Whose nameday falls first - Jon's or Robb's?

[Megorova]

1 hour ago, wia said:

It's Storm's End to Summerhall => Summerhall to Storm's End => Storm's End to Ashford. Which is 15+15+15+13,5 = 58,5 days instead of 28,5 in your calculation. And that's with us assuming that Stannis already called Robert's banners and they have already assembled at Storm's End when he arrived from Gulltown (though TWOIAF states that he sailed to Storm's End call his banners btw).

He went from Storm's End to Summerhall, where in a single day he has won three battles against three different lords. So do you really think, that him and his people traveled to Summerhall for 15 days, just to fight there for one day, and then to return back to Storm's End? That's irrational - to travel so inefficiently.

[wia]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

He went from Storm's End to Summerhall, where in a single day he has won three battles against three different lords. So do you really think, that him and his people traveled to Summerhall for 15 days, just to fight there for one day, and then to return back to Storm's End? That's irrational - to travel so inefficiently.

Um... I'm not sure what you're trying to do here tbh, argue with the text?

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Davos IV
"Do smugglers have another name for it? I made him Hand, and he would have sold my rights for a bowl of pease porridge. He would even have given them Shireen. Mine only child, he would have wed to a bastard born of incest." The king's voice was thick with anger. "My brother had a gift for inspiring loyalty. Even in his foes. At Summerhall he won three battles in a single day, and brought Lords Grandison and Cafferen back to Storm's End as prisoners. He hung their banners in the hall as trophies. Cafferen's white fawns were spotted with blood and Grandison's sleeping lion was torn near in two. Yet they would sit beneath those banners of a night, drinking and feasting with Robert. He even took them hunting. 'These men meant to deliver you to Aerys to be burned,' I told him after I saw them throwing axes in the yard. 'You should not be putting axes in their hands.' Robert only laughed. I would have thrown Grandison and Cafferen into a dungeon, but he turned them into friends. Lord Cafferen died at Ashford Castle, cut down by Randyll Tarly whilst fighting for Robert. Lord Grandison was wounded on the Trident and died of it a year after. My brother made them love him, but it would seem that I inspire only betrayal. Even in mine own blood and kin. Brother, grandfather, cousins, good uncle . . ."

I don't even know how would one go about that in this case, as it's not by any means a hearsay - Stannis was present during the events and I don't see why would he lie about it.

[wia]

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

He went from Storm's End to Summerhall, where in a single day he has won three battles against three different lords. So do you really think, that him and his people traveled to Summerhall for 15 days, just to fight there for one day, and then to return back to Storm's End? That's irrational - to travel so inefficiently.

Actually, thinking of it now, the text could explain it.

Robert was staying at Storm's End in the process of calling his banners, was informed that Grandison, Cafferen, and Fell are planning an attack on him, rode out to defeat them (actually it says with knight and squires, so here's the Robert's cavalry mention, it was a thing after all), proceeds to take them back as hostages and win them over while feasting and hunting while he's waiting for his troops to gather. Waiting here is not pointless, he's gathering troops and attacking KL is pointless by himself, it has to be a coordinated effort with Stark, Arryn and Tully troops who are probably rather far and Tullys probably haven't even joined his cause at this point.

That is, of course, a theory, but does that make sense to you? 

Please mind that I don't really care who was born first - it does not impact any of the theories that I care about whatsoever. I just did a RR's timeline on a piece of paper a while ago just for fun, without even using Robb's or Jon's birth and only using the text and not things like character's guesses, possible lies, forum theories and so forth. If you just think 'how did this worked out', you usually don't go 'this amount of time to march here, that amount of time to march there, and then let's add 8 months of doing unimportant things with a full army'. Could there be a reason to do that - maybe, but I certainly haven't noticed it in the text provided. But really the marching times suggest that the BotB was later than ~2/5 months in the war and reason suggests that there was less than 8 months between BotB and Trident/Sack.

[Megorova]

15 hours ago, wia said:

Um... I'm not sure what you're trying to do here tbh, argue with the text?

I don't even know how would one go about that in this case, as it's not by any means a hearsay - Stannis was present during the events and I don't see why would he lie about it.

+

14 hours ago, wia said:

Actually, thinking of it now, the text could explain it.

Robert was staying at Storm's End in the process of calling his banners, was informed that Grandison, Cafferen, and Fell are planning an attack on him, rode out to defeat them (actually it says with knight and squires, so here's the Robert's cavalry mention, it was a thing after all), proceeds to take them back as hostages and win them over while feasting and hunting while he's waiting for his troops to gather. Waiting here is not pointless, he's gathering troops and attacking KL is pointless by himself, it has to be a coordinated effort with Stark, Arryn and Tully troops who are probably rather far and Tullys probably haven't even joined his cause at this point.

I still say, that going with his entire army to Summerhall, just to fight there for one day, and then go back, is extremely inefficient. And the text is a prove of my theory.

It appears, that Robert didn't went to Summerhall with his entire army. Because he was still in early stages of gathering his bannermen. So he didn't brought an army to Summerhall. He just went there with a few of his people. Those three lords also didn't had much time to gather their own armies. So maybe the three of them came to Summerhall, same as Robert, with just a few of their people, for negotiations, and to plan what are they going to do. And here comes Robert with his people, and challenged the three of them to fight him in a one on one duel. Then he killed one of them, and also won duels against the other two, and then has brought them with him to Storm's End, which also didn't took much time (lesser than 15 days).

Distance between Storm's End and Summerhall is approximately 300 miles. The speed of horse travel in a big group, thru mountaineous terrain would have been 20 miles per day, thus the duration of travel between S'sE and SH is 15 days.

