How rich are the Starks pre series

[Bright Ancalagon]

4 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Five?

RIcher houses should include the Manderlys, Lannisters, Hightowers, Redwynes, Graftons, Baratheons, Tullys, Leffords, Tyrells, maybe Freys, so the Starks are at best at the bottom of the top ten houses of Westeros alone. Across the Narrow Sea I'm sure you'll find richer families, Mopatis for one. 

Sir,  there is no way in hell that the Starks are poor than Manderlys,  'cause they got their gold and silver when they went North. Graftons,  who doesnt own a single town entirely. And Freys. 

Baratheons are  highly debatable too.

Ps. English is not my first language. 

Pps. I appoligize if i was rude.

[Daena the Defiant]

1 minute ago, John Doe said:

If land mass equaled wealth Putin would be the richest guy on earth. 

He doesn't *own* Russia as his personal property.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, John Doe said:

Five?

RIcher houses should include the Manderlys, Lannisters, Hightowers, Redwynes, Graftons, Baratheons, Tullys, maybe Freys, so the Starks are at the bottom of the top ten houses of Westeros alone. Across the Narrow Sea I'm sure you'll find richer families, Mopatis for one. 

Did you not read what he said? Wealth is not defined by how much gold or silver you have in your vaults. At one point the Starks owned the Wolf's Den. When they gave the Wolf's Den to the Lockes, Slates, Flints and other Houses that preceded the Manderlys, did the Starks become poorer for it?

Similarly, the Starks could have kept Karhold and its 50000 square miles of land for themselves. Instead they gave it to Karlon Stark to start a new House. Did the Starks become poorer because they lost 50000 square miles of land? Those 50000 square miles of land generate enough revenue that it can support an army of 3000 men in the field. Would the Starks have been counted as wealthier in your book if they still had the direct revenues of those lands going into their own coffers?

Similar with the Hornwood lands now. For all intents and purposes there is no clear heir. The Starks could appropriate those lands for themselves on some pretext and no one in the North would really oppose them. Would they then be counted wealthier because the incomes of those lands flow directly into their coffers? Or if they do the sensible thing by appointing a loyal vassal to administer those lands on their behalf, would they now be considered poorer in your book?

The Starks did not seem to have any problem in ordering Manderly to build a fleet of 50 warships for them. Do you consider that as a sign of their wealth, or did they have to rely on the mercy of the Manderlys for that? No, the Manderlys built the ships and they are there for the Starks to use as they please.

So, wealth is not about what is in your vaults. There could be a merchant prince with a million gold dragons in his vaults who could not come close to controlling the types of assets that the Starks have at their disposal.

Consider that even a small parcel of land in the Gift at one time generated enough income from agricultural produce to allow its lord to build a fortified holdfast for himself. I'm talking about Queenscrown where Bran's party spent the night. Now multiply that by a hundred such parcels of land in the Gift alone. So, when the Starks dish out such a parcel of land to a vassal lord they are handing over the equivalant amount of wealth to build and support such a holdfast. They could keep that land for themselves. Meaning they could directly own a thousand holdfasts across the North. Making them vastly wealthy in asset terms. Or they could hand it out to vassals, which makes more practical sense. Giving them men, taxes and loyalty in return.

That is how you need to look at the assets under Stark control.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Bright Ancalagon said:

Sir,  there is no way in hell that the Starks are poor than Manderlys,  'cause they got their gold and silver when they went North. Graftons,  who doesnt own a single town entirely. And Freys. 

Baratheons are  highly debatable too.

Ps. English is not my first language. 

Pps. I appoligize if i was rude.

I am certain that Manderly has vastly more silver and gold in his vaults than the Starks have. But that means little. Because wealth is far more than that. Manderly's silver might be able to raise a sellsword army of say 5000 men and pay them for half a year. The Starks can raise 30000 men and don't need money in their vaults to pay for it.

Wealth is more than the amount of coin in your vault.

[Bright Ancalagon]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

If land mass equaled wealth Putin would be the richest guy on earth. 

