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

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

[...] to claim it's blind loyalty and all due to thousand years-old Stark "kindness" and not political vision and ambition (even down to the fetching of Rickon) strikes me as being AGOT-Sansa grade starry-eyed.

OK, but I didn't claim that. (I think?) You seemed to dismiss the "Starks are great"-speech as having no bearing on what's going on now, and I tried to argue that it did. Even if loyalty is far from the only factor in a potential uprising against the Boltons and Freys.

I certainly don't think that the oath she mentioned has always been as strong or important as it is now, during a time of crisis. Also, I seem to recall that many of the great houses (and smaller ones) are described as having been around for quite some time and the problem is the same for all of them: Time scales in ASOIAF feel off. "8000 years ago, such and such happened." IRL we probably know more now what happened 1500 years ago, than what they did 500 years ago.

[Winterfell is Burning]

1,000 years ago, hmm.

If I'm not mistaken, 1,000 years ago one set of ancestors were Muslims and living under the Moors in the Ottoman Empire. Another set were barbarians raiding the coastlines of Europe. I have absolutely no clue what my ancestors living in the Caribbean were doing at that point in time.

Alas that my loyalties are so fickle. *sniffle* I would die of laughter if someone came along and told me that I was required to be loyal to him because of ancestors 1,000 years ago. I have to agree with EB, nobody is going to stay loyal to 1,000 year old oaths. Loyalty to Ned Stark to save his daughter, that I can completely understand. Oaths from 1,000 years ago, I'm afraid I can't.

But they aren't loyal only because of oaths made a 1000 years ago. They are loyal because of those AND because the Starks continue to give them reasons to be loyal, for being (mostly) just and honorable, and by the reasons I mentioned above.

When the people they did sworn oaths of loyalty 300 years ago gave them no reason to stay loyal, they simply didn't followed them anymore.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The Starks rule in Winterfell because "the Starks rule in WInterfell". Everybody in the North that only a Stark can rule for long. So, if somebody wants to become King in the North, he plants his ass in Winterfell, marries a Stark girl or constructs some descendancy from an ancient Stark and takes the name Stark. If he doesn't piss off enough people to kick him out, they will say "at least he is related to the Starks". A hundred years later they have forgotten the "at least" and the "related" and say "he is the Stark (of Winterfell)". And Starks rule since the beginning of time...

[HouseofStark]

Sorry to offend your sensibilities. I will however continue to post as I see fit. You're free to not read my contributions if you can't stand it.

your comments don't offend me, but i'm saying there is no call for you to be rude to someone for expressing their opinion.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Besides, whatever the little Wylla says, it's pretty clear her grandfather supports the Starks now mostly for other reasons, not historical loyalty to them - to have his revenge against the Freys and to get more power as the chief supporter and advisor of Rickon when he gets in control of the North.

Do those reasons have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't Manderly be acting for revenge, power AND loyalty? Having one doesn't necessarily mean you can't have the other(s).

[Milady de Winterfell]

The Starks rule in Winterfell because "the Starks rule in WInterfell". Everybody in the North that only a Stark can rule for long. So, if somebody wants to become King in the North, he plants his ass in Winterfell, marries a Stark girl or constructs some descendancy from an ancient Stark and takes the name Stark. If he doesn't piss off enough people to kick him out, they will say "at least he is related to the Starks". A hundred years later they have forgotten the "at least" and the "related" and say "he is the Stark (of Winterfell)". And Starks rule since the beginning of time...

This is pretty much the answer. However, in addition to what everyone else has said regarding loyalty to the Starks... "The North remembers." Ancient history means a lot more to the people of the north than it does to the rest of Westeros. Slights and good deeds are not dismissed with time. The Starks (whoever that may be) have built their reputation and respect in a land that operates on almost a mystical sense of continuity.

[idreamofpikas]

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.

I wonder if young Wylla is taught the reasons why the Manderlys were exiled from the Reach? Once upon a time they promised fealty to the Gardeners and that changed.

[The Bloody Boar]

@Ser Elfor: hey, like your sig!

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.

True. OTOH Littlefinger did have a few things to say about characteristic Stark honourblind lack of wits, and the wildlings who try to get Bran say 'Trust a Stark to threaten when they ought to beg' or something like that, showing Starks have a reputation for reckless courage. Ned's brother Brandon rushing to King's Landing and demanding to fight Rhaegar is another case in point.

I would say the Starks have managed to rule for this incredible length of time by:

1. Being incredible badasses. They're very good at fighting.

2. Living in the North, where people take loyalty, honour, and revenge that much more seriously than the more sophisticated south.

3. Inspiring loyalty in their followers, if Ned and Robb are anything to go by.

4. Doing justice. Justice, as someone says, is what kings are for.

5. Having badass warging abilities and being in touch with the old gods. Brandon the builder seems to have known some magic.

6. Long tradition. With the passage of time, their rule became something of an institution.

[David Selig]

Inspiring loyalty in their followers, if Ned and Robb are anything to go by.

