War Crimes and Guest Rights

[300 H&H Magnum]

1. The Reynes of Castamere
2. Destruction of House Darklyn
3. The murder of Ellia, Rhaenys, and Aegon
4. The Red Wedding
5. Mance + Spearwives murder the servants of their host
6. Jaime pushes Bran from the tower
7. The Sack of King's Landing

All of these violated the spirit of guest rights because one of the parties involved harmed either guest or host.  I want to extend a challenge to you dedicated fans out there to

1. Identify the guest rights violated.  Who violated what?  Who was the guest, who was the host?
2. Then defend the actions of Tywin, Aerys, Gregor, Walder, Mance, Jaime, and Tywin.  
3. Thirdly, take the prosecutor's point of view and indict Tywin, Aerys, Gregor, Walder, Mance, Jaime, and Tywin.

[Good Guy Garlan]

#3 doesn't involve any violation of guest rights. Gregor and Amory Lorch weren't guests, they were part of an invading army. 

Was it a horrendous breach of protocol, like the destruction of the Reynes? Yes, but that's different from breaking guest rights. 

[House Beaudreau]

violating guess right and war crimes seem like different things to me, for War Crimes to occur I think you need to be at war and  breaking the accepted laws. 

Guest right violations

1. The Red Wedding
2. Dany double crossing Astapor
3. The fall of Crasters Keep
4. Jamie pushing Bran
5. Mance and the Spearwives
6. House Darklyn taking Aerys 

War Crimes 

1. Dany using Dragons in Astapor. 
2. The Yunkai flinging plaque corpses into Meereen
3. Lannister forces foraging in Riverlands
4. The Death of Elia and her children
5. The sack of King's Landing
6. Wiping out house Hollard. (I can give Aerys a pass on the Darklyns because they did commit treason) 
7. Theon Killing the millers boys
8. Ramsey flaying Theon
9. The Iron born raping the lord of the Shield Island's family

 

[Shi Qiang]

3 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The Reynes of Castamere

1. Destruction of House Darklyn
2. The murder of Ellia, Rhaenys, and Aegon
3. The Red Wedding
4. Mance + Spearwives murder the servants of their host
5. Jaime pushes Bran from the tower
6. The Sack of King's Landing

All of these violated the spirit of guest rights because one of the parties involved harmed either guest or host.  I want to extend a challenge to you dedicated fans out there to

1. Identify the guest rights violated.  Who violated what?  Who was the guest, who was the host?
2. Then defend the actions of Tywin, Aerys, Gregor, Walder, Mance, Jaime, and Tywin.  
3. Thirdly, take the prosecutor's point of view and indict Tywin, Aerys, Gregor, Walder, Mance, Jaime, and Tywin.

Violation of Guest Rights

1. Jaime tossing Bran out of the window.  Self-explanatory, Jaime harmed his host.  Jaime is the guest, Bran the host.
2. The red wedding.  Walder is the host, the Starks were guests.
3. Mance and his team killing the men in service to his host.  The bastard Jon at the wall is partly responsible for this but Mance did the deed.  Mance acting on Jon's behalf was the guest and the Boltons were the hosts.
4. The Darklyns violated guest rights when they took King Aerys prisoner and tortured him.

Defense

1. Tywin acted legally because we can assume that he had the king's blessing to wipe out the Tarbecks and the Reynes.
2. King Aerys had the right to wipe out the Darklyns for holding his royal person in prison and torturing the royal person.  Besides, he is the ruling king and comes from an unbroken line of Targaryen monarchs.
3. Walder performed a valuable service to realm when he brought down the Stark rebellion. 
4. Mance was forced to do what he did.  Jon Snow was holding his 'son' hostage and made him attack the Boltons.
5. Jaime was a member of the Kingsguard and protecting his queen is more important than the life of one little Bran Stark.

 

[Rondo]

16 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

1. The Reynes of Castamere
2. Destruction of House Darklyn
3. The murder of Ellia, Rhaenys, and Aegon
4. The Red Wedding
5. Mance + Spearwives murder the servants of their host
6. Jaime pushes Bran from the tower
7. The Sack of King's Landing

4, 5, 6 are clear violations of the guest rights custom. 

