Most Powerful Houses- what evidence?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

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.

We should take that claim about Stannis with more than just a grain of salt considering the man does not only know the strength of the clansmen but does also not know that they even exist. Granted, the North is a very remote place but a man who presumably knows the troops of everyone in the Seven Kingdoms should at least know that the Starks have those clansmen and that they are a considerable military power.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

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.

Such accounts must certainly exist to guess how much taxes this or that lord/region owes the Crown. And it is clear that such records should include more or less detailed accounts on the various lords, petty lords, landed knights, and the rich commoners in the cities and towns. But how detailed they are on the lower levels would depend on how developed the tax economy is - does the Iron Throne (or anyone) collect taxes from the people on Sea Dragon Point, say?

Such accounts would not include the vast amount of people who don't pay any taxes because they neither own land nor businesses. And all those peasants who pay their lieges in kind would also not be part of records of the Crown unless they also get a share of that. Which is very unlikely when we talk remote locations.

The impression one gets is that the most tax revenues of the Crown come from the cities, towns, and, perhaps, the greater houses. The Targaryens don't appear to have a royal bureaucracy that squeezes money out of even the most modest peasant.

And then there is the problem that such huge codices are written only once in a millennium (or perhaps only every other century). Harsh winters, plagues, and wars do have an effect on economy and population both, so any record from the days of the Conqueror or the Old King would long be outdated in the days of King Robert.

I mean, just take the Great Spring Sickness as an example. It nearly destroyed KL, crippled the population and the economy in most of the Seven Kingdoms, and put Dorne and the Vale (who were not affected by the plague) at a huge advantage in relation to the other regions.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

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.

That is definitely true, although I doubt that they need as big a disinformation campaign as @Jaak suggested above. One sincerely doubts that the average Master of Coin has nothing better to do than to read account books from the days of the Young Dragon, Baelor I, or the Good King.

However, if Dorne wants to appear big and strong via the tax revenues they should actually pay more taxes than they are due, not less. I doubt that any Dornish house of note would be willing to participate in such a ridiculous ploy. They are part of the Targaryen realm now. They have no need to appear stronger than they are. And money is money. Why on earth should they be willing to pay more than they are due?

From a tax saving perspective Dorne would actually downplay its own strength to save taxes, not play it up to have the privilege of paying more.

13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

Sure, it would, not only depending on economical and financial crises but also own calamities like widespread plagues, long winters, wars, etc. The idea that Aerys I got the same taxes from the Kingslanders after the Great Spring Sickness as his father did before that plague hit the capital simply makes no sense. He may have demanded the same amount, but he most likely would have not gotten it. 

Also, whenever there were grand designs to be realized the Iron Throne would have needed coin - for the walls of KL, for the Red Keep, the Dragonpit, Jaehaerys' roads, the Great Sept, etc. For all of that, and more, somebody would have to pay. And considering that certain things are built only once the idea of a special tax for this or that occasion is not unlikely.

[Ran]

It is clear that Dornish policy prefers exaggerating their strength rather than tax saving. I would also guess Maron negotiated on the basis on claiming he had more strength than he had, and so used that to make sure that part of peace with Dorne was lower tribute and tax demands per capita compared to the rest of the realm so that they could continue to maintain the fiction of their great numbers and power while paying per capita about the same as everyone else.

[Lord Varys]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

It is clear that Dornish policy prefers exaggerating their strength rather than tax saving. I would also guess Maron negotiated on the basis on claiming he had more strength than he had, and so used that to make sure that part of peace with Dorne was lower tribute and tax demands per capita compared to the rest of the realm so that they could continue to maintain the fiction of their great numbers and power while paying per capita about the same as everyone else.

Could very well be. I mean, we don't know many details there, but it seems clear to me that this deal was made amongst family. Maron had been Daeron's brother-in-law for decades, and people usually trust their family. So the man wouldn't have insisted on checking every details and risk his grand design to fail.

But then - we actually don't know that the Dornish had a tax strategy to accomplish any deception. It is just an idea. The impression one gets from TWoIaF is that the Dornish got many privileges and benefits out of their special deal with Daeron II than the other great houses didn't get - which was part of the resentment people felt over this Dornish union.

