Why does house Bolton still exist?

[The Dragon King]

Ancient and Once powerfull Houses extinct all the time in the song of ice and fire, the reason Bolton House survives could be they are too powerful and by tradition and alliance, they got too much local support in their territory, House Stark could defeat them, but it would pay a price too high to destroy them. Besides, you can not blame Rob trusting Boltons, before the Red Wedding, House Bolton remains loyal to Starks for more than one thousand years, would you hold a grude to someone who killed your ancestor in Battle of Hastings ?

Ok, annihilating them might be a bit costly but seizing a good chunk of their land isn't, why not take land which will reduce their wealth and power?

[Darksnider05]

I thought House Stark wiped out House Bolton down to one member in the past.

[butterbumps!]

I think that there could be a grey area between "too powerful" and "useful." I like your theory about Boltons regulating Starks, which seems rather in line with butterbumps! idea of magical rivalry, since what you seem to be suggesting might not always feel particularly "useful" to the Starks at the time. For the Boltons to serve some "useful" function of regulating Starks, they would need to be powerful.

I sometimes wonder if the Bolton "magic" or power doesn't get activated if and when the Starks start concocting "Southron ambitions." For example, what's the history of the conflict with the Vale that resulted in the Talon laying siege to the Wolf's Den? Could this have provoked one of those "periodic" Bolton uprisings? This would work with the current situation, to some extent, though it admittedly doesn't work so well with the story of Bael the Bard, unless Bael is not, in fact, a straight-up First Men wildling but rather an outsider, which might be hinted at by his name, with that characteristic Targaryen diphthong. But this could also be a tie in with the "always a Stark in Winterfell" line. Ah, looks like theriveryeti is thinking along these lines, too:

I really like this, and I really like this whole analogy of Starks:Valyrians::Boltons:Faceless Men. Good to think with!

Working within the framework of "something magical" going on, I'm pretty open to nearly any ideas about the nature of that rivalry. It even could have begun as one thing, and then transformed into something more opportunistic and inimical in the later transgressions. So it might not always be the same thing each time. For example, with the bolded, perhaps at one point they rose to challenge Southron Ambitions/ no Stark in Winterfell for the greater good or something, but another time they saw those Southron Ambitions as a good excuse to make a move.

There's so many questions about Stark domination I think. How far were the Starks pushing things in terms of control? What other sorts of magic did they attempt to dabble in? They're the only "organization" besides Valyria that kept its power for so long, and the other notable magical House; we know how Valyria kept their dominance for that long, so why assume the Starks did due to sound financial planning and merciful governance? Why must there be a Stark in Winterfell? Is that adage more of a "curse" imprisoning them than a statement of responsibility? Is it mere coincidence the winter storm is emanating from Winterfell now that there are no Starks there and a Bolton's occupying it?

[averde]

It is possible to just start a cadet branch of your House in their place.

It seems that part of Westeros feudal order, the traditions of it atleast, don't like having one family name, like Lannister, rule more then one or two castles in a single region. For example Tywin didn't give Castamere to any of his brothers or cousins, but Kevan did eventually get Darry in the Riverlands for Lancel.

[Lord Stark]

There are too many unknowns to understand why the Boltons weren't wiped out. The most likely option though is they were just too powerful.

House Bolton and House Greystark rebelled against House Stark, but we don't know much about this rebellion. Was it a rebellion on the scale of Robert's Rebelllion? Were half the northern lords fighting for/with House Greystark? Which House was considered the leading house of this rebellion? Was it a war to replace House Stark with House Greystark, and House Bolton was just powerful allies, or was House Bolton the leaders, or something else? Did House Stark root out House Greystark, or did House Greystark just have to few heirs, and they all died in battle before the last one died and ended his house? When the Dreadfort besieged, did they still have an army in the field, but one to weak to break the siege? Were they still supported by other lords of the north, or were they on their own? Did them dipping their banners mean that House Stark wouldn't have to continue a war against under lords? Was the head of House Stark killed/died at sometime during the siege, or during other rebellions, and left a weaker son in charge? Was there a sickness going through the siege camps, or low morale, and a quick peace was needed to end the conflict before they lost their strength and looked weak? Could the Dreadfort have withstood another 2 years? Was winter coming, or was it already winter? Did they switch sides and aid House Stark and being peace quicker?

