Military Strengths and More!

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Your point regarding the Webbers doesn’t start making sense just by repeating it over and over again. It remains non-sensical. You seem to want to suggest that if even the lowly Webbers have good horses, imagine how good the rest of the Reach’s horses must be. But that does not follow, because, asI have repeatedly pointes out to you, the Webbers breed the very best horses in all the Reach. If that is true, then every other lord in the Reach breeds worse horses than the Webbers.

Man, that wasn't the issue. The Webbers breed the best horses in the Reach, yes, but nobody said those horses were war horses. But they are still a luxury commodity even such a minor house can produce in the Reach.

The fact that no one in the Reach (or the south as such) is stuck with garrons is already a well-established fact.

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So the Webbers cannot be representative of the average petty lord in the Reach. Instead, they represent the very best in horsebreeding of ANY lord in all the Reach. By contrast, the Mountain Clans live in Mountains suited to surefooted garrons, and are not renowned at all for their horsebreeding, not even among other Northeners.

Again, the point here is that a minor house like the Webbers are significant for their horse-breeding (and the money that comes in with stuff like that) while the clansmen are not. The idea that there are 'clansmen like fellows' in the Reach is not impossible, but it is implausible that such petty lords control a similar large chunk of land in the Reach. There are similar people (the Crackclaw Point folk, say) in the south but not in the Reach.

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for other Northern Houses using garrons, that would depend on the season. Crowfood Umber rides a garron in Dance, in a Northern winter storm when the ground is covered with snow. And as we were told, garrons are more surefooted in these conditions, and are more hardy in against the elements.

But it is still autumn when the clansmen join Stannis, no? And the snow storm only hits them on the way to Winterfell. If they had other horses - and if the Umbers had other horses left - they would have taken them with them, no? I mean, they do know they are going to face heavy cavalry in the coming battles, no?

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But when the Greatjon joins Robb with a warhost did you read any description of his heavy cavalry? We know there must have been a substantial number if them, given Robb’s 3300 heavy cavalry. But there is not evidence of a single garron. In fact, I would go so far as stating that no garron rider can be classified as heavy cavalry. That would have to be categorized as light cavalry.

Mounted lances are not necessarily heavy cavalry. And we have no reason to believe that any description a POV gives us paints a complete and flawless picture. Tyrion the fool actually believes Roose is attacking them with a lot of cavalry, no?

[Free Northman Reborn]

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, that wasn't the issue. The Webbers breed the best horses in the Reach, yes, but nobody said those horses were war horses. But they are still a luxury commodity even such a minor house can produce in the Reach.

The fact that no one in the Reach (or the south as such) is stuck with garrons is already a well-established fact.

Again, the point here is that a minor house like the Webbers are significant for their horse-breeding (and the money that comes in with stuff like that) while the clansmen are not. The idea that there are 'clansmen like fellows' in the Reach is not impossible, but it is implausible that such petty lords control a similar large chunk of land in the Reach. There are similar people (the Crackclaw Point folk, say) in the south but not in the Reach.

But it is still autumn when the clansmen join Stannis, no? And the snow storm only hits them on the way to Winterfell. If they had other horses - and if the Umbers had other horses left - they would have taken them with them, no? I mean, they do know they are going to face heavy cavalry in the coming battles, no?

Mounted lances are not necessarily heavy cavalry. And we have no reason to believe that any description a POV gives us paints a complete and flawless picture. Tyrion the fool actually believes Roose is attacking them with a lot of cavalry, no?

Too many meandering, vague points to address in one post. I’ll tackle one or two for now.

Minor House is a relative term. The Clans are not normal Houses. They don’t even regard themselves as highborn. Just like the Crannogmen are unique, and the Skagosi, and apparently the Clans from the depths of the Wolfswood. If you are trying to compare these to a House like the Webbers, you are wasting your time.

A like for like comparison would be actual noble Houses in the North like the Woolfields, or the dozen lords sworn to House Manderly etc.

None of the Mountain Clans, Crannogmen, Skagosi or Forest Clans will likely be contributing heavy cavalry to the Starks. (Unless you count Unicorns as heavy cavalry).

So, where do the Webbers rank among the petty lords of the Reach? We don’t know. They might be at the very top, for all we know. They certainly aren’t at the bottom. That would be Houses at the Osgrey level. Landed Knight or not, that title does not necessarily correlate to wealth or power. There will be poor petty lords  as much as there are rich Landed Knights.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

'm sorry, what numbers are you referring to here?

