How rich are the Starks pre series

[Lord Varys]

47 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I am sorry but how does answering to wat you say (statement or not) make the snow at Last Hearth and Karhold dissapear?

There is simply more evidence that crops in the North can survive cold and snow then there is against it, no matter how much you like to deny it.

I was talking about the fact that real snow is going to affect real harvest. Considering that snow didn't seem to have been a problem for the Karstarks and the Umbers the consequence is that there was no snow there. But you cited them as evidence for cold/snow not affecting crops. Which doesn't make any sense. Thus there wasn't any snow up there.

[direpupy]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I was talking about the fact that real snow is going to affect real harvest. Considering that snow didn't seem to have been a problem for the Karstarks and the Umbers the consequence is that there was no snow there. But you cited them as evidence for cold/snow not affecting crops. Which doesn't make any sense. Thus there wasn't any snow up there.

As i said we know that there was snow up there this is not an assumption i made but a fact, so whe know that the snow was there but despite being there it still was not a problem for them.

Also as i pointed out before snow need not have a devistating effect on harvests, it could but it depends on what crop you are growing. So no that snow would effect a harvest in a negative way is not a fact, but a wrong assumption on your part.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

As i said we know that there was snow up there this is not an assumption i made but a fact, so whe know that the snow was there but despite being there it still was not a problem for them.

Also as i pointed out before snow need not have a devistating effect on harvests, it could but it depends on what crop you are growing. So no that snow would effect a harvest in a negative way is not a fact, but a wrong assumption on your part.

No. There is no snow mentioned at Karhold or Last Hearth. All we know about the Umbers and the Karstarks is that they had crops to get in but failed to do so because they lacked the men.

[Tarellen]

On July 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM, 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. 

And sunspear is economically impressive how?

[direpupy]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No. There is no snow mentioned at Karhold or Last Hearth. All we know about the Umbers and the Karstarks is that they had crops to get in but failed to do so because they lacked the men.

perhaps you would like to read this quote, it first of all proofs that it was not cold or snow that ruined the crops of the karstarks but rain, and Alys Karstark says that after that the snow came. the snow did not ruin the crops it only prevented them from planting new ones, not because the crops could not take the snow (see my earlier post on crops that have no trouble with snow) but because with snow on the ground you can not open up the ground to plant the crops. And this quote i dug up with a quick search so a more detailed one will probably be able to give more examples.

"Not well." Alys sighed. "My father took so many of our men south with him that only the women and young boys were left to bring the harvest in. Them, and the men too old or crippled to go off to war. Crops withered in the fields or were pounded into the mud by autumn rains. And now the snows are come. This winter will be hard. Few of the old people will survive it, and many children will perish as well."

But more importantly it does mean that there was snow at Karhold before Alys fled to castle black, unlike what you said.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You are quite correct. I respond because I enjoy this discussion tremendously. Some of the obstinate points of view become tiresome at times, but a break of a few hours is all that's required to get the enthusiasm going again.

Good to hear. I enjoy discussing with you as you at least attempt to use the source material as evidence rather than rely on popular forum opinions. I still think you are wrong, but at least is is based on the series.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I will say that you are misinterpreting my post and going into a lengthy counter argument against something that wasn't my point. Maybe it was my fault for not being clear enough. My point is that the Starks lost a lot of family members because of wars over the last 100 years. But from a population point of view this largely affects House Stark specifically - and maybe some of the Lordly families that had men fall in these wars along with their liege lords.

And you might be confusing me with Lord Varys who originally stated that the North has only declined in the last century while I'm under the opinion that the North has stagnated in the last three centuries while many of the other realms have flourished under a united Westeros effectively meaning that the North is weaker in comparison to its peers in 298 than it was in the year 0.

You took a pretty clear GRRM quote and tried to spin it that there are only less Lannisters than Starks because the Starks are more involved in the battle.

 

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But wars such as the Skagosi rebellion, the Ironborn wars and Raymun Redbeard's invasion will have an utterly negligible effect on the population of the North as a whole. This is not about the Starks being braver than the Lannisters. I myself find it stupid for a general to lead from the front, and would prefer the Starks to employ more of Tywin's approach to commanding.

How do you know that all the Lannisters and Starks have such different methods in fighting? That is an assumption not really backed up by the books.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The point is, these Starks fell in battles. Not in some continent wide calamity that reduced the population at large, such as plagues or famines affecting the North uniquely.

