Jump to content

Military Strengths and More!


Corvo the Crow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The only time we see peasants with sharpened sticks marching with an army is when the Freys march north. The next closest is the portion of Tyrion's van -- "fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers’ rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport” -- and they were at least armed with actual weapons. 

 It always made the most sense to me that Walder was basically just sending whatever men he could to satisfy a crown demand. It's pretty obvious that sending men to a hostile north at the onset of autumn is going to be bad for their health. 

So Frey's original strength around 4K makes sense even with the expanded numbers if you just assume Walder knows he's sending men to die.

except of that force he has sent 500 knights as well as

And at the rear, more Freys. At least a thousand, maybe more: bowmen, spearmen, peasants armed with scythes and sharpened sticks, freeriders and mounted archers, and another hundred knights to stiffen them.

which is only around 200 with peasants of that 1,500 force, possibly more given Theon states that it at least 1,500 while Jaime is informed that 2,000 Freys are sent North

on top of that we have

  • the 2,000 Freys at Riverrun
  • the garrison at the Twins around 400
  • the Frey party that helps holds Darry, 
  • the 50 men with Arwood and the Haighs hunting outlaws
  • however many Freys are at Seagard with Black Walder

that is 4-5k they have in ADWD but then we have to take into account their losses

 

  • 50 at the red wedding
  • at the battle of the green fork the Freys would have lost between 700- 1,000 men, given that Bolton had his men in reserve possibly even more
  • a 1,000 knights went with Robb's 5k heavy horse, Robb's 5k was whittled down to 3.5k by his return from the Westerlands so we would be looking at 200-300 frey losses here

 

that would mean the Frey total is between 5.5k to 6.5k during the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes, his Frey men. Lord Charlton is a lord, he would have his own castle and lands that would need defending if he had not already made it to Riverrun. 

It is even pointed out by the Blackfish that it is only most of his strength

 

So Frey has 4000 just on his own, without going through any vassals? Don't be ridiculous. Every lord is going through a layer of vassals to get every men on his land, landed knights, lords and perhaps some more lords and landed knights that serve under the underling lord.

Also the full quote below

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Catelyn IX

She ought to have known that Brynden Blackfish would be well ahead of her. "What have the Freys been doing while the Lannisters burn their fields and plunder their holdfasts?"

"There's been some fighting between Ser Addam's men and Lord Walder's," Theon answered. "Not a day's ride from here, we found two Lannister scouts feeding the crows where the Freys had strung them up. Most of Lord Walder's strength remainsmassed at the Twins, though."

Pullin quotes out of context really doesn't help your argument.

 

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is vague. The Tallharts are counted separately despite not being a Lordly House when Roddrik assembles an army to deal with the Ironborn, Theon looks upon them as an individual host

 The lords, Coldwater and Tollett who serve Royce are considered separate forces in AFFC

And so are the Templetons, who are also not lords. But they have their seat and lands that they rule over, just like Tallharts. Masters/Landed Knights aren't much different from lords apart from not having rights to give punishment.

Shetts, Coldwaters and  Toletts are mentioned because they are lords of some power themselves.

Manderly has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords sworn to him, do we get all their names? Do we get any inkling they act seperately? No for both answers. And not only he has his vassals, but he also has influence over Flints, Lockes and any other houses that live east of WK but not sworn to him.

Also underling lords/landed knights may have a mind of their own, just like some Hightower vassals or even Ser Eustace so I'm not saying they will never, ever act on their own. I am saying Frey gathered all his men, not just men from the lands he directly rule over, which may not even account to a thousand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So Frey has 4000 just on his own, without going through any vassals? Don't be ridiculous.

Come on, is there any need to misrepresent what I said because you don't like that we have different opinion? 

Lord Charlton is not like any other Frey vassal, it is a Lordly House, not a knightly or petty lord House like the vast, vast majority of vassals in Westeros.   We have no idea where their lands (they may be much further south) are or if the Tully's would not be sending them a raven directly. 

