Brandon the Shipwright and Brandon the Burner

[Bael's Bastard]

@AlaskanSandman

Not sure if you are aware yet, but Fire and Blood included more information about the general timeline of Brandon the Shipwright and Brandon the Burner.

Spoiler

"Thousands of years before the Conquest, when the Kings of Winter still reigned in the North, Brandon the Shipwright had built an entire fleet of ships to cross the Sunset Sea. He took them west himself, never to return. His son and heir, another Brandon, burned the yards where they were built, and was known as Brandon the Burner forevermore. A thousand years later, ironmen sailing out from Great Wyk were blown off course onto the cluster of rocky islands eight days' sail to the northwest of any known shore. Their captain built a tower and a beacon there, took the name of Farwynd, and called his seat the Lonely Light . . ."

 

[HamSandLich]

Well, it weakens the theory (which I never subscribed to) that the Farwynds are descendants of Brandon the Shipwright.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, HamSandLich said:

Well, it weakens the theory (which I never subscribed to) that the Farwynds are descendants of Brandon the Shipwright.

The origins of the Farwynds are actually given in the book. They are descended from a captain who got blown to Lonely Light and the adjacent islands and settled there.

[HamSandLich]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

The origins of the Farwynds are actually given in the book. They are descended from a captain who got blown to Lonely Light and the adjacent islands and settled there.

I never disputed that. But there were theories that I came across saying that the Farwynd's rumors of being skinchangers spring from the possibility that they're related to the Starks via Brandon the Shipwright. I never considered the Farwynds to be actual skinchangers though, the rumors come from from the Ironborn, and most of what comes out of the mouths of the Ironborn is BS.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, HamSandLich said:

I never disputed that. But there were theories that I came across saying that the Farwynd's rumors of being skinchangers spring from the possibility that they're related to the Starks via Brandon the Shipwright. I never considered the Farwynds to be actual skinchangers though, the rumors come from from the Ironborn, and most of what comes out of the mouths of the Ironborn is BS.

Oh, I just wanted to throw that out in case you didn't catch that yet. No idea whether the Farwynds might be skinchangers or not. Could be that those are just rumors people tell each other about obscure and weird people living at the end of the world. But who knows?

[Free Northman Reborn]

I raised this a few days ago in the “errors thread” as an obvious mistake by Galdayn. Brandon the Burner could not have lived that long ago.

For one, he had to live after Theon Stark, since the Starks have not had a navy since Brandon the Burner lived. And in fact, he had to have lived after the 1000 year War Across the Water, for the same reason. The Starks could not engage in a naval war for the Three Sisters against the Arryns without a fleet of ships.

Couple that with the Brandons’ recent place in the order of statues and Manderly’s reference implying that the fleet was burned after the Manderly’s arrived in the North, and everything points to Galdayn being wrong on this.

[Ran]

George has always been very squirrelly on the relation of the tombs to the dating, is all I can say about that.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

George has always been very squirrelly on the relation of the tombs to the dating, is all I can say about that.

Fair enough, and I can understand that he does not want to be bound by that. However that’s probably the least of the points favoring a more recent date for the burning of the North’s fleet.

Theon Stark’s fleet and the subsequent War Across the Water makes it impossible for them to have been without a fleet until after those historical chapters concluded.

[Ran]

The quote in Fire and Blood doesn't contest that. The two thousand year old dating of the Rape of the Three Sisters and the subsequent War Across the Water has to be seen as one take on the dating, but not an absolute and uncontested one. We know there are plenty of things where the maesters argue that two or three thousand years more or less than claimed have passed.

Implicitly, Gyldayn's version places the Brandons after the Rape of the Three Sisters, but they can't fit into the "two thousand" dating of that event, and so Gyldayn must believe it happened further back in time rather than what these other maesters are saying.

[Lord Varys]

We don't really have to assume Brandon the Burner burned all the ships the Starks/the North had, anyway, do we?

