Heresy 3

[Eyron]

To continue where we left off...

We are still debating the origin of the Wall, the northern traditions, the unreliability of the written history, the Old Gods and of course the Others/White Walkers and what the driving force may be behind their advance on the south, and their motive.

Are the Children of the forest the instigators? Are they creating the White Walkers from ice magic to be their henchmen? Were the White Walkers created long ago during the Long Night but went out of control so the Wall had to be built?

Or are the Others men that are changed from sorcery, much like Melisandre?

Was there a family long ago that was divided by war, one faction (or one brother) that went to the Children and allied with them (interbred perhaps?) and took the name Stark, and the others went north to continue their way of sacrificing and sorcery?

Why must there always be a Stark in Winterfell? Must there always be one at the Wall to?

Who did Craster sacrifice to really?

Stay tuned...

So this is what it's all about. The mysteries and the vague connections of the events at the Wall and beyond, the old stories of the Nightfort and Old Nan, the power of the weirwoods and the creepy crypts of Winterfell.

The original thread started by Black Crow, "The Wall the Watch and a heresy":http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/59571-the-wall-the-watch-and-a-heresy/page__view__findpost__p__2822016

The continuation "Heresy 2": http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/60086-heresy-2/page__view__findpost__p__2858186

Discuss!

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

I just had a small thought while posting on a different thread. I don't know whether anyone has mentioned this yet or not.

Supposedly there have only been two known times when White Walkers appeared. The first was the Long Night, and the second is the current time starting from GoT. We also only know of two distinct instances when humans are said to sacrifice to the Others. The first is the Night's King as told by Old Nan. NK existed "thousands of years ago"---ambiguous phrasing and chronology that we love so much----probably close to the Long Night. The second is Craster, who has probably been breeding and sacrificing sons for max 20-25 years, which I think coincides neatly with the recent appearance of WW. The reason we don't see WW until GoT may be because if Craster is sacrificing his sons one at a time as they come, and the sons either are, or by bloodmagic help animate the WW, then WW numbers would take some time to build up to critical levels at which they could attack.

Craster says his sacrifices protect him from the Others, and his little colony seems relatively unmolested. And at some point also thousands of years ago, the COTF provided the NW with obsidian weapons, protection against WW. Could that have been because of the NW sacrificing to the Others as well, a practice that ended with the NK?

Finally, in current time, the WIldlings think Craster is an abomination for his actions. In the past, Wildings led by Joramun helped bring down the NK. I think there's some significance to this as well.

[mor2]

@Eira, following your post (cant quote a locked thread).

Here I agree, I don't think that all the history we have been given is incorrect, GRRM has just pointed out to us that there are definitely some flaws to it. Perhaps in timeline, or purpose of the Watch, or general perception of history as we know it from the characters. I don't see the issue of accuracy as a reason to believe everything is not as it seems. The reason to make assumptions about major flaws is that flaws in timeline itself really is very unimportant if it does not change anything other than dates of events. For the author to bring up flaws in timeline there must be a relevance in our perception of major events in history, otherwise it's just totally unnecessary information for both us and the characters involved. To make a point of the flaws in timeline and unreliability of the writers of history several times through out the books strongly suggests (to me at least) that there is something major that will redefine what we have been told so far.

It can be both. While I think that GRRM note about the early dates is a clever way of stating the obvious, avoiding the need of providing all that background and focusing on the the current timeline and dealing with fans like us who nitpick at everything. I too believe that there is allot more that we dont know about the nature of the Others, Conflict or the basic thing like what is the "song of ice and fire" which was mentioned only on one occasion, but as mentioned before, i don think that todo that GRRM need to rewrite history, only add new info to put things into new light.

have no opinion on wether the Night's King is "alive" (as an Other or wight), I don't see it as a likely scenario and not really necessary for the plot. But the thing is that the Others and wights may be immortal so we don't know if these Others we see are the original ones or if they are newly created (or born). That the Others have a language of their own and seem to have a social life, and good skills with weapons, suggests to me that they are not new to this world, or at least not to life (as in newborn or "fresh made"), and that they have been around for a while in one form or another, at the minimum the span of a normal life up to adulthood, and they have been very secluded from rest of mankind. So if that is true for the Others, it could be true for Coldhands, whom actually have been dead for a long time according to the Children, and a long time in their view is probably very long indeed. We don't know for sure but it suggests a longer time than a year or so in my opinion.

