Jump to content

Archived

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

redtree

Why didn't Barristan leave Joffrey ?

Recommended Posts

also people in the books talk about serving "the realm" all the time, the reality of medeavil Europe is immaterial (and I also suspect the official story and what people actually believed is quite different).  People always have different motives for fighting, whether it is for one person, or their family, or their home villaige, or a king or money or glory. 

 

In the Medieval, the "realm" is a concept,  the concept of modern country did not exist in that time, you can not server a concept, you can only serve a King or a feudal Lord

  Whatever the official oaths of fealty are, Barristan quite clearly is loyal to his homeland.

From what we know of Barristan he did what he thought was right for Westeros and her people.  He now sees with hindsight some of his decisions were wrong.  

Well, if you call at the head of an barbarian dothraki hords invading Westero and create great mayham caring and loving, then fine, I agree with you

 

 Of course, because he believes in Daenerys as Queen of Westeros and has sworn an oath, he will follow her...  But he obviously wishes he could serve her in Kings Landing instead of Mereen.  That's where his heart is.  

You do realize had Cersei and Joffery not foolishly dismissed him from Kingsguard, he would not go over to Danny despite "his believes in Daenerys as Queen of Westeros"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Medieval, the "realm" is a concept,  the concept of modern country did not exist in that time, you can not server a concept, you can only serve a King or a feudal Lord

Sure you can act in service to a concept.

Family, duty, honor.  

For the realm!

If you're saying you can't make an oath to a concept, then OK.  But you choose the oaths you make in service to whatever ideals you have.  Barristans choices were always in service to the realm, as he saw it. 

Well, if you call at the head of an barbarian dothraki hords invading Westero and create great mayham caring and loving, then fine, I agree with you

Nice fanfic. Not gonna happen. And   If that happened I fully support and expect Barristan defecting

You do realize had Cersei and Joffery not foolishly dismissed him from Kingsguard, he would not go over to Danny despite "his believes in Daenerys as Queen of Westeros"?

...yes?  That's the whole point of this thread - as I've said multiple times by now it's not hard to understand where he's coming from if you just have a little imagination and empathy.

he wanted to help to atone for the past (Aerys) by preventing Joffery from going down that same path. That's why he stayed wih Joffery. These were Roberts wishes, too - and Ned would have wanted the same, if he hadn't stumbled upon Cerseis secret.

When Barristan was "fired" His choice then were to retire into obscurity, or find some other way to serve Westeros.  He saw that the realm was now completely in Lannister hands and Roberts legacy was nothing but Tywins legacy in the end.  He decided that if Daenerys was "great" like Rhaegar, rather than "mad" like her father, civil war in Westeros was worth risking to bring ultimate stability.  He took quite a bit of time deciding whether she was worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Medieval, the "realm" is a concept,  the concept of modern country did not exist in that time, you can not server a concept, you can only serve a King or a feudal Lord

The fact that the nation state is in many ways a modern creation does not justify what you're claiming.  I direct you to the Declaration of Arbroath for an example where a medieval people very specifically say their duty is to their country, and that, if any king should fail them in that defence, they will remove him and pick someone else.  That's a people who are serving a country, not a king or lord.  It's from 1320.  

We have absolutely no idea what the KG oaths are.  It seems highly probable that it would include a line something like "I will swear to serve the king of the Seven Kingdoms in all circumstances", in which case he would have been breaking his oath had he not served Robert.  Note that he left Joffrey after Joffrey had dismissed him, i.e. after his oaths as KG had been relieved by the king.  At that point he was free to follow his conscience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the nation state is in many ways a modern creation does not justify what you're claiming.  I direct you to the Declaration of Arbroath for an example where a medieval people very specifically say their duty is to their country, and that, if any king should fail them in that defence, they will remove him and pick someone else.  That's a people who are serving a country, not a king or lord.  It's from 1320.  

