Jump to content

Boltons, Freys and Karstarks


Recommended Posts

I don't know, I mean the show has established Roose as liking to live on the edge.

The wearing of chinmail and just having to make sure Cat knew that a betrayal was a foot. 

Consenting to Theon shaving Ramsay with a blade.

The constant goading of Ramsay.

It was almost as if he was saying, "go on, I dare you." He just took just took one gamble too many. It may not be consistent with book Roose but I found the situation believable within the show context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheCasualObserver said:

But why would anyone follow Ramsay now? 

No alliance with the south, no alliance with the Freys, lost his wife, lost an important political prisoner and murdered his father, mother in law and baby brother to boot. But Lord Karstark will ignore all of that in order to kill Jon because he's a bastard Stark? As far as he's aware Jon is just Lord Commander of the Night's watch. He's yet to make a claim on the North or raise an army or anything, so why side with a politically weak Ramsay for some half assed, poorly thought out revenge on someone only tangentially related to his father's death?

The politics here are just shit. When Robb made his mistakes the world of westeros crushed him. When Ramsay fucks up he survives because we need a big battle at the end of the season.

Well, I see I probably didn't express myself very well on this above.  I completely agree with you.  I would have loved to see some planning between Karstark and Ramsay to possibly explain some of these things but I doubt it's really possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

But that's just it.  No one in their right mind lets their guard down around Ramsay.  Especially not one as knowledgeable as Roose about just what Ramsay's capable of.  And you mention the provoking/baiting which I thought was really dumb (and, of course, telegraphed exactly what was going to happen).  So, why was Roose seemingly deliberately provoking Ramsay only to be completely caught off guard by the very predictable result of that deliberate provoking?  It's not very logical.  

Now, if there had been a bit more set-up like showing Ramsay and Harald Karstark planning, etc. (because why would Karstark side with Ramsay against Roose?) and not having Roose simply walk into his stabbing blindly I would be a bit more on board with it.  As it was, it just seemed very illogical and contrived to me. 

And, yes, people in GoT do make mistakes (even the clever ones).  But the reasons for those mistakes still have to make sense and be established.  Ned Stark is a perfect example.  He made the mistake of trusting Littlefinger which allowed Littlefinger to betray him.  But the reason Ned trusted Littlefinger was because Catelyn trusted Littlefinger and she thought he was a friend.  You see, the reason Ned made the mistake of trusting Littlefinger was established and made sense.  So, why did Roose flat out tell Ramsay he was being replaced and, knowing all he knows about him, think he was simply going to be fine with that?  It doesn't make much sense to me.

Pride still works as an answer. 

You are asking questions that don't really need a simple or direct answer imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stangler said:

Pride still works as an answer. 

You are asking questions that don't really need a simple or direct answer imo. 

See, I don't really think pride does work as an answer because Roose was never established on the show to be overly susceptible to "pride".  Also, I feel my questions do need adequate answers otherwise things don't make sense and seem very contrived.  So...agree to disagree, I guess:)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stangler said:

Pride still works as an answer. 

You are asking questions that don't really need a simple or direct answer imo. 

So Roose took no precautions? No instructions in the event of an untimely death? The man who planned the red wedding couldn't spot a likely betrayal and had no interest in safe guarding himself or his interests in the event because he was "too proud"?

I'm putting this one on "plot dependent dumbassery". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forces of Jon and the Vale will prevail over Ramsay's Bolton Forces. Aside from that, I think any and every minor detail (even if major in the books) in D&D's eyes is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2016 at 1:40 PM, Prince of the North said:

See, I don't really think pride does work as an answer because Roose was never established on the show to be overly susceptible to "pride".  Also, I feel my questions do need adequate answers otherwise things don't make sense and seem very contrived.  So...agree to disagree, I guess:)  

I think that was established on the show multiple times.  I mean what was showing Cat that you were wearing chainmail beforehand but pride?  Why else would you showoff before your big move?  Not to mention the way he spoke to Ramsey about his desire to rule everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noveson said:

I think that was established on the show multiple times.  I mean what was showing Cat that you were wearing chainmail beforehand but pride?  Why else would you showoff before your big move?  Not to mention the way he spoke to Ramsey about his desire to rule everything

But, even if wearing the chainmail into the Red Wedding was "pride" (which I don't necessarily agree with), Roose could be very confident of success because he knew all the pieces were in place, the plan and trap were already set.  With Ramsay, he couldn't have had any of that confidence.  As I asked before, why was Roose seemingly deliberately provoking Ramsay only to be completely caught off guard by the very predictable result of that deliberate provoking?  Pretty stupid for an intelligent schemer like Roose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

But, even if wearing the chainmail into the Red Wedding was "pride" (which I don't necessarily agree with), Roose could be very confident of success because he knew all the pieces were in place, the plan and trap were already set.  With Ramsay, he couldn't have had any of that confidence.  As I asked before, why was Roose seemingly deliberately provoking Ramsay only to be completely caught off guard by the very predictable result of that deliberate provoking?  Pretty stupid for an intelligent schemer like Roose.

