What would have the kings of winter thought of Ned

[oakenhelm]

Soft Ned? The same guy that got the Lannisters to back off the Iron Throne with the stern glare? That's Chuck Norris stuff :drunk:

[Ser Hippie]

But seriously, how did Ned bring ruin to the Starks?

Because he helped bring about the de facto Lannister coup in King's Landing and failed in his duties as a friend and Hand to Robert, thus leading to a ruinous war that devastated his house and many others?

And how was he choosing Cersei's kids over his?

I never said that he did, I said he chose to protect three children that were the product of incest (and Cersei) at great risk to himself and his household in King's Landing. That doesn't strike me as something the "hard" Kings of Winter would agree with.

Ned made all the necessary arrangements to spirit his daughters out of King's Landing so that he could proceed with righting the wrongs of the Lannisters. Had Sansa not run to Cersei, at worst, Ned gets killed.

It's not just the mess he made in King's Landing, it's the escalation that led to a full-out war where the Stark cause was led by an inexperienced Robb, whose own mistakes (along with others) lead to thousands of deaths. Sansa running to Cersei wouldn't have mattered if Ned were willing to get his hands dirty (like an older Stark probably would have) and done any of a number of things differently - not going out of his way to save Cersei/her children, taking up LF or Renly's offers, etc.

The topic of the thread is what the kings of winter would have thought of Ned. He did well as a Lord of Winterfell, but his kindness/mercy he shows and his refusal to play at all dirty until the very very end (when he finally agrees to pay off the gold cloaks) demonstrate a softness that the previous Starks probably would not have approved of. Again, the old kings did things like wipe out a cadet branch of their own house and string up slavers as blood sacrifices.

[Howling Mad]

Eddard Stark battle leader of Robert's Rebellion at the age of c. 17. Defeated the best knight of the realm at the TOJ (details to be revealed). Crushed the Greyjoy rebellion. Plans to resettle the gift. Safe to say the old Kings of Winter would have liked Ned.

Alas, Ned left us all way too soon.

[MagnusPrime]

Yeah compared to the old “Kings of Winter” the Ned was a softie. They would have probably offered up cersie to the heart tree upon finding out the incest. Not all were extremely hard men but they did know that when shit had to be done you don't hesitate to do it.

Ned could have done so many things differently that would garner him favor in the eyes of his ancestors but at his core he was not that man.

I was sitting and thinking about something. Remember whne bran was watching past events through the weir tree network and saw the naked pregnant woman praying before the heart tree in winterfell? She was wishing for vengeance upon someone who wronged her and that her child would see to it. well remember the story ygritte told Jon about. How the king beyond the wall in the past stole down to winterfell posing as a singer, was given a reward of his choosing, yet used clever word play to conceal his real intentions and stole and impregnated the king's only daughter and heir.

What if the story ygritte told was the romanticized version. What if he only spent one night with her but all the same she ended up pregnant. A stark kings daughter impregnated by a mere wildling would be an affront and would be an act worthy of vengeance especially if the girl was forced and her name sullied in the eyes of the north.

[MagnarMerlinhaus]

Well the problem is, is that each king was probably different but even in most general terms the kings of winter seem to be sorta like stannis stern, gruff, good to there own people, but if you wrong them there going to destroy your house from the roots. So take what you will from that haha

[The Fallen]

Because he helped bring about the de facto Lannister coup in King's Landing and failed in his duties as a friend and Hand to Robert, thus leading to a ruinous war that devastated his house and many others?

He wasn't Hand long enough to have failed Robert. If anything Robert failed him.

I never said that he did, I said he chose to protect three children that were the product of incest (and Cersei) at great risk to himself and his household in King's Landing. That doesn't strike me as something the "hard" Kings of Winter would agree with.

Ned wasn't at war with the children. What does it matter that they are the product of incest. Again, Ned made all the necessary plans to minimize the risk down to himself and his guards. He was undone by his own daughter. It put him in a position where he had to sacrifice his life for hers. Ned had principles. Since when is that a bad thing?

It's not just the mess he made in King's Landing, it's the escalation that led to a full-out war where the Stark cause was led by an inexperienced Robb, whose own mistakes (along with others) lead to thousands of deaths. Sansa running to Cersei wouldn't have mattered if Ned were willing to get his hands dirty (like an older Stark probably would have) and done any of a number of things differently - not going out of his way to save Cersei/her children, taking up LF or Renly's offers, etc.

Ned hardly escalated what eventually became the War of the Five Kings. The Lannisters did that when they chopped off Ned's head. Was Ned supposed to kill the children? Again, what do the children have to do with it? Should he have agreed to assasinate Dany also? If Sansa doesn't disclose his plans, they escape King's Landing and then if Ned is captured he doesn't have to agree to treason. Which means he has to be given a trial. Do you see how the whole situation changes?

