100 replies to this topic

[IronSuitor]

Scootydowop, on 15 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

So you admit that its really just convient that they were never taken out of power given their history?

It's convenient for them that they have a very strong fortress and live in a region where extended sieges aren't possible.

Again, the Boltons only ever rebelled once. Their stark-flaying days were thousands of years ago before the Starks were even their overlords.

Edited by IronSuitor, 15 April 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Harle The Handsome]

TheFlayedMan, on 15 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

I think it will be Roose who kills Ramsay, presuming Stannis doesn't do it first.
Fat Walda will be nice and fertile, judging by her family. Better to take a chance on getting a son through her than allowing fucking Ramsay to inherit the everything.

Who is to say that Ramsey doesn't kill Roose?!?

[PrinceHenryris]

I think of it like the Us/UK "war" against Saddam Hussein in 1991.  Once they realized that it would take more time and money to wipe out the Boltons than it would to make them kneel, they let them kneel.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ramsay Gimp, on 15 April 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Hmm. I would have put the Starks, Tullys, and Vale on the same level, below the Lannisters and Tyrells (the Lannisters have less people but more gold, it seems).

Also, if everyone's real numbers are much higher than the armies they field in the books, what's the difference? The ratios would stay the same. And huge areas of the North are made up of swamp/bogs or  frigid mountains. It is a "grey waste" as Cersei says

The ratios change a bit. Tyrell 70,000 (not sure if it includes Redwyne Fleet), Lannister 50,000-60,000, Stark 50,000-60,000, Arryn & Tully 40,000, Dorne claims 50,000 and admits 30,000 in secret, Stormlords 30,000, Ironborn at least 25,000, maybe more and Crownlands unknown, but lower. Stark, Arryn, Tully and the Ironborn are those mostly underestimated because the first three not once have their full strength available and the Iron Islands look so small.

On topic, the whole Stark-flaying affairs may be generations from the times where the Starks had the power to raze the Dreadfort and they didn't want to kill the grandchildren for something dear old grandpa did.

[Free Northman]

Ramsay Gimp, on 15 April 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Hmm. I would have put the Starks, Tullys, and Vale on the same level, below the Lannisters and Tyrells (the Lannisters have less people but more gold, it seems).

Also, if everyone's real numbers are much higher than the armies they field in the books, what's the difference? The ratios would stay the same. And huge areas of the North are made up of swamp/bogs or  frigid mountains. It is a "grey waste" as Cersei says

To put it simply, of all the regions involved in the War of the Five Kings, the Starks gathered the lowest percentage of their total potential when they went to war. Martin has directly confirmed this.

He stated that due to the North's great size, it takes much longer to gather its full power - and Robb was in a hurry to head south. Also, Martin stated that due to the North's harsher climate, lords are more hesitant to release all their men to go off to war.

If you combine these issues, it is clear that Robb's army comprised a much smaller percentage of the North's total power than the Lannister army did of the West's total power, or the Riverlands army did of the Tully's power etc.

If you combine Tywin, Jaime and Ser Stefford's hosts, the Lannisters seems to have stretched their manpower to the absolute limit to raise approximately 45,000 men in total. And Stefford's host consisted largely of the scrapings of Lannisport's underbelly and hastily hired mercenaries at that, so the Lannisters are absolutely at their maximum.

Robb, in turn, took south the men that could most quickly be spared for a campaign in the South. You will note that the Manderlys kept most of their strength back, as demonstrated by Manderly's statement to Davos in Dance, as well as by the 50 strong warfleet that he has built up and crewed subsequently.

So too did the Hill Clans, and no doubt every other remote lord, as shown by Martin's comment that Lords are more hesitant to release their men in the North. Also consider the fact that this was at the time of the last harvest before an expected long Winter, so the Northern lords would have been doubly reluctant to release all their men.

I exclude the more warlike lords like the Umbers, who seem to have cleared most men from their surrounding areas, in their eagerness to go to war. That's the Umbers for you. Not very cautious, and ready for battle at the drop of a hat.

The point is, the North's full strength is probably very similar to the Lannisters 40,000 - 50,000, remembering that the Lannisters included quite a few mercenaries which bolstered their normal strength.

Edited by Free Northman, 16 April 2012 - 02:58 AM.

[Buried Treasure]

It's not plot armour, it's backstory.

