Military strengths of the Houses of Westeros

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Some minor nitpicks.

The Fyrd is something from pre-Norman England, and was only used as a basis for taxation after the Norman invasion and conquest, so was not a means of raising an army during the War of the Roses.

Next the Fyrd was divided into a full and a narrow Fyrd, the full Fyrd was actually  one man per Hide of land who where to have shield and spear. The narrow Fyrd is the one you are speaking of with one much better equipped man per five Hides of land.

But even the narrow Fyrd was only used for the defense of England, for assaults they only brought 1/3 of they actual Fyrd although these where strengthened by the Huscarls the professional soldiers who had no other job then to fight and protect there Lord/King and who are not part of the Fyrd.

Again just some minor nitpicks, but i thought you might find it useful for your calculations.

Would be very useful, thanks! If Westerosi armies are modeled after this then my assumption that the mobilization rate is rather high at North isn't far off. What is so surprising is the armies we see going south are huge compared to those fighting in home territory. What Freenorthman says could be true to some extent, immediate surroundings are depleted of male population who are in a suitable age range but this doesn't explain the armies we later see being much poorer in comparison, both in numbers and the age of men.

Well the numbers could be explained if their armories were almost empty and they still preferred going quality over quantity so no spears made of fire hardened branches (Wildlings and Eustace Osgrey levy) but actual ones with a shaft and a metal tip so this explains Ramsay's and Karstarks' (Both with Stannis and Rodrik) numbers since we have no age given on them, also Rodrik's and Umbers' numbers but doesn't expalin the age of Rodrik's and Umbers' men.

Sure there could still be men around and they haven't enlisted for the guard simply because they have a profession already and since they are the only ones left Rodrik has boys for guards but he had all the time he needed and could have gone beyond the "leagues around" depleted of "likely lads". Same applies for Umbers, their immediate surrondings may no longer have men in a sutable age but their lands are vast, surely they had time, even if the force that went with Hother was hastily assembled to answer Boltons' call, Mors still had time to take what few available men were left in Umber lands, whether tanners or bakers just like it was suggested for Rodrik's 600.

Quote

"Tell me, Theon, how many men did Mors Umber have with him at Winterfell?"

"None. No men." He grinned at his own wit. "He had boys. I saw them." Aside from a handful of half-crippled serjeants, the warriors that Crowfood had brought down from Last Hearth were hardly old enough to shave. "Their spears and axes were older than the hands that clutched them. It was Whoresbane Umber who had the men, inside the castle. I saw them too. Old men, every one." Theon tittered. "Mors took the green boys and Hother took the greybeards. All the real men went with the Greatjon and died at the Red Wedding. Is that what you wanted to know, Your Grace?"

 

[Nihlus]

The North doesn't have a high mobilization rate. Quite the opposite.

In 13th century Kievan Rus, most areas effectively had no mobilization potential. Instead all of the soldiers would come from walled towns and cities, and the surrounding areas. The vast majority of 'villages' (more like hamlets) were never touched. No wall means no boyar's house means no warriors. The reason for this was because with such vast areas and low population density with enormous distances to the nearest major settlement, it wasn't feasible to have a normal feudal levy in the field. The area is too big, even if you could somehow magically assure loyalty of every single hamlet it would still take months just for everyone to march to the muster hall. By which time their mandated service for the year is up and they need to go attend to their lands at home. This could be helped with a road network, but even that wasn't an end-all solution... and the Rus' didn't have jack for a road network anyway (seemingly neither does the North).

Rus' armies in general were tiny even by medieval standards owing to their geography and lack of development. For example, the Principality of Kiev had a population of several hundreds of thousands, with the city of Kiev itself having around 50,000, but the Grand Prince of Kiev had a personal combat retinue (druzhina) of about 400-600 men drawn from the areas around the city. The city also had a regiment of 800-1200 in the 13th century; these were all cavalry, druzhinas of the boyars who lived in the city itself. Then there were the garrisons who defended the towns and city during a siege situation, but they weren't an organized citizen militia or anything, but rather just men with whatever training they did in their free time and whatever weapons they could scrounge up, either via personal ownership or spare arms and armor of the boyars (they wouldn't show up in field battles, obviously, but could have some surprising successes on the defense). Add a few hundred light cavalry mercenaries from various Turkic tribes (typically all even a rich prince could afford), and you have ~2,000 troops; the max amount of men the most powerful and most populous Rus' state could field.

While the North's political system is distinct from that of the Rus' states, their similar geography makes it a comparison worth bringing up. If the North is anything like the Rus', then the vast majority of its soldiers are being drawn from a handful of major settlements, and nowhere else. The hundreds of thousands of rural hamlets that dot the geography, usually no more than 3-4 houses each, pay taxes in crops but otherwise don't contribute to a war effort. It's not a small and relatively well developed kingdom like England, where all landowners of a certain wealth level were required to drill and have a minimum of equipment.   

That said, the reports of these communities being completely depleted of men of fighting age make zero sense. That's 15-20% of the population. If you draft all the healthy males between 16 and 50 then you have no one to work the fields as women and children can do only so much especially in the areas with harsh climate. At that point it wouldn't even matter whether all the young men died or all came home covered in glory; drafting them would have killed the economy in these areas irrecoverably. Basically the North's major settlements would commit economic suicide any time they went to war. As this is not the case, and those towns/cities/castle-towns still managed to thrive when the North went to war in the past, it's clear there's some heavy exaggeration going on.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 hours ago, Nihlus said:

The North doesn't have a high mobilization rate. Quite the opposite.

In 13th century Kievan Rus, most areas effectively had no mobilization potential. Instead all of the soldiers would come from walled towns and cities, and the surrounding areas. The vast majority of 'villages' (more like hamlets) were never touched. No wall means no boyar's house means no warriors. The reason for this was because with such vast areas and low population density with enormous distances to the nearest major settlement, it wasn't feasible to have a normal feudal levy in the field. The area is too big, even if you could somehow magically assure loyalty of every single hamlet it would still take months just for everyone to march to the muster hall. By which time their mandated service for the year is up and they need to go attend to their lands at home. This could be helped with a road network, but even that wasn't an end-all solution... and the Rus' didn't have jack for a road network anyway (seemingly neither does the North).

