#valyrian slavery

[horizon-verizon]

This series of conflicts reached a bloody climax a thousand years ago in the Second Spice War, when three Valyrian dragonlords joined with their kin and cousins in Volantis to overwhelm, sack, and destroy Sarhoy, the great Rhoynar port city upon the Summer Sea. The warriors of Sarhoy were slaughtered savagely, their children carried off into slavery, and their proud pink city put to the torch. Afterward the Volantenes sowed the smoking ruins with salt so that Sarhoy might never rise again. The utter destruction of one of the richest and most beautiful of the cities of the Rhoyne, and the enslavement of her people, shocked and dismayed the remaining Rhoynar princes. “We shall all be slaves unless we join together to end this threat,” declared the greatest of them, Garin of Chroyane. This warrior prince called upon his fellows to join with him in a great alliance, to wash away every Valyrian city on the river. Only Princess Nymeria of Ny Sar spoke against him. “This is a war we cannot hope to win,” she warned, but the other princes shouted her down and pledged their swords to Garin. Even the warriors of her own Ny Sar were eager to fight, and Nymeria had no choice but to join the great alliance.

A World of Ice and Fire, pg. 22  

[ceriseo]

something about how every time a targ tries to enact real genuine reform to westeros/the dynasty as a whole everything crumples in on itself. viserys naming rhaenyra heir leading to the dance, ensuring that no woman will ever inherit the throne in her own right out of fear of it happening again. daeron 2 establishing a final peace with dorne, (ending the cycle of attempted war of conquest to tense peace to attempted war of conquest) but the inclusion of dornishmen in court being a catalyst for the blackfyre rebellions, igniting a new cycle of attempted conquest every generation or so. egg genuinely being a ruler for the people with the best intentions and then accidently causing the tragedy at summerhall (not even mentioning the fact that daeron 2 literally built summerhall...), his attempts to end the incest foiled by his own children who romanticize the old targs. bc no matter how much they want to change for the better, they are still targaryens of old valyria. they can't help but look back.

[lemonhemlock]

"alicent is evil for taking the dragon porn off the walls"

well thanks to eagle-eyed @kindhearted-ocean, we can see how miss girl was kind enough to leave the sex tapestries in viserys' room so as to not mess with his feng shui

it adds a layer of irony to hear daemon complaining about this with the kamasutra behind him in the background

screenshots taken from here

[imaginarianisms]

the valyrians in the days of old valyria were canonically just as accepting as the rhoynar were with queerness. btw

[swimmingferret]

urgh dany antis are so tiring, like why they pull out the ‘UMMM SHES FROM THE IMPERIAL FASCIST HOUSE’ as if asoiaf isnt based on fuckin feudal rules and literally everyone believes in the divine rights of kings and no dany isnt evil for believing shes the heir to westeros for being daughter of the king, its just how shit functions in a medieval society

[wodania]

“our towers, they rose up and set with the sun / our sermons, they burnt us with fiery tongues / we wrought our wings of metal, surprised when we fell,” eastward of eden by amelia day

“The Valyrians learned one deplorable thing from the Ghiscari: slavery. The Ghiscari whom they conquered were the first to be thus enslaved, but not the last. The burning mountains of the Fourteen Flames were rich with ore, and the Valyrians hungered for it: copper and tin for the bronze of their weapons and monuments; later iron for the steel of their legendary blades; and always gold and silver to pay for it all.” a world of ice and fire, ancient history: valyria’s children

“The freed slaves parted before her. “Mother,” they called from a hundred throats, a thousand, ten thousand. “Mother,” they sang, their fingers brushing her legs as she flew by. “Mother, mother, mother!”” a storm of swords, daenerys iv

[spacerockfloater]

“The Targaryens/ Valyrians are not white supremacists and can’t be compared to European Colonisers!”

Oh? My bad then. I must have them confused with some other white folks who thought their appearance made them superior, brought whole continents to heel, exploited the lands of others for their own greed, destroyed whole civilizations and enslaved vulnerable people who unfortunately lacked the advanced weapons of mass destruction they possessed.

“Well, the Andals and the First Men were also colonisers, so they deserved it!”

