Could Lightbringer be the Night's Watch?

[Know Face Man]

I like the idea that the vows could have changed over the years. But i still don't think the NW is Lightbringer.

The fact that there have been such good points made for Lightbringer being the NW has open my mind up to the idea. I just feel that it is still a Sword.

Does it mention anywhere in the books that Lightbringer is or could be anything other then a sword?

Could Lightbringer be a Sword, Drangons, and the Nights Watch.

The Dragon has 3 heads, Lightbringer could mean 3 things aswell.

[kissdbyfire]

I like the idea that the vows could have changed over the years. But i still don't think the NW is Lightbringer.

The fact that there have been such good points made for Lightbringer being the NW has open my mind up to the idea. I just feel that it is still a Sword.

Does it mention anywhere in the books that Lightbringer is or could be anything other then a sword?

As in the possibility of it not being a sword being literally talked about? As far as I remember, no.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I like the idea that the vows could have changed over the years. But i still don't think the NW is Lightbringer.

The fact that there have been such good points made for Lightbringer being the NW has open my mind up to the idea. I just feel that it is still a Sword.

Does it mention anywhere in the books that Lightbringer is or could be anything other then a sword?

It's described as a sword, yes. But when you have other things in the story that are also described as swords in a metaphorical sense — including the Night's Watch and even Dany's damn dragons, if you want to go there — I don't think you can take for granted that it's an actual sword. Just like the "bleeding star," if it was the comet, was not actually bleeding and was not actually a star. Tyrion is not a literal lion, Victarion is not an actual kraken, Sansa didn't literally have serpents on her head, etc. Other prophecies, including aspects of the Azor Ahai prophecy, have come about figuratively, not literally. In that sense, I think people should be open to the possibility that we're not dealing with an actual sword.

As in the possibility of it not being a sword being literally talked about? As far as I remember, no.

All the more reason to think that it isn't an actual sword. I'm not kidding. :D

[Val the Wildling Princess]

I love the theory. I'm also on team "lightbringer is not a real sword" :D and assuming Jon is AA I also thought that the Watch is his Lightbringer, but haven't realized that the vows of the NW could fit like they do here. Awesome!

[Know Face Man]

The Nights Watch could be the first Lightbringer having been formed about the time of the Long Night.

Lightbringer the Sword could be the second, a weapon made to help/aid the NW against the Others.

The Dragons being the 3rd, haven't yet seen them fight the Others but i think they could do a pretty good job

Dragon has 3 heads

[kissdbyfire]

Azor Ahai means Night's Watch in Asshai'i.

:-)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Azor Ahai means Night's Watch in Asshai'i.

:-)

I wish I knew what that name meant, seriously. I remember a few months ago, people were trying to figure it out. I wonder if Martin has an idea in his head as to what it means, or if it's just a gibberishy name.

[The Sunset King]

In this theory is the legend of Azor Ahai and the Lightbringer connected with the Valyrian notion of the PTWP or are the two entirely separate?

Would it be correct to characterize this theory as deeming the legend as not being truly prophetic or a vision of the future? In other words, the entire notion of Azor Ahai coming again and drawing a weapon from the fire is a description of how the Night's Watch and its LC continously renew the fight for the dawn. There would thus not really be any need for the writers of the myth to actually have foreseen a predestined future set of events. It definitely looked like this was meant in the first post but just wanted to check for sure.

One interesting thing about this theory is that it would remove the need for a single overarching superhero at the end to do a disproportionate amount of the work. It would also avoid the problem where prophecies have a tendency to lock in too specific and easily predictable routes that a story ends up being forced to take. The theory would further explain the reason why characters that become interested in fulfilling prophecies can't seem to make them happen in the manner which they expected.

It is possible that the legend may end up having some kind of very metaphorical, timeless nature, as in this theory, even if it is something other than the Night's Watch.

[Sevumar]

The idea is that the legend of the Long Night that Bran hears from Old Nan and the singer made its way to Asshai and got a cultural twist. Think of it like a game of telephone.

Don't you find it interesting that the Westerosi tale of the Last Hero doesn't seem to include a promise of return? Granted, our main source for the story, Old Nan, gets cut off in her telling of it, and where she leaves off, all hope is lost. The Last Hero has lost his horse, his dog, his companions on the way to find the Children of the Forest, and then when Sam speaks of him later, he's suddenly acquired a dragonsteel sword, turned the tide, and he's now slaying the Others.

What's going on here? Perhaps this is not a story about one hero. Even the name "Last Hero" suggests that there were other heroes, other claimants to that mantle.

