Jump to content

R+L=J v.162


Ygrain

Recommended Posts

@Tucu I will say this about the world book:  Who killed Elia and her children according to the writer?  Nothing is vetted by the world book.  And, certainly Rhaella's wounds would not be visible if two weeks had passed between the rape and her departure for Dragonstone.  It's possible that Jaime was confused, but we don't get anything along those lines in his POVs.  He seems to be one of the more trustworthy POVs.  Not at all like Sansa, or some people's favorite author of the world book.  Again, if it is quite open knowledge that Elia and her children were killed by the Mountain and Amory, why no mention in the world book?  Was the intention to fool Robert?  He had the family presented to him, he isn't going to be fooled, he knows Tywin was responsible. 

Further, if Rhaella conceived Daenerys much before leaving for Dragonstone, that is going to alter the time of Daenerys' birth.  Or, maybe, Daenerys' father is not Aerys after all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

@Tucu I will say this about the world book:  Who killed Elia and her children according to the writer?  Nothing is vetted by the world book.  And, certainly Rhaella's wounds would not be visible if two weeks had passed between the rape and her departure for Dragonstone.  It's possible that Jaime was confused, but we don't get anything along those lines in his POVs.  He seems to be one of the more trustworthy POVs.  Not at all like Sansa, or some people's favorite author of the world book.  Again, if it is quite open knowledge that Elia and her children were killed by the Mountain and Amory, why no mention in the world book?  Was the intention to fool Robert?  He had the family presented to him, he isn't going to be fooled, he knows Tywin was responsible. 

Further, if Rhaella conceived Daenerys much before leaving for Dragonstone, that is going to alter the time of Daenerys' birth.  Or, maybe, Daenerys' father is not Aerys after all? 

Would Yandel have any reason to lie about when Rossart was named Hand of the King? Can Jamie be that wrong about the length of Rossart's rule? This is the information that we have about the time between the Trident and the Sack of KL; you can ignore it if you want, but then you are creating your own timeline.

I am not sure what it alters. Maybe Aerys raped Rhaella again when Jamie was not on guard; maybe Ned arrive late to Jon's birth; maybe Dany was post term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tucu said:

Would Yandel have any reason to lie about when Rossart was named Hand of the King? Can Jamie be that wrong about the length of Rossart's rule? This is the information that we have about the time between the Trident and the Sack of KL; you can ignore it if you want, but then you are creating your own timeline.

No, I am not creating my own timeline.  Others try to, from time to time.  What we know, from the story, as vetted as it can be (I argued against this point myself, but have to concede that it is the best information that we have) Jaime and Jonothor Darry guard the queen's chambers while Aerys pays one of his rare visits.  Aerys and Rhaella were not friendly, you see.  That is the night that Chelsted had been roasted.  Jonothor Darry dies at the Trident, and Rhaella leaves King's Landing when news of the Trident reaches them.  Jaime sees the marks are still visible when Rhaella leaves, meaning that they are a week or less old.  Rossart was Hand for a fortnight, which is not an approximation.  A fortnight, from this Tuesday, is the Tuesday following the following Tuesday, it is precisely fourteen days.  (Where the word is commonly used, and influences GRRM to a great extent, it is a precise amount of time.  If it were said as "About a fortnight" it might be a day or two off.  But, that is not how it is used, in this case.)

What makes anyone think that mad, paranoid Aerys is going to delay appointing a Hand during a war, that he has become increasingly concerned about?  He didn't delay appointing Hands earlier, why would he, now?  That is where I distrust that sentence, and look for a way that it may be a misstatement in the World Book. 

Someone sitting over a map with a stopwatch and a ruler to refute any of the narrative is silly.  The armies will move as quickly as GRRM says that they do, if he has to put wormholes in the woods, he will do so.  GRRM does not make travel times conform to reality, he has acknowledged that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

No, I am not creating my own timeline.  Others try to, from time to time.  What we know, from the story, as vetted as it can be (I argued against this point myself, but have to concede that it is the best information that we have) Jaime and Jonothor Darry guard the queen's chambers while Aerys pays one of his rare visits.  Aerys and Rhaella were not friendly, you see.  That is the night that Chelsted had been roasted.  Jonothor Darry dies at the Trident, and Rhaella leaves King's Landing when news of the Trident reaches them.  Jaime sees the marks are still visible when Rhaella leaves, meaning that they are a week or less old.  Rossart was Hand for a fortnight, which is not an approximation.  A fortnight, from this Tuesday, is the Tuesday following the following Tuesday, it is precisely fourteen days.  (Where the word is commonly used, and influences GRRM to a great extent, it is a precise amount of time.  If it were said as "About a fortnight" it might be a day or two off.  But, that is not how it is used, in this case.)

