Is Westeros too big?

[Werthead]

We're told that there are only five big cities in Westeros: King's Landing (pop. 500,000), Oldtown (slightly less), Lannisport (300,000), Gulltown and White Harbour (both well under 100,000 and probably a bit under 50,000).

However, there are plenty of towns smaller than that with populations that would make them similar in size to what in medieval Britain or France would have been called cities. Duskendale, Rosby, Stoney Sept, Maidenpool, Barrowton, Lordsport, the Weeping Town and the Shadow Town all look like they could have populations of c. 5-20,000 quite comfortably. And some of the big castles have actually turned out to be accompanied by reasonably-sized settlements, like Ashford, Bitterbrige and Winterfell (at least during the winter). So the proper explanation is that the problem is with the Westerosi definition of "city" rather than the sizes and numbers of the settlements per se.

It's also worth noting that there could be many more of the big towns than we've seen so far. We didn't know about the Weeping Town until World of Ice and Fire and we didn't know about the Shadow Town until AFFC.

My new blog is going to get into population and military figures, but it's been focusing on the size of the planet (approx. 8% larger than Earth based on some projections) and the sizes of Westeros and Essos so far.

On the "size of South America" thing. For years we assumed that George meant the length of South American (4,500 miles) and not the area. At its widest, South America is more than three times the width of Westeros at its widest point, so terms of land area Westeros must be a lot smaller. However, the World of Ice and Fire map of Westeros extends massively to the north (and extends out to the east and west) and more than doubles the previous size of the Lands Beyond the Wall. This puts the total length of Westeros from the south coast of Dorne to the north pole of the planet at approximately 5,000 miles. George has also said that the lands beyond the Wall are, in size, about the same as Canada. Combined with the area of mapped Westeros, this actually gives us an area about equal to South America, indicating that he was right all along. But it's worth noting that half of the "size of South America" is made up of the lands Beyond the Wall. The Seven Kingdoms are much smaller ("merely" slightly smaller than Europe).

[CryptofCthulhu]

Yes the scale of Westeros is a bit absurd to say the least. I don't think he put much thought into it and was more interested in setting up the general landmarks so we know where everything is in relation to one another.

[Jon Fossoway]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Shadow Town

Interesting post. But I just wanted to ask, by shadow town are you referring to Sunspear?

[Werthead]

14 minutes ago, King Merrett I Frey said:

Interesting post. But I just wanted to ask, by shadow town are you referring to Sunspear?

The shadow town or shadow city around Sunspear, yes.

[John Doe]

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

You need to remember that this is a pre-industrial society that was based mostly on subsistence farming. There's not enough food surplus to support major population growth. 

 

I know that. It doesn't change the fact that  the population numbers are pretty low compared to Europe, or the fact that there are very few cities in comparison.

13 hours ago, ShadowLiberal said:

Since the realms had been together for over 200 or so years, they were relatively united, and lacked something to spark a war to create a rebellion.

Realistically, in medieval times, there were almost always rebellions in times of weak leadership, even in long living kingdoms like France. And in this case nobles weren't leaders of dynasties that had ruled independently for supposedly thousands of years.

[Jaak]

6 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

In a way, yes. However their political and economic systems appear very underdeveloped compared to late medieval or Renaissance Europe. There appears to be little in the way of bureaucracy or government institutions, and not much in the way of merchant/townsmen classes. Or at least they don't have much influence in society.

Mhm, and when talking about this single case one could buy that because the people there might just have been taken by surprise or something. But if there were actually dozens of cities of somewhere around Maidenpool size throughout the Riverlands it is really hard to believe that they all would have fallen that easily, and also that nobody would have been talking about it. Both Tywin's and Robb's strategy should rather have heavily revolved around taking or retaking those places. Likewise with Jaime in ADWD. He and his army only needs to negotiate terms of surrender with a couple of Tully-loyalist castles in order to establish Crown control over Riverlands, no mention of any important urban centers. 

