This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Starks v. Lannisters

Next 20 Messages
BROOKLYN
User ID: 0714654 		Jan 13th 1:50 PM
Just how long has the Stark-Lannister feud been going on? We know that the Starks and Lannisters consider themselves natural enemies (witness Ned's reaction to the news that the Lannisters are coming to Winterfell in AGOT, and Jaime's saying he prefers honorable enemies to ambitious ones upon Robert making Ned his Hand). But does this just stem from the Lannisters coming late into the war against the Targaryens and subsequent atrocities? This doesn't seem like much of a reason for feud, and it would seem that Robert, the leader of the rebellion, and Jon Arryn, the first rebel, would have a much bigger reason to hate the Lannisters than Ned. Yet Jon and Robert contrive the marriage between Robert and Cersei.

I know that Martin has said that Tywin Lannister's father was a completely different man than Tywin himself - a weak lord who got pushed around a lot. Perhaps Rickard Stark did some of the pushing before Tywin ascended to Casterly Rock? Maybe Tywin and the Starks had some problems when Tywin was Hand of the King (and does anyone know why Tywin resigned as Hand of the King?). I'm pretty new to this board, so if any of this is redundant, I apologize. But does anyone know if there is some old animosity between the Starks and Lannisters that I missed?
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 13th 2:15 PM
Mrm ... I do in fact believe the feud stems entirely from the Sack of King's Landing and Ned's reaction to it. The murders of Princess Elia and the children as a cold-blooded sign of fealty, the terrible slaughter in the city, the rumors of rapine among some of the more visible knights and lords under Tywin, and the murder of the king by one of his own Kingsguard ... who then was sitting upon the throne when Ned arrived.

All that contributed. It's plain that Jaime hated Ned for how Ned "greeted" him in the throne room of the Red Keep. It's plain Ned hated what Tywin had done and allowed and what Jaime had done. In some fundamentals, they were extremely different.

One certain thing, I think, is that the feud stems entirely from Ned's time. Catelyn and Ned keep referring to the Lannisters having no end to their ambition, etc... but, as you point out, we know that Lord Tytos was in fact a pretty weak, too-amiable chap. So, clearly, the words they use of the Lannisters only apply to Tywin and his brood.

Of course, one has to leave open the possibility (probability?) that the beginning of this dislike was at the great tournament at Harrenhal, the one where Jaime was made a member of the company of the White Swords and where Rhaegar laid the crown of the queen of love and beauty in Lyanna's lap.

Martin has stated that a _lot_ happened over the 10 days of the event, enough for him to write a novel about if he were so inclined. I never really thought of the events including Stark-Lannister tensions .. but it might have. Both Brandon and Ned were there (and Lord Rickard was probably there, though again I couldn't say), Tywin and Jaime were there (and probably Tyrion and Cersei as well, though I don't believe it was ever clearly stated) ...

So, who knows. I think we are likely to learn more in _A Storm of Swords_ about the tournament at Harrenhal.
labor
User ID: 0798784 		Jan 13th 4:40 PM
I have a few whacky theories about what happened at Harrenhal:

Jaime was knighted (for what exploit?) and was granted membership of the Kingsguard against the wishes of his father.
Tywin learned about something which took place between Aerys and Lady Joanna - an afair or a rape.
Tywin resigned his position as the Hand.

The fiery romance started between Rhaegar and Lyanna.

A romance (platonic) between Ned and Ashara Dayne.
Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 		Jan 13th 6:02 PM
Some of this hate may come from the fact the the Lannisters, Jaime for sure and maybe Tywim were present when Lord Rickard and Brandon died.

I believe they must have been present as a member of the Kingsguard and Hand.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 13th 6:26 PM
Jaime definently was, as he recounted the killings of Rickard and Brandon in detail. Tywin wasn't present though. It looks like he was not Hand at this particular time (and may not have been for a good year or more, if he did remove himself from his position at Harrenhal.)

I don't follow labor's theory, BTW. I figure Jaime became Kingsguard without his father's leave, somehow appealing to Aerys. Maybe Tywin had started to get uppity and Aerys decided to disabuse him of his arrogance by showing that Aerys could bind Tywin's own son and heir to himself without needing Tywin's leave.

