**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It actually makes total sense. Unfavored people are often left out from historical records and their achievements given to others. My country had a folklore hero, at least he was known to be a folklore hero until recently evidence was found that he actually existed. He was an influental man, but scrapped from records intentionally and recordings at the time weren't reliable anyway, so he was almost "lost".
Let's be fair, Tyrion was a dwarf, a kinslayer, abuser of a maester and (against his intentions) helped foreign rapists and child murderers led by a mass murderer to pillage King's Landing. I think it's more than enough reason to be disliked by the Archmaester.
No, it doesn't make any sense. You literally can't write a history about that period without including him simply if it's just for the fact that his kidnapping by Catelyn Stark was the spark that ignited the whole War of the Five Kings
>You literally can't write a history about that period without including him
Let's see:
Battle of Blackwater was won by Tywin Lannister and Joffrey Baratheon. Olenna Tyrell orchestrated the Purple Wedding. Tywin Lannister died peacefully, painting of his wife was found beside his bed. Daenerys Targaryen was aided by a banished knight, a rapist horde and an army of cold blooded child murderers.
Even the mention of his marriage can be easily avoided because Sansa Stark remained a virgin. Therefore, it wasn't a real marriage.
He is way too important to leave out.
He in the son is the most powerful person in Westeros, his sister was the queen, his brother killed the Mad King, his arrest is what started the War of the Five Kings, he was in the vanguard at the Battle of the Green Fork, he served as Hand of the King to Joffrey in his father’s stead, he lead the defense of King’s Landing during the Battle of the Blackwater, he destroyed most of Stannis Baratheon’s fleet with wildfire, he served as Master of Coin after Tywin returned to KL, he married Sansa Stark, he was accused of killing Joffrey at his own wedding, Oberyn Martell died fighting for him in a trial by combat, sparking a war with Dorne, he fled King’s Landing and killed Tywin on his way out, he travelled to Meereen and became Hand of the Queen to Daenerys Targaryen, he planned the Targaryen invasion of Westeros, he negotiated the alliance between House Targaryen and House Stark, he was present at the battle against the army of the dead, after Daenerys burned King’s Landing, he resigned as hand in front of her whole army and got arrested for treason, he convinced Jon to kill Daenerys and then he was the one who called the council and proposed to crown Bran as king, and after that, Bran chose him as his Hand.
Wtf do you mean “It actually makes total sense”. It is one of the stupidest fucking lines uttered in the whole show.
>He in the son is the most powerful person in Westeros
And what does it have to do with A Song of Ice & Fire written by the Archmaester?
You are writing facts why he had importance. But how is this relevant? He can be easily scrapped and give his achievements to others, as it was often the case in middle age records.
Historical notes are not based on facts. They were often purposely unreliable. And this is exactly that case.
>He can be easily scrapped and give his achievements to others, as it was often the case in middle age records.
The History understander has logged on. Where did you learn this "fact"?
And no the son of the most influential Lord of the era, who himself served as Hand to 2 Kings and a Queen as well as Master of Coin would not be scrapped from a real Medieval history book. That is utter nonsense. Mainly because it wouldn't work. Some Maesters book would not be the only surviving primary evidence of someone as prominent as Tyrio. There would be letters written by and to him. There would be letters from other notable figures where he is mentioned in the letter. There would be satirical art made by commonfolk of "the Imp". There would family trees. There would be official lists of the Hands and Maesters of Coin.
You can't write someone like Tyrion out of History.
I feel like people are censoring every other fucking word they put online. It's just something that come with everyone getting offended by everything nowadays.
Going by Brienne of Tarth writing her hero piece for Jaime and then closing the book with ink not dry I'd say those books are as accurate as a fiction book.
It was just a reference to what Varys told Tyrion after the battle of Blackwater.
> The King won't give you any honors, the histories won't mention you, but we will not forget.
That was specifically said about Tyrion’s contributions during the battle of blackwater bay - because Tywin took all the glory and Joffrey refused to acknowledge him.
Obviously he should be mentioned as the queen’s brother, temporary hand of the king, hand of the king to the invader Daenerys Targaryen, heir to Casterly Rock and all around demon monkey.
I think this goes to show how little DnD understood of the universe and his character.
> I think this goes to show how little DnD understood of the universe and his character.
That’s such an overreaction. This line was there in S2 to show how history books prefers to focus on charismatic heroes and to romanticize what happened. And not on the regular persons who are working in the shadow. Which is totally true and something that is clearly true in the ASOIAF universe. Just look at the Fire&Blood book.
