Aegon as a king

[Morte]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant the tidbit about all the Rhoynish gods having to work together to sing a song - that is how they will have to do it, sort of, in the main series, too.

Yeah, that's what I meant. It fits quite well, because they sure had to work together and will have to do now.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm in the last chapter right now, and it is pretty good.

Happy you like it. Feel free to tell me your thought when you have finished.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think it makes sense to assume that whatever cursory training they get when they are drafted can be seen as enough for them to perform as 'professionally' as @Aldarion thinks they performed at the Green Fork and the other battles. I don't think there is a reason to assume that the performance of those men entails the idea that they are by any means professional soldiers by any real world standard - especially not in light of the fact that most of them couldn't have had much battle experiences (some Northmen might be veterans of the Greyjoy and Robert's Rebellion, but likely not all of them).

All of Tywin's men likely fought in no war at all so far. We don't hear much about the Westermen's involvement in the Greyjoy Rebellion aside from Tywin's fleet being burned, and the only 'battle' they fought in during Robert's Rebellion was the Sack of King's Landing which wasn't a battle but butchery. Prior to that you would have to go back to the War of the Nine Penny Kings - and the veterans of that war would be about as old as Tywin himself. Which wouldn't exactly be the majority of the men in his army. Especially since we have it that Tytos Lannister only sent 1,000 knights and 10,000 men-at-arms to fight in that war - which would only be a fraction of the two armies Tywin raised to fight in the Riverlands in AGoT.

Yes, of course. How cursory depends when they were drafted and how much time their lord had, so the first draft better than the following, because you may have more time and because the men you get are of the right age and fitness. And this men would of course get better the longer they survived.

I can imagine Tywin putting in some labour into his men; essentially it would depend on the lord (and the circumstances) how much training his men get before they face the first battle.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I don't think we can go as far as assume all the sellswords are Bronns. Many would be, but the more important point is that they are much better rank-and-file men than those in Westerosi armies, and that the Golden Company horse are most likely much better knights/squires in proper battles than the average Westerosi knight who has either seen no battle at all so far, or only 1-2 in his entire lifetime, whereas the Golden Company men might fight multiple battles each year, and dozens or scores in their entire career, depending how old they are.

I exaggerated.

But as you said, they are better trained and more experienced, and because a sellswords dies if he isn't good enough rather quickly, they have more really good men, especially if we talk about old and famed companies like the GC.

And their average fighters will still be better than big parts of a Westeroi army, simply by experience and the necessaries of living by the sword in an environment of professional armies.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Why do you think they would have been professionals? Population of Westeros is generally accepted to be 40 million people (but could be as much as twice that*), which - going by normal feudal society - would produce at least 400 000 professional troops, and possibly more. Sheer size of Westeros and campaign distances also support that calculation. But neither Poor Fellows nor Vulture King's rabble would have been among them, so they do not indicate how actual feudal armies will have performed.

The point there is that those men all fought because they really had a cause they believed in, meaning those men wouldn't have included the poor people lords drafted into service, but rather men whose trade was killing.

I mean, it is utter ridiculousness to claim that the Poor Fellows - a military order of religious fanatics - weren't professional warriors.

It also makes no sense to assume that men whose trade had nothing to do with fighting were keen of going to war - that would be true in any scenario, but especially if going to war meant to go against the will of your king or your lord (some pious lords fighting against Maegor would have taken their own men, of course, but all those volunteers would have left their homes to march to war - that's not something people who have no experience in warfare do).

And it is the same with the Vulture King. Dorne suffered at the hands of the dragons, but you have to be mobile and you have to afford it to journey from the Sands to the Dornish Marches. If no lord actually forces you to do this, you wouldn't do it unless you had some sort of reason to expect to be successful.

Speculation about the population of Westeros is pointless, in my opinion, since we have no actual in-world data.

11 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Except enemies do not necessarily need to be destroyed. Aegon I. did not destroy all his enemies. And question here isn't just what she will do but also how will she do it.

Aegon I no longer had any enemies after said enemies accepted him as their king. And unlike Aegon I Daenerys doesn't first has to convince Westeros that she is their rightful ruler - they know it to be true because she is a Targaryen. All she needs to do is to take out the other pretenders. She doesn't have to conquer the land. All she needs is the throne and a couple of dead pretenders.

Quote

Again, take a look at what happened in Astapor - former slaves turned into slavers. Removing a political caste is not enough when problem is mentality of whole society. In such conditions, if you remove a group, new people will just move in to reform said group. Even if she had killed all the slavers, slavery will have reformed in Astapor soon after she left - as it will reform in Mereen when she leaves.

