military strengths in westeros, beyond shear numbers

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

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/

That might be true for the people who can afford that. But nothing indicates that the bulk of the men any army consist of men who can afford a lot of equipment. There would be a lot more mounted men if many men could afford horses. Good horses seem to be more expensive than good armor, at least in the Reach, if THK is any indication. If Dunk can live years off the silver he got for Sweetfoot it is pretty clear that the average peasant - even some of the richer peasants - are unlikely to be able to afford such horses.

That means, by default, that freeriders - who have such horses - are an entirely different class of people than peasants and other commoners. They must have enough money - or be able to make enough money - to be able to afford and maintain proper weaponry, armor, and horses.

The same would go for any horseless professional man-at-arms. Now, there might be some such, especially in market towns, alongside the major trade roads, and the large cities (where they would make up the guardsmen).

But the idea that the bulk of the men that make up the armies of the various houses are made of such people isn't supported by the evidence. Rich lords could afford to feed quite a few such men, but not the average lord.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That might be true for the people who can afford that. But nothing indicates that the bulk of the men any army consist of men who can afford a lot of equipment. There would be a lot more mounted men if many men could afford horses. Good horses seem to be more expensive than good armor, at least in the Reach, if THK is any indication. If Dunk can live years off the silver he got for Sweetfoot it is pretty clear that the average peasant - even some of the richer peasants - are unlikely to be able to afford such horses.

That means, by default, that freeriders - who have such horses - are an entirely different class of people than peasants and other commoners. They must have enough money - or be able to make enough money - to be able to afford and maintain proper weaponry, armor, and horses.

The same would go for any horseless professional man-at-arms. Now, there might be some such, especially in market towns, alongside the major trade roads, and the large cities (where they would make up the guardsmen).

But the idea that the bulk of the men that make up the armies of the various houses are made of such people isn't supported by the evidence. Rich lords could afford to feed quite a few such men, but not the average lord.

This is one thing I am glad we are clarifying. The idea that more peasants own horses in the South than in the North or some such topic as it relates to cavalry.

Frankly, no peasants are going to own cavalry horses anywhere. The few peasants that do own horses will probably have a draught or plow horse, and then it will probably belong to the village or be shared amongst a bunch of peasants or some such scenario. Or maybe a traveler like the old man Jon sees at Queenscrown may own a garron of some sort, but the mere fact that he has the luxury to travel makes him vastly wealthier than the average dirt shoveling peasant, which makes up 95% of the entire population.

I am pretty confident in saying that none of the 3300 armoured lances at Winterfell are peasants. They are all professional soldiers. As knights were in the Middle Ages. They are either landed knights themselves (Masters in Northern lingo), or they are household knights of a landed knight or petty lord or mid tier lord. Whatever the Northern term is for a household knight, of course.

The lowest level among them might be garrison members of a particular castle. And here I don't mean just the Dreadfort or Karhold, but also household knights or garrison members from lesser vassal castles to these regional lords. But these are not peasants whose horses were rounded up and pressed into war. This is the elite warrior class of the North, with horses bred for that purpose.

And sure, due to the lesser wealth in the North this class will be smaller proportionally to the total population than in the Reach or West. Which is why I have always said that if you have 5000 cavalry in the Northern army, and 5000 in the Vale army, then the North must have a much larger peasant population than the Vale, to support that elite armed force. And the same applies to normal soldiers, just to a lesser degree.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is one thing I am glad we are clarifying. The idea that more peasants own horses in the South than in the North or some such topic as it relates to cavalry.

This has nothing to do with the North. Of course the commoners in the Reach will be more wealthy than those in the North, and there might actually be men there who can not only afford horses but also breed them on their own lands (peasants can own land). Such men won't make up cavalry of in the army of their lords but they sure as hell could send horses to their lords to help them in their war. If you can't send any men you send horses, cattle, food, etc. to the support of an army. Or the foragers come in your village or to your farm and just take all that stuff.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Frankly, no peasants are going to own cavalry horses anywhere. The few peasants that do own horses will probably have a draught or plow horse, and then it will probably belong to the village or be shared amongst a bunch of peasants or some such scenario. Or maybe a traveler like the old man Jon sees at Queenscrown may own a garron of some sort, but the mere fact that he has the luxury to travel makes him vastly wealthier than the average dirt shoveling peasant, which makes up 95% of the entire population.

Sure, but peasants aren't equal everywhere. Those in the Reach and the West and the Riverlands and the Vale will be better fed, more wealthy, and better equipped than those in the North, on the Iron Islands, the Stormlands, or most regions of Dorne. That is just a consequence of climate, geography, fertility of the ground, and population density.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I am pretty confident in saying that none of the 3300 armoured lances at Winterfell are peasants. They are all professional soldiers. As knights were in the Middle Ages. They are either landed knights themselves (Masters in Northern lingo), or they are household knights of a landed knight or petty lord or mid tier lord. Whatever the Northern term is for a household knight, of course.

