Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
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

@Peach King

Arya had to scamper to keep up. Gendry was five years older and a foot taller than she was, and long of leg as well. (A Clash of Kings - Arya V)

Arya spends a lot of time with Gendry and the wording does not indicate that she just guesses his age, so I would propose to take this statement as fact rather than assumption. Besides, after your changes the calculation does not add up anymore. There is a section that says he can not have been born in 283 AC, but you ignore that in your conclusion, so please fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Peach King

Arya had to scamper to keep up. Gendry was five years older and a foot taller than she was, and long of leg as well. (A Clash of Kings - Arya V)

Arya spends a lot of time with Gendry and the wording does not indicate that she just guesses his age, so I would propose to take this statement as fact rather than assumption.

Indeed, nothing suggests that this is an assumption. So we need to take this as a fact (being 15 in 299 AC), giving a limited range of years of birth (283 and 284 AC).

283 AC, with other available information, as stated in the calculation, can be excluded, leaving only a single possibility.

 

2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Besides, after your changes the calculation does not add up anymore. There is a section that says he can not have been born in 283 AC, but you ignore that in your conclusion, so please fix that.

I've corrected the entry. Let me know if you see any issues.

Share this post


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

Indeed, nothing suggests that this is an assumption. So we need to take this as a fact (being 15 in 299 AC), giving a limited range of years of birth (283 and 284 AC).

283 AC, with other available information, as stated in the calculation, can be excluded, leaving only a single possibility.

 

I've corrected the entry. Let me know if you see any issues.

Please see this thread, and the circumstances in which Arya thinks to herself that Gendry is 5 years older than herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Peach King said:

Please see this thread, and the circumstances in which Arya thinks to herself that Gendry is 5 years older than herself.

For Gendry's age, we have several clues.

First introduced, is from Eddard's POV: "The master called over a tall lad about Robb's age, his arms and chest corded with muscle."

Robb is fourteen years old at the time, perhaps already fifteen (we do not know exactly when during Game Robb's birthday passes), so we know that Gendry is, in 298 AC, "about fourteen or fifteen years old" (and not "as old as Robb", there's a difference here). That statement tells us something, but nothing precise. Is her exactly as old as Robb, or perhaps a year (or even two?) younger or older? We cannot know for certain by this statement, but it given us a general idea. He is close in age to Robb, who was born in 283 AC.

Next, we get Arya, who makes a calm, factual observation in her chapter, describing Gendry as five years older than she is herself (just as she earlier on described herself as being two years younger than the youngest of the orphans in the group; There is absolutely no indication that this is an estimation, a guess, or an assumption on her part). Arya, at the time, is ten years old, so, to her knowledge, Gendry is, at this moment in 299 AC, fifteen years old. Which means that he was born in either 283 AC or 284 AC.

In 300 AC, we get Brienne's observations.

This is a only a boy. A boy who looked as Renly had, the first time he came to Tarth. No, younger.

Renly was, as far as we know, sixteen years old when he came to Tarth as part of his coming of age tour. Now, we don't know exactly how old Renly was when he arrived at Tarth from this quote, as we do not know how long Renly's tour lasted. If it took him more than a year, he would have turned seventeen by the time he arrived at Tarth.

Yet, Brienne later confirms that Gendry is not yet sixteen years old:

Gendry was the closest thing to a man grown, but it was Willow shouting all the orders, as if she were a queen in her castle and the other children were no more than servants.

Being "the closest thing to a man grown" means he is not yet a man grown, and thus, younger than sixteen. Again, this does not prevent him from turning sixteen later during the year.

So, in 300 AC, Gendry is fifteen years old or younger, by Brienne's statements, placing his birth in either 284 AC (as he could still turn sixteen later that year), or later.

Note, however, that Gendry cannot be younger than fifteen in 300 AC, as he had already been fifteen in 299 AC, limiting his year of birth to only 283 AC.

 

So, what the clues in the text tell us, is that Gendry was born in 284 AC.

 

Perhaps others would like to give their opinion? @Thomaerys Velaryon, @Nittanian, or anyone else?

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should change the date for Princess Daenerys (daughter of Aegon IV)'s wedding from 187 AC to 188 AC.

 

Here is my reasoning:

Daenerys married Prince Maron Martell only after she came of age (16 years old).

Quote

Two years of negotiation later, an agreement was reached in which Prince Maron agreed to be betrothed to Daeron's sister, Daenerys, once she was of age. They were wed the following year, and with that marriage, Prince Maron knelt and swore his oaths of fealty before the Iron Throne.

TWOIAF, The Targaryen Kings: Daeron II

Given that Daenerys was born in 172 AC, she would have turned 16 in 188 AC.

More over, Prince Baelor was 17 when he participated in the wedding tourney and earned his nickname of "Breakspear".

