Jump to content

Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

How long does it take Hoster to muster his troops?  Probably a fortnight.  That is how long it took Robb:  When the Karstarks arrived (they were the last), Robb's portcullises had been up "for near a fortnight."  And how long did Ned linger in Riverrun?  "Ned had lingered scarcely a fortnight with his new bride before he too had ridden off to war."  So Ned wasn't just on his honeymoon.  He was waiting for Hoster's bannermen to arrive

The troops were arriving at Winterfell for a fortnight, but that doesn't mean Robb called his banner's only a fortnight before the chapter takes place. The troops that arrived at the first day of that fortnight had needed time to gather as well. Also, Robb didn't march with the full strength of the north; if he had, gathering the men likely would have taken longer as well.

So I would expect that it took Hoster a little while longer. And there's the additional problem he faced with several of his bannermen who remained loyal to House Targaryen, which led to battles in the riverlands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I suppose to fit everyone's favorite theory that Lyanna died from childbirth (or complications thereof) at the tower of joy, we could rewrite significant portions of the book as Kingsmonkey suggest, or we could dare to suggest that maybe Lyanna didn't give birth to Jon at the time of or even the place of the tower of joy.

Or, here's thought. I know it's a touch crackpot, but hear me out. 

1. It could be argued that which of two battles a minor character is twice mentioned as dying in fifteen years previous to the start of the novel and with no impact on the storyline is perhaps not really "significant portions of the book". It's changing "the Bells" to "Gulltown" twice. 8 letters in the space of 5 books. If that's "significant portions" then you're missing a lot of pages in your copies.

The change would have no impact other than to make it easier to see how events that are written about elsewhere actually string together, and explain an apparent contradiction in the text (Jon Arryn getting married to replace an heir he hadn't lost yet).  Every other explanation for that contradiction involves changing the text too. Your proposal that Hoster brought along his own forces to the Battle of the Bells but only called his banner afterwards is a good one, but it changes the text. "Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully." That's a far more "significant rewrite" than mine. 

2. This has got nothing to do with fitting in Lyanna dying at the tower of joy. It's got to do with fitting all the things that GRRM has actually said together. SFDanny posted a Citadel timeline of the Rebellion that fits just fine with that standard view you hate so much. I proposed this alternative as a thought experiment to help resolve the problem that came up in discussion with @The Twinslayer, that there appears to have been a strange gap at one end or other of the rebellion. If I was trying so hard to make Lyanna at the ToJ fit, I'd just go along with the conventional timeline that already does that rather than looking for alternatives to it.

3. There was a 3, but the Grand Wizard of the Great Evil RLJ Conspiracy of Doom ordered me to delete it, so of course I complied. All Hail the Grand Wizard! All Hail!

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So we have battles plural.  Which also makes sense because outside of the Sack no significant battles had occurred yet in the Crownlands, which would have been the lords with the most loyalty to the Crown.  So it would make sense that Eddard would have had to put down any remaining opposition while he was still in King's Landing, and before he travelled to Storm's End.  And at Storm's End there would have at least had to have been a peace negotiation between his forces and Mace's.  Then Ned would have had to have figured out the location of the tower of joy and travelled there with his group of seven.

Eddard left King's Landing the "very day" of Robert's coronation, when the bodies of Aegon & Rhaenys were still fresh and had to be wrapped in red cloaks to hide the blood.

As we know that the relief of Storm's End was bloodless, I agree there must have been at least one battle in the Crownlands. That makes sense. There would be no more major battles though. GRRM made it clear in an SSM I quoted above, but will repeat here:

Quote

 

When Ned appeared, Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead, and Viserys fled. There was no one left to fight for, and the war was clearly lost anyway.

The modern concept of "total war" really didn't exist in the medieval period. Armies were personal, as were loyalties. The leader who wanted to fight on till the last drop of blood might well have found himself fighting on alone, since his vassals were likely to have better sense, and their levies were more likely to follow their own lord than the "general." Tyrell's surrender was pretty much warfare as usual. If he had =tried= to give battle to Ned in a lost cause, he might well have found his more opportunistic bannermen deserting to the other side.

 

In short, there was nobody left for those loyalist Crownlanders to be loyal to. We're probably looking at a few skirmishes and some short, sharp and overwhelming shows of force against a holdout Lord or two. 

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So this is a long winded way of saying If Jon was born at the time of the Trident, a significant amount of time had to have elapsed before the battle at the tower of joy.  Which means if we decide the SSM is correct, Jon was born well before the battle at the tower of joy.

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Jon was born at the time of the Trident, so I don't think many poeple are going to argue that point.

 The SSM makes it clear he was born some weeks after the Sack, well after the Trident. How long before the toj is depends on how long GRRM intended that post-Sack section of the war to last, which we do not have sufficient information to know for sure. It would have to be as little as 4 weeks to have Jon actually born as Ned arrives, which seems a bit of a stretch even with GRRMs disregard of travel times. However there's no evidence to the contrary, and GRRM is GRRM, so it has to remain on the table. At the far end of the scale there's probably scope in the text to have a good 3 months between Sack and  toj, which would make Jon perhaps a couple of months old, raising questions about the "bed of blood". For that reason most people would prefer no more than 2 weeks. That gives perhaps 6 weeks after the sack if the SSM is correct. Which fits with the timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm forgetting some major piece of evidence, but it seems people are putting too much store in the line about Jon Arryn marrying Lysa because his heirs were all dead.  From memory it was his last heir, a more distant relative, whose death was the catalyst for Jon marrying Lysa.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that Jon waited until after his death - perhaps he decided beforehand that he needed more heirs as he was fast running out.

I just don't see it as concrete evidence that the wedding had to take place after the Battle of the Bells.  Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Maybe I'm forgetting some major piece of evidence, but it seems people are putting too much store in the line about Jon Arryn marrying Lysa because his heirs were all dead.  From memory it was his last heir, a more distant relative, whose death was the catalyst for Jon marrying Lysa.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that Jon waited until after his death - perhaps he decided beforehand that he needed more heirs as he was fast running out.

I just don't see it as concrete evidence that the wedding had to take place after the Battle of the Bells.  Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

The point was that Jon's marriage to Lysa had been arranged in a lot of haste, whereas Catelyn had known for a bit longer that she and Eddard would marry. And Catelyn is clear to put it on the death of all of Jon's potential heirs.

If she had lost a child before, that might explain Father’s words, and much else besides... Lysa’s match with Lord Arryn had been hastily arranged, and Jon was an old man even then, older than their father. An old man without an heir. His first two wives had left him childless, his brother’s son had been murdered with Brandon Stark in King’s Landing, his gallant cousin had died in the
Battle of the Bells. He needed a young wife if House Arryn was to continue... a young wife known to be fertile.

