Military of Westeros: Castles, Garrisons, Town Guards, and Marines

[Coolbeard the Exile]

9 hours ago, Nihlus said:

Those aren't necessarily larger castles, there's going to be thousands of unnamed castles like them.

No, he was talking about Westerosi ships. It's on the first page of the chapter where he storms the Shield Islands.

I take back what i said. When looking at the battle of field of fire there are 600 lords in the reach/westerlands army out of 55,000 troops. That is 1% of the army so if Westeros had like 250,000 troops at the time there would be like 2500 lords in all of Westeros and i would think that all lords would have their own castle. 

I missread.

[Bernie Mac]

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

We don't know enough details about the Battle at the Golden Tooth and its aftermath.

We have far more information on the battle of the Golden Tooth than we do about a 'Vulture' King from three centuries ago. So not only am I perplexed what he has to do with this conversation but you claiming that we can't talk about the Golden Tooth and its numbers but can about a Vulture King is a little weak. 

Jaime had a source of 15k, the Riverlands, led by Piper and Vance had a force of 4k. 

Uncle Edmure had sent Lord Vance and Lord Piper to hold the pass, but the Kingslayer descended on them and put them to flight. Lord Vance was slain. The last word we had was that Lord Piper was falling back to join your brother and his other bannermen at Riverrun, with Jaime Lannister on his heels.

So the battle under Riverrun would have featured the remnants of Edmure's host as well as the majority of his vassals (sans Frey and Mallister). Somehow I don't think this was a 30k host. Jaime would have to be the most impressive battle commander in the series to actually beat a twice the size Riverland army on their own territory. 

We are looking at a Riverrun host of between 10-20k and an overall Riverland army no more than 30k going from what we have seen in the books. 

 

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

But we have to see these issues in context. Martin says that even before any losses are suffered, the weak leadership and divided nature of the Riverlands means that they struggle to raise their full strength at the best of times. This is compouned by their weak natural boundaries, which means lords try to keep men back to defend their own keeps rather than centralize their forces into a single Riverland host, unless significant coercion is exercised. Just look at the Freys in both the last two wars, for example.

That did not happen though. Edmure called the majority of his strength to Riverrun. That is the main reason why Tywin was able to steamroll the Riverlands with their lands unprotected. 

"Your brother has been covering himself with glory," his father said. "He smashed the Lords Vance and Piper at the Golden Tooth, and met the massed power of the Tullys under the walls of Riverrun. The lords of the Trident have been put to rout. Ser Edmure Tully was taken captive, with many of his knights and bannermen. Lord Blackwood led a few survivors back to Riverrun, where Jaime has them under siege. The rest fled to their own strongholds."

"Your father and I have been marching on each in turn," Ser Kevan said. "With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Not wholly," Ser Kevan said. "The Mallisters still hold Seagard and Walder Frey is marshaling his levies at the Twins."

 

Kevan's description of events don't sound like there was significant forces, apart from the Freys and Mallisters, in the Riverlands. 

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

snip

What on earth does this have to do with the Riverlands and their army? You are clutching at straws here. 

"I'm told your son crossed the Neck with twenty thousand swords at his back," Renly went on. "Now that the lords of the Trident are with him, perhaps he commands forty thousand."

No, she thought, not near so many, we have lost men in battle, and others to the harvest.

 

This is pretty clear. These are actually far more pertinent facts to the discussion than the hoops you are jumping through about the Stormlands and Dornish population and the Vulture King. Very simply put Renly puts the Riverlands strength at 20k. Cat states that it is not significantly less.

 

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The Vulture King raised 30k men. King Ferris Fowler raised 10k men, while ruling roughly a third of Dorne. A total strength of only 20k men for Dorne, for example, would look really weird in that context.

How can we take any numbers from Dorne seriously after what we have been told in the books? And why are you taking sources of figures from hundreds of years ago more seriously then actually sources in the current books?

Cat and Renly are better sources on numbers of a war that is happening in their present than Maesters recording accounts from centuries back. 

 

Plus the Vulture King's army is pretty vague. We are never told that they are just from Dorne. 

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

If one realm has a population of a million, and another a population of 1.15 million, would it be accurate to describe the first as thinly peopled compared to the second? I personally don't think so. I think you need to a much bigger margin of difference.

hoops, hoops and more hoops. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

37 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We have far more information on the battle of the Golden Tooth than we do about a 'Vulture' King from three centuries ago. So not only am I perplexed what he has to do with this conversation but you claiming that we can't talk about the Golden Tooth and its numbers but can about a Vulture King is a little weak. 

Jaime had a source of 15k, the Riverlands, led by Piper and Vance had a force of 4k. 

Uncle Edmure had sent Lord Vance and Lord Piper to hold the pass, but the Kingslayer descended on them and put them to flight. Lord Vance was slain. The last word we had was that Lord Piper was falling back to join your brother and his other bannermen at Riverrun, with Jaime Lannister on his heels.

So the battle under Riverrun would have featured the remnants of Edmure's host as well as the majority of his vassals (sans Frey and Mallister). Somehow I don't think this was a 30k host. Jaime would have to be the most impressive battle commander in the series to actually beat a twice the size Riverland army on their own territory. 

We are looking at a Riverrun host of between 10-20k and an overall Riverland army no more than 30k going from what we have seen in the books. 

 

That did not happen though. Edmure called the majority of his strength to Riverrun. That is the main reason why Tywin was able to steamroll the Riverlands with their lands unprotected. 

"Your brother has been covering himself with glory," his father said. "He smashed the Lords Vance and Piper at the Golden Tooth, and met the massed power of the Tullys under the walls of Riverrun. The lords of the Trident have been put to rout. Ser Edmure Tully was taken captive, with many of his knights and bannermen. Lord Blackwood led a few survivors back to Riverrun, where Jaime has them under siege. The rest fled to their own strongholds."

"Your father and I have been marching on each in turn," Ser Kevan said. "With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Not wholly," Ser Kevan said. "The Mallisters still hold Seagard and Walder Frey is marshaling his levies at the Twins."

 

Kevan's description of events don't sound like there was significant forces, apart from the Freys and Mallisters, in the Riverlands. 

What on earth does this have to do with the Riverlands and their army? You are clutching at straws here. 

"I'm told your son crossed the Neck with twenty thousand swords at his back," Renly went on. "Now that the lords of the Trident are with him, perhaps he commands forty thousand."

No, she thought, not near so many, we have lost men in battle, and others to the harvest.

 

This is pretty clear. These are actually far more pertinent facts to the discussion than the hoops you are jumping through about the Stormlands and Dornish population and the Vulture King. Very simply put Renly puts the Riverlands strength at 20k. Cat states that it is not significantly less.

