Heresy 143 Winter Solstice Edition

[Black Crow]

The last thing that I have noticed in the World Book (so far) is that the Pentoshi are limited by their treaty with Braavos to a mere twenty warships. Could someone explain to me how Illyrio Mopatis was going to transport the largest Dothraki khalasar across the Narrow Sea to invade Westeros with only twenty warships at his disposal?

As to whether Messrs Varys and Mopatis have a different cunning plan in mind to the one Tyrion was told about, and what it really is, I don't know, but I would make the following observations:

1. The Pentoshi are limited to 20 warships, but to transport an army and especially one so heavy on horses you don't want warships at all but fat, deep-hulled merchant ships and even, if you're using the Stepstones, open barges. Then it comes down not to treaties but to gold. All that the 20 warships are doing is convoying the transports

2. If said partnership was actually intending to use Aegon and the Golden Company all along then the Dothraki still make a lot of sense by focussing attention on Danaerys [as it initially did] and then while she and her golden horde are steadily working their way westwards, Aegon slips under the radar and lands in time to be the saviour of Westeros.

But plans of course rarely survive contact with the enemy and the more cunning the plan the more likely to go horribly wrong.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Why would the stones be bloody? I just noticed that. If Lyanna is at Starfall, and the fight occurred outside of the tower, why would Ned and Howland be lugging bloody stones about the place?

Perhaps they were reddish in color. ("Red Mountains of Dorne," you know.) Or perhaps that's the mystery of "but for Howland Reed:"

Ned to Bran: "[T]he Sword of the Morning... would have killed me, but for [the fact that] Howland Reed [pulled a tower of joy down upon his head]."

[superunknown5]

Perhaps they were reddish in color. ("Red Mountains of Dorne," you know.) Or perhaps that's the mystery of "but for Howland Reed:"

Ned to Bran: "[T]he Sword of the Morning... would have killed me, but for [the fact that] Howland Reed [pulled a tower of joy down upon his head]."

Maybe it's not a description, but a curse. Like "damn those bloody stones..."

[Black Crow]

Oh indeed and that's why I'd be very reluctant to read anything into the "bloody stones". I think its enough that the tower is a place of blood.

[Black Crow]

... Or perhaps that's the mystery of "but for Howland Reed:"

Ned to Bran: "[T]he Sword of the Morning... would have killed me, but for [the fact that] Howland Reed [pulled a tower of joy down upon his head]."

Nah, I've said before that Howland Reed was the dirty rotten coward that shot poor Jesse Ser Arthur in the back :devil:

[Black Crow]

Seriously though, an odd little thought occurs to me here.

From a story-telling point of view if we suppose that [a] R+L=J is true and that Jon is the true Targaryen heir, all that would have been required to convey that is just one member of the King's Guard, and especially Hightower himself, lurking suspiciously far from the fighting and seemingly with a new-born babe in his possession. Three, however, seems a bit of overkill and supports the theory [up-thread] that something more was going on.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Maybe it's not a description, but a curse. Like "damn those bloody stones..."

Definitely possible.

Nah, I've said before that Howland Reed was the dirty rotten coward that shot poor Jesse Ser Arthur in the back :devil:

Agreed. I was being a bit facetious there. Howland Reed looks like Ned's insurance policy for that encounter. The gun he brought to the sword fight... Lord Stark's last resort, etc. (Ned was an honorable guy. But the objective of that trip south required that he live to fight again.)

Seriously though, an odd little thought occurs to me here.

From a story-telling point of view if we suppose that [a] R+L=J is true and that Jon is the true Targaryen heir, all that would have been required to convey that is just one member of the King's Guard, and especially Hightower himself, lurking suspiciously far from the fighting and seemingly with a new-born babe in his possession. Three, however, seems a bit of overkill and supports the theory [up-thread] that something more was going on.

The same point I made recently in another thread - that one interpretation of the fact that all three KG turned to fight would be that they had nothing else to live for. Or perhaps, that it was of utmost importance they give that impression...

