Lord Varys

The Starks and the Children

94 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but he is stuck at the Wall and has no hint whatsoever where to look.

The way I see it you don't have to be physically close to a weirwood to make the mental connection if you are a greenseer. It is the same principle as skinchanging, and your animal also can far away when you take possession of it. It does not matter whether Bran remains or leaves the cave. He would have ample time to continue his research while other people carry around his body (assuming he leaves the cave which I don't).

He shows he is very reluctant to talk about Joanna and Aerys. Perhaps he feels guilty about having witnessed Joanna being raped without intervening? And, of course, Aerys and Joanna having sex at the right time is still no confirmation because Barristan has no way of knowing whether Tywin and Joanna, too, had had sex the same month.

Howland may be able to confirm that Jon is Lyanna's son but not that Rhaegar is his father. He would not have witnessed them having sex. Wylla could be a much better witness, actually, because she might have actually been with Lyanna and talked to her. And I'm not sure Howland's purpose is solely connected to the Jon thing. He was on the Isle of Faces and met the Green Men.

<snip

Valyria may have been founded only after the Long Night but the first dragonlords could easily enough be older than the city they founded, right?

You do, too. Just reread what we know about the Pact.

No, that's exceedingly less likely, in fact, since we have sufficient evidence to conclude that the Children liked their lands and no intention of giving them up. They do not want to die.

It was all the First Men, from Dorne to beyond the Wall. The wildlings pushed them out of their lands, too, or else the Haunted Forest would be a place of the Children and not full of wildling villages.

But the Starks sure as hell are responsible for whatever transpired on their lands (once they had conquered them, of course).

The Starks killed Children of the Forest when they killed the allies of the Warg King. And we can reasonably assume that there were also Children on the original lands of the Starks around Winterfell. Where are they now? I don't buy the fairy-tale that they just went away of their own free will.

They surely would. I did not say the Boltons most certainly did not kill or drive away any Children. But unlike with the Starks or the Durrandons we have no proof that they did. Just because the Boltons are really nasty people we cannot conclude that the Boltons were more anti-Children than the Starks.

He doesn't need to know. GRRM is going to have someone go to Jon with the information.

A trained greenseer. Bloodraven rather covers this when he explains to Bran that in time he'll be able to see farther, even without birds and weirwoods. But we don't know if Bran will reach that point in his training before Bloodraven dies.

Yeah. You just proved my point.

He will if he heard her say that Rhaegar was Jon's father. There's no reason Lyanna would lie about that. Wylla may also not have ever met Lyanna and only come into the story after Lyanna's death.

Not by that much. Going from shepherd to dragonlord is too big a change to have less than a massive impact on their way of life. No way they spent a few centuries just herding sheep with the dragons. 

Done. The Children got the "deep forest" not all the forest land. There was plenty of room for them to have the "deep" forest and the First Men to have the rest. And...here's a direct quote from AGoT, Bran VII regarding how long the pact lasted:

Quote

 

"So long as the First Men held sway, the Pact endured, all though 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.

The Andals were the first, a race of tall, fair-haired warriors who came with steel and fire and the seven-pointed star of the new gods painted on their chests. The wars lasted hundreds of years, but in the end the six southron kingdoms all fellb efore them. Only here, where the King in the North threw back every army that tried to cross the Neck, did the rule of the First Men endure. The Andals burnt out the weirwood groves, hacked down the faces, slaughtered the Children where they found them, and everywhere proclaimed the triumph of the Seven over the old gods. So the children fled North--"

 

The Pact endured until the Andals showed up and started destroying weirwoods and slaughtering the Children. Seems pretty clear to me. There's nothing there about either the CotF or the FM breaking the Pact.

Plenty of groups of people throughout history have liked their land and had no intention of moving but then changed their minds. 

And you said they hadn't conquered the North yet at the point where you are claiming they were slaughtering Children, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Allies of the WK are not the same as an all-encompassing CotF eradication program which WOULD have broken the Pact.

Once upon a time yes, but by the time the Pact was made likely the land around Winterfell had already been cleared and thus was okayed for men to inhabit. At any rate it must not have been "deep forest" because if it had been and the Starks settled there, it would have been breaking the Pact. 

The Starks have not been shown to be anti-Children post-Pact. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yeah. You just proved my point.

Well, if Tyrion becomes a dragonrider people will buy the Aerys-Joanna story. The son of Tywin Lannister is never going to become a dragonrider. The son of Aerys Targaryen and half-brother of the Mother of Dragons sure as hell could.

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

He will if he heard her say that Rhaegar was Jon's father. There's no reason Lyanna would lie about that. Wylla may also not have ever met Lyanna and only come into the story after Lyanna's death.

Nothing indicates Howland ever spoke with Lyanna. Ned did. Not Howland. And Ned could have told Howland whatever the hell he wanted. Sure, Howland could have made pretty good guesses. But guesses are not proof.

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Not by that much. Going from shepherd to dragonlord is too big a change to have less than a massive impact on their way of life. No way they spent a few centuries just herding sheep with the dragons. 

