Galbart Glover

[Bright Blue Eyes]

BBE

I acknowledge your point of view, but can you clarify what you are suggesting then?

If it is as simple as a Masterly House simply being a Northern Landed Knight, there are a couple of question that arise:

1. Can a petty lord (who does have the right of pit and gallows over his lands) be a vassal of a Landed Knight (who does not have that right over his lands)? If you believe so, do we have even a single example of that to prove it?

2. If the answer to the above is "No", are you then suggesting that there is not a single petty lord in the entire area ruled by Deepwood Motte and Torhenn Square? Meaning there is not a single petty lord in all of the Stony Shore, Sea Dragon Point, the Wolfswood or the Lake Districts around Torhenn Square?

Yet there are a dozen in the lands ruled by House Manderly?

This does not seem viable to me.

1. Personally, I would think yes, even though that would be intentionally weakening the authority of the landed knight. Or for historical reasons. Nevertheless, I don't remember any example for that, so I might be wrong.

2. Why? The Wolfswood seems to be the personal power base for the Starks of Winterfell. Keeping the juidicial and administrative power close to themselves makes sense.

Kings and Lords always tried to increase their personal demesne that way, or at least keep it intact, while weakening other Lords. And for historical reasons as well.

Nope. The Ironborn seized Deepwood with no issues at the beginning of the war. Asha even points out how utterly useless the castle is when she considers how a weak fort that she took with 1,000 Ironborn would possibly help her against Ramsay Bolton.

"Would they do better to stand and fight behind Deepwood's deep ditches and wooden walls? Deepwood' s wooden walls did the Glovers small good when I took their castle, she reminded herself. Why should they serve me any better?"

It failed miserably at its stated task. Also, the Ironborn didn't exactly invade a defenseless North. Most of the Northern forces were left behind. They just couldn't accomplish anything because Rodrik was extremely incompetent.

I highly, highly doubt that the Mormonts are that weak. They're a lordly house and are listed as one of the main Stark bannermen.

It required Asha at least full month to successfully assault Deepwood Motte, while having a 30:1 advantage or thereabouts and no good commander inside the walls.

The problem was Theon's attack on Winterfell keeping Rodrik from breaking the siege. Only afterwards did Asha succeed.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

It required Asha at least full month to successfully assault Deepwood Motte, while having a 30:1 advantage or thereabouts and no good commander inside the walls.

30:1 seems significantly undermanned. Asha only had a 1,000 men.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The fact remains that if a Masterly House is ranked lower than a lordly House, then a petty lord having power of pit and gallows over his lands, and yet being a vassal of a Landed Knight who does not have this power, makes no sense.

As for the split between the 12000 at Winterfell, we have no clue how it went down.

If you look at the number of Houses presented there, it easily includes the following, and we are likely leaving some out:

Mormont

Umber

Karstark

Bolton

Mountain Clans

Stark

Hornwood

Tallhart

Glover

Cerwyn

Take away the 2300 Karstarks, and that leaves 9700 men to be split between at least 9 Houses. Clearly a lot of Houses sent pitifully few men to that original gathering, especially if we assume that the Boltons and Starks each brought at least as many men as the Karstarks, which would bring the remainder down to about 5000 men to be split between 7 Houses.

It is quite clear that what was contributed at Winterfell was a quick muster, hampered by the Harvest, and more a reflection of what men were readily available than what the capacity of any particular House is.

The Glover issue appears to have been more one of lack of leadership while the lords were away in the South, than a lack of men. As soon as Stannis appears with a decent rallying point, Glover men start pouring forth again. So in fact, we don't know what the Glover strength is.

And there seems to be a general misunderstanding here. I am not saying the Glovers are of equivalent rank to lords like the Umbers or Boltons. But I am saying that there appears to be an intermediate, unique rank in the North which falls somewhere between a petty lord and great lords like the Umbers or Karstarks.

Else someone still has to explain to me how a lord that has power of pit and gallows in his lands - like say House Stout which is sworn to House Dustin - can be a vassal of a Masterly House which lacks this power. The alternative being that there are no petty lords in all the lands ruled by the Glovers and Tallhars. Which I find utterly preposterous.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

30:1 seems significantly undermanned. Asha only had a 1,000 men.

