Faceless Men & the Many Faces of the Children

Valar Morghulis -- All Men Must Die.

It is the motto of the Faceless Men -- a band of assassins renowned for their stealth, who have the ability to change their faces. In all likelihood, their history began as slaves, deep underground, toiling in the same volcanic mines where their Valyrian masters had first discovered the almighty dragons they used to conquer the known world (disclaimer: this is technically still just a "fan theory", but it seems fairly likely to me, given what the Kindly Man told Arya about where their guild "first took root" -- which in itself is a clue).

It is said the first Faceless Man, whoever he was, emerged from these mines sometime before the Doom obliterated the Valyrian Freehold, when he supposedly heard and answered the prayers of his fellow slaves -- slaves from disparate ends of the empire, who were all praying to different gods. This first Faceless Man told them that they all prayed to the same god -- a god of many faces -- and that he himself was this god's "instrument".

What happened after that, we're not entirely sure, other than Valyria was destroyed, and the Faceless Men somehow went from the Fourteen Fires (which, in all likelihood, was the source from which the Doom exploded) to Braavos, all the way across the continent, where they managed to build a reputation for themselves as the most feared assassins in all of the world. Which seems strange, doesn't it? The mighty dragon-riders of Valyria were all destroyed (excepting House Targaryen, of course), yet their lowly slaves, who mined the same volcanoes from which the Doom emanated, were not. I think it's therefore reasonable to assume (if the Kindly Man's history is accurate) that the Faceless Men were somehow responsible for this cataclysm.

But who was this first Faceless Man the Kindly Man speaks of, who proclaimed himself an instrument of the Many-Faced God, and liberated his enslaved brethren?

Well, that's just the thing. I'm of the opinion that GRRM wants us to believe the first Faceless Man was in fact a man, but I'm not so sure about that. I wonder, what if the first Faceless Man wasn't a man at all? What if he was a child -- a Child of the Forest?

But how did the Children, who live beyond the Wall in Westeros, get to the the volcanic pits of Valyria, all the way around the world? You'd have to ask Leaf. And when Bran does exactly that -- asks her where the Children went to when they disappeared from the world -- she replies, "Gone down into the earth... Into the stones, into the trees" (A Dance with Dragons, Ch. 34).

Now, does she mean they simply retreated to subterranean dwellings, like the cave Bloodraven is bound in, or is she referring to something else entirely? I mean, after all, these are "those who sing the song of the earth" (which is what the Children call themselves) we're talking about here. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say she was probably hinting at something a little deeper than a human being could possibly fathom. Perhaps even deep enough to travel to the other end of the world, depending on their biology, and the metaphysics of their sorcery, of course.

So, humor me. Let's just assume for argument's sake the first Faceless Man was in fact a Child of the Forest who appeared to the slaves of Valyria on a sojourn to the Fourteen Fires. What link do the two groups share?  Well, faces, of course. The Children of the Forest worship faces -- many faces -- the faces they carve onto their weirwood trees. And, so strong is their reverence for faces, that their most holy place in all the world is even called the Isle of Faces (not the Isle of Trees, or the Isle of Greenseers, mind you -- the Isle of Faces). But, why would the Children care to convert humans to the "Many-Faced God"? Do they have a history of doing that sort of thing? Why, yes. Yes they do. We know that the First Men of the North and the Riverlands were converted to the Children's "Old Gods", at some point following the conclusion of the 2,000 year long struggle that saw humanity claim Westeros from them. The Starks pray to the faces the Children carved on the trees, as do the Boltons and the Blackwoods (i.e. the House of Bloodraven's mother). Yet, these were not the native gods the First Men brought with them from Essos (that was probably the "Drowned God" the Iron Islanders still hold to). These were the Children's gods. So, the Northmen either had to convert to them willingly -- or be converted.

Granted, the impression I always got when reading the books was that the First Men had come to worship the Old Gods without any proselytizing on the part of the Children. But, when you think about it, the First Men must've undergone a massive transformation in their faith, if they suddenly went from cutting down and burning weirwood trees to worshipping them. And, you've got to figure, the Iron Islanders never did come around, so someone, or something must've convinced them to do so.

