War Crimes in the Series

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Don't real-life religions usually see each other as disgusting though? Even among those who claim to worship the same god we have gems like "Kill them all, God will recognize his own".

Not really in this world, it seems.

If there were some major schism in the Faith, or if the Red Clergy were to start burning followers of the Faith, that would change.

[Alester Florent]

14 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Don't real-life religions usually see each other as disgusting though? Even among those who claim to worship the same god we have gems like "Kill them all, God will recognize his own".

Eh... less than you might think. For most of history, differing religions has been a case of "we have our gods and you have yours" and everyone was generally ok with that. If you ended up fighting then that was an opportunity to demonstrate that your gods were better than theirs, and if you won you could take all their god-statues and bring them back to sit in your gods' temples to rub that in, but the general attitude was one of live and let live. Roman paganism was basically happy to let you follow whatever gods you felt like so long as you paid your taxes and didn't cause a fuss. 

That we think that different religions by nature actively hate each other is largely a product of the rise of monotheistic religions in the last 1500 years, and in particular monotheistic religions that seek to actively convert because not only are they not playing fair (they don't just not worship your gods, they actively deny their existence!) the people they're converting are the same people who pay for the temple upkeep and lifestyle of the priests. They are, in short, troublemakers, not necessarily because of what they believe but because of what they do. The Romans were perfectly happy to let the Jews and Christians follow their funny, kind-of-boring, god, but it became a problem when their religon meant they refused to pay the necessary obesiance (and/or taxes) to the emperor.

Even monotheistic religions can be quite accommodating. The position in early Islam was that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians were basically fine, since they were all on the same cosmic team even if they were mistaken about a few of the details. So long as they didn't cause trouble or seek to spread their religion (and paid the necessary taxes) they were A-OK, at least until the Crusades made a mess of things. The western Church has gone back and forth a few times on the Jews, at times seeing them not only as acceptable but actually necessary, and at others encouraging their persecution (although the real horrors of persecution during the Middle Ages tended to be driven by secular or popular figures, for largely secular reasons).

Indeed religions seem to save their heaviest artillery for schismatics rather than rival religions per se. The heretic is, generally, worse than the infidel.

 

In a war crimes context, though, the point isn't "your religion is dumb and therefore you're not entitled to protection", it's simple reciprocity. If you start violating their holy places, they'll do the same with yours, and since you don't want that to happen, it's better to leave the sanctuaries alone at least until such time as you feel confident enough of total victory that you can start demolishing them.

Edited January 14 by Alester Florent

[SaffronLady]

@Alester Florent I was more thinking about the arcane question of what constitutes "disgusting" when discussing a religion. But I do agree with you that schismatics tend to be targets of more flak than infidels: in fact, the quote I used was taken from the Cathar Crusade, which - yup - was the Catholic Church's answer to the Cathar heresy.

Speaking of which, I really do hope GRRM fleshes the history of the Faith out more. I really need my HERESY! memes back in action, please.

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Eh... less than you might think. For most of history, differing religions has been a case of "we have our gods and you have yours" and everyone was generally ok with that. If you ended up fighting then that was an opportunity to demonstrate that your gods were better than theirs, and if you won you could take all their god-statues and bring them back to sit in your gods' temples to rub that in, but the general attitude was one of live and let live. Roman paganism was basically happy to let you follow whatever gods you felt like so long as you paid your taxes and didn't cause a fuss. 

That we think that different religions by nature actively hate each other is largely a product of the rise of monotheistic religions in the last 1500 years, and in particular monotheistic religions that seek to actively convert because not only are they not playing fair (they don't just not worship your gods, they actively deny their existence!) the people they're converting are the same people who pay for the temple upkeep and lifestyle of the priests. They are, in short, troublemakers, not necessarily because of what they believe but because of what they do. The Romans were perfectly happy to let the Jews and Christians follow their funny, kind-of-boring, god, but it became a problem when their religon meant they refused to pay the necessary obesiance (and/or taxes) to the emperor.

Even monotheistic religions can be quite accommodating. The position in early Islam was that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians were basically fine, since they were all on the same cosmic team even if they were mistaken about a few of the details. So long as they didn't cause trouble or seek to spread their religion (and paid the necessary taxes) they were A-OK, at least until the Crusades made a mess of things. The western Church has gone back and forth a few times on the Jews, at times seeing them not only as acceptable but actually necessary, and at others encouraging their persecution (although the real horrors of persecution during the Middle Ages tended to be driven by secular or popular figures, for largely secular reasons).

Indeed religions seem to save their heaviest artillery for schismatics rather than rival religions per se. The heretic is, generally, worse than the infidel.

 

In a war crimes context, though, the point isn't "your religion is dumb and therefore you're not entitled to protection", it's simple reciprocity. If you start violating their holy places, they'll do the same with yours, and since you don't want that to happen, it's better to leave the sanctuaries alone at least until such time as you feel confident enough of total victory that you can start demolishing them.

The ancients could be very brutal to religious dissidents, but their issue was with *ritual* rather than belief. Pay the official Gods their due, and you could worship privately as you wished.

Dishonour the Gods, by refusing sacrifice (as Christians, Jews, druids, and some mystery religions did), and the authorities would turn hostile.

 Jews were a special case, protected initially so long as they offered prayers for the Res Publica, but viewed with increasing suspicion under the empire.

As you say, heretics are viewed with far greater hostility than other religions. In Westeros, there ought to have been clashes between iconophiles and iconoclasts, and those who believe the Seven are separate deities vs those who see them as manifestations of one deity.

[the trees have eyes]

On 1/13/2024 at 7:34 PM, Hugorfonics said:

There is a suggestion.  

.

"Some of these . . . challengers . . . are less honorable than others, and the stakes were growing larger every day. It was only a matter of time before one of them decided to claim the prize by force."

"They were knights," she said, stunned, "anointed knights."