I'm not sure the Night's King as Coldhands is considered evil, Coldhands seem like a descent guy. And we have no idea if the Night's King was evil or if he has been painted evil by his successors. He did something to draw unwanted attention and for some reason his successors wanted him erased from history, but his story remained in memory, either because that was intended (and the story manipulated for some purpose) or because the story had already spread large and wide, perhaps to be manipulated later by the First Men of the Watch when introduced to the Andals.

Craster's sacrifices have some purpose as information to us readers, but we don't know exactly what it is yet. Maybe it's part of the explanation for the Others existence or maybe it's just a hint to what has been going on in the north behind the scenes. What we know from Craster's example is that there is human-Other interaction and that it's not a brand new concept since we also have been told that the Night's King did this. We also know that Craster and his wives and daughters were spared more trouble from the Others because of it, so there must be a benefit for both parties in this interaction. We know that the other free folk shun him, and that some of the free folk feel some kind of loyalty towards Starks (Rowan and Mance particularily). To me this suggests that the present Stark line is not the ones that practices such sacrifices, and that the Night's Kings actions was an exception, or a turning point in Stark history, a division perhaps.

The bones and the iron in the crypts also have significance, and it's been suggested by many characters (and their dreams) in the story that there are ghosts in the tombs bound by the ironswords. This will come into play at some point, in one way or the other. Maybe the bones in the crypts are just holding some important information, but whatever that is - it will be important. Whatever it is it will set the Starks apart from other northmen, since they are the only ones having this special burial traditions.

The Children are probably not the Others according to my interpretation of the books, but if they are it's not necessary for them to be evil. As we have discussed before, they have a very different than human perspective of life and nature. Maybe they want to restore balance, in view of natures sustainability or the magic that threatens the world, themselves and humans too. If this involves bringing in the White Walkers to Westeros I would be surprised (since wielding magic like this seems out of character for them in my view) but not shocked since the Children must play some important part in future events and it would present a large twist on the historical events as we know them.

So while these still are only interesting hypotheses, I don't think we are crackpotting like crazy. I do think we have covered most of the alternative ways the story could go, but only those that have some probability. To me these scenarios are more likely and in accordance with GRRM's style of writing than the widespread view (not suggesting you necessarily subscribe to this view) that Daenaerys will use the Dragonbinder horn, find two other dragonriders (and marry one of them (Jon) or both) and will come flying to the Wall and torch the wights to oblivion, have babies with Jon, sacrifice herself as his Nissa Nissa (I don't understand how the timeline of these events can be believable to anyone) after wich Jon will kill all the Others single-handedly (since he's the only one with a useful sword, except for some obsidian arrows and daggers), then one of them or both (and perhaps Tyrion is in on it) rule Westeros being juste and magnificent to all and all. I find the evidence for this as non-existant. There are some prophecies that point to these scenarios but we know what GRRM wants us to believe of those, they are treacherous and usually a curse to those who receive them, driving people mad and into morally dubious (sometimes despicable) actions.

While I dont agree with all of that and have my own theory on few of the aspects, you actually made your point to plausible status. In my post I was referring to another theory on the subject that I was exposed to a few times over a long period of time that despite few big flaws was never was adapted. There is nothing wrong with "crackpotting like crazy", it's fun and we all do it and cant avoid it, simply because no one knows everything(other than GRRM), still I hate when people start make religion out of their theory, ignoring everything that is inconvenient. I dont have much time at the moment but I'll throw in my own crackpot theory later.

