Jump to content

Military Strengths and More!


Corvo the Crow

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I didn't say that. I said that the kind of thing the Greatjon does implies that the Starks control over the North isn't stronger than the control of the Targaryens over the Seven Kingdoms. And that there are hints the Starks may have more trouble with their 'loyal bannermen' than some of the other great houses.

 

I don't know about the entire South, but GRRM makes it clear than the North has been more rebellious than the Westerlands in the last century. 

 

It's also true that there are many more Lannisters. It also has to be taken into consideration that the North has had frequent revolts and other such problems, that there have been rebel lords in the past, that they've dealt with the Kings-beyond-the-Wall, and the revolt of Skagos, and everything else that's occured in the last hundred years. All of these things are a reason for why there aren't so many Starks in the present as there were in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I don't know about the entire South, but GRRM makes it clear than the North has been more rebellious than the Westerlands in the last century. 

I guess @direpupy is now also accusing GRRM of having a strong and deep-seated hatred of House Stark. Else he would have never said that, wouldn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I've spent hundreds of posts (at least in my mind) on the fact that we really have no clue how strong this or that lord actually is, considering we don't know how many vassals he has, and how split the strength he does or can lead in the field are actually his men (i.e. men sworn directly to him) or men sworn to his vassals or his vassals' vassals, etc.

This is an important question to actually guess the actual strength of this or that house because the larger the lands you and your family actually personally control the stronger the real power you actually have. If your own domains are small in comparison to those of many of your bannermen you are actually not a very powerful lord.

This is a problem very evident in the cases of the Targaryens (who effectively only control KL proper and Dragonstone) and the Starks (whose lands quickly end in the west at the border to the Glover lands and south of Winterfell where the Cerwyn lands begin). There might be some Stark lands in the northeast of Winterfell, but we don't know how much land they actually control themselves.

With the Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, and Arryns one expects them actually controlling the largest chunk of land themselves. And, of course, depending to situation there might be places where a small piece of land is part of a very convoluted feudal hierarchy whereas in another part things might be much more straightforward - a large chunk of land just controlled by one lord who has his own peasants working most of the land, with just very few landed knights on that land here and there.

Well I'll bear witness to some dozen at least. 

But if we go that way, no house ever controls much land directly perhaps with the exception of some smaller towns. Even in large towns and the cities we see several houses; Barrowton has at the very least Stouts, Lannisport has one major branch and several smaller cadets, Duskendale has several cadets as well...

Starks land does extend a little with the holdfasts(where Gared was held for example) with no masters we see but that's the extent of them as well.

As I've posted above, even houses with perhaps a hundred men at best have vassals beneath them like Hayford and Hogg example and this is a house who have a very small portion of land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, direpupy said:

Ah they enduring myth that every reference to a Bolton rebellion is a separate rebellion and that the Bolton's thus constantly rebelled against the Stark's.

There is no evidence for this what so ever, and it could very well be that all those reference are one and the same rebellion. There could be more then one, i will not and honestly can not deny that, but they idea that every time a Bolton rebellion is mentioned it is always a completely separate occasion from they other references is just plain ridiculous. If that where the case the house Bolton would by now be as extinct as the Greystark's and the Reyne's. Because we do know the Stark's destroyed other houses in the past, so its very unlikely that the Bolton's could survive more then two rebellions and stay in existence, much less still be as powerful as they are at the beginning of the books. 

 

Oh too true. Even one of the Rebellions supposedly started by them is no longer theirs as of the worldbook. Karstark land was probably taken from Umbers since Bolton rule never extended beyond Last River. While I believe Boltons only rebelled twice, it doesn't warrant an extinction even if they did so dozens of times.

There seems to be a tendency of weakining rebels but not extinguishing them. Cases of Darklyn, Tarbeck and Reyne are not the norm and most houses who go extinct possibly do so in battle by losing all the males in the male line and not because they were slaughtered after defeat and their females are taken as brides by the victor and loyal followers.

In the case of Greystarks their extended family may even be brought back into the fold and given the name Stark. In all likelyhood White Harbor Starks are descended from the extended family of Greystarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

But if we go that way, no house ever controls much land directly perhaps with the exception of some smaller towns. 

That is why I speak in principle, not just in the cases I mention. But we have to remain open for the possibility that there are lords who control larger chunks of land directly simply because we have no feudal map of the Seven Kingdoms.

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Even in large towns and the cities we see several houses; Barrowton has at the very least Stouts, Lannisport has one major branch and several smaller cadets, Duskendale has several cadets as well...

Here one has to differentiate between people living at a town or city, and then actually having (petty) lordships or being landed knights.

Just because many Darklyns and Darkes, etc. live in Duskendale doesn't mean most of these people are powerful or important.

And in the latter case we clearly talk about a difference in power. Lords do have more rights and powers than knights. The peasants working on the lands of a landed knight have to go to their lord not to the knight to get justice, etc. In that sense there is a strong difference there.

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Starks land does extend a little with the holdfasts(where Gared was held for example) with no masters we see but that's the extent of them as well.

Yeah, but we don't know how far it extends.