There seem to be a lot of missing parts here. Even if the Last Hero found the Children, we're told they don't work metal. Bronze was new and surprising to them when the First Men brought it to Westeros, and steel was unknown to the First Men. It would seem that if the Last Hero found the Children, they didn't give him what he needed.

It makes sense to consider that the hero left Westeros in search of help. After all, where did this steel come from, and why did this new technology not spread if it was used to defeat the Others? We have tales of Brandon the Builder sailing west across the Sunset Sea and never returning. Maybe this is a name or an identity that is somehow associated with a hero who went abroad in search of a miracle to save his people. If this seafaring hero found a solution, or began a course of research (into spellforged steel?) that couldn't be completed in his lifetime, it's possible that he couldn't return to Westeros. Perhaps he sent someone else in his stead -- an apprentice, a relative, a good friend he met in Asshai.

If this successor to the first hero returns to Westeros with a blade of dragonsteel and the ability to kill the Others, and he leads the First Men to (an incomplete) victory in the War for the Dawn. He becomes the Last Hero of legend, and maybe these two men get merged into one persona over the course of 8000 years. The First Men did not write extensive histories. The Westerosi version of this story does not include a promise of return because they witnessed it. A departed hero left in search of a solution, and a hero returned with a magical weapon to win the war. Their story ends with a great victory.

But if you're in Asshai, all you know is that a man arrived on your shores from a far-off land in desperate need of help. The resources and knowledge of the Asshai'i would've been instrumental in helping the hero create his weapon, and the visit would end with a departure. This is where you'd expect to find a story promising the return of a long-departed hero. It perhaps explains why there is no tradition of the struggle to forge Lightbringer in Westerosi mythos. It's anybody's guess how dragons and bleeding stars fit in, but these elements seem to show up only in the Asshai'i version of the story and they seem to be imbued with special meaning in Asshai.

In short, you could have two divergent tales of one episode, each created from one continent's view of what happened.

Now imagine a game of telephone that lasts 8,000 years, travels thousands of miles and goes through millions of different people. The guy leading the Night's Watch, which describes itself as a sword that brings warmth and the "light that brings the dawn," has turned into a hero wielding a flaming sword called Lightbringer.

It seems to me that the Night's Watch would most likely have been formed after the war, while the Wall was being built or shortly after its completion. Thier vows come across as a simple formula that would be the least likely thing to change down the ages, because it is near-ritualistic in its wording and because the meaning of so many of those words has been lost. The only thing that survived intact was the recitation.

[kissdbyfire]

I wish I knew what that name meant, seriously. I remember a few months ago, people were trying to figure it out. I wonder if Martin has an idea in his head as to what it means, or if it's just a gibberishy name.

I know, right? I saw an interview with him the other day where he said he hadn't created languages (I think he was talking about Tolkien), just a few words in High Valyrian (and maybe others but none were mentioned). And he said whenever he needs a word in a certain language, he invents it. But that doesn't mean much... I mean, if he had the story for Azor Ahai from the beginning he would have a 'translation' for it, right?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

In this theory is the legend of Azor Ahai and the Lightbringer connected with the Valyrian notion of the PTWP or are the two entirely separate?

You know what, I don't know. I think it's a case where the PTWP could be the same thing, but doesn't have to be, necessarily.

Would it be correct to characterize this theory as deeming the legend as not being truly prophetic or a vision of the future? In other words, the entire notion of Azor Ahai coming again and drawing a weapon from the fire is a description of how the Night's Watch and its LC continously renew the fight for the dawn. There would thus not really be any need for the writers of the myth to actually have foreseen a predestined future set of events. It definitely looked like this was meant in the first post but just wanted to check for sure.

Instead of saying that it's prophetic, I think it's more accurate to say that it's "circular," in the sense that history ends up repeating itself and if someone like this guy was needed once, he'll be needed again. I think it's also a matter of the different cultures. The north, for example, doesn't seem terribly into prophecies or divination, so it makes sense that their legend is just that, a legend about a hazy historical event. Whereas Asshai priests seem like they have a strong focus in prophecy (same with Valyrians if you want to take that route), to the point where they would hear and spread this incredible story and just "expect" for this guy to be reincarnated somehow. I think the "prophecy" bit came later, after the original legend had been transmitted to Asshai — no Long Night legend, no Azor Ahai prophecy.

One interesting thing about this theory is that it would remove the need for a single overarching superhero at the end to do a disproportionate amount of the work. It would also avoid the problem where prophecies have a tendency to lock in too specific and easily predictable routes that a story ends up being forced to take.

Yes, my thoughts too.

