FIRE AND BLOOD EXCERPT

6 minutes ago, zionius said:

IIRC, Ran said GRRM changed his mind on the children who died before adulthood, but the stories of other children remained pretty much the same.

That implies that there was a story to those children to tell - and that Ran was told that story. Considering that he says that he got George's (as it turned out) preliminary notes on Jaehaerys' children only shortly before they finalized the book, I doubt that those notes included the stories of Aegon, Gaemon, Valerion, and Aeryn aside from, you know, they died early.

But I could be wrong, of course.

The crucial thing here, though, is that the chances are very low that George R. R. Martin changed this Aeryn fellow and made him another - the first! - Daenerys Targaryen without giving this character considerable significance in the overall story. There must be a reason why he did that. An Aeryn Targaryen is a footnote. But a Daenerys is special.

The other is that changing Alyssa Targaryen from the eldest surviving child of Jaehaerys I - and his oldest daughter - to a younger sister of Prince Baelon. That in and of itself is a significant change, never mind what Ran says ;-). Before we learned this we usually wondered why Baelon and not Aemon married their elder sister, and speculated that Viserys I descent from both Alyssa and Baelon played a considerable role in him successfully claiming the Iron Throne.

And if you think about it - both Laenor/Laena Velaryon's claims as well as the claim of their mother Rhaenys would be not as strong as the claim of the sons of Alyssa and Baelon simply because Alyssa's sons are of the eldest branch of House Targaryen through their mother.

But with an Alyssa who is younger than Baelon the daughter and grandchildren of Prince Aemon get a better claim - they are of the eldest branch of House Targaryen, whereas Viserys is not. His Targaryen blood is purer, of course, and he is the eldest scion of the male line, but he is not of eldest line. That's Laenor and Laena and Rhaenys.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There must be a reason why he did that. An Aeryn Targaryen is a footnote. But a Daenerys is special.

I think so as well, thus I guessed it's somehow related to her female identity. If Aegon died young, she could be the heiress presumptive for a few years.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But with an Alyssa who is younger than Baelon, the daughter and grandchildren of Prince Aemon get a better claim

Nice observation! That could well be the reason for the change.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But with an Alyssa who is younger than Baelon the daughter and grandchildren of Prince Aemon get a better claim

It really doesn't.

Even before the Great Council of 101 AC, in which the son of the younger son/heir was overwhelmingly chosen over the son of the daughter of the elder son/heir, there was no precedent for a female being acknowledged as having a better claim to the Iron Throne than a male.

In the old scenario:

- Aenys I made Aegon (his second child/eldest son) his heir, not Rhaena (his eldest child/daughter)

- Jaehaerys I (Aenys I's fourth child/eldest surviving son) became king, not Rhaena (Aenys I's eldest child/daughter), or her daughters with Aegon (Aenys I's deceased second child/eldest son)

- Jaehaerys I made Aemon (his third child/then-eldest surviving son) his heir, not Alyssa (his second/eldest surviving child)

- Jaehaerys I made Baelon (his fourth child/then-eldest surviving son) his heir, not Alyssa (his second/eldest surviving child), or Rhaenys (his previous heir Aemon's only child/daughter)

In the new scenario:

- Aenys I made Aegon (his second child/eldest son) his heir, not Rhaena (his eldest child/daughter)

- Jaehaerys I (Aenys I's fourth child/eldest surviving son) became king, not Rhaena (Aenys I's eldest child/daughter), or her daughters with Aegon (Aenys I's deceased second child/eldest son)

- Jaehaerys I made Aemon (his third child/eldest surviving son) his heir, not Daenerys (his second child/daughter), if she was still alive at the time

- Jaehaerys I made Baelon (his fourth child/then-eldest surviving son) his heir, not Rhaenys (his previous heir Aemon's only child/daughter)

For whatever reason, after the deaths of his previous heirs Aemon and Baelon, Jaehaerys I put it up to the great lords to determine their preference to become his next heir, rather than just choose Viserys, as would have been consistent with his previous choices, as well as his accession over his elder sister Rhaena, and Aenys I's choice of his elder brother Aegon over their elder sister Rhaena.