Opening his clothes to show the chainmail to Cat is pride.  Tipping your hand just so you can show someone that they've been beaten is about prideful as it gets. 

Maybe he misunderstood the allegiances of the Karstarks?  I know it surprised me.  It could easily be explained in later episodes why they changed.  But maybe he was SURE the karstarks were on his side so he didn't think there was any chance Ramsey would do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Noveson said:

Opening his clothes to show the chainmail to Cat is pride.  Tipping your hand just so you can show someone that they've been beaten is about prideful as it gets. 

Maybe he misunderstood the allegiances of the Karstarks?  I know it surprised me.  It could easily be explained in later episodes why they changed.  But maybe he was SURE the karstarks were on his side so he didn't think there was any chance Ramsey would do something.

Right, Roose could be a cocky a-hole in the Red Wedding because he knew the plan was already in place and the quarry had already stepped into the trap. The things you say could be true but we don't know.  I mean, the reason for this could have easily been set up on the show, but it wasn't, leaving the audience to wonder about it or to come up with explanations on our own.  Sure, maybe Roose miscalculated but show it!  Show Ramsay planning with Harald Karstark or show Roose telling someone that he has Ramsay completely under control and that he would never do anything against him...something.   As it was, I felt it was quite inconsistent and didn't make sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prince of the North said:

Right, Roose could be a cocky a-hole in the Red Wedding because he knew the plan was already in place and the quarry had already stepped into the trap. The things you say could be true but we don't know.  I mean, the reason for this could have easily been set up on the show, but it wasn't, leaving the audience to wonder about it or to come up with explanations on our own.  Sure, maybe Roose miscalculated but show it!  Show Ramsay planning with Harald Karstark or show Roose telling someone that he has Ramsay completely under control and that he would never do anything against him...something.   As it was, I felt it was quite inconsistent and didn't make sense.  

I see what you're saying.  Thinking like that though I think you have to wait and see if it's explained in later episodes, which I think is likely. Maybe D&D were thinking it wouldn't be as shocking if they showed that it was coming beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Stannis is the man....nis said:

I totally get Karstark being with Ramsay. But Im sorry this "Umbers are evil" plotline is stupid. The Umbers have been portrayed as Stark loyalists in the show and the guy who's bad is someone who in the books died protecting Robb at the RW. This reeks of D&D wanting to stack the odds against our scrappy heroes.

But there are Umbers with Roose and Ramsey in the books too. So there not even going off book in this scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Dames do Moan said:

But there are Umbers with Roose and Ramsey in the books too. So there not even going off book in this scenario. 

The difference being the hostage situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ruhail said:

The difference being the hostage situation. 

Of course, and that the Umbers are split in the books. But just because Roose/Ramsey seems to think they have the Umbers doesn't necessarily mean that they are really going to "have" them. My point was that we just don't know yet. They could have hostages in the show and just haven't mentioned all of them yet. They did mention that they took Edmure captive. Or they could be feigning friendship to get close, who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dames do Moan said:

Of course, and that the Umbers are split in the books. But just because Roose/Ramsey seems to think they have the Umbers doesn't necessarily mean that they are really going to "have" them. My point was that we just don't know yet. They could have hostages in the show and just haven't mentioned all of them yet. They did mention that they took Edmure captive. Or they could be feigning friendship to get close, who knows. 

Nope Cogman said on twitter back after the RW that Greatjon wasn't there and then on the s3 dvd extras they said that he just disappeared somewhere in the RL after the wedding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Nope Cogman said on twitter back after the RW that Greatjon wasn't there and then on the s3 dvd extras they said that he just disappeared somewhere in the RL after the wedding

Just because they don't have the GreatJon doesn't mean they don't have hostages. Or doesn't mean they aren't "underhandly" aligning with Bolton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dames do Moan said:

Just because they don't have the GreatJon doesn't mean they don't have hostages. Or doesn't mean they aren't "underhandly" aligning with Bolton.

So they don't have GJ or SJ? Who then could they have that the Umbers would care enough about to be Bolton allies? The Uncles? Nope they wouldn't care enough and there are no women who are important enough to make the Umbers "oathbreakers"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't it going to be about the wildlings being allowed to come through the the Wall? So, basically, Rickon, Osha, and Shaggy will die after being abused by Ramsay because potatoes. Sure, exactly like it will play out in the book. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2 May 2016 at 4:40 AM, Stag_legion said:

In the books Roose has Ramasy on a leash. Even Ramsay's bastard's boys actually serve Roose rather than Ramsay.

Without Roose no one would follow Rasmay in the books and the vast majority of the northern houses would immediately rebel.

But the show operates on a different logic, just like Dorne.

Exactly. And as we saw in Dance, Roose is very concerned with his situation, to the point that Theon even remarks that Roose looks afraid, something he'd never seen before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...