Given Bran's vision of his ancestor killing a captive, how horrible were the Starks of old?

[Free Northman Reborn]

The WOIAF says the following:

 “Yet the First Men were less learned than we are now, and credited things that their descendants today do not; consider Maester Yorrick's Wed to the Sea, Being an Account of the History of White Harbor from Its Earliest Days, which recounts the practice of blood sacrificeto the old gods. Such sacrifices persisted as recently as five centuries ago, according to accounts from Maester Yorrick's predecessors at White Harbor.”

It’s a First Men thing, not just a Stark thing. And it happened even in the relatively enlightened White Harbor, as recently as 500 years ago. Heck it probably still happens all over the North as soon as you head more than a couple hundred miles into the back country.

[Nathan Stark]

3 hours ago, Rondo said:

Ned's values may differ because his youth was influenced by other people.  He was a watered down Northman.  Many of his fellow northern lords only make it out of the north to go to war.  Ned had exposure.  The north is an isolated region.  Human sacrifice can be practiced by the Starks and the secret would remain that way.  I don't believe this of Ned but his parents were probably watering their family tree with human blood.  

What are you basing this on? Because it is not the text of the actual series of books.Your whole idea that all the Starks (except Ned, because reasons) are secretly demon worshipping psychos who sacrifice people to trees (because reasons) is nothing but conjecture. It doesn't have support in the text, except for one vision Bran had that we have zero context for. That apparently happened thousands and thousands of years ago.

You said yourself in another thread that you are no fan of the Starks. You started this one by asking how horrible the Starks of old were, and now you are trying to argue that Ned's family were also horrible (except Ned, because reasons.) Seems to me you are just looking for more reasons to dislike the Starks, and are both looking for confirmation of your feelings here, and to pick a fight. 

[TheLastWolf]

3 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

You said yourself in another thread that you are no fan of the Starks. You started this one by asking how horrible the Starks of old were, and now you are trying to argue that Ned's family were also horrible (except Ned, because reasons.) Seems to me you are just looking for more reasons to dislike the Starks, and are both looking for confirmation of your feelings here, and to pick a fight. 

I thought you'd have guessed sooner 

[CamiloRP]

@Rondo I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

On 10/28/2020 at 9:33 AM, kissdbyfire said:

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

Quote

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

@Rondo I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

 

In-universe, no one questions the use of capital punishment or torture.  As you say, I doubt if anyone would think it a big deal to sacrifice a criminal to the gods.  

I think it would be more contentious if you sacrificed close relatives.

[TheLastWolf]

18 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

@Rondo I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

 

Going to get ignored again I bet. Great post. Just don't waste time on hopeless endeavors. Maybe to prove me wrong he may acknowledge.... 

[Rose of Red Lake]

Quote

 

There were questions asked and answers given there in the chill of morning, but afterward Bran could not recall much of what had been said. Finally his lord father gave a command, and two of his guardsmen dragged the ragged man to the ironwood stump in the center of the square. They forced his head down onto the hard black wood. 

...His father took off the man's head with a single sure stroke. Blood sprayed out across the snow, as red as summerwine. One of the horses reared and had to be restrained to keep from bolting. Bran could not take his eyes off the blood. The snows around the stump drank it eagerly, reddening as he watched.

 

Too bad this is described as black ironwood instead of a weirwood stump. Ned could unintentionally be making blood sacrifices before the weirwoods and tapping into some magic without knowing it. 

[SeanF]

On 12/2/2020 at 3:01 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

The WOIAF says the following:

 “Yet the First Men were less learned than we are now, and credited things that their descendants today do not; consider Maester Yorrick's Wed to the Sea, Being an Account of the History of White Harbor from Its Earliest Days, which recounts the practice of blood sacrificeto the old gods. Such sacrifices persisted as recently as five centuries ago, according to accounts from Maester Yorrick's predecessors at White Harbor.”

It’s a First Men thing, not just a Stark thing. And it happened even in the relatively enlightened White Harbor, as recently as 500 years ago. Heck it probably still happens all over the North as soon as you head more than a couple hundred miles into the back country.

I would not be surprised if the Boltons and Umbers and their people practised human sacrifice.  The Skagosi certainly do.  I’m sure it happens all over the North, in out of the way places.  Sacrificing criminals is no big deal in-universe. But I wonder how much favour you’d receive from the gods just for sacrificing a criminal.   If you wanted a really huge favour, would you not have to sacrifice someone who was dear to you?

