100 replies to this topic

[IronSuitor]

The entire reason you build a castle is that even after your armies are completely defeated it is still very difficult to wipe you out. It's not hard to envision a situation in which the Starks decided that the Dreadfort was simply too difficult to take (especially in a region as difficult on sieging armies as the North) and so cut the Boltons a deal.

[The Frosted King]

Then i guess i'm just like Stannis, cuz i'd be like "fukk winter, dem over dere bout ta die!"
And keep it going....
Or just wait until the thaw comes, and slaughter them come spring.
Either way, no second chances.
Not with someone with the bolton house rep.

Now, if my  forebear was spotty like a Maegar or Aerys.....
I can pardon that, since it was unjust ruling from the top.

[Free Northman]

Kurhill, on 16 April 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

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'.

Well, in Dance we get information that the Boltons were subject to the Starks LONG before 1000 years ago.

When we are taught the history of the Wolf's Den (at the future site of White Harbor), we learn that the Greystarks held it for about 5 centuries until they joined with the Boltons in a rebellion against Winterfell, after which they were wiped out.

This was about 2000 years prior to the establishment of White Harbor, which in itself occurred 1000 years ago. So that means the first Bolton rebellion we learn of occurred more than 3000 years ago, meaning that they were already Stark subjects at that distant point in the past.

So clearly, the Boltons were Stark subjects for thousands of years, but have repeatedly rebelled without being exterminated each time they were defeated.

It remains a mystery why they were allowed to live.

[Gurkhal]

Free Northman, on 16 April 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Well, in Dance we get information that the Boltons were subject to the Starks LONG before 1000 years ago.

Sorry but I don't recall this at all. Do you think it would be possible do dig up a quote? Or the scene where its mentioned?

[IronSuitor]

Quote

When we are taught the history of the Wolf's Den (at the future site of White Harbor), we learn that the Greystarks held it for about 5 centuries until they joined with the Boltons in a rebellion against Winterfell, after which they were wiped out.

The quote is "until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion." which can be read one of two ways. Either the Dreadfort rebelled, and they joined, or they joined the independent Boltons, and therefore rebelled.

In Theon IV in ACOK "all that had stopped a thousand years ago, when the Boltons had bent their knees to Winterfell. Or so they say, but old ways die hard, as well I know."

So either Martin lost track, or the second interpretation is right. Given how explicit the Clash of King's quote is, I'd say its a safe bet that the first time the Boltons bent the knee to the Starks was a thousand years ago.

[The Mother of The Others]

Quote

Why do the Boltons exist?

Why is there an audience for How I Met Your Mother or for MTV's The Real World ?  
Even though it's difficult to explain, those people are actually out there watching those shows.

It's like the Boltons grew up in a neighborhood where everyone owned a pitbull.  Then they survived the gang wars and got a reputation as the ones you don't want to mess with.  Then they taught that lesson to some more people.  Until all the North believed it and gave them a wide berth and maybe tipped them a little extra tithe just to keep them happy.  They astounded everyone by investing that money instead of wasting it on strippers and porn, and their shrewd investments allowed their surprisingly shrewd family to make some more shrewd moves, and then they became valuable to the Starks because being feared allowed them to field some loyal troops no doubt.  Then they used their new connections to get a better compound built for themselves, and then an honest to god castle.  Then they killed off some more of their opposition quietly.  Then they got cable TV.   (Or some progression just like this took place, if not this exactly..  That's why the Bolton's still exist despite being turbo jerks.  Because they're harder and meaner than everybody else in a world that still rewards that as the ultimate Darwinian key to success.)

Edited by The Mother of The Others, 16 April 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Free Northman]

IronSuitor, on 16 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

The quote is "until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion." which can be read one of two ways. Either the Dreadfort rebelled, and they joined, or they joined the independent Boltons, and therefore rebelled.

In Theon IV in ACOK "all that had stopped a thousand years ago, when the Boltons had bent their knees to Winterfell. Or so they say, but old ways die hard, as well I know."

So either Martin lost track, or the second interpretation is right. Given how explicit the Clash of King's quote is, I'd say its a safe bet that the first time the Boltons bent the knee to the Starks was a thousand years ago.

"Join the Boltons in rebellion" almost certainly means that the Boltons and other Houses joined forces to rebel against the Starks.

In any case, as long as 4000 years ago the Starks won Bear Island from the Ironborn, conquered the Neck from the Marsh King and married his daughter, established the Wolf's Den at the future site of White Harbor, and had ruled far enough North to give the Gift to the Night's Watch.

They also engaged the Vale in a 1000 year long series of Wars around 2000 years ago, fighting for control of the Sisters.

