Jump to content

Inconsistencies, plot holes, and missing details in TSOTD, TRP, and TPATQ


The Grey Wolf

Recommended Posts

44. Why are the numbers for the Dance so low?

To elaborate:

According to @Ran Jeyne Arryn sent 10000 men to fight for Rhaenyra but we all know the Vale can field way more men than that. Furthermore, there are some problems with the numbers for the Fishfeed. In TPATQ it says that 2000 men died on each side for a total of 4000 and that this was the bloodiest land battle of the war but this doesn't add up with what TWOIAF says or the actual description of the engagement itself. TWOIAF says the Lannisters alone "died in the thousands". What's more, the idea that both the Honeywine and First Tumbleton had less than 4000 casualties does not sound all that likely. Finally, given that the Westermen were attacked from three sides and driven into the Gods Eye most, if not all of them, should have been killed so unless the Lannister host itself numbered two thousand it doesn't make sense that was the number of casualties on the Green side.

As for the Dance in general, I have seen two theories attempt to explain this numerical discrepancy:

1. The long years of peace under Aegon I and Jaehaerys I-Viserys I led to a population boom. The reason this doesn't add up is that 1) we don't get any hints in that direction from the text nor does said text hint that there were population booms and busts in pre-Conquest Westeros the way there were in RL history and 2) immediately after the Dance we see Daeron I lose 50-60000 men during the Conquest/Occupation of Dorne and another 10000 die on the Redgrass Field alone, not to mention the fact that Torrhen Stark commanded 30000 men before Aegon I's reign even began.

2. After the Conquest and the Faith Militant Uprising the lords of Westeros divided their armies into smaller chunks to avoid a one dragon wipe-out a la the Field of Fire. The problem with this theory is that it isn't reflected in the text either. If the lords of Westeros really did divide their armies into smaller segments then we should see for example multiple hosts of Westermen simultaneously or Westermen hosts getting defeated and replaced by new levies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

46. Where is the Great Fork of the Blackwater located? The Riverlands or the Crownlands?

This has been asked before, according to Ran, George never gave any info on which of the two forks in the Blackwater is the Great Fork. So we will just have to wait until George decides to tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

This has been asked before, according to Ran, George never gave any info on which of the two forks in the Blackwater is the Great Fork. So we will just have to wait until George decides to tell us.

This thread is for compilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49. The royalist commander at the Battle of Stonebridge is written as Loadows instead of Lord Meadows.

50. In TPATQ it is written that Tumbleton "was reduced to ash and embers, never to be rebuilt" (emphasis mine). This contradicts the ADWD map and the A World of Ice and Fire app, both of which claim the town is the extant seat of House Footly.

51. When did the Alchemists' Guild settle in King's Landing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28.1.2018 at 5:33 AM, The Grey Wolf said:

44. Why are the numbers for the Dance so low?

To elaborate:

According to @Ran Jeyne Arryn sent 10000 men to fight for Rhaenyra but we all know the Vale can field way more men than that. Furthermore, there are some problems with the numbers for the Fishfeed. In TPATQ it says that 2000 men died on each side for a total of 4000 and that this was the bloodiest land battle of the war but this doesn't add up with what TWOIAF says or the actual description of the engagement itself. TWOIAF says the Lannisters alone "died in the thousands". What's more, the idea that both the Honeywine and First Tumbleton had less than 4000 casualties does not sound all that likely. Finally, given that the Westermen were attacked from three sides and driven into the Gods Eye most, if not all of them, should have been killed so unless the Lannister host itself numbered two thousand it doesn't make sense that was the number of casualties on the Green side.

You have a point there, but it is too early to complain about this stuff. We don't have the full text. There might be reasons why Lady Jeyne dispatched only 10,000 men to Rhaenyra. She was getting support from other houses, so why should the Vale commit its entire strength to her? We also don't know anything about the situation in the Vale itself. Why should anybody marshal his entire strength in a succession war, by the way? Why not only dispatch enough men to please the pretender you are supporting (or gain their favor) and keep a significant reserve back home to ensure your position is strengthened during the war?

There was a succession of battles involving the Lannister host before it came to the Fishfeed, and they might - and likely did - lose quite a smaller amount of men in each those battles which added up.

The Battle of the Honeywine doesn't have to involve many casualties. The Black armies broke when they saw Tessarion in flight. Lord Hightower seemed to lose prior to that but there is no reason to assume that there was much real fighting prior to that.

