Heresy 204; of cabbages, prophecies and kings

[Melifeather]

Shadrich is described as being 5'1" tall, is a hedge knight, but is not a tourney knight, that he prefers to win glory on the battlefield - fighting for Stannis at the Blackwater (I believe).

[LynnS]

8 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Shadrich is described as being 5'1" tall, is a hedge knight, but is not a tourney knight, that he prefers to win glory on the battlefield - fighting for Stannis at the Blackwater (I believe).

Well, he prefers that now unless there's a bag of dragons involved.

[wolfmaid7]

On 2/6/2018 at 6:53 PM, Matthew. said:

As a matter of discussion, we cannot fully deduce what Barristan knows and how he knows it with the published content, which is why I am not presenting Barristan's point of view as an either/or choice, but as a "withhold judgment" situation where there is value in discussing his beliefs from all perspectives. So why do we have to know the provenance of Barristan's information before we can utilize it for a line of discussion?

This to me is just another shade of this 'pick a side' approach where exploring a particular theoretical road is treated as some sort of commitment. Toward what end? There are not real world consequences - false imprisonment, adopting a socially harmful point of view regarding science, etc. - or stakes attached to speculating about fiction. The 'stakes' are that we might, with the information we have, say "Maybe character X's beliefs are correct," and then learn later that Character X's beliefs were incorrect.
 

An interesting quote, yet we do know what Barristan believes internally--the question you raise does not relate to the context. Dany is not asking whether Rhaegar loved Lyanna, she's asking why her brother would choose one woman over another, especially to the detriment of the realm and his rule; "how could he do that?" A far more complicated question. More succinctly, "why do you love someone" is a different question from "who do you love?" 

The war wasn't strictly about Lyanna, but what the realm knew (or thought it knew) about Lyanna was not clear, and in the case of the Starks and Robert, couldn't have been too far from their minds. "Say, been a while since we've seen Lyanna. I wonder where she's gotten off to? Eh, whatever, we've got a war to fight."

At the least, Jaime's relation of events is that Brandon had heard something about Lyanna that prompted him to undertake the extraordinarily reckless action of going to the Red Keep and demanding that Rhaegar "come out and die." 
 

Right. There are many ways to interpret it that do not have anything to do with Lyanna (I explicitly said that we don't know what Martin means by Rheagar's "treatment of Elia"), yet the bolded quote is doing the exact thing I wanted to avoid: preemptively judging the information being raised as an implicit endorsement of RLJ, and derailing it into another proxy war about RLJ.
 

Nuh uh Matthew, it is fruit of the poison tree. If Dany asked why Rhaegar ran off with another woman the obvious answer from the replier would be "because he said he loved her" if it was something that was told to him.That's splitting hairs off a bald man's head to be honest.

I have to disagree with you on the second also.None of those men who showed up to fight knew what they were there for.

LynnS put up an excellent about what men were actually fighting for.What singers said and what actually happened ...two different things.Its not a matter of the war being strictly about Lyanna it wasn't about her.

As to your latter point I actually thought you were bringing up the Selmy issue in regard to RLJ since that is kind of the topic? I feel like you baited me with that one lol.But I agree, and have said as much, not everything should be seen through the lens of RLJ; I will add any parentage.

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

Do we have an approximate age for the Mad Mouse?

I am writing an essay now (which keeps getting sidelined by the family’s head cold, including mine) that looks more deeply into the “gods” of Harrenhal.   If Ser Shadrich - possibly of Der Fledermaus origins - would have been of tourney age in 281, that could bolster my findings for sure.  

I don't recall that its ever mentioned but in broad terms the impression is of an older man, rather than a brash young kid. 

It also occurs to me that Lothstons and Whents are both heavily linked to Harrenhal and Ser Shadrach might effectively have been on the run ever since the tourney, hence the concealing of his true identity

[Matthew.]

5 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Nuh uh Matthew, it is fruit of the poison tree. If Dany asked why Rhaegar ran off with another woman the obvious answer from the replier would be "because he said he loved her" if it was something that was told to him.That's splitting hairs off a bald man's head to be honest.

