What exactly was Torrhen Stark doing?

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 12/9/2021 at 10:26 PM, James Steller said:

We all know that story; Torrhen Stark summons his bannermen and marches south with an army of thirty thousand men at his back. They cross the Neck and enter the Riverlands, only to be confronted with Aegon, his sisters, their dragons, and forty-five thousand men from all the kingdoms which had already submitted to House Targaryen. The Northerners debate on whether they should make their stand, retreat to Moat Cailin, or send an assassin to take out the dragons with weirwood arrows (that's a whole other thing, but anyway).

But what was Torrhen Stark's original plan? Why was he marching south in the first place? The only explanation I can find is that he didn't know about the dragons, or about any of the conquests which Aegon and his sisters carried out while Torrhen was busy assembling his army. But that seems a bit ridiculous to me. As distant and isolated as the North is, I find it very unlikely that Torrhen heard absolutely nothing about what was going on in the south, and if he had heard nothing, why was he marching south anyway?

To take the battle away from his kingdom and fight a war he cannot win. He does not expect to win and therefore he wants the battle away from his women and children.  He was protecting his most vulnerable people by choosing his battle ground away from them.  Shows good leadership on Torrhen's part.  He placed the welfare and safety of those he led over his own pride, a wisdom which his descendants are now  lacking.  It was better to lose in the south because it may save as many of his women and children as possible.  The Field of Fire 2.0 was coming and he would rather it happen away from his non-combatant population.  It's better for soldiers to die in place of the women and the children. 

Repeatedly, we have been told of how the North's geography is their biggest defence. The cold climate, the nigh-impenetrable Neck, and so on. What made Torrhen think that marching south was going to be a good idea? Was he going to fight the Targaryens in the riverlands? How far was he willing to march just to fight Aegon? And depending on his answer to that question, why the hell would he march so far into other people's lands just for a fight? It's not like Aegon was threatening the North at the time, he was marching south when Torrhen drew attention to himself. And yes, I'm sure Aegon was bound to go north eventually, but surely Torrhen and his people could have pulled a Dorne on him? The North's big enough for that, after all, not to mention how not even three dragons could melt all the snow and ice up there.

Moat Cailin is no defense against Dragons.  Torrhen and his pack were going to die.   He wanted to pick his ground away from his population.  He and his men will burn to crispy chips but at least his people back home will be spared.  The Targaryens were an advanced people and will be merciful to those who submit.  The people left behind in Winterfell will give up and the Targaryens will forgive.  Torrhen's family will die but at least the people will be spared.  

To take the battle away from his kingdom and fight a war he cannot win. He does not expect to win and therefore he wants the battle away from his women and children.  He was protecting his most vulnerable people by choosing his battle ground away from them.  Shows good leadership on Torrhen's part.  He placed the welfare and safety of those he led over his own pride, a wisdom which his descendants are now  lacking.  It was better to lose in the south because it may save as many of his women and children as possible.  The Field of Fire 2.0 was coming and he would rather it happen away from his non-combatant population.  It's better for soldiers to die in place of the women and the children. 

Moat Cailin is no defense against Dragons.  Torrhen and his pack were going to die.   He wanted to pick his ground away from his population.  He and his men will burn to crispy chips but at least his people back home will be spared.  The Targaryens were an advanced people and will be merciful to those who submit.  The people left behind in Winterfell will give up and the Targaryens will forgive.  Torrhen's family will die but at least the people will be spared.  

[direpupy]

23 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Not at all suspicious. Considering the North is an independent Kingdom that worships the old gods, and where the Andals made no head way. Save for House Manderly, every one in the North should be of First men blood.

 

So, why does a Stark have a Maester? and 3 of them no less. Even Kings Landing only has one Maester. If not all his, then which houses did the other 2 belong to? and why send Maesters from lords houses instead of just the one from the Kings?

Is every Maester to a King a Grand Maester? Or was that just for Kings Landing? 

