Jump to content

Military Strengths-2 and More!


Corvo the Crow

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A proper household knight would indeed be a more proper knight than a hedge knight. Bennis and Dunk are not household knights - as @Free Northman Reborn would know if he had read TSS - they are sworn swords. They don't get the income, rights, privileges, and whatever else a proper household knight of a proper lord who can afford household knights would get. Assuming household knights are pampered in this way. They would certainly get some salary of this or that sort, but I'd be surprised if a lord provided any of his knights with armor, weapons, and horses.

Household knights are likely recruited from younger sons of greater and smaller houses. Men who are trained at arms by the greatest masters-at-arms, but who cannot hope to inherit a title and who rarely are with a lordship of their own. Even a man like Kevan Lannister or Brynden Tully is, in the end, just a household knight, considering that those men do not hold any lands or castles.

Historically, proper household knights often came into service with their own kit and with durable items like swords and armor there was little need for their Lord to provide.  Lances were an item that being limited use and necessary items were often furnished by their lord.  Horses I would honestly have to do more research on.

Household knights I agree are likely recruited from younger sons, but I would say generally the younger sons of minor poorer houses.  Richer houses would find ways to support their children in a more lasting fashion.  Kevan may essentially be a Lannister household knight by not being the first born but I would be surprised if he didn't have a modest estate that was managed by a steward that he could retire to had he made it to old age (essentially being landed).  I am sure lots of other younger sons become Septons, Maesters, Sail to Essos to be sell swords, or even become tradesmen and merchants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That knights are responsible for their own equipment is made crystal clear by tourney rules. They lose horse and armor, and this world would most definitely not have a rule like that if the lords those men served would have to pay for the armor and horses and knights who lost in a tourney if they wanted to keep them.

And who knows? Perhaps a landed knight can also be a household knight. I mean, a landed knight could leave his estate in the hands of a relative and enter the service of a great lord or king as a household knight. Being a household knight means you are part of the household of another person. It doesn't mean you do not hold lands or estates.

One assumes that wealthy landed knights don't do things like that, but some of the more modest knights might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. Lord Varys, can’t believe you still feel so offended that I don’t care about the detailed back stories of historical Targaryen internal squabbles and hidden princes traipsing around in disguise.

But you bring it up every chance you get, so clearly it’s a sore point.

Anyway, my issue is not about household knights as such, but about Landed vs non-Landed knights.

Take the 1000 Frey cavalry. If each of them was a Landed Knight and merely had on average 10 men at arms each, the Freys could raise 10,000 men, quite aside from the forces raised by their petty lords and the Twins itself. If the average Landed Knight can raise 20 men at arms, that means the Freys could raise 20000 men.

Clearly Landed knights are outnumbered by non-Landed knights, whether they be household knights or hedge knights sworn to a particular lord’s service for a time.

Having a hundred landed knights seems like a big deal, with both the Manderlys and House Osgrey with 4 castles and 20 petty lords as Marshalls of the Northmarch having that number.

You aren’t suggesting they had only 100 heavy horse each, right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wendelsnatch said:

The first post on the first page has a broken link that supposedly equates a banner to 25 men.  I cant do much with that.

We are still discussing banners because nothing is adding up.  On the one hand you are saying 1 banner = 25 men, or knights, or cavalry.  I am not sure.  On another you are saying that each banner averages about 100 men.  So what is it?  Is a banner a representation of a noble house, or is it and administrative tool to group a certain number of men together?

Using the example of 600 banners, 5000 knights, and 10x as many other soldiers (55,000 total) the math doesn't work  600x25=15,000.  This number does not figure properly into 1 banner = 25 knights or men total.

If we are using the the thinking that a banner exclusively means the sigil of a Lord, then great I am totally on board with that.  I completely disagree that landed knights would as a general rule have banners, otherwise the above example would describe "nearly 5000 banners and 10 x as many..."

 

Well, I'll see in the future if I can replace that link.

I really can't get it why is it so hard to understand, my English is not what it used to be but I doubt I posted stuff that bad it's not understandable. Banners are used for both. When Theon sees Cerwyn banners flapping bravely everywhere it is the actual banners, more than one, that carries the heraldry of Cerwyns and When we are told 600 banners were in that army or when Ned says I may need to call the Banners to deal with Mance he means calling his bannermen, the noble houses, sworn to him. He doesn't mean calling an actual banner, nor do I mean many men, each carrying a banner when I say a bannermen. It's not unlike Lance, really; both a weapon and a unit.

That 55000/25 or 25x600 example was given just to show there would be many more times than 600 actual banners, or let's say standards, carried around. It is clearly implied 600 houses with a heraldry of their own and we were explicitly told that as well when the book says 600 lords great and small. Now before you say landed knight is not a lord... It is. He doesn't have a lord title and can't pass justice but in the sense of holding a land it is a lord. Think of Glovers and Tallharts, they are counted among lords despite being masters. We aren't told lords and masters, we are simply told masters. Same for Templetons when mentioned among lords, not landed knight and lord, just lord.

