The Starks and the Children

[hiemal]

On 3/15/2017 at 5:48 PM, Lord Varys said:

...

Where are all those weirwood groves and hallow hills in the North the Children kept in the South? Down there we have seen remnants of those in the Riverlands and the Stormlands, and while most weirwoods have been cut down in the South by the Andals nobody but the First Men would have laid hands on the weirwoods in the North. Where are they in the Wolfswood and elsewhere?

 

It's funny you should mention this. I'm re-reading and I noticed that when Jon went to take his vows with Sam he was so impressed by the grove of nine and mentioned rarely finding more than two or three in his neck of the Wolfswood.

On 3/15/2017 at 5:48 PM, Lord Varys said:

If we go with the Others being creatures of the Children it might make sense to assume the First Men (Northmen included) eventually broke the Pact leading to the creation of the Others. Is that plausible?

That would explain why we find the groves north of the North and south of the North.I like it. If there are sites like High Hill perhaps they would become taboo?

My biggest issue with all of it chronology- it is so vague and jumbled that finding any firm footing is impossible. Did the Starks become the Kings of Winter before or after the Battle of the Dawn and before or after the inevitable betrayals of oaths and pacts that human flesh is heir to? Could the slaughter (and does this suddenly feel like a caricature of Herod's massacre of the innocents?) have been part of the Stark consolidation of power in the North, possibly during the subjugation of the Marsh King?

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, hiemal said:

It's funny you should mention this. I'm re-reading and I noticed that when Jon went to take his vows with Sam he was so impressed by the grove of nine and mentioned rarely finding more than two or three in his neck of the Wolfswood.

Yeah, that was the thing I had back in my mind when raising this. If there were many such groves we know once existed in the Riverlands (not just on High Heart but also at the inn where Dunk & Egg meet the hedge knights in TMK) in the North Jon sure as hell should know about.

Especially if such places were close to Winterfell. I mean, they would still be there, and the Starks would most likely visit them occasionally.

Could be that Winterfell was never a place where the Children were strong, but then would then go against the idea that it is somehow a very special place.

However, originally the Barrow Kings seem to have been the true power in the North. At least they claim to have been the oldest royal line there. Maybe they were closer to the Children than the Starks later were.

10 minutes ago, hiemal said:

My biggest issue with all of it chronology- it is so vague and jumbled that finding any firm footing is impossible. Did the Starks become the Kings of Winter before or after the Battle of the Dawn and before or after the inevitable betrayals of oaths and pacts that human flesh is heir to? Could the slaughter (and does this suddenly feel like a caricature of Herod's massacre of the innocents?) have been part of the Stark consolidation of power in the North, possibly during the subjugation of the Marsh King?

Since Brandon the Builder allegedly founded the house and he apparently lived after the Long Night there would have been no Starks kings before the Long Night. We don't even know whether Brandon was originally from the North (that story of him being a son of Brandon of the Bloody Blade - a very notorious slaughterer of the Children, presumably living before the Long Night if he lived at all - has Brandon originally coming from the Reach - and if he truly helped Durran Godsgrief building Storm's End this would make sense). He could have just ended up there in the wake of the Long Night and his role in building the Wall.

But I'm very much inclined to believe that some First Men - be they Starks or ancestors of the Starks through the female line - always lived at the place where Winterfell was eventually raised.

We should also keep in mind that the freak seasons would have changed life in the North. Before life there would have been as it is Scotland, or perhaps even milder than that. Afterwards they always had those cold, long winters, and sufficient firewood would have been crucial during those. The great forest would have inevitably become the source for that, especially for those First Men who lived at their borders.

The way the Starks treat the greenseers and skinchangers in the wake of the fight with this Warg King also seems to indicate that they weren't all that tolerant towards such people. A Warg King was most likely much closer to the Children - just as Bran, a skinchanger and greenseer is now - than a 'normal king' of the First Men.

@Therae

That is really a very simplified history, fit for a boy of Bran's age. We know the Seven Kingdoms only rose after the conquest of the Andals.

31 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

They can if the Children have already relocated underground. That's why I asked if we know when they made that move.

This doesn't seem to have been a customs that was always prominent among the Children. We know they lived in those tree towns (a practice that still survives among some people in the Riverlands), in hollow hills (also still in use in the Riverlands) and crannogs (like the crannogmen still do, most likely mimicking the Children.

If all the Children in the North eventually retreated to hollow hills, abandoning the tree towns they had, they would have done so because they were forced to do so by the Starks and the other Northmen.

[BalerionTheCat]

AFAIK, very little is known of the Warg King war. Maybe it was he who was broke the Pact, and the Starks were in their right to fight him. Even north of the Wall today, the skinchangers are problem people and often not well accepted. The king's CotF allies could have been rebels. Or they could have been allied, but not after he broke the Pact.