 

How can we take any numbers from Dorne seriously after what we have been told in the books? And why are you taking sources of figures from hundreds of years ago more seriously then actually sources in the current books?

Cat and Renly are better sources on numbers of a war that is happening in their present than Maesters recording accounts from centuries back. 

 

Plus the Vulture King's army is pretty vague. We are never told that they are just from Dorne. 

hoops, hoops and more hoops. 

 

Firstly, thanks for your reply.

Secondly, I think you needn't get so aggravated about it. For one, I didn't say you cannot use the Battle at the Golden Tooth in your argument. You can do whatever you want. I just said that I am not comfortable enough in what happened at the Golden Tooth and its aftermath (from the time that the Lannisters invaded the Riverlands to the time that Robb enters the Riverlands) to confidently state how that affected Edmure's continued ability to raise troops in the latter part of the War.

What I know is that the Riverlands had 15k men late in the War. I don't know how many men died before that, how many were scattered, how many returned home as broken men, how many supplies had been destroyed by the Lannisters removing the Riverlands' logistical ability to support troop movements, what the individual lords' commitment levels were, and how many men remain untapped at this point.

What I do know without a doubt, is that Dorne is the least populous kingdom, that the Stormlands therefore have more men than Dorne, and that the Stormlands are thinly peopled compared to the Riverlands. So the Stormlands have a larger army than Dorne, and the Riverlands have a larger army than the Stormlands. That I can state without any doubt.

There are no so called "hoops" involved in stating that. Just facts given to us by GRRM.

Using that as a starting point, I use whatever historical information we have to try and build a logical case for rough troop estimates in line with this order of military strength. No more and no less.

 

[Bernie Mac]

27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Firstly, thanks for your reply.

No problem. 

Quote

Secondly, I think you needn't get so aggravated about it.

I'm not aggravated. I don't care how large any of the armies are in Westeros. If there was evidence in the books to suggest your figures were right I'd be quite happy to accept them. The truth is there is not. Sadly you are too invested in  this discussion, in particular the North's army, to care about evidence from the books. 

Quote

 

For one, I dindn't say you cannot use the Battle at the Golden Tooth in your argument.

We have far more informarion on the Battle of the Golden Tooth than we do on the first Vulture King. We also have far better sources on their numbers. Would you agree or disagree with this?

Quote

 

You can do whatever you want. I just said that I am not comfortable enough in what happened at the Golden Tooth and its aftermath (from the time that the Lannisters invaded the Riverlands to the time that Robb enters the Riverlands) to confidently state how that affected Edmure's continued ability to raise troops in the latter part of the War.

 

But you are comfortable enough in the Vulture Kings numbers and which lands these numbers came from?

 

Quote

What I know is that the Riverlands had 15k men late in the War. I don't know how many men died before that, how many were scattered, how many returned home as broken men, how many supplies had been destroyed by the Lannisters removing the Riverlands' logistical ability to support troop movements, what the individual lords' commitment levels were, and how many men remain untapped at this point.

So you admit that you don't know a lot and yet earlier your were confidently claiming that the Riverlands must have at least 40 soldiers? 

Clearly you can not be that confident of that number given you readily admit you don't know much about what happened in the war. 

Quote

What I do know without a doubt, is that Dorne is the least populous kingdom,

More than possible, though I think it is more likely to be the Iron Islands. 

Though can I ask how does Doran know this? How does he have better information on the population numbers of the other kingdoms when they are clearly in the dark about his? Is it not possible that Doran, who is trying to talk his fool relatives out of starting an unwinnable war, is simply trying to talk/scare her out of it?

Quote

that the Stormlands therefore have more men than Dorne,

How many more men? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Please share with me how many more?

Quote

and that the Stormlands are thinly peopled compared to the Riverlands. So the Stormlands have a larger army than Dorne, and the Riverlands have a larger army than the Stormlands. That I can state without any doubt.

Well then you'd be wrong. A larger population does not guarantee a larger army. Do you not accept that?

And again how different is the size of these three populations? I don't know and I know you don't either. So suggesting that the Riverlands has at least 40k soldiers based on a huge bunch of vague 'facts' is a little silly. You are guessing, jumping through hoops to further prove your dogmatic belief in the North's numbers. 

Quote

There are no so called "hoops" involved in stating that. Just facts given to us by GRRM.

How does any of this pertain to the vulture Kings numbers and their connection to the present day Riverland army?

And why is Cat Tully not a better source of information than a dead Maester commenting on a vague nameless rebel king from 300 hundred years?

Quote

Using that as a starting point, I use whatever historical information we have to try and build a logical case for rough troop estimates in line with this order of military strength. No more and no less.

There is very little logic used in your assumptions. The majority of your posts on this forum have a starting point on the North's (exaggerated) numbers. From there on out it is guess work to justify these numbers that have not been seen in 5 books of GRRM's work. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No problem. 

I'm not aggravated. I don't care how large any of the armies are in Westeros. If there was evidence in the books to suggest your figures were right I'd be quite happy to accept them. The truth is there is not. Sadly you are too invested in  this discussion, in particular the North's army, to care about evidence from the books. 

We have far more informarion on the Battle of the Golden Tooth than we do on the first Vulture King. We also have far better sources on their numbers. Would you agree or disagree with this?

 

But you are comfortable enough in the Vulture Kings numbers and which lands these numbers came from?

 

So you admit that you don't know a lot and yet earlier your were confidently claiming that the Riverlands must have at least 40 soldiers? 

Clearly you can not be that confident of that number given you readily admit you don't know much about what happened in the war. 

More than possible, though I think it is more likely to be the Iron Islands. 

Though can I ask how does Doran know this? How does he have better information on the population numbers of the other kingdoms when they are clearly in the dark about his? Is it not possible that Doran, who is trying to talk his fool relatives out of starting an unwinnable war, is simply trying to talk/scare her out of it?

How many more men? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? Please share with me how many more?

Well then you'd be wrong. A larger population does not guarantee a larger army. Do you not accept that?

And again how different is the size of these three populations? I don't know and I know you don't either. So suggesting that the Riverlands has at least 40k soldiers based on a huge bunch of vague 'facts' is a little silly. You are guessing, jumping through hoops to further prove your dogmatic belief in the North's numbers. 

How does any of this pertain to the vulture Kings numbers and their connection to the present day Riverland army?

And why is Cat Tully not a better source of information than a dead Maester commenting on a vague nameless rebel king from 300 hundred years?

