Pre Conquest Night's Watch - purely Northen affair?

[cpg2016]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, why not just honorable release? That's how things are done in this world. There is no indication that a considerable amount of men chose to take the black in the aftermath of the many wars in the Riverlands, say (the Durrandon and Hoare conquest of the region, say). And the many others wars between the major powers would have been fought over territories and spheres of influence, not to destroy the neighbor.

If you sent me to the Wall you would have no guarantee that my brother or cousin would treat you in the same way. I'm no longer there to tell them how kindly I was treated, no?

Because it undermines the entire concept of winning and losing if there are no repercussions for being on the wrong side.  Why should I fight for Lord X, if his opponent Lord Y is going to get off scot-free if he loses?

Moreover, while it makes some sense for a king to release his own bannermen who rise against him, it doesn't make sense in the context of several kingdoms at war.  If Robert Baratheon (or a Gardener) pardons Randyll Tarly, it makes sense, because the Tarly's are his subjects and starting blood feuds makes no sense if you want a strong central authority (one of the main reasons the Riverlands never develops a strong monarchy is the Blackwood/Bracken feud).  However, a King of the Rock has a lot less incentive to be merciful to a Riverlander, for example.

And it has nothing to do with you being around to say how kind I've been.  You went to the Wall and served out your days.  There is enough communication between the Watch and Westeros to know whether you made it or not.

I mean, you've taken wayyyy too reductive of a stance here.  Why not send your captured nobles home loaded down with gold and gifts?  At some point, it's a matter of principle that losers in war lose something.  Plus, the vow of not marrying means removing potential claimants to lands if you're seizing titles in a way that exile or simple release doesn't.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know how quickly things went down from 10,000-1,000. We have no idea how many men were still up at the Wall when the Nightfort was closed down, say. Could have been still 7,000-8,000.

We know that by 101 at the very latest, and probably at least a few years before, the Watch was SO weakened that they required the New Gift just to support the Sworn Brothers.  That implies a significant decline, likely at least half of their number (seeing as their land was doubled).

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And why shouldn't the Watch have slowly declined during the centuries? In the end, the numbers decline because the number of men taking the black declines.

Your argument is that the current decline of the Watch is relatively consistent with what it was for the thousands of years previously.  9,000 men in 300 years implies a total strength of the Watch that is well in excess of what the Gift can support.  Again, the period preceding the Conquest was thousands of years of effective stagnation for Westeros.  If your theory of consistent decline, it means the Watch is an order of magnitude larger every 300 years back you go!  If the Watch is 10% of it's former strength now, it means at 300 BC it was 100,000, and 1,000,000 in 600 BC!  Even if we take half that, it means a quarter of a million men in 600 BC.  No, it is demographically impossible that the Watch was declining at even a small fraction of the rate it does post-Conquest.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

1. Prior to the Conquest, a significant portion of the men captured during one of the many wars ended up at the Wall.

2. The amount of men who freely volunteered for the Watch was lower than the amount of men who went up there because they were forced to go in the aftermath of those wars.

3. That the amount of common criminals did not balance the amount of hypothetical war prisoners you suppose ended up on the Watch.

And there is no evidence for any of that.

All we know is that the numbers of watchmen declined after the Conquest.

No.  You are wrong, this is NOT what needs to be proven.  The Watch has declined in numbers AND social prestige, and you are completely ignoring the second point, which is canon.  If it was just a numerical decline then I'd agree, there is no compelling case one way or the other.  But the fact is that at the time of the Conquest, the Wall was a place of real social importance. The son and brother of a king is the Lord Commander!  So continue to ignore the evidence, but I won't.  Between 1 AC and 300 AC not only does the Watch lose 90% of it's operational strength, but the quality of it's recruits drops from knights and nobles, to not even smallfolk, but rapists and murderers!  

