Will The Slave Rebellion in Essos End Like That of Spartacus?

[frenin]

On 7/27/2020 at 10:19 PM, Aldarion said:

Situation with American South is absolutely not comparable to that of Slaver's Bay.

1) Slavery in South was on its way out until cotton gin was invented, and would not have been sustainable beyond invention of cotton picker. No such situation in Slaver's Bay - no social pressure to end slavery, and no economic pressure either.

2) Slavery in US ran against supposed moral grain of nation - Christian theology holds that all humans are created equal. Again, there is - or at least was not until recently - no comparable religion in Slaver's Bay.

3) In 1860 there were 4 million slaves in US. This is out of total population of 31,4 million, so 13%. In Slaver's Bay at least in some areas, slaves outnumber free men - in fact, in Lys, Volantis and Tyrosh slaves outnumber free men 3-1, while in Volantis it is 5-1. Such situation I am not aware of in any historical society. It suggests however that slavery is normal for those societies - so even if you overthrew old order (Masters), former slaves will just end up enslaving former masters - and each other.

If slavery in Slaver's Bay does end, it will be work of Red Priests; Daenerys will have next to nothing to do with it.

Both the South and the Bay were prominently Slave societies instead of a society with slaves. 

Slavery was an indivisible part of their society, see Cornerstone speech and the likes. In the Old South there was theological support from their very practices... Even the old poor white dude without a penny relished on slavery because it both made him feel part of something and because it allowed another inferior class for him ti look down. Many of the patrols formed to hunt down the fugitives were actually made up by poor white men,  instead of the king cotton.

People breed for and in slavery start to believe their lot normal,  but as you see in Dany's quest that's not even true for half the slaves. Dany has the might to break te slave power in Essos, and it's realistic, she has growing nukes and an umbeatable standing army, the moment she decides to use any of them, it'sgame over.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Both the South and the Bay were prominently Slave societies instead of a society with slaves. 

Slavery was an indivisible part of their society, see Cornerstone speech and the likes. In the Old South there was theological support from their very practices... Even the old poor white dude without a penny relished on slavery because it both made him feel part of something and because it allowed another inferior class for him ti look down. Many of the patrols formed to hunt down the fugitives were actually made up by poor white men,  instead of the king cotton.

People breed for and in slavery start to believe their lot normal,  but as you see in Dany's quest that's not even true for half the slaves. Dany has the might to break te slave power in Essos, and it's realistic, she has growing nukes and an umbeatable standing army, the moment she decides to use any of them, it'sgame over.

And again, slavery in South was nowhere as widespread and inherent to society as it is in Slaver's Bay.

Nukes and standing army are shit for state building. Look at Iraq. They won't matter unless she decides to genocide whole Slaver's Bay and colonize it with people from non-slavering societies.

[Lord Varys]

The unreformed Ghiscari will all be killed, their cities will be burned and torn down, and those people who are willing to change will move west with Daenerys.

There is no future for these people, period.

And this isn't a loss.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

And again, slavery in South was nowhere as widespread and inherent to society as it is in Slaver's Bay.

Nukes and standing army are shit for state building. Look at Iraq. They won't matter unless she decides to genocide whole Slaver's Bay and colonize it with people from non-slavering societies.

Nukes repel external invaders.  A standing army controls territory that has been captured.  So, both are very important to state-building.  That's why real-world governments possess them.

[Aldarion]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Nukes repel external invaders.  A standing army controls territory that has been captured.  So, both are very important to state-building.  That's why real-world governments possess them.

They are important for state maintenance. State building is a completely different thing.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

They are important for state maintenance. State building is a completely different thing.

If I'm creating a new state, I'm pretty sure I'm going to need an army, as well as the best level of weaponry I can afford.  When British rule in the Indian sub-continent came to an end, for example, all the successor states prioritised their militaries. Standing armies are in fact, a very good way of encouraging people from different regions to see themselves as part of one state.

The state of Israel, post 1947, would have been snuffed out pretty quickly, without its formidable army.  Prussia was built out of the army of Frederick the Great.  The Levee en masse did much to create a shared sense of French nationhood. 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

And again, slavery in South was nowhere as widespread and inherent to society as it is in Slaver's Bay.

Sure it was, the only difference is that there weren't as many  slaves in the Old South as there were in Slaver's Bay but that slavery was widespread and was completely inherent to the anttebellum south?? That can't really be argued.

