Aldarion

Slavery doesn't spring from slave trade, rather, slave trade springs from slavery. People with no livelihood were historically quite ready to sell themselves to slavery just to put bread on the table. We actually see that happening already in Meereen, all because Daenerys focused on political emancipation but ignored economic realities. So long as you have population, you have potential slaves. No trade necessary. In fact, slave trade only appears after slavery has already reached basically industrial levels. Which is why I consistently point out that if you want to destroy slavery, you have to make sure to replace it with something different. Colonate / serfdom would probably be easiest to set up. That I can agree with. As Sean said, we may see some 10 - 15% (though I would expect up to 25% in some areas) of population ending up in slavery again. Massive improvement for sure, but hardly the complete end of slavery I get the impression some are expecting.

"Slavers" being done doesn't mean "slavery" is. See above what I wrote about the slavery in Medieval Europe.

Yep. I am rather surprised that entirety of Slaver's bay doesn't have an institution similar to Spartan krypteia, seeing how ancient Sparta was the only place in premodern history where free-to-slave ratio was similar to that of the Slaver's Bay.

You don't need to pretend. You just need to try and understand the conditions they were living in. Most of the things that are normal today would be absolutely insane in Middle Ages, because they would lead to quick extinction of any group that attempted to do these things. Thanks to our technology, we live in a time of unprecedented safety and wealth, and are thus able to do stupid shit with relatively little to no practical consequence. But life before the invention of steam engine and advanced agricultural tools was a life on edge. There was no room for playing around and conducting social experiments. Everything can be and is bigoted, depending on time and conditions, so "not being bigoted" is absolutely useless for determining how good a society is, and is thus not something I care about. Quality of life, personal freedom and safety. Those are the three basic characteristics one should judge a society by. And to return to the topic, Westeros is massively superior to most of Essos (excepting Braavos, perhaps) in at least two of these, and usually in all three.

Not inherently, no. Equal rights for both genders are kinda dumb in a premodern society (equal status not necessarily, but equal rights definitely are). As for "no discrimination for bastards", just the fact that some bastards turn out decent doesn't mean discrimination is illogical. Family is crucial in a premodern society, and a person who doesn't feel like he belongs will try to prove himself - by any means necessary. So yes, discrimination against bastards, while it often misses the mark and makes the problem worse than it would have been otherwise, is not entirely baseless. Stop looking at everything through lens of 21st century Western individual whose biggest problem is having your Internet connection cut off.

Except for lack of slaves, everything you have listed isn't "more advanced" but merely "different".

Yep! Jogos Nhai and Yi Ti sound far more interesting than anything we have seen so far from Daenerys storyline (that being Dothraki and the Slaver's Bay). Agreed. I think it has to do with Martin himself being an agnostic or atheist, so he doesn't really understand how to write actual religion.

Agreed. Levy could indeed vary widely in quality... but that is because levy covered basically anything not noble or mercenary. Ugh, Essos is another ball of problems alltogether... Yeah... that is why I sometimes say that Westeros is modern world with medieval aesthetics. Religion there doesn't matter anywhere as much as it did in the actual Middle Ages.

They probably do have them. But if there is no constant threat, but rather frequent flareups, mercenaries are a good way to quickly raise troops in an emergency.

Yes and no - it depends on the mail and the weapon. Historical mail was always riveted, which means that you need a decent bit of force to get through it.

What bothers me is precisely the problem that what you have described is a symptom of. Martin's worldbuilding is extremely expansive yet at the same time incredibly shallow. Issues that particularly bother me: * Religion. You wrote basically everything for me, so I won't expand on it. * Politics. Westerosi' political system is incredibly simple and shallow. You have kings, major lords, minor lords... and that's it. About the only thing existing in Westeros beyond those are the fundamentally wildling tribes existing outside the basic feudal structure. But when it comes to the feudal structure itself, you have nothing. Church technically exists but has been completely politically neutered. There are no free cities, royal or otherwise - in fact, the only free cities we see are basically states existing outside Westeros. It is even in their name! There are no guilds, no republics, nothing. Frankly, Tolkien gives more interesting political worldbuilding in few pages than Martin in several books. * Military. You probably know what I will say here... there is a fundamental disconnect between what Martin says Westerosi military is based around (peasant levies), what Martin actually describes (part-time professionals) and what feudal armies historically were (complex system).