It seems to me that the Night's Watch would most likely have been formed after the war, while the Wall was being built or shortly after its completion. Thier vows come across as a simple formula that would be the least likely thing to change down the ages, because it is near-ritualistic in its wording and because the meaning of so many of those words has been lost. The only thing that survived intact was the recitation.

In Clash of Kings, when Bran is entertaining the bannermen, a singer sings "The Night That Ended" and specifically includes a part where the Night's Watch rode forth to face the Others in the Battle for the Dawn. So while the organized order itself might have come into its modern iteration after the war, if you accept that the Battle for the Dawn is what ended the Long Night, some form of the Night's Watch had to have existed then, however loosely.

I do think it's interesting that the northern version of the story says nothing about a return, but like I said above, the north isn't really "into" prophecy the way that Asshai and Valyria seem to be. I really do think it all depends on the cultural lens through which you view the story.

I know, right? I saw an interview with him the other day where he said he hadn't created languages (I think he was talking about Tolkien), just a few words in High Valyrian (and maybe others but none were mentioned). And he said whenever he needs a word in a certain language, he invents it. But that doesn't mean much... I mean, if he had the story for Azor Ahai from the beginning he would have a 'translation' for it, right?

Unless he knows the meaning but saying what it is would give it away. I remember when we were tossing around ideas — wishful thinking or speculation with no basis in fact, before anyone jumps on me :P — and someone wondered if "Azor" or "Ahai" could mean ... wolf.

[Sevumar]

In Clash of Kings, when Bran is entertaining the bannermen, a singer sings "The Night That Ended" and specifically includes a part where the Night's Watch rode forth to face the Others in the Battle for the Dawn. So while the organized order itself might have come into its modern iteration after the war, if you accept that the Battle for the Dawn is what ended the Long Night, some form of the Night's Watch had to have existed then, however loosely.

I think there are two possibilities here:

• Either there was something that called itself the Night's Watch, without the vows, that existed during the war and that became formalized and invented its vows after the victory, OR
  
• The mention of the Night's Watch is apocryphal, reflecting the writing of the song long after the details of the war had been forgotten (or the reference was inserted into an old song by somebody else).
  

I think that the important thing about the Night's Watch and its vows is its role as an insurance policy/canary in the coal mines after the war. The Night's Watch couldn't have played a pivotal role in the Battle for the Dawn if it did not have weapons allowing it to hurt the Others, which seems to be whatever the Last Hero delivered/discovered as a result of his journey and transformation. The weapon is what appears to enable the victory, whether that weapon was dragonsteel, obsidian, or something else, not the existence of the Night's Watch itself.

nless he knows the meaning but saying what it is would give it away. I remember when we were tossing around ideas — wishful thinking or speculation with no basis in fact, before anyone jumps on me — and someone wondered if "Azor" or "Ahai" could mean ... wolf.

It could be that. I remember reading someone else's speculation that the "smoke and salt" of the Azor Ahai mythos could easily be describing the colors of House Stark.

I do think it's interesting that the northern version of the story says nothing about a return, but like I said above, the north isn't really "into" prophecy the way that Asshai and Valyria seem to be. I really do think it all depends on the cultural lens through which you view the story.

I don't think that the North's relative disinterest in prophecy explains the lack of a messianic story. Messianic tales don't tend to arise and spread in the wake of great victories, which is how the North seems to view the outcome of the War for the Dawn.

[tze]

I remember when we were tossing around ideas — wishful thinking or speculation with no basis in fact, before anyone jumps on me :P — and someone wondered if "Azor" or "Ahai" could mean ... wolf.

This is definitely something I've been speculating about elsewhere on this board. The people of Lhazar are called "lamb" men. "Lhazar" and "Azor" sound like they could easily have come from the same root. And it makes sense if the words for "lamb" and "wolf" would be related.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think there are two possibilities here:

Either there was something that called itself the Night's Watch, without the vows, that existed during the war and that became formalized and invented its vows after the victory.

This is possible but I don't see how it takes away from my theory.

The mention of the Night's Watch is apocryphal, reflecting the writing of the song long after the details of the war had been forgotten (or the reference was inserted into an old song by somebody else).

This is possible too. Fact remains though that it's evidence within the text that links the Night's Watch to the Battle for the Dawn, however loosely it seems. From the text, not from the Wiki.

I think that the important thing about the Night's Watch and its vows is its role as an insurance policy/canary in the coal mines after the war. The Night's Watch couldn't have played a pivotal role in the Battle for the Dawn if it did not have weapons allowing it to hurt the Others, which seems to be whatever the Last Hero delivered/discovered as a result of his journey and transformation. The weapon is what appears to enable the victory, whether that weapon was dragonsteel, obsidian, or something else, not the existence of the Night's Watch itself.