Many of those battles were unique to the North, as is the severity of Winter. These would help explain why they would not be able to grow as much as many of the Southern regions and effectively became weaker as a result.

 

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Regarding the North's supposedly telegraphed lack of numbers, he has been clear that the North has a low population density compared to the South. In terms of actual numbers, well, he seems to have made the one House that he gives us explicit numbers on (House Karstark) about 50% stronger than the Florents from the deep South, who can only raise 2000 men according to Stannis.

Not sure how that is true. Even outside of that 2k they supplied to Stannis they have been holding their own at Brightwater Keep for around a year now.

The Karstarks are down to the dregs and sacrificed some of  their harvest to do so. There is no indication that the Florents also sent out their dregs to Renly (who then joined Stannis) or that the Florents or the other Reach lords sacrificed some of the last harvest for the war effort.

Those numbers reflect very different scenarios.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Boltons seem to quite plausibly be on a similar level to the powerful Freys from the Riverlands.  The Manderlys are quite plausibly depicted as even stronger than the Boltons.

Both possible and it is also possible that both are weaker than the Freys.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The poor Mountain Clans too raise about 50% more men than the Florents.

Not that we know of. If many of the people of the Florent lands were so used to  mass famine in the Reach that there was regular events of men going out to sacrifice themsleves then you would have a point.

What we have seen from the Florents is them raise their actual soldiers. The Mountain Clans, like the Karstarks, are down to their dregs and even men not normally trained or properly equipped to fight but sacrificing themselves for the good of their clan.

These are very different circumstances, and while it may well be the case that the Kastarks and Mountain Clans can raise more soldiers than the Florents the evidence you provided does not really cover it.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And in general he has plenty of room to raise more men from Northern Houses that he has given us very little actual numerical information on.

We know enough about the Starks, Umbers, Karstarks, Hornwoods, Mormonts, Reeds, Cerwyns, Tallharts and Glovers, basically the majority of the Northern Houses, to know that the North does not have these hidden numbers.

What I find strange is how you can be so certain about the numbers from other Realms, who we know far less about, but tell others that the North is still a huge mystery.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To give you an example of how your bias skews your interpretation,

lol ok mr Free Northman. I'm clearly the one with bias on this subject.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

1: Martin makes it clear that the North cannot raise their full strength during Harvest time,

No he doesn't.  This is the second time you have got that quote wrong in this thread. He says that 

And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

Which is true, and very clearly Robb did not think hard enough about it as some of the North is going to be struggling for food because they did not focus on the harvest.

Please provide the quote of him saying Robb did not raise his full strength. Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

 

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

2: Martin gives us a quote about the Gift being good farmland,

lol no he does not. He does not say good farmland.

Please provide the quote of him saying the Gift being good farmland. Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

3: Jon tells Stannis that the Clansmen are poor

Please provide the quote of both GRRM and Jon saying that the Clansman are poorrer than the other Northern Houses (like you claimed in your previous post) Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

This is such a tired way to spread misinformation. Rather tan say you are right because GRRM has said something why don't you actually provide the quote.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But of course, this is suddenly something which you would not like to admit, because of the quote where their lands are described as warmer and fairer than the Gift, which is already decent farmland. And that has a knock on implication for the lands of other lords at lower altitudes and in lower latitudes. Implications which do not suit your argument.

Provide the quotes them of them being warmer and fairer.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Torhenn marched 11000 more men to the Riverlands than the North has lost to date, which means that even using just his host as the standard, there would be 11000 Northmen left. But as you know, even Ran - who I believe is too conservative in his population estimate for the North - puts the North's strength at about 35k

lol 'too conservative'. Don't go using other people as a source and then shit on their estimates.  Either Ran is right or wrong. You can't just agree with the thing you want to hear and ignore the rest.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I believe the North has a strength of between 40-45k, and I think Ran's number should be higher by as much as 5000-10000.

I'm sorry, but this is frankly absurd. There was not 25k soldiers in the North when the Wall was desperate for help and the Irtonborn held the Western coast, Moar Cailin. Winterfell, Deepwood Motte, Torrhens Square while simultaneously Karhold and the Last Hearth did not have enough able bodies to bring in the last harvest.

There just wasnt. In five books and the sample chapters of the sixth there has been zero evidence of another 25k.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

8 hours ago, Tarellen said:

And sunspear is economically impressive how?