Vice versa, I don't see that Prince Maron could have sold his lords the idea he made a good deal and got tax benefits if they - who knew the true numbers - still had to pay more than they were due. That would be odd. In the end the local lords do know how strong they are and how much taxes they should pay.

But then, we don't *really know* how much taxes and military matters overlap. The cities are the regions which are taxed the most, apparently, yet, strangely enough, their military potential is usually not tapped.

Guesswork on military matters based on tax records of various kinds would, most likely, give one a pretty good guess on the (petty) lords and landed knights one can expect of any given region (and then one can make educated guesses how many household knights, sworn swords, archers, men-at-arms, etc. would come with any of those estates). But it would be much more difficult to use those to actually correctly assess the maximum strength of a given region/estate unless one had really good numbers on them - which one would likely not get on the basis of medieval tax records. Any good assessment of the military potential of Standfast in 211 AC would only take Ser Useless and his sworn swords into account, not the levies of his villages. And one assumes that the same is to be done with many a remote/backwater location.

And while we still have no clue how much 'rabble' goes in any given army things get more and more confused.

[Ran]

No guessing involved, as it was explicit in our work with George that that specific detail in TWoIaF is specifically there to help explain Dorne's strength being feasibly exaggerated.

Local lords know their strength, and maybe their neighbor's strength. It's unlikely they are all privy to or concerned with everyone else, and the summation that Dorne presents to the rest of the realm. People having just pieces of the puzzle means the person responsible with putting it all together can add things or remove things and the individuals don't know the truth because they know they reported correctly and that's all.

It's like Littlefinger and the likelihood that he has embezzled or otherwise fudged matters regarding the crown and its funds. As the ultimate person in charge of the books, with no real checks independent of him that would audit what he submitted, he could get away with stuff.

Stannis having been on the small council for years, with access to any such surveys and records, may well be why he could plausibly know every house's strength. Then it follows that if Dorne can fake its numbers, that it must be able to stand up to that level of scrutiny, which means it has to control the collection and dissemenation of that information.

[The hairy bear]

As far as I know, the tax burden in a medieval economy fell mainly on the heads of the farmers/land owners, and it was calculated on the basis of cultivated acres or agricultural output. Therefore, whether a given noble maintains a fighting force of one hundred or two hundred men would have no effect on the taxes to pay.

Even more: perhaps the fact that a noble maintains a higher number of fighting men may allow him to obtain "tax exemptions" from the crown, given that they contribute to the stability of the realm, the defense of their borders, and the troops could be eventually summoned by the king when he calls the banners.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

No guessing involved, as it was explicit in our work with George that that specific detail in TWoIaF is specifically there to help explain Dorne's strength being feasibly exaggerated.

Local lords know their strength, and maybe their neighbor's strength. It's unlikely they are all privy to or concerned with everyone else, and the summation that Dorne presents to the rest of the realm. People having just pieces of the puzzle means the person responsible with putting it all together can add things or remove things and the individuals don't know the truth because they know they reported correctly and that's all.

It's like Littlefinger and the likelihood that he has embezzled or otherwise fudged matters regarding the crown and its funds. As the ultimate person in charge of the books, with no real checks independent of him that would audit what he submitted, he could get away with stuff.

Stannis having been on the small council for years, with access to any such surveys and records, may well be why he could plausibly know every house's strength. Then it follows that if Dorne can fake its numbers, that it must be able to stand up to that level of scrutiny, which means it has to control the collection and dissemenation of that information.

Ran, this is a particularly significant post to me, with reference to the bolded part above. I must admit, I have never given the oft touted link between Dorne's tax exemptions and their military subterfuge much credence. I always thought it was a tenuous link at best, put forward by people trying to read too much into unrelated events. Mostly because the tax system in Westeros is so underdeveloped that it seemed doubtful that tax revenue was based on a well formulated understanding of the comparative  internal affairs of the various kingdoms.

But your confirmation above of George's intentions with that bit of information is extremely important. Because it implies a far greater knowledge of the size of the various economies and demographics of the respective kingdoms than previously seemed to exist.

