Most Powerful Houses- what evidence?

[Lord Varys]

Guys, do we really want to believe Doran Martell is not the Prince of Dorne but rather a scholar in the service of the Prince of Dorne obsessed with population development and its effects on military potential?

Even if Daeron I's numbers do not reflect the present-day military potential of Dorne, this doesn't mean that Daeron's numbers have to be wrong. They would only be wrong if the population numbers remained static from the mid-2nd century to 300 AC - which we don't know anything about. The population of Dorne could have declined in the years between the reign of the Young Dragon and the reign of King Tommen (although it is much more likely that it would have increased, see below). This is an unknown factor and if take this whole thing seriously we have to concede we don't know how the population of Dorne (or the other kingdoms) developed throughout the later half of the Targaryen era and thus cannot make a good judgment on this thing.

George gives no indication that he wants us to be able to properly assess the military potential of various regions on the basis of the numbers he gives us. He just gives us some arbitrary numbers which are, by and far, more and less accurate depending on the situation.

However one spins it, those 30,000 men of the Vulture King's make a mess of the whole Dornish situation. After all, the Vulture King rose barely two decades after the First Dornish War (a very bloody affair that must have killed many Dornishmen) which means Dorne wasn't exactly at its greatest strength when the Vulture King gathered his 30,000 men.

And after the union with the Iron Throne during the Good King's reign (and also earlier, after the Targaryen reign had an effect on the constant border wars with the Reach and the Stormlands) Dorne's population should have prospered and increased, making it actually more likely that Doran Martell rules over a more populous Dorne than Deria Martell did in 37 AC.

I mean, this Vulture King was a nobody as far as we know. How could he draw so many people in barely a year's time when Doran Martell, the Prince of Dorne, can only assemble two host of 20,000 men? And those houses include men of the House Toland to the degree that Lady Toland considers her lands to be relatively unprotected.

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, do we really want to believe Doran Martell is not the Prince of Dorne but rather a scholar in the service of the Prince of Dorne obsessed with population development and its effects on military potential?

Even if Daeron I's numbers do not reflect the present-day military potential of Dorne, this doesn't mean that Daeron's numbers have to be wrong. They would only be wrong if the population numbers remained static from the mid-2nd century to 300 AC - which we don't know anything about. The population of Dorne could have declined in the years between the reign of the Young Dragon and the reign of King Tommen (although it is much more likely that it would have increased, see below). This is an unknown factor and if take this whole thing seriously we have to concede we don't know how the population of Dorne (or the other kingdoms) developed throughout the later half of the Targaryen era and thus cannot make a good judgment on this thing.

George gives no indication that he wants us to be able to properly assess the military potential of various regions on the basis of the numbers he gives us. He just gives us some arbitrary numbers which are, by and far, more and less accurate depending on the situation.

However one spins it, those 30,000 men of the Vulture King's make a mess of the whole Dornish situation. After all, the Vulture King rose barely two decades after the First Dornish War (a very bloody affair that must have killed many Dornishmen) which means Dorne wasn't exactly at its greatest strength when the Vulture King gathered his 30,000 men.

And after the union with the Iron Throne during the Good King's reign (and also earlier, after the Targaryen reign had an effect on the constant border wars with the Reach and the Stormlands) Dorne's population should have prospered and increased, making it actually more likely that Doran Martell rules over a more populous Dorne than Deria Martell did in 37 AC.

I mean, this Vulture King was a nobody as far as we know. How could he draw so many people in barely a year's time when Doran Martell, the Prince of Dorne, can only assemble two host of 20,000 men? And those houses include men of the House Toland to the degree that Lady Toland considers her lands to be relatively unprotected.

One wonders why all this long winded hypothesizing when Martin outright gave us the answer. In all of Westeros, who would be best placed to make this statement? The Prince of Dorne himself, of course.

There is literally no better viewpoint Martin could have used in all of Westeros, to make this point. If Ned Stark said something about the North’s population or armed strength I would not even consider doubting it.

And yet for some reason you do not wish to accept it. Seriously. Take a step back and just think about your position for a minute.

