The North Remembers What?

[Darkstream]

1 minute ago, NutBurz said:

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

It's not about just the death of one king, it's about all the consequences and effects that this would result in.

Either way, I'm done being trolled. Good day to you Ser.

[NutBurz]

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It's not about just the death of one king, it's about all the consequences and effects that this would result in.

Either way, I'm done being trolled. Good day to you Ser.

You haven´t given me one of these fabled consequences, but yeah, good day.

[Darkstream]

9 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

You haven´t given me one of these fabled consequences, but yeah, good day.

OK, political instability and a chaotic society, where murdering the powers that be are an accepted and common occurrence. And a society In which your family members are often kidnapped and if you try to get them back you are burned alive.

Now I'm done.

[HellasLEAF]

The North remembers but they also remember Rob's mistakes.  

Hopefully better decision making this time 

[NutBurz]

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

OK, political instability and a chaotic society, where murdering the powers that be are an accepted and common occurrence. And a society In which your family members are often kidnapped and if you try to get them back you are burned alive.

Now I'm done.

Thank you. Now everyone knows you have no idea what you´re talking about.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

So if the reason the North didn't help the Starks is they are now selfish and opportunistic why then did no one do anything last year? Stannis had this big army and not one of these selfish Northerns saw an opportunity

[NutBurz]

27 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

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.

I had missed this one!

Whoever said anyone forgave the Boltons? The fact they were willing to fight for them instead of against them doesn´t mean that in the slightest. They could all be plotting offscreen and the show didn´t have to show us if it was never important, just to safeguard your feelings regarding, i repeat, one single understanding of the sentence The North Remembers.

[NutBurz]

3 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

So if the reason the North didn't help the Starks is they are now selfish and opportunistic why then did no one do anything last year? Stannis had this big army and not one of these selfish Northerns saw an opportunity

lol "selfish and opportunistic", the first time we see them choosing not to fight someone else´s war they are "selfish and opportunistic"

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Just now, NutBurz said:

lol "selfish and opportunistic", the first time we see them choosing not to fight someone else´s war they are "selfish and opportunistic"

Someone else? It's a freakin war over the future of the North it is their war and saying "oh they plotted offscreen" doesn't mean a thing. The Norther lords didn't do a thing because D&D wanted LF and the Vale to save the day and this wouldn't happen if the North didn't turn Jon down

[Darkstream]

23 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Thank you. Now everyone knows you have no idea what you´re talking about.

How ignorant and presumptuous of you to include "everyone" in your inability to understand an obvious and simple concept.

[NutBurz]

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

How ignorant and presumptuous of you to include "everyone" in your inability to understand an obvious and simple concept.

You´re talking about "political instability and a chaotic society, where murdering the powers that be are an accepted and common occurrence" as if killing the King or Warden of the North had any influence in a peasant´s life, except for the political turmoil - which translates in other Lords fighting using the peasant to die for them to get power. The peasant is only sad that the king dies because some lord is going to tell him to go fight battles for him.

If the North did nothing when Ned was killed, nothing would happen. Joffrey wouldn´t raise the taxes in the North, he wouldn´t go out killing people in the north for sport, he wouldn´t go out capturing noblemen and killing them. The "political instability and chaotic society" you talk about only happen when lords decide to go to war.

And even if Joffrey did abuse his power to exploit the North - then the Starks would have a very legitimate reason to call them to arms. But thtat didn´t hapen once in the last two wars.

 

" And a society In which your family members are often kidnapped and if you try to get them back you are burned alive "

Which didn´t happen to absolutely anyone except for the Starks (and a few enemies of the mad king in particular).

[Smoke317]

18 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Someone else? It's a freakin war over the future of the North it is their war and saying "oh they plotted offscreen" doesn't mean a thing. The Norther lords didn't do a thing because D&D wanted LF and the Vale to save the day and this wouldn't happen if the North didn't turn Jon down

They wanted Sansa to save the day. It was making up for allowing Sansa to be raped last year. Thus we got the show making Jon a moronic bastard and Sansa the wise heroine. 

[NutBurz]

20 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Someone else? It's a freakin war over the future of the North it is their war and saying "oh they plotted offscreen" doesn't mean a thing. The Norther lords didn't do a thing because D&D wanted LF and the Vale to save the day and this wouldn't happen if the North didn't turn Jon down

Someone should have gone around telling them this was a war over the future of the North, because they clearly didn´t think so, and I see no reason why they should.

"Hi great lord whose people have died for my father in the past.

