War = Slaughtering Peasants?

[Joy Hill]

During the high middle ages, Gregory of Tours, when writing about armies (in Francia), does insist on the brutality of its men who looted in both ally and enemy territory, and how difficult it was for the military leaders to control them.

[SeanF]

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

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.

I'm not saying they're professionals.  I'm saying they're used to handling weapons, and have had some military training.  At Green Fork, we see them fighting in formation with pikes, and they don't break and flee when Tywin wins the battle.  It's a disciplined retreat.  We aren't talking about a mob of people armed with pitchforks.

[Lion of the West]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm not saying they're professionals.  I'm saying they're used to handling weapons, and have had some military training.  At Green Fork, we see them fighting in formation with pikes, and they don't break and flee when Tywin wins the battle.  It's a disciplined retreat.  We aren't talking about a mob of people armed with pitchforks.

Then I'd say that I think we've reached a agreement as I kind of agree with what you say.

[The Drunkard]

http://deremilitari.org/2013/01/strategies-of-war-in-westeros/

This essay explains this stuff well.

tl;dr: Armies are expensive to maintain and difficult to feed. The chevauchée - burning and stealing the crops and animals, plundering and killing the peasants - is a cost effective way of feeding and paying for your army, and has the added bonus of potentially shaming your opponent into a battle of your choosing. Tywin (in the Riverlands) and Robb (in the Westerlands) both did this, and it worked.

[John Doe]

On 20.4.2016 at 3:02 PM, 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.

Depends on who you mean with "others". Obviously there are many lords who behave better in war than Tywin, the Starks just aren't among them.

[The Oily Black Stone]

On 4/19/2016 at 6:53 AM, Danelle said:

Unfortunately the lives of peasants never matter much during war.

Fix'd for ya

Not to seem dismissive as I'm sure you know more than me having actually studied history, but I personally always thought of "war" as killing innocent people on the other side. Maybe in the 21st century we're just jaded by conceptualizing vague  "wars against drugs" and so on... lol

It might be relevant that  in those days wars were fought with simpler weapons and smaller groups - like a small band of ravagers might be more relatively   matched in a melee against  a bunch of farmers with pitchforks? I dont know... just feeling like the technology available informs the sense of scale of these things.

And also, isnt it true that most wars are fought over resources as they become scarce? Being that winter lasts years on Planetos, that's an extra reason to devalue human life and thin the herd.

[Minstral]

4 hours ago, The Oily Black Stone said:

Fix'd for ya

Not to seem dismissive as I'm sure you know more than me having actually studied history, but I personally always thought of "war" as killing innocent people on the other side. Maybe in the 21st century we're just jaded by conceptualizing vague  "wars against drugs" and so on... lol

It might be relevant that  in those days wars were fought with simpler weapons and smaller groups - like a small band of ravagers might be more relatively   matched in a melee against  a bunch of farmers with pitchforks? I dont know... just feeling like the technology available informs the sense of scale of these things.

And also, isnt it true that most wars are fought over resources as they become scarce? Being that winter lasts years on Planetos, that's an extra reason to devalue human life and thin the herd.

The biggest killers of armies and populations in medieval war is either famine or disease, not the actual battles. The violence in the real world middle ages doesn't reach the levels we see in the series, but the normal way that armies fought war during the time really was siege and raids. Chevauchee tactics might not outright kill every single peasant as we see in Tywin's campaign to cleanse half the Riverlands of life, but it does serve to seize supplies for the army, deny it to the enemy, and ruin the production base of the enemy by ruining the land with fire. Furthermore, it serves to also kill, or more likely, drive off the peasants who are responsible for feeding pretty much everyone.

I'll just point out though, getting into the idea that war was "simpler" back then and therefore conflicts "lack scale"... is kinda wrong. The funny thing is that while WW2 kills off around ten percent of the German population, the Thirty Years War that was fought 300 years prior devastated the German populations of the Holy Roman Empire in larger percentages. Various regions were afflicted differently, but the depopulation of those areas carried over to about 2/5 of the population being killed off in the highest estimates. A war fought at the tail end of feudalism, fought with pikes, mercenaries, and famine was responsible for the death of perhaps forty percent of the German population. (I actually remember one of my History proffs mention a historian friend of his who specialized in German history to actually estimate an 80 percent death toll for the whole of the German principalities, though I really doubt it).

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

On 4/20/2016 at 7:49 PM, TimJames said:

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.

How brutal medieval wars were varied from conflict to conflict and from army to army. There were certainly many wars that involved just as much killings of civilians and devastation as what we see in the War of the Five Kings. This was not unique to the Middle Ages either, and is not related to them being an especially dark period of history. If anything classical and ancient warfare was probably worse, due to the then common practice of enslaving entire defeated populations and so on. As for Renaissance and Early Modern warfare it was pretty similar to medieval warfare in this regard as far as I know. Sacking cities and burning villages was definitely a part of many conflicts back then too at least.

