Jump to content

War = Slaughtering Peasants?


AnarchoPrimitiv

Recommended Posts

I have a degree in History and studied a good amount of medieval history while getting it, furthermore, I recently brushed up on my medieval history over my curiosity concerning the specific subject of Warfare.  One thing I've noticed in ASOIAF is that it seems as though 95% of the "fighting" in the River lands during the War was just the slaughter of unarmed Peasants (by the Lannisters).  In A Clash of Kings, when Tyrion is Hand, a Lord from the Riverlands visits King's Landing complaining that the Lannisters burned his keep, raped his wife and killed all his smallfolk even though he was loyal, and to this Tyrion simply replies "That's war".  This bothers me for a few reasons, one being that I didn't think Tyrion was that completely heartless, but more so because it seems as though in the novel's, there's only a handful of engagements between armed combatants and the rest is just murdering civilians.  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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lannister men (Clegane, Lorch, Brave companions, Mountain clans)

Stark men (Brave companions)

Tully men

all killed peasents. Robb, Cat, Tywin none care about the smallfolk. If robb wanted to be king he should have built his defenses and just sent a ultimatium either you realse my father or i declare independance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While GRRM has stated that medieval history and the War of the Roses has been an important source of inspiration for him, he draws on many other sources as well. This war, as well as many medieval campaigns were indeed less devastating for the civilian population than the War of the Five Kings.

His inspiration for the harrowing of the Riverlands are probably taken from the 100 years war, where large scale looting was a frequent occurrence, as well as the 30 years war, which is famous for the devastation it caused to the civilian population in many parts of Germany.  Entire regions were virtually void of inhabitants as a result. Some of the scenes in the books (…is there gold in the village) are heavily reminiscent of scenes from the most famous novel concerning this war, the “Simplicius Simplicissimus” by Grimmelshausen.

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”…….

In any case this is a fantasy and not a historical novel, and any comparison to actual history should be taken in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the lives of peasants never matter much during war.

 

Edmure Tully appears to be amongst the few lords, who were willing to protect peasants during the war, Brienne also felt the need to give a proper burial to the girls hanged by the Northmen, 

 

Quote

As they rode out into the bustle of Riverrun’s upper bailey, a naked toddler ran in front of the horses. Catelyn jerked her reins hard to avoid him, glancing about in dismay. Hundreds of smallfolk had been admitted to the castle, and allowed to erect crude shelters against the walls. Their children were everywhere underfoot, and the yard teemed with their cows, sheep, and chickens. “Who are all these folk?”

“My people,” Edmure answered. “They were afraid.”

Only my sweet brother would crowd all these useless mouths into a castle that might soon be under siege. Catelyn knew that Edmure had a soft heart; sometimes she thought his head was even softer. She loved him for it, yet still…

 

Quote

The wench was staring up at one of the dead women. Jaime shuffled closer with small stutter steps, the only kind the foot-long chain permitted. When he saw the crude sign hung about the neck of the highest corpse, he smiled.

They Lay With Lions, he read. Oh, yes, woman, this was most unchivalrously done . . . But by your side, not mine. I wonder who they were, these women?

Tavern wenches, said Ser Cleos Frey.

Quote

The village was just where Notch had promised it would be. They took shelter in a grey stone stable. Only half a roof remained, but that was half a roof more than any other building in the village. It's not a village, it's only black stones and old bones.

"Did the Lannisters kill the people who lived here?" Arya asked as she helped Anguy dry the horses.

"No." He pointed. "Look at how thick the moss grows on the stones. No one's moved them for a long time. And there's a tree growing out of the wall there, see? This place was put to the torch a long time ago."

"Who did it, then?" asked Gendry.

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."

Even Arya has to come to terms with the fact that her grandfather punished peasants.

 

While there are cases where nobles have died during war, some in battle (Torrhen Karstark) or killed by their enemies (Rhaenys and Aegon Targaryen), usually they are kept as hostages by the enemy in exchange for loyalty (Wyllis Manderly) or money (Merret Frey).

