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

[Three-Fingered Pete]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Why put the best at the front though? Don’t know medieval but Romans were putting them behind and I can see the logic there; “ Oh my! They defeated even the best of our troops! We are doomed. Ruuun!” 

 

Tactics are situation dependent. However, I don't think this is the thread in which to discuss them.

I'm not sure what you are referencing, but the Romans had the most professional standing army in the world until the modern era. They did not like to lose and they would use whatever they thought would work for them. If the Romans themselves were not good at it, they would bring in foreign forces to do it for them. Is this what you might be referring to?

In your above example:  "Oh my! They defeated even the best of our troops! We are doomed. Ruuun!” Well, yeah, they just defeated your best troops. Running sounds like a grand idea! Would you prefer that the cowards and rabble that you sent out to die turned and ran right into your best troops, disrupting their lines and giving the enemy the opening it needs to slaughter you?

Again, this is all situation dependent.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 12/15/2018 at 8:46 AM, Trefayne said:

 

That is a standard and basic defensive formation. It is obvious that they have been drilled (unknown for how long), but I'm talking about close formation fighting with the spear/pike company on the attack, not the defense. Defense is easy with pole arms. Attack takes lots of practice if you want the company to hold ranks. I don't remember any accounts of companies of pikemen ravaging the countryside, but it has been awhile. It is also very probable that the sergeants were at the front of the line receiving the charge and that the green troops were holding the rear until they got their legs. That would explain the Karstark troops not fleeing in the face of the Mountain.

TBF we see them advancing in formation just before that as well:

“and suddenly the enemy was there before them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields and pikes.”

I am not of the opinion that absolutely everyone is a professional soldier in Robb's army, but what we see is pretty indicative of well-drilled and well-equipped men going off to war. The entire series the only descriptions of peasants fighting we get are from a trap for Robb, Frey men sent off to die in the North (imo), and Meribald, who seems to have been in a group of camp followers not levied men.

[Universal Sword Donor]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As for this Gregor discussion - in what wars did Gregor Clegane ever fight, pray? He helped to sack KL but that was betrayal, not proper warfare. And that's the only battle the man ever fought in aside from, perhaps, terrorizing the countryside with his thugs in the years in-between (with Tywin turning a blind eye). That's not warfare, that's just abusing people. And Gregor's men do not seem to be 'experienced soldiers' - they are thugs and torturers who have learned how you torment and abuse defenseless people. That doesn't make them great soldiers.

Quick note: We know from Ned that Gregor also fought in the Greyjoy Rebellion.

“Ned Stark could not recall ever speaking to the man, though Gregor had ridden with them during Balon Greyjoy’s rebellion, one knight among thousands.”

 

[Corvinus85]

4 hours ago, Trefayne said:

I'm not sure what you are referencing, but the Romans had the most professional standing army in the world until the modern era. They did not like to lose and they would use whatever they thought would work for them. If the Romans themselves were not good at it, they would bring in foreign forces to do it for them. Is this what you might be referring to?

He's likely referencing the Roman armies of the early Republic, prior to the Marian reforms. The Hastati and the Principes. The Hastati were the newer soldiers, and fought in the first line, the Principes were the veterans, and fought in the 2nd line.

[Universal Sword Donor]

52 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

He's likely referencing the Roman armies of the early Republic, prior to the Marian reforms. The Hastati and the Principes. The Hastati were the newer soldiers, and fought in the first line, the Principes were the veterans, and fought in the 2nd line.

And the Triarii were the oldest, best trained, and best equipped soldiers.

Thanks Rome Total War!

[Three-Fingered Pete]

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

TBF we see them advancing in formation just before that as well:

“and suddenly the enemy was there before them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields and pikes.”

I am not of the opinion that absolutely everyone is a professional soldier in Robb's army, but what we see is pretty indicative of well-drilled and well-equipped men going off to war. The entire series the only descriptions of peasants fighting we get are from a trap for Robb, Frey men sent off to die in the North (imo), and Meribald, who seems to have been in a group of camp followers not levied men.

 

I believe I responded to that passage earlier in the thread.

 

5 hours ago, Corvinus said:

He's likely referencing the Roman armies of the early Republic, prior to the Marian reforms. The Hastati and the Principes. The Hastati were the newer soldiers, and fought in the first line, the Principes were the veterans, and fought in the 2nd line.

