military strengths in westeros, beyond shear numbers

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The North had 3300 armoured lances out of 12000 troops at Winterfell. 

It is 3,000. You can't ignore the English language to suit your agenda. Those 300 -400 were among the three thousand. If they were extra GRRM would have said also or well as. Among is pretty clear. 

That 3k at Winterfell would be a mixture, from destriers to garrons, from heavy horse horse to light.

 

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

Surely the evidence in ADWD? The difference between the Mountain clan horses, that are surviving, and the Stannis' heavy horse that are beyond useless. 

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

Yup. The Nothern and Frey cavalry certainly did. But usually against lower numbers or infantry. 

Their wins were based on surprise attacks, not superiority of their cavalry to the oppositions cavalry. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is 3,000. You can't ignore the English language to suit your agenda. Those 300 -400 were among the three thousand. If they were extra GRRM would have said also or well as. Among is pretty clear. 

That 3k at Winterfell would be a mixture, from destriers to garrons, from heavy horse horse to light.

 

Surely the evidence in ADWD? The difference between the Mountain clan horses, that are surviving, and the Stannis' heavy horse that are beyond useless. 

Yup. The Nothern and Frey cavalry certainly did. But usually against lower numbers or infantry. 

Their wins were based on surprise attacks, not superiority of their cavalry to the oppositions cavalry. 

I can only take you back to the definition of "among" from the Oxford dictionary (which I already posted above, but which you seem to have either missed or decided to ignore). So here it is:

Among:

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

‘flowers hidden among the roots of the trees’

 

Clearly, in the above example, the flower is not one of the roots. So, one flower hidden among 10 roots, would equate to 11 total objects.

 

A second interpretation is provided, depending on the context. And this is the one you are relying on.

Being a member or members of (a larger set)

‘a British woman was among the 54 victims of the disaster’

 

Now, the context here would be that the British woman is not distinct from the larger set. In other words, this definition could not apply if the statement was "One living British woman was among the 54 non-living victims of the disaster." In that case, there would be 55 total victims and the first example would apply. To use this second interpretation in Luwin's context, he would have had to say:

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 total cavalry" (the larger set referred to here)

 

This is however not what Luwin said. Luwin's statement quite clearly falls within the first definition provided. 300-400 flowers among 3000 roots (items that are NOT flowers).

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 armoured lances who are NOT knights.

 

It really is very clear which definition applies. If you choose to ignore it, of course, there is nothing I can do about it.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I can only take you back to the definition of "among" from the Oxford dictionary (which I already posted above, but which you seem to have either missed or decided to ignore). So here it is:

Among:

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

‘flowers hidden among the roots of the trees’

 

Clearly, in the above example, the flower is not one of the roots. So, one flower hidden among 10 roots, would equate to 11 total objects.

 

A second interpretation is provided, depending on the context. And this is the one you are relying on.

Being a member or members of (a larger set)

‘a British woman was among the 54 victims of the disaster’

 

Now, the context here would be that the British woman is not distinct from the larger set. In other words, this definition could not apply if the statement was "One living British woman was among the 54 non-living victims of the disaster." In that case, there would be 55 total victims and the first example would apply. To use this second interpretation in Luwin's context, he would have had to say:

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 total cavalry" (the larger set referred to here)

 

This is however not what Luwin said. Luwin's statement quite clearly falls within the first definition provided. 300-400 flowers among 3000 roots (items that are NOT flowers).

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 armoured lances who are NOT knights.

 

It really is very clear which definition applies. If you choose to ignore it, of course, there is nothing I can do about it.

Personally I prefer whichever definition makes the mounted numbers more bigly.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

How so? Bran and Luwin don't compare Northern heavy horse to Lannister or Baratheon heavy horse. They talk about the knights in the Stark host and those horsemen who aren't knight.

They do not discuss the relative strength and quality of those men in comparison to those of any of the Southern regions.

It is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. You have no reason to assume that Luwin thinks (and is correct) that a Northern horseman is, on average, as well-equipped and trained as a knight from the Reach.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

Knights and their equivalents would have multiple horses, yes, but nothing indicates the clansmen have other horses than the types they have.

In fact, Asha realizes that the men attacking Deepwood Motte who used the trumpets must be different men from the Northmen she has already seen. Because Northmen don't use trumpets. There are differences there.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

We are not talking about Robb's tactical abilities here. The boy surprised Jaime in the Whispering Wood and could make use of the terrain and the fact that the Lannisters had to split their other army into three parts when they started to besiege Riverrun.

If Robb had faced Jaime in an open battle Jaime would have cut him to pieces. And a good part of the reason why he would have succeeded at that would be that the Westermen had the better horses and equipment. It makes a differences when you wear plate and are facing arrows and lances in comparison to wearing mail.

[Free Northman Reborn]

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How so? Bran and Luwin don't compare Northern heavy horse to Lannister or Baratheon heavy horse. They talk about the knights in the Stark host and those horsemen who aren't knight.

They do not discuss the relative strength and quality of those men in comparison to those of any of the Southern regions.

It is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. You have no reason to assume that Luwin thinks (and is correct) that a Northern horseman is, on average, as well-equipped and trained as a knight from the Reach.

Knights and their equivalents would have multiple horses, yes, but nothing indicates the clansmen have other horses than the types they have.