 

And while it is semi-canon source, the app states that Robert was present at the wedding feast, which would not have been possible before the Battle of the Bells. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Maybe I'm forgetting some major piece of evidence, but it seems people are putting too much store in the line about Jon Arryn marrying Lysa because his heirs were all dead.  From memory it was his last heir, a more distant relative, whose death was the catalyst for Jon marrying Lysa.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that Jon waited until after his death - perhaps he decided beforehand that he needed more heirs as he was fast running out.

I just don't see it as concrete evidence that the wedding had to take place after the Battle of the Bells.  Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Quote

More victories were to come for Lord Robert and the stormlords as they marched to join forces with Lord Arryn and the Northmen who supported their cause.  Rightly famed is Robert's grand victory at Stoney Sept, also called the Battle of the Bells, where he slew the famous Ser Myles Mooton - once Prince Rhaegar's squire- and five men besides, and might well have killed the new Hand, Connington, had the battle brought them together.  The victory sealed the entry of the riverlands into the conflict, following the marriage of Lord Tullly's daughters to Lords Arryn and Stark.

The World Book at least seems to say that the marriage occurred after the Battle of the Bells, but I guess you could argue a certain amount of wiggle room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Or, here's thought. I know it's a touch crackpot, but hear me out. 

1. It could be argued that which of two battles a minor character is twice mentioned as dying in fifteen years previous to the start of the novel and with no impact on the storyline is perhaps not really "significant portions of the book". It's changing "the Bells" to "Gulltown" twice. 8 letters in the space of 5 books. If that's "significant portions" then you're missing a lot of pages in your copies.

The change would have no impact other than to make it easier to see how events that are written about elsewhere actually string together, and explain an apparent contradiction in the text (Jon Arryn getting married to replace an heir he hadn't lost yet).  Every other explanation for that contradiction involves changing the text too. Your proposal that Hoster brought along his own forces to the Battle of the Bells but only called his banner afterwards is a good one, but it changes the text. "Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully." That's a far more "significant rewrite" than mine. 

2. This has got nothing to do with fitting in Lyanna dying at the tower of joy. It's got to do with fitting all the things that GRRM has actually said together. SFDanny posted a Citadel timeline of the Rebellion that fits just fine with that standard view you hate so much. I proposed this alternative as a thought experiment to help resolve the problem that came up in discussion with @The Twinslayer, that there appears to have been a strange gap at one end or other of the rebellion. If I was trying so hard to make Lyanna at the ToJ fit, I'd just go along with the conventional timeline that already does that rather than looking for alternatives to it.

3. There was a 3, but the Grand Wizard of the Great Evil RLJ Conspiracy of Doom ordered me to delete it, so of course I complied. All Hail the Grand Wizard! All Hail!

Eddard left King's Landing the "very day" of Robert's coronation, when the bodies of Aegon & Rhaenys were still fresh and had to be wrapped in red cloaks to hide the blood.

As we know that the relief of Storm's End was bloodless, I agree there must have been at least one battle in the Crownlands. That makes sense. There would be no more major battles though. GRRM made it clear in an SSM I quoted above, but will repeat here:

In short, there was nobody left for those loyalist Crownlanders to be loyal to. We're probably looking at a few skirmishes and some short, sharp and overwhelming shows of force against a holdout Lord or two. 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim Jon was born at the time of the Trident, so I don't think many poeple are going to argue that point.

 The SSM makes it clear he was born some weeks after the Sack, well after the Trident. How long before the toj is depends on how long GRRM intended that post-Sack section of the war to last, which we do not have sufficient information to know for sure. It would have to be as little as 4 weeks to have Jon actually born as Ned arrives, which seems a bit of a stretch even with GRRMs disregard of travel times. However there's no evidence to the contrary, and GRRM is GRRM, so it has to remain on the table. At the far end of the scale there's probably scope in the text to have a good 3 months between Sack and  toj, which would make Jon perhaps a couple of months old, raising questions about the "bed of blood". For that reason most people would prefer no more than 2 weeks. That gives perhaps 6 weeks after the sack if the SSM is correct. Which fits with the timeline.

I'm putting Jon's birth at the time of the Trident purely from the SSM putting Jon's birth 8 to 9 months prior to Dany's birth.  Dany was conceived just after the Trident and before the Sack.  The gestation period would be 8 to 9 months, thus we have more evidence that Jon's birth happened around the time of the Trident than we do any other event.

Now granted, I dont' have any issue in disregarding the SSM.  In my mind, the SSM's aren't cannon until Martin writes them into the books, so in that I agree with Twinslayer.  But if we want to use the SSM, I think we have to argue that Jon's birth happened around the time of the Trident because we know that Dany's conception happened shortly thereafter.

Now to be completely honest, I think Dany's conception may be up in the air, because I have a serious question that Rahella gave birth to Dany.  But I'm not going to get into a lemongate argument here.

As for the battles that happened after the Sack, if the post Red Wedding cleanup is any indication, these wars don't just stop.  Even in lost causes, Lords can hold out in their castles as they try and work out a peace agreement with the new regime.  Because for all they know, if they capitulate, they and all of their family are going to lose their heads.  Take Jaime's trip to the Riverrun as an example, post war cleanups take a while.  It's also unclear about how long it takes for everyone to figure out the lay of the land. 

But regardless if the timeframe of the war up until the Sack (almost a year) and the timeframe of the Siege (almost a year) are to have any meaning, then we know that the Siege didn't end after the Sack in roughly the same amount of time as had elapsed between the time it took Robert to take part in the Gulltown battle and then to travel to the Stormlands, gather his liege lords, defeat the ornery ones, and then do battle with Tarly's forces.

Plus we have the full year after the Battle of the Bells before Cat sees Ned in Winterfell, which lends credence that Ned's duties after the Sack took a while to complete.

To line up Jon's birth around the time of the battle at the tower of joy and 8 to 9 months prior to Dany's birth puts a huge strain on the timeline.  It forces the siege to end almost as soon as the Sack ends.  Which rushes the events leading up to the Battle of the Bells, and then gives a huge amount of downtime while armies from the Stormlands, Eyrie, and the North, are all being hosted in the Riverlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I'm putting Jon's birth at the time of the Trident purely from the SSM putting Jon's birth 8 to 9 months prior to Dany's birth.  Dany was conceived just after the Trident and before the Sack.  The gestation period would be 8 to 9 months, thus we have more evidence that Jon's birth happened around the time of the Trident than we do any other event.

