Relative army strengths of the Great Houses

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Martell: 50 000 men - unknown foot to horse ratio but probably rather high, a small fleet

That must be the old GoO RPG book, then. It's estimate about Dorne is explicitly wrong as of aFfC.

[Spastic Plastic]

And the Starks and Martells (the weakest house in Westeros) are way too powerful in that RPG book. They definitely have a smaller army than the Tullys.

Neither do the Tyrells have twice as many men as the Lannisters, who come in second.

[Ran]

I'm not sure if the Starks have a smaller army than the Tullys. GRRM put them on par with the Martells at a time when it seemed he really did plan the Martells to have 50k spears (as per ACoK), and it was only later that he decided to knock the Dornish down by half. Doesn't mean the North (and the Vale) were similarly knocked down.

For example, here GRRM doesn't directly respond to whether the change in Dorne's strength means the North's strength is also changed in accordance with this, but what he says -- the North is a lot bigger than Dorne, the Dornish given to exaggerating their strength -- rather implies that the North is indeed much stronger than Dorne. The problem for the North is that the vast size and the climate means it takes a lot longer to gather forces.

As to the Reach having twice the troops as the Lannisters, I think this pretty likely, actually. 50k-60k seems to be the max for the Lannisters (including the sweepings of the West), whereas the Tyrells may indeed top 100k from all that's been indicated. But the Reach is many times large than the westerlands, and more generally fertile. I mean, the Hightowers alone can raise more than 12,000 troops (probably more like 15,000) in their small corner of the region.

(Oh, I see we're discussing the GoO RPG's figures. They got those from me. And yes, it was pre-AFfC more or less, so I didn't have that new figure for Dorne. I think everything else is probably more or less on the mark, give or take 10k.)

[noobilly]

I agree with Ran generally, and yes, the North takes a long time to gather forces because they simply have to march so far, especially when attacking south. So I would feel that Robb's initial 12000 men should be well less than half of what he can muster in say, a long defensive war.

The only thing is I feel that the Iron Islands' figure of 20000 seems slightly high, considering they are much smaller than any other of the kingdoms and they have "poor, rocky soil", even if you take fishing into account that number seems slightly high.

[Ran]

It's the ships. They have many hundreds of longships -- certainly as many as 500. Historically speaking, the smallest compliments you'd get would be 24 men on any sort of raiding vessel. But the big ships, of which there are dozens of them, are over 100+ men. Theon's Sea Bitch is a 100 man longship, and Great Kraken and Iron Victory are larger still. The largest likely number 200 or more. The Iron Fleet alone probably runs to a hundred ships with an average crew of 100 (GRRM has previously indicated that the Iron Fleet is roughly on par with the Redwyne fleet and the royal fleet).

So, assume 500 ships (a thousand is surely an exaggeration), 10,000 men on the biggest 100, 8,000-10,000 men on the other 400, and there you go.

That said, not the figure I'm surest about, and I can see it as low as 15,000-16,000.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

So I would feel that Robb's initial 12000 men should be well less than half of what he can muster in say, a long defensive war.

That 12,000 wasn't even the full amount he crossed the Neck with, it was just the more northerly lords who assembled at Winterfell. Barrow knights, crannogmen and the Lords Manderly and Flint waited to join them further south, according to Luwin. And Renly and Cat's discussion in aCoK has Robb marching with 20,000 northmen, and the Riverlords perhaps doubling it. In both cases there are substantial garrisons guarding the home castles and heavy casualties among the Rivermen.

The only thing is I feel that the Iron Islands' figure of 20000 seems slightly high, considering they are much smaller than any other of the kingdoms and they have "poor, rocky soil", even if you take fishing into account that number seems slightly high.

I think so too. Just look at how small they are; they couldn't possibly have half the men the North has. Even with a higher rate of military participation than they other regions have, it seems like 10 or 12 thousand would be about it for them...not much more.

Eta:

Ran,

That said, not the figure I'm surest about, and I can see it as low as 15,000-16,000.

That's about the highest I can see it as.

[Gurkhal]

Yeah it's taken from Guardian of Order's version

I think so too. Just look at how small they are; they couldn't possibly have half the men the North has. Even with a higher rate of military participation than they other regions have, it seems like 10 or 12 thousand would be about it for them...not much more.

From what I read about the Iron Islands the Ironborn are a very martial culture where everyone except the thralls are trained for battle in some regard, and beyond being able to raise almost the entire male population there would also be a number of females joining for battle. While 20 00 MAY be seen as to much I think its pretty ok - I could possibly go down to 15 000 men but not lower.

[Jaak]

The problem for the North is that the vast size and the climate means it takes a lot longer to gather forces.

If North had to leave large numbers of men behind because of the hurry of mobilization and because many of the smallfolk were not trained for war, the smallfolk should have had no trouble doing their fieldwork, and the soldiers left behind in hurry should easily be mobilized to deal with Ironmen and Boltons.

This is not what we see. Umber harvests rot because of lack of hands to harvest them, and when ser Roderick Cassel is dealing with ironmen and Boltons, he finds very much smaller forces available.

