Supreme Court of Westeros, ruling 53

Thursday is court day! It's exactly one year now that we started this series. Hipp Hipp Hooray!

Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion, either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr. Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own questions through the channels above.

One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including the Hedge Knight short stories, The World of Ice and Fire (new!) and watched the current TV episodes. We don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.

And now, up to ruling 53 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judge this week, as in our first issue, is Steven Attewell, who is the author of Race for the Iron Throne and has recently published a book entitled: Race for the Iron Throne: Political and Historical Analysis of "A Game of Thrones." He recently finished a chapter-by-chapter analysis of A Game of Thrones and is now doing chapter-by-chapter analyses of A Clash of Kings. He has a PhD in History from the University of California, Santa Barbara where he studied the history of public policy. Recently, Steven became an adjunct professor of urban studies at CUNY's Murphy Institute(!!) In addition to Race for the Iron Throne, Steven is also a co-podcaster on Game of Thrones at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Did Eddard really fight the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy, or is it just a fever dream? In the end, they were way too good to be taken by seven northern guys.

Main Opinion: Stefan

This is not “The Lord of the Rings” or “300”. Fighting against a superior number of foes is extremely hard, and Eddard and his six companions weren’t your average militia you can simply cut down. They were elite warriors of their own. Try to imagine seven fighting three: there are no knock-out blows right at the start to reduce the number because all of them are too good for that, so each kingsguard has to fight two and one of them even three. If one of the Northeners felt confident to hold off one kingsguard (because he was already wounded, for example), they could have made this a four versus one. No matter how good you are, you still have only two arms. For every blow you land, you receive three. One of them is bound to have an effect sometime. The thing hard to believe isn’t that Eddard won, but that only two people survived. While I wouldn’t consider myself an expert swordsman, from my own limited experience at LARPing I know that fighting two guys at once is a death sentence. Never saw anyone who did this and “survived”. We also know from historical account that superior numbers at equal skill win out nine times out of ten. So, no miracle or fever dream needed here. They were kingsguard, not Legolas.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Amin

I agree that 7 versus 3 were tough odds for the Kingsguard, and they managed to kill 5 of Ned’s group. Ned himself barely defeat Arthur Dayne with Howland Reed’s help, and it is possible Howland used either poison or some other Crannogman ability to gain an ‘unfair’ but necessary advantage over Arthur Dayne. However, Martin himself has said that the events at the Tower of Joy battle may not have gone down exactly as the dream. I have heard some interesting interpretations that the Tower of Joy battle might have been the end result of more extended ‘chase scene’, which explains why Ned only had his few men with him rather than a larger contingent. I think that whatever form the battle took, it was reasonable that 7 trained and experienced fighters on Ned’s side would just barely take out the 3 Kingsguard.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Steven Attewell

Fights that involve a disparity between numbers and skills are an absolute staple of fantasy, from Conan's single-handed rampages, to Aragon and Co. mowing down endless numbers of orcs. And of course, all of this comes from legends and historical accounts of famous combatants like Roland or the Chevalier de Bayard defeating hordes of enemies. Testing this in the real world is a bit difficult, but a recent experiment pitted three master fencers from South Korea against 50 novices. You can see the results for yourselves: initially, the numbers of the crowd work in the favor of our "three musketeers," because the crowd doesn't coordinate well and gets in its own way, forming human shields for the master fencers who can then whittle down the odds. However, as the novices left standing decline, they're able to more effectively coordinate their actions, and the masters find themselves unable to effectively respond from attacks coming in from all angles. Thus, heroic victories against overwhelming odds are possible, but highly risky, and likely relying on breaking the morale of the superior force. I believe something like this happened at the Tower of Joy - that the three Kingsguard probably did most of their damage in their initial attack, using their superior skill and experience fighting together to down most of the five who died (in most sword duels, people are less often killed outright than either incapacitated or gradually downed by blood loss). However, once the Kingsguard had closed the distance and done their damage, it would be much easier for the remaining fighters to attack them from multiple directions at once, sealing their fate.

Final Verdict: There is no lack of realism here. Fighting against numerical superiority is tough. 

Are there any thoughts that the Faith will make any more political statements of authority? It seems that before the High Sparrow, the Faith was a lap dog to the throne, but now the High Septon is making moves to establish and legitimize the actions of the Faith, regardless of the will of the throne. Is there any possibility that he will seize on the political clout of the Red Wedding? It was noted that the commons are wroth at the slight done to the gods via the breaking of guest rite, which the throne has remained in active in the public sense. The High Septon could choose to act as the throne is unwilling, and publicly damn and denounce all those involved. And if the title of knighthood is based off of a pledge to the Faith of the Seven, then could the High Septon also strip people of knighthoods? Like all those that have the last name Frey, and their bannermen and partners in the crime?

