Jump to content

TheSeason

Members
  • Content count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About TheSeason

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Profile Information

  • Location
    ...looking for my lost shaker of salt...

Recent Profile Visitors

1,664 profile views
  1. TheSeason

    There must Always be a Stark at Winterfell

    Yes, the rust is extremely important... I just checked the search engine, and there are actually very few instances of this saying, and they are all clearly prophetic in some capacity: I'm thinking it's tied to the (original) Night's Watch oaths, as it was Brandon the Builder (legend claimed) who built the Wall of Ice, with oaths witnessed by the weirwood trees to mark their sacred content. So, we get: There must always be a Stark in Winterfell, watching, waiting, learning to rule and to lead... for when the gods will that the time has come (Heart of Winter). The saying reminds the Starks that Winter is coming, and they must prepare themselves even as they run mortal errands in other times. This next one is not a true instance of the saying, but curiously the words are hidden in there: The Starks do have good reason for producing bastards and shipping them off to the Wall (First Night Custom and Night's Watch custom married together). There must always be a Stark in Winterfell... and there must always be a "Snow" on the Wall. These duties were meant to go hand-in-hand. The Stark in Winterfell accepts evidence of suspicious activity from the Snow Upon the Wall, and then s/he fulfills the Stark duty to sound the war cry: Winter is Coming!!! for the rest of the Seven Kingdoms. It must be a "Stark" envoy, so that the arrival of the Others is not greeted with suspicion. They're essentially sounding the horn (the HOWL) of Winter. Three Blasts for The Great Other (Winter's Ice Dragon). The Stark in Winterfell is playing a role: the promised prince, to whom all must hearken and kneel "when the time comes," and Winter with it. Notice that Bran "plays the prince in his father's solar" (the divine celestial war of the triune deity, the Sun, Azor Ahai, slaying mother and son; the mother seeking vengeance, raising her son from the dead to seek it, dancing him like a puppet on a string; the four "Bad Hands" of the Valonqar: red (Azor Ahai, Father Smith Warrior, SUMMER), blue (Mother, Maiden, Crone, WINTER), green ( the promised prince and corn king, living, SPRING) black and "grey" (the promised prince and corn king, dead, at the feast of the dead, the pigeon in the pie, AUTUMN). Bran (like the promised prince) doesn't want to be a prince, but a knight (but the knight must lead when he takes up his father's sword on his mother's command), and he's an innocent dragged into the wars of older people, ignorant of the true meaning or significance of it all, forced to play a part he despises (the promised prince turns against his mother in order to end the divine perversion of a deity at war with itself). In playing the role of the promised prince, the Stark in Winterfell rallies the troops in "that dread hour" when Azor Ahai Come Again (Jon Snow, distinct from Dany's Azor Ahai Reborn!) draws his sword from the fire (of his mother's breast) and wields it to send the darkness fleeing (The Mother/Crone wants vengeance, sending the darkness and the cold, crying The Others take you! her curse, and "All men must die. All men must serve." which means all men must die to serve her purpose, which is why die comes first... but the promised prince eventually grows fed up with this treatment and seeks to liberate himself even from her, breaking the "thread" between them--eyes like blue stars; skinchanging--and reclaiming his sight--like Coldhands!). Which all brings me to: This is not a true telling of the phrase, either, but the words are hidden within too, and it bespeaks more of the Starks current circumstances; they can no longer "proudly command" men come and kneel and obey (the promised prince seated on high) but instead must "beg graciously" for that aid. Playing hopfrog (the frog prince): Aegon "Young Griff" Spin-the-Sword (Warrior Draws from the Fire): Jon Snow Come-Into-My-Castle (The House With the Red Door=Drogon!): Daenerys Lord of the Eyrie (Nest): Jon Snow, the Three-Eyed Crow (white with red eyes) and the pigeon in the pie at the feast of the dead "A grateful and obedient wife" is THE THREE MOUNTS (spoke of in House of the Undying) for Aegon (Rhaegal), Dany (Drogon), and Jon Snow (Viserys, Ghost), that the promised princes/ess all ride "under the sea" (Patchface) when they've died, SKINCHANGING, that they might be REBORN to lead their armies into battle: Begging might not get much done, though (it didn't for the Night's Watch) and at times other weapons will serve better, including: a sword and armor... a harp... a howl or horn (as opposed to "silence" which is Jon Snow's "begging graciously" to make all the war stop from beyond the grave: see below): This is Jon Snow's attempt to reason with these people at the FEAST OF THE DEAD, and failing. Mute appeal mightn't get him anywhere, but his sword may do better. This is not the Red Wedding. The Red Wedding foreshadows this event! Theon dreams of it as well, but he mistakes the king who enters late, bleeding from half a hundred savage wounds (it should be Jon Snow, the three-eyed crow, not Robb Stark). The proof in the pudding is the particular use of three key phrases: bloody cups and wooden spoons, and roast fowl, and heels of bread. These usages are actually very rare in ASoIaF. Let's take "roast fowl" (the three-eyed crow corn king) for instance: All of this brings me to the Azor Ahai confusion. Highlighted RED are mistakes being made in interpretation of the prophecies. Emphasized BLACK are clues to the prophecies. [Note, this part is super long, but explains the prophecies of ice and fire and the role of the promised princes in much more detail.] And (finally!) back to "rust" and the "Stark in Winterfell:" Why is it so important that the iron swords rust away? These people hope and pray that the gods will be "good" but the gods have lost sight of their original meaning and purpose, and have fallen. As such, the gods will be "bad" and "cruel" instead of good (The Father is NOT Just; The Smith is NOT Industrious; The Warrior is NOT Noble and Brave; the Maiden is NOT Chaste; the Mother is NOT Merciful; the Crone is NOT Wise). As a result, Winter will eventually come, no matter how long the preceding summer. The Iron Swords keep the spirits from wandering when they aren't yet needed, but by rusting away, they also allow those spirits that have been resting too long to awaken from sleep again to heed the call to arms. This brings us to Jon Snow's crypt dream, the House of the Undying Ones, the removal of rusted swords, and the Night's Watch Oath (which are all connected). Those who sleep must be awakened during the Long Night, from men to gods themselves and even dead men and ghosts.... The Stark in Winterfell has one specific duty: to say his words. Winter is coming! Catelyn I, Game "A little," she admitted. "He is only three." Ned frowned. "He must learn to face his fears. He will not be three forever. And winter is coming." "Yes," Catelyn agreed. The words gave her a chill, as they always did. The Stark words. Every noble house had its words. Family mottoes, touchstones, prayers of sorts, they boasted of honor and glory, promised loyalty and truth, swore faith and courage. All but the Starks. Winter is coming, said the Stark words. Not for the first time, she reflected on what a strange people these northerners were. "The man died well, I'll give him that," Ned said. He had a swatch of oiled leather in one hand. He ran it lightly up the greatsword as he spoke, polishing the metal to a dark glow. "I was glad for Bran's sake. You would have been proud of Bran." Eddard I, Game "Yes, yes, of course, tell Catelyn, sleep on it if you must." The king reached down, clasped Ned by the hand, and pulled him roughly to his feet. "Just don't keep me waiting too long. I am not the most patient of men." For a moment Eddard Stark was filled with a terrible sense of foreboding. This was his place, here in the north. He looked at the stone figures all around them, breathed deep in the chill silence of the crypt. He could feel the eyes of the dead. They were all listening, he knew. And winter was coming. Catelyn II, Game "Gods will, not for many years," Maester Luwin murmured. "Maester Luwin, I trust you as I would my own blood. Give my wife your voice in all things great and small. Teach my son the things he needs to know. Winter is coming." Maester Luwin nodded gravely. Then silence fell, until Catelyn found her courage and asked the question whose answer she most dreaded. "What of the other children?" Bran III, Game "Why?" Bran said, not understanding, falling, falling. Because winter is coming. Bran looked at the crow on his shoulder, and the crow looked back. It had three eyes, and the third eye was full of a terrible knowledge. Bran looked down. There was nothing below him now but snow and cold and death, a frozen wasteland where jagged blue-white spires of ice waited to embrace him. They flew up at him like spears. He saw the bones of a thousand other dreamers impaled upon their points. He was desperately afraid. The Three-Eyed Crow (The Black Bastard of the Wall) learns a terrible knowledge north of the wall--the true meaning of his words.... ...which he then runs and tells his brother, the Stark in Winterfell, just like he was meant to do. The Stark must muster, having those words--and it is ironically important that the Stark have the right "look" (which, queerly, Bran doesn't, but Jon and Arya do) so he will be believed (i.e., believed to be a Stark with the right to say the words and thereby rally the host). Everybody must rally in the Long Night to the Stark in Winterfell who says the words, because by night all cloaks are black and all sleepers awaken and all horns blow and all men watch from their walls for the Other to fight with shield and fire and sword.