Theories where Daenerys just magically solves all the problems in Essos and Westeros. Sure, she is one of two protagonists. But even Tolkien didn't have his protagonists solve all the problems during the course of the books, and indeed, success came at price of significant losses - both to the protagonists themselves (Frodo has to leave) and to the Middle Earth overall (elves leaving, ents and dwarves dying out).

As others have said - Volantis will fall from within. There certainly is enough foreshadowing of that.

I don't see your scenario as likely. It might happen if Daenerys decides to stay in, or come back to, the Slaver's Bay. As it is however, the anti-slavery movement is nearly certain to fail in the short term, not too long after Daenerys leaves. Force of habit is simply too strong. It will certainly be significantly diminished, but realistically, complete overthrow is unlikely. Such things take time. Socialism and communism require extreme levels of bureocratic development, which we don't see in Essos - and they don't work anyway. Transition of Essos from slavery to feudalism is the only possible route, but since Daenerys failed (so far) at introducing feudalism (or anything, really) to replace slavery, resurgence of slavery in the short term is nearly certain.

I used to like the Old Gods due to their connection to nature, but right now I am leaning towards the Faith of the Seven. Magic in A Song of Ice and Fire appears to be based around blood sacrifice and murder, and the Seven are the only gods that appear to be against magic. So I like them. Other than that, I agree with @Club-foot cleft-lips, so nothing to add there.

If we look at history and human nature, most likely outcome is simply that there will appear a new slaver class, a combination of "old blood" slavers who survived and "new blood" slavers risen from the ranks. You saw what happened at Astapor, with Cleon the Butcher and his new Unsullied.

On one hand, there are fewer wars. On the other hand, if wars happen, they tend to be massive. So while this: Is definitely true, this: is most likely not. But it's difficult to tell, so...

Ser Barristan, Theon and Jon Connington. Basically the three battles we will see: Battle of Meereen, Battle of the Ice and Battle of Storm's End. Or so I hope.

It is technically possible, but most lords in Westeros would not see a need for it. You would need a major permanent threat a la Ottomans for anybody to even consider it.

Christianity said war is wrong and Christians kept fighting each other. It also said that slavery was bad, yet slavery only began to be outlawed quite late in the Middle Ages: France 1315 Sweden 1335 Ragusa 1416 Castille 1477 Lithuania 1588 Russia 1679 So yeah, I don't see religion making that much of a difference.

Slavery will return, though perhaps not as extensively as it was before. So far Daenerys had done absolutely nothing to set up an alternative economic system from what we have seen. So overall, not much will change. The only way Essos will come out of slavery permanently is if Daenerys, after winning the War for Dawn, returns to rule in Essos and keeps entire Slaver's Bay under control for long enough for any reforms she does (and as I said, she has to start from economic reforms) to take root.

Those levies are far from the untrained peasant mob though: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/ https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/military-of-westeros-1-organization-and-manpower/ https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/military-of-westeros-4-conclusions-and-implications/

Probably not, but I guess we will see.

Yeah, what I thought.

Unfortunately, not really. There is nothing believable about the Slaver's Bay states, except perhaps for cruelty, but even that is far more excessive than in real-life antiquity. Main problem I think is that George misunderstands the main issue of slavery: slavery is not the product of cruelty. Rather, slavery is a product of cold calculus of profit... cruelty then comes as an effect of slavery, not its cause, because dehumanization always produces cruelty. Not in the least. While you may find cases where serfs were treated as badly as slaves were - early modern Russia, for example - by and large, serfdom was far more humane than slavery was. It was also far more humane than many things that had followed it (just look at urban workforce during and after the Industrial Revolution!). And the reason is simply that it is nothing like slavery, mostly due to one fundamental detail: serf was personally free. Serfdom was, in fact, a negotiated contract between the serf and the lord: usually however a village would negotiate as a collective, in order to have the weight behind it. And from that followed a slew of other rights, such as a right to sue in court. What you (and most other people here, I suspect) probably don't know is that it was possible for a serf to sue his lord in a cour of law. Sure, it was unlikely to succeed, but it was technically possible - besides, try suing state in a court of law, you probably won't end well either unless you are a large corporation. And if suing at manorial court failed, it was (legally at least) possible for a serf to go to a higher court, such as land court and ultimately all the way to the king. Usually however, when a serf sued in the court, it was to sue his neighbour for minor offenses.