Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Nittanian said:

That's my interpretation of the text as well. 

So you believe no First Men houses where founded in The Age of Heroes in the Westerlands, because that would be the implication of that interpretation.

Its why the very clear cut from general history to the history of one house is in my opinion more important, and this would also explain why the term golden age is used instead of Dawn Age or Age of Heroes. There would be no reason to use that if they where all founded in the same age Dawn or Heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't really an explicit confirmation there if the cohesion and continuity of the text implies that there is a chronological structure there. If the narrator doesn't explicitly jump around in the timeline - and he doesn't do that at that point - the default assumption would be that the text is structured chronologically. And then the point where we can talk about the Age of Heroes only starts when that era is mentioned, and not before.

That's a dangerous assumption with George's tendency for unreliable narrator which is why he wanted it to be a book that was written in universe by a maester to begin with, so he could justify the unreliability of the texts.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not go very far with something like that when writing a wiki article, though. Far too much speculation going on to actually faithfully presenting facts.

Agreed, its why i am against placing any of these houses in either age definitively.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For what it's worth, this is actually a rather interesting piece of information in the grand scale of things. It implies that the feudal culture of the Hundred Kingdoms actually developed partially in the Dawn Age, especially in the Reach and the Westerlands and, one assumes, also in other southern regions like Dorne and the Stormlands. Those would have been very primitive 'feudal societies', to be sure, but the foundations of the later noble houses were, apparently, made in that era for the Casterlys, the Gardeners and others, and not so much in the Age of Heroes.

This also fits very well with the mysterious origins of Oldtown which also seem to go back all the way to the Dawn Age.

 I agree and it is an interesting thing to ponder, but that would be something for the general forum not the wiki forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the source that Saltcliffe & Sunderly longships were with Asha for the Taking of Deepwood Motte? Whilst I disagree that their support of her at the kingsmoot can (presumably) be taken as confirmation, at least the various Blacktydes, Goodbrothers, & Merlyns have that going for them here. (By that logic however, why isn't House Harlaw also listed among the combatants?) Unless I'm missing something, the only connection they have with Asha is when she asks the Reader "where are the ships from Saltcliffe, from Orkwood, from the Wyks". That seems far too flimsy to include them.

Let alone, ignoring houses from Orkwood & the Wyks, in the process. Unless, the assumption is that the Goodbrothers of these isles were those who shouted for Asha at the moot. But again, that's without evidence - besides, maybe Asha's good sense to beach Black Wind "beneath Norne Goodbrother's castle", so she wouldn't potentially be trapped in Nagga's Cradle should Euron win. Although, any other strands on Old Wyk could/would have served just as well for that, so this can hardly be taken as fact that these Goodbrothers fought for Asha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

That's a dangerous assumption with George's tendency for unreliable narrator which is why he wanted it to be a book that was written in universe by a maester to begin with, so he could justify the unreliability of the texts.

Those are two different things. Unreliability of the narrator means Yandel or Gyldayn may not get all facts right. It doesn't mean George writes, from their POV, an internally contradictory account.

We see this kind of thing, for instance, with the unintentional contradictions between the later written Ironborn chapters of TWoIaF and the other chapters - which seem to be mistakes. Yandel supposedly wrote everything, so his account should not have such contradictions because any author writing such a history book would harmonize such contradictions during the writing and editing process. Or, if that's not possible, mention that the historical traditions of the Reach or the Vale differ from those in the North or the Riverlands on significant points. And that is done with the connection of Lann and Garth, the origin of the Blackwoods, various theories about the Others and the Doom of Valyria, etc.

Textual cohesion and continuity is maintained. The chapters all give us a chronological history and foreshadowing is clearly marked as is when Yandel or Gyldayn prove that they look at something with hindsight as historians.

In the case we are discussing we simply have no positive evidence - and thus no reason - to assume the houses in question are supposed to have been founded in the Age of Heroes. The era comes up later, explicitly, so the houses should have been mentioned then if the author had wanted to say they were founded then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

What's the source that Saltcliffe & Sunderly longships were with Asha for the Taking of Deepwood Motte? Whilst I disagree that their support of her at the kingsmoot can (presumably) be taken as confirmation, at least the various Blacktydes, Goodbrothers, & Merlyns have that going for them here. (By that logic however, why isn't House Harlaw also listed among the combatants?) Unless I'm missing something, the only connection they have with Asha is when she asks the Reader "where are the ships from Saltcliffe, from Orkwood, from the Wyks". That seems far too flimsy to include them.

