Free Northman Reborn Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Well now, I'm pleased by the worthy contributions that have been posted in my absence. There is a lot to respond to, and each time I read a post wanting to respond to a particular point it raised, only for the next post to raise another point that requires addressing. So I'm going to try and summarize my reply to maybe three (ok, it was four) main areas, for now. Then we can take it from there if still necessary. Else it gets too long and the focus gets lost, as usually happens. So, the four items that stick in my mind from the thread so far, are, in no particular order: 1. The North's infantry-cavalry ratio Protogoras, you wrote a lengthy post building a case against the North having a 2.5-1 infantry-cavalry ratio, and that it should instead be 4-1, as per the RPG numbers semi-endorsed by George in 2005. Well, my response is that I completely agree with you. In fact, that was my entire point in the original discussion with Lord Varys (Atlas of Ice and Fire thread for reference). My opening post in this thread set the scene, and listed Lord Varys's objections to the 3300 horse out of 12000 troops at Winterfell. And the very purpose of that was to demonstrate that the logical answer to Lord Varys's objections, is that the North has a lot more infantry to spare, given that a 4-1 cavalry ratio is far more logical. 2. Direpuppy's comment about extreme positive and negative assessments of the North's strength Direpuppy, I dispute your assertion that I take extreme positions on the North's strength. I take positions based on the evidence. My assessment of the North's strength has traditionally been a figure of 45k, which agrees with the semi-canon RPG numbers and agrees with Martin's comments that Robb wasn't able to raise the North's full strength. It is endorsed by the cavalry numbers we have seen and can logically expect to still see based on quotes provided. 3. The actual cavalry numbers Maester Luwin says there are 300-400 knights at Winterfell, among 3000 armored lancers who are NOT knights. How many knights are there? 300-400. How many armored lancers are there who are NOT knights? 3000. How many cavalry in total, therefore? 3300-3400. If there are 3 white puppies among 10 black puppies, how many puppies do you have altogether? Well, 13, quite obviously. Not 10. In any event, this is a minor point, as even 3000 is a very high ratio, but it bears emphasizing, as it demonstrates the habit of some to take every oppourtunity to take the lowest possible estimate for any quotes related to the North's strength. Be that as it may. As to the cavalry numbers, let's continue. So we have 3300. This grows to 5000 by the time Robb crosses the Neck. But how many more do we know remain behind in the North? Well, we have Ramsay's 600 Dreadfort cavalry to start with. And here the total Bolton numbers really become important. Even if Roose "only" brought 500 cavalry with Robb, his total cavalry already stands at 1100 once you add Ramsay's force. But we have reason to believe that Roose brought at least 3000 men to Winterfell, and at a 25% cavalry ratio no less, meaning at least 750 cavalry. Bringing his total cavalry to 1350. And yet, Lord Manderly says he had more than this at the start, and still has more than Roose has today. Whichever way you look at it, a cavalry number of 1500 seems difficult to dispute for House Manderly. In any case, this means we already have more than 2000 cavalry to add to Robb's 5000, bringing us to 7000 Northern cavalry without adding the remaining Dustin and Ryswell cavalry, both regions that are likely to have high cavalry numbers. Nor does it include remnant cavalry among the other Northern Houses, such as the dozen Karstarks lancers with Arnolf, the two dozen with Cley Cerwyn at the Harvest Feast etc. Meaning a total figure of around 8000 armored lances for the North is not some kind of "extreme" assessment, but is in fact very likely. And if you apply a 4-1 infantry ratio to that, you come to 40,000 men. Without Skagos, and without the Reeds, who don't feature in the cavalry counts above. So in short, we come back pretty much to the 45k strength for the North in the RPG numbers. With 8000 of that cavalry. 4. Northern peasants not being able to afford horses This is a weird straw man raised by Lord Varys. The fact that peasants in the North won't have horses because they are too poor. Well, not to beat around the bush, neither will southron peasants. The people that have horses, and become armored lancers, are not peasants - unless they are in service to some lord. They are largely nobility. The 8000 Northern cavalry mostly consist of lords, lords' sons, their vassal lords, landed knights, household knights, armed retainers of lords, and perhaps some hedge knights. Any freeriders would be mercenaries, serving one lord or another on a temporary basis. These aren't peasants who packed up their farm, bought some armour and saddled their plow horse to change it into a destrier. No, these are professional warriors, making a living from warfare. It is the infantry ranks who are bolstered by peasants, although not exclusively so. So it is a non-argument that poor peasants in the North mean that they cannot raise warhorses. The peasants can't. But the lords' who tax them can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Something Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 You know, I think we should take everything GRRM says about military matters (numbers, distances, arms & armour) with a pinch of salt. I simply think it's likely that we he talks about numbers and such he's just coming up with them off the top of his head. I doubt he's got all these figures worked out to the nearest 100. And that's fine. I don't think these things matter to the plot. When he describes armies, battles and campaigns, he is just describing them in broad strokes, and that works fine. And military history is one of my main hobbies/interests, so you would think I'd be really into troop-counting in his books. But I realised it's just pointless. A lot of the stuff he describes when it comes to arms and armour and such does make me cringe. Studded leather??? Morning stars??? This is the stuff of... well, ok, the stuff of fantasy not history, yes I get the irony there.... Personally I'd love to see more pollaxes and brigandines, but oh well, it's a fantasy book not a history book. (One thing that I've never quite been able to work out is when he refers to 'longswords', which he does a lot, does he have the real historical longsword in mind or the fantasy / dungeons & dragons idea of what a longsword is? I hope it's the former, but yeah it doesn't really matter....) I think the terms heavy cavalry, lancers, heavy lances, armoured lances, knights, heavy horse.... all pretty much mean heavy cavalry. Some of whom are likely anointed knights. And I don't plan to spend much more time thinking about it or getting worried about it. Yeah, I know, you may be wondering why I decided to join in this conversation just to say that I don't really care about the things you're discussing.... but meh, I felt like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, direpupy said: I never said thay used them to till there land, they would use oxen for that. Nor did a say peasants all owned horses, i said that a village of peasants would own horses, but that does mean u would have to have someone who breeds these horses. I'd support that point for actual villages, but not necessarily small settlements. Quote The horses would not be for farming they would be for moving the produce in the fast distances of the North, so i don't really see how your Great-Grandfathers farm is relavant unless he lived in the middle of no-where. The point there would be that lower income farmers and the like wouldn't have horses for that kind of thing. They would have workhorses but not maintain horses for travels they conduct two times each year or less. If they have to go trading they can walk or take the oxen. Quote Even in subsistence farming you have to trade since you can not grow everything you need yourself, basicaly the pig-farmer trades with the cow and the grain farmer. So trade must exist otherwise you still die, or have no clothes or tooles since you even as a subsistence farmer you are going to need a new axe plow or pair of pants every so often. You can live off chickens and vegetables. And you can make your tools and clothes yourself. Using your own wool and flax. I expect some small trade to happen, of course, but there could be some rather bad smiths all around the backwater places whose services you get basically in exchange for some eggs or chickens. You don't survive 'out in the wild' or 'in the middle of nowhere' if you aren't accustomed to that sort of lifestyle. These people wouldn't be specialists. They would have most or all the skills they need to survive out there. Quote With the fast distances of the North you can not use oxen in front of your cart because then by the time you arrive the goods have spoiled or rotten, you need an animal that is both strong and fast which is the Draught horse. Well, I guess that would be the reason why the average peasant is going to travel more than, say, twenty miles (a distance you can walk in a day, especially in that setting when most people were walking) to get to someplace. With the roads being as bad as they horses wouldn't speed things up all that much anyway. Quote Now a draught needs to be strong and fast, a destrier needs to be strong, fast, un-afraid and if possible agressive, the first two traits are the same and are inherent traits, the third and fouth traits of a destrier are the result of training. Basicaly a destrier is a draught trained for war and thats why they are expencive, you are not paying for the horse you are paying for its training. I don't know enough about horses to comment on that. Quote I to would not imagine a charger as a workhorse since a charger is a riding-horse for the rich, but a garron is not that usefull as a workhorse either so that being the northern workhorse does not make sence to me. I don't know how strong a horse has to be to draw a plow. I'd agree that it should be as strong as possible. But if you can afford cattle you would probably use them because they are stronger (I'm not so sure how many people have