Welcome to war

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

What Dany did was cruel, but probably not outside the norms of warfare in Westeros. 

If we assume Westeros is similar to how it worked in real history, then a city or castle should surrender before it is stormed if it wants to receive favorable terms (i.e. not being sacked). King's Landing waited until the walls were breached and the battle was basically over. 

 

 

 

[Greenmonsterff]

I don’t think ANYONE agrees with Daenerys’s decision to ruthlessly slaughter all the innocents (except, maybe Grey Worm).  But, that doesn’t mean that Daenerys doesn’t think it was a good idea. She is trying to rule the SEVEN KINGDOMS, not just one city. She just said that she is not loved and and that fear would be her method of rule in her last talk with Jon. This power move on KL, genocide or not, will definitely inspire fear throughout the seven kingdoms. So, this was a necessary evil to accomplish the greater good, at least in Daenerys’s eyes. 

[Greenmonsterff]

29 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Wee problem. There's laws governing war... and one of them is targeting civilians is a war crime.

Those are laws of 20th and 21st century Earth. Was the a Geneva convention in Westeros?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Nitpick: that wouldn't fly. She'd be immune from prosecution as a currently serving Head of State. You'd have to depose her first, at which point the Pinochet precedent applies. Or set up a special UN tribunal to deal with her.

That's an interesting point.  Yes, I imagine that arguments about sovereign immunity would form a major part of her defence.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

What Dany did was cruel, but probably not outside the norms of warfare in Westeros. 

If we assume Westeros is similar to how it worked in real history, then a city or castle should surrender before it is stormed if it wants to receive favorable terms (i.e. not being sacked). King's Landing waited until the walls were breached and the battle was basically over. 

 

 

 

This was the immolation of the city.  Something not generally possible with the tech available to the people of this hypothetical place and time.  A sack can be contemplated and King’s Landing was previously sacked by Lannister forces at the close of Robert’s Rebellion.  

This is several steps beyond a mere sacking.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That's an interesting point.  Yes, I imagine that arguments about sovereign immunity would form a major part of her defence.  

It's a messy area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law)

Your best bet is avoiding domestic charges (murder, et cetera), and focus on the international crimes (war crimes).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Greenmonsterff said:

I don’t think ANYONE agrees with Daenerys’s decision to ruthlessly slaughter all the innocents (except, maybe Grey Worm).  But, that doesn’t mean that Daenerys doesn’t think it was a good idea. She is trying to rule the SEVEN KINGDOMS, not just one city. She just said that she is not loved and and that fear would be her method of rule in her last talk with Jon. This power move on KL, genocide or not, will definitely inspire fear throughout the seven kingdoms. So, this was a necessary evil to accomplish the greater good, at least in Daenerys’s eyes. 

No.  Just no.  None of the decent Targaryen Rulers in Dany’s bloodline would accept this logic.  Aegon the Conqueror didn’t behead Toren Stark after he lead his army south and then took the knee to instill fear in the Northmen.

No, Dany’s actions are those of an enraged mad person.

Further, beheading Cersei for her crimes after surrender might be within Westerosi norms.  Immolating the entire city and attempting to kill every man, woman, and child, after the combatant defenders laid down arm is definitely not within norms.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, Greenmonsterff said:

Those are laws of 20th and 21st century Earth. Was the a Geneva convention in Westeros?

Codified rules of war date from the nineteenth century. Before then it was customary - but as old as warfare itself (if you want to see a medieval version of the Hague, see this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_von_Hagenbach).

Without rules of war, a hostage system for negotiation becomes impossible - and we know Westeros has that.

[Greenmonsterff]

4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Codified rules of war date from the nineteenth century. Before then it was customary - but as old as warfare itself (if you want to see a medieval version of the Hague, see this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_von_Hagenbach).

Without rules of war, a hostage system for negotiation becomes impossible - and we know Westeros has that.

