Heresy 3

[Black Crow]

We pretty much know how the Andal Invasion ended- the FM were allies of the CotF against the Andals, and held off many attacks at the Neck once the CotF called down the Hammer of the Waters. (the use of the HotW was only partially successful- it probably created the bogs at the Neck. It was probably dry land before that.) I don't see how any part of that could be called the Battle for the Dawn. And since the FM were allied to the CotF, they wouldn't have called them Others. There were no Others involved in the fight against the Andals, at least from the FM perspective.

Yes but that doesn't explain why the Children didn't stay in the Andal-free North, but "fled" (Maester Luwin's word) north of the Wall. What some of us are currently proposing is that the Nights Watch turned on the Children and other old races, and sent them flying north in what's now remembered as the Battle for the Dawn - perhaps as the price of peace with the Andals.

[House Martell]

Lurking in the back of my mind was a thought there was a very early reference to White Walkers in AGoT and sure enough its in Tyrion 3 (three chapters before Old Nan's tale) when Mormont and Maester Aemon are urging Tyrion to use his influence to get more men sent to the Wall, because: "the darkness is coming... The fisherfolk near Eastwatch have glimpsed white walkers on the shore."

OK this is Mormont (a Northerner) using the term WW. That keeps with the theory of their being 2 terms based on geography.

Bran has southron ambition, being a kinight, and idolizing the KG, it's likely that the southern terms would over time spread as the "old" ways become more an more forgotten.

And Sam using the term doesn't disprove anything necessarily, maybe his nurse was a northerner, maybe the old songs all use WW, but the local common term in the south is Other. Maybe Sam just started using WW since arriving at the Wall...

Tyrion also several times speaks of Grumpkins and Snarks, if there was one all compassing term why make the distinction on several occasions?

[Lummel]

King Arthur’s actually a very good example. If we compare current Westeros with Britain, then in the 14^th century we have Geoffrey of Monmouth’s history confidently telling of Arthur’s deeds a thousand years before, yet when we look at the actual historical record there’s next to nothing.

Yeah King Arthur, he pops up as a comparison, like you say there's Geoffrey, also all the Round Table stories in middle Ages but if you go back to the 6thish century when he's meant to have lived there's nothing recorded even though there were people writing at the time. The first written reference I think is 8th or 9th century and is very basic. Now he's associated with places in the whole of the west of Britain from Southern Scotland to Somerset and everywhere in between, while some historians have thought that a 'real' Arthur might have been some kind of very small scale local tribal war-leader but who switches in legend to being a British King.

To me that's a good model for an Azor Ahai type maybe. For example an Arryn War Hero with this sword made from meteoric iron who leads a victorious war against the first men & the Children (to pick up on the East vs West idea) and their horrible tree worship religion for maybe the twenty years years or so that it took to break the back of the Southern realms of the first men but in the thousands of years since his death all kinds of other legends have got added on, and there's been some confusion because he was the Sword of the Dawn (fighting east to west) and that gets mixed up with this story of the battle for the Dawn (Joramun and Nights watch vs Nights King) and double confusion because non-human Others are involved in both stories? And just like Arthur there's a legend that he will come again...(much to Guinevere's satisfaction)

And thanks to those who cleared me up about Ice. Very interesting that the sword has only been in the family for 400 years or so - I had thought many years longer. I like the idea the the original Ice may have been a crystal sword like those wielded by the White Walkers. If it turned out to be susceptible to dragonsteel, I can see why the Starks may have wanted to replace it!

Stark's kneel about 300 years BP, so maybe they did pick it up at that dodgy market stall while on a summer beach holiday in Essos after all.

The holy war scenario feels right. The "Battle for the Dawn" sound like a romanticized version of something really ugly, the way that most wars are fluffed and groomed in front of the public eye even to this day, so I think there could be a covered truth there. Since the Andals never invaded the north I wonder where the battle for dawn was and when the Andals were incorporated in the Watch. How did the Watch function back then? So many questions... And maybe it's futile to even try to figure it out :D

:lmao: Good job Lummel! Very helpful indeed.

But I didn't really have the feeling Sam meant that something important happened when the list he found was written, but it would make sense since Jon shut him up. That type of thing seems to happen when important stuff is about to be revealed prematurely...

Agree on the importance, and hey! Glad to help! ;)

I'm thinking along the same lines with regard to the battle of the dawn so, I think the two stories (war in the south, killing the Children, beating up the First Men and chopping down the weirwoods vs separate war in the North of Joramun and the Nights watch vs Nights King and his loyalists) have been combined, with teh viciousness of the first war passed over in favour of the 'heroic' aspect of the second.