I deserted the night´s watch to bring these wildlings south of the wall to attack winterfel, but I really need your armies, like, desperately, or I have no chance of winning.

All I have to offer you is my name, or actually, my sister´s maiden name, and the reassurance that there will be a Stark, kinda, in Winterfel once again, to call you to die for us because some family member of ours got involved in royal intrigue."

[Dustin of Barrowton]

Sounds like the Iron Islands will actually get some... real land (under Dany). House Mormont as well but more immediately.. I don't imagine the direct face time for young Lady Mormont was for no purpose. I'm Hoping to see that house rise. Jorah may come back into the picture at some point. The mans been through A LOT,

I imagine this will be somewhat addressed when we see Baelish next episode?

[Stannis is the man....nis]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Someone should have gone around telling them this was a war over the future of the North, because they clearly didn´t think so, and I see no reason why they should.

"Hi great lord whose people have died for my father in the past.

I deserted the night´s watch to bring these wildlings south of the wall to attack winterfel, but I really need your armies, like, desperately, or I have no chance of winning.

All I have to offer you is my name, or actually, my sister´s maiden name, and the reassurance that there will be a Stark, kinda, in Winterfel once again, to call you to die for us because some family member of ours got involved in royal intrigue."

Again why did none get involved last year then

[Stannistician]

9 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Someone should have gone around telling them this was a war over the future of the North, because they clearly didn´t think so, and I see no reason why they should.

"Hi great lord whose people have died for my father in the past.

I deserted the night´s watch to bring these wildlings south of the wall to attack winterfel, but I really need your armies, like, desperately, or I have no chance of winning.

All I have to offer you is my name, or actually, my sister´s maiden name, and the reassurance that there will be a Stark, kinda, in Winterfel once again, to call you to die for us because some family member of ours got involved in royal intrigue."

Then why was it necessary for the Boltons to marry and produce a Stark heir (breaking their alliance with the Crown to do so)?  Plot convenience perhaps.  The same reason they had the north suddenly not give a shit about the Starks.

You don't have to jump through hoops to justify it.  The show wanted it to happen, so they made it happen.

[Darkstream]

 

12 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

You´re talking about "political instability and a chaotic society, where murdering the powers that be are an accepted and common occurrence" as if killing the King or Warden of the North had any influence in a peasant´s life, except for the political turmoil - which translates in other Lords fighting using the peasant to die for them to get power. The peasant is only sad that the king dies because some lord is going to tell him to go fight battles for him.

If the North did nothing when Ned was killed, nothing would happen. Joffrey wouldn´t raise the taxes in the North, he wouldn´t go out killing people in the north for sport, he wouldn´t go out capturing noblemen and killing them. The "political instability and chaotic society" you talk about only happen when lords decide to go to war.

And even if Joffrey did abuse his power to exploit the North - then the Starks would have a very legitimate reason to call them to arms. But thtat didn´t hapen once in the last two wars.

 

" And a society In which your family members are often kidnapped and if you try to get them back you are burned alive "

Which didn´t happen to absolutely anyone except for the Starks (and a few enemies of the mad king in particular).

I neither have the interest or patience to explain to you why turning a blind eye to acts of murder and regicide, with the means of initiating a coup can be detrimental to the welfare of a nation and it's people. Or, why turning a blind eye to a ruler who uses excessive violence and torture to quell any opposition or questioning of his actions and policies would lead to a more tyrannical and oppressive regime in the future.

If only it were as simple as you would make it out to be. Just ignore any criminal transgressions committed against you, do nothing, and all the worlds problems and threats would simply disappear. I wish you would just go out and assassinate the PM of my country and take over, I'm sure my life would improve greatly with your system of governance in place. That is, until next week when the next guy in line decides to assassinate you yourself, because you know, no consequences. I'm sure this precedent and pattern wouldn't lead to any wars or anything where, who? oh, that's right, the peasants are being killed by the thousands.

[NutBurz]

1 hour ago, Stannistician said:

Then why was it necessary for the Boltons to marry and produce a Stark heir (breaking their alliance with the Crown to do so)?  Plot convenience perhaps.  The same reason they had the north suddenly not give a shit about the Starks.

You don't have to jump through hoops to justify it.  The show wanted it to happen, so they made it happen.

It was necessary for the Boltons that the Lannisters didn´t have a claim to the North through Sansa and Tyrion´s child (or anyone else, for that matter).

