Northern cavalry - a discussion

[Free Northman Reborn]

So this leads from a discussion that began in the Atlas of Ice and Fire thread, which evolved into an analysis of Northern cavalry compared to southron knights.

In short, Maester Luwin states quite specfically that while Robb only had 300-400 annointed knights in his army gathered at Winterfell, he had 3000 armored lances who were not knights, due to the fact that they worship the Old Gods. But he goes to great lengths to explain to Bran how these men are the equivalent of southron knights, except for being of a different religion.

This has drawn criticism and disbelief from Lord Varys in particular, who cannot reconcile this high ratio of armored cavalry (3300/12000) = 27.5%, with the fact that the North is poorer than the likes of the Reach or Westerlands, who, even in Tywin's two armies, only achieved a similar ratio of knights to infantry. 

Lord Varys further finds it difficult to accept that the Northern heavy cavalry are the equivalents of southron cavalry, being of the belief that the North cannot produce and sustain horses of the size seen in the Reach, Riverlands and other southron regions. This is of course refuted by the evidence, where we have countless examples of northmen riding large stallions, warhorses and destriers. Also, the Northern cavalry seemed to be particularly devestating in all its encounters with the Lannister forces, be it at the Whispering Wood, the Battle of the Camps, Oxcross or the scouring of the Westerlands. Robb's cavalry is never mentioned as being outsized or outclassed by southron mounted knights, and there is no indication that Martin intended it as such.

In my view it is quite clear that when Maester Luwin refers to armored lances, he is referring to knight equivalents in heavy armor, armed with lances. The heavy shock troops of the medieval battlefield, specializing in charging at and breaking enemy battle formations. Exactly like their southron counterparts.

I can go on, but will leave it there for now. Thoughts?

[Protagoras]

31 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So this leads from a discussion that began in the Atlas of Ice and Fire thread, which evolved into an analysis of Northern cavalry compared to southron knights.

In short, Maester Luwin states quite specfically that while Robb only had 300-400 annointed knights in his army gathered at Winterfell, he had 3000 armored lances who were not knights, due to the fact that they worship the Old Gods. But he goes to great lengths to explain to Bran how these men are the equivalent of southron knights, except for being of a different religion.

This has drawn criticism and disbelief from Lord Varys in particular, who cannot reconcile this high ratio of armored cavalry (3300/12000) = 27.5%, with the fact that the North is poorer than the likes of the Reach or Westerlands, who, even in Tywin's two armies, only achieved a similar ratio of knights to infantry. 

Lord Varys further finds it difficult to accept that the Northern heavy cavalry are the equivalents of southron cavalry, being of the belief that the North cannot produce and sustain horses of the size seen in the Reach, Riverlands and other southron regions. This is of course refuted by the evidence, where we have countless examples of northmen riding large stallions, warhorses and destriers. Also, the Northern cavalry seemed to be particularly devestating in all its encounters with the Lannister forces, be it at the Whispering Wood, the Battle of the Camps, Oxcross or the scouring of the Westerlands. Robb's cavalry is never mentioned as being outsized or outclassed by southron mounted knights, and there is no indication that Martin intended it as such.

In my view it is quite clear that when Maester Luwin refers to armored lances, he is referring to knight equivalents in heavy armor, armed with lances. The heavy shock troops of the medieval battlefield, specializing in charging at and breaking enemy battle formations. Exactly like their southron counterparts.

I can go on, but will leave it there for now. Thoughts?

Cavalry (and especially the armoured type) are an expensive troop type, but easy to muster and send - since they ride fast and due to their status often work for the lords personally with no need to gather them up on the countryside. That is - if the North would raise another 20.000 soldiers atop of that 19500, you would have a very, very low percentage of cavalry and then mainly from the regions like Manderley and others like Dustin, who held back soldiers initially (and even in her case its likely that she sent all her cavalry and little/no infantry).

