131 replies to this topic

[Tagganaro]

Jon marrying Alys karstark off to the Thenns was one of the most brilliant decisions he could have made.  He took a problem people (the Thenns who hated him for killing Magnar) and turned them into allies.  Likewise he took a problem Northern House (Karstarks under Cregan and Arnolf) and turned them into allies.

To say Jon has no authority to do that is again to ignore that neutrality cuts both ways.  Why should Jon be neutral if no one else is?  When a lord or house skimps on their duty to help out the NW, the NW should be allowed to support another lord who will do that.  

Alys Karstark, the rightful heir to Karhold (or at least a representative of the rightful heir) came to the NW of her own accord asking for the NW's help.  Cregan Karstark went there to demand her back so he could forcibly marry and kill her.  Why is Jon bound to help Cregan, which in its own way is a breaking of the neutrality vows of the NW, when Alys is the one who came to ask for help, when Alys is the rightful heir to Karhold, and when Alys could potentially help out the NW in the future, while Cregan Karstark is none of those things and will not help out the NW in the future?

I for one see the Karstark/Thenn alliance as an important plot point, in so far as it being representative of Jon's attempts to integrate the wildlings back into Northern society, which I imagine is very important for a cultural area that has lost so many people in battle and needs to be fortified and unified in order to defend against the invasion of the Others.

And yes, while I love the Boltons (well Roose at least for being ridiculously entertaining), it would make no sense for a Stark in Winterfell to allow the very same combination of houses (Bolton and Freys who essentially tried to annihilate them from existence) bloodlines to live on.

Edited by Tagganaro, 23 July 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Last of the Darklyns]

Tagganaro, on 23 July 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Jon marrying Alys karstark off to the Thenns was one of the most brilliant decisions he could have made.  He took a problem people (the Thenns who hated him for killing Magnar) and turned them into allies.  Likewise he took a problem Northern House (Karstarks under Cregan and Arnolf) and turned them into allies.

To say Jon has no authority to do that is again to ignore that neutrality cuts both ways.  Why should Jon be neutral if no one else is?  When a lord or house skimps on their duty to help out the NW, the NW should be allowed to support another lord who will do that.  

Alys Karstark, the rightful heir to Karhold (or at least a representative of the rightful heir) came to the NW of her own accord asking for the NW's help.  Cregan Karstark went there to demand her back so he could forcibly marry and kill her.  Why is Jon bound to help Cregan, which in its own way is a breaking of the neutrality vows of the NW, when Alys is the one who came to ask for help, when Alys is the rightful heir to Karhold, and when Alys could potentially help out the NW in the future, while Cregan Karstark is none of those things and will not help out the NW in the future?

I for one see the Karstark/Thenn alliance as an important plot point, in so far as it being representative of Jon's attempts to integrate the wildlings back into Northern society, which I imagine is very important for a cultural area that has lost so many people in battle and needs to be fortified and unified in order to defend against the invasion of the Others.

And yes, while I love the Boltons (well Roose at least for being ridiculously entertaining), it would make no sense for a Stark in Winterfell to allow the very same combination of houses (Bolton and Freys who essentially tried to annihilate them from existence) bloodlines to live on.

Good thinking, but you were wrong on one point.  The current Lord of the Karstarks is Harrion, Alys' brother(?), who is being held prisoner by the Lannisters.

[Tagganaro]

Last of the Darklyns, on 23 July 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Good thinking, but you were wrong on one point.  The current Lord of the Karstarks is Harrion, Alys' brother(?), who is being held prisoner by the Lannisters.

Thanks.  No I tried to say that as well.  Alys is his representative, while Cregan and Arnolf just want him murdered.

Quote

Alys Karstark, the rightful heir to Karhold (or at least a representative of the rightful heir)

First sentence of the 3rd paragraph haha.

[Last of the Darklyns]

Tagganaro, on 23 July 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Thanks.  No I tried to say that as well.  Alys is his representative, while Cregan and Arnolf just want him murdered.