cattle up in the North, either, by the way) and you can get milk from them. Quote As to the Kingsroad that is a artificial construct of the Targaryen dynasty that does not actually connect any of the mayor centre's of the North so there being no-one there is really not an argument against trade in the North. It connects Winterfell and the Wall. Winterfell certainly is a major population center in the North. One would expect to find a lot of inns and villages to spring up alongside the road as there are down in the south. But that's not really the case even alongside the Kingsroad between Moat Cailin and Winterfell suggesting that there simply isn't all that much going on in the North. If there were other major roads in the North were 'the real traffic and trade' was going on then I'd expect the maps to depict and the stories to mention those roads. Even if we assume such roads once existed the Targaryen Kingsroad would have changed things just as the foundation of King's Landing changed things for Duskendale, and so on. Quote Also that it is they only road shown in the North does not mean there are no other roads, if the roads on the maps are they only roads then there would not be much trade in the South either, so again that is not a convinsing argument. Major roads are on the maps - like the Ocean Road, the Rose Road, the Gold Road, and so on. Most of the trade and traffic in the Riverlands is actually done by boat and ship on the Trident and the other rivers. Quote And last but not least how many villages are shown on the maps in the South? Not that many that does not mean they are not there, the same goes for the North but in the North they would be farther apart from each other because of the low population dencity. Wich would again nessecitate the use of horses to travel between them. I'm not saying there are no villages. But people can walk. And that they would do if they have to travel. Quote As to the part i bolded, that is a personel believe i do not share because it does not make sence, if you live isolated and alone you are not going to survive a years long winter, or to speak with the words of Ned Stark "when winter comes the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives" it would make far more sence that the northmen cling together in order to survive. That they do then in the Winter Town when things get very dire. But apparently people first try to survive on their own. They don't come begging to the Starks until they have to. And whether some lord takes a bunch of starving peasants in in the fifth year of winter when his own provisions are nearly spent is easily answered - he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 19 hours ago, Nyrhex said: I think that it is clear, both from the descriptions of them in the books, and from GRRM's own words on Westerosi troops. The Northmen by and large still rely on a simpler, cheaper form of protection. The North's cavalry are still equipped in 11th century mail and halfhelm for the most part, with some of the wealthier going for 13th century gear. This while the south starts in the 14th century and goes almost to the late 16th. You can count the mentions of plate armor in the North on one hand, and that includes the breastplates that Rykker and Tarly brought to the Night's Watch from home. The overwhelming majority of the Northern cavalry are depicted in gear that is would shame the average hedge knight in the south a century ago. Even Dunk could afford to get himself a decent suit of plate with what he could scrounge off of an old hedge knight. Could you kindly point me to the descriptions of the mail the northerners wear? I'm also unaware of the difference between chainmail from the 11th century and the 13th. Dunk got chainmail from Steely Pate, not plate mail. That's why he goes into a lecture on the quality of the chain mail and asks Egg if he knows how to clean and scour chainmail: “If you’re ever to be a knight, you’ll need to know good steel from bad. Look here, this is fine work. This mail is double-chain, each link bound to two others, see? It gives more protection than single-chain.” “Dunk lifted off the helm. “Plain is fine for the likes of me. See how bright the steel is? It will be your task to keep it that way. You know how to scour mail?” He does get a great helm, but those are less 14th and more 13th (or earlier) century equipment. You're also glossing over him selling his riding horse to get it. The wound he receives from Aerion lance makes it so that Pate tells him “I’ll have to cut that mail off him, I fear.” so it's a hauberk or haubergon. If we look at Rohanne Webber's summoned forces, the only two people dressed in plate are her and Longich. Her cousin and heir is specifically mentioned as being dressed in mail and leather. The infantry is fairly similar no matter where we look, but you're right in the cavalry generally having more plate as you move farther south. GRRM has said as much. That doesn't mean that the north simply doesn't raise horses. That's what the Ryswells are known for, is it not? As far as I can tell, the most common difference is southern cavalry seems to have breastplates, infrequently among the non-nobles or their direct reports (eg captain of the guard, relatives, et al). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: 1. The North's infantry-cavalry ratio Protogoras, you wrote a lengthy post building a case against the North having a 2.5-1 infantry-cavalry ratio, and that it should instead be 4-1, as per the RPG numbers semi-endorsed by George in 2005. Well, my response is that I completely agree with you. In fact, that was my entire point in the original discussion with Lord Varys (Atlas of Ice and Fire thread for reference). My opening post in this thread set the scene, and listed Lord Varys's objections to the 3300 horse out of 12000 troops at Winterfell. And the very purpose of that was to demonstrate that the logical answer to Lord Varys's objections, is that the North has a lot more infantry to spare, given that a 4-1 cavalry ratio is far more logical. Well, what can we say? We have no reason to take the numbers given by Luwin at face value as long as we don't assume, without good evidence, that those numbers are actually correct. Luwin has a job. He doesn't have the time to count men or horses. And we know from George ( http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/US_Signing_Tour_Huntington_Beach_CA ) that you should basically ignore all those numbers - that being the reason why I don't really care about them. Even if the numbers are accurate we have no reason to assume that those numbers correctly represent the cavalry-infantry ratio in the North. 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: 2. Direpuppy's comment about extreme positive and negative assessments of the North's strength Direpuppy, I dispute your assertion that I take extreme positions on the North's strength. I take positions based on the evidence. My assessment of the North's strength has traditionally been a figure of 45k, which agrees with the semi-canon RPG numbers and agrees with Martin's comments that Robb wasn't able to raise the North's full strength. It is endorsed by the cavalry numbers we have seen and can logically expect to still see based on quotes provided. That is an extreme position. 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: 4. Northern peasants not being able to afford horses This is a weird straw man raised by Lord Varys. The fact that peasants in the North won't have horses because they are too poor. Well, not to beat around the bush, neither will southron peasants. The people that have horses, and become armored lancers, are not peasants - unless they are in service to some lord. They are largely nobility. This was a separate issue but - newsflash! - rich commoners actually can afford horses. And then those men could actually contribute to the cavalry/army of their liege if they are ever drafted to war. 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: The 8000 Northern cavalry mostly consist of lords, lords' sons, their vassal lords, landed knights, household knights, armed retainers of lords, and perhaps some hedge knights. Any freeriders would be mercenaries, serving one lord or another on a temporary basis. Well, there are no landed knights in the North we know of nor has House Stark more than one single household knight (Ser Rodrik Cassel). Where are those those knights and their equivalents to make fill the Stark cavalry? Those men would number in the hundreds not the thousands. 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: These aren't peasants who packed up their farm, bought some armour and saddled their plow horse to change it into a destrier. No, these are professional warriors, making a living from warfare. It is the infantry ranks who are bolstered by peasants, although not exclusively so. You would have to prove that if you are so sure about that. We don't know who those cavalry men are nor do we know how well they were equipped. Else there would be no discussion. 1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said: So it is a non-argument that poor peasants in the North mean that they cannot raise warhorses. The peasants can't. But the lords' who tax them can. Again, Triston Sunderland has difficulty getting the coin to make all his seven sons knights. And you want to sell me the idea that the run-of-the-mill Lord of the North has the coin to equip, say, 100 or only 50 men in a fashion that would fit a knight? That is just very hard to swallow. If that was the case then Ser Kevan would not be able to feed 200-400 knights but rather 2,000-4,000. And the Lord of Casterly Rock 20,000-40,000 household knights. You have to see things in context. Else you won't get a coherent setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Well, there are no landed knights in the North we know of nor has House Stark more than one single household knight (Ser Rodrik Cassel). Where are those those knights and their equivalents to make fill the Stark cavalry? Those men would number in the hundreds not the thousands. [....] Again, Triston Sunderland has difficulty getting the coin to make all his seven sons knights. And you want to sell me the idea that the run-of-the-mill Lord of the North has the coin to equip, say, 100 or only 50 men in a fashion that would fit a knight? That is just very hard to swallow. 