There is very little logic used in your assumptions. The majority of your posts on this forum have a starting point on the North's (exaggerated) numbers. From there on out it is guess work to justify these numbers that have not been seen in 5 books of GRRM's work. 

 

Now you seem somewhat irrational. This discussion hasn't involved the North at all, and yet you try to drag it into the argument for some reason.

And just to point out, you seem to not grasp a fundamental point here. You are trying to place an upper limit on various kingdoms' armies. And yet, specific armies raised in the books or referred to in the historical records cannot give you that. Such references can only give you a lower limit, unless stated that an army represented the full potential of a kingdom. If a region has raised an army of 10k men in a specific war or battle, that tells you its potential cannot be less than 10k. It cannot tell you that its potential is limited to 10k. Because you don't know how many remaining men were not raised, for whatever reason.

Now, back to the specific discussion at hand.

We are expressly told that Dorne has the lowest population, and that the might of the "thinly peopled" Stormlands, even at its height, could not match that of the more populous Riverlands, Reach or Westerlands. You have nothing to base a maximum Riverland strength on. Because we are not told how many losses, desertions and other disruptions the Riverlands had suffered before still raising 15k men towards the end of the War.

For what its worth, here's what the wiki says about the battles that precede Robb's arrival in the Riverlands:

Battle of the Golden Tooth

Ser Edmure Tully finds out that the Lannisters are raising a host at Casterly Rock. With Lord Hoster Tully ill, Edmure sends riders to the Rock, demanding that Lord Tywin Lannister proclaim his intent. Meanwhile, he starts raising a host at Riverrun and sends Lord Vance of Wayfarer's Rest and Lord Clement Piper of Pinkmaiden to guard the pass below the Golden Tooth, to prevent any Lannister armies from entering the riverlands.^[4]

Tywin dispatches Ser Gregor Clegane to raid the villages along the Red Fork, and Gregor circumvents the Tully forces below the Golden Tooth. In response Edmure further divides his forces, sending men to every village and holdfast within a day's ride of the border. Lord Eddard Stark, the Hand of the King, fears this will weaken the defence of the riverlands.^[5]

Not much is known about the battle, but the attack seems to have been devastating. Ser Jaime Lannister, commanding the Lannister forces, descends on the outnumbered rivermen and breaks them. Lord Vance is slain during the fight and Lord Piper retreats back to Riverrun with the remnants of his forces, with Jaime following on his heels. Meanwhile, Tywin brings another Lannister army up from the south

Battle of Riverrun

After Ser Jaime Lannister defeats a small Tully force at the Battle of the Golden Tooth, Jaime and Lord Tywin Lannister invade the riverlands. Jaime marches directly on Riverrun, where Ser Edmure Tully has assembled many of his father Hoster Tully's bannermen and knights. Edmure's force is diminished on account of the men he has sent to guard the borders and the Golden Tooth in response to Lannister raiding. The forces of Lord Walder Frey are also not present.

Jaime meets the Tullys under the walls of Riverrun. Securing a victory, Jaime puts the river lords to rout. Edmure and many of his knights and bannermen are taken captive. Lord Tytos Blackwood manages to lead some of the surviving men back within Riverrun, where Jaime places them under siege.^[2]

In the meantime Tywin leads a second, larger Lannister army against the companies of men Edmure had dispersed along his borders to guard against Ser Gregor Clegane's raiding. Tywin and Ser Kevan Lannister are able to destroy them piecemeal before they can regroup. They then seize many prominent castles in the riverlands, most notably Harrenhal, which is yielded without a fight. They assume a position at the ruby ford, where they can both block any Stark or Arryn attempt to relieve Riverrun and maintain contact with King's Landing.

End of wiki excerpt:

Personally, I cannot quantify the losses suffered during all of the above, nor what logistical damage this does to the Riverland's ability to raise further men (and I question the sincerity of anyone who thinks they can). And yet, after all of the above, they still have a host of 15k men mobilized at Riverrun and with Robb.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Now you seem somewhat irrational. This discussion hasn't involved the North at all, and yet you try to drag it into the argument for some reason.

Oh man! Did I mistake you for another poster? My apologies. Your username is very similar to this one person who tends to only post about the Northern army or population. At least 90% of his posts in the general forum on that matter. You're not him, right? 

 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

And just to point out, you seem to not grasp a fundamental point here. You are trying to place an upper limit on various kingdoms' armies.

Sure. llogically speaking every realm is going to have an upper limit. I know this is a fantasy novel, but GRRM has tried to ground some of it in reality. As yet we have seen no infinite armies in Westeros. You will be first poster I IM when/if this changes. 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

We are expressly told that Dorne has the lowest population,

Yes. By Doran trying to talk his daughter out of going to war. You seem to have ignored all my questions about this. I will try again

1)Why is Doran the only Lord with populations figures of every Kingdom? How does he know they have all fudged their accounts?

2) Presuming that Dorne is the least populated, and to be fair I think they are in the bottom 2, by how many?  

3) Do you think the Iron Islands has a lower population than Dorne?

 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

and that the might of the "thinly peopled" Stormlands, even at its height, could not match that of the more populous Riverlands, Reach or Westerlands. You have nothing to base a maximum Riverland strength on.

er, yeah I do. The series we are reading.We have not seen above 30 thousand soldiers in Riverlands in the five books of the current series. 

Tywin states that only the Mallister and Frey lands are protected, meaning that there are not a lot of soldiers away from Riverrun. In fact Edmire confirms this in ACOK

"It had been at Edmure's insistence that Robb had given the river lords leave to depart after his crowning, each to defend his own lands. Ser Marq Piper and Lord Karyl Vance had been the first to go. Lord Jonos Bracken had followed, vowing to reclaim the burnt shell of his castle and bury his dead, and now Lord Jason Mallister had announced his intent to return to his seat at Seagard, still mercifully untouched by the fighting.

"You cannot ask my river lords to remain idle while their fields are being pillaged and their people put to the sword,"

 

So Edmure recalls those men so he has an 11k army to fight Tywin. 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Because we are not told how many losses, desertions and other disruptions the Riverlands had suffered before still raising 15k men towards the end of the War.

11k. He raised 11k and those men are not new men, he allowed them to go home, much to Cat's chagrin, at the start of ACOK. 

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For what its worth, here's what the wiki says about the battles that precede Robb's arrival in the Riverlands:

Battle of the Golden Tooth (snip)

 I quoted what happened in this battle from the books. Does the book not trump the wiki page now?

Jaime had 15k, the Riverlands had 4k. Jaime won and the survivors of the 4k, how many that was, made their way back to Riverrun to join Edmure's other host to fight, and get beat by Jaime. 

