The Book of Swords - The Sons of the Dragon SPOILERS

[Bael's Bastard]

1 minute ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I never said they were the source of information. In fact, that' the point of what im saying, they were not the source of information and often reporting about it long after the fact. On top of that, they are reporting from (in the case of the Dance at least) sources that were actually there, but biased to a certain side or what limited knowledge they have. In the Dance, we know the sources, and know most are biased. Like Munkin. Mushroom and Daemon are our only out side sources from any Old Town allegiance. For instance, what ever sources for Jaehaerys they are pulling from, did that source go north with them? To first hand witness at least a good portion of what happened. Or were they at court the whole time? or not even a maester from court? Maybe another court fool? 

It is the nature of histories to compile and comment on previous sources and histories. A history written by a contemporary of just Aegon I, Aenys II, and Maegor I is not going to contain information about the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I. A history written by a contemporary of Aegon III might contain information from contemporaries of Aegon I, Aenys I, and Maegor, and contemporaries of Jaehaerys I and Viserys, and contemporaries of Aegon II and Aegon III, but is not going to contain information about contemporaries of Daeron I, Baelor I, Viserys II, and Aegon IV. Gyldayn was writing, presumably during the reign of Aegon V (233-259 AC), a history of House Targaryen from Aegon I to Aegon V. So he used older sources, whether contemporary or later, which were extant and which he had access to in the years prior to 259 AC. Histories are always going to be biased. Sources are always going to be biased. And when Yandel's and Gyldayn's works are "published" in Westeros, they will have to be checked against the other extant sources on the times and people they compile and write about, including sources they used in their works.

[AlaskanSandman]

16 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It is the nature of histories to compile and comment on previous sources and histories. A history written by a contemporary of just Aegon I, Aenys II, and Maegor I is not going to contain information about the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I. A history written by a contemporary of Aegon III might contain information from contemporaries of Aegon I, Aenys I, and Maegor, and contemporaries of Jaehaerys I and Viserys, and contemporaries of Aegon II and Aegon III, but is not going to contain information about contemporaries of Daeron I, Baelor I, Viserys II, and Aegon IV. Gyldayn was writing, presumably during the reign of Aegon V (233-259 AC), a history of House Targaryen from Aegon I to Aegon V. So he used older sources, whether contemporary or later, which were extant and which he had access to in the years prior to 259 AC. Histories are always going to be biased. Sources are always going to be biased. And when Yandel's and Gyldayn's works are "published" in Westeros, they will have to be checked against the other extant sources on the times and people they compile and write about, including sources they used in their works.

I understand all that.

But, most everything we are being told about is being written from one time period, that of Aegon V.  By Glydan and Kaeth. Glydan is covering from Aegon up till Aegon II, and Kaeth from Daeron I to Daeron II.

This is what we know

Glydane-       Aegon's Conquest

                     Sons of the Dragon

                     Heirs of the Dragon

                     The Rogue Prince            

                                    Daemon Targaryen

                                    Mushroom

                                    Septon Eustace

                                    Grand Maester Runciter

                                    Grand Maester Mellos

                     The Blacks and the Green's 

                                   Grand Maester Munkin - The Dance of the Dragons a True Telling. 

                                   Septon Eustace.

Kaeth            Daeron I

                     Baelor I 

                     Aegon IV

                     Daeron II

 

Kaeth served under Aegon V at K.L. and Glydane served during Aegon V's Reign at Summerhal.

 

So aside from the Dance of the Dragons, we aren't given any other sources, or people keeping tabs of history. In fact, it seems Aegon V is trying to collect everything together at this time. Likely searching for answers to Dragons. Most everything we have though is coming from his time. Why wasn't this actively kept together? Why is it having to all be done in Aegon V's time? 

Only other books we are told about is Harmune's Watchers on the Wall, Haereg's History of the Iron Born and Denestans' Questions (which may have some targaryen information.)

Malleon's histories of the Great Houses is the only possible collection of history being actively kept up. Though, Yandel never mentions this as a source for some reason and neither does Glydan. So make of that what you will.

[Bael's Bastard]

As for other pre-Gyldayn writings, we have mentions of "The Dance of the Dragons: A True Telling" by Septon Munkun, who served as a regent for Aegon III from 131-136 AC, as well as Hand during one of those years, and is implied to have still been alive when Baelor I died in 171 AC, as well as the "Conquest of Dorne" written by King Daeron I. We have no reason to assume there are not extant books written by contemporaries of the first Targaryen kings just because their names and authors have not been explicitly mentioned yet.
 