Which one of the reasons both slavery and racism were so hard to overcome, the latter ish, and why  the maesters resist so fiercely any type of change. 

I mean even the events of the ADWD Meereen seem taken from the Reconstruction Era.

 

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Nukes and standing army are shit for state building. Look at Iraq. They won't matter unless she decides to genocide whole Slaver's Bay and colonize it with people from non-slavering societies.

They serve to defeat opposition however and Slaver's Bay isn't Iraq, the only thing that keeps them going is their wealth and Dany's own kindness, it's not going to shelter them for long.

After that it takes for Dany to settle down and spendsdecades to truly transform the place.

 

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, frenin said:

Sure it was, the only difference is that there weren't as many  slaves in the Old South as there were in Slaver's Bay but that slavery was widespread and was completely inherent to the anttebellum south?? That can't really be argued.

Which one of the reasons both slavery and racism were so hard to overcome, the latter ish, and why  the maesters resist so fiercely any type of change. 

I mean even the events of the ADWD Meereen seem taken from the Reconstruction Era.

 

 

They serve to defeat opposition however and Slaver's Bay isn't Iraq, the only thing that keeps them going is their wealth and Dany's own kindness, it's not going to shelter them for long.

After that it takes for Dany to settle down and spendsdecades to truly transform the place.

 

Even in Iraq, the government would have struggled to defeat IS, if it had no armed forces.

The alternative to a standing army is relying on militias controlled by local strong men.

[The Commentator]

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Unless something changes to make the whole system of slavery economically unviable, you will only end up with former slaves being new masters and former masters being new slaves.

I don't agree.  Free labor is always an advantage for those who have the power to take away the freedom of the others.  And yet, it does not happen everywhere.  Either do the work yourself or pay somebody else to do the work.  Outlaw slavery and make it so that those who break that law are punished.  

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't agree.  Free labor is always an advantage for those who have the power to take away the freedom of the others.  And yet, it does not happen everywhere.  Either do the work yourself or pay somebody else to do the work.  Outlaw slavery and make it so that those who break that law are punished.  

If you look at the US it is quite clear that the South saw no reason to industrialize or change their ways while they had slaves - that's the reason why the North had to crush them and force them to change their ways because they wouldn't have done that on their own.

This idea that economy can force societal change is not necessarily true ... if you have the power to decide societal rules and you profit from slavery and like to have slaves, you won't build or suffer a modern capitalist society on your turf. You have to allow economy to rule your society for it to shape it.

But those aren't things we have to consider in Martinworld - there we will slavery eradicated by means of the physical annihilation of the slaver class. Not just in Meereen, but also in Volantis and the other Free Cities. There will be uprisings there, and the slavers will all be killed. In Volantis this is going to be very easy since only a sixth of the population of the city state are free people - the rest are slaves. In the Three Daughters it is a fourth - there the slavers might win the first round with the help of their own military and navy and sellswords, but Dany and her armada should crush them eventually.

But Slaver's Bay is just a monstrous society. These people all have to die. There is nothing redeemable about that culture, nor about the people there, aside from the shavepates and others who decided to change their ways.

The slave trade in western Essos is not going to survive it if the Ghiscari cities are all destroyed, not to mention if Volantis and the Three Daughters (are forced to) abolish slavery as well. Even more so when the Dothraki under Dany's rule also abolish slavery.

I also expect that Dany is going to destroy Qarth - they declared war on her and have to be punished for that - but even if the Qartheen were spared, they could not possibly rebuild the slave trade in the west without allies in Slaver's Bay or the Free Cities. It might continue in the far east, but that is nobody's concern in the story we are talking about.

[Bowen 747]

This revolution will bring on pain and sorrow for many.  But we have to remember that slavery cause more pain, sorrow, suffering, and death.  Life did not become peachy after the end of slavery in America.  The destruction of the south brought suffering to many.  But I have not heard anybody say it was not worth it.  Perfection is not possible but improvement is.  That is what we can expect, an improvement in the lives of most people.  An opportunity for the people to pursue their own happiness and make choices in life.  Always strive to make things better but do not let the fact that everything won't be perfect keep you from making a change.  