If the Boltons didn't exist in Westeros the creepy, traitor guy would have been a lord from a different House. The story needs an experienced lord from a powerful family to be given a generalship by Robb then betray him - but it didn't need that lord to be from the House that were historically the Starks greatest rivals. Roose's role in the current story would not have been any different if the Bolton's were historically Stark loyalists and most famous for their womenfolk producing cable-knit sweaters - but that backstory would have been a lot less colourful.

[Anna Targaryen]

the starks are limited by their idea of honor unlike the Boltons or the Lannisters
so they refrained from killing all the house
and look at the lannisters and boltons now although that sense of honor got the starks to their downfall
their still people who loved ned stark after his death and tried to save arya
and you wont find any one would to the same for tywin or roose and ramsay however powerful they are

[Gurkhal]

Anna Targaryen, on 16 April 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

the starks are limited by their idea of honor unlike the Boltons or the Lannisters
so they refrained from killing all the house
and look at the lannisters and boltons now although that sense of honor got the starks to their downfall
their still people who loved ned stark after his death and tried to save arya
and you wont find any one would to the same for tywin or roose and ramsay however powerful they are

I think that's silly talk as the earlier Starks have been described as much but seldom as more honorable than anyone else. More likely the present generation of Starks owes their honor to their father, who was fostered with a family with the words High As Honor and with a mother from a familt with the words Family, Duty, Honor. If the pre-Targaryen Starks saw the present one they would probably think they were Andals playing at being Starks.

And I honestly think its a bigger mystery with Yronwoods, who supported the Blackfyres several times, are still a major House in Dorne and trusted by Doran Martell, rather than why the Boltons are still alive.

Edited by Gurkhal, 16 April 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[reek it rhymes with meek]

Anvilbreaker, on 14 April 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

I have been wondering why house bolton has been allowed to exist for so long in the North, if they rebelled so many times. I know a lot of people say that you can't just go killing off bannermen, but it seemed to work fine for tywin, plus in one of the rebellions, led by the boltons, the starks wiped out the Greystarks, who were a cadet branch of their own house. Even if you don't kill em all, why wouldn't some stark be smart enough to break the Bolton's power

House Bolton members were a lot of things, but never fools

[ServantOnIce]

My only question is why weren't the Iron Born wiped out after nuking Lord Tywin's fleet to ashes . . . but that was answered by Robert and Eddard.

The Boltons are a force you need to keep your hand on but you need at your side. When war comes you need the Boltons to slay fools.

[Anna Targaryen]

gurkhal:
what i mean is the idea of honor while ned stark and his children
and in world of asoiaf a house like the starks cant be get rid of so easily but a hosue like the boltons they they came to power through rosse and his son
and as you said about the starks  pre targaryens and ned stark and i ask you even if the starks were not as honorable as ned why there still loyalty in the north to them?

[Free Northman]

I agree that the ancient Starks didn't have mercy high on their list of priorities. Hanging the entrails of defeated enemies on the branches of Heart Trees was more their style.

I also don't believe the Boltons could have survived through strength of force against the much more powerful Starks.

I therefore believe that the continued existence of the Boltons is an unexplained mystery, and most likely just a requirement to have a convenient and believable traitor available in the North.

Either that or some amazingly convoluted story such as the last surviving Bolton sibling saving the life of the Stark heir by killing his own father/brother before carrying a wounded Stark to safety, and thus being pardoned or some such claptrap.

[Free Northman]

ServantOnIce, on 16 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

My only question is why weren't the Iron Born wiped out after nuking Lord Tywin's fleet to ashes . . . but that was answered by Robert and Eddard.


The Boltons are a force you need to keep your hand on but you need at your side. When war comes you need the Boltons to slay fools.

Much better to root out House Bolton and give their lands to another lord. The Bolton peasants don't appear particularly loving of their masters - seeing as they hunt them like animals before skinning them, after all - so I see no problem in the Dreadfort being torn down and a new Castle manned by a younger Stark son being built in its place, to lord it over the former Bolton lands.

[Gurkhal]

Anna Targaryen, on 16 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

gurkhal:
what i mean is the idea of honor while ned stark and his children
and in world of asoiaf a house like the starks cant be get rid of so easily but a hosue like the boltons they they came to power through rosse and his son
and as you said about the starks  pre targaryens and ned stark and i ask you even if the starks were not as honorable as ned why there still loyalty in the north to them?

Alright. In regards to loyalty why are the Westermen loyal to the Lannisters, the Riverlord to the Tullys and the Stormlands to the Baratheons? Why did the Crownland rise to a man to fight for Aerys and Rhaegar? There are lots of things that can inspire loyalty and honor is just one of them. And if the Northmen would not be loyal to the Starks do you think that the Starks and their supporters would allow the disloyal Houses to remain or do what Robb threatened the Greatjon with?