 

here another link

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=dAskDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT206&lpg=PT206&dq=25+men+banner+medieval&source=bl&ots=bNOXEyIEam&sig=fNt71xNDoxIU2P-2X5hcxqa1Fcw&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwito_6Tx8HeAhWyiIsKHYcmAcAQ6AEwF3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=25 men banner medieval&f=false

It is named medieval warfare 1000-1300.

here it says a banner had 25 men, at least.

 

Also, on Kevan

Quote

"By what right do you presume to give me terms? You are no more than one of my father's household knights."

"I hold no lands, that is true. But I have certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside. My own father forgot none of his children when he died, and Tywin knew how to reward good service. I feed two hundredknights and can double that number if need be. There are freeriders who will follow my banner, and I have the gold to hire sellswords. You would be wise not to take me lightly, Your Grace . . . and wiser still not to make of me a foe."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Well, I'll see in the future if I can replace that link.

I really can't get it why is it so hard to understand, my English is not what it used to be but I doubt I posted stuff that bad it's not understandable. Banners are used for both. When Theon sees Cerwyn banners flapping bravely everywhere it is the actual banners, more than one, that carries the heraldry of Cerwyns and When we are told 600 banners were in that army or when Ned says I may need to call the Banners to deal with Mance he means calling his bannermen, the noble houses, sworn to him. He doesn't mean calling an actual banner, nor do I mean many men, each carrying a banner when I say a bannermen. It's not unlike Lance, really; both a weapon and a unit.

That 55000/25 or 25x600 example was given just to show there would be many more times than 600 actual banners, or let's say standards, carried around. It is clearly implied 600 houses with a heraldry of their own and we were explicitly told that as well when the book says 600 lords great and small. Now before you say landed knight is not a lord... It is. He doesn't have a lord title and can't pass justice but in the sense of holding a land it is a lord. Think of Glovers and Tallharts, they are counted among lords despite being masters. We aren't told lords and masters, we are simply told masters. Same for Templetons when mentioned among lords, not landed knight and lord, just lord.

 

here another link

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=dAskDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT206&lpg=PT206&dq=25+men+banner+medieval&source=bl&ots=bNOXEyIEam&sig=fNt71xNDoxIU2P-2X5hcxqa1Fcw&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwito_6Tx8HeAhWyiIsKHYcmAcAQ6AEwF3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=25 men banner medieval&f=false

It is named medieval warfare 1000-1300.

here it says a banner had 25 men, at least.

 

Also, on Kevan

 

 

Well now. Ser Kevan Lannister is not even a landed knight and yet he feeds 200 non-landed knights. Clearly many other lords and landed knights will have multiple non-landed knights in their service as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well now. Ser Kevan Lannister is not even a landed knight and yet he feeds 200 non-landed knights. Clearly many other lords and landed knights will have multiple non-landed knights in their service as well.

We see even commoners having knights under their employ from time to time. Like the Dornish Merchant who employed Arlan, Bennis and some others. Hedge knights they may be, but they are still knights, not ordinary sellswords and I think the distinction between the two are clear since Bronn is consistently called a sellsword throughout the books until he is knighted. As for Hedge knight/Household Knight, there seems to be less of a distinction since Arlan was employed as a household knight as well and a Hedge Knight is still a knight, taking on squires, participating in Tourneys and performing such knightly stuff (though neither two are exclusive to knights).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Haha. Lord Varys, can’t believe you still feel so offended that I don’t care about the detailed back stories of historical Targaryen internal squabbles and hidden princes traipsing around in disguise.

But you bring it up every chance you get, so clearly it’s a sore point.

No, I point that out because people who remain deliberately ignorant about crucial parts of this series cannot really offer an informed opinion. Or what would you say if I had never read, say, AGoT and insisted on participating in a discussion about the series?

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Take the 1000 Frey cavalry. If each of them was a Landed Knight and merely had on average 10 men at arms each, the Freys could raise 10,000 men, quite aside from the forces raised by their petty lords and the Twins itself. If the average Landed Knight can raise 20 men at arms, that means the Freys could raise 20000 men.

Nobody said all of there men were landed knights. It also doesn't mean that all the men - especially not all the knights such landed knights had - would actually join the army of their lord. You usually leave a castellan at home - Osgrey took Dunk with him when he went out to meet Lady Webber. But Bennis remained at Standfast.

There is no indication that all the cavalry of a lord are all knights. There are freeriders, too, you know. And the Frey example is pretty problematic as well considering the Freys are rich as hell compared to other lords.

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Clearly Landed knights are outnumbered by non-Landed knights, whether they be household knights or hedge knights sworn to a particular lord’s service for a time.

They might be outnumbered by knights as such, but not necessarily household knights. There could be millions of hedge knights, especially when one or two knights start selling knighthoods to pretty much anyone. A knight can make a knight, after all.

There are also tourney knights (as you would also know if you had read TMK) who don't sleep in hedges but who own neither lands nor castles, either. A knight can make a living without actually entering into the service of this or that lord.

