Jump to content

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


kwak76

Recommended Posts

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.

No that is incorrect. The Starks ruled as the Kings of Winter for at least 8000 years. They may not have ruled the entire North with its current political boundaries as an unbroken kingdom for that full period, but they were by far the most dominant political force in the North since the time of Brandon the Builder.

Some outlying areas like the Bolton Lands and the Neck may have been vassal kings in their own right, or even lesser allies of the King of Winter, but none of them competed with the Starks as Rulers of the North.

An example is White Harbor. Although the Manderleys were only granted White Harbor about 1000 years ago, King Jon Stark seems to have founded the Wolf Den almost 3000 years ago to defend the North against Sea Raiders. That's about 2000 years BEFORE the arrival of the Manderleys. The 3000 year old date comes from the Davos chapter, where he learns that after Jon Stark first raised the Wolf Den, it was the seat of countless younger Stark sons, cousins and uncles holding it for varying lengths of time. He mentions that just one of these offshoot Stark branches - the Greystarks - alone held the Wolf Den for more than 5 centuries. He doesn't even go into the length of the rule of any of the other Stark branches before and after that. But we know there were many. Then he mentions that the Flints held the castle for about two centuries, and the Lockes for about 1 century.

Clearly, he doesn't come close to a comprehensive list, but just the ones he gives us, takes it to a thousand years BEFORE the Manderleys. And all the other unmentioned holders of the Wolf Den probably takes it back another 1000 years quite easily.

The fact that the Starks from Winterfell were the ones to raise this stronghold that far back, proves that their area of rule stretched all the way to the eastern shore as far back as that. And from this story, we also learn that the Greystarks rule of 500 years - way back in this pre-Manderley era - ended when they joined the Boltons in rebellion against Winterfell. Note that the Boltons REBELLED against the Starks - way back in this early period. And to rebel, you have to be ruled by the Starks in the first place. So it seems the case of the Boltons is one of repeated subjugation and rebellion. So just because the Boltons only finally bent the knee to the Starks 1000 years ago, doesn't mean that they weren't ruled by them in much earlier periods, only to periodically revolt and be conquered again.

As for the establishment of the Karstarks in Karhold 800 years ago. The North is 8000 years old. Countless houses have risen and fallen in this time. Just because the Karstarks were only settled in the northeast 800 years ago, doesn't mean that there weren't earlier vassals to Winterfell living there in the previous 7200 years.

The only areas that were added to the North in the last 1000 years, were the Neck and Bear Island. Both outlying regions that aren't part of the historical North as such. And Skagos's continued rebellions don't mean that they haven't been ruled from Winterfell for a long time. It just means that they continually breed stubborn lords who want to cast off Winterfell's rule.

Despite all of the above insurrections, the fact remains. The Starks have ruled the North for 8000 years. Bits and pieces of their kingdom were less secure than others, but they ruled the North undisputedly none the less.

When the Andals arrived 6000 years ago, it was the Kings in the North who threw them back at Moat Cailin. Not some other house, or local petty king with Moat Cailin as his seat. But the Kings in the North. All the way from Winterfell.

And when the Wall needed support against the Wildlings in ages past, right back to its founding 8000 years ago, it was the Starks they turned to. Not some local Umber king, or a Bolton prince or some such petty lordling. No, they called on the help of the Kings in the North, the Starks. From 8000 years ago to the present day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I never really believed that the Starks ruled for eight millenia. I doubt the Starks, as a family, even existed that long ago. Didn't Sam say somewhere that written records only go back about two thousand years? Everything from before then is more legend than fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I never really believed that the Starks ruled for eight millenia. I doubt the Starks, as a family, even existed that long ago. Didn't Sam say somewhere that written records only go back about two thousand years? Everything from before then is more legend than fact.

