What if the Starks had 4 seats

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The English situation during the Wars of the Roses was a symptom of a late medieval development - accumulation of wealth and lands in the hands of very few families due to crucial marriages and inheritances (the same way House Hapsburg took over Europe roughly in the same time) - as well as a rather specific local situation (the creation of powerful magnates with royal blood beginning in the reign of Edward III - other monarchs in Europe had little to no problems with their second or third cousins).

Story-wise George greatly draws inspiration from the era of the Wars of the Roses while he seems to have modeled his feudal landscape more on the England in or shortly after the Norman Conquest (the Targaryens effectively are very much based on the Norman/Plantagenet Kings of England). But in the real world society changed greatly between 1066 and the late 15th century while there were no real progress/change/technological advance in Westeros since, well, the introduction of steel-making.

A medieval king in reality - around the time of the Norman Conquest or even a few years earlier - would have to be traveling king simply because nobody would obey him or heed his word if he was far away and the lord in question had his own strong/impregnable castle.

The idea that a kingdom like the North (or later the entirety of Westeros) can be ruled centrailistically from a castle like Winterfell without more modern institutions like a strong and capable royal administration/bureaucracy and, more importantly, a strong standing royal army/police force is just not very believable.

One can reasonably say that Aegon the Conqueror could afford to merciful and generous during the Conquest - he had huge dragons. If the Starks, Lannisters, or Arryns would ever rise against him he could eradicate their very efficiently.

But the Targaryens were really unique in that - the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, Durrandons, etc. had no reason to assume that the royal houses they humbled and deposed would not rise against them later on. I mean, how realistic is it that in a world which includes great guys like Walder Frey, Tywin Lannister, Gregor Clegane, Littlefinger, or Roose and Ramsay Bolton that a forced oath (sworn at sword point after a lost battle) is really considered by binding by the guy who has been forced to swear such a vow.

And it really seems that most of the petty kings were deposed this way - only the Gardeners seem to be famous for conquering other kingdoms with marriages and treaties.

The freak seasons certainly would have an effect on Westerosi society, but I really don't see how this could have preserved the feudal system rather than motivating people to move towards centralism.

Good post!

Before the formation of government institutions the power of a ruler depended more on his personal relationships rather than any formal authority, meaning that he had to know and keep in regular contact with his vassals in a way that wasn't necessary for later monarchs.

In Viking Age Denmark for example it is assumed that almost everyone would either have seen the king themselves or know someone who had. 

[Tarellen]

13 hours ago, VeryLittleGravitasIndeed said:

No. You're replacing a reasonable if unusual situation (the Starks having one major well positioned holding) with a flat out impossible one. Look at the triangle made between Winterfell, the Dreadfort and White Harbour. Even the shortest side is quite a bit longer than the Wall. Nobody can effectively rule that much land - the Manderly's have lesser lords sworn to them in order to reduce the burden.

 

Unless the Starks are powerless in the north or have a huge bureaucracy the situation in the books sould be impossible 

 

8 hours ago, devilish said:

The last thing the North needs is more isolationist Starks, which would contribute in keeping the North backwards and righteous. 

Not to forget that there would be more incentives for rebellion. Lord Bran Stark Lord of White Harbour may easily seal a deal with the Lannisters, have his brother killed and rule instead with the crown's blessing (probably after marrying  Mycella)

Why would they be more backwards and isolationist? Also Robb would still be the lord of white harbor.

Also nobody answered my question of what it would be like if the Starks owned all this extra property and no boltons or lady dusiten. 

[VeryLittleGravitasIndeed]

27 minutes ago, Tarellen said:

Unless the Starks are powerless in the north or have a huge bureaucracy the situation in the books sould be impossible

 

Not really. The Starks are dam clever in choosing their vassals. Take the Manderly's for example - they originally come from the mouth of the Mander in the Reach, driven away by the Gardeners. They received all their lands due to the Starks which in turn brought a lot of wealth from the south with the wealth of White Harbour being built on Manderly wealth, craftsmen and trade connections. There's no way the Starks would have had such a prosperous port otherwise and the really smart bit is that House Manderly not only owes everything to the Starks but they're also worshippers of the Seven which means they'd never have any chance of ruling the North. Basically they have to be loyal to the Starks or otherwise they'd be viewed as 'those rich, disloyal, ungrateful foreigners' by the local lords.

