Werthead

Atlas of Ice and Fire

164 posts in this topic

23 hours ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

How come Crackclaw Point is coloured in as if it were part of the Riverlands? As far as I know the peninsula was never actually permanently a part of any Kingdom up until the Conquest.

Ah, there we go. In WoIaF it states that Argilac suggested to Aegon that they conquer the lands between Gods Eye and Blackwater Bay, from the Trident in the north to the Blackwater in the south (effectively all of the Crownlands including Crackclaw Point), and that Aegon can then control them afterwards. Aegon points out that all of this territory is under the control of Harren the Black, so Argilac can't offer it to him. That suggest that Crackclaw was, again maybe only very nominally, controlled by the ironborn at the time of the Conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Ah, there we go. In WoIaF it states that Argilac suggested to Aegon that they conquer the lands between Gods Eye and Blackwater Bay, from the Trident in the north to the Blackwater in the south (effectively all of the Crownlands including Crackclaw Point), and that Aegon can then control them afterwards. Aegon points out that all of this territory is under the control of Harren the Black, so Argilac can't offer it to him. That suggest that Crackclaw was, again maybe only very nominally, controlled by the ironborn at the time of the Conquest.

Well it also says that "Harren's father had extended his domains east to Duskendale and Rosby. Harren had devoted most of his long reign, close on forty years, to building a gigantic castle besides the Gods Eye, but with Harrenhal at last nearing completion, the Ironborn were soon free to seek fresh conquests." Which kind of implies that Duskendale and Rosby were the eastern border of the Hoare Kingdom (otherwise I think it would've been mentioned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Werthead said:

Historical Map 19: Reign of Decadence

This was a...challenging period to find something of cartographic interest in.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Werthead said:

I love your work but some of the details you include seem to be embellishments or conjecture that isn't as far as I can remember from any of the texts.

To name a few, from map 19 we don't know that Baelor earned Daemon's "mild enmity" for beating him in the final joust of Daenerys's wedding tourney, nor do we have any evidence that he sought a high court position such as the Handship, and we have no proof for many of the actions you subscribe to Daeron such improving trade, improving relations between the kingdoms (in fact the imbalance in his court in favor of Dorne would have had the opposite effect, just look at the Reach and the fact his eldest two sons were married to Stormlands Marcher Lords), sending Elaena to Braavos as a diplomat, sponsoring great works, and improving laws when Viserys II is the only one mentioned to explicitly have revised the laws after Jaehaerys I unified them.

From map 18: We don't know that the Conquest of Dorne is the Second Dornish War and in fact, given the quotes in the Dornish section as well as the account of Aegon's Conquest, which explicitly mention that there were other Dornish Wars after the First and that attempts to bring the Dornishmen into the realm continued all through Aegon's reign and well into the reigns of both his sons, I find it highly unlikely that Daeron I's war was the second. Also, we have no proof that the Dornish fared better in their rebellion because Daeron I used the same tactics and they had learned not to fall for those, especially since the text mentions Daeron winning several small victories in 160 AC that lead the Dornish to (falsely it must be admitted) sue for peace, seemingly broken (though they well could have been given how serious perfidy of a monarch is).

I hope I'm not sounding rude but these sort of things come up a bit in all the maps and I often have to sit back for a moment and wonder where this or that detail is coming from.

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Werthead said:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Werthead said:

On a separate note, love your maps for the Dance as well. Really helps put everything in perspective but also makes it painfully obvious how much we're missing with those unpublished 50000 words because with just the current text the Dance seems to me ridiculously one-sided against the Greens, who are always hopelessly outnumbered on a regional level and only ever win pyrrhic victories or by treachery, the most glaring example of this being the Battle of the Kingsroad, which I really feel GRRM made the Baratheons lose by authorial fiat more than anything else.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I love your work but some of the details you include seem to be embellishments or conjecture that isn't as far as I can remember from any of the texts.

That's because I'm using embellishments or conjecture that aren't in any of the other texts, but seem like reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the sources available. In that sense, I'm taking the viewpoint of a historian drawing on the sources but having to put in their own conclusions. Rather like WoIaF itself, the atlas is drawing on canon materials but sometimes is missing all of the pieces and has to make (hopefully logical and well-reasoned) leaps to not leave holes in the story.