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I would not be surprised if the Boltons and Umbers and their people practised human sacrifice.  The Skagosi certainly do.  I’m sure it happens all over the North, in out of the way places.  Sacrificing criminals is no big deal in-universe. But I wonder how much favour you’d receive from the gods just for sacrificing a criminal.   If you wanted a really huge favour, would you not have to sacrifice someone who was dear to you?

In various rl pagan cultures, the source of the sacrifice often doesn’t seem to matter as much as the act itself. But in the Bible, we see Abel’s sacrifice is accepted but Cain’s is rejected. Then we have Abraham and Jesus himself. So in Christianity, the meaning of the sacrifice is indeed often important. 

In ASOIAF, it seems to follow a more Christian model with some value being required, but not always. The tale told to Davos says that enemies were sacrificed. But then we have something going on with Craster’s own sons. Rhaego is sacrificed for Drago. The FM demand a sacrifice of value to the person. King’s blood is more important than some rando. The Lannisters are thick with references to human sacrifice of family members. The monstrous weirwood in White Tree has human bones. As Craster’s mother is from White Tree, it’s not baseless speculation that relatives may have been sacrificed given Craster does this. There's princes sacrificed in the free cities somewhere (I forget). Then there’s Nissa Nissa who follows sacrifices which are not sufficient. Right after Jon reads about Nissa Nissa, he thinks that Ghost is a part of him and how awful it’d be to have to sacrifice him (2+2 here). So I’d guess that the value is important in this story.

Only death may pay for life is an extremely varied idea used throughout the series. Basically, anyone with a lot of power over life and death or some magic power in the series sees it come at the cost of fertility, the lives of their children, or estrangement from their children which is an extension of rl monsters and comic book heroes who also lose the ability to produce life for exceptional ability.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

In various rl pagan cultures, the source of the sacrifice often doesn’t seem to matter as much as the act itself. But in the Bible, we see Abel’s sacrifice is accepted but Cain’s is rejected. Then we have Abraham and Jesus himself. So in Christianity, the meaning of the sacrifice is indeed often important. 

In ASOIAF, it seems to follow a more Christian model with some value being required, but not always. The tale told to Davos says that enemies were sacrificed. But then we have something going on with Craster’s own sons. Rhaego is sacrificed for Drago. The FM demand a sacrifice of value to the person. King’s blood is more important than some rando. The Lannisters are thick with references to human sacrifice of family members. The monstrous weirwood in White Tree has human bones. As Craster’s mother is from White Tree, it’s not baseless speculation that relatives may have been sacrificed given Craster does this. There's princes sacrificed in the free cities somewhere (I forget). Then there’s Nissa Nissa who follows sacrifices which are not sufficient. Right after Jon reads about Nissa Nissa, he thinks that Ghost is a part of him and how awful it’d be to have to sacrifice him (2+2 here). So I’d guess that the value is important in this story.

Only death may pay for life is an extremely varied idea used throughout the series. Basically, anyone with a lot of power over life and death or some magic power in the series sees it come at the cost of fertility, the lives of their children, or estrangement from their children which is an extension of rl monsters and comic book heroes who also lose the ability to produce life for exceptional ability.

Assuming that Stannis does burn his daughter, it would be very much in the mould of the King of Moab who burned his son and heir in order to achieve victory over Israel.

I expect Stannis would have to be in desperate straits (say the Others have breached the Wall) to do something like that.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I expect Stannis would have to be in desperate straits (say the Others have breached the Wall) to do something like that.

Nah, all it will take to bring him there will be one knight of House Goodmen. It is known.

[SeanF]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:52 PM, CamiloRP said:

 

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

 

 

You have to be highborn, or lucky, to get a beheading in Westeros.  The standard method execution is hanging by means of the short drop, basically choking to death while you piss yourself.

 

[CamiloRP]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You have to be highborn, or lucky, to get a beheading in Westeros.  The standard method execution is hanging by means of the short drop, basically choking to death while you piss yourself.

 

So? Why does the way of execution matter? 

Northerners (save for the Bolton's) seem to always behead. At least in official executions, at least when the Lords are the ones doing it, and at least the Starks.

Also, Bran tasted the blood. I think the person in question was most likely bethroted, maybe beheaded or even gutted. Definitely not hung because no blood comes from that.

[sweetsunray]

None of what we witness or hear is evidence of human sacrifice, let alone exclusively human sacrifice such as the Ironborn do.

