Atrocities in the Series

[mrunderhill]

We have two accounts of the reason for Elia's rape and murder. Oberyn's speculation that it was a direct act of revenge for Tywin's being slighted, Tywin simply saying it was an oversight on his part, and that he didn't know what manner of man Ser Gregor was. I find the former more likely. Tywin showed that he was prepared to order Tyrion's wife to be raped, as an act of punishment.

An act of punishment and a lesson to his son. However, Tywin and Kevan are two huge snobs. Far more so than even the common noble. We have seen that even Victarion thinks it is wrong to rape noble women, but is fine with raping common women. Killing and raping Elia does not suit any purpose for Tywin and he was not a man moved by his emotions much.

[SeanF]

Tywin and Kevan are indeed snobs, but actually, one of the things that makes them unusual is their willingness to sanction atrocities against members of their own class. Ser Gregor butchers the young Lord Darry, and rapes Lord Blackwood's daughter; Tywin plans the Red Wedding.

[The Sleeper]

IMHO, Catelyn's judgement was better than her brother's. If Riverrun came under siege, it's likely that at some point, non-combatants would have to be expelled in order to conserve food supplies. I doubt if Tywin or Jaime would have let them through their lines, so they'd have starved to death in no-man's land.

True enough. Though at this stage this was done to protect to protect them from foraging parties rather than with a future siege in sight, which at that point would appear unlikely. The inference is that Catelyn believed that the welfare of the people of the Riverlands was served better by the preservation of house Tully and thus winnig the war. In short, she was thinking on broader terms.

[Theda Baratheon]

I generally appreciate the ''greyness'' of characters. I think there's only one character I used to like but now really dislike and that's Tyrion. I don't like him as a person and I don't like him as a character. Maybe I'm due a re-read so I can feel more sympathy for him and enjoy his character like I used to, but as of now I just don't like him at all.

[Penguin king]

That kind of argument sounds like "he started it". As far as Tywin knew this was an arrest made with the authority of the hand of the king. He had the recourse of appealing to the king to order the release of Tyrion. Which Robert did. The war the result of his desire to protect his image of man one can't afford to cross. I won't deny it has served him well.

The point i'm making, is Cat is just as willing as Tywin to exploit her rank and privilage to enlist others into persuing her own personal desires. In doing so she makes the riverlands a potential Target for Tywin. Tywin in turn enlists the Mountain to raid, and in response to that Ned commands Beric Dondarrion and others to deal with the mountain. The King's name is used and abused to settle personal scores, but at no point is the Robert ever consulted. More and more people just get dragged in to what should have been a family dispute, and before you know it half the realm is at war.

[Fire and Blood!]

What most of you call atrocities I call waging war.

[butterbumps!]

Maybe then, we are not as progressed as we think we are. There were also times and places in our history where homosexuality was irrelevent and even socialy acceptable. The op was delivered as a blancket statement and I tried to answer with such restrictions in mind.

Whether to apply modern morality or not (whatever that may be) seems to me an individual choice. I am not offering these reason as excuses, I am simply acknowledging the fact that had I grown in a feudalist setting rather than in a middle-class urban environment I would be an entirely different person.

To make some examples with individual characters. Catelyn thought that her brother was a fool for offering sanctuary to the smallfolk. That does not mean that Cately lacks empathy. It means that her unwavering priority was the welfare of her own house and legacy. She was raised that way. This denotes her willingness to strive for people that were ultimately her family and she was a firm believer in the rule of law that her house represented. This to me is a good trait.

Another example is about Tyrion. He has been blamed that he served the Lannister cause. This is not however a matter of personal choice. That was his duty.

I am unsure as to whether Ned would have taken Theon's head off, but I am sure that many of his attitudes were the result of the personal tragedies he had suffered.

Maybe I ought to back up. There are a few non-war atrocities that are widely recognized as immoral (or at the very least, very distasteful) by the majority of characters. Child killing, rape, genocide, and torture stand out as atrocities that we see occurring with some frequency, but the characters themselves widely regard as evil. Even acts of rape or excessive cruelty during war are punished by men like Stannis and Tarly. Everyone believes Tywin/ Gregor to be monsters for killing Elia and the babies thusly.

