Do the Starks technically own ALL land in the North?

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's not what he says. Rodrik even admits he cannot keep the peace. There is fighting between the Boltons and the Manderlys and he is powerless to stop it.

And Rodrik doesn't even have to authority to rule on this whole thing. He isn't the regent of the North, he is just the castellan of Winterfell.

But that's just an episode, that much is clearly. Gerold was no failure, and neither was Tywin. Nor any of the other Lannister lords we know by name.

That was a nasty affair but it didn't really threaten Martell rule of Dorne. We have no reason to believe that Yronwoods ever had a great chance to topple the Martells as the Princes of Dorne. They were involved in some Blackfyre rebellions but what they goals were is completely unclear.

How tight are they bound together? A Manderly and an Umber don't seem to have all that much in common, don't they? We are not talking about a nation here, we are talking about feudal kingdom under the (nominal) rule of some king.

Those lords seem to be the ones who are very fervently in the Stark camp. I'd add the Tallharts, considering they are very much trusted by Ned in AGoT.

But there is a reason that we don't hear the Dustins, Boltons, Ryswells, Umbers show such loyalty. In fact, I think we can be reasonably certain that the Starks were never popular or even well-liked in Bolton lands.

I'd say the Starks control very strong heartlands around Winterfell, in the Glover, Cerwyn, Tallhart, Manderly lands. They usually can count on those houses. But there are others they cannot count upon in the same manner.

And we should ignore the Reeds as factor considering that they are essentially never leaving their swamps. They are a political non-factor unless the North is invaded through the Neck. They are likely to play a role in a civil war in the North as become clear in ADwD.

Sure, that is not disputed.

Well, I think I have given evidence that makes it more likely that the Starks might have had a harder time keeping in control of their kingdom than the others.

(1) The way Robb was challenged by the likes of Greatjon Umber and the other bannermen of his father. That essentially borders on outright treason. And there is talk that this kind of behavior is not uncommon. Robb and Bran reflect on that in AGoT. And we have no reason to believe that other great lords are treated in the same way by their vassals.

(2) The vast distances in the North make it essentially very difficult to exert the same amount of direct control everywhere. That sets the North apart from the other kingdoms. The Starks might still be worshiped by, say, the clansmen in some village, but this doesn't mean that the laws of Winterfell actually rule or affect the life there. I mean, we know that the Starks don't even visit those lands all that often.

We are talking about direct political power which can influence the life of people. Let's say a Stark king introduced a new horrible way to execute people (or that a certain crime is no longer subject to the death penalty). How great are the chances that he could implement such a thing in all corners of his kingdom if a sizable number of lords simply considers this whole thing a very bad idea?

In a smaller kingdom that would work much better, and it should also be possible to imply such new things in the lands around Winterfell or with the lords that are very close to the Starks. Because the king would exert a lot of immediate and direct influence over those lords.

You don't rule a kingdom for thousands of years if your rule can be toppled as soon as you happen to have a weak king take the Throne. I don't dispute the many rebellions the Starks had to put down. TWOIAF is clear about it. I think what you dismiss incorrectly, is that the Southron kings faced pretty much the same thing.

Martin himself made it crystal clear. He referred to ambitious rival lords that exist in every kingdom. He listed examples like the Freys in the Riverlands, the Reynes and Tarbecks in the West and the Boltons in the North. It just astounds me that you view the Reyne and Tarbeck rebellion as somehow not on the same level as a Bolton rebellion in the North. It is. In fact, here you had two Houses revolt at the same time, something which last seems to have happened in the North when the Greystarks and Boltons joined forces around 3000 years ago.

Westeros is a treacherous place. Everyone is rebelling against everyone. Heck, the Iron Throne itself had to face more rebellions in the South than the North has had to face in the last 300 years. It is just the society the books are set in.

It might be that the North has more extreme examples of both fierce loyalty and bitter treachery. So it is a land of greater extremes. But Martin has made it clear that he has created lords that scheme for position, power and wealth everywhere. The North is not somehow unique in this regard.

