How rich are the Starks pre series

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/4/2016 at 11:54 AM, Duncan I Targaryen said:

Winterfell seems kind of dumpy for a Lord Paramount's keep compared to what we've seen of The Vale, Riverrun, Dragonstone, and heck even Horn Hill for that matter. Yes I know that Winterfell is essentially in the Alaska of Westeros but I'd still expect something a bit nicer for the capital of one of the 7 kingdoms.

The North is sparsely populated.  There is only one city in the North.  The Northern folk are poor.  I would think the only great house poorer than the Starks are the Greyjoys.  The Starks are comparably poor relative to the other great houses. 

I think the rank would go as follows:  Lannister, Tyrell, Hightower, Frey, and Tully. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, 300 H&H Mag said:

The North is sparsely populated.  There is only one city in the North.  The Northern folk are poor.  I would think the only great house poorer than the Starks are the Greyjoys.  The Starks are comparably poor relative to the other great houses. 

I think the rank would go as follows:  Lannister, Tyrell, Hightower, Frey, and Tully. 

A rather misguided list, in my view. Frey is not even in the top 10. Probably not even in the top 20.

And in terms of regions, the North likely generates more produce than either Dorne or the Stormlands, and probably on a par with the Vale.

Need I remind you that while the North only has one city, as you correctly state, Dorne and the Stormlands have zero. In fact, even the Riverlands have zero cities.

Dorne is mostly desert, remember. The North has far, far more agricultural land than Dorne. And far more than the Stormlands too.

The Starks are certainly poor compared to the Lannisters, Tyrells or Hightowers. But so are the Arryns, Martells, Tullys and every other House in Westeros.

I think the mid-ranked Great Houses are all very close to one another in wealth. I repeat that the North probably needs to expend 3 times as much resources to get 20k men through the Neck as the Vale or the Riverlands have to expend to march a similar number of men to their own borders. The fact that they can do that tells you they have those resources in the first place.

I place the Starks, Arryns and Tullys very close to one another in wealth, with the Martells below them all. Dorne is the least populous kingdom, after all, with the Stormlands the 2nd least populous. So they have fewer people to generate revenue with.

[300 H&H Magnum]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A rather misguided list, in my view. Frey is not even in the top 10. Probably not even in the top 20.

And in terms of regions, the North likely generates more produce than either Dorne or the Stormlands, and probably on a par with the Vale.

Need I remind you that while the North only has one city, as you correctly state, Dorne and the Stormlands have zero. In fact, even the Riverlands have zero cities.

Dorne is mostly desert, remember. The North has far, far more agricultural land than Dorne. And far more than the Stormlands too.

The Starks are certainly poor compared to the Lannisters, Tyrells or Hightowers. But so are the Arryns, Martells, Tullys and every other House in Westeros.

I think the mid-ranked Great Houses are all very close to one another in wealth. I repeat that the North probably needs to expend 3 times as much resources to get 20k men through the Neck as the Vale or the Riverlands have to expend to march a similar number of men to their own borders. The fact that they can do that tells you they have those resources in the first place.

I place the Starks, Arryns and Tullys very close to one another in wealth, with the Martells below them all. Dorne is the least populous kingdom, after all, with the Stormlands the 2nd least populous. So they have fewer people to generate revenue with.

I don't agree.  Dorne has Sunspear.  Their ports stay warm (open) year round.  They can fish.  Dorne is made up of many geographic regions.  I will grant you that the desert is not agriculturally productive.  But the coasts are. 

The Riverlands are fertile.  They have fish and forests.  Toll collected from the twin castles of the Freys alone are significant revenues. 

The North do have agriculture but the growing seasons will be shorter.  They can trade in furs, sure.  But they are a poor folk. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, 300 H&H Mag said:

I don't agree.  Dorne has Sunspear.  Their ports stay warm (open) year round.  They can fish.  Dorne is made up of many geographic regions.  I will grant you that the desert is not agriculturally productive.  But the coasts are. 

The Riverlands are fertile.  They have fish and forests.  Toll collected from the twin castles of the Freys alone are significant revenues. 

The North do have agriculture but the growing seasons will be shorter.  They can trade in furs, sure.  But they are a poor folk. 

The World Book states that the Shivering Sea has the richest fishing grounds in the Known World. So any fishing benefit that Dorne might have, the North almost certainly exceeds.

As for the Riverlands. Of course they are fertile. And populous. The World Book states as much. The Frey tolls are a joke though. Their bridge connects which large regions exactly? Just the Riverlands and the North. Not the Riverlands and the Vale. Not the Riverlands and the Crownlands. Not the Riverlands and the Reach and not the Riverlands and the West.

And all the traffic from the North would have passed through Moat Cailin first. You know, that bustling thoroughfare Moat Cailin, with its endless flow of traffic...

In short, the Freys mostly collect tolls from local Riverlanders travelling between one part of the Riverlands and the next. So they contribute zero to the wealth of the Riverlands, and in fact serve as a drain on commerce and wealth generation within the Riverlands. So no. The Freys are not in the top 20 wealthiest Houses in Westeros. In no particular order, I would place the following Houses above them, off the top of my head. And this is not an exhaustive list. Just the names that popped into my head:

Lannister

Hightower

Tyrell

Arryn

Stark

Tully

Baratheon

Martell

Redwynne

Manderly

Grafton

Rowan

Royce

Yronwood

Velaryon

One or two more rich Reach Houses

One or two of those rich Crownland Houses

One or two of those rich Westerland Houses

Possibly House Dustin, who rules a town of thousands of inhabitants and an absolutely mind bogglingly vast region for a vassal lord

House Greyjoy

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The whole feeding issue is another one that is just not thought through properly.

Sure it is. Just because it does match up with your imagination does not mean it badly thought out.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

If you can store enough food to feed you through 5 years of Winter, how can you not have enough food on hand to feed a Royal party numbering a few hundred people at best?

Five years of winter? Winters tend to be two to four years long. And of course that is a worry for Ned, this royal party digging into the food that they likely need during Winter.

The food is there, no one has said otherwise, but that the food is needed and using that food may be jeopardizing some Northerners survival during Winter.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Consider the amount of food Jon sees stored at Castle Black for Winter. Well, Winterfell is larger than Castle Black. Castle Black has 300 people.

Winterfell is not Castle Black. The Starks are richer than the brothers of the Nights Watch, they will be able to bring in more food from the South during Winter (one of the reasons why they need to be so frugal), the Watch does not have those resources.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Winterfell has 200 permanent guards and probably as many non-guardsmen. And during Winter it feeds thousands of people that gather at the Wintertown.

That may be something of a stretch.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Winterfell should have AT LEAST the storeroom capacity that Castle Black has, and probably significantly more.

No, it really should not. And there is certainly no evidence that it does so.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

How on earth do they live through 5 years of Winter if their food stores cannot even last through a Royal visit of a couple of weeks?

Interestingly enough GRRM was asked what happens in the North when Winters are 5 or 6 years long, his response: Famine happens. The north is cruel.