Of course, I can imagine the First Men coming to the Old Gods of their own accord, given the fact their migration into Westeros was probably a long, drawn out process, rather than a unified assault, like the Andal Invasion. And, according to Leaf, they must've outnumbered the Children by a wide margin, given the fact that she tells Bran that the Children's numbers have always been few. Yet, the Children's greenseers still managed to fight humanity to a standstill for over 2,000 years with their sorcery. And, although the histories of the First Men claim they finally overcame the Children with superior size, weaponry and technology, I get the feeling the truth of it ultimately came down to numbers. The Children were few, and the First Men were many. But, you can imagine that these awesome displays of sorcery the Children wielded, which were capable of stopping whole hosts of warriors dead in their tracks, and even smashing geographical landmasses into oblivion (see: Arm of Dorne), might've put the fear of god into the First Men -- even if they did eventually overrun the Children, after enduring what must've seemed like almost unimaginable carnage at their hands for over two millennia.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the Children of the Forest started singing a different tune once they admitted all was lost. Perhaps their motto changed from Valar Morghulis -- All Men Must Die -- to Valar Dohaeris -- All Men Must Serve? And if that was the case, what better way to make men serve than convince them to worship your race as their gods? Because, that's who the "Old Gods" are, you know -- the Children themselves -- or rather, their greenseers. Why would I say that? Because the Children are not human, and do not understand "god" as humans do. They are creatures of nature that commune with the elements and live within the earth itself. Their "god" is something far beyond our comprehension. But we can understand their "Old Gods", because they are their ancient greenseers who commune with those natural forces we can't comprehend (i.e. the elements, the cycle of time, and death, or necromancy). And, as we know from A Dance with Dragons, in ancient times, back when the Children were more numerous, there was a greenseer living under each and every weirwood tree -- including those the First Men prayed to. So, when Ned Stark, or Roose Bolton, or Jeor Mormont prays to his weirwood tree, he's actually praying to a greenseer -- not a "god" (i.e. "Old Gods" = "Ancient Sorcerers").

And consider, if the Children truly do believe in the motto 'All Men Must Serve', would they not attempt to convert other peoples beyond the Northern wilds of Westeros? I think it fairly likely. But how would they go about doing it, if they're stuck beyond the Wall? Well, if they can manipulate the elements with their sorcery, and can travel "deep into the ground" due to their biology, it's possible their greenseers may have tried to contact other peoples either directly or by way of sorcery (like through the fires of R'hllor, perhaps?).

So bear with me here. The first Faceless Man was a Child who either contacted the subterranean slaves of the Fourteen Fires directly, face-to face, or through an element, such as fire, and instigated the Doom. The Faceless Men pledged to worship the Children's "Many-Faced God" -- who the Northmen call the "Old Gods" and the Asshai'i call "R'hllor" -- which was the Children's way of translating this very non-human concept to disparate groups of people -- in exchange for "The Gift" -- i.e. access to the Children's almost godlike sorcery.

But what exactly is the Children's sorcery comprised of? How does it work? According to the histories, the Children's armies were composed of singers, and greenseers. It's not exactly clear in what capacity the singers serve (as Bran seems to think they can't do much, other than sing sad songs), but the First Men claim the Children's greenseers used "dark magic" to bring down the "Hammer of the Waters" upon the Arm of Dorne, smashing it into an island chain. We're not entirely sure what was meant by "dark magic", but there is a type of magic known to the world that one might describe as "dark" (and, in all likelihood, probably didn't originate from a human source) -- blood magic. And, when one considers the visions Bran had of the white-haired people performing human sacrifices over weirwood trees (the ancient Others, perhaps?), we may have found our source -- the "people" living under those trees -- the Children. Perhaps human and/or animal blood increases their greenseers' power (which could explain why they waited so long to shatter the Arm of Dorne -- they were gaining their strength, filling up on the blood of the First Men)?

