Military Strengths and More!

[Corvo the Crow]

So while posting to another thread, I noticed this;

CL has a score or so houses, raising 4000-5000 men in the three times we learn of their numbers(Against Faith Militant and  Aegon during Maegor's time and later in Dance)

CL though Maegor had a score houses raising 4000 men against Aegon, one of this houses is holding a weakened Harrenhal and another is Darklyn, possibly having 1500-2000 men as seen during conquest. There are also 40 or so CL houses listed in wiki, though house Hogg is a vassal to one of those 20 houses, Hayfords, so some others from that 40 must also be sworn to others.

So we have, 20 houses, at a glance raising 200 men on average, but when the most powerful, Darklyns, and the non CL one holding Harrenhal are removed the average drops to around 100 at most.

Going North, we have 40 mountain clans who are "petty lords" with at most around 100 average, if you can count their ill equipped men.

So returning to CL, our score or so houses must also be petty lords since they have the same strength. Petty lords with their own vassals, such as the landed knights Hogg who has a garrison of 10

Quote

Ser Roger Hoggsquatting stubbornly in his towerhouse with six men-at-arms, four crossbowmen

 

I think this post shed some more light in the vassal structure of Westeros; Even houses who can field 100 or so men have their own vassal(s), vassals who can have 10 men for garrison. Even petty lords in a small area such as the CL do not control land enough to field 100 men by themselves, they do it through some vassals.

 This should mean a house such as Florents fielding 2000 men must have dozens of landed knights and several other lords sworn to them, each of the lords with their own landed knights and some of them  perhaps even another lord or two with some landed knights.

Also it occurs to me that since even petty lords have landed knights for fielding as few as 100 men, Manderly and Osgrey both having 100 landed knights while one have a score of lords while the other only a dozen must mean that 100 landed knights is the most that can be feasibly controlled without cluttering things up, beyond that raising more lords with their own vassals is the more logical way to go.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So while posting to another thread, I noticed this;

CL has a score or so houses, raising 4000-5000 men in the three times we learn of their numbers(Against Faith Militant and  Aegon during Maegor's time and later in Dance)

CL though Maegor had a score houses raising 4000 men against Aegon, one of this houses is holding a weakened Harrenhal and another is Darklyn, possibly having 1500-2000 men as seen during conquest. There are also 40 or so CL houses listed in wiki, though house Hogg is a vassal to one of those 20 houses, Hayfords, so some others from that 40 must also be sworn to others.

So we have, 20 houses, at a glance raising 200 men on average, but when the most powerful, Darklyns, and the non CL one holding Harrenhal are removed the average drops to around 100 at most.

Going North, we have 40 mountain clans who are "petty lords" with at most around 100 average, if you can count their ill equipped men.

So returning to CL, our score or so houses must also be petty lords since they have the same strength. Petty lords with their own vassals, such as the landed knights Hogg who has a garrison of 10

 

I think this post shed some more light in the vassal structure of Westeros; Even houses who can field 100 or so men have their own vassal(s), vassals who can have 10 men for garrison. Even petty lords in a small area such as the CL do not control land enough to field 100 men by themselves, they do it through some vassals.

 This should mean a house such as Florents fielding 2000 men must have dozens of landed knights and several other lords sworn to them, each of the lords with their own landed knights and some of them  perhaps even another lord or two with some landed knights.

Also it occurs to me that since even petty lords have landed knights for fielding as few as 100 men, Manderly and Osgrey both having 100 landed knights while one have a score of lords while the other only a dozen must mean that 100 landed knights is the most that can be feasibly controlled without cluttering things up, beyond that raising more lords with their own vassals is the more logical way to go.

 

Landed knights go from House Osgrey’s 6 peasants including a lackwit, to House Templeton’s more than 1000 soldiers. Houses Glover and Tallhart appear to be in the Templeton range too.

The question is where the average knightly House sits in terms of armed strength, and that we don’t know.

I would argue probably a score of men or thereabouts, but it would just be a guess.

As for petty lords, yeah, a hundred to two hundred seems about right. Again, just a guess.