Rus' armies in general were tiny even by medieval standards owing to their geography and lack of development. For example, the Principality of Kiev had a population of several hundreds of thousands, with the city of Kiev itself having around 50,000, but the Grand Prince of Kiev had a personal combat retinue (druzhina) of about 400-600 men drawn from the areas around the city. The city also had a regiment of 800-1200 in the 13th century; these were all cavalry, druzhinas of the boyars who lived in the city itself. Then there were the garrisons who defended the towns and city during a siege situation, but they weren't an organized citizen militia or anything, but rather just men with whatever training they did in their free time and whatever weapons they could scrounge up, either via personal ownership or spare arms and armor of the boyars (they wouldn't show up in field battles, obviously, but could have some surprising successes on the defense). Add a few hundred light cavalry mercenaries from various Turkic tribes (typically all even a rich prince could afford), and you have ~2,000 troops; the max amount of men the most powerful and most populous Rus' state could field.

While the North's political system is distinct from that of the Rus' states, their similar geography makes it a comparison worth bringing up. If the North is anything like the Rus', then the vast majority of its soldiers are being drawn from a handful of major settlements, and nowhere else. The hundreds of thousands of rural hamlets that dot the geography, usually no more than 3-4 houses each, pay taxes in crops but otherwise don't contribute to a war effort. It's not a small and relatively well developed kingdom like England, where all landowners of a certain wealth level were required to drill and have a minimum of equipment.   

That said, the reports of these communities being completely depleted of men of fighting age make zero sense. That's 15-20% of the population. If you draft all the healthy males between 16 and 50 then you have no one to work the fields as women and children can do only so much especially in the areas with harsh climate. At that point it wouldn't even matter whether all the young men died or all came home covered in glory; drafting them would have killed the economy in these areas irrecoverably. Basically the North's major settlements would commit economic suicide any time they went to war. As this is not the case, and those towns/cities/castle-towns still managed to thrive when the North went to war in the past, it's clear there's some heavy exaggeration going on.

Going by your post and Freenorthman's earlier one let's assume what both of you say exactly applies to the North, artisans etc. won't be drafted unless in defense and even then only those nearby would be taken into the army, no one would bother collecting a men or two from every single 3-4 hovel village that is spread around in a vast area with no roads, no easy way to travel between one village to other and then the local castle and levy is usually just taken from the nearest settlements and perhaps some distant but major ones. It is so hard to collect men from these distanttiny settlements even with time on hand, people won't bother and are unable to do so and will just draft younger or older men from the same nearby and major settlements. Wouldn't it still mean a higher mobilization, not in numbers but what you can effectively gather?

Let's assume  you have 1000 men capable of a fight living in your borders  but only 250 are in major settlements or in small but nearby, easy to reach settlements and let's say roughly %20 of the entire population is men capable of fighting, when you take 200 from this 250 it would mean a %20 of the male population and the mobilization rate for the entire populace would be %4. But the total amount of men you can raise is just 250 in the first place, raising the other 750 is near impossible so wouldn't it , you have raised %80 of all your available male population?

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Going by your post and Freenorthman's earlier one let's assume what both of you say exactly applies to the North, artisans etc. won't be drafted unless in defense and even then only those nearby would be taken into the army, no one would bother collecting a men or two from every single 3-4 hovel village that is spread around in a vast area with no roads, no easy way to travel between one village to other and then the local castle and levy is usually just taken from the nearest settlements and perhaps some distant but major ones. It is so hard to collect men from these distanttiny settlements even with time on hand, people won't bother and are unable to do so and will just draft younger or older men from the same nearby and major settlements. Wouldn't it still mean a higher mobilization, not in numbers but what you can effectively gather?

Let's assume  you have 1000 men capable of a fight living in your borders  but only 250 are in major settlements or in small but nearby, easy to reach settlements and let's say roughly %20 of the entire population is men capable of fighting, when you take 200 from this 250 it would mean a %20 of the male population and the mobilization rate for the entire populace would be %4. But the total amount of men you can raise is just 250 in the first place, raising the other 750 is near impossible so wouldn't it , you have raised %80 of all your available male population?

The argument is not that there is a low mobilization ratio of the easily accessible people. The argument is that there is a low mobilization ratio for the overall population of the entire kingdom. So it is quite possible that there is a very high mobilization rate for the major settlements and their immediate surroundings. Its just that this mobilization ratio does not extend to the entire population.

So in that case, you could have only a 1% mobilization rate for the North as a whole, but for the major settlements and their surroundings it might be as high as 10%, based on the quotes provided in the books. Meaning most able bodied men in those areas get drafted, as was the case at Karhold and the Last Hearth. But 5 days hiking from Karhold, through forest, valleys and rough terrain, the guys in their hovels might not have sent a single person.

 

[Nihlus]

Also complicating things is that a decent chunk of the North's population still seems to live outside the "civilized" order. Ignoring the England-sized Gift (effectively an independent state under the Watch), you also have Skagos, the lands of the mountain clansmen (which seem to consist of several tens of thousands of square miles), the lands of the crannogmen (most everything between Greywater Watch and Moat Cailin), etc. These areas would contribute nothing, period, bar maybe a few nobles. But they're still part of the Northern population.

