Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[Mikkel]

Barriston Selmy is a true knight, and one of the best knights there is.

Welcome to the board :)

I disagree with your stated opinion, but maybe you'd care to expand on why standing idly by while the queen is raped and abused is acceptable behavior for a man sworn to defend the weak, the innocent and women? And why this behavior makes him "one of the best knights there is" ? Barristan is far from the worst, granted, but there's a long, long way from "not among the worst" to "one of the best".

[Madmaxepic]

Welcome to the board :)

I disagree with your stated opinion, but maybe you'd care to expand on why standing idly by while the queen is raped and abused is acceptable behavior for a man sworn to defend the weak, the innocent and women? And why this behavior makes him "one of the best knights there is" ? Barristan is far from the worst, granted, but there's a long, long way from "not among the worst" to "one of the best".

Because he's a knight of the Kingsguard, he is not allowed to harm the king. And unlike many Kingsguard, he had moral quandry with that issue, that many others would have lacked concern for.

But more specifically, his greatest service is that he has provided to Danaerys.

[Mikkel]

Because he's a knight of the Kingsguard, he is not allowed to harm the king. And unlike many Kingsguard, he had moral quandry with that issue, that many others would have lacked concern for.

But more specifically, his greatest service is that he has provided to Danaerys.

So because he now serves Daenerys, what he did previously is suddenly alright? Okay, that's your opinion, I'm not buying it. And "because he's a kingsguard" doesn't absolve him of his moral obligation as a knight or even simply as a human to step up and stop rape & abuse when it's repeatedly shoved in his face.

[Les Météores D]

Jaime would have been about 17 at the time of the sack of King's Landing. His choice was also not simply one of choosing house Lannister over his duty as a member of the KG but rather choosing Kings Landing, his father, and his house over Aery's. His decision to kill Aery's was also influenced by him having witnessed so much of Aery's cruelty. He watched them burn Rickard Stark while Brandon strangled himself. He was forced to sit outside the king's bed chamber while Aery's brutalized his wife.

I'm not sure how the KG vows are stupid. They would have to be geared towards protecting the king above all else or the KG really doesn't work as a group.

My bad, you're right he was 17. Which incidentally makes his decision even more thorough because at that age, in Westeros, you're without question an adult.

Of course it wasn't only about choosing his house. The trigger was, as you said, an accumulation of everything he witnessed, but there's a difference between killing the king you swore to protect and prevent a disaster. I don't blame him in fact, but the KG are essentially asked to favor the royalty over justice, they're bodyguards. It wasn't Jaime's role to be judge, jury and executioner, imo. And there was another way to neutralize Aerys until Tywin's arrival.

[Mikkel]

My bad, you're right he was 17. Which incidentally makes his decision even more thorough because at that age, in Westeros, you're without question an adult.

Of course it wasn't only about choosing his house. The trigger was, as you said, an accumulation of everything he witnessed, but there's a difference between killing the king you swore to protect and prevent a disaster. I don't blame him in fact, but the KG are essentially asked to favor the royalty over justice, they're bodyguards. It wasn't Jaime's role to be judge, jury and executioner, imo. And there was another way to neutralize Aerys until Tywin's arrival.

Yes, there probably was another way to neutralize Aerys until Tywin's arrival, but then again there was also a risk that anything short of what Jaime did would fail. What if other guardsmen had come upon them? People who might be loyal to the King? What if some of Rossarts acolytes came within shouting distance, and Aerys called upon them to set fire to the city? Would Jaime have been able to stop all of them? More importantly, could he take that chance? IMO when you plan to murder an entire city in a fit of bloodlust and madness, you forfeit any right to clemency.

I somewhat understand why Jaime is so reviled for the deed, and it's partly because he didn't even try to explain his reasons, but in any case the Westerosi are just plain wrong when they condemn him for it - just like they are wrong about the nature of Aerys' other Kingsguard being paragons of virtue. In both cases, ignorance of the actual situation is part of the reason for them being wrong, but that doesn't change the basic nature of their error, only the origin of it.

[The other prince]

Yes, there probably was another way to neutralize Aerys until Tywin's arrival, but then again there was also a risk that anything short of what Jaime did would fail. What if other guardsmen had come upon them? People who might be loyal to the King? What if some of Rossarts acolytes came within shouting distance, and Aerys called upon them to set fire to the city? Would Jaime have been able to stop all of them? More importantly, could he take that chance? IMO when you plan to murder an entire city in a fit of bloodlust and madness, you forfeit any right to clemency.

I somewhat understand why Jaime is so reviled for the deed, and it's partly because he didn't even try to explain his reasons, but in any case the Westerosi are just plain wrong when they condemn him for it - just like they are wrong about the nature of Aerys' other Kingsguard being paragons of virtue. In both cases, ignorance of the actual situation is part of the reason for them being wrong, but that doesn't change the basic nature of their error, only the origin of it.

