Jump to content

Why didn't Ned demand a trial by combat?


iolahardy

Recommended Posts

This. It just confuses me that GRRM wouldn't give Jamie a background like Barristan if he wanted me to believe he was this great swordsman. All you get is second hand opinions. He killed Lord Karstark's sons? How do we know those two were even remotely good with a sword? He parried a couple of The Smiling Knight's blows? Ok...good job. Ahh we could go on and on but we are hijacking this thread so message me if you want to continue this nonsense

How good they are in the context of a one on one is irrelevant. They're fully armoured and will have been trained by a master at arms and they are surrounded by other knights. Jaime just carved through them and probably many unnamed men to get to Robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I think known guilty parties would be denied the trial. Neds treason was witnessed by hundreds. It would be like giving Karstark a trial when he and his men were caught in the act. His only other option I think would've been to openly accuse the queen and Joffrey, but then Stannis and Renly would have to turn up with their armies to put them on trial.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a "fair" trial, yes.

In a Cersei trial, probably not.

/shakes-head

It is a Joffrey trial that would have been worrisome. She allowed Tyrion a strong champion -- Gregor and Jamie were not close enough to make it to trial on time.

--

I don't see the point in a trial by combat. What would be the point? He knew Cersei and Joffrey would never honor it, if Ned won. Three days onto the road and he would be attacked. He wasn't going to win either way. He would take the pill of never being with Catelyn romantically again and join the Night Watch, spend his days with his son (at this point, Benjen had gone missing) and find honor protecting the realm from the things beyond the Wall...and he would have given the Wildlings the Gift and made peace with them. (of sorts) Sheezes, maybe Ned on the Wall wouldn't be that bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There two different issues mixed there: Ned's "treason" and Robb's "rebellion".

If Ned demanded a trial by combat and won, he wouldn't be considered a traitor, that is, he wouldn't be considered a criminal, and wouldn't be punished for it.

But Cat had captured Tyrion, Robb and the Tullys were rebelling, the northeners were marching to the south and Jamie was besieging Riverrun...they were at war, so Ned would be held not as a convicted criminal, but as a political hostage. Think of Theon or Sansa, they never committed any crime when they were taken from their families, they were just children, but were kept as hostages.

Yeah, but the way it would be viewed would be: he proved his innocence and they still are incarcerating him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked about it too, someone pointed out that he probably meant Rickard Stark and that unfortunatel trial by combat against fire...

oh right right, that makes more sense i guess... but theres a difference, Rickard Stark was sentenced to die... Eddard stark, believed, he was going to wall. so why risk it? (not directed at you)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That still makes no sense when we take into account the strange Arthur Dayne feat. Even if Howland landed the killing blow to even hold your own against someone like that put's you above average.

That is implying a lot from an event of which we know virtually nothing. We can't even be sure there was any actual fighting involved.

Regarding Ned, he could plead a trial, but Joffrey would likely not grant him one. Laws in this savage world of Westeros mean little in peace times, and squat during war. But the matter about all is Sansa. Ned was told that pleading guilty would make Sansa safe, if he suddenly demanded trial by combat and won, that would be a sly big enough to send his daughter the Stranger's way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that there was ever the possibility of a trial by conbat.



An interesting observation is


"My father went south once, to answer the summons of a king. He never came home again." "A different time," Maester Luwin said. "A different king."



since Joff is not that different I could see him to call an illogical champion.





Trial by combat is a Seven tradition, Eddard kept the Old Gods




But Rickard also kept the Old Gods and he asked for a trial by combat.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that there was ever the possibility of a trial by conbat.

An interesting observation is

since Joff is not that different I could see him to call an illogical champion.

But Rickard also kept the Old Gods and he asked for a trial by combat.

if you scroll up just a few posts you'll see the difference between Eddard and Rickards situation, IMO. A trial by combat is a Seven tradition where followers believe that the Seven will give strength and victory to the innocent person, I think Rickard asked for a trial by combat as a way to free his kid rather than prove his innocence in the eyes of some foreign god, he had already been sentenced to death so what did he have to lose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...