Jump to content

How rich are the Starks pre series


Tarellen

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The numbers aren't that important, and you know that. The keeps are. Riverland villages tend to have keeps close by who protect them from armed knights. They wouldn't be much bigger than those villages up North if the lands there were organized the same, in principle.

So the mountain clans/Umber villages don't have keeps or there aren't even any villages there. In the Gifts nobody ever sees any villages.

That's not true there are villages in the gift, they have been abandoned because of the wildling treat but they where there and did have protection. Here is a quote from Bran in aSoS about Queenscrown: The tower stood upon an island, its twin reflected on the still blue waters. When the wind blew, ripples moved across the surface of the lake, chasing one another like boys at play. Oak trees grew thick along the lakeshore, a dense stand of them with a litter of fallen acorns on the ground beneath. Beyond them was the village, or what remained of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Free Northman Reborn

Yeah, I'm fine with about six million. Sorry, I know women are people, too, but in my calculation they were not for a short time ;-).

But if there are only so few wildlings then they are a joke, really, and always have been.

No, the dragon-winter connection most certainly is the truth, just as the talk of the old women that long winters usually come after long summers also seems to be true. After King Maekar's long summer did come the six-year-winter of 230-236 AC.

And I've already suggested that magic might have kept people alive during the Long Night. If it truly had lasted for generation then it would have been about twenty years, or so, give or take, and that should have killed everyone in Westeros if they didn't have magic to protect them and keep them warm.

I don't think you are correct with the South having reached its full potential yet (or long ago). That doesn't make much sense. Not if there are still lions in the West and aurochs in the Riverlands (which there are). There is not as much wildness in the South than there is in the North, but there should still be some pretty wild places in the West, the Riverlands, the Vale (or rather the Mountains of the Moon), the Stormlands, and in Dorne. And perhaps even in some regions of the Reach.

I'm not arguing against the idea that the population was severely reduced during the Long Night, I'm just saying we don't know what exactly happened, where the Others were defeated, etc. So we don't know who lived where at this time, and how many people were there.

As to the Barrowlands 'barrow land' as farmland:

That might even be reasonably fertile but my idea there is that people do not want to settle. That is either hallowed land or shunned land because the kings of old have been buried there. How vast the region is were there are actually dead kings buried we do not know but the region Ned and Robert are crossing is pretty big and nobody is there, basically.

However, the actual Barrowlands are much bigger, of course, and there should be some decent land there, especially around Barrowton. That is why I said that I think one of the more densely populated areas of the North should be the western Barrowlands.

As to the raiding thing:

1. The wildlings have no good weaponry and armor. The Northmen could have if their lords give them some, giving them a huge advantage over their attackers.

2. The wildlings have no siege engines or technology. Ygritte thinks a ruined watchtower is a castle. If people hole up in some watchtower or keep they are safe from any wildlings that might come knocking at their door. Perhaps even a house built of stone would suffice.

3. The wildlings usually climb across the Wall when they raid. That doesn't go exactly swiftly. They also lack horses when they do so unless they chance on some they could steal. So they would not be exactly swift in the attack and also not quickly away (unless they capture some horses).

The Vale does not seem to suffer constants raids from the clansmen, but those that occur don't seem to affect castles and keeps (for obvious reasons). My point is that those regions threatened by such raids (be they in the mountainous regions of the Vale or in the North) would actually counter those threats by actually raising towers and keeps for their protection.

If those places are still abandoned or if there are still people slain, women raped and carried away, and crops and goods stolen then those people were obviously not able to defend themselves. But if they had towers and keeps then it is difficult to imagine why they could not defend themselves or their goods because, you know, the enemies were just wildlings and they had keeps and towers.

But if they don't have keeps and towers up there in the border regions between the Umber lands and the Gifts then this would mean that there aren't that many people up there. Because the average wildling raiding party wouldn't be that big in any case. A few dozen people, not more.