And when the Great Council of 101 did make their choice, they are reported to have overwhelmingly chosen Viserys I (son of the younger son/heir) over Laenor (son of the daughter of the elder son/heir), Laenor's elder sister Laena, and their mother Rhaenys.

And as far as Maegor I making Aerea his heir, that was the choice of an usurper, and had no more to do with Aerea having a better claim than her uncles than Maegor I's usurpation had to do with him having a better claim than his nephews.

This change changes details, it might change aspects of the story, but in no practical way does it give Aemon's daughter or descendants a better claim than they had in the old scenario.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It really doesn't.

It does by comparison.

Corlys' fame and wealth would be completely insignificant if Viserys' mother had been Jaehaerys' eldest child. Rhaenys is a woman, too, and the claim of the strongest pretender of Aemon's descendants, Laenor Velaryon, goes through a woman, too, just as Viserys inherits a claim both from his father Baelon and from his mother Alyssa - who in the old scenario would have been Jaehaerys' oldest child.

The idea that Rhaenys and her children would have been taken seriously in any way, shape, or form if Viserys' mother had been the eldest female branch of House Targaryen makes no sense.

Viserys could have used exactly the same argument as Laenor's supporters did. In addition to being of the male line he happened to be of the eldest female branch whereas Laenor was only of a younger female branch.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even before the Great Council of 101 AC, in which the son of the younger son/heir was overwhelmingly chosen over the son of the daughter of the elder son/heir, there was no precedent for a female being acknowledged as having a better claim to the Iron Throne than a male.

Not sure how you know this. People can have better claims - like Stannis does - and still be laughed out of the hall. We have no idea whether Jaehaerys becoming king in 48 AC means his claim was seen as being better than that of his nieces, no?

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

For whatever reason, after the deaths of his previous heirs Aemon and Baelon, Jaehaerys I put it up to the great lords to determine their preference to become his next heir, rather than just choose Viserys, as would have been consistent with his previous choices, as well as his accession over his elder sister Rhaena, and Aenys I's choice of his elder brother Aegon over their elder sister Rhaena.

One assumes the fact that Lord Corlys and Prince Daemon were willing to plunge the Realm into war over the question of succession played a considerable role in the Great Council thing. Jaehaerys I made his decision in 92 AC. Choosing Baelon means choosing Viserys and Viserys' descendants as well. So why was there even an issue? If King Baelon had ruled, Prince Viserys would have followed him, no? But apparently the king's wishes - who was ailing and approaching senility and death after he lost his best friend, another daughter, his beloved sister-wife, and his second son and chosen heir in a row - weren't as important in 101 AC as they had been in 92 AC.

I mean we know that Viserys I also wanted Rhaenyra to succeed him in 127-129 AC. Did the Greens and their supporters care about that when the king died? No. Viserys I failed to do anything in his power to ensure the succession of his chosen heir - Jaehaerys I did.

Or perhaps not. Who knows? Perhaps Jaehaerys I himself preferred Laenor Velaryon as his heir in 101 AC and chose only Viserys because the lords supported Viserys as strongly as they did? We don't know. We all know that the son is not the father. Baelon may have been a great guy and could have been a great king. Viserys I wasn't as bad as Aegon IV, but he wasn't Viserys II, either.

I enjoyed the excerpt and - no doubt - will enjoy the book although I have read plenty of it in the previously published stories.

Don't know if it was published in some different topic, decided to put it here as well.

