Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

@Nittanian

He doesn't use the word "siege" but the order of events makes it clear that's what happened.

Lord Staunton bars his gates and when he runs low on supplies calls for aid. The "battle" was between dragons only and that would be included as part of the siege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran This may be related to the possible PHP errors mentioned upthread, but some articles are refusing to be added to new categories. Found a possible solution here, which suggests to run the rebuildall.php maintenance script. Another support thread suggested there may be an error in one of the extensions. preventing the article from being added to the category database, and said additional error logs would help to track such issues,. Though probably the simpler solution ought to be tested first...

Share this post


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

@Ran This may be related to the possible PHP errors mentioned upthread, but some articles are refusing to be added to new categories. Found a possible solution here, which suggests to run the rebuildall.php maintenance script. Another support thread suggested there may be an error in one of the extensions. preventing the article from being added to the category database, and said additional error logs would help to track such issues,. Though probably the simpler solution ought to be tested first...

Thanks for that. Will look into those possibilities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Nittanian

He doesn't use the word "siege" but the order of events makes it clear that's what happened.

Lord Staunton bars his gates and when he runs low on supplies calls for aid. The "battle" was between dragons only and that would be included as part of the siege.

In situations where GRRM has not provided us with a formal name for a topic, I defer to the terminology which he does use since that is our source. His focus with Rook's Rest is the battle between the dragons. He also writes about the dragons being above the "field of battle" instead of just the ground, suggesting to me that soldiers were fighting (although they're not as important to Gyldayn as the mighty dragons). Since GRRM's emphasis is on the dragon battle, I think the article is okay as is, with Criston's siege being mentioned as the prelude to the historic aerial battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2020 at 4:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is indeed a chance that Saera's claim as the one from which the claim of her sons was derived was discussed - after all, the three boys or the people speaking for them would have first to establish on what grounds they were claiming the Iron Throne, meaning they had to establish they were the children of Princess Saera - but that's not enough to list Saera as a claimant in the wiki - unless you were to include a hypothetical 'who were the claimants we don't know by name' section.

Daemon's claim was indeed never discussed.

if the Great Council of 101 AC gets it own page, it should be called 'the Great Council of 101 AC' because, in-universe, that's the name it is most often referenced. It took place at Harrenhal, and that is significant, but the councils are not differentiated by the places where the lords convened. We have another Great Council at KL in 233 AC, and then informal Great Council of 136 AC also at KL - although we should not count that as a proper Great Council because it wasn't.

The fact that TWoIaF has it as a Great Council seems to be due to simplification in the editing process.

I finally got time to do a thorough re-read of FaB: Heirs of the Dragon:

The key point for me is that it states that Archmaester Vaegon was among the 14 claims that the council considered - even though, as a matter of public knowledge, Vaegon apparently never actually "pressed" his claim.  Indeed, they considered Vaegon among the final five candidates - it's not small mattr that he was Jaehaerys's son and could potentially just renounce his vows.  But there's no mention that Vaegon ever publicly pushed his claim.  Leading me to think the council considered all potential candidates.

I think it should be called "Great Council of Harrenhal" to catch more results from a general audience.  That's my library school training kicking in: "Access Points" - WE know what to look for, but casual readers googling terms don't even know what they're looking for.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I finally got time to do a thorough re-read of FaB: Heirs of the Dragon:

The key point for me is that it states that Archmaester Vaegon was among the 14 claims that the council considered - even though, as a matter of public knowledge, Vaegon apparently never actually "pressed" his claim.  Indeed, they considered Vaegon among the final five candidates - it's not small mattr that he was Jaehaerys's son and could potentially just renounce his vows.  But there's no mention that Vaegon ever publicly pushed his claim.  Leading me to think the council considered all potential candidates.

I don't think so, for the following reasons:

The issue the Great Council had to deal with was, at heart, the problem whether primogeniture or proximity was the way to go if a direct heir, i.e. an eldest son, predeceased a king. There is also the gender issue intertwined with that, but the decision Jaehaerys I made in 92 AC was to favor his second surviving son over the descendants of his eldest surviving son.

This created another precedent in favor of a king's son coming before a king's grandchild - which was also the outcome after Maegor's downfall (Aerea vs. Jaehaerys) and, in a sense, even when Maegor usurped the throne after Aenys' death (although Aegon the Uncrowned definitely as the son of a king) - and it is hinted at that Jaehaerys I himself actually would have preferred to continue going through his sons and make Vaegon the next king rather than hand the Iron Throne to Viserys or Rhaenys or her children.

We do have talk that the Old King may have offered Vaegon the throne prior to the Great Council, after all. If this is true - and it is not confirmed, although we do know they talked about things and Vaegon apparently suggested the Great Council - then Vaegon's claim got a huge boost simply because his father had seriously considered him as his new heir.

And that, in turn, would mean that the assembled lords considered his claim as well.

Vaegon Targaryen represents an independent branch, and the closest male branch to the Old King. In 101 AC he is the king's only living son. Viserys and Rhaenys are both just grandchildren. Thus he had to be considered.

