Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

[Dragon in the North]

18 minutes ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

!. No matter what happens, it would have made vastly more sense for them to aid Stannis. See the telltale game. Ramsay was terrorizing th north everywhere, and Stannis had the men.

The northerners simply don't want to support Stannis as a king and enter another losing war. It's not really hard to understand.

 

21 minutes ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

 The Battle of winterfell with Stannis showed huge casualisties on both sides. the north could have easily made their way into winterfel after roose is dead, kill ramsay and put the starks up. It would have taken 42 seconds.

"500 hundred men can hold Winterfell against ten thousand." The Boltons had a lot more than 500 men, so taking Winterfell would have been extremely difficult and would have resulted in heavy Northern losses.

 

22 minutes ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

3. The northern lords were suppose to be extremely loyal, more so than any of the other houses troops. Hence we have a problem regardless of "realism".

Therein lies the problem with the books. Each House represents a single entity, thus all the Umbers and Mormonts are extremely loyal to the Starks. GOT shows each Umber as an individual character. The Greatjon was extremely loyal to the Starks, but the Smalljon was not. Hence the realism.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

12 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Only if they win, which was hardly a guarantee. Besides, some men simply are not all that ambitious. Smalljon may have been perfectly happy in his position.

Stannis would of had full Umber army and the legal heir to WF to recruit others from. In war their is no guarantees but come on the odds would of been overwhelming on Stannis' side. Also that's not what Smalljon was casted as, SmallJon was described in casting a dangerous schemer and ambitious

[Stannis is the man....nis]

4 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Therein lies the problem with the books. Each House represents a single entity, thus all the Umbers and Mormonts are extremely loyal to the Starks. GOT shows each Umber as an individual character. The Greatjon was extremely loyal to the Starks, but the Smalljon was not. Hence the realism.

Not true there a couple of houses that are split in the fight Hornwoods, Flints, Tellharts, Umbers all have fighters on both sides

[Dragon in the North]

1 minute ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Stannis would of has full Umber army and the legal heir to WF to recruit others from. In war their is no guarantees but come on the odds would of been overwhelming on Stannis' side. Also that's not what Smalljon was casted as, SmallJon was described in casting a dangerous schemer and ambitious

Remember, Stannis was trapped in a snow storm, so gathering the northerners to his side would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. Most of the northern lords would have known better than to attempt to march in that weather, and would have been more content to sit in their castles and wait out the storm. Besides, the Boltons and Karstarks are still a larger force to contend with, and they hold Winterfell, the heart of the North.

I don't recall the casting description, but in the show, I would classify the Smalljon as a survivor. 

[Dragon in the North]

5 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Not true there a couple of houses that are split in the fight Hornwoods, Flints, Tellharts, Umbers all have fighters on both sides

But not because they're disloyal, but because the Crown has hostages.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

Remember, Stannis was trapped in a snow storm, so gathering the northerners to his side would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. Most of the northern lords would have known better than to attempt to march in that weather, and would have been more content to sit in their castles and wait out the storm. Besides, the Boltons and Karstarks are still a larger force to contend with, and they hold Winterfell, the heart of the North.

I don't recall the casting description, but in the show, I would classify the Smalljon as a survivor. 

I'm not saying join him in the middle of the storm I'm saying join him when he was at CB heck for SJ that would of been nor problem

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

I'm not saying join him in the middle of the storm I'm saying join him when he was at CB heck for SJ that would of been nor problem

The snow storm still would have been a problem. The Northerners know winter and knew a storm was on its way. They won't risk being trapped in it for Stannis.

[MoreOrLess]

 

22 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

The northerners simply don't want to support Stannis as a king and enter another losing war. It's not really hard to understand.

"500 hundred men can hold Winterfell against ten thousand." The Boltons had a lot more than 500 men, so taking Winterfell would have been extremely difficult and would have resulted in heavy Northern losses.

Therein lies the problem with the books. Each House represents a single entity, thus all the Umbers and Mormonts are extremely loyal to the Starks. GOT shows each Umber as an individual character. The Greatjon was extremely loyal to the Starks, but the Smalljon was not. Hence the realism.

Again I think you could say they might be sitting things out to see what happens as well, we see the Mormonts say they won't support anyone but a Stark but elsewhere all we know is that they don't send troops to Stannis. If Stannis gets to Winterfell with his full army and the Boltons end up besieged then obviously it becomes MUCH less risky to back him as there are fewer Bolton forces(maybe some still in the Dreadfort but likely not more than a garrison to hold it) that can potentially attack their lands.

You look at the Umbers and even Greatjon on the show isn't exactly ultra loyal from the start is he? it takes Robb standing up to him to earn that.

I think the show successfully sells the idea that above any preference or dislike for individuals/familes what's driving most of the Northerners its pragmatic war weariness. That applies to not sending troops to the wall, not supporting Stannis, not supporting Jon/Sansa and even not supporting the Boltons directly. The Karstarks who do are obviously less war weary having not lost large numbers of both lords and soliders in the Red Wedding back Ramsay and the Umbers are faced with the alternative(at least to their minds) of fighting the wildings themselves if they don't join up.

