Heresy 8

[Free Northman]

Not really. We have a legend that Bran Stark founded the line of Starks, built the Wall, built Storm's End and established Winterfell. If we have 8000 years worth of Stark tombs and assume the first one is Bran Stark because of the legend we've only succeeded in constructing a circular argument. 8000 year's worth of Stark tombs is only one data point, you'd want something similarly certain to draw firm conclusions like ice core data from the middle of the Wall or more sensibly, given the Citadel's probable lack of expertise in that area, a reliable list of Lords Commander of the Wall.

In any case 8000 years is just a number. I don't think it is meant to mean much more than to tell us that we are talking about things that are very ancient or more importantly are believed to be very ancient.

The significance is not when the ancient events happened but what their relationship to each other is, or might be.

Where's that mention of the prophecy being 5000 years old in the books Free Northman? Don't recall who mentioned that.

I am busy with a reread, and read it either in Clash of Kings or Storm of Swords - which I'm currently completing again. I think it is mentioned by Mellisandre, when speaking to Davos.

[Free Northman]

However, I am sure you will just end up questioning that 5000 year old date as well.

It seems that in order to build your "Heresy" theory, you guys are quick to question pretty much any date or fact that is provided during the course of the series, but then you are happy to build an entire thesis on a one line reference to some Night's King, who was probably just a rogue Lord Commander gone bad.

You dismiss Brandon building the Wall as a legend, but an offhand reference to some Night's King suddenly becomes the basis for believing that the Starks and the Others are intimitely linked.

From Davos's Dance chapters, we know that Jon Stark - who built the Wolf's Den - lived between 3000 to 4000 years ago, at least. And there is no record of any Long Night during this period. So at the very least, the Long Night happend more than 4000 years ago.

Similarly, it didn't happend during the reign of the Valyrian empire - which has existed since around 5000 years ago. Because if had - and affected the entire world - then they would have saddled their dragons, mobilised their powerful sorcerors, and charged into Westoros to counter this existential threat head on.

They did not do this, as there is no record of any Valyrian presence in Westeros prior to the arrival of Aegon the Conqueror 300 years ago. And the Valyrian Empire being as advanced as it was, they would have had historical accounts of such a world changing event.

Instead, there is no mention of it passed down to us in the Free Cities, or any other area that was once under Valyrian control.

This proves to me that the Long Night preceded the birth of the Valyrian Empire, and probably by a significant margin of time. And this links perfectly with the prophecy of Azor Ahai's return being more than 5000 years old in the East.

And if the Long Night precedes the birth of the Valyrian Empire, it predates the arrival of the Andals in Westeros as well, since it was most likely the Valyrian pressure that caused the Andals to migrate west in the first place.

8000 years fits perfectly for the Long Night.

[Drunkenspeton]

Dates can be a little confusing.

The first men left only runes carved on rocks. Theonly tombs we have seen are post Andal. The cotf are our our best bet for establishing dates given their longevity.

The arrival of the Andals who had iron is similar to the bronze age collapse. But we don't know if it was a sudden incident or a much more gradual one nor the diffusion of iron.

Leaf told Bran that the Children and the giants had inhabited Westeros for a thousand, thousand years. A million years and the children are long lived.

In their timeline ten thousand years and the arrival of men is but the blink of an eye. She indicates the children, giants and mammoths etc are dieing off similar to the pleistociene extinction of our own world.

This is the passing of one age into a new. Highly speculative but this is my own pet theory.

I believe the children and the Others were in Westeros when man was emerging from the jungle and learning to strike flint.

The arrival of the first men upset a balance. Before there was balance between the Children who sing the song of earth and the others.

Man was roaming around on Essos and developed a bronze age culture the' first men' who migrated into westeros.

Men upset a balance which led to the long night, the upsetting of the balance led to the pact which was broken by the Andals. Anyway the Children, the others, giants etc they are all dying races. The conclusion of the story will result in their extinction and/or a restoration of the balance.

