How is Westeros's judicial system so bad?

[broken one]

20 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Entire feudal system ran on honour, and if you were dishonourable, you didn't last long because people would realize you are unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gąsawa_massacre

Not especially honorable, yet Świętopełk got away with it... mildly speaking. Poland was and is a wild land, I know, but I guess the whole honour stuff should not be overestimated.

[SeanF]

31 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely.  By the time of Belisarius, the Roman army was 50/50 cavalry/infantry. 
 

And, Pompey started off as a cavalry commander.  Claudius Marcellus was always a cavalryman.

[Aldarion]

8 minutes ago, broken one said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gąsawa_massacre

Not especially honorable, yet Świętopełk got away with it... mildly speaking. Poland was and is a wild land, I know, but I guess the whole honour stuff should not be overestimated.

That is true. But read the article:

it is generally accepted that the crime contributed to the deepening of the feudal fragmentation of Poland

It had consequences, and much more serious ones than anything Roose and Tywin did. It is not that such stuff didn't happen in Middle Ages; it is that such stuff is not seen as an aberration in Westeros.

[broken one]

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

That is true. But read the article:

it is generally accepted that the crime contributed to the deepening of the feudal fragmentation of Poland

It had consequences, and much more serious ones than anything Roose and Tywin did.

But does it not lead to feudal fragmentation of Westeros? I guess the atomic weapon called dragon is needed to prevent it ;-)

I know what you mean as for the aberration thing though, the Tywins chevauchée does not bring enough scorn on him and this is striking (as if the Targaryen unification was absolutely superficious... which is contradictory to many other information from the books).

 

[The Young Maester]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

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.

You are right in that actually, forgot about this. Grrm makes it clear that there is no room for honourable men in his world. This is certainly true for the world of asoiaf, since it is a much darker and backstabby place than our own real world. Throughout history many honourable men have succeeded in many areas. 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

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).

I would justify Tywins pillage of the riverlands with the fact that he is the ruler of a kingdom that dosent concern itself with the prosperity and economic output of a neighbouring kingdom. However Tywin was named hand of the king (essentially defacto ruler of westeros), and he still decides that pillaging and murdering the land of the fodder of westeros would be a good idea. This certainly backfires when you have the riots in kings landing due to the lack of food entering kings landing.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

 

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).

 

I think what Martin has done is to adapt the tactics of the Hundred Years War to circumstances in which they are not quite appropriate.  Civil wars tended to become more savage after 1250 in Western Europe, but paradoxically, that savagery was directed at the upper echelons, rather than the peasantry.  Lords didn't want to devastate the people they wished to rule over.  In the Wars of the Roses, it became common to execute high-ranking prisoners, while letting the small fry go.

The big distinction was wars of religion.  Absolutely no mercy was shown to heretics from the highest to the lowest. But, wars of religion are not a  big issue in this world, save in Maegor's time.

So, you had (a) guerre couvert, relatively restrained warfare between rival lords.  (b) Bellum hostile, war between states, in which certain norms were observed, in terms of taking prisoners for ransom, respecting envoys, but at the same time, devastating war could be unleashed on the peasants of the enemy by means of chevauchee.  And, then (c) Bellum Romanum, basically no holds barred, usually directed towards heretics and infidels.  Tywin goes for somewhere between (b) and (c).

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, broken one said:

But does it not lead to feudal fragmentation of Westeros? I guess the atomic weapon called dragon is needed to prevent it ;-)

I know what you mean as for the aberration thing though, the Tywins chevauchée does not bring enough scorn on him and this is striking (as if the Targaryen unification was absolutely superficious... which is contradictory to many other information from the books).

 

I wouldn't say it does. What leads to fragmentation of Westeros was illegitimacy of the ruling house... but nobody except Starks seems to concern themselves with things such as justice and honour.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think what Martin has done is to adapt the tactics of the Hundred Years War to circumstances in which they are not quite appropriate.  Civil wars tended to become more savage after 1250 in Western Europe, but paradoxically, that savagery was directed at the upper echelons, rather than the peasantry.  Lords didn't want to devastate the people they wished to rule over.  In the Wars of the Roses, it became common to execute high-ranking prisoners, while letting the small fry go.