But you base this on pretty much nothing. Some of those men are noblemen themselves, the sons and cousins and kin of the houses come to Winterfell. Then there are their personal retainers, their squires, their household knights (or equivalents thereof). Then are the vassals of those men, lower lords, petty lords, landed knights (and their equivalents). Some of those men might have retainers and household knights of their own, but many of them won't, at least not many. All should have squires. But that's it. Men-at-arms and guardsmen usually don't own horses. The other mounted men will be freeriders and hedge knights (assuming the latter exist in the North).

The little we know on some of the castles and seats of the Northern houses doesn't make it all that likely that the Lords of the North keep big courts. The Mormonts live in a wooden long hall, the Glovers in a wooden keep. There might be a handful of men with horses of their own in their permanent service, and a few dozen men-at-arms, but that should be it. On their lands there might be other (half-) nobles who can afford horses but those men are not likely to have any mounted retainers.

Things should look better with the Karstarks, Boltons, Umbers, and Dustins, but not all that much in comparison to the great houses of the West, the Vale, the Riverlands, and especially the Reach.

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The lowest level among them might be garrison members of a particular castle. And here I don't mean just the Dreadfort or Karhold, but also household knights or garrison members from lesser vassal castles to these regional lords. But these are not peasants whose horses were rounded up and pressed into war. This is the elite warrior class of the North, with horses bred for that purpose.

But those shouldn't be that many men. Roose's garrison is definitely a garrison increased so that Ramsay could use those men to strengthen House Bolton in the absence of the Starks. And if the garrison of the Starks is any indication then only a fraction of those men own horses of their own.

Household knights, sworn swords, hedge knights, etc. certainly can also strengthen a garrison but the bulk of those men will just be men-at-arms. Professional soldiers who may be able to ride but who don't own horses or expensive weaponry or armor. What they wear and use they get from their lord.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This has nothing to do with the North. Of course the commoners in the Reach will be more wealthy than those in the North, and there might actually be men there who can not only afford horses but also breed them on their own lands (peasants can own land). Such men won't make up cavalry of in the army of their lords but they sure as hell could send horses to their lords to help them in their war. If you can't send any men you send horses, cattle, food, etc. to the support of an army. Or the foragers come in your village or to your farm and just take all that stuff.

Sure, but peasants aren't equal everywhere. Those in the Reach and the West and the Riverlands and the Vale will be better fed, more wealthy, and better equipped than those in the North, on the Iron Islands, the Stormlands, or most regions of Dorne. That is just a consequence of climate, geography, fertility of the ground, and population density.

But you base this on pretty much nothing. Some of those men are noblemen themselves, the sons and cousins and kin of the houses come to Winterfell. Then there are their personal retainers, their squires, their household knights (or equivalents thereof). Then are the vassals of those men, lower lords, petty lords, landed knights (and their equivalents). Some of those men might have retainers and household knights of their own, but many of them won't, at least not many. All should have squires. But that's it. Men-at-arms and guardsmen usually don't own horses. The other mounted men will be freeriders and hedge knights (assuming the latter exist in the North).

The little we know on some of the castles and seats of the Northern houses doesn't make it all that likely that the Lords of the North keep big courts. The Mormonts live in a wooden long hall, the Glovers in a wooden keep. There might be a handful of men with horses of their own in their permanent service, and a few dozen men-at-arms, but that should be it. On their lands there might be other (half-) nobles who can afford horses but those men are not likely to have any mounted retainers.

Things should look better with the Karstarks, Boltons, Umbers, and Dustins, but not all that much in comparison to the great houses of the West, the Vale, the Riverlands, and especially the Reach.

But those shouldn't be that many men. Roose's garrison is definitely a garrison increased so that Ramsay could use those men to strengthen House Bolton in the absence of the Starks. And if the garrison of the Starks is any indication then only a fraction of those men own horses of their own.

Household knights, sworn swords, hedge knights, etc. certainly can also strengthen a garrison but the bulk of those men will just be men-at-arms. Professional soldiers who may be able to ride but who don't own horses or expensive weaponry or armor. What they wear and use they get from their lord.

Seems like we are pretty much saying the same thing here.

Lets use the Karstarks as an example. 300 armoured lances.

Lets say Karhold has half the number of vassal lords and Masterly Houses that Manderly is listed as having, for arguments sake. Say 6 petty lords and 50 Masterly Houses sworn to them.

So each petty lord need only have on average 20 mounted lancers as armed retainers, and each Masterly House on average say 3 armoured lancers (infantry ignored for this discussion).

That's 120 + 150 = 280. Then Karhold itself could have say 100 household "knights". That gives you 380 total. Which more than covers the 300 with Robb, the dozen with Arnolf and another 50 or so in Rodrik's host.