No way! Are you actually telling me that every race has a history of violence because human nature itself is corrupt and we’re no better than animals fighting for their place on this earth? That’s so crazy and original. By the way, are you saying that people deserved to get colonised and enslaved because they were fighting other people in order to survive? Are you suggesting these “savages” should have been contained by the righteous white folks who came there to better their lives? Not to mention that the Andals and the First Men came to Westeros 12,000 and 6,000 years ago respectively, while the Targaryens attacked Westeros barely 130 years ago (literally just 3 - 4 generations) from the Dance of the Dragons? So are you comparing the morality of the people who migrated here, who were so primitive that barely even possessed weapons of steel, with that of the most advanced civilization ever built in the ASOIAF universe? That’s so interesting! It’s almost as if the Andals and the First Men didn’t know any better until it was too late and were trying to find a land that could accommodate their millions of people, so they were essentially fighting for survival, whereas the Targaryens who came from a race that had evolved philosophically, politically, academically and technologically wise, possessed enough wealth and land to sustain their little family, yet still chose to go to war against the land that nurtured them out of pure greed! Hmmm. Do you also believe that the Greeks had it coming when they were enslaved by the Ottomans and should just let go of the past because it’s been so long since they regained their freedom (barely 200 years ago btw, after 4 centuries of slavery), because their Ancient Ancestral Tribes migrated to Greece and conquered the land 3,500 years ago, a little after the age of bronze? No? Then you might see why that kind thinking is flawed.

Stop defending these inbred bastards with your full chest. We get it. They look badass. We all have a fave war criminal but all of the Targs need to be put to the sword, along with their fucking lizards. Purposely denying the parallels between the Targaryens/ Valyrians and the Colonisers/ Conquerors of our world screams white saviour complex.

[davinamikaelsonalwaysandforever]

The tragedy of The Dance of the Dragons really is how a family, that should've stood by each other and look at the bigger picture to protect Westerors and its people, ultimately tore each other apart and used their magical and majestic creatures that made them great to fight their war in the name of vengeance and greed.

The mighty Tagrayens destroyed each other and their dragons, and for what? An iron chair? It's only when Daenerys Taragyen miraculously brings the dragons back into the world after over a century that House Targaryen at last gets a do-over.

Daenerys Taragyen, unlike her ancestors, doesn't use her dragons recklessly and out of greed and vengeance. She knows how dangerous and special these creatures are; she is not using them for powers sake, as the Valyrians did, or out of vengeance. As it was the case during the dance. It's really the opposite; Dany is using her dragons to right the wrongs of her ancestors, to finally put an end to oppression and slavery, and ultimately save humanity from the coming darkness, as Aegon the Dragon had foreseen it.

The irony really is that everyone wants to sit the Iron Throne, but they always forget the most important promise a ruler makes to its people. They are meant to be the “protector of the realm", yet all they ever did was tear it apart. And now winter is here, and Westerors needs a saviour more than ever in order to survive the ice-cold darkness.

And that's what makes Daenerys so special and different from her ancestors; it's her choices to do good, to respect her dragons and the sheer power and might she carries with them and not use that power out of her own pettiness, but in the effort to try and make the world a better place.

“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can't protect themselves?" - Daenerys III ASOS

(Artist: Kodabomb)

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Is there anything support the populat interpretation that old valriya and valryians in general are more feminist, and progressive than the rest in Asoiaf?

Anon, thank you! I've been wanting to address this for awhile, so I'm going to actually answer this really fully, with as many receipts as I can provide (this ended up being more of an essay than I intended, but hopefully it helps)

I think there's in fact plenty of evidence to suggest that Valyria and the Valyrians in general were anything but progressive. Valyria was an expansive empire with a robust slave trade that practiced incest based on the idea of blood supremacy/blood purity. All of these things are absolutely antithetical to progressivism. There is no way any empire practicing slavery can ever be called progressive. Now, the Targaryens of Dragonstone have since given up the practice of slavery, but they certainly still believe in the supremacy of Valyrian blood.

And I'll see the argument, well what's wrong with believing your blood is special if your blood really is special and magic? Which is just-- if anyone catches themselves thinking this, and you sincerely believe that GRRM intended to create a magically superior master race of hot blondes who deserve to rule over all other backwards races by virtue of their superior breeding which is reinforced through brother-sister incest, and you've convinced yourself this represents progressive values, then you might want to step away from the computer for a bit and do a bit of self reflection.

