Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?

[Enguerrand]

Are you saying you think Jaime is a Targ loyalist that didn't recognize Robert as king?

Obviously not a loyalist, but someone who recognize that by any appeal made by the law, custom and tradition of Westeros Robert is a usurper. ”Not a true king”

Robert was crowned because he had the biggest army and the greatest support. Not because he followed the established succession order. Hence not entitled to a honorable man's fealty.

This is the position of several people in the books, even Renly, the kings own brother laugh at Robert's legal claim to the throne and it is consistent with Jaime's treatment of Robert.

I doubt there many people that Jaime would consider "worthy" of his kingsgaurdly service, but it was Cersei that aborted Robert's children. And Jaime had been fucking Cersei long before she was ever Robert's queen, and likely would have continued fucking her no matter whose wife she'd become, so I don't see that as a particular statement about Robert.

Actually Jaime assisted her and I really wonder if Jaime would have continued carnal relations with her if she had been married to a man he respected. Up to when his father's men stormed the wall of the Red keep Jaime tried his best to serve Aerys faithfully. While, even though Robert's spared his life, he has never served him in good faith.

Sorry, I though you've been saying that the KG swear and serve for life. Are you saying now that there is some legitimate process for transferring the loyalties of the KG?

I believe(and I think Martin has said,though I might be wrong) that the kingsguard vows, doesn't take regime change into account. (I think it's safe to assume that the Targaryen kings wouldn't intentionally put something in the vow that compelled the kingsguard to serve those who slayed them.)

Nonetheless there is a feudal code of behaviour between liege and servants.

You are supposed to stay true to the family you serve even though another lord kills and drives your lord of his lands, A bannerman switching sides to the winning side is viewed as a turncoat.

What is true for them would be even more so for the kingsguard, that is viewed as the epitome of fidelity.

This is I believe is the reason Barristan find his behaviour shameful and inexcusable. And why he and other's doesn't make any appeal to the kingsguardly vow to dismiss or establish any wrongdoing.

As I said, until we hear some particulars about the actual KG vows all of us can only speculate about the terms of Barristan's loyalty. Someone accused Selmy of being a turncoat and put forth their interpretation of dialogue and events in the book to support that claim. I disagreed, and put forth a very different interpretation of Barristan's actions and motives.

Even with the vows I'm sure people can speculate, Nothing short of Martin saying this is the way it is would be definite. Since all you can do is cast doubts on evidence to the contrary, not provide anything positive to support it, I don't see what purpose your interpretation would serve.

If he is bound by the terms of his KG vows to serve the Crown, or the anointed king on the Iron Throne or whoever, then he has no real choice who he serves if he wishes to stay true to his vows. True he could disregard them, but not without shaming himself.

And he says his service to the usurper shamed him.

Don't you think that the fact that none of Aerys seven is compelled by the vow to serve the rebel leader might be a... rather strong indication that no such compulsion exist?

[The Mance]

Obviously not a loyalist, but someone who recognize that by any appeal made by the law, custom and tradition of Westeros Robert is a usurper. ”Not a true king”

Robert was crowned because he had the biggest army and the greatest support. Not because he followed the established succession order. Hence not entitled to a honorable man's fealty.

I'm sure there were similar grumblings when the first Targaryen came over from Valyria and made themselves King. Grumble, grumble, conquest, grumble, usurper, grumble, grumble, not a true king. And yet now, hundreds of years later people are saying the same of the man who ousted the Targs from their set. So what, dynasty ending conquest is never easy, but life goes on.

You are supposed to stay true to the family you serve even though another lord kills and drives your lord of his lands, A bannerman switching sides to the winning side is viewed as a turncoat.

That may all be true while the conflict is still being resolved, but once a new lord/king/whatever is decided it is quite common for lesser lords and bannermen from the losing side to swear fealty to the winner. Not that that necessarily has anything to do with KG vows.

Since all you can do is cast doubts on evidence to the contrary, not provide anything positive to support it, I don't see what purpose your interpretation would serve.

You mean apart from showing alternatives to the "Barristan must be a turncoat" allegations? After all, I am allowed to post just for the sake of disproving the theories of others, right?

Don't you think that the fact that none of Aerys seven is compelled by the vow to serve the rebel leader might be a... rather strong indication that no such compulsion exist?

Wait, what? Serve the rebel leader? The only time there was a rebel leader to serve would have been before Robert won the war and was crowned as king. Obviously none of Aerys' KG would be compelled to serve Robert before he was crowned. And of Aerys' seven that were still alive after Robert was crowned, lets see.....umm ALL of them swore loyalty to him.