Was the easy fall of Maidenpool town an exception, or the rule?

Lord Mootton was blamed for retreating with his garrison to his castle, and not attempting to defend the town walls.

But there was no one else to do it!

No city militia to defend walls and gates. No mayor or aldermen to lead them in defence if Lord would not.

Or look at King´s Landing.

Tyrion´s quoted 500 000 includes Tyrell army. So before Blackwater it would have been 400 000 - refugees already in the city.

And Joffrey managed to recruit just 6000 men as Gold Cloaks.

The 4000 new recruits came doubtless from the civil and refugee populations - but just 4000.

Urban militia would have helped enormously.

Quote

This is your city Stannis means to sack, and that’s your gate he’s bringing down.

An urban militia of 40 000 would still have been less than half the adult men present in the city. We see how an ordinary peasant levy was one who might train 10 days in 10 years. Well, King´s Landing militia might train 1 week each year, and perhaps awaiting the imminent siege 1 week per month, working at their normal jobs the rest of time - the fugitives were not farming Riverlands anyway.

40 000 men urban militia could easily have marched out of the gates and crushed Stannis in the field - even if they would not pursue him to several weeks´ march.

But the problem is, no militia in King´s Landing - the Gold Cloaks once hired were full time soldiers, and cost accordingly.

Nor, again, any mayor or aldermen. Antler Men were accused of treason as individuals and officeholders - not leading the city as an institution against Red Keep.

[TimJames]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

I know that. It doesn't change the fact that  the population numbers are pretty low compared to Europe, or the fact that there are very few cities in comparison.

I'm not claiming the population isn't low compared to Europe; I'm just explaining WHY it is so. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

We're told that there are only five big cities in Westeros: King's Landing (pop. 500,000), Oldtown (slightly less), Lannisport (300,000), Gulltown and White Harbour (both well under 100,000 and probably a bit under 50,000).

 

I have come to reconsider the sizes allocated to the largest of the cities.

The 500k figure for King's Landing increasingly seems to have been a temporarily overstated one, from which tens of thousands of refugees and the entire Tyrell army has to be subtracted to get to its permanent size.

A size of 300k therefore seems more appropriate for King's Landing. If that is the case, then 250k becomes a likely figure for Oldtown.

According to Martin, the populations of White Harbor and Gulltown number in the "tens of thousands". So I reckon anything between 30-60k is a likely figure for either of those two smaller cities.

And Martin stated that Lannisport is "much smaller than King's Landing and Oldtown, but much larger than White Harbor and Gulltown".

So a point halfway between the two categories seems appropriate for Lannisport. So if Oldtown is at 250k, and Gulltown at 50k, then an appropriate population for Lannisport would be around 150k.

 

 

[John Doe]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

We're told that there are only five big cities in Westeros: King's Landing (pop. 500,000), Oldtown (slightly less), Lannisport (300,000), Gulltown and White Harbour (both well under 100,000 and probably a bit under 50,000).

However, there are plenty of towns smaller than that with populations that would make them similar in size to what in medieval Britain or France would have been called cities. Duskendale, Rosby, Stoney Sept, Maidenpool, Barrowton, Lordsport, the Weeping Town and the Shadow Town all look like they could have populations of c. 5-20,000 quite comfortably. And some of the big castles have actually turned out to be accompanied by reasonably-sized settlements, like Ashford, Bitterbrige and Winterfell (at least during the winter). So the proper explanation is that the problem is with the Westerosi definition of "city" rather than the sizes and numbers of the settlements per se.

It's also worth noting that there could be many more of the big towns than we've seen so far. We didn't know about the Weeping Town until World of Ice and Fire and we didn't know about the Shadow Town until AFFC.

My new blog is going to get into population and military figures, but it's been focusing on the size of the planet (approx. 8% larger than Earth based on some projections) and the sizes of Westeros and Essos so far.