Peasants were always more vulnerable and more likely to be exposed at an incoming threat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, norwaywolf123 said:
1 hour ago, AnarchoPrimitiv said:

I have a degree in History and studied a good amount of medieval history while getting it, furthermore, I recently brushed up on my medieval history over my curiosity concerning the specific subject of Warfare.  One thing I've noticed in ASOIAF is that it seems as though 95% of the "fighting" in the River lands during the War was just the slaughter of unarmed Peasants (by the Lannisters).  In A Clash of Kings, when Tyrion is Hand, a Lord from the Riverlands visits King's Landing complaining that the Lannisters burned his keep, raped his wife and killed all his smallfolk even though he was loyal, and to this Tyrion simply replies "That's war".  This bothers me for a few reasons, one being that I didn't think Tyrion was that completely heartless, but more so because it seems as though in the novel's, there's only a handful of engagements between armed combatants and the rest is just murdering civilians.  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?

Lannister men (Clegane, Lorch, Brave companions, Mountain clans)

Stark men (Brave companions)

Tully men

all killed peasents. Robb, Cat, Tywin none care about the smallfolk. If robb wanted to be king he should have built his defenses and just sent a ultimatium either you realse my father or i declare independance

Medieval armies were often well-disciplined (contrary to what many people think).  But, ravaging your enemies' lands was an important part of medieval warfare.  The aim was to maximise economic damage to your enemies, strike terror into the hearts of the common people, and demonstrate to them that their lords or kings could not protect them.  The chevauchee also provided loot, and military supplies.

Even by the standards of the Hundred Years' War though, the behaviour of groups like the Bloody Mummers, and Ser Gregor Clegane and his followers was depraved.

You may enjoy this thread I started on it, a while ago:-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnarchoPrimitiv said:

I have a degree in History and studied a good amount of medieval history while getting it, furthermore, I recently brushed up on my medieval history over my curiosity concerning the specific subject of Warfare.  One thing I've noticed in ASOIAF is that it seems as though 95% of the "fighting" in the River lands during the War was just the slaughter of unarmed Peasants (by the Lannisters).  In A Clash of Kings, when Tyrion is Hand, a Lord from the Riverlands visits King's Landing complaining that the Lannisters burned his keep, raped his wife and killed all his smallfolk even though he was loyal, and to this Tyrion simply replies "That's war".  This bothers me for a few reasons, one being that I didn't think Tyrion was that completely heartless, but more so because it seems as though in the novel's, there's only a handful of engagements between armed combatants and the rest is just murdering civilians.  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?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, norwaywolf123 said:

either you realse my father or i declare independance

Yes. Tywin would had peed his breeches and would had returned Ned and the girls in the North imediatelly.

1 hour ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Stark men (Brave companions)

When was that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your use of the word "slaughtering" in the title for this thread is precisely the message GRRM wants to convey. There is an ongoing comparison of small folk to animals that are slaughtered for meat. The first senseless death is Mycah, the Butcher's Boy. I think the message is that butchers slaughter animals but they can also be slaughtered: if I recall correctly, when Mycah's remains are brought back to the butcher in a sack, he doesn't know, at first, whether he is looking at a slaughtered pig or what.

On the puns and Wordplay thread, I discussed a comparison of Vargo Hoat and Penny's brother, Groat. Both are low-born people who try to get ahead by working for the high-born. Both are slaughtered like goats.

Cleon the butcher king, the Lamb Men who are attacked by the Dothraki, the rotten meat thrown at Cersei during her walk of shame, Dany's dragon eating a shepherd child as easily as eating a sheep - all of these are reminders of the way that the small folk die during war. It's just a Game of Thrones to the high-born, but a nightmare for the small folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, there was someone actually commenting on that (can't remember when) that said Lion, Direwolf or Trout didn't really matter. They all did the same.

One thing to remember is these armies aren't exactly moderna where there is a solid salary and a dependable supply train. Instead armies were often supposed to supply themselves by looting. Abd the salary was basically to get a part of the loot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JonCon'sRedBeard'sHoneypot 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.