[Bran Vras]

I thought that the human remains in the tree were one of the few things we could be sure about post ADWD - we have a pattern of human sacrifice in the worship of the old gods or in other words sacrificial offerings are part of the worship of the old gods. We have the tree on the island in an Asha chapter, Bran's vision, the Whiteharbour jailer's story about the recapture of Whitehaven from the Slavers and then

There is the ending of the Theon chapter in TWOW

the interesting debate to be had is if Craster's behaviour with his sons and his sheep fits into the same worship or is a variant of it. Because if these are both acts of worship to the same supernatural forces then this both makes the old gods seem more sinister and (although possibly only indirectly) links the children and the white walkers.

It's not clear that the remains at ACoK are the result of human sacrifice. The rangers don't seem to believe it. But the possibility is there.

I have now a number of observations and conjectures to make about the the organization of the wildling villages (with the various elements: the longhall, the weirwood, the longhall, the sheepfold, the well, the absence of pigs and how does that fit with Whitetree, Craster's keep etc.) Another thread is in order!

Here is one question, perhaps related to the question of timeline raised by Black Crow in his eighth heresy: if the weirwood of Whitetree is indeed older than the other trees we know, perhaps older than the Wall, or the coming of the First Men, could it be that the hollow trunk is a remnant of an older worship of the Old Gods? Are the faces currently drawn on the trunks a weak inheritance of an older practice?

[hotweaselsoup]

The question therefore is what happens next. Both his continuance in the story and Mel's vision of him going from man to wolf and back to man indicates that Varamyr is wrong and that it is possible to escape, but if its not a question of warging into a body, then we come back to the possibility of his being able to manifest himself as a White Walker, the Ice Dragon.

So much for Jon, what justifies this discussion here rather than on a Jon thread, is that it provides an explanation for the White Walkers. There are no numberless hordes of them, just a few because they are "dead" wargs, and not just any old wargs but dead Stark wargs.

I agree with you that Jon will spend some time in Ghost, but rather than resurrecting as a White Walker, I think it may be that he does make his way back into his own dead, frozen body. We have Coldhands as an example of that possibility, and there is plenty of foreshadowing (Jon's penchant for the black moleskin gloves, the black ice armor, Bran's vision of Jon growing ever colder at the Wall, Mel's vision of man-wolf-man, Dany's dream of an icy lover, etc.) Yes, we are informed via Varamyr's chapter that the "second life" is the final one, and that the skinchanger gives up his or her skinchanging abilities once dead - but, as Jojen above said, these things are only said to happen, and are not necessarily known. I guess the question is: does the skinchanging power reside in the spirit, or the flesh, of the skinchanger?

You could be right, of course - we could end up with White Walker Jon rather than Coldhands Jon. But the latter possibility feels more right to me, in the context of the narrative so far.

[Lummel]

...It seems that in order to build your "Heresy" theory, you guys are quick to question pretty much any date or fact that is provided during the course of the series, but then you are happy to build an entire thesis on a one line reference to some Night's King, who was probably just a rogue Lord Commander gone bad.

You dismiss Brandon building the Wall as a legend, but an offhand reference to some Night's King suddenly becomes the basis for believing that the Starks and the Others are intimitely linked...

I'm not saying that Bran the builder didn't do all the things that the legends say that he did, I just don't trust the timeline. Don't forget that it is Old Nan who tells us about the relationship of the Night's King with an Other. That's not us going off on a tangent - that's GRRM telling us something.

The dates are arbitary in my opinion. The question is what does the backstory do - what is it's purpose?

Is it just to create a mood or atmosphere? In which case something like the Night's king is just there to make the Night Fort seem extra creepy and give a reason for Bran to feel fearful?

Is it because in Westeros history is cyclical and events will repeat themselves literally and we should be on the lookout for a new Night's King, and some think this might be Stannis and Melisandre but now we also have Jon and Val (a lady clad all in white with blue eyes as we learn in ADWD)?

Is it because there is some kind of meaning in the legends, not just about historical patterns repeating themselves but about the causes of the things we see in the present time of the book like the Wall, the Watch, might these legends suggest a solution to the problems and a resolution to the song of ice and fire?

