How rich are the Starks pre series

[Jaak]

4 hours ago, Lord Giggles said:

Would you mind naming an instance?

http://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.com.ee/2015/01/the-armies-of-outremer-in-12th-century.html

Quote

Significantly, the King of Jerusalem could command the service of his vassals for a full year, not just 40 days as in the West, but such service was intended for the defense of the realm.  If the king took his army outside the borders on an offensive expedition, he was required to pay for the services of his subjects. 

So... precisely what were the bannermen obliged to? As Catelyn told Robb, his bannermen would follow him, but not forever. But no specific term was mentioned, or reminded of later. If/when Northern bannermen started to object, would they have done so in terms of "This war is too long!", or in terms of "This war is not justified!"?

[Lord Giggles]

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

http://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.com.ee/2015/01/the-armies-of-outremer-in-12th-century.html

So... precisely what were the bannermen obliged to? As Catelyn told Robb, his bannermen would follow him, but not forever. But no specific term was mentioned, or reminded of later. If/when Northern bannermen started to object, would they have done so in terms of "This war is too long!", or in terms of "This war is not justified!"?

My guess is that bannermen in Westeros are also only obliged to serve for a certain length of time for free and after that one of two things happens

1. Their lord can only request that they stay and their bannermen choose whether they stay or not and don't get paid(it wasn't unknown for nobles not to be paid for going on past the "official" time they were supposed to serve for, as it was a point of pride for them that they weren't mercenaries.) However, I'd discount this on the grounds that we don't see any major lords leaving Robb's army, which we almost certainly would if they could choose whether to come or go. 

2. Their lord needs to pay them for their continued service. I consider this the most likely thing to happen.

As to how long the length of time they'd need to serve for free would be, for the Northerners I'd estimate somewhere in the region of 120 days, given that that's the longest time it would take any house to get down to Moat Cailin meaning that defensive campaigns wouldn't be too expensive, it'd only be offensive wars that would be really costly. I imagine there would also be differences between the terms on which a lord serves in winter and those on which he serves in summer.

[The Fallen]

We hear of lords who have fallen on hard times or are impoverished. Yet the Starks are never thought of in that way. They also don't seem to lack anything.

Jory is a household guard, not a lord. I'm not sure if Ned is supposed to provide him with armor. 

As far as not having singers, Ned explains to Sansa that singers don't venture up north quite often. However, there was a time when Ned had a singer in Winterfell for a couple of weeks.

As far as the tower is concerned, if I recall correctly that's one of, if not, the oldest towers. Meaning that they've built other towers since then. So they've just decided to leave it be.

Also, if the Starks were that poor I would think that Cersei and Tywin would have raised objections. 

The Starks are obviously not on the level of the Lannisters and Tyrells, but they're not hurting for money either. And are clearly one of the most powerful houses (arguably top three) in Westerns, which I would think is more important. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

34 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

My guess is that bannermen in Westeros are also only obliged to serve for a certain length of time for free and after that one of two things happens

1. Their lord can only request that they stay and their bannermen choose whether they stay or not and don't get paid(it wasn't unknown for nobles not to be paid for going on past the "official" time they were supposed to serve for, as it was a point of pride for them that they weren't mercenaries.) However, I'd discount this on the grounds that we don't see any major lords leaving Robb's army, which we almost certainly would if they could choose whether to come or go. 

2. Their lord needs to pay them for their continued service. I consider this the most likely thing to happen.

As to how long the length of time they'd need to serve for free would be, for the Northerners I'd estimate somewhere in the region of 120 days, given that that's the longest time it would take any house to get down to Moat Cailin meaning that defensive campaigns wouldn't be too expensive, it'd only be offensive wars that would be really costly. I imagine there would also be differences between the terms on which a lord serves in winter and those on which he serves in summer.

I think they serve for free to fullfil their oath of allegiance to their lord. I further think that there is no hard and fast rule on how long they are expected to serve, but that it is instead governed by circumstance, practical constraints, peer pressure, morale, loyalty and other intangible factors.