Edmure's horse. 3000 horse though after some campaign.

Robb started with 3300-3400 armored lancers. He gets more along the way.

Edmure also has the 1000 Freys of course and the horseman he has lost earlier but in total Robb had  5000 or so horse with him and still have many more. Manderly alone has many heavy horse, not even counting the other houses who'll still have some left; Karstarks' 12 even after Winterfell, Cerwyns' at lesst 24 before it... They will add up to hundreds without even adding Manderly.

Quote

that was not their entire strength

It was his own. The rest of that 6000-7000 are his allies, how many men that may gather to him personally(Even Kevan was given such a number) and perhaps even Tarbeck's infantry.

Even if 2000 wasn't his own full strength, horses travel a lot faster than men, so he would have more than 200 knights if that wasn't his entire knightly strength.

[Lord Varys]

One should not make the mistake to assume that whatever Edmure Tully could marshal constitutes the entire strength of the Riverlands. The Tullys never wore crowns, and they are not even the most powerful Riverlords. They only nominally rule them. When the war begins the Lord of Riverrun is a weak and dying man and his son is a soft man completely untested in battle.

Edmure has a circle of friends and considerable influence among the houses connected to that circle, but if we delude ourselves that all the Riverlords did their best to help the Tullys we are likely mistaken.

Even Robb, then King of the Trident, couldn't prevent the Riverlords from marching their men back home after they crowned him. That shows their priorities.

A lot of the more powerful Riverlords - the Mootons, the Whents, etc. don't really show up in their full strength in the books. And there are many regions in the Riverlands completely untouched by war at this point. Did the lords there send all their strength to war, or not? We do not know.

I mean, just look at the Dance. Men come again and again and again from the Riverlands, never mind that they fought a civil war there, then against the Lannisters and Cole's army, then they marched an army to Tumbleton, and then, finally, the crushed the Stormlanders on the Kingsroad.

In addition, one should keep in mind that the Riverlands were split in two during Robert's Rebellion. Those men who stood with Rhaegar at the Trident might not really care all that much about helping the Tullys all that much, especially not if their lands are not exactly close to the Westerlands.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One should not make the mistake to assume that whatever Edmure Tully could marshal constitutes the entire strength of the Riverlands. The Tullys never wore crowns, and they are not even the most powerful Riverlords. They only nominally rule them. When the war begins the Lord of Riverrun is a weak and dying man and his son is a soft man completely untested in battle.

Edmure has a circle of friends and considerable influence among the houses connected to that circle, but if we delude ourselves that all the Riverlords did their best to help the Tullys we are likely mistaken.

Even Robb, then King of the Trident, couldn't prevent the Riverlords from marching their men back home after they crowned him. That shows their priorities.

A lot of the more powerful Riverlords - the Mootons, the Whents, etc. don't really show up in their full strength in the books. And there are many regions in the Riverlands completely untouched by war at this point. Did the lords there send all their strength to war, or not? We do not know.

I mean, just look at the Dance. Men come again and again and again from the Riverlands, never mind that they fought a civil war there, then against the Lannisters and Cole's army, then they marched an army to Tumbleton, and then, finally, the crushed the Stormlanders on the Kingsroad.

In addition, one should keep in mind that the Riverlands were split in two during Robert's Rebellion. Those men who stood with Rhaegar at the Trident might not really care all that much about helping the Tullys all that much, especially not if their lands are not exactly close to the Westerlands.

Fully agree. 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

mean, just look at the Dance. Men come again and again and again from the Riverlands, never mind that they fought a civil war there, then against the Lannisters and Cole's army, then they marched an army to Tumbleton, and then, finally, the crushed the Stormlanders on the Kingsroad

Where do you get that idea? Men from different houses come at different times, true but apart from that, no house send men over and over again. Just look at the Winter Wolves. Wherever the rivermen are, they are there. So it's just the same men marching up and down the land. Going to Fishfeed, Butcher'a Ball, Tumbleton...

[Lord Varys]

56 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Where do you get that idea? Men from different houses come at different times, true but apart from that, no house send men over and over again. Just look at the Winter Wolves. Wherever the rivermen are, they are there. So it's just the same men marching up and down the land. Going to Fishfeed, Butcher'a Ball, Tumbleton...

And at First Tumbleton they all die, no? Addam Velaryon raises another host, and the same host, or a new host then fights against the Stormlanders.

Despite the original fighting in the Riverlands they are, in the end, still strong enough to crush a fresh host.

