Reposado Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Indeed, and as I said above a lot of what we now label as genocide was and sometimes still is in reality indifference - that is pursuing a millitary, political or economic objective without regard to those who inconveniently stand in the way. yeah. rarely was any people thought of as evil and exterminated for such reasons. typically in any event that we now refer to as a genocide, they were characterized as evil or other, or subhuman, because doing so served as a rationalization for disregarding them in pursuit of such objectives. and it's not a european thing. we just happen to have better written records from longer ago, from the area around the mediterranean/west asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Its worth remembering in this context Leaf's assertion that the great lions of the west are all dead and gone, and yes I agree that the return of the wolves is also about the return of House Stark and so far as getting back to who you are it is certainly argued in another place that this means Jon Snow "discovering he is a dragon" but in reality he has and is a Wolf and everything in the story thus far has been pointing the way to his recognition that [as Lyanna's child] he is indeed the son of Winterfell Maester Aemon proclaimed him to be. Yeah--Targaryen or not, Jon's bonded to that wolf. Who is bonded to his wolfy litter mates. I keep trying to figure out if Leaf's brining up the connection to the ancient animals has more significance. Wolves and dragons for the Starks and Targs. The Greyjoys seem to bring up the kracken, but keeping one as a warging animal seems completely impractical. Can you put one of those things on a leash? Still, we do have the Greyjoys trying to connect to their older, krackeny ways and being kings. All ties to animals and mysticism. Whereas the Lannisters have lost that. And lots of the connections they should have to each other. Does this mean anything in context of Leaf and the dire wolves outliving the Children? In context of surviving the oncoming magical apocalypse? Not sure. But it's interesting--and I won't be able to look into it properly until I stop traveling and get back to my books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarm Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Whereas the Lannisters have lost that. And lots of the connections they should have to each other. Does this mean anything in context of Leaf and the dire wolves outliving the Children? In context of surviving the oncoming magical apocalypse? Not sure. But it's interesting--and I won't be able to look into it properly until I stop traveling and get back to my books. They certainly have lost it by death or disillusionment. I'd think, for almost all intents and purposes, the Lannisters are 'done', mysticism with their animals or not. I've never really felt that any of the great houses have truly been comparable to their sigils other than the Starks and Targaryens. Sure, perhaps the elder Lannisters like Tywin and Kevan could be called regal lions, but the next generations are fairly laughable in that comparison at this stage. Looking for comparisons beyond the Starks and Targaryens might be a futile effort. The Starks are probably wargs because of their bloodline and closeness to the Old Gods where as the Targaryens get their dragon mastery from their Valyrian roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Are you saying they didn't resist Andals at all? Certainly not. FM+cotf alliances against the Andals are well known, and the tales in the WB of such abound. No, I was saying that post-Pact, the cotf have only aided the First Men. I've yet to see a citation from anyone suggesting otherwise, nor anything to suggest First Men (or cotf for that matter) ever broke the known-terms of the Pact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Certainly not. FM+cotf alliances against the Andals are well known, and the tales in the WB of such abound. No, I was saying that post-Pact, the cotf have only aided the First Men. I've yet to see a citation from anyone suggesting otherwise, nor anything to suggest First Men (or cotf for that matter) ever broke the known-terms of the Pact. Given that the Starks fought the crannogmen (traditional allies of the CoTF) and the Warg King and CoTF armies, it seems that the situation was not that clear before the Andal invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 :agree: I'd also say once again that while on the one hand we have the story of High Heart, for the most part the Andals could not have carried out their extirpation of the children in the south without the tacit and probable active support of the first men. And of course once again they found no safe haven in the North despite it being held against the Andals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Given that the Starks fought the crannogmen (traditional allies of the CoTF) and the Warg King and CoTF armies, it seems that the situation was not that clear before the Andal invasion. I make no claims as to clarity, but these examples, even though they occur during conflicts, still demonstrate partnerships between cotf and First Men. They do not demonstrate a breaking of the Pact (if they even occurred after it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I make no claims as to clarity, but these examples, even though they occur during conflicts, still demonstrate