Either Jaime is a commander of epic proportions or his 15k,sans losses, did not beat a 30k plus Riverland host. Which do you think is the more logical?

 

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

In the meantime Tywin leads a second, larger Lannister army against the companies of men Edmure had dispersed along his borders to guard against Ser Gregor Clegane's raiding. Tywin and Ser Kevan Lannister are able to destroy them piecemeal before they can regroup. They then seize many prominent castles in the riverlands, most notably Harrenhal, which is yielded without a fight. They assume a position at the ruby ford, where they can both block any Stark or Arryn attempt to relieve Riverrun and maintain contact with King's Landing.

Yup. Once again I quoted this from the books. Kevan is pretty clear

"He smashed the Lords Vance and Piper at the Golden Tooth, and met the massed power of the Tullys under the walls of Riverrun. The lords of the Trident have been put to rout.

And goes on to say

With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Not wholly," Ser Kevan said. "The Mallisters still hold Seagard and Walder Frey is marshaling his levies at the Twins."

 

Outside of the Freys and Mallisters, around 5 to 6k, and the individual garrisons at each castle there is not a large unaccounted for numbers of actual soldiers in the Riverlands. 

 

So basically it all falls down to the Battle under the walls of Riverrun. Did Jaime's 15k host come up against a 30k host and win. if the answer is no, which it pretty obviously is, then your first claim of the Riverlands having at least 40k looks to be hogwash. 

Cat is pretty clear. The losses they have suffered means they don't have anywhere near 20k men. Being the daughter to Lord Tully and part of Robb's war council it stands to reason that she has a pretty decent understanding for the Riverlands military strength. 

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Oh man! Did I mistake you for another poster? My apologies. Your username is very similar to this one person who tends to only post about the Northern army or population. At least 90% of his posts in the general forum on that matter. You're not him, right? 

 

Sure. llogically speaking every realm is going to have an upper limit. I know this is a fantasy novel, but GRRM has tried to ground some of it in reality. As yet we have seen no infinite armies in Westeros. You will be first poster I IM when/if this changes. 

Yes. By Doran trying to talk his daughter out of going to war. You seem to have ignored all my questions about this. I will try again

1)Why is Doran the only Lord with populations figures of every Kingdom? How does he know they have all fudged their accounts?

2) Presuming that Dorne is the least populated, and to be fair I think they are in the bottom 2, by how many?  

3) Do you think the Iron Islands has a lower population than Dorne?

 

er, yeah I do. The series we are reading.We have not seen above 30 thousand soldiers in Riverlands in the five books of the current series. 

Tywin states that only the Mallister and Frey lands are protected, meaning that there are not a lot of soldiers away from Riverrun. In fact Edmire confirms this in ACOK

"It had been at Edmure's insistence that Robb had given the river lords leave to depart after his crowning, each to defend his own lands. Ser Marq Piper and Lord Karyl Vance had been the first to go. Lord Jonos Bracken had followed, vowing to reclaim the burnt shell of his castle and bury his dead, and now Lord Jason Mallister had announced his intent to return to his seat at Seagard, still mercifully untouched by the fighting.

"You cannot ask my river lords to remain idle while their fields are being pillaged and their people put to the sword,"

 

So Edmure recalls those men so he has an 11k army to fight Tywin. 

11k. He raised 11k and those men are not new men, he allowed them to go home, much to Cat's chagrin, at the start of ACOK. 

 I quoted what happened in this battle from the books. Does the book not trump the wiki page now?

Jaime had 15k, the Riverlands had 4k. Jaime won and the survivors of the 4k, how many that was, made their way back to Riverrun to join Edmure's other host to fight, and get beat by Jaime. 

Either Jaime is a commander of epic proportions or his 15k,sans losses, did not beat a 30k plus Riverland host. Which do you think is the more logical?

 

Yup. Once again I quoted this from the books. Kevan is pretty clear

"He smashed the Lords Vance and Piper at the Golden Tooth, and met the massed power of the Tullys under the walls of Riverrun. The lords of the Trident have been put to rout.

And goes on to say

With Lord Blackwood gone, Raventree fell at once, and Lady Whent yielded Harrenhal for want of men to defend it. Ser Gregor burnt out the Pipers and the Brackens …"

"Leaving you unopposed?" Tyrion said.

"Not wholly," Ser Kevan said. "The Mallisters still hold Seagard and Walder Frey is marshaling his levies at the Twins."

 

Outside of the Freys and Mallisters, around 5 to 6k, and the individual garrisons at each castle there is not a large unaccounted for numbers of actual soldiers in the Riverlands. 

 

So basically it all falls down to the Battle under the walls of Riverrun. Did Jaime's 15k host come up against a 30k host and win. if the answer is no, which it pretty obviously is, then your first claim of the Riverlands having at least 40k looks to be hogwash. 

Cat is pretty clear. The losses they have suffered means they don't have anywhere near 20k men. Being the daughter to Lord Tully and part of Robb's war council it stands to reason that she has a pretty decent understanding for the Riverlands military strength. 

 

 

 

You seem to have an agenda. I've tried to argue in good faith. I think I've presented the situation quite clearly. We are talking about the Riverlands here, not the North. Not sure how discussions on Northern numbers in other threads have any relevance here. And your sarcastic references to unlimited army numbers and the like are equally meaningless.

My view remains, and can be summarized as follows:

1.The numbers raised by Edmure after much of the Riverlands has already been devastated and laid to waste by the Lannisters are not indicative of the strength they can raise under ideal conditions at the start of a war.

2. Martin's description of the Stormlands as "thinly peopled" compared to the Riverlands presents to me a significant difference in military potential, based on population, fertility and wealth differences. And the World Book points out that this difference in "might" already applied when the Stormlands were at their maximum extent, meaning when it included the current Crownlands and beyond. Today's Stormlands is significantly weaker than that. So to me we are not talking about a mere 5k difference here, but a significant difference indeed.

3. Regarding Dorne, the statement of Doran is quite definitive. You can of course choose to interpret it as a lie, because it doesn't fit your agenda, whatever that agenda is. But I take it at face value. It has the air of information dropping by the author to me. And makes logical sense when reading about the geography, climate and fertility of Dorne compared to the other mainland kingdoms. And no, it doesn't include the Iron Isles. This has been discussed many times before, and if the term Seven Kingdoms refers to the Seven Sigils on Joffrey's goblet, then the Kraken is clearly not one of them.

I think this discussion has run its course. You believe the Riverlands have a maximum potential in the region of 30k. Fair enough. In my view, given the various statements by George and the World Book on the Riverlands' population and fertility compared to the Stormlands, that would push the Stormlands way too low, to the 20k range. And this in turn would push Dorne down as low as 15k.

