Jump to content

military strengths in westeros, beyond shear numbers


Graydon Hicks

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

thats very true, but i think that the north has a larger pool of at least semi-skilled men to draw from for reserves, while the westerlands would keep their active troops better trained, but all their reserves are purely peasant levies, with no skill or training what so ever, they just shove pike or sword in his hands and push him out front. so, in a analyzed fight, if the north could survive and whittle down the lannister main body, it would force to the westerlands to rely on untrained peasants, compared to generally self-reliant and more combat ready northmen, even if the northerners are less professionally trained and equipped. 

There are very few 'active troops' in any of those regions, but those in the West, the Reach, the Vale, and the Riverlands would be, on average, be more and much better equipped. That is inevitable. Those are the richer regions of Westeros compared to the Stormlands, Dorne, and the North.

On average, the knights and armored lances, cavalry, etc. would also be much more professional and capable if they had time and opportunity to train in tourneys. Granted, not every tourney prepares you for a fight in a pitched battle or gives you the killer instinct of a professional soldier but men like Robert honed their skills in the tourneys and melees they rode in.

On average, there would be lesser such events in the North and Dorne. On average, this would have an effect the skills of the fighting men in those regions.

And the low population density in the North is greatly reducing the chance that those people who are actually reasonably well prepared for righting actually go to war. The strong man of a household is likely going to stay back home to oversee the farm and the harvest if he is capable. Only the sons a family can spare will go to war, not those the family needs to survive.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Your average peasant is going to be the same throughout the realm as all were made to work their asses off and all expected their Nobles to protect them from external threats.

That is an important point. The overwhelming majority of the population of Westeros are basically sheep. The average Ironborn is trained to fight from a very early age but the people of Westeros are not. The average commoner is not. They hire specialists when they have stuff they want to defend, like the merchant Brienne meets early on in AFfC. Sellswords and freeriders like Bronn and Chiggen (or hedge knights, etc.) do this kind of thing, not the people themselves.

The overwhelming majority of the fighting men in the armies are poor sots who were never properly trained to fight. We see this not only with Jon's young buddies at the Wall but also in TSS and the speech of Septon Meribald. There is a core contingent of men-at-arms and household knights in each army - professional soldiers who are permanently in the service of this or that lord - and a larger contingent of professional hedge knights, freeriders, etc. that can be hired at need, but aside from that most fighting men in Westeros are not professional soldiers.

This is something to keep in mind when considering the upcoming battle between the Golden Company and the Tyrell army. The Golden Company are 10,000 professional soldiers, veterans of a lot of battles. The Tyrell knights and men-at-arms will also be trained and experienced, of course, but they will only be relative small part of the large host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is roughly the same as in that thread:

  • 40-50000 raisable soldiers for the North, varies by season leadership and offence/defence. Both higher and lower numbers possible due to circumstances and troop fluctuation. Skagos should in no shape or form be counted in the possible northern mobilization pool. We can also divide soldiers in A, B and C team - where A is trained cavalry/personal guard/easiliy obtainable forces and C is basically Osgreys levies quality. And the North has in general less money that other regions so they will have marginally worse gear, but not that significant.
  • 1/5th of those solders can be classified as horse/heavy horse, which is in the low/average group percentwise compared with other regions in westeros. The RPG figures should been seen as likely approximations, and those numbers basically put the North behind all regions except Iron Islands, Dorne (who is likely to have a higher percentage cavalry, but very little heavy cavalry due to the climate) and Stormlands, whose numbers are just explained as "low" (low as the Norths ones maybe?). In addition, some regions like the crownland should have less heavy horse in absolute numbers but a higher percentage (due to great amounts of wheat and food. So do we count percentages or exact numbers?
  • The cavalry troop numbers av explained by the shenanigans of Dustin and maybe Ryswell who most likely made the excuse "We didn´t have time to raise our forces, here is all (or most) of our cavalry instead", sending 100% cavalry making FNR assume a higher proportion of cavalry than what is likely.
  • However, any region could raise far more people if they wanted to. Because it is never about manpower - its about money first and foremost. Training, supply etc are things that matters. And you rarely run out of manpower, and even if you do as long as you have unlimited cash and are willing offset your economy and pay extreme soldier wages, you can raise people forever. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