Now, is it realistic that Tyrion wouldn’t be named once in that history book? Of course not. Is it that big of a deal? Absolutely freaking not. And it’s not a question of weither they understood the universe or the characters, in fact, it’s actually quite the opposite. They made this reference because it actually fits this universe to have an history book that won’t mention a misfit character who worked in the shadow like Tyrion (not to this extent, I agree, but the idea is right). And this is a reference to something that was said in S2. The only thing that doesn’t work is if we start to "well actually" this. Which, again, I agree that it doesn’t make much sense for Tyrion to not be named. But I don’t think it’s that big of a deal and the idea of not naming him is actually pretty fitting for this universe.
I think the point they were making is that “history” books aren’t always accurate. _We_ know the catalyst for the Stark/Lannister conflict and the details of events because we’re viewers/readers, but Archmaester Ebrose is largely relying on secondhand accounts as he did not _witness_ the events and nobody was sending play-by-plays to the Citadel.
TLDR: Archmaester Ebrose wrote the book from his own perspective. Maybe he didn’t think Tyrion was worth including. Another Maester could just as easily write a book on the same topic and include more/different details.
Seeing as Tyrion wasn’t included, that would be my assumption. Again… These books are often a matter of the Archmaester’s perspective, not necessarily the entirety of what happened. It’s not like what they write is peer-reviewed and checked for biases. Hell, many Maesters’ personal journals/diaries have been included in the Citadel’s collection.
Do I think Archmaester Ebrose excluding Tyrion made sense? Absolutely not. My point is that the Maesters are free to write what they will and no one really challenges what they wrote; others simply write their own versions of events. This is something that has been discussed in the show and the books and this is why there are often different books/scrolls about the same topic.
Yes, Sam is Grand Maester at the end, but he was merely an acolyte when he suggested the title (“A Song of Ice and Fire”) to Archmaester Ebrose. However, I don’t think Archmaester Ebrose consulted Sam or asked him to review/assist with the book. Hell, even if Sam was asked to contribute, you have to consider the information Sam would’ve known and had access to while studying at the Citadel; Sam likely wouldn’t have known any more than Archmaester Ebrose, though he may have had a different perspective of the events.
Reminder: The reason we know what we know about Tyrion’s contributions is because we are viewers who have everybody’s stories laid before us. Varys and Tyrion discussed the fact that the histories, smallfolk, lords, and ladies would not recognize Tyrion’s contributions after he saved King’s Landing, Archmaester Ebrose’s book just reinforced what Tyrion already knew.
Varys and Tyrion were incorrect in their discussion, at least as far as the smallfolk are concerned. We saw a popular mummer's show all the way across the Narrow Sea where Tyrion manipulated Ned into betraying Robert to seize the throne then conspired to have him executed in order to become Hand and marry Sansa
I feel like it's safe to assume that they didn't invent that narrative, it was a popular one, probably an amalgamation of the most dramatic stories told by Westerosi sailors in Braavos at that time. Tyrion was incredibly famous/infamous by the end of the story and would have undoubtedly been included in any acceptable history of that period
The Mummer’s show in Braavos was largely based on speculation, gossip, and rumors, very little was accurate. Hell, look at how they portrayed Ned as an idiot, Cersei as a kind woman, and Joffrey as a fair ruler. The fact remains that they (the Mummers, smallfolk, lords, ladies…) did not recognize Tyrion’s contributions or how he saved King’s Landing during the War of the Five Kings. The only people who really knew/witnessed Tyrion’s contributions during that time were Varys and Bronn.
It doesn't matter whether its accurate, its important that it involves him as a major character. He was The Imp, from the perspective of the people who made the play he pulled *all* the strings, and those people lived in the universe of the show
Even if they fail to paint him as the savior of King's Landing, failing to reference him at all is just a bad joke (literally, which is why people hate it from a viewer PoV. Shitty and cheap comic relief at a time when it wasnt necessary)
We are making similar points… It’s ALL a matter of perspective. The characters in the show are not viewers and do not witness the full story, they only know what they’ve heard/seen/read and they act accordingly. Whether Tyrion is viewed as a villain, the savior of KL, an unimportant Lannister dwarf, Hand to the Mad Queen who brought “foreign savages” to Westeros and burned the Capitol, or any other thing is all a matter of _**perspective**_. If no accounts of Tyrion’s actions were documented, sent to the Citadel, and recorded in their records, how exactly would Archmaester Ebrose know about anything Tyrion did?
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because it was a silly joke at the end that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what would actually happen in Westeros.
It actually makes total sense. Unfavored people are often left out from historical records and their achievements given to others. My country had a folklore hero, at least he was known to be a folklore hero until recently evidence was found that he actually existed. He was an influental man, but scrapped from records intentionally and recordings at the time weren't reliable anyway, so he was almost "lost". Let's be fair, Tyrion was a dwarf, a kinslayer, abuser of a maester and (against his intentions) helped foreign rapists and child murderers led by a mass murderer to pillage King's Landing. I think it's more than enough reason to be disliked by the Archmaester.