A lot of this demonstrates my point though. If you are going to judge the KG including Selmy by our reality and time period then you can make a very good case against them. However by the expectations of Westeros and the standards there, then it becomes clear that Barristan and most of Aerys KG were and in Barristan's case are "True Knights". It really doeszn't matter if they fall short of our standards, only if they live up to the expectations of their reality. While they did fall short of some of their knightly vows (there was simpply no way around this), they by and large made the decisions that were expected of them (except for Jaime). We can say that all Westeros is wrong all day, but this is the world that Barristan lives in and his decisions are going to reflect that. Judging him as if he lives in our reality doesn't make sense. So again by the values and standards of the world he lives in Barristan is as "True" as circumstances allowed.

As for Jaime, this is what makes his character interesting. Even though he did not try to explain the exact circumstances most lords knew Aerys nature. Yet even with many knowing what kind of king Aerys was Jaime is still viewed very badly. This is what destroys him as a kinight for a long time. The Jaime that killed Aerys is not the same Jaime that pushes Bran off the tower (although the base impulsiveness is there). Only after years of knowing no matter what he does he is going to be looked at as a horrible knight and person even though he feels deep down he made the right decision. Eventually he reaches the point of at least pretending (even to himself) that he doesn't care. However justified we feel Jaime is by the standards of the world in which he lives it will nearly impossible for him to ever be considered a "True Knight" again. How we feel about it doesn't matter.

[Mikkel]

A lot of this demonstrates my point though. If you are going to judge the KG including Selmy by our reality and time period then you can make a very good case against them. However by the expectations of Westeros and the standards there, then it becomes clear that Barristan and most of Aerys KG were and in Barristan's case are "True Knights". It really doeszn't matter if they fall short of our standards, only if they live up to the expectations of their reality. While they did fall short of some of their knightly vows (there was simpply no way around this), they by and large made the decisions that were expected of them (except for Jaime). We can say that all Westeros is wrong all day, but this is the world that Barristan lives in and his decisions are going to reflect that. Judging him as if he lives in our reality doesn't make sense. So again by the values and standards of the world he lives in Barristan is as "True" as circumstances allowed.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this I think, because I don't think we're getting any closer, particularly in light of this:

How we feel about it doesn't matter.

Which I patently disagree with, the books are written for our benefit and with a modern audience in mind, so how we feel about it is the entire point :)

[The other prince]

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this I think, because I don't think we're getting any closer, particularly in light of this:

Which I patently disagree with, the books are written for our benefit and with a modern audience in mind, so how we feel about it is the entire point :)

I think you are right on this. After all I do agree that the KG by our standards could have acted differently. So disagreement here is ok.

[Rhaegars Heir]

A lot of this demonstrates my point though. If you are going to judge the KG including Selmy by our reality and time period then you can make a very good case against them. However by the expectations of Westeros and the standards there, then it becomes clear that Barristan and most of Aerys KG were and in Barristan's case are "True Knights". It really doeszn't matter if they fall short of our standards, only if they live up to the expectations of their reality. While they did fall short of some of their knightly vows (there was simpply no way around this), they by and large made the decisions that were expected of them (except for Jaime). We can say that all Westeros is wrong all day, but this is the world that Barristan lives in and his decisions are going to reflect that. Judging him as if he lives in our reality doesn't make sense. So again by the values and standards of the world he lives in Barristan is as "True" as circumstances allowed.

As for Jaime, this is what makes his character interesting. Even though he did not try to explain the exact circumstances most lords knew Aerys nature. Yet even with many knowing what kind of king Aerys was Jaime is still viewed very badly. This is what destroys him as a kinight for a long time. The Jaime that killed Aerys is not the same Jaime that pushes Bran off the tower (although the base impulsiveness is there). Only after years of knowing no matter what he does he is going to be looked at as a horrible knight and person even though he feels deep down he made the right decision. Eventually he reaches the point of at least pretending (even to himself) that he doesn't care. However justified we feel Jaime is by the standards of the world in which he lives it will nearly impossible for him to ever be considered a "True Knight" again. How we feel about it doesn't matter.

I don't think it's fair to judge them by out modern standard when in reality we should judge them but our past standard of chivalry which was a lot more murky for example if a knight was traveling and saw a young maid walking alone he was to treat her with respect but if she was walking with another knight he had the right to challenge him to a duel and if he won had the right to have his way with her on the side of the road

[Rhaegars Heir]

sorry triple post

[Rhaegars Heir]

triple post sorry

[TheCasualObserver]

I'm not really sure what a "true knight" is, but I struggle to believe that Ser Barristan, Jaime or any of Aerys' KG fit the bill. And that's largely because chivalry in general is complete bullshit. A knight is supposed to be always kind and courtly to a woman, yet can't protect her from an unwanted marriage. A true knight must protect the innocent, yet must kill peasants with impunity if his king commands it. A true knight must guard his King and keep faith with him unto death, even if said King is an absolute monster. It's all hypocritical nonsense - a code of values that cannot really be applied to medieval society at all.

