How come most major lords only have one castle?

[Ashur]

7 hours ago, ChillyPolly said:

Well.  They don't have jet airplanes.  So they live in, and directly control, one castle - the one they are in.  Other castles they give to their vassals to control for them.  It's like the feudal system.  In this way, Ned controls all the castles in the North.

The problem in ASOIAF is that the Feudal system is not very well explained. For example, the Tyrells are the lords of the Reach. All the other houses in the area are their vassals. But I guess the Tyrells have lands of their own. What happens if a piece of Tyrell land is given to a knight (thus becoming a landed knight) as a reward for his services? Then, the landed knight house is equal to other landed knight houses in the Reach? Or is it different because it is under a stronger tie of vassaliation? We cannot be sure.

Vassaliation work with levels. If you're a major house of the Reach, for example, you're vassal only to Highgarden and the King. But if you are a minor house, probably you are vassal to one of the major houses, then to Highgarden, and finally to the King. We don't know hoy many levels of vassaliation exists, but I think there are at least 4 levels: Osgrey -> Webber -> Tyrell -> Iron Throne. I'm not sure exactly what implications have this on tax collection or land giving. Also, in the middle ages feudal system, there were two kind of land giving: a temporal one (as long as the Lord/Lady/Priest who recive the lands lives) and other permanent and that can be inherited. It is not detailed is ANOIAF, but I'm sure that some land and house seats are given in this fashion (only for a limited time).

Ownership is a tricky thing in the feudal system....

 

[ChillyPolly]

10 hours ago, Tarellen said:

Or in the summer they could move from castle to castle to rule there lands more effectively 

I believe they do that.  It's called "visiting".

Castles are defensive structures.  They are occupied by defenders, because they need to be.  These defenders, or their commanders, swear allegiance to their lords and are known as "vassals".  When their lords are away, the defenders are in charge, and are themselves considered to be lesser lords and rulers.

[Tarellen]

5 hours ago, ChillyPolly said:

I believe they do that.  It's called "visiting".

Castles are defensive structures.  They are occupied by defenders, because they need to be.  These defenders, or their commanders, swear allegiance to their lords and are known as "vassals".  When their lords are away, the defenders are in charge, and are themselves considered to be lesser lords and rulers.

Not for royalty and high nobility it's not. I think it's called prossecion.

Even William the counqurer moved from castle to castle he owned outright. Also are you trying to explain fedulisam to me?

[ChillyPolly]

3 hours ago, Tarellen said:

Not for royalty and high nobility it's not. I think it's called prossecion.

Well, if you hold a parade while visiting, it is both a "visit" and a "procession".  But a visit is still a visit, even if you "own" or "possess" the property in some narrow legal sense.  Regardless of the legal theory of technical "outright ownership", it is impossible to effectively control a property when you are 1000 miles away from it.  You have to trust those actually present.  And the most effective way to give incentives to someone to manage a property effectively is to give them at least some of the benefits of what one might call "ownership".

 

Quote

 

Even William the counqurer moved from castle to castle he owned outright. Also are you trying to explain fedulisam to me?

 

 

And the Targs hold Summerhall and Dragonstone and the Red Keep, and probably the Tower of Joy as well.  

The Starks held the Wolf's Den (in addition to Winterfell) for at least a while.  But they gave it away to a vassal, and it is not difficult to understand why they would choose to do so:  It is very far away from them, making "direct" control difficult.

The Arryns directly control The Eyrie, 3 nearby waycastles (Stone, Snow and Sky), the Gates of the Moon, and the Bloody Gate.

In any event, Westeros is very large.  It probably contains much more than is mentioned in text.

[TimJames]

The Starks actually have TWO major castles. Winterfell in The North, and Moat Callin in The Neck.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 hours ago, Tarellen said:

Not for royalty and high nobility it's not. I think it's called prossecion.

Even William the counqurer moved from castle to castle he owned outright. Also are you trying to explain fedulisam to me?

Yes, most medieval European kings were itinerant. They had dozens or hundreds of castles and other estates spread out across their realms that they regularly moved between together with their courts. They did this both as a way of asserting their authority in all parts of the kingdom, but also as a solution for the large logistical needs of their retinues. As in, a king would stay at one of his castles or palaces until his followers had eaten most of the food supplies stored there, then he would move on somewhere else. 