  2. Why? You're saying that because this united war effort took place near Dorne that Dorne needs must field the bulk of their forces when other kingdoms don't, who are all facing the same existential threat (as you said, if they make it to Dorne, they're coming for the other kingdoms next; just like the wildlings during the Battle for the Wall would steamroll from north to south before meeting an army that could stop them; if Westeros weren't in-fighting, they'd have taken that threat of 100k wildlings seriously, as they did in the Ninepenny Kings' war or the Ironborn war and all ridden north to crush them), and that's not necessarily true. And even if they did, your argument runs into two problems: 1. Say the Dornish are fielding 15k alone (which, I think is by far too much) and Aerys II sees their banners. When the Dornish are deliberately pushing the 50k lie, please tell me why he should presume they've fielded most of their army? 2. The Dornish are still promoting this lie even to royalty as of Dance. How are we to understand that they stopped for Aerys II and Jaehaerys II (randomly) but have started up again after their lie was publicly busted (remember, Barristan Selmy is with Dany when this lie was pushed upon her and he did not object that 50k wasn't possible either)? The Dornish continuously promote this lie, and, as king, Aerys II had a good reason to expect truthful answers (high treason; heads, spikes, walls!). Suggesting that he was at fault for someone else's high treasonous lie because he did not make observation xyz in his youth is absurd. When a monarch asks how many are you able to field, or any other question for that matter, you answer truthfully. Furthermore, I do think it also absurd to think Aerys II never inquired with his allies in wartime (or anticipating of wartime) of military matters; that's part of raising allies and raising armies (e.g. Hoster Tully, Ned Stark and Jon Arryn). Not to mention, the number a kingdom can field fluctuates over years; in hard times (say, a plague is on or the economy is recessed), they field fewer soldiers; in good times (prosperity and a population boom), they field more soldiers. There's nothing wrong with asking this question; what's wrong is perjuring oneself to a king. And if Aerys had failed to ask such an important question, relying upon an old misquoted book or memories from his youth of what the Dornish did before instead of asking the Dornish princess herself, wouldn't we think him inept or give this as further evidence of his "madness" or "erratic behavior" for which he needed Tywin Lannister to tell him what to do? As for the "primary reason" for betrothing Elia and Rhaegar--I no longer think it is, but is at most a minor consideration or an excuse (House Martell is better than House Lannister for "this" reason), or more likely a misunderstanding. The primary reason for this betrothal on both ends (Aerys II, Princess of Dorne) was vengeance against Tywin Lannister (Elia is only a part of this deal, and the other parts of this deal reveal its truer nature). They even rub his nose in it at the Tourney of Lannisport, where Tywin plotted to have Cersei betrothed to Rhaegar and received only insults as answers. Even Oberyn speaks of Elia's betrothal to Rhaegar in terms of his mother's (and Aerys's) "tilt" against Tywin Lannister (with Rhaegar as the prize, or "the king of love and beauty"). Then we have Rhaegar, who married for "duty," (although this is in no way unusual for a prince or high lord), for which the "duty" has multiple elements and not all of them worthy. I'm happy to put forth my evidence for my theory, and I do think there is a preponderance of it, but I haven't completed editing it yet. I said above that I don't even know how this topic came to be (I was working in the text box when it submitted itself when I pressed the enter key to move to another paragraph). That said, although there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest what happened, if you're looking for a single direct quote that says they corresponded on this matter, you're not going to get it. It's compelling evidence built upon compelling evidence built upon compelling evidence that brings the theory together. Prince Lewyn and Prince Quentyn Nymeros Martell (and the deliberate parallels made between them) are a great starting place, though; although Lewyn is a "prince," he's not the same kind of prince that Quentyn is (nor serving a similar role), so that parallel is interpreted in this essay as Martin saying "pay attention here." It's a bit like an R+L=J theory, solving a mystery, with no single direct quote saying "xyz," but with sufficient evidence at least to make such a conclusion; and, in fact, a Dany-Quentyn parallel excerpt (I'd be happy to include in a PM) is the closest you'll get to that single direct quote revealing the reason for Aerys's changing opinions on Dorne and Rhaegar. I'm happy to tell you more about it in a PM, if you're trying to determine whether or not you're interested. But, I'm afraid, there are so many quotes in this essay that it might take me a little time to pull it all together properly edited and formatted for the forum. I understand it's impossible to judge something I haven't put forth yet, so I'm definitely not trying to debate its merits at this point; I just ask that you keep an open mind. I'm working hard to get it out since my oopsie showed my hand. Yikes!
  3. Ah, yeah, that's what I meant when I mentioned her hypocrisy. Her children are "children" too, and deserving of safety and security and her protection, and she's putting them in grave danger with her decisions and desire for vengeance. Those overripe blood oranges splat-splat-splatting were hers to start with. If she can't manage to remember her best advice and most important lesson where her own children are concerned, why should we have any faith that she remembered it where other people's children are concerned. And, of course, she didn't, because she got them all involved in a gruesome war for sake of personal vengeance for a mere insult (being told "no" for Cersei and Jaime, that Tywin had other plans for them and Joanna had failed to consult him about those plans she made, making them more a "scheme" in his mind, doubtless, and being offered Tyrion in place)! There are some just causes to want to go to war as last resort, but an insult that wounded her pride is not one of them. Prince Doran actually had much more causus belli than his mother ever did to seek vengeance upon Tywin Lannister and lead his family into a Targaryen's war; of course, Dorne should have sent troops to defend Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon once they were already there and endangered, but there really was no need for them to be there in the first place if it is almost all about getting back at a rival rather than arranging a good betrothal for her daughter. It's the difference between having a king exercising his entitlement to demand a bannerman's troops and that bannerman volunteering those troops well in advance, no matter the cost, for petty reasons that make this hypocrisy so poignant. She put herself (and Prince Doran), her child (and future grandchildren), and her people between a rock and a hard place for a momentary smug smile and the satisfaction to "win that tilt." Also, as to that conversation that may or may not have happened and the number of troops quoted, two things: the number of troops wasn't the only issue in this scheme, but the one for which Aerys II rightly decries them traitors, and even if it were--when a betrothal is being arranged for her daughter that sends her child into a warzone (or warzone erupting, because the crown was definitely anticipating high treason and all-out war) and the question is, "If I marry my child to yours, how many troops will you be able to field for the defense of her life and our dynasty?" the mother needs to take a deep breath and a good long look at just what she's doing and what she's plotting to get her children and her country involved in! That she doesn't is alarming; that she continues to lie about it is mind-boggling! Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon were not the only Dornish innocents that Princess of Dorne's vengeful "tilt" got killed. And since the question would have been asked up-front and in all seriousness by the king in question in this hypothetical conversation or correspondence, the Princess of Dorne has little reason to downplay the likelihood that she's involving everyone in a devastating war and sabotaging her own (and her chosen king's!) war engine in the process to do it! She's gambling on "best case" results to tell that lie in a zero sum game ("win or die"). It's bewildering. Take, for example, Robb Stark, who at least had the foresight to name a successor to muddle the succession for Winterfell and possibly rejuvenate his cause after his death (and, indeed, the Lannisters and Freys even help on that end, by giving him a martyr's death in midst of their divine abomination!), thereby betting on "worst case" results in his zero sum game ("win or die"); yet an older and more cunning and more politically experienced actor in the Princess of Dorne is really making a strange choice to lie to her king about their joint war machine in any scenario that might overthrow their joint dynasty. If the question of troop numbers boils down to: if I marry my child to yours, will we all win or will we all die? I find it quite senselessly queer that the Princess of Dorne chooses to lie "We'll win for sure!" on those odds (because she's implying with those numbers that the loyalists in all probability will have overwhelming force against the rebels).
