Military Strengths-2 and More!

[Three-Fingered Pete]

@Corvo the Crow asked me to take a look at his equipment lists and see if I could spruce them up a bit. I've added some more definitions to give a better idea of some of the supplementary equipment armors are always (or at least usually) combined with, corrected an errant citation and added some notes to the regional lists after reading all of the cited chapters. I will look for the uncited references and other bits on my next reread.

 

EDIT: The remainder of this post has been redacted since it is now redundant. Please see the first post in this thread for the relevant information.

 

 

[Corvo the Crow]

@Trefayne

Thank you, I'll add these to the first post soon as I can(on phone atm).

[Three-Fingered Pete]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

@Trefayne

Thank you, I'll add these to the first post soon as I can(on phone atm).

 You're quite welcome... and good because I saw a couple of edits that I need to do (nothing serious).

[Corvo the Crow]

I would like to talk about archers; in PatQ, we see that Riverland missile troops are divided as longbowmen and archers. we know the castles have crossbowmen as garrison too, so  these archers who are not specified to be longbowmen are crossbowmen alone or are there other types of bowmen as well?

[Three-Fingered Pete]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:26 AM, Corvo the Crow said:

I would like to talk about archers; in PatQ, we see that Riverland missile troops are divided as longbowmen and archers. we know the castles have crossbowmen as garrison too, so  these archers who are not specified to be longbowmen are crossbowmen alone or are there other types of bowmen as well?

 

PatQ=? I have to admit that I don't understand this reference.

Archers are archers and crossbowmen are crossbowmen, so they should always be specified as such (I can't vouch for GRRM in that respect, however). Someone just referred to as a "bowman" would be assumed to be an archer (of whatever type).

There are several types and designs of bows used throughout the world historically, the question is whether GRRM is dipping into all that for Westeros or is he sticking with European/English period designs.

Longbows were good because they were the tallest, strongest single stave bows of their region, with the heaviest draw and hence, their superior range and power. The problem with longbowmen is that they are expensive to train and upkeep. You need to be pretty strong to pull a longbow and it requires regular to constant training. IIRC, English longbowmen were required to practice at least three hours every week on Sunday, which is the only day that they would be afforded time away from their real jobs. There were, of course, shorter single stave bows with lighter draws in use which were used for everything from hunting to combat, but a longbow that could puncture plate armor at 100+ yards (with the right tip) was obviously a greater field weapon than its smaller counterparts.

Now, here is where we might get a little murky depending on what GRRM is allowing in Westeros. Medieval Europe was not big on mounted archers and they had plenty of wood, so the use of composite materials (wood, horn, tendon, hair and glue) that allow for a greater draw weight versus the shorter length of the bow wasn't used there much, if at all (at least in the west). Crossbows did see some composite design since spring steel was hard and expensive to make for a good number of years. The Asian cultures were the ones using composite designs for the two main reasons sighted above, i.e. lack of abundant wood and a cultural use of mounted archers in their cavalries, which required a short bow that had real stopping power. Composite bows are the equal or better of longbows in that regard. The problem with a composite bow is it takes about two years to make one. The good thing about them is that they probably can be repaired if they are damaged, where a single stave bow is useless when cracked or broken.

If you would like a short synopsis of crossbows I'll oblige, but all I'll say right now is that (European) crossbowmen are never mounted.

[Corvo the Crow]

16 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Archers are archers and crossbowmen are crossbowmen, so they should always be specified as such (I can't vouch for GRRM in that respect, however). Someone just referred to as a "bowman" would be assumed to be an archer (of whatever type).

The Princess and the Queen. 

Crossbowmen are specified as such when we are taking a specific look and they are what we see in garrisons but in PatQ we are told “this many thousand archers and this many hundred longbowmen” So those archers are no longbowmen.

21 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

If you would like a short synopsis of crossbows I'll oblige, but all I'll say right now is that crossbowmen are never mounted.

