Could the First Men have held off the Andals? If so, how?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

@Khaleesi did nothing wrong

I don't know how good runes were as a writing system, since they represent a single word or picture. So a language that can be written, spoken and read would be adapted. If a Stark wanted to send a raven they'd need to be in that language, so they adapted to it as such. But that makes a new question, did ravens just use written rune messages, or speak when they were used by FM and the Andals with their written language "killed" the speaking ravens and made them written messages? Are runes able to create an entire language? And the house system came with the Andals, and the North adapted to that, it's just their gods and way of life they kept the same. And even those were diluted.

Is that how the First Men runes were? The real runic alphabets I know of were just that, alphabets. Not only single words or pictures. You could write texts just fine with them if you wanted to.

I'm not sure that the house system came with the Andals. The World book seems to indicate that things worked much the same before they arrived both in the North and South, what with how the Starks conquered the North from other houses (many remaining today) and so on. Even if it is pretty weird, since we are talking about bronze age tribal kingdoms here rather than high medieval western Europe... but GRRM seems to have a real thing for noble houses and feudalism for some reason.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Is that how the First Men runes were? The real runic alphabets I know of were just that, alphabets. Not only single words or pictures. You could write texts just fine with them if you wanted to.

I'm not sure that the house system came with the Andals. The World book seems to indicate that things worked much the same before they arrived both in the North and South, what with how the Starks conquered the North from other houses (many remaining today) and so on. Even if it is pretty weird, since we are talking about bronze age tribal kingdoms here rather than high medieval western Europe... but GRRM seems to have a real thing for noble houses and feudalism for some reason.

I'm probably wrong bwaha... It's based on FM houses being shortened name and how symbols such as runes usually mean a single thing. Like cave paintings, many indigenous Australian symbols or Japanese kanji, a single picture could mean a single word or even a sentence, but it meant just that. Iirc it's said that writing (sentences and stuff) came with Andals, which sort of suggests runes were singular symbols.

Looking at both wildlings and mountain clans culture, which is not a house system (and in some places in the Iron Islands) I'd say the house system came with Andals. The Stark, the Drumm, the Soarr, the Wull as opposed to House Stark, House Drumm and House Sparr etc. Feudalism is were fit is at now, but there are traces of Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures too. The Ironborns say fuck you to feudalism however :P

I'm not sure if sigils came with Andals too.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I'm probably wrong bwaha... It's based on FM houses being shortened name and how symbols such as runes usually mean a single thing. Like cave paintings, many indigenous Australian symbols or Japanese kanji, a single picture could mean a single word or even a sentence, but it meant just that. Iirc it's said that writing (sentences and stuff) came with Andals, which sort of suggests runes were singular symbols.

Looking at both wildlings and mountain clans culture, which is not a house system (and in some places in the Iron Islands) I'd say the house system came with Andals. The Stark, the Drumm, the Soarr, the Wull as opposed to House Stark, House Drumm and House Sparr etc. Feudalism is were fit is at now, but there are traces of Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures too. The Ironborns say fuck you to feudalism however :P

I'm not sure if sigils came with Andals too.

Well I guess the FM could have used a, well, simpler runic alphabet. Though your example of Japanese kanji show that it is very possible to have an effective written language with symbols meaning words or sentences rather than letters too. I mean, it's not exactly like Japan is stuck in the stone age...

Eh, I don't know. The world book doesn't really give an impression that things were very different. Like, most houses in Westeros even seem to predate the Andal invasions as well as living in the very same castles, and controlling pretty much the same lands as they did all those millennia ago. Like the Boltons, Dustins, Glovers, Royces, etc. They just aren't called kings any longer. Likewise if you read about the Gardeners in the Reach or the Durrandons in the Stormlands and so on. Those texts also give the impression of a society that was pretty similar to now. The Ironborn, Wildings etc are probably more like outsider cultures that never really were like the rest.

There is also a distinct lack of tribes or ethnicities when reading about pre-Andal Westeros. People and lands were just like now identified by which noble house they belonged to, rather than which tribe or people or what the lands were called. It is always "Boltons of the Dreadfort" or "Starks of Winterfell" or the like. Not "King xxxx of the xxxx tribe" or similar. So I think it seems to have been pretty "feudal", just like Westeros is now.

[Dofs]

Thanks Dofs! I imagine that the Lannisters had the Casterly Rock lands and surrounds (not the entire region, like Gardeners, Suarks and Durrandonds) but through Andal marriages they conquered the rest of the he Westerlands. There is quite a few major Andal Westerland houses, so I imagine they conquered them later on.