Well,  on Medieval times,  it is.

 

I forgot about the sacks. Can you provide me a quote, plz? 

[John Doe]

3 minutes ago, Bright Ancalagon said:

Sir,  there is no way in hell that the Starks are poor than Manderlys,  'cause they got their gold and silver when they went North. Graftons,  who doesnt own a single town entirely. And Freys. 

I agree, some of them, like the Freys and Graftons are debatable, I just wanted to give an idea about how many wealthy families there are who compete with the Starks. 

3 minutes ago, Daena the Defiant said:

He doesn't *own* Russia as his personal property.

Neither do the Starks, they are feudal overlords, not absolute monarchs, so their access on the North's wealth is restricted in some ways.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Did you not read what he said? Wealth is not defined by how much gold or silver you have in your vaults. At one point the Starks owned the Wolf's Den. When they gave the Wolf's Den to the Lockes, Slates, Flints and other Houses that preceded the Manderlys, did the Starks become poorer for it?

Similarly, the Starks could have kept Karhold and its 50000 square miles of land for themselves. Instead they gave it to Karlon Stark to start a new House. Did the Starks become poorer because they lost 50000 square miles of land? Those 50000 square miles of land generate enough revenue that it can support an army of 3000 men in the field. Would the Starks have been counted as wealthier in your book if they still had the direct revenues of those lands going into their own coffers?

Similar with the Hornwood lands now. For all intents and purposes there is no clear heir. The Starks could appropriate those lands for themselves on some pretext and no one in the North would really oppose them. Would they then be counted wealthier because the incomes of those lands flow directly into their coffers? Or if they do the sensible thing by appointing a loyal vassal to administer those lands on their behalf, would they now be considered poorer in your book?

The Starks did not seem to have any problem in ordering Manderly to build a fleet of 50 warships for them. Do you consider that as a sign of their wealth, or did they have to rely on the mercy of the Manderlys for that? No, the Manderlys built the ships and they are there for the Starks to use as they please.

So, wealth is not about what is in your vaults. There could be a merchant prince with a million gold dragons in his vaults who could not come close to controlling the types of assets that the Starks have at their disposal.

Consider that even a small parcel of land in the Gift at one time generated enough income from agricultural produce to allow its lord to build a fortified holdfast for himself. I'm talking about Queenscrown where Bran's party spent the night. Now multiply that by a hundred such parcels of land in the Gift alone. So, when the Starks dish out such a parcel of land to a vassal lord they are handing over the equivalant amount of wealth to build and support such a holdfast. They could keep that land for themselves. Meaning they could directly own a thousand holdfasts across the North. Making them vastly wealthy in asset terms. Or they could hand it out to vassals, which makes more practical sense. Giving them men, taxes and loyalty in return.

That is how you need to look at the assets under Stark control.

 Of course they are poorer when they give parts of their lands to vassals because that lands are then owned by their vassals, who keep the lion share of it's revenues for themselves. 

Yes, the Starks had to rely on Manderly to build their fleet, elsewise they wouldn't have asked him and would have done it themselves instead. And if you count 100% of a vassal's wealth as their liege's, you should also say that the Starks have no money because their wealth then belongs to the Iron Throne.

[Boarsbane]

13 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

Aside from the Lannisters and Tyrells\Hightowers i can't see a house having better resources an terrain control put together in westeros at agot time (i'm counting the baratheon houses separately)

Arryn has more fertile lands and is control of a port so I'd bet they and quite likely the Tullys are also wealthier

[redtree]

1 minute ago, Boarsbane said:

Arryn has more fertile lands and is control of a port so I'd bet they and quite likely the Tullys are also wealthier

I think Tully was richer than Arryn, they don't have city but they have multiple towns with far larger arable land. Arryn is higher prestige-wise though

[Boarsbane]

24 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

Could also be because he does not have that kind of money on hand? 

