Military strengths of the Houses of Westeros

[Free Northman Reborn]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No that's not clear. The questioner asked a general question and George answered it in general terms. He didn't specify anything for the Karstarks.

But that is all beside the point. The point is that just because some lords played an important role in the series or are listed as important in the appendices doesn't mean they are important people or belong the an important group of people (i.e. your idea of principal bannermen). There are houses listed as such like the Melcolms or Vyrwels that have as of yet played no role at all in the series but that doesn't mean they aren't powerful.

It is not that I doubt the Karstarks have bannermen of their own. That is pretty clear. The point is that we have no clue how exactly things are organized in their lands - or anybody else's, as long as the specifics aren't mentioned. This is especially interesting on the lowest levels.

Oh, not necessarily. You could have houses that have acquired more power/wealth than their title suggests (say, have the Freys as very powerful barons in the beginning and then have them rise to earl or marquess level after the Red Wedding; or have Littlefinger as a mere lord in the beginning to eventually named the Duke of Harrenhal by Joffrey) and also houses whose title reflect a status and rank that is no longer supported by their actual wealth (the Velaryons could still be royal dukes, for instance, even though their last Targaryen marriage is centuries in the past; and the Westerlings could equally cling to ancient glories).

And, of course, titles aren't everything in aristocratic circles. You have to have an ancient bloodline. The Freys are newcomers, a fancy title wouldn't change that, just as nobody would forget that Janos Slynt was born a butcher even he had been made the Marquess of Harrenhal or something like that.

The interesting thing about titles is that it introduces an entirely new layer to the story, the world of pretend in contrast to reality. Some impoverished nobleman can cling to his title and thus actually force a more powerful person to defer to him if he or she has an inferior title.

But that would make things much more complex and subtle. And, of course, it would also open up the possibility of there being an official hierarchy title-wise in a certain regions. The Starks then could really have a primary vassal who would outrank everybody else at table and take precedence at court, etc. 

With respect, I don't think you are reading what George is saying. It is in fact very clear.

Lord Karstark has vassals, who have vassals of their own and so on and so forth. Not just him. But the vast majority of  lords at that level, across Westeros. It is a pyramid structure, with the Starks at the top (Dukes, effectively), the Karstarks, Umbers, Boltons etc. on the next level, their vassals on the level below, and their vassals on the level below that.

And the number of lords at each level increases dramatically the further down you go. Like I said, it is a pyramid structure. That is feudalism.

Furthermore, it is a strawman argument to dispute that only the principal bannermen that got major coverage thus far in the series are at this level. Because I never claimed that this was the case. For example, the Slates are principal bannermen to the Starks, but as yet we know virtually nothing about their House or where their lands are. And there could be others who fall at the same level. Houses we see named in the wiki, but who we don't know anything about.

When Jeor Mormont says that any of Ned Stark's lords bannermen can raise more men than the Watch, clearly he has a certain group of lords in mind who fall in that category. Because we know that there are many lords across Westeros - like the Webbers, for example - who cannot raise close to the number of men that the Watch can. So Jeor clearly considers lords bannermen to House Stark as a very distinct category.  A category without a name, then, since you don't seem to like the term "lord bannerman".  But Jeor Mormont sees it as a distinct category nevertheless. As does the Appendix of every book in the series, which gives examples of these lords, but of course not an exhaustive list.

This is obvious given that even the Appendix lists of lords bannermen have been growing as the series progressed. The Dustins and Ryswells were not mentioned in the Appendix to Book 1, if I recall. But by Dance they are among the most prominent Northern bannerlords. So in short, just because not all the Prinicipal lords bannermen are listed in the Appendix does not mean that this category is any less distinct. We just don't have the full list of lords that fall within it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Bright Blue Eyes

Modeling the feudal society more or less on (early) medieval England was a mistake insofar as the united Westeros is way too big to not make severe distinctions between its seven or so great lords ruling over formerly independent kingdoms and the lords sworn to them. They would at least be dukes but a perhaps even better way would have been to make the Targaryen kings Targaryen emperors allowing the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns to keep their crowns.

