House Peake doesn't make sense

[James Steller]

This talk of the Manderly/Peake feud made me curious, and looking at the maps of the Reach, I can't help but ask questions.

The Manderlys were said to be on the banks of the Mander at the castle of Dunstonbury. We don't know where that castle stands, but we do know that the Mander is a considerable distance north-west of the Dornish Marches. We also know that House Peake got Dunstonbury, and presumably the surrounding territory, after they drove the Manderlys out of the Reach. And that's on top of the two castles which they already held before that.

We can assume that their main castle is Starpike, and while we don't know where that lies either, it's supposedly in the Dornish Marches (it's been confirmed that House Peake are marcher lords). Looking at the map, that translates to a very wide stretch of land in some of the best territory of the whole Reach. Highgarden and Horn Hill would be direct neighbours, and we all know how powerful their owners are. We have to assume that Tarly and Tyrell's lands stretch mostly westward, while the whole eastern swathe between Highgarden and Ashford was at least partly owned by House Peake.

So how come House Peake wasn't so powerful? FAB lists them as having wide and well-peopled lands, but somehow that doesn't translate to also being wealthy. The Florents seem to be richer than them, and they can only field 2,000 men during ASOIAF. And yes, I'm aware that the Peakes never had influence with the Tyrells because of a lack of personal connections, but if the Peakes own all that territory, they should be on level with House Hightower in terms of power and strength. The "upjumped stewards" should have been eager to take on House Peake as a close ally, but somehow they didn't bother? 

[Craving Peaches]

The whole thing with them deciding to 1v1 the rest of Westeros doesn't make sense either.

[Arthur Peres]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The whole thing with them deciding to 1v1 the rest of Westeros doesn't make sense either.

I doubt they were alone...

Maekar felt the need to act in person after all. Otherwise it would be just a local problem and the Lord Tyrell would solve it, like happened with the Reynes.

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

I doubt they were alone...

Maekar felt the need to act in person after all. Otherwise it would be just a local problem and the Lord Tyrell would solve it, like happened with the Reynes.

I agree, but I don't think we hear about anyone else participating. Maybe other people agreed to help but it never materialised when the Peakes rebelled?

[James Steller]

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The whole thing with them deciding to 1v1 the rest of Westeros doesn't make sense either.

That part is also really confusing to me. The Peakes managed to consistently be on the wrong end of the Targaryens' favour from Aegon III down to Maekar I. They participated in at least three open rebellions and one attempted coup. The War of the Five Kings has led to several ancient houses going extinct, yet House Peake managed to survive all that?

[Lord Varys]

Not that hard. For one, the final beef the Manderlys had in the Reach was with the Gardeners themselves, not the Peakes. The Gardener king Perceon III had Lord Lorimar Peake drive the Manderlys out of the Reach. The Peakes got Dunstonbury afterwards - but that doesn't mean they got (all) the Manderly lands along the Mander. The Manderlys overreaching themselves raising the ire of the Gardener kings could have resulted in the Gardeners claiming most of their lands themselves.

That might even make more sense if the Manderlys actually acquired some lands through marriage that were originally Gardener lands. Think of the marriage of a Manderly lord to one of the daughters of Garth X. With Garth having no sons his eldest daughter may have been Garth's heir for a time.

The subsequent income of the Peakes may have been not enough to maintain the three castles they owned, even more so if certain Peake lords were wastrels and/or sold off land to pay back debts they had.

Finally, the Peakes were not exactly in good standing with both the Tyrells (who were given all the Gardener holdings) and the Targaryens. The Osgreys also dwindled during that era, and we see how Unwin Peake's aunt Clarice was an Osgrey, so chances are both houses had been suffering from similar problems during the first century of the Targaryen reign.

[James Steller]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Finally, the Peakes were not exactly in good standing with both the Tyrells (who were given all the Gardener holdings) and the Targaryens. The Osgreys also dwindled during that era, and we see how Unwin Peake's aunt Clarice was an Osgrey, so chances are both houses had been suffering from similar problems during the first century of the Targaryen reign.

