• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About direpupy

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,538 profile views
  1. Like i said we are not going to agree on the subject of Munkun versus Tyrion, but i must say i am enjoying this discussion it is one of the best i have had on this forum in a long time. Most of the discussions tend to decent into name calling real fast these days so thank you for your serious answers and willingness to actually discuss. I do agree with you on the dragon thing you are discussing with Jaak. The problem with this is that we basically know that Yandel is wrong in some of the things he says, we are explicitly warned by GRRM about the unreliable narrator so to just assume that a history is correct is not something you can do. I did not assume anything i said we did not know if he was one or they other, thus both options are open. He could be but, it is not certain and that uncertainty has to be taken into account. Really if they have the same coloring and you look at a dragon from a distance how are you going to tell the one from they other? Especially since most people would never have seen the dragon in question before and only know there description from story's. Now the squire knows which dragon his master was going to kill. Did other potential witnesses know? The sources Munkun bases his story could be wrong and again you have to take that into account. I agree that to be a Maester you need links from many different subjects, but being able to get more then one link on a subject does mean there are people who can and will focus more on one area then an other and that was the point. I agree this is a weak point that speaks against Tyrion, but on the whole taking everything into account i do still believe that Munkun is more likely to be wrong. You also have to take into account that the Byron thing is a side note in the histories, that does not influence they outcome of the war. So how much work would Munkun have put into researching this incident for his history? He could have taken some official document in Kings Landing about they incident at face value, because it was just a side note not world shocking news. Since the manner of the attack emulated a famous story it would be the part that makes it into all they accounts, detailed or not. I'm not making a decision i am stating my personal opinion, and i agree with you that no final conclusion can be reached with the current information available. That the citadel chooses the Grand Maester and that others can not do so i do not dispute, but that the King can not influence the decision or refuse to admit the person chosen to the court as Grand Maester i do dispute. You yourself have stated in other treads that the Targaryens where in effect absolute monarchs, even if you have a right to refuse, it is not smart to do so. Its a good place to start for sure, but that does not guarantee the sources are reliable. Having said that, this is a pretty good argument in favor of Munkun one i have not yet taken into account and certainly makes me rethink things. Thank you again for taking this discussion serious like i said at the beginning of my post not everybody does anymore on the forum and for me discussing is about gaining new insites like they one you gave me here. One last note on this, i may be wrong but i do get the feeling from this you think Byron made his attempt in Kings Landing? Again i may be getting the wrong impression, but if i am not then i do feel obliged to point out that we do not know where they attempt took place. I do not agree on eyewitnesses being irrelevant, and would like to point out again that Munkun may not have given the matter much attention since it is a side note in they overall history of the Dance. But i must say you are swaying me more towards Munkun with this, and they argument about the court above this one. Hmm i have to disagree with this, Ser Robert Quince the castelan of Dragonstone does name the Cannibal as the culprit even do he hears the story. Others do not, but in my opinion that just proves that confusing dragons is quit easy since different people come to different conclusions based on the same story. I respect your opinion on this, but i firmly disagree that confusing dragons falls into the same category as your examples. Knowing which dragons there are and telling them apart are to separate things. Anyway you did give me a few things to think about, which i am going to do. With me being away for a few days for work i might not be able to respond to any post you make on this until the weekend or maybe even next Monday, but i am looking forward to your response.
  2. Honestly yes i would.
  3. Sorry Bernie but i am with Free Northman on this one "Brought up from the south" as a statement by someone at the wall can clearly mean that the food comes from Northern lands like Last Hearth or Winterfell since they to are south of the wall. And food coming from those lands to Castle Black where Bowen is when he makes the statement would come up the Kingsroad since there is no river leading all the way to Castle Black. This by no means makes the Kingsroad the main way by which goods from the lands south of the Neck enter the North, now surely there are goods coming that way, but going via White Harbor and then up the White Knife just makes more sense. It is probably the whole reason White Harbor is the only city in the North.
  4. I do not like it better i think it makes more sense in the light of the current information. We are obviously not going to agree on this, except that without more information we can not be sure which one is (Munkun or Tyrion) is correct. Having said that i would like to respond to the points you raise. Nothing indicates that he is not, so they option that this is a possible explanation for a mistake on Munkun's part remains true. Again there is also no evidence that he was a dedicated historian. So to assume that he was is a fallacy. Also that a Grand Maester is or can be an expert in a subject i do not dispute, what i dispute is the assumption that Munkun his expertise is history, because there is no evidence for it save one single publication. To little to assume any level of expertise. On this i agree, but for me this only reinforces that someone like Munkun who would have to have knowledge of many subjects as a Grand Maester may not have had the expertise to make a fully reliable treatis on a historical subject. As to all Maester's being generalist that is not true, GRRM has stated that a Maester can have multiple links on a subject thus being an expert on a subject. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Dragon_Limbs_and_Gender_Valyrain_Weapons_and_Maesters_Chains/ True, but did Munkun hear they eyewitnesses directly or not. This matters because story's change in the telling and thus how reliable they are. I do admit that this also applies to Tyrion since we do not know if he saw the letter or a direct copy, or just read about the letter and its contents. I agree context matters, unfortunately we do not have this context so that makes it hard to determine what Munkun based his story about Byron attacking Vhagar on. I also feel it is important to stress once again,i only find they idea that Munkun is in the wrong more likely based on the current information we have, if and when we get more information this may very well change my opinion. The conclave appoints the Grand Maester but as we see with they example of Aegon V wanting a younger Grand Maester the conclave is susceptible to suggestions from the king. Moreover if the king does not like the Grand Maester he can be send away in favor of a new one, the citadel did not protest the removal of Pycelle, they simply started debating his succession. So the king can most certainly influence who becomes Grand Maester. Royal documents and officials yes, eyewitnesses maybe but not assured. I'm sorry but i do not agree that he had access to better sources just because he was in Kings Landing. Royal documents are not necessarily primary sources they may just be transcription of eyewitness accounts complete with the biastnes of the person who wrote it. This is a complete assumption on your part not a fact. How many people would have seen the dragons, and the coloring of Vhagar is unknown so Vhagar and Syrax may very well have had the same coloring. People may have know the names of the dragons and perhaps there coloring but that does not mean people could tell all of them apart when they saw them. I most certainly would not put it in the same category, far from it even for the reasons i gave above. Neither do we know what Munkun based his account of the Dance on, so his sources being more reliable is an assumption on your part not a fact. To circle back to the top of my post, i do not think we are going to agree on this. And i would like to stress that my current opinion of Munkun being in the wrong is not set in stone, its just my opinion based on the information we currently have.
