Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?

[Enguerrand]

It shows them to be completely irrelevant.

O rly

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?

Submitting to the winning side to avoid destruction doesn't show any integrity no.

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

I can't see how I can be clearer. I listed what I know of Jaime and Barristan's thoughts of the matter, yet you disregard this and proclaim it irrelevant and return to the fact that Barristan and Jaime bending the knee as a ”proof” that this is what the kingsguard vow required them to do despite them supplying other reasons for it.

Anyway it's clear this is pointless.

[Enguerrand]

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

Not really, virtous characters holds principles more important then life itself, if so it's just a rational priority order.

Like say when Leonidas and his Spartans makes their stand at Thermopyle, it might be called insane, but it's also something that is regarderd as a supreme display of honor and integrity down the millenia.

[Radio Changes]

Not really, virtous characters holds principles more important then life itself, if so it's just a rational priority order.

Like say when Leonidas and his Spartans makes their stand at Thermopyle, it might be called insane, but it's also something that is regarderd as a supreme display of honor and integrity down the millenia.

Leonidas died for the greater good. A lord extending a civil war, killing peasants by not bending the knee because he has 'integrity' is laughable.

[SFDanny]

Leonidas died for the greater good. A lord extending a civil war, killing peasants by not bending the knee because he has 'integrity' is laughable.

Leonidas died heroically to maintain the established order rather than accept a new overlord. A lot of Greeks would have lived if the Athenians and the Spartans and their allies just accepted Persian rule. Not that I would have advocated they did so, but if we want to compare ancient Spartans to fantasy Westerosi then lets start with acknowledging the loyalists is Westeros wanted, just as much as Leonidas did, the status quo to remain the status quo. When does fighting to maintain that old order become a hopeless struggle and the continuation of war an exercise of just getting more people killed for a cause with no chance of winning? I suspect the answer to that question is different for different people. A loyalist lord in the heart of rebel controlled territory may have a different perspective than a Prince of Dorne. And I suspect they both might have a different perspective than the men who pledged their lives to protect Aerys and his family, including his heir apparent. At least I would hope they would.

[TrueMetis]

Not really, virtous characters holds principles more important then life itself, if so it's just a rational priority order.

Dying for a cause is easy, living for it is hard. The smart move would have been to bend the knee, then work against Robert and help Dany and Viserys in their exile.

Like say when Leonidas and his Spartans makes their stand at Thermopyle, it might be called insane, but it's also something that is regarderd as a supreme display of honor and integrity down the millenia.

It also had the advantage of being a strategically good decision. Though using thousands of slaves to fight with you isn't what I would call a display of honour and integrity.

[Enguerrand]

Leonidas died for the greater good. A lord extending a civil war, killing peasants by not bending the knee because he has 'integrity' is laughable.

And had Persia conquered the Greek city states as the uneven numbers gave people every reason to believe, would Leonidas have died for the greater good still or, would his futile last stand simply prolonged the suffering of the common man and been laughable?

Dying for a cause is easy, living for it is hard.

To quote Tyrion "I beg to differ. Death is so terribly final, while life is full of possibilities."

People doesn't submit to slavery and are led like cattle to the gaschambers because its harder then defiantly fighting to the death.

The smart move would have been to bend the knee, then work against Robert and help Dany and Viserys in their exile.

Honor is about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, being smart and violating the values you live by isn't an option.

It also had the advantage of being a strategically good decision.

Thermopyle had no strategic implications at all, It was nothing more then a speedbumb for the Persian advance.

[TrueMetis]

Honor is about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, being smart and violating the values you live by isn't an option.

Honour has gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed throughout the years.

Thermopyle had no strategic implications at all, It was nothing more then a speedbumb for the Persian advance.

No but the fight itself had been strategically sound, and it possible that if the Persian army had been held back longer they would have had to retreat.

ETA

And had Persia conquered the Greek city states as the uneven numbers gave people every reason to believe, would Leonidas have died for the greater good still or, would his futile last stand simply prolonged the suffering of the common man and been laughable?

The Persian Amry did conquer much of Greece before being defeated.

[Radio Changes]

And had Persia conquered the Greek city states as the uneven numbers gave people every reason to believe, would Leonidas have died for the greater good still or, would his futile last stand simply prolonged the suffering of the common man and been laughable?

Exactly, it's all about perspective. Honor is elastic, and just because someone lives and dies by a rigid code of honor and values does not make a person heroic automatically. Which turning back to the discussion, is why I see Selmy to be a more reasonable man than The Sword of the Morning and the other Kingsguards. What they did isn't heroic in itself, and what they were protecting in the end didn't need to be protected, since no harm came to Lyanna by Stark's men in the ToJ. Selmy is reasonable, yet still good, as opposed the Dayne, who was not reasonable.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Selmy is reasonable, yet still good, as opposed the Dayne, who was not reasonable.