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Having a hundred landed knights seems like a big deal, with both the Manderlys and House Osgrey with 4 castles and 20 petty lords as Marshalls of the Northmarch having that number.

That would actually depend on the size of the land and the population density there. Considering that the Osgreys were charged with the defense of the Reach against the West there may have been a string of border castles and watch-towers, etc. under the command of the Osgreys back before the Conquest.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well now. Ser Kevan Lannister is not even a landed knight and yet he feeds 200 non-landed knights. Clearly many other lords and landed knights will have multiple non-landed knights in their service as well.

LOL, this is Kevan Lannister we are talking about here. The man has money because he is a Lannister of Casterly Rock and his father didn't forget him (or any of his children) in his testament and Tywin also rewarded him for his good service. If you come from the richest family in Westeros you do have coin, never mind that you aren't the lord of the family.

And we do know that the great castles of the Realm do not have hundreds of knights in their garrison. 

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

We see even commoners having knights under their employ from time to time. Like the Dornish Merchant who employed Arlan, Bennis and some others. Hedge knights they may be, but they are still knights, not ordinary sellswords and I think the distinction between the two are clear since Bronn is consistently called a sellsword throughout the books until he is knighted. As for Hedge knight/Household Knight, there seems to be less of a distinction since Arlan was employed as a household knight as well and a Hedge Knight is still a knight, taking on squires, participating in Tourneys and performing such knightly stuff (though neither two are exclusive to knights).

The distinction is just that a knight has more prestige than a common sellsword. But Bronn didn't get a better warrior nor did he get any lands or other incomes just because he became a knight.

Ser Arlan was never a household knight while Dunk was with him. They entered into the service of various lords only for a limited amount of time - which doesn't seem to be the kind of thing you do as a household knight. Rodrik Cassel isn't at Winterfell just for this or that season, prepared to take the road again. He lives there permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Hightowers' strength, I have never noticed this before;

 

So this is Rhaenyra's army at Tumbleton, Nine thousand men in all.

Quote

Meanwhile, to the south, battle was joined at Tumbleton, a thriving market town on the Mander. The castle overlooking the town was stout but small, garrisoned by no more than forty men, but thousands more had come upriver from Bitterbridge, Longtable, and farther south. The arrival of a strong force of river lords swelled their numbers further, and stiffened their resolve. All told, the forces gathered under Queen Rhaenyra’s banners at Tumbleton numbered near nine thousand. The queen’s men were greatly outnumbered by Lord Hightower’s. No doubt the arrival of the dragons Vermithor and Silverwing with their riders was most welcome by the defenders of Tumbleton. Little could they know the horrors that awaited them.

 

and this is Rodrick's Winter Wolves, reduced to a fighting strength of 600-700 after this battle.

Quote

Attacked from three sides, the westermen were driven back foot by foot into the waters of the Gods Eye. Hundreds died there, cut down whilst fighting in the reeds; hundreds more drowned as they tried to flee. By nightfall two thousand men were dead, amongst them many notables, including Lord Frey, Lord Lefford, Lord Bigglestone, Lord Charlton, Lord Swyft, Lord Reyne, Ser Clarent Crakehall, and Ser Tyler Hill, the Bastard of Lannisport. The Lannister host was shattered and slaughtered, but at such cost that young Ben Blackwood, the boy Lord of Raventree, wept when he saw the heaps of the dead. The most grievous losses were suffered by the northmen, for the Winter Wolves had begged the honor of leading the attack, and had charged five times into the ranks of Lannister spears. More than two thirds of the men who had ridden south with Lord Dustin were dead or wounded.

 

Now this below is Tumbleton.

Quote

As neither man could read nor write, we shall never know what drove the Two Betrayers (as history has named them) to do what they did. Of the Battle of Tumbleton we know much and more, however. Six thousand of the queen’s men formed up to face Lord Hightower in the field, and fought bravely for a time, but a withering rain of arrows from Lord Ormund’s archers thinned their ranks, and a thunderous charge by his heavy horse broke them, sending the survivors running back toward the town walls. When most of the survivors were safe inside the gates, Roddy the Ruin and his Winter Wolves sallied forth from a postern gate, screaming their terrifying northern war cries as they swept around the left flank of the attackers. In the chaos that ensued, the northmen fought their way through ten times their own number to where Lord Ormund Hightower sat his warhorse beneath King Aegon’s golden dragon and the banners of Oldtown and the Hightower. As the singers tell it, Lord Roderick was blood from head to heel as he came on, with splintered shield and cracked helm, yet so drunk with battle that he did not even seem to feel his wounds. Ser Bryndon Hightower, Lord Ormund’s cousin, put himself between the northman and his liege, taking off the Ruin’s shield arm at the shoulder with one terrible blow of his longaxe … yet the savage Lord of Barrowton fought on, slaying both Ser Bryndon and Lord Ormund before he died. Lord Hightower’s banners toppled, and the townfolk gave a great cheer, thinking the tide of battle turned. Even the appearance of Tessarion across the field did not dismay them, for they knew they had two dragons of their own … but when Vermithor and Silverwing climbed into the sky and loosed their fires upon Tumbleton, those cheers changed to screams.