Tywin would, of course, resign out of fury or something such.

I do hope we learn some of these details in _A Storm of Swords_. :)
BROOKLYN
User ID: 0714654 		Jan 13th 9:34 PM
Hmm ... the tourney at Harrenhall sounds like the turning point of everything ... basically where Rhaegar destroyed the Targaryen dynasty for Lyanna. A Martin analogy with the Trojan War? Though Rhaegar = Paris doesn't quite work.

Anyways, I think Rhoe has a good point that brought a question to mind. Jaime Lannister witnessed Aerys killing the Starks and did nothing. He said to Catelyn that Aerys' cruelty basically justified in his own mind the righteousness or, at the very least, non-dishonorable act of breaking his Kingsguard oath and killing Aerys. Ser Gerold Hightower, his Lord Commander, took him aside and told him that he was there to guard the king, not judge him. Everyone who mentions him proclaims Hightower as a legend, a great knight, a shining example of chivalry. Ned's dream of riding with his six friends to the Tower of Joy and fighting the three last Kingsguard, including Ser Gerold, to the death is one of the high emotional points of AGOT precisely because the last three do NOT break their oaths unto death, even if their King is already dead.

My question is this: who is more moral, Jaime or Ser Gerold? Yes, knights swear oaths and so on, but Ned and Robert and everyone else swore an oath to bend the knee to Aerys Targaryen, as did Jon Arryn. I understand the Kingsguard oath is supposed to be something special, but as Jaime points out, what is the purpose of an oath to a man with no honor? Should Jaime be condemned for killing Aerys, who was clearly insane, while Ser Gerold praised for sticking with him to the end? If Jaime had instead helped Aerys escape and helped prolong the war (as Ser Gerold would probably have done), thus prolonging the bloodshed and killing, would this make him better and more honorable in our eyes? Would this have been better for the kingdom?
Relic
User ID: 9328513 		Jan 13th 9:59 PM
Brooklyn, in their own way non of those men are honorable. They are all basically shades of grey. They have witnessed evil acts and done nothing, claiming an oath. What about the vows of knighthood? Breaking one to preserve another, that is not honor. Jamie is a man reacting to his emotions, whatever they may be, at least he's honest.

In my opinion, the most honorable person in the novels by far is Ned Stark. For what we have seen of him, and what we have NOT seen yet.
Zer0hour
User ID: 1432154 		Jan 13th 10:39 PM
It's been a while since I've read the books, but somewhere I remember something about Tywin being furiated about _not being chosen to be hand_... I wanna say Robert came to the throne and immidately chose Jon to be the Hand.

I dunno, someone prove me right/wrong here...
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Jan 14th 4:28 AM
Zer0hour;

I'm pretty sure that Tywin being infuriated because he was not made Hand is not in the books.

I cannot _prove_ it, of course...Tywin's sentiments are not mentioned at all, IIRC.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 14th 7:31 AM
If Jaime had defied his family and fought to keep Aerys alive, he'd be far more honorable.

The difference between the Kingsguard and the great lords was that the Kingsguard made an unequivocal personal oath to Aerys. The great lords no doubt made oaths (actually, Ned couldn't have -- he wasn't Lord of Winterfell until the war began, so technically he couldn't have given it personally, although one could argue he carried his father's obligation) but their oaths were contingent on providing the king with service and the right to rule over them so long as he maintained his proper rule of king -- justice-giver, peace-maker, etc.

He failed, so they were clear. As Ned said, I believe, if it had been any man _other_ than one of the Kingsguard, it would have been all right.


As to Tywin, I don't recall the reference to him being unhappy at not being chosen Hand. Not to say it's not there, though.
Anon
User ID: 2205324 		Jan 14th 1:33 PM
I think Tywin was dismissed/resigned because of a discreet power struggle with Rhaegar. With Aerys going mad, and Rhaegar probably of age and wishing to assert himself, it isn't inconceivable that he might take more responsiblity (clearly he was well respected and he seemed to have the support of the the White Bull).

Could be an influence behind Tywin's refusal to aid Rhaegar at the Trident, although caution and guile probably had more to do with it.

