Jump to content

Would Barristan have beaten Sansa?


Recommended Posts

I don't recall that Robb was even informed that Sansa would be harmed if he continued his rebellion.  Also, I don't recall that he is even aware that his sister is being abused at all.  Other than the incident after Oxcross, I don't even know if any of them were even public.  Joffrey seems to have done it out of anger and spite, not as a warning to her brother.  Of course, they also had Jaime to consider.  Retaliation against Jaime would be a real possibility, something Tyrion was concerned about after the riot, when it appeared she may have been killed.

It is also worth noting that both Tyrion and Jaime considered Sansa's mistreatment to be utterly unacceptable, and Jaime lays into Ser Meryn about it.  

As to the OP, I think Joffrey would have avoided asking Barristan to hit her in the first place, the same as he avoided asking Sandor.  If asked, he would have likely consulted higher authority.  If Cersei ordered it, he would have obeyed, I think.  I doubt Barristan would have done so on Joffrey's orders alone, and given Jaime's statements to Meryn, it is clear that Jaime wouldn't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joffrey was a psychopath even before the war he himself started. He didn't punish Sansa, he behaved like that way before. 

Sansa was just too stupid at the beginning and was blinded by the southron bullshit of gallant princes and knights (such as Joffrey, his father the Kingslayer or the rest of them are all so "gallant").

If she was smart, she'd know what the abomination was at least after the whole thing in the Riverlands. They weren't at war then and he didn't need to punish someone, didn't he. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Your mind isn't what matters, the text is. Joff is a little piece of shit, no question about that, but there is no indication that (sexual) sadism is the reason why he picks on Sansa.

Huh? Both our minds matter, as well as everyone else's. After all, there's much that is a matter of interpretation. And true to form, yours is quite literal. You take the text and run w/ it as if everything everyone say is gospel. News flash: it ain't. 

Also, sadism doesn't necessarily have to be sexual. Like, say, torturing animals. Someone who opens up a living pregnant cat is a sadistic fuck, and I don't give a fig if you disagree, nor do I care if the person in question is a child. Every psycho sadistic fuck was a child one day, and very likely engaged in exactly the type of behaviour displayed by Joff.  

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He has very good reasons to hate and loathe the Starks. And he and his family and government actually have very good reasons - reasons that are perfectly accepted within the framework of the society they live in - to make her suffer and die for the actions of her family.

It is not very nice but that's how it is.

i never said Joff didn't have his own reasons to hate his enemies. But no, ordering your bodyguards to beat up little girls is not in any way shape or form acceptable, nor is it SOP. 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Ned Stark was actually willing and capable of murdering Theon Greyjoy over something his father has done, then he is actually more fucked up than Joffrey.

:lol: 

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Joffrey is a child that cannot really control his cruel tendencies (yet), but Ned is actually a good man knowing that this is the wrong thing to do yet he would willing to do such a hideous thing anyway, just to prove a point or obey his king.

Sorry, but teenagers can and do control their impulses. At least the normal ones do. Sadly, little sadistic shits don't, but that's only because they are little sadistic shits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

It's a really good question, but as @UnFit Finlay said, I think Barry would have said no and went straight to Cersei/Tywin whoever for clarification.  And he would be going to them expecting them to tell him no, not to do it.  A big part of me would like to believe that Barry would never beat Sansa, and that by the time he leaves the KG in AGOT he is disgusted by his past acquiescence to Aerys's sick proclivities and would not repeat the same inaction even at that point.  I'd like to think further that he would quit the KG in disgust on the spot if he ever saw what Joffrey was doing to Sansa but I'm not sure I could say that.  

A better question is, "How the fuck is Joffrey, as a minor with a regent, allowed to hold court without Cersei (regent) or Tyrion (Hand) present?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I don't recall that Robb was even informed that Sansa would be harmed if he continued his rebellion. 

Sure, they sent him and Catelyn a letter, all the way back when Ned was still alive that his sisters would suffer if they continued their rebellion. They even used Sansa herself to write that letter. They didn't have her spell it all out, having her tell them how well she was treated (indicating that they could treat much worse).

This is even discussed when they discuss Sansa's letter in AGoT.

12 minutes ago, Nevets said:

It is also worth noting that both Tyrion and Jaime considered Sansa's mistreatment to be utterly unacceptable, and Jaime lays into Ser Meryn about it.  

It is indecent and not very nice, but if they had decided to execute her it would have been within the framework of the society we live in. She was a hostage.