What does Bran witness? An execution or human sacrifice? It being done by a woman with a sickle in front of a tree makes a modern reader presume it is human sacrifice, as the image fits our prejudiced imagery of druidic human sacrifice. However, unlike real world druids, in this world we know there are greenseers who can see the past through the eyes of a tree and communicate in certain ways via the tree. Bran communicated with Theon in this way. Meanwhile, in the bronze age, a sickle was not just a sacrificial tool only. It was a common tool to harvest herbs and plants while foraging.

It is therefore entirely possible we witness the result of an accused criminal being brought before a greenseer via weirwood, having been judged guilty by the greenseer, with the woman who is trained to communicate with the greenseer via tree executing the guilty verdict. If this is the case, then the execution is no more different than Joffrey ordering Ned Stark to be beheaded at the square of Balon. If we were to see Ned Stark's execution in front of the Sept of the Faith thousands of years later by a gifted septon, would we then not also erronously assume that Joffrey and the Faith practiced human sacrifice? 

Moreover, the image of the past seems to have been used to teach Bran to be careful with the power he has as greenseer - do not take a life easily as judge. We see this have its impact when Bran interacts with Theon. Bran has every reason to hate and be angry with Theon. And Theon is guilty of severe crimes - throwing an innocent septon in a well to drown for a god Theon doesn't even believe in after promising he would harm no one if Bran surrendered the castle, as well as murdering two boys and make them appear to be Bran and Rickon. Despite this, Bran responds understanding and gentle at some point via the heart tree.

What about the tales of the intestines at the Wolf's Den?

Well that tale actually is not about human sacrifice whatsoever, but the execution of torturers and enslavers. Slavers sailed up the White Knife and captured people of the North, and had them locked up at the Wolf's Den as they waited for slaver ships to come pick them up. The Stark King rescues these people and hands these slavers (we all agree slavers are evil, right?) to the people they abused, and tells them they are free to judge and execute them. They are executed and post mortem their intestines are hanged in the weirwood. It's no more different than Joffrey having heads put on spikes for display.

What about the burned skulls inside the hollow of the weirwood at Whitetree?

The context of the conversation makes clear why these skulls were burned - to avoid people from ending up as wights. We also know from the Prologue in aGoT, Varamyr's Prologue and Tormund's account on how a son of his died that people just die from the cold that the Others send or accompanies them. There is no evidence that the people whose skulls were burned died as sacrifice. We solely have evidence that some people died and that their remains were burned and placed inside the weirwood. The NW burns their dead now too. Is that human sacrifice? We have confirmation that weirwood worshiping Free Folk belief that people's spirits live on inside the tree. And so that explains why the skulls are left there.

What about Craster?

Craster is a shit, who leaves his sons to the open elements to the Cold Gods, not the Old Gods. There isn't even a weirwood at his keep.

 

 

 

[SeanF]

30 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

None of what we witness or hear is evidence of human sacrifice, let alone exclusively human sacrifice such as the Ironborn do.

What does Bran witness? An execution or human sacrifice? It being done by a woman with a sickle in front of a tree makes a modern reader presume it is human sacrifice, as the image fits our prejudiced imagery of druidic human sacrifice. However, unlike real world druids, in this world we know there are greenseers who can see the past through the eyes of a tree and communicate in certain ways via the tree. Bran communicated with Theon in this way. Meanwhile, in the bronze age, a sickle was not just a sacrificial tool only. It was a common tool to harvest herbs and plants while foraging.

It is therefore entirely possible we witness the result of an accused criminal being brought before a greenseer via weirwood, having been judged guilty by the greenseer, with the woman who is trained to communicate with the greenseer via tree executing the guilty verdict. If this is the case, then the execution is no more different than Joffrey ordering Ned Stark to be beheaded at the square of Balon. If we were to see Ned Stark's execution in front of the Sept of the Faith thousands of years later by a gifted septon, would we then not also erronously assume that Joffrey and the Faith practiced human sacrifice? 

Moreover, the image of the past seems to have been used to teach Bran to be careful with the power he has as greenseer - do not take a life easily as judge. We see this have its impact when Bran interacts with Theon. Bran has every reason to hate and be angry with Theon. And Theon is guilty of severe crimes - throwing an innocent septon in a well to drown for a god Theon doesn't even believe in after promising he would harm no one if Bran surrendered the castle, as well as murdering two boys and make them appear to be Bran and Rickon. Despite this, Bran responds understanding and gentle at some point via the heart tree.

What about the tales of the intestines at the Wolf's Den?