On the "size of South America" thing. For years we assumed that George meant the length of South American (4,500 miles) and not the area. At its widest, South America is more than three times the width of Westeros at its widest point, so terms of land area Westeros must be a lot smaller. However, the World of Ice and Fire map of Westeros extends massively to the north (and extends out to the east and west) and more than doubles the previous size of the Lands Beyond the Wall. This puts the total length of Westeros from the south coast of Dorne to the north pole of the planet at approximately 5,000 miles. George has also said that the lands beyond the Wall are, in size, about the same as Canada. Combined with the area of mapped Westeros, this actually gives us an area about equal to South America, indicating that he was right all along. But it's worth noting that half of the "size of South America" is made up of the lands Beyond the Wall. The Seven Kingdoms are much smaller ("merely" slightly smaller than Europe).

As the poster above me points out, the 5 major cities are already in this size category, so the other settlements you mentioned, like Maidenpool, are going to be way smaller. 

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

As the poster above me points out, the 5 major cities are already in this size category, so the other settlements you mentioned, like Maidenpool, are going to be way smaller. 

An example from Europe: Kingdom of Naples, in 1810 or so, had about 5 million people total.

City of Naples had over 300 000.

The second city was Foggia... with less than 21 000 people.

[Werthead]

Quote

The 500k figure for King's Landing increasingly seems to have been a temporarily overstated one, from which tens of thousands of refugees and the entire Tyrell army has to be subtracted to get to its permanent size.

I've seen this notion before and it certainly helps with the map of the city (which has always seemed too small for half a million people), but it's always been problematic. Most notably, how would Tyrion know? The rough permanent population of King's Landing, even fluctuating for trade, can be determined by censuses, or even just working out how much food comes into the city at any given time. We have no evidence that anyone was out trying to count the refugees coming into the city during the War of the Five Kings. They had other things to worry about. It's possible that Tyrion was having a crazy wild guess but more likely that he took the rough peacetime figure and just used it.

It's also not really in accordance with GRRM's statement that the city is smaller than Imperial Rome (1 million inhabitants) but bigger than medieval London (which was 24,000). Somewhere halfway between the two seems more likely than a quarter or less of the way up there.

The other thing to remember is that the Seven Kingdoms are, at least in terms of territory size, an empire. They are absolutely massive, far larger than almost any real pre-modern nation. King's Landing is the capital city of that empire, making the point of comparison with Constantinople or Imperial Rome more likely than the relatively small medieval Paris or London. The sizes of the other cities I think are more debatable (since Oldtown, White Harbour, the Weeping Town, Lordsport and Gulltown would be more like medieval Paris or London), but King's Landing's seems reasonable, especially considering the inflation of everything else we see over the medieval reality (army sizes, historical periods, the Wall, etc).

[SeanF]

In a way, yes. However their political and economic systems appear very underdeveloped compared to late medieval or Renaissance Europe. There appears to be little in the way of bureaucracy or government institutions, and not much in the way of merchant/townsmen classes. Or at least they don't have much influence in society.

Mhm, and when talking about this single case one could buy that because the people there might just have been taken by surprise or something. But if there were actually dozens of cities of somewhere around Maidenpool size throughout the Riverlands it is really hard to believe that they all would have fallen that easily, and also that nobody would have been talking about it. Both Tywin's and Robb's strategy should rather have heavily revolved around taking or retaking those places. Likewise with Jaime in ADWD. He and his army only needs to negotiate terms of surrender with a couple of Tully-loyalist castles in order to establish Crown control over Riverlands, no mention of any important urban centers.

Was the easy fall of Maidenpool town an exception, or the rule?

Lord Mootton was blamed for retreating with his garrison to his castle, and not attempting to defend the town walls.

But there was no one else to do it!

No city militia to defend walls and gates. No mayor or aldermen to lead them in defence if Lord would not.

Or look at King´s Landing.

