The ASOIAF wiki thread

[Ran]

Anyone able to reach the wiki at the moment? Suddenly got a message of bad health and trying to figure what's going on. Reached out to Sparks about it but it's early on the West coast yet.

[Nittanian]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Anyone able to reach the wiki at the moment? Suddenly got a message of bad health and trying to figure what's going on. Reached out to Sparks about it but it's early on the West coast yet.

Nope, connection timed out for me. 

[Ran]

Thanks. Still trying to find out what's going on. Sparks recently had some pretty heavy surgery, so may take a bit to get a hold of her.

[Ran]

Should be back up now!

[Nittanian]

Yandel writes, "More historical proof exists for the war between the Kings of Winter and the Barrow Kings to their south, who styled themselves the Kings of the First Men and claimed supremacy over all First Men everywhere, even the Starks themselves."

We currently have separate articles for "Barrow King" and "King of the First Men". Since they cover the same topic and the latter is essentially a stub, we could just have "King of the First Men" redirect to "Barrow King".

[Potsk]

1 hour ago, Nittanian said:

Yandel writes, "More historical proof exists for the war between the Kings of Winter and the Barrow Kings to their south, who styled themselves the Kings of the First Men and claimed supremacy over all First Men everywhere, even the Starks themselves."

We currently have separate articles for "Barrow King" and "King of the First Men". Since they cover the same topic and the latter is essentially a stub, we could just have "King of the First Men" redirect to "Barrow King".

I think the difference is that "Barrow Kings" refers to the unnamed dynasty (therefore the article title should be plural) while "King of the First Men" is the title they held. Merging them would be like merging "House Gardener" and "King of the Reach."

Edited January 24 by Potsk

[Raining_Steel]

Wiki entry on Unsullied

 

Quote

Military Tactics-
  The Unsullied fight in formation as light infantry, equipped with short spears, swords, round shields, and distinctive spiked caps. They fight fearlessly and obey without question. Their elite, highly specialized training makes them most effective in their phalanx formation. They do not ride horses

equipped with short spears, swords, round shields-  I can't find any passage in the series with this description.  It sites SoS Dany I, but there is no descriptor of the shields in there. And the only descriptor of the Unsullied spear in that chapter is
 

Quote

Since that day, the city guard of Qohor has been made up solely of Unsullied, every one of whom carries a tall spear from which hangs a braid of human hair

The only other descriptor I've found is Selmy talking about them training in "heavy spear".  I'd imagine the "Unsullied learn the way of the three spears." means that use multiple different style spears. Which fits with the Selmy WoW transcript talking about the formation of the Ghiscari lockstep legion, which is what the Unsullied emulate.

 

Quote

Barristan has reached the Harridan, but a Ghiscari legion six thousand strong has lined up to protect the huge trebuchet. They are six ranks deep — the first rank kneels and holds their spears pointing out and up, the second rank stands and holds their spears out at waist height, and the third rank holds the spears out on their shoulders. The rest have small throwing spears and are ready to step forward when their comrades fall.

"Tall spears" out front, long enough to reach over the front ranks. And short spears/javelin in the back ranks. at the least.


Anyway I digress.  Perhaps the best way to describe them in edit is as Selmy does, eliminate the round shield and short spear.
Which is also described in ASOS Dany II

Quote

They stood as still as if they had been carved of stone, each with his three spears, short sword, and shield.

 

[Nittanian]

21 hours ago, Potsk said:

I think the difference is that "Barrow Kings" refers to the unnamed dynasty (therefore the article title should be plural) while "King of the First Men" is the title they held. Merging them would be like merging "House Gardener" and "King of the Reach."

That makes sense, thanks!

Regarding Bear Island, Yandel writes:

Quote

The histories of the North claim that Rodrik Stark won Bear Island back from the ironborn in a wrestling match, and perhaps there is truth to this tale; the kings of the Iron Isles were often moved to prove their prowess and their right to wear the driftwood crown with feats of strength. More sober scholars call this into question, suggesting that if there was "wrestling," it was with words.

@Ran, does this mean the island's status was resolved diplomatically ("with words") or should it be "with swords" (thus resolved militarily)?

[Nittanian]

Other instances of Unsullied using longer spears:

Quote

"Since that day, the city guard of Qohor has been made up solely of Unsullied, every one of whom carries a tall spear from which hangs a braid of human hair." (ASOS Daenerys I)

Quote

Three hundred yards away, Astapor's new Unsullied had been pouring through their gates and forming up in ranks beneath their city's crumbling red brick walls, dawn light glinting off their spiked bronze helmets and the points of their long spears. (ADWD The Windblown)

 

[Potsk]

What in the books indicates that Littlefinger created a completely new House separate from the original House Baelish? He has new lands and arms but that doesn't mean he founded what the article describes as a "cadet branch." He was already Lord Baelish, he isn't a younger son.

[The Wondering Wolf]

9 hours ago, Potsk said:

What in the books indicates that Littlefinger created a completely new House separate from the original House Baelish? He has new lands and arms but that doesn't mean he founded what the article describes as a "cadet branch." He was already Lord Baelish, he isn't a younger son.

Cadet branch might not be the right term, indeed, I'm not sure it's the same house, though. Baelish of the Fingers is a vassal to some Vale house, Baelish of Harrenhal is lord paramount of the riverlands. At this point they both are ruled by Petyr in a way which I would describe as personal union.

[Potsk]

3 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Cadet branch might not be the right term, indeed, I'm not sure it's the same house, though. Baelish of the Fingers is a vassal to some Vale house, Baelish of Harrenhal is lord paramount of the riverlands. At this point they both are ruled by Petyr in a way which I would describe as personal union.