I have to disagree with you on the second also.None of those men who showed up to fight knew what they were there for.

I balk because the nature  of the disagreement here is important--this is not "my interpretation vs. your interpretation," this is a basic issue of how best to analyze the text in the first place.

My preferred internal approach - especially for the sake of interacting with other's ideas in good faith - is to treat unanswered questions with many "if, then" hypotheticals, with an open-mind. If Barristan's context was formed after the Rebellion, then... If Barristan's context was formed by Rhaegar after his return, and it's true, then... If Barristan's context was formed by Rhaegar after his return, but Rhaegar was lying, then... etc. etc.

IMO, you are making declarative statements that shut down various avenues of analysis, and stand in stark contrast the very thing you said shouldn't be done only two pages ago: acting as though there is only one viable narrative. 

Speaking toward more general trends in the fan discussion, I think there is a recurring fallacy of arguing from incredulity--where the fact that the content of the text might be wrong is used to make the leap that it is wrong, and should be dismissed from consideration.
 

5 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

As to your latter point I actually thought you were bringing up the Selmy issue in regard to RLJ since that is kind of the topic? I feel like you baited me with that one lol.But I agree, and have said as much, not everything should be seen through the lens of RLJ; I will add any parentage.

RLJ - specifically, the "J" part - wasn't the topic; it was more about Lyanna and Rhaegar's respective absences during Robert's Rebellion.

[Matthew.]

7 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

If Dany asked why Rhaegar ran off with another woman the obvious answer from the replier would be "because he said he loved her" if it was something that was told to him.

If you will forgive some additional commentary, I think it's important to view this not only in terms of Barristan's internal thoughts on that same subject, but his other answers to Dany's probing as well.

As I said previously, what Dany asks there is not a straightforward question, and certainly not one that can simply be summed up as "he loved her," as there's the surrounding context of Elia, and the consequences for the realm. We know internally what Barristan believes regarding Lyanna, and we also know that it isn't necessarily favorable toward Rhaegar: thousands died for it. So, it's not as though he has nothing to say on the subject, so that "it isn't for me to say..." spiel might also be viewed alongside these other exchanges:

Quote

She beckoned Whitebeard closer. "Did you ever meet my royal father?" King Aerys II had died before his daughter was born.

"I had that great honor, Your Grace."

"Did you find him good and gentle?"

Whitebeard did his best to hide his feelings, but they were there, plain on his face. "His Grace was . . . often pleasant."

Quote

"When the day comes that you raise your banners, half of Westeros will be with you," Whitebeard promised. "Your brother Rhaegar is still remembered, with great love."

"And my father?" Dany said.

The old man hesitated before saying, "King Aerys is also remembered. He gave the realm many years of peace.

Quote

"King," Dany corrected. "He was a king, though he never reigned. Viserys, the Third of His Name. But what do you mean?" His answer had not been one that she'd expected. "Ser Jorah named Rhaegar the last dragon once. He had to have been a peerless warrior to be called that, surely?"

"Your Grace," said Whitebeard, "the Prince of Dragonstone was a most puissant warrior, but . . ."

"Go on," she urged. "You may speak freely to me."

He will give answers about Aerys and Rhaegar when pressed, but he is clearly reluctant to say things that cast them in a negative light; this does not just go toward a desire to spare Dany's feelings, but his own guilt over what he sees as a series of personal failures as a member of the KG.

[JNR]

7 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

But I agree, and have said as much, not everything should be seen through the lens of RLJ

Well, this, really is the root issue.  

It's easy to say there are no positive or negative real-world ramifications to discussing theories about a fantasy series.  Usually, that's even true.  

But on this site, RLJ has ascended to such a ludicrous status, the investment level of the fans really is both personal and nontrivial.  People have for many years adopted positions involving language such as "unwritten canon," "100% probability," "I would bet my life," "nonbelievers are all contrarians," or in one very well-known case, actually saying "RLJ isn't even a theory -- we're that confident in it." 

