Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Floki of the Ironborn

Battle on the Green Fork casualties

99 posts in this topic

It's more or less a fact at this point that Bolton's army as a whole had 600 cavalry (1/10 of the original host's), with all of them surviving to the Red Wedding (500 with Roose, the rest with Steelshanks). It's also a fact that all or almost all of these were Bolton men; explicit in the case of Steelshanks' riders, implicit in the case of Roose's men at the Red Wedding (he says the only troops present are Boltons and a handful of Karstarks; the Karstark cavalry went with Robb). So Bolton has 600 presumably heavy cavalry. You can add Ramsay's 600 men outside Winterfell to that list, but going by the descriptions we get that force was mostly light cavalry with a minority of heavy cavalry.

Edited by Nihlus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nihlus said:

It's more or less a fact at this point that Bolton's army as a whole had 600 cavalry (1/10 of the original host's), with all of them surviving to the Red Wedding (500 with Roose, the rest with Steelshanks). It's also a fact that all or almost all of these were Bolton men; explicit in the case of Steelshanks' riders, implicit in the case of Roose's men at the Red Wedding (he says the only troops present are Boltons and a handful of Karstarks; the Karstark cavalry went with Robb). So Bolton has 600 presumably heavy cavalry. You can add Ramsay's 600 men outside Winterfell to that list, but going by the descriptions we get that force was mostly light cavalry with a minority of heavy cavalry.

What we don't know, is how many Bolton cavalry went with Robb to the West. If Robb's purpose was to limit the Green Fork infantry force to specifically 10% of his overall cavalry strength (which seems to have been the case), then that meant that any cavalry the Boltons had in excess of 600 would have gone with Robb.

Also consider that each of the lords or lords' sons present in the Green Fork host would have been ahorse, and would have had a contingent of personal heavy cavalry protecting them. We know for example of Manderly knights being killed by Gregor Clegane when they were caught on the wrong side of the Trident on Roose's march to the Twins. Similarly, Harrion Karstark, Robett Glover and the various other lords and commanders in Roose's host would have had at least some of their personal cavalry with them.

So let's be conservative and say that only 100 of the 600 original cavalry in the Green Fork host were non-Boltons. It would then mean that only 500 of the cavalry were Boltons. So if Bolton started with say 700 or 800 cavalry at Moat Cailin, he would have had to send the rest of them with Robb's cavalry host, and keep only 500 of his cavalry with him.

It would seem that he carefully arranged for as many of the non-Bolton forces as possible to be wiped out before he returned to the Twins, obviously to make his nefarious betrayal easier to accomplish. However, nowhere are we told how many of his cavalry rejoined him from Robb's host at the Twins.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 10:44 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just to get back to the Bolton numbers you refer to as a major issue, above. What is it that makes you sceptical of it? Various different sources of information seem to converge quite well on a Bolton presence in Robb's army of around 3000 men, with 700-800 of those being cavalry.

We don't get any specific numbers on Roose's numbers and the information we get is very vague and if taken literally places Roose above anyone else and makes the other more northern Northern lords significantly small. While Boltons were historically the second power house in the North, they lost a great amount of territory. In the books it is implied Karstark lands belonged to them and while in the world book it is stated they never owned any lands beyond Last River, they have quite an amount of territory from Last River to White Knife going as far south as Sheepshead Hills. Lonely Hill to their north belongs to the Umbers and very likely it was as such in ancient days too. So they were a rather great house but they do not own most of this territory anymore. Hornwoods' land are bordered to the south with Sheepshead hills, to the west with White Knife (they ask permission to dam it) and Bolton lands to the North/Northeast. This land is big enough to have several castles in it (Lord Hornwood asks a holdfast taken from his grandfather given back to him, and Roose demands Manderly to give up claim on Hornwood lands and castles.)

Another, not so strong point would be this; we have several lords, both in the North and other places, known to have vassal lords under them but we are given non for Boltons.