In fact, Asha realizes that the men attacking Deepwood Motte who used the trumpets must be different men from the Northmen she has already seen. Because Northmen don't use trumpets. There are differences there.

We are not talking about Robb's tactical abilities here. The boy surprised Jaime in the Whispering Wood and could make use of the terrain and the fact that the Lannisters had to split their other army into three parts when they started to besiege Riverrun.

If Robb had faced Jaime in an open battle Jaime would have cut him to pieces. And a good part of the reason why he would have succeeded at that would be that the Westermen had the better horses and equipment. It makes a differences when you wear plate and are facing arrows and lances in comparison to wearing mail.

Why do you divorce Luwin's role as tutor to Bran from him being a vehicle for knowledge transfer by the author in this case? As far as we can see there is no attempt by Martin here to display Luwin's character traits as a nationalistic Northman, or to portray his lack of expertise in things of a military nature or any other secondary motive. Instead, he is providing us with an information dump as to how Northern cavalry compares to Southron knights.

Luwin uses the term "knights" as a collective, making no distinction between Northern or Southron knights. Martin clearly does not make this distinction either, from a battlefield efficacy perspective. The intent here is not to fool the reader into a false sense of equivalence between Northern armoured lances and knights, wherever they be from. The intent is to show that other than the swearing of a vow, there is no practical difference between the two when it comes to their value in war. Whether they are from the Last Hearth or from Oldtown.

As for the clansmen, that is a straw man argument. I have never claimed that the Mountain Clans are representative of Northern heavy cavalry. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they likely contributed virtually zero armoured lances to the host gathered at Winterfell. Because they are a distinct, mountain dwelling folk, based on Scottish Highlanders. They have garrons, yes, but they aren't used for mounted charges. They are used for transport. The chiefs and champions who ride them for the most part dismount to engage in battle.

As for the 3300 cavalry gathered at Winterfell. Not a single garron is mentioned. But Luwin does refer to them all as armoured lances and knights.

I would refer you to typical Russian medieval cavalry. They had a wide variety of breeds. But they certainly did not lack in quality of horses compared to the rest of Europe. The North would be no different.

 

[Lord Varys]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why do you divorce Luwin's role as tutor to Bran from him being a vehicle for knowledge transfer by the author in this case? As far as we can see there is no attempt by Martin here to display Luwin's character traits as a nationalistic Northman, or to portray his lack of expertise in things of a military nature or any other secondary motive. Instead, he is providing us with an information dump as to how Northern cavalry compares to Southron knights.

No, he doesn't. He talks about the Northern horsemen who are knights in comparison to those who aren't. He tells the boy that a Karstark or Umber son without a Ser is just as good as such a person with a Ser.

The knights of the South are simply not mentioned or discussed in that conversation. 

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Luwin uses the term "knights" as a collective, making no distinction between Northern or Southron knights. Martin clearly does not make this distinction either, from a battlefield efficacy perspective. The intent here is not to fool the reader into a false sense of equivalence between Northern armoured lances and knights, wherever they be from. The intent is to show that other than the swearing of a vow, there is no practical difference between the two when it comes to their value in war. Whether they are from the Last Hearth or from Oldtown.

No, that is not the case. Luwin talks about the Northmen who are knights in comparison with those who are not. He does not talk about knights or cavalry in general all across Westeros or the entire world.

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the clansmen, that is a straw man argument. I have never claimed that the Mountain Clans are representative of Northern heavy cavalry. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that they likely contributed virtually zero armoured lances to the host gathered at Winterfell. Because they are a distinct, mountain dwelling folk, based on Scottish Highlanders. They have garrons, yes, but they aren't used for mounted charges. They are used for transport. The chiefs and champions who ride them for the most part dismount to engage in battle.

Yeah, but the clansmen make up significant portion of the population of the North. They don't have any heavy horse, and many other mid-tier noble houses who are sworn to the greater houses of the North will be in a similar or even worse position as these people. The idea that the great houses of the North (Manderlys excluded) can marshal as strong an army of armored knights as, say, the Redwynes, Hightowers, Leffords, Royces, Whents, Yronwoods, etc. is just very hard to believe.

The personal retainers of the Karstarks and Boltons might be very well-equipped, but not the mounted men their vassals bring with them to war.

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the 3300 cavalry gathered at Winterfell. Not a single garron is mentioned. But Luwin does refer to them all as armoured lances and knights.

He doesn't describe them, though. We don't know what horses those men have nor how well they are armored. Do you deny that? It is your assumption that this must mean they are as well armored as the knights of the South.

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I would refer you to typical Russian medieval cavalry. They had a wide variety of breeds. But they certainly did not lack in quality of horses compared to the rest of Europe. The North would be no different.

Well, Russian winters usually don't last for six years or more, or do they?

[Bernie Mac]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I can only take you back to the definition of "among" from the Oxford dictionary (which I already posted above, but which you seem to have either missed or decided to ignore). So here it is:

Among:

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

‘flowers hidden among the roots of the trees’

 

Clearly, in the above example, the flower is not one of the roots. So, one flower hidden among 10 roots, would equate to 11 total objects.

 

A second interpretation is provided, depending on the context. And this is the one you are relying on.