Main Opinion: Stefan

In theory, you are absolutely right. The Faith was merely a political tool to the throne (at least the upper echolons of the Faith in the capital), and in theory it can use its leverage to unmake knights or even lords “in the eyes of gods and men” (legally binding is a different matter). But usually, the High Septon didn’t do this, because of the precedent it would set. Much like the pope and the German kings of the medieval times, the question who ultimately has a say about the status of people would arise. Right now, the king raises lords and knights and gives this right to his vassals, and he can take all this away. When there is a competing institution claiming to being able of doing the same thing, you have a constitutional crisis, and so far, the two branches avoided this. The experience of Maegor was sufficient for both sides to be kept in check. But the High Sparrow doesn’t care one bit about this because he is a fanatic. That being said, however, I find it highly unlikely that the Faith will become the instrument of revenge on the Freys. He would have reason to do so, but even the High Sparrow doesn’t want to make more enemies than he can handle at once. Plus, the narrative is pointing in another direction. The Freys are being brought down by the ever remembering North with a little help of Zombie Cat and Nymeria, while the Faith is heading to a major confrontation with the great western alliance already. Since Aegon’s landing will almost certainly result in a Targaryen civil war, the best guess is that the Faith will be preoccupied choosing the wrong side in the conflict, backing Aegon and thereby like everyone else lowering the ressources necessary to fight the enemies of all mankind north of the Wall. The whole depiction of the Faith and the High Sparrow don’t point to them becoming the good guys anytime soon. It’s much more likely that the High Sparrow’s overreach will be swept away by the twin invasion of the Others and Dany.

Concurring Opinion: Amin

I agree that the Faith has become a major player in the course of the War of the Five Kings and the aftermath. Cersei was partially responsible for waking the sleeping bear with the restoration of the Faith Militant, but the Faith was already gearing toward acquiring more popular and realistic power. The Faith’s growing reach is part of a greater trend of religious intolerance and militarization that has been occurring in other religious groups as well since A Game of Thrones, both in Westeros and Essos. I also agree that the Faith won’t be the factor behind the downfall of the Freys, they already have enough enemies aiming to take them down first.

Concurring Opinion: Steven Attewell

I think this question misses an important aspect of the political dynamic between the Faith and the Crown - as much as the two are in conflict privately, each is important to the public legitimization of the other. Tommen needs the High Sparrow's blessing to be truly accepted by his subjects as their rightful king, but so too does the High Sparrow need the King's decrees to legitimize major changes to the political order like the rearming of the Faithful or the re-establishment of religious courts. The High Septon has no motive for attacking Tommen's legitimacy at this stage, because to discredit Tommen is to discredit the authority of the edicts giving the High Septon his new powers. Rather, the High Septon is best served by propping up Tommen - especially against Stannis and the R'hlloric faith - as a puppet of the Faith, while quietly moving to consolidate as much power as he can. Think of it like the conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes - they frequently went to war with each other, but neither was seeking total destruction of the other, but rather dominance over the other, lest by destruction you empower destabilizing offshoots (anti-popes, Imperial pretenders, Protestants, etc.). 

Final Verdict: The Faith can do more things theoretically than in practice, like every player in the Game of Thrones. 

How is Theon considered a kinslayer?

Main Opinion: Stefan

It’s a stretch. The Stark boys are often referred to as his “foster brothers”, and it seems like being a ward (regardless of your real status as a hostage) makes you a de facto member of the family. Think of the feelings that Robert and Ned have for Jon Arryn, or even Jaime for his foster “parents”. Therefore, killing your foster brothers for a Westerosi comes down to a crime almost as vile as killing your real brothers. The institution wouldn’t really work without this illusion, and it wouldn’t have much sense.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Amin

As Justice Stefan pointed out, it is an extension of the term kinslayer to include foster brothers. If a foster brother slays another, that can qualify as kinslaying in the eyes of the people. What complicates matters is that Theon was never really an accepted foster brother, but was half a hostage, which he resented first unconsciously and the consciously. Foster brothers that are wards may also be hostages in theory, but the taking of Theon at the end of the War, rather than being sent during peacetime, highlighted this fact more than usual (I believe we covered this difference in an earlier Supreme Court of Westseros ruling). The people of the North are just upset with Theon’s turncloaking (promising to do one thing and then do another) and kinslayer is a good blanket term to throw at him. Theon himself would like to complain about this, but to no avail. The way that Abel (Mance’s) ‘daughters’ use the term against Theon may also indicate something about these Wildling women: either the Wildlings see it as kinslaying as well, or Abel’s ‘daughters’ have a close connection to matters south of the Wall that may be revealed subsequently.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Steven Attewell

I would concur with Stefan's extension of the kinslaying principle to fosterage, although I'm of the opinion that most of that particular line of invective is coming from Theon's own mind in a case of unreliable narration. After all, Theon most likely is a kinslayer, in that the miller's boys may well have been his own sons, who he had murdered to save face. I think guilt is causing hallucinations a la the Tell Tale Heart.

Final Verdict: Either someone really wants to blame Theon, or he's delusional.