That shepherd talk might be Ghiscari slander, not to mention that it might actually refer to times before they had become dragonlords, right? We know that the empire of Old Ghis already existed during the Long Night. They are confirmed to be so old. The Freehold only was founded thereafter but nobody said the first Valyrian dragonlords/dragonriders from the Lands of the Long Summer did. Perhaps the first couple of generations just were content riding dragons and having fun?

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Done. The Children got the "deep forest" not all the forest land. There was plenty of room for them to have the "deep" forest and the First Men to have the rest.

I've laid out that the Wolfswood - the largest forest in the Seven Kingdoms - clearly would have been one of those and it is confirmed that the Rainwood was one of them. Both were taking from the Children very early after the Long Night. The Starks may not have done the taking in the case of the Wolfswood - after all, allegedly it belonged to the Blackwoods, once, and the Glovers also were kings there, once. Still, it is pretty clear that the First Men everyone did not care about the Pact.

Not even beyond the Wall. The Haunted Forest doesn't belong to the Children, either.

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The Pact endured until the Andals showed up and started destroying weirwoods and slaughtering the Children. Seems pretty clear to me. There's nothing there about either the CotF or the FM breaking the Pact.

But that is obviously wrong.

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And you said they hadn't conquered the North yet at the point where you are claiming they were slaughtering Children, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Allies of the WK are not the same as an all-encompassing CotF eradication program which WOULD have broken the Pact.

Killing Children doesn't make you their friend, though? Why on earth do you want to much that the Starks and the Children were best friends?

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Once upon a time yes, but by the time the Pact was made likely the land around Winterfell had already been cleared and thus was okayed for men to inhabit. At any rate it must not have been "deep forest" because if it had been and the Starks settled there, it would have been breaking the Pact. 

The Wolfswood once would have been much larger. Who do you think cleared the land around Winterfell? Winterfell itself might have been a holy place the First Men (not necessarily the Starks) took from the Children with bronze and blood.

3 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The Starks have not been shown to be anti-Children post-Pact. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim.

There is enough for me. Not that there was an extermination program. But that the Starks (and the Northmen in general) no longer cared about the Pact in the sense that there were allowing the Children to remain alone and in peace in the deep forests. They ventured into those, too, and took what they wanted. I'm not claiming they killed Children all that often (although they might have, especially if this began before the Long Night and led to the creation of the Others) but what they did might have still resulted in the deaths of more and more Children.

In some places (like the realm of the Warg King) First Men and Children clearly lived together in some sort of modus vivendi. But apparently not at Winterfell. The Neck would be such a place, too.

But it is still a huge difference whether a group has their own territory under their own control or whether they have to live together with another species on land that was once their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if Tyrion becomes a dragonrider people will buy the Aerys-Joanna story. The son of Tywin Lannister is never going to become a dragonrider. The son of Aerys Targaryen and half-brother of the Mother of Dragons sure as hell could.

Nothing indicates Howland ever spoke with Lyanna. Ned did. Not Howland. And Ned could have told Howland whatever the hell he wanted. Sure, Howland could have made pretty good guesses. But guesses are not proof.

That shepherd talk might be Ghiscari slander, not to mention that it might actually refer to times before they had become dragonlords, right? We know that the empire of Old Ghis already existed during the Long Night. They are confirmed to be so old. The Freehold only was founded thereafter but nobody said the first Valyrian dragonlords/dragonriders from the Lands of the Long Summer did. Perhaps the first couple of generations just were content riding dragons and having fun?

I've laid out that the Wolfswood - the largest forest in the Seven Kingdoms - clearly would have been one of those and it is confirmed that the Rainwood was one of them. Both were taking from the Children very early after the Long Night. The Starks may not have done the taking in the case of the Wolfswood - after all, allegedly it belonged to the Blackwoods, once, and the Glovers also were kings there, once. Still, it is pretty clear that the First Men everyone did not care about the Pact.

Not even beyond the Wall. The Haunted Forest doesn't belong to the Children, either.

But that is obviously wrong.

Killing Children doesn't make you their friend, though? Why on earth do you want to much that the Starks and the Children were best friends?

The Wolfswood once would have been much larger. Who do you think cleared the land around Winterfell? Winterfell itself might have been a holy place the First Men (not necessarily the Starks) took from the Children with bronze and blood.

There is enough for me. Not that there was an extermination program. But that the Starks (and the Northmen in general) no longer cared about the Pact in the sense that there were allowing the Children to remain alone and in peace in the deep forests. They ventured into those, too, and took what they wanted. I'm not claiming they killed Children all that often (although they might have, especially if this began before the Long Night and led to the creation of the Others) but what they did might have still resulted in the deaths of more and more Children.

In some places (like the realm of the Warg King) First Men and Children clearly lived together in some sort of modus vivendi. But apparently not at Winterfell. The Neck would be such a place, too.

But it is still a huge difference whether a group has their own territory under their own control or whether they have to live together with another species on land that was once their own.

