Bolton rebellion against Stark's and related stuff.

[direpupy]

In an other tread Lord Corlys Velaryon brought up some interesting speculation on events regarding the Bolton rebelion from before the unification of the 7 kingdoms. I think he makes some fair assumptions and would like to discus this further and hear other people's opinions, but the tread in wich he made the comments it was a sidestep from the discussion point of that tread, thus i am making a seperate tread for it. Here is his post i have bolded the parts that i think he is mistaken and will explain why below.

Full props for bringing  this up and the initial speculation go to @Lord Corlys Velaryon and he has my thanks and gratitude for this.

    On ‎21‎-‎11‎-‎2016 at 6:44 PM, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Interestingly, there some perhaps related events that are said to have occurred around c.700BC in regards to the Wolf's Den:

• Karlon Stark, a younger son of the King, helps put down a "rebel lord" & is awarded his own lands. He builds a castle called Karl's Hold as the seat of his new Stark cadet branch. Eventually the castle becomes known as Karhold & the House the Karstarks.
• House Bolton bends the knee to Winterfell (strange, they had already done that centuries before when the last Red King, Rogar the Huntsman, bent the knee & swore fealty to King Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf) & agrees to stop flaying their enemies (strangely, historically the Starks).
• The "overmighty" Manderlys are driven from the Reach "at the behest" of Perceon III Gardener (likely a weak king manipulated, though the Manderlys may not have been completely innocent) by Lord Lorimar Peake (mmm, why is the Manderlys' "Bracken" in charge of the royal power/forces? And why if the Manderlys were such a threat, that the Peakes were awarded their castle of Dunstonbury, & possibly Whitegrove too, that forms a three-castle power bloc on Highgarden's doorstep lasting ~900 years?). Anyway, in fleeing the Reach the Manderlys load up their ships with people (Lord Manderlys carry, among others, the title "Defender of the Dispossessed") & gold & whatever other riches they can from Dunstonbury & sail around Dorne & up the Narrow Sea to the White Knife. They're welcomed by House Stark who they bend the knee to & are awarded the Wolf's Den & its lands, tasked with defending the White Knife.
• A thousand years after it began with the Rape of the Three Sisters, the (intermittent) War Across the Water between the Starks & the Arryns ends when the former "simply loses interest" in fighting with them for control of the Three Sisters.

Perhaps also of note to consider:

• Centuries ago, King Harlon Stark besieges the Dreadfort after House Bolton (them again?) rebels against Winterfell & after two years he starves them out, presumably with them meeting terms & bending the knee (again).
• After holding the Wolf's Den for ~500 years, House Greystark (a Stark cadet branch) rises in rebellion with House Bolton (really?!) against Winterfell & get themselves extinct in the process.

So to help explain how the Wolf's Den is free for the Manderlys to be given it & to not have the Boltons rebel against the Starks so many times since they first bend the knee to Winterfell it doesn't make sense they are still around:

c.702BC: Houses Greystark & Bolton form an alliance in rebellion against King Harlon Stark of Winterfell, where in the ensuing war the Greystarks are wiped out & the surviving Boltons (perhaps after having done some Stark flaying, mayhaps Harlon himself) are forced to retreat to the Dreadfort, where the Starks begin a siege.

c.700BC:

• House Manderly are driven out of the Reach by Lord Lorimar Peake on the order of Perceon III Gardener. They load their ships with their people & their riches, fleeing into exile before they can be overwhelmed. Knowing as Reachmen they wouldn't be welcome in the Westerlands, Dorne or the Stormlands, also neither in the Riverlands where various petty kings had been warring since the fall of House Justman, & perhaps not the Vale with so much less fertile land than the Reach long consolidated under the rule of House Arryn; they may have heard of House Greystarks' fall & the vacancy of the Wolf's Den, & so head North.
• After 2 years, the Boltons are starved out of & so surrender, bend the knee & accept terms which include no more flaying. A younger son of Winterfell, Karlon Stark, is rewarded for his efforts in the war & is given some of the Bolton's repossessed lands by his king (either Harlon, or if he died in the war, his elder brother) to form a new Stark cadet branch after the extinction of the old one, which eventually becomes House Karstark.
• The Manderlys arrive at the White Knife looking for sanctuary. With Karlon instead already assigned to hold his new lands & make sure the Boltons are kept in check, & the Wolf's Den needing a new keeper; the Stark king wisely notes the Manderlys have the fleet, the money, the people, the desperation, & now his loyalty as he accepts their oaths spoken on bended knee & rises them up as the new lords of the castle & defenders of the White Knife. He takes their gold, but either gives (some of) it back to them for the renovation costs, or loans it back to them which they use for such.
• With the Wolf's Den finally having the right keepers for the job, the Starks seek peace with Eyrie & Sisterton, ending the Worthless War.

as promised my comments:

In the first bolded part he speaks of Rogar the Huntsman bending the knee to Theon the Hungry Wolf, however the Stark king that Rogar bend's the knee to is never mentioned so whe can not be certain that it is Theon. Personnaly i don't think it is Theon because he seems to be the king that started the Worthless War and at the time Balthasar Bolton was Lord of the Dreadfort. Although Balthasar may be Rogar's son who was send to Winterfell as a ward, which would explain why he was eager to help Theon in both defeating Argos Sevenstar and the rape of the Sisters (they might have grown up thogether). So it is not impossible.

In the second bolded part he speaks of the posibility that apart from Dunstonbury, Whitegrove may also have been a Manderly castle. I don believe so the Peake's where the Manderly's main rival if the Manderly's where really so powerfull it would not make sence for the peake's to be weak, and there may have been a need to bribe away any allies of the Manderly's by promising some of the lands and castle's to them. So i think Whitegrove was already a Peake castle and believe that everything the Manderly's held apart from Dunstonbury went to other houses.

In the third bolded part he speaks of the lands given to Karlon Stark and says they belonged to the Bolton's, this however is wrong. The lands that are given to Karlon are not part of the historical lands of house Bolton as described in TWOIAF it is to the North-East of those lands, beyond the last river that is the border of the historical Bolton lands. Most likely it belonged to some other Lord perhaps one who joined the Boltons and Greystarks in rebellion because just two houses rebelling seems like an awfully small rebellion to me.

Among the extinct houses of the North there is a house Greenwood and the lands of the Karstarks is heavely forested so they might be a good candidate.

The lands of House Hornwood however did belong to House Bolton once, and i myself have long thought that the Hornwoods may have been vassals of the Boltons who where rewarded by making there lands directly subordinate to Winterfell, thus elevating House Hornwood from a minor house to a major regionel house. Perhaps (but this is speculation on my part) since the Hornwood lands ly between the lands of the Boltons and the Wolf's Den they prevented the Greystarks from joining there army to that of the Boltons and where rewarded for this.

