Bolton rebellion against Stark's and related stuff.

[Lord Varys]

I don't like the general tendency of people trying to make everything fit together as if things that are not explicitly connected with each other are intricately connected. That lessens the feeling of historical depth.

We are talking about a history stretching over thousands of years. A lot of stuff could have led to the Starks losing interest in those islands. Just because we don't know what that was doesn't mean we have to pick some event mentioned in the books which could possibly serve as an explanation for this.

The Manderly arrival could actually have fueled their interests in those. After all, once White Harbor was built the Starks would actually have had the means to strike at the Three Sisters (and the Vale) much harder and more frequent while protecting the mouth of the White Knife much more effectively.

Not to mention that Sisters still control the Bite while White Harbor does not. Yet one should assume that the Starks would be even more interesting to control this sea after they established a city at its shores. With the Sistermen doing homage to the Vale they could easily continue to harass and attack traders coming and going to White Harbor.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't like the general tendency of people trying to make everything fit together as if things that are not explicitly connected with each other are intricately connected. That lessens the feeling of historical depth.

We are talking about a history stretching over thousands of years. A lot of stuff could have led to the Starks losing interest in those islands. Just because we don't know what that was doesn't mean we have to pick some event mentioned in the books which could possibly serve as an explanation for this.

The Manderly arrival could actually have fueled their interests in those. After all, once White Harbor was built the Starks would actually have had the means to strike at the Three Sisters (and the Vale) much harder and more frequent while protecting the mouth of the White Knife much more effectively.

Not to mention that Sisters still control the Bite while White Harbor does not. Yet one should assume that the Starks would be even more interesting to control this sea after they established a city at its shores. With the Sistermen doing homage to the Vale they could easily continue to harass and attack traders coming and going to White Harbor.

As a principle I agree that unduly linking various historical events can lead to a lack of appreciation for the immense span of time that elapsed in Westerosi history. At the same time when a plausible set of circumstances presents itself, with a lack of any specific alternatives, then it cannot be discounted.

We must remember that the historical significance of the Three Sisters to the North was that it was a source of raiders threatening the White Knife. That was the reason the Wolf's Den was built in the first place. Not to secure the Bite, but to secure the White Knife. It seems in that ancient time inter-continental oceanic trade was far less developed, while the White Knife had great significance from a strategic, logistical, communication and economic point of view. So the Wolf's Den was built to keep reavers from sailing up the White Knife to strike the interior of the kingdom.

After the fortress was constructed, the battleground shifted from the White Knife to the Wolf's Den itself and remained so for a thousand years at least. And the reason it seems that it never extended outward was because the North did not have a navy in that ancient time period. So they were forced to fortify the Wolf's Den, and wait for raiders to arrive, rather than acting proactively to extinguish the root of the threat.

This seems to have changed when Theon Stark became King. We are told that after defeating Argos Sevenstar, he built a northern fleet and invaded Andalos. This suggests that the North had no significant fleet before. Of course we don't know if this had always been the case, or whether it was just a temporary state of affairs. But, considering the primitive technology of the time, and the millennia of effort that had gone into securing the interior of the North, it seems likely that naval strength had not been a major focus of the ancient North.

In fact, given that the Andals were technologically highly advanced compared to the First Men, and that they were crossing the Narrow Sea in primitive longships, it is not a stretch to think that even longships might have been a pretty high technology feat in the Age of the First Men petty kings. Certainly they had nothing of the sort when the Hammer of the Waters smashed the Arm of Dorne, as it is said to have stopped the original First Man migration.

In any case, I'm sure that primitive longships were in existence among the First Man kingdoms prior to the Andal invasion, but I don't think it was as commonly available as in later years. And less so in the North.

Be that as  it may. Theon Stark built a fleet, and after completing his Andalos campaign, had a strong fleet of ships available to do something about the source of the Reaver threat. It is therefore not a stretch to consider his infamous invasion of the Three Sisters as the first major move to subdue the Islands themselves, in order to safeguard the White Knife.

Also remember that in those days Braavos did not exist, and even Tyrosh and Pentos were potentially uninhabited, or at most small, primitive port towns. Neither did King's Landing exist for that matter. So the motivation to sail the Narrow Sea for trade purposes was greatly reduced compared  to today. Again, reinforcing the notion that securing the Bite was not so important back then as securing the White Knife as an access point to the North.

Fast forward a thousand years, and the Manderly arrival and construction of White Harbor removed the need to subdue the Three Sisters. The White Knife would be safe, and in fact even the Bite would be safe, thanks to the Manderly navy which was much more powerful than anything the Sistermen could muster.

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As a principle I agree that unduly linking various historical events can lead to a lack of appreciation for the immense span of time that elapsed in Westerosi history. At the same time when a plausible set of circumstances presents itself, with a lack of any specific alternatives, then it cannot be discounted.

We must remember that the historical significance of the Three Sisters to the North was that it was a source of raiders threatening the White Knife. That was the reason the Wolf's Den was built in the first place. Not to secure the Bite, but to secure the White Knife.

Who cares about the Wolf's Den? The Three Sisters were taken by the Starks because they controlled the Bite - and presumably still control the Bite. They could easily enough as a springboard for expansion into the Vale and the Riverlands, something which might have been in the interest of some of the Kings in the North who fought over those islands for a thousand years.