[WinterBreeze]

turncoat (ˈtɜːnˌkəʊt)

— n

a person who deserts one cause or party for the opposite faction; renegade

Definition from the [Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition]

When Robert's Rebellion was going on Barristan Slemy changed sides after King Aery's lost,

Robert forgave him and made him his Captain.

At this point in time he was not (by definition) a turncoat.

(He was even still loyal to the iron throne.)

However,

When Joffery made him retire, he did not follow the Iron Throne afterwords.

He then went to Dany, the other faction, and joined her. Making him, purely by definition a Turncoat.

[The Mance]

[

When Joffery made him retire, he did not follow the Iron Throne afterwords.

He then went to Dany, the other faction, and joined her. Making him, purely by definition a Turncoat.

Selmy didn't desert any cause or party, he was literally forced to leave. And Joffery didn't just make Selmy retire, he made the High Septon release Selmy from his vows, thereby absolving him of any sacred obligations of loyalty to the Crown or the Iron Throne or to any personage his vows might have tied him to. If ever there was anyone who was free to change their allegiance without being labeled a turncoat, it was Barristan Selmy when he was run out of Kingslanding.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

And of Aerys' seven that were still alive after Robert was crowned, lets see.....umm ALL of them swore loyalty to him.

Do you have definite proof that Robert was not crowned until after the fight at the Tower of Joy?

[SFDanny]

Do you have definite proof that Robert was not crowned until after the fight at the Tower of Joy?

I'm sure he doesn't because we have very strong evidence the opposite is true.

"At Robert’s coronation, I was made to kneel at the royal feet beside Grand Maester Pycelle and Varys the eunuch, so that he might forgive us our crimes before he took us into his service.” (ACoK 600)

Jaime tells us that at Robert's coronation he, Pycelle, and Varys are pardoned.

Then Stannis tells us this takes place before the siege of Storm's End is lifted.

“Ser Barristan once told me that the rot in King Aerys’s reign began with Varys. The eunuch should never have been pardoned. No more than the Kingslayer. At the least, Robert should have stripped the white cloak from Jaime and sent him to the Wall as Lord Stark urged. He listened to Jon Arryn instead. I was still at Storm’s End, under siege and unconsulted.” (ASoS 411)

And lastly we have Ned's dream of the Tower of Joy in which he tells the Kingsguard Trio he expected to find them at Storm's End when he lifted the siege.

"I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.’"

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne. (AGoT 355)

It is very likely that the Kingsguard trio knows Robert has been crowned king and find the idea of going over to his side totally repugnant - no matter how much the odds are against them by remaining loyal to the Targaryens - and obviously against their understanding of their oaths.

Pardon me, The Mance, but I find the idea of any of the Kingsguard believing that their oaths told them to support Robert totally ridiculous. While it's true both Jaime and Ser Barristan join Robert, both of them know they violate their oaths as Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard to do so.

[Enguerrand]

So what, dynasty ending conquest is never easy, but life goes on.

What has this to do with Jaime’s thoughts about Robert's legitimacy?

That may all be true while the conflict is still being resolved, but once a new lord/king/whatever is decided it is quite common for lesser lords and bannermen from the losing side to swear fealty to the winner.

Yes, in order to save the lives of themselves, their families and fortune most people will submit when they are conquered. But doing so isn’t something that is considered upstanding. People with integrity are supposed to remain true to their principles no matter the costs.

After all, I am allowed to post just for the sake of disproving the theories of others, right?

I imagine so; you just won’t do any disproving if you chose to remain ignorant of the source material.

Obviously none of Aerys' KG would be compelled to serve Robert before he was crowned. And of Aerys' seven that were still alive after Robert was crowned, lets see.....umm ALL of them swore loyalty to him.

Way to deliberately ignore the point I was making. And do yourself a favor and read the relevant passages in the books before arguing about this, you will not look so silly then.

[Spastic Plastic]

GRRM has said in one of his "So Spake Martin" interviews that Robert was crowned King and decided to take the Iron Throne right before the Battle of the Trident.

[SFDanny]

No, Martin has said Robert declared his intention to be king around the time of the Trident; he did not say when the coronation takes place. However, we know the actual coronation takes place after the sack, obviously so given Jaime's presence at event, and before the lifting of the siege of Storm's End because of Stannis's statement. It is likely the coronation takes place before Ned leaves King's Landing.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

It is likely the coronation takes place before Ned leaves King's Landing.

Thanks for the quotes upthread; I had found the one with Jaime at Harrenhal talking of his pardon, but the others slipped my mind. I vaguely remember this being discussed in a previous thread, and as I suspected it's conclusive that Hightower, Dayne, and Whent were still alive and calling Robert a usurper long after he was crowned.