Are we really have to talking about later Medieval Scotland? I mean really? I am sure these Scottish genterlmen servered their country right, their offspring today could testify that, though I do wonder exactly when they choose their country over their Lochs

 

We have absolutely no idea what the KG oaths are.  It seems highly probable that it would include a line something like "I will swear to serve the king of the Seven Kingdoms in all circumstances", in which case he would have been breaking his oath had he not served Robert.

None sense, Robert overthrowed Targaryns, he ought to be a rebel, an usurper as Danny addresses him, NOT a real King, he was actually duty bond to follow Targaryn children to the East, did not matter whether Viserys was a good child  The reason he did not was simple: the beggar king can not name him a real Kingsguard, but Robert could

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really have to talking about later Medieval Scotland? I mean really? I am sure these Scottish genterlmen servered their country right, their offspring today could testify that, though I do wonder exactly when they choose their country over their Lochs

 

None sense, Robert overthrowed Targaryns, he ought to be a rebel, an usurper as Danny addresses him, NOT a real King, he was actually duty bond to follow Targaryn children to the East, did not matter whether Viserys was a good child  The reason he did not was simple: the beggar king can not name him a real Kingsguard, but Robert could

I'm sorry, I don't really follow your argument.  How does a real historical event of medieval nobles very explicitly stating that they are not just serving a king but rather their country not show that what you claimed is just wrong?  Maybe it's not common, and you can argue those nobles were disingenuous, but it happened, and shows such an idea can exist in a pseudo-Medieval setting perfectly reasonably.  So your idea that Westeros couldn't possibly have any concept that you could serve your country, that the system and entire understanding of everyone in the realm was pure personal patronage, just doesn't work.  

And it's not nonsense that Robert is king when Barry makes his decision.  He has been recognised by every lord paramount as king along with the official faith.  This is exactly the same as the original Targaryen claim to kingship.  If the oaths of a KG are to serve the king, I don't see how it's impossible to interpret that as meaning he should serve Robert when he's the de facto (lords have recognised him) and de jure (insofar as such a thing exists in Westeros, legal legitimacy outside of Great Councils seems to come from the faith) king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Viserys was kind to her at times - like all abusers.  She knows Vuserys is a weak, cruel, abusive jerk and she was free to finally voice that when she was no longer under his control. She also knows he was kind when he wanted to be, and that she loved him. That's the cycle of abuse right there. 

Most emotional abuse victim didn't know they were abused at first. My professor said it was like the frog in boiler concept, put the frog in boiling water it'd jump but turn the heat up ever so slowly and it'd stay. The victim's mind slowly accept that those kind of treatment as a standard and lose grip with the good one. Viserys was the only companion she had because they had to move around Essos, only in the middle of AGOT she questioned whether Viserys would be a good king or not. Which is why i disagree with your opinion that she justifies his behavior, she's already known who he really was since she gained her confidence in Dothraki fields. A good brother at first but later grew bitter and cruel because of the rejections and mockery people had been making. Not crazy or mad when he was 7-8

Barristan at their side would bring many swords when they get to Westeros. People join a cause because they believe in it.  Apparent Legitimacy (optics) is a big reason why people would (and in fact will) support a Targaryen restoration.  Barristan brings that legitimacy to anyone he is backing.

It'd add the oomph factors but in the end, like what's been happening in Stormland, the lords and ladies are loyal to themselves. They still wouldn't join if there's only small chance to win, kingsguard or no kingsguard. He wouldn't be a huge factor

if you don't think "image" matters to the stability of a regime I direct you to the current situation in kings landing, Stannis' failure to get the backing of pretty much anyone, and most of all to Aerys.

The current regime will fall primarily because people absolutely loathe Cersei and think her kids are bastards, and without Tywin there to scare them into submission, the people have begun to rise up. 

