Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
faroresdragn

Why are there so many Lannisters?

5 posts in this topic

In this series where any character is apt to die, a lot of suspense is caused (at least for me) by the fact that the future of the Stark bloodline which is like 8000 years old, rests on the survival of ned starks 5 kids. 

 

Likewise, the entire Arryn line (as far as I know from what I've been told so far) rests on the ONE son Jon arryn had. And Holster Tully's bloodline rests in his one son and his one brother who's childless. With Robert and rely gone, the baratheon line rests with stannis, who has no sons. 

Most of these big families have bloodlines going back thousands of years (not sure about the tullys, and maybe the baratheons started when the targaryens came, so only like 300 years). But all of them seem like they don't know how to produce sons and/or keep heirs alive. So if the world theyre in is that violent, there's no logical way these families could have survived that long. But that's another issue.

The MAIN issue is ALL THE EFFING LANNISTERS. I can count every other families heirs on one hand, but there are so many damn Lannisters I can't even keep track of them. Tywin, tyrion, jaime, cersei, the dumb guy who robb killed in that night raid, the page that cersei is sleeping with who caused Robert to get killed by that boar,  a few of lord tywins brothers, and probably a ton of others I have forgotten. Not to mention Joffrey, mycella, and tommen! Tyrion even mentions to himself at one point how the Lannisters are really good at producing children or something like that.

Even if this is only done because the Lannisters are made out to be the villains, and this way they outnumber the heros which lends to more tension, HOW are the Lannisters apparently the only family in Westeros that seem to understand how to/be competent at maintaining  a bloodline, in a continent who's entire social structure is built around maintaining bloodlines?

Like I get that neds brothers joined the watch and were murdered, and his sister also murdered I guess, but was father Rickard an only child? Why does ned stark have no uncles or cousins who would also be starks aND be able to take winterfell if neds sons should die off? The starks are 8000 years old! You're telling me there are NO starks living who aren't of the DIRECT line of succession? Apparently the karstarks are all decended from a real stark in the past right? So if that one stark's kids eventually grew into an entire family, how, after 8000 years, are neds kids literally the only remaining starks in the world? It seems to be completEly illogical unless I'm missing something.

Edited by faroresdragn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read the World of Ice and Fire book, has a lot of info on the Lannistars. The Lannistars have many cadet branches, you have the Lannisters of Casterly rock, then you also have the Lannisters of Lannisport, plus many other cadet branches. I think you could compare the Lannisters of Lannisport to the Karstarks maybe. Plus the Starks had another cadet branch. the Greystarks, but they rebelled and were destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShimShim said:

You should read the World of Ice and Fire book, has a lot of info on the Lannistars. The Lannistars have many cadet branches, you have the Lannisters of Casterly rock, then you also have the Lannisters of Lannisport, plus many other cadet branches. I think you could compare the Lannisters of Lannisport to the Karstarks maybe. Plus the Starks had another cadet branch. the Greystarks, but they rebelled and were destroyed. 

Yeah but that doesnt explain how there arent alot of other Starks scattered throughout the North outside Ned's family. I mean 8000 years is around 320 generations, maybe more, since the average childbearing age in Westeros is probably alot younger than it is IRL, especially for lords who know who theyre going to marry pretty quick. 

So there have been ~330 Stark Lords. Very rough estimation taking alot of assumptions into account. but in all that time, you dont think a lord would have a second son who wouldnt inherit the lordship, but would get married and have sons, who would then have sons, etc., etc? I mean imagine how many starks there would be if Brandon the Builder had 2 sons, and every other Lord Stark only had one son. That would still be hundreds if not thousands of stark men by the time 8000 years go by. maybe more than that. Again, this is making alot of assumptions, like assuming westeros is a much less deadly place than it actually is. And as its seen with the whole main war, it is common practice that when someone dies without an heir, their closest blood relative becomes their heir, which is why Ned is for Stannis. So its not like theyre in a culture where ONLY direct trueborn sons are accepted as heirs. So the idea that there are so few starks is completely absurd. UNLESS there is something fundamental about how medieval families and bloodlines work that I dont know or understand. Like maybe the children of a second son take another name once the first son is lord? But that wouldnt make sense either. 

Something isnt right. there has to be an explanation. I know I titled the thread about the lannisters, but the real issue im having isnt why there are so many of them, but why there are so FEW of everyone else, especially the starks.

Edited by faroresdragn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:49 PM, faroresdragn said:

In this series where any character is apt to die, a lot of suspense is caused (at least for me) by the fact that the future of the Stark bloodline which is like 8000 years old, rests on the survival of ned starks 5 kids. 

 

Likewise, the entire Arryn line (as far as I know from what I've been told so far) rests on the ONE son Jon arryn had. And Holster Tully's bloodline rests in his one son and his one brother who's childless. With Robert and rely gone, the baratheon line rests with stannis, who has no sons. 

Most of these big families have bloodlines going back thousands of years (not sure about the tullys, and maybe the baratheons started when the targaryens came, so only like 300 years). But all of them seem like they don't know how to produce sons and/or keep heirs alive. So if the world theyre in is that violent, there's no logical way these families could have survived that long. But that's another issue.

The MAIN issue is ALL THE EFFING LANNISTERS. I can count every other families heirs on one hand, but there are so many damn Lannisters I can't even keep track of them. Tywin, tyrion, jaime, cersei, the dumb guy who robb killed in that night raid, the page that cersei is sleeping with who caused Robert to get killed by that boar,  a few of lord tywins brothers, and probably a ton of others I have forgotten. Not to mention Joffrey, mycella, and tommen! Tyrion even mentions to himself at one point how the Lannisters are really good at producing children or something like that.

Even if this is only done because the Lannisters are made out to be the villains, and this way they outnumber the heros which lends to more tension, HOW are the Lannisters apparently the only family in Westeros that seem to understand how to/be competent at maintaining  a bloodline, in a continent who's entire social structure is built around maintaining bloodlines?

Like I get that neds brothers joined the watch and were murdered, and his sister also murdered I guess, but was father Rickard an only child? Why does ned stark have no uncles or cousins who would also be starks aND be able to take winterfell if neds sons should die off? The starks are 8000 years old! You're telling me there are NO starks living who aren't of the DIRECT line of succession? Apparently the karstarks are all decended from a real stark in the past right? So if that one stark's kids eventually grew into an entire family, how, after 8000 years, are neds kids literally the only remaining starks in the world? It seems to be completEly illogical unless I'm missing something.

 

There are other Starks. Rickard's aunt Jocelyn married a Rogers and had heirs. Artos The Implacable married a Karstark who gave him two sons, one of whom is probably the father or grandfather of Rickard and/or Arnoff.

So they could always pull a Stark out of their hat if they needed to.

A big mistake, though, was marrying Rickard Stark to Lyara Stark because it united the two main branches of the house that arose after the marriage of Beron Stark to Lorra Royce, turning two points of failure into one.

Tywin did the same thing in marrying Johanna, but since there were multiple descending lines from Gerold Lannister and Rohanne Webber the consequences were less severe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say plot reasons. For the whole thing with a Bolton ascendency to work in the North you can't have a dozen castles around the place held by one Stark or another.. In case of the Lannisters GRRM has a different plot in mind, I would assume, and so adds more Lannisters to the setting according to the needs of the plot.

But yes, there are a fair few of them around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0