Unrealistic long time span

[DireWolfSpirit]

I've see Nat.Geo mags of my parents from the 70's portraying New Guinea caveman. Also anthropologists have studied Brazillian and Ivory Coast rain forest tribes virtually untouched by civilization up until just a few decades ago. So we know it's at least possible for remote pockets of peoples to maintain contiguous
hunter gatherer groups for thousands of years.

[Maester Egg]

On August 17, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Dragonsmurf said:

Do I even have to comment about the Stark lineage? No family in the entire world has a lineage as long as that.

Let's be realistic here.  Which is more likely: an 8000-year lineage or fire-breathing dragons?

[Dragonsmurf]

12 hours ago, Maester Egg said:

Let's be realistic here.  Which is more likely: an 8000-year lineage or fire-breathing dragons?

In the real world fire-breathing dragons would be more unlikely of course, but Westeros isn't  the real world. There is something called inner logic which good fantasy-books follow. If the humans in ASOIAF had longer life spans, the long timeline wouldn't be a problem.

[Maxxine]

Is there anyone else getting annoyed by the unrealistic long time spans in ASoIaF and GoT? I mean, the wall was built 8 000 years ago, and the Night's watch has been around since. House Stark can aslo track their line 8 000 years back in time. If that doesn't sound unrealistic by itself, here's some real world-comparisons:

 

1. The pyramides were built about 5 000 years ago. 8 000 years ago we had like... Jericho? Can you imagine a sworn brotherhood being around since the days when Jericho was built? You know, 5 000 years before the Israelites destroying it according to the biblical story.

 

2. The ancestors of all indo-european people propably lived in present-day Iraq until about 6 000 years ago. Celts, scandinavians, greeks, persians and hindi-speaking people shared ancestors 6 000 years ago. The northerners and the free folk are supposed to have been seperated 8 000 years ago. Their cultures should be as different as the german and the hindi culture. Nobody think Germans and hindi-speaking people belong to the same ethnic group, nor does anyone talking about these two peoples "sharing blood" or anything like that.

 

3. Do I even have to comment about the Stark lineage? No family in the entire world has a lineage as long as that. There are some jewish rabbinic families who claim that they belong to the tribe of Levi, which would make their lineage 3 500 years, but that is very uncertain claims and still not half as old as the Stark claim.

 

Either Martin hasn't thought this time span thing really out, or the history of Westeros is waaay shorter than the inhabitants themselves believe.

 

Besides, how can there be one(1) language in all of seven kingdoms? The only place in Westeros with linguistic diversity is beyond the wall. This doesn't make sense, especially since there was seven independant kingdoms until 300 years ago. Why do the northerners speak common tongue when they weren't even conquered by the andals? The only rational reason should be that they are andals rather than first men, but that doesn't make sense either.

Considering this is a fantasy novel no I don't have a problem with the unrealistic timeline. But in the world book it says that the timelines are probably off anyway

[martinkunev]

To me the lack of language change and diversity is highly unrealistic.

We can consider some real historical events:
* Spoken arabic diverged greatly in the last 1200 years (even though people still study standard arabic).
* Latin was used as the language of science in Europe until the XVIII century but it was never used in everyday life.
* English wasn't displaced by french after the norman invasion (it just adopted a lot of words).

The fact that basically all of Westeros speak the common tongue cannot be explained. The kingdoms became one country about 300 years in the past and it is very unlikely that in this period of time everybody will adopt the language. This is even more true for the north (who have a different religion), the iron islands (who have a different religion and are isolated) and dorne (who was independent until 187 AC and even then it remained mostly autonomous).

Here is what I believe to be a realistic language situation:
* Educated people all over westeros speak variant of the common tongue that is taught by maesters from the citadel.
* Uneducated people in king's landing, the vale, the riverlands, the westerlands, the stormlands and the reach speak respective local dialects of the common tongue.
* Isolated communities like mountain clans in the vale speak other andal languages.
* The north generally speaks some first men language. People raised in the faith of the seven and ones who travel a lot (e.g. traders) speak in addition some variant of the common tongue. In white harbor the main language is a local dialect of the common tongue. Educated northerners still study the common tongue but they don't use it in their daily lives.
* In the iron islands people speak their own language (or languages).
* In Dorne people speak another andal language. Some people (e.g. the educated) speak in addition the common tongue.
* Wildlings speak multiple first men languages distinct from each other and from the northern language. A few of them know in addition the language of the north.
* On the wall people usually speak the common tongue because this is the language most of the people share.

