Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[Lord of Handle]

I really do not get the feeling that this was in any way a standard oath. As for the Kingsguard I really do not get the sense that the king swears anything of the sort to them. What I do get from various exchanges between Darry and Jaime and Hightower and Jaime is that their service to the King is foremost in what they are suspected to do concerning their duty. Your theory works under way too many Ifs and assumptions. Catelyn had never had someone swear to her like this and there is nothing that even suggests that this is a standard oath for any knight let alone the Kingsguard.

I admit that it only works under a lot of assumptions. I don't think, however, that those assumptions are nearly as farfetched as you make them out to be.

What makes you think it isn't a standard oath? I would be shocked if a guarantee for "always a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table" wasn't a part of the standard deal, and the other part about not bringing the sworn sword into dishonor seems like a completely reasonable standard term as well. Catelyn has almost certainly overheard men swear themselves to Hoster or Ned. It's at least as likely that her oath to Brienne is just the same she'd heard Ned or Hoster make as it is something she just came up with on the spot. The only thing "not standard" about the oath was the circumstances under which it was made (two women and all that)

And if a great lord can make such an oath, why not a king? You can argue that a knight of the Kingsguard works on different terms than just any other sworn sword, but I don't think you can rule out the possibility entirely that the king makes some kind of guarantees to his KG.

[The other prince]

I admit that it only works under a lot of assumptions. I don't think, however, that those assumptions are nearly as farfetched as you make them out to be.

What makes you think it isn't a standard oath? I would be shocked if a guarantee for "always a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table" wasn't a part of the standard deal, and the other part about not bringing the sworn sword into dishonor seems like a completely reasonable standard term as well. Catelyn has almost certainly overheard men swear themselves to Hoster or Ned. It's at least as likely that her oath to Brienne is just the same she'd heard Ned or Hoster make as it is something she just came up with on the spot. The only thing "not standard" about the oath was the circumstances under which it was made (two women and all that)

And if a great lord can make such an oath, why not a king? You can argue that a knight of the Kingsguard works on different terms than just any other sworn sword, but I don't think you can rule out the possibility entirely that the king makes some kind of guarantees to his KG.

I really wasn't trying to make it out as impossible, I mean we don't know the exact oath. We do know some of what the oath contained though and this is missing from Catelyn's. I find it highly, highly unlikely that a king would put something in an oath that seemed to encourage anyone to question him though. Besides as has been pointed out - In a feudal society, the king will determine those values - his word is law. So even if the oath's did some how match what is honrable would be up to the king not the knight.

[Light a wight tonight]

You're right, no matter what choice the KG made serving under Aerys they could not remain "True Knights^TM" I will always contend that this concept of "True Knight" perfection as originally indicated in the OP and talked about throughout this thread is actually impossible to achieve.

Lots of forum members seem to share Sansa Stark's song-and-tale based views of what it is to be a True Knight. They lack a Sandor Clegane to tell them the truth, though.

[Prince of the North]

Lots of forum members seem to share Sansa Stark's song-and-tale based views of what it is to be a True Knight. They lack a Sandor Clegane to tell them the truth, though.

Heh! :thumbsup:

[Lord of Handle]

I really wasn't trying to make it out as impossible, I mean we don't know the exact oath. We do know some of what the oath contained though and this is missing from Catelyn's. I find it highly, highly unlikely that a king would put something in an oath that seemed to encourage anyone to question him though. Besides as has been pointed out - In a feudal society, the king will determine those values - his word is law. So even if the oath's did some how match what is honrable would be up to the king not the knight.

I think you've got the wrong idea of how values work. Values are something that's developed in a culture between many institutions and many, many more people. They are most certainly not simply decided by the current monarch. The king may have an opinion about what a knight in his service should value, and his word certainly carries a lot of weight, but we know that the ideal of "the True Knight" has remained the same over centuries, regardless of what the kings have had to say.

Lots of forum members seem to share Sansa Stark's song-and-tale based views of what it is to be a True Knight. They lack a Sandor Clegane to tell them the truth, though.

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." – Voltaire

So I'm going to do that.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm am going to discuss whether or not Barristan lives up to the fairy tale ideal of a "True Knight" who, like Baelor Breakspear would have approved of, puts justice, compassion and self-sacrifice to the weak before all else. And I am under the impression that that was the original purpose of this thread.

ETA: To reiterate: I'm going to discuss whether Barristan lives up to an, I feel, pretty well-defined ideal which may or may not be impossible to actually live up to, not how he compares to other knights.

edit: spelling

[The other prince]

I think you've got the wrong idea of how values work. Values are something that's developed in a culture between many institutions and many, many more people. They are most certainly not simply decided by the current monarch. The king may have an opinion about what a knight in his service should value, and his word certainly carries a lot of weight, but we know that the ideal of "the True Knight" has remained the same over centuries, regardless of what the kings have had to say.