Not to mention that neither the Wolf's Den nor White Harbor could help the Starks prevent the Sistermen from attacking their ships while they were in the Bite, nor could they prevent them from luring them on their rocks to plunder the remains.

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

After the fortress was constructed, the battleground shifted from the White Knife to the Wolf's Den itself and remained so for a thousand years at least. And the reason it seems that it never extended outward was because the North did not have a navy in that ancient time period. So they were forced to fortify the Wolf's Den, and wait for raiders to arrive, rather than acting proactively to extinguish the root of the threat.

We actually don't know when the Starks first had ships, nor do we know whether their havens were when they had ships. Theon could have built his fleet from a place that's today completely abandoned or destroyed.

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This seems to have changed when Theon Stark became King. We are told that after defeating Argos Sevenstar, he built a northern fleet and invaded Andalos. This suggests that the North had no significant fleet before. Of course we don't know if this had always been the case, or whether it was just a temporary state of affairs. But, considering the primitive technology of the time, and the millennia of effort that had gone into securing the interior of the North, it seems likely that naval strength had not been a major focus of the ancient North.

The Starks could have had some ships on the west coast at this point. After all, the Ironborn were always a threat. He wouldn't have carried those ships across the North nor would he have been able to sail around Westeros.

But we should also exert some doubts about the stories involving Theon Stark. Those are very old stories, possibly based completely on the songs of the singers. Theon's invading Andalos might as true as those ideas that there were once Ironborn who were invulnerable or that Lann the Clever died at the age of 312.

Ran has told us that George deliberately crafted the old stories of all the kingdoms to indicate exaggerations, hyperbole, and frank-out inventions.

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Be that as it may. Theon Stark built a fleet, and after completing his Andalos campaign, had a strong fleet of ships available to do something about the source of the Reaver threat. It is therefore not a stretch to consider his infamous invasion of the Three Sisters as the first major move to subdue the Islands themselves, in order to safeguard the White Knife.

Also remember that in those days Braavos did not exist, and even Tyrosh and Pentos were potentially uninhabited, or at most small, primitive port towns. Neither did King's Landing exist for that matter. So the motivation to sail the Narrow Sea for trade purposes was greatly reduced compared  to today. Again, reinforcing the notion that securing the Bite was not so important back then as securing the White Knife as an access point to the North.

We have no idea whether the Sisermen were a major threat in the raiding department for the Starks. But we do know that the First Men did not build any (big) ships (making the story of Theon somewhat unlikely) making it entirely possible that the ancient Andals occasionally raided the coasts of Westeros, even up into the North. Not to mention the Ibbenese or or the Valyrians. Volantis is pretty old, too, and they might have sent out slave hunters thousands of years ago. We see how bad luck and opportunity causes some of Saan's Lysene ships to pick quite a few wildling slaves.

Ancient First Men most likely could be captured just as easily, especially in some hard winter.

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Fast forward a thousand years, and the Manderly arrival and construction of White Harbor removed the need to subdue the Three Sisters. The White Knife would be safe, and in fact even the Bite would be safe, thanks to the Manderly navy which was much more powerful than anything the Sistermen could muster.

The idea that the motivations of the Kings in the North remained the same for a period of a thousand years makes no sense at all. Grandfather and grandson can have different opinions on politics and strategy. Do you think the Stark kings a thousand years after had a better picture what their predecessors thought about the situation a thousand years ago than we have in our world? What was the political situation in America in 1016? What was the situation in England or Europe at that time? Can you relate in any way to those time from your modern point of view? I don't think so.

Granted, there is not so much progress in Westeros as there is in our world yet things would have changed a lot anyway, just in other fields.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares about the Wolf's Den? The Three Sisters were taken by the Starks because they controlled the Bite - and presumably still control the Bite. They could easily enough as a springboard for expansion into the Vale and the Riverlands, something which might have been in the interest of some of the Kings in the North who fought over those islands for a thousand years.

Not to mention that neither the Wolf's Den nor White Harbor could help the Starks prevent the Sistermen from attacking their ships while they were in the Bite, nor could they prevent them from luring them on their rocks to plunder the remains.

We actually don't know when the Starks first had ships, nor do we know whether their havens were when they had ships. Theon could have built his fleet from a place that's today completely abandoned or destroyed.

The Starks could have had some ships on the west coast at this point. After all, the Ironborn were always a threat. He wouldn't have carried those ships across the North nor would he have been able to sail around Westeros.

But we should also exert some doubts about the stories involving Theon Stark. Those are very old stories, possibly based completely on the songs of the singers. Theon's invading Andalos might as true as those ideas that there were once Ironborn who were invulnerable or that Lann the Clever died at the age of 312.

Ran has told us that George deliberately crafted the old stories of all the kingdoms to indicate exaggerations, hyperbole, and frank-out inventions.

We have no idea whether the Sisermen were a major threat in the raiding department for the Starks. But we do know that the First Men did not build any (big) ships (making the story of Theon somewhat unlikely) making it entirely possible that the ancient Andals occasionally raided the coasts of Westeros, even up into the North. Not to mention the Ibbenese or or the Valyrians. Volantis is pretty old, too, and they might have sent out slave hunters thousands of years ago. We see how bad luck and opportunity causes some of Saan's Lysene ships to pick quite a few wildling slaves.

Ancient First Men most likely could be captured just as easily, especially in some hard winter.