It makes sense to me to tie the overthrow of the nights king to a later date (north turns against the children as a means of making peace with teh andals) but isn't the nights king menat to be very early, like LC 13 or something? But my main point is with such a long period of time it would be easy for the actual events to get confused and muddled.

I think the Targaryens figured out a way to bond with their dragons that did away with the need to break them with spells and horns* - but the latter is of course a possibility as well.

*House Targaryen, Dragon Whisperers! :lol:

ETA: I'm with Eira in that I think the dragons are both the power and the curse of House Targaryen, and that their "special bond" with the dragons probably involves the sacrifice of their own unborn children. I see the Targaryens and their dragons as parallels to the Starks and "their" White Walkers, with the White Walkers also perhaps being both the power and the curse of House Stark.

Heh, Heh

The absence of dragonhorns in Kings Landing suggests to me more of a warg like link - but on the other hand they could just be down in the cellar, in the shadows, behind some dragon skulls.

Nice catch. Maybe Sam's mother told him the same stories as Nan told Bran. And to Tyrion were told the stories about the grumkins and snarks?

About the snarks. Weren't they described in Alice in Wonderland as creatures that were elusive in their appearane, that you didn't know how they looked like because they coold look different from anything you could conceive? Other?

Yes Snarks are in Alice, also there's a seperate poem "The Hunting of the Snark" (wikipeadia references AGOT so the world here turns full circle)

But seriously, unless the Others turn out to be the good guys, they ain't gonna be related to the Starks. That's not what this story is about.

Hmm. Amongst other things I note that the dead Starks are the only people that we know of who are meant to be kept trapped in their graves. Unseriously, they're not the Brady Bunch, thats for sure.

[Elaena Targaryen]

This topic still going? My goodness.

And the theories are certainly not growing less outlandish, from what I could see by quickly scrolling through this last page. Far from it.

Brandon Ice Eyes was just a guy with Roose Bolton colored eyes, chaps. Not some hybrid Other who conferred his "magical cold resistance" to the entire army who crept down the White Knife and slaughtered the Slavers at White Harbor.

Jeepers people. Enough with the "Starks are related to the Others" theories. This is so contrary to the story that's been told for the last 5 books that it astounds me that people give it any validity whatsoever.

Well if these novels were written say 50 years ago, long finished and completed, what percentage of topics on these forums would still be fesabile? Everyone is having fun so whats the problem?

ETA the"jeepers people" did make me smile though

[Black Crow]

It makes sense to me to tie the overthrow of the nights king to a later date (north turns against the children as a means of making peace with teh andals) but isn't the nights king menat to be very early, like LC 13 or something? But my main point is with such a long period of time it would be easy for the actual events to get confused and muddled.

It seems a bit odd that he's described as the 13th Lord Commander and reigns as the Nights King for 13 years. Sounds a bit too neat and too peotic so I wouldn't necessarily take him being the 13th as true

[Ran]

Just a random bit, as I'm working on the draft for the world book and was reminded of something I note there: King Sherrit was said to have called a curse on the Andals from the Wall, the clear implication that this was a FIrst Man king in the time when the Andals were overwhelming the old First Man kingdoms... and it clearly implies the Wall was already around.

I know, I know, all ancient legendary stuff, but I figured I'd toss that out there as I don't see any reference to it in prior threads. I think I have gathered that some have suggested that the Andals may have already been in Westeros and taken part in the construction of the Wall, but this and the other tidbits at least suggest that the traditional view is that they only came around afterward.

[Free Northman]

I said my piece very early on one of the preceding threads dedicated to this topic, and felt content that I had said what I wanted to say.

However, with Ran making an appearance at this late stage of the topic, it seems that far from being settled, this topic is actually continuing to draw some serious attention. I guess I will have to dive into it once more to refute what I feel are utterly unfounded theories that go directly against the information that is actually provided to us by Martin in the text.

Anyway, I won't make this a long post, and will rather come back to engage in further debate, but the point is, Martin has only given us the histories of the Maesters and the legends of the First Men before them to go by. There is no other source of in-world information to contradict them.

This thread originally started with a criticism of Old Nan's beside tale to Bran, basically calling her an unreliable narrator with her dates and stories from the Dawn Age. But in fact, the clearest timeline we get of the history of Westeros comes not from Nan, but from Maester Luwin. A trained and chained Maester from the Citadel.

Now, at the risk of rehashing some of what has probably inevitably been said somewhere on the 60 or so previous pages on this thread and its predecessors, the Maesters may not have incontrovertable archeological evidence backed by carbon dating techniques at their disposal, but they are the closest thing to canon that we get in this series.

