Jump to content

Howland Reed = Knight of the Laughing Tree?


Bormon

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering where it's implied that Robb only picked up a sword after he left. A wooden sword or a blunted sword are still swords.

However, with his "carry a sword" Ned was discussing Arya's fully functional sword, not an attrape. And we have a direct textual evidence about when Robb was first allowed to carry live steel - it is in Catelyn III in AGOT:

"Catelyn said to Ser Roderick: "I see my son is wearing steel now." The old master-at-arms said "I thought it was time". Robb was looking at her anixiously "Past time", she said." etc.

So, you see, carrying a sword has nothing to do with the state of training in the Stark household ;).

We don't know whether Lord Rickard didn't want Lyanna to train, though it seems likely. She could have trained anyway, with the connivance of her brothers and some servants.

You have to prepare horses, set up the practice course, get lances (since tourneys aren't common in the north, tourney lances are harder to get than many would think). Now, if she's doing it against Rickard's wishes, everything must also be kept secret. This is quite an effort.

Tourney lances are also used to train against the quintain. And despite various baseless assertions there is no reason to think that the northmen use lances any less than other Westerosians in their warfare. Brandon, Benjen and their household guards for that matter would have been routinely using practice lances for their training. They could have set a quintain and rings and a stash of gear somewhere in the nearby woods. And if Lyanna accompanied her brothers and perhaps a complicit servant/squire or two on their rides a couple of times a week, who would be the wiser?

The other point is, Ned discusses Lyanna as if she was never allowed to train.

Artanaro, he doesn't discuss anything. He merely says that Lyanna would have CARRIED a sword if Lord Rickard allowed it. All the rest is purely your conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is conjecture. What we know is that Lyanna was a good rider and that she wasn't allowed to carry a sword although she would have wanted to. Being a good rider doesn't mean you are a capable jouster. Harwin tells Arya she's a good rider but that he's much better because his father was master of horse and somehow I doubt Harwin was all that good a jouster.

It's not impossible that Lyanna was our mystery knight but I would say it would be very unlikely, unless the old gods actually had a hand in the outcomes.

And I also wonder whther or not Brandon would have went along with Lyanna's wishes to train as a warrior. It could have been but somehow I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I also wonder whther or not Brandon would have went along with Lyanna's wishes to train as a warrior. It could have been but somehow I don't think so.

Actually, Brandon was a bit on the wild side, I don't see him objecting, but rather encouraging.

And yes, it's all conjecture, but isn't it fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, with his "carry a sword" Ned was discussing Arya's fully functional sword, not an attrape. And we have a direct textual evidence about when Robb was first allowed to carry live steel - it is in Catelyn III in AGOT:

...

So, you see, carrying a sword has nothing to do with the state of training in the Stark household ;).

He's also talking to his daughter, who has never had training with a sword before then.

Tourney lances are also used to train against the quintain. And despite various baseless assertions there is no reason to think that the northmen use lances any less than other Westerosians in their warfare.

Interesting, honestly, I'm not an expert on jousting. Though if anyone knows how hard it is to joust with a full suit of armor on I'd love to hear your opinion? I keep wondering how difficult it would be for a woman to joust with a full suit of armor.

Brandon, Benjen and their household guards for that matter would have been routinely using practice lances for their training. They could have set a quintain and rings and a stash of gear somewhere in the nearby woods. And if Lyanna accompanied her brothers and perhaps a complicit servant/squire or two on their rides a couple of times a week, who would be the wiser?

From what we know of Robb's and Jon's training, it would seem as if a master of arms accompanied them (though that's still based on some conjecture). The thing is, it's not to hard to conceal sword practice. Getting horses, tourney lances together, and making the course is another thing. There are a lot of servants at Winterfell. It's not impossible that Lyanna trained, but still with all the other facts involved, it seems very unlikely.

Artanaro, he doesn't discuss anything. He merely says that Lyanna would have CARRIED a sword if Lord Rickard allowed it. All the rest is purely your conjecture.

