Game of Thrones and Philosophy (6 page)

8
. Ibid., p. 52.

9
. George R. R. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), pp. 354–355.

10
. Machiavelli,
The Prince
, p. 50.

11
. Ibid., p. 72.

12
. George R. R. Martin,
A Clash of Kings
(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), pp. 592–595.

13
. Machiavelli,
The Prince
, p. 79.

14
. Ibid., p. 70.

15
. George R. R. Martin,
A Storm of Swords
(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), p. 189.

16
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 529.

17
. Machiavelli,
The Prince
, p. 89.

18
. Ibid., p. 75.

19
. Ibid., p. 90.

20
. Martin,
A Clash of Kings
.

21
. Machiavelli,
The Prince
, p. 127.

22
. Ibid., p. 33.

23
. Ibid., p. 110.

Chapter 4

THE WAR IN WESTEROS AND JUST WAR THEORY

Richard H. Corrigan

Following the death of King Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark of Winterfell is declared a traitor and imprisoned for plotting against the boy-king Joffrey. In response, Ned’s son Robb calls his bannermen to march southward with the ultimate aim of freeing his father. In the process, Robb offers support to his mother’s house, the Tullys, who are under siege from the forces of the Iron Throne—led by Jaime Lannister. At the battle of Whispering Wood, the Lannister forces are taken completely by surprise and decisively crushed.

After the execution of Eddard Stark by Joffrey Baratheon, any chance of a peaceful resolution to the conflict appears to be lost. At the instigation of the Greatjon, and with immediate support from the Tullys and Theon Greyjoy, Robb is installed by his supporters as the King in the North, an office that has not been held since Torrhen Stark bent his knee and surrendered to Aegon the Conqueror. The war that Robb wages against the Iron Throne, and the Lannisters who control it, appears just and honorable. After all, who would not be led to such action if placed in similar circumstances? Still, we must ask the questions: What constitutes a just war? And are Robb’s actions as justified as they first appear?

Just war theory
traditionally holds that a war can be considered just only if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number, is fought for a just reason in a noble fashion, and is waged by a legitimate authority. The question of whether Robb Stark’s taking arms and marching on those faithful to Joffrey and the Iron Throne constitutes a just war requires careful consideration.

The Justness of Resorting to War

The idea of “legitimate authority” is of central importance, as it defines who is in a position to determine whether a war should be fought, and who has the right to act on the basis of that judgment. Robb is extensively advised by his mother, Catelyn, on the wisdom of waging war and also by his bannermen, such as the Greatjon, Theon Greyjoy, and his blood kin the Tullys. Joffrey is advised (and one might say manipulated) by his mother, Cersei, and his grandfather Tywin. Still, it is the right and sole responsibility of Robb and Joffrey to declare war, call the troops, and actually begin armed conflict. Once the legitimate authority has waged war, it is then permissible for his soldiers to actively engage with the enemy. According to the rules of just war, however, they are still bound by a code of honor and must conduct themselves in a noble fashion. This restriction is supposed to ensure that the war does not degenerate into unnecessary savagery and evil. The possible excesses of war are illustrated by the Dothraki, who believe that in the wake of battle, rape, slaughter, and pillage are their natural rights.

The question of who is the legitimate authority in the Seven Kingdoms following the death of Robert Baratheon is of crucial importance for the political and military climate that emerges. There are numerous claimants to the throne, including his (alleged) son Joffrey (who is backed by the might of the realm’s most powerful family, the Lannisters); his brother Stannis of the Dragon Isle (whose claim is backed by little support); his youngest brother, Renly of Storm’s End; and those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of those claimants, such as the Starks of Winterfell. The division of a former state into smaller factions does not mean that those factions are not capable of legitimately waging a just war. Once their leaders are supported by their followers, they may be considered legitimate authorities. Thus, opposing sides in civil wars may conduct a just war.

Just Cause

According to just war theory, a state may wage war only for a just reason. The most common reasons for legitimately engaging in widespread armed conflict include self-defense, the defense of a weaker nation from the unprovoked aggression of a superior power, the defense of innocents suffering at the hands of tyrannical regimes, and prevention of the violation of basic human rights.