 

Northman, numbering 600-700 men after fishfeed, face ten times their number in just the left flank of their enemy! so it's 6000-7000 men in just the left flank. Of course we don't know how many men were in the each flank, it could be seriously disproportionatelike Tywin's host in Green Fork… But! Six thousand men formed to fight and they were defeated so I think it implies at least an equal number of men fought against and Since Rodrick's men is said to have faced 6000-7000 men in the left flank only, then at the very least left flank is far away enough from the other's so their men are not counted, meaning 6000 of Rhaenyra possibly didn't even face that flank. 

So it's 6000-7000 in one flank and at least another 6000 men in the other two or perhaps even just one of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Well, I'll see in the future if I can replace that link.

I really can't get it why is it so hard to understand, my English is not what it used to be but I doubt I posted stuff that bad it's not understandable. Banners are used for both. When Theon sees Cerwyn banners flapping bravely everywhere it is the actual banners, more than one, that carries the heraldry of Cerwyns and When we are told 600 banners were in that army or when Ned says I may need to call the Banners to deal with Mance he means calling his bannermen, the noble houses, sworn to him. He doesn't mean calling an actual banner, nor do I mean many men, each carrying a banner when I say a bannermen. It's not unlike Lance, really; both a weapon and a unit.

That 55000/25 or 25x600 example was given just to show there would be many more times than 600 actual banners, or let's say standards, carried around. It is clearly implied 600 houses with a heraldry of their own and we were explicitly told that as well when the book says 600 lords great and small. Now before you say landed knight is not a lord... It is. He doesn't have a lord title and can't pass justice but in the sense of holding a land it is a lord. Think of Glovers and Tallharts, they are counted among lords despite being masters. We aren't told lords and masters, we are simply told masters. Same for Templetons when mentioned among lords, not landed knight and lord, just lord.

 

here another link

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=dAskDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT206&lpg=PT206&dq=25+men+banner+medieval&source=bl&ots=bNOXEyIEam&sig=fNt71xNDoxIU2P-2X5hcxqa1Fcw&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwito_6Tx8HeAhWyiIsKHYcmAcAQ6AEwF3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=25 men banner medieval&f=false

 

 

 

Speaking frankly, bringing up that a banner =25 men while also speaking of Banners as the personal standard flown by a Lord in the sense that there is 600 Banners for 600 lords muddies what you are trying to talk about.  In the passage talking about 600 Banners, and 600 Lords great and small, it is clear that the 600 Banners correspond to the individual Lords.  I acknowledge that.  From a practical perspective it also makes sense to organize men into manageable sized groups (25, or 30, or 40, whatever) for command and control on the battlefield.  Ex. Under Lord Cerwyn's Banner (Lordly) you may have a detachment with a banner (organizational) that is smaller and has the Cewyn sigil but with a red border, and the next detachment may have a blue border, and so on and so forth.  When you were talking about these two distinctly different banners, I did not find that you clearly articulated talking about two different things.  Now that we got that out of the way...

The problem we are faced with is trying to figure out how many troops a Lord or Lords can bring to battle.  The trap I believe you are falling into is thinking that from a few textual examples we can backwards compute what other Lords in other times and places should be able to field.  The example above of 600 Lords, 5000 knights, and 50000 other soldiers only definitively proves that in this specific circumstance a Lord on average has about 90 men under him with 8 or 9 being knights.  This could be entirely different in the North, or Vale or Dorne, and could be entirely different even in the Reach and Westerlands +/- 10, 20, 30 years from then.  Furthermore, the figure only gives us what the average # of troops per Lord is, but tells us nothing about the number of troops an average Lord has.  

Regarding the link, it states "If one counts 25 men-at-arms per banner, which seems to be a minimum for the period...".  The language used does not indicate a high degree of certainty or consistency.  By using IF, the author is making an assumption.  SEEMS is not definitive.  THE PERIOD is indicative on one certain period of time with implications that the figure could be different in other periods.  This is backed up by the fact that the entirety of the paragraph that this sentence is present in is talking about how difficult it is to come up with figures of military strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wendelsnatch said:

Speaking frankly...

Well, my bad. As for men per banner, that's the only source I could find and apparently GRRM uses that or some other source with the same info since, as I mentioned earlier, Robert had a dozen banners for 300 men entering Winterfell.

 

1 hour ago, wendelsnatch said:

The problem we are faced with is trying to figure out how many troops a Lord or Lords can bring to battle.  The trap I believe you are falling into is thinking that from a few textual examples we can backwards compute what other Lords in other times and places should be able to field.

Well it is better than nothing and as said, it is to get an idea. It's not only for backwards computation either; we see Reach is easily able to bring half as many men even without their most powerful Bannermen, whose ancestors were kings themselves and not mere petty ones at that.

 

Also numbers we get somewhat confirm each other like both the NMC and KL petty lords having 100 men on average or all three of the major Marcher Lords we know about, Caron, Dondarrion and Tarly, having  about 2500 men.

