War = Slaughtering Peasants?

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Most of the soldiers described in ASOIAF are not peasant levies, but similar to the English army in France in the 14th and 15th centuries.   Knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries, and semi-professional archers and spearmen.  They can certainly expect to be fed, paid, and equipped on campaign.  Some of the sellswords and freeriders may serve for plunder alone.  Devastating the enemy's lands is a deliberate strategy, ordered from the top, not an act of desperation on the part of hungry peasants.

Problem is that there are consistent references time and again to levies and Dunk reflects that Ser Eustace levies raised against Lady Webber were not something special but similar to other levies he'd seen across Westeros. So I dare say that most of the soldiers raised during the series are made up by various smallfolk put into arms by their lords for this or that conflict.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

GRRM is very strongly anti-war, and he drew on more modern sources for some of the themes in the wars of the book.  True, mass killing of civilians was not common in medieval warfare (though not unheard of), but I think he is trying to tell us something about modern total warfare that has been practiced quite a bit since WWII (there was actually a lot of moral outrage over the high-altitude bombing of population centers in Germany, the firebombing of Japanese cities, and the use of nuclear weapons on two cities).

In the context of the setting, it can easily be explained by the fact that Westeros is very different from medieval Europe in many ways.  The armies are generally far huger, the power structures more monolithic, and there is a much longer history.  It stands to reason that a world stuck at a medieval level for millenia might eventually develop more modern forms of warfare.

[norwaywolf123]

4 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Roose was a traitor. How can you use Roose as an example for Robb?

Roose was loyal at the time and took Harrenhal for Robb! This was before the battle of the blackwater at the hight og Robbs political power, and before Jeyne Westerling

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Roose was loyal at the time and took Harrenhal for Robb! 

Do you really believe that? Also even if he was how is Robb was to blame for what Roose did?

[joluoto2]

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

Most of the soldiers described in ASOIAF are not peasant levies, but similar to the English army in France in the 14th and 15th centuries.   Knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries, and semi-professional archers and spearmen.  They can certainly expect to be fed, paid, and equipped on campaign.  Some of the sellswords and freeriders may serve for plunder alone.  Devastating the enemy's lands is a deliberate strategy, ordered from the top, not an act of desperation on the part of hungry peasants.

Well the soldiers mostly described are those that'd be close to the Lords, i.e. the retinues. And yes, the retinues are of course paid professionals, but they're a small part of an army. The big mass, the meat shield would still be the peasant levies, and this is taken up by Septon Merribald's story and when the lack of Manpower is disussed in the North, like how it will be hard for much of the smallfolk to survive Winter when a important part of their breadwinners died in Rob's armies.

 

And still, even the Retinues expected to be allowed to loot. They usually got more of the loot than the levies, as a part of their salary. Again effiecient supply trains weren't a thing. Some times you could get supplies down to an army on foreign soil, but more often the army just had to take what it needed from the local peasants.

[Danelle]

28 minutes ago, joluoto2 said:

 

 

And still, even the Retinues expected to be allowed to loot.

I always thought that Jaime's description of Walton was also the description of the average westerosi soldier, not quite unexperienced but not necessarily a professional either. And according to Meribald, it is not unusual for soldiers to ride for war, unprepared, barely armed and not properly trained to fight.

 

 

Quote

 

 "How old were you when they marched you off to war?"

"Why, no older than your boy," Meribald replied. "Too young for such, in truth, but my brothers were all going, and I would not be left behind. Willam said I could be his squire, though Will was no knight, only a potboy armed with a kitchen knife he'd stolen from the inn. He died upon the Stepstones, and never struck a blow. It was fever did for him, and for my brother Robin. Owen died from a mace that split his head apart, and his friend Jon Pox was hanged for rape."

 

 

 

Quote

Steelshanks Walton commanded Jaime's escort; blunt, brusque, brutal, at heart a simple soldier. Jaime had served with his sort all his life. Men like Walton would kill at their lord's command, rape when their blood was up after battle, and plunder wherever they could, but once the war was done they would go back to their homes, trade their spears for hoes, wed their neighbors' daughters, and raise a pack of squalling children. Such men obeyed without question, but the deep malignant cruelty of the Brave Companions was not a part of their nature.

I think that soldiers in westeros are divided in three categories:

• The nobles and the knights such as Jaime Lannister and Lynn Corbray
• Men who serve as captains or guards for nobles, such as Walton and Fat Tom
• Men who have little or no experience with warfare, such as  Septon Meribald and his friends 

[Knight Of Winter]

To be fair, Tywin's war on RIverlands is excessively brutal, even by ASOIAF standards. He explicitly ordered Riverlands to be pillaged and burned and then chose psychopaths such as Gregor and Amory to do the job. No wonder damage to the RIverlands was so high.