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? Both our minds matter, as well as everyone else's. After all, there's much that is a matter of interpretation. And true to form, yours is quite literal. You take the text and run w/ it as if everything everyone say is gospel. News flash: it ain't. 

The text doesn't say that Joffrey did what he did without any reason but sadistic tendencies.

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, sadism doesn't necessarily have to be sexual.

Actually, sadism is sexual concept referring to sexual arousal triggered by inflicting pain on others. If you don't feel pleasure by inflicting pain on other creatures you are not a sadist. And most sadists are not psychopaths (or otherwise severely deranged) in the sense that they get off on inflicting pain on people who do not enjoy feeling pain. That's the whole point BDSM which is actually a rather broad spectrum within human sexuality.

Most women or men who enjoy spanking or whipping other people do not do this kind of thing with people who do not enjoy being whipped or spanked. But they make up the majority of sadists.

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Like, say, torturing animals. Someone who opens up a living pregnant cat is a sadistic fuck, and I don't give a fig if you disagree, nor do I care if the person in question is a child. Every psycho sadistic fuck was a child one day, and very likely engaged in exactly the type of behaviour displayed by Joff.  

LOL, that's just nonsensical. You don't necessarily have to have sadistic tendencies to torture animals in this manner. You can also be just curious, lack empathy, and not yet fully understand that this causes another creature pain.

In fact, if you look at Joffrey and the cat there is no indication the boy actually enjoying inflicting pain on the cat at that point. He has just been told that there are kittens in the cat, and he wanted to get them out. We have no reason to believe he did what he did to watch the cat suffer, or that he did in a manner to ensure the cat suffer as much as it possibly could.

It is just a rather odd behavior which clearly shows that something is wrong with the boy, but not necessarily something connected to sadistic tendencies.

And George actually understands this. One of the most cruel characters in ASoIaF is likely Qyburn, yet there is no reason to assume this man actually gets off on what he does in a sexual or erotic manner. He is just curious and conducts experiments to test theories and find out stuff about magic and the world. There is no indication he makes things more unpleasant for his specimen as they have to be so that he gets the results he wants.

I might be wrong, we have yet to see the things he actually does, but the way the character is portrayed is that he just lacks empathy and has certain goals that are very important to him and unfortunately incompatible with the will-being of the people he uses for his experiments. The way he speaks about Falyse and Cersei's maid, and the other people he has taken doesn't indicate that he cares about what happens to them. Even when he tortures the Blue Bard there is no indication that he gets off on that.

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

i never said Joff didn't have his own reasons to hate his enemies. But no, ordering your bodyguards to beat up little girls is not in any way shape or form acceptable, nor is it SOP. 

Certainly not in our world, but in Martinworld it surely is. I mean, you do know how hostages are treated in this world? How Dany and Jon are supposed to treat the children that were given to them as hostages, how hostages have been treated in the past, how Ned would have treated Theon?

Beating some little girl is nothing against actually killing young boys and girls because their parents are evil slavers or savage rapists.

Hell, they even use whipping boys to educate royalty. When Joffrey or Tommen misbehaved a poor innocent was beaten in their stead. Sure, he isn't a highborn girl and not a POV, but his name is Pate, and everybody in this world seems to be fine with the way he is treated and the institution of whipping boys.

Tell, what do you learn when that kind of thing is part of your upbringing? What does this kind of behavior tell you about yourself - the inviolable royal person - and the rabble you rule over?

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sorry, but teenagers can and do control their impulses. At least the normal ones do. Sadly, little sadistic shits don't, but that's only because they are little sadistic shits. 

Royal children are not taught to do that kind of thing. They are taught that they own the world and can do and get whatever they like. And nobility isn't far behind that.

Joffrey is (for the most part) a product of his upbringing and the society he lives in, not some evil monster.

Robb is just dialed-down version of Joffrey. He does what he wants, too. Takes a crown, marries the wrong woman, let's a hostage run free, antagonizes two powerful allied families - and all that because he has been led to believe that a huge chunk of the continent he lives in is one day going to be under his control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point here is that Barristan very quickly decides that Joffrey Baratheon is no king at all - when the boy decides to send him into honorable retirement.

He was kicked out from the Kingsguard. He pushed his luck but he went out in a rage, and his reputation shielded him. Not sure why you are bringing this up.

Quote

The fact that Selmy so quickly turns against Joff indicates that he might not be willing to do the same things for him than he was willing to do - or allow to happen - for Aerys II.

Choice of words. Selmy is certainly on a band that is against the Iron Throne, not Joff in particular, but he isn't really a "player". He pledged himself to Daenerys Targaryen. He is an asset, a commander and a guard, not a character that call the shots. Futhermore, considering in cold soup that he served Aerys, then the usurper Bob, then Dany 'kill all Baratheons' makes him more of a mercenary.

Quote

Selmy realized that his heroics at Duskendale might actually have been not that great. In fact, he might not even have been willing to do the stuff he did for Aerys II for Robert Baratheon.

"Might". He got kicked out of Kingsguard before we could form a precise opinion.

Quote

And thinking about Aerys II - we don't know what the Kingsguard had to do under him. We know they stood there while the king raped his sister-wife and while he executed people he had sentenced to death. Burning somebody alive is cruel, although not necessarily all that crueler compared to being hanged or put alive in a crow cage to die there. There are very cruel ways to execute people in this world, and people are very familiar with them.

He burned his close advisors, lotta prominent Lords and lordlings, raped his sister, planted the city with wildfire. I will go along with especulation here: where Aerys go, there's usually a Kingsguard standing around. I wouldn't claim they didn't know what he was up to, nor his cruelty to everyone around him.

Quote

In fact, any household knight or sworn sword would be expected to support/not interfere with their lord's or king's judgments.

Sure.

Quote

We have no reason to believe Aerys II ever burned any women or children post-Duskendale, or used his Kingsguard to torment innocent women and children. It may have been hard to stand there and watch people be killed, but this is actually not something people in such cultures would be unfamiliar with. In fact, public executions usually were spectacles people liked to attend in the real world middle ages, not something people were abhorred by. And while watching Aerys II rape his sister-wife likely was tough, you don't have to be a Kingsguard to stand there doing nothing. No sworn sword/servant of a lord or king would interfere with the marital life of the people who feed and clothe him. At least not as long as they cared to stay employed/alive...

Further into speculation land. YOU have no reason to believe this. I do believe that he committed all kind of deeds "not worthy of a worldbook". At the end of his reign he was deranged, nails long, paranoid, violent and impulsive. You got a whole bowl of practical cruelty right there. Assuming he somehow decided not to torment someone around him after Duskendale all of a sudden is a little off,  IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

He was kicked out from the Kingsguard. He pushed his luck but he went out in a rage, and his reputation shielded him. Not sure why you are bringing this up.

 

His reputation didn't shield him, Joffrey dispatched the Goldcloaks to capture or kill Barristan.  Selmy killed one with his knife, one with spear, and rode down a third on his way out. It was a "kill or be killed" moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kingsguard has this sterling reputation but they were just glorified bodyguards.  They let their kings get away with bad behavior.  Jaime even with all his flaws at least had a problem with Aerys raping Rhaella.  And didn't the Kingsguard not let Ned anywhere near his sister at the Tower of Joy.  Ned had to fight them and kill them to get to Lyanna.  i thought that Ned had this reputation of being honorable.  Did the Kingsguard think that Ned will kill Lyanna.  Because I don't think that he would have and he didn't have the reputation that suggested that he would hurt women or children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

He was kicked out from the Kingsguard. He pushed his luck but he went out in a rage, and his reputation shielded him. Not sure why you are bringing this up.

They offered him honorable retirement, and he spat in their faces. And then he made a treasonous remark about Lord Stannis soon sitting on the Iron Throne.

If Selmy had been a sucker for power and 'King Joffrey' he wouldn't have been that quickly to react the way he did. If Jaehaerys II or Aerys II had intended to retire Selmy that way, he wouldn't have talked about a Blackfyre pretender sitting the Iron Throne.

Furthermore, Selmy actually reveals to be rather choosy about the next monarch he wants to serve. He first ensures Dany is worthy to be a queen, he doesn't just run to her. That shows that the man actually can think.

And he sure as hell would have thought whether he should stain his hand and name by hitting a little girl.

At least that's my take on the character. We'll never know for sure.

14 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

He burned his close advisors, lotta prominent Lords and lordlings, raped his sister, planted the city with wildfire. I will go along with especulation here: where Aerys go, there's usually a Kingsguard standing around. I wouldn't claim they didn't know what he was up to, nor his cruelty to everyone around him.