Could also explain Tyrion's comment that "at least Rhaeger Targaryen is still dead", although such flippancy might just be to get Tywin's goat.
labor
User ID: 0798784 		Jan 14th 2:14 PM
Well, to quote Jaime and Cersei about Ned:
Jaime: "I see a man who would sooner die than betray his king" Cersei: "He betrayed one already, or have you forgotten?"
If even Lannisters consider Ned's rebellion against Aerys (however good his reasons) as treason, then it hardly can be argued that Ned somehow had a "right" to rebel because Aerys was a poor king. There are few easy, comfortable descisions in ASOIAF, not even for Ned.

Of course, oaths of the Kingsguard are in theory stronger than oaths of fealty, etc. and should normally equal those of the Night's Watch in stringency and permanency...
However, all those White Swords who stood by and watched Aerys's cruelties and bloodshed and ruin of the Kingdom he caused, where also breaking the vows of knighthood.

I don't hold killing of Aerys against Jaime. If Jaime killed Aerys earlier, when the many victims could be yet saved and the civil war prevented/stopped, I would have cheered for him. He would have died, of course...

What I do hold against Jaime is that he only killed Aerys when he could do so with impunity, that he failed to protect Rhaegar's children, whom he was also sworn to protect and with whom unlike Aerys he had no excuse and that he remained in the Kingsguard after the murders.
A man of honor might and should have done what Jaime did to Aerys, might have been duped by Lord Tywin concerning the children, but he would either take his own life, afterwards, or take the black.

BTW, I still think that Aerys intended to turn KL to ashes via wildfire, so that may have been the straw which pushed Jaime to obey Tywin's instructions...
Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 		Jan 14th 2:35 PM
At the end of ACOK, when Catelyn is interviewing Jaime in Riverrun's dungeon, Jaime says something to the affect of, "They make us (knights) swear so many oaths, even oaths that contradict one another, it is impossible not to break them."

Does a knight of the Kingsguard protect the weak and innocent or does he protect the king? He can't quit because these oaths are for life. If the king is evil, like Mad Aerys, one of those oaths will be broken.

It is a moral choice for the Kingsguard. As most of you have said, the Kingsguard oath is stronger/more important.

For a knight not in the Kingsguard and not a Lord who has sworn an oath to King and Country, it is their obligation to defend the weak and innocent.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 14th 2:39 PM
The problem is that the oaths of knighthood are almost entirely supersceded bythe oaths of the Kingsguard. Jaime was showing his egocentricity and his sincere wish (even though he denies it vehemently) to be excused for what he did.

No one ever said that the Faith, knighthood, family, and the Kingsguard were supposed to co-exist as equal duties and responsibilities. The oath of the Kingsguard gives that person over to the king _entirely_, to do with as he pleases.

In theory, the king himself is concerned with Faith and Justice and Honor, and so the Kingsguard have no fear of having their allegiances compromised. But that's theory, and underlying that theory is the cold, hard fact that their personal, entirely binding oath to the King puts all other duties, responsibilities, and oaths in second class.

There's a reason why you give up inheritance and family.

The Kingsguard who stood by and let Aerys do what he did were following their supreme oath to the letter. Ser Gerrold was right -- they're there to follow and protect him, not to judge him. Certainly not to kill him.

As to the Lannisters ... Cersei was reading Ned from the perspective of, 'It's impossible for such an honorable man to exist. He betrayed one king, no doubt he's willing to do it again if we give him the right incentive.' It's a very self-centered, arrogant application of her own (worse than poor) standards onto Ned.

A king betrays his obligations, he either makes amends, or he has to fight it out. If he wins, bully for him, might supports "right" and maybe he can return to be a decent king again. If he loses, he deserves what he gets.

I don't see what's wrong with this particular view. It's entirely logical and what we see again and again in history and in the Seven Kingdoms -- few kings were ever ousted because they were good kings. John I, Edward II, Richard II, Richard III, Peter the Cruel, and so on were all bad kings (John being rather good to the commoners, because he was a great bureaucrat, but awful to the barons as he was grasping and paranoid; the rest being bad for most everyone).