House Bolton? Seems a risky choice of letting them keep their lands but they're caught between the main Stark lands, the Karstark lands and the Hornwood lands to the south. The Boltons are surrounded by natural enemies and have no real allies due to their history. Without a great amount of weakness from the Stark side no rebellion would be happening while the Boltons make excellent hatchet men. Karstarks are Stark kinsmen and are balanced with the Boltons, the west coast have the risk of Ironborn raids if they rebel and the Starks have the center of the North under lockdown, the whole area around Winterfell and down to Moat Catilin is theirs (even if administered by landed knights).

Simply put it having all lands concentrated in the center is the only way to efficiently administer something the size of the North especially when we take the climate into account. In the winter communications break down - even a mounted escort would be very, very lucky to make 15 miles in a day. No lord can afford to spend at least a quarter of the year simply riding around in the blizzard without being able to do anything productive. That's leaving aside the small detail that Bolton and Manderly have lordly vassals of their own - if they can't comfortably administer a far smaller area how could the Starks deal with a vastly larger one.

 

27 minutes ago, Tarellen said:

 

Why would they be more backwards and isolationist? Also Robb would still be the lord of white harbor.

Also nobody answered my question of what it would be like if the Starks owned all this extra property and no boltons or lady dusiten.

 

Because it is an absurd scenario. You're talking about the Starks directly ruling an area nearly the size of England, in a world where winters can last years. They simply couldn't do it unless every single Stark lord is some sort of genius.

[devilish]

12 hours ago, Tarellen said:

Unless the Starks are powerless in the north or have a huge bureaucracy the situation in the books sould be impossible 

 

Why would they be more backwards and isolationist? Also Robb would still be the lord of white harbor.

Also nobody answered my question of what it would be like if the Starks owned all this extra property and no boltons or lady dusiten. 

Robb was still lord of the Dreadfort despite being handled to the Boltons same as King Aerys owned the North despite being in the hands of the Starks. That means little isn't it?

Large stretches of land need administrators and the Lord would be better off having administrators who know the land and have earned the trust of the people there instead of nobodies who would piss the local people of triggering sabotages and rebellions in the process. Regarding betrayal well those things do happen especially when the leader is losing. Take Libya as an example. The two governments in Libya are filled with people who once kissed Gheddafi's arse. None of them say anything good about him now

 

[Veloknight]

On 2/10/2016 at 7:39 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Can you name a dynasty that successfully did that without resorting to frequent wars?

Well, frequent wars are honestly part of the package in a feudal system. That being said, the royal houses of France and England. Both had capitals but numerous ancillary territories and a substantial personal desmene, including some scattered territories that helped them maintain a presence in every part of their kingdom. It's just good sense from the King's perspective, since otherwise you get lords doing what Roose does and defying all your laws within their realm.

The entire concept of primogeniture says you shouldn't keep dividing your holdings between heirs. The early Frankish kings - think Charlemagne - did, and it was uniformly a disaster. It helped permanently split France and Germany when they might have otherwise evolved as one nation, led to numerous wars between close family members who controlled inherited different kingdoms, and lastly it fails the central purpose you, as a king / lord paramount (though a weak king in all but name is what the LPs are, given the size of Westeros) have politically: amalgamation and use of power.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 minutes ago, Veloknight said:

Well, frequent wars are honestly part of the package in a feudal system. That being said, the royal houses of France and England. Both had capitals but numerous ancillary territories and a substantial personal desmene, including some scattered territories that helped them maintain a presence in every part of their kingdom. It's just good sense from the King's perspective, since otherwise you get lords doing what Roose does and defying all your laws within their realm.

