Jump to content

Heresy 223 and where we go from here


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

As I said before, the war wasn't lost after the battle of the Trident. This even confirms that there were 2 full navies operating in the area. They could have easily reinforced King's Landing within the 2 weeks.  

Who was the other navy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

As I said before, the war wasn't lost after the battle of the Trident. This even confirms that there were 2 full navies operating in the area. They could have easily reinforced King's Landing within the 2 weeks.  

This is an interesting point. Why was the Targaryen fleet at Dragonstone and not in KL with the KING who was about to be attacked? Surely paranoid Aerys would have wanted all possible reinforcements to protect the capital with him in it. Unlike the Redwyne fleet, the Targaryen fleet wasn't even participating in a siege. They should have been at KL. 

Was this the result of another of Rhaegar's mysterious commands, like placing the KG in Dorne? You would think with his wife and children in KL, he would want to keep it safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MaesterSam said:

Was this the result of another of Rhaegar's mysterious commands, like placing the KG in Dorne? You would think with his wife and children in KL, he would want to keep it safe. 

I guess it just happened like so many military decisions during the rebellion are suspicious from an outside point of view. I'm just saying from a military point of view the Targaryens did not walk the walk to see if the rebels could really defeat them. Aerys just gave up, unable to move. While movement is a core principle of military engagement. If you can't win, you retreat. The Targaryen army at the Trident also just gave up.  I guess giving up is a thing in Planetos. One would think that honor would keep them fighting but even that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going back to that thread posted on Dany's possibly being someone other than Rhaella's daughter.   Jon can't be 9 months older than Dany, if she is Rhaella's daughter and Jon is Rheagar's son that Ned found as Lyanna died of childbirth.   

Accepting who Dany claims to be puts Jon's birth right before the sack of King's Landing.   Ned lifted the siege at Storm's End before he even went to Dorne.   Anti j=r+l have to love this, as if Ned arrived in Dorne after Lyanna died in childbirth, she could not ask for a promise.   Really the only way around this problem is if Dany is not Aery's daughter or Jon is not Lyanna's son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

the royal fleet including Velarion and Targaryen ships and the Redwyne fleet.

If the Targaryen fleet was destroyed in the storm at Dragonstone, then Redwyne's fleet was all that was left by the end of the Rebellion. But I see what you're saying. If they weren't destroyed until Dany was born, then they were intact during the Rebellion. I think we just need to chalk this up to protecting the Blackwater Bay and not having the need to send them anywhere else.

39 minutes ago, MaesterSam said:

This is an interesting point. Why was the Targaryen fleet at Dragonstone and not in KL with the KING who was about to be attacked? Surely paranoid Aerys would have wanted all possible reinforcements to protect the capital with him in it. Unlike the Redwyne fleet, the Targaryen fleet wasn't even participating in a siege. They should have been at KL. 

Was this the result of another of Rhaegar's mysterious commands, like placing the KG in Dorne? You would think with his wife and children in KL, he would want to keep it safe. 

I have offered my thoughts that Rhaegar thought Tywin Lannister was his ally and that any conflicts that occurred during his absence were misunderstandings that he thought could be resolved by showing up at the Trident to parly. Even his father, King Aerys II, didn't take Robert seriously until after the Battle of the Bells. According to some of the men that are with Stannis in ADWD, Robert moved very fast - 300 miles in ten days. I don't think Aerys had much time to utilize his royal fleet much, and perhaps it wasn't all that large to begin with? The Redwyne fleet did move to help the Tarlys with the siege of Storms End, but that too is partway into the Rebellion. The northern armies may not have had a fleet to begin with and so who would they use the Targaryen fleet against? Maybe that is why they were at Dragonstone? Dragonstone is near the entrance to the Blackwater Bay and having them there would protect Kings Landing from an attack by sea. As far as I know only the Manderlys and the Ironborn have ships and the Greyjoys didn't enter the Rebellion until very late in the game.

55 minutes ago, Jova Snow said:

@Feather Crystal when the story begins is it still summer? I think autumn begins with second book and lasts until the forth, while winter arrives at the end of fifth book. So if the summer lasted ten years then it began in 288 ac if it lasted nine years it was 289 ac with previous winter beginning in 282 ac. 