Quote

The eldest, Prince Baelor, won the name Breakspear at the age of seventeen, following his famous victory at Princess Daenerys's wedding tourney; he defeated Daemon Blackfyre in the final tilt.

TWOIAF, The Targaryen Kings: Daeron II

Given that Baelor was born in 170 AC, he would have turned 17 in 187 AC. If the wedding occurred in the year 188 AC and Daenerys's nameday was earlier in the year than Baelor's, then there is a period in 188 AC where Baelor was still 17 and Daenerys was of age.

 

@Rhaenys_Targaryen @Nittanian I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 12:37 PM, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I think we should change the date for Princess Daenerys (daughter of Aegon IV)'s wedding from 187 AC to 188 AC.

 

Here is my reasoning:

Daenerys married Prince Maron Martell only after she came of age (16 years old).

Given that Daenerys was born in 172 AC, she would have turned 16 in 188 AC.

More over, Prince Baelor was 17 when he participated in the wedding tourney and earned his nickname of "Breakspear".

Given that Baelor was born in 170 AC, he would have turned 17 in 187 AC. If the wedding occurred in the year 188 AC and Daenerys's nameday was earlier in the year than Baelor's, then there is a period in 188 AC where Baelor was still 17 and Daenerys was of age.

 

@Rhaenys_Targaryen @Nittanian I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

On 11/29/2019 at 6:41 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Thomaerys Velaryon Ran once stated that in this case "of age" does not mean 16.

Indeed. It took me a while, but I found the post of Ran that @The Wondering Wolf is referring to:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Rhaenys_Targaryen Instead of searching you could also just have clicked on the link in my post. ;) 

O my god, I had not noticed there was a link in your post.... That would indeed have been a lot easier..

Mondays.... O_o

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've some question about the Brandon Stark (son of Willam) age calculations. It says "Brandon had two younger half-siblings". Do we know for sure that they're younger? Because his father's (Willam Stark's) page says "It is unknown which of the two marriages occurred first". If we've confirmation that Brandon's mother was the first wife, Willam's page needs some editing. If we don't have confirmation, Brandon's d.o.b. should be "in or before 227" (based on a similar calculation to his half-sister Jocelyn), and also his death (based on his dying at age 3) needs to be pushed back a year.

Shifting topics: Beron Stark. He was mortally wounded in his 30's. My first instinct is to say he therefore died aged 30-39, but since he's said to be "fading fast", not necessarily dead, should we allow for the possibility he lingered long enough to reach his next birthday? So, died aged 30-40? Is this reasonable? (Because I can use his age range and death dates to calculate a birth range, but I need to settle on a maximum death age first.)

Also, per an SSM, Lyarra Stark (Ned's mother) is dead. Can we pin a maximum death date from that? The interview was pre-AsoS (which is pre-300), so I'm inclined to say she died in or before 299, but I'm not sure of the rules on this one. Second opinion would be appreciated.

Edited by Tibbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 2:03 AM, Tibbie said:

I've some question about the Brandon Stark (son of Willam) age calculations. It says "Brandon had two younger half-siblings". Do we know for sure that they're younger? Because his father's (Willam Stark's) page says "It is unknown which of the two marriages occurred first". If we've confirmation that Brandon's mother was the first wife, Willam's page needs some editing. If we don't have confirmation, Brandon's d.o.b. should be "in or before 227" (based on a similar calculation to his half-sister Jocelyn), and also his death (based on his dying at age 3) needs to be pushed back a year.

I've searched for a post somewhere that might state which marriage occurred first, but so far I have found nothing.

Perhaps @Ran knows which of Willam Stark's marriages took place first? The one to Melantha Blackwood, or the one to Lyanne Glover?

 

On 3/13/2020 at 2:03 AM, Tibbie said:

Shifting topics: Beron Stark. He was mortally wounded in his 30's. My first instinct is to say he therefore died aged 30-39, but since he's said to be "fading fast", not necessarily dead, should we allow for the possibility he lingered long enough to reach his next birthday? So, died aged 30-40? Is this reasonable? (Because I can use his age range and death dates to calculate a birth range, but I need to settle on a maximum death age first.)

Hmm.. I'd think so. Perhaps, as we do not know how long he lingered, we can say he died at the maximum age of ~40, leaving some room for error?

 

On 3/13/2020 at 2:03 AM, Tibbie said:

Also, per an SSM, Lyarra Stark (Ned's mother) is dead. Can we pin a maximum death date from that? The interview was pre-AsoS (which is pre-300), so I'm inclined to say she died in or before 299, but I'm not sure of the rules on this one. Second opinion would be appreciated.

Yes. If there's nothing that can definitely place her death earlier than 299 AC, that year would indeed be the max. We know that Benjen was her youngest child, and that Benjen was born in 267 AC or later, meaning that Lyarra died in 267 AC or after.

In that sense, we have a range of death for Lyarra. It's just a rather large one. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...