The North Remembers What?

[NutBurz]

My eternal interpretation of the sentence "The North Remembers" is similar to Tolkien´s description of the Dwarves, that they are "similar to the land they inhabit", hard, stubborn, cold, difficult to shape. Just like it goes with the Dwarves, that doesn´t define them as one limited thing like "honorable" or "loyal" or even "traditionalist". They are what they are made into, and then there´s little changing that. A northerner who is loyal will always be fiercely loyal, to his death; a northerner who is an opportunist can be shown every bit of disgust that he will not feel ashamed for seizing his opportunity; and a northerner who is told the wildlings have been their worst enemies and killed three generations of grandfathers wouldn´t side with the wildlings even if they had Dragons.

Each remembers their own things, but they all remember. The fact they remember a great lord in the past will not lead them into making what they see as foolish or contradictory decisions in the present.

[plastic throne]

North remembers Robb marrying a foreign whore.

Fuck the fact they lost their kids, fathers and wives at red wedding, Robb married a foreign whore. They'll never forgive him for that

[NutBurz]

13 minutes ago, plastic throne said:

North remembers Robb marrying a foreign whore.

Fuck the fact they lost their kids, fathers and wives at red wedding, Robb married a foreign whore. They'll never forgive him for that

You do have a point.

He beheads northerners when lannister prisioners die.

He betrays an ally to marry a girl from the country they´re fighting against - and because of that, many of their kids and fathers, for whom he was responsible, are killed alongside him.

Is it weird that the people who are left are not fond of him?

[Saiyan]

So they rather support a sadistic madmen who flays others for fun. Who's father has betrayed the Starks, causing a massacre in which almost every Northern house lost some members.

The whole "North doesn't remember" thing (like almost everything else) in the series is just bad writing. D&D as writers aren't nearly as creative as Martin and they can't use the existing books for the show anymore.

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, plastic throne said:

North remembers Robb marrying a foreign whore.

Fuck the fact they lost their kids, fathers and wives at red wedding, Robb married a foreign whore. They'll never forgive him for that

Fuck the fact that Robb by marrying her gauranteed that either they all die on the battlefield or in a Red Weffing situation. 

[Cas Stark]

5 hours ago, NutBurz said:

You do have a point.

He beheads northerners when lannister prisioners die.

He betrays an ally to marry a girl from the country they´re fighting against - and because of that, many of their kids and fathers, for whom he was responsible, are killed alongside him.

Is it weird that the people who are left are not fond of him?

Um, yes.

Ned Stark rebelled against the IT, got a lot of his bannermen killed in the process...but, nobody griping and complaining.  

The idea that the North would be prefer Ramsay Bolton, a treacherous mad dog kinslayer, to the Starks, who have ruled the North for eons, who are universally considered just and good lords is pure nonsense.  

Exactly what the Northern plot has been since season 5: nonsense. 

[King Perkis]

5 hours ago, NutBurz said:

You do have a point.

He beheads northerners when lannister prisioners die.

He betrays an ally to marry a girl from the country they´re fighting against - and because of that, many of their kids and fathers, for whom he was responsible, are killed alongside him.

Is it weird that the people who are left are not fond of him?

They were killed because a Northerner (Roose) and a Frey were convinced by Lannisters (Tywin) to betray for gold and a better position. The marrying of a foreign girl led to this option looking more tempting but that was it. Also people argue Catelyn releasing Jamie hurt Robb as well but fail to mention how Roose captured Jamie and then released him as well.  How you are justifying everyone just overlooking the fact that a Northerner (Roose) sided with a corrupt and hated Lord like Frey and betrayed their set up King and other Northerners by going against Guest Rights and everything else of tradition for Northerners is beyond me.

[King Perkis]

On 6/21/2016 at 0:01 AM, 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.

 

Sorry if this has been discussed already, just getting to go through threat. You are forgetting a key thing here and that is "if those in power can ignore the rule of law what is to stop chaos from happening." This then leads to a greater drop in society and further chaos (ie. look at the whole basis of the HS and his minions). You have an honorable guy (Ned) who sees literally the highest position in the kingdom being used by those who violated the law and have taken the throne that he worked,fought, and sacrificed to place a better ruler in a position (obviously the better ruler was hopeful and didn't exactly pan out but still). So, to ask him not to do the bare minimum of looking into the abuse is ridiculous. So Robb then rose up to not only avenge his father (which everyone was in agreement on) but to create order. I mean you saw how the abuse of power uncontested in KL under Joff led to revolt, higher taxes, starvation, and death. So you act like that same abuse wouldn't have grown and continued to spread to the North eventually.