  4. I used to think it bizarre too, until I realized the game that was played, and then it started making a lot more sense as to the choice of Dorne for Rhaegar's bride and ally. Aerys II definitely thought he was strengthening his house and creating a counter-power bloc of his own. The tell is the complete 180 he does on Rhaegar, and the reason for it. He thought the Dornish were successful in their scheming goal... until Rhaegar proved him otherwise. Wasn't this a united effort, though, and not a civil war? Everyone mustering together to throw off the yoke of a would-be invading force? Dorne would not be expected to make as great a contribution when the whole of Westeros was fighting together, nor any other kingdom, for that matter. In a civil war and fractured kingdom, however, allies need to band together a goodly part of their strength to rally against kingdoms with similar strength on the opposite end of the field. There's no unifying enemy to bring everyone together for the war effort from all corners of the continent, and that's a huge difference; civil war is a war for survival in more ways than one. The nature of the existential threat is quite different here. Lying to your king is high treason, not answering him truthfully when he asks how many soldiers he can expect you to muster and rally to his cause. Princess of Dorne did not fear punishment for treason. If she did, she would not have lied to her king. Fearing of punishment for treason--don't commit high treason! Second of all, Aerys II would not be the one passing this lie, he's the victim of it. He did not say, I'll give you this betrothal if you muster an impossible number of soldiers for me--and even if he did, it was the Princess of Dorne's duty to tell him that she would not be able to make that muster. Telling a king wholly truthful, "I am incapable," is not treason; telling a king, wholly untruthful, "I am capable," is high treason. Telling a king a book has quoted a number that is not factual is not treason; telling him that you are quite capable in fact to muster that impossible (not even improbable, but downright impossible!) number he may or may not have read about in a book is high treason. Princess of Dorne is entitled to keep this boastful and dangerous secret from everybody *but* Aerys II, her king, and from Rhaegar after him (or any agent currently speaking on his behalf)! Thirdly (lastly!), the Princess of Dorne is a cunning and capable political actor, who knew exactly what she was doing in this negotiation and in making this deal, and as a cunning and capable political actor, she deliberately committed high treason (just as Doran is doing now, via his son Quentyn) because she judged two things: the benefits outweighed the risks of doing so, and that once the deal was made, her king would be largely incapable to punish her for her high treasons, especially with her blood destined to inherit his throne, especially with a war on. As a bonus, in committing high treason, she gets her vengeance, too. She thinks it's a win-win-win situation, this commission of high treason. She was wrong. It was zero sum, and she bet the zeros. She's in fact a hypocrite, as she forgets her most important lesson in seeking of vengeance; just like Doran "Where is my son?" Martell.
  5. I'm aware of this. But does this absolve the Princess of Dorne of perpetuating this lie to her king? The evidence suggests that there was a clear conversation about what Aerys II could expect from Dorne in exchange for the actions he takes as part of their deal. It's gnarly. She lied. Lying to a king is treason. Splitting hairs to absolve the Princess of Dorne (oh, someone else started that lie, so it's acceptable for her to commit this treason) is unfair and disingenuous to Aerys II and to the Princess of Dorne, who knew exactly what she was doing when she lied and who would be outraged if a bannerman served her that same treatment. The same conversation that takes place between Dany and Quentyn parallels the conversation that took place between Aerys II and the Princess of Dorne. Quentyn lies knowingly to his queen (in her city). Lying to a queen is treason. Dany escapes the trap her father fell into. For both of them, Aerys and Dany, however, there are grave consequences--damned if you do (treason done against you: lies that cripple you and sabotage your war machine in wartime), damned if you don't (treason done against you: lies and thefts that cripple you and sabotage your war machine in wartime). I'm happy to post the evidence when it's completed. This was an accidental post (don't ask me how, I don't know; I was typing, and then randomly I wasn't. The forums are always wonky for me, much to my chagrin). But you cannot judge evidence that I've yet to present, so, if you're interested in what this analysis is all about, please try to keep an open mind.
  6. I do not know whether Doran intentionally misrepresented his strength to Aerys II, or whether he perpetuated his mother's lie (which, I believe, was passed down to her too), or whether he felt trapped by his mother's lie (although, given his actions in Feast/Dance, I do not believe this to be the case, since he willfully uses it again, thinking himself so clever to do so), but I do posit that the Princess of Dorne deliberately misrepresented the strength of Dorne (even on the cusp of all-out warfare erupting) in order to win her betrothal and her "tilt" with Tywin Lannister, amongst other things, for which Aerys II had legitimate grievances against her and her realm. With the actions that led him to take (for political course correction and for pure spite), Aerys II was also being politically coherent and politically astute when he took Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon hostage against Dorne to force those ten thousand spears up the kingsroad. Writing and editing this essay, I cannot help but think, though, just how pitiful it is and just how wrong of Martin, not to give this wretched lady a name! Any name! A Dornishwoman by any other name would smell as sweet! She's a major player in the game, the only reigning lady of a major kingdom, a cunning snake in the grass, and yet, we're stuck calling the poor woman Princess of Dorne or (Man's) mother, as if she were utterly insignificant!
  7. I'm being quite literal in this estimation of treason. Eddard III, Game "Enough!" the king [Robert] roared, rising from his seat, his voice thick with irritation. Silence fell. He glowered at Arya through his thick beard. "Now, child, you will tell me what happened. Tell it all, and tell it true. It is a great crime to lie to a king." Then he looked over at his son. "When she is done, you will have your turn. Until then, hold your tongue." The "great crime" that Robert speaks of here: high treason. If this is so for a child (Arya) having a fight with a dangerous and unstable lying prince (Joffrey, who does commit treason with his accusations against the daughter of the Lord of Winterfell; being a prince does not absolve him or provide him immunity against commission of the high treason of perjury against his king, which is why Cersei is so careful to press forward her version of events) and if this children's fight, as Robert later presents it so as to dismiss the matter entire, suspecting that it's Joffrey doing all the lying and committing all the treasons at trial (despite the fact that Joffrey assaulted Mycah, a peasant under his protection, and Arya, a lady of Winterfell!, both with naked steel) can result in: Cersei demanding Arya's maiming or even death (with Jaime literally looking for her to carry out the sentence!) because she dared to defend herself, and her wolf (like any other guard dog) dared to defend her life against an existential threat (Joff with naked steel), Joffrey sending the Hound to "run down" poor Mycah and butcher him so terribly his father mistook his remains for a butchered pig, and Cersei demanding the life of the animals that did no wrong (the wolf that bit Joffrey because he assaulted a lady with naked steel, like any loyal or well-trained guard "dog" would for its master; the wolf that was not even present and was so well-trained she'd never once acted out in her life)… I fail to see how the ruling Princess of Dorne should ever be held to a lesser standard than a child (a girl child and young lady by Westerosi standards, even worse!) defending her/his life by fighting back from a potential maiming or killing, or fleeing into the woods in terror after being maimed (his face cut open by his prince) and yet never once fighting back to defend himself (wisely, knowing the game is rigged against people like him). Mycah's only crime is that he ran away in sheer terror, but the Hound is later deemed to have committed a "justifiable" killing according