But the Targaryen ill-favour didn't happen until after the Dance of the Dragons. In fact, they only seem to have lost castles and land after the First Blackfyre Rebellion (maybe FABII will correct/edit that, but we'll see). They seem to have been very strong even after the Dance, considering the large army which Unwin Peake could muster even after his downfall from being the King's Hand. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, James Steller said:

But the Targaryen ill-favour didn't happen until after the Dance of the Dragons. In fact, they only seem to have lost castles and land after the First Blackfyre Rebellion (maybe FABII will correct/edit that, but we'll see). They seem to have been very strong even after the Dance, considering the large army which Unwin Peake could muster even after his downfall from being the King's Hand. 

After the Dance the Targaryens definitely would have had severe issues with Lord Unwin Peake - although he has no sons, so part of the reason why the house continues might be that Gedmund Peake is going to be able to ingratiate himself with Aegon III, Viserys, and Alyn Velaryon (although I expect that Egg is going to turn out to be wrong about the Blackfyre Rebellion costing them two castle - I think Unwin is going to lose them the first, and Gormon later second). But this doesn't mean they were favored earlier. Part of Unwin's motivations seems to be to restore his house to its old glory. There was a decline throughout the Targaryen/Tyrell reign.

It doesn't seem to have been very obvious or visible. But you can also outmaneuver and reduce a noble house more subtly. Say, there could be a prevailing tendency of Highgarden/the Iron Throne to favor the rivals of House Peake in court. Reasons for that could have been plenty - for instance a Peake could have been the last wife of King Mern IX or of his heir. A fact like that could easily enough put the Peakes in a very bad position with the Targaryens and the Tyrells. The Peakes could have put forth own claims to Highgarden, with one of Unwin's ancestors being among the claimants Lord Theo Tyrell had to deal during the reign of the Conqueror.

The Peakes apparently weren't able to ingratiate themselves with Maegor the Cruel - Maegor took Coldmoat from the Osgreys for siding with the Faith Militant. The Peakes may have also gotten a slap on the wrist during this reign without this being explicitly mentioned.

And Jaehaerys - well, it makes sense to assume that Septon Mattheus may have been a Gardener descendant through House Florent, but he could have also been a Peake by birth. Something Jaehaerys wouldn't have forgotten easily.

But as I said - there could have just been a succession of wastrel/incompetent lords paired with the fact that maintaining three castles would have been a very costly affair (especially after Jaehaerys I introduced his tax on rebuilding/fortifying castles) explaining the lack in cash Gyldayn mentions for Unwin. Also, there might have been some infighting among different branches of House Peake. They had three castles, after all, meaning multiple branches of the family rather than just one could have held those castles at different times, causing friction among the house and a loss of wealth.

That Unwin is apparently pretty wealthy after his stint as Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King is not really a surprise. He was effectively king, and could have filled his coffers with money of the Crown. There was no official Master of Coin until the office was granted to Isembard Arryn, and Peake had his cronies and family in pretty much every important office in KL.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

After the Dance the Targaryens definitely would have had severe issues with Lord Unwin Peake - although he has no sons, so part of the reason why the house continues might be that Gedmund Peake is going to be able to ingratiate himself with Aegon III, Viserys, and Alyn Velaryon (although I expect that Egg is going to turn out to be wrong about the Blackfyre Rebellion costing them two castle - I think Unwin is going to lose them the first, and Gormon later second). But this doesn't mean they were favored earlier. Part of Unwin's motivations seems to be to restore his house to its old glory. There was a decline throughout the Targaryen/Tyrell reign.

It doesn't seem to have been very obvious or visible. But you can also outmaneuver and reduce a noble house more subtly. Say, there could be a prevailing tendency of Highgarden/the Iron Throne to favor the rivals of House Peake in court. Reasons for that could have been plenty - for instance a Peake could have been the last wife of King Mern IX or of his heir. A fact like that could easily enough put the Peakes in a very bad position with the Targaryens and the Tyrells. The Peakes could have put forth own claims to Highgarden, with one of Unwin's ancestors being among the claimants Lord Theo Tyrell had to deal during the reign of the Conqueror.

