Your opinion on the dating of the Andal Invasion

[The hairy bear]

Thin air.

1) "it is highly probable that the Long Night was the extinction event that wiped out dragons". Why it is "highly probable"? What evidence do we have besides the fact that it would make a nice story? It is not highly probable. It's your pet theory with nothing to back it.

2) "since Ghis almost certainly arose after the Long Night, and since Ghis was already ancient by the time Valyria arose 5000 years ago, we can deduce that the Long Night happened a number of millenia before the Ghiscari- Valyrian wars 5000 years ago." This is one baseless conjecture after the other. Why a number of milenia? Why not a number of centuries? Why not before the long night? We just don't know. And all that relying on the 5000 figure, which can easily be another made up mythical date.

You say that "oral tradition is pretty accurate", but you only prove that it's roughly consistent within itself. Of course, the maesters will take the information they have available and try to come up with a cohesive construct. But that doesn't mean that they are right.

The dating of the Long Night would be akin to the dating of Noah's Flood in real life. We know that it's based on a real event, even if the story was turned into a myth. In ancient times, our "maesters" came up with very precise datings for this and all the other events of the Genesis that, of course, are far from reliable. And yet, in the Middle Ages every educated person you asked would tell you that the Flood was 3,500 years ago.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Thin air.

1) "it is highly probable that the Long Night was the extinction event that wiped out dragons". Why it is "highly probable"? What evidence do we have besides the fact that it would make a nice story? It is not highly probable. It's your pet theory with nothing to back it.

2) "since Ghis almost certainly arose after the Long Night, and since Ghis was already ancient by the time Valyria arose 5000 years ago, we can deduce that the Long Night happened a number of millenia before the Ghiscari- Valyrian wars 5000 years ago." This is one baseless conjecture after the other. Why a number of milenia? Why not a number of centuries? Why not before the long night? We just don't know. And all that relying on the 5000 figure, which can easily be another made up mythical date.

You say that "oral tradition is pretty accurate", but you only prove that it's roughly consistent within itself. Of course, the maesters will take the information they have available and try to come up with a cohesive construct. But that doesn't mean that they are right.

The dating of the Long Night would be akin to the dating of Noah's Flood in real life. We know that it's based on a real event, even if the story was turned into a myth. In ancient times, our "maesters" came up with very precise datings for this and all the other events of the Genesis that, of course, are far from reliable. And yet, in the Middle Ages every educated person you asked would tell you that the Flood was 3,500 years ago.

The Long Night is the most plausible theory for dragons dying out ALL ACROSS THE WORLD, except in a nice, warm volcano.

We have no evidence that Ghis has any record of the Long Night, and logic would suggest that a sophisticated civilization with intricate social interdepencies would almost certainly collapse after a decade or generation long nuclear winter.

Logic dictates that Ghis came into being after the Long Night, not before it.

As for the 5000 year old date, Ghis has written records going back that far. As did the highly developed Valyrians, to corroborate it. Until disproven by new evidence, there is no reason to dismiss the 5000 year old date for the Ghiscari-Valyrian wars.

There is more evidence supporting this view, than yours, quite frankly.

[The hairy bear]

There is more evidence supporting this view, than yours, quite frankly.

We are not defending oposing views. I'm just saying that we have too little reliable facts to reach any valid conclusion.

[Charerg]

Well, the conclusions may not be 100% accurate, but even so it's an interesting debate. And even if we believe the oral tradition is disaccurate, it seems evident that because the Rhoynar taught the Andals ironworking, and the Rhoynar themselves probably learned the ironworking from Valyrians, we can be fairly certain that the invasions took place 4000-2000 years ago.

Also, we do know that the Rhoynar came to Dorne ca. 1000 years ago. At such an early date, the order of maesters was likely established, and the date is probably accurate. The same can be said of other comparable dates, such as exile of the Manderlys 900 years ago (according to Borrell), founding of House Karstark ca. 1000 years ago and the construction of Dragonstone 500 years ago.