Largest port in Dorne and two towns one of which is the largest in Dorne, while being able to maintain not just one castle but also the Water Gardens.

Sunspear is economically impressive. It will easily be the richest seat in Dorne, a realm that is very close (and seems to have strong ties) so many of the Southern Free Cites and seems to export a good deal of wine, exotic fruits, spices and horses.

Now while it will not be as rich as the five cities of Westeros, it certainly would be in the next bracket.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Good to hear. I enjoy discussing with you as you at least attempt to use the source material as evidence rather than rely on popular forum opinions. I still think you are wrong, but at least is is based on the series.

And you might be confusing me with Lord Varys who originally stated that the North has only declined in the last century while I'm under the opinion that the North has stagnated in the last three centuries while many of the other realms have flourished under a united Westeros effectively meaning that the North is weaker in comparison to its peers in 298 than it was in the year 0.

You took a pretty clear GRRM quote and tried to spin it that there are only less Lannisters than Starks because the Starks are more involved in the battle.

 

How do you know that all the Lannisters and Starks have such different methods in fighting? That is an assumption not really backed up by the books.

Many of those battles were unique to the North, as is the severity of Winter. These would help explain why they would not be able to grow as much as many of the Southern regions and effectively became weaker as a result.

 

Not sure how that is true. Even outside of that 2k they supplied to Stannis they have been holding their own at Brightwater Keep for around a year now.

The Karstarks are down to the dregs and sacrificed some of  their harvest to do so. There is no indication that the Florents also sent out their dregs to Renly (who then joined Stannis) or that the Florents or the other Reach lords sacrificed some of the last harvest for the war effort.

Those numbers reflect very different scenarios.

Both possible and it is also possible that both are weaker than the Freys.

Not that we know of. If many of the people of the Florent lands were so used to  mass famine in the Reach that there was regular events of men going out to sacrifice themsleves then you would have a point.

What we have seen from the Florents is them raise their actual soldiers. The Mountain Clans, like the Karstarks, are down to their dregs and even men not normally trained or properly equipped to fight but sacrificing themselves for the good of their clan.

These are very different circumstances, and while it may well be the case that the Kastarks and Mountain Clans can raise more soldiers than the Florents the evidence you provided does not really cover it.

We know enough about the Starks, Umbers, Karstarks, Hornwoods, Mormonts, Reeds, Cerwyns, Tallharts and Glovers, basically the majority of the Northern Houses, to know that the North does not have these hidden numbers.

What I find strange is how you can be so certain about the numbers from other Realms, who we know far less about, but tell others that the North is still a huge mystery.

lol ok mr Free Northman. I'm clearly the one with bias on this subject.

No he doesn't.  This is the second time you have got that quote wrong in this thread. He says that 

And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

Which is true, and very clearly Robb did not think hard enough about it as some of the North is going to be struggling for food because they did not focus on the harvest.

Please provide the quote of him saying Robb did not raise his full strength. Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

 

lol no he does not. He does not say good farmland.

Please provide the quote of him saying the Gift being good farmland. Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

Please provide the quote of both GRRM and Jon saying that the Clansman are poorrer than the other Northern Houses (like you claimed in your previous post) Rather than bullshitting about what he said, actually provide the quote.

This is such a tired way to spread misinformation. Rather tan say you are right because GRRM has said something why don't you actually provide the quote.

Provide the quotes them of them being warmer and fairer.

lol 'too conservative'. Don't go using other people as a source and then shit on their estimates.  Either Ran is right or wrong. You can't just agree with the thing you want to hear and ignore the rest.

I'm sorry, but this is frankly absurd. There was not 25k soldiers in the North when the Wall was desperate for help and the Irtonborn held the Western coast, Moar Cailin. Winterfell, Deepwood Motte, Torrhens Square while simultaneously Karhold and the Last Hearth did not have enough able bodies to bring in the last harvest.

There just wasnt. In five books and the sample chapters of the sixth there has been zero evidence of another 25k.

 

Interesting.

Not sure which quote of Martin's you are accusing me of twisting to my purposes in your first reference above. The one about the Starks having lost more men in wars over the last 100 years I presume? If so, I said exactly that. My point is, wars such as that do not reduce the population size of a region by any meaningful number. Losing a significant number of Starks has no bearing on losing significant population numbers. I cannot really be clearer on that.