The wind of change will sweep across the land.  Dany will only be directly involved for the revolution in Meereen.  But the slaves themselves will carry out the purge of their masters elsewhere.  I'm talking about Volantis and other cities.  How the revolution happens and how brutal will depend on the slaves and the masters for each city.  The more the masters resist the higher the level of violence will increase.  The ball is really in the master's court.  None of this violence will be necessary if they freed their captives (slaves).  It is their choice.  Genocide?  It doesn't have to be.  The masters can release their slaves and there will be no further need for violence.  I am not claiming some disgruntled slave in a farm somewhere won't go back and kill his old master for revenge.  Those kinds of things happen and nobody can prevent that.  Bad things will happen but the revolution will be beneficial overall.  It is also the right thing to happen.  

[frenin]

On 7/27/2020 at 4:37 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

So as I am setting up this topic, I am not questioning Dany's ability to end slavery that much, bur rather the possibility that she entered into something bigger than her - drastic changes require a lot of time. It is so in the real world and it is so on Planetos.

No, Dany has the tools to end slavery, the only question is. Will she stay to make sure it's truly gone or will she pack up and leave believing that crushing the slavers equals to ending slavery??

 

 

On 7/27/2020 at 4:37 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

Daenerys crucified the exact same number of Slavers. Now, if there was another rebellion in Rome and the rebel leader decided to crucify 6,000 or so Romans by random choice, would it be any justice? 

This is a false comparative. 

But i'll say yes, if the dead are from the upper class that actively profits from slavery as well as refuses any change, sure it's fine by me. 

 

On 7/27/2020 at 4:37 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

think that what Martin will try to prove here is that - you cannot fight injustice with injustice, since if I remember correctly, the Slavers weren't put on a trial or there was an actual proof that the exact number of 163 slavers instigated the crucifixion of the innocents. (If there was, feel free to correct me or ignore this passage

Care to show me where is the injustice?? Did Dany target the innocents?? Did Dany target a slave??

Even going with the idea of, there might be those among them who disagreed with the children killing bit... Where are those?? Why no one has even hinted their existence??

 

On 7/27/2020 at 4:37 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

am not trying to defend the slavers. Slavery cannot be sacrosanct. I am only asking for your opinion - how do you think that this will realistically end?

With the slavers crushed.

 

 

On 7/27/2020 at 6:45 AM, BloodyJollyRoger said:

If the book was realistic. Dany’s Head would on a steak. 

Because...

 

 

On 7/27/2020 at 4:55 AM, The Hoare said:

Slavery will return, there's no doubt about that. Maybe the slaves will be given some rights preventing the worst abuses though.

Can you tell me how is not doubt about that??

Who are going to be the slavers?? What happens if there is an standing army to deter the return of Slavery??

 

 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

I'm going to keep posting this in every related thread, hoping that someone will actually engage with what he's saying. 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world,” Martin said in 2011. “But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

[frenin]

Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm going to keep posting this in every related thread, hoping that someone will actually engage with what he's saying. 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world,” Martin said in 2011. “But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

You keep posting this, people keep answering you and you keep ignoring it.

I ask you, how was the First Night abolished if not because of nukes?? How could be the King's Peace be created and what enabled its continuity in time for an enough lenght of time that it already didn't need to retort to nukes to be enforced??

Didn't the Targs ruled for 130 with nukes and the Valyrians for a millenia before them??

Martin's world is far less complicated than the actual one and its far less aware that the dragons can end the world, so actually having nukes can do a lot in the geopolitical zone.

An example of this is the accord reached between Pentosh and Tyrosh...

 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

You keep posting this, people keep answering you and you keep ignoring it.

I ask you, how was the First Night abolished if not because of nukes?? How could be the King's Peace be created and what enabled its continuity in time for an enough lenght of time that it already didn't need to retort to nukes to be enforced??

Didn't the Targs ruled for 130 with nukes and the Valyrians for a millenia before them??

Martin's world is far less complicated than the actual one and its far less aware that the dragons can end the world, so actually having nukes can do a lot in the geopolitical zone.

An example of this is the accord reached between Pentosh and Tyrosh...

 

Quite.

The quote has no relevance to the impact of revolution across the slaving cities, or conventional military defeat of the Slaver coalition. The Slavers have to win all the time to retain slavery.  One big defeat, and their monopoly of violence is gone for good.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm going to keep posting this in every related thread, hoping that someone will actually engage with what he's saying. 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world,” Martin said in 2011. “But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

Power alone is not enough.  But Daenerys Targaryen has a lot more going for her in addition to power.  Daenerys is a very intelligent young lady.  She has Benerro and his church in her corner.  Power is necessary to force the masters to give up their slaves.  Nothing here can be achieved without power.  Religion can take care of the rest after the slaves are free.  Religion provides the social structure and gives people principles to live by.  Laws follow religion.  Essos and Westeros are not developed, modern places.  Something crude like R'hllor, Old Gods, and Seven serve a purpose in society and government.  Separation of church and state will happen far into the future, beyond the last page of the series.  