partnerships between cotf and First Men. They do not demonstrate a breaking of the Pact (if they even occurred after it). Just saying that the Starks spent sometime killing greenseers between the Long Night and the Andal invasion. So the legendary 4000 years peace between First Men and CoTF is not 100% true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reposado Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Just saying that the Starks spent sometime killing greenseers between the Long Night and the Andal invasion. So the legendary 4000 years peace between First Men and CoTF is not 100% true. not saying they are but couldn't they have been human greenseers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 First one's straightforward enough but "a tribe of fierce wildlings carry men off into madness"? Either an abandoned plotline, an unrevealed faction, or perhaps an idea that eventually morphed into Craster's Keep. With the way GRRM works, it wouldn't at all be inconsistent with his style to start with a basic premise - humans are offered to the "cold gods," and become white walkers - and to have that premise change into something he likes better along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Just saying that the Starks spent sometime killing greenseers between the Long Night and the Andal invasion. So the legendary 4000 years peace between First Men and CoTF is not 100% true. Sure. I'm not saying it was utopian. But do you have quotes that state these events occurred after the Long Night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 I think that it may safely be inferred that the creation of the Kingdom of the North [and the slaying of the warg king's inhuman allies] post-dates the Long Night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 not saying they are but couldn't they have been human greenseers Its always possible but the same passage also refers to the Warg King's "inhuman allies" the children of the forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 4th head of dragon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I noticed somethings about Bran and Jon's third eyes when I was going through ACOK again. Jojen told Bran to open his eye, singular, but in Jon's dream, Bran told him to open his eyes, plural. “I dreamed of a winged wolf bound to earth with grey stone chains,” he said. “It was a green dream, so I knew it was true. A crow was trying to peck through the chains, but the stone was too hard and his beak could only chip at them.”... “How would I break the chains, Jojen?” Bran asked. “Open your eye.” “They are open Can’t you see?” “Two are open.” Jojen pointed. “One, two.” “I only have two.” “You have three. The crow gave you the third, but you will not open it.” He had a slow soft Bran IV Don’t be afraid, I like it in the dark. No one can see you, but you can see them. But first you have to open your eyes. See? Like this. And the tree reached down and touched him. Jon VII Is it just a mistake, either from GRRM or Bran, or are there more than a third eye Jon has to open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Sure. I'm not saying it was utopian. But do you have quotes that state these events occurred after the Long Night? The Kings of Winter section starts with: "Song and story tell us that the Starks of Winterfell have ruled large portions of the lands beyond the Neck for eight thousand years, styling themselves the Kings of Winter (the more ancient usage) and (in more recent centuries) the Kings in the North. Their rule was not an uncontested one". Then it tells about various wars, including the one against the "Warg King and his inhuman allies, the children of the forest". In the Winterfell section it says "Legend says that Brandon the Builder raised Winterfell after the generation-long winter known as the Long Night to become the stronghold of his descendants, the Kings of Winter" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melifeather Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I noticed somethings about Bran and Jon's third eyes when I was going through ACOK again. Jojen told Bran to open his eye, singular, but in Jon's dream, Bran told him to open his eyes, plural. Bran IV Jon VII Is it just a mistake, either from GRRM or Bran, or are there more than a third eye Jon has to open? Maybe Bran is referring to his third eye and Jon's third eye together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 4th head of dragon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Maybe Bran is referring to his third eye and Jon's third eye together? Why would Bran tell Jon his(Bran's) own third eye needed to be opened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Why would Bran tell Jon his(Bran's) own third eye needed to be opened? Whoever sent Jon the dream (BR or future Bran) was pushing Jon to enter Ghost and observe the wildling army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reposado Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Whoever sent Jon the dream (BR or future Bran) was pushing Jon to enter Ghost and observe the wildling army this is what i would assume. jon doesn't have a third eye, he isn't a green seer. bran is telling jon to open his ghost eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 4th head of dragon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Is the third eye a greenseer thing or a skinchanger thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.