I also recently came to the conclusion that in all likelihood the North is the second most populous of the Seven Kingdoms. I used to scoff at that notion, but its canon size (1/3 the land of the land under the Iron Throne per TWOIAF, or ~1 million square miles) makes it pretty much required. Kievan Rus is by far the most comparable medieval kingdom in terms of geography and it had a population density of about 10 people per square mile. So did medieval Scotland. Even considering the above mentioned peoples (whose lands should have even lower population density than the average) the North's population should still be approaching ten million.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Nihlus said:

Also complicating things is that a decent chunk of the North's population still seems to live outside the "civilized" order. Ignoring the England-sized Gift (effectively an independent state under the Watch), you also have Skagos, the lands of the mountain clansmen (which seem to consist of several tens of thousands of square miles), the lands of the crannogmen (most everything between Greywater Watch and Moat Cailin), etc. These areas would contribute nothing, period, bar maybe a few nobles. But they're still part of the Northern population.

I also recently came to the conclusion that in all likelihood the North is the second most populous of the Seven Kingdoms. I used to scoff at that notion, but its canon size (1/3 the land of the land under the Iron Throne per TWOIAF, or ~1 million square miles) makes it pretty much required. Kievan Rus is by far the most comparable medieval kingdom in terms of geography and it had a population density of about 10 people per square mile. So did medieval Scotland. Even considering the above mentioned peoples (whose lands should have even lower population density than the average) the North's population should still be approaching ten million.

Based on my searches medieval Scotland had about 20 people per square mile, compared to England's 40 per square mile, and France's 60.

Anyway, a number of around 6 per square mile has always seemed right for the North for me. With areas like the Manderly lands having 12-15 per square mile (two to three times the average), while areas like the Mountain clan lands might be down to 3 per square mile (half the average). But around 6 per square mile feels about right, overall.

[Nihlus]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Based on my searches medieval Scotland had about 20 people per square mile, compared to England's 40 per square mile, and France's 60.

Anyway, a number of around 6 per square mile has always seemed right for the North for me. With areas like the Manderly lands having 12-15 per square mile (two to three times the average), while areas like the Mountain clan lands might be down to 3 per square mile (half the average). But around 6 per square mile feels about right, overall.

Scotland has an area of 31,000 square miles, and throughout most of the Middle Ages (including the mid to late 14th century, the closest to ASOIAF) had a population of 300,000-400,000. That's 9.5-13 people per square mile. England/Wales at the same time had 2.5 million people (England/Wales itself, not the Kingdom of England which included Ireland and chunks of France) in an area of 58,000 square miles, which is indeed around 40 per square mile. France (including the parts owned by England- long story) was 200,000 square miles with a population of 15 million, a whopping 75 people per square mile. The land later comprising 1914 Germany had 9 million in 208,000 square miles, or 43 per square mile, similar to England.

Speaking of which, has anyone ever tallied the land area of each of the Seven Kingdoms? The North has been stated- GRRM said the Land of Always Winter is the size of Canada, that Westeros as a whole is the size of South America, and that the North is a third of the land ruled by the Iron Throne. That 6.89 million square miles (South America) minus 3.86 million square miles (Canada) equals ~3 million square miles. So the North is ~1 million square miles, and all the others together are ~2 million square miles. That should make it possible to get pixel measurements.

[Corvo the Crow]

19 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The argument is not that there is a low mobilization ratio of the easily accessible people. The argument is that there is a low mobilization ratio for the overall population of the entire kingdom. So it is quite possible that there is a very high mobilization rate for the major settlements and their immediate surroundings. Its just that this mobilization ratio does not extend to the entire population.

So in that case, you could have only a 1% mobilization rate for the North as a whole, but for the major settlements and their surroundings it might be as high as 10%, based on the quotes provided in the books. Meaning most able bodied men in those areas get drafted, as was the case at Karhold and the Last Hearth. But 5 days hiking from Karhold, through forest, valleys and rough terrain, the guys in their hovels might not have sent a single person.

 

Well, my mistake then, as I was assuming the former since it made more sense to me to only talk about what men a lord can get his hands on.

Another mobilization rate that comes to my mind is Imperial Russia's around the time of Napoleonic wars. I think when the need for men was at it's height (Napoleon invading) the mobilization ratio was 15 men out of every 100 men with figures usually being much lower when there weren't any immediate need. Conscription wasn't obligatory, you weren't pressed into service against your will, that is unless there weren't enough volunteers to fill the quota. This comes from having read War and Peace some years ago so it may be a little off.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

This will be a short one on Crownlands:

Crownlands

Dragonstone + Masseys ~1500

Stauntons, Crackclaw men: Unknown

King's Landing: 2000 gold cloaks

Duskendale: ~1600 (from my earlier calculation, Darklyn + Mooton is 3000, with a slight bias towards Duskendale since it was the major port on the narrow sea)

Other lords: ~3500 at least, but very likely not much higher than this.

During Dance of the Dragons, After Harrenhal is taken, Prince Aemond calls out his banners and march out of King's Landing with 4000 men. after 15 days (enough time for lords of the crownlands to gather their strength.. Some of these are Gold Cloaks. After King's Landing is taken with some fight, there are still more than 500 gold cloaks; Luthor Largent first tries to disperse the smallfolk with 400 men, he loses 25. He later has 500 gold cloaks under his command but they are quickly defeated by the rioters with some survivors. There are some goldcloaks guarding the gates too but not many, meaning the remaining gold cloaks are likely fewer than 1000 of the normal 2000, perhaps some 700-800? This would mean 3000-3500 men from Aemond's 4000 comes from Crownlands bannermen, perhaps some 2800 with my guess of 800 at most Gold Cloaks left. Masseys, Stauntons, Crackclaw men and Darklyns have declaerd for Blacks. Greens have also lost 800 hundred men taking Rook's Rest. All in all, it'd mean without the above houses excluded Crownlands have over 5000 men including 2000 gold cloaks.

Duskendale, Massey and Dragonstone was done earlier.

 

Additional information: According to the 2005(?) board game Crownlands can raise 10-15k, Riverlands, North and Vale can raise 45k, Westerlands 50k, Stormlands 30k, Iron Islands 20k. From all we know so far, these numbers are entirely wrong with much higher values from what is possible with the knowledge we have. Meaning Crownlands likely has an amount of men lower than this 10-15k here.