That just isn't a given, but the point is that she clearly wasn't thorough enough when she dealt with the Astapori slavers. She didn't kill enough.

Quote

What numbers? 

10 000 Unsullied who are mostly useless against Westerosi armies

3 000 sellswords who are maybe on par with Westerosi armies

~7 500 Ironborn who are only useful at sea and maybe amphibious warfare

20 000 Dothraki who are at best only useful as raiders

100 000 freedmen who are only useful as arrow fodder (see: Wildlings vs Stannis)

You forget the tens of thousands of Volantene soldiers in that reckoning. And the freedmen aren't exactly arrow fodder. Barristan is already training new knights, and we'll have to wait and see how the companies of the freedmen fare in the coming battles. I expect them to turn out to be pretty good, but we will have to wait and see.

And it won't be 20,000 Dothraki - it will be all the Dothraki of Essos. Or rather: The potential of all the Dothraki. Daenerys Targaryen could, if she wanted, pull a Vietnam on Westeros US style. She is a dragonrider. She can lose entire wars, and just fly back to Essos to pick up another couple of khalasars. Her resources will be effectively limitless.

But again - half of Westeros or more will declare for her, anyway. She will make more sense than Euron, Aegon, or 'King Stannis'.

Quote

It is balance which works. You are basically saying that they should have had modern-day democracy in a premodern context, where it takes messages days to arrive and administration is limited. There is a reason why democracy only appeared in city-states until relatively recently. Even Roman Republic was aristocratic system - and was also a city-state, just one which ruled other city-states, so it doesn't really count.

I'm just pointing out that this is a crappy system for the lower classes, because they have too many bosses, not to mention it is not really a working state. There is a reason why modern states only allow their own people to use force, whereas those old system had many would-be guys in charge who liked to settle their scores with violence.

Quote

I only brought it up for comparison. But yes, there is little chance of Westeros moving into Byzantine direction - though I should note that Westerosi soldiers are actually part-time professionals, even though overall military organization is inferior to Byzantine one.

Well, no. We see that with the Northern levies - they all have to bring the harvest in, which means even the more professional men-at-arms there cannot afford to leave their homes in harvest season - which makes no sense if you imagine them as professional soldiers who are paid soldiers.

It is explicitly stated, for the North, that they do not fight for coin, but because it is their duty in the feudal system they live in.

Quote

As for second paragraph - why would Westerosi ever do something like that? Mountain clansmen were basically bandits, not a major threat requiring such an operation, and protected zone between the Wall and the wildling territory would have been more trouble than it is worth, especially since a) Wall was already serving purpose of protection, b) there was a "protected zone" south of the wall (the Gift) and c) northern parts of North would have been more sparsely populated than the south.

I suggest you reread FaB and count the number of (lordly) Arryns who were killed by clansmen. It is not low.

It is the same with the wildlings - they depopulated the Gifts, and they are a continuous nuisance with their raids in winter.

Quote

Let's say that Daenerys gets 200 000 Dothraki. Considering the context of your statement, these would be soldiers - so no women and children. Let us further assume that women and children are not taken along.

Each Mongol soldier maintained 3 to 4 horses. This means that 200 000 Dothraki means 600 000 horses. Now, these would be steppe ponies. Feeding requirements would be 1 - 1,5 pounds of hay per 100 pounds of body weight per day, or else 1-2% of body weight per day. Mongol horses weighted 500 - 600 lbs, so that would be 5 - 9 lbs of hay per day per horse. This then gives 3 000 000 to 5 400 000 lbs of fodder per day. Crossing just Narrow Sea would take 3-5 days at minimum, but for a fleet more like 5 - 10 days. So that is 15 000 000 - 54 000 000 lbs of fodder just for horses. Then there is water: about 4 times as much as food for horses, so 20 - 36 lbs of water per day (horses need 20 litres minimum, but these are ponies so it checks out). This means 12 000 000 - 21 600 000 lbs of water per day total. Again, 5 - 10 days means 60 000 000 - 216 000 000 lbs of water in total.

So if we up my above numbers, Daenerys would have 10 000 Unsullied, 3 000 sellswords, 7 500 Ironborn, 100 000 Dothraki (soldiers + civilians maybe?) and 100 000 freedmen, for a total of 220 000 men. Each of them would require 4,5 lbs of food and 4,5 lbs of water per day; food may be rationed but water not really. So if we reduce this to 3 lbs of food and 4,5 lbs of water, you get additional 660 000 lbs of food and 990 000 lbs of water per day. And for 5 - 10 days, this means a total of 3 300 000 - 6 600 000 lbs of food and 4 950 000 - 9 900 000 lbs of water per day.