Not to mention that titles could also have been used to easily and recognizably differentiate between weaker and stronger vassals (say, by making Littlefinger just a lord whereas the average standard vassal is called baron, and the more powerful smaller houses like the Freys, Boltons, Royces, etc. are earls, marquesses, viscounts, or counts.

But that never was the case historically. Please remember the Reichsritter (landed knights immediately sworn to the Emperor), who were in some ways more powerful than most counts, never even talking about barons, of the HRE. Or the Duke of Bavaria being pretty much the most powerful vassal - but lacking the electorship he held no power in the Reichstag.

 

Titles and power were always a frankensteinian mess, Escher would have a field day trying to work them into a diagram.

 

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But we actually do know how the Karstark lands are organized. In this very thread someone gave us that quote from Martin, where the Karstarks and Boltons are specifically used as examples. Here it is again:

Question: I am also a bit curious as to the social structure of westeros. I understand the seven high lords, and the slightly lower lords (ie. Boltons, Karstarks, Freys etc.). However, do these lords also have sub lords below them? Lords who maybe raise 10 or 20 men for the Karstarks?

Martin: Yes, it is a feudal system. The lords have vassals, the vassals have vassals, and sometimes the vassals of the vassals have vassals, down to the guy who can raise five friends.

So George's intention is quite clear. Karstark is the lord who has raised around 3000 men to date. But this consists of men drawn from his sub-lords who each rule a portion of his lands, who maybe each contribute say 300 men to that host. And then these lords have landed knights or whatever under them, who each contribute say 30 men to their 300. And the Landed Knight has a bunch yeomen (since you introduced this title) under him, who can each maybe raise 5 friends.

That is the hierarchy Martin intended. It is quite clear. He simply didn't want to burden himself with having to come up with a whole bunch of titles to keep track of.

But that these lords are on different levels is quite apparent.

Only sort of. Because the Karstarks also got guys, who can raise five friends, as their immediate vassals. And their own troops of course. Those guys, being on the lowest tier of vassals in power, are also closer to the Karstarks (or Starks, or the Targaryens, for that matter), than 99% of their nominal superiors, which would put them on the top tier, according to your proposal.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

 

Only sort of. Because the Karstarks also got guys, who can raise five friends, as their immediate vassals. And their own troops of course. Those guys, being on the lowest tier of vassals in power, are also closer to the Karstarks (or Starks, or the Targaryens, for that matter), than 99% of their nominal superiors, which would put them on the top tier, according to your proposal.

 

Of course they do. If a household knight resides next to Karhold itself, must the Karstarks now insist that he first finds a more distant petty lord to swear allegiance to before he is allowed to serve House Karstark? That would make no sense.

What seems to be happening here is nitpicking to try and find exceptions to the system that Martin intended. Now, over 8000 years, of course a vast tapestry of relationships, events, rags to riches and riches to rags stories etc etc. will occur to muddy the waters and complicate the standing of one lord compared to another. That is a given.

But the overriding system that Martin has designed, is one of Tiers of vassals. His statement on that is crystal clear. The interest of those seeking to complicate the matter seems to focus more on the comparative status of various lords. My interest, however, is focused on the comparative material power of various lords. Not who sits where at the table at a tourney. But who rules more peasants, controls more land and has more resources than another lord. And this generally follows a clear pattern from the highest to the lowest levels.

Hence, the guy who has vassals who has vassals who has vassals will possess more of that material power than the Household knight sworn directly to House Stark - thus garnering a lot of prestige - but who has very small holdings of his own. Think House Cassel, which appears to be a Knightly House of the North. Ser Rodrik occuppies a position of high honor in the Household of Lord Stark himself, and even commands all the forces of the North in Robb Stark's absence.

But his own personal holdings appear to be lower than that of House Stout - a mere petty lord, if he even has a keep of his own.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Anyway, back to the discussion on military strength. I like the example of Houses Osgrey and Webber, which gives us a good idea of the social structure at the bottom, and the rough relation between troops and population size.