The point is, whether the Wall was built 8000 years ago, or 4000 years ago, the Starks have ruled the North from that point onwards. They are the oldest House in Westeros, and the oldest unbroken line of rulers of any of the constituent members of the Seven Kingdoms. In fact, they are the ONLY one of the ORIGINAL Royal lines that still remain intact and in power over their Kingdom. All the others were replaced by Andals and Roynar.

The Storm King's line has died out. So have the Gardeners of the Reach, and the Casterlys and the the First Men line of Lann the clever. The Kings of Mountain and Vale were rooted out when the Andals arrived, as were the original Dornish line.

The River Kings are long gone, and the original rulers of the Iron Isles were also swept aside by the Andal invaders.

The only original rulers in Westeros that still remain, are the Starks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<history of house Stark>

OK? When I said 1000+ years I was referring to the name of the topic. It could mean 8000 years if you want to! You say my post is incorrect, but nothing in it is a contradiction to what you write in yours. Nice summary by the way! :)

ETA: I was trying to call the documentation of historic events in Westeros into question, not whether the Starks had ruled the North since year X or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK? When I said 1000+ years I was referring to the name of the topic. It could mean 8000 years if you want to! You say my post is incorrect, but nothing in it is a contradiction to what you write in yours. Nice summary by the way! :)

ETA: I was trying to call the documentation of historic events in Westeros into question, not whether the Starks had ruled the North since year X or not.

Sorry, I meant to respond to the original guy who suggested that the Starks had only ruled the North for about 1000 years. I think it was Idreamofipikas or some such name.

I merely meant to dispute that assertion. Sorry if I quoted your post as the one with the reference to the Starks 1000 year rule.

The point is, they have ruled the North from the very beginning. Starting when there were hundreds of petty First Men kings. But as far back as the invasion of the Andals - presumably between 4000 and 6000 years ago, as far back as the time of the Night's king - supposedly the 13th out of 999 Lord Commanders and therefore from a time many years before the arrival of the Andals, and as far back as the founding of the Wolf's Den on the future site of White Harbor, millenia before the arrival of the Manderleys, the Starks were the dominant power as far south as Moat Cailin, as far east as White Harbour, and as far North as the Wall itself.

Heck, The original Gift - the area just below the Wall itself, is named Brandon's gift. Meaning that whichever Brandon gave it to the Watch, ruled as far North as that. And the Gift was given to the Watch so far back in time that it is lost in the mists of history.

So while the Boltons may have hated the Stark rule, and rebelled against it many times, this does not change the fact that the Starks ruled the North as Kings of Winter for 8000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I made a mistake.

The Marsh King of the Neck swore his fealty to House Stark long before the Manderleys arrived in White Harbor. It was Rickard Stark, the son of Jon Stark who defeated the Marsh King and married his daughter.

Jon Stark was the one who built the castle at White Harbor. I intially took this to mean that he was the one who gave White Harbor to the Manderleys, but in actual fact, he was the one who built the Wolfs Den, thousands of years earlier. Hence the Neck became part of the territory of the Kings of Winter only one generation after the Wolf Den was built at White Harbor.

Therefore roughly 3000 years ago. And it was Rickard's son Rodrik - only one generation later, therefore, who won Bear Island from the Ironborn.

Therefore the Stark rule stretched as far as Bear Island in the North and the Neck in the South at least 3000 years ago. And although they had apparently held sway over the White Harbor area since an indeterminate time before this, they built an actual stronghold at White Harbor around 3000 years ago as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I made a mistake.

The Marsh King of the Neck swore his fealty to House Stark long before the Manderleys arrived in White Harbor. It was Rickard Stark, the son of Jon Stark who defeated the Marsh King and married his daughter.

Jon Stark was the one who built the castle at White Harbor. I intially took this to mean that he was the one who gave White Harbor to the Manderleys, but in actual fact, he was the one who built the Wolfs Den, thousands of years earlier. Hence the Neck became part of the territory of the Kings of Winter only one generation after the Wolf Den was built at White Harbor.

We cannot be sure of that identification.