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Landed knights go from House Osgrey’s 6 peasants including a lackwit, to House Templeton’s more than 1000 soldiers. Houses Glover and Tallhart appear to be in the Templeton range too.

The question is where the average knightly House sits in terms of armed strength, and that we don’t know.

I would argue probably a score of men or thereabouts, but it would just be a guess.

As for petty lords, yeah, a hundred to two hundred seems about right. Again, just a guess.

Sure, landed knights strength fluctuate in a huge range but I think Cleganes or some of the other smaller ones we hear of is the norm. We shouldn't look at the average of the landed Knights, which Templetons and such increase, but what they most commonly have. 

When Manderly says Davos that he has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords, he is conveying him information on what his strength roughly is. He could easily have said "I have this many thousand", but instead he said a dozen petty lords and a hundred landed knights. He's keeping his strength obscure from us but certainly not Davos who lives in that society and is himself a part of it as he himself was a landed knight just granted lordship. It would be poor negotiation if Davos wasn't able to get a rough idea of Manderly's stength.

Also this post was more about the vassal structure than numbers of petty lords, which was also a part of the post but not the main idea behind it.

I'd really appreciate if you give some comment on that part, whether you agree or not and why as it  was, for me, very striking to notice that even a lord who has as few as a hundred men or two have vassals beneath him to be able to control that. Especially when all of us here discussing the military matters have been talking of thousands and ten thousands this lord or that one may have, the norm seems to be very low compared to the numbers we've been discussing. So even a lord, with say five hundred men, is a power to behold in his own right, with perhaps dozens of landed knights and a couple other lords beneath him. Lords we've been discussing are top of the top.

This has been a massive revelation for me.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

Another thing relevant to the above posts, is this bit about Dorne, there was a reference about two score most powerful Dornish Lords, If the top 3 have 3000, 2000 and 1500 (just random numbers) and Martells who were never powerful have just 1000, most of the other "most powerful" may have in the range of a few hundred and still be considered powerful. You don't need to have thousands of men to be powerful, those are the most powerful ones only.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I'd really appreciate if you give some comment on that part, whether you agree or not and why as it  was, for me, very striking to notice that even a lord who has as few as a hundred men or two have vassals beneath him to be able to control that. Especially when all of us here discussing the military matters have been talking of thousands and ten thousands this lord or that one may have, the norm seems to be very low compared to the numbers we've been discussing. So even a lord, with say five hundred men, is a power to behold in his own right, with perhaps dozens of landed knights and a couple other lords beneath him. Lords we've been discussing are top of the top.

This has been a massive revelation for me.

It was always clear that this feudal ladder basically goes down into the lowest of villages. I mean, we basically need knights wherever we look, even in places like Sevenstreams or Pennytree or Mummer's Ford, etc.

It would be a continuum how many this or that petty lord or landed knight can muster, depending on his wealth, the quality of his lands, the size of his lands, etc. If one knows those factors (which we don't) one could make good guesses.

[Corvo the Crow]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

It was always clear that this feudal ladder basically goes down into the lowest of villages. I mean, we basically need knights wherever we look, even in places like Sevenstreams or Pennytree or Mummer's Ford, etc.

It would be a continuum how many this or that petty lord or landed knight can muster, depending on his wealth, the quality of his lands, the size of his lands, etc. If one knows those factors (which we don't) one could make good guesses.

I'd argue not, we see many top tier lords with thousands of men in their armies but very few notices of landed knights wh have a couple of men or couple dozen and even fewer lords who are somewhere in between with a hundred men or two, perhaps none at all. Even with Stannis and his vassals of the bare islands we don't get much of an idea since the figure we are given is 3000 men and garrison. We are never explicitly told that how many of those 3000 are his own and how many are mercs, only vague things that he has a hundred knights WHO can read among the 400 cavalry most of which are freeriders. Does he have 100 knights all of whom can read or does he have 99 illiterate knights and 201 freeriders in addittion to his 100 literate ones? His 1500 men who are later made to be 1300 are said to be more than Aegon's but how many did Aegon have exactly? Did the islands have a slight increase or decrease in their population or military strength? We are given nothing to easily clarify any of these.

