Kings Beyond the Wall. and yes, Bael the infamous bard. (Updated again)

[Rufus Snow]

8 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

OK, now I will have to do some reading because I have never heard that one before.

Look up the Winchester Round Table That's the one I had in mind, but there was bit of a fad back in the day

(Totally off topic - I remember seeing it in the flesh, but have no memory of ever being in Winchester )

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 hour ago, Rufus Snow said:

Look up the Winchester Round Table That's the one I had in mind, but there was bit of a fad back in the day

(Totally off topic - I remember seeing it in the flesh, but have no memory of ever being in Winchester )

Well that I have heard of, but I don't remember any Arthurian connotations surrounding it. That was over twenty years ago though. Worth a read to see if there's something that ties it together.

[Bael's Bastard]

On 9/2/2018 at 1:58 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Bael the Bard                     - Some time after Aegon's Conquest and King's Road construction. (I think between 62ac and 92ac during the reign of Jaehaerys I)

Even without a full Stark family tree from the first Targaryen century, we can safely assume that House Stark was never reduced to a single male (Brandon) and female (his daughter) during that century.

Torrhen Stark had multiple sons and at least one daughter. In fact, he had enough sons that TWOIAF speaks of "some among them" entertaining talk of rebelling against the Targaryens. To me that implies at least three sons, or sons and grandsons, of fighting age. Enough so that more than one ("some"), though not all ("among them") entertained talk of rebellion.

Lord Cregan Stark ruled as early as 129 AC, and was preceded by his father Lord Rickon, who was preceded by his father Lord Benjen. We know Lord Ellard ruled in 101 AC, though we don't know his relation to Lord Benjen and his children. We also know that the Lord Stark who was forced to give up the New Gift had a brother.

The Blood of Dragons MUSH says that Lord Cregan was born in 108 AC, and that his father Lord Rickon was born in 88 AC and died in 121 AC. Based on this, we could expect Lord Benjen to have been born around 68 AC.

Lord Ellard would likely be Lord Benjen's brother, or cousin, or father. In any case, it would eliminate the possibility of either Lord Ellard or Lord Benjen being the son of "Lord Brandon's" daughter.

There is simply no place for a gap for the Bael story in the first century of the Targaryen era, even aside from the details of the story which make it impossible for it to have occurred during the Targaryen era. Ygritte's usage of current terms (lord, kingsroad) can be easily explained as anachronisms by people who don't know better.

On 9/2/2018 at 1:58 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

(Likely 700Bc as only centuries before Bael)

That is a baseless, circular assumption.

On 9/2/2018 at 1:58 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Jon is having a problem listing another Brandon for a reason, the only other Brandon was a Lord, but had to have come after Bael for Jon to not name him. 

Lord Brandon son of Cregan Stark who was during the Dance of Dragons. So between Brandon the Burner and Lord Brandon, existed Bael the Infamous Bard

 

Jon goes to Brandon the Burner and starts to say something but stops, probably that Brandon the Burner was still before Bael. 

Brandon the Burner is shortly before Aegon Targaryen Conquered Westeros.

Wyman agrees with me.

We have no reason to assume that there were no Brandons, or only one Brandon, between Brandon the Burner and Brandon the son of Lord Cregan. TWOIAF mentions a Brandon the Ninth, and speaks of many Brandon Starks, so it is safer to assume that name has continued to be used throughout their history, including Starks who made it to the Stark throne.

As for Brandon the Burner, most of the lists of old kings put King Theon after Brandon the Burner and before Torrhen, and he fought Andal invaders, so Brandon the Burner was most likely at least a couple thousand or more years ago.

[The Wondering Wolf]

I looked again at Yandel's writing on Bael. And he says that he is not sure that Bael even existed, because he is only mentioned in wildlings songs. If Bael had lived and invaded the realm during the reign of Jaehaerys I, there definitely would be chronicles in the south covering that. The apparent lack of such are a clear sign.

[AlaskanSandman]

20 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I looked again at Yandel's writing on Bael. And he says that he is not sure that Bael even existed, because he is only mentioned in wildlings songs. If Bael had lived and invaded the realm during the reign of Jaehaerys I, there definitely would be chronicles in the south covering that. The apparent lack of such are a clear sign.

Not at all. 

Yet Yandel knows about Bael because?......

TWOIAF makes no mention of Mance Rayder attacking the Wall.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Glorious Reign

And though a false King-beyond-the-Wall has recently declared himself, Mance Rayder is an oathbreaker fled from the Night's Watch, and the Night's Watch has always brought swift justice to those who have betrayed it. This king will amount to nothing, as have all the other wildling kings before him.

