Jump to content

What do people think Barristan should have done?


liammonroe

Recommended Posts

Do people think he should have killed Aerys instead of standing by and watching him burn people/rape his wife? He probably wouldn't even be able to get past his KG brothers but even if he did he would be murdered. People always criticize him for not intervening when most of the characters in the series wouldn't have done anything different. He pretty much did everything in his power to uphold his knightly vows (e.g. begging Aerys to spare Dontos) while upholding his KG vows.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people think he should have killed Aerys instead of standing by and watching him burn people/rape his wife?

Ideally? Yes. And I would say the same for everyone of Aerys' Kingsguard. I admire Jaime for taking out the rabid animal.

Still, he did what he was supposed to do. He upheld his vows (well, until a certain point - he wasn't as zealous as Dayne, Hightower and Whent) and did the honorable thing. It just wasn't the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

To craven to follow his example? Alright, but don't go on harping about courage or honor.

Modern example for a medieval setting.

Claus von Stauffenberg didn't take a sacred oath to protect and obey a king no matter his actions. KG vows are for better or worse, Jaime only killed Aerys to save his own skin no matter how much he thinks it was to save the city. If he cared about the city he would have divulged the existence of the wildfire afterwards.

I know it's only a show line but Ned speaks true when he tells him he served Aerys' well while serving was safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have confined Aerys and proclaimed Rhaegar Regent, under the justification that the King was self-evidently a nutter unfit to rule, so the actual ruling would pass to his son the Crown Prince who didn't appear to be one.



I don't think anybody in the Seven Kingdoms would've disagreed.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, probably should have known that since I am a historian.

It's still a modern example for a medieval setting. It is far more acceptable to break an oath today in the face of wrongdoing than it would have been 5/6/700 years ago. Look at the ridicule Jaime gets for it, but today if a bodyguard shot a world leader because they were going to misuse their power he'd be a hero. Different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, probably should have known that since I am a historian.

It's still a modern example for a medieval setting. It is far more acceptable to break an oath today in the face of wrongdoing than it would have been 5/6/700 years ago. Look at the ridicule Jaime gets for it, but today if a bodyguard shot a world leader because they were going to misuse their power he'd be a hero. Different times.

Of course. And I have no problem with the Westerosi praising Barristan and his peers for enabling Aerys raping Rhaella and the like. My problem are the modern readers doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. And I have no problem with the Westerosi praising Barristan and his peers for enabling Aerys raping Rhaella and the like. My problem are the modern readers doing the same.

no one is praising him for he we aren't going to call him a craven for it and paint this as simply has you have in this thread and others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

To craven to follow his example? Alright, but don't go on harping about courage or honor.

Stauffenberg only turned against Hitler when he thought Germany had lost the war. He joined existing plotters as well. Why would Barristan have acted alone and murdered his King just because Aerys burned a couple of Starks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. And I have no problem with the Westerosi praising Barristan and his peers for enabling Aerys raping Rhaella and the like. My problem are the modern readers doing the same.

Don't you bring logic into this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Barristan have acted alone and murdered his King just because Aerys burned a couple of Starks?

Burning the Starks wasn't an isolated incident. It was probably the one with the most devastating concequences, but Aerys had totally lost it long before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barristan should have quit the KG when the king changed.He should have accepted Robert's fogiveness, but it was a bad move remaining at the KG. At best, he will be seen as a pretty useful sworman but a turncloak nonetheless, at worst he will be seen as a Targ suporter, so noone will trust him with his KG duties.

Even though neither of those things happen, we never hear anyone call him a turncloak and Robert appoints him LC and he sits on the SC so he's clearly trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody talks about the KG vows, but what about the knight vows? So Gregor is just following his oath of service to Tywin while he chevaunchee the Riverlands and Ser Stupid is just following his oath of service to his Lord father at the RW.



Only following orders.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody talks about the KG vows, but what about the knight vows? So Gregor is just following his oath of service to Tywin while he chevaunchee the Riverlands and Ser Stupid is just following his oath of service to his Lord father at the RW.

Only following orders.

Knights have vows to protect women, the weak etc. Gregor is breaking those by raiding the Riverlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...