[Free Northman Reborn]

36 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Sure, landed knights strength fluctuate in a huge range but I think Cleganes or some of the other smaller ones we hear of is the norm. We shouldn't look at the average of the landed Knights, which Templetons and such increase, but what they most commonly have. 

When Manderly says Davos that he has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords, he is conveying him information on what his strength roughly is. He could easily have said "I have this many thousand", but instead he said a dozen petty lords and a hundred landed knights. He's keeping his strength obscure from us but certainly not Davos who lives in that society and is himself a part of it as he himself was a landed knight just granted lordship. It would be poor negotiation if Davos wasn't able to get a rough idea of Manderly's stength.

Also this post was more about the vassal structure than numbers of petty lords, which was also a part of the post but not the main idea behind it.

I'd really appreciate if you give some comment on that part, whether you agree or not and why as it  was, for me, very striking to notice that even a lord who has as few as a hundred men or two have vassals beneath him to be able to control that. Especially when all of us here discussing the military matters have been talking of thousands and ten thousands this lord or that one may have, the norm seems to be very low compared to the numbers we've been discussing. So even a lord, with say five hundred men, is a power to behold in his own right, with perhaps dozens of landed knights and a couple other lords beneath him. Lords we've been discussing are top of the top.

This has been a massive revelation for me.

 

I don't entirely understand your point, or what it is that is the revelation you refer to. Can you, a bit more concisely summarize it? Are you saying that you are surprised that lords don't directly rule 1000 men, but rather have petty lords and landed knights that instead rule smaller chunks that add up to the 1000?

I mean, that has always been obvious. Take House Stark. If they rule for 30 miles around Winterfell, that would not be men Ser Rodrik commands directly. But instead, there would be dozens or scores of landed knights ruling that territory underneath the Starks.

The Starks would therefore not call up 2000 men from surrounding lands, but would instead call up their hundred landed knights and dozen petty lords, who in turn raise their vassals to add up the 2000 men. The Starks themselves probably have a few hundred men directly, and no more. The rest are ruled by their vassals.

[Corvo the Crow]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

don't entirely understand your point, or what it is that is the revelation you refer to. Can you, a bit more concisely summarize it? Are you saying that you are surprised that lords don't directly rule 1000 men, but rather have petty lords and landed knights that instead rule smaller chunks that add up to the 1000?

Sure;

1. we rarely see lords beneath the strength of a thousand or so mark and when we do it's mostly lowest of the low like Eustace or Petyr. We also rarely, if ever, discuss  in the forums these lords of middling strength(not dozens or thousands but hundreds of men) we don't see.

2. Since lords/land owners we see are either at one end or the other, it's not clear how layered the nobility is.

3. In light of the above, it was never obvious that even a lord of such low power( at least compared to what we see) of a hundred men needs vassals beneath him.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Sure;

1. we rarely see lords beneath the strength of a thousand or so mark and when we do it's mostly lowest of the low like Eustace or Petyr. We also rarely, if ever, discuss  in the forums these lords of middling strength(not dozens or thousands but hundreds of men) we don't see.

2. Since lords/land owners we see are either at one end or the other, it's not clear how layered the nobility is.

3. In light of the above, it was never obvious that even a lord of such low power( at least compared to what we see) of a hundred men needs vassals beneath him.

I've spent hundreds of posts (at least in my mind) on the fact that we really have no clue how strong this or that lord actually is, considering we don't know how many vassals he has, and how split the strength he does or can lead in the field are actually his men (i.e. men sworn directly to him) or men sworn to his vassals or his vassals' vassals, etc.

This is an important question to actually guess the actual strength of this or that house because the larger the lands you and your family actually personally control the stronger the real power you actually have. If your own domains are small in comparison to those of many of your bannermen you are actually not a very powerful lord.

This is a problem very evident in the cases of the Targaryens (who effectively only control KL proper and Dragonstone) and the Starks (whose lands quickly end in the west at the border to the Glover lands and south of Winterfell where the Cerwyn lands begin). There might be some Stark lands in the northeast of Winterfell, but we don't know how much land they actually control themselves.