Following the revelation that Joffrey is the product of incest, Stannis believes that he is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, and that therefore he is justified in laying claim to what is rightfully his. Renly wishes to gain power and prestige and has little confidence in his brother’s abilities. Considering his motivations, it is difficult to fully justify his rationale for waging war. Across the Narrow Sea, Daenerys is motivated by a will to see her homeland and to reclaim a throne that was wrested from her family. While we can empathize with her plight, we can also question whether her desire truly warrants the death and destruction it will cause.

In the conflict between Joffrey and Robb, it is possible that they are both motivated (at least in part) by what they consider to be a just cause. Joffrey sees himself as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, as he is not aware that he is the product of incestuous relations between his mother, Cersei, and her brother Jaime. Thus, it is possible that he perceives all threats to his rule as self-defense. Of course, Robb, on the other hand, believes that there can be no justice under the rule of Joffrey, and that the people of the North should not be subject to the whims of a tyrant king who violates the basic rights of those he would rule. For this reason, Robb, at the prompting of his bannermen (especially the Greatjon), decides to establish an independent state in the North (“Fire and Blood”).

Right Intention

A just cause doesn’t guarantee right intention. In any instance of warfare, there may be numerous motivations for the conflict, including the intention to personally benefit from increased power, geographic expansion, financial gain, ethnic extermination, and so forth. Robb is not only fighting a war to ensure that his fellow Northerners have a just king. He is also doing it to avenge his father, Ned, and to recover his sisters Arya and Sansa. In fact, it is the treatment of his father that prompts him to call his lords together for battle in the first place.

When Viserys trades his sister to Khal Drogo for the might of his Khalasar, he is not just looking to reestablish his family’s throne. He is also looking to punish those who took it from them, and have his revenge on the people who ensured that he was exiled from his homeland (“Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things”). The self-proclaimed “Last Dragon” has little interest in ruling justly or in looking after the needs of his people.

In the case of Robb, he has many motivations for waging war, but the desire that actually leads him to action must be to see his just cause fulfilled. In theory, this should prevent the possibility of ulterior motives ultimately undermining the ethical standing of the war. For example, if he has accomplished the just cause, he should not further pursue the war in order to punish those who unjustly executed his father. However, there are difficulties in establishing whether any particular war has a right intention. There can be big differences between what a state declares as its intention when going to war and what its actual intention is. So what are Robb’s true motivations for going to war? He may be suffering from cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of holding two conflicting motivations at the same time. Robb seems to want both vengeance
and
a free kingdom in the North.

Proper Authority

A state is justified in going to war only if the decision is made by the legitimate authority according to legal and political processes established in the state. The citizens of the state must then be notified by the authority, as must the citizens of the rival state. If the state is governed by a tyrannical leader who rules with impunity, then that state lacks the legitimacy to wage a just war. Thus Joffrey does not have the ability to wage a just war, given the nature of his reign and the atrocities that he has committed against his own people. As the leader of an emerging state, Robb has been elected to the position of king by his kinsmen, and this lends legitimacy to his authority. The established norm in the Seven Kingdoms is that when a rightful king declares war, it is the duty of his lords to field their armies in his support. Although there is no formal declaration of war at the beginning of the hostilities that lead to the War of the Five Kings, the effective intention is made obvious through the declarations of fealty by the lords on the opposing sides.

Last Resort

If a war is to be considered just, then all other reasonable and peaceful avenues of conflict resolution must be exhausted before the state resorts to military confrontation. Failure to engage in diplomatic negotiation in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion means that the state has not expended sufficient effort in attempting to preserve the peace. War is a devastating enterprise that wreaks havoc on the lives of ordinary people. For a war to be just, every attempt must be made to ensure that bloodshed is avoided and that physical aggression is an absolute last resort. Joffrey is an arrogant king who believes that it is his right as sovereign to do as he pleases. He views Robb Stark as a Northern rebel who deserves to be crushed by his armies. He does not enter into negotiation, as he believes that it is beneath him to do so, and he often pays little heed to his advisers—although he is reliant on the military strength of his grandfather Tywin. From the perspective of the Northern alliance, under the kingship of Robb, there appears to be little option but to use all necessary force to ensure that Joffrey renounces his claim to the North.