[Eyron]

I just had a small thought while posting on a different thread. I don't know whether anyone has mentioned this yet or not.

Supposedly there have only been two known times when White Walkers appeared. The first was the Long Night, and the second is the current time starting from GoT. We also only know of two distinct instances when humans are said to sacrifice to the Others. The first is the Night's King as told by Old Nan. NK existed "thousands of years ago"---ambiguous phrasing and chronology that we love so much----probably close to the Long Night. The second is Craster, who has probably been breeding and sacrificing sons for max 20-25 years, which I think coincides neatly with the recent appearance of WW. The reason we don't see WW until GoT may be because if Craster is sacrificing his sons one at a time as they come, and the sons either are, or by bloodmagic help animate the WW, then WW numbers would take some time to build up to critical levels at which they could attack.

Craster says his sacrifices protect him from the Others, and his little colony seems relatively unmolested. And at some point also thousands of years ago, the COTF provided the NW with obsidian weapons, protection against WW. Could that have been because of the NW sacrificing to the Others as well, a practice that ended with the NK?

Finally, in current time, the WIldlings think Craster is an abomination for his actions. In the past, Wildings led by Joramun helped bring down the NK. I think there's some significance to this as well.

In the end of the last thread it was brought up that the Others are so few because of the connection to Craster's sons (I think it's been mentioned a few times before too), and this could very well be the case.

If Craster is the first in a long time to sacrifice to the Others, how did he start? Who negotiated the deal? If his sons are the Others, who made the first son into an Other? If you believe the Children=Others theory there is little problem with this, but I'm not subscribing to that theory yet, so how can this issue be explained?

Maybe the Others from the long night did not die, but as the stories say, lived on through the years, hidden or sleeping. Maybe the Others are old ghosts that can manifest in the form of ice, through bloodmagic, we just don't know the practicalities of this :) This subject is very hard to come to any conclusion on for me, there is so little information.

About the timeline of the gifts of obsidian and the Night's King. Didn't Sam find a written record of the yearly gift? I can't check right now but from what I remember he implied that the gift to the Watch had continued to some time after the Andals came, since there were real time reports about it. I could be misremembering of course.

I definitely think there is a parallel between Joramun and the Wildlings in present time and events. It's a reminder I think, that to make it through these hard times the north and the land beyond the Wall must unite their forces. But I don't know it there is more to it.

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

About the timeline of the gifts of obsidian and the Night's King. Didn't Sam find a written record of the yearly gift? I can't check right now but from what I remember he implied that the gift to the Watch had continued to some time after the Andals came, since there were real time reports about it. I could be misremembering of course.

Ahh, ok, that does sound really familiar. I'll have to go back to ADWD to find that part but i believe you. So the obsidian gifts probably lasted into written history, which makes it more possible that the ritual just faded away because of diminishing numbers of both COTF and NW.

My theory on the WW works mostly if you're working under the assumption that the COTF are the actual Others. The reason I'm reluctant to accept that the WW themselves are the Others is because there's something off about them as solid, living breathing things. They melt into puddles when you stab them with obsidian, leaving behind no bones, nothing. They seem very much the product of glamor so there must be someone casting that glamor. If it was the WW themselves, shouldn't there be something physical left behind when they die? There have been hints of spirits and ghosts---iron keeping the Stark Kings in their tombs---but we haven't seen evidence of spirits anywhere else yet. Almost anything is possible though I guess

[Black Crow]

About the timeline of the gifts of obsidian and the Night's King. Didn't Sam find a written record of the yearly gift? I can't check right now but from what I remember he implied that the gift to the Watch had continued to some time after the Andals came, since there were real time reports about it. I could be misremembering of course.

"I found mention of dragonglass. The children of the forest used to give the Night's Watch a hundred obsidian daggers every year, during the Age of Heroes."

