Why does house Stark have the smallest army in the north?

[Mr Fixit]

Yeah, hate to break this to some of you but population density and the size of ones land means FUCK ALL when it comes to the amount of troops an area can raise. What matters is money, and food. Money to arm, armor, and train the men and food to feed them. Do you honestly think if robb just rounded up as many random guys as he could he would have had nearly the same level of success that he had? No, he would have gotten his ass kicked as his untrained levies ran the second the first round of arrows fell. You can have a very low population density and still have a huge army, you would just use your cash to hire sellswords or keep more men on retainer.

Exactly. We often make a mistake on these boards when debating the strength of various houses, and look primarily at the supposed population numbers to then guess the army numbers. However, in late middle ages, which roughly correspond to present-day Westeros, armies were mostly composed of knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries... i.e. guys who were expected to be payed or compensated in some way for their trouble. Your average poorly trained and unpaid peasant levies weren't used in great numbers, especially on long-term campaigns. They were only used in greater numbers in prolonged wars, when things got more desparate, and almost always closer to their homes and for a very limited amount of time, usually a couple of months at most. The bulk of the fighting was carried out by relatively well-equipped and well-trained guys who were PAYED.

As E-Ro said, that's why Tywin can summon such large armies when Westerlands are rather smallish and predominantly mountainous: they are enormously rich and can field a disproportionately large army. The North, on the other hand, probably has a population at least on par with the West, yet their elite, well-trained forces are far smaller because various Northern lords can't afford to deploy larger armies.

Of course, exactly how much money any given lord has available for war can vary drastically due to changing circumstances. For example, a bountiful harvest means that the lord will earn a nice sum from taxes this season. A severe and prolonged drought can cripple a medieval agriculture-based economy. The efficiency of the taxation system is also an important matter. That's one of the reasons why medieval England could consistently field pretty large armies - English tax-collecting system was excellent and far-reaching. That's also something that would go in Tywin's favour. He was an outstanding administrator and I believe that helped keep his coffers full. That could also be one of the reasons why Tully armies seemed somewhat weak when by all acounts Riverlands are a populous region. After the Robert's Rebellion split the region down the middle, it's possible that the Tullys never managed to truly reassert its dominant position over all the Riverlords. The amount of taxes collected was possibly low due to inept administration and resistance of various local lords. Hence, a weaker and disjointed army. The Riverlands during a long and bountiful summer, with a competent and strong liege lord that commands unwavering loyalty from all his bannermen could very well militarily be the strongest kingdom after Reach and Westerlands!

[Veltigar]

Yeah, hate to break this to some of you but population density and the size of ones land means FUCK ALL when it comes to the amount of troops an area can raise. What matters is money, and food. Money to arm, armor, and train the men and food to feed them. Do you honestly think if robb just rounded up as many random guys as he could he would have had nearly the same level of success that he had? No, he would have gotten his ass kicked as his untrained levies ran the second the first round of arrows fell. You can have a very low population density and still have a huge army, you would just use your cash to hire sellswords or keep more men on retainer.

For this reason, the house in the north that should have the most men is the manderlys. They have the most money. Of course, this changes over time, and fluctuates. When the Starks first took the north they may have been better off, or they used skinchanging magic to help them or a combination of both.

So the fact that robb didnt bring as many men as his bannermen is not a big deal, nor is it a mistake.

I think I speak for us all when I say that I find it hard to believe (close to BS actually) that the Starks are poorer than their bannermen (with the exception of the Manderleys).

[Sages]

It seems that the Starks in general have been pretty weak overall. They have had no power at sea for a long while. Their vassals the Manderlys seem to be wealthier than them. The overall troop numbers coming out of the North seems kinda low. It's possible the key to the Starks rule has been that they have a huge advantage over everyone else during the winter. Using their hot springs and their green houses could be a huge economical advantage. Perhaps during the winter as everyone struggles the Starks grow stronger. So by the time spring comes around they are at the height of their power while everybody else is weak and begins to recover from enduring the harsh winter.

This is really the only explanation I can see right now. Otherwise the Lannisters and Tyrells seem to be far more powerful economically and militarily. Perhaps some additional information will be presented in the next book, but there isn't a lot to go on right now. I haven't paid to much attention to troop numbers as I've been reading. But with alll of the battles and rebellions the starks have fought, you would think at least the starks would have some kind of elite military fighting force. Especially after over 6000 years of rule.