The only people who believe that are the ones who have bought into the ridiculous propaganda that you have to have Targaryen blood to ride a dragon.

I didn't say spoke with her. I said heard her say. And nothing indicates that Howland didn't speak with or hear her either. We have just little enough information that a ton of things are possible.

That didn't come from the Ghiscari characters. And of course it was before they were dragonlords. I never said it wasn't. Trying to have a conversation with you can be very difficult. You keep adding things that weren't said. 

Did you type that with a straight face? A community of shepherds which probably had been harassed and bullied by powerful neighbors gets the power to control essentially flying nuclear weapons and you think they just rode on them for fun for a while? A few generations still isn't long enough to explain the discrepancy anyway.

You don't seem to understand what "deep forest" means. It doesn't not mean all of the forest land. It means the deepest parts of the forest land, the parts men wouldn't be going to anyway. The Children lived in trees and caves and crannogs. They were not in the light temperate areas where they could run into First Men all the time.

Ah the text is wrong. The quote is from Maester Luwin, who learned at the Citadel, and it's from the history that you say is right. That is, you say it's right up until you get to a part with which you disagree.

I don't. If you can't keep from putting words in my mouth then kindly ignore me from now on.

It doesn't matter who cleared the land around Winterfell. If it was clear at the time of the Pact then it was given to the First Men, which means you cannot fault Brandon the Builder (a friend to the CotF) for building his home there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The only people who believe that are the ones who have bought into the ridiculous propaganda that you have to have Targaryen blood to ride a dragon.

We have Ran's word that (the right drop of) dragonlord blood was necessary in all the historical dragonriders. That is sufficient for me. I doubt Tyrion will become a dragonrider if he is just some Lannister. Especially in light of the fact that there are neither Targaryens, Plumms, Penroses, Martells, Velaryons, Tarths, or any other house that might have a drop of Targaryen among his known ancestors. If George had wanted to make Tyrion have some distant Targaryen ancestor - like Quentyn and the other Martells have - then he could easily enough have done so.

Hell, Tywin's mother could easily enough have been one of Egg's sisters.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I didn't say spoke with her. I said heard her say. And nothing indicates that Howland didn't speak with or hear her either. We have just little enough information that a ton of things are possible.

We have Ned talking with Lyanna in the tower and 'they' find him there, after Lyanna was already dead. I doubt that means Howland stood in the door watching Ned and her the entire tower time, doing nothing.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That didn't come from the Ghiscari characters.

It does, the first to claim that the Valyrians were originally shepherds is either Kraznys mo Nakloz or one of the other slavers dealing in Unsullied. Back in ASoS. And how good their information is we really do not know.

You also have to make a difference between the Valyrians as the people populating the city that was founded, and the elite amongst them, the dragonlords. The latter may have never been shepherds themselves, especially if they actually weren't native to the Lands of the Long Summer.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And of course it was before they were dragonlords. I never said it wasn't. Trying to have a conversation with you can be very difficult. You keep adding things that weren't said.

I was saying that the first dragonlords in the Lands of the Long Summer/the Fourteen Flames region might not have founded Valyria immediately after they became dragonlords. Especially if those men and women actually first became dragonlords during the Long Night. Then they might have first helped to end that threat.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Did you type that with a straight face? A community of shepherds which probably had been harassed and bullied by powerful neighbors gets the power to control essentially flying nuclear weapons and you think they just rode on them for fun for a while? A few generations still isn't long enough to explain the discrepancy anyway.

We have no reason to believe the later Valyrians were ever bullied by anybody. In fact, the very fact that the Valyrians had not free themselves from the power of the Ghiscari suggests that they lived in peace and with their own rulers. The Ghiscari may have had colonies in the Lands of the Long Summer but the region around Valyria was apparently not under their heel.

And, no, I don't think the first dragonlords must have necessarily first thought that they should create a vast empire of found a city. The average skinchanger/warg lord beyond the Wall also doesn't do such a thing.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You don't seem to understand what "deep forest" means. It doesn't not mean all of the forest land. It means the deepest parts of the forest land, the parts men wouldn't be going to anyway. The Children lived in trees and caves and crannogs. They were not in the light temperate areas where they could run into First Men all the time.

Wouldn't one say 'the depths of the forest' if one intended to say what you want to say? The 'deep forests' suggests to me the largely unexplored and huge forests. If we went with your idea then the Children would have basically gotten nothing out of the Pact.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Ah the text is wrong. The quote is from Maester Luwin, who learned at the Citadel, and it's from the history that you say is right. That is, you say it's right up until you get to a part with which you disagree.

No, I've more than once expressed where the problems with that quote are:

(1) We know the Durrandon kings broke/no longer cared about the Pact long before the Andals came.

(2) We know the Starks did the same with the Warg King issue.

(3) We know the Seven Kingdoms only rose after the arrival of the Andals (who united the Vale, the Riverlands, and helped the Lannisters and Gardeners to expand their realms to their final sizes, not to mention the Durrandons to conquer the lands beyond the Blackwater and eventually the Riverlands).

