The Night's Watch numbers don't make much sense

[Canon Claude]

Before Aegon's invasion of Westeros, there were ten thousand men on the Wall, guarding the Seven Kingdoms. That number dwindles rapidly over the years, until there's barely a thousand men who guard three out of nineteen castles along the Wall.

Why? How?

I can only assume that there were thousands of men volunteering for the Wall back in the day, and somehow the Kings of Winter are also okay with letting southerners cross their lands to join the Watch.

But you're telling me that when all the borders come down, and the Seven Kingdoms become one, the number of men joining the Night's Watch plummets?

Imagine the thousands of criminals who would now be able to be driven north to the Wall now that the North is no longer at odds with the other kingdoms. Imagine the relative ease with which men could go retire at the Wall, when it was still considered semi-respectable. Or the thousands of prisoners taken during the Dance of Dragons, Dornish Wars, Blackfyre Rebellions, Red Kraken raids, or whatever else happened during the last 300 years of Targaryen rule.

Surely the Night's Watch's numbers would increase, or at least remain stable at 10,000. Though admittedly that would have made their situation with Mance much less dire.

[Cephalophore]

You make some good points!

It does make sense that the Night's Watch should have more men now than it did back in the times of the Winter kingdom.

I guess the biggest problem would be some sort of PR/advertising issue or a bad reputation. Was the NW a lot more well known/respected in ancient times? The third son of a lord in the Reach can't join the Night's Watch if he doesn't know anything about them. If a southern general considers the Night's Watch ineffectual / ridiculous, then I guess he's not going to send a band of prisoners of war up there to join them.

[Canon Claude]

1 hour ago, Cephalophore said:

You make some good points!

It does make sense that the Night's Watch should have more men now than it did back in the times of the Winter kingdom.

I guess the biggest problem would be some sort of PR/advertising issue or a bad reputation. Was the NW a lot more well known/respected in ancient times? The third son of a lord in the Reach can't join the Night's Watch if he doesn't know anything about them. If a southern general considers the Night's Watch ineffectual / ridiculous, then I guess he's not going to send a band of prisoners of war up there to join them.

Well that implies the southern kingdoms don't know or care about the Night's Watch, but that's clearly not true. Several southerners went to the Wall before the Targaryens, including the most high-ranking of men. A Hoare was the Lord Commander when Aegon the Conqueror arrived. Captive kings from Dorne were sent all the way to the Wall when Nymeria defeated them. A Hightower was Lord Commander, and there was some other lord who joined the Watch to join his dead deserter of a son, too.

So there were lots of Southrons who joined the Watch back in the day, but somehow fewer men joined when it was actually easier to join the Watch??

[Curled Finger]

Perhaps with the relative peace that Targaryan rule brought to Westeros (all those petty lords fighting over top rung of the ladder endlessly) Southern kingdoms turned their eye to more prosperous ventures.   The Nights Watch seems to be more a penal colony and joke to the rulers in the current story.   I wouldn't want to send my 3rd or 4th or even 7th son to hang with that bunch of rapers and murderers whose soul purpose seems to be freezing and fighting off barbarians.   The Nights Watch has lost a great deal of its former prestige in losing its real purpose.  The last lord I recall sending a 3rd son was Royce, whose house words are "We Remember".   Perhaps the Royces do remember what the NW is supposed to be for.   

[WilliamDhalgren]

But you're telling me that when all the borders come down, and the Seven Kingdoms become one, the number of men joining the Night's Watch plummets?

I wonder; how big of a deal were borders and crossing them in actual medieval times? What may be more important is the building of king's road. Anyhow, I think the point is the fading collective memory of the Long Night and the threat beyond the wall, and so the institution that is dedicated to preserving it crumbles too.

More pragmatically, if all the South thinks one need fear from beyond the wall are wildlings, having forgotten the point of this custom of sending people to NW, they're quite justified in considering that the responsibility of Starks and their subordinates, like the mountain clans are the problem for Arryns to deal with. Whoever they'd consider sending up there, they'll be better off using for their own ends locally instead.