Riverrun is overcrowded with 200.

Storms End: 300 now, 500 back in Robert's Rebellion.

Dragonstone: 200 right now.

And these are the seats of Lords Paramount. Putting Deepwood Motte at ~30 seems only sensible. Most castles are designed to be successfully defended by half a dozen.

edit: grammar

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Else someone still has to explain to me how a lord that has power of pit and gallows in his lands - like say House Stout which is sworn to House Dustin - can be a vassal of a Masterly House which lacks this power. The alternative being that there are no petty lords in all the lands ruled by the Glovers and Tallhars. Which I find utterly preposterous.

Who said that House Stout did?

It is the Lords who have power of pit and gallows, capital L rather than lower case l. House Stout are petty lords, they would have to go to the Dustins for justice on certain matters.

[Veltigar]

My own theory, preTWOIAF, was the following. I always found it odd that the Starks controlled so little land in the North, they have some special advantages and so, but I did think they controlled more land than what was revealed. The solution to that conundrum were the Mastery Houses in my theory. I saw them basically as a sort of very special stewards of Stark land. I'd compare it to the steward of the Gates of the Moon or the Bloody Gate, with the difference that the position was hereditary.

I also thought it was quite a nice explanation for House Cerwyn, I saw them as perhaps being masters themselves once, but for some great dead they were allowed to become Lords or something of the like. These hereditary stewards would have quite a high status, because they were as good as lord to anyone who wasn't a sort of majorish Lord in their own right. On top of that, as Starks most trusted bannermen, they wielded a lot of influence for having the ear of the Lord/King Stark.

After TWOIAF that has become less likely. The Glovers were Kings themselves once, so it doesn't really fit as neatly anymore. I guess we'll probably never get the answer to this problem. This is a case of the world bursting a bit out of it seams imo, GRRM probably had no idea that he'd need to go into so much detail to make his world fully credible, but the complexity of his works kind of screwed him over here.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Little Dragon:

Well that is part of the dispute.

The problem is not that House Glover is potentially of a lower rank than House Umber. The problem is if House Glover is not a lord at all, and therefore of lower rank than a petty lord like House Stout.

That is what we are trying to resolve. The stated difference between a petty lord (with a lower case l as you put it) and a common landed knight, is that the one has right of pit and gallows and the other doesn't. Else there really is no distinction between the two ranks. Hence, in terms of status, the normal ranking would be:

Lord Paramount - Stark

Great Lord - Dustin

Petty Lord - Stout

Landed Knight - Condon or whatever.

If Masterly rank is no different to Landed Knight rank, then in the North Landed Knight is just replaced with Masterly rank. I'm saying instead, that the ranking in the North goes:

Lord Paramount

Great Lord

Masterly House

Petty Lord

Landed Knight

Else you would have a petty lord - with right of pit and gallows - owing fealty to a Landed Knight who does not have right of pit and gallows. Which makes no sense.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Why would petty lords have the rights of pit and gallows? It is only the Starks and the Great Lords who have this right. The gentry underneath would have to get permission from who they swear fealty to or take the case directly to them.

The confusion is that Lord is both a legal title and an honorific title. That is why at some points we have had Glovers and Stouts referred to as 'lord', thankfully the Appendix has cleared some of these misunderstandings with descriptions of their rank next to them.

As for the ranking of Landed knights, petty lords and Masterly Houses I dont think there is any set rule. It is probably a case by case study with nothing set in stone.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Else you would have a petty lord - with right of pit and gallows - owing fealty to a Landed Knight who does not have right of pit and gallows. Which makes no sense.

You really, really, really must hate the real world equivalent.

Because in historical practise, we had Holy Roman Emperors owing fealty to barons and lower.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Littledragon

I'm happy to remove the right of pit and gallows from the rank of petty lord. I really have no attachment to it. In fact, I am merely basing that on the claims of others who portray themselves as having more knowledge of the period.

So there, the right of pit and gallows for a petty lord is no more.

