Game of Thrones' Laws Make No Sense
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Hello everyone! Today I'm discussing the various laws found within #asongoficeandfire and Game of Thrones.
Be sure to subscribe if you enjoyed this video! What do you think? Is there anything I missed? What do you think of #houseofthedragon so far? More #asoiaf content is on the way!
Thank you all for watching! I'll be back with more theories next week! Character art in this video is by TheMico!
My Twitter: / quinnthegm
00:00 Quinn the Law Student
00:59 Master of Laws
01:57 Lord Lyonel Strong
03:04 The Ironrod
03:59 Broader Legal Systems
05:09 The King's Peace
05:46 King Maegor's Laws
06:50 Cersei Is a Political and Legal Genius
07:24 Queen Alysanne's Laws
07:44 Disputes and Trials
09:06 Trial By Combat
10:16 Abolishing Tradition
11:34 Additional Combat Rules
12:05 Inheritance Law
13:07 Conclusions - Zábava
ok, yeah maybe they make no sense but COUNTERPOINT. Imagine being a highborn lad, stealing a loaf of bread or something an then ask for a Trial of Seven and fight 7 knights with your mates. Those were the days
Those were the day!
i was born in the wrong generation
Gods we were strong then!
Dirt farmer or stable boy@@calypsoparadisepunchlemonade
This is something Bobby B would've definitely at least once in his life
Something that was always funny to me is how Ned brought 6 of his mates on his way to the tower of joy as if he was accounting for the possibility Rhaegar might demand a Trial of Seven
Like Ned didnt just came prepared, he was steps ahead
Weren't there only one other guy and Arthur Dayne here? And they still all got destroyed?
@@coconoisettetwo others I believe, and yeah. Ned just didn’t know that, he was surprised to see the Kingsguard there
While the idea is funny, I'm reasonably sure Rhaegar had been dead for weeks if not months at the time, and Ned would have known that, considering he died before the Sack of King's Landing and the Tower of Joy was after the sack
Ned already knew that Rheagar wouldn’t be there since he knows he’s at the Trident and in the show, states that Rheagar is already dead. He also was surprised when he saw the Dayne and the other KG there as he assumed they’d be with Rheagar. Overall you gotta remember that they’re still in a war, atleast the end of one and Dorne was enemy territory as they were loyalists. In short, he just wanted to keep himself protected
Ned: I thought Bobby smashed you at the Trident?
Rhaegar: I got better.
GRRM: "Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy?"
Also GRRM:
Aragorn would appear in rather comical light if his main interest was to draw plans for taxation before even being crowned a king.
@@matiasluukkanen7718Imagine if the first appendix was just Aragorn's law reforms
@@firstpersonwinner7404 honestly I'd be kinda there for that.
@@firstpersonwinner7404 Elessar I, Lawgiver
And yet these dumb laws give us the most tense and dramatic scenes in the 5 books (ASOS alone is as long as TLOTR combined).
Tolkien fans are such a let down, one would think the followers of such a man would have a collective IQ higher than a hateful twitter mob
Stannis: Firm but fair, strong sense of justice and penance, will hold anyone accountable for their actions.
Robert: Makes Renly master of laws.
In King Roberts defense he must likely was deep in his cups he just fought a war all the way to Kings Landing seeing nothing but violence & death & his reward was a chair made of swords that is still sharp after almost 300 years old & a new bride who he just met that will be his wife til death, Cersei is easy on the eyes but painful to the soul 😢& his betrothed just died yeah he was deep deep in his cups.
@@Rahim.ali80yh. Doesn't justify giving the kingdom a worse Master of Laws, and making relations between his younger brothers worse. Tho it does explain it for certain.
Also, on that Cersei part, it definitely feels like she was only a "pain on the soul" due to both how Robert clearly didn't love her and only loved his idea of Lyanna (a women he basically spent very little to no time with), as well as how poorly he treated Cersei in their first year of marriage (don't want to say here as YT would get pissed). Although I'll conceded that I'm looking more from Cersei's POV on their marriage rather than objectively, so your sentence may be right overall
Robert feared incursions by the Targaryen claimants. Stannis as Master of Ships to block invaders from crossing the Narrow Sea makes a lot of sense. When the Greyjoy Rebellion happened, it was Stannis who destroyed the Iron Fleet at Fair Isle.
Putting your naval expert on an extremely important naval outpost (Dragonstone) is also a very sensible move for Robert's needs.
9:51 you could argue the maiden and mother would also want to protect a knight or noblemen who was innocent/pure Smith and stranger are a but tougher to put into the puzzle though
@@awter.they-itcersi was a terrible person. To quore tyrion "you love your children thats your one redeeming quality. That and your cheek bones".
The job of Master of Laws is to sit there in the council and get overruled as the king makes the laws. It seems that enforcing laws falls to the Wardens of the land so it's more redundant unless the person in that position is politically savvy and actually uses it.
Nah, the job of the Master of Laws is to sit there and get blamed for all the king's law enforcement policies. But it comes with the perks of having the ear of the king, all the clout and status that entails, plus you get to make friends with all the rich people who want laws to be enforced in a specific way, and micromanage enforcement if you want.
There were a lot of court positions like this in the Byzantine empire there was even one that was basically just a gold star saying you were a really special boy. No really that’s what the title was really called.
The abolishment of Trail by Combat by the faith is essential to their goal of reestablishing the faith militant when you look at its history. The last they did trial by combat it was against Maegor who, after winning dismantled the faith militant
So I think the laws of Westeros make a bit more sense when you consider that the Lord of a given area is essentially the end-all and be-all of the law. The Lord resolves all legal disputes based on whatever their personal preference is, and so there isn't as much need for a complex legal system--except in the areas that relate to a Lord holding onto their power. Those being succession laws and trial by combat.
That doesn't make sense. Every system ever has had broader laws and religious laws.
@@laurie1183yeah, but who defines them? Definitely not the residents of flea bottom lmao
@sheildingepicness Social laws are actually determined by popular custom and historically were enforced by the general population. The citizens of fleabottom would like likely be happy to learn of a pedophile being killed or a thief being beaten, and would do so themselves if they caught one. Prior to the expansion of governments and policing the vast majority of rules were just enforced by regular people. Modern law is largely about enforcing the will of the state on people though, and it's thus rare for regular people to facilitate it.
@@laurie1183Still not laws. That would just be like the bread and salt custom.
@@laurie1183 Its nice that in the ASOIAF TTRPG, the Noble House's Law stat is basically as you described. More how legitimate you are and how loyal/virtuous your people are than any idea of Law Enforcement.
What about the Night's Watch? It effectively acts as the ol' "go to prison or join the army" deal while also playing a role in succession law
Life is imitating game of thrones justice in Russia. Just like criminals in Westeros can avoid the gallows by joining the watch Russian prisoners (even murderers) can get pardons if they agree to fight in Ukraine. Like the nights watch guys most of these prisoners die (they’re used as cannon fodder). But the survivors who get home are causing a crime wave when they go back to their criminal ways (not unlike the criminals in the watch who mutineed at Crastor’s).
@@andrewward5891Life imitating game of thrones? Penal units predate the books by centuries.
@kamilszadkowski8864 it's more like Game of Thrones imitates life...
@@rust9542 Exactly my point
@@andrewward5891 I mean that was pretty common in american history for a while to.
No one in the comments here seems to understand GRRM's Aragaorn Tax Policy quote.
He wasn't saying stories should be more dry and boring, he was saying that life is more complex than "Good men are good kings so things are good."
