44 replies to this topic

[King Aemon I]

There is one absurd thing in the books.. It says :"Some maesters thought Andals came 2.000 years before AL, and some say 300."  How can anyone think of that? Just three hundred,...

People still remember what happened 3 centuries ago, like Manderlys were in the North for 9 centuries.. If Andals came 6 centuries before, how come they changed their religion to the 7.. Or Freys, who lived there for 6-7 centuries.. Or Lannisters..
Right?

[Free Northman]

King Aemon I, on 28 September 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

There is one absurd thing in the books.. It says :"Some maesters thought Andals came 2.000 years before AL, and some say 300."  How can anyone think of that? Just three hundred,...

People still remember what happened 3 centuries ago, like Manderlys were in the North for 9 centuries.. If Andals came 6 centuries before, how come they changed their religion to the 7.. Or Freys, who lived there for 6-7 centuries.. Or Lannisters..
Right?

I don't recall that reference. There is a point where the arrival of the Andals is suggested to have been either 2000 or 4000 years ago, but I have never seen the 300 year reference. Can you provide the quote to refresh my memory?

[The Hetman of Serrak]

Oft in the migration of peoples ancestral lands are essentially left behind or forgotten, the remainder becoming assimilated with the new migrants into the region. That the name of the area still marks its ancient heritage is enough show of a success of the Andals on Essos.

After all, such assimilation takes place over only a few hundred years at most in the real world; a few thousand is a very long time.

Edited by The Hetman of Serrak, 29 September 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[Snake Eyes]

It could be Westeros simply had greener pastures and they thought they could easily subdue the continent and set up shop.  Why contend with the highly advanced Valyrians when you can beat up on the First Men and take their women?

[Gurkhal]

Snake Eyes, on 02 October 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

It could be Westeros simply had greener pastures and they thought they could easily subdue the continent and set up shop.  Why contend with the highly advanced Valyrians when you can beat up on the First Men and take their women?

Indeed, and the First Men don't have dragons and it did turn out to be a very smart move. Both because the Andals could take half the continent and avoid enslavement to the Valyrians for many centuries it would seem. Now the last part backfired a bit in the last three hundred years but it was probably better than being subjugated by Valyria proper considering that the Targaryens pretty much adopted Andal culture in almost every way, save the incest part.

[Snake Eyes]

Gurkhal, on 02 October 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Indeed, and the First Men don't have dragons and it did turn out to be a very smart move. Both because the Andals could take half the continent and avoid enslavement to the Valyrians for many centuries it would seem. Now the last part backfired a bit in the last three hundred years but it was probably better than being subjugated by Valyria proper considering that the Targaryens pretty much adopted Andal culture in almost every way, save the incest part.

I think they got a pretty good deal from Aegon, they pretty much got to keep what they had before.  They needed to bend the knee but in return they likely got a lot more peace and prosperity: if a different province attacked them they could probably send word to the Targaryens who would settle the conflict.  

I seriously wish there was a book or mini-series devoted to Aegon's landing.

[Gurkhal]

Snake Eyes, on 02 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I think they got a pretty good deal from Aegon, they pretty much got to keep what they had before.  They needed to bend the knee but in return they likely got a lot more peace and prosperity: if a different province attacked them they could probably send word to the Targaryens who would settle the conflict.  

I seriously wish there was a book or mini-series devoted to Aegon's landing.

Indeed, and I agree with you in that the Andals got a pretty sweet deal from Aegon.

[Free Northman]

Gurkhal, on 02 October 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Indeed, and I agree with you in that the Andals got a pretty sweet deal from Aegon.

I reject that type of reasoning. No deal is sweet if someone takes away your sovereignity. I reckon they got pretty much the deal that the United States would have gotten if they had lost the War of Independence with Britain, in the eighteenth century.

Subjugation by a foreign power.

[Gurkhal]

Free Northman, on 03 October 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

I reject that type of reasoning. No deal is sweet if someone takes away your sovereignity. I reckon they got pretty much the deal that the United States would have gotten if they had lost the War of Independence with Britain, in the eighteenth century.

Subjugation by a foreign power.

I disagree with the scenario you paint. If it had been the Valyrian Freehold that came along I could agree that its subjugation to a foreign power, but in this case its a single family which for 99% adopts Andal culture to make themselves more tolerable for their Andal subjects.

