Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[Rhaegars Heir]

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.

are you because now where in the books does it say he was raping her for years also this is a culture where a husband bylaw can't rape his wife because she's his wife

[Mikkel]

It may not use the word rape, but that was definitely what it was. He was also abusing her, biting her and other sick things. Barristan himself acknowledges that it was seriously fucked up, he just chooses his duty.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

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.

Jaime in Feast mentions that Aerys was raping Rhaella for years. You can distort it all you want but the fact that he did it remains the same and the best part is that the "dishonorable" Jaime was the only one who dared to question him, when the “perfect” Barry proved to be a moral coward and did nothing more than keeping his arse safe. If you have noticed their knightly oaths say that they have to protect the innocents, the weak, the women and fight for what is right. Barry failed.

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.

In his view he might think that he was a mermaid but what is in his view doesn’t make it right. Rickard, who was innocent btw, had the right to a trial and what Aerys did was torture. What Barry did? Nothing at all.

Also it wasn’t only the Starks, Aerys had tortured many more people and what Barry did? Something that he had done before: nothing.

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

http://www.parkingspace23.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/straw_men.jpg

are you because now where in the books does it say he was raping her for years also this is a culture where a husband bylaw can't rape his wife because she's his wife

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. “You’re hurting me,” they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. “You’re hurting me.” In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted’s screaming. “We are sworn to protect her as well,” Jaime had finally been driven to say. “We are,” Darry allowed, “but not from him.”

ASOS, Jaime II

By your logic the death of the Targ children were not murders because that is what the medieval societies did to the enemies.

It may not use the word rape, but that was definitely what it was. He was also abusing her, biting her and other sick things. Barristan himself acknowledges that it was seriously fucked up, he just chooses his duty.

:agree: But maybe he had his night out whenever Aerys was raping Rhaella.

[The Bastard of Summer]

No Ser Grandfather is not the only knight to have his moral compass be off center. But since we are talking about him being a shitty knight I'd like to add that I've never liked him since it was revealed that he was white beard or whatever. I had forgotten all about him when he was dismissed from Joffery's KG, so it never dawned on me that Ser Grandfather and Arstan were the same. I've never liked him at any moment he's appeared in the books. It didn't help his cause for me when Dany chose to keep him on as part of her small council, but dismissed Mormont (I don't like his whining ass either, but this isn't about him). I know Mormont was spying on her for Varys for a pardon, I didn't forget or deny it. However Ser Grandfather bent knee to the man who usurped her father. Some other shit happened after that I don't agree with either. I'm aware his vows make him swear not to judge and get in the Kings way and all that, but he had choices and he made his. He just doesn't seem like a reliable guy I would ever want on my team. He will be loyal to anyone.

[Rhaegars Heir]

Jaime in Feast mentions that Aerys was raping Rhaella for years. You can distort it all you want but the fact that he did it remains the same and the best part is that the "dishonorable" Jaime was the only one who dared to question him, when the perfect Barry proved to be a moral coward and did nothing more than keeping his arse safe. If you have noticed their knightly oaths say that they have to protect the innocents, the weak, the women and fight for what is right. Barry failed.

In his view he might think that he was a mermaid but what is in his view doesnt make it right. Rickard, who was innocent btw, had the right to a trial and what Aerys did was torture. What Barry did? Nothing at all.

Also it wasnt only the Starks, Aerys had tortured many more people and what Barry did? Something that he had done before: nothing.

http://www.parkingspace23.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/straw_men.jpg

ASOS, Jaime II

By your logic the death of the Targ children were not murders because that is what the medieval societies did to the enemies.

:agree: But maybe he had his night out whenever Aerys was raping Rhaella.

you used the word years we don't know how long Areys was burning people it could have only been a month 6 months or how ever long your trying to paint a broader picture of things that aren't the simple. also your making a false equivocation the people Areys tutored might have very well been guilty of things brandon stark certainly was. lastly you your self admitted that there's no such thing as a true knight so what are you arguing the thread is about being a true knight if there's no such thing as a true knight than barristans no better or worse than any other knight which the exception of the really terrible ones

[Mikkel]

you used the word years we don't know how long Areys was burning people it could have only been a month 6 months or how ever long your trying to paint a broader picture of things that aren't the simple. also your making a false equivocation the people Areys tutored might have very well been guilty of things brandon stark certainly was. lastly you your self admitted that there's no such thing as a true knight so what are you arguing the thread is about being a true knight if there's no such thing as a true knight than barristans no better or worse than any other knight which the exception of the really terrible ones

Even if Brandon and Rickard were the very first people to be burned/tortured (odds are they weren't, by a long shot, but I can't remember if that's irrefutably confirmed), Aerys continued his practices all through Robert's Rebellion, so yes year(s) at the very minimum.