210 silver Stags per gold Dragon. 6,000 x 210 = 1,260,000 silver Stags worth of bribes. A "plain yet complete set of good steel armor with greaves, gorget and greathelm to cost 800 stags". 1,260,000 divided by 800 = the bribe is worth 1,575 sets of good steel armor. That is probably more sets of armor than in the entire Stark levy. Why on earth would Ned carry around so much gold? He is Hand of the king and has most expenses covered already. I doubt he felt the need to bring such a massive sum with him. This is small change for Robert's treasury, not for Ned.

 

 

Hadn't done the math but I still don't believe he'd bribe them himself even if he did have the money on him. Whether or not he has the money on him is irrelevant I think, he certainly has the money and I doubt anyone would believe Ned Stark would leave a debt unpaid.

[Clegane'sPup]

Money wise I think the Starks are penny poor. The Starks have been Warden of the North since one of them Stark’s bent a knee. They have been a seat of power for a verra long time. They ruled the North in the name of the King of Westeros. A percentage of whatever they collected from their vassals would have been sent to the King. The various northern lords would probably pay homage, goods and services to House Stark and also some sort of tax to the King.

They had a good thing going until King Robert decided he wanted Eddard to be the Hand. Robert also says, “"In the south, the way they talk about my Seven Kingdoms, a man forgets that your part is as big as the other six combined." That encompasses a large amount of fealty to House Stark.

When Eddard learns of Roberts upcoming visit he asks how they will feed them all:

"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?

Luwin approaches Cat concerning the cost of the Kings visit:

"It is past time that we reviewed the figures, my lady," he said. "You'll want to know how much this royal visit cost us." "My lady, the king's party had healthy appetites. We must replenish our stores before—"

I guess the premise is that the steward is supposed to go into a vault somewhere in WF and dig up coin.

Some examples about how taxes work in Westeros:

In the New Gift there had been villages and holdfasts whose taxes, rendered in goods and labor, helped feed and clothe the black brothers. But those were largely gone as well.

His [Jon] lord father [Eddard] had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said.

Mills were a valuable source of tax. The lord received a tenth of all the grain they ground.

The Queen Regent and her son shall make no claims to taxes, incomes, nor service from my [Robb’s] people, and shall free my lords and knights from all oaths of fealty, vows, pledges, debts, and obligations owed to the Iron Throne and the Houses Baratheon and Lannister.

Mance laughed. "When we want laws we'll make our own. You can keep your king's justice too, and your king's taxes.

As it relates to the OP the Starks weren't/aren’t monetarily rich. They were the power house until their downfall and Roose was granted the title Warden of the North. The Starks lived comfortable in their heated WF with its greenhouse and spa until the Starks became involved in the game of thrones.

WOW, this is a hot topic. As I type I hear the chimes.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

I agree, some of them, like the Freys and Graftons are debatable, I just wanted to give an idea about how many wealthy families there are who compete with the Starks. 

Neither do the Starks, they are feudal overlords, not absolute monarchs, so their access on the North's wealth is restricted in some ways.

 Of course they are poorer when they give parts of their lands to vassals because that lands are then owned by their vassals, who keep the lion share of it's revenues for themselves. 

Yes, the Starks had to rely on Manderly to build their fleet, elsewise they wouldn't have asked him and would have done it themselves instead. And if you count 100% of a vassal's wealth as their liege's, you should also say that the Starks have no money because their wealth then belongs to the Iron Throne.

Yet the assets of those vassals are at their disposal. See Lady Dustin, who according to her own admission had no choice but to send sufficient men to Robb Stark so as not to invoke his wrath. So, if Robb had more time, and decided that she had only sent half as many men as she could have, he had every right to force her to send more, no matter the cost.

Similar to the Umber situation. Jon Umber threatened to march his men back to the Last Hearth if Robb did not let him march ahead of certain other Houses in the northern army. Robb replied that he would raze Last Hearth to the ground and hang the Greatjon for an oathbreaker if he did so.

And also similar to the Tallhart situation, where Ned ordered him to send 100 bowmen to fortify Moat Cailin. Ned did not provide him with bows, arrows, horses and food supplies for the men. He just commanded him to do so. It was up to Helman Tallhart to foot the bill.

