Jump to content
Lightoftheast

How powerful were the Manderlys in the Reach?

Recommended Posts

None chose to honor Davos with a name. The maester was the first to speak. "You stand before Wyman Manderly, Lord of White Harbor and Warden of the WhiteKnife, Shield of the Faith, Defender of the Dispossessed, Lord Marshal of the Mander, a Knight of the Order of the Green Hand," he said. "In the Merman's Court, it is customary for vassals and petitioners to kneel."

 

Lord Marshal of the Mander.

That’s how powerful they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Lord Marshal of the Mander

Could that title be real reason why Manderlys were kicked out of Reach ?

I naturally don't know what kind of power that title included. But here in Finland we had only had 1 marsalkka and hopefully will never see another. Reason for that is normally commander of chief of our armed forces is Tasavallan presidentti and highest rank any soldier can reach is either general or admiral. But during war (s)he could appoint one of those as marsalkka, or as new commander in chief. Then marsalkka would practically became military dictator as long as that war last. 

So if title of Lord Marshal of the Mander really means that head of house Manderly claimed right to command all military forces of houses around river Mander. Then I can understand why other great houses decided kick house M out of the Reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 1:25 AM, Loose Bolt said:

Could that title be real reason why Manderlys were kicked out of Reach ?

I naturally don't know what kind of power that title included. But here in Finland we had only had 1 marsalkka and hopefully will never see another. Reason for that is normally commander of chief of our armed forces is Tasavallan presidentti and highest rank any soldier can reach is either general or admiral. But during war (s)he could appoint one of those as marsalkka, or as new commander in chief. Then marsalkka would practically became military dictator as long as that war last. 

So if title of Lord Marshal of the Mander really means that head of house Manderly claimed right to command all military forces of houses around river Mander. Then I can understand why other great houses decided kick house M out of the Reach.

Possibly, it could be the reason.

I’m not sure what the title Marshal entitles you to but we have Osgreys who were the Marshals of NM and were the “first” to defend against Lannisters and from fire and blood Carons, “lords of the marches” are the marshals of dornish marches and We know for a fact they are not the overlord of other greater marcher lords. We also know it was Caron and Dondarrion who fought the vulture king(number whatever) and in the sworn sword we are told by lord Caron “his father took  ~5000 men” to fight the VK, so it was the Carons who commanded. So marshals apparently either command the forces of that region or the defense of it(whether if the forces come from that part or others) it may even be both.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't see the title of Marshal being used in the Targaryen era, and we basically have no clues about the titles the independent Seven Kingdoms used.

But it certainly seems clear that 'Lord Marshal of the Mander' is not exactly an irrelevant title, especially since its current use by the Manderlys of White Harbor implies it was actually a hereditary title/office back in the Gardener days.

It is quite clear, though, that the various 'border lords' in those eras would have to have been much more powerful than they are today because keeping the enemy out of the kingdom would have been a very important task and many resources of the kingdom would go into that defense.

In part we still see echoes of that in the power/prominence the Marcher Lords and the Dornish lords of the Red Mountains still have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Why did they have to go as far up as the North, though? Couldn't they have settled in the Riverlands or the Vale?

Nothing in the books to say. But I can think of two possibilities.

1) The Riverlands was too close to the Reach geographically. They may have feared repercussions/attack from their rivals and foes if they didn’t get further away. If they travelled by land, the Vale may have proved inaccessible because of the mountains.

2) maybe they did try and settle elsewhere, but only the Starks agreed to grant them land. This idea sits well alongside Wylla’s ‘the promise’ speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

maybe they did try and settle elsewhere, but only the Starks agreed to grant them land. This idea sits well alongside Wylla’s ‘the promise’ speech. 

But when the Blackwoods were driven out of the North, they had no problem acquiring land in the Riverlands. Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But when the Blackwoods were driven out of the North, they had no problem acquiring land in the Riverlands. Or am I missing something?

Blackwoods left North thousands of years ago. Or they were among first victims of rising Starks. It is even possible that Starks actually rebelled against their masters or were invaders from south. After all Winterfell exists very near areas that Blackwoods claimed to rule. So Riverlands were almost certainly less populated during that time. Actually their exedus may have happened very soon after Long night.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 7:52 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Starks didn’t give a shit about the anger of the Gardeners. And they had a strategic need to strengthen the defenses of the White Knife. And land to spare.

Agree with this.  

Regarding power of the houses:  maybe I'm misreading some people's opinions, but I think its important to stress how that can change substantially from generation to generation, being dependent upon:  military capacity, finances/money, marriages/other relationships & titles.  Note that titles, military commands/appointments and marriage ties are all heavily dependent on the age of the Lord (and/or children), and some military appointments can be dependent on ability/skill - which may build  up house reputation and carry over for a generation or 2.  

 

At the time just before their banishment, I think the Manderly's and Peakes were probably the 2 preeminent powers in the Reach.  The Gardeners were suffering from lack of leadership.   While the Hightower's are traditionally easily the #2 power, they also seem to traditionally be a bit standoffish (Dance of Dragons notwithstanding).  I'm guessing that during this period, the Hightowers really weren't "flexing" their power much, and the Manderlys and Peakes stepped into the void, and were able to build up their power/influence to the point where they were approaching or exceeding the levels of Hightower (maybe even approaching from a military perspective - at least close enough to be wary of even if not on the same level).  

