Why does house Bolton still exist?

[butterbumps!]

Maybe they had an agenda in wiping out a cadet branch.

You mean that the Starks would have risked the feudal balance in service to an agenda of taking out one House-- the one that was not only a sanctioned Stark offshoot, but also the one that doesn't flay and wear Starks-- but wouldn't have an agenda to to take out the assholes who rebel periodically, and flay Starks with impunity?

Greystarks were a junior branch of the house Stark that were holding ancestral Stark lands. I'm guessing that what the Starks give in that case, they can take away without much worry except the distant kinslaying aspect.

Ned planned to raise new lords in the Gift also. I'm sure nobody would have thought much if he raised a legitimized Jon into "House Jorstark" as a petty lord of the Gift, then crushed him later if he rebelled.

Feudal Balance can't be dismissed, but it doesn't preclude there being much more to the Bolton-Stark feud either.

I'm not clear why feudal balance is being looked at from only one angle. Not crushing a rebellion-- especially when said House rebels periodically-- sends the other Houses the message that anyone can buck the system with impunity. It's not as though keeping a particular House that repeatedly shows poor behavior for the sake of keeping the order (which, I'll add, is about the structure, not the specifics of the House) is the categorically better option.

Meh, rebelling once every couple millennia isn't much of a habit. Even if they are a bit nasty going about it.

Flaying and wearing the Starks is mentioned as though it's a time-honored habit. And it's not said that they only rose every few thousand years. Allegedly, the last time it happened was a thousand years ago, but we don't know how often they actually rebelled formally (as opposed to just mere flayings) or prior to that last time.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

I'm not clear why feudal balance is being looked at from only one angle. Not crushing a rebellion-- especially when said House rebels periodically-- sends the other Houses the message that anyone can buck the system with impunity. It's not as though keeping a particular House that repeatedly shows poor behavior for the sake of keeping the order (which, I'll add, is about the structure, not the specifics of the House) is the categorically better option.

My position is pretty clear. Feudal balance is about keeping oaths all the way up and down the chain. It easily explains why the Boltons were never wiped out in the past. It admittedly does not explain the extinguishing of House Greystark. I offered a guess as to why it was different which would explain it. I didn't offer it as a fact, but it passes the basic reason test. Nobody complained when everyone else lost the Wolf's Den either. Those were Stark ancestral lands in spite of who held it, and despite Manderly holding it now.

And as for all of the mention of 'bucking the system with impunity' we don't know what hostages were required of the Boltons, or what lands were confiscated. We don't know much at all. Karstark as a cadet branch got it's lands from putting down a rebellion, though we're not told which- but what it does show is that rebels are punished with loss of lands at the least. Simply put- we know the Bolton rebellions were put down, but we don't know what punishments were enacted, so it's really hard to make your argument about message sending and whether or not it made the Starks appear weak. I'm guessing not, since they didn't rebel again for quite some time.

I also suspect they weren't extinguished for narrative reasons. We're witnessing the fall of House Bolton now, I'd guess.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Yeah,but still..after second rebellion i would expect more drastic measures, maybe take 50% of their lands and give it to some proven loyal bannerman. (surely if that happened it would be mentioned?

That already happened, that's how house Karstark exists. Their lands are close to the Boltons, they were taken for a rebel lord, anyone with the slightest common sense knows which lord that was.

Well, actually, it's not a simple "feudal balance" issue. When the Boltons were joined in rebellion by the Greystarks, the Starks wiped out the Greystarks root and stem, but the Boltons were mysteriously allowed to remain. So the Starks have shown they'll wipe out Houses. Just not the Boltons for some reason. And this isn't like a case of an annoying House who attempts rebellions every few centuries. Like, they flay and then wear the skin of their Stark overlords. I think that kind of transcends the "we're letting these guys stay in power because of feudal balance" line into "there's more to the story."

Yeah, I agree.

One area in which the show did a lot better than in the books was downplay the Bolton's history, because any Stark that trusts a Bolton with their background is clearly an imbecile, and it wouldn't be realistic even for early Sansa to give Roose so much trust as Robb did.

[butterbumps!]