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I don't. If you can't keep from putting words in my mouth then kindly ignore me from now on.

You invent things that have no basis in the text. Like the idea that the Children just went away. You don't know that. Do you really find that plausible?

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

It doesn't matter who cleared the land around Winterfell. If it was clear at the time of the Pact then it was given to the First Men, which means you cannot fault Brandon the Builder (a friend to the CotF) for building his home there. 

Brandon may have build Winterfell but (just as Lann) he wasn't a king as far as we know. I'd agree that the place where Winterfell is now would have been taken from the Children before the Pact. However, that doesn't mean the Children did not have holy places and groves in in the heart of what is today Stark land (say, the island in the lake where Stannis' army is now). All that might have been taken much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 4:24 PM, Lord Varys said:

We have Ran's word that (the right drop of) dragonlord blood was necessary in all the historical dragonriders. That is sufficient for me. I doubt Tyrion will become a dragonrider if he is just some Lannister. Especially in light of the fact that there are neither Targaryens, Plumms, Penroses, Martells, Velaryons, Tarths, or any other house that might have a drop of Targaryen among his known ancestors. If George had wanted to make Tyrion have some distant Targaryen ancestor - like Quentyn and the other Martells have - then he could easily enough have done so.

Hell, Tywin's mother could easily enough have been one of Egg's sisters.

We have Ned talking with Lyanna in the tower and 'they' find him there, after Lyanna was already dead. I doubt that means Howland stood in the door watching Ned and her the entire tower time, doing nothing.

It does, the first to claim that the Valyrians were originally shepherds is either Kraznys mo Nakloz or one of the other slavers dealing in Unsullied. Back in ASoS. And how good their information is we really do not know.

You also have to make a difference between the Valyrians as the people populating the city that was founded, and the elite amongst them, the dragonlords. The latter may have never been shepherds themselves, especially if they actually weren't native to the Lands of the Long Summer.

I was saying that the first dragonlords in the Lands of the Long Summer/the Fourteen Flames region might not have founded Valyria immediately after they became dragonlords. Especially if those men and women actually first became dragonlords during the Long Night. Then they might have first helped to end that threat.

We have no reason to believe the later Valyrians were ever bullied by anybody. In fact, the very fact that the Valyrians had not free themselves from the power of the Ghiscari suggests that they lived in peace and with their own rulers. The Ghiscari may have had colonies in the Lands of the Long Summer but the region around Valyria was apparently not under their heel.

And, no, I don't think the first dragonlords must have necessarily first thought that they should create a vast empire of found a city. The average skinchanger/warg lord beyond the Wall also doesn't do such a thing.

Wouldn't one say 'the depths of the forest' if one intended to say what you want to say? The 'deep forests' suggests to me the largely unexplored and huge forests. If we went with your idea then the Children would have basically gotten nothing out of the Pact.

No, I've more than once expressed where the problems with that quote are:

(1) We know the Durrandon kings broke/no longer cared about the Pact long before the Andals came.

(2) We know the Starks did the same with the Warg King issue.

(3) We know the Seven Kingdoms only rose after the arrival of the Andals (who united the Vale, the Riverlands, and helped the Lannisters and Gardeners to expand their realms to their final sizes, not to mention the Durrandons to conquer the lands beyond the Blackwater and eventually the Riverlands).

You invent things that have no basis in the text. Like the idea that the Children just went away. You don't know that. Do you really find that plausible?

Brandon may have build Winterfell but (just as Lann) he wasn't a king as far as we know. I'd agree that the place where Winterfell is now would have been taken from the Children before the Pact. However, that doesn't mean the Children did not have holy places and groves in in the heart of what is today Stark land (say, the island in the lake where Stannis' army is now). All that might have been taken much later.

Yes in all the historical dragon riders. All of them had it. That doesn't mean it's required overall. Nor does it mean that future dragon riders will have to have dragon blood. 

It has apparently never occurred to you that Howland could have accompanied Ned into the Tower. Heard something, realized it was going to be a scene best left private and exited, then returned later to find Ned holding the newly dead Lyanna's body. Our information on all of that is incomplete. 

Yet with that not knowing you're willing to throw out the best info we have.

According to what we know, the Valyrian dragonlords were already Valyrian. It was the people who taught them how to tame and ride the dragons who weren't. Your point about class distinction stands to a degree, but there's no reason to think there weren't wealthy shepherds who could afford to hire other to do the bulk of the less pleasant work. You can have a sheep-based economy and still have different social classes.

Valyria already existed. The Freehold and empire were what they found. But I can't imagine they wasted much time in establishing their domination of the local area and then expanding outward. Again the Valyrian dragonlords would not have been around during the Long Night, but those who taught them about dragon taming and riding might have been. You are failing to make a distinction between the first group and the second.

I wasn't talking about later Valyrians. I was talking about earlier Valyrians. Once they got the dragons, things would have changed.