[Corvo the Crow]

I've been following the forums for perhaps two years now and have been participaring over a year and it never ceases to amaze me that the same things are discussed over and over again with same arguments and same evidence even though there should have been some rough agreement on things, especially military ones.

For example, Dornish strength. We see them send 10000 men at most and that army was long since prepared and ready to set out, logic dictates. Compare it with North, it is a third of 7K in land mass and it's population is dispersed while Dorne is much smaller, being perhaps the second smallest of the 7K after SL and it's population is densely focused on few inhabitable areas; the mountains, eastern and northern coasts and greenblood. Even with this ease of gathering the available forces, 10000 is the most we see them send out. Compare it to 20000 Robb gathers in haste, or to 30000 Torrhen did in a longer span of time than Robb. How reasonable does it seem then Dorne has 50000 soldiers? 

Vulture King's 30000 was armed rabble, best compared to Wildlings. It had the support of Wyl and several thousand sent by princess but that's old. If we want it to compare with some other region of 7K instead of wildlings, mountains of the North is the no brainer option. One of the smallest regions of the North and yet they contributed 2-3k men of similar quality to Stannis, men with no proper arms and armor. So if that 30K men means something, then why, please write Norths strength as some hundred thousand at least since there are many more regions left to take unarmed and unarmored men.

On Fowler's 10000 men; a third the land mass is not a third the men, most obviously evidenced by North. Fowlers are in a better part of the Dorne more comparable to Yronwoods' than to Ullers' so their third of the Dorne will have more than a third of the Wealth and population requires for the armies.

With all these taken into consideration, I can't see Dorne having anything more than 20K proper fighting men for INTERNAL campaigns.

Certainly if we include any peasant  with a pointy stick for sticking them with the pointy end, then they may have many times that number, but that's true for ANY of the 7K.

[Ran]

I want to underscore that the Vulture King's "30,000" is a figure that cannot be considered trustworthy, no more than Daeron's "50,000". George has repeatedly emphasized that the figures people mention for any but their own forces are estimates, sometimes more accurate, often less accurate. Gyldayn was not a contemporary, and it's not like an army of rabble are going to be formally recorded on any kind of rolls or assizes. 

I think the real problem we're running into is simply the fact that some want to take "The Sons of the Dragon" as the account of how things really were, rather than what George intended it to be, a fake history by a fictional historian in a society where things are generally poorly documented (by modern standards). Just because a figure is given does not mean it is set in stone. This goes for all of TWoIaF, for F&B, and anything else George writes along these lines.

[Corvo the Crow]

@Ran since you'd obviously be more knowledgable than any of us with the information you are privy to, what exactly dord it mean only one in ten being knights? We see, for example, crownlanders having roughly this proportion several times, Maegor's army, with Rhaegar, in Whitewalls, likely Stannis' islander men. We also see it in field of fire, Lannister expedition to stepstones, Reynes and other times like perhaps Renly's force. But on the other hand we have Robb's 12K with more than a quarter knights equivelant or Frey armies in both DoD and Wot5K with a quarter knights. So what is it exactly? Is it what the average lord has? One knight for roughly ten foot and  any freeriders he can get his hands on?

[Ran]

I think it may be best to say that these things can vary a lot, between individual lords, between individual regions, between individual mobilizations. There are circumstances that may dictate some things and not another at a specific time. A defensive force vs. an offensive force, logistical capacities, expectations of the opponents, and so on and so forth. The Field of Fire, for example, is one where one can see both kings did not trust one another as to commit all they could raise to the combined host -- they each brought a portion of what they thought was needed, and probably paid as much attention to not being shown up as they did to not overcommitting for the task they foresaw.

So, it depends.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think it may be best to say that these things can vary a lot, between individual lords, between individual regions, between individual mobilizations. There are circumstances that may dictate some things and not another at a specific time. A defensive force vs. an offensive force, logistical capacities, expectations of the opponents, and so on and so forth. The Field of Fire, for example, is one where one can see both kings did not trust one another as to commit all they could raise to the combined host -- they each brought a portion of what they thought was needed, and probably paid as much attention to not being shown up as they did to not overcommitting for the task they foresaw.

So, it depends.

