How long has slavery been banned in Westeros and why?

[ChillyPolly]

?

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

?

I know what it says - it corresponds (very roughly) to the second half of your sentence. What's your point?

[ChillyPolly]

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.

And what happens then? What do the "hillbillies" do, after you "deflate" them, by citing passages that do not apply according to Christian doctrine. Do they rape their sisters?

Good work confusing the uneducated. Must make you feel big.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

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?

Nope. Because we've hints for everything from the 11th to the 18th just in Westeros. But 14th/15th got the most hints.

And what happens then? What do the "hillbillies" do, after you "deflate" them, by citing passages that do not apply according to Christian doctrine. Do they rape their sisters?

Good work confusing the uneducated. Must make you feel big.

Don't care. Doesn't happen often. But those guys start by mouthing off about the Old Testament anyway.

[ChillyPolly]

Don't care. Doesn't happen often. But those guys start by mouthing off about the Old Testament anyway.

I somehow missed the "hillbilly" who provoked you in this thread. And which one of you was arguing in favor of slavery, in those particular discussions. Not "those guys", clearly, since you were trying to discomfit them by rubbing their nose in such. And why do I detect a distinct and unpleasant whiff of elitist, urbanite snobbery in the trollish behavior of which you boast?

Anyhow, the citation you gave comes from one of the 5 "books of Moses" (traditionally ascribed to Moses), which in the 1st century AD etc. was traditionally cited by saying Moses (or The Law of Moses) said x, In the NT, when folks came to Jesus and said things like "Moses said we could do x, so who are you to say otherwise", Jesus response was on the lines of: Moses let you get away with shit because you were so hard to teach; but that's not where it's at!

[ChillyPolly]

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.

The distinction you are making was essentially blown to smithereens by the New Testament. What did Jesus answer when he was asked "Who is my neighbor?"

[Mal Malenkirk]

In the NT, when folks came to Jesus and said things like "Moses said we could do x, so who are you to say otherwise", Jesus response was on the lines of: Moses let you get away with shit because you were so hard to teach; but that's not where it's at!

In Matthew 5 17 Jesus says he did not come to abolish the laws of the prophets so it's not that simple.

The bible was written by many authors of different minds, so everyone pick and choose what they like.

Personally I prefer christians who largely disregard the old testaments, they tend to be better neighbors on average, but it's not like their interpretation of the bible is on any stronger footing than any other, they just picked and chose more pleasant passages.

[ChillyPolly]

In Matthew 5 17 Jesus says he did not come to abolish the laws of the prophets so it's not that simple.

The bible was written by many authors of different minds, so everyone pick and choose what they like.

Personally I prefer christians who largely disregard the old testaments, they tend to be better neighbors on average, but it's not like their interpretation of the bible is on any stronger footing than any other, they just picked and chose more pleasant passages.

We could debate the meaning of that passage, if you cared what it meant. But you don't. You have expressed a largely nihilistic opinion. You have no opinion of your own, you are merely pre-emptively declaring all opinions to be equal, and a lie to be as good as the truth.

Sure, it is theoretically possible that a hypothetical person could argue a huge number of things. One could imagine an argument that Christian doctrine declares that it is okay to rape and enslave foreigners because one should love one's neighbor and hate one's enemy. But one does so at the expense of disregarding virtually the entire New Testament, and disregarding the teachings of Jesus.

Sure, it is possible that a non-Christian like yourself could declare that the laws of Moses stand on equal footing with the teachings of Jesus; and in turn that the laws of Moses and the teachings of Jesus stand on equal footing with the teachings of Friedrich Nietsche, which in turn stand on equal footing with the teachings of Mal Malenkirk. But to pretend that your opinions (whether you can "support" them from some part of "the Bible" or not) are those of historical Christianity is simply not honest. And to state that historic Christianity has no special reverence for the words and teachings of Jesus as reflected in the Gospels, is simply not telling the truth.

You cannot honestly discuss the historic influence of Christianity (or lack thereof) on such institutions as slavery if you disregard the teachings of Jesus and of the New Testament because of your arbitrary preference to "pick and choose" pre-Christian documents that may seem to support slavery. Sorry!

[Mal Malenkirk]

We could debate the meaning of that passage, if you cared what it meant. But you don't. You have expressed a largely nihilistic opinion. You have no opinion of your own, you are merely pre-emptively declaring all opinions to be equal, and a lie to be as good as the truth. Third line of my post; I expressed the opinion I prefer the company of christians who favors the new testament and mostly ignore the old. They tend to be better company. On average, of course, you are working hard to make me revise that opinion.

