Slavery, Thralldom, Polygamy, Andals, First Men

[joluoto2]

A point: I think we are very wrong to assume First Men Culture was the same all over Westeros. Westeros is a big place, and I bet the First Men had very different traditions in different parts of Westeros. After all it had been millennia since they arrived.

[Mithras]

A point: I think we are very wrong to assume First Men Culture was the same all over Westeros. Westeros is a big place, and I bet the First Men had very different traditions in different parts of Westeros. After all it had been millennia since they arrived.

 

True. According to canon, the ironborn are First Men and they absolutely have different traditions compared to the rest of the First Men.

[joluoto2]

 

True. According to canon, the ironborn are First Men and they absolutely have different traditions compared to the rest of the First Men.

And we don't have strong organizations pushing for cultural homogenity like the Faith or the Citadel in the First Men era yet. neither do we have roads that connect the kingdoms (built after Targaryen conquest). Most parts of Westeros would be quite different from each other with strong local traditions.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Slavery is a term for a huge number of very different customs. Lumping it altogether isn't going to work at all.

 

The racism-based chattel slavery of the 18th and 19th century where blacks were slaves from birth to death, based on their skin colour, with no rights at all and considered subhuman.

 

The german slavery (of the slavs mainly, hence the word) around 1000 AD, where slaves were simply secondary family members recruited from POWs and the earlier Viking variant are not even part of the same world.

 

Nor the Roman slavery, with rights upon rights (like private property) and customary emancipation after a couple years and the patron-client relationship (though the Romans had several kinds of slavery).

 

Or the biblical slavery, with emancipation after seven years, and the god-blessed selling of family members into this slavery.

 

Four historical examples. The examples of slavery in ASOIAF are just as disparate, with Ironborn thralldom on one end of the spectrum and Slavers Bay chattel slavery on the other.

They are not the same.

 

And we don't have strong organizations pushing for cultural homogenity like the Faith or the Citadel in the First Men era yet. neither do we have roads that connect the kingdoms (built after Targaryen conquest). Most parts of Westeros would be quite different from each other with strong local traditions.

Well, the Citadel may very well precede the Andal Invasion by quite some time. And the Pyromancers are even older, maybe dating back to the Long Night itself.

Anyway, the ancient greenseers would have served as such a unifying force of culture.

 

While there are undoubtly many local differences, the non-Old-Gods pantheon of the First Men is basically the same on the Sisters, the Iron Islands and around Storms End, three distant areas with basically zero contacts to each other. Something or somebody had to keep that stuff from diverging too far.

[TheSovereignGrave]

While there are undoubtly many local differences, the non-Old-Gods pantheon of the First Men is basically the same on the Sisters, the Iron Islands and around Storms End, three distant areas with basically zero contacts to each other. Something or somebody had to keep that stuff from diverging too far.

 

They're not basically the same though. There's some rather major differences; the Sistermen worship a Sea Goddess and Sky God, while the Ironborn worship a Sea God and have an evil sky God. We're also never told that raiding and pillaging was an instrumental part of the Sistermen's faith like it is with the Ironborn. The only major similarities are that there's a Sea and Sky deity.

[joluoto2]

 

They're not basically the same though. There's some rather major differences; the Sistermen worship a Sea Goddess and Sky God, while the Ironborn worship a Sea God and have an evil sky God. We're also never told that raiding and pillaging was an instrumental part of the Sistermen's faith like it is with the Ironborn. The only major similarities are that there's a Sea and Sky deity.

Not to mention that Garth Greenhand was probably a FM fertility god, but he's only remembered in the Reach as a mythical ancestor of the nobility.

[Ser Lepus]

 

Meaningful sense? Every culture has their own rites and ceremonies. The Faith does not have the right to look down on other cultures. Jogos Nhai women go out and steal husbands from other clans. This procedure is strictly overseen by the elders and no blood may be shed. It is considered as a lawful union by that community and if the Faith does not accept that, the Faith can go bugger themselves.

 

Yes, the Faith can't impose their customs on other cultures, but they can establish what is a lawful marriage and what isn't within their own culture and the territory where that culture dominates. Same goes for the Northeners and the other cultures.

 

If, say Tormund kidnaps a girl, that girl would be considered his wife according to his culture, but if he tries that south of the Wall, he would be hanged or castrated.

 

The Southorns follow Andal culture and the Faith's laws when it comes marriage customs. Said culture and laws requires a Septon's blessing to give validity to a marriage; there isn't civil marriage among them.

