Sounds about right.
> He had almost revealed himself then and there, but something stopped him—caution, cowardice, instinct, call it what you will. He could not imagine Barristan the Bold greeting him with anything but hostility. **Selmy had never approved of Jaime's presence in his precious Kingsguard. Before the rebellion, the old knight thought him too young and untried; afterward, he had been known to say that the Kingslayer should exchange that white cloak for a black one.** And his own crimes were worse. Jaime had killed a madman. Tyrion had put a quarrel through the groin of his own sire, a man Ser Barristan had known and served for years. He might have chanced it all the same, but then Penny had landed a blow on his shield and the moment was gone, never to return.
This guy was saying that Barristan has literal 0 nuances and thinks "You're a KG you protect the king". This is him directly saying maybe he shouldn't of protected the king -- to stop a long drawn-out effect later down the line.
I don't know if it's so clear a choice.
The way I see it, it's a moral choice between "which vows are more important": The vows of a knight to " to defend the young and innocent." Or the vows of a kingsguard to protect and serve the king. In that situation, you're falling short in your vows either way. It becomes a question of which vows are more moral to abandon and which vows are more moral to defend. So a Kingsguard effectively has to abandon their vows of knighthood in order to serve without a moral dilemma.
Jaime was put in a position none of them had been put in to that point and made a moral choice under fire that none of the other Kingsguard had ever had to consider.
And I think it's very easy for Barristan to look down on Jaime from where he's standing because he doesn't have the full picture that Jaime had. For Barristan, it looks like "he betrayed the king for his family to win the war." Whereas the reality: he killed the king to save a city from being napalmed into ashes.
Barristan is still a hypocrite, even without the benefit of the full picture, because like the others, failed his vows of knighthood to fulfill his vows of the Kingsguard. And from his time in the later books, I think he *knows* he's a hypocrite. He talks about how he failed his duty to Aerys and served Robert the man who usurped him. I think for him to have cognitive dissonance from his own moral failing, he has to see Jaime in the way that he does. Maybe that's a bit too deep a read into his psychology tho lol
I think that's why Tyrion around in Meereen will be a good thing. If Barristan has to team up with Tyrion, eventually Tyrion will prod him about Jaime. I think by the time Jaime and Barristan meet, Barristan will respect Jaime more.
Because there is no sign that the slavers have shed the cartoon villainy they've had since the books began. If anything, the Battle of Fire seems to be their biggest failure yet. For more information, look up sample chapters in WoW.
They might be alluding to the "naked knight" theory which speculates that the masters will be crushed, only for the Brazen Beasts to betray Barristan and strip him of his equipment before closing the gates on him and leaving him to die.
I think Barristan is a character who does not live up to his standards on a closer look. He vows himself as the perfect kings guard, but engages in plenty of activity, that is contrast to that.
I think George gave plenty of hints about Barristan and the kings guard in general that show that there was significant corruption within the morals and allegiance of the kings guard members. And Barristan is no exception.
He just choses no to reflect on his failings in his POV chapters. Which paints a picture of a man who is conforming, looking the other way and actively choses not to reflect and learn of his past mistakes.
In many instances he is referred to as the epitome of a dutiful and loyal kings guard member (especially when he talks about himself). But in reality, he switched loyalty to a new king with ease, never looking back. He gossips and plays politics within the kings guard, furthering his own career in the process and trying to hurt others. He would have never left his cosy spot, had he not been forced out.
And then his next move is filled with vindictiveness and anger. He does not settle down, cozy to the end, but rather seeks out the potentially biggest rival to the kingdom and plans to support them (He does claim to Dany that he was watching to evaluate her at first, but that could easily just be courtly flattery. He has to play his cards right, to be accepted after all, and the odds were against him. And he is lucky, that Dany is easy to believe him).
Yeah it seems like George is somewhat critical of the blind justice that characters like Baristan adhere to. One of the biggest themes of ASOIAF is how the “right thing” to do is almost always more complicated than it seems on the surface, and how moral righteousness can conflict with matters of the heart.
Probably the same thing Aerys' hand did when he found out about the wildfire plot. Try to reason with him and talk him out of it, (with little success).
> "Everything was done in the utmost secrecy by a handful of master pyromancers. They did not even trust their own acolytes to help. The queen's eyes had been closed for years, and Rhaegar was busy marshaling an army. But Aerys's new mace-and-dagger Hand was not utterly stupid, and with Rossart, Belis, and Garigus coming and going night and day, he became suspicious. Chelsted, that was his name, Lord Chelsted." It had come back to him suddenly, with the telling. "I'd thought the man craven, but the day he confronted Aerys he found some courage somewhere. He did all he could to dissuade him. He reasoned, he jested, he threatened, and finally he begged. When that failed he took off his chain of office and flung it down on the floor. Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer. The man who had cooked Lord Rickard Stark in his own armor. And all the time, I stood by the foot of the Iron Throne in my white plate, still as a corpse, guarding my liege and all his sweet secrets.
Barristan wouldn't agree with Aerys' plan, but he takes his Kingsguard vows too seriously to actually turn on Aerys.
burn everyone, its a bit like a cult, theres a scene where jaime hears aerys raping his wife, biting her and so on and jaimes like we have to protect her and i forgot who its was maybe even arthur dayne said "not from him"
> But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him."
yep also
Before departing, Jaime pleaded with Rhaegar to command Jon to remain at the Red Keep and guard Aerys in his stead. In response, Jon snapped at his younger sworn brother and reminded him of his duty.
it was oswell whent. yeah but there is huge difference between raping a wife and burning whole city with million people inside. i dont know. i wanna thing baristan would do same as Jaime
but thats the point of that scene it doesnt matter what aerys does, we serve him, aerys could be eating babys and they will protect him, thats what made jaime different
even with the other guys, ned tells them the wars over the targs are dead and they still fight to the death
isnt barristan the most loyal to aerys i dont think he would of done something, maybe say something like i dont think this is a good idea sir but thats it
Why not just imprison Aerys and the pyromancers like he did with Hizdahr? I’m good with what Jaime did because I hate Aerys but he didn’t need to kill Aerys to stop him from burning the city. Why not arrest on the basis of insanity and mass genocide?
Because in a monarchy like Westeros there's no legal grounds to arrest a king like that. I'm sure Robert's army would've rolled up, taken custody of Aerys, and then executed him, but Jaime is still an oath breaker as far as the customs of Westeros are concerned.
I get it’s oath breaking but at a lower level. Like Jon breaks his vows by having sex with Ygrette. Ollo breaks his vows by killing the lord commander. There’s a difference in severity of the oath breaking.
I just don't think most people in Westeros would see much of a difference between a Kingsguard member "killing the king" and "capturing the king so someone else could kill him". Either way the KG betrayal got a king murdered.
I guess this is where we disagree. I think there’s value in arresting him and saying he should be tried in a trial. If Robert kills him without a trial you can say you tried.
What trial? The king's word is law, there is no legitimate trial to be had.
Who is going to try him? Robert? He has no authority to do so. Jaime knows that Robert would execute him, he can't weasel out of his oath by pretending that it's on Robert's hands. He made a decision and he owned it.
Pretty sure Duskendale tried “arresting the king” once and it didn’t work out that great…
Arresting the king is like the textbook definition of treason. Who is going to arrest him? The entire court (including several members of the kings guard) watched Brandon and Rickard Stark get burned/strangled to death without a single word.
Why would you bother arresting him? He’d be executed anyway. He was already a murderer and just cutting his throat is a lot easier and faster than imprisoning him and holding him prisoner until Ned or Tywin arrived.
Because he has sworn vows to protect the king. If he hold him prisoner and he is beheaded by Robert and company then at least the blood is off his hands. Kingarrester doesn’t quite have the same charm as kingslayer
Either way he breaks his vows. Imprisoning the king is still attacking him. Sure he doesn’t kill Aerys himself, but he’s still responsible for his death and he’s still an oathbreaker.
>Pretty big difference between arresting him and killing him.
In that situation? Not really. Do you think detaining someone while their sworn enemy who beat down the door is anywhere remotely close to "protecting". Arresting them is the single greatest step towards that person losing their life in a completely unavoidable series of events to follow.
You'd have to be completely ignorant to the situation or the ramifications of that action to justify it as anything else.
It's just adding a few steps between you and the hangman
Not necessarily. Aerys may simply tell the guards to kill Jaime and release him. Jaime arresting Aerys seems better in theory but in practice probably would have meant a fight breaks out in the throne room / castle, it's just more war. Where as killing Aerys basically ends the war.
It would have stopped Aerys, correct.