Sure, Rodrik the Reader quotes debates between Maesters about whether the Andals actually came 4000 or 6000 years ago, but the point is, Martin has given us the canonical history of Westeros from Maester Luwin, and everything every reader knows, and everything every wiki page on the internet says about Westerosi history is based on that.

If Martin intended that to be false information, then he would have laid the groundwork for that by having credible sources providing alternate histories at various points during the series by now. And he has not done that. All he has done was hint at the fact that accuracy will inevitably diminish as time goes by. That's hardly surprising.

But the point is that a sudden revelation somewhere in a Dream of Spring that the Andals were actually involved in the creation of the Wall, or that the Long Night actually happened only 3000 years ago, rather than 8000 will come totally from left field to virtually every normal reader. The groundwork, foreshadowing and preperation for such a huge change to the history of this world has not been laid in the current books in order for such a twist to appear as an "Aha! It all make sense now" moment to the reader, rather than as a "Where the hell did that come from?"

We may as well then dispute the fact that the Valyrians conquered Old Ghis 5000 years ago, despite no evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, the traditional timeline still makes the most sense. In fact, there is no alternative that is supported, or even hinted at, by the text.

And by this I mean the order of events. Not the precise dating of events.

In other words:

First the Dawn Age

Then the arrival of the First Men

Then the Pact and the Age of Heroes

Then the Long Night

Then the establishment of the Night's Watch and the building of the Wall

Then the arrival of the Andals much later

Then the conquest of all the southern kingdoms by the Andals

Then the arrival of the Targaryens much, much later.

Whether it is 8000 years of history, or 7000 or 9000, there are undoubtedly inaccuracies that have crept in there. But not in the order of the major history shaping events that took place.

[Elaena Targaryen]

@ Free Northman

I'll own up to my posts being trash to save you some trouble, you have enough to deal with, lol

[Eyron]

Thanks Ran, King Sherrit has indeed been forgotten. What I read about him was that he was at the Nightfort when he called down the curse, from the Bran chapter in ASoS, when he gets to the Nightfort. It could have been mentioned again somewhere I forgot, but the Wall was not mentioned there. But as you say it could be implied, if the Nightfort was built after or at the same time as the Wall.

That said I think the Wall was built when the Andals came, but I'm not sure if it was very high at that time or if the purpose was simply to keep the White Walkers away.

I may not have been too clear about what I understood others thought. Sorry if I misrepresented anyone's views. But I really think that the Battle for the Dawn had to be a/the battle at the end of the Long Night- why else would it be called the "Battle for the Dawn"? If the Night's Watch was involved, it would have just been formed. It won the battle, then manned the Wall when it was built.

We pretty much know how the Andal Invasion ended- the FM were allies of the CotF against the Andals, and held off many attacks at the Neck once the CotF called down the Hammer of the Waters. (the use of the HotW was only partially successful- it probably created the bogs at the Neck. It was probably dry land before that.) I don't see how any part of that could be called the Battle for the Dawn. And since the FM were allied to the CotF, they wouldn't have called them Others. There were no Others involved in the fight against the Andals, at least from the FM perspective.

The story of the last hero that we heard from Old Nan said that the hero was followed by White Walkers when he searched for the Children and their secret city to find help, and all his friends had died, his sword had shattered and we don't learn what happened next. I don't think the most logical next step is that he assembled an army and rode forth to battle the White Walkers, that seems like a knightified tale.

I don't think we have a First Men perspective on the events of the BftD. I don't think it has been mentioned what the First Men think of that part of history in the whole series of books, and Old Nan never came that far in her story, so we don't even know if that ended with a battle.

The battle for the dawn does sound like a fight against darkness, but was it against the long night, the winter or the barbaric dark ages that the Andals found Westeros in?

Yes but that doesn't explain why the Children didn't stay in the Andal-free North, but "fled" (Maester Luwin's word) north of the Wall. What some of us are currently proposing is that the Nights Watch turned on the Children and other old races, and sent them flying north in what's now remembered as the Battle for the Dawn - perhaps as the price of peace with the Andals.

Quite, that is yet unexplained. At some point the Children fled even from the First Men lands, and at some point the Andals became involved in the Watch.

For the record,

I'll say it again, that there was a war during the long night 8000 years ago is not what I question and I don't question that it was only the First men against the Others either, it's the name for that battle that I doubt and how it ended. Was there really a war ending in a grand battle that time?