In addition, those medieval battles usually didn't see a lot of men actually dying in battle. Casualties were much lower than one would assume, and victory wasn't achieved when (most of) the enemy's men were dead.

First Tumbleton likely was very bloody, but not necessarily as a battle. More as the later sacking of the town.

On 28.1.2018 at 5:33 AM, The Grey Wolf said:

2. After the Conquest and the Faith Militant Uprising the lords of Westeros divided their armies into smaller chunks to avoid a one dragon wipe-out a la the Field of Fire. The problem with this theory is that it isn't reflected in the text either. If the lords of Westeros really did divide their armies into smaller segments then we should see for example multiple hosts of Westermen simultaneously or Westermen hosts getting defeated and replaced by new levies.

You have to keep in mind that it was already (late) autumn in 129 AC, not exactly the ideal season for war. And this wasn't really a war where people marshaled armies on bloc. The Reach and the Riverlands were torn between the Greens and the Blacks. This may have been the case - to a smaller degree - in all the Seven Kingdoms. Even if it wasn't - many people might have feared what their neighbors might do.

Also, this wasn't a war commanded or managed by the great houses. In the first half of the war Jason Lannister is the only great lord personally raising and commanding an army. And there is no indication that he had the support of the entire West in his endeavor.

In addition, there is the time factor to be considered. This war began suddenly and it was effectively fought over a very abstract (and stupid) question. It is not the kind of thing lords and knights and common people would be looking forward to die for. Even when Lucerys Velaryon and Prince Jaehaerys are killed, only the royal family is affected.

The Dance doesn't begin like Robert's Rebellion or the War of the Five Kings.

On 31.1.2018 at 2:10 AM, The Grey Wolf said:

45. Was Aemma Arryn really married to Viserys I at the age of 11? (Because there is an unhealthy number of child-brides in Westeros already.)

That is an interesting question. I'd like an answer to that, too. It could very well be that they only married in 94 AC, when Aemma was twelve. But not much later considering that she a few miscarriages and one stillborn child prior to Rhaenyra's birth in 97 AC.

But then, George is under no obligation to answer stuff like that. Although there is hope that the Viserys-Aemma marriage might be covered by the account on the reign of Jaehaerys I, considering that it is very likely connected to his decision to name Baelon his heir in 92 AC.

19 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

50. In TPATQ it is written that Tumbleton "was reduced to ash and embers, never to be rebuilt" (emphasis mine). This contradicts the ADWD map and the A World of Ice and Fire app, both of which claim the town is the extant seat of House Footly.

Tumbleton might now only be a castle and no longer a thriving market town. But then, perhaps it should actually be marked as a ruin in both maps.

19 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

51. When did the Alchemists' Guild settle in King's Landing? 

An interesting question I'd also like an answer to. Considering the growth and prosperity of the city one imagines that they were there from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2018 at 5:44 PM, Lord Varys said:

Text

You're right we don't have the full text. My point was just that the numbers need to be explained. If Jason Lannister only took 10-20K men with him the Westerlands shouldn't be thinly-defended like TWOIAF claims for example. The other option (Jason took the full strength of the Westerlands with him) also doesn't make much sense unless the Westermen fought a ton of battles before the Fishfeed.

Speaking of which, the casualties for the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye do not make sense at all. One of the best ways to maximize casualties on both sides of an engagement is for one faction to completely encircle the other. Thus, the royalists should have lost way more than just a hundred and the rebels way more than two thousand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

52. Where is Blackhull located and is it a town or castle?

53. What happened to the sellswords Maegor brought back with him from Essos?

54. What happened to the Redwyne fleet after it declared for the Greens? No naval engagements apart from the Gullet are listed in TWOIAF and Ser Leo Costayne had enough ships to invade the Iron Isles after the Dance, which doesn't make sense if the Arbor actually fought in the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11.2.2018 at 11:40 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

You're right we don't have the full text. My point was just that the numbers need to be explained. If Jason Lannister only took 10-20K men with him the Westerlands shouldn't be thinly-defended like TWOIAF claims for example. The other option (Jason took the full strength of the Westerlands with him) also doesn't make much sense unless the Westermen fought a ton of battles before the Fishfeed.

You have to keep in mind that the West didn't expect to be attacked by Dalton Greyjoy's armada. Even if we assume Lord Jason only took half the West's strength to the Riverlands then he would likely taken his best men and, like Robb during the War of the Five Kings, the overwhelming majority of the lords and knights.

That would clearly have crippled the capabilities of the West to properly defend itself in the sense that they wouldn't have had the leaders around to organize a defense or a counter attack.