Out of interest, what was the average size of a medieval village? I used 100 people as a rough guess, but is that not influenced by our modern bias to higher population numbers? Is 50 people more appropriate for a village in the Middle Ages?

I'm interested because 8 soldiers, going by the 1% rule should result in around 800 smallfolk under House Osgrey's rule. However, I suspect that the 1% rule relates to being able to arm, equip, train and logistically support the troops in the field. Which is far more resource intensive than just rounding them up for a day's inspection at the Keep.

It seems if House Osgrey actually had to go to war, the best they could do would probably be quite a bit lower than the 8 temporarily summoned layabouts. Most likely you would then be talking about Ser Bennis, and maybe 2 more guys. So say about 3 soldiers that could be marched off to war and sustained in the field. So that would tie back to a population of around  300 smallfolk.

Thoughts? 

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

You can do that math there. The Tyrells can field about 100,000 men, give or take. That means, if we go with this 1% ratio, that the Reach population is about ten million people.

Now, if the Osgrey smallfolk size of 800 people was correct and this was sort of the average size for the population controlled by a landed knight then the Reach must have 12,500 units/shires/whatever à 800 people to get to those ten million people.

This kind of fragmentation is the reason why I assume not all regions are necessarily as fractured. I mean, we have to keep in mind that even great houses like the Starks apparently manage their holdings with just one maester and one steward. That would scarcely work if they had to keep track of tens of thousands of fiefs who might all be forced to not only pay taxes to the immediate liege but also to the Crown and the great lord.

Is that likely? I don't know. Oldtown itself should have more that 100,000-200,000 people, though. Perhaps even more.

But, again, doing any math on the Osgrey/Webber numbers shouldn't give you any good numbers reflecting the situation during the series because, again, TSS takes place shortly after the Great Spring Sickness which caused massive deaths all over the place outside the Vale and Dorne.

In KL about 70% of the population died, perhaps it wasn't as bad in the rural Reach but considering that Rohanne's fourth husband Ser Rolland Uffering died in the Spring we can safely say the Great Spring Sickness was also felt in the Osgrey and Webber lands. I guess 50% of the population died during the plague, and this would have put a severe strain on the ability of both houses to raise levies for war (think about it - less people in total means less people to do the day-to-day work - women would already do more than usually so there would be essentially nobody to spare for war).

And as I've said often enough in such threads. If a decent number of fertile women dies off then it will take quite some time until the numbers reach the previous level, let alone increase. Fewer women mean fewer children, and fewer children will mean less people. Especially in places where the smallfolk don't travel around and thus cannot easily resettle depopulated areas or surplus women look for husbands a hundred miles east or so.

In that sense we should take the numbers George has given us only as representative for the time of the series, not for the entire history of Westeros.

Not sure if anybody has cited that yet but I came upon that while I was reading around in ADwD a little bit:

Quote

He [Jon Snow] wondered how many men old Crowfood would bring to the fray, and how many swords Arnolf Karstark would be able to conjure up. Half the Umbers would be across the field with Whoresbane, fighting beneath the flayed man of the Dreadfort, and the greater part of the strength of both houses had gone south with Robb, never to return.

Coming from Jon Snow this is a pretty strong hint that both the Karstarks and the Umbers are very much spent.

[Free Northman Reborn]

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

You can do that math there. The Tyrells can field about 100,000 men, give or take. That means, if we go with this 1% ratio, that the Reach population is about ten million people.

Now, if the Osgrey smallfolk size of 800 people was correct and this was sort of the average size for the population controlled by a landed knight then the Reach must have 12,500 units/shires/whatever à 800 people to get to those ten million people.

This kind of fragmentation is the reason why I assume not all regions are necessarily as fractured. I mean, we have to keep in mind that even great houses like the Starks apparently manage their holdings with just one maester and one steward. That would scarcely work if they had to keep track of tens of thousands of fiefs who might all be forced to not only pay taxes to the immediate liege but also to the Crown and the great lord.

Is that likely? I don't know. Oldtown itself should have more that 100,000-200,000 people, though. Perhaps even more.