Don't take this for number guessing as even with all we know it will be incomplete, but here are those I can remember:

- Manderlys have a dozen lordlings (also a hundred landed knights), Woolfields and Holts (we only know of Ser Maynard Holt, a ship captain in NW) are very likely their bannermen for examples of named houses. We also see an old knight with three white/silver mermaids on a purple field, likely a cadet house from a Manderly woman and Woolfield man. While they are not bannermen, Flints of Widow's Watch and Lockes are under Manderly influence.

- Webbers have Inchfields

- Cerwyns have Condons

- Dustins have Stouts.

- Florents have Norcrosses.

- Ryswells and Karstarks, while not having any known bannermen, they have quite a large amount of relatives lying around, especially by northern standards.

- Grandisons have Wagstaffs (castellans are mostly/always vassal lords or their relatives)

- Tallharts, while not having any named bannermen, have a good amount of young nobles (members of Wild Hares have to be from petty nobility, being able to afford horses, lances and likely armor for boys not even nineteen)

- Glovers have the woodclans Bole, Branch, Forrester, Woods.

- Reeds have Blackmyre, Boggs, Cray, Fenn, Greengood, Peat, Quagg

- Yronwood have Wells and Drinkwater.

- Daynes of Starfall have Daynes of High Hermitage (not sure on this)

- Osgreys 20 lordlings, 3 cadet branches and 100 landed knights. While they are not stated to be vassals, Durwells, Conklyns, Stackhouses, Cranes, Webbers and Inchfields lands are in the borders of Northmarch. Rowans too were possibly former Osgrey bannermen.

- Rowans, new lords of the Northmarches so all Osgreys had are under their rule, perhaps more.

- Starks have Pooles, Cassels, Mollens in their immediate lands.

- Martells have Shells (one of the dozen firstman houses of former Greenblood kingdom Gariibald Shells is the only known member)

-  Lords of Harrenhal have Wodes,quite possibly also had Rootes and Butterwells (Maegor didn't give all the lands to the Harroway's winning knight, Butterwells, a rich house aren't mentioned any time before and while Roote's are mentioned, they aren't told of having any lands before, likely sworn to Harroways)

- Butterwells had Heddles

- Vances of Wayfarer's Rest have smallwoods and also had Tullys (gave them their lands)

- Darrys were also very likely in the same situation as Karstarks and Ryswells until after the Robert's Rebellion(Gregor raids their lands on redfork, south of Riverrun)

- Hightowers have Costayne, Beesbury, Mullendore, Cuy, Bulwer

- Tarlys have Hunts

- Freys have Nayland, Erenford, Charlton, Haigh. also while not stated, Vyprens are either Frey bannermen, or are influenced by the Freys like Manderly influencing Locke and Flint.

- Sunglasses have Rambton

- Dragonstone has Velaryons, Sunglasses, Celtigars, Bar Emmons. While not stated to be bannermen, Masseys and lords of Crackclaw point are also either vassals or under influence of Dragonstone. (Crackclaw men declaring for Blacks,very likely also declaring for Stannis. Masseys declared for blacks and also Stannis - Stannis says Justin Massey's lands are lost to him- they were also among Aegon's first supporters, together with Bar Emmons, their neighbours and former allies through marriage who gave them their seat back)

- Royces have Shetts of Gulltower, Coldwaters, Tolletts and they also have more than one cadet even before the forming of Gates of Moon branch. Coldwater, being so far away from Runestone, possibly got sworn to Royces during the last major battle against the Andals. This would mean there are very likely to be other Firstmen houses sworn to Royces too.

- Graftons possibly have Shetts of Gulltown and Arryns of Gulltown.

Only prominent household member of Roose we know of is Walton, called steelshanks for his steel greaves so most likely a commoner. Compare this to the list of other houses above, some of which have their bannermen act as castellans or commanders for them, while some others have numerous family members that does/may do the same.

 

I should possibly open a new thread for the above information for further discussion on lords and their vassal lords.