8 minutes ago, direpupy said:

That's not true there are villages in the gift, they have been abandoned because of the wildling treat but they where there and did have protection. Here is a quote from Bran in aSoS about Queenscrown: The tower stood upon an island, its twin reflected on the still blue waters. When the wind blew, ripples moved across the surface of the lake, chasing one another like boys at play. Oak trees grew thick along the lakeshore, a dense stand of them with a litter of fallen acorns on the ground beneath. Beyond them was the village, or what remained of it.

You are right. I meant to say 'existing villages'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

Yeah, I'm fine with about six million. Sorry, I know women are people, too, but in my calculation they were not for a short time ;-).

But if there are only so few wildlings then they are a joke, really, and always have been.

No, the dragon-winter connection most certainly is the truth, just as the talk of the old women that long winters usually come after long summers also seems to be true. After King Maekar's long summer did come the six-year-winter of 230-236 AC.

And I've already suggested that magic might have kept people alive during the Long Night. If it truly had lasted for generation then it would have been about twenty years, or so, give or take, and that should have killed everyone in Westeros if they didn't have magic to protect them and keep them warm.

I don't think you are correct with the South having reached its full potential yet (or long ago). That doesn't make much sense. Not if there are still lions in the West and aurochs in the Riverlands (which there are). There is not as much wildness in the South than there is in the North, but there should still be some pretty wild places in the West, the Riverlands, the Vale (or rather the Mountains of the Moon), the Stormlands, and in Dorne. And perhaps even in some regions of the Reach.

I'm not arguing against the idea that the population was severely reduced during the Long Night, I'm just saying we don't know what exactly happened, where the Others were defeated, etc. So we don't know who lived where at this time, and how many people were there.

As to the Barrowlands 'barrow land' as farmland:

That might even be reasonably fertile but my idea there is that people do not want to settle. That is either hallowed land or shunned land because the kings of old have been buried there. How vast the region is were there are actually dead kings buried we do not know but the region Ned and Robert are crossing is pretty big and nobody is there, basically.

However, the actual Barrowlands are much bigger, of course, and there should be some decent land there, especially around Barrowton. That is why I said that I think one of the more densely populated areas of the North should be the western Barrowlands.

As to the raiding thing:

1. The wildlings have no good weaponry and armor. The Northmen could have if their lords give them some, giving them a huge advantage over their attackers.

2. The wildlings have no siege engines or technology. Ygritte thinks a ruined watchtower is a castle. If people hole up in some watchtower or keep they are safe from any wildlings that might come knocking at their door. Perhaps even a house built of stone would suffice.

3. The wildlings usually climb across the Wall when they raid. That doesn't go exactly swiftly. They also lack horses when they do so unless they chance on some they could steal. So they would not be exactly swift in the attack and also not quickly away (unless they capture some horses).

The Vale does not seem to suffer constants raids from the clansmen, but those that occur don't seem to affect castles and keeps (for obvious reasons). My point is that those regions threatened by such raids (be they in the mountainous regions of the Vale or in the North) would actually counter those threats by actually raising towers and keeps for their protection.

If those places are still abandoned or if there are still people slain, women raped and carried away, and crops and goods stolen then those people were obviously not able to defend themselves. But if they had towers and keeps then it is difficult to imagine why they could not defend themselves or their goods because, you know, the enemies were just wildlings and they had keeps and towers.

But if they don't have keeps and towers up there in the border regions between the Umber lands and the Gifts then this would mean that there aren't that many people up there. Because the average wildling raiding party wouldn't be that big in any case. A few dozen people, not more.

You are right. I meant to say 'existing villages'.

Regarding the South and its potential. Of course there will be plenty of wilderness left. Even today in our industrialized densely populated world there are still vast areas of wilderness left. So even we have not reached the full carrying capacity of our world yet. But that is for our given level of technology.

