How are westeroi armies recruited

[GallowsKnight]

Yeah. Important to distinguish between real history and GRRM's world though. Going by the descriptions in the books it does seem like at least some of the soldiers just are peasants with bare bones equipment though. Like that part where the Frey army marches past Moat Cailin and "peasants with scythes" are mentioned, if I recall correctly. 

"Three days later, the vanguard of Roose Bolton’s host threaded its way through the ruins and past the row of grisly sentinels—four hundred mounted Freys clad in blue and grey, their spearpoints glittering whenever the sun broke through the clouds. And at the rear, more Freys. At least a thousand, maybe more: bowmen, spearmen, peasants armed with scythes and sharpened sticks, freeriders and mounted archers, and another hundred knights to stiffen them."

This is the quote you mentioned. So the Freys have at least 1500 men here. 400 mounted knights and men at arms in the Vanguard. Providing Roose Bolton's rear is another 100 mounted knights and men at arms. Then there is the at least a 1000. Even here GRRM mentions bowmen, spearmen, freeriders and mounted archers as well as peasants with scythes and sticks. It's not a mob of peasants with improvised weapons, it's a force of professional soldiers with peasants as well. What proportion we don't know.

The peasants while armed might not be there to fight, but rather as camp followers, digging latrines and what not. They're armed because they're going through hostile territory, but Roose and Aeny's Frey might not bring them to any proper battle.

Furthermore this is at the end of the Riverlands conflict. The Freys have still taken some casuatlities fighting on both sides and left men besieging Riverrun and presumably to defend the Twins. So they are likely stretched thin on the ground as well. Having what ?4000 men I think as their estimated forces in total. So that could be why they're bolstering their number with freeriders and peasants.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Does that mean westeros is a bit backwards in terms of military recruitment then most of Europe at the time of the war of the roses?

Definitely compared to the Wars of the Roses, yes. Most soldiers during that time were professionals in one way or another, not levies. Even during the prior Hundred Years War, England and France didn't really use typical feudal levies very much. 

Now all that said militias, partisans, insurgents and other armed civilians have probably existed since forever, and still do in modern conflicts. But not necessarily as part of the actual field armies. 

"Three days later, the vanguard of Roose Bolton’s host threaded its way through the ruins and past the row of grisly sentinels—four hundred mounted Freys clad in blue and grey, their spearpoints glittering whenever the sun broke through the clouds. And at the rear, more Freys. At least a thousand, maybe more: bowmen, spearmen, peasants armed with scythes and sharpened sticks, freeriders and mounted archers, and another hundred knights to stiffen them."

This is the quote you mentioned. So the Freys have at least 1500 men here. 400 mounted knights and men at arms in the Vanguard. Providing Roose Bolton's rear is another 100 mounted knights and men at arms. Then there is the at least a 1000. Even here GRRM mentions bowmen, spearmen, freeriders and mounted archers as well as peasants with scythes and sticks. It's not a mob of peasants with improvised weapons, it's a force of professional soldiers with peasants as well. What proportion we don't know.

The peasants while armed might not be there to fight, but rather as camp followers, digging latrines and what not. They're armed because they're going through hostile territory, but Roose and Aeny's Frey might not bring them to any proper battle.

Furthermore this is at the end of the Riverlands conflict. The Freys have still taken some casuatlities fighting on both sides and left men besieging Riverrun and presumably to defend the Twins. So they are likely stretched thin on the ground as well. Having what ?4000 men I think as their estimated forces in total. So that could be why they're bolstering their number with freeriders and peasants.

I suppose. "Scythes and sharpened sticks" sounds like extremely primitive armament even for such men, though. 

I don't know, I just have a feeling that it is part of the "gritty" setting that GRRM is going for. With his pretty dark and cynical interpretation of the Middle Ages as a whole. It kind of goes well together with the entire "none of the knights believe in chivalry, everyone is oppressed, religion is just a tool to control the masses" parts, you know? So while those passages in the books can certainly be rationalized away to fit real history better, I wouldn't be so sure that this fits what GRRM actually meant. 