Daemon's claim clearly is weaker than Viserys' since he is the younger brother, whereas Laena being considered in addition to Laenor makes sense if you remember that she was Laenor's elder sibling and that the Velaryon claim as such goes through a woman, Rhaenys. If a woman can transfer her claim to her son, Laenor, then she and Laenor's elder sister Laena also have claims which have to be considered.

I'm not saying they could not have considered Daemon's claim - they may have - but if they did then the author failed to mention it and it may have turned out that they simply never got to Daemon.

I mean, they would have gone through things in an ordered fashion and it seems that, like with the Kingsmoot, the more obscure claims were put forth first - the various bastards and obscure cadet branches - and one imagines that the Velaryons themselves dismissed the claims of Rhaenys and Laena to cause all their supporters to rally behind Laenor whereas Daemon being Viserys' foremost champion ensured that his own claim would not come up.

But Vaegon would likely have to be dealt with because without his vows his claim would have likely be seen as the strongest considering he was the last living son of the king. They had to deal with his claim to make the whole thing about Viserys vs. Laenor.

The whole issue of primogeniture vs. proximity comes up again and again later on. We don't yet know the details of the succession issues after Baelor's death, but in 233 AC you have basically the same thing as in 101 AC. You have a king with grandchildren from his elder sons, and the issues is whether one of them should succeed or one of the king's still living younger sons. Aemon is dismissed the way Vaegon is, but unlike in 101 AC there is fourth son around and he wins the day.

Aerys II also ends up favoring proximity over primogeniture after the Trident when he names his second son his new heir rather than his grandson. And proximity also won the day with Viserys vs. Laenor because, gender issues aside, this was also about whether a grandson of the king or a great-grandson of the king should come first. Those are rather important issues in succession struggles where you have no clear law of succession settling everything.

You even see that reflected in the UK right now with Prince William's children not being entitled to the style of 'prince/royal highness' - the queen had to issue letters patent for that because normally only the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to this.

For Westeros, you can say that people aren't that much obsessed with a more modern 'primogeniture trumps everything' setting. The eldest son following his father is the ideal, of course, but if that doesn't fly then people still prefer a son as their heir instead of a grandchild - especially but not only if that grandchild is female. And when you are down to only grandchildren - because your sons are all dead or otherwise not eligible/willing to inherit - then you also tend to favor grandchildren over great-grandchildren because the latter are too far removed from the main branch.

This has to do both with the fact that fathers are usually closer to their sons than their (great-)grandchildren, the fact that even younger children of a king are raised as princes and princesses and thus acquire all the hangers-on and connections and power that come with such a privileged life, and the fact that the (great-)grandchildren usually are much younger than the elder generation when a monarch dies, and that the younger children are often not raised at court directly but in other castles, etc.

The reason why Aerys I decided to name Princess Aelora Heir Apparent after Aelor's death most likely has also to do with the fact that she was living at court whereas Prince Maekar had his own seat at Summerhall and was not part, one assumes at this point, of the royal court and government.

5 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

I think it should be called "Great Council of Harrenhal" to catch more results from a general audience.  That's my library school training kicking in: "Access Points" - WE know what to look for, but casual readers googling terms don't even know what they're looking for.

My take would be that the wiki should go with how an event is mostly referred to in the source material. And there it is always 'the Great Council (of 101 AC)'. The term 'the Great Council of Harrenhal' is never actually mentioned, unless I'm mistaken. In that sense that would be creating a new term which isn't something the wiki should be doing in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a good idea for the main article to leave the last 3 candidates as "unknown" - instead I did the formal thing by splitting it off into its own theory page. This is my first stab at writing it:  https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Great_Council_of_Harrenhal/Theories 

I don't know if there will be more than one theory about the council - on other stuff like "Why did the Starks support Laenor?"

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


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

My take would be that the wiki should go with how an event is mostly referred to in the source material. And there it is always 'the Great Council (of 101 AC)'. The term 'the Great Council of Harrenhal' is never actually mentioned, unless I'm mistaken. In that sense that would be creating a new term which isn't something the wiki should be doing in my opinion.

I agree; I count nine usages of "Great Council of 101", one usage of "Great Council of 101 AC", and one usage of "Great Council in 101" within F&B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

I agree; I count nine usages of "Great Council of 101", one usage of "Great Council of 101 AC", and one usage of "Great Council in 101" within F&B.

Same here, Great Council of 101 should be the title of the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory page states: 

This broadly leaves two possibilities: either there were three minor claimants that Martin never developed, or other living Targaryens were considered as "claims", even if they didn't wish to press their claims. There were, in fact, exactly three other living characters at this point of known Targaryen descent:

Then it lists Daemon, Saera and Rhaella. 

