Population estimates of the 7K and Essos

[illrede]

I'd expect a place like Barrowtown to be in the 5-10,000 range, and that would be a fair-sized city, in medieval times.

Apart from Kings Landing, Old Town, Lannisport, Gulltown, and White Harbour, I doubt if anywhere in Westeros would exceed 25,000 inhabitants.

The figures for pre-Black Death England are London at 80,000 maybe, and York, Norwich, and Bristol firmly in the 10,000-20,000 range.

[BitsOfBrains]

It's quite a low number. Europe, at about half the landmass, featured 73 million inhabitants in 1300, got dented down to 45 millions thanks to the Black Death and was back to 78 millions in 1550.

Those are estimates too though.

Way back in one of my conservation biology courses there was an equation for estimating the number of breeding age females in any given group. Seeing as how "breeding age females" and "fighting age males" are basically the same thing I don't see why the same equation couldn't be used since we already know the fighting strength (give or take) of the regions.

Too bad I don't remember it.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Those are estimates too though.

Way back in one of my conservation biology courses there was an equation for estimating the number of breeding age females in any given group. Seeing as how "breeding age females" and "fighting age males" are basically the same thing I don't see why the same equation couldn't be used since we already know the fighting strength (give or take) of the regions.

Too bad I don't remember it.

Because army sizes and "fighting age males" are not the same thing. Only a tiny fraction of "fighting age males" are actually able to be mobilized for war.

[Trickrs]

Didn't Frederick Barbarossa raised 100,000 men for the Third Crusade?

Propaganda because his army was the largest, modern estimatives says around ~15,000-20,000 (the second largest was the Lionheart's with 8,000)

[BitsOfBrains]

Because army sizes and "fighting age males" are not the same thing. Only a tiny fraction of "fighting age males" are actually able to be mobilized for war.

Eh not true.

The north didn't even have any dudes to harvest the food.

Its totally possible for entire generations to be wiped out and entire countries to be denuded of young men for war especially on a marching campaign where they need cobblers and coopers and wainwrights and all that.

[Ingelheim]

Propaganda because his army was the largest, modern estimatives says around ~15,000-20,000 (the second largest was the Lionheart's with 8,000)

J. Phillips, in his The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, said this was veridic. As far as I remember, in my history lessons it was also said that Barbarossa "only" had an army of 80,000.

[illrede]

Proposed mechanism:

Take the Kings Landing population and divide by .05, using the "95% of Medieval population is rural" rule of thumb. Settle for the Kings Landing population because it is like to be at the least an order of magnitude removed from any other urban instance, barring Old Town, from historical example I would doubt if it were off by more than 50%. Apply an Old Town offset, set to its size relative Kings Landing.

If Kings Landing is 500K, it would peak at 40 million.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Eh not true.

The north didn't even have any dudes to harvest the food.

Its totally possible for entire generations to be wiped out and entire countries to be denuded of young men for war especially on a marching campaign where they need cobblers and coopers and wainwrights and all that.

So if fighting age males are say one third of all males between 0-60 years of age, that would be one sixth of the entire population, roughly.

In that case, how many 300k strong armies do you know of in Medieval England? Or for that matter, 2 million man armies in medieval France?

The answer is you don't. 10k men was a big army. 20k men very, very rare indeed. This despite England having 2 million people, and France around 12 million.

So no, fighting age males are nowhere near the same thing as maximum army sizes.

[BitsOfBrains]

So if fighting age males are say one third of all males between 0-60 years of age, that would be one sixth of the entire population, roughly.

In that case, how many 300k stron armies do you know of in Medieval England? Or for that matter, 2 million man armies in medieval France?

The answer is you don't. 10k men was a big army. 20k men very, very rare indeed.

So no, fighting age males are nowhere neqr the same thing as maximum army sizes.

The Romans raised 300k+ armies often enough. Don't pretend like it couldn't or didn't happen. In fact the Roman auxiliaries often demanded a large percentage of the fighting age men from their conquered areas. Part of the reason the medieval armies didn't get so big is because they didn't have the kind of communication network the Romans did. The host would be raised and the army marched before everyone in the hinterlands knew they were summoned. I would argue the raven net is better than anything the Romans had. Also the kings road and its off shoots would make massing easy enough.

Seriously, if only a "small fraction" of fighting age men showed up for the war of the five kings, how come the umbers strictly have old men and green boys? Like ONLY old men and green boys plus some maimed sargents. If it was like half "leavins" and half fighting age males in their prime your arguement could hold water, but it was STRICTLY leavins.

