Jump to content
Romag

Ranking the houses power in each region

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have discussed this in detail elsewhere. Lord Ormund's original host - which is attacked by two bannermen of House Hightower - seems to have been raised exclusively by the lands surrounding Oldtown and by Oldtown itself.

Citation for this, that no other Reach lord was involved. 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

And Lord Ormund has 1,000 knights, 1,000 archers, 3,000 men-at-arms, and uncounted sellswords, freeriders, camp followers, and rabble - implying he may have as many as 7,000-8,000 men.

lol again with the implying.  You are building your argument on quicksand. 

 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Combine that with the fact that Lord Lyonel is later said to have had both the resources, manpower, and money to raise more armies thanks to the power of Oldtown it is quite clear that Oldtown alone should be able to field at least about as many as 10,000+ men

It took me 10 minutes but I found the quote you were referring to. 

Last to respond was Oldtown. The wealthiest of the great houses that had rallied to King Aegon II, the Hightowers remained in some ways the most dangerous, for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown, and with their own warships and those of their close kin, the Redwynes of the Arbor, they could float a significant fleet as well. Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

No mention of   "at least about as many as 10,000+ men"

You have to stop doing this, presenting your own head cannon as fact, it does your credibility no good. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Citation for this, that no other Reach lord was involved. 

lol again with the implying.  You are building your argument on quicksand. 

Things are pretty clear:

Quote

Obedient to his uncle’s entreaties, Lord Ormund Hightower had issued forth from Oldtown with a thousand knights, a thousand archers, three thousand men-at-arms, and uncounted thousands of camp followers, sellswords, freeriders, and rabble, only to find himself set upon by Ser Alan Beesbury and Lord Alan Tarly. Though commanding far fewer men, the two Alans harassed him day and night, raiding his camps, murdering his scouts, setting fires in his line of march. Farther south, Lord Costayne had issued forth from Three Towers to fall upon Hightower’s baggage train.

The Costaynes and Beesburys are both bannermen of Oldtown. If they fight against Lord Ormund they were not fighting with him, no?

The Mullendores also declared for Rhaenyra, making three of the five bannermen of Oldtown Blacks. They apparently didn't attack Lord Ormund but their allegiance implies that they did not send him any men.

The Bulwers and Cuys are not mentioned, but since the Sunhouse actually lies south of Three Towers chances are very low that any Cuy men were with Lord Ormund if they had to cross the Costayne lands to get there.

With no Bulwers mentioned in the Hightower army we have no reason to assume they were there. It is like saying that the Redwyne must have fought in the war because they supposedly were for Aegon II. No names of any great Hightower bannermen do show up later at Tumbleton, neither with the Caltrops nor in general. And if Lords Bulwer or Cuy had been there one should assume they would have come forth to claim the command. After all, when Lord Jason died command of his army went to powerful and high-ranking Westermen.

But even if the Bulwers were there we have good reason to assume that four out of five of the Hightower bannermen either fought against the Hightowers or did not participate in the fighting - and Lord Ormund had still a host of 5,000 identified types of men and an additional 'uncounted thousands' - which means at least 2,000 or else it wouldn't have been 'thousands' - meaning that Lord Ormund's original army had at least a size of 7,000 men in the beginning.

There is simply no way that a significant bulk of those 7,000 men came from any of the Hightower bannermen. Perhaps some part of them were Bulwer men but if they were there their contribution was not significant enough to be mentioned.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It took me 10 minutes but I found the quote you were referring to. 

Last to respond was Oldtown. The wealthiest of the great houses that had rallied to King Aegon II, the Hightowers remained in some ways the most dangerous, for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown, and with their own warships and those of their close kin, the Redwynes of the Arbor, they could float a significant fleet as well. Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

No mention of   "at least about as many as 10,000+ men"

You have to stop doing this, presenting your own head cannon as fact, it does your credibility no good. 

LOL, man, do your numbers.

We have about 7,000 men at a minimum of the Oldtown-only men in 129 AC. If Lord Lyonel can still explicitly raise 'large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown' then 10,000 is actually comparatively low. 3,000 new men to make it a full 10,000 are not 'large armies', are they?

And it is quite explicit that those would be new armies, so not counting survivors from the Tumbleton army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Things are pretty clear:

They are not.  Nowhere does it claim they are exclusively from House Hightower. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Costaynes and Beesburys are both bannermen of Oldtown. If they fight against Lord Ormund they were not fighting with him, no?

And? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Mullendores also declared for Rhaenyra, making three of the five bannermen of Oldtown Blacks. They apparently didn't attack Lord Ormund but their allegiance implies that they did not send him any men.

Again, and? 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Bulwers and Cuys are not mentioned, but since the Sunhouse actually lies south of Three Towers chances are very low that any Cuy men were with Lord Ormund if they had to cross the Costayne lands to get there.

No, they are not. We have no idea the chances, stop assuming your headcannon is fact. It's ok to admit ignorance from time to time.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

With no Bulwers mentioned in the Hightower army we have no reason to assume they were there.

We have a good reason to assume they were, they are vassals of the Hightowers. 

The Redwynes may also have sent support since they are 'close kin'. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is simply no way that a significant bulk of those 7,000 men came from any of the Hightower bannermen.

Sure there is. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

We have about 7,000 men at a minimum of the Oldtown-only men in 129 AC. If Lord Lyonel can still explicitly raise 'large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown' then 10,000 is actually comparatively low. 3,000 new men to make it a full 10,000 are not 'large armies', are they?

 for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown

That is all that is said, at no point does it claim a number.  It also goes onto say

 Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

 

And what does this have to do with your original claim of almost 20,000? Or your other claim they can raise more than the Tyrells? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is quite explicit that those would be new armies, so not counting survivors from the Tumbleton army.

It's also a year or so after. Feeding and paying the army are stumbling blocks, the Tumbleton army  not being in combat at the same time allows more resources to be used on the new army, resources that may not be available if the first army was still being supplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

They are not.  Nowhere does it claim they are exclusively from House Hightower. 

But there is no mentioning of their being any men from other houses. Those Hightower bannermen are important and powerful lords in their own right, they are not treated as petty lords or little vassals of House Hightower. You would have stumbled on that when you had actually done some research on the matter. We discussed all that in detail in the FaB armies thread.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And? 

Again, and? 

If you don't care about the things and are not interested in actually discussing things why are you participating in the discussion at all?

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, they are not. We have no idea the chances, stop assuming your headcannon is fact. It's ok to admit ignorance from time to time.

We can look at the map. We do know that Lord Ormund assembled his army following Ser Otto's command who asked him to put down the rebellions in the Reach. This does not only imply it confirms a chronology. The Blacks in the Reach react first. They call their banners. They start to assemble armies. Lord Ormund is supposed to put down those rebellions.

In a fairy-tale world it might make sense that the Cuys could send men in time around the already assembling Costayne host, but this is not a fairy-tale world. Even if it were, there is no reason to assume that they involved themselves in the struggle.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We have a good reason to assume they were, they are vassals of the Hightowers.

LOL, no. There is no indication that any Hightower bannermen joined the Hightowers in their army. 

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Redwynes may also have sent support since they are 'close kin'. 

Or not. To quote you:

Quote

top assuming your headcannon (sic) is fact. It's ok to admit ignorance from time to time.

While no Redwynes do show up, there is no reason to assume that invisible Redwynes were running around. Perhaps there were also invisible Tarths hiding behind Rhaenyra's skirts, but until such a time as they do show up we should not pretend they were there.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure there is. 

 for they were capable of raising large new armies quickly from the streets of Oldtown

That is all that is said, at no point does it claim a number.

But we can, you know, use common sense to deduce what might constitute 'a large army' in this world, and how many men there might be in multiple 'large armies'. I'd say a good guess is more than 3,000 men.

But then - enlighten me how large you think a and multiple large armies are in Westeros?

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 It also goes onto say

 Moreover, one-quarter of the Crown’s gold still rested in deep vaults beneath the Hightower, gold that could easily have been used to buy new alliances and hire sellsword companies. Oldtown had the power to renew the war; all that was lacking was the will.

Sure, but this doesn't refer to the large armies raised exclusively from men from the streets of Oldtown. So, to quote you again:

Quote

top assuming your headcannon (sic) is fact. It's ok to admit ignorance from time to time.

 

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And what does this have to do with your original claim of almost 20,000? Or your other claim they can raise more than the Tyrells? 

Since the five major bannermen of House Hightower are powerful lords in their own right, some of them great houses of the Reach, even, whose ancestors go back to the children of Garth Greenhand, it is not unreasonably that each of them can at least raise about 2,000 men, perhaps even more - which would mean that combined they could field 10,000 men.