[Corvo the Crow]

Some more thoughts on Riverlands:

Summary: Going for a 1:3 ratio, it is entirely possible for Riverlands to have 20000-25000 men.

 

Edmure has 8000 infantry and 3000 horse after his intial losses. While some will be survivors that Tytos lead back to Riverrun, most of the infantry will be newly raised. Roose likely had 550-600 horse meaning Robb had ~5000-5400 with him. This means 600-1000 came from what few survivors That didn't go with Tytos, some small lords and Mallisters second levy. Most of them likely comes from Mallisters second levy.

Walder Frey initially has 2600 infantry in the field but is later left with 1500. Last we see him he has 2000 sieging Riverrun, most if not all infantry and another 1500+ (2000 according to Cersei) going north, 500 of them horse, meaning 1000-1500 infantry. Meaning 2500-3500 infantry depending on how many horses are in Riverrun force (0-500) and how many infantry are in the north bound one. Even with Twins were left with no garrison, it would mean 2100-3100 men. All considered, Freys have raised somewhere between 600 to 2000 new infantry. Their initial raise is 3000 infantry so they have raised somewhere between %20-%66 of their initial levy, without the quality of equipment taken into mind.

Another House we know the figures of initial and second(and third) raise are Karstarks, Their inital raise is 2000 infantry, with some 200 more later raised for Rodrik and 440 for Boltons. so ~%30 for their second raise.

Though we get no description on how many men Tytos has managed to lead back, It is possibly not as high as 1000. Let's take this number for calculation.

Edmure, with Mallisters included, would have 7000 newly raised infantry. Some bannermen have managed to return to their strongolds but Edmure suffered a major defeat so let's deduct another 1000 for those managed to return home, leaving 6000.

Given the Frey figures, initial foot levy would be 9000-30000.

Karstarks  are from the North, being unable to raise their full potential as discussed in other posts so the second Riverlander raise will likely be more than %30 of the initial one as lords would, initially, try to go for a 1:3 horse foot ratio, even if they could raise 9-10 times as many infantry as their horse. This would bring us to 9000-20000 initial foot levy.

Edmure is left with 3000 horse even after all the major losses he and his vassals have taken,(Wayfarer Vances and Pipers have lost their entire force, for example) meaning he had a lot more than 3000 horse

 

One last thing to bear in mind, even with all the new men raised, Edmure is unable to attain the 1:3 ratio most lords try to attain, Riverand is depleted of men West of Greenfork but that is not just losing men to battle but also smallfolk being slaughtered even if they aren't part of an army..

 

One assumption, Robb is easily able to gather 4500-5000 horse and there are still many horseman left. Riverlands is much smaller and certainly has a smaller population but is likely able to bring more of thier man in proportion to the total populace. Even after his losses Edmure has 4000 horses including Freys'. So it wouldn't be much of a surprise if Edmure has 5000-6000 horse in total including Freys.

Tywin, in comparison has 10000-10500 horse in total including possibly 2000 sellswords (Those with Jaime and numerous sellsword companies he has with him) and at least some 1000 light horse( most of Gregor's force is light horse and there would be others). So again, it wouldn't be that surprising if Edmure, who certainly has a bigger population in his fertile and bigger Riverlands than Tywin's mostly mountainous smaller Westerlands, has some 5000-6000 horse; His overall population would be higher but the number of his horse to highest number of possible foot ratio would be much, much lower.

All given, Renly's assumption of Robb getting 20000 men from Edmure would be more or less what we would see, likely as many as 25000 but not exceeding it.

[Nihlus]

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Some more thoughts on Riverlands:

Summary: Going for a 1:3 ratio, it is entirely possible for Riverlands to have 20000-25000 men.

Population density and geography make this completely impossible, sorry. The Riverlands are described as rich and densely populated, and should easily have 50% to 90% more population than the Westerlands or Vale owing to how much bigger and more fertile it is than either. 

The rest of your post is based on pure supposition (poorly done supposition as well, as it compares two regions that couldn't be more different in terms of geography and completely ignores the fact that the majority of the Riverlands' manpower base was cut off from Edmure at this point).

Quote

All given, Renly's assumption of Robb getting 20000 men from Edmure would be more or less what we would see, likely as many as 25000 but not exceeding it.

Renly is taking into account the fact that two major Riverlands hosts were annihilated (at Golden Tooth and outside Riverrun), that Tywin is sitting in the middle of it thus completely cutting off the southeast of the country, and the fact that it takes weeks to assemble a levy, which Edmure had not done ahead of time. 

[Corvo the Crow]

16 hours ago, Nihlus said:

Population density and geography make this completely impossible, sorry. The Riverlands are described as rich and densely populated, and should easily have 50% to 90% more population than the Westerlands or Vale owing to how much bigger and more fertile it is than either. 

The rest of your post is based on pure supposition (poorly done supposition as well, as it compares two regions that couldn't be more different in terms of geography and completely ignores the fact that the majority of the Riverlands' manpower base was cut off from Edmure at this point).

Renly is taking into account the fact that two major Riverlands hosts were annihilated (at Golden Tooth and outside Riverrun), that Tywin is sitting in the middle of it thus completely cutting off the southeast of the country, and the fact that it takes weeks to assemble a levy, which Edmure had not done ahead of time. 

I have never said Riverlands have a smaller population and more population doesn't equal more soldiers anyway. Perhaps I wasn't very clear so here's an attempt at wording it better; Edmure certainly has a bigger population but he and his lords aren't as rich as Tywin Lannister the shitter of gold. More gold equals more knights as is plain to see and more/better land means more smallfolk. More gold also means more equipment, like arms and armor for an additional 3000 men Tywin gave to vale clansmen as payment for Tyrion's deal. Edmure and vassals, with less gold, will be able to house fewer knights and even if they should decide to leave all their villages without anymen to gather a huge army, no equipment for these said men.