So in total she will need 83 250 000 - 286 500 000 lbs of supplies. And that is just food and water - no weapons, nothing else. Assuming all ships are very large carracks capable of carrying 2 000 000 lbs per ship, that is between 42 and 143 ships of just supplies - and that is not counting dragons. To this you need ships to carry troops. Large carrack may be capable of carrying some 750 troops per ship, in addition to its normal complement of sailors and men-at-arms (some 75 men-at-arms IIRC). So let's assume 800 troops per carrack. 210 000 troops Daenerys has with her outside the Ironborn would thus require 262 carracks. This in turn means a fleet of 304 to 405 ships in total.

For comparison, Spanish Armada had 130 ships, 8 000 sailors and 18 000 soldiers. Which means that 210 000 troops by Daenerys would require 1 500 ships and 93 000 sailors, which would bring total manpower up to 300 000. This in turn means that numbers I had noted above are woefully understated.

I'm sorry, but don't bother with such calculations. The author doesn't care about any of that. I mean, how the hell did Renly's 20,000 horse survive the ride to Storm's End without the baggage train? It wasn't a day's ride from Bitterbridge to Storm's End. How could Stannis feed men who joined him without having any provisions and his own provisions being cut out for his meager army, not thousands of knights and squires and their many horses?

The food for Dany's people will be in Essos, and they can use the same ships over and over again if they just cross the Narrow Sea. That is not that difficult.

I mean, George didn't bother explaining how the hell there were enough ships for the Golden Company to get to Essos - there just were, without the Volantenes themselves even bothering to use their proper navy.

You seem to miscalculate the numbers of ships we are to expect to be in the harbors of the Free Cities - those are larger than life renaissance states. Pentos, Myr, Lys, Tyrosh, and Volantis will have thousands, possibly tens of thousands of ships between them.

Quote

Ships may be available, but even if they are immediately on hand, organizing transport of such force will be anything but easy. Chances are good portion of her force will get lost en route, especially since she will be arriving in winter. Even Golden Company, a much smaller force, had many of its ships scattered on arrival. Expecting Daenerys' much larger fleet to fare better is ludicrous.

They were not scattered, they were just dumbed wherever the ships landed. The captains didn't bother to take them back on once they landed on Estermont or Tarth.

Quote

Except that is not what we see. Behaviour of Westerosi infantry in battle clearly shows relatively high degree of discipline and drill.

Bolded part is where your entire argument falls apart. Westerosi infantry is not the same men who rose against King Maegor. Westerosi infantry:

• utilizes longbowmen
• utilizes pikemen
• deploys pikemen in ordered squares
• has concept of combined-arms deployment of pikemen and longbowmen
• actually stands against cavalry charge

However you define "professional", Westerosi infantry are clearly well-drilled force.

But they are not professional soldiers, regardless how they look, and their inferior compared to all professional warriors - meaning sellswords, Unsullied, Dothraki, Ironborn, etc.

Quote

Those magical dragonbone bows are about as common as dragon eggs. And it is not clear they will go through armour.

That isn't confirmed - they might be rare, but much more common than, say, Valyrian steel in Westeros. I mean, it is ridiculous to argue that George would introduce this rather poignant hierarchy of bows - longbows, goldenheart bows, and dragonbone bows for that not having any effect.

The first time the goldenheart bows will make their mark on Westerosi military history is when the Golden Company use them against the Tyrell army, and the second time will be when the Dothraki use them against whoever they will crush.

Quote

And why do you think Martin "definitely" does not envision a bunch of spent knights crushing tens of thousands of Dothraki? Look at what happened in Daznak's Pit: Dothraki get crushed by dismounted knights... which utilized shields and longswords. And you even get "no true Scotsman" by Jhiqui.

That was a mock battle. And I checked the entire paragraph. It is not even stated that the men in question actually were Dothraki:

Quote

After the beast fights came a mock battle, pitting six men on foot against six horsemen, the former armed with shields and longswords, the latter with Dothraki arakhs. The mock knights were clad in mail hauberks, whilst the mock Dothraki wore no armor. At first the riders seemed to have the advantage, riding down two of their foes and slashing the ear from a third, but then the surviving knights began to attack the horses, and one by one the riders were unmounted and slain, to Jhiqui’s great disgust. “That was no true khalasar,” she said.

This is not a true Scotsman fallacy - it is just the truth. Especially in the sense that six horsemen definitely wouldn't qualify as a khalasar even if those had been Dothraki.

