Any cruel Starks in the history?

[StarkofWinterfell]

47 minutes ago, TimJames said:

Theon Stark, The Hungry Wolf. 

In retribution to an invasion lead by ONE Andal Adventurer, Theon Stark sailed to Andalos with a large armada to take revenge against Andalos (even though those in Andalos stayed behind and therefore had nothing to do with Artos Sevenstar's invasion of The North). 

As the wiki states, "There he took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process. The heads of the slain the Hungry Wolf claimed as prizes, carrying them back to Westeros and planting them on spikes along his own coasts as a warning to other would be conquerors."

This wasn't justice, it wasn't justifiable, it was fucking genocide! He murdered thousands of people for no other reason than because they belonged to a specific ethnic/cultural group. 

Then later The Hungry Wolf launched what came to be known as The Rape of The Three Sisters. 

"According to chronicles written by Sistermen and men of the Vale of Arryn, the northmen committed numerous atrocities. Supposedly, they killed children and cooked them in pots, disemboweled men and wound their entrails around spits, executed three thousand warriors in a single day at the Headman's Mount, and Belthasar Bolton made a "Pink Pavilion" out of the flayed skins of a hundred Sistermen."

That's some Nanking shit right there. Even if The Sistermen were Eugenicist Pirates, they still didn't deserve to be so horrifically mistreated. 

In total, Theon Stark was a bloodthirsty monster with a long list of crimes against humanity. There's a reason the Starks stopped using the name Theon.

 

Where does it say it was ethnic genocide? Seems like he took decisive action to prevent further Andal incursions into the North.

Is the North Andal today? No!

 

Thank you Theon Stark.

[Winter's Cold]

3 minutes ago, Grissom said:

You sure about that? He ended up murdered by his own son while taking a shit. Do you really think ruthlessness produced good results?

Tywin ultimately died because he mistreated his own son not due to any actions taken by his enemies.

[LordPathera]

3 minutes ago, TimJames said:

The Andals in Andalos stayed behind; they had literally nothing to do with Argos Sevenstar's invasion of The North. 

I shouldn't have to explain this, but "The Andals" are not a hive-mind. Some invaded North, some invaded South, and some stayed home and tended their farms in peace. Theon only killing the first ones would be fine, but instead he went after the third one. Calling Theon's invasion of Andalos an act of self-defense would be like calling the Bosnian Genocide an act of self-defense. He wasn't trying to remove a king from power, or enact a political change, or even increase his territorial holdings: Theon's invasion of Andalos literally had no other goal than to end as many non-Northern lives as possible. Go to an Andalos Town, decapitate every man, woman, and child there, collect their heads, rinse and repeat. 

"You attacked me, so now I'm gonna kill everyone with the same race as you!" is not something that can ever be justified. Guilt is NOT transitive. 

As for fighting off the Ironborn, so what? Even Joseph Stalin fought wars against Adolf Hitler; doesn't make him a Hero.

The Hungry Wolf was a monster with no redeeming qualities. Compared to The Hungry Wolf, Maegor the Cruel had restraint. Compared to The Hungry Wolf, Cersei Lannister had a just conscience. 

The Andals were pretty consistent about invading and claiming Westeros as theirs from the First Men. Maybe not a Hivemind, but clearly this was a huge movement by the Andal people. Not only that, the Andals were essentially doing to the First Men what Europeans did to Native Americans...so calling Theon's actions murder after what the Andals have done and tried to do is a clear double-standard.

I'm not condoning his actions, I merely understand that the lion's share of blame for that conflict and the lives lost go with the Andals for invading and attacking in the first place.

Also does World of Ice and Fire clarify that Theon attacked more than merely Argos' lands as Argos was a warlord. That means that his lands could have encompassed a large territory with several towns and so on. Even then, Argos wasn't the only Andal slaughtering and invading the First Men, why apply a double-standard to Theon's act of self-defense?

[Grissom]

22 minutes ago, TimJames said:

Compared to The Hungry Wolf, Maegor the Cruel had restraint. Compared to The Hungry Wolf, Cersei Lannister had a just conscience. Compared to The Hungry Wolf, Tywin Lannister was merciful. 