First 40 pages are available on German - table of contents and several pics

The table of contents as per the German version seems to be (no guarantee that this is actually accurate; I'm translating the stuff back into English):

Aegon's Conquest

The Reign of the Dragon - The Wars of King Aegon I

Three Heads Had the Dragon - Governance under King Aegon I

The Sons of the Dragon

From Prince into King - The Ascension of Jaehaerys I

49 AC - the Year of Three Brides

A Surfeit of Rulers

A Time of Testing - The Realm Remade

Birth, Death, and Betrayal under King Jaehaerys I

Jaehaerys I and Alysanne - Their Triumphs and Tragedies

Jaehaerys I and Alysanne - Policy, Progeny, and Pain

Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession

The Dying of the Dragons - The Blacks and the Greens

The Dying of the Dragons - A Son for a Son

The Dying of the Dragons - The Red Dragon and the Gold(en)

The Dying of the Dragons - Rhaenyra Triumphant

The Dying of the Dragons - Rhaenyra Overthrown

The Dying of the Dragons - The Short, Sad Reign of Aegon II

Aftermath - The Hour of the Wolf

Under the Regents - The Hooded Hand

Under the Regents - War and Peace and Cattle Shows

Under the Regents - The Voyage of Alyn Oakenfist

The Lysene Spring and the End of the Regency

I really like the picture of the Yellow Toad in there. Argilac and Orys don't look bad, either.

Will this Hour of the Wolf chapter include more detail than was previously published on Cregan Stark’s march to King’s Landing or is it stuff that was published before? As in, could it reveal the actual size of the “much bigger Northern army” that followed the original 2000 Winter Wolves south with Cregan?

Clearly it was large enough to cow even the lords of the South at the time.

49 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Will this Hour of the Wolf chapter include more detail than was previously published on Cregan Stark’s march to King’s Landing or is it stuff that was published before? As in, could it reveal the actual size of the “much bigger Northern army” that followed the original 2000 Winter Wolves south with Cregan?

Clearly it was large enough to cow even the lords of the South at the time.

Well, considering that Ran has told us that the double page in TWoIaF on the Regency of Aegon III covers basically the last five chapters of FaB, it is obvious that we'll get much more details on all that.

Cregan stuff should be more in the 'Dying of the Dragons' stuff, though. A detailed account of Jacaerys Velaryon's journey north and his stay at Winterfell, the Northern campaign of Roddy the Ruin and fellows, the Manderly involvement with Rhaenyra, and then, finally, in the chapter on the reign of Aegon II, Cregan's march against KL.

'The Aftermath' should actually take place after Aegon II's death when Lord Cregan has already marched his army into KL and has taken the reins of power there.

One expects to get some numbers there, but keep in mind that the Greens were already pretty much spent at that time. The West was in disarray and Jason Lannister's army pretty much destroyed, the Hightower army disbanded, and the Stormlanders had just suffered a major defeat on the Kingsroad.

The crucial piece why Cregan was as strong as he was would be that he had taken his army into the capital. From what we know from TWoIaF there was some concern that Aegon II's envoy could bring back sellswords from Essos to continue the war - nothing came of that, but this was a possibility.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, considering that Ran has told us that the double page in TWoIaF on the Regency of Aegon III covers basically the last five chapters of FaB, it is obvious that we'll get much more details on all that.

Cregan stuff should be more in the 'Dying of the Dragons' stuff, though. A detailed account of Jacaerys Velaryon's journey north and his stay at Winterfell, the Northern campaign of Roddy the Ruin and fellows, the Manderly involvement with Rhaenyra, and then, finally, in the chapter on the reign of Aegon II, Cregan's march against KL.

'The Aftermath' should actually take place after Aegon II's death when Lord Cregan has already marched his army into KL and has taken the reins of power there.

One expects to get some numbers there, but keep in mind that the Greens were already pretty much spent at that time. The West was in disarray and Jason Lannister's army pretty much destroyed, the Hightower army disbanded, and the Stormlanders had just suffered a major defeat on the Kingsroad.

The crucial piece why Cregan was as strong as he was would be that he had taken his army into the capital. From what we know from TWoIaF there was some concern that Aegon II's envoy could bring back sellswords from Essos to continue the war - nothing came of that, but this was a possibility.

Thanks. Guess I might buy this book after all.

42 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Thanks. Guess I might buy this book after all.

You should, I'm pretty sure you'd like it. And you do want to learn more about Lord Alaric Stark, no? And other Starks that might show up during the reign of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne... Not to mention Black Aly Blackwood who should also show up prominently in FaB.