What makes anyone think that mad, paranoid Aerys is going to delay appointing a Hand during a war, that he has become increasingly concerned about?  He didn't delay appointing Hands earlier, why would he, now?  That is where I distrust that sentence, and look for a way that it may be a misstatement in the World Book. 

Someone sitting over a map with a stopwatch and a ruler to refute any of the narrative is silly.  The armies will move as quickly as GRRM says that they do, if he has to put wormholes in the woods, he will do so.  GRRM does not make travel times conform to reality, he has acknowledged that. 

But you are creating facts. Nowhere it says that Chelsted's removal as Hand of the King, Chelsted's execution, Rhaegar's departure and Rossart being named Hand of the King happened within a 24 hr period.

If you don't want Rossart rule length being an approximation I have no problem with that. It was exactly two weeks...from the point when the news of the Trident reached the Red Keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tucu said:

But you are creating facts. Nowhere it says that Chelsted's removal as Hand of the King, Chelsted's execution, Rhaegar's departure and Rossart being named Hand of the King happened within a 24 hr period.

If you don't want Rossart rule length being an approximation I have no problem with that. It was exactly two weeks...from the point when the news of the Trident reached the Red Keep.

But, you see that there is no point in Aerys delaying two weeks or more in appointing a new Hand after roasting Chelsted.  Or, perhaps you have something that supports the flawed Yandel account?  As I pointed out, it is an open secret that Tywin had Elia and her children killed so that he could present them to Robert to prove his allegiance.  Yandel does not even offer a hint to this.  Robert knows, so who is Yandel trying to fool? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtnLion said:

But, you see that there is no point in Aerys delaying two weeks or more in appointing a new Hand after roasting Chelsted.  Or, perhaps you have something that supports the flawed Yandel account?  As I pointed out, it is an open secret that Tywin had Elia and her children killed so that he could present them to Robert to prove his allegiance.  Yandel does not even offer a hint to this.  Robert knows, so who is Yandel trying to fool? 

Yandel is writing the version that he knows or the version that he was forced to write. I don't see why Yandel or his sources would lie about when Rossart was appointed. For Elia's killing there is an official version for good reasons; as Tywin puts it when talking about Oberyn with Tyrion: He knows nothing. He has heard tales. Stable gossip and kitchen calumnies. He has no crumb of proof

The Hand of the King is an admistrative position. Rhaegar was in charge of the army at that point, so the Hand was not needed for that. The Small Council was probably in charge while a new Hand was decided. In the books there are several timespans when there was no Hand of the King. I don't see this as a problem at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MtnLion said:


@Tucu I will say this about the world book:  Who killed Elia and her children according to the writer?  Nothing is vetted by the world book.  And, certainly Rhaella's wounds would not be visible if two weeks had passed between the rape and her departure for Dragonstone.  It's possible that Jaime was confused, but we don't get anything along those lines in his POVs.  He seems to be one of the more trustworthy POVs.  Not at all like Sansa, or some people's favorite author of the world book.  Again, if it is quite open knowledge that Elia and her children were killed by the Mountain and Amory, why no mention in the world book?  Was the intention to fool Robert?  He had the family presented to him, he isn't going to be fooled, he knows Tywin was responsible. 

Further, if Rhaella conceived Daenerys much before leaving for Dragonstone, that is going to alter the time of Daenerys' birth.  Or, maybe, Daenerys' father is not Aerys after all? 

I wonder very much about the inconsistencies - is this to highlight the unreliable narrator, to imitate how in the medieval times, the sequence and timing of events got muddied, or does GRRM there some consistency errors and retcons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fortnight between the Trident and the Sack would fit with the other times the travel-time between the Trident, or a location very close to the Trident,  and King's Landing.

It took Eddard and the royal court a fortnight to travel from Castle Darry, near the location of the battle, to King's Landing. A smaller group that Eddard's army would have been, sure, but also travelling with less haste, allowing for it to become a bit comparable.

