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

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

This only works if we assume that the size of an army can be correlated with the population. Not to mention that we don't know how the population of the lands north of Dorne developed after Jaehaerys I. The numbers could have gone up some more, there could have been another decline later on - we don't know.

The only thing we do know is that Jaehaerys I's long reign actually had a profound effect on the population of the lands ruled by him. Something many people - including you - didn't want to hear some time ago.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This only works if we assume that the size of an army can be correlated with the population. Not to mention that we don't know how the population of the lands north of Dorne developed after Jaehaerys I. The numbers could have gone up some more, there could have been another decline later on - we don't know.

The only thing we do know is that Jaehaerys I's long reign actually had a profound effect on the population of the lands ruled by him. Something many people - including you - didn't want to hear some time ago.

Another interesting revelation from this passage relates to the Southron kingdoms.

If the population of the Reach and West doubled since the conquest, then we can use our fairly well informed estimates of their strengths today to calculate their strengths back then.

For example, if we estimate a modern day strength for the West of about 50k (which is quite generous given events to date), then their strength during the Conquest was only around 25k. Which means the 22000 men they sent to the Field of Fire indeed constituted the bulk of their strength. Interestingly this would put them well below the North’s 30k strength at the time.

Similarly, since the Reach today appears to have a strength of around 80- 100k, half the population would have put them at about 50k as a maximum, 300 years ago.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Another interesting revelation from this passage relates to the Southron kingdoms.

Again, that would depend again on us being able to use the size of armies to correlate the size of a given population. Where is the confirmation that we can do that?

Only if we had confirmation that this or that king really raised pretty much any man he possibly could, could we use this number as a template to try to guess at the army size if the population doubled.

And we never actually get army that is confirmed to have been as large as that. In case of the Two Kings we have ample reason to believe that neither king actually marshaled his entire strength.

 

[Corvo the Crow]

11 hours 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.

True, but again, remember that the North makes up a third of the entire Westeros. Even with a population size as big as the reach it will have empty places. Even the much smaller Riverlands has many empty places, Goodbrook village is one such example.

In some areas North is populated as well as witnessed by Tyrion. I think it may be that with the vast open plains of emptiness and Densely populated areas such as around WF, North does not have many villages dotting around the entire land but instead has it's population concentrated in smaller areas with no one in between these centers. 

 

Also, do we have any new numbers from during Maegor's time?

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

True, but again, remember that the North makes up a third of the entire Westeros. Even with a population size as big as the reach it will have empty places. Even the much smaller Riverlands has many empty places, Goodbrook village is one such example.

Sure. My overall take is just that we have no clue how populated the Seven Kingdoms in total were prior to Jaehaerys I, so chances are actually pretty good that especially the Crownlands (which were basically backwater wasteland before Aegon), the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and even the Stormlands profited greatly from this boom.

Certain regions in the North - region around White Harbor, the eastern coast, perhaps even Bear Island and the western coast to a smaller degree - would have profited as well, and the same should go for the lands along the newly built Kingsroad.

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

In some areas North is populated as well as witnessed by Tyrion. I think it may be that with the vast open plains of emptiness and Densely populated areas such as around WF, North does not have many villages dotting around the entire land but instead has it's population concentrated in smaller areas with no one in between these centers. 

I'm not sure we can say the regions around Winterfell are 'densely populated'. There are people living in the region around the castle, especially along the Kingsroad, but that's it. There certainly are people there.

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also, do we have any new numbers from during Maegor's time?

Not that I recall. We get a little bit more on Aegon the Uncrowned's supporters, but the numbers as such don't change.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure. My overall take is just that we have no clue how populated the Seven Kingdoms in total were prior to Jaehaerys I, so chances are actually pretty good that especially the Crownlands (which were basically backwater wasteland before Aegon), the Riverlands, the West, the Reach, and even the Stormlands profited greatly from this boom.

Certain regions in the North - region around White Harbor, the eastern coast, perhaps even Bear Island and the western coast to a smaller degree - would have profited as well, and the same should go for the lands along the newly built Kingsroad.

I'm not sure we can say the regions around Winterfell are 'densely populated'. There are people living in the region around the castle, especially along the Kingsroad, but that's it. There certainly are people there.

Not that I recall. We get a little bit more on Aegon the Uncrowned's supporters, but the numbers as such don't change.