So having committed themselves to such an incredible extent, in public, so many times for so many years... I suspect it's going to be a spectacularly hot mess, should GRRM explode RLJ in the next book.  

Instead of calmly accepting the total invalidation of the tens of millions of words they wrote about RLJ, they will (in this scenario) probably accuse GRRM of having trolled them, and state that the mystery of Jon's parentage wasn't well done at all... because if it's not RLJ, it could only be a "cheap mystery" or a "guessing game."  

And one reason I think this is because in certain cases, that's exactly what they predicted they would do, years in advance.

In contrast, we in Heresy, or on Sable Hall or other sites, have never, to my knowledge, adopted such kooky, dramatic positions involving the dismissal of the author's skill.  So if we turn out to be wrong, we can just say "Wow, I sure was wrong" -- as grownups are supposed to do when irrefutably shown to be wrong.  

And that's quite a difference.

[Black Crow]

7 hours ago, Matthew. said:

If you will forgive some additional commentary, I think it's important to view this not only in terms of Barristan's internal thoughts on that same subject, but his other answers to Dany's probing as well.

As I said previously, what Dany asks there is not a straightforward question, and certainly not one that can simply be summed up as "he loved her," as there's the surrounding context of Elia, and the consequences for the realm. We know internally what Barristan believes regarding Lyanna, and we also know that it isn't necessarily favorable toward Rhaegar: thousands died for it. So, it's not as though he has nothing to say on the subject, so that "it isn't for me to say..." spiel might also be viewed alongside these other exchanges:

He will give answers about Aerys and Rhaegar when pressed, but he is clearly reluctant to say things that cast them in a negative light; this does not just go toward a desire to spare Dany's feelings, but his own guilt over what he sees as a series of personal failures as a member of the KG.

I think, broadly speaking that's true and in terms of Aerys and Rhaegar we can reasonably deduce that the first started off well but only towards the end of his reign went off the rails. Such things happen and in terms of the plot may be of no significance, or conversely it might support the theory that his madness was induced and or manipulated externally. As to Rhaegar, Barristan is clearly referencing the popular belief that he was a paladin, but gently expressing a reservation or two. Its not his place to stick a knife into that popular belief, far less twist it, but he's declining to support it - in marked contrast to the Mummers version.

The same, I would say, holds good of the Lyanna business where he acknowledges the popular version of the story, but offers no support and in contrast as you point out offers that "thousands died". 

[SirArthur]

Just a short comment on Barristan while I try to figure out the Lord/Lady Dustin signatue/sigil letters through the question if sigils can be carried by raven.

At least for me the Robert's rebellion was, much like the war of the five kings, a war between different factions. 

-Aerys against Robert over the head of Robert

-Stark against Rhaegar over Lyanna

-Rhaegar against Aerys over reasons unknown 

my conclusions:

- Barristan belongs to the Aerys camp (thus he cannot know much). And also the reason why he survived. 

- Elia belongs to Rhaegar and thus Rhaegar and Dorne belong to one faction

- Tywin is Aerynist through and through and what happened was an execution of hostages after Aeryn was dead

- thus Jaimy is the truly tragic hero

- Robert won the war because the other factions have been eliminated because their cause no longer existed

 

The real question is what caused the calling for the head of Rhaegar when Lyanna was his hostage as speculated. Because that is not a logical move if the hostage should get out of the situation alive. 

(an apology for not quoting, I write from my mobile)

 

edit: or rather through his lack in knowledge and his positioning I conclude Barristan belongs to the Aerys faction.

[LynnS]

23 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

That thought occurred to me a while back during one of the many, Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughting Tree threads.  Of course the rationale being since she could ride a horse, she should be able to beat three jousters (all who were able to take the lead position after the first couple of days).  And maybe we’ll learn that she has secretly been obsessively practicing jousting in the Rills and I’ll have to eat crow.  

But it occurred to me, what if there was an Order of the Green Hand still in existence?  But instead of noble born knights, it was made up of vagabonds and hedge knights, all working for the Green Men.  So when a fellow member, Howland, asks for help across the Lake, they send one of their members, a hedge knight, perhaps a Lothston descendant, with a chip on his shoulder to teach the high born knights some manners?