Quote

To name a few, from map 19 we don't know that Baelor earned Daemon's "mild enmity" for beating him in the final joust of Daenerys's wedding tourney, nor do we have any evidence that he sought a high court position such as the Handship

Those are from the POV of trying to ascribe a motivation for Daemon's rebellion. WoIaF itself struggles hard with this, pointing out it probably wasn't Daenerys due to the eight-year-gap. It concludes that it was Bittersteel's poison, but that doesn't rule out the above conjecture.

Quote

and we have no proof for many of the actions you subscribe to Daeron such improving trade, improving relations between the kingdoms (in fact the imbalance in his court in favor of Dorne would have had the opposite effect, just look at the Reach and the fact his eldest two sons were married to Stormlands Marcher Lords), sending Elaena to Braavos as a diplomat, sponsoring great works, and improving laws when Viserys II is the only one mentioned to explicitly have revised the laws after Jaehaerys I unified them.

Daeron is described as "The Good" and in general terms seems to be the most popular Targaryen king aside from Aegon I, Jaehaerys I and maybe Viserys I. He is described (in WoIaF and in GRRM's portrait notes to Amok) as a peacemaker and diplomat who fought his battles and won his victories with a quill and scroll (hence why he carries one in Amok's portrait), so that's all pretty straightforward.

The Elaena thing is from GRRM's portrait notes and WoIaF: Michael Manwoody's missives to and from Braavos were signed and sealed by Michael, but were written in Elaena's hand. It's also clear that she was the real power behind Penrose's success as master of coin. She's an interesting figure, whose importance was probably undersold in WoIaF.

Quote

From map 18: We don't know that the Conquest of Dorne is the Second Dornish War and in fact, given the quotes in the Dornish section as well as the account of Aegon's Conquest, which explicitly mention that there were other Dornish Wars after the First and that attempts to bring the Dornishmen into the realm continued all through Aegon's reign and well into the reigns of both his sons, I find it highly unlikely that Daeron I's war was the second. Also, we have no proof that the Dornish fared better in their rebellion because Daeron I used the same tactics and they had learned not to fall for those, especially since the text mentions Daeron winning several small victories in 160 AC that lead the Dornish to (falsely it must be admitted) sue for peace, seemingly broken (though they well could have been given how serious perfidy of a monarch is).

If the Conquest wasn't the Second Dornish War, then what was? Nothing else is mentioned as being on a large enough scale. Prior to WoIaF it was plausible that some other major conflict could have been missed in the history, especially as the existence of the First Dornish War was pretty much unknown until WoIaF itself came out. However, given the scale of the conflicts, if there was a military campaign large enough to count as such a war, it would most likely be mentioned. The only thing I can think of is that there was some relatively minor border conflict (like Aliandra Martell's brief raiding period) that some local lord inflated up to call the Second Dornish War and some maester wrote it up as such. But it seems unlikely. I think it's also likely if there was some other very local, small-scaled conflicts that someone did call the Second War, they'd later be retconned by a maester.

But yes, ultimately that was a personal aesthetic choice. I don't like calling it the Conquest of Dorne because, well, Dorne wasn't conquered permanently.

With regard to the later tactics, WoIaF states explicitly that Daeron invaded again in a similar manner to 157 and Oakenfist again mounted a naval assault in the exact same manner as before. It's pretty reasonable to assume that the Dornish guarded against that (if they weren't terminally stupid).

As for why Dorne sued for peace, I think it's clear that Dorne had exhausted its fighting potential (without the Targs being aware of it). The Prince's eagerness to avoid restarting the war once he made peace with Baelor hints at that as well: the Dornish didn't have much left in the pot to fight with.

Quote

On a separate note, love your maps for the Dance as well. Really helps put everything in perspective but also makes it painfully obvious how much we're missing with those unpublished 50000 words because with just the current text the Dance seems to me ridiculously one-sided against the Greens, who are always hopelessly outnumbered on a regional level and only ever win pyrrhic victories or by treachery, the most glaring example of this being the Battle of the Kingsroad, which I really feel GRRM made the Baratheons lose by authorial fiat more than anything else.

I think realistically, the greens should have won the Battle of the Kingsroad and then could have been defeated by the Arryns.

There does seem to be a big plot hole in the Dance that the Arryns really don't seem to have done anything, yet their military force should match or exceed the Riverlands (who appear to have defeated the Lannisters alone - well, bar 2,000 northmen - and then won several further victories). The Riverlands + Vale combined should have easily defeated the Lannisters, the Hightowers and the Baratheons, given they could combine against them and destroy them piecemeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Text

Thanks for responding. Just wanted to be sure about certain details you included.