[Darksky]

17 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

"Status quo is not a trivial thing".

It certainly was trivial in season 6 of Game of Thrones! 

The point to be made here is that I have no idea why Ramsay was STILL the status quo in season 6. He sacrificed his legal right to the North from the Iron throne (and presumably his own legitimacy) when he married Sansa, in the hope that Stark legitimacy was more valuable. Then he loses Sansa and becomes a violent, unpredictable, despot who even murders his own father. Why is anyone following him at this point? Because they are scared of him? He is neither charismatic, nor physically intimidating. Realistically his own soldiers would have been trying to shank him, let alone other northern lords trying to join him. 

Why was anyone following Adolf Hitler or Nero or any other tyrant throughout history? Why were they in power for as long as they were?

Ramsay was in charge for like a month, maybe less so. The only two Houses which joined him had good reasons for it. Some other Houses which remained neutral, had good reasons for it. It's not like they had to strike to defend themselves, Ramsay wasn't traveling around the North with his army and murdering Lords and common folk. Two Houses allied with Ramsay, a few with Jon, the rest stayed on the sidelines. It's more realistic under their circumstances.

Roose had Ramsay wed Sansa because he prolly thought the Northern Lords were as foolish and honourable to a fault as Ned Stark was. He misjudged a situation. Not everyone is like Ned Stark. How about that? A character acting like a human and making an error. But it seems fans prefer them to be like infallible, omniscient robots.

[Darksky]

On 21.08.2016 at 3:47 PM, Simbacca said:

Jon is part of Night Watch and getting involved with the politics of the North would be scene as breaking vows and punishable by death. 

So you actually believe Jon is staying in the Night's Watch until the very end in the books (if they ever come out)? LMAO

As per Martin and D+D, the storylines of the 5 main characters and all the key aspects of the plot remain very close in both mediums. So Jon being resurrected and leaving NW in the show means the same happens in the books (he had already tried to desert before he was stabbed for it after all). You think he'd suddenly change his mind and stay put after the assassination? Just LOL

On 21.08.2016 at 3:47 PM, Simbacca said:

As for Jon dying, show Jon was dead for 24+ hours.  Even in the cold North, he should have shown some signs of rot and decay before being brought back to life.  But the show kept a pretty Jon.  I even noticed that Beric Dondarrion was prettied up, so he would match Jon.  Book Jon was stabbed but we don't know if he dies.  He might survive his attack but be severely injured, like Bran. 

 

And yet book fans theorise Jon will be put in the storage for God knows how long and that's what will preserve his body in perfect condition. *headscratch*

You clearly don't know much about biology. There are a bunch of things that factor in the process of decomposition. The clear signs of rotting don't start showing until a few days after death occurs, especially if the corpse is in a cold environment (which CB and The Wall are).

You accuse the show of being unrealistic with the way they handled Jon's body (you're wrong) yet here you are believing book Jon doesn't even die from multiple stab wounds with no immediate and advanced medical help . Talk about irony and hypocrisy. Apparently you demand realism from the show but not the books. They're both a fantasy fiction you know.

On 21.08.2016 at 3:47 PM, Simbacca said:

  In the North, since Show Ramsey has helped free Deepwood Motte, why are the Glovers not fighting alongside Ramsey's army, since show Glovers hate the Starks.  Why did they not arrest Jon and Sansa.  Because show Glovers are turned into idiots.   

 

 Again with the hypocrisy. People demand blind loyalty always and forever from the Northern Lords, but when they at least show a bit of that towards a bastard Snow and a twice-married-to-a-rival-House Stark girl with dubious intentions out of respect for their late father, it's still a point of complaint. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The Glovers and their lands were ravaged by the war and Ironborn's invasion. Pardon them for not being eager to jump into another conflict which would just screw them over again. Lord Glover didn't rally behind Jon and his Wildling army (the prevalent prejudice and resentment among Westerosi people against the Free Folk) and and didn't ally himself with Ramsay.

He turned down Jon and Sansa because he was pragmatic, he wanted to take care of the living, who survived King Robb's rule, instead of foolishly sending them to their deaths, he was grateful for the liberation from the Ironborn by the Boltons but didn't intend to commit to their side, he still had enough appreciation and respect for Ned Stark not to detain his kids and bring them to Ramsay.

Lord Glover asked about Jon's troops. If Jon had had more than 2000 Wildlings and a bunch of Northern soldiers from like two Houses, I think he would have considered the call to arms. He looked quite disappointed when Jon disclosed that information to him. He judged it a lost cause not worth it at that moment.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

5 hours ago, Darksky said:

Why was anyone following Adolf Hitler or Nero or any other tyrant throughout history? Why were they in power for as long as they were?

Nero succeed to the throne legally and Hitler was elected. Both of those are completely different from Ramsay who is a bastard who the crown and the freys don't support so he has no legal claim and no one powerful backing him up

[MoreOrLess]

1 hour ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Nero succeed to the throne legally and Hitler was elected. Both of those are completely different from Ramsay who is a bastard who the crown and the freys don't support so he has no legal claim and no one powerful backing him up

Strongly suspected at the time that his mother poisoned Claudius though and Nero like most Emperors wasn't his son(who he had killed) but rather adopted heir.

