Why did Jamie kill Aerys?

[Daemrion]

And yes, for all everyone talks of how honorable the former KG is I really don't see it.

Of course, it's not really well known to the general public of Westeros. They don't know the full extent of Aerys's depravities.

Rickard demanded trial by combat, which is his right under Westerosi law, and instead Aerys had him burnt to death in his armor. Ghastly - and illegal

I don't know how legal it is to claim "fire" is the champion of House Targaryen. I'm pretty sure that's an affront to the Gods.

We Agree so why are you bringing this up again?

I think it's a non-point arguing about the supposed legality of the the decision to rebel by Ned. I think it is pretty safe to say that as a citizen of Westeros, Ned would have owed fealty to Aerys, with or without swearing an oath of fealty. The swearing of an oath of fealty and paying homage is probably more a ceremonial affirmation for the rest of Westeros and the nobles to see, but I would think it wouldn't make sense that you weren't subject to the King (in the general - I won't commit treason sense) until you publically swore an oath to him especially if you were born a Westerosi citizen.

[Ahimsa]

I think at one point Jaime was an honorable, noble knight much as Ser Loras was in Game of Thrones. For him, Aerys represented his disillusionment and, mostly subconsciously perhaps, he blamed the King for his degradation. Killing him was an act of revenge, but also proof that Aerys' corruption was indeed complete.

[Godlikebuthumble]

Incidentally, that's what I think Jaime sitting Aerys' throne kinda represents. Jaime could very well have sat on the throne for hours, waiting for the claimant (who happened to be Ned on Robert's behalf). And why not? I think Jaime did not (especially at that moment) see the throne as anything sacrosanct anymore. He saw the guy sitting the throne, the guy he once might have thought beyond reproach and the epitome of nobility, devolve into a freaking lunatic, rape, murder, torture, and die like the mad old man he was. None of the King's Guard, including himself up to, like, an hour ago, lived up to their ideals in serving that man. Kingship and the Throne lost all of their mystique and idealized aura for Jaime. So what if he sits there, whoever wants that cursed chair can have it.

I think Jaime at that time really thought he didn't care about what anyone thought. But that was mostly a preoccupation with his own situation. And the consequences really, finally, sank in when Eddard got all "stern northman" on him.

[Rockroi]

I think it is pretty safe to say that as a citizen of Westeros, Ned would have owed fealty to Aerys, with or without swearing an oath of fealty. The swearing of an oath of fealty and paying homage is probably more a ceremonial affirmation for the rest of Westeros and the nobles to see, but I would think it wouldn't make sense that you weren't subject to the King (in the general - I won't commit treason sense) until you publically swore an oath to him especially if you were born a Westerosi citizen.

I quibble with the word "citizen." Ned (and by extension, Robb, Jon, Robert, Stannis, Rhaegar, Aerys, Hot Pie, etc etc) are NOT citizens of Westeroes; Ned is a SUBJECT of the Crown. His rights are contingent on his relationship to the Crown.

Regardless, I think the rest of your analysis is spot on. At the same time, I think it would be absurd (and very anti-Western Thought) to claim that each individual owed a duty to the King to, effectively, kill himself. Once Aerys the Mad demanded that Ned (and strangely, Robert- I NEVER understood that) be turned over, effectively, "all bets are off." A King is not a God (though Aerys thought himself such). I think Ned was perfectly justified in rebelling against his King, same for Robert, Stannis, and all honorable and just men... even those who wear white armor.

I think at one point Jaime was an honorable, noble knight much as Ser Loras was in Game of Thrones. For him, Aerys represented his disillusionment and, mostly subconsciously perhaps, he blamed the King for his degradation. Killing him was an act of revenge, but also proof that Aerys' corruption was indeed complete.

I don't see this at all. I think Jaime never THOUGHT about what it meant to be honorable; I think he thought by being a knight and following your duty you were, de facto, honorable. He saw Dayne and others just "be knightly"; he never saw or heard their internal struggles and so figured you just acted a knight and you were honorable and fair.

And somewhere along the way, he became the Smiling Knight instead. Jaime- more acutely than all except possibly Ned (it ALWAYS comes back to those two- linked together: Doppelgangers)- understands the conflict of duties. And instead of freezing to it; instead of adhering to a code that resulted in an immoral outcome, Jaime acted. By killing Aerys, Jaime ensured that Aerys' corruption WAS INCOMPLETE- he could not make Jaime Lannister into "Robo-Jaime" and he could not burn KL.

