On Right of Conquest

[mcb]

Haven't looked through all 5 pgs of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Aegon I's war and Robert's. Aegon set out to conquer a foreign land, while Robert set out to rebel against his rightful king to whom he had pledged fealty. This is why many people are very reluctant to call a rebellion a "conquest".

At what point does a usurper become a rightful king, if ever? Aegon conquered a land and MADE the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms as they are today, but Robert STOLE that throne and that kingdom being one of the main differences.

First, Aegon became King of the Seven Kingdoms by the right of "oh shit, he has three giant DRAGONS!". Aerys couldn't claim that right. Second, the Targaryens didn't hesitate from replacing one well established dynasty with another. They gave Highgarden to the Tyrells, Storm's End to the Baratheons, and Iron Islands to the Greyjoys. I see no problem with them having a taste of their own medicine.

That said, I don't consider myself a Baratheon loyalist. Neither am I a Targ loyalist.

[Ciglon]

First, Aegon became King of the Seven Kingdoms by the right of "oh shit, he has three giant DRAGONS!". Aerys couldn't claim that right. Second, the Targaryens didn't hesitate from replacing one well established dynasty with another. They gave Highgarden to the Tyrells, Storm's End to the Baratheons, and Iron Islands to the Greyjoys. I see no problem with them having a taste of their own medicine.

That said, I don't consider myself a Baratheon loyalist. Neither am I a Targ loyalist.

Interesting perspective, but the notion of right of blood and monarchy seems to be well-developed and widely accepted in Westeros, so given this view (that succession to a monarchy is legitimate) would you say rebellion is ever justified by the idea of "right of conquest"?

[Lord Varys]

There is no such thing as a 'Right of Conquest'. Wars and conquests are predate any law (or are completely outside the legal sphere). Law only exists within a social order, whereas war and conquests effectively change/ignore the ruling order.

'Right of Conquest' means that whoever wins the war/conquers something makes the (new) rules/laws. But that's just 'right' or 'legal' as long as whoever really owns the stuff takes it back (or his legal representatives). In Aerys's case, Aegon and Dany would fit this. Their claim is valid as long as people in Westeros actually care to support it.

Robert Baratheon never conquered anything. He staged a coup while fighting for his life against his royal cousin. He may have killed Rhaegar Targaryen, but this singular deed did not make the Targaryen dynasty disappear. The Lannisters killed Aerys, Aegon, Rhaenys, and Elia. They 'conquered' the capital of the Seven Kingdoms and seized the Iron Throne - and still neither Jaime nor Tywin became kings.

Robert was crowned because he had the best claim among the lords leading the rebellion. He liked saying that he won the Iron Throne with his warhammer, but that had actually little to do with it. Ned Stark had as much part in everything Robert did (and he did even do more than Robert himself, since he prevented the Lannisters from seizing the power in KL - if both Ned and Robert had come much later to KL, Tywin could have actually decided to establish himself as Lord Regent and Hand of the King of Viserys III), but neither Jon Arryn nor Ned Stark had any claim to the Iron Throne. If Ned had been the charismatic, womanizing super-knight, Robert would have still been put on the Iron Throne, because he had the legal right to do so.

No one would have accepted Ned or Jon Arryn as king since they had no connection to the royal house. Just as Mace Tyrell would be in real trouble if he would declare himself King Mace I after Tommen and Myrcella died. Just because he has no claim.

More importantly, the rebels during Robert's Rebellion had no intention to destroy the Targaryen Realm. Putting a lord with no claim on the Iron Throne would motivate any lord in the Realm to challenge said lord's right to rule over him. And Balon Greyjoy did just that, despite the fact that Robert Baratheon had a claim to the Iron Throne.

As to Stannis:

He is a man of the law. He thinks he is King of Westeros because his elder brother was, and the law of Westeros states that a younger brother inherits his elder brother's estate if said brother left no legitimate children as heirs.

That's why Stannis considers the claims of Joffrey/Tommen/Myrcella null and void, that's why Renly is a vile thief to him, and that's why he holds people like Robb Stark or Balon Greyjoy in contempt. They all broke the law.

The interesting thing here is that Stannis cannot deny Aegon's or Dany's claim this easily (or with similar arguments). Stannis himself did not bend the knee after he lost on the Blackwater. If power/conquest shapes the law, then Stannis should have bend the knee after Joffrey defeated him. Since he did not, he cannot reasonable expect that Aegon or Dany just meekly stand by, while the Baratheons take away their inheritance/property from them.

[mcb]

Interesting perspective, but the notion of right of blood and monarchy seems to be well-developed and widely accepted in Westeros, so given this view (that succession to a monarchy is legitimate) would you say rebellion is ever justified by the idea of "right of conquest"?