Same with Aerys -- he may have been replaced by a worse king as far as the commoners were concerned, and the realm, but Robert was certainly a more just ruler. Certainly didn't murder people with cruel tortures without trial. Justice is a very important concept among the nobility.

Now, admittedly, maybe the nobility wouldn't have done anything at all if he kept his little felicities to the smallfolk. But he overstepped himself and directly failed in giving the great magnates the justice which was the root of their shared relationship. And he further overstepped by not being able to then squelch that rebellion. If you're going to betray your great leaders, you had better be able to back that up with force and _win_.

BTW, Jaime should have done any number of things -- like club Aerys unconscious or lock him up in some tower room -- rather than kill him. He'd be frowned on, but he wouldn't have taken the final step of betraying his vows and sullying his name and honor for eternity by doing it.
Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 		Jan 14th 3:36 PM
Not many people (of Westeros)condemn Jaime for his part in killing Aerys. Yes, he does have the nickname Kingslayer, but it seems to me to be more of a badge of honor than derision because Jaime was on the winning side at the end.

If Rhaegar had triumphed, history would see Jaime Lannister in the same light as Benedict Arnold in the states. Synonomous with decption and the worst criminal in the land.
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 14th 3:41 PM
Mrm. Plenty of folk dislike him. Kingslayer is a name that we're told, quite early, should never be used to his face. He's turned it into a personal badge of honor, but the people who use it aren't using it as an honorific.

They may keep their dislike to a minimum -- not like he killed their own relative or a saintly king, and not like all of them are Ned's -- but there's still a current of dislike out there. The crowd was quick to hoot with laughter when Jaime's helmet got turned around and he had to stumble away to get it the dents hammered out so he could remove it.

I find it hard to imagine that they'd do the same if it happened to Barristan Selmy, Arthur Dayne, or Gerrold Hightower, to name but a few.
labor
User ID: 0798784 		Jan 14th 3:41 PM
Ran, how about Catelyn's: "... we are all traitors, whoever good our reasons !" Note, that neither she nor, Stannis, Renly or Robb personally swore fealty to Joff. And while in Joff's case you may argue that because he is not _really_ Robert's rightful heir, they weren't _really_ traitors, the same wasn't true about Aerys, who was an udisputebly rightful king. As I said, no easy decisions.

Concerning the Kingsguard - unfortunately we don't know the exact wording of their oath, but Ser Barristan considered that he served the realm... And one can see how notion of serving the realm might agree with Aerys's murder. Also, I nowhere noticed that joining the Kingsguard frees one from/supercedes the dictum of Faith and the vows of knighthood.

Also, it is really a mystery why Lord Tywin apparently wanted Jaime to kill Aerys ("obey your father"). Considering the dishonor it brought to Lannister name,I don't think that Tywin would have organized it that way unless Aerys's quick death was somehow crucial for his plans and no one else could do it.
IMHO, the alternative of clubbing Aerys etc. simply didn't exist. Surely, Tywin could have taken KL without Jaime, once Aerys let him inside and if Tywin could have spared Jaime's honor by taking him captive... and having someone else kill Aerys, he likely would have, IMHO.

IMHO, it suggests that Aerys had some nasty surprise prepared which he would have put in motion unless killed on the spot - IMHO wildfire incendiary of KL and the Red Keep.

Regardless, if Jaime killed Aerys earlier and/or killed himself/took the black in order to redeem his honor after his treason of Aerys, I would have counted him a honorable man, maybe more honorable than White Bull.
I don't think that any oath should supercede all other morality.But whoever breaks the solemn oath,especially an oath of personal service and loyality, like one of the Kingsguard, even for a very good reason, should be willing to pay for it if they are people honor.

Jaime wanted to eat his cake and have it too. Thus, he is dishonorable.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 14th 4:32 PM
Robb's technically a traitor because he's taken a crown that he "shouldn't" have. Also, his rebellion happens even though Ned Stark admitted his "treason" and was executed after that public confession, well within the rights of the king. That Robb and Catelyn denied the possibility of Ned doing what he confessed, while correct, still doesn't mean they "should" rebel.