I´m not saying the Stark name is worthless, I´m saying it´s not enough to continue to get people to fight useless wars for them. Stark blood will always have a better claim to the throne of winterfell, but it´s not enough to get northerners to side with Wildlings and deserters to fight other northerners against the odds. If he had ten times his numbers of Wildlings, all the negotiations would be different, but alas.

56 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

I neither have the interest or patience to explain to you why turning a blind eye to acts of murder and regicide, with the means of initiating a coup can be detrimental to the welfare of a nation and it's people. Or, why turning a blind eye to a ruler who uses excessive violence and torture to quell any opposition or questioning of his actions and policies would lead to a more tyrannical and oppressive regime in the future.

If only it were as simple as you would make it out to be. Just ignore any criminal transgressions committed against you, do nothing, and all the worlds problems and threats would simply disappear. I wish you would just go out and assassinate the PM of my country and take over, I'm sure my life would improve greatly with your system of governance in place. That is, until next week when the next guy in line decides to assassinate you yourself, because you know, no consequences. I'm sure this precedent and pattern wouldn't lead to any wars or anything where, who? oh, that's right, the peasants are being killed by the thousands.

You can just google it.

But just so you drop the patronizing tone, I´ve studied the history of international relations for the best part of the last six years. I´m as aware as I could be of the consequences of bad governance.

That is not the case of Westeros.

The people of Westeros were prosperous before Robert´s Rebellion, the divisions and attritions happened in the political sphere and were limited to the noble houses, and only to some of them. There´s no reason to believe that Robert´s Rebellion was a fight against generalized oppression (not any more than any feudal system anyway). The source material makes it extensively clear how it´s the court intrigues of a few that are driving all those people into war.

We even have the insight of the prince himself who is looking to overthrow his father based on the perception that his excessive violence is "bad for business".

 

There is no reason to think that Joffrey would have a reign of chaos for the people. He left much of the economic decisions to the same old group of people basicaly ever since Aerys.

Do I disapprove of Absolute Monarchy and its distortions, including allowing one person to be a maniac unpunished? I most certainly do. But Westeros doesn´t seem to, and that was never what the fight was about. The next king that sits there could be anyone and it would still be as much of a flip of a coin as it was with the Targaryen, because that´s human nature.

 

I´m also most certainly not preaching for a pacificist Westeros. I´m just trying to consider for a single second "why would people choose to not go to war over their honor?". And the answer I get, specially from the show, is "they´re absolutely tired of doing that for the last few decades and achieving no tangible result".

[Stannistician]

13 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

It was necessary for the Boltons that the Lannisters didn´t have a claim to the North through Sansa and Tyrion´s child (or anyone else, for that matter).

I´m not saying the Stark name is worthless, I´m saying it´s not enough to continue to get people to fight useless wars for them. Stark blood will always have a better claim to the throne of winterfell, but it´s not enough to get northerners to side with Wildlings and deserters to fight other northerners against the odds. If he had ten times his numbers of Wildlings, all the negotiations would be different, but alas.

 

1. The justification given by Roose on the show was that he feared that the north would rise up against the Boltons absent the marriage to Sansa.  There was no mention by Roose, LF, or anyone on the show regarding any Lannister claim on the north through the Tyrion-Sansa marriage.  Given that the Crown deemed both Tyrion and Sansa guilty of regicide, any Lannister claim on the north would be moot and there would be no reason to even worry about any claim of this type.

There certainly was no reason to break an alliance with the Lannisters/ Crown over this, let alone provoke a war.

2.  By this logic, if Sansa had said that she had Vale troops the negotiations with the north would be different.     

[NutBurz]

1 minute ago, Stannistician said:

1. The justification given by Roose on the show was that he feared that the north would rise up against the Boltons absent the marriage to Sansa.  There was no mention by Roose, LF, or anyone on the show regarding any Lannister claim on the north through the Tyrion-Sansa marriage.  Given that the Crown deemed both Tyrion and Sansa guilty of regicide, any Lannister claim on the north would be moot and there would be no reason to even worry about any claim of this type.

2.  By this logic, if Sansa had said that she had Vale troops the negotiations with the north would be different.     

1-Can´t you think on the Lannister link for yourself? Who would the north rise up around if not a better claimant to the throne - as in, Sansa´s offspring with anyone? Do they have to spell everything out?

Sansa was never put on trial, she can´t be guilty of anything, and it would be the easiest thing for the Lannisters to find her innocent if they had an interest on it - you know, like they found Tyrion guilty.

 

2-Sansa didn´t have anything. Sansa had a fit the last time she talked to the man who actually has armies. Are you people even watching the series?