Here's the basis in the assumption though. You're saying age could be an explanation for Eddard's statement. Nevertheless, if age is the reason he says Lyanna couldn't carry a sword, why make the statement at all? He is talking to Arya don't forget. Bran had already been practicing with wooden swords at Arya's age (correct me if I'm wrong). If Lyanna started practicing around the same age, there would never have been reason to say she couldn't carry a sword (or lance). But Arya had to hide Needle, not only because it was a dangerous weapon, but because girls just didn't train (based on Cersei, Sansa, a many other noble females). Eddard statement is meant to show how he is different from his father, so he lets Arya have Syrio. The result of their conversation isn't that Arya is old enough finally, just that she will be allowed to train with Needle.

Artanaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he may have become familiar enough not to fall off during the war, but he was fresh out of the swamps at Harrenhal and you need to be a really good horseman to joust, according to Jaime (and he should know). There is also another hint that it could have been Lyanna in AFFC - nobody recognizes Brienne's voice as female when she talks with her greathelm on. But of course it could have also been Benjen, although in his case it is not clear why he should have disappeared. Even if he was eventually defeated and unmasked, this episode could have only brought him glory and reputation a la young Barristan Selmy.

I was going back over this post, and I came upon something that I think some people are over looking.

Howland did know how to ride, as is proved by the fact that he travels with Ned to the ToJ. Howland helps take on 3 of the greatest knights that Westros has ever seen. He had to be an accomplished warrior in some regard. Isn't there mentioning that he defeated one of the knights?

Howland is considered one of Ned's greatest friends. Why? Its pretty obvious that this encounter at Harrenhal was where they first met.

Now Maia mentions that Howland was "fresh out of the swamp", but really, if I recall correctly Howland spent an entire summer of the Isle of Faces. Now in normal seasons this would not be long. But in Westeros this could be years. Years learning from the Children of the Forest. While I still think that Lyanna had some part in this, I still can't discount Howland. Once again renwing the debate :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howland could have learned after the war, and more importantly, the battle at the TOJ was on foot, not on horseback, so whether or not Howland could ride would make small difference there.

My point is, that if the we would have seen Howland in a tourney after the ToJ, no one would have questioned his abilities at this point. He obviously knew how to fight and ride a horse. Did he know how to Joust? No one knows. My point is that he spent several years with the Children of the Forest. After that time, maybe the idea of "defending" himself in tourney was not something he would have even considered. But after running into the Stark children (Though they were not really children at this time) he took up the challenge (maybe by Lyanna convincing him to do it) to teach these squires a lesson.

Why was he hidden? Maybe he didn't want it known that craggonmen could fight that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bormon: well, the problem is this - if Howland was a good enough warrior to defeat the three knights in a joust, why was he getting his ass kicked by the squires until Lyanna turned up? ;)

By the time of the ToJ Howland could obviously look after himself in a fight, but the KotLT story contains information that specifically shows us that at that time, he couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bormon: well, the problem is this - if Howland was a good enough warrior to defeat the three knights in a joust, why was he getting his ass kicked by the squires until Lyanna turned up? ;)

By the time of the ToJ Howland could obviously look after himself in a fight, but the KotLT story contains information that specifically shows us that at that time, he couldn't.

'

Couldn't?.... or Wouldn't?

Maybe (and this is totally unsupported speculation), he didn't want anyone to realize how capable of defending himself he really was. Lyanna "helping" him, gave him a way out. After some convincing from the Starks that he could remain anonymous he found a way to teach the squires a lesson, and protect his then secret nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, a thing can be a "means to an end", but not all things fit that criteria. The "means to an end" approach is only wrong if either a)the end result is not justified or serve a noble purpose or B) the "means" is inherently evil.

No. All "things" are means to an end. I own a calculator to do math. I do not care about the calculator in and of itself. Just its ability to help me with math. THat's a thing and its end is helping me with math. Nothing else.

To treat a PERSON as a means to an end is ALWAYS immoral. I am a huge believer in Kantian philosophy. In my mind, it makes ABSOULTELY no difference what the “end†is (mostly because- again –you CANNOT predict the future so you have no IDEA what that end could possibly be). If you USE a person you are acting IMMORALY regardless of your “imagined†outcome.

