The Night’s Watch and the Gift(s) don’t make sense

[Dorian Martell's son]

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

You’re trying to shift the discussion from a discussion of math to a discussion of magic, and working in insults for good measure. I don’t know why, since this fandom debates troop numbers and their plausibility all the time. You’re adding nothing to the conversation. I get that you view every discussion from a purely Doylist perspective and either cannot or refuse to discuss the material from any other, but it still adds nothing.

This fandom has a tendency to not see the forest through the trees. 
The dwindling watch is part of the story. The history of the gifts are part of the story. The fact that the dwindling watch cannot protect people in the gifts from wildling raids and thus they are depopulated are part of the story.  People hyping on the math of troop numbers and watchmen numbers is in fact juvenile. This is a story written by one man and in nearly 20 years there have been two books published. of all the things to be critical of and think are "unrealistic" of the whole magical infused 12,000 year long history of the story, the number of folks in the watch is what bothers you? Well, I find that strange. 
And I am adding to the discussion. every reply I make does exactly that. Remember, this is a public forum, and part of posting in a public forum is you do not get to decide to only have responses you like  

[DominusNovus]

Or some people enjoy details and verisimilitude.

[Dorian Martell's son]

33 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Or some people enjoy details and verisimilitude.

so why don't you complain about everything magical? It is pretty far from your stated enjoyment of verisimilitude 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

2 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

The world works just fine.

 

I agree, but I try to keep that idea in mind anytime someone wants to dissect a narrative. Some things are just picked nits and others can be seen as a valid point that undercuts the narrative. You never know unless you allow exploration of the idea. Sometimes things that are obvious to one person are revelations to others.

[Dorian Martell's son]

18 minutes ago, Three-Fingered Pete said:

I agree, but I try to keep that idea in mind anytime someone wants to dissect a narrative. Some things are just picked nits and others can be seen as a valid point that undercuts the narrative. You never know unless you allow exploration of the idea. Sometimes things that are obvious to one person are revelations to others.

I get that, but we are talking about realism in a fantasy series. People living well beyond the lifetime of men with undead men working for them is pretty fantastic and in light of that, the realism of the number of men in the night's watch really pales in comparison 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

27 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

I get that, but we are talking about realism in a fantasy series. People living well beyond the lifetime of men with undead men working for them is pretty fantastic and in light of that, the realism of the number of men in the night's watch really pales in comparison 

 

But they aren't questioning the current numbers, just the validity of the tale of how they got that way. I have to say that people turning down basically free land is a good question to proffer. I happen to accept the current explanation, but it does seem a little off based on basic human behavior that we can look to in our own history. How valid that behavior is in the current Westerosi society is worth exploring IMO.

[Wolf of the Steppes]

7 hours ago, DominusNovus said:

Your quotes regarding the situation on the ground around 300 AC demonstrate why people aren't particularly interested in uprooting themselves right then and there very well.

Yes.  But you're asking a question of why the erosion of the strength of the NW and population in the gift. Correct? I think I made my point pretty clear.

Or is it, why it eroded so quickly in 200 years or so when the long night was approx 8,000 years ago?  Well, there I can see your point somewhat more clearly.  I still don't agree with you, but again, I said your arguments had some merit.  

5 hours ago, Three-Fingered Pete said:

But we do see that the attitude in general toward duty in the NW, especially south of the Neck as noted, is not a favorable one. Randall Tarley sent Sam to the Wall to shame and humiliate him. He certainly knew who Sam's companions were going to be from then on. Those in the north are more likely to remember it as a duty, albeit an unfavorable one, where in the south it seems to be meted out as punishment.

And whatever reason the attitude in general has changed (perhaps in the last 200 or so years?) for whatever reason.  I am not as familiar with the World book as others, but perhaps there is some evidence there.  

[DominusNovus]

2 minutes ago, Wolf of the Steppes said:

Yes.  But you're asking a question of why the erosion of the strength of the NW and population in the gift. Correct? I think I made my point pretty clear.

Or is it, why it eroded so quickly in 200 years or so when the long night was approx 8,000 years ago?  Well, there I can see your point somewhat more clearly.  I still don't agree with you, but again, I said your arguments had some merit. 

I’m operating under the assumption that the population at large assumes the Wall and Watch are just there for protection against the Wildlings and probably have for a period far longer than the Targaryen dynasty has ruled. 

