Military strengths of the Houses of Westeros

[Bright Blue Eyes]

We know some of the differences. GRRM explicitly mentioned the right of pits and gallows, which is a damn important distinction.

The rest? Let some poor novices at the Citadel worry about that, we don't need to earn any links on Westerosi law, nor do we have the lawbooks (nor the time) to figure out all the details.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

We know some of the differences. GRRM explicitly mentioned the right of pits and gallows, which is a damn important distinction.

The rest? Let some poor novices at the Citadel worry about that, we don't need to earn any links on Westerosi law, nor do we have the lawbooks (nor the time) to figure out all the details.

Yeah, but those are only between landed knights and lords, right? Not between lords and masters.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Nope, those are the defining features of Lords. Masters aren't Lords.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just on the Glovers and Tallharts.

We know that some Landed Knights can be more powerful than some petty lords. The famous examples are the Templetons, who can raise more than 1000 men despite being only Landed Knights.

Now, even if the title of Master is the Northern equivalent of Landed Knight, which we don't know for sure yet, the Glovers and Tallharts clearly aren't your run of the mill Landed Knights. Manderly says he has more than a hundred Landed Knights that do fealty to him. Clearly, the Tallharts and Glovers are in a very different category to these Landed Knights.

In fact, if they are Landed Knights, they would appear to be at least in the Templeton category. But personally, I believe that the title of Master represents a higher rank than that of Landed Knight. I think it is a unique Northern title, which, as I cautiously suggested some years ago on the forum, might be similar to that of Marcher Lord. Which in the Northern context might be a form of military title, on a par with a Lord, but with a more specific focus and intention.

We see for example that the Glovers have married into House Stark in recent times (the last few hundred years). That would be quite an achievement for a mere Landed Knight.

In any case, I don't think Master is an exact like for like with a Landed Knight. I think it is something unique in the North. But we obviously need more information to know for sure.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

We see for example that the Glovers have married into House Stark in recent times (the last few hundred years). That would be quite an achievement for a mere Landed Knight.

 

Why would that be such an achievement? Kevan married the daughter of a landed Knight, Tyrells regularly married Gardeners and we know of two occasions from the Stark family tree were they have married daughters from the Mountain Clans.

Some Landed knights are every bit as prestigious as Lords, they just technically have a lower rank.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Why would that be such an achievement? Kevan married the daughter of a landed Knight, Tyrells regularly married Gardeners and we know of two occasions from the Stark family tree were they have married daughters from the Mountain Clans.

Some Landed knights are every bit as prestigious as Lords, they just technically have a lower rank.

 

I'm well aware of the Mountain Clan marriages, and pondered on that before posting on the matter. However, the Mountain Clans appear to be quite valued to the Starks, and as we see, focus heavily on the honour of getting personal acknowledgment from their liege lords. It seems that by marrying into the Flints, the Starks were able to strengthen their hold on the loyalty of the Mountain Clans.

Furthermore, the Mountain Flints are quite prestigious in northern terms, being considered to be the original Flints, from whom both the Flints of Flint's Finger and the Flints of Widow's Watch descend.

In any case, until we get confirmation one way or another, we don't know what the title of Master is equivalent to. I think it adds some richness to the setting if we get a unique Northern change to the standard lordly ranks. Martin himself has said that for simplicity's sake he originally probably didn't go far enough in making distinctions between the various levels of lords.

By making a Master something different - akin to a Warden or Marcher Lord or something else, would be a nice bit of added detail to the social tapestry of Westeros.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In fact, if they are Landed Knights, they would appear to be at least in the Templeton category. But personally, I believe that the title of Master represents a higher rank than that of Landed Knight. I think it is a unique Northern title, which, as I cautiously suggested some years ago on the forum, might be similar to that of Marcher Lord. Which in the Northern context might be a form of military title, on a par with a Lord, but with a more specific focus and intention.

Nope. It's get mentioned in the South as well, though rarely. LF for example jokes about being Master of the Drearfort and there is the odd Mistress of XY.

Master or Mistress is the title for any owner of a castle, pushed down to obscurity if the higher-ranked Lord/Lady or Ser are applicable.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Nope. It's get mentioned in the South as well, though rarely. LF for example jokes about being Master of the Drearfort and there is the odd Mistress of XY.

Master or Mistress is the title for any owner of a castle, pushed down to obscurity if the higher-ranked Lord/Lady or Ser are applicable.