 

Earlier in that same discusion, before he was asked about the long 5-5 year winters he says   But the short answer is... if the winter lasts too long, the food runs out... and then people move south, or starve...

No wonder Ned was fretting about the Royal visit. It may have cost him some of his citizens.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Obviously Ned did not mean that he was physically struggling to feed them. He probably just meant that the lavishness of the meals and the quality of the food product would have to be of a significantly higher standard than the plainer fare that Northerners are happy with.

lol no, Ned is more than clear.

Ned squeezed her hand. "There must be a feast, of course, with singers, and Robert will want to hunt. I shall send Jory south with an honor guard to meet them on the kingsroad and escort them back. Gods, how are we going to feed them all? On his way already, you said? Damn the man. Damn his royal hide."

That is not at all ambiguous in its meaning.

57 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It cannot seriously have been an actual reference to the quantity of food that would be consumed. We know that the standard Northern rule is to store one fifth of your entire Harvest for Winter. Every harvest. For multiple years on end. Winterfell has plenty of food.

Which Winterfell needs. Ned can't afford to be the kid who spends all of his pocket money the day he gets it, he has to be responsible and make sure it lasts.

Even with plenty of food in its stores Ned would still be reticent about feeding a few hundred people for an unknown amount of time.

 

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Firstly, I'm not going to debate over whether the average Northern peasant is poorer than the average Southron peasant. A peasant seems pretty poor anywhere in Westeros.

People of the North seem poorer than their Southern counterparts.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, if we take a step back, it really gets the debate nowhere when people make sweeping statements based on feelings rather than facts.

Use the facts. Back your arguments with evidence from the books.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The fact that poorer countries produce fewer artists than richer countries is one such statement. So what? If the North produces 1 singer in 10 thousand people compared to 1 singer in 1 thousand people in the South that still means the North has hundreds of homegrown singers.

Right, but less so and this is reflective of them being a poorer realm than many of their Southern peers.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And what can your averge singer be expected to earn in the South? 50 Silvers a month? 100 silvers a month? Certainly I doubt Tom of Sevenstrings earned enough to buy a suit of armor every few months, so it could hardly be more than that, seeing as a suit of armor costs 800 silvers or thereabouts if I recall.

Which means what exactly?

Singers choose not to go North because it is not worthwhile, if it was they would either go there or the North would produce more singers. While it is by no means conclusive (and no one in this thread suggested it was) it is a sign that the people of the North have less disposable income than the people in the South.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Similarly, what does it cost a Lord to maintain 1 heavy cavalry unit per year? Or a kennel of hunting hounds? Or a Maester?

Excellent point on Maesters. The Martells have three, the Lannisters have at least two, Dragonstone two while the Starks just the one. They seem to have less means than their rival Overlords.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The idea that the hundreds of singers produced in the North cannot be supported by every single Northern lord "because it would not be accepted by his people", is nonsense.

No, it really is not. A sensible Stark would need to be publicly frugal during Winter when his people are starving, some having to sacrifice their own lives because the North does not have the means to support itself.

A Stark, or any non Manderly Lord, employing a singer during Winter would be hugely insulting to the suffering people.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 It seems singers are in fact not as rare that "Sansa only saw 1 singer in her 13 years of life". And this during a 10 year Northern summer.

That seems incredibly rare. Jorah also makes it sound incredibly rare.

Seasons might pass without a singer ever coming to play for us

and Cat:

His manner made Catelyn smile. Few wandering singers ever ventured as far north as Winterfell

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nope. Martin created the singer memory simply to bolster Sansa's longing for the South, in support of her plot arc. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. Like the numbers wwhich he presents in the books, something else you think the author does not make sense of because you disagree with him, GRRM is perfectly consistent with the detail about singers being far less common in the North than many of the other realms.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What I reject is the obsession to portray the North as impoverished compared to the South.

It is, well much of the South. It is probably on a similar level to the Iron Islands and Stormlands, maybe even slightly better off in long summers but worse off in winters.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The Northern lords are poorer than some southron lords. But they are also richer than some southron lords.

On average they, as a whole, seem poorer. The Mormonts, the Reeds, Umbers or Karstarks don't seem to be that wealthy. The Starks seem to be poorer than most of their Overlord peers. Winter has a strong affect on them.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Your statement of fact that the Starks are poorer than the Martells, Tullys and Arryns is far from it.

 

39 minutes ago, Masha said:

I think your comparison is wrong, I am pretty sure that Starks are considered to be richer than Tully's and probably equal in wealth to Martells and Arryns.

Well the both of you are welcome to use evidence from the books to back this up.

Tully: Even before they were Rulers of the Riverlands they were rich; 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.

Tullys: are certainly richer than the Starks, ruling a realm with multiple towns, major roads and rivers. I don't think I have ever read about the Starks being described as rich or wealthy in the series and outside of the Manderlys (and possibly the Dustins) don't seem to have many Lords who would be paying the same amount of taxes than the many rich and powerful Riverland vassals.

Arryn: The Vale of Arryn is the most fertile place outside of the Reach, Gulltown larger than White Harbor and closer to eight of the nine free cities (including Braavos) while Winters are not as severe there as they are in the North. It is difficult to see how the Starks could be richer, though I'd say they are closer to them than they are to the Tullys and Martells.

Martell: are easily richer than the Starks, though the North and Dorne might be more equal overall. The Water Gardens, Planky town, the shadow city and Sunspear is an awful lot to rule as well as the main trading route into Dorne and the Green Blood. They'd be the equivalent of the North's Manderlys (though with less trade) as well as their Overlords. Of course they are richer than the Starks whose own town, Wintertown is only two fifths full during summer and gets full when the people of the North need sanctuary to survive.

 

39 minutes ago, Masha said:

Its just a difference in culture and outlook on life.

Because of winter and the occasional summer snows the average person in the North has a much higher cost of living. Less wealth to spend on luxuries.

 

3 hours ago, Ruhail said:

Thank you for saying what I couldn't be bothered to write.

Couldn't be bothered or incapable? Don't worry, discussions are not for everyone. It is OK for you to watch on and hope someone makes your point for you.

[Lord Varys]

The issue with the singers just is that there aren't (m)any in the North. If there is neither a court singer nor a wandering singer willing to become the court singer of Winterfell to please the lord's daughter then there effectively are no singers in the North.

Anything else just doesn't make any sense.

Other stuff:

I've cited the TWoIaF descriptions of the regions a few pages. They make it clear which lands are rich and fertile and which aren't. And the North clearly is among them who aren't. If that doesn't reflect in the lords up there being less wealthy on average than others then I don't know what else it should do.

As to food storage:

The Wall has the unique benefit of a huge ice wall which can house and preserve a lot of venison. We have seen that in ADwD.

Winterfell has no huge ice wall in its vicinity. And neither are many storerooms and the like mentioned for any castles. George has really dropped the ball there.

In any event - if there was any food stored in Winterfell it was destroyed when Ramsay burned the castle down.

If you take note then there are more than a few hints that the Tullys and Arryns are both richer than the Starks. Lysa wears precious gowns and jewelry, the Arryns have actually two castle one of which was insanely complicated and costly to built, and the Tullys clearly were the wealthiest house in the Riverlands even before they became the lords paramount thereof.