 

Agreed.

[TheLastWolf]

Except Scandinavian countries, Canada, New Zealand (I have a crush on Arden ) and a few other relative utopias, judicial systems are fucked up in the modern world. Especially in religious fanatic nations like the Islamic/Muslim Middle East, Asia, Africa. USA UK France etc too to an extent. India Pakistan Sri Lanka Bhutan Nepal etc

And no mention about the Commies from China and Russia. 

[Jaak]

On 1/4/2021 at 5:19 PM, 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

Look at when the ancestors of the institutionalized central courts were founded:

England - Common Pleas, Henry II, 1178

France - Parliament of Paris, Louis IX, 1250s

Castile, Portugal - 14th century

Germany - Reichkammergericht, 1495

Scotland, College of Justice - 1532

Poland - 1588

Sweden - 1616

Now look at, for exaple, how Scotland compared to England:

https://frh3.org.uk/redist/pdf/Carpenter_Scottish_Royal_Govt.pdf

Westeros is based more on Early than High Middle Ages. But as you see, many features of England were not universal in High Middle Age Europe either.

[Aebram]

Quote

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

 Wow, how old are you?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, Aebram said:

Wow, how old are you?

Huh??

[The Commentator]

Westeros is not quite middle age.  It is rather close to the dark ages.  Their laws and proceedings were influenced by the Seven.  The ruling class were very invested in chivalry and fighting.  Is it surprising that something like a trial by combat is acceptable?  It shouldn’t be surprising.  

[Alyn Oakenfist]

52 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The ruling class were very invested in chivalry and fighting.  Is it surprising that something like a trial by combat is acceptable?  It shouldn’t be surprising.  

Thing is, trial by combat isn't the problem. It existed IRL till well into the 16th century and in some cases even after that, for the reasons you mentioned. Christianity and chivalry, both heavily influencing society at the time.

The problem, is the complete lack of any kind of judicial institutions what so ever, be it, courts, judges or ways of appeal.

[Ser Leftwich]

It is fiction. /thread

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, Ser Leftwich said:

It is fiction.

Yes, but it still has to make sense, and a society that technologically and culturally seems to be in the Late Middle Ages, having the judicial system of a warlord state in the Dark ages doesn't make sense

[Jaak]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yes, but it still has to make sense, and a society that technologically and culturally seems to be in the Late Middle Ages, having the judicial system of a warlord state in the Dark ages doesn't make sense

Erm? The examples I brought? Start of 16th century, Scotland, Poland, Sweden. A lot of technological and cultural features of High Middle Ages had been adopted - but several others, including central judiciary, had not.

[BlackLightning]

4 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Westeros is not quite middle age.  It is rather close to the dark ages.  Their laws and proceedings were influenced by the Seven.  The ruling class were very invested in chivalry and fighting.  Is it surprising that something like a trial by combat is acceptable?  It shouldn’t be surprising.  

What's the difference between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

I (along with a lot of other people) were taught that they were the same thing, except that the Middle Ages had three parts and the Dark Ages was another way of speaking of the first part of the Middle Ages.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

20 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What's the difference between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

It's kinda like the difference between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution honestly

[Aebram]

13 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Huh??

Sorry, I was trying to be funny (and apparently failed).  You wrote:

Quote

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

"By your recollection?" Gee, we don't get many 600-year-olds around here.

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It's kinda like the difference between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution honestly

That doesn't answer my question.

At all.

Because the Renaissance is the rediscovery, rebirth and retaking of things lost or forgotten; it's the spring flowers after winter snows. The Industrial Revolution is the creation of new things, a complete societal upheaval and cultivation of things that were previously thought useless.

So....what's the difference. Between the Dark Ages are another way of describing the fall of Rome, the aftermath and the first half or so of the Early Middle Ages.