Ygrain

R+L=J v.162

661 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

So you think that weirwood being white and red, and bloodraven being white and red albino, has no connection? Sorry if I don't find this convincing.

So Arthur Dayne was also an idiot to let the Smiling Knight get a new sword?

It was a time when people did such things. I don't care for your personal strategic evaluation, I am asking if such an act would be in character for Rhaegar as a person brought up in the culture of chivalry.

1) Ned was NOT fighting a single combat, so he was not required to

2) since when is the ToJ dream suddenly a literal depiction of what happened and how? 

 

Er... you do not assume that "bloody stones" means that every single stone was drenched in blood, I hope. It doesn't really matter if the fighting took place outside or inside, it was the place as such. The ToJ fight took many lives, perhaps unnecessarily, so its stones were bloody, regardless whether there was literal blood on them or not.

1.  On Bloodraven being white and red, like Ghost, keep in mind that Bloodraven is also a bastard.

2.  Arthur Dayne was not an idiot.  He just knew that a new sword was not going to help the Smiling Knight at all.  But if chivalry really required an even playing field, Dayne would not have fought a duel using Dawn.  He would have used a normal sword, so that he did not have an unfair advantage.  But that just isn't the way it works.  

3.  Ned was not fighting in single combat.  It was 7 facing 3.  Again showing that you don't give up an advantage when you are fighting a battle.   

3 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

????

Because Jon knows Mel is about to burn him for his king's blood, that's what he and his brothers were talking about in that scene (turned out to be a fake out with Rattleshirt later in ADWD).

(In Jon's eyes)

Mance's son was going to be next.

AND

Maester Aemon, who happened to have royal blood.

Thus the sentence is of Jon connecting the two "royal" bloodline of Aemon Steelsong (Father: Mance--King to the people beyond the wall) and Maester Aemon (Father: Maekar--Targaryen King), to escape from the wall in fear that they are going to be used for burned sacrifice offerings.

This will ring true in the books as Shireen will be the only one in Mel's eye that has King's blood (Father: Stannis--Baratheon King), that she will indeed going to be burned.

 

I think what is clever about "Mance's blood" not being royal is that Jon is saying that Mance's son is not royalty.  It is not obvious to the reader at the time because we think he is talking about whether Mance will burn.  But in fact, he is putting into place his plan to save "Mance's blood" -- Mance's son -- and not Mance himself.  

Of course, he is also going to try to save Maester Aemon, but he knows that Aemon does have royal blood (son of a king).  

1 hour ago, IceFire125 said:

Twinslayer, the part about sending Gilly was after Jon and his fellow brother, Sam, brought up about Mel wanting to do sorcery with the sacrificial offering of Mance, because he has King's blood.

“Pyp says that Lady Melisandre means to give him to the flames, to work some sorcery.”
“Pyp should learn to hold his tongue. I have heard the same from others. King’s blood, to wake a dragon. Where Melisandre thinks to find a sleeping dragon, no one is quite sure. It’s nonsense. Mance’s blood is no more royal than mine own. He has never worn a crown nor sat a throne. He’s a brigand, nothing more. There’s no power in brigand’s blood.”
The raven looked up from the floor. “Blood,” it screamed.
Jon paid no mind. “I am sending Gilly away.”

And Yes, Shireen will be the sacrifice that will ended up contributing to Jon's resurrection.  

Whoa!

EDIT: your post disappeared or you edited it.

Sorry, I edited it because of formatting problems.  I don't think Melisandre will burn Shireen to resurrect Jon.  It seems that she would do the kiss of life, Thoros-style.  If she burns Shireen (the girl with grayscale) it will be because she thinks she can wake real dragons (not just one dragon) out of stone.  Which makes me wonder whether she has some dragon eggs with her.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Varys & Twinslayer,

It won't be GRRM-like to have Mel do something she has clear intention of to do, let alone for Jon.

It's unlikely at all for Mel to accept that Jon is Azor Ahai Reborn, her Lord's chosen and her King, over Stannis.  At least, not yet, until it smacks her right in the face when Jon returns/standing before, alive and breathing.