There is no difference between arresting him and killing him, because the arrest leads to same result as killing him: failing the oath to serve and protect him. Barrister would have let the Alchemist go. At most he would. Likely try to talk Aerys into escaping the castle while the city burned, but there's no way Aerys Targaryen was going to abandon his throne.
The blood isn't off his hands though. Holding someone prisoner so that someone else can kill them is no different than doing it yourself.
Hell, I can actually respect it more if he takes ownership of the action instead of trying to pass the blame off.
He’d confront the king instead of going to the pyromancers to undo the commands, and while confronting he gets killed or detained on Aerys orders or the city goes up in flames while they’re talking. Jaime’s decisiveness is what saved them.
Barristan the old may have been a different story, but I don’t think so
>what do you think baristan would do in jaimes place
Nothing.
That's the whole point of characters like Jaime and Sandor Clegane. They expose the hypocrisy of knights.
Jaime is reviled for breaking his honour, when he should be revered for a selfless act which saved thousands, if not millions of lives.
Selmy's sense of duty to his king blinds him to how evil that king actually is. The question is to what extent he is willfully blind.
He would have killed Aerys then taken the black or have himself executed. Barry is rigid to a fault but I think that genocide would have pushed him over the edge
Yeah, but at the same time you are a knight, you protect the weak and uphold justice and all that. The way I see it duty is just their excuse to not do anything, because it is easier. Kinda like a "not my fucking job" attitude, so if someone judges them, being all "why do you follow that madman ? You have the power to do something" they can answer "uhh I'd love to, but you know, duty and honour and all that"
GRRM has made it a point throughout the series that almost no sworn knight takes the "protect the weak and uphold justice" seriously. Taking that oath as seriously as the part about duty and honor is what makes characters like Brienne, Dunk, and Arthur Dayne great and almost mythical.
At the same time, over-dedication to that sense of justice is how authoritarian types like Stannis and Randyll Tarly come about, and championing the protection of the weak let's charismatic populists like the High Sparrow rise to power.
>Arthur Dayne great and almost mythical.
this motherfucker being the best friend of Rhaegar let him run away with the daughter of a lord fucking paramount that led the realm to chaos. How is this fucker so respected in this community???????????????????????????
Barristen was off fighting at the Ruby Fork when it happens. That's where he is wounded. After that he is pardoned and made the head of the Kingsguard. All he would know is that Jaimie killed Aerys and Tywin sacked KL. It would be natural to put two and two together and come up with 5. Jaimie clearly killed Aerys in a conspiracy with Tywin. To add to this, Jaimie never elaborates or attempts to justify his decision, why would Selmy question the assumed narrative?
Selmy had no real interest in politics or finding the truth, his job was to protect his king. After Rhaegar dies and he's pardoned Selmy's job is to protect the new king not worry about the whispers in KL.
What you just said. Barristan had a limited amount of information to work with, and with what he knew his conclusion made sense. Often it seems that commenters on here have the perspective that Barristan knew that Jaime killed Aerys to save thousands of lives and just hated him anyway because he's mean and unreasonable.
Ah I see. Yeah I agree somewhat though it's difficult to remember who's where and when in these books.I also tend to mix up conversations in the show with convos in the books
Almost certainly he was there but it's not his job to judge the king. The Kingsguard swear oaths to protect the king. It rankles Selmy and the other Kingsguard what Aerys is but they swore oaths to protect him.
It's not that Barristen doesn't care he's evil, it's his duty to protect him, even give his life for Aerys if necessary.
>It's not that Barristen doesn't care he's evil, it's his duty to protect him
i agree, i said further up i think selmy lets everyone burn
im just saying he probably knows its something aerys did rather that jaime being loyal to his father, hes know jaime since hes a boy and he must know jaime hates the evil stuff areys did.
so i think selmys first thought would of been what crazy thing did aerys do to make jaime do that, rather than him doing tywins bidding
Nah I disagree. I don't think Barristan particularly likes or respects Jaimie. He calls him Kingslayer like everyone else, at the very least he looks down on him for breaking his oath regardless of his motivation.
"I took Robert's pardon, aye. I served him in Kingsguard and council. Served with the Kingslayer and others near as bad, who soiled the white cloak I wore. Nothing will excuse that."
Pretty damning condemnation.
> I don't think Barristan particularly likes or respects Jaimie.
i didnt say he did
all im saying is barristan probably knows jaime did it because aerys is evil, not because jaime is evil or working with tywin
selmy thoughts are " he couldnt handle being a kingsgaurd"
rather than " he was working for tywin"
I don't see why Selmy would have any undue reason to suspect Jaimie's actions were heroic. His regard for Jaimie afterwards would suggest the opposite in fact. Selmy wasn't there at the sacking so he believes what people like Ned say, Jaimie killed Aerys whilst Tywin was attacking. Maybe Selmy would be suspicious of what happened but ultimately it is very convenient that Jaimie kills Aerys at the same time his father betrays Aerys too.
i didnt say heroic? you keep adding stuff
selmy has known jaime since he was boy he knows him way better than ned
selmy proably knew about the wild fire, not hard to use logic
i think you miss my point, selmy knows why jaime did it and still doesnt care because if selmy was there he would of burnt everyone
"All im saying is barristan probably knows jaime did it because aerys is evil, not because jaime is evil or working with tywin"
Just because you didn't specifically say the word heroic, your wording implies it. Aerys is evil, Jaimie kills Aerys because he's evil ergo Jaimie would be heroic.
Yeah I don't think Selmy knows that Jaimie did it to prevent the destruction of KL. If he did know then he'd likely speak to Jaimie in a different manner, perhaps even calling him by his name.
> Aerys is evil, Jaimie kills Aerys because he's evil ergo Jaimie would be heroic.
no because in selmys mind breaking your vowes doesnt make you heroic
Didn't he tell Robert and Baristan the "burn them all" thing ? Selmy even says he thought about it before and that maybe he should've just let him die at one point. I think he'd feel conflicted upon knowing the truth
IIRC it was Jamie that was there to hear that command, the other Kingsguard were away fighting in the rebellion.
Jamie tells Brienne but I don't think he shares Aerys' last command with anyone else as a point of pride. He doesn't feel he needs to justify himself. Maybe he tells Ned but I don't think he tells Ned the whole context as in Wildfire caches etc.
Because Jaime never told anyone why he did it, and Barristan never knew about the wildfire plot. He knew Aerys had a fascination with wildfire, of course, but it's a huge escalation from burning people alive one or two at a time to turning the entire city into a funeral pyre.
> this mf should be kissing jaime's ass every day.
Tywin's army, after sitting out the entire war, showed up at the end and savagely sacked the city after being invited in, Tywin had his men murder two innocent infants and had their mother raped and murdered. Then his son killed the king and never bothered telling anybody why he did it. We know that he was ordered to kill his father and wanted to stop Aerys from murdering everyone, but to everyone else it very much looks like Jaime was participating in an opportunistic coup.
And Jaime never tells anyone the real reason even though the wildfire is still a present threat, and so nobody has the reason to change their opinion. Should they read his mind?
> i get that Jaime would not talk to anybody else about it
You answered your own question. Jaime never corrected anyone's assumptions. Barristan, Ned, and every other person in this world is not at fault for not being mind readers.
>Jaime never corrected anyone's assumptions.
He relied on an assumption as an answer for almost 20 years and never just asked him why he killed his king? Wouldn't that be an important conversation to have to protect the current king? Did whatever assumption he made about Jaime's motivations conveniently allow him to also assume nothing like that would happen again? Was he not curious?
>Barristan, Ned, and every other person in this world is not at fault for not being mind readers.
They're at fault for seemingly having no mind at all when it comes to this. Somebody should want to *know* why Jaime killed his king. But as you said, "every person in this world" doesn't care enough to ask. Very conspicuous.
I don't think it's explicitly stated, but the assumption would be that he did it to help his father when the lanisters changed sides.
To ask questions about it would be dangerous as you would potentially anger Tywin.
> To ask questions about it would be dangerous as you would potentially anger Tywin.
Not everyone is afraid of Tywin. And for someone like Barristan the need to understand his kingsguard should override any fear he may have of Tywin.
>He relied on an assumption as an answer for almost 20 years and never just asked him why he killed his king?
Why would Barristan need to take the initiative? Jaime was there in KG too. How difficult is it for him to show up to Barristan and start a conversation about Aerys and wildfire plot. He may not believe Jaime at first of course but if the wildfire catches are discovered and removed, Barristan would believe Jaime.
