How did the Starks able to rule the north for 1000s years?

[kwak76]

In order to be a ruler there has to be an element of politically sophistication and know how. Being a leader is more than just being honorable or even ruthless. You have to be able to read people and know who's who and know how to manipulate people. Yes, manipulate.

But if you look at Ned Stark , Rob Stark and even Jon Snow. They all had leadership abilities but lack political awareness. I can understand that Rob and maybe even Jon because of their young age . Honestly I think Jon Snow showed the most promise with some cunning but let his emotion get to him.

I mean these are Starks. For hundreds if not 1000's of years they ruled the North and there had to be cunning in order to have staying power. You would think genetics of cunning would run in the family or be taught how to be cunning. I understand honor is everything to the Starks but still you have to have common sense sometimes.

[Sevumar]

In the North, they had the advantage of knowing their home turf. They saw their vassals reasonably often, have dealt with these families for generations, and live in a region that's relatively inward-looking. It makes sense that they'd be adept at dealing with the politics of the North. The South is religiously and culturally different, and contains a higher number and density of noble houses, so you'd expect the Starks to be out of their element there.

It's a bit of a stretch to assume that a dynasty can sustain itself for thousands of years and remain that stable. We get examples of some upheaval in the story (the Night's King, the rebellion of Skagos, the invasion of the Ironmen, various Bolton uprisings, slavers on the eastern coast, and the extinction of the male line at one point), but most dynasties are lucky if they last centuries, not millennia. There are some indications that the histories exaggerate numbers (as ancient historians were known to do in our world) and the First Men were not known for producing written records, so it's likely that there's a big element of mythological history included in the Stark claim.

[Zar Lannister]

You would think genetics of cunning would run in the family or be taught how to be cunning. I understand honor is everything to the Starks but still you have to have common sense sometimes.

I'm not normally one to defend Starks, but you are basing your analysis on a 17 year rule of the North under Ned. Somewhere along the line, we are told by Lady Dustin that

Lord Rickard (Ned's Father) had southern ambitions and thus had arranged his children to Wed southrons

. So, don't be so eager to discard the Stark rule over two consecutive weak rulers (although this could be argued on). Since Lord Rickard seem to at least be savvy on arranging alliances.

[kephv]

We've seen, what, three Starks rule? Only one of which ruled the north for any amount of time, and he seemed to have handled that well enough.

[Quint]

Because Bael the bard shot his cunning into Brandon the Daughter-less's daughter ;)

[House Martell]

Ned was never meant to rule Winterfell, Brandon was. I imagine first born sons and younger sons are treated differently. Ned prob never figured he rule and took no interest in gaining the "ruthless" qualities necessary. Lyanna and Brandon both seemed to have those qualities. Plus Ned knows the north and could have ruled it well prob for years. He just wasn't good at the game of thrones.

[daenerys snow]

^ ned was probably expecting to have a holdfast and be one of brandon's bannermen and would have had some idea of having to be practical.

someone in one the books mentioned something about earlier starks taking hostages from potentially troublesome families and beheading the ones whose parents didn't stay in line. and they do seem to have some kind of caring for their people. if not, you wouldn't see this extreme stark love in the north from most of the lords (excepting the boltons, natch).

[Sevumar]

^ ned was probably expecting to have a holdfast and be one of brandon's bannermen and would have had some idea of having to be practical.

We don't have any good examples of this in the North in the present timeline, so I wonder which fort or city he'd've given to Ned with the understanding that it wasn't permission to create a cadet branch of the family. There's a example of a couple similar positions in the Vale, but there's not much attention paid to them.

[daenerys snow]

there's a line from one of the pov's in a game of thrones that mentions this in regards to robb's younger brothers which was supposed to be why lord eddard included his younger boy and his bastard in his lord training excursions around the north.

[House Martell]

there's a line from one of the pov's in a game of thrones that mentions this in regards to robb's younger brothers which was supposed to be why lord eddard included his younger boy and his bastard in his lord training excursions around the north.

Sure, I'm not saying he's totally incompetent, but running a house and ruling a region are different.

[daenerys snow]

yes and no. they are similar if not exactly the same. ruling a holdfast is still running a household and ruling over small folk and minor lords and knights. it is kinda like ruling a region, albeit a smaller one than his brother was.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So because one or two guys in a family lack political savvy, it means they all do? You're basing like eight thousand years of a single house on the actions of very few people within like 1-3 years.

Think about that, and how damn silly it is.

[GreatDave Umber]

The North is a lot more homogeneous than the rest of Westeros. The Starks were so well liked in that society BECAUSE of the honor that they had. It was a plus not a minus such as in the South. Ned is noted as loved by everyone in the North, they don't even really know his son but jump at the opportunity to name Ned Stark's son as their king. I think historically a dynasty lasting a thousand years is really unrealistic, but I think with the wall to the North and the Deepwood Motte at the Neck, their honor makes them likable so I could see the dynasty lasting a while.

[daenerys snow]

that rep for honour didn't happen overnight. it was buildup of about 8,000 years. and the product of keeping their word, no doubt, that if you play nice you will be rewarded and if you don't you lose an heir.

[idreamofpikas]

The Starks only ruled the whole of the North for 700 years which in itself is impressive but the main reasons would be down to:

Geography - the Wall keeping out the Wildling invaders and the Andals of the South not really interested in invading down to the poor farming, bad climate and secure defences.

Religion - a homogenous religion means that there would be no religious wars/uprsising within the North and make them united against outside religions. Also the Old Gods religion is very simple with no priests or books arguning the differences.

Weather - hard deadly winters that last years has made the people of the North regard surviving Winter the biggest priority. With no wars during winter Holdfests generally being weakened after winter and pre winter gathering the crops become the priority doesnt leave a lot of time for war.

Karhold - prior to the building of Karhold we know that Bear Island and the Marches were separate kingdoms and that the Boltons of the dreadfort only accepted fealty(circa-100 years ago) afterwards as well as White Harbour being regularly used a pirate haven. Having powerful family allies keeps the rest inline.

300 years ago the Targs made the Starks their representatives of the North, rebellion against the Starks from that point of time faces the wrath of the Throne and the whole of Westeros.

[Jaqen H'gar]

The Starks had power in the North, and allegience, there was honor. The Starks had the force, they didnt need to manipulate people, manipulating people is not a necessary trait for a leader. You need to motivate people, not manipulate them. Manipulation is used by those that cannot lead effectively.

Dont forget, Ned led in some fairly huge battles, he was no idiot and put down some serious foes.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

How were the Starks able to rule the North all that time?

Because no one else WANTED to. Seriously, a place where you get head-deep snows in the middle of summer? Most Westerosi went, "dudes, you want to deal with that, have at it. Holler at us if any of you are still alive next month."

[Biffyc7]

We really don't know that much about the 'darker' aspects of Starks rule... with a bit given to us through Reek's POV in ADWD. Heads were chopped off, but I think the Starks were relatively fair over the years. It's also mentioned a few times about how Ned Stark paid attention to the Lord's under him, winning their loyalty through attention.

[David Selig]

Not all Starks were like Ned. In fact, there's plenty of mentions that quite a few of the Starks of old were ruthless bastards, and there's nothing to indicate that his brand of naivety was typical for his dynasty.

And of course, it's fantasy. Dynasties ruling for so long is extremely unlikely no matter how clever and ruthless most of their members are.

[Ser Elfor the Landstander]

This is an interesting question. To answer it, I'll use the voice of a young girl:

"I know about the promise" insisted the girl. "Maester Theomore, tell them! A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf's Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!" (excerpt from ADWD)

That young girl is Wylla Manderly.