I look forward to hearing what other people think and again full props to Lord Corlys Velaryon.

[Seams]

Great topic. The loyalties and disposition of lands in the North seems like a good topic to untangle in the forum. I'm pretty shaky on the contents of TWOIAF, but a couple of the details from the histories really intrigued me, and maybe this is the place to explore them.

The arrival of the Manderlys in the North was one of the things that struck me as unique and noteworthy. As an event, I suppose the arrival of Nymeria in Dorne might be comparable, except she married a Martell and became princess. The Manderlys don't appear to have cemented an alliance with the Starks in the same way. I hadn't considered all the assets they brought along, though. I'm sure they paid a purchase price for their new holdfast in the North and that would explain why the Starks elevated them instead of letting one of their longtime bannermen take occupancy. Possession of ships would also be decisive, as the OP points out. (Interesting that Nymeria burns her ships once she makes the commitment to stay in Dorne.)

The abrupt withdrawal of the Starks from the fight with the Arryns over possession of the islands known as the Three Sisters was baffling to me. Maybe it's just the way the World book describes it:

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away." (TWOIAF, The Vale)

On another thread, people identified the phrase, "a thousand years" as a code to identify events that recur over and over down through history, so there must be a similar fight (over islands? sisters?) somewhere in the history of Westeros. I like the idea in the OP that the securing of the White Knife with the arrival of the Manderlys explains the Starks' abrupt loss of interest in controlling the islands. Still, there seems to be more to the story. This is one of those places where GRRM is explicit about the differences in the history as told in the Vale and as told in the North. The Vale stories make it sound as if the Northmen were horrible monsters, cannibalizing children among other atrocities. It doesn't say anything about this behavior coming only from the Bolton bannermen from the North. I think we are getting a hint here that there is a hidden, nasty side to the Starks. (And it fits with another possible theory of mine if this nasty side has something to do with raping a sister, so I admit I might be bending this narrative to fit with a preconceived notion.)

Some of the other gifting of northern land hasn't quite added up for me - land for the Manderlys, land for the Karstarks and, you don't mention this in the OP, land in The Gift for the Night's Watch. The Manderly grant makes more sense to me after reading the OP. I know that the lands for the Karlon Stark cadet branch should be explained by the OP as well - a reward to good service in the war:

Lord Rickard had spoken truly, Catelyn knew. The Karstarks traced their descent to Karlon Stark, a younger son of Winterfell who had put down a rebel lord a thousand years ago, and been granted lands for his valor. The castle he built had been named Karl's Hold, but that soon became Karhold, and over the centuries the Karhold Starks had become Karstarks. (ASoS, Catelyn III)

But don't all sons serve their family House during a war? Isn't that just a normal thing for a loyal son to do? It seems odd to me that this service was so outstanding that it resulted in establishing a new noble house. Could there have been another motive or explanation?

The Karstark timeline is vague although there's that intriguing "a thousand years" code phrase again. Without a better sense of the timeline, it's difficult to make a case. If the "thousand years" phrase means that the event has repeated in history, maybe that would allow me to make the following link, anyway: I've always been suspicious of Good Queen Alysanne's "two estrangements" from King Jaehaerys I, and whether she had an affair and gave birth to an illegitimate child during those estrangements. She spent time in the north, building or taking possession of the tower called the Queenscrown, befriending the Night's Watch and convincing the Starks to give over a large swath of land to the Night's Watch to generate income to support the group.

I had always thought Alysanne probably left the baby with the Starks or the Mormonts, based on the symbolism of the possible/probable connection of Jon Snow to the Targaryens as well as his mentor/father figures Jeor Mormont and Ned Stark. The OP here, though, got me to thinking about whether Alysanne's baby might have been the founder of House Karstark. I know the timeline doesn't work if House Karstark is truly a thousand years old, as Alysanne was bearing children about 250 years ago. But we have only Catelyn's word on the date for House Karstark, right? And she would have had it second- or third-hand, learning a little northern history after her marriage. I realize we see a number of Alyssa and Alysanne names for little girls, but the name of Alys Karstark might be another hint about a connection between the Karstarks and the Targ queen. Maybe the Starks gave land and helped to establish the new House Karstark because the man known as Karlon Stark was actually a bastard child of the Queen.

It's a stretch, I realize, especially if there is evidence I have overlooked of a firm timeline for Karlon Stark. But the notion that major events repeat throughout Westeros history could mean that Jon Snow is not the first Targaryen baby to have been secretly raised in the North.

This doesn't tie into the Bolton Rebellion you mention in the title for your post, so I apologize if I've taken things off on a tangent. I think GRRM gave us some important clues in the World book, and I would love to try to sort them out.

 

[Isobel Harper]

Quote

The abrupt withdrawal of the Starks from the fight with the Arryns over possession of the islands known as the Three Sisters was baffling to me. Maybe it's just the way the World book describes it:

 

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away." (TWOIAF, The Vale)

The Starks lost interest in The Three Sisters after the Manderlys settled in White Harbor, right?  (Not sure if I understood the OP.)  The explanation could be rather simple: the Starks wanted lands that brought in better trade.  The Three Sisters would do so.  However, White Harbor flourished under the Manderlys and trade increased.  Therefore, the Starks lost interest in the Sisters because they didn't need it anymore.

Quote

In the third bolded part he speaks of the lands given to Karlon Stark and says they belonged to the Bolton's, this however is wrong. The lands that are given to Karlon are not part of the historical lands of house Bolton as described in TWOIAF it is to the North-East of those lands, beyond the last river that is the border of the historical Bolton lands. Most likely it belonged to some other Lord perhaps one who joined the Boltons and Greystarks in rebellion because just two houses rebelling seems like an awfully small rebellion to me.

 

Among the extinct houses of the North there is a house Greenwood and the lands of the Karstarks is heavely forested so they might be a good candidate.

Interesting.  Good catch. 

Quote

The lands of House Hornwood however did belong to House Bolton once, and i myself have long thought that the Hornwoods may have been vassals of the Boltons who where rewarded by making there lands directly subordinate to Winterfell, thus elevating House Hornwood from a minor house to a major regionel house. Perhaps (but this is speculation on my part) since the Hornwood lands ly between the lands of the Boltons and the Wolf's Den they prevented the Greystarks from joining there army to that of the Boltons and where rewarded for this.