He wasn't calling for entire economic and legal systems to be fully detailed and thought through, but just saying he likes when stories examine the complexities and grey areas of life
You're completely right! People focus on the specific example of tax policy rather than look at the broader point GRRM was trying to make.
Shhhh dont tell that to the tolkien fandom, they follow one of the greatest writters of all time and yet they have the collective IQ of a twitter mob.
I hope Aragorn's peace would not be like the peace of King Solomon.
@@leandrocastello309
Vagree
While the conflict in the main series is loosely base don the Wars of the Roses, I'd argue that Westeros is a lot more analogous to England in the 12th and 13th centuries rather than the 15th and 16th. So the lack of codified laws makes sense thematically and historiclaly, especially when you consider the fact that while Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215 (under duress from his rebellious Barons) it was invalidated by the Pope months later and basically ignored for 50 years, until the Second Barons Revolt in 1264. And after Longshanks crushed that revolt, Magna Carta was only loosely applied based on the whims of individual Kings, until the Great Revolution in the 1600s, which really cemented the transformation of England from a feudal to a Constitutional Monarchy.
Even the Magna Carta is an exception. Most European monarchies of the time didn't have anything like that. Kings just grew more and more powerful.
One also shouldnt forget that most laws that were enforced by the various Kings, Lords and Knights were either already rooted in local customs, made to adress certain issues or to serve certain interest groups. Laws could be anything from domestic stuff (though I'd argue that beyond what is already customary few Lords saw the need to interfere in the personal life of their subjects like that), over laws for taxation, trade or punishment for criminal cases (and what constitutes a crime).
However in the case of Game of Thrones / ASOIF one shouldnt forget that this is happening during a LARGE civil war, a time of chaos and turmoil. I am sure many areas tend to become quite lawless if ravaged by war, especially if the primary enforcers of the law are also at the same time elite troops and commanders at the same time.
Of course Lords can usually appoint Castellans or Magistrates, Eldermen/Village Elders and Mayors to stand in for them, however that always comes with it's own set of problems I'd reckon.
@@afsdfsadhasfh
Well in the east the oposite happened.
The lords of the Balkans had more power and the countries where more centralised when western Europe was in more or less chaos, but then they got more decentralised as time whent on intill they where too weak to fight against the Ottomans.
@@afsdfsadhasfhthat isn't exactly true look at king james
I think the craziness of Westerosi law is kind of the point: Medieval law was arbitrary and ill-defined. The only reason the Magna Carta got passed when it did was because King John was in a weak enough position that some noblemen were able to force it on him. And even then, it only protected the rights of the nobility from the king, not the commoners from their own lords.
Now, Dorne seems to have a detailed written system of law, as Doran included a law book in Arianne's prison suite. But that's Dorne, which is culturally distinct from the other six realms.
Medieval law was not arbitrary and ill-defined. Using the Magna Carta as an example is stupid because the entire point of it was to weaken the king's central authority.
The Visigoths had complex and progressive laws for just about every scenario, including ones to address Jewish slavemasters' vast and creative methods for abusing their property.
Throughout its entire history, France had a strong judicial system based on a fusion of Roman and Germanic tribal laws.
Even saying "medieval law" is silly. You're lumping together nearly a millennia of time, full of different nations and cultures, under an extremely small umbrella.
@@fiddlesticks7245 And yet, on the other hand, some silly shit still was made up and some of it even exists today. A law on the books does not necessarily become representative of what people can and can't do unless people in the judicial system go out of their way to prosecute offenders. Sure, the better written a law is, the more likely it is to be followed because it was likely influenced by direct experiences that were moving enough to impact someone important. But our laws on jaywalking are pretty well defined and people do have a reason to care because of the inherent dangers it can possess- people still do it most everywhere all the time because who actually cares to take time out of their day to punish someone for it? You could do it in front of most cops and as long as it wasn't a blatant suicide attempt they'd ignore it.
And then there's also the silly, ill-defined stuff, like how in certain US states, it's still a law that 6 or more women living together in a house with no men north of the train tracks is considered an illegal brothel. Obviously that's dumb for a lot of reasons, but putting all those aside- that would also make a nuns church/covenant or a woman with 5 female children and a dead husband with a home, both examples of a brothel. We don't prosecute based on that law either anymore, but it theoretically could be and historically some funky shit like that was commonly prosecuted.
We can't dismiss the good things legislators did in all that time, but by God, we can't deny the weird shit either. It's a bit of both.
In an interview Martin specifically said there is no Magna Carta in Westeros. It's an absolute monarchy.
If it was an absolute monarchy we wouldn't see these many people openly disobeying and rebelling against the Lannisters tbf
?@@king_thanos_2116
Its a continent the size of South America with medieval travel speeds.
There are going to be rebellions, its an absolute monarchy de jure, but not nessassarily de facto. We aren't in the era of hyper centralized nationstates. This is a patchwork feudal realm.
@@king_thanos_2116 we should tell that to the many revolts that occurred all across Europe against absolute monarchies.
That is at best a feudal monarchy, it cannot be an absolute monarchy if it is "The Seven Kingdoms", has a mostly autonomous division of Lord Paramounts and much more. They are some 400 years away from historical absolutism.
I love how he built a wourld where most is just assumed. I think its because he build such detailed characters and conflict that you just add the law as it fits in the world.
I AM NOT CRAZY!! I AM NOT CRAZY!!! The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, one before the address of the Mesa Verde bank.
You think this is bad this chicanery
@@Winter20183 He's done worse!
That Season 8! Are you telling me that a girl just happens to kill the Night King like that? No! They orchestrated it! D and D!
In The Once and Future King (and the musical Camelot), it's ironically the abolishment of trial by combat and establishment of jury trial that messes the whole thing up. So long as Lancelot could beat anyone in combat, he and Guinevere were safe from accusations of infidelity/treason.
Per someone on reddit many years ago: Why is Jeor Mormont giving Jon Longclaw not as big a deal as it seems? Because Jon only has a life estate in it (and even if he held it in fee simple, can have no heirs). 🙃
PS-Set up Anki now so you don’t have to relearn everything for the bar exam.
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall hold no interest unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.
Now do a RAP version!
I was kinda hoping you'd address the blood price that was mentioned in the Dunk and Egg books and compare it to the Weregeld of real history. King Jaehaerys' abolishment of it in favor of a lord's right to pits and gallows, basically allowing a lord to "try" and execute anyone for crimes on their land. I like that it plays into the big theme of a lot of Jaeheareys' reign, at first it looks good he put a stop to people being able to get away with murder if by paying money, but as seen in the Sworn Sword it actually just ends up perpetuating feuds and violence.
That’s an interesting thought, I’d genuinely forgotten about that. I need to reread Dunk and Egg.
We Americans basically still have blood money as a remedy today- damages for tortious conduct.
Lyonel Strong, Septon Barth, and future-king-Viserys-II are THE examples of who a King's Hand should be
Tywin Lannister? Ned Stark?
@@codyschwarz5155 Tywin buried Aegon V's human rights reforms and betrayed the king
@@equusquaggaquagga536Tywin was so good it didn't matter if a fucking madman sat the throne, that kingdom still ran smooth af
@@higharchbishopofteatasting6217 they were both madmen
@@equusquaggaquagga536 no, one was pragmatic evil, the other an actual madman
Honestly the fact that you were still putting out good content pretty consistently while being a 1L is fucking bananas, you really deserve props for your work ethic. I hope your finals went well!
I do believe the master of laws also handles getting information regarding legal disputes. I figure this because when Lyonel Strong comes to court as master of Laws. His younger son Larys joins the king' confessors. Who most likely interrogate people accused of crimes to get, well, confessions.
Although documents like the Magna Carta did not exist a lot of the characters actions are as if they did, especially in the main story.
