RFTIT Tumblr Weekly Roundup

RFTIT Tumblr Weekly Roundup

Hey folks! Part I of the Reach is done, and I’m hard at work on Part II, grappling with the many Garths, Gwaynes, Gyles, Garlands, and Gareths – and those rare Gardeners who were somehow allowed first names not beginning in G. I’m also beginning work on Arya II, which is a hell of a chapter and I can’t wait to share it with you. In the mean-time, we have the Tumblrs: Why the wildlings’ economy is…

View On WordPress

I’d like some clarification on ditching the Night’s Watch as well. Getting rid of your clothes isn’t that hard. For instance, a deserter could strip down, hide his clothes, and claim that he had been robbed at sword point. It seems like it would be a more common occurrence than what’s portrayed.

Yes it is. This is not a world where there are clothing stores on every high street – clothes are made by hand, predominantly within the family. Moreover, this is a world in which people live in very small, close-knit communities and are highly suspicious of strangers. 

Especially in the North, where people are highly cognizant of the Watch and deserters, no one is going to buy the old “oh no, robbers took my clothes” line coming from a stranger. 

Sorry if this has been asked before, but how often do men at the Wall successfully desert the Night’s Watch? I imagine that once you ditch the black clothes, it should be somewhat easy to be anonymous if you aren’t well known. But apart from Dareon, there aren’t many examples given in the books that I’m aware of. Thoughts?

Well, that’s the issue – ditching the black clothes when everyone knows that black clothes = deserter = execute…

I have a theory that House Hightower were effectively lord paramounts of the Reach after the Field of Fire. The Tyrells fought in Dorne, but otherwise they seem somewhat politically uninvolved until Daeron’s Conquest of Dorne. Having Oldtown, the High Septon’s ear, and the better Gardener blood claim, the Hightowers were very powerful and very involved in politics, but then after the Dance they’re pretty quiet and the Tyrells start solidifying their claim. What do you think?

Well, I think you’ve identified the problem in your theory. The Hightowers are more dominant than the Tyrells in one period only – the Dance – and then not in other periods (the First War With Dorne, Daeron’s Conquest, arguably the Blackfyre Rebellions). 

I’m not really seeing the trend you’re describing. 

Kettleblack X was able to “confess” to the High Septon, sure he was a knight but how unlikely would it be for anyone to get an audience with this Pope-level figure? How about the requirements to meet in person the real Pope of the era. Bonus: better fictional conservative restorationist holy figure: High Sparrow or Young Pope?

Well, first off, the High Sparrow is an unusual High Septon who prides himself (heh) on his humility and service, so he’s a bit easier to get in contact with than most; second, Osney is confessing to having committed adultery with the Queen. That’s kind of a big deal and would probably get him routed up the Faith’s management structure regardless of who was at the top. 

Any idea on if the Summer Islanders will get involved in real world style mass slave trading, colonialism, or imperialism? The seem to have a serious naval advantage that would support such things.

Given the Summer Isles’ history, I’m going to say no:

“The Valyrians offered gold for slaves as well. Then as now, the Summer Islanders were a handsome people, tall, strong, graceful, and quick to learn. These qualities drew pirates and slavers from Valyria, the Basilisk Isles, and Old Ghis. Much woe ensued as these raiders descended on peaceful villages to carry their inhabitants into bondage. For a time, the princes of the isles abetted this trade by selling captured foes and rivals to the slavers.

The histories carved into the Talking Trees tell us that these “Years of Shame” endured for the better part of two centuries, until a warrior woman named Xanda Qo, Princess of Sweet Lotus Vale (who had herself been enslaved for a time), united all the islands under her rule and made an end to it.

Though it took the best part of a generation, the Summer Islanders, led by Princess Xanda’s daughter (and eventual successor) Chatana Qo, the Arrow of Jhahar, ultimately prevailed in what came to be known as the Slavers’ Wars. Though the unity of the isles did not survive her own reign (for the Arrow wed unwisely and did not rule as well as she had fought) slavers even now will flee at the sight of a swan ship, for each of these proud vessels is known to carry a complement of deadly archers armed with goldenheart bows.”