My problem is not with the Starks having other property, they clearly do as Moat Cailin is theirs and there are other holdfasts within the huge Stark lands, while it stands to reason that the Masterly Houses of the North are possibly hereditary Castellans managing the Starks lands, the problem is divided rule. Spending 25% of their time (well less than that as the huge distance of the North means there is going to be a lot of time wasted on travelling) ruling from each settlement when they are so far away from each other.

While it is true that Henry VIII used to move around castle to castle in the summer, this was more him copying the French Kings in showing a sign of his strength despite the huge amount of money it would cost taking his royal court castle to castle (all of which were far closer to him than the three settlements mentioned by OP) as well as the constant furnishing and upgrading of these palaces. Henry also had the money to do this as his father left him a full treasury while the dissolution of the monasteries gave him an awful lot of cash. His daughter, Elizabeth was not, as when she travelled in the summer it was mostly to stay at other Lords Castles (which was a huge hassle for them regarding the expense).

 

Now we know that Ned did travel in the North, regularly visiting his vassals, while they would also do the same (events such as the Harvest festival) but the North economy would make it unlikely that the Stark court could travel that much that often, especially as Winter pretty much shuts them down for a couple of years every decade.

 

Few dynasties could do this ruling from multiple locations malarkey -let me stress, owning other properties is not what I have a problem with, as leaving those lands with no clear ruler weakens them when it comes to war in those provinces or disrule and they have to wait weeks for the rulers to get there and manage it. It might work for a generation or two but eventually those power vaccums would be filled by the castellans who would get greedy and want their children to inherit their power and rebel. It is a recipe for civil strife and not possible in the long term (which is what the Stark dynasty is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[direpupy]

10 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Few dynasties could do this ruling from multiple locations malarkey -let me stress, owning other properties is not what I have a problem with, as leaving those lands with no clear ruler weakens them when it comes to war in those provinces or disrule and they have to wait weeks for the rulers to get there and manage it. It might work for a generation or two but eventually those power vaccums would be filled by the castellans who would get greedy and want their children to inherit their power and rebel. It is a recipe for civil strife and not possible in the long term (which is what the Stark dynasty is).

This is actually what happened in France in areas like the Berry and the Auvergne the castellans of the castles that where spread out in the area assumed the right's of the bannum for themselves, it is one of the main reasons the Berry was eventually made a separed duchy and given to a royal prince as a appange.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

Few dynasties could do this ruling from multiple locations malarkey -let me stress, owning other properties is not what I have a problem with, as leaving those lands with no clear ruler weakens them when it comes to war in those provinces or disrule and they have to wait weeks for the rulers to get there and manage it. It might work for a generation or two but eventually those power vaccums would be filled by the castellans who would get greedy and want their children to inherit their power and rebel. It is a recipe for civil strife and not possible in the long term (which is what the Stark dynasty is).

Except that you got this wrong. Ruling from multiple locations was the norm throughout the medieval period, not the exception. It stopped when rulers (due to the gradual centralization of the state) in the Early Modern Period became powerful and wealthy enough to not need it, not the other way around. "Capitals" did not really exist in most medieval states, or at least not in the sense that we mean when we use that term today. 

Having just four castles (as in the thread start) would also be very little for a king of a reasonably sized country. Henry II of England had around 50. Holy Roman Emperors, as another example, had Königspfalz ("Royal palaces") built within around a day's march from each other spread out across most of their empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz 

So the time wasted on traveling would actually not have been that much, as long as the royal properties were somewhat evenly spaced out throughout the country. 

Neither of your examples were medieval monarch either for that matter. 

[direpupy]

3 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Except that you got this wrong. Ruling from multiple locations was the norm throughout the medieval period, not the exception. It stopped when rulers (due to the gradual centralization of the state) in the Early Modern Period became powerful and wealthy enough to not need it, not the other way around. Having just four castles (as in the thread start) would also be very little for a king of a reasonably sized country. Henry II of England had around 50. Holy Roman Emperors, as another example, had Königspfalz ("Royal palaces") built within around a day's march from each other spread out across most of their empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz 

So the time wasted on traveling would actually not have been that much, as long as the royal properties were somewhat evenly spaced out throughout the country. 