Ser Criston Cole marched an army from King's Landing to Harrenhal in nineteen days. The Ruby Ford lies a little bit further away.

Rossart being Hand for a fortnight and being named after the Trident would give Eddard about a fortnight to march his own army to KL. That would fit with the other two travel times we've seen.

So I'd definitly say that here's something supporting the statement that Rossart became Hand only after the Trident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can resolve this issue simply by assuming Jaime misremembered during which royal rape Jonothor Darry stood outside the royal bedchamber. It easily could have been at a time while Rhaegar was still training his recruits.

The idea that Darry would have remained behind for some reason after Rhaegar left only to go to the Trident in time to die for some occult reason makes no sense. Especially not since Jaime's direct recollection of his last talk with Rhaegar very much implies that he was the only Kingsguard assigned to Aerys and the Red Keep at this point.

The idea that Aerys burned Chelsted only to wait a rather long time to appoint Rossart also makes no sense. Chelsted was executed because he objected to the wildfire plan suggesting that Rhaegar was already gone at this time (else Chelsted could/would have gone to Rhaegar first) and that Aerys immediately jumped on the chance to make the guy who was in charge of the wildfire plan his Hand so that things would go smoothly now. As Hand Rossart had unlimited authority in KL and nobody could interfere with him or his goons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerys was known to have calm periods and crazy periods. I just don't see an issue for Aerys to take some time to find a man he trusted for Hand of the King; when the news of the Trident arrived he went into a crazy period and named a pyromancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@Lord Varys,

Why do you think Rhaegar's presence would have prevented Chelsted's execution?

Because Chelsted knew about the wildfire plot. If Rhaegar had been there he would have learned about that, too, and either put an end to that or burned at Chelsted's side. Keep in mind that Elia and Rhaegar's children were with Aerys in the Red Keep. The idea that Rhaegar would have gone along with Aerys' mad scheme endangering his family makes little sense.

When Chelsted learned the truth he turned to Aerys to reason with him. That was clearly a desperate move. Jaime tells us as much. If Rhaegar had been there he would have learned what was going on there. Not to mention that Rhaegar might then have demanded to be named Hand in Chelsted's place.

He was the general leading the Targaryen army, after all.

From Jaime we also know that the wildfire plan began while Rhaegar was still there, training the army. But the idea that Aerys killed Chelsted because he found out what he was up to and then waited a long time to replace him with Rossart who was in charge of said plan just doesn't make any sense. When Chelsted died the wildfire wasn't yet put in all those places Aerys wanted to put it, making it pretty obvious that to get things going he would hand the chain of office to the guy who was in charge of that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because Chelsted knew about the wildfire plot. If Rhaegar had been there he would have learned about that, too, and either put an end to that or burned at Chelsted's side. Keep in mind that Elia and Rhaegar's children were with Aerys in the Red Keep. The idea that Rhaegar would have gone along with Aerys' mad scheme endangering his family makes little sense.

When Chelsted learned the truth he turned to Aerys to reason with him. That was clearly a desperate move. Jaime tells us as much. If Rhaegar had been there he would have learned what was going on there. Not to mention that Rhaegar might then have demanded to be named Hand in Chelsted's place.

He was the general leading the Targaryen army, after all.

From Jaime we also know that the wildfire plan began while Rhaegar was still there, training the army. But the idea that Aerys killed Chelsted because he found out what he was up to and then waited a long time to replace him with Rossart who was in charge of said plan just doesn't make any sense. When Chelsted died the wildfire wasn't yet put in all those places Aerys wanted to put it, making it pretty obvious that to get things going he would hand the chain of office to the guy who was in charge of that already.

But the wildfire plot would only have been necessary when the Targaryens lost, and Rhaegar left for the Trident convinced of his return followign a victory at the Trident. So for Rhaegar, the problem of the wildfire plot would not have been as dire as the rebels. If Rhaegar defeated the rebels (as he appears to have been convinced he would succeed in), the wildfire plot would not happen.

As to Chelsted reasoning with Aerys.. Aerys was still the king, and still the one with the most authority. Even if Rhaegar had still been in KL, there could be several reasons as to why Chelsted chose to appeal to Aerys, and not Rhaegar. Leading an army to defend the King doesn't mean you can use that army against the king, after all.