 

Or did Old Town simply send envoys to negotiate with Stark. To talk him down from war. House Hightower never took the field against the Targaryens 

Like others have said the maesters predate the Andals by a couple of thousand years so they where a first men established order. From what i read of your other post in this tread you subscribe to some of the most blatant crackpot on this forum, i for one like to stick to facts instead of ripped out of contest pieces off text.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Like others have said the maesters predate the Andals by a couple of thousand years so they where a first men established order. From what i read of your other post in this tread you subscribe to some of the most blatant crackpot on this forum, i for one like to stick to facts instead of ripped out of contest pieces off text.

Maesters predate the Andals only by a couple hundred years, not thousands. I don't care if you think my theory is crackpot. There is nothing to state that other houses had Maesters before the Andals arrived either. They are the historians of Westeros, but have no records that go back that far. 

The book also calls the First Men the "First Men" Yet there is obviously sea faring people that predate them. House Harlaw on the Iron Isles, House Redwine on the Arbor, House Magnar on Skagos. 

I think your theories lack any intelligence or thought. Doesn't bother me what you think though. Calling peoples theories "crack pot" doesn't bolster your argument. I thought moderators had weeded out the toxic people already but guess not

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Like others have said the maesters predate the Andals by a couple of thousand years so they where a first men established order. From what i read of your other post in this tread you subscribe to some of the most blatant crackpot on this forum, i for one like to stick to facts instead of ripped out of contest pieces off text.

The author wrote the story to have double or even triple meanings or interpretations. So, why don't you show a little more respect for others and there thoughts on the books. There are lots of theories I don't agree with but also don't go around insulting their theories to bolster mine. 

There are likely a lot of plot threads that will be left to interpretations after the books are done. Like how dragon eggs were hatched. So again. Try a little respect.

[direpupy]

44 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Maesters predate the Andals only by a couple hundred years, not thousands. I don't care if you think my theory is crackpot. There is nothing to state that other houses had Maesters before the Andals arrived either. They are the historians of Westeros, but have no records that go back that far. 

The book also calls the First Men the "First Men" Yet there is obviously sea faring people that predate them. House Harlaw on the Iron Isles, House Redwine on the Arbor, House Magnar on Skagos. 

Try 2000 years the story of there founding comes from the Dawn Age.

As to the seafaring people the only hints to that is battle isle in oldtown and the seastone chair none of the houses you named have anything to do with that. But otherwise its a theory that has at least some hint to it.

[direpupy]

43 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

The author wrote the story to have double or even triple meanings or interpretations. So, why don't you show a little more respect for others and there thoughts on the books. There are lots of theories I don't agree with but also don't go around insulting their theories to bolster mine. 

There are likely a lot of plot threads that will be left to interpretations after the books are done. Like how dragon eggs were hatched. So again. Try a little respect.

How is pointing out that most of the theory's you mention are crackpot disrespectful, i did not call you names or belittled you, i merely pointed out that most of the theory's you mention are crackpot.

Maybe you are only upset because i pointed out your mistake on the maesters, but even then to accuse someone of disrespect because of that. The only one who is being disrespectful and toxic is you.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 minute ago, direpupy said:

Try 2000 years the story of there founding comes from the Dawn Age.

As to the seafaring people the only hints to that is battle isle in oldtown and the seastone chair none of the houses you named have anything to do with that. But otherwise its a theory that has at least some hint to it.

Yet you say my theories are crack pot. Ok.

 

The First Men didnt have ships or sail. So explain to me how the Magnars got to Skagos, or the Iron Born got to the Iron Isles and raided Old Town? How did the Redwines get to the Arbor?  Those are sea faring people

 

House Manderly builds White Harbor to look exactly like their old Castle in the Reach. It is covered in mermaid and sea creature statues. 

 

No, multiple dates are given. You are just choosing one and acting like its the right one while ignoring passages supposedly pulled with no context. So, id pull some quotes for you to back my argument, but you somehow think that doesn't qualify. All I can suggest is drawing up the 3 time lines they propose and compare which makes more sense. You need to actually look at quotes though like what I posted about the Crown of Arryn though. There are Maesters who think the time line is shorter than reported by most Maesters and basing their thoughts on clues, many of which we are given. 

