Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Just now, Rex999 said:

Correction Ramsey was a legitimized bastard who was not in power that long 

 

 

 

 

He was in power longer than he should he should of been a dead man after he killed Roose and Walda and the Umber joining him after is less realistic than the Northerners fighting "for Ned's little girl" 

[TheCasualObserver]

14 minutes ago, Rex999 said:

 

I dont agree at all

Ramsey being cartoonishly  evil is not remotely unbelievable nor is      

the horrible truth is that we have had real life rulers throughout history who would make Ramsey look nice and sane by comparison  

 

 

I can buy someone like Rasmey Because I know that the Roman Emperor Nero existed in real life 

Nero was just as horrible as Ramsey and like Ramsey He killed his own parents

I cant buy This plot of the Northern lords blindly throwing thier lives away for a king that was responsible for all of the problems in the first place

and real life most died for kings because they had no choice 

But In A song of ice and fire they do it because they are loyal and Honorable people lol

Its fairy tail nonsense that dos not fit the world Martin has created at all

       

You didn't address my points about what Ramsay actually does.There is no real reason why anybody would follow Ramsay.

[Rex999]

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

He was in power longer than he should he should of been a dead man after he killed Roose and Walda and the Umber joining him after is less realistic than the Northerners fighting "for Ned's little girl" 

well we are just going to have to agree to disagree 

I can believe a power hungry nut case being in control for a long time

( as I said we have seen it happen throughout history )

I can not nor will I ever believe Northerners would happily give up their lives for a failed king and for A stark girl who they are not even sure is really Arya

At least when lord of rings did storylines like this it felt true to the world that was created  but In asoiaf It just ends feeling ridiculous and completely out of the place.   

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

The idea that having disloyal northern lords are more "realistic" on the show is absurd.

Because the book does not lack in disloyal Northern Lord. The Boltons, the Karstarks, possibly the Dustins, etc.    The book features a range of different approaches by the various lords. Some eagerly join the Boltons, some are cowed into joining, some appear to join but secretly plot against them, and others who remain more less neutral, while still more others are openly defiant of Bolton rule.  

That's far more realistic than having a SmallJon who decide he's going to fight for Ramsay to his death because he didn't like his own father?

 

 

 

[NutBurz]

it´s all or nothing. Not joining a band of wildlings led by a bastard is the same as plunging the knife in the king´s back. =p loyalty doesn´t work like that. You can´t ask a person to suicide or break their own honor code for loyalty, it´s just not a thing.

Even in the books, everything "north remembers" they do is very secret. In the series, there could have been 200 different North Remembers secret plots happening between the houses (that we don´t know about) and in the end their actions would probably all be the same, and the results the same. Because if they have a plan, they won´t simply throw it away for the first bastard. It´s believable they would back Stannis, but it´s also believeable they wouldn´t, he was not popular.

I´m not saying they had a plan, I´m saying that even if they had, it would be very much trivia compared to the actual resolution of the situation, which didn´t include any secret plot (except the one shown, between sansa and littlefinger). The show could have tried to show us 200 different secret plots, 600 new deep characters, but that´s just doesn´t seem like a safe bet, and most certainly people would complain about it being meaningless filler.

[NutBurz]

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

He was in power longer than he should he should of been a dead man after he killed Roose and Walda 

Describe quickly how you figure this happening, please? Who decides to try to kill Ramsay? For which purpose, what´s the plan? Who takes his place in giving out order to the people who live inside Bolton lands? Some general trusted by a handful of men, whose name neither Lannister, nor Arryn, nor Baratheon nor anyone ever heard about? And this general is going to inherit the animosity towards the Boltons, and he´s going to handle that how exactly? Karstark was in the scene, maybe he should have tried to kill Ramsey? In Bolton halls, suddenly both Boltons are dead and this Karstark guy is saying he´s the leader? Maybe the Umber guy should have challenged Ramsey to a duel to reinstate the Stark boy, then some random soldier shoots the commanding Umber in the back, and they´re all labeled traitors? Maybe every single Northern house should simultaneously and secretly agree on a new provisory leadership to lead the efforts to reinstate the Starks?