[Lord Giggles]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think they serve for free to fullfil their oath of allegiance to their lord. I further think that there is no hard and fast rule on how long they are expected to serve, but that it is instead governed by circumstance, practical constraints, peer pressure and other intangible factors.

Yes but logically there should be some form of constraint on how long their lord can call upon them to serve for.

[Jaak]

19 hours ago, Pod The Rod said:

Apart from anything else, the Manderlys pay taxes to the Starks, a significant amount of taxes. So do all the other houses of the North. The Manderlys are the richest Vassal of the North. Not the richest house.

Manderlies pay some taxes to Starks. They paid a lot of gold to purchase White Harbour - 900 years ago, Starks have spent that gold long ago. They paid their taxes to Starks - when Starks were Kings.

I suspect that much of the taxes Manderlies used to pay to Starks were diverted to Iron Throne. With the result that of the money collected at White Harbour, probably Manderlies keep most, Iron Throne most of the rest, and Starks, some but not all that much.

Look at actual medieval kingdoms. Most of them could mobilize bannermen for war. But the share they were able to collect as taxes in peacetime varied in a wide range. England went from a very lightly taxed realm in times of Henry VI to a heavily taxed one in time of Anne. Etc.

[Lord Giggles]

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Manderlies pay some taxes to Starks. They paid a lot of gold to purchase White Harbour - 900 years ago, Starks have spent that gold long ago. They paid their taxes to Starks - when Starks were Kings.

I suspect that much of the taxes Manderlies used to pay to Starks were diverted to Iron Throne. With the result that of the money collected at White Harbour, probably Manderlies keep most, Iron Throne most of the rest, and Starks, some but not all that much.

Look at actual medieval kingdoms. Most of them could mobilize bannermen for war. But the share they were able to collect as taxes in peacetime varied in a wide range. England went from a very lightly taxed realm in times of Henry VI to a heavily taxed one in time of Anne. Etc.

England isn't really the best example to use in this instance given that, in order for Kings to impose taxation, they needed parliamentary consent even during the reformation(although admittedly, limited land taxes had been introduced), when they would usually be granted a tax of 1/15-1/20 in the medieval period.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

Yes but logically there should be some form of constraint on how long their lord can call upon them to serve for.

Yes. But in Westeros it doesn't seem like there is a set rule or formula as far as this is concerned. Instead, it probably depends on things like the force of will of the Ruling Lord, his charisma, his reputation, his success on the battlefield, the nature of the conflict, etc.

For example, I imagine that Theon Stark was able to mobilize his Northmen more or less continuously over a period of decades, with obvious breaks inbetween for harvests etc. It seems he could motivate his men to sail to the ends of the earth with him - going across to invade Andalos, returning and invading the Three Sisters, and then even invading the Fingers in the Vale.

And then, while these wars kept him busy in the East, the Ironborn invaded the Western coasts - as is their habit it seems, as soon as a Stark's attention if focused elsewhere. And then he had to take his armies and repell the Ironborn all the way on the Western side of his kingdom. And inbetween he put down a rebellion in the Rills as well.

So I would say that a King like Theon Stark would have been able to keep his vassals in the field for longer than say Robb Stark was able to, because of his stature, authority and dominant personality.

Hence, it varies, based on a wide set of constantly changing circumstances, I imagine.

[Tarellen]

On June 9, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Winter's Cold said:

The Tullys are richer because the Riverlands is very fertile. It is filled with towns and gets a lot trade from the other regions due to its location. It is uncertain how much of this wealth reaches the Tullys but they should definitely have a larger tax base than the Starks.

While the riverlands are rich the tullys are jumped up lords not former kings so the taxes might not reach them as much as they would for the Starks because of there much more shakyer powerbase. 

 

On June 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Many people were richer than Kings in the middle ages. Being a King is no guarantee of financial wealth.

