How rich are the Starks pre series

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, redtree said:

And please note that Westeros currency system is highly different to old England's. It's not comparable at all

Westeros:       1 Gold dragon=210 silver stags=11760 pennies
Old England:  1 Pound=20 shillings=240 pennies

Both penny in Westeros and Old England used copper as material which means 1 gold dragon's value is far higher than 1 pound

As part of his calculation, Lord Giggles used a common denominator to do the conversion between the actual value of the two currencies, in case you missed it. He compared the price of a suit of plate armor in Westeros to that in Medieval England, and thus established the comparative value of the two currencies.

Thus invalidating the point of criticism you raised.

[direpupy]

8 minutes ago, redtree said:

And please note that Westeros currency system is highly different to old England's. It's not comparable at all

Westeros:       1 Gold dragon=210 silver stags=11760 pennies
Old England:  1 Pound=20 shillings=240 pennies

Both penny in Westeros and Old England used copper as material which means 1 gold dragon's value is far higher than 1 pound

also the english penny was made of silver so your wrong tho say that an english and a westerosi penny are the same thing.

[direpupy]

6 minutes ago, redtree said:

Can you provide the source ?

sure.

R. E. Tyson, "Population Patterns", in M. Lynch, ed., The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (New York, 2001), pp. 487–8.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

As part of his calculation, Lord Giggles used a common denominator to do the conversion between the actual value of the two currencies, in case you missed it. He compared the price of a suit of plate armor in Westeros to that in Medieval England, and thus established a comparative value of the two currencies.

Thus invalidating the point of criticism you raised.

Except that this also completely fails to take into account the relative scarcity of items. In real medieval Europe, weapons and armor got progressively cheaper over time not just because of slight improvements in production, but because they are durable, intergenerational goods that could be (and were) stockpiled.

Theoretically, Westeros should be very armor-abundant, as Bronze Yohn demonstrates that there has been some degree of preservation and stockpiling going on for thousands of years.

In real life, we need to use a basket of goods to compare prices across times, and people with PhD's in historical economics / economic history are cautious to make comparisons between even relatively close historical entities. I don't think it will ever be possible to make these comparisons down to the dollar, none the least because I highly doubt George has done any such highly technical work, and I bet what we're seeing in these different high-prrcision estimates are the books contradicting themselves. 

[redtree]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As part of his calculation, Lord Giggles used a common denominator to do the conversion between the actual value of the two currencies, in case you missed it. He compared the price of a suit of plate armor in Westeros to that in Medieval England, and thus established a comparative value of the two currencies.

Thus invalidating the point of criticism you raised.

I can also use common denominator
Westeros wine's price was 100 gold for 12 barrels, in Old English 12 barrels of best wine is only 16 pound. The difference is way too far

 

[direpupy]

7 minutes ago, redtree said:

I can also use common denominator
Westeros wine's price was 100 gold for 12 barrels, in Old English 12 barrels of best wine is only 16 pound. The difference is way too far

 

And how do you know that he barrels are the same size?  you don't, for all you know westerosi barrels are much bigger then the ones used in old england.

[redtree]

15 minutes ago, direpupy said:

sure.

R. E. Tyson, "Population Patterns", in M. Lynch, ed., The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (New York, 2001), pp. 487–8.

In that book's table Scotland had reached 1 million number at 1755, far from 1300. And in 1695-9 was 1.1 million. I'm not sure how accurate is 500k-1m in 1300-1350

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And how do you know that he barrels are the same size?  you don't, for all you know westerosi barrels are much bigger then the ones used in old england.

Barrels is a unit
 

[redtree]

27 minutes ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

comment

I agree, i think GRRM was a bit loose in currency system. Dunk said that 3 gold can buy him a good life for a year while the hand's tourney price was 40k, a really high number. And Angus just pissed away 20k, confusing 

[Free Northman Reborn]

No one said we have sufficiently accurate common denominators to write a PhD thesis on. But we need to use what we have. The price of a horse might be worth comparing. Or the price of a mug of ale. Or a meal at a tavern.

The problem will be that Martin hasn't really thought this stuff through. As the Hound's winnings at the Hand's tourney demonstrates more clearly than anything else in the series.

 

[direpupy]

32 minutes ago, redtree said:

In that book's table Scotland had reached 1 million number at 1755, far from 1300. And in 1695-9 was 1.1 million. I'm not sure how accurate is 500k-1m in 1300-1350

Barrels is a unit
 

The table begins from the time there are recorded sencuses for before that there is no table in the book, you should go to the page i gave you if you have the book there he explains how they estimate the numbers by looking at the amount of farmland.

as to barrels maybe in old england but does GRRM know that? in westeros it may not be a unit. like many americans he may equate barrel with tun and not realize that in terms of unit a barrel is 1/8 tun.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

53 minutes ago, redtree said:

I agree, i think GRRM was a bit loose in currency system. Dunk said that 3 gold can buy him a good life for a year while the hand's tourney price was 40k, a really high number. And Angus just pissed away 20k, confusing 

Haha yeah, that bit about Anguy the Archer is actually even more funny than the Hound carrying around 40 000 gold coins on a horse. He supposedly managed to spend the annual income for a decent sized medieval city on just wine and prostitutes, in what also seemed like around a year. How many hundreds of women did he sleep with per day, and how many barrels of wine did he drink in a sitting? Who knows.  

