Queen Rhaenyra

Errors in the WOIAF

167 posts in this topic

(2) is my vote as well. I also take the fall of Old Ghis being 5000 years ago as a solid date as George himself said that the books trump WOIAF in such cases. The only exception is the phrase "a thousand years". It is used frequently and unless we have good reasons, we should take it as equivalent to “long time ago” instead of dating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the lord's, either. We don't even know if the lord of the house is the person who determines who is worthy.

 

Consider the lord to be guardian of the sword in lieu of a Sword of the Morning, rather than owner of the sword. Like ... a lawyer may be executor of an estate, but that doesn't mean they own the estate.

 

Ah okay. Many thanks.

 

Any comment on my other question though about Yandel knowing that Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, and Gerold Hightower died fighting Ned? I don't find it odd as there are plenty of characters who mention that those three are dead so it seems to be common knowledge that they had died at some point, but some were wondering how Yandel knows that the 3 KG died. Is it that Ned had admitted to killing them at some point and Yandel's writing based off an historical record of that? Or is this as the user corbon suggested a continuity error that Yandel shouldn't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran,

 

any idea whether the 3rd and 4th are already on sale? I imagine so since 3rd was already on the way last year.

 

Oh, and can you confirm again that Aerys' anniversary tourney of 272 AC was in KL, not in Lannisport, and subsequently Walter Whent didn't try to outdo Tywin's Lannisport tourney in 272 AC, but rather the 276 AC tourney he hosted to celebrate the birth of Prince Viserys? Apparently there has been some discussion about this topic recently, and it is difficult to convince some people that this is an error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 4th is out, but availability is dependent on places that placed orders for more copies. I think there may still be some 3rd prints still in the warehouses, as well, which may go out ahead of 4th prints in some cases.

 

And yes, you're correct. Already confirmed that a good while ago and corrections were put in for it, but fair enough if it got lost in the shuffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear the 276 tourney was meant there, Ran. :)

 

Was it Aerys then who hosted the 272 AC tourney, or was that also Tywin? Seeing as it was hosted in KL, I assume it was hosted by Aerys, but also here opinions differ during discussions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall reading an answer to this eitther:

 

The chapter on Aerys II's reign states that the Tourney at Harrenhal was announced in late 280 AC. The next chapter, The Year of the False Spring, states that the tourney was announced in 281 AC.

 

Which one is it?

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard disclaimer re: "sorry if this has been posted already"

 

I came across a curiosity in a recent re-listen of the book.

 

"Others followed the mazemakers on Lorath in the centuries that followed. For a time the isles were home to a small, dark, hairy people, akin to the men of Ib. Fisherfolk, they lived along the coasts and shunned the great mazes of their predecessors. They in turn were displaced by Andals, pushing north from Andalos to the shores of Lorath Bay and across the bay in longships. Clad in mail and wielding iron swords and axes, the Andals swept across the islands, slaughtering the hairy men in the name of their seven-faced god and taking their women and children as slaves."

 

The Andals don't take slaves. This is only reference to such and there's plenty to indicate the opposite. This is pretty easily dismissed as a maester error rather than an author error, but it does seem to be an error either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard disclaimer re: "sorry if this has been posted already"

 

I came across a curiosity in a recent re-listen of the book.

 

"Others followed the mazemakers on Lorath in the centuries that followed. For a time the isles were home to a small, dark, hairy people, akin to the men of Ib. Fisherfolk, they lived along the coasts and shunned the great mazes of their predecessors. They in turn were displaced by Andals, pushing north from Andalos to the shores of Lorath Bay and across the bay in longships. Clad in mail and wielding iron swords and axes, the Andals swept across the islands, slaughtering the hairy men in the name of their seven-faced god and taking their women and children as slaves."

 

The Andals don't take slaves. This is only reference to such and there's plenty to indicate the opposite. This is pretty easily dismissed as a maester error rather than an author error, but it does seem to be an error either way.

 

That is no mistake. Andals were slavers once. 

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is no mistake. Andals were slavers once. 