And did these weapons wield themselves? :P

[Chacho88]

Jon was stabbed 4 times( i think) by his own men because he was forswearing his vows, he was going south to fight ramsey snow, so in ways thats almost as bad as deserting, what always got me was when the Old bear was dying and told Samwell Tarly to tell his son Jorah that his last wishes were for him to join the nights watch, maybe he will onces he hears that, the hero promised could be anyone

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Jon was stabbed 4 times( i think) by his own men because he was forswearing his vows, he was going south to fight ramsey snow, so in ways thats almost as bad as deserting, what always got me was when the Old bear was dying and told Samwell Tarly to tell his son Jorah that his last wishes were for him to join the nights watch, maybe he will onces he hears that, the hero promised could be anyone

And ... what does this have to do with anything that I've said?

[Sevumar]

This is possible but I don't see how it takes away from my theory.

It might not. I didn't raise it as a direct contradiction of your theory, but as a clarification of the idea that in history, it was Lightbringer's identity as a weapon that seemed to make the difference in the war. It may or may not be this time around. Right now, I favor Lightbringer as an object, especially a weapon, because I think that's the best parallel to what we know about Lightbringer from the stories.

This is possible too. Fact remains though that it's evidence within the text that links the Night's Watch to the Battle for the Dawn, however loosely it seems. From the text, not from the Wiki.

I didn't dispute that the snippet of the song comes from the text, and I never mentioned the wiki, so the source of the song isn't at issue. When I said apocryphal, I meant in the same way that additions and changes have been made to the Bible to support interpretations never intended by their authors. We know nothing about the song, and we know from Sam that even the histories contain mentions of things that could not have existed during the time their authors were writing about.

We have to consider the likelihood that the song was created long after the Night's Watch and its author couldn't have known whether the Watch existed during the war or not, and the possibility that someone down the line decided that the omission of the Night's Watch was odd and simply added the reference to make the song fit his expectations. Both of these kinds of things are known to have happened fairly frequently in our own world, especially with religious and historical texts.

And did these weapons wield themselves? :P

It might make for a more fantastic story if they did. My point here was simply that you could probably teach anyone to wield a weapon, but that the weapons themselves are what made the victory possible.

[tze]

My point here was simply that you could probably teach anyone to wield a weapon, but that the weapons themselves are what made the victory possible.

But is that necessarily true in this context? Sam Tarly, a Night's Watchman who swore his vows in the "old way"---before a weirwood tree---stabbed an Other with dragonglass and it melted. The Watch, Sam especially, believes it was all about the dragonglass. We've been assuming that anyone at all could kill an Other using a dragonglass weapon. But we have no examples of that. And look at the Free Folk: they're the ones who've actually been encountering and fighting the Others, yet while Jon mentions that some of them have weapons of dragonglass, a lot of them do not. They don't seem to prize dragonglass as a weapon. Their leaders don't wield dragonglass. They never mention dragonglass as having any importance at all. Tormund actually heavily implies that the Free Folk don't have any way of fighting the Others.

The wights don't fear humans armed with anything. Hack away at them, and they keep right on coming. Yet the wights fled an attack by a greenseer's ravens. Ravens can't do more damage than a bunch of guys with swords . . . so why did the wights flee the ravens of a servant of the Old Gods while never fleeing heavily armed men? And we know the Old-Gods-worshiping Children have the power to keep the Others from entering their hollow hill. The Black Gate, which dead Coldhands claims he cannot enter, supposedly derives from the time the Old-Gods-worshiping First Men ruled, and is heavily associated with the trappings of Old Gods power.

My point is, perhaps it's not the dragonglass alone that can kill an Other. Perhaps the power to kill an Other derives from the oaths of the Watch, made to the Old Gods, rather than merely from the substance of obsidian. Perhaps only a true member of the Night's Watch, who took his vows before a weirwood tree, can kill an Other. If a wildling stabbed an Other with dragonglass, and we know they certainly have access to dragonglass weapons, would anything happen? It seems bizarre that nobody beyond the Wall would have tried it. But if they have, then hey, they'd have had access to a weapon that can kill the Others, so their situation wouldn't have been so dire. Everybody north of the Wall would have wanted dragonglass weapons, and men like Mance and Tormund would definitely have had dragonglass weapons. Yet we've never heard of anyone but Sam killing an Other, and the wildlings don't seem to consider dragonglass important at all. Tormund implies that the Free Folk don't have anything that can kill the Others.

