Jump to content

Reasons why Lightbringer is NOT a literal sword


Mithras

Recommended Posts

I just think there is more to the LH story than we're being told; the fact that Old Nan got cut off and that exact place is...suspicious. It's like GRRM saying, "there is something super vital here, but you don't get to know it yet." I, personally, don't think LH and AAR are the same (ice champion becoming a champion for the fire religion?) but I think the ending of LH story is not "and then the hero somehow managed to pick up the broken sword and brought the dawn CAUSE HERO!!!" I also think it's odd that Luwin's story to Bran about the COTF/Others got cut off at the climax as well...hmm..connection?

:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unitron, dragonsteel is a very very old term that Sam found in the early records of the Night's Watch. No one knows what it is, but I think it's weapons made of dragonbone. The qualities of dragonbone: as strong as steel; lighter than steel; far more flexible than steel; impervious to fire.



Of course none of the modern Westerosi refer to dragonbone weapons as "dragonsteel," because the term fell out of use several thousand years ago.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it was in Westeros- that doesn't mean AA forged his sword in Westeros or used Westerosi technique. That's my point

We know we're getting dragons. No one has said "sword OR dragons". But dragons have their drawbacks, in that they don't work for certain kinds of combat. A sword would serve better for hand to hand combat, obviously. Jon is a swordsman, and a good one. He would be able to make use of a flaming sword.

It happens in Westeros.

Dragons aren't good for guerilla warfare, while Others use conventional warfare with wights. Jon already has a sword, and I don't see a need for one.

The difference is that AA was trying to forge a sword, the LH wasn't, it was destroyed by the others and I'm pretty sure the way the story ended he isn't going to get a chance to makes another sword like AA.

Both stories talk about a hero dealing with the Long Night.

I just think there is more to the LH story than we're being told; the fact that Old Nan got cut off and that exact place is...suspicious. It's like GRRM saying, "there is something super vital here, but you don't get to know it yet." I, personally, don't think LH and AAR are the same (ice champion becoming a champion for the fire religion?) but I think the ending of LH story is not "and then the hero somehow managed to pick up the broken sword and brought the dawn CAUSE HERO!!!" I also think it's odd that Luwin's story to Bran about the COTF/Others got cut off at the climax as well...hmm..connection?

Back to your OP: If LB is a dragon then would that really have been changed. Dragons are not unknown to Westeors thanks to the Targs, and stories about them haven't become radically altered.

The story was interrupted when the LH seemed to doomed with all his companions and dog dead with his sword broken. We have seen that before when Sam's obsidian dagger broke and the wights were swarming over him, only for BR to send help. I think that is what happened in the LH's story. The CotF probably saw him through a heart tree, and sent help. He probably asked for how to deal with the Others, what they told we will likely learn later on in the series.

That would have been the only time a dragon was used up until Aegon I. The story would have gone through some change, and LB is said to be made from "dragonsteel." That is one connection to dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens in Westeros.

Dragons aren't good for guerilla warfare, while Others use conventional warfare with wights. Jon already has a sword, and I don't see a need for one.

Maybe he doesn't get a new sword. Maybe Longclaw is LB. It's dragon steel, and it was pulled from a fire and reforged. It's also had some descriptions that seem to be foreshadowing that the blade will have fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both stories talk about a hero dealing with the Long Night.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that AAR and the LH are the same person. Did the Long Night stop at the shores of Westoers? Is this event not a Planteos problem? We know Winter is coming to Essos because the Dothraki Sea is dying. How do we know AAR wasn't fighting "monsters" per the Jade Compendium in Essos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he doesn't get a new sword. Maybe Longclaw is LB. It's dragon steel, and it was pulled from a fire and reforged. It's also had some descriptions that seem to be foreshadowing that the blade will have fire.

I doubt that it is a literal sword.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that AAR and the LH are the same person. Did the Long Night stop at the shores of Westoers? Is this event not a Planteos problem? We know Winter is coming to Essos because the Dothraki Sea is dying. How do we know AAR wasn't fighting "monsters" per the Jade Compendium in Essos?

