Heresy 21

[jon rr stark]

Of course maybe it just does what it says it does, and andals, first men believed the wall needed to be manned against the return of the others. Perhaps there have been other sightings of the others throughout history to keep the memory of the long night fresh. Its just that no one has seen them for hundreds of years now.

The status quo in westeros was upset by Aegon so priorities changed. We see that Rickard was looking south rather than north for example.

[Black Crow]

Well the point about the Knights of St. John was that they did a good job defending Christendom against the Turks up until the 16th century, which is why it was considered honourable for knights from all over Europe to join what was effectively an order of warrior monks who served alongside each other irrespective of conflict at home. However after the Great Siege and other Turkish defeats their importance declined and so too did recruits because while they still mounted anti-piracy patrols they were no longer the bulwark of Christendom. In the end Napoleon Bonaparte siezed Malta because it was strategically important to him in trying to take over the Med in the name of France.

The parallels are quite striking. A massive fortification or set of fortifications - the glimpses of Valetta standing in for King's Landing don't do it justice, the scale of the fortifications has to be seen to be believed. A garrison of warrior monks in black (the Knights had white crosses on their black outfits, but that's a mere detail) drawn from all the kingdoms, swearing allegiance to the Order transcending any loyalty to home. Proud defenders of the frontier against an implacable foe, who has to all intents and purposes evaporated, leaving them with little to do but chase pirates and decline in numbers and importance accordingly. Then comes Stannis/Napoleon and takes over to further his own earthly aims...

[Tyryan Lannister]

Why not establish a religious/military order in their own realm then? Why send men to some unknown land far away, to allegedly defend this Wall from some alleged ancient enemy...

Because if the defeated were kept nearby, they would be much more able to raise armies to try and regain what they lost. With sending people to the Wall, you get to save face with the people you just conquered by showing you a "good and merciful" because you didn't kill Lord Whoever, and you get to send him to a place where, if he were to be able to raise an army to fight you again, he would still have to travel through land that covers about as much area as Brazil***.

***Martin has said that Westeros is roughly the same size as South America, and Brazil is roughly half the land mass of South America, just like the North is roughly half the land mass of Westeros.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Why not establish a religious/military order in their own realm then? Why send men to some unknown land far away, to allegedly defend this Wall from some alleged ancient enemy...

Like the Warriors Sons, or the Poor Fellows? The ones the Maegor got rid of about 250 years ago? Or said another way there were others groups beside the watch for that purpose. Which goes back to why I say that while the losers of a battle would be sent to the NW, it wasn't where most men of the watch came from.

While now lost to most people, the Others were a real threat to the Realms of Men. Even as far away as Oldtown it was known.

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

I'm just saying, why would any Andal king send men and treasure to defend the border of their sworn enemy... If its a matter of room and board (which is a silly notion) the Andal kings would be better served by just striking off the heads of malcontents and criminals ... Rather than ship them off to defend their enemy's border.

Better for them to die if the alternative is for them to offer succour to the First Men in the North... which is precisely what they are doing by further securing the Northern border... one more Andal at the defenseless-from-the-South Wall fortresses translates in to one more Northman that can be allocated to the defense of Moat Cailin & The Neck. No matter how its spun, when Andals were sent to the Wall, the North was strengthened at the expense of the Andals.

Who knows.... maybe that even had an effect on why the Andals could never take the North.

What you suggest is of course not impossible... but do you really believe that? There can be quite a gap in between possible and plausible.

[Black Wolf Smith]

I'm just saying, why would any Andal king send men and treasure to defend the border of their sworn enemy... If its a matter of room and board (which is a silly notion) the Andal kings would be better served by just striking off the heads of malcontents and criminals ... Rather than ship them off to defend their enemy's border.

Must be worried about something more then what the Northern men could do to them.

[alienarea]

Must be worried about something more then what the Northern men could do to them.

Maybe the Andals didn't want to conquer the north at all costs? It is colder, not very populated, doesn't have treasures. If the Andals had conquered by force, they would have needed more soldiers to keep it fortified. By allowing the north to defend the neck and sending their unwanted to the wall they create a zone between themselves and the Others (if they knew about them). And if their unwanted at the wall would align and go south, they would need to take northern strongholds first for supplies - which also is good for the Andals in the south.

A different view: if it was known that the Others come with the cold, it was maybe established that they couldn't come down below the neck because it is too warm?

