Jump to content

Grazdan's Holiday and Official Celebrations in Martinworld


Aline de Gavrillac

Recommended Posts

The people of Slaver's Bay most likely celebrate the birthday of Grazdan the Great.  They honor this greatest son of the Ghis during this day.  The Masters send thousands to the fighting pits to die in honor of this long-dead man.  Slaves and captive animals entertain the masses.  An abundance of food is served to the Masters and their family.  Statues of the Harpy are decorated for the occasion.

What other special days are celebrated in Martinworld?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prince Rhaego Targaryen said:

The Conquest is remembered but is it considered an official holiday.  I don't know but it should be.  

No country in the Commonwealth celebrates the day Britain conquered it. They celebrate Independence. Just ask USA. The Fourth of July. My birthday too. Or any Asian commonwealth like India, Sri Lanka etc

Your imperial views scare me a little tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

No country in the Commonwealth celebrates the day Britain conquered it. They celebrate Independence. Just ask USA. The Fourth of July. My birthday too. Or any Asian commonwealth like India, Sri Lanka etc

Your imperial views scare me a little tbh

while I agree with you, it's different for Westeros, as they remain under conqueror government (well, they did until 16 years ago), that government should encourage it as a celebration. A few years ago Spaniards did a tour in Latin America celebrating the genocide, some racist Latin Americans joined them, of course, some of them where part of the government even, and if the Spaniards would retain control over Latin America, it would be a day of celebration, as the government imposes the holidays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheLastWolf said:

No country in the Commonwealth celebrates the day Britain conquered it. They celebrate Independence. Just ask USA. The Fourth of July. My birthday too. Or any Asian commonwealth like India, Sri Lanka etc

Your imperial views scare me a little tbh

Aegons conquest was not beginning of any form of colonisation (economical exploitation). westeros did not become a colony of any other state / country. no mass migration followed. bunch of kings were replaced by one. The unification led to increase of safety and prosperity.

It is more like William the Bastard and England than Victoria and India*. Not even that, Aegon was not followed by a horde of land hungry foreign warriors.

* I know it started earlier, but I do not know the caesura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, broken one said:

Aegons conquest was not beginning of any form of colonisation (economical exploitation). westeros did not become a colony of any other state / country. no mass migration followed. bunch of kings were replaced by one. The unification led to increase of safety and prosperity.

It is more like William the Bastard and England than Victoria and India*. Not even that, Aegon was not followed by a horde of land hungry foreign warriors.

* I know it started earlier, but I do not know the caesura

It still involved violently taking the lands away from people and it had economic exploitation, called the king's taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, broken one said:

It is more like William the Bastard and England than Victoria and India*. Not even that, Aegon was not followed by a horde of land hungry foreign warriors.

Exactly. Aegon did the opposite of what William did. They both came as conquerors but the difference is that one tried to replace the nobility with its own and the other wanted to subjugate the nobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

It still involved violently taking the lands away from people and it had economic exploitation, called the king's taxes.

taxes existed before the conquest, collected by each king on his territory. at least aegon freed the continent from the hoare leech, who took taxes without any limit, in men and material. anyway, it was far from colonialism TLW meant. sorry but I cannot escape real world analogies - Polish state was born as a slave trade enterprise. Mieszko waged war against neighbouring tribes and sold captured people. Arabian silver let him establish his rule and at some moment he decided to get baptised, the anniversary of the baptism is celebrated until today :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, broken one said:

taxes existed before the conquest, collected by each king on his territory. at least aegon freed the continent from the hoare leech, who took taxes without any limit, in man and material. anyway, it was far from colonialism. sorry but I cannot escape real world analogies - Polish state was born as a slave trade enterprise. Mieszko waged war against neighbouring tribes and sold captured people. Arabian silver let him establish his rule and at some moment he decided to get baptised, the anniversary of the baptism is celebrated until today :)

Yes, but Aegon took the taxes away from the territory, exploiting it's resources. And I think we can see to this day that people resent Targaryen rule, the North sees the bending of the knee as a moment of weakness, the Lannisters did everything they could to put themselves on the throne and the Greyjoys revolted at any chance they got. The only ones of the Great Houses we don't know about are the Arryns (which there's an argument for them planning to overthrows the Targs), the rest where either installed by the Targs (and some rebelled anyway) or not actually conquered (and there's also an argument to be made for Dorne not wanting Targaryen rule). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, this is the moment of chaos described in asoiaf, after the dynasty had fallen. sb suggested the conquest could be celebrated and I pointed why I support the view (and why it has nothing to do with colonialism). Always and everywhere there were inside forces trying to blow up a feudal state.

