Jump to content

Valyria and Gender


TheWitch

Recommended Posts

 

The role of women in the Valyrian Freehold is never fully explored but we are given a lot of clues.

It is clear that some Valyrian women enjoyed more rights than women did in other parts of the world. The primary way in which we see this is through TWOIAF and the role that Targaryen women played in the first century of their time in Westeros, and the lives of Rhaenys and Visenya.

The TWOIAF, doesn’t explicitly state that women had a higher level of equality in Valyrian society (in descriptions of other civilisations like the Rhoynar and Summer Islands, it is explicitly stated), however there are hints. Stories such as the one of a female dragon-rider who explored Sothoryos, confirm that Valyrian women were always able to ride dragons, and given freedom to leave the freehold and familial supervision. This makes the term ‘dragon riders’ gender neutral, a sign that woman fought on Dragon back alongside men. The writer of TWOIAF also refers to the Valyrians in gender neutral terms, whereas many previous groups are discussed in male specific pronouns i.e Frist Men vs Children of Valyria. I think this is a way of saying Valyrian women were very much at the fore-front of Imperial expansion. Even when we read the term ‘Dragonlords’ we must understand that this is the common tongue term, a language of a highly patriarchal society, for all we know, Valyrians may have had a far more gender-neutral vocabulary and grammar.

The way in which Targaryen women have influence both before the conquest and a short time afterwards is also interesting. We know from TWOIAF that Gaemon The Glorious was succeed by his son and daughter as joint rulers of Dragonstone, and the faith put into Daenys dream is also telling. However, the level of trust and power given to Visenya and Rhaenys is very especially interesting. It is made clear that both Visenya and Rhaenys were trained to be ‘Dragon Riders’ and therefore if we expand that definition to warriors, both were expected to fight if need be. To add to this, Visneya was trained in combat alongside Aegon. Not only were both sisters pivotal in the invasion of Westeros, but both were crucial to Aegon’s rule. Visenya took an active role in running the kingdom, the planning of Kings Landing and remained a warrior. Rhaenys was essentially the head of court, and is described as being a keen matchmaker, and whilst this is very much a part of Westerosi culture, it is the level of trust given to Rhaenys by her brother that is important. With this we could argue that women enjoyed a far more privileged position in Valyrian culture.

However, there is also evidence against the idea of total gender equality. Through the one example we have of a Valyrian family, we know males remained the first in line of succession and leaders of the family unit. Aenar removes his entire family from the freehold at his command, even though his grandchildren would rule together as man and wife, all his heirs are male. It also states that he sold the families lands in the freehold implying that men are the property owners in Valyria (but this is unclear). Polygamy in the real world has many examples of being something that benefited women, but as a principal it is something found in patriarchal societies, and there is no evidence of women taking multiple partners. It could also be said that the privileged position of the Targaryen women was from necessity not tradition, less men requires everyone to pull their weight so to speak. It could even have been a case of Aegon being exceptionally pragmatic, even Tywin Lannister did not begrudge giving Cersei power because of her sex but her incompetence, perhaps Aegon recognised that his sisters were talented and sought to make use of it.

I myself am more inclined to disagree with this view. In my opinion I think that women of a certain class in Valyria most likely held privileges their peers across the world did not enjoy. For women born of common descent it was probably little different to much of Essos, to girls born to rich families and those with dragons, their status as near gods would have placed them not only above all women but also men.

So much of Valyrian culture and self-perception was based on dragons that it certainly advanced the position of women in the free-hold. Not only are dragons potentially able to change their sex at will, but female dragons can grow as large as males, and can be just as fierce. Perhaps in the minds of Valyrians this meant that women who could ride them were just the same? If dragons didn’t care about gender, why should they?

Not a great deal is said about the magic practiced in Valyria other than it was powerful, centred around blood/fire and a key aspect to their power. Magic in much of Planetos is practiced by both men and women, but magic is often stereotyped as a women’s craft, so could the magical responsibilities of Valyria have rested on the shoulders of the women? The trust put into Daeny’s dream certainly shows that the Valyrians took the word of their women seriously (most Westerosi men seldom listen to women if take their concerns seriously over their own), however, both men and women have proven to be capable of dragon dreams. Arguing that women have a certain magical importance is interesting, but guesswork. I do however enjoy the theory put forwards by Preston Jacobs, in that the ability to hatch dragon eggs moves through the female line, I’ll post a link at the bottom to save me explaining it. If this theory is to be believed, Valyrians recognised that their women were not only valuable but crucial to the survival of the freehold. If women had the exclusive ability to hatch dragons, it would have potentially given them many privileges OVER men.

So to round up my points:

·         Valyrian women of a certain class and rank most likely enjoyed many rights, perhaps even near equal to men

·         The ability to ride dragons, would have allowed men to consider them equal.

·         The ability to hatch eggs being a female ability would have awarded women equality in a society reliant on dragons.

·         Valyrian society could have been ultimately patriarchal, but with women enjoying much power in societal spheres much as magic, and women being in positions of power alongside men was simply not an issue.

Thanks for reading!

 

The link to Preston Jacobs theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aoFCZGr3LY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The writer of TWOIAF also refers to the Valyrians in gender neutral terms, whereas many previous groups are discussed in male specific pronouns i.e Frist Men vs Children of Valyria. 

Valryian is a race and a culture, so of course it's no more gender-specific than Westerosi, Andal, Dornish, Rhoynar, Children of the Forest, etc.

The First Men are really the only group that has a male-specific designation. Well I suppose Dragonlords does sort of imply the men were making the ruling decisions in Valyria. And saying that Valryians married their sisters, implies again that it was largely a male-dominated society. But I agree that women had a great deal more freedom and greater rights in Valyria than in many places, and I think the dragons are key in that.

