What happened to the Targaryen slaves?

[hnv]

52 minutes ago, Ran said:

@Aldarion

Christianity was not opposed to slavery, even of other Christians, from the get-go. It was a gradual development, and there was as much supporting the institute in the bible as was opposed to it.

But the Andals were opposed to slavery from the get-go (at least in relation to their arrival in Westeros), and so that has been the position of the Faith for thousands of years. It's a rather different thing.

It’s interesting, as the moral grounds of opposing slavery were often similar to those opposing classic serfdom, yet the Andals had no qualms about this social institution.

[Ran]

3 hours ago, hnv said:

It’s interesting, as the moral grounds of opposing slavery were often similar to those opposing classic serfdom, yet the Andals had no qualms about this social institution.

Even as the Church turned against enslavement of Christians, it was all right with serfdom for a long time, and I think social and economic reasons were far ahead of religious causes for the eventual abandonment of serfdom in Western Europe.

[Bronn Urgandy]

He fed them to his dragons, what else do you think they lived on on that grotty little island for as long as they did? That’s the real reason for the conquest, guaranteed, Balerion had eaten all the food

[Texas Hold Em]

On 8/1/2018 at 1:52 PM, Euron III Greyjoy said:

Before anyone says so, yes I know that this question doesn't have an actual answer. Maybe we will find out about it in 'Fire and Blood' when it gets released, but until then I'm curious on your speculations. 

We know that Aenar Targaryen along with his family, wealth and dragons also brought his slaves with him to Dragonstone from Valyria. What do you think happened to them? Do you think that once that generation of slaves died they only used peasants? Did they make slaves mate with each other to make more slaves? Did they only stop using slaves when Aegon took Westeros? 

Aenar's slaves were taken to the Dragonstone island when he could have sold them for profit.  Aenar sold his vast holdings before leaving the Freehold.  The only reason I could think of for keeping his slaves is to save them from his daughter's prophecy.  Valyria was going to burn.  Aenar saved them from what was about to happen to the Valyrians.  He tried to convince the other families to leave but they ignored his warnings.  They thought he was nuts and laughed it off.

We already know what happened at Dragonstone.  He kept them employed in his new island home.  They were the first small folk on the island and served the Targaryen family.  The tradition of slavery went away when the Targaryens agreed to adapt to the ways of the Andals.  At least the ways they could afford to give into.  Keeping slaves would have met with raised concerns in Westeros.  Those slaves became the small folk who populated the islands and paid taxes to the Targaryens.  Aenar must have kept a few in the household to care for his family.  Servant is not a bad job.  Every lord and lady have their servants.  It is much better than being a slave.  Slavery ended before Aegon came along.  Valyria's sin is slavery and the doom was their punishment.  The prophecy from Daenys could have told the family to make it their purpose to end slavery.  The Targaryens were preserved for a reason.  They were the only ones who got the message to evacuate.  It's their mission to stop slavery and set things to rights.

[Texas Hold Em]

11 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

I would imagine that they'd have to start paying them. It's that or they lived out their service until they passed away and were eventually phased out.

 

We cannot say for sure if servants got paid in Westeros.  How much were Old Nan's weekly wages from the Starks?  The Targaryen servants had the same arrangement on the island.  

[Lion of the West]

I'd assume Aegon and his sisters made their slaves free, and pressured any retainer to do the same, and the slaves mostly remained to do the same tasks but now with a small wage for their old masters. A few may have joined the smallfolk on Dragonstone and an even fewer number may have left Dragonstone to try their luck on the mainland.

[Back door hodor]

My guess is that they were nominally freed by Aenar, but were more like Ilyrios "servants" for a generation or two, that is slaves in all but name, eventually they interbred with the westrosi smallfolk already there and became more like them as they and the targs acclimated to the new culture 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

On 8/11/2018 at 11:16 PM, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

See Orys Baratheon .

Uh...what? There is no mention of Orys Baratheon having been a slave.

[Jaak]

On 7/18/2019 at 4:35 PM, Lady Dacey said:

Slaved persons are property. They aren't seen as subjects but as objects. Taking their slaves with them was simply a means to mantaining their own lifes. The reproductions of their existence, then, depended on slave labour. If Aenar was at all preocupied with the slaved people to the degree your comment suggests he would have had a moral problem with slavery, which he obviously didn't. 