Now, it's entirely possible that the Fall of Ghis occurred much later than 5000 years ago, since we don't know if this date is accurate. You could also say that the "average reign" of a Lord Commander was only 6 years, which would date Sam's document to 1950 years ago.

This would make the "2000 years ago Invasion" a possibility. Though for this to work, we'd have to consider almost all ancient dates as exaggerations.

However, if we consider the provided evidence as at least largely accurate, it does support the interpretation that the Invasion happened 4000-3000.

Edit: Btw, are there any mentions of chariot warfare in the books?

We're told that the First Men brought horses to Westeros, but we don't know if these horses were large enough to ride, or used to pull chariots. I suppose the First Men possessed the wheel, since they had bronze, which signifies a relatively advanced culture.

Although the First Men may not have possessed stirrups yet. In fact, I speculate that the Andals brought the stirrup to Westeros, since knights seem an integral part of their culture.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well, the conclusions may not be 100% accurate, but even so it's an interesting debate. And even if we believe the oral tradition is disaccurate, it seems evident that because the Rhoynar taught the Andals ironworking, and the Rhoynar themselves probably learned the ironworking from Valyrians, we can be fairly certain that the invasions took place 4000-2000 years ago.

Also, we do know that the Rhoynar came to Dorne ca. 1000 years ago. At such an early date, the order of maesters was likely established, and the date is probably accurate. The same can be said of other comparable dates, such as exile of the Manderlys 900 years ago (according to Borrell), founding of House Karstark ca. 1000 years ago and the construction of Dragonstone 500 years ago.

Now, it's entirely possible that the Fall of Ghis occurred much later than 5000 years ago, since we don't know if this date is accurate. You could also say that the "average reign" of a Lord Commander was only 6 years, which would date Sam's document to 1950 years ago.

This would make the "2000 years ago Invasion" a possibility. Though for this to work, we'd have to consider almost all ancient dates as exaggerations.

However, if we consider the provided evidence as at least largely accurate, it does support the interpretation that the Invasion happened 4000-3000.

Edit: Btw, are there any mentions of chariot warfare in the books?

We're told that the First Men brought horses to Westeros, but we don't know if these horses were large enough to ride, or used to pull chariots. I suppose the First Men possessed the wheel, since they had bronze, which signifies a relatively advanced culture.

Although the First Men may not have possessed stirrups yet. In fact, I speculate that the Andals brought the stirrup to Westeros, since knights seem an integral part of their culture.

Yes, I would far rather work with the dates we have, acknowledging that much of it is open for reinterpretation, than just throw my hands in the air and say we can't do any analysis because there is no proper data.

On the dating of Sam's list, we don't need confirmation of the 8000 year age of the Watch to apply our minds logically to the list's age.

Lord Commanders don't serve for a term, they serve for life. So as much as there will be Lord Commanders that die in their first year in office, there will be others than rule for 30 or 40 years.

So I think 8 years per Lord Commander, on average, is a highly, highly conservative estimate, and if it was not for the 8000 year maximum timeframe we have for the age of the Watch, I would have thought 10 years or more would be closer to the average.

I think 6 years is significantly too low.

[joluoto2]

From a Dance with Dragons: "Your Smith must have been Rhoynish," Illyrio quipped. "The Andals learned the art of working iron from the Rhoynar who dwelt along the river. This is known."

Besides, the First Men are synonymous with bronze, that much is clear. We also know that the armies around the Slaver's Bay used mostly bronze equipment during the Rise of Valyria (about 5000 years ago), so it's fair to assume that "steel" is more or less used synonymously with iron when speaking of the Andals.

No, that just means the Rhoynar taught the Andals how to work with iron, not that the First Men hadn't figured this out by themselves. And I do not dispute that the First Men had a long Bronze Age, we know they for a long time only used bronze equipments. However the fact that there are iron related names from the First Men era shows that they knew about iron. The Andals just 1-upped them with figuring out how to make Steel, which the FM couldn't.