Quote

 for all we know, Valyrians may have had a far more gender-neutral vocabulary and grammar.

And for all we know, they may not have. The only gender-neutral Valyrian word we know of is the one for dragon, and we don't even know what that word is. Valonqar on the other hand, we've been told specifically means "little brother." If it meant "younger sibling" we'd have a better basis for speculating that more of the Valyrian language was also gender-neutral.

Quote

Polygamy in the real world has many examples of being something that benefited women, but as a principal it is something found in patriarchal societies, and there is no evidence of women taking multiple partners.

I'm not sure the polygamy is an argument for or against anything. Incest was known to be common in Valyria but the only Targaryen examples we have of polygamy are Aegon I (who was forced to marry Visenya when he wanted Rhaenys) and Maegor (who is an extreme example of everything). We have no info about the Velaryons or Celtigars practicing polygamy and they were from Valyria as well. This may be a uniquely Targaryen thing.

Quote

 So much of Valyrian culture and self-perception was based on dragons that it certainly advanced the position of women in the free-hold. Not only are dragons potentially able to change their sex at will, but female dragons can grow as large as males, and can be just as fierce. Perhaps in the minds of Valyrians this meant that women who could ride them were just the same? If dragons didn’t care about gender, why should they?

I think saying the dragons didn't care about gender is a bit odd. More like that in dragons gender doesn't matter. 

 

Quote

Magic in much of Planetos is practiced by both men and women, but magic is often stereotyped as a women’s craft,

Not really. Poison is stereotyped as a woman's weapon though. Women, eunuchs, and cowards. Magic is not said to be the woman's domain in the series. One of the greatest/most-feared suspected practitioners of magic in the history of Westeros was Brynden "Bloodraven" Rivers.

Quote

 I do however enjoy the theory put forwards by Preston Jacobs, in that the ability to hatch dragon eggs moves through the female line, 

If women had been the primary/only successful hatchers of dragons, it's doubtful that the Targaryens would have failed to pass that knowledge on to successive generations. Clearly women are not always necessary for the hatching of dragon eggs, as eggs placed in the boys' cribs hatched too. It seems to depend on the level of magic in the world, what is required to hatch dragons.

I've been theorizing for over a year that the magical blood bond with dragons was done with women, and that's why the Valryian men married their sisters. I've also mentioned the possibility that hatching dragon eggs is more successful when done by a woman, or with the sacrifice of a woman. So it's not just Preston who has thought in this line.

It's possible that Dany's eggs were not from Targ dragons, or not from dragons that had been bonded to any particular bloodline, which would mean it would potentially take different circumstances for them to hatch than it did for the dragons of House Targaryen in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that in a society in which women can be dragon riders and sorcerers, there would be a great deal of sexual equality among the elite. 

There is the additional point that the Valyrian Freehold practised slavery on a gigantic scale.  If the elite failed to make use of the talents of their women, it would be that much harder to keep the slaves subjugated.  A slightly similar example is Sparta, where full citizens were hugely outnumbered by helots.  As citizen males served exclusively as soldiers, female citizens owned land (uniquely in Greece) were educated at public expense, and performed many of the functions that were performed by males in other Greek States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the ability to ride a dragon neutralises the sex differences which are inherent to the subjugation of women.  If a woman can mount a dragon and come after you with it you're going to show her a lot more respect than you would if you can easily overpower her. It means that if you abuse a woman she has the ability to toast you.

Secondary to the fact that these women can ride dragons, they also have prophetic dragon dreams making this a non-sex-specific trait. In which case the dreams of a woman will be taken seriously, as the men can demonstratively attest to the validity of such dreams. 

The slavery factor is indeed a reason to also grant women higher than usual status within the society. All those slaves would have to be kept in line and a woman on a dragon is just as competent to do this as a man on one is. Fact is that them having dragons is a game changer. 

polygamy tends to present in patriarchal societies. But let's examine how and why polygamy might benefit women and thus be accepted in a society which is not structured to massively disadvantage women through commodifying them. 

> If a woman does not require the protection of a man she does not need exclusivity within a marriage. She isn't having to hold his focus in order to retain his protection 

> Nor is she in competition with his other wives for resources, as happens in real world Polygamous marriages. She has the ability to provide for herself. 

> She is free to "use" her husband as a mere sperm donor and can rely upon the other wives to assist with childrearing and provide companionship. She's in a bit of a win-win situation. She gets companionship and sisterhood (literally) and help with any offspring in an intimate and committed relationship and has access to sex as and when she chooses. But is not obliged to provide all her husbands sexual gratification as in a monogamous marriage. 

 

Next looking at the female dragon hatcher theory. Now sadly if women are the sole sex who are able to hatch dragons this once again commodifies them. And ruins our idyllic polygamy scenario as outlined above.   Just as women are subjugated and commodified due to our biology in the real world, if we give female Valyrians the sole ability to hatch the WMD's  which the crux of all Valyrian power relies upon, you would indeed get powerful men hoarding harems of women in order to maximise their own dragon ownership potential.

But alas in this scenario you absolutely can not allow women to also ride dragons. It is imperative that you deny agency and power to anyone who you are commodifying.  This is very evident in the real world and in westeros examples of arranged marriages; frequently involving very young brides. And which are basically just trading people: Women & Girls: AKA the potential to grant that man access to reliable reproduction in which he can be fairly certain any offspring are biologically his own.  For land, power, loyalty, etc.  They'd just end up doing that but for the arguably much bigger prize of the potential to hatch out lots and lots of dragons. 

So no I don't think only female valyrians can hatch dragons. Because the evidence shows their society was indeed far more equal in terms of the sexes. And if that were the case we would not see this equality. 