to the Brotherhood without Banners (or their red god) because Joffrey unjustly demanded he be slaughtered for fleeing and it is not the Hound's place to question his prince's commands. Arya's only crime is not wanting to be maimed or killed, and thereby defending her life against the prince's assaults upon her right to life. Nymeria's only crime is defending the life of a child in danger, her master. Lady's only crime is being born a direwolf. Yet, all of this is treated as serious business (because the prince alleges assaults against his person) and these children are either brought before the king himself for a trial to determine their guilt and punishments or ridden down and slaughtered like an animal without trial. They were punished because it was a prince that assaulted them, and the laws about striking princes (even in self defense, apparently) are either clear or vague enough that they can be twisted to this vile purpose. It amounts to high or low/petty treason (depending upon how a prince at Joffrey's age is legally categorized in Westeros, but instinctively and based upon English legal traditions, I'd name it low/petty treason, as Joffrey is a legal superior but not the Sovereign, for which "high treason" is customarily reserved as charge). Just like lying to a king is high treason. When you testify to a king, you are under oath to tell the truth; you are avowing yourself before all gods and men, that they might bear witness to your truths. I do not mean to quibble about opinions of what constitutes treason in this essay; I rely upon the definitions of treason, high treason, low/petty treason, sedition, when making such charges. Martin has made it quite clear (and according to historical traditions, particularly those of western societies, on which Westeros is based) that perjuring oneself to a king is a vile crime indeed with the steepest of punishments. All law and all justice proceed from the regent (the king's justice). A king who does not punish perjury as a divine injury against his person is a foolish king indeed. The king is the living embodiment of the law and the god's justice on earth. For a ruling princess to flout the law to her king's face like this is abhorrent, let alone for her to think there should or would be no punishment for her crimes, let alone to presume that she ought to be rewarded for them. The sad irony is, were it one of her bannermen who lied to her, she would without doubt charge that they had committed low/petty treason to do so! Depending upon just how "sovereign" are the individual kingdoms, and just how significant is the courtesy entitlement Prince/Princess of Dorne, and just how "imperial" in nature is the dynasty of the reigning monarchy of Westeros... she might even have the right to accuse "high treason" instead. The Princess of Dorne (or, currently, Doran Martell) would in no way tolerate out of an inferior this treasonous crime that they themselves engage in. "Fifty thousand Dornish spears" is not a boast, but a statement of strength, and when it is given to a king, wholly untrue and with intent to deceive for personal gain and advancement, there is no way to wiggle around that this is a commission of high treason. (Were House Yronwood, for example, to promise Prince Doran three thousand Dornish spears, including five hundred ahorse, but show up for battle instead with a mere fifteen hundred, with two hundred fifty ahorse, and unable or unwilling to muster a single man more, crippling the Dornish strength and weakening their position in time of war, House Nymeros Martell would rightly cry treason. Yet, this deplorable crime, they expect should be handwaved for their sake when given to a sovereign king or queen?) What Quentyn did (stealing from a queen, especially her personal property and her war machines, undermining her power and authority to do so and endangering the lives of all those on her counsel, in her residence, and in her city) is also high treason and sabotage. Worse, he does it in hopes to force her to marry him, which is as great an attempted theft as the attempt to steal a dragon, which would be treason too. Just because Quentyn committed one kind of treason (trying to steal Dany's dragons) does not mean he did not commit another too (lying to Dany, who he by necessity means to accept as his queen; but, even if he didn't wish to take Dany for his queen, in her city, he falls under her jurisdiction and must obey her laws, so it's treasonous either way). And, as I said above, the fifty thousand spears lie is only one aspect of the treason the Princess of Dorne committed against Aerys II... but since you are making such judgments without first bothering to wait to see any of my evidence for the argument, then I really don't know that you care about measuring evidence in the first place, and may merely wish to assert your belief that the crimes of Dorne against Aerys II were inconsequential (which they weren't, and had grave consequences indeed)--for example, imagine that Dany jumped at Quentyn's proposal, thinking he had to offer fifty thousand spears to her army, and sailed to Westeros to begin her campaign with only her Unsullied, Storm Crows, Second Sons, Freed Men/Mother's Men, Brazen Beasts, Ironborn reavers and longships, and the remainder of her Dothraki… only to arrive in Dorne and learn that they can offer her a fifth of the strength they promised under oath--two-fifths, at a stretch and digging down deep to the dregs--as opposed to a rival power with a stronger force, which would have joined her were a betrothal on the table, but instead sits the war out because they gain nothing from it (as Hoster Tully was willing to do in Robert's Rebellion), and she then finds her pitiful army swallowed up and shattered apart by a stronger Westerosi force (familiar with Unsullied tactics and able to counter them, with strong enough infantry to break her Dothraki horselords and send them running, and greatly outnumbering her ten thousand Dornish spears, too, prompting the sellswords to simply abandon ship, as they are so prone to do when battles and wars turn against them), which results in her untimely death. Would the lie that led her there now qualify in your opinion as high treason? IDK if you perhaps like Dorne or mislike Aerys or simply take offense to the wording of my title, but my evidence suggests just how messy this relationship was, with everyone taking nasty jabs at the other (Aerys, Tywin, Princess of Dorne, Joanna Lannister, Rhaella Targaryen). Aerys isn't innocent because he was fooled by the Dornish treasons. If that's what you thought I was suggesting, it's likely because you've misunderstood my title, having nothing more to judge upon. Whether Aerys II was "mad" to take the Dornish princess at her word , as was his right as king (according to law and custom) or merely naïve (given that he likely considered her something of a friend and definitely considered her to be an ally), I leave to you to decide. Aerys knew exactly what he was doing when he chose Elia of Dorne to marry Rhaegar and Dorne to be Rhaegar's (and his) ally, and it absolutely was not to make Rhaegar "weaker" (as I have seen argued in many a thread), but to multiply the strength of House Targaryen, especially at the expense of any (would-be) rivals or external and existential threats to his dynasty. I'd be happy if you'd both deign to return to read the evidence for the Dornish treasons and how it impacted the war for the Targaryen survival, but I'd understand if neither of you were interested in it, either. My essays do tend to go a little long, because I like to rely upon a preponderance of evidence for any analysis, and to acquire it, I require to quote liberally from the primary textual sources (ASoIaF) with some quotes from a complimentary secondary source (TWoIaF) thrown in for clarity or elucidation wherever necessary. The analysis takes a good long look at several toxic relationships (personal and political) and how these historical events pre-Robert's Rebellion have enriched the current Dornish plot and Dany's Meereenese chapters (which I, admittedly, find quite boring). Like Quentyn, Lewyn Martell is a much more important character than a cursory reading may suggest--not necessarily in himself, but in what he represents. Just as well, Aerys did tend to be politically coherent and even politically astute in many ways, so it is important to take a close look at the complaints or quotes attributed to him, and what they might truly mean. "She smells Dornish," for instance, is not a literal complaint of an addled mind, but an astute political observation and subtle jab at Dorne, bespeaking of his mistrust and disdain for Dorne and House Nymeros Martell (not for Rhaegar!). Aerys II also felt vastly different about Rhaegar's crowning of and absconding with Lyanna Stark than a cursory reading might suggest. Even his wildfire plot is or contains a political move--vicious, brutal, and utterly amoral, yes, and even unfeeling and disrespectful of his late son's memory--but coldly and politically astute in its intention (whether it would have worked out exactly as he hoped is a bit questionable). House Nymeros Martell might feel vastly different about suffering themselves to aid in a Targaryen restoration so as to achieve their vengeance if they knew the truth of it.