If you consider the size of the kingdom, and the number of sub lords and lesser Houses it consists of, then you really don't need a lot per House.

[John Doe]

On 22.5.2017 at 4:18 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

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

The Stormlands likely don't have a whole lot more than 30 thousand men either, while Dorne is indeed the weakest kingdom with maybe 20-30 thousand men in total. 

What we see of the northeners are 20k men mobilized by Robb (18 thousand went south while 2 thousand remained with Ser Rodrick), then in ADWD additionally maybe three thousand men with Roose Bolton and four thousand men with Stannis in ADWD. We know how quickly the castles in the western part of the north fell, so there can't be too many more men found there, while in the east we know that the Umbers and Karstarks are spent and the Boltons are unlikely to have large reserves as they already took more than four thousand men south and had several hundred more with Ramsay.  Let's give the Skagosi three thousand men, to be generous.

Now we reached 30 thousand men in total, which is the biggest number we as readers were ever given for a northern army (it's the number Torrhen had when he surrendered to the Targaryens) . Manderly probably doesn't have more men than Bolton, because if he did he'd have said so- instead he resorted to saying he had more heavy horse than him, which implies that his overall numbers are still smaller. But let's be generous and give Manderly four thousand men, which is a number comparable to Bolton's and would make Manderly stronger than the second strongest house of the Riverlands.  Now we're at 34 thousand. Where does the rest come from?

 

The Vale should be roughly comparable to the North in terms of military strength, as they have won their war against the North and we know that the Lord's Declarantcan raise 20 thousand men, which does not include the Arryn's own troops or some of their powerful lords like the lords of Gulltown. 

[Bernie Mac]

12 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The Vale should be roughly comparable to the North in terms of military strength, as they have won their war against the North and we know that the Lord's Declarantcan raise 20 thousand men, which does not include the Arryn's own troops or some of their powerful lords like the lords of Gulltown. 

Don't disagree with what you said about the North, but two things about the Vale

The 20k with Lords Declaration does include power from Gulltown.

"He means to come in force. Symond Templeton will join him, do not doubt it. And Lady Waynwood too, I fear."

"And Lord Belmore, Young Lord Hunter, Horton Redfort. They will bring Strong Sam Stone, the Tolletts, the Shetts, the Coldwaters, some Corbrays."

 

The Shetts rule part of Gulltown. 

 

I also think that part of his strength comes from Arryn's own forces. Ser Templeton is only a knightly House, who I believe are sworn directly to the Arryns. Their strength, like the Royces of Runestone (pre Littlefinger making them Lords) would be counted amongst the Arryns. 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The Stormlands likely don't have a whole lot more than 30 thousand men either, while Dorne is indeed the weakest kingdom with maybe 20-30 thousand men in total. 

That is actually very unlikely. The Vulture King had 30,000 men at one point in 37 AC, and those men weren't men coming (for the most part) from the Dornish lords. They were just rabble joining the Vulture King in his attempt give the Targaryens some payback.

If Dorne's entire strength were really only 30,000 men then a guy who didn't have the (full) support of the Dornish lords and Sunspear wouldn't have been able to acquire so many men. The chances that men in the Dornish Marches - which the Vulture King was attacking and raiding - would join him are very unlikely.

In fact, one should assume that Dorne has a much stronger potential to mobilize men and women to fight. First, because there should be some spearwomen there, too, and then because the common people don't need motivation from their lords to fight against foreign invaders and oppressors, they just do.

The conclusion then must be that Dorne certainly can field more than 30,000 men.

It is a mistake to assume that the ratio between population size and number of people who are able to fight in a war are the same everywhere in Westeros. It depends on the lifestyle of the people, the climate, the wealth of the people on average. If the people are, on average, wealthier they simply cannot only support more knights and lords but also afford in much larger numbers to send away they sons and brothers to fight for their lord.

In a poor region pretty much nobody can afford to leave, and those who can are not exactly soldierly material. They would be weak, underfed, incapable of doing the job that's required of them.

3,000 men for Skagos is way too much if you ask me. The island is big but very far north. It should have been as densely populated as the lands beyond the Wall.

[direpupy]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually very unlikely. The Vulture King had 30,000 men at one point in 37 AC, and those men weren't men coming (for the most part) from the Dornish lords. They were just rabble joining the Vulture King in his attempt give the Targaryens some payback.

If Dorne's entire strength were really only 30,000 men then a guy who didn't have the (full) support of the Dornish lords and Sunspear wouldn't have been able to acquire so many men. The chances that men in the Dornish Marches - which the Vulture King was attacking and raiding - would join him are very unlikely.

In fact, one should assume that Dorne has a much stronger potential to mobilize men and women to fight. First, because there should be some spearwomen there, too, and then because the common people don't need motivation from their lords to fight against foreign invaders and oppressors, they just do.