imo the constant war of midget kings is not a good alternative to the rule of one monarch (as maesters claim). The people use the same language and represent, more or less, same culture. There is no social friction other than the feudal bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Yes, but Aegon took the taxes away from the territory, exploiting it's resources. And I think we can see to this day that people resent Targaryen rule, the North sees the bending of the knee as a moment of weakness, the Lannisters did everything they could to put themselves on the throne and the Greyjoys revolted at any chance they got. The only ones of the Great Houses we don't know about are the Arryns (which there's an argument for them planning to overthrows the Targs), the rest where either installed by the Targs (and some rebelled anyway) or not actually conquered (and there's also an argument to be made for Dorne not wanting Targaryen rule). 

That's all among the nobility, though. The smallfolk themselves don't seem to be as anti-Targaryen as the ruling class is. Arya encounters one such man in ASoS who laments the fact that Arys was overthrown. There's also the tower called Queenscrown in the North, after Queen Alysanne, who ended the Lord's right to first night. Clearly the smallfolk there remember her more fondly than nobles like Roose Bolton. There's also the Kings Road, a visible reminder of Targaryen rule that still benefits people as a means of transportation. The smallfolk probably benefitted more from Targaryen rule than they ever did before the Conquest, what with all the constant warring and bloodshed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, broken one said:

ok, this is the moment of chaos described in asoiaf, after the dynasty had fallen. sb suggested the conquest could be celebrated and I pointed why I support the view (and why it has nothing to do with colonialism). Always and everywhere there were inside forces trying to blow up a feudal state.

imo the constant war of midget kings is not a good alternative to the rule of one monarch (as maesters claim). The people use the same language and represent, more or less, same culture. There is no social friction other than the feudal bullshit.

Oh, I agree with you (almost) completely. I also think that the conquest should be celebrated as state policy. I do think the world (our and theirs) is better united, tho I do not think the one leading should be a Targ because that maintains the conquered/conqueror dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

That's all among the nobility, though. The smallfolk themselves don't seem to be as anti-Targaryen as the ruling class is. Arya encounters one such man in ASoS who laments the fact that Arys was overthrown. There's also the tower called Queenscrown in the North, after Queen Alysanne, who ended the Lord's right to first night. Clearly the smallfolk there remember her more fondly than nobles like Roose Bolton. There's also the Kings Road, a visible reminder of Targaryen rule that still benefits people as a means of transportation. The smallfolk probably benefitted more from Targaryen rule than they ever did before the Conquest, what with all the constant warring and bloodshed.

I agree completely with the bold bit, yet there's still some clash about culture, specially in the North and Dorne, and I assume the smallfolk who lived through the conquest didn't think so highly of the Targs either. Enough time has pass so no one present at that times still lives, and that makes the smallfolk don't care as much, but if Westeros progresses socially like our world, even the smallfolk will come to resent the notion on an empire built by conquest and governed by the conquerors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Christopher Columbus or Cortes were conquering for themselves and not for the crown far away, you would have Aegon. Or maybe if George III left Britain and set up shop in Washington DC to rule over all of North America. Or if Ferdinand left Spain and ruled South America. Aegon. Historically significant, but not worth culturally celebrating.

If people ever celebrated this, it would have to involve a lot of propaganda and fear to start. And if people celebrated it centuries later they would need to be ignorant of history and maybe a bit authoritarian-minded too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, broken one said:

imo the constant war of midget kings is not a good alternative to the rule of one monarch (as maesters claim). 

I think what's more important is how you win people over to bring the kingdoms together...not just the fact that it's One Ruler to Rule Them All. Aegon and successors kept hitting things with hammers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

It still involved violently taking the lands away from people and it had economic exploitation, called the king's taxes.

The seven or so kings who ruled those separate lands before the Targaryens were doing all of that.  They were constantly quarreling among themselves that the regular folk barely got any breaks.  House Targaryen was already firmly established on Dragonstone and thus were not foreigners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The seven or so kings who ruled those separate lands before the Targaryens were doing all of that.  They were constantly quarreling among themselves that the regular folk barely got any breaks.  House Targaryen was already firmly established on Dragonstone and thus were not foreigners. 

Yes. They were doing that, in their own land, the Targs take resources away from one land and keep them in their own.

The Targs were no foreigners to the crownlands, but they were foreigners to the Reach, the North, the Riverlands, the Vale, the Iron Islands, the Stormlands, the Westerlands and Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...