military strengths in westeros, beyond shear numbers

[Corvo the Crow]

47 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

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

Not the point. I wasn't talking about whether lords would be able to supply their sons and brothers and cousins or their horses with these armor. A lords armor would be custom made, even without engravings and motifs and such, it'd be more expensive simply because of the quality and the time it takes for an armor to fit a specific person, instead of just making some that'd be rough fits for most with cheaper quality materials and quicker. A commoner, however may just buy a cheap shield and not so bad sword and find work mid-war, improving as they survive or a lord may buy arms and armor still in good enough shape to equip his levies with in the future, instead of paying a smith much more for the same thing.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

Well, but lords aren't farmers, horse-breeders, or cowherds. They do lordly things. The lords might own farms, but they do not maintain them. Westeros is a feudal society, not a society based on slaves or thralls. The lords aren't business men or ranchers. They hold land in the name of the king and that land is then, in turn, given as fief to other lords or directly to some peasants.

Sure, there would be some fields and farms and animals adjacent to some of the castles but only enough for their immediate needs.

The animals and provisions a lord needs when he goes to war are not his in that immediate sense.

But any lord who has clients and vassals and peasants on his lands would colloquially refer to the property of these people as their own property, but that wouldn't be true in any immediate sense.

A good example to demonstrate this would be the Redwyne wine. The Redwynes are powerful and rich lords. They don't grow wine. They own the land where other people grow wine and they control a huge chunk of the international wine trade. But they don't own the wine like a modern day industrialist would own his factories and the goods his workers produced.

Quote

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.

Well, owning land is a feudal setting is a complex thing. All land belongs to the king, anyway. He grants certain lands as fiefs to his lords, and those hold that land then in his name, and so forth. But the people actually living on the land own it, too, in a much more real sense. Lord Bracken and Lord Blackwood owning some mills there doesn't mean they own everything the miller living there owns. Else every peasant in Westeros wouldn't just de facto a thrall (as he more or less is, anyway) but also de iure.

This means that lords have various degrees of jurisdiction of the land and the people living there, and that they get some sort of rent paid by the various people living there. But those would be different types of rents. Some peasants might be completely in the hands of their lords, others might be pretty independent, only supposed to pay a token rent or none at all. There are certainly people who are directly sworn to the king everywhere in the Realm, not just in the Crownlands (there is a royal fief in the middle of the Bracken and Blackwood lands, and nothing indicates that's particularly noteworthy).

Quote

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.

Sure, the First Men were and still are savages. But things are also pretty fluid there. Are the clansmen nobles? Not really. Perhaps their chieftains can claim nobility but just because some guy bears the name Wull doesn't mean he is the Wull. But in the clansmen lands such people certainly would own a chunk of land where there families would, and the same certainly should be true for a lot of other commoners.

Quote

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.

You would have to prove that. There are very wealthy commoners. Tobho Mott might be richer than half the lords of the North. He is the best armorer in KL and should have more incomes in gold in a week than, say, a Lord Mormont sees throughout an entire year.

And you can buy and sell land in Westeros. 

Quote

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.

Why shouldn't he? If some dude makes a fortune, he should be able to buy himself some land and set up some sort of horse-breeding enterprise there. Anguy won 10,000 gold dragons. He should have been able to buy himself land that far extends the domains of most smaller lords.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, but lords aren't farmers, horse-breeders, or cowherds. They do lordly things. The lords might own farms, but they do not maintain them. Westeros is a feudal society, not a society based on slaves or thralls. The lords aren't business men or ranchers. They hold land in the name of the king and that land is then, in turn, given as fief to other lords or directly to some peasants.

Sure, there would be some fields and farms and animals adjacent to some of the castles but only enough for their immediate needs.

The animals and provisions a lord needs when he goes to war are not his in that immediate sense.

But any lord who has clients and vassals and peasants on his lands would colloquially refer to the property of these people as their own property, but that wouldn't be true in any immediate sense.

A good example to demonstrate this would be the Redwyne wine. The Redwynes are powerful and rich lords. They don't grow wine. They own the land where other people grow wine and they control a huge chunk of the international wine trade. But they don't own the wine like a modern day industrialist would own his factories and the goods his workers produced.