Well that tale actually is not about human sacrifice whatsoever, but the execution of torturers and enslavers. Slavers sailed up the White Knife and captured people of the North, and had them locked up at the Wolf's Den as they waited for slaver ships to come pick them up. The Stark King rescues these people and hands these slavers (we all agree slavers are evil, right?) to the people they abused, and tells them they are free to judge and execute them. They are executed and post mortem their intestines are hanged in the weirwood. It's no more different than Joffrey having heads put on spikes for display.

What about the burned skulls inside the hollow of the weirwood at Whitetree?

The context of the conversation makes clear why these skulls were burned - to avoid people from ending up as wights. We also know from the Prologue in aGoT, Varamyr's Prologue and Tormund's account on how a son of his died that people just die from the cold that the Others send or accompanies them. There is no evidence that the people whose skulls were burned died as sacrifice. We solely have evidence that some people died and that their remains were burned and placed inside the weirwood. The NW burns their dead now too. Is that human sacrifice? We have confirmation that weirwood worshiping Free Folk belief that people's spirits live on inside the tree. And so that explains why the skulls are left there.

What about Craster?

Craster is a shit, who leaves his sons to the open elements to the Cold Gods, not the Old Gods. There isn't even a weirwood at his keep.

 

 

 

I've no issue with the slavers receiving their due, but I think there is something ritualistic about hanging up their entrails, in the same way I think there's something ritualistic about the Boltons' flaying.

[Lollygag]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I've no issue with the slavers receiving their due, but I think there is something ritualistic about hanging up their entrails, in the same way I think there's something ritualistic about the Boltons' flaying.

The guy who told Davos the story outright says it's human sacrifice so you're correct.

ADWD Davos V

"Then a long cruel winter fell," said Ser Bartimus. "The White Knife froze hard, and even the firth was icing up. The winds came howling from the north and drove them slavers inside to huddle round their fires, and whilst they warmed themselves the new king come down on them. Brandon Stark this was, Edrick Snowbeard's great-grandson, him that men called Ice Eyes. He took the Wolf's Den back, stripped the slavers naked, and gave them to the slaves he'd found chained up in the dungeons. It's said they hung their entrails in the branches of the heart tree, as an offering to the gods. The old gods, not these new ones from the south. Your Seven don't know winter, and winter don't know them."

[Alyn Oakenfist]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The guy who told Davos the story outright says it's human sacrifice so you're correct.

ADWD Davos V

"Then a long cruel winter fell," said Ser Bartimus. "The White Knife froze hard, and even the firth was icing up. The winds came howling from the north and drove them slavers inside to huddle round their fires, and whilst they warmed themselves the new king come down on them. Brandon Stark this was, Edrick Snowbeard's great-grandson, him that men called Ice Eyes. He took the Wolf's Den back, stripped the slavers naked, and gave them to the slaves he'd found chained up in the dungeons. It's said they hung their entrails in the branches of the heart tree, as an offering to the gods. The old gods, not these new ones from the south. Your Seven don't know winter, and winter don't know them."

It looks to me more like a mix, kinda like what the Romans did with their high end prisoners during triumphs, kill them in front of their temples, fulfilling both the need to execute them to enforce their might over the conquered and doing it in a quasi religious way.

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I've no issue with the slavers receiving their due, but I think there is something ritualistic about hanging up their entrails, in the same way I think there's something ritualistic about the Boltons' flaying.

Based on previous GRRM stories, I think the Boltons flay either because they see skinchangers as subhuman or to steal their powers.

[Bloodraven’s Spider]

ADWD Bran 34:

Bran is currently in Bloodraven’s cave and is having a Weirwood vision in his sleep through Winterfell’s Heart tree he sees the following:


A) His young father praying with a bowed head "…let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them, and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive." This is bran watching Ned pray to the gods that Rob and Jon will grow up close and Cat will hopefully stop being a bitch ass wench. Jon is Neds but thats a different thread.

A girl and a younger boy play fighting with branches. Most likely Lyanna and Benjen playing as kids

C) A pregnant woman coming out of the black pool praying for a son to avenge her. This is the most difficult to pinpoint. It could be the original Lord Starks wife and the tale of Bael the Bard coming to life. Or a Stark daughter...

D) A slender girl on her toes kissing a knight as tall as Hodor. This is either Rhonne or a stark maiden kissing Duncan the Tall (probably connected to C if it’s a stark daughter)

E) A pale, dark-eyed youth cutting three branches from the weirwood and shaping them into arrows. This is Brandon Snow, half brother to king who knelt Torren Stark. Brandon was going to either kill Aegon the conqueror/or the dragons.