 

Ah, yes. That makes sense. I didn't really think of it that way since the Romans didn't send out totally green troops. The Hastati were still well trained in arms and formation discipline before ever hitting the field. Rome never half-assed anything (at least until the end). I may be mixing cultures here, but didn't the Romans have their new men kill someone (a convicted prisoner or some such person) just to get them used to the act and inure them to the horror of it?

[Ran]

From the SSM:

 

Quote

 

What is the relative composition of archers (or horse-archers), infantry and cavalry?

Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined, and the City Watch of Lannisport is well trained as well... much better than their counterparts in Oldtown and King's Landing.

 

To my mind, I think much of the infantry we see are not professional men-at-arms, but rather smallfolk who have variable degrees of drilling. The wealthier and more conscientious a lord, the likelier they are to spend time and effort (and forego a little income) by having their smallfolk training with some regularity, with people overseeing it, and stocks of arms at hand, while others (like Eustace Osgrey) have very little wherewithal. Similarly, the longbowmen of any real quality likely train regularly, as part of their service to the lord they're sworn to.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

Quote

Similarly, the longbowmen of any real quality likely train regularly, as part of their service to the lord they're sworn to.

 

Absolutely. Longbowmen need to practice.

Finally, some specific information from the horse's mouth.

[Free Northman Reborn]

47 minutes ago, Ran said:

From the SSM:

 

To my mind, I think much of the infantry we see are not professional men-at-arms, but rather smallfolk who have variable degrees of drilling. The wealthier and more conscientious a lord, the likelier they are to spend time and effort (and forego a little income) by having their smallfolk training with some regularity, with people overseeing it, and stocks of arms at hand, while others (like Eustace Osgrey) have very little wherewithal. Similarly, the longbowmen of any real quality likely train regularly, as part of their service to the lord they're sworn to.

Agreed. The knights are the professionals. And below them, the permanent garrisons. 

Jorah pointed this out when answering Daenerys about how Westerosi armies would perform against a Dothraki horde.

[Corvo the Crow]

@Ran When writing Mr. Martin may have certainly intended it to be that way but it surely doesn’t come across as such and even the Tywin having many undisciplined mem with no armor and no real weapon to speak of months into the campaign with previous battles certainly makes me doubt that SSM. 

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

@Ran When writing Mr. Martin may have certainly intended it to be that way but it surely doesn’t come across as such and even the Tywin having many undisciplined mem with no armor and no real weapon to speak of months into the campaign with previous battles certainly makes me doubt that SSM. 

That statement from GRRM is written after AGoT. He knows very well how he described Tywin's forces when he wrote it. Every host is going to have less well-equipped or trained men, and in Tywin's case he used this to provide a deliberate division of "cannon fodder" to winnow them out (and try and lure the northmen into a trap) rather than having these men interspersed with more experienced men who would help shape them up.

 

[Corvinus85]

I think it makes sense to assume, and agree with GRRM's words about the composition of Westerosi armies, when looking at Westerosi society from other angles. We've already established that the weapons and armor of Westeros are the equivalent of several centuries of the Middle Ages. The fighting techniques and warfare styles also range across multiple periods.

We've seen that prior to the Targaryens, the lords of Westeros had absolute rule over their territories, each making up laws as they saw fit. Some of that changed with the Targaryens, but not all of it. After all, Aegon allowed all the lords who bend the knee to keep their lands and authority, sans certain titles, like king. In TWoIaF, it's mentioned (and I don't remember exactly where) that lords often denied towns charters of expansion. Lannisport, Oldtown, White Harbor, and Gulltown were the only settlements that could be called cities, and then later KL is added, only because of the Targaryen presence, which influenced trade and created a new center of politics. In a land the size of Westeros, this doesn't jive, not with how the Middle Ages evolved in Europe. 

So this Westerosi society is where lords are the the makers and enforcers of laws. Oath giving/keeping is also a major centerpiece of Westerosi society. In such a society, where a few try to maintain rule over many, you cannot have a large number of well trained soldiers, of professionals, because you'll always risk rebellion at the hands of experienced people.

As Ran said, there's no serfdom in Westeros, but the smallfolk are beholden to the lords. Edmure Tully tries defend "his smallfolk". This, again, comes from the practice of oath giving, which was really more similar to the early Middle Ages, like Anglo-Saxon England. I would say GRRM combined stuff from the late Middle Ages, like heavily armored mounted knights (more France, than England on that), with the early practice of feudal levies, like the fyrd troops in England.

