Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

Recommended Posts

The Worldbook states:

Lord Harlan proved a capable steward for the Reach, though he only ruled until 5 AC, when he disappeared with his army in the deserts of Dorne during Aegon's First Dornish War.

But Fire & Blood says:

But somewhere east of the Hellholt amidst the red sands, Tyrell and his entire army disappeared. No man of them was ever seen again.
Aegon Targaryen was not a man to accept defeat. The war would drag on for another seven years, though after 6 AC the fighting degenerated into an endless bloody series of atrocities, raids, and retaliations, broken up by long periods of inactivity, a dozen short truces, and numerous murders and assassinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The Worldbook states:

Lord Harlan proved a capable steward for the Reach, though he only ruled until 5 AC, when he disappeared with his army in the deserts of Dorne during Aegon's First Dornish War.

But Fire & Blood says:

But somewhere east of the Hellholt amidst the red sands, Tyrell and his entire army disappeared. No man of them was ever seen again.
Aegon Targaryen was not a man to accept defeat. The war would drag on for another seven years, though after 6 AC the fighting degenerated into an endless bloody series of atrocities, raids, and retaliations, broken up by long periods of inactivity, a dozen short truces, and numerous murders and assassinations.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Harlan's army disappeared in 5 AC. The war dragged on for another 7 years to 12/13 AC. Between 6 and 12/13 AC the fighting degenerated into atrocities etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Werthead said:

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Harlan's army disappeared in 5 AC. The war dragged on for another 7 years to 12/13 AC. Between 6 and 12/13 AC the fighting degenerated into atrocities etc.

I guess you can try to explain it that way. It seems a bit odd though that the text refers to some event in 5 AC and immediately skips to the events after 6 AC saying after that year there wasn't any open battle without referring to any open battle in 6 AC. I think when you hear something like After 6 AC xy did not happen anymore you would expect xy mentioned in 6 AC. But maybe I am just confused on the wording. Can after 6 AC also mean that no open battle happened in 6 AC or does it just refer to events from 7 AC on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do get the year the KG is founded in TWoIaF, do we not? 10 AC. That number is not given in FaB. I assume they got the year from George, but it would be nice to see a confirmation for this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have it claimed that not all lords do have the right of pit and gallows whereas the chapter on Aegon's governance claims they did:

Quote

The laws of inheritance and succession remained unchanged, the existing feudal structures were confirmed, lords both great and small retained the power of pit and gallows on their own land, and the privilege of the first night wherever that custom had formerly prevailed.

vs.

Quote

After thousands of years, the result was such a mass of contradictory precedents that every lord possessed of the power of pit and gallows (and some who were not) felt free to rule however he might wish on any case that came before his seat.

Could be the second quote is more precise than the first which seems a general statement, but since the first night thing is qualified in said quote, one would expect the right of pit and gallows being also qualified if that was supposed to be the case when this was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We also have it claimed that not all lords do have the right of pit and gallows whereas the chapter on Aegon's governance claims they did:

vs.

Could be the second quote is more precise than the first which seems a general statement, but since the first night thing is qualified in said quote, one would expect the right of pit and gallows being also qualified if that was supposed to be the case when this was written.

I think the sentence can be read as meaning every Lord had the right of pit and gallows, and they, as well as other persons not possessed of that right (e.g. wealthy merchant, hedge knight maybe?) felt free to rule as they wished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really loving Fire and Blood so far. In this book, it's said that Elinor Costayne found Maegor dead on the Iron Throne. Was that the case in earlier versions of this story?

 

Edited by The Bard of Banefort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I think the sentence can be read as meaning every Lord had the right of pit and gallows, and they, as well as other persons not possessed of that right (e.g. wealthy merchant, hedge knight maybe?) felt free to rule as they wished

I don't think so. It seems clear to mere that the sentence talks about lords who have the right and lords who don't have it but presume to act as if they had it - if the point was to refer to other men usurping lordly privileges then landed knights or merchants and the like should have been mentioned there.

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Really loving Fire and Blood so far. In this book, it's said that Elinor Costayne found Maegor dead on the Iron Throne. Was that the case in earlier versions of this story?

Yeah, no changes there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We also have it claimed that not all lords do have the right of pit and gallows whereas the chapter on Aegon's governance claims they did:

vs.