 

It was the same in Europe: It was the Church who decided if you were legally married or not, and what the Church said had legal consequences. Remember Henry VIII.

 

To some extent, it's the same in the modern world. Western culture rejects polygamy, so polygamous marriages aren't legally recognized by western countries' laws, regardless of the groom and bride(s)'s cultures.

 

However, the Southorns/the Faith/the Iron Throne have chosen to accept northen marriages as valid for political reasons. But if politics required the opposite, they could easily have gone the other way.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The Southorns follow Andal culture and the Faith's laws when it comes marriage customs. Said culture and laws requires a Septon's blessing to give validity to a marriage; there isn't civil marriage among them.

Strictly speaking, that's not true.

 

Said culture and laws requires the bridegroom to exchange the bride's cloak with his own in front of witnesses and a religious authority. A Septon can fullfill the role of religious authority, but Westerosi accept basically any religious authority. Heart trees, Drowned Men and Red Priests are the most commonly accepted ones beside Septons, but it is not an exclusive club, as the introduction of the Red Priests proved.

 

The cloaking is the important part. Not which kind of religious authority witnesses it.

[Ser Lepus]

Strictly speaking, that's not true.

 

Said culture and laws requires the bridegroom to exchange the bride's cloak with his own in front of witnesses and a religious authority. A Septon can fullfill the role of religious authority, but Westerosi accept basically any religious authority. Heart trees, Drowned Men and Red Priests are the most commonly accepted ones beside Septons, but it is not an exclusive club, as the introduction of the Red Priests proved.

 

The cloaking is the important part. Not which kind of religious authority witnesses it.

 

As I said they have chosen to accept marrieges blessed by other religious authority for political reasons, but they could easily go the other way.

 

They think the High Septon has authority to say whose marriages are valid and who can divorce, which points to the intitution of marriage being within the Faith's domain. The High Septons have always acknowledged the validity of First Men's marriages, because it would be a sociopolitical mess otherwise, but a particularly fanatic High Septon who doesn't care traditional social order or political stability or peace among the Faith's and the Old God's followers could choose to kick the wasp nest and declare all the First Men's marriages null.

[History of Westeros]

 

Others followed the mazemakers on Lorath in the centuries that followed. For a time the isles were home to a small, dark, hairy people, akin to the men of Ib. Fisherfolk, they lived along the coasts and shunned the great mazes of their predecessors. They in turn were displaced by Andals, pushing north from Andalos to the shores of Lorath Bay and across the bay in longships. Clad in mail and wielding iron swords and axes, the Andals swept across the islands, slaughtering the hairy men in the name of their seven-faced god and taking their women and children as slaves.

 

Dywen Shell and Jon Brightstone, both of whom claimed the title King of the Fingers, went so far as to pay Andal warlords to cross the sea, each thinking to use their swords against the other. Instead the warlords turned upon their hosts. Within a year Brightstone had been taken, tortured, and beheaded, and Shell roasted alive inside his wooden longhall. An Andal knight named Corwyn Corbray took the daughter of the former for his bride and the wife of the latter for his bedwarmer, and claimed the Fingers for his own (though Corbray, unlike many of his fellows, never named himself a king, preferring the more modest style of Lord of the Five Fingers).

 

These quotes prove that the Andals were practicing slavery in Essos and it had not ended as they were coming to Westeros. It is also highly probable that the slavers who took Wolf’s Den for a time were Andals and that most probably predates the coming of the Andals.

 

To conlude,

 

· The First Men practiced slavery and thralldom but they had abandoned it by the time Andals came. The ironborn continued the practice of thralldom until recent days.

· Andals were slavers in Essos. They must have abandoned slavery as soon as they merged with First Men kingdoms who had already given up slavery. After all, even in the newly carved kingdoms, their subjects must be mostly First Men with the faith of the Old Gods.

· The First Men practiced polygamy and we do not know when they stopped this practice. They may not have officially given up this practice legally. Some wildings beyond the Wall have multiple wives even at present day.

 

Mithras, 

 

Thanks for pointing me to this thread, it's a very enjoyable read.

 

One quibble I have is how you seem to have assumed that bedwarmer means, or at least heavily indicates, "slave". The truth seems to be that bedwarmer sometimes means slave, but definitively does not always mean that, however:

 

Shae: "That too. I didn't like scouring his pots no more than I liked his cock in me." She tossed her head. "Why can't you keep me in your tower? Half the lords at court keep bedwarmers."