[Mithras]

Winter is coming is the most terrifying motto. The other houses are fools to provoke Starks.

[E-Ro]

I think I speak for us all when I say that I find it hard to believe (close to BS actually) that the Starks are poorer than their bannermen (with the exception of the Manderleys).

Why though? Its very possible they are poorer then a few of the houses under them. Its not as if they are going to get displaced just because they fall behind one generation. As I said, these things change, finances one year might be high and another year not so high. Furthermore, its possible robb left winterfell men behind for some reason. To help hold the north ad keep border disputes in line.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Why though? Its very possible they are poorer then a few of the houses under them. Its not as if they are going to get displaced just because they fall behind one generation. As I said, these things change, finances one year might be high and another year not so high. Furthermore, its possible robb left winterfell men behind for some reason. To help hold the north ad keep border disputes in line.

Actually... :cool4:

[E-Ro]

Actually... :cool4:

LOL, oops. Well, I mean its not like they are going to get displaced just because their finances are bad. The amount of men they can afford directly being lower then a few of their bannermen is not going to cause any harm.

But yeah, the boltons fucked them over big time. Though that isnt because robb only had 4 thousand men under his control as opposed to say, 6. Another 2,000 men would not have saved robb.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The North can raise a smaller percentage of its total population to war than most of the southron kingdoms can. Hence, if they can raise a comparative number to the Vale or the Riverlands, they actually have a far higher population.

As for the Starks, they are obviously one of the richest individual Houses in the North, maybe along with the Dustins who have Barrowton and the Manderlys who are way out in front with White Harbor.

But once you factor in the taxes the Starks collect from their vassals, they most certainly have more money than any Northern House other than the Manderlys perhaps, to raise troops with. Certainly far more money than the Boltons, who have raised the largest number of troops as an individual house thus far.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

LOL, oops. Well, I mean its not like they are going to get displaced just because their finances are bad. The amount of men they can afford directly being lower then a few of their bannermen is not going to cause any harm.

But yeah, the boltons fucked them over big time. Though that isnt because robb only had 4 thousand men under his control as opposed to say, 6. Another 2,000 men would not have saved robb.

Yeah, I get what you mean. Though one more man on guard duty in Winterfell at the right part of the walls when Theon was swimming the moat with his Ironmen could have made all the difference.

[E-Ro]

The North can raise a smaller percentage of its total population to war than most of the southron kingdoms can. Hence, if they can raise a comparative number to the Vale or the Riverlands, they actually have a far higher population.

As for the Starks, they are obviously one of the richest individual Houses in the North, maybe along with the Dustins who have Barrowton and the Manderlys who are way out in front with White Harbor.

But once you factor in the taxes the Starks collect from their vassals, they most certainly have more money than any Northern House other than the Manderlys perhaps, to raise troops with. Certainly far more money than the Boltons, who have raised the largest number of troops as an individual house thus far.

Once again, its not about percentage of population. If the north was swimming in silver and all the lords had silver mines like the manderlys then robb would most likely have added at least another 10k to his army, from 20 to 30 thousand. Perhaps even doubled the size of it to 40 thousand. Them raising a comparative number of men to the vale and riverlands means those areas are bringing in roughly the same amount of income. Not that the populations are larger or the same. The idea that the north is more populated then the riverlands is honestly so wrong I cant even comprehend why thats being said.

As for taxes, taxes can come in the form of foodstuffs. Not money. Indeed, in a place like the north were little value is placed on money and flash taxes are likely to be usable things. And, indeed, I dont see it as being so obvious that the starks are wealthier then their bannermen. When theon takes winterfell all he gets is some silver and jewels that he gives to ramsay to gather the dreadfort men.

Once again though, I should add we dont actually know how many men robb bought and how many he left behind, so this is all assumption.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The 1% rule is a best attempt to equate troop numbers to population size, meaning that the average kingdom can expect to have sufficient wealth to mobilize and logistically support 1% of its population on a military campaign at any given time.

Obviously, wealthier kingdoms can increase this percentage to maybe two or three times that ratio, while poorer kingdoms may only be able to raise half the 1% number.