But, again, doing any math on the Osgrey/Webber numbers shouldn't give you any good numbers reflecting the situation during the series because, again, TSS takes place shortly after the Great Spring Sickness which caused massive deaths all over the place outside the Vale and Dorne.

In KL about 70% of the population died, perhaps it wasn't as bad in the rural Reach but considering that Rohanne's fourth husband Ser Rolland Uffering died in the Spring we can safely say the Great Spring Sickness was also felt in the Osgrey and Webber lands. I guess 50% of the population died during the plague, and this would have put a severe strain on the ability of both houses to raise levies for war (think about it - less people in total means less people to do the day-to-day work - women would already do more than usually so there would be essentially nobody to spare for war).

And as I've said often enough in such threads. If a decent number of fertile women dies off then it will take quite some time until the numbers reach the previous level, let alone increase. Fewer women mean fewer children, and fewer children will mean less people. Especially in places where the smallfolk don't travel around and thus cannot easily resettle depopulated areas or surplus women look for husbands a hundred miles east or so.

In that sense we should take the numbers George has given us only as representative for the time of the series, not for the entire history of Westeros.

Not sure if anybody has cited that yet but I came upon that while I was reading around in ADwD a little bit:

Coming from Jon Snow this is a pretty strong hint that both the Karstarks and the Umbers are very much spent.

Just on the last comment, quickly. Yes, we know that. Karstark sent 2300 men South. He has raised 450 men in Dance. The greater part of his strength clearly went with Robb. The Umbers seem to have split their remaining forces 50/50, with the half with Whoresbane stated to number 400. That implies they have around 800 men left. Again,  this ties in with the greater part of their strength having gone with Robb.

In any case, regarding the population maths: It is not as difficult to manage as you suggest, given the feudal structure. The Lord Paramount only needs to keep track of the main lords sworn directly to Winterfell. That seems to be in the region of 20 "great lords", and then whichever landed knights and petty lords occupy the lands immediately surrounding Winterfell. In the case of the Manderlys that amounted to 12 petty lords and 100 landed knights, for example.

So the remaining thousands of landed knights and petty lords in the North are managed by the Principal Bannermen. So the Starks only care about the fealty owed by the Karstarks, for example. The hundred or so sub-lords and landed knights in the Karstark lands are managed by Karhold and impose little to no administrative burden on the Starks themselves. Barring some appeal from a landed knight in for example the Bolton lands, if Ramsay fails to keep the "land peaceful, and the people quiet", as Roose urges him to do.

Also, I don't think the Osgreys are typical examples of landed knights. I think they are about as weak and poor as a landed knight could be. I would put the average strength of a landed knight quite a bit higher than their 8 men. Or their 16 men, if they are currently down to 50% of their normal population as you suggest. I would add, though, that the 1% mobilization ratio surely does not apply to how many men you can round up from the village.

Else you would be looking at 5-10% of the population. Instead, it must refer to the percentage you can arm, equip, feed and mobilize into an extended campaign. Which would be maybe two or three of those 8 men.

 

[Lord Varys]

Ah, well, you cannot push that down to the smaller houses. They lack the coin to have all maesters and to be able to double-check whether their vassals are fooling them both the Crown and the greater houses have to know how many people sit on the lands of this or that vassal.

Not to mention that the fact that lords seem to be only made by the Crown suggests that the Crown must know where there are any lordships to be had. We see how Robert grants the Connington lands to other lords and reduces them to the level of landed knights (just as Maegor the Cruel and Daeron II cut the Osgreys down in size). This means the management of those lower houses is as much the business of the Crown as it is of the great houses.

Not to mention that the Freys seem to have direct business with the Crown, too, or else Lord Walder wouldn't have sworn any oaths to the Iron Throne.

The idea that overlords are 'small kings' in their own right is tempting but it doesn't seem to be the truth. All lands are held in the king's name, and they are mere fiefs, to be given and taken at the king's will. Usually a family is allowed to keep them but if they are traitors or otherwise untrustworthy or unworthy they can be taken away again.