1) We know Lord Manderly has 100 landed knights sworn to him. Now if you mean the equivalent of landed knights, well: I have always figured that there are =dozens= of minor lords and =hundreds= of knights and such in all these armies. Simply because someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean they are not there. There are plenty of people who we don't know of and won't know of doesn't mean they don't exist. Clearly the northern cavalry does exist because we see it show up and fight in battle. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Drowned_God_and_More 2) Triston Sunderland is worried about arming his seven sons, not his vassals or men sworn to him. Those people arm themselves or send someone in their stead. A small village might send an infantryman with a polearm and his armor. A moderate size fief might send a mounted man-at-arms with a squire and a few archers. Hedge knights are people looking to be taken into service and we get it hammered into our heads 100x over that the lord isn't providing them with arms or armor, just room, board, and pay. As to arming 50-100 of these as mounted cavalry/knights, Lady Webber only had six people riding at the quintains when Dunk entered. Later she shows up with 33 mounted fighters, cavalry and crossbowmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblackdragonI Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Still, chargers and war horses are essentially luxuries. If the clansmen don't have them then very few other Lords of the North would have them. I'm not saying none of them have them, just that there are not thousands of them running around. Certainly not outside the Manderly lands. And we don't know what kind of horses the Ryswells are breeding. I'm inclined to believe that most of the more costly horses the Northmen would have come from there but there are many different types of horses than just war horses. And considering that horse-breeding would be a trade the Ryswells would most likely produce the types of horses that are mostly needed in the North rather than goods nobody can afford to buy and maintain. I'm completely with you there. We see Rodrik raise additional troops in ACoK, and Stannis and others continue to do so in ADwD. Skagos, the Neck, and all possible reserves included it could be very well go up to 35,000 men. But I see no reason to go with even more. Additionally one should keep in mind that the numbers may changes throughout the centuries. Torrhen could have been comparatively strong during the Conquest if there had been no wars between the North and the Vale or Riverlands for centuries while we know there was constant warfare between the Southron kingdoms. The North during the series suffered a lot of losses and other calamities in the last century - the Greyjoy Rebellion, Robert's Rebellion, the six-year-winter of 230-236 AC (and winter in general). Raymun Redbeard's invasion, the Skagos Rebellion, the Great Spring Sickness, the raiding Ironborn, etc. That could have taken a permanent toll on the overall population of the North. If there are a couple of short winters then a really hard and long winter might take a much larger toll because there is simply too little food for too many people. I agree completely on the estimates of the Northern total troops. Just because it's the biggest region people inflate its figures to something unrealistic. On the matter of horses I would imagine that the chief lords would have high quality horses on par with the southron lords for them and their immediate retainers. While the southern men at arms, knights and mounter troops in general would have better quality horses than their northern counter-part. As for your point about the Rills, I'd just say that as the chief (only?) producer of horses in the region the Ryswells might sell at a lower price to their fellow lords. I know it should be the opposite as they have a monopoly but seeing as that would sour relations and that their overlord is buying from them I'm sure the Ryswells would sell horses for cheaper than horses would be sold in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protagoras Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Stuff Hmm, surprisingly I find myself to be in more or less agreement with you (I think its closer to 7500 and not 8000 cavalry and I still have some issues about Robbs 5000 cavalry that I described in a previous post, but its minor details). I am quite unused to that feeling. Of course, since you have agreed on 4 to 1, that means its pretty obvious that the ratio is worse then other regions - so clearly the southron kingdoms in general have a high percentage of armoured cavalry. After taking some time to actually look into the mentioned rpg-book I find the following ratios: The North: 4-1 Riverlands: 3-1 The Vale: 3-1 Westerlands: 2-1 (looks a bit too generous) The Reach: 2-1 or 3-1 (I think it is the former) Crownlands, Dorne, Iron Islands and Stormlands ratio is not mentioned but I sort of get the impression that they are not that into cavalry. Dornes cavalry should be light if at all, considering the climate and iron Islands are, again, victims of their viking culture. Out of these regions we know that AT MINIMUM 4 of them (all presented!) beats the North easily ratio-wise, and while the remaining 4 regions aren´t mentioned I doubt they are cavalryless. The only one we sort of know they beat is Iron Islands and maybe Dorne. But there is no reason to assume less than 4-1 for Crownlands or Stormlands and especially in the Crownlands case, a good ratio makes sense due to the surplus of grain and their low amount of troops in general. And Stormlands has a martial culture who should put them on at least the norths ratio I think. So if Lord Varys claimed that the North has a lower ratio of armored cavalry than other regions, then he was most certainly correct. I don´t think the North beat more than Dorne and Iron Islands when it comes to this. And that was something you two argued about, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protagoras Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Stuff First, I think that Dunks lack of visor is not really representative for the issue and is a bit overblown. Dunk still has armour. Said armour saves his life in the third book (together with his think head). Second, Castle-forged steel is a term of quality. But nobles are rich - even lords like Umber. They can afford it, at least some. And if they can´t pay in coin they can pay in resources to make a decent counter-offer. Sure, money is better since it gives freedom instead of tying you up but if I am an armoursmith and is offered a farm instead, well...at the end, if I am the best in my trade I might not choose the North but there should be plenty of decent smiths who can work the metal. In short, while I do agree there is a difference in armour (due to the difference in coin) I don´t think it is that extreme. Sure, you will find more hauberks than in most other regions but the different is not as significant I think as you imply. Not unless you compare with the Reach and the Westerlands only that is. And the entire north and west of the North has a longstanding tradition of warfare due to the Ironborn and the wildling raids. And in the east you have the Boltons. Not an environment to get soft in, in other words. As for the horses, I find it pretty obvious that Ryswells and maybe some smaller houses breeds warhorses for the northern nobility (something that most likely is their main activity and nets the house big bucks). Further, it wouldn´t surprise me that if A. the Starks take their tax in warhorses and not coin and B. That the Ryswells are obliged to sell their creatures to all houses in the north who can afford them , to make sure that the North doesn´t suffer from harmful import. It is most certainly in everyones interest to stop any importation of horses and preventing that negative trade balance, unless maybe, maybe from their closest friends (Riverlands, the Vale) and even that might be harsh. Transporting horses by land through the neck or by the sea to the north can´t be an entirely easy task. In short - all logic say that the Ryswell horse is a shorter, stouter and slightly slower warhorse that might be more sturdy to terrain and the climate. In addition to warhorses, the Ryswells most likely produce other horses as well. And again, the Clansmen and their so-called "horses" does NOT count as cavalry in any instance of the word. They have their horses as mounts and/or carriers without combat purpose. Assuming that they are "the rank-and-file of the Northern cavalry" is laughable since they are not a cavalry-culture. They have hardy mounts that they dismount from when its time for combat (Note the lack of mounted riders when they fight Asha) and reminds me more of the Ironborn. Again, if you want some great examples then Sweden and Russia has had some great cavalry. The Hakkapeliitta for example, a finnish unit. And the Cossacks, of course. And climatewise I have always seen Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia at a climate similiar to Ryswell (Whereas the arctic climate seems to begin with the mountain clans and Umber and in northern Sweden respectivly). All this proves that the climate is no issue for the North to breed a northern warhorse who is "good enough". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said: 1) We know Lord Manderly has 100 landed knights sworn to him. Now if you mean the equivalent of landed knights, well: I have always figured that there are =dozens= of minor lords and =hundreds= of knights and such in all these armies. Simply because someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean they are not there. There are plenty of people who we don't know of and won't know of doesn't mean they don't exist. Clearly the northern cavalry does exist because we see it show up and fight in battle. Oh, sure, there would be landed knight equivalents in the North, but the problem there is them being in service to House Stark. A landed knight is basically a nobleman sitting in a smaller or greater keep/castle with his own family, retinue, servants, etc. If such people lived in the vicinity of Winterfell we would have either seen them or heard of them. And not all of those people would have ridden off to war with Robb. Just as some old clansmen show up at the Wall in ADwD such old landed knights might have decided to spend their time at Winterfell (just as the Stokeworths and Rosbys always hang around at court). The fact that they aren't there is a strong sign that no such people exist. I'd say there must be landed knight equivalents somewhere on the Winterfell lands but not all that many, and those who exist must live pretty far away. Nobody doubts the existence of the cavalry. We are mostly discussing how well they are equipped. Quote 2) Triston Sunderland is worried about arming his seven sons, not his vassals or men sworn to him. Those people arm themselves or send someone in their stead. A small village might send an infantryman with a polearm and his armor. A moderate size fief might send a mounted man-at-arms with a squire and a few archers. That would be true for landed knights, petty lords, and other lordly vassals. Perhaps even for some yeomen who are called upon to fight in war. They hold land in their lord's name and are likely expected to pay for their equipment with the rent they collect from their tenants. But that is not the case for household knights. Household knights may have a family name and may even be of noble birth (if so, they would be second or third sons, unlikely to inherit much or anything). Perhaps their fathers buy them one sword, a set of armor, and a horse, but that's it. But if you are working for a lord doing a knight's work then it is very likely that you will use a lot of swords, shields, armor, and horses. The meager pay you think a household knight gets for his service would never pay for that. It would basically mean you got shabby household knight who is unable to represent you and your house properly. And that reflects badly on you. Quote Hedge knights are people looking to be taken into service and we get it hammered into our heads 100x over that the lord isn't providing them with arms or armor, just room, board, and pay. As to arming 50-100 of these as mounted cavalry/knights, Lady Webber only had six people riding at the quintains when Dunk entered. Later she shows up with 33 mounted fighters, cavalry and crossbowmen. That is true for hedge knights. When they are taken into service they are called sworn swords which seems to be quite a different form of employment than if you are a household knight. Such a man seems to be much closer connected to his lord than Dunk and Bennis were. It is what Ser Rodrik Cassel was for the Starks, or what Areo Hotah is for the Martells. Thoros of Myr is a good example for a household knight, by the way. He was constantly burning his swords during tourneys but Robert was always paying for them. 1 hour ago, theblackdragonI said: On the matter of horses I would imagine that the chief lords would have high quality horses on par with the southron lords for them and their immediate retainers. While the southern men at arms, knights and mounter troops in general would have better quality horses than their northern counter-part. As for your point about the Rills, I'd just say that as the chief (only?) producer of horses in the region the Ryswells might sell at a lower price to their fellow lords. I know it should be the opposite as they have a monopoly but seeing as that would sour relations and that their overlord is buying from them I'm sure the Ryswells would sell horses for cheaper than horses would be sold in the south. I'm pretty sure the Ryswells aren't the only horse breeders in the North. They might specialize in horses for the nobility but even that isn't clear. Many Manderly vassals might do the same. We just don't know. I find the idea somewhat weird that horses are shipped throughout the entire North from the Rills. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: First, I think that Dunks lack of visor is not really representative for the issue and is a bit overblown. Dunk still has armour. Said armour saves his life in the third book (together with his think head). That is certainly true. But those kind of details are important. And I'm the first to say that fancy armor of the sort Renly and Loras used during tourneys would be pretty stupid in a real war. But we can assume that these men could afford more than one set of armor. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: Second, Castle-forged steel is a term of quality. But nobles are rich - even lords like Umber. They can afford it, at least some. And if they can´t pay in coin they can pay in resources to make a decent counter-offer. Sure, money is better since it gives freedom instead of tying you up but if I am an armoursmith and is offered a farm instead, well...at the end, if I am the best in my trade I might not choose the North but there should be plenty of decent smiths who can work the metal. In short, while I do agree there is a difference in armour (due to the difference in coin) I don´t think it is that extreme. Sure, you will find more hauberks than in most other regions but the different is not as significant I think as you imply. Not unless you compare with the Reach and the Westerlands only that is. That hinges on the rather weird notion that there are a lot of traveling armorers and the like in the far North. I'm not saying the Umbers can't afford decent armor. They are reasonably powerful and wealthy for a northern house. But the stuff you get is only going to be as good as the infrastructure and civilization allows. You won't get Tobho Mott-quality in the North. You will only get that, presumably, in KL, Oldtown, and Lannisport. And the kind of armor and weaponry you need is dependent on what it is used for. The Umbers usually don't try to break Lannister or Tyrell knights on a regular basis. They protect their own lands and attend their own version of tourneys, and super great armor and weaponry might not be necessary for both. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: And the entire north and west of the North has a longstanding tradition of warfare due to the Ironborn and the wildling raids. And in the east you have the Boltons. Not an environment to get soft in, in other words. The teeth of the Ironborn have long since been drawn. And the wildlings have only become a real threat in recent years. The Watch was still 10,000 men strong during the Conquest. Occasional civil wars in the North aren't the same kind of martial lifestyle you apparently have in the Dornish Marches. Those lands were constantly raided by the Dornish for millennia, and everything in their culture seems to reflect that, including their castles. We cannot say the same for Cape Kraken, the Stony Shore, or Sea Dragon Point. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: As for the horses, I find it pretty obvious that Ryswells and maybe some smaller houses breeds warhorses for the northern nobility (something that most likely is their main activity and nets the house big bucks). Further, it wouldn´t surprise me that if A. the Starks take their tax in warhorses and not coin and B. That the Ryswells are obliged to sell their creatures to all houses in the north who can afford them , to make sure that the North doesn´t suffer from harmful import. It is most certainly in everyones interest to stop any importation of horses and preventing that negative trade balance, unless maybe, maybe from their closest friends (Riverlands, the Vale) and even that might be harsh. Transporting horses by land through the neck or by the sea to the north can´t be an entirely easy task. Well, I don't need whether the great houses actually collect taxes. They might collect rents in the name of the Crown but as far as we know only the Iron Throne collects taxes (and King Robb, too, of course). As to the Ryswell horse trade - see above. I won't speculate all that much about that. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: In short - all logic say that the Ryswell horse is a shorter, stouter and slightly slower warhorse that might be more sturdy to terrain and the climate. In addition to warhorses, the Ryswells most likely produce other horses as well. And again, the Clansmen and their so-called "horses" does NOT count as cavalry in any instance of the word. They have their horses as mounts and/or carriers without combat purpose. Assuming that they are "the rank-and-file of the Northern cavalry" is laughable since they are not a cavalry-culture. They have hardy mounts that they dismount from when its time for combat (Note the lack of mounted riders when they fight Asha) and reminds me more of the Ironborn. They were attacking Asha in the middle of the Wolfswood. One assumes that the use of cavalry would be somewhat stupid in that environment. But in general I'm open to guessing the ratio of real big armored chargers/war horses among Robb's mounted men at Winterfell (if we believe the numbers given) and lighter armored horse. I'm also not insisting that most of the cavalry would be horses of the type of the mountain garrons. Just that some of them might, especially the horses of the poorer petty lords and mounted men. In fact, if you go by that then Robb's successes look all that more impressive, stressing a point I usually try to make - that numbers don't matter all that much if you can control other important influencing a battle. Usually that's the way George likes to write his battles. He knows all that and uses it to give us a compelling battle. 