Val is Jon’s true Queen. Part trois.

[Harlaw's Book the Sequel]

7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

I know Mors Umber had a daughter stolen, but we don't actually have any real details, do we? And again, I am asking genuinely because what if his daughter ran away or left on her own accord and he was just pissed because of being a dad and missing out on the arranged marriage, he felt slighted, etc. If the spearwife at Winterfell that helps to save Theon and Jeyne's ass is indeed Mors' grown daughter, well, she seems to be "at home" in her role, and there is potential to have her explain things on page.

I lean towards Mor's daughter running away instead of being stolen.  There does seem to be a pattern of northern girls running away from unwanted marriages: Lyanna, Sansa, Alys, and Jeyne.  Arguably Arya also goes on the list for unknowingly running away from both her arranged marriage to Elmar Frey and the possibility of having Jeyne's fate.  Hmm…I wonder if that happening at Harrenhal has any significance.

Jon, Alys (she may not love Sigorn yet, but she is making a good faith effort for it to work, and I have a good feeling about those two), and the Bael the Bard story (which I don't think should be dismissed as Wilding propoganda/tall tale) demonstrate how its possible for people south of the Wall to fall in love with Wildings.

While Rowan seems to be the popular choice for Mor's daughter, I think there are more exciting possibilities if it turns out Val and Dalla's mom was Mor's daughter.  First of all, I place Val's survival odds as higher than Rowan's, so I think it's more likely for Val to be the one who reunites/reconciles with the Umbers (and honestly just more satisfying narrative wise).  If that happens, I don't see the Umbers opposing a Wilding alliance anymore.  If the Umbers, Karstarks, and the Mountain Clans are okay with Wildings in the North, that will go a long way to convincing the rest of the Northern Houses to accept Wildings.  Add that to the other factors of the actions of Mance and spearwives, Osha being Rickon's protector, and Jon Snow's endorsement of it, and I think it would be safe to say the entire North will come to accept a Wilding-North alliance.  In light of everything else going on, the quicker GRRM can unite the North, the Night's Watch, and the Wildings, the better.    

On a character level, I find the idea interesting because of the possible comparisons and contrasts it has with R + L = J.  If Val doesn't know about her mother's family but then has it suddenly revealed to her, she is essentially in same boat as Jon when he finds about his Targaryen heritage.  Admittedly, part of the reason I'm fond of this is because I grin at the idea of them finding out about their family trees at the same tree and look forward to them leaning on each other even more after the revelations.  However, even if Val already knows she descends from the Umbers, I still see her being invaluable to Jon while he reels from dealing with R + L = J because she can show him that it's possible to make peace with yourself, despite being the child of families that oppose each other.

Possible hints for Mor's daughter being Val's mother:

• Her highborn manner of speaking
• That she is wearing a bearskin cloak is highlighted on two occasions; one of her bearskin cloaks is a snow bear cloak.  Mors and Hothor are both wearing bearskin cloaks when they come to Winterfell in ACOK.  Mors in particular is closely associated with a snow bear cloak.
• Val wearing bearskin cloaks and has honey colored hair reminds me of "The Bear and the Maiden Fair."  Val having elements in common with both the bear and the maiden implies she is a combination of both, or in other words, she's the product of a union between a "bear" and a maiden fair.  
• Val gains a giant as protector, which means Val received her mother's sigil as a protector.    

[kissdbyfire]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We might not have other wildling women commenting on their lifestyle but we have other examples of wildlings in less fortunate positions (again, the many wives of Ygon Oldfeather that are continually ignored in this discussion).

<snip>

 

Ygon Oldfather's eighteen wives are not being "continually ignored in this discussion". The thing is, we haven't met them properly. We've heard of them, they were mentioned, but that's it. How can we discuss characters, their motivations, likes and dislikes and so on when said characters haven't been really introduced? We don't know the first thing about any of the 18, and while it would be silly to claim they're all happy and content, it's just as silly to claim they're all miserable victims. 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Who have we actually seen this happen to? And I mean this genuinely because I can't think of any examples on page. If it is not on page as actually happening recently or often enough by any Lords and houses south of the wall, then I wonder if this is another exaggerated tale about the wildlings to a large degree. Old Nan is awesome, but even she repeats tales that are exaggerated and not true just to scare the kids. Both Bran and Jon notice this as they go through their travels. Maester Aemon even declares the Others and CotF as just long ago disappeared childrens stories.

Well, I think you are beyond rational discussion if you question that this happens. Jon is part of such a raiding party in ASoS. They are not after women and food this time but but after the Watch, and they still kill innocent people on the road.

We also know that the Gifts have become depopulated because of continuous wildling raids which the weakened NW can no longer prevent. Do you think those people ran away from fairy-tales?

Not to mention the deep-seated hatred between the Watch and the wildlings. Why does it exist? Why is the Watch even caring about the wildlings? If they were in their majority nice guys then there would be no reason whatsoever to see and treat them as enemies. Only if they actually threatened the people the Watch is sworn to protect (which in their interpretation is the people on their side of the Wall) would there be any reason for them to be at odds with one another. And they were much are.

Quote

I know Mors Umber had a daughter stolen, but we don't actually have any real details, do we? And again, I am asking genuinely because what if his daughter ran away or left on her own accord and he was just pissed because of being a dad and missing out on the arranged marriage, he felt slighted, etc. If the spearwife at Winterfell that helps to save Theon and Jeyne's ass is indeed Mors' grown daughter, well, she seems to be "at home" in her role, and there is potential to have her explain things on page.

Well, we also know that the Umber lands as such are threatened by wildling raids. Even if Mors' daughter was some rebellious teenager who wanted to be free this doesn't really chance the overall picture.

We are not only talking about the whole stealing thing, by the way. Stealing the goods of other hard working people is also wrong. Especially if they are starving in winter if you do it.

Quote

And yet, when Jon is letting the wildlings through the wall, only a few are mentioned as giving him a harsh glare, because the major majority of them give Jon a vow, and show Jon fealty by giving up valuables... including their own children. The Free Folk chose their own leader and they chose Jon.

They did? Only a fraction of them came through the Wall. Those who joined Tormund. And while they give promises those promises are essentially forced upon them. They are not worth all that much. Keep in mind that for the wildlings it is death or submission, and they chose submission. There is no reason to believe they won't change their mind again once they safely on the other side of the Wall. The whole thing might already have gone to hell after Jon's murder. After all, since he was the guy they made their promise to they have no reason to stick to that after his death, right?

A majority of them might simply freed their hostages and left the Wall by the time Jon comes back from the dead. That's what I would do if I was a wildling at the Wall right now.

Quote

Tell that to Catelyn. She had the hots for Brandon and Ned was just a second tier replacement for him and she didn't think Ned was exactly "hot" to begin with, but she grew to love him.

Come on, now, you are not trying to tell me that I should try to convince some girl I've the hots for that she actually loves me but doesn't know it yet or that it doesn't matter that she doesn't love me yet since time might change that. That is a ridiculous notion. The fact that some people who are forced into an arranged marriage make the best of it or actually develop romantic feelings for each later on (if they have met only a few times or never before their wedding) doesn't change that.

In addition, if you are never in love with a person on the hormone-induced level (which is what I meant by the whole 'having the hots for somebody' comment) then this kind of thing is likely never going to happen in some arranged marriage thing.

And the relationship we are talking about here - Jon and Ygritte - is intensely physical and always completely dominated by their desire to have sex. They have nothing in common aside from that. It is a very physical relationship which usually is the beginning of any lasting romantic relationship people enter into voluntarily. You want to fuck the person you have the hots for. He or she is on your mind constantly, not some other person.

Quote

Nope. That is your opinion. It is different than most other parts of Westeros, but it doesn't completely suck. Jon has seen on his own that the free folk don't suck and it is something that he is slowly admitting to throughout ASOS and ADWD.

They don't suck as individual people. But their lifestyle and culture do suck.

Quote

She saw something in him that made her want to hide away in the caves to be with just him. I can't list everything, but it was enough for her. Hell, I can't even list why I like my own husband anymore, but I do. (Yes, I am very much just kidding-mostly)

Yeah, because their physical relationship became even more intense because both of them knew it could not possibly last. Ygritte very much suspected that Jon wasn't completely on their side and Jon knew he had to leave the wildlings at one point and warn Castle Black about what was coming.

I'm pretty sure once either or both of them had sobered up they would have realized that they had little enough in common. I mean, Jon even acknowledges that Ygritte isn't even all that attractive. His youthful hormones can ignore that while he is enamored with her yet usually such a state doesn't last for a lifetime.

Would Jon stay with Ygritte if Val became suddenly interested in him? I don't think so.