Edit: Mixed up the drinks. 

[Lord Vance II]

I think the Starks are probably old money in that they have it but don't really use it. Thousands of years of being pretty rich and stacking dragons while being fiscally conservative. They would also get a decent bump from White Harbor. 

I'm not sure where I would put them in a ranking, I suppose somewhere from 5 to 8. Lannister, Baratheon, Tyrell and Hightower are definitely richer at the beginning. A strong trading house like the Redwynes could maybe be richer. 

[House Cambodia]

On 04/06/2016 at 10:48 PM, GuardstheRealmsofMen said:

I think it's also worth noting that the North is the largest of the seven kingdoms. That's massive amounts stores going into the granaries every year, many lords offering fealty, both in times of peace and war. In terms of medieval history, wealth was often measured in terms of land controlled -- making the Starks quite rich. 

No, on the contrary - The north is roughly equivalent to the Highlands of Scotland - huge tracts of land but mostly barren moorland, uplands and very poor agricultural soil. That's why it's sparcely populated. Also note the Gift and New Gift lands (now out of Stark jurisdiction) have been raided by the Wildlings so much that they're virtually abandoned. I suspect that the Manderleys have a decent income but being so powerful, the Starks don't trouble them for high taxes. I think the Starks have always been quite austere and recognise the subsistent nature of the lives of most of their subjects, treating them very reasonably and depending on their loyalty in times of need.

Also remember that quite apart from the financially disastrous campaign of Robb, income is being decimated by another phenomenon - Winter is Coming, and the North is the first to feel it.

[MinotaurWarrior]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one said we have sufficiently accurate common denominators to write a PhD thesis on. But we need to use what we have. The price of a horse might be worth comparing. Or the price of a mug of ale. Or a meal at a tavern.

The problem will be that Martin hasn't really thought this stuff through. As the Hound's winnings at the Hand's tourney demonstrates more clearly than anything else in the series.

 

I think we need to not use everything we have, or, in other words, be selective in the evidence we consider, because even in worlds with perfectly realistic prices (e.g. real history) these sorts of price comparisons can easily lead you astray.

The only real sure things we can rely on are apples-to-apples comparisons, direct statements on wealth, and head-to-head economic competitions. E.g. we know Winterfell and the Eyrie have comparable graneries, we know the Lannisters are reputed to be the richest westerosi house, and we can imply from the Iron Bank's confidence in it's ability to win any bidding war over a mercenary company that it is likely the richest institution out there.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

No, on the contrary - The north is roughly equivalent to the Highlands of Scotland - huge tracts of land but mostly barren moorland, uplands and very poor agricultural soil. That's why it's sparcely populated. Also note the Gift and New Gift lands (now out of Stark jurisdiction) have been raided by the Wildlings so much that they're virtually abandoned. I suspect that the Manderleys have a decent income but being so powerful, the Starks don't trouble them for high taxes. I think the Starks have always been quite austere and recognise the subsistent nature of the lives of most of their subjects, treating them very reasonably and depending on their loyalty in times of need.

That's quite wrong. The Gift is reputed to be prime farmland and it's the northernmost part. There is agriculture hundreds of miles north of the Wall (like Craster's Keep).

Climate is not an issue. Altitude or soil composition might be, but generalizing across an entire f... continent is ridiculous. The White Knife doesn't resemble the mountains of the Clans, nor do the Rylls resemble the Wolfswood or the area around Karhold.

[redtree]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

The table begins from the time there are recorded sencuses for before that there is no table in the book, you should go to the page i gave you if you have the book there he explains how they estimate the numbers by looking at the amount of farmland.

as to barrels maybe in old england but does GRRM know that? in westeros it may not be a unit. like many americans he may equate barrel with tun and not realize that in terms of unit a barrel is 1/8 tun.

I read that, amount of farmland does not equal amount of people who work on it especially when the farmland is cold. Another book by Oxford mentioned that there are many references to abandoned land in Scotland. Are those farmland populated ? Just like the North who has a lot of farmland yet the population is sparse. Somehow i question someone who give an estimation with 100% margin range, 5-10% is maybe, 100% margin range is not. That kind of margin of error will not be acceptable as a proof in any kind of thesis.  

An official org of UK and Ireland genealogy site mentioned that Scotland had reached 800k in 1600, 300 years after most battles i cited,  and just reached 1m in 1700. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

For what its worth the Medieval Demographics sites I searched on when I started engaging in these threads, gave Medieval England - around and about the year 1200 - a population of around 2 million, and Scotland a population of around 500,000. Giving the former a density of about 40 people per square mile, and Scotland a density of about half that, at 20 per square mile.