The latest summer would have began either late 288 or early 289 for it to be nine or ten years long when A Game of Thrones begins in 298. Prior to 288 we have an exchange between LC Jeor Mormont and Tyrion where Jeor asks Tyrion how many winters he's seen during his lifetime:

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion III

He was in deadly earnest, Tyrion realized. He felt faintly embarrassed for the old man. Lord Mormont had spent a good part of his life on the Wall, and he needed to believe if those years were to have any meaning. "I promise, the king will hear of your need," Tyrion said gravely, "and I will speak to my father and my brother Jaime as well." And he would. Tyrion Lannister was as good as his word. He left the rest unsaid; that King Robert would ignore him, Lord Tywin would ask if he had taken leave of his senses, and Jaime would only laugh.

"You are a young man, Tyrion," Mormont said. "How many winters have you seen?"

He shrugged. "Eight, nine. I misremember."

 

Tyrion is said to have been born some time in 273 so he was maybe 9 years old during the Rebellion. During his 25 years from birth in 273 until 298 he's seen eight or nine winters. Subtract the outgoing nine year long summer and Tyrion claims to have seen 8 or 9 winters during the previous 16 years from 273 until 289 - that's every other year, but he does say he misremembered.

I have posited before that Lyanna's abduction signaled the return of winter, but that winter ended with her death. I think Lyanna was found dying after the Battle of the Bells in mid 282 and before the Battle on the Trident. I realize this is a lot earlier than most readers would propose, but if we consider my proposed timeline for the Rebellion, significant events are closer together and the whole thing ends earlier - but I still keep everything contained within a year's time. 

The Rebellion was said to begin when Jon Arryn raised his banners and considered "over" with the Sack of Kings Landing. It very well could have have been Spring or Summer by the time it ended. If winter ended when Lyanna died midway through 282, it could have easily been summer when Daenerys was born in 283.

7 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

I am going back to that thread posted on Dany's possibly being someone other than Rhaella's daughter.   Jon can't be 9 months older than Dany, if she is Rhaella's daughter and Jon is Rheagar's son that Ned found as Lyanna died of childbirth.   

Accepting who Dany claims to be puts Jon's birth right before the sack of King's Landing.   Ned lifted the siege at Storm's End before he even went to Dorne.   Anti j=r+l have to love this, as if Ned arrived in Dorne after Lyanna died in childbirth, she could not ask for a promise.   Really the only way around this problem is if Dany is not Aery's daughter or Jon is not Lyanna's son.

I actually think Daenerys was born shortly after the Sack. I think Rhaella was already pregnant when Aerys sent her to Dragonstone. I believe Jon was born in Aug 282 and that Dany was born May or June 283, about four months after the Sack in Jan/Feb 283.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

I guess it just happened like so many military decisions during the rebellion are suspicious from an outside point of view. I'm just saying from a military point of view the Targaryens did not walk the walk to see if the rebels could really defeat them. Aerys just gave up, unable to move. While movement is a core principle of military engagement. If you can't win, you retreat. The Targaryen army at the Trident also just gave up.  I guess giving up is a thing in Planetos. One would think that honor would keep them fighting but even that isn't the case.

If the Targaryen fleet was destroyed during the same summer storm when Daenerys was born, their very existence and placement suggests that Daenerys was born a lot earlier than what has been suggested. I have already suggested that Rhaella was already quite pregnant when Aerys sent her and Viserys to Dragonstone and that the "midnight flight" and "nine moons later" are words from Viserys who was only a child himself during that time. It sounds poetic, but it's probably just not true. I think it's possible that the royal fleet carried Rhaella and remained at Dragonstone to protect her and the bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I have offered my thoughts that Rhaegar thought Tywin Lannister was his ally and that any conflicts that occurred during his absence were misunderstandings that he thought could be resolved by showing up at the Trident to parly. Even his father, King Aerys II, didn't take Robert seriously until after the Battle of the Bells. According to some of the men that are with Stannis in ADWD, Robert moved very fast - 300 miles in ten days. I don't think Aerys had much time to utilize his royal fleet much, and perhaps it wasn't all that large to begin with? The Redwyne fleet did move to help the Tarlys with the siege of Storms End, but that too is partway into the Rebellion. The northern armies may not have had a fleet to begin with and so who would they use the Targaryen fleet against? Maybe that is why they were at Dragonstone? Dragonstone is near the entrance to the Blackwater Bay and having them there would protect Kings Landing from an attack by sea. As far as I know only the Manderlys and the Ironborn have ships and the Greyjoys didn't enter the Rebellion until very late in the game.