I would say that for Westeros, the South has reached the level where the easily and moderatly accessible land has been occupied. Until technology increases sufficiently, the cost benefit of converting the more inaccesible areas will be dubious, and therefore the amount of food produced will generally have peaked at the current levels. And this peak was probably reached centuries ago.

Note that the population growth of Medieval Europe from the year 500-1000, according to Wikipedia appears to have been around 0.1% per year or so. Given the weird Westerosi seasons we could probably halve that for Westeros.

Anyway, the point is that if the Gift has unused farmland, then the open spaces of the parts of the North that are located hundreds and in some cases a thousand of miles South of the Gift should be fairly easily farmable too. Suggesting that the population hasn't quite reached the size where those lands require farming, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Regarding the South and its potential. Of course there will be plenty of wilderness left. Even today in our industrialized densely populated world there are still vast areas of wilderness left. So even we have not reached the full carrying capacity of our world yet. But that is for our given level of technology.

Well, we are a special case because our methods change. We have fertilizing techniques and machines our ancestors could only dream of (and some people on the planet still dream about). However, should we ever reach the full capacity of our world in this regard then any outside factor messing with that capacity could easily lead millions dying of starvation (not that this isn't happening each day anyway, but on a much larger scale).

I think the unpredictable winters of Martinworld have similar effect. Say, there are a string of mild winters and long summers. More children will be born since the times are great. They might even grow into adults and have more children of their own. Then a war hits the land followed by long winter. The shortage of food should lead to more deaths than during a normal winter because more people will try to survive on the same amount of food (or even less, if the war destroyed much of the stored food).

That is why I don't think there was a lot of progress made in the population growth department throughout the history of Westeros. The central rule might have changed that, though. The Iron Throne could have transported food from the Reach, the Vale, and the Riverlands (or in any other region lacking food) much easier than this would have been done in times the kingdoms were usually always at war with each other.

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I would say that for Westeros, the South has reached the level where the easily and moderatly accessible land has been occupied. Until technology increases sufficiently, the cost benefit of converting the more inaccesible areas will be dubious, and therefore the amount of food produced will generally have peaked at the current levels. And this peak was probably reached centuries ago.

On what do you base that? There is nothing to support this, really. We don't know if there is not a lot of unexplored great farmland right round the corner this way or that way. We didn't see all the land, so we cannot say where there are people living and where there are none (and why). Even the Reach you don't stumble over people on every corner as TSS sufficiently illustrates. The villages Dunk & Egg come back from in the beginning are days away, there is Wat's Wood, and so on.

For the North we have actually been given some remarkable features of land (pretty big mountains, large forests, some smaller mountains, a huge swamp, a stony shore) that make it unlikely that many people are living in those regions. Similar features are given for the Stormlands (the Rainwood and the Dornish Marches), parts of the Westerlands, the Mountains of the Moon, remote places like Crackclaw Point (which, I'd think, can easily be taken as template - with less population density, of course - for remote regions in the North like Cape Kraken, Sea Dragon Point, the region around Widow's Watch, and so on).

But I'm not saying there isn't also decent portions of potentially good farmland in the North - what I'm saying is that the portion of this land is most likely a lot smaller than you think it is.

And there is no reason to assume that there is not also such land down in the South that could be easily enough turned into farmland without dealing with major difficulties (like to high altitude, too many trees, too remote from existing population centers, etc.) but wasn't settled simply because the people to do so don't exist yet.

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, the point is that if the Gift has unused farmland, then the open spaces of the parts of the North that are located hundreds and in some cases a thousand of miles South of the Gift should be fairly easily farmable too. Suggesting that the population hasn't quite reached the size where those lands require farming, yet.

No, exactly this is not the case and cannot be deduced from that. Just because fact things are this and that on place x doesn't mean they have to be the same way in place y (in the same country). The landscape varies, the soil varies, the weather and climate vary. The land in Gifts could be more fertile than a lot (or even all) of the land farther south (I don't think the latter is very likely but we don't have the data to dismiss that out of hand). The Valley of the Thenns shows that there can be very fertile land very far in the north, after all.

