[Cynical Cat]

No, we don't have numbers.  That's why I brought up the numbers of the Roman Empire, a comparably large polity for which we do have numbers.  Plenty won't be combat trained but basic proficiency with weapons doesn't take that long and they have incentive.  The Sranc hordes are far away and it's close to winter.  It's going to take a while for the No-God to arrive at the Three Seas.  As for unity, of course it won't be perfect but the No-God's presence which everyone can feel and the accompanying still births is going to be transformative.   

[MSJ]

Achamian doesn't see Nau-Cayuti being put into the Carapace. He sees him in the line for it. The Mutilated later confirm that Nau-Cayuti was the first Insertant, but that's it. There is nothing more said about it, no mention of torture that would corroborate Achamian's dream.

TGO. Very last entry of the book is one of Akka's dreams. Nayu is led under the IF and it ends with him standing in front of the Carapace. Bakker doesn't get any clearer than that.

This is easily the least credible of Achamian's dreams since it brings no new information, only raising additional questions. It doesn't narrow anything down, it opens the way for so many interpretations the whole exercise becomes counterproductive instantly.

It shows us specifically Kellhus and say he is the end of the world. Yes interpretative. But, he played a part in the rise of the No-God.

All of those things except the map to Ishual are either conjectures that could've easily been made by the characters without his dreams or just wild inconsistencies that contradict previously mentioned or recorded Seswatha's dreams and historic facts. The map to Ishual, for example, doesn't contradict anything, so I don't see how it can be viewed in the same light as the dreams that do.

But, it's not any historical dream or that any other Mandate has dreamed. Its not a usual dream. You can't compare to one. Its Akka's new dreams and whether you find it convienent to clarify these things in the text, imo, is your way of hand waving the proof away. Kellhus wanted to know about the dreams, he didn't do it and Akka denied him and Sacarress out of spite. Yes it's the only neatly tied bow in the whole series, with textual evidence and confirmation to back it up. What more do you want?

[MSJ]

@MSJ - I just don't think we know nearly enough. We have no clue why his dreams might have changed. And from what I recall (I don't have TTT), the missing dream was both explicitly different than his typical recollection (could be off, not sure), was after a fever, and the rest of his dreams didn't really change for another 20 years. And if other dreams have shown the spear work and all reports of the event cooperate, I think this specific fact could be an exception.

I have proposed that Akka's first dream seeing S in the mirror not his self is a subtle hint that he was changing from the beginning. With Bakker say what comes after determines what comes before, its a whole lot more likely that that is the correct interpretation. But, conceding that. This dream happens right after he makes love to Esme, the start of his repudiation of Kellhus. By this time, he has already made this choice.  It happens after he fight the Ciphrang and is healed by the sea by Fanim  and then goes directly and repudiated Kellhus and becomes the only wizard in the Three Seas. It could be said that dream is what made him start documenting his dreams, because of the huge difference and it's significance. And, his dreams didn't just start changing 20 years later and we know this through dialogue with Mimara in TJE. I'm sorry, that dream holds a lot of weight thematically on its own.

ETA- quoted wrong person. Sorry.
Etaa-  and please go look at this dream Akka is saying over and over again how wrong it was. Its telling.

[MSJ]

You have the Celmommian prophecy through the eyes of Celmommas his self and see how its mistranslated.

A slight tangent, but this would be helpful for some speculation I've had that's been nagging at me. But I can't find this passage. Could you point me to it, please?

TGO chapter 8, second Ishual chapter, starts off the chapter.

[Madness]

It's interesting and terribly flawed.  He says the Three Seas' manpower is depleted and that's incorrect.  The Anasurimbor Regime's manpower is massively depleted.  There's plenty of manpower left behind in the Three Seas, especially in Zeum.  That's not to downplay the loss of most of the Anasurimbor's reliable troops and leaders, but that still leaves behind most of the male population of the Three Seas. The loss of so many Chorae and Schoolmen is more severe.  For comparison sake, a well regarded estimate of the population of the Roman Empire at 14 CE is 45,000,000.  It's the totality of losses among the most capable opponents of Mog-Pheru, not the numbers in of themselves, that is devastating.

I actually e-mailed Speculiction a follow up follow up if he posts anything about it. I don't believe he pays attention to the online fandom.

Also, you (as a contemporary of the initial conversations) and others in this thread are channeling some old Three-Seas Q&A. I find it really amazing that Bakker was talking about things he had planned for TNG as far back as then.