What is usually ignored here is that many Lords of the West must be richer than many lords elsewhere, including some of the great houses, simply because they sit on so much gold. Not only the Lannisters have gold mines in the West, other lords do, too. We just don't know much about them.

[Free Northman Reborn]

53 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Sure it is. Just because it does match up with your imagination does not mean it badly thought out.

Five years of winter? Winters tend to be two to four years long. And of course that is a worry for Ned, this royal party digging into the food that they likely need during Winter.

The food is there, no one has said otherwise, but that the food is needed and using that food may be jeopardizing some Northerners survival during Winter.

Winterfell is not Castle Black. The Starks are richer than the brothers of the Nights Watch, they will be able to bring in more food from the South during Winter (one of the reasons why they need to be so frugal), the Watch does not have those resources.

That may be something of a stretch.

No, it really should not. And there is certainly no evidence that it does so.

Interestingly enough GRRM was asked what happens in the North when Winters are 5 or 6 years long, his response: Famine happens. The north is cruel.

 

Earlier in that same discusion, before he was asked about the long 5-5 year winters he says   But the short answer is... if the winter lasts too long, the food runs out... and then people move south, or starve...

No wonder Ned was fretting about the Royal visit. It may have cost him some of his citizens.

lol no, Ned is more than clear.

Ned squeezed her hand. "There must be a feast, of course, with singers, and Robert will want to hunt. I shall send Jory south with an honor guard to meet them on the kingsroad and escort them back. Gods, how are we going to feed them all? On his way already, you said? Damn the man. Damn his royal hide."

That is not at all ambiguous in its meaning.

Which Winterfell needs. Ned can't afford to be the kid who spends all of his pocket money the day he gets it, he has to be responsible and make sure it lasts.

Even with plenty of food in its stores Ned would still be reticent about feeding a few hundred people for an unknown amount of time.

 

People of the North seem poorer than their Southern counterparts.

Use the facts. Back your arguments with evidence from the books.

Right, but less so and this is reflective of them being a poorer realm than many of their Southern peers.

Which means what exactly?

Singers choose not to go North because it is not worthwhile, if it was they would either go there or the North would produce more singers. While it is by no means conclusive (and no one in this thread suggested it was) it is a sign that the people of the North have less disposable income than the people in the South.

Excellent point on Maesters. The Martells have three, the Lannisters have at least two, Dragonstone two while the Starks just the one. They seem to have less means than their rival Overlords.

No, it really is not. A sensible Stark would need to be publicly frugal during Winter when his people are starving, some having to sacrifice their own lives because the North does not have the means to support itself.

A Stark, or any non Manderly Lord, employing a singer during Winter would be hugely insulting to the suffering people.

That seems incredibly rare. Jorah also makes it sound incredibly rare.

Seasons might pass without a singer ever coming to play for us

and Cat:

His manner made Catelyn smile. Few wandering singers ever ventured as far north as Winterfell

Sure it does. Like the numbers wwhich he presents in the books, something else you think the author does not make sense of because you disagree with him, GRRM is perfectly consistent with the detail about singers being far less common in the North than many of the other realms.

It is, well much of the South. It is probably on a similar level to the Iron Islands and Stormlands, maybe even slightly better off in long summers but worse off in winters.

On average they, as a whole, seem poorer. The Mormonts, the Reeds, Umbers or Karstarks don't seem to be that wealthy. The Starks seem to be poorer than most of their Overlord peers. Winter has a strong affect on them.

 

Well the both of you are welcome to use evidence from the books to back this up.

Tully: Even before they were Rulers of the Riverlands they were rich; 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.

Tullys: are certainly richer than the Starks, ruling a realm with multiple towns, major roads and rivers. I don't think I have ever read about the Starks being described as rich or wealthy in the series and outside of the Manderlys (and possibly the Dustins) don't seem to have many Lords who would be paying the same amount of taxes than the many rich and powerful Riverland vassals.

Arryn: The Vale of Arryn is the most fertile place outside of the Reach, Gulltown larger than White Harbor and closer to eight of the nine free cities (including Braavos) while Winters are not as severe there as they are in the North. It is difficult to see how the Starks could be richer, though I'd say they are closer to them than they are to the Tullys and Martells.

Martell: are easily richer than the Starks, though the North and Dorne might be more equal overall. The Water Gardens, Planky town, the shadow city and Sunspear is an awful lot to rule as well as the main trading route into Dorne and the Green Blood. They'd be the equivalent of the North's Manderlys (though with less trade) as well as their Overlords. Of course they are richer than the Starks whose own town, Wintertown is only two fifths full during summer and gets full when the people of the North need sanctuary to survive.

 

Because of winter and the occasional summer snows the average person in the North has a much higher cost of living. Less wealth to spend on luxuries.

 

Couldn't be bothered or incapable? Don't worry, discussions are not for everyone. It is OK for you to watch on and hope someone makes your point for you.

Let's get one thing out of the way.

The fact that many Northmen starve during Long Winters has nothing to do with their poverty. It is due to the inhospitable Winter climate and the fact that there is a finite amount of food that can be stored in any one location. If a Winter lasts for 5+ years, people will starve in any land where you are not able to bring in a harvest for such a period of time.

So the continuous reference to the North's death toll during Winter is not a measure of their material wealth. Even if you store a fifth of your harvest every time, it will take 5 harvests to store the equivalent of one harvest's food volume. So even if Long Summers enable two harvests per calendar year, (which might well be possible), that means 2.5 years are required to store the equivalent of one full harvest's worth of food for Winter.

So that means even in a 5 year Summer, you are only able to store the equivalent of 2 years' harvests for Winter. And that's assuming none of it spoils, which seems impossible with Medieval technology. So you are probably looking at 1.5 harvest equivalents as the maximum storage capacity of the North, from a 5 year Summer. After that, as Martin said in that quote, you start to rely on fishing and hunting, or you starve. (Note however that they clearly don't require a full harvest equivalent to feed the entire population, seeing as they are living off 80% of a normal harvest during Summer, while storing the other 20%). And even that 80% is used for more than just survival. It is also used for wars, export of wool, hides, furs, beer and general trade goods along with other non-essential activities. So most likely only about 50% of a normal harvest is required to feed the population in the North. That means if you have 1.5 years harvest in storage, it likely gives you food for about 3 years. This equation changes if 3 harvests are possible in a calendar year, which might well be the case during Summer.

In a nutshell, one would assume that you can store as much food in a 3 year Summer as you consume in a 3 year Winter, else the population would not be sustainable. But the food storage and preservation technology likely starts falling behind once a Winter starts exceeding 5 years in length.

Importing food on a large scale to the interior is simply not feasible. In the coastal regions that might be possible, but those are ironically the regions that need it the least since they can rely on fishing straight through the Winter in any case. So to be clear, it is not a lack of funds that leads to this starvation. It is a lack of the ability to store enough food in the more remote areas, once a Winter lasts 5 years or more.

But once a Winter lasts 5 years or more you are going to face these storage constraints everywhere, even down in Dorne.

