Why does house Stark have the smallest army in the north?

[E-Ro]

Yes, I think 1% of the North's population is 60,000 people. Ran thinks 1% of the North's population is 40,000 people. If I'm right, Robb raised only 0.33% of the North's population at short notice. If Ran is right, he raised 0.5% at short notice.

Either way, it is some way short of the 1% rule of thumb.

Yes, we agree on this much. I would say you are closer to the mark then ran is on this issue.

If the North has 6 million people as I suspect, that means roughly 5 people per square mile. Now imagine there are thousands of tiny villages, holdfasts and crofters huts spread over the 1.2 million square miles of the North.

For every holdfast with 50 people around it, there are 10 square miles without a single person. For every village with 200 people in it, there are 40 square miles without a single person.

Multiply that by thousands, and that means hundreds of thousands of square miles without a single person. Just like Robert experienced.

EDIT

And let's ditch the idea that the North is a barren wasteland once and for all. It consists of fertile farmland right up in the Gift, next to that big Wall of Ice in the Far North. If the Gift is fertile farmland, what do you imagine the rest of the North being like, stretching a 1000 miles or more further South?

Originally you said they had a far higher population, that might be were my confusion is coming from.

Look, the populations might be similar, its possible. And yes, the north is no wear near as sparsely populated as most people seem to think. All that being said, I highly doubt the north has more people living in it then the riverlands.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

My apologies, but this does not make sense at all to me.

Yes, certainly you are right noting that there are several other requirements and factors that influence the size of an army, yet imho wrong if you say that.

Nobody here has stated that Manderly can't have more men than Starks or other lords, your line of thought here applies well. Here people are discussing the inconsistency of Stark forces compared to Karstarks and Boltons, which - geographically speaking - extend their domain on lands that we haven't been given any reason by GRRM to think to be more productive or rich - both in terms of food and raw goods - than Starks lands.

Anyhow, Starks have been the Kings for thousands of years, collecting taxes from their own sublords all the time. You can even picture out small folk pay tributes with food if you like, but there is no possibility that high lords that had to pay their own fees to the King used food at all.. that would be ridiculous. As a sustainment of this, let's just remember that in the books it has been mentioned a lord (maester?) refusing paying proper taxes to the new King and trying to send the money to KL. Money, not food. Whatever expenses the Starks might have had, it is rather unbelievable that they don't have even a small hall full of gold and iron down within their own crypts or castle. Food supplies aren't needed most of the times, since - contrary to the NW - they do store large amount of food in the summer/autumn and can resist a winter 4-5 years easily.

So where is that gold gone? Surely Starks might not be willingly to use it out of wimp, but rather only when it's needed.. their modest lifestyle surely confirms it.

Also, might it well be that Winterfell has hot water coming from underneath the land.. but it isn't like the entire north has to seek refugee by them or it dies out. Each city - like the NW - has its own underground system that is used during winter times, and it has been hinted that large settlements might be interlinked through dungeons roads spanning the entire continent.. or starting from WF up to the wall and beyond. So it ain't likely that all other lords come out much more weakened than Winterfell after each long Winter.

Used up in their many wars throughout the ages probably. Robert's Rebellion might have been very expensive for them to take a recent example.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Yes, we agree on this much. I would say you are closer to the mark then ran is on this issue.

Originally you said they had a far higher population, that might be were my confusion is coming from.

Look, the populations might be similar, its possible. And yes, the north is no wear near as sparsely populated as most people seem to think. All that being said, I highly doubt the north has more people living in it then the riverlands.

We can't know for sure, one way or another. Martin himself has said that the Riverlands are fertile and populous.

But the Riverlands at 20 people per square mile would indeed be populous compared to the North at just 5 people, and yet still have the same total population.

We don't have enough info yet, but either way, I think their population sizes are fairly close.

[E-Ro]

My apologies, but this does not make sense at all to me.

Yes, certainly you are right noting that there are several other requirements and factors that influence the size of an army, yet imho wrong if you say that.