You've got this the wrong way around. Jon's 8-9 months indicates less than nine months. If we take the top end of that, it would indicate that Jon was born around the day that Dany was conceived. Dany was conceived some time after the Trident, so to Jon was born some time after the Trident too, or we'd have had 9-10 months instead of 8-9 months. 

Which is not to say that a birth at the same time of the Trident is totally incompatible with that SSM, because GRRM said that it was " probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts". Probably, or, thereabouts. Three qualifiers in one. He is certainly not being exact. Maybe it was seven months, maybe ten. If it was seven months, we could be looking at as much as six weeks after the sack. 

I'm going to quote another part of that same SSM which gets ignored too much in this kind of discussion:

Quote

I do intend to publish a timeline as an appendix in one or other of the later volumes, but even when I do, I am not certain I'm going to start detailing things down to months and days. With such a huge cast of characters, just keeping track of the =years= drives me half mad sometimes. 

So Spake Martin

The kind of careful analysis of timelines were doing here is fundamentally pointless, because GRRM does not write that way. He thinks in terms of "a bit before" or "not too long after", and struggles to keep track of the years, let alone the months. We can rely on the sequence of events and the rough timescales, but to declare something GRRM has told us must be false on the basis of a timeline analysis is to suggest that GRRM keeps accurate timelines. Maybe in the real world there wouldn't be enough time for Ned to do all those different things in the short period allowed  --  but the God of Westeros has a clock that's unreliable even for the year and a landscape dotted with secret teleporters. 

GRRM+Numbers = Nope nope nope.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

You've got this the wrong way around. Jon's 8-9 months indicates less than nine months. If we take the top end of that, it would indicate that Jon was born around the day that Dany was conceived. Dany was conceived some time after the Trident, so to Jon was born some time after the Trident too, or we'd have had 9-10 months instead of 8-9 months. 

Which is not to say that a birth at the same time of the Trident is totally incompatible with that SSM, because GRRM said that it was " probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts". Probably, or, thereabouts. Three qualifiers in one. He is certainly not being exact. Maybe it was seven months, maybe ten. If it was seven months, we could be looking at as much as six weeks after the sack. 

I'm going to quote another part of that same SSM which gets ignored too much in this kind of discussion:

The kind of careful analysis of timelines were doing here is fundamentally pointless, because GRRM does not write that way. He thinks in terms of "a bit before" or "not too long after", and struggles to keep track of the years, let alone the months. We can rely on the sequence of events and the rough timescales, but to declare something GRRM has told us must be false on the basis of a timeline analysis is to suggest that GRRM keeps accurate timelines. Maybe in the real world there wouldn't be enough time for Ned to do all those different things in the short period allowed  --  but the God of Westeros has a clock that's unreliable even for the year and a landscape dotted with secret teleporters. 

GRRM+Numbers = Nope nope nope.

 

Why do we assume that Dany was conceived after the Trident?  In fact the best evidence we have of her conception occurred before the Trident, as Jaime and Darry stood guard as Aerys raped Rahella. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Why do we assume that Dany was conceived after the Trident?  In fact the best evidence we have of her conception occurred before the Trident, as Jaime and Darry stood guard as Aerys raped Rahella. 

That's a very interesting question. 

The very first information we're given on this is "She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight..." way back in Dany's first chapter. That nine moons obviously indicates that she was conceived just prior to the flight to Dragonstone, which was after the sack. 

However, as you point out, that doesn't tally with Jaime's memory of standing guard with Darry, who was dead by then. For Darry to have been present in KL at the time of Dany's conception, 9 moons simply doesn't work. Maybe Dany was wrong and it was 8 moons?

However there's another problem, which can be seen by comparing these two passages:

Quote

The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. 

and...

Quote

 

" Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer. The man who had cooked Lord Rickard Stark in his own armor. And all the time, I stood by the foot of the Iron Throne in my white plate, still as a corpse, guarding my liege and all his sweet secrets.

"My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close.

 

So was Darry there or not? Jaime contradicts himself. There are three possibilities:

1. Darry was there, and Jaime made a mistake when he said his brothers were all away.

2. Darry wasn't there, and Jaime conflated two separate incidents of Aerys raping Rhaella. 

3. Darry wasn't there when the burning took place, but returned to KL later that day to stand guard.

Which of these makes most sense? We're told that Darry and Barristan left KL to rally the survivors of the Battle of the Bells. We don't know whether he returned to KL or not before the Trident, but it's very possible. However that would place the burning of Chelsted before the royalists had even started out for the Trident.

However if "Aerys burnt [Chelsted] alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer" and Rossart "was only Hand for a fortnight", that places the burning of Chelsted two weeks before the sack, so after the Trident, when Darry was already dead. TWOIAF also (admittedly slightly ambiguously) seems to place Chelsted's burning after the Trident. 

In short, we have two apparently contradictory reports from Jaime.

If we accept Darry was there, we have to reject Dany's "nine moons" and Rossart being hand for a fortnight (or at least suggest that Aerys didn't replace Chelsted with Rossart immediately, which would mean he went without appointing a new Hand for some weeks during the most critical period of the war, despite Rossart being the very obvious choice and Jaime's "Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart"). We also have to assume that Chelsted's uncovering of the wildfire plot, confrontation with Aerys and burning all happened before Rhaegar and his forces had left for the Trident -- yet somehow the wildfire plot remained a secret -- and for some reason all the other King's Guards just happened to be out of town for the day.

If on the other hand we assume that Jaime conflated two separate rapes, then all the other problems melt away. Perhaps Darry's "but not from her" lesson occured after Aerys had Rickard Stark burned.

In conclusion, the evidence you cite implies Dany was conceived before the Trident as you say, but it's contradicted by every other piece of evidence we have. The most likely conclusion to this is the most parsimonious one -- that there is only one error in reporting rather than multiple errors in reporting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2017 at 0:24 PM, Kingmonkey said:

That's a very interesting question. 

The very first information we're given on this is "She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight..." way back in Dany's first chapter. That nine moons obviously indicates that she was conceived just prior to the flight to Dragonstone, which was after the sack. 

However, as you point out, that doesn't tally with Jaime's memory of standing guard with Darry, who was dead by then. For Darry to have been present in KL at the time of Dany's conception, 9 moons simply doesn't work. Maybe Dany was wrong and it was 8 moons?

However there's another problem, which can be seen by comparing these two passages:

and...

So was Darry there or not? Jaime contradicts himself. There are three possibilities:

1. Darry was there, and Jaime made a mistake when he said his brothers were all away.

2. Darry wasn't there, and Jaime conflated two separate incidents of Aerys raping Rhaella. 

3. Darry wasn't there when the burning took place, but returned to KL later that day to stand guard.

Which of these makes most sense? We're told that Darry and Barristan left KL to rally the survivors of the Battle of the Bells. We don't know whether he returned to KL or not before the Trident, but it's very possible. However that would place the burning of Chelsted before the royalists had even started out for the Trident.

