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

[Nihlus]

I often see people discussing army sizes here, and army quality. As far as I know, the general consensus is that there are three brackets, measured by the number of professional and semi-professional well-equipped soldiers they can muster for a campaign:

Reach: ~100,000 troops

Vale/North/Riverlands/Westerlands: 40,000-50,000 troops each

Iron Islands/Dorne/Stormlands/Crownlands: 20,000-35,000 troops each

This would give Westeros around 400,000 mid to high quality troops available for full wars, matching its demography and the usual estimate of 40 million people for the whole continent. That seems about right going from what I've seen of real-world 14th-15th century armies. England's population was 3.5 million in 1300, and invaded Scotland with 10,000 troops. Their army in Scotland never exceeded 20,000 or so. There were only 15,000 English at the decisive battle of Falkirk. 9,000 at Stirling Bridge. For an earlier example, at Las Navas in 1212, a coalition of Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms stiffened by French military orders and mercenaries fielded an army of 13,000 against 25,000-30,000 opposing troops (most of them from the coast of northwest Africa, not the Iberian Peninsula) for a battle that decided the fate of the Iberian Peninsula. The peninsula had a population of 7 million altogether at the time. So 1% available for campaigning is probably close to the truth.

HOWEVER, there are some groups that this common calculation misses. Troops that do exist, but aren't being taken off to war, instead being left to serve their role, as they're only part-time soldiers. I'm talking of castle garrisons and marines. Let's start with castle garrisons.

CASTLE GARRISONS

Quality

Typically, the "garrison" of a castle would be the knight, any of his family (sons or brothers) who still lived at home and were of fighting age, and his servants and retainers (cooks, grooms, falconer, huntsman, etc.) who could be armed in case of need. These men would drill in their spare time and thus possess some training, and were almost always equipped with the minimum of a spear, large shield, metal helmet, and gambeson. Some were more well-equipped, it varied. This book elaborates: it says that in "The History of England," it is stated that under the rule of Henry II "every free man of laity having goods in value worth 10 marks is obliged to have a habergeon (mail shirt), a steele cap, and a spear, and all burgesses and all free men to have wambais (gambesons), a cap of steele, and a spear." A "free man" and "burgess" are basically middle class.  

Quantity

This other book elaborates on castle garrisons in High Medieval England. The Pipe roll entries show that Oswestry Castle had a garrison of one knight, two porters and two watchmen between 1160 and 1165, five soldiers, one of which is fully professional. The two other Fitz Alan Welsh border castles of Clun and Ruthin seem to have had the same peacetime garrison of 5 men. The Welsh border castles of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth, seem to have had similar garrisons. Shrewsbury was a royal castle, but about 12 miles from the Welsh border and shielded by intervening castles such as Oswestry. It had a garrison of one porter and one watchman. Bridgnorth, another royal castle, slightly further from the border had a garrison of one permanent year round porter. In time of danger or war, the troops in these castles would be increased. In the summer of 1165 Henry II used Oswestry Castle as his base for a campaign against Owain Gwynedd (an unsuccessful campaign), and during this summer 200 soldiers were stationed at Oswestry and Knockyn Castles. Again, in 1166-67, the border was troubled and 40 soldiers were paid for at Oswestry Castle for two years. For 158 days of one of these years another 60 soldiers, paid for by the local barons, not the King, were also stationed at Oswestry Castle. By 1168, the soldiers at Oswestry castle were reduced to 20 and that garrison seems to have remained until 1174, so over a hundred years in a time of not-quite-war. This suggests a peacetime garrison strength of 5 men for the average castle, and about 20 for times of high alert, with garrisons potentially spiking much higher for short periods in the case of immediate danger (presumably that same density can't be maintained everywhere). Thus I will take 5-20 mid-quality soldiers as the average garrison of a castle in Westeros.

Density

These men are not like the men who march to war. They're not going to go hundreds or thousands of miles from their homes. They just act as a garrison force and harrying force if the enemy is in their land. Note that this is an average; much larger castles would have much larger garrisons. It's stated, for example, that Winterfell is well-manned with 200 men, and the Starks are wealthy enough to maintain that continuously. Same with Riverrun; Jaime comments that 200 men is about right for that castle, maybe a bit too much. But there are maybe 10-20 castles that big in Westeros, and so they'd only add a few thousand to the total I'm discussing. A more common example of a castle is Griffin's Roost, held by a landed knight. Going by the fact that Jon Connington expected to take 100 losses capturing it, that would suggest a garrison of 10-20 troops. On par with the earlier quoted numbers.