And you are confusing how our values work as opposed to a medieval society, let alone how they seem to work in Westeros. It is absolutely untrue that the ideal of a True Knight has remained unchanged for centuries. This view has changed dramatically since Knights were actually used in battle.

So I'm going to do that.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm am going to discuss whether or not Barristan lives up to the fairy tale ideal of a "True Knight" who, like Baelor Breakspear would have approved of, puts justice, compassion and self-sacrifice to the weak before all else. And I am under the impression that that was the original purpose of this thread.

ETA: To reiterate: I'm going to discuss whether Barristan lives up to an, I feel, pretty well-defined ideal which may or not be impossible to actually live up to, not how he compares to other knights.

Discussing whether he lives up to a fairly tale notion of a knight is pointless, because if that is your criteria then the answer is no. It is also no for every knight and character in the books. The only ones with any chance of living up to this would be those lucky enough to never be placed any circumstance that required someone to question what to do. A situtation Aery's KG had to live with daily. That would not make them a "better knight" only a "luckier knight."

Also as I have asked before. Would Baelor Breakspear have been as quick to praise Duncan if Duncan had been sworn to Aerion? We really don't know. We do know that he doesn't seem to think poorly of the KG who fight for Aerion during the trial. Besides by your own reasoning Baelor thinking someone was a good knight doesn't mean anything now does it?

[Aemond's Eye]

Once Barristan was dismissed by that dipshit Joffrey, why wouldn't he go to another monarch, especially when it was clear for all to see that Joff was bad news? And he did the right thing - the throne was usually better off when there was a Targaryen King - most of the reasons for overthrowing the Targaryens were self-serving, only Ned Stark actually believed he was doing the right thing, everyone else had self serving reasons, esp. the Lannisters and Baratheons.

What was self serving about The Baratheons rebelling against Aerys? As far as Robert knew, Rhaegar had kidnapped his wife and could have been raping her; he rebelled along with Ned after Jon Arynn refused to hand them over to Aerys. It's not as though Robert rebelled in order to take the throne - he rebelled as his other choice was to accept his fate of being tortured and executed, whilst his wife was raped by a prince. (Remember, Robert would be oblivious to the fact that Lyanna wasn't exactly thrilled with the prospect of marrying him, and most certainly wouldn't have been willing to accept the possibility that she might have fled with him willingly.)

I doubt that Jon Arynn or Ned Stark intended for Rhaella or her children to come to harm, for for Elia and hers; the issue of who would succeed Aerys likely hadn't been set in stone, so Robert wasn't rebelling for the selfish purposes of asserting a claim for the Iron Throne.

As for the rest of House Baratheon? Stannis wasn't selfish - he was torn between loyalty to his brother, and loyalty to the rightful King Aerys II (who was also kin to him).

[Lord of Handle]

And you are confusing how our values work as opposed to a medieval society, let alone how they seem to work in Westeros. It is absolutely untrue that the ideal of a True Knight has remained unchanged for centuries. This view has changed dramatically since Knights were actually used in battle.

Baelor Breakspear thought a true knight should protect the weak. 90 years later Sansa thought the same thing. Not quite a century, but can you give any examples of radical changes to the perception of the "true knight" ideal over the years?

Discussing whether he lives up to a fairly tale notion of a knight is pointless, because if that is your criteria then the answer is no.

So we can conclude that Barristan is no true knight then.

It is also no for every knight and character in the books. The only ones with any chance of living up to this would be those lucky enough to never be placed any circumstance that required someone to question what to do. A situtation Aery's KG had to live with daily. That would not make them a "better knight" only a "luckier knight."

Adherence to the "true knight" ideal and one's duty as a KG member can be mutually exclusive, but if defending the weak against injustice is paramount to the "true knight" ideal (which is the definition I'm going by) then adherence to the ideal is not, by its own internal logic, impossible in the situation Aerys' KG was in. They could have acted as "true knights" and tried to help Rhaella and Rickard, but they chose not to. I think it's hard to condemn them given the unlucky circumstances they were in, but the point remains that they very well could have acted in accordance with the "true knight" ideal if they had really wanted to.

Would you also say it's no for Brienne, Davos and Dunk? (Of course, there's a good chance you already have, given how long this thread's gone on)

Also as I have asked before. Would Baelor Breakspear have been as quick to praise Duncan if Duncan had been sworn to Aerion? We really don't know. We do know that he doesn't seem to think poorly of the KG who fight for Aery's during the trial.