 

Oh and this isn't real life where numbers are nailed down, this is GRRM's fantasy and he may at anytime change the numbes as he sees fit for the story and he is not very good at them to begin with.

This is just some fun exercise and since he'll likely never give us a whole picture of this aspect of his world, why not just do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, I point that out because people who remain deliberately ignorant about crucial parts of this series cannot really offer an informed opinion. Or what would you say if I had never read, say, AGoT and insisted on participating in a discussion about the series?

Nobody said all of there men were landed knights. It also doesn't mean that all the men - especially not all the knights such landed knights had - would actually join the army of their lord. You usually leave a castellan at home - Osgrey took Dunk with him when he went out to meet Lady Webber. But Bennis remained at Standfast.

There is no indication that all the cavalry of a lord are all knights. There are freeriders, too, you know. And the Frey example is pretty problematic as well considering the Freys are rich as hell compared to other lords.

They might be outnumbered by knights as such, but not necessarily household knights. There could be millions of hedge knights, especially when one or two knights start selling knighthoods to pretty much anyone. A knight can make a knight, after all.

There are also tourney knights (as you would also know if you had read TMK) who don't sleep in hedges but who own neither lands nor castles, either. A knight can make a living without actually entering into the service of this or that lord.

That would actually depend on the size of the land and the population density there. Considering that the Osgreys were charged with the defense of the Reach against the West there may have been a string of border castles and watch-towers, etc. under the command of the Osgreys back before the Conquest.

LOL, this is Kevan Lannister we are talking about here. The man has money because he is a Lannister of Casterly Rock and his father didn't forget him (or any of his children) in his testament and Tywin also rewarded him for his good service. If you come from the richest family in Westeros you do have coin, never mind that you aren't the lord of the family.

And we do know that the great castles of the Realm do not have hundreds of knights in their garrison. 

The distinction is just that a knight has more prestige than a common sellsword. But Bronn didn't get a better warrior nor did he get any lands or other incomes just because he became a knight.

Ser Arlan was never a household knight while Dunk was with him. They entered into the service of various lords only for a limited amount of time - which doesn't seem to be the kind of thing you do as a household knight. Rodrik Cassel isn't at Winterfell just for this or that season, prepared to take the road again. He lives there permanently.

I think we are discussing different things here. I accept (for sake of progress) that you are focused on household knights. I still argue that Landed Knights are rarer than household knights, as every household knight will surely aspire to be a Landed Knight, but the reverse is not true. 

But to me the issue is not about the title of “household knight” as such. Rather, my question is, if any Lord calls up his banners, what will his ratio of total heavy cavalry to Landed Knights be? Wendelsnatch seems to argue that the majority of your heavy cavalry (knights) will be LANDED knights. By contrast,  I believe that in Martin’s world maybe one in ten of your heavy horse will be landed knights and the rest will be of lesser status. Household knights, sworn swords, hedge knights, squires, etc.

I hardly think that the 100 knights Manderly arrives with at Winterfell are his 100 Landed Knights. Instead, these are likely household Knights, for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But to me the issue is not about the title of “household knight” as such. Rather, my question is, if any Lord calls up his banners, what will his ratio of total heavy cavalry to Landed Knights be? Wendelsnatch seems to argue that the majority of your heavy cavalry (knights) will be LANDED knights. By contrast,  I believe that in Martin’s world maybe one in ten of your heavy horse will be landed knights and the rest will be of lesser status. Household knights, sworn swords, hedge knights, squires, etc. 

I hardly think that the 100 knights Manderly arrives with at Winterfell are his 100 Landed Knights. Instead, these are likely household Knights, for the most part.

Let's for the sake of argument forget about Eustace with his 2 knights, since Varys insists on telling they aren't actually household knights, Lady Webber has a score of other knights besides Ser Inchfield and she is just the king's vassal's vassal's vassal.

Another example, Dragonstone, has 30 household knights and it has always been it's garrison. Stannis as the lord of DS only has some 100(reminder; his 400 cavalry is mostly freeriders) knights which includes landed knights sworn both to him and his lordly vassals. His lords bannermen at the start include at the very least Bar Emmons, Celtigar's, Velaryons. The latter two are houses with some hundreds of men. All these houses would have some amount of knights in their garrison as well so not many of his knights would be landed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Let's for the sake of argument forget about Eustace with his 2 knights, since Varys insists on telling they aren't actually household knights, Lady Webber has a score of other knights besides Ser Inchfield and she is just the king's vassal's vassal's vassal.

Another example, Dragonstone, has 30 household knights and it has always been it's garrison. Stannis as the lord of DS only has some 100(reminder; his 400 cavalry is mostly freeriders) knights which includes landed knights sworn both to him and his lordly vassals. His lords bannermen at the start include at the very least Bar Emmons, Celtigar's, Velaryons. The latter two are houses with some hundreds of men. All these houses would have some amount of knights in their garrison as well so not many of his knights would be landed.

Great examples. In Wendelsnatch’s scenario House Karstark would then have 300 Landed Knights/Masterly Houses, since almost every knight should be Landed to support himself, his horse and his equipment. 