Being a member or members of (a larger set)

‘a British woman was among the 54 victims of the disaster’

 

Now, the context here would be that the British woman is not distinct from the larger set. In other words, this definition could not apply if the statement was "One living British woman was among the 54 non-living victims of the disaster." In that case, there would be 55 total victims and the first example would apply. To use this second interpretation in Luwin's context, he would have had to say:

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 total cavalry" (the larger set referred to here)

 

This is however not what Luwin said. Luwin's statement quite clearly falls within the first definition provided. 300-400 flowers among 3000 roots (items that are NOT flowers).

 

"300-400 knights among 3000 armoured lances who are NOT knights.

 

It really is very clear which definition applies. If you choose to ignore it, of course, there is nothing I can do about it.

jesus, the leaps you will make in your effort to make the North the best-est. 

1 person among a 100 is still a 100 people. Get over it, there was 3k horse at Winterfell. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, he doesn't. He talks about the Northern horsemen who are knights in comparison to those who aren't. He tells the boy that a Karstark or Umber son without a Ser is just as good as such a person with a Ser.

The knights of the South are simply not mentioned or discussed in that conversation. 

No, that is not the case. Luwin talks about the Northmen who are knights in comparison with those who are not. He does not talk about knights or cavalry in general all across Westeros or the entire world.

Yeah, but the clansmen make up significant portion of the population of the North. They don't have any heavy horse, and many other mid-tier noble houses who are sworn to the greater houses of the North will be in a similar or even worse position as these people. The idea that the great houses of the North (Manderlys excluded) can marshal as strong an army of armored knights as, say, the Redwynes, Hightowers, Leffords, Royces, Whents, Yronwoods, etc. is just very hard to believe.

The personal retainers of the Karstarks and Boltons might be very well-equipped, but not the mounted men their vassals bring with them to war.

He doesn't describe them, though. We don't know what horses those men have nor how well they are armored. Do you deny that? It is your assumption that this must mean they are as well armored as the knights of the South.

Well, Russian winters usually don't last for six years or more, or do they?

If you read the context, Bran asks about knights. Not about Northern knights. About knights in general. In the context of going to war against the South. Martin's intent here, to me at least, is quite clear as demonstrating the difference between Northern armoured lancers and knights in general. Which for practical purposes, is non-existent. Southron knights are not mentioned, because no distinction is made in respect of where a knight comes from. They are all viewed as equivalent. You are the one inferring a distinction, based on other factors. None was intended in this passage. In fact, it was actively discouraged.

Yeah, but the clansmen make up significant portion of the population of the North.

The Clansmen do not make up a significant portion of the population of the North. Density-wise, their lands are likely the least populated. They provide perhaps 3000 warriors. Less than 10% of the entire Northern force. By coincidence I found another reference to a population of people riding garrons. Know who they are? The Mountain Clansmen of the Vale. See the common denominator?

many other mid-tier noble houses who are sworn to the greater houses of the North will be in a similar or even worse position as these people.

Now, in terms of this statement, I just flatly disagree. In my view you underestimate the average mid-tier nobleman in the North. As you underestimate Northern numbers across the board. A northern petty lord might have only 5 people per square mile, but may rule 10 times as much territory as an equivalent southron lord. So his 20 horses may just be drawn from a much larger area than the southron lord who can provide the same number of horses.

He doesn't describe them, though. We don't know what horses those men have nor how well they are armored. Do you deny that? It is your assumption that this must mean they are as well armored as the knights of the South.

Again, you use the lack of description here to fall back on your default position, which is informed by previously formed biases and suppositions.

Well, Russian winters usually don't last for six years or more, or do they?

Neither do French, English or Spanish winters, yet that is something the Vale, Reach and Dorne have to deal with. Give any medieval European country a two year winter (not two seasons mind you, two years), and half the population will likely die out. No matter how far North or South it may lie.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Bernie Mac said:

jesus, the leaps you will make in your effort to make the North the best-est. 

1 person among a 100 is still a 100 people. Get over it, there was 3k horse at Winterfell. 

 

As I said, I can't make you accept reality.

One dead person among 100 people who are NOT dead. How many people does that give you?

Now replace dead person with knight.

One knight among 100 riders who are NOT knights. How many riders does that give you?

You know you are wrong, but I understand that you cannot admit it. I will leave it to others to point out your error, as in the case of you claiming that infantry is being described as charging, wheeling and charging again against other infantry. A claim I was laughing out loud at, at the time, but didn't bother correcting. As it turned out, someone else did.

[Bernie Mac]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As I said, I can't make you accept reality.

One dead person among 100 people who are NOT dead. How many people does that give you?

Now replace dead person with knight.

One knight among 100 riders who are NOT knights. How many riders does that give you?

Maester Luwin sighed. "Three hundred, perhaps four … among three thousand armored lances who are not knights."

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You know you are wrong, but I understand that you cannot admit it. I will leave it to others to point out your error, as in the case of you claiming that infantry is being described as charging, wheeling and charging again against other infantry. A claim I was laughing out loud at, at the time, but didn't bother correcting. As it turned out, someone else did.

My claim was that we do not know how many of the 600 were horsed. We still don't. At no point did I claim that none were horsed, or even that all 600 were not horsed. I simply pointed out the fact that we have no idea how many of them were and yet in many threads you claim that all 600 were. 

I am sorry if it upsets you, but you make conclusions on the Norths numbers and population not backed up by the text. Sorry. 