I'm of the opinion that Jon is not technically dead, heavily wounded, yes, except Jon's mind/spirit/soul/conscious is clearly inside Ghost (a vessel worthy of a king).

I'm of the opinion that Mel will be under pressure from Selyse to burn Shireen especially after news that something bad has happened to Stannis at the battle of Winterfell (whether true or not -- Bloodraven may influence Mel's flame/vision showing Stannis being defeated at the battle and in a desperate state).

I'm of the opinion that Val's attempt to heal Jon via ICE rituals will only half-way worked; that only after having Mel burned Shireen (FIRE ritual) that Jon's conscious returns to his body. Thus Jon being reborn again through Ice and Fire, just as he was initially born through the blood of Stark and Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

It's unlikely at all for Mel to accept that Jon is Azor Ahai Reborn, her Lord's chosen and her King, over Stannis.  At least, not yet, until it smacks her right in the face when Jon returns/standing before, alive and breathing.

We have no reason to believe that Jon's resurrection is going to change Melisandre's view on Azor Ahai's identity. It is Stannis. And Stannis isn't dead. Nobody heralded Beric Dondarrion as a reborn savior despite the fact that he returned from the dead multiple times.

Right now nobody knows or suspects that Jon Snow has Targaryen blood - and even if Mel did, that would make him a much better sacrifice for Stannis' cause rather than some kind of Stannis replacement.

3 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

I'm of the opinion that Mel will be under pressure from Selyse to burn Shireen especially after news that something bad has happened to Stannis at the battle of Winterfell (whether true or not -- Bloodraven may influence Mel's flame/vision showing Stannis being defeated at the battle and in a desperate state).

That makes no sense. Selyse Florent's one redeeming quality in the books (aside from her attractive moustache) is her love for her only child. In the books Selyse is doting on Shireen, not Stannis. The idea that Selyse would push Mel to actually sacrifice Shireen makes no sense at all. Especially considering that Stannis' alleged death would now actually put much more legal power in her and Ser Axell's hand since they would now serve as the Regent and Hand for young Queen Shireen.

In addition, we also have reason to believe that Bran/Bloodraven will actually make contact with Stannis before the coming battle and intervene on his behalf during the fighting.

3 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

I'm of the opinion that Val's attempt to heal Jon via ICE rituals will only half-way worked; that only after having Mel burned Shireen (FIRE ritual) that Jon's conscious returns to his body. Thus Jon being reborn again through Ice and Fire, just as he was initially born through the blood of Stark and Targaryen.

Not sure on what you base any of that. But having a lot of magical rituals to heal or resurrect Jon Snow doesn't look like anything that would grow naturally out of the situation as it is right now at the Wall nor would it be something the people there would want to do.

As to the whole Rhaegar-Robert thing:

While there were historically sort of semi-official duels in the middle of battles in Westeros (Daemon Blackfyre-Gwayne Corbray, Bloodraven-Bittersteel 1.0 & 2.0) there is no reason to believe that Robert and Rhaegar had a similar fight.

They met each other in battle in a ford. It is not very that there was time or opportunity for a real duel or even chivalric gestures. It could just as well be that Robert saw Rhaegar's banner, charged in that direction and they then had attacked each other in the middle of the fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yes, I know the context. But even in the context of what kind of army Rhaegar led, the "fought honourably" part is a peculiar thing to say because it doesn't fit there.

Just so I don't give off the wrong impression, I really like the neat subversiveness of this reading of yours.

That said, I think that this is a good example where support for your thesis entails reading into the text. There is nothing really peculiar about Jorah mentioning that Rhaegar "fought honourably", especially within the context of that conversation. The conflict between honour, duty, justness (and the other pillars of Chivalry) and righteousness, loyalty and self-preservation is a central theme in ASOIAF, and from what little we've been given about Rhaegar so far, it would seem that he was the embodiment of this conflict (not unlike Aegon the Conqueror; not unlike Ned Stark, curiously enough). So, in this context, Jorah's answer to Daenerys fits squarely of this theme, using Rhaegar as an epitome of dutiful chivalry. Nothing more is implied here.

