Tullys: Top three or bottom four?

[Ramsay Gimp]

The problem with the stormlords was that renly was their lord, as lord of storms end. If stannis were lord of storms end they would have been fighting for him.

No, its' actually obvious that Stannis is very unpopular

[willy york]

i think a few people are rating dorne way too high. dorne has no navy. dorne is a desert. the capital sunspear is described as consisting of mudbrick hovels and the city is surrounded by wooden walls with the only building of note in the entire city being the spear tower. dorne has got to be the lowest in terms of power, wealth, and population.

[Batman]

As far as manpower I think they trail the Tyrells and are around the mark with Stark and Lannister given how fertile their lands are.

As far as wealth they are below the Lannisters and Tyrells and probably above the Starks.

The only natural defenses they have are the trident and ... well they have the trident. The only house that is possibly below them would the Tyrells as their kingdom is just as open.

The Tullys get a bad rap because they got pounded during the war. This had a lot to do with their leadership. Edmure was not ready for command. A fully fit Hoster or blackfish could have made the course of the war very different.

[Pod The Impaler]

In terms of population, they would exceed the North by quite a lot. Fertile and temperate lands tend to support a large population.

In terms of wealth (in peacetime), they would be better off than the North overall (not sure about per capita). Not as rich as the Lannisters or Tyrells, and on par with the Vale or Stormlands (really, who knows much about the Stormlands). They are a great crossroads of trade in all directions, so aside from agriculture this would be their big advantage. Trade by road, and sea, and river are all possible and important. In agriculture, they are temperate and fertile, which is good for producing a lot of staple foods, though less of the exotic ones (like lemons and whatnot).

In terms of military power, they probably have a large number of troops they can draw upon. I imagine that they roughly equal the westerlands or Vale or Stormlands in numbers, and probably exceed the westerlands or North. They would have less than the Reach, in all likelihood.

(However, the Lannisters being so rich in gold, they can afford to quickly augment their forces with many sellswords, which gives them an advantage in an actual war).

In terms of the quality and cohesion of their troops, this is probably where they suffer. In a war, given the position of the Riverlands' strongholds and lack of natural defenses, their bannermen are likely to find themselves isolated and quickly picked off. This will make them less likely to actually support their Tully overlords without reservations.

The naval strength of the Riverlands is likely poor. Seagard, Saltpans, and Maidenpool are their major ports. Of these, Seagard is the only one that's really a candidate to have a true naval presence - the Ironborn are an ever-present danger there. In the east, Maidenpool and Saltpans make good places for merchant ships, but with Dragonstone and Gulltown nearby, the bulk of any real naval forces are bound to be found there instead. The Riverlands may have some vaguely military river vessels, but these would be more like troops transports than true warships.

So, I think the Riverlands are a sort of middle power. Probably more powerful in peacetime than wartime, when it's vulnerability is not so much of an issue.

[willy york]

the tullys must be a pretty weak family if they cant keep their own bannermen the freys in line

[The Great Walrus]

the tullys must be a pretty weak family if they cant keep their own bannermen the freys in line

This is such a wrong and inaccurate oversimplification...

[Axrendale]

the tullys must be a pretty weak family if they cant keep their own bannermen the freys in line

It actually seems to be quite a common phenomenon in Westeros for each of the Seven Kingdoms to contain powerful vassals who agitate against the control of the dominant Houses. The Starks had to contend with the Boltons, the Tyrells with the Florents, the Arryns had the Graftons, the Lannisters had the Reynes and Tarbecks (pre-Tywin, anyway) and of course the Tullys had the Freys.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

No, its' actually obvious that Stannis is very unpopular

In the parley scene with Cortnay Penrose, when Penrose accused Caron, Morrigen, Florent etc of being turncloaks, Caron explained that (at least he) only followed Renly first because his loyalty was to Storm's End first. Granted, maybe not all of the Stormlords were like Caron in that attitude, but with the exception of Cortnay Penrose all of the Stormlords initially in Renlys host joined with Stannis did they not? Even some of the men from The Reach other than the Florents (namely the Fossoways).

[Hear Us Roar]

Power is derived from land holders so being king or a councillor means nothing when it comes down to it.