Neither of your examples were medieval monarch either for that matter. 

Only during the early mediëval period, this custom started to die out during the high middle ages and was already a thing of the past during the late middle ages. Even your own example of the Holy Roman Emperor and his Königspfalz state this

taken from the wikipedia link you provided.

"The term Kaiserpfalz ("imperial palace") or Königspfalz ("royal palace") refers to a number of castles across the Holy Roman Empire that served as temporary, secondary seats of power for the Holy Roman Emperor in the Early and High Middle Ages. The term was also used more rarely for a bishop who, as a territorial lord (Landesherr), had to provide the king and his entourage with board and lodging, a duty referred to as Gastungspflicht."

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

46 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Only during the early mediëval period, this custom started to die out during the high middle ages and was already a thing of the past during the late middle ages. Even your own example of the Holy Roman Emperor and his Königspfalz state this

taken from the wikipedia link you provided.

"The term Kaiserpfalz ("imperial palace") or Königspfalz ("royal palace") refers to a number of castles across the Holy Roman Empire that served as temporary, secondary seats of power for the Holy Roman Emperor in the Early and High Middle Ages. The term was also used more rarely for a bishop who, as a territorial lord (Landesherr), had to provide the king and his entourage with board and lodging, a duty referred to as Gastungspflicht."

No, it was definitely not only during the early medieval period (the years 500-1000 AD). The creation of strong central governments and their associated bureaucracies was a gradual process. So it is true that you could say that there was a greater stationary element to rulership in the High Middle Ages than there was in the Early Middle Ages, and in the Late Middle Ages than there had been during the High Middle Ages. But even during the last parts of the medieval period and the beginning of the Early Modern Period most monarchs were still frequently traveling between different properties, palaces and castles that they owned throughout their kingdoms, rather than being bound to capitals. If not to quite the same degree has their ancestors had done during, say, the 11th century.

Indeed it is not until around the middle of the 1300's you can start talking about most Western European kingdoms having "capitals" at all, especially not the Holy Roman Empire considering its decentralized nature. Spain did not get a main royal residence until the mid 1500's. 

Looking at English kings during the 15th century they seem to have had around a dozen castles that they considered important enough to keep in high maintenance, for example (along with many others that were just the seats of sheriffs and other lower royal employees, that were kept in poor conditions). 

This is all without mentioning that the entire Stark bureaucracy consists of one old man, who is also a doctor and a teacher at the same time. So in that regard they have even less in the way of administrative institutions than most early medieval monarchs. Perhaps more like what you'd expect from a 9th century Viking warchief or something. 

[direpupy]

36 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

No, it was definitely not only during the early medieval period (the years 500-1000 AD). The creation of strong central governments and their associated bureaucracies was a gradual process. So it is true that you could say that there was a greater stationary element to rulership in the High Middle Ages than there was in the Early Middle Ages, and in the Late Middle Ages than there had been during the High Middle Ages. But even during the last parts of the medieval period and the beginning of the Early Modern Period most monarchs were still frequently traveling between different properties, palaces and castles that they owned throughout their kingdoms rather than being bound to a capital. If not to quite the same degree has their ancestors had done during, say, the 11th century. Indeed it is not until around the middle of the 1300's you can start talking about most Western European kingdoms really having "capitals", and especially not the Holy Roman Empire considering its really decentralized nature. Spain did not get a main royal residence until the mid 1500's. 

 Looking at English kings during the 15th century they seem to have had around a dozen castles that they considered important enough to keep in high maintenance, for example (along with many others that were just the seats of sheriffs and other lower royal employees, that were kept in poor conditions). 

This is all without mentioning that the entire Stark bureaucracy consists of one old man, who is also a doctor and a teacher at the same time. So in that regard they have even less in the way of administrative institutions than most early medieval monarchs. Perhaps more like what you'd expect from a 9th century Viking warchief or something. 