16 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Except that the passage doesn't say that Ned believes Jon to be a bastard. The interpretation is possible, yes. But it's not the only option. Before it, comes the promise Ned gives to Barra's mother and her reaction to it, which resembles Lyanna's last moments, and after it Ned asks about Robert's bastards. The thought of Jon as Lyanna's son whom Ned promised to take care of is clearly prompted by the preceding part, and the similarity of the situation is enough to promtp the thought, without Jon being a bastard. Plus, that little insubstantial detail that Ned made Jon live the life of a bastard.

Here I fully agree with you, and I'd argue the same for any and all instances in Eddard chapters where Lynanna's plea is juxtaposed with other present events or thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

Just so I don't give off the wrong impression, I really like the neat subversiveness of this reading of yours.

That said, I think that this is a good example where support for your thesis entails reading into the text. There is nothing really peculiar about Jorah mentioning that Rhaegar "fought honourably", especially within the context of that conversation. The conflict between honour, duty, justness (and the other pillars of Chivalry) and righteousness, loyalty and self-preservation is a central theme in ASOIAF, and from what little we've been given about Rhaegar so far, it would seem that he was the embodiment of this conflict (not unlike Aegon the Conqueror; not unlike Ned Stark, curiously enough). So, in this context, Jorah's answer to Daenerys fits squarely of this theme, using Rhaegar as an epitome of dutiful chivalry. Nothing more is implied here.

So as not to give a wrong impression, either: I didn't read the Jorah quote with an image of Rhaegar dismounting or something like that in my mind. I noticed the discrepancy between Ned's account of the duel and the vision, and went looking for basically anything concerning Rhaegar that might shed some light on it. When I came across Jorah's discussion with Dany, it struck me as weird that he makes such an assessment when the only time Rhaegar was ever involved in a real fight was on the Trident. He never had a chance to establish himself as a noble and honourable war leader. He didn't hire or buy himself any mercenaries or slave warriors but neither did the Rebels, they simply conducted the war in the way it was traditional for Westeros. There was nothing to be remembered as a moment of outstanding honorability - unless Jorah, who was at the Trident himself, actually saw something that compelled his assessment. And the way he says it :

“My queen,” the big man said slowly, “all you say is true. But Rhaegar lost on the Trident. He lost the battle, he lost the war, he lost the kingdom, and he lost his life. His blood swirled downriver with the rubies from his breastplate, and Robert the Usurper rode over his corpse to steal the iron Throne. Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died.”

"And Rhaegar died" is such a gradation of what Rhaegar did and how, it is almost as if Jorah said "fighting honourably is what got Rhaegar killed" - and, tadah! we have another Targaryen, a perfect Prince, larger than life, whose moment of mercy and chivalry got him killed. 

You may disagree with me but don't say I'm reading into the passage something that is not there, the option definitely exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You may disagree with me but don't say I'm reading into the passage something that is not there, the option definitely exists.

This doesn’t necessarily rule out your theory, but surely other witnesses would have mentioned something significant like Rhaegar dismounting Robert and then dismounting himself to fight on foot?

I think Jorah's views on Rhaegar are ones that were generally accepted at the time. It seems to be widely believed that Rhaegar was honourable, chivalrous, etc. The only one who seems to believe otherwise is Robert, who is obviously an unreliable source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

So as not to give a wrong impression, either: I didn't read the Jorah quote with an image of Rhaegar dismounting or something like that in my mind. I noticed the discrepancy between Ned's account of the duel and the vision, and went looking for basically anything concerning Rhaegar that might shed some light on it. When I came across Jorah's discussion with Dany, it struck me as weird that he makes such an assessment when the only time Rhaegar was ever involved in a real fight was on the Trident. He never had a chance to establish himself as a noble and honourable war leader. He didn't hire or buy himself any mercenaries or slave warriors but neither did the Rebels, they simply conducted the war in the way it was traditional for Westeros. There was nothing to be remembered as a moment of outstanding honorability - unless Jorah, who was at the Trident himself, actually saw something that compelled his assessment. And the way he says it :

“My queen,” the big man said slowly, “all you say is true. But Rhaegar lost on the Trident. He lost the battle, he lost the war, he lost the kingdom, and he lost his life. His blood swirled downriver with the rubies from his breastplate, and Robert the Usurper rode over his corpse to steal the iron Throne. Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died.”

