Jump to content

Barristan the Bold is not a true knight


Ser Douglas

Recommended Posts

If some knight fails to uphold their duties, has stated in the knighting ceremny (be brave, be just, defend the young and innocent and protect the women), he is no more a true knight.

Simple has that.

All other oaths - Kingsguard oath of complete obedience to the king - if demand some breaking of the duties of a knight, and if the knight follow orders that go against his duties has a knight, he is no longer a true knight, but only an higly trained, elite soldier - much like The Hound.

Barristan is no true knight, but it is far for being one of the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some knight fails to uphold their duties, has stated in the knighting ceremny (be brave, be just, defend the young and innocent and protect the women), he is no more a true knight.

Simple has that.

All other oaths - Kingsguard oath of complete obedience to the king - if demand some breaking of the duties of a knight, and if the knight follow orders that go against his duties has a knight, he is no longer a true knight, but only an higly trained, elite soldier - much like The Hound.

Barristan is no true knight, but it is far for being one of the worst.

This assumption works under the premise that you know exactly what the oath/vows are when you become a knight. It also works under the assumption that the faith of the Seven works almost exactly like catholicism. Neither of which we know to be true. For all we know the Faith of the Seven wrote the kingsguard oath so that it is supposed to supercede any other vows/oaths. In short you are trying to judge Barristan by what YOU think a knight is and not not what the world of GRRM considers a knight to be.

Pretty much everyone in the series considers Barristan to be a "True knight". From Ned Stark to Tywin Lannister. Since they live in the world that GRRM created they would have a better idea of what it meant to be a "True knight". Therefore by the standards of the world that GRRM has created he is a true knight. What you (or I for that matter) think simply doesn't matter. In Westeros he is pretty much as true a knight as you can get. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assumption works under the premise that you know exactly what the oath/vows are when you become a knight.

Of course they know what the vows are, they swear them themselves and stand vigil in a Sept, supposedly to signify their devotion to those vows.

It also works under the assumption that the faith of the Seven works almost exactly like catholicism.

Why? I'm genuinely interested why you think any of this requires the faith of the Seven to work "almost exactly" like Catholicism.

Neither of which we know to be true. For all we know the Faith of the Seven wrote the kingsguard oath so that it is supposed to supercede any other vows/oaths. In short you are trying to judge Barristan by what YOU think a knight is and not not what the world of GRRM considers a knight to be.

Even if the vow of the Kingsguard is intended to supercede the knightly vows (btw who's making unfounded claims now?), that doesn't take away the fact that service as a Kingsguard might result in an impossible choice between being a Knight and a Kingsguard. Anyone who chooses the Kingsguard vow ceases to be a knight then. Understandable, perhaps, but they do so all the same. Not in name, of course, but in spirit.

Pretty much everyone in the series considers Barristan to be a "True knight". From Ned Stark to Tywin Lannister. Since they live in the world that GRRM created they would have a better idea of what it meant to be a "True knight". Therefore by the standards of the world that GRRM has created he is a true knight. What you (or I for that matter) think simply doesn't matter. In Westeros he is pretty much as true a knight as you can get. Period.

False. What you or I think is what analyzing and discussing the novels is all about, ie it's IMO the very purpose of a board like this. The characters in the story work with much less information than we have, and their biases and personal opinions skew their perceptions. Nobody is arguing that Barristan is technically not a knight, what we're talking about is whether he has stayed true to the ideal he has sworn to uphold. That discussion not only can but should happen independently of said character's in-world reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they know what the vows are, they swear them themselves and stand vigil in a Sept, supposedly to signify their devotion to those vows.

Why? I'm genuinely interested why you think any of this requires the faith of the Seven to work "almost exactly" like Catholicism.

Even if the vow of the Kingsguard is intended to supercede the knightly vows (btw who's making unfounded claims now?), that doesn't take away the fact that service as a Kingsguard might result in an impossible choice between being a Knight and a Kingsguard. Anyone who chooses the Kingsguard vow ceases to be a knight then. Understandable, perhaps, but they do so all the same. Not in name, of course, but in spirit.