The conclusion then must be that Dorne certainly can field more than 30,000 men.

This is assuming that al of the 30000 are from dorne. But since it is counted as one of the 4 uprisings against Aenys I we can asumme that people unhappy with Aenys rule or Targaryen rule in general from adjacent area's probably joined him aswell.

As to spearwomen in Dorne GRRM adresses this in an SSM back in 2001:

Do the women of Dorne fight?

Some do. The Sand Snakes, for instance. But it's not the rule.

Nymeria was a war leader but not a warrior -- that is, a commander rather than a combatent.

Or does their "equality" to men only refer to the eldest child being heir instead of the eldest son?

That's the big one, but their customs differ gives women more rights in other ways as well. Not to say that Dorne is an egalitarian society. Far from it.

So yes the vulture kings forces could have some but it would not be many.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, direpupy said:

This is assuming that al of the 30000 are from dorne. But since it is counted as one of the 4 uprisings against Aenys I we can asumme that people unhappy with Aenys rule or Targaryen rule in general from adjacent area's probably joined him aswell.

But we know that the Marcher Lords and there people were targeted by the Vulture King's forces. Sure, it is possible that he forced some of the men on whose lands he and his rabble to join their ranks or suffer the consequences, but we know that all the Marcher Lords - the Swanns, Dondarrions, Carons, Tarlys, and Lord Orys Baratheon of Storm's End himself - led forces against the Vulture King. That would not have been possible if, say, half of the Stormlanders in the region would have stood with the Vulture King.

And, no, in general the Vulture King's movement was a Dornish movement against the Targaryens, not a rebellion in any real sense. It only counts as a rebellion if you consider Aenys I the King of the Rhoynar, and neither he, nor his father and his successors up to Daeron II were kings of the Rhoynar.

9 minutes ago, direpupy said:

As to spearwomen in Dorne GRRM adresses this in an SSM back in 2001:

Do the women of Dorne fight?

Some do. The Sand Snakes, for instance. But it's not the rule.

Nymeria was a war leader but not a warrior -- that is, a commander rather than a combatent.

Or does their "equality" to men only refer to the eldest child being heir instead of the eldest son?

That's the big one, but their customs differ gives women more rights in other ways as well. Not to say that Dorne is an egalitarian society. Far from it.

So yes the vulture kings forces could have some but it would not be many.

I know that, and I don't think that Dornishwomen are usually fighting with their men in professional armies. But they are technically there, as potential combatants, and they most likely fight when Dorne itself is threatened. Daeron I most likely may have fought against 50,000 or more Dornish people in his war because in the end he faced a vast a rebellion of the common people who used guerilla tactics.

In general, it seems that in the Dorne the potential that larger fraction of the population is going to fight in army is greater than, say, in the North or elsewhere.

I mean, we see how the Dornishmen dealt with the forces trying to invade their lands and how they dealt with the people that ended up occupying their castles. If you compare that to the non-existing actions of the smallfolk of the North you see what I mean. The North needed its lords and official representatives to deal with the Ironborn invaders despite the fact that Asha and Dagmer Cleftjaw never actually controlled the hinterlands of the Glover and Tallhart lands. Yet there is no indication that the smallfolk in those regions made any attempts to oust or at least harass the Ironborn there.

In Dorne the common Dornishmen wouldn't have suffered that kind of thing.

A similar thing is the case on the Iron Islands since there are very few peasants there. Most men there are sailors and seamen and when the Ironborn go to war they will fight and kill. If you have to walk or ride hundreds or thousands of miles to get to a battlefield it is much more difficult to get an army moving than if you just has to jump into your long ship and sail to the city or town you want to raid. That's what the Ironborn do. And that's something half of the male population of the Iron Islands (or even more) can do.

[Universal Sword Donor]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That might be true for the people who can afford that. But nothing indicates that the bulk of the men any army consist of men who can afford a lot of equipment. There would be a lot more mounted men if many men could afford horses. Good horses seem to be more expensive than good armor, at least in the Reach, if THK is any indication. If Dunk can live years off the silver he got for Sweetfoot it is pretty clear that the average peasant - even some of the richer peasants - are unlikely to be able to afford such horses.

That means, by default, that freeriders - who have such horses - are an entirely different class of people than peasants and other commoners. They must have enough money - or be able to make enough money - to be able to afford and maintain proper weaponry, armor, and horses.

The same would go for any horseless professional man-at-arms. Now, there might be some such, especially in market towns, alongside the major trade roads, and the large cities (where they would make up the guardsmen).

But the idea that the bulk of the men that make up the armies of the various houses are made of such people isn't supported by the evidence. Rich lords could afford to feed quite a few such men, but not the average lord.

