The warrior vs knight

[GZ Bloodraven]

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

So whats the definition of chivalry? Rampant misogynism mixed with steel? Belittlement of smallfolk? Something about a horse?

John the Oak is almost certainly fictitious, it's possible I suppose there was someone once name John but it's just as likely his name was Jon.

Is it possible he invited horseback riding, sexism and pinky promises? Yea but, no. Especially since his brothers were all heroes too and their dad was like the Yellow Empero

That's what I'm saying: it is likely that the Andals brought the concept and the First Men of the Reach just attributed the Andalos symbols to someone in their own folklore, John the Oak.

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

That's what I'm saying: it is likely that the Andals brought the concept and the First Men of the Reach just attributed the Andalos symbols to someone in their own folklore, John the Oak.

Then according to you the FM in the Vale did the same by inventing the winged knight, after Arryn was known as the falcon knight? And Serwyn was also just invented to please the Andals? And Storm's End wasn't built before the arrival of the Andals (who in Andalos only ever built in wood), etc, etc

Or perhaps we should side-eye those septons who put the old tales of these figures of the age of heroes?

[GZ Bloodraven]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Then according to you the FM in the Vale did the same by inventing the winged knight, after Arryn was known as the falcon knight? And Serwyn was also just invented to please the Andals? And Storm's End wasn't built before the arrival of the Andals (who in Andalos only ever built in wood), etc, etc

I would say that the confusion between the Falcon Knight and the Winged Knight suggest that one was inspired by the other: and knights are said to come from Andalos. Same with Serwyn: he is thought to be a knight of the Kingsguard...and also lived during the First Men Gardener kings era, so it is likely that the Gardener kings and now the smallfolk used the Andal iconography of knighthood and "ser" and attributed it to Serwyn. I don't think anyone called John the Oak, or the Winged Knight, or Serwyn "Ser John" or "Ser Serwyn" until the Andals came to Westeros.

And I'm not sure about Storm's End: I thought it was built by Durran Godsgrief, grandson of the sea god and wind goddess whos blood flows through the Baratheons, the Lannisters, the Tyrells and the Tarths. But I might be misremembering.

[sweetsunray]

7 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I don't think anyone called John the Oak, or the Winged Knight, or Serwyn "Ser John" or "Ser Serwyn" until the Andals came to Westeros.

Ser-wyn

And sort of funny that the Winged Knight would have been called "Winged Something Else" before the Andals. Funny how the first Andal king crafted his nick Falcon Knight after this Winged Something Something (but surely not the word "knight"!!!!!). Sometimes the Andals tell on their lies.

[sweetsunray]

6 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

And I'm not sure about Storm's End: I thought it was built by Durran Godsgrief, grandson of the sea god and wind goddess whos blood flows through the Baratheons, the Lannisters, the Tyrells and the Tarths. But I might be misremembering.

Here's what the maesters claim

Quote

Storm's End is surely an old castle, but when compared to the ruined ringforts of the First Men or even the First Keep of Winterfell (which a past maester in service to the Starks examined and found to have been rebuilt so many times that a precise dating could not be made), the great tower and perfectly joined stones of the Storm's End curtain wall seem much beyond what the First Men were capable of for many thousands of years. The great effort involved in raising the Wall was one thing, but that was more a brute effort than the high art needed to make a wall where even the wind cannot find purchase. Archmaester Vyron, in his Triumphs and Defeats, speculates that the tale's claim that the final form of Storm's End was the seventh castle shows a clear Andal influence, and if true, this suggests the possibility that the final form of the castle was only achieved in Andal times.  (The World of Ice and Fire - The Stormlands: Storm’s End)

Andals didn't build in stone in Andalos. So, eff the idea of "Andal influence" on architecture.

It is funny how often the maesters try to paint "singers" and "songs" as lies, when "the singers" (the CotF) speak the "true tongue" and that you "cannot lie before a tree". But you can a lot on paper, and convince people it's true, especially if you kill the "singers" and axe the trees.

The parallel human singers in the series can be nasty characters, but well they often end up on a "to kill" list, for singing, knowing or threatening to sing about the truth. Hmmmm

[sweetsunray]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:34 AM, GZ Bloodraven said:

And the Warrior is not the Knight for the same reason the Father is not the King: less political. Knights seem to be part of the political and religious institution: knights swear to uphold the code of the Warrior, the "patron" of knighthood" who remains unpolitical.