Is it because the legends and prophecies are self forfiling traps? Melisandre knows the legend of Azor Ahai and is attempting to recreate it, Rhaegar knew the legend of the prince who was promised and attempted to recreate it and caused a disaster. There might be no reality behind any of these legends, but because people believe in them blindly they could end up being the motive forces in the book - which might be the case if GRRM is a bit ironic and is looking for a bittersweet ending.

In any case GRRM is telling us to be suspicious of given dates and they aren't on their own meaningful. The importance is how those events relate to each other and what job they have to do in the story.

[Drunkenspeton]

I hope Jon doesn't spend more than fleeting moments in ghost. The dies and goes into a dog/wolf and is resurrected is done. Hobb did it who grrm is a fan of.

Knowing his market is fantasy fans I hope he wouldn't use that as a plot device. I'm not averse to some sort of dream sequecne in Ghost similar to whatweve already seen but beyond that I think it would become contrived and further more a blatant rip off of Hobb.

Its an old and contrived plot device and I hope GRRM is more original than that.

[Lummel]

It's not clear that the remains at ACoK are the result of human sacrifice. The rangers don't seem to believe it. But the possibility is there...

Here is one question, perhaps related to the question of timeline raised by Black Crow in his eighth heresy: if the weirwood of Whitetree is indeed older than the other trees we know, perhaps older than the Wall, or the coming of the First Men, could it be that the hollow trunk is a remnant of an older worship of the Old Gods? Are the faces currently drawn on the trunks a weak inheritance of an older practice?

With regard to the older practise I think what is happening is a slow process of revelation. So in AGOT we have The Ned, so we think the Starks are all good. The Ned worships trees so we think this is all wholesome.

What we then have is the slow reveal. Starks can be ... well not like The Ned, they can be like his big brother who likes to get some blood on his 'sword'. The old gods are not just sweet wholesome nature gods. While sacrifice and other old ways don't seem to be mainstream amongst the Starks now, it seems they were in the past and maybe still beyond the Wall and in parts of the North away from the direct gaze of Winterfell.

[Uncat]

Is it because the legends and prophecies are self forfiling traps? Melisandre knows the legend of Azor Ahai and is attempting to recreate it, Rhaegar knew the legend of the prince who was promised and attempted to recreate it and caused a disaster. There might be no reality behind any of these legends, but because people believe in them blindly they could end up being the motive forces in the book - which might be the case if GRRM is a bit ironic and is looking for a bittersweet ending.

This might actually be, what GRRM's first idea for this books was. He told, that when he started working on this project, Westeros was a world almost without phantastic qualities such as magic. So no draggons, Wall or children, just High Lords fighting over a crown. But there must have something there interesting enough to fire up GRRMs phantasy. And I guess, that this was the idea of this houses go over the top, plotting, murdering, burning and tearing a whole kingdom apart just to fulfill some silly old prophecies. But this is just speculation on my part. Though it would mean that this prophecies root very deep in the plott as it is now.

[Elaena Targaryen]

I'm talking about the Stark kings in the tombs below Winterfell.

Every king is represented by a statue, going back in an unbroken line. We have only been shown the top level, which goes back to more or less King Jon Stark who lived about 3000-4000 years ago, based on the cross referenced , Maester supported timeline provided in the Davos chapters in Dance.

Could you tell me where this is or provide quotes, I'm to lazy to look myself, thanks. Does it specifically say King Jon Stark live 3000 to 4000 years ago? A 1000 year difference seems big to me but I don't get so into the timelines usually.

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

I was thinking in another thread, what if Cersei flees King's Landing w/ Tommen, bunkers down at the Rock.... The dark tide crumbling towers is a wight/others attack against somewhere, and Stannis makes the Nightfort his royal seat, the capital of the realm, from which he can direct the realm's defense against the Others.

[Free Northman]

Could you tell me where this is or provide quotes, I'm to lazy to look myself, thanks. Does it specifically say King Jon Stark live 3000 to 4000 years ago? A 1000 year difference seems big to me but I don't get so into the timelines usually.