  8. Well, I will be happy to put forth my evidence (when it's actually done). I'd actually prefer to delete this thread, since I was only editing the essay when the forums went all wonky on me, as they usually do. You'd think I'd've learned my lesson by now! It is treason to lie to a king, and that's what the Dornish did. Let alone lying to gain the throne for your family, even at the expense of the safety of the realm and the King and his family. There's much more to this treason than this single lie, though. On the strength of this lie, the Dornish put Aerys in a position of weakness against a powerful enemy.
  9. Oops because when I pressed enter as I was editing my essay, the forum generated a topic that I had not even finished. The Dornish did commit treason, though. I have not even gotten to that part in the essay in what the forum generated (Gods alone know why, since I was still in the editing box when I pressed it!). Their treason is: Fifty thousand Dornish spears.... to start with.
  10. The Faceless Men are moon-worshippers. That's why they're The House of Black and White. The moon is the goddess that is black and white. I do believe they're also linked the Moonsingers. The faces are the faces/phases of the moon, which is why they constantly change them and who they are, always reinventing themselves, just like their goddess of life and goddess of death. The goddess even becomes "faceless" herself (on the new moon). She is both the Heart of Summer (red/black) and Heart of Winter (white/blue). She is the Maiden (not chaste), the Mother (not merciful), and the Crone (not wise). Her life cycle explains the Others (in addition to the Father-Smith-Warrior (not just or industrious or noble/honorable/chivalrous/skillful) plus Stranger/Red Comet that becomes his weapon against her and her newborn babe*). All the gods of Ice and Fire are mere variations on a theme, and largely they are misinterpreted (at least, for the current godhead cycle, which is a cycle at war with itself; an original cycle might have existed whereby the gods themselves had not yet fallen and they abided by their divine obligation, purpose, and mission). The earth is the oldest and most important god of all; it is "the three-headed dragon" and "the three-eyed crow*" and "the sphinx" and "the harpy" and "the great stallion," etc. [ETA*: I'm convinced the three-eyed crow is Jon Snow, the Corn King, and that the crow is in fact WHITE WITH RED EYES. "The crow! The crow! Under the sea, the crows are white as snow, I know, I know!" Bloodraven "A... crow?" is not the three-eyed crow, although his albinism, like Ghost's coloration or the Ghost of High Heart, do not necessarily rule him out of being the white crow, nor is Brandon Stark; Jon Snow, upon his death and descent into the underworld, becomes the three-eyed crow who is the CORN KING that presides over the FEAST OF THE DEAD (in Theon's dream, it should be JON SNOW not ROBB STARK who arrives late to the feast), and it is the CRYPTS OF WINTERFELL, from which he arrives, at the end of the corridor in the House of the Undying Ones, when the stairs go down and Dany does not know which way to turn, and as well, part of his journey from those crypts will lead him into Jaime's DOOM dream for a single combat "Is that you, Stark?", wherein Jaime will be the "icicle" that falls from above and pierces him again, before it leads him onward to the Tower of Joy and the burning of a weirwood tree and the death of his mother, plus the descent of a white dragon; He's the three-eyed crow and CORN KING and he DIES THREE TIMES before the end, which is a sort of perversion of "before the cock crows three times, you will deny me," as Jon Snow is a Messianic figure; the Christ, the lamb and the lion, the anti-Christ and the four horsemen (Dany, Aegon Young Griff, Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister), the feast of the dead, the dragon's song of fire and blood, the weeping prince and his princess thrown from the tower, etc, as well as Jaime, Cersei's, and Tyrion's arcs are all foretold in the House of the Undying Ones as the Prince that was Promised and the Three-Headed Dragon, which all ties back to the Mother, the Others, and the dancing dragon puppets, all six!] The original meaning of Nissa Nissa comes into play as well, as well as the original meaning of valonqar: Nissa Nissa Yss Yss = Ygg Ygg = Egg Egg = Good Egg/ Good Queen (Good Queen Alysanne is a strong clue as to this, as well as "the demon tree" Ygg in the Drowned God(dess) lore, as well as all our Eggs/Aegs) Valonqar To determine the meaning of Valonqar, we've got to look at several clues: naming conventions, the Disputed Lands, High Valyrian versus other Essosi languages, the Azor Ahai mythos and Nyssa Nyssa, especially as defined above. We see many names in ASoIaF with prefixes and suffixes, such as: Ly- or Lys- Ty- or Tyr- My- or Myr-- Ny or Nys- -ono Mar A-Lys- A-Nys- -anne or -anna These are all important to understanding the original godhead, the three-headed dragon, the three-eyed raven, the sphinx, the harpy, the great stallion... It will help to pronounce these prefixes as such: Lies, Mire, Tear as in weeping or Tear as in to cut. Nys is NICE. Since we used Good Queen Alysanne as a clue above, I'll return to it now to help determine the meaning of Valonqar. These names correspond to the Disputed Lands as well, Lys, Myr, and Tyrosh, so we'll take a look at them for clues too. Good Queen Anne (The Earth) had three younger brothers who were her husbands and councilors (Tyrono Mar, Myrono Mar, Lysono Mar). They were not nice people, as the Disputed Lands suggest, and they warred amongst themselves for their sister's kingdom and crown. They each had distinct tactics: Tyrono Mar (the eldest and strongest and stupidest brother, a brute and a tyrant, a giant, a warrior and a knight, but unchivalrous, a Gregor Clegane figure and The Warrior of the Seven; he purchased weapons from Myr to carry into battle; he's sterile, perhaps even from a battle wound) (In the Baratheon Brother triad example of this theme, this would be ROBERT Baratheon) Myrono Mar (the middle brother in strength and age, likely a bastard, but the smartest; a spy, a eunuch, used disguise such as a court fool, used political intrigue to achieve his aims; purchased perfumes from his younger brother, Lys, to hide the stench of corruption that clung to him, and possibly also the stench of his incontinence--urine; a Varys figure) (In the Baratheon Brother triad example of this theme, this would be STANNIS Baratheon) Lysono Mar (the youngest and weakest brother, but in the middle-rank in cleverness; a whore, using sex and lies to achieve his aims, a beauty, used tears to achieve his aims, purchased poisons from his middle brother and was a poisoner; He is the Father of Nations and the Father of the Dragons, the only one to produce any offspring; a Littlefinger figure) (In the Baratheon Brother triad example of this theme, this would be RENLY Baratheon) They each served the Queen as her Hand of the Queen for a SINGLE SEASON, during which time they were her primary husband, and connived to depose her and seize power for themselves. During that season, Good Queen Anne became ANTI- (XXX)-Anne Which leaves us with: Alysanne = A- Lys- Anne = Anti Lies Anne = Honest Anne Good Queen Honest Anne When we apply this rule to all brothers, we get: Amyranne/Amyanne = A- Myr -Anne = Anti (quag)Mire Anne = Straightforward/Trustworthy Anne Good Queen Straightforward/Trustworthy Anne Atyranne/ Atyanne = A- Tyr- Anne = Anti Tyr(ant) Anne = Gentle Anne Good Queen Gentle Anne During a single season, when she ruled alone, she was Nys Nys or Nysanna Good Queen Anne and Good Egg Anne This brings us back to Valonqar's literal meaning. Valonqar is the word in High Valyrian, and it DOES NOT mean "Little Brother" (Cersei has conflated the WHO--"little brothers"--with the WHAT, the MEANING) Valonqar should actually be written: Valon Qar This is only in High Valyrian, but other Essosi languages have a closer--and older--rendering. Such as: Ono Mar (Remember the names above: Nysono Mar, Lysono Mar, etc.) But what does -ono Mar mean? It means literally: Ono is HAND Mar is BAD Bad Hand. Good Queen Anne was hamstrung THREE SEASONS of the year with a Bad Hand who would do her grievous harm to steal her throne for himself (Tywin Lannister, the Red Hand--stole King Robert's throne; helped Robert steal King Aerys's throne, tried to steal Aerys's throne via Cersei; Tyrion Lannister/Varys, the Green Hand--plotted to steal King Robert/Joffery/Tommen's throne for Young Griff; Petyr Baelish/Ned Stark/House Stark, the Blue Hand, plotted to steal King Robert/Joffrey/House Baratheon's throne for the Starks/Stannis, etc. I do not mean to make any moral judgments here, just boiling events down to bare bones.) Thus, we have: Tyrono Mar (the Bad Hand who is a Tyrant) Myrono Mar (the Bad Hand who is an Entrapper) Lysono Mar (the Bad Hand who is a Liar) The Dothraki language includes the word "ono" as "hand" on the GoT project, which is what helped me to solve this riddle as such. But there's a FOURTH HAND, too, A BLACK HAND... So, this all brings us back to Azor Azai, Azor Ahai Reborn and Azor Ahai Come Again (two different people, in fact: Dany is AAR, Jon Snow is AACA), and what it was he did to Nyssa Nyssa to EARN the title BAD HAND (besides the dispute, of course!): What did Azor Ahai do? 01. He raped his sister and forcibly took her to wife, or he tricked her into having sex with him. This is to attain the kingship, to sit beside her. 02. He was enraged when he learned she was pregnant. He did not want an HEIR, he wanted to rule forever himself. He did not even want a wife. She was a pawn in his scheme. He needed "a Hero's Blade" to win his war for the throne, he thought. So, he: 03. Killed his son, becoming a Kinslayer, and killed his wife, becoming a Queenslayer. Nyssa Nyssa begged for her son's life, willing to trade her own for his blade, but he mocked her and laughed at her requests. His wife was pregnant when he pierced her heart to forge himself a HERO's BLADE with which to defend his kingdom. She went into labor. The baby was born with the dead (like our Stark Direwolf pups, trying to nurse upon cold sour milk, excepting Ghost). He killed the baby with three fell blows, which are: A. A blow to the arm, as if the child raised a hand to defend itself, cutting it off (the branches and bloody hands of the weirwood tree) B. A blow to the belly, eviscerating him, his guts spilled out like pale graveworms (the roots of the weirwood tree) C. A blow to the neck/throat to finish the child off, giving him a "red smile" (the bloody mouth of the weirwood tree, beneath its "bloody eyes"*) *The bloody eyes are hers. She weeps tears of blood when she cries her curse. In answer to this travesty, Nys Nys: 01. Cried out in agony and ecstasy (giving birth, having her child killed) three times. She cried out three times, one for each blow to her son. She IS the HORN OF WINTER. 