[Toc theYoungest]

Not sure if this has been discussed here before but some time shortly after Kalam buys his new long knives he has an inner dialogue where he states that Cotillion was "at the last chaining"...what is he referring to? The Crippled God was brought down to defeat Kallor and Kallor was supposedly around when the T'Lan Imass were mortal but at one point it's said that the Crippled God was chained like 2,000 years ago, so if the Imass have been around for like 300,000 years was the Crippled God unchained for all that time or was he chained multiple times? And how would Dancer have been at the chaining if he were mortal before becoming Cotillion...maybe I'm just confused.

[Aptorian]

There is some confusion around Kallors statement about being around when the Imass were children. Maybe he really is far older than we think or he was just talking out of his ass. Don't put too much stock in it.

The Crippled God fell roughly a hundred thousand years ago... or was that a hundred and thirty? Anyway...

The Crippled God is very powerful and his mere physical presense is a virulent poison to this world. One chaining was not enough. He struggles and he corrupts. So he has to be chained again and again. The last one happened just a few decades ago. More have taken place in between the last one and the first one. How many we do not know. Nor do we know what these chainings actually entail.

[tiam]

198 000 according to the watertight dates we get at the opening of every chapter in the early books before SE went 'I should probably take more notice of these dates ive just been making them up till now...'.

Apt says the last chaining happened just a few decades ago but we dont have any confirmation of that its simply speculation. We have no idea of the dates or how often TCG has been chained.

[MTS]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

198 000 according to the watertight dates we get at the opening of every chapter in the early books before SE went 'I should probably take more notice of these dates ive just been making them up till now...'.

Apt says the last chaining happened just a few decades ago but we dont have any confirmation of that its simply speculation. We have no idea of the dates or how often TCG has been chained.

Or the whole 'when the Imass were children' thing is just a GotM'ism, which I think is the most likely scenario. No need to add 100000+ years to Kallor's age based on one comment.

As for the last Chaining being in the last few decades, it's based off this comment in HoC:

Quote

You damned fool, Cotillion. You were there at the last Chaining, weren't you? You should have stuck a knife in the bastard right there and then.
Now, I wonder, was Bellurdan there as well?

We know from the use of the word 'last' and from evidence in later books that there has been more than one, we just don't have the exact number. Considering the Malazan Empire is around 100 years old IIRC, and assuming Cotillion was mortal before he and Kellanved bagen the Empire, he can't be more than 150 years old. So if Kalam is right (and let's remember this is just speculation on his part) the last Chaining must have been within that period. We know Dassem was at the last Chaining as well, and likely not long after that was when he placed his daughter in Tremorlor. So if you're looking for a date for the last Chaining, it's probably almost the exact same as how long she's been in there. We might even get an answer to that if she ever wakes up.

[tiam]

Ofcourse it is implied that it happened in the last few decades and I was aware of the quote but with the age of certain characters/Kalams speculation/questionable timeline issues it is far from certain. I was just saying that it is speculation rather than fact.

What I was getting at is Kalams throwaway line is not a set in stone indicator of the timeline of the Chainings. And technically the 'Imass were children' line is a MOIism as that was when it was actually said, despite being a chapter opener in GOTM. I think its safer to say it was a boast. I think this chaining comment comes under the same bracket with the focus being on Bellurdans, and by extension Nightchills, presence at the last chaining.

As you say assuming Cotillion was mortal before the chaining is a big leap. I think he falls into the category of others in the series who have extended magical lifespans but are not ascended.

This post has been edited by Jean-Claude Van tiam: 11 June 2012 - 01:24 PM

[Aptorian]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

198 000 according to the watertight dates we get at the opening of every chapter in the early books before SE went 'I should probably take more notice of these dates ive just been making them up till now...'.

I would like to hear where this 198,000 years estimate comes from. We know that it happened during the age of the First Human empire which ran its course around 130,000-100,000 years ago. According to MoIs prologue it happened 119,733 years before Burns sleep (3 years before Kallor destroyed his empire).

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Apt says the last chaining happened just a few decades ago but we dont have any confirmation of that its simply speculation. We have no idea of the dates or how often TCG has been chained.