It isn't provided in a single quote, but Martin provided cross referenced historical data to us in two Davos chapters in Dance from Sisterton and White Harbor respectively, which will allow you to piece it together if you study it carefully. I have done so, on a previous thread. I don't have the book in front of me now, but from memory it goes something like this:

In Sisterton, Lord Borric tells Davos that the "Rape of Sisterton" by the Starks occurred 2000 years ago, "according to the Maesters". He then says that the Sisters had to ally themselves with the Arryns in order to eventually rid themselves of the northmen after that.

As we will see later, this refers to the long series of wars between the North and the Vale, which included a lot of fighting over the ownership of the Sisters, before the Vale eventually took and retained control over the islands.

In the White Harbor chapter, Davos is provided with a history of the Wolf's Den, which is the ancient castle that existed before White Harbor was founded in its place by the Manderlys, 1000 years ago.

It is stated that King Jon Stark built the Wolf's Den, after driving out Sea Raiders who had landed on the spot previously.

The question now is how long the timespan was between the founding of the Wolf's Den and the founding of White Harbor, 1000 years ago.

We are told that the following events took place between these two dates:

The Wolf's Den was held by Pirates from the Stepstones, before King Brandon Ice Eyes, the son of Edrick Snowbeard, descendend on them and slaughtered them in a cold, cruel winter. We are not told how long before the Mandrelys arrival this took place.

An indeterminate time before that, the Wolf's Den was captured by Lord Arryn of the Vale, during the 1000 year war between the Vale and the North.

An indeterminate time before that, it was captured by pirates from the Sisters.

Now this is where the history ties back to the Sisterton chapter, where the wars between the Vale and the North were also referred to, as well as the Rape of Sisterton - which took place 2000 years ago, ACCORDING TO THE MAESTERS.

It is highly likely that the Rape of Sisterton took place in retaliation for the raiders from the Sisters who captured the Wolfs Den, and thus we are able to date this event in the history of the Wolf's Den as happening approximately 2000 years ago. It seems that after the raiders were defeated, the North pushed on and subjugated the Three sisters to eradicate the threat for good. This is referred to as the "Rape of Sisterton."

It was this event which prompted the Sisters to ally with the Vale, to eject the Northmen, whose sense of harsh justice in those days is by now well familiar to us. These wars lasted for 1000 years. I doubt that the North/Vale wars started as a result of the Sisterton issue, and more likely the Sistermen merely used the existing enmity between these two powers to gain a powerful ally to eject the Northmen from their islands.

Either way, I will assume the shortest possible history and thus put the START of the 1000 year North/Vale war at this point, 2000 years ago. Otherwise the timeline would be even longer.

The point is, we have a marker 2000 years ago.

Now, we are told that BEFORE the Sistermen held the Wolf's Den 2000 years ago, it passed through a long line of minor Houses, Flints, Ryswells and a host more, each family which held the Wolf's Den for a varying number of generations - some for almost two centuries, others for a century, others shorter.

The longest of these, held it for 200 years. Another held it for something like 100 years. Now, if one family held it for 200 years, and there were as many as a dozen or more families that held it before and after, then the combined length of time that these minor Houses held the Wolf's Den must at the very least reach 1000 years.

So already this takes us back to 3000 years ago.

And before all of these, the Wolf's Den was held by various branches of House Stark, who held it for an indeterminate number of generations. One branch alone - the Greystarks - held it for 500 years, until they joined with a rebel lord in revolt against the Starks of Winterfell. How many Stark branches held the Wolf's Den is not known, but if the Greystarks alone held it for 500 years, we are probably looking at well over 1000 years for all the branches. So add that to all the minor Houses above, and we easily go back 2000 years before the Rape of Sisterton. Meaning 4000 years ago in total.

So piecing all of the above together, you get a conserative estimate of the age of the Wolf's Den of around 4000 years. But it could well be even older.

The detail that is contained in the listing of the various events that transpired in its history - and this just in a brief conversation with Davos - tells me that the list of Houses that held it inbetween, and the corresponding dates, are in fact available. This was some jailor who was talking to Davos, not even a scholar.

