Paedrig wrote:Given the fact what is known about the social order of many early societies i think that de facto there existed an equivalent to "landed knights" during the times of the First Men.
Of course without some of the religious/ cultural aspects of knighthood, but in the end "kings" in early societies were also often only "big men" (or even in some aspects something like a bandit chef).
AGlumSon wrote:Maybe I didn't understand your question correctly, but when I read this I think of the Flints (one of the mountain clans in the North). It seems that they are using "the" and then the persons name or House Name to indicate the person in charge (i.e. the Ned, the Flint). Maybe this can give a nice spin to regular titles in the case of the First Men?
Paedrig wrote:I am sceptic concerning to this supposed "strong egalitarian society" of early cultures - allthough of course it depends what you mean.
If you speak about stone age and pre historic times, than i can not say anything because i have no much knowledge. But as far as i know often in societies which were supposed to be "egalitarian" this was often also an construction by (sometimes "more civilzed") outsiders or the egalitarian aspect was a retroperspective constrution.
A good example are the tribes of the germans - some ancient historiens like Tacitus (who want to use them as an example to warn and to teach the roman society) and later historiens (who pictured a rather unrealistic view) ignored the fact that in reality there was something like a nobility - and most known leaders and chiefs came from such families.
And i may be wrong but i pictured i the First Men a little bit more civilized than their remnants in the mountains of the moon.
Of course if the clans (nad to some extent also the Wildlings) are socialy a more or less correct picture of the First Men in their best times than i would be wrong...
DaimosofRedstone wrote:A good example are the tribes of the germans - some ancient historiens like Tacitus (who want to use them as an example to warn and to teach the roman society) and later historiens (who pictured a rather unrealistic view) ignored the fact that in reality there was something like a nobility - and most known leaders and chiefs came from such families.
Though the Germans seem to have been extremly averse to the idea of kingship or anything above the tribal things.
Arminius was murdered because he sought the crown, or so the histories tell us.
In fact one could make the fact that the 'nobility' you refer to was not nobility as a feudal society understands, that is leadership by right of blood, but instead leadership because those families had enough wealth that their scions could afford to mendle in politics without loosing meals over it.
stew31r wrote:Everything I've seen about the First Men before the Andal Conquest reminds me of Bronze Age Celts, who indeed did have kingdoms. They weren't huge, because they were still based around the tribe, but in the early celtic kingdoms there were essentially clans(banner houses) that controlled settlements and answered to the king of the tribe. While the early Celtic kingdoms also had trappings of a meritocracy in the way that leaders were selected and how wealth and prestige were handed out, they still had kings and chiefs and nobles, who enforced the laws, collected tribute, and led the tribe in war. The literature out there about the early Irish kingdoms would be a good reference point for this theory of the First Men.
Paedrig wrote:Yes, but setting aside the failures of 19th century historians and how they interprated the past (f. e. the idea of a "egalitarian" german warrior society were the best became leader/king - ignoring the existence of some sort of nobility) it is a fact that the different societies of the bronce age had already "High Kings" and beside this "kings" or other sort of lower nobels.
Our modern notions of these European cultures may be influenced by 18th century revisionist history, but perhaps so are Martin's. Which myth seems to fit best with what he's shown us of the First Men?
Paedrig wrote:Anyway the stories of kings, great families and gigantic buildings and other great project (like the wall f. e.) clearly indicates that the First Men were certainly better organized than the Wildlings or Mountain of the Moon Clan (who would never be able to do such things because they simply are a to unstable, fragmented and violent society).
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests