How rich are the Starks pre series

[redtree]

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

The North doesn't have coal but it probably produces a lot of charcoal(which is what medieval smiths mainly used for fuel and what was mainly used for fuel to smelt metals) which it would be able to export. 

No quotes ? I'll pass
 

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

In the medieval era it was closer to 8 or 9 bushels an acre(minus 2 to be used for seed). So it would take a lot more land to produce the same amount of consumable wheat and not all land is arable. In medieval England only 35% of the land was suitable for farming, less in Scotland and places like that. And assuming a fighting population of 1% is quite generous, 0.25% is nearer to the mark so the Riverlands population is probably closer to 18 million. 

I'll need a source or quotes on that 18 million, Riverland is a well connected region so 0.25% is incredibly low, lower than the North. And 18 million is a great exaggeration number, check out other threads in this forum. You'll see that not even the Reach has that number. And even if the yields is as low as you mention, then 0.03% x 5 = 0.15%. Yeah, still an incredibly low amount of used land and a lot for other use
 

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

That's true but there's still going to be a large demand for wool. In the 13th century, England exported 45,000 sacks of wool per year, with 250 fleeces per sack(so 11,250,000 fleeces were exported in total). That's a lot of wool and all of that was going to Flanders. 

Wool comes from sheeps so if they can produce sheeps they can produce wool, it's a package not separate things.
 

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

Well actually how big their demesne is does matter as while the North is still sparsely populated, the majority of the population are farmers, sheperds etc. so how large their demesne is will effect how much grain is produced and how many animals can be kept on the land. 

Let me clarify, the size of the land gives impact to the region's potential but land doesn't just churn up produce by itself without people working on it so what matters, what truly will have large impact is the number of workers. Big land+sparse population=small-medium income, medium land+dense population=big income, and North is the former. 

[Bright Blue Eyes]

2 hours ago, redtree said:

I'll need a source or quotes on that 18 million, Riverland is a well connected region so 0.25% is incredibly low, lower than the North. And 18 million is a great exaggeration number, check out other threads in this forum. You'll see that not even the Reach has that number. And even if the yields is as low as you mention, then 0.03% x 5 = 0.15%. Yeah, still an incredibly low amount of used land and a lot for other use

Nobody needs to check any other threads. Each and every single guess at the population of Westeros is derived of the army numbers. If @Lord Giggles assumes 0.25%, 18 million is a good guess. Personally I'd use 1% and 50,000 for five millions, but both guesstimates are equally valid.

[Clegane'sPup]

6) This question relates a bit to 5..but.. hey. How do the great houses, besides the lannsiters of course, make there money. Is it all through the trading of goods?

Taxes and customs duties.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Social_Structure_Moat_Cailin_and_More

[Lord Giggles]

Quote

I'll need a source or quotes on that 18 million, Riverland is a well connected region so 0.25% is incredibly low, lower than the North. And 18 million is a great exaggeration number, check out other threads in this forum. You'll see that not even the Reach has that number. And even if the yields is as low as you mention, then 0.03% x 5 = 0.15%. Yeah, still an incredibly low amount of used land and a lot for other use

The 18 million estimate is based off of army numbers. The estimate of 0.25% being in the army is from the numbers fielded by medieval armies. To take two examples from the same campaign, the French fielded 15,000-36,000 men at the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt. The total French population at the time was 20 million meaning they fielded just over or just under 0.1% of their population. In the same campaign the English put 8000-11,000 men in the field. At the time their population was 4 million so they were fielding around 0.25% of their population. The battles where 1% of the population was fielded(the Battle of Towton. Estimates give a percentage of 1-2% of the population) were unsually large. 

Quote

Wool comes from sheeps so if they can produce sheeps they can produce wool, it's a package not separate things

Yes that's true but as I said before, just because they could produce sheep, it doesn't mean they do and I gave the example of England and Flanders to demonstrate the point. 

Quote

Let me clarify, the size of the land gives impact to the region's potential but land doesn't just churn up produce by itself without people working on it so what matters, what truly will have large impact is the number of workers. Big land+sparse population=small-medium income, medium land+dense population=big income, and North is the former. 

