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

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I agree. Where is Tarth mentioned in the text?

Early on, in the same section where the Redwynes are mentioned.

Quote

The princess would have the Sea Snake and his fleets, Ser Otto judged, and like as not the other lords of the eastern shores as well: Lords Bar Emmon, Massey, Celtigar, and Crabb most like, perhaps even the Evenstar of Tarth.

The Crabbs are mentioned there, too, yet the Crackclaw Point folk don't do anything noteworthy, either, during the Dance. 

And thinking about the Redwynes - it is really a throwaway line that Aegon II 'had the Arbor, too'. That doesn't indicate the Redwynes were passionate Green loyalists. I mean, the smart people during that stupid war would have told those dragonriding pricks what they wanted to hear, lying through their teeth.

The fools investing themselves and their own in this war died or severely suffered for their loyalty. Borros Baratheon was one of the smart ones - until he wasn't. Cregan Stark did it right, but Lady Tyrell and the Prince of Dorne clearly were the smartest of them all.

If you look what people like the Hightowers, Lannisters, Mootons, Darklyns, Tullys, Freys, Blackwoods, etc. got for their involvement in the Dance it is really obvious.

[The Grey Wolf]

On 2/24/2018 at 5:30 PM, Lord Varys said:

Text

That's not the same thing. In that sentence Ser Otto is saying he expects Tarth to side with Rhaenyra, not that they have actually announced which faction they support.

Again, if the Tyrells (per TWOIAF) were able to stay neutral despite being smack-dab in the middle of the Reach there is no reason the Redwynes couldn't have done the same, which would make more sense than them declaring for Aegon II and then not doing anything. 

Also, for the record, the Redwynes have always had a good fleet given the fact it is said to have prevented the Andals from landing in the Reach during their invasion, not to mention the Arbor is a big island that thrives on trade, which by necessity requires a lot of ships both for defense as well as cargo transportation.

@Ran

Can you tell us if the full text addresses this discrepancy?

[Ran]

The references that you've seen to Tarth and the Arbor are the only ones in the full text. 

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

The references that you've seen to Tarth and the Arbor are the only ones in the full text. 

I cannot say that I'm surprised by that. Smart people, those guys.

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That's not the same thing. In that sentence Ser Otto is saying he expects Tarth to side with Rhaenyra, not that they have actually announced which faction they support.

Sure, but one assumes the man had certain (good?) reasons to expect such a development. And nobody sent a Targaryen prince to Evenfall Hall to change the Evenstar's mind.

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, for the record, the Redwynes have always had a good fleet given the fact it is said to have prevented the Andals from landing in the Reach during their invasion, not to mention the Arbor is a big island that thrives on trade, which by necessity requires a lot of ships both for defense as well as cargo transportation.

Again, note that the text said that Aegon II had the Arbor. That isn't the same as the Redwynes enthusiastically declaring for Aegon II. They can be on Aegon's side without ever lifting so much as a little finger to actually support him.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The references that you've seen to Tarth and the Arbor are the only ones in the full text. 

That sucks.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They can be on Aegon's side without ever lifting so much as a little finger to actually support him.

In that case why bother picking a side to begin with? Why bother wasting page space on them if they didn't do anything?

Seriously, anything would be better than nothing.

Lord Redwyne was defeated by the Ironborn. Lord Redwyne's fleet was sunk by a storm (which are common in autumn). Lord Redwyne kept his fleet close to home for fear of the Ironborn. I could go on.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That sucks.

In that case why bother picking a side to begin with? Why bother wasting page space on them if they didn't do anything?

Seriously, anything would be better than nothing.

Lord Redwyne was defeated by the Ironborn. Lord Redwyne's fleet was sunk by a storm (which are common in autumn). Lord Redwyne kept his fleet close to home for fear of the Ironborn. I could go on.

Well, I told you that history is not always written as a tantalizing novel. And even in the series we know that Prince Doran declared for King Joffrey after the Myrcella match and did ... nothing. Lord Robert Arryn declared for King Joffrey after Littlefinger brought the Vale back into the fold and did ... nothing.

The Estermonts, Swanns, Dondarrions, Tarths, etc. declared for various kings and did pretty much nothing. And we know that, too. There is little wrong with knowing stuff. 