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

As I've posted above, even houses with perhaps a hundred men at best have vassals beneath them like Hayford and Hogg example and this is a house who have a very small portion of land.

Well, you have to differentiate there between the smallfolk such small houses control and the people they can actually lead into battle. 

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Oh too true. Even one of the Rebellions supposedly started by them is no longer theirs as of the worldbook. Karstark land was probably taken from Umbers since Bolton rule never extended beyond Last River. While I believe Boltons only rebelled twice, it doesn't warrant an extinction even if they did so dozens of times.

No point in speculating in detail about that. There seem to have been multiple rebellions involving the Boltons.

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

There seems to be a tendency of weakining rebels but not extinguishing them. Cases of Darklyn, Tarbeck and Reyne are not the norm and most houses who go extinct possibly do so in battle by losing all the males in the male line and not because they were slaughtered after defeat and their females are taken as brides by the victor and loyal followers.

You don't have to eradicate a house. You can just attaint them. The fact that the Boltons didn't go down the path of the Heddles and Butterwells and Manderlys and Blackwoods (in the North), etc. shows how weak the Starks were in this regard. A house pulling off what the Boltons did to them as kings and lords gives ample proof that they are not all that trustworthy.

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

In the case of Greystarks their extended family may even be brought back into the fold and given the name Stark. In all likelyhood White Harbor Starks are descended from the extended family of Greystarks.

That is just speculation for which we have no evidence. We don't even have a reason to believe the Greystarks were put down around the time the Manderlys arrived, nor is there any reason to believe a house which an established name would change it back to another. The Karstarks, too, are Karstarks, not Starks.

Those White Harbor Starks (if they actually do exist in the book where they have yet to be mentioned) could be descended from any other cadet branch of House Stark, possibly even during the time covered by the Stark family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why I speak in principle, not just in the cases I mention. But we have to remain open for the possibility that there are lords who control larger chunks of land directly simply because we have no feudal map of the Seven Kingdoms.

Here one has to differentiate between people living at a town or city, and then actually having (petty) lordships or being landed knights.

Just because many Darklyns and Darkes, etc. live in Duskendale doesn't mean most of these people are powerful or important.

And in the latter case we clearly talk about a difference in power. Lords do have more rights and powers than knights. The peasants working on the lands of a landed knight have to go to their lord not to the knight to get justice, etc. In that sense there is a strong difference there.

Yeah, but we don't know how far it extends.

Well, you have to differentiate there between the smallfolk such small houses control and the people they can actually lead into battle. 

No point in speculating in detail about that. There seem to have been multiple rebellions involving the Boltons.

You don't have to eradicate a house. You can just attaint them. The fact that the Boltons didn't go down the path of the Heddles and Butterwells and Manderlys and Blackwoods (in the North), etc. shows how weak the Starks were in this regard. A house pulling off what the Boltons did to them as kings and lords gives ample proof that they are not all that trustworthy.

That is just speculation for which we have no evidence. We don't even have a reason to believe the Greystarks were put down around the time the Manderlys arrived, nor is there any reason to believe a house which an established name would change it back to another. The Karstarks, too, are Karstarks, not Starks.

Those White Harbor Starks (if they actually do exist in the book where they have yet to be mentioned) could be descended from any other cadet branch of House Stark, possibly even during the time covered by the Stark family tree.

It's like you don't understand the basic concept of feudalism. Which I know you do, so I guess it once again comes down to you simply wanting a certain argument to be true and then sticking with it.

Martin made it clear that the feudal structure consists of levels of lords down to the guy who can raise 5 friends. How do you think a lord "directly" rules a piece of land even 50 miles away from his home keep? At even a low density of 5 people per square mile, a hundred by hundred mile square of land gives you 50,000 people. With the average village apparently having around 50-100 people, that's maybe 1,000 villages in that area.

So how does Lord X rule all of those villages directly from his keep? In a feudal structure, he has lower lords and landed knights ruling chunks of that on his behalf. He probably RAISED those petty lords and landed knights in the first place precisely to help him govern his growing population.

We see a petty House like House Webber ruling about 60 villages (roughly 20 times the population of Houses Osgrey's 3 villages). You can do the math yourself in terms of how many House Webbers and/or Landed Knights a typical lord would require to rule an area of just 100 by 100 miles.

It is administratively simply not feasible to rule hundreds of villages without intermediary vassals. That doesn't make the Overlord weaker. It is just how the system works from a practical perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin made it clear that the feudal structure consists of levels of lords down to the guy who can raise 5 friends. How do you think a lord "directly" rules a piece of land even 50 miles away from his home keep? At even a low density of 5 people per square mile, a hundred by hundred mile square of land gives you 50,000 people. With the average village apparently having around 50-100 people, that's maybe 1,000 villages in that area.

That is a tongue-in-cheek statement from an interview, not something that establishes the nature of the feudal system of Westeros in detail. This thing can mean any sort of things, for instance, that there might be a guy from some backwater village leading his five friends to the place where some army is assembling.