Next, so you say you don't believe the North has declined in the last 300 years. Fair enough. In that case you by definition believe that they have the same strength as in Torhenn's day. Meaning, they have the capability at the start of the series to march 30k men 1000 miles South to the Riverlands. Clearly then, Robb did not in fact raise all the men he could have for a Southron campaign, and precisely because of the reasons Martin gave, which is that it takes longer to raise a host in the North and lords are hesitant to commit their men during harvest time. So no, I am not twisting Martin's quote on this topic. You are the one doing that.

Regarding House Florent. Stannis says they can offer him 2000 swords at best. I am happy to assess their strength based on that quote, given Stannis' reputation for knowing the strength of every House in Westeros (not to mention that his wife is from that very House). And if you want to compare like with like, consider that the Karstarks main strength was 2300 men, which already was more than the Florents' 2000.

I question the intentions of some of your remaining questions. Why pretend that you don't know about the quote referring to the nature of the land in the Gift? We have only discussed it between us around 20 times. In the past you have tried to dismiss it based on the fact that it is the Reeds making the comment. You are of course free to interpret it whichever way you wish. Personally, I think it is clear that Martin's intention with that scene was to elaborate on the threat that the Wildlings pose, and the effect that the decline of the Watch has had on the regions close to the Wall. Not to demonstrate Meera and Jojen's comparative lack of understanding of what constitutes farmland. Martin achieved that by showing that the land of the Gift is perfectly capable of supporting decent agricultural activities and populations, except that the threat of the Wildlings prevents it from occurring.

Next, the bit about the comparative poverty of the Mountain Clansmen must be the most disingenuous part of your entire post. Jon says they are poor. Martin confirms the nature of their small and rude holdfasts. We see the type of armor they wear compared to the other Houses we have seen to date. If you are genuinely trying to suggest that they are on a similar level of wealth as other Northern Houses I'm afraid you are seriously deluded. No reasonable person would make that deduction. But again, you are free to conclude whatever you desire in this case as well.

The fact that the lands of the Flints and Norreys are warmer and fairer than the Gift comes directly from old Flint and Norrey themselves. And their lands are the northernmost of the Mountain Clan lands, by the way. I already provided that quote upthread. Go and read it if you're really interested, and not just looking for reasons not to believe it, as I suspect you are.

As for the reference to Ran's 35k. There is nothing wrong with referencing a knowledgeable source who - even though I disagree with him and view his numbers as too conservative - actually provides for about three quarters of the remaining men I believe the North to have. Especially given that this is a source you have referenced yourself in the past, on this very topic.

Even Ran's 35k provides for 15k Northmen remaining in the North at this point in time. That is only 5k short of my own minimum estimate of about 20k that will be available to the Starks in the next book. And much better than your own view which simultaneously tries to depict Robb's 19500 as depopulating the North to the extent that it cannot bring in the harvest anymore, while also trying to claim that you do not believe the North is weaker today than it was in Torhenn's day. I think you have some thinking to do on what exactly it is you believe.

[The Fallen]

Goodness!

Oberyn comes to King's Landing with members of other Dornish houses.

Need comes to King's Landing with his own men. He doesn't ask his vassals to come along. He isn't trying to intimidate Robert.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

And you might be confusing me with Lord Varys who originally stated that the North has only declined in the last century while I'm under the opinion that the North has stagnated in the last three centuries while many of the other realms have flourished under a united Westeros effectively meaning that the North is weaker in comparison to its peers in 298 than it was in the year 0.

Completely on board with you there. I've argued for a major increase in the population of the southern regions in the wake of the Conquest for quite some time. War became generally a thing of the past, trade would have increased, and the effects of winter on the general population would have been much diminished.

Only this way can we explain that 55,000 men are a biggest army during the Conquest and Renly later on has 80,000 men without even tapping the entire strength of the Reach. If Mern and Loren had had the same strength then it doesn't make any sense that they left over half their men behind.

I think that the North profited from that, too, although on a much lesser scale. And the Dance, the Winter Fever, and the six-year-winter might have undone this whole thing and also have had a major effect on the population in the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and the Crownlands considering the destruction the war caused.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Completely on board with you there. I've argued for a major increase in the population of the southern regions in the wake of the Conquest for quite some time. War became generally a thing of the past, trade would have increased, and the effects of winter on the general population would have been much diminished.

Only this way can we explain that 55,000 men are a biggest army during the Conquest and Renly later on has 80,000 men without even tapping the entire strength of the Reach. If Mern and Loren had had the same strength then it doesn't make any sense that they left over half their men behind.

