By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in The Series

[Chaircat Meow]

Why do you think this was a war crime?

Was it unjust per se, to attack Astapor, or is your objection to the methods that were used to seize the city?

Do we know why Dany ordered what she did?

Was it her righteous vengeance thing or did she think he had to kill a lot of the ruling class so she could safely hand the city over to the ex-slaves?

[SeanF]

Do we know why Dany ordered what she did?

Was it her righteous vengeance thing or did she think he had to kill a lot of the ruling class so she could safely hand the city over to the ex-slaves?

Since we're discussing Astapor, I've changed the title.

My own view is that Dany reckoned she was dealing out righteous vengeance on a wicked population.

[Fire Eater]

OP, a little nitpick, the girls encountered by Brienne and Jaime weren't hanged by Piper, it was explicitly stated that they were on Bracken's lands.

• Breach of guest-right
  
• Murder of prisoners whose surrender has been accepted by a commander
  
• Torture as a form of recreation
  
• Rape
  
• Sacking a town that has surrendered.
  
• Violation of the terms of surrender.
  

8. Attacking non-combatants without provocation

The treatment of Aegon I's lords captured by the Dornish and Stark men by Clegane is war crime, it even goes against the rules of chivalry which guarantee good treatment for the highborn.

As someone in another thread told you that was a test for Davos .

Stannis was actually considering Florent's suggestion. We have never known Stannis to do tests like that.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Stannis was actually considering Florent's suggestion. We have never known Stannis to do tests like that.

He did it in ACOK.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

My own view is that Dany reckoned she was dealing out righteous vengeance on a wicked population.

And Walder Frey thought he was showing that oathbreaker Robb Stark what was what.

If we went by people's views of their own actions, no one would be guilty of a war crime.

[Fire Eater]

He did it in ACOK.

Where?

[The Drunkard]

It's a bit depressing that stealing from the small folk doesn't make the list, though I'd agree with you on that. Everyone, in the Riverlands at least, has their men 'forage' the small folk, taking whatever food they need and at best leaving behind a piece of paper promising to pay it back. Even in the west, all those cattle Robb was herding back to Riverrun had to be stolen from someone, and no one in the story gives a shit.

Where?

He relentlessly questions Davos as to why he has such a low opinion of his lords, while Davos is diplomatically holding back on badmouthing them. When Davos finally does call them fickle, Stannis abruptly laughs and says "I told you, Melisandre... my Onion Knight tells me the truth", before agreeing wholeheartedly with him. He was playing devil's advocate to prove something to Melisandre.

The biggest indication that Claw Isle was never truely in danger is Stannis' admission Axell doesn't understand warfare and that "Claw Isle would gain [him] naught". Davos' argument against sacking the island was purely moral, he never brings up the strategic value of the island, so Stannis has held this opinion of Axell and his plan for some time. Even if you consider the man completely amoral, he's not an idiot, nor wasteful.

[SeanF]

It's a bit depressing that stealing from the small folk doesn't make the list, though I'd agree with you on that. Everyone, in the Riverlands at least, has their men 'forage' the small folk, taking whatever food they need and at best leaving behind a piece of paper promising to pay it back. Even in the west, all those cattle Robb was herding back to Riverrun had to be stolen from someone, and no one in the story gives a shit.

.

Pillaging your enemies' lands is considered entirely legitimate. Of course, it means many of the Smallfolk starve.

[Kaguya]

Cersei killing Roberts bastards

[SeanF]

OP, a little nitpick, the girls encountered by Brienne and Jaime weren't hanged by Piper, it was explicitly stated that they were on Bracken's lands.

8. Attacking non-combatants without provocation

The treatment of Aegon I's lords captured by the Dornish and Stark men by Clegane is war crime, it even goes against the rules of chivalry which guarantee good treatment for the highborn.

8. I'm in two minds about that. Certainly, Ned treats Ser Gregor's murderous attack on the villagers as a crime. But, many lords consider peasants who are sworn to their enemies as being entirely legitimate targets for retaliation, even if they're completely innocent.

The Dornish treatment of prisoners is certainly a war crime. As was murdering Daeron I during a parley.

[SeanF]

And Walder Frey thought he was showing that oathbreaker Robb Stark what was what.

