The North Remembers What?

[xjlxking]

16 minutes ago, sifth said:

No he wasn't, No one on his side betrayed him. Jon and Sansa's army just won the battle.

By LAW, Ramsay is the lord of Winterfell. Jon is a deserter; sansa betrays; the northman betray their lord.

 

I don't understand what is so hard to grasp here.

[xjlxking]

15 minutes ago, sifth said:

Jamie killed an insane king, who everyone in the realm hated. In anything this is exactly what should have happened to Ramsay.

insane king. HAHAHAHAH

Dude! Even Ned who is probably the most noble guy in the books said Jamie is a king slayer.. In fact, Ned claimed that jamie should join the Night's watch.

 

[NutBurz]

yeah, keep putting things of the book in your interpretation of the series, assuming everyone knows about what goes on in people´s bedroom,  believing honor comes before self-preservation for anyone but eddard stark and then calling the professionals that actually make a lot of money out of writing "incompetent". I´m clearly all out of arguments, I can only point out the things being shown, I can´t change your willingness to understand what you´re shown.

 

ps-I was ninja´d, this applies to the guys before

[sifth]

22 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

insane king. HAHAHAHAH

Dude! Even Ned who is probably the most noble guy in the books said Jamie is a king slayer.. In fact, Ned claimed that jamie should join the Night's watch.

 

I'd imagine had he known about the wildfire plot Ned would have song a different song.

[sifth]

25 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

By LAW, Ramsay is the lord of Winterfell. Jon is a deserter; sansa betrays; the northman betray their lord.

 

I don't understand what is so hard to grasp here.

The guy killed his own father, which is also breaking a law. Pretty sure feeding your little brother to dogs is also breaking the law. Ramsay is has no political power though, since he's not Warden of the North.

 

Even in the books most of the northern lords are only loyal to Roose and not Ramsay.

[xjlxking]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

I'd imagine had he known about the wildfire plot Ned would have song a different song.

Maybe

Then again, it was clear that Ned did not want to hear it. Jamie made an oath, broke it, and Ned wanted to push him.Case close

 

[xjlxking]

Just now, sifth said:

The guy killed his own father, which is also breaking a law. Pretty sure feeding your little brother to dogs is also breaking the law. Ramsay is has no political power though, since he's not Warden of the North.

 

Even in the books most of the northern lords are only loyal to Roose and not Ramsay.

Except only 2 people know about him breaking the law... That does not excuse people from betraying him.
 

[sifth]

Just now, xjlxking said:

Except only 2 people know about him breaking the law... That does not excuse people from betraying him.
 

Yea, because no one looked at Roose's lifeless body and saw a clear stab wound. All of Ramsay's men were just blind, stupid and believed it was poison. Lucky for Ramsay, Lord Karstark and his maester have no issue working for a psycho as well.

 

[NutBurz]

19 minutes ago, sifth said:

Yea, because no one looked at Roose's lifeless body and saw a clear stab wound. All of Ramsay's men were just blind, stupid and believed it was poison. Lucky for Ramsay, Lord Karstark and his maester have no issue working for a psycho as well.

 

It must be comfy to judge them from the satefy of your computer with no one that can flay you around.

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

It must be comfy to judge them from the satefy of your computer with no one that can flay you around.

The guy killed his own father, their lord protector right in front of them, but who cares though, they felt working with a crazy man would be fun, because why the hell not.

 

I'd like to see book Ramsay get away with killing Roose in front of his lords.

[xjlxking]

23 minutes ago, sifth said:

The guy killed his own father, their lord protector right in front of them, but who cares though, they felt working with a crazy man would be fun, because why the hell not.

 

I'd like to see book Ramsay get away with killing Roose in front of his lords.

He didn't get away with it. He got killed by northmen..His wife..his slave escaped..

 

[sifth]

Just now, xjlxking said:

He didn't get away with it. He got killed by northmen..His wife..his slave escaped..

 

Yea because killing Roose was the reason Jon and Sansa killed him.

[Cron]

This is a good, thoughtful original post which, among other things, really supports the idea that despite Sansa's utter defeatism the night before, if she had just told Jon about the Valemen, there might have been a radically different outcome.