I think that the North profited from that, too, although on a much lesser scale. And the Dance, the Winter Fever, and the six-year-winter might have undone this whole thing and also have had a major effect on the population in the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and the Crownlands considering the destruction the war caused.

Well, my views  on this particular issue are not settled. I think it can be argued both ways.

Certainly, I think there is a major misperception about the impact of war on the population at large. The largest contributors to population decline are large scale plagues and famine. Not war. Certainly not the type of wars that existed in the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest. They were too localized in nature.

The losses in war actually have a very minimal impact on total population sizes. If 1% of the population is the maximum that can be called to war, and if only a fraction of those end up dying, well, that is not really going to impact the population as a whole.

The supposed 1000 year war between the North and the Vale would have had a miniscule impact on the overall population of either kingdom. Same with the constant wars between the Reach and Dorne, or between the Stormlands and the Reach. It can in fact be argued that the scale of the wars that have occurred since the Conquest are larger and more widespread than the typical wars that happened before. This is why the 55k army was so unprecedented at the Field of Fire, for example.

So, plagues and famine are the main culprits in population decline. And I don't really see either of these being majorly impacted by the Conquest. If food was moved from one region to another after the Conquest, it could have happened in the same way before the Conquest, via inter-kingdom trade, unless the two kingdoms in question happened to be at war at the time. Then the trade could have happened with another neighbouring kingdom, for the same effect.

And since the North was fully part of the realm as much as any of the Southern kingdoms for the last 300 years, I would argue that they would broadly have seen the same benefits - if such benefits exist. As I said, I am undecided on that. I have argued the opposite in the past in some cases, simply because there are so many factors to consider.

Where I do think the North lost out was in terms of wealth. I think the taxes they pay to the Iron Throne are not in exchange for any tangible benefits that they receive in return. Their roads aren't really better, they still have to deal with their own defence, they grow their own food and so on and so forth. However, this should be balanced with whatever growth in size and trade volume White Harbor has experienced over the last 300 years. We know White Harbor was merely the Wolf's Den 1000 years ago, and is a city of tens of thousands today. If that growth trajectory was steady, it has conceivably grown by about 30% over the last 300 years, quite independently from any impact that the Conquest would have had. So I guess that it is more accurate to say that while the North is poorer than it could be because of the taxes it pays to the Iron Throne, it is not necessarily poorer than it was 300 years ago. It would depend on whether the volume of taxes is exceeded by the volume of the increase in revenue over the last 300 years.

But this is a difficult topic, which can be interpreted either way, depending on how Martin wants it to go.

Personally, I don't think George had any intention of making such a point, or even considered such an impact for the purposes of his story. I think his revelation of the size of Torhenn Stark's 30k host was not for the purpose of suggesting that the North has declined since then. Instead, it was to present more evidence that the North is capable of significantly larger forces than the host that Robb took South.

To provide additional basis for the larger forces  to come in the next book or two.

[Khal BlackfyreO]

Do we know the Manderly's are more wealthy than the Starks?  A vassal house should always be passing a portion to their overlord anyway, so if the Manderly's are so rich than the Starks can´t be THAT far behind.  

[Khal BlackfyreO]

On 6/4/2016 at 7:22 PM, 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. 

Do we know the Manderly's are more wealthy than the Starks?  A vassal house should always be passing a portion to their overlord anyway, so if the Manderly's are so rich than the Starks can´t be THAT far behind.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

Do we know the Manderly's are more wealthy than the Starks?  A vassal house should always be passing a portion to their overlord anyway, so if the Manderly's are so rich than the Starks can´t be THAT far behind.  

I think this is a major area that we lack knowledge on. One thing I wonder about, for example, is whether the Starks store the bulk of their gold and silver in White Harbor rather than in Winterfell. Consider that the ancient mint of the Kings in the North was in White Harbor and not at Winterfell. If they spend much of their gold on imports through the port of White Harbor, then having the currency located right there where it will be used to pay merchants, or perhaps be exported to Braavos to be deposited for safe keeping in the Iron Bank - then logistically it makes sense to keep it there rather than in the more distant Winterfell.

So taxes collected from the Manderlys may just be stored in Wyman's own vault, with some type of credit balance system being used to record the Stark's personal balance within the larger vault.

White Harbor is the commercial centre of the North, after all, while Winterfell is its judicial and administrative capital.