The "only" part was a reference to it being the norm not that it did not exist in latter period's, it stil existed during the High middle ages but was not the norm. England France and The Holy Roman Empire are really not that good example's since they where the realms that expiriensed the most wars and troubles thus calling for a king to show his face often, in the majority of the mediëval realms it had died out by the end of the High middle ages.

As to Spain, Spain as a united kingdom did not exist until 1492 until then it consisted out of several kingdoms Castille, Aragon and Navarre. The Crowns of Aragon and Castille actually consisted of several smaller kingdoms, the Crown of Aragon apart from Aragon itself it included the kingdoms of Majorca, Valencia, Sardinia and Napels, and  the Crown of Castille consisted of the kingdoms of Castile, León, Toledo, Galicia, Murcia, Jaén, Córdoba and Seville, so in there case they where traveling between the "capitals" or main residences of there seperate kingdoms.

Keeping castles in high maintenace proofs nothing they where defensife structures, such structures where maintained wel beyond the middle ages by kings, often being converted in to more modern forts that could withstand cannonfire.

as to the Stark bureaucracy The maester is a advisor not the whole administration, people like Vayon Poole the steward would be a beter example of a person of the Stark administration. And just because they are not mentioned does not mean these institutions do not exict.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Except that you got this wrong. Ruling from multiple locations was the norm throughout the medieval period, not the exception.

The norm? Can you name these medieval dynasties that ruled equally from lands 500-600 miles away like is being suggested in this scenario?

Let me repeat myself

• having other properties is not the problem with this scenario, we really have no reason to believe that the Starks did not have other properties within the North
• nor is rulers travelling around their lands, as we are told Ned regularly visited the other regions of the North

The trouble with this scenario is leaving these lands without proper rulers and only having them properly ruled for 15-20% part of the year (given that the distances will mean a large amount of time the court is travelling between locations).

It makes no sense and I want to see these examples of lands that had no Lords/Earls/etc. ruling these lands in the absence of the Kings/Lords.

Explain to me what happens when two petty lords have a dispute that leads to bloodshed, does justice be put on hold for 8-9 months?

 

 

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

 

 "Capitals" did not really exist in most medieval states, or at least not in the sense that we mean when we use that term today. 

Did I state that capitals have never changed?

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Having just four castles (as in the thread start) would also be very little for a king of a reasonably sized country.

The thread has nothing to do with castles, but rule. I apologize if I had not made myself clear, castles is not the problem with OP's scenario but the lack of Lords in White Harbor, Barrowton and Dreadfort ruling those lands in the Starks absence.

Kings having castles all over their kingdom is not the illogical part, having no one with authority to rule those lands 500 miles away is.

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

 

Henry II of England had around 50. Holy Roman Emperors, as another example, had Königspfalz ("Royal palaces") built within around a day's march from each other spread out across most of their empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz 

I am not sure what this has to do with OP's scenario. There are other Stark castles days away within the Stark demesne, Rodrik has to visit them to raise more Stark men to fight the Ironborn.

Ruling from great distance away is my issue. While possible fro a generation or so but not for much longer.

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

So the time wasted on traveling would actually not have been that much, as long as the royal properties were somewhat evenly spaced out throughout the country. 

White Harbor was 700 miles away, that is quite some time taking the Stark court there and back every year. Not only is this an impractical for the time consumed travelling each year to these four locations but the expense would be large and fewer taxes would be collected in these lands when the Rulers were elsewhere.

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Neither of your examples were medieval monarch either for that matter. 

Henry VIII was the a medieval King, the last one but it was the mediaeval period.

 

 

 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

55 minutes ago, direpupy said:

The "only" part was a reference to it being the norm not that it did not exist in latter period's, it stil existed during the High middle ages but was not the norm. England France and The Holy Roman Empire are really not that good example's since they where the realms that expiriensed the most wars and troubles thus calling for a king to show his face often, in the majority of the mediëval realms it had died out by the end of the High middle ages.