Well, owning land is a feudal setting is a complex thing. All land belongs to the king, anyway. He grants certain lands as fiefs to his lords, and those hold that land then in his name, and so forth. But the people actually living on the land own it, too, in a much more real sense. Lord Bracken and Lord Blackwood owning some mills there doesn't mean they own everything the miller living there owns. Else every peasant in Westeros wouldn't just de facto a thrall (as he more or less is, anyway) but also de iure.

This means that lords have various degrees of jurisdiction of the land and the people living there, and that they get some sort of rent paid by the various people living there. But those would be different types of rents. Some peasants might be completely in the hands of their lords, others might be pretty independent, only supposed to pay a token rent or none at all. There are certainly people who are directly sworn to the king everywhere in the Realm, not just in the Crownlands (there is a royal fief in the middle of the Bracken and Blackwood lands, and nothing indicates that's particularly noteworthy).

Sure, the First Men were and still are savages. But things are also pretty fluid there. Are the clansmen nobles? Not really. Perhaps their chieftains can claim nobility but just because some guy bears the name Wull doesn't mean he is the Wull. But in the clansmen lands such people certainly would own a chunk of land where there families would, and the same certainly should be true for a lot of other commoners.

You would have to prove that. There are very wealthy commoners. Tobho Mott might be richer than half the lords of the North. He is the best armorer in KL and should have more incomes in gold in a week than, say, a Lord Mormont sees throughout an entire year.

And you can buy and sell land in Westeros. 

Why shouldn't he? If some dude makes a fortune, he should be able to buy himself some land and set up some sort of horse-breeding enterprise there. Anguy won 10,000 gold dragons. He should have been able to buy himself land that far extends the domains of most smaller lords.

Westeros is in the pre-Merchant Guild phase of medieval social development. Unless the Reach is a very different society to the ones we have been shown in the Riverlands, Vale, North and the like, I don't believe we have seen evidence of commoners owning extensive land. I use the word "extensive" as a qualifier, just in case I have missed something, which is quite possible. Because what I am actually wanting to say is that I don't recall seeing any commoner owning any piece of land.

I don't know if land ownership is allowed for commoners. Large private, American West style ranches don't seem to fit with the picture we have of Westerosi society. Land is linked to power an authority in medieval society. Commoners may own ships, inns, wagons etc. but I'm not sure whether all land doesn't belong to the nobles, with commoners merely given right of use when allowed by the lord.

EDIT

Lastly, just on the casual "savages" slight thrown at the Northmen. Better call the Valyrians worse, then, as they not only insisted on right of First night as the First Men do, but in fact owned whole populations of slaves, which by definition would include full access to their wives, children and every single part of their existence.

Guess they are even worse savages than the First Men you so look down on, then.

[John Doe]

22 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

You're right, but still, some major lords didn't join the Lord's Declarant, so the total manpower of the Vale should be considerably higher I think, even though those five lords may hold the majority of the Vale's power. 

22 hours 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.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. We know that Dorne, as of the time asoiaf is set in, can only field considerably less than 50000 men, and that is while a majority of Dorne wants the war and after a long, peaceful summer. Plus, now that I looked up the quote:

Quote

His early victories led to swelling support, until his followers numbered some thirty thousand strong.

It's clear that was not his initial strength from his own lands, but that people had joined him. Now this may include defeated marcher lords as well as rebels from all over the realm, so his own men would number considerably less. Plus we shouldn't rule out the possibility that GRRM has been inconsistent with his numbers or that the Maester who wrote those numbers down simply isn't a reliable source, as GRRM himself has said that the World Book is meant to be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

The 3000 men for Skagos may be too much, but as I said, I wanted to be generous for the sake of the discussion. Even with 3000 men on Skagos, even with 4000 more Manderly men, the North is closer to 30 thousand than to 40 thousand, and it is already pretty much spent. It is ridiculous how the strength of the North is the best documented one in the books, yet it is the region with the most fanboys inventing numbers to fit their agenda. I've seen statements as ridiculous as fifty thousand on these forums.