Sure, it is theoretically possible that a hypothetical person could argue a huge number of things. One could imagine an argument that Christian doctrine declares that it is okay to rape and enslave foreigners because one should love one's neighbor and hate one's enemy. But one does so at the expense of disregarding virtually the entire New Testament, and disregarding the teachings of Jesus. No need for hypothethical. Christian doctrines (note the pural) or various denominations have indeed postulated different things over the years, often at the same time, including modern days. Do you posess the miracle doctrine that 2 billions christians would agree is the correct one? I am not aware it exists. The largest unifmorm doctrine would be that of the Catholic church but few of the billion of catholics know it through and through (including me, I am culturally catholic) and fewer still would agree with it all but are unlikely to commit anabaptism over it (again including me). Also, even that unified doctrine isn't set in stone and has changed over the year, even if at the speed of a glacier. Slavery wasn't unequivocally deemed an infamy until 1965!

Sure, it is possible that a non-Christian like yourself could declare that the laws of Moses stand on equal footing with the teachings of Jesus; Pretty sure I didn't do that. There isn't much that I deem valuable in the Leviticus, for example, while part of the new testament are worthwhile to me and stand well to the test of time. Jesus and the adulterous woman (John 7 53) is probably my favorite, helped by the fact it was likely a later addition in the 4th century. A fable about tempering justice with mercy and potentially a metatextual statement about the power of fiction if it was indeed added by an unknown author at a later date. Either way, it has aged extremely well.

and in turn that the laws of Moses and the teachings of Jesus stand on equal footing with the teachings of Friedrich Nietsche, I dunno about Nietzche, which in turn stand on equal footing with the teachings of Mal Malenkirk. I wouldn't say that. No one values every teachings (or anything else for that matter) equally, I am no exception. I have no idea why you believe that I would.

But to pretend that your opinions (whether you can "support" them from some part of "the Bible" or not) are those of historical Christianity is simply not honest. And to state that historic Christianity has no special reverence for the words and teachings of Jesus, is simply not telling the truth. Now I'm certain I didn't do any of that. That being said, different christians, while equally rworshipping Jesus as their savior, revere different part of Jesus teaching and interpret them quite differently. Whatever you think Matthew 5 17 truly mean, you can't deny plenty of christians interpret it to mean that the entirety of the old testament still aplies. If you interpret it differently, you are just proving my point.

[Garbad]

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.

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.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know what you are talking about. I won't say your professor doesn't, but at a minimum you misunderstood him.

First off, the distinction in criminal and civil law did not exist in those days. That's a modern idea. Instead, rome had two types of laws -- public law (for the benefit of the government, ie suing people for govt corruption, treason, etc) and private law (for the benefit of an individual). Rome had no government prosecution at all; instead, private individuals sued each other for a wide variety of personal and public grievances. Punishments included banishment, a fine, or death (but not long term imprisonment -- prison is another modern invention). So the idea that slaves and masters were equal in the eyes of criminal law isn't just wrong, its misguided completely. Second, during the republic slaves had no legal rights of any kind whatsoever. A master could maim, rape, or kill them or anything else at any time without recourse. Later, Imperial law set some limits on cruelty towards slaves, but this was largely ignored in practical life. However, roman slaves did gain some limited rights, particularly if they chose to sell themselves into limited slavery (such as selling yourself as a slave to practice your art, but with the stipulation that you cannot be used for sexual pleasure by your master). Third, a different set of laws applied to different groups based on status. For example, the ius civile ("citizen law", originally ius civile Quiritium) was the body of common laws that applied to Roman citizens and the ius gentium ("law of peoples") was the body of common laws that applied to foreigners (and slaves) and their dealings with Roman citizens. For example, Rei vindicatio (the equivalent to modern tort law) applied only to citizens, meaning a slave who was injured by someone had no legal recourse at all. The modern concept of liability (which romans did not use), for example, simply wouldn't apply to a slave.

For example:

- Roman Citizens were exempt from corporal punishment. Roman slaves were REQUIRED to be tortured before their testimony could be accepted in a trial.

Bradley, Keith. Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. pp 165-70.

- Roman Citizens have a long list of enumerated rights, including security of person and property. Slaves have no rights and could be beaten, killed, or anything else at a whim.

Cato, Marcus Porcius, De agri cultura liber (1882); Bradley, K.R., Slavery and Society at Rome (1994)

- servi pro nullis habentur. Slaves were objects in the law -- things owned -- not actors (who could sue). They had no legal standing at all; only their owner could sue except in certain conditions.

