George's stance on slavery

[Gravity Grave]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:08 AM, CamiloRP said:

 

And lastly, I'm not even using any morals really, I'm just noting a difference in the way George writes about Dany executing slavers vs Jon executing an insubordinate.

 

Why would you assume that difference is an indication of GRRM's real life view on slavery?

Because the more obvious and correct reason for any alleged conflicting stance is purely based on the fact that George is writing each chapter from the perspective of a specific character, who's views and morality differs from other characters based off their circumstance, experience, location, among many other factors. 

[House Cambodia]

3 hours ago, Gravity Grave said:

 

Why would you assume that difference is an indication of GRRM's real life view on slavery?

Because the more obvious and correct reason for any alleged conflicting stance is purely based on the fact that George is writing each chapter from the perspective of a specific character, who's views and morality differs from other characters based off their circumstance, experience, location, among many other factors. 

I think we've come full circle. You've just repeated the point I made 6 pages back, in the second post of the thread!

[CamiloRP]

15 hours ago, Gravity Grave said:

 

Why would you assume that difference is an indication of GRRM's real life view on slavery?

Because the more obvious and correct reason for any alleged conflicting stance is purely based on the fact that George is writing each chapter from the perspective of a specific character, who's views and morality differs from other characters based off their circumstance, experience, location, among many other factors. 

Because those differences aren't based on character perspective. I've said this already. Dany's approach to the slavers (not executing them) isn't critiziced by the slaves, it's manly critiziced by two morally questionable characters: a blood thirsty former slaver and a bloodthirsty sellsword.

While Jon's actions (executing Janos) is critized by Asshole Thorne and approved off by Stanis "Justice Personified" Baratheon.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

He can have 2 of mine if he gets Winds out this year.

[SeanF]

Post

WRT the bias towards elites which (in my view, informs quite a lot of discussion about Slavers Bay), this is a good tweet from military historian Brett Devereaux.  To paraphrase him, the chance of you being a slave, about 9 in 10.  The chance of you being a Great Master, about 1 in 19,200.

 

 

 

 

Bret Devereaux

 

@BretDevereaux

 

The chance of you being a poor peasant farmer? About 9 in 10. The chances of leading a legion in battle? About 1 in 19,200. That's the thing about people imagining the past: they always imagine they'd be a noble. You'd be a peasant.

Edited April 13 by SeanF

[House Cambodia]

I'm not pro-slavery, BUT ....

 

I did mention earlier that some slaves in real life were well-treated, typically tutors and scribes in Ancient Greece. In ASOIAF there are examples of servants and peasants who had a decent life. The best example is maybe Old Nan. A serving girl/woman/crone all her life, she probably lived in greater safety and comfort than 97% of citizens in Westeros. Other serving staff in Winterfell and probably castles like Riverrun would also have had a more comfortable and secure life than the vast majority of freeholding peasants.

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

I'm not pro-slavery, BUT ....

 

I did mention earlier that some slaves in real life were well-treated, typically tutors and scribes in Ancient Greece. In ASOIAF there are examples of servants and peasants who had a decent life. The best example is maybe Old Nan. A serving girl/woman/crone all her life, she probably lived in greater safety and comfort than 97% of citizens in Westeros. Other serving staff in Winterfell and probably castles like Riverrun would also have had a more comfortable and secure life than the vast majority of freeholding peasants.

There were even cases of people selling themselves into slavery, to wealthy Roman citizens.  Intelligent slaves had good prospects, as scribes, doctors, accountants, business managers.  And if freed, they would be Roman citizens.  In the Imperial period, Imperial freedmen could rise very high.

I’m sure these slaves/freedmen have counterparts in Essos.  And, probably slave soldiers and overseers have privileges.  But, the vast majority (as in Rome), are fieldhands, bed slaves, miners, millworkers, menial servants, dung collectors etc. who are worked to death.  So to paraphrase Devereaux, your chance of being a privileged slave is perhaps 1 in 10, your chance of being worked to death perhaps 8 in 10.

I’m sure that people like the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, Martells, are good to their servants.  People like the Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons, much less so.