Also, this is true but the population of Winterstown isn't going to be the entire population of the Stark's demesne for precisely that reason. If they're living in Wintertown they're not farming the fields or minding animals which, while it may be fine in the winter, is going to be a big no no in the summer given that the Starks want to produce as much food and get as much timber cut as they can while they can. 

 

Quote

 No quotes ? I'll pass

We don't have any quotes regarding what the various regions export besides quotes regarding wine, fruit and gold and the World of Ice and Fire doesn't show us everything(or at least I assume it doesn't). I'm basing that assumption off of the fact that one of the reasons for the deforestation of Europe during the medieval era was the vast amounts of charcoal needed for smelting iron, gold and silver. Given that the rest of the seven kingdoms seem to be undergoing a similar deforestation probably for the same reasons seeing as they have relatively small populations. Thus it would make sense for the North, which still has a relatively high level of forested land, to start exporting charcoal. 

[John Doe]

The Starks should also be comparatively poor because they don't have much trade going on.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

5 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

The 18 million estimate is based off of army numbers. The estimate of 0.25% being in the army is from the numbers fielded by medieval armies. To take two examples from the same campaign, the French fielded 15,000-36,000 men at the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt. The total French population at the time was 20 million meaning they fielded just over or just under 0.1% of their population. In the same campaign the English put 8000-11,000 men in the field. At the time their population was 4 million so they were fielding around 0.25% of their population. The battles where 1% of the population was fielded(the Battle of Towton. Estimates give a percentage of 1-2% of the population) were unsually large.

Not at all. The Plantagenets were a french dynasty ruling the (former) Angevine Empire, of whom England was just the backwater tacked onto Aquitaine, the Gascogne etc, basically a third of France.

[Lord Giggles]

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Not at all. The Plantagenets were a french dynasty ruling the (former) Angevine Empire, of whom England was just the backwater tacked onto Aquitaine, the Gascogne etc, basically a third of France.

Not at the time of Agincourt/Azincourt which was fought in 1415. By then, the English crown had lost all its territories in France except for Gascony, which was a shadow of its former self. 

[Bright Blue Eyes]

... and still carrying the lion's share of the war effort.

 

Anyway, that's too detailed for this discussion, just trying to prevent people from believing in English propaganda, even if Shakespeare wrote quite beautiful propaganda pieces with lasting results on public "knowledge".

[Lord Giggles]

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

... and still carrying the lion's share of the war effort.

 

Anyway, that's too detailed for this discussion, just trying to prevent people from believing in English propaganda, even if Shakespeare wrote quite beautiful propaganda pieces with lasting results on public "knowledge".

Except that isn't Shakespearean propaganda(for once). In the case of Agincourt and the campaign that followed in 1417, the vast majority of the troops used were English and Welsh and the majority of the money used to pay for them(until Normandy was ceded to the English) was payed for by taxes raised in England and Wales with the consent of the English parliament. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Look, I think this debate has gone to the extreme ends of the spectrum again. As so often happens. Critics try to depict the North as the paupers of Westeros, with the lowest population and smallest armies, while suggesting that proponents of the North hold a position of the North being among the wealthiest of regions. Personally, as much as I am a huge fan of the Northern storyline, I try to temper my assessments of the North with as much realism as possible.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the Starks are on a par with the Lannisters or Tyrells in terms of wealth. But to suggest that they cannot rebuild a single Broken Tower in their capital, or that the Starks are poorer than a number of the lesser lords in the South is just going way too far.

Unless the Starks today are drastically poorer than they were in the past, how is it possible that they could build the massive complex of Winterfell - repeatedly and successively larger - over many centuries, but cannot repair a single Tower today? Today when they rule more territory than they did in the first 5000 years after the Long Night when they were Kings of Winter but not rulers of the entire North yet?

If a lord like the Karstarks can raise 3000 men to war, they are not poor. In fact, they are vastly wealthy by almost any medieval standard in the real world. And that means they contribute a large amount of taxes to Winterfell. The same goes for every other major lord in the North.

Ask yourself the question: What level of wealth would a medieval lord in the real Middle Ages have required to project a well equipped, armed, armoured and logistically supported  force of 3000 men 600 miles from their home castle? And if you have a dozen or more such lords paying fealty to an overlord, how wealthy would such an overlord have been in the real world?