Right, now what is the difference between a landed knight and a petty lord, then? Because Lord Manderly has 100 of the former, but only 12 of the latter, signifying a definite step up in rank and exclusivity. Remove the so called right of "pit and gallows", and what is the difference then?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

A petty Lord is exactly that: A lord. "Petty" has no legal bearing. They have all the powers of a major Lord, just less lands.

Trying to rank them in any way is useless because you are loosing at least five different scales.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Another issue is Martin's own description of his feudal structure. While he himself has stated that he only created the title of lord and landed knight, his description of the feudal levy was something along the lines of:

"The Starks will call their vassals, who will call their vassals, who will call their vassals etc. until the last guy calls 3 guys and a goat", or some such comment. I can't remember the exact quote, but what came across quite clearly was that there were many more levels before you get to the lowest ranked lord, than just Lord Paramount, Bannerlord, Petty Lord, Landed Knight.

And yet the lowest lords we have seen so far are petty lords sworn directly to a House like the Manderlys or Dustins. There should be more levels, and by inserting the Masterly House level, we help to add at least one extra level that has not been covered thus far.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Why would petty lords have the rights of pit and gallows? It is only the Starks and the Great Lords who have this right. The gentry underneath would have to get permission from who they swear fealty to or take the case directly to them.

The confusion is that Lord is both a legal title and an honorific title. That is why at some points we have had Glovers and Stouts referred to as 'lord', thankfully the Appendix has cleared some of these misunderstandings with descriptions of their rank next to them.

As for the ranking of Landed knights, petty lords and Masterly Houses I dont think there is any set rule. It is probably a case by case study with nothing set in stone.

I'd assume they'd have rights to pits and gallows because they are lords.

Rohanne Weber had rights to pits and gallows, and she was a vassal to House Rowan, who in turn pledge fealty to House Tyrell. So we've got at least three separate distinct levels of lords with pit and gallows rights solely within the reach. I'd be surprised if it were different in the North to any appreciable agree.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Please don't try to inject any artificial levels into that structure.

Those are the levels in the fealty pyramid, which is a different scale from the legal authority scale, where Kings, Lords, Landed Knights/Masters, rest are ranked.

The scales are somewhat correlated, but not in all instances and they are most certainly not identical.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Bright Blue Eyes

Martin himself alluded to the fact that there are more levels of fealty than we have seen thus far. He just didn't bother to name them all, instead calling everyone lords. But the number of levels of lords is not defined yet.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Yes, I know. That's what I'm referring to.

You seem to be stuck on the (wrong) hypothesis that "level of fealty" correlates with the right of pit and gallows denoted by the title of "Lord". You are wrong there. That's two independent factors.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I don't care about the right of pit and gallows. Really, I don't even like the stupid term. I think its you that introduced the term into the discussion the first time, like 3 years ago or whatever, and I've just stuck with it as the distinction between a lord and a landed knight.

But that really is not important to me. I'm interested in who owes fealty to whom. That's it. I don't care about pits and galleys and galleons and whatever. (Ok, poor attempt at humor there).

The point is, it is pretty clear that a lord is a higher rank than a landed knight in Westeros. And although some few Landed Knights have accumulated more individual power than some individual lords, we have yet to see a single Landed Knight that has fully fledged lords that owe fealty to him. As far as we can see, that does not exist in Westerosi society.

The lord may secretly go to the powerful landed knight to borrow money from him, but that would be similar to going to a Gulltown Arryn or to Littlefinger to borrow money. That does not mean you officially owe him fealty in the social structure.

So the problem then remains that if there are petty lords within the domains of Masterly houses, and if these petty lords owe fealty to the Masterly houses, then it seems unlikely that the Masterly Houses are the mere Northern equivalents of Landed Knights.

[Nittanian]

Another issue is Martin's own description of his feudal structure. While he himself has stated that he only created the title of lord and landed knight, his description of the feudal levy was something along the lines of:

"The Starks will call their vassals, who will call their vassals, who will call their vassals etc. until the last guy calls 3 guys and a goat", or some such comment. I can't remember the exact quote, but what came across quite clearly was that there were many more levels before you get to the lowest ranked lord, than just Lord Paramount, Bannerlord, Petty Lord, Landed Knight.