Since Rhaella is not known to be alive at that point, the wording should be changed. And actually there was another Targaryen: Even if one discounts Aemma Arryn, Rhaenyra had already been born. In my opinion it makes no sense at all her claim was considered, but same goes for Daemon's. So either both should be mentioned or none of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I moved the page back to "Great Council of 101 AC" as per request

...and I rewrote Theory page: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Great_Council_of_101_AC/Theories

I'm not as confident about it anymore, and this is at the top of the list of "Things we would ask GRRM about given the chance" during the leadup to House of the Dragon Season 1.  

I used to be a strong proponent of Rhaella but I just plain did not think this through: Martin probably hadn't even thought of her future life when he wrote the Rogue Prince.  Rhaenyra would have been folded in to Viserys's claim (thinking of succession as...extending downstream until you hit a male heir).  

So IF - big IF -  he even intended specific characters for the missing three candidates, they might have just been "Jaehaerys's remaining daughter and 2 remaining grandchildren" - Saera, Daemon, and Aemma.  Based purely on the fact that the council considered Archmaester Vaegon a claimant despite him never pressing it.  

Now I'm not really sure what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Dragon Demands

I think there were two kinds of claims. The ones that were put forward by the claimant himself and the ones that were considered by the council, although the person in question did not press it. The six lesser claims we know about were put forward by the claimants themselves, which makes sense, because otherwise they would not have been considered at all. So I assume the council only considered claims without claimant when there was a good reason to do so. Otherwise there would have been way more than fourteen claims to be discussed. Vaegon was considered because he was the king's only living son, Rhaenys because she was the eldest grandchild and only child of the former heir, Laena because she was the eldest great-grandchild of the king and eldest grandchild of the former heir. It makes sense to discuss these claims even when the persons themselves do not compete. It makes no sense to consider Daemon, Aemma or Rhaenyra. There is nothing in favour of them. I give you that Saera's claim might have been considered, though. She would have been the king's only living child, not bound by any vows and they had to deal with her claim anyway because they had to consider her sons. I am not sure though, since it might have been an affront to consider her in front of the king who was in denial of her. So I believe at least two (and most likely three) of the missing claims were about nobodies who just wanted to get their five minutes of fame. The man at arms, the hedge knight and even the descendant of Gaemon the Glorious tell you what it needed to get considered. I would not be surprised if there had been a kitchen maid who thought she had a claim because she once served the king his favourite dish. Rhaella's name should have been mentioned, if she or her claim had played a role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short I'm admitting failure: attempts to rationally figure out the three minor claims have ended in frustration.

On the plus side this did encourage me to do the thorough re-read of "Heirs of the Dragon" which I've been putting off for weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, George really dropped the ball there by inventing three sons of Saera's as claimants when they cannot be more than 10-13 at that time - which makes the whole thing look very weird. This is also a plot that goes nowhere - those three bastards and other children of Saera's could have been brought back for the Dance or other events during the reign of Viserys I. If they were interested enough in Westeros to show up for the Great Council, they could have stayed there or returned later for some reason.

There should have been descendants of Aerea/Rhaella around, and there should have been at least one acknowledged and/or legitimized bastard branch of House Targaryen for this Great Council thing. That could have created more real controversy. The same goes for Jaehaerys I having more grandchildren.

I also like those alleged/self-proclaimed bastards and obscure pre-Conquest relations, but there was more than enough time and opportunity for the Targaryens to multiply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings all!...and Happy Holidays!!

Does anyone know how to create an account in a WikiOIAF? 

I have posted more than 5 times now and I don't know what is supposed to happen next to create my account.

Any assistance would be much appreciative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the wiki uses the same format as Wikipedia articles (duh!), I thought it would be a good idea put in parenthesis the age of characters at the moment of their death (when we know it) just like Wikipedia does for article about real people.

So far I've only indicate it for characters whose age at death is clearly stated in the text. Those characters are: Lyman Beesbury (80), Corlys Velaryon (79), Pycelle (84), Jaehaerys I Targaryen (69), Alysanne Targaryen (64), Little Walder Frey (9), Gaemon Palehair (9), Jasper Waynwood (3), Lyanna Stark (16), Aemon Targaryen (son of Jaehaerys I) (37), Viserys I Targaryen (52), Aegon III Targaryen (36), Aegon IV Targaryen (49), Rhaenys Targaryen (daughter of Aemon) (55), Aenys I Targaryen (35), Aegon I Targaryen (64), Viserys Targaryen (son of Aenys I) (15), High Septon (Aenys I) (53), Garth VII Gardener (93), Garth X Gardener (96), Maester Aemon (102), Osric Stark (70), Qhored I Hoare (90) Harwyn Hoare (64), Daemon Velaryon (son of Aethan) (88), and Laena Velaryon (27 as she was born in late 92 AC and died in early 120 AC).

Did I miss someone ? Would it be appropriate to add characters for which there is only two possible ages too ? For example, Eddard Stark was born in 263 AC and died in 299 AC, this makes him either 35 or 36 years old when he died depending on whether or not his nameday had already occurred (probably not in his case as he died early in 299 AC).

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...