I'm not sure this is truly the case. There is a double sense to the master/mistress word. On the one hand it is a special noble title, on the other it is used in a broader sense as describing the owner/boss of a castle. Eddard Stark, for instance, wouldn't become a master in the narrow sense if somebody in the books would call to him 'the master of his castle' or something like that.

In addition, we don't know that the right of pits and gallows is among the defining criteria for a lord. We just know that landed knights don't have that right. This doesn't necessitate that masters don't (or can't) have the same right on the lands they control. Masters simply do not come up in TSS at all.

@Free Northman Reborn

You should get away from the idea that titles are reflect actual ranks, strengths, and powers. Being a landed knight makes you rank-wise and title-wise inferior to a lord (especially in the legal sphere) but that doesn't mean you cannot show off your existing wealth and arrange yourself some prestigious marriages. It would all depend on the amount of land/wealth you own.

I think the difference we are talking about here is whether a master is any different from a lord in the sense that he directly controls the nobles and levies that do him fealty. And there doesn't seem to be a difference there. At least not in the case of the Glovers. They have vassals of their own and as far as we know the relationship between them and their vassals isn't any different than the relationship between some lordly house and its vassals.

In regards to the whole military thing there seems to be actually no big difference between master and lord. Although there would be between landed knights and lords/masters because landed knights most likely don't have the right to take the right into their own hands. If they have to go to their lieges to get justice, then it should be much more difficult for them to actually demand justice by force (unlike a lord we is more a small ruler in his own right), at least on his land. The levies working on the lands of a landed knight might not actually be his peasants in the same sense a lord 'owns' the peasants on his land. They might work for the landed knight and deliver their taxes etc. to him, but they might also be forced to give taxes to their actual lord (who would be the liege of both the landed knight and the peasants) and they would also have to go to the lord to get justice, settle disputes, etc. That's how things would be in the real middle ages. A complete chaos.

As to any mountain clan marriages with the Starks:

We should keep in mind that a younger son of House Stark married a mountain clan Flint in recent years. Not exactly and heir of Winterfell. That there is a Flint now among the ancestors of Brandon Stark has to do with Rickard Stark marrying his cousin, Lyarra Stark.

We don't have marriages such as this on a regular basis. But Glovers really are considered to be noble enough to marry heirs of Winterfell.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure this is truly the case. There is a double sense to the master/mistress word. On the one hand it is a special noble title, on the other it is used in a broader sense as describing the owner/boss of a castle. Eddard Stark, for instance, wouldn't become a master in the narrow sense if somebody in the books would call to him 'the master of his castle' or something like that.

In addition, we don't know that the right of pits and gallows is among the defining criteria for a lord. We just know that landed knights don't have that right. This doesn't necessitate that masters don't (or can't) have the same right on the lands they control. Masters simply do not come up in TSS at all.

@Free Northman Reborn

You should get away from the idea that titles are reflect actual ranks, strengths, and powers. Being a landed knight makes you rank-wise and title-wise inferior to a lord (especially in the legal sphere) but that doesn't mean you cannot show off your existing wealth and arrange yourself some prestigious marriages. It would all depend on the amount of land/wealth you own.

I think the difference we are talking about here is whether a master is any different from a lord in the sense that he directly controls the nobles and levies that do him fealty. And there doesn't seem to be a difference there. At least not in the case of the Glovers. They have vassals of their own and as far as we know the relationship between them and their vassals isn't any different than the relationship between some lordly house and its vassals.

In regards to the whole military thing there seems to be actually no big difference between master and lord. Although there would be between landed knights and lords/masters because landed knights most likely don't have the right to take the right into their own hands. If they have to go to their lieges to get justice, then it should be much more difficult for them to actually demand justice by force (unlike a lord we is more a small ruler in his own right), at least on his land. The levies working on the lands of a landed knight might not actually be his peasants in the same sense a lord 'owns' the peasants on his land. They might work for the landed knight and deliver their taxes etc. to him, but they might also be forced to give taxes to their actual lord (who would be the liege of both the landed knight and the peasants) and they would also have to go to the lord to get justice, settle disputes, etc. That's how things would be in the real middle ages. A complete chaos.

As to any mountain clan marriages with the Starks:

We should keep in mind that a younger son of House Stark married a mountain clan Flint in recent years. Not exactly and heir of Winterfell. That there is a Flint now among the ancestors of Brandon Stark has to do with Rickard Stark marrying his cousin, Lyarra Stark.

We don't have marriages such as this on a regular basis. But Glovers really are considered to be noble enough to marry heirs of Winterfell.

Again. It seems we are saying the same thing.