First sentence of the 3rd paragraph haha.

I know what you meant.  But as he is held by the Lannisters, he isn't in the power to appoint representatives.  Alys is acting on her own orders, no one else's, and even if Cregan and Arnolf want him killed, and she's the only Karstark who supports him, she doesn't have the authority to do anything.

Edited by Last of the Darklyns, 23 July 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[just an Other]

Gurkhal, on 23 July 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Actually she can't. Alys Karstark is subjected to the authority of her father and the head of the House which in this case would be Harrion Karstark and he has not given her permission to marry some Wildling warlord. And its most certainly neither Jon or Alys thing to give Karhold over to some band of Wildling raiders. Thus Jon is clearly overstepping his authority and breaking his oaths when playing politics for the benefit of Stannis' cause.

Her brother is captive and for all she knows dead. Of all present, she outranks anyone in her house. If anyone can make marriage decisions, it's her. From a legal standpoint Jon didn't have anything to do with it. He merely hosted the event.

[Darth Rivers]

Gurkhal, on 23 July 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Davos is no common soldier but a noble raised up by Stannis and pretty much defined by the virtue of loyalty. Most of the Karstark soldiers are normal farmers and woodsmen who probably only wants to get home alive when the lords are done with their war. The proper men-at-arms and bannermen might object but they will still be in a great minority.

You assume they are, but any basic knowledge of medieval warfare would prove you wrong. The majority of troops in a late medieval western European army, especially on long distance campaigns, were RETAINERS - soldiers under some kind of permanent contract/oath to a lord. Given GRRM's knowledge of the wars of the roses, I am 100% sure he is aware of this fact. As you should be, if you paid attention to the descriptions of the Northern host mustering, or the Freys joining it, or Tyrion's descriptions at the Green Fork.

Retainers are dependent on their captain, so losing the Karstarks would most likely mean loss of homes and employment for them.

[Arya Targaryen]

I want to add one more thing: The NW may not take part in the realm's business, but they are bound by certain laws, like guestright. And they have the right to defend themselves, if they are attacked.
Alys arrived at Castle Black, and was given guestright. After that, Jon went down the Kingsroad to meet Cregan far away from Castle Black, so he won't be able to ask for guestright. And Cregan actually attacked Jon's host at first, so he had every reason and right to put him in an ice cell. Technically he was doing what he must, according to laws - protect the guest, imprison the attacker.

Edited by Arya Targaryen, 23 July 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Tagganaro, on 23 July 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Jon marrying Alys karstark off to the Thenns was one of the most brilliant decisions he could have made.  He took a problem people (the Thenns who hated him for killing Magnar) and turned them into allies.  Likewise he took a problem Northern House (Karstarks under Cregan and Arnolf) and turned them into allies.

To say Jon has no authority to do that is again to ignore that neutrality cuts both ways.  Why should Jon be neutral if no one else is?  When a lord or house skimps on their duty to help out the NW, the NW should be allowed to support another lord who will do that.

Actually, Jon has the authority to host Alyn's marriage because, as already pointed out, he is not interfering with Alyn's marriage itself.

The problem with your last statement is that no Lord or House has a clear duty to help the Night's Watch, unless you consider the taxes that they receive from people in the North.  The Night's Watch, however, does have a largely self-imposed duty to support no Lord.

Not a very reasonable expectation if you ask me, but that is how things stand all the same.

Quote

Alys Karstark, the rightful heir to Karhold (or at least a representative of the rightful heir) came to the NW of her own accord asking for the NW's help.  Cregan Karstark went there to demand her back so he could forcibly marry and kill her.  Why is Jon bound to help Cregan, which in its own way is a breaking of the neutrality vows of the NW, when Alys is the one who came to ask for help, when Alys is the rightful heir to Karhold, and when Alys could potentially help out the NW in the future, while Cregan Karstark is none of those things and will not help out the NW in the future?

