The wealthiest family by region before AGOT

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Look, for any population in the millions you are talking tens of thousands, maybe up to 100,000 even, villages scatterred across the North, given that the average village seems to consist of maybe 50 people or less.

I don't speculate about the population of Westeros all that much, nor do I speculate how great a percentage on the male population would join an army.

Although if I'd do that I'd try to take much more into account, like how strongly the distances involved and the way of life people would factor into all that. Raising a large host in the Reach or the Riverlands or the West should be easy as hell - in the North not so much, not just because of the distances but also because there might be fewer villages and settlements up there, crippling their ability to send as many people to an army as people can, say, in the Riverlands. If I have 100 men in a village I might be able to function properly if 20 men just disappear. If we are talking about smaller, settlements, and people working very unfertile land, needing pretty much every hand to get whatever meager nourishment they get from their land then chances are that they could spare even less men - and would be most unwilling to part with those.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So it is obvious that there are a lot more villages scattered around the North than Robert’s observations would imply.

Is it?

No, it is not. There is no hint that Robert's view of the North is not supposed to give us a representative view of the North. There are people up there - just not all that many.

Nobody said there were no villages and settlements in the North. Just that there were significantly fewer up there than there are in the south. And that this fact is, well, significant.

That the North is pretty much finished as a military power for the remainder of the series is evident even without knowing that. Robb Stark lost nearly 20,000 men in his foolish war (and might lose all of them if Stannis ends up butchering all those Boltons and Freys at Winterfell) and that's not exactly a blow people can easily stomach and create another 10,000 men out of thin air to fight and die in other pointless campaigns.

Most of the real warriors are dead (and many of the survivors may die in the village or at Winterfell). What may remain after those battles might be strong enough to continue to retake and free their homes (Torrhen's Square is still in the hands of the Ironborn) and defend them, but they won't play any part in the real wars for the control of the Seven Kingdoms.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

My view is that the route of the Kingsroad is determined by the shortest way to get from Winterfell to Moat Cailin. Not by selecting the most fertile parts of the Barrowlands for a scenic tour of its villages. With even 300,000 people, it would require perhaps 5000 to 10,000 villages to exist in the Barrowlands.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse. The Kingsroad is the Kingsroad. It is the major road in Westeros. Nothing indicates it was designed as 'scenic tour of the villages' of the Riverlands, either - yet there happen to be a lot of inns, keeps, villages, orchards, houses, and people living alongside the Kingsroad in the Riverlands. In part this might be because the Riverlands were always very populated - but the other reason simply is that people go where the trade is, and the trade would have been at the Kingsroad once the Kingsroad was built.

KL isn't the city it is today because trade was prevalent where it was founded (or people were living there back then). It grew and prospered because it was the king's chosen seat.

And that means it is very significant that there is considerably less trade on the Kingsroad in the North than there is in the South. I mean, it is also the only known road to reach Winterfell, which tells us a lot.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't speculate about the population of Westeros all that much, nor do I speculate how great a percentage on the male population would join an army.

Although if I'd do that I'd try to take much more into account, like how strongly the distances involved and the way of life people would factor into all that. Raising a large host in the Reach or the Riverlands or the West should be easy as hell - in the North not so much, not just because of the distances but also because there might be fewer villages and settlements up there, crippling their ability to send as many people to an army as people can, say, in the Riverlands. If I have 100 men in a village I might be able to function properly if 20 men just disappear. If we are talking about smaller, settlements, and people working very unfertile land, needing pretty much every hand to get whatever meager nourishment they get from their land then chances are that they could spare even less men - and would be most unwilling to part with those.

Is it?

No, it is not. There is no hint that Robert's view of the North is not supposed to give us a representative view of the North. There are people up there - just not all that many.

Nobody said there were no villages and settlements in the North. Just that there were significantly fewer up there than there are in the south. And that this fact is, well, significant.