Returning to the knights, we see that armies are generally comprised of one part horse and three part foot, some lords have differing preferences, like Robb going 1:0, Tywin going around 1:2, Marcher lords going 1:5. Judging by Edmure's full strength gathered (after all the losses) and Walder Frey, Riverlanders are also all for the 1:3 we mostly see.

This 1:3 is by no means any indication of how many soldiers a lord can have. It only determines how many are there in the field, with the horsemen part generally the determining factor of the number in the field.

So Edmure, wanting to go 1:3 with fewer knights than Tywin due to not shitting gold will only be able to have so many men on the field.

I have taken in the fact that Edmure is unable to raise more men due to his smallfolk being killed and comparing these two very different regions gives us exactly the numbers how low Riverland's can't be; If Karstarks, who aren't able to access as big a portion of their population as Riverlands can raise an additional levy , ~%30 the size of the first one, then Edmure who has better access to his population condensed into smaller areas will logically be able to get at least this amount for additional levies, if his population base is still intact.

 

One final addition. Renly, who has almost all the Reach and many Stormlanders with him only has 10000 knights. The rest of his 20000 are made up of light horse and freeriders. Only major contributer that is absent is Lord Hightower and even than some of his power is with Renly (some vassal lords have went with Renly even though Hightowers have stayed back themselves). So again , a limiting factor on Edmure's horse number.

[Nihlus]

9 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I have never said Riverlands have a smaller population and more population doesn't equal more soldiers anyway.

When all kingdoms use more or less the same social system and the Riverlands are specifically described as dense and rich? Yes, it absolutely does.

Quote

Perhaps I wasn't very clear so here's an attempt at wording it better; Edmure certainly has a bigger population but he and his lords aren't as rich as Tywin Lannister the shitter of gold. More gold equals more knights as is plain to see and more/better land means more smallfolk. More gold also means more equipment, like arms and armor for an additional 3000 men Tywin gave to vale clansmen as payment for Tyrion's deal. Edmure and vassals, with less gold, will be able to house fewer knights and even if they should decide to leave all their villages without anymen to gather a huge army, no equipment for these said men.

Except the Riverlands are still described as rich in general. They can't reach the relatively insane mobilization rate of the Westerlands (which have probably half their population, yet a similarly-sized army albeit with mercenaries) but they should be above most regions. 1% is a good rule of thumb. And the Riverlands having far more than 2-2.5 million people is a fact mandated by how GRRM describes them and their area on the map.

Look at the Stormlands on a map. Note how much the Riverlands are geographically larger. Note also that the Riverlands are explicitly richer and denser. How much can they raise in your mind? 15,000 or something similarly ridiculous? And Dorne is explicitly less populous and likely poorer than even the Stormlands, so what about them? Under 10,000?

The Riverlands being below 40-50k is basically an impossibility, even if it would be hard to actually gather all those men in the field.

Quote

I have taken in the fact that Edmure is unable to raise more men due to his smallfolk being killed and comparing these two very different regions gives us exactly the numbers how low Riverland's can't be; If Karstarks, who aren't able to access as big a portion of their population as Riverlands can raise an additional levy , ~%30 the size of the first one, then Edmure who has better access to his population condensed into smaller areas will logically be able to get at least this amount for additional levies, if his population base is still intact.

Again, you're basically just making stuff up here. You can't compare the Karstark lands to the Riverlands at all, and you're again ignoring that the majority of the Riverlands' population base wasn't even available to Edmure. The Riverlands is divided into four roughly equally sized areas:

1. The Northwest never saw a Lannister in the initial invasion, and is home to the Mallisters, Vyprens, and Freys. They also didn't take any losses in the initial blitz as a result. Edmure had access to this region, which combined with whatever remained of region three (see below) yielded 15,000 men (11,000 at Riverrun plus 4,000 Freys with Robb and at the Twins).

2. The Southwest bore the brunt of Jaime's attacks at Golden Tooth and Riverrun as well as Tywin initially marching through. It consists of Tullys, Pipers and Vances. The Pipers and Vances lost the majority of their strength (the lords of those houses were even personally present) when their combined host was annihilated by Jaime's much larger army at Golden Tooth; assuming each of those are on par with mid-sized North or Stormlands houses like Dondarrion and Karstark, that's already ~5,000- men down the drain off the bat. The Tullys own forces (obviously some of the first to be levied, and at full strength defending their own capital), combined with levies from Blackwood and Bracken (see below) and whatever remained of Vance and Piper, took very heavy losses (the de facto king of a whole country doesn't get captured otherwise) and were routed in the battle outside of Riverrun. Some of them joined Robb, others became brigands, others deserted. But by the time Edmure is rescued their strength has largely been spent. 

3. The central south suffered from the battle of Riverrun, Tywin marching through and later being the stage of the Mountain's, the Goat's and Lorch's antics, suffering heavy losses. Stonehedge burned, Darry burned and the family extinguished. The Blackwoods, Brackens and Darrys suffered heavily in various small battles, as their troops were dispersed and defeated in detail. The Darrys' own capital being burned with little resistance by a tertiary force heavily suggests they probably didn't even put their full levy in the field before their land was occupied and thus recruitment was rendered impossible, and in any case had no strength to give past that point. The Blackwoods and Brackens would have suffered a lot at Riverrun, but would still have some strength left to make up the 15,000 the Riverlands has later, especially since Tywin doesn't occupy them for several months unlike...

4. The eastern part which was cut off completely as soon as Tywin planted his ass in Harrenhal, thus making any move into that land strategically untenable for the Tully/Stark alliance. It could never get a proper mobilization up and running on part of being occupied within probably about a week, suffering without defense. The Whents, Mootons, and whoever else lives here yielded not a single soldier for Edmure.

Quote

One final addition. Renly, who has almost all the Reach and many Stormlanders with him only has 10000 knights. The rest of his 20000 are made up of light horse and freeriders.