And even if in this instance the Starks were the aggressors, it doesn't mean there was a continuous hunt of the CofF by the Starks. The Starks were the men's KitN. But the 2 species apparently mostly avoided each other.

Anyway, the CotF are near extinct now, even North of the Wall. And it is not because of the Starks. My feeling is the CotF are fading, because their time, their magic is fading.

Leaf:

Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few... In the world that men have made, there is no room for them [giants, mammoths, direwolves], or us.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

AFAIK, very little is known of the Warg King war. Maybe it was he who was broke the Pact, and the Starks were in their right to fight him.

Considering that the Children aided the Warg King in his fight against the Starks that doesn't make a lot of sense. This seems to have been a war of aggression on the Starks part. After all, Sea Dragon Point wasn't part of their kingdom at that point, as were most of the wars of the houses who eventually formed the Seven Kingdoms. The chances are very slim that they accidentally conquered large kingdoms because they were constantly attacked (like the Romans claimed they were).

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Even north of the Wall today, the skinchangers are problem people and often not well accepted. The king's CotF allies could have been rebels. Or they could have been allied, but not after he broke the Pact.

Or the Starks of that time already had put down whatever greenseers, and beastlings were living in their own territory, and now saw to it that this kind of people also disappeared from other places in the North. When they then married some of the daughters of the Warg King (or fathered bastards on them who later ended up giving birth to some legitimate Starks) they also got that greenseer-skinchanger potential into their own line.

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

And even if in this instance the Starks were the aggressors, it doesn't mean there was a continuous hunt of the CofF by the Starks. The Starks were the men's KitN. But the 2 species apparently mostly avoided each other.

I don't think there was a real extermination program but neither is there any hint that the Children and the Starks ever had close ties. And they clearly no longer uphold the Pact when they claimed the Wolfswood and other deep forests (and eventually the entire North) for themselves.

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Anyway, the CotF are near extinct now, even North of the Wall. And it is not because of the Starks. My feeling is the CotF are fading, because their time, their magic is fading.

In light of the quote you give that sounds essentially as a reinterpretation of what actually happened. The First Men (and other men) clearly exterminate the elder races - giants, Children, mammoths, direwolves, etc. Part of that is clearly intentional (the eradication of the direwolves in the North, most likely through extensive hunting; the same would go for the giants, one assumes) others perhaps not so much (they could have eradicated the Children by not sharing resources and stealing whatever lands they had left).

This has nothing to do with a fading of magic.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering that the Children aided the Warg King in his fight against the Starks ..

Sea Dragon Point is in the North. We don't know what happened. Maybe the Warg King tried to conquer all the North. Maybe he raided the land like the ironborn are regularly doing. From what we know, I don't think we can assume too much about this time... I'm not assuming something here.

Yes, nothing suggests "Children and the Starks ever had close ties". And there is no Pact to uphold now, because there is no more Children. But the Starks, and most of the North, have kept the Old Gods.

And yes, all men, not just or specifically the Starks, by war or by industry, have exterminated or exiled everything which was not theirs. " In the world that men have made ", suggests more an eviction by a change of the world, than an extermination by war or hunt.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering that the Children aided the Warg King in his fight against the Starks 

<snip

Assumed. Even if you are correct in said assumption that the Warg King had some CotF allies, it doesn't mean "the Children" as a whole were on his side. In fact, it would make a lot of sense if the Starks had some CotF on their side and that's how they even managed to defeat the Warg King. 

[Lord Varys]

31 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Sea Dragon Point is in the North. We don't know what happened. Maybe the Warg King tried to conquer all the North. Maybe he raided the land like the ironborn are regularly doing. From what we know, I don't think we can assume too much about this time... I'm not assuming something here.

Considering that this was the time when the Ironborn were doing the raiding I doubt that. And a guy from Sea Dragon Point was most certainly never in the position to conquer the entire North. The very fact that Children of the Forest lived in his lands suggests that the place wasn't exactly densely populated back then. Else there wouldn't have been enough space for the Children.

However, I'm not saying that the Warg King was necessarily a peaceful king - but he could have been. After all, as you say we know nothing about him but a lot about the ancient Stark kings, and the fact that there were a lot of hard and cruel men among them. Else they would have never conquered the entire North.

Quote

Yes, nothing suggests "Children and the Starks ever had close ties". And there is no Pact to uphold now, because there is no more Children. But the Starks, and most of the North, have kept the Old Gods.

That proves nothing, actually. You can pray to the god of Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob and still persecute the Jews.

The Pact would certainly have ended those concentrated collective efforts of the First Men to kill all the Children, but it is not unlikely at all that the First Men who lived centuries or millennia after the Pact was made simply no longer cared about it.

Just as the US government/citizens/settlers routinely ignored whatever treaties they had made with the native Americans.