[AlaskanSandman]

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

As for other pre-Gyldayn writings, we have mentions of "The Dance of the Dragons: A True Telling" by Septon Munkun, who served as a regent for Aegon III from 131-136 AC, as well as Hand during one of those years, and is implied to have still been alive when Baelor I died in 171 AC, as well as the "Conquest of Dorne" written by King Daeron I. We have no reason to assume there are not extant books written by contemporaries of the first Targaryen kings just because their names and authors have not been explicitly mentioned yet.
 

This is true. Or as mentioned above, there is a gap on known knowledge and hence why Aegon V is having his Maesters at K.L. and Summerhall gather together what they can manage. 

[Bael's Bastard]

4 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I understand all that.

But, most everything we are being told about is being written from one time period, that of Aegon V.  By Glydan and Kaeth. Glydan is covering from Aegon up till Aegon II, and Kaeth from Daeron I to Daeron II.

This is what we know

Glydane-       Aegon's Conquest

                     Sons of the Dragon

                     Heirs of the Dragon

                     The Rogue Prince            

                                    Daemon Targaryen

                                    Mushroom

                                    Septon Eustace

                                    Grand Maester Runciter

                                    Grand Maester Mellos

                     The Blacks and the Green's 

                                   Grand Maester Munkin - The Dance of the Dragons a True Telling. 

                                   Septon Eustace.

Kaeth            Daeron I

                     Baelor I 

                     Aegon IV

                     Daeron II

 

Kaeth served under Aegon V at K.L. and Glydane served during Aegon V's Reign at Summerhal.

 

So aside from the Dance of the Dragons, we aren't given any other sources, or people keeping tabs of history. In fact, it seems Aegon V is trying to collect everything together at this time. Likely searching for answers to Dragons. Most everything we have though is coming from his time. Why wasn't this actively kept together? Why is it having to all be done in Aegon V's time? 

Only other books we are told about is Harmune's Watchers on the Wall, Haereg's History of the Iron Born and Denestans' Questions (which may have some targaryen information.)

Malleon's histories of the Great Houses is the only possible collection of history being actively kept up. Though, Yandel never mentions this as a source for some reason and neither does Glydan. So make of that what you will.

But again, remember that Gyldayn's "lost work" is only extant to us fans, not to Westeros. It has never seen the light of day in Westeros. Yet Westeros is not ignorant of that history. So when characters speak of Munkun's work on The Dance of the Dragons, it is not via Gyldayn's unknown-to-Westeros history. It is from Munkun's own work. What Gyldayn attempted to do was make a compilation covering the whole of Targaryen history in Westeros up to his day. But he wasn't the source of Targaryen history. He was working from existing sources, and we have no reason to believe those sources have gone missing since Gyldayn's day.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

But again, remember that Gyldayn's "lost work" is only extant to us fans, not to Westeros. It has never seen the light of day in Westeros. Yet Westeros is not ignorant of that history. So when characters speak of Munkun's work on The Dance of the Dragons, it is not via Gyldayn's unknown-to-Westeros history. It is from Munkun's own work. What Gyldayn attempted to do was make a compilation covering the whole of Targaryen history in Westeros up to his day. But he wasn't the source of Targaryen history. He was working from existing sources, and we have no reason to believe those sources have gone missing since Gyldayn's day.

That doesn't make you at least a little curious? 

The Citadel and Yandel were still happy to find what Glydan wrote. Meaning there is lost knowledge being told to us that the greater Westeros does not know. So what do they know? The Basics? He came, he conquered. He had 2 sisters and they had 3 dragons and these are their names? 

[Bael's Bastard]

Just now, AlaskanSandman said:

That doesn't make you at least a little curious? 

The Citadel and Yandel were still happy to find what Glydan wrote. Meaning there is lost knowledge being told to us that the greater Westeros does not know. So what do they know? The Basics? He came, he conquered. He had 2 sisters and they had 3 dragons and these are their names? 

Curious in the sense that I would always love to know more than we know now, and when we know more, that I would love to know more than we will know then. But not suspicious that Gyldayn made up information that he didn't actually find in sources, or that the sources Gyldayn used are no longer extant.

That what Yandel has found of Gyldayn's lost masterwork has stirred great excitement need not mean that it contains a great deal of otherwise unattested or lost sources or information. Gyldayn set out to write a complete history of House Targaryen despite various sources and histories of House Targaryen already existing.

He saw merit in compiling a more complete history in one work than existed, based on multiple existing sources, and adding his own comments, and why wouldn't maesters today be excited for its discovery based on that alone? It is a forty+ year old work none of them have ever read, even if they have read some of the sources it uses.

