Are you allowed to wipe out houses ala Castamere?

[hollowcrown]

IIRC, Tywin wasn't even the Lord Paramount when he wiped out the Reynes and Tarbecks...how does this play into things?

[Sasha Steelsong]

It's the most effective way to deal with rebel lords, I'm actually surprised that the Starks didn't wipe out the Boltons even after they flayed several Stark kings.

This has always puzzled me, it was one of those little details that never really made much sense, given the crimes I'm really do wonder why they didn't wipe them out. I also wonder why Robert didn't have any Baratheon soilders in KL. Doing a re-listen of GOT and there are Lannister soldiers everywhere but no Baratheon ones, and you'd think since he was the king and the royal house was Baratheon, they would have had their own guards.

ETA: I think ohindeed101 probably hit the nail on the head that it may not have to make sense cause it is a fictional work and there are bound to be some wtf? moments when talking about an 8000 year made up history.

[Golden&Crimson]

And the Starks wiped out House Greystark - a cadet branch of theirs who joined the Boltons in one of their rebellions against the Kings of Winter.

Maybe im making a mistake, but i don`t remember to read that the Starks eradicated the Greystarks.

It always seemed to me that the Greystarks died out during their rebellion, not executed by their kin.

A suzeran has the right to punish any vassal that dares to betray him:

Reynes and Tarbecks, destroyed by the Lannisters.

Darklyns, destroyed by the Targaryens.

Rickard Karstark, executed by Robb Stark.

[caravaggio]

After Aegon, do Lords have to check with the King to wipe out another house? Do Wardens have the authority to do this on their own?

[~DarkHorse~]

Fingers crossed the Freys and Boltons are next- I'm certain most wouldn't be opposed to this. However, this is GRRM/Westeros meaning its more likely the Starks or Targaryens will be wiped out and I'm certain this would be deemed wrong, particularly with the Dornish and Northerners.

Although, the Lanisters would like this (minus Tyrion and perhaps Jamie). It really depends on who's opinion and which House.

[TheCrannogDweller]

IIRC, Tywin wasn't even the Lord Paramount when he wiped out the Reynes and Tarbecks...how does this play into things?

He was acting on behalf of his father.

Perhaps it was because the Greystarks were a group of Starks who weren't formally a cadet House until the rebellion.

They had their own keep - the Wolf's den (which later became the heart of White Harbor). So they were an official cadet House.

Maybe im making a mistake, but i don`t remember to read that the Starks eradicated the Greystarks.

It always seemed to me that the Greystarks died out during their rebellion, not executed by their kin.

The article in the wiki makes it sound like it was deliberate. Still, the wiki isn't completely reliable, so who knows.

What we do know is that the Greystarks joined the Boltons in one of their rebellions against Winterfell and they lost. The Boltons survived, the Greystarks did not.

[Lion of Judah]

Maybe im making a mistake, but i don`t remember to read that the Starks eradicated the Greystarks.

It always seemed to me that the Greystarks died out during their rebellion, not executed by their kin.

A suzeran has the right to punish any vassal that dares to betray him:

Reynes and Tarbecks, destroyed by the Lannisters.

Darklyns, destroyed by the Targaryens.

Rickard Karstark, executed by Robb Stark.

The passage slightly implies that the Starks wiped them out, but different eyes may interpret differently than mine own.

'Many a younger son of the King in the North had made his seat there, many a brother, many an uncle, many a cousin. Some passed the castle to their own sons and grandsons, and offshoot branches of House Stark had risen; the Greystarks had lasted the longest, holding the Wolf's Den for five centuries, until they presumed to join the Dreadfort in rebellion against the Starks of Winterfell.'

[Jasta11]

I'm still surprised the Starks wiped out the Greystarks but not the Boltons. Seriously, those creepy fucks have disloyalty written all over them.

[Gingerchu]

I've always thought that with the Boltons it was a case of there only being a child left after the rebellion and they trained it to be a loyal vassal and over the years the Boltons slipped into their old skins(or rather the Stark kings skins ;) )

No evidence for this it's merely speculation

[James Arryn]

Feudal balance is tricky. Any time you deal with one lord, the other lords pay attention. The occasional Reyne and they pay the right kind of attention. Make it a habit and their attention becomes another kind, where they decide you are a constant danger and they're better off rebelling en masse and taking their chances rather than being picked off one by one or kowtowing to absolute authority.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Tywin obviously wiped out the Reynes and Tarbecks and is infamous for it.

Aerys also wiped out a noble family too, and the Targaryens wiped out the Gardener Kings.

How comes no one else seems to have done it? Why didn't the Starks wipe out the Boltons after their treachery? Isn't Tywin wiping out the Reynes likes Ned killing all of the Karstarks?

Is it the done thing in Westeros, or only to be used under dire circumstances, or is it seen as a terrible thing to do seeing as children and innocents are murdered?

Fair enough taking out the head of a family but killing children and innocent women is just harsh.

Harsh but a reality of feudal Europe. Richard III and the Princes in the tower. It was also a common practice in the early Ottoman Empire.

[The Sleeper]

The defences of the Dreadfort might have something to do with it.

Jon mentions that a Stark king starved the Boltons out of the Dreadfort after a two year siege. Given the lengths of time involved and the Starks coming out on top I'd think this wasn't the only time the Dreadfort fell. An easy way to avoid extinction is to surrender.

About the Greystarks, I find the text ambiguous. It could mean they were wiped out, that they lost too many members in battle, or even that they simply were dispossessed and later faded into anonymity.

ETA wrote Karstarks instead of Greystarks.