The North can raise far more than 12000 or 20000 troops. More likely ~35000-40000 for an offensive war, given time. So it is very possible Lord Varys is correct (that the North has a lower ratio of armored cavalry than other regions) despite it hasn´t been seen on the pages, because Robb took most parts of the "creme de la creme" with him. In fact, I am pretty convinced that apart from some lords like Manderley or maybe, maybe Dustin - we have seen the full extent of the Northern cavalry already. They were all taking part in the fighting with Robb.

Edit: Lets say Manderley has 1500 horses and that apart from the cavalry sent with Robb there exists a couple of hundreds more in the North. Lets say 200. Thats 1700 +3300 = 5000 armored cavalry. On a mobilization pool of 50000, thats 10%. Not very impressive in other words.

[Praetor Xyn]

The only thing I remember in regards to Northern horses is the mountain clans riding smaller more agile mounts and having a much easier time through the blizzard than Stan miss war horses, but I'm not sure I'm remembering that correctly.

[Free Northman Reborn]

33 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Cavalry (and especially the armoured type) are an expensive troop type, but easy to muster and send - since they ride fast and due to their status often work for the lords personally with no need to gather them up on the countryside. That is - if the North would raise another 20.000 soldiers atop of that 19500, you would have a very, very low percentage of cavalry and then mainly from the regions like Manderley and others like Dustin, who held back soldiers initially (and even in her case its likely that she sent all her cavalry and little/no infantry).

The North can raise far more than 12000 or 20000 troops. More likely ~35000-40000 for an offensive war, given time. So it is very possible Lord Varys is correct (that the North has a lower ratio of armored cavalry than other regions) despite it hasn´t been seen on the pages, because Robb took most parts of the "creme de la creme" with him. In fact, I am pretty convinced that apart from some lords like Manderley or maybe, maybe Dustin - we have seen the full extent of the Northern cavalry already. They were all taking part in the fighting with Robb.

Edit: Lets say Manderley has 1500 horses and that apart from the cavalry sent with Robb there exists a couple of hundreds more in the North. Lets say 200. Thats 1700 +3300 = 5000 armored cavalry. On a mobilization pool of 50000, thats 10%. Not very impressive in other words.

Robb already had 5000 cavalry at Moat Cailin. Add to that the 600 Bolton cavalry with Ramsay, the mostly untapped Manderly cavalry - which exceeds the Bolton cavalry even now - the Dustins who kept the maximum number back, the Ryswells who are the primary horse breeders in the North, and the various contingents left with every lord in the North (even the depleted Karstarks have something like a dozen left with Arnolf, the Cerwyns brought two dozen to the Harvest Feast etc) and the Northern total cavalry must then approach 8000.

 

[Protagoras]

33 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Robb already had 5000 cavalry at Moat Cailin. Add to that the 600 Bolton cavalry with Ramsay, the mostly untapped Manderly cavalry - which exceeds the Bolton cavalry even now - the Dustins who kept the maximum number back, the Ryswells who are the primary horse breeders in the North, and the various contingents left with every lord in the North (even the depleted Karstarks have something like a dozen left with Arnolf, the Cerwyns brought two dozen to the Harvest Feast etc) and the Northern total cavalry must then approach 8000.

 

Hmm, I fail to remember that the books mention those extra 1700 armoured cavalry Robb had apart from the original 3300-3400. Reference?

Ahh, forgot Boltons 600 (and it makes sense too since they are looking at that Hornwood land).

The Dustins and Ryswell most likely sended their cavalry to give a good excuse to Robb. So adding 2300 to my number of 5000, we get 7300.

Bet even if we assume your number on cavalry, thats 8000/50000 = 16%. Still not very impressive and very far from that 27,5% you tried to swindle upon us by some very selective information. I am still right that Cavalry is easy to muster - since they ride fast and due to their status often work for the lords personally with no need to gather them up on the countryside. That means the cavalry-ratio at Winterfell is very, very skewed in favor of a higher proportion cavalry and that logically, given more time, that number had been drastically reduced. But I think you already knew this and that you are (as usual) biased in any discussion around the North and want the to be stronger that they really are. Again, the next 20000 soldiers mustered will be almost cavalry-free, apart from some regions.

