The Wall, the Watch and a heresy

[Black Crow]

I don't think its a matter of re-writing history, but rather that by the time somebody got around to writing the history, the truth from thousands of years before had been long forgotten. The Watch were by then manning the Wall against the supposed threat from the Others up north - who in reality were the "Children and the giants, and the other old races" who went behind the Wall, as distinct from the men below it, and while there was still a residual memory of the Watch being allied with the Children at one time this was rationalised by the story of the Nights King.

[scurvy]

Can't wait for some rune text-analysis... Maybe the Royce's still can read runes? They remember :)

If Bronze Yohn can read the runes he sure didn't tell his son Waymar.

[Eyron]

If Bronze Yohn can read the runes he sure didn't tell his son Waymar.

We don't actually know if Waymar knew anything about runes, the only time we met him was when he was ranging.

Since he was a ranger he would not have spent much time in the library either I think, especially not in the oldest parts of it.

There was no reason to try to interpret the old runestones when Waymar was at Castle Black either so it is not strange that he was not put to the task (if he could read runes). The Others had been gone for thousands of years and the Watch's purpose had become defense against wildlings.

I don't think the Royce's are the strongest candidates for this task but we can't rule them out completely. Bronze Yohn could know what the runes that cover his armor and arms says, it would not be very strange if he did.

[davidjones2492]

I don't think its a matter of re-writing history, but rather that by the time somebody got around to writing the history, the truth from thousands of years before had been long forgotten. The Watch were by then manning the Wall against the supposed threat from the Others up north - who in reality were the "Children and the giants, and the other old races" who went behind the Wall, as distinct from the men below it, and while there was still a residual memory of the Watch being allied with the Children at one time this was rationalised by the story of the Nights King.

Had the truth been forgotten though?; accounts and legends of the children, the white walkers etc did survive and are retold commonly.

Lets consider legends/myths about the white walkers; they are represented as extremely hostile to mankind, only appearing in the coldest of winters and being extremely aggresive. From what direct evidence the books have provided thus far this seems to be extremely accurate.

However the legends/myths about the children are very different: They portray a non aggresive race that is very close to nature and were on relatively good terms with the first men and allies against the others. I would say that direct accounts of them in the book back up these myths very closely, however you are claiming that the direct opposite is true.

Why would legends accurately portray the Others; at least in so far that they are aggresive, but then provide a completely false picture of the Children? Its hardly in the interests of either the first men or the andals to pretend that the children were friendly when in reality they were hostile. Considering that men wrote these histories why would they hide this truth, they seem to have been able to accurately portray the White walkers.

[Black Crow]

There's no denying the White Walkers are aggressive, but that's far from unique in Westeros. In fact by comparison with some people they're positively benign; they may kill people but at least they don't torture them to death for fun or burn people alive.

[Jape]

There's no denying the White Walkers are aggressive, but that's far from unique in Westeros. In fact by comparison with some people they're positively benign; they may kill people but at least they don't torture them to death for fun or burn people alive.

No one knows if they torture people or not.

Them not burning people is another thing. They'll have less warriors if they do that. They need the ones they kill to be in tact or at least in a good enough condition to walk and attack.

[Black Crow]

The point I'm making is that they're not uniquely cruel and murderous, there's far more evil going on south of the Wall than we've so far seen practiced by Craster's sons north of it.

[kissdbyfire]

This is a great thread, Black Crow. Cheers! :cheers:

Had the truth been forgotten though?; accounts and legends of the children, the white walkers etc did survive and are retold commonly. Lets consider legends/myths about the white walkers; they are represented as extremely hostile to mankind, only appearing in the coldest of winters and being extremely aggresive. From what direct evidence the books have provided thus far this seems to be extremely accurate. However the legends/myths about the children are very different: They portray a non aggresive race that is very close to nature and were on relatively good terms with the first men and allies against the others. I would say that direct accounts of them in the book back up these myths very closely, however you are claiming that the direct opposite is true. Why would legends accurately portray the Others; at least in so far that they are aggresive, but then provide a completely false picture of the Children? Its hardly in the interests of either the first men or the andals to pretend that the children were friendly when in reality they were hostile. Considering that men wrote these histories why would they hide this truth, they seem to have been able to accurately portray the White walkers.