Quote

And yes, all men, not just or specifically the Starks, by war or by industry, have exterminated or exiled everything which was not theirs. " In the world that men have made ", suggests more an eviction by a change of the world, than an extermination by war or hunt.

I daresay there might still be room left in the North for direwolves and mammoths. Those are most likely gone because the First Men hunted them until they were extinct (the former because they were a danger to themselves, and the latter because of the meat and fur they had to offer).

And the Children, well, they no longer have any space left south of the Wall where they can live (except, perhaps, the Isle of Faces). You don't have to slay people to commit a genocide (or drive them out of their own country). It is enough that you take all the resources for yourself. Then the people you want gone will simply starve and die.

It is pretty much the same beyond the Wall. The lands there also all belong to the wildlings. The Children have one cave left, feeding on meager nourishment in a darkness where everything rots and dies. They were not living this way in the Dawn Age, that much is clear.

8 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Assumed. Even if you are correct in said assumption that the Warg King had some CotF allies, it doesn't mean "the Children" as a whole were on his side. In fact, it would make a lot of sense if the Starks had some CotF on their side and that's how they even managed to defeat the Warg King. 

I'd prefer it if you actually double-checked the quote we are talking about here. Here it is:

Quote

Chronicles found in the archives of the Night’s Watch at the Nightfort (before it was abandoned) speak of the war for Sea Dragon Point, wherein the Starks brought down the Warg King and his inhuman allies, the children of the forest. When the Warg King’s last redoubt fell, his sons were put to the sword, along with his beasts and greenseers, whilst his daughters were taken as prizes by their conquerors.

It is quite clear that the chronicles claim only the Warg King had 'inhuman allies' (a pejorative term in this context, making it clear that the Children were not exactly considered good company in those days), not the Starks. And it is also explicitly stated that they (i.e. the Warg King and the Children) were brought down by the Starks. That implicitly means they were killed just as the Warg King himself was, even if we assume not all of his greenseers were Children.

In fact, I think we should assume the days where the First Men actually had greenseers and the like would have been in those years after the Pact while there was still a stable peace between the Children and the First Men. If they had had greenseers of their own during the Long Night the Last Hero would never have been forced to search for the Children. A greenseer could have told him where they were or he could even have told what he wanted to asked the Children.

And if they had had any greenseers in the years after the Long Night they would have kept them, to this very day.

The source for the Warg King story - chronicles from the Nightfort - make the entire episode much more believable that other stories about ancient Stark kings. For instances, those:

Quote

Ancient ballads, amongst the oldest to be found in the archives of the Citadel of Oldtown, tell of how one King of Winter drove the giants from the North, whilst another felled the skinchanger Gaven Greywolf and his kin in “the savage War of the Wolves,” but we have only the word of singers that such kings and such battles ever existed.

They might just be fancy tales. But it is quite clear that the Starks (and other Northmen) also drove the giants out of the North, and killed all of those who remained. Else there would still be giants in the North.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip

I'd prefer it if you actually double-checked the quote we are talking about here. Here it is:

It is quite clear that the chronicles claim only the Warg King had 'inhuman allies' (a pejorative term in this context, making it clear that the Children were not exactly considered good company in those days), not the Starks. And it is also explicitly stated that they (i.e. the Warg King and the Children) were brought down by the Starks. That implicitly means they were killed just as the Warg King himself was, even if we assume not all of his greenseers were Children.

<snip

Thank you for providing the quote. It is quite clear that whoever wrote it had a definite pro-Stark and anti-WK/antiCotF bias. That doesn't mean there were no Children on the Stark side.

One of the things that's been made very clear in this series is how very suspect the histories are based on who was writing them and what bias was involved.

It also does not prove that the Children as a whole sided with the WK.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Thank you for providing the quote. It is quite clear that whoever wrote it had a definite pro-Stark and anti-WK/antiCotF bias. That doesn't mean there were no Children on the Stark side.

It does also not mean that no Lannisters, dragons, or unicorns fought on the Stark side? Does this mean you believe that they did?

Chronicles in the Nightfort are not likely to contain any anti-Stark bias. Those could have just been the facts. The old Starks weren't nice guys.

Just now, Lady Blizzardborn said:

One of the things that's been made very clear in this series is how very suspect the histories are based on who was writing them and what bias was involved.

The only bias in there is that against the Children of the Forest. That is understandable. Neither Yandel nor his seem to judge or condemn the (nameless) Starks who put down the Warg King for their actions. Just as nobody condemns for how they dealt with all the other kings in the North.

Just now, Lady Blizzardborn said:

It also does not prove that the Children as a whole sided with the WK.

Nobody said that it did. I mean, the idea that the Children in the Riverlands, the Vale, the Reach, the Stormlands, the Neck, or elsewhere in the North participated in a war on Sea Dragon Point makes no sense.