BUT it is possible to cover those 300 miles faster than in 15 days.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/how-far-could-mongolian-horses-travel-in-a-day

Quote

In the depths of the winter of AD 1241 Mongol armies moved through the Carpathian Mountains in the invasion of Europe covering 60 miles per day

Quote

Martin quotes Douglas Carruthers as saying that in the early twentieth century a Mongol riding a single pony would routinely travel 600 miles in nine days, and calculates that on a two-day march from Bamiyan to Ghazna in 1221 Genghis' army covered 130 miles.

So it's possible, that Robert and several of his people departed from Storm's End, and covered those 300 miles to Summerhall in just 5 days. + 1 day for three one on one duels, + 3 days on whatever, + 5 days for the trip back to Storm's End = 14 days in total, not 15+15 from previous calculations.

So those three battles at Summerhall, could have happened less than a week after Robert's arrival to Storm's End from Gulltown.

Though, as I wrote in one of my previous posts (or maybe that part is missing from my copy-paste from another thread ), there I calculated only time required for traveling in span of Robert's Rebellion from one location to another. Those calculations don't include time needed for gathering banners, and time spent on other things, it's only time required for covering certain distances between known locations of battles during R'sR.

15 hours ago, wia said:

Please mind that I don't really care who was born first - it does not impact any of the theories that I care about whatsoever. I just did a RR's timeline on a piece of paper a while ago just for fun, without even using Robb's or Jon's birth and only using the text and not things like character's guesses, possible lies, forum theories and so forth. If you just think 'how did this worked out', you usually don't go 'this amount of time to march here, that amount of time to march there, and then let's add 8 months of doing unimportant things with a full army'. Could there be a reason to do that - maybe, but I certainly haven't noticed it in the text provided. But really the marching times suggest that the BotB was later than ~2/5 months in the war and reason suggests that there was less than 8 months between BotB and Trident/Sack.

My bad 2,5 months is only a time needed for traveling alone, so we should add there additional unknown amount of time, needed for various preparations, and for battles themselves. So the actual timespan between taking of Gulltown and The Battle of the Bells is longer than those 2,5 months.

[wia]

26 minutes ago, Megorova said:

+

I still say, that going with his entire army to Summerhall, just to fight there for one day, and then go back, is extremely inefficient. And the text is a prove of my theory.

It appears, that Robert didn't went to Summerhall with his entire army. Because he was still in early stages of gathering his bannermen. So he didn't brought an army to Summerhall. He just went there with a few of his people. Those three lords also didn't had much time to gather their own armies. So maybe the three of them came to Summerhall, same as Robert, with just a few of their people, for negotiations, and to plan what are they going to do. And here comes Robert with his people, and challenged the three of them to fight him in a one on one duel. Then he killed one of them, and also won duels against the other two, and then has brought them with him to Storm's End, which also didn't took much time (lesser than 15 days).

Distance between Storm's End and Summerhall is approximately 300 miles. The speed of horse travel in a big group, thru mountaineous terrain would have been 20 miles per day, thus the duration of travel between S'sE and SH is 15 days.

BUT it is possible to cover those 300 miles faster than in 15 days.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/25999/how-far-could-mongolian-horses-travel-in-a-day

So it's possible, that Robert and several of his people departed from Storm's End, and covered those 300 miles to Summerhall in just 5 days. + 1 day for three one on one duels, + 3 days on whatever, + 5 days for the trip back to Storm's End = 14 days in total, not 15+15 from previous calculations.

So those three battles at Summerhall, could have happened less than a week after Robert's arrival to Storm's End from Gulltown.

Though, as I wrote in one of my previous posts (or maybe that part is missing from my copy-paste from another thread ), there I calculated only time required for traveling in span of Robert's Rebellion from one location to another. Those calculations don't include time needed for gathering banners, and time spent on other things, it's only time required for covering certain distances between known locations of battles during R'sR.

My bad 2,5 months is only a time needed for traveling alone, so we should add there additional unknown amount of time, needed for various preparations, and for battles themselves. So the actual timespan between taking of Gulltown and The Battle of the Bells is longer than those 2,5 months.

I tried calculating with that spreadsheet info.

Average:
Storm's End => Summerhall = 350 / 21 mpd (large group of riders, avg pace) = 16.6
Summerhall => Storm's End = 350 / 21 mpd (large group of riders, avg pace) = 16.6 (though here it would be an army size with 3 lords tbh, not a large group of riders, but let's pretend that the lords decided to attack with cavalry alone for the sake of the argument)
Storm's End => Ashford = 650 / 11 mpd (army with supply train, avg pace) = 59
= 92 days
Ashford => Riverrun = 890 / 14 (army without supply train, fastest pace) = 63.5 (i'll assume that Robert abandoned his supply train as he was escaping)
92 + 63.5 = 155.5; that's over 5 months on travel time alone

The fastest it offers:
Storm's End => Summerhall = 350 / 42 mpd (large group of riders, fastest pace) = 8.3
Summerhall => Storm's End = 350 / 42 mpd (large group of riders, fastest pace) = 8.3
Storm's End => Ashford = 650 / 17 mpd (army with supply train, fastest pace) = 38.2
= 55 days
Ashford => Riverrun = 890 / 20 (army withouu a supply train, fastest pace) = 44.5
55 + 44.5 = 99.5; that's over 3 months on travel time alone in the fastest option

So we'd also have to add the Gulltown, getting to Storm's End, assembling his banners, hunting with Lords Grandison and Cafferen, etc.
I hope I didn't mess up any of the arithmetic in hurry. 

