The North Remembers What?

[TickTak7]

6 hours ago, Rumy Stark said:

All good points. I was waiting up until the last second for SmallJon to turn on Ramsay. No such luck. I guess we'll see how it all plays out in the rest of The North. 

Don't really know why.

Any Northern Conspiracy was very obviously shot down by D&D after Smalljon showed up. 

I think many just chose false hope. 

My guess is that The North will reunite, crown Jon Snow the King in the North, and ally together to take on the White Walkers. 

 

[yakisikli123]

8 hours ago, Prince Jon said:

Despite no foreshadowing on the show, I  thought the Northmen would mutiny on Ramsey.  They knew of his evil side from previous instances.  Then he plays target practice with straight running Rickon.  Then he sacrifices a ton of them when he lets the arrows fly.  They see Jon's bravery to protect his brother.  Yet they still follow the crazy Ramsey bastard to the death while he just sits there watching?

Now are the Umbers and Karstaks are pretty much extinct.  It would have been wise to remember at some point that the Starks weren't that bad to live under.  

They dont need the northeners now, they should travel to the south (Jon and Co)

[NutBurz]

33 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Maybe they didn't remember that said leader of a great house committed treason?

It's very narrow minded to state that the war is only about the Starks. The consequences of the Starks, who were the Wardens of the North, not reacting to several treasonous transgressions committed by the Lanisters would have held severe consequences for all of the North, and the entire Seven Kingdoms. As well as being a blatant disregard for your responsibilities and duties.

I don´t think they´d forget that one about treason, but how is that enough reason to turn against this maniac in order to support an army of Wildlings and a deserter of the Night´s Watch? Sansa? The girl they remember as being married to two different "lannisters" after her father was murdered (assuming like you do that they all are absolutely certain that Ned was right regarding the succession, and not that they followed Robb simply for vengeance against killing a Stark.)

 

Robert´s Rebellion had nothing to do with the welfare of the North, nothing changed between Targaryen and Baratheon except the Iron Islands rebelled and the north paid the toll. They followed to the death of many out of loyalty to the Starks.

Robb´s Rebellion had nothing to do with the welfare of the North, things only got worse everywhere because it´s getting colder and men are dying like flies.

What do you think would be the severe consequences for the North from Eddard I and Brandon being killed, or Ned, besides from the political insult?

14 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And maybe they forgot that most of the death was a direct result of the house they are now supporting betraying the North, and committing these murders?

Nope, most deaths between the two wars were certainly a result of battle.

 

ps-oh, and the very Red Wedding came from the King in the North not being able to keep it in his pants or to say "screw some westerling family´s honor", so there´s that

[Darkstream]

46 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

I don´t think they´d forget that one about treason, but how is that enough reason to turn against this maniac in order to support an army of Wildlings and a deserter of the Night´s Watch? Sansa? The girl they remember as being married to two different "lannisters" after her father was murdered (assuming like you do that they all are absolutely certain that Ned was right regarding the succession, and not that they followed Robb simply for vengeance against killing a Stark.)

I'm not claiming that, my point is that it nullifies your assertion that it should be something held against the Starks. Robb was only performing his sworn duties, whether there was a personal agenda attached to it or not.

46 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Robert´s Rebellion had nothing to do with the welfare of the North, nothing changed between Targaryen and Baratheon except the Iron Islands rebelled and the north paid the toll. They followed to the death of many out of loyalty to the Starks.

Robb´s Rebellion had nothing to do with the welfare of the North, things only got worse everywhere because it´s getting colder and men are dying like flies.

What do you think would be the severe consequences for the North from Eddard I and Brandon being killed, or Ned, besides from the political insult?

Again, you are taking a very narrow minded and simplistic view regarding the events that led to Robert's rebellion. There were a multitude of factors involving many different factions that led to this war. And it most certainly did have a severe bearing on the welfare of the North and the entire Seven Kingdoms.