Yes, Robb was great at inspiring loyalty in his followers, he only had the Boltons, Karstarks, Freys and Theon turn against him. No biggie. :cool4:

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

While I definitely like the Starks because of the many traits suggested by various posters here, 1000 years (and it's actually longer) is a loooong time for any family/house to exist under the same name, not to mention staying on top in a hierarchy of competing houses.

However, this ability to remain top dogs for extended periods of time seems to be as strong for houses Lannister, Martell, and Gardener, for instance. As I posted earlier, something is up with the time scales. Either all these dates/time spans are correct and the reason for them is that GRRM simply wants his world to function in this way, or they should be taken with a large grain of salt and are a product of Westerosi traditions in recording history.

[The White Wolf of Winter]

The Starks ruled so long because they started as KINGS of the North. And then after the conquest they were made Wardens of the North were they not? By rule of the Iron Throne. To oppose that rule you would have had to oppose the King on the Iron Throne. Of coarse everything changed after Robert's death when Ned lost his head.... both figuratively and literally.

[idreamofpikas]

While I definitely like the Starks because of the many traits suggested by various posters here, 1000 years (and it's actually longer) is a loooong time for any family/house to exist under the same name, not to mention staying on top in a hierarchy of competing houses.

However, this ability to remain top dogs for extended periods of time seems to be as strong for houses Lannister, Martell, and Gardener, for instance. As I posted earlier, something is up with the time scales. Either all these dates/time spans are correct and the reason for them is that GRRM simply wants his world to function in this way, or they should be taken with a large grain of salt and are a product of Westerosi traditions in recording history.

House Martell only became rulers 700 years before the Targs and that was down to them Marrying into the invading Rhoynes. As the Rhoynish went further inland of Dorne it would only cement Nymeria and Martells leadership.

The Lannisters long rule can be attributed to the two most powerful Westernland strongholds belonging to Lannisters. I expect the various powerful Lannister families have had a policy of marrying cousins to keep their family at the top.

The Starks also only really came to rule the North 700 years before Aegons invasion and that can be attributed to a cadet family founding Karhold and bringing in foreigners who worship false gods(the Manderlys) to rule the best port thus cementing the Starks grip on the North.

I actually dont think that pre-1000 years ago that there were any definitive rulers of any of the countries in Westeros but rather each country was built up of many different kingdoms which mostly unified around 7-800 years before Aegons invasion.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

House Martell only became rulers 700 years before the Targs and that was down to them Marrying into the invading Rhoynes. As the Rhoynish went further inland of Dorne it would only cement Nymeria and Martells leadership.

The Lannisters long rule can be attributed to the two most powerful Westernland strongholds belonging to Lannisters. I expect the various powerful Lannister families have had a policy of marrying cousins to keep their family at the top.

The Starks also only really came to rule the North 700 years before Aegons invasion and that can be attributed to a cadet family founding Karhold and bringing in foreigners who worship false gods(the Manderlys) to rule the best port thus cementing the Starks grip on the North.

I actually dont think that pre-1000 years ago that there were any definitive rulers of any of the countries in Westeros but rather each country was built up of many different kingdoms which mostly unified around 7-800 years before Aegons invasion.

Yes, and the Targs landed about 300 years ago, so that would make the Martells rulers of Dorne for 700+300=1000 years, which I defined in my earlier post as a loooong time. According to the wiki, Lann the Clever came into posession of Casterly Rock during the Age of Heroes which seems to have ended about 8000 years before Egg I and his sisters descended upon Westeros.

So, looking at our own timeline, if we go back 5000 years we're at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Then, we go back another 3000 years and that's more or less how long the Lannister family have had Casterly Rock as a base, and possibly (but not definitely) been a major power player in that region. Even with an extreme number of marriages between cousins and all the gold in Casterly Rock, that doesn't seem realistic at all. Also, apparently Lann "stole gold from the sun to brighten his hair." See where I'm going with this?

All houses have their strengths and weaknesses, and there is heavy symbolism and reductionism in play when characterizing them (both here and in the books). Simply put, the Starks have held the North for 1000+ years because the novels say so. It could be the truth, it could all be down to legend and myths.

[Ser Elfor the Landstander]

How are you not, exactly? You're claiming there was never any sob to bother the Starks because of "kindness". In one thousand years.

And my sarcastic remark was not made to be ignored: seriously, do you remember or care when some folks gave the group you identify with some lands one thousand years ago? Did the loyalty of your ancestors last one thousand years? Are you, yourself, even willing to kneel before some kid because of something his alleged ancestors did to your alleged ancestors, one thousand years ago?

Somehow that seems to make the stuff about loyalty and kindness fall into the "naive" category, yes. Unless you want to claim that war is kindness and political agenda doesn't exist.

This oozes with sarcasm. You're trying to ridicule my argument with an impossible suggestion.

Of course our families aren't connected through an ancient promise. We don't even know each other. We don't live in Westeros. All this proves is that fiction is different from reality. Good point, let's move on.