Events around Robert's Rebellion are a great example. The things Aerys II did would be grounds for deposition in any medieval society. This is because kings, least of all medieval kings, and lords couldn't really do whatever or kill whoever without justification, especially high lords. If the justification is considered too absurd then the nobles and kingdom won't accept it. Kings were also extremely restricted by customs and precedents of their time. The rebels saw it the same way. Not even the king could kill and call for the heads of multiple people (again, least of all high lords) for no reason. If he could do it to them he could do it to anyone else. He was a threat to every man, woman, and child in the kingdom; his plans for half a million loyal subjects proved that.
This turned most of the country against him and his dynasty and why they accepted Robert Baratheon. There was a social expectation that the king can't do that. Ned STARK rebelled against his king that his ancestors swore too. Why? Aerys II broke faith first. Kings have to take coronation oaths and Aerys II obviously violated his. "I charge you to be just." Yes, subjects usually have a greater affinity for the current dynasty and the anointed king but what mattered the most to them by far, especially when you get down to the gentry, was how the country was being run and that's where the Targaryens serious fell short. That's what put the people so decisively behind Robert Baratheon, a promise of justice.
Of course, when you depose a king you are technically still supposed to put his heirs on the throne. You certainly can't butcher royal children for no reason either. That's why Ned was so mad at the death of the Targaryen kids. They couldn't invite Viserys back after that.
There are social, political, and economic reasons behind every usurpation. They don't happen solely because someone has a competing claim, although that's usually one reason. There were several times where King of Westeros deposed or killed for misconduct and those are big indications of what the some of the universal rules were.
We even see some hints about the laws in HOTD. What Daemon did to the criminals of King's Landing would've been considered misconduct even by medieval standards. Otto complains about the summary executions (executions without trial) and the fact that he even does that proves he blatantly skipped some standard trial or judgement system. Tyrion made it clear to Bronn that he couldn't just kill the thieves in KL. In both Westeros and England wartime rules functioned differently though. Even in US history.
Also, I'd like to point out that there were governing bodies separate from the royal government such as the Great Council which did make crucial decisions without the king's presence. They've raised kings, perhaps in violation of certain rules. The fate of the Rhaenys Viserys situation rested on the Great Council. Jaehaerys I would've needed their decision even if it was one he didn't like. It was a way to give his heir something separate from his own naming to support their claim, another powerful legal institution to back them so they would have an unquestionable right.
There doesn't need to be a document like the magna carta for people to look at something done that violates all custom and was unreasonable and go "yeah, no, the guy doing that needs to die." Feudal systems rely heavily on cooperation between lords and their vassals, if they start acting in a way that makes those vassals think they're insane, they'll usually be gotten rid of one way or another. Also, while they rarely openly acknowledge it, pretty much every ruler in history is aware that if they piss off enough people, they will die. What constitutes "enough" varies, of course, but it makes for a very good incentive to not go around torturing babies or taxing your peasants to starvation. Torturing prisoners falls into a similar area since not doing so is a matter of honor, but it's also common sense because doing so disincentivises future surrender and will be more costly in the long run. And it upsets the peasants.
Robert proclaimed his plan to claim the Iron Throne before the sack of King's Landing, so Viserys wasn't an option by then. But I agree that usually it'd be legally correct to depose the father in favor of the children. It just likely wouldn't happen that often if there weren't good control methods in place (like the heir being female and married off) since it's dangerous to leave in power someone who knows you killed their parent.
As for the Great Council, there is no indication that their rulings are actually binding or that they have any power at all as an institution. Calling a Great Council basically means inviting the most important lords to come chat so the current monarch can figure out where they stand on an issue, shore up alliances, etc. The Council does not exist outside of times when it is conviend by someone with a claim to power (the King, the Hand, a Usurper who was likely going to be the next king, and a foiled attempt by a Crown Prince). It's basically a way of saying "hey, this is likely to cause problems, so vote now so we can avoid civil war later," and only an idiot would go against the rulings of such a council, but that doesn't mean it's legally binding. If, for example, Jaeherys had lived another 15 years after the Great Council, to the point where Aemma died leaving Viserys with only a single daughter as heir, Jaeherys could quite reasonably declare that circumstances had changed and name Laenor his new heir since circumstances had changed. The lords likely wouldn't have had an issue with that by that point, even if they decided differently earlier on, so while he might have convened another Council to make sure they didn't feel slighted it wouldn't be legally necessary.
And, tbh, GRR Martin is a modern American who would of course be unfamiliar with the intricate workings of a feudal society...
@@shutterchick79 I doubt that since his work, especially main ASOIAF story, reflect the authentic medieval political intrigue of a feudal setting very well. He also knows a lot of history. The fact that you can look at many characters and immediately see the medieval kings they are based on does suggest he knows a lot of British medieval history. There's even some Scottish influence. Also, many of the people online who do know the intricacies of medieval England are also American too.
@@user-ti5cw1ug6l Perhaps you're right. And ASOIAF is a work of fiction, after all... 😊
@@user-ti5cw1ug6lHow is it a good portrail.
In any reall world countries like the Aery, North and Dorn woud only be part of the Targarians if they have dragons and as we have seen Dorn wasnt conqured even then.
If this was a reall medieval country at the time of thr mad king the North, Dorn, Iron Islands and the Aery woud be 100% independent and i personaly think the eastern lands woud be too sinse they are a very rocky land which has rich ore deposits and as we have seen that is a perfect ground for independent regions, also very chaotic regions ( look at countries like Bosna, Albania and Serbia and their stories ).
Also dont forget that the North dosnt follow the same religion which is a big ground for strife.
And on top of that the characters in GoT arent very religious based on their actions which is the case for actial medieval peoplle and religion had a big impact in how they acted ( afcorse as a non religious man Martin didnt even bother to expand on his religion which woud have been helpful for us to know how and why sertan characters act ).
Like most if not all fantasy novels this is a very shallow depiction of reall medieval live, politics and religious or cultural practises.
O and i forgoth in times of rebelions peopple swaped sides consistantly and very rarley did the nobles died and for sure noting like how in GoT all the big families are almost or fully killed off like its noting.
I understand the logic behind saying these various noble lords should probably be spending more time addressing disputes between their subordinates, but I think I have an answer as to why - they let their stewards handle that, only taking a more active hand in certain issues. It's similar to how many noble houses have an executioner, or how the Hand of the King holds court in place of the king.
I feel like this makes sense, given that almost every POV character we have that you'd expect to deal with this kind of thing are generally fairly high ranking, so they'd probably only feel obligated to step in when the dispute is between two lords. By contrast, a minor lord, or even a landed knight might have a more direct relationship with his subjects.
Additionally, there's a more simple reason for why that's not included - it's kinda boring. While I'm sure you would enjoy that kind of thing, I doubt there's much of a market for "Fantasy John Grisham," and I imagine it'd be hard to pull that off.
While these are all excellent points, Fantasy John Grisham sounds AWESOME
We also don't see everything the POV characters do. It could be that they handle most of the disputes between the POV Chapters for the character. Most likely though, imo, is that it isn't included because most people would find reading addressing disputes between farmers or something quite boring and it wouldn't sell well.
@plasmiusphantom agree to disagree.
True. In essence, the feudal system involves a series of delegations of lands and duties. It also embodied the "favorites" system, which you also see in ASOIAF. Instead of professional administrators, the kingdom is run by people the king likes/trusts/owes/etc.