There's a social contract between a lord and his vassals, not unlike a gangster would offer a shop owner: you pay me for protection, and you won't have an accident, no one would break windows in your shop, your house won't mysteriously catch fire. If it's agreed, then the big guy is supposed to uphold his end of the deal, otherwise he shouldn't be surprised when his vassals reject the deal at their end.

So: rebellion at a whim, just because you think you're strong enough? No. But when, let's say, king executes a few dozens of fairly innocent people without even a courtesy of a trial, and then asks for more heads of another innocent people - that's entirely different cup of tea.

[Lonin]

Interesting post, note that there are some definitions (and international law viewpoints) regarding 'Right of Conquest', and 'Right of Revolution/Rebellion" . check wiki....

In my view, Aegon ruled by 'Right of Conquest' , where Robert ruled by 'Right of Rebellion' , Robert also used his Targ grandmother(?) to help his claim. The 7 kingdoms bent a knee to his rule.

Dany, the Targ family did not bend a knee, plans to take back what is hers by force - the Baratheons were just a brief pause in the Targ family dynasty. The revolution short lived, and the usurpers reign over. Three dragons make the rules :bowdown:

[Chaircat Meow]

Lots of interesting posts here. I find myself wondering as well what "right of conquest" really means, legally speaking. If it's just an acknowledgement that "might makes right," then that's true, but what does it have to do with law in any sense other than "the winners make the laws"?

If it's more than that, then what is it? Was there some codified set of rules for taking the throne by "right of conquest" that Robert followed, thereby becoming ever after the new legal and therefore "rightful" king? What are we even discussing here?

If there wasn't such a law, then taking the throne was not a lawful act; it was an unlawful one. Does that matter in any real sense? The comment earlier that length of time the dynasty in power has power seems dead-on to me, I must say -- right or not, Americans will all say we have a "right" to our land now. Yet our ancestors stole it in the most despicable of ways, truth be told. The longer you hold something, the more "yours" it seems to become, especially when all of the people involved in the initial conquest are long gone, and everyone now alive is someone who grew up with things as they are post-conquest.

Perhaps we can make the distinction between conquering a foreign power and rebelling against your "rightful" king. Perhaps in the end, it doesn't matter, and might really does make right.

But I just have to keep coming back to it. What, in any legal sense, does "right of conquest" actually mean, apart from "might makes right"? Because I have to be honest: when people keep going on about that as though it were a legal thing and not just an acknowledgement that the winners make the rules, I really have no idea what they're talking about. I can't imagine any society anywhere actually having a codified law that says "you have the legal right to usurp your ruler/government and take over." That just doesn't compute.

It works by shoe-horning some RL political concepts into Westerosi thinking, where they may or may not apply. Certainly, many western political philosophers did believe in a 'Right of Conquest' in previous centuries. They were not legal positivists presumably so they didn't see the need for this to be written down anywhere. Indeed, the 'Right of Conquest' would supersede existing constitutions. Its essentially the foundation from which legitimate government can derive. There is a line of hereditary descent and the original ancestor draws legitimacy, and imparts it to his/her progeny, from the act of conquest. That's it.

[greygnarl]

The reason that people don't see Robert as winning the realm by right of conquest is because he was sworn to Aerys. Of course you can say that Aerys broke the agreement orderecd his death. He did so I'd say the Baratheon claim is legitimate.

[Chaircat Meow]

First, Aegon became King of the Seven Kingdoms by the right of "oh shit, he has three giant DRAGONS!". Aerys couldn't claim that right. Second, the Targaryens didn't hesitate from replacing one well established dynasty with another. They gave Highgarden to the Tyrells, Storm's End to the Baratheons, and Iron Islands to the Greyjoys. I see no problem with them having a taste of their own medicine.

That said, I don't consider myself a Baratheon loyalist. Neither am I a Targ loyalist.

I think the idea is that Aegon's line is the legitimate one because Aegon conquered the seven kingdoms. How he did this is not important. Aerys' right to be king comes from his descent, within established rules, from Aegon. Every other claimant, including Robert, takes their stand on their relation to Aegon too.

In Ciglon's argument the difference between Targ destruction of other dynasties and Robert's destruction of the Targs is that the former acts were done as a war between equals, as enemy kings and so on, whereas Robert rose against a man he was sworn to serve.

[Chaircat Meow]

There's a social contract between a lord and his vassals, not unlike a gangster would offer a shop owner: you pay me for protection, and you won't have an accident, no one would break windows in your shop, your house won't mysteriously catch fire. If it's agreed, then the big guy is supposed to uphold his end of the deal, otherwise he shouldn't be surprised when his vassals reject the deal at their end.

So: rebellion at a whim, just because you think you're strong enough? No. But when, let's say, king executes a few dozens of fairly innocent people without even a courtesy of a trial, and then asks for more heads of another innocent people - that's entirely different cup of tea.