[NutBurz]

Look guys, I´m not saying they´re right, I´m not saying it´s honorable to forget how good the Starks have been, I´m saying they have reasons to, I´m saying Jon Snow is not a Stark, Sansa´s kid is not a Stark, I´m saying a Wildling army is not a Stark army.

2 hours ago, Soccer69 said:

I mean you saw how the abuse of power uncontested in KL under Joff led to revolt, higher taxes, starvation, and death. So you act like that same abuse wouldn't have grown and continued to spread to the North eventually.

I don´t see the higher taxes, and most the problems we see King´s Landing facing are a result of the war, not necessarily bad governance. The kingdom´s finances have gone down the drain because Littlefinger was stealing money from the crown and putting it on the expense of Robert being irresponsible, and even still the realm is fine until the war of the five kings.

[King Perkis]

1 minute ago, NutBurz said:

I don´t see the higher taxes, and most the problems we see King´s Landing facing are a result of the war, not necessarily bad governance. The kingdom´s finances have gone down the drain because Littlefinger was stealing money from the crown and putting it on the expense of Robert being irresponsible, and even still the realm is fine until the war of the five kings.

A war exacerbates those issues but bad governance would gradually lead to that as well. Obviously that would be a boring show/book to read but you can look at Tywins father (Titus I believe) as a possible example. His lavish spending and debt forgiveness to others was bankrupting the Lannister family. (obviously this only affected that specific kingdom but it led to the rebellion with the Reynes and Tarbecks. So, to say Roberts spending wouln't have done the same on a larger scale within Westeros, ie higher taxes and more problems for the other kingdoms, is not seeing the big picture). People have gone to war for less. So in this case, the Lannisters were abusing power and it affected the North more than the other kingdoms which in turn led to Robb's rebellion in order to restore order.

[NutBurz]

5 minutes ago, Soccer69 said:

A war exacerbates those issues but bad governance would gradually lead to that as well. Obviously that would be a boring show/book to read but you can look at Tywins father (Titus I believe) as a possible example. His lavish spending and debt forgiveness to others was bankrupting the Lannister family. (obviously this only affected that specific kingdom but it led to the rebellion with the Reynes and Tarbecks. So, to say Roberts spending wouln't have done the same on a larger scale within Westeros, ie higher taxes and more problems for the other kingdoms, is not seeing the big picture). People have gone to war for less. So in this case, the Lannisters were abusing power and it affected the North more than the other kingdoms which in turn led to Robb's rebellion in order to restore order.

Except that it didn´t, apart from the Starks dying. We don´t see a single soul mentioning how things are bad and how they need to go to war to make things better. We see plenty of people saying thing were fine until lions and wolves started killing each other.

[King Perkis]

Just now, NutBurz said:

Except that it didn´t, apart from the Starks dying. We don´t see a single soul mentioning how things are bad and how they need to go to war to make things better. We see plenty of people saying thing were fine until lions and wolves started killing each other.

Well I was saying it affected the North more than others because it was Ned who was killed first (ie the North literally lost their liege Lord and 2 of his daughters). I also don't see how you are seeing that people said they were fine. Martells were literally harboring a chip on the shoulder for Elia and there two kids. So any number of things could have happened to provoke them setting off an event. Riverlands are effected because Ned, the husband of their liege lord's daughter Catelyn, was just killed. Renly's and Stannis's brother was just murdered by the Lannisters. Need I say more.

[NutBurz]

4 minutes ago, Soccer69 said:

Well I was saying it affected the North more than others because it was Ned who was killed first (ie the North literally lost their liege Lord and 2 of his daughters). I also don't see how you are seeing that people said they were fine. Martells were literally harboring a chip on the shoulder for Elia and there two kids. So any number of things could have happened to provoke them setting off an event. Riverlands are effected because Ned, the husband of their liege lord's daughter Catelyn, was just killed. Renly's and Stannis's brother was just murdered by the Lannisters. Need I say more.