The next question: how many castles are there in Westeros? Let's use real life as a measuring stick again, since Westeros appears to match 14th century Europe in most ways. In 1154, England's (population: 2 million) king and barons held 274 full-fledged stone castles. In 1100, a single small French province (Maine), had 62 stone castles. In 1200, the king of France alone had over 100 stone castles, with countless others in the hands of his nobles. Castle-building continued into the 13th century, so these numbers aren't representative of the full number of stone castles western and central Europe had in 1300 (there was no significant growth in the number of castles after that, at least in England). By the 1280s, even the ridiculously sparse (it only had 2.5 million people in 1240) and poor kingdom of Hungary (population: 2.5 million) had 71 stone castles on high elevated sights and a stone citadel at the center of every major city (“Brief König Belas IV. an Papst,” in Mongolensturm, 308-309; cited in "Deep Ditches and well-built walls"). If we use England as a minimum, which had ~300 stone castles for a population of ~2 million at the turn of the 12th century, that would suggest something in the realm of 1 stone castle per 6,500 people. It's probably higher in the densest parts of the Reach owing to its wealth, and lower in large chunks of the North owing to its relative poverty, but that proportion should serve us well.

Total

As earlier established, the number of troops per garrison would be 5-20. Let's use the middle figure of 12.5 for our calculations. Westeros is generally agreed to have a population of 40,000,000. With 1 stone castle for every 6,500 people, we'd have 40,000,000/6,500 = 6,154 stone castles. With an average garrison of 12.5 Westeros would have the following number of troops garrisoned there:

12.5 x 6,154 = 76,925

Add ~15 large outliers on the level of Winterfell or Riverrun, with garrisons in the low hundreds, and we get:

~15 x ~200 = ~3,000

For a total of ~80,000 garrison troops in Westeros. As earlier noted, these would be trained men with respectable equipment. Not quite on par with the armies of pikemen and dismounted men at arms in mail and partial plate and professional longbowmen and crossbowmen, with a large proportion (~1/4) of said armies being near full plated heavy cavalry. But not bad either. You can roughly divide these troops by region based on their populations. But I don't feel like doing that right now.

 

Stay tuned for the next section: Marines!

[Nihlus]

Marines

Quality

Westeros's naval combat seems pretty primitive, with an emphasis on boarding. This requires at least semi-decent troops to be done effectively. If disembarked, these men would qualify as light infantry. They're on the same level of the earlier mentioned garrisons as being semi-professional, decently equipped soldiers.

Quantity

There's been a lot of discussion about Westerosi naval power, so I will not retread theose conversations. It's been established fairly clearly on this forum that the major fleets are:

Redwyne Fleet: ~200 war galleys

Royal Fleet: ~110 war galleys (100 royal war galleys + 10 war galleys from other Crownlords)

Iron Fleet: ~100 war galleys (or rather special longships on par with them in size)

Then there's the smaller fleets:

Lannister Fleet: ~25 war galleys ("twenty to thirty")

Tyrell Fleet: ~25 ("same boat as the Lannisters")

Hightower Fleet: ~5 war galleys ("a few")

Manderly Fleet: ~50 war galleys (here)

Other Reach lords: ~20 war galleys (includes Shields, etc.)

Other Western lords: ~10 war galleys ("[all sea-bordering lords] keep a war galley or three")

Vale: ~25 war galleys (guess)

On top of these, we have "the lords whose lands abut the coast of the Sunset Sea all keep a war galley or three about for coastal defense." I have no idea how many major lords actually border the sea (this is said to apply to the Reach and the Westerlands), just that each has two war galleys on average. I used the figure of ~10 in the Westerlands and ~20 in the Reach to be conservative. This is probably too small. The Vale is also pure guesswork and probably too low; I just gave them a similar fleet to what the Lannisters have on their own... they should probably have. Adding up all of the above numbers bar the Iron Fleet, and we get ~470 war galleys.  I'm not going to count the Iron Fleet and the other Greyjoy-sworn ships from here on out- they don't follow the same classification as everyone else, their rowers are their assault troops and fully equipped. 

Density

The Redwyne and Royal fleets are mostly composed of 100-oar ships, with some of 200 or 300 oars, and a couple flagships of 400 oars. The Iron Fleet's ships on par with the smaller parts of the Redwyne and Royal fleets, so ~100 oars per ship. Accounting for other crew like sailors and officers, and that would suggest ~150 men per ship in the various fleets on average (at least if various estimates on this forum are accurate). Of course those aforementioned 200-300 oar monsters might jack up the average for at least the Royal Fleet, but we don't know how many of them there are. So just take this is a minimum.

