Is the word “Westeros” supposed to be Old Tongue or Andal? What would make more sense?

Good question!

(Hat tip to Adam Whitehead of the Atlas of Ice and Fire)

The ordinal names of the continents – Westeros, Essos, Sotheryos – are a bit odd, because in order for them to be named that way, “Westeros” has to be thought of “west” of something, Essos has to be thought of “east” of something, and Sothoryos has to be thought “south” of something.

Since “os” and “rys” and “ros” are used in Valyrian, my guess is that these names emerged from Valyria. This makes sense from an ordinal perspective: Westeros was the strange and forbidding land to the west of their empire, and Sotheryos is immediately south of the Valyrian peninsula. The odd case is that of Essos – why not call your home continent something akin to the “Middle Kingdom,” think of it as the center of the world?

My guess is that the term was originally applied to the lands “east” of the Valyrian peninsula, given that the Valyrians’ oldest foreign relations were with the empire of Old Ghis, and then expanded outwards from there to include the whole landmass as Valyria’s knowledge of the world expanded and especially when their empire grew to encompass much of it.

Hello! You’ve mentioned in a few places that Essos is more advanced and more urbanized than Westeros. But – though I understand it’s about relevance – 1) there are only so many cities mentioned, practically all of them save Norvos, Qohor & Vaes Dothrak are coastal. Doesn’t that leave most of the HUGE territory of Essos as just rural hinterland or waste (or ruin)? Do we know anything of it other than the disputed lands ? 2) What do we know of its scientific advancement compared w/the Citadel?

Hello!

There’s also the unmentioned cities: “We speak of Nine Free Cities, though across the width of Essos one may find many other Valyrian
towns, settlements, and outposts, some larger and more populous than Gulltown, White Harbor, or even Lannisport. The distinction that sets the Nine apart is not their size but their origins.” Essos is so urbanized that cities the size of Lannisport go unnmentioned as unimportant. (Must remember to double-check my Essos population estimates against this.)
Well, Tyrion’s journey down the Rhoyne gave us a sense of the Volantene hinterland, and I’d imagine you’d see similar wrt to the other city-states where room applies.
Here’s what we know: Myr has advanced optics, advanced crossbows (which means a good handle on levers, gears, pullys), “fine woolens, lace, glassworks and tapestries….But Qohor has metalworking on lockdown, Tyrosh has dyemaking and distillation (which suggests chemistry) and competes with Myr on armaments, Lys is a competitor in the tapestries business and has a better chemicals industry than Tyrosh, Norvos is a competitor in the tapestries business, Braavos dominates in finance and is the only place that’s figured out the assembly line and interchangeable parts.” Pretty much all high-valued added manufacturing happens in Essos, as well as a huge amount of commerce in luxury goods (spices, silks, gemstones, exotic animals/skins). Whereas Westeros exports mostly natural resources (food, timber, wool, wine, furs, stone and metal), with a smattering of finished goods (Dornish silks and satins, linen from the Reach, gold and silverware from the Westerlands). So while we don’t know about Essosi higher education (and there’s signs that it must exist), their economies and level of technology are more advanced. So maybe the Essosi go in for applied vs. academic sciences?

Do you think Westrosi knights are as good at horsemanship and mounted combat as Dothraki? Knights spend a great deal of time practicing the art; they even travel the kingdom going to tournaments to display this skill. Does that put them close?

As good is hard to say. They learn a completely different kind of mounted combat from the Dothraki and depending on a number of factors (terrain, coordination with infantry, skill of leadership, etc.) it might match up horribly or well with the Dothraki model.

To use some real world examples: the Mongols beat the shit out of European knights when they first came in contact with them. The Mongols also beat the living hell out of the Arabs and the Turks who often used the same kind of feigned retreat, highly mobile, all-cavalry, horse-archer-based tactics that the Mongols did. Is the reason that the Mongols beat the Europeans is that horse archers are better than knights full-stop, or because Genghis Khan’s armies were some of the best-trained and best-led soldiers in world history?

To further extend my argument: Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis, who had sacked Baghdad and brought the Abbasid Caliphate to an end, two years later got completely demolished by the Mamluks of Egypt at Ain Jalut and the First Battle of the Horns. Sixty years after the first and successful Mongol invasion of Europe, the Mongols invaded Poland and Hungary again and were beaten badly.

So is that technology or the other myriad factors (leadership, numbers, terrain, logistics, weather, pure blind luck) that can determine victory or defeat? I lean to the latter.