Why does house Bolton still exist?

[Hrafntýr]

<snip>

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.

Now, I agree with the analysis of the possible political context, but for me this is where things start to move into the "magical" territory again. It is as if Lord Bolton and the Bastard of Bolton are working in concert in this (re)capturing of northern lands, but it's awfully hard to explain how that could be (though admittedly there's much I don't understand about how ravens find the proper recipients in the field during wartime). For me the magical elements come in every time I encounter Roose talking about Ramsay, and especially "bad blood": Roose, he of "a peaceful land, a quiet people" has all his "bad blood" leeched away, while he remarks that Ramsay's "tainted blood would poison even leeches." Personally, I think that Roose's bad blood, drawn by leeches, is the source for Ramsay's violent, sadistic but powerful and so far, successful behavior, that the two of them act like two complementary parts of a whole. I know this is all crackpotty, but the feeling that something supernatural is going on with Roose/Ramsay is enhanced by Roose's strange sort of passivity about Ramsay, as if something has been set in motion that he has to see through to whatever its conclusion will be, Ramsay's "ice eyes" as an infant having been the signal for the start of whatever special function is supposed to be played by the Bastard of the Dreadfort/Bastard of Bolton. I realize this is all problematic in terms of timing, in that Ramsay is born before all the hijinks of Robert's Rebellion, back when Rickon was Lord of Winterfell. I also know it's probably fallacious to assume that present circumstances are some sort of key to the past character of House Bolton, and maybe there's not even something magical going on with House Bolton in the present. And I certainly don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the magical properties or origins of House Bolton, if it's intended more as a conversation about the political realities of the North, past and present, since there are other good threads where that conversation can take place.

[Ramsay Gimp]

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.

But there's nothing preventing those three things from being the same rebellion.

I guess my main point is just that there's nothing extremely unusual about the fact that House Bolton still stands. The common idea that they were "constantly rebelling" is never confirmed and mostly comes from big assumptions - we really only know for sure that they rebelled once. I don't think Robb or Catelyn would put the head of such a House in charge of the Northern infantry either

[The Fallen]

` The Boltons used to be kings. Eventually, they and the Starks came into conflict. I've always assumed that the Starks and Boltons were involved in constant skirmishes, if not outright wars, before the Starks were able to get them to bend the knee.

My initial response on a previous thread asking this same question was that the Boltons were around for reasons of plot. But the more I thought about it the more plausible it became for the Boltons to still be around.

Having been kings in their own right, the Boltons probably have houses that are very loyal to them and I can see the Starks not wanting to ensure the never-ending enmity of those houses. Or maybe they didn't have the ability at the time to destroy all those houses; which is what it would have taken in order to pacify the Bolton's sphere of influence.

The feudal relationship can also be a reason for the Starks allowing the Boltons to continue to exist. Although knowing what we know of the Kings of Winter, it would have made more sense for them to destroy the Boltons, unless it was a situation similar to what I explained in my previous paragraph.

Although I had never thought of the ''magical'' angle (and I know bumps is a big proponent of the Boltons as Others theory) I'm actually intrigued by it. How cool would it be if the Boltons were a sort of speed bump on the Starks road to the annihilation of humanity?

[butterbumps!]

But there's nothing preventing those three things from being the same rebellion.

I guess my main point is just that there's nothing extremely unusual about the fact that House Bolton still stands. The common idea that they were "constantly rebelling" is never confirmed and mostly comes from big assumptions - we really only know for sure that they rebelled once. I don't think Robb or Catelyn would put the head of such a House in charge of the Northern infantry either

And there's nothing preventing them from not only being separate, but 3 of many, especially given the way this rivalry is referenced, and the implication of finally bending 1,000 years ago.

Just to clarify, I'm not going so far as asserting "constant" rebellions. My impression is that there have been periodic ones, as well as periodic flayings and flauntings (and by "periodic" I mean more regularly than twice in 8k years). We have 3 different accounts of rebellions. There's nothing that prevents them from being the same incidents that I can think of, but there's nothing really linking them as the same event either.