The amount of questions that factor in are so many they we may never know what reasons there were for House Bolton not to lost much if their power. Thing to remember is that wars are rarely fought where one side is destroyed completely. You might win some battles, but not have the strength to finish the job. House Bolton resisted bending the kneed for thousands of years. Likely kings in their own right at some time, knowing how they bent the knee could answer a lot. Could be that House Bolton retained all the lands that allowed them to resist the Starks in the past, much like how House Hightower, once kings, bent the knee to the Gardeners, and kept their kingdom as their vassals, becoming the single greatest vassal of the reach. We can see in tPatQ how rebellions/civil wars can be fought, and yet houses that aren't on the winning side can not lose much.

The Boltons seem to know when to strike, and yet at the same time, when to back off and bend the knee, and still keep the upper hand when they do. Also something people are overlooking is that they may have in the past had lands taken from them that they have replaced. We see them fighting for lands in the North in the form of the Hornwood lands. Could be that through marriages and conflicts at the right times, they have lost and regained lands through the years.

[l2 0 5 5]

I'm curious how often Ned went to the Dreadfort? Did he feel anxious there knowing about their past? If he did travel there (being a prominent vassal I'm sure he had to once in a while) how many men did he bring with him to ensure some bit of safety?

[ELDoggo]

I'm curious how often Ned went to the Dreadfort? Did he feel anxious there knowing about their past? If he did travel there (being a prominent vassal I'm sure he had to once in a while) how many men did he bring with him to ensure some bit of safety?

afaik that isnt mentioned in the novels..

[RainGhost]

I've always wondered this because it's not like they just rebelled once. We know Ned is honourable and merciful but were the old Kings of Winter? Roose is cautious, maybe that's an inherited trait. Maybe the Boltons always yielded in the end. I don't think the Starks could have stayed in power so long without being just and fair - it's not right to kill sons for a father's crime. Tywin was unsually cruel. If you strip the Boltons of their lands, the sons could come back in rebellion.

I like the theory about them being a powerful House and therefore one the Starks wanted on side. I know a lot of people wonder why Robb trusted Roose with half his army but we see from his conversation with Bran that he finds Roose creepy and he specifically mentions the flaying, so he knows the stories. We can only assume that Robb chose Roose because he was the best man for the job: the most capable commander and someone you want on your side.

I also like the magic theories. When was the last time the Starks had direwolves? They forgot their warg powers until they found the pups. I like the idea that maybe the Boltons weren't always the bad guys... You'd think if it was just about politcal power, they'd take the hint and stop rebelling after the first 10 or so failed attempts.

[Sleeve of Wizard]

Vampires are notoriously difficult to kill.

[TheNinjaDC]

Well, actually, it's not a simple "feudal balance" issue. When the Boltons were joined in rebellion by the Greystarks, the Starks wiped out the Greystarks root and stem, but the Boltons were mysteriously allowed to remain. So the Starks have shown they'll wipe out Houses. Just not the Boltons for some reason. And this isn't like a case of an annoying House who attempts rebellions every few centuries. Like, they flay and then wear the skin of their Stark overlords. I think that kind of transcends the "we're letting these guys stay in power because of feudal balance" line into "there's more to the story."

The thing is, we know nothing about the Greystarks, specifically how many there were.

Say, the house was down to 1 Lord Greystark and 2 heirs. Those two heirs could have easily been killed in battle or siege, and then the Lord Greystark executed for treason.

Less root and stem, and more lack of heirs.

The Boltons being a house with a long history, likely had allot of heirs compared to a new cadet house.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Those quotes in the OP they could be referring to the same rebellion.

And as others have said, a couple times in a few thousands years isn't even that often

[The Dragon King]

It seems that part of Westeros feudal order, the traditions of it atleast, don't like having one family name, like Lannister, rule more then one or two castles in a single region. For example Tywin didn't give Castamere to any of his brothers or cousins, but Kevan did eventually get Darry in the Riverlands for Lancel.

I don’t think that’s the case, the Starks broke off into House Karstark and also House GreyStark. IMO it all comes down to power, setting up a cadet branch in another strong castle increases your power, which by default decreases the power of the other families. The Starks seemed to command great loyalty from their bannermen, I doubt they’d kick up a fuss if the Starks took some Bolton territory, especially if they got a piece of the action (land or reduced taxes for a time). If the bannerman had to pay a really big price in order to completely annihilate House Bolton they might have a problem with it if they didn’t stand to gain anything and if the Starks gained everything.

I’d start with taking over Bolton lands and either continue with that, until they just owned a small piece surrounding the Dreadfort, and maybe put them down for good after they rebelled the 3^rd time.

[butterbumps!]

The thing is, we know nothing about the Greystarks, specifically how many there were.