With the Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, and Arryns one expects them actually controlling the largest chunk of land themselves. And, of course, depending to situation there might be places where a small piece of land is part of a very convoluted feudal hierarchy whereas in another part things might be much more straightforward - a large chunk of land just controlled by one lord who has his own peasants working most of the land, with just very few landed knights on that land here and there.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I've spent hundreds of posts (at least in my mind) on the fact that we really have no clue how strong this or that lord actually is, considering we don't know how many vassals he has, and how split the strength he does or can lead in the field are actually his men (i.e. men sworn directly to him) or men sworn to his vassals or his vassals' vassals, etc.

This is an important question to actually guess the actual strength of this or that house because the larger the lands you and your family actually personally control the stronger the real power you actually have. If your own domains are small in comparison to those of many of your bannermen you are actually not a very powerful lord.

This is a problem very evident in the cases of the Targaryens (who effectively only control KL proper and Dragonstone) and the Starks (whose lands quickly end in the west at the border to the Glover lands and south of Winterfell where the Cerwyn lands begin). There might be some Stark lands in the northeast of Winterfell, but we don't know how much land they actually control themselves.

With the Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, and Arryns one expects them actually controlling the largest chunk of land themselves. And, of course, depending to situation there might be places where a small piece of land is part of a very convoluted feudal hierarchy whereas in another part things might be much more straightforward - a large chunk of land just controlled by one lord who has his own peasants working most of the land, with just very few landed knights on that land here and there.

This is nonsense, sorry.

The Starks aren't weaker because they gave the Wolfsden to the Manderlys, Bear Island to the Mormonts, Karhold to the Karstarks or Castle Cerwyn to the Cerwyns. They could rule all those lands themselves, but it would be administratively impossible.

In fact, the Starks don't even rule the lands immediately around Winterfell directly, as they rule those through petty lords and landed knights. As do every other major lord in the Realm.

House Hightower likely has half a dozen lords in Oldtown itself, given that even House Dustin has a vassal lord within their own town.

If you have a vassal, the power of that vassal is yours. It does not detract from your power just because you have an intermediary ruling a piece of land on your behalf.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is nonsense, sorry.

The Starks aren't weaker because they gave the Wolfsden to the Manderlys, Bear Island to the Mormonts, Karhold to the Karstarks or Castle Cerwyn to the Cerwyns. They could rule all those lands themselves, but it would be administratively impossible.

In fact, the Starks don't even rule the lands immediately around Winterfell directly, as they rule those through petty lords and landed knights. As do every other major lord in the Realm.

House Hightower likely has half a dozen lords in Oldtown itself, given that even House Dustin has a vassal lord within their own town.

If you have a vassal, the power of that vassal is yours. It does not detract from your power just because you have an intermediary ruling a piece of land on your behalf.

Then the Iron Throne rules all of the Seven Kingdoms, no? With ultimate and complete power over all its vassals and subjects, no?

When we compare the power a lord then the amount of land, farms, people, etc. that lord actually controls directly is an important measurement for power.

Because if most/all the land you control you do control via bannermen and vassals then you are actually dependent on their good will to make your voice heard in those lands.

But on your own lands you act yourself, directly. That is a huge difference.

[rotting sea cow]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Then the Iron Throne rules all of the Seven Kingdoms, no? With ultimate and complete power over all its vassals and subjects, no?

When we compare the power a lord then the amount of land, farms, people, etc. that lord actually controls directly is an important measurement for power.

Because if most/all the land you control you do control via bannermen and vassals then you are actually dependent on their good will to make your voice heard in those lands.

But on your own lands you act yourself, directly. That is a huge difference.

Sorry for intruding but you always control the land through vassals and/or bannermen down to peasants and your are dependent on their "good will" to fulfill their oaths.