[Graydon Hicks]

you, know, when i started this thread, i was hoping to avoid the getting bogged down arguments about the number in the military. i just wanted to discuss the specializations of the realms in war. who was most well known for cavalry, for heavy infantry, for independent operation, for archers, for scouts. that kind of thing. i believe we have gotten rather far off topic a bit. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Westeros is in the pre-Merchant Guild phase of medieval social development.

There are such guilds in the cities. And there must be smaller ones in the market towns. The economy in KL is pretty sophisticated. Littlefinger is investing into ships, brothels, etc. You can buy your shares there.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Unless the Reach is a very different society to the ones we have been shown in the Riverlands, Vale, North and the like, I don't believe we have seen evidence of commoners owning extensive land. I use the word "extensive" as a qualifier, just in case I have missed something, which is quite possible. Because what I am actually wanting to say is that I don't recall seeing any commoner owning any piece of land.

Actually, the commoners in the North must own actually more tracts of land than those in the Reach. Because the lands in the North are much less fertile. Shepherds and the like need more land than peasants growing wheat or barley. And the huge grain fields are in the Reach, the Vale, the Riverlands, and the West, not the North.

If the land is less fertile then you need more land in the North to feed the same amount of people than you need in the Reach.

You should read the books. There is talk about commoners owning land or being able to buy land. That's what Anguy says he should have done. There is even talk about noblemen selling their lands. Sure, they could sell it to other lords but they just as well could sell them to wealthy commoners.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I don't know if land ownership is allowed for commoners. Large private, American West style ranches don't seem to fit with the picture we have of Westerosi society. Land is linked to power an authority in medieval society. Commoners may own ships, inns, wagons etc. but I'm not sure whether all land doesn't belong to the nobles, with commoners merely given right of use when allowed by the lord.

That would be basically be the same. And quite honestly, in the real medieval many commoners actually did own land and were only gradually transformed into thralls by the nobility and church through interest slavery. We know there are yeomen in the Riverlands. Things are not so easy.

And those large ranches would certainly be the way the great houses get themselves their cattle. They don't work themselves, but this is feudalism, not capitalism. The idea that the Starks actually own a farm and then send an employee down there to work on it in exchange for a minor fee isn't the picture we get (wages would only be paid to the servants, men-at-arms, household knights, etc.). Such farms would be the fiefs of the men working them and they would then have to pay a rent in coin and/or kind to their liege. But that doesn't mean the peasant doesn't own the land he is sitting on. Nobody but the king owns land in Westeros.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

EDIT

Lastly, just on the casual "savages" slight thrown at the Northmen. Better call the Valyrians worse, then, as they not only insisted on right of First night as the First Men do, but in fact owned whole populations of slaves, which by definition would include full access to their wives, children and every single part of their existence.

Guess they are even worse savages than the First Men you so look down on, then.

Oh, come on, I was thinking about the clansmen and Big Buckets ridiculous 'cunt' behavior when he was interacting with Asha. If that wasn't savage behavior I don't know what is.

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

Maybe, maybe not. We know that Dorne, as of the time asoiaf is set in, can only field considerably less than 50000 men, and that is while a majority of Dorne wants the war and after a long, peaceful summer. Plus, now that I looked up the quote:

Well, 'The Sons of the Dragon' elaborates somewhat more on that. The Vulture King wins some defeats against the Marcher Lords, making it exceedingly unlikely that many men from those lords joined him, at least not of their own free will. There certainly would be commoners and even knights who had no other choice if they wanted to survive but the majority of his followers came from Dorne itself.

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

It's clear that was not his initial strength from his own lands, but that people had joined him. Now this may include defeated marcher lords as well as rebels from all over the realm, so his own men would number considerably less. Plus we shouldn't rule out the possibility that GRRM has been inconsistent with his numbers or that the Maester who wrote those numbers down simply isn't a reliable source, as GRRM himself has said that the World Book is meant to be taken with a grain of salt. 

The Vulture King doesn't seem to have been from any major Dornish house, and even if he was he wouldn't have been able to call on the support of that house without being revealed as being an Yronwood, Fowler, Wyl, etc. We learn that the overwhelming majority of his followers were people from Dorne who joined him.