 

:)

 

c'mon now. Not saying you're wrong but you should know better than to say something without posting evidence/proof. :)

 

Where is this stated? (apart from here). We're told at least a few times that slavery is an abomination to both old gods and new. The Faith of the Seven existed back when the Andals invaded Ib as shown the quote I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know who Yandel's source is on that whole episode, or do we? It is most likely some biased Essosi source which does not think favorably about the Andals. If it is true Qarlon may have ruled prior to Hugor during whose times the Faith of the Andals was introduced to them, presumably by the Seven themselves. They may have made laws against slavery. If Hugor is a complete fabrication like many biblical figures (or very loosely based on that Hukko guy from Pentoshi tales) then the Faith's origin may actually have been quite differently than the holy books say. Slavery could easily have a practiced the Andals abandoned after they came to Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know who Yandel's source is on that whole episode, or do we? It is most likely some biased Essosi source which does not think favorably about the Andals. If it is true Qarlon may have ruled prior to Hugor during whose times the Faith of the Andals was introduced to them, presumably by the Seven themselves. They may have made laws against slavery. If Hugor is a complete fabrication like many biblical figures (or very loosely based on that Hukko guy from Pentoshi tales) then the Faith's origin may actually have been quite differently than the holy books say. Slavery could easily have a practiced the Andals abandoned after they came to Westeros.

 

Agree, a biased source or a mistaken assumption is where I'm leaning as well. I suppose I should be open to the possibility that slavery was part of the Andal ancient past, but I really doubt it despite that anecdote from TWOIAF. I'll explain:

 

Nearly all the kingdoms/realms/nations are static. Most seem to have an early development period where things get worked out, but after that they stay put in terms of ethics, trade, religion, technology etc.  

 

Westeros has been in this quasi-medieval state for eons. Qarth has been the same for eons. Slaver's Bay. The Free Cities. The Dothraki of four hundred years ago are essentially identical to the ones now in basically every way possible, etc etc. There are shifts of power, conquests, political upheavals, and extinctions... but not many cultural changes. Lorath is perhaps an exception that comes to mind, and there are others. Balon/Euron's dad tried to change the Ironborn and had some success, but once he died Balon tried to bring back the Old Way.

 

In addition, the Andals were less united than most cultures, at least the ones who came to Westeros during the early waves. It's hard for me to accept that ALL the Andals gave up slavery unless it was a major part of the Faith of the Seven. Otherwise, surely some Andals would enslave (such as First Men armies they defeated), and others would not. But there's zero hint that the invading Andals enslaved a single First Man. If it indeed has been part of the Faith since its inception (since they hated/feared Valyria this fits very well, and the ideals of Knighthood are, in many ways, the exact opposite of Valyrian ruling ideals... but that's another topic altogether).

 

So the Andals abandoning slavery is possible but the more I think about it, the more problems I find. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ History of Westeros you make some good points.

 

Many Essosi cultures have seemed to be heavily slaved based. The Valyrians started using slaves after seeing the Ghiscari Empire do the same. Its not unthinkable therefore for the Andals to have utilized it in some fashion while still in Essos.  However I can't find any mention of the Rhoynar having slaves.The early Andals may have considered slavery as a way of converting their conquered peoples to the Faith of the Seven. As the quote says they killed the men and took the women and children as slaves. It an easy method of controlling the captured populace.  

 

Now the Maesters say that one of the reasons for the Andal invasions of Westeros is that they were fleeing the might of the Valyrians who were also slavers. This is one of the things that could have soured the Andals on the use of slavery.  They could have also been the descendants of the former peoples who were enslaved by the Andals. Perhaps the first Andals to go to Westeros were religious dissidents that practiced the Faith in a manner more similar to the one we know in our story today.  Much like the Puritans of Europe they could have fled across the sea to escape.  In a similar vein the Free Cities of Qohor, Norvos, and Lorath were all founded by religious dissidents from the Valyrian Freehold.  Odd that they end up in the areas near where the Andals originated on the Axe.

 

So I can see the Andals practicing slavery for awhile since it is a big part of the culture of Essos.  There could be plenty of reasons for them to abandon it at a later time as well. Religion is something can change over time our own history can show us that. Or it could be a typo and the Andals never practiced slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole Dornish Wars thing seems rather muddled to me. In the section on Aegon's Conquest it mentions that wars to conquer Dorne persisted during the reigns of both his sons and Aegon's attempt is called the First Dornish War.

However, in the sections detailing the reigns of Aenys I and Maegor I there are no mentions of a Second or Third Dornish War, which one would expect would be significant enough to warrant a passing mention similar to the later Blackfyre Rebellions.

Furthermore, it is stated that in his later years Aegon would make diplomatic visits to Sunspear with Aenys and given the latter's personality I can't think of a reason why he would break his father's treaty (which would have to take place sometime between 37-41 AC, probably 37-39 since that would be when Maegor was Hand) and as for Maegor, he was cruel but not stupid. Fighting a war with the Faith Militant, rebel lords, his family, AND Dorne would have been suicidal, even to him. Jahaerys I is mentioned as being mourned even in Dorne and is noted for the long period of peace he brought to Westeros so there couldn't have been any Dornish wars under him nor his successor Viserys I, who is noted to have continued his grandfather's peaceful reign, which was immediately followed by the DoD, during which Dorne is explicitly said to have remained neutral, immediately after which came the reign of Aegon III, during which time period the realm was probably too weak to launch a campaign against Dorne plus it doesn't fit Aegon III's personality or policies.