You need to account for that somehow, and you haven't.  My theory does.  Your theory is demographically impossible in the first place, and ignores most of the evidence we have of the Watch's decline.  Again, we are only given ONE paradigm shifting political event in the last 6,000 years of Westerosi history.  Everything before the Conquest was just the Great Game, where we know that anyone who rose too high, got ganged up on and beaten down again.  The political situation was stale, for thousands of years.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Scotland is much smaller than the North, and we are not talking about the North here. We are talking about the Night's Watch - which is essentially a border garrison supported and men by all the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms, not just the North. They have a tract of pretty fertile land which was once populated pretty densely - and which still can support 1,000 watchmen after those lands are essentially depopulated.

They have the least fertile land in the Seven Kingdoms, we have to assume, as it's the furthest North.

Moreover, we have ZERO evidence that the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms ever sent significant material aid to the Wall, so stop with that.  Making something up and repeating it doesn't make it evidence.  It's explicit that the North is the only community that aids the Wall.   And the population of the Gift explicitly cannot support the Watch, since it's reliant on Northern help to continue as a going concern.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have to keep in mind that those people agreed to found and support the Watch when there was no political unity whatsoever among them. When they were literally a Hundred Kingdoms. They could have only done that if they had felt this was really, really important. And if they thought that they would also have been willing to support them

Actually, this is fiction as well.  The Wall and the Watch predates the Hundred Kingdoms.  The Wall was founded at the moment of the MOST political unity in Westerosi history, a time when every single human being (and non-humans) all agreed that the genocidal ice zombies from up north had to be stopped.  The truth is literally the opposite of what you are claiming.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Come on, just think how large those kingdoms are, and how many men would be up at the Wall if only 2,000 men per generation and kingdom volunteered for the Watch at any given time. In the Seven Kingdoms scenario (with the Iron Islands as the eighth) that would be already 16,000 men. And chances are that only 2,000 men per generation from the Reach. the Riverlands, or the West joined the Watch in the good old days is just not very convincing. It would have been more

Why would it be more.  Why would it be 2,000?  If I am a peasant in the Reach, why am I volunteering?  I'm going from the nice, fertile Reach, where I can have a family and a life, and choosing to freeze halfway to death while fighting barbarian tribes?  It's not like there is the prospect of loot, or women, or anything like that.  I get a bare minimum of food, the same as I do at home, without all the additional comforts that make life worth living.

Moreover, how do I even get there?  Travelling is expensive, especially thousands of miles to the Wall.  Why is my local lord even letting me leave?  He wants the manpower tilling his fields, not wandering up North.

Your argument has no logical or textual foundation, and is full of holes.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not talking about mobilization here, we are talking about people volunteering to join a monastic military order. A central authority in a pre-modern setting rising an army from men who are mostly farmers or working on farms isn't the correct comparison.

The actual comparison would be to compare the Watch to the members of the clergy and monastic orders in the middle ages. The Watch was as pampered and well-fed as most medieval monasteries were. It isn't an army, it is a military order on perpetual guarding duty.

Um... what do you think the Roman legions were, if not a military order on perpetual guard duty (except with the ability to marry, loot conquered foes, etc)?  Look, the agricultural productivity is similar to Scotland, and it doesn't make sense that the Watch is particularly more adept at logistics than the rest of Westeros. 

If you can find me data on how many peasants it took to support a medieval monastery (which is obviously much less expensive to maintain than a standing army), then quote it. Until then, my facts trump your fiction.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have no good reason for that kind of belief. The Andals and First Men - especially in the higher nobility - constantly intermarried so there is no meaningful distinction there in the present.

Are you being serious?  Why am I bothering to quote the text when I have the great Lord Varys, who knows better than Martin the history of Westeros.  It is explicitly noted that the Houses descended from First Men have different customs and different beliefs.  That in the South, the ancestry is all mixed is literally of no importance.  What is important is what people believe, as your namesake himself says.  The Royces may be mostly of ethnic Andal descent, but they openly esteem their First Man heritage, literally wearing it into battle.  You have to get off this idea that blood means everything (which reflects poorly on your real-life views of ethnicity, where the idea of "pure blood" and racial characteristics and all that is long since discredited).  The Yronwoods still call themselves the Bloodroyal and are noted to be of First Man descent.  These are important distinguishing factors.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Benjen Stark needed to hear a wandering crown speak at Harrenhal to get the motivation to take the black. It wasn't a family tradition or anything. And none of Ned's sons by Catelyn ever considers the Watch as a career path. Nobody thinks that's what Brandon or Rickon should do.