"And Rhaegar died" is such a gradation of what Rhaegar did and how, it is almost as if Jorah said "fighting honourably is what got Rhaegar killed" - and, tadah! we have another Targaryen, a perfect Prince, larger than life, whose moment of mercy and chivalry got him killed. 

You may disagree with me but don't say I'm reading into the passage something that is not there, the option definitely exists.

I do disagree with you, and once again you aren't reading this passage in full context. This long answer of Ser Jorah's comes up at the end of a discussion in ACOK, about whether or not Daenerys needs to risk buying sellswords; but earlier in ACOK Daenerys learns more about Rhaegar though Ser Barristan. At that point, Dany has only heard about Rhaegar from Viserys and bits from Jorah, but Barristan's account of her brother gives us quite a bit of detail, which paints a rather different image of Rhaegar than what was offered previously. Specifically, one of the things that Barristan remarks about (and interestingly, he finds it rather difficult to put into words), is that Rhaegar's approach to Knighthood could best be described as dutiful

Quote

The old man considered a moment. "Able. That above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded. There is a tale told of him...but doubltes Ser Jorah knows it as well."
"I would hear it from you."
"As you wish," said Whitebeard. "As a young boy, the Price of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his father's knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. No one knows what it might have been, only that the boy suddenly appeared early one morning in the yard as the knights were donning their steel. He walked up to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms, and said 'I will required sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.'" (ACOK, Daenerys I) [Emphasis mine]
 

So Rhaegar was considered quite a capable fighter, but more than anything, he seemed to take his Knighthood very seriously. In the former passage, Jorah is kind enough to bring that point home to Dany, using Rhaegar as a prime example, that, as the reoccurring theme goes (as we see again and again through Bran, Brienne, Ned, Jamie, Jon, and Dunk in AKOS), chivalry is all well and noble; but in all likelihood, it will also get you killed. 

Under such an interpretation, there is not need to take any of the seemingly contrary images of Rhaegar at the Trident literally. Rhaegar was "ridden over" figuratively, meaning, in the end, he never was a real obstacle standing between Robert and the Iron Throne; Rhaegar fought no more than a single battle; lost it, lost his life, and lost the Targaryens their Seven Kingdoms in the process.

I can't see any compelling evidence to read this passage any differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

This doesn’t necessarily rule out your theory, but surely other witnesses would have mentioned something significant like Rhaegar dismounting Robert and then dismounting himself to fight on foot?

Certainly, but which would those witnesses be? Ned arrived only ex post, Barristan never mentions seeing the duel with his own eyes... Correct me if I am wrong, but we don't have a single PoV character who actually saw, or discussed, the duel.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I think Jorah's views on Rhaegar are ones that were generally accepted at the time. It seems to be widely believed that Rhaegar was honourable, chivalrous, etc.

Most certainly. But there is a difference between a person being chivalrous and honourable and fighting chivalrously and honourably. The former is a trait of character that could be observed over many years; what would compel the latter assessment?

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The only one who seems to believe otherwise is Robert, who is obviously an unreliable source. 

Of course :-)

21 minutes ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I do disagree with you, and once again you aren't reading this passage in full context. This long answer of Ser Jorah's comes up at the end of a discussion in ACOK, about whether or not Daenerys needs to risk buying sellswords; but earlier in ACOK Daenerys learns more about Rhaegar though Ser Barristan. At that point, Dany has only heard about Rhaegar from Viserys and bits from Jorah, but Barristan's account of her brother gives us quite a bit of detail, which paints a rather different image of Rhaegar than what was offered previously. Specifically, one of the things that Barristan remarks about (and interestingly, he finds it rather difficult to put into words), is that Rhaegar's approach to Knighthood could best be described as dutiful

So Rhaegar was considered quite a capable fighter, but more than anything, he seemed to take his Knighthood very seriously. In the former passage, Jorah is kind enough to bring that point home to Dany, using Rhaegar as a prime example, that, as the reoccurring theme goes (as we see again and again through Bran, Brienne, Ned, Jamie, Jon, and Dunk in AKOS), chivalry is all well and noble; but in all likelihood, it will also get you killed. 

