Age of Heroes and Long Night: Closer to 5,000 years ago than 10,000? [EW Interview with GRRM]

[MaesterSam]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is what they should have had - but what they apparently never actually had, or else they would still have greenseers. No sane person or culture would ever give up the power and knowledge a greenseer can give you about, well, basically everything.

They might not have given it up voluntarily - mayhaps the greenseers rebelled when they saw the evil that man was capable of all around the world. Or mayhaps the greenseers grew to be too powerful, and men began to fear them. We see how Bloodraven is regarded in the D&E books, for example. My favorite explanation, of course, is that human greenseers misused the weirnet to gain more power for themselves and their House, and ultimately created the Others.  After that, I have no idea, but it seems possible they were unable to control what they had unleashed, requiring the Children's help to contain them. After that, man was banned from the trees. 

[Megorova]

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No sane person or culture would ever give up the power and knowledge a greenseer can give you about, well, basically everything.

Though, what if to create a connection between greenseer and Old Gods/the source of knowledge about everything, that greenseer has to be connected to the Weirwood, same as Bloodraven, and all those Children inside that cave?

Who will willingly agree to become a soil, thru which a tree will grow? It's painful and horrible. So, most likely, they have eventually run out of "volunteers". Because majority of sane people, if they were parasited by a tree, would have rather died, than continued to live as a food for a tree. Bloodraven is an exception.

So it's not about giving up the power, it's about not willing to sacrifice your own life and body to the Weirwood, in exchange of other people gaining thru you an access to information, provided by Old Gods.

[MaesterSam]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no complete list of LC nor confirmation that the number of LCs that supposedly served is actually factually correct. This is a dead end. There is no way to get to the bottom of this, since we have no (independent) confirmation that tradition is correct there.

While I would agree that the number of LCs won't confirm the date of the LN, I actually feel fairly confident that the number itself (998) is correct (which isn't what I said earlier, but I've thought on it some more). Here's why: the first LC would have known he was the first, and after him it would have been the second, and so on. Every LC would have known his predecessor's number (ex: Jon knows Mormont is the 997th LC, in fact the whole NW knows this) and their own number would have simply been one more. Even without written lists, this "counting up by one" each time would have been extremely hard to mess up. A whole group of people learns one number, then when a new guy is elected the number increases by one. Seriously, I think they were capable of managing that. I don't know how it could possibly get messed up unless somehow the entire Watch was wiped out, to the last man, at a time before lists, and was re-started with a complete new set of people who had no knowledge of prior LCs. We hear of no such event, so I conclude that the number is correct (or at least reasonably close). 

[Lord Varys]

We don't know whether the LCs even cared to number themselves back in the first millennium of the existence of the Watch.

Might be they did that, but it would be awfully convenient if that was correct, but they didn't have a list to back it up. I mean, it is just 1,000 names. Not so many words to memorize...

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know whether the LCs even cared to number themselves back in the first millennium of the existence of the Watch.

Might be they did that, but it would be awfully convenient if that was correct, but they didn't have a list to back it up. I mean, it is just 1,000 names. Not so many words to memorize...

At some point the oral list would have been recorded in writing - for example after Andal writing spread to the Wall. Which might be the “oldest” list Sam finds. Which places the Andal arrival at the Wall around 660 Lord Commanders after the Long Night (about 330 Lord Commanders ago).

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

At some point the oral list would have been recorded in writing - for example after Andal writing spread to the Wall. Which might be the “oldest” list Sam finds. Which places the Andal arrival at the Wall around 660 Lord Commanders after the Long Night (about 330 Lord Commanders ago).

Or not. Because nobody gave a damn. Perhaps it was all made up. Or a significant portion of it up to the point people gave a damn.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Or not. Because nobody gave a damn. Perhaps it was all made up. Or a significant portion of it up to the point people gave a damn.

The list being “made up” is the one explanation that makes no sense whatsoever. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

The list being “made up” is the one explanation that makes no sense whatsoever. 

What? Many such historical lists are 'made up', including the early lists of the popes and various lists involving mythical kings and the like.

[MaesterSam]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Though, what if to create a connection between greenseer and Old Gods/the source of knowledge about everything, that greenseer has to be connected to the Weirwood, same as Bloodraven, and all those Children inside that cave?

Who will willingly agree to become a soil, thru which a tree will grow? It's painful and horrible. So, most likely, they have eventually run out of "volunteers". Because majority of sane people, if they were parasited by a tree, would have rather died, than continued to live as a food for a tree. Bloodraven is an exception.

