Barristan Selmy, True Knight or Jackbooted Thug?

[Blackfish Tully]

Exactly. As I posted on her before along with others why is Jaime thought of as a traitor while Barristan is thought of as a hero when Jaime killed a wicked King and Barristan stood by and did nothing while the Starks were cruelly and unjustly murdered.

Jamie also did nothing when the Starks were being killed. Jamie only acted when his father's army was at the gate and he found out that Aerys was planning on murdering everybody in the city including Jamie. If Barristan was in the same position as Jamie he would also have acted to stop Aerys. There is no way he would have stood there while Aerys killed everybody in the city.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Jamie also did nothing when the Starks were being killed. Jamie only acted when his father's army was at the gate and he found out that Aerys was planning on murdering everybody in the city including Jamie. If Barristan was in the same position as Jamie he would also have acted to stop Aerys. There is no way he would have stood there while Aerys killed everybody in the city.

That's a very optimistic thought. No basis in the text though as opposed to Jaime with his "going away inside" when Rickard and Brandon died and him asking an older KG if they shouldn't interfere when Aerys raped and savaged Rhaella.

[ab aeterno]

Jamie also did nothing when the Starks were being killed. Jamie only acted when his father's army was at the gate and he found out that Aerys was planning on murdering everybody in the city including Jamie. If Barristan was in the same position as Jamie he would also have acted to stop Aerys. There is no way he would have stood there while Aerys killed everybody in the city.

I like Barristan, but I suspect that he wouldn't have acted as Jaime did with regards to Aerys, and I also think that none of the other KG would either. tbh.

[Blackfish Tully]

The innocent? Rhaella, Ned, Robert. Rickard and Brandon are the justice part of the vows.

Davos stood by while Stannis burned legitimate traitors.

Ned Stark executed a deserter. The guy has a right to be scared, but he has a duty to return to the Wall and inform his commanders, not be caught a thousand miles farther south.

Barristan could have volunteered to stand in Lord Rickards place. He could have simply killed Aerys. He could have participated in the Rebellion. He could commit suicide. He could take the Black. Or he could simply run away.

He didn't. He stayed with Aerys till the bitter end, his hands are bloody.

Jaime describes what a real hero did in a similar situation: Lord Chelsted threw his badge of office into Aerys face when he couldn't convince him not to prepare to burn Kings Landing knowing he himself would burn for that.

So Stannis burned "legitimate" traitors? who decides when somebody is a 'legitimate' traitor and deserves to burn?

Ned Stark could not send the man back to the wall to be judged by his brothers?

Brandon and Rickard are innocent? how do we know this? as far as we know they may have been planning to overthrow the King and deserved to be executed as 'legitimate' traitors.

Ned Stark did confess to being a traitor and trying to overthrow the King (we know it's not true but how does Barristan?) so he is a 'legitimate' traitor and deserved to be executed.

[Blackfish Tully]

I like Barristan, but I suspect that he wouldn't have acted as Jaime did with regards to Aerys, and I also think that none of the other KG would either. tbh.

So he would have stood there while Aerys destroyed the city with wildfire killing everybody including Barristan and the rest of the Royal family? I doubt that

[Bright Blue Eyes]

So Stannis burned "legitimate" traitors? who decides when somebody is a 'legitimate' traitor and deserves to burn?

Ned Stark could not send the man back to the wall to be judged by his brothers?

Brandon and Rickard are innocent? how do we know this? as far as we know they may have been planning to overthrow the King and deserved to be executed as 'legitimate' traitors.

Ned Stark did confess to being a traitor and trying to overthrow the King (we know it's not true but how does Barristan?) so he is a 'legitimate' traitor and deserved to be executed.

That's something informed people can decide for themselves. A proper court, proof etc. are good hints.

Yes, Ned could have sent him to the Wall. But the NW didn't want him to, they were entirely satisfied with his head.

As far as we know, Westerosi pigs can fly since there is no evidence to the contrary. The fact that no one except Barbrey Dustin, certainly no one in the South recalls any hint for treachery by Rickard or Brandon is a strong hint that this wasn't Aerys reason to kill them.

And the way how it was done spoke of certain madness.

Yes, Ned Stark confesses, and some guys took it for truth, but that isn't the case in Rickards and Brandons murder.

So he would have stood there while Aerys destroyed the city with wildfire killing everybody including Barristan and the rest of the Royal family? I doubt that

Based on what?

[Miryana]

Jamie also did nothing when the Starks were being killed. Jamie only acted when his father's army was at the gate and he found out that Aerys was planning on murdering everybody in the city including Jamie. If Barristan was in the same position as Jamie he would also have acted to stop Aerys. There is no way he would have stood there while Aerys killed everybody in the city.

Yes, Jaime is often compared favourably to the old KG, but none of them ever faced the situation he did, and since Jaime never revealed the plans Barristan wasn't given an opportunity to reflect on what he might have done in his place. As you say, even Jaime did nothing for the longest time and we don't know whether the older KG (who might have supported Rhaegar's idea about setting his father aside after the Trident) meant what they said to Jaime or were just putting on a brave face to keep the newbie from breaking down over the conflict. And after the kingslaying Jaime did the queen and set the stage for a civil war, making Barristan's inactivity seem quite harmless by comparison.

To me, Davos acting to save the life of an innocent child while both staying loyal to his king and bravely confronting him with questions about morality and duty is a pretty good example of a true knight. Jackbooted thug is a decent description of Joffrey's KG who carry out his Aerys-style commands, or pre-ASOS Jaime who doesn't give a damn about his KG oaths but is ready to murder bystanders for the sake of Lannister security or plain pride. It doesn't fit Barristan in the same way, but he hasn't demonstrated great selflessness or insight either. He's a knight and a celebrity, but not a hero.