Nobody here has stated that Manderly can't have more men than Starks or other lords, your line of thought here applies well. Here people are discussing the inconsistency of Stark forces compared to Karstarks and Boltons, which - geographically speaking - extend their domain on lands that we haven't been given any reason by GRRM to think to be more productive or rich - both in terms of food and raw goods - than Starks lands.

Yeah there is no reason to assume they are more productive or rich, but there are other factors to consider here apart from the land. Expenses and the like, as well as crop failures, which do happen.

Anyhow, Starks have been the Kings for thousands of years, collecting taxes from their own sublords all the time. You can even picture out small folk pay tributes with food if you like, but there is no possibility that high lords that had to pay their own fees to the King used food at all.. that would be ridiculous. As a sustainment of this, let's just remember that in the books it has been mentioned a lord (maester?) refusing paying proper taxes to the new King and trying to send the money to KL. Money, not food. Whatever expenses the Starks might have had, it is rather unbelievable that they don't have even a small hall full of gold and iron down within their own crypts or castle. Food supplies aren't needed most of the times, since - contrary to the NW - they do store large amount of food in the summer/autumn and can resist a winter 4-5 years easily.

The starks have not been kings for 300 years. Thats 300 years they have been sending taxes that once they got to keep away to the south. That is most likely what is taking a toll on their ability to keep men on retainer. And yes, it is possible for a lord to pay tax using food. that is just basic mediveal stuff, payment was NEVER EVER standardized in real life. Also, you dont think that theon would have been salivating to get his hands ona ll this stark wealth when he took winterfell?

So where is that gold gone? Surely Starks might not be willingly to use it out of wimp, but rather only when it's needed.. their modest lifestyle surely confirms it.

The gold is simply not there at this time. What seems to be the issue here is that you think they are storing gold and money for years and years and years. That is not the case, money has to be spent. For example when robert visited winterfell that would have been a HUGE expense that most likely ate into their income. So, the war of five kings might have come at the worst possible time for the starks, a time when they were low on money.

Here is a real life example of the expense of being a lord.

(taken from the come into my castle thread)

Kings did come up with some clever ideas for fleecing their knights and lords, however. Scutage was a fee you paid on being knighted; the heir of a tenant-in-chief had to pay a "relief" ( a sort of inheritance tax) on inheriting; wardships could be enormously lucrative for the Crown; "voluntary" loans, and recognizances were another. And, if you were "honoured" to have the royal court visiting you, the cost of putting them all up would be enormous.

Elizabeth I stayed for three days at the country estate of Lord North, along with about 200 courtiers and all their servants and guards. He was turfed out of his private apartments, and lived in a pavilion in the grounds for the duration. The visit cost him £700 (his income was c.£3,000 a year) and he had to give her a leaving gift (a jewel worth £120).

Not to mention being turfed out of his own home.

This is what he had to provide:-

5,000 loaves of bread.

29 calves, 67 sheep, 96 rabbits, 172 venison pasties, 8 gammon.

32 geese, 363 capons, 1,194 chickens, 273 duck, 2,604 pigeons, 6 turkeys, 32 swans, 22 partridge, 344 quail.

3 barrels of sturgeon, 1 cartload and 2 horse loads of oysters, 96 crayfish, 8 turbot, 1 barrel of anchovies, 2 pike, 2 carp, 300 herrings, 4 tench, 12 perch.

2,201 cows tongues, udders, and feet, 2,522 eggs, 430 pounds of butter, £16 worth of sugar, £29 of vegetables.

378 gallons of claret, 63 gallons of White wine, 20 gallons of sack , 6 gallons of hippocras, 3,996 gallons of beer, 396 gallons of ale.

^the money ned spent when robert came for his visit would be similar to that. Lords do not store money away in vaults to be used at a later date, nor do they use banks to try and grow money. They get it, and they use it. Only a small bit will be put away for later emergency use.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Technically everyones Army is the Stark Lord's to command.