The Watchmen would have all originally sworn their vows in godswoods. If the Watch is Lightbringer, the weapon used against the Others, then perhaps being a "true" Watchmen gives some sort of tangible advantage in fighting the Others; the Watchmen would literally have been "swords" in the darkness----not wielding swords in the darkness, being swords in the darkness, because only they would have been physically capable of killing the Others.

Dragonglass in non-Watchmen's hands would quite possibly have no effect against the Others. Obviously it's impossible to say for certain until some non-Watchmen (or Watchmen who keep the Seven) go up against the Others. But there have been hints that the power of the Old Gods can effectively counter the Others, and if the vows of the Watch are important, it might be because the vows themselves, spoken in a place of power (like a godswood), grant the Watchmen access to tangible power against the Others.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

Really interesting stuff as usual. It's possible that it would take both dragonglass and "proper" vows to combat the Others; there's a reason that it's these specific weapons. Possibly, the obsidian functions in the same way as a wand — a medium through which to channel power, not necessarily a weapon on its own. But I agree that it's weird that the wildlings who do actually have to face the Others and wights regularly don't seem to be too interested in dragonglass or aware of its importance. It's also telling that we're told specifically how few Night's Watch men say their vows in front of weirwoods anymore — if I remember, Jon took several of the new recruits to the weirwood beyond the Wall for their vows. So if there's a real difference between old vs. new gods, we might get to see it soon.

Dragonstone is supposed to have obsidian, so there's your possible tie to the "dragon" thing.

I'll also add that it's heavily, heavily suggested that the Seven do not exist. So if you say a vow to nothing, is it really a binding vow? Would "magic," or whatever you want to call it, take it as a binding vow? At least when you swear before a weirwood, we know that someone is listening or can listen, even though it might not be a "god" in the traditional sense.

[Sevumar]

But is that necessarily true in this context? Sam Tarly, a Night's Watchman who swore his vows in the "old way"---before a weirwood tree---stabbed an Other with dragonglass and it melted. The Watch, Sam especially, believes it was all about the dragonglass. We've been assuming that anyone at all could kill an Other using a dragonglass weapon. But we have no examples of that.

This is an interesting idea, but I don't think there's much in the story to support it. As you point out, we have but one example of a person killing an Other with obsidian and it's fair to ask what the active ingredient is here: the material, the vows, Sam's boyish good looks?

The texts that Sam finds in the vaults of Castle Black specifically mention obsidian as holding the power to destroy the Others. Sam seems to find this cache of lore authoritative where is not in conflict with itself. There's also mention of the Last Hero and his dragonsteel sword. I think we have to ask, if obsidian was so effective and known to the Children, who were allies of the First Men at the time of this war, why don't we hear about it playing a larger role in the war? Why did the Last Hero have to create a weapon of some other material?

And look at the Free Folk: they're the ones who've actually been encountering and fighting the Others, yet while Jon mentions that some of them have weapons of dragonglass, a lot of them do not. They don't seem to prize dragonglass as a weapon. Their leaders don't wield dragonglass. They never mention dragonglass as having any importance at all. Tormund actually heavily implies that the Free Folk don't have any way of fighting the Others.

The Free Folk have some bits of lore that have been lost to people south of the Wall, but it's also equally likely that the Night's Watch has access to histories and lore that the Free Folk have forgotten. I don't see that the inability of the Free Folk to fight the Others tells us much about what is effective and why.

And we know the Old-Gods-worshiping Children have the power to keep the Others from entering their hollow hill. The Black Gate, which dead Coldhands claims he cannot enter, supposedly derives from the time the Old-Gods-worshiping First Men ruled, and is heavily associated with the trappings of Old Gods power.

You mentioned the Free Folk above, who seem to have a healthy level of old god piety, yet they're unable to effectively fight the Others. This doesn't seem to make sense. If the power to fight the Others is derived from the old gods, would they be so fickle and cruel as to hold out on their most ardent human believers while they wait for the right combination of words?

My point is, perhaps it's not the dragonglass alone that can kill an Other. Perhaps the power to kill an Other derives from the oaths of the Watch, made to the Old Gods, rather than merely from the substance of obsidian. Perhaps only a true member of the Night's Watch, who took his vows before a weirwood tree, can kill an Other. If a wildling stabbed an Other with dragonglass, and we know they certainly have access to dragonglass weapons, would anything happen?

It's possible that you're onto something, but I don't find it as likely to be true as the prospect that the obsidian itself holds some property that is fatal to the Others. I find it hard to believe that the old gods, venerated by First Men and Children alike, would require the recitation of a certain formula before activating the latent Other-killing power within their followers. None of the other magic practiced by greenseers or old god adherents seems to take this form.