Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Oakhearts head

Would Ned and/or Robb be cool with letting the Wildlings through the Wall?

Recommended Posts

Assuming Eddard or Robb Stark were still in power when the threat of the Others became more readily apparent, and assuming those in the Night's Watch (Jon Snow, maybe Jeor Mormont) came to a similar resolution as Jon did in A Dance with Dragons, would the Starks and other prominent Northern lords be able to come to a reconciliation with the Night's Watch? Something tells me the Umbers and the Wildlings would not be great neighbours.

On a related note, can we expect the Free Folk being allowed through the Wall, and specifically the marriage of House Karstark to the Thenns, to have any lasting effect (negative or positive) on the North in the upcoming books or in the distant future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ned would, he even talked about resettling the Gift, I'm just not sure he meant doing so with Wildings. But if he'd been alive to see what Jon saw, I'm fairly confident he'd have come to the same conclusion. As for Robb, if he believed that's what Ned would've done, then that's what he would've probably done himself, although, being young and green and less respected than Ned, it would've been harder to pull off, and it would've been met with resistance from the elder statesmen who were against it, similarly to the reaction that Jon got at the Wall from Marsh and company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Probably not. Not unless the Wildlings surrendered even harder than they did for Stannis. Robb and Ned would have had the strength of men to hold the wall. They wouldn't need the wildlings. And great guys as they are, they don't have the perspective Jon gained living with them. They'd stop them thinking it was the right thing to repel barbarians as well as White Walkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On first thought, no. And on second and third thought. At least not with the most notable chieftains like Mance, Tormund or the Weeper having any control. Once they realized that it was more an exodus than an invasion, they would probably allow the non-combatants to settle as long as they split up and they had some guarantees to their behavior like hostages. In short neither Ned or Robb would be comfortable with leaving women and children to die of cold, starvation or at the hands of the others but only as long as they could have rendered them harmless.

The fate of the wildlings once south of the Wall would have been same regardless of circumstances. Assimilation. The majority of Mance's forty thousands were non-combatants and they couldn't have remained together in any case as they wouldn't have been able to feed themselves. The combatants were maybe five thousand strong and poorly armed and organized at that. Any one of the stronger northern lords would be able to defeat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

 

The fate of the wildlings once south of the Wall would have been same regardless of circumstances. Assimilation. The majority of Mance's forty thousands were non-combatants and they couldn't have remained together in any case as they wouldn't have been able to feed themselves. The combatants were maybe five thousand strong and poorly armed and organized at that. Any one of the stronger northern lords would be able to defeat them.

Mance had a hundred thousand men, but only a third of them were fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Beautiful Bloody Sword said:

As for Robb, if he believed that's what Ned would've done, then that's what he would've probably done himself

Most of what Robb did, I don't think Ned would have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally no. However, with the threat of the Others; if they believed it; they might just be desperate enough. Even then, I think it mainly comes down to how well Jon champions their cause.

2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

On first thought, no. And on second and third thought. At least not with the most notable chieftains like Mance, Tormund or the Weeper having any control. Once they realized that it was more an exodus than an invasion, they would probably allow the non-combatants to settle as long as they split up and they had some guarantees to their behavior like hostages. In short neither Ned or Robb would be comfortable with leaving women and children to die of cold, starvation or at the hands of the others but only as long as they could have rendered them harmless.

The fate of the wildlings once south of the Wall would have been same regardless of circumstances. Assimilation. The majority of Mance's forty thousands were non-combatants and they couldn't have remained together in any case as they wouldn't have been able to feed themselves. The combatants were maybe five thousand strong and poorly armed and organized at that. Any one of the stronger northern lords would be able to defeat them.

 If they were smart enough to realize that dead people north of the wall was a bad thing, then I'd argue that they would want to get as many people south as they could, combatant or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Artos Cold said:

Mance had a hundred thousand men, but only a third of them were fighters. 

Forty thousand and the warriors were much less than that. In Clash Martin describes the vanguard, the rearguard and the outriders. They add up to about five thousand.

 

19 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Normally no. However, with the threat of the Others; if they believed it; they might just be desperate enough. Even then, I think it mainly comes down to how well Jon champions their cause.

 If they were smart enough to realize that dead people north of the wall was a bad thing, then I'd argue that they would want to get as many people south as they could, combatant or no.

