Tyrion1991 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Jamie says he killed the mad king and the hand to stop them ordering the detonation of the wildfire. On face value that seems like a very courageous and heroic thing to do. The problem though is this. Jamie is in his prime and the greatest swordsmen in the realm in full armor. He needs to stop two old men. When Aerys orders the hand to blow up the city, he has no guards and even if he did, Jamie could kill them with just as much risk as stabbing the mad king. Taking him prisoner prevents Aerys and the Hand, two old and helpless men; from hurting anyone. So Jamies argument that he HAD to kill them in order to stop the wildfire being detonated is actually something that makes no sense. You often get this a lot in comic books where the hero HAS to kill the villain in order to save people; a good example in the recent Man of Steel movie where superman kills Zod before he can kill innocents. However even thats quite a stretch even as it stands and for Jamie a lot more so. I don't see what the risk was of capturing them with Lannister soldiers already in the city. Again, Martin may just be using comic book logic that the hero HAD to kill the villain to stop this happening. I think ASOIAF is better than that however, so I am sort of inclined to agree with Ned that Jamie did just kill Aerys out of hand. It was certainly not the only way out of that situation as Jamie repeatedly says or implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Rayne Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Jaime acts on impulse and rarely thinks things through. He thought it was necessary at the time. in fact 'it seemed like a good idea at the time' suits him better than 'Hear me Roar'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Wasn't he like 16? I don't know about you, but I wasn't the most politically calculating individual at that age... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeRhaegar Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 It was impulse he was still a kid. Heck notice how he forgot about elia and the kids and just sat on the throne after he did the deed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoamingRonin Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Why didn't Jaime blame the murder on someone else? It's one of those stupid moments.It was impulse he was still a kid. Heck notice how he forgot about elia and the kids and just sat on the throne after he did the deed.Actually, Jaime considers finding Aegon to place him on the throne but decides against it. He chooses to let the events play out. As if he hadn't already took part them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizzelle Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Aerys wouldn't have been allowed to live regardless so it's kind of a moot point. However, he was still the king with everyone in the castle still in service to him. If he shouts for help while taken prisoner Jamie is dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueberry Stark Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Aerys wouldn't have been allowed to live regardless so it's kind of a moot point. However, he was still the king with everyone in the castle still in service to him. If he shouts for help while taken prisoner Jamie is dead... While I agree with you that Aerys was as good as dead, the point isn't really moot for Jaime. He is called the Kingslayer after all, and derided by everyone from the peasants to the current king for forsaking his vows. I agree with others who've stated that he killed Aerys on impulse in order to stop him from destroying the city. It was an act that wasn't thought out - typical Jaime. I don't have a problem with it, however, because Aerys would always be a danger if left alive. A man with that much power, who commits the kind of inhuman acts that Aerys is responsible for, will always be a danger. The world's better off without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion1991 Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 But if he killed Jamie and nobody appeared then that suggests that there was nobody around. Certainly Tywin would have had Aerys killed. But thats on Tywin then and not Jamie. The issue is that Jamies main defence of his actions seems to be "I had no choice"; when he clearly did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Events were moving too quickly. It would have taken too much time for Jaime to track down a friendly judge and get an arrest warrant signed. He would have had to spend hours typing up affidavits and taking down statements; the forensic arson investigators from Oldtown would have taken over a week just to arrive in the city. No, it was easier to just plug the perp and make it look like self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direwienerdog Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Why take the chance of someone else coming along and seeing Jaime holding the King captive? Anyone who rescues Aerys would be in line for a large reward. To say the throne room was empty is one thing. To say the throne room would stay empty not likely. It was as likely that someone who was loyal comes there as one of the Lannister men. That is why Jaime felt he had no choice. Besides Kingcatcher doesn't roll off the tongue as well as Kingslayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otherbeef Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 arresting your king and handing him over for execution still breaks all your kings guard vows, he would still be a traitor, people would still hate him. he is expected to fight to the point of death guarding aerys. Boros blount was stripped of his white cloak for handin over a prince to his own uncle after all. Might as well ensure nobody comes in and follows his orders to burn down the whole city no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 How does Jaime actually arrest him ? He doesn't have handcuffs, so restraining Aerys without hurting him is impractical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueberry Stark Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 arresting your king and handing him over for execution still breaks all your kings guard vows, he would still be a traitor, people would still hate him. he is expected to fight to the point of death guarding aerys. Boros blount was stripped of his white cloak for handin over a prince to his own uncle after all.Might as well ensure nobody comes in and follows his orders to burn down the whole city no?That's true. I honestly never even thought of it that way. Jaime was in a no win situation, and unlike with the Bran window debacle, he made the best choice in bad circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I think the simple answer is, because Jaime was the person he was. 9 out of 10 knights would have taken Aerys captive and but still protected his life. But they also wouldn't sleep with their sisters, be named Kingslayers and make for interesting stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Wasn't he like 16? I don't know about you, but I wasn't the most politically calculating individual at that age... Eighteen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Ask the last guy who took Aerys prisoner and did not kill him. Or ask his house, if you can find a single remnant of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castellan Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Jaime says why in his bath memory/monologue - because it was only a matter of minutes or even seconds before somene else came in and gave Aerys the opportunity to send someone else with a message to the pyromancers. It was only a brief coincidence that he was alone with Aerys. And of course Aerys didn't only have Jaime to guard him or do what he ordered. Jaime was his only Kingsguard but he would have had other soldiers, messengers, functionaries of all kinds. Do you think the King sits in a palace with one person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winds of Winter blow cold Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Maybe because the Mad King would have yelled "Guards! Lannister has turn against me! Protect your King!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose The Weddingcrasher Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 And where were those guards Gregor and Lorch came for Elia and her children? And even if there were many guards around, it sufficed to kill the Pyromancer, it's not like there were 50 armored people determined to blow up the city or even capable of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Maybe because the Mad King would have yelled "Guards! Lannister has turn against me! Protect your King!"Or at least "alchemists! burn this mother down!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.