The Peakes apparently weren't able to ingratiate themselves with Maegor the Cruel - Maegor took Coldmoat from the Osgreys for siding with the Faith Militant. The Peakes may have also gotten a slap on the wrist during this reign without this being explicitly mentioned.

And Jaehaerys - well, it makes sense to assume that Septon Mattheus may have been a Gardener descendant through House Florent, but he could have also been a Peake by birth. Something Jaehaerys wouldn't have forgotten easily.

But as I said - there could have just been a succession of wastrel/incompetent lords paired with the fact that maintaining three castles would have been a very costly affair (especially after Jaehaerys I introduced his tax on rebuilding/fortifying castles) explaining the lack in cash Gyldayn mentions for Unwin. Also, there might have been some infighting among different branches of House Peake. They had three castles, after all, meaning multiple branches of the family rather than just one could have held those castles at different times, causing friction among the house and a loss of wealth.

That Unwin being apparently pretty wealthy after his stint as Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King is not really a surprise. He was effectively king, and could have filled his coffers with money of the Crown. There was no official Master of Coin until the office was granted to Isembard Arryn, and Peake had his cronies and family in pretty much every important office in KL.

A lot of this is speculation. Well put together and well written, but speculation all the same.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

A lot of this is speculation. Well put together and well written, but speculation all the same.

Sure enough. But what besides speculation do you have to explain an established fact in the universe which seems to be not all that unlikely at first glance?

Especially three castles being too expensive to maintain after the crenellations tax and without continuous royal favors makes a lot of sense. The Targaryens also turned Harrenhal into a kind of money trap, at least when Maegor handed the lordship to House Towers. We can assume that Harren the Black attached sufficient lands to the royal demesne that were to feed his royal seat in the future.

But the Lords of Harrenhal from Lord Towers onwards had to actually waste their fortune(s) to maintain the castle rather than actually profit from it (the Lothstons might have been an exception, but some of them had very close ties to a certain corrupt king, so they may have other access to other avenues of income), in part because the lands were no longer as large as they were in originally.

It is entirely conceivable that whilst the Peaks acquired three castles throughout their career they always lacked the sufficient lands/other means of income to properly maintain them and be counted among the richest or richer Lords of the Reach. Whilst they had the royal favor of House Gardener - which may have come with certain (hereditary) rights and privileges the Tyrells and Targaryens no longer granted them - this wouldn't have been much of a problem. But it became a problem later on.

We can especially imagine that it would have been a bit much to expect that both the castle and all the lands of the exiled Manderlys passed to House Peake. If the Manderlys were actually a threat to House Gardener itself - which is entirely possible if, say, the original lands of the Manderlys were vast and they acquired more and more lands as time went by (say, Garth X granted his eldest daughter a very generous dowry in lands and incomes when he married her to Lord Manderly and while the later infighting and wars didn't allow the Gardener-Manderlys to seize the crown of the Reach ... they may have been able to hold on those hypoethetical dowry lands).

It would be insane to assume that King Perceon III - who felt threatened by the grasping Manderlys - would grant all the lands he took from them to another house which was pretty powerful already. Rather we would assume that Lord Lorimar Peake got a pretty big chunk of the Manderly lands along with the castle - as reward for his leal service - but scarcely all. Especially lands along the Mander the king would have likely taken for himself - or for smaller houses like the Tyrells sworn directly to Highgarden.

[James Steller]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure enough. But what besides speculation do you have to explain an established fact in the universe which seems to be not all that unlikely at first glance?

Especially three castles being too expensive to maintain after the crenellations tax and without continuous royal favors makes a lot of sense. The Targaryens also turned Harrenhal into a kind of money trap, at least when Maegor handed the lordship to House Towers. We can assume that Harren the Black attached sufficient lands to the royal demesne that were to feed his royal seat in the future.