I was really only taking exception to the way you were dismissing the idea of more rebellions as speculation, but weren't seeing your own speculations downplaying the number of incidents as speculative. My position is that the Boltons behaved in a way that's extremely unusual for alleged subjects of the KitN, and that it's equally unusual the Starks allowed them to continue. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm offering speculations; I was very upfront about saying the one thing that seems certain is that "there's more to the story," suggesting that once it's accepted as being unusual, it's pretty much all speculation after about what that "story" might be. Whether you think there were more conflicts, or assume that the 3 accounts only point to one, both are speculative, though I'd suggest the text leans closer to supporting more conflicts than fewer.

` The Boltons used to be kings. Eventually, they and the Starks came into conflict. I've always assumed that the Starks and Boltons were involved in constant skirmishes, if not outright wars, before the Starks were able to get them to bend the knee.

My initial response on a previous thread asking this same question was that the Boltons were around for reasons of plot. But the more I thought about it the more plausible it became for the Boltons to still be around.

Having been kings in their own right, the Boltons probably have houses that are very loyal to them and I can see the Starks not wanting to ensure the never-ending enmity of those houses. Or maybe they didn't have the ability at the time to destroy all those houses; which is what it would have taken in order to pacify the Bolton's sphere of influence.

The feudal relationship can also be a reason for the Starks allowing the Boltons to continue to exist. Although knowing what we know of the Kings of Winter, it would have made more sense for them to destroy the Boltons, unless it was a situation similar to what I explained in my previous paragraph.

Although I had never thought of the ''magical'' angle (and I know bumps is a big proponent of the Boltons as Others theory) I'm actually intrigued by it. How cool would it be if the Boltons were a sort of speed bump on the Starks road to the annihilation of humanity?

Well, it's more like I think a Bolton-Others connection is one possibility of many in terms of a Bolton link to magic.

Magic in the story nearly always has some political objective behind it, or at least, people wield it as an advantage in the game (the Faceless, Valyrians, all the Reds, Greywind with that goat trail, Jon how many times with Ghost, and so forth). And as it pertains to the history of the North, we already know the Starks have wielded magic, we know that at least Beyond the Wall other random First Men wield magic, this is a story chock full of magic-- and magic that fully intersects and is part of "the game" I'd add-- so I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that "more to the story" might be that this other major Northern House that gave the Starks ulcers for years involves some kind of magical component. Especially given how outrageously macabre the Boltons are.

I recently compiled passages of all of the myths and religions we're given for Heresy, and one of the common themes in each is that all seem to involve either some sort of conquest or escape from oppression. I don't think the game and the song are separate, honestly. I know Martin's said something to the effect that what's beyond the Wall is what's important, but that's kind of misleading, I think, because the "song" and the "game" essentially amount to the flux of power, and both mutually condition each other. I'm only mentioning that because I know bringing up magic about the Boltons gets a lot of resistance, but it's really not all that crazy when looking at just how much magic really is in these books, how much magic has played into the politics of the universe, and then thinking about what would lead someone to actually flaunt insolence to their overlords who not only have political capital but known magical powers as well. And that's before adding up how incredibly bizarre Bolton family practices seem to be-- and bizarre in ways that seem to have at least thematic parallels to the ice side. The Boltons don't have to be magical, and I'm not trying to prove they are, but I just want to articulate that such a possibility completely fits into this story.

So I am totally on board with your last line about the Bolton's insolence potentially having been something akin to having a "greater good" aspect to it in terms of potentially being the only other remaining House with the sort of power to challenge a potentially oppressive overlord. I think a revelation like the Starks' turning out to be much darker and more Valyria-like, while the Boltons were the ones who somehow kept them in check would be pretty incredible, and would certainly complicate how we feel about returning the Starks to power.