This is, more or less, my take on CotF/WW as well. The WW may not be cruel (we don't really have much to prove or disprove this either way yet), but they destroy life; more accurately, they destroy all living beings. Also, there is a link between them and a long night that may last generations, the sun hiding its face for years at a time, children being born and living and dying all in darkness; they not only kill every living being they come into contact with, they also keep them in thrall. On the other hand, the CotF seem to be the opposite. From all we have read so far, they are deeply connected to nature and all living things. There can be no animal life (as in any species, including humans) without sun, daylight, etc.

I've read all the posts here, and I must say it's all very interesting. I just can't go through all of them again to multiquote, but I'll try to address some of the things I've read.

Arguments (I think the first one was posted by @Jape) about why the Wall is made of Ice - excellent explanation, makes perfect sense.

@Black Crow, I agree with the possibility of the Wall protecting the CotF from southerners as well as protecting southerners from WW.

@David C Simmons, you've mentioned you find the CotF creepy. I disagree. I think they are just different. And I think different is good!

I'll back that up with a quote I really love from William Cowper:

'Variety's the very spice of life, that gives it all its flavour.'

I think ultimately the point of everything will have been a lesson in tolerance and acceptance.

It's quite late now, so I'm going to bed to carry on with my re-reads. :read:

[Black Crow]

The WW may not be cruel (we don't really have much to prove or disprove this either way yet), but they destroy life; more accurately, they destroy all living beings.

The Others are Bogeymen - since when have bogeymen ever lived up to the hype? :cool4:

[FanTasy]

The Others are Bogeymen - since when have bogeymen ever lived up to the hype? :cool4:

Right. But of course there has to be an evil force in every story, and with more than just a minor character flaw.

But to be true, reading about the Others could give you easily the feeling of being set up. I have the same feeling with Jon being seen as the lost princeling who becomes king and saves the world.

[Free Northman]

OK, some points:

Martin was never going to create magical fairy beings living in the forests, singing jolly songs and just waiting to help mankind whenever they come calling.

Nope, he wanted to make a clear point that the Children are alien. Not evil. Just alien. And yes, their magic might include blood sacrifice, but then all druidic religions in real life included blood sacrifice. As did most other primitive religions on earth.

So the Children aren't fluffy, feel good teddybears. They have slitted eyes, four fingered hands and dappled, eerie looking skin. They are weird, not cuddly. But here's the important part:

That does not make them the enemies of mankind.

They are able to help mankind survive the onslaught of the Others, but then men may need to let go of some taboos, and accept some creepy magic from their ancient, weird looking allies.

They're not going to save mankind by giving them a golden song that makes Others melt away and which will suddenly make all the flowers bloom. No, they're going to help save mankind with some creepy ass magic.

I don't think the histories are twisted 180 degrees from the truth. I don't think that the Children are allied to the Others. I think the histories are sound, if maybe inaccurate and exxagerated.

Fundamentally, the Children worship nature and its endless cycle of life, death and rebirth.

The Others seek to bring only death. When the Others come, not only men die. The Giants die too. The animals die. And ultimately, the plants die too. Life is eradicated. And that is not what the Children and their nature worshipping religion stand for.

So to conclude: The Children are on the side of men, in a creepy, weird, mysterious and slightly disturbing way. Not on the side of the Others.

[TrueLion]

Actually, in this story, the First Men were the aliens. Westeros belonged to the CotF first, and the scary men with the horses and bronze who came across the Arm of Dorne thats now destroyed were the invaders.

And the CotF were indeed hostile, they warred with the First Men for thousands of years until the Pact. Then they warred with the Andals, but eventually lost.