Where I disagree with you though, is when you try to move away from the set hierarchy of titles. There is a hierarchy. At the top you have the Lord's Paramount. Then you have their primary bannermen. Then you have the vassal lords of these bannermen - the so called "petty lords" in the example of Lord Manderly, of which he has a dozen sworn to him. And then you have Landed Knights below them, of which Manderly has 100 sworn to him.

This hierarchy is clear. What Martin has however also said, is that in practical terms there is some overlap in power between the varying levels, with some powerful Landed Knights being more powerful than the rank above, which is the petty lord rank. And the obvious example here is House Templeton which commands a thousand men, compared to House Webber, technically a petty lord, which commands maybe 30 men.

But that is the exception to the rule. In general, the hierarchy is clear.

The question we are discussing here, is where the official title of Master fits into this hierarchy. And I agree with you that the Glovers as Masters of Deepwood Motte appear to be on a different level to that of Landed Knight. They have entire clans sworn to them from the Wolfswood, for example.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, we don't know that the right of pits and gallows is among the defining criteria for a lord. We just know that landed knights don't have that right. This doesn't necessitate that masters don't (or can't) have the same right on the lands they control. Masters simply do not come up in TSS at all.

 

We do: First paragraph.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

We do: First paragraph.

Nope, George doesn't mention masters in that paragraph. We know that the title of lord conveys certain legal rights. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there are legal differences of the same nature/degree between lords and masters as there is between lords and landed knights.

And we do not know that.

@Free Northman Reborn

I don't buy the idea that 'petty lords' have to be vassals of what you call 'the principal bannermen'. For instance, the Crackclaw Point houses do fealty to nobody but the Iron Throne but they are 'petty lords' all the same.

'Petty lord' isn't necessarily a specific or even well-defined title. It just seems to be referring to some lord without much land, wealth, or influence. I think it would be completely alright to refer to Petyr Baelish as a 'petty lord' despite the fact that the appendix of AGoT lists House Baelish (and House Seaworth) among the principal bannerman of the Arryns (and Baratheons).

There is no reason to believe the term 'petty lord' conveys any meaning as to where such a guy stands in the feudal hierarchy. All it says that this guy is not very significant.

In fact, your focus on what you call the 'primary bannermen' is wrong. The appendices only list people that are (supposed to) show up in the books. They do not give us a full list of a lord's vassals or presume to give us a good picture of the feudal structure.

While there is a good chance that we do know all the important lords in the North there is no reason to believe that we know the names of all the lordly houses that are directly sworn to Highgarden or Sunspear.

[Free Northman Reborn]

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, George doesn't mention masters in that paragraph. We know that the title of lord conveys certain legal rights. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there are legal differences of the same nature/degree between lords and masters as there is between lords and landed knights.

And we do not know that.

@Free Northman Reborn

I don't buy the idea that 'petty lords' have to be vassals of what you call 'the principal bannermen'. For instance, the Crackclaw Point houses do fealty to nobody but the Iron Throne but they are 'petty lords' all the same.

'Petty lord' isn't necessarily a specific or even well-defined title. It just seems to be referring to some lord without much land, wealth, or influence. I think it would be completely alright to refer to Petyr Baelish as a 'petty lord' despite the fact that the appendix of AGoT lists House Baelish (and House Seaworth) among the principal bannerman of the Arryns (and Baratheons).

There is no reason to believe the term 'petty lord' conveys any meaning as to where such a guy stands in the feudal hierarchy. All it says that this guy is not very significant.

In fact, your focus on what you call the 'primary bannermen' is wrong. The appendices only list people that are (supposed to) show up in the books. They do not give us a full list of a lord's vassals or presume to give us a good picture of the feudal structure.

While there is a good chance that we do know all the important lords in the North there is no reason to believe that we know the names of all the lordly houses that are directly sworn to Highgarden or Sunspear.

Perhaps I need to phrase it differently.

I'm not saying that there are no petty lords sworn directly to Winterfell, for example. There might well be. Small lords that happen to fall in Winterfell's direct sphere of influence. It would not make practical sense for them to be sworn to a more distant primary bannerlord.

What I am saying is that Martin has made it clear that there are multiple layers of the feudal structure. The Starks call their bannermen, their bannermen call their vassals, those vassals call their landed knights and the landed knight calls his sworn swords until you get  down to the two guys and a donkey from the holdfast at the lowest level on the ladder.

So I have no problem with petty lords being sworn directly to a Lord Paramount, just like I have no problem with Landed Knights sworn directly to House Manderly, without first being sworn to an intermediate petty lord, as Lord Manderly quite clearly depicts to Ser Davos.