"Shouts and screams rang through the cold autumn air. Ser Rodrik seemed to have the numbers, but the Dreadfort men were better led, and had taken the others unawares. Theon watched them charge and wheel and charge again, chopping the larger force to bloody pieces every time they tried to form up between the houses."

A soldier is quite capable of charging with out the need of a horse. There were horses on both sides, we have no idea how many of Ramsay's  men were horsed. As I said in my post, it could be 600 it could be 100, we really don't know. You using them as evidence is disingenuous. 

I will pick a nit with this. Pretty much every time "wheeled" is used as a verb by GRRM in ASOIAF it's either birds flying or men on horseback. Check your ebooks or asearchoficeandfire.com. Hell in the same chapter:

“He (Theon) did not wait for a reply, but wheeled Smiler around and rode back toward the castle.”

Massed foot charges are by no means uncommon, but I can't think of any battles IRL or in the books where foot charges, turns around and charges again. And the mounted column that comes streaming through? If you want to discount them all being mounted, I can't or won't disagree with you there. But given the verbiage and descriptions, I think it's pretty clear that they were primarily a mounted force. Even better led, multiple foot charges against a force that is 2-3 times larger is just asking to be enveloped or flanked unless you have some type of mobility advantage, like a horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 

  • However, any region could raise far more people if they wanted to. Because it is never about manpower - its about money first and foremost. Training, supply etc are things that matters. And you rarely run out of manpower, and even if you do as long as you have unlimited cash and are willing offset your economy and pay extreme soldier wages, you can raise people forever. 

That is definitely not true. You can't eat money. You might be able to buy food with it but you certainly can't eat a golden or silver coin. As Napoleon (or Frederick the Great) would say, an army marches on its stomach. Another popular saying is “more campaigns have been ruined by poor logistics than enemy battles." I can't remember if that was a general or a historian. 

Men and animals need food to march. Even if we're talking about raising a secondary force, a la Stafford, they still need to march wherever they are going, and that requires a ton of food. There's only so much food an environment can produce and raiding an enemy territory only works if you survive the march there. One of the big reasons why GRRM had the "plowshares into swords" SSM. You take too much food and men from an area, the people starve and the crops go to waste. People can only swing a scythe for so long in a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

That is definitely not true. You can't eat money. You might be able to buy food with it but you certainly can't eat a golden or silver coin. As Napoleon (or Frederick the Great) would say, an army marches on its stomach. Another popular saying is “more campaigns have been ruined by poor logistics than enemy battles." I can't remember if that was a general or a historian. 

Men and animals need food to march. Even if we're talking about raising a secondary force, a la Stafford, they still need to march wherever they are going, and that requires a ton of food. There's only so much food an environment can produce and raiding an enemy territory only works if you survive the march there. One of the big reasons why GRRM had the "plowshares into swords" SSM. You take too much food and men from an area, the people starve and the crops go to waste. People can only swing a scythe for so long in a day.

If I have unlimited amounts of money, then I can buy unlimited amount of supplies - outbidding everyone else and get them physically delivered to me at whatever exhorbant rate it will cost. 

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point in other words. While I can´t eat money directly, the economy is the base on where my war is commited, the fuel that drives my war. So, yeah, from a philosophical POW money can be eaten. And with a strong economy I can afford to offset other crucial things to gain more soldiers, more supplies and more gear & training. 

