Were the Starks poor?

[Castel]

I would put the Starks after most major southern houses except the Greyjoys. I'm just very skeptical about the claim that they have a huge store of money based on...I don't know. With constant winters I would assume that there are times when they need to spend a lot of money, and that's assuming that a lot came in in the first place.. And as far as I can see they have one real trading hub.

Now, they're obviously rich enough to support an army in the field and clothe themselves well, but in comparison with the other southern states that do all this and have more people and more cities and trade centers I would put them below people like Robert, The Tyrells, Renly, Tywin etc.

[Free Northman]

I would put the Starks after most major southern houses except the Greyjoys. I'm just very skeptical about the claim that they have a huge store of money based on...I don't know. With constant winters I would assume that there are times when they need to spend a lot of money, and that's assuming that a lot came in in the first place.. And as far as I can see they have one real trading hub.

Now, they're obviously rich enough to support an army in the field and clothe themselves well, but in comparison with the other southern states that do all this and have more people and more cities and trade centers I would put them below people like Robert, The Tyrells, Renly, Tywin etc.

Again, pity my longish analysis was at the bottom of the previous page, but to summarize, I would make a massive distinction between the pre and post Torhenn Starks. In other words, the Kings of Winter were far wealtheir than the Lords of Winterfell post Aegon the conqueror.

[LordBloodraven]

I would put the Starks after most major southern houses except the Greyjoys. I'm just very skeptical about the claim that they have a huge store of money based on...I don't know. With constant winters I would assume that there are times when they need to spend a lot of money, and that's assuming that a lot came in in the first place.. And as far as I can see they have one real trading hub.

Now, they're obviously rich enough to support an army in the field and clothe themselves well, but in comparison with the other southern states that do all this and have more people and more cities and trade centers I would put them below people like Robert, The Tyrells, Renly, Tywin etc.

Ok, the North has harsh winters that cripples its economy but downgrading the economy of half of Westeros just on that is too much. The Riverlands is described as very fertile and so is the Reach but nowhere as big as the North. I think that makes up for the low density of the North and the harsh climate. Riverlands and North could probably have the same agricultural yield per year with the North more prone to grow cereals and the Riverlands, other things. Lumber trade must be thriving in the North given the multiple forests they have: the vicinity of Braavos, a major seapower is important since trade between these two regions on this commodity could be extensive, for all we know. GRRM recently said that the Northern climate is more like North USA, rather than Alaska, North Pole. So the winter factor should not be exaggerated: plus they have glass gardens.

All this speculation about the wealth of the Great Houses is based on few facts. Lannisters are obviously very rich due to the Goldmines; Hightowers are following closely. And then we have the Redwynes or the Tyrells. Littlefinger said that the Tyrells are way richer than the Starks but given the context it could easily mean that the Reach is way richer than the North. Besides, Jon Snow says literally in ADWD that "Lord Manderly is the richest of my father's bannermen", not that he's the richest Lord in the North.

[Jon Mark Selmy]

Probably they were ''poor'' compared to other houses. Of course, ''poor'' is a very bad world to define any Great Lords anyway. I believe the hierarchy of ''incomes'' among Great Houses at the beginning of GoT is something like:

Lannister

Tyrell

Baratheon (from Kingslanding, duo to taxes... not considering the debts here, just incomes)

Martell

Arryn

Stark

Tully

Baratheon (from Dragonstone)

Greyjoy

Targaryen (exiled)

[Free Northman]

The point is, the Kings in the North probably earned in the region of 15% of all incomes from the entire North, as royal taxes. Maybe 10%, considering the harshness of the North and the need to give their lords the ability to stock up their granaries for Winter.

That's a hell of a lot of money.

In contrast, after Torhenn knelt, this tax went to King's Landing. The Stark's portion probably dropped to only a fraction of that. Given that they still had to defend the North themselves from the wildlings, the Ironborn, the Skagos rebellion etc, well, the result was that while their incomes had dropped significantly, their costs were largely the same as before.

We even learn that most of the support for the Wall still came from the Starks, rather than the crown.

Hence, the Starks after they became mere lords are vastly poorer than they Stark Kings of 300 years ago.

I go back to the example of Manderly being able to build a fleet of 50 warships in 1 year, build the mile long harbor wall with guard towers every 100 yards (that Davos sees in Dance), and strengthen the defenses of White Harbor significantly, all just from taxes that Robb commanded him to withhold from Joffrey and pay to the King in the North instead.

That's just 1 year's taxes, just from White Harbor, and it achieved all of that.

Spread that across the entire North, and the Stark Kings were much richer than the current Stark lords indeed.

[Dr. Pepper]

If the Starks have so much money, then where is it?

I think there is a clear distinction to be made between the different types of wealth. Obviously other great houses like the Tyrell's and Lannisters have more coin than the Starks. However, precious metals and actual money aren't historically considered to be sound and sustainable methods of measuring wealth. Land is. Things like gold and silver create an illusion of prosperity. One's wealth in terms of actual money can change dramatically at any time. However, land will have more long-term and sustainable worth than gold ever could. In my opinion, land is a better tool to measure one's wealth. This means, that over the long-term, the Starks probably have the most sound, sustainable and long-term wealth than any house in the realm. The Tyrell's may come a close second considering how much of their land can actually be exploited for production of market goods and for habitation.