[Jasta11]

I've always thought that with the Boltons it was a case of there only being a child left after the rebellion and they trained it to be a loyal vassal and over the years the Boltons slipped into their old skins(or rather the Stark kings skins ;) )

No evidence for this it's merely speculation

Well there would have been Greystark children probably, and evidently they were also killed at some point, or maybe taken as hostage and/or sent to the Wall. Point is, the family ceased to exist. Why wasn't this done for the Boltons in their long history of rebellion?

I mean, I know the real answer is because it makes for a better story than having every single Stark bannermen be 100% loyal hearthy Northmen, but GRRM could have toned down the Boltons a bit I think. I mean, their sigil is a flayed man, they have a flaying tradition, their seat is the Dreadfort, and their words are ''Our blades are sharp''. What a fun, trustworthy bunch, innit?

[James Arryn]

Jon mentions that a Stark king starved the Boltons out of the Dreadfort after a two year siege. Given the lengths of time involved and the Starks coming out on top I'd think this wasn't the only time the Dreadfort fell. An easy way to avoid extinction is to surrender.

About the Karstarks, I find the text ambiguous. It could mean they were wiped out, that they lost too many members in battle, or even that they simply were dispossessed and later faded into anonymity.

Greystarks?

[Starfell]

Regarding the Boltons, I can imagine that they were simply topo powerful by comparison to the Starks to wipe them out, even after they were beaten. for them to rise up in the first place implies that they must have had enough followers to rival the Starks and by extension, that killing them off would alienate a good deal of the people who the Starks would be ruling, keeping them in power might have been the best move for the medium term stability of the North.

Or maybe they just put a more pliant Bolton in charge of the Dreadfort when they won the war(s), these Houses are allegedly close to 8000 years old, I no more believe that every Bolton in that period was a scheming traitor than I do every Stark was a paragon of virtue.

[The Sleeper]

Greystarks?

Yes, thank you.

Well there would have been Greystark children probably, and evidently they were also killed at some point, or maybe taken as hostage and/or sent to the Wall. Point is, the family ceased to exist. Why wasn't this done for the Boltons in their long history of rebellion?

I mean, I know the real answer is because it makes for a better story than having every single Stark bannermen be 100% loyal hearthy Northmen, but GRRM could have toned down the Boltons a bit I think. I mean, their sigil is a flayed man, they have a flaying tradition, their seat is the Dreadfort, and their words are ''Our blades are sharp''. What a fun, trustworthy bunch, innit?

This has been going on for about 8,000 years, it doesn't mean that the Boltons rebelled every other generation. It is also unlikely that the Boltons were the only ones who rebelled from time to time. It wouldn't be much of a factor when determining what punishment to inflict that this guys ancestors had also rebelled 500 years ago.

[Jasta11]

Yes, thank you.

This has been going on for about 8,000 years, it doesn't mean that the Boltons rebelled every other generation. It is also unlikely that the Boltons were the only ones who rebelled from time to time. It wouldn't be much of a factor when determining what punishment to inflict that this guys ancestors had also rebelled 500 years ago.

Well the 8000 years thing is debatable, no one knows for sure how much time has passed since the Houses were established. But anyway, it just seems weird that no Stark, ever, was fed up with (some of) these guys flaying his kin and exterminated the lot of them. As far as we know, the Starks always were the Kings of Winter, the Boltons never managed to topple them like Roose did.

I mean, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief, it's just a bit weird is all.

[Master of Laws]

Didn't Ned at one point mention that the Stark kings of old were harsh and even cruel? Maybe that's why the Boltons rebelled.

[Bastard of Baltimore]

Making some assumptions based on the historical Feudal system, I would assume the lord of a territory could wipe out a bannerman/vassal’s house if he needed to, probably with the exception of a vassal related to the Lord’s superior. If you were a lord, wiping out one of your vassals is not something you would want to do though and would most likely only be done in a dire circumstance, such as preventing open rebellion. A lord’s military strength was dependant on the number and strength of his vassals and their forces, who would be obligated to fight for their lord should he need them for a conflict. Wiping out a house would most likely involve a conflict which would reduce your military strength. In addition, the cost would not be exclusive to military strength, civil war in the lord’s own region would most likely create economic consequences as well (i.e. interruption of trade, loss of agricultural production, loss of taxable revenue). I think this is why we have not seen many houses share Castamere’s fate.

[Alester Florent]

This has always puzzled me, it was one of those little details that never really made much sense, given the crimes I'm really do wonder why they didn't wipe them out. I also wonder why Robert didn't have any Baratheon soilders in KL. Doing a re-listen of GOT and there are Lannister soldiers everywhere but no Baratheon ones, and you'd think since he was the king and the royal house was Baratheon, they would have had their own guards.

I expect it's a combination of factors. Firstly, Cersei's nagging. "These Baratheon guards are rubbish, I want my own". "Yeah, yeah, whatever". Secondly, the debt to Tywin - he might be prepared to offer a discount on the loan repayments if they use Lannister soldiers rather than Baratheon ones. Thirdly, lack of available men. The majority of Baratheon troops will be Stormlanders, who are part of Renly's retinue rather than Robert's. Some of the Crownlands troops are probably functionally sworn to Dragonstone rather than to the king, too, so Stannis will have taken them with him when he left. Robert, personally, likely just doesn't have as many men to call on as Renly/Tywin, and many of those who are sworn to him directly will be off garrisoning forts elsewhere. After all, he has the Kingsguard and Gold Cloaks in KL anyway, and until the start of AGoT had Stannis's and Jon Arryn's retinues in the capital to offset against the Lannisters.