150 crewmen per galley x 470  war galleys = ~70,500 crewmen

How many of those crewmen are marines/assault troops? We can extrapolate that from Victarion's chapters when storming a Shield Islands ship. He observes most men are unarmored and carrying weapons like shorts words, boarding axes, spears. These are the oarmen, and they're worth about as much as wildlings, peasant militia, or mountain clansmen in a straight fight, but are still armed men slugging it out in boarding actions. Victarion also notes this:

Quote

He vaulted over the gunwale, landing on the deck below with his golden cloak billowing behind him. The white roses drew back, as men always did at the sight of Victarion Greyjoy armed and armored, his face hidden behind his kraken helm. They were clutching swords and spears and axes, but nine of every ten wore no armor, and the tenth had only a shirt of sewn scales. These are no ironmen, Victarion thought. They still fear drowning.

One out of ten men are properly armored... in scalemail? Or just metal armor in general, more likely. He gives an example of one of these men as:

Quote

"The last man to face him must have been a smith; he had shoulders like a bull, and one much more muscular than the other. His armor was a studded brigandine."

So a solidly middle class man with none-too-shabby armor. That would suggest that 1/10 of the crew are assault troops/marines, and that the quality of training and gear of these men is on par with the semi-professionals I mentioned earlier, if not greater. We could put them in the same class as the rest of Westeros's soldiers.

70,500  / 10 = 7,050 marines on the ships of Westeros minimum. The Royal Fleet in particular has to have more than what I gave them.

Of these: 

Reach: 3,750

Crownlands: 1,650+ 

North: 750

Westerlands: 525

Vale: 375

Up next: Town Guards/City Watch!

[Nihlus]

City/Town Watch

Quality

The people in medieval kingdoms who lived in major towns and cities tended to have a much higher proportion of "middle class" people to peasants than the villages and minor towns in the countryside. As a result a significant portion of the urban population would belong to the "burgess and free men" classes that Henry II's decree mentioned. These are those who could afford decent gear and training, and who could serve as town/city watch and militia if need be.

Quantity

According to this, the urban population (towns and cities) of early 14th century England was 15% of the total. If Westeros is around the same, then their urban population is 6,000,000 of 40,000,000 total.  Of these, a quarter to a fifth of that live in the largest five cities:

King's Landing: 500,00 (repeatedly stated)

Oldtown: ~450,000 (stated to be in the same league as King's Landing, but smaller)

Lannisport: ~250,000 (supposed to be much bigger than White Harbor or Gulltown, but much smaller than Oldtown and King's Landing)

Gulltown: ~60,000 (second smallest major city, noticeably bigger than White Harbor but close to it)

White Harbor: ~50,000 (population of "many tens of thousands", smallest major city)

Minor cities with populations of 30,000 or less would add some to this total. Places like Barrowton, but probably not a lot. But I digress.

Density

Fortunately, Martin actually tells us how many men can serve in their local watch. King's Landing with a population of 500,000 has 2,000 gold cloaks serving at the start of the series; Tyrion increases this to 6,00 on fairly short notice, while still equipping them fairly well, but it is noted that training is subpar so he's probably stretching. Regardless, this indicates around 1.2% of the urban population can be devoted to the garrison without the city running out of arms to give them or wrecking its economy. The total number of city watch and town watch in Westeros, when extrapolating from King's Landing, would therefore be:

1.2% of 6,000,000 = 72,000

Spread throughout the five big cities and various minor cities and towns. Quality will vary, of course. Lannisport's city watch is noted for being very well equipped and trained, for example. But the average watchman should still be pretty respectable if Westeros is anything like the place it's based on.

Conclusion:

At a relative low end, Westeros's military forces consist of the following:

400,000 capable field soldiers

80,000 castle garrison troops in

6,154 stone castles

72,000 city/town garrison troops/militia 

7,050+ marines and 63,500 oarsmen/sailors/etc on 

570 war galleys

 

[Olligarchy]

That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making, most of them being reliant on Westeros having more than a passing resemblance to historical countries which... it really doesn't.

[Nihlus]

1 hour ago, Olligarchy said:

That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making, most of them being reliant on Westeros having more than a passing resemblance to historical countries which... it really doesn't.

I've seen a lot of threads make similar assumptions in the past. It doesn't really require that many, just a bare minimum of assumptions that would keep common sense intact and keep Westeros as the functioning medieval society it's supposed to be. Plus, I didn't make that many assumptions, did I? The section on marines is basically just quoting the text, with the only big assumption being the number of non-oars crewmen on the ships. The section on city watch and town militia just noted the population of the biggest cities, extrapolated that to how many people would live in towns and minor cities, and then extrapolated how many watchmen there'd be (and the quality of their armament's, though historical comparisons help) from the known figures of King's Landing. The section on castle garrisons and number of castles I'll grant you required some assumptions, but even then I cited a few examples of castle garrisons that we've seen... and I will also note that even having a bunch of stone castles doesn't make sense unless the fortification network is at least around this dense.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

I believe you are way of on the strength of the regions. 