During the Dance they arrived desperately, there is zero reason to not assume the same would not be true in the war of the five kings. 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Every lord is going through a layer of vassals to get every men on his land, landed knights, lords and perhaps some more lords and landed knights that serve under the underling lord.

There are only four none overlord Houses in all of Westeros who we know have Lordly vassals, Hightower, Royce, Frey and Vance of Wayfarer's Rest. We have no idea how these relationships are or how independent they can be. 

We only have to look at the Dance of the Dragons to see that the relationship between Hightower and their Lordly vassals is not so straightforward as the Beesburys, Costanyes and Mullendores all sided against the Hightowers. 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also the full quote below

Pullin quotes out of context really doesn't help your argument.

how is out of context? the full strength was not at the Twins, was it not? they were defending their lands. Do you think either Frey or Charlton would just abandon the Charlton castles? 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

And so are the Templetons, who are also not lords. But they have their seat and lands that they rule over

except we don't know who they serve.  given that their lands are within the Vale I'd imagine that they serve under the Arryn's. they are certainly not bannermen of Royce. 

what exactly is your point here? 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Masters/Landed Knights aren't much different from lords apart from not having rights to give punishment.

but there is a difference, they hold more authority and power than the knights (presumably the masterly Houses as well, but we still don't know)

they are not regular vassals given they rule their own lands and have powers to do what other vassals can not do

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Shetts, Coldwaters and  Toletts are mentioned because they are lords of some power themselves.

come on, this is some weak sauce. I am not claiming I am right, I am just pointing out that you are guessing on the matter, and not even an educated guess as you seem to ignoring any evidence that suggests you are wrong. 

this thread is only good when it offers dependable information, not when you randomly guess and then ignore the text when it suits your argument like you did with the Forrest Frey quote which clearly states that the Fishfeed was not his first battle in the Dance yet because you wrong thought they Freys only had 800 men refused to aknwoledge the books as evidennce as it did nt fit your own head cannon. 

 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Manderly has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords sworn to him, do we get all their names? Do we get any inkling they act seperately? No for both answers.

are the Charlton's petty lords? 

either you know the difference or you are are just trying to muddy the water rather than admit your conclusion is based on nothing more than a guess. 

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

And not only he has his vassals, but he also has influence over Flints, Lockes and any other houses that live east of WK but not sworn to him.

yup, what on earth does this have to do with the Freys and Charlton?

49 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also underling lords/landed knights may have a mind of their own, just like some Hightower vassals or even Ser Eustace so I'm not saying they will never, ever act on their own. I am saying Frey gathered all his men, not just men from the lands he directly rule over, which may not even account to a thousand.

and I am pointing out that given that we have seen around 6k frey soldiers in the war that 4k was clearly not their entire force. a plausible reason for this is that it is possible that Lord Charlton's vassals were either on his own lands or with Edmure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There are only four none overlord Houses in all of Westeros who we know have Lordly vassals, Hightower, Royce, Frey and Vance of Wayfarer's Rest. We have no idea how these relationships are or how independent they can be. 

No. We have Manderlys, we have Dustins, we had Osgreys and have Rowans who replaced them, we had Yronwoods who may still apply, we have Corbrays who are  in all likelyhood the lords Baelish are sworn to and some others I can't name right now who were/are lords with sworn lords.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

what exactly is your point here? 

That Tallharts are on the same level in the hierarchy as the Templetons. They may not be as powerful but they are the Northen equivelant to them.

 

17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

are the Charlton's petty lords? 

May or may not be. Are Stouts petty lords? Smallwoods?

 

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

yup, what on earth does this have to do with the Freys and Charlton?

That a sworn lord may decide to not go along with his lords decision whereas a lord may take his leadership from another even though not sworn to him.

 

21 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I am pointing out that given that we have seen around 6k frey soldiers in the war that 4k was clearly not their entire force.