We should not get sidetracked into a debate over whether the North is sparsely populated or not. Because it is not a debate. The North IS sparsely populated. No question about it. But it is also very big.

Therefore, sparsely populated does not equate to low overall population. Just low density. 

We already know Dorne has less people. And judging by the much lower numbers raised historically by the Stormlands, the Stormlands have less people too.

Now we learn that the North’s population has grown since Torrhen’s day, when he raised 30k men. White Harbor is bigger, fishing villages are larger along its vast coastline, more land is cultivated and sheep numbers have soared.

The North is still sparsely populated. But it could now have twice the population it had in Torhhen’s time. As I’ve said, I’m comfortable to take a middle ground approach and estimate a 50% increase only, since Torrhen’s day. To be conservative.

[Maia]

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Now we learn that the North’s population has grown since Torrhen’s day, when he raised 30k men. White Harbor is bigger, fishing villages are larger along its vast coastline, more land is cultivated and sheep numbers have soared.

Yea, but amount of men is not really the limiting factor, is it? I actually fully agree with you that population of the North has grown since the days of the Conqueror - it may have doubled or increased even more than that. And given that large parts of it is wilderness, commoners who don't live within a day or 2 of a castle most likely are allowed to hunt, so they would have skills easily converted to warfare. Not to mention that the need to be able to defend against wildlings would result in many men having some combat training and/or experience. All else being equal, the northeners are likely  better fighting  material than inhabitants of many other parts of Westeros.

But this absolutely doesn't mean that the North can put an army of 42K soldiers in the field after ADwD, as you seem to imply. Because logistics is the killer here, not the amount of men. What these discussions seem to omit is that Torhen assembled and led his host down in Summer, whereas Dance of the Dragons kicked off in later Autumn, pretty soon succeeded by winter. This would provide an additional explanation for why the armies during the Dance were much smaller - and why southern armies were respectively larger.

But let's look at what happened in the North when the Winter deepened after the Dance - the North that was untouched by the war and had a competent, respected Lord of Winterfell who prepared for it as best as he knew how and pre-emptively led some people who could have caused trouble away south. Now, the breakdown of trade during the war may have affected the things, somewhat, but still the North was well braced for that Winter. Yet what we saw was a lot of starvation and banditry, which even the redoubtable Lord Cregan had been unable to prevent.

Now let's compare and contrast with what we have in the series proper and we have the North that is plagued with internecine fighting and disarray and which had also been quite complacent about storing food during the long Summer and has been completely screwed by a brief and cold Autumn. There is no way that it can keep any more in the field than they currently have - and even those troops are consuming supplies that can't really be spared. Now, if some logistics genius provided Stannis or Jon or whoever with lots of food and figured out how to transport it at a decent speed in Winter - sure, they could, eventually, raise whatever numbers you'd care to name. 

Unfortunately, the North lacks infrastructure and know-how for large-scale transport of things  in Winter. In Russia in 18th - 19th centuries, winter was the premier overland shipping season, but it did require regularly spaced stops where fodder and food could be bought, large cargo sleds drawn by horses and formed into caravans, laying out of "winter roads" once the snow stayed for good, etc. And we didn't get any sign of northmen doing any of that. Heck, nobody stops Stannis from using wheeled transport in the snow and even Jon wants to send carts and  wayns to Hardhome through deep snows, which is madness. 

The other thing is that since population is so scattered, the only men that can be assembled quickly are those who live close to castles and roads. And while small groups from outlying settlements would trickle in eventually in warmer seasons, it is almost certain that they wouldn't in Winter.

[Lord Varys]

Here would be the textual evidence for my assumption above that Gyldayn does not necessarily list all men who are part of an army when he explicitly differentiates between knights, men-at-arms, archers, etc.:

Quote

Obedient to his uncle’s entreaties, Lord Ormund Hightower had issued forth from Oldtown with a thousand knights, a thousand archers, three thousand men-at-arms, and uncounted thousands of camp followers, sellswords, freeriders, and rabble, only to find himself set upon by Ser Alan Beesbury and Lord Alan Tarly.

This makes it quite clear that Gyldayn does not necessarily subsume all infantry in a given army under 'men-at-arms' or 'archers'.