And we don't even know the quality of the farmland in the Gifts. Yes, the people there once fed tens of thousands of Watchmen, but we don't know how many of their own people actually helped them tend those lands. A lot of their ranks would have been stewards, after all. The Night's Watch as an order holds the Gifts, and subsequently the black brothers actually could have tended to some fields and animals in their vicinity themselves. Just as they still do today, presumably, considering that Hobb must get his fresh meat from somewhere.

I'm not sure there lives enough smallfolk in the Gifts right now to feed the NW and themselves. Some might be left, but apparently not much of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tugela said:

The north is poor and sparsely populated in general. That was the reason why Robb's army was not given much chance in it's rebellion, since it would have to fight much larger and better equipped armies.

Winterfell appears to be a rat hole in a poor state of repair, so clearly the Starks themselves are not wealthy.

Please look back over the past 15 page to see all the evidence which indicates that this is not the case. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I didn't consider that agricultural land but you are right, of course. But we should also keep in mind that while sheep can at least keep the trees away a lack of trees also can cause erosion, and this way you can turn fertile land into wasteland, basically.

I'm not saying that happened everywhere but if you have vast pasture in the North where there aren't so many people you don't give a damn about whether people in a thousand years might want to plant some crops there.

And there certainly are wide straps of land where nothing is planted, the Barrowlands attest to that. Nobody seems to be living where the ancient kings have their burial mounds (the place where Robert and Ned are riding in AGoT).

Yeah, but a tradition of fighting and resilience could have developed there, too. I mean, it did develop on Bear Island. The people there are fierce and would do anything in their power to fight off the Ironborn whatever way they could.

I'm not saying they should be able to throw an entire fleet back (like the Shield Islanders who also have weapons and ships) but there could at least have been some holdfasts and keeps where the smallfolk might hold out in the case of such attacks. The fact that there seem to be none (or at least not enough) suggests that there really aren't many people there.

Not bred, but they live there. It is in AFfC, I think in the same chapter as Meribald's speech. When Nymeria and her pack come up again it is said that she brought down an aurochs.

My guess would be that there are still wild aurochs in the Riverlands.

Cattle is definitely bred in the South. Lord Butterwell was a cow lord, basically, and he was awfully rich because he had so many of them.

One can actually check those dishes George is always listing to get a feeling what kind of stuff is eaten (and thus there) in this or that region.

Checking the 'A Feast of Ice and Fire' book (which might not list every dish mentioned) gives very modest meals for the Wall. The only meat eaten there is mutton/lamb and pork. No beef.

Winterfell has chicken, beef, and aurochs. So we have to assume there is cattle, at least in the summer. Vegetables at Winterfell include turnips, leeks, onions, and beets. The only 'fancy stuff' at Winterfell and the Wall are apples (which they may or may not have in their orchards).

The fancy stuff only is down in the South and in the East.

[Although I must say having cooked a lot of this stuff already especially those modest stuff tastes very well. The turnip and beet recipes are excellent, not to mention the various sweets they have.]

Slaughtering livestock in autumn sounds like a good idea if you have only a few months of winter to deal with. But in Westeros we are talking about a winter that lasts for years. Down in the Oldtown region they might be able to keep the some bigger animals alive if there is no snow, but that's not going to work in the North. However, people might keep smaller animals around as long as they can especially those who might be able to provide them with some sustenance during the early winter (say, chickens for eggs, or sheep for milk).

But technically winter temperatures should allow the people to preserve their meat and other food without much difficulty so there is no need to not slaughter all your livestock as soon as animals and humans feed of the same stored plant food.

Well, you don't have to be an absolute monarch to not grant some guy a castle or revoke the right of anyone but the Crown to decide who gets a castle and who is allowed to raise one. Most medieval monarchs did that, actually, even the German Kings and Holy Roman Emperors (until the late middle ages when that right passed down to the princes).