I didn't say everyone brought horses. If they had horses, they brought their own. Please do not put words into my mouth. Clearly most did not have horses. That's why they were called "infantry" instead of "mounted XXXXXX." I linked to that thread for a reason.

[Free Northman Reborn]

It is noteworthy that Doran raises the Dornish population issue in the context of going to war. He uses it to depict to Arriane that Dorne is the least powerful of the Seven Kingdoms, to explain his caution in going to war.

In the context that it is discussed, he is not providing an academic thesis on the demographics of the Seven Kingdoms for the sake of idle intellectual theorizing. He is specifically using population size as a synonymn for military strength. That is the context and purpose of his statement.

So his intent is to convey to Arriane that Dorne is the least powerful of the Seven Kingdoms. I think that is a pretty straighforward conclusion to draw from his words.

Now, I have no problem with the argument that they could potentially raise 30,000 spears or more. But then every other kingdom, barring the Ironborn, would be able to raise more than that.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I didn't say everyone brought horses. If they had horses, they brought their own. Please do not put words into my mouth. Clearly most did not have horses. That's why they were called "infantry" instead of "mounted XXXXXX." I linked to that thread for a reason.

I know that thread, but the arguments are mostly based on speculation. You cannot put classes of people into the the world of Westeros that are not depicted or mentioned in the story. There certainly are more wealthy commoners who make up freeriders and other professional warriors, but we cannot assume that those make up the bulk of the infantry and cavalry of the lords.

Not in light of the facts we are given in the story.

You have to keep in mind that the Realm was mostly at peace. There would be some work for people protecting merchants and goods on the trade roads, and keeping the peace in the cities, towns, and castles of the lords. And the local authorities in the villages should also have a handful of armed men, etc.

But the elite, the men actually making up the knights and lords need vast estates to maintain their way of life - their castles, their armor, weapons, horses, etc. - are very few people. Ability-wise, the freeriders and sellswords could be in the same league as quite a few knights and lords (after all, they are professional soldiers) but those commoners who can afford to send horses to their lords, or march to war themselves, are not trained warriors. They don't hone their riding and fighting skills at tourneys or melees, nor do they receive the proper training noblemen and their retainers receive from masters-at-arms at the various castles.

Westeros is a castle culture. Everything important happens in a castle and the five large cities. And only people who were were raised in castles or lived there get the necessary skills to really become good fighters.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that thread, but the arguments are mostly based on speculation. You cannot put classes of people into the the world of Westeros that are not depicted or mentioned in the story. There certainly are more wealthy commoners who make up freeriders and other professional warriors, but we cannot assume that those make up the bulk of the infantry and cavalry of the lords.

Not in light of the facts we are given in the story.

You have to keep in mind that the Realm was mostly at peace. There would be some work for people protecting merchants and goods on the trade roads, and keeping the peace in the cities, towns, and castles of the lords. And the local authorities in the villages should also have a handful of armed men, etc.

But the elite, the men actually making up the knights and lords need vast estates to maintain their way of life - their castles, their armor, weapons, horses, etc. - are very few people. Ability-wise, the freeriders and sellswords could be in the same league as quite a few knights and lords (after all, they are professional soldiers) but those commoners who can afford to send horses to their lords, or march to war themselves, are not trained warriors. They don't hone their riding and fighting skills at tourneys or melees, nor do they receive the proper training noblemen and their retainers receive from masters-at-arms at the various castles.

Westeros is a castle culture. Everything important happens in a castle and the five large cities. And only people who were were raised in castles or lived there get the necessary skills to really become good fighters.

Agreed. Thats why I'm uncomfortable with your scenario that peasants are breeders and suppliers of cavalry in the South. In my view horsebreeding is the domain of the land owning class in Westeros. And that is the nobility. I'm not aware of the existence of large private ranches where horse breedingis practiced by commoners. 

Lord Ryswell has horse herds and is preaumably a famed breeder of quality horses. Various southron lords no doubt are famed breeders too. I'm not sure that commoners partake in this elite activity. In rhe Free Cities sure. But not ro my knowledge in Westeros.

Other than as the chief horse breeder to a feudal lord whose herds he may manage. But it would be the lord's horses on the lord's lands.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Agreed. Thats why I'm uncomfortable with your scenario that peasants are breeders and suppliers of cavalry in the South.

I said they can easily enough be supplier of horses, I didn't say they would serve as cavalry. But they certainly are cavalry in the guise of freeriders. Freeriders are not knights, and they are most likely also not scions of noble families because those men usually would also be knights.

The majority of the smallfolk in Westeros are peasants. They should be 95% or more. Merchants, craftsmen, etc. would be a very small minority. And many of the people who can do some smithing, etc. in some remote village would also need to do some farming to sustain themselves.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In my view horsebreeding is the domain of the land owning class in Westeros. And that is the nobility. I'm not aware of the existence of large private ranches where horse breedingis practiced by commoners. 