[Khal BlackfyreO]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think this is a major area that we lack knowledge on. One thing I wonder about, for example, is whether the Starks store the bulk of their gold in White Harbor rather than n Winterfell. Consider that the ancient mint of the Kings in the North was in White Harbor and not at Winterfell. If they spend much of their gold on imports through the port of White Harbor, then having the currency located right there where it will be used to pay merchants, or perhaps be exported to Braavos to be deposited for safe keeping in the Iron Bank - then logistically it makes sense to keep it there rather than in the more distant Winterfell.

So taxes collected from the Manderlys may just be stored in Wyman's own vault, with some type of credit balance system being used to record the Stark's personal wealth.

White Harbor is the commercial centre of the North, after all, while Winterfell is its judicial and administrative capital.

Well the Starks are certainly trusting enough to do something like that.  Also, the land the Starks own isn´t as traditionally fertile as other kindgdoms, but It isn´t exactly barren, they must have vitually limitless timber, possibly untapped ore resources, and huge numbers of wild game.  I see a lucrative future organizing Northern 'Safaris' for ambitious southern hunters (Tarly) and a possible explosive ice export trade!!!

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

Well the Starks are certainly trusting enough to do something like that.  Also, the land the Starks own isn´t as traditionally fertile as other kindgdoms, but It isn´t exactly barren, they must have vitually limitless timber, possibly untapped ore resources, and huge numbers of wild game.  I see a lucrative future organizing Northern 'Safaris' for ambitious southern hunters (Tarly) and a possible explosive ice export trade!!!

On a serious note, I would consider that as much as 90% of the North's foreign trade goes through White Harbor. Maybe it could go as low as 85%, if we assume that there is some shipping traffic through the likes of Ramsgate, Widow's Watch, Oldcastle and other port towns too. And then maybe 5% through Moat Cailin, although overland trade is likely to be miniscule by comparison to the volumes that can economically be transported via shipping.

In any case, if the Starks tax a portion of these exports - say 5% - then I'm suggesting it might make sense for that money to be stored in White Harbor rather than being transported overland back to Winterfell. As I said, we don't know, but it is certainly a possibility.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, my views  on this particular issue are not settled. I think it can be argued both ways.

Certainly, I think there is a major misperception about the impact of war on the population at large. The largest contributors to population decline are large scale plagues and famine. Not war. Certainly not the type of wars that existed in the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest. They were too localized in nature.

The losses in war actually have a very minimal impact on total population sizes. If 1% of the population is the maximum that can be called to war, and if only a fraction of those end up dying, well, that is not really going to impact the population as a whole.

We are not talking about war the people that are killed in the wars directly, we are talking about the effects the constant warfare had on the population.

What do you think happened when two or three of the Seven Kingdoms were at war with each other in later summer or autumn? What would have happened if the Gregor Cleganes and Amory Lorches of this time had burned the fields and slaughtered the peasants of this age? Presumably there would have been a lack of food in winter, and if this would have been a hard and long winter then many people would have died.

If a kingdom like the Reach or the Riverlands was at war with three other kingdoms at the same time then multiple parts of the country might have gotten such a treatment, resulting in pretty big famine in winter (and perhaps even prior to that because, you know, people must eat and if the food is destroyed a taken by the enemy then it doesn't matter whether its summer or winter).

A winter in Westeros doesn't last only for a few months.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The supposed 1000 year war between the North and the Vale would have had a miniscule impact on the overall population of either kingdom.

It sure as hell had a lasting impact on the population of the Sisters.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Same with the constant wars between the Reach and Dorne, or between the Stormlands and the Reach. It can in fact be argued that the scale of the wars that have occurred since the Conquest are larger and more widespread than the typical wars that happened before. This is why the 55k army was so unprecedented at the Field of Fire, for example.

Could be, but there would have been alliances between various kingdoms before. And we get the impression that especially King Mern IX really marshaled his entire strength aside from the Hightower levies. That in itself should already have been more than 55,000.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So, plagues and famine are the main culprits in population decline. And I don't really see either of these being majorly impacted by the Conquest. If food was moved from one region to another after the Conquest, it could have happened in the same way before the Conquest, via inter-kingdom trade, unless the two kingdoms in question happened to be at war at the time. Then the trade could have happened with another neighbouring kingdom, for the same effect.