 

What you say does make sense for field of fire, In which they would feel comfortable with their numbers where they were outnumbering Aegon five to one and who knows, they were perhaps also making a show of power to each other, "hey I got this many men and still have more knights at home" but in some other situations, it was life or death, win or die; Maegor against faith/aegon or Reyne against Tywin. In those situations it's either you give it all you got or will soon wish you did. If Reyne only had 200 knights in that situation it's safe to assume he didn't have much more than that as they are more easily mobilized than infantry or if Maegor had 400 knights in 4000 men, the same.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The Field of Fire, for example, is one where one can see both kings did not trust one another as to commit all they could raise to the combined host -- they each brought a portion of what they thought was needed, and probably paid as much attention to not being shown up as they did to not overcommitting for the task they foresaw.

 

How do you square that with TWOIAF's claim that the 55K Lannister-Gardener host was the largest yet seen in Westeros?

Also, is Loren and Mern holding men back an actual missing detail or just inference on your part?

[Konrad S]

Dorne: 

Power:

1: Martell: Lord Paramount, near Green Blood and the Sea.

2: Yronwood: We are directly told so, owns lands by a fertile river, old kings which probably means they still have some prestige, wealth and power left.

3&4 Fowlers and Daynes both own parts of rivers, both 2 of the 3 mightiest first men kings. 

5: Blackmont, Allyrion or Vaith all own parts of rivers, Blackmonts are marcher lords and been minor kings.

[Ran]

Just now, The Grey Wolf said:

How do you square that with TWOIAF's claim that the 55K Lannister-Gardener host was the largest yet seen in Westeros?

Also, is Loren and Mern holding men back an actual missing detail or just inference on your part?

I don't have to square it with it. It doesn't say that they brought out their respective full strengths, while an indelible fact is they have other enemies -- they have the coast to defend from the Iron Islands, and there's Black Harren in the riverlands who can menace them boath, there's the Yellow Toad in Dorne who can bug the Reach, and of course there is one another once this alliance of convenince comes to an end.

55,000 seems more than sufficient to deal with three dragons. Alas, they were wrong, but no one talks of either region needing a generation to recover.

 

[The Grey Wolf]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I don't have to square it with it. It doesn't say that they brought out their respective full strengths, while an indelible fact is they have other enemies -- they have the coast to defend from the Iron Islands, and there's Black Harren in the riverlands who can menace them boath, there's the Yellow Toad in Dorne who can bug the Reach, and of course there is one another once this alliance of convenince comes to an end.

55,000 seems more than sufficient to deal with three dragons. Alas, they were wrong, but no one talks of either region needing a generation to recover.

 

I meant more that the Reach alone can raise 80-100K so why was 55K the most anyone ever raised up to that point? 

Given the example of Gyles III I find that rather hard to swallow.

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I meant more that the Reach alone can raise 80-100K so why was 55K the most anyone ever raised up to that point? 

Given the example of Gyles III I find that rather hard to swallow.

Because they have other enemies/rivals. Why would you raise all your forces in a massive army to go fight someone when you have two-three other kingdoms looking for an opening to take a bite out of you?

George has referred to Risk before.

[The Grey Wolf]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Because they have other enemies/rivals. Why would you raise all your forces in a massive army to go fight someone when you have two-three other kingdoms looking for an opening to take a bite out of you?

George has referred to Risk before.

The idea that some idiot never did that in the span of thousands of years makes little sense.

Ditto the 4K knights in the Host of the Two Kings.

As for the whole question of numbers, we can only use what we're given so if all the figures GRRM gives us are to varying degrees BS what's the point of him giving them to us in the first place?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

One wonders why all this long winded hypothesizing when Martin outright gave us the answer. In all of Westeros, who would be best placed to make this statement? The Prince of Dorne himself, of course.

There is literally no better viewpoint Martin could have used in all of Westeros, to make this point. If Ned Stark said something about the North’s population or armed strength I would not even consider doubting it.

And yet for some reason you do not wish to accept it. Seriously. Take a step back and just think about your position for a minute.

You don't seem to be getting my point. The point is that the idea that Doran Martell is a historian specializing on the population development of the land isn't very convincing.

Yes, he can likely judge that his Dorne doesn't have the strength that the Dorne during the days of Daeron I had - but that isn't the same as Doran Martell knowing that his ancestors didn't have the strength the Young Dragon ascribed to them in his book.