Say, the house was down to 1 Lord Greystark and 2 heirs. Those two heirs could have easily been killed in battle or siege, and then the Lord Greystark executed for treason.

Less root and stem, and more lack of heirs.

The Boltons being a house with a long history, likely had allot of heirs compared to a new cadet house.

That still doesn't explain why the Boltons were allowed to act out multiple times throughout their history.

Those quotes in the OP they could be referring to the same rebellion.

And as others have said, a couple times in a few thousands years isn't even that often

Where do we see that they only rebelled a couple of times over a period of thousands of years? They misbehaved seemingly regularly until 1,000 years ago (allegedly, because according to the Bael story, they were still flaying Starks once they became lords instead of kings):

The flayed man was the sigil of House Bolton, Theon knew; ages past, certain of their lords had gone so far as to cloak themselves in the skins of dead enemies. A number of Starks had ended thus. Supposedly all that had stopped a thousand years ago, when the Boltons had bent their knees to Winterfell.

There are too many unknowns to understand why the Boltons weren't wiped out. The most likely option though is they were just too powerful.

House Bolton and House Greystark rebelled against House Stark, but we don't know much about this rebellion. Was it a rebellion on the scale of Robert's Rebelllion? Were half the northern lords fighting for/with House Greystark? Which House was considered the leading house of this rebellion? Was it a war to replace House Stark with House Greystark, and House Bolton was just powerful allies, or was House Bolton the leaders, or something else? Did House Stark root out House Greystark, or did House Greystark just have to few heirs, and they all died in battle before the last one died and ended his house? When the Dreadfort besieged, did they still have an army in the field, but one to weak to break the siege? Were they still supported by other lords of the north, or were they on their own? Did them dipping their banners mean that House Stark wouldn't have to continue a war against under lords? Was the head of House Stark killed/died at sometime during the siege, or during other rebellions, and left a weaker son in charge? Was there a sickness going through the siege camps, or low morale, and a quick peace was needed to end the conflict before they lost their strength and looked weak? Could the Dreadfort have withstood another 2 years? Was winter coming, or was it already winter? Did they switch sides and aid House Stark and being peace quicker?

The amount of questions that factor in are so many they we may never know what reasons there were for House Bolton not to lost much if their power. Thing to remember is that wars are rarely fought where one side is destroyed completely. You might win some battles, but not have the strength to finish the job. House Bolton resisted bending the kneed for thousands of years. Likely kings in their own right at some time, knowing how they bent the knee could answer a lot. Could be that House Bolton retained all the lands that allowed them to resist the Starks in the past, much like how House Hightower, once kings, bent the knee to the Gardeners, and kept their kingdom as their vassals, becoming the single greatest vassal of the reach. We can see in tPatQ how rebellions/civil wars can be fought, and yet houses that aren't on the winning side can not lose much.

The Boltons seem to know when to strike, and yet at the same time, when to back off and bend the knee, and still keep the upper hand when they do. Also something people are overlooking is that they may have in the past had lands taken from them that they have replaced. We see them fighting for lands in the North in the form of the Hornwood lands. Could be that through marriages and conflicts at the right times, they have lost and regained lands through the years.

I think this is really sensible, and I agree with the questions you're raising. I think it's a fair explanation for one or two of these uprisings. But that just seems like too much luck over the course of time.

For what it's worth, it appears the Boltons were the ones who started the rebellion in question ("the Greystarks had lasted the longest, holding the Wolf’s Den for five centuries, until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion against the Starks of Winterfell.")

It seems that part of Westeros feudal order, the traditions of it atleast, don't like having one family name, like Lannister, rule more then one or two castles in a single region. For example Tywin didn't give Castamere to any of his brothers or cousins, but Kevan did eventually get Darry in the Riverlands for Lancel.

I don't think so, at least with the Starks. They raised off-shoot branches from time to time, the Greystarks and Karstarks being the most prominent:

The Den was much older than White Harbor, the knight told Davos. It had been raised by King Jon Stark to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders from the sea. Many a younger son of the King in the North had made his seat there, many a brother, many an uncle, many a cousin. Some passed the castle to their own sons and grandsons, and offshoot branches of House Stark had arisen; the Greystarks had lasted the longest, holding the Wolf’s Den for five centuries, until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion against the Starks of Winterfell.

[Maia]

Sorry, Butterbumps, didn't mean to imply that you were the one to say that Starks could never ever trust Boltons because of unpleasant history centuries back. Sometimes, I just try to quickly answer everything that catches my interest without quoting or going back to verify who said what. Here is the relevant quote:

One area in which the show did a lot better than in the books was downplay the Bolton's history, because any Stark that trusts a Bolton with their background is clearly an imbecile, and it wouldn't be realistic even for early Sansa to give Roose so much trust as Robb did.