So, lets say that the Tyrells control directly a big chunk of the Reach, they still need hundred if not thousand of landed knights and petty lords to actually exert control over that land and maybe millions of peasants to work on it. If your landed knights thinks that particular war is crazy you might have a problem and if your peasants feel abused more than usual, you get a revolt.  So, despite the oaths in either direction, you still need to get a feeling of what your subjects think instead of just commanding them to do what you want.

Of course, power imbalance help to contain rebellion (justified or not), but if enough vassal feel you haven't fulfill your own lordly oaths you have a problem.  Similarly if the Iron Throne thinks you have fulfill your own obligations to the king, your lands and titles can be forfeit.

Now, on that particular story, the IT (without the dragons) is particularly weak and many argued that Aegon should have absorved the whole Riverlands into the Crownlads making them direct vassals. This should have helped in many conflicts.

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

In practice what we see is that the ties between Lords Paramount and their vassals are much stronger than the ties between the Iron Throne and its vassals (the Lords Paramount).

This goes to the long history of the individual Seven Kingdoms compared to the fairly recent Targaryen arrival. 

 

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Sorry for intruding but you always control the land through vassals and/or bannermen down to peasants and your are dependent on their "good will" to fulfill their oaths.

That is true, but in such a world it makes a difference if you control your lands through other nobles or directly through peasants who basically know how to follow orders which essentially no rights or powers of their own, etc.

And there, I think, it makes a difference whether your own lands are part of some convoluted mess of feudal hierarchies or, say, if the lands around Highgarden are miles and miles full of farms and fields directly controlled by House Tyrells with no petty lords or landed knights anywhere in sight (just a hypothetical example, of course).

40 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

So, lets say that the Tyrells control directly a big chunk of the Reach, they still need hundred if not thousand of landed knights and petty lords to actually exert control over that land and maybe millions of peasants to work on it. If your landed knights thinks that particular war is crazy you might have a problem and if your peasants feel abused more than usual, you get a revolt.  So, despite the oaths in either direction, you still need to get a feeling of what your subjects think instead of just commanding them to do what you want.

That goes without saying. But if you don't have to go through to the Fossoways, say, to make your voice heard on that particular chunk of 'your land' then people there are a lot less confused about who the guys in charge are.

With landed knights (who lack certain crucial powers of lords) the loss of direct influence a lord has on those lands shouldn't be as high as if we are talking about a greater lordly house, of course. I mean, the direct power of House Tyrell on the Rowan or Redwyne or Hightower lands should be very low indeed.

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In practice what we see is that the ties between Lords Paramount and their vassals are much stronger than the ties between the Iron Throne and its vassals (the Lords Paramount).

This goes to the long history of the individual Seven Kingdoms compared to the fairly recent Targaryen arrival. 

This is actually not true. The Tyrells and Tullys are not powerful lords paramount, and even the history of House Stark is a history of uprisings against their rule - which culminated in Roose's murder of Robb. It seems to look better with the Arryns and Lannisters, and with the Baratheons, too, one assumes (although in their case both the fact that they are a cadet branch of House Targaryen and descended from the Storm Kings of old works in their favor).

The history of House Targaryen and its subjects is not a history of rebellion. No lord paramount actually ever rebelled against a King on the Iron Throne until Lord Lyonel Baratheon - and that was a convoluted personal matter. Prior to that, there were succession wars and rebellions by members of the (extended) royal family, but no rebellions by great lords against the Iron Throne.

[direpupy]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is actually not true. The Tyrells and Tullys are not powerful lords paramount,and even the history of House Stark is a history of uprisings against their rule - which culminated in Roose's murder of Robb. 

Ah they enduring myth that every reference to a Bolton rebellion is a separate rebellion and that the Bolton's thus constantly rebelled against the Stark's.

There is no evidence for this what so ever, and it could very well be that all those reference are one and the same rebellion. There could be more then one, i will not and honestly can not deny that, but they idea that every time a Bolton rebellion is mentioned it is always a completely separate occasion from they other references is just plain ridiculous. If that where the case the house Bolton would by now be as extinct as the Greystark's and the Reyne's. Because we do know the Stark's destroyed other houses in the past, so its very unlikely that the Bolton's could survive more then two rebellions and stay in existence, much less still be as powerful as they are at the beginning of the books. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, direpupy said:

Ah they enduring myth that every reference to a Bolton rebellion is a separate rebellion and that the Bolton's thus constantly rebelled against the Stark's.