[Maia]

. We get all these accounts of the Starks' alleged dominance for 8k years, only hear about 2 Houses that really challenged that

Sorry to be all nitpicky, but we didn't actually hear anything about 8K years of dominance. 8K is just an alleged age of House Stark. It appears that the earliest date of unification of the North is 1K years ago, when Boltons finally bent the knee. That is, if historical time-line wasn't just inflated by factor 2 or so, which, I suspect, might be the case.

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 imagine that hostage-taking and occasional execution had to be about the clans fighting against the Starks or their other bannemen, because you don't execute a hostage for something trivial. Also, there are all the historical parallels with warlike and unruly mountain tribes iRL, in Scotland and elsewhere.

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).

Yes, the North was divided. Umbers, Hornwoods and Dustins all used to be petty (or not so petty, given the size of the North) kings, as well as Boltons. And there was King of the Marsh, of course, who might have been an ancestor of the Reeds, but we don't know for sure. Plus, there could have been some extinguished formerly kingly Houses.

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

Kind of interesting that there may have been followers of the northern magical traditions carried off into the East, yes. Does half-weirwood door of the House of Black and White signify such a connection too? As far as we know, weirwoods only grow in Westeros, after all, and there is a common thread of both Boltons and FM skinning people...

Also, there would be an interesting dichotomy if Starks used to be skin-changers in the sense that they could warg animals, while Boltons have been skin-changers who could literally shape-shift using the skins of their victims.

. We also see that the Starks were nearly uncontested in terms of true revolts by their bannermen. Except for these two Houses, one of which is a House with Stark genes, and the other is the Boltons.

There are always Skagosi ;). But we don't know how uncontested or otherwise the Stark rule was, not until the worldbook comes out.

Tywin was indeed unique. He raised the stakes of the game to a zero-sum. But we're talking about a pre-conquest situation. The Conquest changed the social order, and House eradications by former kings (now lords) of their bannermen became less normalized. Tywin brought that back, and for relatively little instigation. Tywin erased an insolent House for refusing to pay a debt.

Well, there was actually much more to it than that, according to the Westerlands reading. I am not sure that it was so much Tywin himself, who was unique, rather than his circumstances. IMHO, there was a much stronger public and crown support for his actions due to the general situation in the West and crimes of Reynes and Tarbecks in particular, than there might have been otherwise.

In any case, unlike the Starks of old versus Boltons, Tywin didn't have to besiege either of them for years - if it came to that, he would have had to come to an accommodation with them too.

So if we're extending this to the Blackfyre example, then that parallel would lead us to think the Boltons should have been eradicated, while the Greystarks spared, like the Peakes.

I would argue rather, that Peakes lucked out, because Maekar's death and succession crisis that followed it made further siege of their castle untenable. Something like that may have happened with the Boltons, too.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And there's nothing preventing them from not only being separate, but 3 of many, especially given the way this rivalry is referenced, and the implication of finally bending 1,000 years ago.

Just to clarify, I'm not going so far as asserting "constant" rebellions. My impression is that there have been periodic ones, as well as periodic flayings and flauntings (and by "periodic" I mean more regularly than twice in 8k years). We have 3 different accounts of rebellions. There's nothing that prevents them from being the same incidents that I can think of, but there's nothing really linking them as the same event either.

I was really only taking exception to the way you were dismissing the idea of more rebellions as speculation, but weren't seeing your own speculations downplaying the number of incidents as speculative. My position is that the Boltons behaved in a way that's extremely unusual for alleged subjects of the KitN, and that it's equally unusual the Starks allowed them to continue. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm offering speculations; I was very upfront about saying the one thing that seems certain is that "there's more to the story," suggesting that once it's accepted as being unusual, it's pretty much all speculation after about what that "story" might be. Whether you think there were more conflicts, or assume that the 3 accounts only point to one, both are speculative, though I'd suggest the text leans closer to supporting more conflicts than fewer.

.....

