Why do people assume that Northmen love the Starks?

[Lana]

Do the Lannisters hold their authority by fear? Maybe in the case of a few people, probably outside the Westerlands - but I'd say it was far more a case of respect. People may or may not have liked Tywin Lannister, but he seemed to have the respect of his bannermen, and he did an excellent job in administering things and keeping good order when being Hand for 20 years, and then just Lord of Casterly Rock.

Agreed. Same thing with Kevan, as implied by his success with the Tyrells and directly stated by Varys. I think a level of respect also extends to Jaime.

[7V3N]

All of the North knows the Boltons betrayed them at the Red Wedding. You think Roose was just lucky to be untouched at the wedding or to have "not made it yet" and then the Lannisters just arbitrarily chose House Bolton to rule the North AND legitimize his insane bastard who killed Lady Hornwood?

The North Remembers

[Currawong]

Tytos Lannister was everyone's easygoing Mr Nice Guy, and allowed people to run rings around him. No-one respected him, either his bannermen or elsewhere, and he was in danger of bankrupting the Lannister family. Tywin Lannister soon put a stop to that, and the people who'd taken advantage of Mr Nice Guy quickly learnt their lesson. Who would you rather have as your liege lord, in peace or at war - Tytos or Tywin?!

[fassreiter]

If GRRM intended to make us understand that the north is a political unity based on some sort of specific northern loyalty and love towards a certain blood line, we would be in Faerie and this does not go with a tale that is basically called and deals with the Game of Thrones. Let's rather assume that loyalty and love between liege lord and his lords bannermen are part of a specific 'medieval' power structure. It is just another part of Varys' riddle about power. It does not mean there cannot be any kind of 'real' respect or loyalty, but it is hard to find out because loyalty and love are at the very core of feudal power structures. Loyalty is not a choice, it is the rule. So going against your liege lords requires a good explanation, for example that your liege lord didn't fulfill his part of the bargain. As soon as you can refer to such, no one is going to stop you from making a power grap, unless you threaten his or her own power. Which is what Bolton does. I think it is strange that people on this board only remember "The North remembers" as a badass battle cry for Stark followers. In fact we learn about it from Catelyn before that, and she tells her son that the fact that "the North remembers" is not a good thing at all, because it means there could be blood feuds for ages. She is talking about Karstark, in fact. Feudal love is a social investment, therefore it is naturally based on the attempt to make it last - or turn it into your favour. I you break your contract too early, your investment will have been for nothing. As soon as the investment breaks down to nothing, there is no love lost. So far, the north has been heavily investing into Stark loyalty, of course they want the whole thing to pay out now. They didn't go to war for nothing. After Stark loses, they don't go over to his enemy in a heartbeat because they haven't invested there - so there is no reason they will be able to keep their privileges and freedom. Better to restore the former situation, so their investment won't be lost.

[Ramsay Gimp]

If GRRM intended to make us understand that the north is a political unity based on some sort of specific northern loyalty and love towards a certain blood line, we would be in Faerie and this does not go with a tale that is basically called and deals with the Game of Thrones. Let's rather assume that loyalty and love between liege lord and his lords bannermen are part of a specific 'medieval' power structure. It is just another part of Varys' riddle about power. It does not mean there cannot be any kind of 'real' respect or loyalty, but it is hard to find out because loyalty and love are at the very core of feudal power structures. Loyalty is not a choice, it is the rule. So going against your liege lords requires a good explanation, for example that your liege lord didn't fulfill his part of the bargain. As soon as you can refer to such, no one is going to stop you from making a power grap, unless you threaten his or her own power. Which is what Bolton does. I think it is strange that people on this board only remember "The North remembers" as a badass battle cry for Stark followers. In fact we learn about it from Catelyn before that, and she tells her son that the fact that "the North remembers" is not a good thing at all, because it means there could be blood feuds for ages. She is talking about Karstark, in fact. Feudal love is a social investment, therefore it is naturally based on the attempt to make it last - or turn it into your favour. I you break your contract too early, your investment will have been for nothing. As soon as the investment breaks down to nothing, there is no love lost. So far, the north has been heavily investing into Stark loyalty, of course they want the whole thing to pay out now. They didn't go to war for nothing. After Stark loses, they don't go over to his enemy in a heartbeat because they haven't invested there - so there is no reason they will be able to keep their privileges and freedom. Better to restore the former situation, so their investment won't be lost.

Great post.

[7V3N]

snip

No, what makes "the North Remembers, Frey" so badass is the context. It's not pro-Stark. It's pro-North and pro-vengeance. It's a promise for vengeance for the Red Wedding.