And, yes, at some point my army will die off faster then the deliveries can reach it. That is too much of a hypothetical scenario to consider however. Nor is that crops go to waste particulary relevant if I am willing to accept that loss, since I again have unlimited amounts of money and can get that food anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

On average, the knights and armored lances, cavalry, etc. would also be much more professional and capable if they had time and opportunity to train in tourneys. Granted, not every tourney prepares you for a fight in a pitched battle or gives you the killer instinct of a professional soldier but men like Robert honed their skills in the tourneys and melees they rode in.

On average, there would be lesser such events in the North and Dorne. On average, this would have an effect the skills of the fighting men in those regions.

Actually North has something better than the tourneys, they have melees that leave many wounded and villages little more than ruins and more people dead than a small skirmish.

As for troop quality/composition, I'd say Reach possibly has a smaller horse to foot ratio, excepting freeriders and mercenary bands of course, than most other regions but those they have would be equipped much better.

Renly has ~80000 men with some 20000 horse, he still has some more men to gather and some Stormlords haven't declared for him as we learn from Stannis, but, looking at his cavalry, only 10000 or so are lancers, aside from them he has a lot of light horse and freeriders, meaning only %12,5 heavy horse from one's own levies and household. The actual ratio would be even lower I believe, as there would be even more smallfolk available to raise but not that many knights and other heavy horse, or else they wouldn't turn to freeriders that quickly to increase their cavalry numbers.

Tywin, as another example, has ~35000 men including Jaime's; Jaime has 12000 infantry and 2000-3000 horse and Tywin has ~7500 horse and ~12500 infantry. Both of them have mercenaries and freeriders of course and in Tywin's army of this number at least some thousand is poorly equipped light horsemen and likely more than a thousand horse is not from his force, leaving him with ~8000 heavy horse at most among 34000 men from his own lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Invalid Date at 4:33 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

To start with a small correction, north has 3000 lancers, and an additional 300-400 knights in that number. And actually Karstarks would be a very good example for what I wrote above on Reach; as the number of your total troops increases, your horse to foot ratio would get lower and lower past a certain point. This is because you can't simply keep supplying your forces with one horseman for every two or three or four infantrymen, the cost of that one horseman during peacetime would be more than those 2-4 peasants can compensate or else westerosi warfare would mostly be dothrakis wearing armors tilting their lances at each other with the occasional siege here and there if a lord bothered to raise some peasants for it.

 

As for Ramsay's forces, I believe my calculations on Ramsay's force is correct, he has some 460 men when Theon sees him, so he had 490-500 men before battle with some more before the skirmishes in Hornwood lands.

As for how many horses he has, I believe 100 horseman to fit the number of a garrison of a castle that size or 200 if Roose felt extra cautious and wanted to "overgarrison" it like Riverrun is. 200 men among 500 is more than enough as their enemy were caught unprepared and most of the force gathered is still alive though scattered around; Stannis had little above a thousand when he went to aid the Wall and still had more than a thousand after the battle, according to Samwell. When he writes Jon he has 5k men at the time which includes his ~1k, 2-3k mountain clansmen, whatever small number Wolfswood clans provided him and survivors of Winterfell joining him. This means at that time several hundred survivors joined him at the very least (if 3k clansmen) with more joining everyday. If he had as many as 600 cavalry, Stannis wouldn't have that many men.

Edit: I seem to have double posted but can't fix it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

If I have unlimited amounts of money, then I can buy unlimited amount of supplies - outbidding everyone else and get them physically delivered to me at whatever exhorbant rate it will cost. 

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point in other words. While I can´t eat money directly, the economy is the base on where my war is commited, the fuel that drives my war. So, yeah, from a philosophical POW money can be eaten. And with a strong economy I can afford to offset other crucial things to gain more soldiers, more supplies and more gear & training. 

And, yes, at some point my army will die off faster then the deliveries can reach it. That is too much of a hypothetical scenario to consider however. Nor is that crops go to waste particulary relevant if I am willing to accept that loss, since I again have unlimited amounts of money and can get that food anyway. 