North - 30,000 Troops (Torrhen Stark had time to gather all the troops of the north and his total strength was 30,000)

Riverlands - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North and when looking at their strength during the war of the five kings it becomes around 30,000)

Iron Islands - 25,000 Troops (They dont do agriculture or music or art and that kind of stuff so pretty much all their males are warriors. The Iron Fleet's ships are 3 times the size of a normal longship that has 33 men so the Iron Fleet would have 10,000 men on the Iron Fleet and they have another 500 longships with around 30 dudes each making their total strength 25,000)

Vale - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North)

Crownlands - 20,000 Troops (Stannis had 5000 troops from the lords of the narrow sea and mainland could raise 15,000 troops)

Westerlands - 45,000 Troops (At the war of the five kings the Lannisters raise 3 armies one of them 15,000 strong, one 20,000 strong and a third army of i would say 15,000.)

Stormlands - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North)

Reach - 80,000 (Renly's Army from the reach are 70,000 strong and i dont think the Hightowers were present and they would be very powerful so around 10,000 making the Reach 80,000 strong.)

Dorne - 25,000 (Several references to dornish armies of 10,000 men and the vulture king har nearly 30,000 troops and Doran says that they can field around half of 50,000 making it 25,000.)

 

I did the counting and there are 130 larger castles in Westeros that can be seen on a map with notable houses living in them. There are probably many more little keeps and mini castles for landed knights like Clegane and his keep but they are probably tiny basicly towerhouses. 

Also there are many significant and larger castles that far exceed the normal around 20 man strong garrisons. Riverrun, Storm's End and Winterfell are well of with 200 men and the Eyrie is garrisoned by 300 men. Places like Harrenhal, Casterly Rock, Highgarden,Dragonstone and Sunspear would also have garrisons in the hundreds. So all those significant places combined 15 castles would have around 3500 troops garrisoning them. And we also have towns in Westeros with lets say around 20 dudes. There are 26 significant towns in Westeros. And then there are also the 5 large cities in Westeros who would have 4 digit garrisons of city watchmen.

So 115 castles x 20 soldiers = 2300

15 notable places like regional capitals, Dragonstone, Harrenhal x 230 = 3500

26 towns x 20 = 520 

5 large cities x 1600 = 8000

So there are around 2300+3500+520+8000=14,320 troops garrisoning Westeros.

 

There are 3 significant fleets in Westeros the Iron Fleet, the Royal fleet and the Redwyne fleet. The Redwyne fleet and Royal fleet are 200 war galleys each and the Iron Fleet has 100 war galleys. Then there are many houses with a handful of ships each but they need them to protect their seas so you couldnt just take them and use them in war. And the other great houses dont have any significant fleets either except for perhaps the Arryns and the Lannisters. 

Royal Fleet 200 + Redwyne Fleet 200 + Iron Fleet 100 + all ships the other houses can spare 100 = 600 war galleys and the Iron Born also have 500 Longships. 

There are around 100 oarsmen and 50 marines on every ship. There are larger capital ships that come up to 400 oars.

600 x 50 = 30,000 Marines 600 x 100 = 60,000 rowers Longships = 500 x 30 = 15,000 Marines

 

CONCLUSION

320,000 Troops when including sellswords, freeriders and hedge knights

600 War Galleys, 500 Longships

45,000 Marines, 60,000 Rowers

14,320 troops garrisoning castles, towns and cities

[hodorisfaclessman]

Excellent thread 

One issue id have is westerlands numbers , they do raise 3 armies but id say 3rd one has many survivors from the losses under jamie and is prob about 10k if that and green

Plus we know tywin put out word for sellswords and hedgeknights so the lannister gold if given time to prep as tywin did can allow them to augment their numbers with mercs and  non professioals , Tyrion notes the non pros in his fathers armies, their gold allows them to arm and spare men whod otherwise be farmhands etc.

Outside of lannisport the impression is westerlands isnt large or heavily populated i think its the factors iv mentioned allow it to field the numbers it does in the books otherwise itd field about same as vale/riverlands/north etc.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

I believe you are way of on the strength of the regions. 

North - 30,000 Troops (Torrhen Stark had time to gather all the troops of the north and his total strength was 30,000)

Riverlands - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North and when looking at their strength during the war of the five kings it becomes around 30,000)

Iron Islands - 25,000 Troops (They dont do agriculture or music or art and that kind of stuff so pretty much all their males are warriors. The Iron Fleet's ships are 3 times the size of a normal longship that has 33 men so the Iron Fleet would have 10,000 men on the Iron Fleet and they have another 500 longships with around 30 dudes each making their total strength 25,000)

Vale - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North)

Crownlands - 20,000 Troops (Stannis had 5000 troops from the lords of the narrow sea and mainland could raise 15,000 troops)

Westerlands - 45,000 Troops (At the war of the five kings the Lannisters raise 3 armies one of them 15,000 strong, one 20,000 strong and a third army of i would say 15,000.)