He isn't.  But he isn't really allowed to take sides in the conflict between Cregan and Alys, either.  Nor is he allowed to decide who to protect on the basis of how friendly to the Watch they are or will conceivably someday be, except for the obvious exception of the Others.

Quote

I for one see the Karstark/Thenn alliance as an important plot point, in so far as it being representative of Jon's attempts to integrate the wildlings back into Northern society, which I imagine is very important for a cultural area that has lost so many people in battle and needs to be fortified and unified in order to defend against the invasion of the Others.

Agreed.  It does not however depend on Jon's blessing, nor could it.  Not if he intends to avoid violating his vows again.

Quote

And yes, while I love the Boltons (well Roose at least for being ridiculously entertaining), it would make no sense for a Stark in Winterfell to allow the very same combination of houses (Bolton and Freys who essentially tried to annihilate them from existence) bloodlines to live on.

True, but not really applicable.  Jon is not legally a Stark, nor is he in Winterfell, and he is certainly not allowed to make decisions about the continued existence of any of Westeros' Houses.

[Tagganaro]

Last of the Darklyns, on 23 July 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

I know what you meant.  But as he is held by the Lannisters, he isn't in the power to appoint representatives.  Alys is acting on her own orders, no one else's, and even if Cregan and Arnolf want him killed, and she's the only Karstark who supports him, she doesn't have the authority to do anything.

So assuming that, then Alys no longer is a representative but the rightful heir for the meantime.  Especially since Arnolf and co. want him dead, once he dies it's all on Alys anyway.  And we know what would happen then if Cregan gets what he wants.  

Either way, essentially Jon can help Alys or he can help Cregan and Arnolf.  And who has the better claim out of those 2?

[Darth Rivers]

About hosting Alys' marriage - you can't blame Jon, because handing Alys in would be breaking their neutrality, too. Really, in that situation he was presented with two non-neutral options, and he chose the most expedient one.

[Tagganaro]

LuisDantas, on 23 July 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Actually, Jon has the authority to host Alyn's marriage because, as already pointed out, he is not interfering with Alyn's marriage itself.

The problem with your last statement is that no Lord or House has a clear duty to help the Night's Watch, unless you consider the taxes that they receive from people in the North.  The Night's Watch, however, does have a largely self-imposed duty to support no Lord.

Not a very reasonable expectation if you ask me, but that is how things stand all the same.

You're correct that there's no concrete duty to help the NW that exists for lords, but I'd argue either that there should be one, or that one exists vaguely as a result of the very existence of the NW.  Because obviously the NW doesn't exist unless lords that help it out want it to exist.  So yes, no actual duty exists for the Karstarks in particular to help out the NW, but generally speaking lords should be supportive and if they are not then I believe the NW has a right to find or help lords who will be more supportive.

And yes, I completely agree with your final sentence.  Completely unreasonable vows, or at least how those vows are being interpreted.

Quote

He isn't.  But he isn't really allowed to take sides in the conflict between Cregan and Alys, either.  Nor is he allowed to decide who to protect on the basis of how friendly to the Watch they are or will conceivably someday be, except for the obvious exception of the Others.

So what's he supposed to do here then?  The point is that he has to take a side here.  Nothing he can do or won't do will result in him staying neutral here.  He can either help Alys by preventing Cregan from marrying her, or he can and will help Cregan by not protecting her and allowing him to marry and murder her.  Not to mention that Alys has probably already come under Guest Right by the NW, while Cregan has not.

Which again I think cuts to how unreasonable the NW's oath of neutrality is.

Quote

Agreed.  It does not however depend on Jon's blessing, nor could it.  Not if he intends to avoid violating his vows again.

Yes, well I imagine his vows won't matter anymore after either the NW ceases to exist based on the events at the end of ADWD, or the arrival of Robb's will legitimizing him which will also make his vows pointless.  Or he'll be some supernatural revived undead entity or he'll just be dead for good.  Suffice it to say, I don't think his vows will matter much anymore come TWOW.