[Sourjapes]

On 2/9/2016 at 3:50 PM, Maester Egg said:

Let's be realistic here.  Which is more likely: an 8000-year lineage or fire-breathing dragons?

The dragons are more realistic in this case because they don't contradict human nature or the nature of the story being told.

 

My gripe with the timescale in the lore of ASOIAF is that it goes against the themes and events presented in the story being told. As others have said I find it difficult to believe that the Starks have ruled Winterfell for 8000 years but then when the story begins there are only two adult men in their 30's and five children. The House is on the verge of extinction with one son dead, one crippled, another missing, one daughter missing, and the other a hostage of political rivals. Really, 8000 years and that's it?

I know there are the Karstarks of-course. They are a good addition to the lore for that reason. The Greystarks made sense too... but the Greystarks did not survive.

Really, in 8000 years of history we never had any wars on the scale of the War of Five Kings? I mean it doesn't seem like it should really be that unprecedented. Hell, only a century or so ago there was the Dance of the Dragons, a war on the a similar scale but it didn't wipe out any of the Great Houses. It also had the benefit of dragons laying waste to entire armies down ot the last man, much like the Conquest (which did wipe out two great houses).

 

A Clash of Kings isn't even the first time Winterfell has been sacked and burned; apparently the Boltons have done it several times.

 

The events and timescale would work better if the timescale was just shorter. A lot shorter. 300 years since the Conquest feels about right, especially when you consider what happened during the Conquest and how and why, and what has happened since. Really the current situation is still a result of the ripples from that huge splash that was Aegon's invasion and his dragons. However history before the Conquest would be easier to swallow if it didn't go back quite so far and/or if the Great Houses like the Lannisters and Starks and Arryns hadn't been ruling their Kingdoms for so damned long.

[House Beaudreau]

On 8/17/2015 at 2:53 AM, Dragonsmurf said:

Is there anyone else getting annoyed by the unrealistic long time spans in ASoIaF and GoT? I mean, the wall was built 8 000 years ago, and the Night's watch has been around since. House Stark can aslo track their line 8 000 years back in time. If that doesn't sound unrealistic by itself, here's some real world-comparisons:
 

1. The pyramides were built about 5 000 years ago. 8 000 years ago we had like... Jericho? Can you imagine a sworn brotherhood being around since the days when Jericho was built? You know, 5 000 years before the Israelites destroying it according to the biblical story.

 

2. The ancestors of all indo-european people propably lived in present-day Iraq until about 6 000 years ago. Celts, scandinavians, greeks, persians and hindi-speaking people shared ancestors 6 000 years ago. The northerners and the free folk are supposed to have been seperated 8 000 years ago. Their cultures should be as different as the german and the hindi culture. Nobody think Germans and hindi-speaking people belong to the same ethnic group, nor does anyone talking about these two peoples "sharing blood" or anything like that.

 

3. Do I even have to comment about the Stark lineage? No family in the entire world has a lineage as long as that. There are some jewish rabbinic families who claim that they belong to the tribe of Levi, which would make their lineage 3 500 years, but that is very uncertain claims and still not half as old as the Stark claim.

 

Either Martin hasn't thought this time span thing really out, or the history of Westeros is waaay shorter than the inhabitants themselves believe.

 

Besides, how can there be one(1) language in all of seven kingdoms? The only place in Westeros with linguistic diversity is beyond the wall. This doesn't make sense, especially since there was seven independant kingdoms until 300 years ago. Why do the northerners speak common tongue when they weren't even conquered by the andals? The only rational reason should be that they are andals rather than first men, but that doesn't make sense either.

the Histories of Westeros like the building of the Wall, the First Men and the Children of the Forrest, the Long Night were all written by the Andels hundreds of years after they happened. So all we have to go on is Folklore and Writings from people long after events occurred. the Timeline is off but it was done with intention by GRRM. 