 No we haven't. We have seen around 4K soldiers, and then some more Frey men who are just ill equipped peasants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

No. We have Manderlys,

the Manderly's don't have any Lordly vassals that we know of, they have petty lords and knights

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

we have Dustins,

the Dustins don't have any Lordly vassals that we know of, they have petty lords like the Stouts

from the appendix of ADWD

HARWOOD STOUT, her liege man, a petty lord at Barrowton,

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

we had Osgreys

by the time we met the Osgrey's they were only knights, we know they were much greater under the Gardener Kings but they had diminished

given what we know "The paper said that if Ser Eustace were to die without a male heir of his body, Standfast would revert to the crown, and Lord Webber's privileges would end." and Rohanne shortly marrying after the events of the Mystery Knight it is safe to assume they no longer exist. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

and have Rowans who replaced them,

what Lordly Houses serve the Rowans in the current series? 

I guess they once had the Webbers but since none of Rohanne's Lannister children took the Webber lands it is not to clear what their status is

though I concede, they well may be another. I did make clear 'that we know'. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

we had Yronwoods who may still apply,

they may well do, I kind of assume them and the Fowlers, as Wardens of their respective passes, may well be the have Lordly vassals. but I was only going by what we know. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

we have Corbrays who are  in all likelyhood the lords Baelish are sworn to and some others I can't name right now who were/are lords with sworn lords.

house Baelish is a petty house: It was interesting to watch his face. Lord Petyr's father had been the smallest of small lords, his grandfather a landless hedge knight; by birth, he held no more than a few stony acres on the windswept shore of the Fingers.

His position on the small council made him an actual Lord, but House Baelish were nothing more than petty lords. 

Unfortunately GRRM didn't bother making many distinctions, so it has led to this confusion As I see it, the title "lord" -- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. _grrm

 

pretty much every noble is given the honorific lord or lady when spoken to even when that is not their actual rank

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

That Tallharts are on the same level in the hierarchy as the Templetons. They may not be as powerful but they are the Northen equivelant to them.

possibly, we don't know that for a fact. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

May or may not be. Are Stouts petty lords? Smallwoods?

the Stouts are and the Smallwoods are not, they serve the Vances of Wayfarers Rest who, as I originally stated, are one of the four none overlord Houses we know who have Lordly vassals. 

 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

That a sworn lord may decide to not go along with his lords decision whereas a lord may take his leadership from another even though not sworn to him.

i'm still not clear on your meaning and how it relates to the Freys and Chartlons. Walder Frey likely has influence over his son in law Lord Vypren, what does this have to do with the conversation? 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 No we haven't. We have seen around 4K soldiers, and then some more Frey men who are just ill equipped peasants.

no, we have seen around 6k. a few hundred of the 2k force going North are peasants, and as GRRM makes clear all armies are going to include those

but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

come on, this is some weak sauce. I am not claiming I am right, I am just pointing out that you are guessing on the matter, and not even an educated guess as you seem to ignoring any evidence that suggests you are wrong. 

this thread is only good when it offers dependable information, not when you randomly guess and then ignore the text when it suits your argument like you did with the Forrest Frey quote which clearly states that the Fishfeed was not his first battle in the Dance yet because you wrong thought they Freys only had 800 men refused to aknwoledge the books as evidennce as it did nt fit your own head cannon. 

And how many battles do you think he fought in? How many casualties has he sustained? Did he perchance kill some of his own men to get the perfect 1:3 ratio?

All these are questions unanswered by you because it doesn't fit your head canon.

Quote

As for the Lannister host, two thousand seasoned veterans remained encamped outside the city walls, awaiting the arrival of Paxter Redwyne's fleet to carry them across Blackwater Bay to Dragonstone. Lord Stannis appeared to have left only a small garrison behind him when he sailed north, so two thousand men would be more than sufficient, Cersei had judged.

How many battles have these seasoned men fought, care to give a guess? How many of them are not one sided ones? 2?

Quote
The armorer laughed. "Ser Wynton, gods preserve him. Last knight in the castle and all. The thing is, Stout seems to have forgotten and no one's been rushing to remind him. I suppose I'm as much a commander as we have now. The meanest of the cripples."
That was for the good, at least. The one-armed armorer was hard headed, tough, and well seasoned in war. Ser Wynton Stout, on the other hand . . . well, he had been a good man once, everyone agreed, but he had been eighty years a ranger, and both strength and wits were gone. Once he'd fallen asleep at supper and almost drowned in a bowl of pea soup.