All in all, I really wish there was some clarification on just how many wars with Dorne were there under the Targaryens and during whose reigns specifically since it doesn't make much sense given the information available for any of the kings after Aegon I up until Daeron I to try and conquer Dorne. Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c'mon now. Not saying you're wrong but you should know better than to say something without posting evidence/proof. :)

 

Where is this stated? (apart from here). We're told at least a few times that slavery is an abomination to both old gods and new. The Faith of the Seven existed back when the Andals invaded Ib as shown the quote I posted.

 

I discussed this matter in this thread.

 

Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis).

 

I think these slavers and raiders were early Andal incursions as some scholars suggest. Andals started exploring the coastlands of the Narrow Sea and Hugor was the first warlord who successfully raided Westeros. Much like Ragnar Lothbrok, Hugor became a subject of legends and myths. I think these slaver raids of the Andals started 5000-6000 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Dornish Wars thing seems rather muddled to me. In the section on Aegon's Conquest it mentions that wars to conquer Dorne persisted during the reigns of both his sons and Aegon's attempt is called the First Dornish War.

However, in the sections detailing the reigns of Aenys I and Maegor I there are no mentions of a Second or Third Dornish War, which one would expect would be significant enough to warrant a passing mention similar to the later Blackfyre Rebellions.

Furthermore, it is stated that in his later years Aegon would make diplomatic visits to Sunspear with Aenys and given the latter's personality I can't think of a reason why he would break his father's treaty (which would have to take place sometime between 37-41 AC, probably 37-39 since that would be when Maegor was Hand) and as for Maegor, he was cruel but not stupid. Fighting a war with the Faith Militant, rebel lords, his family, AND Dorne would have been suicidal, even to him. Jahaerys I is mentioned as being mourned even in Dorne and is noted for the long period of peace he brought to Westeros so there couldn't have been any Dornish wars under him nor his successor Viserys I, who is noted to have continued his grandfather's peaceful reign, which was immediately followed by the DoD, during which Dorne is explicitly said to have remained neutral, immediately after which came the reign of Aegon III, during which time period the realm was probably too weak to launch a campaign against Dorne plus it doesn't fit Aegon III's personality or policies.

All in all, I really wish there was some clarification on just how many wars with Dorne were there under the Targaryens and during whose reigns specifically since it doesn't make much sense given the information available for any of the kings after Aegon I up until Daeron I to try and conquer Dorne.

The campaign of the Vulture King could count as another Dornish conflict, and it occured during Aenys' reign. Maegor might have had conflicts with the Dornish as well, perhaps, but none are mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I discussed this matter in this thread.

 

Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis).

 

I think these slavers and raiders were early Andal incursions as some scholars suggest. Andals started exploring the coastlands of the Narrow Sea and Hugor was the first warlord who successfully raided Westeros. Much like Ragnar Lothbrok, Hugor became a subject of legends and myths. I think these slaver raids of the Andals started 5000-6000 years ago.

 

Thanks! I've responded in that thread instead of here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandel:
Most famous of all was Ser Arthur Dayne, the deadliest of King Aerys II's Kingsguard, who defeated the Kingswood Brotherhood and won renown in every tourney and mêlée. He (1)died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark (2)was said to have killed him in single combat. Lord Stark then returned Dawn to Starfall, and to Ser Arthur's kin, as a sign of respect.

How does Yandel know these?
(1) we know, because we've seen inside Ned's head. But I don't see how Yandel could know. I don't see Ned telling that story, nor Howland. If they did, then more people should be asking more questions, questions which don;t appear to have been asked, or even thought about.
(2) We know Eddard's men say this. But we don't see any other reference or thought to it from any one. Did Yandel in KL track down their speculation in Winterfell? Surely 'was said to have' would refer to someone of note, or a wider rumour, available around KL, not some junior soldiers in the far north. I guess he must have corresponded with Luwin, so I can see a possibility at least here.

Is it possible that these (especially the first) are really continuity errors with the authors giving knowledge that we have to Yandel?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) is simply Yandel being impressed with Dayne's all-around history and judging from Ned's respectful behavior towards the Daynes. Ned probably said something like "Arthur Dayne died nobly, now shut up and let me hide anything relating to Lyanna's death" when he returned to KL.