 

I think it likely that the specific bloodlines are tied in some way to which dragons you can ride and or hatch, and that this explains the incest. It also goes some way toward explaining the polygamy. If you have a greater chance of having children with the same ability by having those children with a direct blood relative ie: a brother or uncle, you are more inclined to enter into polygamy with other female relatives to guarantee all your children share in the chance of inheriting that gene.

 

Lets imagine 6 Targaryen siblings in this situation. 4 sisters and 2 brothers say. If the Eldest boy and girl marry this leaves 1 brother with 3 sisters all vying to marry him, in order to maximise the chances of their children being powerful dragon riders with the ability to hatch future generations of dragons.

 Does it make sense for the remaining brother and lets say one of these sisters to pair off leaving the remaining two with no option but to seek a husband outside of the family and potentially cause their children to miss out on the dragon gene? Or does it make more sense for the two remaining sisters to enter into polygamy with their siblings thus maximising all 6 siblings and the family as a wholes chances of passing on the dragon gene? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 

 

So no I don't think only female valyrians can hatch dragons, because the evidence shows their society was indeed far more equal in terms of the sexes. And if that were teh case we would not see this equality. 

I think it likely that the specific bloodlines are tied in some way to which dragons you can ride and or hatch, and that this explains the incest. It also goes some way toward explaining the polygamy. If you have a greater chance of having children with the same ability tied to your own bloodline of dragons by having those children with a direct blood relative ie: a brother or uncle, you are more inclined to enter into polygamy with any other female relatives to guarantee your children share in the chance of inheriting that gene.  lets imagine 6 Targaryen siblings in this situation. 4 sisters and 2 brothers lets say. Eldest boy and girl marry leaving 1 brother with three sisters all vying to marry him, in order to maximise the chances of their children being powerful dragon riders with the ability to hatch future generations of dragons.  Does it make sense for the remaining brother and lets say one of these sisters to pair off leaving the remaining two with no option but to seek a husband outside of teh family and potentially cause their children to miss out on the dragon gene? Or does it make more sense for the two brothers to take two sisters each thus maximising all 6 siblings and tehfamily as a wholes chances of passing on the dragon gene? 

A further issue (and again the Spartan example is slightly relevant here) is the need to reproduce, at all costs, if the ability to ride dragons/practise magic is genetic.  If an elite man were married to a woman who could not have children, then polygamy would enable him to produce offspring who possessed that ability.  Sparta went so far that (again, uniquely in Greece) it had no laws against adultery, so that the wives of infertile male citizens could sleep with citizens of proven fertility, in order to produce children (I've no idea if this was also true of upper class Valyrians, but it would seem logical).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of note is the fact that Visenya performed Maegor's second wedding ceremony in the Valyrian style. So women were able to perform important social and possibly religious ceremonies. Something which even in 2017 is debated over, and seen as sacrilegious by some.  But as a caveat we do not know that the Valyrian wedding ceremony is in any way religious, they are said to not really believe in gods, but they certainly had gods. We know the names of several.  Even without the religious aspect though the fact a woman can perform a significant social contract such as a marriage in their culture says a lot about their status within it. 

The Targaryens also were not the only people to do polygamy, we are told it was uncommon but practised by the Valyrian Dragon Lords and Aenar fled to Dragonstone with all his wives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A further issue (and again the Spartan example is slightly relevant here) is the need to reproduce, at all costs, if the ability to ride dragons/practise magic is genetic.  If an elite man were married to a woman who could not have children, then polygamy would enable him to produce offspring who possessed that ability.  Sparta went so far that (again, uniquely in Greece) it had no laws against adultery, so that the wives of infertile male citizens could sleep with citizens of proven fertility, in order to produce children (I've no idea if this was also true of upper class Valyrians, but it would seem logical).

 

This indeed seems logical Sean. And it works the other way around; if a woman is married to a man who is infertile, she can have sex in order to conceive with another male and no one's nose is out of joint.

 It looks very much like Aegon was infertile himself and that possibly Aenys & Maegor were not his sons. But it is unimportant to him because they are his sisters sons and thus of his blood. He isn't going to get pissy about this because his bloodline is not being usurped. He can shag till the cows come home he ain't never putting a bun in either of their ovens. And had another male relative been available he may even have encouraged sex with him in order to continue houseTargaryen.  Maybe he did?  I suspect Aenys was possibly their bastard brothers? or a Valeyron's off-spring? And MAegor, well.......Who knows what spells Visenya wove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

This indeed seems logical Sean. And it works the other way around; if a woman is married to a man who is infertile, she can have sex in order to conceive with another male and no one's nose is out of joint.

 It looks very much like Aegon was infertile himself and that possibly Aenys & Maegor were not his sons. But it is unimportant to him because they are his sisters sons and thus of his blood. He isn't going to get pissy about this because his bloodline is not being usurped. He can shag till the cows come home he ain't never putting a bun in either of their ovens. And had another male relative been available he may even have encouraged sex with him in order to continue houseTargaryen.  Maybe he did?  I suspect Aenys was possibly their bastard brothers? or a Valeyron's off-spring? And MAegor, well.......Who knows what spells Visenya wove. 

Perhaps their joint Valyrian descent made it relatively easy for Rhaenyra and Laenor to reach their own accommodation.  He would not sleep with her, but he would acknowledge his children by her lover as her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Isn't men just a dated way to say humans, as in mankind? The term First Men is pretty old, so I'm not sure if it's fair to say the Maesters or whoever coined the term didn't think about women when they first used it. 