[Ran]

That the Greatjon took too many men doesn't necessarily mean all the houses are depopulated. And I think one has to balance out the fact with how very much more vital getting the last rich harvests in is for the North in the face of Winter. Where the Tyrells can readily draw most of their field labor into a levy in extremity, the North simply can't.

One should assume that the regions right around Winterfell were the ones that sent the most men down with Robb, being the closest to him. But these were also the ones who responded to Ser Rodrik's call. Obviously, very low manpower left to draw on, and yet still, it's a couple thousand men raised in a relative hurry.

Like I said, if you read George's own remarks on the matter, he certainly seems to imply that the North is significantly stronger than Dorne, but its size, diffuse population, etc. presents substantial problems.

[noobilly]

That 12,000 wasn't even the full amount he crossed the Neck with, it was just the more northerly lords who assembled at Winterfell. Barrow knights, crannogmen and the Lords Manderly and Flint waited to join them further south, according to Luwin. And Renly and Cat's discussion in aCoK has Robb marching with 20,000 northmen, and the Riverlords perhaps doubling it. In both cases there are substantial garrisons guarding the home castles and heavy casualties among the Rivermen.

I think so too. Just look at how small they are; they couldn't possibly have half the men the North has. Even with a higher rate of military participation than they other regions have, it seems like 10 or 12 thousand would be about it for them...not much more.

Eta:

Ran,

That's about the highest I can see it as.

12,000 was my mistake, you are right. When Robb reached Moat Cailin and set up camp he had 18,000. I just checked. Adding to that I seem to remember there was something about the Lords Declarant of the Vale being able to raise 20,000 men among themselves, I think I should lift my estimate of the strength of the North and the Vale, maybe to near 40,000 each.

[Free Northman]

That the Greatjon took too many men doesn't necessarily mean all the houses are depopulated. And I think one has to balance out the fact with how very much more vital getting the last rich harvests in is for the North in the face of Winter. Where the Tyrells can readily draw most of their field labor into a levy in extremity, the North simply can't.

One should assume that the regions right around Winterfell were the ones that sent the most men down with Robb, being the closest to him. But these were also the ones who responded to Ser Rodrik's call. Obviously, very low manpower left to draw on, and yet still, it's a couple thousand men raised in a relative hurry.

Like I said, if you read George's own remarks on the matter, he certainly seems to imply that the North is significantly stronger than Dorne, but its size, diffuse population, etc. presents substantial problems.

Hi Ran

In the course of putting together your World Book of Westeros, have you perhaps succeeded in obrtaining more precise or updated figures with regards to the relative strength of the Seven Kingdoms, since this post in 2010?

[king of the trident]

What about sheer wealth?

1. Lannisters (obviously)

2. Tyrells (likely, given the vastness of their holdings)

3. Martells (very large kingdom, all of it along the south sea route)

4. Crownlands (rich lands, surrounding the very wealthy capital city)

5. Tullys (rich lands all on the river)

6. Arryns (Gulltown is a pretty big port, yeah? and the Vale is verdant, but the rest of it's rocks)

7. Stormlands (lot of land lost to the Kingswood, and a lot of Rocks in the south)

8. Starks (White Harbor does brisk trade, but that's pretty much it; again, mostly rock and swamp)

9. Dragonstone (tiny islands, and rocks -- strong traders but they can't be self-sufficient)

10. Greyjoys (also tiny, barren islands, and besides, they disdain gold trade)

The starks have sliver mines , the aryns have marble and very lush lands

[king of the trident]

And the Starks and Martells (the weakest house in Westeros) are way too powerful in that RPG book. They definitely have a smaller army than the Tullys.

Neither do the Tyrells have twice as many men as the Lannisters, who come in second.

The starks have the same population as the storm lands and 2/5 the population of the reach if house martell can raise 50k men in the less populated region in westoros i think the stark and storm lords can do better. anyways number don't count for everything you can ask jamie and stefford lannister Robb was out numbered but still won easily

[salt]

Great original post, obviously we don't have the numbers for all the houses but I feel like you got pretty close.

[kephv]

Great topic. I honestly didn't think too much about exact numbers for the great houses, and I'm quite surprised by a few of them: I would've never guessed the Iron Islands had so many, for instance.

[Cotter_Pyke]

These two threads have a interesting discussion about army sizes:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/59037-why-didnt-wyman-manderly-act-sooner/page__st__40

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/58725-the-problem-of-the-ironborn/

[Cydal]

I was at work today and very bored, when the question struck me: "How do the Great Houses of Westeros stack up against each other in army sizes?" So to avoid keeling over onto my table during the meeting, I began pondering on the question, and I've listed them in their rough order of strength, before the start of the War of the Five Kings. Tell me what you guys think of my analysis.

Firstly, GRRM himself tells us that the Reach is the strongest of the 7 kingdoms, and the Vale, the North and Dorne the least populated. Doran Martell himself acknowledges that Dorne is the least populous of all. So we have the Reach at the top and Dorne at the bottom in the lists of army sizes, and now we have to sort out the ones in between.