As for Mongols, then off-memory, they were lightly armored cavalry with several horses per each rider, with no supply train, excellent organization and communication. They're much, much faster than medieval knights. So while it's possible in general, it doesn't seem possible for Robert's army in particular.

 

[corbon]

5 hours ago, wia said:

I tried calculating with that spreadsheet info.

snip

 So while it's possible in general, it doesn't seem possible for Robert's army in particular.

 

Here's the thing.

GRRM doesn't do this and has warned people against doing it, precisely because he doesn't and may have made mistakes as he changes the story.

 

It is necessary for the story that Jon be no more than a month or two older than Robb, because its not believable for Robb to be treated older if he is 3 months old living beside a 6 month or more old Jon. Babies have lots of relatively consistent milestones during that first year and if Jon was several months or more older it would be extremely obvious. Remember, Catelyn was apart from Ned a year so Robb was three months old (give or take a month or so for imprecise language of "a year" when Catelyn brought him to Winterfell and found Jon already there with Ned.
Jon's birth is placed at a month or so after the end of the war by being 8-9 months older than Dany, who was conceived just before the end of the war (Rhaella didn't know she was pregnant when she evacuated to Dragonstone, plus she was hiding bruises on her face likely from Aerys' rape the night before after the burning of Chelsted, after the Battle of the Trident).

Robb's conception is therefore placed at 3-4 months into the war, and is definitely after the Battle of the Bells because Catelyn only met Ned on her wedding day and it was a twin wedding, with Jon Arryn only needing to wed Lysa because his last heir have died during the BotBells.

 

And its not "8 months of doing nothing". As noted, most of the early battles are smaller affairs with hastily assembled forces. It not only takes considerable time for full levies to be mustered and trained (see The Sworn Sword for general background information from the other end of the system), but the allies also have to clear out the Targaryen loyalists within their own realms - such were scattered everywhere, not just the three Lords Robert beat in a day (battles BTW, not duels). 
The allies can't afford to march on KL with Loyalist pockets in their rear. Logistics will already be difficult, and that would make it impossible. So some of that 8 months is internal consolidation. Some is mustering and training full forces. No doubt some is also conducting diplomacy, which takes a lot of time, with the Lannisters especially, but possibly also the Greyjoys and Martells.
Clearly, even at the end of that 8 months, they are still not yet ready to march on KL, because its Rhaegar who moves out to meet them, not them who attack the Loyalists.

Robert is famous for moving faster than anyone thinks possible. It seems likely that due to mistakes made by GRRM he actually moved faster than it is possible. Thats how the story rolls, sorry.

[wia]

26 minutes ago, corbon said:

Here's the thing.

GRRM doesn't do this and has warned people against doing it, precisely because he doesn't and may have made mistakes as he changes the story.

 

It is necessary for the story that Jon be no more than a month or two older than Robb, because its not believable for Robb to be treated older if he is 3 months old living beside a 6 month or more old Jon. Babies have lots of relatively consistent milestones during that first year and if Jon was several months or more older it would be extremely obvious. Remember, Catelyn was apart from Ned a year so Robb was three months old (give or take a month or so for imprecise language of "a year" when Catelyn brought him to Winterfell and found Jon already there with Ned.
Jon's birth is placed at a month or so after the end of the war by being 8-9 months older than Dany, who was conceived just before the end of the war (Rhaella didn't know she was pregnant when she evacuated to Dragonstone, plus she was hiding bruises on her face likely from Aerys' rape the night before after the burning of Chelsted, after the Battle of the Trident).

Robb's conception is therefore placed at 3-4 months into the war, and is definitely after the Battle of the Bells because Catelyn only met Ned on her wedding day and it was a twin wedding, with Jon Arryn only needing to wed Lysa because his last heir have died during the BotBells.

 

And its not "8 months of doing nothing". As noted, most of the early battles are smaller affairs with hastily assembled forces. It not only takes considerable time for full levies to be mustered and trained (see The Sworn Sword for general background information from the other end of the system), but the allies also have to clear out the Targaryen loyalists within their own realms - such were scattered everywhere, not just the three Lords Robert beat in a day (battles BTW, not duels). 
The allies can't afford to march on KL with Loyalist pockets in their rear. Logistics will already be difficult, and that would make it impossible. So some of that 8 months is internal consolidation. Some is mustering and training full forces. No doubt some is also conducting diplomacy, which takes a lot of time, with the Lannisters especially, but possibly also the Greyjoys and Martells.
Clearly, even at the end of that 8 months, they are still not yet ready to march on KL, because its Rhaegar who moves out to meet them, not them who attack the Loyalists.

Robert is famous for moving faster than anyone thinks possible. It seems likely that due to mistakes made by GRRM he actually moved faster than it is possible. Thats how the story rolls, sorry.

Nobody ever in books talks or thinks about Jon or Robb being older than the other, nobody really cares. So no, it's not necessary for the story, 'cause it's just not in the story at all.

Yes, GRRM said that there isn't a precise timeline for RR, yet he uses RR to tell us when Dany was born and Bobb's birth is also clearly defined within that timeline. So the author is using RR's timeline to define ages of characters born around the time and you're using stuff like 'people wouldn't believe if there was more than X months older' and 'the story needs that'.

