Why don't the Whitehills just kill the Forresters?
It's something I've been wondering for a while, and figured now I might as well ask. It seems to me, the Whitehills gain no advantage to keeping the Forresters alive, and could easily--and almost without consequence--wipe them out and be done with it. The only semi-reason was there skill in harvesting Ironwood, but as we see, the Whitehills have taken 100% of it now and doing the work themselves anyway.
So, can anyone clear this up? Because it seems to me the only reason the Whitehills are keeping the Forresters around is because
STORY
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Because Ludd feels it's the Whitehills' right to treat the Forresters like dirt since the Forresters supposedly treated them like dirt in the past. He wants the Forresters to suffer.
I get that, but from a logistical and political stand-point, (especially in the context of the Game of Thrones world) the fact they've not wiped hem out seems unlikely, and odd. But that's just an opinion, I suppose.
You really expect Ludd to be logical. Well, Ludd wants revenge, he wants to take the Forresters down to the very bottom of the chain and watch them suffer and slowly die out while he laughs at their pain. It's revenge that drives him to want to watch the Forresters die instead of killing them outright.
They cant just wipe out the family just because they want to. Im sure there is some kind of protocol.
I don't see Ludd as cunning, the opposite actually. They already are going against Bolton's orders by harvesting more of the Ironwood trees than they are suppose to.
Yeah, I actually do expect him to be logical. Ludd to me seems to have a cunning depth about him, yet this is the opposite of cunning. I consider this a valid plot hole. The only real explanation I can find is that maybe the Bolton's didn't want the Forresters dead thanks to their ability to harvest IW, and the Whitehills are afraid that wiping out the Forresters and thus going against the Boltons might strain their relationship.
Lol, there really isn't.
And even if there was, I find it hard to believe Ludd would follow it.
Yeah, it was Ramsay under orders from Lord Bolton.
I agree. I buy the fact he wants to make them suffer etc, etc... but he's the lord of a house. Not only that, he's clearly pulling strings in King's Landing, AND we know is formulating some kind of plot against the Forresters.
My point is, all this seems kind of invalid, due to the fact they could easily solve their problem straightaway and take Ironrath for themselves, and eliminate any threat of a Forrester uprising.
Wasn't it Ramsay who gave them the orders in the first place
I mean shit man, if some crazy motherfucker like Ramsay told me to do something, I wouldn't even try to cross him
I'm pretty sure Ludd has barely any Host to speak of. That's why he keeps bringing up Roose Bolton as he fields 5000 where the Whitehills may field slightly more than the Forresters maybe 150-200 as opposed to the Forrester 100.
Regardless of whether he has fifty, or five times as many soldiers, he certainly has enough to eradicate Ironrath's Forrester population and seize It as his own. Which, as my post brings up, makes no sense as to why he hasn't.
The reason being that if he were than the Boltons would consider the Whitehills as threats. 5000-8000 Bolton men against 200 Whitehill men.
They want to torture the forresters and play with them a little and then make them suffer.