Let alone, ignoring houses from Orkwood & the Wyks, in the process. Unless, the assumption is that the Goodbrothers of these isles were those who shouted for Asha at the moot. But again, that's without evidence - besides, maybe Asha's good sense to beach Black Wind "beneath Norne Goodbrother's castle", so she wouldn't potentially be trapped in Nagga's Cradle should Euron win. Although, any other strands on Old Wyk could/would have served just as well for that, so this can hardly be taken as fact that these Goodbrothers fought for Asha.

I would suggest the removal of all those houses from the infobox, since all Balon says is "you shall take thirty longships of picked men".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nittanian said:

I would suggest the removal of all those houses from the infobox, since all Balon says is "you shall take thirty longships of picked men".

Exactly. All we know is that the Greyjoy cousins, Quenton & Dagon, were among Asha's captains. Balon may have assigned her/agreed to her taking other longships just from Pyke, or a mix from some/all of the islands. (I think they may have primarily been from Harlaw, helping to explain how few vessels are at Ten Towers from the Reader calling his banners for Asha, but that's besides the point.) I don't have editing privileges though, so you/someone else would have to change this please if it's the agreed upon action.

On this topic, I think Drumm & Stonehouse participation in the Stony Shore raids should be removed, too. Just because Balon sent Dagmer to raise Old Wyk, it doesn't necessarily mean that these houses provided a few longships for his, Aeron, & Theon's campaign. (While, perhaps again, ignoring Norne's Goodbrothers.) As Asha is also deployed to raise Great Wyk - yet the houses of that isle aren't listed for her campaign - it seems to me like Balon was sending out his most trusted & prominent Pyke retainers to all the other islands to gather their forces (rather than doing so with ravens, & potentially risking a maester sending a bird to the greenlands warning of ironborn build-up). Presumably Vic, most likely Aeron, & maybe the Greyjoy cousins (or whoever) had already roused the other isles, without specific houses having some of their longships then fighting for whomever Balon sent from Pyke to marshal them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever wrote the article on the Prince of Dragonstone filled it with outlandish claims and speculations, e.g. the idea that Aerion Brightflame was a Prince of Dragonstone and that we know about that - he could have been, but nothing in canon indicates Maekar ever granted him that title. We only know that Daeron the Drunk was Prince of Dragonstone.

Also, we have no idea whether there was no Prince of Dragonstone during the reign of King Baelor. It could be - or not. Even if Baelor never named an heir - which, in my opinion, is an outlandish idea - he could have still given Dragonstone as a seat to his uncle and Hand, Prince Viserys. The fact that there was a discussion about Baelor's succession after his death doesn't mean Baelor himself never named an heir nor that he didn't leave a will in which he named a successor. It just means that the folks in charge decided to discuss the succession before crowning a new monarch - like they did before the Dance, when Robert died, etc.

And unless I'm not remembering something, we also have no confirmation that Valarr Targaryen was ever created Prince of Dragonstone. He became the king's heir after his father's death, but we know that most monarchs try to make a big show out of the formal investiture of a new Prince of Dragonstone - Jaehaerys I waited years before he granted the title to his Heir Apparent, Aemon - so it is entirely possible that Daeron II and Valarr both died before a new Prince of Dragonstone was named.

Similarly, there is no confirmation that Aerys II named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone. We know he was his new heir after the Trident, and this could imply he was also made Prince of Dragonstone, but without explicit confirmation we don't know that and the wiki cannot pretend this is an established fact.

While not all acknowledged heirs of a king hold that title the time to claim the heirs were Princes of Dragonstone is when there is explicit confirmation for this, and not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In the case we are discussing we simply have no positive evidence - and thus no reason - to assume the houses in question are supposed to have been founded in the Age of Heroes. The era comes up later, explicitly, so the houses should have been mentioned then if the author had wanted to say they were founded then.

That the houses are all founded in the Dawn Age is based on they idea that Golden Age equates to Dawn Age for which there is no evidence, and the idea that unreliable narrator does not include the historian making mistakes or using vague language in there continuity, something you have no evidence for.

If it is not downright stated it should not end up on the wiki as a fact and in this case it is not downright stated, so while you can put it up as speculation or "most likely" i would not put it up as a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Exactly. All we know is that the Greyjoy cousins, Quenton & Dagon, were among Asha's captains. Balon may have assigned her/agreed to her taking other longships just from Pyke, or a mix from some/all of the islands. (I think they may have primarily been from Harlaw, helping to explain how few vessels are at Ten Towers from the Reader calling his banners for Asha, but that's besides the point.) I don't have editing privileges though, so you/someone else would have to change this please if it's the agreed upon action.