If we went by people's views of their own actions, no one would be guilty of a war crime.

Oh for sure. Dany's behaviour at Astapor would clearly be viewed as a war crime by the Giscari. But, probably not in Westeros, given how much they detest Slavers Bay.

[Mithras]

Mithras - There's a surprising lack of bitterness over the sack of Astapor among the Ghiscari. I think the Good Masters had made themselves very unpopular, even among other slave traders. Remember Kraznys' suggestion to Dany that she blood the Unsullied by sacking towns and cities on her route of march. That route would have taken her through territory ruled by Meereen, Yunkai, Tolos, Mantarys etc.

SB cities are rival to each other in trade. So, they probably didnot shed tears for the Good Masters. I am also deadly sure that the Wise Masters are secretly thinking of sacking Meereen and eliminating the Great Masters so that they could be the only slaver class in SB.

But still, the Wise Masters say that Dany is an oathbreaker who mocks the gods, breaks truces, threatens envoys.

We know that the last two accusations are from Dany's surprise attack to Yunkai and her treatment of Kraznys before the attack. But the first one must be from her "trick" in Astapor.

Why do you think this was a war crime?

Was it unjust per se, to attack Astapor, or is your objection to the methods that were used to seize the city?

1. Practically, it was no different than Tywin’s sack of KL. The usual war custom is to sack the cities only if the residents oppose the sieging army with arms. The sieging army offers terms of surrender. In Dany and Tywin's case, they did not offer any terms and they hid their intention to attack the city.

2. Dany's order was a failure. Tokar wearing boys were probably slaughtered. In addition, the Unsullied didn’t have means to measure the age of who opposed them. Some people who were supposed to be spared due to Dany's order were probably killed by the Unsullied.

3. Another thing is that Dany gave her order to the Unsullied but she didn’t give any order to the recently freed slaves. Only the gods know what these newly freedmen did to their masters as soon as they were freed during the Sack.

[SeanF]

SB cities are rival to each other in trade. So, they probably didnot shed tears for the Good Masters. I am also deadly sure that the Wise Masters are secretly thinking of sacking Meereen and eliminating the Great Masters so that they could be the only slaver class in SB.

But still, the Wise Masters say that Dany is an oathbreaker who mocks the gods, breaks truces, threatens envoys.

We know that the last two accusations are from Dany's surprise attack to Yunkai and her treatment of Kraznys before the attack. But the first one must be from her "trick" in Astapor.

1. Practically, it was no different than Tywin’s sack of KL. The usual war custom is to sack the cities only if the residents oppose the sieging army with arms. The sieging army offers terms of surrender. In Dany and Tywin's case, they did not offer any terms and they hid their intention to attack the city.

2. Dany's order was a failure. Tokar wearing boys were probably slaughtered. In addition, the Unsullied didn’t have means to measure the age of who opposed them. Some people who were supposed to be spared due to Dany's order were probably killed by the Unsullied.

3. Another thing is that Dany gave her order to the Unsullied but she didn’t give any order to the recently freed slaves. Only the gods know what these newly freedmen did to their masters as soon as they were freed during the Sack.

Dany's refusal to give the Astapori the chance to surrender could be considered dishonourable. However, the only way she could take their city was to take them by surprise. I think most people in Westeros would consider this to be morally acceptable, given the great evils that were taking place in Astapor. IMO, Dany can claim ius ad bellum.

Does she display ius in bello? This is much greyer. Some people see her attack as nothing more than a surgical strike against the Good Masters in the Plaza. In that analysis, no more than a few dozen very guilty people perished. At the other extreme, other readers see her actions as being virtually genocidal, wiping out the entire adult male free population.

I think that genocide is not supported by the text. Cleon came to power because he was able to persuade the freedmen that Dany's council were plotting to put the Good Masters back into power. Therefore, there must have been surviving Good Masters. The dying man who rode to Meereen wore a tokar, marking him out as being one of the free Astapori. At least one of the three people who Dany interviewed from Astapor must have been free, as he says he lived in a house his grandfather built; slaves don't inherit houses. The Green Grace of Astapor was presumably a member of the nobility.