That is a good question. But Baelor probably recognizes that KG vows and the "true knight" ideal can conflict, and he doesn't judge the KG for putting their KG vows first. (I don't either, really) On the other hand I don't think he would have judged them if they had tried to stop Aerion either.

Besides by your own reasoning Baelor thinking someone was a good knight doesn't mean anything now does it?

Who is that "someone" you are talking about? I'm not talking about any person Baelor was talking about. I'm talking about a trait regarding "true knights" that Baelor mentioned, and I am using that trait as (the most important) part of the definition I'm using for this discussion. That's just defining my terms.

edit: spelling

[The other prince]

Baelor Breakspear thought a true knight should protect the weak. 90 years later Sansa thought the same thing. Not quite a century, but can you give any examples of radical changes to the perception of the "true knight" ideal over the years?

I can give plenty of examples where characters have considered the KG vows to be more important. These characters are still thought of to have been great Knights. Sansa? Really? The entire section about how Sansa thinks of knights is used to show how childish and unaware of the real world she is. I think what you are calling a "True Knight" is what I would call "an impossible concept."

Would you also say it's no for Brienne, Davos and Dunk? (Of course, there's a good chance you already have, given how long this thread's gone on)

Well if I wanted to nitpick I would point out that Brienne isn't a knight. Either way I will answer the question. Ideal wise yes I count them as having the values of a "True Knight". So is Barristan though. Just because the three of them have been lucky and not been placed in a position where they have to choose one vow over another or a knightly belief over a vow does not make them better knights then Barristan (except for maybe Brienne, she may have experienced this dilemma and we are going to have to wait and see how that plays out with Jaime.)

Who is that "someone" you are talking about? I'm not talking about any person Baelor was talking about. I'm talking about a trait regarding "true knights" that Baelor mentioned, and I am using that trait as (the most important) part of the definition I'm using for this discussion. That's just defining my terms.

edit: spelling

Then change "someone" to "a trait". It doesn't matter. Baelor's POV on what a Knight's values are should carry no more weight then Aery's view since IYO kings only have a limited input on what a Knight is supposed to be. The difference is you agree with Baelor.

[Roxy Carmichael]

Baelor Breakspear thought a true knight should protect the weak. 90 years later Sansa thought the same thing. Not quite a century, but can you give any examples of radical changes to the perception of the "true knight" ideal over the years?

So we can conclude that Barristan is no true knight then.

Adherence to the "true knight" ideal and one's duty as a KG member can be mutually exclusive, but if defending the weak against injustice is paramount to the "true knight" ideal (which is the definition I'm going by) then adherence to the ideal is not, by its own internal logic, impossible in the situation Aerys' KG was in. They could have acted as "true knights" and tried to help Rhaella and Rickard, but they chose not to. I think it's hard to condemn them given the unlucky circumstances they were in, but the point remains that they very well could have acted in accordance with the "true knight" ideal if they had really wanted to.

Would you also say it's no for Brienne, Davos and Dunk? (Of course, there's a good chance you already have, given how long this thread's gone on)

That is a good question. But Baelor probably recognizes that KG vows and the "true knight" ideal can conflict, and he doesn't judge the KG for putting their KG vows first. (I don't either, really) On the other hand I don't think he would have judged them if they had tried to stop Aerion either.

Who is that "someone" you are talking about? I'm not talking about any person Baelor was talking about. I'm talking about a trait regarding "true knights" that Baelor mentioned, and I am using that trait as (the most important) part of the definition I'm using for this discussion. That's just defining my terms.

edit: spelling

Brienne joined Renly's KG. Renly was a treasonous rebel who was starting a war to usurp the throne.

Davos spent most of his life as a smuggler pirate. He made a living by breaking the law. He was also unfaithful to his wife.

There are no perfect people or "True Knights."

[Nictarion]

Davos spent most of his life as a smuggler pirate. He made a living by breaking the law. He was also unfaithful to his wife.

When was Davos unfaithful?

[Winterfell is Burning]

Lots of forum members seem to share Sansa Stark's song-and-tale based views of what it is to be a True Knight. They lack a Sandor Clegane to tell them the truth, though.

Yep.

When was Davos unfaithful?

He says more than once he was unfaitfhul to his wife in the past.

[Nictarion]

He says more than once he was unfaitfhul to his wife in the past.

Oh ok I completely forgot that.

[RuthBolton]

I feel like the whole point of several dilemmas that he, Jaime and even Brienne, as of the last two books, have been in are to say there's no possible way to be a true knight. You literally can't keep all your vows, and it's not necessarily simple to discern which ones are more important.