[The Wondering Wolf]

I do not think this discussion leads anywhere. The OP obviously started it for the desire to create a scenario where all accounts on Bael's invasion during the reign of Jaehaerys I were not passed on the current generation of maesters.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Curious in the sense that I would always love to know more than we know now, and when we know more, that I would love to know more than we will know then. But not suspicious that Gyldayn made up information that he didn't actually find in sources, or that the sources Gyldayn used are no longer extant.

That what Yandel has found of Gyldayn's lost masterwork has stirred great excitement need not mean that it contains a great deal of otherwise unattested or lost sources or information. Gyldayn set out to write a complete history of House Targaryen despite various sources and histories of House Targaryen already existing.

He saw merit in compiling a more complete history in one work than existed, based on multiple existing sources, and adding his own comments, and why wouldn't maesters today be excited for its discovery based on that alone? It is a forty+ year old work none of them have ever read, even if they have read some of the sources it uses.

Yea but at the same time you say the Maesters should have access to all the same sources Glydan had, as Glydan lived after the fact also. So by your own logic, Glydan's work should be redundant and easily accomplishable by Yandel with our Glydan having already collected the sources together. 

[AlaskanSandman]

10 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I do not think this discussion leads anywhere. The OP obviously started it for the desire to create a scenario where all accounts on Bael's invasion during the reign of Jaehaerys I were not passed on the current generation of maesters.

I dont think you wan't to have a reasonable conversation without being rude and snarky as some way of somehow validating your personal view. And in circles we go

[Ran]

 

14 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

a scenario where all accounts on Bael's invasion during the reign of Jaehaerys I were not passed on the current generation of maesters.

Are you sure? That scenario is impossible. Bael's a pre-Targaryen figure. The reason Gyldayn is used as Yandel's primary source for much of the Targaryen era is simply the reality that George wanted a particular voice to write in, and so he assigned it to this Gyldayn figure. Gyldayn uses sources just like everyone else, he just happened to write everything up with a style and methodology that we suppose appealed a lot to Yandel.

[AlaskanSandman]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

Are you sure? That scenario is impossible. Bael's a pre-Targaryen figure. The reason Gyldayn is used as Yandel's primary source for much of the Targaryen era is simply the reality that George wanted a particular voice to write in, and so he assigned it to this Gyldayn figure. Gyldayn uses sources just like everyone else, he just happened to write everything up with a style and methodology that we suppose appealed a lot to Yandel.

I think it was meant more of a back handed snarky comment to me, based on threads i've done. I haven't brought up Jaehaerys or Bael in this thread so i dont know why it's being brought up in this conversation.

But they'll be happy to hear you say Bael is a pre-Targaryen figure hahah  

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Are you sure? That scenario is impossible. Bael's a pre-Targaryen figure.

I am sure that Bael did not live during the time of any Targaryen king, but the user who started the current discussion by asking for Gyldayn's sources is quite convinced of the opposite. When it was pointed out to him that such an invasion would have been covered by the maesters (and thus Yandel would have no reason to question Bael's existence in the first place), he came here and tried to find reasons to dismiss any account we have on the first century AC by stating that all the original chronicles might have been lost.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 minute ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I am sure that Bael did not live during the time of any Targaryen king, but the user who started the current discussion by asking for Gyldayn's sources is quite convinced of the opposite. When it was pointed out to him that such an invasion would have been covered by the maesters (and thus Yandel would have no reason to question Bael's existence in the first place), he came here and tried to find reasons to dismiss any account we have on the first century AC by stating that all the original chronicles might have been lost.

Well that' quite presumptuous and rude lol and my other thread conceded Bael may be pre-Targaryen based on the quotes. But yes i was hoping my theory may prove true. How ever neither was the point here or in the other thread. It's to flush out information more which ever way it leads. Your arguments were just not convincing to me. No reason to be rude or snarky

[AlaskanSandman]

12 hours ago, Ran said:

 

Are you sure? That scenario is impossible. Bael's a pre-Targaryen figure. The reason Gyldayn is used as Yandel's primary source for much of the Targaryen era is simply the reality that George wanted a particular voice to write in, and so he assigned it to this Gyldayn figure. Gyldayn uses sources just like everyone else, he just happened to write everything up with a style and methodology that we suppose appealed a lot to Yandel.

Quote

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.

Bael - Yep

Rhaegar - Yep

Peter Baelish - Yep

Dayne - Nope (Dorne)

House Stane - Nope (Skagos)

So aside from the obvious question about Little Finger.

What can you tell me about Bael? Since the first time we see Bael spelled in world, is by Yandel. Yet its always spelled Bael by the Author. Not Bayle. 

Is this due to Bael's blood, or who began this "tale" ?

[The Grey Wolf]

4 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Bael - Yep

Rhaegar - Yep

Peter Baelish - Yep

Dayne - Nope (Dorne)

House Stane - Nope (Skagos)

So aside from the obvious question about Little Finger.