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that there are consistent references time and again to levies and Dunk reflects that Ser Eustace levies raised against Lady Webber were not something special but similar to other levies he'd seen across Westeros. So I dare say that most of the soldiers raised during the series are made up by various smallfolk put into arms by their lords for this or that conflict.

It's accepted, though, that Ser Eustace is a very minor landowner, who's scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Lady Webber on the other hand has 33 trained men, including knights, and crossbowmen. A small force, but an effective one, and clearly not a peasant levy.

The competing armies at Green Fork are well-trained, and used to fighting in formation together.  We can assume that Robb's cavalry at Whispering Wood were similarly well-trained.  Sometimes, peasant levies are raised, as Septon Merribald implies, and the Lannister army that was beaten at Oxcross seems to have been of that type.  But, I think there's little doubt that the lords only raise them as  last resort.

2 hours ago, joluoto2 said:

Well the soldiers mostly described are those that'd be close to the Lords, i.e. the retinues. And yes, the retinues are of course paid professionals, but they're a small part of an army. The big mass, the meat shield would still be the peasant levies, and this is taken up by Septon Merribald's story and when the lack of Manpower is disussed in the North, like how it will be hard for much of the smallfolk to survive Winter when a important part of their breadwinners died in Rob's armies.

 

And still, even the Retinues expected to be allowed to loot. They usually got more of the loot than the levies, as a part of their salary. Again effiecient supply trains weren't a thing. Some times you could get supplies down to an army on foreign soil, but more often the army just had to take what it needed from the local peasants.

"Peasant" covers a very wide range of classes, from landless labourers at one end, to a man who farms 50-100 acres and has labourers and servants of his own, at the other.  The latter can afford weapons, and time off for military training.  Those are the sort of people the lords would want to recruit to go on a campaign.  They aren't professional soldiers, but they are used to handling weapons.  In fourteenth century England, that class of people were called franklins, and provided the bulk of the English archers.

Edit:  WRT the lack of manpower, Ran and Werthead have pointed out that a pre-industrial society would find it very difficult to keep more than 1-1.5% of the population on campaign for any length of time.

 

[RedShirt47]

On 19/04/2016 at 0:43 PM, John Doe said:

There where extensive chevauchee campaigns for some time, I guess the Riverlands war and Robb's atrocities in the Westerlands are based on that.

Even though you beat me to it, I'll post a similar thought.

There was a medieval tactic called the chevauchée which was a raiding party terrorising the local populace. The Mountains raid in the Riverlands could be likened to Edward The Black Princes raids in France early in the 100 years war.  A snippet from wiki:
"The chevauchée by the Black Prince in the autumn of 1355 was one of the most destructive in the history of English warfare. Starting from Bordeaux, the Black Prince traveled south into lands controlled by Jean I, Comte d'Armagnac with Toulouse as the apparent ultimate target. Edward departed with an Anglo-Gascon force of five thousand men. He laid waste to the lands of Armagnac and also despoiled the Comté de Foix before turning eastward into Languedoc."

But even when peasants weren't targetted directly, their farms were looted and pillaged for food. Sometimes a scorched earth tactic by their own lords would destroy their farms and houses.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

To be fair, Tywin's war on RIverlands is excessively brutal, even by ASOIAF standards. He explicitly ordered Riverlands to be pillaged and burned and then chose psychopaths such as Gregor and Amory to do the job. No wonder damage to the RIverlands was so high.

Yup. The Riverlands was screwed when two armies (West and North) decided to stay there and fight while the Riverlords did very little to protect their own people.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

The competing armies at Green Fork are well-trained, and used to fighting in formation together.

I'm not sure of that.

This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. When their lords called, they came . . . but not forever.

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

We can assume that Robb's cavalry at Whispering Wood were similarly well-trained.

Id say much better trained than the majority of the force he sent to the Green Fork. They would be the best equipped and trained men in Robb's army.

[Knight Of Winter]

19 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Yup. The Riverlands was screwed when two armies (West and North) decided to stay there and fight while the Riverlords did very little to protect their own people.

 

I'm really not interested in reading another ridiculous "Tywin was no worse than others" set of quasi-arguments, thank you.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I'm really not interested in reading another ridiculous "Tywin was no worse than others" set of quasi-arguments, thank you.

I was not making that argument. I was pointing out why the Riverlands was screwed. Mostly down to the Westerland army but the Northern army also contributed as they were also 'living off the land'. And obviously the largely ineffectual Riverlords played their part.

[Lion of the West]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's accepted, though, that Ser Eustace is a very minor landowner, who's scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Lady Webber on the other hand has 33 trained men, including knights, and crossbowmen. A small force, but an effective one, and clearly not a peasant levy.