 

Edited by Corvo the Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

We don't get any specific numbers on Roose's numbers and the information we get is very vague and if taken literally places Roose above anyone else and makes the other more northern Northern lords significantly small. While Boltons were historically the second power house in the North, they lost a great amount of territory. In the books it is implied Karstark lands belonged to them and while in the world book it is stated they never owned any lands beyond Last River, they have quite an amount of territory from Last River to White Knife going as far south as Sheepshead Hills. Lonely Hill to their north belongs to the Umbers and very likely it was as such in ancient days too. So they were a rather great house but they do not own most of this territory anymore. Hornwoods' land are bordered to the south with Sheepshead hills, to the west with White Knife (they ask permission to dam it) and Bolton lands to the North/Northeast. This land is big enough to have several castles in it (Lord Hornwood asks a holdfast taken from his grandfather given back to him, and Roose demands Manderly to give up claim on Hornwood lands and castles.)

Another, not so strong point would be this; we have several lords, both in the North and other places, known to have vassal lords under them but we are given non for Boltons.

Don't take this for number guessing as even with all we know it will be incomplete, but here are those I can remember:

- Manderlys have a dozen lordlings (also a hundred landed knights), Woolfields and Holts (we only know of Ser Maynard Holt, a ship captain in NW) are very likely their bannermen for examples of named houses. We also see an old knight with three white/silver mermaids on a purple field, likely a cadet house from a Manderly woman and Woolfield man. While they are not bannermen, Flints of Widow's Watch and Lockes are under Manderly influence.

- Webbers have Inchfields

- Cerwyns have Condons

- Dustins have Stouts.

- Florents have Norcrosses.

- Ryswells and Karstarks, while not having any known bannermen, they have quite a large amount of relatives lying around, especially by northern standards.

- Grandisons have Wagstaffs (castellans are mostly/always vassal lords or their relatives)

- Tallharts, while not having any named bannermen, have a good amount of young nobles (members of Wild Hares have to be from petty nobility, being able to afford horses, lances and likely armor for boys not even nineteen)

- Glovers have the woodclans Bole, Branch, Forrester, Woods.

- Reeds have Blackmyre, Boggs, Cray, Fenn, Greengood, Peat, Quagg

- Yronwood have Wells and Drinkwater.

- Daynes of Starfall have Daynes of High Hermitage (not sure on this)

- Osgreys 20 lordlings, 3 cadet branches and 100 landed knights. While they are not stated to be vassals, Durwells, Conklyns, Stackhouses, Cranes, Webbers and Inchfields lands are in the borders of Northmarch. Rowans too were possibly former Osgrey bannermen.

- Rowans, new lords of the Northmarches so all Osgreys had are under their rule, perhaps more.

- Starks have Pooles, Cassels, Mollens in their immediate lands.

- Martells have Shells (one of the dozen firstman houses of former Greenblood kingdom Gariibald Shells is the only known member)

-  Lords of Harrenhal have Wodes,quite possibly also had Rootes and Butterwells (Maegor didn't give all the lands to the Harroway's winning knight, Butterwells, a rich house aren't mentioned any time before and while Roote's are mentioned, they aren't told of having any lands before, likely sworn to Harroways)

- Butterwells had Heddles

- Vances of Wayfarer's Rest have smallwoods and also had Tullys (gave them their lands)

- Darrys were also very likely in the same situation as Karstarks and Ryswells until after the Robert's Rebellion(Gregor raids their lands on redfork, south of Riverrun)

- Hightowers have Costayne, Beesbury, Mullendore, Cuy, Bulwer

- Tarlys have Hunts

- Freys have Nayland, Erenford, Charlton, Haigh. also while not stated, Vyprens are either Frey bannermen, or are influenced by the Freys like Manderly influencing Locke and Flint.

- Sunglasses have Rambton

- Dragonstone has Velaryons, Sunglasses, Celtigars, Bar Emmons. While not stated to be bannermen, Masseys and lords of Crackclaw point are also either vassals or under influence of Dragonstone. (Crackclaw men declaring for Blacks,very likely also declaring for Stannis. Masseys declared for blacks and also Stannis - Stannis says Justin Massey's lands are lost to him- they were also among Aegon's first supporters, together with Bar Emmons, their neighbours and former allies through marriage who gave them their seat back)

- Royces have Shetts of Gulltower, Coldwaters, Tolletts and they also have more than one cadet even before the forming of Gates of Moon branch. Coldwater, being so far away from Runestone, possibly got sworn to Royces during the last major battle against the Andals. This would mean there are very likely to be other Firstmen houses sworn to Royces too.