You can't buy supplies that don't exist. That is my point. The land can only yield so much. There is some magic in the world of ASOIAF but I have yet to see a spell that conjures up food. Where are you getting food if you're land doesn't have food, the place you're in is burnt up, and the food takes a month to reach you?

You can't. It doesn't matter how much money you have if the food just can't get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You can't buy supplies that don't exist. That is my point. The land can only yield so much. There is some magic in the world of ASOIAF but I have yet to see a spell that conjures up food. Where are you getting food if you're land doesn't have food, the place you're in is burnt up, and the food takes a month to reach you?

You can't. It doesn't matter how much money you have if the food just can't get there. 

I think we are talking about sligtly different things here. Yes, there is a limit on how effective you can make your chain of supply and a limit on how much food you can purchase and how fast it can be delivered. I still doesn´t change my point that any region can raise much much more manpower if they are willing and able to to pay for it. But it is normally not worth the investment. And you risk offsetting the economy. My point was: Manpower is not a limiting factor. Cash (foremost), supplies and training is.

Where the roof go, where you basically place yourself in a position you describe that you cant supply such an army is not really important (and it reeks of bad planning more than having an unfeasonable number I would say). Nor is it likely that such a roof point has already been reached. So, yes - I can't buy supplies that don't exist. But I can pour more money into it, cutting more and expensive trade deals for supply delivery (and if I am wise I have already worked out those deals beforehand), I can buy more weapon and gear and have it delivered to me. I can pay farmers and lords high prices to deliver food to me as we march, I can willingly choose to offset my longterm economy to get more soldiers, I can pay high amount of cash for mercenaries and pay high solds for soldiers to increase willingness, I can pour money into PR - to spread this out so that people will hear about my generous terms and I can with a short amount of time have all those soldiers trained, if needed, due to my new instructors I also bought. And all of this should mean that I can increase my army size by a large margin because of money, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

I think we are talking about sligtly different things here. Yes, there is a limit on how effective you can make your chain of supply and a limit on how much food you can purchase and how fast it can be delivered. I still doesn´t change my point that any region can raise much much more manpower if they are willing and able to to pay for it. But it is normally not worth the investment. And you risk offsetting the economy. My point was: Manpower is not a limiting factor. Cash (foremost), supplies and training is.

Manpower is very much a limiting factor. There is a reason why medieval armies were small, partly because they were expensive but also partly because the more people they withdraw from actual work, the less food everyone will have to eat. It's not just the army. People need to harvest the grain, run the mill, et al. There is a much larger pool of manpower than gets called up, but that statement as is it completely false. They literally can't feed them and if they try they will starve the rest of the population. There is a direct relation between the supplies available and the manpower available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 

  • The cavalry troop numbers av explained by the shenanigans of Dustin and maybe Ryswell who most likely made the excuse "We didn´t have time to raise our forces, here is all (or most) of our cavalry instead", sending 100% cavalry making FNR assume a higher proportion of cavalry than what is likely.

The Ryswells and Dustins weren't part of the 3300 amoured lances and knights at Winterfell. They only joined later. So this heavy horse all came from more northerly Houses.

Of which the Karstarks only supplied 300, and the Mormonts and Mountain Clans likely very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Ryswells and Dustins weren't part of the 3300 amoured lances and knights at Winterfell. They only joined later. So this heavy horse all came from more northerly Houses.

Of which the Karstarks only supplied 300, and the Mormonts and Mountain Clans likely very little.

3,000  horse at Winterfell.

 

Now if the Starks had around 5k overall then the Dustins and Ryswells (as well a Locke&Flints) will have supplied 1.7k horse with the remaining 6k that formed at Moat Cailin before the Manderlys arrived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

3,000  horse at Winterfell.

 

Now if the Starks had around 5k overall then the Dustins and Ryswells (as well a Locke&Flints) will have supplied 1.7k horse with the remaining 6k that formed at Moat Cailin before the Manderlys arrived. 