There is certainly evidence that there are houses more friendly to the Watch than others - but that doesn't mean the houses who are friendly to the Watch have to be ancient First Men houses. The Watch could just as well have friends among the Andal houses. For instances, it is said that Lady Whent of Harrenhal was a friend of the Watch, is it not?

Dude, learn to read, or stop putting up straw man arguments.  In not one place do I say that the houses friendly to the Watch "have" to be First Man houses.  All I've said is that the only confirmed noble volunteers for the Watch come from Houses that openly proclaim their First Man heritage, and Dolorous Edd, who in addition to being extremely poor, comes from a cadet branch of a House sworn the the Royces!!!!

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

After all, we do know that Robar Royce, too, was forced to leave Runestone and make a living elsewhere. Either Bronze Yohn doesn't believe in feeding useless second or third sons, or he can't because House Royce is deeply in dept, or something of that sort.

Actually, we know nothing of the sort, so at least have the decency to stop making things up.  When I claim a fact, you can be sure I can back it up.  First off, second sons aren't "useless" they are important in case of an accident to the heir.  Second, Bronze Yohn clearly isn't in debt, because he can pay to equip his son in fine tourney equipment.  Robar makes it clear that he joined the Rainbow Guard willingly because he was tired of seeking glory in tourneys.  Every indication is that Yohn and others trust Robar and that he has an honored position in the household (as he is trusted by Ned to deliver an important message to Robert).

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but again - religion would have nothing to do with the Watch. And boasting you are descended from the First Men means you are stressing that you are of a very ancient bloodline - which means of the highest nobility.

Look.... if you don't understand cultural anthropology, feudal politics, or really anything at all except your own fantasies, then admit it and leave the conversation to those who do.  Religion has a LOT to do with it.  If you are an Andal, you grow up with stories of Hugor of the Hill.  If you're a First Man, it's the Night's King.  I'm not saying there is no cultural dispersion or appropriation, but the author goes out of his way to make a distinction between the customs and attitudes of these two cultural groups, so clearly there is something to it.  And a House that esteems the First Men is more likely to have a more vivid cultural memory of the Others and the Long Night, because that was the great accomplishment of the First Men.  Those are the stories that will generate pride in the next generation for their ancestors.  Those stories won't be emphasized by Andals as much, because their Andal ancestors played no part in the struggle.  To compare: an Indian elementary school student certainly knows who George Washington is, because he's a historical figure.  Or knows who Moses is (which might be a better comparison), because he's a famous legendary figure.  But that kid is not being taught to revere George Washington as an American student might be, or as a Jewish kid would revere Moses; it's culturally irrelevant, even if it's common knowledge.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, there is the tidbit that this ancient armor might not be as ancient as the Royces pretend it to be, no?

IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!  How can you be so ignorant, and yet so confident of yourself?  What matters is that the Royce's view the armor as emblematic of their House, and the armor is a relic of their First Man heritage.  Of course it isn't the original armor, as I'm sure they would admit.  But even when they make a new suit, they inscribe it with bronze runes.  The metal and the script associated with the First Men.  That is a statement of identity.  And yes, some of it is to play up their lineage, and how by being different they are special.  But you can't play that part for 6,000 years without adopting it in reality.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that meaningful ancient traditions stretching back to the days before the Andals came survived throughout that entire process doesn't make any sense. If that was the case then many (or all) of the First Men houses 'converting' to the Faith would still secretly worship the old gods - which none of them do. And the Hightowers, Gardeners, and Durrandons were never even forced to convert (the Lannisters, neither). They did that of their own free will. And it took root after a couple of generations.