Wait a minute. A couple of paragraphs above you were talking about Valyrian class distinctions prior to their dragonlords phase. Now you're saying they would have needed to found a city after they got the dragons? If they had class distinctions before the dragons, then they had a city before them as well. I didn't say they got dragons on day one and on day two decided to go conquer the world. But the idea of conquering those around them would have come up pretty quickly in terms of historical time.

No. Have you ever been in a forest? There's shallow forest land, and there's deep forest. There was plenty of both during the Age of Heroes. There would have been no shortage of space for the Children at that point, because more of the land would still have been forested at that point. 

I won't address the Durrandons because I'm deficient on their history. But we do not have any proof that the Warg King issue constituted a violation of the Pact. Did it never occur to you that the Children who did side with the Warg King may themselves have been on the wrong side of the issue? Or do you consider that impossible because they were fighting the Starks and the Starks of old must always be in the wrong?

And point 3 is in no way in conflict with the text I quoted. The pact remained unbroken until the Andals showed up and started causing problems for everyone.   

I suggest possibilities. You do the same thing, often by twisting the text. The suggestion of possibilities only bothers you when you disagree with them. 

I did not say that the Children just decided to leave. I said it was possible. Because it is. The Children have their own greenseers so it's not out of the realm of possibility that after the Andals had conquered most of the continent, the CotF had advance knowledge that the Targaryens and their dragons wouldn't be coming at some point. After what the Andals did everywhere but the North, the Children had to know that their days living among men were numbered, if they hadn't already known it. The sensible thing to do would be to make plans, including escape routes like going underground or further north. Whether any of them left voluntarily before being thrown out for good is impossible to say with certainty but it is absolutely something they could have done. Common sense dictates that the possibility is a valid one.

I don't recall, did I refer to Bran the Builder as a king? 

There's a good example. When I say something "could have" happened it's a problem for you. But when you say something "could have" happened it's fine. It's a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes in all the historical dragon riders. All of them had it. That doesn't mean it's required overall. Nor does it mean that future dragon riders will have to have dragon blood. 

I'd agree with that, but I'd be surprised if suddenly new rules would be established for dragonriders. Tyrion buys into the dragonlord blood concept, and Dany does, too. We should first find out whether that actually works because new concepts are introduced. This series is complex but things should still make some sense in the end.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

It has apparently never occurred to you that Howland could have accompanied Ned into the Tower. Heard something, realized it was going to be a scene best left private and exited, then returned later to find Ned holding the newly dead Lyanna's body. Our information on all of that is incomplete. 

We know Lyanna's voice was barely a whisper when she talked to Ned, so it is unlikely that Howland could have heard anything from her.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yet with that not knowing you're willing to throw out the best info we have.

Sorry, I just I'm not inclined to anybody's casual slander about the origin of a people 4,000 years particularly seriously. Just as I don't think the Iranians are authority on the origins of the Egyptians just because Persia is a pretty old culture, too. If we had reason to expect that Kraznys was an expert of Ghiscari historiography and/or an archaeologist working in the Lands of the Long Summer investigating the remains of the settlements of the early Valyrians I'd consider him an authority on that subject. But as far as we know he was just a slaver.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

According to what we know, the Valyrian dragonlords were already Valyrian. It was the people who taught them how to tame and ride the dragons who weren't. Your point about class distinction stands to a degree, but there's no reason to think there weren't wealthy shepherds who could afford to hire other to do the bulk of the less pleasant work. You can have a sheep-based economy and still have different social classes.

Still, you are aware when people stuff like 'Back when all the Americans (in the South) were slavers' or 'Back when the Romans were still peasants' that those statements usually do not refer to all the members of that group. It is not supposed to be true statement in that sense. It is rather a mixture between a true statement and an insult.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Valyria already existed.

How do you know that?

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The Freehold and empire were what they found. But I can't imagine they wasted much time in establishing their domination of the local area and then expanding outward.

We have no idea what the first Valyrian dragonlords did or how quickly they expanded.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Again the Valyrian dragonlords would not have been around during the Long Night, but those who taught them about dragon taming and riding might have been. You are failing to make a distinction between the first group and the second.

The thing is, that we have no proof that such two groups actually existed. There are claims about Asshai of them being the first to tame dragons, etc. But are these true? We don't know. TWoIaF does not establish for a fact that they are true.

What I refer to as proto-Valyrians who may have been around during the Long Night could have been dragonriders from Asshai, dragonriders from the Lands of the Long Summer, or even dragonriders from Westeros (who then left the continent and settled in the Lands of the Long Summer).

But frankly, we don't even know if such people were around. Could be. Or not.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I wasn't talking about later Valyrians. I was talking about earlier Valyrians. Once they got the dragons, things would have changed.

Again, there is no guarantee that it did. Aegon the Conqueror conquered Westeros. Not Aerion, Daemion, Aelyx, Aerys, Maegon, Aegon, Gaemon, or Aenar.