As to Spain, Spain as a united kingdom did not exist until 1492 until then it consisted out of several kingdoms Castille, Aragon and Navarre. The Crowns of Aragon and Castille actually consisted of several smaller kingdoms, the Crown of Aragon apart from Aragon itself it included the kingdoms of Majorca, Valencia, Sardinia and Napels, and  the Crown of Castille consisted of the kingdoms of Castile, León, Toledo, Galicia, Murcia, Jaén, Córdoba and Seville, so in there case they where traveling between the "capitals" or main residences of there seperate kingdoms.

Keeping castles in high maintenace proofs nothing they where defensife structures, such structures where maintained wel beyond the middle ages by kings, often being converted in to more modern forts that could withstand cannonfire.

as to the Stark bureaucracy The maester is a advisor not the whole administration, people like Vayon Poole the steward would be a beter example of a person of the Stark administration. And just because they are not mentioned does not mean these institutions do not exict.

Okay. There were not all that many medieval kingdoms aside from those though. Which ones do you mean? 

30 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The norm? Can you name these medieval dynasties that ruled equally from lands 500-600 miles away like is being suggested in this scenario?

Let me repeat myself

• having other properties is not the problem with this scenario, we really have no reason to believe that the Starks did not have other properties within the North
• nor is rulers travelling around their lands, as we are told Ned regularly visited the other regions of the North

The trouble with this scenario is leaving these lands without proper rulers and only having them properly ruled for 15-20% part of the year (given that the distances will mean a large amount of time the court is travelling between locations).

It makes no sense and I want to see these examples of lands that had no Lords/Earls/etc. ruling these lands in the absence of the Kings/Lords.

Explain to me what happens when two petty lords have a dispute that leads to bloodshed, does justice be put on hold for 8-9 months?

 

 

Did I state that capitals have never changed?

The thread has nothing to do with castles, but rule. I apologize if I had not made myself clear, castles is not the problem with OP's scenario but the lack of Lords in White Harbor, Barrowton and Dreadfort ruling those lands in the Starks absence.

Kings having castles all over their kingdom is not the illogical part, having no one with authority to rule those lands 500 miles away is.

I am not sure what this has to do with OP's scenario. There are other Stark castles days away within the Stark demesne, Rodrik has to visit them to raise more Stark men to fight the Ironborn.

Ruling from great distance away is my issue. While possible fro a generation or so but not for much longer.

White Harbor was 700 miles away, that is quite some time taking the Stark court there and back every year. Not only is this an impractical for the time consumed travelling each year to these four locations but the expense would be large and fewer taxes would be collected in these lands when the Rulers were elsewhere.

Henry VIII was the a medieval King, the last one but it was the mediaeval period.

 

 

 

I see. It seems we had some confusion regarding definitions then. Yes, the Starks would probably need feudal lords ruling over most of those lands that far away from their main residence. However, it would still have been realistic and smart if they held important castles in those regions as well. If not with as large fiefs attached to them as those that are now controlled by the Boltons and Manderlys respectively. It would have been a lot trickier for these lords to rebel if there had been large royal castles threatening their lands if they did, and where their ruler routinely showed up and checked on what they were doing instead of just sitting in Winterfell.

Really though the issue to me comes down to Westerosi kings/lords paramount seemingly having very little power and wealth of their own, with almost everything belonging to their vassals in some way. Who essentially are like kings themselves and can do whatever they want.

Medieval castles were expensive in relative terms, but if the Starks as rulers of the entire North still can't afford to build and maintain a number of them then they must be very poor, and it is a wonder how they can keep their vassals in check at all. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I would like to add though that it was certainly possible for kings to hold large areas of land quite far away from each other. Here is France in 1388.  

As you can see there are large regions of royal domains both in the south and north of the kingdom. 

[direpupy]

26 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Okay. There were not all that many medieval kingdoms aside from those though. Which ones do you mean? 