1, 2, 3, 7 are acts of war.  Aerys was most justified in destroying the Darklyns but the killing their children is too far.  I give him credit for showing mercy to Dontos Hollard. Tywin had the right to kill the heads of houses Reynes and Tarbecks but putting the children to death is going too far.  The murder of Elia and her children is a war crime.  Sacking the city was an atrocity but it was a way to reward the troops. 

Quote

 

 

[Tralalala]

4 minutes ago, Tour De Force said:

 Aerys was most justified in destroying the Darklyns but the killing their children is too far.  I give him credit for showing mercy to Dontos Hollard. Tywin had the right to kill the heads of houses Reynes and Tarbecks but putting the children to death is going too far.  The murder of Elia and her children is a war crime.  Sacking the city was an atrocity but it was a way to reward the troops. 

 

Why? I'ts war what does it matter if a child or not?

[Nevets]

17 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Mance was forced to do what he did.  Jon Snow was holding his 'son' hostage and made him attack the Boltons.

Jon did not force Mance to do anything.  Mance was quite happy to go out after Arya.  in any case, Jon sent him to the wilderness to conduct a quiet, discreet rescue of a fugitive, not to take on the Boltons directly.  Winterfell was simply not on the agenda.  Jon's thoughts clearly show that he felt that as long as Arya was in the Boltons' possession, she was on her own.

In his defense, it can be argued that the Manderlys are the actual hosts because they are the ones providing the food and drink.  Also, it isn't the Boltons' castle.  It is the Starks castle.  That, at least, would be the Northerners' viewpoint.

[Son of Man]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Jon did not force Mance to do anything.  Mance was quite happy to go out after Arya.  in any case, Jon sent him to the wilderness to conduct a quiet, discreet rescue of a fugitive, not to take on the Boltons directly.  Winterfell was simply not on the agenda.  Jon's thoughts clearly show that he felt that as long as Arya was in the Boltons' possession, she was on her own.

In his defense, it can be argued that the Manderlys are the actual hosts because they are the ones providing the food and drink.  Also, it isn't the Boltons' castle.  It is the Starks castle.  That, at least, would be the Northerners' viewpoint.

The Boltons defeated the Starks.  The Iron Throne gave them Winterfell.  Therefore, the Boltons are the hosts and Mance violated guest rights when he murdered the Bolton serving men.  Jon sent Mance and he is therefore responsible for what his agents do on his behalf.  Jon is liable because he sent Mance on that mission.

 

[Protagoras]

Lets see.

1 - Isn´t Guest right but a breach of agreement by Tywin, ignoring the edict of his father. This one is pretty justified imo. You could argue that Tywin broke word, but so did the Reynes and Tarbecks many, many times before that and they sort of got what they deserved. If you want to criticise I think you could make a better case that Tywins treatment of the offenders was too brutal compared to the insult suffered (The execution of the male Tarbecks, the rerouting of the river etc).This "crime" has also been approved by the legal king of Westeros by that time (considering the reward to a handship) thereby making any accusation moot and placing the responsibility on Aerys, so unless willing to start a cultural war with imperialistic intent to "show those primitives in Westeros" to treat people with respect and kindness by killing and slaughtering them this should be dropped.

2 - The Darklyns certainly broke guest right when they decided to arrest Aerys, true. This is of course assuming that the king was presented bread and salt, but I see no reason to assume that he wasn´t. And if he wasn´t, he was ambushed under a flag of truce, a white flag so to speak. All this are serious war crimes. And not only was he imprisoned, but the Lace serpent also have the audacity that a man entering their keep under such circumstances should be killed. She more than enough deserved the sexual torture performed upon her, a key testament that so called "basic human rights" should not be a protection from Justice and Tit-for-tat. I have a hard time defending the Darklyns tbh. At best you could argue that Aerys should only have demanded the head from those involved in the act itself and that the torture should be lighter, but then again - if northern fanboys can demand a river of blood on all Freys then certainly this is par for the course.

3 - Not a guest right crime, but more of a severe war crime with low public approval (And that explains Tywins will to blame it on his unruly servants). However - again the king, Robert in this case, refuses to punish Tywin, placing the responsibility on himself, so (again) unless willing to start a cultural war with imperialistic intent to "show those primitives in Westeros" to treat people with respect and kindness by killing and slaughtering them this should be dropped. Compared with 1, this comes off as more despicable since the children (and maybe Elia too if you believe the rumors) were specifically targeted despite having no part in the conflict (compared to say Lord Tarbeck in the first case). This is the only case so far where I can see the prosecution win - after all, this act was not seen as morally ok by the people (nobles) of Westeros and the king in question have doubtful legitimacy.

