Heresy 10

[Elaena Targaryen]

I just can't see them raising babies to become Walkers. It would take at least 10-12 years before the "body" would be big enough to do anything useful. I guess they could magically age/grow the body but it still seems like a lot of trouble. If your a warg, seems it would be easier to just "take" a body as opposed to raising/growing one.

As to Crasters wives - Yes, they say the Walkers are Casters sons but we don't know yet if that's true. Like Old Nan saying they feed their servants the blood of children (Crasters sons maybe).

Either statement could be true since we only have the one source to go by.

Until GRRM tells us what actually happens to Crasters sons to me the scales are pretty much balanced between - become White Walkers or become White Walker food/essence and I lean toward the latter.

I have wondered if abandoning the 5 year gap had any effects on Gilly's babe at the Wall. I have always been very interested in the little "monter" and what will happen with him.

[Stark@heart]

I have wondered if abandoning the 5 year gap had any effects on Gilly's babe at the Wall. I have always been very interested in the little "monter" and what will happen with him.

I've posted on Mel & Monster before. I think things are gonna get really interesting at the Wall when Mel burns the little tyke. I've asked the question more than once but nobody's cared to think about it and give any answer.

What happens when Mel burns the little monster/Crasters son thinking its Mances son with Kingsblood? How will Crasters son blood affect her blood magic spell? Is this how she awakens an (Ice) dragon from stone/the Wall? I think she'll do the sacrifice to save/revive Stannis but Stannis will be " not what she's expecting" I think Stannis has been set up to be a New/different Night King and if Crasters blood is indeed cursed/bound to the Others then..

[Bran Vras]

I've posted on Mel & Monster before. I think things are gonna get really interesting at the Wall when Mel burns the little tyke. I've asked the question more than once but nobody's cared to think about it and give any answer.

What happens when Mel burns the little monster/Crasters son thinking its Mances son with Kingsblood? How will Crasters son blood affect her blood magic spell? Is this how she awakens an (Ice) dragon from stone/the Wall? I think she'll do the sacrifice to save/revive Stannis but Stannis will be " not what she's expecting" I think Stannis has been set up to be a New/different Night King and if Crasters blood is indeed cursed/bound to the Others then..

It's worthwhile to note that both Melisandre and Val seem interested in Craster's son. It seems to me that there has been an agreement between Melisandre and Val regarding the Mance/Rattleshirt and Dalla's boy/Gilly's boy switches. (Jon Snow is, not uncharacteristically, clueless.)

In the Mance Rayder thread, we discussed the possibility that Val is some kind of moonsinger, a religious vocation which seem to have a tradition of singing birthing songs. Jon Snow catches Val singing to the little monster in ADwD. The interest of Val in the baby seems redoubled when she returns from her expedition beyond the Wall.

Whatever the red religion and the white religion want to do with the baby, I wonder what effect the song of the seven that Sam sang to the baby in the longhall will have.

[Iceborn]

@Elaena Targaryen how long is "long dead" a lifetime, centuries?

a note on mel she lets mance live to rescue "Arya" from the boltons at winterfell

[jon rr stark]

@Elaena Targaryen how long is "long dead" a lifetime, centuries?

a note on mel she lets mance live to rescue "Arya" from the boltons at winterfell

No she she didn't she sent him to find the girl she saw in her vision wandering beside a lake who she thought was Arya and jumped the gun as usual and told Jon, so she had to send Mance to get her. Mel never said anything about going to winterfell to Mance. Alys Karstark didn't encounter Mance on her journey to castle black, so at some point Mance took it upon himself to get some spearwives and goto winterfell and not go looking beside a lake.

[Iceborn]

Or he is good at tracking, but my point stands mel didn't kill him

[Black Crow]

Or he is good at tracking, but my point stands mel didn't kill him

She didn't but Mance is a question all to himself. We don't know what he's really up to but there seems to be some kind of connection between him and Mel, as if he spoke certain words or showed her a coin. Not that I actually believe for one moment that he's a Faceless Man, but rather that to behave as she has towards him implies a connection rather than uncovenanted sweetness and light on Mel's part.