There is no evidence for this what so ever, and it could very well be that all those reference are one and the same rebellion. There could be more then one, i will not and honestly can not deny that, but they idea that every time a Bolton rebellion is mentioned it is always a completely separate occasion from they other references is just plain ridiculous. If that where the case the house Bolton would by now be as extinct as the Greystark's and the Reyne's. Because we do know the Stark's destroyed other houses in the past, so its very unlikely that the Bolton's could survive more then two rebellions and stay in existence, much less still be as powerful as they are at the beginning of the books. 

The history of the North in TWoIaF paints the history of House Starks as a history of conquests and rebellions. And we see that this rebellious behavior is not a thing of the past - as it well might be in other regions, considering literally nobody in the Vale plotted against Lysa Arryn or now against Lord Robert (aside from his stepfather, of course).

Robb Stark is threatened and nearly attacked by Greatjon Umber in his own hall. The Starks don't have bannermen and vassals who meekly follow just any lord - which is not the case in other regions where lords are under less pressure to show and prove that they can lead before they are accepted.

The idea that the Starks of Winterfell - or any other royal or noble house - just get blind/unconditional loyalty from their vassals while the Targaryens do not get that simply doesn't make any sense.

The lords paramount are in exactly the same spot as their kings - and some are in even worse spots, whereas others might be in better spots (Lannisters, Arryns, possibly Baratheons).

I mean, Roose effectively eradicated the Starks and the Boltons took their place. But the Reynes and Tarbecks never even tried to do that, not even with meek Tytos holding the reins. They just tried to secede - which is something totally different.

[direpupy]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The history of the North in TWoIaF paints the history of House Starks as a history of conquests and rebellions. And we see that this rebellious behavior is not a thing of the past 

I paints the same picture for all other regions so your argument is still moot at this point.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb Stark is threatened and nearly attacked by Greatjon Umber in his own hall. The Starks don't have bannermen and vassals who meekly follow just any lord - which is not the case in other regions where lords are under less pressure to show and prove that they can lead before they are accepted.

Nonsense, we never see an other young lord like Robb having to face his vassals for the first time as such, so you can not say that this would only happen in the North because you have no way of knowing that.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that the Starks of Winterfell - or any other royal or noble house - just get blind/unconditional loyalty from their vassals while the Targaryens do not get that simply doesn't make any sense.

I never argued this at all, i only pointed out that they idea that the Stark's have more of a history of rebellion against there rule has no basis in the books. Perhaps you are confusing me with FNR here with whom you where having a argument on this point. But if you do want my opinion on this, nobody gets blind loyalty not the Stark's but neither do any of they other houses.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The lords paramount are in exactly the same spot as their kings - and some are in even worse spots, whereas others might be in better spots (Lannisters, Arryns, possibly Baratheons).

I agree with the first part but not the second, in the Targaryen era we do not here of the Stark's having trouble with there vassals (altough there is some trouble internally in the house) that's all from before the conquest so how are the Lannister with the Reyne/Tarbeck thing the Baratheons with Lords such as Connington caving at having to serf them and the Arryns with there Lord being murdered by his own brother beter off?

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, Roose effectively eradicated the Starks and the Boltons took their place. But the Reynes and Tarbecks never even tried to do that, not even with meek Tytos holding the reins. They just tried to secede - which is something totally different.

Because they where never in a position to do so, if they had been who is to say they would not have done the same thing. By the way they did not try to "secede" from there region or there Lord Paramount they wanted to accumulate power but never tried to become a separate Great House with there own region or something like that.

In short you have no evidence that the Stark's had more problems with there vassals then any other Great House, and likewise there is no evidence that the Tyrells ore even the Tullys had more trouble apart from some people thinking they are up jumped. But even those do little more then trash talk.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I paints the same picture for all other regions so your argument is still moot at this point.