I find it highly unlikely that the Dreadfort would rule an independant little Kingdom when surrounded by the Starks on all sides, who held the rest of the North and had a force probably 10 times the size of the Boltons armies.

No, it is pretty clear that the Boltons were vassals of the Starks for thousands of years, who repeatedly rebelled over the course of the millenia - as far back as the fall of the Greystarks around 3000 years ago.

[Peach Fuzz]

This is why i sort of respect Lord Tywin. In medieval times you cant have unruly bannerman. The first time the rebelled agaisnt the Starks they should have completlley destroyed there house like a Reyenes of castamere. Look at Tywin he may have been a cold blooded man but he never had any problems in his own lands after that.

[just an Other]

I don't see a particular mystery. Most wars end in a renegotiation of the status quo. Total victory and the eradication of the foe is the exception, not the rule. The Boltons are simply among those who happened to survive. If you consider that three houses at least got their holdings straight from the Starks (Mormonts, Karstarks, Manderlys) it is implied that many didn't.

[IronSuitor]

Free Northman, on 17 April 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

"Join the Boltons in rebellion" almost certainly means that the Boltons and other Houses joined forces to rebel against the Starks.

In any case, as long as 4000 years ago the Starks won Bear Island from the Ironborn, conquered the Neck from the Marsh King and married his daughter, established the Wolf's Den at the future site of White Harbor, and had ruled far enough North to give the Gift to the Night's Watch.

They also engaged the Vale in a 1000 year long series of Wars around 2000 years ago, fighting for control of the Sisters.

I find it highly unlikely that the Dreadfort would rule an independant little Kingdom when surrounded by the Starks on all sides, who held the rest of the North and had a force probably 10 times the size of the Boltons armies.

No, it is pretty clear that the Boltons were vassals of the Starks for thousands of years, who repeatedly rebelled over the course of the millenia - as far back as the fall of the Greystarks around 3000 years ago.

The sentence can go either way.

It is not clear at all. If you look at the geography of the North the Starks could have controlled from the Wolf's Den to the western edge of the Wall and still left the Boltons about a quarter to a third of the North. Given the sheer size and rugged terrain of the North, not to mention that the Boltons had a fortress capable of withstanding a 4 year siege, it is nowhere near impossible that they were nominally independent, especially if they could occasionally seduce Stark vassals to their cause.

Also it is quite possible that the Starks considered themselves sovereign over the Boltons but the Boltons refused to recognize it. The particularly brutal tactics used by the Boltons are perhaps a result of desperation caused by the power imbalance between them and the people they were resisting.

Edited by IronSuitor, 17 April 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[Free Northman]

IronSuitor, on 17 April 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

The sentence can go either way.

It is not clear at all. If you look at the geography of the North the Starks could have controlled from the Wolf's Den to the western edge of the Wall and still left the Boltons about a quarter to a third of the North. Given the sheer size and rugged terrain of the North, not to mention that the Boltons had a fortress capable of withstanding a 4 year siege, it is nowhere near impossible that they were nominally independent, especially if they could occasionally seduce Stark vassals to their cause.

You are forgetting the Umbers, who have never been stated to have been former vassals of the Boltons. The Umbers are a First Men house, who most likely date back to the Age of Heroes. Therefore, the Bolton lands - as far as we know - never extended that far North.

Furthermore, there is no indication that the Karstark lands every belonged to the Boltons. It simply is said that Karlon Stark got that keep as a reward after valiant service in defeating a rebel lord.

Nowhere is it indicated that the Keep he was given once belonged to that rebel lord.

[HouseMendoza]

The Dreadfort is stong and House Bolton is powerful, for now. I see a bad future for them, I don't think they'll be around much longer.

[EgoistMusketeer]

HouseMendoza, on 17 April 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

The Dreadfort is stong and House Bolton is powerful, for now. I see a bad future for them, I don't think they'll be around much longer.

Never count out fat Walda!!

[IronSuitor]

Free Northman, on 17 April 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

You are forgetting the Umbers, who have never been stated to have been former vassals of the Boltons. The Umbers are a First Men house, who most likely date back to the Age of Heroes. Therefore, the Bolton lands - as far as we know - never extended that far North.

Furthermore, there is no indication that the Karstark lands every belonged to the Boltons. It simply is said that Karlon Stark got that keep as a reward after valiant service in defeating a rebel lord.

Nowhere is it indicated that the Keep he was given once belonged to that rebel lord.

Nor is it indicated otherwise. It would be common sense that someone who is rewarded for putting down a rebellion would be rewarded with the land of the rebels. If the Starks at the time had an ounce of sense, anyways.

Also, I undercut you with an edit, so I'll repeat it.