[Dragonsmurf]

4 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

 

The events and timescale would work better if the timescale was just shorter. A lot shorter. 300 years since the Conquest feels about right, especially when you consider what happened during the Conquest and how and why, and what has happened since. Really the current situation is still a result of the ripples from that huge splash that was Aegon's invasion and his dragons. However history before the Conquest would be easier to swallow if it didn't go back quite so far and/or if the Great Houses like the Lannisters and Starks and Arryns hadn't been ruling their Kingdoms for so damned long.

a 1 000 years would be sufficient for the Stark to have been ruling in the North.

[Dragonsmurf]

On 2016-05-24 at 1:20 PM, martinkunev said:

To me the lack of language change and diversity is highly unrealistic.

We can consider some real historical events:
* Spoken arabic diverged greatly in the last 1200 years (even though people still study standard arabic).
* Latin was used as the language of science in Europe until the XVIII century but it was never used in everyday life.
* English wasn't displaced by french after the norman invasion (it just adopted a lot of words).

The fact that basically all of Westeros speak the common tongue cannot be explained. The kingdoms became one country about 300 years in the past and it is very unlikely that in this period of time everybody will adopt the language. This is even more true for the north (who have a different religion), the iron islands (who have a different religion and are isolated) and dorne (who was independent until 187 AC and even then it remained mostly autonomous).

Here is what I believe to be a realistic language situation:
* Educated people all over westeros speak variant of the common tongue that is taught by maesters from the citadel.
* Uneducated people in king's landing, the vale, the riverlands, the westerlands, the stormlands and the reach speak respective local dialects of the common tongue.
* Isolated communities like mountain clans in the vale speak other andal languages.
* The north generally speaks some first men language. People raised in the faith of the seven and ones who travel a lot (e.g. traders) speak in addition some variant of the common tongue. In white harbor the main language is a local dialect of the common tongue. Educated northerners still study the common tongue but they don't use it in their daily lives.
* In the iron islands people speak their own language (or languages).
* In Dorne people speak another andal language. Some people (e.g. the educated) speak in addition the common tongue.
* Wildlings speak multiple first men languages distinct from each other and from the northern language. A few of them know in addition the language of the north.
* On the wall people usually speak the common tongue because this is the language most of the people share.

I think your thoughts are realistic, by I would prefer some small changes:

*The language of the scholars would be valyrian and nobles would learn this from their maester. Their mother tongues would be the same as their commoners though.

*The different dialects from the old andal tongue would have evolved into different languages by this time and would not be mutually understandable. Therefore, different but related languages for each region..

*The stony dornishmen speaking an andal language and the sandy and salty speaking the rhoynar language

[Free Northman Reborn]

Nonsense. Why does this series cop criticism for its timeframe when you have Anomander Rake ruling the Tiste Andii for 200,000 years in Malazan and other similar examples.

The 8000 year rule of the Starks adds to the grandeur of the setting. I would not have it any other way.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nonsense. Why does this series cop criticism for its timeframe when you have Anomander Rake ruling the Tiste Andii for 200,000 years in Malazan and other similar examples.

The 8000 year rule of the Starks adds to the grandeur of the setting. I would not have it any other way.

Malazan sucks though. We expect better of asoiaf.

[Dragonsmurf]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nonsense. Why does this series cop criticism for its timeframe when you have Anomander Rake ruling the Tiste Andii for 200,000 years in Malazan and other similar examples.

The 8000 year rule of the Starks adds to the grandeur of the setting. I would not have it any other way.

I have no idea about Malazan is but if the humans in that series have ordinary life spans 200 000 years is just ridicolous. Homo sapiens hasn't even existed that long.

[Dragonsmurf]

Just now, Dragonsmurf said:

I have no idea about what Malazan is but if the humans in that series have ordinary life spans 200 000 years is just ridicolous. Homo sapiens hasn't even existed that long.