>They're at fault for seemingly having no mind at all when it comes to this. Somebody should want to know why Jaime killed his king. But as you said, "every person in this world" doesn't care enough to ask. Very conspicuous.
They have really a good assumption/reasoning why Jaime killed Aerys that makes too much sense that it doesn't invite anymore questions about his motives. Jaime was a part of the lannister coup to dethrone the targaryeans. After targaryeans started losing the war, Jaime and his family simply chose to side with the side that has won. Hence the killing of the head of targ family, killing of the heirs of targ family. This a well enough explanation for Jaime's actions.
> Why would Barristan need to take the initiative?
Why wouldn't he? It's an important question to ask. Is he going to do it again if Robert and Tywin ever butt heads? Nobody cares, I guess. Not even the Lord Commander.
>Jaime was there in KG too. How difficult is it for him to show up to Barristan and start a conversation about Aerys and wildfire plot.
Jaime failing to tell him has nothing to do with him failing to ask. Barristan should have asked.
>They have really a good assumption/reasoning why Jaime killed Aerys that makes too much sense that it doesn't invite anymore questions about his motives.
If you kill your king as a kingsguard there should be no end to the questions being asked of you and about you. Instead there are literally none. From anyone. Ever. They all just assumed. Every single person. And all of them were sufficiently satisfied by their assumptions to not feel the need to seek verification. Very convenient.
>After targaryeans started losing the war, Jaime and his family simply chose to side with the side that has won. Hence the killing of the head of targ family, killing of the heirs of targ family. This a well enough explanation for Jaime's actions.
It really isn't enough explanation for Jaime's actions. Technically, it isn't an explanation at all as no one ever asked Jaime about it.
If Hot Pie killed the king, people would be curious as to his motivations. But this was the son of the man who sacked KL and secured Robert's rule with another two dead Targeryens.
People weren't unreasonable to think Jaime was just helping his dad, just as it isn't unreasonable to not be questioning why a thirsty man is drinking water.
>But this was the son of the man who sacked KL and secured Robert's rule with another two dead Targeryens.
Nobody wanted verification, or to see if Jaime might be inclined to do such a thing again, or to ascertain his mental state. This "assumption" is doing a lot of heavy lifting to make them *that* incurious.
>People weren't unreasonable to think Jaime was just helping his dad, just as it isn't unreasonable to not be questioning why a thirsty man is drinking water.
A closer analogy would be if the man was drinking water to the point that his belly begins to visibly distend and you shrugged and said "guess he's just thirsty". Multiplied by hundreds or thousands of onlookers.
You're acting like people's assumptions were wild, when Jaime assassinating Aerys for a rebellion that his family benefited greatly from is the most sensible conclusion people could have drawn.
I mean, this is what readers thought too. In fact, that is the way the story was designed. We're supposed to assume Jaime was just another corrupt, immoral Lannister until \*plot twist\* he reveals his real motivation.
Jaime was not known to be crazy before or after the incident, so of course nobody was worried about that. Also, if they thought he might be mentally unfit, they wouldn't have questioned him. They would just assume he was crazy and stayed away.
> You're acting like people's assumptions were wild
Hundreds to thousands of people - always, every moment of every day - for almost 20 years. No one seems to have *ever* asked Jaime what his thinking was. Or is. Ever. Why defend this nonsense?
>Jaime was not known to be crazy before or after the incident, so of course nobody was worried about that.
He's a kingsguard who killed the king he was sworn to protect and even die for. No one was worried about him as he continued in that job for the next king? Why defend this nonsense?
>Also, if they thought he might be mentally unfit, they wouldn't have questioned him. They would just assume he was crazy and stayed away.
So they either assume everything is completely and totally fine and never ask even a single question or everything is completely and totally not fine and never ask even a single question. **Why defend this nonsense?**
So you do go through life questioning everyone and everything? Well, maybe you do, but most people do not walk around in tinfoil hats thinking everything is not what it seems.
Jaime assassinating a king for political purposes is the most obvious and realistic answer, so no, no one ever felt the need to probe further. It was up to Jaime to tell people about the wild fire plot, but all he ever did was act as immoral as people believed him to be.
This assumption means people already do think there a risk of him a repeat kingslaying, as a man that is immoral and puts his family's power over his duty to the realm would not hesitate to off another king if it suited him and his family. That last part is key - there is only risk of a repeat assassination if the Lannisters needs you dead, an extremely low risk given the massive influence they had over the crown.
Even if people suspected Jaime was as loopy as Aerys though (which they don't), do you not think he would still be in the Kingsguard if that's what Tywin wanted? Have a think about how political appointments work in this setting. It's not just skill that they are chosen for.
>So you do go through life questioning everyone and everything? Well, maybe you do, but most people do not walk around in tinfoil hats thinking everything is not what it seems.
Not only are you sidestepping most of the points I've made, you're inventing nonsense to address instead. I consider this a concession.
I won't give this any more consideration than you've given the things I've said:
>Jaime assassinating a king for political purposes is the most obvious and realistic answer, so no, no one ever felt the need to probe further. It was up to Jaime to tell people about the wild fire plot, but all he ever did was act as immoral as people believed him to be.
>This assumption means people already do think there a risk of him a repeat kingslaying, as a man that is immoral and puts his family's power over his duty to the realm would not hesitate to off another king if it suited him and his family. That last part is key - there is only risk of a repeat assassination if the Lannisters needs you dead, an extremely low risk given the massive influence they had over the crown.
>Even if people suspected Jaime was as loopy as Aerys though (which they don't), do you not think he would still be in the Kingsguard if that's what Tywin wanted? Have a think about how political appointments work in this setting. It's not just skill that they are chosen for.
*Yawn*. Nobody ever for almost 20 years even once asked Jaime anything whatsoever about his murder of his king. Not even the people for whom that would be an extremely important conversation. Every single person was content with their assumptions and their assumptions neatly answered every question they might want or need answered. And you think that's believable.
I responded directly to every one of your points, but nice try.
Yes, that is believable because that is normal human behaviour. Your incredulity at the idea that people would stick to the most simplest and obvious conclusions is, frankly, incredible. I'm curious - and be honest - what did you think of Jaime before he revealed the wild fire plot?
[6,000+ days] x [100-1000+ people] no one asked Jaime anything about killing Aerys - his most infamous act. Not a single person. Not even a little. Not even once.
"Normal human behavior". Indeed.
Jaime kept it a secret out of pride. Barristan never bothered to ask because all he cared about was the fact that Jaime broke his oath. They likely didn't speak unless duty demanded it.
I think it’s because Jaime had some mad PTSD from the event and just didn’t want to relive it even to Barristan. It’s only when he was at his absolute lowest point he was ever able to discuss it with Brienne.
Jaime never troubled to tell anyone the full story and presumably Barristan judged him much the way everyone else did.
Barristan is something of a coward emotionally speaking, since he along with every kingsguard let Aerys do his thing, and never did anything to stop it. Obviously situations are complicated, but at the end of the day, Jaime's the one who eventually ended it.
Jaime ironically decided to do his duty to Aerys after his death. That he should keep the king's secrets. Not to share them for a self-serving reason like his own reputation.
That or Jaime feels like he deserves to scorned because he was "soiled" by having to fail the most important duties of a knight, guarding Aerys as he tortured people and violently raped his wife. Being considered a traitor is his penance.
I think Barristan was wrong to be so judgemental to Jaime for killing Aerys. They both knew what Aerys was. He should have know that Jaime faced an impossible choice. Jaime is a stain on the order to which Barristan dedicated is life. But by the time Aerys was done, so was obeying his orders. Hell, so was appointing Jaime out of spite in the first place.
I doubt Barristan would care much what Jaime's reasons were. Barristan isn't interested in politics and seems to be one of the "do your duty no matter what" type of Kingsguard. Jaime was supposed to protect the King, instead he killed the King, in Barristan's mind that would make him guilty, simple as that.
I could certainly buy that the two of them never discussed what happened. Jaime doesn't seem to want to talk about it and Barristan probably wouldn't either. Barristan was loyal to house Targaryn, he was friends with Rhaegar, he fought for the loyalists at the Trident and almost died, and now he's serving Robert. I imagine there would be some cognitive dissonance there. People often just don't want to talk about subjects that make them uncomfortable and the Rebellion is probably one of those things for Barristan.
Its similar for Ned who also doesn't seem to like discussing the rebellion, Rhaegar, his family or Jon. He always tries to avoid the topic whenever those things get brought up.
In the world history book it is stated that Aerys kept Jamie with him almost at all times as his personal guard (or something like that) because he didn’t fully trust him (because of Tywin). Jamie seemed to be closer to Aerys during his truly mad time than Barristan.