6 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

This revolution will bring on pain and sorrow for many.  But we have to remember that slavery cause more pain, sorrow, suffering, and death.  Life did not become peachy after the end of slavery in America.  The destruction of the south brought suffering to many.  But I have not heard anybody say it was not worth it.  Perfection is not possible but improvement is.  That is what we can expect, an improvement in the lives of most people.  An opportunity for the people to pursue their own happiness and make choices in life.  Always strive to make things better but do not let the fact that everything won't be perfect keep you from making a change.  

Yeah.  I'm in agreement.  We can wait, hope for the perfect moment, wait and wait to come up with the perfect solution while thousands of slaves are getting murdered and tortured every day.  Or do something about it and open the doors for a better life.  The perfect moment will never come.  The perfect solution will never come.  All a liberator can realistically hope for is to break the stranglehold of slavery and allow the free people freedom.  The free people themselves will have to build their government.  That's not saying the liberator cannot help and assist in that regard.  The point of liberating is to allow the free people to have agency, to make mistakes, and learn from their mistakes to find a system that works.  Fortunately, religion can help.  

Quote

The wind of change will sweep across the land.  Dany will only be directly involved for the revolution in Meereen.  But the slaves themselves will carry out the purge of their masters elsewhere.  I'm talking about Volantis and other cities.  How the revolution happens and how brutal will depend on the slaves and the masters for each city.  The more the masters resist the higher the level of violence will increase.  The ball is really in the master's court.  None of this violence will be necessary if they freed their captives (slaves).  It is their choice.  Genocide?  It doesn't have to be.  The masters can release their slaves and there will be no further need for violence.  I am not claiming some disgruntled slave in a farm somewhere won't go back and kill his old master for revenge.  Those kinds of things happen and nobody can prevent that.  Bad things will happen but the revolution will be beneficial overall.  It is also the right thing to happen.  

 

[The Hoare]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Who are going to be the slavers?? What happens if there is an standing army to deter the return of Slavery??

Former slaves will become the new slavers, Take a look at the Butcher King

How do you maintain a proper standing army in a world where winters can last for years? How do you feed your army in these long idle years?

[frenin]

3 hours ago, The Hoare said:

Former slaves will become the new slavers, Take a look at the Butcher King

Which wouldn't have happened had enough Unsullied been there to  stop Cleon.

 

3 hours ago, The Hoare said:

How do you maintain a proper standing army in a world where winters can last for years? How do you feed your army in these long idle years?

Since when Winter affects so much that part of the world??

[Aldarion]

17 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't agree.  Free labor is always an advantage for those who have the power to take away the freedom of the others.  And yet, it does not happen everywhere.  Either do the work yourself or pay somebody else to do the work.  Outlaw slavery and make it so that those who break that law are punished.  

Bolded doesn't make much sense, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Anyway, slavery always happened when it was economically expedient, and always retracted when it ceased to be economically expedient. Everything else was secondary.

17 hours ago, frenin said:

Sure it was, the only difference is that there weren't as many  slaves in the Old South as there were in Slaver's Bay but that slavery was widespread and was completely inherent to the anttebellum south?? That can't really be argued.

Which one of the reasons both slavery and racism were so hard to overcome, the latter ish, and why  the maesters resist so fiercely any type of change. 

I mean even the events of the ADWD Meereen seem taken from the Reconstruction Era.

Except situation is very far removed. First, Christian Church never supported slavery (even if it did not always oppose it either). Second, very fact that slavery in Slaver's Bay is so much more widespread than in AB South (90% slaves vs 30% slaves at most) means that institution is socially very different: much more pervasive and socially ingrained. Third, South existed in context where slavery was well on the way of going out:

• England banned slave trade in 1102.
• France banned slavery in 1315.
• Poland banned slavery in 1347
• Ragusa banned slavery and slave trade in 1416
• Castille banned enslavement of native Americans in 1493
• Pope Paul III forbade enslavement of any natives in 1537
• Spain banned slave raiding in Americas in 1542
• Portugal banned enslavement of American natives in 1570
• Lithuania abolished slavery in 1588
• Japan banned slavery in 1590
• Ottoman Empire abolished devshirme in 1703
• England forbade slave ownership on English soil in 1706

This means that Southern US were rapidly becoming a lone black sheep when it came to slavery. Which in turn means that once slavery was ended there, it was ended for good.