Maester Luwin: "300-400 knights, among 3000 armoured lances who are not knights".

Therefore 3300-3400 knights and Old God worshipping knight equivalents at Winterfell, for a ratio of 27.5% armoured lances and knights out of the 12000 men at Winterfell.

And that means the remaining 1600-1700 of the 5000 cavalry total came from Houses:

Flint of Widow's Watch, Manderly, Locke, Slate, Dustin, , Ryswell and Flint of Flint's Finger. I've left the Reeds out for obvious reasons.

So that averages around 250 contribution to Robb's cavalry for each of these Houses, at a lower cavalry contribution rate of 1700 out of 7500 men (just under 23%).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Maester Luwin: "300-400 knights, among 3000 armoured lances who are not knights".

Therefore 3300-3400 knights and Old God worshipping knight equivalents at Winterfell, for a ratio of 27.5% armoured lances and knights out of the 12000 men at Winterfell.

That is still 3,000. Among means 'part of' not 'as well as'. There are 3,000 horsed soldiers, the 300 -400 knights are among them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Manpower is very much a limiting factor. There is a reason why medieval armies were small, partly because they were expensive but also partly because the more people they withdraw from actual work, the less food everyone will have to eat. It's not just the army. People need to harvest the grain, run the mill, et al. There is a much larger pool of manpower than gets called up, but that statement as is it completely false. They literally can't feed them and if they try they will starve the rest of the population. There is a direct relation between the supplies available and the manpower available.

Renly was marching around with an army (or a group of people) which may have been as large as 80,000. That works in the Reach, apparently.

Certainly not in the North or any other bleaker region.

You can only do that kind of thing if you control the territory. If you invade a foreign land and the people there are smart enough to burn the crops and poison the wells before you get there you pretty much done.

And the fertility of the land (and the difficulty in creating food) is also very crucial in how many men from a given region can actually afford to go to war.

A realistic view would be that the richer regions (which means those who can produce more feet per square mile) can send more (and better equipped) men to war than the poorer and less fertile regions.

There should be a lot of rich villages market towns in the Reach, and essentially none of those in North. Those men could send well-equipped men, well-bred horses, and a lot of food to their liege lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is still 3,000. Among means 'part of' not 'as well as'. There are 3,000 horsed soldiers, the 300 -400 knights are among them. 

 

Well no. It means there are 300 knights in-between 3000 non-knights. Else the second part of Luwin's statement is false, where it says 3000 who are NOT knights. Can't ignore the "not".

"Among" definition:

situated more or less centrally in relation to (several other things).

"flowers hidden among the roots of the trees"
synonyms: surrounded by, in the company of, amid, in the middle of, between, in the thick of;

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luwin correctly points out that the horse at Winterfell who are not knights are not any better or worse fighters than those horsemen who are knights. A Ser in front of your name says nothing about your abilities as a fighter.

But that doesn't tell us anything about the armor, horses, weaponry, or abilities of those men in comparison to the armored knights of the South. Especially in light of the fact that the Manderly knights are not at Winterfell.

We have a lot of textual evidence that the weaponry, armor, and horses of the Northmen are, on average, of poorer quality than those of their peers in the South. That is just a fact.

We also know of the cultural differences between the North and the South. Tourneys are rarer in the North and the melees they do there seem to be a sport of the utmost elite. Fighting is brutal, and not seldom deadly or at least crippling. You have to be a very good or a very brave fighter to enter into such a melee if what Yandel tells us about those is true.

Only men with incomes which enable them to replace dead/injured horses, ruined weapons and armor, etc. can participate in those affairs more than once. It is hard in the South, too, but down there at least your armor and your horse should survive a tourney (and you can ransom them back, if you have the coin).

