Why didn't the Starks eliminate all of the Boltons

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I know, I meant it would be funny if they were downright evil as a contrast to the present day Starks.

Well I fully believe the Starks practiced human sacrifice back before the Andals. There are several exinct northern houses, and there was a Stark king who sailed to Andals and massacred entire towns in vengeance for attempted invasions of the North

 

edit: and there was that War for the Three Sisters

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Well I fully believe the Starks practiced human sacrifice back before the Andals.

In my opinion, whether it would be evil or not depends on why they were doing the sacrifice. Doing it to save the world? Or doing it to increase their own personal power?

3 minutes ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

There are several exinct northern houses, and there was a Stark king who sailed to Andals and massacred entire towns in vengeance for attempted invasions of the North

That's not very nice. But I don't know if it is enough to be evil.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, frenin said:

The Starks have done this way too much for this to be true and the Castamere experience also proves otherwise.

It makes little sense that the Starks murdered their own kin for joining the Boltons  in rebellion but left the Boltons be after defeating them.

And long sieges usually makes men grow restless and invoke the "no quarter order". 

Tywin learned his lesson from the Reynes and Tarbeks, even though the situation was not the same as the Boltons:

"Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise, no man will ever bend the knee to you."

The Reynes did not bend the knee. They remained defiant to the end, while it is unclear if the three Tarbeks did. Probably.

So it makes perfect sense to accept the Boltons when they bend the knee. Otherwise it creates a huge power vacuum in their kingdom that leads to resentment and even bloodshed among the banners.

[BoltonBannerMan]

I agree with what some have already mentioned before - you accept the bent knee because, otherwise, you'll constantly be fighting until the last drop of blood. Why would anyone surrender if the surrender would mean their death? 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Tywin learned his lesson from the Reynes and Tarbeks, even though the situation was not the same as the Boltons:

"Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise, no man will ever bend the knee to you."

The Reynes did not bend the knee. They remained defiant to the end, while it is unclear if the three Tarbeks did. Probably.

So it makes perfect sense to accept the Boltons when they bend the knee. Otherwise it creates a huge power vacuum in their kingdom that leads to resentment and even bloodshed among the banners.

Are you serious? Tywin never gave neither the Reynes nor the Tarbecks the chance to bend the knee, he killed them to the las child.

The Starks of old had the same custom too. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Are you serious? Tywin never gave neither the Reynes nor the Tarbecks the chance to bend the knee, he killed them to the las child.

The Starks of old had the same custom too. 

The Tarbecks were kind of an accident. At least Lady Tarbeck and her child. He fired catapults onto the castle and a roof collapsed on top of them.

[frenin]

5 minutes ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

The Tarbecks were kind of an accident. At least Lady Tarbeck and her child. He fired catapults onto the castle and a roof collapsed on top of them.

This weren't.

 

Quote

 Lord Walderan Tarbeck and his sons were beheaded, together with his nephews and cousins, his daughters’ husbands, and any man who displayed the seven-pointed blue-and-silver star upon his shield or surcoat to boast of Tarbeck blood. And when the Lannister host resumed its march to Tarbeck Hall, the heads of Lord Walderan and his sons went before them, impaled on spears.

 

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, frenin said:

Are you serious? Tywin never gave neither the Reynes nor the Tarbecks the chance to bend the knee, he killed them to the las child.

The Starks of old had the same custom too. 

The only ones Tywin executed without quarter were Lord Walderan Tarkbeck and his two younger sons, the eldest being killed in the battle. That left a youngest son and heir back at Tarbeck Hall. When Kevan offered peace terms, which would undoubtedly have left House Tarbeck intact and in control of Tarbeck Hall, Lady Tarbeck, who helped instigate this whole mess, laughed in his face and closed the gates. So Tywin built siege engines to topple the walls and the whole castle came down, ending the Tarbeck line. Did Tywin intend for that the happen, or did it just happen?

Meanwhile the Reynes ended up holing themselves up in Castamere, which would have taken years to starve them out. So instead, Tywin flooded the place, killing everyone. Did he do this specifically to punish the whole house by ending the line, or did he need to end the war quickly? Maybe both.

But in both instances, neither house submitted and bent the knee. That makes all the difference. But even then it is perfectly plausible that Tywin would have preserved both lines if he could, because exterminating rival houses is not good for internal politics.

Whatever the old Starks did would have depended on circumstances. And in the case of the Boltons, it was better to preserve the line, or else they wouldn't have done so. 

[hnv]

Simple answer: because you need antagonists for the plot

Complex answer: from the standpoint of evolution of norms it would make sense for a moral norm that frowns upon extinguishing whole lines to pop. One never know when his house would be on the down and it's good for everyone to hold it bad to kill off everyone. Mutual insurance policy if you wish.

That's why Tywin with the Reyens and Tarbacks was so noteworthy. as a sociopath he showed complete disregard to social (though not legal) norms

[frenin]

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The only ones Tywin executed without quarter were Lord Walderan Tarkbeck and his two younger sons, the eldest being killed in the battle.

Sons, cousins, brothers, nephews... The whole shebang.

It's literally stated he executed anyone who displayed the Tarbeck sigil.

 

 

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Did he do this specifically to punish the whole house by ending the line, or did he need to end the war quickly?

Why did he need to end the war quickly?

 

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Whatever the old Starks did would have depended on circumstances. And in the case of the Boltons, it was better to preserve the line, or else they wouldn't have done so. 

I mean no.

We know that Robert should have killed Balon but he didn't do so. 

The Boltons are just a plot point and their multiple rebellions are just there to showcase that they would always be kinda sleazy and backstabbers.

The Starks have hardly ever tolerated rebellions against them, let alone multiple ones. It's funny to believe they would be willing to exterminate their own kin than they are to kill off House Bolton.

 

 

 

[Shierak Qiya]

The books would seem to imply that the Starks barely defeated the Boltons.  So the answer is "they could not eliminate all of the Boltons."  The hierarchy was negotiated.  The Starks had the advantage and the Boltons knelt to avoid further casualties.