Game of Thrones ended on what I thought was a funny and
thoughtful note. All the survivors serving under the new king gather to discuss
how to rebuild the kingdom. It was so charming in fact I wouldn’t mind seeing a
spin off series about these meetings as they combine many of the fan favorites.
One of the major complaints from this scene though is when the events of the
show get put into a book. It turns out that Tyrion, the dwarf who was part of
most of the major events was not even listed. One youtube scholar wrote:
That "Song of Ice and Fire" joke was dumb; Tyrion, not mentioned? His arrest caused the War of Five Kings, he served as hand to three (Joffrey, Dany and Bran) monarchs, he lead part of the vanguard at Green Fork and organized and lead the entire defense at Kings Landing. But sure, hack writers needed a cheap laugh.
But with a knowledge of how historians write, it is possible
to conceive of a Game of Thrones history that doesn’t include Tyrion Lannister.
Tyrion is arrested by Catlin Stark:
This event was monumental because it caused Tywin Lannister to order his forces to attack Catlin’s ancestral lands. The king was incapacitated from
a hunting accident (really an arranged murder from his wife Circe Lannister),
and couldn’t keep the peace between his wife’s family (Lannisters), and the
family of his biggest supporters (the Starks). The average historian has a great deal to
cover, and the dwarf was merely the catalyst for larger events and thus could
have been summarized as, “Tywin Lannister attacked to avenge his wrongly implicated and
arrested relative.” Or if the historian is pro Lannister, since the Ned Stark
took advantage of the king’s absence from court to order a punitive expedition
and was later executed for treason, the historian would write, “Tywin defended
himself against the wrongful arrest of his son and malicious attack ordered by the traitor Ned Stark.”
Tyrion as Hand of the King:
The Hand is the Game of Thrones equivalent of palace or
prime minister. Throughout history, some are inconsequential, while others like
Pepin the Short
inaugurate new dynasties. Chinese legal
scholars warned that not every conquest resulted from armies scaling
the walls and breaking down the gates. Moreover, Tyrion was sent to Kings
Landing to act as Hand in the name of his father. His last stint as Hand was
largely ineffectual. He governed the city of Mereen quite well, but that is a
distant city in the East that Westeros historians wouldn’t know or care about.
By the time the Dragon Queen came to Westeros he was often
ignored and eventually he quit and was imprisoned by her. His time as Hand of the king
or queen could be described as, “Tywin Lannister, governing through proxies…”
or simply, “The Dragon Queen ignored her ineffectual advisors.”
Tyrion leading several key attacks:
The show put a lamp shade
on this one. After he led a key counterattack at the Mud Gate during the Battle
of Blackwater Bay, he was horribly wounded but the counter attacked succeeded
and saved the city at a critical moment. One of his visitors was the spymaster,
who thanked him for saving the city, but warned that the people thought he was
the imp and Tyrion won’t get credit for it.
Tyrion’s counterattack was simply one of many twists and
turns to the battle. The use of a fictional version of Greek Fire, called wildfire,
destroyed much of the opposing fleet. During the Muslim siege of Constantinople
in 678, the Greek Fire is
often mentioned but not the ministers or even leaders that employed it. Tyrion was only one
player in this event out of many. The historian would write something like, “The
king, Joffrey Baratheon oversaw the battle from his central position on the
parapets. He would likely have seen the counter attack led by his grandfather, Tywin
Lannister. The ladder secretly marched his army away from the usurper Rob Stark
to defend the capital and attack Stannis from behind. The ghost of Stannis’ brother
attacked from the west. This was Loras Tyrell, in a new alliance with the
Lannister’s forming yet another flank attack in the king’s great victory.”
As you can tell, there was so much going on in this battle
and so many important players, a minor counter attack from an unpopular person wouldn’t
be missed. Tyrion’s attack at the Green Wood was more conspicuous. (In the budget
challenged first season though, Tyrion gets conked on the head and both he and
the viewer completely miss it.) In the books he does a good job of commanding
the left flank. But that battle was only
a diversion for Rob Stark to fight at Whispering Woods, where they captured the
very important Jaime Lannister. Thus, the history could be, “Lannister forces
defeated a diversionary force from Rob Stark, while the latter counter-marched and
captured Jaime Lannister.”