I don't think your anology works here.

There were kings in Westeros before the Andals arrived. So, the Father not being called King proves nothing about the origin of knighthood.

[three-eyed monkey]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:40 PM, Hugorfonics said:

So whats the definition of chivalry? Rampant misogynism mixed with steel? Belittlement of smallfolk? Something about a horse?

Chivalry is defined as a set of qualities expected of an ideal knight, namely courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak. Honor is one of those qualities, so something about a horse, yes, but more than that.

You keep confusing what we see in Westeros with the true definitions of the words being used. That's really the point the author is making with themes like the true knight, the theme of honor, or the theme of justice versus vengeance. Misogyny is rampant in Westeros, but that does not mean that's what chivalry really is.

Westeros needs to return to the truth, which people like Cersei believe only belongs in the songs of old. A return to chivalry means a return to true kings and true knights, not the false ones that currently hold sway in the Seven Kingdoms, which you are using to redefine these words. It is the truth that can heal the realm, not the lies that are consuming it.

[Hugorfonics]

19 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Exactly so. But then people do terrible things with free will, so we've got another problem.

Granted. But I think you'd agree that the option of commiting a mistake is greater then not having.

19 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I reckon control versus free will is the foundation stone of the entire structure of the books

I so agree! Case in point Bran and Sansa. Other character as well, but I feel like not as much as these two hobbits.

(To me it all comes down to Frodo. The hero. The drug addict who walks the one direction everyone wants him to. By far my favorite theme of lotr is the will and duty of Frodo/Gollum, and I feel like GRRM liked it too and put the theme prevalent in asoiaf)

19 hours ago, Springwatch said:

. I reckon the Others are the epitome of control - corpse handlers, skinchangers, puppeteers.

Well they're tied for first place. The parallels with the wights and their mortal enemy, the (k)nights watch is just so striking. 

20 hours ago, Springwatch said:

And so, (getting into near-tinfoil territory now), because knights are bound by honour and duty etc, sometimes to extreme levels, I think the template of knighthood comes not from Andals or First Men, but from the mysterious and spooky world of Ice. This gives us an alternative take on 'true knight - not as protector of weak humanity, but the perfection of duty: so, killer robot or animated corpse. Gregor Clegane is no true knight, but Ser Robert Strong absolutely is. And to be honest, the most knightly of the knights (the White Bull, the Sword of the Morning) come close to this ideal too.

Take a look around, all the windows are already covered in tin foil.

This threads really more and more convincing me it's the knights watch.  Yea, I mean I agree 100%. Gregor was tough but wound up squealing under pressure, Ser Strong wouldn't. He is now a true knight, only problem is so was Duncan lol. 

20 hours ago, Springwatch said:

They both have lots of free will, though.

More then Strong. But, less then like a treefrog or something. I mean Gregors just this addict who loves acting the psychopath and consequently found his dream job. But he does squeal in front of the whole city so subliminally, underneath all that poppy infested big skull does reveal a human.

Sandor on the other hands is actually a fully fleshed out character who shows signs of being more then a dog. Eventually. That's what gets me, when he's mopping to Arya and now seemingly retiring in the Sept that's real growth. "Even a dog gets tired of being hit with the newspaper" yes, very good. Except that's not what happens. He runs away scared, frightened of the fire and his childhood. Only after self reflection and removal from his 24hr day and (k)night job does he see that he was a real piece of shit and that doesn't have to continue. But I truly wonder if that'd occur had he not ran away from Tyrions orders.

20 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Intriguing thought. I can't really see Barri giving Arya any survival skills. And yet, and yet... Barristan's not quite so rigid as he was. Maybe he could give her something - maybe just seeing him in action would give her a bit of hope, because so far she's just seen the good guys die.

She's so bossy. Sandor discovered you have to either tie or up on the back of the horse or just kinda let her do her. There is no middle ground.

20 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I'm a Sandor fan, but I've got to admit he's still off the rails mentally when he's with Arya, and I can't remember anything specific, but I'm pretty sure he transmits some of his nihilism and despair to her. But he did help her too.

