Jump to content
Queen Rhaenyra

Errors in the WOIAF

Recommended Posts

Ran: this has been a topic of discussion lately so going to go ahead and ask this for clarification: How does Yandel know that Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, and Gerold Hightower died together?

 

For this reason, the Swords of the Morning are all famous throughout the Seven Kingdoms. There are boys who secretly dream of being a son of Starfall so they might claim that storied sword and its title. Most famous of all was Ser Arthur Dayne, the deadliest of King Aerys II's Kingsguard, who defeated the Kingswood Brotherhood and won renown in every tourney and mêlée. He died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat. Lord Stark then returned Dawn to Starfall, and to Ser Arthur's kin, as a sign of respect.

 

Did Ned tell people that he had killed the 3 KG and thus it's a historical well known fact that Yandel is reporting here, or did Yandel just report this based on rumors that they had been killed by Ned? Or is it a continuity error that Yandel shouldn't know this as Ned kept it to himself that he had battled and killed them?

Edited by King of the Narrow Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be centuries before the Iron Islands recovered, a long slow climb back up to prosperity and power. Of the kings who reigned during this bleak age, we need not treat. Many were puppets of the lords or priests. A few were more like the reavers of the Age of Heroes, men such as Harrag Hoare and his son Ravos the Raper who savaged the North in the years of the Hungry Wolf's reign, but they were rare and far between.

 

Ran, are Harrag and Ravos being used as examples of reavers from the Age of Heroes or as kings from "this bleak age"? The answer would be helpful in discerning when Theon Stark lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ran, are Harrag and Ravos being used as examples of reavers from the Age of Heroes or as kings from "this bleak age"? The answer would be helpful in discerning when Theon Stark lived.

 

I don't think I responded when you raised this query in the "When did the Andals arrive" thread, but I honestly don't see any confusion or ambiguity in that statement. Harrag and Ravos are clearly listed as examples of the "A few more", meaning they are recent Hoare kings, but with the qualities of the ancient Driftwood kings.

 

The sentence structure makes that pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This passage has always bugged me.

 

 Though many houses have their heirloom swords, they mostly pass the blades down from lord to lord. Some, such as the Corbrays have done, may lend the blade to a son or brother for his lifetime, only to have it return to the lord. But that is not the way of House Dayne. The wielder of Dawn is always given the title of Sword of the Morning, and only a knight of House Dayne who is deemed worthy can carry it.

 

What's really the difference here? Dawn is lent to whoever is deemed worthy to carry it within House Dayne, regardless of who is the current lord. How is that not the same thing as the Corbrays just giving Lady Forlorn to whoever they decided should wield it? Same with any family who decides to give a blade to a family member as opposed to who owns it by being the lord of the house. Dawn is given to whoever is deemed most worthy of it, which is really the same thing as Randyll deciding that Dickon gets Heartsbane over Sam, Lord Corbray giving Lyn Lady Forlorn instead of passing it down to his eldest son, Aenys I giving Maegor Blackfyre instead of giving it to his sons, Aegon IV giving Daemon Blackfyre instead of giving it to Daeron etc.

 

They all just decided to give the blade to whoever they deemed worthy of it. All that seems special is that House Dayne requires that that person be a knight. But otherwise it's not really a special way of passing on the blade compared to anybody else who decides not to just automatically give it to the next lord so I don't really understand the purpose of this passage or what the distinction being made is supposed to be.

Edited by King of the Narrow Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I responded when you raised this query in the "When did the Andals arrive" thread, but I honestly don't see any confusion or ambiguity in that statement. Harrag and Ravos are clearly listed as examples of the "A few more", meaning they are recent Hoare kings, but with the qualities of the ancient Driftwood kings.

 

The sentence structure makes that pretty clear.

 

The reason I ask is that while reading AFFC and TWOIAF, my understanding was that Harrag was a driftwood king, not a hereditary iron king. The Damphair mentions Harrag and the Old Kraken being chosen by kingsmoot, and TWOIAF's North chapter states Harrag and Ravos were before the Old Kraken, Loron Greyjoy. I remember a lot of digital ink over the issue in the Andal arrival thread!

 

George clarifies here that when in doubt the novels trump the world book. Either Harrag was a kingsmoot king as per AFFC, or he was an iron king and the Damphair is thus an unreliable narrator.

 

Ran indicated he had a possible solution for a timeline discrepancy here and some possible solutions for Qhored here. So, I'm wondering if George has approved any corrections/clarification/retconning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This passage has always bugged me.

 

 

What's really the difference here? Dawn is lent to whoever is deemed worthy to carry it within House Dayne, regardless of who is the current lord. How is that not the same thing as the Corbrays just giving Lady Forlorn to whoever they decided should wield it? Same with any family who decides to give a blade to a family member as opposed to who owns it by being the lord of the house. Dawn is given to whoever is deemed most worthy of it, which is really the same thing as Randyll deciding that Dickon gets Heartsbane over Sam, Lord Corbray giving Lyn Lady Forlorn instead of passing it down to his eldest son, Aenys I giving Maegor Blackfyre instead of giving it to his sons, Aegon IV giving Daemon Blackfyre instead of giving it to Daeron etc.

 

They all just decided to give the blade to whoever they deemed worthy of it. All that seems special is that House Dayne requires that that person be a knight. But otherwise it's not really a special way of passing on the blade compared to anybody else who decides not to just automatically give it to the next lord so I don't really understand the purpose of this passage or what the distinction being made is supposed to be.