However, it makes it clear that the Children, not some Children were the allies of the Warg Kings, suggesting that there were not exactly all that many Children settlements and the like were visible as political entities at this point.

The idea that the Children opposed and resisted the Stark conquest of the North on multiple fronts and levels sounds rather plausible to me. After all, they clearly took whatever territories the Children had left, too. That Warg King guy might actually have been a friend of the Children while the Starks no longer were.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

It does also not mean that no Lannisters, dragons, or unicorns fought on the Stark side? Does this mean you believe that they did?

Chronicles in the Nightfort are not likely to contain any anti-Stark bias. ...The only bias in there is that against the Children of the Forest. 

Nobody said that it did. I mean, the idea that the Children in the Riverlands, the Vale, the Reach, the Stormlands, the Neck, or elsewhere in the North participated in a war on Sea Dragon Point makes no sense.

However, it makes it clear that the Children, not some Children were the allies of the Warg Kings, suggesting that there were not exactly all that many Children settlements and the like were visible as political entities at this point.

The idea that the Children opposed and resisted the Stark conquest of the North on multiple fronts and levels sounds rather plausible to me. After all, they clearly took whatever territories the Children had left, too. That Warg King guy might actually have been a friend of the Children while the Starks no longer were.

Trying to trip me up by adding ridiculous elements is unworthy of you, LV.

That's exactly my point. They are pro-Stark and anti-CotF. So they would not include information about the Starks having any undesirables like CotF on their side.

No, it doesn't. No more than Sansa's chapters make clear that Sandor kissed her in King's Landing. Unreliable narrator and historian bias make for equally suspect information. I'm not saying it's flat-out wrong, just that we should keep in mind it may not be 100% right.

Sounds plausible to me too. Plausible does not equal factual though. It's plausible that Jon is Ned's bastard son, yet we know he most likely isn't. Keep the possibilities, and the questionable nature of the info in mind. That's all I'm saying....in a long-winded kind of way.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That's exactly my point. They are pro-Stark and anti-CotF. So they would not include information about the Starks having any undesirables like CotF on their side.

Why should they? If whoever wrote that chronicle liked the Starks then he would not necessarily have opposed them using the Children of the Forest.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No, it doesn't. No more than Sansa's chapters make clear that Sandor kissed her in King's Landing. Unreliable narrator and historian bias make for equally suspect information. I'm not saying it's flat-out wrong, just that we should keep in mind it may not be 100% right.

There is no reason to believe we have any relevant bias here that would have distorted that information. IEspecially since we are not likely to ever get any 'better/more correct information' on that. If the Durrandon could put the Children into their place the Starks certainly could, too. They were both ancient First Men kings with strong ties to them who eventually drove them from their lands.

But I'm pretty sure we will learn about the First Men (Starks included) in general breaking/not caring about the Pact even before the Long Night. At least if it turns out that the Children made the Others. If the Children did that then they most likely had a very good reason.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That proves nothing, actually. You can pray to the god of Abraham, Isaak, and Jacob and still persecute the Jews.

I'm not sure I had a point in referring to the Starks and the FM still keeping to the Old Gods... Not trying to justify a friendship with the CotF anyway. If anything, we can't extrapolate too much from just one fact, religious practices or war, isolated of their context. Extrapolation about the FM (or Starks) and CotF general peace status. It was one specific Stark, at a specific time. The Starks were not all alike. The Warg King was a specific case. We are not sure the CotF were all of the same warlike attitude (not their current state anyway). If they finally decided it was an error to involve themselves in Men's affairs...

[Lady Blizzardborn]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should they? If whoever wrote that chronicle liked the Starks then he would not necessarily have opposed them using the Children of the Forest.

There is no reason to believe we have any relevant bias here that would have distorted that information. IEspecially since we are not likely to ever get any 'better/more correct information' on that. If the Durrandon could put the Children into their place the Starks certainly could, too. They were both ancient First Men kings with strong ties to them who eventually drove them from their lands.

But I'm pretty sure we will learn about the First Men (Starks included) in general breaking/not caring about the Pact even before the Long Night. At least if it turns out that the Children made the Others. If the Children did that then they most likely had a very good reason.

Are you just not the kind of person who can think like a biased jerk? Because I don't understand how you don't understand this. Leaving out the aid of a group the writer considers undesirable is entirely plausible. Liking the Starks has nothing to do with it. They ruled the North and were the best source of support the Watch had, so of course they were going to make them look good, like mighty, etc. "And they couldn't have done it without the Children of the Forest" does not work with trying to placate the Kings of Winter, even if the Starks were totally good with the CotF.

Yeah, like we have no reason to believe the Maester who wrote TWOIAF had any bias. Or any of the maesters who wrote conflicting histories according to the text. It's impossible to avoid bias in a medieval setting where the person you tick off may come after you with a sword or worse.

