Most Powerful Lesser Houses

[SerGregortheMountain]

Stark: 1) Manderly of White Harbor 2) Bolton of the Dreadfort 3) Karstark of Karhold

I think you have to put Umber on that list as well. GRRM must have a reason for not killing off the Greatjon, and historically the two houses Stark and Umber have been entwined in some larger events in the North such as defeating Raymun Redbeard. I have a feeling that relationship still has strong days ahead.

[jlk7e]

Maybe Martin didn't want to further complicate the sociopolitical landscape of Westeros by adding city councils, each with its own set of personalities and interests, to the mix of greater and lesser nobles who rule the land. Easier to just have everything ruled by nobles of varying influence, who nevertheless all answer to a single House in each of the kingdom's provinces.

Probably, but in other respects the world building is enjoyable complex and messy. Another big difference is that there doesn't seem to be any significant royal demesne at all. The kings seem to control King's Landing directly, and in the Targaryen era also Dragonstone, but that's about it. Pretty much every other inch of territory seems to belong to one noble house or other. If you look at, say, medieval France or England, you'd find that a large amount of territory was under direct royal control. The extremely tidy feudal structures don't really match real history all that well.

[devilish hedgehog]

Probably, but in other respects the world building is enjoyable complex and messy. Another big difference is that there doesn't seem to be any significant royal demesne at all. The kings seem to control King's Landing directly, and in the Targaryen era also Dragonstone, but that's about it. Pretty much every other inch of territory seems to belong to one noble house or other. If you look at, say, medieval France or England, you'd find that a large amount of territory was under direct royal control. The extremely tidy feudal structures don't really match real history all that well.

I was thinking about this too, and it occurred to me that there is at least 8000 years of history in Westeros, compared to barely 5000 years of written history IRL, and we are much more technologically advanced. So perhaps, thru all these years, more and more lords or landed knights were established

[Corvinus85]

I think you have to put Umber on that list as well. GRRM must have a reason for not killing off the Greatjon, and historically the two houses Stark and Umber have been entwined in some larger events in the North such as defeating Raymun Redbeard. I have a feeling that relationship still has strong days ahead.

They're number 4 on my list. Remember this is at the beginning of AGOT. I think the Karstarks and the Umbers were close to each other in strength then, I just decided to put the Karstarks because we know the numbers they brought to Robb. At the present moment (end of AFFC) I think the Umbers may be stronger, considering that the Karstarks probably suffered heavier losses in the war.

[morbiczer]

Maybe Martin didn't want to further complicate the sociopolitical landscape of Westeros by adding city councils (...) .

This is probably one reason. In general, the entire feudal structure of Westeros is fairly simplyfied compared to what you would have found in most Western European countries in the High Middle Ages. Everybody has just one overlord, while in RL many lords held land from different people.

Another major difference is that the Faith probably does not hold much land in Westeros. We see a few monasteries, but the Faith is not putting any soldiers in the field for the king's army or anybody else. In a true feudal society one of the mian obligations of every vassal was to supply troops for his overlord (as we see with all the noble houses in Westeros).

Note also how every noble house has only one castle. Wouldn't make any sense in RL, but helps to keep things more simple for the reader to follow.

[Talleyrand]

Note also how every noble house has only one castle. Wouldn't make any sense in RL, but helps to keep things more simple for the reader to follow.

Not true, the Peake's of Starpike had 3 castles. And the Daynes own both Starfall and High Hermitage

[sentence]

Note also how every noble house has only one castle. Wouldn't make any sense in RL, but helps to keep things more simple for the reader to follow.

"House Peake did hold three castles once, but two of them were lost" , is said in The mystery knight

and in AGOT, Ned executes Gared in a Stark minor stronghold.

[Corvinus85]

"House Peake did hold three castles once, but two of them were lost" , is said in The mystery knight

and in AGOT, Ned executes Gared in a Stark minor stronghold.

it was a holdfast.