It seems clear that Martin was trying to give us a bit of detail on the North's history, in these two chapters that can be cross referenced to each other.

[Bran Vras]

White Harbor is the economic centre of the north and Manderly has a court there. It's obviously very important and was always the source of trouble before the Manderlys came. Since then there has been a millennium of peace it seems. It is as if the Starks gave White Harbor to the Manderlys so that White Harbor would stop being a source of dispute between the northmen. I don't know if it was deliberate, but it's a strange political idea to obtain peace by giving the economic centre of power to outsiders.

Was White Harbor the source of trouble because of its wealth or because of the power of the Old Gods at the Wolf's Den?

[kissdbyfire]

Where's that mention of the prophecy being 5000 years old in the books Free Northman? Don't recall who mentioned that.

ASoS, chapter 63, Davos:

Melisandre moved closer. “Save them, sire. Let me wake the stone dragons. Three is three. Give me the boy.”

“Edric Storm,” Davos said.

Stannis rounded on him in a cold fury. “I know his name. Spare me your reproaches. I like this no more than you do, but my duty is to the realm. My duty . . . ” He turned back to Melisandre. “You swear there is no other way? Swear it on your life, for I promise, you shall die by inches if you lie.”

“You are he who must stand against the Other. The one whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago. The red comet was your herald. You are the prince that was promised, and if you fail the world fails with you.” Melisandre went to him, her red lips parted, her ruby throbbing. “Give me this boy,” she whispered, “and I will give you your kingdom.”

[Lykos]

<snip>The one whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago. <snip>

This fits very well with my idea that the Legend of Azor Ahai is connected to the rise of Valyria 5000 years ago (if Dany remembers correctly), but has nothing to do with the Last Hero and the Long Night.

ETA: Free Northman, I think the chain of events is important not the dates. Have you considered that the clans were in a sort of bidding game, who held the Wolf´s Den longest, to have a better claim, they might have given false dates.

[Lummel]

ASoS, chapter 63, Davos:

...The one whose coming was prophesied five thousand years ago...

Thank you skillful reader & noble quote finder!

This fits very well with my idea that the Legend of Azor Ahai is connected to the rise of Valyria 5000 years ago (if Dany remembers correctly), but has nothing to do with the Last Hero and the Long Night... I think the chain of events is important not the dates...

Yes, that's the big issue really as far as I see it. Because if the Azor Ahai legend is really about fighting harpies or taming dragons in order to fight Old Ghis then Melisandre is being driven by a prophecy that has perhaps no relevence to the struggles for power in Westeros or the continual shift between fire and ice.

When that happened isn't important but how it drives the characters is going to have a big influence on the books.

[Uncat]

Thank you skillful reader & noble quote finder!

Yes, that's the big issue really as far as I see it. Because if the Azor Ahai legend is really about fighting harpies or taming dragons in order to fight Old Ghis then Melisandre is being driven by a prophecy that has perhaps no relevence to the struggles for power in Westeros or the continual shift between fire and ice.

When that happened isn't important but how it drives the characters is going to have a big influence on the books.

If got that feeling in my guts for some time now. The events in present time Westeros and Essos are only linked because Danny is making her way to the throne into a crusade against slavery. And the past events in Essos including AA are only linked to the events in northern Westeros, because people reading prophecies are them.

There isn't one huge conflict but several smaler conflicts which for one reason or another are going to intersect at the wall. Not because it was meant to be but because people driven by different motives including old prophecies are making it happen.

[Black Crow]

I hope Jon doesn't spend more than fleeting moments in ghost. The dies and goes into a dog/wolf and is resurrected is done. Hobb did it who grrm is a fan of.

Knowing his market is fantasy fans I hope he wouldn't use that as a plot device. I'm not averse to some sort of dream sequecne in Ghost similar to whatweve already seen but beyond that I think it would become contrived and further more a blatant rip off of Hobb.

Its an old and contrived plot device and I hope GRRM is more original than that.