[FanTasy]

Maybe the Andals didn't want to conquer the north at all costs? It is colder, not very populated, doesn't have treasures. If the Andals had conquered by force, they would have needed more soldiers to keep it fortified. By allowing the north to defend the neck and sending their unwanted to the wall they create a zone between themselves and the Others (if they knew about them). And if their unwanted at the wall would align and go south, they would need to take northern strongholds first for supplies - which also is good for the Andals in the south.

A different view: if it was known that the Others come with the cold, it was maybe established that they couldn't come down below the neck because it is too warm?

I always wondered how far the Others came south the first time they came.

Old Nan talks about all the kingdoms that the Others swept over. But these could have been the kingdoms of the North which were later brought under one rule by the Starks.

People as far as in the riverlands seem to have adopted the phrase 'Let the Others take you', so this may or may not indicate that the Others once were a threat that was not something specific to the North.

I'm not sure there are people of Dorne or the Reach who have used this phrase though.

[Black Crow]

Maybe the Andals didn't want to conquer the north at all costs? It is colder, not very populated, doesn't have treasures. If the Andals had conquered by force, they would have needed more soldiers to keep it fortified. By allowing the north to defend the neck and sending their unwanted to the wall they create a zone between themselves and the Others (if they knew about them). And if their unwanted at the wall would align and go south, they would need to take northern strongholds first for supplies - which also is good for the Andals in the south.

A different view: if it was known that the Others come with the cold, it was maybe established that they couldn't come down below the neck because it is too warm?

Again there are historical parallels. The Romans were wont to conquer people at one end of their empire and then demand recruits for their Auxiliary units, who would be posted to the opposite end, where they could do a good job defending the frontier without any worries about their being revolting. This is why for example on Hadrian's Wall there was a unit of boatmen from the Tigris (Iraq) shipping supplies up and down the Tyne, and at least one unit of bowmen from the same region.

As pointed out, if Westeros is the size of South America and the North as big as Brazil, then the Wall is a long way from the Neck and passing recruits to the Wall is indeed comparable with sending younger sons to join the Knights of St. John to guard against the greater threat from the Ottoman Turks.

This again comes back to a heretical re-interpretation of the Nights King story, because I nevertheless agree with Sword of the Mid Afternoon that sending/allowing Andal troops to pass through the defences of the Neck to the North doesn't make sense in the context of sustained conflict between a newly Andal dominated south and the First Men hold-outs in the North. However, if its the First Men and the Old Races, and Stark of Winterfell cuts a deal allowing the Andal crusaders in to defeat the Old Races and chase them beyond the Wall in return for their support for making him King in the North - perhaps finally defeating the likes of the Boltons as well in the process, and bringing in Andal families such as the Manderleys, as some of the early Scottish kings did to help cement their position, then we start to make sense of some of the very real contradictions highlighted by Sword.

[Black Crow]

I always wondered how far the Others came south the first time they came.

Old Nan talks about all the kingdoms that the Others swept over. But these could have been the kingdoms of the North which were later brought under one rule by the Starks.

People as far as in the riverlands seem to have adopted the phrase 'Let the Others take you', so this may or may not indicate that the Others once were a threat that was not something specific to the North.

I'm not sure there are people of Dorne or the Reach who have used this phrase though.

Its something we did discuss a couple of Heresies ago - you may have been on vacation at the time. Old Nan tells how the Last Hero set off with his companions and his dog to seek out the Children in the hope that their great magic might help recover the lands that the armies of men had lost. This rather suggests he was setting out from somewhere not yet lost, and I did propose at the time that the Others/Sidhe had come down as far as the Neck. Below the Neck there'd be sufficient horror stories from refugees to inspire long folk memories without requiring the cold lot to actually take over. The supplementary suggestion is then only that a part of the lost lands were recovered, which is why the North is so thinly populated by comparison with the rest, and why there are lost kingdoms beyond the Wall.

[FanTasy]

Interesting! The shield hall shows us that once there was a large contingent of knights at Castle Black (and maybe at the other strongholds as well).

Never thought of this before, but what the heck were those knights doing?

Knights are fighting men, with destriers ... so who did they fight if the Others were defeated and licking their wounds in their lands of always winter, as is the belief.

Were all these knights participating in ranging parties beyond the Wall? If so, why? What was the threat of the wildlings?

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

Must be worried about something more then what the Northern men could do to them.

They have no reason to be... only tales.

[Black Crow]

Take more than "tales" to keep drawing men up there, especially after the Andal takeover. We're told that the Children and "other old races" fled beyond the Wall after the Andals came; somebody had to have chased them there, which suggests it was a Watch dominated by Andal knights, whose enthusiasm tailed off when they were no longer fighting battles but chasing ragged arsed bandits in the forests.