Ran already said though  that Martin is reducing the ambiguity in the time line though and that the long night was not 10k years ago. Its one of the other two dates. I lean towards the shorter of the two. Thats why we got so much more information in TWOIAF that counters stuff we were first told in AGOT. Its just confusing putting it all together as their are 7 kingdoms with not much info linking the events of any kingdom with the others, but there are some events. The Iron born present the most confusion though

 

Quote

 

A Dance with Dragons - Jaime I

"Five hundred years before the Andals. A thousand, if the True History is to be believed. Only no one knows when the Andals crossed the narrow sea. The True History says four thousand years have passed since then, but some maesters claim that it was only two. Past a certain point, all the dates grow hazy and confused, and the clarity of history becomes the fog of legend."

 

Quote

 

A Feast for Crows - Prologue

The Lord's Sept joined in a moment later, then the Seven Shrines from their gardens across the Honeywine, and finally the Starry Sept that had been the seat of the High Septon for a thousand years before Aegon landed at King's Landing. 

 

 

This quote puts the Starry septs foundation at 1300 years ago. 

Quote

 

A Feast for Crows - Prologue

Pate knew about the glass candles, though he had never seen one burn. They were the worst-kept secret of the Citadel. It was said that they had been brought to Oldtown from Valyria a thousand years before the Doom. He had heard there were four; one was green and three were black, and all were tall and twisted.

 

Quote

 

The World of Ice and Fire - The Reign of the Dragons: The Conquest

The two queens smiled at one another and exchanged courtesies instead. Then Lady Sharra sent for the three crowns (her own regent's coronet, her son's small crown, and the Falcon Crown of Mountain and Vale that the Arryn kings had worn for a thousand years), and surrendered them to Queen Visenya, along with the swords of her garrison. And it was said afterward that the little king flew thrice about the summit of the Giant's Lance and landed to find himself a little lord. Thus did Visenya Targaryen bring the Vale of Arryn into her brother's realm.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Vale: House Arryn

The true tale of House Arryn contains neither giants nor griffins nor huge falcons, yet from the day Ser Artys first donned the Falcon Crown to the present, they have rightly held a storied place in the history of the Seven Kingdoms. 

 

Falcon crown first worn by the Arryn Kings was forged 1000 years ago abouts. 

Glass candles were brought 1000 years about before the Doom of Valyria.  1500 years ago abouts.

 

The Author says one thing, then later reveals those things to be false, quite often. These are not out of context either, you're more than welcome to read the whole chapter. I listed where it came from. Im not going to quote the whole chapter or paragraph for you though. 

Anyone believing any of the timelines they present though, isn't crackpot. 

[AlaskanSandman]

21 minutes ago, direpupy said:

How is pointing out that most of the theory's you mention are crackpot disrespectful, i did not call you names or belittled you, i merely pointed out that most of the theory's you mention are crackpot.

Maybe you are only upset because i pointed out your mistake on the maesters, but even then to accuse someone of disrespect because of that. The only one who is being disrespectful and toxic is you.

Calling some ones theories crack pot is not a compliment, its a rude slag on some ones theory. So don't pretend its not rude or toxic. Pointing out a misquote is one thing or pointing out a theory you disagree with, but calling some ones theory crackpot is indeed rude. Its the same as me calling your theory stupid. Im not toxic or rude for pointing out the comment is rude. I don't mind you disagreeing. Crackpot is not a compliment and don't pretend it was.

[direpupy]

1 minute ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Calling some ones theories crack pot is not a compliment, its a rude slag on some ones theory. So don't pretend its not rude or toxic. Pointing out a misquote is one thing or pointing out a theory you disagree with, but calling some ones theory crackpot is indeed rude. Its the same as me calling your theory stupid. Im not toxic or rude for pointing out the comment is rude. I don't mind you disagreeing. Crackpot is not a compliment and don't pretend it was.

