Did the Targaryens colonize Westeros?

[Frey family reunion]

On 11/30/2023 at 4:59 AM, Hippocras said:

Daenerys is trying to colonize Slavers' Bay. It is very different in context from what Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys did.

Dany is training Meereenese to be knights. She is imposing laws that come from her beliefs not theirs (even if theirs are wrong and evil, hers are still foreign). Yes, she has been trying unsuccessfully to bend a bit and let their culture in, but ultimately she wants them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally. That is colonialism. 

The conquerors imposed vassalhood, but that is about it. They required various families to inter-marry, who were unlikely to have done so previously. Beyond that, they did not chance much, culturally.

Yea, the Targaryens adopted Westerosi customs, religion, etc. much more so than they changed the customs or religions of Westeros.  In fact, they seemed very disinterested in Westeros adopting their beliefs.  Early on they just held themselves as above the norms of Westerosi culture.

I guess you could argue there was an attempt to colonize the Iron Isles early on, by trying to impose more mainland  Westerosi customs

Edited December 1, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[KingAerys_II]

Targaryens tried to integrate in Westerosi society, the doctrine of exceptionalism is the device to overcome the big problem of inbreeding, that's considered extremely sinful to Westeros, but it's important to stay in charge, I guess, dragon blood is useful to ride dragons, probably it's important to hatch eggs too

Edited December 1, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[Hugorfonics]

49 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Of course the UK wanted the Indians to act less Indian and more like the British?! It was the 'civilising mission' and so on.

Edit: They didn't outlaw it when they first came despite being aware of the practice. So I don't think their only motivation was to help the ladies. Or they could have outlawed it much sooner.

Maybe some did? But generally, I mean Indian culture is huge, Bollywood is like the biggest thing. Many different religions and customs that stayed strong or even went the other way, like tea. (Or was that Chinese?)

The civilizing aspect is really just an excuse, or justification. But if you wanna go down that road, explaining mass democracy or whatever is still not going to make it distinctly different.

[SeanF]

55 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Of course the UK wanted the Indians to act less Indian and more like the British?! It was the 'civilising mission' and so on.

Edit: They didn't outlaw it when they first came despite being aware of the practice. So I don't think their only motivation was to help the ladies. Or they could have outlawed it much sooner.

The lobbying to outlaw Sati came from reformist Hindu scholars, and the British responded to that lobbying.

And yes, the whole debate about what cultural practices should be outlawed, and which should be tolerated is both very 19th century and very modern.

Edited December 1, 2023 by SeanF

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Just because there are 'good' elements to colonisation, doesn't mean it's not colonisation. The British stopped the practice of Sati (Sati (practice) - Wikipedia) when India was under their control, and introduced legislation to try and stop other forms of violence against widows. This doesn't mean they didn't colonise India...

Exactly. People get confused by the fact that "colonialism" is now accepted as a historical wrong, which generally it is. But when it comes to the motivations of the people involved and several of the details, such as institutions, laws, organization; while people were actually IN it, many of them thought they were doing the right thing.

The same goes for Dany. She thinks she is right. She is getting rid of slavery, which clearly is a great evil. But by doing so she is demanding an enormous cultural shift, and is therefore coming up against entrenched resistance from people who do not want to change their ways just because some foreigner arrived with better weapons (dragons) and demanded they do things differently. That is fairly equivalent to Europeans arriving in Africa and the Americas with guns, which indigenous people did not have, and claiming the land as theirs just because they were the ones with the guns (reminded of the Corky and the Juice Pigs song here). In most African countries, there was never widespread European settlement, so the idea that to be colonialism, large groups of foreign people need to be brought in is not accurate. 

There is no universally accepted definition of colonialism. Different sources will explain it differently. That is why I don't think this thread will ever come to an end if people try to debate via the different definitions. However I do think that it important that people see it as a cultural imposition, and without that, the label doesn't fit all that well.

 

  

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I guess you could argue there was an attempt to colonize the Iron Isles early on, by trying to impose more mainland  Westerosi customs

True.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Hippocras

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

Exactly. People get confused by the fact that "colonialism" is now accepted as a historical wrong, which generally it is. But when it comes to the motivations of the people involved and several of the details, such as institutions, laws, organization; while people were actually IN it, many of them thought they were doing the right thing.

