Help needed.Some confused Thoughts on Bran/Brandon the builder.

[Macgregor of the North]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I was discussing on another thread the details surrounding the Wall that may change our theories about what Bran may be up to.

If it's true that the First Men were turned into white walkers by the Children as a way to fight back against the Andal invasion, then the Wall may have also been a defensive structure meant to keep Andals out.

If the above is true, then we should view the Night's King and Bael the Bard story through that lens. 

What if the Night's King was the father of a bastard that was legitimized and became the Lord of Winterfell? Ygritte told Jon that his was an evil name. Could it be that the bastard of Winterfell that killed his father was the same retelling of the Night's King story, only from the point of view of the descendants of the Night's King's followers that would not kneel to the new legitimized Lord? 

What interests me now is how Ramsay Snow/Bolton may reprise the bastard of Winterfell story and kill his father, Roose Bolton who is technically the Lord of Winterfell and whose eyes are like dirty chips of ice which may symbolize the Night's King. Add to this Jon Snow who may or may not be dead at the end of ADWD, but who was on his way to Winterfell as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's the same story only the players are a bit mixed up. Is this mixup Bran's doing?

 

I've never really been on board myself with the Wall going up as a defensive structure against the Andal invasion. The Andal invasion is said to have begun either 2000, 4000 or 6000 years ago. Even if it was 6000 years ago that means the wall went up 'less' than 6000 years ago. If it's 4000 years ago like the true history states that means the Wall went up less than 4000 years ago. 

Unless every single piece of information that states the Wall was built 8000 years ago is wrong I just can't quite vibe with this one I'm afraid Feather Crystal. 

[Macgregor of the North]

Also @Feather Crystal, we know the Andals were beat back on the eastern coast by Stark Kings of Winter and Bannermen like the Boltons. The Andals never took the North by the eastern coast so never made any advance over land even close to the location of the Wall. 

And when they tried to take the North by land, they were destroyed at the Neck every time. Never getting even anywhere near past Moat Cailin. 

In the end they never ever took the North.

Why would the Wall go up as a defensive structure against foes that never once got even remotely close to where the wall is? 

Sorry, I've loved your contributions to this thread but I can't get on board with this one.

[Seams]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I was discussing on another thread the details surrounding the Wall that may change our theories about what Bran may be up to.

If it's true that the First Men were turned into white walkers by the Children as a way to fight back against the Andal invasion, then the Wall may have also been a defensive structure meant to keep Andals out.

If the above is true, then we should view the Night's King and Bael the Bard story through that lens. 

What if the Night's King was the father of a bastard that was legitimized and became the Lord of Winterfell? Ygritte told Jon that his was an evil name. Could it be that the bastard of Winterfell that killed his father was the same retelling of the Night's King story, only from the point of view of the descendants of the Night's King's followers that would not kneel to the new legitimized Lord? 

What interests me now is how Ramsay Snow/Bolton may reprise the bastard of Winterfell story and kill his father, Roose Bolton who is technically the Lord of Winterfell and whose eyes are like dirty chips of ice which may symbolize the Night's King. Add to this Jon Snow who may or may not be dead at the end of ADWD, but who was on his way to Winterfell as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's the same story only the players are a bit mixed up. Is this mixup Bran's doing?

I don't know about the Children of the Forest turning First Men into white walkers, but I like where you're going with the figures reliving the story of the Night's King. I began to explore a comparison between Winterfell and the Night Fort a couple of months ago, but I was thinking of Theon, not Ramsay. I think your approach is more complete.

[Macgregor of the North]

6 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

I said this in another thread, the greenseers believed themselves to be the Old Gods themselves, or the godhead as you referred to it. But the Last Hero specifically sought out the greenseers of the Children (implying they were not human) in order to learn some arcane magic to stop the Others' advance. He learns to speak the song of the Earth, which we aren't told the story of, implying that this is the first contact the First Men have with the Children's magic.

There's a Children-like race that also once populated the northern forests of Essos, due south of Ib but they were either exterminated or forcefully evicted. This Children-like race worshiped carved trees and left offerings of leaves, stone, and water for humans. The Old Gods of the North are referred to as the nameless gods of stream, stone, and forest. This all seems to imply that magic was around before the First Men joined and supplanted its use for themselves. As an aside all magic seems to derive from nature in some form, I can't really say more at the moment but that's what my research has lead me to conclude.

I believe you are spot on Cowboy. 

