The King Who Knelt: King Torrhen Stark

[The Ned's Little Girl]

The little about Torrhen that we know reminds me of Ned Stark quite a bit. Even though their personal reputations suffered - the mockery of the "King Who Knelt" title and Honorable Ned being regarded as a big fat hypocrite with his bastard - they both ended up doing the thing that was more honorable, the thing that took more strength and courage to do.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I reckon if they retreated back into the North and split into 60 smaller armies of 500 men each, hiding in the Wolfswood, Northern Mountains and valleys of the wide North and waited for the Targs to come to them, the outcome would have been totally different.

Then the Targs would have had Dorne and the North to try and conquer in a guerrilla war.

And if the Northmen succeeded in bringing down even one dragon, it would have resulted in other southern kingdoms realizing the Targs can be beaten and rising up too.

Sure, thousands of Northmen would have died, but the Targs would have been kicked out of Westeros and sent packing back to their rock in the Narrow Sea within a decade.

[Needs More Salt]

Quite simply because kneeling as a last resort after defeat on the field of battle is seen as nobler and more courageous than kneeling without even trying to stand up and fight for your birthright.

Sure he saved a bunch of lives. That doesn't matter in that context. Look at the revered heroes from the ancient Gallic or Germannic wars against Rome. It was the tribal chieftains who took the battle to the Roman legions, even if they ended up dead and their people enslaved. The fact is they fought for their lands.

And went down fighting. The ones who caved in before even engaging in battle, only to get nice soft settlement agreements to continue as client kings are pretty much despised in comparison.

But here's another more apt historical context (one that Mladen might vouch for):

The Turks invaded a good portion of Southeastern Europe under the pretext of conquering lands and spreading Islam. Those who were defeated or 'knelt' and converted were treated (mostly) fairly and as equals. This was an idea learned from the Romans that aided the Turks, and many other conquering powers, in gaining acceptance as the governing power rather than just a temporary usurpers. Those who defied them faced considerably harsher treatment (see the Armenian genocide). In contrast, many of those who accepted the Turkish invasion have to this day still kept the culture, if not the language.

I see the Northerners as those who, although in the face of inevitable defeat opted to submit, chose not to assimilate. King Stark may have technically knelt, but it was so its people and their customs wouldn't have to. That's far more important in the grander scheme of things.

Ironically, the Starks must have understood this concept well when they welcome the Manderlys and granted them the Wolf's Den before the conquest.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I'd have preferred the Scottish example. Where they knelt a number of times over the ages after defeats, only to rise up again in revolts.

The North was entirely too comfortable in their vassalage. Pretty disappointing.

[PrimeRhaegar]

I think many of his bannermen and small folk thanked him for it. Yes they are those prouder one's who would jeer him behind his back, but when you are King you make choices that not everyone would agree with. Depending on his bastard's brother iffy plan i can't blame him and aegon gave him good terms too. Alas people who weren't there will always jeer him. Look how in the book they glorify Gaemon the Great despite the fact the got a quarter million of his people killed. Ha at least Dorkstar called on his BS makes no sense.

[bpsae325]

I have always felt that it was unfair to call him the King Who Knelt, especially when considering he wasn't the only one who did. The Lannister king knelt, the ruler of the Vale knelt, and rest were killed, besides the Martell's. He just knelt before getting a large number of his people killed.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I will only be satisfied if it is revealed that Torhenn was given a prophecy by a woods witch or green dreamer saying that the North would rise again 300 years later, and that his temporary sacrifice was the only way to save his kingdom in the long run.

THEN his sacrifice of personal honor and prestige would be incredibly noble indeed. But if he genuinely knelt in the belief that he was giving up his 8000 year old crown forever, well, then I have no respect for him.

[Mladen]

I have always felt that it was unfair to call him the King Who Knelt, especially when considering he wasn't the only one who did. The Lannister king knelt, the ruler of the Vale knelt, and rest were killed, besides the Martell's. He just knelt before getting a large number of his people killed.

The problem some here have, and I understand it, is that Tyrells and Lannisters fought with them before bending the knee, and so did Stormlands, Vale armies were prepared for battle, and Martells resisted... So, basically, Northern army was the only one who dropped the battle before it even began.

[DaeronDrumm]

I'd have preferred the Scottish example. Where they knelt a number of times over the ages after defeats, only to rise up again in revolts.

The North was entirely too comfortable in their vassalage. Pretty disappointing.