[Black Crow]

Going down a different tangent:

I may have missed this explanation before, if so apologies (if someone could link me to it please?) but in light of the recent 12 days of westeros, one questions that has been floating around is how does the citadel keep track of the years and seasons? Are they arbitrarily assigned, or is there some method, despite their inability to predict the seasons?

Missed this one, with apologies. GRRM has responded to this very question in an SSM somewhere that years and months pass normally. One way we have interpreted this in Heresy is that there are normal seasons [spring, summer, autumn and winter] and that these are governed by "great seasons", ie; during a long Summer the spring will come early, summer will be long, hot and dry, autumn will be golden and winter will be mild. On the other hand a long Winter will be characterised by a short and tempestuous spring, a wet and miserable summer, an early and stormy autumn and then a long cold and generally awful winter.

[superunknown5]

Seriously though, an odd little thought occurs to me here.

From a story-telling point of view if we suppose that [a] R+L=J is true and that Jon is the true Targaryen heir, all that would have been required to convey that is just one member of the King's Guard, and especially Hightower himself, lurking suspiciously far from the fighting and seemingly with a new-born babe in his possession. Three, however, seems a bit of overkill and supports the theory [up-thread] that something more was going on.

So, in light of what you said earlier about the presence of the other Kingsguard and GRRM's comment that dreams are not always literal. I was reading over the passage again. There seems to be a very clear cut, black and white, "us versus them" dichotomy between Ned's band and the KG. "Woe to the usurper", "Our knees do not bend so easily", etc.

You compared this fight to the OK Corral. I was reading about it, its very interesting. From Wikipedia:

Many of the facts surrounding the actual events leading up to the gunfight, and details of the gunfight are uncertain...

...According to the Earp version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, aggressively threatened the lawmen, defying a lawful order to hand over their weapons. The Cowboys maintained that they raised their hands, offering no resistance, and were shot in cold blood by the Earps. Sorting out who was telling the truth then and now remains difficult.

If the dream is not literal, is it possible that the actual conflict was more ambiguous? We know that Howland Reed intervened somehow. (which may contradict what I'm about to suggest)

Just spitballing here, but maybe, hypothetically speaking, if Arthur is the father of Lyanna's child, that either

A ) Whent and Hightower found out he forswore his vow and turned on him

B ) That they didn't know, but Dayne's loyalties were torn between his oaths (and by extension his white brothers) and Lyanna (and by extension Ned and the rebels) and this effected the outcome of the conflict somehow. Maybe he turned on them, for if you can forswear one vow, why not another?

C ) That, like Arys Oakheart, he felt guilty about what he had done and let Howland kill him

D ) Or none of the above

[Melifeather]

“One day, Bran, you will be Robb’s bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.”

That was when Jon reappeared on the crest of the hill before them.

Actually, this makes more sense as a foreshadowing that Bran will have to kill Jon. Adding to this theory we have Jon's dream of a fiery sword fighting wights and it looks like the Children and Bran as Greenseer will be using wights to defeat Jon.Furthermore, Ned's adamant and repeated refusals to kill children would fit logically with being unable to kill Jon, assuming that's what Lyanna was pleading with him to do. All in all, this does seem to support the idea that Jon is indeed a Targaryen, I just don't happen to believe his father is Rhaegar Targaryen, but rather Aerys Targaryen. In conclusion, it may be that the Children regret their alliance with the Targaryens and in order to achieve balance, ice has to win this time.

[DarkRose_9]

Missed this one, with apologies. GRRM has responded to this very question in an SSM somewhere that years and months pass normally. One way we have interpreted this in Heresy is that there are normal seasons [spring, summer, autumn and winter] and that these are governed by "great seasons", ie; during a long Summer the spring will come early, summer will be long, hot and dry, autumn will be golden and winter will be mild. On the other hand a long Winter will be characterised by a short and tempestuous spring, a wet and miserable summer, an early and stormy autumn and then a long cold and generally awful winter.