And remember-- what is special about this special blood? It gives the bearers the ability to wield sentient weapons of mass destruction. It's also likely, according to the most popular theories, the result of blood magic involving human sacrifice. So there is a terrible price to pay for this so-called supremacy. Would any of us line up to be sacrificed to the Fourteen Flames so that the Valyrians can have nukes?

And if you are tempted by the idea that a woman who rides a dragon must inherently have some sort of power-- that is true. A woman who rides a dragon is more powerful than a woman who does not ride a dragon, and in some cases, more powerful than a man who does not ride a dragon, but that does not make her more powerful than a man who also rides a dragon. Dragonriding remained a carefully guarded privilege, and Targaryen women who might otherwise become dragonriders were routinely denied the privilege (despite the oft repeated "you cannot steal a dragon," when Saera Targaryen attempted to claim a dragon from the dragonpit, she was thrown into a cell for the attempted "theft,"words used by Jaehaerys). The dragonkeepers were established explicitly to keep anyone, even those of Targaryen blood, from taking them without permission. Any "liberation" that she has achieved is an illusion. What she has gained is the ability to enact violence upon others who are less privileged, and this ability does not save her from being the victim of gender based violence herself.

Politically speaking, it is also true that Valyria was a "freehold," in that they did not have a hereditary monarchy, but instead had a political structure akin to Ancient Athens (which was itself democratic, but not at all progressive or feminist). Landholding citizens could vote on laws and on temporary leaders, Archons. Were any of the lords freeholder women? We don't know. If we take Volantis as an example, the free city that seems to consider itself the successor to Valyria, the party of merchants, the elephants, had several female leaders three hundred years ago, but the party of the aristocracy, the tigers, the party made up of Valyrian Old Blood nobility, has never had a female leader. Lys, the other free city, is known for it's pleasure houses, which mainly employ women kidnapped into sexual slavery (as well as some young men). It is ruled by a group of magisters, who are chosen from among the wealthiest and noblest men in the city, not women. There does not seem to be a tradition of female leadership among Valyrians, and that's reflected by Aegon I himself, who becomes king, rather than his older sister-wife, Visenya. And although there have been girls named heir, temporarily, among the pre-Dance Targaryens, none were named heir above a trueborn brother aside from Rhaenyra, a choice that sparked a civil war. In this sense, the Targaryens are no different from the rest of Westeros.

As for feminism or sexual liberation, there's just no evidence to support it. We know that polygamy was not common, but it was also not entirely unheard of, but incest, to keep the bloodlines "pure," was common. Incest and polygamy are certainly sexual taboos, both in the real world and in Westeros, that the Valyrians violated, but the violation of sexual taboos is not automatically sexually liberated or feminist. Polygamy, when it is exclusively practiced by men and polyandry is forbidden (and we have no examples of Valyrian women taking multiple husbands, outside of fanfic), is often abusive to young women. Incest leads to an erosion of family relationships and abusive grooming situations are inevitable. King Jaehaerys' daughters are an excellent case study, and the stories of Saera and Viserra are particularly heartbreaking. Both women were punished severely for "sexual liberation," Viserra for getting drunk and slipping into her brother Baelon's bed at age fifteen, in an attempt to avoid an unwanted marriage to an old man. She was not punished because she was sister attempting to sleep with a brother, but because she was the wrong sister. Her mother, the queen had already chosen another sister for Baelon, and believed her own teenage daughter was seducing her brother for nefarious reasons. As a sister, Viserra should have been able to look to her brother for protection, but as the product of an incestuous family, Viserra could only conceive of that protection in terms of giving herself over to him sexually.

Beyond that, sexual slavery was also common in ancient Valyria, a practice that persisted in Lys and Volantis, with women (and young men) trafficked from other conquered and raided nations. Any culture that is built on a foundation of slavery and which considers sexual slavery to be normal and permissible, is a culture of normalized rape. Not feminist, not progressive.