4 - Yeah, one of the more atrocius acts in the book, an overreation by the strongest possible means, break guest right in one of the clearer ways possible. Lord Frey has with one acts broken all rules of warfare and made any type of diplomacy very risky. From now on, people won´t be able to visit an enemy under their roof to end an conflict, to do diplomacy to end suffering. And there is a reason why diplomats even today have a diplomatic immunity.This was not a desperate capture of a king like 2, but a carefully planned act with the intent to kill of an enemy entirely under false flag. All involved must be executed or sent to the wall, some torture and or painful death for the leaders and stripping the Freys of the crossing. I tend to agree with the gods and their view of kinslaying according to the westerosi lore. I can´t see the defence have any chance here. At best they can reduce the damage and lessen the sentence.

5 - Another clear case of guest right, but there are some lenience here. First, you could and should argue that due to the act above, the rule of guest right is no longer active, that due to the Freys there can´t really be any complaing if others do the same thing. Tit for that and all that. Further, you could argue that guest right is not something that wildlings (which are not under westerosi jurisdiction) should consider. However, since they seem to have the same thing (and also due that Westeros rules should apply in Westeros) this argument should have no weight. I am still unwilling to give a sentence here on them (and in lesser ways - to Jon Snow, who sent them/allowed them to leave - but had no idea how they would perform their task), but if the purpose of a westerosi court is to ignore tit for tat and instead punish everyone for crimes commited, performing the Frey senytance describe above (and assume that said rulership from Robert and continuing are seen as illegal), the suitable should be to execute Mance under pain (Burning seems like a good idea), executing the spearwives by axe and strip Jon Snow of his command in the Nights watch, forbidding him to hold a position of power within the next 10 years. But I can see the defence turn this around, giving more lenient sentances.

6. Clear-cut. Jaime pushes Bran, an innocent due to his and Cerseis personal secrets, despite being guest. It´s a class A murder and should mean a certain execution of Jaime. Any kind of defense that he protected Cersei as a kingsguard should fall flat, since he was the reason she was threatened in the first place and not by violence nor ill intent. Cersei is trickier. She is certainly an accomplice, but its not clear exactly how much she wanted said outcome and what effect she exactly had and if said effect make her guilty to the crime. I would suggest a permanent ban to enter the North, under pain of death but am uncertain if said ruling could be given to the ruling queen of Westeros. And that the king overrides is likely. The defence could claim that Brans knowledge made him a possible threat to the queen, but since Bran never got the chance to do anything, this preemptive strike looks bad simply that is was on a minor under (again) guest right.

7. The court laughs at this accusation. At best is is a war crime (and clearly not a guest right crime) and you could argue that sneaking up on a city to sack it is making false flag, but the truth here is that sackings were seen as ok, both in Westeros and in our world. It has been common practice throughout recorded history. For foot soldiers, it was viewed as a way to supplement their low income and for nobles it was a way to pay soldiers less. Think of it as tipping. At best, you could argue that Tywin broke protocol (again), but acting dishonest in war are no news. Indeed, the court find that if this warrant punishment then so do many acts. And the failure of history to punish this should be seen as a sight of morality and creating an intersubjective morality. Case is thrown out of court - no chance for the accusers to win.

 

[Dorian Martell's son]

On 4/13/2017 at 7:41 PM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

All of these violated the spirit of guest rights because one of the parties involved harmed either guest or host.  I want to extend a challenge to you dedicated fans out there to

Nope, only three of those are. I want to extend a challenge to you to list the ones that are actual violations of the guest right 

[Luddagain]

Guest right ONLY applies if people have taken bread and salt (ie food).  When Robb met Tyrion with a sword across his knee he was saying NO GUEST Right.

Jaime certainly broke guest right but it was simple murder also.

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 4/13/2017 at 10:55 PM, Good Guy Garlan said:

 

 

On 4/14/2017 at 3:45 PM, Tour De Force said:

4, 5, 6 are clear violations of the guest rights custom. 