[Corvo the Crow]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And at First Tumbleton they all die, no? Addam Velaryon raises another host, and the same host, or a new host then fights against the Stormlanders.

Correct, I've forgotten about his new host. But was it just the Riverlanders he gathered? It's said he pieced together an army flying far and fast. It could be RL, could be  parts of Reach left untouched maybe even some Vale lords.

 

Anyway, now that you mentioned it I got curious and here's another calculation on RL during Dance.

We have no numbers on battle on Red Fork

Fishfeed we only have partial numbers, winterwolves,   300 longbowmen, 200 knights and 600 foot joined by Longleaf's survivors, and three other lords. We also know 2000 died in total and it was the bloodiest battle. So RF casualties should be lower.

After FF, There's 300 knights, 300 longbowmen, 3000 spearman and 3000 bowmen of RL against Criston Cole.

Addam Velaryon later raises 4000 men.

Excluding casualties of RF and FF, it makes 10600 men. If all the casualties in both were Rivermen, it would make 14600 at most.

Since FF was bloodiest then it RF total casualties were less than 2000. And also in FF entire Westerman army was killed and Winterwolves took the most casualties of any group, two thirds dead and wounded, so again, a lot fewer than 2000 casualties for Rivermen.

I am unsure whether if the lads are a new force or not; Ben Blackwood is among them, wasn't he part of the host which had Winterwolves? The one at Fishfeed, Butcher's Ball and then Tumbleton? So some men must have survived the Tumbleton unless they decided to dump him somewhere along the road to Tumbleton.

[Corvo the Crow]

One thing on Blackwoods; we see two Blackwood bastard archers and Black Aly who commanded archers so she may have been an archer also;she's a woman in a war, leadimg men so she has skill at arms and archery requires less strength than wearing armor, shield and swinging a sword.  Archery tradition seems to be strong with them. We also see these two bastards both have a company of 300 archers at their command. I wonder if it's anything significant; is that number all the archers they have or at least is that number all the household archers in their lands(their castle and vassals')?

[Corvo the Crow]

Can we perhaps return to knight to total ratio by not going through a discussion on equipment, for now?

[Corvo the Crow]

Which are the houses we know/suspect to be a vassal of another, as in Webber to Rowan?

 

By region these are I have found out/suspect;

 

Crownlands:

- Hayford: landed knight Hogg

- Dragonstone: Lords Velaryon, Bar Emmon, Celtigar. Possibly lord Massey. Possibly Crackclaw houses. Possibly Houses Farring and Blackberry which are probably landed knights.

 

North:

- Cerwyn: House Condon who are probably landed Knights.

- Dustin: Lord Harwood

- Glover: Clans Bole, Branch, Forrester, Woods.

- Manderly: Possibly lords Long, Ashwood, Slate, Holt; houses which have held Wolf's Den but unlike Flints and Lockes, are not explicitly stated to be not Vassals of Manderly. Possibly Woolfields, an unknown. 

- Mormont: Possibly Lightfoot, a houses that may be a cadet of the extinct Woodfoots.

-  Reed: Crannogmen Blackmyre, Boggs, Cray, Fenn, Greengood, Peat, Quagg. Possibly houses Moss and Marsh because of the names.

- Umbers: Possibly Whitehills whose siğil is a single white hill and since they are not mentioned to be a clansmen from the mountains it could be they live in the lonely hills.

 

Reach:

- Florent: Landed knight Norcross.

- Hightower: lords Beesbury, Cuy, Costayne, Bulwer and Mullendore. probably Roxtons who are likely landed knights.

- Rowan: Lords Webber and Stackhouse and landed knights Osgrey and Conklyn and an unknown, Durwell. They may also be overlords of lord Oakheart and landed Knight Crane. Webbers have possibly landed knight Inchfields.

- Tarly: possibly landed knight Hunt

 

Riverlands:

- Butterwell: A Heddle knight is his son-in-law and captain of the guards, so probably Heddles as landed knights

- Cox: an unkwown, house Hawick, is probably their vassal.

- Darry: They also had Heddles as landed knights(inn at crossroads)

- Frey: Lord Charlton and landed Knights Haigh and Nayland an unknown, Erenford.

- Vance of Wayfarer's Rest: Lord Smallwood.

- Harrenhal: Several Wodes as landed knights.. Possibly Rootes(WHO are now lords) as landed knights during Harroway's time as lord. 

 

 

Stormlands: 

- Dondarrion: possibly landed knight Cole.

