Jump to content

How many people has Melisandre actually burned?


The Red Melli

Recommended Posts

It means that they've killed 4 men. It was ordered by Stannis. Rambton was a knight of Stannis and he fought against it.

It means that he is a traitor and kings are allowed to sanction the death of traitors.

I'd appreciate it if you would not throw around the term "traitor" inlationary like this, he neither helped Stannis' enemies nor did he give away secrets or cause a stratetic disadvantage in any way - he simply was clinging to his faith, as dumb as it was.

And of course kings are entitled to order death's if someone refuses to obey - again, does this make it a "matter of justice", if the offense was defending a sacred place of theirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate it if you would not throw around the term "traitor" inlationary like this, he neither helped Stannis' enemies nor did he give away secrets or cause a stratetic disadvantage in any way - he simply was clinging to his faith, as dumb as it was.

And of course kings are entitled to order death's if someone refuses to obey - again, does this make it a "matter of justice", if the offense was defending a sacred place of theirs?

As the comment above you said it was Stannis' Sept. And yes they didn't helped the enemy but they did kill 4 of the Queen's men during the process.

They didn't need to defend it. It's what Stannis wanted. And as an ealier comment said. "Stannis' army comprises followers of R'hllor, the Seven, and the Old Gods.

This is a matter of justice in my eyes not only did they betray Stannis' order, they also killed 4 men in the process, it was totally unnecessary.

I respect your opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Hubert was fighting against the soldiers of his liege lord, (or King, if Stannis is King), which entitled Stannis to punish him. Stannis was entitled to destroy his own Sept, but it was - at the very least - a very insensitive act. Given the reaction it was likely to provoke, this was an appropriate case to show mercy, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the comment above you said it was Stannis' Sept. And yes they didn't helped the enemy but they did kill 4 of the Queen's men during the process.

They didn't need to defend it. It's what Stannis wanted. And as an ealier comment said. "Stannis' army comprises followers of R'hllor, the Seven, and the Old Gods.

This is a matter of justice in my eyes not only did they betray Stannis' order, they also killed 4 men in the process, it was totally unnecessary.

I respect your opinion though.

Only that the sacred places such as septs and godswoods are burned and they are refused to exercise their religion.

It was totally unnecessary to burn the sept and to not give them a clean death for going against the King's orders but a cruel one by fire, a more laicistic position is what I'd expect of Stannis, this was clearly more than the punishment of traitors, but maybe that's just my opinion.

Honestly, I don't understand your need to justify the burnings, but as you seem to be so very intent on it, we're at an impass here.

Ser Hubert was fighting against the soldiers of his liege lord, (or King, if Stannis is King), which entitled Stannis to punish him. Stannis was entitled to destroy his own Sept, but it was - at the very least - a very insensitive act. Given the reaction it was likely to provoke, this was an appropriate case to show mercy, in my view.

Yes, I fully agree, or at least a clean execution would've been appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you consider "justice" or even "justified" is obviously purely subjective. The point is, though, that as far as we know no one was burned for simply worshipping other gods than R'hllor. Not that I wouldn't see this happen in the future if Melisandre is (more) successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only that the sacred places such as septs and godswoods are burned and they are refused in exercising their religion.

It was totally unnecessary to burn the sept and to not give them a clean death for going against the King's orders but a cruel one by fire, a more laicistic position is what I'd expect of Stannis, this was clearly more than the punishment of traitors, but maybe that's just my opinion.

Honestly, I don't understand your need to justify the burnings, but as you seem to be so very intent on it, we're at an impass here.

I don't justify the burnings don't get me wrong I made this thread to see if the men that got burned were innocent or not.

In my eyes they weren't but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of burning them.

And Stannis has already lost faith in the Seven when his parents died. And if it was unnecessary this was an order of Stannis. Those who fight against it are fighting against Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know all those people commited crimes the king is allowed to sanction the deaths of traitors, is he not?

Same story with Ned Stark who beheaded deserters and you see no one blaming or accusing him. And yes burning people alive is terrible but you must realise these men weren't innocent.

I feel it would be helpful not to diferentiate between "real world morality" (burning men alive) and "Westeros law", but between "Westeros morality" and "Westeros law".