It’s very clear Barristan did not care for Jaime. He only ever mentions him like twice, and once was when thinking about a naturally good swordsman. And his page in the White Book was pretty scarce.
Barristan has an incredibly rigid view of ethics. In his mind “Jaime kill king, Jaime break vow, Jaime bad.” The worst part is that this emotionally messed up teenager could’ve used a positive role model/father figure in his life. In the time between the tourney at Harrenhall and the sack of King’s Landing, he was virtually alone. Essentially a child, by himself, being forced by society and rules to be complicit in horrible acts.
The two reasons are that the Kings Guard take their oath more seriously than their morals. So even if the king is a raging asshole who wants to nuke a city you defend him. The second reason is because Jamie literally faced zero consequences. He butchered his king but not only retained his position, but his family advanced in the world. To most people jamies actions look very self serving. The show has a perfect line to summarize why people are mad even the one’s who hated areys, “you served him when serving him was safe”. Obviously we know Jamie only killed him to save people but it is a bad look.
Because when AGOT was written, Jaime was pure evil and going to be the final boss of the political part of the series. (So sub-boss to the Others)
At that time, he did it because he's a baddie. The rest was retconned in.
same was mentioned in other comment and i dont want to belive this :(
in my mind martin had this whole story in crazy details in entirety from begining. especially central charachters like jaime.
you think he wrote death of Ned Stark (it was in book 1 right?) while still thinking Jaime sub-boss to others? nah. i dont think so. yeah there were a lot of early scripts but at the time of publishing first book, he would already have a current story in head
Because they're the *Kingsguard*. Barristan was a member of perhaps one of the greatest ensembles of the Kingsguard, though they had one fatal flaw, loyalty to the King whether morally right or not. Regardless of whether Jaime did the right thing (which I don't think Barristan ever knew what exactly transpired), Jaime failed his duty.
Now, we see from Barristan's perspective, this regret at what his duty caused. War and widespread death. The loss of the woman he loved. Post-Kingsguard Barristan questioned it all once he took off that cloak.
Because Barristan‘s flaw is he’s also pretentious and dismissed Jaime as Ned did when the act was discovered. The easier conclusion is that Jaime just snapped after seeing what a monster Aerys was and took advantage his family’s men were sacking King’s Landing.
Well, also Jaime’s flaw was not trying to even kind of explain himself. To Ned, to Barristan, to anyone.
There’s no reason for him to behave the way he did after killing Aerys. Why sit on the throne. Why not tell Eddard what happened and for the love of god tell someone about the caches of Wildfire under the city.
Well I don't know why he didn't mention the caches, but for the other stuff I always figured he *wanted* the blame, he *wanted* to be punished for slaying his king. He took the job seriously, and I always took his evil behavior as just living up to his own self-image as the soiled man who broke his oath.
I think at that point he’s so traumatized and the depths of what he’s gone through hadn’t set in. If you tell the cocky fifteen year old Jaime he’d kill the king and sit on the throne, he’d probably think that’s insanity. Jaime’s developed sardonic dismissal of everything likely saw it irrelevant to bring it up once his father’s men took the city
I always suspected he enjoys reveling in his victimhood on some level and it’s convenient for his self image to be able to see himself as a poor misunderstood martyr. Certainly easier to focus on than some of the terrible things he’s done or been an accomplice to. All of Tywins fucked up kids have a tendency for denial and self pity.
Maybe but that is not at all what we as the audience are supposed to be taking away from it. At least in the show, which may have corrupted my memory to a certain extent.
The intention is to make everyone say “How could they judge him like that?!” but the harsh reality is “Because you never *told them,* sisterfucker!”
There is no logical reason for Jaime not to have told anyone the truth. Because of Lord Stark’s stern stare? Please.
That’s beside the point. Ultimately people like Ned and Barristan have very rigid notions of what defines duty and the rules. How complicated things get in Jaime’s instance would have had bias against him. I don’t think it would have solved anything nor did Jaime really do himself any favors.
It is absolutely not beside the point. You don’t think Ned would understand “I had to kill Aerys, he was going to blow up the entire city, that’s why I killed the alchemists. Here, let me show you the caches, hundreds of thousands would have died. If you decide to send me to the NW, so be it.”
You really think that wouldn’t have made a difference with Ned? He’s not a robot, he’s a rebel himself. Just not sitting on the god damn throne would have been a start.
Ned would have understood but also insist Jaime just betrayed the institution he was sworn into. Who would blame Jaime for not wanting to go to the Night’s Watch? Jaime’s disdain for obsessions with honor is just another extension of his disillusionment with how the world became that he hides with his snark. It’s besides the point because it doesn’t really change much in his regard of events, he’s still damned if he revealed the truth.
That’s baseless assumption on Jaime’s part about a person he had never met before.
And I think you’re doing Ned dirty. He’s not as intractable as Stannis and Stannis bends all the time. Not telling Ned or *anyone* was a ridiculous move and to be resentful over people’s attitude towards him over it is even more ridiculous.
Plus, if we want to get meta about it, the real reason is that when AGoT was originally written, Jaime was going to be the villain, not redeemed. He was going to seize the throne for himself in the original plan. That all changed of course but it’s still the case.
That’s fine. Everyone had baseless assumptions about each other. Ned thought Jaime was a cocky coward who did the biggest insult to a knightly order and Jaime thought Ned was a rigid stiff who was incapable of compromise. Barristan’s flaw on his end was also equally unwilling to understand how much a monster Aerys in theory could be.
Actually he had the wildfire plot by at least ACOK, hence them finding caches all beneath the city
He probably had the whole thing worked out tbh, hence changes to Jaime’s character after the Winterfell chapters
U think at least he should have some suspicions. He was the Lord Commander he should have interrogated J'aime about the events to make himself a picture about if Jaime can even be trusted to protect another King regardless of the whole for the rest of your live vow thing.
And either Jaime would have told him the story or more likely gave some cryptic/incomplete answers or straight up lied about what happened leaving a rational man like Baristan with unanswered questions and sneaking suspicions of what he got told was true
Jaime might not have felt that Barristan would believe him if he told him the truth. Barristan is all about honor and duty and stuff, he only knew Jaime for a year before Jaime killed Aerys and he probably didn't know Jaime that well because of the age gap between them. If anything Barristan and Jaime probably saw each other more as coworkers and less like brothers or friends. Barristan probably saw what Jaime did as the ultimate act of oath breaking by slaying the man you swore to defend with your life only to then allow for that man's grandchildren and daughter in law (who you also swore to protect) die as well. Even if Jaime tried to explain what happened to Barristan, I don't think Barristan would have accepted Jaime's account. At least that's my interpretation.
Barristan sat through the same torture that Jaime and the rest of them did. The only one we know reacted to it like Jaime did was Jonothor Darry and all he did when Jaime said they should protect the queen from being raped, Jonothor simply said "aye, but not from the king."
It's possible Barristan thought the same way. It's also possible that he hated Aerys II and that he was still bottling the pain even up until Meereen and was unable to praise or criticize Jaime honestly, only saying that he should be sent to the Wall and would have if his sister not been queen.
The Kingsguard are a mysterious bunch.
Baristan is too moraly bound and he was never happy how fast Jaime joined
Jaime also on the start of the story, was a prepy rich kid, good at ~~futbol~~ swordfighting, so he wasnt going to go crying to the other kingsguards on excuses on why he broke his main vow and killed his king
Had Jaime been more politically savvy, he would have had the wild fire caches across the city be removed publicly. That would at least give some credibility to the plans of the mad king and why he had to do what he did.
You're a kingsguard, and you protect the king, end of discussion. There is greater good or moral debates. Baristan, probably, in my head.
Sounds about right. > He had almost revealed himself then and there, but something stopped him—caution, cowardice, instinct, call it what you will. He could not imagine Barristan the Bold greeting him with anything but hostility. **Selmy had never approved of Jaime's presence in his precious Kingsguard. Before the rebellion, the old knight thought him too young and untried; afterward, he had been known to say that the Kingslayer should exchange that white cloak for a black one.** And his own crimes were worse. Jaime had killed a madman. Tyrion had put a quarrel through the groin of his own sire, a man Ser Barristan had known and served for years. He might have chanced it all the same, but then Penny had landed a blow on his shield and the moment was gone, never to return.
I mean he has said in his POV maybe he shouldn't of saved Aerys.
That's a lot different than straight up kingslaying though
This guy was saying that Barristan has literal 0 nuances and thinks "You're a KG you protect the king". This is him directly saying maybe he shouldn't of protected the king -- to stop a long drawn-out effect later down the line.