[Black Crow]

I've posted on Mel & Monster before. I think things are gonna get really interesting at the Wall when Mel burns the little tyke. I've asked the question more than once but nobody's cared to think about it and give any answer.

What happens when Mel burns the little monster/Crasters son thinking its Mances son with Kingsblood? How will Crasters son blood affect her blood magic spell? Is this how she awakens an (Ice) dragon from stone/the Wall? I think she'll do the sacrifice to save/revive Stannis but Stannis will be " not what she's expecting" I think Stannis has been set up to be a New/different Night King and if Crasters blood is indeed cursed/bound to the Others then..

I'm not convinced that after passing up the chance to burn Mance, who seems to be acting with her in whatever it is he's really up to, that Mel proposes to burn the Monster. If its not a double bluff and the babies were never actually switched, the significance of Craster's son being on the Wall is more likely to be the reappearance of his brothers coming looking for him.

As to Stannis, his becoming the "new" Nights King has been a popular theory on some other threads, but I'm still of the opinion that it will be Jon Snow, the Ice Dragon who becomes the Nights King/King of Winter. Stannis is interesting in that he's always been set up as a doomed figure, but until the Theon chapter from WoW was released, we've only ever seen him in Mel's company. On his own we see again the man who held Storm's End to the last onion. We've noted of course how the making of the Shadow Babies visibly drained him, but I wonder if it goes further and that Mel herself has been feeding off him in succubus fashion.

[Bran Vras]

If its not a double bluff and the babies were never actually switched

I considered that as well, but Gilly's distress seems too real during the journey to Oldtown.

the significance of Craster's son being on the Wall is more likely to be the reappearance of his brothers coming looking for him.

That sounds reasonable. In the same sense that Jaqen H'ghar said the red god needed to have his due in Harrenhal. (What I never understood is why the fire that should have killed Jaqen, Rorge and Biter was so special that it should be considered an offering to R'hllor. I scrutinized every detail and could not find anything convincing.)

I wonder if the request of Val for Craster's son (she told Jon that she deserved to be given the monster, as a reward for bringing Tormund's host to the Wall) has for purpose to give the monster back to the brothers to appease them. Just an idea.

Note also that Gilly's son, after escaping being given to the cold, is in danger to be given to the fire. Just like Mance has escaped being given to the fire, in a cage, and is now said to be given to the cold in a cage by Ramsay ("the cage is cold" said the letter).

[Black Crow]

I wonder if the request of Val for Craster's son (she told Jon that she deserved to be given the monster, as a reward for bringing Tormund's host to the Wall) has for purpose to give the monster back to the brothers to appease them. Just an idea.

I'm not sure that appeasement is the right word, but I do so like the suggestion that the White Lady wants to give Craster's son to the White Walkers.

[Bran Vras]

I'm not sure that appeasement is the right word, but I do so like the suggestion that the White Lady wants to give Craster's son to the White Walkers.

Note though that Dalla was the one who advised Mance about the necessity to keep the Wall to protect from the Others. Val herself, when she left the Wall, said that the real cold is when the Others come. So the white sisters are not friends of the Others, and I doubt they are priestess in the same cause as the Others.

[Corm]

As always, please don't take my criticism as offensive.

I don't know how anyone could have thought that post was anything but offensive and I see no reason for you to post on here if you're merely going to criticise what everyone says without joining the conversation.

Anyway, has anyone discussed the strange behaviour of the White Walkers thus far in the books? Just want to know before I start a discussion about it.

BTW I like the idea that Val wanted to give the monster back to the White Walkers

[Free Northman]

I don't know how anyone could have thought that post was anything but offensive and I see no reason for you to post on here if you're merely going to criticise what everyone says without joining the conversation.

Anyway, has anyone discussed the strange behaviour of the White Walkers thus far in the books? Just want to know before I start a discussion about it.