"And honorable men. The blame is yours."

The accusation made her flinch. "I would never . . . my lord, I did nought to encourage them."

"Your being here encouraged them. If a woman will behave like a camp follower, she cannot object to being treated like one. A war host is no place for a maiden. If you have any regard for your virtue or the honor of your House, you will take off that mail, return home, and beg your father to find a husband for you."

.

 

Westersi are particularly disgusting, now perhaps Randylls views aren't shared by the majority of the Sunset, but surely loads of it.

Not only is he implying that she'd get raped but that if it  were to happen it wouldnt even be dishonorable. Further he blurs the line between victim, camp follower, and wife. 

It's all sorts of backwards. 

If we take Tarly at his word then he still clearly sees this as a punishable crime and one that he took action to prevent.  He is showing zero tolerance by dismissing knights from his service to make it perfectly clear he will not tolerate this.  Now he might not give a damn about Brienne - in fact he doesn't, the fact is she's highborn is what brings this to his attention.  But he wants to both maintain military discipline and avoid a huge scandal with political and military implications as the Lord of Tarth demands restitution for the wrong done him, not to mention he wants to avoid the associated dishonour attached to House Tarly and to him personally as it was by his men or under his leadership that this happened.

If we don't take him at his word, literally at least, then he is trying to frighten Brienne off or at least to discourage her by pretending he would offer her less protection than he in fact did (and he is quite obviously potential-victim blaming her to get her off-balance).  Until very recently and even today conservatives have had / have a huge problem with women in the military, at least in combat roles, so it's not that surprising that in a pseudo-medieval world or defined gender roles Brienne would be told to go home and encouraged / leaned on to do so.  Does Tarly have proof that "it was only a matter of time" or is he just trying to scare her off?

I don't think the "Brienne incident" is a good example of Westerosi tolerance of / attitudes to rape or rape as an instrument of war.

In modern times the codification of rape as a war crime stems from observable patterns of mass rape as a deliberate form of punishment of a defeated enemy - the Soviet treatment of German civilians at the end of WWII, the use of rape in the Bosnian War to punish or pollute the gene pool of the opposing ethnic groups, the sexual enslavement of the Yazidi women and girls by ISIS (although the last example is a subset of enslavement and genocide). Sadly, I'm sure there's many more examples from modern times and throughout history.

In Westeros, only the Ironborn seem to really tip the scales here through the practice of taking salt wives.  What foragers do, or what armies do in the sack of a city seems to depend on the orders given by their commanders and how they think their commanders will react if they are caught breaking either specific orders or customary rules of behaviour.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

If we take Tarly at his word then he still clearly sees this as a punishable crime and one that he took action to prevent.  He is showing zero tolerance by dismissing knights from his service to make it perfectly clear he will not tolerate this.  Now he might not give a damn about Brienne - in fact he doesn't, the fact is she's highborn is what brings this to his attention.  But he wants to both maintain military discipline and avoid a huge scandal with political and military implications as the Lord of Tarth demands restitution for the wrong done him, not to mention he wants to avoid the associated dishonour attached to House Tarly and to him personally as it was by his men or under his leadership that this happened.

If we don't take him at his word, literally at least, then he is trying to frighten Brienne off or at least to discourage her by pretending he would offer her less protection than he in fact did (and he is quite obviously potential-victim blaming her to get her off-balance).  Until very recently and even today conservatives have had / have a huge problem with women in the military, at least in combat roles, so it's not that surprising that in a pseudo-medieval world or defined gender roles Brienne would be told to go home and encouraged / leaned on to do so.  Does Tarly have proof that "it was only a matter of time" or is he just trying to scare her off?

I don't think the "Brienne incident" is a good example of Westerosi tolerance of / attitudes to rape or rape as an instrument of war.

In modern times the codification of rape as a war crime stems from observable patterns of mass rape as a deliberate form of punishment of a defeated enemy - the Soviet treatment of German civilians at the end of WWII, the use of rape in the Bosnian War to punish or pollute the gene pool of the opposing ethnic groups, the sexual enslavement of the Yazidi women and girls by ISIS (although the last example is a subset of enslavement and genocide). Sadly, I'm sure there's many more examples from modern times and throughout history.

In Westeros, only the Ironborn seem to really tip the scales here through the practice of taking salt wives.  What foragers do, or what armies do in the sack of a city seems to depend on the orders given by their commanders and how they think their commanders will react if they are caught breaking either specific orders or customary rules of behaviour.

I don’t think that any leader in-universe would consider pillage, or sacks of cities taken by storm, as war crimes.  Rape is widespread, on all sides, but as far as I know, only Tywin specifically uses it as a terror tactic.

The brutality of foraging probably depends if one is on home/allied territory, or enemy territory.  In the case of the former, soldiers are restricted to taking what they need.  In the case of the latter, they’re taking all they can, and leaving settlements in flames, behind them.

Tywin’s also aware that some of his knights are unhappy with atrocities - and he’s prepared to excuse them - hence his comment about some work being fit for lions, and other work fit for dogs and goats.

Edited January 15 by SeanF

[Hugorfonics]

12 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

If we take Tarly at his word then he still clearly sees this as a punishable crime and one that he took action to prevent.  He is showing zero tolerance by dismissing knights from his service to make it perfectly clear he will not tolerate this.  Now he might not give a damn about Brienne - in fact he doesn't, the fact is she's highborn is what brings this to his attention.  But he wants to both maintain military discipline and avoid a huge scandal with political and military implications as the Lord of Tarth demands restitution for the wrong done him, not to mention he wants to avoid the associated dishonour attached to House Tarly and to him personally as it was by his men or under his leadership that this happened.

He didn't dismiss anyone during Renlys tenure. He does dismiss Hyle but that's like a year later and has more to do with Hyle being an asshole. Which is a pretty suspect reason imo, but whatever the truth, it's definitely unrelated to the topic above.