That the North is pretty much finished as a military power for the remainder of the series is evident even without knowing that. Robb Stark lost nearly 20,000 men in his foolish war (and might lose all of them if Stannis ends up butchering all those Boltons and Freys at Winterfell) and that's not exactly a blow people can easily stomach and create another 10,000 men out of thin air to fight and die in other pointless campaigns.

Most of the real warriors are dead (and many of the survivors may die in the village or at Winterfell). What may remain after those battles might be strong enough to continue to retake and free their homes (Torrhen's Square is still in the hands of the Ironborn) and defend them, but they won't play any part in the real wars for the control of the Seven Kingdoms.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse. The Kingsroad is the Kingsroad. It is the major road in Westeros. Nothing indicates it was designed as 'scenic tour of the villages' of the Riverlands, either - yet there happen to be a lot of inns, keeps, villages, orchards, houses, and people living alongside the Kingsroad in the Riverlands. In part this might be because the Riverlands were always very populated - but the other reason simply is that people go where the trade is, and the trade would have been at the Kingsroad once the Kingsroad was built.

KL isn't the city it is today because trade was prevalent where it was founded (or people were living there back then). It grew and prospered because it was the king's chosen seat.

And that means it is very significant that there is considerably less trade on the Kingsroad in the North than there is in the South. I mean, it is also the only known road to reach Winterfell, which tells us a lot.

I have to repeat again that it is a strawman to argue that the North is less densely populated than the South. That is been my argument from the very beginning, so we are in full agreement on this issue. No need to pretend that I argue otherwise.

But it is incorrect to say that there are fewer villages in the North than in a southron kingdom of similar population. In fact, given that the North’s population is more spread out, they will on average have smaller villages, but more of them than a kingdom like the Vale for example. This is simple math. Same population size, but smaller average village size. So divide one by the other and you get more villages in total.

And ultimately, you have to get back at least to the Vale’s total poplation, and exceed that of Dorne and the Stormlands. So the population exists. It is just spread out over an area 5 times larger.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But it is incorrect to say that there are fewer villages in the North than in a southron kingdom of similar population. In fact, given that the North’s population is more spread out, they will on average have smaller villages, but more of them than a kingdom like the Vale for example. This is simple math. Same population size, but smaller average village size. So divide one by the other and you get more villages in total.

That is by no means a given. For instance, there could be larger but fewer villages in those regions that are more densely populated, while other regions might be essentially completely empty, not containing any settlements we would call 'villages'.

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And ultimately, you have to get back at least to the Vale’s total poplation, and exceed that of Dorne and the Stormlands. So the population exists. It is just spread out over an area 5 times larger.

I really don't know. We don't get any official numbers on the total population of the various regions of Westeros, so we have nothing official to go on.

After all, this is a fake-medieval fantasy world. Nobody would be interested in counting landless rabble, just as nobody cares how many beggars live in Flea Bottom.

We also don't have any canonical information on the military strength of the various regions at various points - and even if we did:

Westeros is no longer a static videogame-like world, but a world with a history of wars and other catastrophes (especially plagues). The strength of the various powers would vary depending on the situation they find themselves in.

If you ask me, the North may have been comparatively stronger back during the Conquest then it was in AGoT, after the bloodletting of the Greyjoy and Robert's Rebellion, not to mention the tragedies the North and the Starks had to deal with in the last century.

Vice versa, the army Renly assembled in ACoK put the army the Two Kings marched to the Field of Fire to shame - indicating that both the Reach and the West prospered greatly after the Conquest put an end to the continuous warfare between the Seven Kingdoms. Else it makes no sense that Renly has 80,000+ men and the Gardeners and the Lannisters combined only 55,000 men - by the present standards Highgarden alone should be able to field as many men, even without the Hightowers joining the fray.