We know Renly raised a host of 100k guys and that was minus the Redwynes which were a powerful house.

[Arakan]

To get some perspective:

pre-Black Death RL world population: ~450 million

after-Black Death: ~350-375

Yuan China 1330: ~80-90 million (incl Korea)

Ming China 1400: ~65-70 million (excl Korea)

Europe 1346: ~75 million (incl former Kievan Rus)

--> France 15-20, HRE 15-20 (incl. Northern Italy, Bohemia)

So no matter how we put it, whether at 40-50 million (conservative est) or as high as 70 million, the Seven Kingdoms were a hell of a mighty realm when united ;).

[Ingelheim]

The Romans raised 300k+ armies often enough. Don't pretend like it couldn't or didn't happen. In fact the Roman auxiliaries often demanded a large percentage of the fighting age men from their conquered areas. Part of the reason the medieval armies didn't get so big is because they didn't have the kind of communication network the Romans did. The host would be raised and the army marched before everyone in the hinterlands knew they were summoned. I would argue the raven net is better than anything the Romans had. Also the kings road and its off shoots would make massing easy enough.

Seriously, if only a "small fraction" of fighting age men showed up for the war of the five kings, how come the umbers strictly have old men and green boys? Like ONLY old men and green boys plus some maimed sargents. If it was like half "leavins" and half fighting age males in their prime your arguement could hold water, but it was STRICTLY leavins.

We know Renly raised a host of 100k guys and that was minus the Redwynes which were a powerful house.

And the Hightowers, who could easily raise 15-20K men if they wanted.

[Arakan]

The Romans raised 300k+ armies often enough. Don't pretend like it couldn't or didn't happen. In fact the Roman auxiliaries often demanded a large percentage of the fighting age men from their conquered areas. Part of the reason the medieval armies didn't get so big is because they didn't have the kind of communication network the Romans did. The host would be raised and the army marched before everyone in the hinterlands knew they were summoned. I would argue the raven net is better than anything the Romans had. Also the kings road and its off shoots would make massing easy enough.

Seriously, if only a "small fraction" of fighting age men showed up for the war of the five kings, how come the umbers strictly have old men and green boys? Like ONLY old men and green boys plus some maimed sargents. If it was like half "leavins" and half fighting age males in their prime your arguement could hold water, but it was STRICTLY leavins.

We know Renly raised a host of 100k guys and that was minus the Redwynes which were a powerful house.

It makes no sense to compare an Empire like Rome (or for that matter China), with an incredibly sophisticated socio-economic structure, administration and infrastructure, with an accessible population pool at ~60-100 million, with a feudal society, where you faced dozens of sovereign teritories.

ETA: the Roman Army you speak of, was spread throughout the Empire. The largest Roman field armies didnt exceed ~80,000 men, incl Auxiliares.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The Romans raised 300k+ armies often enough. Don't pretend like it couldn't or didn't happen. In fact the Roman auxiliaries often demanded a large percentage of the fighting age men from their conquered areas. Part of the reason the medieval armies didn't get so big is because they didn't have the kind of communication network the Romans did. The host would be raised and the army marched before everyone in the hinterlands knew they were summoned. I would argue the raven net is better than anything the Romans had. Also the kings road and its off shoots would make massing easy enough.

Seriously, if only a "small fraction" of fighting age men showed up for the war of the five kings, how come the umbers strictly have old men and green boys? Like ONLY old men and green boys plus some maimed sargents. If it was like half "leavins" and half fighting age males in their prime your arguement could hold water, but it was STRICTLY leavins.

We know Renly raised a host of 100k guys and that was minus the Redwynes which were a powerful house.

Where do I start? (Bright Blue Eyes, I wouldn't mind if you help me bring some sanity to this debate.)

Ok. Let's stick to the basics.

Westeros is a medieval level society. It is in no way comparable to ancient Rome in terms of infrastructure, organization, agricultural capacity, logistical capability, you name it.

There is a reason why Rome could raise armies in the hundreds of thousands, while an army of 20,000 men was massive for medieval England. Westeros falls in the latter category, Valyria in the former.

Besides, Westeros COULD raise 300,000 armed men (though probably not gathered together in one place), just like Rome could. But that would be a combined Westeros, because it has 40 million people. Meaning the 300,000 men still represents less than 1% of the total population.

So no, the 20k men Robb took with him in no way represents the bulk of the "fighting age men" of the North. Not even close.

