Author: stevenattewell

How much land would the faith own?

It’s hard to say, because the historical context by which the Faith of the Seven came to Westeros is entirely different than the context by which the Catholic Church became hegemonic across Western Europe. A very quick example: there’s no Westerosi equivalent of the Donation of Pepin and thus no equivalent of the Papal States.

Notably the Faith seems to have relatively little political authority even where it has physical structures – the Hightowers rule the land on which the Starry Sept is located, and the Kings of Westeros rule the land on which the Great Sept of Baelor stands, but we can see this even on a more modest level. Despite the fact that Stoney Sept’s economy is probably based around it being a religious center, the septons don’t rule the town – rather, there’s a knight of Stoney Sept. This suggests that the Faith’s landholding hasn’t extended to lordship, which is an important point.

On the other hand, if we look at the septries we encounter in the series, they do have property, both real estate and otherwise: the Quiet Isle has “terraced fields, with fishponds down below and a windmill above…sheep grazing on the hillside,” and has orchards and vineyards besides; the sept where the Brotherhood Without Banners corners Septon Utt was quite large: “Before the war we were four-and-forty, and this was a prosperous place. We had a dozen milk cows and a bull, a hundred beehives, a vineyard and an apple arbor.” And given this is a feudal society, there has to be some sort of formalized relationship that underpins it – but whether that tenure is freehold or something else, we don’t know.

Finally, there is a cryptic comment in WOIAF that “many lords complained of unscrupulous septries and septons making free with the wealth and property of their neighbors and those they preached to,” prior to the Reconciliation of Jaehaerys. So it may well be that the Revolt of the Faithful and the Reconciliation severely curbed the position of the Faith compared to the medieval Catholic Church. 

Could the acute disparity in numbers between Volantene Freeborn & Slaves represent the lingering demographic impact of disastrous losses during the Tiger Wars, exacerbated by the “Blood Purity” taboo? (which ensures that Freeholder women who look beyond their own city or class for spouses are held to be polluting themselves and thereby diminishing the numbers of Freeholders still further, rather than helping to regenerate their class).

It could…except we see pretty much the same ratio in all of the Free Cities that have slavery, as well as the cities of Slaver’s Bay, etc. Also, at no point when Tyrion or Quentyn are in Volantis or when Aegon is being quizzed on Volantis does anyone mention that.  

“So the political-economy mystery here is what would have caused such a sharp increase in demand to meet the increase in supply.” The need for Unsullied and other slave soldiers?

Plausible, except that we don’t see Unsullied used in large numbers inside the Free Cities other than in Qohor. And we need to explain not just where Astapor is offloading its “supply,” but also Yunkai and Meereen. 

I’m trying to wrap my head around how many slaves are in Volantis, the Three Daughters, and Slaver’s Bay. Given the volatility of that kind of societal makeup and how long Volantis has been around, I just can’t believe those societies have been that dysfunctional for thousands of years. My theory is that the conquest of Sarnor/Century of Blood created a massive glut in the global slave trade that really warped the political economy of southern Essos. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Well, we know that the societies of Slaver’s Bay were reconstructed after the Doom:

“What now remains of the once-proud empire of Old Ghis is a paltry thing—a few cities clinging like sores to Slaver’s Bay and another that pretends to be Old Ghis come again. For after the Doom came to Valyria, the cities of Slaver’s Bay were able to throw off the last of the Valyrian shackles, ruling themselves in truth rather than playing at it. And what remained of the Ghiscari swiftly reestablished their trade in slaves—though where once they won them by conquest, now they purchased and bred them.”

And certainly the rise of the Dothraki, and the way their khalasars’ raiding and migratory patterns “industrialized” the acquisition of captives which the cities of Slaver’s Bay would then “process” into skilled slaves for the Free Cities’ markets, would have probably contributed to an increase in supply of slaves. 

However, we also know that the Valyrian Empire was a slave society stretching back thousands of years, so it’s not like Volantis et al. just started buying slaves for the first time. So the political-economy mystery here is what would have caused such a sharp increase in demand to meet the increase in supply. 

Given that the people of the Gift (the Gifters?) owe their incomes to the Night’s Watch, would they also go to Molestown or some such for the winters instead of the mostly empty town outside Winterfell? I’m assuming there aren’t that many Gifters, but would the Warden of the North be compelled to provide for their safety at his doorstep during the winter periods even though they don’t pay taxes/rents to him?

Well, it’s a bit harder to say now since the Gift has been so badly depopulated over time, but I would imagine that would be the case. After all, even the most southerly portions of the Gift are more than 500 miles from Winterfell – and in the middle of a Northern winter, the odds of dying from exposure or starvation on that voyage are very high. 

If the Night’s Watch is a client state and not a vassal of the monarchs of Westeros, doesn’t that undermine the argument that the Ides of Marsh was justified? Even within a client state, the head of state / government still generally has latitude to conduct foreign policy, and it takes explicit direction from the patron / imperial state to countermand, undermine, or replace the leader.

I don’t think “client state” is quite right – for example, the King on the Iron Throne cannot replace the leader of the Night’s Watch; only an election by the brothers of the Watch can make a Lord Commander. 

And the Ides of March was never justified on the grounds that Jon Snow was betraying the King on the Iron Throne – Marsh et al. were justifying their actions on the grounds that Jon Snow had violated the internal customs and taboos of the Night’s Watch. 

Sorry to intrude but, I’ve been trying to understand how the situation for the people living (or lived) in the Gifts would be and in one of your answers you said that “the tenants don’t owe fealty to Winterfell, as technically the Gifts are separate from the North.” that would mean that they wouldn’t be ruled by Winterfell? And what about KL and the king? Can he demand taxes, enforce laws, command them, or whatever alse? Or are they like a little colony that only respond to the Night’s Watch

The Gifts are the fiefdoms of the Night’s Watch, and were specifically ceded by the Starks of Winterfell to the Night’s Watch so that the incomes from those lands would support the mission of the Watch. As the Night’s Watch is a neutral, independent organization, so too are its lands neutral and independent.

As for the King on the Iron Throne, while the Night’s Watch receives royal patronage in the form of funds, recruits, etc., it’s not directly under the king’s control either. Hence why Tywin couldn’t order the Watch to elect Janos Slynt but instead tried to use economic pressure, and why Cersei was arranging for Jon Snow’s assassination rather than execution.