There is no information that the Riverlanders tried to invade the North while they were ruled by the Durrandons and the Hoares (and the wars between the Vale and the North were a thing of the more distant past), making it rather likely that the North didn't lose as many people to continuous warfare in the decades and centuries before the Conquest as the other kingdoms - or rather: they lost only the old men they wanted to get rid of, anyway, in those 'winter armies'.

If we keep in mind that continuous warfare would have also worsened the effects of winter (due to wasted/destroyed crops, harvests not happening, fields not being tended, etc.) there is a good chance that Torrhen Stark was actually somewhat more powerful than Ned and Robb Stark.

After all, it also makes no sense to assume that Torrhen marched his entire strength down south.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is by no means a given. For instance, there could be larger but fewer villages in those regions that are more densely populated, while other regions might be essentially completely empty, not containing any settlements we would call 'villages'.

I really don't know. We don't get any official numbers on the total population of the various regions of Westeros, so we have nothing official to go on.

After all, this is a fake-medieval fantasy world. Nobody would be interested in counting landless rabble, just as nobody cares how many beggars live in Flea Bottom.

We also don't have any canonical information on the military strength of the various regions at various points - and even if we did:

Westeros is no longer a static videogame-like world, but a world with a history of wars and other catastrophes (especially plagues). The strength of the various powers would vary depending on the situation they find themselves in.

If you ask me, the North may have been comparatively stronger back during the Conquest then it was in AGoT, after the bloodletting of the Greyjoy and Robert's Rebellion, not to mention the tragedies the North and the Starks had to deal with in the last century.

Vice versa, the army Renly assembled in ACoK put the army the Two Kings marched to the Field of Fire to shame - indicating that both the Reach and the West prospered greatly after the Conquest put an end to the continuous warfare between the Seven Kingdoms. Else it makes no sense that Renly has 80,000+ men and the Gardeners and the Lannisters combined only 55,000 men - by the present standards Highgarden alone should be able to field as many men, even without the Hightowers joining the fray.

There is no information that the Riverlanders tried to invade the North while they were ruled by the Durrandons and the Hoares (and the wars between the Vale and the North were a thing of the more distant past), making it rather likely that the North didn't lose as many people to continuous warfare in the decades and centuries before the Conquest as the other kingdoms - or rather: they lost only the old men they wanted to get rid of, anyway, in those 'winter armies'.

If we keep in mind that continuous warfare would have also worsened the effects of winter (due to wasted/destroyed crops, harvests not happening, fields not being tended, etc.) there is a good chance that Torrhen Stark was actually somewhat more powerful than Ned and Robb Stark.

After all, it also makes no sense to assume that Torrhen marched his entire strength down south.

Wow. This post confuses me. It seems to turn some of your previous arguments on their head, and suddenly agrees with me on Torhenn not marching his entire strength into the Riverlands.

But ultimately, it is all overruled by George stating that the North in the present day can raise as many men as the Vale. And with the Lords Declarant and some lesser followers able to raise 20k men, it seems clear that the full strength of the Vale must be well above 30k men. And that is today, not 300 years ago.

 

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wow. This post confuses me. It seems to turn some of your previous arguments on their head, and suddenly agrees with me on Torhenn not marching his entire strength into the Riverlands.

The guy is still spelled 'Torrhen', just like the castle ;-).

King Torrhen did have more time and most definitely gathered a larger host - most likely because he could count upon the full support of the Dustins, the Ryswells, the Skagosi, the Manderlys, etc. (houses/people who supported Robb not at all or didn't send all that many troops with him) - but this doesn't mean that the North has the capability to draft the same percentage of its population as the other kingdoms can.

There is no reason to believe that Torrhen left as many men back in the North as Robb did - but pretty much every. But unlike Torrhen, the Starks lost a decent number of people in the last two wars, something that's evident in their own house, household, and among their bannermen.

Just as the the 55,000 men on the Field of Fire don't represent the entire strength of the Reach and the West combined at the end of the third century, Torrhen's men at the Trident don't represent the strength of the North in 298 AC.