Hmm, so Ramsey's attack on Lady Hornwood wasn't just simple, random viciousness.  He wanted "Bolton" lands back. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

On 2016/11/25 at 1:01 PM, direpupy said:

In an other tread Lord Corlys Velaryon brought up some interesting speculation on events regarding the Bolton rebelion from before the unification of the 7 kingdoms. I think he makes some fair assumptions and would like to discus this further and hear other people's opinions, but the tread in wich he made the comments it was a sidestep from the discussion point of that tread, thus i am making a seperate tread for it. Here is his post i have bolded the parts that i think he is mistaken and will explain why below.

Full props for bringing  this up and the initial speculation go to @Lord Corlys Velaryon and he has my thanks and gratitude for this.

    On ‎21‎-‎11‎-‎2016 at 6:44 PM, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Interestingly, there some perhaps related events that are said to have occurred around c.700BC in regards to the Wolf's Den:

• Karlon Stark, a younger son of the King, helps put down a "rebel lord" & is awarded his own lands. He builds a castle called Karl's Hold as the seat of his new Stark cadet branch. Eventually the castle becomes known as Karhold & the House the Karstarks.
• House Bolton bends the knee to Winterfell (strange, they had already done that centuries before when the last Red King, Rogar the Huntsman, bent the knee & swore fealty to King Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf) & agrees to stop flaying their enemies (strangely, historically the Starks).
• The "overmighty" Manderlys are driven from the Reach "at the behest" of Perceon III Gardener (likely a weak king manipulated, though the Manderlys may not have been completely innocent) by Lord Lorimar Peake (mmm, why is the Manderlys' "Bracken" in charge of the royal power/forces? And why if the Manderlys were such a threat, that the Peakes were awarded their castle of Dunstonbury, & possibly Whitegrove too, that forms a three-castle power bloc on Highgarden's doorstep lasting ~900 years?). Anyway, in fleeing the Reach the Manderlys load up their ships with people (Lord Manderlys carry, among others, the title "Defender of the Dispossessed") & gold & whatever other riches they can from Dunstonbury & sail around Dorne & up the Narrow Sea to the White Knife. They're welcomed by House Stark who they bend the knee to & are awarded the Wolf's Den & its lands, tasked with defending the White Knife.
• A thousand years after it began with the Rape of the Three Sisters, the (intermittent) War Across the Water between the Starks & the Arryns ends when the former "simply loses interest" in fighting with them for control of the Three Sisters.

Perhaps also of note to consider:

• Centuries ago, King Harlon Stark besieges the Dreadfort after House Bolton (them again?) rebels against Winterfell & after two years he starves them out, presumably with them meeting terms & bending the knee (again).
• After holding the Wolf's Den for ~500 years, House Greystark (a Stark cadet branch) rises in rebellion with House Bolton (really?!) against Winterfell & get themselves extinct in the process.

So to help explain how the Wolf's Den is free for the Manderlys to be given it & to not have the Boltons rebel against the Starks so many times since they first bend the knee to Winterfell it doesn't make sense they are still around:

c.702BC: Houses Greystark & Bolton form an alliance in rebellion against King Harlon Stark of Winterfell, where in the ensuing war the Greystarks are wiped out & the surviving Boltons (perhaps after having done some Stark flaying, mayhaps Harlon himself) are forced to retreat to the Dreadfort, where the Starks begin a siege.

c.700BC:

• House Manderly are driven out of the Reach by Lord Lorimar Peake on the order of Perceon III Gardener. They load their ships with their people & their riches, fleeing into exile before they can be overwhelmed. Knowing as Reachmen they wouldn't be welcome in the Westerlands, Dorne or the Stormlands, also neither in the Riverlands where various petty kings had been warring since the fall of House Justman, & perhaps not the Vale with so much less fertile land than the Reach long consolidated under the rule of House Arryn; they may have heard of House Greystarks' fall & the vacancy of the Wolf's Den, & so head North.
• After 2 years, the Boltons are starved out of & so surrender, bend the knee & accept terms which include no more flaying. A younger son of Winterfell, Karlon Stark, is rewarded for his efforts in the war & is given some of the Bolton's repossessed lands by his king (either Harlon, or if he died in the war, his elder brother) to form a new Stark cadet branch after the extinction of the old one, which eventually becomes House Karstark.
• The Manderlys arrive at the White Knife looking for sanctuary. With Karlon instead already assigned to hold his new lands & make sure the Boltons are kept in check, & the Wolf's Den needing a new keeper; the Stark king wisely notes the Manderlys have the fleet, the money, the people, the desperation, & now his loyalty as he accepts their oaths spoken on bended knee & rises them up as the new lords of the castle & defenders of the White Knife. He takes their gold, but either gives (some of) it back to them for the renovation costs, or loans it back to them which they use for such.
• With the Wolf's Den finally having the right keepers for the job, the Starks seek peace with Eyrie & Sisterton, ending the Worthless War.

as promised my comments:

In the first bolded part he speaks of Rogar the Huntsman bending the knee to Theon the Hungry Wolf, however the Stark king that Rogar bend's the knee to is never mentioned so whe can not be certain that it is Theon. Personnaly i don't think it is Theon because he seems to be the king that started the Worthless War and at the time Balthasar Bolton was Lord of the Dreadfort. Although Balthasar may be Rogar's son who was send to Winterfell as a ward, which would explain why he was eager to help Theon in both defeating Argos Sevenstar and the rape of the Sisters (they might have grown up thogether). So it is not impossible.

In the second bolded part he speaks of the posibility that apart from Dunstonbury, Whitegrove may also have been a Manderly castle. I don believe so the Peake's where the Manderly's main rival if the Manderly's where really so powerfull it would not make sence for the peake's to be weak, and there may have been a need to bribe away any allies of the Manderly's by promising some of the lands and castle's to them. So i think Whitegrove was already a Peake castle and believe that everything the Manderly's held apart from Dunstonbury went to other houses.

In the third bolded part he speaks of the lands given to Karlon Stark and says they belonged to the Bolton's, this however is wrong. The lands that are given to Karlon are not part of the historical lands of house Bolton as described in TWOIAF it is to the North-East of those lands, beyond the last river that is the border of the historical Bolton lands. Most likely it belonged to some other Lord perhaps one who joined the Boltons and Greystarks in rebellion because just two houses rebelling seems like an awfully small rebellion to me.

Among the extinct houses of the North there is a house Greenwood and the lands of the Karstarks is heavely forested so they might be a good candidate.

The lands of House Hornwood however did belong to House Bolton once, and i myself have long thought that the Hornwoods may have been vassals of the Boltons who where rewarded by making there lands directly subordinate to Winterfell, thus elevating House Hornwood from a minor house to a major regionel house. Perhaps (but this is speculation on my part) since the Hornwood lands ly between the lands of the Boltons and the Wolf's Den they prevented the Greystarks from joining there army to that of the Boltons and where rewarded for this.