But that’s not the point of this thread.

I know what a strawman argument is. I like how you keep repeating what it is and saying I am doing it. Kinda like your own personal strawman. Nice touch.

What I was saying was that IF Rahegar ONLY wanted Lyanna to fulfill the prophecy there is a thought process that is very ugly that COULD go on. Namely, what if Lyanna said “no?†(And this is REGARDLESS of whether or not Lyanna is the KotLT). If Rhaegar ONLY wants Lyanna because she is “of the North†and he needs an “ice†to his “fire†well then that means he COULD be capable of wanting Lyanna irrespective of her feelings. Just like rape. Just like kidnapping. That was my point. We have never met anyone who has met this Rheagar.

I understand your point. Its “possible†that Rhaegar and Lyanna had met and had feelings for each other AND Lyanna was NOT The KotLT. Hell, Rhaegar does not need a reason BEYOND the prophecy to have a relationship with Lyanna. So, its possible that they just met and left without her being the KotLT. Got it.

However, I think Rhaegar wanted to love A PERSON not a prophecy point (hold on, not yet, just stay with me). So, I think that Rhaegar needs more. Not just looks; not just a Northern gal. He needs someone with spirit and pride and a sense of fairness and honor. He wants Lyanna Stark BECAUSE she was the KotLT; he does not want Lyanna because she happens to be Northern or cute or a snappy dresser. He falls for her BECAUSE of that moment.

I don't want to threadjack, so I'm sticking to comments referencing Rhaegar, but I do want to say this. The arguement is not sacrificing Edric Dayne so that "The Great Other" might be destroyed.

and

Stannis knows if Edric's life is the cost for millions of innocents, then the sacrifice is justified.

Kind of a big “if†wouldn’t you say? And Stannis does not “know†this. He thinks it. And he is almost assuredly wrong. Regardless, if Stannis slew Edric and every single Other was melted instantaneously, he’s not right to do it. He USED Edric as a means to an end. Immoral.

I note that Robb Stark died and most people think THAT act was Immoral. How many lives were saved by the Red Wedding, ballpark? 8,000? 10,000? Somewhere in that range, right? So….how come nobody is PRAISING Tywin for his moral compass? (BTW, I think what Tywin did was the best thing to do, just not the Moral thing to do).

You're judging characters based on the reality of our world. In Westeros, prophecy is a very real thing(at least in some people's minds like Rhaegar) with real world consequences.

Its also shown at times to be piles of steaming monkey-poo. Just pointing that out. I think Martin writes these characters to better describe moral dilemmas that can only be seen through the prisms of both our world and the fantasy setting. The characters are REAL to us BECAUSE we empathize with them and feel that what they are goinjg through is "real." But some things NEVER change. Slavery is ALWAYS wrong. Killing someone for sport; always wrong. Killing a baby so Robert is satisfied even though the real Aemon is safe? Always wrong (assuming it actually happened). When you treat people like things you are wrong. I cannot fathom a scenario wherein the act of treating people like things; in forgetting their humanity; in reducing our flesh and blood to chess pieces is EVER acceptable. That’s why I have always believed it should be MUCH harder to go to war. Once we reduce the soldier from a person to a number, wars become too easy.

Also, Rhaegar isn't choosing to rape Lyanna. He probably knows, if the prophecy is meant to happen, they will fall in love. So all the prophecy made him do was interact with her at Harrenhal (sing a song, etc) and put himself in a situation they might develop a relationship.

And- to get back to what we were discussing –NOTHING states that she could NOT be the KotLT. In fact, her being the KotLT becomes MORE plausible. Right?

I'm really starting to think Ned is the KotLT, because if it's anyone else, Howland would most likely not find out unless Ned told him.

I thought you said earlier that the KotLT was most likely a woman? If its Ned, why disguise his voice? Why enter as a mystery knight at all? Why not face the consequences? Why not make the “honor†of it all so obvious?

