Military Strengths-2 and More!

[Corvo the Crow]

@Lord Varys

 

On phone will post a longer answer later

On Yeomans, there may also be serjeanty as a land tenure in Westeros since Umbers have half-crippled old serjeants. We also see snippets of information on organization, Pipers have bailiffs giving death sentences Martells have their bailiffs collect duties and tariffs, Martells have shariffs policing the shadowcity...

 

On nobility I noticed the scarcity of them beyond the Neck as well, Robb has perhaps 4000 Northman with him but only 4 nobles? 

Quote

She found Robb beneath the green canopy of leaves, surrounded by tall redwoods and great old elms, kneeling before the heart tree, a slender weirwood with a face more sad than fierce. His longsword was before him, the point thrust in the earth, his gloved hands clasped around the hilt. Around him others knelt: Greatjon Umber, Rickard Karstark, Maege Mormont, Galbart Glover, and more. Even Tytos Blackwood was among them, the great raven cloak fanned out behind him. These are the ones who keep the old gods, she realized. She asked herself what gods she kept these days, and could not find an answer.

"And more" may give us some suspicion here but as seen below

Quote

The northern lords sat opposite, with Catelyn and Robb facing her brother across the tables. They were fewer. The Greatjon sat at Robb's left hand, and then Theon Greyjoy; Galbart Glover and Lady Mormont were to the right of Catelyn. Lord Rickard Karstark, gaunt and hollow-eyed in his grief, took his seat like a man in a nightmare, his long beard uncombed and unwashed. He had left two sons dead in the Whispering Wood, and there was no word of the third, his eldest, who had led the Karstark spears against Tywin Lannister on the Green Fork.

It's the same here.

But with the huge distances and lower population density in the North, if anything it should have more petty nobility than most other regions, distributed among lords relatively more powerful than their vassals compared to those from the other regions.

 

@wendelsnatch

 a banner would fly for every 25 men, you can see the source in the previous thread and also see it with dozen standarts above Robert's 300 men entering Winterfell. 

600 x 25 = 15000 nothing near 15000 we would see with what you say. I'm pretty sure by banner a single house "ruling" their own lands is meant. As for landed knights, they also have their coat of arms, so they have their "banners" as well even if perhaps they don't have their own standard bearer in battle.

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

@Lord Varys

 

On phone will post a longer answer later

On Yeomans, there may also be serjeanty as a land tenure in Westeros since Umbers have half-crippled old serjeants. We also see snippets of information on organization, Pipers have bailiffs giving death sentences Martells have their bailiffs collect duties and tariffs, Martells have shariffs policing the shadowcity...

 

On nobility I noticed the scarcity of them beyond the Neck as well, Robb has perhaps 4000 Northman with him but only 4 nobles? 

"And more" may give us some suspicion here but as seen below

It's the same here.

But with the huge distances and lower population density in the North, if anything it should have more petty nobility than most other regions, distributed among lords relatively more powerful than their vassals compared to those from the other regions.

 

@wendelsnatch

 a banner would fly for every 25 men, you can see the source in the previous thread and also see it with dozen standarts above Robert's 300 men entering Winterfell. 

600 x 25 = 15000 nothing near 15000 we would see with what you say. I'm pretty sure by banner a single house "ruling" their own lands is meant. As for landed knights, they also have their coat of arms, so they have their "banners" as well even if perhaps they don't have their own standard bearer in battle.

 

 

Martin on Robb’s army:

No, there are still Dustins and Ryswells in the north, and maybe even in Robb's army. I mean, he had twenty thousand guys or near about when he marched south, I couldn't characterize them all. I have always figured that there are =dozens= of minor lords and =hundreds= of knights and such in all these armies. Simply because someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean they are not there.

And as for who has banners - landed knights certainly do. Gregor Clegane has a banner and he is not even a major landed knight. Every landed knight will have a banner. House Osgrey with its 3 pitiful villages had a banner.

So 600 banners includes the landed knights in that context.

Edit

Also note how in the quote above Martin refers to “all these armies” having dozens of minor lords and hundreds of knights. He is not distinguishing between northern and southron armies in this context.

[Corvo the Crow]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin on Robb’s army:

No, there are still Dustins and Ryswells in the north, and maybe even in Robb's army. I mean, he had twenty thousand guys or near about when he marched south, I couldn't characterize them all. I have always figured that there are =dozens= of minor lords and =hundreds= of knights and such in all these armies. Simply because someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean they are not there.