How many battles  Donnel Noye, an armorer, fought in to get well seasoned in war? A siege in which he lost his arm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

pretty much every noble is given the honorific lord or lady when spoken to even when that is not their actual rank

And yet there is a distinction being madr between a lord, however petty, and a landed knight/master, however rich, powerful and influential.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the Stouts are and the Smallwoods are not, they serve the Vances of Wayfarers Rest who, as I originally stated, are one of the four none overlord Houses we know who have Lordly vassals. 

A petty lord is still a lord and in fact there is no real distinction being made between lords in their titles.

Sure, we are told of petty lords, lesser lords, high lords and great lords but where is the distinction?

Estermonts on their tiny rocky island with their castle greenshit are called great lords whereas Carons are considered lesser lords as seen in Varys' report of the dead  of Stannis' army, their lands are taken away.

Who is to say a petty lord and a lesser lord are not close to each other in terms of strength?

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

i'm still not clear on your meaning and how it relates to the Freys and Chartlons. Walder Frey likely has influence over his son in law Lord Vypren, what does this have to do with the conversation? 

That Charlton need not always act with Frey, but he did so on AGOT. Walder said he was gathering all his strength, the strength that includes Charltons. It doesn't mean he'll strip castles of garrisons or won't have patrols on his borders and outriders for scouting during war time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

And how many battles do you think he fought in?

I have no idea, I never claimed to know just pointing out that the books are pretty clear, 'he fought gallantly, until the fishfeed''. 

Now the war started in 129, the battle of Harrenhal being one of the first early with quite a few known battles in between and towards at some point in 130 was the battle of the Fishfeed. 

there is around a year of war between his introduction and his death, he may have been involved in a couple he may have been involved in many more, the point being is we don't know except that he was regarded to have fought gallantly in the war and made a large enough impact that the world book remembered his contribution. 

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

How many casualties has he sustained?

neither of us have any idea. though what I would point out is that due to the field of fire I kind of doubt any Lord would want his entire host in one place when it can so easily be decimated from above. that would explain that even in the early stages of the war, such as the sack of Duskendale, we are seeing such low numbers

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Did he perchance kill some of his own men to get the perfect 1:3 ratio?

what? is this some rule of thumb you have made up? the Karstarks go to Winterfell with 2,000 foot and 300 horse. the Manderly's send 300 cavalry and 1,300 hundred foot with Robb. 

I'm not getting your point, nor do I see where it is claimed that Forrest had his entire force present, the North certainly did not. 

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

All these are questions unanswered by you because it doesn't fit your head canon.

they are not answered because the books have not answered them, by all means quote from the text where you think it does and I will happily go over it. 

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

How many battles have these seasoned men fought, care to give a guess? How many of them are not one sided ones? 2?

neither of have any idea, do we?

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

How many battles  Donnel Noye, an armorer, fought in to get well seasoned in war? A siege in which he lost his arm?

why do you keep on mentioning 'well seasoned'?, all you are doing is making me peckish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the Manderly's don't have any Lordly vassals that we know of, they have petty lords and knights

the Dustins don't have any Lordly vassals that we know of, they have petty lords like the Stouts

from the appendix of ADWD

HARWOOD STOUT, her liege man, a petty lord at Barrowton,

by the time we met the Osgrey's they were only knights, we know they were much greater under the Gardener Kings but they had diminished

given what we know "The paper said that if Ser Eustace were to die without a male heir of his body, Standfast would revert to the crown, and Lord Webber's privileges would end." and Rohanne shortly marrying after the events of the Mystery Knight it is safe to assume they no longer exist. 

what Lordly Houses serve the Rowans in the current series? 

I guess they once had the Webbers but since none of Rohanne's Lannister children took the Webber lands it is not to clear what their status is

though I concede, they well may be another. I did make clear 'that we know'. 

they may well do, I kind of assume them and the Fowlers, as Wardens of their respective passes, may well be the have Lordly vassals. but I was only going by what we know. 

house Baelish is a petty house: It was interesting to watch his face. Lord Petyr's father had been the smallest of small lords, his grandfather a landless hedge knight; by birth, he held no more than a few stony acres on the windswept shore of the Fingers.

His position on the small council made him an actual Lord, but House Baelish were nothing more than petty lords. 

Unfortunately GRRM didn't bother making many distinctions, so it has led to this confusion As I see it, the title "lord" -- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. _grrm

 

pretty much every noble is given the honorific lord or lady when spoken to even when that is not their actual rank

possibly, we don't know that for a fact. 

the Stouts are and the Smallwoods are not, they serve the Vances of Wayfarers Rest who, as I originally stated, are one of the four none overlord Houses we know who have Lordly vassals. 

 

i'm still not clear on your meaning and how it relates to the Freys and Chartlons. Walder Frey likely has influence over his son in law Lord Vypren, what does this have to do with the conversation? 

no, we have seen around 6k. a few hundred of the 2k force going North are peasants, and as GRRM makes clear all armies are going to include those

but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

 

There is no official title of “petty lord”. There are just lords and non-lords. Petty lord is a derisive description used to refer to a lord of lesser power or influence. Usually a lord sworn to a vassal house instead of to a lord Paramount.

The Stouts, 12 Manderly vassal lords, Charltons etc are all lords. Some would call them petty lords, some would not. But they are still lords, with right of pit and gallows.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

what? is this some rule of thumb you have made up? the Karstarks go to Winterfell with 2,000 foot and 300 horse. the Manderly's send 300 cavalry and 1,300 hundred foot with Robb. 

 No, but it is the ratio one of the two ratios we most commonly see, the other being one in ten. So most lords are obviously trying to attain that when possible. Robb's overall host does have the same ratio. So does Renly, who attained it through thousands of light horse and hedge knights.

As for well seasoned, it is to point out even a couple of battles or a single siege fight is considered enough for a man to be well seasoned. Forrest may have just fought in one war earlier and yet considered to be gallant. Or it may even be he fought gallantly in Fishfeed until he was killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

And yet there is a distinction being madr between a lord, however petty, and a landed knight/master, however rich, powerful and influential.

A petty lord is still a lord and in fact there is no real distinction being made between lords in their titles.

yeah, there is. As GRRM says, it is all to do with the honorific title, there are real Lords and petty lords, there is a clear difference in their standing. 

Quote

Sure, we are told of petty lords, lesser lords, high lords and great lords but where is the distinction?

sometimes he will tell the reader, such like when he clearly points out the Stouts only being petty 

The riders had been sixteen days on the hunt, with only hard bread and salt beef to eat, aside from the occasional stolen kid, so that night Lord Ramsay commanded that a feast be laid to celebrate his return to Barrowton. Their host, a grizzled one-armed petty lord by the name of Harwood Stout,

or when we are told about the Spicers, another petty house.

Jon gives a pretty decent descrition of them

"The map is not the land, my father often said. Men have lived in the high valleys and mountain meadows for thousands of years, ruled by their clan chiefs. Petty lords, you would call them, though they do not use such titles amongst themselves." 

A petty lord is about the same level as a clan house, probably a similar level to knightly houses but below actual Lords

Quote

Estermonts on their tiny rocky island with their castle greenshit are called great lords

it is hardly tiny. it is about the same size as Driftmark which once had two towns on it.

Quote

 

whereas Carons are considered lesser lords as seen in Varys' report of the dead  of Stannis' army, their lands are taken away.

no, the Caron's lands are forfeit because their lord died, the Caron's are Lords according to the appendix 

"the one-eyed knight Ser Philip Foote, who had slain Lord Bryce Caron in single combat...."It is His Grace's wish that these good men be rewarded for their valor. By his decree, Ser Philip shall henceforth be Lord Philip of House Foote, and to him shall go all the lands, rights, and incomes of House Caron"

i don't recall House Caron ever being referred to as less than Lord. 