The Battle for the Dawn, from where does that name come? I know it was in the song The night that ended that Bran hears or rather thinks about when he hears it. But who said that it was the battle that ended the long night? I'm curious because I have not found where it says so. I know Melisandre speaks of the fight against darkness, is that where it comes from?

[Free Northman]

In aGoT, Maester Aemon explains the neutrality of the Watch to Jon, where he states that when the Andals swept over the Kingdoms of the First Men, Lord Commanders who were the sons of fallen First Men Kings held true to their vows, and did not march South to join the battle against the Andals.

This proves that the Watch predates the arrival of the Andals in Westeros.

[Eyron]

I'm not sure if you are responding to me Free northman, but I didn't say there was no Watch when the Andals arrived. Black Crows post that I quoted didn't say so either.

[hotweaselsoup]

Just a random bit, as I'm working on the draft for the world book and was reminded of something I note there: King Sherrit was said to have called a curse on the Andals from the Wall, the clear implication that this was a FIrst Man king in the time when the Andals were overwhelming the old First Man kingdoms... and it clearly implies the Wall was already around.

He called down the curse from the Nightfort, no less. Dun dun dunnnnn..... :devil:

I'm still of the mind that the Wall went up at the conclusion of the Long Night, probably as a result of events that occurred during the Long Night. Maybe I missed it, but did we really suggest that the Andals had a hand in raising the Wall? If so, I don't happen to agree with that theory...

I know, I know, all ancient legendary stuff, but I figured I'd toss that out there as I don't see any reference to it in prior threads. I think I have gathered that some have suggested that the Andals may have already been in Westeros and taken part in the construction of the Wall, but this and the other tidbits at least suggest that the traditional view is that they only came around afterward.

There has been a lot of discussion about the timeline, whether certain events can be shifted one way or another, but I don't think there are many of us questioning the order of events. (Well, except the possibility that the Night's King Affair happened before the Wall went up, rather than 100 years or so in, which is something that I'm definitely considering.)

ETA: beaten by Eira

[mrazny]

In other words:

First the Dawn Age

Then the arrival of the First Men

Then the Pact and the Age of Heroes

Then the Long Night

Then the establishment of the Night's Watch and the building of the Wall

Then the arrival of the Andals much later

Then the conquest of all the southern kingdoms by the Andals

Then the arrival of the Targaryens much, much later.

I honestly don't know what you're railing against. Just because we're presenting cases that the years were wrong does not mean we're presenting cases that this base sequence is wrong. I'm not sure whose suppositions ever said the Andals built the wall. My personal inquiry is looking into whether there were TWO long night type events, and the legends blurring which events occured during which similar trial.

And the Others have to be the good guys for the Starks to have any related history? That's entirely not the case, and I don't believe you have to take a Bran will summon the White Walkers case to say that their is some causation in the Stark line with White Walkers. The Night's King by legend was a Stark. Right there is some textual evidence to give some pause. This doesn't have to turn black and white and say all Starks or even say we're heading towards Starks turning bad yet to want to know more about how the Starks and the origin of the White Walkers, or the first appearance of the White Walkers relate.

The Books themselves gave us the reason to start to question the maesters and the possibility they have alterior motives when they gave us Sam, the reader's personal guide to wanting to learn more, interacting with Marwyn.

I'd recommend you not paint with a broad brush all the possible thoughts presented in this thread because of something you disagreed with at the beginning. This thread has turned more into a broad discussion than specific response to one singular original post.

edited for spelling

[mrazny]

Depending on how the artist renders it, a fiery heart and a red seven pointed star can end up very similar, especially if it's being carved into skin. It's not even to say this is hard evidence of the connection, but it's something to speak against the hard opposition. The case that they can't possibly be mistaken for each other? Not yet there. And that can go both ways.

The Andals carved chests could have been Fiery Hearts that turned into a seven pointed star in theory, and vice versa, the seven pointed star could've been turned into a fiery heart at the onset of the Rh'lor religion. The actual origins of Rh'lor cult aren't very explicit. We know it's practised. We know someone in Volantis takes a title of High Priest. And we're told the Azor Ahai legend was written in books in Asshai 5000 years ago.

Just some basis, not quite specifics are in-detail theory yet, we have some voids here...

[Eyron]

'm still of the mind that the Wall went up at the conclusion of the Long Night, probably as a result of events that occurred during the Long Night. Maybe I missed it, but did we really suggest that the Andals had a hand in raising the Wall? If so, I don't happen to agree with that theory...

Me too, the long night -> Wall.

And nope, I have skimmed through the whole thread and I could not find anyone mentioning that the Andals built the Wall, I could have missed it if someone briefly mentioned it as a possibility regarding the timeline issues, but no one has put forth that as a plausible scenario. And especially in the latest part of the thread the issue have been on other things than the timeline.