Not sure Selmy knows about the wildfire. It has yet to come up in his thoughts. He was with Rhaegar at the Trident - and Rhaegar, too, didn't know anything about that (at least as far as we know).

Aerys II executing traitors isn't necessarily problematic. His behavior grew erratic and strange, but the idea that serving this man also means you had to do a lot of ugly things is simply not yet confirmed.

While the Kingsguard would have witnessed a lot of things we have no idea whether they were part of any abuse or executions. Did Aerys II use them to cut out peoples' tongues, say? Or other goons? Did he use them to drag people to the block, command them to ignite the wildfire, beat up people, etc.?

We have no reason to believe he did. In fact, it doesn't seem very likely because the Kingsguard are the Kingsguard. They protect the king. They don't do lesser things like executing or torturing people. They have been twisted and corrupt KG who liked to do that - like Ser Owen Bush - but Aerys II's great Seven don't seem to have been that kind of material.

Which makes it actually pretty likely Aerys II treated them the way Joffrey treated Sandor Clegane. They were in the thick of things, but they do not actually have dirty hands. At least not in the sense that they were forced to kill or torture people against their will.

14 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Further into speculation land. YOU have no reason to believe this. I do believe that he committed all kind of deeds "not worthy of a worldbook". At the end of his reign he was deranged, nails long, paranoid, violent and impulsive. You got a whole bowl of practical cruelty right there. Assuming he somehow decided not to torment someone around him after Duskendale all of a sudden is a little off,  IMO.

I'll believe Aerys II ate children and had his Kingsguard beat up little girls when I get textual evidence that he did that kind of thing, and not before. He can believe that he did all that (and that he did transform into a dragon after his death) if you want do, but I don't.

But I guess I have to shave and cut my hairs and nails more often or else people like you will suspect I rape my non-existing sister-wife or want to burn some fictional city with fictional wildfire.

I did not say he did not torment people after Duskendale, by the way. I said we have no evidence he used his KG to do that. That's a difference. We are not wondering whether some thugs would have beat up Sansa, we are are wondering whether Ser Barristan Selmy would have done that. And I really don't think Ser Barristan Selmy tortured or beat up anybody under Aerys II.

In fact, the whole Duskendale thing shows that the man really earned the trust and gratitude of his Mad King. Aerys II spared the life of Dontos Hollard simply because Selmy asked it of him. If did something like that - spare a person he actually wanted to kill - then it is not likely that he called on Selmy to beat up girls or torture people unless he had reason to believe Selmy wanted to do stuff like that.

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Selmy had any such desires or ever did stuff like that.

Joffrey has a corrupt Kingsguard full thugs and rabble. Aerys II didn't have such a KG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, sadism is sexual concept referring to sexual arousal triggered by inflicting pain on others. If you don't feel pleasure by inflicting pain on other creatures you are not a sadist. And most sadists are not psychopaths (or otherwise severely deranged) in the sense that they get off on inflicting pain on people who do not enjoy feeling pain. That's the whole point BDSM which is actually a rather broad spectrum within human sexuality.

Most women or men who enjoy spanking or whipping other people do not do this kind of thing with people who do not enjoy being whipped or spanked. But they make up the majority of sadists.

sadism noun [ U ] 

UK  /ˈseɪ.dɪ.zəm/ US  /ˈsæd.ɪ.zəm/
 

the activity of getting pleasure, sometimes sexual, from being cruel to or hurting another person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sigella said:

No, Im with @UnFit Finlay here. Joffys reaction to Tyrions threat to snitch and some line from Sansa (something about Joffy being kinder / less violent with his mother present) gives textual support.

Also Cersei did try to stop Joff from killing Ned. No reason for her to allow her son to become a wifebeating brute above all else he already is.

I'm not following. Your first paragraph is about how Joff would listen to Cersei but your second paragraph demonstrates Joff not listening to Cersei.

And are you really using Cersei's sense of morality and human decency as evidence that she'd stop Sansa's beatings? Joff beat Sansa out in the open and it's unbelievable that Cersei was unaware of this. She either couldn't stop Joff or had no interest in doing so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Two completely different scenarios; only commonality is children get hurt/killed.

Jaimie has either have to hurt/kill a child to save his neck...again tried murderering a 8 year old for having saw him fucking his sister it's doubtful, suddenly if asked by his king to hit a 11 year old suddenly he'd be hesitant.

Later he'd  try to frame it as him being a hero I'm sure.