You're still focused on the assumption that R and L can't fall in love unless Lyanna is the KotLT. It can still happen (and we even have reasons why, such as Rhaegar's sad song).

I NEVER said she HAS to be the KotLT in order for them to fall in love. However, it seems odd that they would fall in love without such an opportunity. They do not live near each other, the Starks DO NOT go to Court; and he is not exactly "Mr. Outgoing." They ahd VERY FEW oppertunities to interact. And at HArrenhal, they woudl HAVE to be circumspect. Remember, Robert was there at Harrenhal. So, its not like Lyanna could just flaunt her passion for Rhaegar. She had to be secretive about it. And so, a disguise would be needed…

…gee… if ONLY there was some figure at HAarenhal who was “disguised†somehow….

Guess its just a mystery…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime I pop into this page and see this thread with unread messages (dark orange) I think "aren't we done with this yet?"

I'm with Mormy on this one.....the story the Reed kids tell doesn't make any sense unless Lyanna is the KotLT. no need for me to restate all of the above reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't?.... or Wouldn't?

Maybe (and this is totally unsupported speculation), he didn't want anyone to realize how capable of defending himself he really was. Lyanna "helping" him, gave him a way out. After some convincing from the Starks that he could remain anonymous he found a way to teach the squires a lesson, and protect his then secret nature.

And maybe Howland secretly wargs into hedgehogs for sexual thrills. As long as we're doing the 'unsupported speculation' thing, we might as well be really silly. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bormon: well, the problem is this - if Howland was a good enough warrior to defeat the three knights in a joust, why was he getting his ass kicked by the squires until Lyanna turned up? ;)

I could be wrong, but the squire incident was 3-1. Pretty stiff odds, even for an ace fighter. At the tourney, he would have faced them one at a time. Much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Lyanna didn't have any problem dealing with 3 of them--it was still 3 on 1.

Shock value. Someone comes out at a small group waving a sword, hitting them from a blind side, that might spook them. Even if they kept their wits, if they saw it was a woman, they might figure it was a lose-lose situation. If they stayed and fought, and beat her, all the Starks and their bannermen would be calling for blood. If they stayed and fought and lost, they'de be humiliated. And by that time the odds would be 3-2, so a loss might happen.

Either they were scared or smart. Either way, they beat a retreat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shock value. Someone comes out at a small group waving a sword, hitting them from a blind side, that might spook them. Even if they kept their wits, if they saw it was a woman, they might figure it was a lose-lose situation.

I'd like to throw something else in people should consider. An age disparity is also very important. We don't really know the ages of the squires, but if Lyanna was 14 or 15 and the squires were all around 10 and 11, it would be like an older sister knocking sense into her younger brothers (for the record we don't know if they're about 10, squires have been shown to be as young as 9 to as old as about 20, ignoring Barristan the Bold altogether). Add the variable of Lyanna with a sword, it's much more understandable she could beat three squires, while Howland couldn't.

Artanaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe Howland secretly wargs into hedgehogs for sexual thrills. As long as we're doing the 'unsupported speculation' thing, we might as well be really silly. :P

It is rare that I really do laugh out loud at post but you got me on the that one, mormy.

Ok, onto my newest "crackpot" theory.

Howland is much more of a capable fighter than he was letting on with the squires. There are reasons he sought out the Children of the Forest, and reasons that he left them. I believe the Starks (particularly Lyanna) convinced him that he could exact the proper retribution without compromising himself. I think hiding his "ability" from the King was a big factor. If the mad paranoid king discovered that the craggonmen where communicating with the CoF, he would start sending armies into the swamps, or too the Isle of Faces. Many would die, and it would totally isolate an already mostly isolated and feared people.

The story aspect, gives us the beginnings of the relationship between the Reeds, Starks, and the CoF. Not to mention a little fill for the cause of Robert's rebellion. AND to fuel some more speculation of N+A=J (throwing us off of the R+L=J)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can we use Brienne as an example? Not only was she trained, she won....