Bah. If Selmy or any of them were truly good they would have done what Jaime eventually did, and slain the monster Aerys. They all enabled and abetted his atrocities, at the very least they stood by and did nothing. Looking on while the innocent Lord Rickard was roasted alive in a mockery of a trial by combat soiled the white cloaks of everyone of them there.

[Radio Changes]

Bah. If Selmy or any of them were truly good they would have done what Jaime eventually did, and slain the monster Aerys. They all enabled and abetted his atrocities, at the very least they stood by and did nothing. Looking on while the innocent Lord Rickard was roasted alive in a mockery of a trial by combat soiled the white cloaks of everyone of them there.

I actually agree with this, the noblest action any member of that Kingsguard made was Jaime's slaying of Aerys, though that could be slanted by my love for Jaime's POV.

[SFDanny]

Bah. If Selmy or any of them were truly good they would have done what Jaime eventually did, and slain the monster Aerys. They all enabled and abetted his atrocities, at the very least they stood by and did nothing. Looking on while the innocent Lord Rickard was roasted alive in a mockery of a trial by combat soiled the white cloaks of everyone of them there.

I have to disagree here. Not because I don't think Jaime's choice between letting King's Landing burn down around him or slaying Aerys was the right one; I think it obviously was, but I don't think Aerys was always a "monster." For the Kingsguard brothers it is rather a case of watching a young king slowly descend into madness and trying to reconcile their oaths as Kingsguard with their oaths as knights. When do you step in and try to stop a king from doing cruel acts? For us as readers it is easy, for the Sworn Brothers it is not. Only Jaime knows of the pyromancer plot, so it is only Jaime who is confronted with his particular choice. Others see the torture of Rickard and Brandon, or at least know about it. Do any of them try to say anything to Aerys to alter his cruelty? We don't know. Hightower and Jaime obviously do nothing to stop the torture, but we don't know if the Lord Commander counseled his king to do something else. Darry and Jaime hear the rape and brutalization of Rhaella by Aerys and both do nothing because he is their king; the others are away and don't know of the act. What they would have done had they been by the door is something we can only guess at. To these crimes we can add the harsh punishment of the rebels of Duskendale, but in that is Aerys any worse than what Tywin does with his own rebels? No, he probably fits right in with many of his contemporaries.

The question becomes, I think, not just one of following an oath versus doing what is right, but also supporting a system in which the power to do such horrible things are in anyone's hands by virtue of wearing a crown. For us as modern readers, I hope, most of us would reject such a system, but for the people of Westeros, and the Kingsguard in particular, it is the only system they can envision. For most of them they can only hope their king is truly just. Even for those who do rebel against Aerys, what alternative do they set up? They replace Aerys with Robert, but Robert has the same power to be just as cruel and crazy as King. Indeed his attempt to assassinate Daenerys places him pretty close to Aerys without the mental instability to provide an excuse.

With Selmy we know he doesn't rebel against Aerys, but we also know he does have regrets about serving a mad king. At Duskendale he does ask his king to save a young innocent child, and when he is confronted with serving another king who seems to have the same madness he balks and goes against his oath. Later he joins his voice to Ned's to try to stop Robert's assassination scheme. It is hard for me to believe that if Selmy had been at King's Landing and known of the pyromancer plot that he would have done nothing. In fact, I find it hard to believe that many of them would have stood by and done nothing. That is just my belief, however, and guess at what might have been in a work of fantasy. Not worth a lot, but there it is.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I have to disagree here. (snip)

That was a much more judicious and thoughtfully reasoned response than my cheap snark deserved!

Still, I'd say that Aerys seven represent a low point in KG honour rather than a high one. I like to think that Ser Duncan the Tall would have at least knocked a few of Aerys' teeth out, had he been in their place. Rar!

[KAH]

The great lords of Westeros have conflicting oaths - to their sovereign, but also to their vassals and commoners. Within this system, I believe, the oath system works two ways - the lord is sworn to his king, but the king is then also expected to have command and be able to rule, to protect his underlings. Those who abandon this charge are often seen to be failed, like Ser Quincy Cox of Saltpans. He was old, but he was still expected to do something when Rorge and his cronies were killing his people. The people of Meereen who fled their homes were judged by Dany to have lost their right to them. When Winterfell was burned, Robb had no choice but to turn home to take it back, lest he be seen as unfit to rule.

If you are not able to defend your home and your people, you lose the right to rule, unless someone else lends their weight to you.

As such, there is a good argument for the Lords Paramount on the Targaryen side to consider themselves released from their oaths after Aerys' death, in order to stop a pointless war. I do not recall how old Viserys was at this point, but leading armies probably was not something he was like to be able to do, nor rule independently. Feudal rule is personal rather than institutional, particularly during war.

The Kingsguard, however, seems like a different case. They have no responsibility other than to the royal family itself, and their lives are sworn to them alone, and it's a one way obligation that does not disappear just because the king is fleeing into exile.