 

Only mention of Mance, and this is after he invaded.

Also, no Targaryen king came and helped with Raymun Red Beard, there is no reason to think the Targaryen Kings ever helped. We only ever hear of Kings Beyond the Wall fighting Umber and Starks aside from the watch. 

So you literally have no evidence for the southern kingdom caring enough. 

The apparent lack of evidence is only evidence of no evidence. That's it. TWOIAF and Yandel makes no mention of Theon getting flayed or Ramsay flaying other people. TWOIAF makes no mention about Boltons and Umbers still practicing Lords Right to First Night. 

Just because it isn't recorded by the maesters doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is evidence for it happening. Backed by Yandel mentioning and knowing of Bael, of Jon and Qhorin discussing him, and by Jon knowing roughly when Bael should be. 

[AlaskanSandman]

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Jon III

"Wildlings have invaded the realm before." Jon had heard the tales from Old Nan and Maester Luwin both, back at Winterfell. "Raymun Redbeard led them south in the time of my grandfather's grandfather, and before him there was a king named Bael the Bard."

"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side

 

From Jon to Qhorin before ever meeting Ygritte.

 

Quote

 

The World of Ice and Fire - The Wall and Beyond: The Wildlings

The brothers Gendel and Gorne were joint kings three thousand years ago. Leading their host down beneath the earth into a labyrinth of twisting subterranean caverns, they passed beneath the Wall unseen to attack the North. Gorne slew the Stark king in battle, then was killed in turn by the king's heir, and Gendel and his remaining wildlings fled back to their caverns, never to been seen again.

The Horned Lord would follow them, a thousand years after (or perhaps two). His name is lost to history, but he was said to have used sorcery to pass the Wall. After him, centuries later, came Bael the Bard, 

 

 

 

Maester Yanderl and Jon for some reason know the same things and confirm that Bael is closer to Raymun Red Beard than he is to the Horned Lord, but that he falls between them. 

 

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Jon VI

Jon had never heard this tale before. "Which Brandon was this supposed to be? Brandon the Builder lived in the Age of Heroes, thousands of years before Bael. There was Brandon the Burner and his father Brandon the Shipwright, but—"

"This was Brandon the Daughterless," Ygritte said sharply. "Would you hear the tale, or no?"

He scowled. "Go on."

 

 

Jon also tells us that Brandon the Builder was thousands of years before Bael, so we know for sure he wasn't in ancient days and confirmed by Qhorin.

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Bran VII

He looked at the passing faces and the tales came back to him. The maester had told him the stories, and Old Nan had made them come alive. "That one is Jon Stark. When the sea raiders landed in the east, he drove them out and built the castle at White Harbor. His son was Rickard Stark, not my father's father but another Rickard, he took the Neck away from the Marsh King and married his daughter. Theon Stark's the real thin one with the long hair and the skinny beard. They called him the 'Hungry Wolf,' because he was always at war. That's a Brandon, the tall one with the dreamy face, he was Brandon the Shipwright, because he loved the sea. His tomb is empty. He tried to sail west across the Sunset Sea and was never seen again. His son was Brandon the Burner, because he put the torch to all his father's ships in grief. There's Rodrik Stark, who won Bear Island in a wrestling match and gave it to the Mormonts.And that's Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. He was the last King in the North and the first Lord of Winterfell, after he yielded to Aegon the Conqueror. Oh, there, he's Cregan Stark. He fought with Prince Aemon once, and the Dragonknight said he'd never faced a finer swordsman." They were almost at the end now, and Bran felt a sadness creeping over him. "And there's my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father's brother. They're not supposed to have statues, that's only for the lords and the kings, but my father loved them so much he had them done."

 

 

 

In the crypts, Brandon the Burner is always close to Torhen. 

Yes, occasionally they list Theon as after him, but come on. Theon couldn't sail to Essos after Brandon burned their ships, thats silly. Brandon came after Theon and close to Torhen.

 

 

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Bran II

"We have had no strength at sea for hundreds of years, since Brandon the Burner put the torch to his father's ships. Grant me the gold and within the year I will float you sufficient galleys to take Dragonstone and King's Landing both."

 

 

 

Wyman Manderly even confirms that Brandon the Burner was only hundreds of years ago. 

 

So there is quite a bit of evidence and info on Bael 

 

[The Wondering Wolf]

The book was written during the reign of Robert I and does not cover any events from the main books (except some short sentences on the last page), so of course there is no mention of Mance's attack. Besides that, even if the Targs have not come around to help the North (apparently there was no time for that anyway), we can surely assume that someone told Maekar: "Hey someone invaded your realm. Wanna know anything about that?" And surely Maekar did not say: "No, I don't care." And there would be no difference with Jaehaerys I. The guy spent his life forging a closer band between his kingdoms and then he would not be interested in such a matter?