Well, I don't have the book with me right now, but as far as I remember, Lannisters already controlled almost whole Westerlands (Houses like Reynes, Westerlings etc already were their bannermen), and after uniting with the Andals just expanded their territory more, like taking Fair Isle under their control and some other regions. Before coming of the Andals Lannisters were already strong enough to successfully deal with Ironborn (and even raid them themselves), and then be able to crush the Andals themselves multiple times (though if they were already so strong, I wonder why they didn't control the whole Westerlands already). And as far as I remember, it was said that the Westerlands Andal Houses were established only when the Lannisters took them in by taking Andal children as wards and intermarrying their bannermen with them (Lannisters themselves didn't marry the Andals). So I guess these major Andal Houses appeared only because Lannisters gave them some lands and not through conquest, basically Gardener style. The Lannister - Andal marriage was created long after the Andal invasion and as I see it, it was just a coincidence, an issue with inheritance, and not a deliberate political move that at one point Lannisters themselves became part First Man/ part Andal.

[Lion of the West]

The only way that the First Men could have stood up is if they had big hard-ons for the concept of race wars. And that would have sent a bit of a strange message in the books.

[Vikingkingq]

My book was stolen and gift wrapped for Chrsitmas, but off the top of my head I can think of Blackwood, Corbray? And Arryn marriages too. Rogers as well (one Roger was ment to be a Royce, or both I can't recall). Tully as well. And Westerling and Manderly.

Blackwoods are First Men, as are Royces. Starks have sometimes married out to Andal houses but history has worked out that they didn't marry in to the main branch or didn't have issue (as was the case in both Manderly marriages), until Catelyn Tully.

If we examine the main branch of House Stark: Eddard's father and mother were both Starks. His mother had Flints, Royces, Karstarks, another Stark, Glovers, and Lockes in her family tree. His father had Lockes, Blackwoods, and then it's back to the Flints, Royces, Karstarks, Starks, Glovers, Lockes.

If we go back before Benjen Stark, Cregan Stark's grandfather we're unlikely to find more Andals, because Cregan was likely born around 100 AC, and two generations back would put us pretty close to Torrhen, the King who Kneeled.

[mediterraneo]

If the WB is Andal propaganda, why does it talk about the Northerners hammering the Andal is invaders?

I've read others claiming it's Lannister propaganda...is it gonna devolve into being the propaganda for any counter-point we don't enjoy?

:agree: the World of Ice and Fire may be a very unreliable source, but it is the only one we have. We must motivate very well the reasons we have to believe any single part of it could be willing manipulations, or even errors in transmission.

But hey, on the oldest stories the Maester writing it refers of doubts, of different versions of stories he heard, of debate, of tentative reconstructions, of inconsistencies...

We should be very careful with taking single sentences to the letter, with it.

Getting to my point: the Andals did conquer Westeros with their arms.

Almost every kingdom claims having defeated all of the invaders, but then add something about marrying into the invaders, exchanging marriages with this or that leader of this or that specifical band or clan or group of families in the Andal's flood.

Most often Andal leaders are referred as warband leaders, in a context in which expelling them seems an impossibility, and in which siding with them seems the only way to win a local war, against other local groups.

No ruler in the southern continental Westeros could rule against the religion of the Andals for thousands of years: their legiptimation principle is one of the main legiptimation principles in the land: the relationship between a sworn sword and his liege, in the name of the gods, exchanging service and protection. In a word, knighthood, or feudalism.

People may not agree, but as the Westerosi do I count it as a military victory for the Andals and for those who chose to side with them, intermarry with them, adopt their gods and stop trying to expel them. Even if marrying with a local House was still a good way to pacify your surroundings - and a practical necessity if some of the groups were warbands demographically dominated by young males.

Another related thing.

Looking at the descriptions of the First Men and their kingdoms, they do appear very different between themselves.

The Maester "writing the book" notes the strange position of the Ironborn, but also the southern, "original" First Men religion, based on fertility with Garth Greenhand as its main "god" or "demigod" or whatever, is very different from the Stormlands tales about their gods and Durran's rebellion against them.

There are similitudes too. The little we have about the old Blackmont's relationship with giant black vultures is fascinatingly similar to the Stark relationship with giant grey wolves. But globally the differences in mithologies are striking, with at least four cultural centers in the Reach with Garth Greenhand, in the Stormlands and stormgods, in the Iron Islands - whose religion calls Strom God the enemy of their own, and the North with a strange relationship with the Winter and its creature, the Children and the trees.

But it seems that there were very different First Men cultures, before, while now we have a more unified kingdom. We don't have the tools needed to analize how much of this is due to Targaryen unification efforts and how much was already ongoing due to the unifying presence of the Andals, of the organized expression of their religion or of the Citadel.

Cheers!

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Well I guess the FM could have used a, well, simpler runic alphabet. Though your example of Japanese kanji show that it is very possible to have an effective written language with symbols meaning words or sentences rather than letters too. I mean, it's not exactly like Japan is stuck in the stone age...