Crown taxes appear to be pretty much negligible outside of the Crownlands proper, and it's not like the Targaryens were particularly fond of meddling in the affairs of the North. AFAIK, the Targaryens banned the First Night and gave the deserted New Gift to the Watch. And that was it, over 300 years. It's not like the Crown actually collects meaningful taxes from outside the Crownlands or actually bothers to meddle in their affairs during peacetime.

People who are largely left alone by their overlords will tend to grow comfortable in their vassalage.

[Blow My Horn]

I will only be satisfied if it is revealed that Torhenn was given a prophecy by a woods witch or green dreamer saying that the North would rise again 300 years later, and that his temporary sacrifice was the only way to save his kingdom in the long run.

THEN his sacrifice of personal honor and prestige would be incredibly noble indeed. But if he genuinely knelt in the belief that he was giving up his 8000 year old crown forever, well, then I have no respect for him.

Ah well there will be a lot of dissatisfied people when ASoIaF is complete.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The Ghiscari fought 5 wars over many years against the full might of the Valyrian Empire. Against HUNDREDS of dragons. And they kept fighting for 5 wars.

Westeros is as big if not bigger than the Ghiscari Empire. And it lasted for only one battle where a measly 3 dragons were unleashed, set some grass on fire and 5000 men died. That was enough to make them all bend the knee.

Garen led 250,000 men against the full might of Valyria at its height, when it had even more dragons than in the early Ghiscari times, with at least some hope of victory.

Westeros can raise as much as 400,000 men, and this against a mere 3 dragons.Bottomline, if the Westerosi really refused to surrender, Aegon had no chance. But they caved at the first sign of dragonfire.

If you take Garen's example. He had 250k men against maybe 500 dragons or more. Torhenn had 30,000 men against a mere 3 dragons. That's a hundred times fewer dragons than Garen faced.

Come on. This was a fight that could be won.

[bpsae325]

The problem some here have, and I understand it, is that Tyrells and Lannisters fought with them before bending the knee, and so did Stormlands, Vale armies were prepared for battle, and Martells resisted... So, basically, Northern army was the only one who dropped the battle before it even began.

I definitely understand that, I just think if we're gonna start name calling we shouldn't leave anyone out. Henceforth we shall refer to Loren as "The Loser" and Sharra as "The Scared"

[Chatty Duelist]

The Ghiscari fought 5 wars over many years against the full might of the Valyrian Empire. Against HUNDREDS of dragons. And they kept fighting for 5 wars.

Westeros is as big if not bigger than the Ghiscari Empire. And it lasted for only one battle where a measly 3 dragons were unleashed, set some grass on fire and 5000 men died. That was enough to make them all bend the knee.

Garen led 250,000 men against the full might of Valyria at its height, when it had even more dragons than in the early Ghiscari times, with at least some hope of victory.

Westeros can raise as much as 400,000 men, and this against a mere 3 dragons.Bottomline, if the Westerosi really refused to surrender, Aegon had no chance. But they caved at the first sign of dragonfire.

If you take Garen's example. He had 250k men against maybe 500 dragons or more. Torhenn had 30,000 men against a mere 3 dragons. That's a hundred times fewer dragons than Garen faced.

Come on. This was a fight that could be won.

It was. But to the Westerosi they didn't have much experience fighting Dragons. It's like fighting against armored laser ninja mammoths, you didn't expect it and you don't know how to defeat it.

[Roddy the Ruin]

It was. But to the Westerosi they didn't have much experience fighting Dragons. It's like fighting against armored laser ninja mammoths, you didn't expect it and you don't know how to defeat it.

i now want GRRM to write an armored laser ninja mammoth into the story

[AdmiraloftheDothrakiSea]

The Ghiscari fought 5 wars over many years against the full might of the Valyrian Empire. Against HUNDREDS of dragons. And they kept fighting for 5 wars.

Westeros is as big if not bigger than the Ghiscari Empire. And it lasted for only one battle where a measly 3 dragons were unleashed, set some grass on fire and 5000 men died. That was enough to make them all bend the knee.

Garen led 250,000 men against the full might of Valyria at its height, when it had even more dragons than in the early Ghiscari times, with at least some hope of victory.

Westeros can raise as much as 400,000 men, and this against a mere 3 dragons.Bottomline, if the Westerosi really refused to surrender, Aegon had no chance. But they caved at the first sign of dragonfire.