I'm a huge fan as well and I think his realism definitely did good for her. Is teaching a ten year old wear the gap in the ribs to the heart a good thing? Can't hurt. Unless your on that list.

(Although I wonder if he did open her eyes, why she doesn't give him mercy or why she ditches and robs him or whatever she did, the reasoning is "you shoulda saved my mother" which is like, dude! What the fuck could he have done, she knows that she was there. Then I understand, traumatic as hell but weeks later? Sad stuff. )

[Hugorfonics]

49 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You keep confusing what we see in Westeros with the true definitions of the words being used. That's really the point the author is making with themes like the true knight, the theme of honor, or the theme of justice versus vengeance

Catelyn paints us a remarkable picture with a knight and his honor, a bucket of shit. Kings justice is cool. A mute knight. That must mean something... whatever, Illyn is creeps and not in line with the bedtime stories of Symon and friends

49 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Misogyny is rampant in Westeros, but that does not mean that's what chivalry really is.

Idk. Protect the weak and women. Always. It makes Briennes travels quite comical as all these class B knights try to do their best to protect her. 

Chivalry produces nice things, like pretty banners. Arya can wear them as pajamas, but not as armor. Also Jon can't wear pajamas but can totally die for the honor of his sister's pajamas. It's fundamentally fucked up.

49 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Westeros needs to return to the truth, which people like Cersei believe only belongs in the songs of old. A return to chivalry means a return to true kings and true knights, not the false ones that currently hold sway in the Seven Kingdoms, which you are using to redefine these words. It is the truth that can heal the realm, not the lies that are consuming it.

Ok so on one side I kinda want to agree. I'm of an unflinching and deeply unpopular belief that almost all calamites to wreck Westeros is contributed directly to Sansa. Therefore I kinda see it as her duty to the realm to heal it. This message is in real life imo politically worrisome, the bosses fuck around but at the end of the day they're looking out. Winter is coming. 10k years and counting.  Nevertheless I do think Sansa will heal the realm, and while not going full Eddard, her goodness or trueness if you'd like, will shine.

But I really really really don't see this princess locked in the tower in the sky waiting for Shrek to rescue her, I mean she's not even locked in that tower anymore. And for whatever cause these vallant and honorable knights wish to say they'll die for Sansa (it's the Vale, can't throw a rock without hitting knight) for, it'll be through lies and Sansa will countermen it with deceit.

[three-eyed monkey]

56 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ok so on one side I kinda want to agree. I'm of an unflinching and deeply unpopular belief that almost all calamites to wreck Westeros is contributed directly to Sansa. Therefore I kinda see it as her duty to the realm to heal it. This message is in real life imo politically worrisome, the bosses fuck around but at the end of the day they're looking out. Winter is coming. 10k years and counting.  Nevertheless I do think Sansa will heal the realm, and while not going full Eddard, her goodness or trueness if you'd like, will shine.

I agree with much of what you say here. The theme of truth is central to Sansa's arc. Littlefinger is teaching her to lie but she will need to return to the truth, which is reflected in the songs of old and tales of chivalry that she loves. Songs are also central to her arc, and songs symbolize the truth because that's where we find a true representation of what concepts like chivalry and honor are meant to be.

Sansa is the younger and more beautiful queen who will take what Cersei holds dear. Cersei holds power dear, and she thinks it is better to be feared than loved if you want to hold onto power. Sansa, on the other hand, says if she is ever queen she will make the realm love her. So I think she will be the queen of spring, because Sansa is the blue flower growing from a chink in a wall of ice that fills the air with sweetness.

[GZ Bloodraven]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I'm of an unflinching and deeply unpopular belief that almost all calamites to wreck Westeros is contributed directly to Sansa.

What?

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

There were kings in Westeros before the Andals arrived. So, the Father not being called King proves nothing about the origin of knighthood.

I'm saying the warrior not being called the Knight is neither for or against the Andals bringing Knighthood. If you want to say that the First Men had knighthood before the Andals came, you can just use John the Oak. 

[Alester Florent]

I am inclined to think that words change their meanings and that what makes a knight can be determined retrospectively as well as contemporaneously. After all we have had thousands of years since the Andal invasion for stories to be told, retold, etc.

The idea of a "knight" as we understand it, a heavy cavalryman of social status and some association with a code of behaviour, developed during the Middle Ages, starting in the age of Charlemagne but only really reaching its apogee in the 14th century. The various trappings of "knighthood" only appeared relatively late in the day.