The Long Night isn't mentioned anywhere in Essos. AA and LH are likely the same person given both stories have a broken sword, and relate to a hero who dealt with the Long Night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maester Aemon never questions the fact that it's a literal sword, though I wonder. He names Mel's "AA vs the darkness" spiel as "the war for the dawn", & for the first time, introduces us to "the prince that was promised".

All of which begs the question of why he & Rhaegar never seemed overly concerned w Lightbringer, or the War for The Dawn. Why was this? A flaming, mythical, magical sword would be pretty useful when fighting a rebellion, no? And that's just the practical reason for them to pursue it, let alone the prophetical connotations. And what did the duo think The War For the Dawn was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maester Aemon never questions the fact that it's a literal sword, though I wonder. He names Mel's "AA vs the darkness" spiel as "the war for the dawn", & for the first time, introduces us to "the prince that was promised".

All of which begs the question of why he & Rhaegar never seemed overly concerned w Lightbringer, or the War for The Dawn. Why was this? A flaming, mythical, magical sword would be pretty useful when fighting a rebellion, no? And that's just the practical reason for them to pursue it, let alone the prophetical connotations. And what did the duo think The War For the Dawn was?

Good point. Maester Aemon identified Stannis' sword as fake because the real Lightbringer is supposed to release heat. We know that from Jade Compendium he left to Jon to read because he wanted Jon to understand that the sword of Stannis was false too.

We also know that Maester Aemon didnot object Mel when she equated AAR and TPTWP. He stated that Dany is TPTWP and the dragons prove that. He didnot say anything about the Lightbringer.

I think it is clear that both Rhaegar and his likely mentor Aemon were concerned with TPTWP prophecy, not specifically AAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the legend of AA was based on the LH but because of great distances in time and space, the tale was distorted heavily in the telling. That is why no one in Westeros seems to equate these two figures and that is why people in Essos know nothing about the Others and also that is why they consider some vague darkness as the enemy of AAR.

Just for clarity, since we've argued this often, are we sort of on the same page now that the "last hero" and "AA/AAR" are answering 2 different questions? I mean, are you leaning toward the idea that "Lightbringer" = dragons, that Dany = AA, that AA =/= the Last Hero, and that AA =/= one true hero, but a champion of fire?

"Dragonsteel" might still be a literal sword. We've got Dawn in the mix. And it's Westerosi and quite ancient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarity, since we've argued this often, are we sort of on the same page now that the "last hero" and "AA/AAR" are answering 2 different questions? I mean, are you leaning toward the idea that "Lightbringer" = dragons, that Dany = AA, that AA =/= the Last Hero, and that AA =/= one true hero, but a champion of fire?

I am with Fire Eater. I think the AA legend is an Essossi thing but its roots lie in the LN and the LH. A legend does not get born, live and die at the same place. Otherwise, why should people in Europe and America have anything to do with stuff happened in Middle East long time ago?

I agree that Lightbringer is a dragon but that is only half of the equation. The other half is Jon (also a dragon in a Targaryen sense).

What Benerro and his followers attribute to Dany do not concern me, no more than how different people interpreted the red comet according to their own wishes. I don't think Dany is AAR and I don't think AAR is the champion of fire (some kind of a zealot burning stuff according to your interpretation).

My take for AAR is that he (or they if there are multiple) is supposed to help Jon (Lightbringer) in the war against the Others. My primary candidates for AAR are Bran, Davos and Sam and as you see they have nothing to do with Red Religion, no more than Lightbringer.

"Dragonsteel" might still be a literal sword. We've got Dawn in the mix. And it's Westerosi and quite ancient.

I do not exclude the possibility that Dawn might be the Lightbringer back in the LN, although it is still a mystery how the LH learned from the CotF to work steel whereas the CotF didnot even know how to work bronze. And even if Dawn was Lightbringer back in the day, current Lightbringer should be a dragon-dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Fire Eater. I think the AA legend is an Essossi thing but its roots lie in the LN and the LH. A legend does not get born, live and die at the same place. Otherwise, why should people in Europe and America have anything to do with stuff happened in Middle East long time ago?

I agree that Lightbringer is a dragon but that is only half of the equation. The other half is Jon (also a dragon in a Targaryen sense).

