Jump to content

[SPOILERS] Military matters and population development (including cities)


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

The Hightowers strangely appear as the strongest Green power left in the end. The Stormlanders are beaten, the Lannisters are beaten (never mind that only a third or less of their men marched to war and the Ironborn would have only touched the coastal regions, not the hinterlands of the West), but Lord Lyonel is seen as the guy who could still raise multiple armies thanks to his wealth and his control over the most populous city of Westeros.

That's the first mentioning of the great cities as a reservoir for men - in the main series this might become relevant when we talk about the strength of the Crownlands. It might very well be that the bulk of Rhaegar's strength actually came from KL and adjacent regions - especially all the new men he had to train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then this would mean that the Hightowers alone can raise three times the numbers than the next powerful bannerman, not the Hightowers in combination with their own bannermen, right? Because the Costaynes and Beesburys stood against the Hightowers during the Dance and they still had 5,000 men in the beginning of their campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But then this would mean that the Hightowers alone can raise three times the numbers than the next powerful bannerman, not the Hightowers in combination with their own bannermen, right? Because the Costaynes and Beesburys stood against the Hightowers during the Dance and they still had 5,000 men in the beginning of their campaign.

I'm thinking, that KL had a guard of 2000 when Gold Cloaks were first created and it was still smaller than Oldtown.

So Oldtown, bigger and much richer, would have more than that 2000 guard, right? That should answer a part of the question I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I'm thinking, that KL had a guard of 2000 when Gold Cloaks were first created and it was still smaller than Oldtown.

So Oldtown, bigger and much richer, would have more than that 2000 guard, right? That should answer a part of the question I believe.

Only if Lord Ormund actually took his City Watch to war. Which sounds pretty silly considering a city would need a guard to properly function and keep the peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the population development thing, the full story adds this to doubled population and the quadrupled population of KL and the increase in the other cities:

Quote

With fewer men marching off to war, more remained to work the land. Grain prices fell steadily throughout his reign, as more acres came under the plough. Fish became notably cheaper, even for common men, as the fishing villages along the coasts grew more prosperous and more boats put to sea. New orchards were planted everywhere from the Reach to the Neck. Lamb and mutton became more plentiful and wool finer as shepherds increased the size of their flocks. Trade increased tenfold, despite the vicissitudes of wind, weather, and wars and the disruptions they caused from time to time. The crafts flourished as well; farriers and blacksmiths, stonemasons, carpenters, millers, tanners, weavers, felters, dyers, brewers, vintners, goldsmiths and silversmiths, bakers, butchers, and cheesemakers all enjoyed a prosperity hitherto unknown west of the narrow sea.

The bold implies that the North did not profit as much from the boom as the other kingdoms under the Targaryen rule did.

As I said, it is difficult to just claim or insist that a doubled population of a nation means it doubled everyhwere equally. It could even have decreased in certain areas while great increasing in others.

If anybody where to say to me the population in the US doubled in the last decade or so I'm not going to run around and tell my friends it doubled in Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As for the population development thing, the full story adds this to doubled population and the quadrupled population of KL and the increase in the other cities:

The bold implies that the North did not profit as much from the boom as the other kingdoms under the Targaryen rule did.

As I said, it is difficult to just claim or insist that a doubled population of a nation means it doubled everyhwere equally. It could even have decreased in certain areas while great increasing in others.

If anybody where to say to me the population in the US doubled in the last decade or so I'm not going to run around and tell my friends it doubled in Alaska.

Come on, man. I read that passage and the reference to orchards as soon as I got the book. And even then I wondered if you would jump to exploit that little reference.

You conveniently ignore the increase in land under cultivation (of which the North has by far the most to develop), the growth in fishing villages along the coasts (the North has more coastline than any other kingdom), the explosion in availability of lamb and wool as sheep numbers exploded (which the North produces in massive volumes), the growth in crafts of all kinds, etc.