I’ve always thought Tyrion musing that the slavers aren’t that different to Westerosi lords says a lot about the Lannisters.  Tywin’s organising Tysha’s rape would be called Tuesday, in Meereen.  But, it would disgust someone like Ned or Edmure.

 

[House Cambodia]

^ Yes indeed. I made the point earlier that the institution of slavery is evil, but within that individual circumstances vary greatly, and there is considerable overlap between better-off slaves/serfs and put-upon free peasants.

 

For GRRM to recognise the complexity of society is to make him a good writer, not a pro-slaver!

Edited April 13 by House Cambodia

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

^ Yes indeed. I made the point earlier that the institution of slavery is evil, but within that individual circumstances vary greatly, and there is considerable overlap between better-off slaves/serfs and put-upon free peasants.

 

For GRRM to recognise the complexity of society is to make him a good writer, not a pro-slaver!

The well-born Meereenese, who offer to sell themselves to the Qartheen trader, or Xaro’s friend, no doubt expect it to be like a form of indentured service, with people who may in some cases be their relatives. Essentially their service is payment for free passage out of the city, and a payment to their families, who were pillaged by the slaves.

[Alden Rothack]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:20 PM, House Cambodia said:

^ Yes indeed. I made the point earlier that the institution of slavery is evil, but within that individual circumstances vary greatly, and there is considerable overlap between better-off slaves/serfs and put-upon free peasants.

 

For GRRM to recognise the complexity of society is to make him a good writer, not a pro-slaver!

In fact in some cases it was better to be the personal attendant of someone very powerful than be free but far from anyone important, the quaity of life for some upper tier servants was as good or better than that of poor nobiity.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

In fact in some cases it was better to be the personal attendant of someone very powerful than be free but far from anyone important, the quaity of life for some upper tier servants was as good or better than that of poor nobiity.

The man who empties the emperor's chamber pot may have more actual influence than the governor of a distant province.  In an autocracy, power depends upon proximity to the autocrat.

But, these are very special cases.

 

[Alden Rothack]

On 4/28/2024 at 8:58 PM, SeanF said:

The man who empties the emperor's chamber pot may have more actual influence than the governor of a distant province.  In an autocracy, power depends upon proximity to the autocrat.

But, these are very special cases.

 

the emperors servants were often high nobility themselves

but being the personal servants of a mid-tier noble was still very much worth having, particularly as they unlike household servants tended to travel with their employers, service was for a long time the second most common and by far most popular profession for a very good reason.

[Aldarion]

On 4/28/2024 at 9:58 PM, SeanF said:

The man who empties the emperor's chamber pot may have more actual influence than the governor of a distant province.  In an autocracy, power depends upon proximity to the autocrat.

But, these are very special cases.

 

Not really, as in the premodern societies emperors themselves often had very limited influence. It all depended on how society functioned.

[House Cambodia]

2 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

but being the personal servants of a mid-tier noble was still very much worth having, particularly as they unlike household servants tended to travel with their employers, service was for a long time the second most common and by far most popular profession for a very good reason.

Arya didn't have much influence in Harrenhal.

[Alden Rothack]

27 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Arya didn't have much influence in Harrenhal.

In the book Arya wasn't a personal servant, she was a general servant of dubious loyalty who was hiding her identity from anyone of influence, thats not a good example

[Alden Rothack]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Not really, as in the premodern societies emperors themselves often had very limited influence. It all depended on how society functioned.

yes and no, emperors were often the most powerful of the nobles but not more powerful than the nobility as a whole, in fact this was usually why they got the job in the first place and certainly how they managed to keep it.

no leader in history has ever had no limits to their power and influence, the king can do as he likes but a wise king won't and a follish king will often only do it once.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

yes and no, emperors were often the most powerful of the nobles but not more powerful than the nobility as a whole, in fact this was usually why they got the job in the first place and certainly how they managed to keep it.

no leader in history has ever had no limits to their power and influence, the king can do as he likes but a wise king won't and a follish king will often only do it once.

That, and there is an issue of administration and communication to consider. Further away from centre of power you were, more autonomy you had regardless of whether or how hard ruler may have been trying to establish authoritarian control.