Seriously.... this is difficult to believe.  Go learn something, anything, about cultural assimilation.  Hell, go read the freakin' books!  Why can't some of those First Man houses genuinely convert?  And over thousands of years, if there is no attempt to proactively keep those traditions alive, then why wouldn't they die?  There can be very good, very practical reasons for converting to a new faith - hence why the Franks converted to Christianity in Late Antiquity, and every other pagan tribe that wandered into Europe.  If I'm a Gardener king, I see that there are a bunch of aggressive religious zealots on my borders who seem endless in number.  Want a good way to encourage them to attack someone else instead of me?  Why don't I convert and adopt their traditions, so they don't wage a holy war against me!

Easy as that.  Again, if you don't understand history, lay off.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is meaningless. They are still descended from Joffrey Lydden's Lannister wife, the princess, whose name Joffrey Lydden took. To this day, the Lannisters have the golden hair and green eyes of Lann the Clever, no?

It is most certainly not meaningless.  It's a patriarchal society and we know that male descent is widely considered to be the only rightful way to claim a seat.

But again, it is about more than blood, which you don't understand, at all.  It's about belief.  The Lannisters consider themselves Andals, with all the traditions and obligations that entails.  The Blackwoods proudly keep to their First Men traditions.  The Royces take a blended approach.  Ned drills into his kids the cultural values of the First Men; the idea that justice should be carried out by the man passing the sentence, for example.  What you believe, what you choose to pass on, these are powerful symbols and shouldn't be underestimated (or, in your case, ignored for a discredited branch of racial science).  If the Royces are touting their heritage, there is a reason for it.  And they wouldn't be able to get away with it if they weren't walking the walk as well as talking the talk, which is why they still commission runic armor.  That they are probably ethnically entirely Andal is, again, totally irrelevant.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

I'm not totally caught up, but did anyone mention Sam's finding a record of a Redwyn fighting beyond the wall pre-conquest?

"Oh, yes." Sam's hand swept over the table, fingers plump as sausages indicating the clutter of books and scrolls before him. "A dozen, at the least." He unfolded a square of parchment. "The paint has faded, but you can see where the mapmaker marked the sites of wildling villages, and there's another book . . . where is it now? I was reading it a moment ago." He shoved some scrolls aside to reveal a dusty volume bound in rotted leather. "This," he said reverently, "is the account of a journey from the Shadow Tower all the way to Lorn Point on the Frozen Shore, written by a ranger named Redwyn. It's not dated, but he mentions a Dorren Stark as King in the North, so it must be from before the Conquest. Jon, they fought giants! Redwyn even traded with the children of the forest, it's all here." Ever so delicately, he turned pages with a finger. "He drew maps as well, see . . ."

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Because it undermines the entire concept of winning and losing if there are no repercussions for being on the wrong side.  Why should I fight for Lord X, if his opponent Lord Y is going to get off scot-free if he loses?

Because wars usually end with some kind of a peace treaty which stipulates conditions what's to be done with any prisoners of war the winning (and losing) side may have taken in the war? Those wars would have been mostly about territorial gains and access to resources, not the extermination of the losing side.

In addition, most people fighting in battles were low nobility or commoners. The real nobility make up a rather small percentage - and even smaller percentage of them would have been captured during a war.

Not to mention that you are actually the personal prisoner of the guy who captures you - not the prisoner of the supreme commander. Just take Jaime as an example, who is price of Vargo Hoat not Roose Bolton (or Robb Stark) in whose name Hoat is operating at that time. Hoat decides to hand Jaime over to Roose but he wasn't forced to do that. He could have reached a separate agreement with Lord Tywin or King Joffrey.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, while it makes some sense for a king to release his own bannermen who rise against him, it doesn't make sense in the context of several kingdoms at war.  If Robert Baratheon (or a Gardener) pardons Randyll Tarly, it makes sense, because the Tarly's are his subjects and starting blood feuds makes no sense if you want a strong central authority (one of the main reasons the Riverlands never develops a strong monarchy is the Blackwood/Bracken feud).  However, a King of the Rock has a lot less incentive to be merciful to a Riverlander, for example.

