military strengths in westeros, beyond shear numbers

[Graydon Hicks]

i know folks have gone over how many men all the warlords in the war of five kings have, but what i want to know is what kind or real strengths did each region have? i dont mean numbers, numbers are only part of the equation. what i want to know is military specialties. what was the north's greatest strength, their specialty? were they like atypical northern cultures in over fictions, using lots of two-handed weapons and great physical strength? was the reach, the home of the chivalric knight concept, specialized in heavy armored cavalry? were the lannisters, with all that wealth, better equipped amongst their forces than the other kingdoms? that kind of thing. the show and books just keep seeming to give me the impression that every army was basicly the same, that the only difference was in the numbers.

for my part, i feel that north had better fighters, in a one on one basis. my reasoning has to do with the climate and geography of the north, its so vast, and generally inhospitable. you would think that the common folk were self-reliant than the regular folks in the south. the villages, hamlets, and homesteads would be far more distantly spaced than counterparts down south, that translates to a greater travel time between population centers. when you have folks that have to deal with wilding raids, iron born reavers, slaving parties out of essos, and the common brigand, and the closest lords, and subsequent lord's guard, are hours, sometimes days away, you tend to learn to fend for yourself. to me, this would mean that there is a greater ratio of men capable of picking up and sword or axe or spear, and knowing what to do with it in the first place, than in the south, even if total population is actually lower.

[Nocturne]

52 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i know folks have gone over how many men all the warlords in the war of five kings have, but what i want to know is what kind or real strengths did each region have? i dont mean numbers, numbers are only part of the equation. what i want to know is military specialties. what was the north's greatest strength, their specialty? were they like atypical northern cultures in over fictions, using lots of two-handed weapons and great physical strength? was the reach, the home of the chivalric knight concept, specialized in heavy armored cavalry? were the lannisters, with all that wealth, better equipped amongst their forces than the other kingdoms? that kind of thing. the show and books just keep seeming to give me the impression that every army was basicly the same, that the only difference was in the numbers.

for my part, i feel that north had better fighters, in a one on one basis. my reasoning has to do with the climate and geography of the north, its so vast, and generally inhospitable. you would think that the common folk were self-reliant than the regular folks in the south. the villages, hamlets, and homesteads would be far more distantly spaced than counterparts down south, that translates to a greater travel time between population centers. when you have folks that have to deal with wilding raids, iron born reavers, slaving parties out of essos, and the common brigand, and the closest lords, and subsequent lord's guard, are hours, sometimes days away, you tend to learn to fend for yourself. to me, this would mean that there is a greater ratio of men capable of picking up and sword or axe or spear, and knowing what to do with it in the first place, than in the south, even if total population is actually lower.

 

How exactly did you get that? In the show the opposite is really evident as far as season 1. Compare the equipment of the average Lannister soldier to what house Stark soldiers had at their disposal.

I have to run, but i will build on this post a bit later. Could be interesting discussion since not only quality of equipment matters, training and moral/battle approach is going to differ region by region as well.

 

 

 

[Graydon Hicks]

yes, but those were lannister elite guard type soldiers, meant to protect the lannister family in the red keep. i mean regular troops, was there anything unique to each region that helped to define their armies beyond armor color and house allegiances?

[Lord Varys]

It is quite clear that the fighting men from the richer regions and richer houses are, on average, better equipped than those of the poorer regions and houses. That much is clear. Especially the North and Dorne spring to mind here. The Dornishmen have great horses but don't seem to have all that many armored knights in comparison to, say, the Reach. It is the same with the North. Some of the great houses there would be able to feed a certain number of household knight equivalents riding large and powerfully armored chargers, but this is not the case for, say, the clansmen, or the lesser houses of the North.

The Mormonts may be able to afford reasonably good armor and horses for themselves but not for the majority of their men.

The best equipment is in the hands of the people of the richest houses - the Lannisters, Hightowers, Tyrells, members of the royal family, etc. Tobho Mott, one of the finest armorers in Westeros, is producing his stuff for the likes of Tywin Lannister, Jon Arryn, Renly, and Loras Tyrell.