[Free Northman Reborn]

No, that just means the Rhoynar taught the Andals how to work with iron, not that the First Men hadn't figured this out by themselves. And I do not dispute that the First Men had a long Bronze Age, we know they for a long time only used bronze equipments. However the fact that there are iron related names from the First Men era shows that they knew about iron. The Andals just 1-upped them with figuring out how to make Steel, which the FM couldn't.

This is an interesting debate, to which I don't have a clear answer. Something that comes to mind, is Robb's crown that is fashioned in the style of the ancient Kings of Winter. I recall the description of it was something along the lines of "Bronze and Iron, because those were the metals of the First Men/the North".

Maybe someone can check to get the exact wording.

[Fat Trell]

Its probable the First Men understood ironworking before the Andal Conquest. We have the Iron Islands, which apparently had no previous name, and the heavy influence of iron on that culture. We also have the Stark practice of placing iron swords on the laps of their ancestor's tombs, which seems a very mystical, non-Andal practice. Not to mention all the references to iron as signifying the North and the Kings of Winter; both of which have cultural heritage extending from before the Invasion.

The Stark tombs themselves can work as a rough dating system. We know the current level of tombs is pretty large and that on the older tombs the iron swords are merely rust stains. Unfortunately, rusting varies depending on the exact composition of the sword and the amount of moisture in the air. Given that Winterfell is built upon a hot spring, the underground tombs are likely very damp. Meaning the swords would rust relatively quickly. I don't have an exact timeframe on how long that would take however.

The catch is that we also know there are older tombs. We don't know how many or how large or the state of these kings' sword though.

[Charerg]

Well, it's entirely possible the Starks used bronze swords before they had access to iron swords. If the date of the Invasion was 4000 years ago, any swords before it would have rusted away by now.

And even if they did use iron, and perhaps they did, they still likely made their tools and weapons of bronze. According to wikipedia, this was the case during the Bronze Age. Iron was known, but the use of bronze far outweighted the use of iron. From what I gather, this was because iron requires hot-working and specially designed furnaces.

Btw, Wikipedia even defines the term "Iron Age" as follows:

"The Iron Age is conventionally defined by the widespread use of steel weapons and tools, alongside or replacing bronze ones."

Though I'll grant that I'm hardly an expert on the matter. In any case, the overall impression I have is that steel is predominantly a modern material, and no pre-industrial society really produced steel in anything except small quantities.

In any case, the earliest discovered steel piece is apparently 4000 years old, and even the Romans used steel swords. So, the impression I get is that there is no "Steel Age" as such, "Iron Age" basically means that metallurgy is advanced enough to produce some kinds of steel (not necessarily high-quality steel).

Edit: Some more info on the subject, again quoting wikipedia: "Iron in its natural form is barely harder than bronze, and is not useful for tools unless combined with carbon to make steel. The percentage of carbon determines important characteristics of the final product: the more carbon, the harder the steel."

I take this to mean that many "iron tools" could be classified as steel tools. Although since they would be produced by "quenching" only the surface of the iron piece would be steel. Perhaps this structure of steel/iron layers is what leads to confusion regarding the terminology (I'll admit that I'm somewhat confused myself).

[Fat Trell]

Well, it's entirely possible the Starks used bronze swords before they had access to iron swords. If the date of the Invasion was 4000 years ago, any swords before it would have rusted away by now.

Why haven't they began using steel swords in place of the iron then?

Furthermore, if iron was so rare it would make little sense to waste it on hundreds of dead kings. It would go against the practicality that seems to in part define the North/

[Charerg]

Again, I think iron and steel are used very much synonymously, especially in the context of swords. Just compare the relevant quotes:

A Game of Thrones, Maester Luwin:

"The Andals were the first, a race of tall, fair-haired warriors who came with steel and fire and the seven-pointed star of the new gods painted on their chests."

A Storm of Swords, Jeor Mormont:

"The children of the forest are all dead,” said Mormont. “The First Men killed half of them with bronze blades, and the Andals finished the job with iron."

