Jump to content

Manderly?


Pies are coming

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, SevasTra82 said:

I still hold out hope that HR will eventually show up somehow, some way, considering Meera is still alive.  They could be saving HR for Brans storyline, considering it's the most logical place for Meera to run to, and also the safest place for an incapacitated Bran to hang out.  That would be my guess why he's been excluded from the Bastard Battle.

He has to show up at some point, because he is the only one who can tell them what happened at the tower of joy (assuming that Ashara and Lyanna are dead and not hiding out under a secret identity). Bran can dream about it, but that is not going to convince anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SevasTra82 said:

I just assume 90% of them are still licking their wounds from the failed Robb war.  It's kind of hard to rally what remaining troops you have to go fight for yet *another* war after you just got your butt kicked in the previous one.  Morality must be at an all-time low right now in the North.

I'm sure nobody likes Ramsey running things, but what can they do?  They feel defeated and bitter over what Robb did.  That's my assumption on why they are turning their back on Jon.

Remember, other than the Boltons, most of the northern houses lost the bulk of their fighting men at the red wedding. It wasn't just the nobles at the actual wedding who got killed, the armies camped outside were massacred as well.

They are not really in a position to mount a rebellion again at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Masha said:

The change occurs because they can't have an equal battle where Stark victory is assured, they need to have conflict.

However, that said, I completely understand the show going the way it did.  They had no choice with writing Stannis the way they did. Without Stannis, it would be fantastic and unrealistic to have Northern lords to not the act the way they did. In the book, Stannis went around gathering Northern lords and getting back lands/castles from Iron born thus getting Northern loyalty (on advice from Jon, who was a bit more politically acute than in the show)

If they just join in with Jon (a Bastard and Nights Watch possible deserter, without Robb's letter) and Sansa who if not Bolton is a Lannister now ( I mean book Robb had her disinherited even if she was forced to marry) while Starks did absolutely nothing for them but lead them into disaster. Robb's and Catelyn's missteps led to Iron Born conquering part of north and Winterfell, to Red Wedding where most of Northern lords (the loyal fathers/oldsters too boot) have been slaughtered leaving behind disenchanted sons being bitter at Robb's defeat. First thing that Bolton did - had Ramsey free Moat Caitlin instead of mucking around south like Robb 

In the book the lords themselves would not have been killed at the wedding. Just the Starks and lesser persons. GreatJon Umber for example was being held by the Freys as a hostage. Maege Mormont is not dead either, she was supposed to go to the red wedding, but was sent as an envoy to make contact with Howland Reed in order to plan the recapture of Moat Cailin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MakeWesterosGreatAgain said:

Karstark's turned on Robb originally so they're irrelevant. Chopping off their lord's head has that effect.

Umbers still make no fooookin sense.

We're going to see Manderly though, casting call called for it.

They pretended to turn on the Boltons as well, and joined Stannis, but he caught them in their double cross and cut their heads off (the actual Karstarks, not their men). So they are not a factor for either army since the small folk don't have much incentive to fight once their lord and all his immediate male relatives have their heads on top of pikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Exactly.  Glover's resentment was accurate and believable.

It was utter bullshit. Robb was killed and he was killed by the very same Boltons Glover supports now.

Suppose, a friend of yours did not come to help you. You find out that he was killed by X. You are angry with your friend or you are anrgy with X?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

The flagbearing is more about pride than numbers. Lyanna mentioned that Bear Island is very proud.

So proud in fact, that their main contribution to the battle will be flying their banner :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Winter_Is_Coming21 said:

Rightly said.. And considering that the Roose Bolton was responsible for killings of 90% heads of the houses + King in the North!!

That anger against Robb is understandable; but to simply accept Boltons as the Lords of Winterfell??

In the books however The Manderlays & Glovers are not saying about Robb's Will/Jon as a King; but they are clearly playing something to restore a Stark at Winterfell..!! And clearly planning to Fcuk the Boltons!!

Starks have been ruling for last 7000 years for Old Gods' sake!!!

"..A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf's Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore  beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!" - Wylla Manderly

When you read this you realise the importance of Stark in the North.. Why are they not fighting for Rickon; if not Jon+Sansa??