It makes actually more sense when you are dealing with the subjects of an enemy or rival king. If you pardon such a person then this person owes you, personally. They might be inclined to follow you - or at least remain neutral - when you invade the neighboring kingdom in the future. If one of your subjects breaks the king's peace and rebels against your authority you have to set an example.

That is why the people instigating a rebellion are seldom pardoned.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And it has nothing to do with you being around to say how kind I've been.  You went to the Wall and served out your days.  There is enough communication between the Watch and Westeros to know whether you made it or not.

So what? Doing that kind of thing would draw away manpower from a noble house. Imagine the Karstark sons - and all the other Northern prisoners taken by the forces of King Joffrey - were all sent to the Wall instead of being exchanged or ransomed by their families. That would essentially eradicate entire families by means of 'watching' them. Sons and fathers losing their fathers and sons that way would be completely contrary to the actual interests of the noble class - which basically is to keep the peasants in line and get out of the many wars they are fighting in better shape than their subjects.

Which is how war is done in Westeros. Nobles and knights are captured in battle, but commoners are killed.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I mean, you've taken wayyyy too reductive of a stance here.  Why not send your captured nobles home loaded down with gold and gifts?  At some point, it's a matter of principle that losers in war lose something.  Plus, the vow of not marrying means removing potential claimants to lands if you're seizing titles in a way that exile or simple release doesn't.

The wars between the kingdoms would have been between various kings (back when there were powerful lords among the petty kings there would also have been wars between lords, presumably). Those kings send armies against each other, and when the war is over they decide what the winner gets and what the loser loses. Getting the noble warriors back would have been a pretty important point on each king's lists. After all, knights and lords are the commanders and major fighters of each army, not to mention the backbone of the society. If a king abandoned the sons and grandsons of his lords who were captured by the enemy he would not exactly be popular with his lords, would he?

I'm not saying kings who lost a war would have gotten their noble prisoners of war back any time, but it would have been a priority. Just as it would have been a priority of the wealthy houses whose sons or grandsons were captured by an enemy to get them back, too.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We know that by 101 at the very latest, and probably at least a few years before, the Watch was SO weakened that they required the New Gift just to support the Sworn Brothers.  That implies a significant decline, likely at least half of their number (seeing as their land was doubled).

You are confusing things here. For one, it seems the New Gift was given to the Watch earlier during the reign of Jaehaerys I, so most definitely not around 101 AC. But in addition, this gift was not necessary to feed the Watch at that point but rather a gift to strengthen the Watch and halt its decline. It apparently didn't work the way it was supposed to, but that's because nobody joined the Watch, not because the Watch didn't have the resources to feed itself if more men had taken the black.

As I've said multiple times - the reason the Watch is declining is that people simply no longer take the black.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Your argument is that the current decline of the Watch is relatively consistent with what it was for the thousands of years previously.  9,000 men in 300 years implies a total strength of the Watch that is well in excess of what the Gift can support.  Again, the period preceding the Conquest was thousands of years of effective stagnation for Westeros.  If your theory of consistent decline, it means the Watch is an order of magnitude larger every 300 years back you go!  If the Watch is 10% of it's former strength now, it means at 300 BC it was 100,000, and 1,000,000 in 600 BC!  Even if we take half that, it means a quarter of a million men in 600 BC.  No, it is demographically impossible that the Watch was declining at even a small fraction of the rate it does post-Conquest.

I never said said that the Watch would have to be exponentially stronger the farther back in time we go. That's a silly scenario. I think there was a tendency of gradual decline while the men in Westeros realized they could do other noble things besides taking the black.