In 8000 years, there should have been something like 300 or 500 Stark rulers.

For comparison, there is an actual dynasty which has reigned in unbroken male line well over 1500 years - probably over 2000. With the traditional reign count, they are now at ruler number 125 and have reigned for 2670 years.

Note that the datings of early reigns are probably overestimated, and slightly over 2000 is closer to the mark. Out of the 125, a number of names have been used twice, never more.

And the emperors have reigned a lot of time they did not rule. They never ruled for more than a few centuries at a time - they have not ruled for 1100 years except for once trying and failing in a few years.

Now, back to the 8 millennia Starks. They certainly recycled some names, like Brandon. And distinguished the Brandons with epithets, not numerals (like Lannisters and Gardeners did).

But when a "Jon Stark" was briefly mentioned, does the lack of epithet prove that the name was uniquely identifying?

Regarding Starks being the "oldest House" in Westeros: yes, they are clearly the oldest paramount house (Arryns and Lannisters clearly arrived with Andal invasion, and Storm Kings and Gardeners were wiped out by Aegon). But there is that mention of young Bran the Builder advising the building of Storm´s End. And while Starks have 8000 years history, Daynes have 10 000.

We have a number of First Men houses around the South that predate Andal invasion, and many Northern houses are old.The First Men lived in Westeros 4000 years before the Long Night. If Bran the Builder was not the traditional ruler of Winterfell (not yet built) or indeed North before the Long Night, but actually an upstart invader in the aftermath of Long Night, then there can be a bunch of Houses who are older because they survived the Long Night in their castles where they already had long history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rough timeline of the North, based on info in Dance:

4000 years ago - Jon Stark founds the Wolfs Den in White Harbor

3950 years ago - His son Rickard conquers the Neck.

3900 years ago - His son Rodrik wins Bear Island from the Ironborn.

3900-3000 years ago - A large number of offshoot Starks rule White Harbor in succession for unnumbered centuries.

3000-2500 years ago - The Greystarks rule White Harbor for 500 years.

2500 years ago - The Greystarks join the Boltons in rebellion against the Starks, and are cast down.

2500-2000 years ago - After the Greystarks, White Harbor passes to many other lords, including the Flints for two centuries and the Lockes for 1 century.

2000 years ago - The Wars between the North and the Vale break out, according to the Maesters. This is when the "Rape of Sisterton" takes place, and the Sisters have to ally with the Vale to drive out the Northmen. These wars continue for 1000 years.

1500 years ago - During the Wars with the Vale, the King of the Vale known as the Talon, captures White Harbor. He is eventually driven out.

1300 years ago - Slavers from the Stepstones capture White Harbor when Edrick Snowbeard grows too feeble to defend his realm.

1250 years ago - His son Brandon Ice Eyes destroys the slavers.

1000 years ago - The Starks give White Harbor to the Manderleys.

So based just on the info Davos gets in Dance, we see that the Starks have ruled the Neck, Bear Island and White Harbor for at least 3000 to 4000 years. And maybe even longer, as the full list of the rulers of the Wolfs Den is not provided. So the gaps between Jon Stark and the Greystarks, and between the Grey Starks and the outbreak of the Wars with the Vale could have been longer.

4000 years since the founding of White Harbor seems about right, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what you are basing our opinion that Ned was a bad political leader on. Did he mess up in King's Landing? Yes. But he was thrust into a situation playing with a game with pieces that were alien to him and that he underestimated. His own decency kept him from being able to make the moves to win in KL.

The strength of the Stark rule can be seen in the loyalty that they had from their vassals. Even after the house seems destroyed many are simply waiting for a Stark to return. Should even pathetic Sansa return, banners will raise, and swords will sharpen in her name.

Ned ruled the north for 17 years and the Boltons feared him. I think that says a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to compare ruling in Westeroes to ruling in Earth. I believe the longest running dynasty/kingdom whatever would be that of Egypt, for roughly 5000 years, but even then the actual kingdom was a lot different at various points.