It's not so much speculation as it is an educated guess. 1154 BS is the last year of Kelanveds reign according to GotMs prologue. This was also the year that the First Sword "died". At this point Dassem had turned his back on Hood after the Gods betrayal. The reason why he gets pissed is that Dassems daughter was "used" during the chaining and Hood either did not intervene or he had active role in the choice. Now, one can deduce that if Dassem has only just around this point, give or take a few years, turned his back on Hood, then that chaining must have been fairly recent. It makes no sense that his daughter would have been used a hundred years earlier and only now does he go mad with grief. Ergo, the last chaining happened maybe as late as 1153 BS maybe a bit earlier but I doubt we're going many years back. Not if Dassem's story makes sense.

Dancer was not ascended at this point, he was mortal. He just has the combined extended life time of a powerful mage, a resident of the Deadhouse and all the potions and healing spells a ruler of the most advanced civilization of the time is able to procure.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 11 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

[tiam]

RE-198000 years- Genuine mistake on my part misremembering the MOI prologue. My apologies.

Speculation/educated guess is pretty much the same thing. Yes given the sequence of events we can assume it happened a few decades ago as you put it but its hardly clear cut. We know virtually nothing about the practices or frequency of the Chainings or who attended them at any one time. To say Dancer is mortal then add a load of caveats to that statement, while typical of the Malaz world, is pretty much saying he isnt mortal in the traditional sense.

As for the Dassems daughter plot that comes up in the early books yes , again, it is a fesible sequence of events but hardly clear cut. I was simply stating it was speculation/educated guess on the board rather than something the OP had missed during their initial read.

[Aptorian]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

RE-198000 years- Genuine mistake on my part misremembering the MOI prologue. My apologies.

The strange thing is that I do remember some kind of reference to something 200,000 years ago but I am not sure what. Maybe it was some discussion about when human beings appeared.

[tiam]

Aptorius, on 11 June 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

RE-198000 years- Genuine mistake on my part misremembering the MOI prologue. My apologies.

The strange thing is that I do remember some kind of reference to something 200,000 years ago but I am not sure what. Maybe it was some discussion about when human beings appeared.

Glad its not just me

I know what you mean though it does ring a bell but for the life of me I cant remember where from.

[MTS]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Of course it is implied that it happened in the last few decades and I was aware of the quote but with the age of certain characters/Kalams speculation/questionable timeline issues it is far from certain. I was just saying that it is speculation rather than fact.

What I was getting at is Kalams throwaway line is not a set in stone indicator of the timeline of the Chainings. And technically the 'Imass were children' line is a MOIism as that was when it was actually said, despite being a chapter opener in GOTM. I think its safer to say it was a boast. I think this chaining comment comes under the same bracket with the focus being on Bellurdans, and by extension Nightchills, presence at the last chaining.

As you say assuming Cotillion was mortal before the chaining is a big leap. I think he falls into the category of others in the series who have extended magical lifespans but are not ascended.

You're right about the line, my bad. Nevertheless, I went back and read it, he says when the 'T'lan Imass were but children', which by the usage of that word means he was around after the Ritual. That's clearly a certainty, and it would pretty much have to be a boast, since in the same prologue it talks about Kallor taking fifty years to subdue Jacurucku, and that would be over 150000+ years after the Ritual. They were hardly a new phenomenon by that point lol.

Anyway, I think you're being overly critical about what we can glean from the evidence. Yes, we cannot claim it as fact, and it's not really fleshed out in the books all that much, but then again, how much else of what happens outside the timeline of the series can we claim with absolute certainty? Very little, but we can nevertheless make educated guesses as Apt stated. Dassem was there, we know that much. His daughter was used in the Chaining, probably in a similar way to how others were used in previous Chainings (I won't go into that because it's later-book stuff). Kalam suggests that Dancer may have been there. Considering someone (Apsalar?) stated something along the lines of that it was never just Kellanved and Dancer, but also Dassem as well, it's not that much of a leap to see Dancer going along to such a momentous event as a Chaining with him. They surely would have had some angle to play there. Still though, Dassem's daughter had been taken not long before Y'Ghatan (hence her depositing in Tremorlor) and thus if the two are connected that places the Chaining before the Night of Knives, so Dancer and Kellanved wouldn't have been ruling Shadow by that stage, and it also would mean that Dassem had been in contact with the two of them during the Regency period while they were off searching the Azath, which is a harder pill to swallow, I'll admit.

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Aptorius, on 11 June 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

RE-198000 years- Genuine mistake on my part misremembering the MOI prologue. My apologies.

The strange thing is that I do remember some kind of reference to something 200,000 years ago but I am not sure what. Maybe it was some discussion about when human beings appeared.

Glad its not just me

I know what you mean though it does ring a bell but for the life of me I cant remember where from.

