ancient, medieval and the dance of the dragons
throughout history, asoiaf and the dance of the dragons, we have this consistent trend of women shunned for yearning to have agency and control. just as much, we also see the anger of a patriarchal system regarding the wanting of the opposite sex. women wish to have a say in what happens to them and this causes a rift in society, for it is as said controlled by men. well, let’s dive into the reasons for why this is.
in ‘goddesses, whores, wives and slaves’, sarah pomeroy states, “women pervade nearly every genre of classical literature, yet often the bias of the author distorts the information”;
this much is true when you consider that women are heavily involved in society. from being mothers, to being hunter and gatherer to even being part of literate and philosophical communities. yet there is this negating of women’s importance in the roles they had served. in short, the recording of early literature restricts women as secondary, in line with the glorification of the male sex.
this is a travesty for many reasons. for one, it is within written word such as literature that records societal beliefs and cultures. another is that these societal records become a bench – mark for the communities to follow. conclusively, these relay a way of life that become the example for other communities; which then create consistency of beliefs, roles, attitudes in the way of life. hence, a community learns to act a certain way, it becomes a foundation in their culture.
it is because of this that leads us to surmise that women are at a disadvantage, because if they are then written by men who have a certain perspective about women–then women are going to be unheard. and this will taint the records and paint them as fictional thoughts of misogyny. women have no part of those perspectives, for they were recorded by creatures who controlled, contained and exploited their way of life in the molds they created.
this is why in ancient literature, we see how often women are relegated to two categories. the first category is where women are considered nothing better than objects; a means of advancement by using these women to further their agendas and pawns. hence, women are bound to the roles of being a possession to the powerful men around them.
quite certainly, reading the texts make it obvious that their titular roles in society are either being prizes in marital contests or being someone’s joyous loot in battle. the more authority they had of these ‘properties’ and ‘possessions’, the more they were worthy of prestige and respect within their wider society. made by men for men.
a good example is emperor augustus’s daughter julia the elder. within the standards of ancient rome, being the daughter of her father meant that he had absolute control of her life, she was his property. everything about julia the elder controlled, because she was from the moment she was born— a political tool to her father’s plans.
all her marriages were arranged by him, her decisions are influenced by him—even whom she slept with was political because her body was a vehicle of political convention. the moment she stepped out of his mold, he punished her and for all his care for her, shunned her to be unwanted by him and the vision of rome he was building.
just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures.
it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.
a good example for this is clytemnestra, wife of agamemnon. in the telling of the trojan war by greek tragedian aeschylus, odysseus visits the underworld and finds his deceased comrade agamemnon and when he asks him how he died, agamemnon says that it is clytemnestra and her lover aegisthus—whom she takes to lover in order to not only avenge her daughter’s death at agamemnon’s hands, but also to have power and agency.
which agamemnon laments to odysseus, telling him that he should be careful when returning home for he was doomed by his wife and warns it could happen to odysseus too, yet he says odysseus’s wife penelope is ‘not that kind of women’; which to agamemnon’s thoughts, his wife was one of trickery doom which lead to his death, someone who was not a good wife.
in agamemnon’s eyes, penelope was someone his wife would not betray odysseus in such a violent way. the homeric version supports this narrative, that she was a faithful and steadfast wife to odysseus in many years that passed. she was used as a paragon of virtues of ancient greek societies which shunned women that are like clytemnestra.
as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval.
in the paper ‘salic law, french queenship and the defense of women in the late middle ages’ by craig taylor, he cites various precedences such as the lex salica by the salian franks which becomes a measure of exclusionary of women from inheriting active political power. though slowly forgotten generations later, the french crown used it as a way to defend itself from the incursion of other foreign states. hence this was an attempt to give the valois monarchy a strong case against the english, who aimed to have access to france by using female descent.
this exclusion of female inheritance of ancestral land was constantly defended by intellectual figures, mostly men. they would use the fact that it is too sacred of a position, citing that women cannot be anointed with holy chism. a queen would then lack a sacral qualities, the divine authority anointed by god to carry out the duties done by a king, as per jean golein in ‘traité du sacre’;
when that no longer was sufficient, they used the excuse that women were excluded due to the fact that men had far greater skill and qualities that were superior to women. as per usual, the argument had come from ancient sources such as aristotle who claimed that men far superseded women in absolutely anything.