My position is pretty clear. Feudal balance is about keeping oaths all the way up and down the chain. It easily explains why the Boltons were never wiped out in the past. It admittedly does not explain the extinguishing of House Greystark. I offered a guess as to why it was different which would explain it. I didn't offer it as a fact, but it passes the basic reason test. Nobody complained when everyone else lost the Wolf's Den either. Those were Stark ancestral lands in spite of who held it, and despite Manderly holding it now.

And as for all of the mention of 'bucking the system with impunity' we don't know what hostages were required of the Boltons, or what lands were confiscated. We don't know much at all. Karstark as a cadet branch got it's lands from putting down a rebellion, though we're not told which- but what it does show is that rebels are punished with loss of lands at the least. Simply put- we know the Bolton rebellions were put down, but we don't know what punishments were enacted, so it's really hard to make your argument about message sending and whether or not it made the Starks appear weak. I'm guessing not, since they didn't rebel again for quite some time.

I also suspect they weren't extinguished for narrative reasons. We're witnessing the fall of House Bolton now, I'd guess.

I get what you and others are saying: if you wipe out this one old House, then other Houses will wonder if they'll be next, and might get restless. My response-- which may not have been clear admittedly, as I'm a little distracted-- was trying to say that I think the rational argument in favor of feudal balance is washed out by the opposite side of dissuading anyone else from rebellion.

I get that the Greystarks are a special case because they weren't an ancient House; there's a "Starks giveth and Starks taketh away" angle to consider. I wasn't fighting that, though I do think one could argue that the familial connection, and the fact it seems like it was their first offense, might have persuaded the Starks to be lenient. Especially adjacently to these repeat Bolton offenders.

What I am calling "with impunity" is the fact that the Boltons both rebelled and made a practice of flaying Starks, yet were neither exterminated nor lost their seat. The repeat offenses by the Boltons that haven't resulted in extermination is basically getting away with murder. We don't need to know what the specific punishment the Boltons might have received for those offenses were; the fact that they remain major lords-- let alone alive at all-- is pretty major in light of the specific crimes.

That no other House seem to have rebelled, despite how the mischievous Boltons were allowed to paddle on, tells me that there's more we need to know about this. Either the Boltons (and later, Greystarks) were the only Houses who felt the need to try to rebel, or potentially, they were the only ones strong enough in some capacity to actually make a serious challenge.

I don't think they were allowed to remain for mere plot reasons. There's no need to talk about how problematic the Boltons have historically been to advance the current plot. As in, Roose and Rams can be kicking up as much shit as they want in the current story, and Martin didn't have to design them as a new chapter of historic Bolton-Stark conflict in order to make the current story work. It's a huge plot-hole as it currently stands unless there's significance to it.

[Lord Damian]

Starks seem to be a very honorable family and it goes way, way back. Tywin is a ruthless bastard whom is rich enough to back up his vicious disposition, therefore people fear him, however he is dead and the common response around Westeros and beyond is "this/that changes everything". Roose I believe was not told of the escape of Bran and Rickon until after the Red Wedding. Ramsay withheld that info for selfish reasons. Roose may have looked for an alternative if he knew they were alive. He is hoping no other lord of the North knows but that is already blown out as the Glovers and Manderly's as well as probably the Umbers know. Roose and Ramsay have most likely or will most likely extinguish their house over this.

[Legion13]

Also the Greystarks were possibly not 'exterminated.' Perhaps the remainder of the line were killed in the conflict following the uprising. And we have to remember the characters cannot be relied upon when it comes to history.

[butterbumps!]

Starks seem to be a very honorable family and it goes way, way back.

Well, to be honest, I think the Starks might be a lot darker than we're led to assume. We know they have powers of skinchanging; does their magical prowess end there? I'm willing to bet that we'll find out the Starks' nearly uncontested dominance of the North will look a bit similar to the way the Valyrians achieved it. Not the slavery part, but in terms of using sorcery to yield a political advantage. If the Greystark offshoot branch also had those powers and became unruly, it could be disastrous for the Starks; they could potentially offer a major challenge, and it might shed light on why the Starks were willing to exterminate them. But what of the Boltons? I mean, you know I'm a "Boltons have interest in the occult" evangelist, so I lean toward the idea of a magic-rivalry between the two Houses. If the Boltons have anything to do with the occult, their lack of extermination might point to their having knowledge of or the ability to ensure mutual destruction of both Houses or something-- to be just powerful enough to lead the Starks to reconsider taking them out completely.