Quote

It is not a mental weakness. Should the wildings change to adapt themselves to their new home, or not? This was a personal challenge for Jon and his character development. Also, since the wildlings have chosen to follow Jon at this point, it seems very likely that they (most of them) are willing to adapt to integrated life below the wall. Jon set an example just as the Magnar and Alys K. wedding did. Jon notes that Sigorn is surprisingly tender with his new wife and the custom of the Magnar dictates complete obedience... which means no f'ing off now that they are south of the wall.

Those things have nothing to do with each other. What the wildlings should do when they cross the Wall and what Jon should have done to prove his loyalty to Ygritte and the wildling way of life back in ASoS are two different things.

I'm arguing that Ygritte is actually more complex than 'I only like strong men'. She likes the men she likes, and she can accept their character faults and weaknesses. She is a real human being in that sense and not a caricature.

As to the Thenns:

They are not free folk. They are a culture of their own. There is no reason to believe that they even raid other villages and steal because they actually have that fertile valley of theirs and the military necessary and capable to defend it against intruding wildlings.

And while the Magnar of Thenn demands absolute obedience and worship from his followers nobody ever said that he demands a similar thing from his wife. Not to mention, you know, that he has effectively married a foreign princess there, a woman he might see as his better due to the fact that his father was killed by those crows and Mance (and his own crushed men) by this King Stannis guy.

The deal with Alys Karstark effectively gives him and his men a castle and rich and fertile lands. He has every reason to be happy about all of this.

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

So you admit this, yet you have already condemned the whole Wildling culture as deplorable, uncivilized savages based on the actions of one or two bad apples. Of course this doesn't apply to the southerners whom have the likes of Ramsey, and many others. Why is Ramsey considered an exception that doesn't reflect on the southern culture, but the few cases of deplorable actions by individual Wildings is used to condemn the entire culture?

I see no reason to believe that 'one or two bad apples' can be the reason why the hell the Watch and the North see the wildlings as their enemies for thousands of years. We know the Gifts were depopulated because of wildlings raids the Watch could not prevent (see above). We know the Watchmen and the wildlings have killed each other for thousands of years. And the same goes for Northmen and wildlings.

And just to clarify: Monarchy sucks, too. Just as feudalism and a medieval society in general. Westeros (and Martinworld) is a shitty place to live in.

Quote

Actually, you did state that, and it would have been obvious what you meant, had you not specifically stated: "Her claim that physical strength is an important criteria in a man of her choosing isn't really true for herself - Jon is far too weak to be a proper wildling as he later depicts when Ygritte has to kill the innocent Northman for him."

I know what I wrote but it is you who understand my 'far too weak' as 'physically far too weak' which is not what I wrote. It is quite evident that Jon actually is strong enough to kill that innocent man. Claiming he lacks the physical strength to do it would simply make no sense if you know the context (which I do).

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Ygon Oldfather's eighteen wives are not being "continually ignored in this discussion". The thing is, we haven't met them properly. We've heard of them, they were mentioned, but that's it. How can we discuss characters, their motivations, likes and dislikes and so on when said characters haven't been really introduced? We don't know the first thing about any of the 18, and while it would be silly to claim they're all happy and content, it's just as silly to claim they're all miserable victims. 

We don't have to meet them to know that a society where men can practice polygamy isn't a society where women are treated as equals (e.g. Saudi-Arabia or polygamous Mormon culture in our world). Sugar-coating the stealing custom when one outcome of this whole thing could be that you end up being one of the eighteen wives of that creep makes it very unlikely to me that this custom is at its root a positive one.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to believe that they even raid other villages and steal because they actually have that fertile valley of theirs and the military necessary and capable to defend it against intruding wildlings.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I think you are beyond rational discussion if you question that this happens. Jon is part of such a raiding party in ASoS. They are not after women and food this time but but after the Watch, and they still kill innocent people on the road.

The previous Magnar and some of his Thenns are part of the raiding party Jon crosses the wall with. It's a Magnar who orders him to kill the old man they find in the inn of abandoned Queenscrown. You're contradicting yourself when you say there's no reason to believe that they read and steal, when you actually refer to the raiding party in aSoS led by the Magnar and including Thenns. If the Thenns don't have experience raiding and attacking, but only defending themselves against the raiding wildling, then why the hell would Mance even give the command to the Magnar for this important part of the mission "open gate"? 

Yes, the raids are partially the reason why the Gift was abandoned. It's also because in less than 200 years, there have been 3 attacks and breaches of Kings Beyond the Wall, whereas we only learn of 2 KBtW invasion attempts in the thousand years before that, and 1 KBtW who helped the North against the Night's King. Most of these large scale breaches and invasion attempts occurred between GQ Alysanne and before Ned's father, thus approximately in a course of less than 2 centuries. One got as far as Long Lake. Meanwhile NW drastically declined in numbers and Starks and their bannermen were forced to depart from the New Gift, leaving the people there without any protection whatsoever.

Each of those large scale invasion attempts would have killed a great many people in the first place, and with the NW in such decline, survivors would be inclined to just pack up and go after such an event, than remain. The minority that had the courage to remain and try to rebuild after such a KBtW attack in the Gift, either then got killed or left after a raid. It's not the raids that emptied the Gift, because the raids have happened for thousands of years, per the Mormont women explaining how they came to take up arms. It's the rapid increase KBtW attacks and the NW either screwing up or unable to protect them (because screwed by Targ meddling and KG invention) that emptied it, and the raids were the nail in the coffin.

[Darkstream]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Quote

 

I see no reason to believe that 'one or two bad apples' can be the reason why the hell the Watch and the North see the wildlings as their enemies for thousands of years. We know the Gifts were depopulated because of wildlings raids the Watch could not prevent (see above). We know the Watchmen and the wildlings have killed each other for thousands of years. And the same goes for Northmen and wildlings.

And yet, across the entire Seven Kingdoms, throughout the entire history of the continent, the Southerners have been engaging in war, treating their non-Wilding, non-stealing neighbors as enemies. Perhaps, if the war mongering Southerners hadn't driven the peacfull, indigenous people of the the Seven Kingdoms north, and built a huge frickin' ice wall, the Wildlings would have no need to raid and pillage in order to survive. 

The fact that these two groups are enemies says nothing of the Wildling culture, but to the nature of man kind in general. 

The reason they are enemies is because they know nothing. That is the whole point of Jon spending time with the Wildlings, to learn something, and come to the realization that the Wildlings aren't all that different from the Southerners. To realize that this feud between the Watch and the Wildlings is pointless and stupid, and over essentially nothing.

Your assertion that these two factions are enemies as a result of the Wildlings customs and culture is purely speculative, and driven by your own personal bias against the Wildlings. 

 

Quote

 I know what I wrote but it is you who understand my 'far too weak' as 'physically far too weak' which is not what I wrote. It is quite evident that Jon actually is strong enough to kill that innocent man. Claiming he lacks the physical strength to do it would simply make no sense if you know the context (which I do).

No, I didn't take 'far too weak' as 'physically far too weak' , I took your statement that 

"Her claim that physical strength is an important criteria in a man of her choosing isn't really true for herself"

as you referring to physical strength.

But I see, it's my responsibility to decifer what you meant, as opposed to what you wrote. Cool.  

 

[The Fattest Leech]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I think you are beyond rational discussion if you question that this happens. Jon is part of such a raiding party in ASoS. They are not after women and food this time but but after the Watch, and they still kill innocent people on the road.

Nope. Not at all. And I stand by my query. I'm not saying raids and such never happened, but I want an actual account of it. I mean, is Night's King true down to the last detail? :

Who have we actually seen this happen to? And I mean this genuinely because I can't think of any examples on page. If it is not on page as actually happening recently or often enough by any Lords and houses south of the wall, then I wonder if this is another exaggerated tale about the wildlings to a large degree. Old Nan is awesome, but even she repeats tales that are exaggerated and not true just to scare the kids. Both Bran and Jon notice this as they go through their travels. Maester Aemon even declares the Others and CotF as just long ago disappeared childrens stories.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We also know that the Gifts have become depopulated because of continuous wildling raids which the weakened NW can no longer prevent. Do you think those people ran away from fairy-tales?

Tell me again how what "good" queen Alysanne did was a benefit to the north and the those south of the neck????

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to mention the deep-seated hatred between the Watch and the wildlings. Why does it exist? Why is the Watch even caring about the wildlings? If they were in their majority nice guys then there would be no reason whatsoever to see and treat them as enemies. Only if they actually threatened the people the Watch is sworn to protect (which in their interpretation is the people on their side of the Wall) would there be any reason for them to be at odds with one another. And they were much are.

Because they were locked out of their lands. If the wildlings were allowed to cross as needed or wanted, then chances are almost none of the fighting would have been happening for all this time. And, as swetsunray gave examples of, there are times where the two sides worked together. The free folk want to be free and not kneelers to gold crowns, and not locked out of their native lands.