With which I very much disagree. I mean, Roose is a traitor, but come on! It is not because of the ancient history between the families, but due to his personality and circumstances that both allowed him to be heedless of risk to his House and to profit from mistakes of the Starks.

And dominance for allegedly 8k years? With supposedly only 2 Houses on the mainland making serious challenges?.

It sounds like Bolton insolence was rather common, and that it was only 1,000 years ago that they actually bent to the Starks. Had they not recognized the Starks as kings prior to that or something? I'm not sure, but this comment makes it sound like they were regularly insolent with some degree of impunity. Until 1,000 years ago. .

It seems to me that the contradiction here points out something significant - namely, that Starks _weren't_ dominant for 8K years. That until 1K years at most Boltons were fellow/rival kings. And that the mountain clans likely remained trouble for much longer than that.

We don't even know if the Boltons were the last petty kings to fall before the complete unification of the North.

lol, just to put this out there, if there is indeed a parallel to draw here between Starks/ Valyrians and Boltons/ Faceless in terms of challenging a sorcerous authority, it's kind of interesting that the theme of wearing the skins of the dead is common to both. I don't think there's a Bolton-Faceless connection or anything, but it's a cute parallel.

Actually, this is an extremely interesting, and as far as I know, completely original idea. Kudos! The FM do use skin of dead people's faces in their shapchanging magic, maybe Boltons used to as well? FM are actually more recent than Boltons, but with slaver fort at Wolf's Den, it is possible that Bolton magical tradition could have somehow found it's way to Valyria... Or maybe it is just a concurrent developement, but it still makes sense to think that Boltons may have been FM-like shapeshifters at some point. Maybe having the whole skin to work with, they could even change their body-form?

[marsyao]

It sounds like Bolton insolence was rather common, and that it was only 1,000 years ago that they actually bent to the Starks. Had they not recognized the Starks as kings prior to that or something? I'm not sure, but this comment makes it sound like they were regularly insolent with some degree of impunity. Until 1,000 years ago. And then it sounds like they might have just become more quiet about their transgressions.

House Bolton is the second powerful house in the North, they fought House Stark for the kingship of the North for thousands of years, House Stark finally won over a thousand years ago, but I do not think even then Starks was powerful enough to completely wipe Boltons off, that is the reason why house Bolton still exists

[marsyao]

Ok, annihilating them might be a bit costly but seizing a good chunk of their land isn't, why not take land which will reduce their wealth and power?

Starks may already take some lands from Boltons at that time, besides as I said, Boltons remain loyal to Starks for more than one thousand years

[butterbumps!]

It seems to me that the contradiction here points out something significant - namely, that Starks _weren't_ dominant for 8K years. That until 1K years at most Boltons were fellow/rival kings. And that the mountain clans likely remained trouble for much longer than that.

We don't even know if the Boltons were the last petty kings to fall before the complete unification of the North.

Actually, this is an extremely interesting, and as far as I know, completely original idea. Kudos! The FM do use skin of dead people's faces in their shapchanging magic, maybe Boltons used to as well? FM are actually more recent than Boltons, but with slaver fort at Wolf's Den, it is possible that Bolton magical tradition could have somehow found it's way to Valyria... Or maybe it is just a concurrent developement, but it still makes sense to think that Boltons may have been FM-like shapeshifters at some point. Maybe having the whole skin to work with, they could even change their body-form?

Oh, np about the Robb thing. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't thought I'd said that; I don't think Robb was stupid for working with him or anything.

And yea, that's what I find really interesting about all this. We get all these accounts of the Starks' alleged dominance for 8k years, only hear about 2 Houses that really challenged that (on the mainland), but then apparently the Boltons were only brought to heel 1k years ago. So far no other Houses have been associated with fighting against the Starks in an appreciable way, only with them, and typically, against either rogue members of the Watch or wildlings; I think there has to be something getting lost here. There's something with the clans because we know there were hostage-takings, but we don't even know if they actually took up arms against the Starks, or merely did something that pissed off the Starks (for example, maybe they simply slacked off about wildlings getting through their lands or something).