Technically all the great houses should only be hereditary officials serving the Crown. Both in the Targaryen Realm as well as in the independent Seven Kingdoms. The Boltons, Karstarks, Manderlys, etc. hold their land as fiefs given to them by the Starks in ancient days, those aren't their lands.

In addition, there is no hint that all the land around castle x truly belongs the lord living there. We know that Pennytree is a royal fief, so there could be land which is ruled directly by Winterfell in, say, the Umber lands, or the Bolton lands, etc. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ah, well, you cannot push that down to the smaller houses. They lack the coin to have all maesters and to be able to double-check whether their vassals are fooling them both the Crown and the greater houses have to know how many people sit on the lands of this or that vassal.

Not to mention that the fact that lords seem to be only made by the Crown suggests that the Crown must know where there are any lordships to be had. We see how Robert grants the Connington lands to other lords and reduces them to the level of landed knights (just as Maegor the Cruel and Daeron II cut the Osgreys down in size). This means the management of those lower houses is as much the business of the Crown as it is of the great houses.

Not to mention that the Freys seem to have direct business with the Crown, too, or else Lord Walder wouldn't have sworn any oaths to the Iron Throne.

The idea that overlords are 'small kings' in their own right is tempting but it doesn't seem to be the truth. All lands are held in the king's name, and they are mere fiefs, to be given and taken at the king's will. Usually a family is allowed to keep them but if they are traitors or otherwise untrustworthy or unworthy they can be taken away again.

Technically all the great houses should only be hereditary officials serving the Crown. Both in the Targaryen Realm as well as in the independent Seven Kingdoms. The Boltons, Karstarks, Manderlys, etc. hold their land as fiefs given to them by the Starks in ancient days, those aren't their lands.

In addition, there is no hint that all the land around castle x truly belongs the lord living there. We know that Pennytree is a royal fief, so there could be land which is ruled directly by Winterfell in, say, the Umber lands, or the Bolton lands, etc. 

Martin has not gone down that route of complexity. It has been discussed before in the forum how in the real Middle Ages lords would hold lands, castles and estates in many different parts of England, for example, and not necessarily in contiguous territories. However, Martin seems to have deliberately avoided this headache, for obvious reasons. At least in general.

There aren't any southron lords that own lands in the North, and the Karstarks don't own lands in the Barrowlands etc.

Westeros basically functions as a bunch of former petty kingdoms, united into Seven (or 8 really) Great Kingdoms, who only recently from a historical perspective have been artificially and tenuously united into a great "Empire" of Westeros. This is more visible in the North than in the South, I guess. In the South lands are much closer together, more densely populated and small conflicts and alliances between lords across historical borders are more easily achievable.

In the North, however, a petty lord in service to House Karstark may never even meet a petty lord in service to House Ryswell, 1000 miles away, other than when the banners of the entire North are called once in a generation.

As for the administration of the lands, the fact that Winterfell only has Maester Luwin to administer their lands actually bolsters the idea that he cannot possibly be involved in the management of all the sub-lords across the North. Instead, it HAS to be devolved to the Maesters of the Bannerlords, and then to the petty lords themselves who manage the lands below them.

Once a generation or so there might be a great census - if ever - whereby the Starks learn that the population of the Karstark lands has grown and therefore more taxes are due. But they won't go and audit the individual petty lords on an annual basis. That kind of administrative setup hasn't been created by George, for good or ill. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, back to the discussion on military strength. I like the example of Houses Osgrey and Webber, which gives us a good idea of the social structure at the bottom, and the rough relation between troops and population size.

Out of interest, what was the average size of a medieval village? I used 100 people as a rough guess, but is that not influenced by our modern bias to higher population numbers? Is 50 people more appropriate for a village in the Middle Ages?

I'm interested because 8 soldiers, going by the 1% rule should result in around 800 smallfolk under House Osgrey's rule. However, I suspect that the 1% rule relates to being able to arm, equip, train and logistically support the troops in the field. Which is far more resource intensive than just rounding them up for a day's inspection at the Keep.