If nothing else it’s no less plausible than Lyanna figuring out how to joust on the fly.

This really appeals to me.  I had forgotten that you had proposed the Mad Mouse for KOTLT but then I forget what I have for breakfast these days.  It makes a lot of sense.  The white helm with a bat sigil that Ned sees in his dreams does crack me up.  Product placement.  LOL.  

When we're told that the green men will make an appearance, I'm not expecting them to be something fantastical on the surface but I do suspect the High Sparrow since he is another small man with feet like gnarled tree roots.

And because of this passage about the First Keep; 'a tower long fallen':

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Bran II

Then for a while the guards would chase him whenever they saw him on the roofs, and try to haul him down. That was the best time of all. It was like playing a game with his brothers, except that Bran always won. None of the guards could climb half so well as Bran, not even Jory. Most of the time they never saw him anyway. People never looked up. That was another thing he liked about climbing; it was almost like being invisible.

He liked how it felt too, pulling himself up a wall stone by stone, fingers and toes digging hard into the small crevices between. He always took off his boots and went barefoot when he climbed; it made him feel as if he had four hands instead of two. He liked the deep, sweet ache it left in the muscles afterward. He liked the way the air tasted way up high, sweet and cold as a winter peach. He liked the birds: the crows in the broken tower, the tiny little sparrows that nested in cracks between the stones, the ancient owl that slept in the dusty loft above the old armory. Bran knew them all.

Crows, sparrows and an ancient owl.  Does that remind you of the Black Gate:  who, who, who, who, who....
 

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Bran VI

Bran felt all cold inside. "She lost her wolf," he said, weakly, remembering the day when four of his father's guardsmen had returned from the south with Lady's bones. Summer and Grey Wind and Shaggydog had begun to howl before they crossed the drawbridge, in voices drawn and desolate. Beneath the shadow of the First Keep was an ancient lichyard, its headstones spotted with pale lichen, where the old Kings of Winter had laid their faithful servants. It was there they buried Lady, while her brothers stalked between the graves like restless shadows. She had gone south, and only her bones had returned.

 

So I think Ned's dream of an tower long fallen refers to the First Keep rather than the ToJ but comes up in his dream of the KG because of the similarities, burying the faithful beneath the tower.

Edit: Die fledermaus -

A batman is a soldier or airman assigned to a commissioned officer as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the pack saddle with his officer's kit during a campaign.

 

[LynnS]

18 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I don't recall that its ever mentioned but in broad terms the impression is of an older man, rather than a brash young kid. 

It also occurs to me that Lothstons and Whents are both heavily linked to Harrenhal and Ser Shadrach might effectively have been on the run ever since the tourney, hence the concealing of his true identity

How does a mystery knight become enrolled in the lists? Could it be that the Ashara wasn't passing on messages about a conspiracy when she was dancing; but rather organizing equipment for the mystery knight and the white sword was Oswell Whent? (the white sword, red snake, lord of griffins and quiet wolf). 

[wolfmaid7]

21 hours ago, Matthew. said:

If you will forgive some additional commentary, I think it's important to view this not only in terms of Barristan's internal thoughts on that same subject, but his other answers to Dany's probing as well.

As I said previously, what Dany asks there is not a straightforward question, and certainly not one that can simply be summed up as "he loved her," as there's the surrounding context of Elia, and the consequences for the realm. We know internally what Barristan believes regarding Lyanna, and we also know that it isn't necessarily favorable toward Rhaegar: thousands died for it. So, it's not as though he has nothing to say on the subject, so that "it isn't for me to say..." spiel might also be viewed alongside these other exchanges:

He will give answers about Aerys and Rhaegar when pressed, but he is clearly reluctant to say things that cast them in a negative light; this does not just go toward a desire to spare Dany's feelings, but his own guilt over what he sees as a series of personal failures as a member of the KG.