Catelyn said there were ten thousand lancers in a particular group. She didn't say if that was all of them, or even if she took an exact count (which would be impossible anyway). But the fact that Robb's cavalry is explicitly all heavy cavalry would heavily suggest that Renly's were too (after all, the Reach is richer than the North and would logically have a higher proportion of such men). Also we know that 1/10 of the average soldiers in the South are full-on knights from several descriptions (e.g. the Field of Fire), which implies at least 1/10 of them being squires as well (who would be well-equipped, not freeriders in boiled leather).

[Corvo the Crow]

7 hours ago, Nihlus said:

Snip

OK since you are insistent on not understanding and twisting my words to mean opposite of they are, I'll try to go simple without going to much detail.

Firstly, men in the field is not the men you can raise how many men you have on the field usually seems to be limited by what ratio of horse to foot you go for; Most lords go 1:3, as is Edmure and his Riverlanders from all we know so even if Riverlands have enough men to raise and support 50k armies, they won't do that unless they have 12500 horse.

 

Here's what I said on Edmure's second levy gathering, clearly stating that not all his manpool is available to him

Quote

One last thing to bear in mind, even with all the new men raised, Edmure is unable to attain the 1:3 ratio most lords try to attain, Riverand is depleted of men West of Greenfork but that is not just losing men to battle but also smallfolk being slaughtered even if they aren't part of an army..

I thought this was clear enough but perhaps not since you have said not once but twice that I am not taking in the fact that not all Edmure's manpower base is available.

 

Renly's horse. I wonder how many times I will have to put these here.

Quote

As the long fingers of dawn fanned across the fields, color was returning to the world. Where grey men had sat grey horses armed with shadow spears, the points of ten thousand lances now glinted silverly cold, and on the myriad flapping banners Catelyn saw the blush of red and pink and orange, the richness of blues and browns, the blaze of gold and yellow. All the power of Storm's End and Highgarden, the power that had been Renly's an hour ago. They belong to Stannis now, she realized, even if they do not know it themselves yet. Where else are they to turn, if not to the last Baratheon? Stannis has won all with a single evil stroke.

Catelyn obviously didn't count all, where does she get this figüre? Might be it is that her more militarily minded companions have informed her? Or perhaps Renly himself has said it? After all he was boasting of his force earlier, comparing it to Robb's.

 

Quote

Stannis would have reached the Rush days ago. The kingsroad ran from Storm's End straight to King's Landing, a much shorter route than by sea, and his host was largely mounted; near twenty thousand knights, light horse, and freeriders, Renly's unwilling legacy to his brother. They would have made good time, but armored destriers and twelve-foot lances would avail them little against the deep waters of the Blackwater Rush and the high stone walls of the city. Stannis would be camped with his lords on the south bank of the river, doubtless seething with impatience and wondering what Ser Imry had done with his fleet.

 

Renly has 10000 heavy horse, though some lords of the Reach and Stormlands are absent, the majority of them are with him, meaning he has most of the knights with him.

Tywin has 9500-10500 horse including Jaime's they have numerous sellsword companies and also many light horse, at least around 1000 with Tywin alone so Tywin perhaps has 7500 heavy horse of his own and even this would be impressive comparing it to Renly.

 

Knights =/= Levy. You can't just travel around the country side gathering men and hoping that you would just mount them on a horse and put a lance in hand and they'll be knights. Besides the equipment, knights, and their horses require much training so whatever horse Edmure had was there from the beginning.

After all the battles Edmure has 4000 horse from his vassals, 3000 gathered to him and 1000 Freys with Robb.

 

Now Edmure's forces have suffered some serious defeats so he obviously has more than 4000 horse but how many do you think would be a fitting number for him?

With the numbers of Tywin, overlord of the richest region and Renly, who has most of the lords from two regiongs (one of which is the most fertile and denselypopulated) supporting him, how many knights do you suggest that Riverlands can field?

 

 

[cpg2016]

On 10/9/2017 at 2:15 PM, Nihlus said:

Also complicating things is that a decent chunk of the North's population still seems to live outside the "civilized" order. Ignoring the England-sized Gift (effectively an independent state under the Watch), you also have Skagos, the lands of the mountain clansmen (which seem to consist of several tens of thousands of square miles), the lands of the crannogmen (most everything between Greywater Watch and Moat Cailin), etc. These areas would contribute nothing, period, bar maybe a few nobles. But they're still part of the Northern population.

Well, Skagos excepted, I don't know that one can consider the crannogmen and mountain clans "outside the civilized order".  The mountain clans especially seem to share the same cultural values as the rest of the North, but to echo a point further down the thread, they just seem to be more pastoral (living in mountains, they are probably herdsmen and somewhat nomadic).  Certainly, they have nobles, have extensive political contact/relations with the central government of the region, and overall seem tied into the geopolitical picture (they understand who Stannis is and what his goals are, and how he can help them achieve theirs).  This just speaks to a different kind of civilization, which can apply in part to the entirety of the North as compared to the Southern regions (or Dorne, for that matter, where the children of the Greenblood, for example, would be a similiar outsider group who are still part of the political order).  The crannogmen are a little different, given that marshes are often a liminal zone, but even so, the Reeds clearly have some kind of authority over their smallfolk, and take orders from Winterfell, so they are certainly part of the Northern political order.

As far as numbers go, the mountain clans contribute 5,000 men to Stannis' cause, which probably represents much of their strength, since they aren't noted to be part of Robb's force that goes south.  But even so, that is a meaningful part of the North's total strength, considering they are pastoralists in a society which is geared around agrarian fiefdoms.

On 10/9/2017 at 2:15 PM, Nihlus said:

also recently came to the conclusion that in all likelihood the North is the second most populous of the Seven Kingdoms. I used to scoff at that notion, but its canon size (1/3 the land of the land under the Iron Throne per TWOIAF, or ~1 million square miles) makes it pretty much required. Kievan Rus is by far the most comparable medieval kingdom in terms of geography and it had a population density of about 10 people per square mile. So did medieval Scotland. Even considering the above mentioned peoples (whose lands should have even lower population density than the average) the North's population should still be approaching ten million.