On this topic, I think Drumm & Stonehouse participation in the Stony Shore raids should be removed, too. Just because Balon sent Dagmer to raise Old Wyk, it doesn't necessarily mean that these houses provided a few longships for his, Aeron, & Theon's campaign. (While, perhaps again, ignoring Norne's Goodbrothers.) As Asha is also deployed to raise Great Wyk - yet the houses of that isle aren't listed for her campaign - it seems to me like Balon was sending out his most trusted & prominent Pyke retainers to all the other islands to gather their forces (rather than doing so with ravens, & potentially risking a maester sending a bird to the greenlands warning of ironborn build-up). Presumably Vic, most likely Aeron, & maybe the Greyjoy cousins (or whoever) had already roused the other isles, without specific houses having some of their longships then fighting for whomever Balon sent from Pyke to marshal them.

I updated the two articles. Earl Harlaw is one of Asha's fighters, at least, so House Harlaw could be included for Deepwood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, direpupy said:

If it is not downright stated it should not end up on the wiki as a fact

That's not entirely right, though. The wiki includes a lot of (more or less) well-founded assumptions and conclusions. Almost every time the history books mention a Lord X Y, the wiki makes an assumption by connecting the lordly title with the current seat of House Y. If we went with the 'only downright stated' approach, we would have to consider that the seat may have been a different one at that point or the lord may have been the head of a side branch of a different castle. Now we don't do that because it's only reasonable to assume the Lord Mallister mentioned during the reign of Viserys I was Lord of Seagard indeed. And this happens in a lot of other areas, too. So just because something isn't downright stated, doesn't mean it's not the reasonable conclusion. In this particular case some readers think the founding of those houses is associated with the Dawn Age, not because of the mention of the Golden Age, but because it's reasonable to assume that an event that is mentioned between two Dawn Age events (and the Age of Heroes being mentioned only after a cut in form ["hundreds of years later"] and content [the Lannisters coming up]) is supposed to have taken place in the Dawn Age, as well. To find a compromise we could leave the Dawn Age/Age of Heroes matter aside and only state something like "Maester Yandel connects the founding of House XY with a golden age of the First Men, who had come to the westerlands and settled down in the Dawn Age" (I guess someone can come up with some better wording).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article of Amory Lorch states about the last Lord Tarbeck incident: 

Assuming that Amory Lorch was at least fifteen years old at the time of the Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion (as he was already a knight), this would make him 37 years old or older during the Sack of King's Landing, and thus unlikely to be in prime condition to scale the walls of Maegor's Holdfast. Additionally, he would be 53 years old or older during the War of the Five Kings, and he is not mentioned to be an older man in his appearances in A Clash of Kings. This inconsistency may be why this incident was not included in the published Westerlands chapter of The World of Ice & Fire.

I can see no reason why a forty year old professional fighter wouldn't be able to scale some walls. And while no-one says Amory looks a bit older in 299 AC, the opposite isn't stated neither. So I would remove this part from the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

That's not entirely right, though. The wiki includes a lot of (more or less) well-founded assumptions and conclusions. Almost every time the history books mention a Lord X Y, the wiki makes an assumption by connecting the lordly title with the current seat of House Y. If we went with the 'only downright stated' approach, we would have to consider that the seat may have been a different one at that point or the lord may have been the head of a side branch of a different castle. Now we don't do that because it's only reasonable to assume the Lord Mallister mentioned during the reign of Viserys I was Lord of Seagard indeed. And this happens in a lot of other areas, too. So just because something isn't downright stated, doesn't mean it's not the reasonable conclusion. In this particular case some readers think the founding of those houses is associated with the Dawn Age, not because of the mention of the Golden Age, but because it's reasonable to assume that an event that is mentioned between two Dawn Age events (and the Age of Heroes being mentioned only after a cut in form ["hundreds of years later"] and content [the Lannisters coming up]) is supposed to have taken place in the Dawn Age, as well. To find a compromise we could leave the Dawn Age/Age of Heroes matter aside and only state something like "Maester Yandel connects the founding of House XY with a golden age of the First Men, who had come to the westerlands and settled down in the Dawn Age" (I guess someone can come up with some better wording).