So no, its not something which lasted into written history, which is why I suggested on the previous thread that the annual gift could be the counterpart to the Watch giving up (sacrificing) a child and that the exchange ended with the deposing of the Night's King, which would in turn explain the curious bit in the oath about fathering no children.

The fathering no children bit is curious because ordinarily a feature of semi-closed societies such as lonely garrisons on the Wall (Hadrian's) is the way that the soldiers do father children who grow up into the service themselves - "born in the army" as one 18th century certificate put it - so that it becomes self perpetuating. Given the way that the Watch has been steadily declining for a very long time, the fathering of children is the sort of thing that ought to have been encouraged, and yet there's a positive prohibition on it and I suggest that the "sacrificing" of children by the original Watch is the reason why.

[FanTasy]

The fathering of children ... Crasters' Keep .... made me think of Mole's Town on the other side of the Wall.

The men of the Night's Watch are not punished if they are 'digging for treasure' there.

Of course it is no surprise that there was and is a brothel in Mole's Town: supply and demand.

And that no one tried and tries to discourage it is understandable.

Maybe in the olden time Mole's Town was also seen as a facility for new recruits 'born in the army'.

When all the forts were manned there probably were Mole Towns in the vicinity of the other forts too.

Eastwatch is a harbor, there will be some prostitution going on there.

[Black Crow]

The fathering of children ... Crasters' Keep .... made me think of Mole's Town on the other side of the Wall...

When all the forts were manned there probably were Mole Towns in the vicinity of the other forts too.

Its the equivalent of the unofficial vici which grew up alongside the forts on Hadrian's Wall. I would imagine that a good many of those living there are descended from men of the Watch and that some of the liaisons are more of a semi-permanent nature than they might at first appear. Its human nature which again reinforces the idea that the prohibition in the oath has a specific reason behind it.

[FanTasy]

Thinking a bit further on Craster's Keep and Mole's Town.

Of course what Craster does is creepy: taking his daughters for wives and giving up his sons.

But the 'facilities' on the other side of the Wall could have had the same function.

If there were facilities in the vicinity of all forts (20? I forget how many forts were manned) it could have worked the same way: the boys were given to the Watch, the girls could find occupation as prostitutes.

[Black Crow]

If there were facilities in the vicinity of all forts (20? I forget how many forts were manned) it could have worked the same way: the boys were given to the Watch, the girls could find occupation as prostitutes.

In theory yes, but of course because the men of the Watch swear to take no wives and father no children such places don't officially exist, even if the boys are potentially a source of recruits and the girls can contribute all manner of useful services - apart from their bodies - such as washing, nursing, sewing and sowing, reaping, animal husbandry...etc etc

This happened everywhere there were garrisons and the only reason why armies discouraged large collections of women and children was the problem of shifting them all if the soldiers had to move. This obviously doesn't apply with a fixed garrison such as the Wall, so why is the Watch so scared of producing kids, if it wasn't for drawing a line under the Night's King business?

[FanTasy]

In theory yes, but of course because the men of the Watch swear to take no wives and father no children such places don't officially exist, even if the boys are potentially a source of recruits and the girls can contribute all manner of useful services - apart from their bodies - such as washing, nursing, sewing and sowing, reaping, animal husbandry...etc etc

This happened everywhere there were garrisons and the only reason why armies discouraged large collections of women and children was the problem of shifting them all if the soldiers had to move. This obviously doesn't apply with a fixed garrison such as the Wall, so why is the Watch so scared of producing kids, if it wasn't for drawing a line under the Night's King business?

I think what you earlier thought off is true: that it was a later addition.

Wasn't there a line from Benjen somewhere? Or was it Maester Aemon?

If you take a wife and/or father children your loyalties tend to shift towards said wife and children.

It could be this, a later addition.

Or it could be intended from the start: to create a bunch of men who would not hesitate if they must put their lives at stake.

It is one of the sad reasons why armies that expect to fight and sustain loss of human life even in our days want their recruits to be as young as possible.