Heres Leaf:

"The First Men named us children," the little woman said. "The giants called us woh dak nag gran, the squirrel people, because we were small and quick and fond of trees, but we are no squirrels, no children. Our name in the True Tongue means those who sing the song of earth. Before your Old Tongue was ever spoken, we had sung our songs ten thousand years."

I think they have been at this magic caper a very long time. 

[Macgregor of the North]

7 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

What Sam was going to say is that this suggests the texts regarding the Others and the Long Night were written during the Age of Heroes, not the Dawn Age.

Im not following you here mate. The Others and the Long night had never happened in the Dawn age. Therefore everybody knows they couldn't have been written/recorded/laid down then because they hadn't happened yet. 

It wasnt until the Age of heroes it happened.

[Macgregor of the North]

7 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

While I'm not fully on board with the idea either I've gotta back up FC on the Wall not being as old as we're told. Samwell, easily the most well read and intelligent of our POVs behind Tyrion, openly questions the timeline of the Wall but never reaches his conclusion.

Sam mentions 674/998 commanders, which would simplify to 675. Assuming the usual 8000 number that is cited, then each LC would have reigned for 8 years assuming there were 1000, according to simple division. Now take the actual number of 674 and multiply that by 8, the number is just shy of 5400. There's about a 1/20 margin for error (or 5%) if you would round to 5000 instead of 8000, which isn't that big considering we're dealing with literal ancient texts. What Sam was going to say is that this suggests the texts regarding the Others and the Long Night were written during the Age of Heroes, not the Dawn Age. He was going to point out there is a 2500-3000 year discrepancy between what we're told and what the evidence indicates.

You may ask why I can be certain 8000 was extrapolated to 1000. Well there's a number of stories mentioned from the Dawn Age and they all tend to work backwards from the present, and assume the timeline is correct. This leads to a number of ancient stories being "confused" in Yandel's words, and are associated with ideas or institutions that would not be around for another 3000 years if the Dawn Age was 8000 years ago. If the timeline is incorrect and these stories only occurred 5000 years ago then it explains a lot of these seeming contradictions.

I wanted to leave this also Cowboy, I appreciate the rest of your post to so I'll reply separately. I do understand what you mean and the years are slightly confused etc but I've always been quite firm in my own view on the Others being created to fight back the Andal invasion and the Wall being built as a defence mechanism against them. 

I just can't vibe with it. The North threw the Andals back from east and south and the Andals never made any land advance into Northern Territory once. They were smashed by Kings of winter and their bannermen everytime. There's not so much as a hint that the Others fought the Andals as a weapon of the singers. 

So if the Andals never made any advance into Northern Territory by force ever, meaning they never landed in the east and got close to sacking towns or cities, and they never made it past the neck, then I can't see why a massive Ice structure would be built north of both the gift areas to protect from the Andals. 

On another point I was thinking. For the Others to battle the Andals it would have to have been a long winter/long night as the Others do not do open battle unless it's in these constant winter conditions. 

Is this line of thought that the Others and the wall are a weapon/defense mechanism against the Andals meant to mean that the Others fought the Andals in the Long night?.

 

[Macgregor of the North]

10 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

What Sam was going to say is that this suggests the texts regarding the Others and the Long Night were written during the Age of Heroes, not the Dawn Age.

50 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Guess I wasn't clear. Not only were the records written during the Age of Heroes but the Wall was founded around that time, after the war with the Others.

 

The first part is the part i think that wasnt made clear. What you have written seems to imply that people had been thinking that the histories regarding the Others and the long night were written in the dawn age. Before the events even happened. The second part seems a U-turn, and more in line with what everyone knows and thought in the first place.

53 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

54 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

I don't believe that the Others were created as a weapon

 

I want to get us on the same page so a nice understanding accompanies the discussion, all in a good nature. You do not think the Others were created as a weapon by the children of the forest to fight the Andals?, but do you think the CotF/Others created the wall as a defence mechanism aginst the Andals during/before/after the Long night?

1 hour ago, Cowboy Dan said:

I don't believe that the Others were created as a weapon or if they were, it was an unintended consequence of the Children using magic on a large scale with the Breaking. Think the Dwarves of Moria and the Balrog for an apt comparison. But that's just an intuitive leap so feel free to disregard it.

 

Hmmm, not quite sure that works. The Moria Dwarves delved too deep underground and awoke and old Balrog. This cant really be used as a comparison to the CotF accidentally creating the Others, unless the Others already existed and something the CotF did made them come back.