 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If you read the context, Bran asks about knights. Not about Northern knights. About knights in general. In the context of going to war in against the South. Martin's intent here, to me at least, is quite clear as demonstrating the difference between Northern armoured lancers and knights in general. Which for practical purposes, is non-existent. Southron knights are not mentioned, because no distinction is made in respect of where a knight comes from. They are all viewed as equivalent. You are the one inferring a distinction, based on other factors. None was intended in this passage. In fact, it was actively discouraged.

Bran specifically asks how many men in the army assembled by his brother are knights. And Luwin gives him a lecture about the Ser and then answers the question the young lord has asked him. This is not a discussion about knights in general but the difference between a Ser and no Ser in man.

And there are no knights in general, by the way, as I already pointed out with the Sandor example. But rich men in the South who are not knights can still afford better armor, weaponry, and horses than the poor Northmen.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yeah, but the clansmen make up significant portion of the population of the North.

The Clansmen do not make up a significant portion of the population of the North. Density-wise, their lands are likely the least populated.

We don't know that, actually. I'd say that the Umber lands, the Stoney Shore, and the Wolfswood could easily enough be as thinly populated as the mountains, and perhaps even less.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

They provide perhaps 3000 warriors. Less than 10% of the entire Northern force. By coincidence I found another reference to a population of people riding garrons. Know who they are? The Mountain Clansmen of the Vale. See the common denominator?

Those garrons are most likely a different breed, more suited to living in high mountains. The Mountains of the Moon are likely much higher mountains than those of the clansmen. In addition, the clansmen of Vale are even poorer than the clansmen of the North.

I don't care about the fighting men of the clansmen, by the way. If you check the lands they live in they are pretty big and thus a considerable portion of the Northmen might be living there, never mind the amount of men that are willing or capable to ride to war.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

many other mid-tier noble houses who are sworn to the greater houses of the North will be in a similar or even worse position as these people.

Now, in terms of this statement, I just flatly disagree. In my view you underestimate the average mid-tier nobleman in the North. As you underestimate Northern numbers across the board. A northern petty lord might have only 5 people per square mile, but may rule 10 times as much territory as an equivalent southron lord. So his 20 horses may just be drawn from a much larger area than the southron lord who can provide the same number of horses.

I honestly don't care about speculations like that. The North is on average poorer than the South, and that must have its effects in those categories. A rich merchant or wealthy yeoman in the Reach might control more horses, men-at-arms, and freeriders than a petty lord in the North, simply because there is much more wealth down there. Wealth that is not necessarily concentrated in the hands of the nobles.

And mid-tier lords wouldn't be petty lords anyway. 

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

He doesn't describe them, though. We don't know what horses those men have nor how well they are armored. Do you deny that? It is your assumption that this must mean they are as well armored as the knights of the South.

Again, you use the lack of description here to fall back on your default position, which is informed by previously formed biases and suppositions.

I'm not biased. I recognize and accept the fact that culture and lifestyle is different in the North, that the people there are poorer. It is you who is obsessed with making everyone equal so that the North can be as shiny as the rest of Westeros. It isn't. It is rugged and ugly.

I honestly don't understand why have to make every thread where people try to make a discussion that is not supposed to be about the North. The North isn't the topic of this thread.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, Russian winters usually don't last for six years or more, or do they?

Neither do French, English or Spanish winters, yet that is something the Vale, Reach and Dorne have to deal with. Give any medieval European country a two year winter (not two seasons mind you, two years), and half the population will likely die out. No matter how far North or South it may lie.

Those winters are all milder, though. Some of those regions might not even have to deal with snow throughout the entire winter. The North certainly has. It has snow even in summer.

The idea that people up there can afford a lot of horses outside the circles of the very rich is just insane. They need their food for themselves, in winter. If they feed horses with their crops during winter they deserve that their old and young die like flies in winter. But they most likely don't. Which means they don't have all those horses. Those old men in the North wouldn't go off hunting when there were still a lot of cattle and horses in the stables, no?

And quite honestly, why the hell do you care so much about the military numbers in the North?

They are irrelevant, just as the other numbers are. They won't influence the story. Sure, a ragged army of 1,000 men is never going to defeat an army 50,000 strong in a pitched battle. But aside from such extremes we will see surprises in those battles. Superior strategy and tactics, surprise, the nature of the terrain, feints and confusion, diversions, the morale and spirit of the troops, the physical state they are in, etc. will be deciding factors, not something as boring as naked numbers.

A great general can defeat 100,000 men with 10,000 under the right circumstances.

[Free Northman Reborn]

44 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Maester Luwin sighed. "Three hundred, perhaps four … among three thousand armored lances who are not knights."

My claim was that we do not know how many of the 600 were horsed. We still don't. At no point did I claim that none were horsed, or even that all 600 were not horsed. I simply pointed out the fact that we have no idea how many of them were and yet in many threads you claim that all 600 were. 

I am sorry if it upsets you, but you make conclusions on the Norths numbers and population not backed up by the text. Sorry. 

 

Not upset at all.  It seemed to me that you were the one getting upset.

But thanks for the last post, it seems to bring the tone of the debate down to a friendlier level, which may be conducive to constructive examination of the issue at hand. Not because it is of earth shattering importance by any means, but because we find it fun to chat about during our idle time.

So, I guess my issue is that there are really 3 ways to interpret any information on the North. You can try your best to estimate all numbers as low as possible. You can try and keep an open mind, and you can try and exxagerate any numbers to the extreme.

So, here are some specific examples of where I believe some people tend to try and reduce Northern estimates to the minimum possible level, often by some curious twists of logic.

Firstly, the Luwin quote.

Let's start not with the numbers part, but with its essence. The essence seems to be to convey to the average reader - who will never do the kind of analysis that we do here, nor have any insight into medieval history or military tactics - that for all intents and purposes, for practical battlefield value, there is no difference between a Northern armoured lancer and a southron knight.

This seems an eminently fair interpretation of the motivation behind Martin inserting this bit of dialogue. And yet, as we have seen, some go to extremes to try and denounce such an interpretation. Why? When Martin is clearly never going to show us a scene where 1000 Northern cavalry charges head-on into 1000 Southron cavalry on a flat battlefield, to decide which is greater. For the purposes of the reader, Martin conveys the message that they are equivalent military units. What drives someone's motivation to try and dispute that?

The second part of Luwin's quote deals with the numbers he mentions. Now, I have gone to some effort to quote the Oxford dictionary on this issue. The example quoted from that very dictionary, deals quite clearly with a distinct item such as a flower, located among a number of contrasting items such as thorns. Clearly, if you say 1 flower among 10 thorns, there are 10 thorns plus 1 flower. It really is that clear.

And if Luwin's statement is read, as it has been displayed multiple times above, he is not saying 300 knights among 3000 cavalry (which would make the knights a subset of the cavalry), but instead is placing them as 300 knights (flowers) among 3000 non-knights (thorns). Two distinct populations, exactly as per the Oxford dictionary example. I really don't view this as controversial. But let's move on.

Thirdly, the issue of the Bolton cavalry numbers.

By a reasonable interpretation, the Dreadfort men visibly make up the majority of the 4000 men returning to the North. So one would assume they exceed 2000 (50%) by a large enough margin that it is easily noticable to a casual observer. So something like 2500 out of the 4000 is not at all an unreasonable estimate, based on this description. Now this is at the end of the war. So at the start of the war they would have had even more men than this. In any event, it is further not at all unreasonable to conclude that the Boltons - historically being the 2nd most powerful Northern House until the Manderlys arrived - would at the very least be able to match the average armoured lancer ratio of the Northern host gathered at Winterfell. Meaning 25%. Note, it might well have been significantly higher than 25%, with weaker Houses such as the Glovers. Tallharts and Cerwyns contributing less than 25%, but at the very least 25% seems reasonable.

That would mean that a cavalry estimate for House Bolton of 25% of say 2500 (meaning around 600 or so cavalry) is not at all an unreasonable estimate to make. And yet once again, this gets disputed out of hand.

The issue of the description of the Battle of Wintertown is a fourth example. Any reasonable person reading of the Bolton forces charging, wheeling and charging repeatedly would interpret that as a clear depiction of cavalry charges in action. And yet once again, this is brought into question with a seemingly left field suggestion that it is in fact infantry running into the vastly superior numbers of their foes, then disengaging and retreating, before charging again. Repeatedly. This is frankly an unheard of battle tactic, which is simply not logical.

And then one has to wonder, what lies behind these strongly held motivations to read every northern quote or description from a perspective of minimizing the extent, quality and capabilties of Northern forces?

In this case, what led to it seemed to be the dislike of the suggestion that the Manderlys could have 1000 heavy cavalry left. Because, if the Boltons have 800 or more left, then the Manderlys must have in the region of 1000. Perhaps many more. A number which, even in the absence of any Bolton or other information, is really not excessive at all. After all, the Freys have at least 1000 knights. And the Manderlys command a city of tens of thousands while the Freys have the Twins. And command the White Knife trade route, while the Freys just command the crossing between two areas that aren't particularly sought after destinations. Command a hundred landed knights and a dozen vassal lords, while the Freys are known to command less than half a dozen vassal lords (landed knights not mentioned because their numbers have not been stated).

By most estimates the Manderlys are significantly wealthier than the Freys. Is it really so unreasonable to expect them to exceed the Freys' number of heavy cavalry?

So the issue in the end is not whether there were 3000 or 3300 heavy cavalry at Winterfell, or whether the Boltons had 200, 400 or 600 cavalry with Ramsay, or whether Roose has 500, 600 or 700 cavalry returning with him from the Riverlands.

The issue is a broader one, in which some people find it very difficult to look beyond a very minimalist estimate of the North's capabilities. In the end, Martin said the armed strength of the North roughly equals that of the Vale. And the Nothern cavalry with Robb was not once described as containing a single "garron". Stallions are mentioned aplenty.  Garrons. Not once.

I'm not talking about giving the North the benefit of the doubt. I'm talking about not looking for reasons to doubt, even when the evidence or logical extrapolation seems to lean pretty strongly towards higher numbers or greater capabilities.

[1northlad]

In My very humble opinion no one region has the best fighting force.

If you look though real history the levies raised buy the nobility in times of war seem to o be pressed into service. handed a shield and a spear or pike, if lucky a sword as a side arm to be used when formations break up. They would be armored in a padded jack or a gambason under a mail shirt. again if lucky some bits and bobs of plate. Their training would consist of a few weeks drill before setting out on campaign. they are not professional soldiers although no doubt some will have seen military action over the years. in battle they would follow captains and move in massed ranks like the northmen did at the green for. we dont actually see to many major battles in the books but I would imagine they all follow a similar story. massed ranks would clash and grin each other down while archers send arrows at each other.