As for the Singer issue. Seriously. The wildlings have singers. Are they now wealthier than the Starks? Bael posed as a singer called Sygerrik from Skagos. So the Skagosi obviously have singers.

Sure, Southron singers might not choose to travel to the North frequently. But the North, out of a population of millions, will produce scores of singers from their own ranks every generation. These guys will exist. It is not possible for them not to.

Again, your Maester argument is typical. Going by your logic the Martells with 3 Maesters are richer than the Arryns who have only one, or the Lannisters, who have two according to you.

There are other factors at play than wealth in the Ice and Fire World. The North is remote. The Martells will have far more interaction with the Citadel than Winterfell does, just as a matter of course.

And again, the comparison with the Vale is based on opinion. While the Vale of Arryn itself is incredibly fertile, it is comparatively small and much of the rest of the Vale Kingdom is far less hospitable.  The question then becomes a simple numbers issue: To what degree does the increased yield level of the Vale's agricultural land counter the vastly greater surface area of the North's agricultural land?

The answer is we don't know. But since they can raise similar sized armies according to Martin, and since population size is not the limiting factor for medieval armies but resource availability is, one can assume that they produce more or less similar quantities of resources.

Of course, once you start realistically assessing the far greater resource requirements for the North to mobilize an army compared to the Vale, then it is quite logical to argue that the North in fact has more disposable resources to expend on armed mobilization than the Vale has. This, in the simplest terms, is because the unit cost of a soldier in the North is higher than the unit cost in the Vale, given the greater distances involved.

But that gets a bit technical, so we probably don't need to delve too deeply into that for now.

Clearly, though, the Starks and the North in general are on at least an equal resource footing to kingdoms other than the Reach or the Westerlands. This is even more apparent when you compare their strength to the weaker kingdoms like Dorne and the Stormlands.

 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let's get one thing out of the way.

The fact that many Northmen starve during Long Winters has nothing to do with their poverty. It is due to the inhospitable Winter climate and the fact that there is a finite amount of food that can be stored in any one location. If a Winter lasts for 5+ years, people will starve in any land where you are not able to bring in a harvest for such a period of time.

Lets get one thing clear, that clearly influences a persons wealth. If a nation can't afford to feed themselves or survive then they are not very wealthy. If a nation regularly suffers large losses in winter then that has a knock on effect for the number of people working in its next summer.

The cost of living in the North, because of the harsh winters and sometimes not great summers, has a detrimental effect on the wealth of the North. Luxuries have to be sacrificed while they worry about surviving winter.

And people in the North starve in winters shorter than 5 years, it is just that when 5 year winters (which are rare) take place then major disaster happens in the North. There are Northerners sacrificing themselves every winter in the hope that the less mouths to feed will mean their families will survive.

There has been two, that we know of, five year winters. Both were disastrous for the North; There was starvation and suffering in the North, as there had been a hundred years before, in the long winter that reigned from 130 to 135 AC. King Aegon, always concerned for the welfare of the poor and weak, did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North, but some felt he did too much in this regard.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So the continuous reference to the North's death toll during Winter is not a measure of their material wealth.

Sure it is. Wealth is measured with freedom and the Northerners have less spending freedom than their Southern counterparts as they are shackled down by the devastating effect of Winter.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Importing food on a large scale to the interior is simply not feasible.

In GRRM's world it is. See the quote above with Aegon V taking pity on the North and sending charity to the North. It is probably one of the reasons for Wintertown (and possibly other similar settlements springing up during winter) that many of the people are close enough to benefit from these imports.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

But once a Winter lasts 5 years or more you are going to face these storage constraints everywhere, even down in Dorne.

Two five year winters in Dorne in the last 300 years.

Dorne suffers far, far less than the North does in Winter.

GRRM: The Mountains of the Moon get quite a lot of snow, the Vale and the riverlands and the west rather less, but some. King's Landing gets snow infrequently, the Storm Lands and the Reach rarely, Oldtown and Dorne almost never.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Singer issue. Seriously. The wildlings have singers. Are they now wealthier than the Starks? Bael posed as a singer called Sygerrik from Skagos. So the Skagosi obviously have singers.

And the North has singers. Can you point to anyone in this thread who claimed there was zero singers in the North?

Why do you constantly have this inability to argue what is said?

The North has less singers, bards, artisans in general than their Southern counterparts. There are no tourneys, fewer towns and villages and inns than the majority of the realms in the South. These are all signs of a realm poorer than the rivals.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Again, your Maester argument is typical. Going by your logic the Martells with 3 Maesters are richer than the Arryns who have only one, or the Lannisters, who have two according to you.

I said the Lannisters have at least two. I have no idea how many the Lannisters have just that they have more than one, or even if the Arryns only have one. Maester Colemon resided in Kings Landing with Jon Arryn, it is likely that there was another Arryn Maester in the Vale possibly at the Gates of the Moon.

But yes, having an excess amount of retainers is a sign of a Lords wealth. We only have to look at the disparity between the party Ned brought to King's Landing and the party Oberyn Martell brought.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

There are other factors at play than wealth in the Ice and Fire World. The North is remote. The Martells will have far more interaction with the Citadel than Winterfell does, just as a matter of course.

All true, which has an effect on regular trade and make the Martells richer than the Starks. The shipping costs would eat into Northern merchants profit while anyone taking goods to sell in the North would have to add that into their overall cost. Dorne being more accessible and closer to many other major traders would see more profits as a result. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

And again, the comparison with the Vale is based on opinion. While the Vale of Arryn itself is incredibly fertile, it is comparatively small and much of the rest of the Vale Kingdom is far less hospitable.  The question then becomes a simple numbers issue: To what degree does the increased yield level of the Vale's agricultural land counter the vastly greater surface area of the North's agricultural land?

How much of that Northern land is any more hospitable than the Mountains of the Moon? The Neck is swamp and at Sea Dragon "There are no mines, no gold, no silver, not even tin or iron. The land is too wet for wheat or corn."

I know one thing, most of the Vale Lords (including Royce and the other Lords Declarent) have an excess of food at the end of winter and they are planning on selling some of it rather than hang on to it.

 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Of course, once you start realistically assessing the far greater resource requirements for the North to mobilize an army compared to the Vale, then it is quite logical to argue that the North in fact has more disposable resources to expend on armed mobilization than the Vale has. This, in the simplest terms, is because the unit cost of a soldier in the North is higher than the unit cost in the Vale, given the greater distances involved.

That explains why the North was only able to manage an 18-20k army outside its borders with Robb.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Clearly, though, the Starks and the North in general is on at least an equal resource footing to kingdoms other than the Reach or the Westerlands.

lol that is not clear at all. They certainly are not on a par with the Riverlands, a region were we have seen multiple of their Lords described as rich in the series.

The Starks are certainly poorer than the Martells, though Dorne and the North might be on more equal footing.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

This is even more apparent when you compare their strength to the weaker kingdoms like Dorne and the Stormlands.

20k is all we have seen Robb marshal outside of the North and the North struggle as a result.