Still, as an average, across the whole of Westeros, 1% is generally deemed to be a good approximation. This might well be in broken down along the lines of the Reach being able to raise say 1.5%, the Westerlands 2%, and normal kingdoms like the Vale or the Riverlands 1%.

For the North, the figure may be a very low 0.5-0.75%, given the climate and low population density.

[Disturber of Peace]

But, but...

The Starks must be rich because they are old and good and we like them, no?

[Free Northman Reborn]

The idea that the north is more populated then the riverlands is honestly so wrong I cant even comprehend why thats being said.

Well start comprehending then, compadre.

We don't know which of the North or the Riverlands has the higher population, but we know which has the higher population DENSITY.

So on the one hand you have a relatively high population density, and on the other you have a lower density, but about 4 times the territory.

So then the question is a simple one. How much higher is the Riverlands' population density than the North's? If it is 5 times, then the Riverlands has more people. If it is 3 times, then the North has more people.

Personally, I think the population of the two territories is roughly equal, which results in a far more dispersed population in the much vaster North.

[E-Ro]

The 1% rule is a best attempt to equate troop numbers to population size, meaning that the average kingdom can expect to have sufficient wealth to mobilize and logistically support 1% of its population on a military campaign at any given time.

Obviously, wealthier kingdoms can increase this percentage to maybe two or three times that ratio, while poorer kingdoms may only be able to raise half the 1% number.

Still, as an average, across the whole of Westeros, 1% is generally deemed to be a good approximation. This might well be in broken down along the lines of the Reach being able to raise say 1.5%, the Westerlands 2%, and normal kingdoms like the Vale or the Riverlands 1%.

For the North, the figure may be a very low 0.5-0.75%, given the climate and low population density.

I see what you mean, I just dislike the percentages. For exactly the reason you just stated in your post. You know that the percentage changes from area to area, but most people dont. So saying armies are 1% of the population is likely to be taken at face value by people that havent put as much thought into this as you have, leading to confusion. I think we can both agree that if robb gathered 1% of the norths population his army would have been HUGE.

BTW, you need your old account back. I just realized it was you.

[E-Ro]

Well start comprehending then, compadre.

We don't know which of the North or the Riverlands has the higher population, but we know which has the higher population DENSITY.

So on the one hand you have a relatively high population density, and on the other you have a lower density, but about 4 times the territory.

So then the question is a simple one. How much higher is the Riverlands' population density than the North's? If it is 5 times, then the Riverlands has more people. If it is 3 times, then the North has more people.

Personally, I think the population of the two territories is roughly equal, which results in a far more dispersed population in the much vaster North.

Compadre? lmao.

Four times the territory is all well and good, but when that territory is mostly empty waste full of snow and cold things change. Your comparing The vast barren north full of mountains and areas were one can travel without seeing a single person to the riverlands which are known to be incredibly fertile, full of rivers, and warm. Robert goes past the neck and asks ned were all his people are, that should settle this.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I see what you mean, I just dislike the percentages. For exactly the reason you just stated in your post. You know that the percentage changes from area to area, but most people dont. So saying armies are 1% of the population is likely to be taken at face value by people that havent put as much thought into this as you have, leading to confusion. I think we can both agree that if robb gathered 1% of the norths population his army would have been HUGE.

BTW, you need your old account back. I just realized it was you.

Yes, I think 1% of the North's population is 60,000 people. Ran thinks 1% of the North's population is 40,000 people. If I'm right, Robb raised only 0.33% of the North's population at short notice. If Ran is right, he raised 0.5% at short notice.

Either way, it is some way short of the 1% rule of thumb.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Compadre? lmao.

Four times the territory is all well and good, but when that territory is mostly empty waste full of snow and cold things change. Your comparing The vast barren north full of mountains and areas were one can travel without seeing a single person to the riverlands which are known to be incredibly fertile, full of rivers, and warm. Robert goes past the neck and asks ned were all his people are, that should settle this.

If the North has 6 million people as I suspect, that means roughly 5 people per square mile. Now imagine there are thousands of tiny villages, holdfasts and crofters huts spread over the 1.2 million square miles of the North.

For every holdfast with 50 people around it, there are 10 square miles without a single person. For every village with 200 people in it, there are 40 square miles without a single person.

Multiply that by thousands, and that means hundreds of thousands of square miles without a single person. Just like Robert experienced.