On 11.2.2018 at 11:40 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Speaking of which, the casualties for the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye do not make sense at all. One of the best ways to maximize casualties on both sides of an engagement is for one faction to completely encircle the other. Thus, the royalists should have lost way more than just a hundred and the rebels way more than two thousand.

You have a point there. The only way I can make sense of that is to assume that the Lannister army had lost a considerable amount of men during the earlier battles (and subsequent desertions, etc.).

5 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

52. Where is Blackhull located and is it a town or castle?

It would be great to know this, but it isn't really necessary.

5 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

53. What happened to the sellswords Maegor brought back with him from Essos?

I guess they fought for him against the Faith Militant - they may have been among the men butchering the Warrior's Sons at the Sept of Remembrance, and they may have accompanied him and Balerion to the Great Fork of the Blackwater. 

5 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

54. What happened to the Redwyne fleet after it declared for the Greens? No naval engagements apart from the Gullet are listed in TWOIAF and Ser Leo Costayne had enough ships to invade the Iron Isles after the Dance, which doesn't make sense if the Arbor actually fought in the war.

We have to wait and see. But there is actually no proof that Ser Leo Costayne's fleet was the Redwyne fleet. It is more likely that the ships he gave to Lady Joanna Lannister were Hightower ships (considering that the Costaynes are bannermen of House Hightower).

The Redwynes (and Tarths) could have participated in the Dance in some fashion. Or they could have done little more than paying lip service to whoever they declared for, like so many Stormlords did during the War of the Five Kings. And we have no reason to believe that the Redwyne fleet was as large during the Dance as it is now. If it was it is very odd that Aegon II didn't try to convince Lord Redwyne to attack the Velaryon fleet for him. It would have been much more easier than trying to convince the Ironborn to do it.

5 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

Were the Riverlands really torn between the Greens and the Blacks? As far as I can tell the only native houses that supported Aegon II were the Strongs and Brackens.

There was a battle between the Black Riverlords and the Green Riverlords at Stone Hedge. It could be that the Blacks quickly got the upper hand in the Riverlands because Daemon and Caraxes were there, but that's as of yet not clear.

We have essentially three factions there - Green Riverlords, Black Riverlords, and neutral Riverlords. The Tullys were among the latter until Elmo Tully made his move, and considering that Ser Addam Velaryon brought a considerable host of fresh troops to Tumbleton chances are pretty good that a considerable amount of Riverlords (and their levies) followed the lead of Riverrun and stayed out of the war as long as they could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have a point there. The only way I can make sense of that is to assume that the Lannister army had lost a considerable amount of men during the earlier battles (and subsequent desertions, etc.).

We have to wait and see. But there is actually no proof that Ser Leo Costayne's fleet was the Redwyne fleet. It is more likely that the ships he gave to Lady Joanna Lannister were Hightower ships (considering that the Costaynes are bannermen of House Hightower).

The Redwynes (and Tarths) could have participated in the Dance in some fashion. Or they could have done little more than paying lip service to whoever they declared for, like so many Stormlords did during the War of the Five Kings. And we have no reason to believe that the Redwyne fleet was as large during the Dance as it is now. If it was it is very odd that Aegon II didn't try to convince Lord Redwyne to attack the Velaryon fleet for him. It would have been much more easier than trying to convince the Ironborn to do it.

There was a battle between the Black Riverlords and the Green Riverlords at Stone Hedge. It could be that the Blacks quickly got the upper hand in the Riverlands because Daemon and Caraxes were there, but that's as of yet not clear.

We have essentially three factions there - Green Riverlords, Black Riverlords, and neutral Riverlords. The Tullys were among the latter until Elmo Tully made his move, and considering that Ser Addam Velaryon brought a considerable host of fresh troops to Tumbleton chances are pretty good that a considerable amount of Riverlords (and their levies) followed the lead of Riverrun and stayed out of the war as long as they could.

Umm...The Lannisters didn't fight at the Battle Beneath the Godseye or you referring to the Dance?

It would make more sense if the Redwynes actually fought given the fact that they bothered to declare for a side. If they wanted to stay out of the war they could have just been neutral like the Tyrells. Also, even if the Redwyne fleet was smaller back then it could still have been of use to the Greens. Fighting the Velaryons, fighting the Ironborn, or even sailing up the Mander to reinforce Lord Hightower (and provide leadership once he died at First Tumbleton). What makes this even more weird is that we are told battles took place on land, at sea, and in the sky yet TWOIAF and TPATQ only gives us one naval engagement. Maybe the Vale was involved in some? We know the mountain passes were closed and the Arryns historically had a fine fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Umm...The Lannisters didn't fight at the Battle Beneath the Godseye or you referring to the Dance?