The same would apply if the Manderly's withheld use of their ships from the Starks.

Again, see the example of House Stout. Even though his own servants state that they are going to be totally screwed come winter, they have no choice but to clear out their food stores to host Roose Bolton's host.

Clearly, the use of the vassal's assets belongs to the King in the North, to do with as he sees fit. Of course, he needs to use his discretion, as consistent, unreasonable abuse of this right could eventually lead to rebellion amongst his vassals. But the fundamental principle is sound. The Starks control the assets of the North.

[John Doe]

10 minutes ago, Bright Ancalagon said:

Well,  on Medieval times,  it is.

 

I forgot about the sacks. Can you provide me a quote, plz? 

Fertile land, it is. The North isn't very fertile. 

I'll try to find it. 

[Nyrhex]

3 minutes ago, Boarsbane said:

Hadn't done the math but I still don't believe he'd bribe them himself even if he did have the money on him. Whether or not he has the money on him is irrelevant I think, he certainly has the money and I doubt anyone would believe Ned Stark would leave a debt unpaid.

I'm sure he has the money, but even in Winterfell that would be a massive amout to spend that would stop pretty much any other project until the coffers are full again. And soldiers being bribed for a coup usually don't take I.O.Us...

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Starks control the assets of the North.

And are, in turn, controlled by the Iron Throne. So basically all their wealth belongs to King's Landing.

[Boarsbane]

23 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

I'm sure he has the money, but even in Winterfell that would be a massive amout to spend that would stop pretty much any other project until the coffers are full again. And soldiers being bribed for a coup usually don't take I.O.Us...

The foot soldiers certainly wouldn't but my guess is most the money, if not all, is for the officers and they might be more willing to wait for payment if they believed Stark was good for it. So 2/3 went to Slynt and his officers, that leaves 2k dragons for the foot soldiers, not even sure why they feel the need to bribe all of them but whatever. 2k dragons is a much more likely amount for Ned to have on him. In the end it doesn't matter as Ned will always be more comfortable with LF doing the deed with crown money.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, John Doe said:

And are, in turn, controlled by the Iron Throne. So basically all their wealth belongs to King's Landing.

Well, the same would apply to the Lannisters then, going by our definition.

 

[John Doe]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, the same would apply to the Lannisters then, going by our definition.

 

I'm applying your definition to the Starks. 

[Lord Giggles]

I'd rate the wealthiest houses of Westeros like this:

1. Lannisters

2. Tyrells 

3. Tullys

4. Arryns

5. Martells

6. Baratheons

7. Starks

8. The Crown be it Targs or Baratheons of KL.

9. Greyjoys

While the Starks are near the bottom, they aren't the poorest by any stretch of the imagination. In addition to the money they get from selling excess agricultural produce from their own demesne lands(assuming they don't just rent them out for hard cash to tenants or in exchange for military service), they'll be getting a portion of the tolls imposed on trade passing in and out of White Harbor and through Moat Cailin. They also will most likely get a decent amount of money from selling furs and timber+charcoal to the south which, with the exception of the Stormlands, doesn't seem to have too many large forests left. 

[Nevets]

Are we talking about governmental assets or personal wealth?  In terms of assets he can draw on if necessary, the Starks are in good shape, but I would hardly consider them to be particularly wealthy by Westeros standards.   They were able to host the King and his court without borrowing or ruining their finances, but it is clear that it put a good dent in their funds.  I would put them at the bottom of major houses in terms of personal wealth.  They are probably well below even many secondary houses in the South, for example.  That still puts them in the top 1 % of Westeros.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, John Doe said:

I'm applying your definition to the Starks. 

I'm saying your argument is nonsensical.

The fact that the Iron Throne is liege lord to both the Starks and the Lannisters makes no difference to how the Starks and Lannisters compare to one another in terms of assets under their control. Similarly, the fact that the Starks can command the assets of both the Manderlys and Boltons does not change the fact that the Manderlys are wealthier than the Boltons.