I think the thing is, it's impossible for Martin to detail 8000+ years of history in Earth standards. That would be simply impossible, too confusing, and mainly not as fun. The Targaryens are honestly the only true representation of of a European dynasty/family, besides maybe that of Rome or Moorish Spain. (cue the flames for the 1-2 big groups I'm forgetting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Northmen all we know from the text is that the Starks only became absolute rulers around a 1000 years ago. While they are definitely the oldest Noble family you cant say for certain that before that time they were more powerful than any of their neighbouring Kings.

GRRM has made it clear that around 1000 years ago Bear Island and the Marsh kingdom became part fo the Stark empire as well as the Boltons swearing fealty the founding of Karhold and the Manderlys introduction into the North. Maybe its lazy writing on GRRM's part but it seems that he's suggesting that this is when their dominance over the North began.

In real life many families have made out that their past is more glorious than it actually was and as the biggest winners of the North history is going to be shaped how the Starks wanted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, there is an actual dynasty which has reigned in unbroken male line well over 1500 years - probably over 2000. With the traditional reign count, they are now at ruler number 125 and have reigned for 2670 years.

Note that the datings of early reigns are probably overestimated, and slightly over 2000 is closer to the mark. Out of the 125, a number of names have been used twice, never more.

And the emperors have reigned a lot of time they did not rule. They never ruled for more than a few centuries at a time - they have not ruled for 1100 years except for once trying and failing in a few years.

May I ask which dynasty you are referring to? I'd be interested to hear about them because I really don't believe a single family could rule so long. It's more probable that you are referring to an institution (a title like King of Winter) which can be transferred to whomever has the hegemony and wants to legitimize his rule with it.

But, yeah, give a name, please ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Northmen all we know from the text is that the Starks only became absolute rulers around a 1000 years ago. While they are definitely the oldest Noble family you cant say for certain that before that time they were more powerful than any of their neighbouring Kings. GRRM has made it clear that around 1000 years ago Bear Island and the Marsh kingdom became part fo the Stark empire as well as the Boltons swearing fealty the founding of Karhold and the Manderlys introduction into the North. Maybe its lazy writing on GRRM's part but it seems that he's suggesting that this is when their dominance over the North began. In real life many families have made out that their past is more glorious than it actually was and as the biggest winners of the North history is going to be shaped how the Starks wanted it.

No, I have already shown in the timeline in my earlier post that this is incorrect. The Marsh Kingdom and Bear Island didn't joint the Stark realm just 1000 years ago. They in fact joined thousands of years earlier than that.

King Jon Stark's founding of the castle at White Harbor is the marker that allows us to date these events. Jon Stark's son Rickard conquered the Marsh King, and his son Rodrik won Bear Island from the Ironborn. So to date the inclusion of these two far flung regions into the Stark kingdom, the date of Jon Stark's founding of the castle at White Harbor is the crucial bit of evidence.

So when did Jon Stark raise the castle at White Harbor?

Firstly, we know that this castle is none other than the Wolf Den, as explained to Davos while he is captive there in Dance. And we are given some remarkable information regarding its history. When you combine this info with the info Davos gets from the Lord of Sisterton, it becomes clear that a number of millenia seperated the founding of the Wolf Den from the arrival of the Manderleys in White Harbor, 1000 years ago. And since the inclusion of Bear Island and the Neck coincide with the founding of the Wolf Den, these two regions therefore also joined the Stark realm thousands of years earlier than the arrival of the Manderleys.

As I described in my earlier post, these are the key dates that are revealed to us in Dance - largely through Davos's point of view.

The Manderleys arrived in White Harbor 1000 years ago.

Before them, White Harbor was held by Slavers from the Stepstones. Brandon Ice Eyes wiped out the Slavers an indeterminate number of years before the Manderleys time. Before the pirates, White Harbor was besieged by Lord Osgood Arryn of the Vale, and burned by his son known as the "Talon". This happened during the wars between the North and the Vale.