No its not a compliment but its not derogatory either, if you feel that it is then that is something we disagree on. I consider most of the theory's you adhere to to be crackpot and pointed that out. I did not call you dumb or an idiot because i do not consider you either of those. If you felt insulted then i'm sorry for that, but do not call someone toxic based on being angry that someone does not agree with your theory's, because if you do then you are the one being toxic.

[AlaskanSandman]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

No its not a compliment but its not derogatory either, if you feel that it is then that is something we disagree on. I consider most of the theory's you adhere to to be crackpot and pointed that out. I did not call you dumb or an idiot because i do not consider you either of those. If you felt insulted then i'm sorry for that, but do not call someone toxic based on being angry that someone does not agree with your theory's, because if you do then you are the one being toxic.

I already explained that I don't mind or care about people disagreeing with my theory. Crackpot is not a compliment exactly, its an insult. Saying you disagree is not how ever an insult. Its not the most derogatory of insults or as blatant as calling someones theory stupid, but it means the same. I never said I was angry either and aren't typing like im angry. I simply pointed out that it was a rude comment. You're just trying to twist it now that I was upset you disagreed, when I already specified that wasn't the case and it was the crackpot term. If I was offended by you thinking my religious beliefs were crackpot too, would you still play innocent on the term crackpot and feel its ok? Or acknowledge its rude negative meaning? Or tell them to get over it because you don't think calling their ideas or beliefs crackpot? Just curious where you draw the line in distinction. 

[direpupy]

4 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I already explained that I don't mind or care about people disagreeing with my theory. Crackpot is not a compliment exactly, its an insult. Saying you disagree is not how ever an insult. Its not the most derogatory of insults or as blatant as calling someones theory stupid, but it means the same. I never said I was angry either and aren't typing like im angry. I simply pointed out that it was a rude comment. You're just trying to twist it now that I was upset you disagreed, when I already specified that wasn't the case and it was the crackpot term. If I was offended by you thinking my religious beliefs were crackpot too, would you still play innocent on the term crackpot and feel its ok? Or acknowledge its rude negative meaning? Or tell them to get over it because you don't think calling their ideas or beliefs crackpot? Just curious where you draw the line in distinction. 

In the context in which i said it i do not consider crackpot to be an insult, as to where i draw the line that depends on the context.

Obviously you disagree and the fact that you immediately started calling me toxic is a clear indication of anger.

Again if you feel insulted i'm sorry about that, but do not try to make me out to be rude and toxic over stating my opinion.

[LynnS]

What Does Crackpot Mean? - Writing Explained

I sometimes refer to my own ideas as cracked in a self-deprecating way especially if they are guesses without any real supporting evidence.  I try not to use it when describing anything other than my own ideas.

[Megorova]

21 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

In F&B the Targaryen family tree started from Aegon the Conqueror, and compared to the family tree presented in TWOIAF, there were some changes.

Kinda of irrelevant when we know the history from before F& B.

Though, there are still gaps, even in the known history of the Targaryen-bloodline. For example -

Quote

The Aegon who is known to history as Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon was born on Dragonstone in 27 BC. He was the only son, and second child, of Aerion, Lord of Dragonstone, and Lady Valaena of House Velaryon, herself half-Targaryen on her mother’s side. - TWOIAF.

Gaemon Targaryen, brother and husband to Daenys the Dreamer, followed Aenar the Exile as Lord of Dragonstone, and became known as Gaemon the Glorious. Gaemon’s son Aegon and his daughter Elaena ruled together after his death. After them the lordship passed to their son Maegon, his brother Aerys, and Aerys’s sons, Aelyx, Baelon, and Daemion. The last of the three brothers was Daemion, whose son Aerion then succeeded to Dragonstone.

The Aegon who would be known to history as Aegon the Conqueror and Aegon the Dragon was born on Dragonstone in 27 BC. He was the only son, and second child, of Aerion, Lord of Dragonstone, and Lady Valaena of House Velaryon, herself half Targaryen on her mother’s side. - F&B.