Barristan seems to have good intentions, or at least thinks he's doing what's right. He has doubts about serving under just about everyone he's served under, and in retrospect he might have done differently but I think he's trying to live by his vows even to a fault.

[barneyfife]

i like barristan as a charactor in the series.
but i believe sometimes you need to be human and do what is right and the hell with an oath.
what im looking at is the way he percevies jamie and what jamie did to the mad king.
i happen to agree with jamie as to that being the greatest act of his life.
i mean barristan dont think to much of jamie and i do like barristan. but if barristan would have stood by idle becuz of a damn oath and allowed his king to burn a whole fucking city i wouldnt have much respect for the guy.
hell id prob be waiting for him to get his.

[Bryden Tully]

i like barristan as a charactor in the series.

but i believe sometimes you need to be human and do what is right and the hell with an oath.

what im looking at is the way he percevies jamie and what jamie did to the mad king.

i happen to agree with jamie as to that being the greatest act of his life.

i mean barristan dont think to much of jamie and i do like barristan. but if barristan would have stood by idle becuz of a damn oath and allowed his king to burn a whole fucking city i wouldnt have much respect for the guy.

hell id prob be waiting for him to get his.

Jaime shouldn't have killed his king-he swore an oath to guard him. Also we don't know that Aerys was going to burn down the city-that's just what Jaime says. As Ned says 'you served him when it was safe'

Seems a bit convenient that he waits until his Father sacks the city to suddenly become a hero for the people of KL

[Lord of Handle]

I can give plenty of examples where characters have considered the KG vows to be more important. These characters are still thought of to have been great Knights. Sansa? Really? The entire section about how Sansa thinks of knights is used to show how childish and unaware of the real world she is. I think what you are calling a "True Knight" is what I would call "an impossible concept."

That just means that those characters have dismissed adherence to the "true knight" ideal as unimportant/silly/impractical/etc., and that's understandable. It doesn't mean that the general idea of what a true knight should be has changed. However unrealistic (or just unrealized) and "childish" the "true knight" ideal might be is inconsequential. The point is that when people have put those two words together "true" and "knight" and started talking about what that is, they've been pretty consistent.

Have you noticed how I've been using the word "ideal" quite a lot? You can call it a "concept" if you like, but the point is that I'm not treating "true knight" as a job description in the same as, say, "Member of the Kingsguard", but as an ideal for knights to strive towards.

Well if I wanted to nitpick I would point out that Brienne isn't a knight. Either way I will answer the question. Ideal wise yes I count them as having the values of a "True Knight". So is Barristan though. Just because the three of them have been lucky and not been placed in a position where they have to choose one vow over another or a knightly belief over a vow does not make them better knights then Barristan (except for maybe Brienne, she may have experienced this dilemma and we are going to have to wait and see how that plays out with Jaime.)

Davos had also sworn to obey his king, but he chose to save an innocent life instead.

Then change "someone" to "a trait". It doesn't matter. Baelor's POV on what a Knight's values are should carry no more weight then Aery's view since IYO kings only have a limited input on what a Knight is supposed to be. The difference is you agree with Baelor.

I've never said Baelor's definition is the right one. I've said it's the one I'm using. And I have said that to try to make it clear just what I'm actually discussing. If you're not willing to accept that definition, then you're not on the same playing field as me, and there is really no point this discussion.

[Lion of the West]

Jaime shouldn't have killed his king-he swore an oath to guard him. Also we don't know that Aerys was going to burn down the city-that's just what Jaime says. As Ned says 'you served him when it was safe'

Seems a bit convenient that he waits until his Father sacks the city to suddenly become a hero for the people of KL

By that way of thinking Eddard don't have anything to pin on Tywin because we don't know if Eddard wouldn't have killed Elia and her kids if Tywin hadn't got there first. Seem very convinient for the good lord Stark to play furious and angry and all over it, when someone else did the dirty work he might have been coming to do himself. All we have to say that Eddard wouldn't have done the same are his words. And then is later caught in his own image to try and save Cersei's kids.

Sounds pretty twisted, just like Aerys.

[Jankmaster]

I guess until more D&E novels come out we don't have concrete dirt on Dunk yet, though I have a feeling the novels will probably tarnish my image of the "truest knight" of westeros. Esp. Summerhall, who knows what went down there.

[barneyfife]

bryden tully so youd say jamies whole connfession to bri in the bath was bull?
seemed pretty genuein to me.
but ill agree if its a lie then yea your right.
if its the truth then i dont give a shit i no i sure wouldnt have just stood there and let old bat shit burn the city.
id have cut his damn head off oath or not kill 1 bat shit crazy fuck to save thousands yea i wouldnt even have to think about it.