High aristocrats tended to do the same thing, though on a smaller scale. Their territories weren't generally as concentrated as they seem to be in Westeros, but rather spread out in smaller chunks. These smaller pieces of territory would then also usually have their own castles or manor houses. 

[Ashur]

3 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes, most medieval European kings were itinerant. They had dozens or hundreds of castles and other estates spread out across their realms that they regularly moved between together with their courts.

All right. In that case, the crown has castles and lands of its own, administrated by certain Lords, I guess? But, for example, when Renly stays in Bitterbridge (I think it was)... we cannot consider that it is the King's castle (lets suppose for a moment that Renly was legitimate, ok?). The castle and lands are property of the Caswells, and the King is just a guest.

What I mean is... same as the Crown doesn't "own" all the castles of their subjects, a Liege Lord doesn't own all the castles of his vassals. Maybe only certain castles and lands are bound to the Liege Lord in a regimene of shared property. But the majority of the lesser houses due to pay taxes and give support in war to their Liege Lord, but their castles and lands are just theirs. I mean, Goldengrove is property of house Rowan, and by any means it is property of house Tyrell.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

32 minutes ago, Ashur said:

All right. In that case, the crown has castles and lands of its own, administrated by certain Lords, I guess? But, for example, when Renly stays in Bitterbridge (I think it was)... we cannot consider that it is the King's castle (lets suppose for a moment that Renly was legitimate, ok?). The castle and lands are property of the Caswells, and the King is just a guest.

What I mean is... same as the Crown doesn't "own" all the castles of their subjects, a Liege Lord doesn't own all the castles of his vassals. Maybe only certain castles and lands are bound to the Liege Lord in a regimene of shared property. But the majority of the lesser houses due to pay taxes and give support in war to their Liege Lord, but their castles and lands are just theirs. I mean, Goldengrove is property of house Rowan, and by any means it is property of house Tyrell.

Yes, there was a distinction between those things. 

The castles and estates I'm talking about were actually owned by the kings, not vassal nobles. They would have had castellans (or other officials) taking care of business while the kings weren't there, but those people didn't really own the castles. They were more like paid employees. Likewise with castles and properties owned by the church, which don't seem to exist in Westeros but actually where quite predominant in Medieval Europe. Indeed many of the very largest castles were built by bishops, archbishops and knightly orders. 

Anyway, these were different from the private noble castles as you say. But even discounting these it is still odd how few castles even the mightiest aristocrats in Westeros seem to have. 

One gets the impression that they have an extremely feudal society (to a degree that never existed in the real world) where almost everything is vassalized in some way. 

[Veloknight]

I wish GRRM had given us a few more types of titles (say, Duke - LP, Earl - Lord, Baron - minor lord). It would've made it so much easier to understand...

[Maester of Valyria]

Castles are incredibly expensive to run and maintain, which probably keeps the number of lords who can afford two quite low. As mentioned above some Houses do have more than one castle (eg Targaryens with three, Martells with two, Arryns with five including the waystations, Starks possibly with Moat Cailin). However, the general trend is for vacant castles to be used to start offshoot branches of the main house, and/or pacify enemies or reward allies (Brightwater Keep, Karstarks, Wolf's Den, Lannisters of Lannisport, etc.).

 

I did always wonder why Tywin never reopened Castamere with one of his brothers as its lord. It's well fortified and commands extensive mines. Same for Tarbeck Hall.

[Maester of Valyria]

Castles are incredibly expensive to run and maintain, which probably keeps the number of lords who can afford two quite low. As mentioned above some Houses do have more than one castle (eg Targaryens with three, Martells with two, Arryns with five including the waystations, Starks possibly with Moat Cailin). However, the general trend is for vacant castles to be used to start offshoot branches of the main house, and/or pacify enemies or reward allies (Brightwater Keep, Karstarks, Wolf's Den, Lannisters of Lannisport, etc.).

 

I did always wonder why Tywin never reopened Castamere with one of his brothers as its lord. It's well fortified and commands extensive mines. Same for Tarbeck Hall.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

10 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

Castles are incredibly expensive to run and maintain, which probably keeps the number of lords who can afford two quite low. As mentioned above some Houses do have more than one castle (eg Targaryens with three, Martells with two, Arryns with five including the waystations, Starks possibly with Moat Cailin). However, the general trend is for vacant castles to be used to start offshoot branches of the main house, and/or pacify enemies or reward allies (Brightwater Keep, Karstarks, Wolf's Den, Lannisters of Lannisport, etc.).