Agreed. Most of the characters we follow are - or are related to - high ranking individuals, and we largely see their involvement in very high stakes events rather than their daily activities in a time of peace. Assuming that EVERY dispute is passed up the line all the way to the king himself - as opposed to just the ones that are significant enough or between important enough people to warrant his direct intervention - is like assuming that every person who complains to a cashier at McDonalds that they didn't get cheese on their cheeseburger is going to eventually have their complaint passed on to the CEO of the company. There's a reason why there are many different ranks and titles between each "lead" position instead of just going Peasant -> Lord of the Kingdom -> King of the Seven Kingdoms.
This is especially the case in GoT since the vast majority of the story takes place during a time of war, when many of the leaders of Houses probably aren't always going to be available to handle every mundane argument about shrubbery ownership between Bob the Farmer and Joe the Blacksmith when they're trying to win a continent-wide series of conflicts. So even if that was how it normally gets handled, much of the story is taking place where things aren't working normally due to those events.
The person with the superior rank can certainly CHOOSE to intervene in a situation that wouldn't normally be handled by someone of their status, just like a CEO could probably spontaneously choose to work at a cash register for a day if he or she wanted to, but them not doing so certainly doesn't feel like it qualifies as a law or practice that doesn't make sense.
Now I TRULY understand what GRR Martin meant by "What is Aragorn's tax policy" (or whatever he actually says becaue I can't remember off the top of my head). I really do, the things that Tolkien refused to or just never elaborated on like the Nameless Things are probably my favorite ideas in his whole Legendarium. I do also realize that George was more joking than anything, but it brings up a funny point. Why does there seem to not be many Westerosi and Essossi law systems laid out if they were that important to George? Just something that I thought of that made me laugh XD
Well, such perfectionism can only be achieved by elvish and numenorean lifespans.
Even the Biblical conflicts involve tax policies😂
The Queen had banned the practice of nobles getting first night with lowborn brides on their wedding night. But many years later Roose Bolton was still practicing the custom (he even hung a miller who married in secret and sexually assaulted his wife which resulted in Ransey’s birth). It’s funny that Ned either wasn’t aware of Roose illegally exercising first night lord rights or he wasn’t willing to confront one of his most powerful retainers. It’s hard to believe no woman ever complained about Roose’s activities. Ned had no problem condemning Jorah Mormont for selling poachers into slavery. But the Dreadfort is much more powerful then Bear Island.
You also have to keep in mind that getting verifiably true information would be significantly harder to do in a real life equivalent of the time period of Game of Thrones.
It's entirely possible that women were reporting that the first night was occurring under Roose, and it's also entirely likely that they would have been dismissed outright because even 5 brave peasants who can articulate what happened are also equally capable of being 5 lying peasants with a specific distaste for a lord who, to other lords, comes off as stern and terrifying and not all that likeable, but far from criminal. Women get dismissed *today* despite being able to prove they did have a sexual encounter with someone in a position of power that was violent enough to leave them visibly injured. These peasant women have nothing but their word and will likely be judged even as we judge women today- that they are likely to also have an agenda be it blackmail or regret (regardless of the veracity of those ideas) and judged based upon them and whether they can be proven in some sort of further investigation. Like, sure, Ned could sneak in some credible people under the guise of them being peasants and have them fake marry to see if Roose shows up, but this is both very difficult to pull off (if one villager snitches that they in fact just showed up to get married here specifically it'd probably look suspect to anyone with a brain) and then what? What if he doesn't show up? Do you just keep sending people to test this theory until he slips up? What happens if he catches them before they catch him? Well then it just looks like a massive farce and intentional insult on your honor and credibility by your high lord that's certainly worthy of repercussions. Even if that doesn't lead to open rebellion, you now have broken down the relationship between you and someone who controls a fair portion of your armies who may or may not also be enough of an asshole to rape women on their wedding nights.
And then you have to take into consideration culture in regards to *all* of that. Yes, the first night was outlawed. However it was only outlawed after a woman who spoke to many commoner women in confidence as someone who would always listen, not only informed her husband that it was happening at all, but who only convinced him of the importance of the issue by asking him "what if it had been me that was raped on our wedding night?" And he was unequivocally the best, most progressive king Westeros has ever seen. He still needed to be convinced of the inherent value in preventing female peasants from being raped by their lords, which clearly demonstrates both the common perspective of even good men on peasants in general, but especially towards women peasants. He had to be posed with a near impossible hypothetical and forced to equate his wife with a peasant by a her own very forceful demand, indicating that he never would have made that connection himself despite the fact that she's also a married woman whom is loved for more than childbearing random kids. And rape is established to be very common in Westeros anyways- especially as results of a victorious battle (Cersei telling Sansa all the noble women would be raped should the castle fall to Stannis) but also just a general fact of life that's only cared about if it happens to someone high ranking enough (the peasant mob that raped Lollys wasn't necessarily protected, but they very quickly shut the whole situation up by marrying her off to a man of lower station or something like that if I recall correctly). Even someone as honorable as Ned, who probably would be hypothetically opposed to rape and infidelity, was more than ok with everything Robert did to common women. We're given the impression that all of them were willing, but do you really think none of the lords ever did anything worse to a common woman? He even claimed the mantel of an infidel and both was never punished for it and did it despite his values to protect someone he loved (Lyanna, and then "Jon")
Now compare all of that to the crime of selling slaves.
Not only would that report likely come from a source inherently considered more credible (like a male soldier serving under Jorah or a male sailor who is credible on the basis of prior information and services and who wouldn't reasonably have a personal agenda) but it's something that would be valued to a higher degree based on the culture. Instead of just a shithead being bad and causing personal trauma for peasant women, it's actively funneling bodies and resources into a criminal empire that strengthens various opposing forces who do use slaves, and plays on the refusal to give people choice, which is something we know people in Westeros value because even the worst criminals have the option to join the Watch. You also know Jorah has a tangible, easily verifiable reason to do it outside of just being a bad dude for whatever reason (he has an expensive, demanding wife and no money because his lands are poor and provide little to him, but also more notably, to Ned as a Warden of the North) and it's not a big loss to then persecute that. Nobody would reasonably defend slavery in Westeros like they might (and visibly do for) the right of the first night, meaning that while Roose might be supported by other lords who also believe in it, it's unlikely that even Jorahs family supported him, especially considering how we later see how honorable they all are. Taking away Jorahs lordship at most only endangers the hundred swords Bear Island provides and the paltry amount of other things they supply to the North, and his mantel is easily redistributed because he has siblings. Roose, on the other hand, is in charge of a lot, could reasonably be supported for his crimes or despite them even if you *could* prove them to everyone, and has no obvious heir outside of a bastard son who is rumored to be significantly worse. You'd cause a whole war of succession around who took the Bolton banner, lands and titles, and power.
Basically, Ned prosecuted one because it was easy and safe to do so, and left the other alone because it was a lesser, harder to prove, and would've had far greater consequences. It's like trying to persecute someone in the modern day who may have jaywalked but we're not sure and also who cares versus someone who killed a child on camera or something. As shitty as that standard would be, that's how the cookie crumbles in Westeros. I don't think it's right, but it's pretty realistic for a grimdark work that's established what GoT has.
@@anathemat-002 Is this the same Ned Stark that publicly threatened Tywin with justice while acting as Hand of the King?
The same Ned Stark who then gave up the legal immunities of being Hand, out of principle, when Robert was planning to assassinate Danaerys?
The same Ned Stark who made the northern roads so safe that a woman could, as the saying goes, walk along them naked without being molested?
I feel that, if Ned knew about what Roose was doing, he would have acted on it. I don't think Ned was being pragmatic. I think it's more likely that Roose is more cunning and less desperate than Jorah, and thus covers his tracks better. The rest of what you said sadly makes sense though: rape does seem normalized in Westeros, and so in a sense it's likely easier to cover up to begin with compared to slavery.
