Category: Uncategorized

Re: Richelieu’s destruction of castles: do you think Robert/Jon Arryn could have pulled off something similar in the wake of Robert’s Rebellion? It seems like a major missed opportunity for Robert’s new regime not to try some sort of reform, given the strength of the Baratheon-Arryn-Stark-Tully-Lannister coalition and the lack of credible opposition.

I think it would have been hard for them to sell that. Their entire political argument centered around the nobility’s resistance to a tyrannical monarch, not the need to put down over-mighty vassals. 

Maybe you’ve answered this, but it’s said that GRRM’s horrors (all the bad shit that happens in the books) are worse than IRL; his lows are lower so his highs can be higher. Would you say then that what we would call war crimes were less common in the Middle Ages than in the books?

This is something that medievalists are kind of touchy about ever since Petrarch coined the term the “Dark Ages” to emphasize both the glory of Rome and Greece and the Renaissance he was trying to create. So you can find a lot of articles and books pointing out that things weren’t that bad, that the Renaissance and Early Modern period was worse, yatta yatta.

I’m kind of skeptical of that argument for a bunch of reasons. GRRM is being selective with what he’s drawing inspiration from, but it’s not like it didn’t happen. The Anarchy in England, which was called the time that “Christ and his saints all slept,” doesn’t get that name without a reason. The Chanson of Raoul of Cambrai is pretty explicit about some nasty atrocities from a petty feudal war. The chevauchées of the Hundred Years War and before were hugely devastating. 

Matt Asks:

Have you read Joe Abercrombie’s First Law Trilogy? If so what do you think of Bayaz as a character?

Yes, and I’ll be writing about it in a bonus essay from the Kickstarter. Bayaz is Gandalf and Merlin, but evil. It’s an interesting twist on the genre, but as with a lot of Abercrombie’s stuff, I find myself more exhausted than moved by it. 

How do you think the War of Five Kings have turned out if Robb Stark had forsaken Whispering Wood and instead fully committed to attacking Tywin’s Army at the Battle of Green Fork? A full frontal assault would have been doomed, but Robb Stark leans towards ”Staggering attacks”, as you have said. What would happen if he split up his army to attack Tywin from two fronts? Bolton’s infantry hits from the north, Robb’s cavalry crosses the Ruby Ford and hits the Lannister army from the south?

I’m a little bit unclear about your scenario – the Ruby Ford is all the way at the southern confluence of the Trident, Tywin’s army is between Robb and the Ford, so that wouldn’t quite work.

To try something like that, Robb would have had to cross the Green Fork, go all the way down the length of the Green Fork, and then cross the Ruby Ford to the eastern bank of the Green Fork, and then all the way up the Kingsroad before Tywin deals with Roose. I don’t think the timing would quite work. If there were a handy flotilla of riverboats as at Tumbler’s Falls, maybe he could have boated down to get at Tywin’s rear, but it would have been very hard to avoid being spotted. 

If I were Robb, I would have gone for something a bit simpler. Basically, do exactly what Roose did but do it right: march my infantry down to the hills, let them rest, then do a night hit-and-run with my cavalry to scare the hell out of the Lannisters and get some initial hits in. 

Then I would have let Tywin attack my position along the top of the hills and use a combination of spearmen and archers to mow down anyone who tries charging up that hill, while keeping my cavalry hidden behind the line of hills to be used only in emergencies (for example, if Marbrand’s right threatens to break my position). 

And when his infantry has been shot to pieces and his knights are lathered and de-horsed, that’s when I send my cavalry around his right, roll up the flank, charge my infantry down the hill and crack him wide open, and push his whole goddamned army into the Green Fork to drown. 

I recently read about how Cardinal Richelieu’s policy of centralization involved destroying the non essential castles held by the nobility. My question is, would a similar action be possible in Westeros? I know that most kings would face revolts if they tried, but could a stronger king do so? Or, in the aftermath of a rebellion, could the winner enforce such a policy to permanently curb the loser’s power?

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last question. Richelieu’s policy followed a long and violent civil war called the Fronde – hence the destroying of castles was now seen as a way to prevent future civil wars from happening. Same principle behind Henry VII’s banning of private retinues, justified by the need to prevent another Wars of the Roses. 

Just curious, is it ever mentioned where salt production is done in westeros and essos? It seems like it got overlooked in the world building because it wasn’t really mentioned in woiaf. I was guessing dorne would be a pretty important producer and possibly the disputed lands? It would help explain some of the wealth the Martells seem to have, beyond spices and luxury goods. Just wanted to know if you had any thoughts?

Overlooked? We have a direct example of its production in Saltpans – that’s an example of salt production through evaporation of brine in a shallow open pan. 

Anywhere by the sea could produce salt, so I don’t think that necessarily points to Dorne or the Disputed Lands. Yes, living in a hot climate makes evaporation quicker, but unless there are large amounts of sedimentary deposits allowing for large-scale mining of salt, I don’t see why those would be important producers. 

Maybe too broad a question, but why were already-wealthy-and-powerful medieval lords’ so eager to enter the dangerous waters of politics for their advancement? I.e. the wealthy and powerful Boleyn’s scheming to marry Anne to Henry VIII; isn’t it a bit like a multi-millionaire gambling with the Mob to see if he can become a billionaire?

Well, to quote the Boss:

“Poor man wanna be rich,
Rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain’t satisfied,
‘til he rules everything.”

To take your Boleyn example, the Boleyns weren’t actually all that rich and powerful. Thomas Boleyn, Anne’s father, was the son of a wealthy mercer who had bought himself a knighthood and a marriage to a Butler of Ireland. That still made him relatively low-ranking, a mere knight and diplomat, despite his incredibly fortunate marriage to a Howard. But through Anne, Thomas became Viscount Rochford, Earl of Wiltshire, and Lord Privy Seal. So for the upwardly mobile, politics offered an opportunity to join the true elite. 

For those already there, there’s always more to get. The Kingmaker was born the son of the Earl of Salisbury, but marrying Anne Beauchamp got him the Despenser fortune and through some rather complicated legal maneuverings, the Earldom of Warwick, which was to be the foundation of his empire. The Kingmaker sided with the Duke of York in part because Somerset (the leading Lancastrian) had taken the Lordship of Glamorgan, which had been part of the Despenser legacy. Siding with the Duke of York got him the position of Constable of Calais, and siding with Edward IV got him the Admiralty of England, the Stewardship of the Duchy of Lancaster, his brother got made Warden of the East March and Earl of Northumberland, and his other brother got the Archbishopric of York and the Chancellory of England. 

But there’s also the fact that in feudal politics, most of the time, everything belongs to someone. So a lot of people stayed in the game to avoid losing what they already had – the losers in a civil war, or even the people who weren’t friendly enough with the regime, could lose Dukeships, Earldoms, and Baronies aplenty.