Even if I granted you that some were from the Stormlands, over 20,000 must have come from Dorne. And those wouldn't have been elite Dornish troops nor people living near Sunspear or in eastern Dorne in general because this whole thing happened all in a few months in 37 AC, and people don't travel this far on foot in such a short time, especially not through deserts and mountains. First the news about this Vulture King chap must spread before people could think about going there.

The same goes for your idea about 'rebels from all over the realm'. Nobody in the Stormlands or the Reach despising the Targaryens would make common cause with the Dornishmen. Not after the First Dornish War wreaked havoc in those regions. And rebels from the Riverlands or the Vale would join Jonos Arryn, Harren the Red, etc.

Thus we have to conclude that most of his followers came from the Red Mountains alone, and perhaps from some of the sands close to the mountains.

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

The 3000 men for Skagos may be too much, but as I said, I wanted to be generous for the sake of the discussion. Even with 3000 men on Skagos, even with 4000 more Manderly men, the North is closer to 30 thousand than to 40 thousand, and it is already pretty much spent. It is ridiculous how the strength of the North is the best documented one in the books, yet it is the region with the most fanboys inventing numbers to fit their agenda. I've seen statements as ridiculous as fifty thousand on these forums.

I agree there. I'm fine with 30,000 in total even in Robb's days if the strength of the entire North is assembled. Torrhen Stark may have done that. But the recent wars, strong winters, and other tragedies might also have reduced the population of the North in the third century. We know many men died in Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion, and a hard winter might kill a quarter or more of the North's population.

It could also be that the North is down to 25,000 or 27,000 men in total right now. And most of the men Robb didn't assemble back in AGoT won't be worth all that much anyway, considering that he took the cream of the North.

[John Doe]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, 'The Sons of the Dragon' elaborates somewhat more on that. The Vulture King wins some defeats against the Marcher Lords, making it exceedingly unlikely that many men from those lords joined him, at least not of their own free will. There certainly would be commoners and even knights who had no other choice if they wanted to survive but the majority of his followers came from Dorne itself.

It's all speculation and depends on what Martin wants. Either a landless goon can call upon close to thirty thousand dornishmen when Doran is only able to call upon ten thousand more at best, or he drew on the strength of rebels from somewhere else, as well as the men of defeated marcher lords and maybe even sellswords, and his final number got inflated in the history books. I think one theory is more likely than the other. 

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, John Doe said:

It's all speculation and depends on what Martin wants. Either a landless goon can call upon close to thirty thousand dornishmen when Doran is only able to call upon ten thousand more at best, or he drew on the strength of rebels from somewhere else, as well as the men of defeated marcher lords and maybe even sellswords, and his final number got inflated in the history books. I think one theory is more likely than the other. 

Well, perhaps Doran just doesn't want to send all his strengths to war outside of Dorne. And regardless whether its 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 spears they can't stand against all the Seven Kingdoms. Not when they want to control the Iron Throne. And that's Doran's game, not to restore Dorne's independence or to keep the enemies outside of Dorne.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

you, know, when i started this thread, i was hoping to avoid the getting bogged down arguments about the number in the military. i just wanted to discuss the specializations of the realms in war. who was most well known for cavalry, for heavy infantry, for independent operation, for archers, for scouts. that kind of thing. i believe we have gotten rather far off topic a bit. 

Sorry dude. 

If you look at the greatest archers we are told about how good they are in the Dornish marches

the men of the stormlands are as hardy and fierce and skilled in war as any in the Seven Kingdoms. The longbows of the Marchers are especially famed, and many of the most famous bowmen of song and history are said to hail from the Dornish Marches

As well as the Blackwoods in the Riverlands who's archers are mentioned multiple times in the history books. 

(1)but Bloody Ben Blackwood, as he was remembered after, broke his flank, while Black Aly Blackwood led the archers who brought down his knights. Lord Borros was defiant to the end....

(2)so Lord Blackwood summoned his best archer, a longbowman known as Billy Burley, who took up a position a hundred yards away (beyond the range of the dying dragon’s fires) and sent three shafts into her eye as she lay helpless on the ground.

(3)and Red Robb Rivers, known as the Bowman of Raventree. The northmen numbered two thousand, Frey commanded two hundred knights and thrice as many foot, Rivers brought three hundred archers to the fray.