That means he holds two lordships, not that he's the head of two houses. That Petyr still holds his Vale lands in the name of some lord doesn't mean this either. William the Conqueror was both King of England and Duke of Normandy, thus both a sovereign and a vassal to the King of France, but we don't consider the House of Normandy at that time to have been two separate houses.

House Baelish could split into two houses if Petyr had sons, and one of them inherited Harrenhal and another inherited the tower on the Fingers. The Baelishes of the Fingers would then be a cadet branch of the Baelishes of Harrenhal. But currently that is not the case.

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 hour ago, Potsk said:

That means he holds two lordships, not that he's the head of two houses.

Well, I guess that's the question here. In Westeros it's not usual to have more than one seat (I know there a few exceptions), especially when they are in a different region. So is Baelish of the Fingers technically the same house as Baelish of Harrenhal? Maybe other editors can weigh in and give their opinions.

[The Wondering Wolf]

@Oneiros Drakontos

I'm not sure about your recent changes to the errata pages concerning the year 0. These pages should only contain confirmed errors, and the situation is not really clear here, because GRRM never said that there isn't a year 0. If there was, it would be bad worldbuilding in my opinion and would raise the question why 50 AC is the 50th year after the Conquest and not the 51th, but even then GRRM could decide that this is just how they count the years in Westeros. Which would be a weak explanation in my opinion, but it wouldn't be an error then.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

GRRM never said that there isn't a year 0.

 

In the text it's implied that there isn't a year 0. We know that the Conquest lasted two years, from 2 BC to 1 AC. If there was a year 0 it would be three years.

[The Wondering Wolf]

Just now, Oneiros Drakontos said:

 

In the text it's implied that there isn't a year 0. We know that the Conquest lasted two years, from 2 BC to 1 AC. If there was a year 0 it would be three years.

We know it lasted more than two years, so it actually started in 3 BC. Anyway, the year 0 would be the first year of the new calendar, so the day of Aegon's coronation would be the first day of 0.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

In the text it's never said the first year of Aegon's reign started exactly in the first day of the new calendar. Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the war started in 3 BC (most of Aegon's actual conquering took place from 2-1 BC; The World of Ice & Fire)

For example, it is possibile that the Conquest started on the second month of 2 BC and ended in the fourth month of 1 AC, with the beginning of the reign in the middle of the year. That would mean, indeed, that the war lasted more than two years.

Edited January 29 by Oneiros Drakontos

[Potsk]

It's unlikely that GRRM intends a "year zero" considering he uses "BC" dates counting backwards. Astronomical year numbering does count backwards with a year zero, but that is only for computational reasons, something I don't think the Westerosi would consider. Other calendars in real life with year zero (Hindu and Buddhist calendars for instance) are based on eras, so say if we started year zero today, it would be January 29th 0, but yesterday would still be January 28th 2024, not January 28th 0; 2024 would only have lasted 28 days (plus a few hours of January 29th) in this scenario and would be considered the last year of the previous era, while 0 would be the first year of the new era and would be missing 28 days.

A notable example of year zero in fantasy worldbuilding is The Elder Scrolls, whose timeline is split into eras. 2E 896 is the last year of the Second Era, and 3E 0 is the first year of the Third Era. They don't count the years of the Second Era backwards.

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 hour ago, Oneiros Drakontos said:

In the text it's never said the first year of Aegon's reign started exactly in the first day of the new calendar.

I think the text makes it pretty clear that the day of Aegon's coronation marked the beginning of his reign and of the new calendar:

Births, deaths, battles, and other events are dated either AC (After the Conquest) or BC (Before the Conquest). [...] Even the start date is a matter of some misconception. Many assume, wrongly, that the reign of King Aegon I Targaryen began on the day he landed at the mouth of the Blackwater Rush, beneath the three hills where the city of King’s Landing would eventually stand. Not so. The day of Aegon’s Landing was celebrated by the king and his descendants, but the Conqueror actually dated the start of his reign from the day he was crowned and anointed in the Starry Sept of Oldtown by the High Septon of the Faith.

I'm no native speaker but it seems to me that the official end of the Conquest (BC) and the start of the reign (AC) are tied to that coronation. Everything else seems like an assumption not based on the text.  I mean when else would the new calendar have started?

 

1 hour ago, Oneiros Drakontos said:

Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the war started in 3 BC

More than two years passed between Aegon’s landing and his Oldtown coronation [...]

Since the text indicates that the day before the coronation was the last day of 1 BC, the Landing must have happend in 3 AC. Otherwise it wouldn't have been more than two years. This doesn't change the fact that most of the actual conquering indeed took place in 2 and 1 BC.

 

30 minutes ago, Potsk said:

It's unlikely that GRRM intends a "year zero" considering he uses "BC" dates counting backwards.

While I agree that it's more likely that GRRM doesn't calculate with a year 0, in my opinion it's not up to us wiki editors to make that call.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

43 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I'm no native speaker but it seems to me that the official end of the Conquest (BC) and the start of the reign (AC) are tied to that coronation. Everything else seems like an assumption not based on the text.  I mean when else would the new calendar have started?

 

In my opinion it doesn't seem the text states that the day of the coronation is also the first day of 1 AC. It's mentioned that the start date of the reign is the second coronation instead of the first (Even the start date is a matter of some misconception. Many assume, wrongly, that the reign of King Aegon I Targaryen began on the day he landed at the mouth of the Blackwater Rush, etc.), not that the first day of 1 AC and the first day of the reign are the same. The day of the coronation in the Starry Sept could be in the middle of the year 1 AC, for all we know.

It is possibile that Aegon's Conquest simply changed the way years are counted, while days and months are still counted as before the Conquest, for example based on the movements of the celestial bodies or the Faith holydays.

Edited January 29 by Oneiros Drakontos