And as for who has banners - landed knights certainly do. Gregor Clegane has a banner and he is not even a major landed knight. Every landed knight will have a banner. House Osgrey with its 3 pitiful villages had a banner.

So 600 banners includes the landed knights in that context.

Edit

Also note how in the quote above Martin refers to “all these armies” having dozens of minor lords and hundreds of knights. He is not distinguishing between northern and southron armies in this context.

So you do agree that this is all the landed nobility of these two?

[Free Northman Reborn]

18 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So you do agree that this is all the landed nobility of these two?

I’m saying that the 600 included landed knights, who also have banners. However considering the North alone will exceed 600 banners I cannot see how 600 represents the combined strength of both the West and the Reach.

[wendelsnatch]

7 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

@wendelsnatch

 a banner would fly for every 25 men, you can see the source in the previous thread and also see it with dozen standarts above Robert's 300 men entering Winterfell. 

600 x 25 = 15000 nothing near 15000 we would see with what you say. I'm pretty sure by banner a single house "ruling" their own lands is meant. As for landed knights, they also have their coat of arms, so they have their "banners" as well even if perhaps they don't have their own standard bearer in battle.

 

 

 

Where in the books does it say that 1 Banner = 25 men?  Maybe it is there but I do not recall it.  1 Banner may average 25 men on average, in one area, at one point in time, and under one set of circumstances but I dont think we can call it universal.

[Lord Varys]

@Corvo the Crow

The yeomen thing means there actually are peasants in the Riverlands who own land. Who are paying rent to some lord, etc. They most likely have a duty to send men to their lord paramount/the Warden/the king when war threatens, etc. but it is actually not very likely that men who own the land have such duties the local (petty) lord.

If you are not beholden to a landlord your duties and responsibilities are not the same as those of people who are.

If we have regions were there are fewer/no yeomen to a region where there many of them, then the men an individual lord can raise would differ to no small degree.

The fact that Roose and Ramsay are surrounded by no Dreadfort-bound nobility at all despite the fact that we actually get a lot of insight in their dealings and affairs is noteworthy.

The fact that there are not all that many Northmen at Riverrun when Robb is also somewhat noteworthy. Robb took the horse, and most nobility would thus have gone with him rather than Roose (aside from men willing/insisting to command their men under Roose). You don't easily part with your horses, do you? Especially if owning a horse is all what makes you a 'nobleman' of sorts...

Whether the North has more lesser nobility or whether there are many regions where the smallfolk (like, say, Stoney Shore, where there seems to be no proper nobility at all) are directly sworn to Winterfell or another very far away big castle is by no means clear.

The North is not very developed. Historically, commoners were most free in the middle ages when they were the farthest away from 'developed regions' and centers of power. In border regions and forested places the land had first to be cultivated properly before it would yield any revenue, and to do that you actually had convince people to do that for you.

The North is still a very wild and empty land. It has not been cultivated to the degree the other regions have. And the vastness and wilderness in the truly wild places of the North make it not very likely that a lord ruling over a large chunk of land that's mostly forest, say, or swamp land, etc. has the same kind of feudal structure in place there than the Arryns or the Hightowers in their corner of Westeros.

I don't think one should look for nobility beneath the stones in the North - whereas you might find your Eustace Osgreys and hedge knights behind pretty much any bush in the Reach or the Riverlands, this is not very likely in the North.

Even hedge knights aren't as stupid as to wander in the North, if TMK is any indication - which also indicates that those hedge knight equivalents that were in the North prior to the Conquest may have since then migrated down south to find work and shelter in warmer places.

[wendelsnatch]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

And as for who has banners - landed knights certainly do. Gregor Clegane has a banner and he is not even a major landed knight. Every landed knight will have a banner. House Osgrey with its 3 pitiful villages had a banner.

So 600 banners includes the landed knights in that context.

 

 

"His own remote ancestor, King Loren of the Rock, had tried to stand against the fire when he joined with King Mern of the Reach to oppose the Targaryen conquest. That was close on three hundred years ago, when the Seven Kingdoms were kingdoms, and not mere provinces of a greater realm. Between them, the Two Kings had six hundred banners flying, five thousand mounted knights, and ten times as many freeriders and men-at-arms. Aegon Dragonlord had perhaps a fifth that number, the chroniclers said, and most of those were conscripts from the ranks of the last king he had slain, their loyalties uncertain."