If you take Garen's example. He had 250k men against maybe 500 dragons or more. Torhenn had 30,000 men against a mere 3 dragons. That's a hundred times fewer dragons than Garen faced.

Come on. This was a fight that could be won.

30000 men against 3 dragons and an army of 45000 in a place where they don't have the tactical advantage. Really he should've done what the Dornish did in the Neck. Hide the crannogmen to bleed their army as they try to make it through the Causeway. Use the advantages of Moat Cailin. If they try to fly their dragons over the Neck then shoot poison arrows at them with weirwood bows. And try to warg them as well. Yeh sure the dragons could just Harrenhal the three towers in Moat Cailin but they will still be in a position of vulnerability where they could be vulnerable to arrows and scorpions from another tower whilst they focus on each tower

[bpsae325]

The Ghiscari fought 5 wars over many years against the full might of the Valyrian Empire. Against HUNDREDS of dragons. And they kept fighting for 5 wars.

Westeros is as big if not bigger than the Ghiscari Empire. And it lasted for only one battle where a measly 3 dragons were unleashed, set some grass on fire and 5000 men died. That was enough to make them all bend the knee.

Garen led 250,000 men against the full might of Valyria at its height, when it had even more dragons than in the early Ghiscari times, with at least some hope of victory.

Westeros can raise as much as 400,000 men, and this against a mere 3 dragons.Bottomline, if the Westerosi really refused to surrender, Aegon had no chance. But they caved at the first sign of dragonfire.

If you take Garen's example. He had 250k men against maybe 500 dragons or more. Torhenn had 30,000 men against a mere 3 dragons. That's a hundred times fewer dragons than Garen faced.

Come on. This was a fight that could be won.

I respectfully disagree. The Ghiscari had fought against dragons for centuries, and knew how defeat them (sort of, they never did) and dragons were new to Westerosi warfare, and since they were independent kingdoms, it would have been a miracle if they came together to oppose Aegon.

[Bael Abel]

The Ghiscari fought 5 wars over many years against the full might of the Valyrian Empire. Against HUNDREDS of dragons. And they kept fighting for 5 wars.

Westeros is as big if not bigger than the Ghiscari Empire. And it lasted for only one battle where a measly 3 dragons were unleashed, set some grass on fire and 5000 men died. That was enough to make them all bend the knee.

Garen led 250,000 men against the full might of Valyria at its height, when it had even more dragons than in the early Ghiscari times, with at least some hope of victory.

Westeros can raise as much as 400,000 men, and this against a mere 3 dragons.Bottomline, if the Westerosi really refused to surrender, Aegon had no chance. But they caved at the first sign of dragonfire.

If you take Garen's example. He had 250k men against maybe 500 dragons or more. Torhenn had 30,000 men against a mere 3 dragons. That's a hundred times fewer dragons than Garen faced.

Come on. This was a fight that could be won.

Aegon met him with 45,000 men and 3 dragons. In the Field of Fire, Aegon only had 11,000 men against 55,000, and the western alliance was soundly defeated, having killed less than 100 of Aegon's troops. He didn't stand a chance of victory unless Brandon Snow could manage to assassinate all 3 dragons. That's a big gamble, and having seen the Targaryens completely destroy House Gardener, a house as old and powerful as the Starks. So he sent Brandon and 3 maesters to negotiate, and only then bent the knee to prevent the complete destruction of his house. Seems smart to me.

ETA: This happened before the failed conquest of Dorne, so King Torrhen was about to face an undefeated opponent on top of this.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I respectfully disagree. The Ghiscari had fought against dragons for centuries, and knew how defeat them (sort of, they never did) and dragons were new to Westerosi warfare, and since they were independent kingdoms, it would have been a miracle if they came together to oppose Aegon.

Unification was not necessary. 30k men vs 3 dragons are infinitely better odds than 250k men vs 500 dragons.

[bpsae325]

Unification was not necessary. 30k men vs 3 dragons are infinitely better odds than 250k men vs 500 dragons.

I agree, but again it was the first time dragons were used against Westeros, and they (presumably) had no knowledge of defeating dragons in combat.

[DaeronDrumm]

Unification was not necessary. 30k men vs 3 dragons are infinitely better odds than 250k men vs 500 dragons.

It stands to reason that a big enough trebuchet would crack a dragon's skull and send the thing aground. But if the Westerosi didn't bring siege machinery (and it wasn't always at hand for field battles), they're probabluy very much fucked against the dragons in open battle.