If you mean Dunk and Egg I think they acted much in the same way as Northern clansmen;  mounted while travelling, but fighting on foot. Don’t know if it was a thing in Medieval europe though. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

17 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

The Princess and the Queen. 

 

Ah, thanks. I haven't read that unfortunately.

 

18 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Crossbowmen are specified as such when we are taking a specific look and they are what we see in garrisons but in PatQ we are told “this many thousand archers and this many hundred longbowmen” So those archers are no longbowmen.

 

That seems like a reasonable assumption. There is a reason it is referred to as the English longbow. England was the only medieval power to fully embrace them. The other medieval powers generally went with crossbows for their long range small missile weapon of choice (so much so that the Pope banned them because they were so good at killing). GRRM may be using this fact to reflect on the elite status of longbowmen in Westeros, since they would take more time and resources in upkeep. Remember, even the arrows need to be longer to use a longbow. Quarrels/bolts are cheap in comparison, but they are less accurate over long range since they are shorter, lighter and more easily deflected by a crosswind. Also, the rate of fire for a longbow is about three to four times that of a crossbow, unless you have a fully equipped three (or more) man crossbow team. So either way they both are a valuable, but expensive, resource.

 

37 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

If you mean Dunk and Egg I think they acted much in the same way as Northern clansmen;  mounted while travelling, but fighting on foot. Don’t know if it was a thing in Medieval europe though. 

 

Traveling is traveling and combat is combat. You can be sure that any time I reference a weapon in relation to a form of transportation, it will be in terms of use in combat. Now, of course you can fire a crossbow with a measure of accuracy from atop a stationary horse, but while moving? Good luck. And forget about reloading entirely. If you had a crossbow that was light enough to reload while at a gallop, it would be useless in a heavily armored combat situation.

Just to give you some perspective on this:

The crossbow Tyrion used to kill his father was a "light" crossbow, more than likely designed for boar hunting. I surmise this because Tyrion was able to cock it unaided (I am unsure as to the strength potential of adult dwarves), but it did have a stirrup and decent power since the bolt sunk in to the fletching. Even then, Tyrion muses about how he will only get one shot off since it is slow to reload.

Later, when Tyrion was trying to choose a weapon with the sellswords, he rejects a "heavy" crossbow because it required a windlass to cock and his legs were too short (this is the type that requires a multi-man team to keep up their rate of fire).

[Corvo the Crow]

6 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Traveling is traveling and combat is combat. You can be sure that any time I reference a weapon in relation to a form of transportation, it will be in terms of use in combat.

Wouldn’t they be horse archers? Lord Sarsfield has mounted archers as well and I doubt they are fighting ahorse. Lady Webber’s men would then be mountes crossbowmen but not horse archers.

Also I am not sure but I think moors indeed used crossbowmen fighting on horse.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Wouldn’t they be horse archers? Lord Sarsfield has mounted archers as well and I doubt they are fighting ahorse. Lady Webber’s men would then be mountes crossbowmen but not horse archers.

Also I am not sure but I think moors indeed used crossbowmen fighting on horse.

 

The only way to know if they are horse archers is to have them described as firing while at a gallop.

Indeed they did, but only against lightly or non-armored personnel. They would ride up in waves, much like the ancient charioteers of the classical world did, and launch large indiscriminant volleys at the enemy with light crossbows. They were hoping to pick off men that didn't have their shields up high enough. Then they'd ride away to reload and reset while their comrades came up behind them gave the enemy another volley. It was an harassment tactic.

It wouldn't work very well against heavier armored personnel. Plus, with a decent shield wall and a return of heavier crossbow/bow fire to kill their horses, I don't think that tactic would last long on a European, or Westerosi, battlefield. It only works well when you have tons of room to quickly maneuver several hundred (or even thousand) horses as a unit, like in the desert. where all that dust your horses create works to advantage your retreat as well as clouding the next wave of attacking riders from the enemy.