 

Well, why do you think Mankind is an old-fashioned way of saying humans? Do you think the people (here's a clue, they were men.) were deliberately leaving women out because they saw women as unimportant non-males, or do you think they simply failed to even think of them at all?  And in failing to think about women at all were they simply being absent minded or was this oversight a direct consequence of the deeply rooted sexism within society as a whole? which teaches us women are unimportant. So could the Maester's  usage of the term First Men be a seemingly innocent oversight fueled by the deep-rooted sexism within Westerosi culture? perhaps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

 

Perhaps their joint Valyrian descent made it relatively easy for Rhaenyra and Laenor to reach their own accommodation.  He would not sleep with her, but he would acknowledge his children by her lover as her own.

 

This is a good point Sean, I think it is evident Laenor (does anyone else wonder if GRRM knew he was naming a character after a British fabric softener??? ) Knew his sons were not biologically his sons. Hell, it was evident to anyone with eyes. If it was accepted in Valyrian society for the wives of unwilling or unable husbands to seek a DNA contribution elsewhere this would be simply a matter for the two of them to come to terms on privately. It would also explain her father's total lack of concern over the allegations made. He is far more concerned with shutting the talk down than he is with holding his daughter to account for the perceived transgression. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am dumb, but I don't think that the dragon riding is the reason for less sexism in Valyria. Women can fire guns just as well as men can in our world, and a bullet coming from a woman's gun will kill you as much as coming from a man's gun, but that don't mean we have eradicated sexism thanks to women using and owning guns.

And the use of men's physical strength should reasonably allow for men to simply prevent women from binding with dragons from the start.I think there are many more factors involved than just possibility to use violence in establishing sexist structures.

The idea of a "master race" of Valyrians to rule over subjugated peoples make sense in a way as that could create solidarity between the Valyrians but I don't think that's the defining trait either as the Americans all the way to the 1860s managed to oppress a Black slave population just fine without allowing women to get to influence politics, until outside military force was brought to bear. At least to my knowledge.

It seems to me that the Valyrians were simple more culturally inclined to tolerance rather than conformity given also their stand on religious issues with allowing all the gods to be worshiped as people pleased. My guess would be that the Valyrians didn't evolve relative equality and religious tolerance for practical reasons but more ideological reasons. We know that they had some contact with the Rhoynar who were very tolerant. So either the Rhoynar and Valyrians shared some distant cultural background together, had a great deal of peaceful interaction back in the day before the Valyrians got hold of dragons and so left a stark cultural impact on Valyrian society, or tolerance was simple a more widespread phenomenon in Essos in those days, just like religious tolerance was largely done in Antiquity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Maybe I am dumb, but I don't think that the dragon riding is the reason for less sexism in Valyria. Women can fire guns just as well as men can in our world, and a bullet coming from a woman's gun will kill you as much as coming from a man's gun, but that don't mean we have eradicated sexism thanks to women using and owning guns.

And the use of men's physical strength should reasonably allow for men to simply prevent women from binding with dragons from the start.I think there are many more factors involved than just possibility to use violence in establishing sexist structures.

The idea of a "master race" of Valyrians to rule over subjugated peoples make sense in a way as that could create solidarity between the Valyrians but I don't think that's the defining trait either as the Americans all the way to the 1860s managed to oppress a Black slave population just fine without allowing women to get to influence politics, until outside military force was brought to bear. At least to my knowledge.

It seems to me that the Valyrians were simple more culturally inclined to tolerance rather than conformity given also their stand on religious issues with allowing all the gods to be worshiped as people pleased. My guess would be that the Valyrians didn't evolve relative equality and religious tolerance for practical reasons but more ideological reasons. We know that they had some contact with the Rhoynar who were very tolerant. So either the Rhoynar and Valyrians shared some distant cultural background together, had a great deal of peaceful interaction back in the day before the Valyrians got hold of dragons and so left a stark cultural impact on Valyrian society, or tolerance was simple a more widespread phenomenon in Essos in those days, just like religious tolerance was largely done in Antiquity.

Well, I don't think that tolerance in general was a defining characteristic of the Valyrian elite.  They carried out genocide against the Rhoynar, and enslaved vast numbers of people, and treated many of them with appalling brutality, according to The Kindly Man. .  They were pitiless in their treatment of the Ghiscari.  They probably practised human sacrifice (for magical, rather than religious, reasons).  Their leaders fought bitterly against each other.

IMHO, being able to command a dragon (and/or practise magic) gives you  an immensely greater degree of power than simply owning a gun in a modern society. 

WRT the slaves, I suppose quite a lot would turn on the free to slave ratio in Valyrian society.  If the slaves were to hugely outnumber the free population (which they didn't in the USA), it would make sense to make use of women who were dragon riders or sorcerers to keep them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

It is clear that some Valyrian women enjoyed more rights than women did in other parts of the world. The primary way in which we see this is through TWOIAF and the role that Targaryen women played in the first century of their time in Westeros, and the lives of Rhaenys and Visenya.

 

We have to differentiate between Westeros and Valyria. The Freehold was an intricate political system were people got elected into office and many dragonlord families (as well as other factions, presumably, like the sorcerers) vied for power in the political arena.

That is a much more complex context where things like charisma, money, connections, popularity, etc. might have been much more important than who the hell had the biggest dragon. A dragonlord was nothing special in city where there were hundreds of them. You were part of the elite, of course, but you don't have to be among the leaders of the elite.

In Westeros Aegon and his sister-wives pulled something off that was remarkable. They had to stick together or risk losing everything they gained. Aegon had only his sister-wives as fellow dragonlords so he had to count on them. Had he had ten dragonriding sons and brothers he would have counted on those, presumably.

In that sense the importance of women like Visenya and Rhaenys might come from the role they played as Aegon's consorts and co-conquerors, not so much from traditional Valyrian gender roles.

You have to keep in mind that incest marriage make it very easy for men to control their women, be they dragonlords or not. If they are under constant male supervisions they might be even more under the thumb of their fathers and brother-husbands than the average women in Westeros is - irregardless of the fact that they would tower far above only the mortal/common men and women living in Valyria. The dragonlords were a very special breed after all.

