Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?

[Mad Monkey]

Aassuming you're just being snarky, I'll respond anyway

Uh, thanks, but I wasn't being snarky. I really had forgotten about that line and it was only when you quoted it that I realized the implications. If it was just Arianne coming up with justifications for treason, it wouldn't have meant much.

But Arys, a Kingsguard, agreed. Arianne said, "You swore an oath to Joffrey, not to Tommen." and Arys said "Yes, but" which suggests that Arianne's point is legitimate. Arys's oath WAS actually just to Joffrey; he pretty much said so, and while he was in Dorne he didn't get a chance to swear the same oath to Tommen. Notice how Arys didn't say, "I have to obey Tommen because I am bound to the Iron Throne." He basically said, "I should obey Tommen because he's a nice kid and I don't want to put him at risk." That doesn't sound like a blood-oath to me!

Just as the Nights Watch doesn't disperse whenever a new Lord Commander is elected.

We know the Night's Watch oath, but we've never read the Kingsguard oath, have we? While they are similar, I'm not sure they're the same.

But as far as the Kingsguard; I guess they really do have to renew their oaths with each new king. That's stunningly bad concept design, as I said before, but it appears to be what they've gone with (as far as Ser Arys can tell; he could be wrong, but I don't think we're meant to doubt his comprehension of the oath here).

[Blackfish Blues]

That's such an awesome visual though. I can imagine Burger King and McDonald's employees squaring off inside the Tower of Joy (or whatever that crappy little amusement park thing they have is called).

:lmao::rofl:

I think the traitor argument comes from when he left Aerys's service and went to work for Robert even though he knew that Viserys and Daenerys were still alive, under the protection of a Kingsguard, but still needed vital assistance. He basically collaborated with an invader, like Quisling or Petain, when his culture probably would have considered it more noble to either die defending Rhaegar or live to protect his younger siblings.

To quote Ser Arys: Yes, but:

They may not be bound to Rhaegar specifically, but they might still be sworn Kingsgaurd, and bound by their oath to serve the crown, or the throne or the realm or something. Just as the Nights Watch doesn't disperse whenever a new Lord Commander is elected.

This. I have this concept of the Kingsguard as akin to a religion; sometimes dogmas don't work for you, you have to follow your own conscience.

I think that with the tormented history of Westeros the white knights were often caught into loyalty quandaries. For Barristan Selmy the choice was between Robert Baratheon the invader, or Aerys' children. It is possible that he chose the path that would most likely lead to peace. And it did, for some 15 years, if I'm not mistaken. When the Baratheon dynasty went rotten and a Targaryen claimant emerged in the East, Selmy's conscience might have pushed him towards his old allegiance, rather than becoming a sellsword or a Black Brother.

I often try to imagine Arthur Dayne's dilemma. Okay, we're not sure about the chronology, but there must have been moments, even before Robert's Rebellion, when Dayne watched murderous, sadistic Aerys and nice, bookish Rhaegar, and privately thought that the latter would be worthier of his allegiance. So I think that when Dayne chose to defend whatever or whoever was in the Tower of Joy, he did it because his conscience told him to stand by Rhaegar, not because of any oath to a family or a throne.

[Jaak]

How can he be called a turncloak , when he did not leave the Kings' Gaurd willingly ?? He was thrown out.

Which did not release him from his duties as subject of Joffrey - duties which he acknowledged to exist by offering to serve Joffrey. He was free from Kingsguard duties - he could get hired with anyone who was loyal to Joffrey (nobody else than Lannisters and their bannermen, at that point), accept lands for service, and marry if he wanted, but he was not free to support Joffrey´s enemies any more than ordinary subject of Joffrey was.

[Mad Monkey]

When the Baratheon dynasty went rotten and a Targaryen claimant emerged in the East, Selmy's conscience might have pushed him towards his old allegiance, rather than becoming a sellsword or a Black Brother.

Honestly, I think a case could have been made for any decision Barristan made. I don't think any less of him as a man or as a knight for serving Robert instead of Viserys/Daenerys, or for serving Daenerys instead of Tommen. The only issue that he might have had was legalities; morally, an argument could be made that serving any of the contenders/pretenders was a good choice.

[Daena the Defiant]

Uh, thanks, but I wasn't being snarky. I really had forgotten about that line and it was only when you quoted it that I realized the implications. If it was just Arianne coming up with justifications for treason, it wouldn't have meant much.