Per the quote above and assuming every Lord and Landed Knight had a banner, there would only be 600 Lords and Landed Knights in the host, and another 4400 non-landed knights (house-hold knights and hedge knights).  This just doesn't make sense in any sort of feudal environment.  4400 landless Knights makes no sense.  Household knights in these numbers, personal retainers of a Lord are approaching the numbers of a standing army which is something that Westeros distinctly does not have. 

Historically, throughout Europe, the vast majority of Knights were Landed Knights. It was the whole cornerstone of the feudal system.  The Knight administered a section of land and with the revenue was expected to equip himself and a small body of soldiers as prescribed by his Lord.  Yes Lords did have household, un-landed knights, but this was a minority.  These knights, it was the Lord who was the one who had to pay to equip the knight.  Why have a large body of knights you pay precious money to equip, when you can give away pieces of readily available land and have the knight be equipped on his own dime?

As such, I do not believe Landed Knight generally had Banners.  They would have a certain set of heraldry, and I would expect have a pennon attached to their lance, but in the medieval sense this pennon was not a banner.  Some knights through exceptional gallantry, may be afforded the right to carry a banner.  Maybe it is for tourney renown, notoriety in battle, or some famous or infamous deed.  Using Clegane, he very well may be entitled to carry a banner.  Perhaps it was awarded when his grandfather was knighted, perhaps the right was given after the sack of KL.  As for Osgrey, he was a Lord, not a Landed Knight so he would have a banner, regardless of how pitiful his Lordly holdings were.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

5 hours ago, wendelsnatch said:

 

Where in the books does it say that 1 Banner = 25 men?  Maybe it is there but I do not recall it.  1 Banner may average 25 men on average, in one area, at one point in time, and under one set of circumstances but I dont think we can call it universal.

It doesn't, not clearly. Yet search what I told and you'll see. Also check the previous thread from my signature to a source for banners in our world, says the same.

 

Also for 600 banners, I think it's rather clear banners here mean a noble house and not an actual standard in battle. There would be many more of those than just 600.

On knights; Even piss poor Eustace had 2 knights in his employ garrisoning his keep, 4400 not landed knights mean 7-8 knights per ruler on average which is not much. Ser Hogg had 10 men and no knights for example and Lady Webber had some 20.  Dragonstone has 30 knights among 430 men and Stannis' entire strength from his vassals just had some 100.

[Corvo the Crow]

@Lord Varys

But wouldn't having commoners like Yeomans holding the land means a less organized structure and therefore fewer men raised?

This is also why I think North should have a higher number of "lesser" nobility, to keep things more organized. 

You have five small villages somewhere clustered closely, then for perhaps a day'a ride nothing and then a town and again nothing for two more days and then a single large village. Wouldn't it make more sense to  say raise a lord near the town, another smaller one near the five village cluster and a landed knight near the single village so your influence reaches to all of them?

[wendelsnatch]

38 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

It doesn't, not clearly. Yet search what I told and you'll see. Also check the previous thread from my signature to a source for banners in our world, says the same.

 

Also for 600 banners, I think it's rather clear banners here mean a noble house and not an actual standard in battle. There would be many more of those than just 600.

On knights; Even piss poor Eustace had 2 knights in his employ garrisoning his keep, 4400 not landed knights mean 7-8 knights per ruler on average which is not much. Ser Hogg had 10 men and no knights for example and Lady Webber had some 20.  Dragonstone has 30 knights among 430 men and Stannis' entire strength from his vassals just had some 100.

Forgive me for not wanting to dig through 24 pages but I assume you are referring to a Knights Banneret, where a company is organized under a banner for ease of command in battle.  So we would have Lords with their Banners, as well as Knights who held a banner (temporarily) during the battle to facilitate the command of men.  This essentially means that trying to use the term banner to extrapolate the quantity of nobility worthless.  Are we talking Banners as they personal sigil of the lord on a banner, or the administrative banner that was a company of knights thrown together under the banner.