Wiedemann, Thomas E. J. , Slavery (1987)

______________________________________________________________

Now obviously this is simplified to some degree. We are talking about a civilization that spanned continents and lasted for thousands of years. And it evolved, as well. For example at first slaves were essentially treated as a member of the family, like a minor child. Later, they had no rights at all. Still later, they gained some limited contract rights and an assurance against abuse. But at no point were they equal to citizens. At no point were they slightly misunderstood freemen. Slavery was and remains about taking away a person's agency and turning them into property to be used as you see fit.

I would like to see what your professor actually says, but on the surface of things you are completely wrong.

[Whitering]

In Europe the Church was never really against slavery in the same way that the followers of the Seven and the followers of the old gods were.

Slavery was always considered abhorrent in Westeros.

There is slavery in one form or another practiced by all the remaining First Men who are not part of the Seven Kingdoms proper. The Ironborn have Thralls, the Wildlings and Mountain Clans kidnap women and enslave them.

It seems to me that the Andals eradicated it.

[James Arryn]

It is not really accurate to say that "Christianity" was "mostly okay" with slavery; or that opposition to slavery stemmed from paganism.

The wealthy and powerful, throughout history, have always justified anything they could get away with, and this is as true in "Christian" nations and cultures, as it is in any nation or culture. But if we look at the teachings of Christianity themselves, they are virtually impossible to reconcile with slavery in any but (perhaps) its most benign forms. New Testament taught that one should "love thy neighbor as thyself"; and went on to specify that your "neighbor" included not merely the members of one's own tribe or nation, but pretty much the entire world. This is virtually impossible to reconcile with slavery, and particularly with the more dehumanizing forms of chattel slavery; and countless Christians throughout history have come to exactly that conclusion. It is no accident that the Abolitionist movement in the United States was spearheaded by Christians.

It's not difficult to reconcile Christianity with slavery; it's made explicit in the Bible. A slave who runs away is a thief and a disappointment to God.

Read Huck Finn; 'alright, I'll go to Hell' is Huck's resolution to help free a slave.

Yes, many abolitionist were christian, but then almost everyone was christian. But organized religion and liturgy were pretty clearly in favour.

[TheSovereignGrave]

There is slavery in one form or another practiced by all the remaining First Men who are not part of the Seven Kingdoms proper. The Ironborn have Thralls, the Wildlings and Mountain Clans kidnap women and enslave them.

It seems to me that the Andals eradicated it.

No, since it's mentioned that King Lymond Hightower 'revived' the practice of thralldom in order to punish Ironborn he captured, implying that thralldom was already not practiced by the First Men (at least in the Reach). And this was before the Andal invasion.

[ChillyPolly]

Third line of my post; I expressed the opinion I prefer the company of christians who favors the new testament and mostly ignore the old. They tend to be better company.

And I prefer blueberries to raspberries. It’s an expression of personal taste. It is something very different from taking a position that one holds to actually be true and correct – what I would call a “real opinion”.

No need for hypothethical. Christian doctrines (note the plural) or various denominations have indeed postulated different things over the years, often at the same time, including modern days. Do you possess the miracle doctrine that 2 billions christians would agree is the correct one? I am not aware it exists.

Nonetheless, if one uses a word, one needs to mean something by it. Otherwise, not only are you not trying to communicate, but you are not even trying to think. When I use the word “Christian” or “Christianity”, I mean something by it. I have a definition in mind. It is not an extremely narrow definition - it is broad enough to include a wide variety of people and denominations. It is not, however, broad enough to cover everyone who might conceivably call themselves a “Christian” because that would deprive the word of all meaning, as you correctly point out.

“Nihilist” is a word that I use for persons who deny the possibility that words can have meaning in order to sabotage any possibility of communication.

Whatever you think Matthew 5 17 truly mean, you can't deny plenty of christians interpret it to mean that the entirety of the old testament still applies. If you interpret it differently, you are just proving my point.

What point would that be? Is it a nihilistic point? Are you trying to infer from the mere potential of disagreement that no-one can be right, and no-one can be wrong, about the meaning of a work or passage? If not, I have no idea what your point would possibly be.

In any event, depending on what you mean by “plenty”, I can indeed deny it. Virtually all Christians hold some degree of reverence to the Old Testament; virtually none give the same degree of reverence to the Law of Moses than they do to the words of Jesus; and virtually none hold that the ENTIRETY of the Old Testament “applies” in the sense that you seem to be suggesting.

Have you even read the entire passage that follows Matthew 5:17? Jesus' general point is the exact opposite of the one you are suggesting. Jesus demands MORE than the law does. No, he does not use slavery as a specific example, but that would be entirely consistent with the sort of contrasts he makes in that passage: Does the law demand that you free your male slaves after six years? Well that's a good start. How about your female slaves too. And how about right now, instead of waiting six years. That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing that Jesus has in mind when he talks about "fulfilling the law".