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

Stories such as the one of a female dragon-rider who explored Sothoryos, confirm that Valyrian women were always able to ride dragons, and given freedom to leave the freehold and familial supervision.

 

Jaenera Belaerys is an interesting character but we know too little about Valyria to make a proper guess on the basis of her existence. However, I'd say that female dragonlords could do whatever the hell they wanted to do unless their (male) family members reined them in.

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

This makes the term ‘dragon riders’ gender neutral, a sign that woman fought on Dragon back alongside men.

 

Actually, the proper term for Valyrian dragonriders seems to be dragonlord, and there are no dragonladies. We learn that in TWoIaF in the section written by George-Gyldayn on the Conquest where it is stated that both Visenya and Rhaenys had become dragonlords before their marriage to Aegon, meaning that they had become dragonriders. Dragonrider seems to be the term that is used to refer to a person riding a dragon in Westeros

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

The way in which Targaryen women have influence both before the conquest and a short time afterwards is also interesting. We know from TWOIAF that Gaemon The Glorious was succeed by his son and daughter as joint rulers of Dragonstone, and the faith put into Daenys dream is also telling. However, the level of trust and power given to Visenya and Rhaenys is very especially interesting. It is made clear that both Visenya and Rhaenys were trained to be ‘Dragon Riders’ and therefore if we expand that definition to warriors, both were expected to fight if need be. To add to this, Visneya was trained in combat alongside Aegon. Not only were both sisters pivotal in the invasion of Westeros, but both were crucial to Aegon’s rule. Visenya took an active role in running the kingdom, the planning of Kings Landing and remained a warrior. Rhaenys was essentially the head of court, and is described as being a keen matchmaker, and whilst this is very much a part of Westerosi culture, it is the level of trust given to Rhaenys by her brother that is important. With this we could argue that women enjoyed a far more privileged position in Valyrian culture.

Visenya was a real warrior, Rhaenys was not. She is described as a very conventional woman in her behavior and interests - however, she sat the Iron Throne and dispensed justice in her own right, suggesting that both she and Visenya were effectively co-rulers of Aegon, playing a much more important role than later queen consorts.

Rhaenys only was expected to fight in a war as a fighter pilot would. And keep in mind that you don't have to be martially inclined to ride a dragon. Laena Velaryon and Rhaenyra Targaryen also enjoyed flying as much as Rhaenys but they did not really use their dragons (all that much) in combat.

But the fact that they could do this certainly put them above common (noble) men and women. But then, the Targaryens were essentially a semi-divine dynasty in the dragon days.

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

However, there is also evidence against the idea of total gender equality. Through the one example we have of a Valyrian family, we know males remained the first in line of succession and leaders of the family unit. Aenar removes his entire family from the freehold at his command, even though his grandchildren would rule together as man and wife, all his heirs are male. It also states that he sold the families lands in the freehold implying that men are the property owners in Valyria (but this is unclear). Polygamy in the real world has many examples of being something that benefited women, but as a principal it is something found in patriarchal societies, and there is no evidence of women taking multiple partners. It could also be said that the privileged position of the Targaryen women was from necessity not tradition, less men requires everyone to pull their weight so to speak. It could even have been a case of Aegon being exceptionally pragmatic, even Tywin Lannister did not begrudge giving Cersei power because of her sex but her incompetence, perhaps Aegon recognised that his sisters were talented and sought to make use of it.

Female dragonlords as well as female Lords Freeholder would have owned land, just as there are female landowners in Volantis till this day (who can not only elect but also be elected triarchs). Thus we can safely say that all property - especially not land - did not go from a father to the eldest son or something of that sort. But it might be that each dragonlord family had an official head of the family who usually (but possibly not always) was male. Aenar would have been one such, making the decision that all Targaryens and their kin would go to Dragonstone.

How it came that the Targaryens adopted a quasi-feudal succession custom on Dragonstone is unclear. Possibly because the holdings there were too small to split them up among all the children. They just had a citadel and a small island.

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

Not a great deal is said about the magic practiced in Valyria other than it was powerful, centred around blood/fire and a key aspect to their power. Magic in much of Planetos is practiced by both men and women, but magic is often stereotyped as a women’s craft, so could the magical responsibilities of Valyria have rested on the shoulders of the women? The trust put into Daeny’s dream certainly shows that the Valyrians took the word of their women seriously (most Westerosi men seldom listen to women if take their concerns seriously over their own), however, both men and women have proven to be capable of dragon dreams. Arguing that women have a certain magical importance is interesting, but guesswork.

The fact that there are sorcerers and those mysterious polygamous 'sorcerer princes' mentioned it is not very likely that the Valyrian sorcerers were predominantly female.

On 28.2.2017 at 8:53 PM, TheWitch said:

I do however enjoy the theory put forwards by Preston Jacobs, in that the ability to hatch dragon eggs moves through the female line, I’ll post a link at the bottom to save me explaining it. If this theory is to be believed, Valyrians recognised that their women were not only valuable but crucial to the survival of the freehold. If women had the exclusive ability to hatch dragons, it would have potentially given them many privileges OVER men.

That doesn't make much sense because we know that Daenerys Targaryen is descended from her Targaryen ancestors through the male and not the female line - Mariah Martell and Betha Blackwood don't seem to have any Targaryen blood (Dyanna Dayne might, but this is not clear). In addition we have Alicent Hightower having no Targaryen blood and all her four children become dragonriders (two of which bond with young hatchlings).