That to me seems the average levy. the household troops are a bit different and things like the family they serves wealth will come into play their. a lord commands the peasants but if you think they would go to the vast expense of kitting out every farmboy and field had in a harness of plate you are crazy. he would only do that for his household troops. those that would represent him in battle, carry his banner ect. note that these arent knights they are different still and i will move on to them. His household men are those tha are in his employ. Like the 50 northmen who join Ned in the Capitol. they would be highly trainned and well paid and a lord would employ and equip as many as he could to the best of his means. that will be all over westeros from dawn to the north. 

The last is the knights or heavy cavalry. Remember that a knight must pay for his own upkeep it one of the main hang ups about being a knight. so this depends on an individuals wealth  as well as a regions. plus hedge knghts roam all over so its safe to assume they would be present on every battlefield for every side. 

so that is my oppion everyone is relatively the same and without getting into the knitty gritty its commanders and the circumstances surrounding a battle that are the biggest factors in battles not who has the best troops because below the knights and household men everyone is just a simple peasant trying to survive the melee.

 

I could be wrong though....

 

     

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, 1northlad said:

In My very humble opinion no one region has the best fighting force.

If you look though real history the levies raised buy the nobility in times of war seem to o be pressed into service. handed a shield and a spear or pike, if lucky a sword as a side arm to be used when formations break up. They would be armored in a padded jack or a gambason under a mail shirt. again if lucky some bits and bobs of plate. Their training would consist of a few weeks drill before setting out on campaign. they are not professional soldiers although no doubt some will have seen military action over the years. in battle they would follow captains and move in massed ranks like the northmen did at the green for. we dont actually see to many major battles in the books but I would imagine they all follow a similar story. massed ranks would clash and grin each other down while archers send arrows at each other.

That to me seems the average levy. the household troops are a bit different and things like the family they serves wealth will come into play their. a lord commands the peasants but if you think they would go to the vast expense of kitting out every farmboy and field had in a harness of plate you are crazy. he would only do that for his household troops. those that would represent him in battle, carry his banner ect. note that these arent knights they are different still and i will move on to them. His household men are those tha are in his employ. Like the 50 northmen who join Ned in the Capitol. they would be highly trainned and well paid and a lord would employ and equip as many as he could to the best of his means. that will be all over westeros from dawn to the north. 

The last is the knights or heavy cavalry. Remember that a knight must pay for his own upkeep it one of the main hang ups about being a knight. so this depends on an individuals wealth  as well as a regions. plus hedge knghts roam all over so its safe to assume they would be present on every battlefield for every side. 

so that is my oppion everyone is relatively the same and without getting into the knitty gritty its commanders and the circumstances surrounding a battle that are the biggest factors in battles not who has the best troops because below the knights and household men everyone is just a simple peasant trying to survive the melee.

I could be wrong though....

They weren't pressed into service and they brought their own arms, armor, and horses to the campaign.

Read this: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/91171-come-into-my-castle-the-ways-of-warfare-in-westeros-updated-and-psa-regarding-troop-quality/

[1northlad]

Ok I get what you are saying and maybe I have worded it badly but my description of the common solider is accurate enough and the link you have put in agrees with how I described the common solider. I said they get some training, enough to stand if their captains are behind them and every solider has to face his first action at some point so most lads who trotted of to WOT5K would have been green, doesn't mean they dont have an discipline.

but the point i was trying to make, all be it badly was that no matter were in westeros you are the common solider will be just that a common solider, in the ranks with his friends fighting for his life, where he is from makes no difference. a man from the river-lands is no weaker than a northerner. I doubt there is any great difference in the way that infantry fight. billhooks and pikes leveled presenting a wall of iron tipped spear heads and when two sides clash they go at it until one side breaks, once they get into after the initial maneuvering.

 

I will admit i was largly incorrect with my opening statement though

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, 1northlad said:

Ok I get what you are saying and maybe I have worded it badly but my description of the common solider is accurate enough and the link you have put in agrees with how I described the common solider. I said they get some training, enough to stand if their captains are behind them and every solider has to face his first action at some point so most lads who trotted of to WOT5K would have been green, doesn't mean they dont have an discipline.

but the point i was trying to make, all be it badly was that no matter were in westeros you are the common solider will be just that a common solider, in the ranks with his friends fighting for his life, where he is from makes no difference. a man from the river-lands is no weaker than a northerner. I doubt there is any great difference in the way that infantry fight. billhooks and pikes leveled presenting a wall of iron tipped spear heads and when two sides clash they go at it until one side breaks, once they get into after the initial maneuvering.

I will admit i was largly incorrect with my opening statement though

If you look at the formations the northmen are able to march in during combat, that indicates a lot more training than just standing with their captains behind them. Obviously the levies aren't professional soldiers -- we agree there -- but they have a lot more training than most people expect.