In A Game of Thrones, the eldest Mormont daughter from Bear Island is not only heir but also comes to fight alongside Rob. She dies in the battle, but her warrior mode is not looked down upon.

Also, we have Asha and the eldest Sand Snake daughter.

It sounds like the north, in Dorne and in the Iron Isles (although no ironmen want a woman leader), it is not so strange to have a woman warrior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying age could be an explanation for Eddard's statement.

I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that being trained and being allowed to carry a sword are two very different things in the Stark household and you can't keep pretending that they are synonimous. They are not. In other words, there is no evidence re: Lyanna's training - neither for, nor against.

Lord Rickard may have thought that Lyanna training at arms was a child's game she was going to outgrow, he may have been unaware of the extent of her training due to frequent absences, etc. There are many possibilities. Nor is it clear to me why WF servants would chose to squeal on her and her brothers if she trained in secret. It is, after all, a small community in the castle and provoking an ire of young Starks might have been quite dangerous for the servants, particulary if Lyanna was well-liked (as she probably was).

Bormon:

Did he know how to Joust? No one knows. My point is that he spent several years with the Children of the Forest.

Which aren't renknowned for their jousting or horsemanship ;). Really, I don't see how this impacts the likelyhood of Howland being KoTL at all. Yes, he could ride, at least somewhat at the TOJ. After a year of war. It is not at all clear that he could actually fight ahorse, let alone joust at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In A Game of Thrones, the eldest Mormont daughter from Bear Island is not only heir but also comes to fight alongside Rob. She dies in the battle, but her warrior mode is not looked down upon.

Also, we have Asha and the eldest Sand Snake daughter.

It sounds like the north, in Dorne and in the Iron Isles (although no ironmen want a woman leader), it is not so strange to have a woman warrior.

Although I agree in principal with you, the examples are really exceptions to the rule.

Lady Mormont was widowed and only had daughters. (interesting point about Dacy--she was also skilled in womanly ways, Cat notes it at the Red Wedding comparing her to Breinne--I had it on my previous avitar, what I believe are the last nice thoughts Cat will ever have, she thinks Dacy "is as graceful on the dance floor as the practice yard" (ok so Dacy is one of my fav minor characters)

Asha was indulged by her father who lost all his sons (he thought of Theon as lost since he was being raised by wolves) Most of the Ironlanders think women are good for bedding and breeding and little else. Other than a few that were close to her (and related) most of the men would not follow her--it's not natural (to them)

The Sand Snakes were all given a weapon by their father, but there is no other examples of any other women in Dorne fighting (doesn't mean it doesn't happen, we just don't know about it)

Although we are not shown any place where it is common for women to be warriors or even get training, but we are shown enough exceptions to let us believe it is possible an indulgent father (or mother) might allow a willful and/or strong/stubburn daughter to train at arms.

I look at Ned as an example of his father. Ned had a strong willful daughter who wanted to learn the sword. To avoid her sneaking off to do it and possibly hurting herself he arranges for her to be trained. He does not tell anyone else what type of training it is, referring to it as "Dance lessons" Not even Sansa knows. She is not permitted to carry the sword except when at the lessons. It is very possible Ned learn the art of compromise with a willful daughter by watching his father deal with Lyanna. Let her train and amuse herself if she wants to, as long as she knows in public she will not carry a sword or discrace her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which aren't renknowned for their jousting or horsemanship ;). Really, I don't see how this impacts the likelyhood of Howland being KoTL at all. Yes, he could ride, at least somewhat at the TOJ. After a year of war. It is not at all clear that he could actually fight ahorse, let alone joust at that point.

:agree:

Too true my friend, what I was getting at, is that we don't know what he could and couldn't do. Especially since he spent several years with the CoF. Some of the arguments against Howland being the KoLT is that a craggonman would not know how to ride or fight atop a horse. But in this particular case we just don't know. We just can't exclude as the KoLT. IMO, it is now between Lyanna and Howland. Moromont's arguments are sound. But I can make an argument just as sound for Howland. (hmmmmm, maybe I missed my calling, :lol: I should have been a lawyer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...