The idea that the motivations of the Kings in the North remained the same for a period of a thousand years makes no sense at all. Grandfather and grandson can have different opinions on politics and strategy. Do you think the Stark kings a thousand years after had a better picture what their predecessors thought about the situation a thousand years ago than we have in our world? What was the political situation in America in 1016? What was the situation in England or Europe at that time? Can you relate in any way to those time from your modern point of view? I don't think so.

Granted, there is not so much progress in Westeros as there is in our world yet things would have changed a lot anyway, just in other fields.

Not sure what some of the points are you are making, as a number appear somewhat contradictory from one paragraph to the next. You say the North may have had a fleet before Theon's time, and that they may have had a fleet on the West Coast, but then later on you say that the First Men had no proper ships so you discount the idea that Theon even went to Andalos.

Seems to me you choose to ignore parts of the histories that don't suit you, on a largely arbitrary basis.

You say: "Who cares about the Wolf's Den?", when the entire point I was making was that in those ancient times, the Starks didn't care about the Bite, because they weren't seafarers. Instead, they cared about protecting the White Knife. Which is the purpose the Wolf's Den was built for. Not to protect the Bite, but to protect the White Knife and the interior that it gave access to. THAT's why we care about the Wolf's Den.

As for the threats that the White Knife needed protection from? Various raiders. Including Slavers from the Stepstones, possible early proto-Andal raiders, AND reavers from the Three Sisters. This is specifically stated in the backstory we get. Notably, in the chronology of this backstory, the burning of the Wolf's Den in the War Across the Water follows immediately after the reference to the Wolf's Den being captured by reavers from the Three Sisters.

This establishes a pretty nice chronology of reavers capturing the Wolf's Den, which then leads to the Starks initiating the Rape of the Sisters in retaliation and igniting the War Across the Water as a result.

So, if the invasion of the Three Sisters was directly in response to the Sistermen capturing the Wolf's Den, then a situation where White Harbor arose and secured the mouth of the White Knife from Sistermen would be a logical reason to end such costly hostilities.

As for different Kings having different motivations. You are right. A thousand year War cannot realistically be the legacy of a single King's desire for Conquest. Far more plausible is that its continuation was necessitated by an enduring geopolitical threat. Namely access to the White Knife, and therefore access to the interior of the North. Once White Harbor was built, that threat was removed. Which then seemed to quickly remove the motivation for a continuation of the War.

And what's more, by now the Starks had a strong navy too, at least from Theon's day, and clearly by the Manderly arrival's time. So with White Harbor as a base, this navy could extend the area of security well beyond the White Knife, to include the entire Bite as well.

 

[Lord Varys]

The point is that the Wolf's Den is relevant only as the starting point of the original Northern attack on the Sisters, which then led to them asking the Vale for help.

We have no reason to believe that the Wolf's Den or the protection of the mouth of the White Knife played any role in the string of wars that was started by this original conflict.

The history before the wars between the Direwolf and the Falcon is irrelevant when we are discussing the effects of that war.

And if there was still a war between the Vale and the North when the Manderlys settled there it is just as likely that the Arryns would have continued the war. After all, the wealth of House Manderly should have looked like a rather desirable target. Yandel tells us that the Starks basically lost interest in the Sisters, and thus the war ended and the Sistermen bound to the Vale.

Not to mention that on the position of the Starks it looks silly to not use the growing might of White Harbor to eventually challenge the Arryns again and taking back the Sisters.

In that sense I prefer the idea that the end of the wars and the arrival of the Manderlys are unconnected. Or perhaps only connected insofar as the Starks may have allowed the Manderlys in part to settle in their lands to use them as shields against any future incursions from the Vale.

Presumably the lands around the Wolf's Den were neither heavily populated nor under the control of a major Northern house by the point the Manderlys arrived. Else the Starks most likely wouldn't have allowed the Manderlys to settle with their people there, not to mention permitting them to spread the Faith of the Andals on the lands they granted them. In ADwD it is pretty obvious that the Manderly lands are very andalized indeed, with many knights and septons running around.

[Free Northman Reborn]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that the Wolf's Den is relevant only as the starting point of the original Northern attack on the Sisters, which then led to them asking the Vale for help.

We have no reason to believe that the Wolf's Den or the protection of the mouth of the White Knife played any role in the string of wars that was started by this original conflict.

The history before the wars between the Direwolf and the Falcon is irrelevant when we are discussing the effects of that war.

And if there was still a war between the Vale and the North when the Manderlys settled there it is just as likely that the Arryns would have continued the war. After all, the wealth of House Manderly should have looked like a rather desirable target. Yandel tells us that the Starks basically lost interest in the Sisters, and thus the war ended and the Sistermen bound to the Vale.

Not to mention that on the position of the Starks it looks silly to not use the growing might of White Harbor to eventually challenge the Arryns again and taking back the Sisters.

In that sense I prefer the idea that the end of the wars and the arrival of the Manderlys are unconnected. Or perhaps only connected insofar as the Starks may have allowed the Manderlys in part to settle in their lands to use them as shields against any future incursions from the Vale.

Presumably the lands around the Wolf's Den were neither heavily populated nor under the control of a major Northern house by the point the Manderlys arrived. Else the Starks most likely wouldn't have allowed the Manderlys to settle with their people there, not to mention permitting them to spread the Faith of the Andals on the lands they granted them. In ADwD it is pretty obvious that the Manderly lands are very andalized indeed, with many knights and septons running around.