There is also no reason to believe Targaryens have an ability to hatch dragon eggs outside very special circumstances like Dany's spell. The dragon eggs of Rhaenyra's sons, Aegon II's children, etc. just hatched like eggs do. Nothing indicates that anything magical was going on there. And back in the days of the Conqueror dragons seemed to have procreated naturally on Dragonstone with Aenys I and his children being giving young dragon hatchlings rather than eggs - that customs seems to have begun only in the reign of Jaehaerys I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Well, I don't think that tolerance in general was a defining characteristic of the Valyrian elite.  They carried out genocide against the Rhoynar, and enslaved vast numbers of people, and treated many of them with appalling brutality, according to The Kindly Man. .  They were pitiless in their treatment of the Ghiscari.  They probably practised human sacrifice (for magical, rather than religious, reasons).  Their leaders fought bitterly against each other.

IMHO, being able to command a dragon (and/or practise magic) gives you  an immensely greater degree of power than simply owning a gun in a modern society. 

WRT the slaves, I suppose quite a lot would turn on the free to slave ratio in Valyrian society.  If the slaves were to hugely outnumber the free population (which they didn't in the USA), it would make sense to make use of women who were dragon riders or sorcerers to keep them down.

I think we define tolerance in different ways in regards to the Valyrians. I am thinking of Antiquity when I say tolerance where having different gods or way of life isn't really a problem. Nor is skin color or language. If you live in a culture that's different than mine, we can still get along without trying to show our own lifestyle down the other's throat. But that won't mean that I won't play hardball with different cultures when we come to blows. In short with tolerance I mean simply being tolerant of other point of views than what we today call "traditional" which isn't really older to my knowledge than the 19th century. As such enslavement of enemies and seeking to destroy one's enemies in order to win a war isn't the kind of intolerance I was speaking about. But I do understand your point. My counter point would be that I think of such things as merciless as they were not made, to my knowledge, to destroy a culture for some sense of superiority or morale outrage but because they were enemies that the Valyrians were at war with. That don't make it less of a genocide of course, but it means that different factors were behind it than Valyrian refusal to accept the Rhoynar way of life to exist.

Also dragons and magic are only so much worth if there's a limited number of people using it, If there are thousands of people with dragons around, then having a dragon isn't very much to brag with your peers. And magic seems to have been very common in Valyria so I don't think the comparisment with guns is off. Furthermore the use of dragons is only ever useful if you are allowed to use the dragon. If there are laws, and the Freehold don't sound like the absolutistic Westeros but a society of laws and order, then the power of a dragon isn't really so large. Just like you can't shot someone in retaliation for grabbing your boobs without going to prison and be registered as a criminal and possibly murderer, so I would think that you couldn't just fry someone with a dragon for them being sexist against you in some form or another, without there being negative consequences for the dragonrider in turn which could well ruin that dragonrider's life. And thus also dragonriders would need to keep their power in check in a way that nobles in Westeros don't have to do.

I agree with the issue of the ratio between slaves and free population in Valyria. I for one think that at most there were about as many slaves as free people in Valyria and thus a fair number of non-dragonriding guards and overseers kept watch on the slaves. But if it true that the ratio between slaves and free were like in Sparta, as I think was mentioned before, then it would make sense for it to be such that Valyria had a need to make everyone work to keep the social order running.

But in the end I don't think that this is a convicing argument. And I think that a more equal relatonship between the sexes were in place well when the Valyrians got hold of the first dragons and then it kind of grew from there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

This indeed seems logical Sean. And it works the other way around; if a woman is married to a man who is infertile, she can have sex in order to conceive with another male and no one's nose is out of joint.

 It looks very much like Aegon was infertile himself and that possibly Aenys & Maegor were not his sons. But it is unimportant to him because they are his sisters sons and thus of his blood. He isn't going to get pissy about this because his bloodline is not being usurped. He can shag till the cows come home he ain't never putting a bun in either of their ovens. And had another male relative been available he may even have encouraged sex with him in order to continue houseTargaryen.  Maybe he did?  I suspect Aenys was possibly their bastard brothers? or a Valeyron's off-spring? And MAegor, well.......Who knows what spells Visenya wove. 

Based on what? 

I mean I can see the heat from the dragon being a real problem for sperm count but is there actually any textual basis to the idea that Aegon was infertile? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Based on what? 

I mean I can see the heat from the dragon being a real problem for sperm count but is there actually any textual basis to the idea that Aegon was infertile? 

 

 

Just based on the fact they were all three of them quite old before any babies popped along.  I know the sisters could have been brewing Moontea all those years. But I find it odd that neither of them had a child pre-conquest. Given their ages.  Visenya was about 40 I think at Maegors' birth and Rhaenys was about 32 when Aenys came along.  

Also, the author has deliberately cast doubt on the father of Maegor by implying that some believe Visenya used sorcery to get with child.  And also provided doubts as to Rhaenys's fidelity.   I'm not saying the rumours were true or not. Just that given the ages they were when they became mothers and the fact that Aegon was known to regularly sleep with Rhaenys and also have sex at a not unreasonable rate with Visenya, it's a long, long time without any pregnancies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1.3.2017 at 2:40 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I'm not sure the polygamy is an argument for or against anything. Incest was known to be common in Valyria but the only Targaryen examples we have of polygamy are Aegon I (who was forced to marry Visenya when he wanted Rhaenys) and Maegor (who is an extreme example of everything). We have no info about the Velaryons or Celtigars practicing polygamy and they were from Valyria as well. This may be a uniquely Targaryen thing.

We know that polygamy was uncommon in Valyria even among the dragonlords. Only those mysterious 'sorcerer princes' had a thing for that, and who they were we don't know. Aenar might have been a dragonlord as well as a sorcerer prince since he is the only Targaryen aside from Aegon and Maegor who had wives. But that's all we know.

Polygamy was definitely neither a dragonlord/Valyrian nor a Targaryen tradition.