But whatever the case, the shattering of the Arm of Dorne is the only example we have in Westerosi history of something other than natural forces destroying a landmass. So, if the greenseers used the "Hammer of the Waters" to destroy a landbridge connecting Essos to Westeros, is it possible they might have used a "Hammer of the Fires" to destroy the Valyrian Freehold, in order to break the power of the only true source of innate "human magic" in the world -- that of the Valyrians --  who have "dragon's blood"? Could be. The Faceless Men were apparently spared from this fate in exchange for their service to the "Many-Faced God" (read: greenseers). And, not only were they given "the Gift" of blood magic, which granted them stealth and the ability to change their faces (in quite grisly fashion, might I add -- which I imagine blood magic always is), but also their freedom as well. They're forever indebted, I would think.

But what's it all for? Why are the Children doing this? Why tell one group of men "Winter Is Coming", while telling others "the Night is Dark and Full of Terrors", only to tell yet another group that "All Men Must Die"? Ragnarök is why. Winter Is Coming to make the Night Dark and Full of Terrors so All Men [Can] Die. As I explained in my previous post ("Loki's Tricks & the Children of the Forest"), since the greenseers couldn't defeat humanity with their brawn, they are attempting to do it with their brains -- their insight and knowledge. So, their greenseers have been positioning humanity about the world like chess pieces, for their own destructive ends. The peoples who worship the Children are either oppressed, and have reason to hate humanity (i.e. the pit-slaves of Valyria, and the slave-priests of Asshai), or were awestruck when they encountered the Children's sorcery directly (i.e. the First Men). And each of these peoples were taught a different kind of blood magic, inherent to the Children's understanding of nature -- warging for First Men -- shapeshifting for Faceless Men -- and necromancy for Red Priests.

But why bestow these "gifts" upon humankind if you mean to destroy them all in the end (i.e. Valar Morghulis)? Because, the Children need agents in the world in order to get them to Ragnarök -- like Jon Snow, and Danaerys. Their greenseers may be able to see the future, but they still need a means by which to reach those ends.

And clearly, in destroying the Valyrian Freehold, the Children vanquished their greatest threat. Because, if they didn't like fighting the First Men or the Andals, they sure as hell wouldn't have liked fighting an empire of all-powerful, uber-aggressive, dragon-riding Valyrians. But then again, if anything, the Doom only brought House Targaryen and their dragons to Westeros. So, why would the Children want that?

I'm guessing it had something to do with Bloodraven -- their Last Greenseer. If they could see the future, then they knew that Targaryen blood would eventually mix with the blood of the First Men -- i.e. dragon blood combining with warg blood. But, that begs the question, how exactly did warging get into the blood of the First Men? I'm guessing blood magic -- i.e. human sacrifice and cannibalism (which is alluded to in both Bran's visions, and the repeated accusations of cannibalism made by southerners against the Northmen). So, in Bloodraven, and Jon Snow for that matter (assuming R+L=J), we have hybrid blood -- blood that possesses both the ability to warg, and to bind dragons to its will. And if the Children's greenseers could see that far into the future, then they also knew that all of the Targaryen's dragons would die off relatively quickly (in Children-years) upon reaching Westeros, and that dragons would only reemerge when a vulnerable little girl, forced to wander the world in exile, would hatch three eggs in the Red Wastes of Essos at the end of A Game of Thrones.

And consider the North -- they get pretty good press in the books (at least in the beginning). They are honorable freedom fighters, pledged to avenge their lost lord and defend their homeland against a murderous boy-king in the name of their own freely chosen sovereign -- a native born son of the North. But what if the Northmen actually do deserve the less than stellar reputation they hold in the eyes of southerners, and virtually everyone else around Westeros, and beyond? What if Andal hatred for First Men stems more so from sorcery than from barbarism? Now we might be on to something.