You can see the advantage that comes with a lot of money in the description of Tywin's army in AGoT. The West is a very wealthy region, both in gold and crops, and this is reflected by the military resources of the Lords of the West.

It may be that the average Northmen in some dangerous region is, on average, more often forced to fight for his life than the average Westerman. That could easily enough mean that the average Northman has more of a killer instinct than the average Northman. But the West should have, on average, more professional and better equipped men-at-arms simply because they have more money.

[elder brother jonothor dar]

2 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

 

for my part, i feel that north had better fighters, in a one on one basis. my reasoning has to do with the climate and geography of the north, its so vast, and generally inhospitable. you would think that the common folk were self-reliant than the regular folks in the south. the villages, hamlets, and homesteads would be far more distantly spaced than counterparts down south, that translates to a greater travel time between population centers. when you have folks that have to deal with wilding raids, iron born reavers, slaving parties out of essos, and the common brigand, and the closest lords, and subsequent lord's guard, are hours, sometimes days away, you tend to learn to fend for yourself. to me, this would mean that there is a greater ratio of men capable of picking up and sword or axe or spear, and knowing what to do with it in the first place, than in the south, even if total population is actually lower.

The Starks have ruled the north almost uncontested for a 1000 years since the red kings bent the knee, yes they had all those raids you mentioned on the periphery but the sheer size of the north means for the most part have not seen confict in a 1000 years.  Compare that to the rest of 7 kingdoms.  Fine they would need to raise levies for their various wars but their homeland for the most part is secure.

[John Doe]

The Greyjoys and the Reach have the best navy. 

The Reach and the Vale probably have the best knights. 

The Westerlands have well-quipped and well-trained soldiers. 

The Northeners, dornishmen, Stormlanders seem to be especially fierce, as are the Ironborn. The Ironborn have the disadvantage of not having any cavalry to speak of though, making them very weak in a pitched battle. The disadvantage the northeners seem to have is that they aren't that well-trained or equipped, as their lords are poor in comparison to most of the other regions. Dorne too seems to have a numerical disadvantage, especially as far as cavalry is concerned. 

 

That's the impression I got anyway. If I had to rank them: 

1. Reach

2. Westerlands

3. Vale

4. Stormlands

5. North

6. Riverlands

7. Iron Islands

8. Dorne

 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that the fighting men from the richer regions and richer houses are, on average, better equipped than those of the poorer regions and houses. That much is clear. Especially the North and Dorne spring to mind here. The Dornishmen have great horses but don't seem to have all that many armored knights in comparison to, say, the Reach. It is the same with the North. Some of the great houses there would be able to feed a certain number of household knight equivalents riding large and powerfully armored chargers, but this is not the case for, say, the clansmen, or the lesser houses of the North.

The Mormonts may be able to afford reasonably good armor and horses for themselves but not for the majority of their men.

The best equipment is in the hands of the people of the richest houses - the Lannisters, Hightowers, Tyrells, members of the royal family, etc. Tobho Mott, one of the finest armorers in Westeros, is producing his stuff for the likes of Tywin Lannister, Jon Arryn, Renly, and Loras Tyrell.

You can see the advantage that comes with a lot of money in the description of Tywin's army in AGoT. The West is a very wealthy region, both in gold and crops, and this is reflected by the military resources of the Lords of the West.

It may be that the average Northmen in some dangerous region is, on average, more often forced to fight for his life than the average Westerman. That could easily enough mean that the average Northman has more of a killer instinct than the average Northman. But the West should have, on average, more professional and better equipped men-at-arms simply because they have more money.