This gives us leeway to doubt that armies whose complete sizes we believe to have figured out by adding the numbers of knights to the men-at-arms, archers, etc. are actually accurate.

I'd especially assume that the Lannister army was not only made up out of about 8,000 men in total, but out of a thousand knights, and 7,000 men-at-arms and archers, and an unknown number of other types of men - freeriders, sellswords, rabble, camp followers, etc.

This gives us also some leeway subtracting a significant number from each army in the War of the Five Kings - especially from Renly army/progress - if we wanted to compare the core army of professional soldiers - as I think mostly given by Gyldayn - to the army sizes given by our guys in the main series - where they mostly only mention men, rarely clarifying what kind of men is talked about.

'Men-at-arms', for instance, is very often used to describe who are permanently in service of this or that lord, as guardsmen, bodyguards, etc. Most of them don't seem to be conscripted men lords press into service when they go to war.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here would be the textual evidence for my assumption above that Gyldayn does not necessarily list all men who are part of an army when he explicitly differentiates between knights, men-at-arms, archers, etc.:

This makes it quite clear that Gyldayn does not necessarily subsume all infantry in a given army under 'men-at-arms' or 'archers'.

This gives us leeway to doubt that armies whose complete sizes we believe to have figured out by adding the numbers of knights to the men-at-arms, archers, etc. are actually accurate.

I'd especially assume that the Lannister army was not only made up out of about 8,000 men in total, but out of a thousand knights, and 7,000 men-at-arms and archers, and an unknown number of other types of men - freeriders, sellswords, rabble, camp followers, etc.

This gives us also some leeway subtracting a significant number from each army in the War of the Five Kings - especially from Renly army/progress - if we wanted to compare the core army of professional soldiers - as I think mostly given by Gyldayn - to the army sizes given by our guys in the main series - where they mostly only mention men, rarely clarifying what kind of men is talked about.

'Men-at-arms', for instance, is very often used to describe who are permanently in service of this or that lord, as guardsmen, bodyguards, etc. Most of them don't seem to be conscripted men lords press into service when they go to war.

Err, no. Tywin brings 35k warriors into the WotFK. Rabble and camp followers would be on top of that. Same with Robb’s 20k, Edmure’s 11k, and the Freys’ 4k.

Now, Renly’s 80k may be a far looser description, as we don’t really know what he includes in that number, and it is basically one big, slow moving party camp.

[Ran]

Sellswords and freeriders are the very definition of professional soldiers. Gyldayn is including them in the "uncounted masses" for quite a different reason than put forward here: not because of some kind of focus on "professionalism", but because it underscores that Ormund Hightower's initial campaign is a disaster in the making, that his organization is so poor that he doesn't even have a good track of all the spears in his host, otherwise there would have been records for men like Gyldayn to be able to get a more accurate figure.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Sellswords and freeriders are the very definition of professional soldiers. Gyldayn is including them in the "uncounted masses" for quite a different reason than put forward here: not because of some kind of focus on "professionalism", but because it underscores that Ormund Hightower's initial campaign is a disaster in the making, that his organization is so poor that he doesn't even have a good track of all the spears in his host, otherwise there would have been records for men like Gyldayn to be able to get a more accurate figure.

Agreed. Manderly’s 1500 at Moat Cailin, for example, quite clearly includes freeriders in his mounted force. That is different from camp followers who surely would accompany his host but who aren’t counted in the 1500 warriors.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Err, no. Tywin brings 35k warriors into the WotFK. Rabble and camp followers would be on top of that. Same with Robb’s 20k, Edmure’s 11k, and the Freys’ 4k.

How do you know that?

13 hours ago, Ran said:

Sellswords and freeriders are the very definition of professional soldiers. Gyldayn is including them in the "uncounted masses" for quite a different reason than put forward here: not because of some kind of focus on "professionalism", but because it underscores that Ormund Hightower's initial campaign is a disaster in the making, that his organization is so poor that he doesn't even have a good track of all the spears in his host, otherwise there would have been records for men like Gyldayn to be able to get a more accurate figure.

Not sure how you can know all that. I mean, yeah, technically sellswords and freeriders would be professional soldiers, but somehow sellswords don't have the same importance in Westeros than they do have in Essos, since the bulk of actual warfare is shouldered by the knights and the professional warriors attached to them (squires, sworn swords, men-at-arms, archers, etc.).