Come now, let's stop the more far fetched suggestions about the extreme poverty of the Starks.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

The 18 million estimate is based off of army numbers. The estimate of 0.25% being in the army is from the numbers fielded by medieval armies. To take two examples from the same campaign, the French fielded 15,000-36,000 men at the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt. The total French population at the time was 20 million meaning they fielded just over or just under 0.1% of their population. In the same campaign the English put 8000-11,000 men in the field. At the time their population was 4 million so they were fielding around 0.25% of their population. The battles where 1% of the population was fielded(the Battle of Towton. Estimates give a percentage of 1-2% of the population) were unsually large. 

 

France didn't have 20 million people at that time. Their population was more likely in the range of 8 to 10 million. The Black Death along with a number of agrarian disasters during the 14th century had taken a heavy toll on the populations of Europe, and it also unlikely that France had as much as 20 million people prior to this. That is the absolute high end estimate. Likewise with England, which probably had around 2 million people at the time of Agincourt rather than 4. 

There is an even bigger flaw with this type of methodology that is often used on these boards (and which I have done before as well), however. Which is that the sizes of single armies from various medieval battles are put in comparison with what is the theoretical maximum number of soldiers that a Westerosi kingdom could muster over the course of several years, and in a number of different locations. These two things are not equivalent. 

If a comparison like this was to be fair the Riverlands should have a strength of 15 000 men, not 50 000. The North should have a strength of 19500 men, the Westerlands 20 000, and so on. Those are the largest armies we have seen them gather in the books. 

[Lord Giggles]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

France didn't have 20 million people at that time. Their population was more likely in the range of 8 to 10 million. The Black Death along with a number of agrarian disasters during the 14th century had taken a heavy toll on the populations of Europe, and it also unlikely that France had 20 million people prior to this. That is just the absolute high end estimate. Likewise with England, which probably had around 2 million people at the time of Agincourt rather than 4. 

There is an even bigger flaw with this type of methodology that is often used on these boards (and which I have done before as well), however. Which is that the sizes of single armies from various medieval battles are put in comparison with what is the theoretical maximum number of soldiers that a Westerosi kingdom could muster over the course of several years, and in a number of different locations. These things are not the same. 

If a comparison like this was to be fair the Riverlands should have a strength of 15 000 men, not 50 000. The North should have a strength of 19500 men, the Westerlands 20 000, and so on. Those are the largest armies we have seen them gather in the books. 

Even with those smaller populations, the French army was 0.2%ish and the English were 0.5%ish. Still much lower than 1-2%

 

And that is why I used the total number of men mobilised for the Agincourt/Azincourt campaign, not the battle of Agincourt. It just so happens that there was only one battle fought during the campaign. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

France didn't have 20 million people at that time. Their population was more likely in the range of 8 to 10 million. The Black Death along with a number of agrarian disasters during the 14th century had taken a heavy toll on the populations of Europe, and it also unlikely that France had as much as 20 million people prior to this. That is the absolute high end estimate. Likewise with England, which probably had around 2 million people at the time of Agincourt rather than 4. 

There is an even bigger flaw with this type of methodology that is often used on these boards (and which I have done before as well), however. Which is that the sizes of single armies from various medieval battles are put in comparison with what is the theoretical maximum number of soldiers that a Westerosi kingdom could muster over the course of several years, and in a number of different locations. These two things are not equivalent. 

If a comparison like this was to be fair the Riverlands should have a strength of 15 000 men, not 50 000. The North should have a strength of 19500 men, the Westerlands 20 000, and so on. Those are the largest armies we have seen them gather in the books. 

Indeed. And even these were large armies going by Westerosi history. The largest army in history, after all, was a combined Reach/Westerlands army of 55,000. So that tells me that armies of 20k from individual kingdoms was pretty much as big as it got in Westeros before the current series. Torhenn Stark's 30k men that crossed the Neck was likely a massive host for a single kingdom of the time.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

23 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Even with those smaller populations, the French army was 0.2%ish and the English were 0.5%ish. Still much lower than 1-2%

 

And that is why I used the total number of men mobilised for the Agincourt/Azincourt campaign, not the battle of Agincourt. It just so happens that there was only one battle fought during the campaign. 