Yep. Exactly. So what chivalrous did Rhaegar do to get himself killed? You don't use someone as an example unless he actually did something of the kind.

 

21 minutes ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

Under such an interpretation, there is not need to take any of the seemingly contrary images of Rhaegar at the Trident literally. Rhaegar was "ridden over" figuratively, meaning, in the end, he never was a real obstacle standing between Robert and the Iron Throne; Rhaegar fought no more than a single battle; lost it, lost his life, and lost the Targaryens their Seven Kingdoms in the process.

Which images do you mean, the fight on horseback versus the HotU vision? 

Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman’s name

Sinking to his knees in the water is a nice little detail to add but it is completely unnecessary: it is not needed for the identification of "the dying prince", nor is it needed for any figurative value because everyone knows that Rhaegar lost. It might be, of course, just another occurence in the line of gender-switching horses, different eye colours and hips of indeterminate width. But consider this: GRRM let the main PoV character who tells us about the duel arrive on the scene only after Rhaegar is killed - why? 

21 minutes ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I can't see any compelling evidence to read this passage any differently.

Well, it seems that you are, in fact, reading it the same way - his chivalry got Rhaegar killed. All I'm doing is asking about the particular occurence of chivalry ;-) As in,  Ned was merciful, and his mercy got him killed because he revealed to Cersei that he knew about her incest to compel her to leave. Ned was honourable, and his honour got him killed because he rejected dishonourable offers which would have kept him safe from Cersei. Rhaegar was honourable, and his honour got him killed how?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but we don't have a single PoV character who actually saw, or discussed, the duel.

You miss my point, enough people will have seen it for it to be common knowledge, yet no-one mentions it ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

You miss my point, enough people will have seen it for it to be common knowledge, yet no-one mentions it ever. 

I don't. Enough people would have known that Rhaegar didn't abduct Lyanna Stark by force but no-one discusses it, either, or at least not on the page. And the one PoV who would have been bound to mention it didn't actually see the duel. 

Plus, how many people fighting for their own lives had the time to watch the duel? How many actually thought it worth talking about the details when all was said and done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I do disagree with you, and once again you aren't reading this passage in full context. This long answer of Ser Jorah's comes up at the end of a discussion in ACOK, about whether or not Daenerys needs to risk buying sellswords; but earlier in ACOK Daenerys learns more about Rhaegar though Ser Barristan. At that point, Dany has only heard about Rhaegar from Viserys and bits from Jorah, but Barristan's account of her brother gives us quite a bit of detail, which paints a rather different image of Rhaegar than what was offered previously. Specifically, one of the things that Barristan remarks about (and interestingly, he finds it rather difficult to put into words), is that Rhaegar's approach to Knighthood could best be described as dutiful

So Rhaegar was considered quite a capable fighter, but more than anything, he seemed to take his Knighthood very seriously. In the former passage, Jorah is kind enough to bring that point home to Dany, using Rhaegar as a prime example, that, as the reoccurring theme goes (as we see again and again through Bran, Brienne, Ned, Jamie, Jon, and Dunk in AKOS), chivalry is all well and noble; but in all likelihood, it will also get you killed. 

Under such an interpretation, there is not need to take any of the seemingly contrary images of Rhaegar at the Trident literally. Rhaegar was "ridden over" figuratively, meaning, in the end, he never was a real obstacle standing between Robert and the Iron Throne; Rhaegar fought no more than a single battle; lost it, lost his life, and lost the Targaryens their Seven Kingdoms in the process.

I can't see any compelling evidence to read this passage any differently.

I am not sure there is a conflict between Ned's account and Jorah's.  Everyone seems to agree that the killing blow was Robert's massive warhammer to Rhaegar's chest.  It punched through the armor so hard it knocked the rubies out and it also cut open his chest (hence Jorah's reference to the blood swirling around).  That would have knocked Rhaegar over backwards -- if he was standing on his feet when Robert hit him, he would not have sunk to his knees.  He would have landed on his back. 