Also it is quite possible that the Starks considered themselves sovereign over the Boltons but the Boltons refused to recognize it. The particularly brutal tactics used by the Boltons are perhaps a result of desperation caused by the power imbalance between them and the people they were resisting.

Not to mention that we have no idea of the culture of the North at the time. It tends to sound much more like feuding Scottish clans than the intricate systems of feudalism and knighthood we see in the more Andal regions.

[Free Northman]

IronSuitor, on 17 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Nor is it indicated otherwise. It would be common sense that someone who is rewarded for putting down a rebellion would be rewarded with the land of the rebels. If the Starks at the time had an ounce of sense, anyways.

Also, I undercut you with an edit, so I'll repeat it.

Also it is quite possible that the Starks considered themselves sovereign over the Boltons but the Boltons refused to recognize it. The particularly brutal tactics used by the Boltons are perhaps a result of desperation caused by the power imbalance between them and the people they were resisting.

Not to mention that we have no idea of the culture of the North at the time. It tends to sound much more like feuding Scottish clans than the intricate systems of feudalism and knighthood we see in the more Andal regions.

The last is a valid point. I would see the Boltons as resenting Stark dominance and trying to resist it wherever they can, with large autonomy within their area of influence in days gone by. But still with the Starks as overall rulers of the North for at least 3000 years.

[Harle The Handsome]

Ramsay Gimp, on 15 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

8,000 years of sociopaths in a row? That's not how it works - I'm sure there have been honorable, valiant Boltons who have even died fighting for the Stark lords

I mean, 8,000 years is along friggin time. That's before even Ancient Egypt in our world

There is a saying in English that "the clothes make the man."  In this case the clothes are a coat- a coat of arms.  The Bolton's coat is a flayed man.  That is a powerful reminder from your ancestors on who you are supposed to be, and expectations will surely be set, if not by you then by your kinfolk.  The example in Western History that comes to mind is Brutus and Julius Caesar.  Brutus' ancestor, Gaius Servilius Ahala, killed the last tyrant of Rome and their family's words were Sic Semper Tyrannis.  After Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life, someone vandalized the statue of Gaius, writing, "Remember your ancestors."  This forced Brutus to act, lest he shame his ancestors.  Similarly, the Boltons would continue to flay their enemies, because that was something their ancestors would have expected them to do.

King Doug, on 15 April 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

I agree that the Boltons probably only bent the knee to save their lives. But recently, there is no way that the whispers and rumors of the atrocities that happenened in the Dreadfort didn't reach the ears of the Starks in Winterfell. We know that Ned was a good man that didn't approve of that type of treatment, we have no reason to believe that his closest predecessors were any different. He had to learn his sense of honor and his demeanor from someone.

Remember the tale Roose told Theon about how he met/raped his mother?  He killed the miller's brother so he wouldn't tell Winterfell.  The old ways die hard in the north.

[Gurkhal]

Harle The Handsome, on 18 April 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Remember the tale Roose told Theon about how he met/raped his mother?  He killed the miller's brother so he wouldn't tell Winterfell.  The old ways die hard in the north.

Indeed they do, and not just in the North...

[Stark1991]

i don't think "killing off" the Boltons would be the stark way. really. just going in there and wiping them out would be...kind of wrong haha.now if the Boltons went out and started something with them, that could possibly be a different story. Though i am going to say i'm new to the books and the series in general. and needless to say. i'm in love. i'm not one to usually pick up a book. but after watching the first season i went out and bought the book. haha.

[LordBloodraven]

The book is inconsistent with the North history. It is often said that the kings in the North rejected Andal Invasions at Moat Cailin and, Kings in the North are often inferred to be Starks. These battles happened more than a thousand years ago so unless the Kings in the North means Bolton kings too, House Bolton was vassal to House Stark or ally. But then again, it is flatly stated that Boltons bent the knee a thousand years ago.

I believe that the Karstark lands were part of House Bolton dominion. For all we know about the last bolton rebellion, the main branch of the House could have been wiped out and Roose might descend from a cadet branch. Harlon Stark besieged the Dreadfort for 4 years, he starved them out first, which might have enticed some of the besieged and some members of the Bolton House to negociate with the Starks and bend the knee. I don't see it ending with a surrender and a kiss on both cheeks to the Rebel Lord. Somebody important surely lost his head and his station. It could be similar to what Euron is trying to do with the Botleys: Lord is killed, his children disinherited while their brother/uncle take their place. And I have the impression that Karhold was carved out from Bolton territory.

[kkae]

Destroying a house is not something you normally do. There are many examples of houses who have lost much of their former lands but their bloodlines still go on.

Tywin said:

-- when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

Said by the same man who also made houses extinct.