 

What I'd really like to know - the exact map locations of Dunstonbury and Starpike.  Howe close to each other are they?   The Peake's are mentioned as Marcher lords - does this put them in the Dornish Marches close to Horn Hill or Nightsong?  Are they further North?   Where along the Mander is Dunstonbury?  Is it in the Northern Reach (past Bitterbridge?), nearer to the Sunset Sea/Shields, or somewhere in between?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the Manderlys ended up in the North may have to do with them having some connections to the Starks or the North in general - perhaps through some marriage, perhaps through trade, perhaps due to some other thing.

Chances are not that high that they just set out on a great voyage without having any clue where to go. And one assumes that the mouth of the Blackwater or the Trident would have been a much more promising place to land if they had had destination in mind when they left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And one assumes that the mouth of the Blackwater or the Trident would have been a much more promising place to land if they had had destination in mind when they left.

I assume that during that time house Teague still ruled as kings, so Manderlys would have needed their permission. Naturally assuming that Kingdom of Stormlands had not already conquered those areas. Or during that time house Durrandon was rising and Teagues were fighting for their survival.

So moving even near of areas where King's Landing exists nowadays would be like moving into Poland 1900. Land is fertile and weather is nice, but armies will roll over that area during next century at least half dozen times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

I assume that during that time house Teague still ruled as kings, so Manderlys would have needed their permission. Naturally assuming that Kingdom of Stormlands had not already conquered those areas. Or during that time house Durrandon was rising and Teagues were fighting for their survival.

So moving even near of areas where King's Landing exists nowadays would be like moving into Poland 1900. Land is fertile and weather is nice, but armies will roll over that area during next century at least half dozen times.

 

I think their exodus may have even preceded Teague rule in the river lands.  Hard to say.  I think the bigger question is where exactly was Dunstonbury located?   If it lied along the Mander closer to the Sunset sea/Shield Islands, they may very well have been able to sail to safety or not required passage through the Riverlands.  Even if they were closer to Tumbleton, they could have fairly easily sought passage at King's Landing (or Duskendale, or Maidenpool).  Also, they could have moved in increments.  While they likely had to get out/flee, they were likely powerful enough to make others wary.  I'm guessing that the Gardeners and Peakes wouldn't necessarily want to risk warfare/losses as long as it was clear that the Manderlys were on their way out.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord of Brewtown said:

 

I think their exodus may have even preceded Teague rule in the river lands.  Hard to say.  I think the bigger question is where exactly was Dunstonbury located?   If it lied along the Mander closer to the Sunset sea/Shield Islands, they may very well have been able to sail to safety or not required passage through the Riverlands.  Even if they were closer to Tumbleton, they could have fairly easily sought passage at King's Landing (or Duskendale, or Maidenpool).  Also, they could have moved in increments.  While they likely had to get out/flee, they were likely powerful enough to make others wary.  I'm guessing that the Gardeners and Peakes wouldn't necessarily want to risk warfare/losses as long as it was clear that the Manderlys were on their way out.   

Even with three castles including DunSTONEbury,Peakes are described as having wide but poor land(rich with stone but not fertile).As we see with the Eyrie,maybe Dunstonesbury is located in secure but rather poor land.Perhaps,the Gardeners claimed the fertile lands for their own & gifted poorer part of Manderly land to the Peakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lightoftheast said:

Even with three castles including DunSTONEbury,Peakes are described as having wide but poor land(rich with stone but not fertile).As we see with the Eyrie,maybe Dunstonesbury is located in secure but rather poor land.Perhaps,the Gardeners claimed the fertile lands for their own & gifted poorer part of Manderly land to the Peakes.

There is nothing about their lands not being fertile. 

A century later, the Peakes still held three castles, and their lands were wide and well-peopled, if not particularly rich, but no longer did they command pride of place amongst the bannermen of Highgarden.

The Redwynes have a thriving industry that exports across the entire continent and beyond, the Hightowers rule the second biggest city in Westeros.  Those are obviously the two richest Houses in the Reach. 

Other Reach Houses may be richer due to having more access to the sea, ports bring in and take out trade, have their lands across the River and Gold road or other major trade routes or simply have access to a more valuable resource in their lands. 

The lands being well populated suggest fertility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lightoftheast said:

Even with three castles including DunSTONEbury,Peakes are described as having wide but poor land(rich with stone but not fertile).As we see with the Eyrie,maybe Dunstonesbury is located in secure but rather poor land.Perhaps,the Gardeners claimed the fertile lands for their own & gifted poorer part of Manderly land to the Peakes.

Since Peakes apparently have lands in Dornish Marches, probably most of the Manderly land by the Mander was indeed taken by Gardeners. Before extinction of Gardeners, Peakes along with Tarlys probably were lords responsible for defending the dornish-stormlander border, similar to Osgreys defending the northern border. After their fall, Peakes likely lost their position as well as their family connections with Gardeners, what led to their loss of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×