What actions warrant an overlord hanging/beheading his vassals?

[CassBlackfyre]

spilling his wine over his liege lords fancy new doublet

[SeanF]

This is kind of an interesting topic because it isn't super-well spelled out in the books what the duties/obligations are of a vassal to an overlord and vice versa. For example, if one's liege lord is in open rebellion against the crown does the vassal still have an obligation to fight on his side? Do you betray your overlord or your king?

That depends entirely on who wins.

If your overlord wins, your behaviour is disgraceful. If the King wins, you are the very model of honour.

[fuem]

TREASON IS TREASON

[SeanF]

I'm not sure what the equivalent is to treason when it comes to breaching one's obligations to an overlord.

The Lords Paramount are almost kings in their own right and likely look upon such behaviour as treason.

The circumstances in which a lord would punish a vassal, and the harshness of the punishment, would vary depending on the character of the lord.

I expect Ned is unusual in being willing to execute a leading vassal for selling poachers into slavery. Most lords would probably do no more than fine a vassal who did that - if even that.

Waging war against one's overlord; killing an overlord, or a member of his immediate family, or threatening to do so, or murdering someone under his protection, would all merit a death sentence, I should think. In the case of the first of those, it's possible that some penalty other than death would be applied, as part of a peace deal, such as fining, or confiscation of lands.

Although I've only read one Dunk and Egg story, several posters have commented on one in which Bloodraven is considered to have dealt very harshly with a convicted traitor by confiscating 90% of his lands. OTOH, the Reynes, Castameres, and Darklyns would have jumped at the chance to be punished so lightly.

IMO, the extermination of the women and children of those three families goes well beyond what would be considered legitimate punishment in Westeros.

[Maia]

Although I've only read one Dunk and Egg story, several posters have commented on one in which Bloodraven is considered to have dealt very harshly with a convicted traitor by confiscating 90% of his lands. OTOH, the Reynes, Castameres, and Darklyns would have jumped at the chance to be punished so lightly.

IMO, the extermination of the women and children of those three families goes well beyond what would be considered legitimate punishment in Westeros.

In "The Mystery Knight" Bloodraven executed everybody who took a pardon after the first rebellion, yet rose again. Also, do we know that Osgrey's daughter became a silent sister completely voluntarily? There is more than one way to exstinguish a House with conveniently few surviving members....

Tarbecks were pardoned many times, yet continued to rebel at every opportunity, so their crimes were actually even graver. Also, at least Lady Tarbeck was clearly an active traitor herself, if not the primary mover behind the whole thing. So, yea, we don't know enough to really compare.

Generally, I have often seen the notion that Tywin somehow changed the rules by extinguishing Tarbecks and Reynes, but I don't believe that such was the case. Implicit threat of an ultimate punishment for a misbehaing House is always there, it is just very rarely invoked, IMHO.

Darklyns... They didn't just take a king prisoner, but also physically assaulted and humiliated him in public. That's not to say that their punishment wasn't exessive, but let's not forget that their crimes were quite extravagant.

A more balanced monarch would have forced their women and girls to join the Faith and sent boys to the Night's Watch, I imagine, but House Darklyn had to be destroyed either way, IMHO. But then again, a more balanced monarch likely wouldn't have been taken prisoner, so...

[Talleyrand]

Murder of another noble, treason - though other than in tyrants this is only likely in cases with strong evidence as you can't go around killing lords on flimsy evidence or they'll rise against you

[James Arryn]

Tarbecks were pardoned many times, yet continued to rebel at every opportunity, so their crimes were actually even graver. Also, at least Lady Tarbeck was clearly an active traitor herself, if not the primary mover behind the whole thing. So, yea, we don't know enough to really compare.

Generally, I have often seen the notion that Tywin somehow changed the rules by extinguishing Tarbecks and Reynes, but I don't believe that such was the case. Implicit threat of an ultimate punishment for a misbehaing House is always there, it is just very rarely invoked, IMHO.

That's inaccurate. We don't even know if the Tarbecks were ever pardoned.

For unspecified reasons, Tytos imprisoned Lord Tarbeck. In response Lady Tarbeck imprisoned 3 Lannisters. There is no mention of any pardons, merely the assumption that some kind of reconciliation was reached with an exchange of the hostages. Note this is specifically not called a rebellion anywhere; for all we know Tytos was completely in the wrong in his imprisonment of Lord Tarbeck.

Anyways, no mention of a pardon. The Tarbecks DID rebel a couple years later, with the Reynes, and Tywin had them completley exterminated. As he did with the Reynes who we have never heard of having any kind of conflict with the Lannisters previously.

We can't say for sure that Tywon rewrote the rule book. We can say for sure that his actions were noteworthy enough to become famous throughout Westeros and remain so generations later.

[SeanF]

In "The Mystery Knight" Bloodraven executed everybody who took a pardon after the first rebellion, yet rose again. Also, do we know that Osgrey's daughter became a silent sister completely voluntarily? There is more than one way to exstinguish a House with conveniently few surviving members....

Tarbecks were pardoned many times, yet continued to rebel at every opportunity, so their crimes were actually even graver. Also, at least Lady Tarbeck was clearly an active traitor herself, if not the primary mover behind the whole thing. So, yea, we don't know enough to really compare.

Generally, I have often seen the notion that Tywin somehow changed the rules by extinguishing Tarbecks and Reynes, but I don't believe that such was the case. Implicit threat of an ultimate punishment for a misbehaing House is always there, it is just very rarely invoked, IMHO.