But the Lords of Harrenhal from Lord Towers onwards had to actually waste their fortune(s) to maintain the castle rather than actually profit from it (the Lothstons might have been an exception, but some of them had very close ties to a certain corrupt king, so they may have other access to other avenues of income), in part because the lands were no longer as large as they were in originally.

It is entirely conceivable that whilst the Peaks acquired three castles throughout their career they always lacked the sufficient lands/other means of income to properly maintain them and be counted among the richest or richer Lords of the Reach. Whilst they had the royal favor of House Gardener - which may have come with certain (hereditary) rights and privileges the Tyrells and Targaryens no longer granted them - this wouldn't have been much of a problem. But it became a problem later on.

We can especially imagine that it would have been a bit much to expect that both the castle and all the lands of the exiled Manderlys passed to House Peake. If the Manderlys were actually a threat to House Gardener itself - which is entirely possible if, say, the original lands of the Manderlys were vast and they acquired more and more lands as time went by (say, Garth X granted his eldest daughter a very generous dowry in lands and incomes when he married her to Lord Manderly and while the later infighting and wars didn't allow the Gardener-Manderlys to seize the crown of the Reach ... they may have been able to hold on those hypoethetical dowry lands).

It would be insane to assume that King Perceon III - who felt threatened by the grasping Manderlys - would grant all the lands he took from them to another house which was pretty powerful already. Rather we would assume that Lord Lorimar Peake got a pretty big chunk of the Manderly lands along with the castle - as reward for his leal service - but scarcely all. Especially lands along the Mander the king would have likely taken for himself - or for smaller houses like the Tyrells sworn directly to Highgarden.

That's true, but the problem is that the book FAB does claim that Peake has a lot of land with a high population. And part of my original post is why Lord Peake wasn't wealthy despite having all that land in the most fertile part of Westeros. But I guess the fact that the Peakes had three castles to maintain, that's a drain on his resources. So maybe even his wide lands weren't enough? I guess? I can't think of a better explanation.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, James Steller said:

That's true, but the problem is that the book FAB does claim that Peake has a lot of land with a high population. And part of my original post is why Lord Peake wasn't wealthy despite having all that land in the most fertile part of Westeros. But I guess the fact that the Peakes had three castles to maintain, that's a drain on his resources. So maybe even his wide lands weren't enough? I guess? I can't think of a better explanation.

Well, it would depend where the bulk of the Peake lands are. The Reach proper is very fertile ... the Dornish Marches aren't *that* fertile. So if the bulk of the Peake lands are in the Dornish Marches his lands might not be that fertile. Also, of course, they could have a lot of bad luck with Dornish incursions burning their fields, droughts, pests affecting the crops, etc. If you normal income only covers your annual costs then one or two catastrophes could easily put you in a bad position it might take decades to climb out of.

Lord Unwin's overreaching ambition regarding offices and honors during the Regency era shows not just political ambition, I think, but also a zeal to maximize his income and to find honors and offices for all his family and friends ... indicating they weren't that well off before Unwin gained a high position at court.

And to be sure - lords are not peasants nor merchants. They do not necessary profit that much from the fertile lands their peasant work on. The wealth of the Hightowers and the Redwynes, say, has more to do with them controlling parts of the overseas luxury trade than with the amount of surplus grain their peasants produce. Also with the types of crops their peasants produce, etc.

Peake wealth would also depend on how exactly their peasants pay their rents, how many yeomen do sit on their land who don't pay rent, etc. In the Dornish Marches one imagines that there are quite a few soldier peasants with more privileges than other types of peasants.

Apparently, maintaining and rebuilding a castle is very expensive, and if you do have to pay a tax for the permission to rebuild then this might be even more taxing (it seems even the Starks couldn't afford - or chose not to waste precious cash - on rebuilding the parts of Winterfell that are starting to crumble).