1 hour ago, Cowboy Dan said:

 

I do think there's something to the Andals being present during the Long Night as the whole invasion occurring only in the South rests on the belief that the land bridge of Dorne was the only location connecting Westeros to Essos. I can't really say more without opening a can of worms I'm keeping a tight lid on. So we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

The whole Andal invasion never occured only in the south, they tried to land in the North and advance off the coast not far from Bolton lands but were thrown back every time. Which is why i find it strange people think the CotF and/or the Others would build the wall as a defence mechanism against the Andals, since they never troubled lands anywhere near where the wall is. The Kings of winter and his bannermen were sufficient defense for the whole attempted Andal invasion of the North.

 Open the can of worms Cowboy, this thread has kept a good vibe and it will continue to do so. I just want to get a grasp of exactly what you are implying. Could you briefly summarise your view and the discussion can flow from there?

[Melifeather]

17 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

I've never really been on board myself with the Wall going up as a defensive structure against the Andal invasion. The Andal invasion is said to have begun either 2000, 4000 or 6000 years ago. Even if it was 6000 years ago that means the wall went up 'less' than 6000 years ago. If it's 4000 years ago like the true history states that means the Wall went up less than 4000 years ago. 

Unless every single piece of information that states the Wall was built 8000 years ago is wrong I just can't quite vibe with this one I'm afraid Feather Crystal. 

It's OK to disagree, and like you said this thread has kept a "good vibe" and I think it's fun to discuss the merits of each side. Like Cowboy Dan pointed out, the maesters wrote the histories down thousands of years later. They could easily twist the record to place themselves (the Andals) in a better light.

17 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Also @Feather Crystal, we know the Andals were beat back on the eastern coast by Stark Kings of Winter and Bannermen like the Boltons. The Andals never took the North by the eastern coast so never made any advance over land even close to the location of the Wall. 

And when they tried to take the North by land, they were destroyed at the Neck every time. Never getting even anywhere near past Moat Cailin. 

In the end they never ever took the North.

Why would the Wall go up as a defensive structure against foes that never once got even remotely close to where the wall is? 

Sorry, I've loved your contributions to this thread but I can't get on board with this one.

Recall the story of the Night's King. Old Nan said the man that took him down was his brother. She also said the Lord of Winterfell and the King Beyond the Wall joined forces to take him down. Who was the Night's King's brother? The King Beyond the Wall or the Lord of Winterfell? I think it seems logical to conclude that the Lord of Winterfell was the Night's King's brother and it would fit in with the Stark tradition of sending spare heirs to the Wall.

Edited to add: @Macgregor of the North Old Nan said the Night's King's name was Brandon. Where did you get the identity of the Lord of Winterfell to be Brandon the Breaker? 

17 hours ago, Seams said:

I don't know about the Children of the Forest turning First Men into white walkers, but I like where you're going with the figures reliving the story of the Night's King. I began to explore a comparison between Winterfell and the Night Fort a couple of months ago, but I was thinking of Theon, not Ramsay. I think your approach is more complete.

I will read this later on this evening.

16 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

I said this in another thread, the greenseers believed themselves to be the Old Gods themselves, or the godhead as you referred to it. But the Last Hero specifically sought out the greenseers of the Children (implying they were not human) in order to learn some arcane magic to stop the Others' advance. He learns to speak the song of the Earth, which we aren't told the story of, implying that this is the first contact the First Men have with the Children's magic.

There's a Children-like race that also once populated the northern forests of Essos, due south of Ib but they were either exterminated or forcefully evicted. This Children-like race worshiped carved trees and left offerings of leaves, stone, and water for humans. The Old Gods of the North are referred to as the nameless gods of stream, stone, and forest. This all seems to imply that magic was around before the First Men joined and supplanted its use for themselves. As an aside all magic seems to derive from nature in some form, I can't really say more at the moment but that's what my research has lead me to conclude.

I am thinking the term "Others" has multiple meanings. The Andals were "Others" when they arrived and began cutting down weirwoods and fighting with the First Men, and the First Men were once "Others" to the Children prior to the Pact, then the First Men became "Others" to the Andals when they were turned into white walkers.

Regarding magic...what kinds of magic would have been needed before humans arrived? 