- Graftons possibly have Shetts of Gulltown and Arryns of Gulltown.

Only prominent household member of Roose we know of is Walton, called steelshanks for his steel greaves so most likely a commoner. Compare this to the list of other houses above, some of which have their bannermen act as castellans or commanders for them, while some others have numerous family members that does/may do the same.

 

I should possibly open a new thread for the above information for further discussion on lords and their vassal lords.

 

From the So Spake Martin collection:

Question:

I am also a bit curious as to the social structure of westeros. I understand the seven high lords, and the slightly lower lords (ie. Boltons, Karstarks, Freys etc.). However, do these lords also have sub lords below them? Lords who maybe raise 10 or 20 men for the Karstarks?

Answer:

Yes, it is a feudal system. The lords have vassals, the vassals have vassals, and sometimes the vassals of the vassals have vassals, down to the guy who can raise five friends.

End of quote

In any case, the point is, ALL the major lords have sub lords sworn to them. Nor is House Stout (an example you used) the only lord sworn to House Dustin. They are just the only ones mentioned. The Dustins will have a whole bunch of petty lords sworn to them, same as the Boltons, same as the Karstarks, same as the Umbers etc. Of course, not all these vassals will be of equal strength or wealth. And some will obviously have more vassals than others.

But it is incorrect to use the named vassals as an indication of the total number of vassals sworn to a particular major lord, wherever he may be in Westeros. Unless you have it pointed out, like in the case of the Manderlys, that they have a dozen vassal lords, you really have no way of knowing how many vassals a particular lord has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish GRRM used titles other than "lord," having everyone between a knight and the king be a generic "lord" is just lazy and confusing. Having different ranks of nobility like Duke, Count/Earl, Viscount, and Baron would make it easier to tell who's supposed to be what rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nihlus said:

I wish GRRM used titles other than "lord," having everyone between a knight and the king be a generic "lord" is just lazy and confusing. Having different ranks of nobility like Duke, Count/Earl, Viscount, and Baron would make it easier to tell who's supposed to be what rank.

Yeah but some people just don't bother trying to understand what level of nobility is what (like me and I'm English so that's probably pretty bad). Where you find the general use of Lord for all ranks to be confusing, I would find the use of Duke and Earl etc to be more confusing.

Besides, there are ranks of nobility in Westeros. The Lord Paramounts/Wardens are the highest lord, then noble lords, then minor lords then landed knights/masterly houses. Not sure where clans like Liddle and Flint fall but probably about the same as a minor lord. Anyway, the point is there are ranks to it and it's not hard to figure out what rank a Lord falls into just based on the size of their lands or their seat (with a few confusing exceptions; Glover and Connington for example). It seems in Westeros, the term Lord is just a courtesy title used for all nobility who are the head of their house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah but some people just don't bother trying to understand what level of nobility is what (like me and I'm English so that's probably pretty bad). Where you find the general use of Lord for all ranks to be confusing, I would find the use of Duke and Earl etc to be more confusing.

Besides, there are ranks of nobility in Westeros. The Lord Paramounts/Wardens are the highest lord, then noble lords, then minor lords then landed knights/masterly houses. Not sure where clans like Liddle and Flint fall but probably about the same as a minor lord. Anyway, the point is there are ranks to it and it's not hard to figure out what rank a Lord falls into just based on the size of their lands or their seat (with a few confusing exceptions; Glover and Connington for example). It seems in Westeros, the term Lord is just a courtesy title used for all nobility who are the head of their house.