Incidentally, that's what I think Jaime sitting Aerys' throne kinda represents. Jaime could very well have sat on the throne for hours, waiting for the claimant (who happened to be Ned on Robert's behalf). And why not? I think Jaime did not (especially at that moment) see the throne as anything sacrosanct anymore. He saw the guy sitting the throne, the guy he once might have thought beyond reproach and the epitome of nobility, devolve into a freaking lunatic, rape, murder, torture, and die like the mad old man he was. None of the King's Guard, including himself up to, like, an hour ago, lived up to their ideals in serving that man. Kingship and the Throne lost all of their mystique and idealized aura for Jaime. So what if he sits there, whoever wants that cursed chair can have it.

:agree: :thumbsup: :agree:

[dolorouseddwasright]

Once Aerys the Mad demanded that Ned (and strangely, Robert- I NEVER understood that) be turned over, effectively, "all bets are off."

Robert grew up with Ned and was Lyanna's intended. Aerys probably realized that Robert would get all upset about Lyanna and Rhaegar being together and do something rash. If that didn't make him act, killing Ned, his boyhood friend, might. I just think Aerys was foreseeing trouble with Robert and trying to avoid it.

[3idcrow]

By killing Aerys, Jaime ensured that Aerys' corruption WAS INCOMPLETE- he could not make Jaime Lannister into "Robo-Jaime" and he could not burn KL.

:agree:

I don’t think that Jaime’s killing Aerys is a sign of corruption. On a contrary, it shows that Jaime retained his ability to reason independently and to make his own decisions. He also does not hide from the consequences of his actions and doesn’t offer any excuses. It’s a very strong position and demands respect, IMO.

One can argue that Aerys indeed corrupted his other “noble” knights by making them accomplices of his crimes.

[3idcrow]

Also, Jaime never subscribed to the theory of total obedience. Even on his post of LC he urged other knights to use their judgments.

[Ahmrogar]

Why did Jamie kill Aerys?

Sexual gratification.

[Mad Monkey]

Why did Jamie kill Aerys?

Sexual gratification.

Are you saying that Jaime was a necrophiliac? I actually don't see him that way.

[Antonius Pius]

:agree:

I don’t think that Jaime’s killing Aerys is a sign of corruption. On a contrary, it shows that Jaime retained his ability to reason independently and to make his own decisions. He also does not hide from the consequences of his actions and doesn’t offer any excuses. It’s a very strong position and demands respect, IMO.

Except when he tries to sneak out of the throne-room after killing Aerys...

Are you saying that Jaime was a necrophiliac? I actually don't see him that way.

That's an accusation I haven't heard in Jaime-thread before. Most everything else comes around once in a while, though. ;)

[Rockroi]

Except when he tries to sneak out of the throne-room after killing Aerys...

He doesn't really try. He states that by the tie he was done killing Aerys, his father's banner-men stormed in, thus removing that option. I agree, I think that Jaime probably WANTED to sneak away, but in retrospect, its a foolish hope. Eventually, somebody would have wondered how AErys came to slice open his own throat. And eventually somebody would wonder where Jaime had been, and if Jaime could have stopped it, well then why didn't he, etc.

In other words, I think had Jaime actually sneaked away, old Jaime would have regretted that decision.

[Morekyyn]

Jaime is a very ineresting character, though I don´t buy for a minute that it was heroism that made him kill Aerys. Heroism would have been killing Aerys before Jaime himself was practically home free. To me it looks like "I finally can give you what you so richly deserves".

But something that just struck me is how totally honest Jaime is. He (as far as I remember) never lies about himself. If asked about anything he has done (comitted!), he tells the truth. There is a certain amount of arrogance in that aspect of him though, as if to say "who are you to judge me, the Lion of Lannister", but quite refreshing. In that aspect it´s interesting that Jaime himself never claims that he killed Aerys for altruistic reasons. He doesn´t even think it.

What he does state is that there were many reasons to kill Aerys, never why he himself did it. Still he is a prideful person who likes to inform people how good he is/was, and in that aspect it is also strange that he does not try to get some credit for killing Aerys, which he certainly is entitled to if his reasons were somewhat purer than I suspect they were.

The deed was good, the reasons foul. Something like the second Iraq war (runs for cover).

[Snowmelter]

Can anyone argue that Aerys didn't deserve killing? He was, in the end, a horrid king. Jamie did the right thing by opening his throat. Was it honorable? No. The bottom line is that he swore an oath to king and kingsguard and betrayed them. He had justification, but an oath is an oath. His is and will always remain the Kingslayer. I love him anyway.