Again, household knights are rare in real world historical context.  Many of who appeared to be household knights actually had lands and incomes, but it was more prestigious to be a lords long term Castilian, or Steward, or what have you.  More often, a Lords body of troops were non knighted Men at Arms.  We know Eustace has a personal retainer of 2 Hedge knights who are obviously un-landed.  This sets a poor basis of making assumptions of what other nobles have available for household men.  Assuming that the 20 men Lady Webber and the 30 knights at Dragonstone have are strictly household knights would be a mistake.  It is entirely possible that the larger percentage of these men are landed knights of little note.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, wendelsnatch said:

Forgive me for not wanting to dig through 24 pages but I assume you are referring to a Knights Banneret, where a company is organized under a banner for ease of command in battle.  So we would have Lords with their Banners, as well as Knights who held a banner (temporarily) during the battle to facilitate the command of men.  This essentially means that trying to use the term banner to extrapolate the quantity of nobility worthless.  Are we talking Banners as they personal sigil of the lord on a banner, or the administrative banner that was a company of knights thrown together under the banner.

Again, household knights are rare in real world historical context.  Many of who appeared to be household knights actually had lands and incomes, but it was more prestigious to be a lords long term Castilian, or Steward, or what have you.  More often, a Lords body of troops were non knighted Men at Arms.  We know Eustace has a personal retainer of 2 Hedge knights who are obviously un-landed.  This sets a poor basis of making assumptions of what other nobles have available for household men.  Assuming that the 20 men Lady Webber and the 30 knights at Dragonstone have are strictly household knights would be a mistake.  It is entirely possible that the larger percentage of these men are landed knights of little note.

It is clear that landed knights are greatly outnumbered by knights that hold no land.

House Frey apparently can raise around a thousand knights. They certainly don’t have a thousand landed knights, given that a powerful house like House Manderly has only 100 as did House Osgrey when they were Marshalls of the Northmarch and one of the most powerful Houses in the Reach.

Also, Manderly can raise more heavy horse (knights) than any other Northern lord. That implies that he has many times more knights than the 100 landed knights he mentions to Davos.

So household knights significantly outnumber landed knights.

 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

@Lord Varys

But wouldn't having commoners like Yeomans holding the land means a less organized structure and therefore fewer men raised?

I don't think so - or at least not if the region we talk about (and when sticking to facts we only talk about the Riverlands around Stony Sept at this point) - since it is obviously possible that considerable chunks of land simply are in the hands of rich peasants. The land there can be well organized, and those yeomen could even have their own militia, etc. to keep the peace in their lands. They do not necessarily need lords to do that.

In the North I think many of those non-feudal structures might be soldier peasants - which, as one could argue, the clansmen are in a sense.

A proper feudal culture with chivalry and all only works if the land has been properly cultivated and gives enough revenue to pay for all that fancy stuff. That kind of thing is only rudimentary in the North as the vast cultural gap between Winterfell and any great castle in the south shows. It is not that Winterfell is somewhat behind the Red Keep and Casterly Rock or Highgarden, it seems to be behind any decent castle in the south insofar as culture is concerned.

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

This is also why I think North should have a higher number of "lesser" nobility, to keep things more organized. 

I don't think you need nobility to organize things in this fashion. But you can certainly imagine that there are more clansmen-like 'nobles' in the backwater regions in the North.

The feeling you get is that the gap between commoner and nobility is not as great in the North than in other places. There is the high nobility, of course, the Starks and other powerful and ancient noble houses, but beneath them the commoners - or nobles that effectively are commoners - shouldn't be that far away.

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

You have five small villages somewhere clustered closely, then for perhaps a day'a ride nothing and then a town and again nothing for two more days and then a single large village. Wouldn't it make more sense to  say raise a lord near the town, another smaller one near the five village cluster and a landed knight near the single village so your influence reaches to all of them?

If the resources were there to afford all that - sure. But the North doesn't seem to be that full of such places. And it is not that the Starks seem to trust all that much into acting through representatives. Ned has his servants eat with him at his table so that he knows them. The lords of the North, on the other hand, are a quarrelsome lot you whip and beat in line. They are not your friends, and you only deal with them because you have to - presumably because many of them are descendants of the ancient kings the Starks once deposed who were - for whatever reason - never extinguished.

In that sense, one could see the Starks granting such and such a tract of land to this or that group of loyal men to farm them, rather than creating a lordship there and making the men there serfs. Such peasants would also be more loyal Stark men than others.