Just give it a rest, man. Orchards do better in warmer climates, while sheep breeding and fishing would be preferred in colder climates. In fact the Shivering Sea is the richest fishing waters in the known world.

The doubling of population is stated to apply north of Dorne. Not from the Reach to the Neck. Maybe time to stop this crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if Lord Ormund actually took his City Watch to war. Which sounds pretty silly considering a city would need a guard to properly function and keep the peace.

Tyrion had no problem raising the number of KL. We see castles constantly left with at best skeletal garrisons and then new garrisons being trained. Why should Oldtown be different. Say it has 4000 guards, With the population You can easily train say 3000 new men and send that many to fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Tyrion had no problem raising the number of KL. We see castles constantly left with at best skeletal garrisons and then new garrisons being trained. Why should Oldtown be different. Say it has 4000 guards, With the population You can easily train say 3000 new men and send that many to fighting.

Oh, sure, yeah, that's an option. And that option basically seems to be on the table when Lord Lyonel's desire for revenge is discussed at the end of the Dance. Oldtown as a reservoir for more troops despite the fact that Ormund's army is basically gone (although some Oldtowners in there likely came back to Oldtown). But I don't think such men were part of Lord Ormund's original 5,000 men. He marched to war pretty early in the Dance and wouldn't have had the time to train new men for guard duty or warfare.

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The doubling of population is stated to apply north of Dorne. Not from the Reach to the Neck. Maybe time to stop this crusade.

That isn't a crusade. And I definitely would say that the coastlines of the North - especially those along the eastern coast - would have profited from the boom. But that's not the same as the North's population doubling. And considering there is not that much cultivated land in the North even during the main series I daresay that the rational take on this is that most of that sort happened in the Crownlands, the Reach, the Riverlands, the Stormlands, and the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, sure, yeah, that's an option. And that option basically seems to be on the table when Lord Lyonel's desire for revenge is discussed at the end of the Dance. Oldtown as a reservoir for more troops despite the fact that Ormund's army is basically gone (although some Oldtowners in there likely came back to Oldtown). But I don't think such men were part of Lord Ormund's original 5,000 men. He marched to war pretty early in the Dance and wouldn't have had the time to train new men for guard duty or warfare.

That isn't a crusade. And I definitely would say that the coastlines of the North - especially those along the eastern coast - would have profited from the boom. But that's not the same as the North's population doubling. And considering there is not that much cultivated land in the North even during the main series I daresay that the rational take on this is that most of that sort happened in the Crownlands, the Reach, the Riverlands, the Stormlands, and the West.

What evidence do you have that the cultivated land in the North 300 years ago was not substantially less than it is today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

What evidence do you have that the cultivated land in the North 300 years ago was not substantially less than it is today?

None, but if the cultivated land had been substantially less back then the North would also have had fewer men.

One would assume that the North could have easily enough raised 40,000+ men in 298 AC if its population had doubled since the days of the Conquest (when Torrhen supposedly raised 30,000 men). I mean, if the population doubled than the complete strength of the North would today lay by 60,000+, and that only if there was no increase after the death of the Old King - Viserys I was another thirty years of peace and plenty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

None, but if the cultivated land had been substantially less back then the North would also have had fewer men.

One would assume that the North could have easily enough raised 40,000+ men in 298 AC if its population had doubled since the days of the Conquest (when Torrhen supposedly raised 30,000 men). I mean, if the population doubled than the complete strength of the North would today lay by 60,000+, and that only if there was no increase after the death of the Old King - Viserys I was another thirty years of peace and plenty.

 

Aha! And back to the circular logic behind it all, at last.

You want to prove the North has a low population today, so you look for clues to that in F&B. And to interpret those clues in a manner that supports your position, you justify it by saying the North has a low population today.

Circular logic. Clear as day.

Instead, the facts show that the North raised 30k men 300 years ago. And after that point the population of Westeros North of Dorne doubled.

Even if the North only increased by 50% instead of doubling, that takes them to 45k today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the North has a low population compared to the vastness of the land. 