However if "Aerys burnt [Chelsted] alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer" and Rossart "was only Hand for a fortnight", that places the burning of Chelsted two weeks before the sack, so after the Trident, when Darry was already dead. TWOIAF also (admittedly slightly ambiguously) seems to place Chelsted's burning after the Trident. 

In short, we have two apparently contradictory reports from Jaime.

If we accept Darry was there, we have to reject Dany's "nine moons" and Rossart being hand for a fortnight (or at least suggest that Aerys didn't replace Chelsted with Rossart immediately, which would mean he went without appointing a new Hand for some weeks during the most critical period of the war, despite Rossart being the very obvious choice and Jaime's "Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart"). We also have to assume that Chelsted's uncovering of the wildfire plot, confrontation with Aerys and burning all happened before Rhaegar and his forces had left for the Trident -- yet somehow the wildfire plot remained a secret -- and for some reason all the other King's Guards just happened to be out of town for the day.

If on the other hand we assume that Jaime conflated two separate rapes, then all the other problems melt away. Perhaps Darry's "but not from her" lesson occured after Aerys had Rickard Stark burned.

In conclusion, the evidence you cite implies Dany was conceived before the Trident as you say, but it's contradicted by every other piece of evidence we have. The most likely conclusion to this is the most parsimonious one -- that there is only one error in reporting rather than multiple errors in reporting. 

There are definitely some continuity errors (and retcons) relating to the events of the rebellion, but I think we can say definitively that Dany was conceived exactly 2 weeks before the Sack, and that it was prior to the Trident.  This hinges on Jon Darry's movements, starting with the Battle of the Bells.  

We don't know whether Darry (or any other Kingsguard) was with Connington at the Battle of the Bells.  We do know that once that battle was lost, Aerys started taking the rebel threat seriously.  He responds to the threat by sending Darry and Barristan Selmy to Stoney Sept to collect the remnants of Connington's army.  At the same time, someone makes contact with Rhaegar and persuades him to return "from the south" while Prince Lewyn goes to meet a Dornish army that is already on its way up the Kingsroad.  

We also know that Darry returned to King's Landing between the time he and Selmy collected the remnants of Connington's army at Stoney Sept and the time Rhaegar left to ride to the Trident, since Darry is the one who reminds Jaime that the Kingsguard vow includes a vow to obey orders when Jaime asks to go to the Trident with Rhaegar.  Of course, Darry died at the Trident, so that was the last time he was in King's Landing.

The other thing that we know is that Chelsted was burned two weeks before the Sack (because Rossart replaced him as Hand, was Hand for a fortnight, and was killed by Jaime during the Sack), and that that night, Aerys attacked Rhaella.  And we know that Rhaella's wounds were still visible some days later when news of the loss at the Trident arrived and she and Viserys fled to Dragonstone.  So the flight to Dragonstone took place after the Trident but before the Sack.  If we assume it took Rhaegar's army a week to get to the Trident and it took Ned's army a week to get from the Trident to King's Landing, then the flight to Dragonstone was probably about a week to ten days after Dany was conceived.  

Then the only issue is:  how is it that "all my brothers were away" the day Chelsted burned but Darry was present that night when Rhaella was attacked?  And that is easy:  Darry arrived that afternoon from Stoney Sept, leaving Barristan with the army they had just regathered.  He got there after Chelsted was dead, and stood guard with Jaime that night.   The next morning, Darry left with Rhaegar to meet Prince Lewyn's army and Barristan's army on their way to the Trident. 

The only problem that remains is why Viserys thinks he and Rhaella fled at midnight while Jaime thinks he saw Rhaella leave in the morning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

There are definitely some continuity errors (and retcons) relating to the events of the rebellion, but I think we can say definitively that Dany was conceived exactly 2 weeks before the Sack, and that it was prior to the Trident.  This hinges on Jon Darry's movements, starting with the Battle of the Bells.  

We don't know whether Darry (or any other Kingsguard) was with Connington at the Battle of the Bells.  We do know that once that battle was lost, Aerys started taking the rebel threat seriously.  He responds to the threat by sending Darry and Barristan Selmy to Stoney Sept to collect the remnants of Connington's army.  At the same time, someone makes contact with Rhaegar and persuades him to return "from the south" while Prince Lewyn goes to meet a Dornish army that is already on its way up the Kingsroad.  

We also know that Darry returned to King's Landing between the time he and Selmy collected the remnants of Connington's army at Stoney Sept and the time Rhaegar left to ride to the Trident, since Darry is the one who reminds Jaime that the Kingsguard vow includes a vow to obey orders when Jaime asks to go to the Trident with Rhaegar.  Of course, Darry died at the Trident, so that was the last time he was in King's Landing.

The other thing that we know is that Chelsted was burned two weeks before the Sack (because Rossart replaced him as Hand, was Hand for a fortnight, and was killed by Jaime during the Sack), and that that night, Aerys attacked Rhaella.  And we know that Rhaella's wounds were still visible some days later when news of the loss at the Trident arrived and she and Viserys fled to Dragonstone.  So the flight to Dragonstone took place after the Trident but before the Sack.  If we assume it took Rhaegar's army a week to get to the Trident and it took Ned's army a week to get from the Trident to King's Landing, then the flight to Dragonstone was probably about a week to ten days after Dany was conceived.  

Then the only issue is:  how is it that "all my brothers were away" the day Chelsted burned but Darry was present that night when Rhaella was attacked?  And that is easy:  Darry arrived that afternoon from Stoney Sept, leaving Barristan with the army they had just regathered.  He got there after Chelsted was dead, and stood guard with Jaime that night.   The next morning, Darry left with Rhaegar to meet Prince Lewyn's army and Barristan's army on their way to the Trident. 

The only problem that remains is why Viserys thinks he and Rhaella fled at midnight while Jaime thinks he saw Rhaella leave in the morning.  

Excellent analysis.  The only thing I would add, is that Jaime's recounting of Chelsted's burning occurred after Jaime suffered from his maiming and was sharing the hot tub with Brienne, clearly in bad shape.  I think a more accurate recall occurred, when Jaime was reflecting on Rahella's rape, when Jaime was of clearer mind.

Of course this raises one other interesting point, if indeed Rahella's rape occurred before the Targaryen army left for the Trident, then it is very possible that Rhaegar would have been present at King's Landing while Aerys raped his mother.  Kind of twisted.