With respect to the Dornish (and the North to a lesser extent), it's a bit of a catch-22 to figure out if the weather dictated certain fighting styles. Dornish sand steeds can run for days and drink little water, but they are not large enough to carry a fully armored knight. However, Dorne is mostly desert and hot as hell. We hear several stories and see many POVs where fully armored knights suffer greatly and horses die (e.g. Arys and Dunk). Naturally it makes sense for the Donnish to wear less armor, but is that shaped by their adaptation environment or the resources available. It's similar in the north with garrons during the winter, not so much with their preference for mail versus plate though. We've seen northmen outside of the North in detail and the footmen/infantry themselves don't seem that particularly different (ringmail/chainmail, pike/spear, helm, et al) than the infantry we see in Renly's camp, in Maidepool with Tarly, or in Tywin's camp and battle lines. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for the Donnish infantry as far as I can recall.

The lords are really where we see the difference. Many northern lords seem to wear chainmail and not plate, whereas I can't recall many knights or lords below the Neck wearing anything but plate unless they were hedge knights or maybe a household knight. 

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

With respect to the Dornish (and the North to a lesser extent), it's a bit of a catch-22 to figure out if the weather dictated certain fighting styles. Dornish sand steeds can run for days and drink little water, but they are not large enough to carry a fully armored knight. However, Dorne is mostly desert and hot as hell. We hear several stories and see many POVs where fully armored knights suffer greatly and horses die (e.g. Arys and Dunk). Naturally it makes sense for the Donnish to wear less armor, but is that shaped by their adaptation environment or the resources available. It's similar in the north with garrons during the winter, not so much with their preference for mail versus plate though. We've seen northmen outside of the North in detail and the footmen/infantry themselves don't seem that particularly different (ringmail/chainmail, pike/spear, helm, et al) than the infantry we see in Renly's camp, in Maidepool with Tarly, or in Tywin's camp and battle lines. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for the Donnish infantry as far as I can recall.

Yeah, weather and climate are also pretty important there. Just as well as culture. The more Andalish lords of Dorne like the Yronwoods and Fowlers are also pretty likely to care more about chivalric culture and such.

But in regards to wealth in food and resources Dorne and the North seem to be pretty similar. Places like White Harbor and Sunspear/the Planky Town excluded, of course. There is a lot of trade going on there.

The main difference I see is between what the levies of the richer and the poorer regions can afford. A peasant in the Reach or the West who goes to fight in his lord's war is most likely going to be able to afford more equipment than a peasant in the North.

The professional guardsmen and men-at-arms the lords maintain and equip - as well as their household knights - should all be as well-equipped as the lords can afford. The differences should still be notable there if you compare the Starks to the Lannisters or the Mormonts to the, say, Farmans, but it shouldn't be as glaring as it must be with the commoners.

19 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The lords are really where we see the difference. Many northern lords seem to wear chainmail and not plate, whereas I can't recall many knights or lords below the Neck wearing anything but plate unless they were hedge knights or maybe a household knight. 

Yeah, there is a strong difference there. And we do know that this also reflects somewhat in the lines of horses, weaponry, and armory in general when Lord Borrell points out that Lord Sunderland (the lord ruling the Three Sisters) has trouble enabling all his seven sons to become knights. That means training and equipping knights is a very costly process. The great houses can most likely afford it (just think of Kevan's boast as to how many knights he can feed, despite the fact that he doesn't hold any lands) but the smaller houses not so much.

[Free Northman Reborn]

And yet the North produces 3000 amoured lances out of 12000 men at Winterfell. Men no less capable than a southron knight, according to Maester Luwin.

Lord Sunderland cannot afford to equip his 7 sons as knights, yet Lord Karstark commands 300 of the 3000 armoured lances at Winterfell.

Maybe much of the cost of southron knighthood therefore involves needless extravagance, rather than value adding military equipment. The North raised around 5000 cavalry in Robb's army,  with several thousand additional heavy cavalry remaining behind with Houses Manderly, Bolton, Dustin and Ryswell.

This puts their armoured lance numbers pretty much up there with any region other than the Reach or West, and likely well above the likes of Dorne and the Stormlands.