The Lord of Sisterton tells us that these wars lasted for 1000 years. We have a corroborating date for this from historical sources far more accurate than mere oral histories. It appears that sometime during the wars between the North and the Vale, the Northmen committed what the maesters refer to as the "Rape of Sisterton". The maesters themselves state that this event occurred 2000 years ago - meaning 1000 years before the Manderleys.

Davos learned that before White Harbor was burned by Lord Talon from the Vale, it was briefly captured by pirates from Sisterton. They were wiped out by the Starks. It would seem very likely that it was this event that led the Starks to committ the "Rape of Sisterton" to wipe out the pirate threat once and for all. And this has been dated to 2000 years ago, as shown above. So now we have the Wolfs Den existing at least as far back as 2000 years ago.

Stay with me here, because the further we can push back the building of the Wolfs Den at White Harbor, the further we push back the inclusion of the Neck and Bear Island as well.

So we have travelled back in time, as far as the eviction of the pirates from Sisterton, at least 2000 years ago. Next Davos learns that prior to the pirates, the Wolfs Den was held on behalf of the Starks by a long line of various noble families, including Ashfords and a bunch of other names I can't recall now. But amongst these families the Flints held the castle for 200 years, and the Locke's for 100 years.

So these two families alone take the Wolfs Den's founding back another 300 years, and you would think that all of the other families combined would add at least another 300-500 years to this timeframe. Meaning that we have now worked our way back to at least 2500 years ago.

This was when the LAST of many Stark offshoot families lost the castle due to joining with the Boltons in a rebellion against the Starks. These were the Greystarks, who in themselves had held White Harbor for 500 years. Note that even at this time, the Boltons were rebelling against the Starks, not making war againsts a neigbouring kingdom. Seeing as this rebellion is at least 1500 years before the one we knew about up to now, this shows that the Boltons were chafing under Stark rule for far longer than the mere 1000 years we were aware of up to now.

In any case, the 5 century long Greystark dynasty pushes the founding of White Harbor back another 500 years. So now we are back to 3000 years ago, already.

Now, as mentioned above, the Greystarks weren't the first Stark offshoot family to rule White Harbor, they were in fact the LAST of a very long series of dynasties that held this castle on behalf of the Starks of Winterfell. We don't know how long this list is, but if the Greystarks alone ruled there for 500 years, it seems highly likely that all the other dynasties combined must have ruled White Harbor for at least 500 years. Probably closer to 1000 years, in fact.

That takes the founding of the Wolfs Den at the future site of White Harbor back another 500-1000 years, meaning we now arrive at about 4000 years before the present. If this is when Jon Stark founded White Harbor, it means the Neck and Bear Island - added by his son and grandson respectively - joined the realm within 100 years of this date.

To conclude, this means that the Starks ruled all the lands, from the Neck in the South, to Bear Island in the North and White Harbour in the East, from as far back as 4000 years ago. Or probably even for longer, depending on just how many families actually ruled the Wolfs Den between its founding and the start of the Greystark dynasty. So clearly, the Starks ruled as Kings of the North far, far longer than just 1000 years. This is very clear from the evidence in Dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, I think its kinda weird that this world has been stuck at a viking-to-medieval technology level for literally 2-4000 years with no advances.

That is not necessarly true. The only clue we ever get is the description of legendary heroes like Symeon Star-Eyes as knights. But as some maester (Luwin? Aemon?) points out, knightship was introduced thousands of years later. The people of Westeros are projecting their contemporary culture and technological level on the old stories. I don't want to call it history, because history is too much of a science. It has happened that way on Earth, too. Medieval paintings of bible scenes show King David as a knight in chainmail, or roman legionnaires torturing Jesus dressed as 16th century lansquenets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask which dynasty you are referring to? I'd be interested to hear about them because I really don't believe a single family could rule so long. It's more probable that you are referring to an institution (a title like King of Winter) which can be transferred to whomever has the hegemony and wants to legitimize his rule with it.