Yea for sure! No matter what pragmatic reason Randyll decided, it is evident that as terrible of a person he is, some of his knights are worse. Which of course should come as no surprise, we see the same with Tywin and Gregor. 

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

If we don't take him at his word, literally at least, then he is trying to frighten Brienne off or at least to discourage her by pretending he would offer her less protection than he in fact did (and he is quite obviously potential-victim blaming her to get her off-balance).  Until very recently and even today conservatives have had / have a huge problem with women in the military, at least in combat roles, so it's not that surprising that in a pseudo-medieval world or defined gender roles Brienne would be told to go home and encouraged / leaned on to do so.  Does Tarly have proof that "it was only a matter of time" or is he just trying to scare her off?

The wager itself was real, Hyle admits to it,  that there are more unscrupulous characters then Hyle out of like the whole "chivalry of the south" I think is all but guaranteed.  

Randyll himself admits that there wasn't really proof or even perhaps a plan in the making,  just whispering, but nevertheless I'd have to agree that the chauvinism and competitiveness that so encapsulates a knight would, without intervention, lead to sexual assault.  

Yea for sure, I'd say a good example is Joan of Arc who at court was like,  "they tried to rape me all the time," and of course the price for fighting or not getting raped or wearing denim or whatever the official charge was, burning her alive. 

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

don't think the "Brienne incident" is a good example of Westerosi tolerance of / attitudes to rape or rape as an instrument of war.

I think it kinda is, not everybody would do it, like Hyle although he's bit of a douche, but enough peoples would turn the blind eye or just engage for the lolz. 

Although, yea, not to actual instruments of war, that I think Saan and Cerseis quotes regarding the possible sack in acok shows raping highborn women in times or war is in fact a thing.

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

In modern times the codification of rape as a war crime stems from observable patterns of mass rape as a deliberate form of punishment of a defeated enemy - the Soviet treatment of German civilians at the end of WWII, the use of rape in the Bosnian War to punish or pollute the gene pool of the opposing ethnic groups, the sexual enslavement of the Yazidi women and girls by ISIS (although the last example is a subset of enslavement and genocide). Sadly, I'm sure there's many more examples from modern times and throughout history.

There are indeed sadly more examples in modern times, and yes, it's used as a power play and terror tactic just like how Tywin and Gregor intentionally use it. 

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

In Westeros, only the Ironborn seem to really tip the scales here through the practice of taking salt wives.  What foragers do, or what armies do in the sack of a city seems to depend on the orders given by their commanders and how they think their commanders will react if they are caught breaking either specific orders or customary rules of behaviour.

Nah, every kingdom does that. Ironborn just give it a name. When it comes to smallfolk we're given plenty of information on the Sunset kingdoms and their ways. Pya is the most notable example, being bounced around from one camp to another but there's also the Karstark soldiers the bwb delt with, Jaimes description of Walton which summarizes the whole of westeros, the free folks abduction of women, etc.

The only commander we've actually seen rein in their troops is Dany, who of course is not Westerosi. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

He didn't dismiss anyone during Renlys tenure. He does dismiss Hyle but that's like a year later and has more to do with Hyle being an asshole. Which is a pretty suspect reason imo, but whatever the truth, it's definitely unrelated to the topic above.

Yea for sure! No matter what pragmatic reason Randyll decided, it is evident that as terrible of a person he is, some of his knights are worse. Which of course should come as no surprise, we see the same with Tywin and Gregor. 

The wager itself was real, Hyle admits to it,  that there are more unscrupulous characters then Hyle out of like the whole "chivalry of the south" I think is all but guaranteed.  

Randyll himself admits that there wasn't really proof or even perhaps a plan in the making,  just whispering, but nevertheless I'd have to agree that the chauvinism and competitiveness that so encapsulates a knight would, without intervention, lead to sexual assault.  

Yea for sure, I'd say a good example is Joan of Arc who at court was like,  "they tried to rape me all the time," and of course the price for fighting or not getting raped or wearing denim or whatever the official charge was, burning her alive. 

I think it kinda is, not everybody would do it, like Hyle although he's bit of a douche, but enough peoples would turn the blind eye or just engage for the lolz. 

Although, yea, not to actual instruments of war, that I think Saan and Cerseis quotes regarding the possible sack in acok shows raping highborn women in times or war is in fact a thing.

There are indeed sadly more examples in modern times, and yes, it's used as a power play and terror tactic just like how Tywin and Gregor intentionally use it. 

Nah, every kingdom does that. Ironborn just give it a name. When it comes to smallfolk we're given plenty of information on the Sunset kingdoms and their ways. Pya is the most notable example, being bounced around from one camp to another but there's also the Karstark soldiers the bwb delt with, Jaimes description of Walton which summarizes the whole of westeros, the free folks abduction of women, etc.

The only commander we've actually seen rein in their troops is Dany, who of course is not Westerosi. 

Stannis punishes rapists amongst his men, as well.

I think some leaders do see rape as a crime, and would punish those soldiers they caught doing it, but at the same time, see it as more or less inevitable, once parties of soldiers are sent out raiding and foraging.

And, as the example of Pya (or Shae), shows, there’s a thin line between women willingly sleeping with soldiers, and being pressed into it.  I doubt if the women who were hanged because they “lay with lions” were very willing.

[the trees have eyes]

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

He didn't dismiss anyone during Renlys tenure. He does dismiss Hyle but that's like a year later and has more to do with Hyle being an asshole. Which is a pretty suspect reason imo, but whatever the truth, it's definitely unrelated to the topic above.

I agree that there is no substantive reason connected to Brienne for Tarly to dismiss any of his knights but as they are household knights, in effect one step up from mercenaries rather than landed bannermen, he can dismiss them at will.  The fact that he is retained for over a year, along with several others, would seem to indicate that the bet over Brienne wasn't a rape waiting to happen but indicative that Hunt isn't exactly a shining star in Tarly's eyes.