• "The gods made the earth for all men t' share. Only when the kings come with their crowns and steel swords, they claimed it was all theirs. My trees, they said, you can't eat them apples. My stream, you can't fish here. My wood, you're not t' hunt. My earth, my water, my castle, my daughter, keep your hands away or I'll chop 'em off, but maybe if you kneel t' me I'll let you have a sniff. You call us thieves, but at least a thief has t' be brave and clever and quick. A kneeler only has t' kneel."

And you seem to have missed the few times int he story where it is mentioned that the NW protects the realms of men, and what are wildlings if not men. More than one character says that in the story, so this is not a limited point of view.

I guess you dislike LC Mormont as well because he was a big proponent of this idea and he said (twice?) that the NW forgot it's purpose and that purpose was NOT to fight the wildlings.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we also know that the Umber lands as such are threatened by wildling raids. Even if Mors' daughter was some rebellious teenager who wanted to be free this doesn't really chance the overall picture.

We are not only talking about the whole stealing thing, by the way. Stealing the goods of other hard working people is also wrong. Especially if they are starving in winter if you do it.

They did? Only a fraction of them came through the Wall. Those who joined Tormund. And while they give promises those promises are essentially forced upon them. They are not worth all that much. Keep in mind that for the wildlings it is death or submission, and they chose submission. There is no reason to believe they won't change their mind again once they safely on the other side of the Wall. The whole thing might already have gone to hell after Jon's murder. After all, since he was the guy they made their promise to they have no reason to stick to that after his death, right?

Wrong. Jon says he doesn't care about their religions and he says he won't make them kneel, but they do have to obey. That is what the wildlings say they want, or not want to do. One guy (forgot his name) offers all three of his daughters to marry into the northern houses. Not the ugliest, or lamest, or youngest- all three. Morna even removes her mask and kisses Jon as she gives fealty.

Add to this that there is an extremely high chance of likelihood that the wildlings see Jon and Val as already stolen/married, and they still follow Val both as she leads them from the forest to CB, and also they kneel to her as she stands (like salt) on the platform next to Stannis as Rattleshirt is burned.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A majority of them might simply freed their hostages and left the Wall by the time Jon comes back from the dead. That's what I would do if I was a wildling at the Wall right now.

Come on, now, you are not trying to tell me that I should try to convince some girl I've the hots for that she actually loves me but doesn't know it yet or that it doesn't matter that she doesn't love me yet since time might change that. That is a ridiculous notion. The fact that some people who are forced into an arranged marriage make the best of it or actually develop romantic feelings for each later on (if they have met only a few times or never before their wedding) doesn't change that.

We are talking the books here. This happens in the books, as the Cat/Ned example shows.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

And the relationship we are talking about here - Jon and Ygritte - is intensely physical and always completely dominated by their desire to have sex. They have nothing in common aside from that. It is a very physical relationship which usually is the beginning of any lasting romantic relationship people enter into voluntarily. You want to fuck the person you have the hots for. He or she is on your mind constantly, not some other person.

They do serve to teach each other about the other side, and they do. This is for the readers benefit as much as is it character development.

I have always said that Ygritte was a bit of a literary device, which is why I think Jon will have no trouble getting all the way over her when the time is right. Jon will always think fondly of Ygritte and will "cherish" his time with her, but he will move on.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They don't suck as individual people. But their lifestyle and culture do suck.

 It is not ideal for many, but they seem to like it. To me the idea of living in King's Landing sucks! Seriously, shit running in the streets and pot shops that serve "singer's stew", not knowing of a wildfire explosion is going to wipe your life out at any point, CERSEI, and having to deal with pain in the ass, over-entitled kings guard or city watch... no thank you.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, because their physical relationship became even more intense because both of them knew it could not possibly last. Ygritte very much suspected that Jon wasn't completely on their side and Jon knew he had to leave the wildlings at one point and warn Castle Black about what was coming.

But yet she still wanted to run away with just him. There are some background stories that play into this arc as well.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm pretty sure once either or both of them had sobered up they would have realized that they had little enough in common. I mean, Jon even acknowledges that Ygritte isn't even all that attractive. His youthful hormones can ignore that while he is enamored with her yet usually such a state doesn't last for a lifetime.

Would Jon stay with Ygritte if Val became suddenly interested in him? I don't think so.

You have NO WAY of knowing that. Jon is not vapid in the least, as shown by his desire for Ygritte even though she is not conventionally pretty. Jon was raised with honor, and not the horse Honor either. Jon sees the truth in the free folk of all cultures.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those things have nothing to do with each other. What the wildlings should do when they cross the Wall and what Jon should have done to prove his loyalty to Ygritte and the wildling way of life back in ASoS are two different things.

I'm arguing that Ygritte is actually more complex than 'I only like strong men'. She likes the men she likes, and she can accept their character faults and weaknesses. She is a real human being in that sense and not a caricature.

As to the Thenns:

They are not free folk. They are a culture of their own. There is no reason to believe that they even raid other villages and steal because they actually have that fertile valley of theirs and the military necessary and capable to defend it against intruding wildlings.

The term "free folk" is a catch-all phrase that generalizes the many different clans and tribes and cultures of all the people north of the wall. People south of the wall refer to them all as wildlings. So yes, the Thenns are a culture apart from other free folk, but they have formally joined Mance's cause and army. They are all coming through as one people... which is kinda the theme of this particular arc in the story. And the Thenns probably did not do much raiding south of the wall because they are geographically the farthest away.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And while the Magnar of Thenn demands absolute obedience and worship from his followers nobody ever said that he demands a similar thing from his wife. Not to mention, you know, that he has effectively married a foreign princess there, a woman he might see as his better due to the fact that his father was killed by those crows and Mance (and his own crushed men) by this King Stannis guy.

The deal with Alys Karstark effectively gives him and his men a castle and rich and fertile lands. He has every reason to be happy about all of this.

Correct. Jon effectively subdued the mass of free folk that have come through already, they paid fealty to him, gave vows and children, and the Magnar was "rewarded" with a "princess" that not only has strong links to the north and the Starks, but since he is a Thenn, he and his Thennians can til that fertile land and make something of it because they have those skills.

 

[Lord Varys]

56 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

 

The previous Magnar and some of his Thenns are part of the raiding party Jon crosses the wall with. It's a Magnar who orders him to kill the old man they find in the inn of abandoned Queenscrown. You're contradicting yourself when you say there's no reason to believe that they read and steal, when you actually refer to the raiding party in aSoS led by the Magnar and including Thenns. If the Thenns don't have experience raiding and attacking, but only defending themselves against the raiding wildling, then why the hell would Mance even give the command to the Magnar for this important part of the mission "open gate"? 

The Thenns have professional soldiers. I assume they used them to protect their valley and conquer/subdue adjacent lands and people (assuming they are worth anything). Mance sends the Thenns because they actually know how to really fight organized enemies and follow orders.

But this doesn't mean the Thenns are the kind of people who attack and raid other villages in a disorganized raiding bands like the other wildlings do.

56 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, the raids are partially the reason why the Gift was abandoned. It's also because in less than 200 years, there have been 3 attacks and breaches of Kings Beyond the Wall, whereas we only learn of 2 KBtW invasion attempts in the thousand years before that, and 1 KBtW who helped the North against the Night's King. Most of these large scale breaches and invasion attempts occurred between GQ Alysanne and before Ned's father, thus approximately in a course of less than 2 centuries. One got as far as Long Lake. Meanwhile NW drastically declined in numbers and Starks and their bannermen were forced to depart from the New Gift, leaving the people there without any protection whatsoever.

I'm not sure Bael the Bard was King-beyond-the-Wall during the Targaryen reign but even if he was this has nothing to do with the fact that the wildlings are raiding the North and that this kind of behavior is part of the culture. The clansmen are behaving in the same kind of way.

56 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Each of those large scale invasion attempts would have killed a great many people in the first place, and with the NW in such decline, survivors would be inclined to just pack up and go after such an event, than remain. The minority that had the courage to remain and try to rebuild after such a KBtW attack in the Gift, either then got killed or left after a raid. It's not the raids that emptied the Gift, because the raids have happened for thousands of years, per the Mormont women explaining how they came to take up arms. It's the rapid increase KBtW attacks and the NW either screwing up or unable to protect them (because screwed by Targ meddling and KG invention) that emptied it, and the raids were the nail in the coffin.

That is an interesting theory. No idea why I should believe it, though. We have no idea how many non-combatants were killed in the campaign against Raymun Redbeard nor have we any idea how many people died during Bael's attacks.

You should also keep in mind that peasants in feudal societies usually have no right to leave their lands (unless they are yeomen who actually own the land they sit on). This is confirmed to be the case in the Seven Kingdoms, too, when Aerys I and Bloodraven command the peasants to return home during the drought.