And who knows.. Perhaps Rhaegar did make a demand to be named Hand. Perhaps Aerys agreed to do so after Rhaegar returned victorious from the Trident. That would explain why Aerys waited with naming a new Hand, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

But the wildfire plot would only have been necessary when the Targaryens lost, and Rhaegar left for the Trident convinced of his return followign a victory at the Trident. So for Rhaegar, the problem of the wildfire plot would not have been as dire as the rebels. If Rhaegar defeated the rebels (as he appears to have been convinced he would succeed in), the wildfire plot would not happen.

But we do know that Aerys was implementing the wildfire plot before Rhaegar's defeat. That's what Jaime tells us when he recalls that neither Rhaegar nor Rhaella interfered with the wildfire plan until Chelsted began to wonder about all those secret meeting with the pyromancers and started investigating.

And who knows? Depending on the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar the wildfire plan might have been a defense against both Robert and Rhaegar. Aerys certainly would have burned the city down to transform himself into a living dragon regardless whether Robert or Rhaegar tried to depose him.

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

As to Chelsted reasoning with Aerys.. Aerys was still the king, and still the one with the most authority. Even if Rhaegar had still been in KL, there could be several reasons as to why Chelsted chose to appeal to Aerys, and not Rhaegar. Leading an army to defend the King doesn't mean you can use that army against the king, after all.

Well, you can do that if you are the king's heir, a popular guy, and able to declare your royal father insane to the take the reins of the government. You would all that still do in his name. It is not that stuff like that did never happen in Westeros. Just remember Garth Greybeard tied to his bed while various factions presumed to rule in his name or how Ronard Storm confined his royal brother to a tower cell and eventually deposed him and crowned himself.

If the theorizing about Aerys (desperately) needing Rhaegar as a general/figurehead then he would have been the one commanding the hearts and loyalties of the men, not Aerys.

But we don't know if that was actually the case.

29 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

And who knows.. Perhaps Rhaegar did make a demand to be named Hand. Perhaps Aerys agreed to do so after Rhaegar returned victorious from the Trident. That would explain why Aerys waited with naming a new Hand, too.

That doesn't make much sense, either. Aerys could always dismiss a new Hand in favor of naming a new one. Why the hell would he wait to name a new Hand when he needed one? When he fired Merryweather he wanted to name Rhaegar but he did not leave the office vacant when he couldn't find him. He named Connington and then Chelsted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make much sense, either. Aerys could always dismiss a new Hand in favor of naming a new one. Why the hell would he wait to name a new Hand when he needed one? When he fired Merryweather he wanted to name Rhaegar but he did not leave the office vacant when he couldn't find him. He named Connington and then Chelsted.

Because he hasn't found anyone suited for this position yet? Rossart choice as a hand was a mad decision; he had no skills to perform either administrative or commander functions.

When JonCon was leading his armies against Robert he was not performing his administrative duties in KL; there is no mention of an interim Hand (as in Tywin/Tyrion case) and goverment still continued as usual. Not having an acting Hand of the King in King's Landing for weeks or months seems to be a common situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Because he hasn't found anyone suited for this position yet? Rossart choice as a hand was a mad decision; he had no skills to perform either administrative or commander functions.

Then Tyrion was a mad decision as Acting Hand, too. The man had no training to perform administrative or commander functions, either.

3 minutes ago, Tucu said:

When JonCon was leading his armies against Robert he was not performing his administrative duties in KL; there is no mention of an interim Hand (as in Tywin/Tyrion case) and goverment still continued as usual. Not having an acting Hand of the King in King's Landing for weeks or months seems to be a common situation.

Usually there are no Acting Hands in Westeros. There was no Acting Hand while Robert was traveling to Winterfell, either. Tywin just felt somebody had to take charge of things in KL to prevent Cersei and Joffrey from killing themselves.

If there is no Hand then the king himself can take charge and involve himself more in the day-to-day government of the Realm or he can outsource more stuff to the other members of the Small Council.

But you mistake Aerys' intention when referring to Rossart's lack of skills in the military department. The man was supposed to make use of all resources the city had to offer to prepare its destruction through wildfire. He was the guy preparing the warp drive to self-destruct. His job was not to save the city or command armies.

In that sense, Lord Rossart was the perfect choice to do the job he was supposed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Then Tyrion was a mad decision as Acting Hand, too. The man had no training to perform administrative or commander functions, either.