On the Dornish Wars I have to disagree. Again, TWOIAF explicitly says in the Dornish section that there were other Dornish Wars and that even in times of peace there was raiding in the Marches, which means there was a distinct difference between the two. Furthermore, as I also mentioned before, TWOIAF also says in Gyldayn's complete account of Aegon's Conquest that sporadic attempts to bring the Dornishmen into the realm continued all through Aegon I's reign and well into the reigns of his sons (Aenys I and Maegor I) making an endpoint for the Wars of Conquest difficult to place so just because no other Dornish wars were named doesn't mean there weren't, which, given the above evidence, there almost certainly were. For example, we know nothing about the two years Maegor served as Hand for Aenys nor anything about what he did in the year 46 AC during his reign. Hell, there could have been a very small Dornish War during Viserys I's reign which prompted the idea to marry Rhaenyra off to bring Dorne into the fold. Of course I could be wrong but since we'll have to wait for Fire & Blood to see I won't press the issue.

On nomenclature: The text calls it the Conquest of Dorne and given that Dorne WAS conquered however briefly that is the name that I believe should be used, not that you have to agree of course.

On the Dance I agree a lot is missing.

Like, what happened to the 10000 men the Vale sent according to Ran? Maybe the Royces (because of Daemon) and the Three Sisters (out of pure opportunism) sided with the Greens?

What were the other victories won by the Lannisters in-between the Red Fork and the Fishfeed mentioned in TWOIAF and under what commanders other than Ser Adrian Tarbeck and Lord Lefford did they occur (since the text mentions that the Westerlanders were led by more than a few)? On that note what happened at the Battle of the Red Fork and how did Pate of Longleaf kill Lord Jason?

What was "the Sowing"?

Was there any battles between the Honeywine and the First Battle of Tumbleton? Given the distance it makes little sense if there wasn't.

Where is Ser Byron Swann?

What was the fallout of the Mooton defection?

How is that Oakenfist dealt with the Red Kraken in the aftermath of the Dance when elsewhere in TWOIAF it is mentioned that the Red Kraken was killed in his sleep by a random lowborn woman and in the ensuing succession crisis Jason Lannister's widow Johanna landed an army of Westerlanders using ships from the Reach, catching the Ironborn completely off-guard?

Why was the Battle of the Burning Mill so important that it got mentioned in TWOIAF?

What happened to Simon Strong, his grandsons, and Larys's sisters such that when he was executed House Strong died with him?

Did the Triarchy play any role after the Battle of the Gullet?

Why is Ser Criston Cole, who the books built up as this important and controversial historical figure, such a chump? I mean the Riverlanders on their own beat the Lannisters (Fishfeed), the Baratheons (Kingsroad), the Crownlanders under him (Butcher's Ball, named elsewise in TPATQ), AND stop the Hightowers (First Tumbleton)! Seriously, could GRRM be any more one-sided? Not to mention in TPATQ it says that the Fishfeed was the bloodiest land battle and that two thousand died on each side yet TWOIAF says merely that the Lannisters died in the thousands, implying more than four thousand perished so now the numbers we have are also in doubt.

Honestly, I really wish that GRRM had just released the whole text, even if it had to be in the form of a standalone novel, which I believe 80000 words qualifies as if I'm not mistaken.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30-11-2016 at 0:38 AM, Werthead said:

Between these two there is the rebellion on skagos, you do not mention this.

they rose in rebellion against House Stark during the rule of King Daeron II Targaryen. The rebellion lasted for years and claimed the lives of thousands, among them Lord Barthogan Stark, before being put down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, direpupy said:

Between these two there is the rebellion on skagos, you do not mention this.

they rose in rebellion against House Stark during the rule of King Daeron II Targaryen. The rebellion lasted for years and claimed the lives of thousands, among them Lord Barthogan Stark, before being put down.

Do we know whether this rebellion occurred before or after the First Blackfyre Rebellion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I put that in there. I think it's only confirmed that it happend during the reign of Daeron II. After Barthogan died, his brother Brandon became Lord of Winterfell and was then followed by Beron, who died fighting Dagon Greyjoy c. 210-212 AC. That would suggest it was earlier in the reign, to give enough time for Brandon to have a reasonable reign.

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