EDIT

And let's ditch the idea that the North is a barren wasteland once and for all. It consists of fertile farmland right up in the Gift, next to that big Wall of Ice in the Far North. If the Gift is fertile farmland, what do you imagine the rest of the North being like, stretching a 1000 miles or more further South?

[Light a wight tonight]

So i'm not sure whether this is a writing flaw on part of george martin or if this is deliberate to stage the makings of a new Stannis/rickon host.

Or maybe it's because GRRM isn't Bowen Marsh Reborn, not interested in every nitpicky detail where numbers are concerned. He's admitted that the height of the Wall is ridiculous and that the monetary system makes little sense.

If you wanted you could try to figure out how the cage that they use to lift things to the top of the wall would work in real life. It doesn't sound like a modern elevator with counterweights and cables, just one chain lifting that 700 feet to the top. How much does 700 feet of chain weigh? More than a couple of guys manning a winch could lift, that's for damn sure. But we ignore that for the sake of the narrative.

Some people see a forest and some people want to count the trees.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Or maybe it's because GRRM isn't Bowen Marsh Reborn, not interested in every nitpicky detail where numbers are concerned. He's admitted that the height of the Wall is ridiculous and that the monetary system makes little sense.

If you wanted you could try to figure out how the cage that they use to lift things to the top of the wall would work in real life. It doesn't sound like a modern elevator with counterweights and cables, just one chain lifting that 700 feet to the top. How much does 700 feet of chain weigh? More than a couple of guys manning a winch could lift, that's for damn sure. But we ignore that for the sake of the narrative.

Some people see a forest and some people want to count the trees.

The Wolfswood is a Southern Boreal Forest (as opposed to the Haunted Forest which is a Northern Boreal Forest), located at around 50 degrees North latitude. At a typical 500 trees per acre that gives the Wolfswood around 320,000 trees per square mile.

Given that the Wolfswood covers an estimated 100,000 square miles in territory, that would give us around 32 billion trees in the Wolfswood.

Roughly speaking, of course.

[Ahura Mazda]

Yeah, hate to break this to some of you but population density and the size of ones land means FUCK ALL when it comes to the amount of troops an area can raise. What matters is money, and food. Money to arm, armor, and train the men and food to feed them. Do you honestly think if robb just rounded up as many random guys as he could he would have had nearly the same level of success that he had? No, he would have gotten his ass kicked as his untrained levies ran the second the first round of arrows fell. You can have a very low population density and still have a huge army, you would just use your cash to hire sellswords or keep more men on retainer.

My apologies, but this does not make sense at all to me.

Yes, certainly you are right noting that there are several other requirements and factors that influence the size of an army, yet imho wrong if you say that.

Nobody here has stated that Manderly can't have more men than Starks or other lords, your line of thought here applies well. Here people are discussing the inconsistency of Stark forces compared to Karstarks and Boltons, which - geographically speaking - extend their domain on lands that we haven't been given any reason by GRRM to think to be more productive or rich - both in terms of food and raw goods - than Starks lands.

Anyhow, Starks have been the Kings for thousands of years, collecting taxes from their own sublords all the time. You can even picture out small folk pay tributes with food if you like, but there is no possibility that high lords that had to pay their own fees to the King used food at all.. that would be ridiculous. As a sustainment of this, let's just remember that in the books it has been mentioned a lord (maester?) refusing paying proper taxes to the new King and trying to send the money to KL. Money, not food. Whatever expenses the Starks might have had, it is rather unbelievable that they don't have even a small hall full of gold and iron down within their own crypts or castle. Food supplies aren't needed most of the times, since - contrary to the NW - they do store large amount of food in the summer/autumn and can resist a winter 4-5 years easily.

So where is that gold gone? Surely Starks might not be willingly to use it out of wimp, but rather only when it's needed.. their modest lifestyle surely confirms it.

Also, might it well be that Winterfell has hot water coming from underneath the land.. but it isn't like the entire north has to seek refugee by them or it dies out. Each city - like the NW - has its own underground system that is used during winter times, and it has been hinted that large settlements might be interlinked through dungeons roads spanning the entire continent.. or starting from WF up to the wall and beyond. So it ain't likely that all other lords come out much more weakened than Winterfell after each long Winter.