For anyone of the Middle Ages, a "knight" probably definitionally meant someone who was Christian, with knighthood - as in Westeros - requiring vows and possibly a religious vigil. But there had been "knights" for centuries before that, long before Christianity, in the Roman Republic, and these had already gone through a transition once from "cavalryman" to "civilian men of status" before the disintegration of Roman rule and rise of feudalism made the mounted minor aristocracy a relevant military force again.

Indeed, the dividing line between a "knight" and a cataphract, or a clibinarius, or a Mongol heavy horseman, an early modern cuirassier, Turkish sipahi, etc. is pretty blurry, especially in the earlier periods.

The most storied knight of all time, IRL, is a man who didn't exist, but even if he did, lived long before the various trappings of knighthood were developed, and would not have recognised most of the definitive "knightly" features as part of his role or lifestyle - Sir Lancelot. Nor would he have been known by the title "Sir" (or probably any variant thereof).

So I can readily believe that the institution of knighthood as it exists now in Westeros was an Andal import, and has proably developed somewhat over that period. But the Andals almost certainly did not invent the concept of "armoured high-status man on horse". Rather, the Andals will have applied their own traditions and standards to the corresponding existing FM cavalry, perhaps redefining a concept of "knight" to meet only new standards, and may have "adopted" virtuous FM historical figures as "knights" in their own tellings of the stories over the following centuries/millennia, leading to a blurring of the record.

[sweetsunray]

17 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I'm saying the warrior not being called the Knight is neither for or against the Andals bringing Knighthood. If you want to say that the First Men had knighthood before the Andals came, you can just use John the Oak. 

So, you expect me to make a new thread and OP for every argument?

I chose to point out a few "anomalies", most of which we are aware of, don't know what to do with and in our minds rationalize, (most often with maester Yandel-like arguments). And one of those anomalies is the Warrior not being called the Knight. It's the vaguest anomaly, and yet it strikes at the heart of the assumption that Andals introduced knighthood to Westeros, because the Seven is the core of what they brought to Westeros. It creates a potential for cognitive dissonance. And as such it does more than any knight of the age of heroes that the singers sing songs about to start the discussion: it raises the question. There are two possible responses, when you have to consider an anomaly that goes against assumptions and what you believed to be true: either you accept that it is an anomaly and consider more and other (stronger) anomalies, or you rationalize it so you don't have to question the assumption. The rationalization does not make the anomaly go away though. It only makes the potential for cog-dis on something you believed to be Andal go away for you.

The rationalisations for it are handwaving vaguery. We have

• Well, we must allow the Andals to have brought something cultural of their own... which is no argument really.
• Some philosophical going in circles about the Warrior aspect.
  • Some argued that the Warrior is prayed to for strength and physical prowess, rather than protection, despite the fact that it's literally in the prayer song for the Warrior part.
  • Or it's argued that the Warrior must be an aspect that appeals to all fighters who are not knights, and therefore cannot be specialized to a knight, ignoring that cobblers have to pray to the specialized Smith.
  • Or it's argued that the ideal true knight must possess all other aspects of the other 6, before he can know whom to "protect", once again ignoring the "protection" part of the prayer for the Warrior, and basically claiming that a true knight must be like the one God. It's one of the better vague explanations. It's interesting that Bran, a greenseer, is the sole character who will be able to fulfill that demand of being a godly true knight. But personally I think it makes the Andal Faith that they brought from Andalos philosophical at an era when they clearly were not. Guys who carve stars in their chests and forehead, who commit genocide and enslave people, do not strike me as the most enlightened. I don't think they thought hard on it, just archetyped the Seven after the pillars of their society: fathers as patriarchs, mothers who bear children, warriors (not "knights") who kill, chaste desirable maidens, smiths hammering out axes, crones who survived it all except for death.
  • Or it's argued that the Father isn't called the King either, which is true, but that hardly helps arguing that knights are an Andal invention, since Andals certainly did not invent kings. It ignores the "smith" issue, and brushes aside the cornerstone of patriarchy. The ideal of patriarchy is not that only the King makes the best decisions, but that Fathers make the decisions for his family members, king or no king. That aspect is called the Father, because of the belief that a man automatically has better judgement than any women, better even than the wisest of the crones who survived her father's bad decisions, murderous warriors, marriage to a foolish husband and deadly childbearing. The Father being called Father is not an anomaly in pretty much a lawless culture that believes a father's opinions and decisions are "law".
• Arguments about how the Faith is a good, respectable or practical religion, and more appealing to smallfolk. Which is as much an argument as the first of "we got to give the Andals some props" - no argument.
• On language, and the evolution of language, which I consider a much more valuable argument. This argument recognizes that the Warrior aspect is not a "let's go for the lowest denominator of what someone with a sword/axe should be" but stands for an idealized concept of a warrior that in theory fits with "knights", except the aspect isn't called that, which creates an etymological issue. Either Andals originally prayed to the Knight in their language of Andalos, but the word got altered to Warrior by the converted First Men OR they always called it the Warrior, and appropriated the native knight and ser to their warriors. It was soon established that the common tongue is the Andal language, because septons brought the writing tradition, and would have written in their own language. This is backed up by ravens not knowing how to deliver complete oral messages anymore (they don't know common tongue), but need to have a "written message" attached to them, and the Old Tongue surviving in the remotest areas where even Northerners barely go: Skagos, Thenns and Free Folk beyond the Wall. These people speak the Old Tongue fluently, though the Free Folk are bilingual, since a majority of them can speak the common tongue with ease as well.

