Great Houses and their direct bannermen

[James Steller]

Throughout the novels, we're given conflicting information on the subject of how the power structure is set up.

It's very clear that the houses of each region contribute troops to the army of the Great Houses. But what of the direct forces under the command of those Great Houses?

It goes without reasoning that the Great Houses must have their own forces at hand, in case one or more of their bannermen were to rebel. We have to assume that the Great Houses got into the very positions they are in now because they had the strongest forces, whether it be through quality, numbers, or gold. But there has to be that army.

It's difficult to guage it from the books, as most of the time the regional armies are clumped together under the terms 'Stark forces', 'Lannister forces', 'Tully forces', etc. So you'd have to go into the details of numbers to determine how many men each Great House directly commands.

But it seems to me that it's very inconsistent depending on the regions. The Starks, Tullys and Baratheons, for example, seem to hold no direct lands other than the regions around Winterfell, Riverrun, and Storm's End, and based on evidence, these regions don't support large populations. The Greyjoys at least have an island to rule as their own, and the Tyrells and Lannisters clearly have direct armies under their control. The Arryns haven't entered any fights, but we don't hear about Littlefinger utilizing the direct Arryn forces against the Lords Declarant. And I can't remember what the Martells have to say about their forces, so anyone should feel free to fill in that info.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

The Starks DO have their own forces. Robb took them with him when he first marched. Easily four thousand of them were directly under his control.

[Free Northman Reborn]

16 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

The Starks DO have their own forces. Robb took them with him when he first marched. Easily four thousand of them were directly under his control.

I don't know if I believe this. I don't really see room for 4000 Starks in Robb's army. I have worked on around 2500 Starks in Robb's army, with about 600 left behind that Rodrik calls up later, added to the 100 or so that Eddard took South. So about 3000 or so direct Stark men.

But as I always say, this has to be seen in context. If you look at the history of the North, the Starks gave large parts of it away to direct bannermen. If they hadn't given these regions away, the petty lords and landed knights in these regions would have been sworn directly to House Stark. These regions include the Manderly lands, the Karstark lands and the Mormont lands at the very least. The Tallhart lands seem a likely candidate a well. Also, the Wolfswood was originally ruled by the Blackwoods, not the Glovers, until the Starks conquered it. The Starks must therefore have given about half the Wolfswood to the Glovers.

In short, the Starks clearly felt that giving most of the North to loyal bannermen was a more effective way of securing their power than by ruling these lands directly. So for all we know the Starks only rule the lands for about 30 miles around Winterfell - enough to sustain the castle and its operations. For the rest, they get bannermen to rule it and just use the soldiers of the bannermen for their military needs. Just like Eddard ordered Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover to fortify Moat Cailin in Book 1, rather then sending Winterfell men to do so.

I would imagine that House Cerwyn - just half a day's ride from Winterfell - is another example of former Stark lands that were gifted to a loyal vassal. That doesn't make the Cerwyn men any less Stark men. The Starks giveth, and the Starks can taketh away. The bannermen rule at their sufferance.

 

 

[James Steller]

36 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In short, the Starks clearly felt that giving most of the North to loyal bannermen was a more effective way of securing their power than by ruling these lands directly. So for all we know the Starks only rule the lands for about 30 miles around Winterfell - enough to sustain the castle and its operations. For the rest, they get bannermen to rule it and just use the soldiers of the bannermen for their military needs. Just like Eddard ordered Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover to fortify Moat Cailin in Book 1, rather then sending Winterfell men to do so.

I would imagine that House Cerwyn - just half a day's ride from Winterfell - is another example of former Stark lands that were gifted to a loyal vassal. That doesn't make the Cerwyn men any less Stark men. The Starks giveth, and the Starks can taketh away. The bannermen rule at their sufferance.