Stormlands - 30,000 Troops (Said to be roughly as strong as the North)

Reach - 80,000 (Renly's Army from the reach are 70,000 strong and i dont think the Hightowers were present and they would be very powerful so around 10,000 making the Reach 80,000 strong.)

Dorne - 25,000 (Several references to dornish armies of 10,000 men and the vulture king har nearly 30,000 troops and Doran says that they can field around half of 50,000 making it 25,000.)

 

The Vulture King had 30k men, largely from Dorne, and clearly would not have had all of the men in Dorne as many of the Dornish nobles would have retained much of their forces instead of releasing them to the Vulture King. Also, in ancient times Dorne was split three ways between the Daynes, Yronwoods and Fowlers, and during this time a Fowler king raised 10,000 men in his own right to invade the Reach. These two quotes make it quite clear that the power of Dorne must be at 30k or above. (By the way, Doran has never claimed they can raise half of the rumoured 50k men. He merely said that their strength has been exaggerated and that they are the least populous kingdom).

So, we know that Dorne is the least powerful kingdom, placing the Stormlands likely at least at 35k men, to be clearly distinguishable from Dorne. In turn, the Stormlands are described as relatively sparsely populated, has no cities, and is among the smallest kingdoms in surface area. The North, while also sparsely populated, is about 5 times as large as the Stormlands, and has a city of tens of thousands of people. It is quite logical that the North has a higher population than the Stormlands. So a minimum strength for the North is likely 40k men, not 30k. It's just that you can't march more than 30k in one army across the length of the North and feed the massive host at the same time.

So you aren't going to see a single Northern host of 40k men. You are more likely to see one of 20k and a second one of 20k if the first one is lost, but not 40k at one time, no matter how much time Torhenn had to gather them together. 30k was already stretching it beyond reasonable logistical limits for a single northern host.

The Vale is said to be on the same level as the North, and the Riverlands seems there and thereabouts too, although they are divided and unlikely to ever raise their total strength in a single host either.

The West raised 35k men, but this included sellswords who had been flocking to Casterly Rock in the leadup to the War of the Five Kings. After Jaime's 15k host was destroyed, about 5k of them fled back to the West, where they formed the basis of a new host at Oxcross, supplemented by street urchins and potboys from the bowels of Lannisport.

And this new host is never given a size, but was utterly destroyed by Robb's 5k or so cavalry, making 10k a feasible number for the Oxcross army. Of which 5k were survivors from the Battle of the Camps and only 5k would have been new forces, and then largely potboys and street urchins and other random untrained peasants, as previously mentioned.

So the strength of the West in my view is 35k (including sellswords) and another 5k potboys and street urchins, so around 40k altogether, similar to the North's minimum strength.

The Reach, yes, they number around 80-100k.

[John Doe]

Imo, there are six brackets, if we're counting the Crownlands:

 

- 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. 

 

- Westerlands:  Something like 40k seems like a good estimate. 

 

- North/Vale/Riverlands: I'd give 30k each, if we're talking high to mid quality troops.  Only by scraping the bottom of the barrel can the North recruit something like 40k. 

 

- Stormlands/Iron Islands: I'd estimate something like 20-30 thousand (more on the lower end) each.

 

 - Dorne: I say they have something like 20k. 

 

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

[Free Northman Reborn]

59 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Imo, there are six brackets, if we're counting the Crownlands:

 

- 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. 

 

- Westerlands:  Something like 40k seems like a good estimate. 

 

- North/Vale/Riverlands: I'd give 30k each, if we're talking high to mid quality troops.  Only by scraping the bottom of the barrel can the North recruit something like 40k. 

 

- Stormlands/Iron Islands: I'd estimate something like 20-30 thousand (more on the lower end) each.

 

 - Dorne: I say they have something like 20k. 

 

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

The problem is Dorne. The Vulture King raised 30k men in Dorne. And that was not even a full mobilization of the Dornish lords, just randomers who flocked to his banner. And the Fowler Kings, who at best controlled a third of Dorne, raised 10k men to invade the Reach in ancient times.

So Dorne, however you look at them, seem to be at least 30k in strength. And they are the least populous kingdom by their own admission. The Iron Isles excluded, of course.

So all of the other kingdoms have to be higher than that, and markedly so, for Doran to be so certain of Dorne's status as the least populated kingdom. He can't make such a statement if Dorne can raise say 30k men and the Stormlands can raise 31 or 32k. How would he know which of the two had the lowest population, rather than maybe just having some lords who didn't respond to the call to banners with enthusiasim? Nope, for Doran to be so definitive in his estimate of Dorne's population status, there has to be a significant gap between them and the next most populous mainland kingdom, which is the Stormlands.