(4)led by three knights of the Kingsguard and stiffened by three hundred Raven's Teeth with tall white weirwood bows.

When it comes to cavalry that is going to be dependent on wealth for both the number and quality of those troops. For instance the Rich Westerlands will greatly outnumber a region like the North when it comes to this. 

… by all reports, he has more men than I do, and a lot more armored horse. The Greatjon says that won't matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won't be so easily surprised."

Even the Lannister army split into two sees one host having a lot more heavy horse than the North. Or you can look even at region where the Manderlys, the richest in the North, have far more heavy horse than any other Northern vassal. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, perhaps Doran just doesn't want to send all his strengths to war outside of Dorne. And regardless whether its 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 spears they can't stand against all the Seven Kingdoms. Not when they want to control the Iron Throne. And that's Doran's game, not to restore Dorne's independence or to keep the enemies outside of Dorne.

I'm intrigued by your line of reasoning. You seem quite open to assessing a higher strength for Dorne - something I am not at all against, and find quite reasonable. Talking about a strength somewhere upward of 30,000. And yet, you profess to accept a maximum strength for the North of around 27,000, despite Doran quite clearly telling us that Dorne is the least powerful of the Seven Kingdoms in a military context.

Frankly, I think I am safe to say that a neutral observer would find that particular combination of interpretations strange.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

you, know, when i started this thread, i was hoping to avoid the getting bogged down arguments about the number in the military. i just wanted to discuss the specializations of the realms in war. who was most well known for cavalry, for heavy infantry, for independent operation, for archers, for scouts. that kind of thing. i believe we have gotten rather far off topic a bit. 

Yeah, I tried to point that out once in a while. Numbers aren't the topic here.

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sorry dude. 

If you look at the greatest archers we are told about how good they are in the Dornish marches

the men of the stormlands are as hardy and fierce and skilled in war as any in the Seven Kingdoms. The longbows of the Marchers are especially famed, and many of the most famous bowmen of song and history are said to hail from the Dornish Marches.

 

Yeah, I pointed that out some time ago. If the Marcher Lords join Aegon we might see those archers bringing down the knights of the Reach at Storm's End. In combination with Black Balaq's archers, of course. They use goldenheat bows, and those are superior to all bows but dragonbone bows (which are used by the Dothraki).

The Dothraki are likely going to use their mounted archers to terrible effect on the cavalry and infantry in Westeros if we ever see them in a pitched battle in Westeros.

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

As well as the Blackwoods in the Riverlands who's archers are mentioned multiple times in the history books.

I'd assume this has mostly to do with those historical characters and situations. Right now the Blackwoods don't seem to be famed for their archers.

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I'm intrigued by your line of reasoning. You seem quite open to assessing a higher strength for Dorne - something I am not at all against, and find quite reasonable. Talking about a strength somewhere upward of 30,000. And yet, you profess to accept a maximum strength for the North of around 27,000, despite Doran quite clearly telling us that Dorne is the least powerful of the Seven Kingdoms in a military context.

It is George who gave the Vulture King 30,000 men, not I. I just try to make sense of the numbers. Most of the men who joined the Vulture King wouldn't have been professional warriors, simply because Dorne never officially declared war on the Iron Throne. Sunspear did not openly support the Vulture King. That means that the core forces of the great houses of Dorne could not have been with the Vulture King and his men. Else they would have been captured and killed when the Vulture King was defeated. That most likely would have led to another war with Dorne - a war that didn't happen.

But if the Vulture King can get at least 20,000+ men from the region of the Red Mountains and western Dorne then the reservoir from which the Dornishmen can draw fighting men must be larger than we usually think it is. Sure, many of those men wouldn't be professional soldiers, but still...

I don't think Dorne has the strength to marshal an invading army of 50,000 men, but I'm pretty positive that as many men (and women) or even more were involved in the guerilla war against the Targaryen occupation both during the First Dornish War as well as during the war of the Young Dragon. But this isn't the same as giving numbers for military capabilities.

And just as the North may have weakened since the days of Torrhen, Dorne might also have weakened since the days of Aenys I. The war of the Young Dragon should have caused a lot casualties there, many Dornishmen would have died in the War of the Ninepenny Kings and on the Trident later on.