The topic of the thread is what the kings of winter would have thought of Ned. He did well as a Lord of Winterfell, but his kindness/mercy he shows and his refusal to play at all dirty until the very very end (when he finally agrees to pay off the gold cloaks) demonstrate a softness that the previous Starks probably would not have approved of. Again, the old kings did things like wipe out a cadet branch of their own house and string up slavers as blood sacrifices.

The Kings of Winter never ventured out of the North. Other than Bran the Builder, which one of them has a better resume than Ned. He did what they did, control the North, plus he ventured south to end a 300 year old dynasty to avenge his Lord father, brother and sister. The one blip was an act by his young, naive daughter. And what you call 'softness' I call 'principles'.

Edited for grammar.

[Ser Hippie]

He wasn't Hand long enough to have failed Robert. If anything Robert failed him.

Ned has evidence that the Queen and a member of the Kingsguard are committing treason and incest and his only move at first is to tell Cersei and hope the Westerosi equivalent of the legal system will frighten Cersei away. Yes, Robert is a terrible king, but that doesn't mean Ned didn't fail either.

Ned wasn't at war with the children. What does it matter that they are the product of incest. Again, Ned made all the necessary plans to minimize the risk down to himself and his guards. He was undone by his own daughter. It put him in a position where he had to sacrifice his life for hers. Ned had principles. Since when is that a bad thing?

I'm not sure why you argue this point (and below). The topic is about what the Kings of Winter would think of it, not what we do. I admire Ned for his principles, although I think he made some terrible mistakes because of them. That being said, the Kings of Winter are described as harsh and cruel at times and likely wouldn't appreciate his kindness and mercy.

Ned hardly escalated what eventually became the War of the Five Kings. The Lannisters did that when they chopped off Ned's head. Was Ned supposed to kill the children? Again, what do the children have to do with it? Should he have agreed to assasinate Dany also? If Sansa doesn't disclose his plans, they escape King's Landing and then if Ned is captured he doesn't have to agree to treason. Which means he has to be given a trial. Do you see how the whole situation changes?

Sansa told Cersei some of the specifics, yes, but Ned could have done many things too considering he's a lord with years of political and military experience while Sansa's an eleven year old girl.

That being said, I'll reiterate it again. The question posed is what the Kings of Winter would have thought. Do you really think the kind of men who wiped out the Greystarks would think highly of showing mercy to a treasonous queen and her incestuous offspring? I'm not making a moral judgement of my own, I'm arguing that I think the kings of winter would have seen that as an unacceptably weak act.

The Kings of Winter never ventured out of the North. Other than Bran the Builder, which one of them has a better resume than Ned. He did what they did, control the North, plus he ventured south to end a 300 year old dynasty to avenge his Lord father, brother and sister.

Which is why I said they'd largely think well of his performance as Lord of Winterfell.

The one blip was an act by his young, naive daughter.

And telling Cersei what he knew. And refusing to play dirty despite growing evidence he wasn't going to be unopposed and that the Lannisters were up to no good (not just in King's Landing but with Tywin mobilizing in response to Tyrion's capture). And (apparently) not making sure his daughters were kept in their quarters/not just sending them home without telling them. Ned was a great man, but his failings in King's Landing go well beyond "Sansa went to Cersei behind his back".

And what you call 'softness' I call 'principles'.

Uh yeah. Again, we're talking about what the old Starks, who participated in blood sacrifices and strung up slavers' entrails and wiped out the Greystarks would have thought, and I think principles that undermine yourself and your house to show mercy to the likes of Cersei wouldn't be something they'd approve of.

Nothing you've said really relates to what the kings of winter/historical Starks would have thought of Ned and in fact suggest you recognize that Ned's principles/mercy/kindness are not the coldblooded actions that might be expected of a previous Lord of Winterfell.

[The Fallen]

Ned has evidence that the Queen and a member of the Kingsguard are committing treason and incest and his only move at first is to tell Cersei and hope the Westerosi equivalent of the legal system will frighten Cersei away. Yes, Robert is a terrible king, but that doesn't mean Ned didn't fail either.

I'm not sure why you argue this point (and below). The topic is about what the Kings of Winter would think of it, not what we do. I admire Ned for his principles, although I think he made some terrible mistakes because of them. That being said, the Kings of Winter are described as harsh and cruel at times and likely wouldn't appreciate his kindness and mercy.

Sansa told Cersei some of the specifics, yes, but Ned could have done many things too considering he's a lord with years of political and military experience while Sansa's an eleven year old girl.

That being said, I'll reiterate it again. The question posed is what the Kings of Winter would have thought. Do you really think the kind of men who wiped out the Greystarks would think highly of showing mercy to a treasonous queen and her incestuous offspring? I'm not making a moral judgement of my own, I'm arguing that I think the kings of winter would have seen that as an unacceptably weak act.