Theon Stark is literally hitler. 

[Tijgy]

14 hours ago, Sullen said:

Kind of a necropost here, but eh.

I disagree, Eddard got his head chopped off because he pushed for war with the Lannisters, in the name of honour and feudal duty. If keeping people as safe as possible was his plan, he would have gone with Renly's plan, Littlefinger's plan, or would have willingly ignored the subject of succession.

Eddard chose war and death over "dishonour".

The war actually already started in the RL. Tywin did that in retribution for the kidnapping of his son by Cat and because he hoped Ned would go to there to punish him and so he could capture Ned. 

If Ned would have gone directly to Robert, Robert might have killed the Lannisters' and a whole war would have really started again. 

Ned wanted to commit a "coup" and not a war. He trusted the wrong man (LF). And he tried to be named regent in the right way.

And Ned would not have his head got chopped off if it was for Joffrey. 

But yeah, he did not chose to support the Lannisters who had actually totally no legal right to the throne, who committed treason for fourteen years by the incestuous relationship of the twins, who were already burning the riverlands, who killed (according to him) the late Hand, who crippled his son and who tried (according to him) to kill his son. 

Could you ever support an illegal heir to throne while you know your son was crippled to hide his illegality? I think you cannot really suspect that of anyone. 

The blame of the war lies on the shoulders of the Lannisters because of their crimes/atrocities they committed. 

[Sullen]

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

The war actually already started in the RL. Tywin did that in retribution for the kidnapping of his son by Cat and because he hoped Ned would go to there to punish him and so he could capture Ned. 

The conflict in the Riverlands wasn't a fully-fledged War at this point, it could have easily been resolved diplomatically.

 

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

If Ned would have gone directly to Robert, Robert might have killed the Lannisters' and a whole war would have really started again. 

Ned wanted to commit a "coup" and not a war. He trusted the wrong man (LF). And he tried to be named regent in the right way.

Eddard's coup would have undoubtedly led to war just as much as if he told Robert of the incest, if not more. The fact that Eddard declares for Stannis means the Tyrells will fight kicking and screaming against it, as Littlefinger points out.

And yes, he was named regent in the "right" way, the dumb way too. No one had reason to believe him, and he was a fool to believe he could take on Cersei on her home turf, especially after turning down the sensible advice of Renly (who wisely flees to save his neck) and Littlefinger (who turns against him instead of supporting a King that would have most likely ended up wanting his head on a spike)

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

And Ned would not have his head got chopped off if it was for Joffrey. 

A stupid move on Joffrey's part, but in the context of him being King, a perfectly justifiable one. Eddard was a traitor of the highest degree, a swift death was merciful, especially when you consider how cruel Joffrey could be, and what usually happened to traitors in medieval times.

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

But yeah, he did not chose to support the Lannisters who had actually totally no legal right to the throne, who committed treason for fourteen years by the incestuous relationship of the twins, who were already burning the riverlands, who killed (according to him) the late Hand, who crippled his son and who tried (according to him) to kill his son. 

Could you ever support an illegal heir to throne while you know your son was crippled to hide his illegality? I think you cannot really suspect that of anyone. 

If the alternative is continent-wide war? (Which Eddard was aware it would lead to, he simply didn't give a damn)

Yes, I can absolutely see someone pragmatically spitting on their own pride and honour in the name of sparing the Realm years upon years of extreme suffering and war, especially considering that winter is coming, and you can't afford to waste resources on an extended conflict.

5 hours ago, Tijgy said:

The blame of the war lies on the shoulders of the Lannisters because of their crimes/atrocities they committed. 

The blame of the war falls on whoever chose open conflict and violence rather than intrigue or diplomacy to settle their own scores, that includes both Eddard and Tywin, both Joffrey and Robb. They were the ones with the last say as to what was going to happen, and they all willingly chose to go to war.

[TimJames]

7 hours ago, Grissom said:

Theon Stark is literally hitler. 

Yep.

The thing is, Theon Stark's invasion of Andalos had no other goals beyond "kill as many Andals as possible". I don't care if the Andals "started it first" (guilt is not transitive, so the actions of Argos Sevenstar can not be attributed to the entire Andal cultural group); in resorting to such barbaric tactics, Hungry Wolf justified every Anti-First Men stereotype in The Andals Culture. 

It sure as hell didn't prevent future invasions. The Arryns later fought a war against The Starks which lasted centuries. I'm willing to bet that The War Across The Water started in the first place because Vale Andals heard about Theon Stark's cruelty and wanted to put it to an end. 

There was one person on this thread (I won't name names) who seemed to be of the opinion that two wrongs made a right; that person is now on my ignore list.

[redtree]

7 hours ago, StarkofWinterfell said:

Where does it say it was ethnic genocide? Seems like he took decisive action to prevent further Andal incursions into the North.

Is the North Andal today? No!

 

Thank you Theon Stark.

Is this sarcasm ? Right, because cooking children and pulling men's inside was necessary part of preventing ethnic mixing. Basically everything is justified to achieve a goal. 

[TimJames]

4 minutes ago, redtree said:

Is this sarcasm ? Right, because cooking children and pulling men's inside was necessary part of preventing ethnic mixing. Basically everything is justified to achieve a goal. 

I think he's being serious. 

Personally, the North would have benefited by accepting some Andal Culture. That's what the Reach and The Iron Islands did; they gave land and title to some Andal adventurers, adopted their technological advances, intermarried, and came out stronger for it. If the Iron Islands are any indication, than The North wouldn't even have to renounce their gods. 

[Kal-L]

23 minutes ago, TimJames said:

Yep.

The thing is, Theon Stark's invasion of Andalos had no other goals beyond "kill as many Andals as possible". I don't care if the Andals "started it first" (guilt is not transitive, so the actions of Argos Sevenstar can not be attributed to the entire Andal cultural group); in resorting to such barbaric tactics, Hungry Wolf justified every Anti-First Men stereotype in The Andals Culture. 

It sure as hell didn't prevent future invasions. The Arryns later fought a war against The Starks which lasted centuries. I'm willing to bet that The War Across The Water started in the first place because Vale Andals heard about Theon Stark's cruelty and wanted to put it to an end. 

There was one person on this thread (I won't name names) who seemed to be of the opinion that two wrongs made a right; that person is now on my ignore list.

The Kings of Three Sisters were no saints, they used to ravage, sack and rape villages of the North when the Northmen decided to conquer their isles.
The war between the North and the Vale started when the Lords of the Three Sisters swore allegiance to the Vale in exchange of protection against Northmen.

[TimJames]

Just now, Kal-L said:

The Kings of Three Sisters were no saints, they used to ravage, sack and rape villages of the North when the Northmen decided to conquer their isles.
The war between the North and the Vale started when the Lords of the Three Sisters swore allegiance to the Vale in exchange of protection against the Northmen.

Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said before: even if The Sistermen were Eugenicist Pirates, they still didn't deserve to be so horrifically mistreated. 

I'm on the fringe: I believe that massacring civilians and children is NEVER permissible and that anyone who engages in such actions deserves to be hanged. 

[The Wolves]

34 minutes ago, redtree said:

Is this sarcasm ? Right, because cooking children and pulling men's inside was necessary part of preventing ethnic mixing. Basically everything is justified to achieve a goal. 

I'm not justifying killing innocents and ripping their enemies insides out but what the Andals planned to do was not only "ethnics mixing" 

 

[redtree]

27 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

I'm not justifying killing innocents and ripping their enemies insides out but what the Andals planned to do was not only "ethnics mixing" 

I was replying specifically to StarkofWinterfell (haven't read your post in this thread), his post was rather callous and the only mention why he supports it is "Is the North Andal today ? No" meaning his main point is more about ethnic mixing and less about cruelty, he actually justified Theon's cruelty. He did all of the savagery simply because he was the kind of man who had no qualms about cooking children, ergo cruel

[TOM of the North]

On 09.07.2015 at 2:57 PM, Starkist said:

Are there any cruel Starks in history that we know of? If so what did they do?

 

Well it depends on the standards you want to apply.

By today's standards all of them were all cruel, by the standards of their period probably none or not many.

[TOM of the North]

11 hours ago, Grissom said:

Theon Stark is literally hitler. 

More like  Roosevelt towards Japan.

 

[TOM of the North]

4 hours ago, TimJames said:

Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said before: even if The Sistermen were Eugenicist Pirates, they still didn't deserve to be so horrifically mistreated. 

I'm on the fringe: I believe that massacring civilians and children is NEVER permissible and that anyone who engages in such actions deserves to be hanged. 

1. Your two sentences contradict each other.

2. So you would hang every president of US since the WW2 ?

[Rob Storm]

Wow it's amazing how many people strongly condemn Theon Stark when nobody knows the true nature of Andal attacks.  Especially how people who think of Tywin as a saint after Castamere, Tysha, The Red Wedding, Sack of King's Landing ect.  

Obviously I don't condone Theon Starks methods but it doesn't seem terribly different than how Tywin deals with POTENTIAL complications or as sadistic as Bolton tactics in our current story (with new Theon and Lady Hornwood).  

 

That being said I know "cruel" is in the eye of the beholder but I kind of hope we see a little bit of cruelty from Sansa in her future arc.  

I don't want people attacking me for supporting cruel methods but we have all loved this story and the cruel acts of many characters have enhanced our interest and how much we care about characters in ASOIAF.  That said, I personally hope that Rickon may be one of the more recent "cruel" starks when he returns.  Simply to add intrigue to story and hopefully some actions that help restore House Stark.  

[The Wolves]

^Yep, I want ALL the current Starks to become some of Westeros' cruelest people.   

I need Jon to wake the feck up and start killing Stark enemies left and right. I want him to lead the Others, decorate Westeros with Lannister, Frey, and Bolton entrails, I want him to become a pyro. Yes the Starks need to get cruel. 

[TOM of the North]

5 hours ago, Sullen said:

The conflict in the Riverlands wasn't a fully-fledged War at this point, it could have easily been resolved diplomatically.

That is your opinion

1.Eddard's coup would have undoubtedly led to war just as much as if he told Robert of the incest, if not more. The fact that Eddard declares for Stannis means 2.the Tyrells will fight kicking and screaming against it, as Littlefinger points out.

1.The incest is what led to war

2. It could have easily been resolved diplomatically

And yes, he was named regent in the "right" way, the dumb way too. No one had reason to believe him, and he was a fool to believe he could take on Cersei on her home turf, especially after turning down the sensible advice of Renly (who wisely flees to save his neck) and Littlefinger (who turns against him instead of supporting a King that would have most likely ended up wanting his head on a spike)

The result would be war, later but still war.

A stupid move on Joffrey's part, but in the context of him being King, a perfectly justifiable one. Eddard was a traitor of the highest degree, a swift death was merciful, especially when you consider how cruel Joffrey could be, and what usually happened to traitors in medieval times.

They had a deal that Joffrey did not respect so no it was not a perfectly justifiable.

If the alternative is continent-wide war? (Which Eddard was aware it would lead to, he simply didn't give a damn)

Yes, I can absolutely see someone pragmatically spitting on their own pride and honour in the name of sparing the Realm years upon years of extreme suffering and war, especially considering that winter is coming, and you can't afford to waste resources on an extended conflict.

Who are they? because the Starks did not wrong the Lannisters. So the one you ask to spitt on their pride are the Starks.

The blame of the war falls on whoever chose open conflict and violence rather than intrigue or diplomacy to settle their own scores, that includes both Eddard and Tywin, both Joffrey and Robb. They were the ones with the last say as to what was going to happen, and they all willingly chose to go to war.

The one who chose open conflict and violence rather than intrigue or diplomacy was Tywin and then Jamie.

You are putting the blame on the one who cant fix the broken thing and nat on the one who broke the thing.

 

[Lord Ravenstark]

Some were harsh, but we don't know any deliberately "cruel". We don't know any that went down to burn people for their sake.

Merciless, harsh, ruthless. Although I doubt that at least one was not cruel.