He is not a Snow, he is a true son of Eddard Stark & is their liege lord!! Where is Wyman & his granddaughter Wylla Manderly???

I don't understand why D&D are they screwing up the North storyline..!!!

This.

Other houses to, Mormont, Glover, Umber, Reed owe their existence and their lands to Starks, Starks protect North for thousands years, smallfolk clearly see differences in safety during Stark rule and Bolton. This above is from books, in show there is strongly implied that majority of northern houses are loyal to Starks. Whole point of marriage between Sansa and Ramsey is to get legitimacy and prevent revolt against Bolton rule. This was big deal for Roose because he risk wroth of crown with this move. Roose send his most trusted and skilled soldier to find and kill Bran and Rickon, possibly Jon. Whole this set-up is thrown under the bus, for cheap device to make us think Jon will lose battle and when we think that all is over, Knights of Vale show up and saves a day. I would enjoy more, if Jon bigger army then Ramsey and he destroy him tactically and in every other way. That is how mad dog like him should end up. But no, D&D portrayed Starks as stupid, dumb assholes who don't have any strategic thought and demand from people to risk everything without any reason. Most annoying thing about North storyline is Ramsey who make mistake after mistake and every mistake make him more powerful. For fuck sake, Walder Frey organized worst monstrosity that Westeros seen, because Rob didn't marry his daughter, and we should believe that he don't care for his granddaughter and her son killing, granddaughter whose dowry was a lot and her son who could become LP of North. Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, tugela said:

In the book the lords themselves would not have been killed at the wedding. Just the Starks and lesser persons. GreatJon Umber for example was being held by the Freys as a hostage. Maege Mormont is not dead either, she was supposed to go to the red wedding, but was sent as an envoy to make contact with Howland Reed in order to plan the recapture of Moat Cailin

Lord Manderly eldest son is killed even in show, we can see him next to Catlin, Smalljon, Lady Dustin said that every house lost relatives, even Riverlands lords Lord Blackwood son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cragen said:

This.

Other houses to, Mormont, Glover, Umber, Reed owe their existence and their lands to Starks, Starks protect North for thousands years, smallfolk clearly see differences in safety during Stark rule and Bolton. This above is from books, in show there is strongly implied that majority of northern houses are loyal to Starks. Whole point of marriage between Sansa and Ramsey is to get legitimacy and prevent revolt against Bolton rule. This was big deal for Roose because he risk wroth of crown with this move. Roose send his most trusted and skilled soldier to find and kill Bran and Rickon, possibly Jon. Whole this set-up is thrown under the bus, for cheap device to make us think Jon will lose battle and when we think that all is over, Knights of Vale show up and saves a day. I would enjoy more, if Jon bigger army then Ramsey and he destroy him tactically and in every other way. That is how mad dog like him should end up. But no, D&D portrayed Starks as stupid, dumb assholes who don't have any strategic thought and demand from people to risk everything without any reason. Most annoying thing about North storyline is Ramsey who make mistake after mistake and every mistake make him more powerful. For fuck sake, Walder Frey organized worst monstrosity that Westeros seen, because Rob didn't marry his daughter, and we should believe that he don't care for his granddaughter and her son killing, granddaughter whose dowry was a lot and her son who could become LP of North. Really?

This.

I think that the main problem is that D&D don't have a coherent story, they are moving from plot twist to plot twist. Character actions are guided by the need of future plot twists, they don't have consistent motivations or personalities they aquire a new personality every time the new plot twist demands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

This.

I think that the main problem is that D&D don't have a coherent story, they are moving from plot twist to plot twist. Character actions are guided by the need of future plot twists, they don't have consistent motivations or personalities they aquire a new personality every time the new plot twist demands it.

After season 4, I feel like they introduce new character with same names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

If that's all true, then the Starks don't deserve to get Winterfell and the rule of the North back.  They're losers, ineffectual, incompetent.  One wonders why his bannermen named him King or agreed to follow him on his quixotic quest to save his father's life in the first place, instead of telling him to fuck off, it was Ned's fault afterall, another incompetent Stark.