The only part I'm not really convinced of is the above, where Ned attended the coronation. When Tywin presented the bodies of Aegon and Rhaenys to Robert, the two of them quarreled:

"Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south."

Now I feel confident that Tywin's presentation of the corpses would have taken place almost immediately on Robert's arrival, not waiting a few days since that was a pretty urgent matter to be resolved. On the one hand, I would expect that a coronation feast (which happened the night of the pardons) should at least take a few days of preparation, especially in the aftermath of the Sack, but then again Robert may have been delayed a few days arriving in KL after Ned, since he was wounded on the Trident...those two might cancel each other out.

But Ned definitely doesn't seem to have stayed for the feast, and it seems quite possible that he may not have stayed for the coronation ceremony itself, either, since he rode out "that very day". I guess I can't see the coronation taking place on the first day Robert set foot in his new capital city, while there might even still be the fighting and chaos of the Sack going on outside the Red Keep, and blood still freshly spilled. A parallel might be the fancy court ceremony after the battle of the Blackwater with everyone dressed up in their finery..I'm sure that was at least a day or so after the battle itself, to allow time for everything to get sorted out.

ETA: actually, after rereading some of that Blackwater court session, maybe Tywin did show the bodies on the same day as the coronation. It seems similar to the messiness of his horse poop and executing Stannis' men right there in the throne room.

[SFDanny]

The only part I'm not really convinced of is the above, where Ned attended the coronation.

My thinking is based on Stannis's statement where he talks of Ned advising Jaime be sent to the Wall. It's possible the coronation falls anywhere from the day Robert arrives in King's Landing after the sack to when the siege is lifted at Storm's End - a period of about a month to two months. Because Stannis tells us Ned argued against the pardon of Jaime, it seems likely to me that the coronation and Jaime's pardon takes place before Ned leaves the city - as you point out in anger about the murder of Rhaegar's children and Robert's reaction to the display of their bodies. It's certainly possible it happens later, but it seems likely Ned would attend the ceremony and that would be where, or right after, Tywin displays the bodies.

I'd also point out that is makes some kind of logical sense for Robert to have the coronation as quickly as possible after the sack because he wants to stop any talk of support for a Viserys's elevation to the throne. Once he is crowned, Robert is telling all loyalists, Dorne and Highgarden in particular, the Targaryen dynasty is at a end, so don't even think of trying to rally behind the boy on Dragonstone. Anyway, that's my two cents.

[Jaak]

There is of course option 4) Tell Robert you'll follow him, then run away to Viserys at the first chance. As a Knight of the Kingsguard, he wasn't exactly kept under close watch, and could have left at any time he chose. He would be forswearing his vow to Robert, made at swordpoint (essentially), but doing so in order to keep his vow to the Targaryens. Maybe not the noblest course, but still an option.

We have an example of how Jaime was regarded. When held prisoner in Riverrun, he was asked to swear to never fight Stark or Tully again. An oath which potentially conflicted with his prior Kingsguard oaths to serve King and obey his orders. The alternative Catelyn offered was being killed on the spot, not staying in the dungeon until rescued or exchanged.

When Jaime was duly ordered to go back to fight Tully, he did obey his Kingsguard vows to obey and therefore broke the oath to Catelyn. He is despised for this.

Clearly, a Kingsguard is not under obligation to lie or perjure himself to return to serve his king. If a Kingsguard is taken captive, he may try to escape but he must not pretend to defect to his captors in order to do so - if challenged to join the captors or be killed, he must volunteer to be killed.

[The Mance]

It is very likely that the Kingsguard trio knows Robert has been crowned king and find the idea of going over to his side totally repugnant

It is also possible that they have heard only rumors, or even nothing at all, about Robert's crowning, isolated as they were at the ToJ. I've certainly heard that suggested in R+L=J threads many times. Its also possible that even if they had heard about it they still felt obligated to carry out the last orders given them by Rhaegar before submitting to whatever might be required of them. And maybe they were even glad to have a chance to sacrifice their lives in carrying out that last order rather than having to swear their allegiance to Robert Baretheon in particular, or anyone that wasn't a Targaryen in general.

Pardon me, The Mance, but I find the idea of any of the Kingsguard believing that their oaths told them to support Robert totally ridiculous.

Noted. While I believe its equally ridiculous for anyone to have such an unflinching certainty about what might be required by the KG oath, based on their subjective interpretation of quotes and events, without having ever heard exactly what the Oath states.

...and obviously against their understanding of their oaths.....

....both of them know they violate their oaths as Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard to do so.