3 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

I am not forgetting that - Jaime may have felt indifferent about Sansa being hit, but he would not have hit her as he would see no purpose to it and would believe it far beneath him.

Jaimie cares about purpose at this point lol? Come on, he's only interested (at the time) with banging Cersi. Really, unlikely he'd make anymore of headache(which he'd get from his father, and sister-lover), for himself just to spare hitting a girl; he's already reviled, by nearly everyone, one more black mark on his resume won't ruin his reputation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jaimie has either have to hurt/kill a child to save his neck...again tried murderering a 8 year old for having saw him fucking his sister it's doubtful, suddenly if asked by his king to hit a 11 year old suddenly he'd be hesitant.

Later he'd  try to frame it as him being a hero I'm sure.

From memory, so not verbatim.

The king is eight. Our duty is to protect him, even from himself. If the king asks you to saddle his horse, obey. If he asks you to kill his horse, come to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, sadism is sexual concept referring to sexual arousal triggered by inflicting pain on others. If you don't feel pleasure by inflicting pain on other creatures you are not a sadist. And most sadists are not psychopaths (or otherwise severely deranged) in the sense that they get off on inflicting pain on people who do not enjoy feeling pain. That's the whole point BDSM which is actually a rather broad spectrum within human sexuality.

Are you a licensed psychiatrist?  No, I think not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider which could perhaps make this less clear cut (I am not sure if he would or not Personally) is Barristan’s opposition to assassinating Dany. Sure, that’s in the context of a council meeting, but it still opposes the King’s will. Something to chew on, but it doesn’t really sway me fully to say he wouldn’t do it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jaimie has either have to hurt/kill a child to save his neck...again tried murderering a 8 year old for having saw him fucking his sister it's doubtful, suddenly if asked by his king to hit a 11 year old suddenly he'd be hesitant.

Later he'd  try to frame it as him being a hero I'm sure.

What are you yammering on about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

What are you yammering on about?

I don't believe it's particularly hard to grasp the message of my post; I'm sorry if I was unclear however.  Jaimie pre-cut is willing to kill an 7 year old for happening to see Jaimie and Cersi fucking. Quite easily I might add, didn't even have trouble sleeping that night I'd wager. And really never really shows remorse for his action prior to being cut and even post cut when he shows some disgust at what he done to Cersi he's pretending as though he impart a victim of the incident. It's bizarre to suppose the Jaime we see in AGOT would needlessly cause himself more trouble and risk Cersi's ire by refusing to hi the face of some girl who at this point had no real importance to him. He would beat Sansa if demanded, go on to fuck Cersi, and go on with his life as KG as if nothing happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I'm not following. Your first paragraph is about how Joff would listen to Cersei but your second paragraph demonstrates Joff not listening to Cersei.

And are you really using Cersei's sense of morality and human decency as evidence that she'd stop Sansa's beatings? Joff beat Sansa out in the open and it's unbelievable that Cersei was unaware of this. She either couldn't stop Joff or had no interest in doing so.

 

Cersei all but certainly thought Sansa was the "younger, more beautiful queen" at this point. Chances are, the thought of Sansa being punished and humiliated brought her joy.

Cersei is also a raging misogynist, as paradoxical as that may sound. She doesn't care about the torture of girls--not when she was a ten-year-old pushing her best friend into a well, nor when she was an adult gifting Qyburn with subjects to experiment on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't believe it's particularly hard to grasp the message of my post; I'm sorry if I was unclear however.  Jaimie pre-cut is willing to kill an 7 year old for happening to see Jaimie and Cersi fucking

I don't know what the pre-cut means but yes Jamie tossed a kid from a window.  What Jamie and Cersei are doing is treason. Penalty for treason is death ---- death of Cersei, Jaime and the rug rats.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Quite easily I might add, didn't even have trouble sleeping that night I'd wager.

Your wager may be correct.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And really never really shows remorse for his action prior to being cut and even post cut when he shows some disgust at what he done to Cersi he's pretending as though he impart a victim of the incident. 

No comment.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It's bizarre to suppose the Jaime we see in AGOT would needlessly cause himself more trouble and risk Cersi's ire by refusing to hi the face of some girl who at this point had no real importance to him.

Trying to clarify --- it's your thought that Jaime would indeed smack Sansa if Joffrey deemed it necessary.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He would beat Sansa if demanded, go on to fuck Cersi, and go on with his life as KG as if nothing happened.

Cool. Thanks for  sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...