Nothing happens to Brienne.  Renly makes her a member of the Rainbow Guard.  She feels humiliated when it's explained to her that all the knights courting her aren't doing it out of chivalrous admiration but because of a wager to bed her.  Until they are told that she's a highborn daughter of a key bannerman and to stop that shit. And that's that.

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The wager itself was real, Hyle admits to it,  that there are more unscrupulous characters then Hyle out of like the whole "chivalry of the south" I think is all but guaranteed.  

Randyll himself admits that there wasn't really proof or even perhaps a plan in the making,  just whispering, but nevertheless I'd have to agree that the chauvinism and competitiveness that so encapsulates a knight would, without intervention, lead to sexual assault. 

And that rapist would end up on The Wall or gelded, his House and family dishonoured and ostracised.  Not a very smart move.

I think you're letting your own bias show here.  The bolded is a non sequitur as you reach a determination of guilt from zero evidence and the italicised simply says all knights are rapists.  If this is really your view then it's not remotely established in the text.  There's no inevitability here, just a bet that led to nothing.

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea for sure, I'd say a good example is Joan of Arc who at court was like,  "they tried to rape me all the time," and of course the price for fighting or not getting raped or wearing denim or whatever the official charge was, burning her alive. 

The English burned Joan of Arc for heresy, the French made her a saint.

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think it kinda is, not everybody would do it, like Hyle although he's bit of a douche, but enough peoples would turn the blind eye or just engage for the lolz. 

It's like this.  There are two attempts to rape Brienne.  The first is by three of the bloody mummers, the worst scum in the series.  Jaime defuses this by bellowing "Sapphires!" which gets Vargo Hoat all worked up about damaging her ransom value.  The second is when, after Lord Selwyn refuses the ransom demand, Hoat has her washed and inspected (a man of his morals having had problems with his intimate health before) before she bites half his ear off: it's why she ends up in the bear pit with a tourney sword.

Renly's young Turks are chasing tail but if any one of them pushed it too far he would end up with half his ear bitten off too.  She's the daughter of Lord Selwyn of Tarth and a member of Renly's Rainbow Guard: you seem to be making her an amalgam of Brave Danny Flint surrounded by rapists and murderers and who's fate "is all but guaranteed" and Val, a wildling princess, who Stannis's now landless bannermen see as a lifeline and compete over (because they are dumb, she is not an heiress like Alys Karstark).

There is absolutely no evidence that these knights or young nobles wold attempt to rape her or join in for the lolz, that's just your cynicism conjecturing an outcome you can easily condemn.  Rape is a crime and they know the consequences of committing it: the topic is about war crimes and how far the normal operation of law is dispensed with during war.  Brienne's mere presence among Renly's army during peacetime does not make her an "all but guaranteed" rape victim - and by her own side and social class.  How far it might go is probably best illustrated by Hunt, much later in AFFC(?), dismissed by Tarly and in Brienne's company, making a proposition that she marry him and let him share her blankets that night.  She threatens to geld him and he's smart enough to leave her alone.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Although, yea, not to actual instruments of war, that I think Saan and Cerseis quotes regarding the possible sack in acok shows raping highborn women in times or war is in fact a thing.

Yes, it is in fact a thing (although ransom or marriage value and the desire of nobles to in fact protect rather than rape other noblewomen would usually protect them) .  The thing is: is it a thing that is okay or a thing that will be punished?  The Dornish want justice for Elia but until Gregor is dumb enough to publicly confess to what he did to her all they know is that she and her children died in the sack of KL.  When Gregor tells everyone Tywin wants him saved so he can be tried and executed.  Now there's a difficulty here in separating the rape and the murder but until this point there is no specific crime (did anyone know she was raped or how she died?) and certainly no culprit.  Once there is, it's not ok.  Activities during a sack are generally excused, although not those explicitly confessed to, those during a tourney towards your own side are not.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Nah, every kingdom does that. Ironborn just give it a name. When it comes to smallfolk we're given plenty of information on the Sunset kingdoms and their ways. Pya is the most notable example, being bounced around from one camp to another but there's also the Karstark soldiers the bwb delt with, Jaimes description of Walton which summarizes the whole of westeros, the free folks abduction of women, etc.

I'm aware that you treat all cultures with equal contempt and refuse to distinguish any one from the others in terms of awfulness.  Nonetheless, the Ironborn are the only culture to operate a quaint cultural tradition of reaving, whereby they raid their neighbours and abduct and sexually enslave womenfolk.  The lives of the smallfolk in Westeros are not easy and in war when the dubious protection of the law is effectively suspended life becomes brutal but they are not enslaved and made thralls or salt wives - at least not legally.  Pretty Pia may be raped at Harrenhal but she is not carried back to The Dreadfort or Lannisport as a chattel slave.  The only direct comparison is Ramsay taking the women of Winterfell back to The Dreadfort for his "sport" (which is actually worse given the nature of his sport) but this is obviously as illegal as we can imagine in Westeros not a bona fide "cultural tradition".

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

I agree that there is no substantive reason connected to Brienne for Tarly to dismiss any of his knights but as they are household knights, in effect one step up from mercenaries rather than landed bannermen, he can dismiss them at will.  The fact that he is retained for over a year, along with several others, would seem to indicate that the bet over Brienne wasn't a rape waiting to happen but indicative that Hunt isn't exactly a shining star in Tarly's eyes.

Nothing happens to Brienne.  Renly makes her a member of the Rainbow Guard.  She feels humiliated when it's explained to her that all the knights courting her aren't doing it out of chivalrous admiration but because of a wager to bed her.  Until they are told that she's a highborn daughter of a key bannerman and to stop that shit. And that's that.

