Am I the only one who thinks...

edited April 2015 in Game Of Thrones

The Boltons will kill the Whitehills. It makes no sense story wise but a lot of sense in real life.

Ludd Whitehill disobeyed Ramsay without the consent of The Boltons

Upon defying that order a lot of Whitehill's men are drunk and incompetent or starving and don't do all of their work

What happens when Roose doesn't get all the Ironwood he needs?

Comments

  • It makes no sense in both cases.

  • Unlikely. Though Roose Bolton is far more sophisticated than Ramsay and most likely expects a steady supply of ironwood, the Whitehills have been his bannermen for five centuries. A slap on the wrist is probably the worst one can hope for.

  • How

    Lingvort posted: »

    It makes no sense in both cases.

  • We've already seen Roose doesn't have a problem betraying people. He was in with The Starks for quite a while and betrayed Robb at the drop of a hat. I don't think loyalty is a concept that has much effect on him

    Unlikely. Though Roose Bolton is far more sophisticated than Ramsay and most likely expects a steady supply of ironwood, the Whitehills have been his bannermen for five centuries. A slap on the wrist is probably the worst one can hope for.

  • edited August 2015

    Do you kill people for disobeying orders in real life? Or do you know a lot of (normal) people that do that?

    If your answer is "no" for both, then I fail to see how it makes sense in real life. Unless your "real life" is different from mine or anyone else's, that is.

    Clemenem posted: »

    How

  • I don't think the Boltons would go that far, maybe get mad and a minor punishment but no mass slaughter.

  • What I don't understand is how the Whitehills are even directly sworn to House Bolton. It makes sense as far as the plot of the game goes, but the Dreadfort and High Point are on opposite ends of the North, the largest of the Seven Kingdoms. Also, High Point is near the Wolfswood. They should be sworn to House Glover, like the Forresters are, or at least sworn directly to Winterfell, like House Cerwyn. I get why Tell Tale needed to do this for the game's plot, but it just makes zero sense if you think of the geography of Westeros. Like Yara (Asha) being able to sail all the way around Westeros to get from the Iron Islands to the Dreadfort, which is not even near the ocean, in the show. I see why they felt the need to do that, but seriously, can people jsut look at a map of Westeros before making these decisions.

  • The fact is Roose gave very specific orders in which Whitehill went against for no good reason other then to piss off The Forresters then unable to give the Boltons what they need because of that

    Lingvort posted: »

    Do you kill people for disobeying orders in real life? Or do you know a lot of (normal) people that do that? If your answer is "no" for b

  • Roose Bolton is the new Warden of the North but the North is not fully united. Right now Roose needs all the forces he can get, so I think House Whitehill is in the clear... for now.

    Clemenem posted: »

    We've already seen Roose doesn't have a problem betraying people. He was in with The Starks for quite a while and betrayed Robb at the drop of a hat. I don't think loyalty is a concept that has much effect on him

  • Yeah, and therefore it's a reason to massacre your longtime vassals. For destroying a portion of ironwood forest that belonged to Forresters. There is still Ironwood around and Forresters don't really seem too accepting of Bolton's rule.

    No, what Ludd Whitehill did isn't, IMO, enough to even warrant a possiblity of his house getting murdered.

    Clemenem posted: »

    The fact is Roose gave very specific orders in which Whitehill went against for no good reason other then to piss off The Forresters then unable to give the Boltons what they need because of that

  • Its something punishable. Besides as the new warden of The North he doesn't want anyone questioning his authority

    Lingvort posted: »

    Yeah, and therefore it's a reason to massacre your longtime vassals. For destroying a portion of ironwood forest that belonged to Forresters

  • Yeah, it is something punishable. Still doesn't warrant murder of an entire house, not to mention that there are other ways for Boltons to assert their authority.

    Clemenem posted: »

    Its something punishable. Besides as the new warden of The North he doesn't want anyone questioning his authority

  • I think it's a possibility, a remote one. But it's possible, if Ludd messes up Roose's plans enough, that Roose will hold him personally responsible.

    Or Ramsay, (more probable IMO) if he feels that Ludd has disrespected him by disobeying his directive, would have absolutely no problem showing his displeasure. I mean look what he did to Ethan, with no cause at all.

  • For the Boltons any reason is a good reason. And since they have to give the Lannisters weapons and ships, they would regard the defiance as making them look bad and traitorous. Since they were loyal bannermen they would kill Ludd.

    Lingvort posted: »

    Yeah, and therefore it's a reason to massacre your longtime vassals. For destroying a portion of ironwood forest that belonged to Forresters

  • They might get punished for taking matters into their own hands without asking Roose first. It'd be the ultimate case of irony for Ramsay to pay Lord Whitehill a visit and put his eldest son in charge of the house instead.

  • edited April 2015

    I don't think so. As long as Ramsay and Roose get their Ironwood, I don't think they would mind. I doubt they would even get in the middle of a pissing match between two minor Houses anyway, especially since one of those Houses have been their bannerman for years.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.