I was referring to the Dance and the casualties at the Fishfeed.

The casualties for the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye make complete sense because that battle was over when Maegor put the pretender down. And that seems to have happened before the fighting had properly begun. After all, Aegon was never wholeheartedly supported by anyone. The people with him were adventurers. They were willing to risk something to win something, but that all went to hell when their 'king' and his dragon died.

And 'encircling' creates the wrong impression here. Prince Aegon wasn't completely surrounded - rather, his ability to maneuver and retreat was severely limited by the fact that multiple royal armies were approaching from many sides.

Quote

It would make more sense if the Redwynes actually fought given the fact that they bothered to declare for a side.

Quite a few people declared for King Joffrey during the War of the Five Kings - many Stormlords, House Martell and Dorne, eventually even the Vale. Many of those people did only send token forces to KL, some of them - Dorne and the Vale - none at all.

Why do you think we should assume the Redwynes would have been eager to risk their fleet in a pointless war? And the Dance was one of the most pointless and ridiculous wars in Westerosi history.

Quote

If they wanted to stay out of the war they could have just been neutral like the Tyrells.

We don't know whether the Tyrells stayed neutral in any official sense. The fact that they didn't send any troops to any of the pretenders doesn't mean they did not recognize Aegon II and/or Rhaenyra as the rightful monarch when it was wise to do so. Sending troops means your support means something, of course, but you could certainly also (or only) write letters hailing your rightful king or queen.

Quote

Also, even if the Redwyne fleet was smaller back then it could still have been of use to the Greens. Fighting the Velaryons, fighting the Ironborn, or even sailing up the Mander to reinforce Lord Hightower (and provide leadership once he died at First Tumbleton).

Sure, however, as you say, it is odd that apparently nothing of that sort happened. Surely the Greens could have used the Redwyne fleet to finally take Dragonstone, Driftmark, and retake KL, after the Triarchy had dealt the Velaryons a major blow. Yet apparently nothing of that sort happened. Could be that the Arryns sent a fleet to protect Rhaenyra against the Redwynes in the wake of her taking the city, but if that's the case then we don't know anything about that at this point.

Quote

What makes this even more weird is that we are told battles took place on land, at sea, and in the sky yet TWOIAF and TPATQ only gives us one naval engagement. Maybe the Vale was involved in some? We know the mountain passes were closed and the Arryns historically had a fine fleet.

We also know that the war was supposedly fought with poison, yet aside from Ulf the White nobody was poisoned that we know of.

And Dalton Greyjoy's attacks certainly qualify as naval warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

My main gripe with your argument is that it wastes page space for no good reason. If the Redwynes didn't do anything despite declaring for a side why bother mentioning them at all? Why bother having them declare for a side to begin with? Especially in the case of the Arbor it doesn't make sense because neither the Blacks nor the Greens were in a position to threaten it given the island's position vis-a-vis King's Landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

My main gripe with your argument is that it wastes page space for no good reason. If the Redwynes didn't do anything despite declaring for a side why bother mentioning them at all? Why bother having them declare for a side to begin with? Especially in the case of the Arbor it doesn't make sense because neither the Blacks nor the Greens were in a position to threaten it given the island's position vis-a-vis King's Landing.

Mentioning who has the allegiance of a certain house was during a war is never a waste of space.

And it is not that those texts were carefully written or edited carefully before being published in the various anthologies. Far to the contrary, actually.

If the Redwyne (and Tarth - they are mentioned, too) thing goes nowhere, it might better be excised from the text. Or there might be some reason given as to why it is important. 

And perhaps the former or the latter is going to happen in the final text. We don't know yet.

On a more general level you should keep in mind that the genre here is 'fake history', and it is a crucial point of history that it isn't supposed to look like a work of fiction. Meaning that it is very likely that dead ends, contradictions, irrelevant information, etc. are deliberately put in those texts, to a larger degree than George does in the main novels - where pretty much everything is important and nothing superficial or mere background detail. 

Reading ADwD I was actually disappointed that it was so easy to figure things out because literally nothing was hidden. Any detail, anything going deeper than a casual description, thought, or conversation had deeper meaning. And if you know that's how the author writes then he can keep only very few things from you.

But I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...