I'm glad you brought that up. I almost mentioned that if the Children created the Others, that itself would have been breaking the pact. I'm not certain we'll learn any such thing about the First Men, even if it's entirely true. I'm not certain we'll learn much more about them than we already have. 

[Lord Varys]

@BalerionTheCat

They are still involving themselves in 'men's affairs' (e.g. Bloodraven and Bran). Not to mention that this is still their continent, too. They don't have to go anywhere.

We can extrapolate from the information we have on the decline of the Children in the North as well as the other First Men kingdoms prior to the arrival of the Andals that the Pact was no longer upheld. In fact, that's already implicitly evident in Old Nan's story of the Others since she says that the Children were already difficult to find during the Long Night.

We know that there were First Men Gardener and Durrandon kings in the South (Durran the Devout, Gwayne the Gods-fearing, Durran XXI) who reconnected with the Children, but they clearly were not representative for the general politics of their fellow kings.

And we know the Starks were among the harder, crueler kings of the First Men, ruling a harsh and hard land. They are the least likeliest to show mercy/weakness to a people whose lands and resources they feel they need (to feed their own people in winter, say).

5 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Are you just not the kind of person who can think like a biased jerk? Because I don't understand how you don't understand this. Leaving out the aid of a group the writer considers undesirable is entirely plausible. Liking the Starks has nothing to do with it. They ruled the North and were the best source of support the Watch had, so of course they were going to make them look good, like mighty, etc. "And they couldn't have done it without the Children of the Forest" does not work with trying to placate the Kings of Winter, even if the Starks were totally good with the CotF.

The Starks weren't the rulers of the North and not necessarily the best friends the Watch had at that time (because the Umbers and others could still have been kings at that time, much closer to the Wall than Winterfell). Besides, the Watch does not take part in the squabbles of the Hundred Kingdoms, meaning they have thus little reason to lie.

Not to mention - what on earth makes you believe the Starks would ever read in a chronicle written at the Nightfort? Those books would have been in the possession and care of the Lord Commander. Nobody would make copies of them and send them to Winterfell.

5 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yeah, like we have no reason to believe the Maester who wrote TWOIAF had any bias. Or any of the maesters who wrote conflicting histories according to the text. It's impossible to avoid bias in a medieval setting where the person you tick off may come after you with a sword or worse.

That book is written by a historian who cites other sources. Yandel does mess with the data on the (ancient) past he has. Ran confirmed that repeatedly. He only sucks up to people who were still alive and in power by the time he wrote the book. People he thought might actually read this book. Since he was dedicating it to Robert-Joffrey-Tommen and explicitly said it is a book a father could use to read to his wife it is hardly surprising that he does not throw dirt on any living Lannisters or Baratheons.

But some ancient chronicles in the Nightfort - or chronicles in general - weren't written for all the world to read. The White Book could also be read by the king and the royal family yet it usually does include both the good and the bad a Kingsguard does because the people writing it actually feel an obligation to record true events.

5 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I'm glad you brought that up. I almost mentioned that if the Children created the Others, that itself would have been breaking the pact. I'm not certain we'll learn any such thing about the First Men, even if it's entirely true. I'm not certain we'll learn much more about them than we already have. 

We sure as hell will learn who the Others are, who created them (if they were created), and what they want. Since they want to destroy mankind I'm pretty sure we will learn why. And the reason for that is in the distant past, connected to the events leading up to the Long Night.

The sole purpose of this whole 'visions from the past' thing is to give us really good, firsthand information on the creation of the Others and their motives and goals. That is a topic where George could have never sold us the idea that songs and fragmented books might have recorded 'the truth'. But any events in the more recent past could easily enough be covered by people discussing memories or reading historical accounts.

By the way - if the Others were created before the Pact (and only run amok later) then the Children wouldn't have broken the Pact. However, I'm more inclined to believe that the First Men broke it, resulting in the creation of the Others and the Long Night. The First Men would just have conveniently forgotten that they deserved to be wiped out.

George doesn't like the idea of evil dark lords/monsters, etc. Now, if the First Men broke the Pact before the Long Night we can all agree that the Children were justified in deciding to resolve this problem once and for all. If you are threatened with genocide it is not all that condemnable if you fight back in kind.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

<snips

Not to mention - what on earth makes you believe the Starks would ever read in a chronicle written at the Nightfort? Those books would have been in the possession and care of the Lord Commander. Nobody would make copies of them and send them to Winterfell.

<snip

But some ancient chronicles in the Nightfort - or chronicles in general - weren't written for all the world to read. The White Book could also be read by the king and the royal family yet it usually does include both the good and the bad a Kingsguard does because the people writing it actually feel an obligation to record true events.