[Black Crow]

While its important not to disregard the effects of Hollywood productions in both readers and writers imagining mediaeval armies, something which is often overlooked is the actual availability of weapons or rather the shortage of weapons. All through military history and not just in mediaeval times we have examples of more men being levied than there are sufficient weapons to give them. Thus they marched with scythes and pitchforks in mediaeval times, with staves and such like in the 17th century, smooth-bored flintlocks in the American Civil War and often no weapons at all, not because they were a bucolic bunch of peasants but simply because they and their commanders lived in hope of getting them properly kitted out somewhere along the road before anything exciting happened.

[Gremory]

 

Unsullied are renowned throughout Essos, and are highly in demand. If the Good Masters gave them away permanently, they'd sell them faster than they could train new ones and consequently would go out of business. Therefore, they have to have some means of getting them back. 

Also, on topic of Dany, note that in the show, the only place where the Good Masters try to give them orders, Kraznys specifically says, "I am your master". The Unsullied siding with Dany isn't about them accepting her as their master. It's about them rejecting the concept of slavery entirely, and with that the concept that they are subject to being bought, sold, and rented out entirely.

I have never watched the show and therefore I cannot comment on how the Unsullied or Astapor is portrayed within, and while what you have said may be well reasoned from watching the show's portrayal it is simply not correct for the books.

No where in the books does it even come close to saying that Unsullied are loaned, borrowed or rented. While your statement about them selling them faster then they could train new ones sounds like it could very well be a reasonable assessment based on real world training procedures it is not once presented in the books that this is a problem for the Good Masters. Except when Dany wants to literally buy every single one they have down to the little boys who still have their puppies.

Where as on the matter of them being absolutley loyal to their respective buyer is mentioned by nearly every single person that speaks of them. Including the fact that they will do the most unspeakable acts, or calmly walk through a city without so much as stealing a button, or spitting the wrong way. Missendei says "they would do as commanded without question." and that she could "command them to fall on their swords" -ASOIAF Wiki

These are quotes from the book that I took from ASOIAF's wiki page under "Unsullied".

These are only two of the many quotes about the Unsullied's loyalty to the buyer . There is no way that something that is being rented can be allowed to be utterly destroyed like that. Indeed your whole argument is that they are in high demand and "they'd sell them faster than they could train new ones and consequently would go out of business."  This single fact makes it clear that these troops are not being borrowed loaned or rented. They are bought and paid for. They are no longer the Good Masters of Astapor's soldiers. They are the buyers to do with however he or she may please. 

All of this being said if you can actually show me anywhere textual evidence of the Unsullied ever being rented, or on loan I am more then willing to concede the issue to you. 

[Tarellen]

Definitely compared to the Wars of the Roses, yes. Most soldiers during that time were professionals in one way or another, not levies. Even during the prior Hundred Years War, England and France didn't really use typical feudal levies very much. 

Now all that said militias, partisans, insurgents and other armed civilians have probably existed since forever, and still do in modern conflicts. But not necessarily as part of the actual field armies. 

I suppose. "Scythes and sharpened sticks" sounds like extremely primitive armament even for such men, though. 

I don't know, I just have a feeling that it is part of the "gritty" setting that GRRM is going for. With his pretty dark and cynical interpretation of the Middle Ages as a whole. It kind of goes well together with the entire "none of the knights believe in chivalry, everyone is oppressed, religion is just a tool to control the masses" parts, you know? So while those passages in the books can certainly be rationalized away to fit real history better, I wouldn't be so sure that this fits what GRRM actually meant. 

Why did you think grrm used a more primitive recruiting system then what was used in the war of the rose?

[Black Crow]

Why did you think grrm used a more primitive recruiting system then what was used in the war of the rose?