Jon states to Stannis that the Mountain Clans are viewed as petty lords. Petty lord is basically a term used by greater Lords to refer to lesser lords. It is not a title as such. It is simply a term similar to lordling, implying a meaning of "small lord" or a similar connotation. Of course, while they may all be petty lords, their strengths vary considerably. The average Mountain Clan strength (of which there are about 40), based on the number that joined Stannis, is 3000/40 = 75 men. But since they vary wildy in strength we can imagine that some have only say a dozen men or so, while the strongest ones - the Wulls followed by the Flints, can probably raised hundreds of men each.

Anyway, the hierarchy generally appears to be, using some examples for demonstration sake:

Lord Paramount - House Stark

Prinicipal Bannerlord (also called great lords of a particular region in general discourse) - House Manderly/Karstark/Bolton etc.

Petty lord sworn to bannerlord - House Stout, Woolfield, etc.

Masterly Houses/Landed Knights sworn to any of the above three levels - Houses Glover, Tallhart, Condon, Cassel etc.

The Mountain Clans stand somewhat apart from this structure, as they are clan based. Yet they appear to be roughly equivalent to petty lords in terms of their social status. Higher than Landed Knights, but not at the level of great lords. Of course this becomes interesting when you have the Mountain Flints (First Flints) who might well be the ancestors of the Flints of Widows Watch and the Flints of Flint's Finger, who both are at the level of great lord.

I think this signifies that there is no actual official difference between greater lords and petty lords. It is more a sign of wealth and physical power. If the Hornwoods for example grow poorer and weaker over time, they could be referred to as petty lords by their peers in future generations. Similarly, if a petty lord grows in wealth and strength, I presume nothing stops them from becoming great lords. Their titles are officially on the same level. Just their resource bases differ.

Anyway, that is the rough hierarchy. With a lot of overlap and blurring, expecially when it comes to powerful Masterly Houses like the Tallharts and Glovers who are probably on an equivalent or greater level of strength than some great lords such as the Mormonts, Hornwoods etc. But in terms of social level, they still fall below these Houses.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

From the So Spake Martin collection:

Question:

I am also a bit curious as to the social structure of westeros. I understand the seven high lords, and the slightly lower lords (ie. Boltons, Karstarks, Freys etc.). However, do these lords also have sub lords below them? Lords who maybe raise 10 or 20 men for the Karstarks?

Answer:

Yes, it is a feudal system. The lords have vassals, the vassals have vassals, and sometimes the vassals of the vassals have vassals, down to the guy who can raise five friends.

End of quote

In any case, the point is, ALL the major lords have sub lords sworn to them. Nor is House Stout (an example you used) the only lord sworn to House Dustin. They are just the only ones mentioned. The Dustins will have a whole bunch of petty lords sworn to them, same as the Boltons, same as the Karstarks, same as the Umbers etc. Of course, not all these vassals will be of equal strength or wealth. And some will obviously have more vassals than others.

But it is incorrect to use the named vassals as an indication of the total number of vassals sworn to a particular major lord, wherever he may be in Westeros. Unless you have it pointed out, like in the case of the Manderlys, that they have a dozen vassal lords, you really have no way of knowing how many vassals a particular lord has.

That's why I said it's not a strong point, don't take it a part of number guessing. But it is still a point though; I'd imagine we know these smaller houses sworn to direct vassals of a regional lord because even they are the vassals of a vassal (or sometimes even a vassal of them, like inchfields) they'd have some importance, either because we know of a single person due to their service to their lord like acting as castellan or commander, or they have enough strength of their own to be worth mentioning. In Roose's case, we don't know of any commanders or castellans of noble birth. We only have Walton, a commoner judging by him having no last name. This doesn't mean he has no one sworn to him, just that his vassals are probably of so little importance we get no mention of them and Roose can easily appoint a commoner as a commander of his forces with no repercussions from his vassals who would've expected to be given a command just like Roose and Robett did with Robb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently found some new stuff related to this so I thought I would revive this.

After the battle we learn Roose retreated to causeway. Some time later Edmure tells to Catelyn Roose has 10000 men, but he also says Roose will need Tallhart's 400 garrison and also Frey's men. Since he speaks of the Frey's seperately, this 10000 could very well be northman only.