32 minutes ago, Protagoras said: Again, if you want some great examples then Sweden and Russia has had some great cavalry. The Hakkapeliitta for example, a finnish unit. And the Cossacks, of course. And climatewise I have always seen Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia at a climate similiar to Ryswell (Whereas the arctic climate seems to begin with the mountain clans and Umber and in northern Sweden respectivly). All this proves that the climate is no issue for the North to breed a northern warhorse who is "good enough". Again, the real world doesn't have horses live through six-year-winters and the like. That changes everything. I mean, the whole setting is totally unrealistic in regards to the winters anyway but if you try to calculate how much food, say, 20-30 huge war horses would need throughout a six-year-winter at a place like Karhold or the Last Hearth you would most likely need an amount you couldn't store at Karhold. And then you would have to keep the food fresh enough for the horses all the while the people at your castle also have to eat a lot of stuff each day. I mean, honestly, I've no idea how animals in the wild survive any Westerosi winter. The hibernating animals can't hibernate that long, presumably, and the others would not be able to find food throughout these long years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: 2. Direpuppy's comment about extreme positive and negative assessments of the North's strength Direpuppy, I dispute your assertion that I take extreme positions on the North's strength. I take positions based on the evidence. My assessment of the North's strength has traditionally been a figure of 45k, which agrees with the semi-canon RPG numbers and agrees with Martin's comments that Robb wasn't able to raise the North's full strength. It is endorsed by the cavalry numbers we have seen and can logically expect to still see based on quotes provided. Like i told Lord Vary's when he responded to this comment of mine, you and he start off reasoneble but as you guys get sucked into the discussion with each other you both tend to gravitate to the extreme. Its not an accusation but a observation. And like i also told him and now you, i still read the posts of both you guys because you do both always have good points in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: 1) I'd support that point for actual villages, but not necessarily small settlements. 2)The point there would be that lower income farmers and the like wouldn't have horses for that kind of thing. They would have workhorses but not maintain horses for travels they conduct two times each year or less. If they have to go trading they can walk or take the oxen. 3)You can live off chickens and vegetables. And you can make your tools and clothes yourself. Using your own wool and flax. I expect some small trade to happen, of course, but there could be some rather bad smiths all around the backwater places whose services you get basically in exchange for some eggs or chickens. 4)You don't survive 'out in the wild' or 'in the middle of nowhere' if you aren't accustomed to that sort of lifestyle. These people wouldn't be specialists. They would have most or all the skills they need to survive out there. 5)Well, I guess that would be the reason why the average peasant is going to travel more than, say, twenty miles (a distance you can walk in a day, especially in that setting when most people were walking) to get to someplace. With the roads being as bad as they horses wouldn't speed things up all that much anyway. 6)I don't know enough about horses to comment on that. 7) don't know how strong a horse has to be to draw a plow. I'd agree that it should be as strong as possible. But if you can afford cattle you would probably use them because they are stronger (I'm not so sure how many people have cattle up in the North, either, by the way) and you can get milk from them. 8)It connects Winterfell and the Wall. Winterfell certainly is a major population center in the North. One would expect to find a lot of inns and villages to spring up alongside the road as there are down in the south. But that's not really the case even alongside the Kingsroad between Moat Cailin and Winterfell suggesting that there simply isn't all that much going on in the North. 9)If there were other major roads in the North were 'the real traffic and trade' was going on then I'd expect the maps to depict and the stories to mention those roads. Even if we assume such roads once existed the Targaryen Kingsroad would have changed things just as the foundation of King's Landing changed things for Duskendale, and so on. 10)Major roads are on the maps - like the Ocean Road, the Rose Road, the Gold Road, and so on. Most of the trade and traffic in the Riverlands is actually done by boat and ship on the Trident and the other rivers. 11)I'm not saying there are no villages. But people can walk. And that they would do if they have to travel. 12)That they do then in the Winter Town when things get very dire. But apparently people first try to survive on their own. They don't come begging to the Starks until they have to. And whether some lord takes a bunch of starving peasants in in the fifth year of winter when his own provisions are nearly spent is easily answered - he won't. 1) I am with you on that villages yes small settelments probably not. 2) Like i said oxen for working fields but if you have to transport produce over a distance that would be a wagon drawn by horses because oxen are to slow, the food would spoil before it gets to its destination. 3) You can get pretty far by yourself sure but not everything can be made by yourself, to get wool you need sheep not every village has sheep, for the smith of the village to make you your new tool he needs iron-ore and not every village has a mine etc, etc. So there has to be trade and yes this can most certainly be barter trade. But in the fastness of the North wich whe know is not densily populated that trade would be over greater distance then in the South, hence the need for horses to draw a wagon. 4) I am not disputing that there are people who live in the wild, i am disputing that this is the mayority of the Northmen. People always tend to cling together this is basic human nature, you are safer in a group with people (neigbeurs) who can help you in time of need. 5) If whe where talking about the South i would agree with you but with the fast distances of the North and the fact that whe know the small northern population is spread al over the North from the Neck to the Gift, i have to disagree travel over greater distance would be a nessecity in the North. 6) I do. 7) As i have stated in a previeus post and in this post you would not use horses in front of your plow, you would use oxen or an other type of bovine, the horses a for the wagons needed to move the produce over the large distances of the North. 8) It does not connect places like White Harbor or Barrowton with winterfell, and honestly these are the three biggest centres in the North, that it connects to the Wall is meaningless since the Wall is not a mayor centre in the North it is a defencif structure with a number of men spread out over multiple garrisons. Also most of the trade would go via The White Knife ore come up from Barrowton neither of those are connected to the Kingsroad, hell it does not even connect any of the castles of the Norths mayor Lords, the Kingsroad is a failed prestige project of the Targaryen dynasty. 9) Just because the maps only show the royal roads does not mean more roads do not exist, you can not honestly believe there are only 4 roads in al of westeros, that would really make no sence at all. As to Duskendale, a rival harbor is not the same as a road that does not connect the mayor trade centres to each other. The Kingsroad would not have changed the flow of trade in the North at all. 10) Like i said at point 9 you can not honestly believe there are only 4 roads in all of westeros. And the trade in the Riverlands going by river sure. But how about the Stormlands, Dorne, The Westerlands and the parts of the Reach not connected by the Mander or the Honeywine river? No there are definetly more roads then are shown on the maps. And even in the Riverlands there are more roads because otherwise the bridge at the Twins would make no sence, it would be a bridge in the middle of nowhere that would connect tho nothing at all. 11)Like i said at point 5 if whe where talking about the South i would agree but not in the vast distances of the North. 12) Even before winter you would need to stick together because you can not do everything yourself, and in winter this would be even more important, therfore it does not make sence for the mayority of the Northern people to be living on there own, they would live in villages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Again, the real world doesn't have horses live through six-year-winters and the like. That changes everything. I mean, the whole setting is totally unrealistic in regards to the winters anyway but if you try to calculate how much food, say, 20-30 huge war horses would need throughout a six-year-winter at a place like Karhold or the Last Hearth you would most likely need an amount you couldn't store at Karhold. And then you would have to keep the food fresh enough for the horses all the while the people at your castle also have to eat a lot of stuff each day. I mean, honestly, I've no idea how animals in the wild survive any Westerosi winter. The hibernating animals can't hibernate that long, presumably, and the others would not be able to find food throughout these long years. By that argument the Riverlands should not not have any horses either, since whe know from Jaime's chapters in Dance that it snows in the Riverlands in winter. So thats not really a compeling argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 2) Like i said oxen for working fields but if you have to transport produce over a distance that would be a wagon drawn by horses because oxen are to slow, the food would spoil before it gets to its destination. But are oxen really too slow if you are just going on a trip 20-40 miles trip? I don't think so. And the idea that people going to trade would sell everyday goods like vegetables, milk, meat, and the like is not very likely. They would go there to look for wool, tools, and other things that are hard to come by. But pretty much all of the peasants would produce their own food. That wouldn't be the stuff they used to trade unless they produce much more than they actually need. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 3) You can get pretty far by yourself sure but not everything can be made by yourself, to get wool you need sheep not every village has sheep, for the smith of the village to make you your new tool he needs iron-ore and not every village has a mine etc, etc. So there has to be trade and yes this can most certainly be barter trade. But in the fastness of the North wich whe know is not densily populated that trade would be over greater distance then in the South, hence the need for horses to draw a wagon. One could argue that sheep would have to be very common commodity in the North. Those people need proper winter gear of many sorts (clothes and blankets, etc.). I doubt you would have to travel to get somewhere where you can buy wool or else many people wouldn't live through winter. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 4) I am not disputing that there are people who live in the wild, i am disputing that this is the mayority of the Northmen. People always tend to cling together this is basic human nature, you are safer in a group with people (neigbeurs) who can help you in time of need. Technically correct but depending on the fertility of the land and geography in general. In the regions we visited there simply don't seem to be many villages. Granted, we don't have to seen all that much. In those regions where the land doesn't support many people settlements are not all that likely to form. You would have some guy living in the outback, and then another living quite some miles away from him, and so on. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 5) If whe where talking about the South i would agree with you but with the fast distances of the North and the fact that whe know the small northern population is spread al over the North from the Neck to the Gift, i have to disagree travel over greater distance would be a nessecity in the North. Peasants usually are neither expected nor allowed to travel all that much. Especially not if they are bound to the land of their lord. In addition, we don't know anything how the population of the North is spread. I expect a lot of land to be pretty empty, actually. Especially a lot of the mountainous regions and the woodlands. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 7) As i have stated in a previeus post and in this post you would not use horses in front of your plow, you would use oxen or an other type of bovine, the horses a for the wagons needed to move the produce over the large distances of the North. Again, only necessary, perhaps, if we assume peasants have to travel all that far. People who can afford to trade over vast distances will have horses. Others won't. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 8) It does not connect places like White Harbor or Barrowton with winterfell, and honestly these are the three biggest centres in the North, that it connects to the Wall is meaningless since the Wall is a mayor centre in the North it is a defencif structure with a number of men spread out over multiple garrisons. Also most of the trade would go via The White Knife ore come up from Barrowton neither of those are connected to the Kingsroad, hell it does not even connect any of the castles of the Norths mayor Lords, the Kingsroad is a failed prestige project of the Targaryen dynasty. We don't know whether there is a lot of trade happening at Barrowton, actually. Just because people live in that town doesn't mean that they do a lot of trade. They could just live off the land around them and do some trade with the neighbors in the Rills. The idea that road leading from KL throughout the Realm up to Winterfell and the Wall has to take detours to White Harbor and Barrowton (which are basically in the middle of nowhere) doesn't make much sense to me. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 9) Just because the maps only show the royal roads does not mean more roads do not exist, you can not honestly believe there are only 4 roads in al of westeros, that would really make no sence at all. As to Duskendale, a rival harbor is not the same as a road that does not connect the mayor trade centres to each other. The Kingsroad would not have changed the flow of trade in the North at all. How do you know that? And I'm not saying there are no other roads, just that I see no reason to imagine some bigger trade road going from, say, Barrowton to Winterfell via Cerwyn. I could see a road connection White Harbor, Hornwood, the Dreadfort, and Karhold or the Last Hearth. But I see no reason to imagine such a road as major trade route, either. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 10) Like i said at point 9 you can not honestly believe there are only 4 roads in all of westeros. And the trade in the Riverlands going by river sure. But how about the Stormlands, Dorne, The Westerlands and the parts of the Reach not connected by the Mander or the Honeywine river? No there are definetly more roads then are shown on the maps. And even in the Riverlands there are more roads because otherwise the bridge at the Twins would make no sence, it would be a bridge in the middle of nowhere that would connect tho nothing at all. That certainly is true. But the question is - why the hell is the Kingsroad completely empty north of Winterfell? It is the major road in the North as far as we know. And usually people travel on roads. If there were other major roads we would have heard about them. 5 minutes ago, direpupy said: 12) Even before winter you would need to stick together because you can not do everything yourself, and in winter this would be even more important, therfore it does not make sence for the mayority of the Northern people to be living on there own, they would live in villages. That sticking together thing makes sense if you face a lot of danger. Are you all that much in danger out on some northern plain in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. 21 minutes ago, direpupy said: By that argument the Riverlands should not not have any horses either, since whe know from Jaime's chapters in Dance that it snows in the Riverlands in winter. So thats not really a compeling argument. It is, at least for the type of horses that couldn't survive a northern snow storm in autumn. Presumably winter is a lot milder in the Riverlands, and they usually would have much more food stored, and so on. But sure, George's setting simply isn't very compelling in regards to the whole years long winter thing. People and animals shouldn't survive that ordeal, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: 1)But are oxen really too slow if you are just going on a trip 20-40 miles trip? I don't think so. And the idea that people going to trade would sell everyday goods like vegetables, milk, meat, and the like is not very likely. They would go there to look for wool, tools, and other things that are hard to come by. But pretty much all of the peasants would produce their own food. That wouldn't be the stuff they used to trade unless they produce much more than they actually need. 2)One could argue that sheep would have to be very common commodity in the North. Those people need proper winter gear of many sorts (clothes and blankets, etc.). I doubt you would have to travel to get somewhere where you can buy wool or else many people wouldn't live through winter. 3)Technically correct but depending on the fertility of the land and geography in general. In the regions we visited there simply don't seem to be many villages. Granted, we don't have to seen all that much. In those regions where the land doesn't support many people settlements are not all that likely to form. You would have some guy living in the outback, and then another living quite some miles away from him, and so on. 4)Peasants usually are neither expected nor allowed to travel all that much. Especially not if they are bound to the land of their lord. In addition, we don't know anything how the population of the North is spread. I expect a lot of land to be pretty empty, actually. Especially a lot of the mountainous regions and the woodlands. 5)Again, only necessary, perhaps, if we assume peasants have to travel all that far. People who can afford to trade over vast distances will have horses. Others won't. 6)We don't know whether there is a lot of trade happening at Barrowton, actually. Just because people live in that town doesn't mean that they do a lot of trade. They could just live off the land around them and do some trade with the neighbors in the Rills. 7)The idea that road leading from KL throughout the Realm up to Winterfell and the Wall has to take detours to White Harbor and Barrowton (which are basically in the middle of nowhere) doesn't make much sense to me. 8)How do you know that? And I'm not saying there are no other roads, just that I see no reason to imagine some bigger trade road going from, say, Barrowton to Winterfell via Cerwyn. I could see a road connection White Harbor, Hornwood, the Dreadfort, and Karhold or the Last Hearth. But I see no reason to imagine such a road as major trade route, either. 9)That certainly is true. But the question is - why the hell is the Kingsroad completely empty north of Winterfell? It is the major road in the North as far as we know. And usually people travel on roads. If there were other major roads we would have heard about them. 10)That sticking together thing makes sense if you face a lot of danger. Are you all that much in danger out on some northern plain in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. 11)It is, at least for the type of horses that couldn't survive a northern snow storm in autumn. Presumably winter is a lot milder in the Riverlands, and they usually would have much more food stored, and so on. But sure, George's setting simply isn't very compelling in regards to the whole years long winter thing. People and animals shouldn't survive that ordeal, period. 1) I really think you underestimate the distances in the North it would not be 20-40 miles so yes oxen are to slow. As to the food you do not grow al types of food yourself, the land of one village would be more suited to grain while that of an other would be beter fore things like turnips, so you trade your turnips for the grain of an other village, but you first have to get it to said village. 2) Same thinge as point 1 not al land is suited for grazing so you would still have to travel to get the wool. 3) You are thinking about the homesteads of modern times here, thats not the way it works in the times when there was no mechanized travel, you would by neccesity form community's. Hell even in modern homesteading the community is more prevalent then the lone homestead. 4) You are thinking of a serf here not a farmer a serf would work the lands of his Lord, a farmer works his own lands and only pays a yearly stipend to the Lord. He would most certainly be free to travel. 5) Its not about affording, its about neccesity, and in the vast distances of the North travel is a neccesity. 6) Barrowton is to big to be a farming community, so yes there is going to be trade there. 