Casso, King of the Seals Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Hi, I was wondering if there is any difference between the three freedmen companies that are loyal to Daenerys. They are not named until ADwD and there is not a lot of information about them. The wiki says they were all formed in Meereen and their members are freedmen from all three former slaver cities. In the book, Dany thinks "she had formed" them. Also, their leaders are: Free Brothers = Symon Stripeback (of Astapor) Mother's Men = Marselen (of Astapor) Stalwart Shields = Mollono Yos Dob, later Tal Toraq (unknown slaver cities). (I assumed that each company has members of a different liberated city, but this is not the case.) Moreover, Stalwart Shields seem to be named after the dead Unsullied soldier, but there is no mention about this in the text. What makes these companies different? Apparently, men can choose to join either one, but I do not see how they differ. Do they have specific fighting techniques or is it simply a question of 'I don't like Symon Stripeback as a leader, I will create another company.'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Goat Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 They do not differ in any noticable way, apart from having different leaders, and possible some different insignias or emblems. Their purposes are the same, their size is likely about the same, and their makeup are likely somewhat the same (former slaves and sympathizers from Meereen, Yunkai, Astapor). Other than that we don't know much about them. Aside from the fact that they are more formidable than they seem: the freedmen led by Marselen apparently kicks ass during the Battle for Meereen, utterly crushing the 800 strong Long Lances free company and tearing down one of the six huge catapults the Yunkai'i has erected around Meereen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 They are probably all the same in terms of strength and discipline. I would wager that since they were all formed at or around the same time, the commander in chief of the army (presumably Barristan) split all the freedmen into three equal groups and put them under three strong leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of the Teabags Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 They are probably all the same in terms of strength and discipline. I would wager that since they were all formed at or around the same time, the commander in chief of the army (presumably Barristan) split all the freedmen into three equal groups and put them under three strong leaders. In an ideal world that is what would happen. However what I tend to find about hastily raised units for popular causes from stories in our own history is what tends to happen is that you start off with an individual who decides they're going to raise a unit for the cause and then largely out of personal ego appoint themselves its leader. The English and American Civil Wars are full of examples of regiments that have names like "Colonel Smith's Regiment of Foot" where 'Colonel' Smith may well have no military experience what so ever and only got to be the colonel because he put up the money for the regiment, is the boss in the civilian place of work the unit was formed in or shouted loudest at the meeting that formed the regiment. What this tends to mean is that such military units can vary very wildly in terms of performance in war depending on who ends up as the leader. You could very well have one of the Freedmen companies where you have a leader who emerges on merit because they were a former sellsword who was captured in war and enslaved, he drills his men correctly and the company is well led and disciplined. However lets consider a scenario where one of the companies forms initially around a group of freedmen who worked as kitchen slaves and kitchen hierarchy naturally takes over when choosing the leadership of the company so the head cook become the captain and the sous-chefs the sergeants and everybody else in the kitchen down to the dish washers are privates. This could very well totally ignore the possibility that one of the dish washers might well have been a soldier before he was enslaved with considerably more military experience than the head cook who is leading the company! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Goat Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 ........ The leaders of the free companies were appointed by Dany and Barristan though, presumably on merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of the Teabags Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 The leaders of the free companies were appointed by Dany and Barristan though, presumably on merit. Well they would have made the appointments ultimately yes but that doesn't mean either of them necessarily had any involvement in the decision making process up to the appointment. Barristan almost certainly didn't because he doesn't speak either Valyrian or Ghiscari the main languages spoken by the Freedmen. Dany on the other hand making the appointments theoretically could mean anything from her actually directly choosing the leaders based on a thorough investigation of their merit and character to a leader whose already been chosen by whatever method and raised a company on her behalf showing up at one of her audiences and asking for her blessing on the position they've already carved out for themselves - after all its still an appointment if there is only one candidate. Now I err on the later because Dany has something of a record of being a little vague on the details of how things work on the ground in Mereen. She also has a lot of other concerns on her plate at the time that she doesn't find time to look at detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Goat Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Well they would have made the appointments ultimately yes but that doesn't mean either of them necessarily had any involvement in the decision making process up to the appointment. Barristan almost certainly didn't because he doesn't speak either Valyrian or Ghiscari the main languages spoken by the Freedmen. Dany on the other hand making the appointments theoretically could mean anything from her actually directly choosing the leaders based on a thorough investigation of their merit and character to a leader whose already been chosen by whatever method and raised a company on her behalf showing up at one of her audiences and asking for her blessing on the position they've already carved out for themselves - after all its still an appointment if there is only one candidate. Now I err on the later because Dany has something of a record of being a little vague on the details of how things work on the ground in Mereen. She also has a lot of other concerns on her plate at the time that she doesn't find time to look at detail. 1, Ghiscari is a dead language. It is spoken by no man. Instead the Ghiscari peoples of today speak a bastardized version of High Valyrian, just like the Free Cities does. 2, Barristan Selmy does indeed speak High Valyrian. Not as well as Daenerys, but he is confirmed to understand it well enough to be fluent in it. If he didn't there would be not point for Dany to bring him with her to listen to Kraznyz mo Nakloz. 3, I find it unlikely that the regent and her council had no role in appointing the leaders of what would become a large part of her military force. I have no doubt the freedmen put forward their own candidates, but in the end it was Dany who decided. One of the leaders, Marselen, is not even a freedman, but an Unsullied and Missandei's older brother so he's unlikely to have been picked from amongst the freedmens own ranks. It's Marselens company that kicks ass in the Battle of Meereen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.