Not so. If the original assault on the Sisters was to remove them as a base for attacks on the Wolf's Den, then this motivation would have continued to exist until the Wolf's Den was no longer deemed vulnerable to such attacks. For example, once White Harbor was established in its place.

As for the Arryns continuing the War - from their point of view the War was never motivated by the goal of conquering parts of the North. Only to retain hold of the Sisters.  The establishment of White Harbor would have made any attack on the North even less feasible.

Lastly, given the establishment of White Harbor - and the increased naval strength this would have given the Starks - it makes it even more obvious that the Starks were never after the Sisters as a prize in itself, but purely for security purposes. Else indeed, as you say, the advantage that White Harbor provided would have encouraged them to redouble their efforts to conquer the islands.

The fact that the establishment of White Harbor coincided with a loss of interest in the islands, makes it clear that whatever the North sought to attain from the Sisters, they got from White Harbor's presence instead. Meaning not territorial gain, but coastal security.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not so. If the original assault on the Sisters was to remove them as a base for attacks on the Wolf's Den, then this motivation would have continued to exist until the Wolf's Den was no longer deemed vulnerable to such attacks. For example, once White Harbor was established in its place.

We don't know why the Wolf's Den fell to the Sistermen. Was it a crappy and ineffective castle (being supposed to protect the White Knife but incapable of doing so)? Or was there an ineffective commander, too few defenders, or too many enemies?

We don't know.

However, the idea that White Harbor just takes care of all those problems doesn't make any sense. A large enough armada can take and destroy White Harbor. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean it is impossible.

Not to mention that the Wolf's Den could have been an effective defense at a much earlier point throughout those thousand years. Or do you think the Starks did not enlarge and fortify it after they retook it from the raiders?

In addition, building White Harbor would have taken time. We don't know how long that took nor when exactly the city around the Wolf's Den first took shape. A small town wouldn't have helped defending the White Knife all that well. 

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Arryns continuing the War - from their point of view the War was never motivated by the goal of conquering parts of the North. Only to retain hold of the Sisters.  The establishment of White Harbor would have made any attack on the North even less feasible.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The war was not only fought on those islands. There would have been invasions of the North and the Vale throughout those thousand years, and it is entirely imaginable that the lands around White Harbor were held by the Vale for some time, while the Starks held the Fingers for a time, etc.

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lastly, given the establishment of White Harbor - and the increased naval strength this would have given the Starks - it makes it even more obvious that the Starks were never after the Sisters as a prize in itself, but purely for security purposes. Else indeed, as you say, the advantage that White Harbor provided would have encouraged them to redouble their efforts to conquer the islands.

If they kept fighting with the Vale for a thousand years without never intending to conquer parts of (or the entire) Vale then they would have been utterly stupid. You don't fight over basically worthless islands for such a long period of time if you don't have an ulterior motive. I mean, why the hell didn't the Starks themselves found a city, if that was all it took to defend the White Knife?

Yandel tells us the Starks lost interest. He doesn't say they accomplished their goal another way. In addition, we also know that both the Starks and the Arryns stripped the Sisters of all their valuables which could also explain why the Starks eventually decided to give them up because it was no longer profitable to hold them.

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The fact that the establishment of White Harbor coincided with a loss of interest in the islands, makes it clear that whatever the North sought to attain from the Sisters, they got from White Harbor's presence instead. Meaning not territorial gain, but coastal security.

We have no proof that the Manderlys arrival coincided with the end of the wars. That's what I'm contesting. And in fact, while Lady Webber gives the usual 'a thousand years ago' figure Lord Borrell say the Manderlys arrived 'no earlier than nine hundred years ago', meaning that it could very well have been a century or two after the end of the wars with the Vale. Keep in mind that we don't have exact figures for that string of war. It could easily enough have been succession of conflicts stretching over about 900 years or so which was then called the Thousand Years' War for simplicity by the historians.

[direpupy]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that the Wolf's Den is relevant only as the starting point of the original Northern attack on the Sisters, which then led to them asking the Vale for help.

We have no reason to believe that the Wolf's Den or the protection of the mouth of the White Knife played any role in the string of wars that was started by this original conflict.

In that sense I prefer the idea that the end of the wars and the arrival of the Manderlys are unconnected. Or perhaps only connected insofar as the Starks may have allowed the Manderlys in part to settle in their lands to use them as shields against any future incursions from the Vale.

The Wolf's Den remains significant troughout the war and most certainly played a role in those wars. From TWOIAF:

For a thousand years, Winterfell and the Eyrie contested for the rule of the Three Sisters. The Worthless War, some dubbed it. Time and time again the fighting seemed at an end, only to flare up once more a generation later. The islands changed hands more than a dozen times. Thrice the Northmen landed on the Fingers. The Arryns sent a fleet up the White Knife to burn the Wolf's Den, and the Starks replied by attacking Gulltown and burning hundreds of ships in their wroth when the city walls proved too strong for them.

During the wars between Winterfell and the Andal Kings of Mountain and Vale, the Old Falcon, Osgood Arryn, laid siege to the Wolf's Den. His son, King Oswin the Talon, captured it and put it to the torch.