He didn't really. Both professional soldiers and levies were used side by side then and long afterwards. The Scottish system I described earlier survived well into the 17th century. Its all a matter of circumstances and those of the earlier Hundred Years War were very different from what we see in Westeros.

[John Doe]

Here is some info regarding Robb's army, at least.

AGOT Catelyn VIII

Exactly.

[Jon Flowers]

I think the stories of the Septon Meribald are a bit misleading.  One simply cannot conduct a military campaign relying primarily on crowds of barely armed and untrained peasantry as a fighting force.  These are more akin to camp followers and laborers historically.  They would be easy meat for any disciplined and well equipped force that they encounter. 

Coincidentally, they are referred to in Scots histories as "smallfolk."

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Here is some info regarding Robb's army, at least.

AGOT Catelyn VIII

We still have hundreds of the contracts between Henry V and his archers from the Agincourt campaign, of the ~9,000 archers only 1 that we know of stated that his job was an archer.

Yet these were all men who had their own arms and armour (longbow, sword and buckler at the minimum), they could all shoot arrows with a good proficiency. They knew how to fight in a melee as the battle proved. Just because soldiers aren't full time doesn't mean they aren't well trained and equipped.

[jarl the climber]

"Three days later, the vanguard of Roose Bolton’s host threaded its way through the ruins and past the row of grisly sentinels—four hundred mounted Freys clad in blue and grey, their spearpoints glittering whenever the sun broke through the clouds. And at the rear, more Freys. At least a thousand, maybe more: bowmen, spearmen, peasants armed with scythes and sharpened sticks, freeriders and mounted archers, and another hundred knights to stiffen them."

This is the quote you mentioned. So the Freys have at least 1500 men here. 400 mounted knights and men at arms in the Vanguard. Providing Roose Bolton's rear is another 100 mounted knights and men at arms. Then there is the at least a 1000. Even here GRRM mentions bowmen, spearmen, freeriders and mounted archers as well as peasants with scythes and sticks. It's not a mob of peasants with improvised weapons, it's a force of professional soldiers with peasants as well. What proportion we don't know.

The peasants while armed might not be there to fight, but rather as camp followers, digging latrines and what not. They're armed because they're going through hostile territory, but Roose and Aeny's Frey might not bring them to any proper battle.

Furthermore this is at the end of the Riverlands conflict. The Freys have still taken some casuatlities fighting on both sides and left men besieging Riverrun and presumably to defend the Twins. So they are likely stretched thin on the ground as well. Having what ?4000 men I think as their estimated forces in total. So that could be why they're bolstering their number with freeriders and peasants.

My impression is that the Frey force, while being military in nature, was made up of bachelors and younger sons who hoped to maybe marry and get some land in the long term once the North was fully pacified. 

As far as Meribald goes, I think it was a common practice that we have seen some commanders use in the books to put poorly trained troops in the front. Think of Tywin at the Green Fork or Stannis's proposal to put the Wildlings at the vanguard of his army. 

[Abdallah]

How are westeroi armies recruited? Where do they get there weapons and armor? What sections of socity do most soliders come from? How are armies funded? Do soliders get paid? Or is it all just plunder?

Westerosi armies are essentially medieval european armies. heres how it works.

1. You have the Lords. They obey the Lord Paramount who in turns obeys the King.

2. Each Lord has household knights who live in his castle, and also landed knights who each govern part of his territory. all knights have a squire, a knight in training.  Landed knights usually bring along men at arms, professionals who aren't knights yet.

3. When war is declared the lords each conscript from the peasants. for the most part the raw recruits simply wear leather jerkins that might stop a slashing attack and bring everyday tools such as scythes or bills. Some lords provide their men with spears. Some lords are wealthier than others and train them in how to be pikemen. A portion of the peasants will be bowmen. 