I guess the larger point I was trying to make though- Based on centuries and centuries of mutual enmity between the houses of the North and the wildlings, I believe a strong leader will be needed to help implement along such changes, which I do believe are necessary.  And that strong leader probably needs to be a Stark such as Jon, but possibly Bran, Rickon, Sansa, or Arya as well.  It just seems like Jon is the only one who might be in a position to do that by the end of TWOW.

Quote

True, but not really applicable.  Jon is not legally a Stark, nor is he in Winterfell, and he is certainly not allowed to make decisions about the continued existence of any of Westeros' Houses.

I didn't say it had to be Jon lol.  I think it's inevitable that there will be a Stark in Winterfell by the end of the series, and I would see no reason why that Stark would ever be inclined to perpetuate the existence of the 2 houses that endeavored to completely annihilate them.

Edited by Tagganaro, 23 July 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[SerGrahamando ofUttershill]

There are only 2 Boltons that count,and they'll both be dead by the middle of WOW (probably). Fat Walda is a Bolton by marriage and a Frey by birth, in the North that sounds like a death sentence to me. Fun as the Boltons are, they either win or they die, and I can't see them winning.
Wildling chiefs taking over the lands and castles of the treasonous bannermen (Bolton, Ryswell, Dustin) sounds like a good way for the reinstated Starks to deal with the influx of refugees and the suddenly vacant land/titles in one go. House Rayder of the Dreadfort, House Hornfoot (or something) of Barrowton, House Giantsbane of the Rills? House Karstark could be split into 2 branches, the Karstarks of Karhold and the Thenn Karstarks, depending on whethere or not Harrion surrvives and returns.

Edited by SerGrahamando ofUttershill, 23 July 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[The Fallen]

Gurkhal, on 23 July 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

It's a mystery to you.

I am fascinated by the Bolton characters and their history and would not like to see them go out, even in a blaze of glory.

   Let's say Fat Walda and her child are spared and then she's married off to a Stark bannerman. They would cease to be the kind of 'interesting' that you like and are no longer Bolton. So it doesn't make a difference for the literary purposes you praise and it would make no sense within the story for the Starks to go out of their way to preserve the Bolton name.

[LuisDantas]

Free Northman, on 23 July 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

OK. You have made it clear that you see the release of Jaime Lannister as far less damaging to Robb's war effort than the killing of the kids.

So do I.  When Rickard Karstark killed Willem Lannister and Tion Frey he was killing helpless prisoners.  That is extremely difficult to forgive or forget, among other reasons because it encourages one's enemies to emulate the example.  Another consideration is that such cold blooded crimes encourage bolder actions from the other side.

By contrast, Catelyn did hurt Robb's war effort by releasing Jaime, to be sure.  But in a far less decisive way, an almost honorable one.  

If anything, it gave Robb's cause that much more moral leverage.  It is not like even Tywin could reasonably be expected to take offense and, say, decide to spite Catelyn by releasing not only Sansa and Arya (as she hoped he would) and also a dozen other Northron and Riverlands prisoners to look magnanimous by comparison.  That is the sort of risk that Robb and Catelyn would gadly take, I'm sure.

Between some opinions about Karstark's crime and others about Stannis killing Renly, I fear the understanding of the importance of honor in battle isn't very well spread among many forum members.

[Nerolannister]

Should  Harrison survive house Thenn should be vassals. if he dosent they should be absorbed in to House Karstark

[Gurkhal]

Darth Rivers, on 23 July 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

You assume they are, but any basic knowledge of medieval warfare would prove you wrong. The majority of troops in a late medieval western European army, especially on long distance campaigns, were RETAINERS - soldiers under some kind of permanent contract/oath to a lord. Given GRRM's knowledge of the wars of the roses, I am 100% sure he is aware of this fact. As you should be, if you paid attention to the descriptions of the Northern host mustering, or the Freys joining it, or Tyrion's descriptions at the Green Fork.

