How long has slavery been banned in Westeros and why?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Exodus 21:7

[Mal Malenkirk]

However, if Westeros is supposed to be roughly equal to 14th or early 15th century Europe in technology and social development, the ban on slavery would have been a relatively recent thing.

As far as I can tell, they've been the equivalent of 14th/15th century Europe for centuries... So no, it doesn't have to be a recent thing.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

As far as I can tell, they've been the equivalent of 14th/15th century Europe for centuries... So no, it doesn't have to be a recent thing.

That's mostly due to us having insufficient data to properly estimate the evolutionary steps. Westeros didn't teleport from the Bronze Age to late Medieval without any step in between.

But there are some hints for recent developments. Shipbuilding for example.

[Tijgy]

According my professor Roman law, Slavery as in "owning people" didn't exist until the 16th century. Slavery used to mean something different and it had no consequences in matters of criminal law, ... You could not just kill, rape, ... your slaves. Slaves could work and buy their "freedom", ...

But in the Middle Ages those Roman rules started to be misinterpreted. And slavery started to get mean: owning people.

The Arabs sold their prisoners of war. And it were the Christians who collected money and used that money to buy the freedom of those people. At the end, it was impossible to buy all those people their freedom. The Portuguese bought those people and brought them to their plantations so they could the possibility to work and to buy their freedom themselves.

And when the traders saw how lucrative this business could be, the slavery trade started to exist and was tolerated by States like England, ... in their colonies. I think however it was challenged by some people in Europe. And slavery didn't exist in the continent of Europe. If a slave could escape to a port in the UK, he was free.

But still however the small folk wasn't owned by people (in legal terms), their lives could probably suck. And this was the case in Europe even in the 19th/20th century.

[SevasTra82]

....wow this thread escelated quickly.

Not sure what biblical slavery has to do with Westeros slavery.... :ack:

[Jon Fossoway]

Were the Baneforts the last Kings who supported slavery?

[Mal Malenkirk]

According my professor Roman law, Slavery as in "owning people" didn't exist until the 16th century. Slavery used to mean something different and it had no consequences in matters of criminal law, ... You could not just kill, rape, ... your slaves. Slaves could work and buy their "freedom", ...

But in the Middle Ages those Roman rules started to be misinterpreted. And slavery started to get mean: owning people.

The Arabs sold their prisoners of war. And it were the Christians who collected money and used that money to buy the freedom of those people. At the end, it was impossible to buy all those people their freedom. The Portuguese bought those people and brought them to their plantations so they could the possibility to work and to buy their freedom themselves.

And when the traders saw how lucrative this business could be, the slavery trade started to exist and was tolerated by States like England, ... in their colonies. I think however it was challenged by some people in Europe. And slavery didn't exist in the continent of Europe. If a slave could escape to a port in the UK, he was free.

But still however the small folk wasn't owned by people (in legal terms), their lives could probably suck. And this was the case in Europe even in the 19th/20th century.

That feels like a fairy tale version of the history of slavery. The bolded part is especially mind boggling.

And these laws 'protecting slaves' in the roman empire were in fact protecting the owner as they'd mostly only apply if somebody else raped, killed or maimed your slave. You are tripping if you believe a patrician in 50 A.D. would get arrested for raping his own slave, for example.

[TheSovereignGrave]

Were the Baneforts the last Kings who supported slavery?

I'd say 'no' since the only reference I can find on the wiki refers to the last Banefort King and his thralls, and the Ironborn still have thralls.

[TheOne-EyedHound]

They're agianst slavery because other than the first men, everybody was running away from slavery. The Andals were running away from the dragon lords of valyria, the Rhoynar as well.

[TheSovereignGrave]

They're against slavery because other than the first men, everybody was running away from slavery. The Andals were running away from the dragon lords of valyria, the Rhoynar as well.

But the Andals themselves practiced slavery. They had no problems enslaving others; they just didn't want to become slaves themselves.

[Tijgy]

That feels like a fairy tale version of the history of slavery. The bolded part is especially mind boggling.

And these laws 'protecting slaves' in the roman empire were in fact protecting the owner as they'd mostly only apply if somebody else raped, killed or maimed your slave. You are tripping if you believe a patrician in 50 A.D. would get arrested for raping his own slave, for example.

It is still told by a professor specialized in this subject after years studying.

In criminal law, there was no difference between being a slave or being master, ... This difference had only consequences for matters in private law which was a matter of liability.

People also thought for years the pyramids were made by slaves. in fact it were really people who were free.

The contemporary reception of history isn't always the truth. To discover the truth you need to read the sources of that time. And until you did that, I think I would rather believe my professor who can say in which year each important historical legal document was made.

[TheOne-EyedHound]

But the Andals themselves practiced slavery. They had no problems enslaving others; they just didn't want to become slaves themselves.

Maybe their eyes were open to the horrors of slavery?

[James Crow]

It is still told by a professor specialized in this subject after years studying.