I think Tywin was more brutal than the norm.  I imagine the norm is burning down villages and crops, slaughtering or carrying off livestock, and pillaging anything that's valuable.  No doubt, peasants who attempted to resist would be killed and there would be some rape along the way.

Tywin's orders to Ser Kevan at the end of AGOT indicate that his aim was to maximise terror.   Murder, rape, torture, aren't just by-products of raiding, but encouraged from the top.  Ser Gregor and his men torture for the sheer pleasure of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joluoto2 said:

One thing to remember is these armies aren't exactly moderna where there is a solid salary and a dependable supply train. Instead armies were often supposed to supply themselves by looting. Abd the salary was basically to get a part of the loot.

:agree:

I'll admit that I am not a history major, but what little I read during the feudal times suggested that while the nobles generally valued tradesmen (blacksmiths, shipbuilders, stonemasons, etc.) peasants were considered almost in the same light as livestock.  If you went on campaign, you dragged your peasant levies along without much thought to feeding or paying them; so you let them 'forage' for their own food and pay.  

I really liked the chapter when Septon Meribald was trying to give Brienne a little view on what the smallfolk went through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peasants grow the food that maintains armies, indirectly provide their salaries in the form of loot, manufacture the supplies that aid armies in campaigns and provide the backbone of the manpower for said armies. In a heartless way, they are a legitimate military target if you're seeking to undermine an enemy's ability to make war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the early-mid medieval armies relied heavily on conscripted peasants to augment their armies. Also an army is essentially a horde of people, whose people need to be fed and their stress 'relieved'. Loot and sacking didn't only serve to feed the armies and cripple the enemy's economy/morale but also acted as an incentive for soldiers to risk their neck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AnarchoPrimitiv said:

I have a degree in History and studied a good amount of medieval history while getting it, furthermore, I recently brushed up on my medieval history over my curiosity concerning the specific subject of Warfare.  One thing I've noticed in ASOIAF is that it seems as though 95% of the "fighting" in the River lands during the War was just the slaughter of unarmed Peasants (by the Lannisters).  In A Clash of Kings, when Tyrion is Hand, a Lord from the Riverlands visits King's Landing complaining that the Lannisters burned his keep, raped his wife and killed all his smallfolk even though he was loyal, and to this Tyrion simply replies "That's war".  

To be precise, it went like this:

"Next?"

"A lordling down from the Trident, says your father’s men burned his keep, raped his wife, and killed all his peasants."

"I believe they call that war.” Tyrion smelled Gregor Clegane’s work, or that of Ser Amory Lorch or his father’s other pet hellhound, the Qohorik. "What does he want of Joffrey?"

"New peasants," Bronn said. "He walked all this way to sing how loyal he is and beg for recompense."
"I’ll make time for him on the morrow." Whether truly loyal or merely desperate, a compliant river lord might have his uses.

So, Tyrion, while not exactly heartbroken, isn't that dismissive, and he's also aware that his lord father has some real monster in his service, and puts the atrocities on them.
 

5 hours ago, AnarchoPrimitiv said:

This bothers me for a few reasons, one being that I didn't think Tyrion was that completely heartless, but more so because it seems as though in the novel's, there's only a handful of engagements between armed combatants and the rest is just murdering civilians.  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?

If that's your impression, then it's false. The Wo5K had 20+ regular battles and sieges, some of them quite big and important, but yes, the camera would focus on the suffering of the ordinary people, soldiers and civilians, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, daccu65 said:

:agree:

I'll admit that I am not a history major, but what little I read during the feudal times suggested that while the nobles generally valued tradesmen (blacksmiths, shipbuilders, stonemasons, etc.) peasants were considered almost in the same light as livestock.  If you went on campaign, you dragged your peasant levies along without much thought to feeding or paying them; so you let them 'forage' for their own food and pay.  

I really liked the chapter when Septon Meribald was trying to give Brienne a little view on what the smallfolk went through. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...