I mean my country has for at least about two hundred years or so had a royal family descended from France and we have had little reason to consider us to be subjugated to the French.

[The Dragon King]

Free Northman, on 03 October 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

I reject that type of reasoning. No deal is sweet if someone takes away your sovereignity. I reckon they got pretty much the deal that the United States would have gotten if they had lost the War of Independence with Britain, in the eighteenth century.

Subjugation by a foreign power.

Subjugation is only 'bad' if you're worse off as a result of it.  If life in Westeros was better as a result of Aegon I don't see how you can claim his rule was bad.

[Free Northman]

The Dragon King, on 25 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

Subjugation is only 'bad' if you're worse off as a result of it.  If life in Westeros was better as a result of Aegon I don't see how you can claim his rule was bad.

As I've said before, after Aegon's conquest the Starks:

1. Still had to put down their own rebellions (the Rebellion of Skagos 100 years ago was put down by the Starks, at the cost of the Stark lord's life)

2. Still had to fight the Wildling invasions on their own (It was the Starks and the Umbers that defeated Raymun Redbeard at the Long Lake, at the loss of the Stark lord's life).

3. They still had to fight off the Ironborn on their own as we shall see in the upcoming She Wolves of Winterfell novel set 100 years ago after the Stark lord was killed by the Ironborn under Dagon Greyjoy.

4. We've seen no sign of the Iron Throne maintaining the Kingsroad in the North, since it is little more than a rutted track once you go past Winterfell.

5. The Starks of Winterfell are the biggest supporters of the Night's Watch, even in the present day, and the Iron Throne's support is based largely on the clearing out of their dungeons, which was taking place long before Aegon arrived in any case.

6. And if the North needs food in Winter, they still have to buy it from the South or from Braavos, so the Iron Throne wasn't even supporting them in that respect.

All of the above in exchange for paying annual taxes to the Iron Throne, which could instead have been kept in the North and spent on things the North actually needs.

So all of the above combined means that the North had zero improvement in their lives after Aegon's conquest, yet had to pay a heck of a lot of money in taxes to them every year. So in fact, their net position was worse off than before Aegon arrived.

[Lord Varys]

It seems to me that the Andal invasion was a movement that continued over generations. As of yet we know that King Hugor was one important Andal figure, but the fact that the Andals ended up founding and conquering various kingdoms in Westeros for themselves rather than uniting the it under an Andal king strongly suggests that those 'Andals' were not exactly a unified nation/people to begin with.

I'd not be surprised if there were multiple Andal wanderings and crusade, led and instigated by multiple kings/chieftains and High Septons. I doubt that all the Andals crossed the Narrow Sea at once, and I'm quite sure that not all Andals tried to conquer the First Men kingdoms all at once. Some time had to pass between each conquest, the religious fervor had to restore itself (or their hunger for conquest at least). Since the Vale apparently became the first Andal kingdom (or the first Andal kingdoms at this point) I'd assume it took some time before the Andals started to explore the regions past the Mountains of the Moons from the Vale. But it's quite likely that other Andals who did not land on the Fingers and in the Vale conquered under regions of Westeros at the same time.

The Valyrians most likely had little/nothing to do with them, even if the chronology is much different, and the Andals came to Westeros much later than we have been lead to believe. Illyrio stated that the Rhoynar were already there and taught the Andals how to forge steel, so the Valyrians certainly had no quarrels with the Andals because they would have to deal with the Rhoynar first, and we know that this happened much later.

My guess is that the issues between the Rhoynar and the Valyrians started over trade and customs stuff. The first colony of the Valyrians in the west was Volantis, and Volantis eventually pretty much controlled the Mouth of the Rhoyne. This most likely started to piss the powerful and rich Rhoynar cities off, and eventually led to conflict and war.

[GreenHand]

Free Northman, on 25 October 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

As I've said before, after Aegon's conquest the Starks:

1. Still had to put down their own rebellions (the Rebellion of Skagos 100 years ago was put down by the Starks, at the cost of the Stark lord's life)

2. Still had to fight the Wildling invasions on their own (It was the Starks and the Umbers that defeated Raymun Redbeard at the Long Lake, at the loss of the Stark lord's life).

