Talk: Years after Aegon's Conquest

From A Wiki of Ice and Fire
Jump to: navigation, search


I've been trying to improve the page, to prepare it for the World Book, but with listing all the birth years correctly, there is a problem. For a good number of characters, the exact year can be calculated, but for most, there are 2, 3, 4 or 5 possible years (or even more). These are now partly in the list, but I was wondering, shouldn't this list simply contain only those whose birth years we know for certain? For example, we know for certain, due to calculations, that Cersei and Jaime Lannister were born in 266AC. The birth of Gregor Clegane, however, could have taken place in either 265AC or 266AC (17 in 283AC: 1) 16 turning 17 in 283 places his birth in 266AC, but 2) 17 turning 18 in 283 places his birth in 265AC.

Should all those characters with multiple possibilities be removed entirely, until more information is available? The page is reaching its limit in size, and I think it should display information as factual as possible (thus it shouldn't state that Character A was certainly born in year X when there is also a possibility that Character A was born in Y).

So I propose that this overview lists only those birth/death years that are certain, not those that are uncertain, at the moment. To come back at the Gregor Clegane example, his character page can list the two possible years of birth for him. Until that can be brought back to one, he should not appear on the "Years after Aegon's Conquest" page.

Anyone got an opinion about this?--Rhaenys_Targaryen 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed all the stuff that had two or more options, and thus didn't have a specific confirmation.--Rhaenys_Targaryen 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Just a question, shouldn't an event be Cersei and Robert's marriage? The show suggests 284, but I hesitate to update with their chronology. Maybe someone has a better suggestion?

Cersei was 18 years old when she got married to Robert. With her being born in 266AC, Cersei got married in either 284AC or 285AC.
We know Joffrey's nameday take place in the beginning of the year. Joffrey was born in 286AC, having turned 13 in 299AC. A pregnancy lasting 9 months thus means that Joffrey was conceived within the first half of the year 285AC.
In addition, we know that two of Robert's uncles, two brothers of his mother, came to their wedding, and then stayed in KL for 6 months. Later, after they had gone back to Estermont, Robert insisted he and Cersei visit the Estermonts, and so they did, for a fortnight. Cersei believes it was on Estermont where Joffrey was conceived.
Subtracting 6 months from the roughly determined moment of conception, Robert and Cersei would have gotten married in late 284AC at the latest, 15 months before Joffrey's birth in the first or second month of 286AC. In addition, it seems more likely that there was some time between the Estermonts leaving KL, and Robert and Cersei visiting Estermont, bringing their wedding a bit more to the middle of the year.
Though the TV show has its own chronology, which should not be updated here, Robert and Cersei's wedding thus can be calculated. I'll put 284AC in as their wedding date ;) --Rhaenys_Targaryen 08:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Empty years

Hmm, I'm looking at this page, and seeing a lot of rather ugly looking empty sections that I am doubtful will ever be meaningfully expanded. Might it be worth removing the empty ones and filling them later? Mistermanticore 16:41, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

That makes sense to me.-Oorag 18:41, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't agree. I think it's a good idea to make some kind of timeline. Through it we can have a better understand of what happened in Westeros. So let's give it a chance for some time. If after that there are still a lot of empty sections (of one year) we could think about merging them in periods of 10 - 25 years. Scafloc 11:34, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. A time line, yes, fine idea. That's not the problem. But right now, this is a time line that looks ugly because there are dozens of empty sections which may well never be filled. Not such a good idea. Since it's relatively easy to add any further years as they come, my suggestion is to remove any empty years and wait till more information is released. Do you see what I'm asking for now? Mistermanticore 11:48, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
I understood what you wanted, but I think that a lot of empty section will be filled. And that is why I want to keep them and have the chance to fill them. Like I said, if after some time there are still empty then we can remove those. I think the only from year 1 to 120 will be a bit hard, I think the others will be filled very soon. Scafloc 15:52, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, when you can fill them, it's trivially simple to add in new sections. But leaving them there now? Just makes for an ugly page that I find more distracting than useful. I'm in no hurry to do it today, but I do think it should be done. Mistermanticore 18:51, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Though I agree that so much empty space is not aesthetically pleasant, there might be some reasons to leave it as it is, at least by now. When I created this entry I hadn't in mind making a readable article, but an easy place to link the years written as [[148 AL]]. When starting wikipedias of new lenguages it is my understanding that they make similar arrangements bot-creating stubs for many needed things such as individual years, that are filled in afterwards. Having the format of the years already there might encourage newcomers to add facts.
Not that I strongly oppose to remove them. As said, they can be easily readded when needed.--The hairy bear (Send me a raven) 03:56, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
how about if we try some of everything, I'll add some navs for starters, to avoid endless scrolling and see if hiding empty spaces will work. Mor 08:05, 7 September 2011 (CDT)

Year 301

I've seen that this timeline has situated "most of the events" taking place in ADWD in year 301 AL, while I think all evidence seems to point otherwise. Supporting that much less time happens in the last books there are the ages listed in the appendixes: Both Tommen and Robert Arryn have 8 years in both the appendixes of ACOK and ADWD. Shireen has 11 in ADWD and 10 in ACOK, Bran has 9 in ADWD and 8 in ACOK.

Other points of reference are the pregnancies: Lolly is raped halwfay ACOK (in 299) and delivers halfway AFFC. And Roslin Frey gets pregnant the night of the Red Wedding (also in 299) and hasn't delivered by the end of AFFC. Finally, Jaime says in his last ADWD chapter that the Blackwoods have only been besieged for "half a year".

So I'm changing this page to reflect this.--The hairy bear (Send me a raven) 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Year 191

I think there is a problem with year 191, it currently says : " Births : Aerys Targaryen, son of Maekar Targaryen. " I was under the impression that Maekar had no son named Aerys. Also, the link on the name "Aerys Targaryen" leads to Aerys I's page, and he's the brother of Maekar, not his son, and he was born in 171. I don't want to edit anything as I'm not sure exactly where the mistake is. Can I get another opinion?

It thought that it should have been Maekar's eldest son Daeron Targaryen (son of Maekar I). According to La Guarde de Nuit this fits. With us Daeron has a different birthyear meaning that the author of the entry you spotted likely had a different person in mind. It could have been Valarr Targaryen or Matarys Targaryen but we cannot be sure. So I changed Aerys to Daeron and removed the other Daeron entry- Thanks,Scafloc 09:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Fencepost error

If Joffrey's nameday is on the first day of the fourth century, then either the epoch began on 0AL or the century began on 301AL. If the latter, then there's quite a lot of minor changes to be made. Any thoughts? Opheliac 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No one really replies top talk page comments do they.... oh well, anyway it's probably that it is correct, just people are using the term "new century wrongly" happened in real life in the year 2000 as well, people calling it the new century/millenia, when it should of been 2001.--SerKeplan 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm no. The new millenia started year 2000, day 1. Winterz 02:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm no. I don't want to start an argument, but our calendar started on year 1, so centuries start on a year ending with a 1. see wikipedia --SerKeplan 11:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)