Could be the second quote is more precise than the first which seems a general statement, but since the first night thing is qualified in said quote, one would expect the right of pit and gallows being also qualified if that was supposed to be the case when this was written.

I took it as both lords (who have right of pit and gallows) and even some powerful landed knights (who don’t) ruled their lands however they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I took it as both lords (who have right of pit and gallows) and even some powerful landed knights (who don’t) ruled their lands however they wanted.

But that's not what it says. The first one said great and small lords all have the right of pits and gallows, and the second says some lords don't have that right (presumably because their former kings from the Seven and the Hundred Kingdoms never granted them that right). Landed knights etc. are not mentioned. And they definitely never had that right to begin with, anywhere. It seems to have been intricately liked with a lordship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that's not what it says. The first one said great and small lords all have the right of pits and gallows, and the second says some lords don't have that right (presumably because their former kings from the Seven and the Hundred Kingdoms never granted them that right). Landed knights etc. are not mentioned. And they definitely never had that right to begin with, anywhere. It seems to have been intricately liked with a lordship.

I read it as the usual loose use of terminology, where the term lord is sometimes used interchangeably for landed knight. Only they are “lords” without the right of pit and gallows.

In any case, no big deal.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, see it as a loose usage. It scans better. People in Westeros know what he means. I don't consider this errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ran said:

I, too, see it as a loose usage. It scans better. People in Westeros know what he means. I don't consider this errata.

I was thinking of an equivalent to Gregor Clegane ruling his lands as he saw fit, despite him not having the right if pit and gallows. Or House Templeton, capable of raising 1000 men, yet being only landed knights and not having the right of pit and gallows, yet ruling as if they did anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ran said:

I, too, see it as a loose usage. It scans better. People in Westeros know what he means. I don't consider this errata.

So you would agree that it means there are lords who didn't have the right of pits and gallows? That the latter quote is a more precise take on the matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Lord Baelish of Sheepshit possess the power of pit and gallows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So you would agree that it means there are lords who didn't have the right of pits and gallows? That the latter quote is a more precise take on the matter?

All titled lords have the right of pit and gallows. In the second quote, Gyldayn is using "lords" in the broadest sense, however, as anyone who holds feudal lands regardless of title. Much as when someone refers to a group collectively as "my lords" when they know some are knights, or refers to the whole body of nobility as "the lords of Westeros".

People in Westeros would certainly understand what he means.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer it if some didn't have that right - at least before the unification of the laws. After all, it makes no sense to assume that the legal concept of lord in this kingdom was actually the same in another kingdom, and so forth.

But it doesn't really matter.

Rego Draz didn't serve Jaehaerys for ten years when he was killed in 59 AC. It was nine years, or perhaps 'nearly ten years', but not ten years if we want to be precise (which Gyldayn often is in other contexts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A typo in Cattle Shows: “She sparkled,” Mushroom says, “and when she smiled, the singers in the galley gallery ejoiced, for they knew that here at last was a maid worthy of a song.”

The errors in TPatQ that get fixed in FaB:

Gerardys was Rhaenyra's maester when the Dance began. He's later made the Queen's Grand Maester, and ate by Sunfyre. There's no longer Maester Hunnimore.

(Lord Beesbury) The ancient master of coin, who had served King Viserys for his entire reign the majority of his reign, and his grandfather, Jaehaerys the Old King, before him

Prince Daeron, the youngest and gentlest of her children, wept for his grandsire’s passing. was in Oldtown, serving as Lord Hightower’s squire.

(When Dance started) Jace was fifteen fourteen, Luke fourteen thirteen, Joffrey twelve eleven.

Against Vhagar alone she might have had some chance, for the Red Queen was old and cunning, and no stranger to battle, but against Vhagar and Sunfyre together, doom was certain. 

Ser Tyler Emory Hill, the Bastard of Lannisport.

Blue Queen is always referred to as "she".

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd prefer it if some didn't have that right - at least before the unification of the laws. After all, it makes no sense to assume that the legal concept of lord in this kingdom was actually the same in another kingdom, and so forth.

But it doesn't really matter.

Rego Draz didn't serve Jaehaerys for ten years

And the Lord of Air is an example of a Lord who might have lacked the right of pit and gallows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the style of lord when you aren't one means you don't rule lands in any kind of feudal sense. Can't have the right of pits and gallows without lands to rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×