How a lord directly rules his lands is rather easy - by not having a lot of lords and knights between him and the peasants working on it. That's not hard to understand. The Crownlands lords are directly sworn to the Iron Throne, and there might instances where the hierarchy goes like this peasant > Lord Rosby > king.

Or peasant > Lord of Winterfell or peasant > Lord of Casterly Rock.

One assumes this is most definitely the case when a farm or village is directly in the neighborhood of a lordly castle.

Now, how far away you have to be so that you have first to be sworn to some landed knight of petty lord is completely unclear. In fact, it is up to the lord how many landed knights and petty lords and other lords he wants to have on his lands.

We also know that rebelling/misbehaving lords also do lose lands whenever they do that, causing property to move back and forth between various members of the nobility. That certainly allows certain lands to control more lands directly than they previously did, etc.

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is administratively simply not feasible to rule hundreds of villages without intermediary vassals. That doesn't make the Overlord weaker. It is just how the system works from a practical perspective.

There is no evidence that you *need* landed knights and the like to rule your lands. Lords may have them to various degrees but there is no indication that they are there to help them govern the land. In fact, they might just be there. Historically, feudal societies have not developed because they help people rule the land or because they are *practical* and *smart*. They just grew because they could and every faction with a scrap of power clung to what they had.

Structurally, a lord or king is weaker than his vassals if said vassals individually or collectively control more lands and assets than the lord or king himself. Because then you are at the mercy of the people. You have to ask them for help when you want to do anything you cannot do with your own assets.

Collectively the vassals of any great lord control much more land than the lord in question, but it might even be that a single vassal controls more land and asset than his liege lord. That would be an even larger power imbalance.

If people go around saying the Targaryens are weak monarchs dependent on their vassals then we can say the same about the various great houses - and, of course, also about the vassals of those houses. The Yronwoods, Royces, Hightowers, Freys, etc. are also dependent on their vassals, of course.

It is not that there is magic link between one of the great houses and their vassals that forces those people to be blindly obedient to them whereas everybody questions and second-guesses his loyalty to the Crown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a tongue-in-cheek statement from an interview, not something that establishes the nature of the feudal system of Westeros in detail. This thing can mean any sort of things, for instance, that there might be a guy from some backwater village leading his five friends to the place where some army is assembling.

How a lord directly rules his lands is rather easy - by not having a lot of lords and knights between him and the peasants working on it. That's not hard to understand. The Crownlands lords are directly sworn to the Iron Throne, and there might instances where the hierarchy goes like this peasant > Lord Rosby > king.

Or peasant > Lord of Winterfell or peasant > Lord of Casterly Rock.

One assumes this is most definitely the case when a farm or village is directly in the neighborhood of a lordly castle.

Now, how far away you have to be so that you have first to be sworn to some landed knight of petty lord is completely unclear. In fact, it is up to the lord how many landed knights and petty lords and other lords he wants to have on his lands.

We also know that rebelling/misbehaving lords also do lose lands whenever they do that, causing property to move back and forth between various members of the nobility. That certainly allows certain lands to control more lands directly than they previously did, etc.

There is no evidence that you *need* landed knights and the like to rule your lands. Lords may have them to various degrees but there is no indication that they are there to help them govern the land. In fact, they might just be there. Historically, feudal societies have not developed because they help people rule the land or because they are *practical* and *smart*. They just grew because they could and every faction with a scrap of power clung to what they had.

Structurally, a lord or king is weaker than his vassals if said vassals individually or collectively control more lands and assets than the lord or king himself. Because then you are at the mercy of the people. You have to ask them for help when you want to do anything you cannot do with your own assets.

Collectively the vassals of any great lord control much more land than the lord in question, but it might even be that a single vassal controls more land and asset than his liege lord. That would be an even larger power imbalance.

If people go around saying the Targaryens are weak monarchs dependent on their vassals then we can say the same about the various great houses - and, of course, also about the vassals of those houses. The Yronwoods, Royces, Hightowers, Freys, etc. are also dependent on their vassals, of course.

It is not that there is magic link between one of the great houses and their vassals that forces those people to be blindly obedient to them whereas everybody questions and second-guesses his loyalty to the Crown.

Again, just you making statements of opinion as if they are fact. And ignoring Martin's own statements in the process. The feudal structure is vital to the administration of Westerosi society. If a single lord rules a thousand villages, how is that done? How does that work administratively? There are no governors, magistrates, centurions or what have you ruling chunks of a lord's lands for him.  In Westeros, these functions are fulfilled by sub lords and landed knights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Again, just you making statements of opinion as if they are fact. And ignoring Martin's own statements in the process. The feudal structure is vital to the administration of Westerosi society. If a single lord rules a thousand villages, how is that done? How does that work administratively? There are no governors, magistrates, centurions or what have you ruling chunks of a lord's lands for him.  In Westeros, these functions are fulfilled by sub lords and landed knights.

 

And even if you have governor's, magistrates, etc., you are still delegating control to others. As the provincial governors of Rome and the satraps of Persia, among others, showed, they too were perfectly capable of rebelling and causing trouble.