02. She wept tears of blood. She accursed her brother-husband. She accursed him with a SPECIFIC curse, which is: The Others take you! 03. She raised her son from the dead. He opened his eyes, blue as stars, and reached out with a blackened hand (congealed blood) to take up his father's Hero's Blade and slay him with it, that she might have her vengeance at all cost (even that of her own child, like we see of Dany on the Dothraki Sea). Which, brings us back to: Anyssa and the naming convention. If Nyssa Nyssa is the Good Queen struggling against BAD HANDS, then why does this name imply otherwise? Did the GOOD EGG go rotten? Yes. Nyssa Nyssa becomes BAD EGG with Anyssa A- Nys- -A = A Nys Anne = Mean Anne = Bad Anne = Bad Egg The good egg rots inside because of the actions of her Brother-Husbands. She even becomes WORSE than they are in some ways, turning her son into a wight, creating the others, deciding that ALL MEN MUST DIE. The Maiden is not Virtuous (Chaste) The Mother is not Merciful The Crone is not Wise, but seeks vengeance at any cost... ...and lets the FIRST RAVEN into the world through THE HEART OF WINTER, the "portal" (and "third eye") that opened (as a door in a lantern; remember, the sun and moon are in eclipse during this event, so it would indeed seem like something coming through a lantern door when those three dragons and thousand meteors fell to earth). This brings me to the Dornishman's Wife, which is a rendition of this event from the baby's point of view, describing the two aspects of the moon (Heart of Summer, Heart of Winter), her journey in the god cycle (Maiden, Mother, Crone), the death of her child ("Brothers, oh, brothers, my days here are done; the Dornishman's (sun's/AA's) taken my life! But what does it matter, for ALL MEN MUST DIE, and I've TASTED the Dornshman's Wife! --- But what is he "tasting" here? He's tasting her SOUR MOTHER'S MILK, the taste of vengeance upon which she nurses him, and the BLACK BLOOD, as in his congealed hands and feet, etc., and THE GIFT/THE POISON she gives to all mankind--DEATH). *The Red Comet is the Hero's Blade that pierced Nyssa Nyssa's heart, slew her baby, and was used by The FIRST WIGHT (that baby, controlled by vengeful Nyssa Nyssa) to kill the Usurper, Azor Ahai. (I believe Azor Ahai literally means Usurper in some capacity). The "Old Way" of the Drowned God is actually "the New Way of the Usurper/Azor Ahai" and the mythology has things twisted backward, just like the Kingsmoot was originally a Queensmoot (you see it all over the place in ASoIaF). It's interesting to wonder just how much of this the Faceless Men remember. I think they remember quite a lot more than most other cultures or cults do. They are the servants of DEATH (the Moon goddess, the drowned goddess) and repeat her curse (Valar Morghulis--all men must die; Valar Dohaeris--all men must serve DEATH and spread her POISON; that is, a wight will kill you, you will become a wight and a servant of death, you will kill others to make wights of them, etc.). It's not a pretty cult. Actually, it reminds me a bit of Daesh ("WE LOVE DEATH MORE THAN YOU LOVE LIFE!") in many ways. The Faceless Men change their faces, like their goddess, in service to her mission. They are NO ONE because they are enacting a sacred play. It doesn't matter who they are or once were because they are just "a man" or "a woman" or "a boy" or "a girl." They are mankind and ALL M(A)N(kind) MUST DIE. The Faceless Men use her curse for their mantra and mission statement (Valar Morghulis. Valar Dohaeris. Notice, it's not the other way around! I think that's important. First you must die to serve, they're saying!). [ETA: another interesting thing is the similarity between Valonqar and Valar, both seeming to have the same root Val-. In Valar, it appears to mean ALL MEN (or, maybe, ALL HANDS?) There also might be another root in the word -ar which is in Valon Qar, which might imply an inherent "badness" as qar/mar mean "bad" within all mankind. That would render the statement something more nuanced like, All bad men must die, or all men are bad (hands) and so must die. Just a bit of speculation upon something mildly curious to me. I'm no linguist, so....] The Faceless Men use an IRON COIN to identify themselves. This brings us back to the Drowned Goddess. Did you pay the iron price or the gold price? The IRON PRICE is DEATH. You pay the IRON PRICE with an IRON COIN. [ETA, but what is "the gold price" in this context? We know in Westeros that GOLD COINS are golden dragons, and dragons are fire made flesh. Is it possible the question is actually meant to convey…: Did you kill with ice/water or fire? Rather than, Did you kill for it or did you buy it? Keep in mind too, that the seven hells are half frozen and half fiery -- maybe with one literally half frozen and half fiery? For balance.] The Faceless Men devote themselves to giving THE GIFT, but the gift is no more than DEATH, regardless of rank, station, or deservedness. Again ALL MEN MUST DIE TO SERVE. The Faceless Men are expert in POISONS too, just as the Mother nurses her son upon HER poisonous sour milk, and breathes fire into his mouth (the last kiss is LIGHTNING) to raise him from the dead to do her bidding, "a puppet on a string" dancing to the tune of those who came before. The Faceless Men live in THE HOUSE OF BLACK AND WHITE with a double door (one white weirwood, one shade-of-the-evening ebony) with a MOON FACE on it. You can only enter that door by promising VALAR MORGHULIS to the moon face goddess. If you do not say the words, the door will not open for you because you do not belong in there if you are not willing to kill or die to serve her mission. The Kindly Man also changed his face to a skull with graveworms to scare Arya, but she, like a true Valkyrie, ate one of those graveworms (which represent the bowels of the dragon babe and the bowels of the Skinchanger's Throne). It was a Yellowed Skull. That brings to mind the Golden Company, which bring to mind Crackclaw Point and its Whispers, which bring again to mind the TREES (both weirwood and ebony are in service to the goddess, that's what the Faceless Men remember that others have forgotten; they're both party to bringing this hell--half frozen hell (Westeros--Jon Snow, armored all in black ice with a flaming sword--he's dreaming of being the dragon baby reanimated here, not dreaming of being Azor Ahai) , half fiery hell (Essos--Dany--the dragons and the song of fire and blood they bring), like the Seven proclaim in their Faith). The Whispering Woods are always "reaching for the moon," their kindred spirit, the goddess that they serve, "as if to pull (her) down from the sky." This is because they are earthly representatives of The Heart of Winter (weirwood) and The Heart of Summer (shade ebony), who are the moon goddess. That's why the trees seem so creepy and untrustworthy to many readers. They are part of the problem. It doesn't matter whether you worship the old gods or the new gods or the fire god or the ice god/cruel gods or the drowned god or the death god... you're worshipping the same thing, a god that has fallen and deviated from its true purpose. [ETA: It's entirely possible that the Children of the Forest and the First Men, having figured out some facet of the Curse of the Others, have snipped their strings and refused to dance to the moon's song of agony and ecstasy (mourning the death of her son, reanimating him for her vengeance) anymore, but want to "pull down" the moon from her perch so as to make an end to her eternal war on life and creation. I could go into more, about who the babies/brothers are who were slain by Azor Ahai and reanimated, but I'll leave off here. It's important to note, however, that the son is meant to follow the mother as Ygg Ygg, not Azor Ahai the Usurper, and that the earth god is both mother and son. The godhead was confused over many generations, which is how MOTHER EARTH somehow turned into a moon goddess married to the sun god, when, in fact, all three celestial bodies that APPEAR to orbit the earth are in fact "brothers" and the goddess's "heads" and "eyes" ...and "hands" too.] The Three-Headed Dragon, The Three-Eyed Crow, the Sphinx, the Harpy, the Great Stallion, is made like:
  11. TheSeason