I think we get the picture! so where did this idea that Valyrians are more progressive come from? I think there are two reasons. One, the fandom has a bit of a tendency to imagine Valyrians and their traditions in opposition to Westerosi Sevenism, and if Sevenism is fantasy Catholicism, and the fantasy Catholics also hate the Valyrian ways, they must hate them because those annoying uptight religious freaks just hate everything fun and cool, right? They hate revealing clothing, hate pornographic tapestries, hate sex outside of marriage, hate bastards. So being on Sevenism's shit-list must be a mark of honor, a sign of progressive values? But it's such a surface level reading, and a real misunderstanding of the medieval Catholic church, and a conflating of that church with the later Puritan values that many of us in the Anglosphere associate with being "devout." For most of European history, the Catholic church was simply The Church, and the church was, ironically, where you would find the material actions which most closely align with modern progressive values. The church cared for lepers, provided educations for women, took care of orphans, and fed the poor. In GRRM's world, which is admittedly more secular than the actual medieval world, Sevenism nevertheless has basically the same function, feeding the poor instead of, you know, enslaving them.

Finally, I blame the shows. While Valyrians weren't a progressive culture, Daenerys Targaryen herself held relatively progressive individual values by a medieval metric. She is a slavery abolitionist, she elevates women within her ranks, and she takes control of her own sexuality (after breaking free from her Targaryen brother). But Daenerys wasn't raised as a Targaryen. She grew up an orphan in exile, hearing stories of her illustrious ancestors from her brother, who of the two did absorb a bit of that culture, and is not coincidentally, fucked up, abusive, and misogynistic. He feels a sexual ownership over his sister, arranges a marriage for her, and even after her marriage, feels entitled to make decisions on her behalf. It is only after breaking away from Viserys that Dany comes into her own values. Having once been a mere object without agency of her own, she determines to save others from that fate and becomes an abolitionist. But because Game of Thrones gave viewers very little exposure to Targaryens aside from Daenerys, House Targaryen, in the eyes of most show watchers, is most closely associated with Dany and her freedom-fighter values. And as for Rhaenyra in House of the Dragon, being a female heir does not make her feminist or progressive, although it is tempting to view her that way when she is juxtaposed against Aegon II. Her "sexual liberation" was a lesson given to her by her uncle Daemon, a man who had an express interest in "liberating" her so that she would sleep with him, it was not a value she was raised with. In fact, she was very nearly disinherited for it, and was forced into a marriage with a gay man as a result of said "liberation." She had no interest in changing succession laws to allow absolute primogeniture, no interest in changing laws or norms around bastardy despite having bastards; she simply viewed herself as an exception. Rhaenyra's entire justification for her claim is not the desire to uplift women, bring peace and stability to Westeros, or even to keep her brother off the throne, it is simply that she believes she deserves it because her father is the king and he told her she could have it, despite all tradition and norms, and in spite of the near certain succession crisis it will cause. Whether she is right or wrong, absolutism is not progressive.

And let me just say, none of this means that you can't enjoy the Valyrians or think that they're fun or be a fan of house Targaryen. This insistence that Targaryens are the progressive, feminist (read: morally good) house seems by connected to the need of some fans to make their favorite characters unproblematic. If the Valyrians are "bad," does that make you a bad person for enjoying them? Of course not. But let's stop the moral grandstanding about the "feminist" and "progressive" Valyrians in a series that is an analogue for medieval feudalism. Neither of those things can exist under the systems in place in Westeros, nor could they have existed in the slavery based empire of conquest that was old Valyria.

[horizon-verizon]

Can someone please explain to me how all Valyrians, innocent or otherwise, deserved to be wiped out and the descendants of survivors deserve to be wiped out because Valyria practiced slavery, but also Dany is a mad tyrant for killing literal slavers (from the literal system that Valyria adopted slavery from) while also trying to "turn slavers back into men" on her quest to end slavery? I don't get it. If these people really think Valyria somehow was the one-true-slave-state, shouldn't they be cheering Dany on for using the source of their former power to "redeem" or "atone" for them? idk I just feel like if she were a man these people would be eating that shit up.

Bc it's all just a way to discredit Dany as much as all those sexist hypocrisies against women in the real world serve to discredit women in the moment and build up into its own ready weapon to use against women. Hope this made sense.