[The Snowman]

All of the North knows the Boltons betrayed them at the Red Wedding. You think Roose was just lucky to be untouched at the wedding or to have "not made it yet" and then the Lannisters just arbitrarily chose House Bolton to rule the North AND legitimize his insane bastard who killed Lady Hornwood?

The North Remembers

I think Ramsey Gimp is forgetting this very simple fact stated above by Shadow Fox.

The King in the North is betrayed and murdered as a guest by the Freys and yet the Boltons forces are barely touched while all those who were at the RW are now dead or imprisoned....You would think that the North would come to a certain conclusion.

If GRRM intended to make us understand that the north is a political unity based on some sort of specific northern loyalty and love towards a certain blood line, we would be in Faerie and this does not go with a tale that is basically called and deals with the Game of Thrones. Let's rather assume that loyalty and love between liege lord and his lords bannermen are part of a specific 'medieval' power structure. It is just another part of Varys' riddle about power. It does not mean there cannot be any kind of 'real' respect or loyalty, but it is hard to find out because loyalty and love are at the very core of feudal power structures. Loyalty is not a choice, it is the rule. So going against your liege lords requires a good explanation, for example that your liege lord didn't fulfill his part of the bargain. As soon as you can refer to such, no one is going to stop you from making a power grap, unless you threaten his or her own power. Which is what Bolton does. I think it is strange that people on this board only remember "The North remembers" as a badass battle cry for Stark followers. In fact we learn about it from Catelyn before that, and she tells her son that the fact that "the North remembers" is not a good thing at all, because it means there could be blood feuds for ages. She is talking about Karstark, in fact. Feudal love is a social investment, therefore it is naturally based on the attempt to make it last - or turn it into your favour. I you break your contract too early, your investment will have been for nothing. As soon as the investment breaks down to nothing, there is no love lost. So far, the north has been heavily investing into Stark loyalty, of course they want the whole thing to pay out now. They didn't go to war for nothing. After Stark loses, they don't go over to his enemy in a heartbeat because they haven't invested there - so there is no reason they will be able to keep their privileges and freedom. Better to restore the former situation, so their investment won't be lost.

I think you have put forth a great post here but I stand by what I've just said and that as of the marriage of Winterfell between 'Arya' and Ramsey they are just waiting until the Boltons slip up and the real facts about the RW emerge.

No, what makes "the North Remembers, Frey" so badass is the context. It's not pro-Stark. It's pro-North and pro-vengeance. It's a promise for vengeance for the Red Wedding.

Again hit the nail on the head

Just remember people that this thread is about he northman's loyalty to the Starks not a Stark vs Bolton (whose better pissing contest)

[The Snowman]

Great Topic for discussion as well Ramsey Gimp. :thumbsup:

[ZeDisDeaD]

No offense to op but i think for the sake of being "realistic" you are over-thinking. I mean, if the writer of the books and creator of westeros doing his best to show Starks as "good guys", no matter how you look at it wouldn't change the fact that they are the good guys and people love them.

Liddle (the old guy who shared his food with Bran and Reeds on their journey to wall ) said “When there was a Stark in Winterfell, a maiden girl could walk the kingsroad in her name-day gown and still go unmolested, and travelers could find fire, bread, and salt at many an inn and holdfast." Now why would a writer put this on text if he didn't want you to think that people of north are loyal to the Starks.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Fassreiter is correct that "The North Remembers" was first used in an anti-Stark context. In ASOS, the Blackfish asks if Harrion Karstark will definitely turn on Robb for Lord Rickard's execution. Robb says he would have to - if he didn't, the Karstark men would rebel. "The North remembers, uncle" I think he says.

And thanks Snowman :cheers:

[mediterraneo]

So true, Martini!

But make no mistake, fear and love is a different thing. The West fears the Lannisters, it doesn't love them. The North loves the Starks.

I have to disagree. Fear and "love" are not mutually exclusive, nor in general nor in the Stark case.

We have some direct information on how things are handled in the North in normal times.

We have the educator of a generation of Stark warning her children about his vassals: "they are your bannermen, not your friends".

We have Eddard keeping the tradition he was raised in, and bringing his 8 years old children to be shown how the Stark treat with the deserters, as they deserve, in a quite personal and bloody way.

More on this: Umber "testing Robb" by trying to force him into letting him command the vanguard of his army is not a sign of love. He goes bak into the ranks when the "boy" shows his mettle. He wouldn't follow a Stark unable to submit him, like his fathers did before him.

There is a good reason in this: the Stark are the top wolf in the North, and they can be trusted. Trusted to come if you stop paying your due respect, but trusted to come too if the Ironmen come to try to "pay the iron price" for your reserves for the winter, or if the king Beyond the Wall cmes to steal your daughter, or if some Lysene pirate comes and try to get some slave on the coast.

You couldn't trust on the Stark strenght to do what you cannot alone if the Stark weren't able to consistently muster more strenght than you.