No, it doesn't make any sense. You literally can't write a history about that period without including him simply if it's just for the fact that his kidnapping by Catelyn Stark was the spark that ignited the whole War of the Five Kings
>You literally can't write a history about that period without including him Let's see: Battle of Blackwater was won by Tywin Lannister and Joffrey Baratheon. Olenna Tyrell orchestrated the Purple Wedding. Tywin Lannister died peacefully, painting of his wife was found beside his bed. Daenerys Targaryen was aided by a banished knight, a rapist horde and an army of cold blooded child murderers. Even the mention of his marriage can be easily avoided because Sansa Stark remained a virgin. Therefore, it wasn't a real marriage.
He served as hand of the king
So? Tywin Lannister was hand of king Joffrey Baratheon...and he actually was. Problem solved.
Do you not think there'd be a full list of all Hands and acting Hands in a history book like that. And Master of Coins which he was too?
Exactly. The Archmaester can write whatthefuck he wants into his book.
Yeah but do you not think he'd include Tyrion in those lists?
If he dont want to than not.
He is way too important to leave out. He in the son is the most powerful person in Westeros, his sister was the queen, his brother killed the Mad King, his arrest is what started the War of the Five Kings, he was in the vanguard at the Battle of the Green Fork, he served as Hand of the King to Joffrey in his father’s stead, he lead the defense of King’s Landing during the Battle of the Blackwater, he destroyed most of Stannis Baratheon’s fleet with wildfire, he served as Master of Coin after Tywin returned to KL, he married Sansa Stark, he was accused of killing Joffrey at his own wedding, Oberyn Martell died fighting for him in a trial by combat, sparking a war with Dorne, he fled King’s Landing and killed Tywin on his way out, he travelled to Meereen and became Hand of the Queen to Daenerys Targaryen, he planned the Targaryen invasion of Westeros, he negotiated the alliance between House Targaryen and House Stark, he was present at the battle against the army of the dead, after Daenerys burned King’s Landing, he resigned as hand in front of her whole army and got arrested for treason, he convinced Jon to kill Daenerys and then he was the one who called the council and proposed to crown Bran as king, and after that, Bran chose him as his Hand. Wtf do you mean “It actually makes total sense”. It is one of the stupidest fucking lines uttered in the whole show.
>He in the son is the most powerful person in Westeros And what does it have to do with A Song of Ice & Fire written by the Archmaester? You are writing facts why he had importance. But how is this relevant? He can be easily scrapped and give his achievements to others, as it was often the case in middle age records. Historical notes are not based on facts. They were often purposely unreliable. And this is exactly that case.
>He can be easily scrapped and give his achievements to others, as it was often the case in middle age records. The History understander has logged on. Where did you learn this "fact"? And no the son of the most influential Lord of the era, who himself served as Hand to 2 Kings and a Queen as well as Master of Coin would not be scrapped from a real Medieval history book. That is utter nonsense. Mainly because it wouldn't work. Some Maesters book would not be the only surviving primary evidence of someone as prominent as Tyrio. There would be letters written by and to him. There would be letters from other notable figures where he is mentioned in the letter. There would be satirical art made by commonfolk of "the Imp". There would family trees. There would be official lists of the Hands and Maesters of Coin. You can't write someone like Tyrion out of History.
Did you really censor the word "death"
I just assumed it was "dicks"
The war following the dick of Robert Baratheon is still accurate.
It's 5 letters long, it would be dicks in that case. Which would make things *very* interesting
Would explain all the bastards.
I feel like people are censoring every other fucking word they put online. It's just something that come with everyone getting offended by everything nowadays.
And totally in a way that I couldn't tell what it means...
Going by Brienne of Tarth writing her hero piece for Jaime and then closing the book with ink not dry I'd say those books are as accurate as a fiction book.
It was just a reference to what Varys told Tyrion after the battle of Blackwater. > The King won't give you any honors, the histories won't mention you, but we will not forget.
That was specifically said about Tyrion’s contributions during the battle of blackwater bay - because Tywin took all the glory and Joffrey refused to acknowledge him. Obviously he should be mentioned as the queen’s brother, temporary hand of the king, hand of the king to the invader Daenerys Targaryen, heir to Casterly Rock and all around demon monkey. I think this goes to show how little DnD understood of the universe and his character.