46 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

ps-oh, and the very Red Wedding came from the King in the North not being able to keep it in his pants or to say "screw some westerling family´s honor", so there´s that

I find it very disturbing that you would blame the victim of a heinous and treacherous crime, over the the actual perpetrators of said crime, just because the victim made a mistake, or error in judgement. Rob had neither the insight to realize what his actions would cost him, nor the willful intent of these atrocities to happen. The house that the North is now supporting in favor of the Starks is directly and willfully responsible for these crimes. Why do they not remember this, and want revenge or vengeance against the Botons for it?

ETA:

Quote

nothing changed between Targaryen and Baratheon

No, not a thing...oh, except of course the Crown. Admittedly a minor and insignificant thing.  

[ivosan]

I would have appreciated that at least a few northerns having second thoughts before or during the battle.  Not necessarily a turning point or a game changer nor the full blown northern conspiracy, but just to show that deep down there still is some loyalty to the Starks.

Also, most battles in GoT have ben resolved by the unexpected arrival of another army.   In this chapter we had the same trope twice! 

 

the north gives 0 f*cks

[NutBurz]

@Darkstream

Tell me just a couple of reasons why either of the last two wars had anything to do with the welfare of the North.

 

And yes, personally I´m a psycho who approves the Red Wedding, I´m not talking from the point of view of the Northern Lords who are tired of the Stark´s shit.

 

ps:I love the empty sarcasm - tell me what exactly changed in everyday life of the people in the north because it was not a Targaryen king but a Baratheon.

[Darkstream]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

@Darkstream

Tell me just a couple of reasons why either of the last two wars had anything to do with the welfare of the North.

 

Because, in RR, not only was the King a mad man, who had control and jurisdiction over the North, but there was presumably also an underground plot to over through the the reining faction.

In the Wotfk's there was also a plot to murder the King and over through the hierarchy. 

these are not the only, but the main, albeit simplified, causes of the wars.

If you don't think that these types of treasonous conspiracies would have an effect on the political structure and well being of the every region and person in the Seven Kingdoms then I fear you are only being willfully obtuse and denying a reality in order to support your agenda.

Quote

And yes, personally I´m a psycho who approves the Red Wedding, I´m not talking from the point of view of the Northern Lords who are tired of the Stark´s shit.

I'm assuming the bold is sarcasm, but I don't understand what your getting at here. Would you mind clarifying? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion, the point of view and memory of the Northern lords?

[Tchzaelous]

29 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

@Darkstream

Tell me just a couple of reasons why either of the last two wars had anything to do with the welfare of the North.

 

And yes, personally I´m a psycho who approves the Red Wedding, I´m not talking from the point of view of the Northern Lords who are tired of the Stark´s shit.

 

ps:I love the empty sarcasm - tell me what exactly changed in everyday life of the people in the north because it was not a Targaryen king but a Baratheon.

Less random burnings of their Liege Lords maybe? Getting off to fire probably doesn't make a good ruler. Especially if it's one who every time you go to court, may have you choke yourself to death to try and save your Liege Lord / Family member.

[Sigrid]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

And maybe they forgot that most of the death was a direct result of the house they are now supporting betraying the North, and committing these murders?

Exactly.  I suppose the show came up with several explanation wherein the Glovers victim blamed Robb, and the Karstarks were legit mad b/c of their dad getting beheaded, and the remaining Umbers were just jerks.  However I find these unsatisfactory.

I hate that they teased the whole "north remembers" thing and then had nothing come of it.  I can believe that the northern lords would have cautiously followed Roose until they had their bearings, but that they would follow Ramsay is unbelievable.  Just a symptom of Ramsay's show given level of awesome.  Is there a special name for an evil Mary sue?

[King Edd of House Tollet]

The show underestimed a lot the Starks legacy and long ruling over the North. We are talking about a House that rules the place for thousands of years, and during that time they proved to good rulers with lots of allies.

But to the show this doesn't exist. They needed no "North Remembers" thing to make the battle hopeless and shit like that.

Oh, screw the Starks? YOu who the north wants do support? The Boltons, the same house that planned a massacre in which thousand of northern houses were slaughtered. Oh, the Smalljon died in the Red Wedding while trying to protect Robb? Nevermind, let's make him deliver Robb's little brother to the Boltons. BOYYYAAAA

[Gannicus]

8 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Hmm, maybe the North is not a single entity that feels and acts in a single way based on a single understanding of a single line?

