Anyone let down by Andal and First Men history?

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Other then the Tullys and possibly the Rogers would the Starks have any Andal in them at all?

King Theon Stark literally killed an andal king, strung his body on the prow of his ship, and went to Andalos to burn and sack and loot. He stuck all the heads they'd taken in Essos on pikes on the shore facing them, as a warning.

Pretty sure they didn't accept Andal genes too easily or too lightly. Rickard was after all said to have southron ambitions, maybe he was the first to care enough to marry an Heir into a house with a good bit of Andal ancestry.

We shouldn't make too much about this though, when we did an Ancestry project in school I got my free relative, Great Uncle Wilhelm, German Air Force Pilot. Fought in WW2, I take comfort in the fact his picture showed he was not SS, just normal air force.

Tullys were founded in the Age of Heroes. I don't think its Andal genes I think its Andal culture. Theon Stark and the Northerners fought tooth and nail it doesnt look like they are going to marry them and lose their culture and traditions any time soon like the south did. You have Kingdom after Kingdom where Andal marriages made Kings turn their backs on their heritage.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Those were my main problems as well. I expected that the coming of the Andals would topple the existing order and shake things to the core. But the social status quo never really changed, just some new houses sprang up and positioned themselves right into existing slots. The kingdoms continued as before, in their more or less established borders, their ancient enmities continued much as they have. If I didn't know there were these guys called Andals, I'd be hard pressed to notice any significant difference between, say, pre-Andal Reach and post-Andal Reach, at least as presented in the world book.

Even TWoIaF itself seems to contradict itself, maybe because different parts of the book were written by Martin and Elio/Linda. For example, the early Arrival of the Andals section states the following:

...The First Men found themselves losing war after war, and kingdom after kingdom, to the Andal invaders. The battles and wars were endless, but eventually all the southron kingdoms fell. As with the Valemen, some submitted to the Andals, even taking up the faith of the Seven. In many cases, the Andals took the wives and daughters of the defeated kings to wife. (...) The fact that many southron castles still have godswoods(...) is said to be thanks to the early Andal kings who shifted from conquest to consolidation.

But none of this is true according to later sections. It's not true that all the southron kingdoms fell; in fact the three most significant didn't. It's not true that the southern First Men submitted, taking up the Faith. They took the Faith all right, but majority of them didn't in fact submit and continued as before. The fact that southron castles still have godswoods isn't thanks to early Andal kings because, as indicated, early Andals were never kings over vast majority of southern Westeros. It was primarily the houses of the First Men that preserved weirwood trees, as they were never conquered although they did over time adopt the Faith.

There's evident incongruity at work here.

I find that due to the nature of the book there will be mistakes. 3 different authors through 1 fake one. It is poorly written in sections, and lots of errors, but I'm not sure how much of it can be chalked up to "YANDELS FAULT".

No southron kingdom besides the Royces and Mudds (who were not kingdoms, simply someone to rally behind) fell.

"... it is an error to assert the Durrandons turned back the invaders, for all their victories they never stemmed the Andal tide... The reverse is also true, the Andals never truly conquered the line of Durrandon".

So conquering=marriage?

In the Westerlands, the Lannisters stayed in power, and thanks to the Andals, actually grew more powerful. Gaining the Lydden and Farman lands.

The Andals conquered Masseys Hooks, Tarth, Estermont and then married the Durrandons. They took these lands, and through marriage it was returned. There is no conquering.

The Reach barely changed (besides the religion). The Andal houses are tiny houses (Orme? Uffering? Leygood? these hardly even crack a mention in the main series). The only major thing that changed was the Tyrell thorn in the Gardeners side.

Dorne changed a little. The Greenblood spawned many prominent houses, but every house in Dorne is prominent since there is so few. But in terms of conquering, there was little to be done. (The Martells were vassals to everyone!)

North literally had no change, and same for the Iron Islands. The Hoares married Andals, and gained power to that, but still functioned as an ironborn house, not an Andal one.

The Vale was the only region truly conquered. And the Riverlands were simply split into kingdoms once more.

Any Andal king soon became a First Man vassal, besides in the Vale. I'm gunna require a list of the kingdoms during the Age of a Hundred Kingdoms, we know it was in the age of the First Men.