[The Grey Wolf]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

Yes but in each of those cases there were Watsonian explanations for why that was the way things went.

Having said that GRRM can write whatever he likes. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned the Arbor is a wasted opportunity.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Having said that GRRM can write whatever he likes. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned the Arbor is a wasted opportunity.

On that we certainly agree. It is a pity that we didn't see any Redwyne action. But there is always the next Aeron chapter to look forward to.

And it is really not that the author gives us the impression that the Redwynes are supposed to fervent or even fanatical Greens, or anything. It is just said that Aegon II has the Arbor. That could also mean, for instance, that Otto's or Ormund's sister is married to the present Lord of the Arbor, seeing to it that the Redwynes don't rock the Hightower boat.

But the text doesn't imply they were willing to go to war and then did nothing for no good reason.

What should be in the story, for instance, is a pretty good explanation as to why Lord Borros did nothing after he declared for Aegon II, and why Rhaenyra didn't do anything to punish Borros after she had taken KL.

[The Grey Wolf]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What should be in the story, for instance, is a pretty good explanation as to why Lord Borros did nothing after he declared for Aegon II, and why Rhaenyra didn't do anything to punish Borros after she had taken KL.

I was most disappointed with the Stormlands' involvement in the Dance. But you already know that.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I was most disappointed with the Stormlands' involvement in the Dance. But you already know that.

Yeah, but I really find Borros keeping his hands under his ass while sitting on both of them is actually a pretty big plot hole - or were such a plot hole - if the man simply disappeared from the full text of 'The Death of the Dragons' after the death of Lucerys only to resurface when he took KL nearly two years later.

There has to be an explanation why he did nothing. Perhaps because Aemond didn't marry one of his daughters after all, perhaps because he feared Rhaenyra's retribution after the death of her son, or perhaps some stuff was happening in the Stormlands that caused him to back down for the time being.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but I really find Borros keeping his hands under his ass while sitting on both of them is actually a pretty big plot hole - or were such a plot hole - if the man simply disappeared from the full text of 'The Death of the Dragons' after the death of Lucerys only to resurface when he took KL nearly two years later.

There has to be an explanation why he did nothing. Perhaps because Aemond didn't marry one of his daughters after all, perhaps because he feared Rhaenyra's retribution after the death of her son, or perhaps some stuff was happening in the Stormlands that caused him to back down for the time being.

I agree. Here are my ideas:

1. Rhaenyra sent the majority of those 10K Valemen to bring her Borros's head, hence why they don't get mentioned at all in TWOIAF and TPATQ.

2. Borros was forced to wage war upon his own bannermen. (I imagine the Marcher Lords might have been amendable to the idea of a ruling queen given the example of Ellyn Caron in TSOTD.)

3. Qoren Martell died early in 130 AC, allowing his daughter-heir, Aliandra, to become the Princess of Dorne. (This avoids contradicting TWOIAF since Aliandra would be acting independent of both the Blacks and the Greens.)

[Lord Varys]

55 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I agree. Here are my ideas:

1. Rhaenyra sent the majority of those 10K Valemen to bring her Borros's head, hence why they don't get mentioned at all in TWOIAF and TPATQ.

2. Borros was forced to wage war upon his own bannermen. (I imagine the Marcher Lords might have been amendable to the idea of a ruling queen given the example of Ellyn Caron in TSOTD.)

3. Qoren Martell died early in 130 AC, allowing his daughter-heir, Aliandra, to become the Princess of Dorne. (This avoids contradicting TWOIAF since Aliandra would be acting independent of both the Blacks and the Greens.)

Well, Tyrion's whole story in ADwD about the Swann chap trying to kill Syrax would lend credence to the idea that Rhaenyra herself might have been in the Stormlands at one point. The idea that anybody was mad/stupid enough to kill her dragon on Dragonstone or in KL doesn't sound very convincing - after all, if Syrax didn't kill him, surely the queen's guardsmen would...