If Dorne is indeed then an exception in terms of the common understanding of its strength, then by implication the strengths and populations of the other kingdoms  must be fairly well understood by their counterparts across the realm.

This is implied by the fact that a unique tax exemption arrangement was required for Dorne to be able to misrepresent their true strength. If the other kingdoms have no such tax exemption, then they clearly are not able to hide their strength in similar fashion.

I guess in the North, to an extent, the likes of the Mountain Clans, Skagosi Clans, Crannogmen Clans and perhaps the forest clans of the Wolfswood may go largely unnoticed by the general tax system, so they too might not be included in the overall assessment of the North's population, but other than these remote clan-like societies, the rest of the North must be fairly well recorded then in some vault of records in King's Landing.

Of course, the accuracy of such records would be based on data collected at some point in time, and may have fluctuated to a greater or lesser extent since the last "census" or "village count" or what have you. And in the North such information would probably be updated less frequently than say in the more easily accessible Riverlands or Westerlands.

But overall, your post now implies a very real understanding of the likely strengths of the various regions - the above fudge factors excluded, of course.

If I read your post correctly, this is a quite a change from the largely rumour and historical army size based system of "guestimation" that most assumed existed up to this point.

Thanks for this clarification. It provides much food for thought.

 

[Ran]

Well, it certainly fits the idea introduced in ACoK that someone might reasonably know the strength of all houses. It would be strange to credit it otherwise, wouldn't it? Or for that matter Lady Dustin holding back as many troops as she thought she could get away with presupposes the Starks have a a ballpark sense of what each vassal is capable providing, barring extenuating circumstances (season, harvest, plague, etc., etc.)

It is certainly the case, however, that historical situations may be different -- we do not know if, say, the river kings had the ability to collect much accurate information and had to trust their vassals more than not. And the figures for armies on the march or in battles may be exaggerated due to a loss of records for that particular occasion and reports from victors or losers that over or underestimate things for propagandistic reasons.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

Well, it certainly fits the idea introduced in ACoK that someone might reasonably know the strength of all houses. It would be strange to credit it otherwise, wouldn't it? Or for that matter Lady Dustin holding back as many troops as she thought she could get away with presupposes the Starks have a a ballpark sense of what each vassal is capable providing, barring extenuating circumstances (season, harvest, plague, etc., etc.)

It is certainly the case, however, that historical situations may be different -- we do not know if, say, the river kings had the ability to collect much accurate information and had to trust their vassals more than not. And the figures for armies on the march or in battles may be exaggerated due to a loss of records for that particular occasion and reports from victors or losers that over or underestimate things for propagandistic reasons.

Sure, all of that I understand and agree with. But the fact that a unique tax exemption arrangement is required to help sustain misinformation of a kingdom’s true strength, is quite a revelation. Previously my impression was that the onetime overstatement by Daeron, coupled with the Dornish not disputing it, was sufficient to maintain the subterfuge over the centuries.

But if the fudging of tax records are required to keep up the pretence, then the  general knowledge of other kingdoms’ strength (which is a different matter entirely to Eddard for example knowing his own vassals, the Dustins rough strengh) is more advanced than I previously understood it to be.

[Ran]

Ah, right. I think  Daeron's exaggeration set the benchmark for what the Princes of Dorne then maintained, first passively and then actively when they entered a union with the Iron Throne.

[Lord Varys]

@Ran

When you put so much thought into this matter, can you perhaps explain I way the conundrum I see with that?

1. A Dornish house, say, the Tolands pay a certain amount of taxes to the Prince of Dorne prior to the union. All is fine (or as fine as things can be when you have to pay taxes).

2. Then comes in the union and Prince Maron exaggerates the number or encourages Daeron II to go by whatever numbers he may have derived from the Young Dragon's faulty work. This would result in raise in taxes considering that House Toland's strength is now based on exaggerated numbers, not the actual ones.

How is it that the Tolands are not pissed about the difference in taxes?

Is the idea that the Iron Throne gave them such a massive tax break on the exaggerated numbers that they do not actually have to pay more?

In addition, the average Dornishmen is now paying more taxes considering they are now paying taxes to Sunspear and the Iron Throne, no? Sunspear is not likely to impoverish themselves by paying the difference in taxes out of their own coffers so that neither their lords nor the Iron Throne realize that anything is amiss.