The Vale seems to be the only area truly conquered. Everywhere else there was just fighting.

[Mr Fixit]

The Vale seems to be the only area truly conquered. Everywhere else there was just fighting.

Exactly. So why are the southern kingdoms considered Andal when culturally, besides the new religion, very little changed? I'd argue that only the Vale and maaaybe Riverlands are predominantly Andal in their genetic makeup. Everyone else is predominantly First Men to this day.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Exactly. So why are the southern kingdoms considered Andal when culturally, besides the new religion, very little changed? I'd argue that only the Vale and maaaybe Riverlands are predominantly Andal in their genetic makeup. Everyone else is predominantly First Men to this day.

I think it depends on what the First Men where truly like. This we don't know (ROONS oN RocCKs R LYeS), but it seems that First Men culture was quite... brutal. Sacrifices to heart trees, cannabilism etc. and also the loss of the Children of the Forest, and thus loss of skinchangers and greenseers seem to be the major changes to FM culture.

Suddenly there is a presence of the Faith Militant, which is a big deal.

And steel, the FM used bronze (and the ironborn used iron) does change things a lot to.

Plus the concept of knighthood and chivalry, these are pretty big things.

Widespread language and reading also.

If we knew more on First Men culture (the current Stark culture is no indicator, besides its roots in honour) then perhaps it would feel as if there are larger changes.

The kingdoms didn't change at all, but arguably the kings did.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

I think we'll soon see how important blood is to magic. The trees seem to feed on blood, they are given life with life. The trees are blood red leaves and white bone bark. The First Men buried their dead under them (Brienne also does this once), the trees feed on the blood allowing the magic. So its brutal but likely not without reason. We know Ned also feeds the heart tree with blood, he cleans his bloody sword in front of it.

The cannibalism is of course desperation in their circumstances.

[Mr Fixit]

If we knew more on First Men culture (the current Stark culture is no indicator, besides its roots in honour) then perhaps it would feel as if there are larger changes.

The kingdoms didn't change at all, but arguably the kings did.

And that is where I think TWoIaF failed. The way it described the southern FM kingdoms, there's almost nothing of that early, primal, and nature-bound culture to be seen. I always point to the Rhoynar as the perfect counterexample. Now there's a culture that was very vivid and different, and really brought change to those it came in contact with. Pre-Rhoynar Dorne and post-Rhoynar Dorne? They're almost worlds apart. Even Ironborn are greatly served in this book, their crazy and specific culture coming alive with every page. Compare that to pre-Andal Reach/Westerlands and post-Andal Reach/Westerlands. They're practically the same thing.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

I think we'll soon see how important blood is to magic. The trees seem to feed on blood, they are given life with life. The trees are blood red leaves and white bone bark. The First Men buried their dead under them (Brienne also does this once), the trees feed on the blood allowing the magic. So its brutal but likely not without reason. We know Ned also feeds the heart tree with blood, he cleans his bloody sword in front of it.

The cannibalism is of course desperation in their circumstances.

So yeah, I think there that there is a difference between the two. The absence of barrows in the south etc. But it all seems based around religion or magic.

And that is where I think TWoIaF failed. The way it described the southern FM kingdoms, there's almost nothing of that early, primal, and nature-bound culture to be seen. I always point to the Rhoynar as the perfect counterexample. Now there's a culture that was very vivid and different, and really brought change to those it came in contact with. Pre-Rhoynar Dorne and post-Rhoynar Dorne? They're almost worlds apart. Even Ironborn are greatly served with this book, their crazy and specific culture coming alive with every page. Compare that to pre-Andal Reach/Westerlands and post-Andal Reach/Westerlands.

Investing a lot into the backstory of one area but little into other causes that. Garth Greenhand sounded very First Man oriented, but I agree, the Gardeners and Lannisters were pretty much Andals, but without the knights.

But the FM in the stormlands were allies to the Children. I think FM culture was shaped a lot by the Children and the Old Gods. The only real differences were in the religions. If say the founding of the maesters occoured with the Andals, that'd be huge, but it didn't. Andals just seem like a go between race for the uber cool Rhoynar, First Men and Valyrians. They bought boats to Westeros I suppose...

[Mr Fixit]

If say the founding of the maesters occoured with the Andals, that'd be huge, but it didn't.