 

[Lord Estermont]

Its beyond logic to place these statements in a magical world, however as others have mentioned it is very likely that the given timeline is off. We can barely trace human history from 5000 years ago , most of it is speculation. Given that the series is in a relatively medieval background, their knowledge of factual history is severy limited and most of it is speculation and folklore as was ours at that point. Keep in mind they re just fantasy novels , such amount of thought was never meant to be placed on them IMO                                     

[Shireen Purratheon]

I'm sure much of this has been covered upthread, but these are the assumptions I'm working with in regards to timeline.

I'm assuming that Valyrian historical records are, give or take negligible amounts of time, correct. That the most advanced society we're aware of should has accurate records should help us construct our timeline easier.

The fifth and final conflict between the Valyrians and the Ghiscari occurred 5000 years ago, 4700 BC. The Valyrians destroyed Old Ghis, then took the time to subjugate and integrate Slaver's Bay.

After this, the next Valyrian conquest we know of was Andalos. If we take it as fact that the Andals fled their lands in reaction to Valyrian pressure, the Andal Invasion could not have begun until some time after 4700 BC. This works with the suggested date we are given for the Invasion being 4000 years ago.

We know that the first Rhoynish War began about 1250 years ago, 950 BC. The conquest of Andalos must have been completed by this point, all of the Andals that are going to be in Westeros are in Westeros by this date.

Andal powers like the Martells have been well established even in Dorne by the time of the end of the Rhoynish Wars 1000 years ago, 700 BC, when Nymeria lands there with her ships.

This is stuff that we can be reasonably confident in. Now we can speculate about some other timelines.

The House of Arryn cannot have been kings for longer than the defeat of King Robar II Royce. There was at least one other Royce king, Yorwyck VI, alive during the Andal Invasion.

Trisitfer IV and Tristifer V Mudd represent at least two generations of war in the Riverlands. Roland II Arryn fought Tristifer IV Mudd. Roland I Arryn was Artys I Arryn's grandson, and Roland II Arryn was Roland I Arryn's great grandson.

The Arryns had consolidated the Vale upon the death of Erich VII Durrandon. Then his grandson Qarlton II; and subsequently at least Qarlton III, Monfryd V, Baldric I, Durran XXI, and Cleoden I lived before the conquest was complete. Durran XXII and XXIII must have lived before Durran XXIV.

Tybolt Lannister was king after the Mudd dynasty ended in the Riverlands. Then Tyrion III, Gerold II, and Gerold III were alive before Joffrey Lydden became the Andal king of the Westerlands.

The Andals didn't come to the Reach until the Andals had conquered the Stormlands, presumably after the marriages of Maldon IV and of Durran XXIV. Garth IX, Merle I, and Gwayne V peacefully integrated the Andals into the Reach.

We can count the reigns between the first Royce king to fight and the last Gardener king to accept to get a very generalized idea of this period.

1. Yorwyck VI Royce
2. Robar II Royce
3. Artys I Arryn
4. Roland I Arryn's father
5. Roland I Arryn
6. Roland II Arryn's grandfather
7. Roland II Arryn's father
8. Roland II Arryn
9. Tristifer IV Mudd
10. Tristifer V Mudd
11. Qarlton II Durrandon's father
12. Qarlton II Durrandon
13. Qarlton III Durrandon
14. Monfryd V Durrandon
15. Baldric I Durrandon
16. Durran XXI Durrandon
17. Cleoden I Durrandon
18. Durran XXII Durrandon
19. Durran XXIII Durrandon
20. Maldon IV Durrandon
21. Durran XXIV Durrandon
22. Garth IX Gardener
23. Merle I Gardener
24. Gwayne V Gardener

This does not represent any hypothetical kings who could have been king in between these monarchs. If we guess a twenty year reign per king (to measure for kings that reigned their whole lives and kings that died after a year) multiplied by 24 reigns that must have passed (our bare minimum); we get a minimum of 480 years between when the Vale recognized them as a real threat and when Gwayne V Gardener was knighted. There must have been some time to pass between the Andals leaving Andalos and them arriving, and more time for Yorwyck VI Royce to recognize a threat, but that number is impossible to quantify, even an arbitrary quantification like I did here.