All told, I would say the population of the Three Seas would hover around 75 million - just somewhat larger than that of the Roman Empire circa 300CE. Since Zeum has a big role to play in the future books, I'll take a pass on answering that one

Like I say, I want Zeum to be a mystery, to be a 'pregnant unknown' similar to 'Cathay' for the Persians or the Romans. As for the population, don't forget that this number includes Nilnamesh, which is very densely populated.

With regards to your questions: yes, both Zeum and Eanna are inhabited, and both have roles to play in the darkness that comes after (forgive me - I couldn't resist!) - Zeum moreso.

Now, don't get me wrong. Clearly there are some. The Fanim had enough to wage war still. Zeum has some amount of troops. The Empire still had some. But idk, seems like they'd be in a pretty bad position.

Earwa seems kind of SOL .

And I'm just not seeing the No-God's presence as enough for some, all things considered.

Hmm... I'm fairly sure every baby stillborn and people all feeling the Boding will unify humanity given time - if they have that.

Now we're adding in likely knowledge that the Aspect-Emperor was killed, significant nobles/leadership (Zeum's leader might still be killed as well), and sorcerers.

I suppose Earwa would assume that the Ordeal is lost, including Kellhus - though, of course, the retreating Ordeal probably assumes that Kellhus is the No-God, given the Tekne-Glamour at the end of TUC.

[SmilerLoki]

TGO. Very last entry of the book is one of Akka's dreams. Nayu is led under the IF and it ends with him standing in front of the Carapace. Bakker doesn't get any clearer than that.

This is the scene I was talking about, and it doesn't show the event itself. I did read it as him being put into the Carapace, of course, but my point is, it wasn't shown. I would've been interested in the perspective of an Insertant at the moment of Insertion, however unreliable it may be.

It shows us specifically Kellhus and say he is the end of the world. Yes interpretative. But, he played a part in the rise of the No-God.

I'm completely unsure even about it being Kellhus shown. Without further clarification (or at least corroboration) that whole dream just seems counterproductive to draw conclusions from. I can base hundreds of plausible theories on it, not just one. But the fact remains, the dream doesn't give any evidence, it contradicts the existing body of it.

But, it's not any historical dream or that any other Mandate has dreamed. Its not a usual dream.

We don't know that. The origin of Celmomian prophecy as it's recorded in history is unknown. We also have no idea what Seswatha's Dreams actually are.

whether you find it convienent to clarify these things in the text, imo, is your way of hand waving the proof away.

This works both ways. I don't see any proof, I see something unknown and unexplained with unclear agenda at play here. You have a theory about it, and theories are good, but it's only one theory where hundreds of the same level of plausibility can be offered. Why only focus on this one? I don't offer other theories only because I consider them pure speculation, without a shred of hard evidence behind it, so I can't prove anything, and thus there are no grounds for discussion.

Kellhus wanted to know about the dreams, he didn't do it and Akka denied him and Sacarress out of spite. Yes it's the only neatly tied bow in the whole series, with textual evidence and confirmation to back it up. What more do you want?

Kellhus's perspective on metaphysics, more information about Seswatha's Dreams, and other accounts of said dreams (even normal ones) would be a good start.   

Right now it's an unknown of Ajokli's level of importance. And it's quite specifically not elaborated upon in the narrative, just as Ajokli was.

[Sausuna]

@MSJ - I just don't think we know nearly enough. We have no clue why his dreams might have changed. And from what I recall (I don't have TTT), the missing dream was both explicitly different than his typical recollection (could be off, not sure), was after a fever, and the rest of his dreams didn't really change for another 20 years. And if other dreams have shown the spear work and all reports of the event cooperate, I think this specific fact could be an exception.

I have proposed that Akka's first dream seeing S in the mirror not his self is a subtle hint that he was changing from the beginning. With Bakker say what comes after determines what comes before, its a whole lot more likely that that is the correct interpretation. But, conceding that. This dream happens right after he makes love to Esme, the start of his repudiation of Kellhus. By this time, he has already made this choice.  It happens after he fight the Ciphrang and is healed by the sea by Fanim  and then goes directly and repudiated Kellhus and becomes the only wizard in the Three Seas. It could be said that dream is what made him start documenting his dreams, because of the huge difference and it's significance. And, his dreams didn't just start changing 20 years later and we know this through dialogue with Mimara in TJE. I'm sorry, that dream holds a lot of weight thematically on its own.

ETA- quoted wrong person. Sorry.
Etaa-  and please go look at this dream Akka is saying over and over again how wrong it was. Its telling.