And again - what's the point in actually trying to deceive the Iron Throne when you are now part of the Targaryen Realm? You no longer want to wage war on your dragon cousins, no?

In relation to historical changes I find it increasingly unlikely that anybody could actually draw actual tax numbers on the basis of records unless they are very thoroughly kept and massive data are collected.

Population numbers should be very unstable in this world - 5-10 short winters in a row will double and triple population numbers, and one long and cruel winter could cut it in half.

If some guy compared the number from Maekar's long summer to those of Egg's six-year-winter and then demanded the same taxes (especially from the North) said guy would have very unrealistic expectations. 

The same way it makes pretty little sense to assume that the strength of Dorne remained static throughout the year. Even the idea to consider the numbers from the days of Daeron I as realistic stresses credibility. I mean, did the population numbers of England static from 1400-1550? Would anyone consulting numbers that are one and half a century consider credible in any possible scenario?

I don't think so.

[Ran]

As noted, taxation is not really a direct head count-related thing in a medieval setting. It is a complicated figure based on valuation of land, valuation of property, potentially hearth taxes which may provide estimates of households but not individuals, etc. It seems clear that surveys, censues, land registers, etc. can be used to try and construct a sense of what each vassal owes in terms of money and military service, but it's probably not simply a straightforward "Here's our once-a-decade head count of everyone". 

All that Dorne has to say when entering its union with the Iron Throne is that this is what they have customarily collected from their populace, and if the Seven Kingdoms at large assumes that associates with being able to raise a force of 50,000 (because King Daeron said that once), well, the Dornish do not disabuse them because Dorne continues to collect what it claims based on an inflated population -- and I guess Maron and his subjects will expect to continue collecting that customary amount relative to population rather than seeing a rise in taxes to harmonize with, say, the crownlands, and so that's what you do for the sake of peace even if others grumble.

As to why the Martells would continue the canard, perceived military might can equate to or justify political influence (see that 50k Dornishmen reference in ACoK specifically related to making a political accommodation with Dorne, or Quentyn's argument for Dany marrying him), and doubtless there were Martells less certain about the future of the union and so desirous to keep their potential future enemies on the back foot. Also, the fact that Dorne is relatively poor is another reason to hang on to the notion that it has outsized military strength as a way to carve out a space of influence for itself.

Westeros is more static than medieval Europe. That's just a feature of GRRM's world-building.  There's been less change in Westeros in 300 years than in any comparable time in the European Middle Ages. The same would largely hold true for population, though one supposes that there has been some general increasing trend since the realm was unified, checked by the occasional longer winter or kingdom-wide plague (of which we know there has been more than one in the last couple of centuries).

In any case, we know this to be absolutely the case: the Prince of Dorne knows he cannot raise 50k spears as everyone else claims, and that claim is partially based on deliberate deception on the part of the Martells.

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, the average Dornishmen is now paying more taxes considering they are now paying taxes to Sunspear and the Iron Throne, no? Sunspear is not likely to impoverish themselves by paying the difference in taxes out of their own coffers so that neither their lords nor the Iron Throne realize that anything is amiss.

The lords need to know how much they owe to Martell. Not even how much of it Martells keep and how much Martells forward to Iron Throne - and not what the tax rate for the Martell contribution to Iron Throne is supposed to be.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Even the idea to consider the numbers from the days of Daeron I as realistic stresses credibility. I mean, did the population numbers of England static from 1400-1550? Would anyone consulting numbers that are one and half a century consider credible in any possible scenario?

I don't think so.

Um?

Do you think population numbers in England stayed static from 1334 to 1624?

Do you think the nominal value of movable property did?

Because that´s the apportionment basis of fifteenths and tenths.

From 1290 to 1334, there were serious attempts to assess movable property - and the tax rate was different for different payers, 1/15 in counties and 1/10 in towns, that´s where the name is from.

After 1334, the apportionment was left constant, except that in early 15th century there were downwards reassessments of decayed towns. But after that... 16th century population growth left fifteenths and tenths unchanged. As did inflation. Most recently voted in 1624.