[Gurkhal]

I think there is a clear distinction to be made between the different types of wealth. Obviously other great houses like the Tyrell's and Lannisters have more coin than the Starks. However, precious metals and actual money aren't historically considered to be sound and sustainable methods of measuring wealth. Land is. Things like gold and silver create an illusion of prosperity. One's wealth in terms of actual money can change dramatically at any time. However, land will have more long-term and sustainable worth than gold ever could. In my opinion, land is a better tool to measure one's wealth. This means, that over the long-term, the Starks probably have the most sound, sustainable and long-term wealth than any house in the realm. The Tyrell's may come a close second considering how much of their land can actually be exploited for production of market goods and for habitation.

I doubt the North would be the best in wealth even given their lands. Most of it is underdeveloped and population growth don't seem that fast, meaning it will likely remain undeveloped. I'd rate Tyrells far above the North due to their great population, I presume at least, and the fact that it is develop land mostly.

[Dr. Pepper]

I doubt the North would be the best in wealth even given their lands. Most of it is underdeveloped and population growth don't seem that fast, meaning it will likely remain undeveloped. I'd rate Tyrells far above the North due to their great population, I presume at least, and the fact that it is develop land mostly.

The Reach's development relies heavily on food production....it is not diversified. Meaning, they are screwed if a major season of drought or flooding hits. That great population they built up would serve no purpose as a way of identifying wealth. The North, on the other hand, is highly diversified. If they experience a lengthy drought, they still have other economic options to turn to based on things found on their land .... timber being one example, fishing being another. They have also have better access to larger water supplies to offset havoc drought can cause and will also support a greater meat and wool harvest than can be supported in the Reach. In addition, land has it's greatest value when it's actually able to be used. So an area like the Reach loses a lot of practical production area due to high population density.

[The Snowman]

I think there is a clear distinction to be made between the different types of wealth. Obviously other great houses like the Tyrell's and Lannisters have more coin than the Starks. However, precious metals and actual money aren't historically considered to be sound and sustainable methods of measuring wealth. Land is. Things like gold and silver create an illusion of prosperity. One's wealth in terms of actual money can change dramatically at any time. However, land will have more long-term and sustainable worth than gold ever could. In my opinion, land is a better tool to measure one's wealth. This means, that over the long-term, the Starks probably have the most sound, sustainable and long-term wealth than any house in the realm. The Tyrell's may come a close second considering how much of their land can actually be exploited for production of market goods and for habitation.

I doubt the North would be the best in wealth even given their lands. Most of it is underdeveloped and population growth don't seem that fast, meaning it will likely remain undeveloped. I'd rate Tyrells far above the North due to their great population, I presume at least, and the fact that it is develop land mostly.

Personally I think both of your statements are correct in their own way.

The Lannisters are obviously the richest house of the kingdoms at the beginning of the series. The Reach is the most populous and has great fertile land and because of that the Hightowers and Tyrells are incredibly rich. But the North has many different ways of raising revenue while the westerlands is mainly invested in gold and the Reach is simply about food and wine. Very strong but if something happens to the supply then they won't exactly have another revenue stream to look to and you can do a lot of things with the land the north has.

[Sapphire]

The Starks are not poor. Not even in comparison to other great houses. They're not mega rich like the Lannister or Tyrells, but they're better off than the Martells and Greyjoys. How they stack up against Tullys, Arryns and Baratheons I couldn't say with certainty.

[Batman]

They were not poor. They were richer than the Martells, Greyjoys and Storms End Baratheons. They were certainley poorer than the Lannisters, Tyrells and Tully's. Questionable if they are richer than the Arryns (I think so). Roberts spending makes them richer than the KL Baratheons but their incomes are so much bigger than the Starks. Most of their resources would go into preparing for winter.

[Jaak]

I do not see much reason for confidently asserting that the Starks were richer than Martells, Baratheons or Arryns.

Yes, North is the largest kingdom by area. But by comparison, the least densely populated.

As for the population, the only kingdom that definitely has less people is Dorne (the least populous of the 7).

The armies quoted for North, Riverlands, Vale and Stormlands are similar in size.

Now, large population means "sustainable" wealth somewhere - large number of people have food to survive winters. But it does not mean "disposable" wealth. How wealthy is the Kingdom beyond the Wall?

Not very much. The Free Folk do not much share what wealth they have with kings or their tax gatherers.

Nor is the trade beyond the Wall large in scale. Hardhome was small even before destruction, and though a little trade with visiting ships and Eastwatch still happens, no trade towns there.

South of the Wall, the trade volume is bigger. Compared to wildings! Mormonts of Bear Island complain of their poverty.

As for the mountain clans, they recognize Starks of Winterfell, pay them some heed and presumably some tax. Although I suspect that the taxes they pay in peacetime may also be relatively low.