[nenya~]

Interesting! The shield hall shows us that once there was a large contingent of knights at Castle Black (and maybe at the other strongholds as well).

Also, it's said that the Nightfort is twice as old as Castle Black. If that's true, then Castle Black is probably at most 4,000 years old, which is about the same time as the Andal invasions. I wonder if the Andals could have built it, which could explain the shield hall and Sept.

Never thought of this before, but what the heck were those knights doing?

Knights are fighting men, with destriers ... so who did they fight if the Others were defeated and licking their wounds in their lands of always winter, as is the belief.

Were all these knights participating in ranging parties beyond the Wall? If so, why? What was the threat of the wildlings?

The Gendel and Gorne invasion was 3,000 years ago, and I think the Horned Lord may have been around that time as well. The Horned Lord wasn't given a timeframe, but it could've happened after the Andals came.

Also, about the Night's King....I'm still not convinced the he had anything to do with the Andals, but I do think there is something fishy about the them being in the Night's Watch.

[Black Crow]

Also, it's said that the Nightfort is twice as old as Castle Black. If that's true, then Castle Black is probably at most 4,000 years old, which is about the same time as the Andal invasions. I wonder if the Andals could have built it, which could explain the shield hall and Sept.

I don't for a moment believe the Nightfort is 8,000 years old. Leaving aside the improbability is such a lengthy timeline, everything points to the various castles being built long after the Wall was created and the context suggests something to do with an Andal takeover, or rather a Watch dominated by Andals. That may not sit too well with orthodox thinking, but the whole point of the heresy threads is to try and make sense of the massive contradictions in the story thus presented.

[nenya~]

That's why I said "at most" though. Even if it were built, say 5000 years ago, that would make Castle Black 2500 years old. (if we take the nightfort being twice as old at face value.) Either way, my main point was that I think Castle Black was probably built after the Andals arrival.

[alienarea]

That's why I said "at most" though. Even if it were built, say 5000 years ago, that would make Castle Black 2500 years old. (if we take the nightfort being twice as old at face value.) Either way, my main point was that I think Castle Black was probably built after the Andals arrival.

We only have Nightfort and Dreadfort ending with -fort. This suggests they are older, and -fort is a First Men term. Do we know how old the Dreadfort is?

[Tyryan Lannister]

We only have Nightfort and Dreadfort ending with -fort. This suggests they are older, and -fort is a First Men term. Do we know how old the Dreadfort is?

There's quite a bit more than just those two; Redfort, the Dun Fort, Banefort, and a few more that I currently can't remember. Although I do agree with the assumption that -fort is a First Men term.

They have no reason to be... only tales.

"Tales" can be quite powerful forces though; while these comparisons aren't the best, I still find them kind of fitting: almost all of the Age of Exploration, the Crusades, and the spread of any religion, particularly ones such as Christianity, are based on "tales" from people who weren't there to witness the events that the tales describe.

[Black Crow]

There's quite a bit more than just those two; Redfort, the Dun Fort, Banefort, and a few more that I currently can't remember. Although I do agree with the assumption that -fort is a First Men term.

Perhaps its a bit like knights. In the North they can field some heavy cavalry but they don't designate them as knights (or invest them with a chivalric code). The castles business is a bit ambiguous in that there appear to be very few designated as such. Winterfell is a castle and unambiguously described as such in the book but its never referred to as Winterfell Castle, likewise of all the castles on the Wall we just have Castle Black.

Perhaps those places specifically referred to as -Fort or Castle- are places which were originally purpose-built in that particular location to defend something other than the family and their dependents.

[Black Crow]

"Tales" can be quite powerful forces though; while these comparisons aren't the best, I still find them kind of fitting: almost all of the Age of Exploration, the Crusades, and the spread of any religion, particularly ones such as Christianity, are based on "tales" from people who weren't there to witness the events that the tales describe.

Exactly, which is why I invoked the crusading orders and in particular the Kinghts of St. John. The early crusades were big business, an external threat more or less manufactured to provide an outlet for aggression by uniting christian kingdoms and at the same time offering the nobles and knights buying into it an opportunity to acquire lands. In time of course enthusiasms for large scale interventions waned - they kept getting beaten and who wants a dusty desert for a kingdom anyway, but the frontiers were still maintained by the military orders and ultimately those black clad knights of St. John.