Torrhen should not have knelt

[Hugorfonics]

Even if you live in the North and have snowballs for testicles you don't want to campaign in winter, people are people. The Northmen may be more resilient and adapted but it doesn't make them snowmen.

Winter is coming. They're not snowmen, they're something else

The Starks have been fighting smaller Southern Kingdoms who had to worry about their neighbours so could not focus entirely on the North.

A united South is a whole new ballgame. None trading with the North, a permanent pirate navy established at the Three Sisters allowed to harry as much as they want and giving the Iron Born free reign to plunder the East Coast.

The South could wait a long time before they even have to send a soldier on to Northern soil.

Once winter stops is when you the Targs send the Dragons and soldiers in. Burn the fields and towns, weaken the North until they starve.

Take away their food, deprive them of trade and make the Starks pay for 4 armies, on both coasts, the Wall and at Moat Cailin. They would just get weaker each year.

What food are they going to get from Hardhome?

Blockade White Harbor making it impossible for Braavos merchants to trade with the North. Or simply give them a choice, pick the poor North or the hugely rich South to trade with.

No one gives ironborn anything. A unified south could beat up the north and chuck norris, with one hand. However Westeros has never had a unified campaign, at least not one to this magnitude.

And each year of failed conquest will have Aegons chair looking less sharp. Westeros is filled with schemers and misbelivers, that's why he didn't conquer Dorne.

Hardhome has no food? Whiteharbor is not the only place on the coast. Braavos has no love of dragons and they're riders.

[NorthGirl]

FYI: I'm a total separatist and the two most prime candidates for independence in my eyes are the North and Dorne.

But seriously, that was a good move on Torrhen (sp?) Stark's part. Why lose all those lives to get the same result minus a crown.

Aegon was the chillest conqueror when not opposed. He only wanted the title of king and let every kingdom keep everything exactly the same and the rest of the 7K left the North alone. They didn't gain much but at least they didn't lose anything except the Starks' right to call themselves kings. I would say that most of the vassals cared more about continuing business as usual and keeping their life exactly as it was before more than calling the Starks Kings in the North. Honestly, even now, the North might as well be an independent kingdom. They interfere rarely and keep their nose in their own business and, intentionally or not, they didn't mix with the Targs (good idea, too much drama). They didn't lose much and kept all their population safe, they still do things their way, they kept their religion, it's a win win situation. Why waste bravado over a title? For all intents and purposes, Ned might as well have been King in the North. Right now, the North doesn't give a flying rat what the IT says/wants/orders. It was a pretty good deal then and if there is a Targ at the end on the IT, with the same terms, it would still be good terms.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Winter is coming. They're not snowmen, they're something else No one gives ironborn anything. A unified south could beat up the north and chuck norris, with one hand. However Westeros has never had a unified campaign, at least not one to this magnitude.

And each year of failed conquest will have Aegons chair looking less sharp. Westeros is filled with schemers and misbelivers, that's why he didn't conquer Dorne.

Hardhome has no food? Whiteharbor is not the only place on the coast. Braavos has no love of dragons and they're riders.

Not only does Hardhome have no food, it was destroyed 300 years before Aegons arrival. The North needs food in the Winter from kingdoms with a surplus amount. Hardome is not one of those.

Braavos might have no love of Dragons but they love money and trade. If its a choice between dealing with the South and the North then I'm sorry, they are going to go with where they will get the most profit.

Besides, they could camp out part of the Royal navy at the Three Sisters and blockade the Norths port, putting an end to trade. Allow the Ironborn to do the same on the East coast.

And I think Aegon will be able to deal just fine with the people of the South, will Torrhen be able to deal with famine, and constant raiding on the coasts.

A dwindling population after winter will need to be in the fields to harvest. All Aegon has to do is strike once Winter has ended, burn the fields. Read what William the Conqueror did to the North of England. A similar soloution would take the North.

[100 Whispering Woods]

"I said my people have bled enough! And I meant it!" -Torrhen Stark

[100 Whispering Woods]

"I said my people have bled enough! And I meant it!" -Torrhen Stark

[BarristanTheBeautiful]

Torrhen the dragonslayer?!