It´s not absurd.

A lot of slaveowners care about their slaves, or some of them, to some degree.

It is entirely possible, and quite common, for a slaveowner to think of himself as a good master compared to some other slaveowners, and think that them is not with slavery as such but with some slaveowners being worse masters than him.

[Jaak]

On 7/19/2019 at 4:04 AM, Texas Hold Em said:

Aenar's slaves were taken to the Dragonstone island when he could have sold them for profit.  Aenar sold his vast holdings before leaving the Freehold.  The only reason I could think of for keeping his slaves is to save them from his daughter's prophecy. 

There is obvious alternative.

He was a rich man, and was still going to rich on Dragonstone. He was still going to be served by servants.

His existing servants who were slaves were used to him and he to them. Sell them? He would have had to recruit and train new servants on Dragonstone, slave or free. Simply taking his existing house slaves along was the easy default option. Eddard Stark did not go to Red Keep with empty hands, Hand´s chain and a purse of money either to hire new servants from Flea Bottom - 50 guards, Vayon Poole and unspecified number of other unarmed servants did travel from Winterfell to Red Keep.

[Mad Worm of Bikini Bottom]

Everything we know about the Valyrians tells us they were not a part of the slaver trade. They enslaved people that fought against them, they didn't enslave and breed people just to sell them, for the sake of slavery. But for the sake of preventing people to want to go to war against them. 

Evidence for this I find in the following

 

1.  Valyrians fought against the Ghiscari,
2. all of the peoples that we know were slave traders and have slavery embedded in their cultures hate Valyrians: Andals before they came to Westeros (Andals hate anything remotely Valyrian and anything that has to do with dragons), Dothraki that made Esos a wasteland after the Doom hate Valryians, Volantis, Quarth…Rhoynar… New Ghis - and Valyrians put down Old Ghis.
3. Andals had to give up slavery when they settled Westeros in order to fit in, which means the First men were against slavery (but they also didn’t need slavery because they were technically advanced, so I get that this one is on shaky legs). Valyrians are first men.
4. Xaro Xhoan what’s-his-name tells Dany that slave trade started again after the Doom

 

[The Ghost Beyond the Wall]

Other posters have provided some great comprehensive answers. I agree with them, I think it's likely that since Aenar migrated with only his household and dragons, there may not have been much need for slaves on Dragonstone. I like the idea that he freed them and let them leave to Braavos or find their own path, as he broke with Valyria and its customs to some extent to escape the Doom. As such, it gives plausibility to the idea that he freed the slaves to show how he and his House became distinct from the customs of the Old Freehold, which strongly supported and practiced slavery. In addition, it seems that Braavos wasn't too concerned with the Targaryens (as opposed to how they were staunchly against the Valyrians), so maybe they knew he did not intend to be a slave holder and keep people in servitude. 

[The Commentator]

On 7/18/2019 at 9:04 PM, Texas Hold Em said:

Aenar's slaves were taken to the Dragonstone island when he could have sold them for profit.  Aenar sold his vast holdings before leaving the Freehold.  The only reason I could think of for keeping his slaves is to save them from his daughter's prophecy.  Valyria was going to burn.  Aenar saved them from what was about to happen to the Valyrians.  He tried to convince the other families to leave but they ignored his warnings.  They thought he was nuts and laughed it off.

We already know what happened at Dragonstone.  He kept them employed in his new island home.  They were the first small folk on the island and served the Targaryen family.  The tradition of slavery went away when the Targaryens agreed to adapt to the ways of the Andals.  At least the ways they could afford to give into.  Keeping slaves would have met with raised concerns in Westeros.  Those slaves became the small folk who populated the islands and paid taxes to the Targaryens.  Aenar must have kept a few in the household to care for his family.  Servant is not a bad job.  Every lord and lady have their servants.  It is much better than being a slave.  Slavery ended before Aegon came along.  Valyria's sin is slavery and the doom was their punishment.  The prophecy from Daenys could have told the family to make it their purpose to end slavery.  The Targaryens were preserved for a reason.  They were the only ones who got the message to evacuate.  It's their mission to stop slavery and set things to rights.