I bolded the part in your comment which really to me seems to the crux of the disagreement here, you prefer, this is a personal preference you are defending, i have no problem with that as long as you can back it up (which most of the time you can i am usualy a big fan of the common sence you bring to this board). But i do feel compeled to say that i am not seing much backing in the books for your preference in this particular case, mainly this is do to the 2 events lining up perfectly so this is not a case of 2 things that are unrelated being fitted together by some crazy theory, its al directly from the books.

On 29-11-2016 at 11:34 AM, Lord Varys said:

I don't like the general tendency of people trying to make everything fit together as if things that are not explicitly connected with each other are intricately connected. That lessens the feeling of historical depth.

I do not have such a tendency i am actually one of the people who enjoy's the fact that the events in the Ironborn section of TWOIAF do not match up to they events in other sections at all.

But in this case the two things are connected if you look at al the quote's i gave in this tread i think the connection is whery clear, but you by no means have to agree off course. Hell if everyone agree's there would be no discussion and that would be boring

I think the one thing we do agree on is that the whole 1000 years of war is not actually 1000 years of war. In an earlier post i already pointed that TWOIAF actually says there where times of peace in those 1000 years, and the second quote i give in this post actually speaks of wars, plural not single so it was most likely a string of wars extending over a 1000 year period.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The war was not only fought on those islands. There would have been invasions of the North and the Vale throughout those thousand years, and it is entirely imaginable that the lands around White Harbor were held by the Vale for some time, while the Starks held the Fingers for a time, etc.

If they kept fighting with the Vale for a thousand years without never intending to conquer parts of (or the entire) Vale then they would have been utterly stupid. You don't fight over basically worthless islands for such a long period of time if you don't have an ulterior motive. I mean, why the hell didn't the Starks themselves found a city, if that was all it took to defend the White Knife?

I do see your what you mean here and i think you make some fair points, i agree that the war extended over a bigger area then just the Three Sisters. We actually know that the North invade the Fingers three times, again i shall provide the quote from TWOIAF:

The islands changed hands more than a dozen times. Thrice the Northmen landed on the Fingers. The Arryns sent a fleet up the White Knife to burn the Wolf's Den, and the Starks replied by attacking Gulltown and burning hundreds of ships in their wroth when the city walls proved too strong for them.

One of the question you pose that i find most intriguing is why the Starks did not build a city themselves, personnaly i think manpower and money are the main issues’, and those happen to be the two things the Manderly's provided.

All in all i think we agree on a lot of points and only really disagree about the Manderly's being an integral part of they end of The Worthless War. I hope and look forward to further discussions with you.

[direpupy]

@Free Northman Reborn As always i have enjoyed your comments and would like to thank you for them, i agree with almost all of what you said so there is no point in actually responding to your posts hence this thank you post.

[Lost Melnibonean]

On 11/26/2016 at 10:04 PM, Isobel Harper said:

Hmm, so Ramsey's attack on Lady Hornwood wasn't just simple, random viciousness.  He wanted "Bolton" lands back. 

I would say that's  why Roose gave him the go ahead, but Ramsay was vicious. 

[Isobel Harper]

1 hour ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

I would say that's  why Roose gave him the go ahead, but Ramsay was vicious. 

Sure he did. 

...This thought just occurred to me.  The reputation of the Freys is worst in the North and seems to be making Roose's own reputation by associating with them even worse.  I wonder if he'll let Ramsey kill Walda and her babe to be free of them?

[Lord Varys]

@direpupy

Sure, the only disagreement is about the Manderlys being a tipping factor in the war. I think if that had been the case it would have been mentioned by Yandel, or possibly even in ADwD when the Manderly arrival in the North is discussed. The impression we get there is that the Starks took the Manderlys in and essentially nursed them back to health when they eventually founded and built that great city of theirs. If they had also played a role in ending the eternal war with the Vale they would have played a more active role there, and might have been less inclined to remain eternally thankful to the Starks.

And the Wolf's Den being irrelevant is simply meant as it not being the thing this war was about. It was certainly an important target for the Arryns when they launched their invasions into the heartlands of the North up the White Knife but the point of the wars wasn't just to protect the mouth of the White Knife but to keep the Sisters and the defeat the Vale. Possibly even to conquer more lands in the South.

I'm pretty sure many a Stark king and Arryn king dreamed of conquest during this conflict. If they didn't then the conflict wouldn't have lasted for a thousand years.

And as to the length of the strings of conquest in general - it could easily have been only 800-900 years. That's close enough to a millennium so that historians and singers would later refer to it as a series of wars stretching over a thousand years.

[direpupy]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Sure, the only disagreement is about the Manderlys being a tipping factor in the war. I think if that had been the case it would have been mentioned by Yandel, or possibly even in ADwD when the Manderly arrival in the North is discussed. The impression we get there is that the Starks took the Manderlys in and essentially nursed them back to health when they eventually founded and built that great city of theirs. If they had also played a role in ending the eternal war with the Vale they would have played a more active role there, and might have been less inclined to remain eternally thankful to the Starks.

And the Wolf's Den being irrelevant is simply meant as it not being the thing this war was about. It was certainly an important target for the Arryns when they launched their invasions into the heartlands of the North up the White Knife but the point of the wars wasn't just to protect the mouth of the White Knife but to keep the Sisters and the defeat the Vale. Possibly even to conquer more lands in the South.

I'm pretty sure many a Stark king and Arryn king dreamed of conquest during this conflict. If they didn't then the conflict wouldn't have lasted for a thousand years.