And that rapist would end up on The Wall or gelded, his House and family dishonoured and ostracised.  Not a very smart move.

I think you're letting your own bias show here.  The bolded is a non sequitur as you reach a determination of guilt from zero evidence and the italicised simply says all knights are rapists.  If this is really your view then it's not remotely established in the text.  There's no inevitability here, just a bet that led to nothing.

The English burned Joan of Arc for heresy, the French made her a saint.

It's like this.  There are two attempts to rape Brienne.  The first is by three of the bloody mummers, the worst scum in the series.  Jaime defuses this by bellowing "Sapphires!" which gets Vargo Hoat all worked up about damaging her ransom value.  The second is when, after Lord Selwyn refuses the ransom demand, Hoat has her washed and inspected (a man of his morals having had problems with his intimate health before) before she bites half his ear off: it's why she ends up in the bear pit with a tourney sword.

Renly's young Turks are chasing tail but if any one of them pushed it too far he would end up with half his ear bitten off too.  She's the daughter of Lord Selwyn of Tarth and a member of Renly's Rainbow Guard: you seem to be making her an amalgam of Brave Danny Flint surrounded by rapists and murderers and who's fate "is all but guaranteed" and Val, a wildling princess, who Stannis's now landless bannermen see as a lifeline and compete over (because they are dumb, she is not an heiress like Alys Karstark).

There is absolutely no evidence that these knights or young nobles wold attempt to rape her or join in for the lolz, that's just your cynicism conjecturing an outcome you can easily condemn.  Rape is a crime and they know the consequences of committing it: the topic is about war crimes and how far the normal operation of law is dispensed with during war.  Brienne's mere presence among Renly's army during peacetime does not make her an "all but guaranteed" rape victim - and by her own side and social class.  How far it might go is probably best illustrated by Hunt, much later in AFFC(?), dismissed by Tarly and in Brienne's company, making a proposition that she marry him and let him share her blankets that night.  She threatens to geld him and he's smart enough to leave her alone.

Yes, it is in fact a thing (although ransom or marriage value and the desire of nobles to in fact protect rather than rape other noblewomen would usually protect them) .  The thing is: is it a thing that is okay or a thing that will be punished?  The Dornish want justice for Elia but until Gregor is dumb enough to publicly confess to what he did to her all they know is that she and her children died in the sack of KL.  When Gregor tells everyone Tywin wants him saved so he can be tried and executed.  Now there's a difficulty here in separating the rape and the murder but until this point there is no specific crime (did anyone know she was raped or how she died?) and certainly no culprit.  Once there is, it's not ok.  Activities during a sack are generally excused, although not those explicitly confessed to, those during a tourney towards your own side are not.

I'm aware that you treat all cultures with equal contempt and refuse to distinguish any one from the others in terms of awfulness.  Nonetheless, the Ironborn are the only culture to operate a quaint cultural tradition of reaving, whereby they raid their neighbours and abduct and sexually enslave womenfolk.  The lives of the smallfolk in Westeros are not easy and in war when the dubious protection of the law is effectively suspended life becomes brutal but they are not enslaved and made thralls or salt wives - at least not legally.  Pretty Pia may be raped at Harrenhal but she is not carried back to The Dreadfort or Lannisport as a chattel slave.  The only direct comparison is Ramsay taking the women of Winterfell back to The Dreadfort for his "sport" (which is actually worse given the nature of his sport) but this is obviously as illegal as we can imagine in Westeros not a bona fide "cultural tradition".

I think that punishing rape is far more likely to be the case if the victim is highborn, rather than lowborn.

Very few lords would be likely to spare a knight or common soldier who raped a highborn woman, unless that man was *extremely* useful (like Ser Gregor).

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 1/14/2024 at 11:54 AM, Alester Florent said:

Eh... less than you might think. For most of history, differing religions has been a case of "we have our gods and you have yours" and everyone was generally ok with that. If you ended up fighting then that was an opportunity to demonstrate that your gods were better than theirs, and if you won you could take all their god-statues and bring them back to sit in your gods' temples to rub that in, but the general attitude was one of live and let live. Roman paganism was basically happy to let you follow whatever gods you felt like so long as you paid your taxes and didn't cause a fuss. 

That we think that different religions by nature actively hate each other is largely a product of the rise of monotheistic religions in the last 1500 years, and in particular monotheistic religions that seek to actively convert because not only are they not playing fair (they don't just not worship your gods, they actively deny their existence!) the people they're converting are the same people who pay for the temple upkeep and lifestyle of the priests. They are, in short, troublemakers, not necessarily because of what they believe but because of what they do. The Romans were perfectly happy to let the Jews and Christians follow their funny, kind-of-boring, god, but it became a problem when their religon meant they refused to pay the necessary obesiance (and/or taxes) to the emperor.

Even monotheistic religions can be quite accommodating. The position in early Islam was that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians were basically fine, since they were all on the same cosmic team even if they were mistaken about a few of the details. So long as they didn't cause trouble or seek to spread their religion (and paid the necessary taxes) they were A-OK, at least until the Crusades made a mess of things. The western Church has gone back and forth a few times on the Jews, at times seeing them not only as acceptable but actually necessary, and at others encouraging their persecution (although the real horrors of persecution during the Middle Ages tended to be driven by secular or popular figures, for largely secular reasons).

Man not to wade into a real life mess but that's a pretty inaccurate picture of what happened. To say nothing of the ongoing conflicts between the major sects of Islam -- these existed because Mohammed's family literally went to war over who would lead and how to lead islam -- the treatment of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East wasn't great. Obviously nor was the treatment of Jews by Christians , all of this obviously pre-crusades. Massacres of christian pilgrims in Asia Minor and Syria / Palestine were pretty common. One of the first emirs of Egypt, al Hakim, destroyed all the churches and synagogues under his rule and killed a lot of jews and christians (and allied turks in his government) in a manner very similar to what the first bands of crusaders did in Germany and France en route to the Holy land. 