Aenar + wife = Gaemon + Daenys = Aegon + Elaena (and there was one more daughter here) = Maegon, Aerys + wife = Aelyx, Baelon, Daemion + wife = Aerion + Valaena Velaryon = King Aegon I.

Valaena's mother was a Targayen. She's from the same generation as Aerion. So she should be a niece of Daemion. Though she's not on their family tree. So either Daemion and his two brothers had sisters, that were not mentioned not in TWOIAF and not in F&B, or Valaena's mother was a daughter of Aelyx or Baelon, and she was married off to a Velaryon-husband, and the crown passed from her father to her uncle - Daemion. It's likely that Aelyx and Baelon were succeded not by their own children, but by their younger brother, because they had only daughters and no sons. Thus those daughters, and there could have been more than one, more than just Valaena Velaryon's mother, could have married with anyone outside of their House.

And I think that a marriage with a Stark was a viable option, because unlike all the other regions of Westeros, The North, by the time when the Targaryens settled at Dragonstone, was united under a single ruler - the Stark King. In Riverlands and Stormlands there were several petty Kings, same probably correct for the other regions too, all except The North. So the Stark was a King, and thus he would have been a suitable option, as a husband for a daughter of a Lord from House Targaryen.

 

And don't tell me that if there really was a Targaryen-girl, that could have married out of their House, then the maesters would have definitely mentioned her, because they DIDN'T mentioned the origin of Valaena's mother - a daughter of which Targaryen Lord was she? It isn't known! So if there was her, then there also could have been more of the same.

21 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I agree that a Stark/Targaryen Wedding should have appeared in the World Book if it ever happened.

Unless GRRM intentionally held back this information. Not to reveal all of his secrets at once, or not to leave too many clues.

15 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

So everybody, and their elderly grandma is a secret Targaryen (with no proof), but the people who could actually be secret Targaryens aren't? 

For me there is enough proof, based on which are made my theories.

And I'm not denying that there is a possibility that Jaime and Cersei could be Aerys' bastards, though not Tyrion (at the time of his conception Johanna with Tywin were at Casterly Rock, and Aerys was at KL, busy with building a city at the Blackwater).

[Edit: actually that thing was in 265, at the time of Jaime and Cersei's conception, not during Tyrion's - "building a city of white marble on the south bank of the Blackwater Rush after complaining of the smell of King's Landing in 265 AC," and "In 266 AC, Joanna gave birth to Cersei and Jaime, with Tywin present. King Aerys ordered Tywin to bring Joanna and the children to King's Landing when the children were old enough to travel, but Lord Tytos Lannister died before this could occur. Instead, Tywin, Aerys, Prince Rhaegar, and half the court went to the westerlands in 267 AC, where they remained for most of the next year.^[2]"] <- Jaime was with Cersei, when she was giving birth to their children, and Tywin was with Johanna, when she was giving birth to Jaime and Cersei. So this small bit is a clue that they were Tywin's children, and not Aerys'.

And the only viable parallel between Lannister-Duo and the Targaryens, is that they are also practicing incest.

Though I think that if Jaime and Cersei were really Aerys' children, then either one of them, or at least one of their children would have had silver-gold hair, instead of Lannister-blond, and blue or violet or purple or indigo or lilac eyes of the dragonseeds, and not green eyes of the Lannisters. Jaime, Cersei, Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella - and none of them had any of the Targaryen features, NONE.

Myrcella's hair is golden, eyes are emerald-colored; Tommen's hair is white-blond and eyes are emerald green; Joffrey's hair is blond and eyes are deep green; Cersei's hair is golden and eyes are emerald green; Jaime's hair is the color of beaten gold and eyes are cat-green.

White-blond and golden hair is not the same thing as the Targaryen silver-gold coloring. Out of those 5 people ZERO have Targaryen features, and incestuous tendencies are not something genetical. For example, Aegon V had two sisters to choose with which to marry and have children, but he has chosen to marry outside of the family.