Maybe there are some old cultural links like with Royces for an occasional noble to take the black,etc, but overall it should be on a downward trajectory as the ancient custom as well as its reason fades from Westerosi culture.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, WilliamDhalgren said:

I wonder; how big of a deal were borders and crossing them in actual medieval times? What may be more important is the building of king's road. Anyhow, I think the point is the fading collective memory of the Long Night and the threat beyond the wall, and so the institution that is dedicated to preserving it crumbles too.

More pragmatically, if all the South thinks one need fear from beyond the wall are wildlings, having forgotten the point of this custom of sending people to NW, they're quite justified in considering that the responsibility of Starks and their subordinates, like the mountain clans are the problem for Arryns to deal with. Whoever they'd consider sending up there, they'll be better off using for their own ends locally instead.

Maybe there are some old cultural links like with Royces for an occasional noble to take the black,etc, but overall it should be on a downward trajectory as the ancient custom as well as its reason fades from Westerosi culture.

Let's be honest here. Why would anyone in the Vale care about sending men to man the Wall when they were engaged in a brutal thousand year long war with the Kingdom of the North? And why would anyone in the Reach, Stormlands or Dorne care about wildlings threatening the North, which was a foreign kingdom as far as they were concerned.

The Watch hasn't been taken seriously probably since the Andal invasion, which was thousands of years ago. So why it would suddenly start declining after Aegon's Conquest makes no sense.

 

[sweetsunray]

It's because of the kingsguard and the unification. While there are only 7, they are the elite, and one of the notorious ways they have to prove themselves is via tourneys. Because of the union of the 7 kingdoms knights have tourneys throughout the year all over Westeros they can go to, and make a sort of living. We even have the phenomenon of hedge knights. Before second sons or third sons could not journey throughout the 7 kingdoms all year round from tourney to tourney and champion money and ransoms. There were always tourneys since the Andals, but they were majorly a local event per kingdom. The best way to have a living and purpose was the Watch before the conquest and KG as a 2nd or 3rd son. Meanwhile the intra-wars between the 7 kingdoms also provided a way for the losing army to seek refuge in the Watch. The Andal invasion would have caused a decline, but the unification and availability to make a living from going from tourney to tourney caused a total collapse.

[WilliamDhalgren]

Let's be honest here. Why would anyone in the Vale care about sending men to man the Wall when they were engaged in a brutal thousand year long war with the Kingdom of the North? And why would anyone in the Reach, Stormlands or Dorne care about wildlings threatening the North, which was a foreign kingdom as far as they were concerned.

The Watch hasn't been taken seriously probably since the Andal invasion, which was thousands of years ago. So why it would suddenly start declining after Aegon's Conquest makes no sense.

yeah, that's a fair point. I think the LITERARY reason for showing the progressive decline of the NW, is to evoke the fading of the knowledge about the Long Night, with its sorry state today representing its near-total loss..

As far as the logistics of it, I'm less sure; one reason may be that very old customs are slow to completely die even when they don't make much sense, so it took millenia for the support for the institution in to fade (even in the South). These are societies ruled by custom maybe more than reason, so they could continue doing stuff just because that's what's done surprising long. If this did change surprisingly fast, you may then need to think about changes in culture, not in material conditions.

I further don't know how much of these numbers actually are people from the south at any point; maybe they've been predominantly northeners for a very long time, and steadily losing even those numbers; is it even a fact that losing 9k people over ~3 centuries is abnormal for recent pre-Targaryen past? It'd be strange some tipping point in their reputation was reached precisely at the time of the conquest, but less strange if it happened to have happened within say the same millenia or so.

Finally, if northeners were the dominant portion of the force for a long time, and South was much less invested, maybe losing their sovereignity is what triggered faster weakening of the custom in the North?