1, 2, 3, 7 are acts of war.  Aerys was most justified in destroying the Darklyns but the killing their children is too far.  I give him credit for showing mercy to Dontos Hollard. Tywin had the right to kill the heads of houses Reynes and Tarbecks but putting the children to death is going too far.  The murder of Elia and her children is a war crime.  Sacking the city was an atrocity but it was a way to reward the troops. 

 

 

On 4/14/2017 at 8:43 PM, Protagoras said:

Lets see.

1 - Isn´t Guest right but a breach of agreement by Tywin, ignoring the edict of his father. This one is pretty justified imo. You could argue that Tywin broke word, but so did the Reynes and Tarbecks many, many times before that and they sort of got what they deserved. If you want to criticise I think you could make a better case that Tywins treatment of the offenders was too brutal compared to the insult suffered (The execution of the male Tarbecks, the rerouting of the river etc).This "crime" has also been approved by the legal king of Westeros by that time (considering the reward to a handship) thereby making any accusation moot and placing the responsibility on Aerys, so unless willing to start a cultural war with imperialistic intent to "show those primitives in Westeros" to treat people with respect and kindness by killing and slaughtering them this should be dropped.

2 - The Darklyns certainly broke guest right when they decided to arrest Aerys, true. This is of course assuming that the king was presented bread and salt, but I see no reason to assume that he wasn´t. And if he wasn´t, he was ambushed under a flag of truce, a white flag so to speak. All this are serious war crimes. And not only was he imprisoned, but the Lace serpent also have the audacity that a man entering their keep under such circumstances should be killed. She more than enough deserved the sexual torture performed upon her, a key testament that so called "basic human rights" should not be a protection from Justice and Tit-for-tat. I have a hard time defending the Darklyns tbh. At best you could argue that Aerys should only have demanded the head from those involved in the act itself and that the torture should be lighter, but then again - if northern fanboys can demand a river of blood on all Freys then certainly this is par for the course.

3 - Not a guest right crime, but more of a severe war crime with low public approval (And that explains Tywins will to blame it on his unruly servants). However - again the king, Robert in this case, refuses to punish Tywin, placing the responsibility on himself, so (again) unless willing to start a cultural war with imperialistic intent to "show those primitives in Westeros" to treat people with respect and kindness by killing and slaughtering them this should be dropped. Compared with 1, this comes off as more despicable since the children (and maybe Elia too if you believe the rumors) were specifically targeted despite having no part in the conflict (compared to say Lord Tarbeck in the first case). This is the only case so far where I can see the prosecution win - after all, this act was not seen as morally ok by the people (nobles) of Westeros and the king in question have doubtful legitimacy.

4 - Yeah, one of the more atrocius acts in the book, an overreation by the strongest possible means, break guest right in one of the clearer ways possible. Lord Frey has with one acts broken all rules of warfare and made any type of diplomacy very risky. From now on, people won´t be able to visit an enemy under their roof to end an conflict, to do diplomacy to end suffering. And there is a reason why diplomats even today have a diplomatic immunity.This was not a desperate capture of a king like 2, but a carefully planned act with the intent to kill of an enemy entirely under false flag. All involved must be executed or sent to the wall, some torture and or painful death for the leaders and stripping the Freys of the crossing. I tend to agree with the gods and their view of kinslaying according to the westerosi lore. I can´t see the defence have any chance here. At best they can reduce the damage and lessen the sentence.

5 - Another clear case of guest right, but there are some lenience here. First, you could and should argue that due to the act above, the rule of guest right is no longer active, that due to the Freys there can´t really be any complaing if others do the same thing. Tit for that and all that. Further, you could argue that guest right is not something that wildlings (which are not under westerosi jurisdiction) should consider. However, since they seem to have the same thing (and also due that Westeros rules should apply in Westeros) this argument should have no weight. I am still unwilling to give a sentence here on them (and in lesser ways - to Jon Snow, who sent them/allowed them to leave - but had no idea how they would perform their task), but if the purpose of a westerosi court is to ignore tit for tat and instead punish everyone for crimes commited, performing the Frey senytance describe above (and assume that said rulership from Robert and continuing are seen as illegal), the suitable should be to execute Mance under pain (Burning seems like a good idea), executing the spearwives by axe and strip Jon Snow of his command in the Nights watch, forbidding him to hold a position of power within the next 10 years. But I can see the defence turn this around, giving more lenient sentances.