[SeanF]

Why though? Its very possible they are poorer then a few of the houses under them. Its not as if they are going to get displaced just because they fall behind one generation. As I said, these things change, finances one year might be high and another year not so high. Furthermore, its possible robb left winterfell men behind for some reason. To help hold the north ad keep border disputes in line.

Bear in mind that while the Starks may have greater income than the Manderlys, they may have greater outgoings, too. In net terms, the Lord of White Harbour may be richer. It's possible the Hightowers could be richer than the Tyrells, for a similar reason.

[SeanF]

WRT troop numbers, an expeditionary force of 18,000 men is a pretty impressive-sized army to put together at short notice.

[E-Ro]

Bear in mind that while the Starks may have greater income than the Manderlys, they may have greater outgoings, too. In net terms, the Lord of White Harbour may be richer. It's possible the Hightowers could be richer than the Tyrells, for a similar reason.

Yes, agreed. I used your posts from the castles thread as an example of expense. It works as an accurate real world example.

WRT troop numbers, an expeditionary force of 18,000 men is a pretty impressive-sized army to put together at short notice.

Well yeah all things considered the army they gathered was large. And any medieval warlord would be happy to have 18,000 men.

[Ahura Mazda]

Yeah there is no reason to assume they are more productive or rich, but there are other factors to consider here apart from the land. Expenses and the like, as well as crop failures, which do happen.

The point then is: why they have collected more men?

Crop failures aren't likely, it's just like saying these people haven't got money set aside at all for inconveniences.

The starks have not been kings for 300 years. Thats 300 years they have been sending taxes that once they got to keep away to the south.

YES but for 300 years they collected taxes to be sent south, it isn't like their source of money suddenly depleted.. only that from such a point in time they had to use part of their new incomes to pay taxes on their own.

Unless Winterfell was over-taxed for some random and unexplained reason, there is no clue to think they had to put their hands on their treasures to pay their tribute to Targaryens. Why should all other northern lords be capable of paying their own fee with their own economy, but WF not?

That is most likely what is taking a toll on their ability to keep men on retainer. And yes, it is possible for a lord to pay tax using food. that is just basic mediveal stuff,

Basic medieval stuff, or basic assumption on your own? You do realize that:

- the entire south had a lot more food than the north, whatever high value the north gave to money they still had to pay in gold, not food which wasn't a scarce resource at all in the south.. why giving away large stocks of food which value at their destination is lower than their value in the north? Nonsense.

- the amount of money due as taxes by high lords as WF/Tyrell/Lannister is so damn high that it is unbelievable that a country which already struggles to maintain their own food stocks at a decent level had enough to send to Targaryen instead of money.. ain't like these people would have seen a few bandwagons of meat and think all there was to pay was due

- Someone in this chain of taxes must convert goods in money since it is not profitable to send food to KL, and Starks aren't in the best commercial position to do it. So it must be their lords who did this conversion before them, each on on their own.

Minor lords can surely do whatever you say, but here we are talking of greatest houses of entire westeros. Even in the Roman Empire the various regions paid gold tributes to Rome, despite the fact that small folk surely didn't.

Also, you dont think that theon would have been salivating to get his hands ona ll this stark wealth when he took winterfell?

No, I don't think so.. because not even Ramsay apparently found a damned coin after sacking Winterfell, and it makes sense that if there is a treasure it is hidden and concealed.

The gold is simply not there at this time.

We don't know that. I suggested it might be there, you surely can't say the contrary as much I can't say it is surely there. The book says naught on the matter.

00

What seems to be the issue here is that you think they are storing gold and money for years and years and years. That is not the case, money has to be spent.

Again, your own assumptions vs my suggestion of a possible scenario.

For example when robert visited winterfell that would have been a HUGE expense that most likely ate into their income. So, the war of five kings might have come at the worst possible time for the starks, a time when they were low on money.

Yet, all Robert and his host ate was food supplies. Surely it did cost something to the Starks, but to think that a short visit of a king can put an entire house to the abject poverty is ridiculous.. but you put it down as an opinion, so if you believe it so it's ok for me.