 

 

So we need to chalk it up to the individual houses deciding how to rule? The Baratheons, Starks, and Tullys all conveniently put their faith in loyalty while the Tyrells and Lannisters rely on their own wealth to intimidate their bannermen into subservience? And then there's the issue of the Hightowers, who are as rich as the Lannisters and strong enough to take on the Tyrells themselves.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, James Steller said:

So we need to chalk it up to the individual houses deciding how to rule? The Baratheons, Starks, and Tullys all conveniently put their faith in loyalty while the Tyrells and Lannisters rely on their own wealth to intimidate their bannermen into subservience? And then there's the issue of the Hightowers, who are as rich as the Lannisters and strong enough to take on the Tyrells themselves.

Where have the Tyrells ever intimidated their vassals? Not that I would put that above them, I just don't recall any inkling of that anywhere in any of the texts.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Where have the Tyrells ever intimidated their vassals? Not that I would put that above them, I just don't recall any inkling of that anywhere in any of the texts.

I would say that each region is unique.

The Tyrells ruled because Aegon had Dragons, and later by marrying into their most powerful bannerlords families. I suspect that if the Iron Throne were to fall away, that the Tyrells will be overthrown within a century. They really are not the most respected of rulers.

In the case of the Vale, Stormlands and Westerlands there is more legitimacy and history backing up the ruling Houses. And in the case of the North it goes to an entirely different level. it is essentially a case of the Starks being an institution in the North. They are built into the very mythology of the kingdom. The North is synonymous with the Starks and vice versa.

 

[Duranaparthur]

The Stark's place as an institution also makes since with their very decentralized yet strong classical feudal system, while the Westerlands seem to be more of an absolute monarchy under the Lannisters. Tywin rules over a smaller plot of land and feels that Lannister power must be supreme over all banner lords, and is willing to let the mines and fortresses of Castamere and Terbeck hang open and vacant for the entire realm to see instead of replacing them with new lords or expanding a loyal house. Meanwhile, the Starks rue over an absolutely enormous land and have numerous bannerman who seem to run their holdings with a minimum of interference, and Stark power is as much based off their ability to play old kingdoms against each other (like the Red King Boltons, Barrow King Dustins, Marsh King Reeds, and the Magnars of Skagos) as it is on the loyalty the Starks no doubt indoctrinate into their children.

It would also make sense for the Lannisters to have greater forces since they live further South; up North, individual lords need to be able to hold their people together under ice and snow, while the winter is no doubt a bit less cruel int he Westerlands.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

2 hours ago, Duranaparthur said:

The Stark's place as an institution also makes since with their very decentralized yet strong classical feudal system, while the Westerlands seem to be more of an absolute monarchy under the Lannisters. Tywin rules over a smaller plot of land and feels that Lannister power must be supreme over all banner lords, and is willing to let the mines and fortresses of Castamere and Terbeck hang open and vacant for the entire realm to see instead of replacing them with new lords or expanding a loyal house. Meanwhile, the Starks rue over an absolutely enormous land and have numerous bannerman who seem to run their holdings with a minimum of interference, and Stark power is as much based off their ability to play old kingdoms against each other (like the Red King Boltons, Barrow King Dustins, Marsh King Reeds, and the Magnars of Skagos) as it is on the loyalty the Starks no doubt indoctrinate into their children.

It would also make sense for the Lannisters to have greater forces since they live further South; up North, individual lords need to be able to hold their people together under ice and snow, while the winter is no doubt a bit less cruel int he Westerlands.

That's not true, the Starks put limitations on their bannermen and they sometimes revolted because of that. The Skagosi rebelled, the Boltons rebelled, even the Greystarks fought against their overlords and kin. Even now Ned Stark was prepared to ride all the way to Bear Island and chop off Jorah Mormont's head when he broke the law. 

 

( on a side note, I hope northern justice didn't depend on the ruling Stark riding out to cut off heads. Nothing would have been achieved in the way of justice)

[Canon Claude]

46 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

( on a side note, I hope northern justice didn't depend on the ruling Stark riding out to cut off heads)

It does seem that way in the first book, ha ha. Ned seems adamant to deal out all the justice with his own hand. It must have been a pain in the arse for the nobles who had to postpone all their criminal trials while Ned toured his way around the North.