But Westeros is a much more centralized state than the Holy Roman Emperor. The emperor was only a figurehead and in the later days, not to mention that he was an elected monarch. 

Well, the Northmen should be able to deal with this problem by actually arming those people in the regions threatened by that properly. The wildlings have no discipline and they have no good weaponry which they don't have stolen. Not to mention that they don't have siege engines or technology. One stone keep in each village in the Umber and mountain clan lands should make wildling raids pretty much impossible if you ask me. Not to mention that those parties aren't that strong, usually, so a village of, say, 50-100 men should be able to deal with them just fine, no?

Since that clearly doesn't happen there is no chance the those lands are very populated or the people there well-equipped. The peasants there would be on the same level as the Osgrey levies.

I'd agree that the majority of villages where Wildling raids are an accepted fact of life ought to be capable of fending for themselves when the wildlings come calling and I personally believe that they are. If we take historical examples of people fighting against raids, we can take both northern England(Northumbria and Cumbria) where Scotts raids were reasonably common and the south coast of England where, during the 100 years war, Castilian and French raids weren't uncommon(even if they weren't expected). In those regions, the populace of villages were relatively able to withstand raids and most men owned either a longbow or a sword and buckler(Castilian knights who were raiding the south coast actually commented that it was a good job they were wearing their armour as if they hadn't the hail of arrow fire put down by the villagers would have most likely killed them). Villages in these regions were normally able to fight off the majority of raids meaning that the people who needed to worry were one's who didn't live in a village and who lived relatively isolated lives so in my opinion it would be them who moved away from the Gift as they'd be the most vulnerable to wildling raids. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And we don't even know the quality of the farmland in the Gifts. Yes, the people there once fed tens of thousands of Watchmen, but we don't know how many of their own people actually helped them tend those lands. A lot of their ranks would have been stewards, after all. The Night's Watch as an order holds the Gifts, and subsequently the black brothers actually could have tended to some fields and animals in their vicinity themselves. Just as they still do today, presumably, considering that Hobb must get his fresh meat from somewhere.

I'm not sure there lives enough smallfolk in the Gifts right now to feed the NW and themselves. Some might be left, but apparently not much of them.

Assuming a relatively decent level of fertility, the Gift would need to have 10,000 people living there at the current time to support the Night's Watch, 100,000 when the Night's Watch had 10,000 men. Of course those numbers are going to change depending upon how fertile the soil is and potentially how many of the Night's Watch help out with tending to the fields. I'd personally be tempted to say that very few of them do so but there's arguments in favour of both perspectives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Assuming a relatively decent level of fertility, the Gift would need to have 10,000 people living there at the current time to support the Night's Watch, 100,000 when the Night's Watch had 10,000 men. Of course those numbers are going to change depending upon how fertile the soil is and potentially how many of the Night's Watch help out with tending to the fields. I'd personally be tempted to say that very few of them do so but there's arguments in favour of both perspectives. 

We have to keep in mind that the Watch was once very conscious of the difference between commoners and nobles, just as every other aspect of Westerosi society. The Shieldhall attests to that.

Now, the bulk of the men in the days of old would have been the commoners, and they would have been servants, essentially, while the knights and nobles would have made up the elite (i.e. the leadership of the Watch and the rangers). Thus it is not so far-fetched that the Watch would have tended to a lot of fields close to the Wall and the castles themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Giggles said:

Please look back over the past 15 page to see all the evidence which indicates that this is not the case. 

 

I read the book instead. The North overall was poor and sparsely populated. There are vast tracks of empty lands, unlike the south. Robb's army was small, and that reflects the overall population available to provide warriors.

Up near the wall was an area called the gift. That was completely deserted and abandoned by small folk, something that Bran observed on his travels north. On the actual trip they avoided the main road, because that would ensure that they would be unlikely to meet anyone (they do bump into one guy however).