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But ultimately, it is all overruled by George stating that the North in the present day can raise as many men as the Vale. And with the Lords Declarant and some lesser followers able to raise 20k men, it seems clear that the full strength of the Vale must be well above 30k men. And that is today, not 300 years ago.

That doesn't constitute canonical information. Something is canon only when George puts it between book covers. Anything else is subject to change.

We have no canonical information how many men the Vale can rise right now - and it is pretty evident that these things are fluid until they are not pinned down.

There was a time when the Stormlands were pretty much empty - something that changed, with the invention of towns in the area, and the way TWoIaF celebrated the martial prowess of the men of the Marches, especially their archers.

The strength of Dorne was played up, dismissed, and may right now be about to return to its old glory.

In the end, the interesting part is how many men can actually be marshaled and marched to war (here the Vale is a joke right now, considering that they would need a lot of ships to get their troops to battles that take place outside the Vale).

In the North, we see that they are done because they all field only greybeards and green boys (or none at all). Those are men enough to fight those regional battles for the control of the North, but they are not the material you can use to play with the big guys (or hope to defeat the Others).

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The guy is still spelled 'Torrhen', just like the castle ;-).

King Torrhen did have more time and most definitely gathered a larger host - most likely because he could count upon the full support of the Dustins, the Ryswells, the Skagosi, the Manderlys, etc. (houses/people who supported Robb not at all or didn't send all that many troops with him) - but this doesn't mean that the North has the capability to draft the same percentage of its population as the other kingdoms can.

There is no reason to believe that Torrhen left as many men back in the North as Robb did - but pretty much every. But unlike Torrhen, the Starks lost a decent number of people in the last two wars, something that's evident in their own house, household, and among their bannermen.

Just as the the 55,000 men on the Field of Fire don't represent the entire strength of the Reach and the West combined at the end of the third century, Torrhen's men at the Trident don't represent the strength of the North in 298 AC.

That doesn't constitute canonical information. Something is canon only when George puts it between book covers. Anything else is subject to change.

We have no canonical information how many men the Vale can rise right now - and it is pretty evident that these things are fluid until they are not pinned down.

There was a time when the Stormlands were pretty much empty - something that changed, with the invention of towns in the area, and the way TWoIaF celebrated the martial prowess of the men of the Marches, especially their archers.

The strength of Dorne was played up, dismissed, and may right now be about to return to its old glory.

In the end, the interesting part is how many men can actually be marshaled and marched to war (here the Vale is a joke right now, considering that they would need a lot of ships to get their troops to battles that take place outside the Vale).

In the North, we see that they are done because they all field only greybeards and green boys (or none at all). Those are men enough to fight those regional battles for the control of the North, but they are not the material you can use to play with the big guys (or hope to defeat the Others).

You are free to dismiss the author’s statements (when it suits you). The rest of us will make up our own minds.

[Lord Varys]

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You are free to dismiss the author’s statements (when it suits you). The rest of us will make up our own minds.

Man, the author does (and did) change his mind. He even changes content of finished chapters published on his own page (the execution of Janos Slynt).

The author doesn't feel bound by statements he made at some con or during some interview, nor are those statements supposed to be collected and cited as 'evidence' for theories and the like. They can (and do) reflect George's opinions at a certain point, but they are not gospel. Thus we should not treat them as such.

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He even changes content of finished chapters published on his own page (the execution of Janos Slynt).

How did he change the execution of Janos Slynt?

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Dead headofMaelysKinslayer said:

How did he change the execution of Janos Slynt?

From the hanging to the beheading. Originally Jon had him hanged the way he still commands it in the text.

[Ran]

George does not publish finished chapters on the webpage. They are drafts until published in a book. No surprise if drafts change before publication.

 

Once it's published, if it is in error, it may get fixed. But in general does attempt as much internal consistency as possible.