The dragonlords could have been there for a couple of generations until some charismatic person decided to found a city, a Freehold, or began using the dragons as weapons of conquest.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Wait a minute. A couple of paragraphs above you were talking about Valyrian class distinctions prior to their dragonlords phase. Now you're saying they would have needed to found a city after they got the dragons? If they had class distinctions before the dragons, then they had a city before them as well. I didn't say they got dragons on day one and on day two decided to go conquer the world. But the idea of conquering those around them would have come up pretty quickly in terms of historical time.

Class distinctions don't need cities. The Dothraki have no cities yet quite a few class distinctions. Those exist in pretty much all cultures, urban or not.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No. Have you ever been in a forest? There's shallow forest land, and there's deep forest. There was plenty of both during the Age of Heroes. There would have been no shortage of space for the Children at that point, because more of the land would still have been forested at that point.

I'm with you there, I said that those forests close to where First Men settlements already were established would by definition not be deep forests.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I won't address the Durrandons because I'm deficient on their history. But we do not have any proof that the Warg King issue constituted a violation of the Pact. Did it never occur to you that the Children who did side with the Warg King may themselves have been on the wrong side of the issue? Or do you consider that impossible because they were fighting the Starks and the Starks of old must always be in the wrong?

No, I just don't see a good reason to entertain such a notion, especially since we have no reason to believe that the Starks were great friends of the Children (unlike, say, the crannogmen) and no reason that Sea Dragon Point belonged to the Starks already before it was controlled by this Warg King. We also don't assume that the Boltons, Umbers, Glovers, Dustins, and all the other petty kings had stolen their lands from the Starks or were 'in the wrong' when going to war against them. The Starks were conquerors. They subdued a lot of people who were (perfectly) fine without having to bend the knee to Winterfell. They clearly didn't do that by accident.

That doesn't mean I hate the Starks. But anybody who likes them should also accept the fact that many of them would have been bloody conquerors.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

And point 3 is in no way in conflict with the text I quoted. The pact remained unbroken until the Andals showed up and started causing problems for everyone.

No, the Pact was clearly broken in the Stormlands by the Durrandons. Go reread the early sections of the history of the Stormlands.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I suggest possibilities. You do the same thing, often by twisting the text. The suggestion of possibilities only bothers you when you disagree with them. 

I try to support the possibilities I throw out there with some reasoning. I'm aware that I might be wrong, though. And I usually begin a next paragraph containing some elaborate theory by citing some counterarguments to that idea or pointing out problems I see with that.

12 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I did not say that the Children just decided to leave. I said it was possible. Because it is. The Children have their own greenseers so it's not out of the realm of possibility that after the Andals had conquered most of the continent, the CotF had advance knowledge that the Targaryens and their dragons wouldn't be coming at some point. After what the Andals did everywhere but the North, the Children had to know that their days living among men were numbered, if they hadn't already known it. The sensible thing to do would be to make plans, including escape routes like going underground or further north. Whether any of them left voluntarily before being thrown out for good is impossible to say with certainty but it is absolutely something they could have done. Common sense dictates that the possibility is a valid one.

What makes you think greenseers can see the future? That doesn't seem to be a talent Bran or Bloodraven have. At least not on the basis of the greenseeing thing. Perhaps via other magics, etc. Greendreaming seems to be a different thing entirely.

I wonder, though, if the Children were driven out of the southern kingdoms - which they were - then it is rather odd that they would not settle in the North where the First Men would have still followed the Pact (if you are right there). Together they could have formed a strong front against the Andals.

In fact, originally I thought that was when the Neck was created. But as things stand now this wasn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the seasons in Westeros were affected by an event that occurred during the Long Night (a theory that still does not convince me), my very first thought was that the lack of reports about CoTF living and thriving in the North was somehow related to the climate change, and not to some forgotten conflicts between First Men and the Children.

I mean, if historical records of the Age of Heroes emphasize the relationship between the Children and the First Men south of the Neck, one could argue that the Children would have left the North to escape the adversities that had arisen only there, as a result of the freak seasons, such as: (1) North became permanently cold, (2) winters became lethal, and (3) soil fertility was impaired.

Since the Children did not farmed the land, worked with metal, wove cloths or raised up buildings or cities (instead, they hunted with weapons of weirwood and obsidian and flying snares of grass, made "garments of leaves and bark", resided In the woods – in shelters of leaves and with up in the branches of trees –, in crannogs, in bogs, marshes, caverns and hollow hills), long winters would have become extremely lethal to them and eventually their options narrowed to moving south or grouping themselves in the gargantuan complex of caves beyond-the-wall.

See, the nothern great lords store food in the fall to mitigate the effects of winter and hold greenhouses to provide for their own castles. Simple people and some men of the mountain clans move to "Winter Town" of Winterfell when it begins to snow. And even with all this preparation and searching for shelter, many people starve and die.