In that sense one assumes that those melees up there are much an affair for the elite of the North, which means the great lords of the North, their family and kin, and there more powerful vassals. But it is not very likely that there are many 'tourney knights' up there. First because there are not so many such melees to give these men a lot of incomes, and second because they are risky and bloody affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Luwin correctly points out that the horse at Winterfell who are not knights are not any better or worse fighters than those horsemen who are knights. A Ser in front of your name says nothing about your abilities as a fighter.

But that doesn't tell us anything about the armor, horses, weaponry, or abilities of those men in comparison to the armored knights of the South. Especially in light of the fact that the Manderly knights are not at Winterfell.

We have a lot of textual evidence that the weaponry, armor, and horses of the Northmen are, on average, of poorer quality than those of their peers in the South. That is just a fact.

We also know of the cultural differences between the North and the South. Tourneys are rarer in the North and the melees they do there seem to be a sport of the utmost elite. Fighting is brutal, and not seldom deadly or at least crippling. You have to be a very good or a very brave fighter to enter into such a melee if what Yandel tells us about those is true.

Only men with incomes which enable them to replace dead/injured horses, ruined weapons and armor, etc. can participate in those affairs more than once. It is hard in the South, too, but down there at least your armor and your horse should survive a tourney (and you can ransom them back, if you have the coin).

In that sense one assumes that those melees up there are much an affair for the elite of the North, which means the great lords of the North, their family and kin, and there more powerful vassals. But it is not very likely that there are many 'tourney knights' up there. First because there are not so many such melees to give these men a lot of incomes, and second because they are risky and bloody affairs.

Tourneys don't equate to military prowess. It is one type of quasi-military tradition, just as the ritualistic aspects of wars in Slaver's Bay and beyond are another. But by no means are tourneys the defining aspect of the capability of a medieval/ancient era warrior.

As for the supposed lesser quality of Northern horses, that is simply a fabrication. The North's size and terrain is actually conducive to greater reliance on horses in war, due to the mobility required over vast wilderness areas. The Barrowlands are essentially a steppe-like terrain similar to that in Eurasia, where many horse based cultures originated.

There is something very important that has been ignored in this cavalry discussion, from the very beginning. And that is that Winter warfare is very much a specialized activity, even in the North. It is not the norm. By far the greatest volume of battles and campaigns in Northern wars over the millennia would have taken place during Summer. Times when the little garrons shown in use during snowstorms and early Winter conditions would have been of far lesser value than heavy horse. So warfare in the North would have valued heavy horse as greatly as it was valued in the South.

Nowhere in the description of Robb's host is it implied that his cavalry is of lesser stature than that of the South. In fact, Luwin is at pains to point out the opposite, and by no means because he is militaristic or nationalistic (we don't even know where in Westeros he is from). If anything, he is as irritated by Bran's obsession with knightly superiority as he is with Bran's obsession with magic. So it is in purely academic frustration that he testily corrects Bran on this matter.

The garrons referred to as in use by the Umbers and Mountain clansmen during the blizzard were in use specifically because they were most suited to the environment at the time. In the case of the Clansmen, because heavy horses are not useful in the mountainous terrain of their homeland. But in the case of the other Northern lords, they would have heavy horse for Summer, and garrons for Winter. Nowhere is it implied that they lack heavy horse. This is a supposition based on pre-existing impressions that various posters have of the North.

If anything, colder conditions tend to breed larger animals, as greater body size allows greater heat retention.

The North had 3300 armoured lances out of 12000 troops at Winterfell. Based on the text, a specific quote from the most trustworthy Maester we have been introduced to mind you, they are the full equivalent of southron knights. Knights who are by definition heavy horse. And that ratio was from the Northern half of the North, which some have tried to suggest (with no evidence) has a scarcity of heavy horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Tourneys don't equate to military prowess. It is one type of quasi-military tradition, just as the ritualistic aspects of wars in Slaver's Bay and beyond are another. But by no means are tourneys the defining aspect of the capability of a medieval/ancient era warrior.