[Toos]

Very interesting discussion but problem with some arguments  is that some comparasion are not applicapble or because Martin use some things as plot device.

Measuring wealth of respective houses based on if they have fancy armor or number of maesters is not IMHO valid argument. I mean house Mormont has valyrian sword but it does't mean that Mormonts are richer than Royces or Redwynes. Number of maesters is also bad example. Dragonstone has two maesters because Cressen was old and Pylos is his replacemnet. Another is that it doesn't seem that House has to pay for maester or at least I am not aware of this fact(was this fact mentioned somewhere?). I think that if Ned/Tywin/Doran/etc. ask for additional maester is not problem for Citadel to send another. Similar example of this comparasion would be that Lannisters have only between 20-30 ships in Lannisport but Manderly has 50 in White Harbor, certainly doesn't mean that Manderly is richer than Lannisters.

Winterfell was used as example that that Stark are poorer than most Great Houses. Ruined tower or library are used by Martin as plot device. He needed place for Jaime and Cersei to have sex so he came with ruined tower which is not used or that wasn't mentioned in text that library is repaired doesn't mean that library was left destroyed. Tyrion mentioned that Starks' library have some rare books which he doesn't read. Does this mean that Starks can afford better and more valuable books than Lannisters? And I doubt that Ned would biult sept for Catelyn if he wouldn't be able to afford this.

If Martells would be richer than Stark than Sunspear would have proper city instead of Shadow City.

[Tarellen]

On July 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, purple-eyes said:

show is still based on the book. the background is still the same.

Lannister is still rich no matter in book or show.

You know they have no more gold in the show right?

[The Fallen]

On 7/3/2016 at 7:05 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

On 7/3/2016 at 7:05 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:
Sure some do.

Lord Redwyne laughed. "What is there north of the Neck that any sane man would want? If Greyjoy will trade swords and sails for stone and snow, I say do it, and count ourselves lucky."

[This is well after the fall of House Stark, not pre-series. And this is just the normal disdain the south has for the north.]

and I'm not sure Cersei thinks too much of it either

"Bend the knee and swear fealty to my son, and we shall allow you to step down as Hand and live out your days in the grey waste you call home."

[Same here as Lord Redwyne, disdain for the north.]

We don't quite know what the Queen of Thorns thinks of it, but we do know that Tywin thinks it worthwhile to offer to Tyrion while he gives Darry to Kevan and Riverrun to Genna. Make of that what you will.

[Yet the king is willing to marry his son to a Stark daughter. And before him two great lords, Tally and Baratheon, happily marry their daughter to the Stark heir and a future lord of the stormlands to a Stark daughter.

Not to mention that the Uber-wealthy Tyrells tried to marry Sansa to the heir of their own house.

Make of that what you will.]

And I think the tell tale sign here is that many other Houses would have their own boats to use for such a journey, not be reliant on others to bring them.

[And the Starks hardly venture south. But in the future they'll have their pick of 50 ships.]

While other Houses have singers as retainers.

[You really think the Starks can't afford a singer? It seems singers don't like to venture to the north too often, what with the harsh winters and all. Shit, the Manderleys and Boltons and Riswells and Dustins could all afford singers if they so wanted to.]

There are also signs that they have to be frugal as winter is (potentially) very costly

[Winter is Coming. Says it all.]

[The Fallen]

On 7/6/2016 at 2:46 AM, Toos said:

Very interesting discussion but problem with some arguments  is that some comparasion are not applicapble or because Martin use some things as plot device.

Measuring wealth of respective houses based on if they have fancy armor or number of maesters is not IMHO valid argument. I mean house Mormont has valyrian sword but it does't mean that Mormonts are richer than Royces or Redwynes. Number of maesters is also bad example. Dragonstone has two maesters because Cressen was old and Pylos is his replacemnet. Another is that it doesn't seem that House has to pay for maester or at least I am not aware of this fact(was this fact mentioned somewhere?). I think that if Ned/Tywin/Doran/etc. ask for additional maester is not problem for Citadel to send another. Similar example of this comparasion would be that Lannisters have only between 20-30 ships in Lannisport but Manderly has 50 in White Harbor, certainly doesn't mean that Manderly is richer than Lannisters.

Winterfell was used as example that that Stark are poorer than most Great Houses. Ruined tower or library are used by Martin as plot device. He needed place for Jaime and Cersei to have sex so he came with ruined tower which is not used or that wasn't mentioned in text that library is repaired doesn't mean that library was left destroyed. Tyrion mentioned that Starks' library have some rare books which he doesn't read. Does this mean that Starks can afford better and more valuable books than Lannisters? And I doubt that Ned would biult sept for Catelyn if he wouldn't be able to afford this.

If Martells would be richer than Stark than Sunspear would have proper city instead of Shadow City.

Good post.

Regional customs should be taken into account. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

On 06/07/2016 at 7:46 AM, Toos said:

Very interesting discussion but problem with some arguments  is that some comparasion are not applicapble or because Martin use some things as plot device.

How can you call it only a plot device? Is there some other evidence from the books that proves it wrong? Some signs of huge wealth pr great spending from the Starks that show it to be wrong?

Whether it is Ned fretting about all the extra mouths to feed, the broken tower, the lack off major riches found at Winterfell by either the Ironborn or the Boltons are all consistent with the Starks being poorer than the majority of the other Overlords.

They'd still be around the top 25 (on hand) wealthiest Houses in Westeros, making them rich but less than their peers.

 

On 06/07/2016 at 7:46 AM, Toos said:

Measuring wealth of respective houses based on if they have fancy armor or number of maesters is not IMHO valid argument.

Sure it is, they have been given as examples amongst many others.

If someone was to use those examples by themselves to say that the Starks are not as rich as their peers then you may have a point, but to my knowledge no one has made the argument solely on those two points but have added other reasons to to.

Can you name one person in this thread who has only used these two examples to say the North is 'poor'.

On 06/07/2016 at 7:46 AM, Toos said:

If Martells would be richer than Stark than Sunspear would have proper city instead of Shadow City.

lol that is just dumb. So because neither the Martells or the Starks have a city then they must be equal in wealth? We are just to ignore the fact that the Martells have control of the largest port in Dorne, that they have not one but two towns (one of which is the largest settlment in Dorne) while the Starks only have a full town during the winter years? Or ignore the greater opulence that Sunspear and the Water Gardens seem to have over WInterfell?

 

[Lord Giggles]

On 7/6/2016 at 2:17 AM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Lets get one thing clear, that clearly influences a persons wealth. If a nation can't afford to feed themselves or survive then they are not very wealthy. If a nation regularly suffers large losses in winter then that has a knock on effect for the number of people working in its next summer.

The cost of living in the North, because of the harsh winters and sometimes not great summers, has a detrimental effect on the wealth of the North. Luxuries have to be sacrificed while they worry about surviving winter.

And people in the North starve in winters shorter than 5 years, it is just that when 5 year winters (which are rare) take place then major disaster happens in the North. There are Northerners sacrificing themselves every winter in the hope that the less mouths to feed will mean their families will survive.