As for Kingmonkey's concern about the 9 moon timeline, 9 moons is a fairly vague descriptor and could just as easily mean 8 months as it could mean 9.

As for Twinslayer's last point, that is kind of interesting isn't it?  (I personally believe that everything Viserys told Dany about her origin is a complete lie, but I understand if most aren't willing to follow me down that rabbit hole).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The other thing that we know is that Chelsted was burned two weeks before the Sack (because Rossart replaced him as Hand, was Hand for a fortnight, and was killed by Jaime during the Sack), and that that night, Aerys attacked Rhaella.  And we know that Rhaella's wounds were still visible some days later when news of the loss at the Trident arrived and she and Viserys fled to Dragonstone.  So the flight to Dragonstone took place after the Trident but before the Sack.  If we assume it took Rhaegar's army a week to get to the Trident and it took Ned's army a week to get from the Trident to King's Landing, then the flight to Dragonstone was probably about a week to ten days after Dany was conceived.  

I can't confirm this due to not having the app, but I have a memory that the app states that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident. Anyone have the app to confirm or deny that?

Yes, I know the app isn't entirely reliable, but it would be a useful extra point of information. TWOIAF implies that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident arrives, but the wording is quite ambiguous. It certainly makes sense, as Chelstead appears to have been killed for trying to persuade Aerys not to go ahead with the Wildfire plot, which is something you'd expect to come to a head when Aerys had decided to go ahead with it after receiving the news from the Trident.  This also gives us a fortnight for Ned to get his men down to King's Landing. We have a parallel for this. On his journey south to become Hand, Ned once again rides on ahead of Robert at the Trident to follow on at his own pace as they go to King's Landing. Of course it's possible that Ned was in more of a hurry the first time, and this being GRRM we can't discount an army travelling 300 miles in a week.

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Then the only issue is:  how is it that "all my brothers were away" the day Chelsted burned but Darry was present that night when Rhaella was attacked?  And that is easy:  Darry arrived that afternoon from Stoney Sept, leaving Barristan with the army they had just regathered.  He got there after Chelsted was dead, and stood guard with Jaime that night.   The next morning, Darry left with Rhaegar to meet Prince Lewyn's army and Barristan's army on their way to the Trident. 

I mentioned this possibility in my post above. It's not a very satisfying one. Apart from the question of whether Chelstead was burned before or after the Trident above, it would be rather strange for Darry add hundreds of miles to his journey to stop off at King's Landing for the night. This also leaves two weeks for Rhaegar's army to march 300 miles, and having Ned's army march the same 300 miles the other way, with the Battle of the Trident in between, all in a fortnight. Ned was in a rush, but Rhaegar wasn't -- and this would have Rhaegar moving his army at least twice the maximum forced march speed of a highly trained Roman Legion for an entire week before battle, despite the fact that they were newly raised levies. No wonder they lost the Battle of the Trident, the royalists probably lost most of their army to exhaustion before arriving! :D

The alternative is GRRM's friend, the unreliable narrator. Jaime was conflating two incidents where he'd stood guard outside Aerys' bedroom. 

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The only problem that remains is why Viserys thinks he and Rhaella fled at midnight while Jaime thinks he saw Rhaella leave in the morning.  

I think this is a very simple one. Jaime was right, Viserys was wrong. 

Viserys was seven at the time, and we know that he had two flights. One was the flight to Dragonstone, which wasn't done in any real urgency, and wouldn't be particularly memorable to a seven year old. The other is the flight FROM Dragonstone, which was a secret midnight flight on a black-sailed smuggler's ship. Viserys only remembers the exciting one, so he transplants the details. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for Kingmonkey's concern about the 9 moon timeline, 9 moons is a fairly vague descriptor and could just as easily mean 8 months as it could mean 9.

Under other circumstances I would agree with you, but this 9 moons is in a very specific context -- birth. People are born "nine moons" after their conception. It would be very unnatural to say someone was born nine moons after something that happened a month after they had been conceived.

There isn't that vagueness when a birth is involved, because there's a natural built-in time standard, the "nine moons" of gestation. Flip it around and you'll see what I mean. By the same reasoning, 8 moons is a fairly vague descriptor and could just as easily mean 9 as it means 8, but would you for a moment think that it would be reasonable to write a character thinking "They had sex and 8 moons later their child was born"? You wouldn't think the narrator was being vague, you'd think it was a typo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Under other circumstances I would agree with you, but this 9 moons is in a very specific context -- birth. People are born "nine moons" after their conception. It would be very unnatural to say someone was born nine moons after something that happened a month after they had been conceived.

There isn't that vagueness when a birth is involved, because there's a natural built-in time standard, the "nine moons" of gestation. Flip it around and you'll see what I mean. By the same reasoning, 8 moons is a fairly vague descriptor and could just as easily mean 9 as it means 8, but would you for a moment think that it would be reasonable to write a character thinking "They had sex and 8 moons later their child was born"? You wouldn't think the narrator was being vague, you'd think it was a typo. 

My only point was Viserys remembrance that Dany was born nine moons after they fled Dragonstone doesn't really disqualify Rahella's conception from occurring before the Trident.  

But going back to your original theory, are we absolutely sure that we can't fit Lyanna's conception to before her disappearance, which would open up either Ben or Brandon as potential fathers?  We have the Sack of King's Landing happening less than a year after the war started.  Let's assume for a minute that Jon was born at the time of the Trident. It's not impossible that a pregnancy can go on for over nine months.  In fact, ten months isn't unusual, and eleven months occasionally happens.  Of course if so, the pregnancy would have probably been fatal to Lyanna, and may have even required a cesarean section for delivery.  

Now if GRRM wrote that in as part of Jon's origin, it might be a reference to the Norse hero Volsung, one of the earlier characters involved in the Volsung saga.  The goddess Frigg sent an apple of fertility to Volsung's mother, and she ended up having a pregnancy that lasted for six winters according to the legend.  Finally she had enough, and ordered a c-section and Volsung was born (fully grown) through a c-section, which of course proved fatal to Volsung's mother.

I don't want to get too far afield, but I think this wouldn't be the first time that GRRM has woven elements of the Voilsung saga throughout this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But going back to your original theory, are we absolutely sure that we can't fit Lyanna's conception to before her disappearance, which would open up either Ben or Brandon as potential fathers?  We have the Sack of King's Landing happening less than a year after the war started.  Let's assume for a minute that Jon was born at the time of the Trident. It's not impossible that a pregnancy can go on for over nine months.  In fact, ten months isn't unusual, and eleven months occasionally happens.  Of course if so, the pregnancy would have probably been fatal to Lyanna, and may have even required a cesarean section for delivery.  