The idea the two minor wars had anything to do with the depopulation of the Gifts makes little sense to me - especially in light of the fact that long winters should be especially hard up there. Who knows, perhaps the Great Spring Sickness and the six-year-winter each killed two thirds of the population up there?

36 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And yet, across the entire Seven Kingdoms, throughout the entire history of the continent, the Southerners have been engaging in war, treating their non-Wilding, non-stealing neighbors as enemies. Perhaps, if the war mongering Southerners hadn't driven the peacfull, indigenous people of the the Seven Kingdoms north, and built a huge frickin' ice wall, the Wildlings would have no need to raid and pillage in order to survive. 

Last I looked it was the First Men, the Children of the Forest, and the giants who built the Wall. Both were 'indigenous people' of Westeros. The wildlings were just stupid enough to remain north of the Wall. Not a very good idea with the whole thing being built to keep the Others out.

36 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

The fact that these two groups are enemies says nothing of the Wildling culture, but to the nature of man kind in general. 

The reason they are enemies is because they know nothing. That is the whole point of Jon spending time with the Wildlings, to learn something, and come to the realization that the Wildlings aren't all that different from the Southerners. To realize that this feud between the Watch and the Wildlings is pointless and stupid, and over essentially nothing.

Your assertion that these two factions are enemies as a result of the Wildlings customs and culture is purely speculative, and driven bye your own personal bias against the Wildlings. 

If you are reading my posts you realize that I don't like monarchy and feudalism any better than the wildling culture.

I find it not very convincing that the Watch should have been responsible for the enmity between them and the wildlings. It is quite clear that the Watchmen fulfill a duty while the raiding wildlings are just thieves, rapists, and murderers, basically.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Nope. Not at all. And I stand by my query. I'm not saying raids and such never happened, but I want an actual account of it. I mean, is Night's King true down to the last detail?

No. But the Night's King story is thousands of years old while the wildling raids happen in the present and the very recent past. See the difference?

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Because they were locked out of their lands. If the wildlings were allowed to cross as needed or wanted, then chances are almost none of the fighting would have been happening for all this time. And, as swetsunray gave examples of, there are times where the two sides worked together. The free folk want to be free and not kneelers to gold crowns, and not locked out of their native lands.

We can be pretty sure that there was no (big) difference between the wildlings and the First Men south of the Wall when it was first built. They all worked together to get it done. That only changed over time. But I see no reason why the hell the Watch should not allow peaceful traders to pass through the Wall or go around it. The thing is, this doesn't seem to happen all that often.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And you seem to have missed the few times int he story where it is mentioned that the NW protects the realms of men, and what are wildlings if not men. More than one character says that in the story, so this is not a limited point of view.

I'm usually the one that points out that the Others are the biggest threat and everybody should team up to defeat them. But that has nothing to do with their culture. It still sucks. It is basically a sink or swim mentality. If you are strong, smart, or quick enough you can steal everything from your neighbor in a time of need. Your neighbor then simply dies in the next winter. I don't like societies that a based on vampirism.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I guess you dislike LC Mormont as well because he was a big proponent of this idea and he said (twice?) that the NW forgot it's purpose and that purpose was NOT to fight the wildlings.

The Watch don't fight the wildlings. The wildlings kill Watchmen and the Watch fights back. The Seven Kingdoms still sort of honor the NW. The wildlings do nothing to help them. Nobody from their ranks join them nor do they support them in any way. If the NW is guarding the realms of men then the wildlings have long lost the right to demand any protection from them.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wrong. Jon says he doesn't care about their religions and he says he won't make them kneel, but they do have to obey. That is what the wildlings say they want, or not want to do. One guy (forgot his name) offers all three of his daughters to marry into the northern houses. Not the ugliest, or lamest, or youngest- all three. Morna even removes her mask and kisses Jon as she gives fealty.

Well, this is just talk. Kneeling is just a gesture. I can make you my servant without ever forcing you to literally kneel. The wildlings have to stay at the Wall and help defend it should the Others attack in winter. That's the deal.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Add to this that there is an extremely high chance of likelihood that the wildlings see Jon and Val as already stolen/married, and they still follow Val both as she leads them from the forest to CB, and also they kneel to her as she stands (like salt) on the platform next to Stannis as Rattleshirt is burned.

Why would the wildlings care about Val all that much? They didn't even care about Mance all that much.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

We are talking the books here. This happens in the books, as the Cat/Ned example shows.

Yeah, and it happens in real life, too, in some arranged marriages. Yet neither you nor I want to live in such a relationship, right? And thus we should not defend or idealize societies and scenarios where this kind of thing might happen under the right circumstances. It is a very unlikely thing to happen.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 It is not ideal for many, but they seem to like it. To me the idea of living in King's Landing sucks! Seriously, shit running in the streets and pot shops that serve "singer's stew", not knowing of a wildfire explosion is going to wipe your life out at any point, CERSEI, and having to deal with pain in the ass, over-entitled kings guard or city watch... no thank you.

See my comment on monarchy, feudalism, and middle ages. The only thing I think the Seven Kingdoms have it better is that people seem to have some rights in that societies. Stealing is wrong down there. Up with the wildlings it is a virtue.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

But yet she still wanted to run away with just him. There are some background stories that play into this arc as well.

You have NO WAY of knowing that. Jon is not vapid in the least, as shown by his desire for Ygritte even though she is not conventionally pretty. Jon was raised with honor, and not the horse Honor either. Jon sees the truth in the free folk of all cultures.

I'm a man, and I have been enamored with a woman, and I have gotten over it. This kind of thing happens. Considering that Jon and Ygritte never married - and that Jon actually betrayed Ygritte for the Watch - I see no reason why he should not dump her once he no longer likes to sleep with her. She wasn't all that pretty while Val is a very gorgeous woman.

I'm not saying such a thing would happen overnight but I doubt that Jon and Ygritte would have had much in common after the whole sex-and-hormone thing cooled down.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The term "free folk" is a catch-all phrase that generalizes the many different clans and tribes and cultures of all the people north of the wall. People south of the wall refer to them all as wildlings. So yes, the Thenns are a culture apart from other free folk, but they have formally joined Mance's cause and army. They are all coming through as one people... which is kinda the theme of this particular arc in the story. And the Thenns probably did not do much raiding south of the wall because they are geographically the farthest away.

Nope, not all the wildlings are free folk. Some of them are. Many cultures among the wildlings are as much apart from each other as they are from the kneelers. The Thenns are much closer to the kneelers than the free folk and the hornfoot men and giants aren't even (completely) human.

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But this doesn't mean the Thenns are the kind of people who attack and raid other villages in a disorganized raiding bands like the other wildlings do.

You're changng the goalposts. First it's "there's no reason to believe the Thenns don't raid" and now I guess you mean "there's no reason to believe the Thenns raid disorganized."

Can you please give me textual proof that the other raids were "disorganized"?

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

You're changng the goalposts. First it's "there's no reason to believe the Thenns don't raid" and now I guess you mean "there's no reason to believe the Thenns raid disorganized."

Can you please give me textual proof that the other raids were "disorganized"?

We know that the wildlings aren't soldiers. They have no discipline, etc. Thus their raids are disorganized if compared to the Golden Company raiding a city.

The Thenns are not likely go on raids like the likes of Rattleshirt or Jarl. They are actual soldiers even if they run around in bronze armor.

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure Bael the Bard was King-beyond-the-Wall during the Targaryen reign

He takes the daughter of a LORD of Winterfell, and his son was LORD after him. Pretty sure that the wildlings would refer to a ruler of WF as king of WF in pre-Targ times. A whole bunch of Northerners left the North on account of the kneeling for a Targ. There was even a sellsword company created with exiles who dislked the kneeling to a Tark king. Bael the Bard infiltrated WF and the North regularly, so he'd be as savy about the political atmosphere and changes as Mance is. If Bael was able to outsmart a KING in the North instead of a LORD of WF, you can bet on it that the arrogant and boastful character like Bael would have made sure to emphasize that in the stories he told and songs he wrote.

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea how many non-combatants were killed in the campaign against Raymun Redbeard nor have we any idea how many people died during Bael's attacks.

Are you now really trying to say the KBtW didn't burn and pillage on their march south? Apparently wildlings only kill peasants when they go on their famously disorganized raids, but not when they march to conquer land against Umbers and Starks

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You should also keep in mind that peasants in feudal societies usually have no right to leave their lands (unless they are yeomen who actually own the land they sit on).

And who was going to stop them from leaving? The rangers ranging North of the Wall? The builders inspecting the castles and walls? The stewards hunting and cooking? The Starks who wrote the Citadel against the New Gift? 