Quote

Who is to say a petty lord and a lesser lord are not close to each other in terms of strength?

some may be, but not in title and rights. A Lord is, title wise at least, more influential and powerful than a petty lord who is still essentially governing someother's lands. 

Quote

That Charlton need not always act with Frey, but he did so on AGOT.

You have no idea that is true since the Charton's are not mentioned till much, much later in the series. 

Quote

 

Walder said he was gathering all his strength, the strength that includes Charltons.

Again, you are merely guessing. I don't know, neither of us know. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is no official title of “petty lord”. There are just lords and non-lords. Petty lord is a derisive description used to refer to a lord of lesser power or influence. Usually a lord sworn to a vassal house instead of to a lord Paramount.

The Stouts, 12 Manderly vassal lords,

nope, they are petty lords, read the appendix of ADWD

bannermen of Winterfell, the Lords of the North:

GRRM is pretty clear, all the actual Lord's and Ladies get that capital L treatment, Stout is the exception, he is not on their level. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

A petty lord is about the same level as a clan house, probably a similar level to knightly houses but below actual Lords

And on what level is a lesser house? I can't quote with Book of Swords not in search site but Maegor gathers 3600 foot and 400 horse from a score of not petty, but lesser houses. houses that include Darklyns and Towers of Harrenhal.

 

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

it is hardly tiny. it is about the same size as Driftmark which once had two towns on it.

Cersei calls it as such, though.

 

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the Caron's lands are forfeit because their lord died, the Caron's are Lords according to the appendix 

Varys wouldn't agree.

Quote

Each lord had his own demands; this castle and that village, tracts of lands, a small river, a forest, the wardship of certain minors left fatherless by the battle. Fortunately, these fruits were plentiful, and there were orphans and castles for all. Varys had lists. Forty-seven lesser lordlings and six hundred nineteen knights had lost their lives beneath the fiery heart of Stannis and his Lord of Light, along with several thousand common men-at-arms. Traitors all, their heirs were disinherited, their lands and castles granted to those who had proved more loyal.

 

Wyman Manderly may also disagree, or at least Bran does

Quote

Lord Wyman Manderly had arrived from White Harbor two days past, traveling by barge and litter, as he was too fat to sit a horse. With him had come a long tail of retainers: knights, squires, lesser lordsand ladies, heralds, musicians, even a juggler, all aglitter with banners and surcoats in what seemed half a hundred colors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 No, but it is the ratio one of the two ratios we most commonly see,

I just pointed out the first two forces we are told about and neither of them have it. it is not a rule. 

point out all the other individual houses with this ratio. 

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

the other being one in ten. So most lords are obviously trying to attain that when possible. Robb's overall host does have the same ratio. So does Renly, who attained it through thousands of light horse and hedge knights.

Renly does not have it, his army is awaiting on 10,000 more men from Highgarden before he sets of. 

the Lannister host does not have that ratio, nor does Stannis' host or the Florents. 

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

As for well seasoned, it is to point out even a couple of battles or a single siege fight is considered enough for a man to be well seasoned. Forrest may have just fought in one war earlier and yet considered to be gallant. Or it may even be he fought gallantly in Fishfeed until he was killed.

No, it is clearly pointed out he fought gallantly UNTIL the fishfeed. I don't want to be patronizing but either you stubbornly don't want to admit you made a mistake or you are unclear on the english language. I am fairly certain it is not the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

point out all the other individual houses with this ratio. 

Ratios of overall armies, not individual houses.

 

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Renly does not have it, his army is awaiting on 10,000 more men from Highgarden before he sets of. 

And do we have a composition for that army? Renly has around 20000 horsemen and 60000 footmen. Of this horse only about ten thousand are knights, the rest are light horse and freeriders and hedheknights.

 

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Lannister host does not have that ratio, nor does Stannis' host or the Florents

I said trying to attain, not always achieve. Individual composition of lords may differ, but they try to get that for overall composition. Again, we see Renly has barely achieved it with half of his force being non-knights and it is clear he could have raised more men from the reach, the 30000 Garlan and Loras can raise in a month for starters, he didn't though as he was hard struck to get enough horse in the first place.