 

Ramsay: "She smells of dogshit. I've had enough of bad smells, as it happens. I think I'll have your bedwarmer instead. What do you call her? Kyra?"

 

Catelyn: Catelyn doubted very much that Lord Walder had said any such thing, or that he had ever lost his heart to beauty. The Lord of the Crossing had outlived seven wives and was now wed to his eighth, but he spoke of them only as bedwarmers and brood mares

 

Kevan:  It was not unknown for a widowed lord to keep a common girl as bedwarmer … but Lord Tytos soon began seating the woman beside him in the hall, showering her with gifts and honors, even asking her views on matters of state.

 

These 4 quotes are literally half the mentions (8 total) of the word "bedwarmer" in all the sources not counting SSM's. (standard asearchoficeandfire.com search)

 

So we're left with the quote about the enslaving the Ibbish and nothing else (I'm not forgetting the Wolf's Den etc, there's just no way to know which culture or cultures that was, though I agree Andals are possible).

 

Perhaps the Andals saw the hairy men as subhuman and that helped justify enslaving them. 

 

So I think this is where we're at: you believe the Andals were slavers. I think it's a fair conclusion but I consider it to be far less likely than you do, it seems.

 

I believe their anti-slavery attitude came from being neighbors to the Rhoynar, (who were far more advanced), and as opposing ideals to those of Valyria. Andal and Valyrian culture have so many polar opposite traditions that I have a hard time seeing it as coincidence. (and we know for a certainty that the Valyrians enslaved Andals, and the Ghiscari may have as well).

 

Faith of the Seven: anti-slavery (knighthood says protect the weak), anti-sorcery, anti-incest, anti-polygamy, pro-monarchy, not open (oft-hostile) to other religions.

 

Valyrian Freehold: pro-slavery (enslave the weak), pro-sorcery, pro-incest, pro-polygamy, anti-monarchy, open to all religions.

[Mithras]

I think the early history of the Andals is in great darkness. We should not assume that the Faişth of the Seven as it is today has always been the same.

 

The earliest carvings of the Andals in the Vale show two holy symbols. They carved axes along with the seven pointed stars on the rocks whenever they could. Recall that axe or Labrys is a known symbol of matriarchal society. So perhaps the Faith of the Seven was much more gender equal once.

 

Oldest Pentoshi legends say that Hukko (=Hugor Hill) was practicing human sacrifice.

 

In short, we can trace a significant change in the Faith of the Seven.

 

ETA: I think the bedwarmers are better than slaves but worse than salt-wives.

[Ser Lepus]

Bedwarmer is just another word for mistress or concubine. They don't hold an official position, they aren't acknowledged by law or tradition. Some are lovers, some are prostitutes, some are common law wives and some are servant girls who are only a little step above slaves and doesn't have a say and can't say no.

[History of Westeros]

I think the early history of the Andals is in great darkness. We should not assume that the Faişth of the Seven as it is today has always been the same.

 

The earliest carvings of the Andals in the Vale show two holy symbols. They carved axes along with the seven pointed stars on the rocks whenever they could. Recall that axe or Labrys is a known symbol of matriarchal society. So perhaps the Faith of the Seven was much more gender equal once.

 

Oldest Pentoshi legends say that Hukko (=Hugor Hill) was practicing human sacrifice.

 

In short, we can trace a significant change in the Faith of the Seven.

 

ETA: I think the bedwarmers are better than slaves but worse than salt-wives.

 

Definitely agree that the early days are too mysterious to take a strong position either way. Thus, I find your position reasonable despite it differing from mine. We agree on most of the points, anyway.

 

Also agree that there was probably more gender equality in the early days given the axe symbology and the equivalent number of female faces of god.

 

I tend to agree with Ser Lupus that "bedwarmer" is highly dependent on context. A bedwarmer in a slave society is almost certainly a slave. In Westeros, I agree it is a lot like a salt wife with a few differences. Such is far more likely to be an actual love match, like Tytos' case or even Shae's (I'm not saying both loved each other, to be sure. Tyrion loved Shae, not vice versa. Tytos loved his bedwarmer, but we can't be certain about her).

[Jaak]

some are servant girls who are only a little step above slaves and doesn't have a say and can't say no.

Then which step above slaves?