[Lord Varys]

57 minutes ago, Switzeran said:

George does not publish finished chapters on the webpage. They are drafts until published in a book. No surprise if drafts change before publication.

Sure, the point being that if he can (and does) change stuff he publishes on his page (which are drafts usually polished enough he feels comfortable sharing them with the public) then he is most definitely not beholden to stuff he said interviews and personal conversations years ago.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, the point being that if he can (and does) change stuff he publishes on his page (which are drafts usually polished enough he feels comfortable sharing them with the public) then he is most definitely not beholden to stuff he said interviews and personal conversations years ago.

Sure. And with the cutting of the 5 year gap many have speculated that he conjured up more Northmen from the Mountain Clan lands, the Dustins, Ryswells, Manderlys etc.

Just as he has apparently downgraded Dorne’s strength since that comment. But the point is, until he DOES change something by way of a published book or updated interview, you cannot just arbitrarily decide to ignore his specific statements on an issue.

George says there has never been a ruling lady of Winterfell. He did not say that in the books, and is free to change his mind on it. But, for now, we have to go with that as fact. Heck, he is even free to change his mind on things he DID say in the books, like Dorne’s now disproven 50k strength.

But, UNTIL he does change his mind and  say so in a subsequent interview or new publication, you have to go with his last statement on the matter. You cannot read his mind in favour of your own preferred outcome.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure. And with the cutting of the 5 year gap many have speculated that he conjured up more Northmen from the Mountain Clan lands, the Dustins, Ryswells, Manderlys etc.

Not sure why he should have done that. Five years wouldn't have given the Northmen any additional strength, no? And one assumes the story we get now is a completely different than the one we would have been given with the gap because there is no way that Roose and Stannis wouldn't have come to some understanding and/or had decided the issue with steel during the gap.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just as he has apparently downgraded Dorne’s strength since that comment. But the point is, until he DOES change something by way of a published book or updated interview, you cannot just arbitrarily decide to ignore his specific statements on an issue.

Sure, I can. I can point out that the only canon material is what's actually between book covers. Everything else might be true ... or not. It doesn't have the same status as actual published information which is part of the canon does.

This doesn't mean I don't point people to stuff George said when there are only such sources available, but citing outdated SSM from before the publication of ADwD or even AFfC and insisting what has been said there when crucial parts of the series had not yet been written/completed makes little sense. 

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

George says there has never been a ruling lady of Winterfell. He did not say that in the books, and is free to change his mind on it. But, for now, we have to go with that as fact. Heck, he is even free to change his mind on things he DID say in the books, like Dorne’s now disproven 50k strength.

That Dorne thing has actually not been 'disproven' at this point. We have Doran Martell tell us that he thinks that the Young Dragon exaggerated the numbers. But that's no proof that his assessment is correct.

It would only be correct if we presupposed that the Dornish population between Daeron's days and Robert's days were completely static. And there is no reason to believe that. 

The Dornish took no part in the Dance, and there was a grand era of peace and prosperity during the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I, making it not unlikely that the Dornish in the years from 157-161 AC might be stronger than the Dornish during the era of Doran Martell (who lost men at the Trident, on the Stepstones, and perhaps due to other tragedies).

But again, the 50,000 Dornish spears could have been a correct assessment of the strength Dorne can muster when an occupying force tries to beat them into submission, not the men Dorne can muster to fight a war outside their land.

When the enemy comes into your villages and castles, then pretty much anyone can become a combatant, not just the few men marching off the join the banners of their lord. In that sense, Daeron I may have actually downplayed the strength of the enemy in his book. In the end, the boy king fought against hundreds of thousands of Dornishmen rejecting his rule, not just against 50,000 Dornish spears.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But, UNTIL he does change his mind and  say so in a subsequent interview or new publication, you have to go with his last statement on the matter. You cannot read his mind in favour of your own preferred outcome.