Now, I wonder why you didn't remember nor cared about peasants not having the right to leave their lands in feudal society, when you point out how both Gifts were abandoned by the farmers, but only believe that to have happened because of those incessantly disorganized raids whose sole aim was to rape farmers' daughters. 

What a total bunch of crock.

[The Fattest Leech]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Why would the wildlings care about Val all that much? They didn't even care about Mance all that much.

 

Let's see, you hate Jon (and this is consistent with your comments across all threads for as long as I have been reading them), and you seem to repeatedly ignore book information, even when given in actual quotes, and you refuse to believe that Val is anything other than some girl Jon might accidentally trip and fall into? You even went so far with your Jon hate that sometime within the last two weeks you even wrote a post about how Jon should graciously kill himself if he had any honor- twice in one post!?!?

The wildings chose Mance as king, They followed him. It is said in the story that Mance did what other KbtW could not do... unite them.

Why are you debating if Jon gets with a high ranking Free Folk "Princess" if you hate Jon so much? Why would you care?

[sweetsunray]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that the wildlings aren't soldiers. They have no discipline, etc. Thus their raids are disorganized if compared to the Golden Company raiding a city.

The Thenns are not likely go on raids like the likes of Rattleshirt or Jarl. They are actual soldiers even if they run around in bronze armor.

Here we go with the contradicting again: spearwives were "elite" according to you, not normal wildlings, whose most time was devoted to traning. That's how you portrayed them on the one hand, almost as if there was a "soldier" like class. But now that you're arguing that the Thenns are different from the rest of the wildlings, suddenly the rest of them are all disorganized bunch. When it becomes clear you can hardly argue they're "amateurs" and yet "successfully chase every farmer away from the gift" (while denying that no KBtW managed to do that), you add "compared to the Golden Company" which is the top of the cream sellsword company. 

I guess by that standard the Thenns are also disorganized, as are the Second Sons, etc...

Now that doesn't mean I completely disagree with the portrayal of Thenns having a far more hierarchical and military culture, than the other wildling groups. However, soldiers do not come into being without a raid culture at the root of it. The whole concept of war and armies and a soldier class (who don't have to hunt and farm) in societies developed from guess what - raiding cultures. That's the basis of the development of militarized society: first they were a band, then when the young had time on their hands they went out to steal cattle, harvest and people from the neighbours (raids) until it became a cultural precedent to prove your manhood or adulthood to your own clan. With the obvious gain won for the clan of having people steal resources from others, the experienced raiders start to train the would-be raiders, until eventually they are a specialised class and become a soldier class that goes to war. The fact that Thenns have something you call soldiers means they too were raiders and that part of the Thenn training would include going on raids.

The raids (including those of non Thenn wildlings) are no doubt well organized, with people having their specific tasks and strategy. Even Qorin has respect for "the likes" as Rattleshirt (in the sense as respecting a skilled opponent). And the chase of Qorin & co also shows planning, driving and organisation. The likes of Rattleshirt hunted very experienced rangers down, forced them to split up and caught every one of them, except perhaps the man Qorin ordered to climb.

Including the Golden Company in this discussion as a comparison is plain absurd. Yes, the Golden Company is highly organized. It doesn't make non Thenn wildling raids "disorganized".

[kissdbyfire]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip>

We don't have to meet them to know that a society where men can practice polygamy isn't a society where women are treated as equals (e.g. Saudi-Arabia or polygamous Mormon culture in our world). Sugar-coating the stealing custom when one outcome of this whole thing could be that you end up being one of the eighteen wives of that creep makes it very unlikely to me that this custom is at its root a positive one.

And where did I say polygamy should be viewed as something progressive? That's right, I didn't. What I did say is that while some might find it unacceptable, there are thousands of people practicing it nowadays, in our very real world, that would disagree. People, men and women, who have chosen to live this way. And who the fuck are we to tell them they're wrong? To each their own. 

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Last I looked it was the First Men, the Children of the Forest, and the giants who built the Wall. Both were 'indigenous people' of Westeros. The wildlings were just stupid enough to remain north of the Wall. Not a very good idea with the whole thing being built to keep the Others out.

Way to duck the point, as you have been in all of your replies.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If you are reading my posts you realize that I don't like monarchy and feudalism any better than the wildling culture.

I find it not very convincing that the Watch should have been responsible for the enmity between them and the wildlings.

Nobody has claimed that they are solely responsible, but to claim that they have no responsibility, or a fair share of it, is quite short sighted in my view.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the Watchmen fulfill a duty while the raiding wildlings are just thieves, rapists, and murderers, basically.

 

And what duty is that? To protect the realms of men from other men? Last I looked it was the Watch's duty to protect all men from the threat of the Others. Seems that they haven't been performing their duties very well over the last couple of thousand years...that is until recently, and thanks to a certain bastard you seem to have an unrational hatred towards, has been trying to put things right.

Oh, and who was it that deplorably, and savagely shanked this man trying to protect all of man kind? Was it the deplorable, uncivilized savages, or was it men from the civilized south, whom you want to rescind of any responsibility and wrong doing?

[The Fattest Leech]

13 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Way to duck the point, as you have been in all of your replies.

Nobody has claimed that they are solely responsible, but to claim that they have no responsibility, or a fair share of it, is quite short sighted in my view.

And what duty is that? To protect the realms of men from other men? Last I looked it was the Watch's duty to protect all men from the threat of the Others. Seems that they haven't been performing their duties very well over the last couple of thousand years...that is until recently, and thanks to a certain bastard you seem to have an unrational hatred towards, has been trying to put things right.

Oh, and who was it that deplorably, and savagely shanked this man trying to protect all of man kind? Was it the deplorable, uncivilized savages, or was it men from the civilized south, whom you want to rescind of any responsibility and wrong doing?

Oh so right!

Not only do we have people like Val warning of greyscale/grey death, or maybe even grey plague???, being a real hazard to the hoard of people tightly packed in a damp, cold environment (mind you, NO ONE in the Nights Watch has experience with it, but Val and the wildlings do). We even have Jon second guessing his perceived knowledge of it:

• Jon watched her stride away. She is wrong. She must be wrong. Greyscale is not so deadly as she claims, not in children.

We also have a NW that is now made up of, oh what are they called... thieves, rapists, and murderers, basically. These are the same guys that took an oath to guard against the Others, but have very clearly in the books, participated in Southron politicking and mutiny. Jon caught them trying to plot to murder him before the whole election even began. Where is the honor in that, Mr. Southron men?

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

He takes the daughter of a LORD of Winterfell, and his son was LORD after him. Pretty sure that the wildlings would refer to a ruler of WF as king of WF in pre-Targ times. A whole bunch of Northerners left the North on account of the kneeling for a Targ. There was even a sellsword company created with exiles who dislked the kneeling to a Tark king. Bael the Bard infiltrated WF and the North regularly, so he'd be as savy about the political atmosphere and changes as Mance is. If Bael was able to outsmart a KING in the North instead of a LORD of WF, you can bet on it that the arrogant and boastful character like Bael would have made sure to emphasize that in the stories he told and songs he wrote.

This has been discussed in length in the past. But one should keep in mind that we know the Stark family tree until a couple of generations before the Dance and there is no indication that this took place there. In addition, the King in the North is always also the Lord of Winterfell, the latter likely perhaps being an older title dating back to the days when the Starks were not yet kings.

We are talking about a song here and songs move events around in history. Insisting we know any details about Bael from a song is convincing as insisting the songs about the Falcon Knight and the Griffin King are 'real'.

The idea that some Bolton skinned a Lord of Winterfell during the reign of Jaehaerys I is utterly ridiculous. Yet it could only have been during his reign if we assume the whole stuff about Bael taking the Kingsroad is true.

Quote

Are you now really trying to say the KBtW didn't burn and pillage on their march south? Apparently wildlings only kill peasants when they go on their famously disorganized raids, but not when they march to conquer land against Umbers and Starks

Well, I give you that Raymun might have killed quite a few people but considering that the man actually had an army who met the Starks at Long Lake we can reasonably assume that he kept his men together rather than sending raiding parties out. If he had done that he would have been easily defeated by the Stark host.

Quote

And who was going to stop them from leaving? The rangers ranging North of the Wall? The builders inspecting the castles and walls? The stewards hunting and cooking? The Starks who wrote the Citadel against the New Gift?

I guess the people living in the Gifts actually could get away because the NW had no means to hold them. And if they were welcome in the North then this shouldn't have had any dire consequences. But still, those kind of things have to be taken into account.

You are the one claiming with no textual evidence that the Kings-beyond-the-Wall invading the North emptied the Gifts. If that was the case one would expect that George would have given us the information instead of repeatedly talking about wildling raids.