Meraxes was brought down with luck more than anything else, why would it happen again? We have no mention of any other unwounded / unchained dragon being killed by men on the ground. I suppose there's a chance but it's so slim that arguing over it is little more than a fool's errand.

The Starks have been fighting the south longer then the targaryens have been at dragonstone. Furthermore once winter hits is when Stark strikes, especially if the Targaryens are ever in the north.

The Starks have been fighting one or two weakened kingdoms at any given time, none of which ever had dragons. Also why on earth would the Starks strike once Winter hits? All the advantages they'd have in the North would be negated once he starts his march south not to mention he'd likely run into straight into Aegon's forces. (The assumption here is that he'd instead blockade the North and wait for Winter to do its worst)

There are also other places then the south. Braavos and Hardhome for example are both closer to winterfell then the south, they could offer trade.

Hardhome. Is that a joke? The abandoned outpost north of the Wall will feed Torrhen's men? As for Braavos, I remind you that just prior to the conquest they had been allied with Aegon in their quest to push back Volantis and free Tyrosh, Myr & Lys. But let's say that meant nothing, let's say they learnt nothing from watching Balerion wreak havoc on Volantene forces or stories of Vhagar's destruction of the Vale navy. It comes down to money now. You're a smart man so I'll give you the two options and you choose which sounds more appealing; 1. support Aegon and his newly-forged Kingdom, curry favour with the crown, or 2. support Torrhen Stark and have your city burnt to the ground by Balerion or Vhagar.

[Bastard of Nightsong]

<snip>

3. Titles are not arbitrary, kings blood is real. Why surrender? In every war people die, should everyone surrender to the foreign bully, or fight for your ancestors honor and descendants rights

While I find the notion that war is better than no war somewhat...puzzling, even if one accepts the notion that resisting the Targs wouldn't have gone incredibly badly for the Starks and the North in general, it's the bolded above that I feel the need to respond to. There is some suggestion in the books that kings' blood does have actual power (as well as hints leading to the opposite conclusion. Mel is...not entirely reliable, to say the least). But why would anyone think that the power comes from the blood--that is, the heredity--of the person in question? Surely Stannis' blood has power because he is a king, yes? He isn't a king because of power inherent in his blood. I realize one could draw the opposite conclusion from some of the things Melisandre says and does, especially her interest in Edric Storm. But my read of the books, and of the author, has any potential power coming from the recognition of the person as king, not their family. As always, different strokes...

But seriously, burn the army, burn the fields, burn the (incredibly extensive) woods. Blockade White Harbor and raid the coasts. Seal the south end of the Neck, Moat Cailin style. You never need come within a thousand yards of any northern fortifications. Just keep up the harassment and wait for winter to come. When spring returns, and literally everyone up north is dead, resettle with some nice obedient Andals. Total war, Targaryen edition. <The fact that Aegon didn't want to kill everyone is why Dorne remained unconquered, IMO. But in the North, you don't have to do the dirty work, the weather does it for you. Even with massive food storage as a way of life, the North lost a substantial chunk of its population every few years when winter came again. Let them spend a summer where they can't set any food aside--because you're burning it all--and it's all over. >

And titles not arbitrary? There's nothing more arbitrary. Like the man said, we can't choose our parents.

Whew, I got a little heated there. Sorry, I try to stay away from anything like attacks here. Except for the specific question about the power of kings blood, none of this was directed at anyone in particular. The other stuff is just my opinion. My degree is in history, my read of which is that it is A) depressingly repetitive, and B) a war you don't have to fight never makes things better. Torrhen traded being a king in name for being a king in all-but-name, and saved thousands (or millions, see my nightmare scenario) of lives in the process. I'm always going to call that a win. So...that's my bias on public display. Never mind that I took my username from a noted warrior and follower of the Warrior because I thought he sounded like a bad ass. Hypocrisy just looks good on me.

[PeacockB]

I have to admit that i am confused.

Why is it that so many of you believe that the North won't survive if they followed Brandon's plan, which was to assassinate the dragons (plural).

So let run this through hypothetically. Torrhen has his 30000 men and Moat Cailin at his back, the Targs 45000 men + 3 dragons.

