Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I've been wondering the same thing myself while working on creating wiki pages for the streets in King's Landing. The north is not indicated in the KL map from The Lands of Ice and Fire, only in the ACOK map. I used this information to describe the locations of the streets. Should it be changed then ?

I realized it when reading this:

Quote

 

Lord Borros led his knights up the hill from the west, whilst Ser Perkin and his gutter knights climbed the steeper southern slope from Flea Bottom.

the broad cobbled thoroughfare that ran eastward from Cobbler’s Square up to the Dragonpit.

 

Given ACOK described Shae lived at the northeast corner, I'd say GRRM forgot the map direction almost right from the beginning. I don't know if there is any case that the text matches the ACOK map direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think Gaemon, Essie and Sylvenna Sand didn't work in the House of Kisses.

Quote

In a brothel on the Street of Silk, the whores raised up their own king, a pale-haired boy of four named Gaemon, supposedly a bastard of the missing King Aegon II.

House of Kisses is on Visenya's Hill, whereas Street of Silk on Rhaenys' Hill.

While it's likely an error, there is no need to correct it. It's easy to image, with the Shepherd's riot in Rhaenys' Hill, Gaemon's followers moved to Visenya's Hill instead. We can just assume there're two different brothels, and change corresponding wiki entries instead.

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I found an inconsistency in Fire & Blood. I'd like to have your inputs on the situation guys. Thanks.

Quote

The baseborn Alyn of Hull, now Alyn Velaryon, had been the Sea Snake’s chosen heir, but his succession was not uncontested. It will be recalled that in the time of King Viserys, a nephew of Lord Corlys, Ser Vaemond Velaryon, had put himself forward as the true heir to Driftmark. This rebellion cost him his head, but he left a wife and sons behind. Ser Vaemond had been the son of the elder of the Sea Snake’s brothers. Five other nephews, sired by another brother, had claims as well. When they took their case before the sick and failing Viserys, they made the grievous mistake of questioning the legitimacy of his daughter’s children. Viserys had their tongues removed for this insolence, though he let them keep their heads. Three of the “silent five” had died during the Dance, fighting for Aegon II against Rhaenyra…but two survived, together with Ser Vaemond’s sons, and all came forward now, insisting that they had more right to Driftmark than “this bastard of Hull, whose mother was a mouse.”

Ser Vaemond’s sons Daemion and Daeron took their claim to the council in King’s Landing. When the Hand and the regents ruled against them, they wisely chose to accept the decision and be reconciled with Lord Alyn, who rewarded them with lands on Driftmark on the condition that they contribute ships to his fleet. Their silent cousins chose a different course. “Lacking tongues with which to make their appeal, they preferred to argue with swords,” says Mushroom. However, the plot to murder their young lord went awry when the guards at Castle Driftmark proved loyal to the Sea Snake’s memory and his chosen heir. Ser Malentine was slain during the attempt; his brother captured. Condemned to death, Ser Rhogar saved his head by taking the black.

Fire and Blood, Under the Regents - The Hooded Hand

It seems to me from this quote that only Malentine, Rhogar and their 3 unnamed brothers got their tongues removed and became known thereafter as the "silent five".

But earlier in the book, we learn that Vaemond's two sons, Daeron and Daemion, and his widow were also present when Viserys ordered the tongue removal.

Quote

Ser Vaemond’s younger cousins fled to King’s Landing with his wife and sons, there to cry for justice and place their claims before the king and queen. King Viserys had grown extremely fat and red of face, and scarce had the strength to mount the steps to the Iron Throne. His Grace heard them out in a stony silence, then ordered their tongues removed, every one. “You were warned,” he declared, as they were being dragged away. “I will hear no more of these lies.”

Fire and Blood, Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession

So were Daeron, Daemion and their mother present at King's Landing or not ? Did they got their tongue removed or not ?

Using the "silent five" to refer to the tongueless Velaryons doesn't really make sense, if eight people actually got their tongue removed.

Share this post


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

So were Daeron, Daemion and their mother present at King's Landing or not ? Did they got their tongue removed or not ?

Using the "silent five" to refer to the tongueless Velaryons doesn't really make sense, if eight people actually got their tongue removed.