Which, isn't the story I have thought I was following, but maybe it is.

The story I thought I was following was going to reward the Starks for having been just lords for centuries, the story I thought I was following had a huge level of support and loyalty for the Starks, including people willing to fight and die for them, even against huge odds, and they had nothing to gain personally except honor,  because they have been just lords for centuries and the people rulling the North are turncloak mad dogs.

But maybe not.

Maybe they don't. They followed Robb because of Ned and previous history of Starks, in order to rescue and avenge Ned. 

However, you cannot underestimate the castastophe that happened at Red Wedding. Thru Robb's folly : betraying his word to Freys and marrying unknown low-class female with nothing to show for it; releasing major prisoner who is well-known for NOT keeping his word (aka Kingslayer) and thus freeing the hands of his family well-known for their ruthlessness; and then deciding to trust Freys after betraying them?

Most of the reasons that Starks were so loved is that they protected the North, they didn't bother getting involved into wars and politics south of Neck. And they took care to protect North standing. Regardless of their personal defeats - Stark stood strong. 

First Ned's father ignored most of Northern houses to marry his ALL children all to southern houses, which  lead to disaster. (Yes, Starks married into southern houses before, but never before a WHOLE generation of Starks ignored their Northern roots for south) Then Ned decided to accept King's Hand posting and abandon leadership of the North, and that lead into disaster. And Northern houses were stil; willing to forgive Stark House for that because they were still good lords and most of their disasters involved main Stark family and perhaps couple of close-friends.  

However, Robb and Catelyn single handily managed to lead MOST of Northmen House Leaders to their deaths (at least in the show they were all killed). In one fell stroke he managed to not only get himself and his retainers killed (like Ned did), but also decapitated ALL of Northmen houses other than Bolton.

And THAT would lead to most of the minor and major houses doubt Stark leadership.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Masha said:

Maybe they don't. They followed Robb because of Ned and previous history of Starks, in order to rescue and revenge Ned. 

However, you cannot underestimate the castastophe that happened at Red Wedding. Thru their folly (betraying his word to Freys and marrying unknown low-class female; releasing major prisoner who is well-known for NOT keeping his word (aka Kingslayer) and thus freeing the hands of his family well-known for their ruthlessness; and deciding to trust Freys after betraying them)?

Most of the reasons that Starks were so loved is that they protected the North, they didn't bother getting involved into wars and politics south of Neck. And they took care to protect North standing. 

First Ned's father ignored most of Northern houses to marry his children all to southern houses, that lead to disaster. Then Ned decided to accept King's Hand posting and that lead into disaster. And Northern houses were willing to forgive Stark House for that because they were still good lords and most of their disasters involved main Stark family and perhaps couple of close-friends.  

However, Robb and Catelyn single handily managed to lead MOST of Northmen House Leaders to their deaths (at least in the show they were all killed). In one fell stroke he managed to not only get himself and his retainers killed (like Ned did), but also decapitated ALL of Northmen houses other than Bolton.

And THAT would lead to most of the minor and major houses doubt Stark leadership.

 

But, we know the Starks are going to retake Winterfell, and this is going to be a feel good moment for the show.

So, I still don't understand why the show would choose to make virtually all the Northern houses anti Stark, so that when this feel good moment comes it will be hollow...because we will have already seen the North no longer cares or supports the Starks but prefers to have a kinslaying, torture crazed mad dog as their liege lord.

However, I also know that the show expects the viewers to forget that the North has told the Starks they suck and to fuck off, so that when they retake Winterfell, it will be played straight.  Everyone is happy and now remembered they do love the Starks after all.  And the vast majority of viewers will have exactly this reaction.

SAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But, we know the Starks are going to retake Winterfell, and this is going to be a feel good moment for the show.

So, I still don't understand why the show would choose to make virtually all the Northern houses anti Stark, so that when this feel good moment comes it will be hollow...because we will have already seen the North no longer cares or supports the Starks but prefers to have a kinslaying, torture crazed mad dog as their liege lord.