I agree, there may well have been an agreement between Rhaegar and Tywin, which is why Rhaegar felt overconfident going into the war and didn't take precautions to protect his wife and children. Tywin may have even planned to honor it, but after Rhaegar died he decided to side with the winners. 

I guess there's not much use for a fleet if the other side doesn't have one... but then again, Euron manages to sack castles using just his fleet, so I suppose the real value of the fleet is in the fighting men it carries. Unfortunately we have no idea how many men were on those ships, so it's hard to say if they would have made a difference. Especially since Aerys opened his gates and didn't even put up a fight when the enemy came in. He actually may have wanted the city to burn - providing the sacrifice to wake the dragon- and the sack was a great excuse. After all, he had the wildfire in place well beforehand, so he had clearly planned for this to happen. It's interesting, we look at the motivations of so many characters for the events that happened, but not usually Aerys. He is dismissed as "mad". But maybe he was more of a player than we realize? His plan (while obviously incredibly callous) wasn't half bad - wait for the enemy to be within the city, then burn his entire army. He couldn't have known that Tywin would be the enemy. If he had stayed out of it and the invading army had been Robert's, Aerys could have taken them out as a threat almost instantaneously. As a bonus, this giant funeral pyre may well have hatched some eggs. Which Aerys could then have taken with him to Dragonstone, there to grow up and restore the Targaryens to their full power...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

If the Targaryen fleet was destroyed during the same summer storm when Daenerys was born, their very existence and placement suggests that Daenerys was born a lot earlier than what has been suggested. I have already suggested that Rhaella was already quite pregnant when Aerys sent her and Viserys to Dragonstone and that the "midnight flight" and "nine moons later" are words from Viserys who was only a child himself during that time. It sounds poetic, but it's probably just not true. I think it's possible that the royal fleet carried Rhaella and remained at Dragonstone to protect her and the bay.

The sisters storm was at the start of the rebellion, even before Bells. Suggesting Dany is roughly 2 years older. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MaesterSam said:

I agree, there may well have been an agreement between Rhaegar and Tywin, which is why Rhaegar felt overconfident going into the war and didn't take precautions to protect his wife and children. Tywin may have even planned to honor it, but after Rhaegar died he decided to side with the winners. 

I guess there's not much use for a fleet if the other side doesn't have one... but then again, Euron manages to sack castles using just his fleet, so I suppose the real value of the fleet is in the fighting men it carries. Unfortunately we have no idea how many men were on those ships, so it's hard to say if they would have made a difference. Especially since Aerys opened his gates and didn't even put up a fight when the enemy came in. He actually may have wanted the city to burn - providing the sacrifice to wake the dragon- and the sack was a great excuse. After all, he had the wildfire in place well beforehand, so he had clearly planned for this to happen. It's interesting, we look at the motivations of so many characters for the events that happened, but not usually Aerys. He is dismissed as "mad". But maybe he was more of a player than we realize? His plan (while obviously incredibly callous) wasn't half bad - wait for the enemy to be within the city, then burn his entire army. He couldn't have known that Tywin would be the enemy. If he had stayed out of it and the invading army had been Robert's, Aerys could have taken them out as a threat almost instantaneously. As a bonus, this giant funeral pyre may well have hatched some eggs. Which Aerys could then have taken with him to Dragonstone, there to grow up and restore the Targaryens to their full power...

 

I do tend to take the "mad" accusation with a grain of salt. It's standard procedure to denigrate and charge the defeated foe with "crimes" in order to justify taking them down. They also portray him as paranoid, but wouldn't you be a bit wary when one of your vassal houses takes you prisoner? Then you've got this spymaster Varys whispering suggestions of a coup. Aerys doesn't immediately lock his son up, but he does take some precautions. Does this sound like a madman to you, or someone pretty level headed?

I wonder if Rhaegar was an airhead. Lets look at some of the events more objectively. There could be some innocent explanations. What might be another reason to hold the Harrenhal Tourney? Was it perhaps simply a celebration for the return to Spring? It seems an inopportune time to plan a coup if your wife is pregnant with your second child and you're not going to be around. What if Rhaegar had no intention of starting a Rebellion? Would he have been absent for so long for his own war if rebellion was what he intended? 