- Grandison: possibly landed knight Wagstaff.

 

Vale: 

- Grafton: Possibly Shett of Gulltown, an unknown. Possibly Arryns of Gulltown, again an unknown.

- Royce: Lords Coldwater and Tollett. Landed Knight Shett of Gulltower.

 

Westerlands:

- Westerlings: Lord Spicer before they get Castamere. 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Dragonstone: Lords Velaryon, Bar Emmon, Celtigar. Possibly lord Massey. Possibly Crackclaw houses. Possibly Houses Farring and Blackberry which are probably landed knights.

That is only the case since Robert made Dragonstone a proper lordship. The Masseys are sworn to Dragonstone. Crackclaw Point to the Iron Throne.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Manderly: Possibly lords Long, Ashwood, Slate, Holt; houses which have held Wolf's Den but unlike Flints and Lockes, are not explicitly stated to be not Vassals of Manderly. Possibly Woolfields, an unknown. 

Too much speculation for my part.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Mormont: Possibly Lightfoot, a houses that may be a cadet of the extinct Woodfoots.

Speculation.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

-  Reed: Crannogmen Blackmyre, Boggs, Cray, Fenn, Greengood, Peat, Quagg. Possibly houses Moss and Marsh because of the names.

Too much speculation. And keep in mind that the Reeds are at best first among equals, they are not 'proper lords' by the standards of proper lords.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Umbers: Possibly Whitehills whose siğil is a single white hill and since they are not mentioned to be a clansmen from the mountains it could be they live in the lonely hills.

Or not.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Reach:

- Florent: Landed knight Norcross.

- Hightower: lords Beesbury, Cuy, Costayne, Bulwer and Mullendore. probably Roxtons who are likely landed knights.

There is no indication to believe the Roxtons are landed knights.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Rowan: Lords Webber and Stackhouse and landed knights Osgrey and Conklyn and an unknown, Durwell. They may also be overlords of lord Oakheart and landed Knight Crane. Webbers have possibly landed knight Inchfields.

No reason to believe the Inchfields are landed knights. The Oakhearts are a great lordly house in their own right, and a very powerful at that (a Lord Oakheart commanded part of the army of the Two Kings on the Field of Fire). Also no indication the Cranes are just landed knights (and even if they were, no indication that they are sworn to Goldengrove).

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Riverlands:

- Butterwell: A Heddle knight is his son-in-law and captain of the guards, so probably Heddles as landed knights

Again, no indication they were a house of landed knights. Could just have been knights. Or perhaps even small lords.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

- Darry: They also had Heddles as landed knights(inn at crossroads)

Only after the Butterwells were effectively destroyed. Lands and possessions do change.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Stormlands: 

- Dondarrion: possibly landed knight Cole.

Criston Cole was the son of the steward of Blackhaven.

[Bernie Mac]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:30 AM, Corvo the Crow said:

Edmure's horse. 3000 horse though after some campaign.

More than 'some' campaign, two major battles plus many minor skirmishes were he sent his men out to stop the raids as well as the 1,000 Frey cavalry with Robb.

 

Quote

Robb started with 3300-3400 armored lancers. He gets more along the way.

Yup, but there is no real evidence that either region has more cavalry than the other, it is baseless speculation. 

Quote

Edmure also has the 1000 Freys of course and the horseman he has lost earlier but in total Robb had  5000 or so horse with him and still have many more.

Again, baseless speculation. He has more, but not significantly so. 

Quote

Manderly alone has many heavy horse,

many is a vague, there is no value on that. We know he has more than any other Northen lord, that in itself is  meaningless. 

Quote

 

 

It was his own. The rest of that 6000-7000 are his allies,

no, that is not once claimed, once again you are jumping to conclusions that are just not stated in the books, what is claimed that his full strength was only a quarter of what was present

 In his haste to respond to his sister’s peril, however, his lordship had set forth with less than a quarter of his full strength

the idea that the second most powerful lord in the Westeros, a House described as the second richest in Westeros, only has 200 knights is ludicrous, especially when just a few paragraphs before we are told

and brought ever more knights, archers, and men-at-arms into their service.  Walderan Tarbeck had supported twenty household knights before his marriage to Ellyn Reyne; by 255 AC, that number had swollen to five hundred.

the fact that the less powerful Tarbecks have 500 Household (and that is just Household) knights makes the idea that the Reynes only have 200 in total a little silly. 