Nope. The Gardeners took over the Reach with marriages and pacts, not bloody conquests. And their power was never challenged in any open rebellion that we know of - the Manderlys grew overly ambitious, but they never challenged the rule of House Gardener. We even get it spelled out that the Reach is a more amiable place than the other Seven Kingdoms where people get along much better.

The Lannisters were in complete control of the West after they had taken over all of it, the same for the Arryns of the Vale. The Durrandons are the only great house whose power waxed and waned in any real meaning of the word. Even the Martells didn't seem to have faced any rebellions after Nymeria's reign.

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Nonsense, we never see an other young lord like Robb having to face his vassals for the first time as such, so you can not say that this would only happen in the North because you have no way of knowing that.

It is quite clear that the customs in the North are more savage than anywhere on the mainland in this regard (although it might be worse on the Iron Islands).

We can be pretty sure if anybody had drawn steel on young Jaehaerys I or the Young Dragon or even Aegon III said person would have been slain on the spot. And nothing gives us the indication drawing steel on your liege lord is something that happens in Highgarden, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie, Sunspear, Riverrun, or Storm's End the way it apparently happens in the North.

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I never argued this at all, i only pointed out that they idea that the Stark's have more of a history of rebellion against there rule has no basis in the books.

House Stark does have more of such a history than other houses if you actually count them all.

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I agree with the first part but not the second, in the Targaryen era we do not here of the Stark's having trouble with there vassals (altough there is some trouble internally in the house) that's all from before the conquest so how are the Lannister with the Reyne/Tarbeck thing the Baratheons with Lords such as Connington caving at having to serf them and the Arryns with there Lord being murdered by his own brother beter off?

You are wrong there, too, considering that the Starks actually have to deal with the Skagosi Rebellion during the Targaryen reign.

You cannot confuse loyalty towards a king with loyalty to a mere lord. Lord Connington's king is Aerys II, not the rebellious Lord of Storm's End. But the king of the rebellious Boltons, Greystarks, etc. was the King in the North.

The Arryns apparently had some internal struggles after the death of the Conqueror, just as the Targaryens had during their reign. That's to be expected. 

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Because they where never in a position to do so, if they had been who is to say they would not have done the same thing.

But weren't they in roughly the same position? Wasn't Tytos Lannister a much weaker lord than Robb ever was?

[direpupy]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

House Stark does have more of such a history than other houses if you actually count them all.

And this was my original point, that is only the case if you believe in the myth that every reference to a Bolton rebellion is a separate rebellion, so nope. You are demonstrating your customary hatred of everything North and specifically the house Stark again, and as usual you provide no evidence only circular reasoning and contrived claims back up solely by things you pull out of context while willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope. The Gardeners took over the Reach with marriages and pacts, not bloody conquests. And their power was never challenged in any open rebellion that we know of - the Manderlys grew overly ambitious, but they never challenged the rule of House Gardener. We even get it spelled out that the Reach is a more amiable place than the other Seven Kingdoms where people get along much better.

The Lannisters were in complete control of the West after they had taken over all of it, the same for the Arryns of the Vale. The Durrandons are the only great house whose power waxed and waned in any real meaning of the word. Even the Martells didn't seem to have faced any rebellions after Nymeria's reign.

I would reread TWoIaF if i where you because none if this is the full truth, this is what i mean when i say you pull things out of context a sentence hear a remark there but never the complete picture.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the customs in the North are more savage than anywhere on the mainland in this regard (although it might be worse on the Iron Islands).

So they play rougher in the North, does not mean that a challenge to a young lords authority does not occur in the South like you are arguing.

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can be pretty sure if anybody had drawn steel on young Jaehaerys I or the Young Dragon or even Aegon III said person would have been slain on the spot. And nothing gives us the indication drawing steel on your liege lord is something that happens in Highgarden, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie, Sunspear, Riverrun, or Storm's End the way it apparently happens in the North.

Again, so they play rougher so what? And whats more you do not know they would have been slain that's just something you are pulling out off your arse.

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You are wrong there, too, considering that the Starks actually have to deal with the Skagosi Rebellion during the Targaryen reign.