Joffrey fucked up his image by hunting and killing Robert's bastard around the city. Cersei got hers by Stannis's rumor. add to that, the starvation, Tywin screwed his by letting Clegane went overboard,to say the least, with Rhaegar's kids and Elia. Different level.
Robert was replacing a 300 year old dynasty anyway, people wouldn't care much about who the KG is. It matters, but not a big matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every King's Guard will eventually need to make a choice: Do they serve the King or do they serve the Throne?

Barristan made the choice that he served the Throne, with Robert now on the Throne and Barristan giving his all to protect Aerys, he had no shame in now serving Robert.

Barristan was in a bed dying, only a Maester made it so he he did not. There was nothing more he could do for Aerys or his family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's not nonsense that Robert is king when Barry makes his decision.  He has been recognised by every lord paramount as king along with the official faith. 

We actually don´t know that. Terminus post quem is the presentation of dragonspawn to Robert, which Barristan did not attend. Terminus ante quem is fetching Cersei as honour guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the KG except Lewyn Martell and Barry did well to honor their vows, if their vows are only to serve and protect the king. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jaime was the only KG in KL, Barry and Lewyn with Rhaegar, and the other 4 at the ToJ? If so, how is that protecting the king? I'm sure that Aerys didn't order ANYONE to guard the ToJ. Rhaegar had no authority to order the KG. These are all men that Barry idolized and tried to emulate. The KG at the ToJ did what they did because they thought it was the right thing to do, for whatever reason. We know them as honorable men, but why? They failed in their vows to protect and obey the king. They died "defending" Lyanna from her brother, why? I feel like Shakespearean Antony... They broke their vows to defend and obey the king, yet we know they are honorable men...

Until we get a verbatim quote about the actual vows of the KG, then we may never know exactly what counts as oath breaking in the KG, but we can be pretty certain that allowing the king to die without either being there to defend him or being given direct orders from the king to do something else counts as oath breaking.

Barristan really was in an unprecedented position in KG history after Aerys assassination. Until we know if the name Targaryen was specifically included in the KG vows then we must assume that they swore to protect the anointed king of the 7 kingdoms. Robert was just as much king as Aerys was, going by this. Therefore, Barry never broke his oath. He always only served the anointed king, until the third such king that he served dismissed him from service. He never fought against the Targaryens. Indeed, he was almost killed multiple times in service to them (nine penny kings, defiance of duskendale, battle of the trident, now he risks his life in Dany's service). He may have served the Baratheon/Lannister dynasty, but he never actually had to draw his sword to fight for them. Where is his dishonor? Where is his broken oath? Viserys was never anointed as king, should Barry have left the KG and created the Princeguard? I think Barry took his oath literally, to serve the king. Aerys was the king, Barry served him loyally. Robert was king, Barry served him. Joffrey was king, Barry served him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I don't really follow your argument.  How does a real historical event of medieval nobles very explicitly stating that they are not just serving a king but rather their country not show that what you claimed is just wrong?  Maybe it's not common, and you can argue those nobles were disingenuous, but it happened, and shows such an idea can exist in a pseudo-Medieval setting perfectly reasonably.  So your idea that Westeros couldn't possibly have any concept that you could serve your country, that the system and entire understanding of everyone in the realm was pure personal patronage, just doesn't work.  

 

In 14th century, there were basically two types of feudal system  one was the King ruled as absolute monarchy, his nobles though enjoy influence in the court, had no independent power themselves, second was the country was ruled by powerful noble class, the power of the King was weak and had no real power. Neither was similiar with the concept of modern country. In your case, Scotland had a rather weak KIng, by tradition his authority over his Lords was weak, but still the loyalty of the common people and minor nobles was toward their Lords, not to scottland which was an abstract concept to them, that was later why Scotts fought to restore Stuart King to England throne, not for Scorttland indepedence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of why Jaime killed Aerys(it wasn't as if there wasn't a case to be had against he who gets sexually aroused at burning people alive), Jaime acted on his convictions when he turned his cloak. Barristan just turned cloak to stay on the winning side.