Tax apportionments between subjects of appreciable negotiating power may get frozen, and stay frozen for a long time.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

As noted, taxation is not really a direct head count-related thing in a medieval setting. It is a complicated figure based on valuation of land, valuation of property, potentially hearth taxes which may provide estimates of households but not individuals, etc. It seems clear that surveys, censues, land registers, etc. can be used to try and construct a sense of what each vassal owes in terms of money and military service, but it's probably not simply a straightforward "Here's our once-a-decade head count of everyone".

But surely we would all agree that a plague, war, winter, etc. would greatly cripple the economic output of any region greatly affected by it, meaning that the taxes collected from vast regions of the Riverlands right now should drop to zero, etc.

If a region is hit by a calamity then people will know that - both because it happens and because the economy, agriculture, etc. of that regions drops.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

All that Dorne has to say when entering its union with the Iron Throne is that this is what they have customarily collected from their populace, and if the Seven Kingdoms at large assumes that associates with being able to raise a force of 50,000 (because King Daeron said that once), well, the Dornish do not disabuse them because Dorne continues to collect what it claims based on an inflated population -- and I guess Maron and his subjects will expect to continue collecting that customary amount relative to population rather than seeing a rise in taxes to harmonize with, say, the crownlands, and so that's what you do for the sake of peace even if others grumble.

Well, okay, that makes sense. But that is then not really deception. It is just an error nobody ever cared to correct. I mean, the idea that people took those 50,000 Dornish spearmen seriously the way we do never really convinced me, anyway. It is from some history book. And numbers don't mean all that much in such a society, anyway, especially if half or more of the men in an army were 'rabble' anyway.

What you need to know is how many actual soldiers this or that house has. Not how many would-be-soldiers they can raise if they want to raise the largest army they can possibly raise.

But the question of the taxes remains - after all, paying taxes both to Sunspear and the Iron Throne (through Sunspear) would mean somebody would have to pay the additional amount in the end. The Martells wouldn't have sent all the taxes they got on to the Iron Throne. Then they wouldn't have any taxes for themselves - which they most definitely need to maintain their semi-independent principality.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

As to why the Martells would continue the canard, perceived military might can equate to or justify political influence (see that 50k Dornishmen reference in ACoK specifically related to making a political accommodation with Dorne, or Quentyn's argument for Dany marrying him), and doubtless there were Martells less certain about the future of the union and so desirous to keep their potential future enemies on the back foot. Also, the fact that Dorne is relatively poor is another reason to hang on to the notion that it has outsized military strength as a way to carve out a space of influence for itself.

Hm. Not sure if that convinces me. Dorne is a strong power in its own right regardless how many spears they field under ideal circumstances. They have proven that to the Iron Throne again and again. And their kinship to the Targaryens should help them wield much more influence than they could ever have by talking about numbers.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Westeros is more static than medieval Europe. That's just a feature of GRRM's world-building.  There's been less change in Westeros in 300 years than in any comparable time in the European Middle Ages. The same would largely hold true for population, though one supposes that there has been some general increasing trend since the realm was unified, checked by the occasional longer winter or kingdom-wide plague (of which we know there has been more than one in the last couple of centuries).

I know that it appears static, but with the historical dimension taking shape it makes little sense to reinforce this static setup.

The idea of a static Westeros clashes with the undeniable fact of the casualties caused by major calamities. We cannot have a static Westeros in regards to population numbers and the Great Spring Sickness, the Winter Fever, six-year-winters, etc.

The very nature of the freak seasons itself makes Westeros very unstable. Long summers and short winters would allow animals and people to thrive - while two long winters in a row would undo all that in a few years.

And thinking about that - one would assume that there is some sort of 'cold count' each new spring. Lords and the Crown have to check how many peasants and animals made it through winter, award lands whose occupants have starved to death to other people, etc.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

In any case, we know this to be absolutely the case: the Prince of Dorne knows he cannot raise 50k spears as everyone else claims, and that claim is partially based on deliberate deception on the part of the Martells.

