some of us didn’t like.” So casual lmao
Wow the Showrunners took a steaming dump on this man's work in season 8
Seasons 5, 6, 7, and 8 were all crap.
Was the war justified? Yes. Was the aftermath justified? Much harder question to answer.
Inarguably Ned was the one who was most aggrieved by the actions of the Targaryens. From his POV, his sister was kidnapped and raped repeatedly by the Prince, and his brother and father were unjustly tortured and murdered by the King. He should have been given the throne at the end, not Robert.
But Ned was probably told something by Lianna that changed his perspective in the end. And they argued that Robert had Targ ancestry, so he had a legitimate claim. They couldnt just give the throne to the next Targ heir, because that would probably just lead to retribution for the rebellion later on.
Why does Ned losing his family mean he’s entitled to the throne? And Robert wasn’t just given the throne after the fact, he stated his intention to claim the throne while the rebellion was underway.
"The personal informs the political". Underrated truth.