How come most major lords only have one castle?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

17 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

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.

Yes, but at least 1000-2000 men seems normal for a Westerosi lord. Which is a lot. 

But yes I agree, the castle issue is probably a convenience of writing. The series is certainly hugely complex as it is, adding in another dimension like this wouldn't exactly make it easier for GRRM to write.  

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Not to mention how they ought to have affected the war. The conflict should have played out pretty differently if there had been a number of large, Joffrey-loyal, royal castles in the North and the Riverlands at the start of the war. At the Iron Islands too for that matter. 

[Maester of Valyria]

9 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes, but at least 1000-2000 men seems normal for a Westerosi lord. Which is a lot. 

But yes I agree, the castle issue is probably a convenience of writing. The series is certainly hugely complex as it is, adding in another dimension like this wouldn't exactly make it easier for GRRM to write. 

I'm sure that someone has done a detailed analysis of the military capabilities of various Houses.

Imagine! We might not even have Dance by now...shudders

[Dragonsmurf]

On 2016-02-02 at 10:49 PM, purple-eyes said:

By the way, Targ had two, but Summerhall was burned by themselves.

Three! The Red keep, Summerhall and Dragonstone.

[Dragonsmurf]

On 2016-02-05 at 3:07 PM, Veloknight said:

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...

I wish that too. There should be at least three titles for the nobles. But I guess it is easier in one way to call them all lords.

[purple-eyes]

7 minutes ago, Dragonsmurf said:

I wish that too. There should be at least three titles for the nobles. But I guess it is easier in one way to call them all lords.

Oh yeah, three levels would be great. But even himself would be confused. 

[Ashur]

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

Oh yeah, three levels would be great. But even himself would be confused. 

GRRM himself acknowledges that, in restrospect, he should have added at lest one feudal title. From a metting with members of the spanish forum asshai.com:

Quote

GRRM: The number of titles of medieval nobility multiplied over times, as the feudal system became more complex and the social structure more layered, with various degrees of precedence, etc. In the earlier periods -- say, England around the time of Henry I and William II Rufus -- all those different titles did not exist. I prefered the simplicity of those times. In hindsight, I probably should have added a least one more title to differentiate the great houses from their vassals, but I am glad I stayed clear of using the whole roster of noble stylings.

You can check the original chat here:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Asshai.com_Forum_Chat

I think that two levels is enough: County/Earldom for the major houses (Tyrell, Martell, Starks, etc.) and Barony for the next level of vassaliation (Hightower, Yronwood, Bolton, etc.). The houses sworn to a barony could be just lordships. But I guess GRRM thought that using nobility titles would remind the readers from late stages of feudalism, while he wanted to keep it a resemblance with primitive feudalism. 

 

[Lord Varys]

George really made the mistake to look for the English history for examples. The English were very primitive and backwater during the most of their days, having only barons and kings, essentially. Dukes began as a fancy title for royal princes in England (introduced by Edward III) but in other kingdoms of Europe they had long been established along with many other titles.

In fact, dukes actually were sovereigns of their own lands in many regions, mostly making them mere formal but never real subjects to the king (in France) or the emperor (in the Holy Roman Empire).

In that sense a title like that would clearly have helped to differentiate the great houses from their vassals. Hell, even de facto great lords like the Hightowers could have retained their special status by being dukes, too, with the Tyrells holding the fancy title of grand duke.

And there would have been certainly ways to make distinctions between lowest nobility (who don't have bannermen of their own) and greater houses like the Boltons, Manderlys, Freys, Royces, Redwynes, and Rowans.

Those could easily have been earls, reserving baron for the smaller houses.

I mean, the idea that a society like Westeros with its thousands years of history would still have a feudal system as primitive as (earlier) medieval England is just not very convincing.

No one in such a scenario like this would style address a man like Petyr Baelish and a man like Tywin Lannister with the same title. That's just not very precise...

[Lointain]

I find the feudal system in the Seven Kingdoms very similar to our own medieval feudal system, and i think that Martin don't used styles similar to the one we use, just because of his own artistic choice.

Maybe there is room for improvement, but i to me is like this:

- Lord Paramount = Duke

- Great Lord = Marquis

- Petty Lord = Count

- Landed Knight = Baron

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Lointain said:

I find the feudal system in the Seven Kingdoms very similar to our own medieval feudal system, and i think that Martin don't used styles similar to the one we use, just because of his own artistic choice.

Maybe there is room for improvement, but i to me is like this:

- Lord Paramount = Duke

- Great Lord = Marquis

- Petty Lord = Count

- Landed Knight = Baron

That doesn't really add up. Landed knights essentially are just knights with a house and some landed. They aren't lords, and lack privileges like the right of pits and gallows which all lords seem to have in Westeros. I'm not sure barons had that one in old England, either, but then real feudal monarchies actually didn't have independent little kings running around through their kingdoms, dispensing justice on a whim in their domains.

Westeros really is a strange place if you think about it.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I'm sure that someone has done a detailed analysis of the military capabilities of various Houses.

Imagine! We might not even have Dance by now...shudders

They have, and IIRC a thousand men or two for a normal lordly house seems pretty average. 

We probably wouldn't, no. Maybe not even AFFC. 

12 hours ago, Dragonsmurf said:

I wish that too. There should be at least three titles for the nobles. But I guess it is easier in one way to call them all lords.

Yeah. But again, I think can sympathize with why he felt he had to keep it simpler. 

