The ASOIAF wiki thread

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

@Rhaenys_Targaryen - I'm (extremely slowly) working on a known & speculative timeline of Terros & I have a (perhaps too round, but it makes it easier) date of c.400BC for when Arlan III Durrandon overthrew the Teague dynasty & added the Riverlands to the Kingdom of the Storm:

• The World of Ice & Fire mentions once that the Durrandons held the Riverlands for "three centuries" & twice that it was more than that. I'm taking that as Harwyn Hoare defeating Arrec & his Stormlanders to add the Riverlands to his own realm as occurring c.96BC.
• Let's say Harwyn is born in c.120BC & is "sent to sea" (I'm guessing was effectively a soft exile so that he didn't threaten Qhorwyn's peace policy) to the Stepstones at ~14 (c.106BC). He then spends the next 8 years doing all of his international stuff to return to the Iron Islands at ~22 (c.98BC), immediately succeeding his father (because ailing health, greyscale & a Faceless Man killing his old man & elder brothers respectively). Then Harwyn spends 2 years organising, beginning & completing his Riverlands conquest (c.96BC), & then consolidating his rule ~6 months later in defeating Lothar Bracken (c.95BC).
• Harwyn dies in c.56BC at 64 having ruled the Iron Islands & Riverlands for ~30 years. He's succeeded by his (eldest?) son, Halleck, who spends ~14 years trying his best to be become Westeros' Worst Ever Military Commander, who dies in c.42BC (likely on the battlefield, say his third unsuccessful attempt to take the Bloody Gate).
• Halleck is succeeded by his eldest son, Harren, who immediately begins construction of his dream home, Harrenhal, which takes 40 years to complete whilst bloodying & beggaring the Riverlands in the process. The Targaryens land at the mouth of the Blackwater around the same time it's completed in 2BC.

Obviously this is all (besides Halleck's death-Harren's ascension which is already in the wiki) far too speculative to be included for the wiki, but it makes more sense imo than the c.350BC dating from the RPG guide (from 2005, IIRC, & so far less information to estimate from).

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

21 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Forum just ate a longer post I made about this:

Ibben vs Ib

Originally there was some confusion about the name of the island that the Ibbenese come from, because it's always called the "Port of Ibben".  I like many assumed this was a possessive....then the Lands maps and World book really confirmed that "Ib" is the island, and "Ibben" is the main city on it.  It's "Port of Ibben" in much the same turn of phrase as "the port-city of King's Landing". 

Now there are currently three articles but I think there should only be two and I want to merge them:  one for "Ib" island, one for the "Port of Ibben" (the city)....and one main one on "Ibben", which states at the beginning that this refers to the kingdom/nation spread out across multiple islands.

This is kind of confusing, and also against common usage.  "Lorath" is a city-state ruling a large hinterland and spread across three primary islands, of which the main one is called "Lorath", but we put everything about the polity on the "Lorath" page.  Similarly, "Lys" is found among three islands, and has possessions on the mainland, but we just call the article "Lys".  Even say, "Volantis" is about both the city and to an extent about its hinterlands.  I'd compare this to how an article on "Medieval Florence" would cover both the city and its territorial possessions. 

For that matter....nothing has ever stated "Ibben" is the name of the polity ruled from Ib island, across all its colonies - it's just "a colony of Ib".  So that's not really a cited claim either.

Also, their subsection in the World book itself is titled "Ib", not "Ibben". 

So what I want to do this this:

1 - Move the main "Ibben" page to "Ib", which like "Volantis" will be mostly about the main island but have subsections about their other holdings on Far Ib and at New Ibbish.

2 - Merge the separate article about "Ib" island with this "Ibben" page.

3 - Revise the article on the "Port of Ibben" to be strictly only about their capital city.  Not sure how we'd handle the exact titles or redirects:  either "Port of Ibben" or "Ibben", but either way clearly state at the beginning "the port-city named Ibben, located on Ib island". 

Thoughts on this?

The current version is kind of confusing. 

 

I disagree.

"Ib" and "Ibben" are not one and the same. "Ibben" is not the name of a city. The name of the largest city on the island "Ib" is "Port of Ibben". That's the full name. I think especially TLOIAF makes that very clear. 

The name "Ibben" seems to refer to the region, which includes the island Ib with its cities "Port of Ibben" and "Ib Nor", the island "Far Ib" and its only city "Ib Sar", and presmably also "New Ibbish" and "Vaes Aresak", formerly known as "Ibbish".