When people travel in the south they encounter Inns, villages and people in general. When they travel in the north they encounter nothing apparently, other than castles and keeps. That means that there are not a whole lot of peasants around. Few peasants farming the land = poor lords, since that era was largely an agricultural economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tugela said:

I read the book instead. The North overall was poor and sparsely populated. There are vast tracks of empty lands, unlike the south. Robb's army was small, and that reflects the overall population available to provide warriors.

Up near the wall was an area called the gift. That was completely deserted and abandoned by small folk, something that Bran observed on his travels north. On the actual trip they avoided the main road, because that would ensure that they would be unlikely to meet anyone (they do bump into one guy however).

When people travel in the south they encounter Inns, villages and people in general. When they travel in the north they encounter nothing apparently, other than castles and keeps. That means that there are not a whole lot of peasants around. Few peasants farming the land = poor lords, since that era was largely an agricultural economy.

I fully agree. In addition we should bear in mind that it is the nature of Northerners to be thrifty, ever mindful that winter is coming. In contrast we see a lot of ostentation in Southern and Essosi households. That makes it a bit harder to compare the relative wealth of families, but as you say a key clue is the size of their armies, whether they be local conscripts or paid mercenaries.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tugela said:

I read the book instead. The North overall was poor and sparsely populated. There are vast tracks of empty lands, unlike the south. Robb's army was small, and that reflects the overall population available to provide warriors.

Up near the wall was an area called the gift. That was completely deserted and abandoned by small folk, something that Bran observed on his travels north. On the actual trip they avoided the main road, because that would ensure that they would be unlikely to meet anyone (they do bump into one guy however).

When people travel in the south they encounter Inns, villages and people in general. When they travel in the north they encounter nothing apparently, other than castles and keeps. That means that there are not a whole lot of peasants around. Few peasants farming the land = poor lords, since that era was largely an agricultural economy.

Sparsely populated yes so the North isn't going to be as rich as it should be if we went by pure size that's true. However, as I've pointed out earlier, a lot of the northern land could be converted to pasture with minimal effort from humans(compared to farming) ensuring that the north still makes money from all that land. If we go by your criteria for how wealthy somewhere is, it's army, and put the Westerlands at the top due to gold, how wealthy the kingdoms are comes out like this

1. Westerlands

2. Reach

3. Riverlands, Vale and the North

4. Stormlands

5. Iron Islands

6. Dorne

7. Crownlands

As I'm sure you'll agree, this doesn't really make sense given what we know of trade in Westeros and what goods are produced by where. And for a sparsely populated medieval kingdom, not meeting anyone wasn't that difficult and all of the Kingdoms in Westeros are sparsely populated by our own world's standards. I could keep going but I won't be saying anything that hasn't already been said so once again I would be grateful if you could look over the past pages of this discussion to see the arguments as to why the north is not as poor as you are assuming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

And for a sparsely populated medieval kingdom, not meeting anyone wasn't that difficult and all of the Kingdoms in Westeros are sparsely populated by our own world's standards.

I'm pretty sure when people call the North sparly populated/thinly populated it is in regards to Westeros, not our own modern standards.

Robert, from the Stormlands which itself is sparsely populated in comparison to the Reach, Riverlands and Westerlands, is shocked at how few people there are in the North as he travels it's major trade road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I'm pretty sure when people call the North sparly populated/thinly populated it is in regards to Westeros, not our own modern standards.

Robert, from the Stormlands which itself is sparsely populated in comparison to the Reach, Riverlands and Westerlands, is shocked at how few people there are in the North as he travels it's major trade road.

I was comparing it to our world during the medieval period rather than or modern world as obviously the North will be sparsely populated by our own modern standards. 

Have you ever been to Sweden or indeed Scotland? I remember when I went to Kalmar in southern Sweden, you could go for miles without seeing human settlements. Sweden has a population density of 20 people per square miles which is equivalent to the less populace regions of the British isles during the medieval era and given that the North is a whole lot bigger than Scotland and Wales, I do not believe for one second that Robert going for miles without seeing anybody is a sign that the North is enormously thinly populated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

I was comparing it to our world during the medieval period rather than or modern world as obviously the North will be sparsely populated by our own modern standards. 