This is the most first year law school student thing you could do
The most "first year law school student thing" you can do is try to make a point by quoting one sentence from an opinion because you never read the next paragraph that explains why it's irrelevant to what you are discussing. Hell, that's the most first year practicing member of the bar thing you can do. That's why big firms and States' Attorneys offices always have a partner or senior lawyer oversee the casework of juniors lawyers. So they don't embarrass themselves by presenting a precedent argument to a judge without reading the whole opinion because they stopped as soon as they got to the part they wanted.
Actually the abolishment of the trial of combat makes much sense and until I reread the books I thought it also happened there. The Faith of the Seven is heavily based on Christianity/Catholicism, even though it is a worse version of Catholicism, since Catholicism was very much a worldly institution, therefore had to have the landed priest like abbots and bishops and so on, to base worldly power, which is missing in the Faith of the Seven. But anyways, in our history Catholicism (I’m not saying ‘the Church’ because there was nothing such as a centralized church) very much disliked the practice of trial by combat, since it tried to move the people away from superstition and repression to reason and goodness (that’s why there was no real witch hunting in the Middle Ages, just after, because believing in witches was actually made a minor sin). Clerics were actually forbidden from participating in them, even though some probably did it anyways, since they didn’t care what some study in Rome was talking.
Based on the fact that the Faith has no real power, the lack of judicial development makes actually sense, since worldly law in the Middle Ages and before and afterward was heavily based on how many witnesses you had and how good you could enforce your rights, while our modern system of justice comes mainly from the inquisition, since the inquisition was actually interested in finding the truth. But since there seem to be no hierarchies in the faith and no sects like the Cathars there is I guess no need for that.
Hell, how many times did a pope ban or decry jousting tournaments even? Westeros is very much lacking of the real life division/balance/struggle of power between the crown and the three/four estates of the land (the nobles, the priests, the merchants, and sometimes the peasantry.) Although in the latter books we are definitely seeing the church of the seven start to gain more power, and I suppose you could make the argument that the Iron Bank somehow represents the merchant class, but otherwise this staple of medieval life and society is notably missing in ASOIAF.
I think GRRM was unjustly given the title of an hyper realistic author, which I don’t hold against him, but against does who misunderstand his work. He took a hard turn when he wrote the book in direction realism, but still his are fantasy books, full of reversed tropes and magic. This is also why Game of Thrones in truth failed, not because D&D had no books to brings to the screen, but because they wanted to film the first book and only that, the most ‘realistic’ because there was the least magic, therefore they cut everything fantasylike from the show which left nothing of ASOIAF
The lack of a judiciary is "not a bug, it's a feature". The authority to administer laws within their holdings (as well as collecting taxes) is pretty much the basis of their power as Lords and knights. And the system of referring from one Lord to his overlord and ultimately the King is just like how cases can be appealed up the chain to ultimately the Supreme Court (in either the US or UK).
I assume the Master of Laws is responsible for ensuring that the Lords are enforcing the King's Laws where they conflict with the local laws. Given the Boltons' (and allegedly the Umbers) still practice the Right of First Night which had been explicitly outlawed by the Throne, evidently not entirely successfully.
A couple of highlights.
First and what i think its the most important thing i have to comment about, is how in an interview with George. He states something like (And i paraphrase) "A writter writes his books on what they feel the most passionate", then shared the example of Tolkien who's books have entire languages made from scratcth like the Black Speech, Elvish and Dwarvish SO it is no surprise that Tolkien was a linguist. George himself is no cartographer, no lawmaker and no linguist but he loves quoting William Faulkner "the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about" which is why his POV books are some of the best written prose i've ever read.
Second, the inheritance. In Fire & Blood we see this topic being developed. Mainly after the death of Aegon the Uncrowned, everyone thought Rhaena was going to get the crown or one of her daugthers but it passed down to Jaehaerys after Maegor's death. IIrc it was the Hand Roger Baratheon who said something along the lines of "This is not Dorne" when explaining why they skipped Aegon the Uncrowned two daugthers Aerea and Rhaella who were the direct descendants of the rightful heir. After that, Jaehaerys election cemented in stone that it will always aim for a male descendant in a Agnatic-Cognatic inheritance style (A female is picked only if there are no male heirs in the patrilineal line).
Lastly, the way laws are made are based on culture, religion and sometimes at the whim of the nobles. Just like how Rhaeny's "Rule of Six" was made up or how everyone in Westeros is against incest but it is allowed by law and customs in Valyrian culture (Which is one of the center pieces of conflict between Targaryens and the Faith of the Seven). Basically George taking inspiration of real life but putting everything in a melting pot of cultural, religious and class struggle. Heck in Fire & Blood i like how the Maestrer Gyldayn points out that Aenys allowing the Ironborn to keep their faith of the Drowned gods was the biggest mistake and... well, i can't disagree with the Maestrer Gyldayn on this one. This would be the equivalent of allowing the Vikings to keep their lands and settlements, legitimize their rule while remaining pagans instead of converting.
I suppose that after the war with the faith the nobility became so entrenched (as all the rights of the faith were simply transfered to them) that creating a legal bureucracy and codes that both rule beyond the bare minimum and contradict the nobles too much was way too costly to be feasible.
So with that in mind i think that the Master of Laws now exists to be one of those de facto honorary titles used to appease some mediocre lord without getting him to do something actually important to screw up.
I highly recommend any sort of history of the common law type of course later in law school you can, just because it's fascinating how feudal law (and the Dooms that preceded the Norman invasion of 1066 - not that Aegon the Conqueror was based on William the Conqueror of course) really did practice under a similar system of feifdom governance as seen in Westeros.
I think that is the point as Martin based a ton of stories on real life. There are still plenty of dumb laws on the books in many countries so you can imagine how crazy they were in the middle ages it is based on.
As someone who also just finished their first semester in law school, lords settling the legal disputes of their serf (not free peasants) was actually quite common in continental Europe, even until the 19th century. The judges being far enough removed from the everyday matters of the people in their service and also the state not having enough funds to upkeep local jurisdiction on its own.
I was under the impression they had travelling judges, so minor crimes were handled on the local level by the local magistrate, sheriff, etc, but bigger crimes required you to wait until the judge passed through your area before you could be tried.
Either that or Ken Follet lied to me 😂.
You are not wrong, it was so for free people, which on the continent meant mostly nobility unlike in the British Isles where they were freed earlier and also had and still has a different legal system.
1:44 the issue with master of laws as a concept is that's the kings job and anytime something happens they'll always address it if it's serous enough to be mentioned in a book
Laws dont make sense as that's how and why laws are placed. Some laws irl could work but don't on account of nobody enforcing them or going full harsh on only one thing or another
The hound can end a child no remorse but you reverse that and they'd hunt down that peasant for "justice"
Plus robert wasn't paying attention as he never wanted the throne but tywin kevin or ned could have rules id varys and little finger weren't playing their games behind the scenes
The thing with Micah is that Joffery claimed he and Arya attacked him and Sansa wouldnt back Arya up. Arya had the protection of the Stark name but Micah was just a peasant, fleeing justice for his crimes. At least that's how the Lannisters would spin it.
Congratulations on surviving your first semester! Please make a video on Dornish law as I think that is a big part of the Dornish plan.
As someone going into their second year of law school this video grabbed me right away.
As someone who has been in jail, me too!
I forget the exact characters name, think he was a Massey, but Jaheryes master of laws played a big part in codifying the laws of Westeros kind of like Codex Justinian.