Here is a real life example of the expense of being a lord.

(taken from the come into my castle thread)

^the money ned spent when robert came for his visit would be similar to that. Lords do not store money away in vaults to be used at a later date, nor do they use banks to try and grow money. They get it, and they use it. Only a small bit will be put away for later emergency use.

The fact that there are some expenses is no proof at all since we do not know the amount of incomes and stocked money they have. This argument is simply partial, and thus void.

Used up in their many wars throughout the ages probably. Robert's Rebellion might have been very expensive for them to take a recent example.

That would make the Starks a family of spendthrift people.. because it does seem they were the only northerners who could not afford to raise some decent amount of men after it. Might it be the Boltons are better leaders.

[SeanF]

Yes, agreed. I used your posts from the castles thread as an example of expense. It works as an accurate real world example.

Well yeah all things considered the army they gathered was large. And any medieval warlord would be happy to have 18,000 men.

I can't think of many medieval armies that numbered more than 18,000 (the Battle of Towton being one exception). Trying to keep an army of that size supplied, as it marched hundreds of miles, would cost an absolute fortune. WRT the o/p, I see nothing odd about Robb rounding up 2-3,000 men locally, and then seeking similar-sized numbers from his principal vassals. He'd want to leave men behind to protect Winterfell, and other strongholds, and to work the land.

[SeanF]

Patroclo, if you're wondering why there was no treasure when Theon took Winterfell, the likeliest explanation is that Robb took his treasury with him, to pay for the campaign.

As I said, the cost of keeping 18,000 men in the field is enormous. The Agincourt campaign cost Henry V more than half the annual royal income.

[Ahura Mazda]

Patroclo, if you're wondering why there was no treasure when Theon took Winterfell, the likeliest explanation is that Robb took his treasury with him, to pay for the campaign.

As I said, the cost of keeping 18,000 men in the field is enormous. The Agincourt campaign cost Henry V more than half the annual royal income.

It is surely a possibility, I thought of that too.

But we haven't been given any information on that, so who knows. ;-)

[E-Ro]

The point then is: why they have collected more men?

Crop failures aren't likely, it's just like saying these people haven't got money set aside at all for inconveniences.

They havent collected more men because, get this THEY CANT AFFORD MORE MEN. I honestly cannot fathom what is so difficult about this, its really not a hard concept. You get money, you buy soldiers. Or, more accurately, you pay soldiers to fight for you, its called having men on retainer.

Yes, crop failures are likely, they happened all the time in real life and happen to this day in third world countries. they can cause famine and starvation. Money has no affect at all on crop failure, in fact this feeds into my point. Crops fail and you have to use money you could have spent on troops on food instead, leading to less soldiers.

YES but for 300 years they collected taxes to be sent south, it isn't like their source of money suddenly depleted.. only that from such a point in time they had to use part of their new incomes to pay taxes on their own.

Unless Winterfell was over-taxed for some random and unexplained reason, there is no clue to think they had to put their hands on their treasures to pay their tribute to Targaryens. Why should all other northern lords be capable of paying their own fee with their own economy, but WF not?

Your honestly not grasping this basic argument im trying to make, and as a result your coming up with this nonsense that is, well, rather hard to understand. The money they have is not being saved, Saving money is not something feudal lords and kings do. Roads have to be maintained, as do keeps and the like. Its not as if the Starks were saving money for thousands of years and then one huge disaster came and bankrupted them. So no, their source of income did not depelete, merely new expenses were added to it, the expense of sending taxes away to kings landing. This is most likely why moat cailin is in such a shitty state of disrepair.

Basic medieval stuff, or basic assumption on your own? You do realize that:

- the entire south had a lot more food than the north, whatever high value the north gave to money they still had to pay in gold, not food which wasn't a scarce resource at all in the south.. why giving away large stocks of food which value at their destination is lower than their value in the north? Nonsense.