Indeed, the prevailing attitudes of the characters indicate that with regard to certain acts that occur throughout the series, that these acts are not in fact "norms" or accepted. On these matters, the characters by and large recognize a moral compass that contemporary readers also share.

War introduces a different set of questions. This is much more contentious for even contemporary readers-- there isn't even a real alignment amongst ourselves the way, for instance, the immorality of rape probably is. But I think that the only way to really engage with the "rightness" of a character's war actions does in fact also come back to what we, as modern readers, see as "right" in this context, though there is less agreement between readers as to what that might be. War raises the same set of moral questions whether it's staged in 2000 BC, a dragon story or 2013. I don't see how pointing to the stylistic differences in war in ASOIAF versus our own ideas about morality in war matters at all-- it raises the same questions we still continue to struggle with, so I think bringing our own modern understanding to war in the series is highly relevant, not just to impose our individual ideas of morality onto it, but because the series raises really poignant questions and challenges to our own ideas of rightness.

Tywin wasn't the one to turn the family feud into a regional dispute. Cat did that when she called on her Father's Bannermen to help her kidnap Tyrion. Tywin merely escalated the situation. It's the same with Stannis and Renly, their personal desire to see themselves crowned ulitmately leads to thousands dying at black water. Even Robert's rebellion started off a fued between Rheagar and Brandon over Lyanna. I think the Ironborn are the only ones to go to war for political reasons, and even then Balon chose to invade the North rather than the much richer Westerland because of a personal vendetta

No, when Tywin has bands of unmarked terrorists plague the Riverlands in response to an arrest of his son, then yea, he turned it into a regional dispute.

[The Sleeper]

The point i'm making, is Cat is just as willing as Tywin to exploit her rank and privilage to enlist others into persuing her own personal desires. In doing so she makes the riverlands a potential Target for Tywin. Tywin in turn enlists the Mountain to raid, and in response to that Ned commands Beric Dondarrion and others to deal with the mountain. The King's name is used and abused to settle personal scores, but at no point is the Robert ever consulted. More and more people just get dragged in to what should have been a family dispute, and before you know it half the realm is at war.

These "families" happen to be the governing bodies of Westeros This has to factor in. This chain of responsibility has to have some restrictions, otherwise we can end up blaming Aemon for refusing the crown in favor of Aegon the fifth. Catelyn is responsible for a unilateral action whic was sure to create strife. Tywin is responsible for invading and laying waste to the Riverlands and Robert is responsible for not being around to be consulted.

[Scipio Africanus]

I know. It's completely ridiculous to use our own sensibilities of morality in a modern series written for a contemporary audience,

This problem goes beyond fiction. History often too is judged by the morals of the present rather than attempt to understand the morals of the age in question.

Been reading a book about the colllapse of the Roman republic, which also mentions the morality, customs and society of the Late Roman republic period. For example, raizing uppity cities who defied Rome was considered normal and even an act of self-defense and justified because Rome's "honour" had been slighted by said uppity cities. Roman legions were notorious in their brutal efficiency with which they carried out what we today consider war crimes and crimes against humanity. But Romans themselves had an entirely opinion on their actions.

Rather than dismiss Rome as a tyrinical conquerer one should look at how people (not just Romans) thought about handling conquered cities. Up till at least Napoleontic times it was considered normal that a fort/city which did not surrender was perfectly liable to get sacked if the fort/city was conquered by storm. Needless to say, the female population of a conquered fort/city was in an even worst position then than the male population. Today we look on such actions with horror, but not too long ago during WWII similar (and even more brutal, on a large scale) acts were commited by all parties participating in WWII at varying stages.

Back to Westeros. That Tywin had the royal family murdered (directly ordering it or no) was not that strange. When Octavian came to power and confirmed sole ruler of the Roman republic after Marc Anthony's (the last rival) and Cleopatra's demise, he ordered the killing of Cleopatra's and Julius Caesar's natural child, citing "too many Ceasars is never a good thing". It was utterly heartless considering Octavian was Ceasar's adopted son and had everything to thank of Caesar. Yet Octavian did so to secure peace and stability which was sorely lacking ever since the troubles began with the Gracchi and Sulla's march on Rome decades before.

Tywin however did sack KL after it surrendered willingly, which was pretty rare in our world even for the most brutal conquerers such as the Mongols, who were notorious in sacking just about everything that stood in their way. I'd say that along with raping the Riverlands it is Tywin's greatest war crime as this was a conscience and largely unnecessary step on his part.