That would give House Karstark three times the Landed Knights that House Osgrey had as Marshalls of the Northmarch. Clearly this is not the case, particularly as the Karstarks have very few heavy cavalry compared to the other northern lords that join Robb at Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Corvo the Crow

You are jumping the shark by taking this 'ten times their number' at Tumbleton seriously there. This is a figure of speech used by historian, it is not an actual factual number.

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think we are discussing different things here. I accept (for sake of progress) that you are focused on household knights. I still argue that Landed Knights are rarer than household knights, as every household knight will surely aspire to be a Landed Knight, but the reverse is not true. 

What men aspire to is irrelevant. Land does not multiple, men do. The way to get a lordship or some land is to be granted lands and a lordship by the king (or given some land by a lord) or to marry an heiress. That's it. You can aspire to either or both of that but that doesn't mean you get either.

How a good knightly career goes you see at Bronn's example. He starts as sellsword/freerider, enters the service of the Starks and then the Lannisters, gets a knighthood (but no lands) after the Blackwater, and the prestige coming with that knighthood allows him to marry the second daughter of Lady Stokeworth. Eventually he takes control of Stokeworth because Lollys' elder sister disappears.

Many a knight would want that kind of career - but very few can do stuff like that.

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But to me the issue is not about the title of “household knight” as such. Rather, my question is, if any Lord calls up his banners, what will his ratio of total heavy cavalry to Landed Knights be? Wendelsnatch seems to argue that the majority of your heavy cavalry (knights) will be LANDED knights. By contrast,  I believe that in Martin’s world maybe one in ten of your heavy horse will be landed knights and the rest will be of lesser status. Household knights, sworn swords, hedge knights, squires, etc.

Well, I'm just arguing that it makes sense that many household knights are likely only in those houses who can actually afford them. The Starks have very few household knights (equivalents), for instance. Guardsmen are not household knights.

And considering that this is medieval world and not a fancy fairy-tale where your lord pampers you, pretty much any knight in the service of a lord would have to have incomes besides those he receives from that lord.

You can count the castles where a penniless knight might get so high a salary that he can live only from that at two hands - it would be the royal court, Dragonstone, Casterly Rock, Highgarden, Oldtown, the Arbor, Lannisport, Driftmark, Claw Isle, the Twins, Gulltown, etc. But that they might be able to do that doesn't mean they actually (want to) do that. In a feudal setting - where the economy and society is essentially based on the fact that people hold land in fiefs - it doesn't make much sense to employ many knights. A knight holds land in the name of his lord, and he has men working that land.

It is much more likely that many a knight in the service of this or that lord actually does own some land - and gets some money out of that deal.  Landed knight are very rare, though. 

How many other quality cavalry you bring to your lord also depends on the income. A rich landed knight can bring you many such in retainers and squires and the like, but a poor one would show up more or less alone. You have to be able to afford squires. And if we Ser Eustace was ever called to war chances are about zero that Dunk and Bennis would have gone with him - they may have joined the war alright, but in the service of richer lords who could reward them better than Ser Useless.

If you can choose you attach yourself to people you consider to be promising - just as Bronn switched Tyrion Lannister for niggardly Lady Stark.

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I hardly think that the 100 knights Manderly arrives with at Winterfell are his 100 Landed Knights. Instead, these are likely household Knights, for the most part.

That would be an overkill of household knights.

We are talking about a city here. In a city there are a lot of places and opportunities where a knight could have an income - both inside White Harbor and outside of it. Sure, there will be some knights in Manderly's permanent service - a master-at-arms, key positions at court, some officers in his personal guard and the City Watch of White Harbor, etc. But there is no reason to assume the man just pays a hundred knights for pretty much no reason.

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Let's for the sake of argument forget about Eustace with his 2 knights, since Varys insists on telling they aren't actually household knights, Lady Webber has a score of other knights besides Ser Inchfield and she is just the king's vassal's vassal's vassal.

And as a lady she would have personal knightly retainers as well as knightly vassals sworn to her. Some of those knights might also just be sworn swords, though, just like Bennis and Dunk are.

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Another example, Dragonstone, has 30 household knights and it has always been it's garrison. Stannis as the lord of DS only has some 100(reminder; his 400 cavalry is mostly freeriders) knights which includes landed knights sworn both to him and his lordly vassals. His lords bannermen at the start include at the very least Bar Emmons, Celtigar's, Velaryons. The latter two are houses with some hundreds of men. All these houses would have some amount of knights in their garrison as well so not many of his knights would be landed.

Dragonstone is a special situation considering it is an island. But there is no reason to assume that there are not a few very small knightly holdings on the islands of Dragonstone, Driftmark, Claw Isle, etc. 

And you have to keep in mind that many household knights and such would be younger brothers, sons, cousins, etc. of the lord/knight of that castle. You even see that with Stannis himself - whose castellan was the uncle of his wife, Axell Florent. The man is the prototypical household knight.