So I am totally on board with your last line about the Bolton's insolence potentially having been something akin to having a "greater good" aspect to it in terms of potentially being the only other remaining House with the sort of power to challenge a potentially oppressive overlord. I think a revelation like the Starks' turning out to be much darker and more Valyria-like, while the Boltons were the ones who somehow kept them in check would be pretty incredible, and would certainly complicate how we feel about returning the Starks to power.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I see how it could have came off that way. I don't generally agree with your Bolton theories/speculation, but I'm happy to talk with anyone who is as into the Dreadfort as I am :cheers:

The bolded part I could definitely get on board with, though. Nothing like "Starks bad Boltons good", but a self-interested unwillingness on the part of other Northern houses to exterminate the Boltons. Coupled with Bolton cunning, of course. The development of White Harbor under the Manderlys was a huge boon for Stark authority if you think about it

[Free Northman Reborn]

I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I see how it could have came off that way. I don't generally agree with your Bolton theories/speculation, but I'm happy to talk with anyone who is as into the Dreadfort as I am :cheers:

The bolded part I could definitely get on board with, though. Nothing like "Starks bad Boltons good", but a self-interested unwillingness on the part of other Northern houses to exterminate the Boltons. Coupled with Bolton cunning, of course. The development of White Harbor under the Manderlys was a huge boon for Stark authority if you think about it

It wasn't a case of Bolton good and Stark bad back in the Ancient Days. Rather it was a case of every Northman being a friggin hard bastard, whether he be Bolton or Stark.

In short, more Brandon Ice-Eyes types, and fewer Eddard Soft-Heart types.

The Old Starks were bad-asses.

As for the Boltons. They did not "only bend 1000 years ago". They were already subjugated 3000 years ago, before they and the Greystarks joined in REBELLION against the Starks. Rebellion means that you are rising up against your overlords. Meaning that the Boltons had already been ruled by the Starks prior to that point in time.

Hence, rather than an independent Bolton kingdom standing unconquered until 1000 years ago, we are instead looking at the Boltons being grudging Stark subjects as much as 4000 years ago, but revolting against the Starks' rule periodically, with the last revolt occurring in year 300 After Aegon's Conquest, leading to Ramsay Bolton temporarily usurping the Starks rule of the North.

The revolt of 1000 years ago was merely the most recent one prior to Roose and Ramsay's repeat attempt. Just like there were plenty such revolts prior to 1000 years ago.

But an independent Bolton kingdom likely did not exist for any length of time after 4000 years or more ago, when the Starks first subjugated the entire North.

[Talking Hodor]

The Boltons haven't rebelled in ages. They were probably beaten into submission rather than extinguished. You're most likely to have an enemy surrender if he knows he'll survive the submission. Would you surrender in a siege if you knew you'd get completely wiped out as soon as you opened the gates?

[JonisHenryTudor]

Feudal balance is just that. Any time you threaten the rule of one noble, you indirectly threaten the rule of all nobles. Any time other nobles feel threatened, they might react. And your power to deal with any reacting nobles comes from other nobles, who might also feel threatened. It's a chaotic form of government, but it does have it's own gravitational elegance.

The Bolton's also had their own friends, so evicerating House Bolton would have created new enemies among Bolton symphs, etc. It would be an endless cycle of bloodshed.

Reminds me of the scene at the end of Mobsters when Christian Slater ("Lucky" Luciano) talks to the new board of directors. "I kill you, your friends get mad and kill me, and my friends get mad and kill them, and......"

[Maia]

As for the Boltons. They did not "only bend 1000 years ago". They were already subjugated 3000 years ago, before they and the Greystarks joined in REBELLION against the Starks.

What makes you say that? IIRC, it is only mentioned that Boltons bent the knee about 1000 years ago and yes, there was a rebellion pretty soon after that. I always thought that it was an attempt by the newly subjugated Boltons to "rise blades in hand" and throw off the Stark yoke ;).

I am really not sure where numbers like 3K or 4K years back are coming from? I may be forgetting something, of course...