Darklyns... They didn't just take a king prisoner, but also physically assaulted and humiliated him in public. That's not to say that their punishment wasn't exessive, but let's not forget that their crimes were quite extravagant.

A more balanced monarch would have forced their women and girls to join the Faith and sent boys to the Night's Watch, I imagine, but House Darklyn had to be destroyed either way, IMHO. But then again, a more balanced monarch likely wouldn't have been taken prisoner, so...

I do wonder what possessed the Darklyns to go as far they did.

The punishment of Lady Darklyn was hideous, but maybe she did go out of her way to mistreat Aerys in captivity?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I do wonder what possessed the Darklyns to go as far they did.

The punishment of Lady Darklyn was hideous, but maybe she did go out of her way to mistreat Aerys in captivity?

Panic. Plain old panic. Seizing Aerys was a spur of the moment action, and they knew that they were in the deep and brown afterwards with no way out.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I expect Ned is unusual in being willing to execute a leading vassal for selling poachers into slavery. Most lords would probably do no more than fine a vassal who did that - if even that.

I was just wondering about this and I'm not so sure. Other posters questioned how heirs of an executed lord would react (ie Harrion Karstark) and I thought of Maege Mormont. Although Jorah's aunt, she was also his heir. While Jorah wasn't executed, I think we can agree that was the intent. Without that pardon that he earned by being a spy, his life would be forfeit if he returned to Westeros. (I think we can also agree Ned wouldn't have agreed to the pardon if it were up to him.) Yet the Mormonts seem to have remained passionate supporters of House Stark.

I think it comes down to one's notion of lordship (or kingship-- as you noted the LP are virtual kings in their domains, especially the Starks) Those who approach it with the philosophy of the lord (king) belonging to his people, and being all about providing for them would be very likely to take that type of crime very seriously, imo. While arguably those types of lords are few and far between in Westeros (which lends to your statement above), we do see it in the Starks and it is strongly implied in Dany (as an aside-- I've always wondered we she learned this lesson as it's the opposite of her brother's approach) and Varys talks about fAegon learning that a king must "put his people first." One of the main themes of asoiaf in fact, is the stark contrasts in ideals of leadership and applied leadership. We're starting to see as Lannister power wanes that there is a huge difference between rule of fear and rule of loyalty. Those who rule with honor and the best interests of their people in mind will inspire the most loyalty, which I predict will be a major theme to come.

For the record, I think Ned and Robb were both completely justified in condemning Jorah Mormont and Rickard Karstark as both caused irreparable harm to innocents whose well being was the responsibility of House Stark. Interestingly, it is those exact crimes-- slavery and child killing-- which seem to concern Dany the most, a parallel I imagine will be significant going forward.

[SeanF]

I was just wondering about this and I'm not so sure. Other posters questioned how heirs of an executed lord would react (ie Harrion Karstark) and I thought of Maege Mormont. Although Jorah's aunt, she was also his heir. While Jorah wasn't executed, I think we can agree that was the intent. Without that pardon that he earned by being a spy, his life would be forfeit if he returned to Westeros. (I think we can also agree Ned wouldn't have agreed to the pardon if it were up to him.) Yet the Mormonts seem to have remained passionate supporters of House Stark.

I think it comes down to one's notion of lordship (or kingship-- as you noted the LP are virtual kings in their domains, especially the Starks) Those who approach it with the philosophy of the lord (king) belonging to his people, and being all about providing for them would be very likely to take that type of crime very seriously, imo. While arguably those types of lords are few and far between in Westeros (which lends to your statement above), we do see it in the Starks and it is strongly implied in Dany (as an aside-- I've always wondered we she learned this lesson as it's the opposite of her brother's approach) and Varys talks about fAegon learning that a king must "put his people first." One of the main themes of asoiaf in fact, is the stark contrasts in ideals of leadership and applied leadership. We're starting to see as Lannister power wanes that there is a huge difference between rule of fear and rule of loyalty. Those who rule with honor and the best interests of their people in mind will inspire the most loyalty, which I predict will be a major theme to come.

For the record, I think Ned and Robb were both completely justified in condemning Jorah Mormont and Rickard Karstark as both caused irreparable harm to innocents whose well being was the responsibility of House Stark. Interestingly, it is those exact crimes-- slavery and child killing-- which seem to concern Dany the most, a parallel I imagine will be significant going forward.

Those are excellent points, and the Mormonts plainly don't consider that Jorah Mormont was hard done by.

Rather, they think that he brought disgrace on their House. It must help that Ned, (so far as we are aware) took no reprisals against the rest of that House, and Maege took over as Lady of Bear Island.

I think that other lords might very well disapprove of such behaviour on the part of a vassal, without believing that it warranted a death sentence. And, some vassals might be far too powerful to punish in that way. For example, could Ned have got away with executing Roose Bolton, had the latter sold poachers into slavery, and chosen to defy him with the backing of the Ryswells and Dustins? Roose, of course, takes care not to let the Starks know of his crimes, but I'm inclined to think someone of his importance would be facing fines and loss of lands, rather than execution.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

The 'Late' Walder Frey would have lost his head if Ned was his Lord during Roberts Rebellion.

[dragonsrule]

Davos and Stannis discuss this in ASOS and the answer is it is not clear. Stannis does not know if supporting Robert in the rebellion was the right thing or if he should have stuck with Aerys.

[JonathanTheBold]

"my father taught me it was death to draw steel against your liege lord." Robb Stark(paraphrase)

Your meat is bloody though