Deconstructing the myth about Northern honor

[TheNinjaDC]

The reason the North has more perceived "honor" deals with where they live, and the ruling style of the Starks.

The North is harsh to live in. Stannis's men make this fact obviously clear. Under these harsh conditions Southern politics are outright sucidal. If kingslanding like backstabing for political gain existed in the North, you'd soon have dozens individual factions that would starve to death in 2-3 winters.

You all need to work together as a family of sorts because, Winter is Coming. The Stark's ruling style is built around wolf pack mentality.

I also see Northern honor values are different from Southern, in that Southern is more focused for tradition and duty, while northern honor is more practical and towards a greater good(survival in harsh times).

[Lee-Sensei]

The idea that it's a myth is belied by the unnaturally strong bond of loyalty so many families (really all but the Boltons and stray individuals in other families) feel for the Starks. If the Starks were cruel tyrants, or no better than anybody else, why such intense loyalty? "Oh, they gave them lands thousands of years ago." That isn't enough to explain it. It's clearly something stronger than just a sense of debt. The Starks are honorable and the protectors of honor. "When a Stark was in Winterfell, a maid could walk safe..."

And I know you referred to The North, but your post specifically went after the Starks and said Ned was a freak. The text strongly implies otherwise.

Tywin Lannisters bannermen were loyal too. :cool4:

[ArgilactheArrogant]

One quote that might help inform this debate comes from Chapter 53 (Jon) in ADWD. It is about the perception of the Mountain Clans towards the Starks and their rule throughout the years:

“Aye, and why not?” Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. “Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it.”

“None but them whose sires displeased the Kings o’ Winter,” said The Norrey. “Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me, boy … if these wildling friends o’ yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs be done?”

I think this particular quote might provide fodder for those arguing either side of the argument. Certainly the implication is that certain Stark Lords (or Kings of Winter, depending upon how far you think the discussion between Flint and Norrey applies to) did take sons of bannermen as hostages and executed those hostages if their fathers displeased the Starks. That might not be dishonorable, per se, but it is certainly hard and cruel.

But in looking at the quote, especially the part from Flint, my reading of his words make them sound almost nostalgic, rather than hostile or upset at the recollection of a time when he or his forefathers were wronged by the Starks. So I agree with MyaStoned and Ser Marlo's assessments, for the most part, and I think this quote is a small piece of confirmation that the Starks endeared themselves to their bannermen over the millennia in a way that does not seem common for other lords paramount (with the possible exception of the Arryns, who seem to also inspire significant loyalty among the Lords Declarant...split Vale loyalties at the start of Robert's Rebellion notwithstanding).

Now, the method by which the Starks managed to endear themselves to their bannermen over the millennia may not have been through being far more honorable than Southron lords, as Mladen's original post notes. But I think there was something--fair treatment or sustained protection or crafty political alliances or low taxes/a hands-off approach to rule--that served to cement strong bonds of affection between the bannermen and the Starks.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I think the text implies the Starks were both honorable and harsh and strategic, just not KL like backstabbing strategy. Even current generation Ned had shown some strategic thinking especially in military matters (and befriending his bannermen) and Stannis too. Jon, another honorable Stark also. Coldness can also be found in these three.

That honor and the honor of Ned is not in all things similiar. Ned is more modern, merciful towards children and his experiences in the rebellion with the death of his family members finding Jon might had something to do with it.

Bassically just because Ned cares extraordinarilly for honor among Starks and lords does not mean that the Starks were not honorable and personify justice enough to endear themselves to generations and generations of the north and come to personify with it. They might had been harsher, and more pragmatic but if they were a bunch of Roose Bolton, or Cersei they would not have lasted that much (Indeed if they were like the Boltons they might had been replaced by well the Boltons). The north has plenty of problems but a Stark in Winterfell was a help for most. That is what I get from things like maiden safety and other parts of the text. Enough amounts of justice, honor, coldness and strategic thinking that is focused on the different type of northern politics over a long period of years to be effective. And earn greatly the loyalty of houses such as Manderly for the prottection and acceptance they bestowed upon them and allowed this fleeing southern house with different Gods, to flourish in the north.

[Lee-Sensei]

Argilac the Arrogant brings up a good point. The North is culturally different from the other regions. Perhaps they inspired loyalty by being hard, cold and ruthless. Look at the Greatjon. Most people would be angry about Robb's direwolf biting off two of theirs fingers, but instead he made a joke and became Robb's most loyal bannerman. I think it's down to cultural differences. Just like in the Iron Islands it was considered honorable for Victarion to kill his salt wife after his brother raped her. I still believe that Ned being a nice guy comes from his time being raise by Jon "High as Honor" Arryn though.