Freeriders and whatever sellswords (there are, to our knowledge, no free companies in the Seven Kingdoms) there are do rank below them. Every warrior we meet in the series aspires to enter into the service of a nobleman or lord because that's the way to make a living, the way to rise and the way to find a place in life. The life of a mercenary seems to lead nowhere - at least since the Conquest.

From what we know of hedge knights, freeriders, sellswords and the like they are usually not as well equipped as proper armored knights are. Even of the free companies only the Golden Company matches the professionalism of Westerosi knights - and that's only the case because they were founded by exiled Westerosi knights.

My mentioning of 'professionalism' earlier gave the whole thing a problematic spin. In Westeros it seems to be clear that the true elite of warriors, the true professionals, are those who are permanently in the service of the king, a lord, or a landed knight. The men who train at arms from childhood in a castle. Freeriders and sellswords and hedge knights - while getting some training in a castle at certain points in their lives - don't end up for this or that reason in the permanent service of a lord - which implies that a decent chunk of such men may simply not be good enough.

And, frankly, I'm not sure we can reasonably assumes that there were any such accounts accessible to Gyldayn. I buy it that Munkun gathered a lot of information with his interviews and the like, but there is no reason to believe that Lord Ormund's initial campaign was poorly organized. He apparently didn't foresee that his own bannermen would turn against him, but that's a mistake on a different level.

As for the difference in armor/equipment between southron knights and Northmen as previously discussed, we have those telling lines:

Quote

Lord Roderick raised a warhorn to his lips and sounded the charge, and the queen’s men came screaming down the ridge, led by the Winter Wolves on their shaggy northern horses and the knights on their armored destriers.

The original description also has the Winter Wolves not described in the same way as proper southron knights, never mind that they are all mounted:

Quote

[T]wo thousand savage northmen, flying Queen Rhaenyra’s quartered banners. At their head rode the Lord of Barrowton, Roderick Dustin, a warrior so old and hoary men called him Roddy the Ruin. His host was made up of grizzled greybeards in old mail and ragged skins, every man a seasoned warrior, every man ahorse.

They are clearly experienced veterans, and capable and very courageous warriors, but they are not all that well-equipped. And especially their suicidal courage enabled them to win victories against overwhelming odds. I think I've mentioned more than once how I think that's going to play a huge role when the clansmen face the Freys/Boltons.

[Corvo the Crow]

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Err, no. Tywin brings 35k warriors into the WotFK. Rabble and camp followers would be on top of that. Same with Robb’s 20k, Edmure’s 11k, and the Freys’ 4k.

Now, Renly’s 80k may be a far looser description, as we don’t really know what he includes in that number, and it is basically one big, slow moving party camp.

No. Not sure on Jaime but Tywin's entire camp is around 20K. Tyrion and Timmett or who ever it was both agree that judging by their fires it is 20K. Again on Tywin we see first hand rabble is in that count. Gregor's flank is almost entirely rabble on horse besides a few knights and some horse archers. 

Renly's camp is 80000 fighting men, confirmed by himself and Stannis both when Stannis says near sixty thousand foot. Renly also says 100000 to Stannis so it may be true as well, 80000 fighters and the rest camp followers.

 

@Lord Varys as you have said yourself, winterwolves are suicidal old men, properly equipping them would be wasting resources. Northern horsemen are almost as decently equipped as southron ones, lancers also have two horses just like southron knights. North is not as bad as you make it out to be.

Quote

 

"Near three hundred riders and twice as many mounts, melted away in the night." Robb rubbed his temples, where the crown had left its mark in the soft skin above his ears. "All the mounted strength of Karhold, lost."

 

[SeanF]

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How do you know that?

Not sure how you can know all that. I mean, yeah, technically sellswords and freeriders would be professional soldiers, but somehow sellswords don't have the same importance in Westeros than they do have in Essos, since the bulk of actual warfare is shouldered by the knights and the professional warriors attached to them (squires, sworn swords, men-at-arms, archers, etc.).

Freeriders and whatever sellswords (there are, to our knowledge, no free companies in the Seven Kingdoms) there are do rank below them. Every warrior we meet in the series aspires to enter into the service of a nobleman or lord because that's the way to make a living, the way to rise and the way to find a place in life. The life of a mercenary seems to lead nowhere - at least since the Conquest.