Some rather meaningless hair-splitting is going on in this thread, which is a shame. It is not useful to go round and round over nomenclature and moving goal-posts. It illuminates nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

And even if you have governor's, magistrates, etc., you are still delegating control to others. As the provincial governors of Rome and the satraps of Persia, among others, showed, they too were perfectly capable of rebelling and causing trouble.

Some rather meaningless hair-splitting is going on in this thread, which is a shame. It is not useful to go round and round over nomenclature and moving goal-posts. It illuminates nothing.

But that is exactly my point. Everybody can rebel. That is the way this world is set up. And it is, of course, also true in more bureaucratic, absolutist, you name it societies.

There is a difference, though, between lands controlled via feudalism and lands you directly control. In the first case you have ceded a lot of legal powers and responsibilities to your vassals and in the latter ... you have not done that. And there are lands people directly control. KL doesn't have a mayor, it is ruled by the king.

Royal officials and bureaucrats can rebel, too, but they are seen differently - and see themselves different - as nobility with hereditary lordships.

And from what we learn in the books smallfolk are usually sheep in military matters - if your lord calls his banners, you obey, never mind whether it goes against some neighbor, the lord up the tier, or the king. And you can even be handed from this to that lord without having any say in the matter. That's the gist of what we can deduce from Meribald's speech or Stannis' assessment of what the Karstark men would/are going to do. Not to mention Stannis' own taking over of the men of his brother.

But it is not the case that knights and lords are sheep in the same way. They think before they answer this or that summons. They consider their options, test the waters, etc. We see this with Walder Frey, the Stormlords ignoring Stannis and Joffrey, etc.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Again, just you making statements of opinion as if they are fact. And ignoring Martin's own statements in the process. The feudal structure is vital to the administration of Westerosi society. If a single lord rules a thousand villages, how is that done? How does that work administratively? There are no governors, magistrates, centurions or what have you ruling chunks of a lord's lands for him.  In Westeros, these functions are fulfilled by sub lords and landed knights.

I never talked about thousands of villages. Nor did I imagine half of the Reach being controlled by the Tyrells, say. I just said there would be such lands, and that the power you have over such lands as a lord is a different and more direct sort of control than you have over lands that is traditionally, say, Rowan land and whose smallfolk see themselves as Rowan men rather than Tyrell men.

How large such lands could possibly be is another matter.

And you don't need knights or petty lords and the like to collect what is due. The peasants can see to themselves in the villages in hovels. You only send your maesters and stewards and household knights and men-at-arms and guardsmen to collect what is your due.

And the actual ruling stuff is done by the lords, anyway. Knights don't have the right of pit and gallows, they don't have the right to collect taxes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I never talked about thousands of villages. Nor did I imagine half of the Reach being controlled by the Tyrells, say. I just said there would be such lands, and that the power you have over such lands as a lord is a different and more direct sort of control than you have over lands that is traditionally, say, Rowan land and whose smallfolk see themselves as Rowan men rather than Tyrell men.

How large such lands could possibly be is another matter.

And you don't need knights or petty lords and the like to collect what is due. The peasants can see to themselves in the villages in hovels. You only send your maesters and stewards and household knights and men-at-arms and guardsmen to collect what is your due.

And the actual ruling stuff is done by the lords, anyway. Knights don't have the right of pit and gallows, they don't have the right to collect taxes, etc.

The scale is an important part of the discussion, because even the Webbers have the equivalent of 60 Osgrey sized villages in their territory.  And they are a low level House, not even a vassal to a Lord Paramount. So if you go even one level up from the Webbers you are in the hundreds of villages scale. And presumably you are suggesting significantly more “direct rule” than House Webber’s level of power in your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The scale is an important part of the discussion, because even the Webbers have the equivalent of 60 Osgrey sized villages in their territory.  And they are a low level House, not even a vassal to a Lord Paramount. So if you go even one level up from the Webbers you are in the hundreds of villages scale. And presumably you are suggesting significantly more “direct rule” than House Webber’s level of power in your argument.

The Reach is the most populous region in Westeros. It is not representatives of the number of villages, farms, towns, etc. are on the territory of a lord. 

I never talked about a lord paramount or a lord sworn directly to such a lord controlling all his land directly. I just pointed the obvious facts - that a man controlling less assets than his most powerful bannerman wouldn't be as powerful as said bannerman.

Regarding the feudal hierarchy:

Landed knights don't have the same authority over their smallfolk as lords - smallfolk working the lands of a landed knight also have to answer to their lord. We don't even know whether landed knights have any authority over 'their smallfolk' outside the whole military service thing. Ser Eustace is not fed by the peasants from the villages - he lives off the food that's produced at Standfast itself.

That means if you parcel out land X among landed knights then you keep more control over that land and the people there than you would if you gave it all to lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A small thing, a confirmation of a sort perhaps; So I've given a number of "more or less 3000" for Tarlys judging by the ~7500 men marcher force of Tarly, Caron, Dondarrion. Since Caron and Dondarrion are also marcher lords who have on average 2000 foot and 400 horse, Tarlys, again a marcher lord and a lord of same "tier" having 2500-3000 men seems right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On "no men left"

Since I've only recently noticed how layered the Westeros Nobility is, with even Hayfords with perhaps a hundred men raise capacity having at least one landed knight with a small tower of his own and a garrison of 6 I think Alys was really telling the truth with Karhold having no men left. 