Yeah, it was this bit of info that finally prompted me to start this thread. I can't tell you how much I hated the revelation that the Citadel was an FM thing, after all the time having thought that First Men only had runes and were barely engaged in anything one could call scientific research. I don't know, it would be like discovering that the ancient Celts had this uberfantastic university/academy/research center (and great cities that the Romans never surpassed). Jesus, how much I hate that!

[Ran]

I suspect the nature of the Citadel in the days before the Andals came was probably very different than what they would later become.

[Free Northman Reborn]

An interesting impression I've picked up (and it may be incorrect as I'm only getting the World Book around Christmas time), is that the way in which the Children are automatically associated with the North, primarily, is actually incorrect. This only became the state of affairs after the Andal invasion.

My impression now seems to be that the Children that inhabited the North were kind of the distant, outlying clans or tribes, far from the "royals" of their species. The center of their power - and the highest concentration of their population - was in fact in the South (which is obvious, given that they too would have preferred more fertile climates to the cold of the North).

So it seems many of the southron First Man Houses had even closer ties to the Children than the Northmen had. And it was only when the Children were wiped out by the Andals in the South, that the North kind of became exclusively associated with the Children by default.

To put it differently, the North may well have been inhabited by the "poor cousins" among the Children, with the greatest greenseers and leaders among the Children living in the Riverlands, Stormlands etc.

So where one always kind of had this impression that the North was the center of Children society (or at least I had), the reality is that it was in fact the backwater, eventually becoming the last refuge of the species. Maybe in later years, many of the Southron children fled to the North, thus in effect leading to a change in Children society, no doubt causing turmoil as they now moved the center of their civilization to the North.

But before that they were apparently by far more active and powerful in the South. Is that a correct impression?

[Mr Fixit]

An interesting impression I've picked up (and it may be incorrect as I'm only getting the World Book around Christmas time), is that the way in which the Children are automatically associated with the North, primarily, is actually incorrect. This only became the state of affairs after the Andal invasion.

My impression now seems to be that the Children that inhabited the North were kind of the distant, outlying clans or tribes, far from the "royals" of their species. The center of their power - and the highest concentration of their population - was in fact in the South (which is obvious, given that they too would have preferred more fertile climates to the cold of the North).

So it seems many of the southron First Man Houses had even closer ties to the Children than the Northmen had. And it was only when the Children were wiped out by the Andals in the South, that the North kind of became exclusively associated with the Children by default.

To put it differently, the North may well have been inhabited by the "poor cousins" among the Children, with the greatest greenseers and leaders among the Children living in the Riverlands, Stormlands etc.

So where one always kind of had this impression that the North was the center of Children society (or at least I had), the reality is that it was in fact the backwater, eventually becoming the last refuge of the species. Maybe in later years, many of the Southron children fled to the North, thus in effect leading to a change in Children society, no doubt causing turmoil as they now moved the center of their civilization to the North.

But before that they were apparently by far more active and powerful in the South. Is that a correct impression?

Maybe. The book doesn't say anything conclusive on the subject, but it does seem that many of their holiest places were in the south, High Heart and Isle of Faces, for example.

A bit unrelated, but having read TWoIaF, I'm more certain than ever that the official chronology is wrong and that earlier epochs in fact happened much later than thought. My impressions are that the Andals came around 2,000 years ago (not 4-6,000) and I doubt that the Long Night happened more than, say, 4,000 years ago. Ran, can maester Elinda confirm or deny these claims? :cool4:

[Free Northman Reborn]

The Long Night happened in the East before the Valyrians founded their Empire

So 6000 years ago seems more likely. In other words, the timeline moves forward by 2000 years.

[Mr Fixit]

The Long Night happened in the East before the Valyrians founded their Empire

So 6000 years ago seems more likely. In other words, the timeline moves forward by 2000 years.

Yeah, I know all the theories. TWoIaF, however, has quite a lot of numbers and years, and some of those don't quite add up with LN being so far in the past.

[joluoto2]

Yeah, it was this bit of info that finally prompted me to start this thread. I can't tell you how much I hated the revelation that the Citadel was an FM thing, after all the time having thought that First Men only had runes and were barely engaged in anything one could call scientific research. I don't know, it would be like discovering that the ancient Celts had this uberfantastic university/academy/research center (and great cities that the Romans never surpassed). Jesus, how much I hate that!