We sure as hell will learn who the Others are, who created them (if they were created), and what they want. Since they want to destroy mankind I'm pretty sure we will learn why. And the reason for that is in the distant past, connected to the events leading up to the Long Night.

The sole purpose of this whole 'visions from the past' thing is to give us really good, firsthand information on the creation of the Others and their motives and goals. That is a topic where George could have never sold us the idea that songs and fragmented books might have recorded 'the truth'. But any events in the more recent past could easily enough be covered by people discussing memories or reading historical accounts.

By the way - if the Others were created before the Pact (and only run amok later) then the Children wouldn't have broken the Pact. However, I'm more inclined to believe that the First Men broke it, resulting in the creation of the Others and the Long Night. The First Men would just have conveniently forgotten that they deserved to be wiped out.

George doesn't like the idea of evil dark lords/monsters, etc. Now, if the First Men broke the Pact before the Long Night we can all agree that the Children were justified in deciding to resolve this problem once and for all. If you are threatened with genocide it is not all that condemnable if you fight back in kind.

What on earth would make anyone think anyone would ever visit the Night's Watch on a dragon? Things no one planned for have a tendency to happen, especially in this story.

Who something is meant for and who all actually ends up reading it are not necessarily the same. Anyone with enough intelligence to see the point of keeping records has enough intelligence to realize that who is going to see said records in the future is not something they could either know in advance or control. And we are talking about a group of people who wiped out the records of their first 13 Lords Commander. I would say the argument for caution and careful editing in the recording of events for purposes of internal propaganda is pretty good.

GRRM has said we're not going to get the whole story on what happened back then. In fact it's arguable that what led to the Others doesn't matter because the priority for our characters is defeating them, not assigning blame. 

I would argue that we can learn a lot more from looking into the past than that. We'll hopefully have Howland for R+L=J, but there are things no one living knows, and yet still more recent than the Long Night. 8,000 years is a hell of a long time, and there could be pertinent information for the personal development of the characters. The story is not just about fighting extermination at the hands of ice zombies.

If trying to wipe out all of humanity is running amok, then what would have been the purpose of the Others originally? Could it have been something to do with dragons and the Bloodstone Emperor? That would be really interesting, and it would have zero to do with the First Men cause they didn't show up until later...hmm...I wonder if they showed up 5,000-6,000 years later. That would give them up to a thousand years of warring before the pact, then cover the 2,000 between the pact and the Long Night, and give us a consistent cycle of the Others coming every 8,000 years. It would also make this the third time the Others have come, which fits in beautifully with all the triads and trios in the series.

[BalerionTheCat]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@BalerionTheCat

They are still involving themselves in 'men's affairs' (e.g. Bloodraven and Bran). Not to mention that this is still their continent, too. They don't have to go anywhere.

The CotF involvement with Bloodraven and Bran is really one of the key mysteries (IMHO) of ASoIaF. They seem to help humans. But why are they doing it? Whatever the history of Men and CotF, they don't seem to seek revenge of men. BTW, I don't believe one second at D&D explanation for the WW creation.

And yes, I'm not saying anything else that men are responsible for the CotF dwindling. Men were (and still are) brutes with high reproduction rate. The CotF had no chance. The Pact (established during the LN) helped things a bit. But it was either too late or unavoidable. Whatever other reasons.

ETA: I checked back the chronology of the Pact and the LN. The Pact would have given 4000 years of peace. From maybe -12000 to -8000. But I found no evidence of chronology between the LN and the breaking of the Pact. Which one broke the other, or voided it. And why. According to Luwin, it would be even later.

"Oh, very well," Luwin muttered. "So long as the kingdoms of the First Men held sway, the Pact endured, all through the Age of Heroes and the Long Night and the birth of the Seven Kingdoms, yet finally there came a time, many centuries later, when other peoples crossed the narrow sea."

[BalerionTheCat]

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If trying to wipe out all of humanity is running amok, then what would have been the purpose of the Others originally? Could it have been something to do with dragons and the Bloodstone Emperor? That would be really interesting, and it would have zero to do with the First Men cause they didn't show up until later...hmm...I wonder if they showed up 5,000-6,000 years later. That would give them up to a thousand years of warring before the pact, then cover the 2,000 between the pact and the Long Night, and give us a consistent cycle of the Others coming every 8,000 years. It would also make this the third time the Others have come, which fits in beautifully with all the triads and trios in the series.

The Yi-Ti legends give a quite consistent (with itself and the current events), of what caused the LN. And IMHO, the demons of the Lion of Night are none other than the Others. And they trace back to the earliest emperor who build the 5 Forts. The CotF implication in the whole affair is unclear. But IMO, your chronology is quite possible.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

What on earth would make anyone think anyone would ever visit the Night's Watch on a dragon? Things no one planned for have a tendency to happen, especially in this story.

Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything. 

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Who something is meant for and who all actually ends up reading it are not necessarily the same. Anyone with enough intelligence to see the point of keeping records has enough intelligence to realize that who is going to see said records in the future is not something they could either know in advance or control. And we are talking about a group of people who wiped out the records of their first 13 Lords Commander. I would say the argument for caution and careful editing in the recording of events for purposes of internal propaganda is pretty good.

Come on, do you actually think a Stark would dare punish the NW for keeping correct records of what has actually transpired? They don't even the right to demand something of that sort.

The Night's King was erased from history not just due to the intervention of the Starks but also because the NW played along with that. If they hadn't, his name and deeds would be still remembered in the accounts of the Watch.

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

GRRM has said we're not going to get the whole story on what happened back then. In fact it's arguable that what led to the Others doesn't matter because the priority for our characters is defeating them, not assigning blame.

I'm pretty sure things are connected there. I mean, perhaps they can reach a modus vivendi with the Others if they know why they want what they want? Or knowing how they were created is a crucial part of the answer how to defeat them-

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I would argue that we can learn a lot more from looking into the past than that. We'll hopefully have Howland for R+L=J, but there are things no one living knows, and yet still more recent than the Long Night. 8,000 years is a hell of a long time, and there could be pertinent information for the personal development of the characters. The story is not just about fighting extermination at the hands of ice zombies.

I don't think it is really relevant what people we essentially know nothing about (besides a few names) did for thousands of years. Bran could also watch some of the more recent stuff but his focus clearly should be to found an answer to the problem of the Others, not look for information so he can grow as a person.

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If trying to wipe out all of humanity is running amok, then what would have been the purpose of the Others originally?

Oh, wiping out all humanity might still have been their purpose. Running amok means that they are no longer under the control of the Children. Imagine the Children making the Others before the Pact, and already using them on some small groups of First Men living in the far north. After the Pact they discard those creatures as no longer necessary, killing most of them. They overlooked a few of them (or some got away), growing evermore independent in the following years until they eventually decided to do what they want, killing everyone in the process. And thus began the Long Night.

8 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Could it have been something to do with dragons and the Bloodstone Emperor?

The Bloodstone Emperor is most likely never going to be mentioned in the main series. This is not a story about Yi Tish legends. If it was, then the series would actually take place in Yi Ti.

8 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

The CotF involvement with Bloodraven and Bran is really one of the key mysteries (IMHO) of ASoIaF. They seem to help humans. But why are they doing it? Whatever the history of Men and CotF, they don't seem to seek revenge of men.

Spoiler

BTW, I don't believe one second at D&D explanation for the WW creation.

 

Care to put stuff like that into spoiler brackets? I'm pretty sure that this information is mostly correct, although perhaps less complex than George is going to make it. 

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure the show wouldn't even have included the Children of the Forest into the story if they hadn't been the ones behind the Others. They were never all that much into this magic and prophecy thing, cutting as much of that stuff as they possibly could.

George has gone on record saying that the Others have no culture of their own, suggesting very much that they are artificially created beings, not a species that developed naturally. In fact, we have a pretty good reason - the talk from Craster's wives - to believe that they are nothing but transformed male children.

That doesn't make it unbelievable or unlikely at all that the first Other wasn't created by another Other but by a Child of the Forest.

8 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

ETA: I checked back the chronology of the Pact and the LN. The Pact would have given 4000 years of peace. From maybe -12000 to -8000. But I found no evidence of chronology between the LN and the breaking of the Pact. Which one broke the other, or voided it. And why. According to Luwin, it would be even later.

"Oh, very well," Luwin muttered. "So long as the kingdoms of the First Men held sway, the Pact endured, all through the Age of Heroes and the Long Night and the birth of the Seven Kingdoms, yet finally there came a time, many centuries later, when other peoples crossed the narrow sea."

We can basically ignore that chronology. Luwin gives Bran a simplified and faulty account of the history of Westeros since we know that the Seven Kingdoms did not form as they are today before the Andals came.

The numbers are also not really confirmed. George is creating a lot of uncertainty whether the established legendary chronology (12,000, 8,000, 6,000, etc.) is genuine. He wouldn't do that if he still felt comfortable with it. If Bran is able to date events via his visions (not sure if he is going to be able to that) we most likely will learn how far back in time the Long Night actually was.

And that the Pact did definitely not survive the Long Night - and might even have been broken before it - is now also an established fact (First Men in the deep forests everywhere in the early days after the LN, both in the Stormlands and the North). That the First Men might not recall that in their histories, legends, and chronicles isn't surprising at all. After all, they still recall this solemn Pact as a grand thing. You would, perhaps, not want to remember that you did not uphold that Pact.

[Free Northman Reborn]

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything. 