As for horses, we see that when the Karstarks leave Robb, he says he has lost 300 mounted men and twice as many horses, telling us that the guestimate of at least two horses on campaign per armoured lancer is pretty much spot on. 

So we are talking tens of thousands of warhorses being available in the North.

They seem able to match the capability, if not the extravagance, of the southron kingdoms pretty well.

[Bernie Mac]

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The North raised around 5000 cavalry in Robb's army,  with several thousand additional heavy cavalry remaining behind with Houses Manderly, Bolton, Dustin and Ryswell.

Where have these several thousand been hiding?

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This puts their armoured lance numbers pretty much up there with any region other than the Reach or West, and likely well above the likes of Dorne and the Stormlands.

Based on what? There is no evidence that these several thousand exist. Why can the North have hidden cavalry but the Stormlands, a place we have barely seen, can't?

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

So we are talking tens of thousands of warhorses being available in the North.

That remains to be seen. Looking at how useless the warhorses with Stannis are. I'd be doubtful that the North would feel the need to have so many warhorses that would be useless during the winter years. Unless they were planning an invasion of the South that kind of expense seems excessive. 

[John Doe]

The North has about 30k men, if they really push themselves maybe 40k. But that's it. They are no match for the more populous southern kingdoms, neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of equipment. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Ramsay had up to 600 cavalry at Winterfell. Lady Dustin held more of her strength back than Roose did, in fact she held back as much as possible, and Barrowton is the 2nd wealthiest settlement in the North. She should easily have 500 cavalry left, if not significantly more. The Ryswells are the premier hoesebreeders in the North, and sent neither their lord nor any of his sons with Robb. They likely have close to the Dustin numbers of cavalry left.

So those 3 Houses alone could have 1500 cavalry in addition to the numbers in Robb's army. And that excludes the Manderlys, who must have in excess of 1000 left, if they exceed Roose's current total cavalry numbers.

That takes us to 2500 already, without any other lords contributing, and this with the Manderlys at a rock bottom minimum of 1000, which could be much higher.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The North has about 30k men, if they really push themselves maybe 40k. But that's it. They are no match for the more populous southern kingdoms, neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of equipment. 

The North is more populous than the Stormlands, Dorne and the Vale, while likely matching the Riverlands and West in population.

[Universal Sword Donor]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The North is more populous than the Stormlands, Dorne and the Vale, while likely matching the Riverlands and West in population.

I don't know if the North is more populous than the Vale, but it's probably pretty close either way.

The 5K mounted seems eminently reason to me given the semi-canon RPG foot:horse ration as 1/4 for the North and what we see of other regions and them in the book. I'd expect it to be a bit higher personally.

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I don't know if the North is more populous than the Vale, but it's probably pretty close either way.

The 5K mounted seems eminently reason to me given the semi-canon RPG foot:horse ration as 1/4 for the North and what we see of other regions and them in the book. I'd expect it to be a bit higher personally.

The North can raise the same military strength as the Vale, according to Martin. But, considering the size, climate and lack of wealth of the North, they would logically be able to raise a smaller percentage of their total population to war. Thus, similar miltary strength x smaller mobilization percentage should equal larger total population.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The North can raise the same military strength as the Vale, according to Martin. But, considering the size, climate and lack of wealth of the North, they would logically be able to raise a smaller percentage of their total population to war. Thus, similar miltary strength x smaller mobilization percentage should equal larger total population.

The SSM that touches on that makes it sound more to me like the North has as many men, just less likely to mobilize due to those constraints. That doesn't mean that the population is larger or smaller, just that the percentage of their force they *would* raise is smaller.

[Bernie Mac]

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ramsay had up to 600 cavalry at Winterfell.

We really don't know how many of those 'almost 600' were horsed. It might have been all of them, half or even only a 100. We just have not been given that data. 

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lady Dustin held more of her strength back than Roose did,

Not that we know of. We don't know how strong either House. We know that Dustin claimed to have sent only as many men out of fear for what the Starks would do. That is a pretty vague statment. We have no idea if the Boltons did the same.

