Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

@Ran,

Question for the errata of TWOIAF.

There are several quotes placing the destruction of the Rhoynar/flight of Nymeria and her people and their arrival in Dorne/ the Rhoynish Wars "a thousand years ago". 

"That was the Rhoynar name," said Haldon Halfmaester, "but for a thousand years this has been the Palace of Sorrow." (ADWD Tyrion 5)

This series of conflicts reached a bloody climax a thousand years ago in the Second Spice War, when three Valyrian dragonlords joined with their kin and cousins in Volantis to overwhelm, sack, and destroy Sarhoy, the great Rhoynar port city upon the Summer Sea. (TWOIAF: Ancient History: Ten Thousand Ships)

Separate as they have been—and then a thousand years ago joined with the Rhoynar—the Dornish have their own proud, fraught history and their own ways. (TWOIAF: Dorne: Queer Customs of the South)

However, in TWOIAF, at the end of the chapter describing the arrival of the Rhoynar in Dorne, and the start of the rule of House Martell over Dorne, we get this:

House Martell has guided Dorne for seven hundred years, raising its great towers at Sunspear, seeing the shadow city and the Planky Town rise, and defeating all those who threatened its dominion. (TWOIAF, Dorne: The Coming of the Rhoynar)

 

The inconsistency seems to be 300 years here. Although the phrase "a thousand years ago" is often used to generalize, the proclamation that a series of wars that lasted ~2,5 centuries climaxed a thousand years ago appears quite precise. This would, however, mean that the phrase in "The Coming of the Rhoynar" is incorrect.

My question is, what is correct? Does this phrase mistakenly state 700 years while it was supposed to be 1000? Is the use of "a thousand years" in this case too a generlization? (meaning that the Rhoynar city-states fell 700 years ago, only ~300 years before the Doom?).

Or, does this phrase reflect the status of the rule of House Martell as it was shortly before Aegon's Landing and subsequent Conquest? The reason I wonder about this is that this phrase is used to end the section of how House Martell came to rule and is followed by a section ("Queer Customs of the South") discussing the Rhoynish and Dornish customs, not a particular part of Dornish history, with the next section ("Dorne Against the Dragons") starts off with Aegon's Conquest, 300 years before the presence. And those 300 years added to the 700 years from the earlier section fit neatly with the "thousand years" given earlier.

So is "a thousand years" in this context a general phrasing, or does it point to a specific time period of actually ~1000 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unseen Westeros are artists just doing their thing. George has okayed the project, us as well, but the art is being done with the only input being TWoIaF and the imagination of the artists. So, non-canon.

Prequel pitches are not really canon until we know what GRRMs actual contributions are, and George is the only person who's going to be able to reliably say what he did or did not contribute. So I wouldn't consider the prequels -- especially as they haven't even aired -- even semi-canon. Do not include information gleaned from comments or leaks regarding prequels into the wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is to prevent the wiki cannibalizing sales in any way of texts, and to keep people from being spoiled by plot details before they have a chance to read a book. As the excerpt is online and free, the rule does not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...thanks!

…as you can see from the "Recent Changes" tab I started a round of updates on September 28:  a few new ones like Alaric Stark, Jonquil Darke, and updating others (Jaehaerys I, White Harbor).

….however, the wiki slowed down until it ground to a halt and editing became physically impossible, so I had to stop.  I suspect because the videos continue to play even in editing mode.  Didn't have a chance to start updating a family tree template for Alaric - btw, if we know his wife was a Mormont and some description of her but not her first name, does she get her own article? And in what title format? ("Wife of Alaric Stark"? "Lady Mormont (Alaric Stark)"?

What is the relationship between Alaric and Ellard Stark?  I left the note in the article.  Did Alaric..."supersede" Ellard, and "Ellard Stark" no longer exists as a character?  And Alaric is the renamed Ellard?

You've mentioned before there were issues regarding Ellard Stark and the chronology of which Stark ruled when that had to be updated due to new developments from GRRM (line got removed from World book as a result)

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 10:44 PM, Mindset said:

Yep, up to four. :) If you like, it might be possible to even do six (three lines coming out of each side), though that might look a little crowded, and the name box would probably end up taller than usual.

Regarding notes, sure that's possible, with no CSS or anything, just regular wiki coding. It's the same as when we add the ref tag in a family tree, you can add the {{references}} section at the bottom while still in the included part of the template. But instead of adding ==Notes== to set it off, you'd just do '''Notes:''' or something with a table format like in that wikipedia tree you linked. And to make sure it stays separate from the other references or notes on the page that the tree might be transcluded into, you'd do <ref group="T">note</ref> and {{references|group="T"}} or something like that. You can see an example of how it could look at the top of my sandbox.

Though I'm not sure what would happen if two separate family trees with notes were included on the same page (like for ancestors and descendants), it might duplicate the notes from each tree? But I think they're rare enough that that wouldn't happen.

But if you do want to do fun things with CSS and family trees, it would be really easy to put a border around a family tree (and its notes), like in that wikipedia example, or set it off with a different color background, add that v*t*e and hide, anything you like...

To come back to this, I've used this method in this and this template. Any feedback on the layout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think an entry for an unnamed Lady Stark of House Mormont is necessary. Note that his wife was a Mormont in his entry, note that Lord Alaric's wife was a Mormont in the House Mormont section, and that should be enough (obviously if the sons get names their entries should mention their mother being of House Mormont).