Chuck McGill would roll his eyes at your use of "the" before magna carta
It’s always been a life goal of mine for Chuck McGill to roll his eyes at me
Doesn't the Master of Laws also oversee the Lord Confessors and the Black Cells as well as the King's Justice? Seems like a lot of these duties could be fused with the Master of Whispers' role.
Congratulations on finishing your first semester of law school! Love your videos
Lyonel lied about his son making the whole bastard problem appear from thin air. Eddard is easily the most honest out of the 2
ya wtf is this guy on, "extremely honest advisor lord lyonel" also lyonel "conceals and is an accessory to HIGH TREASON that ends in a nuclear civil war" strong
Hmmmm....
Historically, the church did make the steps to ban trial by combat. They argued that holding a contest "where God decides" is the same as telling God what to do. As in, you are telling God to intervene in your trial.
I'd like to add another aspect to the outlawing of trial by combat:
In the real world, trial by combad was in fact seen as a justice by god, where the winner had his blessing. But its roots are much older. Pagans already had this tradition before christianity (the most famous example might be the "Holmgang" of medieval Norse culture. So it is more like a pre-christian tradition, where only the name of the gods changed.
The historic middle-ages saw a constant struggle between the (lesser) nobility and knights who established themselves via projections of strength and violence and the Church, whic tried to gain power without violence, since they were basically a cult of nerds at this point. One strategy they went with, was setting a code for Nobles, they had to adhere to, if they were good christians. This is, where our idea of chivalry comes from. Its a way of setting limits and rules to the people who rule by violence. So the whole trial by combat thing, that already existed, which was basically a pagan tradition about who hits harder, was something, the church was really not a fan of and often tried to get rid of.
I'm not really into Westeros deeplore beside the main series but I can imagine, that is is in a similar way in Westeros. Maybe the tradition is older then the Faith of the Seven. This would explain even more, why the High Sparrow might want to get rid of it.
Considering the other named character from House Wylde, I believe Mushroom LOL. Raintree House must be pretty wet and Wylde.
Only ever saw 3 episodes never read the books idk if it was the title, thumbnail, or presentation but I loved this video that earned a like but the clever better call saul reference earned a sub.
You don't need many federal laws in a kingdom such as this.
Look, Westeros is massive, it's around the size of southern America. In a feudal system this would technically be impossible to achieve, as rebellion would be so open due to the massive differences in cultures throughout the regions. However when you bring dragons into the picture, it was possible to unite them into one kingdom.
Now, lords will locally change laws to adapt to their own situation, which is a good thing. The law in the north should be different compared to the law in the south, think water consumption laws, preserving foods etc.
Due to this massive geographical, cultural, religious and political difference between regions in the kingdom, a common law would not make any sense. If anything it would push those regions into rebellion. The north wouldn't let go of their old gods, or preserving food for winter. Similarly Dorne wouldn't let go of their tradition where women can take the throne just as men can.
Congratulations on your 1L! It gets better!
In the books Ser Loras Tyrell volunteers to take Dragonstone to free up the Redwyne fleet to deal with the Crow's 👁🗨. He is said to be gravely injured but no firsthand account so his fate is unknown at the end of ADWD.
You forgot The Hound trial by combat and that suprised me
I think the main problem of the world of ASOIAF is that they never developed something like a greek-roman law system that valued the idea of a republic, the rule of law, the rights of citizens and upright moral behavior . Even the valyrian freehold never managed to develop a society so complex and eficent as the romans.
No matter how good a king or queen is in that fictional world, their realms will be trapped in an endless circle of violence, corruption and inefficiency because George Marin chose to keep them stagnating forever.
To introduce such legal system, monarch would need way more power than any of them actually had - because it's a move against the power of ALL of the feudal lords.
To see real world example, study history of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, which was famous for being de facto run by aristocrats (so, lords) and being a circle of violence, inefficiency and corruption. Or rather death spiral, because the less power kings had, the more they had to rely on aristocrats (which in turn gave them even more power).
All of this at the price of at least 80% of population being serfs (so, almost slaves in this case) AND country falling into chaos every second monday.
@@randomnobodovsky3692 Valyrians and Targaryens had the monopoly over violence thanks to their dragons during many years. If they really wanted to develop a new system from zero, they had the wealth and power to do so and almost nobody would have been able to challenge them.
In the second Dunk and Egg book “The Sworn Sword” we get a good example of the legal system and settling of disputes:
Each lord or lady (and possibly landed knight) has “The right of Pit and Gallows” to punish their own peasants for perceived breaches in the law, but only on their own lands: you can’t kill or imprison another lord’s peasants without YOUR liege-lords permission; so a knight or minor lord has to ask the lord they hold their lands from if they want to punish someone else’s vasal, a lord has to ask the ruler of their region (the Starks, Lannister’s etc) and a High lord has to ask the King or the Kings Hand for the right to punish a vassal of another lord, (Ned Stark uses this rule and the beaches of the Kings Peace to declare that the Mountain has broken the law by attacking Tully vassals, and condemn him, Catlyn doesn’t want to let Tyrion be harmed by Lysa without a trial for this reason ect).
In the Sworn Sword, the two feuding houses are begged by their Seapton to go to their overlord for a peaceful arbitration of their quarrel, but both choose trial by combat instead. And we see Randal Tarly acting as a (very harsh) judge in a Feast for Crows: he has a maester there to advise him on what the punishments for various crimes should be according to tradition and precedent, but as judge seems to have the final say, which could imply some form of common-law but with lords acting as judges able to set presidents within their own lands as they wish. So possibly a common law system or several local common law systems under a single crown inheritance law, with trial by magistrate, multiple magistrates (Tyrion) combat, multiple combats (trials of seven) and possibly trial by ordeal accepted as valid in criminal cases, where civil cases are arbitrated by whoever is one rank higher than you in the feudal hierarchy.
So yeah, kind a hot mess.
Weirdly, back then - in the middle ages - the King (or emperor) would fulfil the duty of the Legislative Power, while the regional lords would be the Executive.
In a really small nutshell, things were really different.
To me, the batshit crazy laws are GRRM's commentary on our own bass-ackward history and some laws we still cling to today.
Please don't review an absolutist feudal society based on modern ideas of governance
You should make a video about theories how the different houses in Westeros got their Valyrian Steel weapons.
The Hound vs Beric was a trial by combat, too.
Trial by combat irl was only allowed in trials where there wasn't a clerly guilty party.
Randyll Tarly holds court in Maidenpool in ADWD I believe it was. One case involved a fight from one of his men cheating at dice.
Lyonel Strong being Master of Law makes a lot of sense as well when you remember that Breakbones was Head of The City Watch/The Goldcloaks in HoTD.
* There wouldn't be anything like the magna carta, since the targaryen are even more absolute than the absolute kings of our history. Having a dragon is like bringing a nuke to a knife fight.
* Trial by combat existed. Especially in the Holy roman empire
* The Lord solving dispute seems realistic to me. Of course, after a while, specialized courts emerged, but that's basically a whole new power emerging. Lords would want to keep the power to make justice for themselves, and irl, it's something that had to be wrestled away. Half by city dwellers/"bourgeois" (which orignally means "city dweller" in french), half by the King/central authority trying to weaken the Lords, and the power of judges derived from Royal authority. In fact, the word court in "court of law" comes from the Royal Court. Where I end up agreeing with you, is that worldbuilding wise, it doesn't make that much sense that the Targaryen kept the ex-royal families around as rulers of their domains and everything, and did so for centuries. Even with the joker of having dragons, they would want to centralize power and weaken them as much as possible, normally. Well, it really comes down to how you interpret the dragon gambit (after all, just like irl,being able to nuke things i a big power, but it's not like it does everything. And the other stuff takes a different form of power that is harder to come by, especially with how friggin huge the seven kingdom are)
* The stuff about inheritance not making sense isn't such a good point, especially seeing how often it messed things in our own history. I mean, looking at Frankish History, each succession meant civil war. And IIRC, there were some studies on this, and war of succession were actually one of, if not the, most common cause of war in History.