I'm hesitant to bring up this point again, but rereading one of Pycelle's stories to Bran, and he ends on a very interesting note in referring to what happened to the Children. He states, but never finishes, that the CotF fled north. I know Black Crow is very set on the CotF theory of using the Wall for protection, and the more I'm doing rereads, the more I have to agree with this line of thinking. Theres no true proof yet that the CotF are warm-blooded or the true enemies of the Others, just speculation and dots put together by readers it seems. In actuality, the CotF appear to know more about the Others than anyone else, by way of giving out specific tidbits (obsidian daggers), and if anything are withholding information.

[Capon Breath]

It feels like people want this to be true and so are just choosing to make extremely obtuse and circumstantial evidence fit:

My summary of the thread contents is...

Evidence that Wall is to protect men from the North

Myth & Legend suggests men built it

Its guarded by Men

The castles point North

The magical barrier does prevent Others coming South

The magical barrier doesn't prevent Men going North

Evidence to suggest the wall is to protect COTF & Others from the South

GRRM has said nothing is as it seems

There is a passage from Sam twice about history as we know it being possibly flawed

The practical "evidence" is such that it really quite compelling that the Wall protects the Southern Lands of men.

[FanTasy]

This thread is aptly named, Black Crow, considering the reactions you get .

We are all thiinking 'aloud' here. Nobody knows what GRRM has in his sleeve or can claim an absolute truth.

I like reading what all those fine minds here at this board come up with.

You all help me in using my own mind.

Tyrion said to Jon that books are for the brain what a wetstone is for a sword.

This board is kind of a wetstone also.

After having read the books I was looking for precisely that: a wetstone to make me understand ASOIAF better.

I am not prone to read fantasy and other book readers in my real life are even less so.

So for me this board was a find - and I am very, very glad with every line of thought, truth or heresy, well fleshed out or crackpot :cheers:

[scurvy]

Another hole in the theory is BR's warging into Mormont's Raven at least 3 times in the series that I can remember. All other times the raven only speaks words he has been taught like Corn or Snow or repeats a word just said in the past sentence.

The three times are: when the wight Othor is attacking the Lord Commander the Raven yells - Burn. Burn. Burn. This leads Jon to grab the lantern, light the drapes, and toss them on un-Othor.

The second is when Jon is elected LC.

The third is when the Raven says King. Snow. Jon Snow.

There may be others, but I cannot think of them offhand.

If BR and the CotF are working with the Others why would they want him to learn how to and ultimate defeat the first wight they sent south? Why would they want Jon installed as LC. Why would BR or Bran by that point, call him King Jon Snow?

[kissdbyfire]

I love your post, FanTasy. It describes a lot of my own feelings regarding this board.

I love reading most posts here, even (especially?) the ones I don't necessarily agree with. The one problem I have, though, is when something that is a matter of opinion is posted with a phrasing that reads, 'this is gospel', or 'my opinion/likes is/are correct and your isn't/aren't'. I don't get that. I don't get that at all...

@Black Crow, the more I think about it, the more I like your idea about the Wall having more than the obvious purpose of defending the south only. I also really like the notion of 'Others' being a more generic term used to describe any and everything north of the wall. In fact, I like it so much that, as of now, I'll only use WW when referring to the creepy cold creatures that wightify every animal they kill.

@Free Northman, I know I said I'd read every post here, and I did. But I must have missed something because I don't recall any instance where the CotF were being referred to as 'cuddly' or anything similar. Also, nice post, very similar in a lot of things to what I'd said in my own previous post.

[kissdbyfire]

Another hole in the theory is BR's warging into Mormont's Raven at least 3 times in the series that I can remember. All other times the raven only speaks words he has been taught like Corn or Snow or repeats a word just said in the past sentence.

The three times are: when the wight Othor is attacking the Lord Commander the Raven yells - Burn. Burn. Burn. This leads Jon to grab the lantern, light the drapes, and toss them on un-Othor.