Sure, although both France and England had been bleeding each other dry for quite some time before that campaign took place. But yes, I agree. However that does not change the fact that those 0.2% and 0.5% respectively were men that were gathered for specific armies. They weren't, like the Westerosi strengths tend to be, a sum total of the hypothesized total number of trained soldiers for every noble house in a kingdom. If you had done that for France and England the numbers would have been far larger than 10 000 and 20 000. The French knights alone should have numbered in the tens of thousands, considering that the nobility ought to have made up between 1-2 % of the population and most its male members would have been trained as warriors. Then you had all their retainers, urban militias, mercenaries and so on. 

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Indeed. And even these were large armies going by Westerosi history. The largest army in history, after all, was a combined Reach/Westerlands army of 55,000. So that tells me that armies of 20k from individual kingdoms was pretty much as big as it got in Westeros before the current series. Torhenn Stark's 30k men that crossed the Neck was likely a massive host for a single kingdom of the time.

Yes. 

[Lord Giggles]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Sure, although both France and England had been bleeding each other dry for quite some time before that campaign took place. But yes, that is correct. However this does not change the fact that those 0.2% and 0.5% respectively are men that were gathered for specific armies. They weren't, like the Westerosi strengths tend to be, a sum total of the hypothesized total number of trained soldiers for every noble house in a kingdom. If you had done that for France and England the numbers would have been far larger than 10 000 and 20 000. The French knights alone should have numbered in the tens of thousands, considering that the nobility ought to have made up between 1-2 % of the population and most its male members would have been trained as warriors. Then you have all their retainers, urban militias, mercenaries and so on. 

Actually, prior to Agincourt they had had 26 years of peace which, given that the casualties sustained in the Edwardian phases weren't anywhere near crippling demographically, was plenty of time for their population to recover. However, it's true that that wasn't there maximum possible number of troops 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

3 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Actually, prior to Agincourt they had had 26 years of peace which, given that the casualties sustained in the Edwardian phases weren't anywhere near crippling demographically, was plenty of time for their population to recover. However, it's true that that wasn't there maximum possible number of troops 

Oh. I should read up a bit on the Hundred Years War timeline then, I think. 

[MinotaurWarrior]

17 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

1 Lannisters

2 Tyrells

3 Tullys

4 Arryns

5 Baratheons of Storm's End

6 Martells

6 Starks

7 Greyjoys

8 Baratheons of Dragonstone

I think the Starks must be richer than the Arryns at the start of the series. There are four basic reasons why I hold this belief:

1) The Eyrie v.s. Winterfell. The Eyrie is smaller than Winterfell, with roughly equivalent graineries, but no glass gardens or hot springs. The Eyrie has a serious ventilation problem (it's full of holes), and likely has to expend a great deal of money on heating. Both castles have roughly the same number of ruined elements (Sky is literally rubble)

2) Wintertown and the Kingsroad v.s. Nothing. Wintertown is a very small town, "full to bursting" with 12,000 soldiers and their camp followers, but it is a town, and while there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of traffic up the Kingsroad past Winterfell, it's infinitely more than the taxable trade up to the Eyrie.

3) A united v.s. split household. We see Eddard and Arryn's thrift compared in AGoT, but the Arryn's had spent more than a decade having to maintain two noble households, which seems to be a substantial drain on personal resources.

4) The lawfulness of the north compared to the boldness of the mountain clans. A noble maiden could walk naked but for her jewelry from Flint's Fingers to Widows Watch without losing anything, whereas traveling by foot from the Bloody Gate to the rest of Westeros with only one expert swordsman as escort is literally considered to be a death sentence.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Look, I think this debate has gone to the extreme ends of the spectrum again. As so often happens. Critics try to depict the North as the paupers of Westeros, with the lowest population and smallest armies, while suggesting that proponents of the North hold a position of the North being among the wealthiest of regions. Personally, as much as I am a huge fan of the Northern storyline, I try to temper my assessments of the North with as much realism as possible.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the Starks are on a par with the Lannisters or Tyrells in terms of wealth. But to suggest that they cannot rebuild a single Broken Tower in their capital, or that the Starks are poorer than a number of the lesser lords in the South is just going way too far.