The original poster basically wonders, I believe, why Umbers and Karstarks charged into battle.  Well, they thought they were going to wipe Jon's forces out, and sure enough, they almost did, and would have if the Valemen hadn't arrived.

But what if Sansa had told Jon about the Valemen the night before, Jon sent some riders to scout for the Valemen, then those riders return with the news  "Uh, yeah, sure enough, they're on their way, in fact they're almost here," then the attack is held off until the Valemen arrive.  After that, when faced with all that, plus considering a number of good points raised above about Ramsay's less than stellar character (to put it mildly), the Umbers and Karstarks may well have decided to switch allegiances again.

But of course, we'll never know, because of...Sansa.

[bent branch]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

His own father, who was "poisoned" by his enemies, lol

Ramsay is also insane and has no political power like the mad king. He's not even Warden of the North, he's only the son of the warden of the North untit/if Tommon gives him the title, which never happened.

This is one of the more interesting developments in the series. People can kill whoever they want and just take over. The idea that lords receive their rights from the crown has been thrown completely in the trash. Westeros isn't a feudal society, it is an anarchy.

[sifth]

28 minutes ago, bent branch said:

This is one of the more interesting developments in the series. People can kill whoever they want and just take over. The idea that lords receive their rights from the crown has been thrown completely in the trash. Westeros isn't a feudal society, it is an anarchy.

The good old "killing your boss to get a promotion" trope. This season gave us both that and Arya with a healing factor, this season.

[NutBurz]

3 hours ago, Cron said:

This is a good, thoughtful original post which, among other things, really supports the idea that despite Sansa's utter defeatism the night before, if she had just told Jon about the Valemen, there might have been a radically different outcome.

The original poster basically wonders, I believe, why Umbers and Karstarks charged into battle.  Well, they thought they were going to wipe Jon's forces out, and sure enough, they almost did, and would have if the Valemen hadn't arrived.

But what if Sansa had told Jon about the Valemen the night before, Jon sent some riders to scout for the Valemen, then those riders return with the news  "Uh, yeah, sure enough, they're on their way, in fact they're almost here," then the attack is held off until the Valemen arrive.  After that, when faced with all that, plus considering a number of good points raised above about Ramsay's less than stellar character (to put it mildly), the Umbers and Karstarks may well have decided to switch allegiances again.

But of course, we'll never know, because of...Sansa.

It´s very true that forcing Ramsey to opt for the siege could eventually lead them to rebel against him.

 

I can only think that Sansa found them turning back their cloack unlikely, not matter the situation, since she´s kinda of a downer now.

[blckp]

The north remembers starks are idiots which Jon Snow proved again in this episode

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, NutBurz said:

yeah, keep putting things of the book in your interpretation of the series, assuming everyone knows about what goes on in people´s bedroom,  believing honor comes before self-preservation for anyone but eddard stark and then calling the professionals that actually make a lot of money out of writing "incompetent". I´m clearly all out of arguments, I can only point out the things being shown, I can´t change your willingness to understand what you´re shown.

And I'll say this one last time: the problem is that in previous seasons, the show incorporated the Northern character quite faithfully, which now leads to continuity/coherency problems. Even within season 6, honor is still presented as very important in Westeros (no, it never was just Ned). So when you take the fact that in the show Ramsay is a kinslayer (born a bastard) who lost the support of the Lannisters, you have to question the eagerness of other Northerners to flock to his banner... because while one may argue that they don't have much reason to support the "Starks" (Jon & Sansa) anymore, they have even less reason to support the "Boltons" (Ramsay).
Fact is, in the last few episodes, the Northerners have acted like one would expect the Wildlings to act, while the Wildlings have acted like one could expect Northerners to act. This alone is slightly problematic, and could turn out to be even more so in the next season.
Basically, the show relies on the viewer forgetting much of what has been already shown and told, and/or assuming that information gets communicated completely randomly (like the Vale forces somehow making it through most of the North unnoticed). Like many movies and TV shows, it relies more on visual/emotional impact than good storytelling/plot.