I guess, Daeron and Daemion were just not harmed. Maybe because they were still young or maybe because they did not speak at all. I guess there could be a few reasons, so not necessarily an inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly right, and was the intention -- Vaemond's cousins are the five who actually went before Viserys and argued their rights, and had their tongues removed. Vaemond's wife and sons were unharmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A few possible mistakes about the sigils in westeros citadel and wiki.

  • Slynt. In AGOT Sansa V, it's "a bloody spear, gold on a night-black field". But later GRRM told Elio it's "A bloody spear, gold on black, with a border of checkered gold and black", as seen in the citadel. It seems GRRM changed his mind, or Sansa didn't give a full description. 
  • Kettleblack. GRRM described it as "A black kettle on red, a border of orles". Orle means border in heraldry, so there's no such thing as "a border of orles". It's seems like the case of "cheron", GRRM messed the use of "orle" too. (We only see this sole use of "orle" in all GRRM's description of sigils.) The wiki explained it as "a black orle", whereas the Citadel explained it as "an orle of roundels". Likely the Citadel version is correct.

  • Stane. GRRM described it as "A driftwood tree, bare and brown, on pale green". Both the Citadel and the wiki seem to got "driftwood tree" wrong.

  • Bridges. GRRM described it as ”A black stone bridge with three arches upon a golden chief above three blue pallets on white“. So the Citadel version is incorrect, whereas the wiki version correct.

  • Westbrook. GRRM described it as ”Two green bars gemmel on gold.“ A bar gemmel means two bars in a pair. So the Citadel version is incorrect, whereas the wiki version correct.

  • GRRM said the Westeros heraldric sea horse is a real sea horse, not the heraldic half-horse-half-fish seahorse in our world. And claimed "have you ever seen a heraldic 'seahorse?' Heralds didn't know crap about biology." That makes me wonder, is the sea lion on Manning sigil also intended to be a real sea lion?

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zionius said:
  • GRRM said the Westeros heraldric sea horse is a real sea horse, not the heraldic half-horse-half-fish seahorse in our world. And claimed "have you ever seen a heraldic 'seahorse?' Heralds didn't know crap about biology." That makes me wonder, is the sea lion on Manning sigil also intended to be a real sea lion?

GRRM explains why Dany's dragons (which appear in the story) have two wings and two legs on the cover. I wouldn't necessarily assume that a "realistic" approach is the same for all heraldry. House Brax, for instance, uses a horse-inspired unicorn for their sigil ("[Flement's] shield bore a unicorn sigil, and a spiral horn two feet long jutted up from the brow of his horsehead helm") in AGOT, but in-story unicorns appear to be shaggy, monstrous, and closer to goats than horses according to ADWD and TWOIAF. @Ran, do you recall if the Velaryon seahorse / Manning sea lion are supposed to be actual animals or heraldic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

do you recall if the Velaryon seahorse / Manning sea lion are supposed to be actual animals or heraldic?

The Velaryon seahorse is a real animal. (lol, you replied in that thread too, and was the one who changed the wiki sigil, haha) Since Manning sigil on Citadel is a heraldic one, I guess Ran didn't receive specific instructions on that sigil, or was asked to make a heraldic one.

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zionius said:

The Velaryon seahorse is a real animal. (lol, you replied in that thread too, and was the one who changed the wiki sigil, haha) Since Manning sigil on Citadel is a heraldic one, I guess Ran didn't receive specific instructions on that sigil, or was asked to make a heraldic one.

I thought I had remembered that being the case, but I wasn't able to find Ran's reply in a search this morning. Interestingly, the Green Ronin campaign guide uses a heraldic seahorse for the Velaryons (and doesn't depict the Mannings). This Fantasy Flight Games art uses the heraldic seahorse as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should discuss if The Sons of the Dragon, The Rogue Prince and The Princess and the Queen are still appropriate sources for information on the wiki. As far as I know, all of these are earlier drafts of the text in Fire and Blood, so the latter should trump them when there are differences. This applies to the death of Jon Piper, the rumour of Daemon's and Alicent's sexual interaction, the existence of Maester Hunnimore or Ser Raymont Baratheon and some more. I would even go so far and propose not to use them anymore except for pointing out changes on the errata pages or for similar purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Maybe we should discuss if The Sons of the Dragon, The Rogue Prince and The Princess and the Queen are still appropriate sources for information on the wiki. As far as I know, all of these are earlier drafts of the text in Fire and Blood, so the latter should trump them when there are differences. This applies to the death of Jon Piper, the rumour of Daemon's and Alicent's sexual interaction, the existence of Maester Hunnimore or Ser Raymont Baratheon and some more. I would even go so far and propose not to use them anymore except for pointing out changes on the errata pages or for similar purposes.