I can't speak to the historical record IRL, but as far the North goes, there is a very good reason their population density should be significantly lower than contemporary historical societies; Winter.  Winter, particularly long/harsh ones, are nearly extinction-level events in the North.  Men go out into the snow to die so that the kids and women can live on and rebuild.  That is totally without precedent in our world, and it's happening every decade or so.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the average winter is wiping out 5-10% of the population of the North, with bad ones having a significantly harsher effect.

This effectively means that you are wiping out any population growth gains any time winter rolls around.  Given that, it's tough to see how the compound growth necessary for an appropriate population size takes place.  Contrast that with the southern realms, where winter is a nuisance but doesn't necessitate mass suicide-by-self-sacrifice; it makes sense that population growth can snowball (heh) more effectively and reflect actual medieval conditions.

[cpg2016]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Renly has 10000 heavy horse, though some lords of the Reach and Stormlands are absent, the majority of them are with him, meaning he has most of the knights with him.

I think a majority of the Stormlands lords are absent.  The implication of everything we hear is that about a third of the Storm lords commit to Renly-then-Stannis, about a third stay loyal to the Crown, and it seems like about a third stay out of it entirely.

We also know some Reach lords don't participate in the initial stages of the WOT5K (notably the Redwynes, a very powerful vassal), and it also makes sense that with Doran Martell keeping large armed hosts in the mountain passes, many of the march lords might have withheld part of their strength.  Which might explain the relatively low number of mounted knights as compared to levies

5 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Tywin has 9500-10500 horse including Jaime's they have numerous sellsword companies and also many light horse, at least around 1000 with Tywin alone so Tywin perhaps has 7500 heavy horse of his own and even this would be impressive comparing it to Renly.

The difference is that Tywin mobilizes the entirety of the Westerlands for his war effort.  As I said, the Reach and Stormlands 100% do not do this.

It also makes a great deal of sense in-universe.  The Lannisters are rich beyond measure, and the problem with feudalism is that there is only so much land to support so many mounted retainers, but when you can pay in mineral wealth that problem vanishes.

Look at Kevan Lannister.  He says he has 200 knights in his retinue and the ability to double that if needed.  In the Hedge Knight they mention that House Dondarrion can raise 800 knights; that is one of the very strongest Stormlands Houses, a marcher House that should be expected to be among the most highly militarized in Westeros.  And a second son Lannister can raise nearly half their number?  I would presume that Tywin has a force that is unusually heavily tilted towards professional men-at-arms, mercenaries, and other well trained and equipped men, not raw levies.  The fact that Stafford Lannister has to raise raw recruits as reinforcements backs up the idea that unlike, say, the Northern army (which is implicitly composed of agricultural workers armed by their lords, e.g. levies), the core Lannister force is not involved in agricultural production and is paid and equipped out of the vast mineral wealth of the West; the closest Westeros has to a standing army.

[Corvo the Crow]

37 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The difference is that Tywin mobilizes the entirety of the Westerlands for his war effort.  As I said, the Reach and Stormlands 100% do not do this.

It also makes a great deal of sense in-universe.  The Lannisters are rich beyond measure, and the problem with feudalism is that there is only so much land to support so many mounted retainers, but when you can pay in mineral wealth that problem vanishes.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Tywin has a rather high amount of knights for a region such as his and he probably scoured the Westerlands clean as well. Levying more men from the Lannisport and Westerling contribution to Robb would be to indicators of this. Cities are economically important so disturbing them would really be a last resort. The olny contribution Westerlings do to Robb's cause is some 50 men coming from their garrison. This clearly means there are very few men left if any. Tywin's disproportionately high horse to foot ratio (near 1:2) would probably also explained by his region not having as much people as some otherlands but him having a load of gold; Obviously it is better to have 40000 men on the field if you have 10000 horse, instead of having fewer than 35000.

Previous Westerlander numbers also seem to support this; In fields of fire they contribute 22000 men. During Tywin's earlier years (his father's reign) we first see 10000 men and 1000 knights sent to step Stones and later Tywin sets out with 3000 men and 500 knights against the Tarbecks and Reynes. While Kevan himself currently has 200 knights as you stated. His father has ruined the Westerlands, especially house Lannister, economically so once Tywin fixes the economy we see these high amounts of knights. Tarbecks are also a good example, going from 20 knights to 500 with Lannister gold.

Numbers from Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion also supports the above points; Tywin outnumbers Reynes 3-5 to 1. Reynes had 2000 men, only 200 of them knights, which is less than a quarter of their possible strength if they have waited for all their vassals and allies to join. These allies would also include Tarbeck men.

So Tywin had with those vassals with him 6000-10000 men and Reynes could have at most 8000-10000. This is just some years after Ninepenny kings and in their haste, lords with Tywin wouldn't have gathered their full strength. If those with Tywin were able to gather about a quarter of theirs just like Reynes 40000 men raised at most for the entire Westerlands. The actual number would be lower. The lowest number with my calculations would be 22000 which we see Tywin has more men than.

Note that Tywin sets out with 3000 foot and 500 knights and 14 other lords join him on the march after. With Lannisport less than a day's ride away, this number likely also includes the Lannisport numbers.

[Bernie Mac]

On 12/10/2017 at 5:20 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

This is exactly what I'm saying. Tywin has a rather high amount of knights for a region such as his

That region is the richest and one the three most densely populated reams. Not sure why the Westerlands having a high amount of Knights would be especially shocking. 

 

On 12/10/2017 at 5:20 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

Cities are economically important so disturbing them would really be a last resort.

The Lannisport City Guard, described as being the best in the realm, seems to remain at Lannisport. It is only the Green boys of the city, as well as available sellswords, that join Stafford's untrained and unarmed host. 

I'm really not sure how this is the last resort, Stafford raised a host up as quickly as possible and did so without disturbing the garrisons of other prominent settlements that would be potentially under threat from the Coast, Riverland or Reach border. 