And what 3 months? - It's over 3 months of pure and very fast marching, again, just marching, the fastest they could ever march, from Storm's End to Riverrun. Without Gulltoun and travelling by sea and all that.  Calculated with the biggest stretch possible just for you. Nobody ever would use that pace to calculate RR's timeline for the sake of timeline. It's at the very bare minimum month 4 (and really it's Robert being unrealistically fast and spending 20 days on Gulltown, calling his banners, hunting and feasting), so if we were to count the realistic timeline of RR and not laying train lines for Robert to be just in time with the timeline that you want, it's like 5-7 months. And however you look at it, Robb is 4+9=13 (and more like 14-16, let's face it) while Jon is 11-12 (or earlier if the war was less than 11 months). 

I don't see the point of this conversation 'cause clearly we're talking of a different story. The one I've been reading is not impacted whatsoever by who is older. 

[corbon]

2 hours ago, wia said:

Nobody ever in books talks or thinks about Jon or Robb being older than the other, nobody really cares. So no, it's not necessary for the story, 'cause it's just not in the story at all.

they do by default. Cat knows Robb was concieved before Ned left her and went further south to continue the war. 
She also believes Ned fathered Jon after that time, dishonouring her by sleeping with some woman, possibly Ashara Dayne, after he left her.
Thats also what Ned presents to the world - that he dishonoured Cat in the sight of gods and men by fathering Jon. And what Robert and Cersei and pretty much everyone believes except the Fisgherman's daughter rumour which is only found in an area where everyone involved hasn't been since before Jon or Robb were born.

They don't make it explicit than Jon is younger, because its just a normal fact of life for them, but they must accept that Robb is older as a unthought default for their other thoughts and actions to be possible.

This matters to the timeline we are discussing because Jon's birth can be reasonably narrowly defined as within a month or so after the end of the war (you seem to think before, judging be your comments below), call it month 13, give or take. Both by the comparison with Dany's birth and by Lyanna's death as a result of Jon's birth (still lying in her "bloody bed"= birthing bed, though it may have been a week or two after the actual birth due to Puerperal Fever) and Lyanna lived long enough after the Rebellion ended for Ned to go to Storms End and end that siege then find her at ToJ in the Princes Pass.
That enables us to define Robb's conception as around the 4 month mark give or take a month or so, because he's clearly assumed by those who could tell as being older than Jon, which means he can't be too far behind Jon in age as they were together at 3 months old when relatively small disparities are quite obvious.

2 hours ago, wia said:

 

Yes, GRRM said that there isn't a precise timeline for RR, yet he uses RR to tell us when Dany was born and Bobb's birth is also clearly defined within that timeline. So the author is using RR's timeline to define ages of characters born around the time and you're using stuff like 'people wouldn't believe if there was more than X months older' and 'the story needs that'.

And what 3 months? - It's over 3 months of pure and very fast marching, again, just marching, the fastest they could ever march, from Storm's End to Riverrun. Without Gulltoun and travelling by sea and all that.  Calculated with the biggest stretch possible just for you. Nobody ever would use that pace to calculate RR's timeline for the sake of timeline. It's at the very bare minimum month 4 (and really it's Robert being unrealistically fast and spending 20 days on Gulltown, calling his banners, hunting and feasting), so if we were to count the realistic timeline of RR and not laying train lines for Robert to be just in time with the timeline that you want, it's like 5-7 months. And however you look at it, Robb is 4+9=13 (and more like 14-16, let's face it) while Jon is 11-12 (or earlier if the war was less than 11 months). 

The author is using a narrow part around the end of RR, when a bunch of things happen quite quickly, to give a comparison of two people born or conceived relevantly around those events. Its rough, but easily tied by him to specific important events.
You are trying to tie down exactly the stuff he said not to tie down by exactly the method he said not to.
I'm tying it down by the method he uses - roughly, tying only standard 9 month pregnancies around specifically relevant events.

2 hours ago, wia said:

I don't see the point of this conversation 'cause clearly we're talking of a different story. The one I've been reading is not impacted whatsoever by who is older. 

The purpose of the thread is whose nameday falls first.
This conversation has devolved around a workable timeline for RR, which is in fact directly impacted by the rough ages of Jon and Robb since both of them can have their birth or conception tied closely to after/before certain events. Robb can only be conceived after the Battle of the Bells and Jon can only be born after the war ends - though not too much after since he's 8-9 months older than Dany who was conceived before the war ended. Jon and Robb's relative ages therefore become relative to the war. They seem to be very close in age, which gives us a rough time period for the Battle of the Bells.

I'm presenting you with what works for and in the story. You're objecting on the grounds that doing exactly what GRRM cautioned against, makes nothing work. Go figure.
Your complaint seems to be that the timeline for RR is flawed. The answer is, yes, GRRM underestimated the timing of events at the start but its fixed now and can't be changed. So in that respect, yes, the timeline for RR is flawed.

 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

5 hours ago, wia said:

Nobody ever in books talks or thinks about Jon or Robb being older than the other, nobody really cares.

Ned cares. His honor is precious to him and he willingly allows it to be besmirched for Jon's sake. And he knows that he's causing pain to his wife - and to himself - but he has no recourse to alleviate her distress on this subject.

Catelyn cares. She believes her husband was unfaithful to her. It's painful. Jon's presence in her home is a daily reminder of that, which makes it impossible to put if behind her.

Robert Baratheon cares. Because he mentions it. I doubt it would have even occurred to him to think about if it was clear that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage.

Cersei Lannister cares. She really enjoyed throwing that little tidbit of Ned's "unfaithfulness" in his face.