It is the sport of the warring elite. The men who make up the cavalry of people of Westeros. They seem to play the crucial role. Even mercenaries like Bronn and Chiggen can ride. But riding, too, is something only the elite does. The common man can't afford a horse.

And warfare itself is the sphere of the elite. The men who can't afford to go to war don't go to war. Period. Never mind the circumstances. And a society also cannot force those men to go to war which are necessary to keep the population alive. That never happens.

Quote

As for the supposed lesser quality of Northern horses, that is simply a fabrication. The North's size and terrain is actually conducive to greater reliance on horses in war, due to the mobility required over vast wilderness areas. The Barrowlands are essentially a steppe-like terrain similar to that in Eurasia, where many horse based cultures originated.

Those garrons are prevalent in the North. They are inferior to the Southron horses on the battlefield. They are pretty effective in the Northern climate, though. In a war in the North you don't need armored horsemen of the same power as they use in the South. But if you go off warring in the South you need those.

Quote

There is something very important that has been ignored in this cavalry discussion, from the very beginning. And that is that Winter warfare is very much a specialized activity, even in the North. It is not the norm. By far the greatest volume of battles and campaigns in Northern wars over the millennia would have taken place during Summer. Times when the little garrons shown in use during snowstorms and early Winter conditions would have been of far lesser value than heavy horse. So warfare in the North would have valued heavy horse as greatly as it was valued in the South.

There usually are no wars in winter anywhere, especially not in the North. And no, Brandon Ice Eyes isn't counter example. That's a young king leading a short campaign to deal with some slavers in some castle. You can do that, of course. But a real war includes battles, sieges, raids, etc. It can stretch over years or decades and you can't do that kind of thing in the North or anywhere in Westeros in winter.

The Northmen having those garrons are likely to use them the entire year, not just in the winter. The clansmen only have such horses, just as the NW does. There might be some houses who can afford better horses but nothing indicates the North is famed for breeding the best horses of Westeros. That's the Reach and Dorne, actually.

Quote

Nowhere in the description of Robb's host is it implied that his cavalry is of lesser stature than that of the South. In fact, Luwin is at pains to point out the opposite, and by no means because he is militaristic or nationalistic (we don't even know where in Westeros he is from). If anything, he is as irritated by Bran's obsession with knightly superiority as he is with Bran's obsession with magic. So it is in purely academic frustration that he testily corrects Bran on this matter.

Luwin doesn't compare the Northern cavalry to the Southron cavalry. He tries to teach the boy a lesson about the value of a Ser. And a Ser is indeed irrelevant if the question of man's strength, skills, abilities, and property is concerned. We also see that with Sandor Clegane. The man isn't a knight, but he is as powerful as any knight.

You compare the North to the South here, not Luwin. And the power and splendor of Lord Tywin's army in comparison to the army under Roose Bolton is pretty telling in that regard.

On average, a horseman in the West will be better trained, better equipped, and a better fighter than a Northman. Simply because the society can afford to train their men better.

Just as people in a poorer society are, on average, sicker, less educated, die sooner, etc. That is just a matter of statistical fact. In a medieval society only the wealthy can afford to go to war, and only the really rich people will be able to become armored horsemen. And since the North is, on average, poorer than the South, it is pretty obvious that the quality of the cavalry up there is not as good as, say, that of the cavalry of the Reach.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The garrons referred to as in use by the Umbers and Mountain clansmen during the blizzard were in use specifically because they were most suited to the environment at the time. In the case of the Clansmen, because heavy horses are not useful in the mountainous terrain of their homeland. But in the case of the other Northern lords, they would have heavy horse for Summer, and garrons for Winter. Nowhere is it implied that they lack heavy horse. This is a supposition based on pre-existing impressions that various posters have of the North.