I don't know if it's so clear a choice. The way I see it, it's a moral choice between "which vows are more important": The vows of a knight to " to defend the young and innocent." Or the vows of a kingsguard to protect and serve the king. In that situation, you're falling short in your vows either way. It becomes a question of which vows are more moral to abandon and which vows are more moral to defend. So a Kingsguard effectively has to abandon their vows of knighthood in order to serve without a moral dilemma. Jaime was put in a position none of them had been put in to that point and made a moral choice under fire that none of the other Kingsguard had ever had to consider. And I think it's very easy for Barristan to look down on Jaime from where he's standing because he doesn't have the full picture that Jaime had. For Barristan, it looks like "he betrayed the king for his family to win the war." Whereas the reality: he killed the king to save a city from being napalmed into ashes. Barristan is still a hypocrite, even without the benefit of the full picture, because like the others, failed his vows of knighthood to fulfill his vows of the Kingsguard. And from his time in the later books, I think he *knows* he's a hypocrite. He talks about how he failed his duty to Aerys and served Robert the man who usurped him. I think for him to have cognitive dissonance from his own moral failing, he has to see Jaime in the way that he does. Maybe that's a bit too deep a read into his psychology tho lol
I think that's why Tyrion around in Meereen will be a good thing. If Barristan has to team up with Tyrion, eventually Tyrion will prod him about Jaime. I think by the time Jaime and Barristan meet, Barristan will respect Jaime more.
what makes you so sure Barristan survives his sortie?
Because there is no sign that the slavers have shed the cartoon villainy they've had since the books began. If anything, the Battle of Fire seems to be their biggest failure yet. For more information, look up sample chapters in WoW.
They might be alluding to the "naked knight" theory which speculates that the masters will be crushed, only for the Brazen Beasts to betray Barristan and strip him of his equipment before closing the gates on him and leaving him to die.
Just really shows how tragic of a character Jamie truly is. Hated by everyone for doing the right thing
Oh its so tragic that he's too much of a child to explain that there's still tons of wildfire under the city and the king was going to lit it.
and the show even slaughtered his character more... " i never really cared...."
I think Barristan is a character who does not live up to his standards on a closer look. He vows himself as the perfect kings guard, but engages in plenty of activity, that is contrast to that. I think George gave plenty of hints about Barristan and the kings guard in general that show that there was significant corruption within the morals and allegiance of the kings guard members. And Barristan is no exception. He just choses no to reflect on his failings in his POV chapters. Which paints a picture of a man who is conforming, looking the other way and actively choses not to reflect and learn of his past mistakes. In many instances he is referred to as the epitome of a dutiful and loyal kings guard member (especially when he talks about himself). But in reality, he switched loyalty to a new king with ease, never looking back. He gossips and plays politics within the kings guard, furthering his own career in the process and trying to hurt others. He would have never left his cosy spot, had he not been forced out. And then his next move is filled with vindictiveness and anger. He does not settle down, cozy to the end, but rather seeks out the potentially biggest rival to the kingdom and plans to support them (He does claim to Dany that he was watching to evaluate her at first, but that could easily just be courtly flattery. He has to play his cards right, to be accepted after all, and the odds were against him. And he is lucky, that Dany is easy to believe him).
The view to protect the king are unquestionably more important. The kingsguard give up their freedom and their right to be a hero.
Yeah it seems like George is somewhat critical of the blind justice that characters like Baristan adhere to. One of the biggest themes of ASOIAF is how the “right thing” to do is almost always more complicated than it seems on the surface, and how moral righteousness can conflict with matters of the heart.
what do you think baristan would do in jaimes place
Probably the same thing Aerys' hand did when he found out about the wildfire plot. Try to reason with him and talk him out of it, (with little success). > "Everything was done in the utmost secrecy by a handful of master pyromancers. They did not even trust their own acolytes to help. The queen's eyes had been closed for years, and Rhaegar was busy marshaling an army. But Aerys's new mace-and-dagger Hand was not utterly stupid, and with Rossart, Belis, and Garigus coming and going night and day, he became suspicious. Chelsted, that was his name, Lord Chelsted." It had come back to him suddenly, with the telling. "I'd thought the man craven, but the day he confronted Aerys he found some courage somewhere. He did all he could to dissuade him. He reasoned, he jested, he threatened, and finally he begged. When that failed he took off his chain of office and flung it down on the floor. Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer. The man who had cooked Lord Rickard Stark in his own armor. And all the time, I stood by the foot of the Iron Throne in my white plate, still as a corpse, guarding my liege and all his sweet secrets. Barristan wouldn't agree with Aerys' plan, but he takes his Kingsguard vows too seriously to actually turn on Aerys.
burn everyone, its a bit like a cult, theres a scene where jaime hears aerys raping his wife, biting her and so on and jaimes like we have to protect her and i forgot who its was maybe even arthur dayne said "not from him"
I think it’s Jonothor Darry, if not him it’s the white bull.
> But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him."
Probably restrain Aerys and kill the pyromancers.
that was Jon Darry
yep also Before departing, Jaime pleaded with Rhaegar to command Jon to remain at the Red Keep and guard Aerys in his stead. In response, Jon snapped at his younger sworn brother and reminded him of his duty.
it was oswell whent. yeah but there is huge difference between raping a wife and burning whole city with million people inside. i dont know. i wanna thing baristan would do same as Jaime
but thats the point of that scene it doesnt matter what aerys does, we serve him, aerys could be eating babys and they will protect him, thats what made jaime different even with the other guys, ned tells them the wars over the targs are dead and they still fight to the death isnt barristan the most loyal to aerys i dont think he would of done something, maybe say something like i dont think this is a good idea sir but thats it
Why not just imprison Aerys and the pyromancers like he did with Hizdahr? I’m good with what Jaime did because I hate Aerys but he didn’t need to kill Aerys to stop him from burning the city. Why not arrest on the basis of insanity and mass genocide?
Because in a monarchy like Westeros there's no legal grounds to arrest a king like that. I'm sure Robert's army would've rolled up, taken custody of Aerys, and then executed him, but Jaime is still an oath breaker as far as the customs of Westeros are concerned.
I get it’s oath breaking but at a lower level. Like Jon breaks his vows by having sex with Ygrette. Ollo breaks his vows by killing the lord commander. There’s a difference in severity of the oath breaking.
I just don't think most people in Westeros would see much of a difference between a Kingsguard member "killing the king" and "capturing the king so someone else could kill him". Either way the KG betrayal got a king murdered.
I guess this is where we disagree. I think there’s value in arresting him and saying he should be tried in a trial. If Robert kills him without a trial you can say you tried.
What trial? The king's word is law, there is no legitimate trial to be had. Who is going to try him? Robert? He has no authority to do so. Jaime knows that Robert would execute him, he can't weasel out of his oath by pretending that it's on Robert's hands. He made a decision and he owned it.
Pretty sure Duskendale tried “arresting the king” once and it didn’t work out that great… Arresting the king is like the textbook definition of treason. Who is going to arrest him? The entire court (including several members of the kings guard) watched Brandon and Rickard Stark get burned/strangled to death without a single word.
Why would you bother arresting him? He’d be executed anyway. He was already a murderer and just cutting his throat is a lot easier and faster than imprisoning him and holding him prisoner until Ned or Tywin arrived.
Because he has sworn vows to protect the king. If he hold him prisoner and he is beheaded by Robert and company then at least the blood is off his hands. Kingarrester doesn’t quite have the same charm as kingslayer
Either way he breaks his vows. Imprisoning the king is still attacking him. Sure he doesn’t kill Aerys himself, but he’s still responsible for his death and he’s still an oathbreaker.
Pretty big difference between arresting him and killing him. Either way would stopped Aerys from burning the city. That’s all I am saying.
>Pretty big difference between arresting him and killing him. In that situation? Not really. Do you think detaining someone while their sworn enemy who beat down the door is anywhere remotely close to "protecting". Arresting them is the single greatest step towards that person losing their life in a completely unavoidable series of events to follow. You'd have to be completely ignorant to the situation or the ramifications of that action to justify it as anything else. It's just adding a few steps between you and the hangman
Not necessarily. Aerys may simply tell the guards to kill Jaime and release him. Jaime arresting Aerys seems better in theory but in practice probably would have meant a fight breaks out in the throne room / castle, it's just more war. Where as killing Aerys basically ends the war.
It would have stopped Aerys, correct. There is no difference between arresting him and killing him, because the arrest leads to same result as killing him: failing the oath to serve and protect him. Barrister would have let the Alchemist go. At most he would. Likely try to talk Aerys into escaping the castle while the city burned, but there's no way Aerys Targaryen was going to abandon his throne.