And there would, of course, always have been fluctuations in the strength of the Watch, caused by the length of winters, famine, plagues, etc. An event like the Great Spring Sickness or the Winter Fever would have affected the Watch to no small degree - not necessarily because so many people at the Watch died but also because the casualties throughout the Realm would have greatly reduced the number of men who might have entertained or considered the notion to take the black.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

No.  You are wrong, this is NOT what needs to be proven.  The Watch has declined in numbers AND social prestige, and you are completely ignoring the second point, which is canon.  If it was just a numerical decline then I'd agree, there is no compelling case one way or the other.  But the fact is that at the time of the Conquest, the Wall was a place of real social importance. The son and brother of a king is the Lord Commander!  So continue to ignore the evidence, but I won't.  Between 1 AC and 300 AC not only does the Watch lose 90% of it's operational strength, but the quality of it's recruits drops from knights and nobles, to not even smallfolk, but rapists and murderers!  

There is little difference between Harren's brother being Lord Commander and Benjen Stark being First Ranger and Jeor Mormont commanding the Watch. Or Brynden Rivers being Lord Commander. He was the brother and son of a king, too, you know.

And if Harren the Black is your brother chances are not that bad that Lord Commander Hoare did not exactly voluntarily decide to take the black. We don't know his story.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You need to account for that somehow, and you haven't.  My theory does.  Your theory is demographically impossible in the first place, and ignores most of the evidence we have of the Watch's decline.  Again, we are only given ONE paradigm shifting political event in the last 6,000 years of Westerosi history.  Everything before the Conquest was just the Great Game, where we know that anyone who rose too high, got ganged up on and beaten down again.  The political situation was stale, for thousands of years.

Not really. The Andals and Rhoynar came, the Seven Kingdoms as we know them developed, etc. There was a lot of change there, too.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

They have the least fertile land in the Seven Kingdoms, we have to assume, as it's the furthest North.

We don't have to assume that, actually. The Valley of the Thenns is farther north still, and apparently a very fertile place. There are quite a few indications that there is more fertile and less fertile land in the North and in Westeros altogether. The Vale is much more fertile than the Stormlands, say, the Reach is more fertile than Dorne, and the Gifts may have been more fertile than the Barrowlands, say. There is presumably a reason why the Barrowlands crossed by Robert and Ned in AGoT are basically an empty wasteland.

But we do know that the Gifts were once rather densely populated - something that only works if those lands are reasonably fertile.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, we have ZERO evidence that the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms ever sent significant material aid to the Wall, so stop with that.  Making something up and repeating it doesn't make it evidence.  It's explicit that the North is the only community that aids the Wall.   And the population of the Gift explicitly cannot support the Watch, since it's reliant on Northern help to continue as a going concern.

That is not true. We do know that Jon Snow plans to buy food from the Seven Kingdoms. He wouldn't consider that if that wasn't an option. Which indicates that there are established trade relations there.

We also learn in ADwD that 'the lords' have been generous with their gifts, as Marsh puts it. I'm pretty sure that most of the game the Watch got comes from the North, but there is no reason to believe they do not also receive shipments of food from the Vale or further down south. Bronze Yohn Royce may not have arrived with empty hands when he accompanied his son Waymar to the Wall.

And, quite frankly, the very idea that the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms allow their sons and brothers to join the Watch and then abandon them to their fate up there if they are lacking food and other resources is pretty much insane. That's like expecting the army to work for free. It is not going to happen.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, this is fiction as well.  The Wall and the Watch predates the Hundred Kingdoms.  The Wall was founded at the moment of the MOST political unity in Westerosi history, a time when every single human being (and non-humans) all agreed that the genocidal ice zombies from up north had to be stopped.  The truth is literally the opposite of what you are claiming.

Actually, the Watch seems to predate the end of the Long Night, being actually founded by the men fighting alongside the Last Hero to defeat the Others.

But the point still stands. This was the era of the Hundred Kingdoms and the Night's Watch as an institution decided to build and maintain the Wall rather than, you know, rule over the entire continent which they may have also been able to do. Once they had given up the power they may have had the Hundred Kingdoms were back again, but they still continue to support the Watch to this day.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Why would it be more.  Why would it be 2,000?  If I am a peasant in the Reach, why am I volunteering?  I'm going from the nice, fertile Reach, where I can have a family and a life, and choosing to freeze halfway to death while fighting barbarian tribes?  It's not like there is the prospect of loot, or women, or anything like that.  I get a bare minimum of food, the same as I do at home, without all the additional comforts that make life worth living.

