What exactly was Torrhen Stark doing?

[AlaskanSandman]

7 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

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 

Your inability or choice not to believe either of the 3 time lines presented is nonsensical. Believing one of them is not nonsensical. 

You also try to make it seem like Europeans had some extensive knowledge of China, and they most certainly did not by any standard. Least of which for frommers. Can't have tourist guides for a place you know not how to find. The Muslim control over trade routes, the distance and problems with cartography in plotting latitude in those days made in hard to even map out. Least wise with no one traversing the whole distance. Its nonsensical to think Europeans had any knowledge of China, just because they did trade via silkroads. Least of all that there would be anything equivalent to Maesters set up between any kingdom in Europe with any beyond its own borders.  

[direpupy]

5 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

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. 

I'm glad your not angry, and again i apologize if i insulted you.

As to the timeline thing, despite my naming of the largest gap in a earlier post i actually adhere to what i cal the Hoster Blackwood theory on history. It comes from Hoster Blackwood saying in the books that after a certain point in time everything just becomes a blur in regards to time. So i believe there is no way of knowing how long ago something was past about a 1000 years before the books, but i do believe that a rough chronology is possible. This is why the story of maesters being founded by the second son of the Hightower king from the Dawn Age for me puts the maesters well before the coming of the Andals, making them a First Men creation. Now the Hightowers may actually predate the First Men but the story of the founding takes place after Uthor of the Hightower married a daughter of Garth Greenhand so Perwin Hightower laying the foundations of the Maesters is definitely after the coming of the First Men since this is a First Men story/myth.

This is why i do not think that Torrhen having a Maester is strange, which was the original point i responded to.

17 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

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

I do not believe in a seafaring people before the First Men, because while not great seafaring people the First Men where not entirely without ships, as the story's of First men Kings in the Reach, Stormlands and North taking/conquering island before the coming of the Andals clearly shows. Rather i believe that some of the tribes of the first men took to seafaring beter because they lived on those islands so out of necessity they got beter at it. An example of this would be the House Farman who are said to have sailed the sea's around there island since the Dawn Age, and they are a First Men House no doubt is ever cast on that in any of the books, unlike the Hightowers for who there are hints that they predate the First Men.

That's not to say nobody could have visited westeros before the First Men, after all the Seastone Chair had to come from somewhere, but since they only permanent structure predating the First Men seems to be the fortress on battle isle that forms the base of the Hightower i do not think they settled in westeros.

[AlaskanSandman]

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

I'm glad your not angry, and again i apologize if i insulted you.

As to the timeline thing, despite my naming of the largest gap in a earlier post i actually adhere to what i cal the Hoster Blackwood theory on history. It comes from Hoster Blackwood saying in the books that after a certain point in time everything just becomes a blur in regards to time. So i believe there is no way of knowing how long ago something was past about a 1000 years before the books, but i do believe that a rough chronology is possible. This is why the story of maesters being founded by the second son of the Hightower king from the Dawn Age for me puts the maesters well before the coming of the Andals, making them a First Men creation. Now the Hightowers may actually predate the First Men but the story of the founding takes place after Uthor of the Hightower married a daughter of Garth Greenhand so Perwin Hightower laying the foundations of the Maesters is definitely after the coming of the First Men since this is a First Men story/myth.

This is why i do not think that Torrhen having a Maester is strange, which was the original point i responded to.

I do not believe in a seafaring people before the First Men, because while not great seafaring people the First Men where not entirely without ships, as the story's of First men Kings in the Reach, Stormlands and North taking/conquering island before the coming of the Andals clearly shows. Rather i believe that some of the tribes of the first men took to seafaring beter because they lived on those islands so out of necessity they got beter at it. An example of this would be the House Farman who are said to have sailed the sea's around there island since the Dawn Age, and they are a First Men House no doubt is ever cast on that in any of the books, unlike the Hightowers for who there are hints that they predate the First Men.