Free Northman, on 16 April 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

I agree that the ancient Starks didn't have mercy high on their list of priorities. Hanging the entrails of defeated enemies on the branches of Heart Trees was more their style.

I also don't believe the Boltons could have survived through strength of force against the much more powerful Starks.

I therefore believe that the continued existence of the Boltons is an unexplained mystery, and most likely just a requirement to have a convenient and believable traitor available in the North.

Either that or some amazingly convoluted story such as the last surviving Bolton sibling saving the life of the Stark heir by killing his own father/brother before carrying a wounded Stark to safety, and thus being pardoned or some such claptrap.

If the story is that a kineslayer and traitor Bolton would save his Houses like this I will puke. More likely is that the Boltons were such fierce opponents that the Starks couldn't force them into submission and so decided that it was in their interest to maintain the Boltons rather than actually trying to storm the Dreadfort.

Another suggestion is of course that the Starks decided to keep the Boltons around for the sake of preventing further generations of Starks from growing soft. How about that?

In regards to the traitor I actually think that the same story could've been played out as well or even better with the Karstarks taking the role of Bolton. But that's just me.

Free Northman, on 16 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Much better to root out House Bolton and give their lands to another lord. The Bolton peasants don't appear particularly loving of their masters - seeing as they hunt them like animals before skinning them, after all - so I see no problem in the Dreadfort being torn down and a new Castle manned by a younger Stark son being built in its place, to lord it over the former Bolton lands.

Much better to let some loyal bannermen marry a female Bolton and take the Bolton name, banner and castle and so continue the line in a more loyal way, OR just pardon the Boltons after they have bent their knees. Also the Karstarks were founded after a Bolton rebellion and I would think that they got most of their lands from what used to be Bolton lands.

Also hunting the smallfolk like masters is something that Ramsay does and there is little to no evidence that any Bolton used this specific conduct before Ramsay came along.

[The Frosted King]

Gurkhal, on 16 April 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Alright. In regards to loyalty why are the Westermen loyal to the Lannisters, the Riverlord to the Tullys and the Stormlands to the Baratheons? Why did the Crownland rise to a man to fight for Aerys and Rhaegar? There are lots of things that can inspire loyalty and honor is just one of them. And if the Northmen would not be loyal to the Starks do you think that the Starks and their supporters would allow the disloyal Houses to remain or do what Robb threatened the Greatjon with?



If the story is that a kineslayer and traitor Bolton would save his Houses like this I will puke. More likely is that the Boltons were such fierce opponents that the Starks couldn't force them into submission and so decided that it was in their interest to maintain the Boltons rather than actually trying to storm the Dreadfort.

Another suggestion is of course that the Starks decided to keep the Boltons around for the sake of preventing further generations of Starks from growing soft. How about that?

In regards to the traitor I actually think that the same story could've been played out as well or even better with the Karstarks taking the role of Bolton. But that's just me.



Much better to let some loyal bannermen marry a female Bolton and take the Bolton name, banner and castle and so continue the line in a more loyal way, OR just pardon the Boltons after they have bent their knees. Also the Karstarks were founded after a Bolton rebellion and I would think that they got most of their lands from what used to be Bolton lands.

Also hunting the smallfolk like masters is something that Ramsay does and there is little to no evidence that any Bolton used this specific conduct before Ramsay came along.

It doesn't make sense in the setting we've been reading about for the past 17 years.

The Darklyns revolt, their power is broken, house slaughtered.
The Butterwells revolt, house broken, castle torn down lands sectioned off to surrounding lords.
The Reynes, Tarbecks revolt....Reynes of Castamere.
The Plumms, Mudds etc.
The Osgreys.
The Florents.

The list is long, and if you wanna go the route of Boltons being powerful opponents, the first rule to maintaining a kingdom is the swift removal of any potential rivals.
And the Boltons with their hold out of independence, and then their later defiance get to keep their lands and power?
Goes against the trend of most competent rulers, and especially against the reputation of the Starks of yore.

Kinda like pirates who don't do anything, ya dig?

And who says that it was a bolton uprising that got the Karstarks Karhold? It was likely Skane or Skagos, due to the proximity of Karhold to those islands.

[Kurhill]

Scootydowop, on 16 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

And who says that it was a bolton uprising that got the Karstarks Karhold? It was likely Skane or Skagos, due to the proximity of Karhold to those islands.