It seems if House Osgrey actually had to go to war, the best they could do would probably be quite a bit lower than the 8 temporarily summoned layabouts. Most likely you would then be talking about Ser Bennis, and maybe 2 more guys. So say about 3 soldiers that could be marched off to war and sustained in the field. So that would tie back to a population of around  300 smallfolk.

Thoughts? 

That depends on which country you are talking about, and in the case of larger kingdoms also on different regions within that country. 100 people per village is probably a decent average for Northern Europe, although in the more northern parts of northern Europe (like Norway and most of Sweden) a couple of dozen was probably more likely. For the fertile parts of France and Italy it was probably more like a couple of hundred. 

In any case given that the entire Osgrey lands only contain a single sept which also doesn't even have a permanently employed septon, those communities are probably a good deal smaller than the average in the Reach. Which would fit well with the Targaryens having punished that House by seizing all the valuable lands and handing them over to the Webbers, and leaving him only with the barest amount of scraps.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

That depends on which country you are talking about, and in the case of larger kingdoms also on different regions within that country. 100 people per village is probably a decent average for Northern Europe, although in the more northern parts of northern Europe (like Norway and most of Sweden) a couple of dozen was probably more likely. For the fertile parts of France and Italy it was probably more like a couple of hundred. 

In any case given that the entire Osgrey lands only contain a single sept which also doesn't even have a permanently employed septon, those communities are probably a good deal smaller than the average in the Reach. Which would also fit well with the Targaryens having punished that House by taking all the valuable lands and handing them over to the Webbers, and leaving him only with the barest amount of scraps.  

Ok, then I think 100 for a village is as good a guess as any. Meaning House Osgrey rules 300 people. And although 8 poor souls were gathered up from the villages in the initial roundup, that is for a quick muster off able bodied men, and not what they could put into the field if they went to war.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ok, then I think 100 for a village is as good a guess as any. Meaning House Osgrey rules 300 people. And although 8 poor souls were gathered up from the villages in the initial roundup, that is for a quick muster off able bodied men, and not what they could put into the field if they went to war.

Yeah, I agree. Even just 300 people ought to have been enough for a knight to live on without much difficulty. I took some history classes at University where a short blurb was about the medieval nobility in the forested south-central part of Sweden. Here it seems that the average number of farms owned per noble family might only have been somewhere between six to ten (at maybe half a dozen people per household). These people would definitely not have had the extravagant lifestyles one would otherwise associate with medieval aristocrats, though. But it seems that they should at least have been able to afford warhorses and armor. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yeah, I agree. Even just 300 people ought to have been enough for a knight to live on without much difficulty. I took some history classes at University where a short blurb was about the medieval nobility in the forested south-central part of Sweden. Here it seems that the average number of farms owned per noble family might only have been somewhere between six to ten. These people would definitely not have had the extravagant lifestyles one would otherwise associate with medieval aristocrats, though. But it seems that it might at least have been enough to afford warhorses and armor. 

There is an important question I have been dying to get an answer on for a long time. And it deals with the 1% issue.

Now, I know that Ran and others have done some detailed historical research on the mobilization trends from the real Middle Ages, but do we have ANY confirmation that George is A: aware of this rule, and B: has chosen to apply it in his setting?

The reason I ask is that he has not seemed to portray the armies as such a small percentage of the population. We see that with the 3000 wildlings that come through the Wall. He seems to believe that they  could raise as many as 1000 spears.

Same with the Dothraki, who can supposedly raise 40,000 men from a 100,000 strong host.

Furthermore, we hear about able bodied men being used up in armies, when in reality it makes no economic sense in a Medieval setting to be able to mobilize anything close to enough men to seriously threaten the able bodied male population numbers.

Does George operate from a different paradigm, or is he just not giving us the detail required to see the 1% mobilization ratio in action?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is an important question I have been dying to get an answer on for a long time. And it deals with the 1% issue.

Now, I know that Ran and others have done some detailed historical research on the mobilization trends from the real Middle Ages, but do we have ANY confirmation that George is A: aware of this rule, and B: has chosen to apply it in his setting?

The reason I ask is that he has not seemed to portray the armies as such a small percentage of the population. We see that with the 3000 wildlings that come through the Wall. He seems to believe that they  could raise as many as 1000 spears.