[A Bastard Snow]

Loyalty in the north comes from the fact that they had to rely on each other (The Starks are considered a polarizing factor) to fight against threats such as Free-Folk Ironborn Slavers and generally bad people.If you have one house that for over 8000 years has been dedicated to protecting the north (Yes there have been some bad starks but overall most are well respected and loved as is evidence that most Northern boys are named after a Stark).Not to mention that after Ramsey marries the fake arya Lady Dustin is worried about her crying as the lords who joined the Bolton's can hear that and as such are starting to lose any "loyalty" they have to Roose

The only forces Roose has that are loyal are his own as the Frey's will haul ass back to the Twins if they start to lose the battle.

[MyaStoned]

Argilac the Arrogant brings up a good point. The North is culturally different from the other regions. Perhaps they inspired loyalty by being hard, cold and ruthless. Look at the Greatjon. Most people would be angry about Robb's direwolf biting off two of theirs fingers, but instead he made a joke and became Robb's most loyal bannerman. I think it's down to cultural differences. Just like in the Iron Islands it was considered honorable for Victarion to kill his salt wife after his brother raped her. I still believe that Ned being a nice guy comes from his time being raise by Jon "High as Honor" Arryn though.

Argilac's post was great, and the most important thing to remember is that ruthless =/= or even imply treacherous or evil. And really only treachery and evil are truly dishonorable in this story. Treachery and outright wanton brutality, such as what Ramsey or Gregor Clegane or even Tywin do. The Starks are seen as stern but noble and trustworthy father figures, as a family.

I left out of one of my earlier posts (deleted it afterward) that the North is a different region with different needs and different values. That is a fact. The Starks are the perfect and really the only leaders for the North, and the whole North (except for the idiotic Boltons, who are doomed) recognizes as much.

[A Bastard Snow]

The main reason I like the Starks is the Old Ways

"The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword"

The fact that they don't use a proxy to kill someone and instead do it themselves means that they take the responsibility to take that persons life.

[Lee-Sensei]

Argilac's post was great, and the most important thing to remember is that ruthless =/= or even imply treacherous or evil. And really only treachery and evil are truly dishonorable in this story. Treachery and outright wanton brutality, such as what Ramsey or Gregor Clegane or even Tywin do. The Starks are seen as stern but noble and trustworthy father figures, as a family.

I left out of one of my earlier posts (deleted it afterward) that the North is a different region with different needs and different values. That is a fact. The Starks are the perfect and really the only leaders for the North, and the whole North (except for the idiotic Boltons, who are doomed) recognizes as much.

I'd say that ruthless implies evil. Tywin Lannister was ruthless.

[Lee-Sensei]

A King of the North also Castamere'd the Greystarks.

[A Bastard Snow]

Tywin was more cold and calculating then ruthless.If he was ruthless he would have had Sansa murdered and sent men to kill Jon on the Wall.He just does whatever it takes so that no one will ever mock him or his family.

[MyaStoned]

I'd say that ruthless implies evil. Tywin Lannister was ruthless.

Ruthless does not imply evil. Stannis is ruthless but imo not evil. Tywin was not merely ruthless he was wantonly cruel. He was unjust and hypocritical. He was cruel and ruthless in a way that you could not trust - there was no rhyme or reason to it, unless maybe to keep Lannisters in power (for their sake, not for the sake of those over whom they ruled). The Starks seem quite different.

[MyaStoned]

Ruthless does not imply evil. Stannis is ruthless but imo not evil. Tywin was not merely ruthless he was wantonly cruel. He was unjust and hypocritical. He was cruel and ruthless in a way that you could not trust - there was no rhyme or reason to it, unless maybe to keep Lannisters in power (for their sake, not for the sake of those over whom they ruled). The Starks seem quite different.

For example consider Jorah. He hates Ned but he knew the law, understood it as just, knew he was breaking it, and fled. His family knew him justly punished, even if Jorah was afterwards bitter about it. Now consider the Casterly Rock servant girl who had a kid by Robert whom Cersei sold into slavery, and how she must have felt. There's your difference.

[Lee-Sensei]

Ruthless does not imply evil. Stannis is ruthless but imo not evil. Tywin was not merely ruthless he was wantonly cruel. He was unjust and hypocritical. He was cruel and ruthless in a way that you could not trust - there was no rhyme or reason to it, unless maybe to keep Lannisters in power (for their sake, not for the sake of those over whom they ruled). The Starks seem quite different.