That's not to say nobody could have visited westeros before the First Men, after all the Seastone Chair had to come from somewhere, but since they only permanent structure predating the First Men seems to be the fortress on battle isle that forms the base of the Hightower i do not think they settled in westeros.

I have a hard time believing they could lose that much history. In Europe, they still had the bible which gave them a back bone of chronology to adhere to. Sure poor people lost information, but any one who studied at the court of Charlemagne would have been privy to the Roman Empire and Alexander the Great and the Greeks, on top of Biblical legends.

Theres an old english poem listing Lucifer (Earendel or Eosphoros in Greek) as Jesus. Which is a cross of myths showing familiarity with both. Since the Greeks are who first wrote the bible, it makes sense that much history still transcended any darkage that may have followed the collapse of Rome. The dates for things havn't moved much over the years. You can wiggle them around by a couple years, but no further. Not even the Pharaohs chronology. 

 

Take Troy. Homer says it was 400 years before his time in 800 BC. To this day, we still think it was around 1200bc. Nothing changed. Only thing that changed was we lost the location of Troy. So despite Alexander going there and paying Homage, or Julius Caesar. After Rome, we forgot where it was and so people started to nay say and think it was myth. Same seems to happen with Asoiaf both in world and in the real world. We are currently 3000 years after Troy. The biggest rift in our mythic history comes from the Greek Bible and Hebrew bible having different time lines. Greek bible being translated first but its not in Hebrew. Scripts both Torah and Bible are based on are lost. So no one knows which is more accurate. If tradition changed in that time, or what. These time lines don't amount to Thousands of years of difference between their two time lines though, as George has done with his. It a stretch of reason imo on Georges end.

And thank you and apologies back

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

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?

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.

IMO Torrhen Stark had already intended to surrender to the Tararyens . For when he surrendered  not only did he keep his head and lands but he also gained the Valyrian steel sword Ice .

[Bowen Marsh]

3 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

IMO Torrhen Stark had already intended to surrender to the Tararyens . For when he surrendered  not only did he keep his head and lands but he also gained the Valyrian steel sword Ice .

Yes

He brought his banners to make sure they too surrendered and knelt to the dragons.  That way there will be no misunderstandings.  They all needed to witness the futility of warring against the dragons.  I generally cannot stand the Starks but I admire Torrhen for his humility.  I have little to nothing against Ned and Cat.  It's really Robb, Jon, Brandon, Bran, Arya, Rickard, Lyanna, and Sansa that I don't like.  Torrhen's choice was best for the north even if they don't like it.  His decision was unpopular and undemocratic but it was wise. 

[direpupy]

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I have a hard time believing they could lose that much history. In Europe, they still had the bible which gave them a back bone of chronology to adhere to. Sure poor people lost information, but any one who studied at the court of Charlemagne would have been privy to the Roman Empire and Alexander the Great and the Greeks, on top of Biblical legends.

Theres an old english poem listing Lucifer (Earendel or Eosphoros in Greek) as Jesus. Which is a cross of myths showing familiarity with both. Since the Greeks are who first wrote the bible, it makes sense that much history still transcended any darkage that may have followed the collapse of Rome. The dates for things havn't moved much over the years. You can wiggle them around by a couple years, but no further. Not even the Pharaohs chronology. 

 

Take Troy. Homer says it was 400 years before his time in 800 BC. To this day, we still think it was around 1200bc. Nothing changed. Only thing that changed was we lost the location of Troy. So despite Alexander going there and paying Homage, or Julius Caesar. After Rome, we forgot where it was and so people started to nay say and think it was myth. Same seems to happen with Asoiaf both in world and in the real world. We are currently 3000 years after Troy. The biggest rift in our mythic history comes from the Greek Bible and Hebrew bible having different time lines. Greek bible being translated first but its not in Hebrew. Scripts both Torah and Bible are based on are lost. So no one knows which is more accurate. If tradition changed in that time, or what. These time lines don't amount to Thousands of years of difference between their two time lines though, as George has done with his. It a stretch of reason imo on Georges end.

And thank you and apologies back

I actually studied history (i no longer work in the field do, but its still my passion) and one of the dirty little secrets of historians is that they present timelines as establised to make things easier and understandeble for the general public, but these timelines actually are not as reliable as they make them out to be in publications for the general public.

To use your example of the Pharaohs there is an ongoing debate on the second intermediate period that may not have been as long as has been stated since the victorian period. Mostly because the victorians counted rival Pharaohs as succesors to each other instead of contemporaries, this is not widely publicised outside the historical community because it could mean having to alter the timeline of egyptian history by as much as a 150 years.

Its the same for the Troy example whilst most historians these days consider Troy VIIa to be Homers Troy, Troy VI is not entirely out of the running and the dates of there destruction are roughly 95 to a 100 years apart.

I do agree that GRRM took it step further (and maybe to far) in his case he talks about thousands of years between rival timelines instead of just a century or less.

[AlaskanSandman]

3 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I actually studied history and one of the dirty little secrets of historians is that we present timelines as establised to make things easier and understandeble for the general public, but these timelines actually are not as reliable as we make them out to be in publications for the general public.

To use your example of the Pharaohs there is an ongoing debate on the second intermediate period that may not have been as long as has been stated since the victorian period. Mostly because the victorians counted rival Pharaohs as succesors to each other instead of contemporaries, this is not widely publicised outside the historical community because it could mean having to alter the timeline of egyptian history by as much as a 150 years.

Its the same for the Troy example whilst most historians these days consider Troy VIIa to be Homers Troy, Troy VI is not entirely out of the running and the dates of there destruction are roughly 95 to a 100 years apart.

 The 2nd intermediate period is mostly a bunch of overlapping dynasties and that's pretty well know. The 2nd intermediate period wasn't that long and dominated by the Hyksos, a Semitic tribe from the Middle East. With Kamose and Ahmose I ushering the New Kingdom via King Tut and Akhenaten's 18th dynasty. 'The Intermediate period is only 250 years also. There is not really anyway for it to be only 100 years. With the 13 through to the 17th dynasties all having happened during the Intermediate period. Considering some are ruling from the same place, they cannot overlap and exist within a mere 100 years. Its well known that Kamose and his Dynasty defeated the Hyksos dynasty, meaning there is well known over lap, and no dirty lil secret. 
 

I've studied history, etymology, phonetics, and religion pretty extensively and those fields are pretty well set now days. By historical community I assume you mean the fringe group. Most Historians are pretty set on the timeline and get very defensive on the subject of fringe timelines. They also only go off what evidence they can prove, so if something is not prove-able, they are loath to back it. This is how Troy became myth and legend, even though Alexander and Julius Caesar knew where it was. Since we couldn't find it, it didnt exist for the purposes of fact in our minds. 

And no, Troy VIIa is well regarded to be the offical troy, as Troy VI is too old, and Troy VIIb doesn't show the damage reported by the War. Only Troy VIIa shows burning and has arrow head pieces. 

You're also talking about a site that the original person who found, blew up with Dynamite thinking the Troy he was looking for was deeper than it actually was. So he blew up most the evidence. 

Placing Troy is more than just its site, and when Homer said it happened. They trace it also by the name of the pharaoh listed in the legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twosret 

She is recorded in Manetho's Epitome as a certain Thuoris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken.

 

They didn't just willy nilly our timeline into existence. It is based on many, many accounts, from rival empires, to kings personal journals, to historians, and more. 

 

Even assuming you could squeeze out 100 years from either the 2nd Intermediate period, or from Troy. This is hardly the kinda of discrepancy presented in AOIAF where an event is either 500, 1000, or a couple thousand years apart in listing. Like the Andal Invasion. 

Assuming the Maesters (Who are the historians largely) are the center of Knowledge like Rome was. Then none of the information was really lost, it was just forgotten by most people outside of Rome till the Renaissance. Rome still had all the records we today base our stuff off of. 

That and Rome was overran with Germans, and the Roman language died, living on only among the poorer Vulgar Latin. Which is where modern Italian comes from and all other romance languages. Like Latin- Museum, vs Italian, Museo. Its like  a worn down lazy version (No disrespect Italians) of the same word. Less aristocratic and formal. 

 

This isn't the same though as trying to determine when Moses lived. You're dealing with something a little different there as most Jews, don't take the Torah for a literal history book. Only Europeans think the bible's old testament is actually literal and not a metaphor, or allegorical. 

Even assuming he was real and lived. They use a lot of information to try to determine when he may have lived. With most placing him during the reign of Rameses the 2nd as Moses supposedly set out from the city of Rameses, which was built by Rameses the 2nd. While some believe he was around the time of Ahmose I based on the name similarity. Though if the Hyksos were the "jews" enslaved, then Moses lived after Ahmose as Moses' people were enslaved for hundred of years supposedly. 

 

Martin gives little bits like this for fans to draw their own conclusion, though the fans go hard in their theories sometimes. This is why we have Maesters disagreeing on timelines. Though George doesn't really tell us why they disagreed, which is something I think ruins the game.  

[AlaskanSandman]

People also tend to believe Rameses for Moses as Ahkenaten turned Egypt into a nontheistic culture centered around the sun god Aten. Which historians think influenced the monotheistic faith of the Jews, along with their time under the Persians who were freed them from babylon and were also monotheistic worshiping the fire god Zorroastrian. 

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

 The 2nd intermediate period is mostly a bunch of overlapping dynasties and that's pretty well know. The 2nd intermediate period wasn't that long and dominated by the Hyksos, a Semitic tribe from the Middle East. With Kamose and Ahmose I ushering the New Kingdom via King Tut and Akhenaten's 18th dynasty. 'The Intermediate period is only 250 years also. There is not really anyway for it to be only 100 years. With the 13 through to the 17th dynasties all having happened during the Intermediate period. Considering some are ruling from the same place, they cannot overlap and exist within a mere 100 years. Its well known that Kamose and his Dynasty defeated the Hyksos dynasty, meaning there is well known over lap, and no dirty lil secret. 
 

I've studied history, etymology, phonetics, and religion pretty extensively and those fields are pretty well set now days. By historical community I assume you mean the fringe group. Most Historians are pretty set on the timeline and get very defensive on the subject of fringe timelines. They also only go off what evidence they can prove, so if something is not prove-able, they are loath to back it. This is how Troy became myth and legend, even though Alexander and Julius Caesar knew where it was. Since we couldn't find it, it didnt exist for the purposes of fact in our minds. 

And no, Troy VIIa is well regarded to be the offical troy, as Troy VI is too old, and Troy VIIb doesn't show the damage reported by the War. Only Troy VIIa shows burning and has arrow head pieces. 

You're also talking about a site that the original person who found, blew up with Dynamite thinking the Troy he was looking for was deeper than it actually was. So he blew up most the evidence. 

Placing Troy is more than just its site, and when Homer said it happened. They trace it also by the name of the pharaoh listed in the legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twosret 

She is recorded in Manetho's Epitome as a certain Thuoris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken.

 

They didn't just willy nilly our timeline into existence. It is based on many, many accounts, from rival empires, to kings personal journals, to historians, and more. 

 

Even assuming you could squeeze out 100 years from either the 2nd Intermediate period, or from Troy. This is hardly the kinda of discrepancy presented in AOIAF where an event is either 500, 1000, or a couple thousand years apart in listing. Like the Andal Invasion. 

Assuming the Maesters (Who are the historians largely) are the center of Knowledge like Rome was. Then none of the information was really lost, it was just forgotten by most people outside of Rome till the Renaissance. Rome still had all the records we today base our stuff off of. 

That and Rome was overran with Germans, and the Roman language died, living on only among the poorer Vulgar Latin. Which is where modern Italian comes from and all other romance languages. Like Latin- Museum, vs Italian, Museo. Its like  a worn down lazy version (No disrespect Italians) of the same word. Less aristocratic and formal. 

 

This isn't the same though as trying to determine when Moses lived. You're dealing with something a little different there as most Jews, don't take the Torah for a literal history book. Only Europeans think the bible's old testament is actually literal and not a metaphor, or allegorical. 

Even assuming he was real and lived. They use a lot of information to try to determine when he may have lived. With most placing him during the reign of Rameses the 2nd as Moses supposedly set out from the city of Rameses, which was built by Rameses the 2nd. While some believe he was around the time of Ahmose I based on the name similarity. Though if the Hyksos were the "jews" enslaved, then Moses lived after Ahmose as Moses' people were enslaved for hundred of years supposedly. 

 

Martin gives little bits like this for fans to draw their own conclusion, though the fans go hard in their theories sometimes. This is why we have Maesters disagreeing on timelines. Though George doesn't really tell us why they disagreed, which is something I think ruins the game.  

I was giving the maxumum amount in the discussion with 150 years i know its unlikely but is was more of an example of timelines not being as rigid as they are often presented, that Troy VIIa is regarded as the "real" Troy is something i admitted to i only said Troy VI is not entirely out of the running, just not the forerunner. And Schliemann blowing it up is a great tragedy indeed.

The point i was trying to make was that even in our own history timelines are not as set as many people believe but from your response i see i was preaching to the choir, which is good to know.

I think you started writing your responce before i edited my post because i later added to it that i think Martin overdid it with the thousands of years difference between rival timelines.

As to the Moses thing i'm not burning my fingers on that one i like to stay away from discussions that involve religion 

The part about the Maesters still having the knowledge is interesting and even hinted at by the stories of texts that are behind lock and key in the citadel, so thinking about that i do think you have a good point there certainly something to think about.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I've studied history, etymology, phonetics, and religion pretty extensively and those fields are pretty well set now days. By historical community I assume you mean the fringe group. Most Historians are pretty set on the timeline and get very defensive on the subject of fringe timelines. They also only go off what evidence they can prove, so if something is not prove-able, they are loath to back it. This is how Troy became myth and legend, even though Alexander and Julius Caesar knew where it was. Since we couldn't find it, it didnt exist for the purposes of fact in our minds. 

 

This is what i meant when i said its not publiced widely or for the general public, and what is publiced is certainly the most accepted timeline. But that does not change the fact that the accepted timeline is not set in stone.

[AlaskanSandman]

7 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I was giving the maxumum amount in the discussion with 150 years i know its unlikely but is was more of an example of timelines not being as rigid as they are often presented, that Troy VIIa is regarded as the "real" Troy is something i admitted to i only said Troy VI is not entirely out of the running, just not the forerunner. And Schliemann blowing it up is a great tragedy indeed.

The point i was trying to make was that even in our own history timelines are not as set as many people believe but from your response i see i was preaching to the choir, which is good to know.

I think you started writing your responce before i edited my post because i later added to it that i think Martin overdid it with the thousands of years difference between rival timelines.

As to the Moses thing i'm not burning my fingers on that one i like to stay away from discussions that involve religion 

The part about the Maesters still having the knowledge is interesting and even hinted at by the stories of texts that are behind lock and key in the citadel, so thinking about that i do think you have a good point there certainly something to think about.

Sorry if I rambled there. Point was just to express the gaps in dates for a given event in Westeros really make no sense. 

And I noticed you had edited after, my bad.

I don't blame you on Moses haha I tried not to debate the historicity of him, just the debate on when he possibly lived. 

We are told the Septons started recording history if Im not mistaken, but every historian were introduced to like Maester Yandel, is a Maester. Im not sure when the Septon's stopped caring about history? As a center of learning though, it would stand to reason that the Maesters who record more recent history, are like to have done it then too. They had Runes and Old English used to write in Runes before switching to Latin. Franks Casket is one such example 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_Casket

Im assuming Westeros uses some form of a Latin Script now, but GRRM really doesn't say. Maesters should be able to record knowledge though. 

 

[direpupy]

1 minute ago, AlaskanSandman said:

We are told the Septons started recording history if Im not mistaken, but every historian were introduced to like Maester Yandel, is a Maester. Im not sure when the Septon's stopped caring about history? As a center of learning though, it would stand to reason that the Maesters who record more recent history, are like to have done it then too. They had Runes and Old English used to write in Runes before switching to Latin. Franks Casket is one such example 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_Casket

Im assuming Westeros uses some form of a Latin Script now, but GRRM really doesn't say. Maesters should be able to record knowledge though. 

 

You are correct we are told the oldest histories are written down by Septons, thats actually an indiscrepancie i had not noticed before now, the Maesters should have been recording as well seeing they where founded in the Dawn Age, so is this an oversight by Martin or something delibared?

[AlaskanSandman]

10 minutes ago, direpupy said:

You are correct we are told the oldest histories are written down by Septons, thats actually an indiscrepancie i had not noticed before now, the Maesters should have been recording as well seeing they where founded in the Dawn Age, so is this an oversight by Martin or something delibared?

Im not sure, just something that's always stood out as odd to me. Ive heard of Grand Maester conspiracies and of them supposedly suppressing magic and dragons per Marwyn, but the truth of it, and the extant (especially back in time) maybe something that will be revealed to us. Im not sure. Even in my adjusted timeline, I never saw anything I thought answered this question. Most I could guess at was a link between the Iron Born and Old Town. Especially the Maesters, and especially Marwyns area of the premise. With the Iron Born seeking to rule all of Westeros from the Riverlands and Harrenhal, despite it meaning them giving up their advantage as sea people, makes me suspect them as Ancient Kings of Westeros before the Long Night.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Im not sure, just something that's always stood out as odd to me. Ive heard of Grand Maester conspiracies and of them supposedly suppressing magic and dragons per Marwyn, but the truth of it, and the extant (especially back in time) maybe something that will be revealed to us. Im not sure. Even in my adjusted timeline, I never saw anything I thought answered this question. Most I could guess at was a link between the Iron Born and Old Town. Especially the Maesters, and especially Marwyns area of the premise. With the Iron Born seeking to rule all of Westeros from the Riverlands and Harrenhal, despite it meaning them giving up their advantage as sea people, makes me suspect them as Ancient Kings of Westeros before the Long Night.

And this is where i would suspect them of grand ambitions, i don't really link those ambitions to the distant past. For a king of all Westeros before the Long Night i would look more at the legends of Garth Greenhand in the Reach and the legend of the First King and his barrow in the North. They only legend the Ironborn have that comes close is that of the Grey King but they never claimed he ruled over more then the Iron Isles, were ass they other two are both clamiants to rule of all the First Men and thus all of Westeros before the Long Night.

[AlaskanSandman]

30 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And this is where i would suspect them of grand ambitions, i don't really link those ambitions to the distant past. For a king of all Westeros before the Long Night i would look more at the legends of Garth Greenhand in the Reach and the legend of the First King and his barrow in the North. They only legend the Ironborn have that comes close is that of the Grey King but they never claimed he ruled over more then the Iron Isles, were ass they other two are both clamiants to rule of all the First Men and thus all of Westeros before the Long Night.

Garth is the Land and Tree god in opposition to the Sea God. House Gardener was likely at war with House Manderly, House Hightower, and the Iron Born. Imo. The Mander is named after the Manderly's though, not House Gardener. Suggesting House Gardener was the new comers.

 

Edit- House Stark is historically tied to House Gardener and fought the Iron Born on their Eastern shores.

[LynnS]

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

To use your example of the Pharaohs there is an ongoing debate on the second intermediate period that may not have been as long as has been stated since the victorian period.

Interesting.  I've wondered about the list of Lord Commanders and whether there were more than one LC at the Wall at a time. Thinking about the 6 kings sent to the Wall by Queen Nymeria.  I wonder if they were commanders of their own forts and whether the list found by Sam is a compilation of LC's from more than one fort.

[AlaskanSandman]

8 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Interesting.  I've wondered about the list of Lord Commanders and whether there were more than one LC at the Wall at a time. Thinking about the 6 kings sent to the Wall by Queen Nymeria.  I wonder if they were commanders of their own forts and whether the list found by Sam is a compilation of LC's from more than one fort.

Ive long suspected thats the case at the Watch. We're told that some castles went to war with each other.

[direpupy]

45 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Garth is the Land and Tree god in opposition to the Sea God. House Gardener was likely at war with House Manderly, House Hightower, and the Iron Born. Imo. The Mander is named after the Manderly's though, not House Gardener. Suggesting House Gardener was the new comers.

 

Edit- House Stark is historically tied to House Gardener and fought the Iron Born on their Eastern shores.

So that's where i sort off cut out, i really do not see that gods and war/opposition connection in what we have in book material.

There is evidence of the gods the First men Worshipped before they converted to The old gods of the CotF, for example on no less then  3 occasions do we hear of a sea and a wind/storm deity, first in the legend of Durran godsgrief, then in the religion of the ironborn and lastly in the tales of the sistermen. Only in one of those tales are the gods antagonistic to each other and that is in they ironborn story. In the Durran legend they are husband and wife and the sistermen legend strongly suggest that this is the case there as wel just with the genders of the deity's reversed, only the Ironborn talk about two male gods.

I will grant that an other first men god story is Garth Greenhand of who there are story's as a deity, but again no antagonism to other gods.

As for the Manderly's they seem more connected to the Merlin King who is arguably also a deity since he is worpshipped according to the books. But again i do not see any hint of antagonism towards others there.

[AlaskanSandman]

25 minutes ago, direpupy said:

So that's where i sort off cut out, i really do not see that gods and war/opposition connection in what we have in book material.

There is evidence of the gods the First men Worshipped before they converted to The old gods of the CotF, for example on no less then  3 occasions do we hear of a sea and a wind/storm deity, first in the legend of Durran godsgrief, then in the religion of the ironborn and lastly in the tales of the sistermen. Only in one of those tales are the gods antagonistic to each other and that is in they ironborn story. In the Durran legend they are husband and wife and the sistermen legend strongly suggest that this is the case there as wel just with the genders of the deity's reversed, only the Ironborn talk about two male gods.

I will grant that an other first men god story is Garth Greenhand of who there are story's as a deity, but again no antagonism to other gods.

As for the Manderly's they seem more connected to the Merlin King who is arguably also a deity since he is worpshipped according to the books. But again i do not see any hint of antagonism towards others there.

You don't have to think about the gods as being alive. The point is that you have two different cultures competing in Westeros. One who worship the Trees, and one who worship the Drowned God or some sorts and are a sea faring people. While the Tree God worshippers had no ships.

[direpupy]

10 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

You don't have to think about the gods as being alive. The point is that you have two different cultures competing in Westeros. One who worship the Trees, and one who worship the Drowned God or some sorts and are a sea faring people. While the Tree God worshippers had no ships.

Apart from me not really seeing the two different cultures, there is the problem i also do not see the antagonism that would result from the competition between those two cultures. This lack of solid evidence apart from the Hightowers and there fortress on Battle Isle for a competing culture to that of the First Men is where for me the first cracks apear in the theory, i say crack because its not a hole, the fortress and the seastone chair are hints to an other culture, so its not baseless just unlikely.

You could with some imagination see two competing cultures in the Durran Godsgrief story, if you leave out the gods and look at it as man from one culture takes woman from other culture against her parents wishes causing a war. But one story thats pretty slim in regards to evidence.