I don't think the show paints Ramsay as being in a massively strong position. Indeed I would argue the reverse and Ramsay killing Roose plus his previous bloodthirsty nature end up being a negative for the Bolton cause, he only gets two allies who have strong ulterior motives and tactically risking open battle with the Starks when he has Winterfell ends in disaster.

[TheCasualObserver]

On 8/22/2016 at 7:29 PM, Dragon in the North said:

Why would Ramsay's men bite the hand that fed them? What would they have gained by it?

Well, in this instance it wasn't Ramsay who was figuratively feeding them for the last twenty odd years - it was Roose, who Ramsay murdered. And Ramsay is the rightful inheritor and Lord of the Dreadfort through royal decree... which he spat on when he married Sansa. How much allegiance do the Bolton men really owe him when he is not trueborn and murdered his father?  

[TheCasualObserver]

2 hours ago, MoreOrLess said:

Strongly suspected at the time that his mother poisoned Claudius though and Nero like most Emperors wasn't his son(who he had killed) but rather adopted heir.

I don't think the show paints Ramsay as being in a massively strong position. Indeed I would argue the reverse and Ramsay killing Roose plus his previous bloodthirsty nature end up being a negative for the Bolton cause, he only gets two allies who have strong ulterior motives and tactically risking open battle with the Starks when he has Winterfell ends in disaster.

Yes, but disaster for plot reasons, not political ones. Militarily and political speaking, Ramsay goes from strength to strength in early season 6 when logic dictates he should be floundering. Murdering his father, mother-in-law and brother is welcomed by his bannermen and he receives the support of the two strongest houses in two successive episodes, without really needing to do anything to get them. You can argue that Ramsay's position was weak, but the show provides no evidence of that being the case - quite the opposite.

In the end, neither Ramsay's bloodthirsty nature, nor his political mistakes contribute in any way to his downfall. He loses because LF teleports thousands of enemy knights onto the battlefield. Before that his power was shown to be supreme, which is what I take issue with. 

[NutBurz]

25 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

In the end, neither Ramsay's bloodthirsty nature, nor his political mistakes contribute in any way to his downfall.

What?

Almost no one in the North fought against the band of invading wildlings led by a traitor of the night´s watch. If it was anyone in the place of Ramsay bolton, Jon would have been trampled under foot.

[TheCasualObserver]

1 minute ago, NutBurz said:

What?

Almost no one in the North fought against the band of invading wildlings led by a traitor of the night´s watch. If it was anyone in the place of Ramsay bolton, Jon would have been trampled under foot.

Did we watch the same episode? Ramsay's army was far larger than Jon's and was comprised of his own and the two other largest Houses in the north. He mentions needing Karstarks, Umbers and Manderlys to control the north and he gets two out of three.

Jon was literally trampled underfoot in the battle. That was a thing which happened, because it was all going so badly. 

LF showing up at the last minute to stab Ramsay in the back with his fat stack of knights was the only thing which brought Ramsay down and it had nothing to do with his political decisions. 

[NutBurz]

I don´t think you quite undertsand what it means a band of Wildlings invading the north led by the Commander of the Night´s Watch. The entire north would have been against them if Ramsey Bolton was not a psychopath. They would have been trampled in their camp.

[Ruhail]

Because an annoying 10 year old whos basically Olly 2.0 going hurrr look how sassy and cliche I am is clearly more interesting.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Saying the North rising to restore the Starks to place isn't realistic, but not thinking everything going against Robb at once is logical and believable, is ridiculous.  The North restoring the Starks is just as logical to me as Roose pulling off his coup. Not being suspected of anything by anyone after everything he did is nonsense. He fools the entire North, nobody is suspicious? You put ten people in any room give them any project and the second someone makes a mistake at least a few will label them incompetent.  Roose is not a fool, everyone knows this, but he pulls that Duskendale stunt any nobody is tipped off. Nobody? Everyone just takes him at his word? Someone would have made an offhand comment like, Hey, we should watch him. I know he blames it on Glover, but he was in command. You can't pick apart one piece without picking apart the whole thing. You just have to suspend your disbelief .

[Stannis is the man....nis]

23 minutes ago, The Broke Howard Hughes said:

Saying the North rising to restore the Starks to place isn't realistic, but not thinking everything going against Robb at once is logical and believable, is ridiculous.  The North restoring the Starks is just as logical to me as Roose pulling off his coup. Not being suspected of anything by anyone after everything he did is nonsense. He fools the entire North, nobody is suspicious? You put ten people in any room give them any project and the second someone makes a mistake at least a few will label them incompetent.  Roose is not a fool, everyone knows this, but he pulls that Duskendale stunt any nobody is tipped off. Nobody? Everyone just takes him at his word? Someone would have made an offhand comment like, Hey, we should watch him. I know he blames it on Glover, but he was in command. You can't pick apart one piece without picking apart the whole thing. You just have to suspend your disbelief .

Wyman does say that most of them deep down know Roose was behind the RW.