french philosopher nicole oresme used this basis to perpetuate that women were feeble as they are malicious, unwise and irrational to the point that all their advice were confined to petty domesticity—hence, women had no place in the positions of public office and power. it is easier to understand why there is quite a bias regarding women gaining not only authority but a voice. the ancients have relegated women as nothing more than a passing footnote;
they were written off to be not as important as the men who declare their creation of far greater deeds in wars and battles than the women that were cradling society with their existence and sacrifices. now let us apply the context of the anarchy, the struggle for the english throne between empress matilda and stephen of blois and that of rhaenyra targaryen against her brother aegon ii targaryen.
rhaenyra targaryen in many years as heir and then queen at war–faced threats and usurpation as empress matilda had in her own lifetime. both women, despite being legitimate heirs chosen and annointed by their royal parents, faced substantial challenges rooted in the societal norms and power dynamics of their respective realms.
empress matilda was the designated heir to henry i of england, rhaenyra was designated as the heir by her father, king viserys i targaryen. however, the same fragile skepticism and fear of a female ruler were deeply ingrained in both english and westerosi cultures during their times. in their authority as women in power, they were both considered ‘others’ in their society.
empress matilda's assertiveness and pride in her station were perceived as unlikable traits, similar to how rhaenyra's ambition and determination to be both heir and queen were labeled as undesirable and haughty. in both cases, women who deviated from the prescribed roles dictated by men's ideals were seen as divergent to the context of their patriarchal societies. and equally so, shunned as deviants from the natural course of existence.
additionally, their experiences of living and governing in foreign lands made them a topic of suspicion by their own nobles. matilda's time in the holy roman empire and normandy, and rhaenyra’s many years away in dragonstone had become a means of isolation, which found her a foreigner in her own lands.
just as much her marriage to the daemon targaryen was considered a frightening prospect due to her husband's reputation as a rogue and the biases of people around them. matilda’s own marriage to geoffrey of anjou were viewed with suspicion and uncertainty—-a sources of concern in potential foreign influence from anjou, geoffrey's own fief.
just as empress matilda faced resistance from men like stephen of blois and his loyal nobles, rhaenyra was contested by her half-brother aegon ii and his supporters. the feudal system played a significant role in both instances, with the give-and-take between lords being used to bypass the women's legal claims. this exploitation of the feudal system worked against them, undermining their rightful positions.
both matilda and rhaenyra had to contend with the opportunistic nature of their opponents, who capitalized on the confusion and power vacuum following the passing of their fathers. stephen's ability to make quick and decisive decisions worked to his advantage, just as the swift action of alicent hightower in crowning her son aegon ii in allowed him to gain an upper hand. matilda's and rhaenyra's efforts to gather and consolidate military support were hindered by logistical challenges and the scattering of their bases of support, with the spread of war and battle.
medieval society was deeply entrenched in misogyny, a prejudice that cast a shadow over the capabilities and aspirations of women. one that women from ancient and medieval eras such as empress matilda had to contend with. this bias was evident even in fictional worlds, relating to the foundations and struggles echoing ancient and medieval world structures.
the case of rhaenyra targaryen, whose claim to the iron throne was overshadowed by the ascension of her brother, aegon ii targaryen, had created a horrible outcome for westeros. the prevailing belief in the inferiority of women was perpetuated by traditional norms, which dictated that leadership and power were inherently male domains.
and this ideals were not only founded in ridiculous lies, but further exposed the biases of men who cannot handle the thought of women being far more capable and equipped in statecraft than men. women like rhaenyra faced a relentless struggle against societal constraints that questioned their ability to exercise agency in their own right.
her eventual usurpation by aegon ii and the greens was not only a reflection of patriarchal norms but also a power struggle within the context of dynastic politics. the deeply ingrained misogyny founded on ‘tradition’ did nothing but contribute to the undermining of rhaenyra's legitimacy, allowing her brother to seize power, despite her stronger claim and potential qualifications.
although, both rhaenyra and matilda were declared queen and still the realm of men shun their wanting to use it. matilda was not ever formalized as queen of england and rhaenyra was taken off the roll of kings. though their bloodlines had won the game of thrones, there was far too much progress that could have come with their anointing as the first recognized queen regnants of their respective kingdoms.
this would cause a shift that exposed their kingdoms and thrones to more patriarchal influences which did irreparable damage. from war to war, to women relegated back into fighting for power behind men. the years that later passed ensured the perpetual deprivation of women’s right to rule and reign as in their own right. the damage done by such precedence for both kingdoms and as well as others would take far too long of a time to truly ever heal.