The language anomaly is a valid argument, because George does pits written historical accounts against oral tradition, singers (both human and cotf) and the True Tongue.

Your argument is that of the vague philosophical nature to satisfy the tension caused by the anomaly. And you try to tell me that I would have a stronger case if I had brought up John the Oak, which I find a rather disingenuous argument, since you already have shown what you do with historical figure anomalies:

• You already stated you believe John the Oak is an invention of someone who never existed
• You already stated you believe he was invented by the Reach to appeal to or rival the Andals

You make similar rationalizations and dismissals of Serwyn, the "winged knight" and Hugorfonics argument about the (k)Night's Watch (wordplay)

• That the "ser" is already in the name seems to go completely over your head. Since the septons were the ones who wrote down the stories sung by the singers, they were the ones who ultimately decided whether his name was "Serwyn" or that he was a "Ser Wyn".
• These same septons got to decided whether the NW is spelled as Knight's Watch or as Night's Watch.

You claimed that the "winged knight" was not always called a knight, which actually contradicts one of the few slips by the maesters and septons: the falcon knight nickname for the first Arryn was crafted after the stories about the FM winged knight. If he had been called something else than the "winged knight", then the most logical reference would have been "winged warrior". But if that were the case, he would still be called the "winged warrior", not "winged knight", since "winged warrior" would be a perfect alliteration.

Furthermore, John the Oak alone narrows the discussion down to the concept of chivalry (in the Arthurian cycle sense) of knighthood, and does not take into account that our RW "knight" actually just meant "horseriding warrior in service of a ruler". I prefer the much broader scope this thread had produced so far by those who contributed to it, than a discussion on John the Oak alone.

I do plan to make a summary and summation about the whole body of anomalies as a post in this thread (next week, when easter holiday starts... do not have time for this at present), but at present I prefer the amassing and mentioning of the many anomalies to grow naturally. It sort of showcases how often one has to rationalize the anomalies away.

 

[GZ Bloodraven]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

So, you expect me to make a new thread and OP for every argument?

No, I'm just making my argument that the Andals did indeed bring knighthood to the First Men.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I chose to point out a few "anomalies", most of which we are aware of, don't know what to do with and in our minds rationalize, (most often with maester Yandel-like arguments). And one of those anomalies is the Warrior not being called the Knight. It's the vaguest anomaly, and yet it strikes at the heart of the assumption that Andals introduced knighthood to Westeros, because the Seven is the core of what they brought to Westeros. It creates a potential for cognitive dissonance. And as such it does more than any knight of the age of heroes that the singers sing songs about to start the discussion: it raises the question. There are two possible responses, when you have to consider an anomaly that goes against assumptions and what you believed to be true: either you accept that it is an anomaly and consider more and other (stronger) anomalies, or you rationalize it so you don't have to question the assumption. The rationalization does not make the anomaly go away though. It only makes the potential for cog-dis on something you believed to be Andal go away for you.