Considering that the author himself uses, time and again, the word "levies" to describe the forces and time and again the situation has been pretty much to support the idea of a core of professional soldiers and then a mass of levied troops. For example the Umbers complains that Greatjon took to many men with him south and that it hurts the harvest, if all his men were retainers and professional soldiers it wouldn't do any difference in regard to the harvest. If on the other they most of them were smallfolk drafted temporarily drafted into the army it would make alot of sense.

Darth Rivers, on 23 July 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Retainers are dependent on their captain, so losing the Karstarks would most likely mean loss of homes and employment for them.

Very likely for the men-at-arms, yes.

The Fallen, on 23 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

   Let's say Fat Walda and her child are spared and then she's married off to a Stark bannerman. They would cease to be the kind of 'interesting' that you like and are no longer Bolton. So it doesn't make a difference for the literary purposes you praise and it would make no sense within the story for the Starks to go out of their way to preserve the Bolton name.

Actually they would be interesting because the Boltons have started my interest and I tend to be loyal. If the Starks preserve the Bolton name I will still be very interested in that House and be very happy for its continuation.

Last of the Darklyns, on 23 July 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Despite arguments that Bolton is an old house, interesting history, etc., old houses get extinguished in wars as much as new ones do.  And to preserve the realism of the story, the warriors in the story couldn't care less about Bolton history, etc.

I agree but that won't stop me from hoping that House Bolton will endure.

Last of the Darklyns, on 23 July 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

On a side note, giving the Dreadfort to House Thenn sounds like a great idea.

It sounds like a horrible idea. Pack the Wildlings back across the Wall or let the Night Watch give them some of their own lands.

Nerolannister, on 23 July 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Should Harrison survive house Thenn should be vassals. if he dosent they should be absorbed in to House Karstark

I agree with this. Vassals is more than good enough for them.

Edited by Gurkhal, 24 July 2012 - 12:26 AM.

[Grip]

Pod The Impaler, on 23 July 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

[....]
^^^ Thus spake Bowen Marsh.

Indeed. Bowen Marsch is a man. Jon Snow is a boy, still. But I can contend that how Jon handled the wildlings might have been the best course of action at that time, though I still think there will be consequences. The expedition to Hardhome hovewer was a a great mistake, and the NW has paid dearly for it. If any wildling could have the potential to be a minor house in Westersos its the Thenns, atleast they are disciplined. On no account should they replace the Karstarks hovewer.

[romantic]

Isn't the Weeper and assorted wildlings still north of the wall? There may still be Thenns floating around (or running desperately for their lives somewhere).

[Grip]

romantic, on 24 July 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Isn't the Weeper and assorted wildlings still north of the wall? There may still be Thenns floating around (or running desperately for their lives somewhere).

IIRC werent there discussions on wether the Weeper might launch another assault on the wall, suggesting that he might still some kind of host at his disposal? In any case they did discuss wether they could let someone like the Weeper through the Wall, should he come voluntarily. Even Tormund seems to see the Weeper as a potential threat.

[Darth Rivers]

Gurkhal, on 24 July 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

Considering that the author himself uses, time and again, the word "levies" to describe the forces and time and again the situation has been pretty much to support the idea of a core of professional soldiers and then a mass of levied troops. For example the Umbers complains that Greatjon took to many men with him south and that it hurts the harvest, if all his men were retainers and professional soldiers it wouldn't do any difference in regard to the harvest. If on the other they most of them were smallfolk drafted temporarily drafted into the army it would make alot of sense.

They are levies because they are raised through levy. Levies - troops who are called up through obligation from some kind of a contract. To the Starks, Bolton retainers are levies. To the Boltons, their more distant retainers and vassal lords are levies. So from the Starks' point of view, only their household retainers aren't levies - even the more distant landed retainers are technically levies, turning up when summoned.

This can include militias too, of course, where the 'contract' is limited to them being under the king's/great lord's protection. But commoner militiamen weren't allowed to bear the colors of lords, because that was an honor bestowed only on retainers.