Yes there are families that have more than one castle, but technically each castle is owned by a separate branch of the family. There is not any one lord who owns more than a castle. For example, Runestone is ruled by Yohn Royce, while the Gates of the Moon by Nestor Royce. They are cousins, but Nestor does not rule his castle in Yohn's name, he does it his own name (at least at the end of AFFC).

I guess you could say that the Arryns own more than one castle: the Eyrie, the Gates of the Moon, ruled in their name by another, and the Bloody Gate ruled in their name by an appointed knight. Same could be said for the Targaryens: King's Landing, Dragonstone, and Summerhall.

[Noroldis]

Jlk7e:

Probably, but in other respects the world building is enjoyable complex and messy. Another big difference is that there doesn't seem to be any significant royal demesne at all. The kings seem to control King's Landing directly, and in the Targaryen era also Dragonstone, but that's about it. Pretty much every other inch of territory seems to belong to one noble house or other. If you look at, say, medieval France or England, you'd find that a large amount of territory was under direct royal control. The extremely tidy feudal structures don't really match real history all that well.

According to the AGoT RPG sourcebook by Guardians of Order, to which Ran contributed, "the environs of King's Landing can provide 10,000 – 15,000 soldiers, at the behest of the lords of Duskendale, Rosby, and others," so I figure we can call that the royal demesne, along with Dragonstone. I agree that even so, it makes the royal lands of Westeros quite small compared to what there was in our own world, especially given that even the weakest Great House can muster more men.

Morbiczer:

This is probably one reason. In general, the entire feudal structure of Westeros is fairly simplyfied compared to what you would have found in most Western European countries in the High Middle Ages. Everybody has just one overlord, while in RL many lords held land from different people.

IIRC, Martin has mentioned he's simplified the noble title hierarchy too much, and now wishes he'd given the lords of the Great Houses a title of their own, like duke or earl, to distinguish them from their vassal lords.

Another major difference is that the Faith probably does not hold much land in Westeros. We see a few monasteries, but the Faith is not putting any soldiers in the field for the king's army or anybody else. In a true feudal society one of the mian obligations of every vassal was to supply troops for his overlord (as we see with all the noble houses in Westeros).

Well, we know the Faith used to have two military orders of its own, but as Genna Lannister tells Jaime, those orders were involved in rebellions against the early Targaryen kings and ended up being disbanded. But with Cersei having short-sightedly restored them, the Faith could have a sizable army by the end of the series.

[jlk7e]

According to the AGoT RPG sourcebook by Guardians of Order, to which Ran contributed, "the environs of King's Landing can provide 10,000 – 15,000 soldiers, at the behest of the lords of Duskendale, Rosby, and others," so I figure we can call that the royal demesne, along with Dragonstone.

But that's not direct royal control. That's the lords of Duskendale, Rosby, and others.

[Xenophon]

But that's not direct royal control. That's the lords of Duskendale, Rosby, and others.

Yeah, as far as I can tell there is no Royal Demesne at all under the Baratheon kings. The Targaryens had Dragonstone, but Robert gave that to Stannis. It makes sense though: taxes are mentioned a few times, so the Crown doesn't need a demesne to support itself. The Targaryens just put themselves on top of the pre-existing feudal structure, so the better equivalent to RL royal demesnes are the holdings of the great houses.

[Thefalconemperor]

But that's not direct royal control. That's the lords of Duskendale, Rosby, and others.

Pretty much. King's Landing and Dragonstone alone should ammount to a strength comparable to the Hightowers. That was pretty much it for the Targaryens after their dragons were gone, and probably the reason Martin compared the Seven Kingdoms to the Holy Roman Empire.

Considering all the houses by 270 AL or so, without making distinction whether they are overlords or not, I assume their strengths would go like:

Lannister > Tyrell > Hightower = Targaryen > Stark, Martell, Redwyne, Tully, Frey etc.

Notice that I put Lannister over Tyrell but most likely the Reach > Westerlands.