16 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

While I'm not fully on board with the idea either I've gotta back up FC on the Wall not being as old as we're told. Samwell, easily the most well read and intelligent of our POVs behind Tyrion, openly questions the timeline of the Wall but never reaches his conclusion.

Sam mentions 674/998 commanders, which would simplify to 675. Assuming the usual 8000 number that is cited, then each LC would have reigned for 8 years assuming there were 1000, according to simple division. Now take the actual number of 674 and multiply that by 8, the number is just shy of 5400. There's about a 1/20 margin for error (or 5%) if you would round to 5000 instead of 8000, which isn't that big considering we're dealing with literal ancient texts. What Sam was going to say is that this suggests the texts regarding the Others and the Long Night were written during the Age of Heroes, not the Dawn Age. He was going to point out there is a 2500-3000 year discrepancy between what we're told and what the evidence indicates.

You may ask why I can be certain 8000 was extrapolated to 1000. Well there's a number of stories mentioned from the Dawn Age and they all tend to work backwards from the present, and assume the timeline is correct. This leads to a number of ancient stories being "confused" in Yandel's words, and are associated with ideas or institutions that would not be around for another 3000 years if the Dawn Age was 8000 years ago. If the timeline is incorrect and these stories only occurred 5000 years ago then it explains a lot of these seeming contradictions.

Thanks for backing me up on the Timeline. I know Heresy plans to have one full thread coming up dedicated to the Timeline. I can let you know when it's posted so that you can bring this info to the discussion. I know they would appreciate what you've gathered.

6 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Guess I wasn't clear. Not only were the records written during the Age of Heroes but the Wall was founded around that time, after the war with the Others. The Night's King is the story of a pact being forged between men and Others but men from the South revolted and manned the walls themselves instead of the children of the pact as was agreed upon. The Others were too weak to do anything about it so they retreated north. This could easily fit with @Feather Crystal's notion that there was a fight between a Winterfell heir and the NW LC. Perhaps this is inversion at work: the Bastard of Winterfell marched on the Wall and killed the true heir who was the Night's King?

The Crannogmen at the Neck are an example of this same pact between men and magical races but was successful as they still serve as gatekeepers to the natural wall that separates the North from the southern six kingdoms. Though the Children, like the Others, were also forced to retreat North in the end, so I guess it wasn't that successful.

Yeah, we'll have some differences naturally. I was pointing out why it may have been built much later than we are lead to believe, which would be around the time of the Andals arriving. I don't believe that the Others were created as a weapon or if they were, it was an unintended consequence of the Children using magic on a large scale with the Breaking. Think the Dwarves of Moria and the Balrog for an apt comparison. But that's just an intuitive leap so feel free to disregard it.

I do think there's something to the Andals being present during the Long Night as the whole invasion occurring only in the South rests on the belief that the land bridge of Dorne was the only location connecting Westeros to Essos. I can't really say more without opening a can of worms I'm keeping a tight lid on. So we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

The Reed's oath sounds like it may be connected to the Pact. They swore by both bronze and iron. The Andals brought iron to Westeros, so if the Pact included iron then they were there earlier than the "official" maester written time line, and I think the maesters purposely tried to remove themselves from the Pact, and the reason is because they are against magic and they don't want the official record having them be a part of a Pact with a magical race.

[Macgregor of the North]

8 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

It's OK to disagree, and like you said this thread has kept a "good vibe" and I think it's fun to discuss the merits of each side. Like Cowboy Dan pointed out, the maesters wrote the histories down thousands of years later. They could easily twist the record to place themselves (the Andals) in a better light.

Recall the story of the Night's King. Old Nan said the man that took him down was his brother. She also said the Lord of Winterfell and the King Beyond the Wall joined forces to take him down. Who was the Night's King's brother? The King Beyond the Wall or the Lord of Winterfell? I think it seems logical to conclude that the Lord of Winterfell was the Night's King's brother and it would fit in with the Stark tradition of sending spare heirs to the Wall.

*** will return later to finish. I have to get going to work!

 

 

 

 

Yup it's healthy to disagree. There's a good bunch on this thread, I can't see any of us letting this dissolve in to petty squabbles. There's good respect here.

On the nights King story, allegedly it was Brandon the breaker the King of winter who opposed (his brother) the nights King with the help of Joramun the King beyond the wall. 

[Macgregor of the North]

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I was discussing on another thread the details surrounding the Wall that may change our theories about what Bran may be up to.

If it's true that the First Men were turned into white walkers by the Children as a way to fight back against the Andal invasion, then the Wall may have also been a defensive structure meant to keep Andals out.

