"For a thousand years or more..." What?

[kissdbyfire]

ADwD, Jon XII

“It was time. “Open the gate,” Jon Snow said softly.
“OPEN THE GATE!” Big Liddle roared. His voice was thunder.
Seven hundred feet above, the sentries heard and raised their warhorns to their lips. The sound rang out, echoing off the Wall and out across the world. Ahoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. One long blast. For a thousand years or more, that sound had meant rangers coming home. Today it meant something else. Today it called the free folk to their new homes.”

 

---

The bolded caught my eye the first time I read Dance; I thought it was odd but didn't give it much thought. But now the sentence keeps popping up in my head, so I decided to post it to see what people think. I suppose it *could* be a mistake, a slip; like someone's eye colour or the gender of a horse... but I think not. The legends and histories are too important for such a slip, imo. Sure, the timeline should be taken with a grain of salt. 10,000 years, 8,000 years, etc. But 1,000? So, what's up with that?

And not only that, but there's just so much weird stuff regarding the timeline(s)... of histories, legends, etc. Any chance we might puzzle a few things out? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

A thousand years is the common shorthand reference used again and again in the books for a long, long time.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

It's Jon's POV, is it not? I don't think there's anything regarding the history of the Watch that Lord Snow knows but isn't sharing with us. But he would be fill of doubt about the credibility of the ancient history. Certainly after Sam digging into the archives and finding a fine mess of tall tales and contradictions.

[kissdbyfire]

I agree with the 'thousand years' shorthand for long ago, but I don't recall a single instance where it's used in relation to the Wall/NW.

Like here:

“Marsh flushed a deeper shade of red. “The lord commander must pardon my bluntness, but I have no softer way to say this. What you propose is nothing less than treason. For eight thousand years the men of the Night’s Watch have stood upon the Wall and fought these wildlings. Now you mean to let them pass, to shelter them in our castles, to feed them and clothe them and teach them how to fight. Lord Snow, must I remind you? You swore an oath.”

 

[The Fattest Leech]

I think the "thousand years" could just be one of the literary themes George uses throughout this series.

Possibly, because Sam does find some info that questions what they know of as historical truth, that, surprise!, the Citadel tries to rewrite or write out of history books:

• A Feast for Crows - Samwell I

  "Goat's milk might serve, until you do. It's better for a babe than cow's milk." Sam had read that somewhere. He shifted in his seat. "My lord, when I was looking through the annals I came on another boy commander. Four hundred years before the Conquest. Osric Stark was ten when he was chosen, but he served for sixty years. That's four, my lord. You're not even close to being the youngest ever chosen. You're fifth youngest, so far."
  "The younger four all being sons, brothers, or bastards of the King in the North. Tell me something useful. Tell me of our enemy."
  "The Others." Sam licked his lips. "They are mentioned in the annals, though not as often as I would have thought. The annals I've found and looked at, that is. There's more I haven't found, I know. Some of the older books are falling to pieces. The pages crumble when I try and turn them. And the really old books . . . either they have crumbled all away or they are buried somewhere that I haven't looked yet or . . . well, it could be that there are no such books, and never were. The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights. You know the tales, Brandon the Builder, Symeon Star-Eyes, Night's King . . . we say that you're the nine hundred and ninety-eighth Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but the oldest list I've found shows six hundred seventy-four commanders, which suggests that it was written during . . ."

"Long ago," Jon broke in. "What about the Others?"

 

ETA: Jon asks to be told about the enemy, and Sam tells him about the septons and maesters!!!! HAHAAA!!!

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I think the "thousand years" could just be one of the literary themes George uses throughout this series.