The competing armies at Green Fork are well-trained, and used to fighting in formation together.  We can assume that Robb's cavalry at Whispering Wood were similarly well-trained.  Sometimes, peasant levies are raised, as Septon Merribald implies, and the Lannister army that was beaten at Oxcross seems to have been of that type.  But, I think there's little doubt that the lords only raise them as  last resort.

I agree that Ser Eustace is a minor lordling with only two household knights in his service, while as you point out Lady Webber has 33 or so men-at-arms. The point I was saying was however that while Osgrey has no choice but to put a levy together and Lady Webber don't need it, if Rohanne had gone up against a lord on her own level with some 30-35 men-at-arms at his disposal, odds are that she too would raise a levy against him of similar quality and composition that Eustace raises.

The two armies at the Green Work are interesting because Catelyn had earlier made observatons, as thelittledragonthatcould, have previously pointed out above, who were not proffessional soldiers and only raised for the war and would then be disbanded to return to their fields, workshops etc.and on Tywin's side you can see that an entire flank for him is made up by essentially rabble. The idea that the Westerosi soldiers are all professionals is not supported in the books as far as I can see. There are professional soldiers, I agree 100%, but most soldiers marching to a war are mostly likely not such.

[WSmith84]

Seeing as people are discussing troop quality:

 

 

[TimJames]

Contrary to popular belief, ethics wasn't invented in the 2000s. 

Things like "don't murder civilians" date back to people like Socrates. Both Islam and Christianity have rules against killing civilians in warfare, and in several instances those rules were enforced. 

While some people did break the rules, very often those were punished or at the very least condemned by their peers.

I think the reason GRRM portrays medieval warfare as non-stop crimes against humanity is that he bought into the very old and very false myth that the Middle Ages were a Dung Era characterized by technological inertia and rampant violence.

Either that or he was trying to contrast the Cruel and Heartless Lannisters with the Honorable and Compassionate Starks.

[MGraham]

Cruelty to civilian's in war didn't end in the middle ages, although i notice many people have corrected pointed to the chevauchéeas the likely inspiration to GRRM's depictions of war.

WW2 saw looting, rape, murder etc of civilians by all sides.

The armies of Napoleon and the coalitions who opposed him where the same hundreds of years later, looting and living of the line and cruelty to subdue to population was standard policy, with the notable exception of British/Portuguese troops who where harshly disciplined for crimes against civilians (although several high profile examples where this "got out of hand" when storming fortresses)

Indeed, the war crimes on the part of the French on Spanish and vice versa meant that Wellington choose to leave most of his Spanish troops in Spain when he invaded Southern France so as not to rile up the population. They had seen first hand the problems caused when an army brutalizes a population in Spain and knew that this might lead to the French copying Spanish Guerilla tactics.

This can be seen in groups like the brotherhood without banners and we might be about to see this on a larger scale.

[Universal Sword Donor]

5 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I'm not sure of that.

This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. When their lords called, they came . . . but not forever.

Id say much better trained than the majority of the force he sent to the Green Fork. They would be the best equipped and trained men in Robb's army.

I know you've read the Tyrion chapter covering this battle. I won't bother rewriting what E-ro covered (and I've typed before), but those guys are pretty well trained in Westeros terms. Moved in fighting formation, held against multiple charges and arrow fire. On top of that their arms and armament are clearly not inferior and the people who'd be using those weapons would have the wherewithal to train as needed.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

2 hours ago, TimJames said:

 

Either that or he was trying to contrast the Cruel and Heartless Lannisters with the Honorable and Compassionate Starks.

Riverlanders were just as afraid of wolves as lions, and Robb's troops were stringing up prostitutes for sleeping with Lannister soldiers.  I don't think that GRRM intended to portray one side as noble and one side as dishonorable, I think he was trying to show that all sides in war do horrible things, because he REALLY hates war.  I think he is also well aware of how the armies of Westeros conduct themselves in warfare differs from historical medieval armies because he's done a lot of reading of medieval history - I imagine he knows more about how medieval times were not "dark ages" than many of the people criticizing him on these forums.

[Tonberry]

On 4/19/2016 at 6:40 AM, imopatis said:

It is also worth to note that GRRM is a pacifist who specifically wants to highlight the horrors of war. He does this of course from a modern context, in which wars from WWII through to Syria are especially hard on the civilians. References to modern warfare can be found in the books, the  motto “Fire and Blood” for example is the title of an book by WW I author Ernst Juenger, describing the experiences of the soldier in the trenches. His most famous book about WW I incidentally is called “Storm of Steel”…….

I was going to post this, but then found that someone already had. This is the main reason, I think.