Jump to content
Rhaenys_Targaryen

The Wiki-Timeline Project v2

Recommended Posts

On 9/9/2019 at 7:58 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

In 130 AC: More rivermen turned up the next day, led by Ser Garibald Grey, Lord Jon Charlton, and the new Lord of Raventree, the eleven-year-old Benjicot Blackwood.

Also in 130 AC: Benjicot Blackwood, the twelve-year-old Lord of Raventree, had come forth, as had the widowed Sabitha Frey, Lady of the Twins, with her father and brothers of House Vypren.

In 131 AC: To him gathered Benjicot Blackwood of Raventree, already a seasoned warrior at three-and-ten;

Also 131 AC: Bloody Ben, as his men had taken to calling him, was only thirteen, an age at which most highborn boys are still squires, grooming their master’s horses and scouring the rust from their mail.

So at the time of the Battle by the Lakeshore early in 130 he was 11, at the time of Second Tumbleton in the middle of 130 AC he was 12, when Elmo Tully calls his banner early in 131 AC, Benjicot is 13 and he is still 13 in the middle of the year. This just works with Benjicot being born early in 118 AC (as the MUSH states as well).

 

Then we can conclude that Elmo died in 131 AC (as the MUSH states), because he called his banners after Aegons II campaign in the crownlands early in 131 AC. I am not sure if we can tell when Grover died though. We would need the rough timing for Second Tumbleton and Aegon's II death.

Apologies it took me a while to respond.

Good catch! Thanks!

 

23 hours ago, Nittanian said:

@Rhaenys_Targaryen, would this help with calculations for Stannis and Dragonstone? 

 

ACOK indeed starts in 299 AC. Cressen remarks it has been "last year" when Stannis had closed the isle, which Stannis did after returning to Dragonstone following Jon Arryn's death in 298 AC.

The statement about how long Stannis ruled Dragonstone (and, for that matter, for how long Renly had held Storm's End), are a bit odd.

It has been fifteen/sixteen years since Robert's Rebellion, and fifteen years since Dragonstone was taken from the Targaryens. Martin had said previously that Stannis held Dragonstone years before Joffrey's birth (emphasize mine):

Stannis always resented being given Dragonstone while Renly got Storm's End, and took that as a slight... but it's not necessarily true that Robert meant it that way. The Targaryen heir apparent had always been titled Prince of Dragonstone. By making Stannis the Lord of Dragonstone, Robert affirmed his brother's status as heir (which he was, until Joff's birth a few years later). (X)

If Robert affirmed Stannis's status as heir by naming him Lord of Dragonstone a few years before Joffrey's birth in 286 AC, Stannis had ruled Dragonstone for longer than thirteen years by the start of ACOK. At most, he had ruled Dragonstone since mid-284 AC, making it some 15 years.

And yet, in ACOK, Cressen describes that Renly ruled Storm's End for thirteen years, and that Cressen had come with Stannis to Dragonstone "some twelve years" ago.

So, did Stannis gain Dragonstone shortly after the Baratheon's had taken it from the Targaryens, but was Storm's End only officially given to Renly a few years later (296 AC)? And did Cressen only travel after his lord after Storm's End was given to Renly and it was certain Stannis would not return? Martin's statement dates from after ACOK, which means that he did not say it and change his mind afterwards when working out the second book. Are the characters not being as precise as they could be? (Would be a bit odd, given the specific years they give). Or is this simply a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 11:20 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Apologies it took me a while to respond.

Good catch! Thanks!

Any idea for the timing of Second Tumbleton or Aegon's II death?

Something else: Lyonel Hightower is described as a fifteen year old youth "on the cusp of manhood" (i. e. his sixteenth birthday) at the time of his father's death. First Tumbleton took place in the first half of 130 AC. The only other time the term "on the cusp of" is used refers to Jacaerys Velaryon late in 129 AC ("on the cusp of his fifteenth nameday"), and he becomes fifteen later that year. So I think we can assume Lyonel became sixteen later that year, as well, and thus was born in 114 AC (and Samantha Tarly in 112 then). The MUSH states these dates, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 12:32 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

Any idea for the timing of Second Tumbleton or Aegon's II death?

Aegon II was restored to his throne in early 131 AC, and held the throne for half a year following.

Aegon II would sit the Iron Throne again, but he would never recover from his wounds, would know neither joy nor peace. His restoration would endure for only half a year. (TPATQ)

So he died mid 131 AC

On 9/16/2019 at 12:32 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

Something else: Lyonel Hightower is described as a fifteen year old youth "on the cusp of manhood" (i. e. his sixteenth birthday) at the time of his father's death. First Tumbleton took place in the first half of 130 AC. The only other time the term "on the cusp of" is used refers to Jacaerys Velaryon late in 129 AC ("on the cusp of his fifteenth nameday"), and he becomes fifteen later that year. So I think we can assume Lyonel became sixteen later that year, as well, and thus was born in 114 AC (and Samantha Tarly in 112 then). The MUSH states these dates, too.

The dates of the MUSH cannot be taken as canon. They could align with the canon, certainly, but the fact that the MUSH states a date does not mean that that date is the same in the canon.

Whether we can assume that Lyonel's birthday falls that same year, I'm not sure. It was the case for Jace, but does that automatically mean it is the case for all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The dates of the MUSH cannot be taken as canon. They could align with the canon, certainly, but the fact that the MUSH states a date does not mean that that date is the same in the canon.

Whether we can assume that Lyonel's birthday falls that same year, I'm not sure. It was the case for Jace, but does that automatically mean it is the case for all? 

The MUSH was not my main argument anyway. But even if you do not think 'on the cusp of' means that a person has his or her next nameday very soon, Jacaerys shows it is at least possible, so there should be two possibilities for Lyonel (and Samantha).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 8:43 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

The MUSH was not my main argument anyway. But even if you do not think 'on the cusp of' means that a person has his or her next nameday very soon, Jacaerys shows it is at least possible, so there should be two possibilities for Lyonel (and Samantha).

All I'm saying is that it does not automatically mean that the person's next nameday takes place within that year. I agree that it could be possible, however.

That would place his birth in either 114 AC or 115 AC. (And subsequently, Samantha in either 112 AC or 113 AC)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

All I'm saying is that it does not automatically mean that the person's next nameday takes place within that year.

While I do not think it means a person's nameday has to take place within the same year, I believe it takes place within a rather short amount of time (in this case less than half a year). But since it is impossible for me to prove that, two given possibilities seem like a good compromise to me. 

Edited by The Wondering Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 11:02 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

While I do not think it means a person's nameday has to take place within the same year, I believe it takes place within a rather short amount of time (in this case less than half a year). But since it is impossible for me to prove that, two given possibilities seem like a good compromise to me. 

Sorry it took a while (I was away on holiday :) ), but I've added this to the calculations.

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

×