The Stark used to be feared by the northmen during all of their history. They become the top wolf in the pack by forcing all of the others into submission, or killing them and replacing them with family, like the previous owners of the Karhold.

And so what happens with the current situation? What happens with the northern families' decision makers?

The Stark can be trusted to be useful and functional to the well being of the northern ruling class from which all of the decision makers in this crisis come. They were for centuries. The Stark are northernmen, with northern values, and the proven capacity and will to respond quickly to the northern pledges of help and justice. The northern values include issues very important to identity building like religion, and the family uses - there are some indication of a less sacralized view of the marriage than between the Andals.

None of these could be guaranteed by the King's Landing child king, who is very, very far and is not able to rule even on the south (the Vale is not responding to him, there is a Stromland's king at the Wall, the Greyjoy are again in rebeldy...). And even in the best case, the face of the regime is the Frey - Bolton face, the face of the Red Wedding. Traitors and enemies. In terms of trust, it is difficult to count on these people if any need of help or justice arises.

It would be so much better to have a real Stark to put in Winterfell. Any Stark, that would be here and clearly recognized as ultimate authority on the land. If a Bolton rules, why not a Glover, or a Flint? Because of the southern connections? Because of his particular connection with the winning enemies of our generation's war? A connection that fragmentates, and thus debilitates, the North as a region, giving lever to cultural outsider decision makers to impose their will in the north against the opposition of the northeners. Fragmentation that shows that weakness and invites more perils to the North shores. More raids, more attacks.

Winterfell that is cultural and economical center for the northern culture and material survival. Warm water in winter, and winter growings. Until the Bolton guarantee on the identity of "Arya Stark" destroyed it.

There is convenience, there is fear. Both of them. There is trust, call it "love" if you want. But it is a mix of reasons that push a lot of northern leaders more away from the winning Bolton than towards the Stark.

There is no appearent Stark faction to be in love with, right now: there is a great need of building a northern coalition to better defend the particular needs of the northern leaders. And in a feudal world, that would need a struggle for the precedences, or the presence of a leader that everybody in the league can recognize as superior, even if he does not bring a single sword to the battle. Someone supported by tradition would do. A Stark would do.

Is this love?

Call it love, if you want.

To me it is a very human, and credible, mix of trust, need, fear, convenience, tradition and even loyalty.

Cheers!

[Ramsay Gimp]

No offense to op but i think for the sake of being "realistic" you are over-thinking. I mean, if the writer of the books and creator of westeros doing his best to show Starks as "good guys", no matter how you look at it wouldn't change the fact that they are the good guys and people love them.

Liddle (the old guy who shared his food with Bran and Reeds on their journey to wall ) said “When there was a Stark in Winterfell, a maiden girl could walk the kingsroad in her name-day gown and still go unmolested, and travelers could find fire, bread, and salt at many an inn and holdfast." Now why would a writer put this on text if he didn't want you to think that people of north are loyal to the Starks.

I agree that GRRM may want us readers to think so, based on some lines of dialogue. But in that case, he shouldn't have made treachery and backstabbing so integral to Robb's downfall :dunno: Actions speak louder than words, after all.

[The Snowman]

And thanks Snowman :cheers:

No problem, although I went and read every post before I posted haha. That took ages.

No offense to op but i think for the sake of being "realistic" you are over-thinking. I mean, if the writer of the books and creator of westeros doing his best to show Starks as "good guys", no matter how you look at it wouldn't change the fact that they are the good guys and people love them.

Liddle (the old guy who shared his food with Bran and Reeds on their journey to wall ) said “When there was a Stark in Winterfell, a maiden girl could walk the kingsroad in her name-day gown and still go unmolested, and travelers could find fire, bread, and salt at many an inn and holdfast." Now why would a writer put this on text if he didn't want you to think that people of north are loyal to the Starks.

I had forgotten this yes why would Martin put this in the book, for shits and giggles? unlikely. That's also a pretty big endorsement for the Respect that the north had for Stark rule imo

[Dr. Pepper]

Who better to tell about your plans to feed Eddard Stark's bones to the dogs than Theon Turncloak? He's an outsider who attacked the North, so it's not like he would get offended like a Northman would

Look, if Lady Barbrey is so loyal to the Boltons, why would she tell Theon all about how she hates the Starks, good riddance to them and her dogs will get fed, give him her take about how the Boltons can shore up support, etc and then tell him "Oh, but don't tell anyone I told you how I have no love for House Stark and am totally loyal to Bolton."?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Look, if Lady Barbrey is so loyal to the Boltons, why would she tell Theon all about how she hates the Starks, good riddance to them and her dogs will get fed, give him her take about how the Boltons can shore up support, etc and then tell him "Oh, but don't tell anyone I told you how I have no love for House Stark and am totally loyal to Bolton."?