Karhold having no men left doesn't necessarily mean Karstark lands are bereft of any fighting men trained at arms, they may still have hundreds of such men. It's just that these men can't be "raised" as they are scattered across the land in small numbers garrisoning the keeps of landed knights and smaller lords.

 

In the same logic, Ramsay may not have been lying about bringing the "garrison". It was just that these men were not only from Dreadfort's garrison but from the garrisons of all the knights and lords in Dreadfort lands. So when Ramsay said it was his fathers garrison, it doesn't contradict Donella's intelligence that Ramsay was massing men. He was massing men from the garrison of his father's bannermen(apart from Dreadfort garrison) in short his father's garrison. Some may even have come from some smaller keep, holdfast or tower house Roose owns himself directly, like the Stark Holdfast we see in the first Bran chapter, making them Roose's own garrison just not from Dreadfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2017 at 12:28 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

I was thinking on opening a new thread for a while as the older one wasn't getting updates. With it now locked, here's the new one.

I'll try to update it as often as I can.

All numbers will come strictly from the books, though there will be some calculations and guess work based on information by the books.

 

I have decided not to add quotes for the moment, instead I'll provide the sources, anyone can check them using search of ice and fire

 

  • Iron Islands:
  Hide contents

 

  • ~400 ships and ~15000 fighting men; Most of the ships are longships but there are 100 Iron Fleet ships, three times the size of a longship and comparable to smaller war galleys(average galley is 100 oars with some having fewer than 80) with a few falling some where in between, like Theon's ship (50 oars)
  1. Main branch of the Harlaws have more than 40 ships with mostly boys as crewmen

Sources: ACOK Theon II, AFFC Cersei II, ADWD Iron Suitor

 

 

 

  • Crownlands:
  Hide contents

 

  • Little over 10000.

 

  1. Islands of the Gullet, Bar Emmons and Masseys together have fewer than 1500 men. Celtigars have some hundreds, so are Velaryons. Dragonstone historically had a 430 men garrison.
  2. Duskendale possibly has ~1600 men (Duskendale and Maidenpool together has 3000 men and Duskendale is the bigger town.)
  3. After calling his banners, Aemond one eye set out to Harrenhal at the head of a force 4000 strong, leaving behind hundreds of Gold Cloaks, perhaps even more than a thousand. Greens had lost 800 men earlier, at Rook's Rest.
  4. Until recently King's Landing had 2000 guards. It reached it's peak at 6000.
  5. Against Aegon, Maegor had 5000 men gathered in King's Landing under the command of Ser Davos Darklyn. This may include 600 sellswords he had earlier.
  6. Against Jahaerys, Maegor has near 4000 men, of which 400 are knights, from a score of houses; House Towers of Harrenhal and Crownlands houses.

Sources: World Book, Princess and the Queen, ASOS Davos IV, ASOS Davos V, Book of Swords

 

 

 

  • Dorne:
  Hide contents

 

  • Possibly 15000; They have raised 10000 during Robert's Rebellion and it is the least populous kingdom.
  1. Yronwoods: They were the most powerful kingdom in Dorne prior to Nymeria and of the two Dornish hosts waiting in the passes, one is described as Doran's and the other as Yronwood's.

Sources: ASOS Jaime V, AFFC The Captain of Guards, TWOIAF

 

 

 

  • North:
  Hide contents

 

  • After some months of preperation, Torrhen Stark took 30000 men south of the Neck. Robb went south with ~19500 men and more than 7000 (~4000 wood and mountain clansmen joining Stannis, Ramsay's men, near 2000 with Rodrik, Arnolf's 450 and many others) raised later with still many more available in some regions like Dustin and Manderly lands.

 