For the Corbray's, if the sword is given to a son, upon that person's death, the sword is returned to the Lord of the House (whoever that is), and is his to use.

 

Dawn, however, is used only by the Sword of the Morning. Currently in the story, there is a Lord Dayne (Edric), but no Sword of the Morning, so Dawn is no one's to use.

 

Randyll's situation is giving the sword to his heir. That's one of the reasons he forced Samwell to give up his claim; so the lands, titles, and the sword would go to a heir he deemed worthy. It's not like he was willing to give Heartbane to Dickon whilst letting Samwell remain heir; nor is Dickon getting the sword as long as Randyll lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Corbray's, if the sword is given to a son, upon that person's death, the sword is returned to the Lord of the House (whoever that is), and is his to use.

 

Dawn, however, is used only by the Sword of the Morning. Currently in the story, there is a Lord Dayne (Edric), but no Sword of the Morning, so Dawn is no one's to use.

 

Randyll's situation is giving the sword to his heir. That's one of the reasons he forced Samwell to give up his claim; so the lands, titles, and the sword would go to a heir he deemed worthy. It's not like he was willing to give Heartbane to Dickon whilst letting Samwell remain heir; nor is Dickon getting the sword as long as Randyll lives.

 

But Edric still has the sword in his possession. It's sitting at Starfall, his keep, according to an SSM. He's just not personally wielding it and no one else is, but he still owns it. The sword returns to the lord of the house upon it's current wielder's death. It just isn't automatically given out to someone new, but it still goes back to the lord. So what's the actual difference? House Dayne is still just giving Dawn to whoever they deem worthy to wield it. They just decide that no one wields it if no one's worthy but they still are a family that gives out that sword based on worthiness, not lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the Lord of House Dayne is the Sword of the Morning he can...

If he is the Sword of the Morning, yes. The current Lord Dayne is not the Sword of the Morning. Currently, there is no Sword of the Morning. So no one currently uses the sword Dawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is the Sword of the Morning, yes. The current Lord Dayne is not the Sword of the Morning. Currently, there is no Sword of the Morning. So no one currently uses the sword Dawn.

 

But it's still Edric's sword. He's just not allowed to use it because he's not the Sword of the Morning (and he's only a squire so he's not even eligible to be it). Arthur died, and the sword went back to the Lord of House Dayne's possession. The Lord just gives it to whoever he deems worthy of it. Edric and Edric's father have both just not deemed anybody worthy of wielding it, but it's still their sword to give out to whoever fulfills House Dayne's criteria of what it means to be "worthy" of Dawn.

 

There's no distinction in my mind. They just give out the sword to who they want for their lifetime, then it goes back to the lord's possession until he decides another is worthy to wield it. The lord can't wield it unless he himself is worthy, but it's still his sword to give out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the lord's, either. We don't even know if the lord of the house is the person who determines who is worthy.

 

Consider the lord to be guardian of the sword in lieu of a Sword of the Morning, rather than owner of the sword. Like ... a lawyer may be executor of an estate, but that doesn't mean they own the estate.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't been given any insight into how it is decided who is worthy, or who decides, or whose possession it is in until it is decided by whoever decides. There is no basis at all to say that the sword is Edric's or in Edric's possession or Edric's to decide what to do with. It is in Starfall, that is all we know. Edric is somewhere in the Riverlands, without the sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not so difficult to understand. There is some process the Daynes obey how to find out who a Sword of the Morning is or can be. They honor this process because they want to. They could change it, of course, unless magic is involved. And I would not be surprised if there had been some Daynes who wielded it against the custom, simply because they could or because they had to - say, you are attacked, and the only sword in reach is Dawn. What do you do?

 

By the way, was Vorian Dayne a Sword of the Morning or did he only get the moniker 'Sword of the Evening' because he lost his crown? The question is intriguing because Ser Davos Dayne, Nymeria's third husband, is a confirmed Sword of the Morning, and subsequently could already have been alive and old enough to be the Sword of the Morning when Vorian was brought down - depending on when exactly that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my copy ( polish translation, first edition, October 2014 ):
Aerys I was crowned in 184, and died in !!!! 121 after two years long reign... Edited by Blue Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made an entire thread about an inconsistency regarding the Yi Ti dynasties. Assuming the list of the God-Emperors of Yi Ti is chronological, the problem is that there are not enough dynasties to fit in a period stretching from the fall of Old Ghis (which happened 5000 years ago) to present time. The only reference to the fall of Old Ghis being 5000 years ago comes from Dany. Possible solutions are:

 

  1. The list is not chronological (although it does feel like chronological, not to mention there is no point in giving an unchronological king list in a history book unless you are covering up a mistake :P)
  2. The sources of Yandel about Yi Ti are contradictory as he himself briefly mentioned (but considering that there is such an apparent inconsistency, Yandel either did not assess the accuracy of his sources about Yi Ti enough, or he did not care much)
  3. Dany misremembers the fall of Old Ghis. In order to remove this inconsistency, the fall of Old Ghis should have taken place around 3000-4000 years ago. This would have many consequences to the history of Valyria and other histories related to Valyria.
Edited by Mithras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a Samwell Dayne known as the Starfire who sacked Oldtown. This happened safely in the pre-Andal period. It is unknown whether the Daynes had Dawn or the title Sword of the Morning was formed at this time. Yandel says that the origin of Dawn is lost to legends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote (2). Yandel's not going to dig deep into exploring the problems and inconsistencies of remote foreign history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know who or what decides if a Dayne is worthy to become the Sword of the Morning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×