Atrocities and War Crimes: Do You or Can You Justify Them?

[frenin]

On 4/19/2023 at 3:01 PM, King Maegor the Cool said:

And I don’t feel sorry for the people or Lady Caswell. Ripping a toddler limb from limb, even in an angry mob, is evil.

20 people out of thousands did, most of those 20 people were actually hanged in response.

Lady Caswell literally killed herself.

 

What else do you want lol?

 

On 4/19/2023 at 3:26 PM, King Maegor the Cool said:

Instead of to Oldtown.

Why does that matter?

 

23 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Burning alive innocent wounded people who have taken refuge in a Sept is objectively bad by in-word standards anyway.

Yeah, sometimes fans defend actions are outright called out in the books.

I guess this level of immersion cannot be good because lol. 

I can't simply understand how massacring thousands of innocents is understandable.

[TheLastWolf]

All is fair in love and war

[illrede]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:01 AM, King Maegor the Cool said:

Personally, as awful as Prince Daeron’s sacking and burning of Bitterbridge was, I completely understand why he did it. And I don’t feel sorry for the people or Lady Caswell. Ripping a toddler limb from limb, even in an angry mob, is evil.

 

...I'm not sure that you do understand.

 

There are multiple Royal Lines in contention, and it's already trending towards line extinction. Daeron's has been given insult that you would not give a Royal Line, a prince has been killed by a mob on the premises. Take revenge and re-assert dignity. Convincingly. You need to convince the world, you need to convince yourself. Nobody is thinking about age, they're thinking about their family. They are not thinking about law, they're thinking about themselves.

Within living memory, a lot of things are going to change, Targaryen royal children are going to be thrown down onto spikes by non-Targaryen politicals because they are inconvenient, the dignity of the House is going crash. But that is what Daeron is asserting- that this is a world where Bitterbridge does not happen.

[James Arryn]

There’s a worrying trend that any action is acceptable if you can give the perpetrators an understandable motivation. Aside from absolutely unhinged individuals, everyone has a motivation that makes some sense to them for their actions; being able to articulate it does not equate to a defence. Entire books have been written about the Nazis’ reasoning re: the Holocaust. 

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

There’s a worrying trend that any action is acceptable if you can give the perpetrators an understandable motivation. Aside from absolutely unhinged individuals, everyone has a motivation that makes some sense to them for their actions; being able to articulate it does not equate to a defence. Entire books have been written about the Nazis’ reasoning re: the Holocaust. 

You’ve often said that feudalism is a protection racket.

And those who pay the protection money are entitled to expect protection in return.  Pay up, keep your nose clean, obey your lord, or king, and he should leave you alone and keep off other predators.

You should expect to be ruled by Vito Corleone, rather than a complete monster.  What took place at Bitterbridge was monstrous.

Edited April 20, 2023 by SeanF

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

You’ve often said that feudalism is a protection racket.

And those who pay the protection money are entitled to expect protection in return.  Pay up, keep your nose clean, obey your lord, or king, and he should leave you alone and keep off other predators.

You should expect to be ruled by Vito Corleone, rather than a complete monster.  What took place at Bitterbridge was monstrous.

But to take a different example, if a Shelby lad gets accosted in your pub because his mate happens to be black, you should probably be resigned to your pub's being burned down.

Not all mob bosses are the same, of course, but having a low tolerance for disrespect is a pretty standard feature among the ones who last any length of time.

[illrede]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

You’ve often said that feudalism is a protection racket.

And those who pay the protection money are entitled to expect protection in return.  Pay up, keep your nose clean, obey your lord, or king, and he should leave you alone and keep off other predators.

You should expect to be ruled by Vito Corleone, rather than a complete monster.  What took place at Bitterbridge was monstrous.

This is true, and I say that it is an extreme event, an atrocity, a tragic one*, but not an unexpected one to the people involved, given the situation they knew of. Because it was the Dance, the known qualities of the Blacks and Greens, it was over-determined (clemency from the one makes the other that much more dangerous).

 

*somebody has already skirted Godwin's law, and this is relevant- the similarity is that there was nothing Caswell could do. She could not make a more thorough submission than she did, she held nothing back (not even her own life voluntarily given, unprompted), so there was no action she could take once she was in a position to act at all that would save her town given the initial conditions and the people that would be making decisions. If pre-crisis norms didn't obtain, total capitulation was a hopeful gamble and she knew it. It is an outcome in keeping with her prior understanding of the world.

[Aldarion]

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

You’ve often said that feudalism is a protection racket.

And those who pay the protection money are entitled to expect protection in return.  Pay up, keep your nose clean, obey your lord, or king, and he should leave you alone and keep off other predators.