The Jaghra Til part of the MoI prologue happened 298,665 years before Burn's Sleep, maybe that's what you're thinking of?

[worry]

This argument is tearing the whole board apart at the seams.

[tiam]

MTS, on 11 June 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Of course it is implied that it happened in the last few decades and I was aware of the quote but with the age of certain characters/Kalams speculation/questionable timeline issues it is far from certain. I was just saying that it is speculation rather than fact.

What I was getting at is Kalams throwaway line is not a set in stone indicator of the timeline of the Chainings. And technically the 'Imass were children' line is a MOIism as that was when it was actually said, despite being a chapter opener in GOTM. I think its safer to say it was a boast. I think this chaining comment comes under the same bracket with the focus being on Bellurdans, and by extension Nightchills, presence at the last chaining.

As you say assuming Cotillion was mortal before the chaining is a big leap. I think he falls into the category of others in the series who have extended magical lifespans but are not ascended.

You're right about the line, my bad. Nevertheless, I went back and read it, he says when the 'T'lan Imass were but children', which by the usage of that word means he was around after the Ritual. That's clearly a certainty, and it would pretty much have to be a boast, since in the same prologue it talks about Kallor taking fifty years to subdue Jacurucku, and that would be over 150000+ years after the Ritual. They were hardly a new phenomenon by that point lol.

Anyway, I think you're being overly critical about what we can glean from the evidence. Yes, we cannot claim it as fact, and it's not really fleshed out in the books all that much, but then again, how much else of what happens outside the timeline of the series can we claim with absolute certainty? Very little, but we can nevertheless make educated guesses as Apt stated. Dassem was there, we know that much. His daughter was used in the Chaining, probably in a similar way to how others were used in previous Chainings (I won't go into that because it's later-book stuff). Kalam suggests that Dancer may have been there. Considering someone (Apsalar?) stated something along the lines of that it was never just Kellanved and Dancer, but also Dassem as well, it's not that much of a leap to see Dancer going along to such a momentous event as a Chaining with him. They surely would have had some angle to play there. Still though, Dassem's daughter had been taken not long before Y'Ghatan (hence her depositing in Tremorlor) and thus if the two are connected that places the Chaining before the Night of Knives, so Dancer and Kellanved wouldn't have been ruling Shadow by that stage, and it also would mean that Dassem had been in contact with the two of them during the Regency period while they were off searching the Azath, which is a harder pill to swallow, I'll admit.

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Aptorius, on 11 June 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

RE-198000 years- Genuine mistake on my part misremembering the MOI prologue. My apologies.

The strange thing is that I do remember some kind of reference to something 200,000 years ago but I am not sure what. Maybe it was some discussion about when human beings appeared.

Glad its not just me

I know what you mean though it does ring a bell but for the life of me I cant remember where from.

The Jaghra Til part of the MoI prologue happened 298,665 years before Burn's Sleep, maybe that's what you're thinking of?

I think you might be right here in that I simply remember the two portions of the prologue as 100 000 years apart but im sure I remember the date from somewhere. As I said I was just flat out wrong.

As for the line and what we can take from it, I agree I was being overly cynical and playing devils advocate to an extent. The point I was trying to get across to the OP was that these are speculations from the board. We're usually right when it comes to things like this and throwaway lines are a huge part of our understanding of the series and the sequence of the events that we want to know more about. However it is still speculation and the relationship between Hood-Dassem-His daughter, and Envy and Krul to a lesser extent, is far from clear and likely to be covered in later books. The earlier books perceptions can be turned on a whim.

For example TCG SPOILERS

Spoiler

The fact that for 9 out of ten books its implied the Imass turned their back on the Empire because Laseen killed Kellenved but really it was the situation with Dassem

I wouldnt be surprised if Dassems daughter was involved somehow rather than simply being a hostage held by Hood.

I was being overly cynical about the line but simply urging caution.

worrywort, on 11 June 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

This argument is tearing the whole board apart at the seams.

I know theres apologies for being wrong and acceptance of others POVs. Its sheer madness on the internet

This post has been edited by Jean-Claude Van tiam: 11 June 2012 - 09:03 PM

[MTS]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 11 June 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

As for the line and what we can take from it, I agree I was being overly cynical and playing devils advocate to an extent. The point I was trying to get across to the OP was that these are speculations from the board. We're usually right when it comes to things like this and throwaway lines are a huge part of our understanding of the series and the sequence of the events that we want to know more about. However it is still speculation and the relationship between Hood-Dassem-His daughter, and Envy and Krul to a lesser extent, is far from clear and likely to be covered in later books. The earlier books perceptions can be turned on a whim.