Ah okay. So the problem is that they don't know how to predict these meta-seasons. Got it. :thumbsup:

[Black Crow]

So, in light of what you said earlier about the presence of the other Kingsguard and GRRM's comment that dreams are not always literal. I was reading over the passage again. There seems to be a very clear cut, black and white, "us versus them" dichotomy between Ned's band and the KG. "Woe to the usurper", "Our knees do not bend so easily", etc.

You compared this fight to the OK Corral. I was reading about it, its very interesting. From Wikipedia:

If the dream is not literal, is it possible that the actual conflict was more ambiguous? We know that Howland Reed intervened somehow. (which may contradict what I'm about to suggest)

Just spitballing here, but maybe, hypothetically speaking, if Arthur is the father of Lyanna's child, that either

A ) Whent and Hightower found out he forswore his vow and turned on him

B ) That they didn't know, but Dayne's loyalties were torn between his oaths (and by extension his white brothers) and Lyanna (and by extension Ned and the rebels) and this effected the outcome of the conflict somehow. Maybe he turned on them, for if you can forswear one vow, why not another?

C ) That, like Arys Oakheart, he felt guilty about what he had done and let Howland kill him

D ) Or none of the above

I'd go for [D] none of the above. Dayne was certainly held very high inLord Eddard's personal estimation, which I don't think would have been the case if Ser Arthur and his fellow knights had come to blows, and Ned is also pretty positive that he would have been killed by Ser Arthur if Robert Ford Howland Reed hadn't intervened.

There may well be some ambiguity as to exactly what happened, but when I referred to the OK Corral I wanted to emphasise how the fight was a "rencounter" or deliberate meeting in duelling terms, rather that a defence of the tower; and that the reason why the Kings Guard were standing waiting outside and one of them sharpening his sword was that they were doing just that, waiting for Lord Eddard and his party to arrive at the appointed place - for another example look at the formal duel near the beginning of Dumas' Three Musketeers and compare it with the opening exchanges of the duel at the tower.

[superunknown5]

I'd go for [D] none of the above. Dayne was certainly held very high inLord Eddard's personal estimation, which I don't think would have been the case if Ser Arthur and his fellow knights had come to blows, and Ned is also pretty positive that he would have been killed by Ser Arthur if Robert Ford Howland Reed hadn't intervened.

There may well be some ambiguity as to exactly what happened, but when I referred to the OK Corral I wanted to emphasise how the fight was a "rencounter" or deliberate meeting in duelling terms, rather that a defence of the tower; and that the reason why the Kings Guard were standing waiting outside and one of them sharpening his sword was that they were doing just that, waiting for Lord Eddard and his party to arrive at the appointed place - for another example look at the formal duel near the beginning of Dumas' Three Musketeers and compare it with the opening exchanges of the duel at the tower.

I understood your point about the rencounter (and it's well taken), the point about the ambiguity of the OK Corral events was my own idea, I didn't mean to imply it was anything that you had said.

If it was a deliberate meeting, then who arranged it? And to what end? Was it agreed to by both parties, was it a chance encounter, or was it more like an ambush?

[Black Crow]

I understood your point about the rencounter (and it's well taken),...

If it was a deliberate meeting, then who arranged it? And to what end? Was it agreed to by both parties, was it a chance encounter, or was it more like an ambush?

It doesn't really feel like an ambush. Hightower and his companions didn't actually leap out on Lord Eddard and his men as they were riding by. I think there are two possible scenarios.

[a] Hightower and Co. were riding north when they discovered Lord Eddard and Co. were riding south and so withdrew to the tower - a prominent landmark - to await their arrival away from the ordinary bustle of the road, or;

a challenge was sent [remember my Ronin argument] and a time appointed, once again for a rencounter at some distance from the hoi-poloi

If pressed I'd be more inclined to go with but both options are still much more consistent with the story as told in Ned's dream than with the theory that the three were standing there ready to defend a ramshackle watchtower and its royal contents. They are D'Artagnan and his companions and opponents about to take part in that formal rencounter - hence the formality of the exchange.