But, yeah, give a name, please ;)

I think he's referring to the the Japanese Imperial dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which would be a perfect example of an institution, not a ruling family. I'm no expert on Japan, but as I see it: apart from the Meij Era, they haven't held power in the last 800 (or so) years.The historical proven kings come after 600 AD or so, which gives around 600 years of different rule in a small nuclear empire, the whole Island of Japan wasn't unified, so the rule is shaky. Now compare that to the huge North in Westeros... ;) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but 600 AD is not that impressive or unique, and it's only 1300 years, which still is a hell of a lot.

The Japanese Imperial Family can rather be compared to the idea of the Emperor of Rome as it was continued in the Medieval Era (There are only three biblical empires, after that is the apocalypse, and the Roman Empire was the third in traditional counting, so the Roman Empire had to continue within Christian Mythology, hence the Holy Roman Empire (and the Russians btw. as well). So the Habsburgs said they were descendants from the last Roman Emperors which in turn said they were descendants from Aeneas who came from Troy). And we have a living Habsburg heir, does that mean his family dates back to 1300 BC? No! So what I am trying to say is that the institution of "Emperor of Rome" has been used to legitimize the universal power grab of the Habsburgs (the Austrian and the Spanish ones), the Russian Emperors and all the various German and other dynasties that held the title of Holy Roman Emperor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How were the Starks able to rule for so long before the events of Song?

My honest answer is that it was possible to rule at that time. If I understood the unspoken premise of this thread correctly, it implies that the Starks lack the political skills to survive in power. That may be technically true, but IMO it is a grave mistake to therefore conclude that they fall short in some way.

IMO it is more accurate and more revealing to say that are the most obvious victim of a political change that couldn't very well be avoided any longer. It is misleading to call that a failing of theirs.

A political system that treats smallfolk as so many soldiers and livestock, while at the same time expecting them to provide taxes for castles and food for feasts, is bound to colapse sooner or later. That some unscrupulous Lords are able to cushion the unavoidable backslash a bit longer and more callously than others is ultimately a secondary, unimportant point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How were the Starks able to rule for so long before the events of Song? My honest answer is that it was possible to rule at that time. If I understood the unspoken premise of this thread correctly, it implies that the Starks lack the political skills to survive in power. That may be technically true, but IMO it is a grave mistake to therefore conclude that they fall short in some way. IMO it is more accurate and more revealing to say that are the most obvious victim of a political change that couldn't very well be avoided any longer. It is misleading to call that a failing of theirs. A political system that treats smallfolk as so many soldiers and livestock, while at the same time expecting them to provide taxes for castles and food for feasts, is bound to colapse sooner or later. That some unscrupulous Lords are able to cushion the unavoidable backslash a bit longer and more callously than others is ultimately a secondary, unimportant point.

I disagree.

The feudal system of the Seven Kingdoms can last for another 8000 years. Why should it change?

As for the Starks. They have been in dire straights before. Just like they have been in very strong positions before. It's a cycle. The important thing is that whenever their power grows very weak, they simply have to retreat to the North, and wait for Winter to kill off any foreign invaders.

Meanwhile, they are enough of an institution in the North that the North simply doesn't feel right without them.

There always has to be a Stark in Winterfell, and all.

No one seriously thinks that Moat Cailin was enough to hold back the 6 Andal Kingdoms with their superior technology, numbers and wealth, do you?

Nope. The Neck can be circumvented just like Balon did in the War of the Five Kings, and just like various Sea Raiders have done on the Eastern Coast for millenia.

But this is only possible during Summer. Come Winter, and all foreigners inevitably die out.

So the Kings of Winter's greatest weapon had always been Winter itself.

Eventually it kills off all prancing southron jackanapes, who piss their satin breeches at a little snow.

The same will happen this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...