Later , through Arya, we learn that Aenys brought 1500 Freys to Harrenhal, again possibly meaning they came seperately.

Depending on whether Robb had 5000 or 6000 horse with Frey's included, Roose would have 16500-17500 infantry at his command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I recently found some new stuff related to this so I thought I would revive this.

After the battle we learn Roose retreated to causeway. Some time later Edmure tells to Catelyn Roose has 10000 men, but he also says Roose will need Tallhart's 400 garrison and also Frey's men. Since he speaks of the Frey's seperately, this 10000 could very well be northman only.

Later , through Arya, we learn that Aenys brought 1500 Freys to Harrenhal, again possibly meaning they came seperately.

Depending on whether Robb had 5000 or 6000 horse with Frey's included, Roose would have 16500-17500 infantry at his command.

Indeed. That is my view. Particularly given the statement that the losses at Duskendale were worse than the Green Fork. In my view, the 10,000 survivors from the Green Fork that retreated to the Causeway excluded the Freys, who had returned to the nearby Twins, with 1500 of them later rejoining Roose at Harrenhal.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Indeed. That is my view. Particularly given the statement that the losses at Duskendale were worse than the Green Fork.

I can in no way imagine Duskendale casualties being worse than Greenfork ones, but, if Roose is only accounting for the northerners he lost then it is very much possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green Fork losses were around 5,000 and Roose brought 15,000 men give or take.

I think Duskendale losses were around 1,000. Roose sent them to die after he found out about the Blackwater battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Green Fork losses were around 5,000 and Roose brought 15,000 men give or take.

I think Duskendale losses were around 1,000. Roose sent them to die after he found out about the Blackwater battle. 

Robb has ~18000 men before Manderlys join with some 1500. Later Freys join him with ~4000, bringing his total to ~23500 he leaves 800 of this as garrison to Twins and Ned of the hills originally intended to garrison MC with 200 men. Robb later has 6000 men with him in whispering wood after Mallisters join him. Taking the MC and Twins total garrison as 1000, There is no way Roose had fewer than 17000 men or so.

Robb lost a third of his foot in Duskendale, by his words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Robb has ~18000 men before Manderlys join with some 1500. Later Freys join him with ~4000, bringing his total to ~23500 he leaves 800 of this as garrison to Twins and Ned of the hills originally intended to garrison MC with 200 men. Robb later has 6000 men with him in whispering wood after Mallisters join him. Taking the MC and Twins total garrison as 1000, There is no way Roose had fewer than 17000 men or so.

Robb lost a third of his foot in Duskendale, by his words.

At the time Robb received a lot of false info by the Freys and Boltons. He even wanted Glover (or was it Tallhart?) to answer for that nonsense battle, not realizing that it was his ally Roose who send them there. 

All those numbers Robb had when he marched south. Third of his foot might have been calculated after his reduced strenght during the war. 

However, everything we read in Cat's POV before the RW was blurred to say the least, and I didn't catch some accurate analysis for the army numbers, not that it was something important at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

At the time Robb received a lot of false info by the Freys and Boltons. He even wanted Glover (or was it Tallhart?) to answer for that nonsense battle, not realizing that it was his ally Roose who send them there. 

All those numbers Robb had when he marched south. Third of his foot might have been calculated after his reduced strenght during the war. 

However, everything we read in Cat's POV before the RW was blurred to say the least, and I didn't catch some accurate analysis for the army numbers, not that it was something important at that point.

Freys and Roose may feed him lies but Robb but it doesn't change the numbers he started with and he ended up with.

He even planned on attacking MC with 12000 men once Roose and the Freys joined him and this is after Duskendale.

 

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Indeed. That is my view. Particularly given the statement that the losses at Duskendale were worse than the Green Fork. In my view, the 10,000 survivors from the Green Fork that retreated to the Causeway excluded the Freys, who had returned to the nearby Twins, with 1500 of them later rejoining Roose at Harrenhal.