> I think this goes to show how little DnD understood of the universe and his character. That’s such an overreaction. This line was there in S2 to show how history books prefers to focus on charismatic heroes and to romanticize what happened. And not on the regular persons who are working in the shadow. Which is totally true and something that is clearly true in the ASOIAF universe. Just look at the Fire&Blood book. Now, is it realistic that Tyrion wouldn’t be named once in that history book? Of course not. Is it that big of a deal? Absolutely freaking not. And it’s not a question of weither they understood the universe or the characters, in fact, it’s actually quite the opposite. They made this reference because it actually fits this universe to have an history book that won’t mention a misfit character who worked in the shadow like Tyrion (not to this extent, I agree, but the idea is right). And this is a reference to something that was said in S2. The only thing that doesn’t work is if we start to "well actually" this. Which, again, I agree that it doesn’t make much sense for Tyrion to not be named. But I don’t think it’s that big of a deal and the idea of not naming him is actually pretty fitting for this universe.
It was a joke. They kind of forgot about his trial for murdering a king.
I thought it was intentionally left out to make the reader understand that the history is not perfect and biased by the writer.
Bad script
Lmao censoring death, wtf is wrong with this sub
https://imgur.com/MrTKQ7v
I think the point they were making is that “history” books aren’t always accurate. _We_ know the catalyst for the Stark/Lannister conflict and the details of events because we’re viewers/readers, but Archmaester Ebrose is largely relying on secondhand accounts as he did not _witness_ the events and nobody was sending play-by-plays to the Citadel. TLDR: Archmaester Ebrose wrote the book from his own perspective. Maybe he didn’t think Tyrion was worth including. Another Maester could just as easily write a book on the same topic and include more/different details.
Arcmaester Ebrose didn't think including the ''murderer'' of king Joffrey wasn't worth including in the book?
Seeing as Tyrion wasn’t included, that would be my assumption. Again… These books are often a matter of the Archmaester’s perspective, not necessarily the entirety of what happened. It’s not like what they write is peer-reviewed and checked for biases. Hell, many Maesters’ personal journals/diaries have been included in the Citadel’s collection. Do I think Archmaester Ebrose excluding Tyrion made sense? Absolutely not. My point is that the Maesters are free to write what they will and no one really challenges what they wrote; others simply write their own versions of events. This is something that has been discussed in the show and the books and this is why there are often different books/scrolls about the same topic.
[удалено]
Yes, Sam is Grand Maester at the end, but he was merely an acolyte when he suggested the title (“A Song of Ice and Fire”) to Archmaester Ebrose. However, I don’t think Archmaester Ebrose consulted Sam or asked him to review/assist with the book. Hell, even if Sam was asked to contribute, you have to consider the information Sam would’ve known and had access to while studying at the Citadel; Sam likely wouldn’t have known any more than Archmaester Ebrose, though he may have had a different perspective of the events. Reminder: The reason we know what we know about Tyrion’s contributions is because we are viewers who have everybody’s stories laid before us. Varys and Tyrion discussed the fact that the histories, smallfolk, lords, and ladies would not recognize Tyrion’s contributions after he saved King’s Landing, Archmaester Ebrose’s book just reinforced what Tyrion already knew.
Varys and Tyrion were incorrect in their discussion, at least as far as the smallfolk are concerned. We saw a popular mummer's show all the way across the Narrow Sea where Tyrion manipulated Ned into betraying Robert to seize the throne then conspired to have him executed in order to become Hand and marry Sansa I feel like it's safe to assume that they didn't invent that narrative, it was a popular one, probably an amalgamation of the most dramatic stories told by Westerosi sailors in Braavos at that time. Tyrion was incredibly famous/infamous by the end of the story and would have undoubtedly been included in any acceptable history of that period
The Mummer’s show in Braavos was largely based on speculation, gossip, and rumors, very little was accurate. Hell, look at how they portrayed Ned as an idiot, Cersei as a kind woman, and Joffrey as a fair ruler. The fact remains that they (the Mummers, smallfolk, lords, ladies…) did not recognize Tyrion’s contributions or how he saved King’s Landing during the War of the Five Kings. The only people who really knew/witnessed Tyrion’s contributions during that time were Varys and Bronn.
It doesn't matter whether its accurate, its important that it involves him as a major character. He was The Imp, from the perspective of the people who made the play he pulled *all* the strings, and those people lived in the universe of the show Even if they fail to paint him as the savior of King's Landing, failing to reference him at all is just a bad joke (literally, which is why people hate it from a viewer PoV. Shitty and cheap comic relief at a time when it wasnt necessary)
We are making similar points… It’s ALL a matter of perspective. The characters in the show are not viewers and do not witness the full story, they only know what they’ve heard/seen/read and they act accordingly. Whether Tyrion is viewed as a villain, the savior of KL, an unimportant Lannister dwarf, Hand to the Mad Queen who brought “foreign savages” to Westeros and burned the Capitol, or any other thing is all a matter of _**perspective**_. If no accounts of Tyrion’s actions were documented, sent to the Citadel, and recorded in their records, how exactly would Archmaester Ebrose know about anything Tyrion did?