Quote

Now, I wonder why you didn't remember nor cared about peasants not having the right to leave their lands in feudal society, when you point out how both Gifts were abandoned by the farmers, but only believe that to have happened because of those incessantly disorganized raids whose sole aim was to rape farmers' daughters. 

What a total bunch of crock.

We know the people left because of those raids. There is no reason to even discuss this because there is no reason to doubt the knowledge we have.

6 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Let's see, you hate Jon (and this is consistent with your comments across all threads for as long as I have been reading them), and you seem to repeatedly ignore book information, even when given in actual quotes, and you refuse to believe that Val is anything other than some girl Jon might accidentally trip and fall into? You even went so far with your Jon hate that sometime within the last two weeks you even wrote a post about how Jon should graciously kill himself if he had any honor- twice in one post!?!?

I do not hate Jon. I don't particularly like certain interpretations of his future role in the story. I've always enjoyed his chapters until he became Lord Commander and nothing happened in those chapters.

Saying that I don't like the idea of a zombie king at the end of this series - or the idea of a zombie procreating, or a zombie surviving this story - isn't me not liking the character. I did not kill Jon Snow. George did. I never liked that idea but I'm sure there is a narrative reason for this, a reason that has nothing to do with him getting Val or any other gorgeous woman in the end. It is a hint that there are many hardships in front of him and he is not going to live through all that. Jon Snow is George's Frodo, and Frodo had to sacrifice his life and happiness to fulfill his mission. Considering that this is not a cozy and nice fantasy book like The Lord of the Rings we can be pretty sure that whoever defeats the Others in the end is not going to survive this.

Quote

The wildings chose Mance as king, They followed him. It is said in the story that Mance did what other KbtW could not do... unite them.

Why are you debating if Jon gets with a high ranking Free Folk "Princess" if you hate Jon so much? Why would you care?

The wildlings chose Mance as their king but not all of them liked him. They accepted him and followed him. But with his death that's pretty much over. But nobody ever followed Val. In fact, there were never any wildling queens as far as we know.

I can easily enough see Jon and Val making out at one point (assuming Val wants to make out with a man who should be dead and Jon is particularly interesting in mundane things as sex and love - I'd not if had transcended death) but I don't think that is going to last. Val is pretty likely to die in the not-so-distant-future.

I watched the video you linked in the other thread (thanks for that) and I actually take George's announcement that winter is going to suck for pretty much everybody very seriously. A lot of people are going to die and/or commit heinous crimes to stay alive in the books to come. And Jon is likely going to be one of them considering the situation he is going to find himself in - not to mention the state of mind he might be in.

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Here we go with the contradicting again: spearwives were "elite" according to you, not normal wildlings, whose most time was devoted to traning. That's how you portrayed them on the one hand, almost as if there was a "soldier" like class.

Okay then, do I have to shove a spear into the hands of my mother and call her 'spear wife' to make my point clear? The spear wives are the elite among the wildling women, women who can afford to 'fight' the way the wildlings fight (i.e. with stolen steel and primitive weapons). Unless we assume the average spear wife is as good a fighter as my mother we have to assume they train somewhat. Considering that life is hard north of the Wall somebody else has to do whatever the hell they should be doing while they are practicing.

But this doesn't make them very good fighters. The elite of the wildlings is still rabble compared to the Golden Company.

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But now that you're arguing that the Thenns are different from the rest of the wildlings, suddenly the rest of them are all disorganized bunch. When it becomes clear you can hardly argue they're "amateurs" and yet "successfully chase every farmer away from the gift" (while denying that no KBtW managed to do that), you add "compared to the Golden Company" which is the top of the cream sellsword company.

We know the wildlings are different from other wildlings because we are told this repeatedly in the books. They have proper armor, discipline, and march in good order. The other wildlings aren't soldiers. And no, a good fighter isn't a good soldier.

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I guess by that standard the Thenns are also disorganized, as are the Second Sons, etc...

Could very well be. But the Thenns could easily enough have as much discipline as the Golden Company. The Second Sons seem to be in decline.

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Now that doesn't mean I completely disagree with the portrayal of Thenns having a far more hierarchical and military culture, than the other wildling groups.

Then why even raise the point?

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

However, soldiers do not come into being without a raid culture at the root of it. The whole concept of war and armies and a soldier class (who don't have to hunt and farm) in societies developed from guess what - raiding cultures. That's the basis of the development of militarized society: first they were a band, then when the young had time on their hands they went out to steal cattle, harvest and people from the neighbours (raids) until it became a cultural precedent to prove your manhood or adulthood to your own clan. With the obvious gain won for the clan of having people steal resources from others, the experienced raiders start to train the would-be raiders, until eventually they are a specialised class and become a soldier class that goes to war. The fact that Thenns have something you call soldiers means they too were raiders and that part of the Thenn training would include going on raids.

Sure, and the first man making a club was also a 'soldier' in whatever culture that was. The historical development is irrelevant. The point is that the Thenns aren't (necessarily) dependent on raiding other villages nor have they ever troubled the people south of the Wall. Their culture does not seem to be based on raiding and stealing.

But then, perhaps I'm wrong there. Even if I'm are, this is irrelevant to the overall point.

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The raids (including those of non Thenn wildlings) are no doubt well organized, with people having their specific tasks and strategy. Even Qorin has respect for "the likes" as Rattleshirt (in the sense as respecting a skilled opponent). And the chase of Qorin & co also shows planning, driving and organisation. The likes of Rattleshirt hunted very experienced rangers down, forced them to split up and caught every one of them, except perhaps the man Qorin ordered to climb.

Nobody ever said that those raiders weren't professional raiders. I also didn't say that a tiny fraction of the free folk guys don't have discipline and the stamina of real soldiers. But most of them don't.

And most of the wildlings should be accomplished hunters. That's what they do in ACoK. They hunt the crows. You don't have to be soldier for that.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And where did I say polygamy should be viewed as something progressive? That's right, I didn't. What I did say is that while some might find it unacceptable, there are thousands of people practicing it nowadays, in our very real world, that would disagree. People, men and women, who have chosen to live this way. And who the fuck are we to tell them they're wrong? To each their own. 

Certainly not. There are practices and customs in our world that should die out. Polygamy is one of them. There is a reason why progressive people practicing this kind of thing call it polyamory. In that setting men and women are equal and both sexes can fuck around with as many people as they want. A culture which grants advantages and privileges to one sex while withholding it from the other is just wrong. Doing this makes a lot of young children victims of their children.

5 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Nobody has claimed that they are solely responsible, but to claim that they have no responsibility, or a fair share of it, is quite short sighted in my view.

Can you cite any evidence for that? Where is it stated that the NW ever instigated a campaign against the wildlings in the past? Where is it said that they began or even encouraged the violence between them?

Nowhere as far as I know. In fact, what we do know (from Ygritte, for instance) is that the wildlings feel that Wall is barring them from entering more fertile lands. Lands they could raid as they are prone to do, and once they began doing that the NW (and the kings supplying and supporting them) most likely demanded that they guard the realms of men against those bandits, too, in addition to keep and eye out for the Others.

Again, keep in mind that only the Seven Kingdoms support the NW. If the NW were also to protect the wildlings why are they not supporting them or sending their sons to join their ranks?

We know from a book Sam read in AFfC that the Children of the Forest once sent the NW a number of obsidian weapons each year. They once supported the NW and their noble mission. The wildlings probably did, too, once. But they have forgotten and no longer care.

5 hours ago, Darkstream said:

And what duty is that? To protect the realms of men from other men? Last I looked it was the Watch's duty to protect all men from the threat of the Others. Seems that they haven't been performing their duties very well over the last couple of thousand years...that is until recently, and thanks to a certain bastard you seem to have an unrational hatred towards, has been trying to put things right.

Oh, and who was it that deplorably, and savagely shanked this man trying to protect all of man kind? Was it the deplorable, uncivilized savages, or was it men from the civilized south, whom you want to rescind of any responsibility and wrong doing?

I'm not sure Bowen Marsh is a southerner, actually. House Marsh is from the North. We don't know where Wick Wittlestick is from, actually.

Jon was trying to put things right but he failed at that. He tried to show the big picture to the wrong people. He should have either ensured his officers were with him or no longer in office. He had a strong power base among the Watch, once. But he sent them all away. Mance of all people is trying to tell him that Marsh is plotting against him as early as the Mel chapter but he doesn't listen.

And you can say what you want his execution at Marsh's hands is justified. Declaring war on Ramsay Bolton has nothing to do with 'protecting the realms of men'. It is a stupid folly, pretty much the same kind of madness Robb began when he marched his bannermen down south to die there. We can only hope that Jon's death has actually prevented this kind of folly.