However, I also know that the show expects the viewers to forget that the North has told the Starks they suck and to fuck off, so that when they retake Winterfell, it will be played straight.  Everyone is happy and now remembered they do love the Starks after all.  And the vast majority of viewers will have exactly this reaction.

SAD.

Heard expressions like might makes right, winner writes the history?

 So if Jon/Sansa win back Winterfell, Northern lords will join them and proclaim for them ASAP. They literally will have no other choice if Starks win and destroy Ramsey. Otherwise these lords will be rebels and traitors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Masha said:

Heard expressions like might makes right, winner writes the history?

 So if Jon/Sansa win back Winterfell, Northern lords will join them and proclaim for them ASAP. They literally will have no other choice if Starks win and destroy Ramsey. Otherwise these lords will be rebels and traitors. 

Like I said, I feel this ruins the story, turning their victory into something that has no meaning.  Not a reward, but just eh, they won, nobody cares, it wasn't even deserved and their own countrymen didn't even support them.  But, apparently, like with much of the show, I'm in the minority.  

I guess people find the North despising the Starks as some kind of realism or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Like I said, I feel this ruins the story, turning their victory into something that has no meaning.  Not a reward, but just eh, they won, nobody cares, it wasn't even deserved and their own countrymen didn't even support them.  But, apparently, like with much of the show, I'm in the minority.  

I guess people find the North despising the Starks as some kind of realism or whatever.

Or purposely making story streamlined and different from the books but still having the similar ending points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Masha said:

Or purposely making story streamlined and different from the books but still having the similar ending points

Changing the Northern lords from overwhelmingly loyal to the Starks to openly hostile or ambivalent isn't anything to do with streamlining, but yes it is taking a chunk of the book story and doing the opposite...loyal supporters are now disloyal uninterested...while preserving the same outcome.  Weird. But then I find many of the show's changes are weird and inexplicable like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Changing the Northern lords from overwhelmingly loyal to the Starks to openly hostile or ambivalent isn't anything to do with streamlining, but yes it is taking a chunk of the book story and doing the opposite...loyal supporters are now disloyal uninterested...while preserving the same outcome.  Weird. But then I find many of the show's changes are weird and inexplicable like this.

If you consider that all GNC thing will probably take most of next book and it involves a conspiracy that needs to unwind before those same lords reveal their loyalties and final movies, and the need to create tension so that Starks and Boltons are unequally matched, it can be called a streamlining the storylines.

Plus you can't have Jon and Sansa succeeding into creating equal forces from just Northern lords and then be shown as incompetent by loosing the battle so that LF and Vale still need to rescue them.

Its one thing being unable to give great speeches and suffering from consequences of other people's actions (Robb), another to have good forces and still loose a battle to a bad guy. You cannot have Stannis debacle again especially with beloved characters such as Starks. See Dany - she might make some bad decisions but she never loses a battle or conquest or a show.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of Manderly and his speech on the show could be to unite the various northern houses after the battle. The Starks will obviously win but the north will still be torn apart and something is needed to help remind the north of their duty. Jon Snow is all about burying the hatchet once the battle is over but he needs a rallying cry that works. Manderly's speech would work really well plus his house is relatively new to the north and if they are showing more loyalty to the Starks than the others they will be more compelled.

I think they will appear sometime before the battle but their loyalty will be unknown or questionable in some way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Masha said:

However, Robb and Catelyn single handily managed to lead MOST of Northmen House Leaders to their deaths (at least in the show they were all killed). In one fell stroke he managed to not only get himself and his retainers killed (like Ned did), but also decapitated ALL of Northmen houses other than Bolton.

And THAT would lead to most of the minor and major houses doubt Stark leadership

The flaw in this line of thinking is that it absolves the ones wielding the knives of any wrongdoing in the deaths of all these Northern leaders. Sure Robb made mistakes and the Freys were pawns, but it was Roose Bolton & Tywin Lannister that master minded the massacre at the Twins. The Boltons are the ones with blood on their hands yet the Northern houses blame Robb? Roose Bolton betrayed EVERY house in the North yet Glover, Umber et al chose House Bolton over Stark? That should be insulting and dishonorable to any self respecting Northman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...