From what we know of hedge knights, freeriders, sellswords and the like they are usually not as well equipped as proper armored knights are. Even of the free companies only the Golden Company matches the professionalism of Westerosi knights - and that's only the case because they were founded by exiled Westerosi knights.

My mentioning of 'professionalism' earlier gave the whole thing a problematic spin. In Westeros it seems to be clear that the true elite of warriors, the true professionals, are those who are permanently in the service of the king, a lord, or a landed knight. The men who train at arm from childhood in a castle. Freeriders and sellswords and hedge knights - while getting some training in a castle at certain points in their lives - don't end up for this or that reason in the permanent service of a lord - which implies that a decent chunk of such men may simply not be good enough.

 

In Westeros, I think the distinction between freeriders/sellswords on the one hand, and knights and retainers on the other, is social, not military.  There's no reason to think that Westerosi mercenaries are incompetent soldiers.  But, they fight for money, rather than out of loyalty to a lord, or for reasons of honour, and the upper classes despise them accordingly.

You can see this in Bronn's duel with Ser Vardis, where the assembled lords and knights are absurdly disparaging about Bronn, and get shown up.

That social distinction doesn't exist in Essos.  The free companies contain both upper class renegades from Westeros and the free cities and commoners who are professional soldiers.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

No. Not sure on Jaime but Tywin's entire camp is around 20K. Tyrion and Timmett or who ever it was both agree that judging by their fires it is 20K. Again on Tywin we see first hand rabble is in that count. Gregor's flank is almost entirely rabble on horse besides a few knights and some horse archers.

Rabble and camp followers are part of any army. The same goes for freeriders and hedge knights. How many sellswords as such there are in the average Westerosi army I really don't know. There seem to be no bands/companies of sellswords in Westeros we know of, though.

And the free companies of Essos are not considered to be equal in ability and strength to the knights of Westeros - at least that the view of the Sealord in FaB - and I think (the Golden Company excluded) this is pretty much correct. The Brave Companions are not exactly the elite in Tywin's army, no? And there seems to be little difference between the Brave Companions and, say, the Stormcrows or the Second Sons insofar as the ability is concerned.

Also, there is the fact that the chivalric culture and feudal structure of Westeros more or less ensures that knights and their men serve their lords. The sellswords of Essos are not exactly keen on dying. They turn their cloaks whenever it suits them, conducting an entirely different business of warfare than the Westerosi.

6 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

@Lord Varys as you have said yourself, winterwolves are suicidal old men, properly equipping them would be wasting resources. Northern horsemen are almost as decently equipped as southron ones, lancers also have two horses just like southron knights. North is not as bad as you make it out to be.

But they are still 2,000 men on horses, though. That is significant. I see no reason why old men should not ride armored destriers if they had them, nor do I see any reason why men who want a glorious death in battle should show up with their second- or third-best suit of armor.

And I never said they were not courageous or not effective. Obviously their suicidal attempts to break the lines at the Fishfeed were very effective, never mind their horses or their armor.

I merely pointed out that Gyldayn obviously makes a difference there. How big of a difference it is to rid different/not-armored horses and having old main rather than plate armor, etc. is up to debate. I'm not expert on medieval combat.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

In Westeros, I think the distinction between freeriders/sellswords on the one hand, and knights and retainers on the other, is social, not military.  There's no reason to think that Westerosi mercenaries are incompetent soldiers.  But, they fight for money, rather than out of loyalty to a lord, or for reasons of honour, and the upper classes despise them accordingly.

Ah, of course there is also a social distinction. But if you have two man of equal ability - let's say Bronn and Garlan Tyrell (I'm assuming these two are of equal ability, we don't actually know this is the case) - then Garlan's entire upbringing gives him more resources to actually make the best of his abilities when he is supposed to fight under various circumstances in the field. Bronn would have to make due with what he can afford. He doesn't have (nearly) unlimited resources.

And therein lies the difference. Rich people are always better than poor people if they have equal ability as a basis. Because they have resources poor people simply have not. In fact, for nine men out of ten a proper castle upbringing as the sons of a great lord should give them all the means they need to make their best out of their talents, whereas the path to great prowess at arms should be much harder for a man like Bronn - who, due to the lack of support he may have gotten as boy and youth - might never be able to reach his potential to the degree the son of a great house could.