@Lord Varys I agree that Westeros doesn't see many wars, but it does seem like every generation had to deal with one major war, and the survivors of one war took the lessons they learned to the next. Occasionally, you also have major outlaw outbreaks, like the Kingswood Brotherhood or the Vulture King(s); and while this doesn't lead to major pitched battles, it does require a small campaign, which teaches knights and lords about life on the march, the importance of scouting, and so on. It's possible that this happens a little more often than we know. Also, some lords and knights will venture out in Essos, and temporarily join up with one of the free companies (Oberyn for example).

@Corvo the Crow going back to some of the stuff you said, about why does the Lannister army have all these wagons of weapons and armor, and that Tywin would never give such stuff to inexperienced men. I say probably not, and that was stuff kept in reserve for the experienced warriors. It's hard to forge new stuff on the march, and weapons and armor do break. I doubt that he had wagon loads with at least an extra sword, helm or shield for every single man in his army.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

That statement from GRRM is written after AGoT. He knows very well how he described Tywin's forces when he wrote it. Every host is going to have less well-equipped or trained men, and in Tywin's case he used this to provide a deliberate division of "cannon fodder" to winnow them out (and try and lure the northmen into a trap) rather than having these men interspersed with more experienced men who would help shape them up.

 

So he kept these men, men on horse, seperate from the rest and gave them no training throughout the months off campaigning just so he could use them as fodder in case he meets up a large army? Not to mention he must have kept them out of battle as well for them to not have any looted bits of armor or a proper weapon.

They were useless mouths for months. Giving them even some training and equipment would have made them quite useful; they could’ve been used as outriders for scouting and screening if nothing else.

 

@Corvinus Yet he immediately handed out the good stuff for 300 clansmen. Men on that flank was roughly a thousand with the clansmen and there were a handful of knights and other professionals(mounted archers) as well that would have been equipped already. Tywin didn’t equip them, not for lack of gear but because equippimg them would be wasting resources.

 

Now that I think on it, were these men even part of the army proper? Perhaps they’ve just attached themselves into the real army seeking adventure and plunder. 

We see with Brienne in Duskendale that one can make profit from the aftermath of a battle.

 

[Corvinus85]

13 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 

@Corvinus Yet he immediately handed out the good stuff for 300 clansmen. Men on that flank was roughly a thousand with the clansmen and there were a handful of knights and other professionals(mounted archers) as well that would have been equipped already. Tywin didn’t equip them, not for lack of gear but because equippimg them would be wasting resources.

He handed them out mainly because he chose to honor his son's promise. He thought it was worth it.

14 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Now that I think on it, were these men even part of the army proper? Perhaps they’ve just attached themselves into the real army seeking adventure and plunder. 

Likely this was the case. The "leavings" of Lannisport along with free riders who attached themselves on the way. Let them get better equipment from the dead.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

9 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So he kept these men, men on horse, seperate from the rest and gave them no training throughout the months off campaigning just so he could use them as fodder in case he meets up a large army? Not to mention he must have kept them out of battle as well for them to not have any looted bits of armor or a proper weapon.

They were useless mouths for months. Giving them even some training and equipment would have made them quite useful; they could’ve been used as outriders for scouting and screening if nothing else.

 

I would think that those men were recent pickups from outlying parts of the conflict or perhaps some were those that had surrendered and switched sides from a previous engagement. I'd doubt that they were from the regimented troops described from the environs of Lannisport in the SSM. Tywin purposely sent the vanguard ahead to disrupt the enemy lines, otherwise there is no reason to send the Mountain. He really didn't care about the rest of them, including Tyrion, which is strange because:

 

18 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Yet he immediately handed out the good stuff for 300 clansmen.

 

Wasn't this part of Tyrion's payment of his debt to them?

[Corvo the Crow]

2 hours ago, Corvinus said:

. He thought it was worth it.

That’s what I’ve been saying for pages. These men are worth giving equipment as they can make yse of it.

 

2 hours ago, Trefayne said:

 

I would think that those men were recent pickups from outlying parts of the conflict or perhaps some were those that had surrendered and switched sides from a previous engagement. I'd doubt that they were from the regimented troops described from the environs of Lannisport in the SSM. Tywin purposely sent the vanguard ahead to disrupt the enemy lines, otherwise there is no reason to send the Mountain. He really didn't care about the rest of them, including Tyrion, which is strange because:

 

 

Wasn't this part of Tyrion's payment of his debt to them?