Lot of shitty stuff going on in the the religious world at the time. 

 

Edited January 17 by Universal Sword Donor

[the trees have eyes]

On 1/16/2024 at 2:39 PM, SeanF said:

I think that punishing rape is far more likely to be the case if the victim is highborn, rather than lowborn.

Very few lords would be likely to spare a knight or common soldier who raped a highborn woman, unless that man was *extremely* useful (like Ser Gregor).

Fully agree.  Jaime restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall.  But it's also now peacetime, the Riverlands are restored to the 7K, the River Lords have made their submissions to the Iron Throne and it's now friendly territory.  He doesn't set about taking a witness statement from Pretty Pia or establishing if (and it's not a very big if) any of the Mountain's Men raped her and she doesn't point the finger.  It's an acknowledgement that what has gone before, under Hoat, Bolton-Hoat and The Mountain is now over (although Jaime doesn't leave her there and she isn't keen to stay) but may not be seen as a strict violation of law because, well, war, rebellion, right of conquest and punishment of rebels / the defeated enemy.  And as Jaime knows, Tywin ordered the Riverlands to be set alight so which atrocities are to be punished and which forgotten?

If Pretty Pia had been a noble daughter of a friendly lord or bannerman somehow caught up in the fighting, a Jeyne Westerling say (absent marriage to or sleeping with the enemy, with wolves) it would be treated as a straightforward case of rape and Jaime would have punished the perpetrators severely.  If it had been a noblewoman from the other side - a daughter of Lady Whent or a Blackwood, say - probably Jaime would have punished the perpetrators out of class solidarity and the political considerations of mollifying the local powers that be and pacifying the resentful countryside more swiftly; and out of personal distaste too.  But Pretty Pia is not important enough for him to start gelding or hanging his own Lannister foot soldiers over, however scummy.  And as the soldiers would say: "But m'lord Bolton / Ser Gregor said we could make use of her".

[Hugorfonics]

On 1/16/2024 at 7:46 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I agree that there is no substantive reason connected to Brienne for Tarly to dismiss any of his knights but as they are household knights, in effect one step up from mercenaries rather than landed bannermen, he can dismiss them at will.  The fact that he is retained for over a year, along with several others, would seem to indicate that the bet over Brienne wasn't a rape waiting to happen but indicative that Hunt isn't exactly a shining star in Tarly's eyes.

Or more likely,  completely unrelated 

On 1/16/2024 at 7:46 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Nothing happens to Brienne.  Renly makes her a member of the Rainbow Guard.  She feels humiliated when it's explained to her that all the knights courting her aren't doing it out of chivalrous admiration but because of a wager to bed her.  Until they are told that she's a highborn daughter of a key bannerman and to stop that shit. And that's that.

Because events happen. Like Randyll telling em to cut it out, not introducing her, because they already knew.

And it's not like the knights accepted her or that Renly was over accommodating,  she had to literally fight tooth and nail, kicking all of of their asses and begged for the chance to wear the rainbow. It's all very antagonistic with nearly everyone present complaining. 

On 1/16/2024 at 7:46 AM, the trees have eyes said:

And that rapist would end up on The Wall or gelded, his House and family dishonoured and ostracised.  Not a very smart move.

I think you're letting your own bias show here.  The bolded is a non sequitur as you reach a determination of guilt from zero evidence and the italicised simply says all knights are rapists.  If this is really your view then it's not remotely established in the text.  There's no inevitability here, just a bet that led to nothing.

Obviously it's remotely established becaue they talk about it. You don't belive it and are coming up with reasons why Randyll lied and why Brienne belived him, fair enough. 

But at the least it's remotely established 

Yes, sometimes rapists get sent to the Wall, or get their bits chopped off and if this Brienne incident blew up it'd look bad for Renly and Randyll,  but that wouldn't make Brienne not a rape victim.  It's not like today there aren't laws against rape that are ignored by either the perpetrator or the courts anyway.

On 1/16/2024 at 7:46 AM, the trees have eyes said:

The thing is: is it a thing that is okay or a thing that will be punished? 

Of course there are laws, they're just easily ignored by whatever party. Like Robert and Cersei for example. Although in a way he was punished. 

 

On 1/16/2024 at 7:46 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I'm aware that you treat all cultures with equal contempt and refuse to distinguish any one from the others in terms of awfulness.  Nonetheless, the Ironborn are the only culture to operate a quaint cultural tradition of reaving, whereby they raid their neighbours and abduct and sexually enslave womenfolk.  The lives of the smallfolk in Westeros are not easy and in war when the dubious protection of the law is effectively suspended life becomes brutal but they are not enslaved and made thralls or salt wives - at least not legally.  Pretty Pia may be raped at Harrenhal but she is not carried back to The Dreadfort or Lannisport as a chattel slave.  The only direct comparison is Ramsay taking the women of Winterfell back to The Dreadfort for his "sport" (which is actually worse given the nature of his sport) but this is obviously as illegal as we can imagine in Westeros not a bona fide "cultural tradition".

Only way to properly treat other cultures.

Pretty pia is litteraly carried away from Harrenhal. It's by Jaime, so not bad, but that's a semantic and in normal conditions she'd be a sex toy, like how she was used before Jaime.

I guess not legally,  but who cares, like we established that doesn't make the victim not raped. Slavery in Harrenhal was a thing, they grabbed Arya and co and forced them to to work for no pay. If she was a few years older she'd have gotten Pias treatment as well.

In fact the legality to the iron borns debauchery adds a certain safeguard element to it which of course doesn't make thralldom and salt wives acceptable but does make it "better" then the the way greenlanders operate with their animalistic ways and lack of cultural play.