So Ned's explicit contention that Jon is younger than Robb resulted in 1) besmirching his own honor, 2) causing stress in his marriage to Cat, and 3) himself becoming the subject of leering gossip and sneers from the likes of Cersei Lannister, among others. If there was any way at all that Ned could plausibly claim that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage and therefore older than Robb, I'm sure he would have done it. He only didn't because he couldn't, imo.

 

[SFDanny]

12 hours ago, wia said:

I tried calculating with that spreadsheet info.

Average:
Storm's End => Summerhall = 350 / 21 mpd (large group of riders, avg pace) = 16.6
Summerhall => Storm's End = 350 / 21 mpd (large group of riders, avg pace) = 16.6 (though here it would be an army size with 3 lords tbh, not a large group of riders, but let's pretend that the lords decided to attack with cavalry alone for the sake of the argument)
Storm's End => Ashford = 650 / 11 mpd (army with supply train, avg pace) = 59
= 92 days
Ashford => Riverrun = 890 / 14 (army without supply train, fastest pace) = 63.5 (i'll assume that Robert abandoned his supply train as he was escaping)
92 + 63.5 = 155.5; that's over 5 months on travel time alone

The fastest it offers:
Storm's End => Summerhall = 350 / 42 mpd (large group of riders, fastest pace) = 8.3
Summerhall => Storm's End = 350 / 42 mpd (large group of riders, fastest pace) = 8.3
Storm's End => Ashford = 650 / 17 mpd (army with supply train, fastest pace) = 38.2
= 55 days
Ashford => Riverrun = 890 / 20 (army withouu a supply train, fastest pace) = 44.5
55 + 44.5 = 99.5; that's over 3 months on travel time alone in the fastest option

So we'd also have to add the Gulltown, getting to Storm's End, assembling his banners, hunting with Lords Grandison and Cafferen, etc.
I hope I didn't mess up any of the arithmetic in hurry. 

As for Mongols, then off-memory, they were lightly armored cavalry with several horses per each rider, with no supply train, excellent organization and communication. They're much, much faster than medieval knights. So while it's possible in general, it doesn't seem possible for Robert's army in particular.

Many of us have done these types of calculations. They don't work. If people want to do them as a way of showing how off Martin is from real world travel times and speeds for armies, messengers, ravens, or anything else it is an easy exercise to do, but Martin has already told his readers to stop and put down the pencils and rulers and enjoy the story. He knows his times and speeds don't work in the real world and he doesn't care. What he does care about is sequence. That is what his trouble with the "Meereenese Knot" was all about. He spends great effort to get that aspect of his story right. I would suggest if you want to construct a timeline of Robert's Rebellion to follow Martin's advice and instead focus on what events come before others and what approximations of time are actually cited in the texts. In addition, if you haven't already done so, the essay in the Citadel entitled "What Happened When During Robert's Rebellion" for a place to use as a resource. It isn't infallible, but it is a good place to start.

 

6 hours ago, wia said:

Nobody ever in books talks or thinks about Jon or Robb being older than the other, nobody really cares. So no, it's not necessary for the story, 'cause it's just not in the story at all.

This is simply not true. The entire first post in this thread is precisely about the sequence of events surrounding Robb's and Jon's births. We have both Catelyn's thoughts and Ned's remarks which point to the sequence of their births being Robb's first and Jon's after. That we don't have anyone who explicitly comments that Robb's nameday is before Jon's is also true, but because we can't quote the books saying "Robb was born before Jon" doesn't mean it isn't talked about or that the overwhelming evidence is that Robb's nameday is celebrated before Jon's. I would remind you that there is almost no reference to any namedays regarding explicit statements saying which falls first in the year. All of that, for every character, is a product of careful reading of the story.

[dmfn]

On 10/14/2018 at 6:27 AM, 867-5309 said:

Jon is older than Robb.  That is why the maester had to invent some bull about bastard boys growing up faster than legitimate boys.  It was cover up to hide the fact that Jon is older.  Lyanna was likely already pregnant when she disappeared.  

Then how did Ned come across Lyanna in a bloody bed and a newborn at the end of a year (or more) long rebellion? 

[wia]

8 hours ago, corbon said:

This matters to the timeline we are discussing because Jon's birth can be reasonably narrowly defined as within a month or so after the end of the war (you seem to think before, judging be your comments below), call it month 13, give or take.

No, Sack was 'war was raging close to a year', and Jon is born around the Sack or a month later, which is 11-12.

8 hours ago, corbon said:

Both by the comparison with Dany's birth and by Lyanna's death as a result of Jon's birth (still lying in her "bloody bed"= birthing bed, though it may have been a week or two after the actual birth due to Puerperal Fever) and Lyanna lived long enough after the Rebellion ended for Ned to go to Storms End and end that siege then find her at ToJ in the Princes Pass.

Again, that's not in the books. Neither did GRRM told us that. That's a theory. I really don't know how to deal with this attachment of yours to this theory and using it to calculate ages in this conversation.

8 hours ago, corbon said:

The author is using a narrow part around the end of RR, when a bunch of things happen quite quickly, to give a comparison of two people born or conceived relevantly around those events. Its rough, but easily tied by him to specific important events.
You are trying to tie down exactly the stuff he said not to tie down by exactly the method he said not to.
I'm tying it down by the method he uses - roughly, tying only standard 9 month pregnancies around specifically relevant events.

And yet he's using it meaning he sort of knows when happened when. Roughly. And he's not using arguments like what Ned cared about and Cat cared about and what Ned told Cat.

And mind you, he doesn't use arguments like A is younger/older than B, therefore the battle X had to be around this time. It's the war events that define the births, not the births that define the war events.