 

3 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

Other posters have provided some great comprehensive answers. I agree with them, I think it's likely that since Aenar migrated with only his household and dragons, there may not have been much need for slaves on Dragonstone. I like the idea that he freed them and let them leave to Braavos or find their own path, as he broke with Valyria and its customs to some extent to escape the Doom. As such, it gives plausibility to the idea that he freed the slaves to show how he and his House became distinct from the customs of the Old Freehold, which strongly supported and practiced slavery. In addition, it seems that Braavos wasn't too concerned with the Targaryens (as opposed to how they were staunchly against the Valyrians), so maybe they knew he did not intend to be a slave holder and keep people in servitude. 

Daenys and Aenar were heroes.  The Targaryens had to take the slaves with them.  Otherwise, they would be picked up and enslaved.  Or they will remain in Valyria and die.  It was an act of goodness to save them from the approaching catastrophe.  The Targaryens are special.  Like the family of the biblical Lot, they were spared for a good reason.  

[frenin]

7 hours ago, Mad Worm of Bikini Bottom said:

Everything we know about the Valyrians tells us they were not a part of the slaver trade. They enslaved people that fought against them, they didn't enslave and breed people just to sell them, for the sake of slavery. But for the sake of preventing people to want to go to war against them. 

Evidence for this I find in the following

 

1.  Valyrians fought against the Ghiscari,
2. all of the peoples that we know were slave traders and have slavery embedded in their cultures hate Valyrians: Andals before they came to Westeros (Andals hate anything remotely Valyrian and anything that has to do with dragons), Dothraki that made Esos a wasteland after the Doom hate Valryians, Volantis, Quarth…Rhoynar… New Ghis - and Valyrians put down Old Ghis.
3. Andals had to give up slavery when they settled Westeros in order to fit in, which means the First men were against slavery (but they also didn’t need slavery because they were technically advanced, so I get that this one is on shaky legs). Valyrians are first men.
4. Xaro Xhoan what’s-his-name tells Dany that slave trade started again after the Doom

 

That's going against the text,  the ones that practiced thralldom were the First men, not the Andals and we are told a very different tale.

 

THE VALYRIANS LEARNED one deplorable thing from the Ghiscari: slavery. The Ghiscari whom they conquered were the first to be thus enslaved, but not the last. The burning mountains of the Fourteen Flames were rich with ore, and the Valyrians hungered for it: copper and tin for the bronze of their weapons and monuments; later iron for the steel of their legendary blades; and always gold and silver to pay for it all. [...] None can say how many perished, toiling in the Valyrian mines, but the number was so large as to surely defy comprehension. As Valyria grew, its need for ore increased, which led to ever more conquests to keep the mines stocked with slaves. The Valyrians expanded in all directions, stretching out east beyond the Ghiscari cities and west to the very shores of Essos, where even the Ghiscari had not made inroads

 

5 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

Other posters have provided some great comprehensive answers. I agree with them, I think it's likely that since Aenar migrated with only his household and dragons, there may not have been much need for slaves on Dragonstone. I like the idea that he freed them and let them leave to Braavos or find their own path, as he broke with Valyria and its customs to some extent to escape the Doom. As such, it gives plausibility to the idea that he freed the slaves to show how he and his House became distinct from the customs of the Old Freehold, which strongly supported and practiced slavery. In addition, it seems that Braavos wasn't too concerned with the Targaryens (as opposed to how they were staunchly against the Valyrians), so maybe they knew he did not intend to be a slave holder and keep people in servitude. 

Had Aenar ever done that, we would've been told, the fact that Aenar wanted to gtfo Valyria doesn't mean, like at all, that he was about to renounce everything that made him one, the slaves are very important in a slaves societies like Valyria or old ghis, they reflect on their master, save them is saving his property, the fact that he started thinking about as people ater a lifetime of thinking of them as property and objects seems unlikely at best, nor he and his house ever showe any intent of became or had the intention of becoming distinct.

Most of slaver owners servants are actually that, slaves so unless he planned to rehire, he would need those slaves.