I look forward to hearing what other people think and again full props to Lord Corlys Velaryon.

The Greystarks have nothing to do with Karlon Stark or the Manderly arrival. Ser Bartimus explains to us that after the Greystarks, the Wolfsden was ruled by Lockes, Slates, Flints and a bunch of other Houses.

Here is the exact passage from the Wiki:

After the Greystarks, the castle switched many hands. House Flint held it for century, and House Locke for almost two. Slates, Longs, Holts and Ashwoods held the Wolf's Den, charged by Winterfell to keep the river safe. Reavers from the Three Sisters took the castle once, and made it their toehold in the north. During the wars between the North and the Vale, it was besieged by Osgood Arryn, the Old Falcon, and burned by his son, called the Talon.

So the Wolfsden was ruled for hundreds of years by successors to the Greystarks. What's more, the War Acros the Water appears only to have broken out centuries after the Greystarks' departure. And if, as we suspect, the War Across the Water began with the Rape of the Three Sisters 2000 years ago, then it means the Greystarks lived well before this War. It would seem, therefore that the Greystark rebellion occurred around 3000 years ago.

So a rough timeline would in fact be something like this:

4000 years ago - Jon Stark builds the Wolfsden

3500 years ago - The Greystarks take ownership of it and rule it for 5 centuries

3000 years ago - the Greystark's join the Boltons in rebellion against Winterfell and are cast down

3000-2000 years ago - The Wolfsden is ruled by Lockes, Slates. Longs, Holts, Flints, Ashwoods etc. This period had to cover at least 500 years, but could have been as much as 1000 years, which is what I've estimated for purposes of this rough timeline.

2000 years ago - Raiders from the Three Sisters continue to be an intolerable nuisance to the Starks. Theon Stark, fresh from wreaking havoc and devestation over in Andalos, returns with his newly built fleet of longships, and decides to put it to good use by invading the Three Sisters. He seems to have made the most of his close relationship with the Boltons after the Battle of the Weeping Water and uses them as his vanguard for the invasion. Lord Bolton makes a pink pavillion of the skins of 100 Sistermen as part of the "lesson" the North dishes out to the Pirate Nest.

2000-1000 years ago - To survive, the Three Sisters call on the Vale for assistance, and the War Across the Water continues for the next 1000 years. The Islands change ownership more than a dozen times between the Starks and Arryns during this period.

1000 years ago - House Manderly arrives, White Harbor is built, and the Starks now have a much strengthened and far more formiddable settlement at the mouth of the White Knife. They now realise that they no longer need to occuppy the Sisters to nullify the threat of pirate raids, as White Harbor is more than capable of securing the White Knife against any attempted pirate raid. So they call off the War and leave the defense of the Bite and the White Knife to the Manderlys.

Around this time a rebellion is put down in the North - probably by the Boltons, and Harlon Stark is instrumental in putting it down. He is granted the Karstark lands as a reward.

And that is pretty much how events likely transpired.

[direpupy]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Greystarks have nothing to do with Karlon Stark or the Manderly arrival. Ser Bartimus explains to us that after the Greystarks, the Wolfsden was ruled by Lockes, Slates, Flints and a bunch of other Houses.

Here is the exact passage from the Wiki:

After the Greystarks, the castle switched many hands. House Flint held it for century, and House Locke for almost two. Slates, Longs, Holts and Ashwoods held the Wolf's Den, charged by Winterfell to keep the river safe. Reavers from the Three Sisters took the castle once, and made it their toehold in the north. During the wars between the North and the Vale, it was besieged by Osgood Arryn, the Old Falcon, and burned by his son, called the Talon.

So the Wolfsden was ruled for hundreds of years by successors to the Greystarks. What's more, the War Acros the Water appears only to have broken out centuries after the Greystarks' departure. And if, as we suspect, the War Across the Water began with the Rape of the Three Sisters 2000 years ago, then it means the Greystarks lived well before this War. It would seem, therefore that the Greystark rebellion occurred around 3000 years ago.

So a rough timeline would in fact be something like this:

4000 years ago - Jon Stark builds the Wolfsden

3500 years ago - The Greystarks take ownership of it and rule it for 5 centuries

3000 years ago - the Greystark's join the Boltons in rebellion against Winterfell and are cast down

3000-2000 years ago - The Wolfsden is ruled by Lockes, Slates. Longs, Holts, Flints, Ashwoods etc. This period had to cover at least 500 years, but could have been as much as 1000 years, which is what I've estimated for purposes of this rough timeline.

2000 years ago - Raiders from the Three Sisters continue to be an intolerable nuisance to the Starks. Theon Stark, fresh from wreaking havoc and devestation over in Andalos, returns with his newly built fleet of longships, and decides to put it to good use by invading the Three Sisters. He seems to have made the most of his close relationship with the Boltons after the Battle of the Weeping Water and uses them as his vanguard for the invasion. Lord Bolton makes a pink pavillion of the skins of 100 Sistermen as part of the "lesson" the North dishes out to the Pirate Nest.

2000-1000 years ago - To survive, the Three Sisters call on the Vale for assistance, and the War Across the Water continues for the next 1000 years. The Islands change ownership more than a dozen times between the Starks and Arryns during this period.

1000 years ago - House Manderly arrives, White Harbor is built, and the Starks now have a much strengthened and far more formiddable settlement at the mouth of the White Knife. They now realise that they no longer need to occuppy the Sisters to nullify the threat of pirate raids, as White Harbor is more than capable of securing the White Knife against any attempted pirate raid. So they call off the War and leave the defense of the Bite and the White Knife to the Manderlys.

Around this time a rebellion is put down in the North - probably by the Boltons, and Harlon Stark is instrumental in putting it down. He is granted the Karstark lands as a reward.

And that is pretty much how events likely transpired.

Thanks for putting in Free Northman Reborn i know that you have given much thought into the timeline in the North in the past so your thoughts on the subject are always apresiated.

Just a question tho do you agree that the Boltons probably only rebelled once against the Starks?

And what are your thoughts on the Hornwoods effectivly ruling the southern one-third of what use to be the Bolton kingdom.

[direpupy]

11 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

The Starks lost interest in The Three Sisters after the Manderlys settled in White Harbor, right?  (Not sure if I understood the OP.)  The explanation could be rather simple: the Starks wanted lands that brought in better trade.  The Three Sisters would do so.  However, White Harbor flourished under the Manderlys and trade increased.  Therefore, the Starks lost interest in the Sisters because they didn't need it anymore.

 

Hmm, so Ramsey's attack on Lady Hornwood wasn't just simple, random viciousness.  He wanted "Bolton" lands back. 

Yes the building of white harbor seems to have been the reason the Starks lost interest in The Tree Sisters

And yes becoming Lord Hornwood does mean that the Bolton's get this land back, a possible motive for his actions.