For example TCG SPOILERS

Spoiler

The fact that for 9 out of ten books its implied the Imass turned their back on the Empire because Laseen killed Kellenved but really it was the situation with Dassem

I wouldnt be surprised if Dassems daughter was involved somehow rather than simply being a hostage held by Hood.

I was being overly cynical about the line but simply urging caution.

Well yes, none of this is explicitly confirmed in the books, and there are holes in our knowledge that complicate things, but I at least think we have a pretty firm grounding to make some assumptions about the Chainings. From MoI we know that Envy refused to attend the last one, which is possibly why Dassem's daughter was taken by Hood. It seems as though there is some sort of sacrifice involved with the Chainings - Burn has been sleeping for ~1160 years, and she slept partly so that the Crippled God could be chained to her flesh. Envy was asked to go to the last one, but her refusal caused Dassem's daughter to be used in her place. K'rul implies Hood did it specifically to curb Dassem's power, but the fact remains there appears to be some element of sacrifice involved. Also, DoD spoiler:

Spoiler

Hood 'abused [the Jaghuts'] goodwill' at the first Chaining, earning their enmity.

[D'rek]

NoK spoiler:

Spoiler

Dassem declares to Temper right before the battle at Y'Ghatan (which would be in 1153 or early 1154) that he's stopped serving Hood, things are different, there's no going back, blah blah blah... in other words, Temper and Dassem had only time for one chat between the Chaining and the battle of Y'Ghatan. Considering Temper is supposed to follow Dassem around everywhere, and that Dassem missing for a long time would be very, very noticeable, Dassem must have gone to the Chaining without the Sword, but cannot have been gone for very long. Ergo, the Chaining was very shortly before the battle at Y'Ghatan, so 1153 BS.

[tiam]

Potentially. We have no idea how long Temper has served with the Sword. Its said that Dassem plucked him from the ranks but we dont know when. Also Dassem going missing for a long time might be linked to K and D going missing for 10 years. This ties in to the 'there was always one other and that other was Dasem' line in HOC. Also, and I know we can call this on anything, but especially since OST has come out

Spoiler

I have lost faith with that entire conversation with Krul and Envy in MOI ever since the Seguleh information from it has been made null and void in OST. We had all spent ages tying in that conversation with the newer information from TBH with the Second and it came to nothing. The Dassems daughter plotline was prominent in both DG and MOI and then not really picked up again. Since OST I have been cautious of placing any reliable information on the throwaway lines of the early books as they can be changed on a whim

[D'rek]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 12 June 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Potentially. We have no idea how long Temper has served with the Sword. Its said that Dassem plucked him from the ranks but we dont know when. Also Dassem going missing for a long time might be linked to K and D going missing for 10 years. This ties in to the 'there was always one other and that other was Dasem' line in HOC. Also, and I know we can call this on anything, but especially since OST has come out

Spoiler

I have lost faith with that entire conversation with Krul and Envy in MOI ever since the Seguleh information from it has been made null and void in OST. We had all spent ages tying in that conversation with the newer information from TBH with the Second and it came to nothing. The Dassems daughter plotline was prominent in both DG and MOI and then not really picked up again. Since OST I have been cautious of placing any reliable information on the throwaway lines of the early books as they can be changed on a whim

K&D were Shadow mages who would randomly show up in commanders' tents, enemy fortresses, etc. and even when they disappeared people knew about it. No one ever talks about Dassem disappearing for 10 years or so, and the First Sword is a very, very visible position - his absence would have been easily noted. So it had to be a short disappearance to attend the Chaining, drop his daughter off in Tremorlor and get back to the front lines (not overnight, but no more than a couple months).

As for how long Temper served...

Spoiler

It doesn't matter. He'd obviously been in battle with Dassem before Y'Ghatan, and the conversation between him and Dassem pre-Y'Ghatan makes it quite clear, IMO, that Dassem's feud with Hood has only just begun, that this is the first battle they fight not-for-Hood. You could concoct some elaborate plan of Temper having not fought with Dassem for a long while, but Temper is of the Sword who's whole purpose is to fight with him, so I think that would be stretching it...