You should also keep in mind that Doran Martell might be understating the strength of Dorne. He doesn't want to go to war until he is sure he can win, and he doesn't want to win some stupid independence war, he wants to destroy the Lannisters and set House Martell up as the power behind the Iron Throne (with either Arianne or Quentyn as consort of the ruling king or queen).

The size of an army isn't the most important factor in a war.

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, I tried to point that out once in a while. Numbers aren't the topic here.

Yeah, I pointed that out some time ago. If the Marcher Lords join Aegon we might see those archers bringing down the knights of the Reach at Storm's End. In combination with Black Balaq's archers, of course. They use goldenheat bows, and those are superior to all bows but dragonbone bows (which are used by the Dothraki).

The Dothraki are likely going to use their mounted archers to terrible effect on the cavalry and infantry in Westeros if we ever see them in a pitched battle in Westeros.

I'd assume this has mostly to do with those historical characters and situations. Right now the Blackwoods don't seem to be famed for their archers.

It is George who gave the Vulture King 30,000 men, not I. I just try to make sense of the numbers. Most of the men who joined the Vulture King wouldn't have been professional warriors, simply because Dorne never officially declared war on the Iron Throne. Sunspear did not openly support the Vulture King. That means that the core forces of the great houses of Dorne could not have been with the Vulture King and his men. Else they would have been captured and killed when the Vulture King was defeated. That most likely would have led to another war with Dorne - a war that didn't happen.

But if the Vulture King can get at least 20,000+ men from the region of the Red Mountains and western Dorne then the reservoir from which the Dornishmen can draw fighting men must be larger than we usually think it is. Sure, many of those men wouldn't be professional soldiers, but still...

I don't think Dorne has the strength to marshal an invading army of 50,000 men, but I'm pretty positive that as many men (and women) or even more were involved in the guerilla war against the Targaryen occupation both during the First Dornish War as well as during the war of the Young Dragon. But this isn't the same as giving numbers for military capabilities.

And just as the North may have weakened since the days of Torrhen, Dorne might also have weakened since the days of Aenys I. The war of the Young Dragon should have caused a lot casualties there, many Dornishmen would have died in the War of the Ninepenny Kings and on the Trident later on.

You should also keep in mind that Doran Martell might be understating the strength of Dorne. He doesn't want to go to war until he is sure he can win, and he doesn't want to win some stupid independence war, he wants to destroy the Lannisters and set House Martell up as the power behind the Iron Throne (with either Arianne or Quentyn as consort of the ruling king or queen).

The size of an army isn't the most important factor in a war.

Why the need to view any regions as having weakened? We see the Vulture King with 30k men, we see Torhenn Stark with 30k men. Neither of these need be maximum numbers for the regions in question either.  Merely the numbers raised in single hosts.

We further have Doran saying that Dorne is less populous than any other kingdom. Why not just make the most logical conclusion - namely that Dorne can raise 30k men or more, and that the North can raise even more than that. That fits with all the above information, without needing to make anyone a liar.

Why the need to find convoluted reasons why that should no longer be the case?

[Bernie Mac]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why the need to view any regions as having weakened? We see the Vulture King with 30k men, we see Torhenn Stark with 30k men. Neither of these need be maximum numbers for the regions in question either.  Merely the numbers raised in single hosts.

From some reports (including Lord Varys) of the reading GRRM did on the Sons of the Dragon that near 30k strong army was not just Dornish but from all the areas that the Dornish marches inhabit. That would mean rebels from both the Stormlands and Reach. This will be clarified later this year when the book is published. 

I think it is fair to say that Torrhen did try to raise as many men as he could. Now the North's population may have risen (of fallen) since then or the season of the year may have compromised how many men he could raise, but the Targaryens were the biggest threat the Starks had ever seen. Him raising the largest host possible seems likely. 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

From some reports (including Lord Varys) of the reading GRRM did on the Sons of the Dragon that near 30k strong army was not just Dornish but from all the areas that the Dornish marches inhabit. That would mean rebels from both the Stormlands and Reach. This will be clarified later this year when the book is published. 