Maybe. Or maybe there is virtually no guidance to be gained from the wording of the KG vows and nobody really had any idea what was expected of them once anyone besides a Targaryen had been crowned. Maybe the Oath references the Targaryen family generally, in which case Robert does have a tenuous tie. Or maybe, in an unfortunate use of idiom, it ties them to a Targ king that 'sits the Iron Throne', in which case what are they to do with their loyalties if someone else has taken that Seat?

And what happens when two different Targs haev a legitimate claim to the throne? Do the KG draw straws for who they should all support? Do they pick sides individually and then possibly fight each other? What? What? Surely there are explicit and comprehensive instructions for each and every eventuality written into the Kingsgaurd vows. Because what you are suggesting, that the KG should automatically know who their vows make them loyal to, is really a nebulous way to run a kingdom. It kind of makes them the ultimate arbiters of the laws of succession. Who has the greater claim to the crown!?! Lets ask the Kingsgaurd!

What has this to do with Jaime’s thoughts about Robert's legitimacy?

It shows them to be completely irrelevant. ;)

People with integrity are supposed to remain true to their principles no matter the costs.

So you're saying that every Lord, great and small, and all their respective bannermen throughout the Seven Kingdoms that supported the Targaryen throne during Robert's rebellion showed no integrity if they bent their knee to Robert at the end of the war? That every one of them should have fought down to the last drop of blood in the very last man for the sake of their principles? *

Way to deliberately ignore the point I was making.

If my post did not address the point you thought you made, perhaps you should be more clear about wtf you mean.

* This post is dedicated to Ser Scot A Ellison :D

[SFDanny]

It is also possible that ...

You keep using that as your standard. What is "possible" in the world of fantasy literature covers a very large amount of territory. It means next to nothing to claim something is "possible." Contributing something new based on a new interpretation of the text is always welcome, but sucking an idea out of the air with nothing to back it up is crackpot territory. Nothing wrong with that either - as long as you know that's where you are. It can be entertaining if done with an understanding of the story. So far I'm not even entertained, much less impressed with your theory. Try backing it up with something from the books, not out of thin air.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I don't really see where the act of crowning is some big game changer in Westeros. Beyond the mere fact of making the assertion that one is king, which anyone can accept or reject according to their own inclinations, what difference has it made? Did the fact that Joffrey was crowned prevent the Reach from following Renly? Did Renly's crowning make any difference to the Northmen? No, they followed who they wanted to follow. Why should we think a symbolic ceremony would cause the ToJ KG to suddenly change their minds that Robert was an acceptable king instead of an illegal and treasonous usurper?

[Jaak]

Robert claimed that the Kingsguard vows, and the vows of bannermen, DID carry over from Aerys to him.

He could quite reasonably have declared the Kingsguard free from their vows with fall of Targaryens, in which case the Kingsguard who submitted could serve him as subjects or bannermen. In this case ser Jaime would have gone back to Casterly Rock as its heir, and probably have made a political marriage soon (Lysa was taken).

But doing so would have meant letting go a Lannister hostage. (Sending Jaime to Wall as Ned urged also meant losing the hostage.)

Which is why Robert as advised by Jon interpreted the vows as binding and carrying over from Aerys. The only pretext to keep Jaime hostage.

But this meant that Barristan also was bound by vows. If Robert had not already committed to holding Kingsguard to their vows, Barristan could have asked for freedom, with implication that he would seek employment as sworn sword, master at arms or captain of guards with a lord of his choice, or gone to Free Cities as mercenary. And if Robert did grant Barristan such freedom in general terms, it would not have been such a flagrant breach of oaths for him to join Willum and Viserys in Braavos, as escaping from the post of Lord Commander would have been.

Likewise, Robert claimed that Martells and Greyjoys authomatically owed him obedience because they had owed it to Aerys.

[The Mance]

It means next to nothing to claim something is "possible."

I thought about using "every bit as likely as whatever partially informed interpretation of events you've put forth", but "possible" just seemed like a useful shorthand. Should I go back and edit my posts with the long version?

your theory

As I explained to Enguerrand, I am in no way trying to present a theory. In fact, if I did try to put forth a theory that Selmy had stayed true to his vows and therefore was definitely not a turncoat, I'd only have to immediately retract it due to insufficient evidence. My intent has never been more than to poke holes in all of the various bits of "evidence" that "clearly" show that Selmy is a "treasonous" "oath breaking" "turncoat". If it makes you feel better, I did find this from So Spake Martin,

4) Does the oath of a Kingsguard include to serve _whoever_ is the king, even if the new king rebelled against the old one, or did Jaime and Barristan _choose_ to continue their service as Robert was crowned?