Those 1500 Freys were most/all the survivors of Green Fork I think; Robb planned to have 12000+ attacking MC.

He has 3500, Roose had little over 6000,  (~6350) Freys have this 1500 infantry we know of and most of their horse, probably as much as 900. Freys also have their garrison of 400, which would stay.

All of this numbers together bring us to above 12000, if Freys had any more survivors above this 1500, it would exceed 13000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Freys and Roose may feed him lies but Robb but it doesn't change the numbers he started with and he ended up with.

He even planned on attacking MC with 12000 men once Roose and the Freys joined him and this is after Duskendale.

 

Those 1500 Freys were most/all the survivors of Green Fork I think; Robb planned to have 12000+ attacking MC.

He has 3500, Roose had little over 6000,  (~6350) Freys have this 1500 infantry we know of and most of their horse, probably as much as 900. Freys also have their garrison of 400, which would stay.

All of this numbers together bring us to above 12000, if Freys had any more survivors above this 1500, it would exceed 13000.

How many does Robb think Bolton has at this point? An how many does he think the Freys have at this point? And how many does he have at this point? Are all 3500 veteran cavalry with him Northerners? If not, will he take only the Northerners North, and leave the Mallisters, Vance's, Pipers etc behind to defend the Riverlands? Or will he leave the Riverlands defenseless while he takes his army to fight Northern battles up North?

What about the 11,000 that Edmure was able to gather? Are they all excluded? Or are only some of them excluded? And were the Freys part of those 11,000 or not? And if the 11,000 are not taken up North because they are Riverlanders needed to defend the Riverlands, why are the Freys then all taken up North? Are they not Riverlanders too?

I must admit that the numbers seem a bit murky at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How many does Robb think Bolton has at this point? An how many does he think the Freys have at this point? And how many does he have at this point? Are all 3500 veteran cavalry with him Northerners? If not, will he take only the Northerners North, and leave the Mallisters, Vance's, Pipers etc behind to defend the Riverlands? Or will he leave the Riverlands defenseless while he takes his army to fight Northern battles up North?

What about the 11,000 that Edmure was able to gather? Are they all excluded? Or are only some of them excluded? And were the Freys part of those 11,000 or not? And if the 11,000 are not taken up North because they are Riverlanders needed to defend the Riverlands, why are the Freys then all taken up North? Are they not Riverlanders too?

I must admit that the numbers seem a bit murky at this point.

Catelyn says those 3500 were men who were with him since whispering wood. They would all be northerners because most/all horse there would be Freys and Northerners. Robb says he'll have 12000+ once Roose and Freys join him. He knows about Duskendale. He may not know exact numbers of Duskendale but he says himself "a third of my foot lost for Duskendale" so he'll know how many left Harrenhal.

Freys aren't part of Edmure's 11000 because they are either in Westerlands or on the wrong side of the Trident. In Robb's plan Freys going North would be temporary I think and he would send them back after MC is taken, remember they learn of Balon's death on the road to RW. He probably chose Freys only because they are both the closest house to North and already had their army on Robb's path so no unnecessary troop movements.

Edited by Corvo the Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Catelyn says those 3500 were with him in the whispering wood. Robb says he'll have 12000+ once Roose and Freys join him. He knows about Duskendale. He may not know exact numbers of Duskendale but he says himself "a third of my foot lost for Duskendale" so he'll know how many left Harrenhal.

Freys aren't part of Edmure's 11000 because they are either in Westerlands or on the wrong side of the Trident. In Robb's plan Freys going North would be temporary I think and he would send them back after MC is taken, remember they learn of Balon's death on the road to RW. He probably chose Freys only because they are both the closest house to North and already had their army on Robb's path so no unnecessary troop movements.

Yes, the 3500 were at the Whispering Wood. But the Whispering Wood included a whole bunch of Riverland lords - who ended up part of the cheering crowd proclaiming Robb King in the North, remember. So, they would be part of his 3500. The obvious question then, is if Robb is willing to include the Riverlords who were part of his returning 3500, why would he not also include some of the Riverlords who were part of Edmure's 11000?