And if the Hightowers alone can raise 10,000+ - perhaps much more than 10,000 - then it is quite obvious how the combined might of House Hightower - Oldtown, lands sworn directly to Oldtown, and the five principal bannermen of House Hightower - could raise as many as 20,000+ men.

If my guess that the Tyrells can raise about 20,000 men on their own - which is just a guess but I think a reasonably good one since I believe the Highgarden is stronger than Oldtown - and the Hightowers might be able to raise 20,000+ in combination with their entire strength of their bannermen then the Hightowers might be a tidbit stronger than the Tyrells under those circumstances.

And, of course, the wealth of House Hightower also means they could actually hire thousands of sellswords in addition to the men they and their bannermen can raise. But the same also is true for House Tyrell who is as rich or nearly as rich as House Hightower.

46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It's also a year or so after. Feeding and paying the army are stumbling blocks, the Tumbleton army  not being in combat at the same time allows more resources to be used on the new army, resources that may not be available if the first army was still being supplied.

That's just a clumsy attempt at an ad hoc answer, and wrong at that. The Hightower army was not fed by food sent to the marching men from Oldtown. They lived off the land, and most of their march took them through lands not sworn to House Hightower. Lord Ormund was ravaging and plundering the lands of the lords he subdued, not the lands of his own bannermen - not even the lands of the rebelling Costaynes, Beesburys, and Mullendores since he never turned back to attack their lands and castles. He marched on towards Tumbleton and KL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is no mentioning of their being any men from other houses.

There does not need to be. Are you not familiar with GRRM's writing by now?

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Those Hightower bannermen are important and powerful lords in their own right,they are not treated as petty lords or little vassals of House Hightower. You would have stumbled on that when you had actually done some research on the matter. We discussed all that in detail in the FaB armies thread.

No one has claimed otherwise, this is just extra waffle.

My response was 13 words long, none of them challenged the power of those houses.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you don't care about the things and are not interested in actually discussing things why are you participating in the discussion at all?

It has no basis on anything I've said. 

I get it, you have a word quota to fill but most of your responses are waffle that the other person has not contested, 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We can look at the map. We do know that Lord Ormund assembled his army following Ser Otto's command who asked him to put down the rebellions in the Reach. This does not only imply it confirms a chronology. The Blacks in the Reach react first. They call their banners. They start to assemble armies. Lord Ormund is supposed to put down those rebellions.

How does any of that answer or refute my reply?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In a fairy-tale world it might make sense that the Cuys could send men in time around the already assembling Costayne host, but this is not a fairy-tale world. Even if it were, there is no reason to assume that they involved themselves in the struggle.

Equally there is no reason to assume they didn't.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. There is no indication that any Hightower bannermen joined the Hightowers in their army. 

Equally there is no reason to assume they didn't.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Or not. To quote you:

While no Redwynes do show up, there is no reason to assume that invisible Redwynes were running around. Perhaps there were also invisible Tarths hiding behind Rhaenyra's skirts, but until such a time as they do show up we should not pretend they were there.

But we can, you know, use common sense to deduce what might constitute 'a large army' in this world, and how many men there might be in multiple 'large armies'. I'd say a good guess is more than 3,000 men.

But then - enlighten me how large you think a and multiple large armies are in Westeros?

Sure, but this doesn't refer to the large armies raised exclusively from men from the streets of Oldtown. So, to quote you again:

 

Since the five major bannermen of House Hightower are powerful lords in their own right, some of them great houses of the Reach, even, whose ancestors go back to the children of Garth Greenhand, it is not unreasonably that each of them can at least raise about 2,000 men, perhaps even more - which would mean that combined they could field 10,000 men.

And if the Hightowers alone can raise 10,000+ - perhaps much more than 10,000 - then it is quite obvious how the combined might of House Hightower - Oldtown, lands sworn directly to Oldtown, and the five principal bannermen of House Hightower - could raise as many as 20,000+ men.

If my guess that the Tyrells can raise about 20,000 men on their own - which is just a guess but I think a reasonably good one since I believe the Highgarden is stronger than Oldtown - and the Hightowers might be able to raise 20,000+ in combination with their entire strength of their bannermen then the Hightowers might be a tidbit stronger than the Tyrells under those circumstances.