Tyrion describes (some of) them to be men from the Lannsport.

He may very well have killed those 300 men or driven them off. Instead he armed them because these men could make use of it.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

8 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

That’s what I’ve been saying for pages. These men are worth giving equipment as they can make yse of it.

 

Tyrion describes (some of) them to be men from the Lannsport.

He may very well have killed those 300 men or driven them off. Instead he armed them because these men could make use of it.

 

A Lannister always pays his debts, even if he sends you on a suicide mission the next moment. I'm pretty sure if the clansmen had just shown up and said that they wanted to fight that they would have been put in the same place sans equipment.

[Lord Varys]

As for the feudal thing and peasants:

I really don't see much liberties being granted to smallfolk, especially not the likes we meet in TSS - which is basically the only piece in all the ASoIaF material where the issues of the smallfolk are given any consideration. Here it is clear that a commoner injured by a knight in the service of a landed knight doesn't really have any means to get redress on such a wrong in his own right. He can complain to his lord/lady, but for them this is then their own issue (or none at all). Lady Rohanne makes it perfectly clear that the wishes of the worker who was injured by Ser Bennis don't interest her at all.

In addition, Ser Eustace's smallfolk don't have any right to demand that they not be drawn into their knight's pointless private war. In fact, considering that there are veterans of the Blackfyre Rebellion among them it is also clear that they can be (and have been) forced to join an unlawful rebellion against the Iron Throne.

Peasants hardly exist in the state of the Osgrey smallfolk if they actually own any land or have any rights.

In fact, most so-called feudal relations keeping the commoners under the thumb of the lords were established via interest slavery, basically. Some peasants had some lands from ancient times which shrunk more and more when it was spread among the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Then there was a nice lord nearby who give you some loans in bad times, and when you could no longer pay the money back you belonged to them. You also had certain labor services to do, involving the estates of the lords in the area, etc.

In a world where a single season can last an unknown number of years those people rich in land in coin will only ever get richer and more powerful as time goes by simply because the amount of food and other assets they control can much easier weather bad harvests, long winters, droughts, and the like. Lords certainly can also go bankrupt and the like, but the idea that as notoriously unpredictable and enterprise as medieval farming is going produce social stability that lasts for millennia is completely unbelievable in a realistic setting.

There we expect most/all of the property to quickly gravitate into the hands of the elite.

Rich peasants actually owning land often had to do war service when the time came - or support the war efforts. But such peasants were not beholden to some local lord, they were their own men, basically, only beholden to the king or the prince of the land they lived in. The landlord you were renting your land from didn't exactly have the right to call to arms or march into war in most circumstances - and he definitely doesn't have that right in the Seven Kingdoms since Aegon's Conquest.

Considering that there is no indication that the kings or great houses of Westeros can directly draw on the service of yeomen in war, and there is no indication that the smallfolk in a region is actually not (overwhelmingly) beholden to the (petty) lord of that particular region it makes little sense in my opinion to imagine that the peasants are free to move and buy and sell land for the most part.

There seem to be yeomen at least in the Riverlands, and perhaps those are actually directly beholden to the Crown or Riverrun rather than the local lords. 

From a social perspective it makes essentially no sense that the overwhelming majority of peasants are yeomen because then there essentially be no small lords in this world. Power in the countryside would lie with those yeomen. They would produce the food and they would have the money to actually buy themselves men and weapons to protect and cement or expand their power.

In the North, were certain noble families are essentially just better smallfolk (like the clansmen) the gap between peasantry and nobility might not be as vast than it is in other regions.

In light of the fact how expensive horses are in this world - keep in mind that Dunk knows he can live off the money from one of Arlan's lesser horses for 1-2 years (!) - it seems to be completely impossible that a man such as Dunk could ever hope to buy a sizable tract of land.

In that sense my rule of thumb calculation of the smallfolk in Westeros would be 1% rich merchants/craftsmen (the commoner elite of the great cities like Tobho Mott), 10% traders/craftsmen who are not that rich (mostly to be found in the market towns), perhaps 10% yeomen. And the rest would be serfs - although perhaps not necessarily as unfree as they were in certain real medieval contexts.