[superunknown5]

It doesn't really feel like an ambush. Hightower and his companions didn't actually leap out on Lord Eddard and his men as they were riding by. I think there are two possible scenarios.

[a] Hightower and Co. were riding north when they discovered Lord Eddard and Co. were riding south and so withdrew to the tower - a prominent landmark - to await their arrival away from the ordinary bustle of the road, or;

a challenge was sent [remember my Ronin argument] and a time appointed, once again for a rencounter at some distance from the hoi-poloi

If pressed I'd be more inclined to go with but both options are still much more consistent with the story as told in Ned's dream than with the theory that the three were standing there ready to defend a ramshackle watchtower and its royal contents. They are D'Artagnan and his companions and opponents about to take part in that formal rencounter - hence the formality of the exchange.

Interesting. So, I guess my only question is, if the KG were at the tower (or wherever) under a "certain order" from Rhaegar (which is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong) what was that order and what (if anything) does challenging Ned to a "duel" have to do with it? Was it personal? Were they simply fighting them because they're rebels and they're sworn to defend their king to a man? Or was there an ulterior motive for this duel?

Are the duel and the incident at the tower possibly two different events that are being conflated somehow?

If the throne had already been lost, what were they fighting for? They had to have known they couldn't win a fight 3 on 7. Why did they refuse to kneel? For honor? That's seems like too easy of an explanation. Arthur Dayne, the greatest knight who ever lived, the Sword of the Morning, died heroically for a lost cause, a shining beacon of selfless nobility, fulfilling all his oaths in perpetuity. It almost seems to good to be true. And why did Ashara leap to her death if her brother basically died a hero? Becuase of the stillbirth? Or because of the man who dishonored her? Folks in Westeros have survived much and more than that without succumbing to suicide. I don't know, I have more questions than answers.

[Lord Ravenstark]

Seriously though, an odd little thought occurs to me here.

From a story-telling point of view if we suppose that [a] R+L=J is true and that Jon is the true Targaryen heir, all that would have been required to convey that is just one member of the King's Guard, and especially Hightower himself, lurking suspiciously far from the fighting and seemingly with a new-born babe in his possession. Three, however, seems a bit of overkill and supports the theory [up-thread] that something more was going on.

I still believe that three Guards were there to protect the morale of the Targaryen, not a baby nor Lyanna (Lyanna, here, being just a McGuffin). Even if we suppose that R+L=J is true, there is no logical reason to send half of the guard to protect a new born, probably bastard, that may or may not survive infancy in a world of high infant mortality like Westeros instead of protecting alive and well heirs (like you know, every other Targaryen). But it's just my little heretical opinion.

[Black Crow]

I refer once again to my essay in post #134 above.

Interesting. So, I guess my only question is, if the KG were at the tower (or wherever) under a "certain order" from Rhaegar (which is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong) what was that order and what (if anything) does challenging Ned to a "duel" have to do with it? Was it personal? Were they simply fighting them because they're rebels and they're sworn to defend their king to a man? Or was there an ulterior motive for this duel?

Are the duel and the incident at the tower possibly two different events that are being conflated somehow?

If the throne had already been lost, what were they fighting for? They had to have known they couldn't win a fight 3 on 7. Why did they refuse to kneel? For honor? That's seems like too easy of an explanation. Arthur Dayne, the greatest knight who ever lived, the Sword of the Morning, died heroically for a lost cause, a shining beacon of selfless nobility, fulfilling all his oaths in perpetuity. It almost seems to good to be true. And why did Ashara leap to her death if her brother basically died a hero? Becuase of the stillbirth? Or because of the man who dishonored her? Folks in Westeros have survived much and more than that without succumbing to suicide. I don't know, I have more questions than answers.