[1northlad]

Yes but professional sliders they ain't, I dont think any region had a professional standing army, maybe 10,000 were either veterans of robs rebellion or professional household troops but the rest I think are merely trained peasantry,  they may be well drilled but hardly able to drill to the highest standards   

[Corvo the Crow]

22 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The issue is a broader one, in which some people find it very difficult to look beyond a very minimalist estimate of the North's capabilities. In the end, Martin said the armed strength of the North roughly equals that of the Vale. And the Nothern cavalry with Robb was not once described as containing a single "garron". Stallions are mentioned aplenty.  Garrons. Not once.

I'm not talking about giving the North the benefit of the doubt. I'm talking about not looking for reasons to doubt, even when the evidence or logical extrapolation seems to lean pretty strongly towards higher numbers or greater capabilities.

One thing I'd like to have your opinion on is, what do you think of light horse in Robb's army or whether or not northman make much use of light horses in battle? We know there are a few that came with Manderly but 3400 cavalry from winterfell was all heavy cavalry.

We know Robb has some 5000(5500 at most) cavalry after 1000 Frey knights are included, meaning less than 1000 cavalry for houses that joined at MC (Manderly excluded), would they have any light horse, seeing none from the northern regions seems to have brought any, except for mountain clansmen. But as we go more south we see another king making use of plenty of light horsemen; Renly has, while his army was still some 80000, around 20000 horseman but only has 10k or so lancers. So half of his cavalry are light horses, so they aren't something that is not used.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

52 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

One thing I'd like to have your opinion on is, what do you think of light horse in Robb's army or whether or not northman make much use of light horses in battle? We know there are a few that came with Manderly but 3400 cavalry from winterfell was all heavy cavalry.

We know Robb has some 5000(5500 at most) cavalry after 1000 Frey knights are included, meaning less than 1000 cavalry for houses that joined at MC (Manderly excluded), would they have any light horse, seeing none from the northern regions seems to have brought any, except for mountain clansmen. But as we go more south we see another king making use of plenty of light horsemen; Renly has, while his army was still some 80000, around 20000 horseman but only has 10k or so lancers. So half of his cavalry are light horses, so they aren't something that is not used.

 

Hi Corvo

It is a bit unclear, but my reading was that Robb had around 6000 cavalry after the Freys had joined him. But only 90% of his mounted strength crossed the Twins. So if he had 5000 Northern cavalry, that would have been 4500 going East with him, with 500 having remained with Roose Bolton. Add the 1000 Frey Knights and you get to 5500 cavalry with Robb. And add say 500 Mallister and other assorted "hedge knights" as Catelyn referred to them and you get to the 6000 cavalry at the Whispering Wood.

As for light horse. Yes, I am sure the Northern host had an assortment of cavalry types. Catelyn describes them quite clearly:

Catelyn rode at the head of the serpent, with her son and her uncle Ser Brynden and Ser Stevron Frey. Behind followed nine tenths of their horse; knights, lancers, freeriders, and mounted bowmen. It took hours for them all to cross.

It is interesting that here she makes the distinction between knights, lancers, freeriders and mounted bowmen. This is in sharp contrast to Luwin at Winterfell, where he specifically mentioned the knights and armoured lancers as numbering 3300 or so. Which to me signifies that the total cavalry at Winterfell might have been quite a bit higher than 3300, but that Luwin only singled out the heavy cavalry to Bran, to equate them to knights. So it might be that the host at Winterfell had closer to 4000 cavalry, if you include light cavalry as well, which Luwin did not. Which would imply that the southron lords of the North contributed very little of their cavalry.

We see this quite clearly with Manderly's host, which contains only 200 cavalry out of 1500 men ( a mere 13%). And of these many are not heavy cavalry, but freeriders and mounted swordsmen. If each of the southron lords (Ryswell, Dustin, Flint of Widow's Watch, Flint of Flints Finger, Slate and Locke) contributed a cavalry ratio similar to the Manderlys, then their total cavalry contribution would indeed come to only around 1000.

What this tells me is that the Northernmost lords, other than the Karstarks, Mormonts and Clansmen, sent their elite troops out first. Meaning overwhelmingly their mounted strength. Which pushed up their mounted ratio much higher than normal. The more southerly lords in contrast, did the opposite. They had more time, and appear more cautious - perhaps due to their comparative proximity to the enemies in the South - and sent more infantry, freeriders and "less valuable" type troops to Robb, while keeping more of their elite strength back home.

The Manderlys certainly did that. There is no way that 20 knights, 20 squires and 160 mounted lancers, freeriders and mounted swordsman make up more than a fraction of their total cavalry strength. The Dustins state outright in Dance that they held back, and the Ryswells did not even send their lord or one of his sons to join Robb's host, so what are the chances they committed much of their core strength to his army either?

So the balance of Robb's host is quite interesting, when you assess it in that light. Massive heavy cavalry commitment by the Northern lords, and an infantry heavy, cavalry-poor contribution by the southern lords of the North. For various reasons.

[Corvo the Crow]

35 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Hi Corvo

It is a bit unclear, but my reading was that Robb had around 6000 cavalry after the Freys had joined him. But only 90% of his mounted strength crossed the Twins. So if he had 5000 Northern cavalry, that would have been 4500 going East with him, with 500 having remained with Roose Bolton. Add the 1000 Frey Knights and you get to 5500 cavalry with Robb. And add say 500 Mallister and other assorted "hedge knights" as Catelyn referred to them and you get to the 6000 cavalry at the Whispering Wood.