In this scenario, exactly opposite to the OP, precisely because the exchange with South was easier and stronger in a united realm did the NW crumble faster, due to increased cultural exchange with the South that already didn't give a shit about the NW. But sadly I don't think text would suggest a significant disruption of much of northener culture at the time; still this is a subtle thing, a single dying custom; maybe not easy to register...

EDIT: Possible parallel: is something similar perhaps happening with the right of the first night? Seems to be a dying northern custom that's still practiced at the fringes of the culture too, but not sure if we know anything about how long its death has been taking.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, WilliamDhalgren said:

In this scenario, exactly opposite to the OP, precisely because the exchange with South was easier and stronger in a united realm did the NW crumble faster, due to increased cultural exchange with the South that already didn't give a shit about the NW. But sadly I don't think text would suggest a significant disruption of much of northener culture at the time; still this is a subtle thing, a single dying custom; maybe not easy to register...

Exactly.. Dorne, Reach, Westerlands, Stormlands, Riverlands and Vale probably didn't give a shit about the Wall. But what was one of the Dornish nobles who was a 2nd or 3rd son to do for example if he had been defeated in battle by one of the Marcher lords? He couldn't ransom himself, so off to the Wall they went. 

First it would be 2nd and 3rd sons who went out of volition and conviction.

Then it's only the 3rd sons, while the 2nd ones hang around at home to fight for their house or petty  kingdom, with a good chance that eitehr the heir gets killed and they become the heir, or if they are captured and can't ransom themselves, they can still opt for the Wall. So, the Wall becomes an institution of the volunteers because it's the best chance to have some glory and a living plus the prisoners of war.

Then the Andal culture gains footing and even 3rd sons stay longer at home to try their hand at glory in the local tourneys, but after several years still decide to go to the wall. The Andals make for bigger kingdoms where petty kingdoms are unified, but each kingdom has a king doing justice and giving criminals the option to go to the Wall. It becomes an institution of the desperate + prisoners of war + criminals.

Then comes the unification and now certainly 2nd sons and 3rd sons can make some type of living touring the kingdoms from tourney to tourney, even manage to catch the eye of a bride and become a landed knight. There are fewer wars. And by aGoT, they don't even want to send prisoners of war anymore (but rather put their head on a spike) and even few criminals. It becomes an institution of a very few volunteers (only Northerners), very few prisoners of war (such as Thorn), some criminals and orphans who try their luck, but don't know the end of a sword or a bow.

[RedShirt47]

I think it's a combination of factors.

1. Memory of why the Night's Watch has been diminishing over time. Some First Men Houses (like the Royces) still hold the Night's Watch in high regard but even they likely don't remember why the Night's Watch was founded.

2. Peace in the south after the Targaryens merged the seven kingdoms. When the kingdoms were fighting there would have been many prisoners of war and lords who had to be removed due to conflict with the victors. Many used to be shipped off to the Wall rather than simply being executed. Like how some of the officers on the Wall now were on the losing side of Robert's Rebellion. Robert forgave some but some he couldn't forgive or they couldn't make peace with the new regime.

3. The image of the Night's Watch had been tarnished by there being more rapers, murders and the like than volunteers. In the past it was likely that the criminal element at the Wall was a small percentage of the total.

4. The rise of the sell-sword companies in Essos gave those younger sons with fewer opportunities for glory at home a prospect of finding fame, fortune and glory fighting in the Disputed Lands.

[Jon Fossoway]

I'm guessing GURM wanted to give an image of the Watch being a potential enemy to Aegon, having a Hoare as commander. Saying 'and old Lord Commander Hoare, with his 2.000 black brothers... just stayed put', wouldn't have had the impact of 10.000 swords, which sounds just like a tale told over time, every time inflating the true numbers the Watch had at the time.