Renly's a traitor because he's claiming a crown that neither law nor tradition says is his by any particular right. Stannis is a traitor because he cannot prove that Joffrey is not, in fact, Robert's trueborn heir.

This is a very different situation from when Aerys killed the Lord of Winterfell and his heir (who was to marry the eldest daughter of Lord Tully), the heir to House Arryn, several notable young men of assorted houses more, _and_ called for the heads of the next Lord of Winterfell and the Lord of Storm's End. All without any thought to trial or due process.

Justice was grossly abandoned, meaning Aerys had abandoned his promises to his lords. Why should they continue to give him fealty? It's a very clean, elegant relationship, which amounts basically to, "You scratch my back, I scratch yours. But if you stab my back, I stab yours."

It's a much greyer occasion now. The men are all technically traitors now in the current events. The kings are calling for their crowns even though not a one of them has proof that the king has failed in his capacity as king, somehow. He's executed a confessed traitor and, as far as anyone can prove, he's the trueborn son of the prior king.

Not that I think Stannis is wrong to press his claim, nor that Robb is particularly wrong in rebelling (taking a crown is arguable, on the other hand -- it's a mixed decision.) But they're traitors until they beat Joffrey, reveal the whole truth, and show that they were in fact fighting the good fight.

Or something.


What we know of the oaths that apply to this: can't harm royalty ("The Hedge Knight" makes this clearest), ward the king with all of your strength and shed your blood for his (U.S. GoT hardback, p. 502).

There's no room for Aerys' murder agreeing with the oath. The oaths have far too much to do with the personal protection of the king to be focused on the greater service of the realm. Serving the king, in theory, _was_ the greater service of the realm. Just as the oaths don't consider the eventuality of a king being deposed, they assumed that the king was just and honorable as well.

Ser Barristan did serve the realm, in any case, by fighting for Aerys, wrong or right. He followed Joffrey, too, until Joffrey sullied the honor of the White Swords by the unprecedented move of relieving Barristan of his position and more or less insulted him. Given Barristan's harsh words to his former brothers, it's clear he was not particularly happy at all, even during Robert's rule -- but he did what was right, because that's what he swore to do. And right was defending his king with his sworn brothers.

The dictum that the oaths of the Kingsguard supercede knighthood and Faith is clear enough -- these men swear their lives to the King. They aren't supposed to judge, they protect him and they serve him. That's all. What's the point of swearing them to you so completely unless you want nothing -- not family, not wealth, not power, not faith, not chivalry -- to hamper that role?

Gerrold Hightower and Barristan Selmy and Arthur Dayne are held as the epitome of the Kingsguard, and they were men who never judged and never, ever waivered from their oath. They weren't asked, maybe, to slap a little girl around or other atrocities. But as the White Bull showed, they were willing to witness injustice and support injustice because that's what the oath called for.

Again and again, there's a very distinct difference between the oath of the Kingsguard and that of other men. Heck, they're called the White Swords -- which is that they are. The swords of the King, wielded by him, purpose clear and true because (like swords) they have no other purpose but to do the king's will.

I think it's clear that the intent of the formation of the Kingsguard was that their oaths supercede all other considerations, because otherwise Hightower, Selmy, Dayne, Whent, Darry, and Martell were misconstruing their oaths to make things nice and easy for themselves (not to mention that three of those names are legendary in the Seven Kingdoms and that no one -- not even Jaime -- has a bad word to say about them).

But, I guess it's arguable until we get a firmer accounting of just what the oath entails. Given the personal nature of what we hear of the oaths (i.e., nothing apparently about the realm, just about all to do with the king) I think it's clear that the intent is that it supercedes anything else.

Something more to ask Martin, I guess. Maybe basing it on the scene between Jaime and Hightower and then Jaime's own words in the dungeon in Riverrun.)
Ran
User ID: 0867924 		Jan 14th 4:50 PM
Gerold Hightower. Gerold. Gerold. Gerold.

Somehow I got that double r stuck in my head. ;)
Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 		Jan 15th 1:23 AM
Umm, I believe that John II was the one who signed the Magna Carta. He was Richard I's younger brother.

Also, I beieve that Richard III was regarding as a good and just king in his short reign.

ab
Next 20 Messages