Oh and as for the Seguleh thing, there's no problem with that conversation...
OST Spoiler

Spoiler

There can totally have been a 1st and 2nd alive in MoI who are no longer alive in OST, replaced in their positions or not

[tiam]

RE Dassem and Temper

Spoiler

Yes like I said im playingdevils advocate really as I honestly dont believe that it can be as clear cut where we can pin point it to a year if you see what I mean. Educated guesses are still speculation

OST stuff

Spoiler

The conversation about the Seguleh is actually wrong on a few levels. The Seguleh Second is missing in MOI, possibly supposed to be the Seguleh Second we see in TBH although his ancient knowledge suggests otherwise. Between MOI and OST there is only two years and it is implied that Enoch had to wait a year until he could challenge Jan. So theres a year. The mention straight after of Gall, the Third, being grateful to Jan for reminding everyone why he had never risen higher than Third along with Jans later goading of Gall saying he has never come close in the past also gives the impression of Jan being the undefeated Second for many years.

Even if we ignore that and claim Jan became 2nd as soon as Mok left, which seems impossible given that Seguleh hunt down those in a higher rank to claim it and it seen as dishonourable to take the rank without atleast fighting for it, there are other plot holes. The Firsts motivation for sending Mok away is portrayed as the First fearing Moks grwing prowess as a danger to his position which was later changed. Krul also states that he expected the First to send 400 11th level initiates, however we are explicitly told that the largest party these isolationist peoples have sent abroad is the 20 with Orus party and even then only because it was for their most important relic

[Sinisdar Toste]

one question, how long ago is envy and k'ruls conversation? it's at least well before harllo is born, and he's five or six now!

OST spoilers:

Spoiler

i think there's enough time for mok to return 'broken', whatever that means, and the situation in Cant to change enough to put Jan in the second position for a year. easily.

[MTS]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 13 June 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

RE Dassem and Temper

Spoiler

Yes like I said im playingdevils advocate really as I honestly dont believe that it can be as clear cut where we can pin point it to a year if you see what I mean. Educated guesses are still speculation

Well duh, no one here is suggesting it's clear-cut fact, as there are still a couple of holes in the story and a few assumptions are made, but it's probably as close to knowing as we're ever gonna get.

As for the OST stuff, I agree with Sinisdar. As for K'rul's conversation with Envy in MoI,

Spoiler

you could possibly explain that as K'rul being less familiar with the modern Seguleh than he indicates. He has only come back into the world recently, and considering there are pickled Seguleh in the basement of his temple, he may be more familiar with them as they were under the Tyrant than when they became isolationist, thus the discrepancy there.

This post has been edited by MTS: 13 June 2012 - 03:45 AM

[tiam]

MTS, on 13 June 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 13 June 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

RE Dassem and Temper

Spoiler

Yes like I said im playingdevils advocate really as I honestly dont believe that it can be as clear cut where we can pin point it to a year if you see what I mean. Educated guesses are still speculation

Well duh, no one here is suggesting it's clear-cut fact, as there are still a couple of holes in the story and a few assumptions are made, but it's probably as close to knowing as we're ever gonna get.

As for the OST stuff, I agree with Sinisdar. As for K'rul's conversation with Envy in MoI,

Spoiler

you could possibly explain that as K'rul being less familiar with the modern Seguleh than he indicates. He has only come back into the world recently, and considering there are pickled Seguleh in the basement of his temple, he may be more familiar with them as they were under the Tyrant than when they became isolationist, thus the discrepancy there.

Its hardly a 'well duh' moment. If you scroll up Apts comment claims it happened in the last couple of decades which is speculation educated guess not fact. Simply trying o differentiate for the OP the difference between forum educated guess work and actual stated knowledge for the book. As ive said up thread we get alot of our info from throwaway lines which is what makes the series so interesting yet information from earlier books can change.

OST

Spoiler

And now we play the game of casting aspersions on what were actually told to wiggle around previous throwaway lines. This is the danger I was speaking of. Krul apparently vanished into choas millenia ago and the Seguleh are only 3000 years old (or is that before the dawn of humanity, as according to the Miner?) so Krul should have no knowledge of the Seguleh as a people at all. Even if we ignore that he still has enough of an idea and enough information of the number and rank of the force the First would send against a foe.

As I said these Chainings probably happened along the timescale others have mentioned and that were all aware of but it not as clear cut as some are making it here with the accuracy of nailing it down to one year.

EDIT- weve become way off topic in regards to the OP. Id say RAFO for a better picture of the Chainings

This post has been edited by Jean-Claude Van tiam: 13 June 2012 - 09:25 AM