Implement Brandon's plan the targs lose their dragons the only thing binding the former kings to their dynasty.

Be honest how long do you think a Lannister would remain a vassal to a man who only has a slight advantage in the field and has just lost his only hold over you.

I see every one talking about blockades from a unified south. But what you fail to realize is that without the dragons there is no such thing as a unified south. No offense to Aegon but without his pets he's as good as dead.

[BarristanTheBeautiful]

I have to admit that i am confused.

Why is it that so many of you believe that the North won't survive if they followed Brandon's plan, which was to assassinate the dragons (plural).

So let run this through hypothetically. Torrhen has his 30000 men and Moat Cailin at his back, the Targs 45000 men + 3 dragons.

Implement Brandon's plan the targs lose their dragons the only thing binding the former kings to their dynasty.

Be honest how long do you think a Lannister would remain a vassal to a man who only has a slight advantage in the field and has just lost his only hold over you.

I see every one talking about blockades from a unified south. But what you fail to realize is that without the dragons there is no such thing as a unified south. No offense to Aegon but without his pets he's as good as dead.

Yeah, it's easy guys! We just sneak behind 45,000 enemy soldiers and assassinate three living, breathing dragons. One of which is large enough that its wings can plunge towns into shadow when they're spread and his fire can melt stone.

You see the flaw in that idea?

[Gibzit]

Yeah, why does everybody assume that Brandon Snow has the skills to sneak behind a massive host and assasinate 3 dragons, which will most likely have many men gurading them.

And what if that plan fails? Aegon just goes and makes another field of fire.

[Cladinator]

If Torrhen had not knelt there would not have been Starks for us to read about in ASoIaF.

[Humble Maester]

I don't think North would had survived a war with the dragons, there are some pretty major differences to Dorne (which have already been mentioned). You can't burn sand but you can burn all those forests and fields. Taking control of North might be difficult but practically ruining it wouldn't, just destroy their food production, blockade their major port and let winter finish them off. The winter is always coming.

Someone mentioned something about "for the love of gods, think of the freedom and independence" but what is actually the intrinsic value of freedom and independence? By losing it's independence North gained peace, trade and prosperity. North as a part of the Seven Kingdoms is a more prosperous place. (At least in reality a king would not let his northern subject starve in winters when he has significant food surplus south, though I don't think we hear of any food relief in the series).

I don't honestly think Brandon Snow could had assassinated three huge adult dragons, maybe he'd luck out with one but then North would be done (and that huge host they had gathered would be the first to burn).

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I have to admit that i am confused.

Why is it that so many of you believe that the North won't survive if they followed Brandon's plan, which was to assassinate the dragons (plural).

Remind me, how many dragons had Brandon Snow previously assassinated?

Why didn't he teach his secret dragon assassination tricks to any of the other Starks? We know that the sons of Torrhen were pissed when the Targs made their sister marry Ronnel Arryn.

Why did no Starks try to assassinate any of Jaehaerys many dragons when he gave away Stark land to the Nights Watch? Ellard was certainly unhappy when the Targs did that.

Why did none of the Northmen try to assassinate the Dragons during the Dance of the Dragons?

I'm seeing a lot of evidence of Starks not being able to assassinate Dragons and little evidence to suggest that they can.

North as a part of the Seven Kingdoms is a more prosperous place. (At least in reality a king would not let his northern subject starve in winters when he has significant food surplus south, though I don't think we hear of any food relief in the series).

We do in the world book.

There was starvation and suffering in the North, as there had been a hundred years before, in the long winter that reigned from 130 to 135 AC. King Aegon, always concerned for the welfare of the poor and weak, did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North, but some felt he did too much in this regard.

And GRRM spoke of what winters are like in the North in this SSM

[LordStoneheart]

So let me get this straight...

The Starks are just so awesome that kneeling is beneath them

No southerners are allowed north unless invited (and as far as we can tell post-conquest none were)

Brandon truly was going to assassinate Aegon and/or the three dragons despite evidence against that notion

All Maesters ever are evil and unreliable despite Torrhen's employing and trusting of three of them

The Targ dragons most certainly would have no affect on the north and northern armies

The other houses that have already fallen to the Targs have no affect on the outcome

Weirwood trees are the end-all be-all answer to killing dragons despite there being no true evidence of this besides a vague vision in a series of vague visions

The magic of king's blood is real

Staying independent, even when not a sure thing, is worth thousands of civilian and soldier deaths because the northern masterrace is just. that. cool.

Now, I'm not saying all these things are false or true, but when put together, this is a metric fuck-ton of hoops that have to be jumped through to say that Torrhen made a mistake by kneeling.

The way I see it, Torrhen prevented as much casualties as he could by giving up a title that is essentially useless since his station stayed the same. That is a good decision to me. The one thing I could say was negative for him was his children's disapproval, but that is entirely on them and their short-sighted pride.

[Humble Maester]

We do in the world book.

There was starvation and suffering in the North, as there had been a hundred years before, in the long winter that reigned from 130 to 135 AC. King Aegon, always concerned for the welfare of the poor and weak, did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North, but some felt he did too much in this regard.

And GRRM spoke of what winters are like in the North in this SSM

Thanks, I do have the world book but didn't recall that detail. Good that it was included (because that's like the most obvious advantage to North being part of the same kingdom as the Reach and Riverlands).

[PeacockB]

You're right there are no mention of Brandon having killed dragons or being able to accomplish the task.

But i just can't imagine him desecrating his holy tree(risking the wrath of his gods), convince his brother to march and be like "Mmhe, lets see what happens."

Those actions shows he had confidence in his abilities, and chances.

And i highly doubt that the dragons were sleeping in the camp. so he really didn't have to avoid the entire army.

[PeacockB]

You're right there are no mention of Brandon having killed dragons or being able to accomplish the task.

But i just can't imagine him desecrating his holy tree(risking the wrath of his gods), convince his brother to march and be like "Mmhe, lets see what happens."

Those actions shows he had confidence in his abilities, and chances.

And i highly doubt that the dragons were sleeping in the camp. so he really didn't have to avoid the entire army.

[PeacockB]

You're right there are no mention of Brandon having killed dragons or being able to accomplish the task.

But i just can't imagine him desecrating his holy tree(risking the wrath of his gods), convince his brother to march and be like "Mmhe, lets see what happens."

Those actions shows he had confidence in his abilities, and chances.

And i highly doubt that the dragons were sleeping in the camp. so he really didn't have to avoid the entire army.

[LordStoneheart]

You're right there are no mention of Brandon having killed dragons or being able to accomplish the task.

But i just can't imagine him desecrating his holy tree(risking the wrath of his gods), convince his brother to march and be like "Mmhe, lets see what happens."

Those actions shows he had confidence in his abilities, and chances.

And i highly doubt that the dragons were sleeping in the camp. so he really didn't have to avoid the entire army.

Why not? Where does it say not to take branches from the weirwood tree? In the weirwood bible? heh.

there is no confirmation that it was Brandon Snow in the visions besides the number of arrows matching the number of dragons. If you stop and think about it, that's a pretty big leap. Whoever came up with the idea was certainly creative, but besides the number, there is literally nothing in the books to suggest weirwood is dragon's bane. And there have been dragons in the north, so I honestly think not. Open to being proven wrong by future books though.

[Mithras]

That's just an eloquent way of saying he was a coward.

I don't fault Torrhen's surrender because we know that Aegon was not a tyrant.

We think well of his action because from retrospect, it was a good decision.

Torrhen did not know that however: all he knew was that there was this unknown entity who had dragons and had completely annihilated the Harrens and the Reach-Westerland army in a bloody massacre.

He had no clue that Aegon wouldn't be a tyrant, yet he surrendered anyways. He gambled his kingdom's fate to a potential madman.

When Aegon and Torrhen met, Torrhen knew that Aegon forgave Loren Lannister when he bent knee to him and surrendered his crown, although they fought the previous day in the Field of Fire. He also knew that the Tyrells yielded Highgarden to Aegon without a fight and Aegon gave the castle to them and raised them to a Great House.

Therefore, Torrhen had two examples before him: Either follow the Lannisters or follow the Gardeners.