Does Westeros have serfdom?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So a question that has been bothering me is, given that Westeros clearly has a very feudal society, does it have serfdom? This is very important seeing how in western Europe the abolition of serfdom was a key stepping stone between the Dark Ages and the Renaissance.

[Lord Varys]

I'd say yes, but this is a disputed topic.

TMK mentions yeomen for the Riverlands region of Stoney Sept, so there definitely are freer peasants around somehwere, but I cannot see the Osgrey smallfolk from TSS as anything but serfs. They don't seem to be free people in any meaningful way, having no self-respect and no agenda of their own.

FaB makes it clear we have different feudal frameworks for the different regions, even within the former independent kingdoms, meaning we can assume that there were many different kinds of peasants.

[OberynBlackfyre]

I would say yes only because essentially NONE of the Houses keep a standing army. All of them essentially conscript their armies. 
 

But also we have people like Osha. She was taken as a prisoner and essentially used as a slave/servant-but then was able to earn more and more freedoms although she was never essentially free. This didn’t seem to raise anyone’s eye in the North.  So I would say yes that Serfdom absolutely exists in Westeros and is essentially what the peasant class is when they live in close proximity to their Lord. 

But it’s just not “official”.  Where as in the Iron Islands thralls are still common place and legal. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say yes, but this is a disputed topic.

TMK mentions yeomen for the Riverlands region of Stoney Sept, so there definitely are freer peasants around somehwere, but I cannot see the Osgrey smallfolk from TSS as anything but serfs. They don't seem to be free people in any meaningful way, having no self-respect and no agenda of their own.

FaB makes it clear we have different feudal frameworks for the different regions, even within the former independent kingdoms, meaning we can assume that there were many different kind of peasants.

There's also the problem of when. Around the time of Dunk&Egg the great sickness ravaged Westeros. Now in our history the Black Death was one of the main reasons feudalism and serfdom ended. Also, considering the reforms Aegon the V made it's quite possible, given his compassion for the smallfolk and the great sickness that had recently ravaged Westeros, that he de facto or de jure ended serfdom. I guess we'll gave to wait of FaB 2 to find out.

[SeanF]

I'm not sure.  That said, the lords seem to have almost untrammelled power over the Smallfolk at the judicial level.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

There's also the problem of when. Around the time of Dunk&Egg the great sickness ravaged Westeros. Now in our history the Black Death was one of the main reasons feudalism and serfdom ended. Also, considering the reforms Aegon the V made it's quite possible, given his compassion for the smallfolk and the great sickness that had recently ravaged Westeros, that he de facto or de jure ended serfdom. I guess we'll gave to wait of FaB 2 to find out.

Might be that Aegon V unified those things with his reforms - raising all smallfolk to the status they had in the most enlightened corner in the Seven Kingdoms. No idea.

I interpret King Aerys I command to the smallfolk to return to their homes during the drought as a hint that at least some of them are bound to the land/not permitted to leave their homes/farms without the permission of their lords.

It is also not really believable that there was this massive a gap in rank, status, and power between the nobility and the commoners if there are many wealthy peasants, owning the land and being able to acquire more. Feudalism doesn't work well without serfdom because free people cannot be exploited in the same degree nor can the nobility be sure they always get the same kind of taxes/rent in kind which they need to maintain their lifestyle - especially not minor nobility.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Might be that Aegon V unified those things with his reforms - raising all smallfolk to the status they had in the most enlightened corner in the Seven Kingdoms. No idea.

I interpret King Aerys I command to the smallfolk to return to their homes during the drought as a hint that at least some of them are bound to the land/not permitted to leave their homes/farms without the permission of their lords.

It is also not really believable that there was this massive a gap in rank, status, and power between the nobility and the commoners if there are many wealthy peasants, owning the land and being able to acquire more. Feudalism doesn't work well without serfdom because free people cannot be exploited in the same degree nor can the nobility be sure they always get the same kind of taxes/rent in kind which they need to maintain their lifestyle - especially not minor nobility.

I don't know, the large population of the major cities (KL, Oldtown, Lannisport, Gulltown, White Harbour and many smaller ones such as Duskendale) seems to suggest that there is a sizable amount of internal migration going on, which would indicate that either serfdom doesn't exist, or that it's limited in scale. Also the fact that KL in only 300 years old supports just how strong the internal migration is.

[Ran]

There was a past discussion here where some of the reasons for why there isn't serfdom in the mainland, not least of which is that GRRM never uses the term, and that the term "crofter" commonly used for some of the poorer agrarian smallfolk is a late 18th century term, long after serfdom had died out.

Very poor people find it difficult to take up stakes and move elsewhere. This is a situation that exists now in much of the world, and only more so in Westeros. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I don't know, the large population of the major cities (KL, Oldtown, Lannisport, Gulltown, White Harbour and many smaller ones such as Duskendale) seems to suggest that there is a sizable amount of internal migration going on, which would indicate that either serfdom doesn't exist, or that it's limited in scale. Also the fact that KL in only 300 years old supports just how strong the internal migration is.

KL clearly grow to the size it has because the Targaryens did invite or encourage smallfolk to live in their new town/city. But this would have been their prerogative as the monarchs of the Realm. King's Landing is their city, and it grew as large as it is because the people there get freedoms that are not to be had in the countryside.

Poor people moving around is sort of fine - the problem for the nobility would be if, say, the Bolton smallfolk decided to, well, tell Lord Leech and his monstrous son to go fuck themselves, pack their things, and migrate to the lands of another Northern lord who are less shitty. But this kind of thing doesn't seem to happen - not on that large scale nor even with landed knights like the Cleganes (where no sane peasant would want to live, either).

The fact that the Seven Kingdoms basically have no cities aside from the very ancient places that were very much under the protection of powerful lords and kings (Oldtown, Lannisport, Gulltown and eventually White Harbor) shows that the lords and kings of old did everything in their power to prevent villages from growing into towns and towns from gaining the kind of status cities have.

But the overall problem with this thing is that the world is just not very developed on that level. The way things look like is that the average (petty) lord completely controls their smallfolk as if they were chattel. They have to go to war if they call for arms, they have to support the lord's war efforts in some way if they can't go, they are completely at the mercy of the lord in all judicial matters, etc.

Westeros doesn't seem to know the difference between the landlord on whose lands you live and work and the lord who can demand that you serve him in war or the lord who dispenses justice. In most feudal monarchies of the real middle ages some small lord wouldn't have many or all of those privileges and powers.

In that sense - even if serfdom is never mentioned as such, it seems reasonable to assume that a considerable number of the peasants in Westeros are not freer than some serfs were in the real middle ages while others are pretty free.

I mean, if you think back and imagine that apparently Eustace Osgrey - a pitiful landed knight - apparently does have the right to drag his poor smallfolk into a rebellion then you see how little agency these people had. A properly free peasant couldn't be forced to fight in a rebellion by some knight - he would either owe loyalty to his lord (the Rowans of Goldengrove in this case, who most likely did not fight for the Black Dragon) or the king himself.

The idea that you can be free in a meaningful sense in a world with as thorough a feudal framework as Westeros just isn't very convincing.

[Reekazoid]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure.  That said, the lords seem to have almost untrammelled power over the Smallfolk at the judicial level.

I normally wouldn’t post a simple “Yeah +1 what he said!”, but I’m this case I’m going to because I also want to thank and commend you for the use of “untrammeled”.