6. Clear-cut. Jaime pushes Bran, an innocent due to his and Cerseis personal secrets, despite being guest. It´s a class A murder and should mean a certain execution of Jaime. Any kind of defense that he protected Cersei as a kingsguard should fall flat, since he was the reason she was threatened in the first place and not by violence nor ill intent. Cersei is trickier. She is certainly an accomplice, but its not clear exactly how much she wanted said outcome and what effect she exactly had and if said effect make her guilty to the crime. I would suggest a permanent ban to enter the North, under pain of death but am uncertain if said ruling could be given to the ruling queen of Westeros. And that the king overrides is likely. The defence could claim that Brans knowledge made him a possible threat to the queen, but since Bran never got the chance to do anything, this preemptive strike looks bad simply that is was on a minor under (again) guest right.

7. The court laughs at this accusation. At best is is a war crime (and clearly not a guest right crime) and you could argue that sneaking up on a city to sack it is making false flag, but the truth here is that sackings were seen as ok, both in Westeros and in our world. It has been common practice throughout recorded history. For foot soldiers, it was viewed as a way to supplement their low income and for nobles it was a way to pay soldiers less. Think of it as tipping. At best, you could argue that Tywin broke protocol (again), but acting dishonest in war are no news. Indeed, the court find that if this warrant punishment then so do many acts. And the failure of history to punish this should be seen as a sight of morality and creating an intersubjective morality. Case is thrown out of court - no chance for the accusers to win.

 

 

On 4/15/2017 at 1:58 AM, Dorian Martell's son said:

Nope, only three of those are. I want to extend a challenge to you to list the ones that are actual violations of the guest right 

Excellent points.  I now revise my list of guest right violations.

1. Jaime pushing Bran from the tower.
2. Red Wedding
3. Mance and Spearwives murdering Roose Bolton's serving men (and possibly little Walder)

I toyed with the idea of putting the sack of KL because the Lannisters came in under the guise of friendship.  However, KL is a city and it was more of a battle move rather than seeking shelter from a host.  I do not think it is a matter of guest rights at this point.  And the point was made, sacking is historically accepted as the leader's way of rewarding the people who fought on his behalf. 

On 4/13/2017 at 11:38 PM, House Beaudreau said:

 

I do not think using a superior weapon against the enemy is a war crime.  Wars are won not with valor but with the winning side possessing an advantage.  There are fair duels but battles and wars are won because one side fought with an advantage.

On the defiance of Duskendale, it would depend on whether Aerys was invited and given guarantees of safety.  If Aerys came in uninvited with a small security force, well, shame on him. 

[CornishDornish]

For it to be a war crime don't the parties (countries) involved have to already have an agreed upon code of conduct? Eg: not using weapons of mass destruction, not sacking a city that has already surrendered, avoiding neutral territories etc...

I'm no expert but I'm sure that the medieval world didn't have a concept of war crimes and any atrocities were met with "it's just war, mate!" and anything goes was the order of the day.

 

[Tralalala]

3 hours ago, CornishDornish said:

 "it's just war, mate!" and anything goes was the order of the day.

 

Thats how it is today to be honest,oh sure some politician will cry wolf about it be their own side will do the same...

[House Beaudreau]

On 4/16/2017 at 10:26 AM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

I do not think using a superior weapon against the enemy is a war crime.  Wars are won not with valor but with the winning side possessing an advantage.  There are fair duels but battles and wars are won because one side fought with an advantage.

Real world example tho, is it okay to use nukes just because you have them, is it okay to use bio-weapons or small pox blankets? If Dany burns down Oldtown or Lannisport with Dragon fire will she have to answer for it?

And as far a Aerys and Duskendale, I was more think that the Darklyns committed Treason anyway you look at it guess right or not there is some justification for Aerys actions

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 14/4/2017 at 5:41 AM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

• The murder of Ellia, Rhaenys, and Aegon

Tywin and his men were not guests.

On 14/4/2017 at 5:41 AM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

• Mance + Spearwives murder the servants of their host

Winterfell doesn't belong to the Boltons hence they were never the hosts and Mance and the spearwives were not the guests of the host.

• The Reynes of Castamere

The Reynes were not either guests or hosts of the Lannisters, they were traitors.