If we put Bronn against Tyrion or Samwell or some other rich guy who cannot properly fight for this or that reason things are different.

Resources become important when we just discuss armor and swords, but it gets even more obvious when we discuss horses and the knightly lifestyle.

And from what little we know about the society the life of a sellsword (Bronn) is the wrong end of the ladder. You are scum as a sellsword. You aspire to enter into a lord's service, to no longer be force to sell your sword. And the next step would be to become a household knight and to marry an heiress or even get yourself awarded a lordship. You don't get social prestige by being a sellsword.

This means that those men making their best out of their ability to fight and kill people tend to be those who catch the eyes of lords and become sworn swords and household knights and the like. There is a reason why Sandor Clegane doesn't live the life of a freerider and has instead entered into the service of Queen Cersei. He has great talent and that's why Cersei hired him. By default this means that those men who have to sell their swords, and gravitate from this lord to that, ever looking for a lasting job, so to speak, are the men who are most expendable. We see this pretty well, I think, in Dunk's memory from Ser Arlan's times in the service of various lords. They were simply not good or important enough to get a lasting jobs. Others would have.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

That social distinction doesn't exist in Essos.  The free companies contain both upper class renegades from Westeros and the free cities and commoners who are professional soldiers.

See above how the Sealord of Braavos assesses the sellswords of Essos.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rabble and camp followers are part of any army. The same goes for freeriders and hedge knights. How many sellswords as such there are in the average Westerosi army I really don't know. There seem to be no bands/companies of sellswords in Westeros we know of, though.

And the free companies of Essos are not considered to be equal in ability and strength to the knights of Westeros - at least that the view of the Sealord in FaB - and I think (the Golden Company excluded) this is pretty much correct. The Brave Companions are not exactly the elite in Tywin's army, no? And there seems to be little difference between the Brave Companions and, say, the Stormcrows or the Second Sons insofar as the ability is concerned.

Also, there is the fact that the chivalric culture and feudal structure of Westeros more or less ensures that knights and their men serve their lords. The sellswords of Essos are not exactly keen on dying. They turn their cloaks whenever it suits them, conducting an entirely different business of warfare than the Westerosi.

But they are still 2,000 men on horses, though. That is significant. I see no reason why old men should not ride armored destriers if they had them, nor do I see any reason why men who want a glorious death in battle should show up with their second- or third-best suit of armor.

And I never said they were not courageous or not effective. Obviously their suicidal attempts to break the lines at the Fishfeed were very effective, never mind their horses or their armor.

I merely pointed out that Gyldayn obviously makes a difference there. How big of a difference it is to rid different/not-armored horses and having old main rather than plate armor, etc. is up to debate. I'm not expert on medieval combat.

Ah, of course there is also a social distinction. But if you have two man of equal ability - let's say Bronn and Garlan Tyrell (I'm assuming these two are of equal ability, we don't actually know this is the case) - then Garlan's entire upbringing gives him more resources to actually make the best of his abilities when he is supposed to fight under various circumstances in the field. Bronn would have to make due with what he can afford. He doesn't have (nearly) unlimited resources.

And therein lies the difference. Rich people are always better than poor people if they have equal ability as a basis. Because they have resources poor people simply have not. In fact, for nine men out of ten a proper castle upbringing as the sons of a great lord should give them all the means they need to make their best out of their talents, whereas the path to great prowess at arms should be much harder for a man like Bronn - who, due to the lack of support he may have gotten as boy and youth - might never be able to reach his potential to the degree the son of a great house could.

If we put Bronn against Tyrion or Samwell or some other rich guy who cannot properly fight for this or that reason things are different.

Resources become important when we just discuss armor and swords, but it gets even more obvious when we discuss horses and the knightly lifestyle.

And from what little we know about the society the life of a sellsword (Bronn) is the wrong end of the ladder. You are scum as a sellsword. You aspire to enter into a lord's service, to no longer be force to sell your sword. And the next step would be to become a household knight and to marry an heiress or even get yourself awarded a lordship. You don't get social prestige by being a sellsword.