That is the historical dimension you either don't understand or don't care about. But I do.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I want to underscore that the Vulture King's "30,000" is a figure that cannot be considered trustworthy, no more than Daeron's "50,000". George has repeatedly emphasized that the figures people mention for any but their own forces are estimates, sometimes more accurate, often less accurate. Gyldayn was not a contemporary, and it's not like an army of rabble are going to be formally recorded on any kind of rolls or assizes. 

Even if the rabble where only 20,000 men or 15,000 or even 10,000 men - such a huge force in such a short term assembled against the official will of the Princess of Dorne causes problems for the general assessment of military matters in this world. Especially in a time when Dorne should be at an all-time low population-wise (thanks to the First Dornish War).

The fact that numbers usually are good or bad guesses is also evident in the numbers we are given in the novels, not just in the historical pieces. I gave the example of camp fires above, others would be casual glances, etc. The idea that people actually do properly count men in armies in this setting makes very little sense. They would make guesstimates and, perhaps, actually count the numbers of knights, squires, freeriders, archers, men-at-arms they had - but the rest didn't really count all that precisely.

As to the Field of Fire:

Here we have to take the population growth after the Conquest into account. It might be true that King Loren and King Mern kept some men behind, but by our modern numbers they would have raised less than half their complete strength. Even without Hightower support it this is scarcely believable. Renly didn't have support from the Hightowers, either (at least not many of them) and he had an army of 80,000 men (supposedly) with the combined forces of the Reach and the Stormlands - an army he assembled in much less time than Mern and Loren came up with their 55,000 men.

Which, by and far, would be as believable as the 30,000 men of the Vulture King, now that I think of it...?

2 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the whole question of numbers, we can only use what we're given so if all the figures GRRM gives us are to varying degrees BS what's the point of him giving them to us in the first place?

Those numbers are color in a series of novels which are pseudo-medieval fantasy. Real numbers of historical battles and armies are usually worth literally nothing - it is not the same in the novels but those numbers are not given to the reader so that he or she can explore and uncover the population size and military potential of Westeros.

That was never George's intent - just as he didn't want us to figure out distances, dates, etc.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't seem to be getting my point. The point is that the idea that Doran Martell is a historian specializing on the population development of the land isn't very convincing.

Yes, he can likely judge that his Dorne doesn't have the strength that the Dorne during the days of Daeron I had - but that isn't the same as Doran Martell knowing that his ancestors didn't have the strength the Young Dragon ascribed to them in his book.

That is the historical dimension you either don't understand or don't care about. But I do.

Even if the rabble where only 20,000 men or 15,000 or even 10,000 men - such a huge force in such a short term assembled against the official will of the Princess of Dorne causes problems for the general assessment of military matters in this world. Especially in a time when Dorne should be at an all-time low population-wise (thanks to the First Dornish War).

The fact that numbers usually are good or bad guesses is also evident in the numbers we are given in the novels, not just in the historical pieces. I gave the example of camp fires above, others would be casual glances, etc. The idea that people actually do properly count men in armies in this setting makes very little sense. They would make guesstimates and, perhaps, actually count the numbers of knights, squires, freeriders, archers, men-at-arms they had - but the rest didn't really count all that precisely.

As to the Field of Fire:

Here we have to take the population growth after the Conquest into account. It might be true that King Loren and King Mern kept some men behind, but by our modern numbers they would have raised less than half their complete strength. Even without Hightower support it this is scarcely believable. Renly didn't have support from the Hightowers, either (at least not many of them) and he had an army of 80,000 men (supposedly) with the combined forces of the Reach and the Stormlands - an army he assembled in much less time than Mern and Loren came up with their 55,000 men.

Which, by and far, would be as believable as the 30,000 men of the Vulture King, now that I think of it...?

Those numbers are color in a series of novels which are pseudo-medieval fantasy. Real numbers of historical battles and armies are usually worth literally nothing - it is not the same in the novels but those numbers are not given to the reader so that he or she can explore and uncover the population size and military potential of Westeros.

That was never George's intent - just as he didn't want us to figure out distances, dates, etc.