Yandel does not question the existence of Redbeard, he can even state the exact year of his invasion. But he is not sure about the existence of an invader 150 years earlier than Readbeard? Does not make any sense to me.

[AlaskanSandman]

Oh, and yes there are some irrelevant Brandon Starks in the Ancient Days. 

This is irrelevant. Brandon the IX or not.

Jon tells us Bael came Thousands of years after Brandon I. Im pretty sure they reached Brandon the IX in those first couple thousand years lol

We dont know which number Brandon the Burner is, but irrelevant. 

Jon, Qhorin, and Yandel help us place Bael well past the Ancient days of Joramun, or the Long ago days of Gendel and Gorne and the Horned Lord. No, they place him closer to Raymun Red Beard. Its pretty clear where in history they are roughly putting him.

[AlaskanSandman]

2 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The book was written during the reign of Robert I and does not cover any events from the main books (except some short sentences on the last page), so of course there is no mention of Mance's attack. Besides that, even if the Targs have not come around to help the North (apparently there was no time for that anyway), we can surely assume that someone told Maekar: "Hey someone invaded your realm. Wanna know anything about that?" And surely Maekar did not say: "No, I don't care." And there would be no difference with Jaehaerys I. The guy spent his life forging a closer band between his kingdoms and then he would not be interested in such a matter?

Yandel does not question the existence of Redbeard, he can even state the exact year of his invasion. But he is not sure about the existence of an invader 150 years earlier than Readbeard? Does not make any sense to me.

Then why is it scribbled out and Tommen's name is put in. The book was began under Robert, not finished. So no, they should know and it should be recorded. 

And you can assume what you want on what they told Maekar or Jaehaerys, i like to assume and wonder things too, but that's no more reliable than my speculations then.

We never once hear of a Targaryen or any southern king caring about the wall untill Stannis. So whether you think they should care or not, we never once hear about them caring. Only Starks and Umbers. 

And why does Yandel knowing of Bael but not his date make no sense, but Yandel knowing of Bael makes sense to you???? How????? How does Yandel know about Bael???  And Yandel is wrong in what he says any ways, he says "There are no records" of him in the North. Yet, some how, Jon knows of Bael before meeting Qhorin or Ygritte. So obviously there are some sort of records be it song or not told in winterfell. 

Bael was wiped from history in some attempt at a cover up maybe, but there is definitely enough information to counter he never existed. 

[AlaskanSandman]

Yes you can pick the Horned Lord at 1700Bc rather than to 700Bc but that's all up to you and how you see the events. Theon Stark is clearly listed near Brandon the Burner and his Father. Yet couldn't exist after them, so had to exist before them.

Manderly tells us that Burner was only Hundreds of years ago. If Theon was shortly before the Burner. Then this would make sense as a good time for the Horned Lord to attack the Wall as the King of the North is off in Essos fighting Andals.

We're told the Andals never attacked the North again either, likely cause Theon killed the last of them that remained after the Souring of Lorath in 1436BC.

Which the Andals must have been not much threat by then as Valyria moves on to the Rhoynar. So Theon killing the last of them makes sense. The Andals dont even reach Old Town till 1000Bc. 

Even if you wanna look at it different, Theon was closer to the Scouring etc. Doens't change information on Brandon the Burner or when Qhorin, Jon, or Yandel place Bael. 

All that does it change when the Andal waves were coming. 

Also that means when people are listing Theon so close to Burner and Torhen, they are seriously jumping over alottttt of Starks as they're listing them off.

IF Theon is actually closer to them, then it makes sense and Bran, and Theon aren't  jumping tons of Starks in their list.

[The Wondering Wolf]

Whatever you think should have been covered, Yandel did not think so. He adjusted some minor things and that is it. He did not even care to cover the War of the Five Kings.

So you think a king not caring or even taking notice about an invasion is just as likely as a king doing so? I guess we have to leave it there then.

[AlaskanSandman]

19 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Whatever you think should have been covered, Yandel did not think so. He adjusted some minor things and that is it. He did not even care to cover the War of the Five Kings.

So you think a king not caring or even taking notice about an invasion is just as likely as a king doing so? I guess we have to leave it there then.

Huh?

And that's convenient to your argument. So it's important to the King and the Maesters that a King Beyond the Wall is attacking, but Yandel also didn't care as you also say cause he doesn't cover it or much of the war of the Five Kings....