 

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

o, it is clearly pointed out he fought gallantly UNTIL the fishfeed. I don't want to be patronizing but either you stubbornly don't want to admit you made a mistake or you are unclear on the english language. I am fairly certain it is not the latter. 

I'm not trying to avoid admitting to a mistake. I said he may or may not have. I'm trying to provide some possibilities for his apparent lack of casualties. If it makes you happier, he may have fought in half a hundred battles, left his men behind and charged at the enemy  and defeated them single handedly for all we know, but he has his army seemingly intact when he joined with Dustin and Rivers. We'll know more on it come november.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

And on what level is a lesser house?

I can't tell you for certain, GRRM has given hints, like Jon's comparison of the mountain clans being the equivalent of petty lords, so my understanding is in regards to prestige and rights. 

Quote

 

I can't quote with Book of Swords not in search site but Maegor gathers 3600 foot and 400 horse from a score of not petty, but lesser houses. houses that include Darklyns and Towers of Harrenhal.

here is the quote

In King’s Landing, a score of lesser lords gathered at Maegor’s command, amongst them Lord Darklyn of Duskendale, Lord Massey of Stonedance, Lord Towers of Harrenhal, Lord Staunton of Rook’s Rest, Lord Bar Emmon of Sharp Point, Lord Buckwell of the Antlers, the Lords Rosby, Stokeworth, Hayford, Harte, Byrch, Rollingford, Bywater, and Mallery. Yet they commanded scarce four thousand men amongst them all, and only one in ten of those were knights.

 

now the context of the quote is important, Maegor, in the previous paragraphs how the likes of Lord Tully, Lord Velaryon, Lord Rowan and Lord Oakheart had declared against him while his support were lesser. 

Again, GRRM's lack of titles in his world only serve to the confusion but there is no reason to think that the Lords referred to as Lords are petty. 

Quote

 

Cersei calls it as such, though.

sure, she is the Queen of Westeros and the daughter of the Lord of the Westerlands, her frame of reference is not going to be the norm on what constitutes as tiny. 

Quote

 

Varys wouldn't agree.

he wouldn't? when does he call the Caron's petty? 

Quote

 

Wyman Manderly may also disagree, or at least Bran does

how is that disagreeing?  You have lost me completely, what do you think that the quote proves? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Ratios of overall armies, not individual houses.

well even House Frey does not have that ratio in their given there are 1,000 knights with Robb and 2,600 foot with Roose and another 400 at the Twins

Stannis and the Lannister army is also lacking that ratio. How can you claim it is the norm? 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

And do we have a composition for that army?

no, neither of us do so your claim that his army is 3:1 is just a guess, based on the fact that you forgot about the 10,000 Highgarden horse. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Renly has around 20000 horsemen and 60000 footmen. Of this horse only about ten thousand are knights, the rest are light horse and freeriders and hedheknights.

but it is not his complete army, neither of us have any idea what the ratio of his complete army is, you guessing based on nothing more than you want it to be is not an educated guess. 

how much of the information in this thread by you is just unsubstantiated guess work? 

16 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I said trying to attain, not always achieve. Individual composition of lords may differ, but they try to get that for overall composition. Again, we see Renly has barely achieved it with half of his force being non-knights and it is clear he could have raised more men from the reach, the 30000 Garlan and Loras can raise in a month for starters, he didn't though as he was hard struck to get enough horse in the first place.

again, what does this have to do with your ratio? we have no idea what his ratio was given his entire army was not there. 

16 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I'm not trying to avoid admitting to a mistake. I said he may or may not have. I'm trying to provide some possibilities for his apparent lack of casualties. If it makes you happier, he may have fought in half a hundred battles, left his men behind and charged at the enemy  and defeated them single handedly for all we know, but he has his army seemingly intact when he joined with Dustin and Rivers. We'll know more on it come november.

all the armies are 'seemingly' intact in that war, but we know some have already fought in other battles

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said:

he wouldn't? when does he call the Caron's petty

When did I call them petty? I said Varys tells they are lesser. As you can see, even you are confused despite distinguishing lesser and petty houses, unless you are purposefully claiming I said petty and not lesser. 