[butterbumps!]

snip

Scip, my post was completely sarcastic, so I disagree with what you wrote. ASOIAF is not a medieval story written for a medieval audience. It's a fantasy story set in a pseudo medieval context. The characters by and large reflect similar sentiments of rightness that contemporary readers share. It's not an apologia for events in our own history, or to use our own history as a litmus to excuse or justify enormities. Martin sets up a very tangible in-world moral compass that does actually align with a modern reader's. Whether something is common in our own history really doesn't matter.

I don't see why we can't look back on our own history to make moral judgments on that behavior either. Why would it be wrong to look at Rome and say they were wrong for having slaves?

[SeanF]

What most of you call atrocities I call waging war.

War, as Sherman said, is hell. I'd regard an atrocity an act of harm that goes beyond the needs of war. Obviously, there's a wide range of opinion about what constitutes an atrocity, and what is a necessary evil. We ought to be able to agree that Ser Gregor murdering Lord Darry and raping Lord Blackwood's daughter can't be justified by any military necessity. IMO, Dany's mass executions go beyond the needs of war, along with Tyrion's incitement of the Clansmen to raid the Vale. But, those are obviously debateable.

[Scipio Africanus]

I don't see why we can't look back on our own history to make moral judgments on that behavior either. Why would it be wrong to look at Rome and say they were wrong for having slaves?

How should I phrase this. Because people judge historical events on their own compass shaped by the times they live in. It's called revisionism and its a well known problem when discussing historical events.

And Martin's world certainly doesn't match the moral compass of his characters with our post-modern 21st century Judo-Christian-Humanist views. For the characters in his timeline think very much like various western civilizations before the 20th century. Or do you think that the majority of males today in the west still believe Brienne deserves "a good hard raping" as Tarly (reportedly) put it, just because Brienne wouldn't conform to her gender stereotype?

[Nictarion]

Scip, my post was completely sarcastic, so I disagree with what you wrote. ASOIAF is not a medieval story written for a medieval audience. It's a fantasy story set in a pseudo medieval context. The characters by and large reflect similar sentiments of rightness that contemporary readers share. It's not an apologia for events in our own history, or to use our own history as a litmus to excuse or justify enormities. Martin sets up a very tangible in-world moral compass that does actually align with a modern reader's. Whether something is common in our own history really doesn't matter.

I don't see why we can't look back on our own history to make moral judgments on that behavior either. Why would it be wrong to look at Rome and say they were wrong for having slaves?

We can absolutely look back and say it was wrong for having slaves. But we could also look back a little more recently and say it was wrong for Thomas Jefferson to have slaves, absolutely it was, But he was also a great man that unfortunately lived in a time where people were not as enlightened as we are now.

[straits]

Rather than dismiss Rome as a tyrinical conquerer one should look at how people (not just Romans) thought about handling conquered cities. Up till at least Napoleontic times it was considered normal that a fort/city which did not surrender was perfectly liable to get sacked if the fort/city was conquered by storm. Needless to say, the female population of a conquered fort/city was in an even worst position then than the male population. Today we look on such actions with horror, but not too long ago during WWII similar (and even more brutal, on a large scale) acts were commited by all parties participating in WWII at varying stages.

What you are suggesting is to look at an atrocity from a the society's then 'current' baseline, as opposed to judging it by an observer's ideal. I do not think that an atrocity can merely be characterized by the relative magnitude of 'what others committed' in a certain time frame.

It is quite easy to define an act as a 'necessary evil' in retrospect, exonerating or normalising certain behaviour in order to make it more acceptable to our sentiments.

[straits]

We can absolutely look back and say it was wrong for having slaves. But we could also look back a little more recently and say it was wrong for Thomas Jefferson to have slaves, absolutely it was, But he was also a great man that unfortunately lived in a time where people were not as enlightened as we are now.

And why is there a need to add this? Nobody is claiming that they're better than their ancestors for being raised in a less oppressive environment.

[Sullen]

It depends on Whether the ends justify the means. Its like Adrian in Watchmen - he killed millions in order to save billions, but Rorschach still called him a criminal, even though he saved the world -but Rorschach himself was a hero, even though he routinely killed and mutilated people for tiny offences such as shoplifting or graffiti spraying. Its a blurry line between necessary and just out of spite, and most characters can be on both sides of the line, although some of them tend towards one end of the spectrum.