The lack of a church in the political and military part of the setting is another example of this, I'm guessing. During the Middle Ages they were a huge power factor, not just through lobbying lords or making speeches to the masses like they do in Westeros, but also through economic and military strength. The church was usually the largest landowner in a country after the king, and though a lot of their incomes would have been spent on various religious obligations (maintaining churches, monasteries, hospitals and the like) they would also have had large surpluses to spend on for example fielding troops, building castles or providing money to individuals they supported. 

The men who were high up in the church hierarchy often weren't much like modern priests either, considering that they tended to be the sons of kings and lords and thus brought up within the culture of a warrior aristocracy along with everything that entailed. Especially Germany/The Holy Roman empire was notorious for having a church whose leaders really weren't much different from wordly princes, aside from their funny hats. 

Now GRRM wrote himself out of having to include this dimension in the story by having Maegor crushing the Faith 250 years before the current setting, but otherwise it should have been a major player. 

[Lointain]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't really add up. Landed knights essentially are just knights with a house and some landed. They aren't lords, and lack privileges like the right of pits and gallows which all lords seem to have in Westeros. I'm not sure barons had that one in old England, either, but then real feudal monarchies actually didn't have independent little kings running around through their kingdoms, dispensing justice on a whim in their domains.

Westeros really is a strange place if you think about it.

I was thinking about the nobility ranks in my own country, and that it is slightly diferent of the rank used in England.

And in ASOIAF no lord (even a Paramount Lord) can execute someone (i think you are refering this has "right of gallows"?) according to their own authority; they always use the king authority when issuuing a death sentence (or that seems the lawful thing to do...): when Ned executes Gared he do that "in the name of Robert". 

In my country, only the king had the right to condemn someone to death or to maiming of members, but like in the Seven Kingdoms, the high nobles that represent the authority of the Crown (or high judges) outside the capital and the royal fiefdoms, can condemn criminals to capital punishments in the name of the king - exactly what Ned did.

 

[Tarellen]

On February 5, 2016 at 5:03 AM, 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. 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. 

Yeah I would be more realistic if they moved from castle to castle to supply there followers and assert there authority. I wonder if like say the Starks instead of living at winterfell all the time had 4 seats they moved around from like say winterfell, the dreadfort, barrowtown, and white harbour. What type of life style would Eddard be liveing then with all that extra wealth and the constant moving?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

29 minutes ago, Tarellen said:

Yeah I would be more realistic if they moved from castle to castle to supply there followers and assert there authority. I wonder if like say the Starks instead of living at winterfell all the time had 4 seats they moved around from like say winterfell, the dreadfort, barrowtown, and white harbour. What type of life style would Eddard be liveing then with all that extra wealth and the constant moving?

Yes, he would have been living more like medieval aristocrats in that case. Lots of moving around.

Another point is that while don't really recall how the castle interiors are described in the books themselves, the way they are depicted in the TV-series is quite different from how castles looked in real life. At least the actual residences (as opposed to ruins or I suppose purely military garrisons) tended to be very lavishly and colorfully decorated and furnished. Not the cavernous, dungeon-like halls we get in GOT. 

Here are some reconstructions of a Norman castle in France, one of the English kings' main residences until the French crown conquered Normandy. Also the birthplace of William the Conqueror (though it didn't look like this then). 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Bluetiger]

In my country all nobles were regarded as equal - landless beggar (who could prove that he is noble born) and landlord with dozen cities, few hundred villages and privatr army nearly as big as royal army had the same rights (to vote during next king's elections in late reneissance and enlightment) and priviledges.

[Tarellen]

2 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes, he would have been living more like medieval aristocrats in that case. Lots of moving around.

Another point is that while don't really recall how the castle interiors are described in the books themselves, the way they are depicted in the TV-series is quite different from how castles looked in real life. At least the actual residences (as opposed to ruins or I suppose purely military garrisons) tended to be very lavishly and colorfully decorated and furnished. Not the cavernous, dungeon-like halls we get in GOT. 

Here are some reconstructions of a Norman castle in France, one of the English kings' main residences until the French crown conquered Normandy. Also the birthplace of William the Conqueror (though it didn't look like this then). 

 

  

 

 

 

 

It would have been interesting to see Ned as an itirant noble

[Tarellen]

On February 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

George really made the mistake to look for the English history for examples. The English were very primitive and backwater during the most of their days, having only barons and kings, essentially. Dukes began as a fancy title for royal princes in England (introduced by Edward III) but in other kingdoms of Europe they had long been established along with many other titles.

In fact, dukes actually were sovereigns of their own lands in many regions, mostly making them mere formal but never real subjects to the king (in France) or the emperor (in the Holy Roman Empire).

In that sense a title like that would clearly have helped to differentiate the great houses from their vassals. Hell, even de facto great lords like the Hightowers could have retained their special status by being dukes, too, with the Tyrells holding the fancy title of grand duke.

And there would have been certainly ways to make distinctions between lowest nobility (who don't have bannermen of their own) and greater houses like the Boltons, Manderlys, Freys, Royces, Redwynes, and Rowans.

Those could easily have been earls, reserving baron 

I mean, the idea that a society like Westeros with its thousands years of history would still have a feudal system as primitive as (earlier) medieval England is just not very convincing.

No one in such a scenario like this would style address a man like Petyr Baelish and a man like Tywin Lannister with the same title. That's just not very precise...

Yeah aren't nobility obsessed with who has the older title or who's family got powerful earlier