Riverrun is situated near two major rivers and the Rose Road. They'd have plenty of trade and fertile farmland to make them wealthy, as we are told in the World book

Placed as it was, Riverrun soon proved to have great strategic value, and the petty kings contending during the age of anarchy soon began to vie for the support of House Tully. Axel and his descendants grew wealthy and powerful, and in time became the bulwark of many a river king, for they defended the Trident's western marches against the Kingdom of the Rock.

It would not be that surprising if the Tully revenue was higher than the Kingly Starks, though obviously their overall wealth would be greater.

 

No, Ned went to be Hand. War did not strike out for another 4 or so months, and there is more than a year between the fire and Theon taking Winterfell. Winterfell clearly had more important needs for the cash than repairing the library.

We're there really many people richer then kings in the Middle Ages?

 

On June 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

The point is that they would be if they are rich. Aristocracy has to show off its wealth, that's part of their identity. Why do you think they have all those castles?

Aside from that - I never said the Starks are poor. I said there weren't among the richest houses of Westeros and that there were certainly more than a few smaller houses who are richer than they are (the Hightowers, Redwynes, a lot of houses in the West, the Graftons, and so on).

For instance, a good sign that Eddard Stark has coin is embroidered noble clothing. He takes his time and changes into proper clothing before he joins the Small Council after his arrival in the Red Keep.

But then, the Starks do not run around in cloth-of-gold or show of their jewels like the royals and the Lannisters do. They are clearly in another league, entirely.

I'm not so sure about the wealth of the Tullys. There are no visible signs of great wealth at Riverrun - in fact, the portcullis are rusting as Catelyn notices - but the Arryns seem to be exceptionally wealthy. Lysa dresses very richly and shows off precious jewelry.

@thelittledragonthatcould

The lands of the Tullys prior to the Conquest are described as being 'rich' in the appendix of AGoT, for what that's worth.

They had the time to begin it. And as you would have read Mace Tyrell also did not yet begin the work on the new Tower of the Hand. But he has made plans to do so in the middle of a simmering war. If the Starks had had the means to rebuild the library tower they would have begun doing so in AGoT. Just as Mormont would have begun rebuilding his own tower at Castle Black had he had the means.

But the Starks are all about frugality and all that gold is to show the decadence of southern aristocract like the Lannisters

[The Frosted King]

I'd imagine more wealthy than the Martells and the Baratheons, Greyjoys definitely as well.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

27 minutes ago, The Frosted King said:

I'd imagine more wealthy than the Martells and the Baratheons, Greyjoys definitely as well.

Though the North may be richer than Dorne I somehow doubt the Starks are wealthier than then Martells. Sunspear, the shadow city (well town beneath Sunspear), Water Gardens and Planky town with regular traders from the free cities suggests that the Martells are wealthier. As does the much larger and grandiose entourage Oberyn brought to the capital compared to Kings Landing as well as their three Maesters in their employee.

 

 

[The Fallen]

Who needs three Maesters? 

Ned would never arrive to KL with a huge entourage. Brandon Stark on the other hand ...

[The Frosted King]

20 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Though the North may be richer than Dorne I somehow doubt the Starks are wealthier than then Martells. Sunspear, the shadow city (well town beneath Sunspear), Water Gardens and Planky town with regular traders from the free cities suggests that the Martells are wealthier. As does the much larger and grandiose entourage Oberyn brought to the capital compared to Kings Landing as well as their three Maesters in their employee.

 

 

The Martells are a special case.

I wouldn't put a huge emphasis on the entourage that came with Oberon, vs what went south with the Starks as those were two completely different circumstances.

Ned was going to join the court of his childhood best friend as Hand. The realm had been at peace for years, and while he thought it a hotbed of vipers, he didn't know just how bad things had gotten for the  realm. Thats what his whole arc is about.

Prince Oberyn was going to join the court of the family that had his sister and her children murdered, and they were also marrying into the region that were the ancient enemies of Dorne. Not to mention, the powers of the realm had been in bitter war for around two years prior. 