This is why I so insist that we ask ourselves how exactly the feudal hierarchy works. If men are not sworn to you directly they simply are not your men in the same sense as those sworn to you through another vassal.

[Free Northman Reborn]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think so - or at least not if the region we talk about (and when sticking to facts we only talk about the Riverlands around Stony Sept at this point) - since it is obviously possible that considerable chunks of land simply are in the hands of rich peasants. The land there can be well organized, and those yeomen could even have their own militia, etc. to keep the peace in their lands. They do not necessarily need lords to do that.

In the North I think many of those non-feudal structures might be soldier peasants - which, as one could argue, the clansmen are in a sense.

A proper feudal culture with chivalry and all only works if the land has been properly cultivated and gives enough revenue to pay for all that fancy stuff. That kind of thing is only rudimentary in the North as the vast cultural gap between Winterfell and any great castle in the south shows. It is not that Winterfell is somewhat behind the Red Keep and Casterly Rock or Highgarden, it seems to be behind any decent castle in the south insofar as culture is concerned.

I don't think you need nobility to organize things in this fashion. But you can certainly imagine that there are more clansmen-like 'nobles' in the backwater regions in the North.

The feeling you get is that the gap between commoner and nobility is not as great in the North than in other places. There is the high nobility, of course, the Starks and other powerful and ancient noble houses, but beneath them the commoners - or nobles that effectively are commoners - shouldn't be that far away.

If the resources were there to afford all that - sure. But the North doesn't seem to be that full of such places. And it is not that the Starks seem to trust all that much into acting through representatives. Ned has his servants eat with him at his table so that he knows them. The lords of the North, on the other hand, are a quarrelsome lot you whip and beat in line. They are not your friends, and you only deal with them because you have to - presumably because many of them are descendants of the ancient kings the Starks once deposed who were - for whatever reason - never extinguished.

In that sense, one could see the Starks granting such and such a tract of land to this or that group of loyal men to farm them, rather than creating a lordship there and making the men there serfs. Such peasants would also be more loyal Stark men than others.

This is why I so insist that we ask ourselves how exactly the feudal hierarchy works. If men are not sworn to you directly they simply are not your men in the same sense as those sworn to you through another vassal.

This is how the feudal hierarchy works, with specific reference to the Karstark and Bolton lands, amongst others:

Question:

I am also a bit curious as to the social structure of westeros. I understand the seven high lords, and the slightly lower lords (ie. Boltons, Karstarks, Freys etc.). However, do these lords also have sub lords below them? Lords who maybe raise 10 or 20 men for the Karstarks?

George:

Yes, it is a feudal system. The lords have vassals, the vassals have vassals, and sometimes the vassals of the vassals have vassals, down to the guy who can raise five friends.

[wendelsnatch]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is clear that landed knights are greatly outnumbered by knights that hold no land.

House Frey apparently can raise around a thousand knights. They certainly don’t have a thousand landed knights, given that a powerful house like House Manderly has only 100 as did House Osgrey when they were Marshalls of the Northmarch and one of the most powerful Houses in the Reach.

Also, Manderly can raise more heavy horse (knights) than any other Northern lord. That implies that he has many times more knights than the 100 landed knights he mentions to Davos.

So household knights significantly outnumber landed knights.

 

House Frey can raise 1000 knights, but nowhere does it state that these are household knights.  Based on the way feudalism works, it would be ridiculous to think the vast majority of these Knights would be anything but landed knights.  To say that the Freys pay, house and equip 1000 knights perpetually in peacetime would be ludicrous.  They are one of the most powerful houses in the Riverlands so it would not exceed expectations that the Freys could in fact actually have 1000 landed knights.

By comparison, House Osgrey at their height had 100 landed knights pledged directly to them and a score of lesser lords who would also have landed knights (or even petty lords) pledged to them in turn.  As such they Osgreys at their height could have had similar strength to GoT era Freys.

When talking the Manderlys, there is important differences in language.  The North doesn't have many Knights in the usual sense.  It does have a heavy cavalry analogy to knights in addition to some legitimate Knights.  The Manderlys likely have vassals that fall into both categories.  They have 100 landed Knights (practicing the faith of the 7), and could have significant numbers of Landed knight analogy Heavy Cavalry.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, wendelsnatch said:

House Frey can raise 1000 knights, but nowhere does it state that these are household knights.  Based on the way feudalism works, it would be ridiculous to think the vast majority of these Knights would be anything but landed knights.  To say that the Freys pay, house and equip 1000 knights perpetually in peacetime would be ludicrous.  They are one of the most powerful houses in the Riverlands so it would not exceed expectations that the Freys could in fact actually have 1000 landed knights.