Meh, OK. It’s complicated applying real logic to unreal fantasy worlds. But, I get your point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Greenmonsterff said:

Meh, OK. It’s complicated applying real logic to unreal fantasy worlds. But, I get your point.

It’s more than that.  Saying this is just part and parcel ignores the established Westerosi history showing this is well outside the norms of warfare for Weateros.

Hence Jamie’s choice to kill Aerys rather than allow him to try the same thing.

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Further, beheading Cersei for her crimes after surrender might be within Westerosi norms.  Immolating the entire city and attempting to kill every man, woman, and child, after the combatant defenders laid down arm is definitely not within norms.

Beheading? Daenerys?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This was the immolation of the city.  Something not generally possible with the tech available to the people of this hypothetical place and time.  A sack can be contemplated and King’s Landing was previously sacked by Lannister forces at the close of Robert’s Rebellion.  

This is several steps beyond a mere sacking.

Well, I agree that what is depicted on the show is worse than normal. Although you definitely don't need dragons or modern technology to destroy old cities like King's Landing. Just look at what simple accidental fires could do to Rome or London, for example. 

[Greenmonsterff]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Just no.  None of the decent Targaryen Rulers in Dany’s bloodline would accept this logic.  Aegon the Conqueror didn’t behead Toren Stark after he lead his army south and then took the knee to instill fear in the Northmen.

No, Dany’s actions are those of an enraged mad person.

Does Dany know as much about the Targaryen ruling history as you? Or does she even care? It doesn’t matter what you think, what I think, what Tyrion, Sansa, or Jon thinks. Daenerys has the power. Daenerys has the dragon. It only matters what she thinks. Mad men (or women) never think that they are the crazy one. As long as Dany can justify her actions to herself, it’s OK to her. She wasn’t asking permission. She did it because she thought it was right. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, The Marquis de Leech said:

Beheading? Daenerys?

Most Westroi rulers don’t have a dragon handy.  I was thinking of normal methodology for execution.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Just no.  None of the decent Targaryen Rulers in Dany’s bloodline would accept this logic.  Aegon the Conqueror didn’t behead Toren Stark after he lead his army south and then took the knee to instill fear in the Northmen.

No, Dany’s actions are those of an enraged mad person.

Further, beheading Cersei for her crimes after surrender might be within Westerosi norms.  Immolating the entire city and attempting to kill every man, woman, and child, after the combatant defenders laid down arm is definitely not within norms.

IMHO, it's quite possible that Aegon, his sisters, and (naturally) Maegor would have done the same.  Harrenhall, Planky Town, hundreds of unnamed Dornish settlements were torched. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well, I agree that what is depicted on the show is probably worse than normal. Although you definitely don't need dragons or modern technology to destroy old cities like King's Landing. Just look at what simple accidental fires could do to Rome or London, for example. 

I must admit - your user name is hilarious in context.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well, I agree that what is depicted on the show is probably worse than normal. Although you definitely don't need dragons or modern technology to destroy old cities like King's Landing. Just look at what simple accidental fires could do to Rome or London, for example. 

Sure.  That doesn’t make such deliberate wanton destruction a mere “part of war” after your enemy has surrendered.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, it's quite possible that Aegon, his sisters, and (naturally) Maegor would have done the same.  Harrenhall, Planky Town, hundreds of unnamed Dornish settlements were torched. 

After they surrendered? Or as hor du’combat?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I must admit - your user name is hilarious in context.

Yeah, I chose it a long time ago since it even then seemed like Dany was eventually going to become... well, not so nice. 

Of course, the way the show handled her gradual transformation into that (or didn't, rather), was very dissapointing. 

[Runaway Penguin]

I don't think anyone cared about collateral damage when Dany was strafing the scorpions. That is just part of the war. I don't think anyone would much care if she turned Red Keep into a smoking crater to get Cersei, living shields and all, as Cersei did not surrender.

To burn down the city, however... Same as for the Grey Worm to start slaughter of men who dropped their swords while the city was surrendering... That is dishonorable even by Westerosi standards.