The other idea is that the dragon in question was actually Vhagar, after all, and Tyrion the moron made a mistake there. Vhagar was chained at Storm's End during Aemond's stay there, and if Byron Swann had ties to Rhaenyra/the Velaryons or was an outspoken Black for some reason - and at Storm's End while Aemond was there - he could very well have tried to kill her after she butchered both Lucerys and Arrax.

Tyrion's conclusion that 'Storm's End being for Aegon II' doesn't give Ser Byron a motivation to kill Vhagar isn't exactly conclusive. The Baratheons are the Baratheons, and the Swanns are the Swanns, and Ser Byron Swann is Ser Byron Swann. He could have done whatever the hell he wanted to do, never mind what Lord Borros Baratheon said.

And we do know that the Dance caused neighbors to turn on each other, and even friends and family.

But still - if it was Syrax then Rhaenyra could actually have gone to war in the Stormlands at one point.

If Borros had issues with his own bannermen - or thought he might have issues in the future - this could explain why the army he led against the Riverlords wasn't as large as it could have been, by the way.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But still - if it was Syrax then Rhaenyra could actually have gone to war in the Stormlands at one point.

If Borros had issues with his own bannermen - or thought he might have issues in the future - this could explain why the army he led against the Riverlords wasn't as large as it could have been, by the way.

Either one of those would be good enough for me.

@Ran

Can you tell us whether or not the full text discusses Ser Byron Swann? Also, can you tell us whether or not the full text discusses what was going on in the Stormlands during the Dance?

[direpupy]

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Tyrion's whole story in ADwD about the Swann chap trying to kill Syrax would lend credence to the idea that Rhaenyra herself might have been in the Stormlands at one point. The idea that anybody was mad/stupid enough to kill her dragon on Dragonstone or in KL doesn't sound very convincing - after all, if Syrax didn't kill him, surely the queen's guardsmen would...

But still - if it was Syrax then Rhaenyra could actually have gone to war in the Stormlands at one point.

Tyrion mentions the letter of Byron's squire as evidence. The squire clearly identifies the dragon his master tried to kill as Syrax in this letter, seeing as this squire actually saw his master die i honestly think it was Syrax that Byron tried to kill.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Tyrion mentions the letter of Byron's squire as evidence. The squire clearly identifies the dragon his master tried to kill as Syrax in this letter, seeing as this squire actually saw his master die i honestly think it was Syrax that Byron tried to kill.

Tyrion claims that such a letter exist, but there is no indication that he, personally, ever saw that letter. Unless that's the case his source on the matter - likely another history piece or a treatise on dragonlore - could be mistaken as well.

Or Ser Byron's own squire might have been mistaken in the letter. He could have written about a she-dragon chained in a castle, without actually ever mentioning the name of the beast, and overtime it became Syrax in the Red Keep's yard rather than Vhagar in the yard of Storm's End.

Or he might have been an old, senile man when to his (or Ser Byron's) daughter about it. We don't know.

And quite frankly, the idea that Grand Maester Munkun - a man that actually lived during the Dance of the Dragons the same way Ser Byron and his squire did - didn't realize that Syrax wasn't Vhagar and that the Baratheons and the Stormlands were for Aegon II makes literally no sense. If it was that obvious that Byron Swann would have been a man of the Greens why on earth would he have claimed the man tried to kill Vhagar?

But then, I really don't care, I just want that tidbit to fit in the context of the larger story.

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrion claims that such a letter exist, but there is no indication that he, personally, ever saw that letter. Unless that's the case his source on the matter - likely another history piece or a treatise on dragonlore - could be mistaken as well.

Or Ser Byron's own squire might have been mistaken in the letter. He could have written about a she-dragon chained in a castle, without actually ever mentioning the name of the beast, and overtime it became Syrax in the Red Keep's yard rather than Vhagar in the yard of Storm's End.

Or he might have been an old, senile man when to his (or Ser Byron's) daughter about it. We don't know.

And quite frankly, the idea that Grand Maester Munkun - a man that actually lived during the Dance of the Dragons the same way Ser Byron and his squire did - didn't realize that Syrax wasn't Vhagar and that the Baratheons and the Stormlands were for Aegon II makes literally no sense. If it was that obvious that Byron Swann would have been a man of the Greens why on earth would he have claimed the man tried to kill Vhagar?