But Arys, a Kingsguard, agreed. Arianne said, "You swore an oath to Joffrey, not to Tommen." and Arys said "Yes, but" which suggests that Arianne's point is legitimate. Arys's oath WAS actually just to Joffrey; he pretty much said so, and while he was in Dorne he didn't get a chance to swear the same oath to Tommen. Notice how Arys didn't say, "I have to obey Tommen because I am bound to the Iron Throne." He basically said, "I should obey Tommen because he's a nice kid and I don't want to put him at risk." That doesn't sound like a blood-oath to me!

But that was months after Arianne was weaving her kinky sexual spell over him, trying to bring him around to the idea that Myrcella is the rightful heir (under Dornish law).

[Dolorous J]

Which did not release him from his duties as subject of Joffrey - duties which he acknowledged to exist by offering to serve Joffrey. He was free from Kingsguard duties - he could get hired with anyone who was loyal to Joffrey (nobody else than Lannisters and their bannermen, at that point), accept lands for service, and marry if he wanted, but he was not free to support Joffrey´s enemies any more than ordinary subject of Joffrey was.

Joffrey is not a legitimate heir , he's an incest-born bastard imposter , so Selmy has no "duty" to be his subject either, anymore than he has to continue to gaurd him...

He never swore fealty to Joffrey after he was banished from the Red Keep.

[The Mance]

Uh, thanks, but I wasn't being snarky. I really had forgotten about that line and it was only when you quoted it that I realized the implications.

My sincerest apologies then. I can only offer that I'm not used to my posts being met with such enthusiastic agreement so I just assumed that you were being flippant. :grouphug:

Also,

But Arys, a Kingsguard, agreed. Arianne said, "You swore an oath to Joffrey, not to Tommen." and Arys said "Yes, but" which suggests that Arianne's point is legitimate. Arys's oath WAS actually just to Joffrey; he pretty much said so, and while he was in Dorne he didn't get a chance to swear the same oath to Tommen. Notice how Arys didn't say, "I have to obey Tommen because I am bound to the Iron Throne." He basically said, "I should obey Tommen because he's a nice kid and I don't want to put him at risk." That doesn't sound like a blood-oath to me!

yes, this is exactly the implication I had in mind.

If you haven't read the whole thread you really ought to. It's an interesting discussion and it will put this threadcromancy in perspective.

[SFDanny]

RE: proof

So I've been rereading the series lately and I came across a line in AFFC that speaks to the responsibilities of the Kingsgaurd and their oath in times of succession. It comes during an exchange between Ser Arys Oakheart and Arianne towards the end of the The Soiled Knight chapter when Arianne is trying to convince Arys to crown Myrcella over Tommen

Arys responds with "I swore an oath"

Arianne corrects him with "To Joffery, not to Tommen."

Arys agrees "Aye, but Tommen is a good hearted boy."

So how does this exchange jibe with some peoples assertion that the Kingsgaurd's Oath binds them to that particular royal line for life. It seems to me that it suggests that the oaths must be retaken every time there is a new king regardless of legitimate heirs in obvious succession.

Proof? Of what?

Cersei demands many, many people swear fealty to Joffrey, and it likely included all the members of the Kingsguard. She starts with demanding Ned and the Small Council do so, and she moves on to demanding such oaths from just about every important family in Westeros.The above quote says nothing about this being the practice every time a new king sits the Iron Throne. It certainly doesn't mean that the Kingsguard has no duty to a new king until the High Septon recognizes the king, or that their allegiance must shift, according to their oath, to whoever holds the Iron Throne by force of arms. Cersei's decrees and demands of oaths of fealty are tactics she uses in the particular situation she finds herself in - including that her children have no real claim to the throne. The quote says nothing about any tradition of new oaths to every new king - by the Kingsguard or anyone else.

In fact, we have cases, including Ser Barristan's own actions and words upon Robert's death that show he accepts his responsibility as a member of the Kingsguard to guard the new king without having to take a new oath to Joffrey personally.

Ser Barristan Selmy was the first to answer the summons, immaculate in white cloak and enameled scales. "My lords," he said, " my place is beside the young king now. Pray give me leave to attend him."

"Your place is here, Ser Barristan," Ned told him. (AGoT 438)

This is immediately after Robert dies.