And as to the length of the strings of conquest in general - it could easily have been only 800-900 years. That's close enough to a millennium so that historians and singers would later refer to it as a series of wars stretching over a thousand years.

My impression based on the things Yandels says is that they where an integral part of they end of the war, as i said earlier Yandel has the anoying habit of summurizing the things that happend before the Targaryen conquest thus you know nothing for sure of the period before the conquest and have to infer things for yourself. I do believe GRRM did this on purpose partly because he likes things vague because thats how it is in real history, but also partly to leave him some leaway to change his mind on things.

I agree that The Wolf's Den was a target not a focal point.

As to your last two points i completly agree.

[Free Northman Reborn]

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@direpupy

Sure, the only disagreement is about the Manderlys being a tipping factor in the war. I think if that had been the case it would have been mentioned by Yandel, or possibly even in ADwD when the Manderly arrival in the North is discussed. The impression we get there is that the Starks took the Manderlys in and essentially nursed them back to health when they eventually founded and built that great city of theirs. If they had also played a role in ending the eternal war with the Vale they would have played a more active role there, and might have been less inclined to remain eternally thankful to the Starks.

And the Wolf's Den being irrelevant is simply meant as it not being the thing this war was about. It was certainly an important target for the Arryns when they launched their invasions into the heartlands of the North up the White Knife but the point of the wars wasn't just to protect the mouth of the White Knife but to keep the Sisters and the defeat the Vale. Possibly even to conquer more lands in the South.

I'm pretty sure many a Stark king and Arryn king dreamed of conquest during this conflict. If they didn't then the conflict wouldn't have lasted for a thousand years.

And as to the length of the strings of conquest in general - it could easily have been only 800-900 years. That's close enough to a millennium so that historians and singers would later refer to it as a series of wars stretching over a thousand years.

That is not a sound argument, however.

Yandel omits a lot of important stuff. For example, Yandel makes no mention of Theon Stark being the one who committed the Rape of the Three Sisters and kicking off the War across the Water, despite a lot of other evidence making it seem highly likely.

As for territorial conquest, I just flat out disagree with you that this was a motivation for a war over a few rocks in the ocean. The opposite is a far more likely reason for it to continue for a thousand years (or 900 or whatever the exact duration was). That it was a geostrategic security threat to the North, which finally ceased being a threat once White Harbor was built. While territorial gain might have been a goal of various Kings over the centuries, gaining territory across the ocean is a far more daunting task for the North than just marching down past Moat Cailin and trying to take the area immediately below the Neck. That's more territory, for less effort, than trying to launch a naval campaign to take some rocks in the ocean.

So no, territorial gain could not have been the primary cause behind centuries of warfare over the Three Sisters. It had to be for security reasons. And flowing from that is the primary issue of our disagreement, which is that the area the Starks wanted to secure was the Wolf's Den and the White Knife it protected, and not the entire Bite. That only became a goal later, once trade between White Harbor and the Free Cities became a major interest for the Starks.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That is not a sound argument, however.

Yandel omits a lot of important stuff. For example, Yandel makes no mention of Theon Stark being the one who committed the Rape of the Three Sisters and kicking off the War across the Water, despite a lot of other evidence making it seem highly likely.

I'm not sure why it is important who the hell raped the Three Sisters. You find it apparently important but George (or Yandel) clearly does not. Perhaps the historians don't even know which Stark king raped the Three Sisters because the sources don't cover that?

Besides, this is a thing a thousand years further in the past. The arrival of the Manderlys is about 900 years in the past right now, and thus more likely to be a topic the historians have good sources on compared to an event a thousand years further in the past.

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for territorial conquest, I just flat out disagree with you that this was a motivation for a war over a few rocks in the ocean. The opposite is a far more likely reason for it to continue for a thousand years (or 900 or whatever the exact duration was). That it was a geostrategic security threat to the North, which finally ceased being a threat once White Harbor was built. While territorial gain might have been a goal of various Kings over the centuries, gaining territory across the ocean is a far more daunting task for the North than just marching down past Moat Cailin and trying to take the area immediately below the Neck. That's more territory, for less effort, than trying to launch a naval campaign to take some rocks in the ocean.

I'm not sure what you are aiming at there but there is no reason not to assume the Starks also intended to conquer foreign lands just as all the petty kings did back in the day. They conquered the entire North over time - but why stop at the North? There is no reason not to continue the expansion if it works. And we know there were wars between the Andals in the Riverlands and the Northmen. True, the Andals tried to invade the North but one that this wasn't just one-sided aggression. After all, even Torrhen Stark invaded the Riverlands to challenge the Conqueror on foreign soil rather than threw the invader back once the man actually physically tried to enter his kingdom.

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So no, territorial gain could not have been the primary cause behind centuries of warfare over the Three Sisters. It had to be for security reasons. And flowing from that is the primary issue of our disagreement, which is that the area the Starks wanted to secure was the Wolf's Den and the White Knife it protected, and not the entire Bite. That only became a goal later, once trade between White Harbor and the Free Cities became a major interest for the Starks.

This is not a dichotomy. It is not 'security reasons' or 'territorial gain'. It could also be a lot of different reasons who also changed over time. Wounded pride, a desire for revenge, a desire for certain resources, possibly some metals (which may have once been found on the Sisters).

