(urth) The Book of the New Sun vs. A Song of Ice and Fire

[nate jarvis]

Everyone SAYS the wall is 8000 years old. There's a bit in one of the
books where Sam talks about historical claims nor adding up. Actually,
that same scene might be in two of the books.

The Romans had decent siege technology that would have predated the
Arab-Chinese technology; isn't Martin's wall a fantasied up version of
Hadrian's Wall?

Nate

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:
> Watching the series, I keep mentally trying to place the technology at
> around 1200 to 1400 AD. But then I remember that the Wall has been there for
> 8000 years, yet the Starks never invaded the Holy Land to learn the proper
> arts of siege warfare from the Arabs. So I just have to make myself stop
> analyzing it.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: (urth) The Book of the New Sun vs. A Song of Ice and Fire
>
> I'll also speak out in favor of Martin -- he wrote what I consider to
> be THE best rock'n'roll novel of all time, THE ARMAGEDDON RAG. The
> ASOIAF books, to my mind, are brutally honest depictions of the kind
> of society that generic fantasy readers & writers like to, well,
> fantasize about.
>
> The Society for Creative Anachronism likes to say that it recreates
> "the middle ages as they should have been." Martin describes a
> medieval fantasy world as it really would have been.
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net