The oaths did not envision rebellion, actually. Robert pardoned Barristan and Jaime, and they accepted the pardon and continued to serve.

which seems to prove what I suggested earlier, that no one really had the slightest idea what the Kingsgaurd were supposed to do after the throne had been taken from the Targaryens. But even that doesn't really show that Selmy stayed true to his vows, only that he didn't necessarily break them. Which, again, has been my point all along.

[SFDanny]

I thought about using "every bit as likely as whatever partially informed interpretation of events you've put forth", but "possible" just seemed like a useful shorthand. Should I go back and edit my posts with the long version?

Did I strike a nerve? Sorry, but what I want is for you back up your ideas with something from the books, not just post whatever alternate idea comes to mind no matter how lacking of supportive evidence it is. Not a unreasonable request, I think. "Possible" just doesn't cut it. If you disagree with something Enguerrand, or I, or anyone else has posted, then by all means, please, show why you think it is wrong and support your argument. I've got no problem with being enlightened with new evidence or a well formed logical discussion of what is wrong with something I've put forward. I've yet to see that on your part. For instance, up thread I posted what I think is strong evidence that you are wrong when you say all the living Kingsguard go over to Robert after his coronation - you have yet to even acknowledge the post much less admit your mistake. Dayne, Whent, and Hightower don't join Robert, and it is likely, I believe, that Selmy doesn't until after the news of the Tower of Joy gets back to King's Landing. If we suppose the oath tells the Kingsguard they must serve whomever is designated King by the High Septon, something we don't know was the case with Robert at his coronation, then why does the example of the Tower of Joy trio point in the other direction? If we are to assume it is they and not Jaime and Selmy who violate their oaths when they accept Robert as their king, then why does Ser Barristan regret his decision and seek out his true king in Daenerys, even to the point of his willingness to accept a "traitor's death"? It sure seems to point very strongly in the direction of Selmy being a turncoat, a understandable one, but a turncoat nonetheless. Show me evidence, please, that points in the other direction?

As I explained to Enguerrand, I am in no way trying to present a theory. In fact, if I did try to put forth a theory that Selmy had stayed true to his vows and therefore was definitely not a turncoat, I'd only have to immediately retract it due to insufficient evidence.

Your intent seems to argue without substance. Here you admit insufficient evidence for your "theory," or whatever you wish to call it. I'd go a step farther and say it has no evidence. That differs considerably from what others have posted who a least try to shed some light by showing why they think something might be true.

My intent has never been more than to poke holes in all of the various bits of "evidence" that "clearly" show that Selmy is a "treasonous" "oath breaking" "turncoat". If it makes you feel better, I did find this from So Spake Martin,

which seems to prove what I suggested earlier, that no one really had the slightest idea what the Kingsgaurd were supposed to do after the throne had been taken from the Targaryens. But even that doesn't really show that Selmy stayed true to his vows, only that he didn't necessarily break them. Which, again, has been my point all along.

Actually it does make me feel better. I was wondering if you'd find this nugget. The problem is it doesn't say what you say it does, and it certainly doesn't prove your point. When asked point blank whether the Kingsguard had to serve whomever is crowned king - your "theory" - Martin says it doesn't envision the situation. It doesn't tell them they must do what you say it does if a rebel holds the throne. Rather Barristan and Jaime make a choice and accept Robert's pardon. There is ample evidence that Selmy at least comes to think of his choice as treason; Jaime has already committed the ultimate treasonous act when he kills Aerys (regardless if we all agree he was right in doing so) so he has no reason to worry about further treasonous acts.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

If we suppose the oath tells the Kingsguard they must serve whomever is designated King by the High Septon, something we don't know was the case with Robert at his coronation, then why does the example of the Tower of Joy trio point in the other direction?

I'd say the Dance of the Dragons also points in the other direction. Such a clause in the KG oath would make following it perfectly straightforward, and yet the brothers (literally brothers in the case of Ser Arryk and Ser Erryk) were divided against themselves.

I also suspect the original Targaryen kings would be reluctant to put that much power in the hands of the High Septon of a faith that denounces customs they practiced (incest and polygamy). What if the HS refuses to designate anyone king? Would the Targaryen appointed KG dissolve? High Septons have too much potential to be wild cards to give them kingmaking authority.

[Radio Changes]

Yes, in order to save the lives of themselves, their families and fortune most people will submit when they are conquered. But doing so isn’t something that is considered upstanding. People with integrity are supposed to remain true to their principles no matter the costs.

'No matter the costs'? That doesn't make someone a man of integrity, it makes them insane and irrational.