As long you can't prove that this is just your supposition. I'm not saying that the Karstarks, Umbers, Boltons, and Dustins don't have quality horses. But all there men and vassals? Probably not. And the idea that the mid-tier noblemen in the North can afford both heavy horse and those garrons are not all that likely. That would be luxury to the extreme, especially in light of the winter.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The North had 3300 armoured lances out of 12000 troops at Winterfell. Based on the text, a specific quote from the most trustworthy Maester we have been introduced to mind you, they are the full equivalent of southron knights. Knights who are by definition heavy horse. And that ratio was from the Northern half of the North, which some have tried to suggest (with no evidence) has a scarcity of heavy horse.

We don't have to do that since nothing indicates Luwin is making a comparison there. You do. That is not in the text. Having a Ser or not doesn't have to know whether the men who have a Ser or not are as strong, rich, equipped, etc. as another group of men who have a Ser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is the sport of the warring elite. The men who make up the cavalry of people of Westeros. They seem to play the crucial role. Even mercenaries like Bronn and Chiggen can ride. But riding, too, is something only the elite does. The common man can't afford a horse.

And warfare itself is the sphere of the elite. The men who can't afford to go to war don't go to war. Period. Never mind the circumstances. And a society also cannot force those men to go to war which are necessary to keep the population alive. That never happens.

Those garrons are prevalent in the North. They are inferior to the Southron horses on the battlefield. They are pretty effective in the Northern climate, though. In a war in the North you don't need armored horsemen of the same power as they use in the South. But if you go off warring in the South you need those.

There usually are no wars in winter anywhere, especially not in the North. And no, Brandon Ice Eyes isn't counter example. That's a young king leading a short campaign to deal with some slavers in some castle. You can do that, of course. But a real war includes battles, sieges, raids, etc. It can stretch over years or decades and you can't do that kind of thing in the North or anywhere in Westeros in winter.

The Northmen having those garrons are likely to use them the entire year, not just in the winter. The clansmen only have such horses, just as the NW does. There might be some houses who can afford better horses but nothing indicates the North is famed for breeding the best horses of Westeros. That's the Reach and Dorne, actually.

Luwin doesn't compare the Northern cavalry to the Southron cavalry. He tries to teach the boy a lesson about the value of a Ser. And a Ser is indeed irrelevant if the question of man's strength, skills, abilities, and property is concerned. We also see that with Sandor Clegane. The man isn't a knight, but he is as powerful as any knight.

You compare the North to the South here, not Luwin. And the power and splendor of Lord Tywin's army in comparison to the army under Roose Bolton is pretty telling in that regard.

On average, a horseman in the West will be better trained, better equipped, and a better fighter than a Northman. Simply because the society can afford to train their men better.

Just as people in a poorer society are, on average, sicker, less educated, die sooner, etc. That is just a matter of statistical fact. In a medieval society only the wealthy can afford to go to war, and only the really rich people will be able to become armored horsemen. And since the North is, on average, poorer than the South, it is pretty obvious that the quality of the cavalry up there is not as good as, say, that of the cavalry of the Reach.

As long you can't prove that this is just your supposition. I'm not saying that the Karstarks, Umbers, Boltons, and Dustins don't have quality horses. But all there men and vassals? Probably not. And the idea that the mid-tier noblemen in the North can afford both heavy horse and those garrons are not all that likely. That would be luxury to the extreme, especially in light of the winter.

We don't have to do that since nothing indicates Luwin is making a comparison there. You do. That is not in the text. Having a Ser or not doesn't have to know whether the men who have a Ser or not are as strong, rich, equipped, etc. as another group of men who have a Ser.

You accuse me of supposition whereas your entire post is based on exactly that. You have no evidence, just supposition. 

Even your reading of Luwins statement is an example thereof.

Horses used for transport are different from horses used for battle. Every cavalry member would have multiple horses. The Northern warrior class would just select the most appropriate horse for the conditions. There are many more horses available than just the ones you see being ridden into battle.

And the efficacy of the Northern cavalry was aptly demonstrated in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...