    Most precise ASOIAF timeline v.3

    I apologize for the lateness of my reply Rhaenys Targaryen. I hadn't been feeling so well of late, and dropped off the face of the interwebs for a bit (and consequently the face of the world, lol). I take it you think the timeline fits well. I'm still turning it in my mind, and thank you for your advice. I'm still having a little trouble making sense of it all, though, as I'm not really one to pay attention to things like this in a novel. Yeah. That's really my problem with this whole idea. It seems to involve two conflicting characterizations--at least to me--with Jaime needing someone on the door to restrain him from doing something stupid (which fits, except for Darry's presence, to my mind) and Rhaegar actually loving his family (leaving them in King's Landing to Aerys's mercy if he knew about the Chelsted incident just flies in the face of what we know about Rhaegar, who prior to JonCon's exile finally admitted that his father was stark raving mad, and therefore could go through with a plan like that, or even accidentally cause a conflagration). I just can't square these two things, which is why it reads like a discrepancy to me. I'm not certain I see the gap you're indicating. Jaime and Yandel are linking these two events with some immediacy (by immediacy, I mean that the events are closely linked together, maybe a few days apart at most, but a significant gap, like two weeks or more, feels very wrong). Jaime says it in a single sentence, linking the two events ("Aerys burnt him alive for that, and hung his chain about the neck of Rossart, his favorite pyromancer.") which could even be read as a single event rather than two (that is, happening in the same day, or even in the same event). And Yandel, in your quote above, repeats that immediacy or urgency ("Having burned his previous Hand, Lord Chelsted, alive for bad counsel during the war, Aerys now appointed another to the position: the alchemist Rossart--a man of low birth, with little to recommend him but his flames and his trickery.") with a single sentence, again linking the two events (although I can see how this one can be read as indicating some sort of gap). Jaime also mentions, like Yandel, in another quote I mentioned before, that Rossart's sole qualification was love of wildfire (see below), so it feels like a very rash decision made in the height of Aerys's madness or mania following his pyromaniac high, rather than something he actually took the time to deliberate, with a significant enough gap to account for even a single moment of lucidity (which, he had at least "half" of one, in spiriting his chosen heir and wife away, with the royal fleet, if it was accompanied by paranoid madness regarding a Dornish betrayal and keeping his Dornish family members--Rhaegar's family--hostage, so they could not inherit him after their "betrayal."). I know that Jaime says Rhaegar was in the Red Keep when the plans and wildfire caching started, but he does add that all "my sworn brothers were away... So I heard it all" in the context of the wildfire plot and Chelsted's burning. With so much confusion and discrepancy, it's a miracle you guys have worked out any timeline at all! A month between Chelsted and the Sack? This is because of Darry's presence on the door, I presume. That would make Dany about three weeks overdue (by the nine moon shorthand), which could account for complications.... But it would also require a two week gap between Chelsted's burning and Rossart's appointment, and I'm not yet convinced of that interpretation (I was interpreting that Chelsted died around the same time as Rhaegar). I suppose you see that for me the timeline is secondary to characterization and plot, so I'd much sooner (or rather?) accept a timeline flub by the author (Darry's presence on the door) than a massive misstep in one of the former. Personal biases, what can we do with them? I definitely agree that Aerys wanted his (preferred) heir spirited away after Rhaegar's death, and also might have wanted to avenge himself against the Dornish he believed had betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident (via Prince Llewyn Martell), even if it meant killing Rhaegar's children and his own grandchildren. I thought the flight was about a week before the Sack, though. Have I misremembered something? Yeah, I used shorthand there because I provided the full quote later. Still, a bad idea in a topic like this one. Lol. Sorry! I'm not certain I agree that confronting Aerys without any backup or support from the crown prince, who appears to have been the only person lately to convince Aerys to do anything he adamantly doesn't want to do (summon Tywin, name him Hand), and who most people have been turning to in expectation that he take control of his violently crazy father, makes very much sense. Certainly not from a survival perspective, least ways. If I were Hand, I'd totally lay that burden at the crown prince's feet, especially knowing how Aerys likes to burn people alive (Rickard Stark) and comes up with other nasty, torturous ways to kill folks who disagree with or disobey or challenge him in any way, and happily support the crown prince in reining in his father's crazy. As to my statement that Rhaegar was "acting as a king..." it wasn't meant in any official capacity (just that he was doing certain things that kings are supposed to do, and that people were turning to him to seize control of the government, trying to push him into that position, etc.). He wasn't the regent or the acting king or anything, just a subtle/sly usurper. Jon Snow does the same thing on the Wall, taking on decisions that should rightly be reserved for the King or his Hand, but that doesn't mean he's doing it in an official capacity either. There was definitely a clear (official) hierarchy between Aerys and Rhaegar, with Rhaegar subordinate, but the text hints that things were much murkier in the power and influence sphere behind the scenes. Like with the Lannisters--Cersei was supposed to be Joffrey's Regent, but the Hands (Tyrion and then Tywin) were unofficially fulfilling that role in addition to the office of the Hand. That's all I meant. Rhaegar exercised more power at times than he probably should have, but he's still trying to keep the peace in the meanwhile (like with leaving Jaime behind). I didn't suggest that Rhaegar leaving Jaime was an indication of their balance of power, however, only that Rhaegar was exercising more authority (even in that decision) than he should, as well as noting the strangeness of Jaime calling Rhaegar "Your Grace" like he was king (which isn't supposed to happen, ever, as far as I can see). Rhaegar might have to leave the city, but he doesn't have to leave Aerys in power to slaughter everyone in it (including his own family) when he does. What I'm arguing here is that turning to Rhaegar when the king is to the point of blowing his own city (his subjects, his family, and himself) to bits is a rational thing to do, for various reasons, to disempower the king in this moment of insanity (doesn't say anything about respecting his authority in his moments of lucidity, though, if he still had any). If Rhaegar knew about Chelsted and the wildfire plot... why not act? What rational reason could he have for putting that off? It's reckless in the absurd. Even if Aerys wasn't forcibly shipped to Dragonstone (and no overt moves were taken), why not seize control of the wildfire caches, quietly kill Rossart, Garigus, and Belis who were aiding and abetting that madness, and have some strong words with the Small Council to seek their help in keeping Aerys under wraps? Rhaegar in the city during Chelsted's burning really breaks my suspension of disbelief. It just feels so hard to swallow, I feel like I'm gagging on it. It doesn't fit with his characterization--it doesn't make sense for Chelsted, who knew about Rickard Stark and what happened to him--honestly, I have a hard time making sense of Jaime's actions, too (even a fifteen year old should have enough of a survival mechanism to want the wildfire cache removed from beneath the Red Keep where he works and sleeps, and telling Rhaegar what was going on should have been a quick and easy way to get that done). He was already having nightmares about Rickard cooking in his armor; he should have been terrified that the Red Keep would blow and he'd cook in his armor too. Rhaegar has a lot to bargain with, remember? Like you said, he was in charge of the army and the rebels were descending on the Trident (and could have come right up to the city gates, with no one to stop them). If Rhaegar quietly took his wife and kids and simply split for the safety of Dragonstone (or Dorne, or even Essos), Aerys would be hard-pressed to find a suitable replacement to lead the army. If Rhaegar is willing to give Aerys a hostage in Jaime to keep the peace long enough to save their dynasty, and if Rhaegar was able to convince Aerys to reach out to Tywin, of all people, I don't see why he would be too cowardly to confront his father when everyone he loved and felt responsibility for was at stake. The other option is that he simply didn't know, but that's a lot of obliviousness to swallow coming from Rhaegar, too. If Chelsted was dipped in wildfire and burned alive, the crown prince should want to know why. Which is why I keep concluding that he couldn't have been present during this event, even though the wildfire plot started in great secrecy whilst he was in residence. That's a neat connection that I didn't make. Although I'm sure Dragonstone had a forge and within a year they should have been able to produce him a crown (like Robb's crown was slapped together quickly by the blacksmiths of Riverrun), I do like your suggestion a lot. Ah, I've rambled too much. As you can see my thoughts keep heading in circles on this issue, so I will keep pondering all your responses and advice. Thank you so much for your answer!
  12. TheSeason