What we are debating is what you call the lords who are sworn to intermediate lords other than the Lord Paramount of a region. And I am saying the collective term for this level would be petty lords, in general.

There does not seem to be a level below bannerlord but above petty lord. Certainly not in Lord Manderly's case, which is the clearest example we have to date. There might be exceptions to the rule, much like the Hightowers are not quite Lords Paramount, but are the next best thing to it without being a Great House in name. Similarly, you might have the odd House sworn to a major bannerlord who is quite powerful in his own right, particularly in the Reach.

But in general the hierarchy indicates that you have:

1. Lord Paramount

2. Principal Bannnerlord

3. Petty Lord

4. Landed Knight

5. Household Knight

This is the hierarchy. Your argument seems to be that level 3 can also be sworn directly to level 1. Which I fully agree with. There will be cases like that. Similarly in Manderly's case we know he has a hundred level 4's sworn directly to himself - a level 2, thus skipping level 3.

I'm saying, in general, you can't be at level 3 and not be deemed a petty lord. You might be a powerful petty lord in terms of wealth and numbers, but you are still a petty lord, just like the Knight of Ninestars is still a Landed Knight, even though he is sitting at level 2.

EDIT

Just to add that my preference would have been for another level of lord between Principal bannerlord and petty lord, as the jump down seems a bit excessive there. But Martin has not given us such a title. Instead you are either a Principal Bannerlord or a Petty lord. House Webber was a petty lord, sworn to House Rowan. House Stout is a petty lord, sworn to House Dustin. And so on and so forth.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

But in general the hierarchy indicates that you have:

1. Lord Paramount

2. Principal Bannnerlord

3. Petty Lord

4. Landed Knight

5. Household Knight

 

I'm not sure that is true. A petty lord would be below a landed knight. Littlefinger is described as a petty lord in AGOT and he is very much lower class nobility.

Some landed knights are more powerful than Lords, I doubt this is the case with petty lords. That there are any petty lords of the status of a Templeton, Swyft or Fossoway seems unlikely.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I'm not sure that is true. A petty lord would be below a landed knight. Littlefinger is described as a petty lord in AGOT and he is very much lower class nobility.

Some landed knights are more powerful than Lords, I doubt this is the case with petty lords. That there are any petty lords of the status of a Templeton, Swyft or Fossoway seems unlikely.

Here are Martin's own words on it:

As I see it, the title "lord" -- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance -- i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons.

A landed knight has rather less prestige -- a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance -- and also somewhat lesser rights.

But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there's an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.

EDIT

Reading that, I must say that the description of the "uber-knights" from ancient houses with extensive lands seems like a rather precise description of the characteristics of House Glover. They are extremely ancient, have very large lands, and indeed, their title incorporates the name of their castle - "The Master of Deepwood Motte".

So I guess that bolsters the argument that the Glovers and Tallharts are some of these "uber-knights", just the northern equivalent thereof.

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

As far as I remember nobody ever referred to Lady Webber as a petty lord/lady. So I'm not sure where you getting that she is one or has to be seen as such.

There is a feudal hierarchy in Westeros but thanks to the way George has set things up it is not reflected by the titles the people use. Lords are lords are lords. Lady Webber is as much a lord as is Mace Tyrell.

Again petty lord isn't a special title of some sort as far as we know. You can be a lord and still be a vassal of a lord. In a sense you can even be a great lord sworn to a great lord if you check the Hightower-Tyrell dynamic. Or the Royce-Arryn or Frey-Tully (Lord of Harrenhal-Tully) dynamic.

What I think is wrong is your insistence that we have to refer to lords who are the vassals of other lords as petty lords.

I think 'petty lord' isn't a specific name for a group of noblemen but rather a common way for powerful lords to refer in a patronizing way to lesser lords. In that sense, a petty lord would essentially be defined by being weak and insignificant and not by the fact that he is sworn to some vassal's vassal. He could be directly sworn to the king himself and still be fairly insignificant (like the Crackclaw Point people are).

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Here is Martin's own words on it:

As I see it, the title "lord" -- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance -- i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons.

A landed knight has rather less prestige -- a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance -- and also somewhat lesser rights.

But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there's an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.

 

That is the point. The reason why they are petty lords is that the title is honorific, them being noble, rather than them actually being Lords. GRRM seems to show this in the appendix as Boltons, Ryswell, Manderly etc. are all Lord while Stout is 'a petty lord'. The capital L makes quite the difference between something being a title and merely politeness.