While not explicitly stating Caron's are lesser lords, he says some forty lesser lords have died and their lands are claimed for the crown.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

how is that disagreeing?

Wyman says he has a dozen PETTY lords and a hundred landed knights. His tail of retainers are knights and LESSER lords and ladies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Stannis and the Lannister army is also lacking that ratio. How can you claim it is the norm? 

Tywin has the gold so he can exceed it if it suits him. Stannis is piss poor compared to him so he can't afford it And neither does he have to, as lord of a bunch of islands, his strength is in his navy, not land forces.

 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

but it is not his complete army, neither of us have any idea what the ratio of his complete army is, 

Which I have agreed to, if you haven't noticed. He doesn't bring his complete army so he can keep that 1:3 ratio. Besides the 80000 host, He has 40000 men in Reach alone and some thousands from Stormlanders who decided to sit it out so no, I am not claiming the entirety of Reach and Stormlands make together a one giant host with a 1:3 ratio. See above posts, he barely gets 1:3 for the 80000 after a huge amount of non-knights are added. So he wouldn't be bringing more men, yet.

 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

how much of the information in this thread by you is just unsubstantiated guess work

Now you are insulting me.

 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the armies are 'seemingly' intact in that war, but we know some have already fought in other battles

We never get figures on portions which have seen battle though, apart from Winterwolves. We are say, never given a number of how many Freys are left after, or how many Blackwoods joined before fishfeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

When did I call them petty? I said Varys tells they are lesser.

when does Varys mention to Nightsong or House Caron? 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

As you can see, even you are confused despite distinguishing lesser and petty houses, unless you are purposefully claiming I said petty and not lesser. 

no, I looked for https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=varys+caron and still are unclear what you are referring to, I even looked up https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=varys+nightsong

Unless the search function is broken Varys never brings up either Caron or Nightsong, so obviously I was confused with you claim. 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

While not explicitly stating Caron's are lesser lords, he says some forty lesser lords have died and their lands are claimed for the crown.

so no mention from Varys about Caron, just yet more random guessing from you. 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Wyman says he has a dozen PETTY lords and a hundred landed knights. His tail of retainers are knights and LESSER lords and ladies.

again, not seeing the confusion. the lack of capital L would likely mean those people were lesser nobility, such as the large court of nobles we see at White Harbor. from that description it does not sound like he brought his petty lords. 

 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Tywin has the gold so he can exceed it if it suits him. Stannis is piss poor compared to him so he can't afford it And neither does he have to, as lord of a bunch of islands, his strength is in his navy, not land forces.

so how is this ratio the norm when in the war of the five kings only one, possibly two, of the king's armies features such a ratio while the other four don't? 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Which I have agreed to, if you haven't noticed. He doesn't bring his complete army so he can keep that 1:3 ratio.

he does not bring his complete host because he wants a well guarded garrison, nothing to do with him wanting to maintain some ratio you have invented

and 1k horse and 2.6k foot is not a 3:1 ratio

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Besides the 80000 host, He has 40000 men in Reach alone and some thousands from Stormlanders who decided to sit it out so no, I am not claiming the entirety of Reach and Stormlands make together a one giant host with a 1:3 ratio.

but you seemed to cite it as an example when you claimed that 3:1 was the usual

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

See above posts, he barely gets 1:3 for the 80000 after a huge amount of non-knights are added. So he wouldn't be bringing more men, yet.

but he is bringing more men, he is awaiting for the 10,000 from Highgarden to join him.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

Now you are insulting me.

I'm not, it was a genuine question. 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

We never get figures on portions which have seen battle though, apart from Winterwolves. We are say, never given a number of how many Freys are left after, or how many Blackwoods joined before fishfeed.

why would we? GRRM does not cover every battle in the war, nor does he usually go out of his way to do casualty stats of individual houses. the winter wolves were noteworthy in this case as their ferociousness in battle, and their lack of fear over death made an impact on the southerners who are writing about the war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...