In criminal law, there was no difference between being a slave or being master, ... This difference had only consequences for matters in private law which was a matter of liability.

People also thought for years the pyramids were made by slaves. in fact it were really people who were free.

The contemporary reception of history isn't always the truth. To discover the truth you need to read the sources of that time. And until you did that, I think I would rather believe my professor who can say in which year each important historical legal document was made.

Just because your maester told you doesn't make it true....

[ChillyPolly]

Exodus 21:7

Which does not quite say what you claimed. But in any event, it is always odd how those arguing that Christian doctrine and the teachings of that Dude from Nazareth never made any difference on certain issues, like Slavery, always go to the Old Testament for their examples.

[Knight Of Winter]

Which does not quite say what you claimed. But in any event, it is always odd how those arguing that Christian doctrine and the teachings of that Dude from Nazareth never made any difference on certain issues, like Slavery, always go to the Old Testament for their examples.

?

It says that man can sell his daughter into slavery, and that, unlike other slaves, said daughter will not be freed after 6 years.

[TheSovereignGrave]

Maybe their eyes were open to the horrors of slavery?

Then the Andals in the Vale wouldn't have turned the First Men who refused to submit to House Arryn into thralls.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Which does not quite say what you claimed. But in any event, it is always odd how those arguing that Christian doctrine and the teachings of that Dude from Nazareth never made any difference on certain issues, like Slavery, always go to the Old Testament for their examples.

Don't bother. I'm fully aware of all that and use passages like this one to deflate holier-than-thou hillbillies or crack a joke.

Actually, the passages containing actual porn are more fun.

[Mal Malenkirk]

It is still told by a professor specialized in this subject after years studying.

In criminal law, there was no difference between being a slave or being master, ... This difference had only consequences for matters in private law which was a matter of liability.

People also thought for years the pyramids were made by slaves. in fact it were really people who were free.

The contemporary reception of history isn't always the truth. To discover the truth you need to read the sources of that time. And until you did that, I think I would rather believe my professor who can say in which year each important historical legal document was made.

Fine, give me the name of that professor, and the principal sources of his cursus, I'll look it up. I smell serious crackpottery here based on your initial post. Did you go to a christian university by any chance?

[Quwertzuiopp]

Where does Bible object to slave trade?

No where. Just kidding. You are absolutely forbidden to own slaves of your own people. You are obliged to buy free men of your people if you can afford it.

In other words: If you enslave a foreigner, you are a-okay. It depends on your definition of "your people". If you consider all christians one people you can only own slaves of other faiths (and heretics of course, so if you are part of one of those gazillion retarded small churches in America, 99.999% of all humans).

And yes, you can sell your own daughter as a slave, but it will be consider highly unmoral if you sell her for less than the value of AT LEAST two oxens. At 600-950€ per oxen, that's at makes 1200 - 1900€ (1361 - 2 155$). Per daughter. If looked at within those limitations, you can see that the bible does only allow a very moral version of slavery [/sarcasm]

You will also go to hell if you eat shellfish. And you are unclean if you touch a woman who is on her period. If she makes bedsheets dirty, you must burn them of course. Along with all cooking pots she accidentialy touches.

I have no idea how anyone can take that book serious.

EDIT: In retrospekt, this post looks like I am asking for a flamewar. Please don't. My points still stand.

On topic:

The andals are really really just like the anglo-saxons. This time, the comparison to history really works. The Anglo-Saxons conquered as much of Britain as they could, and where they won, they took all women for themselfes, killed all boys and enslaved the men, effectively wiping out the Britons in two or three generations.

But just like the anglo-saxons, the andals also adopted some customs of the conquered, and as a lot of old houses just andalified themselves, they might not have been as ruthless as the anglo-saxons. Seeing how deep the hatred for slavery is even amongs the southrons, they probably adopted the hatred for slavery from the first men, just like the first men adopted this from the children of the forest and the old gods, who shun slavery. With the anglo-saxons, major slavery ended simply when the old briton slaves all died, because those where mostly not allowed to marry or have kids, to erradicate them.

Slavery was still a reality amonst the germanic people like the saxons or the norse, it only fully stoped in the 13th century in England.

With the andals, I personally thinked they droped slavery after at most two generations. Since then thousands of years have passed, so we wouldn't really know even if it had lasted a few more generations, and I don't have anything in the text to support this. Then again, seeing how deeply ingrained the refusal of slavery is, and considering that since our year 0 only about 80 generations have lived, I would say it must have happened a long time ago.

[Primalsplit]

What? You go to hell if you shellfish? This theme sounds familiar from somewhere... Hmm... could it be pork?

Don't bother. I'm fully aware of all that and use passages like this one to deflate holier-than-thou hillbillies or crack a joke.

Actually, the passages containing actual porn are more fun.

Porn? Please provide us!

On topic:

How do we exactly know Westeros is 14th or 15th medieval century? Because I always thought it was of an earlier age. Can someone please post a quote that proves it if they have it please?