Is Melissandres action lawful in view Stannis seeing himself as the lawful king: Yes

Is the Melissandres action within Westeros Morality? Rather complicated.

We have no examples (besides events around Melissandre) that the westerosi culture of the current timeline would accept their religious belief to be dictated by their king. Sure, westeros is absolutely low tier when it comes to human rights, but I would say that religion plays enough of a big role in the cultural background of those characters that you have to grant them it's defense. And let's not forget that there is a high septon in king's landing who has imprisoned the queen regent out of his morality codex, receiving support from the small folk. If the morality would only be dictated by "who rules", Kevan would have stormed the sept and have the septons slain for high treason.

However, there seems to be some part of moral justifications even liege lords are exptected to fulfill, and so they need to play along and do the walk of shame (even if it is something that is only done to calm down the small folk, it shows how much the small folk grants itself in this regard).

All I am saying is that there are somewhere borders you should not cross, even if you are a liege lord and your people are sworn to serve you with their life.

One of these borders out of pure reason should be "don't ask your men to stand by while you burn their gods". It is like mocking their culture.

Or better: It is like asking Ned Stark to wait things out when his brother and father are burnt by Aerys.

Even when you are above the law, you are within the morality complex of this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being burnt to death is a horrible way to go. I don't see how we can justify it as an acceptable manner of execution. Beheading someone, in comparison, seems completely humane.

As far as Dany executing the wine merchant who tried to poison her goes, IIRC it wasn't Dany who ordered the would-be assassin tethered to her horse. It was Drogo. Granted, she didn't argue with Drogo to give the wine-seller an easier death, but she didn't order it.

The men who resorted to cannibalism were not burnt by Melisandre's orders. Stannis chose for them to be burnt, which I thought was overly cruel. IIRC correctly, the men ate human beings who were already dead. As disgusting as that is, plenty of people in real life situations have resorted to cannibalism because of starvation, and I don't think that they deserve to be burnt to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burning another's brother and father is not like burning one's own property.

That is a good and modern view, but even today this would not be accepted at all:

Have a Christian burn a Mosque. Have a Muslim burn a church. They are only made of wood and stone and what not, but nonetheless you attack the culture of another person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was his own Sept not his men. He's the king he didn't destroy other religious property he's totally fine if someone doesn't worship R'hllor.

And even if they were mocked they did kill 4 men in the process.

As for the punishment I'm not in favor of burning. And beheading someone doesn't seem humane to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't justify the burnings don't get me wrong I made this thread to see if the men that got burned were innocent or not.

In my eyes they weren't but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of burning them.

And Stannis has already lost faith in the Seven when his parents died. And if it was unnecessary this was an order of Stannis. Those who fight against it are fighting against Stannis.

Calling it a "matter of justice" sounded suspiciously like exactly that. I am sorry, but you are severely oversimplifying the matter; if you like, you can break it down to simply saying that they were "not innocent" and that it was justice because they resisted Stannis' order, or rather tried to hinder them, but it is more complicated than that; what brought them to defending the sept in the first place was a huge act of religious intolerance that occured and that led them to taking up arms in order to defend their holy place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good and modern view, but even today this would not be accepted at all:

Have a Christian burn a Mosque. Have a Muslim burn a church. They are only made of wood and stone and what not, but nonetheless you attack the culture of another person.

For the last time it was Stannis' his own sept. He wanted to get rid of it.

And even if you do attack the culture of someone are they allowed to kill 4 men?

They were burned because they killed 4 of the Queen's men in order to save Stannis' own sept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I say it was a hugh act of religious intolerance.

And they wanted to defend their holy place.

Stannis wanted to sack his own sept.

They took arms and defend against it

During this process 4 Queen's men got killed.

What brought them to defending?: Religious Intolerance.

What did they do: Killed 4 men

What is the punishment:" Your answer?" Though I would've chosen for a execution but not a painful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good and modern view, but even today this would not be accepted at all:

Have a Christian burn a Mosque. Have a Muslim burn a church. They are only made of wood and stone and what not, but nonetheless you attack the culture of another person.

So essentially you're saying Stannis is morally obliged to tolerate their religious fanaticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...