[Wolf of the Steppes]

20 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

I’m operating under the assumption that the population at large assumes the Wall and Watch are just there for protection against the Wildlings and probably have for a period far longer than the Targaryen dynasty has ruled. 

And thus not a threat to anyone, really.  So why not send your second or third son to be lord or knight of a holdfast?  Ok.  Yes, I get that, but I thought I already made plenty of sense about peasants/retinues to support them when the actual raids come.  Surely the raiders aren't a new thing, right?  We do have plentiful evidence of this.  

Quote

"Wildlings have invaded the realm before." Jon had heard the tales from Old Nan and Maester Luwin both, back at Winterfell. "Raymun Redbeard led them south in the time of my grandfather's grandfather, and before him there was a king named Bael the Bard."

"Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. --A Clash of Kings - Jon III

 

[Wolf of the Steppes]

On 2/7/2019 at 2:38 PM, DominusNovus said:

You’ll still want to have a retinue of your own, because some raids will happen. But you can be pretty sure that you’ll almost never have to deal with a large war or anything of that sort.

Yes, you made this point, but the other half of the quote from A Clash of Kings - Jon III, was:

Quote

Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side 

That doesn't mean that the gift(s) didn't get ravaged.  

[DominusNovus]

Here’s the way I see it: wildling raids are a problem. But so is ‘normal’ warfare within the Seven Kingdoms. Just look at the Riverlands, there’s a place that gets ravaged by warfare continually, and its just politically divided, not a depopulated region (though it certainly could support a far higher population than it does). The wildling raids are, by necessity, small attacks. They’re not large expeditions, like what Tywin does to the Riverlands.

The way I see it, there’s nothing in particular special about the land just south of the border between the Umber lands and the Gift. Yes, nominally, you’re under Lord Umber’s protection if you’re south of that border, but what is Lord Umber going to do a bout a raid? By the time he can respond, from further south, the Wildlings are not only long gone, they’re probably back across the Wall. In exchange for this nominal protection, you owe him both military service in some distant war (every war for you is a distant one, unless the Wildlings have moved in force past the Wall) and some form of tax. Meanwhile, just north of that border, you’re under the protection of the Night’s Watch, which is between your lands and the raiders, so they’re better positioned to have a chance at intercepting them. They’re also not going to call you up for military service.

[Wolf of the Steppes]

9 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Here’s the way I see it: wildling raids are a problem. But so is ‘normal’ warfare within the Seven Kingdoms. Just look at the Riverlands, there’s a place that gets ravaged by warfare continually, and its just politically divided, not a depopulated region (though it certainly could support a far higher population than it does). The wildling raids are, by necessity, small attacks. They’re not large expeditions, like what Tywin does to the Riverlands.

The way I see it, there’s nothing in particular special about the land just south of the border between the Umber lands and the Gift. Yes, nominally, you’re under Lord Umber’s protection if you’re south of that border, but what is Lord Umber going to do a bout a raid? By the time he can respond, from further south, the Wildlings are not only long gone, they’re probably back across the Wall. In exchange for this nominal protection, you owe him both military service in some distant war (every war for you is a distant one, unless the Wildlings have moved in force past the Wall) and some form of tax. Meanwhile, just north of that border, you’re under the protection of the Night’s Watch, which is between your lands and the raiders, so they’re better positioned to have a chance at intercepting them. They’re also not going to call you up for military service.

Sorry, your argument seems to be wearing thin..... It's now a question of why are Umber lands populated and not the gift? Probably because there was strength in the NW and the lands of the gift(s) and haven't eroded that far south, plus my quote that any wars from "kings" beyond the wall were put down by The Starks who are overlords and protectors of Umber lands.

Or why aren't the Riverlands depopulated for the same reason?  It's not bloody cold.  Also, I would hazard a guess at it's the "River Lands" and it's easy to farm lands and raise livestock, water, and feed them.  Even in winter it shouldn't be that hard to survive.  Are there any accounts of the rivers freezing, that would make it untenable? Maybe.....As I said, I'm not as versed on the World Book as some.  

Like I said, you raise a point, but I don't agree, and I don't think any one else should unless you provide some real argument and/or textural evidence.  You seem to change it the more I ask questions. 

[DominusNovus]

36 minutes ago, Wolf of the Steppes said:

Sorry, your argument seems to be wearing thin..... It's now a question of why are Umber lands populated and not the gift? Probably because there was strength in the NW and the lands of the gift(s) and haven't eroded that far south, plus my quote that any wars from "kings" beyond the wall were put down by The Starks who are overlords and protectors of Umber lands.

