![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yuranaRepost from tumblr.
So reading the Arya VIII chapter in ACoK made me think about the feudal system in Westeros and how is works. Before we jump in some words on what exactly the feudal system in medieval Europe was and why this post became two posts in the process of writing.
Disclaimer: I’m not a historian, just someone who really likes history! Also, this is a very simplified look at feudal society.
Feudal society can be said to be comprised of three classes: Lords, vassals, and serfs. The Lord is the one who actually owns the land and gives rights to use this land to his vassal in return for (usually military) service on from of a fief. In the case of Westeros this means that all lords are actually vassals of the King of the Seven Kingdoms and don't really own the land they live on, it's just a loan, except not really. I will get more into the relationship between king and lords in the second part of this post. Here I actually want to focus on the commoners of Westeros.
You see, the smallfolk not only does not own the land they are working on, they actually belong to the land. When a Lord grants the usage of land to his vassal this includes the people that live on it. They are not free, they are serfs. There is a difference between serfs and actual slaves though to modern eyes this difference can be quite blurry. Serfs are not only required to pay taxes to their lord and not allowed to leave his land, they are also required to lend their workforce when their lord demands it. In time of war they can be forced to fight for him. In return the lord is obligated to protect his people and make sure justice is served. One important thing to note is, that serf technically have the right to be heard by their Lord about grievances. However, the fulfillment of this right lies completely within the hands of their lord. Basically, it’s fine when you happen to live on the lands of someone fair and just and if not, that's just too bad.
Another important thing to note is, that not all commoners fall into the class of serf. The situation of a commoner in the city is very different from a peasant bound the lands of his lord. So one should take care not to conflate the situation of the craftsmen or merchants with that of the peasants. The same goes for people like Davos or Bronn, who might be looked down upon or operate outside of the law, but have the (however remote) chance of social mobility available to them.
How is this important to ASoIaF? This means for example (and here we get into the Arya chapters from ACoK) that once Tywin took over Harrenhall he was completely within his rights to round up the people living in the area and force them to work in his new castle. He is also within his rights to kill them or severely punish them, if they try to get away. And here the line between serf and slave becomes extremely blurry. As already said technically they could petition for justice, but only to their lord. So basically they would have to petition for justice to the person who is responsible for their mistreatment. Thus we return to the same theme I already mentioned when discussing knightly honor. In the social system of Westeros the weak are at the absolute mercy of the powerful. Knights are obligated through honor, to protect the weak. But if they don't how could "the weak" so anything about this? Lords are obligated to rule justly over their people, but again there is no system in place to do anything about it, if they don't. Again and again we hear about the mistreatment of the common people in Westeros: This is not a bug in the system because of times of war, this is everyday business.
The same goes for Tywin’s attack in the Riverlands. Basically what he is doing is not so much murder, but a property crime. It is not outrageous, because he kills people, it’s outrageous because he destroys the lands of another noble. Notably the people who come before the iron throne to complain are knights, who’s holdfast were destroyed. They bring the smallfolk along as witnesses, probably against their will. From Eddard XI in AGoT:
"Small wonder they had been so fearful; they had thought they were being dragged here to name Lord Tywin a red-handed butcher before a king who was his son by marriage. He wondered if the knights had given them a choice."
If Tywin had done the same on his own land, nobody would care. In fact, he probably has done the same on his own lands. We don’t know what happened to the smallfolk that was attached to House Tarbeck and House Reyne, but my guess is, it wasn’t good. And for that Tywin wasn’t condemned but applauded. He even got his own song.
Another example might be Bolton’s idea about ‘quite land quite rule’ (though we really don’t know too much about what went on in the Bolton’s lands). Roose Bolton obviously had no problem just going about raping a pretty peasant girl, because he felt like it. The important thing is that he never caused so much of a stir that Eddard Stark would have to do something about it. ‘Quite land quite rule’ is not about a peaceful life for the peasants, but about keeping things down so the Starks would not come looking what about is going on there.
And this brings me to the idea that sparked this whole post: That the attitude toward slavery in Westeros is incredibly hypocritical. While it is true that the peasants in Westeros are not technically slaves, they aren’t free either. Jorah Mormont might be condemned for selling his people as slaves, but the same nobles of Westeros who condemn this, overlook that the smallfolk are often treated like property, even if they are not bought or sold for money.