Consider the Stark words -- Winter Is Coming. Throughout the books, several characters make mention of those being the only House words which are a warning rather than a boast. But what if the true meaning has been lost? What if they are a boast -- a battle cry -- a threat of sorcery? Winter Is Coming. Mess with us and we'll bring the winter to your doorstep (and perhaps a few White Walkers along with us). That would mean these words date back to a forgotten past, back to when Northmen practiced blood magic, and all of its grisly machinations, such as human sacrifice and cannibalism (and when you consider the fact that Old Craster still sacrifices his sons to the Others, and is probably a Stark bastard -- i.e. Krats is Stark spelt backwards, and Kratser may have been used as a nickname for him, i.e. the "backwards Stark", which would've become Kraster, or Craster, due to the consonant shift from 'ts' to 'st' in English -- it only lends credence to my theory). And what of the Boltons -- the 2nd most powerful House in the North? Their sigil is just as unique as the Stark words -- the most gruesome in all the land, by far -- but what if its true significance has been lost to the ages? What if the Flayed Man originally stood for something more than Bolton cruelty? If, say, it was once a threat of blood magic, then that would mean the two most powerful Houses in the North were connected to the Children's sorcery in their most ancient times (i.e. Bran the Builder, the Night's King, etc.).

But if the Northmen were once sorcerers, why aren't they sorcerers anymore (barring the leftover warging residue they still possess)? What happened? Targaryens (and Maesters) happened, I think (or, at least, that's my best guess). The Targaryens only arrived in Westeros 300 years before the story began, whereas the First Men arrived 12,000 years prior to Robert's Rebellion. And, when the Targs did descend upon the countryside with their dragons, they quickly subdued the nations in short order -- all but two of them, at least; the desert wastes of Dorne, and the frozen wilds of the North. It is said they failed to conquer Dorne due to the harsh desert terrain, and their Dornish adversaries' familiarity with it. They tried to conquer Dorne -- they tried hard -- but they failed. However, up in the North, they didn't even try. They signed a truce with House Stark before any hostilities commenced. Supposedly, the Starks assembled a massive host to meet the Targaryens in battle, but were cowed into surrendering when they finally laid their eyes upon Meraxes, Vhaghar & Balerion the Black Dread. Yet, not long after this event, it is said House Bolton revolted against House Stark for the "last" time (of course, they rebelled against House Stark yet again in A Storm of Swords, but for historical purposes, we'll just call it the "last" time). Were the Boltons just being wily Boltons, or could there have been something in the pact the Starks signed with the Targaryens that rubbed them the wrong way? The banishment of blood magic, perhaps? Yet, we're led to believe the Starks banned the Bolton practice of flaying some 1,000 years before the story begins -- even though the Boltons kept doing it... Which leads me to believe the Starks didn't ban the Boltons from flaying until much later than they claim (and perhaps they claim to have banned it 1,000 years ago in order to appear more "civilized" than they would seem otherwise). And, perhaps -- just perhaps -- that "final" Bolton rebellion against the Starks, that occurred some 300 years before the story begins (the same time Aegon's dragons first appeared in Westeros) had something to do with the terms of that surrender? Could it be that the banning of blood magic was the condition upon which that truce was based? Could be. And, if that were the case, one could see why the Starks & Boltons went to war -- the Starks to stamp out blood magic, and the Boltons to defend it.

Yet, if the Children were the ones who prodded the Targaryens westward, they must've foreseen this event. And if they were the ones to teach the First Men blood magic, why would they want it stamped out? That's a good question. It could be that the First Men could no longer be trusted, since they had come to adopt so many Andal customs and beliefs over the years. Or, perhaps it's just a necessary step to reach Ragnarök -- All Men Must Die. Because, if the Children ultimately cannot coexist with humankind, they'll eventually have to face down the First Men at some point. And, it would be far easier to bring about their destruction if they no longer had the means with which to fight back.

Again, that's just speculation on my part (your guess is as good as mine). But I think it's likely there's more to the North, and their relationship to the Children than meets the eye.