I don't know about that. Stannis is one of my favorite characters, but an argument can be made that he's evil. You say that as if someone who's ruthless can't be unjust and cruel. There was definitely reason for it. The modern Starks? Sure. The old Starks? Not necessarily.

Tywin was more cold and calculating then ruthless.If he was ruthless he would have had Sansa murdered and sent men to kill Jon on the Wall.He just does whatever it takes so that no one will ever mock him or his family.

You say that as if he can't be both.

For example consider Jorah. He hates Ned but he knew the law, understood it as just, knew he was breaking it, and fled. His family knew him justly punished, even if Jorah was afterwards bitter about it. Now consider the Casterly Rock servant girl who had a kid by Robert whom Cersei sold into slavery, and how she must have felt. There's your difference.

Ned's more Arryn then Stark IMO.

[MyaStoned]

Ned's more Arryn then Stark IMO.

There is no textual basis for that opinion.

[The Golden Wolf]

Nice posting Mladen I always enjoy reading your essays. On the subject of Northern honor I am going to have to say that while they are not inherently more honorable than their southern brethren I will say that they do believe in keeping to their oaths. The North is a cold hard place that gets only colder and harder in the winter. To survive this they had to be able to trust that in the very least others would stick to their oaths.

Have there been those who broke those oaths? Yes, and they got put in their rightful place. As has been pointed out the Starks have demanded wards to ensure loyalty and have beheaded those whose fathers would not fall in line. This does not mean they were cruel and dishonorable it means they were going through with the consequences they set down.

Oaths are very important and we have seen that the Starks and the North in general hold to them even when there is nothing to be gained. The Princess and the Queen is a good example. The North stayed true to their Oaths and backed the Princess while all those other southern houses flipped sides when made sweet deals. They fought hard for the Blacks side and eventually their side prevailed.

The Starks and the North have held true to their oaths more than any other kingdom. Honor is for knights oaths are for men.

[Lee-Sensei]

There is no textual basis for that opinion.

I don't know. He seems to lack the "wolfsblood". Honor is the hat of House Arryn and Jon Arryn, who raised him at the Eyrie. I think their is reason to believe that Ned took after him.

[Mladen]

No he's not. Bran is 10 at that time.

That would be the show Bran. The book Bran is 6/7 at the beginning of the series.

The way to tell how they ruled - whether mostly by fear or not - is to judge how they are talked of and how people act after they are basically wiped out. It's clear, by that judgment, that the Starks are nothing like the Lannisters. Nothing like what's being done for and said on behalf of the Starks would ever happen among gformer Lannister bannermen.

Plainly wrong. Starks have committed the wipe out of the Greystarks, which is basically the same as what Tywin did to Reynes and Tarbecks. So, you can't argue something that is clearly contradicting the text itself.

Jorah the disgraced slaver whom even his own father disowns and is ashamed of. Bolton the traitor from a family of evil traitors whom the whoe North fears and hates (there's your TRUE 'ruling with fear'). Those are very specific specifics, you CAN generalize an entire region when something generally prevails there.

What part of it "doesn't generally prevail" haven't you understood? If you, for a second, consider that Stark KIngs, who ruled over 8000 years, were a line of the most honorable people in the world, you are being breathtakingly naive. Not even naive, delusional is better word to say. The problem with your generalization is that it has not been confirmed by anything in the text, while my claim has rather vocal support in Ned Stark himself who distinguish himself from the rest of the bunch, and who apparently is not some great fan of his forefathers and their way of ruling.

Alas yes one does not rule a region for so long without back stabbing and spilling a whole lot of blood.

I guess it's just one of those things that the fans take as fact same as the targs being fire proof and all those other myths.

True... Given that they have many rebellions with Boltons, Skagosi, then attacks from outside with wars every generation or two, it is simple clear that Starks couldn't have stayed for so long without being harsh and yes, dishonorable every once and a while. But you also nailed it with Targaryen fireproof. Some people simply hold to the myths even though they haven't be corroborated by the text.

They did, not as long as the Starks nor over near as large a kingdom, but yes they have ruled the Westerlands for a while. We don't know much of anything about the Lannisters pre-Tytos though. By your own logic we can make no assumptions about these older Lannisters.

The difference being that Tywin's cruelties and dishonorable actions are hurting his house in the long run. While the Stark's past generosity and good reputation still inspire loyalty and respect from most both within and outside their lands. Being the leaders of a gigantic kingdom for multiple millennia is about the long game. Not immediate gains and losses.