Sorry, when I noted 'didn't really change for 20 years', I more meant, it was very subtle things for a long time. I mean, he never saw the map for Ishual until much, much later. Or the conception of Nau-Cayuti (I believe). But I thought he noted he wasn't sure when his dreams started changing (from his personal perspective), that he only took note some time after the toe stubbing part that the mundane things came out more, and how there were entire books about minor differences (if not mudane aspects as his are clearly special).

Either way, his dreams can't all be right if he thought the Heron Spear missing was 'wrong'. And taking into the historical significance, I still think we don't know nearly enough about how his Dreams are working, how they are special, to say what is what. I'm willing to give all of them a fair bit of credit besides the one where the Heron Spear missed, given the timeline of things.

I'd argue the Celmomas one is very questionable too, but mostly because of how unique it is.

[MSJ]

I'm completely unsure even about it being Kellhus shown. Without further clarification (or at least corroboration) that whole dream just seems counterproductive to draw conclusions from. I can base hundreds of plausible theories on it, not just one. But the fact remains, the dream doesn't give any evidence, it contradicts the existing body of it.

Lol, bro, I love a good argument as much as the next guy. But, this here is how I know your unwilling to accept any evidence I've shown, that we know Akka's dreams are different from other Mandate sorcerers(again Mimara convo at the tower, TJE) and your just simply refusing to accept confirmination of those dreams.

Dude, who else in the series where's a sword on his back and has two Ciphrang hanging from his belt? Who? Pray tell me there is another guy. I'd love to know why you don't believe that's Kellhus being shown to Akka through Celmommas's POV.

[MSJ]

Either way, his dreams can't all be right if he thought the Heron Spear missing was 'wrong'. And taking into the historical significance, I still think we don't know nearly enough about how his Dreams are working, how they are special, to say what is what. I'm willing to give all of them a fair bit of credit besides the one where the Heron Spear missed, given the timeline of things.

Who said he thinks the Heron Spear is missing is wrong? He never says that and the dream doesn't imply that. That's why I asked you to go back and read it. Sure, I'm not saying the Her lon Spear doesn't exist, that dream ends with the King not using it and the chariot their in being toppled over. And the whole dream Akka is commenting on how wrong the whole dream is. How different it is. Look I can lead a horse(s) to water, but I can't make them drink. Between, you and Smiler I've offered more textual proof for than you guys have against. In fact, you offered no textual evidence I'm wrong. So what's worth more here, textual evidence or what you want to be true? Or, you just don't like MSJ and wanna argue?

[MSJ]

This works both ways. I don't see any proof, I see something unknown and unexplained with unclear agenda at play here. You have a theory about it, and theories are good, but it's only one theory where hundreds of the same level of plausibility can be offered. Why only focus on this one? I don't offer other theories only because I consider them pure speculation, without a shred of hard evidence behind it, so I can't prove anything, and thus there are no grounds for discussion.

No, it's not the same and not a theory I am proposing. I have offered you the dreams he had and how those dreams proved to be true. The only one that can be thought of as interpretative is the Celmommas dream. He has a dream about where the map is , Sauglish....he finds the map at Sauglish. He has a dream about a hidden redoubt built by Cell called Ishual, he finds Ishual. He dreams of Nayu being taken and Shaw telling him he will never leave and never feel such degradation and so on. Guess what? Nayu is that toothless wretch that shows us the IF (confirmed in TUC) and Nayu being led to the Carapace again confirmed in TUC. Now, this is all textual evidence, stuff he dreams that turns out to be true. He is being led...by someone. You have have me your opinion, you haven't have textual evidence to refute that this isn't what happened.

[SmilerLoki]

Lol, bro, I love a good argument as much as the next guy. But, this here is how I know your unwilling to accept any evidence I've shown, that we know Akka's dreams are different from other Mandate sorcerers(again Mimara convo at the tower, TJE) and your just simply refusing to accept confirmination of those dreams.

Dude, who else in the series where's a sword on his back and has two Ciphrang hanging from his belt? Who? Pray tell me there is another guy. I'd love to know why you don't believe that's Kellhus being shown to Akka through Celmommas's POV.

I feel you misunderstand me. I don't invalidate your textual evidence, it's most certainly there. What I am noting is the fact that there are textual contradictions to the evidence you're putting forward. The text itself provides counterpoints to your theory, and so the evidence you are basing it on is not enough. It's different when there is no textual counterpoints, when evidence is undisputed by the text itself, but this is not the case here.