You´re stil taking like the death of great lords has any direct influence in most people´s life beyond the fact that other Lords will tell them to die to avenge the dead Lord.

I´m talking about everyday life. Eddard Stark, Brandon Stark and Ned Stark dying doesn´t make it rain less, or the crops die or your son be suddenly stabbed in the gut. It might eventually lead to some of that - which is the why they agree to fight, twice, in the first place - but it never did happen. Can you blame the people for losing this perspective that dying for some lord is the best choice, after they already did it twice for what seems to be no effect?

[King Perkis]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

You´re stil taking like the death of great lords has any direct influence in most people´s life beyond the fact that other Lords will tell them to die to avenge the dead Lord.

I´m talking about everyday life. Eddard Stark, Brandon Stark and Ned Stark dying doesn´t make it rain less, or the crops die or your son be suddenly stabbed in the gut. It might eventually lead to some of that - which is the why they agree to fight, twice, in the first place - but it never did happen. Can you blame the people for losing this perspective that dying for some lord is the best choice, after they already did it twice for what seems to be no effect?

Hey man, I didn't decide the feudal system should rule here but that's the system we've got. (unless you're in the show where logic leads loyal bannerman to be able to do whatever they want and to support the Boltons).

But under this system, the top guy affects everyone within the system. Again lets use Tytus as an example. His actions almost bankrupted the lannisters (ie affected the daily life of peasants with higher taxes, less food, more work, etc.) this in turn led to a rebellion within the Westerlands where peasents were killed because Tytus couldn't maintain house. So his direct abuse of power, led to opportunities and downfalls for others where if he hadn't abused power we'd never be there  Now lets put this in a bigger concept. Cersei (who is in power) abuses that power and murders the king. That in turn leads to the issue of her children's legitimacy coming out which leads to the war that effected the peasants lives. So someone high up (Rob) died, which in turn led to others being able to use the legitimacy issue for their benefit, which leads to war. The death of Rob also opened an opportunity for Tyrells to rise in power. For the Martells to possibly begin looking for revenge. For Dany to use chaos to move into Westeros uncontested possibly. So the murder of a higher up Lord trickles down and effects the bottom. So literally, the abuse of power by Cersei (having inbred kids) led to all these things to occur and in turn affect the little people.

Dude, neither does the death of a random peasant under that logic (rain stop and crops die), but it can prevent the son getting stabbed in the belly. Again take Tytus, he abused kingdom and robbbers ran rampant but under the Stark rule a maid could walk down the road and not be harmed.

In the Starks defense in both rebellions 1. The Starks went to deal with the Mad King in a reasonable and fair manner and were murdered. I'm not saying that means you have to go to war but lets just say you were a lesser house in the North and your Lord is murdered like that you aren't going to have a problem with it, even a peasant can become upset over those murders 2. Lannisters could have shockingly allowed Ned go to the Wall and allowed the two girls to come home but Joff and Cersei blew that one, which in turn forced Robb's hand. To say otherwise is ridiculous

[NutBurz]

1 minute ago, Soccer69 said:

Hey man, I didn't decide the feudal system should rule here but that's the system we've got. (unless you're in the show where logic leads loyal bannerman to be able to do whatever they want and to support the Boltons).

But under this system, the top guy affects everyone within the system. Again lets use Tytus as an example. His actions almost bankrupted the lannisters (ie affected the daily life of peasants with higher taxes, less food, more work, etc.) this in turn led to a rebellion within the Westerlands where peasents were killed because Tytus couldn't maintain house. So his direct abuse of power, led to opportunities and downfalls for others where if he hadn't abused power we'd never be there  Now lets put this in a bigger concept. Cersei (who is in power) abuses that power and murders the king. That in turn leads to the issue of her children's legitimacy coming out which leads to the war that effected the peasants lives. So someone high up (Rob) died, which in turn led to others being able to use the legitimacy issue for their benefit, which leads to war. The death of Rob also opened an opportunity for Tyrells to rise in power. For the Martells to possibly begin looking for revenge. For Dany to use chaos to move into Westeros uncontested possibly. So the murder of a higher up Lord trickles down and effects the bottom. So literally, the abuse of power by Cersei (having inbred kids) led to all these things to occur and in turn affect the little people.