[direpupy]

12 hours ago, Seams said:

Great topic. The loyalties and disposition of lands in the North seems like a good topic to untangle in the forum. I'm pretty shaky on the contents of TWOIAF, but a couple of the details from the histories really intrigued me, and maybe this is the place to explore them.

The arrival of the Manderlys in the North was one of the things that struck me as unique and noteworthy. As an event, I suppose the arrival of Nymeria in Dorne might be comparable, except she married a Martell and became princess. The Manderlys don't appear to have cemented an alliance with the Starks in the same way. I hadn't considered all the assets they brought along, though. I'm sure they paid a purchase price for their new holdfast in the North and that would explain why the Starks elevated them instead of letting one of their longtime bannermen take occupancy. Possession of ships would also be decisive, as the OP points out. (Interesting that Nymeria burns her ships once she makes the commitment to stay in Dorne.)

The abrupt withdrawal of the Starks from the fight with the Arryns over possession of the islands known as the Three Sisters was baffling to me. Maybe it's just the way the World book describes it:

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away." (TWOIAF, The Vale)

On another thread, people identified the phrase, "a thousand years" as a code to identify events that recur over and over down through history, so there must be a similar fight (over islands? sisters?) somewhere in the history of Westeros. I like the idea in the OP that the securing of the White Knife with the arrival of the Manderlys explains the Starks' abrupt loss of interest in controlling the islands. Still, there seems to be more to the story. This is one of those places where GRRM is explicit about the differences in the history as told in the Vale and as told in the North. The Vale stories make it sound as if the Northmen were horrible monsters, cannibalizing children among other atrocities. It doesn't say anything about this behavior coming only from the Bolton bannermen from the North. I think we are getting a hint here that there is a hidden, nasty side to the Starks. (And it fits with another possible theory of mine if this nasty side has something to do with raping a sister, so I admit I might be bending this narrative to fit with a preconceived notion.)

Some of the other gifting of northern land hasn't quite added up for me - land for the Manderlys, land for the Karstarks and, you don't mention this in the OP, land in The Gift for the Night's Watch. The Manderly grant makes more sense to me after reading the OP. I know that the lands for the Karlon Stark cadet branch should be explained by the OP as well - a reward to good service in the war:

Lord Rickard had spoken truly, Catelyn knew. The Karstarks traced their descent to Karlon Stark, a younger son of Winterfell who had put down a rebel lord a thousand years ago, and been granted lands for his valor. The castle he built had been named Karl's Hold, but that soon became Karhold, and over the centuries the Karhold Starks had become Karstarks. (ASoS, Catelyn III)

But don't all sons serve their family House during a war? Isn't that just a normal thing for a loyal son to do? It seems odd to me that this service was so outstanding that it resulted in establishing a new noble house. Could there have been another motive or explanation?

The Karstark timeline is vague although there's that intriguing "a thousand years" code phrase again. Without a better sense of the timeline, it's difficult to make a case. If the "thousand years" phrase means that the event has repeated in history, maybe that would allow me to make the following link, anyway: I've always been suspicious of Good Queen Alysanne's "two estrangements" from King Jaehaerys I, and whether she had an affair and gave birth to an illegitimate child during those estrangements. She spent time in the north, building or taking possession of the tower called the Queenscrown, befriending the Night's Watch and convincing the Starks to give over a large swath of land to the Night's Watch to generate income to support the group.

I had always thought Alysanne probably left the baby with the Starks or the Mormonts, based on the symbolism of the possible/probable connection of Jon Snow to the Targaryens as well as his mentor/father figures Jeor Mormont and Ned Stark. The OP here, though, got me to thinking about whether Alysanne's baby might have been the founder of House Karstark. I know the timeline doesn't work if House Karstark is truly a thousand years old, as Alysanne was bearing children about 250 years ago. But we have only Catelyn's word on the date for House Karstark, right? And she would have had it second- or third-hand, learning a little northern history after her marriage. I realize we see a number of Alyssa and Alysanne names for little girls, but the name of Alys Karstark might be another hint about a connection between the Karstarks and the Targ queen. Maybe the Starks gave land and helped to establish the new House Karstark because the man known as Karlon Stark was actually a bastard child of the Queen.

It's a stretch, I realize, especially if there is evidence I have overlooked of a firm timeline for Karlon Stark. But the notion that major events repeat throughout Westeros history could mean that Jon Snow is not the first Targaryen baby to have been secretly raised in the North.

This doesn't tie into the Bolton Rebellion you mention in the title for your post, so I apologize if I've taken things off on a tangent. I think GRRM gave us some important clues in the World book, and I would love to try to sort them out.

 

Your idea's are a little to crackpot for me but feel free to discus them.

I do have to point out that Catelyn is not they only source for the age of house Karstark Bran also mentiones this, and i think there is one more reference but i can't remember who ore where right now

As to the gift TWOIAF makes it abundently clear that the Stark's where forced on this occasion and did not give the land voluntarily.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

Thanks for putting in Free Northman Reborn i know that you have given much thought into the timeline in the North in the past so your thoughts on the subject are always apresiated.

Just a question tho do you agree that the Boltons probably only rebelled once against the Starks?

And what are your thoughts on the Hornwoods effectivly ruling the southern one-third of what use to be the Bolton kingdom.

Well, the evidence seems to point against there only being one rebellion. The question is when the Red Kings first bent the knee. All conflicts after that point would be rebelions. Everything before that point would be wars between neighbouring kingdoms.

We know the Boltons first knelt to the Starks just as the first Andal longships were crossing the Narrow Sea. Since the Boltons were the last Northern petty kings to kneel to the Starks, we know that this would have been AFTER the Marsh Kings were conquered by House Stark. And in turn we know that the Marsh Kings were conquered one generation after the Wolf's Den was built, as it was Jon Stark's son who conquered the Neck.

So this tells us that when the Wolf's Den was built by Jon Stark, the Red Kings had not yet knelt to House Stark. Similarly, we know that when the Rape of the Three Sisters happened 2000 years ago, House Arryn was already well established as rulers of the Vale. So this must have been centuries after the Andals first arrived. So at this time House Bolton had been vassals to Winterfell for centuries.

It would seem to me that the likely first arrival of the Andals in Westeros probably coincided more or less with the Greystark rebellion. This rebellion could then have been part of the Red Kings' last gasp attempt to defeat the Starks. And when it failed, the Greystarks were extinguished and the Red Kings were forced to finally swear allegiance to Winterfell.

If so, then any Bolton wars after that point would have been rebellions against their Stark overlords. We know of a number. Off the top of my head I recall the Bolton rebellion around 1000 years ago, and another (which may have been the same one, or it may not have) where a Stark King besieged the Dreadfort for two years.