The Three Sisters had nothing to do with the security of the White Knife. The Vale could (and did) invade the North regardless who held the Three Sisters at that time.

You can see that territorial gain was part of the whole thing. Else the Starks would never have invaded the Fingers three times. There is nothing to be found there that's worth plundering thus it is entirely likely that they tried to seize those lands to weaken the Arryns and extend their power.

I'm not sure the Arryns had a huge interest keeping lands in the North (after all, there is not much to be gained there) yet a victory and temporary peace could easily enough awarded the Arryns the temporary control of certain lands in the North (just as the Starks could have held the Fingers for a generation, or even longer).

History is not static, and neither are the borders of kingdoms. The entire eastern coast of the North was once controlled by the Ironborn and they only gradually lost them. The Gardeners and the Hoares took more and more lands from the Storm Kings and so forth.

By the way - what was the 'security problem' the Starks had with the Sistermen doing fealty to the Eyrie? Surely the King in the North and the King of the Vale could have reached an agreement making it clear that the Sistermen would no longer attack or harass Stark ships or the coasts of the North? The fact that no such agreement was reached for a thousand years very much suggests that other interests played a huge part.

[Free Northman Reborn]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure why it is important who the hell raped the Three Sisters. You find it apparently important but George (or Yandel) clearly does not. Perhaps the historians don't even know which Stark king raped the Three Sisters because the sources don't cover that?

Besides, this is a thing a thousand years further in the past. The arrival of the Manderlys is about 900 years in the past right now, and thus more likely to be a topic the historians have good sources on compared to an event a thousand years further in the past.

I'm not sure what you are aiming at there but there is no reason not to assume the Starks also intended to conquer foreign lands just as all the petty kings did back in the day. They conquered the entire North over time - but why stop at the North? There is no reason not to continue the expansion if it works. And we know there were wars between the Andals in the Riverlands and the Northmen. True, the Andals tried to invade the North but one that this wasn't just one-sided aggression. After all, even Torrhen Stark invaded the Riverlands to challenge the Conqueror on foreign soil rather than threw the invader back once the man actually physically tried to enter his kingdom.

This is not a dichotomy. It is not 'security reasons' or 'territorial gain'. It could also be a lot of different reasons who also changed over time. Wounded pride, a desire for revenge, a desire for certain resources, possibly some metals (which may have once been found on the Sisters).

The Three Sisters had nothing to do with the security of the White Knife. The Vale could (and did) invade the North regardless who held the Three Sisters at that time.

You can see that territorial gain was part of the whole thing. Else the Starks would never have invaded the Fingers three times. There is nothing to be found there that's worth plundering thus it is entirely likely that they tried to seize those lands to weaken the Arryns and extend their power.

I'm not sure the Arryns had a huge interest keeping lands in the North (after all, there is not much to be gained there) yet a victory and temporary peace could easily enough awarded the Arryns the temporary control of certain lands in the North (just as the Starks could have held the Fingers for a generation, or even longer).

History is not static, and neither are the borders of kingdoms. The entire eastern coast of the North was once controlled by the Ironborn and they only gradually lost them. The Gardeners and the Hoares took more and more lands from the Storm Kings and so forth.

By the way - what was the 'security problem' the Starks had with the Sistermen doing fealty to the Eyrie? Surely the King in the North and the King of the Vale could have reached an agreement making it clear that the Sistermen would no longer attack or harass Stark ships or the coasts of the North? The fact that no such agreement was reached for a thousand years very much suggests that other interests played a huge part.

Come now.

The armies that landed in the  Fingers and at the Wolf's Den were part of the to and fro of a war for dominance over the Three Sisters. Punitive raids, most likely, to try and weaken the enemy's ability to hold onto the prize they were both after. The idea that any of those "invasions" were realistic attempts to conquer and hold territory are quite ridiculous. Theon Stark landing in the Fingers was  no different to him landing in Andalos. To devastate and weaken an enemy. Not to try and hold on to territory across the ocean.

As for the Three Sisters. Of course they have huge significance to the security of the White Knife. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise. However, neither are they a silver bullet that solves all of your security problems. So the fact that armies still landed at the Wolf's Den is irrelevant (note that we don't know who held the Sisters at that time, and it might well be that other than sneak attacks, the Three Sisters were a necessary stepping stone for any major assault on either kingdom).

For example, we know that Theon Stark conquered and presumably held the Sisters during his lifetime AND he landed in the Fingers too. Which makes sense, given that the Sisters are a perfect launching pad for an invasion of either kingdom.

Lastly, to address your first point. The significance of identifying Theon Stark as the first invader of the Sisters is simply to point out that Yandel leaves out a lot of strategic and/or political information. Just like he presumably failed to link the original invasion of the Three Sisters to Theon Stark's freshly built navy returning from Andalos, so he might just as easily have failed to mention the link between the end of the War Across the Water and the freshly arrived Manderlys at White Harbor.

Instead, he likes the more poetic description of the "Wolf awakening as if from a dream, and losing interest" in the "Worthless War". Frankly, the geopolitical solution to the mystery makes far more sense than the poetic one.

 

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure why it is important who the hell raped the Three Sisters. You find it apparently important but George (or Yandel) clearly does not. Perhaps the historians don't even know which Stark king raped the Three Sisters because the sources don't cover that?