I don't think that fits with what we know from historical and contemporary sources about the Seven Kingdoms. Let's therefore agree to disagree.

[Bernie Mac]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You seem to have an agenda. I've tried to argue in good faith. I think I've presented the situation quite clearly. We are talking about the Riverlands here, not the North. Not sure how discussions on Northern numbers in other threads have any relevance here. And your sarcastic references to unlimited army numbers and the like are equally meaningless.

Wait, I'm confused. Are you or are you not the poster who is seemingly obsessed with the North's army and population. I'd guess at least 90% of your posts in this forum are on these subjects. Am I wrong? 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

1.The numbers raised by Edmure after much of the Riverlands has already been devastated and laid to waste by the Lannisters are not indicative of the strength they can raise under ideal conditions at the start of a war.

The main reason why the Riverlands was so devastated was because he called those numbers to Riverrun leaving the majority of the Riverlands poorly defended. 

A large potion of that 11k was prenset at the battle under Riverrun, he sent them home to defend their lands in ACOK. 

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

2. Martin's description of the Stormlands as "thinly peopled" compared to the Riverlands presents to me a significant difference in military potential, based on population, fertility and wealth differences.

You do realise that a larger population does not necessarily a larger army, right? There is nothing to show that the Stormlands and Dorne do not have drastically different numbers in term of military. 

And larger by how many?

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

And the World Book points out that this difference in "might" already applied when the Stormlands were at their maximum extent, meaning when it included the current Crownlands and beyond. Today's Stormlands is significantly weaker than that. So to me we are not talking about a mere 5k difference here, but a significant difference indeed.

5K soldiers is a significant number of soldiers.  That could be around half a million more people. 

Though I have to say I have never argued against the Riverlands having 5k more than Dorne (or the Stormlands). I disagreed with your notion that the Riverlands has at least 40k soldiers. Zero evidence in the books to show this, and I think you are aware of this and is the reason you are jumping through hoops with the Vulture King 'evidence'. 

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

3. Regarding Dorne, the statement of Doran is quite definitive. You can of course choose to interpret it as a lie, because it doesn't fit your agenda, whatever that agenda is.

lol I have the agenda? 

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think this discussion has run its course.

No one is forcing you to respond. No one is forcing me to respond. Presumably we are both doing it out of enjoyment. 

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You believe the Riverlands have a maximum potential in the region of 30k.

I beleive that the books, thus far, has not shown that the Riverlands can generate more than 30k. If that changes in the last two books or one of the ancillary novels I will be happy with that.

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Fair enough. In my view, given the various statements by George and the World Book on the Riverlands' population and fertility compared to the Stormlands, that would push the Stormlands way too low, to the 20k range. And this in turn would push Dorne down as low as 15k.

Where in the books is the Stormlands military number mentioned?

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Wait, I'm confused. Are you or are you not the poster who is seemingly obsessed with the North's army and population. I'd guess at least 90% of your posts in this forum are on these subjects. Am I wrong? 

 

 

The main reason why the Riverlands was so devastated was because he called those numbers to Riverrun leaving the majority of the Riverlands poorly defended. 

A large potion of that 11k was prenset at the battle under Riverrun, he sent them home to defend their lands in ACOK. 

You do realise that a larger population does not necessarily a larger army, right? There is nothing to show that the Stormlands and Dorne do not have drastically different numbers in term of military. 

And larger by how many?

5K soldiers is a significant number of soldiers.  That could be around half a million more people. 

Though I have to say I have never argued against the Riverlands having 5k more than Dorne (or the Stormlands). I disagreed with your notion that the Riverlands has at least 40k soldiers. Zero evidence in the books to show this, and I think you are aware of this and is the reason you are jumping through hoops with the Vulture King 'evidence'. 

lol I have the agenda? 

No one is forcing you to respond. No one is forcing me to respond. Presumably we are both doing it out of enjoyment. 

I beleive that the books, thus far, has not shown that the Riverlands can generate more than 30k. If that changes in the last two books or one of the ancillary novels I will be happy with that.

Where in the books is the Stormlands military number mentioned?

 

You haven't demonstrated why separate discussions on the North's population and military strength are relevant to this discussion, which has nothing to do with the North.

As for the Stormlands. Its military number is not mentioned in the books. Neither is the maximum military number of the Riverlands, the Vale, the North, Dorne, the Westerlands or the Reach. In fact, not a single kingdom's military number is confirmed in the books. They are all extrapolations based on various quotes and references.

But we know Dorne has the lowest population with the Stormlands above them and the Riverlands significantly more populated than the Stormlands. For actual numbers, we have to go with whatever hints we are given, until such hints are proven false.

Take the Vulture King, for example. If you discount his 30k men, then you might as well also discount Torhenn Stark's 30k men from the same period, and the Field of Fire's 55k men, again, from the same era. Now, if something comes along to specifically disprove any of those figures, such as Doran's specific refutation of Daeron's quoted figures of 50k for Dorne's full strength, then yes, you should discount a particular reference. But in the absence of such evidence to the contrary, we have no reason not to make use of such historical, geographical and demographic information.

We will see the Dornish armies in the field at the start of Winds. There are two massed Dornish armies in the Prince's Pass and the Boneway respectively, waiting to join Aegon. Those won't give us Dorne's full potential, as we won't know how many men remain behind. But it will give us a minimum strength for Dorne, at least.

Same for the Vale, which will come into play soon.

 

[Bernie Mac]

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You haven't demonstrated why separate discussions on the North's population and military strength are relevant to this discussion, which has nothing to do with the North.

I'm confused now. Are you or you not that poster? The poster who mentions the Norths military or population in 90% of his posts?

And please, you are pretty transparent on the matter. Your whole "the North has 45k soldiers"schtick falls apart if the Riverlands does not have a higher number than the evidence provided in the books gives. 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did not realise what you were doing but to anyone else familiar with your posts would have understood what your subconscious motives were. 

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Stormlands. Its military number is not mentioned in the books.

Great. Thanks for finally getting that. Your whole idea that the Vulture King could raise x amount, Dorne can raise x amount and the stormlands is less populated than the riverlands so ipso facto the Riverlands must have at least a 40k army is just jumping through hoops. 

Renly and Cat's evidence is far more concise with actual numbers on the matter as well as sources closer to the facts. 

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Neither is the maximum military number of the Riverlands, the Vale, the North, Dorne, the Westerlands or the Reach. In fact, not a single kingdom's military number is confirmed in the books. They are all extrapolations based on various quotes and references.