 

 

 

[Corvo the Crow]

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

 In his haste to respond to his sister’s peril, however, his lordship had set forth with less than a quarter of his full strength

As always, pulling half-quotes out of context so they'd support you.

Quote

The Red Lion arrived in time to see the flames, we are told.  Two thousand men rode with him, all he had been able to gather in the short time available to him.  Only one in ten was a knight.  Given time, Lord Roger could have assembled a much larger host, for House Reyne had many friends in the west, and his own repute as a warrior would surely have drawn many freeriders, hedge knights, and sellswords to his side.  In his haste to respond to his sister’s peril, however, his lordship had set forth with less than a quarter of his full strength, and driven them hard over long leagues, only to arrive at Tarbeck Hall hungry, exhausted, and too late.

 I've decided i'll delete the rest of my answer since you keep pulling quotes out of context to fit your view.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Let me qualify the ensuing estimates with an acknowledgment that there are many numbers we don't know for sure. Furthermore, I also don't like tenuous extrapolations based on very limited or unsound assumptions. So wild guesses are also not my style.

That said, I do enjoy using what evidence we have to build a case, even if said case is open for debate.

With those caveats up front, some of my heavy horse estimates are as follows:

House Frey - 1000 (full strength around 5000)

House Caron - 400 (full strength around 2400)

House Dondarrion - 400 (full strength around 2400)

House Karstark - 300 (full strength around 3000)

Now we get to the interesting bits. To me the 3300 heavy horse gathered by Robb at Winterfell is quite extraordinary. It represents 27.5% of the total 12000 men. What's more, with the Mountain Clans having no heavy horse, the Mormonts likely having a very low cavalry number given their travel by fishing sloop/longship from Bear Island, and the Karstarks lowly 13% cavalry contribution out of their 2300 men, that inevitably means that the remaining lords gathered at Winterfell must have contributed on average around 33% (one third) horse out of their total numbers. That is a very high ratio. But has to be true, given the numbers provided.

These lords were Houses Umber, Bolton, Stark, Cerwyn, Glover, Tallhart and Hornwood. If you subtract from the 3300 mounted lancers the 300 Karstarks and maybe 100-200 for the combined contribution of the Mormonts and Mountain Clans, that leaves 2800-2900 heavy cavalry contributed by the 7 Houses listed above.

Going from most to least powerful, one would probably rate these Houses as:

Stark, Bolton, Umber, Hornwood, Tallhart, Cerwyn, Glover (with the last 4 pretty much in random order). So, how might the cavalry contribution from these 7 Houses have looked, to arrive at the 2800 mounted lances above?

So, here is my guestimate of the rough heavy cavalry numbers provided by the above seven Houses:

House Stark - 800-1000 (40% cavalry percentage as overlords of the North)

House Bolton - 600-800 (25% of their force with Robb. With Ramsay having at least another 200 back at the Dreadfort)

House Umber - 500 (The Umbers are prominent in Robb's cavalry force in the West)

House Hornwood - 200

House Cerwyn - 200

House Glover - 200

House Tallhart - 200

Total: 2900. Give or take.

The point is, the Boltons likely have a total heavy cavalry strength of 800 as a minimum, perhaps above 1000 even. Meaning the Manderlys, even after their losses, still have more than that. So I would put the Manderly original cavalry at around 1500.

As I said, these are my estimates. No doubt others will have their own, very different estimates.

 

 

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

As always, pulling half-quotes out of context so they'd support you.

Wow, you really get sensitive when people disagree with you. Calm down. 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 I've decided i'll delete the rest of my answer since you keep pulling quotes out of context to fit your view.

What exactly from that that quote do you think disproves what I said? And you do realize that is the exact same quote I have you when I first responded to your assessment on the Reynes only having 200 cavalry. 

 

Please try not to overeact this time. 

 

 

 

[Corvo the Crow]

Again a small thing on horse to foot ratio, mostly on Stormlands

To cut to the chase, it's 2:10, knights to foot, explanation below:

Stannis has 100 knights on DS before setting out, though these are just the ones who can read, he doesn't appear to have too many illiterate ones since his 400 cavalry in total is described as freeriders in boiled leather.

He had 1300 men after Blackwater  which is more than Aegon had at the start of conquest.

Aegon took Mooton with him going to RL(he was there in field of fire) so men Orys took were men from what is now crownlands.