This means that those men making their best out of their ability to fight and kill people tend to be those who catch the eyes of lords and become sworn swords and household knights and the like. There is a reason why Sandor Clegane doesn't live the life of a freerider and has instead entered into the service of Queen Cersei. He has great talent and that's why Cersei hired him. By default this means that those men who have to sell their swords, and gravitate from this lord to that, ever looking for a lasting job, so to speak, are the men who are most expendable. We see this pretty well, I think, in Dunk's memory from Ser Arlan's times in the service of various lords. They were simply not good or important enough to get a lasting jobs. Others would have.

See above how the Sealord of Braavos assesses the sellswords of Essos.

A whole lot of waffle there. Impossible to address all of it as it is all over the place. Here’s one little bit, on Eastern Mercenaries:

I presume the mounted mercenaries from the eastern continent aren't as heavily armored as the Westerosi knights? What about their skills and discipline compared to the Westerosi knights?

It varies. Some of the sellsword companies are very disciplined, and some are nothing but rabble joined together in search of loot. At one end there would be the Golden Company, at the other the Brave Companions. The Second Sons and the Stormcrows are in the middle.

[Free Northman Reborn]

As for the Winter Wolves, I can’t really figure out what you are trying to say about them. It seems to revolve around the reference to their “shaggy” horses, and to a  have somewhat disparaging tone.

To that, all I can say is they seem to have acquitted themselves rather well, for supposedly “inferior” warriors.

[Corvo the Crow]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rabble and camp followers are part of any army. The same goes for freeriders and hedge knights. 

Yes but usually we get the numbers of the fighting men and not rabble or camp followers. See Karstarks, it's 2000 foot soldiers and 300 riders but we know that each rider has two horses so they have grooms but never once were they counted among the Karstark numbers. In Tywin's case though the entire camp's count is some 20000 since all the fires are counted.

As for freerider numbers, we get some info; Manderly's 1500 total with 250 horse had far fewer than 200 of them(200 includes armored swords and such as well)

Renly's 80000 with 20000 horse had fewer than 10000 (light horse is mentioned seperately than freeriders and hedge knights and are likely men belonging to a lord)

 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they are still 2,000 men on horses, though. That is significant. I see no reason why old men should not ride armored destriers if they had them, nor do I see any reason why men who want a glorious death in battle should show up with their second- or third-best suit of armor.

They would be considered light(er) horse in GRRM's setting ( a light horse actually would wear lighter armor and not mail, it was the armor and not the weapon that made it light)

Also remember again these men aren't lords or landholders, nor most of them belong to any lord( in the sense of a household men) they are specifically told to be old men sparing their family from another mouth.

Again, Northmen are not as piss poor as you make them out to be.

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 certainty that Lord Walder would not bestir himself. The white of House Stark was seen everywhere, the grey direwolves seeming to run and leap as the banners swirled and streamed from the high staffs. Where is the boy? Tyrion wondered.

Captain's on armored warhorses, now these are the sworn men of lords.

@Free Northman Reborn

Mountain clans of both the North and the Vale wear "shaggy garrons" as well. These horses are better suited to the climate and that's the sole reason of it. A proper knight-equievalent, like Karstark lancers, have two horses just like a southron knight. These men are not proper horse soldiers, nor are they land holders, if they were they wouldn't go to their death as such, they are desperate old men at the eve of winter, instead of going out "hunting" to die a lonely death, they have banded together to die a glorious one with purpose. Even their lord/commander is an old men.

What I wonder is if they are old men from the entire north or just Barrowlands.

 

[Maia]

Since the Winter Wolves were looking for glorious deaths in order to spare their families hardship, it made sense for them not to take the best equipment and weapons, but leave them for their heirs. Those would have been pretty expensive for anybody who wasn't a major lord. Ditto the bulk of Cregan's host that didn't plan on returnining home and  Stannis's clansmen, now that I think about it. Even so, it was TWoIaF that was somewhat disparaging about their gear, not FaB. And of course horse breeds maintained  in the North are going to have more hair generally and would have also been already  sporting their thick winter coats  - that's just common sense.

[Corvo the Crow]

4 minutes ago, Maia said:

Since the Winter Wolves were looking for glorious deaths in order to spare their families hardship, it made sense for them not to take the best equipment and weapons, but leave them for their heirs. Those would have been pretty expensive for anybody who wasn't a major lord.

Sunderland with his seven sons.