7) I am not saying it has to take a detour i am saying the whole damn road makes no sence because it only connects to two places Winterfell and the Wall, it does not connect to anything else in the North. 8) Who is talking about a big trading route? I'm not, i am talking about a lot of small roads that connect al the places from big towns to small villages. And yes these would have trade going up and down, maybe not in big amounts but i never said there would be big amounts just that there would be trade. 9) Its empty because it does not connect to anything, it whas a prestige project of the Targaryen. As to the other roads like i said they do not have to be big roads, and whe don't need to hear about them until they become relevant to the story. Hell there is a road in the Wolfswood because if there was not Stannis would not have been able to move his wagons trough there on his way to Winterfell. 10) Yes you would be in danger there, from predators (think bears and wolfs) to simple accidents (you fall and break your leg) you simply need at least some other people around. 11) I agree animals should not survive a years long winter anywhere in Westeros, but they do and there is no reason to believe that this is any different in the North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Ser Something said: You know, I think we should take everything GRRM says about military matters (numbers, distances, arms & armour) with a pinch of salt. I simply think it's likely that we he talks about numbers and such he's just coming up with them off the top of his head. I doubt he's got all these figures worked out to the nearest 100. And that's fine. I don't think these things matter to the plot. When he describes armies, battles and campaigns, he is just describing them in broad strokes, and that works fine. Welcome into the light. 8 hours ago, Ser Something said: (One thing that I've never quite been able to work out is when he refers to 'longswords', which he does a lot, does he have the real historical longsword in mind or the fantasy / dungeons & dragons idea of what a longsword is? I hope it's the former, but yeah it doesn't really matter....) Given the way he uses the term "bastard sword", my money is on dungeons and dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 9 hours ago, direpupy said: 1) I really think you underestimate the distances in the North it would not be 20-40 miles so yes oxen are to slow. As to the food you do not grow al types of food yourself, the land of one village would be more suited to grain while that of an other would be beter fore things like turnips, so you trade your turnips for the grain of an other village, but you first have to get it to said village. That is basically far too complicated in a medieval setting. People weren't advanced enough to do that kind of thing, nor was it necessary to do so, especially not in a sparsely populated area. You mainly grew stuff for yourself and your own. If there was a surplus, fine, if not, it was fine, too. And the idea that the average peasant actually can sell a lot of food makes no sense whatsoever in light of the fact that people need to prepare for winter. Especially in the North the focus would be on foods they could store for a long time in cold temperatures. The idea that the society is based very much on food trade isn't very convincing to me. Quote 2) Same thinge as point 1 not al land is suited for grazing so you would still have to travel to get the wool. You basically need just some plans to get some sheep grazing. That is far less complicated than finding suitable land to grow some crops. And if the people in the North have anything it would be empty plains. Quote 3) You are thinking about the homesteads of modern times here, thats not the way it works in the times when there was no mechanized travel, you would by neccesity form community's. Hell even in modern homesteading the community is more prevalent then the lone homestead. I'm not challenging the idea that the average settlement in a more populated area of the Norths consists of a dozen families or so, who live reasonably close together. But since we don't know whether they have to interact or trade with other people 100 miles away or not it doesn't make a lot of sense to assert that this is the case. Farming is hard work. You don't take your time off to make some journey. There could be harvest feasts and the like (after all, that's when a lot of work that has to be done in the outside is over). Quote 4) You are thinking of a serf here not a farmer a serf would work the lands of his Lord, a farmer works his own lands and only pays a yearly stipend to the Lord. He would most certainly be free to travel. We know that there are some yeomen in the Riverlands who would be free. But we also know that King Aerys I commanded the smallfolk who left their lands and villages during the drought to return there, suggesting that the majority of the peasants were not free to do this kind of thing. Quote 5) Its not about affording, its about neccesity, and in the vast distances of the North travel is a neccesity. No, it is not. The vast majority of the people in medieval setting would live up and die without ever leaving their community. The men we meet on the Osgrey lands are not likely to have ever left them (the guys marching with the Black Dragon excluded). The chances that the Northmen peasants are different doesn't convince at all. Traders, merchants, craftsmen, and hunters would travel. Shepherds would also migrate with their herds (but usually only on the lands where they are allowed to graze). But the average peasant who is basically just trying to feed his family wouldn't go on any journeys. We don't even know if there are market towns in the North. Quote 6) Barrowton is to big to be a farming community, so yes there is going to be trade there. One assumes there is, but the people might still do a lot of farming inside and outside the town. That was done back in the middle ages. You had some animals in your backyard even if you were actually doing something else for a living. Quote 7) I am not saying it has to take a detour i am saying the whole damn road makes no sence because it only connects to two places Winterfell and the Wall, it does not connect to anything else in the North. It also doesn't connect directly to Harrenhal or Riverrun but it is still the major road of the Realm. You have to deal with that. Down in the South a lot of goods are moved on that road. We see that happening. Quote 8) Who is talking about a big trading route? I'm not, i am talking about a lot of small roads that connect al the places from big towns to small villages. And yes these would have trade going up and down, maybe not in big amounts but i never said there would be big amounts just that there would be trade. Well, there is none of that to be seen in AGoT when Tyrion actually travel the Kingsroad up to the Wall. And that's in summer. Quote 9) Its empty because it does not connect to anything, it whas a prestige project of the Targaryen. As to the other roads like i said they do not have to be big roads, and whe don't need to hear about them until they become relevant to the story. Hell there is a road in the Wolfswood because if there was not Stannis would not have been able to move his wagons trough there on his way to Winterfell. I doubt that Jaehaerys I actually built the causeway. The road through the Neck and up to Moat Cailin must have already existed. And it also makes sense that the Starks had a road connecting Winterfell to Moat Cailin that went exactly where the Kingsroad goes now, just as there would have been a road connecting the Wall to Winterfell. It might have gone to the Nightfort instead of Castle Black but that would just be a small change. It would have been down south where Jaehaerys I would have had to do the real work, building roads that actually lead to King's Landing, and building a road through the Riverlands that actually connects KL with to the Neck. That wouldn't have been a priority of the River Kings or the Ironborn later on. Quote 10) Yes you would be in danger there, from predators (think bears and wolfs) to simple accidents (you fall and break your leg) you simply need at least some other people around. That is why you usually have your family and your farm hands and maids around. We are not talking about some house in the middle of nowhere, we are talking about a farm large enough to support a family. Such a place can exist out in the wild. And we are not necessarily talking about it being 100 miles away from the next neighbor. 20 could work just as fine. Quote 11) I agree animals should not survive a years long winter anywhere in Westeros, but they do and there is no reason to believe that this is any different in the North. Well, if horses die in some autumn storm then it is actually pretty different because that means horses can only survive in (heated?) stables in winter. And that's a luxury the average person simply could not afford. If they live together with a few animals in the house that could work, but they would not be able to do this with all that many horses and would most likely go with swine or fowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 From what I've read about medieval warhorses, they were far from regular horses that had just received some extra training. On the contrary, they were very much bred for the purpose. How it appear to have worked was that you had a herd of mares led by one specifically selected stallion, that you pretty much left to fend for itself in the wilderness (the stallion being responsible both for impregnating the females as well as for protecting the herd against predators), which you only visited now and then to choose promising male foals that would be brought back and trained for war. It was a pretty elaborate process in other words, and a horse like that could easily cost five or ten times as much as a regular plow or riding horse. On the other hand, most horses used by "mounted archers" and other such common troops are likely of the regular, cheaper variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: That is basically far too complicated in a medieval setting. People weren't advanced enough to do that kind of thing, nor was it necessary to do so, especially not in a sparsely populated area. You