I don´t recall which page but I seem to remember that in a rpg-book the number given was 1 out of 5 (and I don´t think they differentiated between different types of Cavalry). For the north, that means 10000 and includes the very non-armoured mules of the mountain clans. And every single region had a "better" ratio (that is, more cavalry in percentage) than the North - usually around 1/4 or in some cases 1/3 if I recall the numbers correctly.

[Adam Yozza]

13 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

 

Hmm, I fail to remember that the books mention those extra 1700 armoured cavalry Robb had apart from the original 3300-3400. Reference? Uh, the fact that he rode from Moat Cailin with 5000 cavalry?

Ahh, forgot Boltons 600 (and it makes sense too since they are looking at that Hornwood land).

The Dustins and Ryswell most likely sended their cavalry to give a good excuse to Robb. So adding 2300 to my number of 5000, we get 7300. I agree with you here, though Dustin may have kept a few hundred horse back (maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of her total cavalry)

Bet even if we assume your number on cavalry, thats 8000/50000 = 16%. Still not very impressive and very far from that 27,5% you tried to swindle upon us by some very selective information. I am still right that Cavalry is easy to muster - since they ride fast and due to their status often work for the lords personally with no need to gather them up on the countryside. That means the cavalry-ratio at Winterfell is very, very skewed in favor of a higher proportion cavalry and that logically, given more time, that number had been drastically reduced. But I think you already knew this and that you are (as usual) biased in any discussion around the North and want the to be stronger that they really are. Again, the next 20000 soldiers mustered will be almost cavalry-free, apart from some regions. I think 50k may be overestimating the total strength of the North. 40k may be more accurate, and including the lighter cav of the mountain clans it'd come to about 9000 out of 40000. Not as great as other regions, but nothing to scoff at either.

You are right about the mobilization of cavalry and the fact that later armies would have lower numbers of cavalry than the intial force. though, but that doesn't apply only to the North. Stafford Lannister's host at Oxcross, most likely, had a very disproportioned ratio of cav-infantry.

On the other hand, Free Northman is right that the armoured lancers of the North are equipped pretty much the same as southron knights. The Lannister's and Tyrell's, due their wealth, may be able to equip more heavy cavalry, but it would only be with the same level of equipment. Good armour doesn't cost much, remember.

I don´t recall which page but I seem to remember that in a rpg-book the number given was 1 out of 5 (and I don´t think they differentiated between different types of Cavalry). For the north, that means 10000 and includes the very non-armoured mules of the mountain clans. And every single region had a "better" ratio (that is, more cavalry in percentage) than the North - usually around 1/4 or in some cases 1/3 if I recall the numbers correctly. I don't think every region had a better ratio. I know the Ironborn have next to no cavalry, and I doubt the Dornish have that high of a ratio either (or maybe their ratio is high, but numbers are just small anyway). As to the other regions, the Crownlands, Riverlands and Stormlands (probably) have about 1 out of 5, while the Reach, Vale and the Westerlands hold ratio's of 1 in 3. I'm only estimating based on economy and evidence from the books, mind you.

 

 

[Protagoras]

28 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

stuff

5000 cavalry: Hmm, my problem with that item of information is the following namely that the battles give different sums. The battle on the green fork gives Robbs horses as 500, which is 10% as stated BUT the battle in the whispering woods according to wiki states that their strength is " Roughly 6,000 northmen and rivermen including forces of House Mallister, House Frey, and remnants of Edmure's host after the Battle of Riverrun". Well, if Robb has 4500 cavalry at that battle it means it is only 1500 left for the Freys (who we know can field 4000 and have mustered their strength already, at least large parts of it), House Mallister and the remnants of Edmure's host. And I don´t believe 1500 covers all those groups.

Strength: I am going with 50000 since FNR has argued for that number in the past and that he actually have some good arguments in its favor. 8000/40000 gives 20% though, which was stated in the RPG (I think). I am willing to accept both numbers for the discussion.