The commoners would be doing the breeding, anyway. The nobles do nothing aside from enjoying their wealth and represent themselves and their houses. The nobles even employ other people to oversee their household, and all the manual labor in a castle is done by retainers and servants.

Eddard Stark isn't heading some large ranch. He doesn't oversee the breeding of horses, or cattle, or swine, etc. People sitting on his land might do something like that but we don't know if they animals these people breed are actually the property of the lord in a direct sense. There must be farms who feed Winterfell, to be sure, but neither the Kings in the North nor the Lord of Winterfell are likely to get regular tribute in kind from the far ends of his domains. That would not be impractical but also pretty silly. There is not enough space in Winterfell for thousands of horses, hundreds of living oxen, or even tons of meat.

We don't really know how independent the average peasant is. I imagine that a majority of the peasants have very few rights, are bound to the land, forced to give up a lot of the crops to produce, etc. But we also know there are yeomen in the Riverlands, and there are a lot of market towns in there, as well as in the Reach, the West, and the Vale. Townsfolk is usually pretty wealthy (in comparison to villagers and farmers) due to the trade that's happening there, and the hints we have is that the people there are not directly dominated by the lords. And even those towns in the hands of lords don't concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the lords.

To cut to the chase - there is a strong probability that certain commoners in the Reach and the Riverlands have enough resources to provide their lords with quite a few horses in war.

And Lady Webber - not exactly the greatest lady of the Reach - breeds the finest horses in the Reach. But you wouldn't know that, would you, since you don't read Dunk & Egg. Man, I'm not sure you have a right to discuss general stuff like the military capabilities of the houses of Westeros if you don't know all the primary sources.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lord Ryswell has horse herds and is preaumably a famed breeder of quality horses. Various southron lords no doubt are famed breeders too. I'm not sure that commoners partake in this elite activity. In rhe Free Cities sure. But not ro my knowledge in Westeros.

See above. Ryswell's people would do that, not he himself. And he would take the horses he has from the people living on his land.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Other than as the chief horse breeder to a feudal lord whose herds he may manage. But it would be the lord's horses on the lord's lands.

I think you are mistaken on the actual feudal property structure of the land. If the lords would actually control vast tracts of lands directly the lands of Westeros would be mostly empty. The people that live there need land they can live off. The North certainly is empty in a lot of places, but the South isn't (and the empty places in the North seem to be literally empty - they are not the private domains of lords but land that simply isn't cultivated). There are villages, fields, orchards, farms, pretty much everywhere down there.

[Free Northman Reborn]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I said they can easily enough be supplier of horses, I didn't say they would serve as cavalry. But they certainly are cavalry in the guise of freeriders. Freeriders are not knights, and they are most likely also not scions of noble families because those men usually would also be knights.

The majority of the smallfolk in Westeros are peasants. They should be 95% or more. Merchants, craftsmen, etc. would be a very small minority. And many of the people who can do some smithing, etc. in some remote village would also need to do some farming to sustain themselves.

The commoners would be doing the breeding, anyway. The nobles do nothing aside from enjoying their wealth and represent themselves and their houses. The nobles even employ other people to oversee their household, and all the manual labor in a castle is done by retainers and servants.

Eddard Stark isn't heading some large ranch. He doesn't oversee the breeding of horses, or cattle, or swine, etc. People sitting on his land might do something like that but we don't know if they animals these people breed are actually the property of the lord in a direct sense. There must be farms who feed Winterfell, to be sure, but neither the Kings in the North nor the Lord of Winterfell are likely to get regular tribute in kind from the far ends of his domains. That would not be impractical but also pretty silly. There is not enough space in Winterfell for thousands of horses, hundreds of living oxen, or even tons of meat.

We don't really know how independent the average peasant is. I imagine that a majority of the peasants have very few rights, are bound to the land, forced to give up a lot of the crops to produce, etc. But we also know there are yeomen in the Riverlands, and there are a lot of market towns in there, as well as in the Reach, the West, and the Vale. Townsfolk is usually pretty wealthy (in comparison to villagers and farmers) due to the trade that's happening there, and the hints we have is that the people there are not directly dominated by the lords. And even those towns in the hands of lords don't concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the lords.

To cut to the chase - there is a strong probability that certain commoners in the Reach and the Riverlands have enough resources to provide their lords with quite a few horses in war.

And Lady Webber - not exactly the greatest lady of the Reach - breeds the finest horses in the Reach. But you wouldn't know that, would you, since you don't read Dunk & Egg. Man, I'm not sure you have a right to discuss general stuff like the military capabilities of the houses of Westeros if you don't know all the primary sources.

See above. Ryswell's people would do that, not he himself. And he would take the horses he has from the people living on his land.