I suspect there was more than one, and that the Boltons somehow managed to have sufficient bargaining chips to prevent their extinction each time they failed.

EDIT

That was all in answer to your first question. Regarding the Hornwoods. Yes, we know that their lands were once part of the Red Kings' domain. But the Karstark lands never were.

[direpupy]

17 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, the evidence seems to point against there only being one rebellion. The question is when the Red Kings first bent the knee. All conflicts after that point would be rebelions. Everything before that point would be wars between neighbouring kingdoms.

We know the Boltons first knelt to the Starks just as the first Andal longships were crossing the Narrow Sea. Since the Boltons were the last Northern petty kings to kneel to the Starks, we know that this would have been AFTER the Marsh Kings were conquered by House Stark. And in turn we know that the Marsh Kings were conquered one generation after the Wolf's Den was built, as it was Jon Stark's son who conquered the Neck.

So this tells us that when the Wolf's Den was built by Jon Stark, the Red Kings had not yet knelt to House Stark. Similarly, we know that when the Rape of the Three Sisters happened 2000 years ago, House Arryn was already well established as rulers of the Vale. So this must have been centuries after the Andals first arrived. So at this time House Bolton had been vassals to Winterfell for centuries.

It would seem to me that the likely first arrival of the Andals in Westeros probably coincided more or less with the Greystark rebellion. This rebellion could then have been part of the Red Kings' last gasp attempt to defeat the Starks. And when it failed, the Greystarks were extinguished and the Red Kings were forced to finally swear allegiance to Winterfell.

If so, then any Bolton wars after that point would have been rebellions against their Stark overlords. We know of a number. Off the top of my head I recall the Bolton rebellion around 1000 years ago, and another (which may have been the same one, or it may not have) where a Stark King besieged the Dreadfort for two years.

I suspect there was more than one, and that the Boltons somehow managed to have sufficient bargaining chips to prevent their extinction each time they failed.

EDIT

That was all in answer to your first question. Regarding the Hornwoods. Yes, we know that their lands were once part of the Red Kings' domain. But the Karstark lands never were.

I know that the Karstark lands did not belong to house Bolton i actually pointed that out in my OP.

As to the Boltons surviving, the 2 year siege was in winter if i recall correctly so the Stark's men may just have been tired and hungry and fed up so Harlon Stark may have been forced to negotiate because of that. This is speculation of course.

The Wolf's Den was build before the Andal's started invading so whe know that the Wolf's Den is pre-andal, so i agree whith you on that. Here is the quote from TWOIAF.

Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis).

Also i remember from the WOIAF that the twelfth Arryn king was the one to finish the Eyrie, in an other tread it was theorized that this would be somewhere between 250 and 300 years. Since king Matthos Arryn was already establised in they Eyrie when the sistermen called upon him they Arryns should at least have been ruling the Vale some 300 Years at the time of the rape. the conquest of the Vale by the Andals took 3 to 5 generations so at least an other 100 years. that places the rape at a minimum of 400 years after the Andals first came to Westeros.

If the rape was 2000 years ago then the andal invasions would have at the latest started 2400 years ago.

Does this fit the timeline you have?

[Free Northman Reborn]

25 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I know that the Karstark lands did not belong to house Bolton i actually pointed that out in my OP.

As to the Boltons surviving, the 2 year siege was in winter if i recall correctly so the Stark's men may just have been tired and hungry and fed up so Harlon Stark may have been forced to negotiate because of that. This is speculation of course.

The Wolf's Den was build before the Andal's started invading so whe know that the Wolf's Den is pre-andal, so i agree whith you on that. Here is the quote from TWOIAF.

Even before the coming of the Andals, the Wolf's Den had been raised by King Jon Stark, built to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders and slavers from across the narrow sea (some scholars suggest these were early Andal incursions, whilst others argue they were the forebears of the men of Ib, or even slavers out of Valyria and Volantis).

Also i remember from the WOIAF that the twelfth Arryn king was the one to finish the Eyrie, in an other tread it was theorized that this would be somewhere between 250 and 300 years. Since king Matthos Arryn was already establised in they Eyrie when the sistermen called upon him they Arryns should at least have been ruling the Vale some 300 Years at the time of the rape. the conquest of the Vale by the Andals took 3 to 5 generations so at least an other 100 years. that places the rape at a minimum of 400 years after the Andals first came to Westeros.

If the rape was 2000 years ago then the andal invasions would have at the latest started 2400 years ago.

Does this fit the timeline you have?

Yes, nice to see validation from a 2nd source, which I had missed, that the Wolf's Den definitely dates to pre-Andal times. That gives more credence to the overall timeline I've tried to construct. It also shows that Martin himself was working to a structured timeline, rather than just writing a bunch of contradictory backstories for ancient times.

We now know with some certainty that the Red Kings first knelt to Winterfell somewhere between 4000 and 2500 years ago. I place the start of the Andal migration at around 3000 years ago, with it continuing over the ensuing centuries. The Arryns probably conquered the Vale by around 2500 years ago or thereabouts. I can't recall how much time passed between the first early Andal raiders and the Arryn Conquest of the Vale. But I would imagine that at least a few centuries would have passed first.

 

[Lord Varys]

There are hints in the books that there were multiple Bolton-Stark wars as well as multiple Bolton rebellions. And if we think about it there is also the chance that the Red Kings were defeated multiple times by the Starks before they finally agreed to give up their crowns. I mean, if you war with another kingdom you can defeat it without conquering it.

The Boltons might have lost their independence gradually, over a longer period of time.

And thereafter they might have risen in rebellion more than once, trying to regain their independence more than once. I mean, there is this talk about the Boltons wearing Stark skins and shit at a point when they nominally were only lords (we only learn that they once wore crowns in TWoIaF). There could have been periods in the North's history where there was only nominally a Stark kingdom up there any many (former royal) lords effectively were as independent as they were in more ancient times. Just take the late years of Edrick Snowbeard as an example. I could easily enough see the Lord Bolton of that period skinning some Stark princes with impunity (and even if the connivance of Brandon Ice Eyes who might have prefer to have some fewer uncles and granduncles).

I don't see a good reason for a causal link between the arrival of the Manderlys and the end of the fighting over the Stepstones. That should have been already over at that time.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yes, nice to see validation from a 2nd source, which I had missed, that the Wolf's Den definitely dates to pre-Andal times. That gives more credence to the overall timeline I've tried to construct. It also shows that Martin himself was working to a structured timeline, rather than just writing a bunch of contradictory backstories for ancient times.