Eh, I don't know. The world book doesn't really give an impression that things were very different. Like, most houses in Westeros even seem to predate the Andal invasions as well as living in the very same castles, and controlling pretty much the same lands as they did all those millennia ago. Like the Boltons, Dustins, Glovers, Royces, etc. They just aren't called kings any longer. Likewise if you read about the Gardeners in the Reach or the Durrandons in the Stormlands and so on. Those texts also give the impression of a society that was pretty similar to now. The Ironborn, Wildings etc are probably more like outsider cultures that never really were like the rest.

There is also a distinct lack of tribes or ethnicities when reading about pre-Andal Westeros. People and lands were just like now identified by which noble house they belonged to, rather than which tribe or people or what the lands were called. It is always "Boltons of the Dreadfort" or "Starks of Winterfell" or the like. Not "King xxxx of the xxxx tribe" or similar. So I think it seems to have been pretty "feudal", just like Westeros is now.

Going by the world book alone is sort of tenacious since it misses a lot. Is that even what tenacious means tho lol

Anyway. First Men had a High King system, Andals did not. The change of the Starks from Kings of Winter to Kings in the North might also have some meaning, although that might be what they just refer to themselves as once they consolidated the North. The titile The Stark or the Bolton surely suggests a change in title, and as such format. At least to me, it's a change, so something has changed. But perhaps you are right, and the house system is a FM thing? Andals were led by warlords and war chiefs, but the FM were probably a similar format once they first arrived, so it's hard to say. Many FM descend from gods so... Blegh...

Well, I don't have the book with me right now, but as far as I remember, Lannisters already controlled almost whole Westerlands (Houses like Reynes, Westerlings etc already were their bannermen), and after uniting with the Andals just expanded their territory more, like taking Fair Isle under their control and some other regions. Before coming of the Andals Lannisters were already strong enough to successfully deal with Ironborn (and even raid them themselves), and then be able to crush the Andals themselves multiple times (though if they were already so strong, I wonder why they didn't control the whole Westerlands already). And as far as I remember, it was said that the Westerlands Andal Houses were established only when the Lannisters took them in by taking Andal children as wards and intermarrying their bannermen with them (Lannisters themselves didn't marry the Andals). So I guess these major Andal Houses appeared only because Lannisters gave them some lands and not through conquest, basically Gardener style. The Lannister - Andal marriage was created long after the Andal invasion and as I see it, it was just a coincidence, an issue with inheritance, and not a deliberate political move that at one point Lannisters themselves became part First Man/ part Andal.

I'm pretty sure the Andal invasion was meant to be different in each region, but this took to long. There is a lot of names that are thrown around which nothing becomes of.

Durrandons controlled the whole region, lost most of it, and won it back.

Lannisters may have been the same as Durrandon, or had the western westerlands (Westerling, Banefort, Crakehall lands) and then fought and won the Marbrand, Tarbeck, Lefford lands once they had arrived, or controlled the whole region, and lost it to Andals but retook it with strategic marriages. I prefer the "controlled half the westerlands" option, but what can you do.

In terms of blood, the Targaryens conquered Westeros, but it isn't a Valyrian continent. The people of Qesteros are just as much First Men as they are Andal. Even of a Stark married a Royce, that Royce would have Arryn blood which is Andal predominantly. When a house is Andal or FM, it's pretty much just referring to their origin.

[Dofs]

I'm pretty sure the Andal invasion was meant to be different in each region, but this took to long. There is a lot of names that are thrown around which nothing becomes of.

Durrandons controlled the whole region, lost most of it, and won it back.

Lannisters may have been the same as Durrandon, or had the western westerlands (Westerling, Banefort, Crakehall lands) and then fought and won the Marbrand, Tarbeck, Lefford lands once they had arrived, or controlled the whole region, and lost it to Andals but retook it with strategic marriages. I prefer the "controlled half the westerlands" option, but what can you do.

In terms of blood, the Targaryens conquered Westeros, but it isn't a Valyrian continent. The people of Qesteros are just as much First Men as they are Andal. Even of a Stark married a Royce, that Royce would have Arryn blood which is Andal predominantly. When a house is Andal or FM, it's pretty much just referring to their origin.

I dunno, I was under the impression after reading the World book that what happened in the Westerlands and the Reach was approximately the same, except for Reach didn't fight them in the beginning as Lannisters did. There is nothing said about Lannisters losing anything. As far as I remember, it was said that the first Andal invasion met a bloody end under one Lannister kings, and the later Andal invasions met the same end under that king's successors. Then, one king and his son saw that soon they would start loosing and united with the Andals instead. It was said that at that time the blood of Westermen 'run gold' or something and only during this time all Andal Houses were established in Westerlands like Marbrand, Tarbeck etc. So I was under impression that these Andal Houses were established under Lannister rule from the very beginning. Basically Marbrands, Tarbecks etc didn't have any lands until Lannisters didn't give them.