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides being Lord of White Harbor, should it be assumed that Theomore also held the other titles claimed by Wyman (Warden of the White Knife, Shield of the Faith, etc.)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems probable enough that such styles are hereditary that I would include them, until we learn otherwise. Certainly, some of those styles, at least, are simply given by the Manderlys to themselves. Only the Warden of the White Knife might be something that is granted by someone else (the Starks) and it seems pretty obvious why the Manderlys would hold such a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cerwyns, Hornwoods, Mormonts, and Ryswells are included in "Category:Houses of First Men origin". Should they be removed from that category since we don't know when they were founded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nittanian said:

The Cerwyns, Hornwoods, Mormonts, and Ryswells are included in "Category:Houses of First Men origin". Should they be removed from that category since we don't know when they were founded?

They are northern houses of who unlike for instance the Manderly's it is not said they came from somewhere else so it is doubtful that they are anything other then First men and in the case of the Cerwyns and the Hornwoods there lands and castle's have the same name as them indicating that they are they original owners and not a later house. The Cerwyns also live so close to Winterfell that it is doubtful that they are a new house of different origin, the Ryswells seem to be they successors/heirs to house Ryder who where certainly First men. The Mormont's seem to have been in the service of house Stark before they where made Lords so i doubt there origin is any other then First Men.

So in short i would leave them in the category

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they most likely were founded by First Men (especially the Hornwoods), but I think we should be cautious about including them in the category without a source. @Ran, would you happen to know more about them?

Also, http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Entry/House_Ryswell/ mentions Rodrik's quarrelsome cousins. This matches the appendices of AFFC and ADWD ("ROGER RYSWELL, RICKARD RYSWELL, ROOSE RYSWELL, his quarrelsome cousins and bannermen"), but contradicts ADWD Reek II ("A column of riders came wheeling up behind them, led by a lordling with a horsehead on his shield. One of Lord Ryswell's sons, Reek knew. Roger, or maybe Rickard. He could not tell the two of them apart.") and ADWD Reek III ("Barbrey Dustin is my second wife's younger sister, Rodrik Ryswell's daughter, sister to Roger, Rickard, and mine own namesake, Roose, cousin to the other Ryswells."). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking over the Volantis political party articles and hope we can get some clarification.

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Elephants_(Volantis)

What is the distinction, if any, between "freeborn landholders" in Volantis, and those of the Old Blood, who can trace their ancestry back to Valyria?  Do the Elephants differ from the Tigers on this?

Quotes from A Dance With Dragons:

Quote

"After the Doom it pleased the Volantenes to consider themselves the heirs of the Freehold and rightful rulers of the world, but they were divided as to how dominion might best be achieved. The Old Blood favored the sword, while the merchants and moneylenders advocated trade. As they contended for rule of the city, the factions became known as the tigers and elephants, respectively.
 

Quote

"The triarchs are neither kings nor princes. Volantis is a freehold, like Valyria of old. All freeborn landholders share the rule. Even women are allowed to vote, provided they own land. The three triarchs are chosen from amongst those noble families who can prove unbroken descent from old Valyria, to serve until the first day of the new year. And you would know all this if you had troubled to read the book that Maester Kedry gave you." 

The first quote actually seems to imply that "the Old Blood" consists ONLY of the Tigers (the pro-war faction), while "the merchants and moneylenders" ARE SEPARATE from "The Old Blood" (the Elephant party, who advocate trade).  

The second quote, however, seems to indicate that while all "freeborn landholders" can VOTE, ONLY those of the Old Blood can run for triarchy - in EITHER party.  And thus the Elephant candidates must by definition ALSO be "Old Blood" families, albeit those who favor trade.

The two quotes contradict each other.  

So...are the Elephants Old Blood or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: profile of GRRM in New York Times Style Magazine, mentioning Westeros.org:  I realize some of you live in Europe, but I actually live in the NYC area and I get the New York Times, so I have a physical copy of that.  The whole thing is free to read online anyway, but would you like a digital scan of it for the archives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of you to offer, but no need for my part.

As to the Old Blood and the elephants, I would assume that while the initial faction lines might be seen as broadly landholders vs. merchants, I think it probable that there are Old Blood who are _primarily_ landholders with little mercantile interests, and Old Blood who have substantial mercantile interests, and these likely divided up between the Tigers and the Elephants. So I expect there are members of the Old Blood in both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

As to the Old Blood and the elephants, I would assume that while the initial faction lines might be seen as broadly landholders vs. merchants, I think it probable that there are Old Blood who are _primarily_ landholders with little mercantile interests, and Old Blood who have substantial mercantile interests, and these likely divided up between the Tigers and the Elephants. So I expect there are members of the Old Blood in both parties.

I'll work on adding that in.

I do think the contradiction of these two quotes is so drastic that it might be worth adding this to the official "list of things to double-check with GRRM", whenever that comes up again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Not least because the first quote is discussing the situation at the Doom, when the Old Blood were likely pretty exclusively tigers and so led Volantis into conquest and war. You have to pair this up with the rest of the talk of the ruinous cost of the wars, its ultimate failure, and the rise of the elephants, who would have made inroads among the Old Blood in the wake of the setback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×