 

I did always wonder why Tywin never reopened Castamere with one of his brothers as its lord. It's well fortified and commands extensive mines. Same for Tarbeck Hall.

Well, that's relative. The average Westerosi "Lord" (as opposed to the lower petty lords) we deal with in the series is capable of mustering private armies numbering thousands of men, and the Lords Paramount are essentially equivalent to quite powerful kings. Affording numerous castles really shouldn't be an issue for these people, though they of course wouldn't all be the size of Winterfell or Casterly Rock.

If we take a real historical example the French kings during the Late Middle Ages had at least three castles just in and outside Paris. These weren't small either, for that matter, but looked like this: 

 

 

Then they had yet more in other parts of the kingdom, of course. 

[Ashur]

14 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I did always wonder why Tywin never reopened Castamere with one of his brothers as its lord. It's well fortified and commands extensive mines. Same for Tarbeck Hall.

Tarbeck Hall was put to the torch and completely tore down. As for Castamere, is floded and ruined. Anyway, I don't think Tywin ever had the intention to restore those castles, because they are warning signs: this is what happens to you when you defy the Lannisters.

[Maester of Valyria]

12 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well, that's relative. The average Westerosi "Lord" (as opposed to the lower petty lords) we deal with in the series is capable of mustering private armies numbering thousands of men, and the Lords Paramount are essentially equivalent to quite powerful kings. Affording numerous castles really shouldn't be an issue for these people, though they of course wouldn't all be the size of Winterfell or Casterly Rock.

If we take a real historical example the French kings during the Late Middle Ages had at least three castles just in and outside Paris. These weren't small either, for that matter, but looked like this: 

[pictures removed for space reasons]

Then they had yet more in other parts of the kingdom, of course. 

I disagree with your implication that castles are in the same league as armies. To be sure, armies are a considerable expense, but they're not maintained permanently, and the cost of drafting them can be partially passed down onto your vassals, just as your own liegelord (the Lord Paramound or King) is passing it down to you. Castles on the other hand, are incredibly difficult to man and maintain, and this must be done on a permanent basis, forever. Even if a lordly House (eg one below Lord Paramount, such as the Brackens) could afford these costs over time, they may not be able to stump up for the formidable initial cost of building the castle in the first place, which could take over ten years. Unless the House is much richer than the norm, for example the Manderlys or Freys, it's unlikely they'll construct any more seats.

That said, I'm sure most Houses have a few minor holdfasts dotted around their lands for them to spend a night or so occasionally. I just doubt that those would be as grand as the main seat.

 

I'm no expert on French history, but as kings the monarch would have had access to all the resources of his kingdom, with no taxes, and would also have been able to acquire large amounts of credit. This does not apply so much to the average noble house (again, anything below Lord Paramount).

 

8 hours ago, Ashur said:

Tarbeck Hall was put to the torch and completely tore down. As for Castamere, is floded and ruined. Anyway, I don't think Tywin ever had the intention to restore those castles, because they are warning signs: this is what happens to you when you defy the Lannisters.

I appreciate that Tywin wished to send a warning, but I can't help but feel he was being a little short-sighted. He could have sacked the castles and left them to rot for a decade or so, then reclaim them and put his brothers in charge. He could display the bones of the Tarbecks and Reynes at the gates. Surely that would have been a sufficient warning? I suppose we must make allowances, considering Tywin was a teenager at the time.

 

 

Bottom line is, there aren't more Houses with two or more seats because that would make the narrative even more complex. Perhaps GRRM will give us an in-universe explanation in the future.

[wantedllc]

I too disagree. Armies were most definitely a necessity and the larger the more powerful. How many men do you think it took to build one of these monstrosities? So, I believe a smart King or lord, high or lower, would see it was best to allow his men to serve for him as opposed to building for him. Especially, when there's someone in any direction looking for his weakness

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

13 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I disagree with your implication that castles are in the same league as armies. To be sure, armies are a considerable expense, but they're not maintained permanently, and the cost of drafting them can be partially passed down onto your vassals, just as your own liegelord (the Lord Paramound or King) is passing it down to you. Castles on the other hand, are incredibly difficult to man and maintain, and this must be done on a permanent basis, forever. Even if a lordly House (eg one below Lord Paramount, such as the Brackens) could afford these costs over time, they may not be able to stump up for the formidable initial cost of building the castle in the first place, which could take over ten years. Unless the House is much richer than the norm, for example the Manderlys or Freys, it's unlikely they'll construct any more seats.