That is the case. What we do not know - at least not from published material - that this was always the case. I, for one, find the idea not bad that the ups and downs of population numbers allowed Dorne to have more people during the days of the Young Dragon than they have today. That way things don't have to appear that static.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But surely we would all agree that a plague, war, winter, etc. would greatly cripple the economic output of any region greatly affected by it, meaning that the taxes collected from vast regions of the Riverlands right now should drop to zero, etc.

If a region is hit by a calamity then people will know that - both because it happens and because the economy, agriculture, etc. of that regions drops.

Well, okay, that makes sense. But that is then not really deception. It is just an error nobody ever cared to correct. I mean, the idea that people took those 50,000 Dornish spearmen seriously the way we do never really convinced me, anyway. It is from some history book. And numbers don't mean all that much in such a society, anyway, especially if half or more of the men in an army were 'rabble' anyway.

What you need to know is how many actual soldiers this or that house has. Not how many would-be-soldiers they can raise if they want to raise the largest army they can possibly raise.

But the question of the taxes remains - after all, paying taxes both to Sunspear and the Iron Throne (through Sunspear) would mean somebody would have to pay the additional amount in the end. The Martells wouldn't have sent all the taxes they got on to the Iron Throne. Then they wouldn't have any taxes for themselves - which they most definitely need to maintain their semi-independent principality.

Hm. Not sure if that convinces me. Dorne is a strong power in its own right regardless how many spears they field under ideal circumstances. They have proven that to the Iron Throne again and again. And their kinship to the Targaryens should help them wield much more influence than they could ever have by talking about numbers.

I know that it appears static, but with the historical dimension taking shape it makes little sense to reinforce this static setup.

The idea of a static Westeros clashes with the undeniable fact of the casualties caused by major calamities. We cannot have a static Westeros in regards to population numbers and the Great Spring Sickness, the Winter Fever, six-year-winters, etc.

The very nature of the freak seasons itself makes Westeros very unstable. Long summers and short winters would allow animals and people to thrive - while two long winters in a row would undo all that in a few years.

And thinking about that - one would assume that there is some sort of 'cold count' each new spring. Lords and the Crown have to check how many peasants and animals made it through winter, award lands whose occupants have starved to death to other people, etc.

That is the case. What we do not know - at least not from published material - that this was always the case. I, for one, find the idea not bad that the ups and downs of population numbers allowed Dorne to have more people during the days of the Young Dragon than they have today. That way things don't have to appear that static.

I think you make too much of this. Seasonal fluctuations aside, it seems that over the course of 8000 years Westeros has reached a stable ballpark population carrying capacity. Meaning that it has a “normal” population, which the trendline returns to after each major calamity.

So while periodic and random catastrophic events will temporarily reduce this population from time to time, the population likely returns to the long term average eventually and kind of just hangs at that level.

It is not a continuous growth model as we have come to know in the real world. Instead, there is some sort of rough equilibrium that has been reached over the millenia, balancing out the available farmland with the level of technology achieved, and influenced by regular dips in the graph correlating to a plague or a famine or maybe a period of prolonged conflict.

But in the long term there appears to be a “normal” capacity that the population level gradually returns to and sort of stabilizes at, partly thanks to the more static nature of technological progress compared to the real world.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think you make too much of this. Seasonal fluctuations aside, it seems that over the course of 8000 years Westeros has reached a stable ballpark population carrying capacity. Meaning that it has a “normal” population, which the trendline returns to after each major calamity.

So while periodic and random catastrophic events will temporarily reduce this population from time to time, the population likely returns to the long term average eventually and kind of just hangs at that level.

It is not a continuous growth model as we have come to know in the real world. Instead, there is some sort of rough equilibrium that has been reached over the millenia, balancing out the available farmland with the level of technology achieved, and influenced by regular dips in the graph correlating to a plague or a famine or maybe a period of prolonged conflict.

But in the long term there appears to be a “normal” capacity that the population level gradually returns to and sort of stabilizes at, partly thanks to the more static nature of technological progress compared to the real world.

There is actually no evidence for this.

We have no numbers on the population of the Seven Kingdoms as such, nor any indication how they increased or decreased, but we do have more than ample evidence that calamities actually did reduce the population to a very high degree in certain areas.

That is just a fact. If you don't consider this you actually ignore facts in the source material.