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Fully agree.  Jaime restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall.  But it's also now peacetime, the Riverlands are restored to the 7K, the River Lords have made their submissions to the Iron Throne and it's now friendly territory.  He doesn't set about taking a witness statement from Pretty Pia or establishing if (and it's not a very big if) any of the Mountain's Men raped her and she doesn't point the finger.  It's an acknowledgement that what has gone before, under Hoat, Bolton-Hoat and The Mountain is now over (although Jaime doesn't leave her there and she isn't keen to stay) but may not be seen as a strict violation of law because, well, war, rebellion, right of conquest and punishment of rebels / the defeated enemy.  And as Jaime knows, Tywin ordered the Riverlands to be set alight so which atrocities are to be punished and which forgotten?

If Pretty Pia had been a noble daughter of a friendly lord or bannerman somehow caught up in the fighting, a Jeyne Westerling say (absent marriage to or sleeping with the enemy, with wolves) it would be treated as a straightforward case of rape and Jaime would have punished the perpetrators severely.  If it had been a noblewoman from the other side - a daughter of Lady Whent or a Blackwood, say - probably Jaime would have punished the perpetrators out of class solidarity and the political considerations of mollifying the local powers that be and pacifying the resentful countryside more swiftly; and out of personal distaste too.  But Pretty Pia is not important enough for him to start gelding or hanging his own Lannister foot soldiers over, however scummy.  And as the soldiers would say: "But m'lord Bolton / Ser Gregor said we could make use of her".

Uh .... he hangs a Lannister soldier for doing exactly that:

One of the Mountain's men had tried to rape the girl at Harrenhal, and had seemed honestly perplexed when Jaime commanded Ilyn Payne to take his head off. "I had her before, a hunnerd times," he kept saying as they forced him to his knees. "A hunnerd times, m'lord. We all had her." When Ser Ilyn presented Pia with his head, she had smiled through her ruined teeth.

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Uh .... he hangs a Lannister soldier for doing exactly that:

One of the Mountain's men had tried to rape the girl at Harrenhal, and had seemed honestly perplexed when Jaime commanded Ilyn Payne to take his head off. "I had her before, a hunnerd times," he kept saying as they forced him to his knees. "A hunnerd times, m'lord. We all had her." When Ser Ilyn presented Pia with his head, she had smiled through her ruined teeth.

Yes, I said he restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall as it is now peacetime.  I also said what he doesn't do is go over past events, take a witness statement from Pia and seek to punish crimes that were committed during the war.  Any crime from this point on is punished.  You'll note that the man implicates all his colleagues in raping Pia earlier but Jaime does nothing about this. 

21 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Pretty pia is litteraly carried away from Harrenhal. It's by Jaime, so not bad, but that's a semantic and in normal conditions she'd be a sex toy, like how she was used before Jaime.

I guess not legally,  but who cares, like we established that doesn't make the victim not raped. Slavery in Harrenhal was a thing, they grabbed Arya and co and forced them to to work for no pay. If she was a few years older she'd have gotten Pias treatment as well.

In fact the legality to the iron borns debauchery adds a certain safeguard element to it which of course doesn't make thralldom and salt wives acceptable but does make it "better" then the the way greenlanders operate with their animalistic ways and lack of cultural play.

 

I'm really trying not to derail this thread but what you type is, um, curious, let's call it that.  So you think Jaime is following a version of The Old Way?  Even you have to be able to see he is rescuing and protecting her not stealing and raping her. 

You "guess not legally"?  The whole point is what the law allows and what it doesn't.  We have laws against rape, human trafficking, forced prostitution and coercive control - doesn't mean they are always observed or that our courts manage a decent conviction rate or effective protections.  But the Ironborn have a law / cultural practice that allows it.  You have to be able to see that.... 

So the Ironborn's sexual enslavement adds a safeguarding element to it does it?  It's superior to the Greenlanders "animalistic" ways, is it?  What did Victarion do to his salt wife again?  One group has laws against this kind of thing, the other doesn't, it has a society built on it.  Please just stop.  This is beyond clowning around.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm really trying not to derail this thread but what you type is, um, curious, let's call it that.  So you think Jaime is following a version of The Old Way?  Even you have to be able to see he is rescuing and protecting her not stealing and raping her. 

I'm not entirely sure what label to give him, but not "old way" which is extremely ambiguous and means different things to different people. But Jaime put Bonifer in command who ruled that Pia is exiled from Harrenhal, the only home she's ever known and forced her to follow Jaimes camp.

Definitely in Bonifers eyes she's a hooker, Jaime is a little more woke then like fucking Bonifer yet nevertheless, despite his pleas, she is basically walking the path of a thrall.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You "guess not legally"?  The whole point is what the law allows and what it doesn't.  We have laws against rape, human trafficking, forced prostitution and coercive control - doesn't mean they are always observed or that our courts manage a decent conviction rate or effective protections.  But the Ironborn have a law / cultural practice that allows it.  You have to be able to see that.... 

So the Ironborn's sexual enslavement adds a safeguarding element to it does it?  It's superior to the Greenlanders "animalistic" ways, is it?  What did Victarion do to his salt wife again?  One group has laws against this kind of thing, the other doesn't, it has a society built on it.  Please just stop.  This is beyond clowning around.

They all have a culture that allows it, that's what I'm saying. Roose Bolton does acknowledge that the rights of first night is illegal and does acknowledge that if he leaves the husband with a tongue he could get in trouble with the law, but what did that accomplish? 

If you just look at the awfulness of ironborn culture they're gonna come out awful, but again I say they're at least more pragmatic in a nicer way, for example if Pia were to have kids they'd be smallfolk and susceptible to the same calamity that their mom was, under ironborn culture they'd be integrated and presumably better defended by the kings peace, at the least in a better position to take care of their toothless mother.

Victarions wife cheated on him, Eddard assumed the penalty for adultery was death, and there's no reason to think that isn't the case for the rest of the Sunset. Balon certainly took a legality view on the subject which is why Euron was banished, like it's awful no doubt. But it's awful in typical Westeros fashion, Shae was violently killed too. 