I think you are mistaken on the actual feudal property structure of the land. If the lords would actually control vast tracts of lands directly the lands of Westeros would be mostly empty. The people that live there need land they can live off. The North certainly is empty in a lot of places, but the South isn't (and the empty places in the North seem to be literally empty - they are not the private domains of lords but land that simply isn't cultivated). There are villages, fields, orchards, farms, pretty much everywhere down there.

Lord Varys

It seems you don't like it when we agree on something. Because the above post seemed to actively go out of its way to try and manufacture disagreement based on minutae and straw man examples. How does Lady Webber support your argument in any way? I stated that lords are the owners of horse herds,  and you list Lady Webber as a famed horsebreeder as somehow supporting your argument that it is the peasants that supply the horses. Last time I checked Lady Webber was a noblewoman.

I mean, what? Is that just trying to manufacture argument for the sake of it?

You also go on to say that the Lords don't breed the horses themselves, but have peasants who do it for them. Again, what? That's exactly what I said. Just because a lord owns a castle does not mean that he built it himself, or manages the castle household himself. No, he has vassals or commoners who do that for him. But it belongs to him nevertheless.

Lady Dustin refers to Lord Ryswell's herds (plural)

  "But he was a man and full of pride, nothing would serve but that he lead the Barrowton levies himself. I gave him a horse the day he set out, a red stallion with a fiery mane, the pride of my lord father's herds."

It is most probably his masters of horse and horse wranglers, breeders and herd boys doing the breeding, but the horses belong to him nevertheless.

And I don't understand the argument in your last paragraph about the land being empty if it is controlled by the lords. How do you figure that? The feudal system is based on noble land ownership. Its most basic unit is the manor, which belongs to a landed knight or petty lord. This manor has some land around it, and some peasants work this land for the manor lord. A bunch of these manor lords together will make up the vassals of the greater lord above them, and the bunch of greater lords together make up the vassals to the Great Lord above them all.

So every peasant will work land for some lord who owns it. I don't see how that makes the land emptier than it would otherwise be. The lords are just spread out across the entire kingdom.

Now, if there are wild areas where no lords rule, well, that is obviously excluded. Such would be the Mountains of the Moon in the Vale, perhaps the deep deserts of Dorne, and maybe some of the deep parts of the Wolfswood or Stony Shore etc. But those would be people almost akin to wildlings in terms of lifestyle. And they would likely be poor in any case, and not breeders of horses for cavalry use.

And, if some freedman is somehow given tenure of land with little obligation to his lord, well, might be he could achieve enought wealth to breed a few horses over time, but that is not going to be a significant breeding operation, nor will this be the norm. In medieval Europe only a fraction of peasants ever reached this status. Nor will these be the quality of horses bred by the lords with their greater means, extensive land area and vast hordes of servants to do the breeding for them.

So I'm not even sure what we are arguing about.

 

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

The difference is that it isn't really clear what is meant when a lord refers to his property. In the Ryswell example you cite we can assume that Lady Barbrey was speaking about the direct property of her father. However, the horses in the Stark host that assembled at Winterfell did not all belong to Robb, nor to all his bannermen. Some would have belonged to men who decided to ride with him.

But the nobles usually don't specifically mark those differences. Lannisport and Oldtown *belong* to the Hightowers and Lannisters in a very real sense even if it is perfectly clear that merchant, traders, and citizens in those cities actually own a lot of property there.

The same would be true for the land the great houses casually speak as being theirs.

The Webber example was supposed to show that noblemen who only have rather modest holdings can control a lot wealth by specializing in horse-breeding. Rich peasants could do that, too. And then they would be a rather powerful economical factor.

House Butterwell grew insanely rich due to their trade in cows. Since noblemen usually don't trade or do any breeding one would have to assume that the Butterwells invited a lot of cow farmers on their lands or urged their local peasants to specialize in cows. The revenue from that would have made them rich, but not just the lord but also those farmers.

As to the empty land - there are vast tracts of land in the North that are literally empty and uncultivated (most notably the reaches of the Barrowlands Robert and Ned rode through in AGoT). If this was cultivated land then there would be signs of cultivation there - farms, fields, herds, orchards, etc. But there are none.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

The difference is that it isn't really clear what is meant when a lord refers to his property. In the Ryswell example you cite we can assume that Lady Barbrey was speaking about the direct property of her father. However, the horses in the Stark host that assembled at Winterfell did not all belong to Robb, nor to all his bannermen. Some would have belonged to men who decided to ride with him.

But the nobles usually don't specifically mark those differences. Lannisport and Oldtown *belong* to the Hightowers and Lannisters in a very real sense even if it is perfectly clear that merchant, traders, and citizens in those cities actually own a lot of property there.

The same would be true for the land the great houses casually speak as being theirs.

The Webber example was supposed to show that noblemen who only have rather modest holdings can control a lot wealth by specializing in horse-breeding. Rich peasants could do that, too. And then they would be a rather powerful economical factor.