I see. It seems we had some confusion regarding definitions then. Yes, the Starks would probably need feudal lords ruling over most of those lands that far away from their main residence. However, it would still have been realistic and smart if they held important castles in those regions as well. If not with as large fiefs attached to them as those that are now controlled by the Boltons and Manderlys respectively. It would have been a lot trickier for these lords to rebel if there had been large royal castles threatening their lands if they did, and where their ruler routinely showed up and checked on what they were doing instead of just sitting in Winterfell.

Really though the issue to me comes down to Westerosi kings/lords paramount seemingly having very little power and wealth of their own, with almost everything seeming to belong to their vassals who essentially are like kings themselves and can do whatever they want.

Medieval castles were expensive in relative terms, but if the Starks as rulers of the entire North still can't afford to build and maintain a number of them then they must be very poor, and it is a wonder how they can keep their vassals in check at all. 

Apart from the kingdoms in Spain i mentioned you also had Portugal, Scotland, Norway, Lithuania, Poland (these last two merged at some point in a personel Union), Hungary, Cyprus, Bohemia (although this was actually part of The Holy Roman Empire) Serbia, Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, and many smaller and often shortlived kingdoms such as Albania (1272-1368) and Bosnia (1377-1463)

Perhaps you missed it but as Thelittledragonthatcould said Ned actually did travel around his holdings as is evidenced in Jon remembering wat Ned said about his visit's to the Mountain Clans. Also just because no castle's in remote area's of the North belonging to the Stark's have been mentioned does not mean they do not exist, the castle's that we do know of in the North are generely mentioned becouse of the assosition with a Major Lord there strategic importance or because something important is happening there. There could in such a large area litteraly be hundreds of unmentioned castles.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Apart from the kingdoms in Spain i mentioned you also had Portugal, Scotland, Norway, Lithuania, Poland (these last two merged at some point in a personel Union), Hungary, Cyprus, Bohemia (although this was actually part of The Holy Roman Empire) Serbia, Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, and many smaller and often shortlived kingdoms such as Albania (1272-1368) and Bosnia (1377-1463)

Perhaps you missed it but as Thelittledragonthatcould said Ned actually did travel around his holdings as is evidenced in Jon remembering wat Ned said about his visit's to the Mountain Clans. Also just because no castle's in remote area's of the North belonging to the Stark's have been mentioned does not mean they do not exist, the castle's that we do know of in the North are generely mentioned becouse of the assosition with a Major Lord there strategic importance or because something important is happening there. There could in such a large area litteraly be hundreds of unmentioned castles.

Yeah, but which of those had stopped having traveling kings and gone over to permanent capitals? 

As for your other point. If those castles existed why didn't Bran and Rickon just go to one of them after Winterfell was burned instead of talking about fleeing to Manderly, the Night's Watch, or worst of all the insane cannibal island of Skagos?

No, I don't think they are supposed to have much outside of Winterfell. 

[Veloknight]

20 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Apart from the kingdoms in Spain i mentioned you also had Portugal, Scotland, Norway, Lithuania, Poland (these last two merged at some point in a personel Union), Hungary, Cyprus, Bohemia (although this was actually part of The Holy Roman Empire) Serbia, Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, and many smaller and often shortlived kingdoms such as Albania (1272-1368) and Bosnia (1377-1463)

So your argument is that due to size, the North can't be compared to the big medieval kingdoms like France - a country which is probably a similar size to the North - due to it's size, but should instead be compared to the Isle of Man?

20 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Perhaps you missed it but as Thelittledragonthatcould said Ned actually did travel around his holdings as is evidenced in Jon remembering wat Ned said about his visit's to the Mountain Clans. Also just because no castle's in remote area's of the North belonging to the Stark's have been mentioned does not mean they do not exist, the castle's that we do know of in the North are generely mentioned becouse of the assosition with a Major Lord there strategic importance or because something important is happening there. There could in such a large area litteraly be hundreds of unmentioned castles.

Why can't we just accept that GRRM didn't know that much about the feudal system when he wrote the books, despite his stated interest in things like royal tax policy, and move on? I don't think it detracts from my enjoyment much.