I think it is fair to say that Torrhen did try to raise as many men as he could. Now the North's population may have risen (of fallen) since then or the season of the year may have compromised how many men he could raise, but the Targaryens were the biggest threat the Starks had ever seen. Him raising the largest host possible seems likely. 

 

 

The largest single host possible does not equate to the total number of soldiers a region can raise. For logistical reasons I am surprised a region like the North can even raise 20k men in a single host. Even if their total strength is 40k. Just keeping Torhenn's 30k together and fed in one spot must have been a vast logistical undertaking for the North. There is nothing around Moat Cailin that could sustain them, so all food would have to be carted in from elsewhere. Add to that tens of thousands of horses that need to  fed, and uncounted numbers of beasts of burden, and it seems a virtual impossibility.

Hence, even if he had 50k men, I doubt he could even sustain 30k together at once except under extreme pressure. However, that does not mean that he could not raise another suplementary host once the first 30k are no longer there. It also shows why he had to move on Aegon quickly once the host reached Moat Cailin, or else see it dissipate and collapse due to internal logistical pressures. Note that Robb could not even keep 12k fed at Winterfell for very long, before he was forced to march on and let others join him along the Kingsroad.

Similarly, Dorne may only be able to gather 20k men together as a single host, but that does not mean it taps their full strength. Logistics trump demographics in medieval warfare.

[direpupy]

On 26-5-2017 at 1:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

 

Dude tWoIaF counts it as uprising not me, so your argument falls flat there. And i never said they where from the dornish marches i said adjacent area's so you are thinking to narrow here. Plus there would have outlaws from trougout westeros joining him they where basicaly the brotherhood of the kingswood of there day.

I do agree with you that most of them would have come from Dorne, hell we know for a fact that atleast Lord Wyl joined him since he is captured by Lord Orys. Its just that i don't think al of the 30000 came from Dorne and that we should be careful not make conclusions on Dornish strength based on this since we don't know how many actually came from Dorne.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

From some reports (including Lord Varys) of the reading GRRM did on the Sons of the Dragon that near 30k strong army was not just Dornish but from all the areas that the Dornish marches inhabit. That would mean rebels from both the Stormlands and Reach. This will be clarified later this year when the book is published. 

That is not so. 'The Sons of the Dragon' specifies that the Vulture King shows up in the Red Mountains of Dorne and calls upon all Dornishmen to give the Targaryens some payback. Thousands from Dorne out of the mountains and the sands flocked to his banners.

There is talk about there being hundreds of Dornish knights and several thousand seasoned spear men to have been among the Vulture King's rabble, the army itself numbered over 30,000 when it was split in two, and there is no talk about there being any men from Dornish Marches to have been among them.

In fact, all the Vulture King actually did was raid the Marches and burn the castles there. It makes no sense to assume that the people there hated the Targaryens more than the Dornishmen, their ancient enemy with whom they had waged a total war barely twenty years ago.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

I think it is fair to say that Torrhen did try to raise as many men as he could. Now the North's population may have risen (of fallen) since then or the season of the year may have compromised how many men he could raise, but the Targaryens were the biggest threat the Starks had ever seen. Him raising the largest host possible seems likely.

Torrhen did have more time than Robb or Ned (during the Rebellion) to raise his army. Cregan Stark might have marshaled as many men or even more than Torrhen in total, since he had even more time. But that would depend on the numbers. Chances are that the North had a larger population after the peace-and-plenty reigns of both Jaehaerys I and Viserys I, so there is a chance that Torrhen came down with an army 20,000 strong, and the Manderlys and Dustins brought another 10,000 together earlier during the Dance.

But without numbers that's just speculation.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

Dude tWoIaF counts it as uprising not me, so your argument falls flat there.

It is an attack on the Targaryen reign, but not really an uprising. Only if you consider Aenys I the King of the Rhoynar. But then, the Vulture King also declared himself king - as did all the rebels - and was denounced by Princess Deria, so it was, in that sense, an uprising, too.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

And i never said they where from the dornish marches i said adjacent area's so you are thinking to narrow here. Plus there would have outlaws from trougout westeros joining him they where basicaly the brotherhood of the kingswood of there day.