Because it is the right thing to do. The Watch would have only survived as long as it did if people actually believed it was a noble calling for most of the time and if it served a function in the eyes of the people living in the southern kingdoms. Else nobody down there would have been sent up north.

In fact, your entire idea of sending noble prisoners of wars up to the Wall makes no sense from a strictly political viewpoint. If you don't really care about the purpose of the Watch anymore, then all you are doing there is strengthening the enemy in the north - the King in the North - by keeping the wildlings out of his backyard. Why would anyone in the south want to do that?

They would have only done that if they believed in the Others.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, how do I even get there?  Travelling is expensive, especially thousands of miles to the Wall.  Why is my local lord even letting me leave?  He wants the manpower tilling his fields, not wandering up North.

It is rather obvious that you are always allowed to take the black. That's a choice every man has. It is why even a criminal can be given that choice.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

If you can find me data on how many peasants it took to support a medieval monastery (which is obviously much less expensive to maintain than a standing army), then quote it. Until then, my facts trump your fiction.

Well, we have essentially invisible peasants living in the Gifts feed 1,000 watchmen in AGoT. Considering that there were a lot villages there and considering that the Gift is not exactly all that small, it is hardly surprising if there could have been tens of thousands of black brothers, living in 17-18 little towns along the Wall.

You do recall that Castle Black has been built for much more than the 600 men that are manning it in AGoT, right? And you do know that the Nightfort is much larger than Castle Black?

With 600 men at CB the Watch can even maintain the buildings and structures in that castle. Which gives you an indication how many men they once had, only at that place. CB has been built for thousands of men, as we later see when there is no mentioning of Stannis' army having to squeeze in the castle, or being forced to camp outside in the mud.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Are you being serious?  Why am I bothering to quote the text when I have the great Lord Varys, who knows better than Martin the history of Westeros.  It is explicitly noted that the Houses descended from First Men have different customs and different beliefs.  That in the South, the ancestry is all mixed is literally of no importance.  What is important is what people believe, as your namesake himself says.  The Royces may be mostly of ethnic Andal descent, but they openly esteem their First Man heritage, literally wearing it into battle.  You have to get off this idea that blood means everything (which reflects poorly on your real-life views of ethnicity, where the idea of "pure blood" and racial characteristics and all that is long since discredited).  The Yronwoods still call themselves the Bloodroyal and are noted to be of First Man descent.  These are important distinguishing factors.

That is just nonsense. If I could trace back my ancestry to some heathen king I'd still not be culturally the same as those ancients were. Society changed. The Andal-First Men houses of Westeros know where they come from, but they are no longer the people they once were. Even the Starks are not. They are as refined and modern as pretty much everybody else - we see this difference in Bran's vision of the past depicting how the real Starks were back in the old days.

Wearing your heirlooms and showing them around doesn't mean you are not part of the Andal culture. There is a weirwood tree at the Citadel, too, yet the Starry Sept also stands in Oldtown. And the latter calls the shots culturally, not the tree.

It is pretty clear that essentially all the culture in Westeros is Andalish. Even parts of the North. You see this when Bran wants to know how many knights are riding with his brother.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Dude, learn to read, or stop putting up straw man arguments.  In not one place do I say that the houses friendly to the Watch "have" to be First Man houses.  All I've said is that the only confirmed noble volunteers for the Watch come from Houses that openly proclaim their First Man heritage, and Dolorous Edd, who in addition to being extremely poor, comes from a cadet branch of a House sworn the the Royces!!!!

The Royces are as much a house of First Men as of Andal descent.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, we know nothing of the sort, so at least have the decency to stop making things up.  When I claim a fact, you can be sure I can back it up.  First off, second sons aren't "useless" they are important in case of an accident to the heir.  Second, Bronze Yohn clearly isn't in debt, because he can pay to equip his son in fine tourney equipment.  Robar makes it clear that he joined the Rainbow Guard willingly because he was tired of seeking glory in tourneys.  Every indication is that Yohn and others trust Robar and that he has an honored position in the household (as he is trusted by Ned to deliver an important message to Robert).