Given these circumstances, it would be difficult to imagine that creatures who do not practice agriculture, live from hunting and gathering, wear simple clothes and reside in simple shelters, built with branches and leaves or shaped by nature, can survive in this type of environment. It is worth noting that even the cave that Bloodraven is, which lies far below ground level, has to be kept warm with fires. In an SSM we see that GRRM once stated: "But the short answer is ... if the winter lasts too long, the food runs out ... and then people move south, or starve ...".

The last consideration I have to make in support of this hypothesis is to refute that the sole existence of circles of weirwoods at Sea Dragon Point would indicate that Children may have thrived there after the long night or in a recent past.

First, those are historic sites that may have been abandoned since before Long Night. Second, it has not yet been clarified whether these circles have or had any specific role for the Children (apart from being a place with several weirwood) or whether these sites signal the existence of a shelter or secret town nearby. And third, it's not clear if this place does even fulfill the winter survival conditions for the First Men (whose technology was more advanced than the one of the CoTF), because, as Tristifer told Asha, "the land is too wet for wheat or corn".

However, this hypothesis has several flaws that I cannot fix.

While in the cave beyond-the-wall, Bran claims that the children "had cheese and milk from the goats that shared the caves with the singers, even some oats and barleycorn and dried fruit laid out during the long summer". So we have a POV character saying that the CoTF would have grown crops and stocked grains, suggesting the existence of livelihoods for the winter similar to those kept by the First Men. This contradiction made me wonder if the knowledge disseminated by the Citadel about the Children is utterly wrong, or just outdated.

Of course, there is no way to determine whether these grains were stolen or offered to them by humans or other creatures who live beyond-the-wall, or whether they were stolen from crops by the large flock of ravens serving Bloodraven. However, this statement is the verdict of a 9 years old boy who contradicts information contained in the books of the citadel, which does not help to bring some degree of certainty to the matter.

Another flaw that may be pointed out is that the CoTF aided the construction of the Wall for an indefinite period, so someone would have noticed if they had any problem handling such low temperatures for a long period of time. In fact, the tales of the Long Night points to the opposite direction, since the Last Hero would have reportedly sought CoTF for years in the "dead lands" during the Long Night, which could lead somebody (especially those who believe that the CoTF have created the Others) to claim that they might have means to survive these conditions.

In fact, even earlier, when the seasons were supposed to be regular, the Children should have means of surviving them. The previous can be said concerning a migration to the South, since they would have continued to face long winters, especially in the Valley, Riverlands and Neck.

So there is no way to conclude that their garments and their shelters would be useless to the inclemencies of the long winters. As for the constant concern of the CoTF with the temperature of the cave where Bran is, it would be plausible to believe that they only keep it warm because of Bloodraven, Bran and the other humans. In addition, if it had really happened, surely the Night's Watch or the Southerners would have noticed the mass migration (to the North or South).

As for the Sea Dragon Point, Asha's and Tristifer's complete dialogue really implies that this is not a fertile land, but leaves little doubt that a society based on hunting and fishing could survive there, even during the winter (as Asha intended to do):

"You are clinging to Sea Dragon Point the way a drowning man clings to a bit of wreckage. What does Sea Dragon have that anyone could ever want? There are no mines, no gold, no silver, not even tin or iron. The land is too wet for wheat or corn."

I do not plan on planting wheat or corn. "What's there? I'll tell you. Two long coastlines, a hundred hidden coves, otters in the lakes, salmon in the rivers, clams along the shore, colonies of seals offshore, tall pines for building ships."

Finally, neither the faulty hypothesis nor its antithesis can explain why we see no signs of CoTF in the northern forests (like groves and hollows hills).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys I still don't get why you want to try and defile this side of the story so often.

Anyway, since you told me that you just read Dying of the Light recently, please go back to chapter three and reread the part where Gwen mostly, and Vickary, give about two- two and half pages detailing how history is flawed, repeated, and not accurate, which is one of the reasons she is why she is there to collect information. This is one of George's themes he uses across almost all of his books. Even the three truly scifi time travel ones. History is not as it seems. They are out there looking for truth and accuracy because as it is said, "I found what truth we now have during my studies on Avalon. It was little enough, and yet insufficient."  Hmmmm, sounds familiar.

The part in the book I am referring to starts with the explanation of ancient tales describing how ancient people, or colonies/holdfasts were once settled in the past. One was the The Time of Fire and Demons, and the other is the Sorrowing Plague. Hmmmm, sounds a little lot like the doom of Valyria and then the great Rhoynar migration.

And remember, ASOIAF was thought up and the bones were created 25ish years ago when he was still actively planning his stories out this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

```

We know Lyanna's voice was barely a whisper when she talked to Ned, so it is unlikely that Howland could have heard anything from her.

```

You say this as if it was a definite, yet in the "Jon is a bastard" thread, you vehemently went against using Ned's dream as definite proof of anything because it was a fever dream and not to be trusted.

Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

You say this as if it was a definite, yet in the "Jon is a bastard" thread, you vehemently went against using Ned's dream as definite proof of anything because it was a fever dream and not to be trusted.

Which is it?