 

 

[House Cambodia]

Bear in mind that crofting in the highlands was a desperate life in the middle ages, and that it only ended when the crofters were replaced by sheep, which at least could earn the landowners some money, unlike the perpetually hungry crofter families.

[Lord Giggles]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one said we have sufficiently accurate common denominators to write a PhD thesis on. But we need to use what we have. The price of a horse might be worth comparing. Or the price of a mug of ale. Or a meal at a tavern.

Once again using Dunk and Egg, Dunk sells his horse for 750 stags. In medieval England(13th century) two horses viewed as suitable for a man of knightly class cost 10£. So if we say each of those horses was of the same quality and cost 5£ each then we get 150 stags to 1£. Armour and we get 114 stags to 1£.

 

Also, you asked how much it would have cost Torrhen Stark to put an army of 30,000 men in the field. Assuming a ratio of 1 horse to 4 foot, we get an army of 24,000 foot and 6000 horse. I'm guessing the Starks can call up at least as many men as the Boltons, so at least 3000 foot and 900-1000 horse. I'm also going to guess that the lords will take 2 weeks to muster their men(that's how long it took Edward I to muster men for his campaign in Wales). Then add in travel time of 30-60 days for the furthest away. That's going to take 2,500-4,500 gold dragons to feed just his own men for that time. However, I'm not sure what rate the other houses will arrive at and with how many men so I can't give you a reliable estimate for how much he'll need to spend in total. 

 

Using the extremely sophisticated tools of a ruler and the map of the North in the world of ice and fire and the distance from Karhold to Winterfell, I calculated that it's 840 miles to the Neck. Now for how many men he takes with him on this journey, I'm estimated 2/3 of his army mustered at Winterfell while the rest will either meet him at Moat Cailin or at some point along the march. So 16,000 foot and 4000 horse. That's going to be 333 gold dragons a day in food. Once again, assuming his rate of march to be 10-20 miles a day, that means it will take him 42-84 days to get to Moat Cailin. At 333 gold dragons a day, that means he'll have spent 13,986-27,972 gold dragons just while marching. Then he joins up with the rest of his army and marches south to the Trident, another 936 miles(once again, that's unlikely to be the proper distance but it's my best guess based on what information we have and the number of cm it is from the neck to the Trident). 

 

While at first he'd be able to live off the land to a certain degree(for the first week maybe) his army would soon strip the countryside around it bare. To use a historical example, during the 30 years war prior to the battle of Breitenfield, the County of Tilly's army was 35,000 strong and stripped the saxon countryside bare during their campaign there, so Torrhen's doing the same isn't inconceivable. Because of this I'm going to say that his army could live off the land for the first week after which only the vanguard(likely the 6000 heavy horse) would be able to forage for their food and even then they'd need feed for their horses. Assuming a marching rate of 10-20 miles per day, it would take Torrhen 47-86 days to reach the Trident, of which they're only living off of the land for 7, after which only the front 6000 of them could do so and even then having to bring feed for their horses with them. So that means that the Riverlands stretch would cost Torrhen  19,000-37,525 gold dragons to feed his army for that stretch. 

 

If we say that his army dispersed after the Trident and Torrhen was no longer responsible for feeding them(which is unlikely. They'd probably wait until Moat Cailin before dispersing) then that means his army cost him 35,486-69,997 gold dragons to feed it for the 123-244 days it was on campaign or mustering , without factoring in the costs of paying the men for continuing to serve or of the return journey. 

[Bright Blue Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Lord Giggles said:

Also, you asked how much it would have cost Torrhen Stark to put an army of 30,000 men in the field. Assuming a ratio of 1 horse to 4 foot, we get an army of 24,000 foot and 6000 horse. I'm guessing the Starks can call up at least as many men as the Boltons, so at least 3000 foot and 900-1000 horse. I'm also going to guess that the lords will take 2 weeks to muster their men(that's how long it took Edward I to muster men for his campaign in Wales). Then add in travel time of 30-60 days for the furthest away. That's going to take 2,500-4,500 gold dragons to feed just his own men for that time. However, I'm not sure what rate the other houses will arrive at and with how many men so I can't give you a reliable estimate for how much he'll need to spend in total.

That's ridiculous. One horseman to four footmen, that's sensible. But each horseman would require several horses for his personal use and even the foot would have horses to ride or to transport supplies.

 

Bare minimum of horses required for a heavy cavalryman: One warhorse, a destrier or courser breed. Nasty, temperamental, spine-breaking stride, can't be ridden for more than a couple minutes, but required for the charge. One riding horse for everyday riding, without serious health risks for horse and rider. And one packhorse to carry armor and necessary tools and supplies.

That's the bare minimum, and it enables the cavalryman to ride a single charge in battle. Most had several warhorses and changed them in between charges.

 

60,000 horses is far more likely than 6,000.