So imo, "Ibben" and "Ib" should remain separated, as they do not see to refer to the same thing. As the nation of the Ibbenese is ruled from "Port of Ibben", it should be discussed that both "Ib" and "Far Ib", and the cities located on these islands, are ruled from "Port of Ibben", and that "Vaes Aresak" and "Ibbisch" are likely to be ruled by "Port of Ibben" as well.

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 21-11-2016 at 0:59 AM, The Dragon Demands said:

Well on point one, yes I concede:  it appears the full name is "Port of Ibben" and should be used as such.

 

....otherwise, I'm not sure if anything ever specifically established that "Ibben" can refer to all of their scattered holdings.   I mean it could, but there is no solid proof. 

It is unclear; which is why I'll defer to Elio and Linda's ruling on this. (shrug)

I've been looking a bit further into this. The term "Ibben", when not part of "Port of Ibben", has been used on three separate occasions, once in ACOK, and twice in AFFC.

His Silence, with its black sails and dark red hull, was infamous in every port from Ibben to Asshai, it was said. (A Clash of Kings - Theon II)

The Titan's Daughter dwindled in their wake, while the city grew larger with every stroke of Yorko's oars. A harbor was visible off to her right, a tangle of piers and quays crowded with big-bellied whalers out of Ibben, swan ships from the Summer Isles, and more galleys than a girl could count. (A Feast for Crows - Arya I)

To the north was the Purple Harbor, where Braavosi traders tied up beneath the domes and towers of the Sealord's Palace. To the west lay the Ragman's Harbor, crowded with ships from the other Free Cities, from Westeros and Ibben and the fabled, far-off lands of the east. (A Feast for Crows - Samwell II)

Further, there are two SSM's with information regarding Ibben. First is this SSM, stating:

The Port of Ibben is on Ibben, a large island nation in the Shivering Sea, the polar sea that lies north of the big continent where you find the Free Cities, the Dothraki Sea, Qarth, the fleshmarts of Slaver's Bay, etc. Yes, I will do a map one day... but not in SOS. If you visualize Westeros as a big Britain and the eastern continent as mainland Europe, Ibben is kind of up where Finland would be... except there's no Scandinavia, nothing north of the Baltic except ocean.

That would support, I think, my take on the definition of "Ibben". It's the name for the entire nation. 

There's also this SSM, where Martin details that while there are Ibbenese colonies on the mainland (Ibbish and New Ibbish), most people live on an island (that would be Ib, I assume). So from this, I would conclude that Ibbish and New Ibbish do not count as part of Ibben, but are (or were, in the case of Ibbish) once ruled by the nation. 

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

30 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I think Martin updated his views on it between 2002 when those SSMs were made and 2012 when the Lands map came out. 

First, he refers to the actual island as "Ibben" - we know it was later renamed "Ib".  He says "on Ibben, an island nation".....*not* "it is on Ibben, PART of an island nation".....singular versus plural.

Second.....the 2002 SSM he says Ibben is "the size of Iceland".....but later in the World book it's stated to be "the second largest island in the known world".  I think he reconceived what Ib/Ibben is like over the course of a full ten years.

So I think those SSMs are out of date and superseded by the later Lands and World book info.

"Island nation" does not necessarily refer to one island. An island nation is a country made up entirely of one or more islands. So that still definitely fits with the most recent information. 

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

28 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

It's the exact phrasing that gets me:

We say "Tokyo is *in* Japan, a large island nation" to refer to an island nation composed of a group of islands.

Yet we say "Reykjavik is *on* Iceland, a large island nation".

The specific phrasing makes me think that he said that when he thought the island was named "Ibben" and not "Ib", but was later revised.

Perhaps. I'm not saying that it cannot be possible that Martin changed his mind about how many Ibbenese islands there were, or what they should all have been called. Of course it is possible that he changed his mind about things he hadn't even published back then. The size of the island apparently did, for example.

However, based on the 2000 SSM, the term "Ibben" thus refers to an island nation. TLOIAF tells us it cannot have been a reference to the largest island, as that is called Ib. From that, I think, we should conclude that "Ibben" does not refer to refer to the largest island alone. The 2002 SSM tells us that, besides the largest island, there are several other islands, and those we see back on the maps from TLOIAF.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Rhaenys_Targaryen

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[direpupy]

3 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

New question regarding Yi Ti section in World book.  Google doesn't reveal if this came up before:

It says that the sixth Sea-Green Emperor, Jar Joq, "took Great Morag" [sic]

"Morag" is spelled with a "g".  Never mentioned anywhere else.

Is this a misprint of "Great Moraq" with a "Q", the large island opposite Qarth?

Great Moraq is the largest island in the known world, but barring one or two notes from the World of Ice and Fire app, practically nothing has been revealed about its history, baring what we can glean secondhand. 