Possibly, because Sam does find some info that questions what they know of as historical truth, that, surprise!, the Citadel tries to rewrite or write out of history books:

• A Feast for Crows - Samwell I

  "Goat's milk might serve, until you do. It's better for a babe than cow's milk." Sam had read that somewhere. He shifted in his seat. "My lord, when I was looking through the annals I came on another boy commander. Four hundred years before the Conquest. Osric Stark was ten when he was chosen, but he served for sixty years. That's four, my lord. You're not even close to being the youngest ever chosen. You're fifth youngest, so far."
  "The younger four all being sons, brothers, or bastards of the King in the North. Tell me something useful. Tell me of our enemy."
  "The Others." Sam licked his lips. "They are mentioned in the annals, though not as often as I would have thought. The annals I've found and looked at, that is. There's more I haven't found, I know. Some of the older books are falling to pieces. The pages crumble when I try and turn them. And the really old books . . . either they have crumbled all away or they are buried somewhere that I haven't looked yet or . . . well, it could be that there are no such books, and never were. The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights. You know the tales, Brandon the Builder, Symeon Star-Eyes, Night's King . . . we say that you're the nine hundred and ninety-eighth Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but the oldest list I've found shows six hundred seventy-four commanders, which suggests that it was written during . . ."

"Long ago," Jon broke in. "What about the Others?"

Yeah, I know. I just find it really odd in this instance, even if I can't explain well why. I think in part it's b/c Martin doesn't really use this shorthand when talking about the NW and its history. But there's probably nothing to it at all.

[The Fattest Leech]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, I know. I just find it really odd in this instance, even if I can't explain well why. I think in part it's b/c Martin doesn't really use this shorthand when talking about the NW and its history. But there's probably nothing to it at all.

The current line of thought on across much of the threads nowadays is that this story is on a timeloop and that is why the dating of things from thousands of years ago, or however many LC's of the Night's Watch there have been, or why there are so many Bran's throughout history (as in they are all our Bran just in a timeloop).

Can't say I agree with all of this, because even though George gives us history repeating, I think he is using it in the sense of how we know it now, examples of the past that are happening again as as parallel for the current story.

I guess I misunderstood your question. My fault!

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The current line of thought on across much of the threads nowadays is that this story is on a timeloop and that is why the dating of things from thousands of years ago, or however many LC's of the Night's Watch there have been, or why there are so many Bran's throughout history (as in they are all our Bran just in a timeloop).

Can't say I agree with all of this, because even though George gives us history repeating, I think he is using it in the sense of how we know it now, examples of the past that are happening again as as parallel for the current story.

I guess I misunderstood your question. My fault!

Yeah, I don't buy the time loop explanation(s) that we see so often now. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I think we are supposed to question the time line, but I don't buy into the time loop theories. I think that we can see a hint towards GRRM's intention in AWOIAF. Because it expands on the histories and legends a fair bit. And It comes across as exactly what Sam is telling us here.

We can't know first man history accurately because the only records are by Maesters and Septons and were written; we are told thousands of years later.  We hear of impossibilities, such as Knights in the age of hero's, Lord Commanders who served for hundreds of years. And more. So we are supposed to question things. And ask ourselves why might the timeline be so off? There is of course bias to take into account, and misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and exaggeration too. 

Here I think Jon is possibly supposed to be questioning the history. He and Sam both seem suspicious of the histories, I don't recall if this line comes before or after the conversation quoted above though? 

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

On 10.12.2016 at 9:40 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

The current line of thought on across much of the threads nowadays is that this story is on a timeloop and that is why the dating of things from thousands of years ago, or however many LC's of the Night's Watch there have been, or why there are so many Bran's throughout history (as in they are all our Bran just in a timeloop).

Le huh?

That's the first I heard about time loops. Sounds silly.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I think we are supposed to question the time line, but I don't buy into the time loop theories. I think that we can see a hint towards GRRM's intention in AWOIAF. Because it expands on the histories and legends a fair bit. And It comes across as exactly what Sam is telling us here.

We can't know first man history accurately because the only records are by Maesters and Septons and were written; we are told thousands of years later.  We hear of impossibilities, such as Knights in the age of hero's, Lord Commanders who served for hundreds of years. And more. So we are supposed to question things. And ask ourselves why might the timeline be so off? There is of course bias to take into account, and misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and exaggeration too. 