If want to drag on this Broken Tower example that add the library tower which was also destroyed and not rebuild. George could have given us Robb seeing to its rebuilding - after all, books are important, and there was no reason to assume Ned would be arrested, so there is no reason why he wouldn't do that.

Compare it to the Tower of the Hand. Cersei burned it down in AFfC and Mace Tyrell announced in ADwD that he would rebuild it three times taller. I'm not making this up. This is in the text. Mace is in the middle of a war, too, but he apparently can afford to finance and plan various projects at once but the Starks could (or would) not.

If it isn't a sign of relative poverty than it would be a sign of weakness/lack of leadership. You tend to your castle and look that it is always in perfect shape. Even Rohanne Webber knew that (and lived by that motto).

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Unless the Starks today are drastically poorer than they were in the past, how is it possible that they could build the massive complex of Winterfell - repeatedly and successively larger - over many centuries, but cannot repair a single Tower today? Today when they rule more territory than they did in the first 5000 years after the Long Night when they were Kings of Winter but not rulers of the entire North yet?

We actually don't know who helped them finance the building of Winterfell, and how this was done. It could have been a generational thing like the Wall was. Not to mention that many hands might have helped building back then when they were still kings. Kings can do different things than mere lords. In addition, the population of the North might actually have declined in recent years - remember the Great Spring Sickness, the Ironborn raids, the Skagos rebellion, the war against Raymun Redbeard, the six year winter etc. This might have taken more tolls on the North than you might think at first glance. House Stark itself was reduced to a single male branch by the time of Rickard Stark, after all. Perhaps this specific weakness of the Starks is reflected by a general weakness in the North in general?

Not to mention the toll Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion took in recent years. Many people died, even (and especially) in Winterfell.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If a lord like the Karstarks can raise 3000 men to war, they are not poor. In fact, they are vastly wealthy by almost any medieval standard in the real world. And that means they contribute a large amount of taxes to Winterfell. The same goes for every other major lord in the North.

The Karstarks could raise about 2,000+ able-bodied men. And even that cost her all their farm hands according to Alys Karstark. The men Arnolf has marshaled are the pitiful rest. Many Southron houses should be able to raise the same amount of men. But that doesn't make them especially rich. The point is, most of the lords outside of the North have many levies and vassals, too. In addition to coin, riches, and other valuables.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Come now, let's stop the more far fetched suggestions about the extreme poverty of the Starks.

It is not extreme poverty. It is just that the Starks are definitely the poorest great house, right around with the Greyjoys (who could be richer in coin if the export of iron goes well, by the way). Thralls are working in the mines of the Ironborn, so there is virtually no cost of the lords aside from keeping those people alive while all the profits end up in their coffers.

 

54 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

I think the Starks must be richer than the Arryns at the start of the series. There are four basic reasons why I hold this belief:

1) The Eyrie v.s. Winterfell. The Eyrie is smaller than Winterfell, with roughly equivalent graineries, but no glass gardens or hot springs. The Eyrie has a serious ventilation problem (it's full of holes), and likely has to expend a great deal of money on heating. Both castles have roughly the same number of ruined elements (Sky is literally rubble)

The Eyrie is a summer castle only. It doesn't need any of that, and was designed as such. Nobody intended to live up there in winter. That would be insane.

54 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

2) Wintertown and the Kingsroad v.s. Nothing. Wintertown is a very small town, "full to bursting" with 12,000 soldiers and their camp followers, but it is a town, and while there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of traffic up the Kingsroad past Winterfell, it's infinitely more than the taxable trade up to the Eyrie.

The Eyrie isn't the only castle of the Arryns. They also held the Gates of the Moon, and presumably own other smaller castles around the Vale. Whatever land the Arryns control would be adjacent to/nearby the Gates of the Moon.

54 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

3) A united v.s. split household. We see Eddard and Arryn's thrift compared in AGoT, but the Arryn's had spent more than a decade having to maintain two noble households, which seems to be a substantial drain on personal resources.