As for light horse. Yes, I am sure the Northern host had an assortment of cavalry types. Catelyn describes them quite clearly:

Catelyn rode at the head of the serpent, with her son and her uncle Ser Brynden and Ser Stevron Frey. Behind followed nine tenths of their horse; knights, lancers, freeriders, and mounted bowmen. It took hours for them all to cross.

It is interesting that here she makes the distinction between knights, lancers, freeriders and mounted bowmen. This is in sharp contrast to Luwin at Winterfell, where he specifically mentioned the knights and armoured lancers as numbering 3300 or so. Which to me signifies that the total cavalry at Winterfell might have been quite a bit higher than 3300, but that Luwin only singled out the heavy cavalry to Bran, to equate them to knights. So it might be that the host at Winterfell had closer to 4000 cavalry, if you include light cavalry as well, which Luwin did not. Which would imply that the southron lords of the North contributed very little of their cavalry.

We see this quite clearly with Manderly's host, which contains only 200 cavalry out of 1500 men ( a mere 13%). And of these many are not heavy cavalry, but freeriders and mounted swordsmen. If each of the southron lords (Ryswell, Dustin, Flint of Widow's Watch, Flint of Flints Finger, Slate and Locke) contributed a cavalry ratio similar to the Manderlys, then their total cavalry contribution would indeed come to only around 1000.

What this tells me is that the Northernmost lords, other than the Karstarks, Mormonts and Clansmen, sent their elite troops out first. Meaning overwhelmingly their mounted strength. Which pushed up their mounted ratio much higher than normal. The more southerly lords in contrast, did the opposite. They had more time, and appear more cautious - perhaps due to their comparative proximity to the enemies in the South - and sent more infantry, freeriders and "less valuable" type troops to Robb, while keeping more of their elite strength back home.

The Manderlys certainly did that. There is no way that 20 knights, 20 squires and 160 mounted lancers, freeriders and mounted swordsman makes up more than a fraction of their total cavalry strength. The Dustins state outright in Dance that they held back, and the Ryswells did not even send their lord or one of his sons to join Robb's host, so what are the chances they committed any of their core strength to his army either?

So the balance of Robb's host is quite interesting, when you assess it in that light. Massive heavy cavalry commitment by the Northern lords, and a infantry heavy, cavalry poor contribution by the southern lords of the North. For various reasons.

 

We do see Robb with 6000 men after splitting his horse, but this is after Mallisters, some small lords and whatever men left from Edmure's army managed to make their way there joined him. As for the bolded part, it is rather interesting; we later see Freys going that went north also have some mounted bowmen, so these may be just them and the "1000 knights" we hear about may not be exactly 1000 knights but let's say 850 knights and 150 horse archers but since they are both horsemen the term knight may be used to indicate horsemen in general.

For less ratio of cavalry contribution, I've suggested earlier that as the number of total men you can raise increases, you'll have less cavalry(heavy cavalry, not Tywin's van) to infantry ratio as you won't be able to support one horseman to every ~3 peasants during peacetime.

Karstarks can be an example of this, 2000 men but only 300 horse. 2000 in an army for a lord is rather large by average northern lord standards I believe, so he can't support more. I believe Umbers and Roose would be more or less the same with Tallharts and Cerwyns and Mormonts bringing a bigger ratio of horse to foot, albeit smaller numbers overall.

Renly's horse would also be a good example,

As the long fingers of dawn fanned across the fields, color was returning to the world. Where grey men had sat grey horses armed with shadow spears, the points of ten thousand lances now glinted silverly cold, and on the myriad flapping banners Catelyn saw the blush of red and pink and orange, the richness of blues and browns, the blaze of gold and yellow. All the power of Storm's End and Highgarden, the power that had been Renly's an hour ago. They belong to Stannis now, she realized, even if they do not know it themselves yet. Where else are they to turn, if not to the last Baratheon? Stannis has won all with a single evil stroke. ACOK 31

"Do you take me for an utter fool, ser?" asked Stannis. "I have twenty thousand men. You are besieged by land and sea. Why would I choose single combat when my eventual victory is certain?"

His host was largely mounted; near twenty thousand knights, light horse, and freeriders, Renly's unwilling legacy to his brother.

To have ~20000 horse in his ~80000 total, Renly has some 10000 light horse and freeriders.

We also know of Florents, they can raise 2000 men according to Stannis, and after Blackwater More than half of Stannis' 1500 on dragonstone is Florents, even though their infantry was left at bitterbridge and they had men in the van. Notice, however, even though Karstark numbers and Florent numbers would be roughly the same in their armies, Florents would be an average, even smaller lord in their region whereas Karstarks would be one of the bigger lords, in terms of population.

Only house we have met that doesn't seem to fit is Manderlys, their lands are vast and yet they seem to have many horses. But then again, they are the richest house in their own region.

 

But the original question remains, what is the use of light horse depended on? From Renly's case it seems to be able to swell the numbers of horse but that shouldn't be the only, or even the main reason.

 

Edit: To make it more clear on Mallisters; I believe they should have some thousand men; we aren't given something specific to believe they have taken casualties in Edmure's battles, and Jonos Bracken, another lord  who should have more or less the same power as Mallisters, I believe, has 500 men siegeing Raventree. This 500 men is after some months of skirmishing between the two and being in Edmure's battles and losing their castle before these.