Robar Royce made it clear that he had to leave his home - Runestone and the Vale - to make a name of himself elsewhere. That's not a story of self-empowerment or anything, it is the sad story of a young man who had no place at his father's castle. For whatever reason. We don't know. But it is rather striking that the third son was sent to the Wall and the other basically out of the house to fend for himself. That's not the kind of thing the really wealthy houses do.

Just look how much money Lazy Leo Tyrell has.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Look.... if you don't understand cultural anthropology, feudal politics, or really anything at all except your own fantasies, then admit it and leave the conversation to those who do.  Religion has a LOT to do with it.  If you are an Andal, you grow up with stories of Hugor of the Hill.  If you're a First Man, it's the Night's King. 

LOL, no. You grow up with both of those stories as an Andal, which is made pretty obvious by what we know about the content of the songs and stories. And all followers of the Faith - which include all the First Men-Andal houses in the south (aside from the Blackwoods) - read the Seven-pointed Star and the other holy books.

The First Men houses in the North wouldn't grow up with a lot of Andal stories, that's true.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I'm not saying there is no cultural dispersion or appropriation, but the author goes out of his way to make a distinction between the customs and attitudes of these two cultural groups, so clearly there is something to it. 

No, he makes it clear that those people are the same, at least in the south.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And a House that esteems the First Men is more likely to have a more vivid cultural memory of the Others and the Long Night, because that was the great accomplishment of the First Men.  Those are the stories that will generate pride in the next generation for their ancestors. 

That is ridiculous. Not even the Starks believe in the Others anymore. They still support the Watch like many other houses do, but that's essentially an empty tradition, not something they do because they believe in the fairy-tales.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Those stories won't be emphasized by Andals as much, because their Andal ancestors played no part in the struggle.  To compare: an Indian elementary school student certainly knows who George Washington is, because he's a historical figure.  Or knows who Moses is (which might be a better comparison), because he's a famous legendary figure.  But that kid is not being taught to revere George Washington as an American student might be, or as a Jewish kid would revere Moses; it's culturally irrelevant, even if it's common knowledge.

There are no ethnic or religious differences between the Andals and First Men in the south. That's what you are not getting.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Seriously.... this is difficult to believe.  Go learn something, anything, about cultural assimilation.  Hell, go read the freakin' books!  Why can't some of those First Man houses genuinely convert?  And over thousands of years, if there is no attempt to proactively keep those traditions alive, then why wouldn't they die?  There can be very good, very practical reasons for converting to a new faith - hence why the Franks converted to Christianity in Late Antiquity, and every other pagan tribe that wandered into Europe.  If I'm a Gardener king, I see that there are a bunch of aggressive religious zealots on my borders who seem endless in number.  Want a good way to encourage them to attack someone else instead of me?  Why don't I convert and adopt their traditions, so they don't wage a holy war against me!

That's what they did, and that's why they are Andals now. Westeros itself is the land of the Andals now, not genetically but culturally and religiously.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It is most certainly not meaningless.  It's a patriarchal society and we know that male descent is widely considered to be the only rightful way to claim a seat.

LOL, if you are taking your wife's name you are not exactly being all that patriarchal, are you? The Lannister name is more powerful than Andal culture. But that doesn't mean the Lannisters aren't Andals culturally and religiously nowadays.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

But again, it is about more than blood, which you don't understand, at all.  It's about belief.  The Lannisters consider themselves Andals, with all the traditions and obligations that entails.

No, actually they realize and know that they are as much First Men as the Hightowers and Royces. They go back just as far, and they are descended from one of the First Men heroes. That is still very important in all the Seven Kingdoms. The most Andalish place - the Reach - has no problem parading around all their First Men founders, the many children of Garth the Green. It is perfectly fine doing that and still see yourself as being Andal.