What Benerro and his followers attribute to Dany do not concern me, no more than how different people interpreted the red comet according to their own wishes. I don't think Dany is AAR and I don't think AAR is the champion of fire (some kind of a zealot burning stuff according to your interpretation).

My take for AAR is that he (or they if there are multiple) is supposed to help Jon (Lightbringer) in the war against the Others. My primary candidates for AAR are Bran, Davos and Sam and as you see they have nothing to do with Red Religion, no more than Lightbringer.

I do not exclude the possibility that Dawn might be the Lightbringer back in the LN, although it is still a mystery how the LH learned from the CotF to work steel whereas the CotF didnot even know to work bronze. And even if Dawn was Lightbringer back in the day, current Lightbringer should be a dragon-dragon.

Oh, I see. This isn't about literal dragons. It's still about making Jon "the dragon" part of the AA myth, and assuming that AA = "one true hero" I guess. I still don't understand why we should be dismissing what the Red "Pope" says about his religion's savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sword is real. Doesn't Aemon himself say so? He asks Sam to describe it and then says, but it had no heat? Again, I'm lousy at quotes, but I distinctly remember Aemon saying this and I thought at the time it was about time someone said that Light Bringer was not the sword that Stannis wielded, it is a hoax created by Melisandre to fit the way she read her fire. As far as I can tell, she hasn't figured out that Stannis isn't AA reborn and for her to keep people in awe of her and him, she keeps showing everyone a mummer's trick with that sword. Only my thoughts and I'm no expert. I'm just saying.......Aemon would be an expert and why ask for a description of the sword if he didn't "KNOW" it to be real?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. This isn't about literal dragons. It's still about making Jon "the dragon" part of the AA myth, and assuming that AA = "one true hero" I guess. I still don't understand why we should be dismissing what the Red "Pope" says about his religion's savior.

We propose that the roots of his religion are somewhere else, which does not make it his religion completely. Similarly, many people tried to own the rights of the Red Comet but it was not theirs and it might have a totally different meaning than their interpretations (it may even does not have any meaning at all). If one of them starts a cult about the Red Comet, it does not make the comet his.

I think the sword is real. Doesn't Aemon himself say so? He asks Sam to describe it and then says, but it had no heat? Again, I'm lousy at quotes, but I distinctly remember Aemon saying this and I thought at the time it was about time someone said that Light Bringer was not the sword that Stannis wielded, it is a hoax created by Melisandre to fit the way she read her fire. As far as I can tell, she hasn't figured out that Stannis isn't AA reborn and for her to keep people in awe of her and him, she keeps showing everyone a mummer's trick with that sword. Only my thoughts and I'm no expert. I'm just saying.......Aemon would be an expert and why ask for a description of the sword if he didn't "KNOW" it to be real?

As Aemon confessed, he believed for a moment that Stannis might be TPTWP because he also had Targ blood. The description of fLightbringer convinced him that it was an empty glamor. But still, that does not explain how he not long time ago was prepared to take a sword as the Lightbringer (if it released heat) but he later took the dragons as the proof of Dany being TPTWP.

That is one of the many reasons why I do not take Aemon as a reliable source in interpreting prophecies. He was proven to be wrong many times like Rhaegar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We propose that the roots of his religion are somewhere else, which does not make it his religion completely. Similarly, many people tried to own the rights of the Red Comet but it was not theirs and it might have a totally different meaning than their interpretations (it may even does not have any meaning at all). If one of them starts a cult about the Red Comet, it does not make the comet his.

That's not how it works. The "roots" of the Christian messiah are from the Hebrew messiah. And they are most certainly not interchangeable. Christ derived from the earlier, but has most certainly become its own thing, with very specific meaning. By dismissing what the Reds believe of their messiah it's like telling the Pope he has the wrong view of Christ because the Christian messiah doesn't conform to the Hebrew messiah it derives from.

ETA: and that view assumes the story of the last hero is the source of the AA myth, which we don't even know. Light versus dark is about the most vague, archetypal mythologic language ever. They could well be entirely separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that it is a literal sword.

And I think it is. Only time will tell.

The Long Night isn't mentioned anywhere in Essos. AA and LH are likely the same person given both stories have a broken sword, and relate to ahero who dealt with the Long Night.