Status quo is not a trivial thing. Ramsey was in a delicate position, the whole thing would probably eventually crumble, but it´s not that simple.

And he is a dead man, he did not last very long.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

4 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Describe quickly how you figure this happening, please? Who decides to try to kill Ramsay? For which purpose, what´s the plan? Who takes his place in giving out order to the people who live inside Bolton lands? Some general trusted by a handful of men, whose name neither Lannister, nor Arryn, nor Baratheon nor anyone ever heard about? And this general is going to inherit the animosity towards the Boltons, and he´s going to handle that how exactly? Karstark was in the scene, maybe he should have tried to kill Ramsey? In Bolton halls, suddenly both Boltons are dead and this Karstark guy is saying he´s the leader? Maybe the Umber guy should have challenged Ramsey to a duel to reinstate the Stark boy, then some random soldier shoots the commanding Umber in the back, and they´re all labeled traitors? Maybe every single Northern house should simultaneously and secretly agree on a new provisory leadership to lead the efforts to reinstate the Starks?

Status quo is not a trivial thing. Ramsey was in a delicate position, the whole thing would probably eventually crumble, but it´s not that simple.

And he is a dead man, he did not last very long.

Or the Umber lets everyone else in the North know he has Rickon the true lord to WF, doesn't got to Ramsay, builds up and army and marches on WF

[NutBurz]

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

Or the Umber lets everyone else in the North know he has Rickon the true lord to WF, doesn't got to Ramsay, builds up and army and marches on WF

How does he stop the word from getting to the Boltons? How does he stop the Boltons if they decide to go to Last Hearth to take Rickon? Umbers have at best about 1000 men. Bolton and Karstark are over 3500 without the Freys.

[MoreOrLess]

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

That is not true or are you forgetting Ramsay and the sack of WF? Plus you may hate "the fool" for getting into the RW situation but their is no reason why any lord should feel that way, not everyone has the "only look out for me at whatever cost" attitude that men like Roose and LF use to justify their actions and can it turn hate men like Roose and LF more for their actions over hating Robb and Ned for for their honest mistakes

I think the truth is a bit in the middle, Robb was clearly sabotaged from within by the Karstarks, Boltons and Freys but he did also show a tactical naivety, you could put a lot of that down to having a strong sense of justice but of course there's nothing to say everyone has to feel the same is there? the other lords might not be on the level of the traitors but there also likely more pragmatic than Robb was as well.

Plus of course who is to say the northern lords have to be entirely logical? Robb fought a war and lost killing thousands including their relatives so feeling resentment against that is only natural as is being unwilling to fight another war for anyone. You could add as well that Robb whilst not unconcerned with the lives of others was still pretty myoptic when it came to fighting for justice for his own family.

[MakeWesterosGreatAgain]

9 hours ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

The idea that having disloyal northern lords are more "realistic" on the show is absurd.

Because the book does not lack in disloyal Northern Lord. The Boltons, the Karstarks, possibly the Dustins, etc.    The book features a range of different approaches by the various lords. Some eagerly join the Boltons, some are cowed into joining, some appear to join but secretly plot against them, and others who remain more less neutral, while still more others are openly defiant of Bolton rule.  

That's far more realistic than having a SmallJon who decide he's going to fight for Ramsay to his death because he didn't like his own father?

 

 

 

SmallJon joined Ramsay because of the Wildlings. The Karstarks joined the Boltons because Robb killed their head. The Manderly's sat out the battle because they wanted to remain neutral. Lots of houses clearly stayed neutral and a handful of more passionate ones (Lyanna and her 62) joined Jon and his ragtag army. Lots of different approaches and the only ones that joined Ramsay seemed to have real reason to do so (Umbers) or were led by incompetent angry littlemen (Karstarks)

[MakeWesterosGreatAgain]

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

Or the Umber lets everyone else in the North know he has Rickon the true lord to WF, doesn't got to Ramsay, builds up and army and marches on WF

For all we know that could've been brewing before, you know, Jon let thousands of Wildlings through the wall.