Men who feel responsible for their children.may think twice if they are sent into enemy fire. And they may think twice about pullling triggers to kill others.

[Eyron]

@Eira, following your post (cant quote a locked thread).

It can be both. While I think that GRRM note about the early dates is a clever way of stating the obvious, avoiding the need of providing all that background and focusing on the the current timeline and dealing with fans like us who nitpick at everything. I too believe that there is allot more that we dont know about the nature of the Others, Conflict or the basic thing like what is the "song of ice and fire" which was mentioned only on one occasion, but as mentioned before, i don think that todo that GRRM need to rewrite history, only add new info to put things into new light.

This is what I think will happen too, only that the little pieces of new info can have a rather drastic effect on our perception of the Westerosi history. But since we fans are all different it depends on your own view on what a drastic change is. I think in the wider group of readers a change like "some (maybe most) Starks were once sorcerors and sacrificed to the Others" would come as a shock, but to many here on this board it would not, since we have been picking at clues for this for some time. The same goes for other small changes, like whether the Long night occurred during the peace between the First Men and the Children or in a time of dissension. That would change history a lot.

While I dont agree with all of that and have my own theory on few of the aspects, you actually made your point to plausible status. In my post I was referring to another theory on the subject that I was exposed to a few times over a long period of time that despite few big flaws was never was adapted. There is nothing wrong with "crackpotting like crazy", it's fun and we all do it and cant avoid it, simply because no one knows everything(other than GRRM), still I hate when people start make religion out of their theory, ignoring everything that is inconvenient. I dont have much time at the moment but I'll throw in my own crackpot theory later.

I'm not sure I myself have a clear theory for the things I brought up, I just wanted to highlight the reasons behind some of the different scenarios, and why I don't think they are conjured from nothing. I think there is substance behind a few of the different theories.

I agree there is nothing wrong with crackpots. What sometimes start out crackpottish can develop into well reasoned theories, but the use of that word is often meant to diminish other people's ideas, and I think that it's better to argue constructively. Sometimes a theory is completely baseless and the word crackpot is well applied, but it get's thrown around a lot.

I'm looking forward to see your theory!

[Lummel]

I think what you earlier thought off is true: that it was a later addition.

Wasn't there a line from Benjen somewhere? Or was it Maester Aemon?

If you take a wife and/or father children your loyalties tend to shift towards said wife and children.

It could be this, a later addition.

Or it could be intended from the start: to create a bunch of men who would not hesitate if they must put their lives at stake.

Hmm, for much of the watch there doesn't seem to be that much risk. Even say for the rangers, I'm not sure that they put their lives at stake to a greater extent than other soldier types we get to see in Westeros - I suppose the potential is there for example when LC Mormont proposed effectively sacrificing his command to cut up and disrupt Mance's voelkerwanderung in ACOK but really the loyalty shift is going to relevent to those from lordly families I would have thought.

Given what we told about Wildlings raiding the Gift and New Gift, plus the difficulty of recruiting reliable types and the difficulty of feeding and supplying the Wall having families of Soldier-peasants sworn to the watch would seem a very sensible solution which makes the blanket insistance of no children all the more intriguing.

It is one of the sad reasons why armies that expect to fight and sustain loss of human life even in our days want their recruits to be as young as possible.

Men who feel responsible for their children.may think twice if they are sent into enemy fire. And they may think twice about pullling triggers to kill others.

Off topic but I think that's a very interesting insight.

What sometimes start out crackpottish can develop into well reasoned theories, but the use of that word is often meant to diminish other people's ideas, and I think that it's better to argue constructively. Sometimes a theory is completely baseless and the word crackpot is well applied, but it get's thrown around a lot.

Crackpottery is great in cases like this where there is enough in the text to alert your tingling GRRM sense and tell you that something is wrong with what we've been told but there isn't enough, yet, to give definitative answers. And something very definitely is wrong with the standard narrative so far.