We know the Riverlands does not have 40k soldiers. Not unless Jaime Lannister's 15k army beat an army at Riverrun of 40k plus Riverland soldiers. 

Do you really think he did?

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But we know Dorne has the lowest population with the Stormlands above them and the Riverlands significantly more populated than the Stormlands. For actual numbers, we have to go with whatever hints we are given, until such hints are proven false.

lol come on. At least try to attempt to answer some of my questions. 

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Take the Vulture King, for example. If you discount his 30k men,

Where did I discount his 30k men? We have no idea where his men came from. Was it just the Red Mountains or did lords come from all across Westeros and further? We don't even know the identity of the Vulture King, nor do we know how many battles his armies fought in or how many Westeros soldiers fought against him. 

Given that the Maesteris were largely in the dark about who he was and where precisely he was located or which lords followed him then I am going to think their information is less than accurate. Especially given what we later here of Dorne and inflating their strength. 

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

then you might as well also discount Torhenn Stark's 30k men from the same period, and the Field of Fire's 55k men, again, from the same era.

Except we know the Lords of these battles and their vassals who followed them and the lands they ruled. Dorne is a mystery to Westeros, for hundreds of years the rest of Westeros has believed that their armies are larger than they were.

 

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Now, if something comes along to specifically disprove any of those figures, such as Doran's specific refutation of Daeron's quoted figures of 50k for Dorne's full strength, then yes, you should discount a particular reference. But in the absence of such evidence to the contrary, we have no reason not to make use of such historical, geographical and demographic information.

Except you have no idea how many of those nearly 30k were from the Dornish lands. 

 

And dude, you are pretty transparent. Saying you think the conversation has run its course and then replying to me 10 minutes later is pretty funny

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm confused now. Are you or you not that poster? The poster who mentions the Norths military or population in 90% of his posts?

And please, you are pretty transparent on the matter. Your whole "the North has 45k soldiers"schtick falls apart if the Riverlands does not have a higher number than the evidence provided in the books gives. 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did not realise what you were doing but to anyone else familiar with your posts would have understood what your subconscious motives were. 

Great. Thanks for finally getting that. Your whole idea that the Vulture King could raise x amount, Dorne can raise x amount and the stormlands is less populated than the riverlands so ipso facto the Riverlands must have at least a 40k army is just jumping through hoops. 

Renly and Cat's evidence is far more concise with actual numbers on the matter as well as sources closer to the facts. 

We know the Riverlands does not have 40k soldiers. Not unless Jaime Lannister's 15k army beat an army at Riverrun of 40k plus Riverland soldiers. 

Do you really think he did?

lol come on. At least try to attempt to answer some of my questions. 

Where did I discount his 30k men? We have no idea where his men came from. Was it just the Red Mountains or did lords come from all across Westeros and further? We don't even know the identity of the Vulture King, nor do we know how many battles his armies fought in or how many Westeros soldiers fought against him. 

Given that the Maesteris were largely in the dark about who he was and where precisely he was located or which lords followed him then I am going to think their information is less than accurate. Especially given what we later here of Dorne and inflating their strength. 

Except we know the Lords of these battles and their vassals who followed them and the lands they ruled. Dorne is a mystery to Westeros, for hundreds of years the rest of Westeros has believed that their armies are larger than they were.

 

Except you have no idea how many of those nearly 30k were from the Dornish lands. 

 

And dude, you are pretty transparent. Saying you think the conversation has run its course and then replying to me 10 minutes later is pretty funny

 

Sadly, your response to that post seemed to indicate a change in tone, which, as you suggested, might have allowed continued enjoyment for both parties in the discussion. Unfortunately you have quickly reverted to form.

All my points stand. You believe in generally lower numbers for the kingdoms, taking an approach of "Until forces appear onscreen I assume they don't exist."

I believe there is strong evidence for the numbers as I have laid out. And I guess we will really have to agree to disagree. Ran gives quite a good overview of the issue of the Riverlands strength in his Youtube video on the population of the Seven Kingdoms. It covers much of the ground we just traversed.

Maybe watching that video will open your mind a tad. Or maybe it won't. Either way, I think little more can be gained from our discussion at this point.

[Bernie Mac]

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sadly, your response to that post seemed to indicate a change in tone, which, as you suggested, might have allowed continued enjoyment for both parties in the discussion. Unfortunately you have quickly reverted to form.

Ouch! I guess you will stop replying then.  Or will you continue to reply while refusing to answer any question I ask?

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

All my points stand. You believe in generally lower numbers for the kingdoms, taking an approach of "Until forces appear onscreen I assume they don't exist."

I beleive that 5 books into a 7 book series is enough ebvidence to give us a good idea on the numbers of many of the realms of Westeros; especially realms like the Riverlands, North and Westerlands in which we have saw much of the action. 

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I believe there is strong evidence for the numbers as I have laid out.

It was hardly strong. 

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

And I guess we will really have to agree to disagree. Ran gives quite a good overview of the issue of the Riverlands strength in his Youtube video on the population of the Seven Kingdoms. It covers much of the ground we just traversed.

He actually points out that he has no idea. That the books suggest a number of around 20k but the lands should be more. Which essentially I agree with. But evidence from the books is light on them having at least 40k. 

 

Now I think it should also be noted that in he first canon map of the Westeros territories the Riverlands actually is slightly smaller than many of the non canon maps suggested it to be. Both the Crownlands and Westerlands eats up some of its territories. 

Is Ran also right about the North having 35k in the same video?

 

 

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Maybe watching that video will open your mind a tad. Or maybe it won't. Either way, I think little more can be gained from our discussion at this point.

I will concede that the Ran is correct about the Riverlands in that video if you also concede he is right about the North? Deal?

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Lannister defeats were effective, but they did not kill over twenty thousand troops in taking the Riverlands

How do you know this? Between Golden Tooth, Riverrun, and Tywin taking out forces piecemeal on the Red Fork it may well have amounted to that number killed captured and deserted.

I do doubt it is that many, but doesn't mean it couldn't be.

Also the 40,000 figure is just BS Renly made up, he has no idea of Robb's current strength beyond an approximation of what he travelled down the neck with. In fact the premise of that quote is somewhat flawed, since the Northern infantry lost 5,000 men on the green fork, so no longer has 20,000 men.

We actually have no idea how many men Robb had at Riverrun around the time he was crowned, in addition to the 6,000 he had at the Whispering Wood, he may have had as many as 20,000 other Rivermen or more, a significant number probably didn't make it back to Edmure's 11,000 on the Fords, both due to lack of time to return and because they were killed in the fighting around the God's Eye or otherwise held down elsewhere.