Maybe the North remembers centuries of fighting against Wildlings?

Maybe the North remembers you´re not supposed to leave the Night´s Watch.

Maybe the North remembers the leader of a great House being beheaded because some enemy prisioner died.

Maybe the North remembers the last two Stark wars which resulted in precisely squat. Correction, it resulted in a lot of death for them.

Maybe only part of the north remembers that the Starks were just, honorable lieges - notably, the part of the North that did not take part of the Battle of the Bastards because they couldn´t clearly see how that would really bring back the Starks (since, you know, all male Starks are officially dead).

 

And after the butchery, I´m fairly sure only the Manderlys have a reasonable army in the north now. That could come in handy. Maybe they remember that they´re pretty much the richest, strongest house in the North now. Maybe they remember that they have their own interests.

 

There´s just so much that the North can remember that doesn´t mean they´re plot-slaves to the Starks.

Sure

But they can also remember it was they who chose to name Rob King in the North, GreatJon in particular if I remember.

The North can remember is was the Boltons who betrayed them to the Frey's and the Lannisters. Jon offers them justice for their murdered son's and fathers.

The North can see Ramsay Bolton raining arrows on his own men.

That would have been a golden time for the North to remember good fair leadership earns loyalty not just power.

Alas, a missed opportunity. 

[Gannicus]

43 minutes ago, Sigrid said:

Exactly.  I suppose the show came up with several explanation wherein the Glovers victim blamed Robb, and the Karstarks were legit mad b/c of their dad getting beheaded, and the remaining Umbers were just jerks.  However I find these unsatisfactory.

I hate that they teased the whole "north remembers" thing and then had nothing come of it.  I can believe that the northern lords would have cautiously followed Roose until they had their bearings, but that they would follow Ramsay is unbelievable.  Just a symptom of Ramsay's show given level of awesome.  Is there a special name for an evil Mary sue?

Right the North could have remembered but then the odds would have been weighed quite so heavily against the "good guys"

Surely that will matter more to the fans right?

[LulaMae Barnes]

6 hours ago, Net-Viper X said:

If the North was made up of Hobbits, i bet they would remember second breakfast. These Northerners, not so much.

Since there are hardly any Northern Lords at all (showverse) and very few of them are fighting with Jon , ehm, I mean for Sansa...it is more "The Wildlings must help us" than "The North Remembers" - because the North apparently forgot everything and doesn't care at all.

But why would they? Obviously there is NO WINTER COMING and since not all of them get the Westeros Daily Mail (which tells you all about things like Jon's much spoken of skills and stuff) they don't seem to know about the REAL DANGER lurking further north - so they don't care about the importance of Northern Houses actually sticking together to fight united against the freezing evil coming for them.....

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Tchzaelous said:

Less random burnings of their Liege Lords maybe? Getting off to fire probably doesn't make a good ruler. Especially if it's one who every time you go to court, may have you choke yourself to death to try and save your Liege Lord / Family member.

Thanks for bringing this up, not sure how I forgot to mention that.

@NutBurz This seems like it should be a very important character trait to consider when contemplating whether or not to support or rebel against someone as your leader and king.  end /ridiculously obvious statement

To insinuate that responding to these types of transgressions is just a petty family concern and doesn't effect all of the North is quite preposterous in my opinion. 

[RattleSnake]

The North remembers? What North aside from that old lady who told Sansa so light a candle, Lyanna Mormont with her 63 men and other lesser houses that aided Jon? They all seem like a small part of the North compared to those lords who had the numbers and refused to fight (looking at you Glovers, Manderleys etc). Those wildings they all feared for centuries did a lot more for the North's liberation. The Vale army did more. Even Davos, a man who is not part of the North, fought to free it. Heck, Brienne and Pod did more for the North by escorting Sansa to the Wall and then heading to Riverrun to ask the Blackfish for help.

I am sorry, but the whole 'The North remembers' in the show is a bunch of bullshit. They might have have had in mind to add a conspiracy to the plot in season 5, but by season 6 they changed their minds.

