RE: Re: Forest navigation

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:41:14 -0000

> > Sartar isn't as wild a place as one might think.
> There has been steady occupation and expanding population for
> several hundred years (well for several thousand really).
>
> Sartar wasn't, AFAIK, much populated between the
> Dragonkill War and the human resettlement. Since there were
> around 500 years between those events, I'd say that any land
> that could regrow forest, did. Very vigourously!

I believe the Colymar re-entered the place in the 1400s? 200 years of occupation, after, as you say, 500 of abandonment. That's not very long at all.

> Oh, definitely not just boreal/coniferous. I was
> thinking not of boreal forests, ..

Would you believe we have a definitive, official, answer? DP, p4. "Mixed forests and rough heathland cover most valleys and foothills, except where people have cleared them. The woods in most sheltered valleys are mainly oak, lime, and hornbeam. Beech, silver fir, and spruce are common on higher ground, with forests of fir, spruce, and rowan on mountain slopes below 5000'."

> Even then, I would look back at the European experience
> for a comparison. Without saws,

??? The Romans had them...

> and with thousands of years
> of continuous occupation, there were still large forests left
> in France and Germany well into the 1500's. And they were
> considered dark and fearsome places inhabited by wild and
> dangerous creatures, outlaws, and powerful spirits. Rather
> like Sartar, in fact.

Even in comparatively densely populated Britain, we all "know" that Robin Hood used to hide in Sherwood Forest. It's a bit less heavily wooded now, of course.

I think you'll find that in France and Germany, those wild forests are still there, in places.