On 1.3.2017 at 2:40 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If women had been the primary/only successful hatchers of dragons, it's doubtful that the Targaryens would have failed to pass that knowledge on to successive generations. Clearly women are not always necessary for the hatching of dragon eggs, as eggs placed in the boys' cribs hatched too. It seems to depend on the level of magic in the world, what is required to hatch dragons.

There is no reason to believe that anything is needed to hatch dragons. Back in the reign of Aenys I dragon eggs simply hatched on Dragonstone without anybody having to do with anything of that and there is no reason to believe the Targaryen children who later had eggs put into their cradles did anything else than wait that those eggs hatched.

The mystery is that later on the eggs no longer hatched as they used to, possibly because the fact that the living dragons were dead reduced the magical level in the world/region preventing the eggs from hatching 'naturally'. Thus the later attempts to hatch dragon eggs would be powerful spells, eventually culminating in Dany's successful hatching.

On 1.3.2017 at 2:40 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I've been theorizing for over a year that the magical blood bond with dragons was done with women, and that's why the Valryian men married their sisters. I've also mentioned the possibility that hatching dragon eggs is more successful when done by a woman, or with the sacrifice of a woman. So it's not just Preston who has thought in this line.

If that was the case then the Targaryens no longer should have any magical dragon-hatching (or dragon-bonding) potential since Mariah Martell and Betha Blackwood married into the main branches. Jon Snow would also have inherited no magical potential from Rhaegar Targaryen, then.

On 2.3.2017 at 0:33 PM, SeanF said:

I would imagine that in a society in which women can be dragon riders and sorcerers, there would be a great deal of sexual equality among the elite.

 

23 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Having the ability to ride a dragon neutralises the sex differences which are inherent to the subjugation of women.  If a woman can mount a dragon and come after you with it you're going to show her a lot more respect than you would if you can easily overpower her. It means that if you abuse a woman she has the ability to toast you.

A male dragonlord would still be (on average) physically more powerful than a female dragonlord, and if he effectively owns his sister-wife her dragon would not protect from being abused, chastised, beaten, raped, and killed by her father or brother-husband. No society should make it more easy to control and subjugate women if they have to marry within the family and never can go out into the world to make alliances, relationships, and marriages on their own.

I'm not saying the Valyrian dragonlords treated their women as chattel but some certainly could have done that, especially if those heads of the family (like Aenar) are somewhat modeled on Roman patriarchs. 

But it is quite clear that the female dragonlords would not have been just housewives and mothers. The fact that they had dragons would have meant that they would have to represent the interests of their families to the outside world.

23 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

The slavery factor is indeed a reason to also grant women higher than usual status within the society. All those slaves would have to be kept in line and a woman on a dragon is just as competent to do this as a man on one is. Fact is that them having dragons is a game changer. 

Nobody doubts that a female dragonlord would be seen as inferior to some mortal man who isn't a dragonlord. But within their own class, the dragonlords, women certainly could have been inferior to their male peers.

As to the slaves, one also assume the dragonlords had other pawns to oversee and keep their slaves in line. That wouldn't have been the job of the dragonlords to do that.

23 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Also of note is the fact that Visenya performed Maegor's second wedding ceremony in the Valyrian style. So women were able to perform important social and possibly religious ceremonies. Something which even in 2017 is debated over, and seen as sacrilegious by some.  But as a caveat we do not know that the Valyrian wedding ceremony is in any way religious, they are said to not really believe in gods, but they certainly had gods. We know the names of several.  Even without the religious aspect though the fact a woman can perform a significant social contract such as a marriage in their culture says a lot about their status within it.

As long as we don't know whether a Valyrian wedding was a religious ceremony it is difficult to say whether this is important. I assume that this wasn't exactly a Valyrian but rather a special dragonlord thing. Keep in mind that the dragonlords were a separate elitist class in Valyrian itself who considered themselves to be above the laws of gods and men, suggesting that their ceremonies were not exactly religious in nature.

23 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

It looks very much like Aegon was infertile himself and that possibly Aenys & Maegor were not his sons. But it is unimportant to him because they are his sisters sons and thus of his blood. He isn't going to get pissy about this because his bloodline is not being usurped. He can shag till the cows come home he ain't never putting a bun in either of their ovens. And had another male relative been available he may even have encouraged sex with him in order to continue houseTargaryen.  Maybe he did?  I suspect Aenys was possibly their bastard brothers? or a Valeyron's off-spring? And MAegor, well.......Who knows what spells Visenya wove. 

Aegon might not have cared (after all, he desperately needed heirs), but the people of Westeros would have if either Rhaenys or Visenya would have been captured committing adultery. That could very well have marked the end of the short Targaryen reign.

23 hours ago, SeanF said:

Perhaps their joint Valyrian descent made it relatively easy for Rhaenyra and Laenor to reach their own accommodation.  He would not sleep with her, but he would acknowledge his children by her lover as her own.

That doesn't have to have anything to do with Valyrian stuff. Laenor was an open (and pretty effeminate) homosexual while Rhaenyra clearly preferred powerfully built manly men (Daemon, Criston, Harwin). And both of them were powerful enough to not change their tastes for reasons of state. Rhaenyra was the Princess of Dragonstone and Laenor the heir of the richest man in Westeros. Those people were both individualistic and narcissistic enough to do what they want not what they should. They were forced into that freak marriage but nobody could force them to actually have sex or even spend time together. Many arranged royal and noble marriages are as loveless as that one.

14 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I mean I can see the heat from the dragon being a real problem for sperm count but is there actually any textual basis to the idea that Aegon was infertile? 

There are number of subtle hints:

1. The late birth dates for both Aenys (7 AC) and Maegor (12 AC) despite the fact that the Targaryen siblings had married before the Conquest - which means they were most likely married for over a decade when Aenys was born.