Although this could be the case there is no real hint of it in the books.

It doesn't seem to have any legal footing anyway.

Do people just assume its an obvious moral truth? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure Robert or Ned would ever justify their actions in those terms anyway.

Regardless though, this seems to concede the point that it is the validity of the rebellion that makes Stannis legitimate.

[Knight Of Winter]

Lots of interesting posts here. I find myself wondering as well what "right of conquest" really means, legally speaking. If it's just an acknowledgement that "might makes right," then that's true, but what does it have to do with law in any sense other than "the winners make the laws"?

Just so. Legally it means nothing. Practically it means "I conquered this land and therefore I have the right to it".

[Fantôme]

Although this could be the case there is no real hint of it in the books.

Well I only remember the Reeds' oath to Bran but if it's any indication, there's certainly an obligation of the lord towards the vassal :"Grant Mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

(ETA: Also , not the same kind of oath but IIRC , when Brienne swore fealty to Catelyn there was something about Catelyn's responsibility too.)

[jblair]

Well, so far Stannis has conquered jack and shit.

Right of conquest involves more art than science;

Step 1: Conquer

Step 2: Start ruling with some level of competence, whether through fear, unassailable power, or love of the people

Step 3: Maintain this sense of order through at least a couple of generations, thereby setting the baseline of governance (throughout all rebellions against the Targeryens, there was still a high level of support for them, even after the dragons were gone)

The Targs accomplished all 3 steps until their downfall.

The Baratheons have only managed the first 2 steps, so in the grand scheme of things Robert truly is nothing more than a usurper after all.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Targeryens, but their claim is still the only one there is.

[The BlackBear]

The interesting thing here is that Stannis cannot deny Aegon's or Dany's claim this easily (or with similar arguments). Stannis himself did not bend the knee after he lost on the Blackwater. If power/conquest shapes the law, then Stannis should have bend the knee after Joffrey defeated him. Since he did not, he cannot reasonable expect that Aegon or Dany just meekly stand by, while the Baratheons take away their inheritance/property from them.

I think it should be pointed out that there is a difference between a battle and a war. If Stannis had been captured he'd have sworn fealty (never gonna happen) or been executed. He hadn't and more importantly had retained the will to fight, so his war to assume 'his throne' is not over.

Similarly Robb won his battles but lost his war (and his head.) Thus fealties were sworn to the Barathisters.

I don't think anyone, least of all Stannis expects the (possible) Targaryans to just roll over. The point most of us are driving at, is that Stannis is the King because he is the heir of the lawfully acknowledged king (Robert.) Aegon, and Dany's claim comes via Aerys, this claim was essentially bypassed by the rebellion. i.e their claim (legally) must descend from the last king (Robert,) they have practically no claim. Therefore Stannis can deny it quite easily.

If they plan to become ruler/s they'd have to conquer or at least gain support from all the lords. Any heritage rights would be merely a tag on thing, like Roberts 'claim.'

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Reposted from another thread:

Westeros doesn't have anything resembling a mature legal system - it's all based on conquest without any pretense of theoretical justification (they don't even claim that the Gods want it to be so) - so calling anyone the "rightful king" (to the extent that such a thing can even exist) doesn't make much sense to me.

It makes sense if you follow the history of Westeros. And it also depends on your personal definition of "rightful king".

As I stated in the other thread, I do not believe there is a true king of Westeros, but following the history of Westeros I feel there is a rightful king within the context of this thread.

Haven't looked through all 5 pgs of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there is a difference between Aegon I's war and Robert's. Aegon set out to conquer a foreign land, while Robert set out to rebel against his rightful king to whom he had pledged fealty. This is why many people are very reluctant to call a rebellion a "conquest".

At what point does a usurper become a rightful king, if ever? Aegon conquered a land and MADE the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms as they are today, but Robert STOLE that throne and that kingdom being one of the main differences.

Following your reasoning, Aegon 'stole' the land.

The interesting thing here is that Stannis cannot deny Aegon's or Dany's claim this easily (or with similar arguments). Stannis himself did not bend the knee after he lost on the Blackwater. If power/conquest shapes the law, then Stannis should have bend the knee after Joffrey defeated him. Since he did not, he cannot reasonable expect that Aegon or Dany just meekly stand by, while the Baratheons take away their inheritance/property from them.

The former kings of the Seven Kingdoms would not have bent the knee so easily if there wasn't the threat of being burned alive by dragon fire. The Battle of the Blackwater was one battle in an ongoing war. Until Stannis bends the knee, or is killed, he has not been defeated. I doubt he expects Dany and Aegon to meekly stand by.

