Ygrain Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 hour ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: those who believe in R+L=J, only have 4 or 5 quotes from the book As I have said before: their research of ASOIAF has much and more to work upon. This claim made me ROFLMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis-something-Rose Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 You should watch the vid one of them made after the ToJ flashback on the show last season. That was an epic meltdown. I don't know if it's still up, but meltdown. Also not all characters have hidden identities. Arthur is Mance, Oswell Whent was Qhorin and Tormund is Gerold Hightower. Never mind that Gerold Hightower should be older than Barristan who is in his mid-sixties in ADWD. But rubies, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curled Finger Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 5 hours ago, falcotron said: Nonsense, the character we call "Barristan Selmy" is actually Willem Darry in disguise. Sure, Old Griff is the real Barristan Selmy, but that means he's not Jon Connington, and it's JonConn who's Jon's real father. (Think about it: How could two people have identical first names if they're not related?) And anyway, both JonConn and Maggy the Frog were being warged by Bloodraven when they conceived Jon, so they're not really his parents. Hehehehehehehe Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 2:14 AM, Ygrain said: Well, forgive me if I am unimpressed. My standard for judging the quality of analysis is Radio Westeros - well researched, always backed by quotes, covering all details and just those that fit only a particular interpretation. And above all, never rude or condescending. I find the Greenhand sadly lacking in all respects here, or perhaps I should say, lackng in the first three and excess in the fourth. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. It makes me think you've never even watched their videos. I found their channel almost a year ago, and they are easily the best-researched ASOIAF channel on YouTube. I don't necessarily agree with all their conclusions, but they use more text to back their theories than any other channel I'm aware of. I have also talked to them in their comment section and found them both to be very nice. I have seen instances where they weren't nice to someone but those people were acting like animals and they responded with the same level of respect those individuals were giving them. Something tells me you must have been one of those rude people that they smacked around and/or humiliated, and are using forums they aren't on to try to make them look bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Widow's Watch said: Also not all characters have hidden identities. Arthur is Mance, Oswell Whent was Qhorin and Tormund is Gerold Hightower. Never mind that Gerold Hightower should be older than Barristan who is in his mid-sixties in ADWD. But rubies, so... You are aware that they say Gerold Hightower is Tormund, who is really old. He has white hair. He also has the physical description of a guy that would get the nickname White Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 4:35 AM, AlaskanSandman said: Except that they place the start of the war in 383ac against everything that we're told, all based off a bad interpretation of Little Fingers age. If Littlefinger is 29 and was 15 when the duel happened how could 298-14 be anything other than 283? that seems like pretty straightforward math to me. They also pointed out that Viserys was 8 when he fled KL and was born in 276, which means the sack of KL happened in 284. I watched their first timeline video almost a year ago and tried to find something wrong with it and can't find a date in the books that disproves their timeline, and believe me, I tried. I was all in with R+L=J until I saw their videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 So you just created your account solely to defend the channel? LOL! And to say they're "easily the best-researched ASOIAF channel on YouTube" is a lie. Especially when they make silly assumptions and dates based off of their own calculations, that could've been easily fact checked and corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis-something-Rose Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, King Maegor said: You are aware that they say Gerold Hightower is Tormund, who is really old. He has white hair. He also has the physical description of a guy that would get the nickname White Bull I am, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonsbone Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 The best argument for me is still: well, we have no evidence that N+A=J is not true. Therefore it is. See on the next episode: Is the hound a Stark? The word "Stark" is a German word for "strong". Well guess who is strong? The hound. Hound=Stark confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 11 minutes ago, King Maegor said: If Littlefinger is 29 and was 15 when the duel happened how could 298-14 be anything other than 283? that seems like pretty straightforward math to me. They also pointed out that Viserys was 8 when he fled KL and was born in 276, which means the sack of KL happened in 284. I watched their first timeline video almost a year ago and tried to find something wrong with it and can't find a date in the books that disproves their timeline, and believe me, I tried. I was all in with R+L=J until I saw their videos The war of the usurper is said to have begun in 282, and that it ended at some point within the end of the following year, the sack of KL also didn't happen in 284. If we go by GRRM's own words when asked how much older Jon was than Dany, and Jon being born up to a month after the Sack Of Kings Landing, and Jon being born in 283 AC, the Sack Of Kings Landing was also in 283. Robert is crowned at some point after this, as the assault on Dragonstone, occurred when Robert was already crowned and acknowledged King, as its said Dragonstone was the last resort for Targaryen. This victory for King Robert (at this point) and Ned marked the official end of the war. I wouldn''t dare to personally confirm this, but it seems like a more in-tune timeline, than that of which that channel tends to think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 25 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: So you just created your account solely to defend the channel? LOL! Actually, I created this account months ago but never felt the need to comment before. Someone posted this link in their new video and I clicked it and decided today was as good a time as any to post something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgrav Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 3 hours ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: Oh, wow. I honestly thought I was one of the few whom thought they were condescending, juvenile and disrespectful to other peoples opinions and research, at least with this theory. And they swear that whomever disagrees with them on this theory is only a show watcher and never read the books...They're even worse in the comments, like they claim theres absolutely nothing in the books which supports Jon being the offspring to Lyanna & Rhaegar, and that those who believe in R+L=J, only have 4 or 5 quotes from the book and "promise me, ned", to support their view of things. Yet, refusing to look into and rethink their dates and timing of things, no matter how wrong or inaccurate they might be, solely because it fits their own belief. One of my least favorite ASOIAF channels on YT. Can you lay out the thematic and symbolic significance of Jon being Ned and Ashara's? How does it provide continuity or development in the themes in Ned, Ashara, and Jon's characters? The problem with these other theories is that they fail completely in terms of being effective literature. Being technically possible doesn't hold any weight against the non-logistical aspects, especially when the technical possibilities are entirely inconsistent with the story as literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 9 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: The war of the usurper is said to have begun in 282, and that it ended at some point within the end of the following year, the sack of KL also didn't happen in 284. If we go by GRRM's own words when asked how much older Jon was than Dany, and Jon being born up to a month after the Sack Of Kings Landing, and Jon being born in 283 AC, the Sack Of Kings Landing was also in 283. Robert is crowned at some point after this, as the assault on Dragonstone, occurred when Robert was already crowned and acknowledged King, as its said Dragonstone was the last resort for Targaryen. This victory for King Robert (at this point) and Ned marked the official end of the war. I wouldn''t dare to personally confirm this, but it seems like a more in-tune timeline, than that of which that channel tends to think of. The math doesn't work for the timeline you just wrote out. Viserys would have been 7 not 8 when he fled KL and Littlefinger would have been 14 for the duel not 15. I was where you are about a year ago, and like I said, I tried to find something wrong with their timeline because I couldn't believe they would be the only two people to have a different timeline worked out in the entire world, so on my last read, I wrote down every reference to time in this period and didn't find any that don't fit perfectly into their timeline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, cgrav said: Can you lay out the thematic and symbolic significance of Jon being Ned and Ashara's? How does it provide continuity or development in the themes in Ned, Ashara, and Jon's characters? "When the dead come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?"-Jeor Mormont, AGOT-Jon IX the answer is no, it doesn't matter. Jon being eligible to be the Sword of the Morning, wielding Dawn and leading mankind to victory in the New Battle for the Dawn fits with his character better than possibly having a claim to a throne that doesn't matter anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 1:47 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said: But Arthur Dayne AND Mance Rayder both can fight with a great sword, how can you possibly explain that if they are not in fact the same person? Yessss! AND let us not forget they have some of the same letters in their names. If that's not proof I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 37 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said: And to say they're "easily the best-researched ASOIAF channel on YouTube" is a lie. Especially when they make silly assumptions and dates based off of their own calculations, that could've been easily fact checked and corrected. that's exactly why they are the best researched channel on YouTube. they research everything themselves instead of relying on what is available on the internet. please tell me what facts they used that are incorrect because I've read the books twice since discovering their channel and haven't found anything they cited incorrectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, cgrav said: Can you lay out the thematic and symbolic significance of Jon being Ned and Ashara's? How does it provide continuity or development in the themes in Ned, Ashara, and Jon's characters? Don't know what you're asking, personally I can't think of any reasoning for it or it's significance to the overall story, other than maybe throwing readers off the trail. I just don't buy the theory, nor the timeline they put forward to support it, as they rearrange and literally come up with their own dates, to fit around, so it could line up with Ned & Ashara banging at the tourney of Harrenhal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maegor Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 1:47 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said: But Arthur Dayne AND Mance Rayder both can fight with a great sword, how can you possibly explain that if they are not in fact the same person? Their explanation is pretty good. A two-handed greatsword is a specialty weapon that requires the user to have full plate armor because you can't use a shield. the Night's Watch can barely afford to give their rangers chainmail, and there are no references to them using plate armor. Mance isn't kind of good. He's the best fighter in the series, and his training was the giveaway. his footwork was so good Jon could barely touch him. he didn't learn that at the wall or beyond it...none of the other guys at the wall are even close to that good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, King Maegor said: that's exactly why they are the best researched channel on YouTube. they research everything themselves instead of relying on what is available on the internet. please tell me what facts they used that are incorrect because I've read the books twice since discovering their channel and haven't found anything they cited incorrectly The timing of Brandon & Littlefingers duel. They're date of 284 AC as the Sack Of KL when we know from GRRM himself that that isn't true. And making your own calculations without any book support, other than what they have personally interpreted, isn't research, it's pulling things out of anywhere to fit with your viewpoint. Order Of The Greenhand has done this time and time again on various videos. And when you dispute them, they disregard book quotes, and what those quotes could perhaps interpret, and simply attempt to down them as "4 or 5 quotes, and misinterpretations" merely because it doesn't fit with their own theories. Like,it really boggles my mind, how they can call opposing views as nonsense and misinterpretations, yet doesn't acknowledge their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhaegoTheUnborn Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, King Maegor said: Their explanation is pretty good. A two-handed greatsword is a specialty weapon that requires the user to have full plate armor because you can't use a shield. the Night's Watch can barely afford to give their rangers chainmail, and there are no references to them using plate armor. Mance isn't kind of good. He's the best fighter in the series, and his training was the giveaway. his footwork was so good Jon could barely touch him. he didn't learn that at the wall or beyond it...none of the other guys at the wall are even close to that good Bruh .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.