 

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

and Barrowton is the 2nd wealthiest settlement in the North. She should easily have 500 cavalry left, if not significantly more.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be pulling figures out of thin air. On what basis from the books can you say she should easily have 500 left?

And for that matter she may have sent most of her horse south and kept her infantry at home. We simply don't know, but there is nothing in ADWD to suggest she has significantly more than 500 horse. 

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The Ryswells are the premier hoesebreeders in the North, and sent neither their lord nor any of his sons with Robb. They likely have close to the Dustin numbers of cavalry left.

Again, figures out of thin air. They have a horse on their coat of arms, like the Umbers have a Giant on theirs, this does not necessarily mean they are the premier Horse breeders in the North. More importantly nor do we know how much of a percentage they sent home. 

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So those 3 Houses alone could have 1500 cavalry in addition to the numbers in Robb's army. And that excludes the Manderlys, who must have in excess of 1000 left, if they exceed Roose's current total cavalry numbers.

Based on what. Where in the books does it look like the Manderlys have 1k heavy horse in the  North? We see 300 knights with Wyman, there is zero evidence for 1k. 

After Kings Landing we have spent more time in the North than any other region. Of a planned 7 book series we are 5 books and a half dozen sample chapters through. As of yet there has been no evidence of the numbers you are suggesting for heavy horse in the North. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The SSM that touches on that makes it sound more to me like the North has as many men, just less likely to mobilize due to those constraints. That doesn't mean that the population is larger or smaller, just that the percentage of their force they *would* raise is smaller.

That SSM touches on the time it would take to raise the men, as well as the willingness of the lords to release them. It does not address the logistical cost of marching and supporting men over thousands of miles, which would inevitably cost more per man in the North than in the smaller, more densely populated South. Hence, even if the North was as fertile as the South, it would take the labour output of more peasants to support one soldier, simply because the soldier has to be supported for a longer period, over longer distances. Couple this with the lower producticity of a square mile of Northern farmland, and the ratio of peasants per soldier supported in the field would need to be even higher.

Martin was asked about military strength, not population. For the same military strength to be achieved, a larger support base of peasants would be needed in the North than in the Vale.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

That SSM touches on the time it would take to raise the men, as well as the willingness of the lords to release them. It does not address the logistical cost of marching and supporting men over thousands of miles, which would inevitably cost more per man in the North than in the smaller, more densely populated South. Hence, even if the North was as fertile as the South, it would take the labour output of more peasants to support one soldier, simply because the soldier has to be supported for a longer period, over longer distances. Couple this with the lower producticity of a square mile of Northern farmland, and the ratio of peasants per soldier supported in the field would need to be even higher.

Martin was asked about military strength, not population. For the same military strength to be achieved, a larger support base of peasants would be needed in the North than in the Vale.

Martin doesn't worry about logistics and timing, so that line of thinking is dubious to inject. For many other novels and in the real world, absolutely.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

North - More fierce and brave than most but less disciplined and well equipped than the other regions.

Riverlands - I would say pretty middle tier.

Vale - They have the strongest knightly traditions and from that i suspect they are braver and more skilled than the average region when it comes to warfare.

Iron Islands - the greatest sea power in Westeros, not very good in a pitched land battle as they are not disciplined and have no cavalry.

Westerlands - Most well equipped, supplied and disciplined troops in Westeros.

Crownlands - They have a great fleet but probably weakest army in both size and equipment. The goldcloaks are not real soldiers, men of the narrow sea are poor and have almost no cavalry and the people of crackclaw point are the same. Not a lot of well disciplined and equiped troops at all.

Stormlands - The are emphasized to have the greatest warriors in Westeros and have a very strong martial tradition. 

Reach - Strong knightly tradition and have by far the most ammount of troops. Well supplied and equipped troops i would say.

Dorne - Not a lot of heavy cavalry, lightly equipped, small army, no fleet but great at skirmishing.