There has been two, that we know of, five year winters. Both were disastrous for the North; There was starvation and suffering in the North, as there had been a hundred years before, in the long winter that reigned from 130 to 135 AC. King Aegon, always concerned for the welfare of the poor and weak, did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North, but some felt he did too much in this regard.

Sure it is. Wealth is measured with freedom and the Northerners have less spending freedom than their Southern counterparts as they are shackled down by the devastating effect of Winter.

In GRRM's world it is. See the quote above with Aegon V taking pity on the North and sending charity to the North. It is probably one of the reasons for Wintertown (and possibly other similar settlements springing up during winter) that many of the people are close enough to benefit from these imports.

Two five year winters in Dorne in the last 300 years.

Dorne suffers far, far less than the North does in Winter.

GRRM: The Mountains of the Moon get quite a lot of snow, the Vale and the riverlands and the west rather less, but some. King's Landing gets snow infrequently, the Storm Lands and the Reach rarely, Oldtown and Dorne almost never.

And the North has singers. Can you point to anyone in this thread who claimed there was zero singers in the North?

Why do you constantly have this inability to argue what is said?

The North has less singers, bards, artisans in general than their Southern counterparts. There are no tourneys, fewer towns and villages and inns than the majority of the realms in the South. These are all signs of a realm poorer than the rivals.

I said the Lannisters have at least two. I have no idea how many the Lannisters have just that they have more than one, or even if the Arryns only have one. Maester Colemon resided in Kings Landing with Jon Arryn, it is likely that there was another Arryn Maester in the Vale possibly at the Gates of the Moon.

But yes, having an excess amount of retainers is a sign of a Lords wealth. We only have to look at the disparity between the party Ned brought to King's Landing and the party Oberyn Martell brought.

All true, which has an effect on regular trade and make the Martells richer than the Starks. The shipping costs would eat into Northern merchants profit while anyone taking goods to sell in the North would have to add that into their overall cost. Dorne being more accessible and closer to many other major traders would see more profits as a result. 

How much of that Northern land is any more hospitable than the Mountains of the Moon? The Neck is swamp and at Sea Dragon "There are no mines, no gold, no silver, not even tin or iron. The land is too wet for wheat or corn."

I know one thing, most of the Vale Lords (including Royce and the other Lords Declarent) have an excess of food at the end of winter and they are planning on selling some of it rather than hang on to it.

 

That explains why the North was only able to manage an 18-20k army outside its borders with Robb.

lol that is not clear at all. They certainly are not on a par with the Riverlands, a region were we have seen multiple of their Lords described as rich in the series.

The Starks are certainly poorer than the Martells, though Dorne and the North might be on more equal footing.

20k is all we have seen Robb marshal outside of the North and the North struggle as a result.

Saying that King Aegon did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North doesn't necessarily mean that he organized large scale shipments of food to the North. Such a thing would not be possible with medieval technology. It says it in the quote: "He did what he could". We have no idea how much or how little he was able to do. 

 

As to there being no tourneys, villages, inns etc. than the south, the tourneys not existing is actually explained in the World of Ice and Fire as being due to northmen viewing them as wastes of time. And I would expect there to be fewer villages and inns than in the south, the North is more sparsely populated after all. However, it being sparsely populated doesn't mean it's poorer than the south. It means that it's poorer than a southern kingdom of its size would be. Given the number of men it can put in the field, the North is still probably on par with the Vale and Riverlands and wealthier than the Iron Islands and Stormlands. Given the number of "luxury" goods Dorne produces they may be on par with the Starks in terms of wealth but I'd be tempted to say they were slightly poorer given how much larger the North is than Dorne. 

 

The disparity between Oberyn's and Eddard's retinues can be explained by their purposes in the capital rather than their wealth. Ned is there to be Hand of the King, he doesn't need to impress. Oberyn on the other hand wants to impress and display the power of Dorne. Therefore he's obviously going to bring a larger retinue.

 

The North is able to muster at least 30,000 men outside it's own borders as shown by Torrhen Stark. 

 

And your evidence for the North being weaker than the Riverlands is...?

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Saying that King Aegon did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North doesn't necessarily mean that he organized large scale shipments of food to the North. Such a thing would not be possible with medieval technology. It says it in the quote: "He did what he could". We have no idea how much or how little he was able to do. 

I was told that food being shipped to the North was impossible. The text outride says that it does. At no point did I say how much or how little was shipped, you appear to creating an argument I did not make.

If you have a problem with what GRRM wrote then take it up with him, as it stands food can and was shipped to the North during a harsh winter when they were suffering from famine.

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Given the number of men it can put in the field, the North is still probably on par with the Vale and Riverlands

Right because that is how everything must be judged on this forum. x amount of men in the field not only relates to the population but also GDP of a realm.

Doesn't matter for how long each region can maintain these armies or the different levels of training or equipment each army has because they can raise similar amounts then their realm must be identical in every way.

The North is definitely poorer than the Riverlands and the Starks poorer than the Tullys despite the fact that, I'd wager, Ned Stark could have raised a larger army than Hoster Tully could.

More towns, more merchants, more trade routes are going to have a bigger influence on a realms wealth than mere pikemen on the battlefield. It is batshit crazy that you don't seem to understand something so simple.

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

 

wealthier than the Iron Islands and Stormlands.

Which still makes it one of the poorer regions.

I imagine they are a little richer than the Stormlands and Iron Islands, never actually said anything in this thread or any other to the contrary.

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

 

The disparity between Oberyn's and Eddard's retinues can be explained by their purposes in the capital rather than their wealth. Ned is there to be Hand of the King, he doesn't need to impress. Oberyn on the other hand wants to impress and display the power of Dorne. Therefore he's obviously going to bring a larger retinue.

Ned took a huge chunk of his court. Pycelle even remarks on it

Your lord father took the cream of his guard to King's Landing, and your brother took the rest, along with all the likely lads for leagues around.

The fact is that the Martells retinue was a larger showing of wealth than the Starks.

It is one of a few reasons why I beleieve that the Martells are richer than the Starks.

If you disagree with this then provide evidence from the books of the Starks beingg richer rather than give alternative 'excuses' why other Houses are able to present their wealth and the Starks 'choose' not to.

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

 

The North is able to muster at least 30,000 men outside it's own borders as shown by Torrhen Stark. 

300 years ago. More recently we have seen them only be able to muster between 18k-19.5k with Robb making no attempt to try to get reinforcements.

Some regions will have grown stronger in the last 300 years and some may have grown weaker. Going by the number of men Torrhen was able to raise and Robb was able to raise in one of the longest summers in the last 300 years it seems the North, at the start of the series, was weaker than it was 300 years previously.

7 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

 

And your evidence for the North being weaker than the Riverlands is...?

I didnt say weaker (didnt bring up power at all) I said they were poorer than the Riverlands.

Jesus! Is it to much to ask the sensitive Stark fans to at least read what they are responding to?

And sure there is quite some evidence that the Riverlands, the second most fertile region in Westeros with a multitude of towns (only denied charters to become Cities by the Crown) is a richer realm than the North from many of their Lords being described as rich (Freys, Butterwells, Tullys etc.) in the series while outside of the Manderlys none have in the North.