4. Another part of the army is sell-swords, if the lord is rich enough to hire them. Hedgeknights, knights without a lord, often join one side or the other, hoping to be rewarded by being taken into the service of the lords.  

5.If the lords are victorious the men can take armor and weapons off the corpses of their enemies. 

6. all lords do pay their soldiers, although wages aren't that high for peasants. for the most part if a lord captures a city he lets his men rob and plunder the city, take gold from the inhabitants etc as a reward for their service. 

7. There are also the 4 wardens to be taken into account. If an enemy of the King invades, say the Vale, the Warden of the East (Lord Paramount of the Vale) then all the soldiers fighting for the king, such as a loyal lord from the Stormlands, would obey the Warden of the East. 

[Jaak]

On 16.1.2016 at 1:09 PM, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Definitely compared to the Wars of the Roses, yes. Most soldiers during that time were professionals in one way or another, not levies. Even during the prior Hundred Years War, England and France didn't really use typical feudal levies very much. 

Now all that said militias, partisans, insurgents and other armed civilians have probably existed since forever, and still do in modern conflicts. But not necessarily as part of the actual field armies. 

How do you think were the 12th century armies of English Anarchy recruited?

[Free Northman Reborn]

What I never quite understood, is how big the total number of people in an army actually is.

If Stannis has 5000 men starving to death in the Wolfswood, does that include the camp followers? Or will they take the number to 10000?

Surely the 5000 are warriors only, meaning that all the laborers, servants, herdsmen, drivers etc. must take the number to at least double that. And all these people have to eat too.

Same thing with Robb's army. It says he had 20,000 men marching down the Neck. Does that mean that the total number of human beings in his horde numbered closer to 40,000?

And Roose's 8,000 or whatever inside Winterfell. Is that actually 16,000 people once you count all the non-combatants in support roles?

How does this work, exactly?

[VeryLittleGravitasIndeed]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What I never quite understood, is how big the total number of people in an army actually is.

If Stannis has 5000 men starving to death in the Wolfswood, does that include the camp followers? Or will they take the number to 10000?

Surely the 5000 are warriors only, meaning that all the laborers, servants, herdsmen, drivers etc. must take the number to at least double that. And all these people have to eat too.

Same thing with Robb's army. It says he had 20,000 men marching down the Neck. Does that mean that the total number of human beings in his horde numbered closer to 40,000?

And Roose's 8,000 or whatever inside Winterfell. Is that actually 16,000 people once you count all the non-combatants in support roles?

How does this work, exactly?

 

Stannis is a special case since much of his force was shipped to the Wall. He probably doesn't have much in the way of camp followers because he's not passing through populated lands. Robb's troops were also force marched which would mean a considerably smaller portion of camp followers compared to normal.

It is impossible to determine the exact proportion of camp followers in an army but it seems that just the able bodied soldiers are counted.

[direpupy]

Rule of thumb for ervery 10 soldiers one non-combatant like a camp cook, healer or armourer and other useful personel. As for campfollowers that depends on a number of factors, but it has been known that camp followers actually have greater numbers than the army they folow, but this is rare. a normal figure would be about have of the number of combatants.

[Tarellen]

On January 16, 2016 at 6:37 PM, John Doe said:

Exactly.

What did you mean by exactly?

[Tarellen]

On January 18, 2016 at 10:54 AM, direpupy said:

Rule of thumb for ervery 10 soldiers one non-combatant like a camp cook, healer or armourer and other useful personel. As for campfollowers that depends on a number of factors, but it has been known that camp followers actually have greater numbers than the army they folow, but this is rare. a normal figure would be about have of the number of combatants.

Lot of people travel in westeros when they go to war

[Pod The Rod]

On 1/18/2016 at 10:54 AM, direpupy said:

Rule of thumb for ervery 10 soldiers one non-combatant like a camp cook, healer or armourer and other useful personel. As for campfollowers that depends on a number of factors, but it has been known that camp followers actually have greater numbers than the army they folow, but this is rare. a normal figure would be about have of the number of combatants.