Lighter cavalry: No, we are specifically counting the heavy cavarly here. And including the lighter cavalry on slow but sturdy mules of the mountain clans is an insult to the term in general. That kind of mount is in general made to carry things and to ride on but not to battle with. Usually in Sweden in the viking era (which I think the clans are more or less stuck) you rode your horse to the battlefield and then dismounted since the animal (like their mules) wasnt trained and adapted to warfare and barding. In short they are NOT armoured lances and certainly not equal to southron knights.

Equipment: I have never argued that the Northmen cavalry are equipped worse. Rather, I am assuming a certain "level" of equipment to even get to use the name armoured cavalry. I have no idea what FNR has reacted on but it wouldn´t surprise me if he have misinterpreted what Lord Varys have said. Assuming thought that Lord Varys did make a difference in the breeding of horses, then he is quite wrong. Sweden again had a nice cavalry when we took that tradition, despite our climate, and they had an important role as far as I am aware in the Carolean army. The horses Ryswell breeds might be stouter, shorter or whatever than the best producer in the Reach, but there is no reason to assume that they are any worse for that.

Region ratio: I don´t remember which rpg-book it was (d20 maybe) but I distinctly remember some trends. Certainly there might be regions with similiar amount of cavalry (and in the case of the ironborn, they fight without it as did the vikings of old). Dorne and Crownlands might be on the same level, but I remember Reach beeing on 1/3 and Riverlands on 1/4 (and Stormlands should have as much in percentage as the Riverlands I think). Then again, my memory is not what it once was.

[Nyrhex]

I think that it is clear, both from the descriptions of them in the books, and from GRRM's own words on Westerosi troops. The Northmen by and large still rely on a simpler, cheaper form of protection. The North's cavalry are still equipped in 11th century mail and halfhelm for the most part, with some of the wealthier going for 13th century gear. 

This while the south starts in the 14th century and goes almost to the late 16th. You can count the mentions of plate armor in the North on one hand, and that includes the breastplates that Rykker and Tarly brought to the Night's Watch from home.

The overwhelming majority of the Northern cavalry are depicted in gear that is would shame the average hedge knight in the south a century ago. Even Dunk could afford to get himself a decent suit of plate with what he could scrounge off of an old hedge knight.

They have about the same ratio as everyone else, but the Northern cavalry are barely comparable in gear to the Ironborn heavy infantry. Every other depiction of Northern troops mentions inferior gear to an equivalent troop in the south. Robb had nearly the same amount of horse as Tywin, and greater numbers of foot, but still feared a pitched battle. He encircled Jaime's horse in an ambush that included archers (one of those managed to shoot Jaime's horse from under him, and he led an attack on Robb's guard on friggin foot). The camps had little cavalry left, and they were sellswords who went over to Robb. The Oxcross cavalry never faced Robb, because "muh goat tracks" meant he could slip men into the Lannister camp and cut the horse lines, sending them to run over the Lannister tents. 

 

FNR, I get that you like the Starks, but come on. We've been over this enough times, the North is not richer than everyone else because it has to pay for two extra weeks of muster, it's cavalry are not the same as the cavalry of the south, and one Northman is not worth 10 of the south, as Desmond had to learn the hard way.

[Adam Yozza]

3 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

5000 cavalry: Hmm, my problem with that item of information is the following namely that the battles give different sums. The battle on the green fork gives Robbs hourses as 500 which is 10% as stated BUT the battle in the whispering woods according to wiki states that their strength is " Roughly 6,000 northmen and rivermen including forces of House Mallister, House Frey, and remnants of Edmure's host after the Battle of Riverrun". Well, if Robb has 4500 cavalry at that battle it means it is only 1500 left for the Freys (who we know can field 4000 and have mustered their strength already, at least large parts of it), House Mallister and the remnants of Edmure's host. And I don´t believe 1500 covers all those groups.

Strength: I am going with 50000 since FNR has argued for that number in the past and that he actually have some good arguments in its favor. 8000/40000 gives 20% though, which was stated in the RPG (I think). I am willing to accept both numbers for the discussion.