You should expect to be ruled by Vito Corleone, rather than a complete monster.  What took place at Bitterbridge was monstrous.

STATE is a protection racket by default. Feudalism merely decentralizes and personalizes the aspects of the state. But yes, nobles would not kill their own peasants for no reason, as they were well aware of where they get their power and wealth from.

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

But to take a different example, if a Shelby lad gets accosted in your pub because his mate happens to be black, you should probably be resigned to your pub's being burned down.

Not all mob bosses are the same, of course, but having a low tolerance for disrespect is a pretty standard feature among the ones who last any length of time.

The pub might get torched, but slaughtering all the customers would be overkill.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

STATE is a protection racket by default. Feudalism merely decentralizes and personalizes the aspects of the state. But yes, nobles would not kill their own peasants for no reason, as they were well aware of where they get their power and wealth from.

It’s why I so much enjoy The Prince.  It’s not a book that advocates evil, so much as pragmatism.  Being evil can be quite self-defeating.

The guiding principle should be “I want my subjects fleeced, not flayed.”

[Daeron the Daring]

https://youtu.be/6TwioIc6a_8

As a serb would put it: My father is a war criminal.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Daeron the Daring

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

Just to be clear, I’m not defending the sack itself. But Daeron by himself, burning down the village responsible for the brutal murder of his nephew is completely understandable in my eyes. And I think it was a mistake for Lady Caswell to not only kill those response herself instead of finding them and handing them over to Daeron, but also send his body to KL. It doesn’t matter that Helaena was there, Rhaenyra was. So, ostensibly, she sent his body as a trophy to Rhaenyra. Possibly hoping such a token would merit some form of protection for her from Rhaenyra 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

the village responsible for the brutal murder of his nephew

But that's the problem. The village was not responsible. A few individuals were and they were punished according to the law of the land. There was no one left alive who was responsible at that point.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 4/21/2023 at 10:06 PM, Craving Peaches said:

But that's the problem. The village was not responsible. A few individuals were and they were punished according to the law of the land. There was no one left alive who was responsible at that point.

True, but was X village(r) responsible for the kidnapping of Lyanna? Or the murder of Brandon and Rickard?

No, yet noone bothered to make a point about their deaths, just as noone did regarding the also innocent citizens of Bitterbridge, once the damage was done.

In-universe, you could make a religious argument, saying the damage done to the church is a huge sin in the eyes of God(s), but overall what Daeron did is just something that the blanket of feudalism doesn't entirely cover up for us, unlike many other characters' ignorance, wrath and arbitration, including our favorites and most beloved. 

[SeanF]

It's hard to say what is the correct standard in these books.

Even the nicest leaders are war criminals, if you're judging them according to the standards of the Hague and Geneva Conventions as currently interpreted.

Executions without trial, taking hostages, torture for information, pillage, arson, employment of child soldiers,  sacking strongholds that are taken by storm, are practised on all sides.  But it would be daft to hold people to human rights standards that are hundreds of years in the future.

IMHO war crimes (in this world) are wanton murder, rape, torture for fun, breach of guest right (on the part of either host or guest) , breach of the terms of surrender, murder of prisoners (nobody is required to accept a surrender, but if prisoners are taken, their lives ought to be safe) , sacking a stronghold that offers no resistance, oathbreaking.

A lot of war crimes in this world involve perfidy.

 

[Alester Florent]

On 4/21/2023 at 6:40 PM, Lady Stonehearts Simp said:

Just to be clear, I’m not defending the sack itself. But Daeron by himself, burning down the village responsible for the brutal murder of his nephew is completely understandable in my eyes. And I think it was a mistake for Lady Caswell to not only kill those response herself instead of finding them and handing them over to Daeron, but also send his body to KL. It doesn’t matter that Helaena was there, Rhaenyra was. So, ostensibly, she sent his body as a trophy to Rhaenyra. Possibly hoping such a token would merit some form of protection for her from Rhaenyra 

So what should she have done with the body?

Maelor's father is AWOL. His mother is at King's Landing, as is his grandmother. If you're writing off his next of kin, for some reason, then you've got two uncles and an aunt. The two uncles are with armies moving about the place, and the aunt is at King's Landing and happens to be the person you recognise as queen.

I would also guess that there's an established precedent that Targaryens are laid to rest at King's Landing or Dragonstone where possible. And for an added kicker, Oldtown is about twice as far away as King's Landing and involves crossing enemy lines.