How about what the author has to say about the Riverlands

The riverlands are rich and fertile and populous, but suffer from divided leadership and a lack of natural boundaries.

By all means tell me how the author is wrong on this one?

[Lord Giggles]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I was told that food being shipped to the North was impossible. The text outride says that it does. At no point did I say how much or how little was shipped, you appear to creating an argument I did not make.

If you have a problem with what GRRM wrote then take it up with him, as it stands food can and was shipped to the North during a harsh winter when they were suffering from famine.

Right because that is how everything must be judged on this forum. x amount of men in the field not only relates to the population but also GDP of a realm.

Doesn't matter for how long each region can maintain these armies or the different levels of training or equipment each army has because they can raise similar amounts then their realm must be identical in every way.

The North is definitely poorer than the Riverlands and the Starks poorer than the Tullys despite the fact that, I'd wager, Ned Stark could have raised a larger army than Hoster Tully could.

More towns, more merchants, more trade routes are going to have a bigger influence on a realms wealth than mere pikemen on the battlefield. It is batshit crazy that you don't seem to understand something so simple.

Which still makes it one of the poorer regions.

I imagine they are a little richer than the Stormlands and Iron Islands, never actually said anything in this thread or any other to the contrary.

Ned took a huge chunk of his court. Pycelle even remarks on it

Your lord father took the cream of his guard to King's Landing, and your brother took the rest, along with all the likely lads for leagues around.

The fact is that the Martells retinue was a larger showing of wealth than the Starks.

It is one of a few reasons why I beleieve that the Martells are richer than the Starks.

If you disagree with this then provide evidence from the books of the Starks beingg richer rather than give alternative 'excuses' why other Houses are able to present their wealth and the Starks 'choose' not to.

 

300 years ago. More recently we have seen them only be able to muster between 18k-19.5k with Robb making no attempt to try to get reinforcements.

Some regions will have grown stronger in the last 300 years and some may have grown weaker. Going by the number of men Torrhen was able to raise and Robb was able to raise in one of the longest summers in the last 300 years it seems the North, at the start of the series, was weaker than it was 300 years previously.

I didnt say weaker (didnt bring up power at all) I said they were poorer than the Riverlands.

Jesus! Is it to much to ask the sensitive Stark fans to at least read what they are responding to?

And sure there is quite some evidence that the Riverlands, the second most fertile region in Westeros with a multitude of towns (only denied charters to become Cities by the Crown) is a richer realm than the North from many of their Lords being described as rich (Freys, Butterwells, Tullys etc.) in the series while outside of the Manderlys none have in the North.

How about what the author has to say about the Riverlands

The riverlands are rich and fertile and populous, but suffer from divided leadership and a lack of natural boundaries.

By all means tell me how the author is wrong on this one?

You were being told that shipping quantities of food large enough to feed the entire North was impossible, not that shipping food was impossible full stop. Therefore that quote does little to prove or disprove either of us. 

True, the number of men a realm can raise doesn't equate to everything. However, it is amongst the best indicators we've got of the relative fertility and wealth of each individual region. If two houses or regions can raise and support a similar number of men for a similar amount of time then they are likely to be of comparable wealth and population. I have never said that because they can raise similar numbers of men they are identical in every way. 

Please go back and reread my post and you will see that I wasn't disputing that merchants, villages and inns make a realm rich in their own ways. The idea that pikemen do and they don't is ridiculous I agree. 

I'm sorry to point out that that quote by Luwin is not stating that Ned took a huge chunk of his court to KL. It's saying that he took his best guardsmen to King's Landing. So my point still stands. The size of Ned's retinue when compared to Oberyn's cannot be viewed as a fair estimation of the two parties comparative wealth given that they were intended for two different things and were going to KL for two very different reasons. 

It was stated that Robb took the men he could assemble quickly and take south with him. So the North has not decreased in strength so much that it can now only muster 18,000 men. 

 

Also one last thing. I understand that people arguing the other side can be frustrating at times but I was under the impression that we were all able to cope with that. Please try and keep your posts more towards refuting the arguments we put forward and less towards venting you frustration. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

29 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

You were being told that shipping quantities of food large enough to feed the entire North was impossible, not that shipping food was impossible full stop. Therefore that quote does little to prove or disprove either of us. 

lol no I replied to this

Quote

Importing food on a large scale to the interior is simply not feasible. In the coastal regions that might be possible

No mention of feeding the entire North, nor did I claim that. Maybe try reading the thread before telling people they are wrong.

The quote I provided from the World book shows large scale food being imported, likely not enough to feed the entire North but then no one actually claimed that.  Or are you suggesting that the world book tells us this

There was starvation and suffering in the North, as there had been a hundred years before, in the long winter that reigned from 130 to 135 AC. King Aegon, always concerned for the welfare of the poor and weak, did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North, but some felt he did too much in this regard.

That he only sent a few cereal boxes to the coast and nothing more?

 

Quote

True, the number of men a realm can raise doesn't equate to everything.

Well done, we are finally on the same page.

Quote

 

However, it is amongst the best indicators we've got of the relative fertility and wealth of each individual region.

Behind number of towns, merchants, population density, number of roads and proximity to other traders.

Really instead of all this waffle, why not explain why you think the North and the Riverlands have the same amount of wealth? Is it really just down to army sizes?

Quote

If two houses or regions can raise and support a similar number of men for a similar amount of time then they are likely to be of comparable wealth and population.

No, not really. The Karstarks sent more men with Robb than the Manderlys did, is this evidence that they are richer or are there many more variables; many of which we are not privy to, equally or more important?

 

Quote

I have never said that because they can raise similar numbers of men they are identical in every way. 

It is the only evidence you gave.

Quote

Please go back and reread my post and you will see that I wasn't disputing that merchants, villages and inns make a realm rich in their own ways. The idea that pikemen do and they don't is ridiculous I agree. 

So on what basis are the Riverlands and North equally wealthy then? You seemed to disagree with that statement and only gave military numbers for your reasoning.

Quote

I'm sorry to point out that that quote by Luwin is not stating that Ned took a huge chunk of his court to KL.

eh, yes it does. Robb takes the rest but Ned took quite a lot of them according to Luwin.

 

Quote

 

It's saying that he took his best guardsmen to King's Landing.

And many others (well many for the Starks 'court' such as it is.)

Quote

 

So my point still stands.

lol nope.

The Martells retinue was a far grander showing than the Starks retinue. It is one of many reasons why the books seem to portray the Martells as being more wealthy than the Starks.

You will note that it is not the only reason I have given, if that was the only evidence then I would never have brought the Martells up in the first place. But them ruling the largest town and port in Dorne, as well as the other trappings of their wealth make them seem wealthier than the Starks

Quote

 

The size of Ned's retinue when compared to Oberyn's cannot be viewed as a fair estimation of the two parties comparative wealth given that they were intended for two different things and were going to KL for two very different reasons. 

lol this is really getting tiresome. Re read the thread and tell me is that the only reason I gave?