I apologize if I sound condescending, but I don't like having to explain the obvious. I enjoy a healthy debate, as long as there is mutual respect. Please don't insult my intelligence and I'll try to display the same courtesy to you.

Now, for the actual discussion.

I was curious about this oath business, so I went back to read AGOT and check something. Particularly the part where Robb Stark (acting Lord of Winterfell) calls his banners. Here's the passage I found most interesting:

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters" he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker". (excerpt from AGOT, one of Bran's POV)

We can all remember what happens next, and the Greatjon becomes one of Robb's most trusted allies.

So this somewhat proves that all bannermen had oaths of service (or fealty) in favor of House Stark, even the Boltons, otherwise they wouldn't march south with Robb. This doesn't prevent one or a few of those bannermen from breaking said oath, it only brands them as oathbreakers or traitors. And we know the penalty for that.

Is this oath, or the penalty for breaking it, enough to hold such a vast area as the north? Until the Red Wedding it was. Even after that, Roose Bolton only managed to secure his (tenuous) hold with a fake Arya Stark. In that fictional culture, name and tradition is more important than capability.

What's less evident is how they managed to get those oaths in the first place. We kinda know how it happened for the Manderlys, but every other House remains a mystery to us. Was it always with "kindness" that the Starks gained their allegiance? Probably not, they did have a fearsome reputation in the past, as David Selig suggested. We don't know enough.

However they gained their trust, whatever past actions made them worthy of loyalty, "the north remembers". And shall remember until all Starks are gone.

This is only my interpretation of the text. If you have a different one, please elaborate so we can discuss it.

[David Selig]

All lower ranked lords give oaths of fealty to their liege lord, both in Westeros and in real history, that's an integral part of the feudal system. It didn't help all that much in preventing betrayals though in both cases.

[House Martell]

I wonder if young Wylla is taught the reasons why the Manderlys were exiled from the Reach? Once upon a time they promised fealty to the Gardeners and that changed.

The Gardners are gone, the Tyrells are in charge and they never swore fidelity to them (in fact I believe they ran them off)

[Ser Elfor the Landstander]

All lower ranked lords give oaths of fealty to their liege lord, both in Westeros and in real history, that's an integral part of the feudal system. It didn't help all that much in preventing betrayals though in both cases.

You're quite right. The oath itself doesn't prevent anything. It's up to the individuals to uphold it.

Another interesting example is how Tywin Lannister dealt with some minor houses. They even made a song about it.

[House Martell]

One of if not THE the main keys to Stark success is Winterfell. Its a centrally located, massive easily defensible castle, built on a hot spring (which comes in pretty handy during those northern winters). They have "glass gardens", huge graineries, and are by far the best provisioned hold in the north. The line is "there is always a Stark in Winterfell", not always a Stark ruling the north, they seem to know the key to holding the north is holding Winterfell. Rob left a crippled boy and a 3 yr old as the only Starks as well as a feeble amount of guards to keep Winterfell (otherwise Theon would never have been able to take it). Sure the loyalty and adequate ruling abilities helped the Starks but it's also easier to stay on top when you've got a firm hold on the best seat in the house.

[Peasant Rebel Leader]

The "Thousand Years" is obviously fantasy time. If you look at historical development, Westeros would be in a very bad place with such few progress. And the whole backstory with the Wall goes back even further. The what 999 commanders? That's a hell of a lot time, so we either don't take it literally and assume it is a constructed history by the time of the Targaryen Kingdom or we use the "It's Magic!" trope to explain why Westeros hasn't progressed: Magic made it different than in our world.

With that you can explain away all the little inconsistencies (different fruits, glass houses, different ship technologies not matching the weaponry, Knight Fights but the Green Fire) and so on.

So we can either answer how in our world based on our understanding of our society some institution could stay in power for 1000 years and then you get this answer:

The Starks rule in Winterfell because "the Starks rule in WInterfell". Everybody in the North that only a Stark can rule for long. So, if somebody wants to become King in the North, he plants his ass in Winterfell, marries a Stark girl or constructs some descendancy from an ancient Stark and takes the name Stark. If he doesn't piss off enough people to kick him out, they will say "at least he is related to the Starks". A hundred years later they have forgotten the "at least" and the "related" and say "he is the Stark (of Winterfell)". And Starks rule since the beginning of time...

Comparable things for example would be the title of Emperor of Rome taken over in the Middle Ages by the German Kingdom. It stayed as an idea and institution for 1000 years (Charlemagne until 180something with the Habsburg KuK-Emperors). But it changed a whole lot.

Or you can try to understand the whole thing "in the books" itself and then I would say we do not have enough information on how true the information we have is and what "rule" essentially was. Take for example the Ravens, when were they introduced and how much did they help extend direct rule?

In the end, I personally wouldn't take the 1000 years literally.

[ost]

Another point about loyalty to the Starks.. Its mentioned somewhere (not sure where) that some old Stark won Bear Island in a wrestling march and gave to the Mormonts, so perhaps there was some other promise involved there. The Mormont women seemed just as loyal as Manderly in ADWD.