I think the idea is that Aegon's line is the legitimate one because Aegon conquered the seven kingdoms. How he did this is not important. Aerys' right to be king comes from his descent, within established rules, from Aegon. Every other claimant, including Robert, takes their stand on their relation to Aegon too.

In Ciglon's argument the difference between Targ destruction of other dynasties and Robert's destruction of the Targs is that the former acts were done as a war between equals, as enemy kings and so on, whereas Robert rose against a man he was sworn to serve.

How Aegon I conquered Westeros is very important. His conquest would not have been so simple if he did not have dragons. Aegon's conquest was not a war between equals.

Robert rose against a king that had unjustly ordered his death...that plays an important part in the Baratheon legitimacy debate.

[Swordsaint]

I'm making this little post in response to what I've found to be an outrageously prevalent misconception among my fellow "Fourm of Ice and Fire" posters. Everywhere I look, every topic I get involved in, someone seems to pipe up about how Daenerys and/or Aegon are the ones with the best, or most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne. This often comes up in discussions about Stannis. I often see people wondering how Stannis will react when he hears about Deanerys and Aegon, being that Stannis is a man who believes in doing one's duty. Most posters seem to think that Stannis' claim to the throne is weakened by the existence of these Targaryens, and that Stannis himself may even relinquish his claim once he realizes that there are others out there with a better claim than he. Everyone seems to forget one simple fact: Right of Conquest cuts both ways.

The Targaryens are the lords of Westeros by RIGHT OF CONQUEST and nothing else. Aegon took the 7 Kingdoms by force, and his descendants inherited them by his decree. 300 years later, Robert Baratheon took the Iron Throne himself, by RIGHT OF CONQUEST. His conquest was every bit as legitimate as Aegon's, and when he won his war he and HIS DESCENDANTS became the rightful rulers of Westeros. Until Dany, or Aegon, or Jon or whatever other potential Targaryen takes it BACK by right of conquest, Stannis Baratheon is the rightful King and the Iron Throne belongs to him. End of story.

Very well put! But only if the Baratheons and Targaryen's were to have their fight in a courtroom would the Baratheons win. As a wise man once said "power resides where men believe it resides." When Dany comes back on her Dragons it's game over for Stannis (assuming he even lives that long.)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Very well put! But only if the Baratheons and Targaryen's were to have their fight in a courtroom would the Baratheons win. As a wise man once said "power resides where men believe it resides." When Dany comes back on her Dragons it's game over for Stannis (assuming he even lives that long.)

You assume she'll come back with all three of them in hand. :P

[Im no Ser]

But I just have to keep coming back to it. What, in any legal sense, does "right of conquest" actually mean, apart from "might makes right"? Because I have to be honest: when people keep going on about that as though it were a legal thing and not just an acknowledgement that the winners make the rules, I really have no idea what they're talking about. I can't imagine any society anywhere actually having a codified law that says "you have the legal right to usurp your ruler/government and take over." That just doesn't compute.

You've hit the nail on the head. Westeros doesn't have a mature legal system. It has no codified laws, nor even any theoretical underpinnings by which a body of jurisprudence could be built. It might be archaic by our standards, but medieval Europe had a huge body of canon law, which applied to (amongst other things) dynastic succession. Behind that canon law stood the principle that Monarchs were God's chosen representatives on earth. Westeros doesn't have that - there's nothing to suggest that either the Targs or the Baratheons derived their rule from the Gods (unsurprising since their kingdom had multiple religions), and it looks like the only contribution the seven make to the laws are rules for trial by combat.

Westerosi "law" is built on a system of cross-oaths, some of which contradict each other. Anyone who is looking for a deeper philosophy guiding the Westerosi legal system need look no further than Robert's warhammer.

[hockema56]

Why can't you guys understand that this is a conversation about Westerosi Law, not about the actual, tangible strength of a claim. You're missing the point by a country mile!!

[hockema56]

And so is Stannis, depending on whom to ask. However, the validity of their claims got tested on shores of Blackwater, and Lannister and Tyrell swords proven Joffrey (and by extension Tommen) to be the rightful one.

The validity of Stannis' claim was not tested on the Blackwater. In what way does winning the battle of the Blackwater make what the Lannisters are dong lawful? Sure, they strengthened their position, but it didn't change the fact that Stannis is the rightful king. so many people missing the point...

[hockema56]

So if you're an American like me, I'm sure you'll agree we should pack up and leave immediately and give this land back to the Native Americans our ancestors stole it from?

No?

Alrighty then.

I don't think I can type this anymore without crippling my hand, but I'll say it once more: You're missing the effing point!!!! No one is saying that Stannis' lawful claim makes him any more likely to win the Iron Throne, and no one is suggesting that it even really matters in the scheme of things. This is simply a discussion of law in westeros .