 

So while some petty lords and landed knights would have similar prestige, the fact that no petty lords are as powerful as the Knight of the Ninestars would put their rand above them in the pecking order.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

As far as I remember nobody ever referred to Lady Webber as a petty lord/lady. So I'm not sure where you getting that she is one or has to be seen as such.

There is a feudal hierarchy in Westeros but thanks to the way George has set things up it is not reflected by the titles the people use. Lords are lords are lords. Lady Webber is as much a lord as is Mace Tyrell.

Again petty lord isn't a special title of some sort as far as we know. You can be a lord and still be a vassal of a lord. In a sense you can even be a great lord sworn to a great lord if you check the Hightower-Tyrell dynamic. Or the Royce-Arryn or Frey-Tully (Lord of Harrenhal-Tully) dynamic.

What I think is wrong is your insistence that we have to refer to lords who are the vassals of other lords as petty lords.

I think 'petty lord' isn't a specific name for a group of noblemen but rather a common way for powerful lords to refer in a patronizing way to lesser lords. In that sense, a petty lord would essentially be defined by being weak and insignificant and not by the fact that he is sworn to some vassal's vassal. He could be directly sworn to the king himself and still be fairly insignificant (like the Crackclaw Point people are).

Well I agree that there is no formal title named "petty lord". There are simply lords. And as I have already said, even minor lords can be sworn directly to a Lord Paramount. Just like even landed knights can be sworn directly to House Lannister or Stark or Tyrell.

And I even agree that the title "petty lord" is used colloquially to refer to lords of a certain lesser status. However, my point is that this is a collective term that is used for all lords that are vassals of primary bannerlords or lower.

I think that House Rowan would very much refer to House Webber as petty lords - while of course House Webber would never refer to themselves in that fashion. Similarly, House Dustin would refer to House Stout as petty lords while again, House Stout would refer to themselves simply as lords.

Basically I am saying that you have the Lords Paramount, then you have the major banner lords sworn directly to them, and then you have a vast mishmash of lesser lords sworn to these major lords, which would include the Webbers, Stouts and the vast majority of lordlings in Westeros. And these are collectively known as petty lords in the common use of the term. But of course their actual strengths would vary widely.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

That is the point. The reason why they are petty lords is that the title is honorific, them being noble, rather than them actually being Lords. GRRM seems to show this in the appendix as Boltons, Ryswell, Manderly etc. are all Lord while Stout is 'a petty lord'. The capital L makes quite the difference between something being a title and merely politeness.

 

So while some petty lords and landed knights would have similar prestige, the fact that no petty lords are as powerful as the Knight of the Ninestars would put their rand above them in the pecking order.

 

The Stouts are a noble house of the North. They are lords with right of pit and gallows.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What I think is wrong is your insistence that we have to refer to lords who are the vassals of other lords as petty lords.

 

Case in point

• Quote

   

  • RODRIK RYSWELL, Lord of the Rills,
    • BARBREY DUSTIN, his daughter, Lady of Barrowton, widow of Lord Willam Dustin,
      • HARWOOD STOUT, her liege man, a petty lord at Barrowton,
    • {BETHANY BOLTON}, his daughter, second wife of Lord Roose Bolton, died of a fever,
    • ROGER RYSWELL, RICKARD RYSWELL, ROOSE RYSWELL, his quarrelsome cousins and bannermen,^[2]
  • LYESSA FLINT, Lady of Widow's Watch,
  • ONDREW LOCKE, Lord of Oldcastle, an old man,

   

  GRRM labels the Lords as what they are while higlighting that Stout is not one of them.

•  

Quote

 

• Bronze Yohn's bannermen and sworn swords:

• ROYCE COLDWATER, Lord of Coldwater Burn,
• SER DAMON SHETT, Knight of Gull Tower,
• UTHOR TOLLETT, Lord of the Grey Glen,

 

While we see that Lords Coldwater and Tollett are recognized as actual Lords.

 

I guess I have spent too much time staring at the appendices because this all seems perfectly obvious to me.

 

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Stouts are a noble house of the North. They are lords with right of pit and gallows.

They are not, they are petty lords. There is a difference.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Case in point

• GRRM labels the Lords as what they are while higlighting that Stout is not one of them.

•  

While we see that Lords Coldwater and Tollett are recognized as actual Lords.

 

I guess I have spent too much time staring at the appendices because this all seems perfectly obvious to me.

 

They are not, they are petty lords. There is a difference.

As Lord Varys just said. You are either a lord or you are not. There is no title of "petty lord". It is a colloquial term. Harwood Stout is the lord of Goldgrass.