Have you ever been to Sweden or indeed Scotland? I remember when I went to Kalmar in southern Sweden, you could go for miles without seeing human settlements. Sweden has a population density of 20 people per square miles which is equivalent to the less populace regions of the British isles during the medieval era and given that the North is a whole lot bigger than Scotland and Wales, I do not believe for one second that Robert going for miles without seeing anybody is a sign that the North is enormously thinly populated. 

Sweden has a population density of 55 people per square mile, but that is with an urbanization rate of 85%. So the countryside has a current population density of around 8 people per square mile. The region of southern Sweden you are talking about should be pretty close to that average as well. 

Also the thing with Robert's journey is that it should have gone through relatively densely settled parts of the North. He would have seen the southern parts of the country next to its main road, and up towards its capital. If even those places are so thinly peopled as to prompt remarks like that from him one can only imagine how the rest of the North looks like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which main road? The Kingsroad is an artificial, superficial construct connecting ... nothing much. There is no trade through the Neck, nor does the Neck itself trade.

 

The southern transportation venues are the White Knife and the stretch Winterfell-Barrowtown. The Kingsroad is a useless piece of real estate, built solely for Targaryen PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Which main road? The Kingsroad is an artificial, superficial construct connecting ... nothing much. There is no trade through the Neck, nor does the Neck itself trade.

When is that ever stated?

Why do so many claim the Freys became rich because of their bridge if their is no trade to and from the North?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are the merchants on the road? Where are the inns? The blacksmiths, wheelwrights, farriers? Where are the towns? Where does House Reed grow rich from the tarrifs?

No, trade to and from the North happens in the Bite, and maybe up the Saltspear to Barrowton.

 

The Freys are still firmly in the Riverlands, basically the entire East-West-trade of the northern Riverlands got to cross their bridge. The Twins are almost 100 miles west of the Kingsroad anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Where are the merchants on the road? Where are the inns? The blacksmiths, wheelwrights, farriers? Where are the towns?

Sorry, you seem to be asking a question no one asked.
Where is it stated that there was no trade through the Kingsroad?

The lack of inns, towns, blacksmiths etc. is down to how thinly populated the North is, not to do with the Kingsroad not being used.

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

Where does House Reed grow rich from the tarrifs?

They live in the swamp. The Kingsroad does not go through the swamp. What exactly would they be able to charge a tarrif for?

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

No, trade to and from the North happens in the Bite, and maybe up the Saltspear to Barrowton.

And the Kingsroad.

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

The Freys are still firmly in the Riverlands, basically the entire East-West-trade of the northern Riverlands got to cross their bridge. The Twins are almost 100 miles west of the Kingsroad anyway.

The Freys are the most Northern Riverland House. What trade would need to go to the Twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other major reason the North is relatively sparsely populated is because the South would have had a significant boost in population from the Andal invasion/migration. The North successfully drove back the Andals, and the only (known) major population increase from outside the North (that is, not from internal natural population growth) would have been the Manderly's moving to White Harbor and those who from outside the North who settled in White Harbor.

Another is likely the fact that in the North it can and does semi-regularly snow even during summer, whereas that's not mentioned as something that happens in most of the South. I'm not sure how much that would affect the North, but I rather suspect that it reduces the amount the North can grow even during summers, much less slows the recovery from the population losses from winters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a trade route, people make money from it. Especially innkeepers, blacksmiths, farriers and wheelwrights. And they settle on the trade route. With full-sized towns to follow soon after.