  1. Boltons: Ramsay has been massing men for sometime and raised 400-600 men (Rodrik's near 2000 is five times of it, Ramsay promised 100-200 but brought three times as many)
  2. Cerwyns: They  probably had more than 1300 infantry with Robb. They gathered 300 men in a short time for Rodrik of this at least two dozen are Lancers.
  3. Dustins: They sent 2000 cavalry in Dance of the Dragons. This 2000 men would come either solely from Dustins or it would be Dustins and Ryswells; Northman gathered in three places, Winterfell, White Harbor and Barrowton and all the other great houses are closer to either White Harbor or Winterfell.
  4. Glovers and Wolfswood Clans: Glovers probably had more than 1300 infantry with Robb. Even after sending men south, they seem to have  up to 1000 clansmen remaining joining Stannis.
  5. Hornwoods:They probably had more than 1300 infantry with Robb. Roose left 100 Hornwood bowmen to defend his rear, there were some (50-100) Hornwood men in Rodrik's near 2000
  6. Karstarks: Rickard had 300 lancers and 2000 infantry. He left behind only the young boys and men too old or crippled to go to war Karstarks later raise 150-200 for Rodrik and 12 lancers and 440 infantry for Arnolf. These men must mostly be young boys.
  7. Manderlies: They have so far raised 2100 men; They have sent 1250 infantry and 250 cavalry with Robb, sent ~300 to Rodrik (knights and siege engines) and 100 knights and 200 men-at-arms for Ramsay's wedding. Wyman still has more heavy cavalry than any other single lord in the North, which would mean they have at least another 500 cavalry.
  8. Mormonts: At least 300 men. According to Jeor Mormont, who has fewer than 1000 Watch men of which little over 300 are rangers, Night's Watch have fewer fighting men than any northern house.
  9. Mountain clansmen: ~3000 (Some with Robb and 2000-3000 left joining Stannis)
  10. Ryswells: Roose leaves 100(or fewer) Ryswell spearmen to hold his rear. Also see Dustins.
  11. Starks: Winterfell has a guard of 200. After Robb takes the fighting men south, Rodrik gets 200 boys for guard duty and in a very short time raises another 400.
  12. Tallharts: the 400 garrison of Twins possibly belonged to Tallharts. Tallharts later have ~300 men with Rodrik.
  13. Umbers: Greatjon took all the men south, Whoresbane has raised 300 spearmen and 100 bows, all old men, Crowfood has raised another 400, mostly boys with some half-crippled serjeants.

Sources: 

 

Calculations:

These are estimations and guesses built on limited information we have and may not be exactly true.

- Casualty Rate for Northern infantry in GF. Roose had 10000 men after it, excluding Freys. ~9500 would be infantry. Roose had ~14000 Northern Infantry before that. So it's a %32 casualty for Northern Infantry

- Casualty Rate for Frey infantry in GF: Arya sees Aenys and brothers briniging down 1500 Frey infantry to Harrenhal after Roose takes it. If they are all the survivors of GF, then it's a ~%40 casualty rate for them.

- Overall Casualty rate for Roose in GF: Roose had ~17000 men in GF, so if Frey survivors are at 1500, it's a ~%32 overall casualty and %30 infantry casualty.

Roose's host just before Ruby Ford: Roose has 3000 infantry and some 500 horsemen in Twins, he left 600 at the Ford, lost a third during fording and had sent 200 men with Jaime as an escort.

Taking exact figures it makes 6350 men. Alternatively, Roose may be counting the 200 men as fording casualties to hide the fact he has men out there, so again with exact figures, 6150 men.

- How many Karstarks left after GF: If the rates found above hold true for them, Karstarks would have 1200-1400 men left (%40 and %30) after battle.

- Glover, Hornwood, Cerwyn in Duskendale: Roose had 10400 Northmen in Harrenhal including 400 Tallhart Garrison. He lost 700-750 Karstark foot (thousand Karstarks searching for Jaime, near three hundred were horsemen of Rickard) Roose has 6350 (or 6150) men before Ruby Ford. This means he has lost 4050(or 4250) men which includes 700-750 Karstarks that search for Jaime.

So 3300-3550 Karstarks, Tallharts, Cerwyns, Glovers and Hornwoods died in Duskendale. 400 were Tallharts so 2900-3150 Karstark, Glover, Cerwyn and Hornwood. 450-700 would be Karstarks so 2200-2700 Glover, Cerwyn, Hornwood lost to Duskendale. A note: While Roose has sent all Karstark men remaining to him, he never says any such thing for Hornwood, Cerwyn and Glover men and we see some Cerwyn and Hornwood men even after Ruby Ford.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Reach:
  Hide contents

 

  • Possibly 70-80000 They have raised 90000 men in Wot5K together with Stormlanders and this number doesn't include some Reach lords who are yet to join or some Stormlanders(Dondarrion and Swann) who have decided not to.

 

  1. Hightowers have more than 9000 men during Dance of the Dragons
  2. Oldtown has thousands of defenders.
  3. Florents have 2000 men, more than 750 of this is cavalry
  4. Tarlys possibly have ~2500 men during Vulture King. This seems to be very much in line with two other nearby marcher houses; Caron and Dondarrion, who have raised together 4000 foot and 800 horsemen
  5. Stormlands as a whole had fewer than 10000 men during the conquest but this number may be without some of the Marchers (Dorne takes oppurtunity and attacks but Bastard of Blackhaven dies fighting against Orys' forces)
  6. Redwynes have 200 warships Thse would be mostly, if not entirely regular war galleys of 100 or so oars since the ship they are making for Joffrey has only 200 oars.
  7. Garlan and Willas can raise another 20000 in a moon's turn but these could be boys as we see in the North.

Sources: Princess and the Queen, ACOK Prologue, ASOS Davos IV TWOIAF

 

 

 

 

  • Stormlands
  Hide contents

 

  • : Possibly 20000, considering Dorne is the least populous kingdom with at least 10000 men and  Crownlands also has ~10000
  1. During Aegon's Conquest, Stormlanders have fewer than 10000 men but this number may not include some Marcher Lords.
  2. Stormlands is thinly peopled compared to Vale, Riverlands and Westerlands.
  3. Caron and Dondarrion together had 4000 foot and 800 cavalry during Vulture Hunt.
  4. Tarth should be in the range of hundreds, as Velaryons are stated to be more powerful than them (in Princes and Queen)
  5. Morrigens possibly have fewer than 2000 (Florent lands being the "richest fruit" after Blackwater)
  6. Carons possibly have fewer than 2000 (Same as above)

Sources: World Book, Dunk and Egg Novellas, Princess and the Queen.