By comparison, House Osgrey at their height had 100 landed knights pledged directly to them and a score of lesser lords who would also have landed knights (or even petty lords) pledged to them in turn.  As such they Osgreys at their height could have had similar strength to GoT era Freys.

When talking the Manderlys, there is important differences in language.  The North doesn't have many Knights in the usual sense.  It does have a heavy cavalry analogy to knights in addition to some legitimate Knights.  The Manderlys likely have vassals that fall into both categories.  They have 100 landed Knights (practicing the faith of the 7), and could have significant numbers of Landed knight analogy Heavy Cavalry.  

The poorest Landed Knight we see - House Osgrey - has 2 non- landed knights in his service.

Let’s then assume that the average Landed Knight is quite a bit wealthier than the poverty stricken House Osgrey. 

That’s before we get to lordly Houses that will have even more wealth and power. Clearly the ratio of non-Landed to Landed knights will be many to one.

[Corvo the Crow]

9 hours ago, wendelsnatch said:

Forgive me for not wanting to dig through 24 pages but I assume you are referring to a Knights Banneret, where a company is organized under a banner for ease of command in battle.  So we would have Lords with their Banners, as well as Knights who held a banner (temporarily) during the battle to facilitate the command of men.  This essentially means that trying to use the term banner to extrapolate the quantity of nobility worthless.  Are we talking Banners as they personal sigil of the lord on a banner, or the administrative banner that was a company of knights thrown together under the banner.

Again, household knights are rare in real world historical context.  Many of who appeared to be household knights actually had lands and incomes, but it was more prestigious to be a lords long term Castilian, or Steward, or what have you.  More often, a Lords body of troops were non knighted Men at Arms.  We know Eustace has a personal retainer of 2 Hedge knights who are obviously un-landed.  This sets a poor basis of making assumptions of what other nobles have available for household men.  Assuming that the 20 men Lady Webber and the 30 knights at Dragonstone have are strictly household knights would be a mistake.  It is entirely possible that the larger percentage of these men are landed knights of little note.

It was literally on the first post of the first page under a section...

 

Also I can't believe we are still discussing this but each banner there is clearly representing a single family it is a single coat of arms, sigil whatever else. It is explicitly told to us when one source says 600 banners, which itself is not unclear, and the other says 600 lords great and small.

 

@Lord Varys

I can see it working for the Riverlands where population density is higher and distances shorter but for the North where it is the opposite, Starks can't reach to the every far flung corner of their realm to raise an army, can they? Though it appears it may be so with the so many holdfasts we see a few days ride from WF that doesn't even have a master.

 

Also knightly equipment seems to be so costly even some lords are affording it only barely so I am not sure what to think.

Quote

"Sunderland would require me to hand you over if he knew of you." Borrell did fealty for Sweetsister, as Longthorpe did for Longsister and Torrent for Littlesister; all were sworn to Triston Sunderland, the Lord of the Three Sisters. "He'd sell you to the queen for a pot of that Lannister gold. Poor man needs every dragon, with seven sonsall determined to be knights." The lord picked up a wooden spoon and attacked his stew again. "I used to curse the gods who gave me only daughters until I heard Triston bemoaning the cost of destriers. You would be surprised to know how many fish it takes to buy a decent suit of plate and mail."

 

@Free Northman Reborn

That quote came to my mind as well but not only do we not see many nobles with Robb, his guard, which everyone wanted to be a member, of 30 sons(and a daughter) of nobility had at least 6 rivermen among them and at least one house, Karstarks, had 2  sons. This means 23 houses at most. 

Though it could be we are shown  the highest lords only since the council in Riverland only had the highest Riverlords as well and his guard may have been formed of the highest nobility as well.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I can see it working for the Riverlands where population density is higher and distances shorter but for the North where it is the opposite, Starks can't reach to the every far flung corner of their realm to raise an army, can they? Though it appears it may be so with the so many holdfasts we see a few days ride from WF that doesn't even have a master.