And, of course, the wealth of House Hightower also means they could actually hire thousands of sellswords in addition to the men they and their bannermen can raise. But the same also is true for House Tyrell who is as rich or nearly as rich as House Hightower.

That's just a clumsy attempt at an ad hoc answer, and wrong at that. The Hightower army was not fed by food sent to the marching men from Oldtown. They lived off the land, and most of their march took them through lands not sworn to House Hightower. Lord Ormund was ravaging and plundering the lands of the lords he subdued, not the lands of his own bannermen - not even the lands of the rebelling Costaynes, Beesburys, and Mullendores since he never turned back to attack their lands and castles. He marched on towards Tumbleton and KL.

Are you feeling well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 3:37 AM, Vaith said:

You’re right. Probably between Vaith and Dalt? They did kill Lyonel Tyrell though

 

Conjecture; but, I would put them on a tier with House Uller.  I don't really think of the houses as far as strict rankings; but, more on tiers. For Dorne:  

Tier 1:  Martell, Yronwood, Fowler, Dayne

Tier2A:  Uller, Qorgyle, Vaith, Gargalen

Tier2B:  Blackmont, Wyl, Manwoody, Allyrion

Tier3:  Toland, Jordayne, Ladybright, Wells, Dalt, Santagar, Drinkwater

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 5:48 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

So let's play out the scenario.

The Starks have the Wolfsden, which has rotated between various houses from the Flints, Lockes, Slates and even some cadet branches of House Stark for centuries. So 1000 years ago they see an opportunity to improve this old fortress and give it to the Manderlys. The Manderlys arrive with gold and turn it into a town which grows into a city over the ensuing centuries. What's more, the city becomes a trade centre, and unlocks trade opportunities all up the White Knife.

Braavos is founded maybe 800 years ago, which suddenly creates a major trade route for White Harbor to export to. Villages pop up all along the White Knife and in the lands surrounding White Harbor as a result of White Harbor's growth. The lands prosper and develop. People gradually migrate from the poor Stony shore, Sea Dragon point, and other parts of the North (and later from the newly vulnerable New Gift) to move into what has now become the most prosperous region of the North.

The Manderlys of today are likely an order of magnitude more powerful and populous than they were when the Starks first granted them the Wolfsden. During all this time the Manderlys were fiercely loyal to the Starks.

So, in the above scenario, at what point should the Starks have intervened to stop the Manderlys sterling work in growing the North's economy?

So its not about granting the newcomers lands that make them more powerful than the Starks. It's about the Manderlys growing their wealth, population and power gradually over 1000 years to become the greatest of the Stark vassals.

Just like the Hightowers are stronger individually than the Tyrells are, so too it makes sense for the Manderlys to occupy the same position in the North.

This is a good explanation, and one I mostly agree with.  I say mostly, because I'm still not sure I agree that the Manderly's are more powerful - at least not to a degree to make a hypothetical rebellion a foregone conclusion of success.  

I think the Stark's/Winterfell also likely benefited from any increased economic activity along the White Knife.  For instance, we don't know how long the Cerwyn's have held lands along the White Knife.  I think it's very possible that they were granted some lands from house Stark and/or what would otherwise have been House Manderly almost as a buffer/to somewhat check House Manderly having too much power.  Undoubtably, House Manderly seems to be extremely influential historically.  However, I wonder how vast their direct lands really are.  Between the Locke's, Cerwyn's, Hornwoods, Woolfields, Dustin's, and Swamps of the Neck, they may be kind of boxed in.  

 

My view of the North:  

Tier 1A:  Stark, Manderly, Dustin, Bolton

Tier 1B:  Umber, Karstark, 

Tier 2:  Ryder, Hornwood, Cerwyn, Flint of WW

Tier 3:  Glover, Locke, Tallhart, Slate, Flint of FF, Wull, Woolfield, 

Tier 4:  Reed, Mormont, Holt, Norrey, Burley, Harclay, Knott, Liddle, Flint (Mtns), 

Share this post


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

My view of the North:  

Tier 1A:  Stark, Manderly, Dustin, Bolton

Tier 1B:  Umber, Karstark, 

Tier 2:  Ryder, Hornwood, Cerwyn, Flint of WW

Tier 3:  Glover, Locke, Tallhart, Slate, Flint of FF, Wull, Woolfield, 

Tier 4:  Reed, Mormont, Holt, Norrey, Burley, Harclay, Knott, Liddle, Flint (Mtns), 