But, you may be wondering, what does any of this have to do with the Norse? In Norse mythology, both Fire & Blood (which is probably just a coincidence that those happen to be the words of House Targaryen) were sacred. Fire was a purifying agent -- the cleanest death, as Melisandre might say -- as the Norse believed the body was comprised of two souls -- a dream soul, and a primeval soul. The dream soul was awakened through dreams and trance, whereas the primeval soul was basic and elemental, and comprised of passion, free will and the senses. Upon death, the primeval soul used the dream soul as a medium to enter the world of the gods, which could only be achieved through the immolation of the body (hence Viking ship burials and fire festivals). Granted, this was not a uniform practice, as certain tribes in certain regions practiced burial rather than cremation at different times in their history -- but cremation was the preferred method of funeral rite for the majority for most of their history. They would often build massive funeral pyres to burn their dead -- so large in size they burned hotter than modern crematoriums -- because they believed the towering column of smoke they created delivered the soul unto the heavens. And these practices are mirrored almost exactly by both House Tully's funeral rites -- who cremate their patriarch, Hoster Tully, aboard a longship -- and the Lady Melisandre, who immolates men in sacrifice, and torched the statues of the Seven on the beaches of Dragonstone (in an event that fairly closely resembles a Norse fire festival). Consider as well, that Norse paganism, and virtually all branches of European paganism, for that matter, originate from the same source (i.e. the root religion of the Proto-Indo-European tribes) as both the Vedas of ancient India, and the Zoroastrian faith of ancient Persia (see: Agni). And GRRM has said himself, on numerous occasions, that he specifically modeled the R'hllor religion of Asshai on Zoroastrianism... Turns out, so did the Norse.

But what about the second half of the Targaryen motto -- you know, the "& Blood" part? In Norse mythology, the flesh and blood were said to bestow great knowledge and power upon those who consumed it. The legend of the god Kvasir is illustrative of this (FYI: Kvasir is equivalent to Jojen Reed in ASOIAF). Kvasir was the wisest of the gods, but was killed by dwarves and drained of his blood. The dwarves then used his blood to make the "Mead of Poetry", which imbued great wisdom upon those who drank it.

Similarly, Odin was said to have cut out his eye in order to gain the power of insight (i.e. to open his third eye), much the same as Bran's fall causes the transformation within him. And Odin even committed suicide in order to gain dominion over the 9 worlds the Norse believed the universe was comprised of. He supposedly pierced himself with a spear and hanged himself from the World Tree Yggdrasil because he was curious to find out what death was like, and wanted to attain the power that death was thought to confer. And, after hanging there for 9 days and nights, he did in fact emerge from Yggdrasil all-powerful -- the greatest and foremost of the gods.

These two themes are explored in ASOIAF by way of the Children's use of fire & blood as powerful mediums for their sorcery. Fire is both a means by which to communicate with and "purify" humanity, and blood is consumed and/or used in order to gain supernatural powers. So, at the very least, that's how (and why) the fires of R'hllor and blood magic work. Or, at least, that's my best guess at the moment.

Also -- I wonder if the Children use the Faceless Men and the Red Priests of R'hllor sort of like a filling station for their blood magic? Perhaps they do it because the First Men no longer sacrifice to weirwoods anymore like they used to? Could be. Just throwing it out there.


Disclaimer: Not for commercial use. Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire are registered trademarks and copyrights, as are the images used in this post. I do not own them, nor do I stand to profit from this site. For educational purposes only.

Loki's Tricks & the Children of the Forest

If George R. R. Martin's epic fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire, is in fact based on the Ragnarök mythology of the ancient Norse, then we know the coming battle cannot be between Dragons and White Walkers, as we've been led to believe all along. So, what is going on? What's the catalyst? What's driving the story if not the Others?

In A Dance with Dragons, Bran has a conversation with a "Child" of the Forest he calls Leaf. Bran asks Leaf why all the Children disappeared from the world, and where they have gone, to which Leaf replies,

"Gone down into the earth... Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came, all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us". (A Dance with Dragons, Ch. 34)

Notice, Leaf claims that the giants (who are attempting to flee from the Others along with Mance Rayder) are/were their "bane", which would imply the two races aren't exactly on the best of terms (which might explain why the giants are in the same boat as the humans). Similarly, Leaf is essentially saying that the Children cannot coexist with humans. But, it's Bran's reaction to this spiel that I think is telling.

Bran is troubled by how sad this seems to make Leaf, but resolves, "Men would not be sad. Men would be wroth. Men would hate and swear a bloody vengeance. The singers sing sad songs, where men would fight and kill".

Indeed they would... And, what, might I ask, is Bloodraven? What is Bran, for that matter? Are they not men? And, if Bloodraven is the Children's "Last Greenseer", is it possible he might sympathize with their plight?