So reading the Arya VIII chapter in ACoK made me think about the feudal system in Westeros and how is works. Before we jump in some words on what exactly the feudal system in medieval Europe was and why this post became two posts in the process of writing.
Disclaimer: I’m not a historian, just someone who really likes history! Also, this is a very simplified look at feudal society.
Feudal society can be said to be comprised of three classes: Lords, vassals, and serfs. The Lord is the one who actually owns the land and gives rights to use this land to his vassal in return for (usually military) service on from of a fief. In the case of Westeros this means that all lords are actually vassals of the King of the Seven Kingdoms and don't really own the land they live on, it's just a loan, except not really. I will get more into the relationship between king and lords in the second part of this post. Here I actually want to focus on the commoners of Westeros.
You see, the smallfolk not only does not own the land they are working on, they actually belong to the land. When a Lord grants the usage of land to his vassal this includes the people that live on it. They are not free, they are serfs. There is a difference between serfs and actual slaves though to modern eyes this difference can be quite blurry. Serfs are not only required to pay taxes to their lord and not allowed to leave his land, they are also required to lend their workforce when their lord demands it. In time of war they can be forced to fight for him. In return the lord is obligated to protect his people and make sure justice is served. One important thing to note is, that serf technically have the right to be heard by their Lord about grievances. However, the fulfillment of this right lies completely within the hands of their lord. Basically, it’s fine when you happen to live on the lands of someone fair and just and if not, that's just too bad.
Another important thing to note is, that not all commoners fall into the class of serf. The situation of a commoner in the city is very different from a peasant bound the lands of his lord. So one should take care not to conflate the situation of the craftsmen or merchants with that of the peasants. The same goes for people like Davos or Bronn, who might be looked down upon or operate outside of the law, but have the (however remote) chance of social mobility available to them.
How is this important to ASoIaF? This means for example (and here we get into the Arya chapters from ACoK) that once Tywin took over Harrenhall he was completely within his rights to round up the people living in the area and force them to work in his new castle. He is also within his rights to kill them or severely punish them, if they try to get away. And here the line between serf and slave becomes extremely blurry. As already said technically they could petition for justice, but only to their lord. So basically they would have to petition for justice to the person who is responsible for their mistreatment. Thus we return to the same theme I already mentioned when discussing knightly honor. In the social system of Westeros the weak are at the absolute mercy of the powerful. Knights are obligated through honor, to protect the weak. But if they don't how could "the weak" so anything about this? Lords are obligated to rule justly over their people, but again there is no system in place to do anything about it, if they don't. Again and again we hear about the mistreatment of the common people in Westeros: This is not a bug in the system because of times of war, this is everyday business.
The same goes for Tywin’s attack in the Riverlands. Basically what he is doing is not so much murder, but a property crime. It is not outrageous, because he kills people, it’s outrageous because he destroys the lands of another noble. Notably the people who come before the iron throne to complain are knights, who’s holdfast were destroyed. They bring the smallfolk along as witnesses, probably against their will. From Eddard XI in AGoT:
"Small wonder they had been so fearful; they had thought they were being dragged here to name Lord Tywin a red-handed butcher before a king who was his son by marriage. He wondered if the knights had given them a choice."
If Tywin had done the same on his own land, nobody would care. In fact, he probably has done the same on his own lands. We don’t know what happened to the smallfolk that was attached to House Tarbeck and House Reyne, but my guess is, it wasn’t good. And for that Tywin wasn’t condemned but applauded. He even got his own song.
Another example might be Bolton’s idea about ‘quite land quite rule’ (though we really don’t know too much about what went on in the Bolton’s lands). Roose Bolton obviously had no problem just going about raping a pretty peasant girl, because he felt like it. The important thing is that he never caused so much of a stir that Eddard Stark would have to do something about it. ‘Quite land quite rule’ is not about a peaceful life for the peasants, but about keeping things down so the Starks would not come looking what about is going on there.
And this brings me to the idea that sparked this whole post: That the attitude toward slavery in Westeros is incredibly hypocritical. While it is true that the peasants in Westeros are not technically slaves, they aren’t free either. Jorah Mormont might be condemned for selling his people as slaves, but the same nobles of Westeros who condemn this, overlook that the smallfolk are often treated like property, even if they are not bought or sold for money.