Except Ozymandias did it for lasting peace and to minimize casualties.

Dany is acting out of a desire for justice, not peace, neither is Robb, or most people in ASoIaF for that matter.

I think the comparison with Adrian is somewhat fair, but there's also something considerably wrong with it.

[mrunderhill]

How should I phrase this. Because people judge historical events on their own compass shaped by the times they live in. It's called revisionism and its a well known problem when discussing historical events.

And Martin's world certainly doesn't match the moral compass of his characters with our post-modern 21st century Judo-Christian-Humanist views. For the characters in his timeline think very much like various western civilizations before the 20th century. Or do you think that the majority of males today in the west still believe Brienne deserves "a good hard raping" as Tarly (reportedly) put it, just because Brienne wouldn't conform to her gender stereotype?

Again I point out that this card is overplayed. Westeros for the most part are followers of the faith. Western Europe were followers of Catholicims and Eastern Europe followers of Eastern Orthodox.

I remember studing Charlemagne and it is unbelievable how self conscious and ashamed they were of the atrocities they committed. They had to justify the mass murder of 4,000 Saxon oath breakers time and time again. In fact it was a running joke with the students. The same with seizing the crown. This shows that even back then they had a problem with it. When things started going wrong with the Frankish empire, they laid the blame on the promiscuity at court. What a person or does to save himself or herself, and those he loves, is not always what he considers right. The same with what a man does in anger or in bloodlust.

[Nictarion]

And why is there a need to add this? Nobody is claiming that they're better than their ancestors for being raised in a less oppressive environment.

The point is, that the time you live in is relevant when making judgments on a person or society. Not that we should condone acts of the past, but we can understand that to the people in that time it was normal.

[Scipio Africanus]

What you are suggesting is to look at an atrocity from a 'current' baseline as opposed to judging it by an observer's ideal. I do not think that an atrocity can merely be characterized by the relative magnitude of 'what others committed' in a certain time frame.

It is quite easy to define an act as a 'necessary evil' in retrospect, exonerating or normalising certain behaviour in order to make it more acceptable to our sentiments.

And @ bumps!

I'm not saying contemporaries should blindly agree with everything in the past. I'm saying not to judge people from history just because elements were disagreeable in our own times. And that happens all the time. I'm saying you should look at what people knew and thought at the time and try to understand their motivations before blindly labeling them according to our post-modern morale compass.

That's all.

[butterbumps!]

How should I phrase this. Because people judge historical events on their own compass shaped by the times they live in. It's called revisionism and its a well known problem when discussing historical events.

And Martin's world certainly doesn't match the moral compass of his characters with our post-modern 21st century Judo-Christian-Humanist views. For the characters in his timeline think very much like various western civilizations before the 20th century. Or do you think that the majority of males today in the west still believe Brienne deserves "a good hard raping" as Tarly (reportedly) put it, just because Brienne wouldn't conform to her gender stereotype?

There is a major difference between recognizing slavery as immoral and recognizing that slave cultures were wrong about having slaves versus making a wholesale statement that slave cultures are worthless and irredeemable.

It strikes me as obtuse to not recognize that the Romans were wrong when it came to their notion of having slaves. I greatly admire the Romans, yet this is an area (among others) that they were not correct about. Much like understanding the greyness of book characters, it allows us to see both the flaws and merits of this society to recognize that they were not perfect and justified in every damn way.

I would never condemn a society or a single character wholesale for making a moral transgression. I don't think the OP was trying to suggest that all the characters who exercise poor moral judgments are categorically worthless. It's about acknowledging the good and the bad as a sum.

We can absolutely look back and say it was wrong for having slaves. But we could also look back a little more recently and say it was wrong for Thomas Jefferson to have slaves, absolutely it was, But he was also a great man that unfortunately lived in a time where people were not as enlightened as we are now.

Thomas Jefferson was wrong for owning slaves. Why is that so hard to say? Lincoln was even willing to compromise with the slave states to help the overall cause. They are both great men. They both made moral compromises. Does someone have to be a saint or messianic figure in order to be great, admirable or sympathetic?