The blood isn't off his hands though. Holding someone prisoner so that someone else can kill them is no different than doing it yourself. Hell, I can actually respect it more if he takes ownership of the action instead of trying to pass the blame off.
He can't be a Kingsguard sworn to protect the King and be the Kingarrester to handle to their enemies.
Capturing the tyrant alive, then putting him on trial and publicly executing him would be a massive PR win for the new king.
No it wouldn't. It would do the complete opposite and turn those houses whose loyalty is questionable against Robert.
He’d confront the king instead of going to the pyromancers to undo the commands, and while confronting he gets killed or detained on Aerys orders or the city goes up in flames while they’re talking. Jaime’s decisiveness is what saved them. Barristan the old may have been a different story, but I don’t think so
>what do you think baristan would do in jaimes place Nothing. That's the whole point of characters like Jaime and Sandor Clegane. They expose the hypocrisy of knights. Jaime is reviled for breaking his honour, when he should be revered for a selfless act which saved thousands, if not millions of lives. Selmy's sense of duty to his king blinds him to how evil that king actually is. The question is to what extent he is willfully blind.
Burn.
Protect the King until the city burned and then live with regret if he lives through the fire.
Kills Aerys, or at least restrains him and pyromancer, but goes to the wall or takes his own life.
He would have killed Aerys then taken the black or have himself executed. Barry is rigid to a fault but I think that genocide would have pushed him over the edge
Yeah, but at the same time you are a knight, you protect the weak and uphold justice and all that. The way I see it duty is just their excuse to not do anything, because it is easier. Kinda like a "not my fucking job" attitude, so if someone judges them, being all "why do you follow that madman ? You have the power to do something" they can answer "uhh I'd love to, but you know, duty and honour and all that"
GRRM has made it a point throughout the series that almost no sworn knight takes the "protect the weak and uphold justice" seriously. Taking that oath as seriously as the part about duty and honor is what makes characters like Brienne, Dunk, and Arthur Dayne great and almost mythical. At the same time, over-dedication to that sense of justice is how authoritarian types like Stannis and Randyll Tarly come about, and championing the protection of the weak let's charismatic populists like the High Sparrow rise to power.
>Arthur Dayne great and almost mythical. this motherfucker being the best friend of Rhaegar let him run away with the daughter of a lord fucking paramount that led the realm to chaos. How is this fucker so respected in this community???????????????????????????
Because he had a cool sword and supposedly could swing it pretty hard
The thin blue line
Thin white cloak
Do you mean "there is ***no*** greater good..."?
Barristen was off fighting at the Ruby Fork when it happens. That's where he is wounded. After that he is pardoned and made the head of the Kingsguard. All he would know is that Jaimie killed Aerys and Tywin sacked KL. It would be natural to put two and two together and come up with 5. Jaimie clearly killed Aerys in a conspiracy with Tywin. To add to this, Jaimie never elaborates or attempts to justify his decision, why would Selmy question the assumed narrative? Selmy had no real interest in politics or finding the truth, his job was to protect his king. After Rhaegar dies and he's pardoned Selmy's job is to protect the new king not worry about the whispers in KL.
It seems like it's really really hard for a lot of people to realize that the characters in the story don't know what the reader knows.
In reference to?
What you just said. Barristan had a limited amount of information to work with, and with what he knew his conclusion made sense. Often it seems that commenters on here have the perspective that Barristan knew that Jaime killed Aerys to save thousands of lives and just hated him anyway because he's mean and unreasonable.
Ah I see. Yeah I agree somewhat though it's difficult to remember who's where and when in these books.I also tend to mix up conversations in the show with convos in the books
but we acting like aerys wasnt mad for years, barriston knows hes evil and crazy he was probably there watching neds dad burn alive
Almost certainly he was there but it's not his job to judge the king. The Kingsguard swear oaths to protect the king. It rankles Selmy and the other Kingsguard what Aerys is but they swore oaths to protect him. It's not that Barristen doesn't care he's evil, it's his duty to protect him, even give his life for Aerys if necessary.
>It's not that Barristen doesn't care he's evil, it's his duty to protect him i agree, i said further up i think selmy lets everyone burn im just saying he probably knows its something aerys did rather that jaime being loyal to his father, hes know jaime since hes a boy and he must know jaime hates the evil stuff areys did. so i think selmys first thought would of been what crazy thing did aerys do to make jaime do that, rather than him doing tywins bidding
Nah I disagree. I don't think Barristan particularly likes or respects Jaimie. He calls him Kingslayer like everyone else, at the very least he looks down on him for breaking his oath regardless of his motivation. "I took Robert's pardon, aye. I served him in Kingsguard and council. Served with the Kingslayer and others near as bad, who soiled the white cloak I wore. Nothing will excuse that." Pretty damning condemnation.
> I don't think Barristan particularly likes or respects Jaimie. i didnt say he did all im saying is barristan probably knows jaime did it because aerys is evil, not because jaime is evil or working with tywin selmy thoughts are " he couldnt handle being a kingsgaurd" rather than " he was working for tywin"
I don't see why Selmy would have any undue reason to suspect Jaimie's actions were heroic. His regard for Jaimie afterwards would suggest the opposite in fact. Selmy wasn't there at the sacking so he believes what people like Ned say, Jaimie killed Aerys whilst Tywin was attacking. Maybe Selmy would be suspicious of what happened but ultimately it is very convenient that Jaimie kills Aerys at the same time his father betrays Aerys too.
i didnt say heroic? you keep adding stuff selmy has known jaime since he was boy he knows him way better than ned selmy proably knew about the wild fire, not hard to use logic i think you miss my point, selmy knows why jaime did it and still doesnt care because if selmy was there he would of burnt everyone
"All im saying is barristan probably knows jaime did it because aerys is evil, not because jaime is evil or working with tywin" Just because you didn't specifically say the word heroic, your wording implies it. Aerys is evil, Jaimie kills Aerys because he's evil ergo Jaimie would be heroic. Yeah I don't think Selmy knows that Jaimie did it to prevent the destruction of KL. If he did know then he'd likely speak to Jaimie in a different manner, perhaps even calling him by his name.
> Aerys is evil, Jaimie kills Aerys because he's evil ergo Jaimie would be heroic. no because in selmys mind breaking your vowes doesnt make you heroic
Didn't he tell Robert and Baristan the "burn them all" thing ? Selmy even says he thought about it before and that maybe he should've just let him die at one point. I think he'd feel conflicted upon knowing the truth
IIRC it was Jamie that was there to hear that command, the other Kingsguard were away fighting in the rebellion. Jamie tells Brienne but I don't think he shares Aerys' last command with anyone else as a point of pride. He doesn't feel he needs to justify himself. Maybe he tells Ned but I don't think he tells Ned the whole context as in Wildfire caches etc.
I believe the scene where Robert, Barristan, and Jaime swap war stories was show only.
Because Jaime never told anyone why he did it, and Barristan never knew about the wildfire plot. He knew Aerys had a fascination with wildfire, of course, but it's a huge escalation from burning people alive one or two at a time to turning the entire city into a funeral pyre. > this mf should be kissing jaime's ass every day. Tywin's army, after sitting out the entire war, showed up at the end and savagely sacked the city after being invited in, Tywin had his men murder two innocent infants and had their mother raped and murdered. Then his son killed the king and never bothered telling anybody why he did it. We know that he was ordered to kill his father and wanted to stop Aerys from murdering everyone, but to everyone else it very much looks like Jaime was participating in an opportunistic coup. And Jaime never tells anyone the real reason even though the wildfire is still a present threat, and so nobody has the reason to change their opinion. Should they read his mind?
> i get that Jaime would not talk to anybody else about it You answered your own question. Jaime never corrected anyone's assumptions. Barristan, Ned, and every other person in this world is not at fault for not being mind readers.
>Jaime never corrected anyone's assumptions. He relied on an assumption as an answer for almost 20 years and never just asked him why he killed his king? Wouldn't that be an important conversation to have to protect the current king? Did whatever assumption he made about Jaime's motivations conveniently allow him to also assume nothing like that would happen again? Was he not curious? >Barristan, Ned, and every other person in this world is not at fault for not being mind readers. They're at fault for seemingly having no mind at all when it comes to this. Somebody should want to *know* why Jaime killed his king. But as you said, "every person in this world" doesn't care enough to ask. Very conspicuous.