But, what exactly is the "Last Greenseer"? We know what he can do, but what is his function in relation to the Children? If the ancient histories of the First Men are to be believed, the greenseers essentially functioned as the Children's generals, or battle commanders during their 2,000 year long struggle against those first human invaders who crossed the Arm of Dorne (which the greenseers subsequently "shattered" with their sorcery, turning what was once a land bridge into an archipelago). So, is it possible the title "Last Greenseer" is a euphemism for "the last general [who will ever be needed to war against humanity -- assuming the Children don't war amongst themselves]"? Perhaps. (A side note: I'm not sure if it's just a coincidence that the greenseer in the picture below happens to be conjuring fire, or what, but it certainly doesn't hurt my R'hllor theory).

But, then again, if the Children hate humans, why recruit one to be their greenseer?

Could it be, as evidenced by their past battles against mankind, the Children aren't exactly suited for warfare? Could it be they're a naturally pacifistic race that was pushed to violence against their will, due to circumstance? And, if so, could it be that they've adopted the strategy, "it takes one to know one"? If they have, they've certainly picked the right guy for the job, given Bloodraven's reputation as a tactical genius in warfare.

But what might possess Bloodraven to take up the Children's cause? Why should he go against his own kind to give Westeros back to the "little squirrel people" (which is what the giants call the Children)? And why should Bran be part and parcel to his plans?

Well, let's think about it. The life Bloodraven led prior to becoming the Last Greenseer was actually very similar to Tyrion's. Like Tyrion, Bloodraven once served as Hand of the King, and did a good job of it, but was hated by both the small-folk, and his own peers for his freakish appearance (something that was beyond his control). And like Tyrion, he also almost single-handedly defeated a rebellion against the crown (i.e. the Blackfyre Rebellion), and was rewarded with imprisonment and condemned to the Night's Watch. As we see in Tyrion's case, when he's put on trial for the death of Joffrey, he does not take this betrayal very well, thinking to himself, "I should've let Stannis' troops rape and kill you all" --paraphrasing. So, if Bloodraven's life mirrored Tyrion's in so many ways, is it unreasonable to assume he might've had a similar reaction when he was put on trial for whatever he was accused of? I think not. And what's more is, unlike Tyrion, Bloodraven actually had the power to do something about it -- that is, if his reputation as a sorcerer was the truth, which I think is safe to assume now that we know he's the Three-Eyed Crow. Similarly, there's another major difference between Tyrion and Bloodraven -- Tyrion is good-natured and doesn't seem to hold grudges, whereas Bloodraven was known to brood and carry grudges on till the bitter end (pun intended -- see Bittersteel). So, in Bloodraven we have a brooding outcast who carries grudges and was wronged by humanity, and the people he served. And, the kicker -- he has the means to take revenge against them.

Similarly, Bran has little reason to love humanity. They destroyed his home and murdered his family, and would've murdered him as well if he hadn't escaped their clutches. And, given the fact that he's still a child, he seems like he'd be fairly easy to persuade -- which is exactly what Bloodraven does.

"The strongest trees are rooted in the dark places of the earth. Darkness will be your cloak, your shield, your mother's milk. Darkness will make you strong". --Bloodraven to Bran (A Dance with Dragons, Ch. 34).

And this is where Bloodraven's role as Loki -- the Trickster -- comes into play. Bloodraven has clearly tricked Bran into embracing the darkness, but in addition to that, I am of the opinion that the Children of the Forest are manipulating humanity in general in an effort to destroy them. They couldn't destroy them with their brawn, so now they're trying brains. And, since their greenseers can see the future, they are able to use humanity like chess pieces, positioning them where they need them for their own ends.