If the above is true, then we should view the Night's King and Bael the Bard story through that lens. 

What if the Night's King was the father of a bastard that was legitimized and became the Lord of Winterfell? Ygritte told Jon that his was an evil name. Could it be that the bastard of Winterfell that killed his father was the same retelling of the Night's King story, only from the point of view of the descendants of the Night's King's followers that would not kneel to the new legitimized Lord? 

What interests me now is how Ramsay Snow/Bolton may reprise the bastard of Winterfell story and kill his father, Roose Bolton who is technically the Lord of Winterfell and whose eyes are like dirty chips of ice which may symbolize the Night's King. Add to this Jon Snow who may or may not be dead at the end of ADWD, but who was on his way to Winterfell as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's the same story only the players are a bit mixed up. Is this mixup Bran's doing?

 

Was having another wee think on all this and the more I think on it, I always drift back to GRRMS original quote on the Others:

The Others are not dead. They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life… inhuman, elegant, dangerous.'"

To me if I'm honest, this sounds nothing like men being turned into something. A different sort of life, This is a race of its own by the sounds of it to me and not just a corruption of the first men. 

I'm beginning to think that the mummers version of these beautiful elegant beings has clouded people's thoughts on them possibly.

I'm going to keep an open mind as always but if we go by the quote above, I genuinely do not think this sounds like men turned into beings of ice.

 

[Melifeather]

24 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Was having another wee think on all this and the more I think on it, I always drift back to GRRMS original quote on the Others:

The Others are not dead. They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life… inhuman, elegant, dangerous.'"

To me if I'm honest, this sounds nothing like men being turned into something. A different sort of life, This is a race of its own by the sounds of it to me and not just a corruption of the first men. 

I'm beginning to think that the mummers version of these beautiful elegant beings has clouded people's thoughts on them possibly.

I'm going to keep an open mind as always but if we go by the quote above, I genuinely do not think this sounds like men turned into beings of ice.

 

Being resurrected is a different sort of life, and being turned into a white walker would also be a different sort of life. It's a type of immortality since ice preserves.

[Melifeather]

Old Nan said the Night's King was called Brandon, but she was unsure of the last name, but what if the Night's King was Brandon Bolton making the Lord of Winterfell a Bolton bastard on a Stark mother? There's some type of conflict between the Bolton's and Starks and having a Bolton bastard end up inheriting Winterfell as a legitimized Stark might be where this all started. And interestingly the mummer's version may end up replaying this if Sansa ends up pregnant next season with Ramsay as the father. Her child could be a legitimized Stark and Lord of Winterfell someday.

[Macgregor of the North]

13 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Old Nan said the Night's King was called Brandon, but she was unsure of the last name, but what if the Night's King was Brandon Bolton making the Lord of Winterfell a Bolton bastard on a Stark mother? There's some type of conflict between the Bolton's and Starks and having a Bolton bastard end up inheriting Winterfell as a legitimized Stark might be where this all started. And interestingly the mummer's version may end up replaying this if Sansa ends up pregnant next season with Ramsay as the father. Her child could be a legitimized Stark and Lord of Winterfell someday.

Ah but why would this be interesting if the mummers version plays it out this way? That scenario would never happen in the real version, the only version that will count when it's all said and done. 

Old Nan says he was a Stark, and she's certain in her own version of the story that the Nights King was the brother to the Stark in Winterfell.

"Some say he was a Bolton," Old Nan would always end. "Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down." 

[Macgregor of the North]

@Cowboy Dan yeah all the dates can be a bit of a head fryer.

Couple questions just to be clear and then I'll leave it and wait for your full post/thread which I'll certainly check out mate. 

1) Do you mean the Wall was created during the Age of Valyria?.

2) When you say the pact here, which pact do you refer to? Because usually when we hear pact and children in the same sentence we think of 'the pact'. The one on the isle of faces that begun the peace between men and the CoTf. I'll quote you below.

8 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Then the Long Night occurs, a generation to men -- or years of fighting to the Children, followed by the Pact and the creation of the Wall/Night's Watch.

As I said above though, I look forward to the full post. 

[Macgregor of the North]

11 hours ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Then the Long Night occurs, a generation to men -- or years of fighting to the Children, followed by the Pact and the creation of the Wall/Night's Watch.

I will look over the new post you just made, but I noticed this on the last post. 

