Why the Lack of Northern Knights?

[Master of Puppets]

I know that most Northern follow the old god's so to be a ser you need to do a whole heap of bullshit in a sept. But why did northerners have standing vigil in a weirwood and being anointed by heart tree sap, they could be called weirmen instead of knights or something. What are your thoughts?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You answered your own question: Knighthood is by and large a tradition of the Seven, not the old gods. I don't think a northman would refuse to be knighted for whatever reason (Jorah and Rodrik come to mind), and someone with mixed heritage like Bran might actually seek knighthood out. But by and large, culturally, it isn't really their thing.

[Mladen]

As Maester Luwin said: A man’s worth is not marked by a ser before his name

Why creating something new when there is no need for it? Man's valor isn't determined by a title, and we have seen how false knights truly are.

[Knight Of Winter]

The North has bunch of heavy cavalrymen who are knights in all but a name and title. As for how many knights does North have, it's answered in Bran's chapter when Robb called his banners in Winterfell:

“How many knights?”

“Few enough,” the maester said with a touch of impatience. “To be a knight, you must stand your vigil in a sept, and be anointed with the seven oils to consecrate your vows. In the north, only a few of the great houses worship the Seven. The rest honor the old gods, and name no knights . . . but those lords and their sons and sworn swords are no less fierce or loyal or honorable. A man’s worth is not marked by a ser before his name. As I have told you a hundred times before.”

“Still,” said Bran, “how many knights?”

Maester Luwin sighed. “Three hundred, perhaps four . . . among three thousand armored lances who are not knights.”

[The Red Pope]

Maybe there isn't such a clear distinction between the noble and working class as in the Andal culture. Knights are a special class of warriors sanctioned by the gods. But maybe in the eyes of the Old Gods all men are equal and nobility simply a matter of holding land and power.

[Master of Puppets]

I wasn't talking about actual knights but northern warriors who weren't lords who had proved themselves to be a great asset (for example Jory) could hold an honorary title associated with the old gods rather than the seven

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

I wasn't talking about actual knights but northern warriors who weren't lords who had proved themselves to be a great asset (for example Jory) could hold an honorary title associated with the old gods rather than the seven

I think that they just didn't want to create a title, they can live the same way that the knights do without any title.

[Fat Mac]

I don't think titles go with their way of life. The northmen don't seem to use titles in general as much as the South, as titles don't save you when winter comes.

[Jossy]

I wasn't talking about actual knights but northern warriors who weren't lords who had proved themselves to be a great asset (for example Jory) could hold an honorary title associated with the old gods rather than the seven

It isn't neccessary if you've proven yourself a great asset in battle to have a name associated with it. If you're a badass, the northmen will know with or without a title

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I wasn't talking about actual knights but northern warriors who weren't lords who had proved themselves to be a great asset (for example Jory) could hold an honorary title associated with the old gods rather than the seven

But again, Luwin explains this: Titles don't necessarily tell you what someone is really worth. It's not their culture.

It isn't neccessary if you've proven yourself a great asset in battle to have a name associated with it. If you're a badass, the northmen will know with or without a title

Exactly this.

[Hempen Dan the Ropemaker]

So the andals had knights before they came to westeros. Did they have lords though? Being a northern lord seems to work the same as being a Southron lord, so did the andals adopt the first men social structure of lords, or was it already how things worked in essos? There are no lords in essos now as there are in westeros, but maybe there were and the valyrians uprooted that title?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

So the andals had knights before they came to westeros. Did they have lords though? Being a northern lord seems to work the same as being a Southron lord, so did the andals adopt the first men social structure of lords, or was it already how things worked in essos? There are no lords in essos now as there are in westeros, but maybe there were and the valyrians uprooted that title?

Lords are a sign of a decentralized structure. It's pretty much the only way to organize big piles of land without much bureaucracy. Today's Essos has no big piles of land anymore and features a lot of bureaucracy as well.

Yes, the Andals most likely had Lords early on. Or rather, kings. Each leading a contingent of warriors and their families across the Narrow Sea, carving out a small kingdom for himself, and in time be integrated into the more successfull kingdoms as a Lord.

[Leif]

'Cause knights are trash. Real warriors don't need fancy titles and shiny armor.

[John of Mowsley]

'Cause knights are trash. Real warriors don't need fancy titles and shiny armor.

just longbows and a good line of sight

[Colonel Green]

I tend to think that 300 years of Targaryen rule, not to mention the presence of Manderly's knights for 1000 years, would have led to knighthood gaining more currency in the rest of the North. It's essentially an intermediate class of nobility, whereas in the North as it presently stands there's nothing between being a lord and being an entirely untitled commoner.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I tend to think that 300 years of Targaryen rule, not to mention the presence of Manderly's knights for 1000 years, would have led to knighthood gaining more currency in the rest of the North. It's essentially an intermediate class of nobility, whereas in the North as it presently stands there's nothing between being a lord and being an entirely untitled commoner.

That's not true. Galbart Glover and Helman Tallhart aren't Lords but they're nobles. Helman is actually a knight and I think he and Galbart are essentially landed knights

[Colonel Green]

That's not true. Galbart Glover and Helman Tallhart aren't Lords but they're nobles. Helman is actually a knight and I think he and Galbart are essentially landed knights

I mean in terms of titles. The two "masterly" houses are interesting, since they seem to be lords except with different titles; I'd like to know why those exist (and there seem to be only two of them).

The point is that there are many thousands of knights in the south, far exceeding the number of lords. The North just has people of the lordly class; somebody like Jory Cassel, who would be a knight in the south, instead has no titles at all.

[Pod The Impaler]

I think also it shows that where life is somewhat meaner, more survival-focused and less ostentatious, a person's merit as a warrior seems to matter just as much as blood. Knighthood is mostly a social thing - a matter of privelege and status. There's nothing about killing that one can learn as a knight that you can't learn as a commoner. You're just way less likely to afford having formal training as the latter.

However, I'd be interested to see where in ASOIAF history that use of horses in Westeros came from. Was it always present in Westeros, or did the Andals import that too ? That is quite important to the concepts of knighthood as well.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

just longbows and a good line of sight

Off topic, but that's just an English legend. Archers were a nuisance. A useful nuisance sometime, but just a nuisance. Battles were won in the melee.

Considering that knights clad only in their padding marched around fighting and winning despite ~20 arrows sticking out of their padding, that shouldn't be surprising

I mean in terms of titles. The two "masterly" houses are interesting, since they seem to be lords except with different titles; I'd like to know why those exist (and there seem to be only two of them).

The point is that there are many thousands of knights in the south, far exceeding the number of lords. The North just has people of the lordly class; somebody like Jory Cassel, who would be a knight in the south, instead has no titles at all.

The Glovers and Tallharts are most likely part of the Starks' personal lands, as opposed to the real Lords, who hold their own personal lands only politically tied to the Starks.

They lack the right to judge capital crimes as well.

I think also it shows that where life is somewhat meaner, more survival-focused and less ostentatious, a person's merit as a warrior seems to matter just as much as blood. Knighthood is mostly a social thing - a matter of privelege and status. There's nothing about killing that one can learn as a knight that you can't learn as a commoner. You're just way less likely to afford having formal training as the latter.

However, I'd be interested to see where in ASOIAF history that use of horses in Westeros came from. Was it always present in Westeros, or did the Andals import that too ? That is quite important to the concepts of knighthood as well.

Invasion of the First Men, 12,000 years ago. One of their advantages against the CotF.