Heresy 218 a brief walk on the dark side

[Black Crow]

11 hours ago, St Daga said:

From this quote in Fire and Blood, but it's also in the World Book, too

I guess my interpretation of this is that Aegon took these swords but did not use them in the Iron Throne. If they are not twisted nor melted nor bent, it doesn't fit the idea of the swords that were twisted and bent and melted to make the Iron Throne. Unless the swords are in the Iron Throne but were somehow not melted by Balerion's dragon fire. Honestly, this line didn't even stand out to me until I read Fire & Blood. Perhaps Aegon kept them because he could but as a sign of respect to the north, he did use the blades for his throne.

I think that this statement about the swords in its immediate context is actually straightforward in that the burned bones and the bent swords are paired: "but no northman left his burned bones beside the Trident, and the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted nor melted nor bent."

The bit about the swords "were not twisted..." should be read in the past tense, not the present/future tense, ie; thanks to Torrhen's submission, the surrendered swords had not been damaged when their bearers were immolated by dragonfire, rather than that they were spared that fate after the surrender.

[St Daga]

13 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

My interpretation is 'the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted nor melted nor bent when Aegon collected them' not 'the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted nor melted nor bent at any point in the future' 

As far as we know, Aegon collected blades because he wanted peace, and then he built a throne with them mostly as an after thought.  He did not go around collecting blades because he wanted them to build his throne.  So the fact they were collected is the important part, and whether they ended up used for the throne is incidental.  I assume they were, since there is no reason they'd be exempt, but it does not matter.  If Aegon decides he already has too many for even a huge throne, and can save a few coins repurposing them for his army, it does not change the story. 

 

4 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I think that this statement about the swords in its immediate context is actually straightforward in that the burned bones and the bent swords are paired: "but no northman left his burned bones beside the Trident, and the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted nor melted nor bent."

The bit about the swords "were not twisted..." should be read in the past tense, not the present/future tense, ie; thanks to Torrhen's submission, the surrendered swords had not been damaged when their bearers were immolated by dragonfire, rather than that they were spared that fate after the surrender.

 

Even if Aegon took the swords so that these men could not wage war against him again, most of these men ended up pledging fealty to him, and if you mean to raise an army with your vassals, what did Aegon suppose they were going to fight with? Ned tells us the "songs" claim a thousand swords were used in the forging of the throne, but there must have been more than a thousand swords gathered from the people that faced Aegon's forces. And if it's so easy to melt and bend metal swords with dragonfire, why did it take nearly two months for Balerion and a host of smith's to make the Iron Throne? Also, I think if the original Stark sword Ice was something that could have ended up in the throne, it might matter in the story.

As to the swords themselves, I don't know that it is ever claimed that the swords collected from the Field of Fire (where all three dragons were put to use) were twisted or bent at the time they were collected, although the swords that came out of Harrenhal are said to have been "shattered, melted or twisted into ribbons of steel by dragonfire", a fire so notoriously hot it also melted stone. Meraxes was put to work against the stormlanders, but there is no mention of those swords being damaged by dragonfire. In a similar way to the surrender of the north, the swords taken from from the Vale never faced dragon fire either, and there is no mention of them NOT being twisted nor melted nor bent. Why only mention that for the north? The forces of the Vale also surrendered without battle. However, I can see how your interpretations could work, it just seems odd to me that GRRM took the time to say this about the swords of the northmen at all! But it's possible I am overthinking it!

[JNR]

22 hours ago, Janneyc1 said:

A solid half of the Watch probably didn't believe Sam.

Grenn was there too.

22 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Such a weapon could never be held by a human, and would not be possible without magic.  When the Other died, the sword likely warmed into regular ice and then melted. 

You seem to imply here that Dawn cannot be an Other's sword, and I agree.

[Brad Stark]

58 minutes ago, St Daga said:

Even if Aegon took the swords so that these men could not wage war against him again, most of these men ended up pledging fealty to him, and if you mean to raise an army with your vassals, what did Aegon suppose they were going to fight with? Ned tells us the "songs" claim a thousand swords were used in the forging of the throne, but there must have been more than a thousand swords gathered from the people that faced Aegon's forces. And if it's so easy to melt and bend metal swords with dragonfire, why did it take nearly two months for Balerion and a host of smith's to make the Iron Throne? Also, I think if the original Stark sword Ice was something that could have ended up in the throne, it might matter in the story.