You mean that Jaime valiantly killed the unarmed man he was supposed to protect when Tywin was ransacking King's Landing and there was little personal risk in killing the Mad King while Barristan fought until he collapsed from his wounds and was only saved by Robert's personal maester.

Anyone not knowing about the Wildfyre would view Jaime as far superior. Barristan only exploited a loophole in the vows, never technically breaking it and risked his life for his liege whilst Jaime stabbed the man he swore to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Grandfather has served 4 kings 1 queen and fought for Robert in the Greyjoy Rebellion. 

 

And if he broke his Vows and turnt his cloak by join with the new proclaimed and recognized King in Robert. Then only one of Aerys KG were loyal to him(Darry). Two possible a third were conspiring to betray him, one had to be reminded why to fight, one would kill him, and Barry would serve his Successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the KG except Lewyn Martell and Barry did well to honor their vows, if their vows are only to serve and protect the king. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jaime was the only KG in KL, Barry and Lewyn with Rhaegar, and the other 4 at the ToJ?

Jonothor Darry also died at Trident.

 Viserys was never anointed as king, should Barry have left the KG and created the Princeguard?

Um? Rhaella and Viserys held out at Dragonstone for about 8 months after Aerys died. I´m pretty sure Viserys was crowned, as much as Rhaenyra had been.

Ser Steffon Darklyn was caught at King´s Landing when Aegon usurped the throne. He "served" the Usurper until, in a few days, he found the opportunity to flee, and not just himself but stealing the crown of Viserys.

Whether or not a Targaryen royal crown was feasible to steal for Barristan, he might have taken the example of ser Steffon.

He chose not to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, Jaak. Maybe I'm making too much of a correlation between our world and Westeros as far as the importance of being anointed by religious authorities, but we know that knighthood in westeros is as much a religious order as a military order. I imagine that being anointed king by the high septon goes a long way in convincing knights to accept rule by said king over another claimant who has been crowned but not anointed by the faith. I can't find any canon evidence to support this theory, however. In the dance of the dragons I can't find any evidence that Rhaenyra was ever anointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Arys and his family were kileed by Tywin's men and Jaime who is Tywin's son, Tywin swore fealty to Robert, hence the blood of family of King were on Robert's hands, though I never deny he fought bravely for Tagaryns,, but it does not change the fact that Barristan eventually agrees to serve the man who have his old master killed, so it is NOT a honorable thing to do since he could choose retire. I would guess the reason was nothing but his obbesesion for being a member of Kingsguard. 

You are mis-stating facts. Robert did not have Aerys killed. Jaime did that on his own, before he had any dealings with Robert. Likewise, Tywin sacking KL was his own action, to curry favor with Robert, but not at Robert's instigation. Robert wasn't even king at the time these actions took place. If instead of Robert, Ned had been declared king, by your reasoning he would then be the person responsible for the acts of Jaime and Tywin. Which is flatly ridicuous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Grandfather has served 4 kings 1 queen and fought for Robert in the Greyjoy Rebellion. 

 

And if he broke his Vows and turnt his cloak by join with the new proclaimed and recognized King in Robert. Then only one of Aerys KG were loyal to him(Darry). Two possible a third were conspiring to betray him, one had to be reminded why to fight, one would kill him, and Barry would serve his Successor.

If you mean Wilhelm Darry, he was master of arms at the Red Keep, not a kingsguard. The trio at the Tower of Joy fought to the death even after Rhaegar and Aerys were dead for example. They didn't bend the knee to Robert as the "recognized king." By that logic, Barristan should have accepted Joffrey's retirement package since he was the "recognized king" rather than going over to Dany and doing what he should have only when he had no other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mis-stating facts. Robert did not have Aerys killed. Jaime did that on his own, before he had any dealings with Robert. Likewise, Tywin sacking KL was his own action, to curry favor with Robert, but not at Robert's instigation. Robert wasn't even king at the time these actions took place. If instead of Robert, Ned had been declared king, by your reasoning he would then be the person responsible for the acts of Jaime and Tywin. Which is flatly ridicuous. 