But in terms of blood, yeah. Every house in the South and a lot of them in the North are part Andal/part First Man in the blood. It doesn't really matter now. What matters now is Westerlands Houses, Riverland Houses etc. First Man or Andal - it does not matter.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

I dunno, I was under the impression after reading the World book that what happened in the Westerlands and the Reach was approximately the same, except for Reach didn't fight them in the beginning as Lannisters did. There is nothing said about Lannisters losing anything. As far as I remember, it was said that the first Andal invasion met a bloody end under one Lannister kings, and the later Andal invasions met the same end under that king's successors. Then, one king and his son saw that soon they would start loosing and united with the Andals instead. It was said that at that time the blood of Westermen 'run gold' or something and only during this time all Andal Houses were established in Westerlands like Marbrand, Tarbeck etc. So I was under impression that these Andal Houses were established under Lannister rule from the very beginning. Basically Marbrands, Tarbecks etc didn't have any lands until Lannisters didn't give them.

But in terms of blood, yeah. Every house in the South and a lot of them in the North are part Andal/part First Man in the blood. It doesn't really matter now. What matters now is Westerlands Houses, Riverland Houses etc. First Man or Andal - it does not matter.

Ahh ok, now I understand, but I sort of disagree. One Lannister had to fight three kings which would suggest that these kings already had lands right? That was the impression I got. No point naming yourself kings unless you had a kingdom.

Yeah I don't think blood matters, except in terms of skinchanging and green dreams. Andal and FM appearances are interchangeable. White/pink skin and numerous hair and eye colours.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ahh ok, now I understand, but I sort of disagree. One Lannister had to fight three kings which would suggest that these kings already had lands right? That was the impression I got. No point naming yourself kings unless you had a kingdom.

Vale and Riverlands. Especially Riverlands, as those were split in the immediate aftermath of the Andal invasion and border the Westerlands anyway.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Vale and Riverlands. Especially Riverlands, as those were split in the immediate aftermath of the Andal invasion and border the Westerlands anyway.

Ahh of course. However, if the Lannisters defeated them (which I can't remember if they did) would they not have possessed those lands? So can't be Vale, and which part of the Riverlands would it be? It wasn't the Teagues or Justmans either, that surely would have been mentioned. Must have been petty or minor kings, that existed in between those two kingdoms.

Or Andal kings who took over the Westerlands. Would be nice to know which three.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ahh of course. However, if the Lannisters defeated them (which I can't remember if they did) would they not have possessed those lands? So can't be Vale, and which part of the Riverlands would it be? It wasn't the Teagues or Justmans either, that surely would have been mentioned. Must have been petty or minor kings, that existed in between those two kingdoms.

Or Andal kings who took over the Westerlands. Would be nice to know which three.

Conquering and holding lands is damn difficult and requires a much bigger investment if it can be done at all. Especially at a distance.

It's explicitly mentioned that the Riverlands were split up between a couple Andal kings soon after the Mudds were defeated. The Justmans were the first to reunite them several centuries later.

It's very likely that those Andal kings were the ones defeated by the Lannisters.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Conquering and holding lands is damn difficult and requires a much bigger investment if it can be done at all. Especially at a distance.

It's explicitly mentioned that the Riverlands were split up between a couple Andal kings soon after the Mudds were defeated. The Justmans were the first to reunite them several centuries later.

It's very likely that those Andal kings were the ones defeated by the Lannisters.

The holding lands is what makes me think they were Andal westerlander kings. 3 random petty kings wouldn't be able to defeat the Lannisters so that's why I think the Lannisters attacked and defeated them. No point fighting a battle u can't win. I stick by my point even though there is no point in bothering lol. Perhaps something will shed more light on it.

This bloody book leaves more questions then answers......

[Dofs]

Ahh ok, now I understand, but I sort of disagree. One Lannister had to fight three kings which would suggest that these kings already had lands right? That was the impression I got. No point naming yourself kings unless you had a kingdom.

Yeah I don't think blood matters, except in terms of skinchanging and green dreams. Andal and FM appearances are interchangeable. White/pink skin and numerous hair and eye colours.

Well, I don't have a book with me now, so I can't check, but I don't remember any Andal kings being mentioned at all in the Westerlands section - not three, not even one. What I remember is that after uniting with the Andals they took a Fair Island into their kingdom, making a Farman king put down his crown and bend the knee to the the Lannisters but Farmans are First Men and not Andals. And there were some other petty kings or lords from other kingdoms that they conquered/ took in into their kingdom, but they were not Andals, as far as I remember.

[Sword of the Morgan]

I think it's pretty clear that they could not have, and did not.