So as a second tier royal House who was entering the court of their bitterest enemies, new and old, it only made sense for the Martells to do so in a show of strength, reminding those who welcomed then that they're not to be f'ed with.

Which plays all the more into Doran's plans, as the show of power Oberyn's entrance made was a weak trifle in truth when it's made to those who brutally murdered your sister and her children. 

Tywin would simply inwardly smirk at the temerity of the snakes, while shrugging them off as a non threat. Which allows Doran to plot at fire and blood.

Chess, not checkers.

[Jaak]

8 hours ago, Lord Giggles said:

England isn't really the best example to use in this instance given that, in order for Kings to impose taxation, they needed parliamentary consent even during the reformation(although admittedly, limited land taxes had been introduced), when they would usually be granted a tax of 1/15-1/20 in the medieval period.

England is one of several. For example, Poland - kings existed, but were very weak and had little tax income. Or Castile. Isabel managed, from 1474 to 1504, to increase the revenues of Crown of Castile from 900 000 reales to 26 000 000. Shows that Crown of Enrique IV was poor. Or take France. Until Philip the Fair, France had very little taxation. Kings of England could and did tax their subjects - France tried during Crusades, and failed. When the lords of England did not like taxes King asked for, they got together in Parliament and voted against taxes. When lords of France did not like taxes, they stayed in their castles and did not pay. As a result, before Philip the Fair, Kings of England got some taxes, but Kings of France got none.

It´s pretty likely that Martells are richer than Starks. For one, they have much more of a central government - treasurer Alyse, bailiffs, justiciars... The indications are that Martells get a bigger share of the income of Dorne than Starks get in North. For one, they pay less to Iron Throne.

For people who were richer than Kings, who do you think was richer: King Henry VI of England, or Duke of Burgundy?

[Tijgy]

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

For people who were richer than Kings, who do you think was richer: King Henry VI of England, or Duke of Burgundy?

I am not really sure you can use the Duke of Burgundy as a good example? At one moment during histories the Habsburgs were the Duke. For a large part of time they controlled the Low Countries (which were a very rich part of Europe) and I think at that time it was even not a part of France? Some sort of similar situation as the fact the King of England was during a long time also a vasal of the King of France? And they were not that good vasals, f.e. Philip the Good surrendered Joan d'Arc to the English. 

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that the Duke of Burgundy were mostly an independent part from France and that either several parts of Europe also belonged to them or that either they were the ones with one of the largest territories in Europes (Charles V was Duke of Burgundy (including the Low Countries) while he also was King of Spain (including the colonies), Emperor of the Holy Empire and Ruler of Austria. Charles V was more powerful and richer than Henry VIII)

 

[Lord Giggles]

4 hours ago, Tijgy said:

I am not really sure you can use the Duke of Burgundy as a good example? At one moment during histories the Habsburgs were the Duke. For a large part of time they controlled the Low Countries (which were a very rich part of Europe) and I think at that time it was even not a part of France? Some sort of similar situation as the fact the King of England was during a long time also a vasal of the King of France? And they were not that good vasals, f.e. Philip the Good surrendered Joan d'Arc to the English. 

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that the Duke of Burgundy were mostly an independent part from France and that either several parts of Europe also belonged to them or that either they were the ones with one of the largest territories in Europes (Charles V was Duke of Burgundy (including the Low Countries) while he also was King of Spain (including the colonies), Emperor of the Holy Empire and Ruler of Austria. Charles V was more powerful and richer than Henry VIII)

 

And even before the Hapsburgs were the Dukes of Burgundy, they were amongst the richest lords in Europe, counting Kings. To all intents and purposes the Dukes of Burgundy were Kings, just they didn't have the title. 