Once word finally reached him about the various conflicts, he gathered the 10,000 Dornish to defend Elia once they arrive back in Kings Landing. Rhaegar doesn't seem to be too concerned about the rebels, because he doesn't even wait for the 10,000 Dornish to arrive before leaving for the Trident. I realize that the World Book claims Rhaegar took enough time to train some men, but if he had wouldn't the Dornish have arrived in time to go with him? As it was, Ser Lewyn was sent to take the command, but first reminded by Aerys that he held Elia. If Rhaegar was still in Kings Landing when this all happened, do you think he would have left had he known his father had taken Elia and his children prisoner? Surely Aerys made his threat after Rhaegar was already gone? It seems to be in direct conflict with Rhaegar's instructions for his father to send a raven to Tywin. Some of these details sound suspect to me and probably wouldn't hold up to a cross examination by clever lawyers.

16 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

The sisters storm was at the start of the rebellion, even before Bells. Suggesting Dany is roughly 2 years older. 

Why would it have to be the same storm? Couldn't there have been more than one storm? The Fisherman's Daughter tale would have occurred right after Jon Arryn called his banners and descended upon Gulltown. Winter had just returned the month before. I would say the Sister's Storm was a winter storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

I am going back to that thread posted on Dany's possibly being someone other than Rhaella's daughter.   Jon can't be 9 months older than Dany, if she is Rhaella's daughter and Jon is Rheagar's son that Ned found as Lyanna died of childbirth.   

Accepting who Dany claims to be puts Jon's birth right before the sack of King's Landing.   Ned lifted the siege at Storm's End before he even went to Dorne.   Anti j=r+l have to love this, as if Ned arrived in Dorne after Lyanna died in childbirth, she could not ask for a promise.   Really the only way around this problem is if Dany is not Aery's daughter or Jon is not Lyanna's son.

Yep, nine-eight months difference has to be remembered when you are working on parentage theories, personally I believe Rhaella conceived her last child after the burning of Richard, that is before the Rebellion and the news of Lyanna that reached Brandon was the news of Lyanna dying in child birth. But of course that thought is not possible considering the age gap so I am waiting for twow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jova Snow said:

Yep, nine-eight months difference has to be remembered when you are working on parentage theories, personally I believe Rhaella conceived her last child after the burning of Richard, that is before the Rebellion and the news of Lyanna that reached Brandon was the news of Lyanna dying in child birth. But of course that thought is not possible considering the age gap so I am waiting for twow.

If Jon is Ned and Ashara's child born nine months after the tourney and Dany was conceived when Rickard Stark burned, then Dany is only three months younger than Jon and five months older than Robb. Certainly all three characters could be "of an age".

The only conflict I know of is how old Dany thinks she is when she's pregnant with Rhaego. She says she turns 14, but like I mentioned earlier I could have swore there is an SSM somewhere that says Dany's earlier accounts are prior to when the Starks find the mother direwolf.

Moving her birth month up also moves up the Battle at the Trident, but I think this would help explain why the Targaryen royal fleet was at Dragonstone. According to my proposed timeline we're only talking one month, because I had already pegged the Trident for Dec 282 with the Sack in Jan 283, so IMO it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Trident and Dany's birth both occurred in Nov 282, with the Sack either in Dec 282 or not until early Jan 283 with the siege of Storms End ending shortly after. 

Aerys doesn't send Rhaella to Dragonstone until after Rhaegar is killed, which would suggest the trip itself may have contributed to her death during childbirth. The seas may have been growing in roughness with the impending storm during the trip, and then demolished the ships once they were anchored. if Dany was born shortly after the Sack, it would be a logical reason and timing for why the Targaryen fleet was at Dragonstone and how it got destroyed, and how there was only a small garrison left during the short period while Stannis was building Robert's fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I actually think Daenerys was born shortly after the Sack. I think Rhaella was already pregnant when Aerys sent her to Dragonstone. I believe Jon was born in Aug 282 and that Dany was born May or June 283, about four months after the Sack in Jan/Feb 283.