Which is why I said they'd largely think well of his performance as Lord of Winterfell.

And telling Cersei what he knew. And refusing to play dirty despite growing evidence he wasn't going to be unopposed and that the Lannisters were up to no good (not just in King's Landing but with Tywin mobilizing in response to Tyrion's capture). And (apparently) not making sure his daughters were kept in their quarters/not just sending them home without telling them. Ned was a great man, but his failings in King's Landing go well beyond "Sansa went to Cersei behind his back".

Uh yeah. Again, we're talking about what the old Starks, who participated in blood sacrifices and strung up slavers' entrails and wiped out the Greystarks would have thought, and I think principles that undermine yourself and your house to show mercy to the likes of Cersei wouldn't be something they'd approve of.

Nothing you've said really relates to what the kings of winter/historical Starks would have thought of Ned and in fact suggest you recognize that Ned's principles/mercy/kindness are not the coldblooded actions that might be expected of a previous Lord of Winterfell.

Ned is described by everyone as being cold. He dealt with the North in the same manners as the old Kings. When he found out what Jorah Mormont had done, he went to serve him justice. He executed a Night's Watch deserter. No one dared to cross Lord Eddard Stark. If you want to bring it back to the King of Winter then you can't rest your case on what happened at King's Landing. Ned wasn't King, he was there as a favor to his friend. Because of that he was hampered in what he could do. Ultimately, it wasn't Ned's issue to deal with. Unfortunately, King Bob did what he does best. Leave it for someone else to clean up his mess. Had the circumstances been different, the steely, cold Ned would've handed down justice, but still let the children live.

[Ser Hippie]

And your point?

I've said explicitly that the kings of winter would have approved of Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell. My point is that the mercy he showed Cersei and her children, and his general actions as Hand, probably wouldn't have been approved of, as the ancient Starks have done some pretty brutal things in the name of their house/putting down rebels.

And it definitely was Ned's duty as Hand. Robert was a terrible king, but by accepting the position, Ned also accepted the responsibility of being the de facto ruler when Robert was away. Certainly, Ned himself would have said it was his responsibility, it's just he decided to be merciful and warn Cersei to try to get her to leave and avoid bloodshed.

That may have been the moral decision (I certainly respect his motivations, though I think it was a mistake from a practical standpoint), but I don't think it's one a historical Stark would have made.

[The Fallen]

We obviously see things differently. Your point is that Ned would be viewed as soft. I disagree. Was Torrhen soft? How would the Kings view him? How would Torrhen himself view Ned? This is the same guy that avenged the murder of his father and brother.

Your argument is based on what happened at King's Landing, yet when I present evidence against your argument you claim that it's irrelevant. I don't believe that Ned put his House in danger. Why would he suspect that his dutiful, ladylike and timid daughter would betray his trust? I obviously view that as the biggest reason House Stark was put in danger. The enemy had his daughter and it put the Starks in a bad position. Also, how was Ned supposed to take out the Lannisters when he didn't have a large enough force in KL? Ned's only option would've been to leave King's Landing and call his banners. But then he lets down his friend, something that you deem important. For all the talk of what the King of Winter would have done, I don't see how they could've fared any better under the same circumstances and at the same time not let down Robert. The Kings of Winter stayed in their power zone where they could unleash the full strength of the North against rebels. Ned just happened to be out of his.

[Ser Hippie]

Torrhen was facing three dragons and chose to spare the lives of his own men and family because he knew the battle was hopeless after seeing what happened on the Field of Fire (maybe he would have been viewed as soft too, but how they'd have viewed Torrhen is not relevant to the topic). And, again, I'm clearly delineating a difference between how they'd view his performance in general as Lord of Winterfell (good) and his conduct in KL (generally bad).

I honestly don't know how to respond to your argument that Sansa is why the Starks were undermined in King's Landing when Ned repeatedly undermines his own cause as well. And it's not that the Kings of Winter would have been masterful players of the game, it's that they would have seen Ned's motivations as questionable because they put his own principles (or, seen less charitably, desire to avoid getting his hands dirty) above the pragmatic needs of his house. He did this at several points (warning Cersei, rejecting Renly's plan, rejecting LF's initial plan) and only reluctantly accepted the necessity of playing the game at the very end. Certainly, the kinds of Starks who wiped out the Greystarks would have wondered why Ned was so concerned about three incest-produced children.

Whether the other Starks would have been more successful is irrelevant.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Most likely "What a soft-hearted loser". Most of them were harsh men. Screwing over your family and House to help 3 kids who were born of incest and their parents were Ned's enemies, is not something they'd approve.

Pretty much this. The Kings Of Winter probably would have hung the three kids next to their parents so the entire city could see that, strangely, they do look alike.