I agree, FAB should supersede them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, a list of the changes is on the wiki errata page.

@Ran Could you comment on the Daemon deflowering Alicent Hightower issue? GRRM deleted it (like the case of Raymont Baratheon), or added it later, and mistakenly the added info didn't enter into F&B (like the case of Sunspear not burnt by Aegon).

Share this post


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

FYI, a list of the changes is on the wiki errata page.

@Ran Could you comment on the Daemon deflowering Alicent Hightower issue? GRRM deleted it (like the case of Raymont Baratheon), or added it later, and mistakenly the added info didn't enter into F&B (like the case of Sunspear not burnt by Aegon).

Deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zionius

You say that 'The year continued without further crisis or test as Jaehaerys and Alysanne settled in to rule' is an error because there was an attack on Alysanne at the end of 51 AC. But can we be sure the attack took place in 51 at all? Jaehaerys declared his plans of a royal progress late in 51. We do not know the month and we do not know how much time it took him to start the progress and to get to Maidenpool. So I think it is possible the incident took place early in 52 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 8:39 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Ser Gyles Belgrave, Ser Julian Wormwood, and Ser Titus Peake still need to be added to the list of Greens.

Also, for the Battle of the Red Fork, it should say the Greens had 1K knights and 7K crossbowmen/men-at-arms since that's how many men Lord Jason raised and there were no battles involving the Westermen prior to that point. By extension, we can say Lords Vances and Piper had less than 8000 and that at Acorn Hall + Fishfeed the Lannisters had less than 8K due to prior casaulties. 

Oh, and depending on how many casaulties he took during the Moon of Three Kings + Subduing the Crownlands maybe the page on the Muddy Mess should list House Baratheon's strength as 4K foot and 600 knights or less than that?

Shouldn't Lord Derrick Darry be added to the list of casaulties at Second Tumbleton?

Finally, on the First Tumbleton page it should list the Greens as having 18000 foot and 2K knights since that's the number F & B gives us in the leadup to the battle.

@Ran

Any thoughts on the Kayce and Roger Corne conundrums?

Repeating this in case anyone forgot to make the above changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@zionius

You say that 'The year continued without further crisis or test as Jaehaerys and Alysanne settled in to rule' is an error because there was an attack on Alysanne at the end of 51 AC. But can we be sure the attack took place in 51 at all? Jaehaerys declared his plans of a royal progress late in 51. We do not know the month and we do not know how much time it took him to start the progress and to get to Maidenpool. So I think it is possible the incident took place early in 52 AC.

Quote

Not long after Jaehaerys and Alysanne returned from Maidenpool and the queen took to her bedchamber, tidings of the most wondrous and unexpected sort came forth from Storm’s End. Queen Alyssa was with child. At forty-four years of age, the Dowager Queen had been thought to be well beyond her childbearing years...But the child, when he came early the following year, would prove to be robust and healthy...King Jaehaerys finally made his progress through the Vale of Arryn in 52 AC

 

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zionius

Since Jaehaerys and Alysanne learned about their mother's pregnancy the year before Boremund's birth (52 AC), they must have returned in 51 AC indeed. 

But there might be a problem though. Jaehaerys announced his plans of a progress late in 51 AC and it surely took some time to start the thing and to get to Maidenpool and back. I am not entirely sure about the meaning of 'late in', but I would guess it defines a point in the last three months (I do not know if there are any examples in the book) and not more than the last four ones for sure. So I think Jaehaerys announced his plans no earlier than in the tenth month, started his progress two weeks later (maybe even just one week later) and then he travelled for around a month (he wanted to see a lot of places and the two weeks he wanted to stay in Maidenpool show that he stayed some time at least in the major castles and towns). So in the end he would have returned at the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth month. I see no way he learned about his mother's pregnancy at that point (and I guess the message was sent immediately after they noticed Alyssa was pregnant) and Boremund could have been born early in 52 AC.

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

×