Just because Jaime/Cersei are f*cking their sibling, it doesn't make them Targaryens. So is there any other clues that indicate their possible dragonseed-descent? If there isn't, then no - I don't think that those two, as you phrased it, "the people who could actually be secret Targaryens".

[direpupy]

10 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Though, there are still gaps, even in the known history of the Targaryen-bloodline. For example -

Aenar + wife = Gaemon + Daenys = Aegon + Elaena (and there was one more daughter here) = Maegon, Aerys + wife = Aelyx, Baelon, Daemion + wife = Aerion + Valaena Velaryon = King Aegon I.

Valaena's mother was a Targayen. She's from the same generation as Aerion. So she should be a niece of Daemion. Though she's not on their family tree. So either Daemion and his two brothers had sisters, that were not mentioned not in TWOIAF and not in F&B, or Valaena's mother was a daughter of Aelyx or Baelon, and she was married off to a Velaryon-husband, and the crown passed from her father to her uncle - Daemion. It's likely that Aelyx and Baelon were succeded not by their own children, but by their younger brother, because they had only daughters and no sons. Thus those daughters, and there could have been more than one, more than just Valaena Velaryon's mother, could have married with anyone outside of their House.

And I think that a marriage with a Stark was a viable option, because unlike all the other regions of Westeros, The North, by the time when the Targaryens settled at Dragonstone, was united under a single ruler - the Stark King. In Riverlands and Stormlands there were several petty Kings, same probably correct for the other regions too, all except The North. So the Stark was a King, and thus he would have been a suitable option, as a husband for a daughter of a Lord from House Targaryen.

 

And don't tell me that if there really was a Targaryen-girl, that could have married out of their House, then the maesters would have definitely mentioned her, because they DIDN'T mentioned the origin of Valaena's mother - a daughter of which Targaryen Lord was she? It isn't known! So if there was her, then there also could have been more of the same.

Unless GRRM intentionally held back this information. Not to reveal all of his secrets at once, or not to leave too many clues.

For me there is enough proof, based on which are made my theories.

Honestly the worldbook glossed over the Targaryens before the conquest so i think there could certainly be unnamed Targaryens who married on the mainland.

For example Lord Gaemon Targaryen's younger (unnamed) daughter did, she married a petty lord and one of her descendants became a claimant of the Great Council of 101 AC. So right there is a example that what you say is not outside the realm of possibility.

[Megorova]

1 minute ago, direpupy said:

So right there is a example that what you say is not outside the realm of possibility.

That's why I'm saying that there is a possibility that Torrhen Stark could have been a Targaryen by blood (distantly), and thus he could have had some sort of insider knowledge about their family or the dragons. And thus he marched with his troops south, despite all the other Kingdoms of Westeros already falling to Aegon. What made Torrhen think that he has a chance to win, where everyone else lost? Maybe because he was also a dragonseed by blood, more like Aegon, than like Aegon's fallen opponents. Maybe he even wanted to steal a dragon from the Targaryens. Who knows? Though there was definitely some sort of reason why Torrhen didn't just stayed at Winterfell, to wait there when the Targaryens will come after him, and instead went to intercept them.

[James Steller]

13 hours ago, H Wadsey Longfellow said:

To take the battle away from his kingdom and fight a war he cannot win. He does not expect to win and therefore he wants the battle away from his women and children.  He was protecting his most vulnerable people by choosing his battle ground away from them.  Shows good leadership on Torrhen's part.  He placed the welfare and safety of those he led over his own pride, a wisdom which his descendants are now  lacking.  It was better to lose in the south because it may save as many of his women and children as possible.  The Field of Fire 2.0 was coming and he would rather it happen away from his non-combatant population.  It's better for soldiers to die in place of the women and the children. 