All in all, I think the evidence favours that the First Men didn't use a lot of iron. Several of the ceremonies and traditions regarding the Starks could have easily developed into their present form during and after the Andal Invasion.

Besides, as the Andals didn't "figure out themselves" how to use iron, I don't see why this should be the case for the First Men. If the First Men were sophisticated enough to use iron weaponry, how where the Andals able to conquer most of Westeros from them?

I also wonder if the First Men had "Houses" in the same sense as they exist in present day Westeros. After all, the wildlings seem to have no family names, even the Magnars of Thenn have just their title. So, perhaps House Greyiron was actually only named such during the Invasion Period, and the first rulers of that line were just "Urron of Orkmont" and so on.

[Fat Trell]

Can you find an example of one sword being referred to as iron once and steel another time? Because the Stark ceremonial swords are always specifically stated to be iron. Someone even comments on them being heavy iirc.

And the sword is placed on the tombs' laps to contain their spirits. That seems pretty mystical to be a recent invention. And given the swords are always referred to as specifically iron, it would be a logical inference that the iron itself is important to the practice.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Again, I think iron and steel are used very much synonymously, especially in the context of swords. Just compare the relevant quotes:

A Game of Thrones, Maester Luwin:

"The Andals were the first, a race of tall, fair-haired warriors who came with steel and fire and the seven-pointed star of the new gods painted on their chests."

A Storm of Swords, Jeor Mormont:

"The children of the forest are all dead,” said Mormont. “The First Men killed half of them with bronze blades, and the Andals finished the job with iron."

All in all, I think the evidence favours that the First Men didn't use a lot of iron. Several of the ceremonies and traditions regarding the Starks could have easily developed into their present form during and after the Andal Invasion.

Besides, as the Andals didn't "figure out themselves" how to use iron, I don't see why this should be the case for the First Men. If the First Men were sophisticated enough to use iron weaponry, how where the Andals able to conquer most of Westeros from them?

I also wonder if the First Men had "Houses" in the same sense as they exist in present day Westeros. After all, the wildlings seem to have no family names, even the Magnars of Thenn have just their title. So, perhaps House Greyiron was actually only named such during the Invasion Period, and the first rulers of that line were just "Urron of Orkmont" and so on.

Yes, the First Men definitely had Houses. Although they may have been more akin to clans. Look at the Thenns, as an example.

[Charerg]

Can you find an example of one sword being referred to as iron once and steel another time? Because the Stark ceremonial swords are always specifically stated to be iron. Someone even comments on them being heavy iirc.

And the sword is placed on the tombs' laps to contain their spirits. That seems pretty mystical to be a recent invention. And given the swords are always referred to as specifically iron, it would be a logical inference that the iron itself is important to the practice.

I'm a bit too tired to try and look for a quote referencing to a specific sword being either iron or steel. In most cases, I doubt the material is even specified. With the exceptions of referring to Valyrian Steel or "castle-forged, gleaming/shining steel". And the books don't really go to detail regarding the actual forging process.

In any case, most medieval swords contained several layers of differing hardness. The core of the blade was usually almost pure iron ("soft steel"), soft and malleable, to give the sword flexibility. Then the edges would be "hard steel", to provide hardness and strength. So technically the swords would be a bit of both.

And since Westeros has no knowledge of chemistry or physics, the line between iron and steel is probably somewhat blurred. One might also point out that steel is mostly iron as well, so a "steel sword" is also very much an iron sword.

It may be that the swords in the crypts are just common blades, but when referring to them the characters emphasize the iron component, because in the First Men culture, iron had demon-slaying properties or something.

Here's the relevant quote from the last Bran chapter in aCoK:

"A naked sword hung down her back, one of the last to bear Mikken’s mark. He had forged it for Lord Eddard’s tomb, to keep his ghost at rest. But with Mikken slain and the ironmen guarding the armory, good steel had been hard to resist, even if it meant grave-robbing. Meera had claimed Lord Rickard’s blade, though she complained that it was too heavy."