We now know with some certainty that the Red Kings first knelt to Winterfell somewhere between 4000 and 2500 years ago. I place the start of the Andal migration at around 3000 years ago, with it continuing over the ensuing centuries. The Arryns probably conquered the Vale by around 2500 years ago or thereabouts. I can't recall how much time passed between the first early Andal raiders and the Arryn Conquest of the Vale. But I would imagine that at least a few centuries would have passed first.

 

the time that passed between they andals first invading the vale and then conquring it does not seem to have been whery long just look at this quote:

to several notable victories over the Andals, at one point smashing seven longships that had dared to land upon his shores and decorating the walls of Runestone with the heads of their captains and crews. His heirs carried on the fight after him, for the wars between the First Men and the Andals lasted for generations. RoycesNot all the lords and kings of the First Men were so foolish as to invite their conquerors into their halls and homes. Many chose to fight instead. Chief amongst these was the aforementioned Bronze King, Yorwyck VI of Runestone, who led the

The last of the Bronze Kings was Yorwyck's grandson, Robar II, who inherited Runestone from his sire less than a fortnight before his sixteenth nameday yet proved to be a warrior of such ferocity and cunning and charm that he almost succeeded in stemming the Andal tide.

since it is Yorwycks grandson that unites the First Men before being defeated by the First Arryn King Artos that really is only 3 generations now because the first part of they invasion was in the fingers this could ad 1 or 2 genarations before it spread to the lands of house Royce, but not much more. This is why it  probably only took they Andals about 100 years to conquer the Vale.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are hints in the books that there were multiple Bolton-Stark wars as well as multiple Bolton rebellions. And if we think about it there is also the chance that the Red Kings were defeated multiple times by the Starks before they finally agreed to give up their crowns. I mean, if you war with another kingdom you can defeat it without conquering it.

The Boltons might have lost their independence gradually, over a longer period of time.

And thereafter they might have risen in rebellion more than once, trying to regain their independence more than once. I mean, there is this talk about the Boltons wearing Stark skins and shit at a point when they nominally were only lords (we only learn that they once wore crowns in TWoIaF). There could have been periods in the North's history where there was only nominally a Stark kingdom up there any many (former royal) lords effectively were as independent as they were in more ancient times. Just take the late years of Edrick Snowbeard as an example. I could easily enough see the Lord Bolton of that period skinning some Stark princes with impunity (and even if the connivance of Brandon Ice Eyes who might have prefer to have some fewer uncles and granduncles).

I don't see a good reason for a causal link between the arrival of the Manderlys and the end of the fighting over the Stepstones. That should have been already over at that time.

Well, the nice thing about an 8000 year long history is that virtually every possible scenario would have existed over such a long time period. The same pretty much applies even if it was only a 6000, or 4000 year time period for that matter. That's a loooong time for dynasties to rise, fall, expand, shrink, strengthen, weaken and a whole host of various fluctuations in relative power to take place.

The point is, though, that the WOIAF is quite clear. The last independent petty kings in the North were the Red Kings. And they submitted to the Starks at the very start of the Andal migration to Westeros. This was not their first defeat. The Starks defeated  them many times before, just like they had defeated the Starks many times before - even burning Winterfell twice. But this defeat was the one that broke their independence, and forced them to become Stark vassals.

Although they rebelled against the Starks at various times again after that, these rebellions were all unsuccessful, as they did not regain their independence. I'm sure that their level of autonomy fluctuated greatly over the ensuing millennia, as you rightly point out. The relative strength of Stark Kings varied, with some barely able to secure their realm - such as Edrick Snowbeard - and others ruling with an iron fist. But the time of the Red Kings ended when the first Andal longships crossed the Narrow Sea. They never regained their royal status after that point, despite however many rebellions they launched.

As for the Manderly arrival. We know that the Rape of the Sisters happened 2000 years ago, and that the War Across the Water supposedly lasted for 1000 years. If the Rape was indeed the initiating event of that War, then its end would indeed have coincided with the Manderly arrival. And it gives a plausible reason for the abrupt end. So without any clear evidence linking the two events, it is nevertheless a very logical theory.

 

[direpupy]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I don't see a good reason for a causal link between the arrival of the Manderlys and the end of the fighting over the Stepstones. That should have been already over at that time.

 

I take it you mean the Three Sisters and not the Stepstones since that is what we where talking about.

That the fighting between the Starks and they Arryns ended around the time of the Manderly arrival is clear from this quote:

Held for centuries by a succession of houses (including the Greystarks, an offshoot of House Stark itself, as well as Flints, Slates, Longs, Holts, Lockes, and Ashwoods), the ancient fortress would be the focus of a succession of conflicts. During the wars between Winterfell and the Andal Kings of Mountain and Vale, the Old Falcon, Osgood Arryn, laid siege to the Wolf's Den. His son, King Oswin the Talon, captured it and put it to the torch. Later, it fell under attack from the pirate lords of the Three Sisters and slavers out of the Stepstones. It was not until some thousand years before the Conquest, when the fugitive Manderlys came to the North and swore their oaths at the Wolf's Den, that the problem of the defense of the White Knife—the river that provides access into the very heart of the North—was resolved with the creation of White Harbor.

This would have been the point where the Three Sisters lost ther strategic importance leading the Stark's to come to the conclusion in this quote:

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away."

So there is definetly a cause and effect between they end of the war and the arrival of the Manderly's.

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Although they rebelled against the Starks at various times again after that, these rebellions were all unsuccessful, as they did not regain their independence. I'm sure that their level of autonomy fluctuated greatly over the ensuing millennia, as you rightly point out. The relative strength of Stark Kings varied, with some barely able to secure their realm - such as Edrick Snowbeard - and others ruling with an iron fist. But the time of the Red Kings ended when the first Andal longships crossed the Narrow Sea. They never regained their royal status after that point, despite however many rebellions they launched.

Well, that's not clear entirely considering that we have no details on any of those, ultimately unsuccessful, rebellions. Real history saw rebels and secessionists set up independent domains within larger empires for quite some time before they were crushed. It is entirely possible that some of those rebelling Boltons set themselves up as kings and were even successful enough to hand down their crowns to their sons and grandsons before they were ultimately crushed.

38 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I take it you mean the Three Sisters and not the Stepstones since that is what we where talking about.

Sure, to much names beginning with 's' ;-).