Rhaella being pregnant months before the sack makes this timing problem worse, as now Jon is born about a half year before the Sack of King's Landing and a full year or so ahead of Ned's arrival.  I am not saying that is impossible, but it doesn't jive with Lyanna dying in childbirth a full year after her son is born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

If Jon is Ned and Ashara's child born nine months after the tourney and Dany was conceived when Rickard Stark burned, then Dany is only three months younger than Jon and five months older than Robb. Certainly all three characters could be "of an age".

The only conflict I know of is how old Dany thinks she is when she's pregnant with Rhaego. She says she turns 14, but like I mentioned earlier I could have swore there is an SSM somewhere that says Dany's earlier accounts are prior to when the Starks find the mother direwolf.

Moving her birth month up also moves up the Battle at the Trident, but I think this would help explain why the Targaryen royal fleet was at Dragonstone. According to my proposed timeline we're only talking one month, because I had already pegged the Trident for Dec 282 with the Sack in Jan 283, so IMO it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Trident and Dany's birth both occurred in Nov 282, with the Sack either in Dec 282 or not until early Jan 283 with the siege of Storms End ending shortly after. 

Aerys doesn't send Rhaella to Dragonstone until after Rhaegar is killed, which would suggest the trip itself may have contributed to her death during childbirth. The seas may have been growing in roughness with the impending storm during the trip, and then demolished the ships once they were anchored. if Dany was born shortly after the Sack, it would be a logical reason and timing for why the Targaryen fleet was at Dragonstone and how it got destroyed, and how there was only a small garrison left during the short period while Stannis was building Robert's fleet.

I don't want to name kids when talking about RL and AR but you are right about Daenerys chapter pre-dating the prologue of AGOT, we don't know when the news of Daenerys' pregnancy actually goes to Varys - maybe he waited a few months before reporting it to Robert? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

Rhaella being pregnant months before the sack makes this timing problem worse, as now Jon is born about a half year before the Sack of King's Landing and a full year or so ahead of Ned's arrival.  I am not saying that is impossible, but it doesn't jive with Lyanna dying in childbirth a full year after her son is born.

You are assuming Lyanna died after childbirth, whereas I don't believe Lyanna had any child at all. I believe Jon is Ned and Ashara's son and Dany is Aerys and Rhaella's daughter. Lyanna died of a festering sword wound to the belly, gored like the boar that did Robert in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

You are assuming Lyanna died after childbirth, whereas I don't believe Lyanna had any child at all. I believe Jon is Ned and Ashara's son and Dany is Aerys and Rhaella's daughter. Lyanna died of a festering sword wound to the belly, gored like the boar that did Robert in.

All I am saying is the most popular theory on Jon's birth, the accepted account of Dany's birth and the timing from the ssm don't work together.  At least one of the three is wrong and it isn't the ssm.

Jon as Ashara's son and Lyanna gored by a boar fits the timeline just fine.   It just isn't the most popular theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I too have my doubts that Daenerys was really only 14. We do have inconsistencies with dates in the books. I just posted one yesterday in a Tyrion chapter that someone noted this last summer lasted nine years while everyone else said ten. It was a weird detail that made me wonder if GRRM just made a mistake or if it was an intentional clue that has something to do with the time loops.

How would that be a clue about time loops? It seems to be, at best, a clue that characters make mistakes. It could also be that that chapter is a few months off compared to other POVs at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

All I am saying is the most popular theory on Jon's birth, the accepted account of Dany's birth and the timing from the ssm don't work together.  At least one of the three is wrong and it isn't the ssm.

Jon as Ashara's son and Lyanna gored by a boar fits the timeline just fine.   It just isn't the most popular theory. 

Gored like a boar, but with a sword - not by a boar.

15 minutes ago, Lord Aegon The Compromiser said:

How would that be a clue about time loops? It seems to be, at best, a clue that characters make mistakes. It could also be that that chapter is a few months off compared to other POVs at the time. 

Tyrion does say he misremembers, so it could simply be a mistake, but each quote is from the same book - A Game of Thrones, which I think only encompasses a single year. 

As for how it could apply to a time loop...have you never heard the expression a “glitch in the matrix”? 

https://thoughtcatalog.com/juliet-lanka/2017/11/25-people-give-their-glitch-in-the-matrix-story-that-made-them-believe-in-the-supernatural/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...