 

[The Fattest Leech]

19 hours ago, Harlaw's Book the Sequel said:

I lean towards Mor's daughter running away instead of being stolen.  There does seem to be a pattern of northern girls running away from unwanted marriages: Lyanna, Sansa, Alys, and Jeyne.  Arguably Arya also goes on the list for unknowingly running away from both her arranged marriage to Elmar Frey and the possibility of having Jeyne's fate.  Hmm…I wonder if that happening at Harrenhal has any significance.

~snipped some good stuff for length~

Yeah, we have seen this before. I would also add to that the captain's daughter on the Myraham deflowers wants to leave her father and life behind to run off with Theon as his mistress, not even to stay in his castle. So, I guess in this weird and dirty ASOIAF world, that happens.

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The wildlings chose Mance as their king but not all of them liked him. They accepted him and followed him. But with his death that's pretty much over.

There is good reason to believe that the wildlings do know, or suspect, that the real Mance is still alive. Val knows what Mel did and how Mel wants to burn more people. Val is also warning Jon of the dangers he is in. Mel keeps getting it wrong over and over, which she admits to Jon. The line about, "ask a woods witch if you want to know the truth," means something.

Quote

But nobody ever followed Val. In fact, there were never any wildling queens as far as we know.

Well, Jon sent Val out to find Tormund and his merry band of humans, and she does, and they follow her back to the wall, into the hands of the "enemy" because they trust her. Val and Dalla seem to be able to move about freely without being harassed by any other clans/men both before they are on page and after.

Also, Stannis puts Val on the platform with him when Mel burns Rattleshirt because of her status. If Val is not important, then why did someone like Stannis put her on the platform next to him (and Mel)? They have already said they won't kneel to a Southron king who wants to put rules and taxes and whatever on them, but a few key wildlings to kneel in this event. The two prominent leaders we know of , Real Mance as Rattleshirt and Sigorn of Thenn. Who do you think they are kneeling to? The guy they said they won't kneel to, or the elevated sister of the Queen Beyond the Wall?

Quote

I can easily enough see Jon and Val making out at one point (assuming Val wants to make out with a man who should be dead and Jon is particularly interesting in mundane things as sex and love - I'd not if had transcended death) but I don't think that is going to last. Val is pretty likely to die in the not-so-distant-future.

Well, this is another difference you and I have on this subject. And I assume me and some others as well, and I am fine with that. However, I stand firm in the very strong possibility that Jon is not dead like LSH and Beric. George seems to be throwing a curve ball here where if we had the books come out faster, and without so much time to analyze the hell out of them, then readers would be expecting yet another body to rise from the dead. I don't think it is happening the same way as those two because #1, it's been done, twice, and Beric was the hint for LSH rezzing back up, and LSH came back for very different purpose, and #2, there are far more closely related parallels of Jon not being dead-dead and will come back/be healed. Parallels that come from his actual family, and direwolves, and some other symbolic things.

And what makes you think Val is going to die in the not so distant future? Because she is wily and fierce? Again, don't think so. George has spelled out plans for her, and while I don't think Val will hump Jon back to life, she will do many other things in the story first, and then the two hook up... but that will be later.

Quote

I watched the video you linked in the other thread (thanks for that

No problem. I'm a fan of such videos.

ADDING: Video linked here if anyone wants to watch it. It is George answering questions at the Mexico Bookfest last about two weeks ago.

Quote

) and I actually take George's announcement that winter is going to suck for pretty much everybody very seriously. A lot of people are going to die and/or commit heinous crimes to stay alive in the books to come. And Jon is likely going to be one of them considering the situation he is going to find himself in - not to mention the state of mind he might be in.

 

I do think lots of people and things are going to die. I do think we will see a portion of the long night on page. I agree there. But why does that mean Val, or certain others die just because they were introduced in act 2? And it is a situation like this where faith in the old gods should be running high to help "save" the people, and, a new group of several thousand people that know how to survive in tough conditions is what the north will need. And when I say "tough conditions", I mean something a lot tougher than the relative normalcy of what the other houses and villages south of the wall have seen. The wildlings in general know how to kill wights. South of the wall people don't.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

There is good reason to believe that the wildlings do know, or suspect, that the real Mance is still alive. Val knows what Mel did and how Mel wants to burn more people. Val is also warning Jon of the dangers he is in. Mel keeps getting it wrong over and over, which she admits to Jon. The line about, "ask a woods witch if you want to know the truth," means something.

I think that's way too far-fetched. Why would Stannis burn 'Mance' in front of the wildlings and then hint to them that the man is still alive? It makes no sense.

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Well, Jon sent Val out to find Tormund and his merry band of humans, and she does, and they follow her back to the wall, into the hands of the "enemy" because they trust her. Val and Dalla seem to be able to move about freely without being harassed by any other clans/men both before they are on page and after.

Wasn't this discussed here once over and over again? We don't have to assume that Val had to search for Tormund. She might have known where to find him because there might have been plans made among Mance's inner circle where to meet and regroup should anything unforeseen happen during the battle.

Val might have simply gone to that place while avoiding any potentially dangerous wildlings. Or she might simply have had luck not meeting anybody who wanted to kill her. One assumes that a man like the Weeper wouldn't have treated her differently than he treated the men Jon had sent out - after all, she would have been an honorary crow while acting as Jon's envoy.

Val certainly has value as an envoy. She can vouch for Jon, the NW, and she can explain how Stannis treated the majority of their people. People know her because she is the sister of Mance's wife. The people then going to the Wall don't follow Val in any political sense. They realize they have no better chance to survive than to listen to and consider Jon Snow's offer.

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Also, Stannis puts Val on the platform with him when Mel burns Rattleshirt because of her status. If Val is not important, then why did someone like Stannis put her on the platform next to him (and Mel)?

Possibly because he thinks this will make an impression on the wildlings. Stannis and Mel don't seem to care about the fact that Val is, in fact, not a princess. Just compare Stannis' treatment of Asha to how he treats Val. He most likely also would have shown off Asha the way he did Val should he burn Balon or Theon in front of a group of captured Ironborn.

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

They have already said they won't kneel to a Southron king who wants to put rules and taxes and whatever on them, but a few key wildlings to kneel in this event. The two prominent leaders we know of , Real Mance as Rattleshirt and Sigorn of Thenn. Who do you think they are kneeling to? The guy they said they won't kneel to, or the elevated sister of the Queen Beyond the Wall?

Well, Mance clearly accepted Stannis/Melisandre as his new leaders (if we assume Stannis was aware of the glamor which is very likely). He might have knelt to them. Sigorn also comes from a 'kneeler culture', considering that he is the god-king of his people. He knows the drill.

In addition, we have to keep in mind that Stannis still intended to recruit the wildlings into his own army. Sigorn and the Thenns most likely were supposed to be core troops of that army considering that they are most likely the most disciplined and best-trained soldiers. When Jon later visits the wildlings (and especially the Thenns) hanging around and doing nothing in Mole's Town it becomes clear that Jon urging Stannis to give the wildlings into his care and better work with the Northmen didn't work out all that well for Sigorn.

And there are even hints that he accepted R'hllor considering that his marriage is later done the R'hllorian way (Alys most likely didn't suggest that). Keep in mind that what little we know about Mel's religious ceremonies indicate that a certain number of Watchmen and wildlings actually joined his 

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Well, this is another difference you and I have on this subject. And I assume me and some others as well, and I am fine with that. However, I stand firm in the very strong possibility that Jon is not dead like LSH and Beric. George seems to be throwing a curve ball here where if we had the books come out faster, and without so much time to analyze the hell out of them, then readers would be expecting yet another body to rise from the dead. I don't think it is happening the same way as those two because #1, it's been done, twice, and Beric was the hint for LSH rezzing back up, and LSH came back for very different purpose, and #2, there are far more closely related parallels of Jon not being dead-dead and will come back/be healed. Parallels that come from his actual family, and direwolves, and some other symbolic things.

Oh, I never said that Jon is going to resurrected exactly the way Beric and Catelyn were. But I definitely think Jon's body will have to be resurrected because, you know, he has been killed. The difference will be that Jon's spirit is going to begin his second life in Ghost meaning that his essence isn't really *dead* yet, unlike the spirits of Beric and Catelyn (who either were *restored* by the spell or called back from *the afterlife* by the spell). But Jon's body is dead nonetheless and his extended (?) stay in Ghost also might have other far more devastating effects on his personality and character than Beric's many resurrections had on his.

I don't think Jon is necessarily a dead man walking by the time of his resurrection and return into his human body. Yet there is a very good chance that this is only going to be the beginning of his true challenges and hardships. Surviving winter is not going to be easy. And defeating the Others is going to be harder still.

Even if he is never going to be *dead* literally (due to surviving in Ghost) he might still feel as if he has transcended death. Is such a person likely to re-adapt (or care) about mundane life (assuming he ever gets the chance doing that)? I don't think so. He is very likely to see his return from the dead as a divine miracle and a confirmation that he has a mission and destiny to fulfill, a destiny that could very well cost him his own life.