I still have to disagree to an extent.And yeah it is a matter of disagreement.Selmy at that moment wasn't Selmy.He was just Whitebeard I wouldn't expect him to speak freely.But he did, even though he didn't vocalize it.His face conveyed that his words didn't match.He didn't want to offend Dany with the truth.

Its quite different with Danny's questions about Rhaegar.There wasn't any hesitation.What he said was the truth.

And what he knew was what everyone else did.If he knew what was in Rhaegar's heart he could have added more info.

You are right that its not a straightforward question.It was an open-ended one which when answered would have just re-I forced what everyone knew.

This is the issue with this.To add details if you had it to a widely held belief gives nothing away.It is nothing for Selmy to add details where relevant to an already wildly held belief.

He didn't because he can't.He has no info beyond what everyone knows.Selmy had several moments in discussion or internal monologue to reveal more than

" Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna and thousands died for it."

This belief is wildly believed but the point is no one can add anything more than what was on the front page of Westerosi Enquire.

21 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, this, really is the root issue.  

It's easy to say there are no positive or negative real-world ramifications to discussing theories about a fantasy series.  Usually, that's even true.  

But on this site, RLJ has ascended to such a ludicrous status, the investment level of the fans really is both personal and nontrivial.  People have for many years adopted positions involving language such as "unwritten canon," "100% probability," "I would bet my life," "nonbelievers are all contrarians," or in one very well-known case, actually saying "RLJ isn't even a theory -- we're that confident in it." 

So having committed themselves to such an incredible extent, in public, so many times for so many years... I suspect it's going to be a spectacularly hot mess, should GRRM explode RLJ in the next book.  

Instead of calmly accepting the total invalidation of the tens of millions of words they wrote about RLJ, they will (in this scenario) probably accuse GRRM of having trolled them, and state that the mystery of Jon's parentage wasn't well done at all... because if it's not RLJ, it could only be a "cheap mystery" or a "guessing game."  

And one reason I think this is because in certain cases, that's exactly what they predicted they would do, years in advance.

In contrast, we in Heresy, or on Sable Hall or other sites, have never, to my knowledge, adopted such kooky, dramatic positions involving the dismissal of the author's skill.  So if we turn out to be wrong, we can just say "Wow, I sure was wrong" -- as grownups are supposed to do when irrefutably shown to be wrong.  

And that's quite a difference.

True dat.

[Melifeather]

Selmy was choosing his words carefully - wanted to present Rhaegar in the best possible light.

[Black Crow]

10 hours ago, LynnS said:

 

Edit: Die fledermaus -

A batman is a soldier or airman assigned to a commissioned officer as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the pack saddle with his officer's kit during a campaign.

 

Just to be pedantic the term batman comes from the French bat [with an accent on the a] whic is a pack saddle

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Selmy was choosing his words carefully - wanted to present Rhaegar in the best possible light.

I don't know if he was. He was certainly choosing his words carefully, but rather avoiding blackguarding them rather than praising them. It may be a subtle difference but its there and as I said was completely missed by the mummers

[Black Crow]

8 hours ago, LynnS said:

How does a mystery knight become enrolled in the lists? Could it be that the Ashara wasn't passing on messages about a conspiracy when she was dancing; but rather organizing equipment for the mystery knight and the white sword was Oswell Whent? (the white sword, red snake, lord of griffins and quiet wolf). 

By announcing himself as a "mystery knight" presumably, just as Barristan did in his day. It seems to be a common game, but speaking seriously I would have thought there had to be someone standing surety and guaranteeing that the said masked man was indeed a knight.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

By announcing himself as a "mystery knight" presumably, just as Barristan did in his day. It seems to be a common game, but speaking seriously I would have thought there had to be someone standing surety and guaranteeing that the said masked man was indeed a knight.

The story seems a bit slap-dash for the Mystery Knight to show up and fight the three knights in a row without knowing the roster.  It's not like he's going to stick around all day in his armor and then jump in when it suits him.   

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Bran II

"The porcupine knight, the pitchfork knight, and the knight of the twin towers." Bran had heard enough stories to know that. "He was the little crannogman, I told you."