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

England is one of several. For example, Poland - kings existed, but were very weak and had little tax income. Or Castile. Isabel managed, from 1474 to 1504, to increase the revenues of Crown of Castile from 900 000 reales to 26 000 000. Shows that Crown of Enrique IV was poor. Or take France. Until Philip the Fair, France had very little taxation. Kings of England could and did tax their subjects - France tried during Crusades, and failed. When the lords of England did not like taxes King asked for, they got together in Parliament and voted against taxes. When lords of France did not like taxes, they stayed in their castles and did not pay. As a result, before Philip the Fair, Kings of England got some taxes, but Kings of France got none.

It´s pretty likely that Martells are richer than Starks. For one, they have much more of a central government - treasurer Alyse, bailiffs, justiciars... The indications are that Martells get a bigger share of the income of Dorne than Starks get in North. For one, they pay less to Iron Throne.

For people who were richer than Kings, who do you think was richer: King Henry VI of England, or Duke of Burgundy?

The Kings of England didn't collect taxes outside of customs without the consent of parliament. Minor point with no bearing on your argument but I just thought I should point it out

I'd agree that the Martells are richer than the Starks. Outside of all the other reasons you listed, they likely have more trade with Essos that they can charge customs on.

[Tarellen]

On June 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Starks should have had more assets and money while they were kings, yes. Since the Conquest the Crown collects taxes in the North, after all. They have lost their independence.

As to the second thing - it seems that way. Alys Karstark says that they couldn't bring the harvest in because they lacked the men. That means that the men necessary to bring the harvest in marched off to war.

Alys could have said that they had just difficulty bringing the harvest in but still could save a decent portion of the crops. But she didn't say that.

So how come only the Starks in your opinion got significantly poorer after the conquest. And why did mandrely ask for the coin to build the fleet from the Starks?

 

But trained pikemen are retivally richer then common farm hands. Why is famine happening on karstark lands?

On June 10, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Lord Varys said:

I know that there are castles. I just think that this fact doesn't make much sense if you look on the whole thing from a meta level.

And within the land they don't help one bit. In fact, they are a threat to royal power and allow no-name guys like the Webbers and Osgreys to grow bold. If Eustace and Rohanne had lived in some manses without high walls and all then they wouldn't have been so keen to use violence as a means to settle a quarrel.

I mean, such petty conflicts existed in history, too, but only in places where there is no powerful central authority. The citizen of my hometown (a Freie Reichsstadt, only responsible to the emperor until the end of the Holy Roman Empire) occasionally sacked the monastery five kilometers away because they had quarrels with the monks there over some land and church issues.

But it wasn't. The wildlings raided not only in the Gifts but also in the Umber lands and the lands of the mountain clans. If those regions weren't about as sparsely populated as the lands beyond the Wall (or even less so) then the those ragged bands of wildlings couldn't have possibly carried away as many women and goods as they apparently did.

There is a reason why Crowfood Umber wanted the skull of Mance Rayder for a drinking cup.

Wasn't the wildling host broken by less then 2000 mounted men? That doesn't seem like much of a threat to the north

[House Beaudreau]

On 6/14/2016 at 0:31 PM, Tarellen said:

I ment net worth. 

 

Also im pretty sure the comparison is apet since there both feudal lords

I know that the Stark are "wealthier" than just what they have in Coin but How do you truly measure Net worth of a house in this world. You can't really list things in your net worth that you can't sell. Castles and Lands are not sold, they are given and taken. Winterfell for example is priceless but that doesn't translate to actual money. Just like land. The land in the north is only worth the amount of work being done on it that can produce resources and taxes and we know that although the North has more land than the rest of Westeros combine they collect far less taxes and resources than say the Reach or the Riverlands. So saying that the Starks are rich in land really isn't true. 

[Tarellen]

On June 12, 2016 at 11:15 AM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

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.

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

And the Kingsroad.

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

Then if the kings road is so used then why isn't there a larger population coming to profit from it? Also the isn't the neck all swamp?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, Tarellen said:

Then if the kings road is so used then why isn't there a larger population coming to profit from it? Also the isn't the neck all swamp?

Why would there be a larger population coming to profit from it? No where have I stated that huge volumes of trade come up the Kingsroad, just that it is used for trade.