But I think more than just a few Good Masters perished. The Dothraki were firing at random into the crowd. The tokar is a garment like a toga. It's worn by the elite regularly, fringed with gold, silver, and jewels, whereas the ordinary free people wear plain tokars, on special occasions (such as going to see a dragon). An order to kill tokar-wearers must mean an order to kill at least a signficiant number of ordinary, free people. An order that those under 12 should be spared must, by implication, mean that older teenagers got killed. Dany reflects that "blood aplenty had soaked the bricks of Astapor"; she also wonders how many of the crowds who are watching her will live to have children, a comment which only makes sense if she was planning to kill a lot of them.

As to your final point, as I said, some of the free population must have survived unmolested. But, others were enslaved, particularly boys and teenagers, who were made into Unsullied. The soldiers who came to crush Astapor, interestingly enough, made no distinction between the free population and the freed slaves. They slaughtered the lot.

[SeanF]

Cersei killing Roberts bastards

That's a crime, but not a war crime.

[Parwan]

Dany's refusal to give the Astapori the chance to surrender could be considered dishonourable. However, the only way she could take their city was to take them by surprise. I think most people in Westeros would consider this to be morally acceptable, given the great evils that were taking place in Astapor. IMO, Dany can claim ius ad bellum.

Does she display ius in bello? This is much greyer. Some people see her attack as nothing more than a surgical strike against the Good Masters in the Plaza. In that analysis, no more than a few dozen very guilty people perished. At the other extreme, other readers see her actions as being virtually genocidal, wiping out the entire adult male free population.

...

As to your final point, as I said, some of the free population must have survived unmolested. But, others were enslaved, particularly boys and teenagers, who were made into Unsullied. The soldiers who came to crush Astapor, interestingly enough, made no distinction between the free population and the freed slaves. They slaughtered the lot.

You give a good overview of opinions about events in Astapor and your view on the matter. Here are some further thoughts.

1. In your OP, you ask about what the Westerosi would consider war crimes. You then list 6 general categories. Adding "Liberation of Astapor" to the list would be completely improper. It is not a general category. I would not suggest "forcing Jeyne Poole to marry Ramsay" as item number 7. This marriage was performed within the general context of a war. It might fit under items 3 and 4, but it is not a separate category. Dany's action against the Good Masters might fit under item 5, but I don't think any Westerosi would be likely to put it there. In the unlikely event that any of the powerful people on the western continent say anything about the issue, they will quite possibly maintain that the slavers got what they deserved. Perhaps that's not the best way to look at the matter. However, your OP was about the way the Westerosi see things.

2. There's another reason for not placing Dany's action under item 5. I don't want to go off the subject, so I'll be brief here. In another thread, I challenged people to find the phrase "sack of Astapor" in the text. To this point, no one has come up with anything. In fact, a number of conversations in the text indicate to me that informed people in Essos (both natives and westerners living on the continent) don't even consider what the Targaryen forces did in the red city to be a sack. That doesn't mean that it has everyone's approval. it just indicates that it doesn't fit under item 5. I can't remember the thread where I issued the challenge and discussed the attitudes in detail, so I can't provide a URL. If someone wants to continue the discussion, we can do so somewhere other than on this thread.

3. Tywin Lannister is not beloved by all, but is he considered a war criminal for the sack of King's Landing? If so, is he the most handsomely rewarded war criminal in the history of Westeros?

4. GRRM likes to work with uncertainty. There are a lot of things in ASoIaF that are anomalous, unclear, confusing...This is intentional on the part of the author. On other threads, one or two posters have pointed out Martin could have been more clear about what happened beyond the plaza. You once said that a comment by the author would be useful in this matter. GRRM did not do the first. So far as I know, he has not done the second. We don't know what happened in the city generally. I don't think that the matter is supposed to be clear to the reader.

[Fire Eater]

He relentlessly questions Davos as to why he has such a low opinion of his lords, while Davos is diplomatically holding back on badmouthing them. When Davos finally does call them fickle, Stannis abruptly laughs and says "I told you, Melisandre... my Onion Knight tells me the truth", before agreeing wholeheartedly with him. He was playing devil's advocate to prove something to Melisandre.

The biggest indication that Claw Isle was never truely in danger is Stannis' admission Axell doesn't understand warfare and that "Claw Isle would gain [him] naught". Davos' argument against sacking the island was purely moral, he never brings up the strategic value of the island, so Stannis has held this opinion of Axell and his plan for some time. Even if you consider the man completely amoral, he's not an idiot, nor wasteful.

Except it wasn't a question of battle, or strategy, something of large import.

Stannis did find himself in a desperate situation, and he didn't have any better ideas.

8. I'm in two minds about that. Certainly, Ned treats Ser Gregor's murderous attack on the villagers as a crime. But, many lords consider peasants who are sworn to their enemies as being entirely legitimate targets for retaliation, even if they're completely innocent.

The Dornish treatment of prisoners is certainly a war crime. As was murdering Daeron I during a parley.

Thanks for reminding me. Killing during a parley is dishonorable by Westerosi and Essosi standards. It also burns that bridge, given how can anyone trust you if you're willing to stoop to murdering a party during a parley? They got lucky that Baelor I was Daeron's heir, or all the Dornish hostages would have been killed and there would have been moves to avenge Daeron, guaranteeing an even bloodier war with less mercy towards the Dornish.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Thanks for reminding me. Killing during a parley is dishonorable by Westerosi and Essosi standards. It also burns that bridge, given how can anyone trust you if you're willing to stoop to murdering a party during a parley? They got lucky that Baelor I was Daeron's heir, or all the Dornish hostages would have been killed and there would have been moves to avenge Daeron, guaranteeing an even bloodier war with less mercy towards the Dornish.

To be fair, Daeron broke the peace they blackmailed out of Aegon I (lol).

[The Drunkard]

Except it wasn't a question of battle, or strategy, something of large import.

Stannis did find himself in a desperate situation, and he didn't have any better ideas.

You asked when Stannis tested Davos in that way, I told you. That it wasn't about a battle is just making your conditions incredibly specific to avoid admitting that he has, in fact, tested Davos like that.

Stannis being desperate, or not having better ideas, doesn't mean he's going to commit to a plan that he thinks will gain him nothing, given to him by someone he thinks is a strategic moron. When Stannis doesn't have a plan, he waits, as he did during AGOT, as he did at the start of ACOK, as he did during ASOS. He doesn't rush off on the first hair-brained plan one of his idiot underlings presents him with.

[Fire Eater]

You asked when Stannis tested Davos in that way, I told you. That it wasn't about a battle is just making your conditions incredibly specific to avoid admitting that he has, in fact, tested Davos like that.

Stannis being desperate, or not having better ideas, doesn't mean he's going to commit to a plan that he thinks will gain him nothing, given to him by someone he thinks is a strategic moron. When Stannis doesn't have a plan, he waits, as he did during AGOT, as he did at the start of ACOK, as he did during ASOS. He doesn't rush off on the first hair-brained plan one of his idiot underlings presents him with.

The problem with saying it was a test is that Stannis was visibly angry, threatening to cut his tongue out.

Then why did Stannis shoot down Davos's points? He needed something, such as gold. Anything seems better than nothing atm.

[The Drunkard]

The problem with saying it was a test is that Stannis was visibly angry, threatening to cut his tongue out.

Then why did Stannis shoot down Davos's points? He needed something, such as gold. Anything seems better than nothing atm.

Only after Aerys was brought up, which was not to be expected by anyone, even Davos by how he described it. During the test itself, Stannis never 'shoots down' a single point made by Davos. In fact, he says two things while Davos is arguing against Axell:

"Silence," Stannis commanded. "Ser Davos, speak on, I would hear your reasons."

Which is the opposite of shooting down Davos' argument, and

"It is every man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false."

Which is said after Davos defends the men who knelt to Joffrey, not about the small folk of Claw Isle.

To reiterate: Stannis has played devil's advocate or veiled his motives or whatever you want to call it in the past to have Davos speak his mind, after which Stannis would wholeheartedly agree with him. Stannis thinks that Axell doesn't understand war, thinks that the Claw Isle plan would be pointless, and as Davos never makes any argument along those lines (his being based entirely on morality/duty) Stannis must have held these opinions prior to Davos' questioning. Further, it is entirely out of Stannis' character to agree to a plan he thinks moronic when he's desperate; in every other case of desperation his MO has been to wait until an opportunity presents itself, even if that means months of inaction.