In your quote above between Arys and Arianne, the context is key to understanding what is being said. What Arianne is trying to do is to get Ser Arys to consider that his oath could transfer as easily from Joffrey to Myrcella as from Joffrey to Tommen. In fact, in Dorne the tradition supports Myrcella's "claim." She is the older surviving sibling. She's not making an argument to Ser Arys saying he has no obligation under his oath, but rather that his loyalty is misplaced in assuming it transfers to Tommen instead of Myrcella. Notice there is nothing here about what the High Septon has or hasn't done. There is nothing about who holds the Iron Throne as key to the Kingsguard's allegiance. It's a question of convincing Ser Arys that another family member might have a better legal claim to the throne - complete with sexual favors promised and hints of marriage if he will agree with Arianne.

[Jaak]

Joffrey is not a legitimate heir , he's an incest-born bastard imposter , so Selmy has no "duty" to be his subject either, anymore than he has to continue to gaurd him...

He never swore fealty to Joffrey after he was banished from the Red Keep.

If Joffrey is not legitimate heir then he has no authority to fire Barristan, and then Selmy´s oath to Robert transfers to Stannis. Stannis has never dismissed Barristan so Selmy is in no way free of his obligation to go and report to Stannis for service.

[Dolorous J]

If Joffrey is not legitimate heir then he has no authority to fire Barristan, and then Selmy´s oath to Robert transfers to Stannis. Stannis has never dismissed Barristan so Selmy is in no way free of his obligation to go and report to Stannis for service.

I don't think Selmy's oath allows him to make judment calls on a rightful heir , I think his oath binds him to protect whoever sits the Iron Throne. Period.

Once he was released from that oath though , he was well within his rights to go seek a TRUE king/queen to serve. As I said , he never swore fealty to Joff after being bannished from the Red Keep . He was starting anew, so there was no cloak to turn.

[The Mance]

.The above quote says nothing about this being the practice every time a new king sits the Iron Throne.

You're right, we really don't know what the norm is. Though the Council and and other lords of the realm haven't taken life long oaths of fealty to anyone, so its reasonable for Cersei to ask then to reaffirm their loyalty. Any Joff specific oaths demanded by Cersei of the KG would be redundant at best, and secondary to their holy vows. Though, in this case, I think its fair to assume that Arys is talking about the obligations he has from his KG Oath and not any superfluous oaths that Cersei may have demanded of him.

In fact, we have cases, including Ser Barristan's own actions and words upon Robert's death that show he accepts his responsibility as a member of the Kingsguard to guard the new king without having to take a new oath to Joffrey personally.

I don't think that Barristan's actions in the case of an apparently clear and uncontested transference of power tells us all that much about his duties according to his Oath. The old king has died and his presumed heir is right there in the castle waiting to take the throne. I wouldn't expect Selmy to go take a smoke break while he waits for Joff to be formally recognized as the new king.

What Arianne is trying to do is to get Ser Arys to consider that his oath could transfer as easily from Joffrey to Myrcella as from Joffrey to Tommen.

Why would the KG have ever sworn specifically to Joffery then? Wouldn't their original Oath to the Baretheon line have been to Robert? The fact that Arys has sworn specifically to Joffery, and her making the distinction that he is not necessarily sworn to Tommen is, I think, more telling than you're allowing.

Proof? Of what?

:rofl:

I didn't mean to suggest that I had proved anything. I was hoping you might be please that I was at least trying to provide some textual support for what I think is possible, though. ;)

[SFDanny]

You're right, we really don't know what the norm is. Though the Council and and other lords of the realm haven't taken life long oaths of fealty to anyone, so its reasonable for Cersei to ask then to reaffirm their loyalty. Any Joff specific oaths demanded by Cersei of the KG would be redundant at best, and secondary to their holy vows. Though, in this case, I think its fair to assume that Arys is talking about the obligations he has from his KG Oath and not any superfluous oaths that Cersei may have demanded of him.

Cersei may have or may not have demanded the Kingsguard retake their Kingsguard oaths as part of her consolidation of power in her coup d'état in King's Landing. I don't think the point is whether or not she uses a particular oath to bind this or that subordinate to Joffrey, but rather that she is doing so in a very abnormal situation. What we are looking for is whether or not, in the normal transfer of power from one king to the next the Kingsguard's oath binds them to serve the new king without retaking their vows.

I don't think that Barristan's actions in the case of an apparently clear and uncontested transference of power tells us all that much about his duties according to his Oath. The old king has died and his presumed heir is right there in the castle waiting to take the throne. I wouldn't expect Selmy to go take a smoke break while he waits for Joff to be formally recognized as the new king.

