Jump to content

How is Westeros's judicial system so bad?


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

Now I'm sure @Aldarion can correct me or confirm that I am right, but England in the 15th century, by my recollection already had a proper system of judging criminals and traitors, complete with judges and procedures (not so sure about lawyers though, from what  can recall those came with the Bill of Rights). Regardless it wasn't the absolute joke that is Westeros's justice system, with no appeal, no recourse and the life of the defendant completely in the hands of his lord. So is GRRM just sloppy or is there an actual point here? Also didn't Jaehaerys I and Viserys II have a number of laws regarding trials? Because it doesn't feel like it, there's no laws, no procedure, no rights for the defendant, no presumption of innocence, no nothing. Anarchy without any rule of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now I'm sure @Aldarion can correct me or confirm that I am right, but England in the 15th century, by my recollection already had a proper system of judging criminals and traitors, complete with judges and procedures (not so sure about lawyers though, from what  can recall those came with the Bill of Rights). Regardless it wasn't the absolute joke that is Westeros's justice system, with no appeal, no recourse and the life of the defendant completely in the hands of his lord. So is GRRM just sloppy or is there an actual point here? Also didn't Jaehaerys I and Viserys II have a number of laws regarding trials?

There is a point - they're relying on flawed and corruptable judges. The sole true objective judge in this society would be a greenseer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

There is a point - they're relying on flawed and corruptable judges. The sole true objective judge in this society would be a greenseer.

That's not what I'm talking about. There's no procedure, no recourse, no sentencing laws, no rights, no evidence no nothing. It's a mess that would make cavemen not their heads in disapproval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's not what I'm talking about. There's no procedure, no recourse, no sentencing laws, no rights, no evidence no nothing. It's a mess that would make cavemen not their heads in disapproval.

Indeed there are but few "federal" laws. Just custom on what are offences warrant execution. There are several procedures though: By combat (of seven), or a trial with one or several people being the judge, and indeed no evidence. We're not in the period of the enlightenment, but the feudal middle ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Indeed there are but few "federal" laws. Just custom on what are offences warrant execution. There are several procedures though: By combat (of seven), or a trial with one or several people being the judge, and indeed no evidence. We're not in the period of the enlightenment, but the feudal middle ages.

The feudal middle ages actually had a justice system. It had major flaws and vices and was very liable to be exploited or to sentence innocent people, but it was an actual system of law. Best example is that there was actual appeal to the highest level in the form of the Court of the King's Bench, that could adjudicate cases from the lower levels if the defendant tried to appeal.

Let's be clear the middle ages were no a lawless, age of darkness, tyranny and war, those were the Dark ages. Veeery different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C.J. Sansom wrote murder mysteries that reveal lawyers and students working on detailed cases in the English Middle Ages. Margaret Frazier also wrote some, though not specifically about lawyers, and I’m sure there are many more. IMHO, Reading fiction is a painless way to absorb historic atmosphere and research, rather than doing your own!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ultimately a character-driven story (note the chapter titles are just character first names sans family tribal names) and a bunch of rules, laws, and general world-building restricts the characters from making their own choices. If you look, you'll notice much of the plot is about giving the characters maximum agency in a world which often doesn't allow much of it. It's especially apparent with the women and children characters who are somehow removed from the men who would boss them around in a patriarchal society.

I'd rather read a story about a heart at odds with itself (GRRM said something like that) than have characters make choices based on well, such and such law says....Boring. So, so boring. And a lot of the themes are less impactful in such a strictly defined world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medievals can surprise.  Ecclesiastical courts had remarkably "modern" seeming procedures, with defendants being entitled to cross-examine witnesses, judges expected to recuse themselves if they had a personal interest in the case, rules against hearsay evidence etc.  Of course, like all courts, they could be corrupt.  Joan of Arc's conviction for heresy was overturned twenty years later,  precisely because the judges in the case were known to be biased against her.

England had comparatively advanced trial procedures, once justice became a royal, rather than a lordly, prerogative.  But, lords could still bully judges and juries into returning verdicts in their favour. And, justices of the peace and judges were mostly drawn from the ranks of the upper classes.  And, even in England, treason cases were dealt with in very primitive fashion.  One could sentence people for treason without even trying them, by passing an Act of Attainder.