Even Ser Arthur Dayne, respected and beloved by all who remember him must have stood a listened to Aerys rape his wife on occasion and done jack shit. So he's not a true knight either. If any of Aerys' KG were true knights, Brandon and Rickard Stark wouldn't have died the way they did. But the KG did nothing. Shame on them, and on Jaime, and on Ser Barristan as well.

[The other prince]

It all really comes down to what we consider a true knight to be and if we think we should judge them by our modern standards or use what appears to be the accepted views of Westeros. As for Brandon and Rickard Stark, the method of execution is horrible. However Brandon riding into the Red keep and yelling for Rhaegar to come out and die could be viewed as treason. Try that at the Whteouse in D.C and see how that works out for you. Knowing that if he executed Brandon for treason that he could cause Rickard to declare war is also not unreasonable. Even calling for Rickard to answer charges is not completely unreasonable since Rickard was Brandon's father and lord. That is not the best exsample of why the KG are horrible people. Also as discussed much earlier in this topic rape between a husband and bride was pretty much though of as impossible in medieval times. Is it rape of course, however in medieval times this would likely not have been considered such (as horrible as that is to think about).

[Lointain]

The problem with the "True Knight" concept is what someone need to do to uphold the vows of a knight.

But the problems are not the vows. The problem are people. And people - in Westeros or in the real world - are, most of the time, self-serving, protecting their own skin and of their family and friends.

But a knight, should be someone of a higher moral standing, someone that fights against evil (unjustice, violence uppon the weak, etc) in all his forms, being his militar training the tool that gave the knight the capabilites to stand has a a stronghold in defense of the weak and of the victims of opression.

When a knight receives na order from his lord or king, that say "go and put to torch that village, kill the men and rape the women" he is acting has a simple thug, and is disrespecting all the vows of chivalry, they are no more true knights.

Of course, following the vows is very dificult, but being a knight is not mean to be a cushy job of a "yes-man", but is to be someone that represents the best that exists in westerosi society: a pious and brave champion of justice, that stands for the innocents, the weak and women.

[The other prince]

The problem with the "True Knight" concept is what someone need to do to uphold the vows of a knight.

But the problems are not the vows. The problem are people. And people - in Westeros or in the real world - are, most of the time, self-serving, protecting their own skin and of their family and friends.

But a knight, should be someone of a higher moral standing, someone that fights against evil (unjustice, violence uppon the weak, etc) in all his forms, being his militar training the tool that gave the knight the capabilites to stand has a a stronghold in defense of the weak and of the victims of opression.

When a knight receives na order from his lord or king, that say "go and put to torch that village, kill the men and rape the women" he is acting has a simple thug, and is disrespecting all the vows of chivalry, they are no more true knights.

Of course, following the vows is very dificult, but being a knight is not mean to be a cushy job of a "yes-man", but is to be someone that represents the best that exists in westerosi society: a pious and brave champion of justice, that stands for the innocents, the weak and women.

This would be a very good point, if I got the feeling that Aerys KG did not act out of fear. I don't get that impression about them at all. In fact it seems like it may have been harder to keep the KG vows in this situation then it would have been to try and take some type of action. I mean Take Gerold Hightower, doe she seem like a coward? He doesn't to me. So I don't think this is a case of self serving.

[Mikkel]

I don't think the Kingsguard's lack of action is out of personal fear, at least that's not their main motivation. What they fear for are their reputations, their legacies.

[Trigger Warning]

Is anyone?

[Mikkel]

Is anyone?

a true knight? Very few, though Dunk and Brienne come closest, at least of the people we've seen on-page (Brienne is technically not a knight of course, while Dunk is a maybe... jury's still out on that one). Barristan isn't though, and I don't think he's particularly close, either.

[RuthBolton]

But even Brienne had to choose between saving Pod and keeping her previous oaths. I really think that any knight gets caught in a dilemma sooner or later.

[The other prince]

But even Brienne had to choose between saving Pod and keeping her previous oaths. I really think that any knight gets caught in a dilemma sooner or later.

This is very true. Now place her in the same circumstance as Barristan and see how it works out. This is not a slight towards Brienne at all as I do find her to be an extremely honorable character. I also agree that Dunk is very honorable, knight or not (funny, honor must run in that family :laugh: ). It seems to me that Barristan has always tried to make the most honorable choice that he could at the time. While we may not always agree with that choice it does seem to fit with the expectations of the Seven Kingdoms. What other choices would people have had him make?