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The problem is Dorne. The Vulture King raised 30k men in Dorne. And that was not even a full mobilization of the Dornish lords, just randomers who flocked to his banner. And the Fowler Kings, who at best controlled a third of Dorne, raised 10k men to invade the Reach in ancient times.

So Dorne, however you look at them, seem to be at least 30k in strength. And they are the least populous kingdom by their own admission. The Iron Isles excluded, of course.

So all of the other kingdoms have to be higher than that, and markedly so, for Doran to be so certain of Dorne's status as the least populated kingdom. He can't make such a statement if Dorne can raise say 30k men and the Stormlands can raise 31 or 32k. How would he know which of the two had the lowest population, rather than maybe just having some lords who didn't respond to the call to banners with enthusiasim? Nope, for Doran to be so definitive in his estimate of Dorne's population status, there has to be a significant gap between them and the next most populous mainland kingdom, which is the Stormlands.

The Vulture King has been known to add outlaws and soldiers of defeated lords to his army. Aside from that, after so many years, his numbers could be exagerrated, at least that is what I believe. After all, the 50k for the whole of Dorne was believed to be the truth as well, because of a few hundred year old account of the dornish war, but we as readers know that those are not always reliable. 

This explanation seems more likely to me than that kingdoms we have first hand accounts of (like the Riverlands, who are known to be spent) have some ten thousand or more additional soldiers hidden somewhere.

 

Occam's razor, basically. Either the account of the vulture king isn't true (one if), or we have to find an explanation for each kingdom that has more men than the books suggest based on the story about the vulture king alone. 

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

The Vulture King has been known to add outlaws and soldiers of defeated lords to his army. Aside from that, after so many years, his numbers could be exagerrated, at least that is what I believe. After all, the 50k for the whole of Dorne was believed to be the truth as well, because of a few hundred year old account of the dornish war, but we as readers know that those are not always reliable. 

This explanation seems more likely to me than that kingdoms we have first hand accounts of (like the Riverlands, who are known to be spent) have some ten thousand or more additional soldiers hidden somewhere.

 

Occam's razor, basically. Either the account of the vulture king isn't true (one if), or we have to find an explanation for each kingdom that has more men than the books suggest based on the story about the vulture king alone. 

 

 

 

The Riverlands are rich and populous, by George's own, direct quote. Likely more populous than the West, even. At the very least they have a similar population to the West. The fact that we don't see more men raised by them is because we see them after their main forces have already been anihilated by the Lannisters at the start of the war, and because they are divided and always struggle to raise their full, united strength under the Tullys.

They are at the very least at 40k, and quite possibly higher than that. The fact that the largest host we see from them is around 13k in strength is in no way reflective of their full strength.

As it stands we have two specific quotes, one which puts Dornish strength at around 30k, and the second putting the strength of a lord who ruled about a third of Dorne at 10k. By contrast, there is not a single quote that limits Dorne's potential to 25k or less.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Riverlands are rich and populous, by George's own, direct quote. Likely more populous than the West, even. At the very least they have a similar population to the West. The fact that we don't see more men raised by them is because we see them after their main forces have already been anihilated by the Lannisters at the start of the war, and because they are divided and always struggle to raise their full, united strength under the Tullys.

They are at the very least at 40k, and quite possibly higher than that. The fact that the largest host we see from them is around 13k in strength is in no way reflective of their full strength.

There is no way that they have 40k. 

 

"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.

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

 

[Nihlus]

8 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

I did the counting and there are 130 larger castles in Westeros that can be seen on a map with notable houses living in them. There are probably many more little keeps and mini castles for landed knights like Clegane and his keep but they are probably tiny basicly towerhouses. 

Also there are many significant and larger castles that far exceed the normal around 20 man strong garrisons. Riverrun, Storm's End and Winterfell are well of with 200 men and the Eyrie is garrisoned by 300 men. Places like Harrenhal, Casterly Rock, Highgarden,Dragonstone and Sunspear would also have garrisons in the hundreds. So all those significant places combined 15 castles would have around 3500 troops garrisoning them. And we also have towns in Westeros with lets say around 20 dudes. There are 26 significant towns in Westeros. And then there are also the 5 large cities in Westeros who would have 4 digit garrisons of city watchmen.

So 115 castles x 20 soldiers = 2300

15 notable places like regional capitals, Dragonstone, Harrenhal x 230 = 3500

26 towns x 20 = 520 

5 large cities x 1600 = 8000

So there are around 2300+3500+520+8000=14,320 troops garrisoning Westeros.