Not all of Ned's memories come from the fever dream. He thinks about Lya and her promise when he is awake, too, for instance later in the black cell but also when he ponders what to do about Cersei's adultery. 

I never doubted that Ned did not find a dying Lyanna in a bed of blood. I doubt that the whole Kingsguard scene happened the way it is portrayed in the dream. For that we have only the dream as a basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Varys said:

Not all of Ned's memories come from the fever dream. He thinks about Lya and her promise when he is awake, too, for instance later in the black cell but also when he ponders what to do about Cersei's adultery. 

I never doubted that Ned did not find a dying Lyanna in a bed of blood. I doubt that the whole Kingsguard scene happened the way it is portrayed in the dream. For that we have only the dream as a basis.

And I just read in the "Jon is a bastard" thread that apparently it is ok to claim Jon Connington could have known about the Lyanna thing because he and Rhaegar were "buddies", but apparently it makes no sense that when Cersei starts having septons and maester's tortured and killed there is no way that word would spread amongst those orders. What???

It is very hard to have real discussion with you when you talk circles just to try and swing a topic your way, or no way at all. You seem to have your mind cemented in which way the story and characters are headed, and therefore, you have closed your mind off to any other options. Instead it comes down to you trying to convince other posters they are absurd and you are correct.

I just can't do that anymore because George is writing a story about the current people and their situations. Not an encyclopedia. Actually, he is writing an encyclopedia, just as PatQ and Rogue Prince are, but that won't be out until much later.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And I just read in the "Jon is a bastard" thread that apparently it is ok to claim Jon Connington could have known about the Lyanna thing because he and Rhaegar were "buddies", but apparently it makes no sense that when Cersei starts having septons and maester's tortured and killed there is no way that word would spread amongst those orders. What???

Cersei never had maesters and septon tortured and killed. She stands accused of having commanded the murder of a High Septon but that's not proven. Nor is there any reason to believe Yandel is still writing his book by that time. Wouldn't he then also take a much more anti-Ironborn approach when covering the Islands? When Cersei is arrested Euron is also at the very gates of Oldtown and Highgarden.

The Lyanna mystery is a huge affair and influenced the history of the entire Realm. Such things are too big to be not discussed in this or that fashion among the elite, especially those close to the people involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei never had maesters and septon tortured and killed. She stands accused of having commanded the murder of a High Septon but that's not proven. Nor is there any reason to believe Yandel is still writing his book by that time. Wouldn't he then also take a much more anti-Ironborn approach when covering the Islands? When Cersei is arrested Euron is also at the very gates of Oldtown and Highgarden.

The Lyanna mystery is a huge affair and influenced the history of the entire Realm. Such things are too big to be not discussed in this or that fashion among the elite, especially those close to the people involved.

 

Of course. 

Mans what does this have to do with your own topic of history and how we know George has skewered it? 

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Mans what does this have to do with your own topic of history and how we know George has skewered it? 

You claimed Yandel wrote the book essentially for Cersei, remember? I contested that on the grounds that the events like the attack of the Ironborn on the Reach - which actually precede the reveal of Cersei's depravity (causing her arrest) - were not mentioned in the book. In fact, the book does not even mention Tywin's death at the hands of his own hands which should allow us to date Yandel's Afterword to around the end of ASoS, before the news about Tywin's death had reached Oldtown.

8 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

@Lord Varys I still don't get why you want to try and defile this side of the story so often.

Anyway, since you told me that you just read Dying of the Light recently, please go back to chapter three and reread the part where Gwen mostly, and Vickary, give about two- two and half pages detailing how history is flawed, repeated, and not accurate, which is one of the reasons she is why she is there to collect information. This is one of George's themes he uses across almost all of his books. Even the three truly scifi time travel ones. History is not as it seems. They are out there looking for truth and accuracy because as it is said, "I found what truth we now have during my studies on Avalon. It was little enough, and yet insufficient."  Hmmmm, sounds familiar.

The part in the book I am referring to starts with the explanation of ancient tales describing how ancient people, or colonies/holdfasts were once settled in the past. One was the The Time of Fire and Demons, and the other is the Sorrowing Plague. Hmmmm, sounds a little lot like the doom of Valyria and then the great Rhoynar migration.

And remember, ASOIAF was thought up and the bones were created 25ish years ago when he was still actively planning his stories out this way.

A little detail in Dying of the Light I noticed is Garse's red hair and beard. Is there an echo of him in Jon Connington?

The really interesting thing is this whole love triangle thing. Gwen essentially stands between four men if we are counting Arkin and Dirk, and since there are hints George might intend to use similar ideas in the series one really wonders how many men will gather around Daenerys.

But the romantic situation there is also very complicated with very different layers that are only slowly pulled back, and there is a very strong parallel between that story and the whole Lyanna thing. How many dimensions does this love story have? And how many do we know as of yet? We cannot really be sure.

I mean, usually I can foresee stuff pretty quickly but George really fooled me with the jewel story in Dying of the Light. I did not see it coming that Gwen might have not, in fact, the thing to Dirk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now