[Rohirrim]

Many of you are painting slavery with a very broad brush. Both sides of this argument needs to take into the account the respective languages that NT and OT were written in being Greek and Hebrew respectively and their modern implications and historical relevance. It's not so cut and dry when you simply take what the King James Version interpreted as "slavery" from the Hebrew OT, Greek NT, and then latest example here in America of antebellum slavery and attempt to make fair comparisons without any regard to the language and historical reference poitns. OT refers to slavery that both more akin to indentured servitude that we saw in the early foundlings of America, and also the absolute bondage slavery such as the Jews in Egypt.

You basically have two kinds of common folk in Westeros that basically mirror the two kind of common folk you found in Feudal Europe. There are the merchants who live in the city such as King Landing that often have a trade such as a smith, or live as a beggar/thief commoner etc.Then there are the serfs who are born and tied to the land of their respected lords/vassals. This is not to say that those living in the few cities are not bound by loyalty to their local noble and lord, but that they didn't necessarily need them for their subsistence. There is a very blurry line between a serf and a slave. The serf is born and is tied to the land of his birth. He or she can't marry without the permission of their vassal, and they can be demanded to fight (on foot) in any military campaign by the house they serve or a higher authority such as the ward, or on up to the King. In return, the vassal is responsible for administering justice, protection, and allowing them to keep enough of their labor to sustain themselves.

How this plays out in practice in entirely different. One huge theme of the book series is the utter disregard for those who are under you in social status. As noble as Robb Stark was, he is still willing to send thousands to their death to avenge the death of his father. Of course, the rest of the lords had even lower regard for life and less noble motives.

[Tijgy]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know what you are talking about. I won't say your professor doesn't, but at a minimum you misunderstood him.

(...)

Now obviously this is simplified to some degree. We are talking about a civilization that spanned continents and lasted for thousands of years. And it evolved, as well. For example at first slaves were essentially treated as a member of the family, like a minor child. Later, they had no rights at all. Still later, they gained some limited contract rights and an assurance against abuse. But at no point were they equal to citizens. At no point were they slightly misunderstood freemen. Slavery was and remains about taking away a person's agency and turning them into property to be used as you see fit.

I would like to see what your professor actually says, but on the surface of things you are completely wrong.

O no, you hurt my feelings. :-)

No, I know what I am talking about because a large part of my text was a translation or at least a summary. He really used the sentence: slavery like we understand it didn't exist until the 16th/17th century.

I understand that you had to simplify everything because I had to do it to. The explanation of my professor involved first the real content of citizen's right (thank you for the right term ;-) ), the real meaning of familia, the paterfamilias, ...

If you would like to read it, his name is Laurent Waelkens, Civium Cause. It is however in dutch. And I also think he doesn't write a lot of articles in English.

I admit his theories are very controversy. But I didn't follow his main course but also the course in which we read with the professor himself those old texts. And if you really start to read from them and use your own mind, those ideas are actually not so crazy as they seem. They seem even reasonable.

Actually, I just want to say. It doesn't mean that people are interpreting those texts in that way, it is really is the truth. GRRM even use that in ASOIAF. Did all those legends happen really in the way that people are thinking they did.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

It's not difficult to reconcile Christianity with slavery; it's made explicit in the Bible. A slave who runs away is a thief and a disappointment to God.

Read Huck Finn; 'alright, I'll go to Hell' is Huck's resolution to help free a slave.

Yes, many abolitionist were christian, but then almost everyone was christian. But organized religion and liturgy were pretty clearly in favour.

Why can't more people understand this basic idea?

[Garbad]

He really used the sentence: slavery like we understand it didn't exist until the 16th/17th century.

I understand that you had to simplify everything because I had to do it to. The explanation of my professor involved first the real content of citizen's right (thank you for the right term ;-) ), the real meaning of familia, the paterfamilias, ...

If you would like to read it, his name is Laurent Waelkens, Civium Cause. It is however in dutch. And I also think he doesn't write a lot of articles in English.

I admit his theories are very controversy (sic).

Roman slaves were "property with a voice." That's the literal translation of their status in the law. They had no rights, could be raped/maimed/killed at any time, and were worked until they died at the master's whim. Most likely, you completely misunderstood him (as its true that the exact means and terms of slavery vary -- but the essentials remain). They were not "members of the family" except in the loosest, most misleading way (yes, they were technically part of the household...just like a chair, or a dog).