 

(2) It's damn likely that the same speculation was all over Robert's, Jon Arryn's and Hoster Tully's armies. Those worshipped the Ned scarcely less than their own Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, corbon said:

Yandel:
Most famous of all was Ser Arthur Dayne, the deadliest of King Aerys II's Kingsguard, who defeated the Kingswood Brotherhood and won renown in every tourney and mêlée. He (1)died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark (2)was said to have killed him in single combat. Lord Stark then returned Dawn to Starfall, and to Ser Arthur's kin, as a sign of respect.

How does Yandel know these?
(1) we know, because we've seen inside Ned's head. But I don't see how Yandel could know. I don't see Ned telling that story, nor Howland. If they did, then more people should be asking more questions, questions which don;t appear to have been asked, or even thought about.
(2) We know Eddard's men say this. But we don't see any other reference or thought to it from any one. Did Yandel in KL track down their speculation in Winterfell? Surely 'was said to have' would refer to someone of note, or a wider rumour, available around KL, not some junior soldiers in the far north. I guess he must have corresponded with Luwin, so I can see a possibility at least here.

Is it possible that these (especially the first) are really continuity errors with the authors giving knowledge that we have to Yandel?

I don't think those are continuity errors. Ran/Linda wouldn't write stuff like that in an in-universe history without asking George whether this was knowledge a guy like Yandel would have.

We also know that Yandel was born in the tenth year of the reign of the last Targaryen king (272 AC) and subsequently would have been a boy of 10-11 during the Rebellion, making it very, very unlikely that he ever talked to anyone in KL at this time. In fact, we have a good reason to believe that Yandel never was personally at court, considering that we do know he became a maester at Oldtown and continued to serve the Archmaesters at the Citadel rather than being assigned to some castle. One expects that maesters like that neither have the coin nor the freedom to travel the Realm to talk to people about obscure details.

I've told you before that the most rational way to treat 'the mystery of the Kingsguard at the tower' is to assume that Eddard Stark told people a pretty detailed version what happened to them, most likely staying as close to the truth as he possibly could, perhaps even telling the whole truth and only omitting the whole stuff about Lyanna's child.

The Daynes, Whents, and Hightowers most likely wanted to know what happened to their kin, and Robert and the entire court would also have wanted to know what the hell happened to the most famous men of Aerys' Kingsguard. This could not be kept a secret or even treated as such. A story would have to be told.

Hell, there might even be (some) truth in the whole single combat story. Perhaps Dayne allowed Ned to slay him in single combat for some reason? Perhaps because of something Howland Reed said to him, connected to things that transpired at Harrenhal? 

In the whole Jon Snow mystery we cannot infer from the fact that nobody seems to be not thinking and talking about stuff they should think or talk about that this actually is a mystery or secret in-universe. Even Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna - if they were married - might not be a secret. Even Robert might known about that. You can rape your wife, too, after all.

If the marriage was no secret, then the reason why the three Kingsguard were with Lyanna wouldn't be a mystery, either. Rhaegar left them with Lyanna to protect his wife. Case closed.

Ned could even have told Robert/the world about Lyanna's pregnancy - as long as he convinced anyone that the child died or was stillborn. He would have to do that had Rhaegar talked to the court and his father about Lyanna's pregnancy (which he could have - from his POV there would have been no reason not to talk about that).

Finally, even the Jon Snow mystery might not be such a big mystery. A prince who doesn't look like a prince, doesn't know he is a prince, isn't raised as a prince but instead as bastard fathered by his uncle simply isn't a prince. And thus no danger to Robert or his dynasty.

Nestor Royce most likely is pretty sure that Littlefinger murdered Lysa. He just doesn't care. He likes lies and Arbor gold more. If Robert has to choose between believing Ned having fathered a bastard after his marriage on some obscure woman and to loose him as a friend, he most likely will go with the former. The man doesn't like conflicts and has a tendency to ignore things he doesn't want to know.

I think the time to make a big deal of the 'Jon Snow secret' are essentially over. It worked, but for it to work quite a few people could have guessed or suspected the truth.

You know that I think Ned must have had some cover story in place to explain the origin of his bastard. That fits fine in which is apparent decision to also talk about the events at the tower and the deaths of the knights in some fashion. Anything else would be very unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ned doesn't need to come up with any story beyond the basics: "we met them, they're dead, five of my friends are dead, I'm griefing that I had to kill people I respected and lost good friends doing it."

There are maybe three people who could dare to press the Lord of the North on such a hurtful story and as his best friend, foster father and father-in-law they are unlikely to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now