Lighter cavalry: No, we are specifically counting the heavy cavarly here. And including the lighter cavalry on slow but sturdy mules of the mountain clans is an insult to the term in general. That kind of mount is in general made to carry things and to ride on but not to battle with. Usually in Sweden in the viking era (which I think the clans are more or less stuck) you rode your horse to the battlefield and then dismounted since the animal (like their mules) wasnt trained and adapted to warfare and barding. In short they are NOT armoured lances and certainly not equal to southron knights.

Equipment: I have never argued that the Northmen cavalry are equipped worse. Rather, I am assuming a certain "level" of equipment to even get to use the name armoured cavalry. I have no idea what FNR has reacted on but it wouldn´t surprise me if he have misinterpreted what Lord Varys have said. Assuming thought that Lord Varys did make a difference in the breeding of horses, then he is quite wrong. Sweden again had a nice cavalry when we took that tradition, despite our climate, and they had an important role as far as I am aware in the Carolean army. The horses Ryswell breeds might be stuoter, shorter or whatever than the best producer in the Reach, but there is no reason to assume that they are any worse for that.

Region ratio: I don´t remember which rpg-book it was (d20 maybe) but I distinctly remember some trends. Certainly there might be regions with similiar amount of cavalry (and in the case of the ironborn, they fight without it as did the vinkings of old). Dorne and Crownlands might be on the same level, but I remwmber Reach beeing on 1/3 and Riverlands on 1/4 (and Stormlands should have as much in percentage as the Riverlands I think). Then again, my memory is not what it once was.

Well if the Frey's provide raise; in total; 1000 cavalry, then that leaves 500 for the Mallister's and Edmure's host. It's possible that the Mallister's are like the Karstark's, with a particularly low cav ratio, so let's say 200 (I can make an argument for this point if you wish) leaving 300 for the remains of Edmure's host. Those 300 would only be the portion that retreated north and regrouped with Robb, so in total there would be more (we know Marq Piper and Karyl Vance played havoc with Jaime's supply lines (they weren't the ones who met up with Robb, since they only arrive to Riverrun later) and bare (bear?) in mind that Edmure's host was actually only a small portion or the Riverlords with only Blackwood, Vance, Piper and Tully men being a part of it, it seems. So 4500 northmen at the Whispering Wood doesn't seem that unbelievable.

Strength: Fair enough

Light Cav: Again, fair enough. I was referring to cav in general but in terms of just the heavy lancers then yes, you are correct.

Equipment: Oh, we're on the same page then.

Region ratio: I'd say those numbers are about right. I'd put the North at slightly below the Riverlands in terms of number, but maybe a little above in terms of talent (I don't believe in a Northern Master Race, but I do know that the harsher an environment you live in the tougher and hardier you become. Especially the most northern house's like Umber and Karstark who have to deal with Wildlings semi-regularly)

[Adam Yozza]

11 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

FNR, I get that you like the Starks, but come on. We've been over this enough times, the North is not richer than everyone else because it has to pay for two extra weeks of muster, it's cavalry are not the same as the cavalry of the south, and one Northman is not worth 10 of the south, as Desmond had to learn the hard way.

On the whole I'd agree that one Northman is not worth ten southerners. But Roderick Dustin would like to disagree and has brought Bryndon and Ormund Hightower as witnesses.

[KingMance]

I can get on board with "heavy lances" referring to Knights. I can even imagine the southern most part of the North having a good number of war horses. However, isn't the north repeatedly mentioned to have less population despite its vastness? Discounting ratios, percentages, and algebra for the moment, isn't it safe to say the south is gonna have more knights/heavy lances based on population alone? In that case, ratios don't really matter that much.  

[Chaircat Meow]

Robb appears to have a slightly higher ratio of heavy cavalry to Tywin. We know Tywin had, at most, approx. 5,300 knights at the Green Fork, because Marbrand had 4,000 horsemen on the right-wing, and we know over 3/4 of the knights were there (but not that all the four thousand were knights, necessarily). Assuming the upper limit that's about the same ratio as Robb's army (slightly lower).