The town garrisons are counted as part of the urban watch/militia forces; the towns we see on-screen are certainly not every single town in Westeros, there should be thousands of unnamed ones on a continent this big. As for the castles, why are you assuming there's only 115? There'd be literally no point to the fortification network if it was that sparse. It's several thousand, at least.

Quote

There are 3 significant fleets in Westeros the Iron Fleet, the Royal fleet and the Redwyne fleet. The Redwyne fleet and Royal fleet are 200 war galleys each and the Iron Fleet has 100 war galleys. Then there are many houses with a handful of ships each but they need them to protect their seas so you couldnt just take them and use them in war. And the other great houses dont have any significant fleets either except for perhaps the Arryns and the Lannisters. 

Royal Fleet 200 + Redwyne Fleet 200 + Iron Fleet 100 + all ships the other houses can spare 100 = 600 war galleys and the Iron Born also have 500 Longships. 

There are around 100 oarsmen and 50 marines on every ship. There are larger capital ships that come up to 400 oars.

600 x 50 = 30,000 Marines 600 x 100 = 60,000 rowers Longships = 500 x 30 = 15,000 Marines

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.

[John Doe]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Riverlands are rich and populous, by George's own, direct quote. Likely more populous than the West, even. At the very least they have a similar population to the West. The fact that we don't see more men raised by them is because we see them after their main forces have already been anihilated by the Lannisters at the start of the war, and because they are divided and always struggle to raise their full, united strength under the Tullys.

They are at the very least at 40k, and quite possibly higher than that. The fact that the largest host we see from them is around 13k in strength is in no way reflective of their full strength.

As it stands we have two specific quotes, one which puts Dornish strength at around 30k, and the second putting the strength of a lord who ruled about a third of Dorne at 10k. By contrast, there is not a single quote that limits Dorne's potential to 25k or less.

That depends on a lot of assumptions on your part. Maybe the Lannister host did kill 20k Riverlanders. Maybe the Riverlands are more populous than the west. It lacks numbers we actually see or hear about, though. 

47 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is no way that they have 40k. 

 

"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.

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

 

Exactly.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

2 hours ago, Nihlus said:

The town garrisons are counted as part of the urban watch/militia forces; the towns we see on-screen are certainly not every single town in Westeros, there should be thousands of unnamed ones on a continent this big. As for the castles, why are you assuming there's only 115? There'd be literally no point to the fortification network if it was that sparse. It's several thousand, at least.

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.

I said im talking of larger castles in westeros that are noted on a map. There are 130 of those castles and 26 towns and 5 large cities.

Why is Vicky G right he was talking of a volantene ship not a westerosi.

[Nihlus]

10 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

I said im talking of larger castles in westeros that are noted on a map. There are 130 of those castles and 26 towns and 5 large cities.

Why is Vicky G right he was talking of a volantene ship not a westerosi.

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.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is no way that they have 40k. 

 

"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.

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

 

 

10 hours ago, John Doe said:

That depends on a lot of assumptions on your part. Maybe the Lannister host did kill 20k Riverlanders. Maybe the Riverlands are more populous than the west. It lacks numbers we actually see or hear about, though. 

Exactly.

Here are Martin's own words on the Riverlands:

"The Reach is the second largest domain (after the north), and the most populous and fertile as well. The westerlands are the richest, with all the gold and silver in those hills. Those two regions also have the greatest strength at sea, after the Iron Islands. Dragonstone is last, agreed. The riverlands are rich and fertile and populous, but suffer from divided leadership and a lack of natural boundaries. The stormlands have lots of trees and rocks and rain."

In particular, look how he juxtaposes the Riverlands and the Stormlands directly after one another. It is clear that the Riverlands have a higher population density than the Stormlands.

Then we have the Worldbook, which says this about the Riverlands:

"Stretching from the Neck to the banks of the Blackwater, and east to the borders of the Vale, the riverlands are the beating heart of Westeros. No other land in the Seven Kingdoms has seen so many battles, nor so many petty kings and royal houses rising and falling. The causes of this are clear. Rich and fertile, the riverlands border on every other realm in the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne, yet have few natural boundaries to deter invasion."

And then the Worldbook makes the Stormland comparison to the Riverlands even more specific:

"Yet even at their greatest extent, the realms of the Durrandons and their successors have always been thinly peopled when compared to the Reach, the riverlands, and the west, and thus the might of the lords of Storm's End was diminished"

So, it seem uncontestable from all of the above that the Riverlands have a significantly higher population than the Stormlands. At the same time we know that the Stormlands have a greater population than Dorne. And we have a number of quotes which strongly suggest a strength of at least 30k for Dorne. Meaning the Stormlands can't be lower than that, and in fact has to be some distance above 30k.

