#the Allies were extremely skeptical of any statements towards seeking a surrender that lacked concrete action

[selkiesstories]

Could Daeron have used the raids sanctioned by Aliandra as a pretext for a war of conquest? Yes. It’s actually a smart move politically which is probably why Martin doesn’t use it *sigh* And not for the first time a blatant breach of contract is glossed over when it comes to Dorne. (Martin needs to work on consistency: the Reach & the West fighting against the Targaryens led to a waste of lives, Dornish resistance to conquest was brave and virtuous, the Hightowers are spineless for caving to the Targaryens, Torhen Stark demonstrates wisdom and regard for his people’s living by kneeling without fighting-WHICH IS IT?????) 

I haven’t seen this anywhere but by killing Daeron under a peace banner-assassination is technically murder-which even in Westeros where the concept of war crimes is pretty shaky is absolutely taboo the Dornish cosigned the hostages in King’s Landing to death. All of them would die, but that was a sacrifice those nobles were willing to make.

I wasn't trolling, and I apologize if I caused offense. I definitively didn't mean to do that. I just don't see how Daeron's conquest is in any way morally justifiable, nor why the Dornish are in the wrong for killing their invaders.

Try to salvage anon’s Daeron ask. What about the justness of wars of conquest where continual border skirmishes and general unrest exist. Is that a war of conquest? What about the changing international customs, laws and institutions that judge these things?

No worries.

The second Anon has the right of it. Far from being an unprovoked act of naked aggression against Dorne, the relationship between the Seven Kingdoms and the independent Principality of Dorne was fraught with continual attacks, raids, and violence, and not only in one direction. Deria Martell is widely believed to have supported the Vulture King, certainly she permitted her vassals to join his campaign which suggests that she supported him as a barely-deniable asset. Morion Martell launched an invasion against the Seven Kingdoms out of a desire to avenge the Vulture King. Aliandra Martell encouraged raiding into the Dornish Marches as a means of gaining her favor, thus making aggression against Westeros an established domestic and foreign policy. 

Daeron’s war definitely had conquest elements, since it was explicitly designed to annex territory and complete Aegon’s Conquest, a mere punitive expedition ala the Pancho Villa expedition would probably limit itself to burning down outlaw camps, securing any stolen treasure, and hanging known raiders and people in possession of stolen goods. However, with Aliandra Martell explicitly endorsing raiding as a means of political advancement, Daeron’s war cannot be thought of solely as a vanity project. Daeron is within his right as king of Westeros to take measures to end border aggression and defend his people. Since Aliandra is establishing the policy in her purview as Princess of Dorne, that means it’s not merely criminal activity, but national policy, so Daeron can take action against Dorne itself, not simply against cross-border raiders. Certainly, wars of conquest were conceived of differently in the Middle Ages, the “right of conquest” and wars of aggression were criticized as crimes at Nuremberg, and further clarified by the UN in 1974, so international norms in Westeros were a lot different and that does factor into character motivation.

But the bigger concern to me is specifically the murder at the peace conference, because there’s no way that it’s justifiable. Even by ancient norms such a thing was considered to be a capital offense against law and morality both. By misusing the truce flag and the peace conference, they become degraded in function; they become ineffective means by which to end a war. When that happens, then the question becomes, how do you end a war? You can’t do it with a peace conference, those could be a plot to lure you out to murder you. How do you even communicate with the enemy to seek out a peace deal? That’s the problem, you can’t trust anything the enemy does in regards to peace. In the absolute worst case scenario, this turns wars into affairs of annihilation, but even more moderately, this hampers a wars ability to end, which results in more casualties, more losses, and greater aftereffects. That’s why the misuse of these symbols is a war crime, because it harms the belligerents’ ability to end the war.

This is illustrated most infamously in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. Japanese soldiers would attack under white flags or with their hands up, and as a result, Allied servicemen stopped accepting requests for surrender. That jeopardizes the lives of any Japanese soldiers that wanted to surrender, because now the enemy cannot trust surrender as genuine, since accepting a surrender jeopardized their own lives.

We see this within the novel itself. When Tyrion sends false envoys to Riverrun with the intent of breaking Jaime out of prison, it means the Northmen and Riverlanders cannot trust further Iron Throne envoys. Much as with the Red Wedding, this places the Lannisters in a position where they are constantly suspect for bad faith, and we see the after-effects in the novel series. Guest right doesn’t protect anyone, and the aftermath is a false peace.

It’s logically valid to say that you don’t believe that Daeron’s war was justified but that the Martells did something heinously wrong in murdering him at a peace conference; you are not obligated to turn any event into a binary.

Thanks for the question, Anons.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King