Brandon the Shipwright would have had a harbor and shipwrights and such at the western coast. His son seems to have dealt with the stuff there, but not necessarily with whatever little ships and smaller fleets and the like they had at the eastern coast.

And if some of the Stark bannermen still had fleets in the Bite and the eastern coast then the Starks could have still warred with the Arryns without *actually* having a royal fleet of their own.

As for the tombs - it is pretty obvious that logistically the oldest graves would be on the higher levels, not the lower, considering that the people laying the first Stark to rest wouldn't have had any reason to bury them as deep in the ground as they could possibly dig.

But while the crypts are very ancient, they is no reason to believe that various kings didn't change them. Moved corpses and tombs around to make room for new ones, save crowded falls from collapsing, etc. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

The quote in Fire and Blood doesn't contest that. The two thousand year old dating of the Rape of the Three Sisters and the subsequent War Across the Water has to be seen as one take on the dating, but not an absolute and uncontested one. We know there are plenty of things where the maesters argue that two or three thousand years more or less than claimed have passed.

Implicitly, Gyldayn's version places the Brandons after the Rape of the Three Sisters, but they can't fit into the "two thousand" dating of that event, and so Gyldayn must believe it happened further back in time rather than what these other maesters are saying.

That’s a very interesting take on it, with a direct knock on effect on the dating of the Andal invasion. Because we know Matthos II Arryn ruled the Vale at the time of the Rape of the Three Sisters. Which means that if that moves back a thousand years, so does the arrival of the Andals.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That’s a very interesting take on it, with a direct knock on effect on the dating of the Andal invasion. Because we know Matthos II Arryn ruled the Vale at the time of the Rape of the Three Sisters. Which means that if that moves back a thousand years, so does the arrival of the Andals.

Assuming we all know that for a fact. And the numbers attached to kings and their reigns do add up. We don't know how the maesters reached the conclusions and chronology Yandel and Gyldayn are presenting.

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That’s a very interesting take on it, with a direct knock on effect on the dating of the Andal invasion. Because we know Matthos II Arryn ruled the Vale at the time of the Rape of the Three Sisters. Which means that if that moves back a thousand years, so does the arrival of the Andals.

Right... at least, according to Gyldayn's views. There are probably half-a-dozen different schools of thought among the maesters regarding dates. Another maester might say Gyldayn over-reached by saying "Thousands of years" for Brandon the Shipwright, that "centuries" is more like it.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Right... at least, according to Gyldayn's views. There are probably half-a-dozen different schools of thought among the maesters regarding dates. Another maester might say Gyldayn over-reached by saying "Thousands of years" for Brandon the Shipwright, that "centuries" is more like it.

Given the balance of evidence I find myself in the latter group, I think.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Given the balance of evidence I find myself in the latter group, I think.

We don't really have evidence to decide such matters until George actually hands us the sources the historians draw their conclusions from.

Yandel painted a nice picture of the past that added up in many points - but we don't know how accurate a picture that was, how much speculation and twisting and turning and guessing goes into such an effort.

Considering the way time that (supposedly) passed the narrative of the ancient times of Westeros is about as accurate as early Egyptian history in the 3rd millennium BC. There are interesting narratives to found there, and events and people are put in order and the like, but thinking we *know* what happened back then just because we have read a popular history or two - and can cite it - doesn't mean we actually know much.

Neither Yandel nor Gyldayn give us any hint what their reasons are to date this or that king/event this or that way.

[HamSandLich]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Considering the way time that (supposedly) passed the narrative of the ancient times of Westeros is about as accurate as early Egyptian history in the 3rd millennium BC. There are interesting narratives to found there, and events and people are put in order and the like, but thinking we *know* what happened back then just because we have read a popular history or two - and can cite it - doesn't mean we actually know much.

Fittingly, the Ancient Egyptians are infamous among archaeological circles for constantly revising their own history. Taking credit for or destroying their predecessors tombs and monuments, Pharaohs scratching out their predecessors names on tablets and writing their own. It makes dating things a bit difficult at times. Even Ramses' victory at Kadesh is disputed, because he never actually took the city of Kadesh, and Hittite documents from the time record it as a Hittite victory over the Egyptians.

