Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Floki of the Ironborn

Battle on the Green Fork casualties

88 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

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