3. They still had to fight off the Ironborn on their own as we shall see in the upcoming She Wolves of Winterfell novel set 100 years ago after the Stark lord was killed by the Ironborn under Dagon Greyjoy.

4. We've seen no sign of the Iron Throne maintaining the Kingsroad in the North, since it is little more than a rutted track once you go past Winterfell.

5. The Starks of Winterfell are the biggest supporters of the Night's Watch, even in the present day, and the Iron Throne's support is based largely on the clearing out of their dungeons, which was taking place long before Aegon arrived in any case.

6. And if the North needs food in Winter, they still have to buy it from the South or from Braavos, so the Iron Throne wasn't even supporting them in that respect.

All of the above in exchange for paying annual taxes to the Iron Throne, which could instead have been kept in the North and spent on things the North actually needs.

So all of the above combined means that the North had zero improvement in their lives after Aegon's conquest, yet had to pay a heck of a lot of money in taxes to them every year. So in fact, their net position was worse off than before Aegon arrived.

Indeed! Very True! A big hear hear.

However, on the other hand there is (perhaps surprisingly) no indication that North has ever petitioned or even quietly asked the Iron Throne for assistance. Which they could easily. And, theoretically, the Iron Throne would be honour bound to assist since it is in defence of the realm of which the North is part. (The implicit social contract is a King's protection, justice, peace, unity and executive organisation in exchange for fealty and taxes).

My impression is the exact opposite. The North never asks for help. In fact, as much as they may begrudge the taxes, they *definitely* don't want the the Southron Throne interfering in their business, helpfully or otherwise. They are very keen to keep the Southron Kingship over the North strictly theoretical.

Like the door-to-door salesman or social activist who you pay to go away without taking a product or complementary something.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

One thing the North did get out of the arrangement was significant periods of peace with the Iron Isles, and they could rely on an alliance of support from the south when dealing with any raids.

[lysmonger]

My personal opinion on the Valyrian Expansion. The Valyrians initially had colonies on the coast of Essos like Pentos. The Andals realized that they didnt want to be near the scary Valyrians and left.
The rhyonar had a strong kingdom and had a peaceful relationship until the war occurred with Valryia and then came to Westeros. The timelines do infact work.

[Toccs]

lysmonger, on 14 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

My personal opinion on the Valyrian Expansion. The Valyrians initially had colonies on the coast of Essos like Pentos. The Andals realized that they didnt want to be near the scary Valyrians and left.
The rhyonar had a strong kingdom and had a peaceful relationship until the war occurred with Valryia and then came to Westeros. The timelines do infact work.

I agree with this.  We know that the city of Pentos is heavily reliant on the Flatlands to feed it, yet we are told that the Flatlands were once the southern part of the Kingdom of the Andals.  A war between the Valyrian colonists of Pentos and the native Andals would certainly explain why the Andals felt the need for a mass exodus on such a scale at a time that coincides with the rise of Valyria.

I would add though that it is practically impossible for an entire ethnic group to simply up sticks and move to a new continent.  There are no doubt many people in Pentos and the surrounding lands that are ethnically Andal or have Andal blood.

[tgbyhn]

Cinder and Dust, on 17 September 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

My problem with that explaination is that it doesn't really correspond with the timelines progression. The Andals invaded about a thousand years before Valyria rose to power, and by the fact that the Rhoynar only invaded a thousand years ago themselves to escape Valyria suggests the Freehold hadn't made much progress in the north west (where the Andals orginiated) until around that time. Even then I'd have expected the religion to had some lingering roots and legacy of their culture after the Freeholds fall, as was the case with the remnants of Ghis around Slavers Bay.

I won't pretend to know what pressures drove the Andals to leave their homeland for Westeros, but peoples being driven to other lands and leaving little to no trace behind come later centuries in their former homelands, whether due to assimilation or being pushed out, is extremely common in RL history.  

Turkic people being driven from their homeland in old western Mongolia can result in Magyars in central Europe 300 years later.  The Hunnic invasions in eastern/central Europe drove the Germanic tribes into areas of the Roman Empire such as Hispania, Gaul, Brittania, Italy, and north Africa which went on for a couple of hundred years.  The Islamic invasion of India ca. 1000 resulted in a wave of Gypsy emigration that continued for hundreds of years and even continued on to the Americas 500-600 years.