2. Visenya was considered to be barren in 10 AC when Rhaenys died, suggesting she never had had a stillbirth or a miscarriage.

3. No miscarriages or stillbirths are mentioned for either Rhaenys or Visenya, nor is there any talk about Aegon fathering any bastards.

4. During the Conquest Sharra Arryn offers herself in marriage to Aegon if he would, in turn, name her son Ronnel his heir. That strongly suggests she did not expect Aegon to father any children of his own. The man had two wives already and no children for either wife.

5. Aegon himself repeatedly refuses to take any other wives aside from Visenya and Rhaenys - first he rejects Argella Durrandon, then Lord Manfred Hightower's maiden daughter, and then refuses to take another wife to replace Queen Rhaenys in 10 AC despite the fact that the entire Realm urges him to do so (because Visenya is believed to be barren). One assumes a main reason for this was that an outside wife (and her family) might begin to talk about Aegon's inability to father children).

But there are also more concrete hints:

1. There are explicit rumors that Rhaenys entertained lovers since she surrounded herself with male favorites, and that Prince Aenys is the seed of one of those rather than the seed of the Conqueror. This is based on Aenys' weak nature and the fact that he doesn't resemble the Conqueror all that much but nothing says that it is not true. The fact that the boy was born so late when the need for an heir became ever more desperate could certainly mean that Rhaenys finally decided she would no longer try to conceive a child (only) with Aegon's semen in her womb.

2. Visenya is not rumored to have had any affairs (as is Aegon, but then, in his case there might not have been any danger that he would produced any bastards) but we know she was interested in and practiced sorcery. When Rhaenys died in 10 AC Aenys fell back into a crawling state, grew very sick, and Aegon feared he might die. Since Visenya was considered to be barren the lords tried to convince Aegon to take one of their daughters as a new wife. Then, quite suddenly, Visenya announced in 11 AC that she was pregnant and that the child would be a boy. All plans that Aegon take another wife died (and Aenys recovered as well, of course). That can mean nothing or everything. Aegon and Visenya could have conceived a child after all, although Visenya was about forty when Maegor was born. It would be a very lucky coincidence. Visenya could have had a quiet affair. Or Visenya could have used sorcery either to make Aegon's semen viable or to create a clone of herself. It is very odd that she apparently knew the sex of her child before it was born.

And Maegor himself clearly is a freak, physically as well as mentally and possibly even biologically considering that he himself is sterile most definitely, only able to conceive monstrosities with the help of magic (it is very likely that Tyanna helped him with her magics from 44 AC onwards). Such a child could easily enough have been the fruit of black magic himself. After all, we know that magic comes with a price. Visenya wanted a strong male child and got a strong male sadistic psychopath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to believe that anything is needed to hatch dragons. Back in the reign of Aenys I dragon eggs simply hatched on Dragonstone without anybody having to do with anything of that and there is no reason to believe the Targaryen children who later had eggs put into their cradles did anything else than wait that those eggs hatched.

The mystery is that later on the eggs no longer hatched as they used to, possibly because the fact that the living dragons were dead reduced the magical level in the world/region preventing the eggs from hatching 'naturally'. Thus the later attempts to hatch dragon eggs would be powerful spells, eventually culminating in Dany's successful hatching.

Could you please elaborate on that? Are there indications of this in the others books (WOIAF, etc)?  I had always taken the "fire & blood" literally, meaning that to hatch fire you need blood (sacrifice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Could you please elaborate on that? Are there indications of this in the others books (WOIAF, etc)?  I had always taken the "fire & blood" literally, meaning that to hatch fire you need blood (sacrifice).

There is no reason for such theories since textual evidence suggests the contrary. We only have historical accounts about the hatching of dragons, most of which are from 'The Sons of the Dragons'. Six dragons hatched on Dragonstone during the reign of Conqueror, with Aenys' Quicksilver (which is a hatchling given to him, not a dragon hatched from an egg given to him) among those.

Two other dragons hatched in 37 AC shortly after Aenys I had named Maegor his Hand. This was seen as a divine sign that the sons of the Dragon would now rule together in unity and the Realm would prosper (which it apparently did until Maegor botched everything when he took a second wife in 39 AC after Alyssa Velaryon had given birth to her daughter Vaella).

During the later reign of Jaehaerys I and the reign of Viserys I quite a few dragons seem to have hatched - Seasmoke, Syrax, Sunfyre, Vermax, Arrax, Tyraxes, Tessarion, Moondancer, Stormcloud, Morghul, and Shrykos.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that magical rituals or blood sacrifices brought forth those dragons. If Rhaenyra had to kill four people to hatch the dragon eggs of four of her five sons then we have every reason to know about that. And it would raise the question why the hell nobody conducted a blood sacrifice/ritual to hatch the eggs of Prince Viserys, Prince Maelor, and Lady Rhaena.

During the Dance Rhaena's dragon Morning eventually hatched, and we also have no reason to believe she did anything magical to accomplish that. What we do know is that she often prayed over her egg (and the others given to her later when she is sent to the Vale) just Baelor I later prayed over his dragon eggs (to on avail, though).

In that sense I'd say that everything we know indicates that the hatching of a dragon egg may have been a mysterious event in the sense that it 'just happened' some time after such a fresh egg was given to a Targaryen child and that the people didn't really know what exactly caused it, but it was no magical event that was caused by a sacrifice or a magical ritual.

Independent of this 'dragon egg in the cradle' thing there also were hatchlings who hatched in those hatcheries on Dragonstone where Balerion and Vhagar (and possibly Meraxes as well, while she yet lived) mated, after which the she-dragons would produce clutches of eggs to sit on those thereafter to hatch them naturally. That would have been Quicksilver and the other seven dragons who hatched up until 37 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...