Notice how it refers to "good steel had been hard to resist". It may even be that it's the sword that's supposed to keep the ghosts at bay, and not the material it is made of.

Edit: I might also point out that GRRM probably isn't exactly an expert in swordsmithing or metallurgy, and that in medieval times even "soft steel" was probably referred to as iron, even though it technically isn't, and wouldn't be referred as iron in modern terminology.

So, in aSoIaF, the terms probably refer more to the quality of the metal used in the forging. Since they don't have factories capable of producing "pure iron" or specific alloys of steel, the metal will likely always have some impurities.

[joluoto2]

One possibility is of course that the Iron Islanders alone used iron, and didn't share. Thus the Andals still has a huge advantage over all the other First Men who used bronze. Or it could be GRRM just screwed up with the Iron Islands and House Greyiron, and he just simply has to retcon things now.

[Charerg]

One possibility is of course that the Iron Islanders alone used iron, and didn't share. Thus the Andals still has a huge advantage over all the other First Men who used bronze. Or it could be GRRM just screwed up with the Iron Islands and House Greyiron, and he just simply has to retcon things now.

Well, probably the First Men gradually adopted iron themselves during the Invasion period, as the Starks did. I think the Andals probably only possessed a monopoly to iron weaponry during their conquest of the Vale and Eastern Westeros in general. By the time they fought the River Kings of the Mudd line I think the remaining First Men had completely adopted iron.

And the Iron Islands may well have been rich in Iron, and therefore named such, even if the metalworking wasn't advanced to the point of making good use of it. According to wikipedia, tools made of meteoric iron were used by various peoples thousands of years before the actual Iron Age. Since iron smelting had not been developed, this was the only source of iron. However, meteoric iron is very rare, and the metal was likely very precious during the Bronze Age (perhaps more precious than gold, even).

Quote from wikipedia: "Ancient Egyptians referred to iron as "Copper from the Heavens" because their lack of smelting technology limited their accessible iron supplies to what little native iron they could recover from meteorites."

If the Iron Islands were formed because of meteorite impacts (iron-heavy meteorites, of course), it might explain the abundance of this type of iron there, and the name of the islands.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Maybe the Iron Isles were called something else before 4000 years ago.

[MercyTheBlindUglyLittleCat]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that just about every single dating of history we've learned from the books, up until AC, and the century or so prior, is wildly WRONG. I mean its pretty clear that the reason AC is used as a the central dating event, other than flattery for the royal family, is because tracking the reign of a single living ruling head for the entire continental society, and their children, makes history simple. Before that, who knows. Now I don't have really any actual evidence, except that I find what's been presented in the books as hard to comprehend in the details, but consistent with what I would expect with error rich early attempts at history keeping.

The question for me, is whether the ASoIaF books, or anything in GRRM's canon, will ever directly address this concern, and explain it. The actual dates, and distance in time between some key events, being not what the supposed history states, could end up being majorly important in the end of the series.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I assume that Westerosi dating is inaccurate, but Ghiscari, Qarthian, and Valyrian dating are backed by written records and therefore close to being accurate. We should try to reference Westerosi events to Essosian dates. Valyria finished the Conquest of Old Ghis about 5000 years ago, right?

The Rise of Valyria should have created a domino effect propagating up the Rhoyne Valley, forcing peoples to shift around, and exerting pressure on the inhabitants of Andalos to find more space. The appearance of dragons may also have had a role in the creation of competing religions, like the Faith. I've also always seen a connection between the Rise of Valyria and its Fire Magic, and the Long Night with its Ice Magic. I think they happened at the same time.

Therefore, I favor any date around 4000BC for the Andal Invasion. The schemes proposed on the previous page that propose 3500-4000BC go far beyond the detail level I've looked at, and I like them.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Bran will tell us, for all the ideas that First Men was primitive, their access to their history is exact. As we've seen. A fully trained greenseer can look anywhere any time.