[Free Northman Reborn]

What makes you say that? IIRC, it is only mentioned that Boltons bent the knee about 1000 years ago and yes, there was a rebellion pretty soon after that. I always thought that it was an attempt by the newly subjugated Boltons to "rise blades in hand" and throw off the Stark yoke ;).

I am really not sure where numbers like 3K or 4K years back are coming from? I may be forgetting something, of course...

Because the Greystarks were a cadet branch of the Starks that existed more than 3000 years ago, until they joined the Boltons in rebellion against Winterfell and were eradicated.

Hence, the Boltons were already rebelling against the Starks back in those days, rather than being an independent kingdom warring with a neighboring Stark kingdom.

[ELDoggo]

I doubt very much that Boltons were ever kings. Why wasnt that mentioned earlier in the novels? Seems like a kinda thing they would have been proud of/brag about.

And for those saying that Bolton vassals would give Starks the same problems as Boltons did...that could be mitigated by upjumping one of their vassals.

Seems to have worked fine for Targaryens when they replaced House Gardener with Tyrels.

Sure, they had dragons, but after dragons died out they didnt try to break free, did they? While controlling the most populated area of Westeros they could potentially raise a great army and give IT a run for their money

[Maia]

Because the Greystarks were a cadet branch of the Starks that existed more than 3000 years ago, until they joined the Boltons in rebellion against Winterfell and were eradicated.

Eh, not sure how cadet Starks holding what later became White Harbour and evolving into a separate family is evidence of Boltons not being independant? Greystarks were eradicated about 1000 years ago, pretty soon after Boltons first bent the knee to Starks. I guess that they were not yet resigned to their fate and tried to free themselves at the earliest opportunity?

[Free Northman Reborn]

I doubt very much that Boltons were ever kings. Why wasnt that mentioned earlier in the novels? Seems like a kinda thing they would have been proud of/brag about.

And for those saying that Bolton vassals would give Starks the same problems as Boltons did...that could be mitigated by upjumping one of their vassals.

Seems to have worked fine for Targaryens when they replaced House Gardener with Tyrels.

Sure, they had dragons, but after dragons died out they didnt try to break free, did they? While controlling the most populated area of Westeros they could potentially raise a great army and give IT a run for their money

In the early part of the Age of Heroes there were hundreds of First Man kingdoms spread across Westeros. Back in the day, all of the old Northern Houses were likely petty kings. Most likely you had at a minimum:

Stark Kings of Winter

Bolton Kings of Dread

Umber Giant Kings

Dustin Barrow Kings

Ryswell Rill Kings

Reed Marsh Kings

Maybe Kings of the Hornwood

Also during this time you had the Mountain Clans and Skagosi Chiefs.

I am pretty sure there were also some old Kings of the areas along the White Knife, currently occupied by the Manderlys. Most likely the Starks wiped them out with the help of some Mountain Clan Flints, and gave part of that territory to the Flints of Widow's Watch.

Over time, the Starks would have conquered all of these rival kings. The difference between the North and the Southron Kingdoms, was that the Starks appear to have completed their conquest of the entire North far earlier than any of the Southern Kings managed to unite their respective areas. We know this because by the time the Andals arrived, they faced the 100 kingdoms of the First Men, and yet the Starks seem to have ruled the entire North as their kingdom at the time, while the remaining 99 First Man Kings had to share the South.

For example, we know that the Neck was already under Stark control by the time the Andals tried to invade. And the Neck was one of the last areas brought into the Stark Realm. In fact, the Starks already established the Wolf's Den a generation before the Neck was brought into the realm.

And we know the Starks already had great influence at the Wall since long before the Andals arrived, signifying that their rule likely stretched all the way up to the Wall as well at this time.