 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You don't rule a kingdom for thousands of years if your rule can be toppled as soon as you happen to have a weak king take the Throne. I don't dispute the many rebellions the Starks had to put down. TWOIAF is clear about it. I think what you dismiss incorrectly, is that the Southron kings faced pretty much the same thing.

Well, I think TWoIaF supports the view that there weren't any rebellions against the reign of the Gardeners, Lannisters, and Arryns after they had conquered their kingdoms and consolidated their rules. Or can you name such a rebellion?

There was always infighting in the Riverlands and the power of the Durrandons declined once in their history, but there is no hint that anybody ever tried to topple the main royal families of the Seven Kingdoms. Where are the Hightowers or Redwynes rebelling against the Gardeners? Where are the Royces rebelling against the Arryn kings? Where are the Reynes trying to depose the Lannisters while they were kings?

You don't seem to understand the whole rebellion thing, by the way. The Boltons of old (and the other rebels that stood up against the Starks) did not necessarily try to replace the Starks and become the new Kings in the North, they tried to free themselves from the yoke of Stark oppression. That is a different thing.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin himself made it crystal clear. He referred to ambitious rival lords that exist in every kingdom. He listed examples like the Freys in the Riverlands, the Reynes and Tarbecks in the West and the Boltons in the North. It just astounds me that you view the Reyne and Tarbeck rebellion as somehow not on the same level as a Bolton rebellion in the North. It is. In fact, here you had two Houses revolt at the same time, something which last seems to have happened in the North when the Greystarks and Boltons joined forces around 3000 years ago.

It was essentially only a Reyne rebellion because the Tarbecks were essentially nothing but a client house of the Reynes thanks to Lady Ellyn Reyne Tarbeck. That aside, this wasn't a rebellion against a Lannister king, though. It was just a rebellion to change the chain of command in the West. The Red Lion did not challenge Targaryen authority nor intend to crown himself King of the West.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Westeros is a treacherous place. Everyone is rebelling against everyone. Heck, the Iron Throne itself had to face more rebellions in the South than the North has had to face in the last 300 years. It is just the society the books are set in.

There were some minor rebellions during the reigns of Maekar I and Aegon V but those doesn't seem to have been very large affairs. The Peake Uprising killed Maekar I but it wasn't threatening the integrity of the Realm and the Targaryen dynasty.

And all the other rebellions aside from the Faith Militant Uprisings were actually squabbles within the dynasty itself. Targaryen fought Targaryen both during the Dance and the Blackfyre rebellions. Even Robert's Rebellion can be seen as a strife within the extended royal family.

The Kings in the North faced major rebellions from their own subjects. It wasn't Stark vs. Stark up there (although it might have been, at times) but Starks vs. other Northmen.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It might be that the North has more extreme examples of both fierce loyalty and bitter treachery. So it is a land of greater extremes. But Martin has made it clear that he has created lords that scheme for position, power and wealth everywhere. The North is not somehow unique in this regard.

I don't think the North has a monopoly on fierce loyalty. The Crackclaw Point people certainly express as much loyalty for the Targaryen dynasty as the clansmen express for the Starks.

And cruelty can be found pretty much everywhere.

[Arakan]

First of all, very interesting discussion between FNR and LV. Both of you make valid points but in one aspect I tend to agree with FNR: the role of House Stark as surpreme political entity, if not de facto at least de jure. 

To elaborate: I think no one disputes that their have been times when the respective Lord Stark was less of an actual political power (what LV describes as direct control) but more of a figurehead. Which means the vassals could act relatively autonomous in their fiefdoms. But at this point in history I really believe that House Stark is THE institution in the North, at least as figurehead. 

We should keep in mind that Roose Bolton was NOT declared Lord Paramount but Warden of the North! 