So you say when the Dustins go to war they can overthrow the Starks or the Manderlings can do it or the Boltons. The boltons knew better, their only power keeping the North are a STARK and having a foreign Army FREYS and the KING behind them. The STarks doesnt need such thing. Even the Cerwyns seem to have more power when they have got a Stark returned, than the whjole region will fight for that Stark and the Cyrwyns. There is only one true legitimate power in the North and thats Stark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that combined forces of Bolton, Dustin and Manderly would have been stronger than anything all other houses of north had. So Starks stayed in power only as long as most of their bannermen were loyal to them and did not unite against them. Or Starks could have wiped out any house in the north but coalition of major houses could have beaten them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loose Bolt said:

I assume that combined forces of Bolton, Dustin and Manderly would have been stronger than anything all other houses of north had. So Starks stayed in power only as long as most of their bannermen were loyal to them and did not unite against them. Or Starks could have wiped out any house in the north but coalition of major houses could have beaten them.

Well this applies to any other LP as well.

Say Dustin, Manderly and Bolton wanted to overthrow Starks, what then? How do they decide who rules after? It’s even more bloodshed after Starks die, more loss of people and wealth and crops.

As for ranking the houses by power... what is power? We see that it’s wealth as much as numbers and influence also.

For the example of North, Dustins appear to have the biggest chunk of land, so all else being equal, they’ll have the most numbers and most power if it’s numbers. But then there’s Manderlies, they are the wealthiest bannermen and that is power also, and even if they had the least amount of land, which is not the case, they control the only major port and the White Knife(entry to it), in Winter this means controlling the best route for food coming from outside.

Edited by Corvo the Crow

Share this post


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

Well this applies to any other LP as well.

Say Dustin, Manderly and Bolton wanted to overthrow Starks, what then? How do they decide who rules after? It’s even more bloodshed after Starks die, more loss of people and wealth and crops.

As for ranking the houses by power... what is power? We see that it’s wealth as much as numbers and influence also.

For the example of North, Dustins appear to have the biggest chunk of land, so all else being equal, they’ll have the most numbers and most power if it’s numbers. But then there’s Manderlies, they are the wealthiest bannermen and that is power also, and even if they had the least amount of land, which is not the case, they control the only major port and the White Knife(entry to it), in Winter this means controlling the best route for food coming from outside.

I agree 100% with you. The fact that Starks, Arryns, Tully's, Tyrells, Martells, Lannisters, Durrandons and Gardeners etc are so long in power means that the power is difficult to subscribe. Lannisters were rich, Gardeners a good lineage, Martells had an Army in once, while before their were not a mayor house and the Arryns were Andal invaders and the Tully's and Tyrells choose wise for the winning side. 

Starks are also more a symbol of power, than a real force. In the North the people are very loyal and thats why they kept the power so long and even now you see in asoiaf that the most Northern houses are still loyal to the Starks even when they are not alive anymore. (in their view) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 10:12 PM, Seaserpent said:

Starks are also more a symbol of power, than a real force. In the North the people are very loyal and thats why they kept the power so long and even now you see in asoiaf that the most Northern houses are still loyal to the Starks even when they are not alive anymore. (in their view) 

Not really.

Greatjon draw steal in Robb's great hall and Robb thought he would be killed in his home.

Rickard Karstark betryed Robb when the tides changed.

Barbrey send as few men as possible and will not let Ned bones to reach Winterfell.

Barthogan Stark was slain during a Skago rebellion

Boltons are cleary not loyal.

Blackwoods had to be exiled from the north

Greystarks were extiguished after rebelling.

The Starks are/were the powerhouse from the north, if they were anything less than it they wouldn't hold the power for so long.

The Westerlands seems to be more loyal than the northem in general, besides the Reynes I don't remember any other house defying the Lannisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

The Westerlands seems to be more loyal than the northem in general, besides the Reynes I don't remember any other house defying the Lannisters.