[Free Northman]

An interesting related question is: How do the Great Houses - as individual houses - compare to the likes of the Hightowers and the Redwynnes?

Let's take the Starks as an example:

Winterfell - and Wintertown next to it - is not even a city. I'd guess at most we are talking about 5000 people living there. At most, therefore, we're talking 1000 men or so under their direct command. You'd think that the lands under their personal control (meaning not vassal land but the Starks own lands) must extend for a hundred miles around Winterfell or more, given that they're a Great House and all. And conceivably this would add many peasants to their tally, theoretically adding another few thousand men to their banner.

Unfortunately, this theory is blown out of the water by the fact that Lord Cerwyn - a vassal of the Starks - has his castle less than a day's ride from Winterfell. So that tells me that the Starks own land extends at most a day's ride around Winterfell.

This seems very strange, given that the Starks were individually the most powerful House in the North for thousands of years, BEFORE they actually got the rest of the Northern Houses to all swear fealty to them. Yet going by the pitiful size of Wintertown, and the apparent small size of the Stark lands, this seems difficult to substantiate.

In this context, the Starks as an individual House may well be behind some of the lesser Houses in the South, and even behind some of the lesser Houses in the North in terms of size and individual power.

What am I missing?

[Thefalconemperor]

An interesting related question is: How do the Great Houses - as individual houses - compare to the likes of the Hightowers and the Redwynnes?

Let's take the Starks as an example:

Winterfell - and Wintertown next to it - is not even a city. I'd guess at most we are talking about 5000 people living there. At most, therefore, we're talking 1000 men or so under their direct command. You'd think that the lands under their personal control (meaning not vassal land but the Starks own lands) must extend for a hundred miles around Winterfell or more, given that they're a Great House and all. And conceivably this would add many peasants to their tally, theoretically adding another few thousand men to their banner.

Unfortunately, this theory is blown out of the water by the fact that Lord Cerwyn - a vassal of the Starks - has his castle less than a day's ride from Winterfell. So that tells me that the Starks own land extends at most a day's ride around Winterfell.

This seems very strange, given that the Starks were individually the most powerful House in the North for thousands of years, BEFORE they actually got the rest of the Northern Houses to all swear fealty to them. Yet going by the pitiful size of Wintertown, and the apparent small size of the Stark lands, this seems difficult to substantiate.

In this context, the Starks as an individual House may well be behind some of the lesser Houses in the South, and even behind some of the lesser Houses in the North in terms of size and individual power.

What am I missing?

Nothing I'm afraid. Remember Cat said "these men made you king and they could undo it"? It seems like the rule of the Starks was one more based in honor than anything, since the Umbers, the Boltons and whoever rules White Harbor could very well be overlords instead of them. They are evenly matched with those at best, managing to field some 3,000 men or so I'd guess.

[Basileus777]

Unfortunately, this theory is blown out of the water by the fact that Lord Cerwyn - a vassal of the Starks - has his castle less than a day's ride from Winterfell. So that tells me that the Starks own land extends at most a day's ride around Winterfell.

Well, it's less than a day's ride in one particular direction. And given how asymmetrical feudal land holdings can be, it doesn't really say anything about how much land House Stark owns.

Martin has kept a lot of this stuff intentionally vague.

[jlk7e]

What Basileus says - the fact that Cerwyn Castle is close to Winterfell doesn't mean that the radius of direct stark holdings is the same in all directions around Winterfell. And for all we know, Cerwyn Castle might be an enclave entirely surrounded by Stark lands. We simply don't know enough to say. I would imagine that Stark lands are at least as populous as those of their major vassals, with the exception of the Manderlys, who I imagine have the largest population under their control.

[Wouter]

What Basileus says - the fact that Cerwyn Castle is close to Winterfell doesn't mean that the radius of direct stark holdings is the same in all directions around Winterfell. And for all we know, Cerwyn Castle might be an enclave entirely surrounded by Stark lands. We simply don't know enough to say. I would imagine that Stark lands are at least as populous as those of their major vassals, with the exception of the Manderlys, who I imagine have the largest population under their control.