Besides, this is a thing a thousand years further in the past. The arrival of the Manderlys is about 900 years in the past right now, and thus more likely to be a topic the historians have good sources on compared to an event a thousand years further in the past.

 

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lastly, to address your first point. The significance of identifying Theon Stark as the first invader of the Sisters is simply to point out that Yandel leaves out a lot of strategic and/or political information. Just like he presumably failed to link the original invasion of the Three Sisters to Theon Stark's freshly built navy returning from Andalos, so he might just as easily have failed to mention the link between the end of the War Across the Water and the freshly arrived Manderlys at White Harbor.

Instead, he likes the more poetic description of the "Wolf awakening as if from a dream, and losing interest" in the "Worthless War". Frankly, the geopolitical solution to the mystery makes far more sense than the poetic one.

I think the above parts of the respective posts of you two sums up the dispute we are having in this tread. Did Yandel not mention the Manderly's being instrumental to they end of the war because he does not care for the more acient history beyond a generel (and largely poetic) description, or because they where not part of the end of the war?

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, direpupy said:

 

I think the above parts of the respective posts of you two sums up the dispute we are having in this tread. Did Yandel not mention the Manderly's being instrumental to they end of the war because he does not care for the more acient history beyond a generel (and largely poetic) description, or because they where not part of the end of the war?

The only reason Yandel came into this discussion, is because Lord Varys used the fact that he did not link the end of the War to the Manderly arrival as proof (or at the very least as grounds) for the view that there was no connection between the two events.

However, Yandel is far from a complete or comprehensive source of historical events. Most of his historical details are sketchy, with huge gaps in it. The most notable geopolitical events in the last 2000 years of Northern history, are Theon Stark's wars against the Andals, the War Across the Water, and the Manderly arrival.

Note also that precise dates aren't required to link these events. The 2000 year ago date for the Three Sisters invasion could be anything from say 1700 to 2300 years ago. Similarly, we have three different arrival dates for the Manderlys, spanning from 900 to 1300 years ago.

So the connection between the events need not be instant. For all we know, the Manderlys arrived while the War was still ongoing, and gradually strengthened White Harbor's fortifications and navy until a point was reached where the Starks were comfortable that they need not invest any further resources in trying to control the Three Sisters. Effectively leaving it to the Manderlys to deal with, as part of the fealty the Manderlys owed them for being granted asylum.

 

[direpupy]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The only reason Yandel came into this discussion, is because Lord Varys used the fact that he did not link the end of the War to the Manderly arrival as proof (or at the very least as grounds) for the view that there was no connection between the two events.

However, Yandel is far from a complete or comprehensive source of historical events. Most of his historical details are sketchy, with huge gaps in it. The most notable geopolitical events in the last 2000 years of Northern history, are Theon Stark's wars against the Andals, the the War Across the Water, and the Manderly arrival.

Note also that precise dates aren't required to link these events. The 2000 year ago date for the Three Sister invasion could be anything from say 1700 to 23the 00 years ago. Similarly, we have three different arrival dates for the Manderlys, spanning from 900 to 1300 years ago.

So the connection between the events need not be instant. For all we know, the Manderly's arrived while the War was still ongoing, and gradually strengthened White Harbor's fortifications and navy until a point was reached where the Starks were comfortable that they need not invest any further resources in trying to control the Three Sisters. Effectively leaving it to the Manderlys to deal with, as part of the fealty the Manderlys owed them for being granted asylum.

 

It was meant as a sum up of the debate so far, i myself also pointed out to Lord Varys that Yandel tends to skim things and grotescly simplify's anything from before the Targaryen conquest. Basically he write's down the stories and songs that are told troughout the realm until he gets to the point that does interest him the Targaryen/Baratheon era.

Like i told Lord Varys i think GRRM did this on purpose, both because real world history is not always clear but also because he wants to keep his options open just in case he changes his mind on something.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, direpupy said:

It was meant as a sum up of the debate so far, i myself also pointed out to Lord Varys that Yandel tends to skim things and grotescly simplify's anything from before the Targaryen conquest. Basically he write's down the stories and songs that are told troughout the realm until he gets to the point that does interest him the Targaryen/Baratheon era.

Like i told Lord Varys i think GRRM did this on purpose, both because real world history is not always clear but also because he wants to keep his options open just in case he changes his mind on something.

Indeed.

So my view is that there might indeed be some other hugely significant event that stopped the War Across the Water. Heck, maybe Brandon the Burner's existence can somehow be shifted far enough back to have caused the War to end due to the burning of the Starks entire fleet. (Note that the dating of that event is most likely far more recent however, based on one of the descriptions we are given of the order of statues in the Winterfell crypt).

However, until we have other information, to me the most likely reason for the War's end lies with the change in the strategic realities faced by the North brought about by the Manderly arrival. This included not only a strengthening of White Harbor's fortifications compared to what the Wolf's Den offered before, but also far greater material wealth  to maintain a strong navy in the Bite, and a likely population shift away from the Stony Shore and Sea Dragon Point, to the now commercially important White Knife area, over the course of ensuing centuries.

This, coupled with the emergence of Braavos and the associated increase in Northern Sea trade, meant that the Sisters changed from being a threat to the interior of the North, to being a threat to sea going trade only. Which reduced them to the same threat presented by any of the myriad of pirates found all across the Narrow Sea. So a strong navy then became a better investment of resources than funding invasion forces for the Three Sisters or the Fingers.