Yes, they would eat this up if she were a man bc the irony of Dany doing this has already been a thing in sci fi fantasy of any subgenre or medium: a descendant or active individual of bad actors use the same tools they used to dominate others or do some other sort of wrong ends to save or "fix" and/or "restore" some sort of preferable "world" order. It's been a trope. People mistake Dany's arc for the In the Blood trope:

Characters appear to be able to inherit their parents' personalities, behaviour, and morality, in addition to their physical traits.

or more specifically the Villanous Lineage trope where:

Sometimes, fictional characters inherit their evilness or immorality from their parents. Even initially good characters like the All-Loving Hero can eventually turn evil thanks to this trope. A Knight in Shining Armor is at risk of going insane or over to The Dark Side, if a parent or grandparent was a Villain by Default or member of an Evil Race. Usually, up until The Reveal (which might be delivered in the form of I Am Your Father), the character had a solid reputation, moral compass, and personality, capable of using Heroic Willpower to resist just about any evil supernatural coercion.

Because they already defaulted the entire Valyrians to be almost an inherently and uniquely, amoral, "evil" archfamily when the truth is much more "banal" and nuanced simultaneously.

Most Targs did not "go mad", there were those who were pushed towards paranoia and even fewer to psychosis bc of extreme circumstances, some of them even possibly involving rape (Aerys and Viserys[III], Dany's brother); they did not colonize they just conquered like many other Westerosi houses did, esp the Starks and Ironborn and Reachmen; assimilation into Andal-FM patriarchy to rule it similarly to (but actually several steps further) how ancestors have taken the rule of religious tolerance of several different religions to easier prevent serious uprisings as well as not having that strong of a religious--seemingly--fervor as other cultures.

[sunny12th]

I don't think we need a monologue or explicit statement from Dany renouncing the Targaryens of Old Valyria for owning slaves and the Old Valyrians for spreading slavery through Essos. She never thinks about them, she doesn't have them on a pedestal in her mind. She has a favorable viewpoint of her immediate family, mostly Rhaegar, that she was taught by her brother. I dont think we need to see Dany explicitly state for the readers that her slave owning ancestors were evil and she disagrees with them because her actions show this.

[branwendaughterofllyr]

I really thought we were past people drinking the Valyrian exceptionalism kool-aid, but I guess we will never be. Look at me. Look me straight in the eyes. The family from a doomed empire built on slavery and conquest that practices incest to keep the blood pure that goes mad and has dragon babies and periodically blows itself up is to be looked at with a critical eye- look at me! don't look away! Think critically for five seconds, for the love of George

[tell-them-the-north-remembers]

Targ stans who go on and on about "The blood of Old Valyria" and "filthy Andal blood and traditions" always manage to baffle me when they start talking about religion in Westeros.

Like, High Valyrians with their Valyrian Gods partaked in human sacrifice, human experiments, unimaginable types of torture, slavery, eugenics, all types of familial incest and were basically fantasy nazis in their society built upon the enslavement and forced hard labor of the races they saw as "lesser" but clearly, the evilest religion is the one where people pray to the humanoid aspects of their God and read their bejeweled little book.

[agentrouka-blog]

What do you think about the newest BNF theory that Valyrians were first the slaves of the Great Empire of the Dawn and later revoltet against their masters?

Also the supposed theory that the reason why did Aenar escaped Valyria with his family was beacuse he wanted to end a slavery there and Make a deal with a faceless man?

Um.

I think as theories they are both ultimately irrelevant? 🤷🏻‍♀️

If the Valyrians had been slaves before they became slavers... well, that's fairly straight-forward and another example of how having been a victim doesn't translate to being incapable of victimizing others. We have lots of examples of that in the main series too.

As for Aenar... well, what's the point? It's not needed to explain anything, and it seems unclear what deal the Faceless Men would provide to the specialest slaver with the purest heart and the least oppressive dragons? They are... assassins? Did they cause the Doom and give Daenys psychic powers on top? Did Aenar require them as movers to get out of there twelve years ahead of the Doom? And if Aenar was so (out of nowhere) alienated from his culture and its focus on domination, why didn't he pass that on to his kids?

Because it sure seems like they kept all the Valyrian Values, and then his descendents made sure to recreate them in Westeros with the Iron Throne.