Maybe this is what you are recalling? Social Structure, Moat Cailin, and More:

I am also a bit curious as to the social structure of westeros. I understand the seven high lords, and the slightly lower lords (ie. Boltons, Karstarks, Freys etc.). However, do these lords also have sub lords below them? Lords who maybe raise 10 or 20 men for the Karstarks?

Yes, it is a feudal system. The lords have vassals, the vassals have vassals, and sometimes the vassals of the vassals have vassals, down to the guy who can raise five friends.

Here are some other SSM excerpts:

Land Ownership and Marriage in Westeros?

And what's the difference between landed knights (Ser Gregor Clegane) and very small lords (i.e. Lord Baelish the Elder)?

The title. A lord has greater powers of rulership over his domain (the power of pits and gallows, it was called in some medieval cultures) Lord would generally be considered the more prestigious title. A knight is (or was) a fighting man, however; that title has its own specific martial and religious meanings -- and in a culture that reveres the warrior, its own prestige. Not all lords are knights.

A landed knight could concievably have greater holdings than a small lord.

Knights and Lords:

As I see it, the title "lord" -- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance -- i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons.

A landed knight has rather less prestige -- a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance -- and also somewhat lesser rights.

But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there's an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.

The Drowned God and More:

I mean, [Robb] had twenty thousand guys or near about when he marched south, I couldn't characterize them all. I have always figured that there are =dozens= of minor lords and =hundreds= of knights and such in all these armies. Simply because someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean they are not there.

George first uses "petty lord" in AFFC. I haven't found a canon indication that they do not have the same rights as "Lords", merely that they have less prestige and fewer resources than the regional powers who support the Great Houses.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I don't care about the right of pit and gallows. Really, I don't even like the stupid term. I think its you that introduced the term into the discussion the first time, like 3 years ago or whatever, and I've just stuck with it as the distinction between a lord and a landed knight.

Here you go: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1203/ Yes, I use it often, but GRRM himself introduced it ten years before I picked up the series.

But that really is not important to me. I'm interested in who owes fealty to whom. That's it. I don't care about pits and galleys and galleons and whatever. (Ok, poor attempt at humor there).

Yes, and you don't have to care about it. That's like discussing which is brighter, yellow or 130°C. It's two different scales.

The point is, it is pretty clear that a lord is a higher rank than a landed knight in Westeros. And although some few Landed Knights have accumulated more individual power than some individual lords, we have yet to see a single Landed Knight that has fully fledged lords that owe fealty to him. As far as we can see, that does not exist in Westerosi society.

On the juidicial scale, yes. On the administative? Maybe. On the power? No, enough counter examples. On the honor scale? No. On the reputation scale? No.

The lord may secretly go to the powerful landed knight to borrow money from him, but that would be similar to going to a Gulltown Arryn or to Littlefinger to borrow money. That does not mean you officially owe him fealty in the social structure.

So the problem then remains that if there are petty lords within the domains of Masterly houses, and if these petty lords owe fealty to the Masterly houses, then it seems unlikely that the Masterly Houses are the mere Northern equivalents of Landed Knights.

Ok, let's go for landed knight as another example: Symond Templeton, Knight of Ninestars. One of the Lords Declarent. Fields several thousand men. Power-wise comparable with Galbart Glover.

A landed knight.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I'd assume they'd have rights to pits and gallows because they are lords.

Rohanne Weber had rights to pits and gallows, and she was a vassal to House Rowan, who in turn pledge fealty to House Tyrell. So we've got at least three separate distinct levels of lords with pit and gallows rights solely within the reach. I'd be surprised if it were different in the North to any appreciable agree.

I was never really disputing that. The Hightowers have a few Lords sworn directly to them, the Royces two and the Freys and Vances both have a Lord subordinate underneath them.

Its just that the Lords Coldwater and Tolllet have more independence from the Royces than the knighly Shetts do, the same with Lord Charlton and the knighly Haighs and Ernefords in relation to the Freys.

The Rowans are a powerful House with the Reach and judging by the men trying to marry Lady Webber I think they were an actual Lordly house rather than a petty one, albeit a Lordly House that had fallen on hard times like the Westerlings had in the current series.