Was Great Moraq conquered by Yi Ti at one point?  Or colonized by it, like Leng?

Jar Joq was the seventh Sea-green Emperor and yes it should be Great Moraq the g is a missspelling and it was conquered not colonised.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@Ran, any insights into the two issues discussed above? The date for Arlan III Durrandon defeating the last of the River Kings, and the definition of "Ibben", as raised by @The Dragon Demands above?

[The Dragon Demands]

yeah

Edited July 23, 2022 by The Dragon Demands

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

9 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I'm worried you think I was yelling at you now, Rhaenys

I just *disagreed* based on my interpretation of the facts but I wasn't trying to argue or anything.  Ack.  Sorry.

Nothing to worry about at all, my friend!  

I'm just really curious as to what the correct answer is, that's all   

[All-Seeing Aye]

Looking over the wiki page for Petyr Baelish I'm questioning the reasoning used to determine he was born in 268 AC.  The Calculations section for Baelish currently says "When the sentence “scarcely 15” is used, is [should be 'it'] suggests that Petyr might not have actually been 15 years old, indicating that 14 is a possibility for the age Petyr had during his duel."  This is not the definition of 'scarcely' at all; it's signifying that he had only just turned 15, not that he's possibly still 14.

I think this is a case where GRRM made a math mistake, especially with the 'still shy of 30' comment in 298 AC.  At least in the wiki there also seems to be some confusion about the timing of Catelyn's betrothal to Brandon Stark; Brandon's page currently says that "He was eventually promised to Catelyn Tully of Riverrun, who was twelve at the time."  Again per the wiki Catelyn was born in 264/265 AC, so she would have been 12 in the range of 276-278 AC depending on when in the year it was announced.  Even taking the latest possible date this would make Petyr unrealistically young when Lysa sleeps with him after the betrothal was announced.  There is also some confusion as to the amount of time between when the betrothal was announced and when the wedding date was announced; Brandon's page makes it seem like the two happened years apart (saying that Catelyn was 12 at the first announcement) while Baelish's page is more ambiguous.

 

Two unrelated questions: given that Stannis didn't formally claim the throne until 299 AC why is his reign listed as beginning in 298 AC in the infobox for 'Kings in Westeros since Aegon's Conquest"?  Also, why was the "VI' for Aegon removed from the same infobox?  Regardless of his legitimacy, noting claimed regnal numbers is used for Balon IX, Euron III, Viserys III, and Daenerys I.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

52 minutes ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

Looking over the wiki page for Petyr Baelish I'm questioning the reasoning used to determine he was born in 268 AC.  The Calculations section for Baelish currently says "When the sentence “scarcely 15” is used, is [should be 'it'] suggests that Petyr might not have actually been 15 years old, indicating that 14 is a possibility for the age Petyr had during his duel."  This is not the definition of 'scarcely' at all; it's signifying that he had only just turned 15, not that he's possibly still 14.

The first definitions given for "scarcely" are barely, hardly, not quite. That should indicate that "scarcely fifteen" could be taken to mean that he was 14 years old at the time.

In 298 AC, Petyr is stated to be "shy of thirty", meaning that, while he could turn thirty during any remaining point that year, he is not yet thirty yet. That means he was born in 268 AC, or later, but cannot have been born before.

During the duel, when Petyr was "scarcely fifteen", Brandon (born in 262 AC), was twenty, placing the duel in 282 AC (considering he died later during that year, excluding 283 AC from the possibilities). If Petyr had indeed been fifteen in 282 AC, he would have been born in 267 or 266 AC.

By looking at the definitions given for scarcely, the fact that he cannot have been born earlier than 268 AC based on AGOT chapter 18, and the fact that he was "scarcely fifteen" 16 years before, the only way to reconcille the information is to use the "hardly" or "not quite" definitions for "scarcely".

 

52 minutes ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

I think this is a case where GRRM made a math mistake, especially with the 'still shy of 30' comment in 298 AC.  At least in the wiki there also seems to be some confusion about the timing of Catelyn's betrothal to Brandon Stark; Brandon's page currently says that "He was eventually promised to Catelyn Tully of Riverrun, who was twelve at the time."  Again per the wiki Catelyn was born in 264/265 AC, so she would have been 12 in the range of 276-278 AC depending on when in the year it was announced.  Even taking the latest possible date this would make Petyr unrealistically young when Lysa sleeps with him after the betrothal was announced.  There is also some confusion as to the amount of time between when the betrothal was announced and when the wedding date was announced; Brandon's page makes it seem like the two happened years apart (saying that Catelyn was 12 at the first announcement) while Baelish's page is more ambiguous.