Refute all my points why I claimed the Martells are likely richer than the Starks and then come back to me rather than focusing on one point and why it might not necessarily be truth (as that is all you have provided thus far, not that the retinue was wrong but that it might be rong).

Quote

It was stated that Robb took the men he could assemble quickly

Really? Can you provide this quote? That he could have raised more? And there is no law stopping from someone else raising these men and sending them South, or someone else raising these men and fighting the Ironborn or helping the Watch.

edit: and to point out that pretty much everyone who raised an army in the books had a similar time frame to Robb Stark. How exactly was he handicapped in this regard?

Quote

 

and take south with him. So the North has not decreased in strength so much that it can now only muster 18,000 men. 

We have seen little evidence that the North can send another 10k South. By all means provide it.

 

[Maia]

3 hours ago, Lord Giggles said:

Saying that King Aegon did what he could to increase the flow of grain and other food to the North doesn't necessarily mean that he organized large scale shipments of food to the North. Such a thing would not be possible with medieval technology.

This is not true. Ancient Rome and parts of Italy under the Empire were supplied with grain from  North Africa and Westerosi ships are at least  as advanced as theirs.

And in the thirteenth century cost of grain in Europe increased only 30 percent per 100 miles of overland carriage. Russians shipped food overland to Siberia 16th - 18th centuries and routinely transported fish from Arkhangelsk to Moscow, for instance, using technology no more involved than horses and cargo sleds/sleighs. Etc.

So, large-scale shipments of food to the North as mentioned in TWoIaF were entirely possible, though it  probably made more sense to transport something compact and nutritius like dried meat, butter, etc.,  rather than grain. 

I also disagree with the notion that a Hand doesn't have a use for a large retinue. Ned would have been better off with more men and some nobles/gentry among them, though I guess that the absence of loyal and trustworthy Stormlanders and Valemen at Robert's court must have come as a surprise to him.

 

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

300 years ago. More recently we have seen them only be able to muster between 18k-19.5k with Robb making no attempt to try to get reinforcements.

Some regions will have grown stronger in the last 300 years and some may have grown weaker.

 

Didn't Cregan Stark bring 30K with him too? I disagree that the North has grown weaker. Even comparing the equipement of Robb's troops to  that of the Winter Wolves reveals that the northmen in the series have become much more affluent than they had been 170 years ago. Now only the mountain clansmen, who are the poorest, look like that. Robb had to assemble his host very quickly (implausibly so, really, given the distances), which is why it was smaller. And he didn't call for more, because it would have been problematic to feed them from the  already ravaged Riverlands, particularly with season changing to Autumn.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 minute ago, Maia said:

Didn't Cregan Stark bring 30K with him too?

Not that we have been told. He initially sent 4k Winter Wolves with Dustin and came South after he had finished preparing for winter as the Southern armies lay decimated due to the two year war they had just faced.

1 minute ago, Maia said:

I disagree that the North has grown weaker.

Well it has. Just take into account the 'new gift'. Former Stark lands given away (much to the annoyance of the Starks) only for those lands to fall and dwindle. That is pretty much fact.

Then there is the theory that Westeros being one kingdom now, some smallfolk might choose to emigrate South rather than face famine in the North.  Think of the exodus of Ireland or even how many Northerners in England would travel South to find bettert work (or even work in general). 

And of course, like I originally said, it may not even be a cased that the North has grown (that much) weaker but simply stagnant unable to to take advantage of a, relativity, peaceful kingdom while many of the other lands did and saw population increases.

1 minute ago, Maia said:

Even comparing the equipement of Robb's troops to  that of the Winter Wolves reveals that the northmen in the series have become much more afluent than they had been 170 years ago.

Really? Can you explain further. I don't recall much being said about the Winter Wolves equipment.

And did the other regions armies not also have the similar improvements? Two centuries is quite a long time.

1 minute ago, Maia said:

Now only the mountain clansmen, who are the poorest, look like that.

Really? Not the Reeds? The Mormonts? The Skagosi?

And look like what? Can you clarify what you mean between the armies of two hundred years ago and now?

And yet there was sense in what they said. This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder.

 

What is the difference between the Winter Wolves and Robb's army?

1 minute ago, Maia said:

Robb had to assemble his host very quickly

As did every other Lord. Tywin from when Tyrion was abducted, Edmure from when he heard of Tywin's army and Renly from (circa) his marriage to Magarery. Robb may have even had a little more time than some others.

1 minute ago, Maia said:

 

(implausibly so, really, given the distances), which is why it was smaller.

So why didnt he do what what the Lannisters did and have someone else organaize a second army to send South? He seems desperate for men yet that possiblity is never raised.

If all these men are still North then why is he extracting his entire Northern army from the South, as well as the Freys, to win back the North even after he finds out that Balon has died and realizes the Ironborn will have sent men back?

1 minute ago, Maia said:

And he didn't call for more, because it would have been problematic to feed them from already ravaged Riverlands, particularly with season changing to Autumn.

When does he mention that? How was he expecting to feed the Ironborn or the Arryn support he was desperate for?

[Lord Varys]

A case can be made that the North was in a worse state in 298 AC then many of the other regions.

The Starks had been facing both internal and external crises for over a century beginning with the Skagos Rebellion, the Great Spring Sickness, the Ironborn raidings, the wildling invasion, the six-year-winter, and so on. This took a toll both on House Stark directly (which was cut down to a single male branch by the time of Lord Rickard's birth) as well as the Northern population in general.

More importantly, we should assume that the War of the Usurper and the Greyjoy Rebellion took a toll on the young men of fighting age. Many young men did not come back to have sons of their own. Especially in Winterfell. House Cassel was nearly extinguished in the male line during those wars (and is now extinct) and the only known male descendant of Old Nan is Hodor.

Unfortunately we don't know much about the troop sizes during the Dance. There were 4,000 Winter Wolves under Lord Roderick (apparently most of them old men prepared to die, one assumes, 9,000 Black men at Tumbleton during the First Battle which were greatly outnumbered by the Hightower army (which thus, perhaps, numbered as much as 20,000 or more). We can also reasonably assume that the original Lannister army must have been pretty big.

From Ran we also know specifically that Lady Jeyne Arryn sent 10,000 Vale men to Rhaenyra's help throughout the war but we don't actually were exactly they fought. Some of them where with her in KL.

The host of Lord Cregan was larger than the host of the Lads from the Riverlands. We also don't know how many men Lord Borros brought to KL from the Stormlands.

As to the general question again:

The North is poor. That is confirmed not just by all the descriptions but simply by the population numbers. Rich and fertile lands support many people. If the Starks and the Northmen were rich then their lands would support much more people. It is as simple as that.

Whether there are many mineral resources and other treasures in the North is unclear - but if they are then the Northmen clearly lack the numbers to actually mine all that stuff. You are only rich if you can use your resources to your advantage.

But if there was more fertile farm land then the population would simply have increased much more over the centuries than it did. Winter is dreadful in the North.

And we get regular late summer snows in the North in, well, late summer. So the whole harvesting and crops planting thing is most likely mainly done in early and middle summer. There isn't much to be harvested in late summer or throughout autumn if snows in those seasons.