Argillac in last storm had near twice the numbers of Orys and had four times the knights(though Orys lost 1000 men earlier, with unknown amount of knights)

We see during Maegor's time CL has only one knight in ten and also later we see roughly the same in Mystery knight with 500 knights and 5000 foot from CL houses though it also has houses Mooton, Lothston and Blackwood.

So CL seems to have 1:9-1:10 horse to foot ratio with the houses sworn(or then allied) to DS also having a similar composition with 100 or slightly more knights and presumably fewer than 1300 men in total.

So with all these, Stormlands' overall ratio seems to be roughly the double of the crownlands, being two in ten.

We see that Caron and Dondarrion raising 4800 men, 800 being knights so it's a 2:10 knights to foot ratio. Horse to foor rario  could be more in Renly's Stormlanders with the light horse.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

Another horse:foot ratio

Renly had 20000 horse, of which 10000 were knights. 

We later learn from Varys Loras left with Rowan and Tarly and a fifth of Renly's knights. This fifth could mean fifth of the knights so roughly 2000, or the entire 20000 cavalry may be considered knights since Varys may not know their composition, so it's 4000 horsemen. 

Stannis who had 3000 men camped in DS( could be slightly more in total with garrison) has by his words, twenty thousand men after Renly died and has, by Davos' words near twenty thousand knights, light horse and freeriders after his split so what Loras took was closer to 2000, a fifth of knights than 4000, a fifth of the entire cavalry.

With that established, 2000 knights(more or less) is what Tyrells, Rowans and Tarlys have together with perhaps some SE men or some minor lords.

Renly's 90000 had 60000 foot, 10000 knights, 10000 other horsemen and another 10000,       Likely all foot as they'd be safe in Reach and he'll have the knights to himself. So he has 1 knight in every 9 men in an army made up of Reach and SL men. Reach, if they had the same ratio as WL, had 1:10 knight to rest so 1:11 in entire army during field of fire.

if these ratios for knights, 2:10 for SL and 1:11 for Reach in the entire army persisted for both Reach and SL;

Going with 10000 knights among 90000, so 1:9 , or % 11.11 is closer to 1:11 or %9,09 than it is to 1:6 or 16,67. 

Doing the calculation, Stormlanders are %26.65 and Reachmen are %73,35 of these men so

SL: 23985 men of which 3998 are knights 

Reach: 66015 men of which 6001 are knights.

 

Before anyone comes arguing, these all depend on the ratios being kept the same though, and may not represent the reality; say if SL has one lord with 1:2 knight to foot ratio with 1500 men and many lords with varying ratios  and the overall 1:6 with 3000 knights among 21000 is coming from this, if said 1:2 lord doesn't join, SL's will have a lower ratio then 1:6 or higher if only said lord comes and such and so on...

And what is reality, anyway? This is a fictional series with not much logic to it's ever shifting numbers; Like Tywin, the richest goldshitter there is only having 3000 foot and 500 knights, so one knight in seven whereas Walder the toll collector in a seemingly not too trafficked route having 1000 knights and 3000 foot, one knight in four.

[Corvo the Crow]

A small thing on banners and the amount of men under them;

In the first post I have included that in our world a banner had at least 25 men under it. 

I have found confirmation in universe also so thought I might add it.

Quote

The visitors poured through the castle gates in a river of gold and silver and polished steel, three hundred strong, a pride of bannermen and knights, of sworn swords and freeriders. Over their heads a dozengolden banners whipped back and forth in the northern wind, emblazoned with the crowned stag of Baratheon.

300 fighting men under a dozen banners, so 25 men per banner.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

On a dozen to a hundred, something @Free Northman Reborn pointed out before;

A dozen lords and a hundred knights could be the norm of Westeros' "military structure", at least in some parts.

Quote

We've taken close to a hundred knights captive, and a dozenlords bannermen. 

This is Westerman captives after whispering wood.

 

Quote

Between them, the Two Kings had sixhundred banners flying, five thousandmounted knights, and ten times as many freeriders and men-at-arms. 

Together the two kings commanded the mightiest host ever seen in Westeros: an army fifty-fivethousand strong, including some sixhundred lords great and small and more than five thousand mounted knights. 

This is Westerman and Reachman army in field of fire, six hundred lords to five thousand knights, so a dozen to a hundred, fifty times of a dozen to a hundred.

 

As a side note, men mentioned here are men-at-arms. Men-at-arms are professional soldiers of common birth but they normally serve as heavy horseman( may or may not be a lancer). I wonder if this is a blunder since he didn't fail to mention Frey men going with Roose are "men-at-arms" on foot.