The Tyrell's hold the largest most fertile lands and have a high population that can be conscripted for war.

The Lannisters have gold, much trade, and a pretty high pop for raising banners. They can directly finance a war easily.

The Tully's have rich fertile lands with a good population, basically the Tyrell's with less men.

The rest are worst off'

The Greyjoys: a couple of islands, bad economy, low pop, and isolation

The Baratheons: Rocky lands bade for growing, harsh climated, not as populated

The Starks : Low pop, bad for growing, winters are harsh, isolated, little trade

The Martells: Isolated, very hot climate, no fleet to come north quick enough.

[Free Northman]

The Riverlands are fertile and populous, according to GRRM.

I put its population density at about 4 times that of the North, as a consequence - say 20 people per sq.m vs the North's 5 people per sq.m.

However, it is also about 4 times smaller than the North - 300k square miles vs 1.2m square miles.

Hence their populations are roughly equal.

Regarding the Stormlands, Martin has indicated that it is fairly sparsely populated. Coupled with its smallish size, it therefore cannot have one of the bigger populations.

I think the Stormlords are quite overrated. These so called Marcher lords are no more or less fierce than the Dornish desert warriors, or the knights of the Vale, or the Northmen. They are just fierce warriors, like everyone else.

Regarding the more extensive Stormlands of the past - obviously when they ruled up to the Neck they also raised warriors from all the lands up to the Neck, so their population was probably as much larger than today as their territory was. No mystery there.

Today they are stronger than Dorne and the Iron Isles but apparently slightly weaker than the likes of the Vale and the Westerlands. That's just the ebb and flow of kingdoms - they grow, stagnate, decline and maybe

grow again - unless they die out. All part of history.

Over the course of thousands of years the balance of power between the 7 Kingdoms has probably shifted countless times.

For the record, the entire Westeros seems to have lower population densities than real life Europe. 20 people per square mile in the real world equated to Scotland's population density, and England had about 40 people per square mile.

But this doesn't matter so much when comparing the various kingdoms, because if you move one higher, they should all move proportionally higher.

[Gurkhal]

I'm inclined to think the Tully are the top third most powerful lord paramount based on the size of the region and based on the number of towns and castles inside the borders.

[James Arryn]

The question is too elastic to answer as is. For example, military power meaning the ability to protect or project? In isolation, or within a real time assessment of mutual support or antagonism with other Houses? Are we assuming a base level of loyalty from subservient Houses, or do we account for what we think we know based on those displayed in the books?

I would say for starters...and this has nothing to do with my handle, which is just my real name, essentially, I'm not particularly a fan of the Arryns as we've seen them... but they are always underrated in these things, IMO. Their position seems to me the best in Westeros. The Tyrells are much more substantial, but with that comes a very large border with several Houses touching. The Lannisters are less bounteous, slightly better positioned geo-strategically than

the Reach, but not on the same level of the Vale, who enjoy an under appreciated combination of centrality and isolation. The only Houses who come near to approaching its ability to protect itself are in no real position to project their power outwards, barring support. The only other Houses placed as central to the continent and able to exercise command and control if they choose are much more vulnerably situated as a result.

They also appear to have a pretty solid balance of land and naval capability, without the oddly non-naval natures of the other 2 isolated major regions.

Really, the Vale could use a minor force to protect itself and the majority of its force to project if it chose...and then retreat and repeat as events unfolded. No one else can do this to anywhere near the same degree.

[Gurkhal]

There's just no way. Their territory is indefensible. There is absolutely no way they can be ahead of the Vale, which is more fertile and better defended. The Iron Islands, conquered them. They have the same population as the North with 5 x the vulnerability. Even the storm lords are better off, they at least have better castles.

Well, what I had in mind was the number of soldiers as opposed to how hard or easy the region was to protect. Because if we count how defensiable a region is then Dorne should probably be among the top three.

[James Arryn]

Well to be fair, the Lannisters have a similar position. They have fortresses on all the passes through the Western Mountains. Plus they have Gold and no Mountain Clans. Robb Stark was never supposed to be able to get passed the Golden Tooth.