Same with the Dothraki, who can supposedly raise 40,000 men from a 100,000 strong host.

Furthermore, we hear about able bodied men being used up in armies, when in reality it makes no economic sense in a Medieval setting to be able to mobilize anything close to enough men to seriously threaten the able bodied male population numbers.

Does George operate from a different paradigm, or is he just not giving us the detail required to see the 1% mobilization ratio in action?

 

Not as far as I know, no. 

And I agree with you. Just from reading the books one can definitely get the impression that the shares of the populations getting recruited into the armies are far larger than 1%. 

I suspect that he probably does operate from a different paradigm, namely the one that he wasn't really aware of how large populations real medieval kingdoms had and instead assumed that the army sizes from historical battles that he had read about were related to the amount of men that were available rather than logistics and economics. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Although I would add that for example 1000 wildlings being recruited out of 3000 isn't impossible per say, as long as both the Wildlings staying home and the Wildlings serving in the army get provided for by other people (in this case other Northern farmers). 

The "1% rule" (which isn't an actual rule as far as I know) goes for a state as a whole, not all the individual communities and sub groups within it. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Although I would add that for example 1000 wildlings being recruited out of 3000 isn't impossible per say, as long as both the Wildlings staying home and the Wildlings serving in the army get provided for by other people. 

The "1% rule" (which isn't an actual rule as far as I know) goes for a state as a whole, not all the individual communities within it. 

Yes, I understand that. And in fact, the 1% rule is counter intuitive on the face of it. Just take the Osgreys as an example. It does not look at all unreasonable to be able to raise 8 men from a 300 strong smallfolk population. In fact, one is surprised that there aren't 20 men at the muster.

But 8 out of 300 is almost 3% of the population. So once you start thinking about it like that, then you realize the 1% rule is an economic one, rather than a physical one. It is about raising, equipping, arming and supplying an army into the field. Not about rounding up some layabouts for a quick session of spear training.

So it is very possible to raise more than the 1% for a very short, very localized campaign that doesn't require any major logistical support. But you aren't going to project that army over a few hundred miles and support them, feed them, have baggage trains to carry their supplies etc. with the economic base that you have.

Either way, even if you raise 3% of your population, it should not threaten your able bodied male numbers in any way. Able bodied males are at least 15% of the population, if you are being conservative. So economically you could never come close to raising most of them into an army. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yes, I understand that. And in fact, the 1% rule is counter intuitive on the face of it. Just take the Osgreys as an example. It does not look at all unreasonable to be able to raise 8 men from a 300 strong smallfolk population. In fact, one is surprised that there aren't 20 men at the muster.

But 8 out of 300 is almost 3% of the population. So once you start thinking about it like that, then you realize the 1% rule is an economic one, rather than a physical one. It is about raising, equipping, arming and supplying an army into the field. Not about rounding up some layabouts for a quick session of spear training.

So it is very possible to raise more than the 1% for a very short, very localized campaign that doesn't require any major logistical support. But you aren't going to project that army over a few hundred miles and support them, feed them, have baggage trains to carry their supplies etc. with the economic base that you have.

Either way, even if you raise 3% of your population, it should not threaten your able bodied male numbers in any way. Able bodied males are at least 15% of the population, if you are being conservative. So economically you could never come close to raising most of them into an army. 

Yes, exactly. 

I know a good example of such a localized campaign from history that is also very well proven, the Danish invasion of the island of Gotland in 1361. This is one of the few military campaigns where archaeologists have actually managed to find a mass grave where most of the dead were interred (usually if they find anything at all it is only a few dozen skeletons). In this case it is almost 2000 bodies of soldiers that were killed outside the walls of the capital city, and it is estimated that around 1500 of these may have belonged to the Gotlandish side. Considering that these people had also lost two other smaller battles prior to this engagement, that probably not all men they mobilized died during the war, and that the entire island would have had a population of maybe 20 000 - 25 000 people, we might be talking about a recruitment rate of 15-20%. So pretty much every able bodied male and then some, which is also indicated by some of the skeletons having belonged to young teenagers, old men, and cripples. 