That's a modern rule. The tail-to-tooth ratio would have been a lot more even in medieval times.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

On 18 January 2016 at 0:18 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

What I never quite understood, is how big the total number of people in an army actually is.

If Stannis has 5000 men starving to death in the Wolfswood, does that include the camp followers? Or will they take the number to 10000?

Surely the 5000 are warriors only, meaning that all the laborers, servants, herdsmen, drivers etc. must take the number to at least double that. And all these people have to eat too.

Same thing with Robb's army. It says he had 20,000 men marching down the Neck. Does that mean that the total number of human beings in his horde numbered closer to 40,000?

And Roose's 8,000 or whatever inside Winterfell. Is that actually 16,000 people once you count all the non-combatants in support roles?

How does this work, exactly?

That's a huge problem and one I've not been able figure out an explanation for. It is most evident with Tywin's army, in which it is made fairly clear that that absolute number of men is 20,000, and the number of soldier also seems to add up to 20,000. With 7,000 men-at-arms all of whom need at least one squire, dozens of lords each of whom would have multiple servants, and an army that would surely be supported by dozens of smiths, carpenters, labourers, Maesters and surgeons, miners, wagon drivers  and so on, it is hard to see how Tywin's 20,000 fighting men could manage with less than 10,000 or so supporting men, not to mention as many as several thousand camp followers.

I think we just have to accept that it is a big fuck up on Martin's part, or he just intended for all of the knights to put on their own armour, feed their own horses, and put up their own tents, which seems unlikely.

 

On 18 January 2016 at 3:54 PM, direpupy said:

Rule of thumb for ervery 10 soldiers one non-combatant like a camp cook, healer or armourer and other useful personel. As for campfollowers that depends on a number of factors, but it has been known that camp followers actually have greater numbers than the army they folow, but this is rare. a normal figure would be about have of the number of combatants.

 

24 minutes ago, Pod The Rod said:

That's a modern rule. The tail-to-tooth ratio would have been a lot more even in medieval times.

It would be more correct to say we have very little idea how many non-combatants travelled with medieval armies, maybe I simply haven't seen them, but in all of the records from the Hundred Years and the Wars of the Roses I have seen there have been no records of numbers of non-combatants present in armies, and why would there be?

I think all we can say is that the ratio of fighters to support would heavily depend upon the makeup of the army, with armies made up of commoners having very few men working in support compared to the numbers of fighters, whereas an army made up of nobles and gentlemen would be outnumbered, perhaps 2:1 by non-combatants.

In Westeros it seems that about 1/4 of most armies are men-at-arms, who mostly have 1 squire each, which make up the largest part of the non-combatants, the rest is a mix of craftsmen, labourers, guys working in the baggage train and so on, adding up to maybe half as many as there are fighting men. (Not that they appear to be present at all).

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

41 minutes ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

 

I think all we can say is that the ratio of fighters to support would heavily depend upon the makeup of the army, with armies made up of commoners having very few men working in support compared to the numbers of fighters, whereas an army made up of nobles and gentlemen would be outnumbered, perhaps 2:1 by non-combatants.

In Westeros it seems that about 1/4 of most armies are men-at-arms, who mostly have 1 squire each, which make up the largest part of the non-combatants, the rest is a mix of craftsmen, labourers, guys working in the baggage train and so on, adding up to maybe half as many as there are fighting men. (Not that they appear to be present at all).

Mercenary armies, and armies that have been in the field for a very long time, would also probably have larger numbers of camp followers. During the Thirty Years War some armies had camp followings several times larger than the amount of soldiers, for example. They were basically moving cities with bars, brothels, gambling dens, jesters, self proclaimed doctors, entire families with women and children and all, and so on.

Along with a whole bunch of bandits and other men of shady repute who used the chaos created by a passing army as a chance to plunder civilians, of course.