And frankly, the way the Riverlands are described their population seems to be well above that of the Stormlands, not just a small margin above them. They are described as rich and fertile multiple times, while the Stormlands are described as thinly peopled by comparison. So even if the Stormlands are only in the low thirty thousands in terms of strength, then a strength of only 35k for the Riverlands would not seem to justify a description for the Stormlands of being thinly peopled compared to the Riverlands.

From the above it seems quite logical that a strength of AT LEAST 40k is appropriate for the Riverlands.

Once again, the strength put forth by Edmure after his original armies had been dispersed and turned into broken men, and after his lands were being ravaged by marauding Lannister foragers was but a fraction of his total strength. And even then, he is able to raise 11000 men at Riverrun. And that's excluding the 4000 Freys who are with Robb. So 15,000 men at that point.

[Bernie Mac]

29 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

snip

 

This is pretty flawed as we are never given a number of Stormland soldiers so to base the Riverland's strength on what the Stormlands can only makes sense if we actually know their number. 

And of course the Stormlands and Riverlands are different. We are told that the Stormlords are amongst the most martial in Westeros. The Riverlands greater density comes with a greater number of towns, which means more merchants and artisans; not necessarily soldiers. 

29 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

From the above it seems quite logical that a strength of AT LEAST 40k is appropriate for the Riverlands.

Not from what we have read from the books. Renly gives a figure of 20k and Cat knows that this is less due to casualties. That is two sources on what the Riverlands should have, and Cat in this matter should be one of the best sources in the book. 

29 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Once again, the strength put forth by Edmure after his original armies had been dispersed and turned into broken men, and after his lands were being ravaged by marauding Lannister foragers was but a fraction of his total strength. And even then, he is able to raise 11000 men at Riverrun. And that's excluding the 4000 Freys who are with Robb. So 15,000 men at that point.

I'm not sure how Edmure having 15k at the point before the battle of the Green Fords means he had at least 40k at the start of the war. 

How many men do you think died  in the battle of the Golden Tooth?

How many do you think died in the battle under the Riverlands?

There is no way that 25k died in these two battles. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

51 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

This is pretty flawed as we are never given a number of Stormland soldiers so to base the Riverland's strength on what the Stormlands can only makes sense if we actually know their number. 

And of course the Stormlands and Riverlands are different. We are told that the Stormlords are amongst the most martial in Westeros. The Riverlands greater density comes with a greater number of towns, which means more merchants and artisans; not necessarily soldiers. 

Not from what we have read from the books. Renly gives a figure of 20k and Cat knows that this is less due to casualties. That is two sources on what the Riverlands should have, and Cat in this matter should be one of the best sources in the book. 

I'm not sure how Edmure having 15k at the point before the battle of the Green Fords means he had at least 40k at the start of the war. 

How many men do you think died  in the battle of the Golden Tooth?

How many do you think died in the battle under the Riverlands?

There is no way that 25k died in these two battles. 

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

What is undeniable, is that Dorne has the lowest population. So their strength serves as a minimum benchmark for the Stormlands, which has to be higher than them. The Stormlands in turn, are described a thinly peopled compared to the fertile, rich and populous Riverlands. Note that when Martin says the Stormlands has a lot of "trees and rocks and rain", he says that in response to a question about how their military strength stacks up to the other regions. In two consecutive sentences, when talking specifically about military strength he juxtaposes a rich, populous and fertile Riverlands with a Stormland kingdom that has lots of rocks and trees and rain. His implication is pretty clear if one reads that neutrally.

Similarly, when the World Book says the Stormlands are thinly peopled compared to the Riverlands, it continues the sentence to connect that to a limitation of might of the Storm Kings. Again, linking it to a military context. So it is clear that the Stormlands is able to raise a smaller army than the Riverlands. But larger than Dorne.

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.

So let's go low for Dorne. Let's put them at only 25k. And to stay consistent with the info provided, lets put the Stormlands at 30k then. So you have the Stormlands at 30k, while being described as thinly peopled compared to the rich, fertile and populous Riverlands. Would a strength of only 35k justify the Riverlands being described as rich and populous compared to the "thinly peopled" Stormlands and their 30k strength? To me at least, the clear distinction in these descriptions requires a difference of greater than a mere 15%, which is the percentage that 5000 men represent in this example.

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.

Anyway, the point is that while the Riverlands has the population and wealth to justfiy a force of 40-50k soldiers perhaps, their divided and weak leadership means that in practice they struggle to raise even half that in any given war. That is the point that I believe Martin and the World Book are trying to make.

And their lack of natural boundaries, added to these divisions are what prevents them from becoming a powerhouse of Westeros, given that they possibly have the second highest population of all, after the Reach.