Here I think Jon is possibly supposed to be questioning the history. He and Sam both seem suspicious of the histories, I don't recall if this line comes before or after the conversation quoted above though? 

 

I agree, I think we are supposed to question the timeline. That convo between Sam and Jon where Sam says all these things is like Martin holding a neon sign saying, "if you're not questioning the timeline, start doing so NOW!"

And yes, the convo between them takes place early on in Dance, long before the wildlings are coming through, when Jon thinks about '1,000 years'. 

I know there's probably nothing to it at all but still, it feels odd to me...

 

[The Fattest Leech]

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree, I think we are supposed to question the timeline. That convo between Sam and Jon where Sam says all these things is like Martin holding a neon sign saying, "if you're not questioning the timeline, start doing so NOW!"

And yes, the convo between them takes place early on in Dance, long before the wildlings are coming through, when Jon thinks about '1,000 years'. 

I know there's probably nothing to it at all but still, it feels odd to me...

 

I agree. I think we are supposed to question certain things, like the timeline, and even how true and accurate the tales of the heroes in the past actually happened.

Like, did Nissa Nissa really give herself to the sword, and that sword is a literal steel sword and not a man's fun dangley-bits, and is this tale really true as told or just a creative metaphor for how it really happened????

As a reader, it is fun and frustrating at the same time

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I much prefer the idea of fun dangly bits than a real steel sword. I think the latter might hurt a bit and cause death. 

[Clegane'sPup]

20 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I much prefer the idea of fun dangly bits than a real steel sword. I think the latter might hurt a bit and cause death. 

Me too. Leech comes up with some great stuff.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Just now, Clegane'sPup said:

Me too. Leech comes up with some great stuff.

Hahaha, i'll be honest, I'm pretty darn fond of the dangling bits. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I agree. I think we are supposed to question certain things, like the timeline, and even how true and accurate the tales of the heroes in the past actually happened.

Like, did Nissa Nissa really give herself to the sword, and that sword is a literal steel sword and not a man's fun dangley-bits, and is this tale really true as told or just a creative metaphor for how it really happened????

As a reader, it is fun and frustrating at the same time

 

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I much prefer the idea of fun dangly bits than a real steel sword. I think the latter might hurt a bit and cause death. 

 

3 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Me too. Leech comes up with some great stuff.

Hear, hear!

[Raisin' Bran]

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree, I think we are supposed to question the timeline. That convo between Sam and Jon where Sam says all these things is like Martin holding a neon sign saying, "if you're not questioning the timeline, start doing so NOW!"

And yes, the convo between them takes place early on in Dance, long before the wildlings are coming through, when Jon thinks about '1,000 years'. 

I know there's probably nothing to it at all but still, it feels odd to me...

 

That is where I began wondering myself. Though that message would be quite big to fit on a neon sign.

[Yukle]

The horn blows are definitely older than 1,000 years, since three blasts means the Others, and they've not been seen in millennia. Therefore the horn system is much older.

[Wrl6199]

33 minutes ago, Yukle said:

The horn blows are definitely older than 1,000 years, since three blasts means the Others, and they've not been seen in millennia. Therefore the horn system is much older.

Tue It as probably existed since the begging of the nights watch. Speaking of which dint George RR min say the others would be appearing in the winds of winter.

[desire]

During the dark years of his reign, horrific atrocities were committed, of which tales are still told in the north. It was not until Brandon the Breaker, the King of Winter, and Joramun, the King-Beyond-the-Wall, joined forces that Night's King was brought down and the Night's Watch freed. After his fall, when it was discovered that Night's King had been making sacrifices to the Others, all records of him were destroyed and his very name was forbidden and forgotten.It is likely this led the lords of the north to forbid the Night's Watch to construct walls at their keeps, ensuring the keeps would always be accessible from the south.