Cerwyn castle might, for example, be a castle and some land given in reward to a Stark vassal/servant from out of the Starks own holdings; that could explain the possible case of this being an enclave in Stark territory. The Cerwyns appear to be minor lords very closely allied with the Starks, which would be consistent with this theory.

[Batman]

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SERIES

North

1 Manderly

2 Bolton

3 Umber

Tully

1 Frey

2 Bracken

3 Blackwood

(Harrenhal is the most powerful seat, but Whent was far from powerful at the start of the series)

Lannister

1 Lannister of Lannisport

2 Crakehall

3 Marbrand

Arryn

1 Royce of Runestone

2 Belmore

3 Redfort

Baratheon (Stormlands)

1 Swann

2 Estermont

3 Dondarion

Tyrell

1 Hightower

2 Redwyne

3 Florent

Martell

1 Yronwood

2 Dayne

3 Fowler

Greyjoy

1 Harlaw

2 Goodbrother

3 Blacktyde

Westeros

1 Hightower

2 Redwyne

3 Lannister of Lannisport

4 Manderly

5 Royce of Runestone

[jlk7e]

Batman, a few questions and notes :

1) Why Bolton and Umber ahead of Karstark?

2) Lannister of Lannisport has no power whatever. They're not a real house - they're just landless distant Lannister relations who live in Lannisport, like the Arryns of Gulltown.

3) I'd say Lefford, Lydden, and Brax at least deserve consideration for the Westerlands.

4) Why Belmore and Redfort as 2 and 3 for the Vale? The Graftons rule Gulltown, which seems like it should rank them high, and we hear much more about Waynwood, Hunter, Corbray. Why these particular ones?

5) Caron should be number one for the Stormlands. Beyond that, I think it's hard to say anything very definitive

6) For the Reach, Florent is a proud and ancient line, but I'm not sure we have much evidence that they're more powerful than, say, Rowan or Tarly or Oakheart.

[Free Northman]

Batman, a few questions and notes :

1) Why Bolton and Umber ahead of Karstark?

2) Lannister of Lannisport has no power whatever. They're not a real house - they're just landless distant Lannister relations who live in Lannisport, like the Arryns of Gulltown.

3) I'd say Lefford, Lydden, and Brax at least deserve consideration for the Westerlands.

4) Why Belmore and Redfort as 2 and 3 for the Vale? The Graftons rule Gulltown, which seems like it should rank them high, and we hear much more about Waynwood, Hunter, Corbray. Why these particular ones?

5) Caron should be number one for the Stormlands. Beyond that, I think it's hard to say anything very definitive

6) For the Reach, Florent is a proud and ancient line, but I'm not sure we have much evidence that they're more powerful than, say, Rowan or Tarly or Oakheart.

I can only comment on the Northern Houses. As to that:

I believe that Lady Dustin is more powerful than either the Umbers or the Karstarks. She rules the second biggest settlement in the North - Barrowton, which has anything from 5000-10,000 inhabitants. Supporting such a town must be ten times that number of people in the surrounding countryside. Also, the Dustins live in the most fertile part of the North - as far South as you can go before you hit the Neck. I reckon their lands have a much greater population density than that of the Umbers.

Next, the Rills appear to be very fertile as well, being far in the South and having plenty of water. It seems the only reason why the Ryswells aren't one of the most powerful Northern Houses, is that they are divided into 4 constantly squabbling branches. If they were united, I am sure that House Ryswell would be amongst the most powerful in the North.

So, my ranking of the most powerful Northern houses would be:

House Manderly - 10,000 men at least

House Dustin - 5000 men at least

House Bolton - 5000 men

House Karstark - 3000 men

House Umber - 2500 men (a guess)

If House Ryswell was united, I'd put them up around the Bolton level of 5,000 men as well. I'd like more clarity on the Ryswells, as they currently seems to have 4 different banners, each with a different coloured horsehead on it, as per Dance.