The text seems to imply that the Nights watch was a creation to counter the Others/Long night. Not that they were created after everything was wrapped up and finished, at the same time as a pact between men and Others. As I think that's what you are implying.

"Thanks to the children, the first men of the Night'sWatch banded together and were able to fight—and win—the Battle for the Dawn".

[Macgregor of the North]

48 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Yeah, that's where the 5000/8000 math came from. The accepted is that it is 8000 years old but Sam suggests it was built later and the math implies the Wall was created around the same time or just before the beginning of the Age of Valyria. 

The idea is that essentially there were two pacts. One was between men and Children, creating the Crannogmen. Afterward the threat from the North arose and the Long Night occurred, that's what I was referring to in the section you last quoted me on. The second pact was between men and Others, creating the Night's King situation. But some men found this to be a demonic practice (GRRM points out heroes are villains of the other side and I've discovered he does the same with religion: demons are simply gods of the other side -- remember that Craster worships the Others as the proper gods) and due to the revolt against the Night's King his name was banished from history as was the Pact that started the whole situation. Over time men forgot the truth and we only have the oral tradition in the tales Old Nan tells to even be aware of the Night's King events.

I am with you that the dates are slightly funky and its highlighted by Sam. 998 commanders in 8000 years doesnt fit to snug mathematically if we take long reigns into account(which there would have been) so a fewer amount of LC'S does make more sense. Theres a cock up somewhere but its hazy to figure it all out. 

50 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

The idea is that essentially there were two pacts. One was between men and Children, creating the Crannogmen.

I agree that the Crannogmen and effectively the green men etc sprung from the pact between the singers and the first men.

51 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

 Afterward the threat from the North arose and the Long Night occurred,

 I think this could have been a knock on effect of the childrens actions at Moat cailin bringing the floods to the arm of dorne and the neck etc. As in, the Others were always there in the far North. But the cotf's actions totally ballsed up the global climate and the Others crept south to migrate with every passing longer winter(which is a direct effect of the cotf's actions at moat cailin).

So when a very long summer finally hits, the Others know a very long winter(which becomes what we know as the long night) will follow and they take their chance and migrate south.

They are met with resistance by Men, and the war ensues, that becomes the war for the dawn, involving the first members of the newly formed Nights watch.

After its ended a structure of ice goes up with the help of the cotf's magic and the nights watch are tasked with one soul purpose. Keep the watch against the Others possible return. Which will happen since the cotf have messed up the seasons.

They are given obsidian daggers every year to do this effectively. Out of guilt by the children in part maybe?

The thirteenth LC- A Stark, decides he wants to be a king and begins sacrificing to the Others. His brother the Stark in WF is furious and rides to put him down with the help of a leader from beyond the wall. Alleged to be Joramun.

Sorry, that became a theory there lol.

My fingers just kept typing.

[Melifeather]

4 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Ah but why would this be interesting if the mummers version plays it out this way? That scenario would never happen in the real version, the only version that will count when it's all said and done. 

Old Nan says he was a Stark, and she's certain in her own version of the story that the Nights King was the brother to the Stark in Winterfell.

"Some say he was a Bolton," Old Nan would always end. "Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down." 

Ah, I stand corrected. Old Nan says the Night's King was a Stark and that the Lord of Winterfell was his brother, but I think there still may be some wiggle room for one or the other to be a bastard. Jon Snow is technically a Stark and Robb and Bran his brothers. ONTH maybe I was trying too hard to blend three stories together....the Night's King, Bael the Bard, and how the wildlings got north of the Wall.

1 hour ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Yeah, that's where the 5000/8000 math came from. The accepted is that it is 8000 years old but Sam suggests it was built later and the math implies the Wall was created around the same time or just before the beginning of the Age of Valyria. 

The idea is that essentially there were two pacts. One was between men and Children, creating the Crannogmen. Afterward the threat from the North arose and the Long Night occurred, that's what I was referring to in the section you last quoted me on. The second pact was between men and Others, creating the Night's King situation. But some men found this to be a demonic practice (GRRM points out heroes are villains of the other side and I've discovered he does the same with religion: demons are simply gods of the other side -- remember that Craster worships the Others as the proper gods) and due to the revolt against the Night's King his name was banished from history as was the Pact that started the whole situation. Over time men forgot the truth and we only have the oral tradition in the tales Old Nan tells to even be aware of the Night's King events.