38 minutes ago, direpupy said:

That the fighting between the Starks and they Arryns ended around the time of the Manderly arrival is clear from this quote:

Held for centuries by a succession of houses (including the Greystarks, an offshoot of House Stark itself, as well as Flints, Slates, Longs, Holts, Lockes, and Ashwoods), the ancient fortress would be the focus of a succession of conflicts. During the wars between Winterfell and the Andal Kings of Mountain and Vale, the Old Falcon, Osgood Arryn, laid siege to the Wolf's Den. His son, King Oswin the Talon, captured it and put it to the torch. Later, it fell under attack from the pirate lords of the Three Sisters and slavers out of the Stepstones. It was not until some thousand years before the Conquest, when the fugitive Manderlys came to the North and swore their oaths at the Wolf's Den, that the problem of the defense of the White Knife—the river that provides access into the very heart of the North—was resolved with the creation of White Harbor.

This would have been the point where the Three Sisters lost ther strategic importance leading the Stark's to come to the conclusion in this quote:

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away."

So there is definetly a cause and effect between they end of the war and the arrival of the Manderly's.

I meant a causal link. If the war between the Wolves and the Falcons still raged at that point then the arrival of the Manderly fleet could actually have been used in that war. Why shouldn't the Kings in the North have used the Manderly assets as well as those later provided by the city of White Harbor to establish a navy to permanently hold the Sisters?

Thus I think it more likely that the fighting over the islands ended a few decades before the Manderlys showed up, perhaps even a century before. Keep in mind that we don't have exact numbers here.

And we should also not see the war between the North and the Vale as some sort of all-out war but rather as simmering conflict that escalated over the years. The idea that anybody would really fought a war over a thousand years is ridiculous. The whole thing should be much more like the Hundred Years' War which also didn't last a century.

[direpupy]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And we should also not see the war between the North and the Vale as some sort of all-out war but rather as simmering conflict that escalated over the years. The idea that anybody would really fought a war over a thousand years is ridiculous. The whole thing should be much more like the Hundred Years' War which also didn't last a century.

It was not an all-out war we know this for sure actually from this quote from TWOIAF:

For a thousand years, Winterfell and the Eyrie contested for the rule of the Three Sisters. The Worthless War, some dubbed it. Time and time again the fighting seemed at an end, only to flare up once more a generation later.

So it is clear that there where long periods of peace in between the fighting.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant a causal link. If the war between the Wolves and the Falcons still raged at that point then the arrival of the Manderly fleet could actually have been used in that war. Why shouldn't the Kings in the North have used the Manderly assets as well as those later provided by the city of White Harbor to establish a navy to permanently hold the Sisters?

Thus I think it more likely that the fighting over the islands ended a few decades before the Manderlys showed up, perhaps even a century before. Keep in mind that we don't have exact numbers here.

Well that actually depends on the shape of the Manderly navy, and at the time the North had a navy how else could contest the Vale over the Three Sisters if they did not have a navy, and i honestly don't see how having a few extra ships would make a differns.

No to me it is quite clear that they arrival of the Manderly's and them using there people and wealth to build White Harbor changed the strategic situation and that the loss of there strategic importance is the cause of the North giving up any claim to the Three Sisters. Whith White Harbor in place the Three Sisters had become worthless pieces of rock not worth fighting over.

I think that change of strategic importance can be clearly seen in these two quote's one of which i already gave in a  earlier post:

These depredations finally led the Kings of Winter to send their own war fleets to seek dominion over the Sisters—for whoever holds the Three Sisters holds the Bite.

"This was not a case of the Eyrie winning so much as Winterfell losing interest," Archmaester Perestan observes in A Consideration of History. "For ten long centuries the direwolf and the falcon had fought and bled over three rocks, until one day the wolf awoke as from a dream and realized it was only stone between his teeth, whence he spat it out and walked away."

This change in strategic importance has to be caused by something and they only significant event taking place in the bite that could cause this is they arrival of the Manderly's and the building of White Harbor.

 

[Lord Varys]

Well, it is just that the impression I get from TWoIaF is that the Starks pretty much realized that the Three Sisters simply weren't worth the trouble, possibly because they stripped the islands of all valuables in the last centuries.

If the arrival of the Manderlys had anything to do with that it wouldn't be all that likely Yandel had written that rather poignant line about the wolf suddenly awaking for his dream and walking away. Rather he would have recounted how the arrival of the Manderlys had changed the political landscape in the North and the priorities of the Starks.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is just that the impression I get from TWoIaF is that the Starks pretty much realized that the Three Sisters simply weren't worth the trouble, possibly because they stripped the islands of all valuables in the last centuries.

If the arrival of the Manderlys had anything to do with that it wouldn't be all that likely Yandel had written that rather poignant line about the wolf suddenly awaking for his dream and walking away. Rather he would have recounted how the arrival of the Manderlys had changed the political landscape in the North and the priorities of the Starks.

And it took them a 1000 years to realize this? Come on even you can't really believe that, and even if they stripped the island of its valuable's that does not take 1000 years so if that was the reason it would have been over after probably just 2 years.

As to Yandel he tends to avoid political and strategic explanations when talking about anything before the conquest by the Targaryens only giving rough information at best and covering the rest with lines such as the one where talking about.

so really the line fits perfectly and to my mind the arrival of house Manderly is they only plousible explanation we have so far.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, direpupy said:

And it took them a 1000 years to realize this? Come on even you can't really believe that, and even if they stripped the island of its valuable's that does not take 1000 years so if that was the reason it would have been over after probably just 2 years.

As to Yandel he tends to avoid political and strategic explanations when talking about anything before the conquest by the Targaryens only giving rough information at best and covering the rest with lines such as the one where talking about.

so really the line fits perfectly and to my mind the arrival of house Manderly is they only plousible explanation we have so far.

Well, considering that many Kings in the North were involved in that war one could easily enough imagine some king just rubbing his eyes and asking himself what exactly he is fighting about there. That's not difficult to imagine at all.

And one assumes that the Sisters became less and less important over the years than actually avenging one own's honor and dead due to some 'unprovoked' invasion of the enemy's forces. Sisters were the official reason of the war but this would all have been accompanied by Vale invasions in the North and Northern invasions in the Vale.

[direpupy]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, considering that many Kings in the North were involved in that war one could easily enough imagine some king just rubbing his eyes and asking himself what exactly he is fighting about there. That's not difficult to imagine at all.

And one assumes that the Sisters became less and less important over the years than actually avenging one own's honor and dead due to some 'unprovoked' invasion of the enemy's forces. Sisters were the official reason of the war but this would all have been accompanied by Vale invasions in the North and Northern invasions in the Vale.

Again you really think that it takes a 1000 years before a Stark king comes along to have that epifany? Come on thats in no way believable and you know it.

As to avenging wrongs yes that would most certainly have been a factor, but its also something that can be resolved in peacetalks. Suddenly walking away after a 1000 years can only be explained by a shift in the political and strategic situation, and for now they arrival of the Manderly's is they only thing that ticks those boxes.

And even you can't deny that i have given quote's that give strong backing to this idea.