Medieval norms of warfare often dictated that settlements offering no resistance and agreeing to terms of surrender were spared from destruction. This principle served multiple purposes:
Preserving Resources: Sparing peaceful settlements allowed defeaters to benefit from the city's economic and logistical resources, rather than destroying them.
Maintaining Reputation: Honor and legitimacy were crucial in medieval warfare. Leaders who upheld terms of surrender strengthened their moral standing and ensured future settlements would be more likely to negotiate rather than resist.
At Bitterbridge, Lady Caswell and the townspeople offered no resistance, instead preparing to deplete their resources and accept surrender terms. This act signaled a willingness to negotiate, which should have spared them from destruction under typical medieval conventions. Yet, Daeron chose to sack the town anyway, denying them any terms. If Daeron’s aim was to avenge Maelor, punishing Lady Caswell alone would have sufficed rather than targeting innocent civilians unnecessarily. By violating the norms of surrender, Daeron risked his reputation among allies and enemies alike, weakening his moral authority as a leader. Such actions likely discouraged future settlements from surrendering, as they could no longer trust promises of leniency. This could lead to prolonged resistance and higher casualties in subsequent campaigns.
Unlike Bitterbridge, the attacks on Lannisport were calculated and strategic. Dalton’s raids served as a method to pressure the Lannisters into shifting their allegiance to Rhaenyra. This aligns with medieval practices where raids were often used to:
Weaken Opponents: Raids disrupted the enemy's economy, morale, and logistical support.
Force Negotiations: By targeting Lannisport, Dalton sought to force the Lannisters into a position where aligning with Rhaenyra became their most viable option.
Since the Lannisters remained loyal to Aegon, Dalton’s attacks were a justified consequence of their allegiance. The responsibility for Lannisport’s fate rested with the Lannisters’ decision not to negotiate. If the Lannisters had switched their loyalty to Rhaenyra and Dalton had continued his raids, his actions would have crossed into true injustice. However, as long as the Lannisters resisted, Dalton’s raids were an acceptable means of exerting pressure until his actions went beyond calculated violence, risking harm to Rhaenyra’s political goals and alienating potential allies. In contrast to Dalton’s overindulgence, Daeron’s sack of Bitterbridge reflected a direct violation of norms surrounding surrender. Both actions undermined the legitimacy of their campaigns, but in distinct ways:
Dalton at Lannisport: Started as a strategic action but escalated due to lack of discipline, leading to unnecessary harm. Daeron at Bitterbridge: Represented a deliberate betrayal of surrender terms, entirely unjustified.
Truly, I LOVE this post, thanks! I WILL be using this post often!