[Corvo the Crow]

On 12/14/2018 at 11:12 PM, Trefayne said:

The only way to know if they are horse archers is to have them described as firing while at a gallop.

That’s what I mean, we never see those mounted bowmen and crossbowmen fire their weapons, then it’s very likely they are just travelling that way.

[Corvo the Crow]

In earlier posts, (from the previous thread) I have found out that men of fighting age is roughly %40 of the population.

Sometime ago I have read that %25 of all the male graves in anglo-saxon england contained a shield. Thought I should share.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

That’s what I mean, we never see those mounted bowmen and crossbowmen fire their weapons, then it’s very likely they are just travelling that way.

 

That would be my assumption. I can't remember right off if they were described as dismounting either, which would be a good idea if they were planning to engage, but the troops were there to show strength. The real show was Dunk and Ser Lucas.

[Corvo the Crow]

Greatjon has declared he wouldn’t be placed behind Hornwoods and Cerwyns in the marching order so I have always assumed they were stronger than them though not by much. But with all the material that has come out (world book especially) and little to no mention of either of these houses, of which one is located quite close to Starks and the other owning several castles in former Bolton realms, It has occured to me that these two are relatively new houses. 

Add to that they have a notable presence in Robb’s foot where as Umbers do not, quite possably Umbers are weaker than these two  and Greatjon was therefore at risk of being placed behind these two newer houses.

He didn’t asked not to be placed behind Boltons or Glovers or some other older houses but these two seemingly new houses with apparently sizable hosts as witnessed through Tyrion’s eyes.

Quote

Gods be damned, look at them all, Tyrion thought, though he knew his father had more men on the field. Their captains led them on armored warhorses, standard-bearers riding alongside with their banners. He glimpsed the bull moose of the Hornwoods, the Karstark sunburst, Lord Cerwyn's battle-axe, and the mailed fist of the Glovers … and the twin towers of Frey, blue on grey. So much for his father's

Worth noting is Tyrion notices Freys with at most 2600 foot and  Karstarks with at most 2000 foot along with Cerwyns, Glovers, Hornwoods all with an unknown amount of foot. What he doesn’t notice is Manderlys with 1200-1300 foot along with any clansmen houses, Tallharts, Boltons, Mormonts, or any house that joined in MC.

 

Also is it safe to add new info now?

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Greatjon has declared he wouldn’t be placed behind Hornwoods and Cerwyns in the marching order so I have always assumed they were stronger than them though not by much. But with all the material that has come out (world book especially) and little to no mention of either of these houses, of which one is located quite close to Starks and the other owning several castles in former Bolton realms, It has occured to me that these two are relatively new houses. 

Add to that they have a notable presence in Robb’s foot where as Umbers do not, quite possably Umbers are weaker than these two  and Greatjon was therefore at risk of being placed behind these two newer houses.

He didn’t asked not to be placed behind Boltons or Glovers or some other older houses but these two seemingly new houses with apparently sizable hosts as witnessed through Tyrion’s eyes.

Worth noting is Tyrion notices Freys with at most 2600 foot and  Karstarks with at most 2000 foot along with Cerwyns, Glovers, Hornwoods all with an unknown amount of foot. What he doesn’t notice is Manderlys with 1200-1300 foot along with any clansmen houses, Tallharts, Boltons, Mormonts, or any house that joined in MC.

 

Also is it safe to add new info now?

And yet, the Umbers raise 800 reserves in Dance, after already committing enthusiastically to Robb’s host. Compare that to the Karstarks who raised maybe a couple of hundred reserves with Rodrik and another 450 with Arnolf.  In that light the Umbers and Karstarks would appear to have similar numbers of reserves available.

You would think that the ratio of reserves vs prime troops would be fairly consistent between the two houses, implying that if their reserve numbers are similar their primary numbers should be too.