The same goes for Dany. She thinks she is right. She is getting rid of slavery, which clearly is a great evil. But by doing so she is demanding an enormous cultural shift, and is therefore coming up against entrenched resistance from people who do not want to change their ways just because some foreigner arrived with better weapons (dragons) and demanded they do things differently. That is fairly equivalent to Europeans arriving in Africa and the Americas with guns, which indigenous people did not have, and claiming the land as theirs just because they were the ones with the guns (reminded of the Corky and the Juice Pigs song here). In most African countries, there was never widespread European settlement, so the idea that to be colonialism, large groups of foreign people need to be brought in is not accurate. 

There is no universally accepted definition of colonialism. Different sources will explain it differently. That is why I don't think this thread will ever come to an end if people try to debate via the different definitions. However I do think that it important that people see it as a cultural imposition, and without that, the label doesn't fit all that well.

 

  

True.

If we accept that the freedmen are as authentically Meereenese as the masters ( and I think one ought), then there is huge local resistance to their own enslavement.

It’s the locals who are doing most of the fighting to end slavery.

Edited December 1, 2023 by SeanF

[Hippocras]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

If we accept that the freedmen are as authentically Meereenese as the masters ( and I think one ought), then there is huge local resistance to their own enslavement.

Yes. But within Africa and the Americas, and India, and Australia, there were ALSO locals who were at great disadvantage in the existing system and therefore wanted change. Locals who want change have always been part of colonialism, and indeed necessary, because without that the colonizers are thrown out very very quickly.

I very much think that slavery is wrong. I am all for the Freedmen fighting for Dany, and therefore in this instance I clearly accept colonialism as a relatively minor evil in the greater picture. But I do still think it is colonialism.

[Northern Sword]

Little late to the party on this one.

Colonize, No. To colonize a whole continent you would need colonies, settlers and a substantial population still connected to home. The parent state of Valyria does not exist anymore. I'm thinking of the British in North America as an example.

Conquer, Yes. Targs and their dragons took over Westeros militarily and politically. I think of Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[Hugorfonics]

I think to reduce Ghiscari culture as slavery is extremely simplistic and stereotypical, just like reducing Ironborn culture to reaving. 

 

23 minutes ago, Northern Sword said:

I think of Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte

And of course both, by nearly any definition, can be considered colonizers lol.

[Hippocras]

40 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think to reduce Ghiscari culture as slavery is extremely simplistic and stereotypical, just like reducing Ironborn culture to reaving. 

 

And of course both, by nearly any definition, can be considered colonizers lol.

This feels like argument for argument's sake.

They are located in a place called Slavers' Bay. Their entire economy is based on slavery. They do not just sell slaves as basically their ONLY export, they also rely on them in every single aspect of their social structure. So obviously abolishing slavery changes absolutely EVERYTHING about the way the place works.

Noone is being reductive. 

[Northern Sword]

27 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

And of course both, by nearly any definition, can be considered colonizers lol.

Depends on your definition of colonize I guess.

How do YOU differentiate the difference between colonize and conquest? 

In the end the Targ's cannot be colonizers. A single family cant be a colony.

Hence, Aegon the Conqueror, not the colonizer.

[The Commentator]

The Targaryens came and they did what the First Men and the Andals did before them. So yeah they too did their conquering, but did it in a kinder, non-exploitive manner.  The Targaryens are the protagonists and the heroes of this series of long novels.  The brutality of the First Men and their primitive methods nearly killed off the children of the forest. The Targaryens were much kinder and only wanted to prepare the people for the apocalypse they knew was coming from the north. I call them Empire builders who brought a lot of good to Westeros.  

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Maybe some did? But generally, I mean Indian culture is huge, Bollywood is like the biggest thing. Many different religions and customs that stayed strong or even went the other way, like tea. (Or was that Chinese?)

The civilizing aspect is really just an excuse, or justification. But if you wanna go down that road, explaining mass democracy or whatever is still not going to make it distinctly different.

Tea was pretty much introduced to India at scale by the British. The Brits were already tea-crazy but trade with China was unreliable, so tea plantations in India were established and then India was converted to the cause of tea to maximise the market. 

We did get "curry" from India, though (albeit in modified form) including our national dish, chicken tikka masala (actually invented in Birmingham iirc, but definitely Indian in inspiration).

Edited December 1, 2023 by Alester Florent

[SeanF]

Because we’re all nationalists, more or less, it’s easy to forget that nationalism is a pretty recent thing, both a product of, and a reaction to, the French Revolution.  The local elites in the colonies later started thinking in the same nationalist terms as the colonial powers, and naturally sought independence.