But then, I really don't care, I just want that tidbit to fit in the context of the larger story.

Munkun may just as easily be the one that is mistaken in his book, just look at all the mistakes in books in the real world with all our modern means to check up on things. Hell this entire tread is about such mistakes. Also Munkun wrote his book after the facts from second hand accounts never the most reliable source

Honestly Munkun being mistaken actually makes more sense not less.

—that it was Vhagar. Grand Maester Munkun errs. Ser Byron's squire saw his master die, and wrote his daughter of the manner of it. His account says it was Syrax, Rhaenyra's she-dragon, which makes more sense than Munken's version. 

And the text which i quote above makes it clear that according to Tyrion the squire did name the dragon in his letter. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Munkun may just as easily be the one that is mistaken in his book, just look at all the mistakes in books in the real world with all our modern means to check up on things. Hell this entire tread is about such mistakes. Also Munkun wrote his book after the facts from second hand accounts never the most reliable source

Honestly Munkun being mistaken actually makes more sense not less.

—that it was Vhagar. Grand Maester Munkun errs. Ser Byron's squire saw his master die, and wrote his daughter of the manner of it. His account says it was Syrax, Rhaenyra's she-dragon, which makes more sense than Munken's version. 

And the text which i quote above makes it clear that according to Tyrion the squire did name the dragon in his letter. 

I know the quote, but this quote doesn't say that Tyrion himself read the account of the squire. Nor does it appear to be that way. After all, the squire would have known why and under what circumstances Ser Byron had tried to slay Syrax, enabling Tyrion to give the real explanation as to why and under what circumstances Ser Byron tried to slay Syrax rather than arguing that Ser Byron trying to slay Vhagar doesn't make any sense.

I mean, if you do know why X did Y you don't argue against X doing Z. You give the reason why X did Y.

And again - Tyrion's entire argument that Storm's End being for Aegon II making it impossible/unlikely that Byron Swann tried to slay Vhagar should have been much more obvious to Munkun than to Tyrion. The man lived during the Dance of the Dragons, Tyrion did not.

It is very unlikely that he would make such a mistake without good cause. That is, assuming the Swanns actually stood with Borros Baratheon against Rhaenyra. Which we don't know at this point.

[Ran]

There are a couple of paragraphs devoted to the Byron Swann matter in the Dance text.

[AlaskanSandman]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

There are a couple of paragraphs devoted to the Byron Swann matter in the Dance text.

 

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys I

 

On the third day of the third moon of 129 AC, while entertaining Jaehaerys and Jaehaera from his bed with a tale of their great-great-grandsire and his queen battling giants, mammoths, and wildlings beyond the Wall, the king grew tired. 

 

Is this an error or anything by chance? Seems odd thing to be left untold and implications possibly i wont blab on about here. Though i did want to try and check that this wasn't just a typo 

 

 

Edit- Relevant to Op's question i guess 

3. What happened to Ronnel Arryn's Stark wife and did they have any children?

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

There are a couple of paragraphs devoted to the Byron Swann matter in the Dance text.

That is great to know. Thank you!

Those little details are really everything.

Can you by any chances enlighten us whether there has been any progress made on the Orwyle-Gerardys conundrum, and whether the solution you originally proposed - which didn't made it into TRP but ended up being sort of implied in TWoIaF - is going to be in there?

And if so, was Gerardys' biography as given in TRP - great healer, maester of Dragonstone under Rhaenyra until he was made Grand Maester shortly before the death of Viserys I - transferred unaltered to the Orwyle character, or is Gerardys-turned-Orwyle now a different character entirely.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Gerardys as the maester of Dragonstone turned Grand Maester shortly before the beginning of the Dance was likely supposed to betray Aegon II to Rhaenyra in some way, resulting in him being fed to Sunfyre. Which then changed since you guys came up with a more interesting possibility.

Now that Gerardys is no longer is Grand Maester at the beginning of the Dance - his place being taken by Orwyle - the real Gerardys needs a different biography.

But this doesn't mean Orwyle has to inherit the entire Gerardys biography since Orwyle is not going to be fed to Sunfyre by Aegon II as far as we know. Although we know from you that he ends up playing both sides, although perhaps to a more subtle degree.