So I place the Umbers around 2000 first line troops and then the 800 reserves we saw in Dance.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And yet, the Umbers raise 800 reserves in Dance, after already committing enthusiastically to Robb’s host. Compare that to the Karstarks who raised maybe a couple of hundred reserves with Rodrik and another 450 with Arnolf.  In that light the Umbers and Karstarks would appear to have similar numbers of reserves available.

You would think that the ratio of reserves vs prime troops would be fairly consistent between the two houses, implying that if their reserve numbers are similar their primary numbers should be too.

So I place the Umbers around 2000 first line troops and then the 800 reserves we saw in Dance.

But remember, those are old men and boys with a few crippled serjeants sprinkled inbetween whereas Karstark men are not, or we would get a description of them as well. Greatjon contributed all his real men and is down to these and despite contributing 2300 men, Karstarks are still supplying men, not old men or boys. Karstarks also have a dozen lancers where Umbers have none, though Umbers have at least 100 archers, we know them to have forests.

Tallharts and Cerwyns also gather around 300 men and in very short notice and non are described to be old or too young. Cerwyns have at least two dozen lancers, remaining and Tallharts may have even more judging from even their boys can afford to play at knight. Umbers have none.

 

[Leonardo]

Topic vastly underestimates the Riverlands potential. It's full of farmland and certainly seems to have the most villlages.

 

The Iron Isles are the least populated kingdom, not Dorne, regardless of what Doran says, considering the Riverlands were ruled by Ironmen as one of the seven kingdoms. How could they not be given the size of the Isles being even smaller than just the mountainous yet fertile area of Dorne.

[Corvo the Crow]

6 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Topic vastly underestimates the Riverlands potential. It's full of farmland and certainly seems to have the most villlages.

 

The Iron Isles are the least populated kingdom, not Dorne, regardless of what Doran says, considering the Riverlands were ruled by Ironmen as one of the seven kingdoms. How could they not be given the size of the Isles being even smaller than just the mountainous yet fertile area of Dorne.

We are going with what we have seen so far. I would suspect them to have more population than the West.

Iron Isles are not considered a kingdom, just ask Joffrey’s wedding cup of seven facets.

[Lord of Oldstones]

Tarths had like 30 ships in FAB right? 

 

[Corvo the Crow]

Tamam We know that Last Hearth is the last major castle before the gift which implies there are other castles beyond it and now with FaB telling Alysanne visited other castles on her way to NW after mentioning of her visit to LH, Umbers seem to have a good number of lords beneath them.

Now, this doesn’t mean they are not weaket than Cerwyns or Hornwoods as I have suggested earlier, just that they have lords beneath them, implying their lands are not exactly desolate.

Also this is for you @Lord Varys since you believe North to be too empty judging from Robert’s Barrowland quote.

Quote

"You need to come south," Robert told him. "You need a taste of summer before it flees. In Highgarden there are fields of golden roses that stretch away as far as the eye can see. 

 This is in Highgarden, regional capital of the most populated region and formerly the seat of the most powerful Reach house.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also this is for you @Lord Varys since you believe North to be too empty judging from Robert’s Barrowland quote.

 This is in Highgarden, regional capital of the most populated region and formerly the seat of the most powerful Reach house.

This should be Robert referencing the immediate surroundings of Highgarden which indeed are full of roses - but this is hyperbole. We don't assume that all the female Kingslanders lose their modesty in summer and like to swim naked, right?

Whatever descriptions we have of Highgarden imply that this is a very lively a populous place. There may not be a town around the castle proper but there must be towns and villages in the immediate neighborhood.

The difference to the Barrowlands here is that we don't have just Robert's word that the place is empty - we see it through Ned's eyes as well - whereas no one has ever told us anything about the lands around of Highgarden being empty. The Reach is full of cultivated land (even before the Conquest; the Field of Fire takes place on fields of grain) whereas there are vast lands in the North (especially in those regions of the Barrowlands we see in AGoT) that are completely devoid of cultivation.