[TheCasualObserver]

8 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Describe quickly how you figure this happening, please? Who decides to try to kill Ramsay? For which purpose, what´s the plan? Who takes his place in giving out order to the people who live inside Bolton lands? Some general trusted by a handful of men, whose name neither Lannister, nor Arryn, nor Baratheon nor anyone ever heard about? And this general is going to inherit the animosity towards the Boltons, and he´s going to handle that how exactly? Karstark was in the scene, maybe he should have tried to kill Ramsey? In Bolton halls, suddenly both Boltons are dead and this Karstark guy is saying he´s the leader? Maybe the Umber guy should have challenged Ramsey to a duel to reinstate the Stark boy, then some random soldier shoots the commanding Umber in the back, and they´re all labeled traitors? Maybe every single Northern house should simultaneously and secretly agree on a new provisory leadership to lead the efforts to reinstate the Starks?

Status quo is not a trivial thing. Ramsey was in a delicate position, the whole thing would probably eventually crumble, but it´s not that simple.

And he is a dead man, he did not last very long.

"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. 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

43 minutes ago, MakeWesterosGreatAgain said:

SmallJon joined Ramsay because of the Wildlings. The Karstarks joined the Boltons because Robb killed their head. The Manderly's sat out the battle because they wanted to remain neutral. Lots of houses clearly stayed neutral and a handful of more passionate ones (Lyanna and her 62) joined Jon and his ragtag army. Lots of different approaches and the only ones that joined Ramsay seemed to have real reason to do so (Umbers) or were led by incompetent angry littlemen (Karstarks)

Then again if SJ hates the Wildlings so much why didn't he just join Stannis back in S5? You know the guy who saved the Wall and burned Mance?

[Dragon in the North]

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

Then again if SJ hates the Wildlings so much why didn't he just join Stannis back in S5? You know the guy who saved the Wall and burned Mance?

 Why would he sacrifice his men for Stannis's cause when Stannis took care of the wildling problem for free?

[Dragon in the North]

54 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

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

[MakeWesterosGreatAgain]

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

Then again if SJ hates the Wildlings so much why didn't he just join Stannis back in S5? You know the guy who saved the Wall and burned Mance?

Because Stannis was a Southern lord with zero charisma on a collision course with the Warden of the North and the Crown. SJ didn't seem giddy to join Ramsay, his hand was kind of pushed.

We also don't know when his dad died.

[Marcus Agrippa]

The show's handling of the north makes zero sense.

 

!. 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.

 

2. 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.

 

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".

[Stannis is the man....nis]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

 Why would he sacrifice his men for Stannis's cause when Stannis took care of the wildling problem for free?

Let's see what would joining Stannis do for SJ other than get him as much Bolton/Kartark land as he wants, could marry himself or someone in Umber family to Shireen and Umbers now have a claim to the IT, and/or seeing as Rickon is a child SJ could be like LF and the protectorate/ruler of the North til Rickon comes of age

[Future Null Infinity]

16 minutes ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

2. 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.

Sorry but I disagree with that, it was very clear in the show that Ramsay with his pincer attack won the battle of Winterfell with 0 losses, at that stage in the story, Stannis' army was almost inexistent

 

16 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".

Loyal doesn't mean suicidal, if Roose was weak as warden I don't think the northerners will wait for Stannis or Jon to save them from the boltons

[Dragon in the North]

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

Let's see what would joining Stannis do for SJ other than get him as much Bolton/Kartark land as he wants, could marry himself or someone in Umber family to Shireen and Umbers now have a claim to the IT, and/or seeing as Rickon is a child SJ could be like LF and the protectorate/ruler of the North til Rickon comes of age

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.