So it's not about giving up the power, it's about not willing to sacrifice your own life and body to the Weirwood, in exchange of other people gaining thru you an access to information, provided by Old Gods.

Oooh very interesting point! You're completely right - even Bran the Broken isn't thrilled when he learns of his future; now imagine asking a healthy Stark to descend into the crypts and spend his life sitting in the dark. (What if this is Jon's destiny? That's why he dreams about the crypts calling to him...). If "marriage with the tree" is required, then being a greenseer is not a privilege but a curse. I could totally see them refusing and running away. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know whether the LCs even cared to number themselves back in the first millennium of the existence of the Watch.

Might be they did that, but it would be awfully convenient if that was correct, but they didn't have a list to back it up. I mean, it is just 1,000 names. Not so many words to memorize...

I think that's a lot of names to memorize. I can't even name all the US presidents, and there are only 40-something. Sure, I could learn them, but I don't really care. And who would care enough to spend the time memorizing all those LC names? NW members don't have a long life expectancy on average, so they would constantly have new arrivals having to memorize "the list". That seems a LOT more challenging than simply keeping track of which number you are on. (Unless they still had human greenseers when the first septon arrived with a pen. In that case, names and numbers could be expected to be accurate).

And they did care about numbers, otherwise we wouldn't know that the NK was #13. 

[Lord Varys]

They would have memorized the names back in the day when they were still the oral First Men culture. Back then they would have only tales and stories to remember the past, and there are supposedly techniques to remember a lot of names.

We also don't know the the Night's King was LC #13. We know that tradition and stories claim this is the case. That's not confirmation that this is the case.

If we take the the 'the past is uncertain' approach seriously that has been introduced into the series from AFfC onwards - and we should - then we cannot really claim to know much (if anything) about the years before we have trustworthy sources.

For plot reasons we can be reasonably sure that the story of the Long Night and the Others is pretty accurate, but all the other legends and stories could have been invented out of whole cloth - or they could be somewhat accurate. We just don't know. Danny Flint and the Rat Cook and the Night's King don't need to have existed to make the series work.

As for greenseers:

The fact that the First Men actually worship those trees and refer to what must be, in essence, just greenseers as their 'gods' makes it very clear to me, I think, that the bulk of them never actually properly understood what was going on. The Children seem to cherish their weirwoods and all, but I don't think they actually worship them as divine, nor the greenseers who basically live among them.

This indicates that the First Men never actually took over the greenseer system. There may have been certain groups of First Men - like the crannogmen, and those people around the Warg King, and some others - who grew very close to the Children, but I don't think the First Men as such joined with them culturally.

[Big Daddy]

I don't care at all for this setting to be several thousands of years ago. I don't want to see it legitimized by the new tv show. In the books at least I can pass this unreasonable amout of time off as human error because the people of Westeros simply don't have a good grasp on their own history. 

Imagine we in our own culture did a show on the misadventures of the West Wing of the White House. Then we decide to do a prequel to it set 10,000 years in the past. Now we have a show about Indians living in the woods of what will one day become North America and ancient Egyptians. But wait! We'll be reasonable and cut that in half! Well, 5,000 years ago is still something very similar. How are we expected to believe over a 5,000 year span that house names like Stark (and presumably others) will still exist and not be extinguished? Castles exist all that time? Is the armor, weapons and the technology in Westeros going to be the same? I would expect 5,000 years ago the best of mankind in Westeros was living in mud huts and/or living a nomadic life.  

I feel like setting these events any more than 800 years before ASOIAF will be a huge mistake.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I suppose there are a number of ways to read Sam's statement, since Jon doesn't allow him to elaborate, but I think Sam's point is that the oldest written record he could find was written down after two thirds of the supposed LCs had already gone. Whether it listed names or just gave a number and maybe some info on some of the more famous LCs, it was written down long after any of those real and/or imagined LCs. Even if it was written down two thousand years ago, there are no contemporary written accounts of the thousands of years it gives an account of.

Exactly. That is obviously what it means.  Not sure why more obscure interpretations of that relatively straightforward statement are being introduced. 

The very fact that Sam is about to date the time of writing of the list based on its number of Lord Commanders makes it obvious that he was using the percentage of 998 represented by the 667 or whatever as en estimate for dating it.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Big Daddy said:

I don't care at all for this setting to be several thousands of years ago. I don't want to see it legitimized by the new tv show. In the books at least I can pass this unreasonable amout of time off as human error because the people of Westeros simply don't have a good grasp on their own history. 