More likely, what happened is that Robert and Rhaegar were both on horseback.  Robert's hammer blow knocked Rhaegar off his horse.  Rhaegar was able to struggle to his feet before falling to his knees.  .  

Then, as Jorah says, Robert (who would still be on his horse) "rode over his corpse to steal the Iron Throne."  That statement may be both literal and figurative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing suggests that Jorah Mormont of all people was a close witness of Rhaegar's death. The man would have been there somewhere in the battle but he wasn't exactly a very good friend of either Ned's nor Robert's especially considering that he only got his knighthood at Pyke.

Now, we don't even know where the hell Ned, Hoster, Brynden, and Jon were when Robert killed Rhaegar, so it would be even a stretch to assume that they witnessed the whole thing like some spectator would. If they were close by they would have seen stuff, but they would also have fought and killed other people or commanded men. The battle wasn't exactly over at that point.

Finally, there is Jorah Mormont himself to be considered. The guy is not without an agenda there when he counsels Dany to go to Astapor. He mistrusts Belwas, Arstan, Groleo, and Illyrio, and he wants to remain the guy Daenerys is dependent upon. How better way to convince her to listen to him than by painting her brother as a noble fool who fought nobly and honorable but died. Jorah wants Dany to buy the Unsullied so he first has to motivate her to do so. Stressing the fact that Rhaegar lost his war and died is a good way to accomplish that. Even more so if you tell a story suggesting to her that her brother was making mistakes and could have won had he fought less honorably.

The idea that this means that Rhaegar dismounted and continued 'the duel' on foot makes little sense in that context. Even more so considering that pretty much everything suggests that Robert knocked Rhaegar out of his saddle not vice versa. In fact, I doubt that the Robert-Rhaegar fight took very long. Robert charged, and attacked Rhaegar with everything he got. Considering Robert's awesome strength and his mad fury it is not very likely that Rhaegar's armor was able to withstand the war hammer for long. And unless Rhaegar had a Valyrian steel sword (Dark Sister?) it is very unlikely that his sword would have been more than nuisance to Robert. Robert could afford to be hit by such a weapon multiple times, especially while they were riding, but Rhaegar couldn't possibly survive more than a few blasts from that war hammer.

Keep in mind that the thing is so heavy that Ned actually says he could scarcely lift the it. If that's even remotely true Rhaegar should have been dead meat after a single blow to the head, helmet or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I don't. Enough people would have known that Rhaegar didn't abduct Lyanna Stark by force but no-one discusses it, either, or at least not on the page. And the one PoV who would have been bound to mention it didn't actually see the duel. 

Plus, how many people fighting for their own lives had the time to watch the duel? How many actually thought it worth talking about the details when all was said and done?

It was a big duel. Everybody seems to be talking about it. I'm pretty sure some people stopped to watch it, since most people knew it would be decisive. Something as big as what your propose would be reported, one way or another, wether a PoV characters sees it.

 

I can understand what you say about the quotes, and it is interesting, and maybe a clue given by GRRM. But I see it as a run-of-the-mill comment on Rhaeger from Jorah: he was honorable, he was the good guy, and Robert is a dick, especially since he is a friend of Ned. So Jorah is sort of biased himself I think. Fighting honorably is not particularly bizarre of a comment.

 

I really believe they thought at close range with their horses, so it would be sort of a melee fight, and a warhammer is going to be stronger than a sword when it blows. I think Rhaegar fell and that the rubies flew when he fell. Afterwards I don't know how it ended, but I agree with what Lord Varys and Twinslayer just posted mainly.

 

As for Ghost being the inversion of Stark colors or the Old gods: why not both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

It was a big duel. Everybody seems to be talking about it. I'm pretty sure some people stopped to watch it, since most people knew it would be decisive. Something as big as what your propose would be reported, one way or another, wether a PoV characters sees it.

Indeed, but fourteen years later, there is not much reason to discuss it. Burning a Lord Paragon and doing away with several other important noblemen was also a big thing, yet no-one talks about it. Yes, I assume people would know, or at least some, it's just that we haven't heard yet.