I could ask the same question if she was disloyal to the Boltons

[Dr. Pepper]

Actions speak louder than words, after all.

Exactly.

I could ask the same question if she was disloyal to the Boltons

Uh, that's what we are saying. She isn't as loyal to the Boltons as she claims to be. If she was so loyal, she'd have no problem with Theon repeating this information to Bolton. But she specifically tells him not to tell anyone that she has no love for House Stark.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Uh, that's what we are saying. She isn't as loyal to the Boltons as she claims to be. If she was so loyal, she'd have no problem with Theon repeating this information to Bolton. But she specifically tells him not to tell anyone that she has no love for House Stark.

Huh? this is getting confusing. Telling Theon to remain quiet isn't evidence one way or another, really

[Pod The Impaler]

I have to disagree. Fear and "love" are not mutually exclusive, nor in general nor in the Stark case.

We have some direct information on how things are handled in the North in normal times.

We have the educator of a generation of Stark warning her children about his vassals: "they are your bannermen, not your friends".

We have Eddard keeping the tradition he was raised in, and bringing his 8 years old children to be shown how the Stark treat with the deserters, as they deserve, in a quite personal and bloody way.

More on this: Umber "testing Robb" by trying to force him into letting him command the vanguard of his army is not a sign of love. He goes bak into the ranks when the "boy" shows his mettle. He wouldn't follow a Stark unable to submit him, like his fathers did before him.

There is a good reason in this: the Stark are the top wolf in the North, and they can be trusted.

The Stark used to be feared by the northmen during all of their history. They become the top wolf in the pack by forcing all of the others into submission, or killing them and replacing them with family

The Stark can be trusted to be useful and functional to the well being of the northern ruling class from which all of the decision makers in this crisis come. They were for centuries. The Stark are northernmen, with northern values, and the proven capacity and will to respond quickly to the northern pledges of help and justice. The northern values include issues very important to identity building like religion, and the family uses - there are some indication of a less sacralized view of the marriage than between the Andals.

It would be so much better to have a real Stark to put in Winterfell. Any Stark, that would be here and clearly recognized as ultimate authority on the land. If a Bolton rules, why not a Glover, or a Flint? Because of the southern connections? Because of his particular connection with the winning enemies of our generation's war?

There is no appearent Stark faction to be in love with, right now: there is a great need of building a northern coalition to better defend the particular needs of the northern leaders. And in a feudal world, that would need a struggle for the precedences, or the presence of a leader that everybody in the league can recognize as superior, even if he does not bring a single sword to the battle.

This is an excellent post, it sums up a lot of what I was trying to state about northern ideals and northern notions of honour.

The Starks are the alpha wolves, they leads a pack of bannermen. "In winter, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives."

It is based on strength. Yet it is not "might makes right" becoming "the divine right of kings" as expressed by civilized places like the southron kingdoms of Westeros, or the slaver states of Essos.

It is a warrior ethic - dare I say it, a barbarian ethic. More down-to-earth, more pagan, more fierce. The wildlings north of the wall have their version of it. The Ironborn have their version of it. The Dothraki have their version of it. These are hard places, and they breed hard people.

The Starks are what they are because they can embody what the north is and give it what leadership it needs, not just rule it in a "do as I tell you" sort of way. There is nothing to suggest the northern houses are easily mastered, or docile. Quite the opposite - they make fierce foes and will not tolerate weakness. Indeed, the land itself does not tolerate it - think of what it takes to survive a years-long winter in a place where it even snows in summer. The Starks have more than just bloodlines going for them; they have had to prove themselves over and over for thousands of years, in order to get to where they are.

[LordBiscuit]

The North seems to have the whole "When winter comes, the lone wolves dies, but the pack survives".

As Nymeria was so kind to teach us, there's no better candidate to lead a pack than the mighty direwolf.

[The Snowman]

The North seems to have the whole "When winter comes, the lone wolves dies, but the pack survives".

As Nymeria was so kind to teach us, there's no better candidate to lead a pack than the mighty direwolf.

Symbolism would certainly play a part in how the Starks are looked upon. Also in the most recent generation of Starks they were accompanied by a direwolf. They are shown to have a pretty strong connection with their direwolves and this in itself is something amazing. The direwolf is an ancient wild animal that is described as being the size of a small horse.....thats not something you want to cross.

Its not like the Lannisters are accompanied into battle by lions or the mormonts go into battle with bears. These are wild animals and they seem to 'obey' these Stark children (Jon included). Obey is a strong word, I suppose its more of a partnership where they defend each other and in a way resemble their human counterparts in personality.

Is there any previous accounts of direwolves attaching themselves to Starks throughout the history of westeros?