Of course he is, as I explained above the prologue to ADwD makes it very clear that if he's dead and has warged into Ghost, he's stuck there until some of the Old Magick gets him out, whether as a White Walker or another Coldhands.

I know the kissed better by Mel option is popular, but apart from the fact that Varamyr's prologue denies its possible, the whole outcome of Mel raising unJon to become AA, defeat the Others and marry Dany is not only way too predictable, its pedestrian, dull and boring.

Jon the Ice Dragon, the King of Winter leading the forces of Ice and the Old Gods against the forces of Light and Fire is a different matter entirely

[lokisnow]

All these timeline issues are fascinating, but no one seems interested in the most fascinating timeline discrepancy. The Doom of Valyria was 400 years ago and the Targaryens fled to Dragonstone. 300 years ago Aegon invaded.

What the hell did they do for 100 years? Did two generations trade with westeros (introduction of the hundreds of Valyrian steel blades) in order to finance attempts to return to Valyria, failing all the time. Did they finance expeditions to Valyria in an attempt to find dragons, dragoneggs or ways to hatch eggs? Did the Targaryens not have dragons until Aegon's generation.

Could Aegon the Conquerer have been Azor Ahai reborn?

***

As for Jon, I agree with Black Crow that the prologue is a hint that Melisandre will be unable to resurrect Jon. I do think Jon, like Benjen before him, will be able to recover his own body. Whether or not this will make him a white walker remains to be seen. We do know that the Cold Preserves. We do know that Jon dreams himself armored in Ice. We do know that Dany saw Jon blooming from the wall. I think Jon will be buried in the wall, making Dany's vision literally true. And something to do with the magic of the wall or of the weirwoods will allow him to reclaim his body. I don't think it is going to be soon, however, I think it might be the final chapter of the next book or the first chapter of the final book, GRRM is going to get us thinking that Jon is good and dead first. GRRM himself said that he thinks dead characters should stay dead.

Crackpot: The human sacrifices were done to force the creation of White Priests (Walkers), and did not have a nefarious purpose of pleasing the Gods with blood, but were meant to "allow" a man to become more than a man... In a sense, it might be similar to how Bran's crippling forced him to develop his third eye. The idea here is that man is limited by his mortality, and if you break his spirit from his mortal life and his spirit reenters his body, he becomes a powerful priest. It's my belief that the Red Priests are dead, that they were human sacrifices who were "burned alive" until they died, then their spirit was brought back into their bodies to reanimate it via the Red Kiss. They use glamours to hide their true blackened visage. (note, in this theory, I think that typically the Red Kiss is purely ceremonial, like pouring some seawater over a man's head to baptize him is ceremonial instead of a drowning, or a faux drowning).

Playing off this, the original Night's Watch were all undead, like the priests of R'hllor. This is why Benjen and Jon can come back to their bodies. They swore a vow before a weirwood. I bet originally you were supposed to swear the vow before the weirwood and be immediately sacrificed before the weirwood, then you would be resurrected to be the watcher on the walls.

This would also explain somewhat more of how the wall could be built, if it were manned by an undead army of Night's Watchmen who were strong and never needed to eat nor sleep. This would explain the need for the Gift, when the Watch converted to mortal men (possibly post Night's King), they needed to feed and supply their now hungry force.

[Uncat]

That gap is bugging me for quite some time. But I have no explanation. What is worse: Why would the Valyrian Freehold place a garrison on that goodforsaken rock in the see? And why would that Garrision be there for time long enough to bild this huge and really old castle - which by the way seems to be the only verstige of Valyrian architecture on Westores. I also seem to rember from somewhere, that the Targs haven been sitting in that castle for quite some time before the doom. I assume it was not in the intend of breeding dragons. They clearly new how to do it. When the - who was it - King visited the North he had six dragons. let that be most of his "air force" and you still have some ten dragons alive in that time while Aegon started out with three dragons. So they new, how to breed dragons (at least as long as you have dragons). I would rather guess, that there is some connection to this prince that was promissed business, that brought them there. But that is just a wild guess.