[NutBurz]

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

1-Because, in RR, not only was the King a mad man, who had control and jurisdiction over the North, but there was presumably also an underground plot to over through the the reining faction.

In the Wotfk's there was also a plot to murder the King and over through the hierarchy. 

these are not the only, but the main, albeit simplified, causes of the wars.

If you don't think that these types of treasonous conspiracies would have an effect on the political structure and well being of the every region and person in the Seven Kingdoms then I fear you are only being willfully obtuse and denying a reality in order to support your agenda.

2-I'm assuming the bold is sarcasm, but I don't understand what your getting at here. Would you mind clarifying? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion, the point of view and memory of the Northern lords?

1- The entire realm was mostly prosperous during the Mad King´s reign, North included. And I fail to see how underground plotting affects day to day life of most people.

Same in Robb´s rebellion, the fact that there was a Lannister instead of a Baratheon had no effect in most people´s life, especially considering the previous and only Baratheon ruler was a terrible ruler.

I still don´t see why the North should be fond of the Starks. They can remember a lot of good things from their eight thousand years of history, but the last 50 was an almost constant screw up.

 

2- My point is that Robb, in the eyes of less honorable lords, could have done many things in order to avoid offending a lord of a great house to whom he owed a great deal. I´m not saying any of them would ever sympathize with Frey´s action, only that they have absolutely no reason to sympathize with Robb either. He was, objectively, a fool.

[Darkstream]

3 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

1- The entire realm was mostly prosperous during the Mad King´s reign, North included. And I fail to see how underground plotting affects day to day life of most people.

Same in Robb´s rebellion, the fact that there was a Lannister instead of a Baratheon had no effect in most people´s life, especially considering the previous and only Baratheon ruler was a terrible ruler.

I still don´t see why the North should be fond of the Starks. They can remember a lot of good things from their eight thousand years of history, but the last 50 was an almost constant screw up.

 

2- My point is that Robb, in the eyes of less honorable lords, could have done many things in order to avoid offending a lord of a great house to whom he owed a great deal. I´m not saying any of them would ever sympathize with Frey´s action, only that they have absolutely no reason to sympathize with Robb either. He was, objectively, a fool.

How do you not see that these issues would effect the day to day life of most people. Are you saying that if the leader of the country you live in was assassinated, or that there was nobody to police an attempt on his/her life that it wouldn't effect you and your standard of living. What kind of a society do you think would evolve from just ignoring these types of leaders and actions?

[NutBurz]

1 hour ago, Gannicus said:

Sure

But they can also remember it was they who chose to name Rob King in the North, GreatJon in particular if I remember.

The North can remember is was the Boltons who betrayed them to the Frey's and the Lannisters. Jon offers them justice for their murdered son's and fathers.

The North can see Ramsay Bolton raining arrows on his own men.

That would have been a golden time for the North to remember good fair leadership earns loyalty not just power.

Alas, a missed opportunity. 

"They"

You keep talking as if the North was a single thing.

The Boltons betrayed whom to the Freys? Starks mostly. They only betrayed the rest by association.

Jon offers them justice? Even if they could see through all the issues with Jon the deserter bastard and his Wildling army, Jon offers them justice for what, the Red Wedding? What about all the other meaningless battles in which their people died for the Starks?

[Darkstream]

8 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

2- My point is that Robb, in the eyes of less honorable lords, could have done many things in order to avoid offending a lord of a great house to whom he owed a great deal. I´m not saying any of them would ever sympathize with Frey´s action, only that they have absolutely no reason to sympathize with Robb either. He was, objectively, a fool.

Sure, but he didn't, he made a mistake, and he died for it. So the Umbers should be bitter at the Starks and forgive the Boltons because of this? Seriously, now I am convinced that you are just being willfully obtuse.

[NutBurz]

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

How do you not see that these issues would effect the day to day life of most people. Are you saying that if the leader of the country you live in was assassinated, or that there was nobody to police an attempt on his/her life that it wouldn't effect you and your standard of living. What kind of a society do you think would evolve from just ignoring these types of leaders and actions?

The death of kings and lords certainly affect the people less than war.