So the Boltons likely were brought down last, but even they must have been long conquered by the time that the Greystarks joined them in rebellion more than 3000 years ago.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Eh, not sure how cadet Starks holding what later became White Harbour and evolving into a separate family is evidence of Boltons not being independant? Greystarks were eradicated about 1000 years ago, pretty soon after Boltons first bent the knee to Starks. I guess that they were not yet resigned to their fate and tried to free themselves at the earliest opportunity?

Incorrect. The Greystarks lived more than 3000 years ago.

[butterbumps!]

I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I see how it could have came off that way. I don't generally agree with your Bolton theories/speculation, but I'm happy to talk with anyone who is as into the Dreadfort as I am :cheers:

The bolded part I could definitely get on board with, though. Nothing like "Starks bad Boltons good", but a self-interested unwillingness on the part of other Northern houses to exterminate the Boltons. Coupled with Bolton cunning, of course. The development of White Harbor under the Manderlys was a huge boon for Stark authority if you think about it

Oh, lol, no problem. I think we tend to agree about Roose and Rams' purely political moves, though, right? The disagreement tends to be about whether there's something magical going on I think. And about that side of things, I'm honestly not sure what I believe beyond strongly suspecting that the Boltons are connected to ice in some way. I think varying levels of power or knowledge to that end are plausible, from something like we see with Craster in terms of knowing how to protect themselves from or exploit winter by "getting right with the gods," to knowing how to actually unleash it and wield it in their own right, to even having some form of more direct Stark/ Other connection, like being an offshoot line of the NK. I'm pretty open to any possibility in terms of something occult there.

And yea, I definitely agree it won't be as simple as "Starks bad/ Boltons good."

Sorry to be all nitpicky, but we didn't actually hear anything about 8K years of dominance. 8K is just an alleged age of House Stark. It appears that the earliest date of unification of the North is 1K years ago, when Boltons finally bent the knee. That is, if historical time-line wasn't just inflated by factor 2 or so, which, I suspect, might be the case.

I imagine that hostage-taking and occasional execution had to be about the clans fighting against the Starks or their other bannemen, because you don't execute a hostage for something trivial. Also, there are all the historical parallels with warlike and unruly mountain tribes iRL, in Scotland and elsewhere.

Yes, the North was divided. Umbers, Hornwoods and Dustins all used to be petty (or not so petty, given the size of the North) kings, as well as Boltons. And there was King of the Marsh, of course, who might have been an ancestor of the Reeds, but we don't know for sure. Plus, there could have been some extinguished formerly kingly Houses.

Kind of interesting that there may have been followers of the northern magical traditions carried off into the East, yes. Does half-weirwood door of the House of Black and White signify such a connection too? As far as we know, weirwoods only grow in Westeros, after all, and there is a common thread of both Boltons and FM skinning people...

Also, there would be an interesting dichotomy if Starks used to be skin-changers in the sense that they could warg animals, while Boltons have been skin-changers who could literally shape-shift using the skins of their victims.

There are always Skagosi ;). But we don't know how uncontested or otherwise the Stark rule was, not until the worldbook comes out.

Well, there was actually much more to it than that, according to the Westerlands reading. I am not sure that it was so much Tywin himself, who was unique, rather than his circumstances. IMHO, there was a much stronger public and crown support for his actions due to the general situation in the West and crimes of Reynes and Tarbecks in particular, than there might have been otherwise.

In any case, unlike the Starks of old versus Boltons, Tywin didn't have to besiege either of them for years - if it came to that, he would have had to come to an accommodation with them too.

I would argue rather, that Peakes lucked out, because Maekar's death and succession crisis that followed it made further siege of their castle untenable. Something like that may have happened with the Boltons, too.

Well, I was going with the party-line we get from the books-- how the Starks allegedly ruled the North for 8k years, and the lack of mentions of the other Houses as having "kings." Are you speculating about the North's having been divided and having multiple kings, or were more pages of the World Book released? I'm very amenable to speculating about it, I just wanted to know what's "known" versus mutable. To be sure, I question the timeline and the history of the North generally, so I'm very much on board with challenging what we supposedly know about it, I just want to look at any reference I might have missed before responding to those further points.