In Westeros, justice is utterly primitive.  Basically, the lord or king decides if he likes the cut of your jib, and rules accordingly. It's either a failure of world-building, or simply an issue Martin ignores for dramatic effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now I'm sure @Aldarion can correct me or confirm that I am right, but England in the 15th century, by my recollection already had a proper system of judging criminals and traitors, complete with judges and procedures (not so sure about lawyers though, from what  can recall those came with the Bill of Rights). Regardless it wasn't the absolute joke that is Westeros's justice system, with no appeal, no recourse and the life of the defendant completely in the hands of his lord. So is GRRM just sloppy or is there an actual point here? Also didn't Jaehaerys I and Viserys II have a number of laws regarding trials? Because it doesn't feel like it, there's no laws, no procedure, no rights for the defendant, no presumption of innocence, no nothing. Anarchy without any rule of law

Yes, there was a judicial system. It differed: oftentimes, each city had its own laws, and different areas had different practices. And if you are wrong in something, it is in that you do not extend it back in time far enough: jury trial dated back to Middle Ages, and even peasants had right of going to court of law.

You may want to read this:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3934&context=ndlr

GRRM is writing what he thinks Middle Ages were like. Which to me appears to be sloppy, uninformed and ignorant set of views dating back to era of Englightenment (logic was basically "religious = stupid = Dark Ages!"). Dark Ages were dark in one respect: there are very few surviving sources, and writing activity may have been low. But even that does not mean that cultural output was low: first, we only can analyze surviving sources, and second, it does not include word-of-mouth literature. Problem is, this "lack of sources" thing was then expanded onto everything else, to paint medieval people as unwashed, uneducated barbarians. And it is a view which GRRM very much echoes - and more than that, he extends it right up to the 15th century, which in real life was very much the opposite of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me Westeros always looked like an Early middle aged continent with weaponry and castles of the late middle ages.

Even claiming its in the early middle ages is wrong, since people like Alfred the great (ruler of a tiny little kingdom in a damp little island) established schools for his people. 

12 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

GRRM is writing what he thinks Middle Ages were like. Which to me appears to be sloppy, uninformed and ignorant set of views dating back to era of Englightenment (logic was basically "religious = stupid = Dark Ages!"). Dark Ages were dark in one respect: there are very few surviving sources, and writing activity may have been low. But even that does not mean that cultural output was low: first, we only can analyze surviving sources, and second, it does not include word-of-mouth literature. Problem is, this "lack of sources" thing was then expanded onto everything else, to paint medieval people as unwashed, uneducated barbarians. And it is a view which GRRM very much echoes - and more than that, he extends it right up to the 15th century, which in real life was very much the opposite of that.

George is an atheist and a pacifist. Violence and killing was a very influential part of the middle ages. It was considered normal as well. Religion obviously played a very big role on society, and it was heavily influenced by it. Crusades as an example.

I think George will take a bias view of the middle ages (like many people today), and just see it as barbaric and dark time.

Mayhaps the early middle ages and the arthurian age were dark and barbaric as george claims, but once you get to the 11th century. Western Europe seems like a more civilised place than Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I think George will take a bias view of the middle ages (like many people today), and just see it as barbaric and dark time.

On the other hand I ve noticed a tendency to glorify middle ages beyond reason. "You eat cheese! Cheese was invented in middle ages!", "Do you know what knights would do to a roman legion?! Do you know?!" and stuff like that. 

Jokes aside, young conservatives interested in history tend to do it to highlight how great the church was. And to deminish filthy antiquity. So yes, it is about politics / ideology to some extent. But I think you may be wrong as for GRRM's ignorance. I assume he had read a lot before he started the story and that he simplified the legal things consciously. 

On the background of it all the law codification made by Jaehaerys sounds a bit funny (why it took them so long?)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, broken one said:

"Do you know what knights would do to a roman legion?! Do you know?!" and stuff like that. 

The knight would get fucked. Their standard tactic of a shock charge meant to break the enemy would not work on a heavily disciplined and heavily armored legion fighting in formation. The roman javelins alone would do horrific damage to a cavalry charge.