[Capon Breath]

Wow this discussion was about 14 pages of a single thread when I last got chance to spend any real time on the board!!! Havent been able to read all of the Heresy 2 pages - will get round to it at some point.

Apologies as this may have come up but what are peoples views on the definitions of the "others" as a collective? Do people think there are 3 groups eg

Others (if so what are they?)

White walkers (If so what are they? I know at least one view is they are sacrified sons of Craster)

Wights (I think there is consensus these are humans & animals killed by either an Other a White walker and raised as undead)

If they are the 3 groups (feel free to disagree) how many of each have we seen?

I think there must be 3 as if the White walkers are sacrificed then they must be sacrificed to something? I also just get the geeral impression that there is a heirachy eg to raise a wight you have to be more powerful than a wight - but this might be totally off.

Would be good to know peoples thoughts.

[FanTasy]

Hi Capon Breath, good to have you and your thoughts back on this thread. Because we haven't solved the mystery :frown5: - yet.

This is what I think:

- wights are like you said: raised dead humans with eyes turned blue. Animals can also be wightified. Hacking wights in pieces doesn't stop them, dragonglass doesn't kill them. But luckily they seem to burn quite easy, possibly because they are freeze dried.

- white walkers are the ones we saw in the prologue of AGOT. Tall gaunt blue eyed creatures with crackling voices, associated with extreme cold. We know that at least one of them melted to a blue pool after been stuck with the pointy end of a dragonglass dagger. One of Craster's wifes believed that the sons Craster offered were the white walkers. We haven't seen a lot of white walkers, which in such could be strange.

There's a mysterious (un)dead lurking beyond the Wall, that annoying Coldhands. He is dead for a long time but apart from his black hands and that he doesn;t eat or breathe he doesn't seem to be a wight like the bunch we saw for instance at the Fist.

The Others could be a synonym for white walkers, or it could be a generic term.

[Eyron]

"I found mention of dragonglass. The children of the forest used to give the Night's Watch a hundred obsidian daggers every year, during the Age of Heroes."

So no, its not something which lasted into written history, which is why I suggested on the previous thread that the annual gift could be the counterpart to the Watch giving up (sacrificing) a child and that the exchange ended with the deposing of the Night's King, which would in turn explain the curious bit in the oath about fathering no children.

Thank you for the correction!

However, isn't there yet another thing wrong with the timeline if the gifts of dragonglass happened during the Age of Heroes? I thought the Age of Heroes ended when the Long Night came, and before the Long Night there was no reason for giving obsidian. If there is any truth to the story of the Last Hero (the Last as in the one ending that Age in time) he was the one that found a way to defeat the Others that came during the Long Night. If the Night's Watch was founded during the Age of Heroes that would be before the Long Night, in the way I understood the timeline.

The Long Night lasted a generation (~15 years?) and began in the midst of a long winter, or perhaps the terms the Long Night and this long winter is interchangeable, just different names for the same time period. During this generation-long Night the Last Hero found the Children and received the obsidian I assume, so if the tradition of this yearly gift started at this time it would have lasted only a few years, it was not a long lasting tradition. What Sam found seems to be a statement about something that went on for a long period of time, but I don't think it could have been during the Age of Heroes. Ugh, these timelines again... So either the Age of heroes did not end with the Long Night or the annual gift of dragonglass predated the Long Night, which would be very interesting.

Ahh, ok, that does sound really familiar. I'll have to go back to ADWD to find that part but i believe you. So the obsidian gifts probably lasted into written history, which makes it more possible that the ritual just faded away because of diminishing numbers of both COTF and NW.

I was wrong about that so forget what I said! (see above)

My theory on the WW works mostly if you're working under the assumption that the COTF are the actual Others. The reason I'm reluctant to accept that the WW themselves are the Others is because there's something off about them as solid, living breathing things. They melt into puddles when you stab them with obsidian, leaving behind no bones, nothing. They seem very much the product of glamor so there must be someone casting that glamor. If it was the WW themselves, shouldn't there be something physical left behind when they die? There have been hints of spirits and ghosts---iron keeping the Stark Kings in their tombs---but we haven't seen evidence of spirits anywhere else yet. Almost anything is possible though I guess

I do think this is very possible, it just feels like the Others are very "humanlike" in their appearance and manner. I think that they can be human in origin, but glamored also.