8 hours ago, corbon said:

I'm presenting you with what works for and in the story. You're objecting on the grounds that doing exactly what GRRM cautioned against, makes nothing work. Go figure.
Your complaint seems to be that the timeline for RR is flawed. The answer is, yes, GRRM underestimated the timing of events at the start but its fixed now and can't be changed. So in that respect, yes, the timeline for RR is flawed.

I'm presenting you with what works for and in the story: Robb is dead. He died as a King in the North and Jon is at the Wall. There's no conflict of interest here based on their ages and their ages do not impact the story in any way. One being older than the other doesn't change what happens to them whatsoever.

Your complain seems to be 'GRRM can't count and added a load of events in a 2,5 months period and the added 8 months of nothing important because he needs Robb to be older than Jon'. You'd think he'd figure to marry Ned to Cat earlier in the war and maybe have Robert fight less battles before BOTB and more of them after it happened or maybe have the war last longer if he really needed to match the timeline of RR to Robb and Jon's births, since he absolutely could, it was completely in his powers.

[wia]

6 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Ned cares. His honor is precious to him and he willingly allows it to be besmirched for Jon's sake. And he knows that he's causing pain to his wife - and to himself - but he has no recourse to alleviate her distress on this subject.

Catelyn cares. She believes her husband was unfaithful to her. It's painful. Jon's presence in her home is a daily reminder of that, which makes it impossible to put if behind her.

Robert Baratheon cares. Because he mentions it. I doubt it would have even occurred to him to think about if it was clear that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage.

Cersei Lannister cares. She really enjoyed throwing that little tidbit of Ned's "unfaithfulness" in his face.

So Ned's explicit contention that Jon is younger than Robb resulted in 1) besmirching his own honor, 2) causing stress in his marriage to Cat, and 3) himself becoming the subject of leering gossip and sneers from the likes of Cersei Lannister, among others. If there was any way at all that Ned could plausibly claim that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage and therefore older than Robb, I'm sure he would have done it. He only didn't because he couldn't, imo.

No, Cathelyn cares that Jon is in Winterfell. She herself states that Ned was welcome to whatever solace he could find and she expected him to take care of any bastards discreetly. She cared about legitimization and inheritance and the age would matter then, but again, it turned out that it wasn't really, since Robb is dead now. 

And yes, Ned was worried over Cathelyn, but not enough to remove the source of her worry and foster Jon somewhere. He could tell her the truth or her could tell her a lie, we don't know really. We never see him caring about Jon's age and it's relation to Robb's age. We see him caring about offending Cathelyn. And as per her, she'd be more offended if Jon was older actually.

Robert never says anything about Jon being conceived before or after Ned's marriage.

Cersei Lannister presented 2 theories one of which was Ashara, which would make Jon much older, and one would be some Dornish commoner which would make him much, much younger. Not sure how that demonstrates her caring about Jon's age since she's off by a lot in both cases.

Robert has bastards that were born before he married Cersei, that's him dishonoring himself and the women who gave birth to them even though he wasn't married then. And Cersei hates those kids all the same.

 

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Many of us have done these types of calculations. They don't work. If people want to do them as a way of showing how off Martin is from real world travel times and speeds for armies, messengers, ravens, or anything else it is an easy exercise to do, but Martin has already told his readers to stop and put down the pencils and rulers and enjoy the story. He knows his times and speeds don't work in the real world and he doesn't care. What he does care about is sequence. That is what his trouble with the "Meereenese Knot" was all about. He spends great effort to get that aspect of his story right. I would suggest if you want to construct a timeline of Robert's Rebellion to follow Martin's advice and instead focus on what events come before others and what approximations of time are actually cited in the texts. In addition, if you haven't already done so, the essay in the Citadel entitled "What Happened When During Robert's Rebellion" for a place to use as a resource. It isn't infallible, but it is a good place to start.

I don't see where my sequence of events is off, it is as stated in the books. What I see is that the travel time is off by months. We aren't talking 'week here, week there', we're talking that the most stretched out estimates used to cater to corbon's desired outcome are not even close.

Obviously I don't expect the calculations to be all neat, the version where the majority of the war with a lot of traveling and even time for hunting to happen in 2,5 months and then take a break for other stuff for another 8 while fitting in one place with a full army is what doesn't work, not the rough calculation of how much time would it take an army to go from place to place using the existing sequence of events.

 

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

This is simply not true. The entire first post in this thread is precisely about the sequence of events surrounding Robb's and Jon's births. We have both Catelyn's thoughts and Ned's remarks which point to the sequence of their births being Robb's first and Jon's after. That we don't have anyone who explicitly comments that Robb's nameday is before Jon's is also true, but because we can't quote the books saying "Robb was born before Jon" doesn't mean it isn't talked about or that the overwhelming evidence is that Robb's nameday is celebrated before Jon's. I would remind you that there is almost no reference to any namedays regarding explicit statements saying which falls first in the year. All of that, for every character, is a product of careful reading of the story.

Um, no, we have characters who's namedays matter: Cersei and Jaime. It was specifically stated which of them is older because it matters for the plot and for the characters. Those are the ones that do make a difference and that characters care about and that could impact the character's (namely Cecrsei's) actions.

Jon and Robb's age would only matter if Jon was legitimized, which was only Cathelyn's possible fear. And by the time that talk is on the table, Robb is dead and therefore it doesn't matter who is older for the story. Nobody else thinks of this as something of importance. 