[The Wolves]

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

 

( on a side note, I hope northern justice didn't depend on the ruling Stark riding out to cut off heads. Nothing would have been achieved in the way of justice)

There was a Ryswell lord who sent his son and other NW members back to the Watch to get justice. Manderly also seems to have a prison in White Harbor. The Starks seem to interfer when high lords commit crimes like Jorah Mormont, and I'm sure Rickard Stark would have ridden out if the peasant Roose raped would have came to him. 

I think the lords punish crimes on their land by the smallfolk or lesser lords under them but it's the Starks who punish the great lords in their regions. 

[GallowsKnight]

11 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

on a side note, I hope northern justice didn't depend on the ruling Stark riding out to cut off heads. Nothing would have been achieved in the way of justice

Lords have the right of pit and gallows. They get to hand out justice and order executions. It's a difference between them and a landed knight/northern master. So it bounces up the chain of command until you hit a lord.

[1000th Lord Commander]

I always assumed that the Starks had a decent amount of control over the surrounding lands. Since they face the harshest winter, it would make sense for them to have a more decentralised power structure, as they can't enforce justice through the thick winter snow. Also, who flocks to the winter town? Immediate members of the surrounding lands, or people from all over the North?

I would imagine its up to the lords of each land to enforce justice. Do we know where Gared lost his head? If it was not too far from Winterfell, it would have been up to Ned to do the head chopping and no lesser lord

[GallowsKnight]

14 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I don't know if I believe this. I don't really see room for 4000 Starks in Robb's army. I have worked on around 2500 Starks in Robb's army, with about 600 left behind that Rodrik calls up later, added to the 100 or so that Eddard took South. So about 3000 or so direct Stark men.

But as I always say, this has to be seen in context. If you look at the history of the North, the Starks gave large parts of it away to direct bannermen. If they hadn't given these regions away, the petty lords and landed knights in these regions would have been sworn directly to House Stark. These regions include the Manderly lands, the Karstark lands and the Mormont lands at the very least. The Tallhart lands seem a likely candidate a well. Also, the Wolfswood was originally ruled by the Blackwoods, not the Glovers, until the Starks conquered it. The Starks must therefore have given about half the Wolfswood to the Glovers.

In short, the Starks clearly felt that giving most of the North to loyal bannermen was a more effective way of securing their power than by ruling these lands directly. So for all we know the Starks only rule the lands for about 30 miles around Winterfell - enough to sustain the castle and its operations. For the rest, they get bannermen to rule it and just use the soldiers of the bannermen for their military needs. Just like Eddard ordered Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover to fortify Moat Cailin in Book 1, rather then sending Winterfell men to do so.

I would imagine that House Cerwyn - just half a day's ride from Winterfell - is another example of former Stark lands that were gifted to a loyal vassal. That doesn't make the Cerwyn men any less Stark men. The Starks giveth, and the Starks can taketh away. The bannermen rule at their sufferance.

I think because Starks are such prominent characters (closest thing to main characters) we just happen to see more of their immediate underlings. So while it might appear that they have less bannermen, it's rather we just know more about. Tallhart and Glover are masters, not lords. I imagine they are direct bannermen. Cerwyn too, even though they seem a lot stronger (we discussed before like ?1000 men), I imagine they too pretty jump at House Stark's beck and call.

Like if the series was more focused on house Tyrell, we'd see all these knightly and lordly houses close to them.

[The Wolves]

5 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

I always assumed that the Starks had a decent amount of control over the surrounding lands. Since they face the harshest winter, it would make sense for them to have a more decentralised power structure, as they can't enforce justice through the thick winter snow. Also, who flocks to the winter town? Immediate members of the surrounding lands, or people from all over the North?

I would imagine its up to the lords of each land to enforce justice. Do we know where Gared lost his head? If it was not too far from Winterfell, it would have been up to Ned to do the head chopping and no lesser lord

I think people from all over the North flock to the Winter Town. Jon says in ADWD that people from the Mountain Clans travel to the town. 

[Lurid Jester]

19 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

( on a side note, I hope northern justice didn't depend on the ruling Stark riding out to cut off heads. Nothing would have been achieved in the way of justice)

One would hope that in situations like that he'd have another banner man go collect the accused and bring them to Winterfell.  Still though, talk about a pain in the ass.