Jump to content

Potsk

Members
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Potsk

  1. On 3/15/2024 at 11:48 PM, The Vanguard said:

    Like Illyrio being the grandson of Aerion Brightflame

    I see your "Illyrio is Aerion's grandson" and raise you: Illyrio is the Tattered Prince's son, and the Tattered Prince is Prince Maegor, son of Aerion.

  2. 27 minutes ago, Ran said:

    Yeah. We proposed at some point for TWoIaF a section on the organization of the crown and royal household, but as I recall George didn't think anyone would find it interesting. I mean, he wasn't wrong, stuff that hints as stories and narratives are far more interesting, but... there would be some people who would be interested!

    That would have fit nicely in the appendices, though I wouldn't have minded a section in the main body either. I don't think anyone regrets Tolkien's decision to open LOTR with an essay on tobacco in hobbit culture. It's the little things that make a fantasy world immersive.

  3. 9 hours ago, Aebram said:

    What do we know (and by "we," I mean "people with much more expertise than me" (not that that's a high bar)) about the actual history of knighthood here on Earth?

    I seem to recall a documentary stating that the institution evolved as an extension of feudal society, based on the idea that lords (landowners) had some responsibility to protect their subjects, as well as to fight for their own liege when called to serve. If that's correct, then perhaps knighthood in Westeros followed a similar course.

    Knighthood as we know it evolved over the course of the 8th to 12th centuries, yes

    However the medieval age of Westeros seems to encompass almost its entire history... when do we consider it to begin? The Andal invasion? It's rather blurry because the history of the First Men houses is presented as if they always had medieval feudal society.

  4. 5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

    Any knight can make a knight. mentioned several times in book by a variety of noble characters and confirmed in grrm in the SSMs. Beric actually gets criticized by clegane for knighting the bwb bc they haven’t earned it.

    I know. That's what I said. "He's allowed to," but he didn't do it properly. He didn't make them swear the vows (to the Seven) that knights usually swear. In the R'hllor religion knighthood is probably not recognized, and in Westeros knighthood is an institution of the Seven religion. That puts the brotherhood's knights in a sort of limbo.

  5. 3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

    edit: forgot about beric and gendry. Obviously beric isn’t a follower of the seven after his resurrection and he knights gendry naming the gods but not specifically the seven. So we have multiple knights who have either forsworn the seven or never swore to them at all. 

    That begs the question of whether Beric's knighting of the brotherhood men is even legal. He is allowed to of course, but he didn't do it "properly" so maybe they wouldn't be seen as legitimate knights.

  6. 2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

    Does it? Rodrik Cassel is a Ser but he isn't explicitly stated to follow the Seven.

    That's how you get knighted. Sword to one shoulder, "in the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave," sword to other shoulder "in the name of the Mother I charge to defend the weak and innocent," et cetera.

  7. 39 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

    Something regarding the succession module on the bottom of the pages: Each of the lords Darklyn, Rosby, and Stokeworth during the Dance had an unnamed successor who was brought to King's Landing in 131 AC on the order of Aegon II. While these successors don't have a page on their own (and I'm not sure they need one), it's a bit confusing to have Denys Darklyn, Gyles Rosby, and Tanda Stokeworth as the next known heads of their houses.

    The Nymeria and Mors Martell articles show "Daughter, then Mors II Martell" but I think this solution would be very awkward if applied to people who have multiple unnamed successors in between ("Lord Darklyn, then Lord Darklyn, then Lord Darklyn..." -- all non-existent articles). Maybe another parameter option can be added to {{s-vac}} with a different wording than "next known." In navigational boxes it's best to present information as succinctly as possible.

  8. Brienne and Pod are an exaggerated reversal of Dunk and Egg. Brienne is smart, Pod is stupid, Dunk is stupid, Egg is smart. Brienne has Targaryen blood, Pod is relatively lowborn, Dunk is lowborn, Egg is a Targaryen.

  9. Just now, sifth said:

    I mean GRRM also mentions in that interview, that his version of "hold the door" will be different.

    And he explained exactly how it will be different: in what "hold the door" means. In the show he's physically holding a door, in the book he'll be defending a door with a weapon.

    10 minutes ago, sifth said:

    So it's conjecture at best, if his version will include time travel.

    What else? He visited Maggy the Frog and let her taste his blood, so she cursed his future, told him the valonqar would make him "hold the door" but he could never ask anyone what valonqar means because all he could say now was hodor? Always knew Hodor and Cersei were connected somehow...

  10. 28 minutes ago, sifth said:

    No, that was Bran hiding in the crypts in Winterfell. In Bran's final chapter of ACOK, he mentions talking to Jon in a dream he had, after awakening his third eye.

    You're right, that was a poor choice of argument. I should have used the Hodor reveal (confirmed by GRRM) instead. That is unquestionably time travel.

  11. 14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Lemongate or in general Dany =/= daughter of Aerys and Rhaella

    That's not what Lemongate is, just a bad subtheory. Lemongate (the lemon tree hinting at false memories) is as real as R+L=J

    14 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

    Time-traveling Bran

    We literally see future-Bran time traveling to communicate with Jon in ACOK lol

  12. 1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

    There is no need to ensure 1 BC is a full year because the moment Aegon decided to implement a new dating system, the 365 days (or whatever the number is in Westeros) before the starting point would automatically form 1 BC.

    Then they would have to change what the "first moon" of the year is to whatever point Aegon was crowned, and that sounds like a lot of unnecessary hassle. And then if it was in the middle of the month they would have to redefine which lunar phase marks the beginning of the month. More unnecessary hassle. Although, you might point out that they may have scheduled the coronation to specifically the first day of the first moon... which would eliminate any need for a year 0.

    1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

    There isn't any reason to assume that there was any confusion about Aegon's reign and the new calendar among the scholars.

    I didn't say there would be, I'm saying they would do it that way out of necessity, because besides a tiny semantic issue that only affects possible a couple months before Aegon's coronation, it would be the solution that makes the most sense. It wouldn't be any weirder than some details about the starting points of calendars in the real world.

  13. 44 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

    Why would Aegon decide that some events before the end of the Conquest (in your example three months) would be dated AC (= after the Conquest)? As Potsk says, this would defeat the purpose of the new dating system.

    That's not what I said. I said having the first year before the Conquest not last a full actual year would defeat the purpose of having a Before/After (BC/AC) system.

    Events before his coronation being dated AC to ensure 1 BC and 1 AC are two full years wouldn't be stranger than Jesus being born 6-4 BC.

  14. What day of the year the coronation was is inconsequential. If there's no year zero and it was in the "fourth moon," the first through third moons would also be considered part of Year 1. If there was a year zero (which wouldn't make any sense in this instance) the coronation would be Fourth moon 0 AC while the first through third moons would make up the entirety of 1 BC, and 2 BC would be only half a year in the past. This of course defeats the purpose of a Before/After dating system.

×
×
  • Create New...