[Caelestis]

Pretty much this. The Kings Of Winter probably would have hung the three kids next to their parents so the entire city could see that, strangely, they do look alike.

Correction: the Kings of Winter would've chopped off their heads personally with Ice and then put them on stakes for all of King's Landing to see. :)

I generally agree that, while the Kings of Winter would've probably approved of Eddard's conduct as Lord of Winterfell (including the rebellion against Aerys), they would've found his honour in the matter of the incest unbelievably stupid. Unless he had more men to depose the Lannisters directly and secure the Iron Throne for himself as Lord Regent, there would've been no way that any of the Kings of Winter would've told Cersei or try to spare Joffrey, Myrcella or Tommen (cruel as that may seem to the latter two).

Under the circumstances, if the Kings of Winter had been in Ned's position, they wouldn't have told Cersei anything when they figured out the truth, grabbed her and her children in the middle of the night and if Robert died, executed them all and proclaimed his regency in preparation of Stannis' rule without a doubt.

[Defengar]

They would probably think he was a softie who deviated to much from the old ways.

Its like asking what Teddy Roosevelt would think of Mitt Romney...

[The Fallen]

I'd be interested in knowing where you guys are getting all these facts about how brutal the Kings in the North used to be. I've heard of what happened to the Greystarks, but was that an isolated incident or was that the norm? And if it was the norm, please let me know where I can read about it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I'd be interested in knowing where you guys are getting all these facts about how brutal the Kings in the North used to be. I've heard of what happened to the Greystarks, but was that an isolated incident or was that the norm? And if it was the norm, please let me know where I can read about it.

Greystarks, slavers in the Wolfs Den, the Seventy-seven Sentinels (admittedly, that wasn't a Stark but another Northern Lord), the Rape of the Sisters...

[ARYa_Nym]

Theon the Hungry Wolf was always at war but we don't know if that was within the North or if he was constantly warring with other kingdoms. They also conquered the previously independent kingdom the Neck and forced it to join by killing the Marsh King and marrying his daughter.

Force was most likely also used to get the Skagosi to join. They rebelled relatively recently so they may be like Boltons and have never necessarily liked being under Stark control.

They may not have dealt with AGoT but the Boltons are capable of being cunning enemies. Ramsay may be an outlier. Roose and Domeric are/were intelligent although Domeric seemed to be a good person. The Boltons have flayed Starks before. I believe that they were less forgiving and compassionate with enemies.

Maester Luwin said that they were harsh men and Bran said that some of them had done terrible things.

Brandon the Shipwright did leave the North but he didn't go to the other kingdoms. He never returned so his son burned up a perfectly good fleet.

Who knows what Brandon the Bad and Benjen the Bitter did to earn their names. There's also the Night's King but that one was way worse than usual and gave up human sacrifices to the wrong ones.

[The Storm Queen]

I don't think this question could be answered at this point, given the lack of information we have on the old Kings of Winter. However, with the large number of kings who presided over the North for 8000-ish years, I'd guess it impossible they'd all come to agree on one conclusion. Different times breed different men. They might resent him for no other reason than he's the descendant of kneelers who gave up their domain, they might love him for his honour and the way he tried to do what was right. I think we can all agree they'd hate Cat.

Yep they surely would hate Cat, the devout wife and mother, who received harsh wounds in her attempt to save Bran and who also desperatly attempted to save her oldest and heir without regard for her own life. What a frivolous bitch!

[Neo]

What the Winter of thoughts a Kings have the.

[The Fallen]

Theon the Hungry Wolf was always at war but we don't know if that was within the North or if he was constantly warring with other kingdoms. They also conquered the previously independent kingdom the Neck and forced it to join by killing the Marsh King and marrying his daughter.

Force was most likely also used to get the Skagosi to join. They rebelled relatively recently so they may be like Boltons and have never necessarily liked being under Stark control.

They may not have dealt with AGoT but the Boltons are capable of being cunning enemies. Ramsay may be an outlier. Roose and Domeric are/were intelligent although Domeric seemed to be a good person. The Boltons have flayed Starks before. I believe that they were less forgiving and compassionate with enemies.

Maester Luwin said that they were harsh men and Bran said that some of them had done terrible things.

Brandon the Shipwright did leave the North but he didn't go to the other kingdoms. He never returned so his son burned up a perfectly good fleet.

Who knows what Brandon the Bad and Benjen the Bitter did to earn their names. There's also the Night's King but that one was way worse than usual and gave up human sacrifices to the wrong ones.

Are these in a specific book or scattered around several books? I remember Bran in the crypt talking about a slew of Starks. I'm currently rereading the series and I'm on ACoK currently. I do remember the Wolf's Den, but not the Rape of the Sisters.