[Kytheros]

6 hours ago, Cron said:

This is a good, thoughtful original post which, among other things, really supports the idea that despite Sansa's utter defeatism the night before, if she had just told Jon about the Valemen, there might have been a radically different outcome.

The original poster basically wonders, I believe, why Umbers and Karstarks charged into battle.  Well, they thought they were going to wipe Jon's forces out, and sure enough, they almost did, and would have if the Valemen hadn't arrived.

But what if Sansa had told Jon about the Valemen the night before, Jon sent some riders to scout for the Valemen, then those riders return with the news  "Uh, yeah, sure enough, they're on their way, in fact they're almost here," then the attack is held off until the Valemen arrive.  After that, when faced with all that, plus considering a number of good points raised above about Ramsay's less than stellar character (to put it mildly), the Umbers and Karstarks may well have decided to switch allegiances again.

But of course, we'll never know, because of...Sansa.

There's also the distinct possibility that if Jon knew that the Vale was coming, and things went down more or less as they did, Jon might have been able to control himself enough to not charge Ramsay's lines after Rickon went down, and instead return to his own forces, with or without Rickon's corpse.

Jon heading back to his own lines might well have caused Ramsay to send his own cavalry after him, and we get something similar to what happened anyways, but it doesn't butcher Jon and Sansa's established characters.

 

 

 

 

People expect the North to remember and loyally back the Starks as a default, because that's what we've previously been led to believe in the show, and it's what has happened in the books.
Hell, in the books, Jon practically whistles up several thousand Mountain Clansmen to fight for Stannis. In the books, Deepwood Motte (Glover) was liberated by Stannis's forces in conjunction with forces from Bear Island under one of the Mormont girls. In the books, the Northern Houses which are backing Roose, or only pretending to back Roose, even they only say they're there because (a) Roose, and (b) (fake)Arya Stark (actually Jeyne Poole) is married to Ramsay, and while a few of them have reason to dislike the current Starks - the Karstarks (and even the Karstarks are split between Stark-loyalist/supporting Stannis and anti-Starks) and Barrowton/Lady Dustin (her sister was married to Roose, and bore him a son Domeric, and her husband was one of Ned's seven at the ToJ and Ned didn't even bring his bones back; but she blames and despises Ramsay for her beloved nephew's death). They're not there for Ramsay himself - they'd all turn on him in an instant. The Manderlys are going along with the Boltons only because the Lannisters had Lord Manderly's surviving son and heir - but are actively plotting against the Boltons and their Frey allies.

 

I'm not a book purist - an adaptation will, by necessity, reduce and change things from the source material. The problem is, you expect those changes to be fairly minor or to serve the established story in the new medium.  You don't expect those changes to take things in a complete 180.
For example, early in the books, there's almost nothing covering the Lannisters. Almost all the early Lannister stuff is a show change that served the story. Merging Gendry and Edric Storm, for the show, makes sense. Trimming down character lists and/or merging characters is common, and not something many will raise an objection to.

[NutBurz]

Are the Bolton men northerners?

Does every single soldier in the Bolton army share Roose Bolton´s interests and convictions?

Does the fact that they live in an area that happens to be under the influence of Bolton´s army skew their morals to the point that those men, unlike every other northerner, would not perceive the Starks as a "better option"?

Does the fact that those men serve in the Bolton army automatically makes them approve of every one of their methods, does it make them believe that Roose is not a traitor?

Why did the people who carried out the Red Wedding do so? Why aren´t those northerners loyal to the Starks? Why they could forget, but no one else can? Or people who are born in that area automatically "doesn´t remember" the Starks, or has shit for honor, or likes to be ruled by maniacs?

Or they´re not northerners?

 

What is fundamentally different between a "Bolton" northerner and any other?

There has to be a difference in the level of the people, much deeper than Roose Bolton and Ramsey, or else those people would be northerners like the ones from your fairy tales and they wouldn´t carry out the Red Wedding, they would just betray Roose instead of the Stark King in the North.

There has to be a fundamental difference in the people, or else the fact that there are northerners willing to carry out the Red Wedding would be proof that not every single northerner is absolutely loyal.