I don't think that the Warrior not being called the Knight is a smaller anomaly then the historical consensus being that the Andals brought knighthood to Westeros. It's a weighing of probability. Is it possible that the warrior not being the knight, and Serwyn being Ser Wynn, and John the Oak being called The First Knight, and the First Men saying vows to trees as knights say vows to the Seven when getting knighted is evidence that the First Men already had knighthood and the Andals stole it from them, actually? Yes. Is it more likely that the alternative is true and that the First Men adopted Andal knighthood symbols for their historical figures? I would say yes.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

• Well, we must allow the Andals to have brought something cultural of their own... which is no argument really.
• Some philosophical going in circles about the Warrior aspect.
  • Some argued that the Warrior is prayed to for strength and physical prowess, rather than protection, despite the fact that it's literally in the prayer song for the Warrior part.
  • Or it's argued that the Warrior must be an aspect that appeals to all fighters who are not knights, and therefore cannot be specialized to a knight, ignoring that cobblers have to pray to the specialized Smith.
  • Or it's argued that the ideal true knight must possess all other aspects of the other 6, before he can know whom to "protect", once again ignoring the "protection" part of the prayer for the Warrior, and basically claiming that a true knight must be like the one God. It's one of the better vague explanations. It's interesting that Bran, a greenseer, is the sole character who will be able to fulfill that demand of being a godly true knight. But personally I think it makes the Andal Faith that they brought from Andalos philosophical at an era when they clearly were not. Guys who carve stars in their chests and forehead, who commit genocide and enslave people, do not strike me as the most enlightened. I don't think they thought hard on it, just archetyped the Seven after the pillars of their society: fathers as patriarchs, mothers who bear children, warriors (not "knights") who kill, chaste desirable maidens, smiths hammering out axes, crones who survived it all except for death.
  • Or it's argued that the Father isn't called the King either, which is true, but that hardly helps arguing that knights are an Andal invention, since Andals certainly did not invent kings. It ignores the "smith" issue, and brushes aside the cornerstone of patriarchy. The ideal of patriarchy is not that only the King makes the best decisions, but that Fathers make the decisions for his family members, king or no king. That aspect is called the Father, because of the belief that a man automatically has better judgement than any women, better even than the wisest of the crones who survived her father's bad decisions, murderous warriors, marriage to a foolish husband and deadly childbearing. The Father being called Father is not an anomaly in pretty much a lawless culture that believes a father's opinions and decisions are "law".
• Arguments about how the Faith is a good, respectable or practical religion, and more appealing to smallfolk. Which is as much an argument as the first of "we got to give the Andals some props" - no argument.
• On language, and the evolution of language, which I consider a much more valuable argument. This argument recognizes that the Warrior aspect is not a "let's go for the lowest denominator of what someone with a sword/axe should be" but stands for an idealized concept of a warrior that in theory fits with "knights", except the aspect isn't called that, which creates an etymological issue. Either Andals originally prayed to the Knight in their language of Andalos, but the word got altered to Warrior by the converted First Men OR they always called it the Warrior, and appropriated the native knight and ser to their warriors. It was soon established that the common tongue is the Andal language, because septons brought the writing tradition, and would have written in their own language. This is backed up by ravens not knowing how to deliver complete oral messages anymore (they don't know common tongue), but need to have a "written message" attached to them, and the Old Tongue surviving in the remotest areas where even Northerners barely go: Skagos, Thenns and Free Folk beyond the Wall. These people speak the Old Tongue fluently, though the Free Folk are bilingual, since a majority of them can speak the common tongue with ease as well.

1. Yeah, this is weak, they brought an entire religion.

2. The first one here is factually wrong and weak. The second one is justified: the Smith is a conglomeration of all the workers in Westeros. The Warrior is a conglomeration of all the, well, warriors in Westeros. The third, I would think, is more "man and woman at all stages of life," the young Warrior and Maiden, the middle-aged Father and Mother, the old Smith and Crone, the final Stranger. The fourth is my argument: the Smith, the Father, and the Warrior are catch-alls for all that fall under their "type," rather than as the idealized version of their professions. Meribald says that the Smith can be the Fisherman or the Cobbler, as he is for all workers. Knight's are servants of the Warrior; it would be weird for Knights to serve the Knight, there should be a distinction between the God and the people.