Take R'hllor, for example -- aka the Lord of Light. I'm assuming he's a ruse put on by the Children. The Red Priests are not communing with a god in their fires, they are communing with greenseers. Bloodraven personally commands the High Priest of R'hllor himself, and uses him as a tool to carry out his own plans. The TV show actually touches on this when Melisandre meets Thoros of Myr (a scene that isn't in the books). Melisandre asks Thoros about his "mission" that the High Priest had supposedly sent him on -- which was to convert Robert Baratheon to the Lord of Light -- a mission Thoros did not accomplish. Meaning, the High Priest is clearly set to a greater purpose. But, are they his own designs, or did his "god" command him? When we meet the High Priest of R'hllor in A Dance with Dragons, it is noted that his skin is corpse white -- just like Bloodraven's. Is he trying to emulate his "god" -- i.e. the face who speaks to him in his fires -- or is it just a coincidence? I might say the latter, if Bloodraven didn't appear to Melisandre in her fires later on in the book.

"A face took shape within the hearth. Stannis? she thought, for just a moment... but no, these were not his features. A wooden face, corpse white. Was this the enemy? A thousand red eyes floated in the rising flames. He sees me. Beside him, a boy with a wolf's face threw back his head and howled". (A Dance with Dragons, Ch. 31)

I remember when I first read that, I thought the Lord of Light was showing Melisandre a vision of Bloodraven. But I realize now, that's not what's happening at all. It was actually Bloodraven who had come to her. Because, even though he cannot take physical form in the world while bound in his cave, he can use nature and the elements as a medium to communicate with those above ground. Which, I imagine, the greenseers have been doing for countless generations -- however long "R'hllor" has been in existence -- the Children reveal the future to the Red Priests when it suits their needs. And I imagine that it was Bloodraven himself who persuaded Melisandre to attack the Wildlings, after showing her images in her fires, given the fact that the Wildlings are the only people in Westeros who know anything at all about the Others, and are the only ones who could warn the nations of the imminent threat they pose.

And, I'm guessing that's how the Azor Ahai legend was transmitted to Asshai. Because, think about it -- the Long Night was supposedly a battle fought in Westeros against the Others. Yet, for some strange reason, no one in Westeros knows anything about Azor Ahai. They do have a prophecy concerning the "Prince Who Was Promised", but Maester Aemon tells Samwell that the prophecy is only 1,000 years old, whereas the Long Night supposedly occurred some 8,000 years before the story takes place. So, how is it that people in the east -- in Asshai, far from Westeros -- know of a prophecy concerning a hero who defeated the Others during the Long Night in Westeros 8,000 years ago, and drove them back beyond the Wall, but Westerosis do not? Most easterners have never even seen a Westerosi, let alone been to Westeros, so why is it that they know more of Westeros' ancient history than the Westerosis do?

Could it be that it isn't their history? Could it be that the Asshai'i have been told a tale, meant to manipulate? Because, I ask, if the Long Night was a real event, and the Children banded together with the First Men in order to defeat the Others, why is it that the Children ended up on the wrong side of the Wall, in an ice world free of forests? That hardly seems fair. If they fought so bravely alongside mankind, and then raised the Wall with their sorcery to keep the Others out, why did they lock themselves out along with them? I'm guessing it didn't quite go down like that. If anything, it would seem to me the Children raised the Wall to keep humans out, rather than the Others. Because they didn't do a very good job of it, if they were going for the latter. And, granted, there are humans beyond the Wall as well (i.e. wildlings), but their numbers are relatively sparse, and, if their histories can be believed, they did not heed the Children's warnings to go south before the Wall was raised.

With that being said, I do not doubt the Others/White Walkers once attacked Westeros, but I get the feeling the Children were somehow behind it. For a time, I hypothesized the Others were weapons, conjured by the Children's sorcery... until I came across something Osha tells Bran in A Game of Thrones.

"North of the Wall, things are different. That's where the Children went, and the giants, and the other old races". (A Game of Thrones, Ch. 66).