Then there is the engineering. Caesar built over 30 miles of wall at Alesia in just over two weeks.

Caesar and Pompey had a dick measuring contest in Greece over who could build the longest wall and overtake the other. Caesar won 43 kilometer to 42.

Caesar almost completely damned in the port of Brindisi, trapping Pompey in in the time it took a fleet to cross the Adriatic and back.

Building stakes and other rudimentary anti cavalry fortification would be a breeze for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The knight would get fucked. Their standard tactic of a shock charge meant to break the enemy would not work on a heavily disciplined and heavily armored legion fighting in formation. The roman javelins alone would do horrific damage to a cavalry charge.

Then there is the engineering. Caesar built over 30 miles of wall at Alesia in just over two weeks.

Caesar and Pompey had a dick measuring contest in Greece over who could build the longest wall and overtake the other. Caesar won 43 kilometer to 42.

Caesar almost completely damned in the port of Brindisi, trapping Pompey in in the time it took a fleet to cross the Adriatic and back.

Building stakes and other rudimentary anti cavalry fortification would be a breeze for them.

I mean I had the discussion for real, what the guy meant was quality of alloys (medieval were better) and strenght of charge (stirrups). But I told him more or less what you said. Maybe the knights would win, but only once. With the organisation and ability to learn and adapt Romans would find the way. I was not very sure of that but had to say something!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The knight would get fucked. Their standard tactic of a shock charge meant to break the enemy would not work on a heavily disciplined and heavily armored legion fighting in formation. The roman javelins alone would do horrific damage to a cavalry charge.

Then there is the engineering. Caesar built over 30 miles of wall at Alesia in just over two weeks.

Caesar and Pompey had a dick measuring contest in Greece over who could build the longest wall and overtake the other. Caesar won 43 kilometer to 42.

Caesar almost completely damned in the port of Brindisi, trapping Pompey in in the time it took a fleet to cross the Adriatic and back.

Building stakes and other rudimentary anti cavalry fortification would be a breeze for them.

Roman legions could be broken by cavalry, as Crassus at Carrhae would attest.  As always, what matters is the quality of leadership on either side, logistics,  and the use one makes of the terrain.

The biggest single contributor to the view that the Middle Ages were barbaric, compared to a more glorious past, was probably Edward Gibbon.  I did Latin for seven years at a private school, and was heavily indoctrinated in this belief.  It’s taken me years to outgrow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, broken one said:

On the other hand I ve noticed a tendency to glorify middle ages beyond reason. "You eat cheese! Cheese was invented in middle ages!

Lasagna was invented in the Middle Ages. I would kiss the person that invented it.

5 minutes ago, broken one said:

Jokes aside, young conservatives interested in history tend to do it to highlight how great the church was. And to deminish filthy antiquity.

If they are religious they probably will. It was a time when religion was respected and heavily influenced on the running of governments and kingdoms. So I can see some religious conservative being in favour towards the Middle Ages.

7 minutes ago, broken one said:

So yes, it is about politics / ideology to some extent.

It isnt the case for many historians today. People love history because of the great differences between our society and the past. Reading history is a good pastime as it can lead to hours of long discussions between people.

I personally treat history as a life lesson. I don’t like to judge it (but I sometimes tend to do), I like to learn and study from it.

13 minutes ago, broken one said:

But I think you may be wrong as for GRRM's ignorance. I assume he had read a lot before he started the story and that he simplified the legal things consciously. 

Grrm understands how people used to think in those days. Thats why asoiaf has some amazing characters. There are allot of flaws on his world, but his characters arent one.

Grrm no doubt read allot about medieval history but his world rarely applies accurately to the Middle Ages.

Asoiaf is a much much crueler world than the Middle Ages ever were. You did have plotting, truce breaking, and backstabbing. But this wasnt to the scale of asoiaf. Wars of the roses can be an exemption since it was a darker time and resulted with the end of the Middle Ages. However England and the British isles in general werent really that keen on the chivalry way of things and didnt flinch at doing barbaric deeds.