 

ETA: I think the bedwarmers are better than slaves but worse than salt-wives.

Worse in which respect? Can salt-wives say no?

 

I tend to agree with Ser Lupus that "bedwarmer" is highly dependent on context. A bedwarmer in a slave society is almost certainly a slave. In Westeros, I agree it is a lot like a salt wife with a few differences. Such is far more likely to be an actual love match, like Tytos' case or even Shae's (I'm not saying both loved each other, to be sure. Tyrion loved Shae, not vice versa. Tytos loved his bedwarmer, but we can't be certain about her).

 

"Almost certainly"? Look at Athens. A slave society. And yet a lot of hetairas who were free women.
 

[Mithras]

Worse in which respect? Can salt-wives say no?

 

Salt wives are bound to their captors in a religious ceremony. The children born from the salt-wives are free as long as they adopt the faith of the Drowned God. They have legal rights. Salt sons are considered trueborn. They can inherit property in the absence of children born from rock wives. And if they grow strong enough, they can even usurp the rights of the trueborn children of rock wives. We have at least one case where House Greyjoy continued from salt-sons. There are several noble Houses that descend from salt-sons.

 

In case of slaves or paramours, the union is not a religious or legal bond. The children born from them are either slaves or bastards, which have no legal right to inherit property.

 

Slaves can be sold unlike salt-wives. The only way to have a salt-wife is to capture one in a raid. A Dornish Paramour can have a high social status depending on whose paramour he/she is. But nonetheless, this does not change the fact that the paramour is basically a prostitute hired for life or until the man/woman grows bored of the paramour.

 

Ellaria has the privilege of being a bastard from a noble House AND being the paramour of a Prince of Dorne. But her and her children's privileges should be far from typical.

[Ser Lepus]

I wonder what is the status of children born from concubines (which will be most often slaves) in the Free Cities. Such children were treated very differently in several slave-owning societies.

 

In the Abbasi Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire they would suffer no stigma.

In ancient China and the Umayyad Caliphate they would be considered legitimate, but of a lesser status than the children born from the lawful wife.

In late Medieval and Renaissance Italy they could be legitimized, but there would always be some degree of stigma and loss of status attached to their ilegitimate birth.

In late Medieval Spain they could never be fully legitmized, and in Renaissance Spain they would be prevented to hold certain public offices, but on the other hand, not acknowledging them and treating them as slaves would be seen with horror. In Castilian law a slave woman who got impregnated by her master would be set free in order to avoid that.

In ancient Rome and Greece such children would be slaves unless their father freed the mother before birth. And even then, at least in Rome the child would be seen as unsuitable as heir for a noble family, going so far as to adopt a stranger of good birth rather than making a slave-born child the heir.

 

I wonder what each Free City does...

[Jaak]

The children born from the salt-wives are free as long as they adopt the faith of the Drowned God. They have legal rights. Salt sons are considered trueborn.

And salt daughters?

They can inherit property in the absence of children born from rock wives.

In the absence of "children", or of sons?

And if they grow strong enough, they can even usurp the rights of the trueborn children of rock wives. We have at least one case where House Greyjoy continued from salt-sons. There are several noble Houses that descend from salt-sons.
 
In case of slaves or paramours, the union is not a religious or legal bond. The children born from them are either slaves or bastards, which have no legal right to inherit property.

Bastards can inherit property. It´s just that it takes legitimation from a King, whereas children of salt wives are automatically in the line of inheritance.

Slaves can be sold unlike salt-wives. The only way to have a salt-wife is to capture one in a raid.

Arguably makes thralls and saltwives worse off. Many of them would hold personal bitterness against their captor - a bitterness that would be not applicable to a buyer blameless for the original enslavement.

A Dornish Paramour can have a high social status depending on whose paramour he/she is. But nonetheless, this does not change the fact that the paramour is basically a prostitute hired for life or until the man/woman grows bored of the paramour.

Or the paramour gets bored. Or gets a better offer.

I wonder what is the status of children born from concubines (which will be most often slaves) in the Free Cities. Such children were treated very differently in several slave-owning societies.
 
In the Abbasi Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire they would suffer no stigma.
...
In late Medieval Spain they could never be fully legitmized, and in Renaissance Spain they would be prevented to hold certain public offices, but on the other hand, not acknowledging them and treating them as slaves would be seen with horror. In Castilian law a slave woman who got impregnated by her master would be set free in order to avoid that.
In ancient Rome and Greece such children would be slaves unless their father freed the mother before birth. And even then, at least in Rome the child would be seen as unsuitable as heir for a noble family, going so far as to adopt a stranger of good birth rather than making a slave-born child the heir.
 