But not every landed knight would actually bring all his (mounted) men with him when he rides to war. Nor is there any reason to believe every landed knight can afford to actually have knights permanently sworn to him. Many would just bring squires and freeriders. Others perhaps not even that, coming only with retainers on foot.

Remember, riding to war with your lord is part of the feudal thing. It is a duty you have in exchange for holding land in the name of your lord or king. It is not something your lord can just demand of any man in his service. A household knight or sworn sword would have less of bond with his lord (unless he serves in a very important capacity or is related to the lord, of course) than a landed knight. He can say: 'Fuck you, I'm out of that hopeless campaign' whereas a thing like that would be much more difficult to do for an actual vassal holding land in your name. That is why Robb accuses the Greatjon of being an oathbreaker when he threatens to march his men home.

Lords do call warriors of all sorts to their banner in times of war - and those who have coin and are proven generals have more success at that than others - but only those knights who actually are in a feudal relationship with that lord are honor-bound/obliged to answer his summons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Corvo the Crow

You are jumping the shark by taking this 'ten times their number' at Tumbleton seriously there. This is a figure of speech used by historian, it is not an actual factual number.

What men aspire to is irrelevant. Land does not multiple, men do. The way to get a lordship or some land is to be granted lands and a lordship by the king (or given some land by a lord) or to marry an heiress. That's it. You can aspire to either or both of that but that doesn't mean you get either.

How a good knightly career goes you see at Bronn's example. He starts as sellsword/freerider, enters the service of the Starks and then the Lannisters, gets a knighthood (but no lands) after the Blackwater, and the prestige coming with that knighthood allows him to marry the second daughter of Lady Stokeworth. Eventually he takes control of Stokeworth because Lollys' elder sister disappears.

Many a knight would want that kind of career - but very few can do stuff like that.

Well, I'm just arguing that it makes sense that many household knights are likely only in those houses who can actually afford them. The Starks have very few household knights (equivalents), for instance. Guardsmen are not household knights.

And considering that this is medieval world and not a fancy fairy-tale where your lord pampers you, pretty much any knight in the service of a lord would have to have incomes besides those he receives from that lord.

You can count the castles where a penniless knight might get so high a salary that he can live only from that at two hands - it would be the royal court, Dragonstone, Casterly Rock, Highgarden, Oldtown, the Arbor, Lannisport, Driftmark, Claw Isle, the Twins, Gulltown, etc. But that they might be able to do that doesn't mean they actually (want to) do that. In a feudal setting - where the economy and society is essentially based on the fact that people hold land in fiefs - it doesn't make much sense to employ many knights. A knight holds land in the name of his lord, and he has men working that land.

It is much more likely that many a knight in the service of this or that lord actually does own some land - and gets some money out of that deal.  Landed knight are very rare, though. 

How many other quality cavalry you bring to your lord also depends on the income. A rich landed knight can bring you many such in retainers and squires and the like, but a poor one would show up more or less alone. You have to be able to afford squires. And if we Ser Eustace was ever called to war chances are about zero that Dunk and Bennis would have gone with him - they may have joined the war alright, but in the service of richer lords who could reward them better than Ser Useless.

If you can choose you attach yourself to people you consider to be promising - just as Bronn switched Tyrion Lannister for niggardly Lady Stark.

That would be an overkill of household knights.

We are talking about a city here. In a city there are a lot of places and opportunities where a knight could have an income - both inside White Harbor and outside of it. Sure, there will be some knights in Manderly's permanent service - a master-at-arms, key positions at court, some officers in his personal guard and the City Watch of White Harbor, etc. But there is no reason to assume the man just pays a hundred knights for pretty much no reason.

And as a lady she would have personal knightly retainers as well as knightly vassals sworn to her. Some of those knights might also just be sworn swords, though, just like Bennis and Dunk are.

Dragonstone is a special situation considering it is an island. But there is no reason to assume that there are not a few very small knightly holdings on the islands of Dragonstone, Driftmark, Claw Isle, etc. 

And you have to keep in mind that many household knights and such would be younger brothers, sons, cousins, etc. of the lord/knight of that castle. You even see that with Stannis himself - whose castellan was the uncle of his wife, Axell Florent. The man is the prototypical household knight.

But not every landed knight would actually bring all his (mounted) men with him when he rides to war. Nor is there any reason to believe every landed knight can afford to actually have knights permanently sworn to him. Many would just bring squires and freeriders. Others perhaps not even that, coming only with retainers on foot.

Remember, riding to war with your lord is part of the feudal thing. It is a duty you have in exchange for holding land in the name of your lord or king. It is not something your lord can just demand of any man in his service. A household knight or sworn sword would have less of bond with his lord (unless he serves in a very important capacity or is related to the lord, of course) than a landed knight. He can say: 'Fuck you, I'm out of that hopeless campaign' whereas a thing like that would be much more difficult to do for an actual vassal holding land in your name. That is why Robb accuses the Greatjon of being an oathbreaker when he threatens to march his men home.

Lords do call warriors of all sorts to their banner in times of war - and those who have coin and are proven generals have more success at that than others - but only those knights who actually are in a feudal relationship with that lord are honor-bound/obliged to answer his summons.