Tyrion´s quoted 500 000 includes Tyrell army. So before Blackwater it would have been 400 000 - refugees already in the city.

And Joffrey managed to recruit just 6000 men as Gold Cloaks.

The 4000 new recruits came doubtless from the civil and refugee populations - but just 4000.

Urban militia would have helped enormously.

This is your city Stannis means to sack, and that’s your gate he’s bringing down.

An urban militia of 40 000 would still have been less than half the adult men present in the city. We see how an ordinary peasant levy was one who might train 10 days in 10 years. Well, King´s Landing militia might train 1 week each year, and perhaps awaiting the imminent siege 1 week per month, working at their normal jobs the rest of time - the fugitives were not farming Riverlands anyway.

40 000 men urban militia could easily have marched out of the gates and crushed Stannis in the field - even if they would not pursue him to several weeks´ march.

But the problem is, no militia in King´s Landing - the Gold Cloaks once hired were full time soldiers, and cost accordingly.

Nor, again, any mayor or aldermen. Antler Men were accused of treason as individuals and officeholders - not leading the city as an institution against Red Keep.

I think the Gold Cloaks are more like a gendarmerie, responsible for policing, riot control, and counter-insurgency, than an army that fights in the field. They're quite adequate to defend the Walls of the city, though.

As far as I know, there is no Mayor or city council at Kings Landing, suggesting the city is directly controlled by the King and Small Council. The unpopularity of the Lannisters would have made it very unwise for Cersei and Tyrion to arm the population generally.

[Jaak]

47 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I've seen this notion before and it certainly helps with the map of the city (which has always seemed too small for half a million people), but it's always been problematic. Most notably, how would Tyrion know? The rough permanent population of King's Landing, even fluctuating for trade, can be determined by censuses, or even just working out how much food comes into the city at any given time. We have no evidence that anyone was out trying to count the refugees coming into the city during the War of the Five Kings. They had other things to worry about.

We actually have!

Littlefinger enacted a tax on refugees seeking shelter in the city. A move which Tyrion acknowledged as cruel, but smart.

[Free Northman Reborn]

In the very chapter that Tyrion tells Oberyn that "half a million people in King's Landing cause quite a stench", he also states to Oberyn that his father's swords make up 20,000 of that number, and that the Roses amount to another 60 or 70 thousand men. So that's close to 100,000 men, without counting any refugees.

In any case, I agree that the population distribution in Westeros is problematic. But I disagree that it should be a traditional Imperial demographic model, with a Rome-type center being the largest settlement by far. In contrast to the likes of Rome, Westeros did not grow from the center outwards. Instead, it grew in seven or eight independent areas. The so called "Rome" equivalent didn't even exist until 300 years ago.

If anything, King's Landing should only be a smallish administrative center, with the ancient and larger population centers still being Oldtown, Lannisport, Gulltown, White Harbor and many others. There is no reason for King's Landing to be particularly immense, given its relative recent origin, and location in a previously rather unappealing and apparently none too fertile region. Else there would have been a sizeable settlement there eons before.

As for the population issues in general, my problem too is that there does not seem to be the normal stepped increase in size before reaching the major cities. One would think that for every city there would be a score of major towns, and for every major town there would be a score of lesser towns, before you get to large villages.

So for every White Harbor, there should be a dozen Barrowtons in the North, and for every King's Landing, a score of Maidenpools and Duskendales.

The jump up from Riverrun to King's Landing just seems out of proportion. I have always said that large parts of the map simply feel like it hasn't been invented yet, and will only be filled in as and when the whim strikes the author. But, as someone else said, that would inevitably raise questions about the plot, where previously unmarked large population centers had seemingly been ignored for paltry smaller focus points in the wars that have taken place to date.