The World Book even states that there were less Andals than First Men, which means the majority of the genetic mix in the South is First Men,not Andal. Being Andal seem to be connected to the Faith of the Seven. Basically any believer in the aith seems to also be considered parts of the Andal people (the Dornish may be kinda sorta an exception).

[jet199]

If Westeros was easily accessible from Essos by boat then there is no good reason why technology or culture should have been extremely different. Westeros might have been a bit of a backwater but it was never going to be a, say, conquistadores vs Aztec type situation. I think the common belief that the wildlings are a preserved version of the first men, when the first men were maybe more like the northmen, is part of the issue. There has also been a trend to point at every difference between the north and south as being down to ethnicity when most differences are probably down to the differences in the land and climate. The kings of the reach were never going to be like the kings of winter.

Exactly. So why are the southern kingdoms considered Andal when culturally, besides the new religion, very little changed? I'd argue that only the Vale and maaaybe Riverlands are predominantly Andal in their genetic makeup. Everyone else is predominantly First Men to this day.

Religion is a big factor in people's identity. In the Balkans, were there have been more than a few ethnic wars, racial identity is usually based on religion rather than genetic heritage.

There is also the factor than many powerful lords started to consider themselves as andel while the first men were probably seen as a bit backwards so there was likely to be a bit of a fashion to be andel after the invaders mixed in.

When did the common tongue come in? That would probably have influenced identity as well.

The small folk don't really care what they are until the nation state is invented. Very few invasions in history are invasions of peasants but the names of whole peoples change again and again never the less.

Yeah, it was this bit of info that finally prompted me to start this thread. I can't tell you how much I hated the revelation that the Citadel was an FM thing, after all the time having thought that First Men only had runes and were barely engaged in anything one could call scientific research. I don't know, it would be like discovering that the ancient Celts had this uberfantastic university/academy/research center (and great cities that the Romans never surpassed). Jesus, how much I hate that!

Well they didn't have universities but there certainly were centres which people would travel to to learn oral history and poems verbatim. Celtic knowledge was controlled by the religious class and though they seem to have little writing there is also some evidence that this is because the druids spread a superstition against writing amongst ordinary people to maintain their power. You can imagine the citadel was like that if it makes you feel better.

[Lion of the West]

I had also imagine there to be a larger difference between the First Men and Andals and while I like the idea of it being "Andalized" in by the maesters, the text we have is what we've got.

[Nittanian]

To go along with what others have said, in this chat GRRM stated

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man.

That comment was from ~1999, however, and GRRM made Lannister be a First Men name in TWOIAF.

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

I liked it, but yes, the first men started as rudimental people, they couldn't even sail, but it doesn't mean they had no technology. But andals were more advanced.

I liked to learn about first men and andals houses. House Mudd was cool to learn about and also House Justman, we would never imagined the founder was a bastard from House Blackwood and Bracken.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well, even if we cut 2000 years off the timeline, it still means that 4000 years passed from the Long Night to the arrival of the Andals. The First Men would have developed significantly from a technological perspective over those millenia. So the First Men at the time of the Andal arrival would have been much more advanced than the First Men who first crossed the Arm of Dorne to reach Westeros.

[Bironic]

I was surprised that so many first men houses in the south survived the coming of the andals. Before TWOIAF i thought that there were at most 1-3 surviving first men houses in each kingdom of the south, a wrong assumption after reading TWOIAF.

Even in very Andal regions(Vale, Riverlands), a good part of the powerful noble houses claim to be First men(Royce, Redfort, Hunter, Belmore, Coldwater, Shett, Upcliff in the Vale for example).

Is there any truth in the claim of these houses, that they are indeed First Men? It's certainly true for House Blackwood and Royce because they follow the old gods/have a weirwood/and first men runes, but the Tullys for example lack a weirwood, lack runes, don't follow the old gods, have a more "andal" sort of name, don't bury their dead in barrows or holes, don't speak the old tongue and still they claim to be First men.

In the middle ages there were many noble families who claimed to be descendants of the trojans, which was obviously bullshit. This makes me wonder if the claim of houses like the Tullys are just propaganda too?