About that being Kellhus in the dream about Celmomas, I agree, the description fits. But what if it's some future event that we're unaware of, when someone is posing as Kellhus or repeated his achievements? And that's just 2 of many possibilities that bother me here.

It might be I'm grossly overthinking it, and the simple explanation is the right one. It might be you are not thinking enough about it and so falling into the trap of convenience. Which is it? There is no way to tell, and that's exactly my point about Achamian's new dreams and their credibility.

[SmilerLoki]

Nayu is that toothless wretch that shows us the IF (confirmed in TUC)

Sorry, but not even close to that neatly. Only the facts of him being shown the Inverse Fire and put into the Carapace are confirmed. The exact nature of those events as they are put forward in the dreams is not confirmed. We have only the dream itself to speak for it.

Also, I should note, that this dream, again, doesn't contradict history, at least the Mandate version of it. They were always postulating that Nay-Cayuti was betrayed by his wife and taken to Golgotterath, as far as I remember.

[Sausuna]

Either way, his dreams can't all be right if he thought the Heron Spear missing was 'wrong'. And taking into the historical significance, I still think we don't know nearly enough about how his Dreams are working, how they are special, to say what is what. I'm willing to give all of them a fair bit of credit besides the one where the Heron Spear missed, given the timeline of things.

Who said he thinks the Heron Spear is missing is wrong? He never says that and the dream doesn't imply that. That's why I asked you to go back and read it. Sure, I'm not saying the Her lon Spear doesn't exist, that dream ends with the King not using it and the chariot their in being toppled over. And the whole dream Akka is commenting on how wrong the whole dream is. How different it is.

As I noted, I don't own TTT for review. But the way I took it when I read it, he kept saying it was wrong because it didn't happen that way, typically. Unless you can give me the specific language of the scene again.

Look I can lead a horse(s) to water, but I can't make them drink. Between, you and Smiler I've offered more textual proof for than you guys have against. In fact, you offered no textual evidence I'm wrong. So what's worth more here, textual evidence or what you want to be true? Or, you just don't like MSJ and wanna argue?

I already offered the fact that several areas of the text, but I'll re-iterate.
- Several areas (glossaries and What Came Before) that note Anaxophus defeated the NoGod with the Heron Spear.
- The fact that Akka acknowledged the sometimes fickle nature of the dreams in The Judging Eye ("If this were Atyersus, I could show you whole tomes cataloguing the various ways in which the Dreams misfire: the conversations, substitutions, alterations, corruptions, and on and on.")
- None of the other dreams contradict prior know facts and how his comments on the 'wrongness' of the one dream.
Further, Smiler and I are at different positions. I only really question two of the dreams whereas he seems uncertain about all of them. For the record.


I want to make note (and I thought this before reading this post), this really comes off unnecessarily hostile, smiley face or no. I enjoy these kind of conversations, but it isn't important enough to continue if you feel the need to throw in personal attacks. Calling my motives or claiming the point is obvious doesn't move things much. I only note it because that kind of thing really bothers me and the only retort I can give is, 'no, this is what I think.'

[SmilerLoki]

Further, Smiler and I are at different positions. I only really question two of the dreams whereas he seems uncertain about all of them. For the record.

True, but I am willing to accept the dreams as evidence when they are corroborated by the whole of Mandate across centuries, though I am still very curious about the metaphysics of Seswatha's Dreams and think that a game is afoot there.

What I am unwilling to take as evidence in itself is dreams that contradict those shared by the Mandate, especially when they come - or at least should come - from the same source.

[MSJ]

Ive never named a source. And, what would it matter if it is Seswatha? He chooses Akka as his the one to lead the 2nd apocalypse. But, the more we've found out the less likely I believe that to be true.

But, Akka admits shares this info with Mimara that these dreams are not like that of the Mandate over the centuries. What I take from this is the "Mandate" dreams are a goad the same as the IF. To keep the Mandate vigilant for the coming of the 2nd Apocalypse. Akka's are entirely different and explains all of this, and they turn out to be true, verifiable within the text. I don't know if your just not understanding me correctly or what.

@Sausuna, oh ho ho, we know that the what comes before and the glossaries have untruths in them definitely, per Bakker. That this is how history was recorded, with mistakes and personal opinions and not facts all the time.

Anyhow, SL and Sausuna we are at an impasse as they say. And, that's fine. Its ok, we don't believe the same thing. I was just trying to persuade you actual evidence from the books is all. No, biggie.