But this was as what you are talking about a short campaign over an island that is only about 130km long and 40km wide at its widest. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Visby

[Tarellen]

Why do people think that dorne is more populated then the north? It's mostly desert. At least in the north has lots of water.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 hours ago, Tarellen said:

Why do people think that dorne is more populated then the north? It's mostly desert. At least in the north has lots of water.

More populated it definitely isn't, since Doran says in AFFC that Dorne is the least populated of the Seven Kingdoms. Density wise it might be a little bit more so though. A lot of it is desert, yes, but the parts that aren't should be among the most productive farmland you can find. It is no coincidence that in our history the earliest cities and civilizations arose around large rivers in very hot regions of the world. That is where population densities first became high enough to enable more complex forms of governance and economics. 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

From my understanding the "1% rule" originates from a mixture of how many people can be trained and equipped, but more importantly the number that can be supported logistically and that can be taken from the working population without food shortages.

As a rule of thumb I believe it is actually only about 10-15% of the population in the middle ages than can be considered to be able bodied men. With obviously ~50% of the population being female, ~15% (out of the male 50%) being too young, and another ~15% being too old or disabled/ill.

I have read that >3% under arms in the medieval period would likely result in crop failures and famines, I'm admittedly not sure about the source for this, but rolling with it we see that less than a 5th of healthy adult men can be fighting in wars, presumably less if the remaining population is expected to support those on the march to any large extent.

I think discussion about what Martin intended is key here, this is a topic that interests me greatly, but I'm not sure it is particularly one that interests him greatly, and one he seems to contradict himself over.

After all, fairly large armies of generally well equipped, well disciplined men are raised very quickly from massive areas from ludicrously small populations of peasants with no training, no specialised equipment, who seemingly use up all of their able bodied men across areas larger than any country in Western Europe to form a host of mere 10,000s. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

16 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

From my understanding the "1% rule" originates from a mixture of how many people can be trained and equipped, but more importantly the number that can be supported logistically and that can be taken from the working population without food shortages.

As a rule of thumb I believe it is actually only about 10-15% of the population in the middle ages than can be considered to be able bodied men. With obviously ~50% of the population being female, ~15% (out of the male 50%) being too young, and another ~15% being too old or disabled/ill.

I have read that >3% under arms in the medieval period would likely result in crop failures and famines, I'm admittedly not sure about the source for this, but rolling with it we see that less than a 5th of healthy adult men can be fighting in wars, presumably less if the remaining population is expected to support those on the march to any large extent.

I think discussion about what Martin intended is key here, this is a topic that interests me greatly, but I'm not sure it is particularly one that interests him greatly, and one he seems to contradict himself over.

After all, fairly large armies of generally well equipped, well disciplined men are raised very quickly from massive areas from ludicrously small populations of peasants with no training, no specialised equipment, who seemingly use up all of their able bodied men across areas larger than any country in Western Europe to form a host of mere 10,000s. 

Bolded mine. That is probably true. He is not as interested in world building as other fantasy authors like Tolkien, and sometimes that shows. 

As for the percentage argument again something else to take into consideration is that an army would often to a large degree be relying on the surrounding countryside rather than deliveries of supplies from all the way home. This did not necessarily stop at just food, but could also extend to threatening or plundering nearby cities for funds to pay the troops with. Even as late as during the 18th century it was a widespread ideal to try to make a war "pay for itself" by having the troops seize as much resources from the enemy as they cost to keep in the field. 

What I mean by bringing that up is that if you are looking at percentages of troops under arms versus population sizes, you should not just look at the populations of the countries raising the armies but also the populations and structures of the areas that they'd be operating in. A wealthy, densely populated region with good infrastructure would be able to sustain far larger forces on both sides than a wilderness covered backwater or a hard to traverse mountain region. 

The Reach or the Riverlands should be able to support large armies marching around there without too much difficulty, whereas in regions like the Stony Shore or the Mountains of the Moon it might be unfeasible to send forces of more than just a few thousand without risking starvation and disaster.