Even the daughter of the lord Robb executed went to the only "Stark" she knew of for protection from a forced marriage.

Not just for some time. Lannisters are arguably one of the oldest ruling Houses in Westeros, and given that Lan the clever is the figure from the Age of Heroes, one has to conclude that House Lannister isn't (if at all) that younger than House Stark. Of course we can't make generalizations, which is the point of this thread. By acknowledging that there are versatile group of people who ruled the Kingdom at some point, you acknowledge that Houses's history. Just look at 17 Targaryen KIngs since the Conquest. On one side you have Aegon the Unlikely, Jaeherys the Concilliator and on another you have Aerys the Mad, Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy. Simply, not all rulers of one House are made by some mold.

Without any doubt, Starks do inspire loyalty all over the North. But, then, we should ask ourselves what would have happened if not every House of the North bled during the RW? If none of them would have been hurt by RW, and obviously they all are, what would be the reaction? It would be naive to think that they would all be lingering and plotting for the Stark return. Simply, Bolton's overtaking didn't hurt just Starks, it hurt entire region and that's why he can't count on their loyalty. If he would have targeted only Starks, then perhaps his seat now wouldn't be in danger.

Alys Karstark went to Jon, not because of his blood, but plainly because he was her only option, which is rather clear in the text.

You all need to work together as a family of sorts because, Winter is Coming. The Stark's ruling style is built around wolf pack mentality.

I also see Northern honor values are different from Southern, in that Southern is more focused for tradition and duty, while northern honor is more practical and towards a greater good(survival in harsh times).

This can be truth. But that also doesn't mean that by default Northerners are some role model for being honorable and that everyone born in North is as honorable as for instance, Ned. Southerners also have honor and even though it perhaps differs from Northern, it isn't less potent or less important. Look at the Vale lords and their care for SR, Riverlords and them honoring Starks and Tullys, we see Dornish people being loyal to the Martells, and some of the Stormlords, even after Blackwater debacle, still holding to Stannis. It is not like Starks have some sort of moral superiority over the Westeros, or even the Northerners have it over Southerners.

But in looking at the quote, especially the part from Flint, my reading of his words make them sound almost nostalgic, rather than hostile or upset at the recollection of a time when he or his forefathers were wronged by the Starks. So I agree with MyaStoned and Ser Marlo's assessments, for the most part, and I think this quote is a small piece of confirmation that the Starks endeared themselves to their bannermen over the millennia in a way that does not seem common for other lords paramount (with the possible exception of the Arryns, who seem to also inspire significant loyalty among the Lords Declarant...split Vale loyalties at the start of Robert's Rebellion notwithstanding).

Now, the method by which the Starks managed to endear themselves to their bannermen over the millennia may not have been through being far more honorable than Southron lords, as Mladen's original post notes. But I think there was something--fair treatment or sustained protection or crafty political alliances or low taxes/a hands-off approach to rule--that served to cement strong bonds of affection between the bannermen and the Starks.

The problem is that sometimes we don't differ loyalty from honor and this seems to be genuine case with yours, MyaStoned and Ser Marlo's assessment. The fact your bannermen are loyal to you doesn't mean you are honorable man (wonderfully shown by Rhaegar's, Renly's. Oberyn's, Tywin's examples) We even see Robb doing the dishonorable thing with the Freys and his lords, even though some of them certainly were dissatisfied that he was that reckless, stood by him. Loyalty sometimes doesn't have to include honor.

Bassically just because Ned cares extraordinarilly for honor among Starks and lords does not mean that the Starks were not honorable and personify justice enough to endear themselves to generations and generations of the north and come to personify with it. They might had been harsher, and more pragmatic but if they were a bunch of Roose Bolton, or Cersei they would not have lasted that much (Indeed if they were like the Boltons they might had been replaced by well the Boltons). The north has plenty of problems but a Stark in Winterfell was a help for most. That is what I get from things like maiden safety and other parts of the text. Enough amounts of justice, honor, coldness and strategic thinking that is focused on the different type of northern politics over a long period of years to be effective. And earn greatly the loyalty of houses such as Manderly for the prottection and acceptance they bestowed upon them and allowed this fleeing southern house with different Gods, to flourish in the north.

Here we go back again on distinction between loyalty and honor. Manderly never says he is loyal to the Starks because they are such great bunch of honorable people, he is loyal to them because their forefathers helped his and that is a debt that will never be paid. Wylla said about them being "Stark men" not "men of the very honorable House" Also, that doesn't mean if the Northerners are not Ned, they are now suddenly bunch of the dishonorable characters. They are not. The point of thread is to show varieties of personal sense of honors that existed and exist on North just as they do in the South. I am not making the other generalization with this thread in terms "Northerners are not honorable". I am talking about something rather rational that people seem blind to. There is not one type of personality in the North. People differ and we should respect that.