[Daemrion]

Can anyone argue that Aerys didn't deserve killing? He was, in the end, a horrid king. Jamie did the right thing by opening his throat. Was it honorable? No. The bottom line is that he swore an oath to king and kingsguard and betrayed them. He had justification, but an oath is an oath. His is and will always remain the Kingslayer. I love him anyway.

He also swore an oath to protect the weak. He'd betray that oath if he let Aerys immolate Kings Landing.

[Alexia]

He also swore an oath to protect the weak. He'd betray that oath if he let Aerys immolate Kings Landing.

Yeah, but killing Aerys was gratuitous. He'd already killed the pyromancer Rossart before he could give the order. Then he went back and changed into his golden armor. Then he rushed off to go get himself the pleasure of slitting Aerys' throat just as his father's men burst into the throne room.

Changing into his golden armor, if nothing else, proves that it was totally about revenge and the pure pleasure of killing Aerys. Its not true that he did it to stop Aerys from immolating KL. If he'd waited five minutes in his room changing, his father's men would have taken Aerys instead. He'd probably been fantasizing about murdering Aerys since he started as a KG and he didn't want anyone else to take that pleasure from him.

[Prince of the North]

Yeah, but killing Aerys was gratuitous. He'd already killed the pyromancer Rossart before he could give the order. Then he went back and changed into his golden armor. Then he rushed off to go get himself the pleasure of slitting Aerys' throat just as his father's men burst into the throne room.

Changing into his golden armor, if nothing else, proves that it was totally about revenge and the pure pleasure of killing Aerys. Its not true that he did it to stop Aerys from immolating KL. If he'd waited five minutes in his room changing, his father's men would have taken Aerys instead. He'd probably been fantasizing about murdering Aerys since he started as a KG and he didn't want anyone else to take that pleasure from him.

Alexia,

Do you have a quote for Jaime stopping to change armor? Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read AGoT and I don't remember that. Also, I've always thought of Jaime killing Aerys as necessary because, of course, Jaime couldn't know what was going to happen with the sack of KL and a still-breathing Aerys could possibly move forward with his plan. Now, did Jaime enjoy killing Aerys? I definitely think so but was it gratuitous or unnecessary? That I'm not so sure about... :dunno:

[Alexia]

I'll post the quote when I get home tonight; I believe its in ASOS. If I remember the chain of events correctly, Jaime realized Rossart was leaving and rushed after him to knife him to stop it. Then he came back, put on his armor, and headed after Aerys (I know he was wearing his golden armor when he killed Aerys).

It was gratuitous in the sense that it wasn't necessary to stop Aerys from immolating KL. Lannister men came bursting through the door seconds later to capture Aerys. Jaime did it because he wanted to, not because he had to.

[Lummel]

Surely somebody had to kill Aerys II...Or do we think that putting him on trial on some basis was a possibility?

If Jaime had 'arrested' Aerys for Robert would it even have been possible to exile him? Could Aerys II realisticaly been forced to take the black and sent to the wall?

Wasn't it easier all round to kill him?

[Rockroi]

Yeah, but killing Aerys was gratuitous. He'd already killed the pyromancer Rossart before he could give the order. Then he went back and changed into his golden armor. Then he rushed off to go get himself the pleasure of slitting Aerys' throat just as his father's men burst into the throne room.

The problem is that Jaime has no idea how deep Lannister forces are; are they inside the walls? Are they being repelled? He has no clue that Brax and Mallister (IIRC) are actually inside Maegor's.

But more importantly, once Aerys saw time ticking away, he would have worried if his order was being followed, and could have sent another messenger to deliver the news to "Light this Candle." Jaime's decision to slay Roussart only stopped the messenger; it did not completely stop the message. As long as Aerys lived, there was always the chance that the wildfire could be lit. If that happened, Jaime would have been indirectly responsible for killing a large portion of the population of KL.

The only way to quash that message was to kill it at the source; kill Aerys. Jaime did what he was sworn to do: defend the weak and powerless from harm. The only way to do that was to kill Aerys.

[Alexia]

Lummel, Aerys was a walking dead man - Tywin would have ordered his death, like he did Elia and the children. If Ned and Robert had taken him, he probably would have gone on trial and then been executed, I'd guess. That's what I think Ned and Jon would have wanted.

Edit: Rockroi, don't you think he could have heard the shouts of his father's men and the sound of their jackboots on stone as they charged towards the throne room? The screams of dying Targaryen soldiers who were in the way? That really isn't a convincing explanation for me and even Jaime doesn't try to use it as an excuse. (Side note: Mallister is a Riverlands lord, maybe you mean Marbrand (don't recall)?)