There is nothing in the text indicating that people outside Dorne did join the Vulture King.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

I do agree with you that most of them would have come from Dorne, hell we know for a fact that atleast Lord Wyl joined him since he is captured by Lord Orys. Its just that i don't think al of the 30000 came from Dorne and that we should be careful not make conclusions on Dornish strength based on this since we don't know how many actually came from Dorne.

We don't know of any men coming from somewhere else. Even if my calculation that only 20,000+ men were Dornishmen this would still mean that this would be more than half the strength of all Dorne. And that without any major house of Dorne declaring for him. The only nobleman among the Vulture King's we know by name is Lord Walter Wyl. There are no Yronwoods, Fowlers, Qorgyles, Daynes, etc. among them, despite the fact that they would all be pretty close to the Marches.

If a movement at best half-heartedly supported by the Princess of Dorne can gain such momentum and support it is difficult to imagine that an all-out war waged at the command of the Prince(ss) of Dorne is also only going to see at best 30,000 men on the field. It would have to be considerable more if we are talking about the same population size.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Supporting information comes from even earlier times, when House Fowler, as one of the three most powerful petty Kings in Dorne raised 10,000 men to invade the Reach.   That was at a time when Dorne was split more or less 3 ways, between competing petty Kings from Houses Fowler, Yronwood and Dayne.

It becomes difficult in my estimation, to ignore all the different sources implying that a minimum strength of 30k should be quite easily achievable for Dorne.

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not so. 'The Sons of the Dragon' specifies that the Vulture King shows up in the Red Mountains of Dorne and calls upon all Dornishmen to give the Targaryens some payback. Thousands from Dorne out of the mountains and the sands flocked to his banners.

 

Since i have not seen nor was i precent for a reading of sons of the dragon i can only go on what tWoIaF says so i will just have to take your word for it when it comes to extra information.

In tWoIaF it is not exactly clear where they come from, just that he gathers thousands of followers to stand against the Targaryens and that his numbers swell after some early victory's.

[direpupy]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Supporting information comes from even earlier times, when House Fowler, as one of the three most powerful petty Kings in Dorne raised 10,000 men to invade the Reach.   That was at a time when Dorne was split more or less 3 ways, between competing petty Kings from Houses Fowler, Yronwood and Dayne.

It becomes difficult in my estimation, to ignore all the different sources implying that a minimum strength of 30k should be quite easily achievable for Dorne.

good point and there where other petty kings beside and the Fowlers where not even the most powerfull kings.

I think the real problem is how long you can field those numbers, one of the main reasons the Vulture King split his forces is that he was no longer able to feed and otherwise supplie them all.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, direpupy said:

good point and there where other petty kings beside and the Fowlers where not even the most powerfull kings.

I think the real problem is how long you can field those numbers, one of the main reasons the Vulture King split his forces is that he was no longer able to feed and otherwise supplie them all.

We can reasonably say that the Marches, especially on the Stormlands side, are not all that fertile to keep a large host there for all that long.

As to the actual topic here, I'd say that the most powerful cavalry in Westeros would be the armored knights of the Andal tradition, mostly those of the Vale, the Riverlands, the West, and especially the Reach. The strongest cavalry ever assembled most likely was that part of the joint Gardener-Lannister host:

Quote

From Highgarden marched Mern IX of House Gardener, King of the Reach, with a mighty host. Beneath the walls of Castle Goldengrove, seat of House Rowan, he met Loren I Lannister, King of the Rock, leading his own host down from the westerlands. Together the two kings commanded the mightiest host ever seen in Westeros: an army fifty-five thousand strong, including some six hundred lords great and small and more than five thousand mounted knights. “Our iron fist,” boasted King Mern. His four sons rode beside him, and both of his young grandsons attended him as squires.

That 'iron fist' King Mern was speaking about seems to have been the elite of both the Reach and the Westerlands. Those men would have been the best of the best, well-trained, well-equipped, well-armored, etc.

On a larger scale the best soldier types should indeed come from the Dornish Marches. The people there seem to have seen the most fighting over the longest time, resulting in the people there developing the best fighter even outside the ranks of the noblemen.

A similar thing might be true for the Riverlanders - at least back in the days when there was constant fighting there.