 

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I've seen this notion before and it certainly helps with the map of the city (which has always seemed too small for half a million people), but it's always been problematic. Most notably, how would Tyrion know? The rough permanent population of King's Landing, even fluctuating for trade, can be determined by censuses, or even just working out how much food comes into the city at any given time. We have no evidence that anyone was out trying to count the refugees coming into the city during the War of the Five Kings. They had other things to worry about. It's possible that Tyrion was having a crazy wild guess but more likely that he took the rough peacetime figure and just used it.

The sizes of the other cities I think are more debatable (since Oldtown, White Harbour, the Weeping Town, Lordsport and Gulltown would be more like medieval Paris or London), but King's Landing's seems reasonable, especially considering the inflation of everything else we see over the medieval reality (army sizes, historical periods, the Wall, etc).

1. As someone above me pointed out, we have the tax. The actual population of the city at that time is going to be closer to 300-400,k than to 500 k.

2. Any town smaller than White Habour is also way smaller than medieval London or Paris.

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is no reason for King's Landing to be particularly immense, given its relative recent origin, and location in a previously rather unappealing and apparently none too fertile region. Else there would have been a sizeable settlement there eons before.

I agree with most of your post, but not with this part. Before the Targaryens came, the Blackwater was pretty much border territory, contested between neighboring kingdoms, and I suppose much of the Blackwater Bay would have been in the hands of pirates similiar to the Stepstones considering thevicinity to Essos and the lack of a central authority to keep them in check. That's enough explanation why the city didn't develop earlier despite of its well suited location. Plus we have a real life equivalent, as London was founded in roman times despite of the celts having settled in other places.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, John Doe said:

1. As someone above me pointed out, we have the tax. The actual population of the city at that time is going to be closer to 300-400,k than to 500 k.

2. Any town smaller than White Habour is also way smaller than medieval London or Paris.

I agree with most of your post, but not with this part. Before the Targaryens came, the Blackwater was pretty much border territory, contested between neighboring kingdoms, and I suppose much of the Blackwater Bay would have been in the hands of pirates similiar to the Stepstones considering thevicinity to Essos and the lack of a central authority to keep them in check. That's enough explanation why the city didn't develop earlier despite of its well suited location. Plus we have a real life equivalent, as London was founded in roman times despite of the celts having settled in other places.

The equivalent to King's Landing would be some invader arriving to conquer medieval Europe, and then not setting up his capital in one of the existing national capitols such as Paris, Rome, London etc., but building a brand new keep in some previously unsettled wilderness area and then expecting it to become the largest city on the continent within 300 years.

In any case, the problem with Westeros is not the size of its 5 major cities. It is the lack of dozens of Barrowton, Maidenpool and Stony Sept sized towns. I would say you need at least a dozen of those for each major city, and probably more for big cities like Oldtown and King's Landing.

 

EDIT

For example. White Harbor is the size of medieval London. But in medieval England you had a dozen other regional centers that were at the very least large towns of multiple thousands of people. And that was just in England, which covers an area half the size of the Barrowlands.

So at the very least, each of the Northern bannerlords seats should be a town of multiple thousands of people. And even then you would have to assume that scores more market towns and large villages lie totally ummarked in each one of the constituent regions of the North.

[John Doe]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

The equivalent to King's Landing would be some conqueror coming in to conquer medieval Europe, and then not setting up his capital in one of the existing national capitols such as Paris, Rome, London etc., but building a brand new keep in some previously unsettled wilderness area and then expecting it to become the largest city on the continent within 300 years.

In any case, the problem with Westeros is not the size of its 5 major cities. It is the lack of dozens of Barrowton, Maidenpool and Stony Sept sized towns. I would say you need at least a dozen of those for each major city, and probably more for big cities like Oldtown and King's Landing.

1. I don't think he expected it to become the biggest city, but 300 years isn't a short time for a city to develop at all and what's to stop him from founding a new city? 

2. That's one of the reasons I made this thread in the first place.

[Werthead]

There were prior settlements on the site of King's Landing, but they had been destroyed because of their disputed position on the border. That's mentioned several times, I believe.