Someone in the last thread said that it would be interesting to see what happens to the red priests (the ones like Moqorro and Melisandre) if they were injured by the weapons of the Others. Perhaps they will crumble to a pile of ash. We still think they are pretty much human, even if they are physically changed by sorcery. To me it's mostly the similarities between the Others and Melisandre that makes me think the Others are basically human, like her. The story of the Night's King point towards this in my opinion, I think that the Stannis-Melisandre interaction is almost a carbon copy of the description of the Night's King-Other woman and the sacrifices.

If one believes that the Others are Craster's sons, there must definitely be a external force behind their creation. That very much points towards the Children being the real Others. This is one of the reasons I think it is possible that this theory can be accurate.

[Lummel]

I thought the Age of Heroes ended when the Long Night came

Hmm. I though the age of heroes ended when the Andals came.

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

I pulled this out of the wiki and concordance section of the citadel

• The Dawn Age was long before the time of the Andals and their new religion (I: 432)
  
• The children went to war with the First Men because of the destruction of the carved weirwoods (I: 617)
  
• The greenseers were supposed to have a used powerful magic to make the seas rise and sweep away land, shattering the Arm. It was too late, however (I: 617)
  
• The wars between the children and the First Men went on, in the favor of the larger, stronger, and more technologically advanced First Men, until the wise men of both races forged the Pact at the Isle of Faces (I: 617)
  
• The greenseers and wood dancers met with the First Men on the Isle of Faces (I: 617)
  
• The Pact gave the children the deep forests forever, and the First Men promised not to cut down any more weirwoods (I: 617)
  
• The sacred order of green men that tended the Isle of Faces was created after the making of the Pact, when all the weirwoods on the isle were carved with faces to witness the agreement (I: 617)
  
• The Pact began four thousand years of friendship between the children and the First Men (I: 617)
  
• The Pact ended the Dawn Age and began the Age of Heroes (I: 617)
  
• The Pact endured through the Age of Heroes, the Long Night, and the birth of the Seven Kingdoms. Yet centuries later other peoples began to arrive in the land (I: 618)
  
• The wars between the First Men and the Andals lasted hundreds of years, but eventually the six southron realms fell to them. Only the Kings of Winter remained in the North (I: 618)
  

From the wiki on the Age of Heroes: This was the time when many legendary kings and heroes walked the earth: Bran the Builder ,Lann the Clever, the Grey King, and so forth.^[2] It is an era that is shrouded in mystery, with more myth than fact known about it. It ended with the onset of the Long Night.

So apparently the Age of Heroes was all the good times between COTF and FM, following the pact at the Isle of Faces. The Long Night ended that age and started the current one.

[Black Crow]

Given the way this business of received history being mince due to a lack of written records has been so heavily emphasised by GRRM, I wouldn't necessarily get too wound up about the niceties of the timelines because I think a lot of events which really did happen have been misplaced in relation to each other. An obvious point being the question of whether the Long Winter and the Long Night are one and the same. At first sight they might be, but there's so much symbolism and synonimity in GRRM's writing that I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

Simply put was the Long Night literally a prolonged period of actual darkness, or was it a "dark time" when bad things happened, sometimes under clear and sunlit skies, like the so-called "Dark Ages" which supposedly followed the fall of Rome

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

Yeah, i'd take the given timeline with a grain of salt too. I was doing a reread of GoT and took notes on points i found interesting, and someone specifically recalls that Bran the Builder built the Wall at the tail end of the Age of Heroes. Everything else seems to imply the Wall was built after the Long Night, so at the very least there's some serious overlap going on here between our neat little ages divisions