I never said the population in the North never increased. I just say nobody said it doubled. Just as nobody said the population of the Stormlands or the Vale doubled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things I believe people tend to forget about the North is 

1. It maked up a third  of westeros. People say "Robert saw nothing on barrowlands, yeah North is empty. He just saw the part surrounding it, but Barrowlands is Vast and North is really big, 1/3 of the country big. Even if it were as populous as the reach Robert may not have seen them.

2. It suffered greatly from two wars just in 15 years. We get a glimpse of it with Crowfood's sons and Old Nan's sons and grandsons dying. These people are nobles or household and even for them it was grievous, think how many it would kill from the smallfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Two things I believe people tend to forget about the North is 

1. It maked up a third  of westeros. People say "Robert saw nothing on barrowlands, yeah North is empty. He just saw the part surrounding it, but Barrowlands is Vast and North is really big, 1/3 of the country big. Even if it were as populous as the reach Robert may not have seen them.

2. It suffered greatly from two wars just in 15 years. We get a glimpse of it with Crowfood's sons and Old Nan's sons and grandsons dying. These people are nobles or household and even for them it was grievous, think how many it would kill from the smallfolk.

A war on foreign soil results in negligible population losses. Utterly miniscule. If Ned took 15000 men to fight in Robert’s rebellion (which sounds about right) and say one third of them died, that’s 5000 men lost out of a population in the millions. About 0.1%. The same applies to the assault on Pyke, except that was an even smaller scale.

Real population losses happen when civilians are killed in large numbers, and villages and crops are destroyed. That hasn’t happened in the North for almost a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A war on foreign soil results in negligible population losses. Utterly miniscule. if Ned took 15000 men to fight in Robert’s rebellion (which sounds about right) and say one third of them died, that’s 5000 men lost out of a population in the millions. About 0.1%. The same applies to the assault on Pyke, except that was a even smaller scale.

I'd agree with you on the war losses, although it seems that Winterfell as such suffered quite heavily from the last two wars - Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion. Just think of House Cassel.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Real population losses happen when civilians are killed in large numbers, and villages and crops are destroyed. That hasn’t happened in the North for almost a century.

Certain winters and plagues could have seen to that. The last we hear about is Egg's six-year-winter, but this doesn't mean everything was fine in the North in winter in-between.

But I actually don't assume the North's population dropped in the years after the six-year-winter while we don't have any evidence for that.

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Two things I believe people tend to forget about the North is 

1. It maked up a third  of westeros. People say "Robert saw nothing on barrowlands, yeah North is empty. He just saw the part surrounding it, but Barrowlands is Vast and North is really big, 1/3 of the country big. Even if it were as populous as the reach Robert may not have seen them.

It is not just Robert. A lot of other lands are empty as well. Some regions are so empty that Lady Glover believes the North would give them the Ironborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd agree with you on the war losses, although it seems that Winterfell as such suffered quite heavily from the last two wars - Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion. Just think of House Cassel.

Certain winters and plagues could have seen to that. The last we hear about is Egg's six-year-winter, but this doesn't mean everything was fine in the North in winter in-between.

But I actually don't assume the North's population dropped in the years after the six-year-winter while we don't have any evidence for that.

It is not just Robert. A lot of other lands are empty as well. Some regions are so empty that Lady Glover believes the North would give them the Ironborn.

Irrelevant, unless you can show the North wasn’t even emptier in Torhenn Stark’s time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Irrelevant, unless you can show the North wasn’t even emptier in Torhenn Stark’s time.

I didn't want to show anything here. You claim the population in the North doubled. I don't even say it didn't. I'm merely skeptical that it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I didn't want to show anything here. You claim the population in the North doubled. I don't even say it didn't. I'm merely skeptical that it did.

I’m saying it needn’t even have doubled (although it might well have). Even if it increased by just 50%, it still puts the North today far above Torrhen’s 30k men. At 45k, approximately. Conservatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...