There has been a lot of discussion about the timeline, whether certain events can be shifted one way or another, but I don't think there are many of us questioning the order of events. (Well, except the possibility that the Night's King Affair happened before the Wall went up, rather than 100 years or so in, which is something that I'm definitely considering.)

That the obsidian was given to the Watch during the Age of Heroes is the thing that caught my eye in the timeline discussion, but that only implies that there may have been a form of Watch earlier than the Wall itself (perhaps created for a different purpose than it later had) or that the Age of Heroes was continued longer than the official timeline has said. That the timeline is shaky has not brought us much besides that.

And yup, I think the Night's King story is the one event that could possibly be placed in the wrong time. It was so close to the date of the Wall and the end of the long night that it could have happened more around the same time as those event. Or later, involving another renewal of the Watch and it's purpose.

That the story of the last hero and Azor Ahai may have been merged into one over the years, but in fact happened to be two different people and two different events does not suggest that either of them never happen, or that the timeline is effected.

A poster on this thread did a search earlier and informed us that the only time the Battle for the Dawn is mentioned in the books is in the song The night that ended. So no reference to either Old Nan, maester Luwin, Osha, or anyone else that we usually rely on to feed us clues to the history.

[mrazny]

Also, the actual telling of the Azor Ahai legend does not go into detail of his deeds very often. I'm still reskimming to confirm.

How long would the long night need to go to last a generation in FM lifespans? I wonder if they would adapt a 13 year winter into a generation long - long night...

[Black Crow]

Other than Sallhador San's story, which is really about the forging of the sword, the stories we've been given don't tell us anything about the original Azor Ahai except that he was a mighty warrior in a time of darkness, and otherwise is a bit of a King Arthur or Francis Drake story; when he's needed he'll come back again to smite the heathen as he once smote them long ago.

Applying the King Arthur principle all it really means is that there's a recollection - out east - of a mighty war leader, and another one like him is going to be needed in the imminent long winter.

How it fits into Westeros obviously remains to be seen, but notwithstanding Free Northman's confidence in Maester Luwin, GRRM has said that its all a bit "misty" and that the main thrust of what we've been discussing over these threads can be summarised as:

1. uncertainty as to whether the Wall was originally built to stop the Others many years after the Pact was agreed, or whether the Children unleashed the Winter and then used the Wall to hold it back after the First Men agreed to the Pact

2. a growing suspicion that Azor Ahai (whoever he was) belongs to the Andal period, when they slaughtered the Children in the six southern kingdoms

3. that the Night's Watch defeat of the Others in "The Night that Ended" also belongs to this period, possibly relating to the Night's King, and resulted in the final expulsion of the Children from the kingdoms below the Wall.

4. although not much discussed of late, the involvement of the Starks in all of this remains unclear but a connection to the Children and possibly the White Walkers seems a strong possibility, due to various clues discussed up thread.

And no, I don't know where this bit about the Andals being involved in building the Wall came from, but I suppose that as heretics we'll be accused of sacrificing babies sooner or later...

[Black Crow]

BTW: the first thread in this sequence was started by me early in what has turned out to be a long convalesence. I'm now adjudged fit to die for my country again and therefore back to work this morning so I'd like to take the opportunity to thank everybody on the board, (but particularly the heretics), for what has been a wonderful lifeline to the outside world, if not in all conscience the real one.

Thank you all.

[Free Northman]

BTW: the first thread in this sequence was started by me early in what has turned out to be a long convalesence. I'm now adjudged fit to die for my country again and therefore back to work this morning so I'd like to take the opportunity to thank everybody on the board, (but particularly the heretics), for what has been a wonderful lifeline to the outside world, if not in all conscience the real one.

Thank you all.

Good luck. And thanks for a thought provoking topic. I thoroughly enjoy your measured, calm debating style. I may disagree with the basic theory, and I may be a bit passionate about placing the Starks, Bran and the Children firmly on the side of "We are the world's only hope", but it's been very enjoyable to delve into these matters all the same.

Glad you've recovered and hope you don't get sent somewhere dangerous.

[FanTasy]

BTW: the first thread in this sequence was started by me early in what has turned out to be a long convalesence. I'm now adjudged fit to die for my country again and therefore back to work this morning so I'd like to take the opportunity to thank everybody on the board, (but particularly the heretics), for what has been a wonderful lifeline to the outside world, if not in all conscience the real one.

Thank you all.

Thank you Black Crow. Glad to have been a tiny part of the herecy you started.Take care :cheers: