By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in The Series

[Parwan]

Just curious. How many Essossi accounts do we have about the Sack of Astapor?

My main point is that no one outside of Astapor (Essossi or Westerosi) seems all that upset about the killing that Dany's forces did in the red city. I believe few if any characters in the story would accuse her of a war crime. Of course, lots of people have strong objections to the young queen's actions in Slaver's Bay. That's a different matter.

Addressing your question more directly, it depends on exactly what one means by "Essossi" accounts. This could mean accounts by natives of the continent or accounts given by Westerosi residing in Essos. One of the things I find remarkable is the lack of any mention of a sack of Astapor. Daenerys Targaryen is accused of the-gods-only-know how many "sins." She supposedly does everything from dressing in white after Labor Day to feeding little babies to her dragons. Along the way, it is specifically mentioned that she sacked Meereen. It is never specifically mentioned that she sacked any other city. You can get a fuller view of my thoughts on this matter at

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/111113-daenerys-stormborn-a-re-read-project-part-iii-asos-adwd/page-13

The most relevant post is #249.

[SeanF]

My main point is that no one outside of Astapor (Essossi or Westerosi) seems all that upset about the killing that Dany's forces did in the red city. I believe few if any characters in the story would accuse her of a war crime. Of course, lots of people have strong objections to the young queen's actions in Slaver's Bay. That's a different matter.

Addressing your question more directly, it depends on exactly what one means by "Essossi" accounts. This could mean accounts by natives of the continent or accounts given by Westerosi residing in Essos. One of the things I find

remarkable is the lack of any mention of a sack of Astapor. Daenerys Targaryen is accused of the-gods-only-know how many "sins." She supposedly does everything from dressing in white after Labor Day to feeding little babies to her dragons. Along the way, it is specifically mentioned that she sacked Meereen. It is never specifically mentioned that she sacked any other city. You can get a fuller view of my

thoughts on this matter at

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/111113-daenerys-stormborn-a-re-read-project-part-iii-asos-adwd/page-13

The most relevant post is #249.

The Yunkish envoy does comment on her "savageries at Astapor". But, his criticism seems perfunctory. Later on we'll see that the Yunkish and their allies make no distinction between surviving free citizens and former slaves when they storm the city. I reiterate that I think Astapor had made itself very unpopular with its neighbours.

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

Just curious. If killing Daeron I during negotiations {was it a feast?} can be considered a crime,what about Dany unleashing Drogon on Kraznys, after promising to exchange him for Unsullied? I realise it wasn't a War Crime, but can it be called Oathbreaking?

[of man and wolf]

This is why I dont consider soldiers as Heros in todays society. People complain so much about cops today and yet forget the atrocities soldiers commit on innocent civilians every day.

But "lest we forget" and all that.

[Parwan]

I agree with alot of what the OP proposes. The only difference I find is that I believe it is a mistake to actually classify these things as "war crimes".

For something to be a crime, it requires a law. We know there are laws in Westeros, but we don't have or know the extent of these laws. Finally, the concept of law in Westeros does not seem to lie in the idea of an ideal, objective concept of justice or morality. It is based power. Justice flows not from the Seven, or from some ideal of justice, but from the King.

Instead of classifying these things as "war crimes", most of these things should be classified as against custom, and against whatever morality is instilled by the faith of the seven, the old gods, R'hllor, and rational observation. Violating guest right is not only against custom, it is against the "laws of the gods". The gods charge knights, and thus Kings, with protecting the weak and the innocent.

You make some good points. I think the underlined portions relate not just to the current discussion, but to other vital matters in the story. I'm not an historian. I can't speak with authority about the average medieval society. It is clear, however, that the concept of law is not very advanced in Westeros, and it may not be impressive even for a medieval society. The basis of practically everything is a kind of "just lord" theory. I'd say that this could be described as a

just Lord theory

The man (or, rarely, the woman) is the important thing. There isn't much concept of law as an independent entity, with written statutes, a class of jurists, etc. Westeros does not appear to be a place that is on the road to any sort of constitutional system. It's not that there are no ideas of justice and fairness. However, these ideas center quite powerfully around concepts that put the emphasis on loyalty and on the absolute importance of having the right person in the position of power. Truth, justice, and all of those matters are derivative. They "flow" from the proper order of things, and this proper order is very much dependent on strict adherence to the rules of succession. There is a "true king." There is one, and only one, correct heir. Oathbreaking is a horror...

With this in mind, I'd suggest another possible Westerosi war crime: regicide. Now, a king can be killed during peacetime, but the killing of a king (especially when done by someone sworn to protect him) during war might still be a war crime. After all, some of the crimes listed in the OP (e.g. rape) often occur when there is no war going on.

Technically speaking she did exchange him, Drogon just wasn't having any of it. She never promised to leave Astapor and Kraznys in peace once the trade was finished.

That is correct, Jack. And Dany did not swear an oath to Kraznys or any of his buddies. I'm not sure there was even a written contract; I don't remember any mention of one in the text. All things considered, no one in this deal had a reasonable expectation of above-board behavior on the part of the other party. I do not buy arguments that Daenerys broke faith or ruined any expectation of trust in future dealings in Slaver's Bay. What trust ever existed between Dany and the slavers? It's hard for me to imagine anyone saying, "Can you believe that the savage Westerosi whore was so underhanded? If you can't trust a barbarian bitch, who can you trust?" Also, Dany made no secret of the fact that she was a khaleesi. The slavers had been dealing with the Dothraki for centuries. You let a khalasar inside your walls, and you turn over your soldiers to them. How surprised should you be when things don't go well for you?

I think that a better criticism of the queen is based on her naiveté in later negotiations. She had no basis for trusting the Yunkai'i. Even if the guys were somewhat trustworthy, she should have remembered all the trickery she had engaged in. Her enemies would be motivated to "return the favor." Thus, it shouldn't have surprised her when the slave market was opened outside her gates.

Negotiations in situations like these are possible, but they have to be done with great care. The agreements have to be well spelled out. Guarantees have to be clear, and there has to be a good possibility of ill consequences for anyone who tries to be too slick. Something like an exchange of hostages probably should be arranged.