Or why aren't the Riverlands depopulated for the same reason?  It's not bloody cold.  Also, I would hazard a guess at it's the "River Lands" and it's easy to farm lands and raise livestock, water, and feed them.  Even in winter it shouldn't be that hard to survive.  Are there any accounts of the rivers freezing, that would make it untenable? Maybe.....As I said, I'm not as versed on the World Book as some.  

Like I said, you raise a point, but I don't agree, and I don't think any one else should unless you provide some real argument and/or textural evidence.  You seem to change it the more I ask questions. 

I’m using an example, not changing my argument. 

[Wolf of the Steppes]

6 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

I’m using an example, not changing my argument. 

 

43 minutes ago, Wolf of the Steppes said:

Sorry, your argument seems to be wearing thin.

Indeed.  You didn't even try to refute my argument that time.

[DominusNovus]

10 hours ago, Wolf of the Steppes said:

 

Indeed.  You didn't even try to refute my argument that time.

Because you’re picking at the examples, rather than the actual position. Thats rabbit hole territory, which gets us sucked down into debating how bad a winter has to be for the Trident to freeze over.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 hours ago, DominusNovus said:

Here’s the way I see it: wildling raids are a problem. But so is ‘normal’ warfare within the Seven Kingdoms. Just look at the Riverlands, there’s a place that gets ravaged by warfare continually, and its just politically divided, not a depopulated region (though it certainly could support a far higher population than it does). The wildling raids are, by necessity, small attacks. They’re not large expeditions, like what Tywin does to the Riverlands.

The way I see it, there’s nothing in particular special about the land just south of the border between the Umber lands and the Gift. Yes, nominally, you’re under Lord Umber’s protection if you’re south of that border, but what is Lord Umber going to do a bout a raid? By the time he can respond, from further south, the Wildlings are not only long gone, they’re probably back across the Wall. In exchange for this nominal protection, you owe him both military service in some distant war (every war for you is a distant one, unless the Wildlings have moved in force past the Wall) and some form of tax. Meanwhile, just north of that border, you’re under the protection of the Night’s Watch, which is between your lands and the raiders, so they’re better positioned to have a chance at intercepting them. They’re also not going to call you up for military service.

The idea is that the handing over of the New Gift to the Watch was a severe mistake as the Watch was not able to protect those lands as well as the Lords who previously owned it could. The Umbers have vassals, and those vassals have holdfasts. Lord Manderly has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords under his rule. Meaning at least 112 strongholds spread through his lands. Probably a lot more, as some of his vassal lords will have multiple landed knights under them, and even some landed knights are powerful enough to have more than one castle.

So let's say 150 or more strongholds are spread throughout the Manderly lands. If the Umbers have just 100, that's still a hundred places from which the lands can be protected against wildlings raiders. For whatever reason, the Watch could not do the same. And as a result, the people fled to the Umber lands, and perhaps further south.

[Jons bastard brother]

The dwindling started with the conquest. There was always war going on throughout all the kingdoms, and a lot of the losers were sent to the wall. Once all the kingdoms were more united under A king’s peace, there wasn’t constant warring going on between a bunch of petty kings. Consequently there were less and less men being sent to the wall

[DominusNovus]

23 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The idea is that the handing over of the New Gift to the Watch was a severe mistake as the Watch was not able to protect those lands as well as the Lords who previously owned it could. The Umbers have vassals, and those vassals have holdfasts. Lord Manderly has a hundred landed knights and a dozen petty lords under his rule. Meaning at least 112 strongholds spread through his lands. Probably a lot more, as some of his vassal lords will have multiple landed knights under them, and even some landed knights are powerful enough to have more than one castle.

So let's say 150 or more strongholds are spread throughout the Manderly lands. If the Umbers have just 100, that's still a hundred places from which the lands can be protected against wildlings raiders. For whatever reason, the Watch could not do the same. And as a result, the people fled to the Umber lands, and perhaps further south.