Dude, neither does the death of a random peasant under that logic (rain stop and crops die), but it can prevent the son getting stabbed in the belly. Again take Tytus, he abused kingdom and robbbers ran rampant but under the Stark rule a maid could walk down the road and not be harmed.

In the Starks defense in both rebellions 1. The Starks went to deal with the Mad King in a reasonable and fair manner and were murdered. I'm not saying that means you have to go to war but lets just say you were a lesser house in the North and your Lord is murdered like that you aren't going to have a problem with it, even a peasant can become upset over those murders 2. Lannisters could have shockingly allowed Ned go to the Wall and allowed the two girls to come home but Joff and Cersei blew that one, which in turn forced Robb's hand. To say otherwise is ridiculous

I understand how an abusive King can screw the country.

It just never happened in the last two wars.

And you guys seem to believe that everyone´s loyaty is unshakable. That is not true. That was a specific characteristics of some Starks. The North might be loyal, but that is not the one thing that defines every single one of their decisions.

[King Perkis]

57 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

I understand how an abusive King can screw the country.

It just never happened in the last two wars.

And you guys seem to believe that everyone´s loyaty is unshakable. That is not true. That was a specific characteristics of some Starks. The North might be loyal, but that is not the one thing that defines every single one of their decisions.

Lol the starting point for both rebellions was 1. A king that murdered a reasonable warden of a kingdom that demanded the return of his daughter/sister after his daughter/ sister/ father (edd taken before Brandon arrived) was taken and 2. A king was murdered by his queen and when confronted about  it by a warden of a kingdom that warden was publicly executed for a crime he did not commit by another king that was placed there by the queens abuse of power. But I mean this is just a differ of opinions. 

Not gonna say loyalty is unshakable but when the book makes it clear it is a hard thing to avoid in the North and the show constantly hints at the "the north remembers" and then pisses on it for their plot line, it causes issues. 

[NutBurz]

2 minutes ago, Soccer69 said:

Not gonna say loyalty is unshakable but when the book makes it clear it is a hard thing to avoid in the North and the show constantly hints at the "the north remembers" and then pisses on it for their plot line, it causes issues. 

The show made it clear what happened to the people who "remembered" the Starks - either they were killed in one of the many battles, or in the red wedding, or they were flayed by the Boltons like the old woman. If there´s anyone left who "remembers" the Starks, they´re most likely hiding that as well as they can.

[King Perkis]

1 hour ago, NutBurz said:

The show made it clear what happened to the people who "remembered" the Starks - either they were killed in one of the many battles, or in the red wedding, or they were flayed by the Boltons like the old woman. If there´s anyone left who "remembers" the Starks, they´re most likely hiding that as well as they can.

Or the remainder are living the high life in Winterfell. Just saying. 

[Varnagel]

Their reaction is human. Obviously they prefer to live under the Starks. But they are not willing to help in a war Jon can not win against Ramsay and see their house and family buried. As much as they love Ned, I wouldn't want to follow his foolish children into death. Robb was the king that lost the north. And he didn't just lost it, he gave it away by his stupid decisions with starting a romance and marrying her during the war and breaking his oath doing so. He also executed Karstark knowingly that he'd lose half his army that was no where as strong as Tywins before that. And in general he made stupid decisions and didn't listen to his lords and that memory is fresh for them after a long northern war. And now all the Stark fanboys expects everyone to rise up against the Boltons.

[Cas Stark]

24 minutes ago, frisken said:

Their reaction is human. Obviously they prefer to live under the Starks. But they are not willing to help in a war Jon can not win against Ramsay and see their house and family buried. As much as they love Ned, I wouldn't want to follow his foolish children into death. Robb was the king that lost the north. And he didn't just lost it, he gave it away by his stupid decisions with starting a romance and marrying her during the war and breaking his oath doing so. He also executed Karstark knowingly that he'd lose half his army that was no where as strong as Tywins before that. And in general he made stupid decisions and didn't listen to his lords and that memory is fresh for them after a long northern war. And now all the Stark fanboys expects everyone to rise up against the Boltons.

LIke they are in the books?  Yep.  I expected it.  To change the entire character of the North's relationship to House Stark, to make the retaking of Winterfell meaningless...um, yeah, that's a problem.  That's not an adaptational change that is the gutting of one of the major stories and recurring themes throughout the series.