Again, your 'overwhelming evidence that Robb's nameday is celebrated before Jon's' is Ned saying 'I dishonored myself and I dishonored Cathelyn and Jon's mother is Wylla' (which most of you believe is a lie) and Cat's theories that Jon's mother is Ashara or some random girl he met on campaign), the campaign starting before the wedding and the meeting with Ashara being way before the wedding. There's nothing to suggest that she has a good grip on Jon's conception time.

And finally, as I stated on page 1, I don't have a problem with the storyline of Ned saying that Jon is younger and Jon celebrating his nameday after Robb. 'Cause that and when was Jon actually born are two different matters. What I'm saying is that in this narrative, again, nobody cares that Jon is younger, it's just not a question that bothers anyone ever in the books. His age relative to Robbs age is not discussed or though about or considered important.

[Megorova]

11 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

So Ned's explicit contention that Jon is younger than Robb resulted in 1) besmirching his own honor, 2) causing stress in his marriage to Cat, and 3) himself becoming the subject of leering gossip and sneers from the likes of Cersei Lannister, among others. If there was any way at all that Ned could plausibly claim that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage and therefore older than Robb, I'm sure he would have done it. He only didn't because he couldn't, imo.

Ned couldn't say, that he has fathered Jon at the time, when Jon was conceived. Because at that time Ned was still on his way from The Vale to The North.

@wia @corbon    

We know for sure only two things:

1. Jon was born 8-9 months prior Dany;

2. Dany was born 9 months after Rhaella went from King's Landing to Dragonstone, and that Rhaella went to Dragonstone after the Battle at Trident, or close after it, when they received news about Rhaegar's death.

Thus Dany was conceived approximately two weeks prior Rhaegar's death/Trident's battle <- that's because duration of pregnancy is 9 and half months, so Rhaella became pregnant two weeks prior her departure to Dragonstone, before Rhaegar died.

Thus the timeframe goes like this:

1. Jon's conceivement;
2. 8-9 months after (1) - Dany's conceivement;
3. 2 weeks after (2) - Rhaella's departure to Dragonstone;
4. 9,5 months after (1) - Jon's birth.
5. 8-9 months after (4) - Dany's birth.

Thus Jon was conceived 8,5-9,5 months prior Rhaella went to Dragonstone. And the Sack of KL happened shortly after Rhaella left (maybe 2-4 weeks after that). The official end of Robert's Rebellion is the day when was lifted Siege of Storm's End (it happened probably 1-3 weeks after the Sack of KL). By that time the Rebellion has lasted a bit less than a year. 

So no matter how you look at it - Jon was conceived earlier than Robb, and thus he was also born earlier, and is older that Robb. Jon was conceived prior Battle of the Bells, and Robb some time after it. Ned just lied to everyone, that he has fathered Jon after his wedding with Cat, while actually Jon was conceived prior that time.

[SFDanny]

31 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Ned couldn't say, that he has fathered Jon at the time, when Jon was conceived. Because at that time Ned was still on his way from The Vale to The North.

And what could possibly explain Ned not just saying the truth if Jon is conceived on his way from the Vale to the North? This is the "fisherman's daughter" tale's timing and would put Jon's birth in the May 283 AC framework, and making him something like 13 months older than Daenerys. Which directly contradicts Martin's "eight or nine months or thereabouts" difference between Dany and Jon's namedays. It also places the difference between Robb and Jon at a fairly significant six or more months. Something that would cause many questions when the two are brought together in Winterfell when Robb is just what? Six or seven months old? If Jon is a year or more old at the time, it is very hard to believe anyone would think him younger. No amount of mythology about "bastards aging more quickly" explains such a difference, and Catelyn and the people of Winterfell aren't stupid.

But most importantly, why lie about it? There is no reason to do so, and every reason not to. As @The Ned's Little Girl so rightly explains below, to not just say that Ned conceived a child before he married Catelyn is to take on needless trouble and pain in his marriage for absolutely no reason. While it is frowned upon to have children outside the bounds of marriage, it is a very different thing than cheating during a marriage and conceiving such a child.

 

13 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Ned cares. His honor is precious to him and he willingly allows it to be besmirched for Jon's sake. And he knows that he's causing pain to his wife - and to himself - but he has no recourse to alleviate her distress on this subject.

Catelyn cares. She believes her husband was unfaithful to her. It's painful. Jon's presence in her home is a daily reminder of that, which makes it impossible to put if behind her.

Robert Baratheon cares. Because he mentions it. I doubt it would have even occurred to him to think about if it was clear that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage.

Cersei Lannister cares. She really enjoyed throwing that little tidbit of Ned's "unfaithfulness" in his face.

So Ned's explicit contention that Jon is younger than Robb resulted in 1) besmirching his own honor, 2) causing stress in his marriage to Cat, and 3) himself becoming the subject of leering gossip and sneers from the likes of Cersei Lannister, among others. If there was any way at all that Ned could plausibly claim that Jon was conceived before Ned's marriage and therefore older than Robb, I'm sure he would have done it. He only didn't because he couldn't, imo.

 

56 minutes ago, Megorova said:

We know for sure only two things:

1. Jon was born 8-9 months prior Dany;

2. Dany was born 9 months after Rhaella went from King's Landing to Dragonstone, and that Rhaella went to Dragonstone after the Battle at Trident, or close after it, when they received news about Rhaegar's death.

We don't know these two things for sure.

