the storm king returns Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 What I dont understand is this, a liege lord holds massive amounts of land which he breaks off into sections and gives to smaller lords who thus become his vassals in return for military service and protection of his boarders and land. Why whenever there is a war and a Lord is defeated does his land not be stripped from his family and his castle and land be givin to another man who the liege Lord or king designates new Lord of such and such land ? In mostly every war the rivals of kings and lords allowed there enemy to keep there holdings for example 1) Starks - Boltons2) Blackwoods - Bracken3) Lannister - Raynes of Castemere untill Tywin lol4) Martell - yronwood 5) Every time there was a blackfyre rebellion numerous lords went against the crown and lost and the king would say o your pardoned no biggie.I understand that these familys have the love and respect of the small folk that served under them but who cares ?? Strip them of there land and kill any smallfolk who blink at you the wrong way? These lords don't give a F about the smallfolk they just want the land and income that is provided from that land. Why fight a war against an neighboring enemy and turn it back over to them?You can't make any Lord too powerful so you start a new house such and such of the castle and land you just took. They would be forever in your debt and would serve you loyally for life like the Manderlys, just increase there taxs for payment of the huge favor and half you just did for them and Bob's your uncle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Why whenever there is a war and a Lord is defeated does his land not be stripped from his family and his castle and land be givin to another man who the liege Lord or king designates new Lord of such and such land ? In mostly every war the rivals of kings and lords allowed there enemy to keep there holdings for example Basically, because in real-life that results in them having nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to their relatives to raise an army to recover their lands and continue the war. People surrender when they have something to lose. People don't surrender when they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Because it's their lands. Often for millennia, before your own ancestors rose to prominence. They won't like it, the smallfolk won't like it, and most importantly, the other nobles won't like it.And you risk some of them expressing their dislike in no uncertain terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the storm king returns Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 In feudal society it's rare to give an enemy you just went to war with back his land and thus the same power he had before the war, I'd they did allow that Lord to keep his lands they were always dramatically reduced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Lepus Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I guess people didn't fight to the bitter end. The Boltons would attack when the Starks seemed weak, but when the latter proved stronger the Boltons bent the knee while they were still strong enough to force a negotiation. War is basically their way of life; they fight and sometimes win, and sometimes lose, but don't fight to death. The same goes for the Yronwoods, but it seem their rivalty with the Martells doesn't go as far as the Stark-Bolton one. The Martells weren't important enough to be rivals to the Yronwoods before the arrival of Nymeria. Also, the Yronwood-Martell rivalty probably was reduced thanks to the common enemies that were the Reach, the Stormlands and later the Targaryen. The Reynes didn't become serious rivals to the Lannisters until recently, and they were exterminated. Neither Brackens nor the Blackwoods really had a total victory over the other side, otherwise they would have exterminated each other. Plus, during most of their history they were vassals to some greater lord of king that wouldn't allow them go that far. Also, for any of those surviving rebellious houses there probably were dozens that were exterminated, exiled or reduced greatly in status. The Darrys and Connington were greatly reduced, the Osgreys were reduced to almost nothing, the Manderly exiled, the Whents and Tullys dispossessed, the Darklyns, Mudds, Hoares, Gardeners, Lothstons, Reynes and Tarbecks extinct...etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 In feudal society it's rare to give an enemy you just went to war with back his land and thus the same power he had before the war, I'd they did allow that Lord to keep his lands they were always dramatically reduced Reduced yes, but that's happening in ASOIAF as well. The Boltons once held three times as much land as they do now. Brackens and Blackwood never were in a vassal-liege relationship, at least not since the Age of Heroes. Yronwoods once ruled half of Dorne, now they are ruling maybe a quarter of that at best. Some Blackfyre supporters were pardoned. Others lost two out of three castles (and according lands) or everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the sandship Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Because it's their lands. Often for millennia, before your own ancestors rose to prominence. They won't like it, the smallfolk won't like it, and most importantly, the other nobles won't like it. And you risk some of them expressing their dislike in no uncertain terms. true, If a liege lord strips one of his vassals from his lands and titles, who's to say that he woulddn't do the same to your house ? :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingkingq Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What I dont understand is this, a liege lord holds massive amounts of land which he breaks off into sections and gives to smaller lords who thus become his vassals in return for military service and protection of his boarders and land.Why whenever there is a war and a Lord is defeated does his land not be stripped from his family and his castle and land be givin to another man who the liege Lord or king designates new Lord of such and such land ? In mostly every war the rivals of kings and lords allowed there enemy to keep there holdings for example1) Starks - Boltons2) Blackwoods - Bracken3) Lannister - Raynes of Castemere untill Tywin lol4) Martell - yronwood5) Every time there was a blackfyre rebellion numerous lords went against the crown and lost and the king would say o your pardoned no biggie. I think this misreads the evidence a bit. You're assuming that the fact that the Boltons, Brackens and Blackwoods, and Yronwoods have some lands now means that they didn't lose any. This is unlikely - taking all of the lands of a family ensures that they fight to the bitter end, and it makes other families nervous that the same thing could happen to them. It's much better to just weaken them and strengthen their neighbors - you get the same effect with less negative side effects. For example, look at how Jaime handles the Siege of Raventree Hall. He doesn't give the Brackens everything, because he knows the Blackwoods would simply dig in their heels and fight to the last, because the alternative is destruction anyway. Instead, he gives the Brackens bits of territory, takes hostages, but leaves the Blackwoods enough that they have something to lose if they rebel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto2 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 We do have examples of families losing titles and lands though. The Darrys used to be alot stronger before Robert's rebellion. The Conningtons used to be a force in the Stormlands, but are now reduced to a minor landed knight. The Florents recently lost all their land for being pro- Stannis. Houses do lose land for backing the wrong side in a war, just seldom all of their lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 "Treason is no less vile because the traitor proves a craven," Lord Rivers was saying. "I have heard your bleatings, Lord Ambrose, and I believe one word in ten. On that account I will allow you to retain a tenth part of your fortune. You may keep your wife as well. I wish you joy of her.""And Whitewalls?" asked Butterwell with quavering voice."Forfeit to the Iron Throne. I mean to pull it down stone by stone and sow the ground that it stands upon with salt. In twenty years, no one will remember it existed. Old fools and young malcontents still make pilgrimages to the Redgrass Field to plant flowers on the spot where Daemon Blackfyre fell. I will not suffer Whitewalls to become another monument to the Black Dragon." He waved a pale hand. "Now scurry away, roach.""The Hand is kind." Butterwell stumbled off, so blind with grief that he did not even seem to recognize Dunk as he passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.