So antipathy towards slavery is a significant part of the Summer Islanders’ culture – carved deep into the Talking Trees they venerate. Likewise, “the Summer Islanders have never once invaded any lands beyond their own shores nor attempted the conquest of any foreign people.

re: King Arthur/Garth Greenhand

I find the Arthur comparison to Garth Greenhand surprisingly apt. As you point out, GG exists as a number of different characters. With ASOIAF, I’m never sure what to do with Martin’s coy in-world-historical-skepticism, but I can imagine a Maester trying to tease apart the threads of the legend, and if you asked him: “was there a historical Garth Greenhand,” he might answer: “depends what you mean.”

GG is supposedly: the founder of House Gardener, the leader (or a leader) of the First Men, the father of a lot of other heroes, and a fertility god. The first three (and maybe the fourth!) are all things that definitely happened in Westerosi history – someone was the first Gardener, the First Men into Westeros surely had leaders, the great heroes had fathers (whether or not they were all the same man). From this much material you could spin out a thousand different guesses at a “historical” GG … you could even question whether any of them actually had to be named Garth.

Thus with Arthur. If there was anything like Geoffrey’s version – “King Arthur”, ruling much of Britain and fighting Saxons – then his absence from the historical record is astonishing. (But if you were going to lose a guy like that, 5th-6th c. Britain is where you’d do it.) The earlier references to Arthur present one of two themes: a warleader (not necessarily a king) fighting foreign enemies, or a culture hero akin to Finn McCool or Paul Bunyan. One is part of the historical narrative about Romano-British resistance to foreign incursions, and the other rides around the countryside lopping the heads off giants, sometimes being a giant himself, and having bits of landscape named after where his horse stopped for a drink.

Given that even the nature of the historical context in which Arthur-warleader is found is up for debate, “was there a real Arthur” is up for infinite re-definitions, most of which have to land on “maybe” for an answer. I only see two ways to get a “no” – one is to insist that anything short of Geoffrey doesn’t count, the other is to argue that Arthur was a purely fictional culture hero, who was eventually historicized and attached to a bare minimum of historical events but not to any one man’s deeds (because then you could say that he was the “real” Arthur). At the extreme you wind up with cranks doing bad history and worse linguistics telling you that the REAL Arthur was prince of some valley in Wales or Scotland, not named Arthur, and never fought anybody except other princes of valleys in Wales or Scotland, and ohmygod who cares.

But I still want to know: who was the historical Garth Greenhand?

Good question!

I guess I’d say that I see a couple key differences between Arthur and Garth Greenhand. 

  1. as far as we can see, there isn’t the same problem of non-contemporaneous sources – the legends of Garth Greenhand are really, really old and the Citadel has preserved runic records that go all the way back to the arrival of the First Men in Westeros, so we’re not relying on, say, post-Andal sources as we might have thought prior to WOIAF.  
  2. there’s a relative consistency about Garth. Man or God, pretty much all of the sources say Garth was one of the luminaries of the Age of Heroes, that he had the green clothing, the association to agriculture and fertility, that he was the father of kings and lords and heroes. Indeed, one of the things that I find most interesting that @goodqueenaly brought up is that there’s not even any debate about the birth order of Garth’s kids – no rival ever thought to argue that their ancestor was actually the oldest kid, and everyone seems to agree on who the main kids of the Greenhand were. 
  3. there’s an immediacy of the claims of descent. Again, as @goodqueenaly reminds us, it’s not like there weren’t royals who claimed descent from King Arthur, but we don’t really see that happening until almost a millenia after and those claims are pretty clearly modelled after Geoffrey of Monmouth and much later sources. But in House Gardener we have a case where we have heirs of Garth Greenhand from very early on  – judging by regnal numbers, there must have been at least 23 generations of Gardeners before the arrival of the Andals. 

So who was the historical Garth Greenhand? I’m not sure. Could be him:

image

Or him:

image

Or him:

image