 

 

 

  • Riverlands: 
  Hide contents

 

  • At least16000, perhaps as many as 24000 at the start of War of the Five kings and this is with a short time to prepare. Later on some lords have raised more men.
  1. Even affter suffering great losses at the start of Wot5K, Riverlands still has more than 15000 men left, of which 4000 is cavalry. During the Dance they had 6700 after some unknown casualties, possibly around 7500 before that.
  2. At the end of the Wot5K Bracken's siege Raventree Hall with 500 men
  3. Despite his griveous losses at the start Edmure still has 3000 cavalry and 8000 foot without the Freys.
  4. Blackwoods initially had 300 longbowmen during the Dance.
  5. Freys have started with 3000 foot and 1000 cavalry, after Red Wedding they have raised up to 2000 more infantry.
  6. Mallisters seem to be able to raise a second levy of 1000 men (at most) joining Robb. Their first raise would obviously be more powerful.
  7. Mootons had 100 knights during the Dance of Dragons. For comparison Freys had 200 knights and 600 foot during the same time.
  8. Harrenhal possibly has fewer than 2000 (Florent lands being the "richest fruit after Blackwater)
  9. Darry possibly has fewer than 2000 (Same as Harrenhal)

 

 

 

  • Vale:
  Hide contents

 

  • Possibly a lot less than 40000. They had, during the wars for the Sisters, hundreds of ships, at least 100 of them warships.
  1. Six lords declarant can together raise 20000 men, which Petyr Baelish isn't able to match.
  2. Sisters: During the Rape of the Sisters, 3000 sisterman warriors were executed in a single day.
  3. Garrison of Eyrie is 20 men, of Gates of the Moon is fewer than 300
  4. Royces: They are the most powerful in the Vale, with vassals located as far as Coldwater. They obviously have more than 3300 average of the declarants.

Sources: World Book, AFFC Sansa I

 

 

 

  • Westerlands:
  Hide contents

 

  • At the start of the War of the Five Kings, After preparing for a while Tywin had ~35000  which includes many sellsword companies and seemingly most of the available men. Without the sellswords they have perhaps as many as 30000 men. During Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion, Lords of Westerlands raise ~21000/25000/29000 depending whether Tywin had three four or five times as many men as Reynes' 2000.
  1. Tywin's 20K and Jaime's 14-15K together has 10000-10500 cavalry and 24500-25000 Infantry. These numbers include many sellswords and at least 2200 of the horse (just from Tywin's army) is formed of non-knights.
  2. Lefford, Lydden and Serrett with all their retainers have 300 heavy horse.
  3. During Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion Tywin had 3000 infantry and 500 cavalry at the start, which very likely included men from Lannisport which is less than a mile away.
  4. 2000 men (200 of which are knights) Reynes had without their allies and most of their vassals is less than a quarter of their possible strength, so possibly 9000 with allies and vassals.
  5. Tywin is first joined by Lords Marbrand, Ashemark and a dozen smaller lords, which bring his numbers to 3-5 times of Reyne's 2000, meaning they brought 2500-6500
  6. After the arrival of the Lords Westerling, Banefort, Plumm, and Stackspear with their levies, Tywin's host has swollen to twice it's original size, meaning they brought 6000-10000.

Sources: World Book, Agot Tyrion VIII

 

 

 

 


Wildlings:

  Hide contents

 

Their entire populace is around 30000 people when Jon arrives; Most of the Wildlings, even those living close to the Wall, left their villages to Join Mance. Scouts sent from Fist of the First Men estimate their strength to be 30000 or more which is later confirmed by Jon once he gets there. If same rate as Drogo's Khalasar applies they should have 12000 men in fighting age, some of their women also fight; of the 1000 people Stannis took captive, 300 are men of fighting age, among the 700 left, 50-100 are spearwives. If the same rate applies overall, they should have  1300-2600 Spearwives in total.

  1. Thenns have at least 300 warriors; 100 that climbed the wall and 200 of Sigorn
  2. Tormund alone has 200 giants and 80 mammoths in his group of ~3000 not including those who died.
  3. Mance lost a dozen giants trying to attack the Wall.
  4. Mother Mole is said to have half as many people as Tormund
  5. "A Dour Warrior" leads hundreds to Valley of Thenn
  6. Weeper had at least 300 fighters with him with no information on non-fighters.

 

 

 

 

Essos:

  •   Hide contents

     

    • Pentos: Currently they have no army beyond the city watch and they maintain no more than twenty warships, due to terms imposed upon them by Braavosi. They have tens of thousands of "servants", which may give some idea on how big the city itself is.
    • Braavos has at least 100 ships
    • Qohor: Aurion raised an army of 30000 Qohorik colonists during the century of blood.
    • Drogo's Khalasar: 100000 people, 40000 are warriors the rest are women, children and slaves.