This is the kind of rambling example where I don’t actually know which side of the argument you are on, other than saying a bunch of random stuff about how you believe Westerosi society works.

Are Landed knight rare or commonplace? Are they the majority or minority of a lord’s heavy cavalry? From your answer I can’t tell what you actually believe on this topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been stated numerous times that Westeros is a feudal system.  Lords like the Swann's or Tarly's, etc. do not have the time or the inclination to directly manage every village, every farm, every acre.  The areas are huge.  There has to be Lords under the Lords and so on.  At the lowest level of nobility you need someone who can manage a relatively small parcel of land for their Lord.  This would be the Landed Knight. Historically a Landed Knight would hold 3-12 square miles of land, much of which was wilderness.  Several hundred serfs or peasants would live on this land.  For this privilege of holding this land for their Lord and collecting the incomes from it, they owed their lord a knights fee; one Knight and accompanying soldiers.  Richer Knights may hold more land and correspondingly would owe more knights fees.  In a feudal system there should be thousands of these landed knights in each of the 7 kingdoms or the feudal system would not work.

To answer some questions from above.

Are Landed Knights rare or Commonplace.  Well they would be rare in comparison to everybody else in Westeros.  The nobility (the knight and family being the absolute lowest level of nobility) is likely somewhere between 1-5% of the population, so an actual knight might be somewhere between 1:100 to 1:1000.  In comparison to all the other types of knights, Lords, etc. this landed knight should be the most common.

Are they the majority or minority of a lords heavy cavalry?  That could depend.  I would say they are certainly more prevalent than any bonified household knights.  If you took all the heavy cavalry that a Lord took to war, Landed Knights, Hedge Knights, Household Knights as well as Mounted Sellswords, Free Riders, and Mounted Men-at-Arms (the later 3 not being knights), then the Landed Knights may or may not be the minority.  They would certainly be the minority in the North.

Household Knights and Hedge Knights should be uncommon compared to Landed Knights.  Household knights would be common enough that most Lords would have a few kicking around.  Hedge knights should be common enough to warrant their bad reputation among the small folk as thiefs and a danger.  Both should be significantly outnumbered by knights who hold modest lands for their Lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_banneret

 

Somewhat relevant to the thread; Knight banneret fights under his own banner, with other knights, knights bachelor, under him.

Also a reminder, we see Manderly raising ~25 knights for Robb, near 300 men for Rodrick which includes many knights (barges packed with knights, horse and siege engines) 100 knights going with him to Winterfell, who knows how many that died during hornwood campaign and still more heavy horse than any other lord of north and he has just the 100 landed knights.

I really don't get the insistance on landed knights outnumbering non landed ones.

With evidence given from DS and Coldmoat examples as well, obviously non-landed knights number far more than landed ones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_banneret

 

Somewhat relevant to the thread; Knight banneret fights under his own banner, with other knights, knights bachelor, under him.

Also a reminder, we see Manderly raising ~25 knights for Robb, near 300 men for Rodrick which includes many knights (barges packed with knights, horse and siege engines) 100 knights going with him to Winterfell, who knows how many that died during hornwood campaign and still more heavy horse than any other lord of north and he has just the 100 landed knights.

I really don't get the insistance on landed knights outnumbering non landed ones.

With evidence given from DS and Coldmoat examples as well, obviously non-landed knights number far more than landed ones.

 

Agreed. In fact, we see individual Landed Knights at the upper end of the scale who can raise more than 1000 men (House Templeton). Of these maybe 250 will be cavalry. I guess Wenselsnatch’s argument will then be that House Templeton has in the region of 250 Landed Knights sworn to it in turn, as vassals. However, that would make Manderly’s 100 Landed Knights and House Osgrey when a powerhouse of the Reach as Marshalls of the Northmarch owning 4 castles, also with 100 Landed Knights, appear rather pitiful. And this when we know House Manderly can raise many times the 1000+ men of house Templeton.

Clearly 100 Landed knights makes you really significant, with many times that number of cavalry. That in turn means that non-Landed Knights far outnumber the Landed ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Agreed. In fact, we see individual Landed Knights at the upper end of the scale who can raise more than 1000 men (House Templeton). Of these maybe 250 will be cavalry. I guess Wenselsnatch’s argument will then be that House Templeton has in the region of 250 Landed Knights sworn to it in turn, as vassals. However, that would make Manderly’s 100 Landed Knights and House Osgrey when a powerhouse of the Reach as Marshalls of the Northmarch owning 4 castles, also with 100 Landed Knights, appear rather pitiful. And this when we know House Manderly can raise many times the 1000+ men of house Templeton.

Clearly 100 Landed knights makes you really significant, with many times that number of cavalry. That in turn means that non-Landed Knights far outnumber the Landed ones.

What's also worth noting is Osgrey bannermen alone make up a fifth of the banners in fof so they must have been really powerful. I think Little lion being able to turn the Lannister army despite all his family is gone to conquer Stormlands presumably with a sizable host of their own behind their back means they still had enough men to face an invading army and not get annihilated immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...