On 12/10/2017 at 5:20 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

 

The olny contribution Westerlings do to Robb's cause is some 50 men coming from their garrison. This clearly means there are very few men left if any.

The Westerlings are an extremely poor choice to base the strength of the entire Westerlands on. 

The Westerlings were old blood, but they had more pride than power. It would not surprise him to learn that Lady Sybell had brought more wealth to the marriage than her highborn husband. The Westerling mines had failed years ago, their best lands had been sold off or lost, and the Crag was more ruin than stronghold

There is no real reason why they would have the need or the resources to have a particularly large garrison, they, despite their Lordly status, would be a bottom tier House

."Dare I ask how many swords come with your bride, Robb?"

"Fifty. A dozen knights." His voice was glum, as well it might be. 

 

Did zero men die when Robb took the castle? Did the Westerlings totally abandon their castle of any military to defend it? Did every Westerling soldier just give up on their home and family to join the North?

 

We are looking at a higher number than 50, perhaps double it, maybe even more. 

 

On 12/10/2017 at 3:39 PM, cpg2016 said:

 

As far as numbers go, the mountain clans contribute 5,000 men to Stannis' cause, which probably represents much of their strength, since they aren't noted to be part of Robb's force that goes south.  

 

They contribute 3,000 to Stannis, the five thousand you are thinking of includes Stannis 1,400, the survivors of Rodrik's two thousand and others from the nearby Northern lords lands.

We also know that the Mountain Clans did send men with Robb as there are Norreys and Burleys figthing on the fords. 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:+

That region is the richest and one the three most densely populated reams. Not sure why the Westerlands having a high amount of Knights would be especially shocking. 

 

The Lannisport City Guard, described as being the best in the realm, seems to remain at Lannisport. It is only the Green boys of the city, as well as available sellswords, that join Stafford's untrained and unarmed host. 

I'm really not sure how this is the last resort, Stafford raised a host up as quickly as possible and did so without disturbing the garrisons of other prominent settlements that would be potentially under threat from the Coast, Riverland or Reach border. 

The Westerlings are an extremely poor choice to base the strength of the entire Westerlands on. 

The Westerlings were old blood, but they had more pride than power. It would not surprise him to learn that Lady Sybell had brought more wealth to the marriage than her highborn husband. The Westerling mines had failed years ago, their best lands had been sold off or lost, and the Crag was more ruin than stronghold

There is no real reason why they would have the need or the resources to have a particularly large garrison, they, despite their Lordly status, would be a bottom tier House

."Dare I ask how many swords come with your bride, Robb?"

"Fifty. A dozen knights." His voice was glum, as well it might be. 

 

Did zero men die when Robb took the castle? Did the Westerlings totally abandon their castle of any military to defend it? Did every Westerling soldier just give up on their home and family to join the North?

 

We are looking at a higher number than 50, perhaps double it, maybe even more. 

 

 

They contribute 3,000 to Stannis, the five thousand you are thinking of includes Stannis 1,400, the survivors of Rodrik's two thousand and others from the nearby Northern lords lands.

We also know that the Mountain Clans did send men with Robb as there are Norreys and Burleys figthing on the fords. 

Would Tywin leave such a good military force behind? I doubt it? Obviously he'll leave back a portion of the city watch to defend it and keep order but most will go with him.

On Westerlings, Garrison is not levy. They would leave a portion of their garrison and take some to battle with them and they'd raise their levies. If Robb is unable to raise any Westerling levies, then it means there are no men left around. Gold doesn't come into it as it isn't household knights we are talking about. Amount of land also doesn't matter, whether you have five villages or fifty, you'll be left with some men if you are only taking a portion of them or you'll have none left in either case if you are taking all the men.

[Bernie Mac]

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Would Tywin leave such a good military force behind? I doubt it? Obviously he'll leave back a portion of the city watch to defend it and keep order but most will go with him.

Of course he would, it would be suicidal not to. Look at exactly what happened during the Dance of the Dragons when the too many Westerland soldiers were in the Riverlands, Lannisport and other settlements were ruthlessly sacked and plundered by an opportunistic enemy. 

Robb himself makes it quite cleat that he does not have the strength to take Lannisport and Casterly Rock, sneaks past the Golden Tooth and the only two castles he takes is the Crag, ruled by an almost destitute House, and Ashemark located inland that it should not be a threat from the Ironborn to the West and should be adequately protected by the Golden Tooth to the East. 

 

And I'm just going to point out that your argument was not that most of his soldiers had gone with him, which I agree with, but "This clearly means there are very few men left if any" which seems highly implausible and using House Westerling as your example is just utterly flawed given the very pertinent information we are given about them. 

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

On Westerlings, Garrison is not levy. They would leave a portion of their garrison and take some to battle with them and they'd raise their levies. If Robb is unable to raise any Westerling levies, then it means there are no men left around.

No, it actually does not as these born and raised Westerland Knights and Master of Arms under the leadership of the Westerlings, might not be as willing to sacrafice their lands and give up their homes and families to join up with Robb. 

 

And of course, we are told House Westerling have been forced to sell lands. They may not have had many levies to call upon in the first place, they are certainly not going to be a useful example for the likes of Crakehall, Banefort, Farman, Serrett, Brax, Lydden, Prester and Lefford. 

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Gold doesn't come into it as it isn't household knights we are talking about.

Of course gold comes into it. Gold allows a Lord to have a larger percent of his vassals trained and equipped than a poorer lord. This is just basic common sense, richer lands will be able to call up more levies. Gold also means a land is less dependent on keeping farmers in the field during war than a poorer realm. 

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Amount of land also doesn't matter, whether you have five villages or fifty, you'll be left with some men if you are only taking a portion of them or you'll have none left in either case if you are taking all the men.

eh? Of course it matters. The Westerlings are going to be in the bottom tier of Westerland Lords and the people they can call upon. Pointing out that the almost destitute Westerlings can only convince 50 of their vassals to turn traitor and abandon their Homeland is evidence that the West has very few men left is just poor analysis.