Now that would be a rather juicy way to resolve the bloodiness of Lyanna's condition, wouldn't it? I rather like it. Normally I would dismiss conception before disappearance out of hand based on timescale alone. Even eleven months is not enough. The war had been going on almost a year by the time of the sack, and before the war even starts we have to fit in:

The abduction

Word of the abduction getting around

Brandon goes to King's Landing and is arrested

Rickard is summoned to King's Landing and goes there

Brandon and Rickard are killed

Aerys order Robert & Ned to be delivered to him

Jon Arryn refuses and starts to call his banners

It's hard to believe the abduction wasn't several months before the war started, so we'd be looking at more like a 14 month  pregnancy.

Of course, that would be almost as fantastical as Volsungensaga, but then this is a story with dragons. 

Nice thought! I don't buy it, but I like it. If anything I'd expect Jon's story to more neatly mirror Sigurd, Volsung's grandson. If I remember rightly, he's the one who has a magic sword forged for him that breaks the first two times, but is good on the third attempt at forging when he combines the parts of his father's broken blade into one.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27-1-2017 at 6:24 PM, Kingmonkey said:

However if "Aerys burnt [Chelsted] alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer" and Rossart "was only Hand for a fortnight", that places the burning of Chelsted two weeks before the sack, so after the Trident, when Darry was already dead. TWOIAF also (admittedly slightly ambiguously) seems to place Chelsted's burning after the Trident. 

In short, we have two apparently contradictory reports from Jaime.

If we accept Darry was there, we have to reject Dany's "nine moons" and Rossart being hand for a fortnight (or at least suggest that Aerys didn't replace Chelsted with Rossart immediately, which would mean he went without appointing a new Hand for some weeks during the most critical period of the war, despite Rossart being the very obvious choice and Jaime's "Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart"). We also have to assume that Chelsted's uncovering of the wildfire plot, confrontation with Aerys and burning all happened before Rhaegar and his forces had left for the Trident -- yet somehow the wildfire plot remained a secret -- and for some reason all the other King's Guards just happened to be out of town for the day.

If on the other hand we assume that Jaime conflated two separate rapes, then all the other problems melt away. Perhaps Darry's "but not from her" lesson occured after Aerys had Rickard Stark burned.

I don't see any problem with the conclusion that Aerys did not immediately appoint Chelsted's successor. Especially during such a critical time, it would be an important decision. In addition, with Darry's presence the day that Chelsted was burned indicating that Rhaegar was still present at KL as well, it might even be the case that Aerys did not immediately named a new Hand after coming to an agreement with Rhaegar. Promising Rhaegar the position, or something like that, if he could stop the rebels, but not immediately naming him, because he wanted Rhaegar to proof his loyalty first, for example. When Rhaegar died at the Trident, Aerys named a new Hand.

Having burned his previous Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive for bad counsel during the war, Aerys now appointed another to the position: the alchemist Rossart—a man of low birth, with little to recommend him but his flames and trickery.

Note that Yandel does not state that Chelsted was burned after the Battle of the Trident. Only Rossart's appointment. And Jaime's statement is not that conclusive either, imo.

Rossart's appointment occuring only after the Trident is further suggested by the fact that he was only Hand for a fortnight, ending with his death at the Sack of Kings Landing, mere hours before Eddard arrived with his army. 

We see that it takes the Starks and the royal court which had accompanied Robert to Winterfell takes a fortnight to travel from Castle Darry, near the ruby ford, to King's Landing.

The last fortnight of their journey had been a misery.

Ser Criston Cole takes nineteen days to march an army from King's Landing to Harrenhal,

All this came to pass even as Prince Aemond and Ser Criston Cole advanced upon the riverlands. After nineteen days on the march, they reached Harrenhal … and found the castle gates open, with Prince Daemon and all his people gone.

And Catelyn and Ser Rodrik take a fortnight to travel from King's Landing to the Inn at the Crossroads

“We left King’s Landing a fortnight ago,” Catelyn replied, answering the safest of his questions.

Both Harrenhal and the Inn at the Crossroads are relatively close to the ruby ford.

So Eddard and his army taking a fortnight to travel from the Trident to King's Landing is rather consistent with the other statements regarding the time it takes to travel that route, with Criston Cole's march being most comparable, most likely, with the Stark and Baratheon households being a close second. While two people (Catelyn and Rodrik) travel faster than a large group, even an army on the march, Eddard had been in haste, which would compensate, I think.

 

As to Jaime's statement

“My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close. I was my father’s son, so he did not trust me. He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night. So I heard it all.” He remembered how Rossart’s eyes would shine when he unrolled his maps to show where the substance must be placed. Garigus and Belis were the same.

The wildfire plot was not created in a day. The pyromancers will have been working long on those plans, and especally the creating of so much wildfire. But Jaime was undeniably correct when saying that he was the only KG in KL, because he was indeed the only one in KL for quite some time. Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent had left with Rhaegar before the war began, and as far as we know did not return to KL. Gerold Hightower had been send to retrieve Rhaegar, and Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy were off gathering the remnants of Jon Connington's army, while Lewyn eventually was send to take command of the Dornish army. Jaime was the only KG in KL for quite some time during war's end. That he doesn't specify a short period of time in his statement where Darry was back in KL (to accompany Rhaegar to the Trident, while Barristan waited outside of the city with the remnants of Connington's army, for example) would not be odd.

 

On 27-1-2017 at 6:24 PM, Kingmonkey said:

However if "Aerys burnt [Chelsted] alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer" and Rossart "was only Hand for a fortnight", that places the burning of Chelsted two weeks before the sack, so after the Trident, when Darry was already dead. TWOIAF also (admittedly slightly ambiguously) seems to place Chelsted's burning after the Trident. 

In short, we have two apparently contradictory reports from Jaime.

If we accept Darry was there, we have to reject Dany's "nine moons" and Rossart being hand for a fortnight (or at least suggest that Aerys didn't replace Chelsted with Rossart immediately, which would mean he went without appointing a new Hand for some weeks during the most critical period of the war, despite Rossart being the very obvious choice and Jaime's "Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart"). We also have to assume that Chelsted's uncovering of the wildfire plot, confrontation with Aerys and burning all happened before Rhaegar and his forces had left for the Trident -- yet somehow the wildfire plot remained a secret -- and for some reason all the other King's Guards just happened to be out of town for the day.

The only people who might have known about the true reason why Chelsted was burned alive, were the pyromancers, whichever KG were in the city that day (Darry and Jaime definitly, and Barristan and Lewyn possibly), and Rhaegar. Of those people, only Jaime survived, so that the wildfire plot remained a secret is not so strange.