I can't tell if the Boltons were rival kings, or just extremely recalcitrant about Stark rule. Was the North formally divided? The Umbers seem to have been frequent loyal allies to the Starks (they rode forth during various wildling/ Watch issues together). The Dreadfort is smack between Umber and what later became Manderly lands. It would appear the Starks were surrounding the Dreadfort with offshoots and extremely loyal Houses. Could it have been split in half before then? If the Boltons were rival kings, were any other Houses actually even with them? Was that what periodic hostage-takings were for? To pre-emptively dissuade other Houses from joining the Boltons when they got cute? The Boltons seem kind of like they were loners to that end; maybe it's just in the telling of history, but it doesn't look like any of the other Houses were very associated with the Boltons in their insolences. Given the dearth of purported transgressions from other Houses, my impression was that they were alone in their transgressions, but somehow powerful enough to resist Stark rule, whether as rival kings or just extremely troublesome subjects.

That's a really great point about the slavers in the Wolf's Den-- another connection to slavery.

House Bolton is the second powerful house in the North, they fought House Stark for the kingship of the North for thousands of years, House Stark finally won over a thousand years ago, but I do not think even then Starks was powerful enough to completely wipe Boltons off, that is the reason why house Bolton still exists

Well, yea, I think they were too powerful in some way, and that raises a whole battery of questions about how that's even possible. Unless the history we've been given so far is highly revisionist, it doesn't sound like they had a whole lot of other Houses joining in their transgressions.

[Ramsay Gimp]

That still doesn't explain why the Boltons were allowed to act out multiple times throughout their history.

Where do we see that they only rebelled a couple of times over a period of thousands of years? They misbehaved seemingly regularly until 1,000 years ago (allegedly, because according to the Bael story, they were still flaying Starks once they became lords instead of kings):

The flayed man was the sigil of House Bolton, Theon knew; ages past, certain of their lords had gone so far as to cloak themselves in the skins of dead enemies. A number of Starks had ended thus. Supposedly all that had stopped a thousand years ago, when the Boltons had bent their knees to Winterfell.

I think this is really sensible, and I agree with the questions you're raising. I think it's a fair explanation for one or two of these uprisings. But that just seems like too much luck over the course of time.

For what it's worth, it appears the Boltons were the ones who started the rebellion in question ("the Greystarks had lasted the longest, holding the Wolf’s Den for five centuries, until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion against the Starks of Winterfell.")

I don't think so, at least with the Starks. They raised off-shoot branches from time to time, the Greystarks and Karstarks being the most prominent:

The Den was much older than White Harbor, the knight told Davos. It had been raised by King Jon Stark to defend the mouth of the White Knife against raiders from the sea. Many a younger son of the King in the North had made his seat there, many a brother, many an uncle, many a cousin. Some passed the castle to their own sons and grandsons, and offshoot branches of House Stark had arisen; the Greystarks had lasted the longest, holding the Wolf’s Den for five centuries, until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion against the Starks of Winterfell.

I think you are assuming too much and extrapolating too much from the quotes you and OP provide.

The Boltons and Starks have a long history of conflict, but not all of those wars were necessarily rebellions. The Starks didn't conquer the North in a day, and the Boltons date back to the Age of Heroes (supposedly). They were probably rivals at first, possibly rival Kings, before Winterfell subdued them and made them vassals. After that, there might be only or two rebellions, the most recent being around 1,000 years ago.

"All that ended 1,000 years ago when they bent the knee to Winterfell" could just mean the rebellious Boltons surrendered to their liege lord

[butterbumps!]

I think you are assuming too much and extrapolating too much from the quotes you and OP provide.

The Boltons and Starks have a long history of conflict, but not all of those wars were necessarily rebellions. The Starks didn't conquer the North in a day, and the Boltons date back to the Age of Heroes (supposedly). They were probably rivals at first, possibly rival Kings, before Winterfell subdued them and made them vassals. After that, there might be only or two rebellions, the most recent being around 1,000 years ago.

"All that ended 1,000 years ago when they bent the knee to Winterfell" could just mean the rebellious Boltons surrendered to their liege lord

What am I assuming though? Or, I guess, a better way to phrase that is in what way am I assuming more than you are from those quotes? We know they rebelled at least 3 times if these instances aren't talking about the same event (with the Greystarks, 1k years ago, the Dreadfort siege), in addition to this latest one. We also know they had a habit of flaying enemies, including Starks, which probably occurred along with various rebellions, but from the sound of it, wasn't limited to periods of open conflict (especially wrt Bael's son, in the event Ygritte was correct in calling the Starks "Lord"). They are notably recalcitrant, and it's rather unusual that a House like that would be allowed to continue.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Firstly it is probably very difficult to maintain a siege in the North threw a winter that lasts years, and by probably I mean damn near impossible.

Second, for literary purposes.