True i forgot about that one, but that still does not make the North any more troublesome then other regions who also had there troubles during the Targaryen reign, so the point still stands.

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You cannot confuse loyalty towards a king with loyalty to a mere lord. Lord Connington's king is Aerys II, not the rebellious Lord of Storm's End. But the king of the rebellious Boltons, Greystarks, etc. was the King in the North.

The point was they amount of trouble with vassals per region, not the differens between loyalty to King or Lord, this is you pulling something out of context again because you have no evidence for your argument.

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Arryns apparently had some internal struggles after the death of the Conqueror, just as the Targaryens had during their reign. That's to be expected. 

Oh so now troubles are to be expected where before you argued that they Arryns had a breeze. haha this proves more then anything how weak your argument is.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But weren't they in roughly the same position? Wasn't Tytos Lannister a much weaker lord than Robb ever was?

No they where not in the same position, because Tytos still had the backing of the Iron Throne, Aegon V did not send armies into the Westerlands on three occasions to restore order for nothing.

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And this was my original point, that is only the case if you believe in the myth that every reference to a Bolton rebellion is a separate rebellion, so nope. You are demonstrating your customary hatred of everything North and specifically the house Stark again, and as usual you provide no evidence only circular reasoning and contrived claims back up solely by things you pull out of context while willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Well, I guess you also follow the myth that there weren't a numbered succession of Blackfyre Rebellions or Dornish War and instead just one Dornish War and one Blackfyre Rebellion, no? Oh, and only one Turtle War and one Spice War, too, I take it?

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I would reread TWoIaF if i where you because none if this is the full truth, this is what i mean when i say you pull things out of context a sentence hear a remark there but never the complete picture.

Since you know things better, just give me the quotes. Where was there a major rebellion against the Gardeners, Lannisters, or Arryns? There were wars, but they were against other kingdons and especially the Ironborn, no?

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

So they play rougher in the North, does not mean that a challenge to a young lords authority does not occur in the South like you are arguing.

I didn't say that. I said that the kind of thing the Greatjon does implies that the Starks control over the North isn't stronger than the control of the Targaryens over the Seven Kingdoms. And that there are hints the Starks may have more trouble with their 'loyal bannermen' than some of the other great houses.

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Again, so they play rougher so what? And whats more you do not know they would have been slain that's just something you are pulling out off your arse.

If they would have not been slain those kings would have been weak - which is not how they are seen. But we are speaking hypothetically.

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

True i forgot about that one, but that still does not make the North any more troublesome then other regions who also had there troubles during the Targaryen reign, so the point still stands.

Nope, it does not, because we have no talk about a rebellion against the Baratheons, Tyrells, Arryns, Martells, or even the Tullys in those days. Only the Lannisters faced something like that.

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

The point was they amount of trouble with vassals per region, not the differens between loyalty to King or Lord, this is you pulling something out of context again because you have no evidence for your argument.

There is a difference between a rebellion against a king and the rebellion against a lord. The Reynes and Tarbecks could remain loyal to King Jaehaerys II while rebelling against Lord Tytos Lannister. Just as Lord Roose Bolton remained loyal to King Joffrey while rebelling/putting down Lord Robb Stark.

Vice versa, the lords of the Vale and the Stormlands which fought against the rebels during the Rebellion were loyalists. They did not rebel against their lords. Their lords rebelled against the king.

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Oh so now troubles are to be expected where before you argued that they Arryns had a breeze. haha this proves more then anything how weak your argument is.

LOL, no. An internal struggle is a struggle in the family, not the rebellion of some vassal against his liege lord or king.

44 minutes ago, direpupy said:

No they where not in the same position, because Tytos still had the backing of the Iron Throne, Aegon V did not send armies into the Westerlands on three occasions to restore order for nothing.

That was during the reign of Aegon V. But the Reynes and Tarbecks didn't rebel during the reign of Aegon V. We don't know who Jaehaerys II supported during the actual rebellion - nor do we know whether the Reynes and Tarbecks denounced King Jaehaerys II the way they denounced Tytos Lannister and his heir.