Not really interested in the freaky Blackwoods. But yeah, more background info on the North would be very interesting.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not really interested in the freaky Blackwoods. But yeah, more background info on the North would be very interesting.

But Black Aly does marry Cregan and has a bunch of daughters with him, and the entire family is likely going to feature very prominently in FaB II considering that Cregan's heir Rickon goes to Dorne with Daeron I.

And if you don't care about the wife Lord Cregan you are neither a Northman nor a free Northman. You have to celebrate the ruling dynasty, no ;-)?

Just now, Lord Varys said:

But Black Aly does marry Cregan and has a bunch of daughters with him, and the entire family is likely going to feature very prominently in FaB II considering that Cregan's heir Rickon goes to Dorne with Daeron I.

And if you don't care about the wife Lord Cregan you are neither a Northman nor a free Northman. You have to celebrate the ruling dynasty, no ;-)?

Haha. Nice one.

I guess I was surprised by the excitement the snippet on Alaric Stark awoke in me. If there is more of the same in FaB, well, I guess it might be worth it.

I took a quick compare of The Reign of the Dragons with the world book, and only found one difference:

Quote

 

King Mern had brought half again as many men to the battle as King Loren -TWOIAF

König Mern hatte mehr Männer mitgebracht als König Loren, etwa drei Viertel der gesamten Streitmacht stand unter seinem Befehl (King Mern had brought more men than King Loren, about three quarters of the entire force was under his command) -F&B

 

Maybe an error in the German translation?

45 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Haha. Nice one.

I guess I was surprised by the excitement the snippet on Alaric Stark awoke in me. If there is more of the same in FaB, well, I guess it might be worth it.

Well, the really interesting tidbit there is the Silverwing thing, but Alaric also comes across as an interesting fellow.

23 minutes ago, zionius said:

I took a quick compare of The Reign of the Dragons with the world book, and only found one difference:

Maybe an error in the German translation?

You mean Aegon's Conquest, no? If you have two halves then half again as many would be three quarters of the whole, isn't it? At least that was our reasoning back then.

One could have also phrased the whole thing as 'König Mern hatte doppelt so viele Männer mitgebracht als König Loren' as I realize right now, but I don't think it twists the facts all that much. Although that might have been better.

By the way, anybody reading the German version of TWoIaF might be pleased to realize that all the stuff that was cut from the Aegon's Conquest section in TWoIaF due to length should be back in there. For instance, Aenar now takes all his stuff from Valyria to Dragonstone, and doesn't leave some of it behind. The same goes for other things. @The Wandering Wolf once tortured me with a list of the missing things.

It'd be more like 60% than 75%. 

The army of the two kings: 55k

Loren: 22k

Mern: Half again 22k = 22k * 1.5 = 33k

33k/55k = 60%

Just now, Ran said:

It'd be more like 60% than 75%. 

The army of the two kings: 55k

Loren: 22k

Mern: Half again 22k = 33k

33/55 = 60%

 

Well, darn. I'll try to get that thing rectified. Did we get the numbers for Loren from somewhere else and I forgot that? Not sure where those 22,000 men come from...?

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, darn. I'll try to get that thing rectified. Did we get the numbers for Loren from somewhere else and I forgot that? Not sure where those 22,000 men come from...?

55000 is from AGoT where we're told there were 5000 knights and ten time as many freeriders and foot, but in any case, if there are two forces, and one is half again the size of the other, that larger force will always constitute 60% of the total host.

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

55000 is from AGoT where we're told there were 5000 knights and ten time as many freeriders and foot, but in any case, if there are two forces, and one is half again the size of the other, that larger force will always constitute 60% of the total host.

Well, apparently I'm as good with numbers as George ;-).

But I'm not the only one to fault for that thing.

To explain my reasoning:

55,000 divided by 2 equals 27,500. Going by what I think 'half again as many' means I'd multiplied that by 1.5, equaling 41,250 which also happens to be 75% of 55,000.

If we knew it for a fact that Loren brought 22,000 men then we would have a fixed number there, but if that's not the case I don't see where I'm wrong there...?