Absolutely a valid point, that it is not likely to be the Lords directly sworn to House Stark that would be running around trying to stop the raiders, but the local landed masterly/knightly houses. However, I'm not sure that the Watch doesn't have the same, in theory. We know that there are strongholds in the Gift, surely someone must have holding them. Thats what the clincher is for me: Say you're a skilled warrior, and you can get some land in the North. Your options are to be sworn to a Northern Lord, who will expect tax and military service from you, on top of having to defend your lands from Wildlings, or to be sworn to the Night's Watch, who will expect tax and no military service from you, but you'll still have to defend against Wildlings. Maybe the Watch demands such higher tribute than a traditional lord? But that doesn't make sense, since there's so few of them - it would seem to be a self regulating problem, if its a question of duties: the lower the numbers of the Night's Watch, the less that they'll demand in tribute of those that live in the Gift, and the more attractive it is to live there. Conversely, even if they don't demand less, then the Watch is sitting on an excess of tribute, that they can sell, and make the Watch richer, which improves its situation.

Now, perhaps the Night's Watch didn't like the idea of landed warriors living on the Gift for whatever reason. That may have been the case prior to the Targ era, but surely New Gift was settled no differently than the rest of the North, so the Watch would have just ended up with masterly houses sworn to them, maybe even some petty lords. Unless we assume that, upon being given the New Gift, the Watch kicked out every masterly and noble house in the Gift. That seems counter productive, at minimum, to me. I think it would make more sense if they just kept the status quo. "You use to be sworn to House Umber, now you're sworn to the Night's Watch." Not to mention that the landed nobility and masterly houses are both the military and bureaucracy of a feudal society; get rid of them, and who is going to collect the tribute?

Its just a knot that, the more I pull at it, the more it just doesn't quite add up.

[Free Northman Reborn]

19 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Absolutely a valid point, that it is not likely to be the Lords directly sworn to House Stark that would be running around trying to stop the raiders, but the local landed masterly/knightly houses. However, I'm not sure that the Watch doesn't have the same, in theory. We know that there are strongholds in the Gift, surely someone must have holding them. Thats what the clincher is for me: Say you're a skilled warrior, and you can get some land in the North. Your options are to be sworn to a Northern Lord, who will expect tax and military service from you, on top of having to defend your lands from Wildlings, or to be sworn to the Night's Watch, who will expect tax and no military service from you, but you'll still have to defend against Wildlings. Maybe the Watch demands such higher tribute than a traditional lord? But that doesn't make sense, since there's so few of them - it would seem to be a self regulating problem, if its a question of duties: the lower the numbers of the Night's Watch, the less that they'll demand in tribute of those that live in the Gift, and the more attractive it is to live there. Conversely, even if they don't demand less, then the Watch is sitting on an excess of tribute, that they can sell, and make the Watch richer, which improves its situation.

Now, perhaps the Night's Watch didn't like the idea of landed warriors living on the Gift for whatever reason. That may have been the case prior to the Targ era, but surely New Gift was settled no differently than the rest of the North, so the Watch would have just ended up with masterly houses sworn to them, maybe even some petty lords. Unless we assume that, upon being given the New Gift, the Watch kicked out every masterly and noble house in the Gift. That seems counter productive, at minimum, to me. I think it would make more sense if they just kept the status quo. "You use to be sworn to House Umber, now you're sworn to the Night's Watch." Not to mention that the landed nobility and masterly houses are both the military and bureaucracy of a feudal society; get rid of them, and who is going to collect the tribute?

Its just a knot that, the more I pull at it, the more it just doesn't quite add up.

I got the feeling that the Watch took over the New Gift directly, perhaps with Stewards farming the lands, and Rangers commanding the holdfasts in the same way that they used to command the 19 castles along the Wall. In other words, yes, they basically kicked out the former lords and landed knights who used to have holdfasts there.

And as the Watch dwindled, they had less and less Rangers to protect these lands, and the smallfolk fled to the lands of the Umbers, Karstarks, and further south, perhaps down all the way to the Manderly lands.

 

[DominusNovus]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I got the feeling that the Watch took over the New Gift directly, perhaps with Stewards farming the lands, and Rangers commanding the holdfasts in the same way that they used to command the 19 castles along the Wall. In other words, yes, they basically kicked out the former lords and landed knights who used to have holdfasts there.

And as the Watch dwindled, they had less and less Rangers to protect these lands, and the smallfolk fled to the lands of the Umbers, Karstarks, and further south, perhaps down all the way to the Manderly lands.

 

That is a possibility, but it doesn’t make much sense. It seems like a lot of work and it does seem to contradict the implications of places like Moletown and Queenscrown, where there is clearly a population that is not part of the Watch. Plus, just think of how difficult it would be to enforce the vows of Stewards living that far away from the Wall.