"Whoever he was, the old gods gave strength to his arm. The porcupine knight fell first, then the pitchfork knight, and lastly the knight of the two towers. None were well loved, so the common folk cheered lustily for the Knight of the Laughing Tree, as the new champion soon was called. When his fallen foes sought to ransom horse and armor, the Knight of the Laughing Tree spoke in a booming voice through his helm, saying, 'Teach your squires honor, that shall be ransom enough.' Once the defeated knights chastised their squires sharply, their horses and armor were returned. And so the little crannogman's prayer was answered . . . by the green men, or the old gods, or the children of the forest, who can say?"

If surety was needed without revealing the knight's identity; perhaps that's where the Whents come in.  That and establishing the roster.

It seems that Barristan was a mystery knight twice, once when he was ten.  I wonder how much GRRM knows about jousting in general.  

[wolfmaid7]

22 hours ago, Matthew. said:

I balk because the nature  of the disagreement here is important--this is not "my interpretation vs. your interpretation," this is a basic issue of how best to analyze the text in the first place.

My preferred internal approach - especially for the sake of interacting with other's ideas in good faith - is to treat unanswered questions with many "if, then" hypotheticals, with an open-mind. If Barristan's context was formed after the Rebellion, then... If Barristan's context was formed by Rhaegar after his return, and it's true, then... If Barristan's context was formed by Rhaegar after his return, but Rhaegar was lying, then... etc. etc.

IMO, you are making declarative statements that shut down various avenues of analysis, and stand in stark contrast the very thing you said shouldn't be done only two pages ago: acting as though there is only one viable narrative. 

Speaking toward more general trends in the fan discussion, I think there is a recurring fallacy of arguing from incredulity--where the fact that the content of the text might be wrong is used to make the leap that it is wrong, and should be dismissed from consideration.
 

RLJ - specifically, the "J" part - wasn't the topic; it was more about Lyanna and Rhaegar's respective absences during Robert's Rebellion.

I get what you are saying but I disagree because you are giving me a maybe scenario.I am not seeing any evidence that Rhaegar told Selmy anything.This is where I think the disagreement originates.

Maybe he did is not evidence though it can be true.I am just saying Selmy while having a few opportunities to devulge more has not.He just restates the front page.

How can I shut down an analysis if it begins with maybe? Now, I am not hindering you from speaking your mind aren't I? Nor is my opinion swaying others to corral and impede your thoughts. I am simply disagreeing with you on what Selmy knows.

Imo there are some things that warrant "ifs" and "then". I have made no bones about this "ifs" that originate with just "ifs" are conversations I generally avoid.Posters want to go down the "if" roads I got no problem with that.But I've seen on this board where "ifs" originating from just that become dids.

But to clarify my issue on this I personally reject "if Rhaegar" told Selmy something because his.

1.Internal monologue and conversation with Dany tells me he has no knowledge beyond what everyone else knows.

2.In a story where this is a belief among many characters there is no one who validates what "everyone knows."

Nah, especially on Heresy.There are people on here that believe RLJ is true and some who don't.There is a difference in how that belief is conveyed.

You will hear "if RLJ" "then" .You know why I have no problems with this? Because I,even I have yo acknowledge there are things which can be evidence that would lead a person to believe RLJ.

But I appreciate that when these posters do post they respect others by saying "if RLJ".

You bring up an idea that is also very intriguing and also a source of contention for I think only me...That is the idea that Lyanna was "missing"

Or that Rhaegar was "missing" I don't agree with this because again its a matter of from whose perspective.

Aerys knew where to send Hightower to get Rhaegar it seems so was he missing?

Ned nor Robert speak of a kidnapping or Lyanna running off with Rhaegar.This again us a kicker they don't speak of either having occurred.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

I don't know if he was. He was certainly choosing his words carefully, but rather avoiding blackguarding them rather than praising them. It may be a subtle difference but its there and as I said was completely missed by the mummers

Selmy was repeating the official Westerosi story. There's the Baratheon side where Rhaegar is a kidnapper, and there's the Targaryen side where he must have been in love. He's talking to a Targaryen so he's careful to give the story their side would believe.