Moat Cailin is no defense against Dragons.  Torrhen and his pack were going to die.   He wanted to pick his ground away from his population.  He and his men will burn to crispy chips but at least his people back home will be spared.  The Targaryens were an advanced people and will be merciful to those who submit.  The people left behind in Winterfell will give up and the Targaryens will forgive.  Torrhen's family will die but at least the people will be spared.  

I get what you're saying, but that just opens up more questions for me.

You say he knew that a second bloodbath was coming, and he wanted it to happen as far from the North as he could manage. Okay, fine, fair enough. But then if he was so determined to die, why didn't he? He spent all that time assembling a massive army and then marched it south only to surrender instead. Did he just lose his nerve? 

And if he was always trying to save lives, why not just surrender after he heard about what was happening in the south? He must have known he would never win. Why not just send an envoy to the Targaryens after Harrenhal, or the Last Storm, or the Field of Fire? He was aware of what was going on, and even if he wasn't, he didn't need to assemble 30,000 men to accompany him. He could have sent an envoy on the grounds of negotiations, then made up his mind from there.

[Rondo]

Torrhen Stark didn't know what the Targaryens were like. His banners said "The Valyrians are out to make slaves of us." He chose to fight rather than become a slave.  Then he met the Targaryens and the lords who bent their knees and found out they were decent folk who only wanted to bring order and discipline to the kingdoms.  

[AlaskanSandman]

11 hours ago, direpupy said:

In the context in which i said it i do not consider crackpot to be an insult, as to where i draw the line that depends on the context.

Obviously you disagree and the fact that you immediately started calling me toxic is a clear indication of anger.

Again if you feel insulted i'm sorry about that, but do not try to make me out to be rude and toxic over stating my opinion.

No, not anger and im sorry if it appeared that way. I do disagree though and see that thrown around as a debasing means of which to insult someones theory rather than disagreeing with it. Which, either way. Im not upset just feel its disrespectful. Especially in a novel where there are multiple conclusions one could draw. I don't get some theories at alllll and I definitely support some less supported ideas like Mance being Jon's father.  So im going to get disagreement haha. Its to be expected. Long as you're not trying to be rude and disrespectful, then by all means, disagree. Just trying to keep things civil. The use of "toxic" has to do with this forums history of stuff like that to which there is a pinned post on the subject now. The word though "toxic" has as much negative connotation as "Crackpot" to be fair. All that aside though and moving forward in disagreement. 

You have yet to touch upon the my actual response with quotes to do with my time theory. Im always interested in where and why people disagree with a theory. It lets you know what you need to work on, or if there are holes in your theory. 

[AlaskanSandman]

11 hours ago, LynnS said:

What Does Crackpot Mean? - Writing Explained

I sometimes refer to my own ideas as cracked in a self-deprecating way especially if they are guesses without any real supporting evidence.  I try not to use it when describing anything other than my own ideas.

Lol yea im likely to call my self a dumb@ss for typos or misquoting something, but might take offense if someone else says it. Ill def try to just take it as a label of "Fringe" ideas and no more.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 12/10/2021 at 9:31 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Some accounts, but not near as detailed as you make it out to be. When you can find me a map of China on European maps in Medieval times, let me know. Bactria is not in India or China either, that's Afghanistan. A lil off there in geography. No one in medieval times traded with Sub-Sahara Africa or knew anything about it past Ethiopia. Hence the African colonization when they finally did sail around Africa and make in roads into the heart of Africa. 

 

Too many variable accounts? I mean, yea. I clearly explain in the thread how there are 3 time lines put forward by the Maesters and myths. Put them all together and its a mess. unless you pick the one that is only 2000 years long abouts. Which clears up a lot of the mess. Which there is more than enough textual evidence to justify.  Ran even jumped in on it saying George was narrowing down the confusion. So, im ok with you not agreeing. You can choose either of the 3 times lines they put forth.  The Long Night was not 10,000 or 5,000 years ago imo, It makes no sense. 

Man this is quite a reply. Never said the euros had a frommers for China and no I don’t have to choose a maester timeline. Your explanations are nonsensical by Canon standards