Quote

"All of which is a long winded way of saying, no, Jon was not born "more than 1 year" before Dany... probably closer to eight or nine months or thereabouts." So Spake Martin bold emphasis added

1. I don't know why people feel the need to truncate the quote, but it transforms it into something it is not. The deletion of the phrase "or thereabouts"changes the range of difference into between "eight or nine months," or within a four week range, from a much larger possible range of between more than 7 months to less than 10 months, or a range of about three months. Let's stick with what Martin actually said when we claim we know things based on his remarks.
2. While true, it leaves out that there is some leeway in when exactly the flight to Dragonstone takes place before the sack of King's Landing happens. A difference of a week or so is important in trying to determine when Dany is born. It also assumes the "nine moons" in the text is an exact timing instead of an approximation.

[Lord Lannister]

Given the tale of the "bastards growing up more quickly than trueborn children" Jon was likely always the older. If Catelyn was certain Ned conceived Jon after he left to fight in the Rebellion and thus after Robb, she wouldn't feel so threatened by him.

[dmfn]

I'm not seeing how Jon being older helps support R+L. 

If Rheagar and Lyanna eloped and conceived before Robert's revolt, and the Tower of Joy was afterward... 

I'm seeing some suggestion of Jon indeed being older, but doesn't that point away from Jon being the baby at the tower? 

[Megorova]

12 hours ago, SFDanny said:

And what could possibly explain Ned not just saying the truth if Jon is conceived on his way from the Vale to the North? This is the "fisherman's daughter" tale's timing and would put Jon's birth in the May 283 AC framework, and making him something like 13 months older than Daenerys.

At the time of Jon's conceivement,

Spoiler

(which, in my opinion, was in December <- based on various calculations and biblical symbolism, that GRRM has used in ASOIAF considering Jon's possible place of conceivement - at Starfall <- based on the prophecy, according to which, Rhaegar mistakenly thought, that his Aegon, is the Prince that was promised, because Aegon was conceived at King's Landing, on the night, when above KL was passing a comet. Rhaegar misunderstood that prophecy. The real Prince was conceived at the site of a fallen star, not under passing comet. If Jon was conceived on Christmas Eve, then he was born on 23rd of September, on the day of autumnal equinox (the day of the year, after which days become shorter, and nights become longer). If Jon was born on September 23+, then his sign of Zodiac is Libra, and his guardian planet is Venus. The weilder of Dawn, ancestral sword of Daynes (that was forged from the heart of a fallen star, taken from the site of that star's crash, on which was build Starfall), is called The Sword of the Morning. Even nickname of Gerold Dayne - Darkstar, is a clue. If Gerold Dayne is a Darkstar, then The Sword of the Morning, wielder of Dawn is a Morningstar. And Venus is the Morning Star. So all this are possible clues from GRRM, that Jon is the Prince that was promised (the same as Jesus, that was born under Star, that heralded his birth), and that he is future Sword of the Morning, Morningstar, and he is Libra guarded by Venus, so he was born in late September.

Thus Dany was born in June (8 months later than Jon), and she is Gemini. Both Libra and Gemini are air signs of Zodiac. Which, if my theory is correct, is also clues, that both Jon and Dany are going to be dragonriders),

Ned was already past The Bite, past White Harbor and came home to Winterfell. In December of 283 he was already gathering his bannermen, so the "fisherman's daughter" tale's timing doesn't work.

My post from another thread (you can skip it, it's a calculations for what is written further under the quote):

On 7/18/2018 at 12:47 AM, Megorova said:

When Ned and Robert had to get home, it was still winter, and thus they couldn't get out of The Vale by land-route.

Distance from The Eyrie to Winterfell by land is 1535 miles, average speed of horse traved by road is 40 miles per day, thus Ned would have reached Winterfell in a bit more than 38 days. Though the way he went (thru the Vale of Arryn to The Fingers - 470 miles (speed of horse travel thru grass lands and hills is 20 miles per day) - 23,5 days + 870 nautical miles by boat thru The Bite (if it was boat with sails, then its average speed was approximately 5 nautical miles per hour, and they could have sailed 24/7, 870/5/24=7,25 days; or if it was a rowing boat, then the speed was 3-4 knots, 20-years old Ned, and his companion - professional fisherman, could have rowed 8 hours per day, 870/3,5/8=31 day) + 7,25 days or 31 day + by ship from White Harbor thru White Knife to proximity of Winterfell - 350 nautical miles (350/5/24=2,9 days) = 23,5 days + 2,9 days + 7,25 days or 31 days = 34-57,5 days.

So 38 days by road, where main job was done by horse, or close to 60 days by various routes, where he will have to either row for 8 hours per day, or to sail 24 hours per day. Obviously that land-route is quicker, safer and easier for traveling, and about 150 miles shorter, so why did he went by alternative route thru The Bite? -> Because the land exit out of The Vale was snowed in until spring.

Why did they went to Gulltown -> because they needed ships, to get out of The Vale.

Didn't LF and Sansa discussed in TWOW, that during winter, the only way to get to The Vale, or out of it, is by sea?

It took Ned approximately 60 days/2 months to get from The Eyrie to Winterfell. And it's obvious, that the Rebellion started not in the very end of 282, but rather sometime in last quarter of it, and lasted for a bit less than 12 months.

All of this - going from The Eyrie to Gulltown, Robert sailing from Gulltown to Storm's End, battles at Summerhall, and battle at Ashford - happened in 282. So it all started several months, 2+ months, prior the end of the year, in September-October of 282. So by the time of Jon's conceivement, Ned was already long past The Bite, and the fisherman's daughter was left far behind, and Jon was conceived LATER than that.

Ned couldn't say to Cat and others, when Jon was really conceived, because at that time Ned was in Winterfell, in the middle of preparations to go into war. And those people, that were around him at that time, knew, that there was no any woman with Ned at that time. No fisherman's daughter, no anyone else.