BTW I like the idea that Val wanted to give the monster back to the White Walkers

Oh I've posted on here plenty. Up to Heresy thread #4 or so. And may do so again. I've substantiated everything I disagree with in these threads, but when quotes directly from the books are constantly "re-interpreted" to fit a fanciful theory, it becomes a bit pointless after a while.

You can only refute something with textual evidence, such as Tyrion travelling through Andalos in Essos, and learning about the vision of the Seven appearing to the King of the Andals in the Hills of Andalos, thus birthing the Faith of the Seven BEFORE they came to Westeros.

But when theories are then presented stating that the Andals were actually worshippers of R'hlorr, well, how do you argue against that, other than saying it is not supported by the text?

That's my main gripe with this thread. What we are told in the books is mostly ignored, or seen as actually meaning more or less the opposite of what it says.

8000 years? Nope. It's probably 2000 years.

The Long Night preceded the arrival of the Andals? No, that can't be right, it probably happened much more recently.

The Starks oppose the Others? Nope. They are allied to them.

The Andals worshipped the Seven? Nah, they were R'hlorr worshippers.

And so on and so forth.

This entire thread, while entertaining, simply contradicts almost everything in the books.

[Free Northman]

Here's my view:

We have two seperate sources indicating that Dragons don't have an earthly origin.

First the Dothraki origin legend states that Dragons were evil beasts that came from a second moon that cracked like an egg to spill thousands of dragons over the earth.

And secondly, the Kindly Old Man tells Arya that the old tales say that the firewyrms were in the Fourteen Flames of Valyria even before the dragons came. He thus indicates that there was a time in human history that preceded the arrival of the dragons, else human histories would have no record of it.

So my theory is that the arrival of the dragons was a cataclysmic event that heralded a disruption of the natural balance between Ice and Fire, and thus created the lopsided seasons.

I further postulate that the presence of the Dragons further led to the dominance of Fire over Ice that would eventually destroy the native life on this planet.

Thus, the Children were probably forced into using great magic to create the Long Night, with the sole purpose of eradicating Dragons on the planet.

Martin has stated that dragons once lived all over the earth, including in Westeros. But by the time of the birth of Valyria it is clear that they only survived in the Fourteen Flames of Valyria. This is what allowed the Valyrians - who were primitive shepherds at the time - to eventually conquer the world. They had dragons, and no one else had any.

We know that this was 5000 years ago, and that at this point the Empire of Old Ghis was already ancient. And yet the Ghiscari had no dragons. So clearly dragons must have been destroyed across the rest of the world before the Ghiscari Empire was born, or at least a signficant time prior to the rise of the Valyrians.

So the death of all dragons - save those sheltered within the protective heat of the Fourteen Volcanoes of Valyria - 8000 years ago during the Long Night would allow all of the pieces of the timeline puzzle to fit together.

Dragons had to be alive in Westeros recently enough to have oral histories of them from the time of the Age of Heroes. If they survived in Westeros until 8000 years ago, then this requirement would be met.

Secondly, dragons had to disappear from the entire world except Valyria prior to the rise of the Ghiscari Empire. Again, if the Long Night eradicated the dragons 8000 years ago it probably also wiped most of humanity off the map, thus allowing the birth of the Old Ghis immediately after the Long Night had ended and dragons had disappeared. So Ghis would rise, but dragons would not exist anymore (other than the as yet undiscovered surviving dragons in the Valyrian volcanoes). So this requirement too is met by my theory.

Thirdly, the initial arrival of dragons would have had to be recent enough that early human cultures must have been present to observe it thus leading to the survival of the Dothraki origin tale, as well as the ancient knowledge that firewyrms existed in Valyria prior to the first arrival of the dragons.

So a first arrival date for dragons in this world of around 12000 years ago sounds about right to me.

And this coincides with the first migration of the First Men to Westeros, their wars with the Children of the Forest, and their resultant shattering of the Arm of Dorne with the cataclysmic magical event known as the Hammer of the Waters.

Starting to see the bigger picture?

So here's my summarised timeline:

Prior to 12000 years ago - No dragons on earth, and only primitive bronze age human cultures in Essos

12000 years ago - The First Men reach Westeros and engage in war with the million year old culture of the Children of the Forest.