Multiple pacts are part of the inversion/wheel of time theory. Each cycle would include a pact, broken pact, followed by a cataclysmic event before starting over....a death to rebirth cycle.

1 hour ago, Macgregor of the North said:

I will look over the new post you just made, but I noticed this on the last post. 

The text seems to imply that the Nights watch was a creation to counter the Others/Long night. Not that they were created after everything was wrapped up and finished, at the same time as a pact between men and Others. As I think that's what you are implying.

"Thanks to the children, the first men of the Night'sWatch banded together and were able to fight—and win—the Battle for the Dawn".

I like the idea that the first Night's Watch were the stars, and then when the comet struck the moon the falling meteors would look like they were brandishing fiery swords "riding" out to destroy the Others and basically most of all human life. This would also be the source of the Dothraki story about the moon bursting and a thousand thousand dragons pouring forth.

 

I'm going to be a party pooper here and say I think we've gone off on a tangent and are pretty far away from Bran and Bran the Builder. 

[Macgregor of the North]

5 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I'm going to be a party pooper here and say I think we've gone off on a tangent and are pretty far away from Bran and Bran the Builder. 

Boooo, party pooper. Lol yeah I was noticing we were drifting off topic, see what you started! . 

It's cool, this stuff is mega interesting, we're basically theorising on the very essence of the story. Can't get any deeper than that. 

[Melifeather]

14 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

The Others simply have something similar that sucks heat from the air and suddenly you have a cold front generating magic device.

Yes, my friend @LynnS has this theory that the Wall is ice fighting ice just as firemen use fire to fight fire and burn a firebreak, and that the Wall draws the killing cold onto itself making itself stronger in the process.

15 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

I found something interesting when looking at the timeline that's related. From the wiki of ice and fire's timeline page at the end of the section on the building of the Wall this is mentioned:

Quote

It is said that Bran the Builder also built Winterfell, became the first King in the North, and founded House Stark.

Seems to point that Stark wasn't a thing before all this happened. Perhaps you're on to something with the idea of a bastard starting the whole thing? It's part of the can of worms I'm keeping a lid on but one of the lesser points was that House Stark is a cadet branch of a larger house as the Blackfyres or Baratheons are to the Targaryens.

 

I think it makes sense that the Starks were a cadet branch that defeated winter...Winterfell in effect making Kings of Winter or King in the North a title that means they defeated and are over winter. Winter is Coming is a warning that they not only they, but everyone must be guarded and prepared should winter ever return with the same fierceness as the tales about the Others. So while the Starks are at home in the north I think they came from the south and migrated north with the Manderly who are from the Mander river, and the Mormonts who are referred to as Andals and were awarded Bear Island by a Stark that won it after wrestling a bear. 

Just expanding on that thought, because one assumption leads to more with me! If the Stark that defeated winter, founded House Stark and Winterfell also defeated the Night's King as part of all this, AND Old Nan says they're brothers, AND Ygritte says Jon Snow is an evil name, THEN that's where we need to insert a Stark bastard on one end or the other. Either the Night's King was a Stark bastard or the Lord of Winterfell was a Stark bastard that became legitimized.

To build further on my assumptions detailed above and applying the inversion theory, it's been difficult determining who the bastard was, because the current situation has bastards at both ends! The Lord Commander (Night's King) is a bastard, and the Lord of Winterfell is a legitimized bastard...but the two are not blood brothers, only brothers by way of the bastard last name, "Snow". That is why I was trying to insert a Bolton in the Night's King tale.

[Melifeather]

24 minutes ago, Cowboy Dan said:

Argghhh, there's so much I want to say from this but it would be opening that damn can of worms I'm so intent on keeping shut. So yeah, 100% on the same page with you in this line of thinking.

An idea popped up since you're quite intent on throwing Boltons into the mix. What if they're both bastard half-brothers of the original house they split from and their feud over the North caused the formation of both the Stark and Bolton houses? It would certainly seem to explain the deep-seated enmity and constant rebellions of the Boltons against Stark rule. Have there been any Stark/Bolton marriages? It would serve as a nice parallel to the Southern rivalry between Bracken and Blackwood. They constantly cause wars which are solved by marriage to bring peace, then someone picks at the scab of the blood feud to start the cycle over again. Or perhaps the Starks took a hostage or two of Boltons, a nice ward to protect against the violence?

I really like where this is going but we're losing sight of Bran the Builder again. Dammit!

You could start a different thread and we all can continue both discussions?