In
A Clash of Kings
, Robb does offer some terms for peace, which are rejected out of hand.
1
One might question, however, whether Robb has in fact done everything possible to avoid an armed conflict. Should he have sent further emissaries? Should he have offered better terms? Still, as a legitimate authority, Robb gets to decide when he has done all that is reasonable to preserve the peace.

Probability of Success

War must not result in the pointless waste of human life. If it is anticipated that there is little likelihood of success in the proposed war, then it is futile to engage in the process. This idea may appear intuitively correct, but one must then ask whether small states
ever
have the legitimate right to go to war with larger aggressors who have superior military resources. If one should begin a war campaign only if there is a high chance of success, then Daenerys should never have begun to raise an army following the desertion of the Khalasar after Khal Drogo could no longer ride.

All sides in the War of the Five Kings believe that they have a possibility of achieving success. However, it is the
probability
of success that matters. For example, approximately nine years before the start of
A Game of Thrones
, Balon Greyjoy announced himself king of the Iron Isles in a rebellion against King Robert. His forces, however, were outnumbered ten-to-one and were ultimately slaughtered (“Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things”). The probability of success in this endeavor would have been insufficient to justify it. By contrast, the initial successes of Robb’s troops indicate that he does in fact have a good chance of victory.

Proportionality of Loss versus Gain

It is the responsibility of a state to consider objectively whether the good that is to be secured through waging a war is justified in terms of the costs that it will exact. This is a theoretical calculation that must take into account the
universal
(or complete) cost of the proposed armed conflict. When assessing the cost-versus-gain ratio, the state must consider not only its own potential losses and gains, but also those of the enemy. The good to be achieved will usually be considered in light of the just cause, and the cost or evils will include inevitable outcomes such as casualties, loss of property, and so forth. If, after careful consideration, the securing of the just cause is deemed to be worthwhile even in light of potential loss, then the war is justified and should proceed. We must wonder, then, whether Robb has truly considered the possible overall cost to both his own people and the rest of Westeros.

Justness in Conducting War

The next concern relates to justifiable conduct in the actual execution of battle. It is up to the state to ensure that its armed forces adhere to the principles of right conduct when engaging with the enemy. In order to do so, the state appoints military officials to oversee the strategic planning of its campaigns and to ensure that regular soldiers do not participate in inappropriate behavior. Under just war theory there is a moral limitation to what is permitted in battle, and this ultimately means that all soldiers should refrain from unnecessary or excessive uses of violence and should not inflict needless pain and suffering on innocents who are not actually fighting in the war. During military engagements between the forces of Robb and Joffrey, some forces act immorally. For example, Joffrey’s knight Ser Gregor Clegane kills the Lord Darry, who is only eight years old, and after defeating Jonos Bracken at Stone Hedge, Ser Gregor burns the harvest and rapes Bracken’s daughter.
2

Discrimination between Combatants and Noncombatants

Soldiers are permitted to attempt to kill only targets that are actively engaged in the military campaign. The function of war, so understood, is to kill enemy combatants and not to indiscriminately slaughter all members of the opposing state. The Dothraki openly reject anything akin to this idea in the rape and pillage that they think is their due after being victorious in battle. One such example involves the atrocities committed on the Lhazareen “Sheep People” when Khal Drogo sacks their town (even though this was not in fact a war—as it was an isolated battle) (“Baelor”).

It is legitimate, however, to pursue any target that is intentionally engaged in inflicting harm, either directly or indirectly, on the state’s forces. Therefore, one may legitimately attack military personnel, equipment and installations, political adversaries who promote the war, and individuals and industries that manufacture goods and items that will be employed with the purpose of producing harm. Civilians who are not actively engaged in harming one’s combatants should be exempted from intentional attack. Once again, think of Gregor Clegane’s campaign of murder and terror and that of the troops of Tywin Lannister (“Fire and Blood”). Of course, in any armed conflict there will be unavoidable civilian casualties as the indirect result of conflict. Such collateral damage may be excused, providing that such deaths are not deliberate. For example, when Robert Baratheon was in the process of gaining the throne and laid siege to Storm’s End, it was not his primary intention to kill the civilians who had taken refuge there, but it is likely that many were killed in securing the castle.