[LynnS]

Quote

Excerpt from Bring Up the Bodies by Hilary Mantel:

The knight was a Portuguese, but he spoke dog-Latin and a kind of German, interspersed with technicalities which are much the same in all languages.  In the old days each tournament was a testing-ground.  There was no display of idle luxury. Women, instead of simpering at you from gilded pavilions, were kept for afterwards.  In those days the scoring was complex and the judges had no mercy on any infringement of the rules, so you could shatter all your lances but lose on points, you could flatten your opposer and come out not with a bag of gold but with a fine or a blot on your record.  A breach of rules would trail you through Europe, so some infringements committed, let's say, in Lisbon, would catch up with you in Ferrara; a man's reputation would go before him, and in the end, he said, given a bad season, a run of ill-luck, reputation is all you've got; so don't you push your luck, he said, when fortune's star is shining, because the next minute, it isn't.  Come to that, don't pay out good money for hororscopes.  If things are going to go badly for you, is that what you need to know before you saddle up? 

One drink in,the old knight talked as if everybody had followed his trade  You should set your squires, he said, at each end of the barrier, to make your horse swerve wide if he tries to cut the corner, or else you may catch your foot, easy done if there's no end-guard, bloody painful: have you ever done that?  Some fools collect their boys in the middle, where the atteint will occur; but whats the use?  Indeed he agreed, what use at all; and wondered at the delicate word, atteint, for the brutal shock of contact.  These spring-loaded shields,the old man said, have you seen them, they jump apart when they're hit?  Babies' tricks.  The old-time judges didn't need a device like that t tel them when a man had got a touch -- no, they used their eyes, they had eyes in those days.  Boys can fail.  Nerve can fail. 

You have to get your helmet on tightly so that you have a good line of sight.  You keep your body square-on, and when you are about to strike, then and only then turn your head so that you have a full view of your opposer, and watch the iron tip of your lance straight on to your target.  Some people veer away in the second before the clash.  It is natural, but forget what is natural.  Practise till you break your instinct.  Given a chance you will always swerve.  Your body want to preserve itself and your instinct will try to avoid crashing your armoured warhorse and your armoured self into another man and horse coming at full gallop the other way.  Some men don't serve,but instead they close their eyes at the moment of impact.  These men are of two kinds:  the ones who know they do it and can't help it, and the ones who don't know they do it.  Get your boys to watch you when you practise.  Be neither of these kinds of men. 

I'm not getting that jousting is for girls or anyone who hasn't been sufficiently trained even if they do ride at rings .  LOL.

Quote

Rafe says, the contests had not begun,he was running at the ring, the point of his lance scooped the eye of the circle.  Then the horse stumbled under him, man and rider down, horse rolling with a scream and Henry beneath it.  Now Gentle Norris is on his knees by the bier, praying, tears cascading down his cheeks.  There is a blur of light on plate armour, helms hiding faces, iron jaws, frog mouths, the slits of visors.  Someone says, the beast went down as if its leg were broke, no one was near the king,no one to blame.  He seems to hear the appalling noise of it, the horse's roar of terror as it pitches, the screams from spectators, the grating clatter of steel and hooves on steal as one huge animal entangles with another, warhorse and king collapsing together, metal driven into flesh, hoof into bone.

Unless Martin imagines a kindler, gentler form of jousting;  I don't see Lyanna taking out three knights even if she could skinchange a horse.  I have my doubts about Howland as well.

Quote

Jousting is a martial game or hastilude between two horsemen wielding lances with blunted tips, often as part of a tournament. The primary aim was to replicate a clash of heavy cavalry, with each participant trying hard to strike the opponent while riding towards him at high speed, if possible breaking the lance on the opponent's shield or jousting armour, or unhorsing him. The joust became an iconic characteristic of the knight in Romantic medievalism. The participants experience close to three and a quarter times their body weight in G-forces when the lances collide with their armor.^[1]