Oddly, this means Tywin had lots of light/medium cavalry, where Robb does not seem to have any. I think we put his down to GrrM just not caring about these details too much.

 

 

[Nyrhex]

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Robb appears to have a slightly higher ratio of heavy cavalry to Tywin. We know Tywin had, at most, approx. 5,300 knights at the Green Fork, because Marbrand had 4,000 horsemen on the right-wing, and we know over 3/4 of the knights were there (but not that all the four thousand were knights, necessarily). Assuming the upper limit that's about the same ratio as Robb's army (slightly lower).

Oddly, this means Tywin had lots of light/medium cavalry, where Robb does not seem to have any. I think we put his down to GrrM just not caring about these details too much.

 

 

Tywin had 4,000 knights and other heavy cavalry on the right, 2,500 heavy cavalry in reserve, and ~1,000 mounted men on the left. 7,500 cavalry, ~6,500-7,000 of those better equipped than the Northern cavalry.

You did not mistake the 300-400 knights in Robb's Winterfell host for all of his heavy cavalry, why do you do so for the Lannisters?

Jaime had ~15,000 men, of those 2,000-3,000 cavalry. That gives Tywin's initial host 35,000 men, of those ~10,000 were cavalry. That's about 1-2.5 horse to foot ratio.

Out of Tywin's ~20,500 men including the clansmen, ~7,500 men is better than 1-2 horse to foot.

If Robb had 6,000 cavalry only with another 1,000 Freys (Mallister forces cancel out Roose' cavalry), the Stark horse is ~5,000 out of ~19,500 men by the maximalist approach. That's about a 1-3 ratio, worse than the Westerlands. If it's ~5,000 out of 18,000 men, it's still a bit worse than the 1-2.5 of the Westerlands.

[Chaircat Meow]

3 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

Tywin had 4,000 knights on the right, 2,500 heavy cavalry in reserve, and ~1,000 mounted men on the left. 7,500 cavalry, ~6,500-7,000 of those better equipped than the Northern cavalry.

You did not mistake the 300-400 knights in Robb's Winterfell host for all of his heavy cavalry, why do you do so for the Lannisters?

Jaime had 2,000-3,000 cavalry. That gives Tywin's initial host 35,000 men, of those ~10,000 were cavalry. That's about 1-2.5 horse to foot ratio.

Out of Tywin's ~20,500 men including the clansmen, ~7,000 men is nearly 1-2 horse to foot.

If Robb had 6,000 cavalry only with another 1,000 Freys (Mallister forces cancel out Roose' cavalry), the Stark horse is ~5,000 out of ~19,500 men by the maximalist approach. That's about a 1-3 ratio, worse than the Westerlands. If it's ~5,000 out of 18,000 men, it's still a bit worse than the 1-2.5 of the Westerlands.

You have read it wrong. There were 4,000 horse on the right, and 3/4 of the knights were there, according to Tyrion. So, there can only be 5,300 knights in the army. Tywin has 20,000 men, so 5,300/20,000 = 26.5%. Jaime's ratio is 20% or lower.

edit: and that assumes all the 4,000 were knights, but the way it is written kind of implies that is not the case.

[Nyrhex]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You have read it wrong. There were 4,000 horse on the right, and 3/4 of the knights were there, according to Tyrion. So, there can only be 5,300 knights in the army. Tywin has 20,000 men, so 5,300/20,000 = 26.5%. Jaime's ratio is 20% or lower.

What on earth are you on about? We are talking heavy cavalry. If you only count knights, you are giving Robb at best 400 out of 12,000 men at Winterfell, which is 1-29 ratio. But he had a total of 3,300-3,400 heavy cavalry. Same thing with Tywin, he has at least 6,500 heavy cavalry in the form of knights and men at arms, and another ~1,000 cavalry on the left who were made up of anything from Gregor and his men, to freeriders and sellswords, to farmers on plow horses.

That's still at least 6,500 heavy cavalry out of a host of 20,000 men before Clansmen show up, and without counting how many men are heavy cavalry in Gregor's flank.