     

     

 

 

Biggest Battles in Westerosi History

 

  Hide contents

 

Courtesy of @Free Northman Reborn biggest battles known in the history of Westeros, with some updates.

 

1. Battle of the Blackwater: ~100k  (20K Stannis land troops, 50-70K Renly's remainig foot, 6k+ city defenders, supposedly near 20K Tywin's troops)

2. Battle of the Trident - 75k (approx. 40k Royalists vs 35k Rebels)

2. Tied. Battle if the King hadn't knelt: - 75k (If Torhenn and Aegon had gone to war at the Trident)

3. The Field of Fire: 65k  (approx. 55k Reach/Westermen vs about 10k Targaryens)

4. Battle for Dorne: 60k+ (10k invaders died in battle, 40k died later, we know Dorne has at least 10000 men)

5. Battle of the Green Fork: 37k (About 20k Lannisters vs 17k Northmen)

 

 

 

 

SOME OTHER STUFF

 

 

 

  Hide contents

 

According to the source below, there were at least 25 men per banner.

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=dAskDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Source below lists  prices for armor, among many other things.

http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

 

 

On village sizes, can't recall the source.

 

But we also have villages numbering in the thousands (one such village is in Iron Island)

 

 

 

 

  • On ships:

Smallest war galleys have 60-80 oars. Ships of the Iron Fleet are comparable to these and three times as large as regular Ironborn longboats.

Biggest war galley we see(King Robert's Warhammer) have 400 oars, with galleys of 100 or even 200 oars aren't uncommon. Stannis' Fury has 300 oars.

Regular dromonds seem to have 400 oars, Dromonds could have as many as 800 oars (Lord Tywin)

 

 

  • On army composition:

Westerosi seem to generally tend having one cavalry per three footmen, though we see other preferences this is the most common one.

Tywin prefers a bigger portion of horse in his army then the usual 1:3

Marcher lords seem to prefer 1:5 horse to foot.

In older days the preferred ratio could have been 1:9-1:10 horse to foot, as this is what we see in Field of Fire and the Lannister force sent to Stepstones. Golden company also seems to use this ratio.

Golden company has 10000 men, of this 1000 are horsemen(500 knights and 500 squires) and 1000 Archers

 

 

 

Distances and Land Sizes

 

From here a day's ride should be less than 40-50 kms.

 

The Wall is a 100 leagues in length.

From Winterfell, riding along the Kingsroad, it is more than a weeks ride to the Wall.

From Barrowlands to Wall it is less than 2 months.

From Wolfswood to Winterfell it is a hundred leagues of march and three hundred miles as the raven fly.

From headwaters of the Fever to Moat Cailin it is 20 miles.

From the Wall to the edge of the gift it is 50 leagues.

It is a 100 leagues from Oldtown to Hornhill.

From Sherrer to King's Landing is a few days distance.

It is less than a day's ride from Winterfell to Castle Cerwyn.

Lannisport is less than a mile away from Casterly Rock.

Tumbleton is 50 leagues from King's Landing.

It is a fortnight of riding from King's Landing to Inn at the Crossroads

 

 

Truly awesome. This is why I love this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

Truly awesome. This is why I love this forum.

Thanks! I try to post more information as I find them. Keeping the first post up to date with those is a whole different matter though, especially since I mostly post from a very small screened phone.:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So a small thing. A Serjeanty is a type of land tenure that is not ineritable and is granted for some specified service. 

 

So, serjeants mentioned below are probably something like that and it gives us some more knowledge on how the land is managed.

Quote

"None. No men." He grinned at his own wit. "He had boys. I saw them." Aside from a handful of half-crippled serjeants, the warriors that Crowfood had brought down from Last Hearth were hardly old enough to shave. "Their spears and axes were older than the hands that clutched them. It was Whoresbane Umber who had the men, inside the castle. I saw them too. Old men, every one." Theon tittered. "Mors took the green boys and Hother took the greybeards. All the real men went with the Greatjon and died at the Red Wedding. Is that what you wanted to know, Your Grace?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is on a previous thing discussed here, whether the men Theon sees in MC were Roose's own men from the beginning or they became his men later on like Meribald describes.

Quote

At the portcullis they came upon a dozen guards armed with halberds. Their badges marked them for soldiers of Lord Tarly's host, though none was Tarly's own. She saw two centaurs, a thunderbolt, a blue beetle and a green arrow, but not the striding huntsman of Horn Hill. Their serjeant had a peacock on his breast, its bright tail faded by the sun. When the farmers drew their cart up he gave a whistle. "What's this now? Eggs?" He tossed one up, caught it, and grinned. "We'll take them."

We see here men from houses Leygood, Bettley, Caswell and Sarsfield who are not Tarly bannermen and a serjeant from house cockshaw, again not Tarly bannermen. Some, if not all of these houses still have their lords and some are not even from the reach or stormlands houses who changed sides twice but are from houses sworn to Lannisters. So it's not impossible that men of the Northern houses who now lack leadership are "Bolton men"

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...