Anyone else at the Red Keep (guards, servants, etc.) would not likely have been present during the meeting between Aerys and Chelsted, and thus not be aware of the true reason of Chelsted's arrest and subsequent execution. After all, the reason officially given was

Having burned his previous Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive for bad counsel during the war,  [...]

And given Aerys's reputation, there was no reason to doubt that he would burn someone alive for that, I think.

 

As to Dany's statement regarding her birth

She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight, while a raging summer storm threatened to rip the island fastness apart.

She had been born "nine moons" after their flight, a flight which took place after news of the Trident had reached KL. So somewhere in that fortnight between the Trident and the Sack, Rhaella left for Dragonstone. Considering that Viserys was Aerys's new heir, getting him to safety would have been a high priority. Especially if the flight occurred early in that fortnight, there should be no problem. After all, what was Dany supposed to say in her thoughts? "She had been born on Dragonstone eight moons and three weeks after their flight"? Or "She had been born on Dragonstone eight moons and twenty-two days after their flight"?

Of course not.

I agree with you that she won't have been born 8 moons after their flight, simply because, if that had been the case, she would have described it as such. But if Chelsted's execution and Dany's conception occurred the day before Rhaegar left KL with Darry, for example,  two weeks before the Trident, Dany's statement would still fit, especially when we keep in mind that she very well could have been rounding up several days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:31 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Excellent analysis.  The only thing I would add, is that Jaime's recounting of Chelsted's burning occurred after Jaime suffered from his maiming and was sharing the hot tub with Brienne, clearly in bad shape.  I think a more accurate recall occurred, when Jaime was reflecting on Rahella's rape, when Jaime was of clearer mind.

Of course this raises one other interesting point, if indeed Rahella's rape occurred before the Targaryen army left for the Trident, then it is very possible that Rhaegar would have been present at King's Landing while Aerys raped his mother.  Kind of twisted.

As for Kingmonkey's concern about the 9 moon timeline, 9 moons is a fairly vague descriptor and could just as easily mean 8 months as it could mean 9.

As for Twinslayer's last point, that is kind of interesting isn't it?  (I personally believe that everything Viserys told Dany about her origin is a complete lie, but I understand if most aren't willing to follow me down that rabbit hole).    

Thanks.  I don't think that everything Viserys told Dany was outright false.  I do think that he has romanticized the story of the flight from King's Landing.  The "midnight flight" plus placing Dany's birth "9 moons" later implies that Aerys sent his wife and his heir to safety as soon as he heard about the Trident and that they had once last, romantic tryst before Rhaella left, resulting in Dany.  That is what Viserys believes, perhaps because that is what Willem or Rhaella wanted him to believe.  Later we learn the reality -- there was no romance between Aerys and Rhaella, and no last loving time together on the night her departure.  So I don't think that is a lie, I just think it was a way of telling the story that made Aerys and Rhaella seem tragic. 

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:48 PM, Kingmonkey said:

I can't confirm this due to not having the app, but I have a memory that the app states that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident. Anyone have the app to confirm or deny that?

Yes, I know the app isn't entirely reliable, but it would be a useful extra point of information. TWOIAF implies that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident arrives, but the wording is quite ambiguous. It certainly makes sense, as Chelstead appears to have been killed for trying to persuade Aerys not to go ahead with the Wildfire plot, which is something you'd expect to come to a head when Aerys had decided to go ahead with it after receiving the news from the Trident.  This also gives us a fortnight for Ned to get his men down to King's Landing. We have a parallel for this. On his journey south to become Hand, Ned once again rides on ahead of Robert at the Trident to follow on at his own pace as they go to King's Landing. Of course it's possible that Ned was in more of a hurry the first time, and this being GRRM we can't discount an army travelling 300 miles in a week.

I mentioned this possibility in my post above. It's not a very satisfying one. Apart from the question of whether Chelstead was burned before or after the Trident above, it would be rather strange for Darry add hundreds of miles to his journey to stop off at King's Landing for the night. This also leaves two weeks for Rhaegar's army to march 300 miles, and having Ned's army march the same 300 miles the other way, with the Battle of the Trident in between, all in a fortnight. Ned was in a rush, but Rhaegar wasn't -- and this would have Rhaegar moving his army at least twice the maximum forced march speed of a highly trained Roman Legion for an entire week before battle, despite the fact that they were newly raised levies. No wonder they lost the Battle of the Trident, the royalists probably lost most of their army to exhaustion before arriving! :D

The alternative is GRRM's friend, the unreliable narrator. Jaime was conflating two incidents where he'd stood guard outside Aerys' bedroom. 

I think this is a very simple one. Jaime was right, Viserys was wrong. 

Viserys was seven at the time, and we know that he had two flights. One was the flight to Dragonstone, which wasn't done in any real urgency, and wouldn't be particularly memorable to a seven year old. The other is the flight FROM Dragonstone, which was a secret midnight flight on a black-sailed smuggler's ship. Viserys only remembers the exciting one, so he transplants the details. 

I don't think the app is any more reliable than some of the old SSMs, but for what it is worth, here is what it says in the entry on Aerys II:

"That same night, excited by Chelsted's death, Aerys bedded with Rhaella, whose cries of pain could be heard by Ser Jaime and Ser Jonothor.  Ser Jaime was torn, saying the Kingsguard was sworn to protect the queen, but Ser Jonothor responded that, while that was true, it did not include protecting her from the king.  Not long after, word arrived that Rhaegar had died on the Trident.  Queen Rhaella and Viserys were sent away to Dragonstone, and it was said that Rhaella was cloaked and hooded to hide the bruises and scratches Aerys left upon her earlier."

So the app is consistent with the timeline I gave. 

You make some good points about travel time from KL to the Trident.  If, as you suggest, there is more time between Chelsted's death and Rossart being named Hand, I still think Dany was conceived the night Chelsted died.  Which would just mean that the "9 moons" is the romanticized version I mentioned above and that Dany was born about 8 (rather than 8 1/2) months after the Sack. 

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 10:17 PM, Frey family reunion said:

My only point was Viserys remembrance that Dany was born nine moons after they fled Dragonstone doesn't really disqualify Rahella's conception from occurring before the Trident.  

But going back to your original theory, are we absolutely sure that we can't fit Lyanna's conception to before her disappearance, which would open up either Ben or Brandon as potential fathers?  We have the Sack of King's Landing happening less than a year after the war started.  Let's assume for a minute that Jon was born at the time of the Trident. It's not impossible that a pregnancy can go on for over nine months.  In fact, ten months isn't unusual, and eleven months occasionally happens.  Of course if so, the pregnancy would have probably been fatal to Lyanna, and may have even required a cesarean section for delivery.  