There was a line either in WOIAF or in the extended Westerlands chapter on Martin's website that the Reyne and Tarbeck situation during Tywin's youth was the biggest danger to House Lannister in Westerlands in their history, counting from Lann himself, and Lannisters weren't that in danger during it. So it really seems like the Westerlands are very loyal. I wonder thought, if it's because of Casterly Rock. Not only it contains immense wealth, it is impossible to even threaten, so no one even tried. The castle seems to be an amazing power projection tool, unlike Winterfell, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dofs said:

There was a line either in WOIAF or in the extended Westerlands chapter on Martin's website that the Reyne and Tarbeck situation during Tywin's youth was the biggest danger to House Lannister in Westerlands in their history, counting from Lann himself, and Lannisters weren't that in danger during it. So it really seems like the Westerlands are very loyal. I wonder thought, if it's because of Casterly Rock. Not only it contains immense wealth, it is impossible to even threaten, so no one even tried. The castle seems to be an amazing power projection tool, unlike Winterfell, for example.

Lannisport is major city maybe including 5-10 % of population of Westerlands and it almost certainly is economically even more important. So as long as Lannisters control both Rock and Lannisport none of their bannermen could successfully challenge them without support from another kingdom.

Actually I assume that Lannisters are strongest of major houses compared to their bannermen and Tullys weakest. Actually T are so "weak" house that they will stay in power only as long as they are supported by another great house(s). For instance Tywin had personal army of 500 knights as a heir and Edmure could not call at arms so many without support of bannermen of his house. Imho I think that even late Kevan's couple hundred knights could have overrun anything that Edmure could have mobilized from troops sworn just to Riverrun.

Share this post


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

Lannisport is major city maybe including 5-10 % of population of Westerlands and it almost certainly is economically even more important. So as long as Lannisters control both Rock and Lannisport none of their bannermen could successfully challenge them without support from another kingdom.

Lannisport belongs to a different branch of Lannisters that separated from the main branch thousands of years ago. At this point they are a different House who are also bannermen to Casterly Rock. Hence I don't think it's correct to say that Lannisters control both Casterly Rock and Lannisport at the same time.

2 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Actually I assume that Lannisters are strongest of major houses compared to their bannermen and Tullys weakest. Actually T are so "weak" house that they will stay in power only as long as they are supported by another great house(s). For instance Tywin had personal army of 500 knights as a heir and Edmure could not call at arms so many without support of bannermen of his house. Imho I think that even late Kevan's couple hundred knights could have overrun anything that Edmure could have mobilized from troops sworn just to Riverrun.

I would actually expect Lannisport Lannisters to be very powerful too due to having control of Lannisport, but for some reason they are completely irrelevant and invisible both in current story and as far back as at least Aegon's conquest. But Lannisters of Casterly Rock are definitely the most powerful House compared to their bannermen. And it's not like their bannermen are so weak, it's that they themselves are so strong.

Edited by Dofs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 1:15 PM, Lord of Brewtown said:

 

My view of the North:  

Top Tier:  Stark,

Tier 1: Manderly & Bolton

Tier 2:  Umber, Karstark, Dustin, Ryswell

Tier 2:  Ryder, Hornwood, Cerwyn, Flint of WW, Glover

Tier 3:  Locke, Tallhart, Slate, Flint of FF, Wull, Woolfield, 

Tier 4:  Reed, Mormont, Holt, Norrey, Burley, Harclay, Knott, Liddle, Flint (Mtns), 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dofs said:

Lannisport belongs to a different branch of Lannisters that separated from the main branch thousands of years ago. At this point they are a different House who are also bannermen to Casterly Rock. Hence I don't think it's correct to say that Lannisters control both Casterly Rock and Lannisport at the same time.

I would actually expect Lannisport Lannisters to be very powerful too due to having control of Lannisport, but for some reason they are completely irrelevant and invisible both in current story and as far back as at least Aegon's conquest. But Lannisters of Casterly Rock are definitely the most powerful House compared to their bannermen. And it's not like their bannermen are so weak, it's that they themselves are so strong.

There's no indication that the Lannisters of Lannisport rule the city. They could very well be like the Arryns of Gulltown.

Share this post


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

Actually I assume that Lannisters are strongest of major houses compared to their bannermen and Tullys weakest. Actually T are so "weak" house that they will stay in power only as long as they are supported by another great house(s). For instance Tywin had personal army of 500 knights as a heir and Edmure could not call at arms so many without support of bannermen of his house. Imho I think that even late Kevan's couple hundred knights could have overrun anything that Edmure could have mobilized from troops sworn just to Riverrun.

It's either them or the Baratheons. We don't hear of any house in the stormlands challenging them direct and during Robert's Rebellion Robert beat all the rebbels at summerhall very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I think I pointed out here, there is no reason to assume the Starks, personally, are weaker than their most powerful bannermen since FaB confirms that the Tullys are the only great house in that precarious position. The lands and people directly sworn to Winterfell, the Eyrie, Casterly Rock, Storm's End, Highgarden, and Sunspear must be vaster and more populous than the lands/people of their most powerful bannermen.