That makes little sense. First there weren't not that many roads throughout Westeros. Second there wouldn't have been a great interest for the Reach to, say, feed the Vale or the North and neither would the West have had a large interest to feed the Vale or Dorne. There certainly would have been trade in peace time, of course, but between different nations, not within a larger Realm.

More importantly, the central authority might have had vested interest in actually helping the people in a region stricken by famine as Aegon V later did. A Gardener or Lannister king wouldn't feel responsible to help ease the suffering of the Northmen or Riverlanders.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And since the North was fully part of the realm as much as any of the Southern kingdoms for the last 300 years, I would argue that they would broadly have seen the same benefits - if such benefits exist. As I said, I am undecided on that. I have argued the opposite in the past in some cases, simply because there are so many factors to consider.

The Targaryens could not just change the severity of winter in the North, though. Trade between the Riverlands, the Reach, the Vale, the Stormlands, and the West would have greatly increased helping them to get much better through hard winters while winter would remain as bad as ever in the North with the vast distances making it difficult to get food from White Harbor to, say, a starving child on Sea Dragon Point.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where I do think the North lost out was in terms of wealth. I think the taxes they pay to the Iron Throne are not in exchange for any tangible benefits that they receive in return. Their roads aren't really better, they still have to deal with their own defence, they grow their own food and so on and so forth.

The Iron Throne eventually built the Kingsroad. Whether that road is better or worse than whatever roads (if there are any) the Starks built is unknown. Or have you access to some road descriptions I'm not aware of exist?

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

However, this should be balanced with whatever growth in size and trade volume White Harbor has experienced over the last 300 years. We know White Harbor was merely the Wolf's Den 1000 years ago, and is a city of tens of thousands today. If that growth trajectory was steady, it has conceivably grown by about 30% over the last 300 years, quite independently from any impact that the Conquest would have had. So I guess that it is more accurate to say that while the North is poorer than it could be because of the taxes it pays to the Iron Throne, it is not necessarily poorer than it was 300 years ago. It would depend on whether the volume of taxes is exceeded by the volume of the increase in revenue over the last 300 years.

So what? KL grew from 0-100,000 citizens within the Conqueror's own lifetime. That is real wealth and prosperity. People all across the Realm apparently moved into the new Targaryen city during a few decades.

I don't understand what you get at in regards to White Harbor. We don't know how many people the Manderlys brought with them from the Reach, we don't know how many villages/people there were in the region surrounding the Wolf's Den. Wert assumes that White Harbor has about 30,000 people. I'm fine with that. After all, it is somewhat smaller than Gulltown.

We don't know exactly who pays taxes to whom in the North. If the North is really pretty poor and a lot of people pay their taxes in kind then it is unlikely that the Crown collects any taxes from, say, the smallfolk of the Stony Shore or Sea Dragon Point. They would take their share from the trade in White Harbor and the Manderlys directly, and perhaps from some of the other wealthier lords.

Presumably the Starks no longer get the taxes that go now to the Crown. There is only one king, after all.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Personally, I don't think George had any intention of making such a point, or even considered such an impact for the purposes of his story. I think his revelation of the size of Torhenn Stark's 30k host was not for the purpose of suggesting that the North has declined since then. Instead, it was to present more evidence that the North is capable of significantly larger forces than the host that Robb took South.

Well, but then what was the point of the 55,000 men in the Gardener-Lannister army? To show that the Reach and the West only have 55,000 men if they combine their forces in contradiction to what the books state elsewhere? That makes no sense.

And we don't know whether Torrhen still had any reserves left after he had assembled his army. He certainly had enough time to shove a pike into the hands of even the last farmhand and stable boy in his kingdom. Hell, there could have been Skagosi, Sea Dragon Point people, New Gift levies, crannogmen, and the full strength of the Houses Dustin, Ryswell, and Bolton in Torrhen's army. It is not such a huge stretch that they would then have been 30,000 men strong if we assume that there was virtually no man of fighting age left in the North.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not talking about war the people that are killed in the wars directly, we are talking about the effects the constant warfare had on the population.

What do you think happened when two or three of the Seven Kingdoms were at war with each other in later summer or autumn? What would have happened if the Gregor Cleganes and Amory Lorches of this time had burned the fields and slaughtered the peasants of this age? Presumably there would have been a lack of food in winter, and if this would have been a hard and long winter then many people would have died.