I think it cannot be disputed that as long as the North exists as a political entity (and there is nothing that suggests that any player has an interest to break up this political entity), there can only be one institution to be named House Paramount and this is House Stark, at the very least in the form as de jure ruler, i.e. political figurehead. There is a reason why Ramsay was married to "Arya"...

In that regard House Stark is IMO quite clearly distinguished from the Tullys, Tyrells and yes, the Martells (albeit to a lesser extent than the former two). 

In a "worst case" scenario I could see House Stark in a similar role to the Imperial House of Japan, especially during the Tokugawa Shogunate era 1603-1868, which means no de facto power but still de jure the highest political institution. In this analogy Bolton would be similar to a Shogun role. I mean hell, even during the civil war period of Japan (sengoku jidai 1467-1603), with literally scores of warring parties, no one ever would question the position of the Imperial House. 

I think House Stark has reached the same  kind of mythological status. I simply cannot envisage another House as de jure top entity of the "North" as long as it exists as such. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

First of all, very interesting discussion between FNR and LV. Both of you make valid points but in one aspect I tend to agree with FNR: the role of House Stark as surpreme political entity, if not de facto at least de jure.

I'm actually fine with that last bid, too. I never said the Starks weren't the Kings in the North and the Lords of Winterfell since the Conquest ;-). The discussion is about the extent of their power.

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

To elaborate: I think no one disputes that their have been times when the respective Lord Stark was less of an actual political power (what LV describes as direct control) but more of a figurehead. Which means the vassals could act relatively autonomous in their fiefdoms. But at this point in history I really believe that House Stark is THE institution in the North, at least as figurehead.

No doubt there, either. However, right now the situation is much different. The Starks had proclaimed a new king and meddled with the affairs of the Iron Throne which led to the Red Wedding. This affected nearly the entire North (and most of the Riverlords), not just the Starks. Thus the rebound effect here is going to greatly favor the Stark cause just as the Targaryen cause greatly profited from Tywin commanding the murder of Elia and the royal children because that brought Dorne back into the Targaryen camp.

Now, back before the Conquest the Starks and the North in general have never been humiliated as much by an outside enemy as they were at the Red Wedding. That kind of betrayal simply demands revenge, there is no way around that.

But in other times the Kings in the North (and perhaps even the Lords of Winterfell) might be seen more as a nuisance and an obstacle than a force you look up to.

Tywin wants to smooth things over after the Red Wedding. He could have formally named Roose the new Lord of Winterfell but that would have been too much - especially since it isn't really necessary due to the fake Arya marriage. The Boltons will formally restore House Stark to Winterfell and still call the shots in the name of King Tommen.

And Tywin's original plan was to let Roose and the wildlings fight things out and then install Tyrion and Sansa as the new rulers of Winterfell. That would have been a real restoration of House Stark to their ancestral seat.

But this doesn't mean that the Starks could not be ousted as Lords of Winterfell. If the North was conquered by Euron, Aegon, or Dany this could easily enough happen, although it is actually more likely that House Stark would simply die out. Right now the only male Stark who is likely to produce any children is Rickon Stark. If he dies, House Stark is going to die out in the male line. Jon Snow is Lyanna's son, and thus a Stark only through the female line, Sansa and Arya are female, and Bran is a cripple and can no longer conceive children.

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

In that regard House Stark is IMO quite clearly distinguished from the Tullys, Tyrells and yes, the Martells (albeit to a lesser extent than the former two). 

I'd argue that the Martells essentially are Dorne in the present day. The Yronwoods might not like it and their could certainly launch another rebellion but my guess is that Dorne would fracture again if House Martell was destroyed rather than that some other house could take its place. Keep in mind that the Yronwoods never ruled all Dorne.

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

In a "worst case" scenario I could see House Stark in a similar role to the Imperial House of Japan, especially during the Tokugawa Shogunate era 1603-1868, which means no de facto power but still de jure the highest political institution. In this analogy Bolton would be similar to a Shogun role. I mean hell, even during the civil war period of Japan (sengoku jidai 1467-1603), with literally scores of warring parties, no one ever would question the position of the Imperial House. 