- the amount of money due as taxes by high lords as WF/Tyrell/Lannister is so damn high that it is unbelievable that a country which already struggles to maintain their own food stocks at a decent level had enough to send to Targaryen instead of money.. ain't like these people would have seen a few bandwagons of meat and think all there was to pay was due

- Someone in this chain of taxes must convert goods in money since it is not profitable to send food to KL, and Starks aren't in the best commercial position to do it. So it must be their lords who did this conversion before them, each on on their own.

No, not basic assumption. It is based on actual real life knowledge and actual real life costs and things that actually happened, which is far more then can be said of your argument.

-No, it isnt nonsense. All that is required is that the payment have value. So payment could be in lumber, fur coats from animals etc. For fucks sake, if seashells were in hot demand at kings landing the starks could have sent seashells as part of their tax payment. The idea that "tax" has to be gold is not based on reality and shows an extreme ignorance on how this works and how the world runs.

-I cant even decipher what you are trying to say here. Ok then.

-It is profitable to send food to KL, since that is food that they dont have to pay for to buy or use on their own. So instead of robert buying food, or using his own he can eat the food the starks sent him. OR he can use that food to feed soldiers, or the common folk if he is feeling generous.

Minor lords can surely do whatever you say, but here we are talking of greatest houses of entire westeros. Even in the Roman Empire the various regions paid gold tributes to Rome, despite the fact that small folk surely didn't.

The roman empire and a feudal system are two completely different things. The fact that you are comparing the roman empire at the height of its power to feudal westeros is rather telling.

No, I don't think so.. because not even Ramsay apparently found a damned coin after sacking Winterfell, and it makes sense that if there is a treasure it is hidden and concealed.

Yeah, ramsay found nothing becase theon had already sacked it and taken everything. "the last of the starks wealth" Also, hidden and concealed? LOFUCKINGL what are the starks dwarfs now that covet gold and lock it away for safe keeping?

We don't know that. I suggested it might be there, you surely can't say the contrary as much I can't say it is surely there. The book says naught on the matter.

The books say that theon took the last of the starks wealth and gave it to ramsay. Once again, if there was so much gold laying around winterfell robbs army would have been bigger. Thats a simple fact. The idea that lords keep huge hoards of gold is bullshit based on nothing.

Again, your own assumptions vs my suggestion of a possible scenario.

MY assumptions are based on real life knowledge and facts. They hold far more weight then your "Assumptions" which are based on like, the lord of the rings or some shit.

Yet, all Robert and his host ate was food supplies. Surely it did cost something to the Starks, but to think that a short visit of a king can put an entire house to the abject poverty is ridiculous.. but you put it down as an opinion, so if you believe it so it's ok for me.

What? Of course all they ate was food supplies, wtf were they supposed to do eat the tables? And no, it didnt put them into poverty, no one is saying the starks were bankrupt. Clearly they werent or the amount of men robb would have taken from winterfell would have been limited to his household guard. The fact is that all these financial issues combined led to Robb not having as many men as the lord of winterfell would usually have been able to muster.

The fact that there are some expenses is no proof at all since we do not know the amount of incomes and stocked money they have. This argument is simply partial, and thus void.

Once again, no. The fact that there are expenses is my whole point. Any expense at all eats into a lords ability to outfit and equip men.

[Ahura Mazda]

They havent collected more men because, get this THEY CANT AFFORD MORE MEN.

Oh, you CAPSLOCKED, now your opinion totally looks like a fact.

Now that you showed me how much dumb I am, I will quit the discussion without reading further into your own reply.

Thank your for enlightening me, best regards.

[SeanF]

As Lords Paramount of the North, the Starks not only have to send taxes to Kings Landing, they're also responsible for the defence of half a continent. They fight the Ironborn, the Wildlings, and rebel houses. they have to ensure that criminals and outlaws are punished. They have to garrison strongholds, and repair castles, roads, bridges. Like any medieval government, their finances must be under constant strain. They're assisted by their vassals, but a huge proportion of these costs will be borne by them.

