blackbastardofthewall Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I've always been confused about Karstark's insistence that Jaime be held accountable for killing his sons. I can't think of any other instances in the books in which a character thinks its appropriate to avenge someone who died in battle (except perhaps Balon, who is a special kind of crazy and doesn't count). This situation isn't a whole lot different from Robert insisting that Barristan be treated. I guess what really confuses me is that no one pulls him aside and points out that people do die in battle sometimes, but no one ever does. Am I missing something? Is there precedence for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Daven Lannister vows not to cut his hair until he kills Karstark for killing Stafford. We don't see it that much because most of the characters that die in battle are largely periphial from our POV characters point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northbound2.0 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How do you pull a grieving father a side; and tell him not to be pissed off, about the deaths of his sons? Dying in battle or not, someone kills my child; I want his freaking head too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbastardofthewall Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 How do you pull a grieving father a side; and tell him not to be pissed off, about the deaths of his sons? Dying in battle or not, someone kills my child; I want his freaking head too. No one is saying not to be pissed off but what Jaime did wasn't wrong by any standards in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northbound2.0 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 No one is saying not to be pissed off but what Jaime did wasn't wrong by any standards in Westeros. Ok. We know that. People in the kingdom know that. But until you are in his situation, you can't understand his logic or thoughts. He sons were killed. He has someone to blame for their deaths. The man is seeing red.I'm not saying he is right, so don't look at it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 For me Karstark is the poster boy for vengeance being a bad thing and a folly to follow in this series, with the man seeking it coming to a sticky end. He is also the first case we get of "honour" being as black as it is white, because "honour" demands blood for blood, so two blameless Lannister squires paid the price. So if someone says you're a dishonourable rogue, take it as a compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raving Stark the Mad Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think Robb Stark would disagree that killing of prisoners is honorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think Robb Stark would disagree that killing of prisoners is honorable. Yeah that's the point I am making, one mans honour is another mans despicable stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sordelor Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 They where also killed prsonally by Jaime, when he allready knew he lost and had no reason to keep fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pie Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 True enough, Jaime by Westerosi standards did nothing wrong by killing the Karstarks in battle, but Rickard is talking as a father who has lost two sons with another imprisoned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think maybe Rickard meant they should have killed Jaime in battle rather than capturing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I've always been confused about Karstark's insistence that Jaime be held accountable for killing his sons. I can't think of any other instances in the books in which a character thinks its appropriate to avenge someone who died in battle (except perhaps Balon, who is a special kind of crazy and doesn't count). This situation isn't a whole lot different from Robert insisting that Barristan be treated. I guess what really confuses me is that no one pulls him aside and points out that people do die in battle sometimes, but no one ever does. Am I missing something? Is there precedence for this? Yes, there is precedence for wanting vengeance. For example, Dany and Viserys spent their lives wanting it despite the fact that their family dynasty was usurped in conquest, which is the way things go. The situation with Robert and Barristan is quite different. For one, Barristan didn't kill any of Robert's sons or close family members. For another, Robert wasn't sitting in the same situation Robb was sitting in. Robb had just returned with a new queen, a marriage which violated an agreed betrothal, he had suffered some battle setbacks, and his mother had set Jaime free. Karstark had been part of the group who made Robb king and Robb's rule was starting to look a bit shaky and messy. It's understandable that there was anger going on that got mixed in with some vengeful feelings. While Karstark's grief and frustration are understandable, he basically had a violent temper tantrum that was more of an act against Robb rather than a quest for vengeance. We see these sorts of things all over the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerys Ahai Reborn Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They where also killed prsonally by Jaime, when he allready knew he lost and had no reason to keep fighting. No. Jaime knew the battle was lost but he had every reason to