    Most precise ASOIAF timeline v.3

    To @direpupy, @Lost Melnibonean, and @Amris... thank you for weighing in. I appreciate your thoughts so far. In the real world, nine moons is not the same as nine months, I know, but in Planetos it is. LM already showed you the SMS that asserts twelve moons is a year. I think Martin might be using the lunar phases very roughly, with the time from each new moon to the next equaling at least thirty days, and counting that more-or-less as "a year." It's a sloppy shorthand he uses, but he's clearly using it. I also know that a pregnancy runs longer and is more complicated than most people think. Most people think a pregnancy is about nine months, give-or-take, but is actually much closer to ten months give-or-take (time for fertilization, time for travel down fallopian tube, time to embed in uterin wall, etc.), but I don't know that the author knows this or that the author trusts his reader to know this (most folks use nine month shorthand for pregnancy, with under nine month mark being premature and over the nine month mark being overdue. There's some evidence in the text, I think, that suggests Martin is using the nine moon/nine month shorthand like most other authors (and regular people) do. Thank you for bringing up the possibility that Martin is using the more modern scientific definition of a full-term pregnancy. You seem to be arguing that we should discard out-of-hand any specific date or timeline, regardless of source or corroboration by multiple sources (Dany, Stannis, Davos, Alleras, Mollander, at least), in order to make it fit to your timeline of events. Martin does not have the wiggle room you suggest he does, because he’s given such express dates/times/order of events. We know that Dany was born “nine moons” after the Sack of King’s Landing, that Rossart was killed by Jaime during the Sack of King’s Landing, ending his term of service, that he served Aerys as Hand of the King for a “fortnight” following Chelsted’s resignation and burning (Jaime links these two events with some immediacy), that Chelsted learned of the wildfire plot, prompting his resignation, that “all [Jaime’s] sworn brothers were away” so he “heard it all,” that Rhaella fled for Dragonstone a week after Chelsted’s burning and a week before the Sack of King’s Landing, upon learning of Rhaegar’s death on the Trident. We also know that it takes about two weeks to travel from the Trident (Darry castle and the Ruby Ford, per Eddard, his arrival in KL), with urgency, to King’s Landing (and a little longer, with leisure, per Robert’s arrival afterward). So we have to give Rhaegar, L Martell, Darry, and Selmy ten to fourteen days to travel from King’s Landing to the Ruby Ford with their army, time to battle (there’s text evidence the battle lasted less than a day*), and time (ten to fourteen days) for Ned’s and Tywin’s armies to travel from the Trident to King’s Landing and Casterly Rock to King’s Landing, respectively, after Rhaegar’s death on the Trident (Jaime tells us, specifically, that “the Trident decided [Tywin]” and precipitated the Sack of King’s Landing). *The Battle of the Trident was incredibly brief, perhaps lasting less than a day. We’re told the Robert’s allied rebels fell upon Rhaegar crossing the Trident (Ser Jorah, I believe), and that Walder Frey is dubbed by Hoster Tully “the Late Lord Frey” for not arriving at the battle in time to fight—and nor did Ned himself?**--because Rhaegar’s army “broke and ran” when their prince fell to Robert Baratheon, with some few lingering to scrape up rubies from the bloody river (don’t know how they could even see those tiny gems in a bloody river, but—poetic license!). **We’re told by Ned himself that he arrived to the Ruby Ford too late to see what happened between Rhaegar and Robert, despite the fact that he rather eloquently describes for the reader what happened there (Martin is cleverly hinting to us that things did not go down between Rhaegar and Robert has Robert has perpetuated to us and that Ned has seemingly corroborated. Ned was probably “leading from the rear”—like Rhaegar should have done(!)—and never struck a single blow at the Trident.) It isn't really Dany's memory that's the problem with this timeline--it's Stannis's memory (and Robert's, Ned's, Alleras's/Sarella's, and everyone else who speak about the iconic storm). Stannis sailed into Dragonstone within days of Dany's birth, when she and her brother were "stolen" from the guards by Ser Willem Darry and four loyal men, and shipped to Essos on the (singular? one of the few?) remaining ships with Viserys. The timeline is very tight. The storm rages and Dany is born on the same day, Stannis sets sail with his new-built fleet soon after, it takes approximately three days to reach Dragonstone from King's Landing (it was a royal fleet, so I believe it should have been built there, but perhaps it came from Storm's End, which sounds like a dangerous prospect to me, given autumn and winter storms around that location, and it took almost a year to build the fleet, so...), so Stannis's arrival should have been within a week of Dany's birth and the destruction of the Targaryen fleet (a "divine" stroke of victory for the new regime!) on Dragonstone. None of these characters seem to find anything wrong with the timeline or story Dany told us. In fact, we are told that this information (tying Dany to the iconic storm days prior to Stannis taking Dragonstone) is more-or-less common knowledge. Martin does this cleverly, again, by letting Mollander proffer this information (“The Stormborn. I recall her now[.]”) to the reader, rather than Alleras/Sarella (who might have had insider info, being the daughter of Oberyn Martell). The timeline reads pretty tight. This why I pinned down “Ser Jon Darry guarding Rhaella’s bedchamber door with Jaime during Rhaella’s rape” as the mistake in the timeline. Viserys was eight-ish and a reliable enough source on this matter. Remember, for Viserys this iconic storm is not the day Dany was born, but the day that Dany killed his beloved mother coming into the world, which is why he holds it against her (“Their mother died birthing her, and for that her brother Viserys had never forgiven her.”). Soon after his mother’s death, Ser Willem Darry sails him (and Dany) away from his kingdom into exile, obscurity, and poverty in Essos for protection. Dragonstone was the last of his kingdom, the ancestral seat of his house, and he had to flee from it into exile, disempowered and hopeless, almost sold to his (and Dany’s) death by his own garrison, because this iconic storm destroyed the last vestige of Targaryen power in Westeros (his fleet, which might have smashed the rebel fleet at sea and precipitated a comeback for his family in Westeros—or so he might believe, as an eight year old). [“She did not remember Dragonstone either. They had run again, just before the Usurper's brother set sail with his new-built fleet. By then only Dragonstone itself, the ancient seat of their House, had remained of the Seven Kingdoms that had once been theirs. It would not remain for long. The garrison had been prepared to sell them to the Usurper, but one night Ser Willem Darry and four loyal men had broken into the nursery and stolen them both, along with her wet nurse, and set sail under cover of darkness for the safety of the Braavosian coast.”] Viserys loved his mother, memorialized her (“I sold our mother’s crown to keep you fed!” Their mother’s crown was the last of their treasures and possessions, the one thing he could not bear to part with—next to Dany herself, his own sister-bride, sold to a savage Dothraki horselord for an army; so it is no wonder that with these two grievous injuries to his pride, coupled with being called “the Begger King” and “the Cart King” and treating with the traitorous Golden Company for aid, only to be laughed away, that we witness Viserys’s mental deterioration during Game), and her death would have been burned in his memory.
  13. TheSeason

    Most precise ASOIAF timeline v.3

    I don't know that this is the proper place to ask this question, as it doesn't exactly pertain to the chapter order or current event timelines of the novels. It's a question about the timeline extending into the past, actually. If @Rhaenys Targaryen or someone who knows better than I do about such matters (I don't really pay attention to timelines or travel speeds, but this document is rather amazing! Kudos to all who have worked on or contributed to making it better!) would deign to weigh in here... In another topic, we were discussing the exact(ish) timeline of the Harrenhal tourney, Aegon VI's conception and birth, Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna, Jon and Dany's conception/birth dates, Rhaegar's departure from King's Landing for the Battle of the Trident, Chelsted's resignation and burning, Rhaella's rape by Aerys II, Rossart's brief (fortnight) reign as Hand of the King, etc., as it relates to Dany's conception and birth, the storm that smashed the Targaryen fleet, and Darry's flight with Viserys and Dany to Braavos, and there appears to be a mistake (either the author made a mistake in the timeline or Jaime has a mistaken memory of what happened/who was with him, if anyone, at the time of Dany's conception). The mistake: Jaime remembers that Jonothor "Jon" Darry was guarding Rhaella's bedchamber door with him the night that Aerys II raped Rhaella (conceiving Dany), following Chelsted's resignation and burning, and the appointment of Lord Rossart to office of Hand of the King (should take place sometime during the Battle of the Trident). However, Jon Darry should have left for the Trident with Rhaegar already, as he is stated to have died in the Battle of the Trident (alongside Prince Rhaegar, Llewyn Martell, and--almost, earning a grievous injury!--Barristan Selmy). As LC Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, and Arthur Dayne were guarding the Tower of Joy at this time (in the Red Mountains of Dorne, where Lyanna--and, later, Jon--was (likely) located), it seems that Jaime should have been guarding the door alone that night. There is a possibility (a very small one?) that Jaime has confused Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms of the Red Keep (who fled to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys, who protected Viserys and Dany from the soldiers who wanted to sell them to Robert Baratheon, who fled across the Narrow Sea to Braavos with Viserys and Dany a day before Stannis arrived at Dragonstone, managing to keep them safe) with his sworn brother of the Kingsguard, Ser Jonothor Darry, but I find that particularly doubtful (it's a hard switch to make, between a "brother" and a "brother's" relative!). There are some other (dubious) possibilities I list in my comment (in spoiler tag below). [Jaime also alleges that Barristan Selmy was (most likely) present in King's Landing at this time also (Rhaella's rape by Aerys/Dany's conception), when he asks Rhaegar to appoint Selmy to guard Aerys II instead of himself--this, when they were leaving for the Battle of the Trident--probably because of the trauma of standing outside the door and doing nothing whilst Rhaella was raped (and other injurious complicities inflicted upon Kingsguard knights).] We discussed the matter in this thread (my comment linked): My comment, containing the pertinent quotes (that I can recall) is in spoiler tags, here: Again, please forgive me if this is in the improper thread. I'm not certain where it should go. If anyone can reconcile this set of conflicting information, I'd like to hear it. Thanks!
  14. TheSeason

    The perfumed seneschal

    Tyrion is the "Perfumed Seneschal" or "the Stinky Steward" in the Prophecy of Ice and Fire. You might like my analysis of the passage, where I discuss his role in Moqorro's Dragon vision (there are four persons of the vision: three dragons, Dany, Aegon "Young Griff', and Jon Snow, and one "advisor" of dubious loyalty, "the Stinky Steward" Tyrion.) It explains how the prophecies and visions we're given in Ice and Fire are all variations on a singular prophecy: the glass candles of the Citadel, Quaithe's Warning, House of the Undying, Azor Ahai/PtwP, etc. (I explore some of them herein, and explore the heart of the prophecy in my new essay series, "Deconstructing the Prophecy of Ice and Fire: the Triune Deity at War with Itself"). If you're interested to know more: Here's a link to "Moqorro's Dragons: the Fates are Three" which explains Tyrion's role in the Prophecy of Ice and Fire by analyzing Moqorro's Dragon vision in the context of the passage that elucidates Tyrion's role for us: I ask that you forgive some of the sloppiness of my final thoughts, as I was still forming the conclusions that led me to compose the following analysis: Here's a link to "Deconstructing the Prophecy of Ice and Fire: the Triune Deity at War with Itself" (it's long, but the conclusion is presented first as a TL;DR, and it's a work in progress).
×