Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

Issue 305 was published in February 2003, with a March cover date. We posted about it here.

 

 

Share this post


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

Prentys Tully is stated to have fought at the God's Eye in 43 AC, but I can not find any evidence for that. Although a Lord Tully is mentioned, we do not learn his given name. 

You are right. There was a Lord Tully who fought in that battle for Maegor but his name is never stated and Prentys is never connected to the battle in the text. This Lord Tully could be Prentys or a predesssor, we simply don't know. That being said, Prentys, his wife Lucinda and his sister-in-law Ella are all three noted to be pious, which gives me pause to the idea of Prentys supporting Maegor the Cruel (yes this battle was against Maegor's nephew and not directly against the Faith but still).

I suggest we change Prentys's page by saying something like "a Lord Tully, who may or may not have been Prentys, fought ...".

Share this post


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

You are right. There was a Lord Tully who fought in that battle for Maegor but his name is never stated and Prentys is never connected to the battle in the text. This Lord Tully could be Prentys or a predesssor, we simply don't know. That being said, Prentys, his wife Lucinda and his sister-in-law Ella are all three noted to be pious, which gives me pause to the idea of Prentys supporting Maegor the Cruel (yes this battle was against Maegor's nephew and not directly against the Faith but still).

I suggest we change Prentys's page by saying something like "a Lord Tully, who may or may not have been Prentys, fought ...".

Besides, it would have been odd if Jaehaerys had trusted one of the guys who played a significant role in his brother's downfall, so I doubt it was Prentys, as well. 

I would remove the entire part from Prentys's entry and raise the uncertainty at House Tully's page.

Share this post


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

I would remove the entire part from Prentys's entry and raise the uncertainty at House Tully's page.

I agree. (Unless, of course, Prentys is stated to have ruled Riverrun before 43 AC, in which case we know he rules Rivwrrun 43 AC).

And on the House Tully page, it should simply say "Lord Tully", without speculation on which Tully this might have been.

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rhaenys_Targaryen We should reconsider the date of Doom on the wiki. Is it 114 BC or 102 BC?

Quote

Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria (114 BC), Aenar Targaryen sold his holdings in the Freehold and the Lands of the Long Summer and moved with all his wives, wealth, slaves, dragons, siblings, kin, and children to Dragonstone

It all depends on how you interpret "Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria (114 BC)", whether the "(114 BC)" refers to "Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria" or "Doom of Valyria".

I asked several Americans, all agreed with 102 BC. @Werthead also used 102 BC in his blog. Also, before the world book, a RPG book with source from GRRM said the Doom was a hundred years before Conquest. Conquest started in 2 BC, exactly fit 102 BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, zionius said:

@Rhaenys_Targaryen We should reconsider the date of Doom on the wiki. Is it 114 BC or 102 BC?

It all depends on how you interpret "Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria (114 BC)", whether the "(114 BC)" refers to "Twelve years before the Doom of Valyria" or "Doom of Valyria".

I asked several Americans, all agreed with 102 BC. @Werthead also used 102 BC in his blog. Also, before the world book, a RPG book with source from GRRM said the Doom was a hundred years before Conquest. Conquest started in 2 BC, exactly fit 102 BC.

I agree with you @zionius the wording in this sentence is ambiguous. Maybe @Ran can help with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The normal convention for such things is that when you put in a date, you are referencing the time period you're discussing. In this case, it's in reference to the date 12 years before the Doom being 114 BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ran said:

The normal convention for such things is that when you put in a date, you are referencing the time period you're discussing. In this case, it's in reference to the date 12 years before the Doom being 114 BC.

Thank you for clarifying! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that information from SIFRP has been working its way into the wiki as canonical, for example the location of Harvest Hall which apparently is drawn from the Campaign Guide. From knowledge that I have about it, the SIFRP guide is not canon and not even what we would consider semi-canon as none of the "new" details are actually from GRRM. The books at that stage received general rather than specific approvals from George, and pretty much all new info in them came from their writers rather than George.

I think it's fine to note something like "The SIFRP campaign guide claims X", so long as the actual Canon article notes that the SIFRP is on the same level as something like the Telltale game in terms of canonicity (i.e. not at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran I seem to remember you once stated one of the guides can be considered semi-canon. Was it not this one? It clearly contains some information that must have come from GRRM like Robert slaying Lord Grafton or Rhaenyra's three sons with Lyonel Strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green Ronin's guide did draw a little new info from GoO's that I put there when I worked on GoO's game. GoO's game  guide is "semi-canon" because I can vouch for the fact that some of the details came from GRRM (although some are now out of date!), but to my knowledge GR's game was dependent on details from GoO or was just stuff being made up for the purposes of the game. In particular, geographical information that is unique to GR's games can't be marked as canonical in any way because GRRM is not their ultimate source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

I just had a look on the GoO guide and it says:

Lord Darry ruled the House, but Ser Gregor Clegane kills both him and his heir Ser Raymun at Mummer’s Ford at the Red Fork of the Trident. Ser Raymun’s eight- or nine-year- old son succeeds to the lordship of the House.

This is really interesting because some people did assume there had been another Lord Darry ("Ser Raymun Darry, Lord Darry, young Lord Darry"). Anyway, in AGOT Raymun is described as lord of Castle Darry, although he is always called Ser (you could explain this with the possible reduction of the house after the Rebellion).

Share this post


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

Where is it stated thar the Lord Vance Lord Smallwood is fighting with, is Lord Karyl Vance?

I think you found an error in the wiki because the text do not specify if the Lord Vance in question is Karyl of Wayfarer's Rest or Norbert of Atranta.

Quote

It was a long day's ride, but as dusk was settling they forded a brook and came up on Acorn Hall, with its stone curtain walls and great oaken keep. Its master was away fighting in the retinue of his master, Lord Vance, the castle gates closed and barred in his absence.
ASOS, Arya IV

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

×