Even though no Targaryen King has ever shown up before. Seriously, why didn't any king show up when Raymun attacked? 

Only Stannis shows up is because he believes he is the Chosen One and Melisandre tells him the real enemy is at the wall. They're thinking and talking bigger threats than Mance. And for some odd reason Stannis thinks winning the North will endear him upon the rest of the realm. Which makes no sense. 

When Jon sends his letter, literally no one in the realm cares. No one thinks its a threat. No one cares. They leave it for the Watch to deal with as always. 
Again, every King Beyond the Wall we have ever heard of only ever fought the Watch, The Starks, and the Umbers.

I suppose King Maekar (who was a warrior) just didn't care about the wall. As he neverrrr shows up to fight Raymun.

Quote

Nevertheless, Maekar's reign, coming between two Blackfyre Rebellions, is generally regarded as peaceful.^[5] And despite his previous strife with Bloodraven, Maekar kept his uncle as Hand of the King.^[5]

Hmmm, i guess he had more pressing things to do like Tourneys and such......

 

[Lord Varys]

If you want to read about the War of the Five Kings you don't have to read Yandel. There are other books covering that subject in detail.

This idea just doesn't make any sense, no matter how one spins it. It is too important an event to not be covered in TWoIaF. Not to mention that the author would have to have a very bad day to decide it was a good idea to put Bael into the Targaryen era - it would cause all manner of problems he would then have to explain away.

[AlaskanSandman]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you want to read about the War of the Five Kings you don't have to read Yandel. There are other books covering that subject in detail.

This idea just doesn't make any sense, no matter how one spins it. It is too important an event to not be covered in TWoIaF. Not to mention that the author would have to have a very bad day to decide it was a good idea to put Bael into the Targaryen era - it would cause all manner of problems he would then have to explain away.

That's not true at all. Yandel is pulling from older sources like Glydane, who pulls from older sources such as Munkin, Runciter, Mellos, Daemon, Eusatace, Otto Hightower, and Mushroom. We have no idea who Yandel has as a source for that time. Presumable he's pulling it all from Glydane, who lived during Aegon V. 
So Glydane has to be using an older source. So, like with the Rogue Prince, and Blacks and Greens, we're not likely getting the full story. We have no idea who Glydan is using for a source, as their view may be biased also. 

Or maybe, as i think Alysanne had a child at QueensCrown that was not Jaehaerys', Jaehaerys didn't likely want to report any of it from his visit north. Cant hide the fact that he went north, but you can hide the details about what happened. 

 

[AlaskanSandman]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you want to read about the War of the Five Kings you don't have to read Yandel. There are other books covering that subject in detail.

That's not really proving anything. If anything that backs what im saying. The main books are from multiple pov's allowing us to see many details that will be lost to history. Things never to be recorded in TWOIAF. That literally is something that reinforces my point. 

[Rufus Snow]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

it would cause all manner of problems he would then have to explain away.

I trust you're not suggesting that there are currently no problems that need explaining away? Cos that's how this whole conversation got started....

The anachronistic content of the wildling songs is being 'explained away' as Ygritte knowing no better. But why assume she's just aping 'current knowledge' rather than the songs' actual contents, which 'all the free folk know'?

Jon knows about Bael despite Winterfell having no record of Bael - that's 'explained away'... oh wait, no-one HAS explained that away yet. My bad

The mysterious gap in knowledge of the Stark family tree for the first hundred years of the Targ era is 'explained away' as because something, just not this. Because? For instance, Lord So-and-so can't be 'the bastard' because he has a brother. Well, in the 30 years of the bastard's life, is it known that his mother bore no more children? No, it is not known. Therefore a presence of a brother is no proof at all.

We know the line survived, so the bastard had an heir - maybe a son, maybe a brother, who survived whatever Bolton (allegedly) did.

As of the Conquest, Torrhen the Kneeler had four un-named sons. Of course, if we try really really hard we might think of another family that once survived 'in office' thanks to a fourth son.....

The next Lord we know of by name is Ellard a century later! We also know that it was not Ellard who granted the New Gift - this factoid has been de-canonised by the George

Given that it was another Lord Stark who granted the New Gift, we might allow a little speculation as to who George will name that Lord to be. It is noted he had a brother, but as above, a younger brother would still be compatible with the Lord being the bastard. Lord Bastard, then, was allegedly not keen to give the New Gift to the Watch - despite the 'Starks being friends to the Watch'. Hmm, what, like maybe Lord Bastard was pissed because the Watch crapped out and let the KbtW through perhaps??? It's even possible that Ellard could have been this younger brother, who would eventually inherit and still be holding a grudge against Jaehaerys in 101AC.