In the books it's written that Karhold was taken from a "rebel lord". On the HBO page (viewer's guide) if you click on Karhold - "The Karstarks trace their lineage to Karlon Stark, who earned his own lands after crushing Bolton rebellion". I believe i read somewhere that this guide/map was "Martin approved". It's also logical because Karstark land is right next to Boltons'.

[Gurkhal]

Scootydowop, on 16 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

It doesn't make sense in the setting we've been reading about for the past 17 years.
The Darklyns revolt, their power is broken, house slaughtered.
The Butterwells revolt, house broken, castle torn down lands sectioned off to surrounding lords.
The Reynes, Tarbecks revolt....Reynes of Castamere.
The Plumms, Mudds etc.
The Osgreys.
The Florents.

All of these examples are either very unique or have caused some serious tremours when they were made and were never consider routine.

The Darklyns are considered the first example of  Aerys' madness and can thus not be considered a very good example of a competent ruler
The Butterwells only really lost their stuff the second time around unless I'm mistaken and so the first time they got off pretty light
The Reynes and Tarbecks and famous just because they were wiped out after years of clashes and semi-rebellion against the Lannisters
The Plumms are doing pretty well as far as I know
The Mudds were wiped out in war with the Stormkings and Ironborn, not by being rebels
The Osgreys lost nothing through the Blackfyre Rebellion but were forgiven
The Florents are the only example that I can think stands rather good and its because they did not kneel to the Iron Throne but kept fighting, had they knelt they would probably have been pardoned

Scootydowop, on 16 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

The list is long, and if you wanna go the route of Boltons being powerful opponents, the first rule to maintaining a kingdom is the swift removal of any potential rivals. And the Boltons with their hold out of independence, and then their later defiance get to keep their lands and power? Goes against the trend of most competent rulers, and especially against the reputation of the Starks of yore.

I don't see any of the mentioned Houses being close to being as powerful as House Bolton would've been in relation to the Starks. The Starks probably would have liked to take some stuff away, and they did when they created House Karstark from what most likely was Bolton lands, but exterminating Houses that do kneel is very rare in both North and South.

Scootydowop, on 16 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Kinda like pirates who don't do anything, ya dig? And who says that it was a bolton uprising that got the Karstarks Karhold? It was likely Skane or Skagos, due to the proximity of Karhold to those islands.

Don't know about the pirates but the Wiki claims it was a Bolton uprising that was put down and I'm pretty sure that it was writen in the books as well.

http://awoiaf.wester.../House_Karstark

[Lord Yarwyck]

People seem to judge House Bolton by the actions of Ramsay and Roose.  There is no indication that every single Bolton has been an evil bastard (Domeric Bolton seems to have been an alright guy).  For example, look at the Lannisters - Tytos was a lot nicer than Tywin.  Remember that there have been some pretty unpleasant Starks: Brandon the Bad, Benjen the Bitter, Brandon the Burner.  Also, we know little about the moral character of the other Stark bannermen - for instance, House Umber still practice the Lord's Right.  Roose Bolton may not seem exceptionally unpleasant, given that he keeps many of his son's habits secret.

Also, the comparison with the Reynes and the Tarbecks is not valid - under Tytos, House Lannister had become a total joke - people borrowed Lannister gold and didn't return it, everyone associated the name of Lannister with incompetence, "toothless lion" was practically a meme at court.  Also, House Reyne was basically the second house of the Westerlands - it could have been a serious challenge, especially with House Tarbeck behind it.  Tywin viewed a harsh lesson as being necessary for the name of Lannister to once more be feared (trivia: one of the few times Tywin ever smiled was when Tarbeck Hall collapsed).  The Starks may never have been put in that position.

[Menos Grande]

The Norseman are way different them the south folks... if you think that the Norseman praise that if you condeam a man to death, it should be you to kill him, and if you can't bear to kill him, maybe he isn't supose to die... Lannisters would burn the house down and not even bother to "dirt their hands".
I don't see Ned Stark puting down kids because of some ill done by their parents... He would spare Cersei and her children!

[Gurkhal]

Menos Grande, on 16 April 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

The Norseman are way different them the south folks... if you think that the Norseman praise that if you condeam a man to death, it should be you to kill him, and if you can't bear to kill him, maybe he isn't supose to die... Lannisters would burn the house down and not even bother to "dirt their hands".
I don't see Ned Stark puting down kids because of some ill done by their parents... He would spare Cersei and her children!

Ned Stark is about 30 and not several centuries old so what he would've done to children matters very little concerning a Bolton rebellion about a millennia ago.