I think House Stark has reached the same  kind of mythological status. I simply cannot envisage another House as de jure top entity of the "North" as long as it exists as such. 

This comparison only makes sense while the North was an independent kingdom. Those days are over. And since the Conquest it is clear that the Iron Throne can (and did) extinguish old royal line of mythological status. The Gardeners certainly were older and had a higher status than the Starks. But the Reach did not fracture after they were extinguished. The Conqueror just put the Tyrells in charge instead. 

There are noble lines that could be put in charge of the North should the Starks die out - the Dustins, Karstarks (prior to Rickard's treason, of course), and possibly even the Manderlys spring to mind. The Boltons certainly would like to do that but they are not likely to be accepted for long due their cruel reputation.

[Nittanian]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

We should keep in mind that Roose Bolton was NOT declared Lord Paramount but Warden of the North! 

I think it cannot be disputed that as long as the North exists as a political entity (and there is nothing that suggests that any player has an interest to break up this political entity), there can only be one institution to be named House Paramount and this is House Stark, at the very least in the form as de jure ruler, i.e. political figurehead. There is a reason why Ramsay was married to "Arya"...

To be pedantic, GRRM has not yet referred to a northern ruler, whether Stark or Bolton, as a lord paramount. He has only used the term for the new great houses who arose from Aegon's Conquest (Edmyn Tully as Lord Paramount of the Trident, Harlan Tyrell as Lord Paramount of the Mander, Orys Baratheon as Lord Paramount of the Stormlands).

Ramsay claims to be Lord of Winterfell, although he defers to Roose, the Lord of the Dreadfort and new Warden of the North. Ramsay may consider Roose as Warden to have greater power than simply a military leader:

Quote

"Ramsay Bolton, Lord of Winterfell, he signs himself. But there are other names as well." Lady Dustin, Lady Cerwyn, and four Ryswells had appended their own signatures beneath his. Beside them was drawn a crude giant, the mark of some Umber.

Those were done in maester's ink, made of soot and coal tar, but the message above was scrawled in brown in a huge, spiky hand. It spoke of the fall of Moat Cailin, of the triumphant return of the Warden of the North to his domains, of a marriage soon to be made. The first words were, "I write this letter in the blood of ironmen," the last, "I send you each a piece of prince. Linger in my lands, and share his fate." (ADWD The Wayward Bride)

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I think TWoIaF supports the view that there weren't any rebellions against the reign of the Gardeners, Lannisters, and Arryns after they had conquered their kingdoms and consolidated their rules. Or can you name such a rebellion?

There was always infighting in the Riverlands and the power of the Durrandons declined once in their history, but there is no hint that anybody ever tried to topple the main royal families of the Seven Kingdoms. Where are the Hightowers or Redwynes rebelling against the Gardeners? Where are the Royces rebelling against the Arryn kings? Where are the Reynes trying to depose the Lannisters while they were kings?

You don't seem to understand the whole rebellion thing, by the way. The Boltons of old (and the other rebels that stood up against the Starks) did not necessarily try to replace the Starks and become the new Kings in the North, they tried to free themselves from the yoke of Stark oppression. That is a different thing.

It was essentially only a Reyne rebellion because the Tarbecks were essentially nothing but a client house of the Reynes thanks to Lady Ellyn Reyne Tarbeck. That aside, this wasn't a rebellion against a Lannister king, though. It was just a rebellion to change the chain of command in the West. The Red Lion did not challenge Targaryen authority nor intend to crown himself King of the West.

There were some minor rebellions during the reigns of Maekar I and Aegon V but those doesn't seem to have been very large affairs. The Peake Uprising killed Maekar I but it wasn't threatening the integrity of the Realm and the Targaryen dynasty.

And all the other rebellions aside from the Faith Militant Uprisings were actually squabbles within the dynasty itself. Targaryen fought Targaryen both during the Dance and the Blackfyre rebellions. Even Robert's Rebellion can be seen as a strife within the extended royal family.