[Blackfish Tully]

That's something informed people can decide for themselves. A proper court, proof etc. are good hints.

Yes, Ned could have sent him to the Wall. But the NW didn't want him to, they were entirely satisfied with his head.

As far as we know, Westerosi pigs can fly since there is no evidence to the contrary. The fact that no one except Barbrey Dustin, certainly no one in the South recalls any hint for treachery by Rickard or Brandon is a strong hint that this wasn't Aerys reason to kill them.

And the way how it was done spoke of certain madness.

Yes, Ned Stark confesses, and some guys took it for truth, but that isn't the case in Rickards and Brandons murder.

Based on what?

So Stannis had a proper court procedings before he burned the traitors? No, He decided they were guilty and burned them on the authority of Stannis being King i.e. Judge, Jury and Executioner. Thats no different then what Aerys did to the Starks.

[MagnusPrime]

It is hard to say what the other Kingsguard would do concerning the wildfyre plot. Standing by when one or two innocent people were killed is one thing but allowing a mad man to murder hundreds of thousands?

The problem is that jaime never told anyone of the wildfyre plot and Barristan never mentions it in any of his POVs which leads us to believe that no one knew oustide of Aerys, Jaime, Chelsted, and the pyromancers. So we can not say if they would seek to prevent it or not.

One thing is for sure they probably would have made sure to leave Aerys alive and protect Elia and the children.

[ab aeterno]

So he would have stood there while Aerys destroyed the city with wildfire killing everybody including Barristan and the rest of the Royal family? I doubt that

If Barristan was anything like the KG at the ToJ it seems highly likely. We cannot know for sure, but their attitude suggests not.

[Blackfish Tully]

If Barristan was anything like the KG at the ToJ it seems highly likely. We cannot know for sure, but their attitude suggests not.

It's one thing to sacrifice yourself to honor a promise made to protect an infant and it's another thing to allow hundreds of thousand of people, including the prince's wife and children, to be roasted alive. I doubt anybody would have been able to stand by and let that happen.

[ab aeterno]

It's one thing to sacrifice yourself to honor a promise made to protect an infant and it's another thing to allow hundreds of thousand of people, including the prince's wife and children, to be roasted alive. I doubt anybody would have been able to stand by and let that happen.

"Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

Emphasis added.

[Blackfish Tully]

Yes, Ned could have sent him to the Wall. But the NW didn't want him to, they were entirely satisfied with his head.

But this does not excuse the fact that Ned Stark executed a man whose only crime was that he was driven insane by the fact that White Walkers and dead men were trying to kill him. I don't blame Ned for what he did but it does show that things are not as simple as we sometimes make them out to be.

[ab aeterno]

But this does not excuse the fact that Ned Stark executed a man whose only crime was that he was driven insane by the fact that White Walkers and dead men were trying to kill him. I don't blame Ned for what he did but it does show that things are not as simple as we sometimes make them out to be.

Actually, Ned executed a man whose only crimes were desertion and oathbreaking. The entire point of the NW is to fight the Others; you can't be excused because they're scary.

[Blackfish Tully]

Emphasis added.

But Gerold Hightower had no idea about the Wildfire Plot. the only facts that he knew about was that Jamie killed Aerys when Tywin was at the gate and then he allowed the Prince's wife and children to be murdered by Lannister men.

[ab aeterno]

But Gerold Hightower had no idea about the Wildfire Plot. the only facts that he knew about was that Jamie killed Aerys when Tywin was at the gate and then he allowed the Prince's wife and children to be murdered by Lannister men.

These KG were prepared to die following their orders. If they were in KL they were not going to survive the Sack anyway. We see from Jaime the KG position that they are sworn to protect others (i.e. the Queen) too, but "not from him." Seems highly likely that they wouldn't have done what Jaime did.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

But this does not excuse the fact that Ned Stark executed a man whose only crime was that he was driven insane by the fact that White Walkers and dead men were trying to kill him. I don't blame Ned for what he did but it does show that things are not as simple as we sometimes make them out to be.

Actually, Ned executed a man whose only crimes were desertion and oathbreaking. The entire point of the NW is to fight the Others; you can't be excused because they're scary.

:agree: and posted it already. The guy had several months to clean his pants and return to Castle Black. He didn't, therefore he was an oathbreaker, a deserter and a danger for society.

[ab aeterno]

:agree: and posted it already. The guy had several months to clean his pants and return to Castle Black. He didn't, therefore he was an oathbreaker, a deserter and a danger for society.

Sorry, I didn't see. :)

[Blackfish Tully]

Actually, Ned executed a man whose only crimes were desertion and oathbreaking. The entire point of the NW is to fight the Others; you can't be excused because they're scary.

I understand that Ned had to do what he did. My point is that things are almost always more complicated then they look . As the reader we have the knowledge that Gerald was just a poor guy who was terrified out of his mind and more than likely had lost his ability to think reasonably after being attacked by the White Walkers.

[ab aeterno]

I understand that Ned had to do what he did. My point is that things are almost always more complicated then they look . As the reader we have the knowledge that Gerald was just a poor guy who was terrified out of his mind and more than likely had lost his ability to think reasonably after being attacked by the White Walkers.

Even if Ned had that knowledge, should it make any difference? We can feel sorry for the scared guy, but if every scared guy ran away there would be no NW, no armies and absolute chaos.