I don't know if there's a fixed canonical date for Alysanne's trip ooop North and the New Gift, but it was clearly during the reign - so after 48AC. Assume it was 48AC, to take the very earliest possible date, and Lord Bastard had just taken the title at the age of 16. That puts his conception (Bael's first visit) at 31/32AC, and we might assume his mother was similarly 16 (seems a fair guess for a maid ) So she would have been born about 16AC herself. IF her father Lord Brandon the Daughterless was a son of Torrhen, and one of those threatening to call the banners in protest at the Arryn marriage, he would himself have been a man grown at the time of the Conquest. So it is not out of the realms of possibility.

KbtW Bael's attack, in this instance would then fall around 61/62AC. Although that hinges on the date of the New Gift being granted. The later th the gifting is, the older Lord Bastard might be, which will affect the possible dates of Bael's death as that is fixed at Lord Bastard's 30th year.

Now, I can't say that for sure this is what happened. But there are no reasons I can see which can rule this out, either. We need EVIDENCE, no more arguing from incredulity.

 

So to recap:

King Torrhen

- four sons, one who is called Brandon

Lord Brandon

- one daughter -> insert Bael

- Bael's bastard becomes Lord Bastard in due course, who grants the Gift, has a younger brother Ellard

Lord Bastard

-> insert KbtW Bael 30yrs on

- the Bolton bit, and young brother Ellard takes over

Lord Ellard, then the regular service resumes where Yandel's family tree of the Starks begins

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

19 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

Look up the Winchester Round Table That's the one I had in mind, but there was bit of a fad back in the day

(Totally off topic - I remember seeing it in the flesh, but have no memory of ever being in Winchester )

 

18 hours ago, Trefayne said:

Well that I have heard of, but I don't remember any Arthurian connotations surrounding it. That was over twenty years ago though. Worth a read to see if there's something that ties it together.

Off topic, but this period of history is of interest to me.

Edward I purposely evoked the legend of Arthur for political reasons. The Arthurian legends (the medieval versions anyway) said Arthur would return and unite Britain. Edward was aiming to conquer Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and therefore wrapped himself in the Arthur myth (essentially saying he was Arthur reborn) in order to justify it.

It's an interesting topic when discussing legends though. Ygritte's story is full of anachronisms, and so were the Arthurian stories, which talked about "knights", when the Roman-Britons didn't have knights, and all sorts of other things that don't fit. The original Arthurian tales, much like the wildling songs, were part of an oral tradition, and therefore anachronisms would easily sneak in. Remember, these are stories used to entertain around the fire at night, not history lessons.

Ygritte saying "lord" instead of king, or referring to the kingsroad are not proof that Bael was post-Conquest. She recounting the tale to Jon, she's not even just singing the song. Anachronisms could have snuck into the legend as it is passed down, just as happened with Arthurian tales (and Homer's stories too btw), or they could have snuck into Ygritte's story when she was giving Jon the abridged version.

[Bael's Bastard]

There is no chance that there was an unknown Wildling invasion south of the Wall and unknown flaying of a Lord Stark by House Bolton in the first century of the Targaryen era, especially during the reign of Jaehaerys I. It is frankly an insane idea. It is clear that Ygritte is using anachronisms in an account of something that occurred before the Targaryens. It need not be thousands of years in the past. But there is no chance it is in the last three hundred years. The idea that Bael's son had a Stark brother is baseless speculation. The theory of Bael existing in the first century of the Targaryen era is very easily dismissed as nonsense. 

[Rufus Snow]

20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Ygritte saying "lord" instead of king, or referring to the kingsroad are not proof that Bael was post-Conquest. She recounting the tale to Jon, she's not even just singing the song. Anachronisms could have snuck into the legend as it is passed down, just as happened with Arthurian tales (and Homer's stories too btw), or they could have snuck into Ygritte's story when she was giving Jon the abridged version.

Well, this is one of those imponderables, and I guess you just have to take a side: ultimately 'it's anachronistic because it's old' is no more or less valid an argument than 'it's accurate, because it's recent' Both are ultimately circular...

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

6 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Well, this is one of those imponderables, and I guess you just have to take a side: ultimately 'it's anachronistic because it's old' is no more or less valid an argument than 'it's accurate, because it's recent' Both are ultimately circular...

Not really circular. One needs to weigh up whether it's more likely that a story passed down in an oral tradition would contain anachronisms, or that an invasion and Bolton rebellion would occur post-Conquest and there be no written record of it. Personally, I think the former is more likely.