What can you tell me about Bael? Since the first time we see Bael spelled in world, is by Yandel. Yet its always spelled Bael by the Author. Not Bayle. 

Is this due to Bael's blood, or who began this "tale" ?

The answer is in the quote. Ae usually indicates Valyrian descent but not always. For example, we know House Baelish is from Braavos and there is a local Westerosi legend involving a Princess Daeryssa.

[The hairy bear]

Not to mention Aeron Damphair, or the maesters.

Sadly, George is not great at depicting languages or cultural differences among groups. It is very difficult to identify real patterns within the different names in different regions (trust me, I tried and it was a frustrating and useless effort).

 

 

[Bael's Bastard]

17 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Yea but at the same time you say the Maesters should have access to all the same sources Glydan had, as Glydan lived after the fact also. So by your own logic, Glydan's work should be redundant and easily accomplishable by Yandel with our Glydan having already collected the sources together. 

@AlaskanSandman

No, that's not my own logic, nor do I think your conclusion is correct.

GRRM tells us that Fire & Blood, a monumental history of the Targaryen kings of Westeros written from the perspective of Archmaester Gyldayn, is a popular history "akin to Thomas B. Costain’s monumental (and wonderfully entertaining) four-volume history of the Plantagenets."

We can safely assume that Gyldayn, like Costain, did not set out to write a redundant work. He would have used information from existing documentation and sources, together with his own learned thoughts and insights, to produce unique narratives of people and events.

Costain was writing about kings who had been dead for centuries, and had already been subject to countless complete histories, and yet he didn't consider his attempt too redundant to be worth writing, nor do those who enjoy it consider it too redundant to be worth reading.

Gyldayn, on the other hand, was writing while the Targaryen dynasty still existed. And while some of those kings had been dead centuries, decades, or years, kings about whom he would have depended on existing documentation and sources to inform his work, he also would have personally lived through some of their reigns, and had knowledge and opinions based not only on documentation, but experience.

Aside from all that, Gyldayn was likely the first person to write a history of the Targaryen kings up to his time. The most extensive history I can recall is Kaeth's work on Daeron I, Baelor I, [Viserys II,] Aegon IV, and Daeron II, whose reigns covered a span of about 52-53 years.

There may very well be other histories that cover longer periods, whether earlier or later than the period Kaeth's covers, but it seems likely that nobody before Gyldayn had attempted as comprehensive a history of the Targaryen dynasty as he did, and certainly not with his own insights and voice.

We need only read Yandel's statements about his own attempt to see why Gyldayn's work wouldn't be redundant:

"And so I did. I forged the first link in my chain at three-and-ten, and other links followed. I completed my chain and took my oaths in the ninth year of the reign of King Robert, the First of His Name, and found myself blessed to continue at the Citadel, to serve the archmaesters and aid them in all that they did. It was a great honor, but my greatest desire was to create a work of mine own, a work that humble but lettered men might read—and read to their wives and children—so that they would learn of things both good and wicked, just and unjust, great and small, and grow wiser as I had grown wiser amidst the learning of the Citadel. And so I set myself to work once more at my forge, to make new and notable matter around the masterworks of the long-dead maesters who came before me. What follows herein sprang from that desire: a history of deeds gallant and wicked, peoples familiar and strange, and lands near and far."

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

Not to mention Aeron Damphair, or the maesters.

Sadly, George is not great at depicting languages or cultural differences among groups. It is very difficult to identify real patterns within the different names in different regions (trust me, I tried and it was a frustrating and useless effort).

 

 

Missed the point with Aeron Damphair. That's after the Targaryen invasion and not likely a name native to the Iron Born. Going for words or names we know for sure belong to a culture. 

Maesters are a maybe and worth mentioning though as from the Age of Heroes we have Daeryssa and possibly Bael.

[The hairy bear]

12 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Missed the point with Aeron Damphair. That's after the Targaryen invasion and not likely a name native to the Iron Born.

Why do you claim that Aeron is "not likely a name native to the Iron Born"? I think it's cheating a little bit to claim that the name is not likely Iron Born just because it doesn't fit your theory, instead of opening the door to the possibility that your theory is not universal since there are names that do not fit.

In fact, Aeron would likely be pronounced in a very similar way than "Iron", which would support exactly the opposite: that it's a name native from the Iron Islands.

With the information that we information that we have at hand, it's far most likely that the "ae" diphthong is just a remnant from older times (we see it in names in "old Valyrian", the ancient maesters, presumably ancient houses, potential old spellings for iron, etc.) that just an indicative of the Valyrian language.