[AlaskanSandman]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

George has always been very squirrelly on the relation of the tombs to the dating, is all I can say about that.

 Squirrelly on just that huh? lol

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Bran II

 

In addition to a mint, Lord Manderly also proposed to build Robb a warfleet. "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."

Nothing to do with the crypts haha

[AlaskanSandman]

4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

@AlaskanSandman

Not sure if you are aware yet, but Fire and Blood included more information about the general timeline of Brandon the Shipwright and Brandon the Burner.

  Reveal hidden contents

"Thousands of years before the Conquest, when the Kings of Winter still reigned in the North, Brandon the Shipwright had built an entire fleet of ships to cross the Sunset Sea. He took them west himself, never to return. His son and heir, another Brandon, burned the yards where they were built, and was known as Brandon the Burner forevermore. A thousand years later, ironmen sailing out from Great Wyk were blown off course onto the cluster of rocky islands eight days' sail to the northwest of any known shore. Their captain built a tower and a beacon there, took the name of Farwynd, and called his seat the Lonely Light . . ."

 

Just saw this haha yea there are a lot of things from the main books i've been basing my work off of, specifically the first three books. George has since changed or made irrelevant many things. Im most surprised by the lack of anyyy thing interesting being discovered at the Night Fort by Alysanne. 

I feel like with Brandon, as we have discussed before. He more than likely lived closer to Aegon than 1000s of years. Manderly who is of the North i would assume to know better than a Maester in the south. Even if the crypts are all bungled in their order. Plus, the Starks not having strength at sea that long makes Theon attacking Andalos rather hard, and leaves them open to attack from just about every one from Sea. Also interferes with the War Across the Water with House Arryn. 

[AlaskanSandman]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I raised this a few days ago in the “errors thread” as an obvious mistake by Galdayn. Brandon the Burner could not have lived that long ago.

For one, he had to live after Theon Stark, since the Starks have not had a navy since Brandon the Burner lived. And in fact, he had to have lived after the 1000 year War Across the Water, for the same reason. The Starks could not engage in a naval war for the Three Sisters against the Arryns without a fleet of ships.

Couple that with the Brandons’ recent place in the order of statues and Manderly’s reference implying that the fleet was burned after the Manderly’s arrived in the North, and everything points to Galdayn being wrong on this.

Plus the defense of Bear Island from the Iron Born. 

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't really have evidence to decide such matters until George actually hands us the sources the historians draw their conclusions from.

Yandel painted a nice picture of the past that added up in many points - but we don't know how accurate a picture that was, how much speculation and twisting and turning and guessing goes into such an effort.

Considering the way time that (supposedly) passed the narrative of the ancient times of Westeros is about as accurate as early Egyptian history in the 3rd millennium BC. There are interesting narratives to found there, and events and people are put in order and the like, but thinking we *know* what happened back then just because we have read a popular history or two - and can cite it - doesn't mean we actually know much.

Neither Yandel nor Gyldayn give us any hint what their reasons are to date this or that king/event this or that way.

Not really. The North being defenseless for as long as he proposes flies in the face of the known Northern activity. Explicitly interest from slavers 

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The North: The Kings of Winter

Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis).

There is no reason to think interest in slaves from the North would wane with time, especially if the North chose to leave them selves defenseless. Under a united Kingdom reigned by the Targaryens, then sure, the North is protected more or less as a united front. Before that, would be a completely different story. Valyria for one would have access to slaves from beyond the wall with no one to contest them.

 

Edit- If the Northern Houses had vessels capable of making war other than the fleet mentioned to have been burned by Brandon, then i would think Robb would simply call on them, or Manderly would have suggested calling upon them. Roose serves in Robb's army and no such mention is ever made. I dont recall the Boltons mentioning any fleets in the later books either but could have just missed it.