As to the swords themselves, I don't know that it is ever claimed that the swords collected from the Field of Fire (where all three dragons were put to use) were twisted or bent at the time they were collected, although the swords that came out of Harrenhal are said to have been "shattered, melted or twisted into ribbons of steel by dragonfire", a fire so notoriously hot it also melted stone. Meraxes was put to work against the stormlanders, but there is no mention of those swords being damaged by dragonfire. In a similar way to the surrender of the north, the swords taken from from the Vale never faced dragon fire either, and there is no mention of them NOT being twisted nor melted nor bent. Why only mention that for the north? The forces of the Vale also surrendered without battle. However, I can see how your interpretations could work, it just seems odd to me that GRRM took the time to say this about the swords of the northmen at all! But it's possible I am overthinking it!

I doubt it literally meant 1000 swords, but I agree that is too few if all the swords were used.  Maybe they only used the nicer ones. 

Smiths spent too weeks making a throne fit for a King.  Balerion could have spent 2 seconds to make something fused you could sit on, but craftsmanship was priority over speed. 

It is interesting Aegon took arms away.  If he was there to unify Westerous against a threat from the North, he'd want people well armed.  Unless he knew the threat was more than a generation away or ordinary arms wouldn't work. 

Ned's sword Ice existed before the conquest.  This makes it unlikely the Starks had a different sword named Ice during the conquest.  As fun as it is to think about, the previous Ice was probably a nondescript iron ceremonial sword that was retired when it wore out. 

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

I doubt it literally meant 1000 swords, but I agree that is too few if all the swords were used.  Maybe they only used the nicer ones. 

Smiths spent too weeks making a throne fit for a King.  Balerion could have spent 2 seconds to make something fused you could sit on, but craftsmanship was priority over speed. 

It is interesting Aegon took arms away.  If he was there to unify Westerous against a threat from the North, he'd want people well armed.  Unless he knew the threat was more than a generation away or ordinary arms wouldn't work. 

Ned's sword Ice existed before the conquest.  This makes it unlikely the Starks had a different sword named Ice during the conquest.  As fun as it is to think about, the previous Ice was probably a nondescript iron ceremonial sword that was retired when it wore out. 

Yes, a thousands swords is probably not meant to be a literal/actual number, I agree. Ned's thoughts claim that it took 59 days to hammer out the throne, which is quite a long time. Maybe GRRM was just looking for a randomly impressive number to describe such a large throne! I have a hard time believing that Aegon knew about some massive future threat to Westeros, and if he did, perhaps it does make sense that he knew regular steal would not work. But then why not start working on arming people with weapons that would stand against such a threat? But perhaps he did if he gave the Stark's Valyrian steel weapon and we have not been told that yet? The Mormonts are said to have had Longclaw for 500 years, which seems odd that a smaller and poor family would have a Valyrian steel blade when House Stark did not. Perhaps this is all just GRRM being inconsistent?

And yes, according to Catelyn, the Valyrian steel sword Ice that we associate with Ned is around 400 years old. But she is wrong about other things, and I don't know if she is correct about this. She claims no heart tree's exist in the south, and there is a weirwood heart tree (carved face and all) in the godswood at Riverrun, a place she lived until 15 years ago. I find I doubt her thought more and more. Perhaps she is wrong about the age of the sword, or it is 400 years old but has only belonged to the Stark's since some time after the conquest? Hard to say about the original Ice, but it seems unlikely it's just a plain iron sword that rusted to dust. Most of these named swords have some type of meaning behind their name, so I doubt whatever "Ice" was, it must be something that would fit it's name. I actually think it could have been a sword like we see the Other's carry, or it might be Dawn, which with it's white appearance, like milkglass, seems more like an icy sword that a rusty iron or  bronze weapon. Although obsidian doesn't come in white, it does come in a variety called "snowflake" which looks like frost over a darker color. Obsidian doesn't seem like a great sword weapon, since it would shatter easily I would think, but there is something about the idea of the name of the river White Knife which hints at a white or light colored weapon in the north's history.