Other old races? What other old races? I thought the Children and the giants were the only non-human inhabitants of Westeros... unless, of course, the Others can be counted as a "race" (which might lend credence to the story of the Night's King -- who supposedly married a female Other. Because, if there are female Others, that would mean there are also baby Others -- families and societies of Others -- an "Other race"). Which would imply they aren't merely a tool of the Children, but rather, elemental ice creatures, much the same as dragons are to fire (then again, the white-haired people Bran saw making human sacrifices near a weirwood tree in his visions may very well have had something to do with the Others. I also wonder what the significance of Craster's Sons are? Are the Others merely sacrificing the boys in connection to blood magic, or are they raising them as their own children to become Others? -- but that's for another post). And, just as the Valyrians found dragons in volcanoes, perhaps the Children discovered the Others in glaciers, or what have you? And, perhaps, the purpose of the Horn of Winter is not to summon giants, but rather, to bind the Others to their will, much the same as Valyrians used horns to control their dragons? If GRRM is indeed modeling his story on the Ragnarök mythology, then this would make sense, because, in Ragnarök, ice and fire do not oppose each other -- they mirror one another. So, if in ASOIAF, dragons are to fire, then there must be an equivalent ice creature similar to dragons -- i.e. the Others. And, since dragons are elemental beasts, rather than creatures created by sorcery, I'm inclined to believe the Others are as well.

So, with that in mind, could it be that the greenseers have intentionally fed the Red Priests misinformation about the Long Night, and the true designs of the Others? Why, you ask? Well, to rally the forces of fire (i.e. dragons) to their side, of course. So, Bloodraven can take control of them and use them, in concert with the Others, to scourge the land -- because, as we do know from Westerosi history, the Others could not defeat humanity on their own. And, of course, you can't very well tell the Red Priests to bring dragons to Westeros because you want to exterminate humanity. I doubt they'd go for that. So, in effect, the Children showed the Asshai'i glorious visions of Azor Ahai through their sorcerous fires, and convinced them that they were/are in fact working for heroic ends.

Why go to all that trouble? Because, as I mentioned, the forces of Ice were not enough to overcome humanity on their own. The humans drove the Others back beyond the Wall from whence they came. So, if the Children ever wanted to reclaim their land, something more would be needed. And, being a Targaryen bastard, Bloodraven was well-acquainted with a creature that did bring human armies to heel -- his ancestors' dragons. And, if Bloodraven & the Children can see the future, and knew that Danaerys would hatch dragons far in advance, they must've had some kind of scheme already in place to procure those dragons. Which is why Moqorro was sent to Victarion, with the knowledge of how to use a dragon horn.

The TV show has revealed that Bloodraven is in fact working with the Others (i.e. the "Sam the Slayer" scene -- when Bloodraven's flock signals the White Walker to Craster's Son, before Samwell kills it with dragon glass, and the ravens chase after he and Gilly in response -- a scene that plays out very differently in the books). And, if GRRM really is adhering to the Ragnarök mythology, then that is only half of Loki's arsenal. So, I imagine Bloodraven will get his fire, somehow. But, we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

And, finally, one last thing I've always wondered about Bloodraven -- if he's such a good guy, fighting for the forces of light against the Others, why didn't Maester Aemon ever mention him to Jon Snow, or Samwell, or anyone, for that matter? Not only was Bloodraven Aemon's great uncle, he was also sent to the Wall with him when Aegon (Egg) became king. Yet, Aemon never said a word about him. Which makes me think Aemon either believed him dead, or didn't speak of him for a reason. I tend to gravitate towards the latter, given the fact that Bloodraven's name does not appear in the annals of the Night's Watch, even though he was supposedly raised to the position of Lord Commander in his day. Was his name erased and never spoken again? Seems like that could be a possibility. But, even if he did somehow disgrace the Watch, why hasn't Bloodraven contacted Aemon, or anyone else in the Watch, if he's such a good guy? "Hey guys. It's me Bloodraven. I'm still alive, believe it or not, living with the Children of the Forest (who you don't even believe in). And you know those White Walkers and zombie-things that keep attacking you? I can tell you everything you want to know about them. Just go ahead and ask". Yet, there's only silence from his end. If anything, he's killed Night's Watchmen (or, Coldhands has, at least -- and, on a side note, I've always wondered if the name "Coldhands" is an allusion to Bloodraven's time as Hand of the King? Maybe not, but it could be), rather than helped them. So, something doesn't add up there... unless Bloodraven isn't quite the good guy he portrays himself to be. Then it would all make sense. 

Disclaimer: Not for commercial use. Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire are registered trademarks and copyrights, as are the images used in this post. I do not own them, nor do I stand to profit from this site. For educational purposes only.