[Arakan]

Where do I start? (Bright Blue Eyes, I wouldn't mind if you help me bring some sanity to this debate.)

Ok. Let's stick to the basics.

Westeros is a medieval level society. It is in no way comparable to ancient Rome in terms of infrastructure, organization, agricultural capacity, logistical capability, you name it.

There is a reason why Rome could raise armies in the hundreds of thousands, while an army of 20,000 men was massive for medieval England. Westeros falls in the latter category, Valyria in the former.

Besides, Westeros COULD raise 300,000 armed men (though probably not gathered together in one place), just like Rome could. But that would be a combined Westeros, because it has 40 million people. Meaning the 300,000 men still represents less than 1% of the total population.

So no, the 20k men Robb took with him in no way represents the bulk of the "fighting age men" of the North. Not even close.

Very nice.

Just wanna add that when it comes to ancient Army sizes, we have to also consider myth/propaganda and facts. For the Romans we can do this quite reasonable, for the Chinese not so much (in case someone brings them up).

[Ingelheim]

Where do I start? (Bright Blue Eyes, I wouldn't mind if you help me bring some sanity to this debate.)

Ok. Let's stick to the basics.

Westeros is a medieval level society. It is in no way comparable to ancient Rome in terms of infrastructure, organization, agricultural capacity, logistical capability, you name it.

There is a reason why Rome could raise armies in the hundreds of thousands, while an army of 20,000 men was massive for medieval England. Westeros falls in the latter category, Valyria in the former.

Besides, Westeros COULD raise 300,000 armed men (though probably not gathered together in one place), just like Rome could. But that would be a combined Westeros, because it has 40 million people. Meaning the 300,000 men still represents less than 1% of the total population.

So no, the 20k men Robb took with him in no way represents the bulk of the "fighting age men" of the North. Not even close.

Actually, it could raise nearly 400,000 men.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Actually, it could raise nearly 400,000 men.

I just used the 300k reference number the previous poster had stated for Rome. Meaning Westeros can easily match that. Agreed that Westeros can raise quite a bit more than 300k. 400k being closer to their potential.

[Ingelheim]

I just used the 300k reference number the previous poster had stated for Rome. Meaning Westeros can easily match that. Agreed that Westeros can raise quite a bit more than 300k. 400k being closer to their potential.

I know I know, I just said that to support your statement :)

[SeanF]

The whole Roman Army under Augustus was c300,000. But that's from a population of 50m or so. And, that covered the whole Empire.

It would be rare for any single Roman commander to have more than two legions, and an equivalent number of auxiliaries (20,000 men) under his command. Properly led, 20,000 Roman soldiers could beat any opponent in the ancient world.

[TheNinjaDC]

Don't want to use specific numbers(neither does GRRM), but my general ranking for region populations for me goes:

Reach>North≥Westerlands>Riverlands≥Vale>Stormlands>Dorne>Crownlands>Iron Islands

Reach is the undisputed king of population. The North while having a low population density still covers almost as much land as the seven kingdoms combined with fertile land up to the gift(mobilization is hard though). Westerlands are mostly fertile, and rich with the 3rd largest city in Westeros which gives them an edge on medium population regions. Riverlands while not having any city is extremely fertille with allot of small towns. The Vale while fertile is mostly mountains, with the true "vale" is only 1/3 of the Vale. The Stormlands lacks a city, but has respectable population density for a kingdom. Dorne is a desert but still a Kingdom, while the Crownlands have the largest city in Westeros. The Iron Islands while having a large population density, are still ****ing small.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Don't want to use specific numbers(neither does GRRM), but my general ranking for region populations for me goes: Reach>North≥Westerlands>Riverlands≥Vale>Stormlands>Dorne>Crownlands>Iron Islands Reach is the undisputed king of population. The North while having a low population density still covers almost as much land as the seven kingdoms combined with fertile land up to the gift(mobilization is hard though). Westerlands are mostly fertile, and rich with the 3rd largest city in Westeros which gives them an edge on medium population regions. Riverlands while not having any city is extremely fertille with allot of small towns. The Vale while fertile is mostly mountains, with the true "vale" is only 1/3 of the Vale. The Stormlands lacks a city, but has respectable population density for a kingdom. Dorne is a desert but still a Kingdom, while the Crownlands have the largest city in Westeros. The Iron Islands while having a large population density, are still ****ing small.

I pretty much agree with all of that. Well summarized.