Those lands are not necessarily organized in a way so that some big guy can raise as many troops as he wants for some pointless war. The North is vast and wild, and the life there does not revolve around expansion and conquest (at least not since the Starks conquered all) but rather to make a modest living and survive the next winter.

In fact, it is also not really the case that down in the south the whole feudal thing would have much do with warfare. It is just a very easy life to be a knight or petty lord and have the peasants work your land to your benefit. Overall, that's an exploitation technique, not one where all people involved do profit. The knights and nobles need the peasants, but the peasants do not actually need their (land-)lords. And it is quite clear - the richer/more fertile the land is, the more parasites (i.e. nobles) the land can feed. And with the North not being that fertile it is very likely that there also fewer parasites up there.

The reason the North may not be able to raise as many troops as it should be able if you make some head count may be connected to the fact that many families and settlements and villages cannot afford to send as many men as others in densely populated areas can because it would cause the agricultural infrastructure to break down. I mean, if one village or farm in the Riverlands has a bad harvest, then the neighbors might help out. Or you go to the next market and buy food there. If you live in the North your neighbors may be pretty far away. It is much harder to get something out of the land in the North than it is in the south.

And that would mean that pioneer men living deep in the forests, high on the mountains, deep in the swamps, etc. are not expected to contribute as much to the Starks' wars than other Northmen.

You see this with the clansmen (who really do not send many men to Robb and are never criticized for that), the crannogmen, etc.

9 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also knightly equipment seems to be so costly even some lords are affording it only barely so I am not sure what to think.

That shows that being a lord doesn't mean you are rich, never mind how much land you hold.

[wendelsnatch]

17 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The poorest Landed Knight we see - House Osgrey - has 2 non- landed knights in his service.

Let’s then assume that the average Landed Knight is quite a bit wealthier than the poverty stricken House Osgrey. 

That’s before we get to lordly Houses that will have even more wealth and power. Clearly the ratio of non-Landed to Landed knights will be many to one.

 

The fact that Osgrey had two hedge knights in his service should in no way be used as a measuring stick to make assumptions about other Landed Knights/Lords or what have you.  That the knights in his service are hedge knights is telling.  Ser Bennis is hardly better than a brigand, unwashed and cruel.  Hedge knights are the absolute bottom of the barrel hardly worth the name knight.  You cant even properly call his knight household knights as that would infer that he was providing for and equipping them with armor, weapons and mounts.  All Osgrey is providing is room and board for service.  A landed knight would be literally be better off with a couple of trained men at arms, an archer or two and a squire but he is too poor to even scrape that up.  I think it is foolish to think Osgrey is the rule and not the exception.  He is prideful of his past, trying to support an estate beyond his means.

Based on a real world historical context, we should not assume that the average landed knight is quite a bit wealthier than Osgrey.  Generally they would have a small manor house, not a stone tower house.  They would have income enough to purchase arms and armor, several horses, have a page or squire and have means of gathering a small handful of trained men (not peasant levies) usually one being a non-knight cavalry man.  Day to day, the average landed Knight in Europe lived their life with the same modest comforts that many land owning freeholders that owed no military service to a Lord did.  Based on real world context, Westeros should have thousands of Landed Knights that make up the bottom rung of the feudal aristocracy.  Household knight were a thing but a small minority.  Generally a landed knight would not have un-landed knighted retainers.  A proper lord may have one or two household knights, and great lords may have a dozen or two.  One of the reason landless knights were so uncommon was that the reward for a leal servant was to bestow upon them lands. It tied them to the land, and by extension to the lord.  

If we are going by any real world historical context (and we have no reason to believe otherwise) the the rtio of Landed knights to non-landed knights would be many to one.

[Lord Varys]

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.

I'd agree that landed knights are likely the knights that are more prevalent in the land, simply because only the richest houses could feed and clothe many household knights. If one take the average castle garrison then only a couple of the men should be knights. 

The lands of Westeros are vast, and there should be many landed knights - big and small - in the more populous areas we never even met. Men like Eustace Osgrey shouldn't be rare. Men living in a tower and having enough land to live like a (very) modest nobleman.

[wendelsnatch]

18 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

It was literally on the first post of the first page under a section...

 

Also I can't believe we are still discussing this but each banner there is clearly representing a single family it is a single coat of arms, sigil whatever else. It is explicitly told to us when one source says 600 banners, which itself is not unclear, and the other says 600 lords great and small.

 

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..."