Argilac's post was great, and the most important thing to remember is that ruthless =/= or even imply treacherous or evil. And really only treachery and evil are truly dishonorable in this story. Treachery and outright wanton brutality, such as what Ramsey or Gregor Clegane or even Tywin do. The Starks are seen as stern but noble and trustworthy father figures, as a family.

Again, what are you talking about? Dishonorable thing is not being purely evil and it is even funny to even consider that. Jaime broke his honor by killing Aerys and he saved half a million of lives, Robb broke his honor with Freys and he is not Mountain or Ramsay. You do know people can be dishonorable even though they are good and honest people.

Nice posting Mladen I always enjoy reading your essays. On the subject of Northern honor I am going to have to say that while they are not inherently more honorable than their southern brethren I will say that they do believe in keeping to their oaths. The North is a cold hard place that gets only colder and harder in the winter. To survive this they had to be able to trust that in the very least others would stick to their oaths.

...

The Starks and the North have held true to their oaths more than any other kingdom. Honor is for knights oaths are for men.

Thanks. I also don't thik they hold their vows more seriously than other Houses from all over the Westeros. Look at Vale Lords, look at Dornishmen, heck, look even to the Greyjoys and Ironborn following their crazy rebellions. Riverlords also keep their word, and in fact two last hold Robb's kingdom held weren't in the North but in the Winterfell. Riverrun and Raventree were the last castles to surrender. I like the bolded line, but alas, both men and knights have honor and they both take some oaths...

There is no textual basis for that opinion.

I don't know. He seems to lack the "wolfsblood". Honor is the hat of House Arryn and Jon Arryn, who raised him at the Eyrie. I think their is reason to believe that Ned took after him.

Lee-Sensei is the right on this. With such striking differentiation from the rest of the Stark family tree, Ned certainly must have been influenced by Jon Arryn who after all was raising him for 10 years, and later was the only father figure he had. To say he didn't influence Ned is simply wrong.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I don't know. He seems to lack the "wolfsblood". Honor is the hat of House Arryn and Jon Arryn, who raised him at the Eyrie. I think their is reason to believe that Ned took after him.

I don't think that says a lot about his set of morals and ideals, but more his personality. Benjen, Bran, Sansa and Jon don't seem to have the wolf's blood either.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Here we go back again on distinction between loyalty and honor. Manderly never says he is loyal to the Starks because they are such great bunch of honorable people, he is loyal to them because their forefathers helped his and that is a debt that will never be paid. Wylla said about them being "Stark men" not "men of the very honorable House" Also, that doesn't mean if the Northerners are not Ned, they are now suddenly bunch of the dishonorable characters. They are not. The point of thread is to show varieties of personal sense of honors that existed and exist on North just as they do in the South. I am not making the other generalization with this thread in terms "Northerners are not honorable". I am talking about something rather rational that people seem blind to. There is not one type of personality in the North. People differ and we should respect that.

I lost counting of the number of strawmen.

There are multiple types of personalities but it is so implausible to you that a family has a history of beeing relatively honorable and just from a northern westeros point of view? Is Ned's the only way to be honorable from that perspective? Relatively honorable is not as much honorable as you can be of course probably less honorable and more cruel than Ned Stark. Their positive reputation trascends Ned Stark.

Also, the actions of protecting, accepting and allowing the Mandelies to flourish so much is a honorable action. Now, you might think the Starks were unjust otherwise but it is evidence. They won that loyalty of Manderlies going a step beyond through treating them justly and honorably and allowing this southern exiles to flourish. You might want to ignore that as inconvenient but it is there. The safety of Maidens in the Kingsroad also. Their positive reputation does not disminish the variety of personalities found in the family, even though they have support after greatly weakened. Just like the fact that Boltons are a family with worse history and generally associated with worse actions does not mean all Boltons in history were scum.

To me there is evidence that the Stark family has a positive history and relatively rulled well the north and provided justice and honor (from a northern perspective). That does not mean they did not have their scoundrells. Or they were as just and moral and honorable as Ned was. Not all familes have the same history even though all of them will have a variety of people in them, some do happen to have a more positive legacy than others and a higher percentage of people with positive characterictics, especially if they saw some of them associated with rulling well and cultivated them.