So died that mean they didn't have literal swords, either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sword is real. Doesn't Aemon himself say so? He asks Sam to describe it and then says, but it had no heat? Again, I'm lousy at quotes, but I distinctly remember Aemon saying this and I thought at the time it was about time someone said that Light Bringer was not the sword that Stannis wielded, it is a hoax created by Melisandre to fit the way she read her fire. As far as I can tell, she hasn't figured out that Stannis isn't AA reborn and for her to keep people in awe of her and him, she keeps showing everyone a mummer's trick with that sword. Only my thoughts and I'm no expert. I'm just saying.......Aemon would be an expert and why ask for a description of the sword if he didn't "KNOW" it to be real?

Saan and Thoros also describe it as a real sword. Aemon even asks about the sword's hilt, if it is charred. Honestly, I don't know how many people will be convinced it is AAR without a flaming sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We propose that the roots of his religion are somewhere else, which does not make it his religion completely. Similarly, many people tried to own the rights of the Red Comet but it was not theirs and it might have a totally different meaning than their interpretations (it may even does not have any meaning at all). If one of them starts a cult about the Red Comet, it does not make the comet his.

As Aemon confessed, he believed for a moment that Stannis might be TPTWP because he also had Targ blood. The description of fLightbringer convinced him that it was an empty glamor. But still, that does not explain how he not long time ago was prepared to take a sword as the Lightbringer (if it released heat) but he later took the dragons as the proof of Dany being TPTWP.

That is one of the many reasons why I do not take Aemon as a reliable source in interpreting prophecies. He was proven to be wrong many times like Rhaegar.

You always make me think so hard my head hurts! Thanks for something else to chew on. I have to admit though, the first description of the sword wielded by the other or white walker in the forest during the first prologue in a GoT, got me thinking of swords as being a very important part of the story on both sides of the Wall. Of course, my line of thinking may just confuse people even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Long Night isn't mentioned anywhere in Essos. AA and LH are likely the same person given both stories have a broken sword, and relate to ahero who dealt with the Long Night.

Apart from Mel, the Long Night isn't mentioned in conjunction with AAR, IIRC. It's "a time of darkness" when Davos hears the story. That could very well be the name for the Long Night, but the Essosi version of it, telling the story of their own hero who fought "monsters."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit curious about something. We're given another hero/ savior figure-- the Stallion that Mounts the World. Why is it that this one is dismissed as a culturally specific thing, yet AA is taken as a synonym for "one true hero who takes care of all business," despite AA's also being connected to a very specific religion?



the StMtW is basically about a great king who unites all people:


“As swift as the wind he rides, and behind him his khalasar covers the earth, men without number, with arakhs shining in their hands like blades of razor grass. Fierce as a storm this prince will be. His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.” The old woman trembled and looked at Dany almost as if she were afraid. “The prince is riding, and he shall be the stallion who mounts the world.”


and Jorah's elaboration:


“The stallion is the khal of khals promised in ancient prophecy, child. He will unite the Dothraki into a single khalasar and ride to the ends of the earth, or so it was promised. All the people of the world will be his herd.”


side note: "khal of khals" sounds a hell of a lot like a "prince that was promised." And the prophesy actually calls the guy a "prince." A "prince" prophesied to come and do stuff in the future, aka, a "prince that was promised." Could it be that......every culture awaits a great king to lead them toward triumph over some enemy?


It's talking about something very universal as well-- a major king who triumphs over all other contenders to lead his now united people to "the ends of the earth." Sort of like, idk, how Westeros is bleeding for a single leader to get these pretenders out of the way and unite everyone to deal with the little problem that exists at the end of the earth up north. Or like what the first Valyrians did against the Ghiscari. Or how the Moonsingers led the Braavosi to a new location at the end of Essos. Or like Nym did by leading her people over Dorne.


So my question is, why are we able to write this one off as Dothraki specific, but seem unable to do the same with Azor Ahai, which also has some very specific meaning and relevancy to a certain culture? Both that and the StMtW touch on some very basic universal archetypes of the collective unconscious about what a hero does, but if we're so willing to dismiss the Stallion, then why aren't we maybe questioning AA the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...