House Butterwell grew insanely rich due to their trade in cows. Since noblemen usually don't trade or do any breeding one would have to assume that the Butterwells invited a lot of cow farmers on their lands or urged their local peasants to specialize in cows. The revenue from that would have made them rich, but not just the lord but also those farmers.

As to the empty land - there are vast tracts of land in the North that are literally empty and uncultivated (most notably the reaches of the Barrowlands Robert and Ned rode through in AGoT). If this was cultivated land then there would be signs of cultivation there - farms, fields, herds, orchards, etc. But there are none.

The Webber horses belong to the Webbers. Not to the peasants who run the operation for them. The Butterwell cows belong to the Butterwells, not to the peasants who milk the cows for them. Just like the Lannister gold belongs to Tywin Lannister, not to the miners who dig for it in the bowels of Casterly Rock.

We don't even know if peasants are allowed to own land in Westeros. Most likely they can just get tenure to a piece of land in exchange for service to a lord. As far as we know, ALL the land belongs to lords. At least nominally. The Blackwoods and Brackens know which river and which hill belongs to which of the two houses. In fact, much of it has passed hands between them many times over the centuries. Peasants work the mills, fields and orchards of those lands for the lords. But they don't own it.

Roose Bolton knows exactly where his lands end and the Hornwood or Umber lands begin. He claims ownership of it all. None of it belongs to peasants under his rule. Even the wives of the peasants are seen as the property of the lord, in First Man culture.

No rich peasant will own land even approximating that owned by the modest House Webber. Such a system does not exist in Westeros. In the Free Cities Illyrio can own vast estates. In Westeros nobles own the land.

I think we can quite comfortably say no peasant in the Reach owns a horse ranch that has a significant horse breeding business in operation. He may operate such a breeding programme for his lord. But he does not own it.

EDIT

As for the empty parts of the North. I don't understand what point you are making there. That if a peasant lives in such an empty patch, he might be raising a horse for himself in secret without the nearest lord knowing about it? Sure, but how wealthy can such a peasant be, and how many quality horses can he raise in this "clandestine" operation?

[Corvo the Crow]

I'll just drop this here. Arms and armor aren't that expensive, it seams, well at least after battles. So any one with some money can simply buy some arms and armor and start the life of a mercenary. Freeriders with Stannis had, for example, boiled leather for armor, so buying(cheaply)   or even looting equipment after battle is a viable option to start your career as a sellsword.

Quote

The gatehouse opened on a market square, where those who had entered before her were unloading to hawk their turnips, yellow onions, and sacks of barleycorn. Others were selling arms and armor, and very cheaply to judge from the prices they shouted out as she rode by. The looters come with the carrion crows after every battle. Brienne walked her horse past mail shirts still caked with brown blood, dinted helms, notched longswords. There was clothing to be had as well: leather boots, fur cloaks, stained surcoats with suspicious rents. She knew many of the badges. The mailed fist, the moose, the white sun, the double-bladed axe, all those were northern sigils. Tarly men had perished here as well, though, and many from the stormlands. She saw red and green apples, a shield that bore the three thunderbolts of Leygood, horse trappings patterned with the ants of Ambrose. Lord Tarly's own striding huntsman appeared on many a badge and brooch and doublet. Friend or foe, the crows care not.

 

There were pine and linden shields to be had for pennies, but Brienne rode past them. She meant to keep the heavy oaken shield Jaime had given her, the one he'd borne himself from Harrenhal to King's Landing. A pine shield had its advantages. It was lighter, and therefore easier to bear, and the soft wood was more like to trap a foeman's axe or sword. But oak gave more protection, if you were strong enough to bear its weight.

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

39 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I'll just drop this here. Arms and armor aren't that expensive, it seams, well at least after battles. So any one with some money can simply buy some arms and armor and start the life of a mercenary. Freeriders with Stannis had, for example, boiled leather for armor, so buying(cheaply)   or even looting equipment after battle is a viable option to start your career as a sellsword.

 

Things that are scarce and expensive become less expensive when they are a market where supply far outstrips the demand.

Some 2nd son in the Westerlands isn't going to be able to buy cheap armor because of a battle 1000 miles away

[Bernie Mac]

9 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

Some 2nd son in the Westerlands isn't going to be able to buy cheap armor because of a battle 1000 miles away

Possibly. Perhaps he can borrow from the vast amount of excess armour that Tywin brings around with him. 

 "I shall require three thousand helms and as many hauberks, plus swords, pikes, steel spearheads, maces, battle-axes, gauntlets, gorgets, greaves, breastplates, wagons to carry all this—"

The fact that the Lannisters had so much excess stock is pretty impressive. Though this might not be a thing regular Lords have and is just another sign of Tywin being a military logistician.