Thus I must conclude Barristan falls on the turncloak side. As Darry did the honorable thing and fled with the Targaryen kids, Barristan bent the knee to their mortal enemy.

[Ran]

I would say their loyalty is the Iron Throne alone. Whoever sits on it isn't really their business. Otherwise, they should have been fighting to make Aerion Brightflame's child king, rather than allowing the Grand Council to decide it.

They fought their damndest for the Targaryens, most of them anyways, but once the realm had crowned a new king in Robert, it seems to me that the vows are such that they could have interpreted it to mean that they should now swear themselves to Robert. Or not.

As to the low point of Kingsguard honor, I hardly think so. While the interpretation of the Kingsguard vows that Ser Gerold Hightower seems to have instilled in his brothers is an especially harsh one, it's not like Jaime thinks anything but the world of those men and their honor. He considers himself to be the point where the "rats" were let in -- he broke his vows, and now vows and oaths and honor became practically meaningless in regards to the Kingsguard because of it. From the perspective of a majority of the realm, Aerys's Kingsguard before the Kingslaying were and remain that "a marvel, a shining lesson to the world." And this from the man whose father was roasted alive and his brother strangled by the Mad King while the Kingsguard stood by. If anyone has cause to condemn them, it's him; that he doesn't is, IMO, telling.

[KAH]

I would say their loyalty is the Iron Throne alone. Whoever sits on it isn't really their business. Otherwise, they should have been fighting to make Aerion Brightflame's child king, rather than allowing the Grand Council to decide it.

They fought their damndest for the Targaryens, most of them anyways, but once the realm had crowned a new king in Robert, it seems to me that the vows are such that they could have interpreted it to mean that they should now swear themselves to Robert. Or not.

Their loyalty is to the royal family and the king. A king must be raised; when the Grand Council decided it, there was no king - but there was still the Targaryen royal family. Had any lord tried to select a king outside that family, I can't see the Kingsguard as anything but honour bound to fight for the Targaryen rights, as long as any Targaryens remain.

[A wilding]

I have to disagree here. ...

I entirely agree with your defence of Aerys' Kingsguard, but I would also add one additional argument:

There was apparently at least the beginnings of a plan to depose Aerys in an orderly manner and replace him with Rhaegar, and at least some of the Kingsguard were at least partially aware of it.

[Enguerrand]

Exactly, it's all about perspective. Honor is elastic, and just because someone lives and dies by a rigid code of honor and values does not make a person heroic automatically.

You are conflating honor with the utilaristic consequences of courage. Even had Persia won it would not have made Leonidas stand less honorable or valiant. (Although likely far less famous). Almost all can fight when victory is certain, most can fight when you have a reasonable chance of winning, some can fight can fight when there is still hope, but very few chose to fight when defeat is certain.

Leonidas knew he couldn’t win the number game, so he chose to celebrate his culture, giving people something to think about, and even in those days those battles that decided the war disappeared in the shadow of thermopyle’s blaze of glory.

And I don’t think dying because you can’t change anything is necessarily insane, some people feel a life without self-respect is no life at all, for themselves or their families or society.

And honor cultures are violent, when death can and often do strike anywhere, life and the individual stand back to family, clan and values since the latters are the constants.

[Enguerrand]

I would say their loyalty is the Iron Throne alone. Whoever sits on it isn't really their business. Otherwise, they should have been fighting to make Aerion Brightflame's child king, rather than allowing the Grand Council to decide it.

They could I guess, if they had viewed dismissing the child’s claim as way to usurp the throne. Which it wasn’t.

What would the White bull have done if a Grand council declared Aerys unfit and passed the throne to his son? Opposed Rhaegar as he did Robert? I doubt that.

They fought their damndest for the Targaryens, most of them anyways, but once the realm had crowned a new king in Robert, it seems to me that the vows are such that they could have interpreted it to mean that they should now swear themselves to Robert. Or not.

Could interpret, yet they all interpret it in other ways.

[Ran]

KAH,

a king must be raised...

Perhaps so. Whoever said that Viserys was raised to kingship? He wasn't even named Aerys's heir.

Had any lord tried to select a king outside that family, I can't see the Kingsguard as anything but honour bound to fight for the Targaryen rights, as long as any Targaryens remain.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But lets bear in mind that Robert was part of the royal family, if somewhat distantly. ;)

[Jaak]

Dying for a cause is easy, living for it is hard. The smart move would have been to bend the knee, then work against Robert and help Dany and Viserys in their exile.

Lying for a cause is worse than dying for the cause, and also worse than deserting the cause. This is on a level with respect for heralds and respect for oaths like Watch vows. Open use or threat of violence is acceptable because the victims are on the alert and can either fight back or submit and seek mercy. Whereas pretending to submit and then breaking the promise puts in danger everybody who genuinely wants to submit as well as everybody who has submitted and wants to keep it that way.