Again, the whole point is what the Kingsguard vow mandates Kingsguard to do in normal transference of power. Ser Barristan's example shows us he accepts his new level of responsibility to the "the young king" without having to take a new oath. This is indeed what one would expect with the death of a king.

Why would the KG have ever sworn specifically to Joffery then? Wouldn't their original Oath to the Baretheon line have been to Robert? The fact that Arys has sworn specifically to Joffery, and her making the distinction that he is not necessarily sworn to Tommen is, I think, more telling than you're allowing.

We know Cersei demands new oaths of fealty from many as part of her attempt to maintain power in a time of contested claims. That has never been the question being debated, however. Robert may have done something similar once he takes power. Indeed, it may well be that part of the normal business of a transition period is vassals renewing their vows. A renewal of Kingsguard vows during these types of periods would not be totally out of the question either. But that's not what we are looking for. What we are looking for is something that shows that the Kingsguard oath is so specifically tied to one person that it absolves the Kingsguard from any allegiance to the dead king's heir without their taking a new oath, or that it is tied to the approval of the High Septon to a new king, or that it is tied directly to whoever holds the Iron Throne. The quote you point to doesn't show any of these things. In fact, it directly points to the falsity of the last possibility. Cersei and Tommen hold the Iron Throne, but Arianne argues that doesn't matter when a "better claim" is evident. Depending on the time period, whether or not this scene takes place before Arianne knows of the High Septon's agreement to give Tommen his blessing, it could well speak to the falsity of the second possibility as well. I'll have to try and see if we can place it in the timeline that specifically.

I didn't mean to suggest that I had proved anything. I was hoping you might be please that I was at least trying to provide some textual support for what I think is possible, though. ;)

Glad to clear that up. I am pleased to see you looking for textual support.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Stannis remembered making the trip to KL as a youth to swear fealty to Aerys (only it turned out it was Tywin they were so impressed with), presumably after their parents drowned. I think making the main lords swear to the new king (or new lords swearing to the established king) is probably SOP, but in all cases the allegiance is assumed and automatically expected. Especially for the KG...it's not like the Lannisters are thinking "oh noes, we have an unsworn KG on the loose down in Dorne, we better call him back asap so he doesn't start serving someone besides Tommen". His allegiance to Tommen is taken for granted.

I don't think the technicality that Arianne claims would really hold any water for anyone who didn't have an agenda like she does.

[SFDanny]

Stannis remembered making the trip to KL as a youth to swear fealty to Aerys (only it turned out it was Tywin they were so impressed with), presumably after their parents drowned. I think making the main lords swear to the new king (or new lords swearing to the established king) is probably SOP, but in all cases the allegiance is assumed and automatically expected.

I agree, it's likely. It's backed up by the trip the Reeds and take to Winterfell to renew their vows. Although in that case Robb has called the banners and that may have something to do with it as well.

Especially for the KG...it's not like the Lannisters are thinking "oh noes, we have an unsworn KG on the loose down in Dorne, we better call him back asap so he doesn't start serving someone besides Tommen". His allegiance to Tommen is taken for granted.

Absolutely I agree.

I don't think the technicality that Arianne claims would really hold any water for anyone who didn't have an agenda like she does.

Again, I agree, but I think it is interesting what she does and doesn't argue when trying to persuade Ser Arys.

[Jaak]

In the Dance of Dragons, all Kingsguard were sworn to Kingsguard and specifically to Viserys.

When Viserys died, no one claimed that they were free of service in Kingsguard and that they could marry and find other employment. All agreed that their duties transferred to someone - but they exerted their individual judgment as to whom, Criston and at least one twin picked Aegon, at least one twin picked Rhaenyra.

And then they presumably swore additional oaths to Aegon and Rhaenyra respectively.

It would have been presumably a bigger treachery and less honourable course of action to swear oath to Aegon and then defect to Rhaenyra than it was to swear to Rhaenyra even though one ought to have sworn to Aegon.

Similarly, Robert´s Kingsguard was sworn to Robert. Once the whole Kingsguard swore to Joffrey, it would have been dishonourable for them to defect to Stannis - right or wrong, but they were sworn to Joffrey.

Now Arianne points out that, since Arys was sworn to Joffrey and not sworn to Tommen, it was not dishonourable for him to exert his judgment that Myrcella was the better heir. Was it a plausible claim?

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Now Arianne points out that, since Arys was sworn to Joffrey and not sworn to Tommen, it was not dishonourable for him to exert his judgment that Myrcella was the better heir. Was it a plausible claim?