Well, I disagree with your points, but it really managed to open my eye on how little work George did there. It's basically a mish mash of medieval stereotypes and very different traditions. I guess that focusing on law as part of worldbuilding would really be a big boon
about the father and the warrior being the only ones really invoked in a trial by combat, i'd assume those two are most favored by noble men, who are in charge of all of this. they probably don't care as much about the women, the smith is probably more for common craftspeople and such, and the stranger is outside of it all
Lords also employ bailiffs who can sit in judgement of criminals. Jack-be-Lucky's father was hanged by one of Lord Piper's bailiffs.
You should attack the geography next, cuz damn it’s a wild ride
Honestly considering the Law comes down to how well/convincingly you or someone you choose can argue in your favor trial by combat isn't far by comparison.
The asoiaf ttrpg by green ronin (which also gives some very good descriptions of the technology level in westeros) states that lords have the right to ‘pits and gallows’ within their lands. So take that how you will
8:10 A few notes about this:
1. There is relatively low population density, and any bigger town has a lord. So there are plenty of judges. The only issue would be in really big cities, like King's Landing, where there were too many people to a single lord.
2. The lord could, if they were smart, delegate smaller issues to an underling. It would be served in their name, but not in their person.
9:30 And yeah, this one is just stupid. If you want trial by combat in a law system, there should be several countermeasures preventing it's misuse.
1. Trial by combat can not be used if the penalty for the crime is death.
2. Trial by combat can only be used if there is insufficient evidence to make a ruling one way or the other. It is requested by the accuser and must be agreed to by the judge.
3. You can not send a champion. You must fight in person.
4. The fight is not to the death, but to first blood, inability to continue, surrender. (Though there is the obvious risk of dying by accident or infected wound.)
5. A single person may only request a trial by combat once per 5 years. You can't just repeatedly accuse people and fight them to get your way.
BTW, Rob Stark (Robert Strong) is not a zombie. He is dead, having been shot and beheaded by Walder Frey's minions. Cersei's zombie minion is Gregor Clegane.
To be fair, real life feudal systems sometimes didnt make sense to our modern perception. Notably, the estates general in the French Revolution which was called and dismissed by the french king. The nobility and clergy could outvote the peasantry on issues raised. And the fact remains, the king could just ignore the assembly if he wanted. Which is why, the revolutionaries formed their own national assembly. Similar situation with the Russian tsar and his duma, where tsar can just ignore it. Martin simply highlights these feudal systems and how destructive they could be, for narrative purposes.
the game of thrones mods for ck2 and ck3 treat the Madter of laws position as a sort of diplomat role instead of a lawyer or judge i believe, which is confusing but seems more on par with what happens in the books
“If Chuck McGill is to be believed”
“I am not crazy! I know he swapped those numbers! I knew it was 1216. One after Magna Carta. As if I could ever make such a mistake. Never. Never!”
I never understood why Robert made his will (knowing he was at death's door) on his own with Ned. I mean the story wouldn't have been there without the war FOR the iron throne. But for me that was a weak way of doing it. The king would have all the main people AT his bedside, to hear how he wanted things. Not just have it on some paper. He didn't know Joffrey wasn't his heir, but he knew Cersai and all the Lannisters wouldn't want Ned in charge.
Maybe he was still pissed 🤔😅
Tarly is out hunting down bandits and restoring order when Hyle Hunt and Brienne run into him, I believe that falls under enforcing the law.
I wouldn't say the Trial by Combat only benefict nobles as Duncan the Tall won a Trial of 7 against Aerion Targaryen
Well, when your starting point is a political system that is somehow both an absolute monarchy AND a feudal monarchy? I expect things get goofy real fast
To me the craziest part of the Westerosi legal tradition is just the utter absence of actual legal courts (the faith has some i believe though) like thousands of years and no King in any of the 7 realms thought "maybe i should take away some of the local Lord's power by putting the enforcing and interpreting the law in the hands of some officials appointed by me" like the complete absence of a legal bureaucracy just makes the ability of a king to exercise and show their authority over their vassals and subjects very limited and precarious.
So far as i know from the books the only westeros wide officialdom that exists is some tax officials that Tyrion mentions in his chapters as Master of Coin.
Why didn't you touch on Dornish law?
Because it has no flaws ! #commonmartellW
I figured I’d save both Dornish Law and Ironborn Law for their own video
@@QuinnTheGM Looking forward to it
It truly doesn’t matter what exists in a fictional setting. There will be someone who comes along to explain why it's nonsense. Be it the law, world building, magic system, trade systems, lagistics, etc.
Aegon V you think would’ve created something like the Magna Carter
No King will ever create a Magna Carta, in real world history it was the barons of England that created the Magna Carta and forced King John to sign it. Any Magna Carta in Westeros would have to be created the same way.
The lords of Westeros had their best oppurtunity during the early reign of Aegon III when the Targaryens were at thier weakest point and the king himself was still a minor.
This was fantastic. 10/10
Can you do a rewrite of the laws to where they are similar but work better?
Congrats on finishing your first year of law school man, the first and third are the hardest so you’ve got this
They make sense in the context of Medieval law making. Modern Law is far more efficient. The system in Westeros is modelled on that of a Feudal Nobility and Monarchy. For over 600 years we know this type of justice was the base of law and order in the Early to late Medieval period and somewhat earlier. Loved this video but historical context was somewhat lacking I feel. Magna Carta is also something many people mention, however, it did very little in terms of quenching Monarchic Tyranny; simply helping the barons who drew it up to impose on an already hated and tyrannical ruler and preserve their lands and rights and there’s more than one Magna Carta that was drawn up and brought forward at multiple stages in History.
I don't like the idea of the Faith Militant getting rid of Trial by Combat through Tommen, not only because it would anger every lord in the Seven Kingdoms, Southern and Northern alike, but also Trial By Combat is something the Faith had always held sacred, they even had their own special Faith-style trial called the Trial of Seven. Really it just felt like the showrunners cheap way of trying to surprise the audience 'subverting expectations' with no actual plan to make it work in the context of the world.
You can give it a reason: Every fanatical system needs some *reliable* way to do away with enemies. How can you impose such a massive shift in society if every enemy can just "roll the dice" and could get away with it?
Oberyn serving as Tyrion's champion against the Mountain is basically just Intervening under FRCP 24
You’re giving me war flashbacks
oh dear i’m thinking of attending law school after i graduate college in may…. got any tips?
They make a certain amount of sense, in a feudal system kind of sense.
Honor (at least the pretense of honor, credibility and the perception of power is very important in Westerosi society. As such, it is important for the laws to actually be
A) Agreeable and not too offensive.
B) Enforceable by the Iron throne.
For example, if the King were to decree that a lord may not compel his sons and daughter to marry whomever he pleases. That law would be too offensive, and every lord would ignore it. In practice, every Lord in Westeros is breaking a royal decree. Since nothing is happening, the perception of power has been ruined and the Iron throne lose credibility.
To make an actual example from the books. The "King's peace" law, which forbids Lord and Ladies from waging war on one another without the consent of the Iron Throne. A sensible law when the Iron Throne has motherfucking DRAGONS. Less sensible when the dragons are gone, and the some of the great lords have larger armies than that of the Crownlands can directly contribute to the king.