Robb's army had to be paid and supplied. No doubt, his vassals made contributions, and taxes were levied, but ultimately, Robb would have had to spend a fortune of his own.

[E-Ro]

Oh, you CAPSLOCKED, now your opinion totally looks like a fact.

Now that you showed me how much dumb I am, I will quit the discussion without reading further into your own reply.

Thank your for enlightening me, best regards.

Well your gonna miss a fantastic joke about eating tables, but alright. I humbly accept your surrender.

[Ahura Mazda]

Well your gonna miss a fantastic joke about eating tables, but alright. I humbly accept your surrender.

Thank You :laugh:

[Djinn]

Nobody seems to factoring in the human sacrifices that the Stark have to perform and it's toll on the population. It's not like in the old days, were a human sacrifice to the heart tree now and then would suffice, now it's seven sacrifices at a time because of the new sept at WF. Every seven days! That pretty much a death a day, all year long.

Also the money thing, you guys need to consider that paying for all those fashionable dresses for Catelyn and Sansa are a considerable expenditure, plus the jewels. All luxury items, imported from afar, new rounds every half-year(to keep in fashion), plus all the lemons imported from Dorne for Sansa's diet. There also the bribes to keep the locals Lords from building warships. It's not cheap to pay for all this! Poor Ned, these southerner women really are high maintenance(he really should've had more sympathy for Jorah's situation)!

[Pecan]

A couple of thoughts on the notion that the Starks must be poorer now since they stopped being Kings and started sending taxes south 300 years ago:

1. We don't really know how much (if anything) is owed each year and if the Starks and the other great houses have the responsibility for governing their own regions, it's believable to me that taxes paid to the crown are minimal.
   
2. In theory, by uniting the seven kingdoms and creating peace, one would think that the 300 years of Targaryen rule would have been a time of economic expansion. The point being that taxes paid aren't necessarily a straight loss.
   

[Lord Warwyck]

I was actually going to say this myself. The Starks are the Kings of Winter. They didn't conquer the North by having the largest armies, they conquered them because 1.) They seem to have Winter on their side 2.) They were Skin Changers 3.) They seem to have a much harsher culture in days gone by and seemed to be feared a hell of a lot more.

It wasn't like Stark Kings were infallible. The Boltons gave them hell, the Skagosi gave them hell, the Iron Islanders gave them hell, the Kings Beyond the Wall gave them hell, the Slavers from the East gave them hell, the Arryns gave themm hell, the Crannogmen gave them hell, you they always survived, they always endured. That is why they are called "Stark" to begin with. Because in all those situations, it was the Winter that helped the Starks defeat there enemies, in much the same way the Dragons helped the Targs counquer the summer Kingdoms.

e.g. Brandon "Ice Eyes" Stark

This is why the Starks control the vast North even though they may have the smaller lands or least people. It is tradition at this point and to be honest, the Starks are synonymous with the North. Of course they had awful Kings, but if you asked the other northern if they had the power to, would they try and conquer winterfell, probably only the Boltons would say yes, just out of a sign of respect. The Northern Lords may not always like the Stark King, but they always seem to have a deep respect for their liege lord in general. Sacrficing your entrails onto heart trees also solidified the fear.

They same can be said for other territories.

1.) The Tullys are the liege lords of the Trident, but the Freys, Mallisters, and Blackwoods seem to be more "powerful" in a sense. Why should the Freys bend the kneee ever to Riverrun?

2.) The Tyrells are the liege lords of the Reach, but seriously the Redwynes have the fleet, and the Tarls/Highowers are probably both more powerful than the Tyrells IMO.

3.) The Martells are the liege lords of Dorne, but they seriously seem to fear the other houses such as Yronwood.

Other than the Lannisters, one could make a case that all the kingdoms should always be dealing with uprisings on their own territories

this is the most stupid post i've ever read.

People followed power not winter gardens! if the starks didn't have the army strength someone would've overthrown them a long time ago. Two stark bannerman would muster an army of 7000-8000 and go on and besiege winterfell in the spring. Surely winterfell can't stand siege for five years?