And there is an obvious reason for this. Those great seats had been the seats of powerful kings (and ruling princes) for centuries and millennia. They would have needed the resources to stay constantly in fighting shape, to maintain the vast and costly castles they built, they would have been in need to increase their royal prestige by throwing lavish feasts and tourneys, they would need the coin to give costly gifts to their most powerful bannermen/rivals, to buy the allegiance of potential enemies in war, etc.

In a world like Westeros, especially before the Conquest, people followed strength and power. Shabby kings with poor lands and few fighters wouldn't keep their crowns for long.

But the Starks did not only keep their crowns, they conquered the entire North. Sure, their power would be only nominal in the distant regions which they only conquered to leave them in the hands of their previous rulers - like the Bolton and the Umber lands - but there are other parts in the North where they actually destroyed the previous rulers and replaced them by men of their own choosing.

If the Starks had given away pretty much all the lands they conquered or had allowed the people they conquered to keep lands greater than those ruled directly by Winterfell under their direct control, then the Starks should have quickly lost all that they conquered - or shouldn't have conquered the entire North in the first place.

Nobody is following guys who have to ally with other house(es) to beat down a rebellious vassal. If the Umbers or Boltons or Dustins are stronger than the Starks, personally, it makes little sense to assume that the Starks could have ever kept those houses under their heel, at least not permanently.

Such royal power would certainly have waxed and waned, depending on the historical situation and era - the ups and downs in the Durrandon reign testify to this - but since those houses prevailed in the end it is clear that they always stayed one step ahead of their post powerful rivals.

The Lannisters clearly are one of the most powerful houses in Westeros, especially insofar as their control and domination of their bannermen is concerned. But I assume the Arryns are not really behind them in this regard. We just don't feel this as strongly because House Arryn is very weak in the main series, due to the fact that Lord Robert is a sickly boy, and there are basically no main line Arryns around aside from him. But Harry the Heir gives us a taste of the authority a proper Arryn can have over the lords and knights of the Vale. There is a reason why the place is called 'the Vale of Arryn'.

The Lannisters of Lannisport are a thing, but the Lord of Casterly Rock is the Shield of Lannisport, implying that while he may not directly involve himself in the day-to-day affairs of the city, he clearly is the guy in charge there, and not some other rival branch of his house. This also makes it pretty likely that, at least until the Conquest, the Lannisters of Casterly Rock collected the lion's share of the incomes in taxes and tariffs and port fees and trade Lannisport generated, not exactly the Lannisters overseeing the place (after the Conquest the Crown may have claimed another lion's share of those incomes).

Myrcella is very dismissive of the Lannisters of Lannisport, making it pretty obvious that they don't really count as a major house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nyser1 said:

There's no indication that the Lannisters of Lannisport rule the city. They could very well be like the Arryns of Gulltown.

From expanded Westerlands chapter (though I am pretty sure this bit was also included in WoIaF)

"Such tales aside, the histories suggest that the early Lannisters were fertile as well as fair, for many names began to appear in the chronicles, and within a few generations Lann’s descendants had grown so numerous that even Casterly Rock could not contain all of them.  Rather than tunnel out new passages in the stone, some sons and daughters from lesser branches of the House left to make their homes in a village a scant mile away.  The land was fertile, the sea teemed with fish, and the site they had chosen had an excellent natural harbor.  Soon enough the village grew into a town, and then a city: Lannisport.

By the time the Andals came to Westeros, Lannisport had become the second city of Westeros.  Only Oldtown was larger and richer, and trading ships from every corner of the world were sailing up the western coasts to call upon “golden city on the Sunset Sea.”  Gold had made House Lannister rich; trade would make them even richer.  The Lannisters of Lannisport prospered, and built great walls around their city to defend it from those who sought to steal their wealth (chiefly ironborn)."

This is a pretty convincing indication that they rule the city. And while a Lord of Casterly Rock does also have a "Shield of Lannisport" title, that's a weird title to indicate that he also rules the city. To me the meaning of the title is self-explanatory - that Casterly Rock also protects Lannisport in case of an attack, which is not surprising since it is just few miles away from it.
Edited by Dofs

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

×