[SaffronLady]

54 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Eddard assumed the penalty for adultery was death

Oh, not just adultery per se, but the queen's adultery of the king constitutes high treason.

Something often overlooked in the Robert-Cersei relationship.

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yes, I said he restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall as it is now peacetime.  I also said what he doesn't do is go over past events, take a witness statement from Pia and seek to punish crimes that were committed during the war.  Any crime from this point on is punished.  You'll note that the man implicates all his colleagues in raping Pia earlier but Jaime does nothing about this. 

It's definitely not peace time, RR and Blackwoods are still holding out. Stannis holds DS and SE. Stoneheart and the rest of the Brave Companions are wreaking havoc in the RL. The IB are raiding the entirety of the coastal Reach. Jaime does what can to restore rule of law and leaves behind the holy hundred to help, but even he doubts if it's enough.

Your statement just felt a bit contradictory, starting out with its peacetime and then saying he never punished someone for a war crime, which he actually did on multiple occasions, the Lannister soldier who raped Pia and the Lannister deserter, among others, who occupied the ruins of the Wode's tower houses.

[the trees have eyes]

On 1/19/2024 at 7:10 PM, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's definitely not peace time, RR and Blackwoods are still holding out. Stannis holds DS and SE. Stoneheart and the rest of the Brave Companions are wreaking havoc in the RL. The IB are raiding the entirety of the coastal Reach. Jaime does what can to restore rule of law and leaves behind the holy hundred to help, but even he doubts if it's enough.

That's more accurate, I suppose.  Harrenhall is on the edge of the tail end of a war zone with the only River Lords yet to submit (Blackwood and Brynden in lieu of Edmure Tully) under siege.  The area is full of broken men and law and order will need time to restore, years maybe (the sack of Saltpans, the BWB as you point out).  But Harrenhall is recovered territory (if not exactly friendly) and the inhabitants are to be offered the protection of the law, rather than treated like an occupied enemy.

On 1/19/2024 at 7:10 PM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Your statement just felt a bit contradictory, starting out with its peacetime and then saying he never punished someone for a war crime, which he actually did on multiple occasions, the Lannister soldier who raped Pia and the Lannister deserter, among others, who occupied the ruins of the Wode's tower houses.

What I mean is Jaime would punish soldiers under his command who carried out rape (in peacetime or wartime).  He's not exactly Stannis and his track record with honour is spotty to say the least but he would punish rape.  However, men under one of his father's bannermen clearly committed atrocities at Harrenhall when it was in rebellion against the Iron Throne (or it's Lady/Lord was), including a whole lot of rape and he does not punish this. 

Maybe he doesn't see this as his business, as he was not in command of those men so although he doesn't approve he doesn't think he has the right or authority to interfere retroactively with another's orders and punish them (which authority he does have now and makes his view very clear).  Feudal right of justice belongs to the lord unless you took a grievance or complaint up the line - as the villagers who were initially pillaged by Gregor's men did by appealing directly to the King / Ned in Robert's absence.  But I find that a bit unlikely as it would prevent Jaime (or anyone) from intervening in any way when they found a crime being committed.

So I tend to think he knows the men are guilty of crimes but that the "wartime vs peacetime" distinction means he feels obliged to overlook what their own Lord / officers permitted against an enemy, albeit an enemy civilian population.  It's not quite the same as an amnesty but like Dany after the Sack of Meereen it's not going to be punished, though new offences will.

Westeros doesn't have a written penal code afaik so the penalty for rape is not set in stone - rapists seems to be offered a choice of castration or joining the NW - Daereon I think; Jon Snow has a black brother who was a serial rapist of septas and tattooed himself for every victim - but Jaime has him executed.  Why? Military discipline or making an example to restore that discipline?  Licence to pass sentence as the lord sees fit?  An attempt to be true to the vows of knighthood, given that spotty record to date?  Fondness for Pretty Pia who Bolton sent to him as a bed warmer and who he turned away, mixed with anger at the knowledge of what she must have endured?

The wartime / peacetime distinction is an attempt to understand Jaime's actions - ignoring past actions and punishing the present rape - when rape is obviously a crime.  Westeros seems to blur the line in wartime as to whether rape will be punished (Stannis obviously, Ned and others most likely, Tywin and his like will ignore it or punish it depending on the benefit to be gained) without using rape and sexual enslavement as a tactic, indeed a motive, like the Ironborn.

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

The wartime / peacetime distinction is an attempt to understand Jaime's actions - ignoring past actions and punishing the present rape - when rape is obviously a crime.  Westeros seems to blur the line in wartime as to whether rape will be punished (Stannis obviously, Ned and others most likely, Tywin and his like will ignore it or punish it depending on the benefit to be gained) without using rape and sexual enslavement as a tactic, indeed a motive, like the Ironborn.

I think that in general:-

1. Anything goes, pretty much, when a city is sacked, for 24 hours or so, before order is restored.  Not only would it be pointless to try and restrain the soldiers, it serves the purpose of inducing other towns to surrender upon terms.

2. Most commanders reckon that rape is going to happen on campaign.  It's only likely to be punished if the victim is highborn, or if it's done to people who are friendly (and even then, it's a matter of pragmatism.  Maidenpool was sacked by Northern soldiers).

3. Tywin and Ser Kevan are in a special league, commanders who actively encourage mass rape as a terror tactic.

4. Enemies who surrender at discretion can be executed on the spot.  But, if the opposing commander chooses to take prisoners, then the better commanders do consider themselves under an obligation to behave humanely towards prisoners (hence, Stannis gelding the men who raped spearwives, and rejecting calls to sacrifice Asha).  The worse commanders, like Tywin, have no qualms about murdering prisoners, or using them as forced labour.