Tywin Lannister put House Reyne to the figurative sword. An ancient, noble house from the days of the first men. Tywin did so without the consent of his liege lord and father, Tytos Lannister. He also did this without the consent of his grace Jaehaerys II Targaryen. Also house Tarbeck was exterminated.
By doing this, Tywin Lannister upset "the order of things" so to speak. He has blatantly broken a royal decree, by the laws of the land. Tywin Lannister is a rebel and a traitor to the Iron Throne.
But what does the Iron Throne do? Well, there are only two options.
A) Enforce the law, and go to war with one of the most powerful houses in the realm. But does House Targaryen possess the strength, and the loyalty of its vassals to enforce the law? What does house Stark or house Baratheon care if some Westerlands lord marches some men around in his own domain?
B) Retroactively endorse Tywin's actions as legal. The safe option, the Iron Throne would not need to test its strength. But the loss of credibility could prove catastrophic in the future. This was Aegon the Conquerors FIRST law. It is the law that binds the realm together.
Some 40 years later, Catelyn Stark would sieze Tyrion Lannister A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. Tywin would invade the Riverlands. All without the Iron Thrones blessing, or even knowledge.
Bit of a long tangent. But this is basically why the legal system cannot be a proper fully functioning legal system. Tying some of the less agreeable laws with the faith is a genius move. By doing so, the Iron Throne has put the Lords between the small-folk and the Iron Throne.
A lord wants the right of first night? Not likely, since every septon in his domain tells his peasants that the law is an affront to the gods. Also the Iron Throne also says it is wrong.
just like getting our early release on payment of bail makes no sense; why are some punishment only reserved for the poor that can pay bail??
When I saw the title/thumbnail, I thought "Westeros laws? Does the series even have those?" And I gather that is the point. Justice in the series is biased and unfair, carried purely through feudal fiat. ASOIAF is filled with critiques of absolute power and commentary on the evils of feudalism.
It could be argued that the relative powerlessness of our own irl lords to easily squash a large commoner revolt was what led to concessions like Magna Carta in the first place, whereas the Targaryens had no such worries due to the flying war crime machines they have.
Trial by combat makes sense in the same way that allowing a battle or entire war be determined by single combat between the leaders makes sense.
Imagine trying to arrest and imprison a great swordsman...who would you send to do it? But if he's given the option to fight one person in single combat, he'd prefer that over fighting a small army, and the justice system would prefer to choose their best combatant over, again, sending a small army to chase the criminal down. Similarly, trying to arrest and imprison a wealthy or powerful person would have the same problems because they can raise their own armies to defend them. It's easier for everyone to just do it one-on-one. Your comparison to how rich and powerful are able to avoid consequences for their crimes is fitting.
The Master of Laws seems like his job is to maintain the law in the Capital, keep the codex of the laws up to date, and send ravens to the Wardens if the King has decided to create or remove a law.
Because ASOIAF goes with an Absolute Monarchy system at any point Laws can be created and undone if the King just decides randomly. I can only imagine that after the story comes to an end in the books the Monarchy will lose power via a manga carta or maybe a feudal parliament system that the British created.
Congratulations on finishing your first semester as a law student!
2:38 hell yea Lyonel Strong is My favorite hand dude is a great guy westeros would be a much better place if more lords were like him instead of like Otto
Sandor Cleganne also had a trial by conbat with the Lightening Lord if memory serves.
I know it not how it actually went but it makes me laugh thinking how the church was willing to fight against Margor but stop when it’s outlawed. It’s like what some people thinks would happen if they outlawed guns
You forgot the trial by combat of the hound and berric dundarrion
Trial by combat sounds like a fun idea until someone realizes they are the best fighter in the kingdom and just starts doing whatever they want
lmao that please @4:00 i felt that
It makes sense Westeros had no equivalent of a Magna Carta. John was forced to sign it by his barons because he was a weak king. They made him cede power.
Aegon had dragons. No reason to cede when a lord could have his house demolished and another house put in its place.
Prior to Aegon, Westeros was seven kingdoms. After Aegon, it was at least six combined and then seven once Dorne was added.
The problem with Westeros is that its legal/justice system seems to be too small in consideration of the size of the kingdom. The Small Council is a good narrative concept, but as an administrative system; it lacks depth.
Masters of law, in short, would be the representative of the King's judicial system. It would be the Supreme Court of an entire judicial structure that we simply don't see, nor does it exist. A supreme court of a kingdom with no judges, no lawyers, no philosophical or legalistic studies.
In reality, a system just like the one presented. It would soon descend into anarchy and failure, no matter how many dragons the ruling house has. Even the most absolute feudal system had a system of justice (judges); both civil and ecclesiastical. But anyway, in my headcanon, Masters Of Law, it's just the head of a real judicial system that we don't see just because the PoVs we follow are too powerful to be judged by judges. The real job of the Master of Law is to create jurisprudence that a structure of judges selected by royal decree clings to in the resolution of conflicts between the king's subjects; while the Masters of Laws itself resolves legal conflicts between the ruling houses.
Which reminds me, an example would be the case raised in the small council in HotD about the Bracken and Blackwood conflict; that fact, by simple "competence" had to be resolved by Master of Law... Which leads to another inconsistency... Why is every issue in the Small Council discussed by the entire Small Council? Why Masters of Ships should know and give their opinion on the conflict between two riverside houses..? Anyway; Ideally, in a more realistic system, the Masters of Laws should present a resolution of the Brackenv Blackwood conflict to the king, so that he can read it and sign it to be decreed. As well as all jurisprudence that his body of judges in the kingdom have brought to their desk.
"It would soon descend into anarchy and failure, no matter how many dragons the ruling house has."
- And by "soon" we mean up to couple hundred years. You may want to read up on Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, with its suprisingly weak central power, utterly unenforcable rulings of barely working judicial system (pathetically small) and nobility having legal judicial power over their serfs. Descent into absolute chaos took centuries.
@@randomnobodovsky3692 A precarious judicial system is not the same as a kingdom without judges. I don't know much about the commonwealth you mention, but I'm still sure that a serf conflict resolution system existed, which didn't consist of traveling to the nearest fortress and bothering the nearest noble.
The problem with the Westeros system is that it seems that if there is a fugitive from the wall, for example, and he is found in a village near Winterfell. Instead of having a sherif or some figure in charge of sentencing, the process is to go to Winterfell, have an audience with Ned Stark and get him to justice.
Which at first seems without many complications, seems simple. But we are talking about isolated communities without vehicles, that is, journeys that, with at least one person chained, can take from one day to several (who does it, who abandons his family and work in his village to take a fugitive to a fortress?). Not to mention on the other hand. Imagine being Ned Stark, having to deal with things of governance of your lands (Irrigation, Winter, Alliances, diplomacy, politics...); and all of a sudden, two hundred people come to Winterfell to tell you about how the neighbour's cows ran away and destroyed their barn. Or how their wives abandoned them for their neighbor, or how so-and-so stole a pig from the butcher, or that someone else was hunting on someone else's land, or that if... (You get the picture.)
And as in this example it's the north. Implement two hundred sentences in one day.
1) congrats on finishing your first term, as an experienced lawyer (okay I am in my second year of practicing law but whatever) I can safely say that the first term is the hardest
2) Cersei blowing up a good deal of Westeros should have absolutely lead to a peasant uprising, what were D&D/(maybe)GRRM thinking. You can't have a queen blow up 1000s of her subjects and a beloved ruler without quite a bit of backlash, especially when they weren't all that happy with her family to begin with (anyone remember the poop massacre)