Quote

In the very chapter that Tyrion tells Oberyn that "half a million people in King's Landing cause quite a stench", he also states to Oberyn that his father's swords make up 20,000 of that number, and that the Roses amount to another 60 or 70 thousand men. So that's close to 100,000 men, without counting any refugees.

Interesting. I just took another look and he doesn't quite say that:

Quote

"Half a million people stink more than three hundred, you'll find. Do you smell the gold cloaks? There are near five thousand of them. My father's own sworn swords must account for another twenty thousand. And then there are the roses. Roses smell so sweet, don't they? Especially when there are so many of them. Fifty, sixty, seventy thousand roses, in the city or camped outside it, I can't really say how many are left, but there's more than I care to count anyway."

Tyrion doesn't say that the goldcloaks or the Lannister or Tyrell bannermen are included in the count or not. You can read it that way, but you can also read it that "the people" refers to the standard population of King's Landing (including refugees or not) plus the soldiers.

There's also another point to consider: a major limiting factor in the size of cities is the presence (or lack thereof) of sewers. London, which crammed in way too many people than was sensible for centuries, was plagued by cholera epidemics and other problems as recently as the mid-19th Century due to the lack of sewers. However, King's Landing had sewers built in the reign of Jaehaerys, 200 years prior to the War of the Five Kings, which would have made for a much healthier city.

Something that is odd is the lack of expansion of the walls of the city. Aegon the Conqueror ordered the construction of the city walls during his own reign, when the city was still only the third largest in the realm, and unless new walls were built much later and the old ones torn town, they're still the same ones there in the books. Either King's Landing didn't get any bigger or they left tons of open green space within the walls to expand into.

One point in favour of a smaller population, though: in the 2005 RPG (checked by GRRM with population estimates provided by our own Ran), King's Landing is said to "hold between 250,000 to 500,000 inabitants, making it one of the largest cities in the known world."

[Jaak]

38 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, I agree that the population distribution in Westeros is problematic. But I disagree that it should be a traditional Imperial demographic model, with a Rome-type center being the largest settlement by far. In contrast to the likes of Rome, Westeros did not grow from the center outwards. Instead, it grew in seven or eight independent areas. The so called "Rome" equivalent didn't even exist until 300 years ago.

If anything, King's Landing should only be a smallish administrative center, with the ancient and larger population centers still being Oldtown, Lannisport, Gulltown, White Harbor and many others. There is no reason for King's Landing to be particularly immense, given its relative recent origin, and location in a previously rather unappealing and apparently none too fertile region. Else there would have been a sizeable settlement there eons before.

As for the population issues in general, my problem too is that there does not seem to be the normal stepped increase in size before reaching the major cities. One would think that for every city there would be a score of major towns, and for every major town there would be a score of lesser towns, before you get to large villages.

Yes, there were 7-8 independent areas - and accordingly there duly are 4 major ancient cities.

These 4 areas followed the pattern of Kingdom of Naples - 1 major city, and everything else insignificant. Reach had Oldtown, Westerlands Lannisport, Vale Gulltown, North White Harbour.

The other 3 Kingdoms followed the pattern of Carolingian Empire - no significant cities at all. Dorne, Stormlands, Riverlands.

And adding King´s Landing makes perfect sense! Note how King´s Landing is between 2 regions which do not have major cities of their own. Riverlands and Stormlands. Regions where development of cities had been suppressed for the widely applicable social reasons... and continued to be suppressed, leaving King´s Landing as the monopoly outlet for the pent-up demand.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

 Aegon the Conqueror ordered the construction of the city walls during his own reign, when the city was still only the third largest in the realm, and unless new walls were built much later and the old ones torn town, they're still the same ones there in the books.

 

Hang on, did King's Landing go from a wooden keep on a hill to bigger than both Gulltown and White Harbor in less than 20 years? I find that extraordinary, to be honest. I never knew that.