The world book gives us a date of a thousand years after the first longship hit the Fingers for the Andals to start attacking the Iron Islands. Rognar II Greyiron fought the Andals, but we don't have other names. The Reach had already been settled by the Andals for some time by the time they crossed to the Iron Islands.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Shireen Purratheon said:

I'm sure much of this has been covered upthread, but these are the assumptions I'm working with in regards to timeline.

I'm assuming that Valyrian historical records are, give or take negligible amounts of time, correct. That the most advanced society we're aware of should has accurate records should help us construct our timeline easier.

The fifth and final conflict between the Valyrians and the Ghiscari occurred 5000 years ago, 4700 BC. The Valyrians destroyed Old Ghis, then took the time to subjugate and integrate Slaver's Bay.

After this, the next Valyrian conquest we know of was Andalos. If we take it as fact that the Andals fled their lands in reaction to Valyrian pressure, the Andal Invasion could not have begun until some time after 4700 BC. This works with the suggested date we are given for the Invasion being 4000 years ago.

We know that the first Rhoynish War began about 1250 years ago, 950 BC. The conquest of Andalos must have been completed by this point, all of the Andals that are going to be in Westeros are in Westeros by this date.

Andal powers like the Martells have been well established even in Dorne by the time of the end of the Rhoynish Wars 1000 years ago, 700 BC, when Nymeria lands there with her ships.

This is stuff that we can be reasonably confident in. Now we can speculate about some other timelines.

The House of Arryn cannot have been kings for longer than the defeat of King Robar II Royce. There was at least one other Royce king, Yorwyck VI, alive during the Andal Invasion.

Trisitfer IV and Tristifer V Mudd represent at least two generations of war in the Riverlands. Roland II Arryn fought Tristifer IV Mudd. Roland I Arryn was Artys I Arryn's grandson, and Roland II Arryn was Roland I Arryn's great grandson.

The Arryns had consolidated the Vale upon the death of Erich VII Durrandon. Then his grandson Qarlton II; and subsequently at least Qarlton III, Monfryd V, Baldric I, Durran XXI, and Cleoden I lived before the conquest was complete. Durran XXII and XXIII must have lived before Durran XXIV.

Tybolt Lannister was king after the Mudd dynasty ended in the Riverlands. Then Tyrion III, Gerold II, and Gerold III were alive before Joffrey Lydden became the Andal king of the Westerlands.

The Andals didn't come to the Reach until the Andals had conquered the Stormlands, presumably after the marriages of Maldon IV and of Durran XXIV. Garth IX, Merle I, and Gwayne V peacefully integrated the Andals into the Reach.

We can count the reigns between the first Royce king to fight and the last Gardener king to accept to get a very generalized idea of this period.

1. Yorwyck VI Royce
2. Robar II Royce
3. Artys I Arryn
4. Roland I Arryn's father
5. Roland I Arryn
6. Roland II Arryn's grandfather
7. Roland II Arryn's father
8. Roland II Arryn
9. Tristifer IV Mudd
10. Tristifer V Mudd
11. Qarlton II Durrandon's father
12. Qarlton II Durrandon
13. Qarlton III Durrandon
14. Monfryd V Durrandon
15. Baldric I Durrandon
16. Durran XXI Durrandon
17. Cleoden I Durrandon
18. Durran XXII Durrandon
19. Durran XXIII Durrandon
20. Maldon IV Durrandon
21. Durran XXIV Durrandon
22. Garth IX Gardener
23. Merle I Gardener
24. Gwayne V Gardener

This does not represent any hypothetical kings who could have been king in between these monarchs. If we guess a twenty year reign per king (to measure for kings that reigned their whole lives and kings that died after a year) multiplied by 24 reigns that must have passed (our bare minimum); we get a minimum of 480 years between when the Vale recognized them as a real threat and when Gwayne V Gardener was knighted. There must have been some time to pass between the Andals leaving Andalos and them arriving, and more time for Yorwyck VI Royce to recognize a threat, but that number is impossible to quantify, even an arbitrary quantification like I did here.

The world book gives us a date of a thousand years after the first longship hit the Fingers for the Andals to start attacking the Iron Islands. Rognar II Greyiron fought the Andals, but we don't have other names. The Reach had already been settled by the Andals for some time by the time they crossed to the Iron Islands.

Nice.

Generally, an Andal invasion date of 3000 years ago seems to fit better, with it lasting until around 2000 years ago.

 

[House Cambodia]

Apologies for not reading all 12 pages of this thread - I read the first and last and the discussion doesn't see to have developed much (ironically, given what i'm about to say) - it's all focussed on the specific title of 'unrealistic time span'. 

For me this is just one part of a greater issue, which is the limitations of GRRM's world-building. For the record, from my limited experience, all fantasy literature suffers from the same issue, and GRRM is a better fantasy writer than any other I've ever read.

The problem is that the world is static. It's not just the lengths of time already noted, it's that none of the societies seem to develop or change through time. At one time in distant prehistory, bronze-working was discovered, then c 10,000 years ago an iron age began. And then? The whole world seems to have been stuck in an early-mediaeval bubble with no development in technology, social structures, politics, economics, culture, religion, language, anything! You could of course nit-pick over my use of the word 'no', but I'm sure if you look at the whole picture you'll see my point.

So really, whether the Andals invaded 10,000, 8,000 or only 1,000 years ago is a moot point - it makes no effective difference.

[Shireen Purratheon]

6 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Apologies for not reading all 12 pages of this thread - I read the first and last and the discussion doesn't see to have developed much (ironically, given what i'm about to say) - it's all focussed on the specific title of 'unrealistic time span'. 

For me this is just one part of a greater issue, which is the limitations of GRRM's world-building. For the record, from my limited experience, all fantasy literature suffers from the same issue, and GRRM is a better fantasy writer than any other I've ever read.

The problem is that the world is static. It's not just the lengths of time already noted, it's that none of the societies seem to develop or change through time. At one time in distant prehistory, bronze-working was discovered, then c 10,000 years ago an iron age began. And then? The whole world seems to have been stuck in an early-mediaeval bubble with no development in technology, social structures, politics, economics, culture, religion, language, anything! You could of course nit-pick over my use of the word 'no', but I'm sure if you look at the whole picture you'll see my point.

So really, whether the Andals invaded 10,000, 8,000 or only 1,000 years ago is a moot point - it makes no effective difference.

There was a discussion that touched on this somewhere in the middle of the thread. 

You are very correct about millennia of stasis. The thing is, there has been progression and development since the Doom of Valyria. 

In that time, the seven kingdoms were unified, and there was even reform and sociopolitical developments during the reigns of Targaryen kings. 

The languages of Slaver's Bay and the Free Cities have developed from High Valyrian into the barely mutually intelligible dialects now. This is very similar to how the Romance languages each evolved from Classical Latin. Each region had its own dialect of Vulgar Latin like each city has its own dialect of Bastard Valyrian. 

Westerosi languages probably should have developed in a similar way, but that's probably a plot device to keep everything streamlined more than anything. 

There has been development in siege weaponry, scorpions and ballistae, as well as crossbows. The Myrish lenses seem to be a fairly recent technological development, as does the glass garden. Braavos has developed a complex banking system, and there are insurance salesmen there, too. Aurane Water's dromonds are made out to be some kind of development. 

The problem isn't the past four hundred years. The past four hundred years have been sort of realistic, if a little slow. The problem comes from before the Doom. The conclusion upthread was that perhaps something to do with Valyria or Valyria's Magic was keeping the world static. But I don't believe there was an in depth explanation. 

[House Cambodia]

^ Thanks for the explanation. So development was at snail's pace until the last 4 centuries or so. Before that, I don't think we can rationalise it even within the terms of reference of GRRM's universe - as you say, it simply hasn't been thought through.