[Brad Stark]

Needle is an example of a named sword that isn't physically special.

I doubt any of our characters reliably know how old their swords are, and I wouldn't put it past grrm to intentionally have them give dates that are wrong. 

There is a recent SSM that implies Aegon knew about the conflict with the Others and it may have motivated his conquest. 

[St Daga]

19 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Needle is an example of a named sword that isn't physically special.

I am not sure about that. Needle is a pretty unique sword, based on it's size. A bravos's sword, but built for a child, so it's smaller than most. When Arya see's it on Poliver, she notes it immediately, "a slimmer blade, too long to be a dirk, too short to be a man's sword ..." So, it is unique in appearance, in the reason it was forged, and it's name fit's it well. Needle! Arya picked the name because the slender, short sword looked more like a Needle than a real sword. And it fit the hobby she was interested in, with a nod toward the more excepted needle-work of women, work that Arya doesn't excel at. That is why I think names fit weapons, at least to a certain degree.

And Needle is special. It's special in the sense that it saved Arya's live on a couple occasions and currently it's her one tie to Winterfell and her Starkness that holds her like an anchor. An anchor that might save her from the Faceless Men. 

 

19 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

I doubt any of our characters reliably know how old their swords are, and I wouldn't put it past grrm to intentionally have them give dates that are wrong. 

I agree with this. As an author he is messing with perception and in world knowledge all of the time, so I think this is no different. Just like perhaps that Dayne family going back 10,000 years, or many of the time estimates he gives us.

 

19 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

There is a recent SSM that implies Aegon knew about the conflict with the Others and it may have motivated his conquest. 

Is this the video where GRRM talks about Balerion and Aegon and states there is "some speculation" that Aegon knew about the coming threat of the Others? This video mentions it around 1:50. I don't know if this was in response to a question or how the interview/video was set up, but I don't see this as any type of hint from the author, only that he is addressing speculation from the fan base. Any way, if Aegon knew, he didn't do anything as far as I can see that would prepare Westeros for the coming fight. As a matter of fact, from the point of Targaryen conquest, both the Night's Watch and the Stark's holding the north seemed weakened, making a possible invasion of the Other's easier. More speculation, but perhaps Aegon's goal wasn't to hold back the Others?

ETA: Anyway, this video was promo material for Fire & Blood, and I see no such speculation in that books text. I wonder if GRRM wasn't trying to drum up some interest to help book sales, although that is cynical of me. Or he is using this to drum up some interest in the HBO prequel's that are in the works! 

[Brad Stark]

I just posted this a month ago, but here it is again:

“The Targaryens have certain gifts and yes, taking the dragons and dragon riding and dragon breeding was one of them,” he says. “But the other gift was an occasional Targaryen had prophetic powers and could see glimpses of the future, which they didn’t always necessarily properly interpret because, you know, they were fragmentary and sometimes symbolic.

“But to what extent did they share those gifts, what did he see, what prompted him to do all this? These are things I find really interesting to ponder.”

[Brad Stark]

BTW I also thought this was odd.  Of all the crazy fan theories I've seen posted, this was the first mention of Aegon knowing the future.  Maybe someone really asked this or maybe he was just trying to draw interest. But if it was just to draw interest, why not stick to something actually in the book? 

[Janneyc1]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

BTW I also thought this was odd.  Of all the crazy fan theories I've seen posted, this was the first mention of Aegon knowing the future.  Maybe someone really asked this or maybe he was just trying to draw interest. But if it was just to draw interest, why not stick to something actually in the book? 

Maybe it had to do with the prophesy that Rhaeghar read? I mean we can only speculate as to what Aegon actually knew. The sense that I got was that Rhaeghar didn't know everything, just a sense of what was coming. 

[Brad Stark]

Rhaegar seems to have come by whatever knowledge of the future he had from secondary sources - books and whatever the Targaryens knew.  

Outside the ssm, we had little reason to believe Aegon knew anything. 

[The Commentator]

On 2/5/2019 at 2:56 PM, Black Crow said:

 

I think you're trying to CREATE a connection where none exists in the story.  The Valyrians worshipped different gods.  These gods are not the same nor are they related to the old gods.  These religions are based on beliefs.  Elemental magic does exists.  Parallels exists.  But like parallel lines, these two religions do not cross.  