But whole of Slaver's Bay is built on slavery. And to make it clear, just demand within Slaver's Bay would never be able to achieve that. This means that there is demand (and supply) well beyond borders of Slaver's Bay, which means that there would be incentive for the Bay to eventually return to its old practices.

And lastly, US South was South of United States. It was a bunch of slavering statelets existing within the context of much larger, largely non-slavering society which was rapidly technologically advancing. By the time of Civil War, cotton production was basically the only area where slaves were competitive. The reason why South was so focused on cotton production is that it was the only economic area in which it had advantage over free-workforce North - which in turn led to it focusing even more on it, which led to more slaves, which led to more focus on cotton... you get the idea. But Slaver's Bay is not a state within Seven Kingdoms or Braavos, it is a whole civilization with a number of states.

All in all, just freeing the slaves and killing the Masters will not do the trick.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

If I'm creating a new state, I'm pretty sure I'm going to need an army, as well as the best level of weaponry I can afford.  When British rule in the Indian sub-continent came to an end, for example, all the successor states prioritised their militaries. Standing armies are in fact, a very good way of encouraging people from different regions to see themselves as part of one state.

The state of Israel, post 1947, would have been snuffed out pretty quickly, without its formidable army.  Prussia was built out of the army of Frederick the Great.  The Levee en masse did much to create a shared sense of French nationhood. 

Actually, no. National militias or else conscription are good way for building national cohesion. Standing professional army is absolutely shit at it.

Israel had (and I believe still has) mandatory military service for all citizens. The very opposite of standing army. Same for Levee en masse.

[SeanF]

42 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Bolded doesn't make much sense, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Anyway, slavery always happened when it was economically expedient, and always retracted when it ceased to be economically expedient. Everything else was secondary.

Except situation is very far removed. First, Christian Church never supported slavery (even if it did not always oppose it either). Second, very fact that slavery in Slaver's Bay is so much more widespread than in AB South (90% slaves vs 30% slaves at most) means that institution is socially very different: much more pervasive and socially ingrained. Third, South existed in context where slavery was well on the way of going out:

• England banned slave trade in 1102.
• France banned slavery in 1315.
• Poland banned slavery in 1347
• Ragusa banned slavery and slave trade in 1416
• Castille banned enslavement of native Americans in 1493
• Pope Paul III forbade enslavement of any natives in 1537
• Spain banned slave raiding in Americas in 1542
• Portugal banned enslavement of American natives in 1570
• Lithuania abolished slavery in 1588
• Japan banned slavery in 1590
• Ottoman Empire abolished devshirme in 1703
• England forbade slave ownership on English soil in 1706

This means that Southern US were rapidly becoming a lone black sheep when it came to slavery. Which in turn means that once slavery was ended there, it was ended for good.

But whole of Slaver's Bay is built on slavery. And to make it clear, just demand within Slaver's Bay would never be able to achieve that. This means that there is demand (and supply) well beyond borders of Slaver's Bay, which means that there would be incentive for the Bay to eventually return to its old practices.

And lastly, US South was South of United States. It was a bunch of slavering statelets existing within the context of much larger, largely non-slavering society which was rapidly technologically advancing. By the time of Civil War, cotton production was basically the only area where slaves were competitive. The reason why South was so focused on cotton production is that it was the only economic area in which it had advantage over free-workforce North - which in turn led to it focusing even more on it, which led to more slaves, which led to more focus on cotton... you get the idea. But Slaver's Bay is not a state within Seven Kingdoms or Braavos, it is a whole civilization with a number of states.

All in all, just freeing the slaves and killing the Masters will not do the trick.

Actually, no. National militias or else conscription are good way for building national cohesion. Standing professional army is absolutely shit at it.

Israel had (and I believe still has) mandatory military service for all citizens. The very opposite of standing army. Same for Levee en masse.

A conscript army is still a standing army.   It's not disbanded in times of peace, even if numbers are reduced. And even conscript armies need a corps of professional officers and NCO's.  The French revolutionary armies were officered by professionals, and the Isreali officers in 1947 had mostly fought in WWII.

In fact, by recruiting freedmen into companies that were trained by Unsullied officers, and creating her own gendarmerie, the Brazen Beasts, Daenerys was acting very sensibly.  My guess is that both decisions will pay off in TWOW.