Furthermore, I don't think the Watch posted an annual bulletin on his numbers. They don't respond to the Throne anyways, and it is a military order so secrecy about logistics and numbers would be wise. In the saga, I think we learn about its true state when Jon is already a sworn brother. To all the kingdoms, the Watch is  a hole full of criminals but well, better that than to be known as lacking people. Heck, the Watch probably was miserable back in Aegon's time and the real reason Hoare stayed in the Wall wasn't because he was a dutiful commander but because he didn't have the numbers to make any difference.

[joluoto2]

I'm not sure I buy the "more peaceful South" theory, because if you looka at Westeros under Targaryen rule it was actually not that peaceful, still loads of armed conflicts popping up.

Another thing to remember is the Watch had a short "Golden Age" under Jaehaerys I and Alysanne, when the king and Queen both visisted the Wall with their dragons. the king personally helped the Watch fight Wildlings, the New Gift was awarded to the Watch, despite protests from the Starks, and the castle of Deep Lake was built. However the Construction of Deep Lake lead to the Nightfort being abandoned for a new modern smaller castle as the Night's Watch main castle, so maybe that "Golden Age" really was the reason for the sharp decline of the Watch.

If we're to believe TWOIAF the Nightfort was the first catle to be abandoned, starting the cycle of decline.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

But you're telling me that when all the borders come down, and the Seven Kingdoms become one, the number of men joining the Night's Watch plummets?

Small point, but in AWOIAF it's pointed out that the Night's Watch was already in decline before the Conquest. Therefore, unification doesn't necessarily act as a factor in the decline, it just doesn't mitigate it at all.

The primary reason, as others have said, is probably that people no longer remember the Watch's true purpose. Rationalists like Tyrion think it's largely pointless (until he gets the heeby jeebies on top of the Wall anyway) and pragmatists like Tywin dismiss it outright 

 

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, King Merrett I Frey said:

I'm guessing GURM wanted to give an image of the Watch being a potential enemy to Aegon, having a Hoare as commander. Saying 'and old Lord Commander Hoare, with his 2.000 black brothers... just stayed put', wouldn't have had the impact of 10.000 swords, which sounds just like a tale told over time, every time inflating the true numbers the Watch had at the time.

Furthermore, I don't think the Watch posted an annual bulletin on his numbers. They don't respond to the Throne anyways, and it is a military order so secrecy about logistics and numbers would be wise. In the saga, I think we learn about its true state when Jon is already a sworn brother. To all the kingdoms, the Watch is  a hole full of criminals but well, better that than to be known as lacking people. Heck, the Watch probably was miserable back in Aegon's time and the real reason Hoare stayed in the Wall wasn't because he was a dutiful commander but because he didn't have the numbers to make any difference.

But the number of 10k is known and cited by maesters, like Yandel, and the castles of the NW (such as the Nightfort) had maesters who communicated with the Citadel. For example, the world book gives indication that the maesters there passed on info what the Nightfort is built on, plans and fundaments. Yandel may not mention the Black Gate, not even know about it personally, but the Citadel sure knows. If a NW maester is going to pass on that type of knowledge, he's not going to keep the numbers secret either.

[The Grey Wolf]

4 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

I think it's a combination of factors.

1. Memory of why the Night's Watch has been diminishing over time. Some First Men Houses (like the Royces) still hold the Night's Watch in high regard but even they likely don't remember why the Night's Watch was founded.

2. Peace in the south after the Targaryens merged the seven kingdoms. When the kingdoms were fighting there would have been many prisoners of war and lords who had to be removed due to conflict with the victors. Many used to be shipped off to the Wall rather than simply being executed. Like how some of the officers on the Wall now were on the losing side of Robert's Rebellion. Robert forgave some but some he couldn't forgive or they couldn't make peace with the new regime.

3. The image of the Night's Watch had been tarnished by there being more rapers, murders and the like than volunteers. In the past it was likely that the criminal element at the Wall was a small percentage of the total.