False. What you or I think is what analyzing and discussing the novels is all about, ie it's IMO the very purpose of a board like this. The characters in the story work with much less information than we have, and their biases and personal opinions skew their perceptions. Nobody is arguing that Barristan is technically not a knight, what we're talking about is whether he has stayed true to the ideal he has sworn to uphold. That discussion not only can but should happen independently of said character's in-world reputation.

says who? because a king guard believes his KG vows supersede his regular knights vows he no longer a knight when being a knight is required of a kings guard.also can you name any knight other than maybe dunk who 100% up holds their vows? if you think that's really possible then you miss the point of the books the point of the examination of a knights vows is that people put standards that's are impossible to achieve on knights and that no one is perfect even people we believe are or were I.e we're all human
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be obvious by now that one of the theme of the serie is conflicting loyalties and obligations.



Jaime spelled it out for us early in the serie, you just can't keep all of your oaths when they are clearly conflicting at times. Which do you follow then? The most basic and frequent dilemna shown in the pages of ASOIAF :how can you protect your lord and the innocents at the same time when your lord is harming the innocents?



Even Brienne is in the process of discovering this harsh truth and since she is currently travelling with Jaime, the irony of it will probably be pointed out. She has oaths to Catelyn Tully who seemingly has turned into a monster so she is currently experiencing Jaime's dilemna when he was sworn to Aerys. Easy to serve when your lord is asking you to the right thing anyway, much harder when he is not.



Selmy, Jaime, Brienne and many others are all characters who are primary vessels used by GRMM to explore this divided heart theme.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jaime himself pointed out, it's really impossible to be a "true" knight. That's because your vows are conflicting- you're supposed to protect the weak and the innocent, but also to serve your liege lord (or King). If your Lord is hurting the weak and the innocent, you will fail one way or the other.



Plus, if you try to protect the weak and all it leads is to you being killed and the innocent being slaughtered anyway, doesn't that make you a failure as well?



From the knightly point of view, the only way Barristan would have succeeded in his vows was that when he saw that Aerys would do to the Starks was somehow found a way to murder him before some of the other 400 people in that room stopped him. But then he would be a failure as KG member.



And it makes any worse is that while Rhaegar wouldn't murder innocent people like that, what if Aerys' heirs were, say, Aerion and Viserys? Should Barristan have murdered them too?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they know what the vows are, they swear them themselves and stand vigil in a Sept, supposedly to signify their devotion to those vows.

First I never said anything about "they" knowing or not knowing the vows. I said "We" as in the readers do not know.

Why? I'm genuinely interested why you think any of this requires the faith of the Seven to work "almost exactly" like Catholicism.

Because you are assuming you know the nature of how their vows or how their faith works. I could be wrong and you are not coming to this conclusion because you are comparing the Seven to Catholicism but are using a different reference point. It doesn't matter because you are still working under the assumption that you know how the faith of the Seven and the knightly vows work.

Even if the vow of the Kingsguard is intended to supercede the knightly vows (btw who's making unfounded claims now?), that doesn't take away the fact that service as a Kingsguard might result in an impossible choice between being a Knight and a Kingsguard. Anyone who chooses the Kingsguard vow ceases to be a knight then. Understandable, perhaps, but they do so all the same. Not in name, of course, but in spirit.

Please read my comments more carefully as I did not claim to know what the KG vows or the knightly vows contain. I also did not claim to know the exact inner workings of the faith. My exact words were "For all we know". This means that neither you or myself know exactly how this works. I really am not trying to be mean here, its just that your comment seems to say I was making a claim here when I was not.

False. What you or I think is what analyzing and discussing the novels is all about, ie it's IMO the very purpose of a board like this. The characters in the story work with much less information than we have, and their biases and personal opinions skew their perceptions. Nobody is arguing that Barristan is technically not a knight, what we're talking about is whether he has stayed true to the ideal he has sworn to uphold. That discussion not only can but should happen independently of said character's in-world reputation.