Tyrion was an educated person that has been involved in running Casterly Rock and he received instructions from Tywin to stop Cerse/Joffrey from destroying the kingdom and to review KL defense. As an experienced adminsitrator Tywin probably knew that Tyrion was capable enough. Can you say the same from the Mad King?

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Usually there are no Acting Hands in Westeros. There was no Acting Hand while Robert was traveling to Winterfell, either. Tywin just felt somebody had to take charge of things in KL to prevent Cersei and Joffrey from killing themselves.

If there is no Hand then the king himself can take charge and involve himself more in the day-to-day government of the Realm or he can outsource more stuff to the other members of the Small Council.

But you mistake Aerys' intention when referring to Rossart's lack of skills in the military department. The man was supposed to make use of all resources the city had to offer to prepare its destruction through wildfire. He was the guy preparing the warp drive to self-destruct. His job was not to save the city or command armies.

In that sense, Lord Rossart was the perfect choice to do the job he was supposed to do.

I didnt mean it as Acting Hand (the position) but as someone actually performing the administrative tasks. You said it yourself, the position of the Hand of the King can be vacant for long periods of time and the Hand can be away on other business without KL falling apart.

Rossart could finish his preparations without being Hand of the King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make much sense, either. Aerys could always dismiss a new Hand in favor of naming a new one. Why the hell would he wait to name a new Hand when he needed one? When he fired Merryweather he wanted to name Rhaegar but he did not leave the office vacant when he couldn't find him. He named Connington and then Chelsted.

And how much time passed between firing Merryweather and naming Connington? We don't know, but if Aerys truly had wanted to name Rhaegar Hand, and only decided not to do so after being unable to find him, that would suggest the possibility of Aerys leaving the office open for a little while (whilst searching for Rhaegar) here, too.

 

If Aerys and Rhaegar had come to an understanding, where the compromised by Aerys promising Rhaegar that he'd be named Hand after defeating Robert and the other rebels, Aerys could hardly name a new Hand for the weeks where Rhaegar was off fighting the war. It would send the wrong message ("I'm promising you the office, but naming this other guy anyway"), whereas leaving the office open for Rhaegar would be a sign to Rhaegar that his father indeed intended to keep his promise.

 

I'm not saying it necessarily happened this way, but there definitly is text in the book supporting the scenario where Aerys waited about a fortnight before naming a new Hand following Chelsted's death, and there are possible scenario's to explain why he would wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tucu said:

Yandel is writing the version that he knows or the version that he was forced to write. I don't see why Yandel or his sources would lie about when Rossart was appointed.

I do, but I will keep it to myself for the time being.  Yandel may not be outright lying, but misinformed.  It certainly seems that there is much more than one question mark hanging over his recent history accounts. 

15 hours ago, Tucu said:

Rhaegar was in charge of the army at that point, so the Hand was not needed for that.

Do you have a citation for this assertion?  As far as I recall, we do not know when Rhaegar assumed command of the forces, except that it was before the Trident.  In fact Jonothor Darry was included in those forces, and Chelsted had been roasted when Jaime and he were standing guard at the queen's chambers.  But, I will not say the Hand was or was not needed without some indication either way. 

16 hours ago, Tucu said:

The Small Council was probably in charge while a new Hand was decided.

Interestingly, Rossart was a member of the Small Council when Chelsted was roasted.  I don't see any issue with Aerys making him Hand the same day that Chelsted roasted.  There is a war going on.  Again, Aerys is paranoid.  That to me indicates that Aerys is not likely to delay appointing a new Hand, especially when he hated sitting the Iron Throne.  He was always getting cut when he did sit on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I wonder very much about the inconsistencies - is this to highlight the unreliable narrator, to imitate how in the medieval times, the sequence and timing of events got muddied, or does GRRM (know?) there some consistency errors and retcons?

If I were GRRM I would not worry about consistency issues, and I would bravely march on with the story.  (I am hoping that he has not lost interest because he knows where it is going, now.)  I question the fact that the story has placed the armies moving to the Trident and back to King's Landing in the space of a fortnight.  He could splash unreliable narrator all over the various accounts, but that is going to cause some serious harm to the story.  He could change the sequence, but that is going to cause grief with other story lines.  (It would call into question Daenerys' paternity, for one.)  Best bet is a deus exmachina worm hole spell for Rhaegar that Ned accidentally used.  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...