Braavos don't like dragonlords but they are not acting against them unless they directly attack them and the Targs did have to give up on slavery at some point anyway, slavery is incompatible with Westerosi life style.

 

 

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Daenys and Aenar were heroes.  The Targaryens had to take the slaves with them.  Otherwise, they would be picked up and enslaved.

Because Aenar didn't keep using them as slaves.

 

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Or they will remain in Valyria and die. It was an act of goodness to save them from the approaching catastrophe. 

I wonder what would they prefer?? If i had the dilemma of chosing a quick death or a en entire life as a slave, i would not pick slave, but i have to suppose that if i were to be slaved by the Targs i'd have to thank god everyday for the blessing.

 

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Targaryens are special.  Like the family of the biblical Lot, they were spared for a good reason.  

Martin needed a dragonrider family.

[FictionIsntReal]

16 hours ago, Mad Worm of Bikini Bottom said:

 

1.  Valyrians fought against the Ghiscari,

 

 

Neighboring civilizations sometimes fight with each other even if they also trade with each other at times.

Quote

1. all of the peoples that we know were slave traders and have slavery embedded in their cultures hate Valyrians: Andals before they came to Westeros (Andals hate anything remotely Valyrian and anything that has to do with dragons),

Quote

Andals had to give up slavery when they settled Westeros in order to fit in, which means the First men were against slavery (but they also didn’t need slavery because they were technically advanced, so I get that this one is on shaky legs). Valyrians are first men.

Andals hate slavery, which they associate with Valyria. They opposed it before they arrived in Westeros, and made it prohibited there. The Andals conquered First Men and forced them to adopt Andal culture, they didn't take on any First Men norms. Valyrians are NOT First Men either. They've been separated from them for an enormous amount of time while the First Men were in Westeros, they practice incest which is abhorred by not only the Faith but also wildlings descended from First Men, and we can distinguish between First Men, Andal and Valyrian names. You seem to have a lot of things backwards.

[Narsil4]

Dragonstone was seemingly first inhabited by Valyria about 187 years before the Targs settled there. 

So if Valyrians commonly used slaves outside their local mines, then it would seem a good bet that there would be slaves on Dragonstone. Perhaps working whatever mines existed there. 

It seems likely that any slaves there may have been freed to get the faith of the 7 on their side. 

[Mon ami]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:21 PM, Mordred said:

The Targaryens gave up many Valyrian practices and customs.  Some which could have brought them increased wealth and power.  Just to list a few:

1. Forging of Valyrian steel weapons.
2. Slavery
3. Polygamy
4. Valyrian gods

Valyria had become like Sodom and Gomorrah.  Aenar tried to save as many as he could and his warning fell on deaf ears.  The Targaryens wanted to leave Valyria behind to create a better world.  And naturally to save themselves.  Aenar brought slaves with him to Dragonstone because he wanted to save them from the doom.  He could have sold them for profit but he chose to take them to safety with his own family.  He could not leave them behind to die.  Giving them freedom was not an option because the other families would simply capture them perhaps send them to the mines.  Aenar did the right thing.  He wanted to give up slavery but could not simply release the ones his family had owned.  He took them to Dragonstone and the Targaryens cared for them until they lived their natural lives.  They were not replaced.  So the Targaryens gave up slavery and it ended for good when the last one died.  

Lord Aenar and his daughter probably gave them a choice.  They followed because they had faith in her prophecy and the Targaryens were trustworthy. 

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Mon ami said:

Lord Aenar and his daughter probably gave them a choice.  They followed because they had faith in her prophecy and the Targaryens were trustworthy. 

Why would you give a choice to property?? Where is said that Aenar gave a damn about what his slaves might think?? 

[Mon ami]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Why would you give a choice to property?? Where is said that Aenar gave a damn about what his slaves might think?? 

Lord Aenar was a good man.  He made an effort to warn the other families to leave the peninsula.  They chose to ignore his warnings and perished.  A man like that would do what is best for his household slaves.  They may not really be slaves at all but servants. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

With no evidence whatsoever about temperament or motives, people jump right into the white savior narrative again. Of course it can't be that he just wanted to keep his slaves. He has to be a benevolent master. Jesus christ the fellacio for House Targaryen is ridiculous...