In terms of what "types" of magic various Houses might have wielded, I like where you're going with "Starks wear skins of animals/ Boltons wear the dead." I'm not quite sure if part of the Others' magic involves skinchanging the dead-- it looks like they reanimate the dead, but is there some form of "wearing" corpses part of it, the way one wargs a wolf? I lean toward this as being what the Others' do-- that one of the ways they differ from old gods magic is in their ability to skinchange the dead (they hold the wights in thrall, and seem to command them "wirelessly"). The Faceless' magic is basically a variation on that, where the skinchanging isn't a projection like with warging, but more of an absorption. I think the wearing of corpses by Boltons could go in a few directions-- besides "Stark envy" of warging, it could be something like the Faceless as you say, or even mocking the "weak" Starks by flaunting that their powers extend to skinchanging into the dead or something.

I suspect there might be something connecting the Starks to ice as well-- something along the lines of their having wielded ice magic in the past, then reverting back to the old gods or something after a major event occurred (like, for example, the Long Night/ NK unpleasantness). I'm curious if House Bolton exists as part of that theoretical split (for example, the Starks abandoned ice in favor of the old gods, while the Boltons were offshoots who continued to wield ice, or something like that as the root). That's probably way too speculative for this thread, but I wanted to note that I'm very skeptical of the early history, and that I think we're missing a lot about what the early Starks were about.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Oh, lol, no problem. I think we tend to agree about Roose and Rams' purely political moves, though, right? The disagreement tends to be about whether there's something magical going on I think. And about that side of things, I'm honestly not sure what I believe beyond strongly suspecting that the Boltons are connected to ice in some way. I think varying levels of power or knowledge to that end are plausible, from something like we see with Craster in terms of knowing how to protect themselves from or exploit winter by "getting right with the gods," to knowing how to actually unleash it and wield it in their own right, to even having some form of more direct Stark/ Other connection, like being an offshoot line of the NK. I'm pretty open to any possibility in terms of something occult there.

And yea, I definitely agree it won't be as simple as "Starks bad/ Boltons good."

Well, I was going with the party-line we get from the books-- how the Starks allegedly ruled the North for 8k years, and the lack of mentions of the other Houses as having "kings." Are you speculating about the North's having been divided and having multiple kings, or were more pages of the World Book released? I'm very amenable to speculating about it, I just wanted to know what's "known" versus mutable. To be sure, I question the timeline and the history of the North generally, so I'm very much on board with challenging what we supposedly know about it, I just want to look at any reference I might have missed before responding to those further points.

In terms of what "types" of magic various Houses might have wielded, I like where you're going with "Starks wear skins of animals/ Boltons wear the dead." I'm not quite sure if part of the Others' magic involves skinchanging the dead-- it looks like they reanimate the dead, but is there some form of "wearing" corpses part of it, the way one wargs a wolf? I lean toward this as being what the Others' do-- that one of the ways they differ from old gods magic is in their ability to skinchange the dead (they hold the wights in thrall, and seem to command them "wirelessly"). The Faceless' magic is basically a variation on that, where the skinchanging isn't a projection like with warging, but more of an absorption. I think the wearing of corpses by Boltons could go in a few directions-- besides "Stark envy" of warging, it could be something like the Faceless as you say, or even mocking the "weak" Starks by flaunting that their powers extend to skinchanging into the dead or something.

I suspect there might be something connecting the Starks to ice as well-- something along the lines of their having wielded ice magic in the past, then reverting back to the old gods or something after a major event occurred (like, for example, the Long Night/ NK unpleasantness). I'm curious if House Bolton exists as part of that theoretical split (for example, the Starks abandoned ice in favor of the old gods, while the Boltons were offshoots who continued to wield ice, or something like that as the root). That's probably way too speculative for this thread, but I wanted to note that I'm very skeptical of the early history, and that I think we're missing a lot about what the early Starks were about.