This I will agree with to a point. However to Judge whether or not he has lived up to an ideal still requires us to have an opinion on what that ideal is. Therefore someone who believes that to be a "True" knight they should follow this or that vow above another vow may not consider him a true knight. While someone like myself who thinks that to be a true knight requires someone to honestly try and make the best decision possible under the circumstance and with the information given is a true knight. So from that POV you are right and this comes down to an IMO discussion. However if we are only debating whether or not he fits a persons ideals outside of the books then the entire conversation is pointless because an opinion is an opinion and is not really right or wrong. If we are debating whether or not he is a true knight by the standards of Westeros though then a person's perception of him (esp one like Ned Stark) does matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jaime himself pointed out, it's really impossible to be a "true" knight. That's because your vows are conflicting- you're supposed to protect the weak and the innocent, but also to serve your liege lord (or King). If your Lord is hurting the weak and the innocent, you will fail one way or the other.

Plus, if you try to protect the weak and all it leads is to you being killed and the innocent being slaughtered anyway, doesn't that make you a failure as well?

From the knightly point of view, the only way Barristan would have succeeded in his vows was that when he saw that Aerys would do to the Starks was somehow found a way to murder him before some of the other 400 people in that room stopped him. But then he would be a failure as KG member.

And it makes any worse is that while Rhaegar wouldn't murder innocent people like that, what if Aerys' heirs were, say, Aerion and Viserys? Should Barristan have murdered them too?

Very well said. This is why I say Barristan is a true knight. It seems it is impossible to keep every vow you take. This is why I say that to be a true knight it doesn't require you follow every vow to the letter. That is simply impossible and no one therefore would ever be a true knight by those standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Barristan does make compromises to survive, but he's a knight, not a statesman or regent. Well, okay, he's a council member as LC eventually and LC is not chosen for combat prowess alone.



Where he doesn't help Ned Stark, he's outnumbered, Ned is the regent but Joff is still king and Ned is caught inviting Stannis to come over and take the throne. Since he knows Viserys and Dany are alive, he doesn't necessarily have strong feelings about which Baratheon is better entitled or legitimate or not where there is no ready proof.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he is a lousy knight and an oathbreaker. That that's par for the course doesn't change the fact that he is no true knight.

:agree:

From the books a knight give a special oath:

a touch on the right shoulder with the blade. "In the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave."

The sword moves from right shoulder to left. "In the name of the Father I charge you to be just."

Right shoulder. "In the name of the Mother I charge you to defend the young and innocent."

The left. "In the name of the Maid I charge you to protect all women....

What a knight should do;

Breakspear

This man protected the weak, as every true knight must

Sansa said;

Knights are sworn to defend the weak, protect women, and fight for the right, but none of them did a thing.

Ser Barristan the hypocrite said

Old or young, a true knight is sworn to protect those who are weaker than himself, or die in the attempt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you know that he was there for the rape? as fat as the torture and murder every king does those things. lastly name a 100% true knight

Are you serious? I mean really please tell me that you are kidding and or trolling. Pretty please!

Aerys was raping Rhaella for years, he was never there? Aerys tortured and killed people and Barry didn't even raised an eyebrow the fact that there are some other Kings who do it, and no not every King torture his opponents, doesn't mean that Barry was right to follow him without saying a word.

As Sandor said: There are no true knights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barristan is better then most. That said, like the above poster pointed out, there are no true knights. If there is one, who has always stayed true to every vow he ever swore, point him out. I can't remember one from my reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is hypocritical to on the one hand follow your vows the point where you allow someone like Aerys to run amok, and on the other be willing to bend the rules where celibacy is concerned. There is quite a huge difference between a minor bend and openly opposing the King though - but still, allowing Aerys' reign of terror to continue really is hiding behind your vows, and it certainly doesn't mesh with the other vows of knighthood, such as protecting the weak.

Agreed completely.

Barristan thinks in ADWD that had he been in the throne room when Tywin unveiled the ruined bodies of Rhaegar's children that no army would have stopped him from killing him

But where was all this righteous fury when Aerys burned Rickard Stark alive and had Brandon strangled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I never said anything about "they" knowing or not knowing the vows. I said "We" as in the readers do not know.