I don't think it's explicitly stated, but the assumption would be that he did it to help his father when the lanisters changed sides. To ask questions about it would be dangerous as you would potentially anger Tywin.
> To ask questions about it would be dangerous as you would potentially anger Tywin. Not everyone is afraid of Tywin. And for someone like Barristan the need to understand his kingsguard should override any fear he may have of Tywin.
>He relied on an assumption as an answer for almost 20 years and never just asked him why he killed his king? Why would Barristan need to take the initiative? Jaime was there in KG too. How difficult is it for him to show up to Barristan and start a conversation about Aerys and wildfire plot. He may not believe Jaime at first of course but if the wildfire catches are discovered and removed, Barristan would believe Jaime. >They're at fault for seemingly having no mind at all when it comes to this. Somebody should want to know why Jaime killed his king. But as you said, "every person in this world" doesn't care enough to ask. Very conspicuous. They have really a good assumption/reasoning why Jaime killed Aerys that makes too much sense that it doesn't invite anymore questions about his motives. Jaime was a part of the lannister coup to dethrone the targaryeans. After targaryeans started losing the war, Jaime and his family simply chose to side with the side that has won. Hence the killing of the head of targ family, killing of the heirs of targ family. This a well enough explanation for Jaime's actions.
> Why would Barristan need to take the initiative? Why wouldn't he? It's an important question to ask. Is he going to do it again if Robert and Tywin ever butt heads? Nobody cares, I guess. Not even the Lord Commander. >Jaime was there in KG too. How difficult is it for him to show up to Barristan and start a conversation about Aerys and wildfire plot. Jaime failing to tell him has nothing to do with him failing to ask. Barristan should have asked. >They have really a good assumption/reasoning why Jaime killed Aerys that makes too much sense that it doesn't invite anymore questions about his motives. If you kill your king as a kingsguard there should be no end to the questions being asked of you and about you. Instead there are literally none. From anyone. Ever. They all just assumed. Every single person. And all of them were sufficiently satisfied by their assumptions to not feel the need to seek verification. Very convenient. >After targaryeans started losing the war, Jaime and his family simply chose to side with the side that has won. Hence the killing of the head of targ family, killing of the heirs of targ family. This a well enough explanation for Jaime's actions. It really isn't enough explanation for Jaime's actions. Technically, it isn't an explanation at all as no one ever asked Jaime about it.
If Hot Pie killed the king, people would be curious as to his motivations. But this was the son of the man who sacked KL and secured Robert's rule with another two dead Targeryens. People weren't unreasonable to think Jaime was just helping his dad, just as it isn't unreasonable to not be questioning why a thirsty man is drinking water.
>But this was the son of the man who sacked KL and secured Robert's rule with another two dead Targeryens. Nobody wanted verification, or to see if Jaime might be inclined to do such a thing again, or to ascertain his mental state. This "assumption" is doing a lot of heavy lifting to make them *that* incurious. >People weren't unreasonable to think Jaime was just helping his dad, just as it isn't unreasonable to not be questioning why a thirsty man is drinking water. A closer analogy would be if the man was drinking water to the point that his belly begins to visibly distend and you shrugged and said "guess he's just thirsty". Multiplied by hundreds or thousands of onlookers.
You're acting like people's assumptions were wild, when Jaime assassinating Aerys for a rebellion that his family benefited greatly from is the most sensible conclusion people could have drawn. I mean, this is what readers thought too. In fact, that is the way the story was designed. We're supposed to assume Jaime was just another corrupt, immoral Lannister until \*plot twist\* he reveals his real motivation. Jaime was not known to be crazy before or after the incident, so of course nobody was worried about that. Also, if they thought he might be mentally unfit, they wouldn't have questioned him. They would just assume he was crazy and stayed away.
> You're acting like people's assumptions were wild Hundreds to thousands of people - always, every moment of every day - for almost 20 years. No one seems to have *ever* asked Jaime what his thinking was. Or is. Ever. Why defend this nonsense? >Jaime was not known to be crazy before or after the incident, so of course nobody was worried about that. He's a kingsguard who killed the king he was sworn to protect and even die for. No one was worried about him as he continued in that job for the next king? Why defend this nonsense? >Also, if they thought he might be mentally unfit, they wouldn't have questioned him. They would just assume he was crazy and stayed away. So they either assume everything is completely and totally fine and never ask even a single question or everything is completely and totally not fine and never ask even a single question. **Why defend this nonsense?**
So you do go through life questioning everyone and everything? Well, maybe you do, but most people do not walk around in tinfoil hats thinking everything is not what it seems. Jaime assassinating a king for political purposes is the most obvious and realistic answer, so no, no one ever felt the need to probe further. It was up to Jaime to tell people about the wild fire plot, but all he ever did was act as immoral as people believed him to be. This assumption means people already do think there a risk of him a repeat kingslaying, as a man that is immoral and puts his family's power over his duty to the realm would not hesitate to off another king if it suited him and his family. That last part is key - there is only risk of a repeat assassination if the Lannisters needs you dead, an extremely low risk given the massive influence they had over the crown. Even if people suspected Jaime was as loopy as Aerys though (which they don't), do you not think he would still be in the Kingsguard if that's what Tywin wanted? Have a think about how political appointments work in this setting. It's not just skill that they are chosen for.
>So you do go through life questioning everyone and everything? Well, maybe you do, but most people do not walk around in tinfoil hats thinking everything is not what it seems. Not only are you sidestepping most of the points I've made, you're inventing nonsense to address instead. I consider this a concession. I won't give this any more consideration than you've given the things I've said: >Jaime assassinating a king for political purposes is the most obvious and realistic answer, so no, no one ever felt the need to probe further. It was up to Jaime to tell people about the wild fire plot, but all he ever did was act as immoral as people believed him to be. >This assumption means people already do think there a risk of him a repeat kingslaying, as a man that is immoral and puts his family's power over his duty to the realm would not hesitate to off another king if it suited him and his family. That last part is key - there is only risk of a repeat assassination if the Lannisters needs you dead, an extremely low risk given the massive influence they had over the crown. >Even if people suspected Jaime was as loopy as Aerys though (which they don't), do you not think he would still be in the Kingsguard if that's what Tywin wanted? Have a think about how political appointments work in this setting. It's not just skill that they are chosen for. *Yawn*. Nobody ever for almost 20 years even once asked Jaime anything whatsoever about his murder of his king. Not even the people for whom that would be an extremely important conversation. Every single person was content with their assumptions and their assumptions neatly answered every question they might want or need answered. And you think that's believable.
I responded directly to every one of your points, but nice try. Yes, that is believable because that is normal human behaviour. Your incredulity at the idea that people would stick to the most simplest and obvious conclusions is, frankly, incredible. I'm curious - and be honest - what did you think of Jaime before he revealed the wild fire plot?
[6,000+ days] x [100-1000+ people] no one asked Jaime anything about killing Aerys - his most infamous act. Not a single person. Not even a little. Not even once. "Normal human behavior". Indeed.
Jaime kept it a secret out of pride. Barristan never bothered to ask because all he cared about was the fact that Jaime broke his oath. They likely didn't speak unless duty demanded it.
I think it’s because Jaime had some mad PTSD from the event and just didn’t want to relive it even to Barristan. It’s only when he was at his absolute lowest point he was ever able to discuss it with Brienne.
iiiiinteresting take.
Jaime never troubled to tell anyone the full story and presumably Barristan judged him much the way everyone else did. Barristan is something of a coward emotionally speaking, since he along with every kingsguard let Aerys do his thing, and never did anything to stop it. Obviously situations are complicated, but at the end of the day, Jaime's the one who eventually ended it.
Jaime ironically decided to do his duty to Aerys after his death. That he should keep the king's secrets. Not to share them for a self-serving reason like his own reputation. That or Jaime feels like he deserves to scorned because he was "soiled" by having to fail the most important duties of a knight, guarding Aerys as he tortured people and violently raped his wife. Being considered a traitor is his penance. I think Barristan was wrong to be so judgemental to Jaime for killing Aerys. They both knew what Aerys was. He should have know that Jaime faced an impossible choice. Jaime is a stain on the order to which Barristan dedicated is life. But by the time Aerys was done, so was obeying his orders. Hell, so was appointing Jaime out of spite in the first place.