4. The rise of the sell-sword companies in Essos gave those younger sons with fewer opportunities for glory at home a prospect of finding fame, fortune and glory fighting in the Disputed Lands.

You hit the nail on the head.

On the second point: For proof just look at the Shieldhall, that Nymeria sent all six of the Dornish kings she defeated to the Wall, and the fact that Harren the Black's BROTHER was Lord Commander at the time of Aegon's Conquest! The Night's Watch was a way to get rid of younger sons with no dynastic prospects as well as a way to avoid having to kill or pay for the upkeep of prisoners of war who couldn't afford ransom along with their retinues. Hence, post-unification the rapid decline.

For further proof I'll leave this link: http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2013/04/09-history-of-nights-watch/

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, joluoto2 said:

However the Construction of Deep Lake lead to the Nightfort being abandoned for a new modern smaller castle as the Night's Watch main castle, so maybe that "Golden Age" really was the reason for the sharp decline of the Watch.

The "Golden Age" was more PR for GQA and Jahaerys rather than the NW. And the New Gift was a poisoned gift. They didn't have the numbers to actually protect the people in the New Gift from raiders. Once the Starks were forced to pull out their lesser lords from the holdfasts in the New Gift, the common folk there were easy pickings for the wildlings. And what did the villagers and farmers do? They moved south where they would be protected, and abandoned the farming land.

None of that would have declined the numbers of the NW directly, but it eventually does lead to not having people farming for them and thus eventually lower their incoms to upkeep and maintain the castles.

[Bael's Bastard]

I'm not sure we know enough.

Assuming Harren's brother truly had 10,000 swords at the Wall, do we know whether that was a usual or unusual number for the Wall? Could the 10,000 at that time have been a drastic increase from the usual number of men at the Wall? How many of those 10,000 men was Harren responsible for sending to the Wall during his reign over a realm which included the riverlands? How many, if any, of those who did not die building Harrenhal ended up at the Wall? How many of those 10,000 were the enemies of Harren and his predecessors responsible for sending? Could the 10,000 at that time have been a drastic decrease from the usual number of men at the Wall in the midst of a decline which continued down to the less than 1,000 of today?

Has there been a dramatic increase in desertions to the Free Folk beyond the Wall since the Targaryens came? How did major wars such as the Dance of Dragons and Robert's Rebellion over the last one hundred and seventy years, and epidemics like the Great Spring Sickness which occurred less than a century ago affect the quality and amount of people being sent to the Wall, or made lords reconsider the quality and numbers of people they might have previously been sending or committing to the Wall? Along with other questions and ideas (such as KG and more connection between regions with things such as tourneys) people have voiced in this thread.

The NW has been decimated over the last three centuries if the numbers are accurate. But just because we don't know exactly why or when this occurred doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

[Jon Fossoway]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But the number of 10k is known and cited by maesters, like Yandel, and the castles of the NW (such as the Nightfort) had maesters who communicated with the Citadel. For example, the world book gives indication that the maesters there passed on info what the Nightfort is built on, plans and fundaments. Yandel may not mention the Black Gate, not even know about it personally, but the Citadel sure knows. If a NW maester is going to pass on that type of knowledge, he's not going to keep the numbers secret either.

I'm mostly shooting speculation myself. Given that the Watch is a permanent military order, I don't find very wise to spread the true numbers of their fighting men, specially when they have the looming menace of thousand of wildlings and a large Wall to cover. They spend a lot of time hiding their numbers from wildlings spies during the saga, anyways.  10k swords at the Wall sounds to me as a Daeron'ish tale that sticked in history after Aegon's Conquest. 

[sweetsunray]

17 minutes ago, King Merrett I Frey said:

I'm mostly shooting speculation myself. Given that the Watch is a permanent military order, I don't find very wise to spread the true numbers of their fighting men, specially when they have the looming menace of thousand of wildlings and a large Wall to cover. They spend a lot of time hiding their numbers from wildlings spies during the saga, anyways.  10k swords at the Wall sounds to me as a Daeron'ish tale that sticked in history after Aegon's Conquest. 