Perhaps, but they would be more inclined to crush them and herd the survivors south rather than negotiate with any semblance of leadership they might have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you crush them more than Stannis did? Ned was not in favor of genocide - and note that while Watch pleaded for help time and again, no Northern lord really took that seriously. Facing with a solution that would settle abandoned region and provide manpower to the Watch... I dobt Ned would keep saying "no". Especially as Gift is, theoretically, for the Watch to dispose of. If Lord Commander of the watch argues that this is the best way to protect the Realms of Men (and given the situation, I have strong suspicion that Mormont would do the same as Jon - and so would Benjen or even Halfhand), there is not much to say against it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, many chieftains escaped and reformed rather large bands. Ned and Robb would have their own lords to pacify and they wouldn't accept settlement unless they were convinced they were defanged.

I think there would need to be a differentiation between Ned and Robb. Robb would have mostly Jon's attitude which seemed to stem from Old Nan's tales and a teenager's tendency to view anything as black and white. Ned would have better awareness of the real situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Forty thousand and the warriors were much less than that. In Clash Martin describes the vanguard, the rearguard and the outriders. They add up to about five thousand.

 

Can you give any quote support your claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Forty thousand and the warriors were much less than that. In Clash Martin describes the vanguard, the rearguard and the outriders. They add up to about five thousand.

 

Perhaps, but they would be more inclined to crush them and herd the survivors south rather than negotiate with any semblance of leadership they might have.

It was a hundred thousand.

And did you completely ignore my point? Once they realize they have a problem with dead people coming back as their enemies then they'll probably be more inclined to get as many wildlings (warrior or civilian) south as they can

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Artos Cold said:

Can you give any quote support your claim?

”Chett spat. “How many were there, could you tell?”“Many and more. Twenty, thirty thousand, we didn’t stay to count. Harma had five hundred in the van, every one ahorse.”

More’n half were women and children, and they were driving their animals before them, goats, sheep, even aurochs dragging sledges.

Here and there within the leagues-long snake that was their line of march were warriors as fierce as any in the Watch, but a good third of them were grouped at either end of the column, in Harma Dogshead’s van and the savage rearguard with its giants, aurochs, and fire flingers. Another third rode with Mance himself near the center, guarding the wayns and sledges and dog carts that held the great bulk of the host’s provisions and supplies, all that remained of the last summer harvest. The rest, divided into small bands under the likes of Rattleshirt, Jarl, Tormund Giantsbane, and the Weeper, served as outriders, foragers, and whips, galloping up and down the column endlessly to keep it moving in a more or less orderly fashion.

Prologue, Jon Storm of Swords

I misremembered. It is closer to three thousand warriors and it is from Storm not Clash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

It was a hundred thousand.

And did you completely ignore my point? Once they realize they have a problem with dead people coming back as their enemies then they'll probably be more inclined to get as many wildlings (warrior or civilian) south as they can

 

Where do you get the hundred thousand?

I'm not ignoring the point. Most Northern lords would be completely opposed to having hungry folk settle near their lands where they would likely raid. The wights would have been a factor but also the need to feed them house them and control them. Some northern lords would have been for outright slaughter and for burning the corpses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"near their lands" = a  generally empty 100 miles wide and 700 miles long strip of land. Drop 100k people into there, spread out across abandonded villages... They just vanish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically speaking, I agree. The wildling are a drop in the bucket in the North. That however would show over a generation or at least a couple of years down the line. Meanwhile they are still about thirty thousand people with no way to sustain themselves and would have the tendency to band together. And there would br more than one lord who would not be logical.

If Ned or Robb wanted to get them through they would with the least amount of fuss they would need to split them up and spread them out. And to do that they would need to strip them of their own leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Runaway Penguin said:

They DO NOT have a leadership. Mance is the only person holding the tribes together. Leaders like Tormund etc. command tribes, small groups (in their natural form).

After the battle Tormund gathered around him about four thousand people and there were rumors about th Weeper having gathered about ten thousand. And there would be Mance of course who would absolutely need to go.

 

28 minutes ago, Artos Cold said:

As far as I can tell the only mention of a hundred thousand is by Satin on the morning after the first assault, from the top of the Wall.

The scouts who counted thirty thousand could be off, but not that off. As far as I skimmed through Jon he doesn't mention numbers only proportions which where I got the three thousand warriors.

Do you remember anywhere else mentioning wildling numbers in the books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four thousand in exstremis, not in regular settlement. Danger made them band up, once danger passes, they would split up. There was plenty conflicts between them even when held together by Mance with a single purpose (getting through the Wall).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×