I was stating my personal believe and know that assumptions are made in many cases, i do like the compromise but do not have the time to do this right now i will try to get to it as soon as i can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Where does the information come from that Amory Lorch has personal arms depicting a black manticore on a red field? I could only find mention of a black manticore which fits in with the general Lorch coat of arms.

I haven't found a clear statement either. Maybe it's an assumption based on Arya's descriptions?

Quote

A column of riders moved between the burning buildings toward the holdfast. Firelight glittered off metal helms and spattered their mail and plate with orange and yellow highlights. One carried a banner on a tall lance. She thought it was red, but it was hard to tell in the night, with the fires roaring all around. Everything seemed red or black or orange. (ACOK Arya IV)

The reflections of burning houses glimmered dully on the armor of his warhorse as the others parted to let him pass. He was a stout man with a manticore on his shield, and ornate scrollwork crawling across his steel breastplate. (ACOK Arya IV)

Four Brave Companions climbed to the ramparts and hauled down the lion of Lannister and Ser Amory's own black manticore. (ACOK Arya IX)

Ran doesn't have personal arms listed for Amory at the Citadel, just that House Lorch uses "A black manticore on white, beneath a crimson chief with three gold coins".

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Other/2/

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Houses/6/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

I haven't found a clear statement either. Maybe it's an assumption based on Arya's descriptions?

Ran doesn't have personal arms listed for Amory at the Citadel, just that House Lorch uses "A black manticore on white, beneath a crimson chief with three gold coins".

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Other/2/

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Houses/6/

 

Yeah, I had checked the Citadel, as well. And the red colour could easily refer to a Lannister banner, so I don't see any reason to suspect Amory has personal arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Yeah, I had checked the Citadel, as well. And the red colour could easily refer to a Lannister banner, so I don't see any reason to suspect Amory has personal arms.

I'm actually pretty certain that it's a Lannister banner. Because in ACoK, Arya IV, shortly after Arya sees the banner that she thinks is red, it's said that she can see the banner more clearly now and it's a golden lion on red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the section on Aegon's Conquest in F & B V1 Harren the Black says Edmyn Tully has three daughters, one of whom was old enough to shortly thereafter marry Quenton Qoherys. Later, in the section on Aegon I's government, we find out Lady Tully died giving birth in 9 AC, which means Edmyn had at least four children (since we don't know if he had more than one wife): Three daughters born before Aegon's Conquest and a boy or girl born after it. If said fourth child was male he could very well be the father of Prentys. Also, considering the gap between this fourth, fatal pregnancy and the previous three it could also very well be that Lady Tully was of an advanced age like Alyssa Velaryon with regards to her Baratheon children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

In the section on Aegon's Conquest in F & B V1 Harren the Black says Edmyn Tully has three daughters, one of whom was old enough to shortly thereafter marry Quenton Qoherys. Later, in the section on Aegon I's government, we find out Lady Tully died giving birth in 9 AC, which means Edmyn had at least four children (since we don't know if he had more than one wife): Three daughters born before Aegon's Conquest and a boy or girl born after it. If said fourth child was male he could very well be the father of Prentys. Also, considering the gap between this fourth, fatal pregnancy and the previous three it could also very well be that Lady Tully was of an advanced age like Alyssa Velaryon with regards to her Baratheon children.

I recently thought about the Tully relations, as well, but coming from the other side of the timeline. We know Grover was already old in 101 AC (so I guess around 60) and could have been born in the early 40ies. Prentys might have been his father, born around 18 AC. Edmyn's wife easily could have delivered a son to him before the Conquest. That son would have been the Lord Tully in the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye. Seems to fit timewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Renly was handsome as Robert had been handsome; long of limb and broad of shoulder, with the same coal-black hair, fine and straight, the same deep blue eyes, the same easy smile. The slender circlet around his brows seemed to suit him well. It was soft gold, a ring of roses exquisitely wrought; at the front lifted a stag's head of dark green jade, adorned with golden eyes and golden antlers.

The crowned stag decorated the king's green velvet tunic as well, worked in gold thread upon his chest; the Baratheon sigil in the colors of Highgarden.
ACOK, Catelyn II

Was the green gold stag on gold green field (variant of the Baratheon sigil with Tyrell colors) Renly's personal coat-of-arms ?

Edit: Fixed colors

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Was the green stag on gold field (variant of the Baratheon sigil with Tyrell colors) Renly's personal coat-of-arms ?

I think its they other way round gold stag on green field, since the stag is worked in gold thread upon a green tunic.

But to answer the question it probably is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...