Imagine we in our own culture did a show on the misadventures of the West Wing of the White House. Then we decide to do a prequel to it set 10,000 years in the past. Now we have a show about Indians living in the woods of what will one day become North America and ancient Egyptians. But wait! We'll be reasonable and cut that in half! Well, 5,000 years ago is still something very similar. How are we expected to believe over a 5,000 year span that house names like Stark (and presumably others) will still exist and not be extinguished? Castles exist all that time? Is the armor, weapons and the technology in Westeros going to be the same? I would expect 5,000 years ago the best of mankind in Westeros was living in mud huts and/or living a nomadic life.  

I feel like setting these events any more than 800 years before ASOIAF will be a huge mistake.

I guess you will REALLY have a problem with the Malazan series then. They have 200,000 year old cultures. This is fantasy, my friend, not dry historical fiction.

[SirArthur]

13 hours ago, Megorova said:

So even though some LCs, such as Mormont and Bloodraven, were LCs for 10+ years, there were others, that have lasted for less than a day, and thus 5 years, as an average "life span" of LC, is a fairly realistic number.

This is prob. the worst use of the word realistic I have seen in a long time. Average roman Kings ruled for 35 years, average popes are elected at a high age. You just take the pope number, which is a very conservative guess by me, because it fits with the book numbers . Also the middle ages and all kind of internal wars, illness and so on is fully mirrored in those numbers. 

And then you just randomly slap of a few years because of illness and what not and call it realistic. 

[Big Daddy]

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I guess you will REALLY have a problem with the Malazan series then. They have 200,000 year old cultures. This is fantasy, my friend, not dry historical fiction.

200,000 years? Nah. I just can't. I can go for it in sci fi with immortal guardians of the universe who oversee a corps of intergalactic police. But straight up humans following a linneage that far back? Pass. I find myself thinking, I wonder what House Kennedy and House Reagan were doing 10,000 years ago? And it falls apart. 

My head cannon is that Sam is the guy on the verge of blurting out the truth, but he keeps getting shut down mid sentence like C3P0. He's so close to figuring out the wall and the Watch are only several hundred years old and the lack of written records has helped shape their mythology and the ludicrous timeline that most people in Westeros blindly accept.

[Megorova]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They would have memorized the names back in the day when they were still the oral First Men culture. Back then they would have only tales and stories to remember the past, and there are supposedly techniques to remember a lot of names.

They had runes. Though they didn't used paper, and "wrote" on stones and trees. Nowadays they have a tradition in NW to put their House's shield in the Shield hall. Maybe, prior Andal Era they were using something else, that was similar to a House shield. Maybe they had a list, written in runes on wooden or stone plates. Though after thousands years those plates fell apart.

Maybe, they had a list of LCs recorded like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Chronicles

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

This is prob. the worst use of the word realistic I have seen in a long time. Average roman Kings ruled for 35 years, average popes are elected at a high age. You just take the pope number, which is a very conservative guess by me, because it fits with the book numbers . Also the middle ages and all kind of internal wars, illness and so on is fully mirrored in those numbers. 

And then you just randomly slap of a few years because of illness and what not and call it realistic. 

Roman Kings and popes were living in less thickly populated invironment than the castles of NW. If there was an infectious desease in one of their castles (NW), some people survived, some didn't, but nearly everyone got infected. Also kings and popes usually didn't went to fight on battlefield, they commanded their people from safety of their "castles".

Name me at least one pope, that died during crusade. There's none. Unless we will count Urban III:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

"Saladin offered the Christians the option of remaining in peace under Islamic rule or taking advantage of 40 days' grace to leave. As a result, much of Palestine quickly fell to Saladin including, after a short five-day siege, Jerusalem.^[77] According to Benedict of Peterborough, Pope Urban III died of deep sadness on 19 October 1187 on hearing of the defeat.^[78] "

In crusades died at least 1M people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

And out of that 1M+ there was no popes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes_who_died_violently

None of them died on battlefield, or in a span of crusade.

So popes were living much safer life than LCs of NW. And thus, it's likely, or fairly realistic, that LCs usually have a shorter life span, than some pope in Vatican. Though let's not argue about this. I'm just saying, that it is realistic, you may disagree, and you have a right to have a different opinion, so

[MaesterSam]

18 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

At some point the oral list would have been recorded in writing - for example after Andal writing spread to the Wall. Which might be the “oldest” list Sam finds. Which places the Andal arrival at the Wall around 660 Lord Commanders after the Long Night (about 330 Lord Commanders ago).

Yes, that's a great way to look at it. Whatever amount of time has passed since the Long Night, we can expect the Andals arrived (or more accurately, reached the Wall) about 2/3 of the way through that time period. Assuming the list starts with LC#1.