Asoiaf is a depiction of what grrm wants his world to be like. And of how he thinks the Middle Ages were. Or probably just a mixture of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Roman legions could be broken by cavalry, as Crassus at Carrhae would attest.  As always, what matters is the quality of leadership on either side, logistics,  and the use one makes of the terrain.

Crassus did everything wrong.

Also in those exact circumstance the knights lost even worse at Hattin, with the same mix of heat, thirst, ambushes and horse archers.

Also they weren't broken by cavalry, they were worn down and fled in the night,

Carhae tells us nothing about legion vs knights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

but his world rarely applies accurately to the Middle Ages.

I see it as a mixture. Westeros is mostly medieval (pseudomedieval). Free cities on the shore of the Narrow sea have some renaissance flavour to me. Or maybe like late middle ages in Italy. Slavers Bay is the Antiquity on speed.

Quote

Asoiaf is a much much crueler world than the Middle Ages ever were.

Not only the Middle Ages. I mean, with the whole brutality of productive slavery of Rome and modern times I cannot think of Real Worlds counterparts of the practices of Slave Cities. The whole Unsulied business is taken to the brink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, broken one said:

Not only the Middle Ages. I mean, with the whole brutality of productive slavery of Rome and modern times I cannot think of Real Worlds counterparts of the practices of Slave Cities. The whole Unsulied business is taken to the brink.

St Dominque comes close, but even that slavery machine wasn't as bad as the slave cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Mayhaps the early middle ages and the arthurian age were dark and barbaric as george claims, but once you get to the 11th century. Western Europe seems like a more civilised place than Westeros.

That depends on what you consider "early" Middle Ages. In Merovingian France, as well as Ostrogothic and maybe Visigothic Kingdoms, you had public schools, secular government, state army, massive trade... everything that is today taken as a sign of developed civilization. All of that lasted until islamic expansion cut off trade routes to the East. But between 7th and 11th centuries, you are somewhat correct.

56 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Grrm understands how people used to think in those days. Thats why asoiaf has some amazing characters. There are allot of flaws on his world, but his characters arent one.

 

Actually, he doesn't. When it comes to behaviour of lords, especially. Ned Stark is exceptionally honourable lord in Westerosi context. In Middle Ages, he would be merely average. Entire feudal system ran on honour, and if you were dishonourable, you didn't last long because people would realize you are unreliable. Tywin sets fire to Riverlands... which is behaviour of an invader, not a lord fighting a civil war (combat in civil wars was exceedingly ritualistic precisely in order to avoid damaging the very resources you are fighting over). Catelyn thinks Edmure is a soft-headed idiot for providing shelter to his peasants... but that is what lords' duties are. Yes, he should have gotten them away instead of into the Riverrun if possible, but castles were shelters for the people (as opposed to being purely military fortresses).

The only aspects he really gets right are those that haven't changed between then and today.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The knight would get fucked. Their standard tactic of a shock charge meant to break the enemy would not work on a heavily disciplined and heavily armored legion fighting in formation. The roman javelins alone would do horrific damage to a cavalry charge.

Then there is the engineering. Caesar built over 30 miles of wall at Alesia in just over two weeks.

Caesar and Pompey had a dick measuring contest in Greece over who could build the longest wall and overtake the other. Caesar won 43 kilometer to 42.

Caesar almost completely damned in the port of Brindisi, trapping Pompey in in the time it took a fleet to cross the Adriatic and back.

Building stakes and other rudimentary anti cavalry fortification would be a breeze for them.

You know what happened when Romans encountered shock cavalry? They adapted it. They would not have done that if they thought it was useless. And knights were much better at shock part than Parthian cataphracts. Also, knight's breastplate can withstand the force of impacting a pike at full charge. Mere javelin would not do much damage, unless you are talking about earlier, 11th century or so knights.

If Romans get enough advance warning to build actual fortifications, they might win - but that is still iffy. Knights are not fools (unless they are French - seriously, stuff those lot pulled off at moments makes my head hurt) and if faced with fortification, they will dismount. If they do not build it, they lose for a simple fact that they do not have pikemen.

And yes, heavy cavalry charge can and does work on disciplined infantry. Otherwise Byzantines wouldn't have been so concerned about Arab cataphracts as to introduce menavlion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...