 3. No, this one is decently valid: in a religion designed for propoganda (as most are), for an upholding of the patriarchy, the Warrior being representative of all young men, rather than just Knights, would be a good religion. 

4. The Common Tongue is probably the Andal tongue, but "knight" is also a common tongue word.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Your argument is that of the vague philosophical nature to satisfy the tension caused by the anomaly. And you try to tell me that I would have a stronger case if I had brought up John the Oak, which I find a rather disingenuous argument, since you already have shown what you do with historical figure anomalies:

• You already stated you believe John the Oak is an invention of someone who never existed
• You already stated you believe he was invented by the Reach to appeal to or rival the Andals

I don't think he was a fake person (in that someone had to start the ancient House Oakheart), but I think his title as The First Knight was given by Gardner kings to appease their new Andal brides. "We have that too, you see, we also have knights as well, let's be friends, please don't 'House Royce' us." But John the Oak being The First Knight and bringing chivalry to Westeros is the strongest argument for the First Men originating knighthood in my estimation. Serwyn actually being Ser Wyn is...not as strong tbh.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You claimed that the "winged knight" was not always called a knight, which actually contradicts one of the few slips by the maesters and septons: the falcon knight nickname for the first Arryn was crafted after the stories about the FM winged knight. If he had been called something else than the "winged knight", then the most logical reference would have been "winged warrior". But if that were the case, he would still be called the "winged warrior", not "winged knight", since "winged warrior" would be a perfect alliteration.

No, but the point of the Winged Knight was to show the Andals, again, that the legends of the culture they were assimilating with also included knighthood (even if it didn't). Winged Warrior would only be perfect alliteration in the Common Tongue, which wasn't the name that the Winged Knight would have had in the Old Tongue. 

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Furthermore, John the Oak alone narrows the discussion down to the concept of chivalry (in the Arthurian cycle sense) of knighthood, and does not take into account that our RW "knight" actually just meant "horseriding warrior in service of a ruler". I prefer the much broader scope this thread had produced so far by those who contributed to it, than a discussion on John the Oak alone.

I guess this makes sense, it just seems like the strongest argument for the position you are putting forward is that House Oakheart was founded by The First Knight.

[sweetsunray]

Another find, in Arya I of aGoT... when Joffrey wants live steel to sword fight against Robb in the WF yard, Sandor Clegane asks Ser Rodrik Cassel, master of arms of WF, whether he is training women.

Rodrik answers

Quote

"I am training knights."

So, the master of arms of WF is inexplicably a "ser" and he trains the sons of Ned Stark to be knights.

Maester Luwin claims that Rodrik served House Stark all of his life. He was not of Hoster Tully's household who came with Catelyn to the North after the Rebellion. Nor was he someone that Ned Stark managed to pick from the Eyrie during his fostering there.

Now we can imagine that perhaps Rodrik got knighted during Robert's Rebellion or the Greyjoy Rebellion perhaps like Jorah Mormont, but we have no particular indication for it either. It is simply a fait accompli. Him being utterly seasick the whole of the voyage to KL with Cat, suggests he was unlikely one of Ned Stark's men at Pyke. Had he been, he would already have known he did not have sea legs and would become ill. We can rule him out as having been with Rickard Stark on the voyage South for Brandon's wedding to Cat, for Rickard Stark and his 200 never returned alive. He was also not amongst the young men with Brandon Stark, for only Ethan Glover survived that and only as far as the ToJ. And yet he was not too young back then, because his mother died 40 years ago, making Rodrik at the least in his 20s during Robert's Rebellion.

He does not fit the mold of southern knights whatsoever: he does not like tourneys, and despite Cassel being a House it is not a landed house. It is a landless house attached to Winterfell itself. In that sese, Ser Rodrik fits the etymological original use of the word knight and ser as mentioned in the OP: a servant who can swordfight ahorse to his lord.

Rodrik speaks of "the gods", and while it's not explicitly clear whether he means "the old" or the "new", a follower of the Faith would also speak of the Seven. Rodrik does not do such a thing. 

And when he answers "training knights" to Sandor, it's clear he means training boys to wield swords, and that to him such fighters are knights, regardless what Septons may believe.