As an example when the part of Sweden I live in was conquered from Denmark during the late 1600's, villages that were suspected of supporting pro-Danish rebels were punished by having all males between 15-65 executed and all their harvests burned, and actual rebels that had the misfortune of getting caught were impaled on stakes. This was not a very atypical method for putting down insurgencies at the time. 

[John Doe]

On 19.4.2016 at 3:19 PM, JCRB's Honeypot said:

I dunno if what Tywin did should be taken as an example of common warfare because what he did was pretty much terrorism. He wanted to provoke the Tullys and Ned. He always had that intention. That's Gregor's purpose.

The difference between war and terrorism, especially in a period like the middle age, depends on which side you're on. 

Hoster Tully put whole villages to the sword because their liege lord followed his king. Yet neither Eddard nor Catelyn nor anyone else thinks less highly of him. 

Stark troops, who are supposedly allies of the Riverlands, terrorized the population to a point where there was no difference to Tywin's men anymore. They also "paid the Westerlands back in kind", and took their live stock away. 

Merribald and Varys agree that the smallfolk suffers in war. 

Do you have another example of "common warfare" that contradicts that picture?

 

[Abdallah]

On 4/19/2016 at 7:27 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

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

This was before his betrayal. Even without the brave companions Robb did the same thing to the Westerlands. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 27/4/2016 at 2:15 AM, Abdallah said:

This was before his betrayal. Even without the brave companions Robb did the same thing to the Westerlands. 

I do believe that Robb attacking innocent people was something beyond idiotic. However to say that Roose is an example for Robb is also silly.

[Abdallah]

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I do believe that Robb attacking innocent people was something beyond idiotic. However to say that Roose is an example for Robb is also silly.

the whole "Robb is to blame for Roose having the Brave Companions" is weak and unnecessary when all one needs to do is see what he did to the Westerlands.  

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Abdallah said:

the whole "Robb is to blame for Roose having the Brave Companions" is weak and unnecessary when all one needs to do is see what he did to the Westerlands.  

I don't remember saying that Robb is to blame for BCompanion. However I do blame him for what he and his army did in Westerlands.

[RainGhost]

I think the war in the riverlands is so violent because GRRM is making the point that Tywin went above and beyond what was necessary. I think it's a deliberate exaggeration of medieval warfare to show the type of person that Tywin is and what he's capable of. Even in-universe people think it's over the top. Brynden Tully said: "it would sicken even the dead" and we know that he's no stranger to war and doesn't share Edmure's love of the smallfolk.

[Abdallah]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't remember saying that Robb is to blame for BCompanion. However I do blame him for what he and his army did in Westerlands.

oh not you, other people have been.

[Jasta11]

I'm pretty sure the atrocities comitted by Gregor and the Bloody Mummers are considered beyond the pale, even in-universe. 

With that being said, civilians always suffer the most in war. That was (mostly) true in the Middles Ages, and without going into details is very much true today.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 4/5/2016 at 0:32 AM, Abdallah said:

oh not you, other people have been.

I see. I do blame Robb for what he did in Westerlands, but can we blame him for what the Brave Companion did in Riverlands?

[Abdallah]

15 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I see. I do blame Robb for what he did in Westerlands, but can we blame him for what the Brave Companion did in Riverlands?

I don't think he knew that Roose turned the brave companions. Though it was Tywin's mistake to recruit such a group. Monsters have their uses but some dogs are too vicious. I might of signed the Storm Crows or Second Sons instead. Vargo Hoat is one of the worst people ever imagined. I really hate Gregor Clegane but as bad as this might sound I'm happy about what he did to Hoat. 

[Bluesnow]

On 4/19/2016 at 4:44 AM, AnarchoPrimitiv said:

  Aside from seige warfare, from what I've studied, medieval warfare wasn't typified by indiscriminate killing on such a scale, so I'm curious as to why GRRM went to such lengths to make it seem that way...does anyone else feel as though the War of Five Kings had very few battles and was primarily the Lannisters just killing Peasants?

I also have a history back round and I thought the same thing reading it. 
Historically civilians being a target is a more modern notion. Its purpose has been psychologically hurting a nations will to continue, hurting  their ability to keep the cogs in the machine going that fuel the war, a result of flying/bombs more far reaching powerful weapons, and a result of guerrilla warfare where the civilians and militants intermingle. 

Most of these are completely irrelevant though xD
We just got some crazy generals with some intense bloodlust. 
In the riverlands the brotherhood without banners are acting somewhat in a guerrilla ware fare type manner.... but I think that was the response to the rape and murder- not what caused it. 

I always felt that what happened to Arya made more sense- she was taken more or less as a slave to work in their camp by Gregor's camp. Getting the small folk to work for you seems like a better idea that torturing and murdering every last one. But the people doing the killing aren't exactly the smartest. 

[Drekinn]

I recommend you to read Chinese history. Many events and historical figures are ripped from the books, sort of speak. Political intrigues, nobility civil wars, incest, bloody dinners, scheming eunuchs (literally), and so on. And many times towns, villages were razed and it's citizens executed en masse for being ruled by the wrong side. See also mercenary groups pillaging small settlements ending in bloody results.