11 hours ago, Nihlus said:

Vicky G states that only 1 in 10 men on the ships he storms are properly armored, so every ship can't be 1/3 marines.

Would the composition of those ships be the same as those of the Royal and Redwyne fleets? I'm somewhat doubtful.

17 hours ago, John Doe said:

- Reach: I have to disagree about the Reach having 100k soldiers. It seems to be a misconception that's pretty popular, but I don't see how it is based on the text. Renly says he has 100k in total to Cat, but she immediatly knows it's a lie. Before that, Renly says he has twice as many as the number he thinks Robb has, which is forty thousand, so that would give Renly 80k. If we assume that no more than 20k Stormlanders are part of that host (which is a conservative estimate, imo), and add the 10k Tyrell men left with Mace at Highgarden, 70k seems to be a number that's much closer to the truth and also fits what Tyrion tells Oberyn better. 

 

65-70,000 Reachmen with Renly and Mace at the beginning of book 2, Remember to add in more for the Redwynes who were totally absent, and also for the Hightowers, who were mostly absent, then factor in regular stragglers and those who aren't called up straight away, and pretty soon you are in the region of 100,000.

17 hours ago, John Doe said:

- Crownlands: Probably closer to 10k than to 20k. 

I don't believe Rhaegar's army could have worked if this were the case; 10K Dornishmen, 4 known Riverlands houses (according to the wiki), with some from the Stormlands, Vale and Reach, but likely only a small number. 30K from outside Dorne, maybe 10K or so Rivermen, really only a handful from the other regions, leaving in the region of 15K Crownlanders. When factoring in potential previous losses, men not called and men in reserve in the region of 20K works I think.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

How do you know this? Between Golden Tooth, Riverrun, and Tywin taking out forces piecemeal on the Red Fork it may well have amounted to that number killed captured and deserted.

I do doubt it is that many, but doesn't mean it couldn't be.

Also the 40,000 figure is just BS Renly made up, he has no idea of Robb's current strength beyond an approximation of what he travelled down the neck with. In fact the premise of that quote is somewhat flawed, since the Northern infantry lost 5,000 men on the green fork, so no longer has 20,000 men.

We actually have no idea how many men Robb had at Riverrun around the time he was crowned, in addition to the 6,000 he had at the Whispering Wood, he may have had as many as 20,000 other Rivermen or more, a significant number probably didn't make it back to Edmure's 11,000 on the Fords, both due to lack of time to return and because they were killed in the fighting around the God's Eye or otherwise held down elsewhere.

 

Indeed.

We have insufficient information to make definitive statements on the Riverlands strength based on just the numbers mentioned late in the War of the Five Kings. For example, in Ned's point of view we learn that Edmure has distributed men to EVERY village and holdfast within a day's ride of the border. Now, how long is that border? A hundred miles? If so, and if a day's ride is around 30 miles then we are talking soldiers sent to every village and holdfast in an area covering 3000 square miles. The Riverlands are densely populated, and would likely have a village every 5 miles or so. Just on that impoverished landed knight's lands in Dunk and Egg there were three villages, for example. In a similar region to the Riverlands.

So, we are talking a couple of hundred villages and holdfasts in the above area. Even at just 50 men per village, that's 10,000 men. Men who were apparently wiped out by Tywin Lannister piecemeal as he swept through the Riverlands village by village.

That's in addition to the main host defeated by Jaime at Riverrun. And we don't know how many of these men made it back to Edmure's new host raised for the Battle at the fords.

So yes, the Riverlands full strength cannot be determined based on the numbers quoted late in the War.

 

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

How do you know this? Between Golden Tooth, Riverrun, and Tywin taking out forces piecemeal on the Red Fork it may well have amounted to that number killed captured and deserted.

I do doubt it is that many, but doesn't mean it couldn't be.

It could also have been 10 million Riverland soldiers, riding on miniature pink submarines. Are we not allowed to rule out possibilities that seem unrealistic or do we accept everything as a possibility until confirmed by the author? Yes or No?

1 hour ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

Also the 40,000 figure is just BS Renly made up, he has no idea of Robb's current strength beyond an approximation of what he travelled down the neck with. In fact the premise of that quote is somewhat flawed, since the Northern infantry lost 5,000 men on the green fork, so no longer has 20,000 men.

He said Robb came South with 20K men. Was that bullshit?

He says the Riverlands has around 20k and we, the readers,never see more than 20k combined Riverland soldiers. Why is this bullshit?

And Cat thinks to herself "not nearly as many". Is she also bullshitting?

 

Is this your game? Any quotes from the books that you don't like will automatically be called bullshit? Yeesh!

1 hour ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

We actually have no idea how many men Robb had at Riverrun around the time he was crowned, in addition to the 6,000 he had at the Whispering Wood, he may have had as many as 20,000 other Rivermen or more, a significant number probably didn't make it back to Edmure's 11,000 on the Fords, both due to lack of time to return and because they were killed in the fighting around the God's Eye or otherwise held down elsewhere.

Wait what? As many as 20K Riverland soldiers? So while Tywin is at Harrenhal, Roose nearby, and only sending raiding parties of the hundreds to shock and awe the civilians Tywin has somehow killed around 8,000 Riverland soldiers?

If that is what you really believe then good for you. But I suspect this is bullshit. 

1 hour ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

also for the Hightowers, who were mostly absent, then factor in regular stragglers and those who aren't called up straight away, and pretty soon you are in the region of 100,000.

 

Were is it claimed they were mostly absent?

"Tyrell swords will make me king. Rowan and Tarly and Caron will make me king, with axe and mace and warhammer. Tarth arrows and Penrose lances, Fossoway, Cuy, Mullendore, Estermont, Selmy, Hightower, Oakheart, Crane, Caswell, Blackbar, Morrigen, Beesbury, Shermer, Dunn, Footly . . . even House Florent, your own wife's brothers and uncles, they will make me king."

Highlighted are the Hightowers and their vassals. They seem to make a pretty significant presence in his army even if the old Hightower and his sons are not directly present (and it is not actually clear if that is true)

[John Doe]

3 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

65-70,000 Reachmen with Renly and Mace at the beginning of book 2, Remember to add in more for the Redwynes who were totally absent, and also for the Hightowers, who were mostly absent, then factor in regular stragglers and those who aren't called up straight away, and pretty soon you are in the region of 100,000.

There is no reason for a large number of stragglers when his host is travelling so slowly and not even Tywin at his rapid pace had more than a few hundred. And why would there be a large number of people not getting a call when literally every major bannermen outside of the Florens and the Redwynes was there?