I agree and understand with the initial reasoning you provide, but since it's a number provided by a maester who gives indications that the Citadel was given info on what's below the Nightfort, it actually makes it a far more reliable source.

[Bironic]

On 28.10.2016 at 1:15 PM, RedShirt47 said:

I think it's a combination of factors.

1. Memory of why the Night's Watch has been diminishing over time. Some First Men Houses (like the Royces) still hold the Night's Watch in high regard but even they likely don't remember why the Night's Watch was founded.

2. Peace in the south after the Targaryens merged the seven kingdoms. When the kingdoms were fighting there would have been many prisoners of war and lords who had to be removed due to conflict with the victors. Many used to be shipped off to the Wall rather than simply being executed. Like how some of the officers on the Wall now were on the losing side of Robert's Rebellion. Robert forgave some but some he couldn't forgive or they couldn't make peace with the new regime.

3. The image of the Night's Watch had been tarnished by there being more rapers, murders and the like than volunteers. In the past it was likely that the criminal element at the Wall was a small percentage of the total.

4. The rise of the sell-sword companies in Essos gave those younger sons with fewer opportunities for glory at home a prospect of finding fame, fortune and glory fighting in the Disputed Lands.

5. The NW is the oldest order, later on came the Maesters, Drowned Priests, the Andals founded the Faith of Seven with the Septons, Warrior's sons and Poor fellows, the Targs founded the Kingsguard, the Gold Cloaks, Small Council and the Pyromancers, all places where younger sons could find glory or a purpose in life. The NW lost their monopoly on younger sons.

On 28.10.2016 at 7:59 PM, King Merrett I Frey said:

I'm mostly shooting speculation myself. Given that the Watch is a permanent military order, I don't find very wise to spread the true numbers of their fighting men, specially when they have the looming menace of thousand of wildlings and a large Wall to cover. They spend a lot of time hiding their numbers from wildlings spies during the saga, anyways.  10k swords at the Wall sounds to me as a Daeron'ish tale that sticked in history after Aegon's Conquest. 

Yes this could be true, but the source we have is from the maesters, who are probably more objective on this matter than say the lord commanders of the NW. And even if it's true Daeron I inflated the dornish numbers from around 30000 to around 50000. If a similar inflation is applied to the NW we can assume that the NW during Aegons conquest had around 6000men. From 6000 down to less than a thousand is still a significant decline.

Another more crackpot speculation could be that the North was in general decline in the last 300-600 years.

We know that the Gift is largely deserted, that Eddard and Benjen failed to resettle it. We know that Rickard tried to persuade Aerys to help the NW.

Moat Cailin is a ruin. Queenscrown is a ruin, as are almost all the castles of the NW, there is a ruined tower in Winterfell, Asha & Robert Baratheon tell that there are lots of sparsely or even uninhabitated lands in Sea Dragon Point and the Stony shore, as well as in the rest of the North.

The Stark family tree seems to have lost quite a lot of members and is basically down to Ned's children. Torrhen Stark raised 35000men and went south with them (why could someone ask), while Robb has only 20000men and Rodrik has a hard time to find more men to defend the North against the Ironborn. (Later on Stannis, Roose Bolton, Jon Snow have similar problems) The NW is down from several thousands (not necessarily 10000) to less than a thousand.

Maybe the tragedy of Hardhome(600 hundred years ago), the Doom of Valyria(ca.400 years ago), the Death of the Dragons(ca. 150 years ago) and Craster's sacrifices(ca. the last 40 years) all led to a worse climate which in turn hit the North the most. And since the northern lords are their strongest supporters, the NW declined even more, because the northern lords couldn't afford to give them as much as they gave in the past. Maybe even the invasion of Raymun Redbeard or the Skagosi rebellions were partly due to these climatic changes.

Just some crackpot thoughts...