  5. Not really even in antiquity and Medieval times there was a clear differens between those dedicated to history and people who where more gossipers then historians. You learn the tell which is which when you study history like i did. The fact that Munkun made Grand Maester means that he was not a dedicated historian but a man with broad knowledge who could advise the king on many different matters, so to assume he is a historian based on one treatise is just plain wishful thinking, since it is far more likely he was not. This would require him talking to eyewitnesses like the squire we where talking about, something he does not seem to have done since his account and that of they only known eyewitness are different. Not to mention that he would not have had time for this during the regency and by the time things slowed down enough for him with Aegon III taking the reigns of the realm for himself not all the witnesses would be avalible any more. For the very reasons you give above he would not have been able to write his treatise right after the Dance and like i said him being near to power means he was a general scientist not specialized in any one subject since he would have to be able to advice the king in every matter that came before the throne. Also being close to power does not mean that you have access to knowledge and information that is correct. Why would he not make a mistake like that? You are assuming this man is a competent historian working with solely correct information, based on nothing more then the man having been Grand Maester. I'm sorry but that just does not fly, he may have been a excellent adviser in many matters seeing as he made it to Grand Maester, but that does not automatically make him a good historian. Quite easily actually, you would be surprised how often that kind of mistakes happen in historical treaty's even today. What does not make sense is to trust a man who was not there for the event over the account of an eyewitness. Sorry but for now it is just makes the most sense for Munkun to be wrong. That might change if we get more information, but for now this is the most likely conclusion.
  6. For one, just because he wrote a historical treaty of the dance does not mean he was a historicus, he probably had his history link but that in and of itself does not make him an historian. Secondly he did not live true it, he lived in the same time there is no reason to asume he saw any of the things he was writing about, and with Tyrion pointing out that the squire actually saw they event as an eyewitnes we can resonably assume Munkun was not an eyewitnes. So to use your example of Stalingrad, he is historian who is writing about stalingrad without having been there himself during the fighting, thus working from secondhand sources that are no beter ore worse then Tyrion's. As to your Churchill's staff example, since we do not know when Munkun became Grand Maester and he may well have been named only in 131 AC after they end of the dance he may not have been present at all in Kings Landing during the war. Im sorry but based on the facts we have from the books right now , it is still far more likely Munkun is in error. This may change in future books but for now im sticking with Munkun being wrong.
  7. As someone who studied history at university i can tell you with absolute confindence that this is not true. People who live during a historical event more often then not do not realize they are living to see history made, thus by the time people realize it was a historicaly significant event sources have become unreliable distant memories or secondhand sources. Tyrions sources are not going to be any worse then those of Munkun.
  8. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this i do think it is more likely Munkun is in error here. Also how does Tyrion know about this letter have you thought about that? The most likely scenario here is that the contents of the letter are preserved in some manner. And i disagree with it not appearing he read it, actually from the quote it appears that he did read it. As to Munkun being more in the loop then Tyrion because he was alive during the dance, this is not really much of an argument. Unless Munkun was actually there when it happened, then his sources where second hand and no more reliable then those Tyrion has available to him.
  9. Munkun may just as easily be the one that is mistaken in his book, just look at all the mistakes in books in the real world with all our modern means to check up on things. Hell this entire tread is about such mistakes. Also Munkun wrote his book after the facts from second hand accounts never the most reliable source Honestly Munkun being mistaken actually makes more sense not less. —that it was Vhagar. Grand Maester Munkun errs. Ser Byron's squire saw his master die, and wrote his daughter of the manner of it. His account says it was Syrax, Rhaenyra's she-dragon, which makes more sense than Munken's version. And the text which i quote above makes it clear that according to Tyrion the squire did name the dragon in his letter.
  10. Tyrion mentions the letter of Byron's squire as evidence. The squire clearly identifies the dragon his master tried to kill as Syrax in this letter, seeing as this squire actually saw his master die i honestly think it was Syrax that Byron tried to kill.
  11. It is interesting that he does not speak any other language in the books, but it also seems strange he has been traveling around the free cities for 15 odd years how do you do that when you do not at least learn some of the languages spoken there. There is simply not always going to be a translator. I guess it could be an oversite of GRRM
  12. Fixed
  13. I said it out of an honest interest in they examples you said you had. Just like my first response was merely a observation of the quote you used, so i do not get your hostility towards me. Are you here to partisipate in this tread or just be insulting to people?
  14. I look forward to seeing your other examples then.
  15. He is speaking to Jorah Mormont in your quote, Jorah speaks the languages of the Free Cities but i do not know if he speaks High Valyrian. And there is the possibility Viserys thinking of Jorah as someone from westeros might never have considered or asked if Jorah spoke anything exept the Common Tongue. So his choice of the Common Tongue in your example says nothing about Viserys his ability to speak High Valyrian.