F) Other lords of the North and Winterfell: tall, hard, stern men in fur and chain mail; A bearded man forcing a captive down on his knees, and a white-haired woman killing the captive with a bronze sickle. 

Lets focus on F)
1) This can either just be the First Men performing blood sacrifice to the old gods (they didn’t worship the old gods when they first came to Westeros they adopted the old gods from the Children of the Forest) Notice how the blood sacrifice is in front of a Weirwood…. The Weirwood is a death god (part of the lie of the 7)

2) This can be the lords and elite of Winterfell/North executing a poacher, thief, rapist, we don’t know (still doing death worship regardless) or it can be something more. Can this be a execution of a Brandon Stark?!?!?!?! Some people think its Bran the Builder but I doubt its him. As he is so known I think if he was executed we would know. Why am I specifically asking if this is a execution of a Brandon Stark. Let’s read the text real quickly:

“And now the lords Bran glimpsed were tall and hard, stern men in fur and chain mail. Some wore faces he remembered from the statues in the crypts, but they were gone before he could put a name to them. Then, as he watched, a bearded man forced a captive down onto his knees before the heart tree. A white-haired woman stepped through a drift of dark red leaves, a bronze sickle in her hand. "No," said Bran, "no, don't," but they could not hear him, no more than his father had. The woman grabbed the captive by the hair, hooked the sickle round his throat, and slashed. And through the mist of centuries the broken boy could only watch as the man's feet drummed against the earth . . . but as the life flowed out of him in a red tide, Brandon Stark could taste the blood.”

It says Brandon Stark could taste blood. Now is that our Brandon or the Brandon who just died? Or are they one of the same in some shape and form? Old Nan firmly believes the Night King was a Brandon Stark and the Others feast on blood and remember the Night King was taken down by the other Lord Stark- his brother. So could this be Lord Stark executing his brother (only to become the Night King- the all white women is there too. In the legend he gives her his seed here we see it’s life’s blood.

A few things to make note of, before we go any further, Chain Mail (many thought the first men didn’t have chain mail as they didn’t have steel or iron but they must have made it out of bronze), Bronze Sickle (this implies the timeframe this is happening most likely before the Andals as the they brought steel and iron with them, the first men used bronze. So this could be happening 6-8k years ago (Long Night anyone?) 

When Bran first meets Coldhands, Coldhands says to Bran when asked who he is, “Your monster, Brandon Stark." This line is so subtle but so important as it completely ties Coldhands to the Night King and Bran’s role in the wars to come.

What do we know about Coldhands? He's a black brother - the Night's King was Lord Commander. According to Leaf, he died "long ago" The Night's King died 6-8,000 years ago.The children’s sense of time is different then mans so when the children say long ago they don’t mean a year or 2 (when Benjen would have gone missing. They mean centuries even thousands of years. Coldhands is said to be wearing chain mail armor under his cloak. Now this is often used against Coldhands being the Night's King, the logic being chain mail only came when the Andals came. But as you can see, in Bran's last vision he sees "tall and hard, stern men in fur and chain mail." I take this to mean that chain mail (made of bronze) existed before the Andals. Or he could have looted it from someone he killed (doubt it). It makes sense that Coldhands keeps his face covered, given that he had his neck gruesomely cut by a sickle. 

The only “discrepancy” is the “giving the soul to an other”Again this is pure speculation but the blood sacrifice that happens is exactly that- giving his soul.

But why is he helping Bran? That is a question I cant even begin. Perhaps he is stuck as a wight and will walk the realm forever till the Great War is done? Only George has the answer to those questions, but I think we got another piece of the puzzle.

Coldhands, The Night King.

[sweetsunray]

8 hours ago, Lollygag said:

The guy who told Davos the story outright says it's human sacrifice so you're correct.

The guy who told it lived hundreds if not a thousand of years later; before Manderlys (who follow the Andal Faith) ended up with the Wolf's Den in their dominion. Andals and maesters talk about human sacrifice but both have an agenda to declare it as such, even if the Manderlys are grateful and loyal to the Starks. Meanwhile non-Faith following Northerners have a personal interest in making someone shit their pants and believe the worst - scare tactics. Skagos for example: if outsiders believe you're savage cannibals performing human sacrifice and stay away or meddle less because of it, why change their mind?

BTW did you take note that the King did NOT judge or execute these slavers himself?