Now if GRRM wrote that in as part of Jon's origin, it might be a reference to the Norse hero Volsung, one of the earlier characters involved in the Volsung saga.  The goddess Frigg sent an apple of fertility to Volsung's mother, and she ended up having a pregnancy that lasted for six winters according to the legend.  Finally she had enough, and ordered a c-section and Volsung was born (fully grown) through a c-section, which of course proved fatal to Volsung's mother.

I don't want to get too far afield, but I think this wouldn't be the first time that GRRM has woven elements of the Voilsung saga throughout this series.

Lyanna's pregnancy could have started before her disappearance.  The information in the books allows for Jon to have been born anywhere from about 8 months into the rebellion to 6 or more months after the Sack.  It all depends on Robb's age, since Robb and Jon are "of an age." If Ned and Cat married on the day she was supposed to marry Brandon (as Cat implies in AGOT), then Robb was born 8-9 months into the rebellion and Ned got home 3-4 months after Robb's birth.  If Jon is a little older than Robb (contrary to some of the hints in the books suggesting he may be younger), then he could have been conceived shortly before Brandon learned of Lyanna's disappearance and rode to King's Landing. 

If, however, as I believe, Ned and Catelyn married closer to the end of the rebellion, then Robb was likely born 6 months or so after the Sack.  Jon would have been born shortly before or shortly after Robb, which gives Ned the necessary time to fight the last battles of the war following the Sack and then go hunting for Lyanna. 

The only problem with this analysis is the SSM saying Jon was 8-9 months or so older than Dany.  But even if that is right, if Dany was conceived a month before the Sack and Jon was born 9 months before that, then we get Jon's conception 10 months before the Sack.  If the rebellion raged for a year and that year includes the time it took Ned to fight the last battles in the south after the Sack, then Jon's conception could easily be a couple of months before the rebellion started.

Of course, all of this assumes that Jon is Lyanna's son.  If her child is someone else (Young Griff, anyone?), then Jon's age is irrelevant to figuring out anything having to do with Lyanna's pregnancy.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2017 at 4:48 PM, Kingmonkey said:

I can't confirm this due to not having the app, but I have a memory that the app states that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident. Anyone have the app to confirm or deny that?

Yes, I know the app isn't entirely reliable, but it would be a useful extra point of information. TWOIAF implies that Chelsted was burned after the news from the Trident arrives, but the wording is quite ambiguous. It certainly makes sense, as Chelstead appears to have been killed for trying to persuade Aerys not to go ahead with the Wildfire plot, which is something you'd expect to come to a head when Aerys had decided to go ahead with it after receiving the news from the Trident.  

From Rhaella Targaryen's entry in the app:

Quote

Though she gave him a second son, Viserys, the king treated her with greater and greater cruelty as his madness deepened. He bedded with her on the evening that he burned his former Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive, and the Kingsguard knights Ser Jonothor Darry and Ser Jaime Lannister did nothing. Soon after news of Rhaegar's death on the Trident reached the Red Keep, the queen and Viserys were sent away to Dragonstone. The queen was hooded and cloaked to hide the bruises and scratches given to her by her husband.

The app clearly places the arrival of the news of the Trident after Aerys's rape of Rhaella. While the word "soon" is used to describe the time, for all these things to fit, Darry must leave King's Landing and die at the Trident before word can be sent back to King's Landing of Rhaegar's defeat.

Perhaps Darry is sent back to the king with some message while Rhaegar marches north. While in King's Landing and waiting to bring back Aerys's reply, the events happen as described and Darry then leaves. How fast can a single rider on horse back ride to the ruby ford? Unknown, but it may take some of Martin's magic travel times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/01/2017 at 2:46 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

She had been born "nine moons" after their flight, a flight which took place after news of the Trident had reached KL. So somewhere in that fortnight between the Trident and the Sack, Rhaella left for Dragonstone. Considering that Viserys was Aerys's new heir, getting him to safety would have been a high priority. Especially if the flight occurred early in that fortnight, there should be no problem. After all, what was Dany supposed to say in her thoughts? "She had been born on Dragonstone eight moons and three weeks after their flight"? Or "She had been born on Dragonstone eight moons and twenty-two days after their flight"?

Of course not.

I agree with you that she won't have been born 8 moons after their flight, simply because, if that had been the case, she would have described it as such. But if Chelsted's execution and Dany's conception occurred the day before Rhaegar left KL with Darry, for example,  two weeks before the Trident, Dany's statement would still fit, especially when we keep in mind that she very well could have been rounding up several days.

All good solid stuff, and this to me is the crux of the matter. "Nine moons" is too specific to not refer to a gestational period, but of course that doesn't mean it has to be exact to the day. A couple of weeks less than the nine months, as you say, works perfectly well.

Where I start running into difficulty is timelines where it's 8 months or less and Dany tells us 9. 8 months and a week, maybe. That's closer to 8 but could be rounded to 9 for neatness.

Which just leaves us with Jaime's "When that failed he took off his chain of office and flung it down on the floor. Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer. "  That appears to imply Rossart was made hand straight after Chelstead was burned, rather than the two week gap Darry's presence requires. It could be that Jaime was being hyperbolic and Aerys took a couple of weeks to pick a new hand. It would be odd to leave the Kingdom without a hand at that time, but maybe Aerys was planning to name Rhaegar as Hand if he won, and Rossart as Hand if he lost? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

All good solid stuff, and this to me is the crux of the matter. "Nine moons" is too specific to not refer to a gestational period, but of course that doesn't mean it has to be exact to the day. A couple of weeks less than the nine months, as you say, works perfectly well.

Where I start running into difficulty is timelines where it's 8 months or less and Dany tells us 9. 8 months and a week, maybe. That's closer to 8 but could be rounded to 9 for neatness.

Which just leaves us with Jaime's "When that failed he took off his chain of office and flung it down on the floor. Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer. "  That appears to imply Rossart was made hand straight after Chelstead was burned, rather than the two week gap Darry's presence requires. It could be that Jaime was being hyperbolic and Aerys took a couple of weeks to pick a new hand. It would be odd to leave the Kingdom without a hand at that time, but maybe Aerys was planning to name Rhaegar as Hand if he won, and Rossart as Hand if he lost? 

Jaime indicates that it was Rossart who was Hand after Chelsted, but je remains vague about the amount of time that passed between Chelsteds death and Rossart starting as Hand. He only states how long Rossart was Hand later on. So he's not contradicting Yandel, who places Chelsted's death before the Trident, and Rossart's appointment after.

What agreements Aerys and Rhaegar could have made, I can only speculate about. But such a scenario as you propose if very possible, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...