Ran, on 31 August 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:
And I agree with Cory: there was not a thousand year war anywhere, between anybody. There was semi-regular warfare that would repeat itself over generations, but not a constant state of warfare. It'd be like claiming there had been a millenia long war between, I don't know, Scotland and England. There wasn't.
Oh I'm fully aware of that. It was never claimed that there was a constant, non-stop 1000 year long war. Just that the North and the Vale were engaged in warfare - over the Sisters amongst other things - for 1000 years.
If I created the impression that I believed this was a single 1000 year long war, then that is not what I intended.
The main interest I had in this war was that it assisted in fleshing out the length of the North's history under the Starks, as it related to the founding of the Wolf's Den at White Harbor - which PRECEDED the start of these wars.
Hence, the 1000 year duration of the series of wars increased the verified antiquity of House Stark's rule. That's where my primary interest in this historical issue was focused.