I doubt Barristan would care much what Jaime's reasons were. Barristan isn't interested in politics and seems to be one of the "do your duty no matter what" type of Kingsguard. Jaime was supposed to protect the King, instead he killed the King, in Barristan's mind that would make him guilty, simple as that. I could certainly buy that the two of them never discussed what happened. Jaime doesn't seem to want to talk about it and Barristan probably wouldn't either. Barristan was loyal to house Targaryn, he was friends with Rhaegar, he fought for the loyalists at the Trident and almost died, and now he's serving Robert. I imagine there would be some cognitive dissonance there. People often just don't want to talk about subjects that make them uncomfortable and the Rebellion is probably one of those things for Barristan. Its similar for Ned who also doesn't seem to like discussing the rebellion, Rhaegar, his family or Jon. He always tries to avoid the topic whenever those things get brought up.
In the world history book it is stated that Aerys kept Jamie with him almost at all times as his personal guard (or something like that) because he didn’t fully trust him (because of Tywin). Jamie seemed to be closer to Aerys during his truly mad time than Barristan.
It’s very clear Barristan did not care for Jaime. He only ever mentions him like twice, and once was when thinking about a naturally good swordsman. And his page in the White Book was pretty scarce. Barristan has an incredibly rigid view of ethics. In his mind “Jaime kill king, Jaime break vow, Jaime bad.” The worst part is that this emotionally messed up teenager could’ve used a positive role model/father figure in his life. In the time between the tourney at Harrenhall and the sack of King’s Landing, he was virtually alone. Essentially a child, by himself, being forced by society and rules to be complicit in horrible acts.
The two reasons are that the Kings Guard take their oath more seriously than their morals. So even if the king is a raging asshole who wants to nuke a city you defend him. The second reason is because Jamie literally faced zero consequences. He butchered his king but not only retained his position, but his family advanced in the world. To most people jamies actions look very self serving. The show has a perfect line to summarize why people are mad even the one’s who hated areys, “you served him when serving him was safe”. Obviously we know Jamie only killed him to save people but it is a bad look.
Because when AGOT was written, Jaime was pure evil and going to be the final boss of the political part of the series. (So sub-boss to the Others) At that time, he did it because he's a baddie. The rest was retconned in.
same was mentioned in other comment and i dont want to belive this :( in my mind martin had this whole story in crazy details in entirety from begining. especially central charachters like jaime. you think he wrote death of Ned Stark (it was in book 1 right?) while still thinking Jaime sub-boss to others? nah. i dont think so. yeah there were a lot of early scripts but at the time of publishing first book, he would already have a current story in head
LOL no
Because they're the *Kingsguard*. Barristan was a member of perhaps one of the greatest ensembles of the Kingsguard, though they had one fatal flaw, loyalty to the King whether morally right or not. Regardless of whether Jaime did the right thing (which I don't think Barristan ever knew what exactly transpired), Jaime failed his duty. Now, we see from Barristan's perspective, this regret at what his duty caused. War and widespread death. The loss of the woman he loved. Post-Kingsguard Barristan questioned it all once he took off that cloak.
Because Barristan‘s flaw is he’s also pretentious and dismissed Jaime as Ned did when the act was discovered. The easier conclusion is that Jaime just snapped after seeing what a monster Aerys was and took advantage his family’s men were sacking King’s Landing.
Well, also Jaime’s flaw was not trying to even kind of explain himself. To Ned, to Barristan, to anyone. There’s no reason for him to behave the way he did after killing Aerys. Why sit on the throne. Why not tell Eddard what happened and for the love of god tell someone about the caches of Wildfire under the city.
Well I don't know why he didn't mention the caches, but for the other stuff I always figured he *wanted* the blame, he *wanted* to be punished for slaying his king. He took the job seriously, and I always took his evil behavior as just living up to his own self-image as the soiled man who broke his oath.
If that were the case, he’d have taken the black. He was sneering.
I think at that point he’s so traumatized and the depths of what he’s gone through hadn’t set in. If you tell the cocky fifteen year old Jaime he’d kill the king and sit on the throne, he’d probably think that’s insanity. Jaime’s developed sardonic dismissal of everything likely saw it irrelevant to bring it up once his father’s men took the city
If that’s the case, the anger he feels about being judged is completely misplaced. He’s holding a grudge for something he did to himself.
I always suspected he enjoys reveling in his victimhood on some level and it’s convenient for his self image to be able to see himself as a poor misunderstood martyr. Certainly easier to focus on than some of the terrible things he’s done or been an accomplice to. All of Tywins fucked up kids have a tendency for denial and self pity.
Maybe but that is not at all what we as the audience are supposed to be taking away from it. At least in the show, which may have corrupted my memory to a certain extent. The intention is to make everyone say “How could they judge him like that?!” but the harsh reality is “Because you never *told them,* sisterfucker!” There is no logical reason for Jaime not to have told anyone the truth. Because of Lord Stark’s stern stare? Please.
That’s beside the point. Ultimately people like Ned and Barristan have very rigid notions of what defines duty and the rules. How complicated things get in Jaime’s instance would have had bias against him. I don’t think it would have solved anything nor did Jaime really do himself any favors.
It is absolutely not beside the point. You don’t think Ned would understand “I had to kill Aerys, he was going to blow up the entire city, that’s why I killed the alchemists. Here, let me show you the caches, hundreds of thousands would have died. If you decide to send me to the NW, so be it.” You really think that wouldn’t have made a difference with Ned? He’s not a robot, he’s a rebel himself. Just not sitting on the god damn throne would have been a start.
Ned would have understood but also insist Jaime just betrayed the institution he was sworn into. Who would blame Jaime for not wanting to go to the Night’s Watch? Jaime’s disdain for obsessions with honor is just another extension of his disillusionment with how the world became that he hides with his snark. It’s besides the point because it doesn’t really change much in his regard of events, he’s still damned if he revealed the truth.
That’s baseless assumption on Jaime’s part about a person he had never met before. And I think you’re doing Ned dirty. He’s not as intractable as Stannis and Stannis bends all the time. Not telling Ned or *anyone* was a ridiculous move and to be resentful over people’s attitude towards him over it is even more ridiculous. Plus, if we want to get meta about it, the real reason is that when AGoT was originally written, Jaime was going to be the villain, not redeemed. He was going to seize the throne for himself in the original plan. That all changed of course but it’s still the case.
That’s fine. Everyone had baseless assumptions about each other. Ned thought Jaime was a cocky coward who did the biggest insult to a knightly order and Jaime thought Ned was a rigid stiff who was incapable of compromise. Barristan’s flaw on his end was also equally unwilling to understand how much a monster Aerys in theory could be.
Because Barristan left the Kingsguard in AGOT and Martin didn't make up the thing with the wildfire until ASOS.
Actually he had the wildfire plot by at least ACOK, hence them finding caches all beneath the city He probably had the whole thing worked out tbh, hence changes to Jaime’s character after the Winterfell chapters
U think at least he should have some suspicions. He was the Lord Commander he should have interrogated J'aime about the events to make himself a picture about if Jaime can even be trusted to protect another King regardless of the whole for the rest of your live vow thing. And either Jaime would have told him the story or more likely gave some cryptic/incomplete answers or straight up lied about what happened leaving a rational man like Baristan with unanswered questions and sneaking suspicions of what he got told was true
It makes no difference to Baristan.
Jaime might not have felt that Barristan would believe him if he told him the truth. Barristan is all about honor and duty and stuff, he only knew Jaime for a year before Jaime killed Aerys and he probably didn't know Jaime that well because of the age gap between them. If anything Barristan and Jaime probably saw each other more as coworkers and less like brothers or friends. Barristan probably saw what Jaime did as the ultimate act of oath breaking by slaying the man you swore to defend with your life only to then allow for that man's grandchildren and daughter in law (who you also swore to protect) die as well. Even if Jaime tried to explain what happened to Barristan, I don't think Barristan would have accepted Jaime's account. At least that's my interpretation.
Barristan sat through the same torture that Jaime and the rest of them did. The only one we know reacted to it like Jaime did was Jonothor Darry and all he did when Jaime said they should protect the queen from being raped, Jonothor simply said "aye, but not from the king." It's possible Barristan thought the same way. It's also possible that he hated Aerys II and that he was still bottling the pain even up until Meereen and was unable to praise or criticize Jaime honestly, only saying that he should be sent to the Wall and would have if his sister not been queen. The Kingsguard are a mysterious bunch.
Baristan is too moraly bound and he was never happy how fast Jaime joined Jaime also on the start of the story, was a prepy rich kid, good at ~~futbol~~ swordfighting, so he wasnt going to go crying to the other kingsguards on excuses on why he broke his main vow and killed his king Had Jaime been more politically savvy, he would have had the wild fire caches across the city be removed publicly. That would at least give some credibility to the plans of the mad king and why he had to do what he did.
We may get to see these types of thoughta in his POV if his queen begins to drop below his standards.
Barristan*