Tywin and Jaime declared for Robert, they killed King and King's family for Robert (no one knew Jaime's hidden motive for his King slaying), hence Tywin and Jaime were Robert's men, and by rewarding them and accepting their oath of fealty, the blood of King's family were on Robert's hands, he did not need to kill these people himself, come on! even Robert himselfe did not deny his responsiblity,

And yes, if Ned was declared himself the King and Robert accepted it (an unlikely scenario), then if Ned did not punish Tywin and Jaime for what they had done, the blood of King's family would be on Ned's hands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonothor Darry Ser Wilhelm's brother was in Aerys KG.

I did not say they bent the knee. I am saying those at the TOJ especially Dayne and Whent were conspiring with Rhaegar to overthrow the rightful King Aerys.

Darry is the only one who neither conspired against, killed, or would turn on Aerys. He is the only one who was truly Loyal to his king. Unless Hightower knew nothing of the conspiracy. Which is unlikely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 14th century, there were basically two types of feudal system  one was the King ruled as absolute monarchy, his nobles though enjoy influence in the court, had no independent power themselves, second was the country was ruled by powerful noble class, the power of the King was weak and had no real power. Neither was similiar with the concept of modern country. In your case, Scotland had a rather weak KIng, by tradition his authority over his Lords was weak, but still the loyalty of the common people and minor nobles was toward their Lords, not to scottland which was an abstract concept to them, that was later why Scotts fought to restore Stuart King to England throne, not for Scorttland indepedence

Of course Scotland wasn't a modern country.  I've already said as much.  That has nothing to do with anything.  There were over 50 nobles that signed the declaration.  They would almost all be petty lords by Westerosi standards.  I have no idea why you're bringing up the Jacobite rebellions 400 years later as evidence of anything when it's well documented that the Stuarts had spent centuries after the Declaration changing how the monarchy was perceived and totally changing society (Iona being the best known example, but really it happened all over).  It's also exceptionally questionable to suggest it was all about the Stuarts themselves.  But really, all this is rather irrelevant.  

My point was never that in the medieval world all people felt duty to their country or anything of the sort.  My point was that it was conceivable to feel attachment and loyalty to countries or other institutions because (even if you want to say people were being disingenuous, as I've again already said) people stated as much.  This idea existed in the real world, even if it wasn't common.  Therefore, it's not crazy for a pseudo-Medieval world to have it too.  And even if we were to accept the incorrect premise that it is utterly unprecedented in the real world, it's clearly not incongruous with Westeros: the NW is extremely explicit in this.  

Jonothor Darry also died at Trident.

Um? Rhaella and Viserys held out at Dragonstone for about 8 months after Aerys died. I´m pretty sure Viserys was crowned, as much as Rhaenyra had been.

Ser Steffon Darklyn was caught at King´s Landing when Aegon usurped the throne. He "served" the Usurper until, in a few days, he found the opportunity to flee, and not just himself but stealing the crown of Viserys.

Whether or not a Targaryen royal crown was feasible to steal for Barristan, he might have taken the example of ser Steffon.

He chose not to try.

This is indeed true.  It was definitely a choice, he could have chosen another path, another king.  But it seems like Robert had a far better claim of kingship by the time he made the choice than Viserys did.  Switching allegiance from the Iron Throne to Dragonstone at that point could very well have been oathbreaking.  Heck, it's entirely possible that whatever oaths he swore were beyond keeping, e.g. if there was a promise to protect the anointed king and the Targaryens.  The idea of conflicting vows has already been brought up in the series, after all.

One thing I find interesting: what would happen if the KG thought a new king had murdered his father to gain the throne?  Would they be duty bound to serve the new king?  I think probably they would have, at the very least if the lords and faith did, which is amusing.  I suppose those castigating Barristan would say not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×