There is simply no good reason why in context anyone - other than Daeron and the Hightowers - would think it was more appropriate to send the body to Oldtown rather than King's Landing. I also don't believe it would have made a blind bit of difference to Daeron's response.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 7/18/2023 at 5:59 PM, SeanF said:

It's hard to say what is the correct standard in these books.

Even the nicest leaders are war criminals, if you're judging them according to the standards of the Hague and Geneva Conventions as currently interpreted.

Executions without trial, taking hostages, torture for information, pillage, arson, employment of child soldiers,  sacking strongholds that are taken by storm, are practised on all sides.  But it would be daft to hold people to human rights standards that are hundreds of years in the future.

IMHO war crimes (in this world) are wanton murder, rape, torture for fun, breach of guest right (on the part of either host or guest) , breach of the terms of surrender, murder of prisoners (nobody is required to accept a surrender, but if prisoners are taken, their lives ought to be safe) , sacking a stronghold that offers no resistance, oathbreaking.

A lot of war crimes in this world involve perfidy.

 

Well, yes, but the point I was making is that Daeron isn't condemned for in any special way for what he did, altough he clearly did something horrible. 

Yes, the book does describe him in this sequence in a worse light than usually, but it basically comes up to you saying: "Well, yea, he came and slaughtered us, but what can you do? The guy's a prince, and has a dragon too. It is what it is." 

It's not much different to any other military campaign, where nobles give a round zero fucks about the life of peasants, when they need them sacrificed.

And I'm not here to defend Daeron, just here to point out that this goes all around, regarding everyone, and it's been the way things went IRL too. In a catholic on catholic armed conflict, the lives of the catholic peasantry rarely ever mattered to the nobility, or even the Church itself (which was humanitarian (and even then only for their own) in like 10% of scenarios, while it still had political weight).

And it's not like people in charge were always unaware that they control their own kind, who are capable of the same level of feeling and thinking. Sure supremacist and elitist ideas always existed troughout history, but they simply developed a conscious ignorange towards these issues.

[SeanF]

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Well, yes, but the point I was making is that Daeron isn't condemned for in any special way for what he did, altough he clearly did something horrible. 

Yes, the book does describe him in this sequence in a worse light than usually, but it basically comes up to you saying: "Well, yea, he came and slaughtered us, but what can you do? The guy's a prince, and has a dragon too. It is what it is." 

It's not much different to any other military campaign, where nobles give a round zero fucks about the life of peasants, when they need them sacrificed.

And I'm not here to defend Daeron, just here to point out that this goes all around, regarding everyone, and it's been the way things went IRL too. In a catholic on catholic armed conflict, the lives of the catholic peasantry rarely ever mattered to the nobility, or even the Church itself (which was humanitarian (and even then only for their own) in like 10% of scenarios, while it still had political weight).

And it's not like people in charge were always unaware that they control their own kind, who are capable of the same level of feeling and thinking. Sure supremacist and elitist ideas always existed troughout history, but they simply developed a conscious ignorange towards these issues.

Daeron is remembered as a chivalrous knight, it's true.

[Alester Florent]

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Daeron is remembered as a chivalrous knight, it's true.

I wonder to what extent this is retrospective reputation massaging by a relatively Green-friendly regency, who were looking for some sort of figurehead hero to make their cause look less unattractive in hindsight having functionally lost the war but regained some ground in the peace, to set against the plethora of Black heroes, many of whom are still alive and kicking.: essentially giving the surviving Greens at least some semblance of a romantic "lost cause" narrative similar to that which the Blackfyre supporters maintain a few generations later.

Of the leading Green commanders, Daeron is by far the most viable option: also he's Viserys's son which gives him added cachet. The Blacks in a position to do anything about this whitewash most likely turned a blind eye because none of the senior ones had any particular personal beef with Daeron. Aegon and Aemond, by contrast are almost impossible to rehabilitate given that they killed both of Aegon III's parents and one of his brothers directly. Daeron didn't kill anyone important on the Black side, and can be absolved of Tumbleton by pinning that on the Two Betrayers, while also making him look better for his role in disposing of them.

It may be that in "reality" Daeron was just as callous, ruthless and bloodthirsty as his brothers, but that through happenstance and massaging of the records, was in a position to emerge looking a lot better.

[Lord Varys]

I don't think Daeron is remembered necessarily in a positive way. Gyldayn just recounts that he was dubbed 'the Daring' and had a tragic death. And he was still a youth when he bit the dust, so not *that much* time to gain a bad reputation.

His general reputation could blacken depending how the later Daeron pretenders behave. If there is a guy who tells a believing story perhaps there are people who still believe Daeron actually survived ... and if that guy then did shitty things it wouldn't give him a great posthumous reputation.