The second is when Jon is elected LC.

The third is when the Raven says King. Snow. Jon Snow.

There may be others, but I cannot think of them offhand.

If BR and the CotF are working with the Others why would they want him to learn how to and ultimate defeat the first wight they sent south? Why would they want Jon installed as LC. Why would BR or Bran by that point, call him King Jon Snow?

Nice one.

Another thing I wanted to say last night and forgot is this... I've read elsewhere, and more than once, that Bran is 'evil'; I think there is even a thread postulating that he is the 'dark overlord' or something like that, mostly because of his connection / apprenticeship with the CotF and Lord Bloodraven. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I'd love to hear your opinions. I don't see it. Some of 'the bad' things he does, he does because he doesn't know better - even if he feels he shouldn't warg into Hodor, for instance, he doesn't really know this is (or may be) a big no-no. Also, he is the only Stark who doesn't name his direwolf right away; he only picks the name, Summer, which is very suggestive, after he's been in touch with BR.

Please, feel free to ignore this if It is too much of a hijacking of the thread. :-)

[TrueLion]

I never mentioned anything regarding the CotF and the Others being in the same camp, simply that they may not be the complete antithesis of each other like it seems to be. Whether or not its believed by fans, Pycelle does indeed say the Children fled, and it wasn't from the Others as we know they were fleeing from. It was men, the Andals. Hell, for all we know, they were fleeing from the Seven as their old gods were, with the burning of weirwoods and all, and followed them north. But theres not much said during those earlier stories of the CotF going against the Others on a large scale, nor does it seem there was need for a Wall til the men came. But the CotF and the Others, w/e they are, were there together on Westeros first. My point was supposed to be similar to Free Northman's, but with the added stipulation that the Wall might guard against the other gods/magic out there that was brought over. Just explained poorly and sort of holey cause I'm trying to be brief. xD

[Eyron]

Good points Scurvy and Kissdbyfire. These are some of the reasons I don't believe this theory to the full.

One of the other reasons I don't think the Children and BR are involved with the Others is Bran's real time vision in AGoT, when he is flying over Westeros. He flies all the way to the heart of winter and sees what dwells there, and he is terrified. BR wanted him to see it, and why would he want that if the CotF and himself are part of it? I can't see any good reason for BR doing that.

[brut]

This theory is something to consider, and parts of it make a lot of logical sense. Still, there are many references in the text (i do not mean visions/prophesies) that distinguish the Others and Children from each other. For example:

- If the Others are the Children, why would the former be attacking Bran and his party on their way to Bloodraven instead of supporting them in their journey? The only assistance they are providing is Condhands, and even his origination is questionable.

- If the magic of the Wall works both ways, and was conjured to protect the Children from mankind, why are the NW and other people able to cross the Wall without consequences? Certainly, we seem to lack evidence of a WW or a Child south of the Wall.

- NW members are actually men, so why would the Children help building the Wall, and not help manning it? Since the Children were the ones "providing" magic component to the construction of the Wall, it would only strengthen it if the Children were present at the Wall at all times. We don't have to speculate that the Wall was built by men and the Children together, so, naturally men and the Children were allied at some point. But there is no reference that the NW and the Children ever entered into any kinds of arrangements other than those leaving the men guarding the Wall.

- The Wall has been standing for 8,000 years, and within those years has certainly grown in height. There is explanation in one of Jon's chapters (I believe) essentially saying that the constant fortification work and maintenance have been performed to the Wall, including layering it with gravy, which I believe within the scope of 8,000 would have certainly added to the height of the Wall.

- If the Children were the Others, they would have been in position to attack any time during previous cataclysms south of the Wall. Say, immediately after Redgrass Fields, or Baratheon Rebellion - which are relatively recent events from the historic perspective. Instead, we see no activity of the Others prior to the events of the series, and no evidence of the Children prior to the encounter with Bran. So, who caused what? Did the Children cause the Others, or did the Others "awaken" the Children?