The Kings in the North faced major rebellions from their own subjects. It wasn't Stark vs. Stark up there (although it might have been, at times) but Starks vs. other Northmen.

I don't think the North has a monopoly on fierce loyalty. The Crackclaw Point people certainly express as much loyalty for the Targaryen dynasty as the clansmen express for the Starks.

And cruelty can be found pretty much everywhere.

Come now. It is naive to think that rebellions were not a natural occurrence in every kingdom over the millenia. If the Peakes were willing to rebel against the might of the Iron Throne, what makes you think Houses were not willing to rebel against their regional Kings over the ages?

The WOIAF names perhaps 4 specific regional rebellions in the North over 4000 years since unification. But do you think those were the only ones? Of course not. More likely there was some type of revolt at least every 100 years, as previous actors died and history repeated itself in a new generation. We might in fact be looking at as many as a hundred small rebellions that were put down over the ages to keep the Northern Realm unified.

Similarly, if 4 becomes a hundred in the North, then the Reyne- Tarbeck type of situation must have occurred numerous times since the Lannisters first became Kings of the Rock.

Even in tiny England - smaller than the Karstark lands in size - rebellions and civil wars were numerous over the course of less than 1000 years. In Martin's treacherous Westeros, over a much longer period of time, why would it be any different?

And to address one of your other points, rebellion doesn't mean trying to supplant the King. It means trying to gain independence from his rule, for your small region. And quite naturally, such an endeavour becomes far more palatable if you have natural boundaries that would make reconquest more difficult. Natural boundaries like large distances over harsh terrain with poor road infrastructure, that present logistical challenges to reconquest, or oceans that separate a remote Island like Skagos from their mainland overlords. Or low population densities coupled with two massive coastlines which forces the King to spread his forces thinly if he is dealing with enemies on more than one front. Like in Theon Stark's time.

In these conditions a disgrunteled lord who has forgotten the lessons of history, might be emboldened to act rashly, when a lord only a few days ride from the Eyrie, with few natural defensive boundaries protecting him, might sit and plot in more subtle ways forever, rather than rise in open rebellion and be quickly crushed. That in part is why the Game of Thrones is more subtle in the South, while in the North it is more direct, and dealt with through force more frequently, rather than through quiet plotting and undermining of your enemies over time.

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

Well, while we don't know anything about those hypothetical rebellions in the South you are positing I'm not going to assume those were a thing. We have to stick to what we know, not what you think we can we know.

And especially for the Reach it is repeatedly stretched that the Gardeners took over the other kingdoms peacefully through marriages and treaties rather than conquests. If they didn't have to beat their subjects into submission why the hell should we assume they faced constant rebellions? It just doesn't make much sense.

The only time of real unrest and chaos in the Reach was connected with the long reign of Garth Greybeard, and that was just a struggle for control of the Reach between various factions married into the royal family.

And in the Vale we know that the victory of the Andals over the First Men was so complete back that it took the losers centuries to regain their former wealth and prestige, making it exceedingly unlikely that, say, the Royces and the Corbrays would have ever tried to rebel against the Arryns.

And Casterly Rock and Lannisport are so dominating and powerful in the West that the idea that anybody would truly challenge the power of the Lannisters just doesn't make any sense. They have an impregnable castle and vast wealth. Anybody trying to rebel against that power is doomed to failure in the end, as the people seemed to have learned early on in history.

Even the Andals didn't do much conquering in the West and the Reach and where largely peacefully integrated into those kingdoms.

And since you mention the Peake Uprising - we don't really know what that was about. One assumes it had something to do with the notorious Blackfyre sympathies that house depicted. I mean, the idea that they had any chance whatsoever to get independent in the middle of the Targaryen realm is completely silly. Even if they had success of a year or even a decade (if the Iron Throne had other problems right now) they would eventually be crushed. Just as Dagon Greyjoy was crushed in the end (and he was operating in the borderlands and not in the heartlands of the Realm).