But throughout most of history, peoples’ loyalty was to clan, tribe, religion, royal dynasty, local lord - not to something as esoteric as a nation.

England was ruled by foreigners for centuries, without this bothering the English, very much.

So, it can seem anachronistic to talk about colonisation, in a world where loyalties are focused very differently.

The Targaryens are just another dynasty, like the Baratheons, and are not seen as foreign masters.

[KingAerys_II]

The therm "colonization"  is often used when there is exploitation of indigenous people that live with disadvantages imposed by the colonizers.
Targaryen rule doubled Westerosi population and established laws for the smallfolk.

Then I don't see how Daenerys rule in Essos is associated to colonialism

Edited December 1, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[Hugorfonics]

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

This feels like argument for argument's sake.

They are located in a place called Slavers' Bay. Their entire economy is based on slavery. They do not just sell slaves as basically their ONLY export, they also rely on them in every single aspect of their social structure. So obviously abolishing slavery changes absolutely EVERYTHING about the way the place works.

Noone is being reductive. 

Not really, your just being dramatic. They'll just revert to serfdom or the like as it is in the Sunset. Smallfolk. 

They'll continue to grow olives, wear togas, eat dogs and live under pyramids. Ghiscari culture is not disappearing.

 

3 hours ago, Northern Sword said:

Depends on your definition of colonize I guess.

How do YOU differentiate the difference between colonize and conquest? 

In the end the Targ's cannot be colonizers. A single family cant be a colony.

Hence, Aegon the Conqueror, not the colonizer.

I agree Aegons not a colonizer, but his great granddad was. I explained above. 

So Caesar conquered Rome, and Italy, maybe Egypt, probably Greece but I'd say he colonized Gaul. 

Likewise Napoleon robbed em blind,  for all extensive purposes the Renaissance ended when he showed up. Spain, Germany, all of em were just run by king brother.

That was the whole thing like in Beligum and such they expected liberal liberation and was treated like occupied territory. (Not all em of course, don't wanna come across as too much of a Napoleon basher, just the Ridley Scott movie lol, so boring! Should be called Josephine)

 

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Tea was pretty much introduced to India at scale by the British. The Brits were already tea-crazy but trade with China was unreliable, so tea plantations in India were established and then India was converted to the cause of tea to maximise the market. 

We did get "curry" from India, though (albeit in modified form) including our national dish, chicken tikka masala (actually invented in Birmingham iirc, but definitely Indian in inspiration).

Lol well, there ya go.  I didn't know that, but I love chicken masala so I totally understand.

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Because we’re all nationalists, more or less, it’s easy to forget that nationalism is a pretty recent thing, both a product of, and a reaction to, the French Revolution.  The local elites in the colonies later started thinking in the same nationalist terms as the colonial powers, and naturally sought independence.

But throughout most of history, peoples’ loyalty was to clan, tribe, religion, royal dynasty, local lord - not to something as esoteric as a nation.

England was ruled by foreigners for centuries, without this bothering the English, very much.

So, it can seem anachronistic to talk about colonisation, in a world where loyalties are focused very differently.

The Targaryens are just another dynasty, like the Baratheons, and are not seen as foreign masters.

Idk, I always rolled my eyes at that line of thinking, especially since my nation existed in 1776, clearly before the French Revolution lol. 

Asian nations aside, I don't see how Hungary hasn't always been an "ethnic" nation state, except like all the links with Austria, which calls itself Rome. Because everyone did. The English called themselves Roman pretty much until the Anglo Saxons, which is way past them actually being Roman.  Like St Patrik called himself Roman.  

Definitely by 1500 England France and Spain are well defined nation states with their own culture and history and prospects. It's just the Germans who didn't always bend the knee to Rome, I mean Vienna, were more ambiguous with their nation state. I also don't understand why they say the French Rev united Germany when they were actually at odds with each other. Like I don't get why the Germans get to rewrite history, who won the war? Lol

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Not really, your just being dramatic. They'll just revert to serfdom or the like as it is in the Sunset. Smallfolk. 

They'll continue to grow olives, wear togas, eat dogs and live under pyramids. Ghiscari culture is not disappearing.

 

I agree Aegons not a colonizer, but his great granddad was. I explained above. 

So Caesar conquered Rome, and Italy, maybe Egypt, probably Greece but I'd say he colonized Gaul. 

Likewise Napoleon robbed em blind,  for all extensive purposes the Renaissance ended when he showed up. Spain, Germany, all of em were just run by king brother.