Unless we go with the assumption that Jon's body is magically resurrected in a manner that leaves his body as intact and whole as it was before the assassination - which is exceedingly unlikely considering the fact that George is of the opinion things like resurrections should come at a price - then I'd say that Jon's body is going to be magically changed. Even if his stay in Ghost does not leave a permanent mark on his spirit his body will be irrevocably changed. He won't be human in the same way you and I are.

And I think if he lives to the end of the series this in itself will make it impossible for him to enjoy life or to continue as if he had not been killed all those months/years ago.

I think there is a very strong possibility that we are going to see Jon's body be resurrected the same way as Beric and Catelyn were (i.e. with the kiss of fire during funeral rites administered by Melisandre) and that they thereafter somehow reunite body and spirit. That is the best and most likely solution to this conundrum because there is no good reason to believe that anybody would want to resurrect Jon Snow via some blood sacrifice ritual. He is not important enough for that in the eyes of the people around him. And, you know, nobody ever suggested up to this point in this series that fate/destiny can be messed with by magically resurrecting dead people.

People also have to keep in mind that Drogo never died. Mirr Maz Duur used her blood magic to save the life of a dying man, but she didn't bring back a dead man who was already dead and cold for hours or days.

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And what makes you think Val is going to die in the not so distant future? Because she is wily and fierce? Again, don't think so. George has spelled out plans for her, and while I don't think Val will hump Jon back to life, she will do many other things in the story first, and then the two hook up... but that will be later.

It is basically the fact that things should get desperate up at the Wall first when winter and eventually the Others arrive. I expect a lot of people up there to die not just Val (I think Edd, Iron Emmett, Pyp and Green - if they ever show up again -, Ser Axell, Selyse, Shireen, Stannis, and Melisandre). I mean, once Jon is up on his human feet again and Stannis has returned from Winterfell (assuming that he does this - indicated by the fact that he will kill Shireen) they most likely will begin their next move in their campaign against the Others. Perhaps they learn things in the meantime (through Bran?) and decide to carry the war to the enemy in an ill-advised mission that is eventually going to fail? They are not going to sit on their hands for another book. Especially not one titled 'The Winds of Winter'.

We have reason to believe that Stannis is doomed to fail in the end. But he won't fail in the fight against mundane threats as the Boltons. He will try to do his best to defeat the Others and fail there. And that's likely going to play right into the Others' hands, marking the beginning of their true campaign. Stannis and Mel might be the ones who inadvertently help the Others to bring the Wall down. And then everything up there will be lost. Whoever is going to survive will have to flee down south.

Presumably such events will coincide with the end of this Second Dance of the Dragons that is supposed to happen after Dany has finally arrived in Westeros, opening up the story for the grand finale (or the stories leading up to the grand finale).

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I do think lots of people and things are going to die. I do think we will see a portion of the long night on page. I agree there. But why does that mean Val, or certain others die just because they were introduced in act 2? And it is a situation like this where faith in the old gods should be running high to help "save" the people, and, a new group of several thousand people that know how to survive in tough conditions is what the north will need. And when I say "tough conditions", I mean something a lot tougher than the relative normalcy of what the other houses and villages south of the wall have seen. The wildlings in general know how to kill wights. South of the wall people don't.

People in the North know how to weather a snowstorm, true. But nobody is prepared for the Others or another Long Night. And note that the ways of the old gods seem to be based in cruel blood sacrifices to the weirwoods. Bran might actually have to be fed a lot of blood to be able to intervene on humanity's behalf (and that certainly won't be enough).

Also keep in mind that Azor Ahai had to kill his Nissa Nissa to gain his magical weapon. If Jon and Val fell in love and if Jon Snow is Azor Ahai (or an aspect of the savior trinity as I believe) he might have to kill her with his own hands. Just as Dany killed her Nissa Nissa, Drogo, with her own hands.

While it is quite clear that Dany is already aware that she has some sort of special destiny Jon has only learn that this is also true for him (if it is). In Dany's case this awakening came with the loss of everything she had - her brother, unborn son, and husband had to die. I don't think Jon Snow would get off the hook in an easier way.

George likes to tell about his bittersweet endings. But in light of the grittiness of this series it is rather likely that the 'sweet part' of this ending only will be that the threat of the Others will be ultimately defeated. The idea that the 'sweet part' will also include the personal happiness of a lot of the major characters is not very likely. And the 'bitter part' could very well mean the death of a lot of major characters we think should survive.

I think the series will close with a restoration of House Stark to Winterfell and a restoration of House Targaryen to the Iron Throne. Somebody has to rebuilt the Realm and the world after the Others are defeated, after all. But I don't think it likely that many or all members of those houses yet living will survive the series.

[Darkstream]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you cite any evidence for that? Where is it stated that the NW ever instigated a campaign against the wildlings in the past? Where is it said that they began or even encouraged the violence between them?

Well, driving a group of people out of their lands, and forcing them to live in an harsh, desolate region would be one. Standing on a seven hundred foot wall, and loosing a shit storm of arrows down on any of them trying to make it to a more hospital region would be another.

Quote

Nowhere as far as I know. In fact, what we do know (from Ygritte, for instance) is that the wildlings feel that Wall is barring them from entering more fertile lands.

And these feelings are justified and born of an accurate assessment of the situation.

Quote

Again, keep in mind that only the Seven Kingdoms support the NW. If the NW were also to protect the wildlings why are they not supporting them or sending their sons to join their ranks?

I don't know, why didn't the Jewish community send all of their young able bodied men to join and fight in Hittler's army?

---

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

Notice the bolded, it states realms (plural), and I fail to see where it stipulates that this only applies to those who support them, and send men to them.

Quote

I'm not sure Bowen Marsh is a southerner, actually. House Marsh is from the North. We don't know where Wick Wittlestick is from, actually.

By southerner, I was referring to those from South of the wall.

Quote

Jon was trying to put things right but he failed at that. He tried to show the big picture to the wrong people. He should have either ensured his officers were with him or no longer in office. He had a strong power base among the Watch, once. But he sent them all away. Mance of all people is trying to tell him that Marsh is plotting against him as early as the Mel chapter but he doesn't listen.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote

And you can say what you want his execution at Marsh's hands is justified. Declaring war on Ramsay Bolton has nothing to do with 'protecting the realms of men'. It is a stupid folly, pretty much the same kind of madness Robb began when he marched his bannermen down south to die there. We can only hope that Jon's death has actually prevented this kind of folly.

 

Well that is debatable, and only your opinion. But I digress, as I don't believe this is the proper thread for that discussion, and again fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well, driving a group of people out of their lands, and forcing them to live in an harsh, desolate region would be one. Standing on a seven hundred foot wall, and loosing a shit storm of arrows down on any of them trying to make it to a more hospital region would be another.

Now it is getting laughable. You are trying to tell me that the wildlings were driven off to those lands they live in now by the First Men south of the Wall? There is no evidence for this. Those fools chose to remain in territory that was then and now land the Others could walk freely.

We know the Wall was built by combined effort of the First Men, the Children, and the giants, and nothing suggests that the wildlings weren't part of the First Men at that point.

And just to inform you: Mance and his men attacked the Wall and the Watch, not the other way around.

Quote

And these feelings are true and accurate.

Well, then they should complain to their ancestors and ask them why the hell they did not move down on the right side of the Wall. That Wall wasn't built to keep other men out.

Quote

I don't know, why didn't the Jewish community send all of their young able bodied men to join and fight in Hittler's army?

Try again, I'm sure you can come with an example even worse. We are talking about a pitiful band of warrior-monks. The Watch isn't Nazi Germany.

Quote

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

Notice the bolded, it states realms (plural), and I fail to see where it stipulates that this only applies to those who support them, and send men to them.

Well, I guess the NW isn't forced to protect people who are actively fighting against them. You know, as the wildlings are doing.

Quote

By southerner, I was referring to those from South of the wall.

Well, Jon Snow is also a southerner in that sense so you weren't making any sense.

Quote

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Well that is debatable, and only your opinion. But I digress, as I don't believe this is the proper thread for that discussion, and again fail to see the point you are trying to make.

You brought in this whole thing. I just responded. I guess your point was about how evil southerners killing another southerner (Jon Snow) was wrong because this southerner was somehow trying to save the 'true northerners' (?) (wildlings) from the Others because that is intrinsically good for some reason?

It is a good idea to not allow the wildlings to join the ranks of the wights. But Jon's idea to feed and cloth them is going to cause just trouble and is going to end in disaster. Winter has come, food is scarce, and it is more than likely that nobody is going to be willing or capable to support the NW in the months to come. War is not over and the people down in the South need their food for themselves.