Well it is potentially as simple as the Ruler of Dorne noting in a personal journal how many troops Dorne had available at the time, and later, wryly noting in the same journal how Daeron’s book overstated that significantly. And maybe a comment saying “Let’s keep them thinking that”.

Alternatively, each Dornish ruler could have noted down the troops he raised in a journal that was handed down from lord to his heir to Doran’s day.

I mean come on. It need not be complicated. Doran doesn’t need to be a demographer to have access to this basic information about the kingdom that he rules.

 

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

I mean come on. It need not be complicated. Doran doesn’t need to be a demographer to have access to this basic information about the kingdom that he rules.

 

And GRRM never used this argument about how Doran isn't a demographer or whatever else you want when people asked him about the fact that Dorne seemed to have fewer troops than everyone claimed in previous books. He explicitly accepted that the 50,000 figure was wrong and implicitly accepted that Doran was right that Dorne is weaker than everyone believes because it was Dornish policy to let people believe the untrue figure.

If GRRM had been squirrely about whether Doran was even right, if he had suggested that maybe he was wrong or he was lying, fine. But he does not. Done. 

 

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The idea that some idiot never did that in the span of thousands of years makes little sense.

No, but no one did it in the span of a thousand years or what have you. Who's to say anyone had 100k troops a thousand or two thousand years ago? And things were even worse at a certain point in time, when there were more realms and petty kings.

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the whole question of numbers, we can only use what we're given so if all the figures GRRM gives us are to varying degrees BS what's the point of him giving them to us in the first place?

They are correct for people talking about their own troops contemporaneously. Robb knows his troops, Renly knows his troops, etc.

Everything else is a question mark, and must be evaluated in light of context, source, and plausibility.

[Konrad S]

You also got to remember that 300 years of mostly peace (- Roberts Rebellion and Dance of Dragons) will probably mean a population growth.

So maybe the reach kings were only able to raise 60-80 000 soldiers and knights back then and even in WoTFK Renly left at least 10 000 men in Highgarden and many houses might have left large garrisons. We do not even know how loyal the houses where, hearing that the Hoares and Durrandons had been crushed by dragon-fire maybe made a lot of lords send the least amount soldiers possible. 

 

The Reah hoast is described as 1 and a half times more this leaves us with the number of 33 000 Reachmen and 22 000 Westermen. But it seems small with 55 000 when Renly could raise about 90 000 or so. 80 000 with him and 10 000 in Highgarden from only the Reach and the Stormlands.

[Jaak]

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well it is potentially as simple as the Ruler of Dorne noting in a personal journal how many troops Dorne had available at the time, and later, wryly noting in the same journal how Daeron’s book overstated that significantly. And maybe a comment saying “Let’s keep them thinking that”.

Alternatively, each Dornish ruler could have noted down the troops he raised in a journal that was handed down from lord to his heir to Doran’s day.

I mean come on. It need not be complicated. Doran doesn’t need to be a demographer to have access to this basic information about the kingdom that he rules.

Another matter.

We hear it expressly stated that the special deal of Dorne included Dornish themselves collecting taxes for Iron Throne.

In North, we hear of tax collectors at White Harbour who withheld silver for Iron Throne after Robb usurped.

Since Dorne is highlighted as a special deal, the case of North is presumably typical of Six Kingdoms - some appointed royal tax agents exist besides the hereditary lords (but we hear oddly little of them during War of Five Kings).

Dorne declaring false and inflated data on population potentially costs a lot of money and/or political goodwill. Money, by paying taxes on people Dornish declare but do not have; goodwill, by negotiating "tax breaks" on the people they claim to have but do not; or some of both.

And it must take quite some effort to keep the secret. There are multiple persons in Dorne itself who are in on the true census and know that it is secret from Seven Kingdoms - such as treasurer Alyse Ladybright and the multiple bailiffs who report to her.

And Doran has reasons to know the details of both the true books and the false books - it is him who represents Dorne in negotiations with Aerys, Jon Arryn, Robert, badgering him for more soldiers, more taxes, some loans. Doran can neither give them nor let his counterparties know that he cannot, rather than won´t.