Come on, do you actually think a Stark would dare punish the NW for keeping correct records of what has actually transpired? They don't even the right to demand something of that sort.

The Night's King was erased from history not just due to the intervention of the Starks but also because the NW played along with that. If they hadn't, his name and deeds would be still remembered in the accounts of the Watch.

I'm pretty sure things are connected there. I mean, perhaps they can reach a modus vivendi with the Others if they know why they want what they want? Or knowing how they were created is a crucial part of the answer how to defeat them-

I don't think it is really relevant what people we essentially know nothing about (besides a few names) did for thousands of years. Bran could also watch some of the more recent stuff but his focus clearly should be to found an answer to the problem of the Others, not look for information so he can grow as a person.

Oh, wiping out all humanity might still have been their purpose. Running amok means that they are no longer under the control of the Children. Imagine the Children making the Others before the Pact, and already using them on some small groups of First Men living in the far north. After the Pact they discard those creatures as no longer necessary, killing most of them. They overlooked a few of them (or some got away), growing evermore independent in the following years until they eventually decided to do what they want, killing everyone in the process. And thus began the Long Night.

The Bloodstone Emperor is most likely never going to be mentioned in the main series. This is not a story about Yi Tish legends. If it was, then the series would actually take place in Yi Ti.

Care to put stuff like that into spoiler brackets? I'm pretty sure that this information is mostly correct, although perhaps less complex than George is going to make it. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I'm pretty sure the show wouldn't even have included the Children of the Forest into the story if they hadn't been the ones behind the Others. They were never all that much into this magic and prophecy thing, cutting as much of that stuff as they possibly could.

George has gone on record saying that the Others have no culture of their own, suggesting very much that they are artificially created beings, not a species that developed naturally. In fact, we have a pretty good reason - the talk from Craster's wives - to believe that they are nothing but transformed male children.

That doesn't make it unbelievable or unlikely at all that the first Other wasn't created by another Other but by a Child of the Forest.

We can basically ignore that chronology. Luwin gives Bran a simplified and faulty account of the history of Westeros since we know that the Seven Kingdoms did not form as they are today before the Andals came.

The numbers are also not really confirmed. George is creating a lot of uncertainty whether the established legendary chronology (12,000, 8,000, 6,000, etc.) is genuine. He wouldn't do that if he still felt comfortable with it. If Bran is able to date events via his visions (not sure if he is going to be able to that) we most likely will learn how far back in time the Long Night actually was.

And that the Pact did definitely not survive the Long Night - and might even have been broken before it - is now also an established fact (First Men in the deep forests everywhere in the early days after the LN, both in the Stormlands and the North). That the First Men might not recall that in their histories, legends, and chronicles isn't surprising at all. After all, they still recall this solemn Pact as a grand thing. You would, perhaps, not want to remember that you did not uphold that Pact.

A few thoughts. I find this thread more fascinating the longer I ponder on it.

One thing that strikes me is that we don't really know how many Children were left by the time the Pact was signed. Nor how many still survived by the time the Long Night arrived. From Leaf's quote we know they were always few in number. And that these numbers were reduced drastically by the wars against the First Men prior to the Pact.

If there were say 10,000 Children left in Westeros when the Pact was signed, that would give you maybe 1,000 in the entire North, from the Neck to the Haunted Forest. Now, if that means maybe a few hundred living in the entire Wolfswood, that leaves a lot of forest pretty much uninhabited. And when the Long Night arrived, we know those Children who remained on the surface headed underground into their Hollow Hills, leaving the forests behind.

So, after the Long Night had ended, there may already have been large areas of forest uninhabited by any Children. I don't see the occupation of forests across the Seven Kingdoms as evidence that the Pact had been abandoned at that point. Perhaps the Children were so few that other than a few sacred places like High Heart and various important weirwood groves, they had largely abandoned the rest of the surface.

If you are down to a few thousand individuals spread across 3 million square miles of territory, your footprint on the land will be vanishingly small.

But, I am sure there is a more complex truth that is yet to be revealed. I don't quite understand what point George would have in creating this idea of a peaceful pact, followed by the Andal invaders breaking it, only to reveal that these already extinct First Men did not honor their part of the bargain. That's like kicking a First Man who is already down - having been subjugated by an even worse Andal.

There is little to be gained from that.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Care to put stuff like that into spoiler brackets? I'm pretty sure that this information is mostly correct, although perhaps less complex than George is going to make it.

 

 

I said nothing. Just D&D have a theory and I don't believe it. Like many of their deviations.
But this:

Spoiler

That doesn't make it unbelievable or unlikely at all that the first Other wasn't created by another Other but by a Child of the Forest.

You should have hidden.

And balancing your "unfounded" maybe even "partisan" hypothesis, and what Luwin had read in a few books, I give the priory to Luwin; if nothing is obviously inconsistent.