SeanF

As I said, it's a mitigating factor. But, Joffrey could still be found guilty, under a modern legal system. If Sansa enjoyed tormenting people for kicks, then indeed, she should be judged by the same standard as Joffrey.

Cheap labour to keep wages down, and cheap imports to keep prices down, is the wet dream of some business leaders and central bankers, but it's incredibly short-termist.

There’s a lot of bed-wetting about labour shortages pushing up wages in the UK, right now. Which misses the point that capitalism depends, for its survival, on enough people having a stake in the system. There are some people for whom the world is never enough, like the CEO in the O/P. An equal problem, in both public and private sectors, is that once you attain a certain level, there is no penalty for failure.

Arya is obviously this tale’s equivalent of The Cousins from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul.

It depends what the child is guilty of. Sansa is guilty of being stuck up and stupid for most of the first book. Joffrey is guilty of tormenting people and animals for fun. To a large extent, Joffrey is treated as an adult, within the book universe (people obey his orders to execute Ned Stark, or sexually assault Sansa, for example). One can certainly make the argument that Joffrey is still very immature, which is a mitigating factor, in terms of his cruelty. But, he's also old enough to know that hurting people for his own amusement is wrong. If Joffrey simply takes bad decisions, then it's much easier to make the excuse of naivety, as with Sansa.

So far, Brienne has only used violence against sick and depraved people, rather than noble characters such as Daeron, the insurance broker, Raff, the Tickler, or Eastern slave lords.

The big difference in fandom attitudes towards male and female characters comes with attitudes towards the use of violence, in my opinion. Women who use violence are frequently branded “mad,” “evil”, most obviously Dany, and Arya, but sometimes Catelyn, too. Men who use violence are just carrying out a soldier’s duty, aside from the obvious psychopaths, like Ramsay or Ser Gregor.

Pretty well any European soldier was a soldier of fortune, in the 15th to 18th centuries, as feudal retinues ceased to be a thing, but before armies became motivated by nationalism. But, it would be wrong to think they all behaved like the Bloody Mummers or Ser Gregor's followers. And, it's quite plain from the books that their behaviour is at the extreme end of what happens in war. The author himself has said that an outfit like The Golden Company is in a different league to the Bloody Mummers.

Tywin himself remarks that some work is fit for Dogs and Goats (ie Clegane's and Hoat's men), but a lot of Lannister soldiers want no part of it.

Fair enough about Yugoslavia, but Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger were basically the scum of Germany's prison population, sent to fight as alternative to execution or the concentration camps.

Jaehaerys’ books of law make no sense, without a class of judges to implement them. What you might expect to find is several different forms of customary law, in each one of the Seven Kingdoms (and perhaps within Great lordships, in those kingdoms). Such laws could only be amended with the consent of the lord paramount and a Diet of local magnates). Local courts would handle them. Over and above that would be royal laws, dealing with treason, other serious criminal matters, commerce and shipping, taxation, and all matters pertaining to clashes between different customary law codes. They should be handled by royal judges. Eg The inheritance customs of Dorne will differ with those of the Vale. What happens if a Dornish brother and sister clash over inheriting property in the Vale. You need a court that can rule on that point.

No. Foraging for food means seizing supplies, and killing those who resist. But most people don’t resist, because it would be pointless. The Bloody Mummers and Ser Gregor’s men murder, rape, and torture for the fun of it. They pillage, in addition to those pastimes. Even among hard cases, gnawing off a septa’s tits, and gang-raping an innkeep’s daughter, in peacetime, is abnormal.

Maybe it’s better to let them breed on this (and similar) threads, rather than have them affect the whole site.

Most deaths of non-combatants in TWOT5K can be pinned on the Lannisters. They threw the first punches, started the invasion of the Riverlands, and resorted to total war very quickly. They pillaged extensively, both to supply their own armies, and to deprive their enemies of supplies. And, as Tywin's and Kevan's conversation at the end of AGOT shows, they were willing to use murder, arson, and rape, as deliberate terror tactics. Most, but not all. Everybody pillaged, and the Riverlords hanged suspected collaborators. Deaths from starvation or disease in Kings Landing were likely in the tens of thousands, given that refugees fled into the city. The Tyrells are to blame for those deaths. Cutting the supply of food, combined with an increase in demand would have sent prices soaring. Although we aren't given base figures for prices of food, it's clear from Tyrion's POV that food prices are now well above normal, and of course, there's the bread riot. Robb's army pillaged the West, and probably did worse than pillage, given the reference to "paying back in kind." OTOH, there were only 6,000 of them, and the raid only lasted a few weeks. 35,000 Lannister soldiers were in the Riverlands for months. I could envisage the Lannisters as holding principal moral responsibility for 75% of civilian deaths.

Nice parody.

Sexuality aside, Renly seems as if he could manage the nobility. i don’t think he would have been a particularly bad king, by the lights of his world, but nothing suggests he would be a particularly good one, either. He has a casual disregard for human life, thinks nothing of inflicting suffering on his purported subjects, and sees war as a round of feasting and parties.

As @Alester Florentsaid, fine the lords heavily that lost, in return for their receiving pardons. Woo and flatter the Tyrells and make clear they need to cough up, if the their daughter is to have any future as queen.

But, we see people like Hoat, Urswyck, Shagwell & co., up close, and they are complete scum, even by contemporary standards.

The Bloody Mummers are just a bunch of psychopaths, not at all typical of soldiers of fortune. They resemble Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, or the Ustase, more than the Hessians or King’s German Legion. War is just an excuse for their favourite pastimes, murder, rape, and torture.

Don’t forget the shit, either. A big reason why so many soldiers fall victim to disease is that they have to march through tons of the stuff, deposited by cavalry horses and draught animals. Once soldiers march out of their immediate locality, you’re lucky if half of them return home.

Even in the Thirty Years War, or The Deluge, most civilian deaths came about as a result of pillage, rather than murder. Simply, big armies needed to obtain vast supplies, through foraging. My own study is the Peninsular War. Something as banal as the French confiscating one fifth of the wine crop in La Rioja, in 1810, would devastate local farmers. 10% of the Spanish died in 1808-14, mostly due to famine caused by the Imperial armies.

Yet, Tywin's campaign of total war gets never a mention...

I’ve sometimes thought there should have been a Cersei/Joffrey love scene in the books. ”My sweet boy, come home to mummy.”

Leave aside the whole business of the Fieschi letter, and assume Edward II was put to death. Prince Edward, and Isabella had both committed treason, in Edward II’s eyes. The choice was between his death and his revenge. No, I don’t think he would have held it against Mortimer. Lord Maltravers, who was widely believed to have been implicated in Edward II’s murder, was allowed to go into exile, and eventually pardoned.

Mortimer grew too power-hungry. There’s no reason to believe that Edward III disliked him or his mother, or objected to his father’s overthrow (in fact his father’s regime was so discredited, he had no option but to step up). But Mortimer got very greedy, was reluctant to give up power as regent, and bullied Edward into executing his uncle Edward of Kent. Mortimer could have lived out his days as a respected elder statesman. Robert would have had about 12 years as regent, time to befriend Aegon, and Elia and the Dornish would likely have supported him. OTOH, if the issue was debated at all by rebel leaders, most probably thought “why take the chance.” Once Robert claimed the throne, things were always likely to go down the way they did.