The conventional view of what happened at the tower is that Lyanna was within, having hidden out there for many months as her belly swelled and had either very recently given birth or was in the act of giving birth when Elliot Stark and his Untouchables came busting in and killed the Hightower Gang.

I'm suggesting that GRRM's comment about a fever dream is best interpreted as meaning that Lya wasn't at the tower when the fight happened but at Starfall; that Rhaegar far from hiding out in the tower had been in Dorne securing support for his intended coup and that when summoned north he ordered the three Kings Guard to remain behind in order to keep them out of King's Landing and so leave Aerys without their protection while at one and the same time sparing them from the conflict of loyalties that has left Jaime Lannister reviled as the Kingslayer.

As it is their King has been slain because they were obeying Rhaegar's orders and as they will not bow to the usurper they are now Ronin and heading back north to preserve their honour by going out fighting.

[Black Crow]

I still believe that three Guards were there to protect the morale of the Targaryen, not a baby nor Lyanna (Lyanna, here, being just a McGuffin). Even if we suppose that R+L=J is true, there is no logical reason to send half of the guard to protect a new born, probably bastard, that may or may not survive infancy in a world of high infant mortality like Westeros instead of protecting alive and well heirs (like you know, every other Targaryen). But it's just my little heretical opinion.

Ronin aside, you also have to remember the timing of Rhaegar's order - when he left them there he was the heir and his son Aegon next in line, while Lyanna's child had not even been born.

[wolfmaid7]

It might not mean anything, but this reminds me of when Jon balks at Val's suggestion that they should kill Shireen.

I'm not part of the RLJ crowd, FYI. I know the kind of ridiculous confirmation biases they get up to. I try not to fall prey to that stuff. I'm not even really convinced Jon is Arthur's son, I'm just exploring possible alternate explanations for the year of the false spring, which I find endlessly interesting.

It is an apt comparison which supports the continued theme of sacrifice to attain some desired end,or in this case we've seen Ned show what might be severe aversion to such prospect.I've always thought that the origin of this was what happened to the Targ children at the hand of the Mountain.However,and i'm spitballing it could have originated closer to home.

A sacrifice to fulfill a prophesy?

Or to stop one but have it fulfilled anyway.It depends on what she thinks would happen.

Happy Yule, Wolfmaid!

Ditto to you and Snowy :cheers:

Mind you, if he really was planting clues very so very obscurely it would account for how slowly he's writing what isn't the Song of Ice and Fire at all but the Mystery of Jon Snow :devil:

Yep you would swear no one else in the book's life mattered.I mean Jon is my favorite character but the story is so much bigger than him.

[wolfmaid7]

Actually, this makes more sense as a foreshadowing that Bran will have to kill Jon. Adding to this theory we have Jon's dream of a fiery sword fighting wights and it looks like the Children and Bran as Greenseer will be using wights to defeat Jon.Furthermore, Ned's adamant and repeated refusals to kill children would fit logically with being unable to kill Jon, assuming that's what Lyanna was pleading with him to do. All in all, this does seem to support the idea that Jon is indeed a Targaryen, I just don't happen to believe his father is Rhaegar Targaryen, but rather Aerys Targaryen. In conclusion, it may be that the Children regret their alliance with the Targaryens and in order to achieve balance, ice has to win this time.

I don't know so much if it a sign that Bran has to kill Jon.I think the ball has begun to roll for Jon the moment he got stabbed. As bad as that event is (on par with Bran falling out the window) like Bran's fall Jon's stabbing was neccassary to put him on the correct trajectory of being who he will be.He has recieved his "Mortal wound" where now he must decend into the darkness where he must lick it and ascend anew.

GRRM's quote about prophecy unfolding in a way that is weird rings so true here.If there was some crazy scheme to transform Jon into a Dragon via some sacrifice per some prophecy when he was a babe.It may have only been delayed and the Dragon that would now come forth would be an ice one instead of a red...but a dragon anyway.