In other words - any theories linking the arrival of the Andals to the Long Night can be safely discarded. (No offense to anyone who likes them - but really all the info we have, from all sources, places thousands of years between the LN and the Andal arrival). 

4 hours ago, Megorova said:

They had runes. Though they didn't used paper, and "wrote" on stones and trees. Nowadays they have a tradition in NW to put their House's shield in the Shield hall. Maybe, prior Andal Era they were using something else, that was similar to a House shield. Maybe they had a list, written in runes on wooden or stone plates. Though after thousands years those plates fell apart.

Excellent point! I feel much better about the list now. 

[Lord Lannister]

I always got the feeling that the "history" before the Conquest should be taken with a grain of salt about the size of the Wall. Somehow this same collection of families in the same collection of castles have ruled their lands for thousands of years in an unbroken line? Even for hundreds of years is a stretch in a land full of intrigue, assassinations, wars, and everything else that causes people to die prematurely. 

Especially when you factor in details like the seasons being odd makes it difficult to accurately measure the passage of time and all recordkeeping is done on paper, which doesn't last and either is lost or has to be transcribed over and over again. Sometimes I get the feeling that Westerosi history is one big game of the telephone game. 

[Megorova]

52 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Somehow this same collection of families in the same collection of castles have ruled their lands for thousands of years in an unbroken line?

No, they didn't.

Prior Starks united The North under their rule, there were other northern First Men kings - Umbers, Glovers, Boltons (Red Kings), Ryders (Ryswells), Lockes, Flints. House Gardener became extinct. Same as Ironborn Kings Greyirons, and Storm Kings Durrandons. Daynes used to be Kings of Torrentine. Fowlers were Kings of Stone and Sky. Even though names of some of those families have remained the same, it doesn't mean, that their blood was also the same, in an unbroken continuity. For example, House Lannister - Lann the Clever has tricked the First Men Kings Casterlys from their seat, and later they (Lannisters) continued their line thru descendants of Joffrey Lydden, who has married with daughter of King Gerold III Lannister, and after their marriage took the name of his wife's House. So current Lannisters are not actually Lannisters, they are Lyddens. And most likely, something like that has also happened in other ancient Houses of Westeros, and more than once. For example, if there was no male heir, then the House could have "adopted" an heir from some other family, and that heir took this House's name. Like the case of Harrold Hardyng - if little Robert will die without issue, then Harold would ascend to rule of the Vale as Harrold Arryn <- AFFC, Alayne II.

Info about long-lasting empires of real world:

https://www.quora.com/Which-empire-lasted-the-longest-in-the-history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Egyptian_dynasties

Roman Empire 2,559 years; Chinese Empire 4,116 years; Ancient Egypt 3,120 years.

Obviously, that those Egyptian rulers from thirty-two pharaonic dynasties, were not all bloodrelated to each other / were not direct descendants of their predecessors.

But who says, that Starks' lineage, or lineage of other noble Houses of Westeros was never broken? Who can say, that Starks always had male heirs, that continuously inherited Winterfell from their fathers? Just look at Arryns - if Robert will die, then the Eyrie will be inherited by Harrold "Arryn", who's actually not an Arryn, but Hardyng. Maybe, somewhere in the history of House Stark, they also didn't had a male heir, thus their young Lady has married with a member of some other House, who then took Stark as his last name, same as did Joffrey Lydden, who thru marriage has became Lannister.

The castles are the same. Or not? -> Harrenhal was burned by Aegon's dragon, and then was rebuild. Winterfell has also burned, maybe, many times. Nowadays Winterfell is many times larger, than the original castle, that was build after First Long Night. If from that ancient Winterfell, all that is still remaining, are only its crypts, could it be said, that it's still the same castle? Nope, I don't think so.

And bloodlines are definitely different. GRRM has said many times, that in current Westeros, there are no people with pure blood of First Men, or Andals, or Rhoynars. Over those thousands years they all mixed and mingled, and so modern Starks, maybe, have a drop of blood, that they have inherited from ancient Starks, or, maybe, now they have a totally different genetic pool, than those ancient Starks.

[Corvo the Crow]

10 hours ago, Megorova said:

And bloodlines are definitely different. GRRM has said many times, that in current Westeros, there are no people with pure blood of First Men, or Andals, or Rhoynars. Over those thousands years they all mixed and mingled, and so modern Starks, maybe, have a drop of blood, that they have inherited from ancient Starks, or, maybe, now they have a totally different genetic pool, than those ancient Starks.

 

Bran visions would disagree. So would the statues in the crypts