I think it was a ridiculous claim. Myrcella herself didn't initiate it, they had to push her into it (Arys abusing his authority over her to her own detriment). Yeah, so Dornish law is supposed to rule in Dorne, and she would be rightful Queen if the Seven Kingdoms was headquartered in Dorne. But it's not, and the proposition that Dornish law should hold sway over the other six kingdoms is frankly ludicrous. It's sophistry and not even sincere...none of them truly expected that Myrcella would reign over a united Westeros, they were using her to try to start a war and really that's it.

A more interesting situation would have been if a KG had accompanied Lord Stannis back to Dragonstone before Robert died (which would have been perfectly reasonable in the Targaryen days for the brother of the king). Then Stannis...a willful grown man who decided by himself that he was the rightful king...could have ordered that KG to swear to him. That would have been more reasonable, in fact it would have been the absolutely correct thing for that KG to do considering the twincest. Stannis is the rightful Baratheon claimant. I'd expect that's more or less how the Dance division of the KG might have gone down, though maybe Rhaenyra would have been off at Dragonstone when Cristin Cole marchalled the KL KG against her.

[Batman]

He is no hero, a hero would have done something about the injustices Aerys comitted. He is a bodyguard, a really good one but nothing more. He should have joined Stannis if he belived that Joffrey was a bastard, not have been so fickle. He is not that loyal.

Jaime was a hero, a traitor, an asshole and an attempted child murderer.

[Lonin]

I like Barristan Selmy, his is an interesting PoV and story arc. I also like the Kingsguard and wish we learned more about them.

Per the wiki, the Kingsguard was founded by Aegon the Conqueror of House Targaryen as an elite bodyguard for the royal family. While Robert continued the Kingsguard, I distinguish between the Kingsguard of House Targaryen and the Kingsguard of House Baratheon.

Robert I decided to continue the tradition of the Kingsguard and allowed both Selmy and Jaime to join. Robert appointed Selmy as LC.

Hero or Turncoat?? I believe neither. He is a man who made decisions that he now regrets. I believe that after joining Roberts KG, Barristen began to doubt the wisdom of his decision to join. After Joffrey I 'retired' him, I believe he goes to Dany in an attempt to return to the KG of House Targaryen - to in a sense return to the KG of his youth. His story is almost complete, only needs a battle in which to die protecting House Targaryen.

However, a skeptic might note that of the seven KG of Aerys II, five died protecting House Targ, two survived - those two bent a knee to Robert and joined the KG of House Baratheon, one became the LC, the others sister became Queen - worked out ok for them :cool4:

[the trees have eyes]

Kingsguard serve for life. When one king succeeds another they reaffirm their oath of loyalty to him in person but this is ceremonial only. If they are in Dorne or The Riverlands when the old king dies they become the kingsguard of the new king. The only way to end your service as a member of the Kingsguard (prior to Barristan's dismissal by Joffrey) is to die - in battle like Lewyn Martell or in your sleep like the old Grandison. They don't have a choice about it, there's no precedent of a Kingsguard retiring or refusing service but.. the obvious problem is a disputed succession. If there are multiple contenders as in the dance of the dragons it becomes less clear which king to obey.

Arys Oakheart is obviously a bit of a fool. He is swayed by Arianne and should have the sense to know her spiel about Dornish law will have no force outside Dorne and that he is supporting treason. But then he is a weak character, infatuated with her.

I forget who introduced the Kingsguard but if Aegon then the Trident is the first case of a change of dynasty and Barristan is in a position no one else has been in before: what to do when the old king and his heir are dead, his remaining children infants fled into exile and you are offered a pardon and a place in the new king's / usurper's Kingsguard. Whatever way you look at it both he and Jaime accept Robert's pardon and continued service in the Kingsguard as opposed to execution or The Wall. It's a tough call but if there were Targaryen forces in the field with an heir then I think you could label Barristan a turncloak but there are none so he makes his peace with the new dynasty.

[Rheagar Prime]

i have nothing against selmy for swearing for robert the guy did save his life and he did say if robert had smiled at being presented with the dead bodies of the royal family he would have killed him right then and there (and this is the guy that just saved his life). I can't pass judgement until i know what the KG vow specifically says i mean even the white bull served more than 2 kings albiet all were targs. Still i think truthfully yes he was a turncoat if you look at it black and white and he atleast admitted it, but he is seeking redemption too bad its with a self entitled chick who won't listen to him about how batshit crazy her daddy was.