Doran is also in position to know the history. If the policy of declaring false data as to the true population of Dorne was already adopted during Dorne´s peace negotiations with Baelor the Blest, then Dorne has a history of officially declared lies. Doran´s lies must be consistent with the track record of his ancestors, lest some smart northerner like Tywin, Varys or Petyr smell the rat.

And Doran is in position to know the population of the other six kingdoms.

Because the other six kingdoms have neither the policy nor the means for systematic inflation of their population. They are open to inspection by Iron Throne´s census takers, and if there is any systematic cheating, it´s down (to decrease the tax liabilities).

It makes perfect sense that the negotiations of Dorne´s tax liabilities would involve Six Kingdoms mentioning their (true) population to compare it with Dorne´s (false) population - and Doran would realize that the true population, which he is in on, is smaller.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 hours ago, Jaak said:

Another matter.

We hear it expressly stated that the special deal of Dorne included Dornish themselves collecting taxes for Iron Throne.

In North, we hear of tax collectors at White Harbour who withheld silver for Iron Throne after Robb usurped.

Since Dorne is highlighted as a special deal, the case of North is presumably typical of Six Kingdoms - some appointed royal tax agents exist besides the hereditary lords (but we hear oddly little of them during War of Five Kings).

Dorne declaring false and inflated data on population potentially costs a lot of money and/or political goodwill. Money, by paying taxes on people Dornish declare but do not have; goodwill, by negotiating "tax breaks" on the people they claim to have but do not; or some of both.

And it must take quite some effort to keep the secret. There are multiple persons in Dorne itself who are in on the true census and know that it is secret from Seven Kingdoms - such as treasurer Alyse Ladybright and the multiple bailiffs who report to her.

And Doran has reasons to know the details of both the true books and the false books - it is him who represents Dorne in negotiations with Aerys, Jon Arryn, Robert, badgering him for more soldiers, more taxes, some loans. Doran can neither give them nor let his counterparties know that he cannot, rather than won´t.

Doran is also in position to know the history. If the policy of declaring false data as to the true population of Dorne was already adopted during Dorne´s peace negotiations with Baelor the Blest, then Dorne has a history of officially declared lies. Doran´s lies must be consistent with the track record of his ancestors, lest some smart northerner like Tywin, Varys or Petyr smell the rat.

And Doran is in position to know the population of the other six kingdoms.

Because the other six kingdoms have neither the policy nor the means for systematic inflation of their population. They are open to inspection by Iron Throne´s census takers, and if there is any systematic cheating, it´s down (to decrease the tax liabilities).

It makes perfect sense that the negotiations of Dorne´s tax liabilities would involve Six Kingdoms mentioning their (true) population to compare it with Dorne´s (false) population - and Doran would realize that the true population, which he is in on, is smaller.

I think you over estimate the level of demographic information that exists in the Seven Kingdoms. I doubt that taxes are linked to a headcount of the population. Instead it appears to be largely on trade and maybe some other arbitrary payments.

I highly doubt that taxes fluctuate up and down depending on changes in population from one generation to the next. That level of information just does not seem to exist.

I think any of the kingdoms could duplicate Dorne’s ruse if they really wanted to. With the more remote and isolated kingdoms obviously best placed to do so.

[Ran]

Some sort of surveying probably has taken place for Stannis to be reputedly capable of naming the amount of troops every house in Westeros could marshal. It would be strange to imagine that he just went around asking each house, or combing obscure references in hundreds of texts to make a personal list of these things. No doubt maesters have helped distill information, but they have to some sources for this.

I suspect mixtures of tax surveys ala the Domesday Book (which feels like something that would have been made in Aegon I's day, or Jaehaerys I's day, but in either case such a survey would _not_ have included Dorne at those times, opening Dorne to being able to negotiate its inclusion later on), censuses along the lines of John of Ibelin's accounting of fiefs in the Crusader Kingdom (which includes references to the amount of knights each owed), and so on present a very rough but incomplete picture of populaces and wealth throughout the Seven Kingdoms.

The intent of the Martells not having royal commissioners handling these tasks of tax collection and so on, but having the right to fully oversee it with their own apparatus without oversight from the Master of Coin and the rest of the royal bureaucrats, seems fairly obviously to make it easier for them present a picture different than reality.