I can point out that the 'Ruling Lady of Winterfell' thing is not canon yet. George has never said in his books that this is the case, and thus this whole thing can still change. This is not the same level of 'reality' as facts that are actually established in the books.

[Bernie Mac]

34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure. And with the cutting of the 5 year gap many have speculated that he conjured up more Northmen from the Mountain Clan lands, the Dustins, Ryswells, Manderlys etc.

He has been pretty clear why we have seen so many Mountain Clan men, winter is here, there are no more crops to bring in and with surplus mouths to feed many are sacrificing themselves. 

Lady Dustin pretty much controls two Houses while the Dustins have not been attacked by the Ironborn nor have they been involved in the other fighting in the North. 

Nothing seems to have changed in regards the Manderlys. 

 

34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just as he has apparently downgraded Dorne’s strength since that comment. 

How so? He said those three realms have similar amounts, not the exact same. They may all still have similar amounts. 

34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

George says there has never been a ruling lady of Winterfell. He did not say that in the books, and is free to change his mind on it. But, for now, we have to go with that as fact. Heck, he is even free to change his mind on things he DID say in the books, like Dorne’s now disproven 50k strength.

How do you know that was always part of the plot? He may have always intended Dorne's strength to be exaggerated. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure why he should have done that. Five years wouldn't have given the Northmen any additional strength, no? And one assumes the story we get now is a completely different than the one we would have been given with the gap because there is no way that Roose and Stannis wouldn't have come to some understanding and/or had decided the issue with steel during the gap.

Sure, I can. I can point out that the only canon material is what's actually between book covers. Everything else might be true ... or not. It doesn't have the same status as actual published information which is part of the canon does.

This doesn't mean I don't point people to stuff George said when there are only such sources available, but citing outdated SSM from before the publication of ADwD or even AFfC and insisting what has been said there when crucial parts of the series had not yet been written/completed makes little sense. 

That Dorne thing has actually not been 'disproven' at this point. We have Doran Martell tell us that he thinks that the Young Dragon exaggerated the numbers. But that's no proof that his assessment is correct.

It would only be correct if we presupposed that the Dornish population between Daeron's days and Robert's days were completely static. And there is no reason to believe that. 

The Dornish took no part in the Dance, and there was a grand era of peace and prosperity during the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I, making it not unlikely that the Dornish in the years from 157-161 AC might be stronger than the Dornish during the era of Doran Martell (who lost men at the Trident, on the Stepstones, and perhaps due to other tragedies).

But again, the 50,000 Dornish spears could have been a correct assessment of the strength Dorne can muster when an occupying force tries to beat them into submission, not the men Dorne can muster to fight a war outside their land.

When the enemy comes into your villages and castles, then pretty much anyone can become a combatant, not just the few men marching off the join the banners of their lord. In that sense, Daeron I may have actually downplayed the strength of the enemy in his book. In the end, the boy king fought against hundreds of thousands of Dornishmen rejecting his rule, not just against 50,000 Dornish spears.

I can point out that the 'Ruling Lady of Winterfell' thing is not canon yet. George has never said in his books that this is the case, and thus this whole thing can still change. This is not the same level of 'reality' as facts that are actually established in the books.

On what basis do you discount George’s statement about the comparative military strengths of the North and the Vale?

There is nothing in the books that contradicts it, so until something does arrive to show that George has changed his mind it is pretty desperate to discount the direct statement of the author just because it doesn’t fit with your preferred theory on a particular topic.

You see, it is all very well to say that canonical text from the books trumps semi canonical utterances by the author, but when there is nothing in the books to contradict a statement by the author then I’m afraid you are grasping at straws to suggest otherwise.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

On what basis do you discount George’s statement about the comparative military strengths of the North and the Vale?

Isn't that a statement where George compares the strength of a couple of kingdoms with other, kingdoms like Dorne and the Stormlands whose strength has already changed?