The Hightowers weren't absent, while the Redwyne strength lies mostly in their fleet. But sure, let's give them another 5-10k soldiers without reason, just to make a point, they're still just as close to 50k as they are to 100k. 

Quote

I don't believe Rhaegar's army could have worked if this were the case; 10K Dornishmen, 4 known Riverlands houses (according to the wiki), with some from the Stormlands, Vale and Reach, but likely only a small number. 30K from outside Dorne, maybe 10K or so Rivermen, really only a handful from the other regions, leaving in the region of 15K Crownlanders. When factoring in potential previous losses, men not called and men in reserve in the region of 20K works I think.

Pure guesswork. As you said, we know men of the Riverlands, Stormlands and Reach were there. They could have easily made up half his army.

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It could also have been 10 million Riverland soldiers, riding on miniature pink submarines. Are we not allowed to rule out possibilities that seem unrealistic or do we accept everything as a possibility until confirmed by the author? Yes or No?

He said Robb came South with 20K men. Was that bullshit?

He says the Riverlands has around 20k and we, the readers,never see more than 20k combined Riverland soldiers. Why is this bullshit?

And Cat thinks to herself "not nearly as many". Is she also bullshitting?

 

Is this your game? Any quotes from the books that you don't like will automatically be called bullshit? Yeesh!

Wait what? As many as 20K Riverland soldiers? So while Tywin is at Harrenhal, Roose nearby, and only sending raiding parties of the hundreds to shock and awe the civilians Tywin has somehow killed around 8,000 Riverland soldiers?

If that is what you really believe then good for you. But I suspect this is bullshit. 

Were is it claimed they were mostly absent?

"Tyrell swords will make me king. Rowan and Tarly and Caron will make me king, with axe and mace and warhammer. Tarth arrows and Penrose lances, Fossoway, Cuy, Mullendore, Estermont, Selmy, Hightower, Oakheart, Crane, Caswell, Blackbar, Morrigen, Beesbury, Shermer, Dunn, Footly . . . even House Florent, your own wife's brothers and uncles, they will make me king."

Highlighted are the Hightowers and their vassals. They seem to make a pretty significant presence in his army even if the old Hightower and his sons are not directly present (and it is not actually clear if that is true)

Indeed.

[Graydon Hicks]

here is something to consider, just don't bite my head off for it. i remember from the world book that the stormlands were considered a little more martial in their culture, so maybe their ratio of soldier to civilian in their population is a little higher than we realize? its just a thought, but it has been said that the stormlands are rather infertile compared to the reach or riverlands, the soil is thin, all that really grows in profusion is trees and rocks. in our own world, cultures living in that kind of climate and environment tend to lean to a larger portion of the population going into military service as a more sure source of income than trying to farm in such a place. so maybe the stormlands actually does have a larger army then we realize, since no definite number ws given from them alone? or it can be 30,000, even with a smaller population in relation to the riverlands, because more of the small folk go into service than try and farm on land not likely to produce? i mean, that how it is for the iron born, granted though its more cultural, but that tradition had to start somewhere, so maybe when they realised they couldnt make enough money or what ever need to suppot themselves by farming in such thin and rocky soil, that they turned to soldiering(stormlands) and reaving*(iron born) to make ends meet, and grew into the lifestyle?

[Free Northman Reborn]

On ‎2017‎/‎08‎/‎14 at 6:29 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

here is something to consider, just don't bite my head off for it. i remember from the world book that the stormlands were considered a little more martial in their culture, so maybe their ratio of soldier to civilian in their population is a little higher than we realize? its just a thought, but it has been said that the stormlands are rather infertile compared to the reach or riverlands, the soil is thin, all that really grows in profusion is trees and rocks. in our own world, cultures living in that kind of climate and environment tend to lean to a larger portion of the population going into military service as a more sure source of income than trying to farm in such a place. so maybe the stormlands actually does have a larger army then we realize, since no definite number ws given from them alone? or it can be 30,000, even with a smaller population in relation to the riverlands, because more of the small folk go into service than try and farm on land not likely to produce? i mean, that how it is for the iron born, granted though its more cultural, but that tradition had to start somewhere, so maybe when they realised they couldnt make enough money or what ever need to suppot themselves by farming in such thin and rocky soil, that they turned to soldiering(stormlands) and reaving*(iron born) to make ends meet, and grew into the lifestyle?

Sure. It's possible. My problem is the context of the statements that were made by George, and again in the World Book.

George wasn't answering a question on the population of the Stormlands when he said they have a lot of "rocks and trees and rain". He gave that answer in response to a question on where the Stormlands rank in terms of military strength. The implication seems pretty clear that in his mind he would not give them a particularly high number of troops, because of the relatively low population density.

In the same breath he answered the Riverlands question, again, specifically in response to the military strength issue. And his answer was that they are rich and fertile, but divided and lack natural boundaries. So it seems they struggle to raise their full strength due to a lack of all the lords coming to the party with their full strength - or at all, in the case of the Freys.

And again, in the Worldbook, the issue of the Stormlands' low population density is directly linked to the limited "might" of the Storm Kings, even when they ruled up to the Neck. So again, its impact on military "might" is directly raised.

[Graydon Hicks]

well that military might could be a referrence to their ability to take and hold territory. i can agree that they can call 30,000. george did say that the stormlands, vale, and north have approximately the same level of military strength. but much of your references about the limits to their armies is coming from a pre-conquest westeros, when the kingdoms were fighting each other over land. the stormkings had taken the riverlands and were kicked out by the iron born. they fought with both the dornish and reachlords. at the time the game was one of swords and blood, fighting for lands for each kingdom. i would imagine that over the past 300 hundred years of relative peace between provinces the population has had a chance to grow, so maybe time frame the reference was initially was when the armies were sized closer to around 10-20,000 less? when they were all fighting each other on a near constant basis, keeping death rates high?

i think im rambling there.

now with dorn, i can see they having an army of max 15000. they suffer from the same sparse population as the north, with the majority of its people living along the coast, which there is a lot of since dorn is a peninsula. it might be conceivable that even though doran could call up that 15000 to 20000 men, it would take for too much time to bring them all together from across that desert. when people want to reference the vulture king, remember that for then, he ruled from the northern areas of dorn, where the kingdom butts up against the reach and stormlands, he was likely conscripting every man who could hold a spear he came across, and from the areas of the reach and stormlands bordering his territory as well. tywin was trying to do the same thing remember, after robb smashed jaime's force at riverrun.

[naseridrl]

Dorne probably also suffered a lot from the wars with the Targaryen's more so than any other kingdom. they may have started things off with a significantly bigger population than they do now, maybe bigger than the Stormlands but after all the wars that may have seen their population shrink by quite a bit.