[Janneyc1]

17 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

Rhaegar seems to have come by whatever knowledge of the future he had from secondary sources - books and whatever the Targaryens knew.  

Outside the ssm, we had little reason to believe Aegon knew anything. 

Sorry, should have clarified a bit. Trying to figure out the hypothetical, I figured that Aegon might write down something important, rather than trust word of mouth. I was trying to say that Rhaeghar might have read an old journal of Aegon's. 

[alienarea]

51 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I think you're trying to CREATE a connection where none exists in the story.  The Valyrians worshipped different gods.  These gods are not the same nor are they related to the old gods.  These religions are based on beliefs.  Elemental magic does exists.  Parallels exists.  But like parallel lines, these two religions do not cross.  

Apologies, have to disagree.

First, if only to save us a lengthy discussion, let's agree that magic exists in Westeros, shall we?

Based on the existence of magic, people of Westeros will worship different gods, if only to explain the magic. The gods are different, but all the same: an explanation for magic. The many-faced god.

Now, if some people in Essos and some people in Westeros have by chance the same beliefs, and each of the groups worships a god based on their beliefs, do they worship two gods with identical beliefs or one god with two different names?

 

[Brad Stark]

51 minutes ago, Janneyc1 said:

Sorry, should have clarified a bit. Trying to figure out the hypothetical, I figured that Aegon might write down something important, rather than trust word of mouth. I was trying to say that Rhaeghar might have read an old journal of Aegon's. 

Certainly possible, but reading fab, the Targaryens who came later were selfish and unconcerned with the realm.  Maybe they didn't have access to what Aegon left or maybe they didn't care enough to even read it. 

[St Daga]

 

3 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

I just posted this a month ago, but here it is again:

“The Targaryens have certain gifts and yes, taking the dragons and dragon riding and dragon breeding was one of them,” he says. “But the other gift was an occasional Targaryen had prophetic powers and could see glimpses of the future, which they didn’t always necessarily properly interpret because, you know, they were fragmentary and sometimes symbolic.

“But to what extent did they share those gifts, what did he see, what prompted him to do all this? These are things I find really interesting to ponder.”

This quote seems to have come from this article at news.com/au and the statement doesn't really flow with anything else in the article, so it must have been tied either to a question that was asked and the who answer was not included, or it's out of order in the article. Who is the "he" that GRRM is referring to? Is it Aegon I? because that section of the article is under a heading "JON SNOW FAN THEORIES ALL BUT CONFIRMED",  which then talks about Aegon I, the Long Night, and theories on Lightbringer, but confirms nothing about Jon Snow at all, before finishing up with the two paragraphs you mentioned above. Targaryen gifts of dragon riding and breeding, and then prophetic powers. Then "they" is mentioned, and "he" is mentioned, and then "him" and then apparently GRRM is pondering what this was all done for! Shouldn't he know? It's completely a weird bunch of statements.

 

3 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

BTW I also thought this was odd.  Of all the crazy fan theories I've seen posted, this was the first mention of Aegon knowing the future.  Maybe someone really asked this or maybe he was just trying to draw interest. But if it was just to draw interest, why not stick to something actually in the book? 

Yes. Very odd. From the same article I linked above, there is a line that reads "The book also reveals that Aegon the Conqueror, the first Targaryen King, united the Seven Kingdoms because he foresaw Westeros would need to defend itself from the White Walkers." article which is a complete load of bunk, because Fire & Blood does no such thing, unless a page or two is missing from my copy. I am kind of befuddled about it all.

[Brad Stark]

That quote is all over different articles and theory posts, but the original was an interview about fab and it made it clear he was talking about Aegon. 

I believe the sentence before this quote was something like "Fans often speculate about whether Aegon knew about the Others being a threat to Westerous" 

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

That quote is all over different articles and theory posts, but the original was an interview about fab and it made it clear he was talking about Aegon. 

I believe the sentence before this quote was something like "Fans often speculate about whether Aegon knew about the Others being a threat to Westerous" 

It would be nice to see an entire, unedited transcript of that interview. Do you know if one has been published?