As for the OP: Well, the Starks would certainly control much more wealth and power, and their political problems would likely be more focused on dealing with the various petty lords who may vie for important - but non-hereditary - offices. Can we assume that the North is the only Kingdom still organized like, well, a kingdom? I for one feel that Dorne should be too - these two kingdoms were brought into Westeros peacefully, and are on the periphery, so it makes sense that the Targs might have let them keep a bigger part of their personal realms.

[direpupy]

27 minutes ago, Veloknight said:

So your argument is that due to size, the North can't be compared to the big medieval kingdoms like France - a country which is probably a similar size to the North - due to it's size, but should instead be compared to the Isle of Man?

Why can't we just accept that GRRM didn't know that much about the feudal system when he wrote the books, despite his stated interest in things like royal tax policy, and move on? I don't think it detracts from my enjoyment much.

As for the OP: Well, the Starks would certainly control much more wealth and power, and their political problems would likely be more focused on dealing with the various petty lords who may vie for important - but non-hereditary - offices. Can we assume that the North is the only Kingdom still organized like, well, a kingdom? I for one feel that Dorne should be too - these two kingdoms were brought into Westeros peacefully, and are on the periphery, so it makes sense that the Targs might have let them keep a bigger part of their personal realms.

No that is not my argument Poland and Lithuania where actually bigger than Engeland Lithuania at its biggest extent was actually almost as big as France, size was not my point at all read a post before you comment.

I don't think it was a case of him not knowing but more a case of him trying not to overcomplicate his books, so he simplified the feudal system in the books for that purpose.

35 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yeah, but which of those had stopped having traveling kings and gone over to permanent capitals? 

As for your other point. If those castles existed why didn't Bran and Rickon just go to one of them after Winterfell was burned instead of talking about fleeing to Manderly, the Night's Watch, or worst of all the insane cannibal island of Skagos?

No, I don't think they are supposed to have much outside of Winterfell. 

Pretty much al of them had a semi-permanent residence, they had other places they owned but only went there for special occasions or to hear a case that there local representative was not high enough in rank for to deal with. altough most did have a summer, winter and several hunting residences. But travel was kept to a minimum by them, largely because they had no need to. Just like the Starks had no need to, Ned did travel but only when it was requered like when setteling a feud between two of the Mauntain Clans

If they where not save in Winterfell they where most certainly not going to be save in a lesser castle, and after Ramsay betraying Rodrik Cassel at the batlle of Winterfell they would not know who to trust.

Apart from Winterfell they have Moat Caelin, The Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point and the coast line between those last two does not belong to any other major Lord either, so they have plenty outside of Winterfell. And that is not counting any castles they might have in the rest of the North.

As to administration even France had a permanent adminastrative centre in the monestary of Saint-Denis to whose monks they intrusted much of there clerical work.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I would like to add though that it was certainly possible for kings to hold large areas of land quite far away from each other. Here is France in 1388.  

As you can see there are large regions of royal domains both in the south and north of the kingdom. 

Nice map 1388 in that time the Southern part of the royal domain the Languedoc was admistered  by Jean of Berry the kings uncle as his Leutenant General of Languedoc, such a person was appointed because it was impossible to administer such a far away territory by yourself as king. The same goes for most of the rest of the territory's like Normandy and Champagne. In turn Jean appointed others to administer his territory's of Berry Poitou and Auvergne.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

I don't think the rest of the Seven Kingdoms would allow one house to consolidate this much power.  Even though Robert was best friends with Ned, he would realize how dangerous it would be for the stability of the kingdom for one Lord to have that much power.  He would strongly encourage Ned to grant the lands to loyal bannermen instead of ruling them directly or through his family.  The Starks are loyal and well-loved, but there's no telling how that could change.  It would effectively be granting the North independence, even if it wasn't officially so, and I'm sure the Stark's popularity in the North would wane, even - factions would form so the remaining lords could defend themselves should the Starks decide to expand their power even further.