Jump to content

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?


Recommended Posts

Perestan goes further in his A Consideration on History, suggesting this nameless Andal chieftain had cut down the trees at the behest of a rival of the river king, who used the Andals as sellswords.

Here the book is called A Consideration on History. However,

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History.

here it's called A Consideration of History.

:frown5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran,



this has nothing to do with TWoIaF, but do your notes of Fire and Blood say whether Prince Daemon or Daeron the Daring named Ulf White Lord of Bitterbridge?



TPatQ seems to suggest it was Daemon, but this does not make all that much sense considering that he is neither there, nor likely to reward the Two Betrayers after First Tumbleton. However, there would be a small chance for Daemon to secure such a title for Ulf, since he suggested to give Ulf and Hugh Storm's End and Casterly Rock, which Rhaenyra apparently declined. Perhaps they made a compromise and gave them smaller lordships?



On the other hand, TWoIaF seems to suggest that the Caswells stood with Rhaenyra, so there is little reason to assume that Rhaenyra would take Bitterbridge away from them after the Maelor incident.



Thus I'd assume that it was actually Daeron who granted Ulf Bitterbridge after First Tumbleton?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. That's my reasoning, but the text at this point reads 'Prince Daemon'. I imagine that this is a mistake, but if Ran's notes can clarify the thing, that would be great (shortly before that comes another of those passages where Daeron the Daring is the son, not the brother, of Aegon II, so such a slip is not unlikely, but still...).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 'Prince Daemon' is not a mistake in this sentence: 'The knighthood that Queen Rhaenyra had conferred on him [ulf White] did not suffice. Nor was he surfeit when Prince Daemon named him Lord of Bitterbridge.'



I'm asking because of the German translation.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing the history of the Riverlands, it says the Mudds ruled from they're castle called Oldstones. But that's not correct, right? The small folk around it call the ruins Oldstones because the name is lost to history.

Same applies for the master then. The name is only known as Oldstones, or the real name is actually Oldstones. He's not perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First edition WOIAF: Riverlands map has Saltpans West of Quiet Isle, while Vale map has Saltpans East of Quiet Isle. This means both maps seem to claim the town as part of their region. The Westeros map from the LOIAF collection agrees with the Riverlands map in the world book

ETA: world app agrees it's west as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Iron Islands section:



All these differences, Archmaester Haereg asserts in his History of the Ironborn, are rooted in religion. These cold, wet, windswept islands were never well forested, and their thin soil did not support the growth of weirwoods.


Then, just a few pages later:



Archmaester Haereg has argued that it was a need for wood that first set the ironborn on this bloody path. In the dawn of days, there were extensive forests on Great Wyk, Harlaw, and Orkmont, but the shipwrights of the isles had such a voracious need for timber that one by one the woods vanished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not inconsistent. Haereg admits forests on three of the islands... out of 7 islands in the archipelago, or 31 in the larger system. That's not well forested when seen as a unit. :) At least, that's how we read it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...