That said, I'm sure most Houses have a few minor holdfasts dotted around their lands for them to spend a night or so occasionally. I just doubt that those would be as grand as the main seat.

 

I'm no expert on French history, but as kings the monarch would have had access to all the resources of his kingdom, with no taxes, and would also have been able to acquire large amounts of credit. This does not apply so much to the average noble house (again, anything below Lord Paramount).

What I mean is that in real history the cream of the crop of the aristocracy (kings and high lords) were definitely capable of affording several castles, so I don't really see why the Westerosi lords wouldn't unless they are far poorer for some reason. Keep in mind that even a "normal" lordly house in Westeros such as the Brackens is very powerful compared to most real medieval aristocrats, in terms of how much territory they control and the sizes of the military forces we see them mustering. 

13 hours ago, wantedllc said:

I too disagree. Armies were most definitely a necessity and the larger the more powerful. How many men do you think it took to build one of these monstrosities? So, I believe a smart King or lord, high or lower, would see it was best to allow his men to serve for him as opposed to building for him. Especially, when there's someone in any direction looking for his weakness

But fortresses are necessities as well. They were incremental to controlling territory during the Middle Ages, hence why the warfare of the time revolved so much around sieges. 

 

[Maester of Valyria]

40 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

What I mean is that in real history the cream of the crop of the aristocracy (kings and high lords) were definitely capable of affording several castles, so I don't really see why the Westerosi lords wouldn't unless they are far poorer for some reason. Keep in mind that even a "normal" lordly house in Westeros such as the Brackens is very powerful compared to most real medieval aristocrats, in terms of how much territory they control and the sizes of the military forces we see them mustering. 

 

I understand your point, but I disagree that most Westerosi lords are capable of regularly financing huge castles. House Frey is probably the richest House in the Riverlands, and managed to field four thousand men in total. This is substantially more than most Houses would be able to provide.

We also don't know how much land individual families control, as we aren't given internal maps of the regions.

However, I do take your point that most Westerosi lords are just as, if not more, powerful as most European medieval lords, and once again the reason more don't have two castles is probably for convenience of writing.

[Jaak]

On 4.2.2016 at 11:53 AM, Ashur said:

Vassaliation work with levels. If you're a major house of the Reach, for example, you're vassal only to Highgarden and the King. But if you are a minor house, probably you are vassal to one of the major houses, then to Highgarden, and finally to the King. We don't know hoy many levels of vassaliation exists, but I think there are at least 4 levels: Osgrey -> Webber -> Tyrell -> Iron Throne.

Osgreys are vassals of Rowans, not Webbers.

[MountainThatSkates]

I think it just comes down to this being a version of Feudalism.  Think of French kings actually tearing down the walls of some of their followers because they were so afraid of other lords standing up to the king.  This could be the case in this instance.  Maybe as Westeros consolidated under the Iron Throne it a crime to the king for any strong noble to "own" more than one castle.  Hence you see someone like Kevan Lannister still taken very good care of, but the Lannisters weren't able to have all sorts of castles throughout their lands because then they could be a greater threat to the Iron Throne.

[Lord Varys]

It is actually a huge stab at realism that the royal family/the kings don't have multiple bigger and smaller castles, residences, villas, manses, hunting places, cottages, whatever you want all over the Realm they control.

Because that's what real medieval kings, everywhere. They had castles everywhere, and those they did not visit where left in the hands of officials who take care of them in their name. 

The former royal houses (Arryn, Lannister, and Stark) would also have many such places back from the day they were kings. After all, as far as we know Aegon took nothing from them, so they would have kept everything they had.

And other wealthy houses certainly would have had the money to raise and buy new castles and residences.

George slips something like that in there, occasionally, with the Osgreys once having multiple castles, the Peakes having three castles (once a former Manderly castle), Bran commanding a holdfast in Robb's name, and so on.

However, people would know about the royal castles, they would have been mentioned often and repeatedly if they would exist. Robert's basis for his hunting expeditions would be the royal hunting castle in the Kingswood, for instance.