That's only their border with the Riverlands. To the south and southeast they're much more vulnerable. And the IB are just off their NW coast.

Edit: and, again, an it's an underestimation of the unique position of the Vale. There is exactly one pass to protect, not several. The only place it touches on other Houselands is protectable at a single gate. Not several, spread out over several passes...that ability to concentrate defensive forces in one place allows them to gain the primary use of military force (protection) by expending a minimal % of their forces...leaving them to be used however the Arryns choose.

And unlike the North or Dorne, they are in a position to do so without extending their lines across vast enemy spaces AND they have a navy.

[balefired-ed]

As a region the Riverlands are pretty prestigious, with probably a top 3 ranking in both population and wealth, but I think the Tullys power as Lords Paramount rank near the bottom, behind at least the Tyrells, Starks, and Lannisters, probably behind the Arryns, and possibly behind the Baratheons and Martells for two reasons.

1. Their region is near indefensible due to its location and terrain.

2. No other region in Westeros is nearly as internally divided due to rivalries as a result of the Riverlands being the main theater for war in Westerosi conflicts.

[Free Northman]

Agreed about the Vale. Dense population - basically 90% concentrated in the smallish, fertile Vale, while the surrounding mountain areas are likely pretty empty. Quick and easy to muster, short supply lines and highly defensible.

Their population is probably only mid size due to their small territory - higher than Dorne, Stormlands and Iron Isles, probably equal to the Westerlands.

But their strategic position is highly influential.

[James Arryn]

One point about the Riverlands; we think of their position as it relates to weakness, which in most circumstances is true. Especially as it relates to a defensive war.

BUT, as with Germany in Europe, if you align the right political situation withi sn aggressive rather than defensive approach, they could attain supremacy easier than most other Houses could achieve under almost any other situation. Their centrality and the highways of transport and information the rivers provide could, if used properly, in the right situation, put them atop the heap.

If they act first, that is. If they are on the defensive, they are probably always doomed to be reduced to a battleground.

[Free Northman]

One weakness of the Vale is its eastern coastline. This is apparently the route the Andals took to conquer them. So it is not entirely accurate to say they only have one access point at the Bloody Gate.

I imagine that during the thousand year wars between the North and the Vale the North also landed some blows from the coastal side. This was before Brandon the Burner ended the North's naval power and at the time when the North swept over the Sisters with Fire and Sword, so they were clearly a naval presence back then.

[James Arryn]

One weakness of the Vale is its eastern coastline. This is apparently the route the Andals took to conquer them. So it is not entirely accurate to say they only have one access point at the Bloody Gate.

I imagine that during the thousand year wars between the North and the Vale the North also landed some blows from the coastal side. This was before Brandon the Burner ended the North's naval power and at the time when the North swept over the Sisters with Fire and Sword, so they were clearly a naval presence back then.

Only one border access. All regions are open to naval access, and unlike the other 2 defensible land regions, they have naval power/ tradition.

My impression of the Andal invasion is something like the Moorish invasion of Spain (Andal-usia!).I don't think of it as the reflection of a single political force with a clear strategic aim, but rather more like a wandering nation invasion via the sea. IOW, I don't think the Vale was ever in a position to muster and defend as a unified entity against a unified entity, more an erosion by force, but I could be wrong.

Edit for edit; my impression is the VAle actually tended to win against the North in that era, but again, just an impression. Can't remember where it comes from...I think the Sisters were the Alsace and Loraine for them, though, so I think their being in the Vale might be my reasoning.

[Free Northman]

The North is not positioned to rule much beyond their own territory. Their forces are already too dispersed over immense distances. Hence the fact that they lost the Sisters to the Vale makes perfect sense. Also, it is mentioned that the Sistermen themselves sided with the Vale due to resentment over the "Rape of Sisterton by the Northmen".

I got the impression that the Northmen only sent an expeditionary raiding force to the Sisters - to wipe out the pirates nest. They left a token force there but I don't think it was intended as an annexation - rather a punitive expidition.

We are not told what strikes the North carried out in the Vale, but I imagine Gulltown might have been a prime target.

In any case, such a war never offered real gain for either party, as neither could seriously hope to hold any of the other's territory for long.