12000 years ago - The Children use their magic - probably in a perversion of its normal life affirming and naturally harmonious way - to bring down some type of planeteray body to shatter the Arm of Dorne.

Either the dragons were contained within this interstellar rock, or the cataclysm unleashed some long buried firewyrms from deep within the earth, and magically transformed them into dragons, who quickly spread across the entire earth as a new dominant life form.

To prevent the force of Fire to destroy the natural balance, the Children in their desperation had to unleash the Long Night. This too was a perversion of their natural magic and somehow led to the creation of the Others. However, this mighty spell took many generations to complete, and 4000 years passed before it eventually culminated in the Long Night and the eradication of the dragons - and also of most of humanity as an unfortunate side effect.

All human memories of dragons in Westeros therefore date from before the Long Night.

This ancestral memory is also why the Valyrians never tried to conquer Westeros prior to Aegons time.

So there, that's my theory on how the big puzzle fits together. I've provided most of it before, and obviously it is impossible to flesh out all the gaps with the limited information at our disposal, but I think this is far more likely than some of the theories I've seen in the Heresy thread.

[eivers]

So far we only know that no dragons lived in Westeros or Essos (sans Valyria). There is at least 1 other continent as of yet untouched by GRRM where dragons could still roam. As to the appearance of Dragons they could simply be a mutation of the firewyrm. As to dragons living in Westeros they may of in small numbers. A couple straying to far home arrive in Westeros during a long summer. When winter came they migrated south to Dorne only to fly back north when summer came again. No surviving dragons could simply mean a rather nasty winter did them in.

[Corm]

And secondly, the Kindly Old Man tells Arya that the old tales say that the firewyrms were in the Fourteen Flames of Valyria even before the dragons came. He thus indicates that there was a time in human history that preceded the arrival of the dragons, else human histories would have no record of it.

Or, alternatively, the dragons lived somewhere else, say in Sothyros or the Shadow.

So the death of all dragons - save those sheltered within the protective heat of the Fourteen Volcanoes of Valyria - 8000 years ago during the Long Night would allow all of the pieces of the timeline puzzle to fit together.

Dragons had to be alive in Westeros recently enough to have oral histories of them from the time of the Age of Heroes. If they survived in Westeros until 8000 years ago, then this requirement would be met.

You've contradicted yourself, first you sat we should believe the 12000 year-old oral history of Westeros then you would have us believe that there were dragons in Westeros for 4000 years but there is no mention of that by anyone in any history?

Your theory seems as fact-based as anything else on here, you just believe yours more.

You say we can only go on things with textual evidence but the people on here work on the basis that the evidence doesn't make sense, that we simply cannot believe everything we read, a point that has been backed up by the text and GRRM himself.

[Francis Buck]

Just to continue an idea from the previous thread, I have to agree that the terms "White Walker" and "Others" are entirely synonymous. I think the only reason this debate even exists is because of the TV show. That is all.

[VaramyrSixchins]

You've contradicted yourself, first you sat we should believe the 12000 year-old oral history of Westeros then you would have us believe that there were dragons in Westeros for 4000 years but there is no mention of that by anyone in any history?

Well, if Free Northman is right about Age Of Hero era oral histories involving dragons (I won't say that's wrong, I just can't recall such off the top of my head) then there IS a mention in those 4000 years.

Newbie here, but LOVIN' these heresy threads!!! What I love best about the series is the theme of morality as shades of grey. As such, I'm immensely enjoying the deconstruction of the idea of the Others as a purely evil existential threat.

[Corm]

Well, if Free Northman is right about Age Of Hero era oral histories involving dragons (I won't say that's wrong, I just can't recall such off the top of my head) then there IS a mention in those 4000 years.

Where is it mentioned?

[redriver]

Rewatching and freezing the scenes where the Other takes the baby,it seems pretty clear that the Other kills the baby with a bite.That's when he stops crying.Season 2,ep 2

So is it hot blood it wants or a lifeforce/soul?

Human sacrifice is bad=major theme,imo.