[Rhaegars Heir]

Even if Brandon and Rickard were the very first people to be burned/tortured (odds are they weren't, by a long shot, but I can't remember if that's irrefutably confirmed), Aerys continued his practices all through Robert's Rebellion, so yes year(s) at the very minimum.

the rebellion was just over a year and Jaime remembers that when brandon and Rickard were burned was the first time Areys raped his wife so a year and a half tops. but your missin the point how is Barry and differnt then the hundreds of people who witnessed what Areys did and did nothing the thousands of knights who fought to keep him on the throne

[Pigeon Pie]

About not standing up to Aerys... Really? I suppose this wouldn't have been a point you make at all if there hadn't been a comparison between Barristan's situation and Jaime. Let's compare them, shall we? Say you're sworn to protect a king, but you come to the knowledge that said king is going to mass roast people, AND he asks you to bring him your own father's head, only if you kill him you'll be branded an honorless oathbreaker and kingslayer forever. I would make Jaime's choice if I were him, totally. It was heroic. Only...

1. If I'm not wrong, Barry didn't know about the wildfire thing.

2. Barry wasn't asked to kill his own father.

So, don't expect Barry/anyone else to behave the same way Jaime did. Don't.

As for Robert's will, as Cersei had said at the situation, they'd had a new king then. Barry was sworn to protect the current king, not his predecessor's wishes. And yes, Joff was an asshole and he wasn't even legitimate and therefore not deserving of Barry's protection, but then, Ned never announced the entire incest thing at the situation or to Barry at all, so all he had was Ned's word that Joff had no claim to the throne and no proof at all.

[Pigeon Pie]

Sorry reply repeated because of internet fuck up.

[The other prince]

Jaime in Feast mentions that Aerys was raping Rhaella for years. You can distort it all you want but the fact that he did it remains the same and the best part is that the "dishonorable" Jaime was the only one who dared to question him, when the “perfect” Barry proved to be a moral coward and did nothing more than keeping his arse safe. If you have noticed their knightly oaths say that they have to protect the innocents, the weak, the women and fight for what is right. Barry failed.

In his view he might think that he was a mermaid but what is in his view doesn’t make it right. Rickard, who was innocent btw, had the right to a trial and what Aerys did was torture. What Barry did? Nothing at all.

Also it wasn’t only the Starks, Aerys had tortured many more people and what Barry did? Something that he had done before: nothing.

Jaime's thinking on the matter doesn't change what society did or did not believe as a whole. I don't dispute that it was rape by our standards, I don't dispute that it was horrible. What I question is if this would be considered rape by for example the faith of the seven or the general populace. Since a lot of the culture of Westeros seems based on medieval Europe I highly doubt it.

Knowing everything we do we can reasonably make the assumption that Rickard was innocent. This would likely not be as clear to Aery's though. As for using torture, this is agaion something you are looking at this from a modern western culture. I am not arguing that torture has ever been right but it has hardly been viewed through out history with the same level of outrage that we have concerning it. What is a knight supposed to do have a mini trial in his head each time his king pronounces someone guilty of a crime and then question the method of execution? Honestly that is ridiculous.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

you used the word years we don't know how long Areys was burning people it could have only been a month 6 months or how ever long your trying to paint a broader picture of things that aren't the simple. also your making a false equivocation the people Areys tutored might have very well been guilty of things brandon stark certainly was. lastly you your self admitted that there's no such thing as a true knight so what are you arguing the thread is about being a true knight if there's no such thing as a true knight than barristans no better or worse than any other knight which the exception of the really terrible ones

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/998254/Epic It was at least one year since the first persons that Aerys tortured were Brandon and Rickard and the Rebellion lasted for a year so it was a year at least. Saying that Aerys didn’t committed atrocities because of the society’s differences is at least silly, and that is me being kind, since his actions are considered as atrocities by the Westerosi. So you may want to defend him, I don’t know how a human being can do something like that, saying that his actions were acceptable in the Westerosi society but that is wrong. So, Aerys had raped his wife for at least a year, he had tortured and killed people and his bodyguards turned the blind eye. They were not true knights none of them and the only one who come closer to be one back then was the one who is called the Kingslayer. What does this tells us about Barry? That he is a morally coward and not a true knight.

Jaime's thinking on the matter doesn't change what society did or did not believe as a whole. I don't dispute that it was rape by our standards, I don't dispute that it was horrible. What I question is if this would be considered rape by for example the faith of the seven or the general populace. Since a lot of the culture of Westeros seems based on medieval Europe I highly doubt it.

Since not only Jaime but the other KG said that it was a situation that Rhaella needed help makes Rhaella an innocent victim and knights have to protect innocent weak victims. Barry failed to do it.

Knowing everything we do we can reasonably make the assumption that Rickard was innocent. This would likely not be as clear to Aery's though. As for using torture, this is agaion something you are looking at this from a modern western culture. I am not arguing that torture has ever been right but it has hardly been viewed through out history with the same level of outrage that we have concerning it. What is a knight supposed to do have a mini trial in his head each time his king pronounces someone guilty of a crime and then question the method of execution? Honestly that is ridiculous.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/7/75497/2416580-epic_facepalm__2_.jpg The fact that Aerys couldn’t understand that Rickard was innocent, which he was since he had done nothing more than trying to help his son, doesn’t mean that he was right. Rickard had the right to a trial and Aerys knew that that’s why he chose fire. Which makes it a clear torture even in his insane mind. What Barry did was nothing not even once. You may don’t like it but you that’s the truth. The end. Fin. Τέλος.

[Mikkel]

the rebellion was just over a year and Jaime remembers that when brandon and Rickard were burned was the first time Areys raped his wife so a year and a half tops. but your missin the point how is Barry and differnt then the hundreds of people who witnessed what Areys did and did nothing the thousands of knights who fought to keep him on the throne

Other than Barristan being in a unique position to actually do something about it (see: Jaime), my concern has never been with thousands of other knights who fought to keep him on the throne (many of whom can actually claim ignorance of Aerys' true actions).

[Rhaegars Heir]

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/998254/Epic It was at least one year since the first persons that Aerys tortured were Brandon and Rickard and the Rebellion lasted for a year so it was a year at least. Saying that Aerys didnt committed atrocities because of the societys differences is at least silly, and that is me being kind, since his actions are considered as atrocities by the Westerosi. So you may want to defend him, I dont know how a human being can do something like that, saying that his actions were acceptable in the Westerosi society but that is wrong. So, Aerys had raped his wife for at least a year, he had tortured and killed people and his bodyguards turned the blind eye. They were not true knights none of them and the only one who come closer to be one back then was the one who is called the Kingslayer. What does this tells us about Barry? That he is a morally coward and not a true knight.

Since not only Jaime but the other KG said that it was a situation that Rhaella needed help makes Rhaella an innocent victim and knights have to protect innocent weak victims. Barry failed to do it.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/7/75497/2416580-epic_facepalm__2_.jpg The fact that Aerys couldnt understand that Rickard was innocent, which he was since he had done nothing more than trying to help his son, doesnt mean that he was right. Rickard had the right to a trial and Aerys knew that thats why he chose fire. Which makes it a clear torture even in his insane mind. What Barry did was nothing not even once. You may dont like it but you thats the truth. The end. Fin. Τέλος.

I'm not justifying Areys your once again missing the point or ignoring it and have yet to point to a 100^% true knight but the point is that there's no such thing as a true knight because the world isn't black and white and if you keep one vow you forsake another.Also Jaime didn't protect her either and he didn't kill Areys until Areys told him to kill his father on basically ordered him to commit suicide so how was Jaime not just being self serving

[Rhaegars Heir]

Other than Barristan being in a unique position to actually do something about it (see: Jaime), my concern has never been with thousands of other knights who fought to keep him on the throne (many of whom can actually claim ignorance of Aerys' true actions).

ok and the other hundreds of people who witnessed what Areys did and did nothing

[Mikkel]

ok and the other hundreds of people who witnessed what Areys did and did nothing

None of them had the position, skill, weapons or knowledge to do much about it, nor had most of them sworn vows to protect the weak and the innocent. That's assuming we were even talking those other people, which we weren't. We were talking about Barristan "the Bold".

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I'm not justifying Areys your once again missing the point or ignoring it and have yet to point to a 100^% true knight but the point is that there's no such thing as a true knight because the world isn't black and white and if you keep one vow you forsake another.Also Jaime didn't protect her either and he didn't kill Areys until Areys told him to kill his father on basically ordered him to commit suicide so how was Jaime not just being self serving

Then I think that you haven’t seen what the OP says, that Barry isn’t a true knight. Something that is true he isn’t a true knight. The fact that there are some monsters doesn’t make him a true or even a better knight.

Jaime was 17 Barry was 46 see the difference? A difference of 30 years he could easily have been his grandfather.

[Rhaegars Heir]

None of them had the position, skill, weapons or knowledge to do much about it, nor had most of them sworn vows to protect the weak and the innocent. That's assuming we were even talking those other people, which we weren't. We were talking about Barristan "the Bold".

certainly some of them were knight and lords who swore similar oaths many of whom could have killed Areys at any time the point is your singling out one guy and paint him to be some terrible person but not condemning everyone the same way

[Rhaegars Heir]

Then I think that you havent seen what the OP says, that Barry isnt a true knight. Something that is true he isnt a true knight. The fact that there are some monsters doesnt make him a true knight.

Jaime was 17 Barry was 46 see the difference? A difference of 30 years he could easily have been his grandfather.

again you either miss or ignore my point no knight can be 100% true to their vows because they conflict with one another especially when you throw more vows on top of them like that of the kings guard. your trying to paint things in black and white in a world of nothing but grays

[Jon's Queen Consort]

again you either miss or ignore my point no knight can be 100% true to their vows because they conflict with one another especially when you throw more vows on top of them like that of the kings guard. your trying to paint things in black and white in a world of nothing but grays

Round and round and round. The op is clear; is Barry a true knight since he has broke his knightly oaths? By definition he is not. It is simple really, we know what a true knight should or shouldn’t do. The oaths are clear someone has to do a,b,c,d,e etc to be a true knight. No matter the situation Barry failed to do what the oath says. So by definition he isn’t a true knight. Case closed.

[WhitewolfStark]

He's not a genius that's for sure, but it raises an even greater question:

How is a knight supposed to act?

If we look at the samurai code, and the history of the samurai you will notice that prior to this culture that grew from samurai, they where basically a force of marauding mercenarys who did whatever the highest paying fugal lord wanted. That would include, rape, pillage, murder, you name it! And the same can be said for knights. Gregor Clegane, is a knight, he isn't "knightly" but he is one.

Why is he a knight? Because some dude knighted him. That's it really. He can do whatever he wants, he is still a true knight, because he was knighted. As soon as some guy, rests a sword on both your shoulders and makes you say a bogus oath with more pot holes than south america you're a knight.

Is Barristan, a true knight - yes - technically.

Is he an intelligent man? Not particularly.

Does he follow his oaths well? Not really no.

As the queen of thornes says about Loras Tyrell "he's good at knocking people off a horse with a stick." And that goes for Barristan as well.

The idea of a knight, was to make peasants idolize and respect wealthy sons, of Lords, who where pretty much all knights. Chivalry was introduced to make people feel they "follow a code". But a knight could walk into your room and shit in your soup if he so wanted. He was no less the knight. This book, derives a lot of itself from medieval Europe. Where pretty much everything introduced was to keep the peasants in line, so they can collect taxes. Distracting peasants with the use of honorable and noble knights, which one day you can be, was one way to do it. I feel asoiaf hits the mark perfectly with how knights are. A lot of them are dicks, who rape, pillage, and murder. Just like in real life.

Barristan is not a dick, he does not rape, pillage or murder. But the guy doesn't know his oaths from his arse to his elbow. He contradicts himself constantly, and his knightly oath, and Kingsguard oath contradict one another on almost every level.

Just like Loras Tyrell, he's good at "knocking people off a horse with a stick" Barristan, is however a fantastic soldier, and was one of the best swordsmen the world had seen. He was a monster on the field and fantastic to have at your side. That's what makes a knight.

I have a little sandor clegane in me I feel.

Chivalry was more of a tool used by those aging lords to try and keep their unruly sons in check. It was a system devised to try and make better behaved young men, by providing them a set of ideals to live up to and strive and achieve. Because Medieval society had a problem of warriors using their skills with the following justification: might = right. Needless to say, it was more idyllic than ever truly working in practice, with chivalry quickly becoming a cloak to hide behind.

And more often IRL chivalry when it was invoked was used as an "applies to fellow knights only" deal, with anyone who wasn't knighted being free game to be treated without concern to chivalry. Richard the Lionheart for example, was well known for chopping the skulls of his foes down to their teeth, and celebrated by the knightly classes for this skill. A good example from real life comes from the Crusades when an English army of knights rode into an Italian town (fellow Christians) and set about brutally killing every man, woman, and child--armed or not.

Many a noble lord's son IRL used those same "knightly skills" to be an outlaw and be a gang of roving thieves: see the Folvilles, the Cheltultons, the Middletons, the Leybourns, and the Coterels (this option was especially attractive to second sons and younger, because they typically had few options), and IRL the line between outlaw and knight was so blurred there was really very little telling them apart.

Sources:

Terry Jones' Medieval Lives - The Outlaw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9GsccLoLvY

Terry Jones' Medieval Lives - The Knight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhWFQtzM4r0

So yeah, I actually think GRRM's done well with portraying what a real knightly class was like. Your average knight was an amalgamation between your local rapist and your local serial killer.