3 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

I can understand what you say about the quotes, and it is interesting, and maybe a clue given by GRRM. But I see it as a run-of-the-mill comment on Rhaeger from Jorah: he was honorable, he was the good guy, and Robert is a dick, especially since he is a friend of Ned. So Jorah is sort of biased himself I think. Fighting honorably is not particularly bizarre of a comment.

"BIzzare" is not a word I would use, I'd rather expect such a claim to be backed by something.

Share this post


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

Yes, I assume people would know, or at least some, it's just that we haven't heard yet.

To be fair, while the idea of this happening is certainly plausible, I think Jorah's comments are not nearly enough to go on. Also, I don't really see how such a revelation about the nature of their duel would drive the plot forward at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

To be fair, while the idea of this happening is certainly plausible, I think Jorah's comments are not nearly enough to go on. Also, I don't really see how such a revelation about the nature of their duel would drive the plot forward at all. 

There are actually pretty strong hints that the Trident was just a background detail for George in the beginning, with not big revelations or plot development happening there.

We've yet no idea what the purpose of that battle was, how it came to be (who was attacking whom/was trying to win what ground, who was leading what section of what army, and so on) nor where the other major characters like Ned, Jon, Hoster, Brynden, etc. were. All that doesn't make it very likely that George didn't had a clear picture of the battle when he wrote AGoT. And as of yet he has only expanded on the details not touching the details around the Rhaegar-Robert battle (i.e. the roles Lyn Corbray and Prince Lewyn played during the battle).

Perhaps we'll get additional details about where Ned, Hoster, Jon, and Brynden were (after all, the latter is still alive) but I'm not holding my breath about additional details about the Rhaegar-Robert confrontation. What I hope to get is more information on the beginning of the battle and whether there was some sort of last parley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yep. Exactly. So what chivalrous did Rhaegar do to get himself killed? You don't use someone as an example unless he actually did something of the kind.

I agree with @Lord Varys on this one. Jorah is merely using Rhaegar at the Trident as an example of how reality seems to give less than half a fuck about romantic ideas of the exalted virtues of knighthood. It has nothing to do with Rhaegar doing something specific to get himself killed.

22 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well, it seems that you are, in fact, reading it the same way - his chivalry got Rhaegar killed. All I'm doing is asking about the particular occurence of chivalry ;-) As in,  Ned was merciful, and his mercy got him killed because he revealed to Cersei that he knew about her incest to compel her to leave. Ned was honourable, and his honour got him killed because he rejected dishonourable offers which would have kept him safe from Cersei. Rhaegar was honourable, and his honour got him killed how?

And again, you're taking this all way too literally. I'm not saying honour was instrumental, or even had a causal role in Rhaegar's death. Perhaps I should rephrase: Rhaegar got killed despite his honour, dutifulness and martial prowess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Indeed, but fourteen years later, there is not much reason to discuss it. Burning a Lord Paragon and doing away with several other important noblemen was also a big thing, yet no-one talks about it. Yes, I assume people would know, or at least some, it's just that we haven't heard yet.

"BIzzare" is not a word I would use, I'd rather expect such a claim to be backed by something.

Who's to say no one talks about burning a lord paramount? Plus, even if you were right Aerys is dead so of course people talk about it less often. But to talk about something that huge, of course people would talk about it. Songs would be written about that. Jorah and Barristan would have told Dany about it. Especially Barristan, saying: Rhaeger was so noble that look at what he did. 

 

I really think it's quite a generic statement. You fight honourably because you were honourable. There is a figure of speech in french that is about using an adjective from a person to his action. Since you have the characteristic X then what you do is X. I think that's what is being said. But I might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

Who's to say no one talks about burning a lord paramount?

I wouldn't say no one talks about it, but it's worth noting Catelyn had never heard the story before Jaime tells her. Most of the people in the room when it happened are dead. I don't know that it's common knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I wouldn't say no one talks about it, but it's worth noting Catelyn had never heard the story before Jaime tells her. Most of the people in the room when it happened are dead. I don't know that it's common knowledge. 

Fair enough. But then it means that it was with a small audience, which is not Rhaegar/Robert's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.