The Reach is high up on the top obviously. When Renly marched with his army he claimed to have 100,000 men, and Catelyn was shocked by the size of his camp. Of course, this comprised of some from the Stormlands, but given that he was marching up from the Reach, I think it's a safe bet that the majority of his army came from the Reach. Most of his key advisers in that march were Reach lords too. Besides, Mace Tyrell had kept back a significant portion of his army (10,000 IIRC), so I would judge the Reach's fighting strength as very, very high, probably between 80,000 and 100,000 men, and I would not be surprised if it exceeded 100,000.

After the Reach, I would put the Lannisters. Lord Commander Mormont called Tywin Lannister the most powerful lord in the Seven Kingdoms, and although that was probably partly because his daughter was the queen, I think the strength of the Westerlands must be a factor as well. When the Lannisters were fighting with the Starks and Tullys, Tywin outnumbered Bolton significantly at their first clash, and Jaime had 3 troops to Robb's 1 at the Whispering Wood. Let us not forget this was before Stafford Lannister was raising his "huge army" in the shadow of Casterly Rock. Catelyn also remarks that Edmure's army is smaller than Tywin's. So overall I would put the Lannisters at 2nd, I'm guessing their full fighting strength to be perhaps 50-60,000 men.

It's really hard to say who is 4th between the Riverlands and the Stormlands. They look about the same size on the map. The Riverlands should be pretty fertile with their rivers, but then the Stormlands may have monsoon rains too, as their name seems to indicate.

I just checked the Citadel information, and it seems the Riverlands has 42 noble houses while the Stormlands has 35. So my guess is that the Riverlands has slightly more manpower. Poor logic I know, but I really don't have anything else to go by. In any case, the Reach which is the most populous has the most houses, while Dorne, the least, has the fewest noble houses, so there is a slight basis to my logic.

I would guess their total fighting strength at somewhere around 35-40,000.

Next we come to the Vale and the North. Who has more? The North has 33 houses and the Vale 31, not enough difference to count. The North is very cold while the Vale is very mountainous, so both of them have less population than other kingdoms with the same area as them. (If the North had population corresponding to its area it could fight the other six kingdoms singlehandedly!) The Vale armies have not been seen in action, so there is really not much information on their fighting strength.

Very roughly, I would still guess the North to be slightly stronger, as they are just that much bigger in area. How many soldiers would they have in total? Robb brought 12,000 men south with him when he first marched, but so far we have all seen that after the first army marches out, the lords still have significant levies in reserve. (Note: the full figure should be 18000 when he had reached Moat Cailin, 1200 was the amount which had gathered at Winterfell, my mistake). Add to that the fact that the North is so huge so gathering armies takes longer, and that Robb's march was very hasty, I think probably the percentage of total fighting strength he brought out initially would be even less than the other Lords Paramount in the war. I think the total fighting strength of the North is somewhere around 25-30,000.

In that case, the Vale would probably be slightly lower, maybe around 25,000.

Dorne is the last of all, as admitted by Doran himself. I do wonder how he managed to hide that fact from the Iron Throne though, doesn't he have to pay taxes? It's difficult to gauge their power as they haven't really fought yet. But when the Iron Throne called for their help twice, once led by Baelor Breakspear and another time by Prince Lewyn, I noticed that Dorne always sent around 10,000 men. Maybe that is half their total fighting strength, which seems to be the rough percentage most Houses Paramount can call up on short notice. So I would put their full power at roughly 20,000.

Please share your opinions on my analysis born out of boredom!

GRRM didn specify in some interview on the relative strength of the houses, You are right about the the Reach being first and the Lannisters second. But the stormlands is actually among the least. GRRM said The north, Vale and Dorne would be in the middle with the Riverlands (Only because of a lack of natural border) and stormlands being bottom with Dragonstone being the very least.

[Cydal]

Oh yeah and the Iron born are only strongest on sea with the Reach thanks to the Redwynes second with the Westerlands being third strongest.

[Free Northman]

GRRM didn specify in some interview on the relative strength of the houses, You are right about the the Reach being first and the Lannisters second. But the stormlands is actually among the least. GRRM said The north, Vale and Dorne would be in the middle with the Riverlands (Only because of a lack of natural border) and stormlands being bottom with Dragonstone being the very least.

Since that interview, GRRM downgraded Dorne - probably by as much as half - to the point where they are in fact the weakest of the Seven Kingdoms - probably excluding the Ironborn, who are not part of the mainland kingdoms.

So the order is now probably like this:

Reach

Westerlands

North

Vale

Riverlands

Stormlands

Dorne

Iron Isles

[Cydal]

Since that interview, GRRM downgraded Dorne - probably by as much as half - to the point where they are in fact the weakest of the Seven Kingdoms - probably excluding the Ironborn, who are not part of the mainland kingdoms.

So the order is now probably like this:

Reach

Westerlands

North

Vale

Riverlands

Stormlands

Dorne

Iron Isles

Do you have a source for that?