Edited by tgbyhn, 16 November 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[sertravisredbeard]

Ser Lepus, on 17 September 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I can understand how come Essos has forgotten the Andals, since the Andal migration happened thousands of years ago when the Valyrians pushed them out of their own country. What I can't understand is the Rhoynar migration.

Given their position along the shores of the Rhoyne, where their capital Chroyane/The Sorrows was located, the Valyrians should have reached the Rhoynar well before the Andals, but the Rhoynars escaped Essos thousands of years afters the Andals, and escaped going south, to the mouth of the Rhoyne past Volantis and then sailing west to Dorne, which doesn't make sense. It almost seems as if the Valyrians had jumped above the Rhoynar nation, reached the Andal Hills and then pushed them south (which they could have done, having dragons and such, but I can't understand why they would ignore the Rhoynar and attack the Andals, who were far more remote).

I've always wondered this about the Rhoynar too.  They're pretty far from Volantis, so did Nymeria have to build the 10,000 ships in order to fight their way through to escape?  I know the Rhoyne is huge but 1000 years ago is right in the prime of the Valyrian Empire;  if she wanted to lead her people to freedom, steering them right past one of Valyria's larger cities had to be hard.  The logistics don't make sense to me.

[Justyn Tyme]

Lord Varys, on 25 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

It seems to me that the Andal invasion was a movement that continued over generations. As of yet we know that King Hugor was one important Andal figure, but the fact that the Andals ended up founding and conquering various kingdoms in Westeros for themselves rather than uniting the it under an Andal king strongly suggests that those 'Andals' were not exactly a unified nation/people to begin with.

I'd not be surprised if there were multiple Andal wanderings and crusade, led and instigated by multiple kings/chieftains and High Septons. I doubt that all the Andals crossed the Narrow Sea at once, and I'm quite sure that not all Andals tried to conquer the First Men kingdoms all at once. Some time had to pass between each conquest, the religious fervor had to restore itself (or their hunger for conquest at least). Since the Vale apparently became the first Andal kingdom (or the first Andal kingdoms at this point) I'd assume it took some time before the Andals started to explore the regions past the Mountains of the Moons from the Vale. But it's quite likely that other Andals who did not land on the Fingers and in the Vale conquered under regions of Westeros at the same time.

More over, what if the notion of a "Andal Crusade" is a bit of self-legitimizing historical revisionism by the Faith's leadership?

What if originally the Faith was more of a free-form thing, with "Septons" essentially shamanistic/community religious leaders, which then, over the course of millenia in Westeros, evolved into an organized religion we all know and love with High Septons, religous orders, etc?  Early Christianity was notably more theologically diverse (Gnostics, Arians, etc) than modern Christianity.

My bet is that the original Andal invasion was essentially a standard-issue barbarian migration over the course of centuries due to pressure by the Rhyonar expansion but was recorded anachronistically by later scholars.

Whatever population was left behind in the hills of Andalos were either killed, enslaved, or absorbed into the expanding Rhyonar/Valarian empires, and whatever isolated villages survived that were probably destroyed by the Dothraki or fled to Braavos. Andal culture survived and thrived in Westeros due geographical isolation.

Lastly, we don't quite know exactly that the Faith of the Seven was entirely extinguished in the hills of Andalos... the best we get is Illyrio talking to Tyrion.  There may very well be isolated pockets of Andals off the to be found off the beaten path, or crypto-Seveners walking around in the free cities.

[Ser Lepus]

sertravisredbeard, on 16 November 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

I've always wondered this about the Rhoynar too.  They're pretty far from Volantis, so did Nymeria have to build the 10,000 ships in order to fight their way through to escape?  I know the Rhoyne is huge but 1000 years ago is right in the prime of the Valyrian Empire;  if she wanted to lead her people to freedom, steering them right past one of Valyria's larger cities had to be hard.  The logistics don't make sense to me.

Maybe they were pushed away from the Rhoyne a long ago? Maybe they had been living in today's Disputed Lands for centuries before Nymeria took them to Westeros.

They would have been exiled two times: One out from the Rhoyne, being pushed to the West and North (and Nymeria would be descended from the western branch), and a second one from the Disputed Lands (and that would be Nymeria's migration).

Edited by Ser Lepus, 19 November 2012 - 12:04 PM.