If a kingdom like the Reach or the Riverlands was at war with three other kingdoms at the same time then multiple parts of the country might have gotten such a treatment, resulting in pretty big famine in winter (and perhaps even prior to that because, you know, people must eat and if the food is destroyed a taken by the enemy then it doesn't matter whether its summer or winter).

A winter in Westeros doesn't last only for a few months.

It sure as hell had a lasting impact on the population of the Sisters.

Could be, but there would have been alliances between various kingdoms before. And we get the impression that especially King Mern IX really marshaled his entire strength aside from the Hightower levies. That in itself should already have been more than 55,000.

That makes little sense. First there weren't not that many roads throughout Westeros. Second there wouldn't have been a great interest for the Reach to, say, feed the Vale or the North and neither would the West have had a large interest to feed the Vale or Dorne. There certainly would have been trade in peace time, of course, but between different nations, not within a larger Realm.

More importantly, the central authority might have had vested interest in actually helping the people in a region stricken by famine as Aegon V later did. A Gardener or Lannister king wouldn't feel responsible to help ease the suffering of the Northmen or Riverlanders.

The Targaryens could not just change the severity of winter in the North, though. Trade between the Riverlands, the Reach, the Vale, the Stormlands, and the West would have greatly increased helping them to get much better through hard winters while winter would remain as bad as ever in the North with the vast distances making it difficult to get food from White Harbor to, say, a starving child on Sea Dragon Point.

The Iron Throne eventually built the Kingsroad. Whether that road is better or worse than whatever roads (if there are any) the Starks built is unknown. Or have you access to some road descriptions I'm not aware of exist?

So what? KL grew from 0-100,000 citizens within the Conqueror's own lifetime. That is real wealth and prosperity. People all across the Realm apparently moved into the new Targaryen city during a few decades.

I don't understand what you get at in regards to White Harbor. We don't know how many people the Manderlys brought with them from the Reach, we don't know how many villages/people there were in the region surrounding the Wolf's Den. Wert assumes that White Harbor has about 30,000 people. I'm fine with that. After all, it is somewhat smaller than Gulltown.

We don't know exactly who pays taxes to whom in the North. If the North is really pretty poor and a lot of people pay their taxes in kind then it is unlikely that the Crown collects any taxes from, say, the smallfolk of the Stony Shore or Sea Dragon Point. They would take their share from the trade in White Harbor and the Manderlys directly, and perhaps from some of the other wealthier lords.

Presumably the Starks no longer get the taxes that go now to the Crown. There is only one king, after all.

Well, but then what was the point of the 55,000 men in the Gardener-Lannister army? To show that the Reach and the West only have 55,000 men if they combine their forces in contradiction to what the books state elsewhere? That makes no sense.

And we don't know whether Torrhen still had any reserves left after he had assembled his army. He certainly had enough time to shove a pike into the hands of even the last farmhand and stable boy in his kingdom. Hell, there could have been Skagosi, Sea Dragon Point people, New Gift levies, crannogmen, and the full strength of the Houses Dustin, Ryswell, and Bolton in Torrhen's army. It is not such a huge stretch that they would then have been 30,000 men strong if we assume that there was virtually no man of fighting age left in the North.

As I said, most of the debate can be argued both ways.

Just on the bolded part above, though. I could argue that the point of the 55k men in the Gardener-Lannister army was to show that the potential of the kingdoms of today is larger than the armies of 300 years ago. And that just like the Reach+West can raise more than 55k today, so too the North should be able to raise more today than the 30k they raised 300 years ago.

That is a consistent way of applying the numbers to all kingdoms concerned.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As I said, most of the debate can be argued both ways.

Just on the bolded part above, though. I could argue that the point of the 55k men in the Gardener-Lannister army was to show that the potential of the kingdoms of today is larger than the armies of 300 years ago. And that just like the Reach+West can raise more than 55k today, so too the North should be able to raise more today than the 30k they raised 300 years ago.

So in their case it is a sign that the populating increased but in the North's case it cannot be a sign that the population declined? That is special pleading.

Especially in light of the fact that winter is no big deal in the Reach or in the West while it is in the North.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So in their case it is a sign that the populating increased but in the North's case it cannot be a sign that the population declined? That is special pleading.

Especially in light of the fact that winter is no big deal in the Reach or in the West while it is in the North.

 

Wait, what?

Consider what you are saying. You are arguing that the numbers of the host sizes during the Conquest must mean one thing for the South and the opposite for the North. How about we apply our minds even handedly instead?