Besides, my main point is that we *never* got canonical information on the military strength or the population size of a region, so all speculation about numbers is moot - even more so, because we all know that there are a lot of factors influencing those numbers (winter, wars, plagues, other catastrophes, etc.).

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is nothing in the books that contradicts it, so until something does arrive to show that George has changed his mind it is pretty desperate to discount the direct statement of the author just because it doesn’t fit with your preferred theory on a particular topic.

But it is not 'not stuff George said is true until he says otherwise'. It is: There are books, and they are canon, and then there are things the author says about those books in an informal manner. Those are two fundamentally different things. We shouldn't go along with the judgment 'true until proven otherwise', but rather recognize that there is canonical information and semi-canonical information which is still subject to change - and we have no way of knowing when or how that information is going to change.

If you take the arms of some house that hasn't shown up in the books yet as example you can't say that this house *has* those arms until proven otherwise. It just has those arms in a draft, but a draft isn't a completed and published novel.

[Free Northman Reborn]

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Isn't that a statement where George compares the strength of a couple of kingdoms with other, kingdoms like Dorne and the Stormlands whose strength has already changed?

Besides, my main point is that we *never* got canonical information on the military strength or the population size of a region, so all speculation about numbers is moot - even more so, because we all know that there are a lot of factors influencing those numbers (winter, wars, plagues, other catastrophes, etc.).

But it is not 'not stuff George said is true until he says otherwise'. It is: There are books, and they are canon, and then there are things the author says about those books in an informal manner. Those are two fundamentally different things. We shouldn't go along with the judgment 'true until proven otherwise', but rather recognize that there is canonical information and semi-canonical information which is still subject to change - and we have no way of knowing when or how that information is going to change.

If you take the arms of some house that hasn't shown up in the books yet as example you can't say that this house *has* those arms until proven otherwise. It just has those arms in a draft, but a draft isn't a completed and published novel.

(Bullshit - edited to “preposterous”, to express my intense disagreement strongly instead of offensively) That is a “rule” in your own head only.

If George says something, of course you have every right to believe it until he says otherwise.

People are trawling through Tolkien’s notes  and going by his son’s interpretations of his work to this day to flesh out parts of his world and story.

Should everything not written in his formally published works be discarded simply because Lord Varys prefers it so?

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

(Bullshit - edited to “preposterous”, to express my intense disagreement strongly instead of offensively) That is a “rule” in your own head only.

If George says something, of course you have every right to believe it until he says otherwise.

Well, okay, you can do that. But you also have to add (if you are honest) that you are referring to stuff that isn't part of the canon and that is still subject to change. That is something one can cite if one concern oneself with trivial details, but I'd not go with semi-canonical information to build vast theories on things affecting the workings of the entire fictional world (or main plot lines of the series).

28 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

People are trawling through Tolkien’s notes  and going by his son’s interpretations of his work to this day to flesh out parts of his world and story.

I do that, too, but a draft is still a draft. It is a sad fact that there is no completed Silmarillion by the hands of JRRT. There are multiple Silmarillions in different stages of completion.

And the fun there is actually that there are so many alternatives, not that things are in any way clear.

But unlike with George we are talking about notes and drafts of a writer in the case of JRRT.

SSMs and the like are usually stuff George said in casual conversation when he was not writing nor did he have access to his notes. The man isn't a walking revelation machine on ASoIaF knowledge. And it is weird to treat him in such a manner. He can make mistakes, he can simplify, forget, condense, dismiss, and ignore certain issues in those conversations when he isn't writing. Vice versa, certain questions and issues raised in such questions (which he originally dismissed) can later come back to him and cause him to change certain ideas.

For instance, from what I recall George originally wanted the Long Night to have been 8,000 years ago. But he seems to have gotten around to the idea that this was too far in the past. There was also a time when Valyria's expansion had literally nothing to do with the migration of the Andals, etc.

It is great to collect everything he said, of course, but we have to differentiate between the man and the author, between things that are supposed to be part of the series, and things he just said informally.