It is the same kind of thing that happens when I discuss the fact that the noble houses of the Seven Kingdoms (especially those in their regions) must be interrelated and inbred to a considerable degree considering that they married each other for millennia. We don't need the family trees of all the houses of the Seven Kingdoms to arrive at that conclusion. We can just take their marriage habits as we know them, add the vast amount of time the history of the Seven Kingdoms cover, and we reach the conclusion.

And it is the same with the population situation - it would be static/not change much if there were no plagues, wars, long winters, long summers, etc. But there are. And this has to go into the equation when we talk about things.

If one wants just to talk about the things as they are during the series then one doesn't have to do this.

But overall, it makes no sense, I think, to take the numbers we got from the Conquest, the Dance, or any other event from the more distant past and include them in present-day deliberations on the subject.

Even if the historical numbers were fully reliable and accurate - which they aren't - then we would still not be able to compare the populations of the Seven Kingdoms in such different time frames while we don't have accurate numbers of the population of the Seven Kingdoms at that point.

If George came out and told us how many people lived in the SK at this or that time then one could discuss whether Cregan Stark could draw on the same amount of people as Robb Stark or Torrhen Stark. But we don't know that.

[Jaak]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, okay, that makes sense. But that is then not really deception. It is just an error nobody ever cared to correct. I mean, the idea that people took those 50,000 Dornish spearmen seriously the way we do never really convinced me, anyway. It is from some history book. And numbers don't mean all that much in such a society, anyway, especially if half or more of the men in an army were 'rabble' anyway.

Compare Standfast.

The actual number of knights or "knights" at Standfast was 1 for years - then in response to feud with Rohanne grew to 2 with hiring of Bennis and 3 with hiring of Dunk.

The number of smallfolk farms could not be so expanded - it stayed at about nine or so.

Did the tax liabilities of ser Eustace to Targaryen, Tyrell and Rowan stay fixed according to his declared and surveyed wealth of about 10 "hearths", "spears" etc?

In which case: yes. If the deal offered by Dorne in the negotiations after Dornish war was something like: "Reach has 100 000 spears and pays scutage 1 dragon per spear, and you know because your men have surveyed every village, but we are only willing to pay half a dragon per spear and we declare we have 50 000 spears, and you have to take our word for it!", then it is a direct deception, not just uncorrected error.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What you need to know is how many actual soldiers this or that house has. Not how many would-be-soldiers they can raise if they want to raise the largest army they can possibly raise.

But the question of the taxes remains - after all, paying taxes both to Sunspear and the Iron Throne (through Sunspear) would mean somebody would have to pay the additional amount in the end. The Martells wouldn't have sent all the taxes they got on to the Iron Throne. Then they wouldn't have any taxes for themselves - which they most definitely need to maintain their semi-independent principality.

But all other paramount lords also need some taxes. How are these split?

 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

But all other paramount lords also need some taxes. How are these

No, not just them. It's not just lord>LP>king. It's layers upon layers of nobility "down to the guy who can raise five friends" like Eustace. Apparently even Tallharts, Templetons and such have smaller houses sworn to them.

Martells primary houses case of paying taxes with Dorne sworn to Targaryens won't be different than, say Webber's case who is sworn to Rowan who is sworn to Tyrell, who is also sworn, to Targaryen.

I assume rates of taxes go down with each layer of nobility. So say if Inchfield(if he owns lands) pays 1/5 to Webber than Tyrell perhaps pays 1/50 to Targaryen

[Corvo the Crow]

14 hours ago, Ran said:

Well, it certainly fits the idea introduced in ACoK that someone might reasonably know the strength of all houses. It would be strange to credit it otherwise, wouldn't it? Or for that matter Lady Dustin holding back as many troops as she thought she could get away with presupposes the Starks have a a ballpark sense of what each vassal is capable providing, barring extenuating circumstances (season, harvest, plague, etc., etc.)

 

So this does mean a lord, Say Robb has a sense of which vassal provided the bare minimum like Dustin and which ones, like Karstark and Umber, overextended themselves?

Also is that the reason Robb gave these two were honored with tower seats  in MC and say not Dustin, Ryswell or Bolton? Or is it simply because they provided more men than the others?