keep fighting. He was going for Robb and the Karstark boys got in his way (defending Robb as the swore to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 No. Jaime knew the battle was lost but he had every reason to keep fighting. He was going for Robb and the Karstark boys got in his way (defending Robb as the swore to do). How did Jaime get through Robb's bodyguard almost to Robb ? Is Robb's bodyguard really that incompetant ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLE Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The battle wasn't "lost". If Jaime gets to Robb and kills him... the Stark forces panic, Lannisters (who still have the numbers) regroup and they win the battle. Battles are not completely like chess, but mostly - if you're short on numbers, go directly for the king (or other enemy commander.) Robb's death would have meant every northman fleeing the field at once, no matter how the rest of the battle was going. Similarly if Stannis had actually fought Renly in battle, and if Renly had fought in the front line and fallen or been captured, his army - or at least the Stormlands part of it - would have surrendered to Stannis at once (and indeed, without Melisandre, this would have been Stannis's only chance of victory - and, Renly being as vain and foolhardy as he is, he might just have fought in the front ranks and given his brother that chance, where by staying back and out of trouble he would have ensured victory by weight of numbers.)And remember, Jaime *didn't* get through Robb's battle bodyguard - he got *as far as* said bodyguard, and killed at least two (the Karstark brothers) before being brought down by weight of numbers from the rest of them. Robb is a decent fighter - anyone who fights in the front lines, against veteran enemy troops, and survives uninjured, must be one - but as far as we know, not in Jaime's class. He would have had a hand in taking Jaime down, but could not have done it alone.My problem with Rickard Karstark's deeds is that his remaining son was still a prisoner of war at the time: by murdering prisoners, he put Harrion's life at risk too. I'm only surprised that Robb didn't mention this too: he could even have told Rickard - and it could have even been true - that executing Rickard himself would be the only way to save his remaining son.(And that is why I think, if he gets free again, then Harrion Karstark will end up being an important pro-Stark anti-Bolton figure in the North, despite the manner of his father's death. Not least because, as a Karstark in the absence of any remaining living Starks, he might have a claim to Winterfell himself that would be accepted by the rest of the North. And also not least because it was Roose Bolton who got him captured - twice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Maybe Karstark meant he wanted to kill Jaime in battle and not capture him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrhen Blackwood Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 How did Jaime get through Robb's bodyguard almost to Robb ? Is Robb's bodyguard really that incompetant ? Jaime is one of the finest swordsmen in Westerosi history according to GRRM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrhen Blackwood Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think what sent Lord Rickard over the edge was Cat letting Jaime go free with nothing more than an empty promise. Nothing was gained from that folly when they had such a huge bargaining chip. Also, if Robb would have threatened to execute Jaime he might have forced Tywin to the table to sue for some sort of peace. Essentially through Cat's actions, the Karstark boys died for naught. That's what was unacceptable to Lord Rickard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Why is it bad to kill prisoners ? If Jaime was killed in battle (as opposed to being captured) nobody would have complained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sertravisredbeard Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've repeatedly expressed the opinion that Rickard Karstark was a douchebag for saying Catelyn "stole his right of vengeance." To me it always implied that Jaime simply walked up to Torrhen and Eddard on a brisk autumn day, called them names and chopped their heads off without provocation. I understand personal grudges, but Jaime was just doing what every soldier on a battlefield does. Rickard didn't have any more right to vengeance against Jaime than any other relative of anyone who died in the war. Sending his sons into battle and allowing them to be some of Robb's personal bodyguards got them killed, not Jaime being a dishonorable treasonous rogue as Rickard tries to paint him to be. I hope Harrion and Alys are a little less reckless and stupid. We've already seen Alys in action, and she seems like a more level-headed ruler than her father. We've only seen Harrion briefly in Arya's Clash chapters. He seemed mostly pensive, not raging for revenge. Killing defenseless boys in a prison cell is a ridiculous way to get revenge. I like Jaime and dislike Catelyn, but releasing Jaime was stupid, but shouldn't have caused Rickard to act in the way he did. Catelyn releasing Jaime didn't prevent Rickard from killing Jaime. Robb and everyone else wouldn't have allowed it either, so the Greatjon, Blackfish, Edmure, and all of Robb's other lords are guilty of the same thing if Catelyn is. To sum up, Rickard Karstark was a douchebag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.