mainly grew stuff for yourself and your own. If there was a surplus, fine, if not, it was fine, too. And the idea that the average peasant actually can sell a lot of food makes no sense whatsoever in light of the fact that people need to prepare for winter. Especially in the North the focus would be on foods they could store for a long time in cold temperatures. The idea that the society is based very much on food trade isn't very convincing to me. You basically need just some plans to get some sheep grazing. That is far less complicated than finding suitable land to grow some crops. And if the people in the North have anything it would be empty plains. I'm not challenging the idea that the average settlement in a more populated area of the Norths consists of a dozen families or so, who live reasonably close together. But since we don't know whether they have to interact or trade with other people 100 miles away or not it doesn't make a lot of sense to assert that this is the case. Farming is hard work. You don't take your time off to make some journey. There could be harvest feasts and the like (after all, that's when a lot of work that has to be done in the outside is over). We know that there are some yeomen in the Riverlands who would be free. But we also know that King Aerys I commanded the smallfolk who left their lands and villages during the drought to return there, suggesting that the majority of the peasants were not free to do this kind of thing. No, it is not. The vast majority of the people in medieval setting would live up and die without ever leaving their community. The men we meet on the Osgrey lands are not likely to have ever left them (the guys marching with the Black Dragon excluded). The chances that the Northmen peasants are different doesn't convince at all. Traders, merchants, craftsmen, and hunters would travel. Shepherds would also migrate with their herds (but usually only on the lands where they are allowed to graze). But the average peasant who is basically just trying to feed his family wouldn't go on any journeys. We don't even know if there are market towns in the North. One assumes there is, but the people might still do a lot of farming inside and outside the town. That was done back in the middle ages. You had some animals in your backyard even if you were actually doing something else for a living. It also doesn't connect directly to Harrenhal or Riverrun but it is still the major road of the Realm. You have to deal with that. Down in the South a lot of goods are moved on that road. We see that happening. Well, there is none of that to be seen in AGoT when Tyrion actually travel the Kingsroad up to the Wall. And that's in summer. I doubt that Jaehaerys I actually built the causeway. The road through the Neck and up to Moat Cailin must have already existed. And it also makes sense that the Starks had a road connecting Winterfell to Moat Cailin that went exactly where the Kingsroad goes now, just as there would have been a road connecting the Wall to Winterfell. It might have gone to the Nightfort instead of Castle Black but that would just be a small change. It would have been down south where Jaehaerys I would have had to do the real work, building roads that actually lead to King's Landing, and building a road through the Riverlands that actually connects KL with to the Neck. That wouldn't have been a priority of the River Kings or the Ironborn later on. That is why you usually have your family and your farm hands and maids around. We are not talking about some house in the middle of nowhere, we are talking about a farm large enough to support a family. Such a place can exist out in the wild. And we are not necessarily talking about it being 100 miles away from the next neighbor. 20 could work just as fine. Well, if horses die in some autumn storm then it is actually pretty different because that means horses can only survive in (heated?) stables in winter. And that's a luxury the average person simply could not afford. If they live together with a few animals in the house that could work, but they would not be able to do this with all that many horses and would most likely go with swine or fowl. A few comments. Firstly, I acknowledge your consistency in your view of the North. Your post above and the others leading up to it clearly demonstrate what shapes your estimates of Northern troop numbers, northern cavalry ratios and Northern society in general. I will say that I think you underestimate Northern society by an order of magnitude, though. Lone homesteaders are simply not a feasible model for a medieval society. Instead, you will have tens of thousands of small villages, where a bunch of farmers come together to pool their produce and engage in barter and general resource exchange. A typical village might consist of maybe two dozen families. Say about 50-100 people. And this village will produce food and provide a portion of it to their local "Master" (the term "Master" being used here in place of a southron Landed Knight). There might be a dozen such villages on the land of such a Master. This Master, in turn, will have a keep, and either be sworn to a petty lord - along with a bunch of other Masters - or directly to a House like the Manderlys, who have 100 such Masterly Houses sworn to them. Sometimes even directly to House Stark itself, if they happen to live on the direct Stark lands. That is the setup that Martin created. The North has some additional complexities in that they also have tribes and clans, who may operate under a slightly different version of the above. So clearly, the idea that House Stark has only Ser Rodrik's House sworn to them because he is the only one that was mentioned, is ludicrous. How many Houses have directly been named as being sworn to House Manderly? Not a single one that I can recall. And yet Lord Manderly states that he has a dozen lords and a hundred landed knights sworn to him. The same would apply, in varying numbers, for every other major House in the North. I imagine House Bolton, for example, having perhaps 10 petty lords and 60 Masterly Houses sworn to it. Each petty lord having his own Masterly Houses sworn to him, in turn. And each of these have lands with multiple villages in each of their domains. And each of these lords and Masterly Houses (knightly houses) would have anything from say a meagre 3 armored lances up to say 100 armored lances in their service. Add all of these up, across the whole North, and you get to the 8000 or so cavalry that the North can raise for war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protagoras Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 17 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Stuff Ok, lets start with the armour and gear first. I agree with you that there won´t be many Tobho Motts in the North (as I wrote earlier - the top names will shun the North since they can get better offers in a city (which has more to offer in terms of clientele and freedom) BUT there will be more armourers than him. There will be decent armoursmiths who can still make gear of a high quality tha simply won´t be able to all survive in the same place and it all comes down to supply and demand. If I am a smith who has a monopoly in King´s landing and make big bucks, I am not gong to leave, ever. But what if I don´t sell that much in King´s landing, because there are already 50 of us and at least half of them are a good as me if not better? What happens then is that I leave. And if there are fewer smiths in the north that also means less competition. Sure, Lord Stark might only pay me 2/3 of what I could earn in King´s landing, and half of it is not in coin but in land (which might not be something I want since money is flexible) BUT my only competetor is Mikken who clearly is a decent smith but no Tobho Mott. So by pure logic there should be "traveling armorers" who have gone north simply because that mean a chance for them to get a job. The market will be saturated in the south after a while, and regardless on how harsh and unforgiving land it is, it still beats starving in the south competing against many others for the same patrons. And Umber might not have an own "emigrated" armoursmith, but there might be one at Barrowton, or White harbor (if not several). There is no reason to import the armour from the south. And yes, super great armor and weaponry might not be necessary BUT that doesn´t mean people up there won´t want them. If I was lord Umber, I would want the best armour money can buy, regardless of opponents. In short, while there might be a difference it shoud not be enourmous, especially since you can import that fancy southron armour if you really want to. As for horses, I always assumed that the regional overlords took out taxes from their bannermen and that those overlords in turn pay their taxes to the king. So, when Ned gets Ryswell horses as payment then Robert certainly will get his cut but the Ryswells doesn´t really pay taxes straigth to the king. And I think the problem with assuming that the mountain garrons could qualify as some kind of cavalry is that A. The garron is a small, sturdy pony and unsuitable for the role of armoured cavalry and escpecially B. The Mountain clans seems to be more of a loosely organized group who have more similarities to the earlier time eras. And in those time eras, the horse was not seen as a weapon in combat. Again, when you want to the battle in the viking era you might have ridden a horse but once there you stepped off it an fought on foot. The horses are made for riding and carrying cargo and not fighting in wars. And you are aware that there are more options than Garrons and Chargers/Destriers, right? A poor northerner might choose, say a Rounsey instead. There are other alternatives for less rich noblemens too, most likely also produced in the North, if not Ryswell then some minor family (since Rounseys cost less and therefore gives less profit). As for the winters, it is a non issue since we know Westeros has horses and animals - even in the North. Doesn´t really matter how unrealistic it is. GRRM say they exist - make it work. Maybe "nature have found a way" or something. As for Robbs victories, skill (and luck) trumphs gear every time. Especially if the differences in gear are not that significant, as in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.