ETA: which would speak to the idea of an agenda wrt the cadet branch you were talking about, Acolyte of Redmure

[The Dragon King]

It is a bit strange, either they would have been wiped out or at least their lands should have been partitioned which would have reduced their wealth and power.

[Damp Hair - The Prophet]

What if the ancient Boltons got into the flaying business as a response to skinchanging being a known Stark atribute.

It makes sense.

[averde]

Most of the major paramount regions seem to have a major house that in the past has been a rival or serious enemy of the current leading house. Yronwood in Dorne, Florent in the Reach, Reyne in Westerlands, Bolton in the North, etc. I assume the leading houses kept them around because they strengthen the region, and so the leading houses position, as a whole. It offers a greater variety of leading figures so you have more battle commanders, more administrators, more wealth, etc.

The Lannisters wiped out their rival house and now they top of the Westerlands is all Lannister and it doesn't seem to have worked out all that great. If the Reynes had been around they could have been a threat to Robb in the West, alternative choice for Cersei when she was looking for a hand, etc.

[Game Of Thrones]

Most of the major paramount regions seem to have a major house that in the past has been a rival or serious enemy of the current leading house. Yronwood in Dorne, Florent in the Reach, Tarbeck in Westerlands, Bolton in the North, etc. I assume the leading houses kept them around because they strengthen the region, and so the leading houses position, as a whole. It offers a greater variety of leading figures so you have more battle commanders, more administrators, more wealth, etc.

:bowdown: (It's House Reyne of Castamere, House Tarbeck was pretty poor, as in Westerling poor, until Ellyn Reyne wed Lord Tarbeck)

[averde]

:bowdown: (It's House Reyne of Castamere, House Tarbeck was pretty poor, as in Westerling poor, until Ellyn Reyne wed Lord Tarbeck)

Ah my bad, always mix those two up. You think it'd be easier to remember with the song and everything but I swear I do it everytime.

[butterbumps!]

Most of the major paramount regions seem to have a major house that in the past has been a rival or serious enemy of the current leading house. Yronwood in Dorne, Florent in the Reach, Reyne in Westerlands, Bolton in the North, etc. I assume the leading houses kept them around because they strengthen the region, and so the leading houses position, as a whole. It offers a greater variety of leading figures so you have more battle commanders, more administrators, more wealth, etc.

But why couldn't the Boltons be replaced? The Starks were clearly willing to rearrange structure and replace/ make lords; Greystarks, Karstarks, taking Bear Island and giving it to the Mormonts, changing the management of the Wolf's Den multiple times, defeating the Marsh king and annexing the Neck, and extending refuge to the Manderlys and installing them at WH are examples of this.

So the order was a little flexible, it seems, given the rearrangements that occurred over time in the North. But if the feudal order and balance is what's important, why not simply replace the Boltons with another family? Give it to the Cerwyns, for example, or another lesser House that's been very well behaved. It's the structure that strengthens the region in terms of more variety and quantity of leaders, battle commanders, administration and so forth. So keep the overall structure and replace the management. And I'm sure the inhabitants of the Dreadfort lands would be duly grateful for it.

I'd also posit that the antagonism of the Starks by the Boltons seems to exceed these other rivalries.

[SeanF]

Well, actually, it's not a simple "feudal balance" issue. When the Boltons were joined in rebellion by the Greystarks, the Starks wiped out the Greystarks root and stem, but the Boltons were mysteriously allowed to remain. So the Starks have shown they'll wipe out Houses. Just not the Boltons for some reason. And this isn't like a case of an annoying House who attempts rebellions every few centuries. Like, they flay and then wear the skin of their Stark overlords. I think that kind of transcends the "we're letting these guys stay in power because of feudal balance" line into "there's more to the story."

Perhaps they're too powerful to wipe out.

[Trigger Warning]

Maybe the Starks were supporting a Bolton claimant, maybe the siege would have dragged on for more years when they capitulated, maybe the Starks had other threats to deal with and needed Bolton strength. Maybe there were other Bolton supporters in the field that would continue the fight beyond the fall of the Dreadfort, it really could be lots of things.

[Beorn Snow]

Maybe the Starks were supporting a Bolton claimant, maybe the siege would have dragged on for more years when they capitulated, maybe the Starks had other threats to deal with and needed Bolton strength. Maybe there were other Bolton supporters in the field that would continue the fight beyond the fall of the Dreadfort, it really could be lots of things.

That is very possible. They could have brought in an easily controllable cousin and married with a younger Stark daughter, or something else. Or a younger Stark might have married a Bolton and taken the Bolton name. Stuff like that seems to happen all around Westeros.

[Arkash]

So Boltons rose in rebellion several times, but were still allowed to keep their seat/status as lords? Makes no sense to me why Starks would such a unloyal bunch keep any kind of power.

Cause the Starks are dumb.

[butterbumps!]

Perhaps they're too powerful to wipe out.

Well, that's exactly what I think the issue is. And doesn't that make you wonder how that's even possible? Curious that it's only the Boltons, and then later a Stark offshoot branch, who's made serious enough challenges against the Starks to be mentioned in history. Outside of wildling kings, we don't hear about any other revolts or continued insolence from other Houses. We know from the clans that the King of Winter would demand hostages on occasion to ensure good behavior, but nothing like going to war against the other Houses that remain in tact.

So I think it's worth wondering why they were nearly uncontested all these years, except by a branch that happens to have Stark genes, and the damn Boltons who made challenges repeatedly. In addition to periodically flaying and wearing their overlords.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Perhaps they're too powerful to wipe out.

I agree. We don't know any details about that old rebellion. Perhaps the Starks and Boltons had fought each other to a standstill, a new Bolton lord came into power and didn't feel like warring anymore, and made a deal with the Starks to revert back to the old status quo?

Any number of ways it could have happened really.

[James Arryn]

Re: feudal balance, it's a bit more complicated and less formulaic than either side is suggesting. It is about balance, but it's not a formula. It's more about gambling and political currency.

Every time you take a significant action like wiping out a House, you aren't necessarily upsetting the balance, but you are taking a chance with it. You can do it and get away with it, but it's a huge risk. Particularly if it's a significant house...you are threatening every other house, and what's more, your weapons to destroy the original house are other houses. And if it's a house significant enough to have other houses subject to it, you're pretty much assured of some level of imbalance.

If you have garnered a lot of political currency, you might be more willing to take that chance. But it's still not an assuredly safe one. If it's a cadet branch of your own house, other houses might be less threatened, but again, not a no-brainer. It's also a chance to do nothing when challenged, but again, not formulaic.

I described it as chaotic, and this is what I meant. There is never a safe play, there are just plays which seem to be much safer than others, and there are ones which will work more than others but are not evident. It's like that old game where there's a tower built of cards and you're trying to extract cards lower down without bringing the house crashing down. You can do it and get away with it, but you're always gambling.

As an aside, in a situation where a major house with subject houses and a cadet branch if your house unite against you, that might be one which affords you the ability to send out all the right messages; you can be destroyed if you betray us, but we also respect the institution. By destroying a house identified with you, more might see that as justice. By preserving a great house which has merely over time come under your feudal umbrella, more might also see that as a demonstration of judgment and control, which will soothe concerns. But even this situation is perllous; you ultimately never know which card brings down the house, but experience and a lot of political currency will probably help you make the wisest choice.

Lastly, 2 or 3 rebellions in several millennia doesn't remotely speak to a pattern if betrayal in RL, there are PEOPLE who rebelled more than once in a lifetime and survived. Feudal valance is also about pressures; subject houses push back against authority, and authority pushes for more. It's important to remember that fealty is a voluntary arrangement. It can even be withdrawn, legally and honourably. But 2/3 times in thousands of years? That's ridiculously long; the people involved in any of them would have literally nothing to do with one another other than the name. That would be like saying Iran is a threat because of Cyrus the Great.