The app states that the betrothal was announced during the same night Petyr got drunk (and slept with Lysa for the first time, convinced it was Catelyn). If the betrothal was publicly announced by Hoster shortly after it was made, that would mean that Petyr had indeed been very young when he and Lysa slept together. However, we do not know when Hoster chose to announce the betrothal. Perhaps he waited a while?

The wedding was announced in 282 AC, when Brandon was at Riverrun (and Petyr subsequently challenged him to a duel). It is not known how much time has passed between the two announcements, but they were two separate announcements. I've slightly altered Brandon's page to reflect that, with the appropriate source.

 

52 minutes ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

Two unrelated questions: given that Stannis didn't formally claim the throne until 299 AC why is his reign listed as beginning in 298 AC in the infobox for 'Kings in Westeros since Aegon's Conquest"?  Also, why was the "VI' for Aegon removed from the same infobox?  Regardless of his legitimacy, noting claimed regnal numbers is used for Balon IX, Euron III, Viserys III, and Daenerys I.

No idea about Stannis.

As to Aegon, he has not been crowned yet, so until he does, he is Prince Aegon, not King Aegon VI.

[All-Seeing Aye]

10 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The first definitions given for "scarcely" are barely, hardly, not quite. That should indicate that "scarcely fifteen" could be taken to mean that he was 14 years old at the time.

In 298 AC, Petyr is stated to be "shy of thirty", meaning that, while he could turn thirty during any remaining point that year, he is not yet thirty yet. That means he was born in 268 AC, or later, but cannot have been born before.

During the duel, when Petyr was "scarcely fifteen", Brandon (born in 262 AC), was twenty, placing the duel in 282 AC (considering he died later during that year, excluding 283 AC from the possibilities). If Petyr had indeed been fifteen in 282 AC, he would have been born in 267 or 266 AC.

By looking at the definitions given for scarcely, the fact that he cannot have been born earlier than 268 AC based on AGOT chapter 18, and the fact that he was "scarcely fifteen" 16 years before, the only way to reconcille the information is to use the "hardly" or "not quite" definitions for "scarcely".

 

The app states that the betrothal was announced during the same night Petyr got drunk (and slept with Lysa for the first time, convinced it was Catelyn). If the betrothal was publicly announced by Hoster shortly after it was made, that would mean that Petyr had indeed been very young when he and Lysa slept together. However, we do not know when Hoster chose to announce the betrothal. Perhaps he waited a while?

The wedding was announced in 282 AC, when Brandon was at Riverrun (and Petyr subsequently challenged him to a duel). It is not known how much time has passed between the two announcements, but they were two separate announcements. I've slightly altered Brandon's page to reflect that, with the appropriate source.

 

No idea about Stannis.

As to Aegon, he has not been crowned yet, so until he does, he is Prince Aegon, not King Aegon VI.

Thanks for the explanation and making the slight change.  Still think it would be great if we could get a more specific timeline from GRRM at some point (as would be great for many other topics).

I do recall now that in ADWD Aegon is only addressed as Prince Aegon, so having being crowned as a requisite for a regnal number makes sense.  For Stannis, I notice that the 'Claimants to the Iron Throne' section on the Iron Throne page lists it correctly as 299 AC, so there does seem to be a discrepancy between that section and the infobox that appears at the bottom of all Iron Throne related pages.

Two other items:

-Regarding the birthdates of Aelor, Aelora, and Daenora Targaryen, there are several relevant quotes that might be useful.

"Prince Rhaegel is as meek as he is mad, and his children are . . . well, children."

     -The Sworn Sword

"You have forgotten Prince Rhaegel, my friend," Ser Maynard objected, in a mild tone. "He comes next in line to Aerys, not Maekar, and his children after him."

"Rhaegel is feeble-minded. Why, I bear him no ill will, but the man is good as dead, and those twins of his as well, though whether they will die of Maekar's mace or Bloodraven's spells…" Seven save us, Dunk thought as Egg spoke up shrill and loud. "Prince Maekar is Prince Rhaegel's brother. He loves him well. He'd never do harm to him or his."

     -The Mystery Knight

 

I read this as the twins being young in 211 AC (possibly younger than Egg, but no certainty on that) and Daenora not yet having been born in 211 AC (since she isn't mentioned at all and there's no suggestion that Rhaegel had other children besides the twins at this time).  Daenora being much younger actually would make a lot of sense since she wouldn't have a child until 232 AC (so the maximum date for her birth would be 216 AC if she was a posthumous child of Rhaegel, depending on when in the year 215 AC he died; a range of 211 AC-216 AC for her birth could therefore be included in the wiki).