An obvious way to make a distinction is to say that he would only take Northmen back North, allowing the Riverland lords (other than the Freys, apparently), to stay and defend their own lands in the South. Meaning maybe only 2500 or 3000 of his 3500 cavalry would accompany him North.

Another matter is how many men he believes Bolton has at this point. When Robb says a third of his foot was lost at Duskendale, how do the thousand or more Karstark foot feature in this comment? Does he mean before or after the Karstark foot abandons him? This is made more complicated by the fact that a lot of Karstarks were part of the Duskendale host. But does Robb know that at this point in time?

My point is, we don't know exactly how the numbers stack up in Robb's mind.

What I just come back to from an overall perspective, is that it makes little sense to me that the Freys on their own could raise on the order of 6,000 men, or put differently, almost a third of the entire host that the North could marshall and march to war through the Neck.

I maintain that there is double counting of numbers and that they must be maxed out at 5,000 or so, including peasants with sharp sticks.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yes, the 3500 were at the Whispering Wood. But the Whispering Wood included a whole bunch of Riverland lords - who ended up part of the cheering crowd proclaiming Robb King in the North, remember. So, they would be part of his 3500. The obvious question then, is if Robb is willing to include the Riverlords who were part of his returning 3500, why would he not also include some of the Riverlords who were part of Edmure's 11000?

An obvious way to make a distinction is to say that he would only take Northmen back North, allowing the Riverland lords (other than the Freys, apparently), to stay and defend their own lands in the South. Meaning maybe only 2500 or 3000 of his 3500 cavalry would accompany him North.

Another matter is how many men he believes Bolton has at this point. When Robb says a third of his foot was lost at Duskendale, how do the thousand or more Karstark foot feature in this comment? Does he mean before or after the Karstark foot abandons him? This is made more complicated by the fact that a lot of Karstarks were part of the Duskendale host. But does Robb know that at this point in time?

My point is, we don't know exactly how the numbers stack up in Robb's mind.

What I just come back to from an overall perspective, is that it makes little sense to me that the Freys on their own could raise on the order of 6,000 men, or put differently, almost a third of the entire host that the North could marshall and march to war through the Neck.

I maintain that there is double counting of numbers and that they must be maxed out at 5,000 or so, including peasants with sharp sticks.

Proclaiming him king in da norf happens after Whispering Wood so those Riverlords join much later. He primarily had Northernerns and Frey cavalry during the battle, with some lordlings, Riverrun survivors and Mallisters, very likely fresh levy as they never talk about Mallisters not Joining Edmure at the start. Remember he had 6000 men after these groups joined but he probably had 5000-5500 as 9/10 cavalry. the 500-1000 men that joined to make 6000 would have very few horseman, especially if Mallister men are a second levy as I think.

Thousand Karstark would be near 300 that left Robb, which Roose would know plus few hundred that left Roose so they aren't that important, a third would be a couple of hundred at best. Again, he would be informed on Roose's numbers, or what numbers Roose deemed fit to tell him. He knew Glover and Tallhart went to Duskendale after all.

 

Freys do not raise 6000 men. Think of it this way; Karstarks start out with 2300 men but raise close to 700 later on (450 and possibly 200 with Rodrik) Freys start out with near 4000 men. and later raise again over a thousand, say 1500 perhaps. If Karstarks can raise a third of their initial raise later on, Why not Freys?

There is some double counting probably but only numbers that would be affected considerably by this would be Freys.

We know that Robb didn't loose many men on Western campaign and Whispering Wood, evidence is him still having 3500 cavalry even after 1300 Freys and Karstarks are removed. Frey cavalry would mostly be intact too. If we take exact numbers there are 4000 Frey men in the field currently. Of this near 2500 is (1500 of Aenys and most the cavalry) is accounted for. Meaning around 1500 unaccounted, therefore new men. If the 2000 in Riverrun and North aren't exactly 2000 but say 1750 each, this is lowers the number of new men further down, to 1000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0