One other thing I've wondered is, while they have the most population, also concentrated in a much smaller area, cities seem to provide the smallest amount of men compared to the actual potential. Why is that? To not disturb the economy? Does that mean then that Tywin was desperate in finding men when he resorted to Lannisport?

[Free Northman Reborn]

15 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

So this does mean a lord, Say Robb has a sense of which vassal provided the bare minimum like Dustin and which ones, like Karstark and Umber, overextended themselves?

Also is that the reason Robb gave these two were honored with tower seats  in MC and say not Dustin, Ryswell or Bolton? Or is it simply because they provided more men than the others?

One other thing I've wondered is, while they have the most population, also concentrated in a much smaller area, cities seem to provide the smallest amount of men compared to the actual potential. Why is that? To not disturb the economy? Does that mean then that Tywin was desperate in finding men when he resorted to Lannisport?

No, I still think there is only a rough idea of what a vassal can provide. There was a SSM from Martin a few years ago - which I have struggled to find again - where he touched on the issue of the variability of vassal strength. I think the example he used was the banner lord who promises to raise a thousand men for his liege but then pitches up with 50 men, due to lack of commitment from his own vassals,  as a result of the harvest, or maybe just because he has grown poorer over time and his House cannot logistically support that force anymore.

And the issue then was how many times such a vassal could get away with such empty promises before his liege exacted some retribution on him in some form or another.

I wish I could find that quote again. I might be misremembering some of the detail.

[Lord Varys]

On 8/8/2018 at 8:18 AM, Corvo the Crow said:

No, not just them. It's not just lord>LP>king. It's layers upon layers of nobility "down to the guy who can raise five friends" like Eustace. Apparently even Tallharts, Templetons and such have smaller houses sworn to them.

Martells primary houses case of paying taxes with Dorne sworn to Targaryens won't be different than, say Webber's case who is sworn to Rowan who is sworn to Tyrell, who is also sworn, to Targaryen.

I assume rates of taxes go down with each layer of nobility. So say if Inchfield(if he owns lands) pays 1/5 to Webber than Tyrell perhaps pays 1/50 to Targaryen

It is actually not clear who can collect taxes. Chances are that the lowest lords don't actually get taxes but merely rent (for the land their retainers and peasants have). We know some lords also get taxes but not which - or what kind of taxes they can collect.

What's clear is that lords controlling bridges and fords and the like can collect tolls.

On 8/8/2018 at 6:28 AM, Jaak said:

The number of smallfolk farms could not be so expanded - it stayed at about nine or so.

It can't? Why? This is not a society which has issues with overpopulation, not even in the Reach. There is still land everywhere in Westeros where there are no farms, fields, orchards, etc. So if the Osgrey folk have a really good succession of summers the people in those villages might multiply to the degree that they have to build new villages, cultivate new lands, etc.

Quote

Did the tax liabilities of ser Eustace to Targaryen, Tyrell and Rowan stay fixed according to his declared and surveyed wealth of about 10 "hearths", "spears" etc?

Whenever tragedy and calamity struck there must have been assessment of the farms, etc. that were still in existence. Else this society couldn't even hope to survive one winter.

I mean, how should this work? If you don't know how many peasants there you don't know how much crops you could have, making it literally impossible to prepare for winter.

You cannot just consult some dusty old book when you want to know how many smallfolk you have. You actually would have to count them. And one assumes that this is done after a severe winter.

Quote

But all other paramount lords also need some taxes. How are these split?

How do I know? Most likely according to the terms Aegon the Conqueror dictated during the Conquest. One assumes the Tullys, Tyrells, Greyjoys and Lannisters (they had either to be thankful to Aegon that they were lords paramount at all, or that they were still alive) got the worst terms whereas the Arryns and Starks would have gotten better ones due to the fact that there was actual negotiation involved in them bending the knee.

And Orys Baratheon should have gotten the best terms, considering he was Aegon's half-brother and best friend.

In relation to the Dustin thing we should, I think, assume that Lady Dustin was very cautious the send Robb a token force of enough cavalry and men-at-arms. Expendable men, but still men of quality. Harvest would have allowed her to keep many foot behind, but that's not an excuse you can give for men who don't really partake all that much in harvest.