 

-For the page on Blackfyre (the sword) should something be added about how it's unknown how the sword came back into Targaryen possession after Daeron I was killed with the sword in hand (there's similar language on the page for Dark Sister)?

Edited December 2, 2016 by All-Seeing Aye

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

3 hours ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

Thanks for the explanation and making the slight change.  Still think it would be great if we could get a more specific timeline from GRRM at some point (as would be great for many other topics).

You and me both! However, I'm not sure whether we ever will..

 

3 hours ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

I do recall now that in ADWD Aegon is only addressed as Prince Aegon, so having being crowned as a requisite for a regnal number makes sense.  For Stannis, I notice that the 'Claimants to the Iron Throne' section on the Iron Throne page lists it correctly as 299 AC, so there does seem to be a discrepancy between that section and the infobox that appears at the bottom of all Iron Throne related pages.

Will solve the discrepancy.

 

3 hours ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

Two other items:

-Regarding the birthdates of Aelor, Aelora, and Daenora Targaryen, there are several relevant quotes that might be useful.

"Prince Rhaegel is as meek as he is mad, and his children are . . . well, children."

     -The Sworn Sword

"You have forgotten Prince Rhaegel, my friend," Ser Maynard objected, in a mild tone. "He comes next in line to Aerys, not Maekar, and his children after him."

"Rhaegel is feeble-minded. Why, I bear him no ill will, but the man is good as dead, and those twins of his as well, though whether they will die of Maekar's mace or Bloodraven's spells…" Seven save us, Dunk thought as Egg spoke up shrill and loud. "Prince Maekar is Prince Rhaegel's brother. He loves him well. He'd never do harm to him or his."

     -The Mystery Knight

 

I read this as the twins being young in 211 AC (possibly younger than Egg, but no certainty on that) and Daenora not yet having been born in 211 AC (since she isn't mentioned at all and there's no suggestion that Rhaegel had other children besides the twins at this time).  Daenora being much younger actually would make a lot of sense since she wouldn't have a child until 232 AC (so the maximum date for her birth would be 216 AC if she was a posthumous child of Rhaegel, depending on when in the year 215 AC he died; a range of 211 AC-216 AC for her birth could therefore be included in the wiki).

 

-For the page on Blackfyre (the sword) should something be added about how it's unknown how the sword came back into Targaryen possession after Daeron I was killed with the sword in hand (there's similar language on the page for Dark Sister)?

Good points regarding Rhaegel's children. I will incorporate them! Thank you!

Will also add about Blackfyre!

 

Thank you for these points! If you find any others, please let us know!

 

[All-Seeing Aye]

On 12/2/2016 at 3:29 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

You and me both! However, I'm not sure whether we ever will..

 

Will solve the discrepancy.

 

Good points regarding Rhaegel's children. I will incorporate them! Thank you!

Will also add about Blackfyre!

 

Thank you for these points! If you find any others, please let us know!

 

Thanks; I'm especially interested in Rhaegel's children because Aelor and Aelora seem to have died tragic deaths while Daenora never appears in the history again after the birth of Maegor (who is also never mentioned again by name, along with Vaella, in TWOIAF after the Great Council of 233 AC...I wonder if we'll ever hear more about them).

 

Other points that come to mind in terms of current pages:

-http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aegon_Targaryen_(son_of_Baelon) :should it be noted that he presumably died young, since this note appears in the page for Alysanne ( "Another son of Baelon and Alyssa, Prince Aegon, presumably died young.^[5]"; http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Alysanne_Targaryen)?

-http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Mariah_Martell: " the betrothal of Mariah to Baelor's nephew, Prince Daeron Targaryen" should be changed to 'Baelor's young cousin' or something similar (technically first cousin once removed, though I believe 'young cousin' is the language used in TWOIAF).

-http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Daemon_I_Blackfyre: "was killed upon the Stepstones around 260 AC.^[9] " should be changed to 'was killed upon the Stepstones in 260 AC' since TWOIAF gave us the exact date.  It looks like the language also needs to be changed for http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aegon_III_Targaryen.

-For the House Blackfyre family tree template should it be modified to include at least one other (unnamed) son for Haegon I Blackfyre?  Since Daemon III is explicitly noted as being the 'eldest' son (usually meaning at least two sons) of Haegon I (currently in http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Blackfyre_Pretenders, http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Haegon_I_Blackfyre, http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Third_Blackfyre_Rebellion, http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Fourth_Blackfyre_Rebellion, and http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Daemon_III_Blackfyre) this modification would follow the template for Daemon I's children ('Two other sons' and 'Daughter(s)').