 

Greywater Watch is about 20-30 miles from the Kingsroad.. The Twins are about 100 miles from the Kingsroad. But apparently the Freys shovel in the tariffs from the bridge the road doesn't pass while the Reeds get nothing from the causeway the Kingsroad does use. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

 

The Twins feature the only bridge to pass from the Cape of Eagles, Seagard, Hag's Mire, Oldstones and everything in between to the eatern side of the Trident. That's an area of about 100,000 square miles, About twice the size of England. Of course there is trade.in that area. Doesn't need to go anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

If there is a trade route, people make money from it. Especially innkeepers, blacksmiths, farriers and wheelwrights. And they settle on the trade route. With full-sized towns to follow soon after.

The North is bereft of full size towns either on the Kingsroad or the White knife.

We are not talking to quantity, just looking for this evidence that the Kingsroad sees no trade.

22 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

Greywater Watch is about 20-30 miles from the Kingsroad..

and? They are isolationists, Meera brags about how they have no ravens and can't be contacted. They seemingly have little interest in trade with outsiders and the Starks have not given them permission to trade one of the two major trade routes into the North. It would be pretty counter productive for the Starks to do so.

22 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

The Twins are about 100 miles from the Kingsroad. But apparently the Freys shovel in the tariffs from the bridge the road doesn't pass while the Reeds get nothing from the causeway the Kingsroad does use. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Yes, the Crannogmen are very odd. They live in a swamp and shun outside contact.

Them not charging tarifs for a road outside their lands is hardly the weirdest thing they do.

22 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

The Twins feature the only bridge to pass from the Cape of Eagles, Seagard, Hag's Mire, Oldstones and everything in between to the eatern side of the Trident. That's an area of about 100,000 square miles, About twice the size of England. Of course there is trade.in that area. Doesn't need to go anywhere else.

Oldststones is a ruin. Hags Mire is part of the Frey lands and Seagard and the Cape of Eagles are to the South of the Twins. Who is coming North to get there and just how are the Freys getting so rich from it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I'm glad someone brought up the Twins. This is a topic I have written about extensively in the past.

In brief, the Twins really just connect the bulk of the Riverlands with the extreme Northeast Riverlands. And with the North, of course. It does not connect to the Vale, it does not connect to the Crownlands, or the Reach.

So other than inter-Riverland traffic, the bulk of its traffic would be between the North and the Riverlands. Meaning that this trade would have had to come through Moat Cailin first. What's more, only a fraction of the traffic through Moat Cailin would eventually go through the Twins, since any traffic from the North to the Vale or from the North to the Crownlands would bypass the Twins and go down the Kingsroad instead.

So, the simple truth is that if the Twins became rich off their bridge, whoever holds Moat Cailin should have gotten vastly richer from holding that traffic bottleneck. And they clearly didn't, as it is abandoned.

So the Twins are not a wealth generator at all. I think George just messed up in the logic department when he chose its location on the map. It should have been at the Crossroads Inn, to generate the type of income he attributes to it, to at least capture the traffic from the Vale to the Riverlands as well. As it stands, it is a rather out of the way backwater that should be outshined by far by Moat Cailin, since it can basically attract at best a third of the Northern traffic that passes through Moat Cailin (the rest going to the Vale or the Crownlands).

As for the Kings Road North of the Neck, well, it is noteworthy that the oldest large commercial settlement in the North - Barrowton - is in fact not even located on the King's Road. Nor have the Dustins even bothered setting up a satelite town on the King's Road to capture passing commercial activity. It is clear that there is in fact no need for the King's Road in the North. For thousands of years, traffic happened by river. Whether it be the White Knife, the Last River, the Weeping Water, the Broken Branch or the Fever River.

The King's Road runs through a rather backwater part of the Barrowlands, and is merely in the location it is because it is the shortest distance as the crow flies between Winterfell and Moat Cailin. A route that has never had cause to attract much traffic, as the North lived a largely indepenent, self sufficient and isolationist existence for 7700 of the last 8000 years. And just because the Targaryen Kings sought to try and connect them artificially to the rest of the Realm, does not mean that there truly existed a need for greater inter regional overland travel between the two halves of the continent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...