EDIT:

Minor correction, at least 6,800 heavy cavalry, since Kevan has 300 heavy cavalry in the center as well.

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, Nyrhex said:

What on earth are you on about? We are talking heavy cavalry. If you only count knights, you are giving Robb at best 400 out of 12,000 men at Winterfell, which is 1-29 ratio. But he had a total of 3,300-3,400 heavy cavalry. Same thing with Tywin, he has at least 6,500 heavy cavalry in the form of knights and men at arms, and another ~1,000 cavalry on the left who were made up of anything from Gregor and his men, to freeriders and sellswords, to farmers on plow horses.

That's still at least 6,500 heavy cavalry out of a host of 20,000 men before Clansmen show up, and without counting how many men are heavy cavalry in Gregor's flank.

Luwin only made the knights/heavy cavalry distinction in the northern army's case because most northern heavy cavalrymen are followers of the old gods, and so can't be knights. This does not apply in a southern army, so there heavy cavalry and knights are synonymous.

[Nyrhex]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

Luwin only made the knights/heavy cavalry distinction in the northern army's case because most northern heavy cavalrymen are followers of the old gods, and so can't be knights. This does not apply in a southern army, so there heavy cavalry and knights are synonymous.

No they are bloody not. Heavy cavalry are heavy cavalry. Some are men at arms, some are knights. It's very clear in the books as well, which makes me question if you genuinly managed to miss that.

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

No they are bloody not. Heavy cavalry are heavy cavalry. Some are men at arms, some are knights. It's very clear in the books as well, which makes me question if you genuinly managed to miss that.

I disagree. I think GrrM does use knight as synonymous with heavy cavalry, except in the north. If you want to pull out quotes to prove otherwise go ahead.

Why get so cross about an utterly minor point?

edit: In the chapter we are discussing the term 'man-at-arms' describes infantry wielding swords, axes and spears (i.e. non-pike infantry). Cavalry, otoh, are never described as men-at-arms.

[Nyrhex]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I disagree. I think GrrM does use knight as synonymous with heavy cavalry, except in the north. If you want to pull out quotes to prove otherwise go ahead.

Why get so cross about an utterly minor point?

Because if this is not blatant Stark fanboyism, then you have managed to miss literally every single mention of heavy cavalry in the south, and have managed to make up a factoid that unless you are a knight, you are not heavy cavalry, and that the North is literally the only place where all cavalry is heavy. 

The fact that you would even go asking for quotes on this baffles me, since there are so many to choose from. I don't have to go far, in the Battle of the Green Fork itself, Tyrion describes the right wing as "a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers". 

[Chaircat Meow]

14 minutes ago, Nyrhex said:

Because if this is not blatant Stark fanboyism, then you have managed to miss literally every single mention of heavy cavalry in the south, and have managed to make up a factoid that unless you are a knight, you are not heavy cavalry, and that the North is literally the only place where all cavalry is heavy. 

The fact that you would even go asking for quotes on this baffles me, since there are so many to choose from. I don't have to go far, in the Battle of the Green Fork itself, Tyrion describes the right wing as "a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers". 

Since I'm not a Stark fanboy, that would be hard. Maybe I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of GrrM's use of military terms, and was actually curious. You still seem angry, it's weird. Are you a fanboy of some type?

Ok, I spotted the line you brought up too. Fair point. Maybe I was wrong.

 However, it is still going to be the case that the main reason there is a big difference between the number of knights in the northern army and the southern is because most northerners do not take vows, on account of their religion. So we would not expect a very big difference between southern knight numbers and heavy cavalry numbers, whereas we would in the north. This makes the number of Tywin's knights significant, in a way that the numbers of Robb's knights are not. I am not saying that only knights are heavy cavalry, but that GrrM usually uses the terms interchangeably, unless he's talking about the north. Tyrion, for instance, sees the northern heavy cavalryman with his Morningstar and calls him a 'knight' but presumably had no way of knowing if he had taken vows or not, not having met him.