Not really. The Eyrie may have been effectively empty while the Vale was overseen by Lord Nestor Royce the High Steward of the Vale who ruled from the Gates. Jon Arryn's entire household seems to have been at KL, and was taken back to the Vale by Lysa.

54 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

4) The lawfulness of the north compared to the boldness of the mountain clans. A noble maiden could walk naked but for her jewelry from Flint's Fingers to Widows Watch without losing anything, whereas traveling by foot from the Bloody Gate to the rest of Westeros with only one expert swordsman as escort is literally considered to be a death sentence.

That seems to have to do more with the Arryns never declaring a total war on the clansmen up there.

[DanïelNorth]

45 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

I think the Starks must be richer than the Arryns at the start of the series. There are four basic reasons why I hold this belief:

1) The Eyrie v.s. Winterfell. The Eyrie is smaller than Winterfell, with roughly equivalent graineries, but no glass gardens or hot springs. The Eyrie has a serious ventilation problem (it's full of holes), and likely has to expend a great deal of money on heating. Both castles have roughly the same number of ruined elements (Sky is literally rubble)

2) Wintertown and the Kingsroad v.s. Nothing. Wintertown is a very small town, "full to bursting" with 12,000 soldiers and their camp followers, but it is a town, and while there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of traffic up the Kingsroad past Winterfell, it's infinitely more than the taxable trade up to the Eyrie.

3) A united v.s. split household. We see Eddard and Arryn's thrift compared in AGoT, but the Arryn's had spent more than a decade having to maintain two noble households, which seems to be a substantial drain on personal resources.

4) The lawfulness of the north compared to the boldness of the mountain clans. A noble maiden could walk naked but for her jewelry from Flint's Fingers to Widows Watch without losing anything, whereas traveling by foot from the Bloody Gate to the rest of Westeros with only one expert swordsman as escort is literally considered to be a death sentence.

True, but as we know from Tywin's laws during the Aerys period, the big harbour cities have the most income through trade. So pure customs, the highest income would be for the Graftons of Gulltown, Hightowers of Oldtown, The cadet branch of the lannisters in Lannisport and ofcourse the Manderlys of White Harbor. 

However, all these houses have to pay taxes to their liege lord. And so while their wealth may be vast compared to other minor houses they are still less wealthy then their overlord. Gulltown is slightly bigger then white harbor, so I bet they have more customs income.

The thing I wonder about is how wealthy the families controlling the harbour cities are compared to the Great Houses. I might think the hightowers are more wealthy then the Starks and the Arryns.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, DanïelNorth said:

True, but as we know from Tywin's laws during the Aerys period, the big harbour cities have the most income through trade. So pure customs, the highest income would be for the Graftons of Gulltown, Hightowers of Oldtown, The cadet branch of the lannisters in Lannisport and ofcourse the Manderlys of White Harbor. 

It is not clear who is in control of Lannisport, actually. There are Lannisters of Lannisport, of course, but Kevan's wife is living there, too, and Lord Tywin bears the hereditary title 'Shield of Lannisport' suggesting that the Lannister of Casterly Rock are also closely connected to Lannisport.

1 minute ago, DanïelNorth said:

However, all these houses have to pay taxes to their liege lord. And so while their wealth may be vast compared to other minor houses they are still less wealthy then their overlord. Gulltown is slightly bigger then white harbor, so I bet they have more customs income.

The thing I wonder about is how wealthy the families controlling the harbour cities are compared to the Great Houses. I might think the hightowers are more wealthy then the Starks and the Arryns.

The Hightowers certainly are much wealthier than the Starks or most of the great houses. They are repeatedly mentioned as being in the same league as the Lannisters.

Presumably the Tyrells are richer than the Hightowers but that is difficult to determine because we don't know if Highgarden collects any taxes from Oldtown at all (or if they do, how much Hightowers give them). It might not be all that much considering the nature of the deal that brought Oldtown originally under the rule of the Gardeners.

So it might actually be the Hightowers are the second richest house in Westeros (aside from the Crown, of course, when it actually does not throw out its money).

How many taxes the liege lord of city lord can keep is difficult to determine. It might very well be that the Targaryens claimed all those taxes for themselves and cut the Starks, Arryns, Lannisters, Tyrells off from most of the tax revenues from the harbor cities.