But we do. I can see others have posted them for you already, so I won't repeat that. But the general gist about protecting the weak and innocent is there, and Barristan does not live up to that when he allows Aerys to do what he does, for years on end, hiding behind his "duty".

Because you are assuming you know the nature of how their vows or how their faith works. I could be wrong and you are not coming to this conclusion because you are comparing the Seven to Catholicism but are using a different reference point. It doesn't matter because you are still working under the assumption that you know how the faith of the Seven and the knightly vows work.

I don't know or claim to know much about the faith of the Seven, but like outlined above, there's no big mystery about what the knightly vows entail, and what requirements they pose.

Please read my comments more carefully as I did not claim to know what the KG vows or the knightly vows contain. I also did not claim to know the exact inner workings of the faith. My exact words were "For all we know". This means that neither you or myself know exactly how this works. I really am not trying to be mean here, its just that your comment seems to say I was making a claim here when I was not.

And this, too, only applies if the vows are unknown, but they're not. So fair enough if you're not claiming to know how they work, but I am - at least in a general sense.

This I will agree with to a point. However to Judge whether or not he has lived up to an ideal still requires us to have an opinion on what that ideal is. Therefore someone who believes that to be a "True" knight they should follow this or that vow above another vow may not consider him a true knight. While someone like myself who thinks that to be a true knight requires someone to honestly try and make the best decision possible under the circumstance and with the information given is a true knight. So from that POV you are right and this comes down to an IMO discussion. However if we are only debating whether or not he fits a persons ideals outside of the books then the entire conversation is pointless because an opinion is an opinion and is not really right or wrong. If we are debating whether or not he is a true knight by the standards of Westeros though then a person's perception of him (esp one like Ned Stark) does matter.

I am not arguing about out-of-book definitions of knighthood, doing so would indeed be pointless.

There are very few actual true knights in Westeros, but that's part of the point. I agree that in Westeros, Barristan is considered a true knight, whereas someone like Jaime Lannister is reviled by the same people that idolize Barristan, and yet Jaime was the only one willing to abandon his sworn duty and do the right thing. Of course Jaime Lannister is a scumbag and definitely no true knight either, but it's still interesting to me to see how differently these two knights are judged (in-book and out), and then look at their actual actions and what they have allowed to transpire "on their watch". I regret that I have no better counter-example than Dunk or Brienne to give for actual true knights, but then I never claimed it was an easy thing to accomplish :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? I mean really please tell me that you are kidding and or trolling. Pretty please!

Aerys raped Rhaella for years, he was never there? Aerys tortured and killed people and Barry didn't even raised an eyebrow the fact that there are some other Kings who do it, and no not every King torture his opponents, doesn't mean that Barry was right to follow him without saying a word.

As Sandor said: There are no true knights.

Where exactly does it say he raped her for years? Besides historically speaking most cultures don't seem to have acknowledge rape was really possible between husband and wife until we came to our senses fairly recently. Even thinking on abuse was different in times past. Have you ever looked at some of the laws that are on the books from 100 or 200 hundred years ago concerning abuse? There are things like "you can only beat your wife on Sunday and not with a stick bigger around then your thumb" I mean some of these are horrible laws but they do give you an idea of how our thinking has changed (thankfully). You kind of get an idea of how this thinking worked when Jaime is told that they are not supposed to protect Rhaella from Aerys.

As for the people that Aerys tortured and killed they were not in his view innocent. Take the Starks for example. Brandon entered the Red keep yelling for Aery's son to "Come out and die" . His method of dealing with this while horrible to us does not violate a knightly vow to protect the innocent.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that people are using our culture to judge Barristan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed completely.

Barristan thinks in ADWD that had he been in the throne room when Tywin unveiled the ruined bodies of Rhaegar's children that no army would have stopped him from killing him

But where was all this righteous fury when Aerys burned Rickard Stark alive and had Brandon strangled?

Brandon at least had threatened to kill the prince. How is this even remotely the same as the Starks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...