That they are shackled to their local lords and knights is clear - the men beholden to Eustace Osgrey don't live in their own villages, they live in Osgrey villages, and they work Osgrey land, not their own. The same seems to be true for the neighboring Webber lands. Those lands are not merely ruled by those nobles, they are owned by them. A world where the noble guy in the neighborhood is just an arbiter or judge in times of crisis and need would look remarkably different.

Perhaps the peasants still have technically the right to buy and sell land - but rights are only worth anything if you have the ability/coin to make use of them. And it seems that the lords of Westeros have it ensured that this rarely/never happens.

The only smallfolk we ever meet in the books in a meaningful capacity are privileged smallfolk - even such men as Dunk and Davos. They had the chance to attach themselves to a smuggler and a hedge knight. They are not representative for the majority of the smallfolk.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Quick note: We know from Ned that Gregor also fought in the Greyjoy Rebellion.

“Ned Stark could not recall ever speaking to the man, though Gregor had ridden with them during Balon Greyjoy’s rebellion, one knight among thousands.”

Oh, yeah, my mistake. But there we see it again - Gregor fought in apparently two wars/battles - the sack of KL (no battle as such) and whatever battle he fought in on the Iron Islands (there seem to have been three - one on each of the islands Robert invaded).

That doesn't make him an expert in warfare, does it?

9 hours ago, Corvinus said:

We've seen that prior to the Targaryens, the lords of Westeros had absolute rule over their territories, each making up laws as they saw fit. Some of that changed with the Targaryens, but not all of it. After all, Aegon allowed all the lords who bend the knee to keep their lands and authority, sans certain titles, like king. In TWoIaF, it's mentioned (and I don't remember exactly where) that lords often denied towns charters of expansion. Lannisport, Oldtown, White Harbor, and Gulltown were the only settlements that could be called cities, and then later KL is added, only because of the Targaryen presence, which influenced trade and created a new center of politics. In a land the size of Westeros, this doesn't jive, not with how the Middle Ages evolved in Europe. 

Aegon confirmed existing feudal structures and the like, but his King's Peace thing was the first law of the land. And that law actually took away the right of an individual lord (even the great houses) to go to war/take up arms without the king's leave.

Now, I doubt that the average king before the Conquest had technically granted this or that lord the right to do whatever the hell he wanted on his lands or to his neighbors, but it was a fact that many just did that - which in turn also shows that the kings before the Conquest must have all been very weak - in certain regions just nominal - kings in comparison to the Targaryens.

9 hours ago, Corvinus said:

@Lord Varys I agree that Westeros doesn't see many wars, but it does seem like every generation had to deal with one major war, and the survivors of one war took the lessons they learned to the next. Occasionally, you also have major outlaw outbreaks, like the Kingswood Brotherhood or the Vulture King(s); and while this doesn't lead to major pitched battles, it does require a small campaign, which teaches knights and lords about life on the march, the importance of scouting, and so on. It's possible that this happens a little more often than we know. Also, some lords and knights will venture out in Essos, and temporarily join up with one of the free companies (Oberyn for example).

Sure, that's all possible, and I'm not saying that there is not a small amount of men who are professional warriors and who actually know how to kill.

It just seems those must always be just a tiny fraction among the men who actually march to war in any of the armies.

Take a man like Jaime as an example - arguable the greatest knight of his generation. Yet it what wars did this man fight prior to the Greyjoy Rebellion? None. He didn't fight in Robert's Rebellion, and the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood was basically just police work (although with a bunch of cool duels and some darings raids/attacks).

The framework of the society as such is so that only very few men there are actually professional fighters. It might even be that a lesser percentage of men compared to the real middle ages actually could be drafted into war - after all, the freak seasons would make farming and harvest a much more important task (especially in the North) than it ever was in the real middle ages. 

How many men would you allow to march to war in a world like Westeros if you were a lord? Not all that many, presumably.

[lysmonger]

14 hours ago, Ran said:

From the SSM:

 

To my mind, I think much of the infantry we see are not professional men-at-arms, but rather smallfolk who have variable degrees of drilling. The wealthier and more conscientious a lord, the likelier they are to spend time and effort (and forego a little income) by having their smallfolk training with some regularity, with people overseeing it, and stocks of arms at hand, while others (like Eustace Osgrey) have very little wherewithal. Similarly, the longbowmen of any real quality likely train regularly, as part of their service to the lord they're sworn to.

Thats interesting. It seems Westerosi infantry and mounted warriors were far less trained than their real world western medieval counterparts.