I wonder what each Free City does...

In Brazil, keeping owner´s children as slaves was perfectly legal, but apparently socially disapproved. Most of them ended up released, though not sure how bad the consequences of not releasing them were.
In United States of America, freeing any slaves, including owner´s children, was legally hard and made increasingly harder in 19th century.

[Jak Scaletongue]

Worse in which respect? Can salt-wives say no?
 
 
"Almost certainly"? Look at Athens. A slave society. And yet a lot of hetairas who were free women.
 

1) they had as much right to say no to their salt-husbands as any woman had to say no to any husband. Which is to say, as married women they had no right to say no to their husbands. Just like Lysa couldn't refuse to marry Jon Arryn, or refuse him access to her bed - no wife, rock or salt, could say no. As in Lysa's case, they could take the risk of taking men other than their husbands to bed - whether that was worth the risk depended on the woman.

2) Hetaira weren't "prostitutes" by modern standards. While sex was a *part* of what they could do, it was their high education and ability to discuss "men's" topics that made them highly desirable companions. Think geishas more than prostitutes (though geishas are renowned for not performing any sexual acts with their clients - *some* hetaira would). They were companions, in the full sense of the word, not just in the bedroom. They were welcomed as contributors to "men only" events like symposiums, where they (unlike the wives and daughters of the men present) were allowed to, expected to, and respected for voicing their opinions, ideas, interpretations of topics as various as philosophy, law, history, even war. And they were commonly freed-women, not free-women. Not always, of course, there were probably a good proportion of them who had been very poor free-women who moved up in the world, but they were most often freed slaves who moved to a different city to "start over" and usually with a bit of luck for themselves got taken on by a practicing hetaira and taught the ways of the hetaira. But there were probably many ways a girl became a hetairai. But a citizen of Athens in good-standing and moderate wealth wouldn't willingly hand over his daughter to be trained as a hetaira. He would be looked down on by his peers - his daughter was to be married off for his political gain. His bastard daughter by a slave might be hetaira material, but not a true born daughter from his legal wife - she would be meant for "better" things (from their perspective...). The male form, hetairos, meant a business or political associate. And the female version wasn't too far off that definition either. Knowing the Ancient Greeks, there may very well have been some bedroom antics between hetairoi as much as hetairai. :) (Probably not, I know, they preferred pederasty, but just because it was looked down on doesn't mean it didn't happen once in awhile.)

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

Yes, the Faith can't impose their customs on other cultures, but they can establish what is a lawful marriage and what isn't within their own culture and the territory where that culture dominates. Same goes for the Northeners and the other cultures.

 

If, say Tormund kidnaps a girl, that girl would be considered his wife according to his culture, but if he tries that south of the Wall, he would be hanged or castrated.

 

The Southorns follow Andal culture and the Faith's laws when it comes marriage customs. Said culture and laws requires a Septon's blessing to give validity to a marriage; there isn't civil marriage among them.

 

It was the same in Europe: It was the Church who decided if you were legally married or not, and what the Church said had legal consequences. Remember Henry VIII.

 

To some extent, it's the same in the modern world. Western culture rejects polygamy, so polygamous marriages aren't legally recognized by western countries' laws, regardless of the groom and bride(s)'s cultures.

 

However, the Southorns/the Faith/the Iron Throne have chosen to accept northen marriages as valid for political reasons. But if politics required the opposite, they could easily have gone the other way.

Isn't that contradicting your point? 

[Ser Lepus]

Isn't that contradicting your point?

The Pope refused to annull Henry VIII's marriage, so Henry VIII had to start his own national church with himself as head so he could give himself permission to divorce. So long as Henry VIII remained a Catholic, he couldn't annull a marriage, not even his own.
It is the same in Westeros. The High Septon is the only one who can annull a marriage, and the king can pressure him, threaten and blackmail him into compliance, even, but not overrule him. Tywin told Tyrion that he would tell the High Septon to annull his marriage to Sansa if he didn't impregante her, not that he would tell Joffrey to annull it.
Of course, Dany or Stannis could start their own religion and seize all the prerrogatives of the High Septon, just like Henry VIII did, but we are speaking of the current situation here.