Generally, compare North with say Scottish Highlands before Highland Clearances. The Highland chiefs before Clearances ran their estates to maximize the number of able-bodied men who could fight for them against feuding neighbour. Meaning that in peacetime, the numerous tenants ate most of what they grew and had little left over to pay to their lord. If a lord wanted to demand higher taxes in cash then 1) his tenants would starve to death before spring (because they sold their winter food to pay the rent and ran out of food before next harvest) and a neighbouring hostile lord would conquer his lands next summer (too few tenants left alive to defend them) and 2) the said tenants would be unhappy with having too little money left to spend on themselves (salt, iron tools, silver ornaments... subsistence peasants do commonly buy some market goods) and even if they do survive the spring, would abscond to another lord, or desert or defect when a hostile lord attacks, or on their own rebel, refuse to pay rents demanded or kill the lord.

It was only after Culloden that the Westminster Government abolished heritable jurisdictions and backed the Highland lords with standing army and courts which recognized and enforced the position of lords as absolute and irresponsible owners of the land. Which enabled the lords to expel most of the population - a small fraction of the people the land could feed was sufficient to run the land profitably, and since their consumption/wages were much smaller, much more was available for the lord to sell. And spend the cash proceeds on high living in Edinburgh or London.

The land area of Scotland is more than a half of the area of England and Wales combined. As of 1707 Act of Union, the population of Scotland was about 1/5 that of England+Wales. Under the Treaty of Union, however, Article IX:

IX. That whenever the sum of £1,997,763 8s 4d (and one) half penny shall be Enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain to be raised in that part of the United Kingdom now called England, on Land and other things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there for granting an aid to the Crown by a Land Tax; that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland shall be charged by the same Act with a further sum of £48,000 free of all Charges, as the Quota of Scotland to such Tax, and so proportionably for any greater or lesser sum raised in England by any Tax on Land and other things usually charged, together with the Land And that such Quota for Scotland in the cases aforesaid, be raised and collected in the same manner as the Cess now is in Scotland, but subject to such Regulations in the manner of Collecting, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain.

Scotland is liable for 41 times less taxes!

[Bane]

I wouldn't classify them as poor considering who they are and their position in society. They aren't just as fabulously rich as for example the Lannisters and Hightowers.

[Saint Arya]

I've thought of their wealth before too. It usually involves 'Where is Rickon going to get the money to re-build Winterfell? The glass panes for the gardens are going to be so expensive... At least he won't pay for labor since his people can do it. Agh. He has no people there now! Maybe the Reeds or Manderlys will help....'

[Elaena_Dragon_Queen]

Sansa never complained...

[Jaak]

Incidentally, I have often wondered... Considering that Tywin was able to lend to Crown 3 million dragons, 250 000 dragons each year - could Eddard have just asked Vayon Poole to disburse the 6000 dragons bribe to Gold Cloaks?

(He would not have gained control of the king, though. I expect that unlike Eddard, the Lannisters would have had spies in Gold Cloaks. They may not have been able to prevent Eddard from seizing the regency in King´s Landing, but they would have warned the Queen to take her children and run).

[The Fallen]

` I maintain that the Starks were rich enough. GRRM never hints that the Starks are penny-pinching or hindered in any way by a lack of "funds". Remember, the Starks are getting a piece of every business conducted in the North. Whether it's less densely populated or less rich doesn't matter because there is still trade going on and enough of it to keep the Stark coffers full.

Also, the Starks don't need the kind of money that the other kingdoms have. It's not like the North is centralized, it's pretty much sliced into smaller pies. When it comes to war, they don't have to pay to keep an army, again it's provided by the bannermen. "Money", the way we view it today is different than in Westeros.

[jpkellirl]

As we know, GRRM researched the histories of the medieval ages for this series. In keeping with this, I believe that he that when he was developing the Starks, he would have had in mind, a family like the House of Percy-who were the most powerful noble family in northern England for much of the Middle Ages. LIke the Starks, their lands were poor, yet vast. They were charged with keeping the "wilding" Scots at Hadrian's Wall and stop them pillaging the Southron fiefs of Norman England. Although they were not the wealthiest family in the land; they were amongst the most respected. From an aesthetic point of view, I've included a link to Alnwick Castle, the Percy ancestral home, which IMO, further illustrates the similarites..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alnwick_Castle

[Warg of Dragons]

The fact that Winterfell had the Glass Garden which enabled them to grow food year round in the North is something that always impressed me about the Starks.

yea and they mention that they have the hot water running through the walls or something dont they?

[Warg of Dragons]

I think there is a clear distinction to be made between the different types of wealth. Obviously other great houses like the Tyrell's and Lannisters have more coin than the Starks. However, precious metals and actual money aren't historically considered to be sound and sustainable methods of measuring wealth. Land is. Things like gold and silver create an illusion of prosperity. One's wealth in terms of actual money can change dramatically at any time. However, land will have more long-term and sustainable worth than gold ever could. In my opinion, land is a better tool to measure one's wealth. This means, that over the long-term, the Starks probably have the most sound, sustainable and long-term wealth than any house in the realm. The Tyrell's may come a close second considering how much of their land can actually be exploited for production of market goods and for habitation.

this is well put

true wealth especially in times of struggle is determined by things like bridges, holdfasts, harbors boats, etc....not coin