The North was undoubtedly divided between many petty kings back in the most ancient of days. However, unlike in the South, the Starks appear to have succeeded in conquering the bulk of the North far earlier than their southern counterparts were able to do in the 6 Southron kingdoms.

So much so that when the Andals landed, they found the "hundred Kingdoms of the First Men". And yet, by this point the Starks already ruled all the way down to the Neck, which was what allowed them to resist the Andal invaders. Meaning they must have ruled the Barrowlands and the Rills by that point as well.

We also know the Starks ruled the Wolfsden even before they ruled the Neck, meaning that the Stark rule at the time of the Andal arrival, extended as far South as Greywater Watch, and all the way to the Narrow Sea in the East.

And since the Wolfswood is likely named after the Starks, it appears that their rule has extended to the Stony Shore since the earliest of days. And since the Starks have been the primary roleplayers in the establishment of the Night's Watch, it would appear that their influence extended as far North as the Wall at least from very early times as well.

All of this means that the Starks likely conquered most of the North at a time when the South was still divided between scores of petty kingdoms, well before the Andals arrived.

My guess is around 4000 years ago as a minimum for the Stark conquest of the North. And possibly even earlier than that. The Stark role in establishing the Wall likely gave them a huge headstart in their quest to unify their kingdom, compared to the much longer struggle the Southron kings had to try and duplicate that feat.

Meaning that for most of history, the King in the North was the superpower of Westeros, ruling a million square mile territory at a time when the King of the Rock ruled Casterly Rock and little else beside it, and when the Storm King ruled Storm's End but competed with a dozen other petty kings for control over the Stormlands.

Etc.

[butterbumps!]

The North was undoubtedly divided between many petty kings back in the most ancient of days. However, unlike in the South, the Starks appear to have succeeded in conquering the bulk of the North far earlier than their southern counterparts were able to do in the 6 Southron kingdoms.

So much so that when the Andals landed, they found the "hundred Kingdoms of the First Men". And yet, by this point the Starks already ruled all the way down to the Neck, which was what allowed them to resist the Andal invaders. Meaning they must have ruled the Barrowlands and the Rills by that point as well.

We also know the Starks ruled the Wolfsden even before they ruled the Neck, meaning that the Stark rule at the time of the Andal arrival, extended as far South as Greywater Watch, and all the way to the Narrow Sea in the East.

And since the Wolfswood is likely named after the Starks, it appears that their rule has extended to the Stony Shore since the earliest of days. And since the Starks have been the primary roleplayers in the establishment of the Night's Watch, it would appear that their influence extended as far North as the Wall at least from very early times as well.

All of this means that the Starks likely conquered most of the North at a time when the South was still divided between scores of petty kingdoms, well before the Andals arrived.

Yes, my impression was that the Starks were in control of the North, having annexed all these other kingdoms and emerging as the dominant authority very early on in the game, so that most of the North's history doesn't include multiple kingdoms. With the possible exception of the Boltons, who either only kneeled as a vassal 1k years ago, or kneeled earlier and were vocally recalcitrant until 1k years ago.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Yes, my impression was that the Starks were in control of the North, having annexed all these other kingdoms and emerging as the dominant authority very early on in the game, so that most of the North's history doesn't include multiple kingdoms. With the possible exception of the Boltons, who either only kneeled as a vassal 1k years ago, or kneeled earlier and were vocally recalcitrant until 1k years ago.

We know they knelt earlier than 1000 years ago, because they were already rebelling back when the Greystarks still existed. So option B is the answer, it seems. "Kneeled but remained vocally recalcitrant until 1k years ago."

[butterbumps!]

We know they knelt earlier than 1000 years ago, because they were already rebelling back when the Greystarks still existed. So option B is the answer, it seems. "Kneeled but remained vocally recalcitrant until 1k years ago."

It's ambiguous actually:

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.

They might not have recognized Stark authority until this. History might term it a "rebellion," but they might have called themselves kings.