That was the whole thing like in Beligum and such they expected liberal liberation and was treated like occupied territory. (Not all em of course, don't wanna come across as too much of a Napoleon basher, just the Ridley Scott movie lol, so boring! Should be called Josephine)

 

Lol well, there ya go.  I didn't know that, but I love chicken masala so I totally understand.

 

Idk, I always rolled my eyes at that line of thinking, especially since my nation existed in 1776, clearly before the French Revolution lol. 

Asian nations aside, I don't see how Hungary hasn't always been an "ethnic" nation state, except like all the links with Austria, which calls itself Rome. Because everyone did. The English called themselves Roman pretty much until the Anglo Saxons, which is way past them actually being Roman.  Like St Patrik called himself Roman.  

Definitely by 1500 England France and Spain are well defined nation states with their own culture and history and prospects. It's just the Germans who didn't always bend the knee to Rome, I mean Vienna, were more ambiguous with their nation state. I also don't understand why they say the French Rev united Germany when they were actually at odds with each other. Like I don't get why the Germans get to rewrite history, who won the war? Lol

Hungary was ruled by a German, or an Ottoman, from 1526-1918.

[SaffronLady]

6 hours ago, The Commentator said:

So yeah they too did their conquering, but did it in a kinder, non-exploitive manner.

There is no such thing as a non-exploitative conquest.

And look how well the Targs prepared Westeros for the end times, the Watch is now a tenth of its size before the Conquest, and they got almost all their dragons killed in a civil war. As a magical order, House Targaryen has failed rather spectacularly. In the end it may fall to random dragonseed Daenerys Waters to salvage the wreck they left.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Likewise Napoleon robbed em blind,  for all extensive purposes the Renaissance ended when he showed up. Spain, Germany, all of em were just run by king brother.

Uh, do you mean the Enlightenment? The Renaissance had been over for centuries by the time Napoleon was born.

Quote

 

Idk, I always rolled my eyes at that line of thinking, especially since my nation existed in 1776, clearly before the French Revolution lol.

 

America isn't really a nation, in the sense that matters. Indeed, I'd query even the extent to which it "existed" in 1776, but I have learned from bitter experience that discussing American history with Americans on the internet is entirely pointless.

The nation-state existed up to a point before the Enlightenment, but ethnonationalism as a meanintgful movement and political identity-basis only really took off afterwards.

Quote

Asian nations aside, I don't see how Hungary hasn't always been an "ethnic" nation state, except like all the links with Austria, which calls itself Rome.

Hungary was either an empire (ruling Slovakia and Croatia, as well as other areas), or it was under foreign rule, or both. Its ethnonationalist identity as Hungary developed largely in the 19th century.

Quote

The English called themselves Roman pretty much until the Anglo Saxons, which is way past them actually being Roman.  Like St Patrik called himself Roman.  

There were no English before the Anglo-Saxons.

According to traditional historiography, the Romans left in 410 by which time there were already Saxon mercenaries in Britain: there was a brief period of effective native rule under the partially if not wholly legendary Vortigern and Ambrosius, plus the certainly legendary Uther and/or Arthur, then Saxon conquest. But at this point they seem to have identified principally as British, not Roman.

Quote

Definitely by 1500 England France and Spain are well defined nation states with their own culture and history and prospects. It's just the Germans who didn't always bend the knee to Rome, I mean Vienna, were more ambiguous with their nation state.

Spain was absolutely not a nation state by 1500. I would argue it isn't a nation state now. France wasn't either at that stage.

I understand what you mean by Rome/Vienna but the way you talk about it suggests, with all due respect, you don't really know what you're takling about. And no, it wasn't just Germany. You only need to look as far as Italy to see that, without getting into Iberia, France, the low countries, Burgundy, the Balkans, Scandinavia, the Jagiellonian empire, etc.

Quote

I also don't understand why they say the French Rev united Germany when they were actually at odds with each other. Like I don't get why the Germans get to rewrite history, who won the war? Lol

Which war?

It's often the case that groups coalesce against an outsider threat, only discovering a shared identity when the interests of all of them are threatened.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Alester Florent

[KingAerys_II]

France, England and Spain became nations before Germany and Italy. 

Germany became a Nation thanks to the efforts of Von Bismarck, the Germans founded German Empire after defeating France. 

The concept of Western Europe is related to the victory of Charles the Hammer at Poitiers, Franks founded France, they left a significant cultural impact. 

France, Spain, Germany were parts of the Holy Roman Empire, but they were already culturally and ethnically different