The Targaryens were of pure Valyrian blood, dragonlords of ancient lineage. Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria (114 BC), Aenar Targaryen sold his holdings in the Freehold and the Lands of the Long Summer and moved with all his wives, wealth, slaves, dragons, siblings, kin, and children to Dragonstone, a bleak island citadel beneath a smoking mountain in the narrow sea. At its apex Valyria was the greatest city in the known world, the center of civilization. Within its shining walls, twoscore rival houses vied for power and glory in court and council, rising and falling in an endless, subtle, oftsavage struggle for dominance. (The World of Ice and Fire - The Reign of the Dragons: The Conquest)

His "goodness" would have zero impact and therefore be pointless and therefore irrelevant and therefore.... why?

Oh, is it to whitewash the Targaryens again?

[aegor-bamfsteel]

It may be a HC that will never be confirmed, but I believe that Daenerys's dragon eggs hatched because she sacrificed a live woman on a pyre, who happened to be a slave for "conquest" (like the ones her valyrian ancestors killed by thousands) just as I believe that dragon fetuses are because of experiments to create chimeras. Maybe that's how dragonbind works, giving a life in exchange for claiming a dragon

I think you’re right that dragon binding/hatching/chimeras involve blood sacrifice; a lot of what we know of ASOIAF magic involves it (not just dragons; but the Red priests use blood to create winds and curses; it seems certain people can see the future after ingesting blood; the Children of the Forest allegedly created the Neck and the Broken Arm using a mass blood sacrifice). It’s GRRM’s fantasy way of exploring how certain people gained fantastic power by exploiting, dehumanizing and killing others. Jorah finding Dæny “surrounded by blackened logs and bits of glowing ember and the burnt bones of man and woman and stallion” seems compelling that given dragons are “fire made flesh” all 3 were used to hatch them (and maybe Dány, she’s surrounded by an eggshell of dying fire and dead flesh herself). Then there’s the dragonhorn that needs to be claimed with blood and seems to burn whoever blows it (if what Moqorro is saying is true), which could be evidence that another “fire and flesh” ritual involving human sacrifice is needed to control dragons just as it is to hatch them. Mirri mocked Dány killing the horse for Drogo, saying “by itself the blood means nothing”, was defiant when Dàny had her bound to the pyre and dumping oil on her like kindling, but once Dàny had her bound to the pyre and said “it is not your screams I want, only your life. I remember what you told me. Only death can pay for life” she became afraid. It’s the intentional, agonizing ritual immolation of another person that can bring forth dragons. This kind of mentality is based on dehumanizing others (literally killing them and using their body/spirit to make a weapon) for power, which, you’re right, does overlap with slavery and conquest.

[nrilliree]

I don’t understand TG’s obsession with Luke being punished. He didn’t exactly come out of that fight unscathed. Obviously not nearly as bad as what happened to Aemond but, Aemond broke his nose and then Alicent tried to attack him and take his eye out. Imagine being 7 and the fucking Queen disobeys the King’s order in front a room full of people so, she can attack you with a Valyrian steel dagger that she wants to use to try and gouge your eye out with. Like? Aside from maybe lightly scolding him, I’d say he was punished enough after Alicent tied to inflict her own.

What's sick to me is the thought that people living in the 21st century actually think that the best way to punish a 6/7-year-old child would be to gouge out his eye/cut off a limb/send him into slavery to serve the TG (because that's what it would be)/murder him dragon. Yes, Luke should be punished. And I think he would have stayed if Alicent hadn't screwed it up. She attacked Rhaenyra and stabbed her to the bone while trying to attack Lucerys (the heir of Driftmark while she was in Drftmark). How to punish Luke for hurting the king's child without punishing Alicent for hurting the king's child? Gouge out Lucerys' eye and cut off Alicent's hand?

The truth is that they couldn't find out who started the fight and how because they didn't have monitoring, lol. They had five children who might say otherwise. The facts were that Aemond had slipped away without permission to take Vhagar and had lost an eye, and four children had been injured, and Aemond had been charged with grave slander. Jace's head had been smashed and Aemond had threatened to kill him, and the truth was that Jace was higher in the line of succession and importance in the family than Aemond as heir to the throne. So Viserys would have to severely punish everyone, including Aemond, or punish no one at all. And since Viserys didn't like conflict, he chose the easier option. And Luke might have been punished if it weren't for what Alicent did.