Tyrion kills Tywin Lannister:
Tyrion is blamed for the poisoning of King Joffrey and is
sentenced to death. The spymaster frees him and before he goes, he killed his
father and eventually makes his way to the Dragon Queen. Given that Tywin was
shot while he was in the privy with his pants down, and there was a dead
prostitute in his bed (also murdered by Tyrion), this could have been glossed
over by historians. (Though not forgotten by the bawdy Game of Thrones version of a theater troupe.)
Historians had several easy scapegoats in contrast to tawdry
family drama. Sansa Stark was the
daughter of the traitor and disappeared on the day that Joffrey was killed. The
Sand Snakes killed or disfigured (tv or book respectively) the queen’s daughter
and could also be blamed for the Tywin’s death around the same time. Religious
fanatics quickly overran the city after Tywin’s death. They installed a reign of
terror and they eventually arrested Circe and King Tommen’s wife. With
plentiful rumors at their disposal, and a dead body on the privy, historians could
say it was various traitors fulfilling the wrath of the gods while leaving out
the details or focusing on the post Tywin mistakes and subsequent downfall of
the kingdom.
The Book of Mormon:
This clearly shows the limits of being a historian. Ancient
historians often had a lack of primary sources to create their narrative. Thucydides,
for example relied on a combination of personal knowledge, and contemporary
events to craft his narrative. He plainly said that in his speeches he wrote
what he “thought the situation demanded.” They had to sift through mountains of
rumors. They often had their own biases. Many religious writers such as Gregory
of Tours wrote to show God’s hand impacted history. They could change the
narrative slightly to enhance that effect.
The Book of Mormon itself reveals several of these
interesting glosses that could be covering up important people or events like
Tyrion was left out of Westeros history books. The war chapters describe “some
intrigue, which caused dissensions amongst the [the Nephites], [so
the Lamanites] gained some ground over the Nephites. (Alma 53:8).” We don’t
know if these were factions of cities rebelling against Nephites and installing
Lamanite friendly governors. (Which happened in Zarahemla Alma 61:8) We don’t
know if it was a dispute between cities as described in Alma 50. We just don’t
know much except it happened. We know how Amalickiah gained the throne through
treachery and deceit but not Tubaloth or Lachoneous for that matter.
For example, I find it suspicious we have a long line of no
name but generally wicked leaders, many of them kill each other to gain power, and we are even told at one point the
Gadianton Robbers have “sole management” of the government (Helaman 6:39), but
then here comes Lachoneus and tells them to repent (3 Nephi 3:12). What was his backstory and how did he keep
power when so many other rulers were being assassinated? Perhaps like Helaman (Helaman 2:6), Lachoneus
had servants willing to infiltrate factions and kill potential assassins and
enemy’s before they carried out their quest. This would be very inconvenient for
a story about God saving the Nephites because they prayed.
This is not some radical retelling of the story but simply a
careful reading of the text based on what other documents, and the text itself
tells us. For example, Mormon selectively edited his narrative in many places.
In the most notable instance he wrote that the Lamanites captured some of the
people of Noah (Alma 16:3), but when portraying the event as the wrath of God
and desolation of Ammonihah, he left it out (Alma 49:3). Presumably the people
of Noah were not wicked and didn’t deserve God’s punishment. So Mormon the
historian included those details, but Mormon the prophet, pronouncing God’s
judgment, did not. This particular detail was first noted by Grant
Hardy in a FARMS volume almost 30 years ago.
The Book of Mormon is an excellent spiritual text
that has historical value. Mormon as the historian had the same habits of other
historians with limited sources and space to advance his objective for the
book. We can see some of those methods but using a fictional example from pop
culture. I hope we can dive deeper into some of the little noticed details that
hint at much larger events or people.
No comments:
Post a Comment