[St Daga]

On 2/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, Janneyc1 said:

Quote

"I swear it by earth and water," said the boy in green.

"I swear it by bronze and iron," his sister said.

"We swear it by ice and fire," they finished together.

This has to be something to do with the original pact. Earth and Water, Bronze and Iron, Ice and Fire, it all goes back to the Long Night and the Pact. What I find interesting is that the Reed's, two mostly humans, swear this to Bran, a definite human. This leads me to think that House Reed and House Stark go back a long ways, long enough perhaps to have been entrusted with a special weapon. Tin foil time, but I think that the Reeds might be i possession of the old Stark sword. When the drums of war rang in the swamps, perhaps Howland remembered the old friendships and brought the entrusted weapon wit him, glamouring it as something else, the new Ice. What are the thoughts? 

I have been thinking on this a little bit, and the timeline as a whole. We are told that the Pact came after the CotF and the First Men fought to a standstill. It seemed like the CotF used weapons like obsidian, while the First Men used weapons made of bronze. We are told that the Andal's are the race that brought iron weapons to Westeros. If that is true, then iron should not have a part to play in any oath's related to the Pact, because iron wasn't in use at that time in Westeros.

But, we have the idea that iron is a substance that the Other's hate. Old Nan tells us this and we also see iron weapons in the crypts with the Kings of Winter. The KoW are supposed to be a primarily First Man group, so why the association with iron weapons, a type of weapon that is associated with the Andal's? Perhaps in the deeper levels of the crypts we will see weapons made of bronze. But we are also told that some of these iron weapons have rusted to dust in the crypts, at least that is part of Ned's thought process. However, bronze (or copper, which is used to make bronze) cannot rust because they do not contain iron.

Is GRRM being sloppy? Is there something that we are supposed to understand is "off" about the known timeline, or these people that inhabit Westeros?

Or have there been three such Pact's that are important and we have only been told of two? I could see a Pact between the CotF and the First Men involving a Pact of Earth and Water, especially if earth and water were used as weapons, such as earth quakes and floods. A pact between the First Men and the Andals would almost make sense if it was known as the Pact of Bronze and Iron, a pact that settled years of war between these two races and the weapons they used to fight it. And then we have heard of the Pact of Ice and Fire, something that seemed to be dreamed up between Cregan Stark and Jace Velaryon, an agreement between House Stark and House Targaryen/Velaryon, something we are told has not yet been fulfilled. But perhaps it has been in some way, just not in the way that we think it was meant to be? Or perhaps Ice and Fire hasn't really happened yet, and we are being given a hint of a pact that will have to be agreed upon to settle the a war that uses Ice and Fire as weapons?

And if this above speculation is so, why do Bran and Meera seem to be the  only people who know about it. And perhaps they don't really even know, but they are just repeating something that Howland told them to say. Something he learned from dreams or his time on the Isle of Faces?

[St Daga]

On 2/19/2019 at 9:07 AM, JNR said:

On 2/18/2019 at 10:49 AM, Brad Stark said:

Such a weapon could never be held by a human, and would not be possible without magic.  When the Other died, the sword likely warmed into regular ice and then melted. 

You seem to imply here that Dawn cannot be an Other's sword, and I agree.

It is hard for me to not be aware of the similarities between the Other's blade and the descriptions of Dawn, BUT would a human be able to hold such a weapon? It is a very good question! What if such a sword had a special hilt applied to it, a hilt that allowed mankind to hold it? I know that is really an odd thought but ... a couple times we are brought attention to the hilt of the sword Dawn. In Ned's fever dream he focus' on the hilt of Dawn, and in Jon's look at the constellation Sword of the Morning, he focuses on a star in the hilt of the sword. We are even given an example of a sword getting a new hilt that fit's it's wielder when Jon is given Longclaw but a new hilt has to be built for it, a hilt both out of necessity because the old one has been destroyed, but also in a way to honor the man who is going to wield it. A white wolfs head for the man who has a white wolf. A pretty fancy hilt with garnet's for eyes, which might mimic a jewel in the hilt of Dawn. It would fit the idea that we are being feed the truth within layers of time.