You are grasping at straws if you really have/want to use this as evidence to build your case against the Dothraki.

Quote

It is depicted in the very first book, and very first field battle we get in the series. And my point wasn't that they were "experts" with weapons they were carrying, but that weapons they were carrying required training and discipline to be used at all.

Perhaps that's not the case in Westeros. I mean, go back to the Watch. It is a huge point that smallfolk don't get training at arms by professionals at all. And it is a huge point that you only get such professional training at castles.

We don't see anyone living in a village getting any sort of training at arms. That doesn't happen.

For me to believe that there was some sort of smallfolk training at arms the author would have to bother to give us that - to give us soldier peasants who are danger to knights and lords and who cannot be treated or dismissed as sheep. But such people just don't exist in Westeros. At all.

And as I acknowledged a couple of times already - there are professional men-at-arms in castles, and, if an entire region calls the banners, then those men add up and are a considerable force. Winterfell has a large garrison originally, and we see how Rodrik trains the new recruits after Ned and Robb have depleted the castle of men-at-arms. Smaller castles would do that, too, but to a smaller degree, since they would actually need a master-at-arms for that kind of training, which not every castle has.

However, it is also clear that those men are only a pretty small part of the overall military force of any given lord - especially if he raises a large army - because the men from the villages who are drafted as well simply do not have any training of that sort.

In that sense - your 'seemingly professional guys' equal then only those men who got their training in a castle or a city.

Quote

No, it is not ridiculous to "assume that men who never fought in a war know what they are doing when they do it the first time". There is that thing called "training", you know. Tywin trains his conscripts before he throws them into battle, because he is aware that untrained peasants will not stand a chance against Northern infantry. Which clearly shows that even Westerosi infantry is expected to be trained and disciplined.

There might be training going on at the Rock, but Lord Tywin doesn't train the men of his lords and landed knights. They train their men themselves ... or not. It isn't his call what his retainers do with their own men.

But again - this story, correctly, differentiates between bloodied men/veterans and green boys. The latter do know what warfare means, the former don't. They may have (some) training but they could lack the stomach for the work. Their mettle will be tested in battle. We see this even with Brienne, whose first kill takes place in AFfC.

What kind of training men get we see in TSS. Bennis of the Brown Shield actually trains Eustace's men in building a shieldwall and stuff. Obviously George thinks that kind of training doesn't have to be all that thorough - or isn't all that thorough - because the system this takes place in is a system where lords and knights simply don't have a powerful military force at the ready but muster new troops whenever the need arises.

It is quite clear that Osgrey did exactly the same thing he did in TSS when he and his levies rose for the Black Dragon in 196 AC. He went to his villages and demanded that his peasants fight for him (and his lands would have been somewhat larger back then, considering that he lost territory after the war).

Quote

Westerosi infantrymen may be peasants in social terms, but they are not untrained conscripts. Conscripts, maybe, but trained and disciplined ones.

Well, in light of the fact that they are only mustered when the need for war arises they cannot receive a thorough training. That is just not possible. Which means that George thinks that whatever little training they might get while they wait for the marching order, etc. is sufficient for them to do their jobs.

Quote

Except that is pretty much the case. If every peasant with a stick acted like Westerosi troops typically do during War of the Five Kings, there would be no point in training troops at all.

But they are not really training all that much. Training in castles prepares you for knighthood and sword play and tourneys and exotic weapons and stuff, but outside castles there is no training.

Quote

First part of Robert's Rebellion was in winter IIRC, though at the tail end of it.

It is still winter when Rhaegar leaves KL, but we have no idea when exactly in 282 AC the war started. If the war had taken place in winter, the Vale couldn't have sent any troops to fight at the Trident.

Quote

Unlikely. He already declared that he will crush Golden Company himself. And he is pretty much underestimating them:

When we combine this with Mace's known military prowess, he already has "dead man" written all across his forehead.

That is certainly possible. You can read the Epilogue as George setting up many things for early TWoW ... but one also has to take into account the ending of the Epilogue. The murders of the Lord Regent and the Grand Maester. They will have repercussions and could ruin the entire timetable - Cersei's trial, Margaery's trial, the next small council session (they will have an emergency session following the discovery of the corpses of Kevan and Pycelle), etc. Just as the news about the fall of Storm's End might have an impact on the timetable for the Tyrell campaign against Aegon.

If it turned out that Margaery's trial had not taken place yet when Mace started to perceive Aegon is a serious threat the campaign would take place sooner. And then he might choose to stay behind in the city and dispatch Tarly because he might consider Margaery's life and fate to be more important than winning glory in a battle.

This also might be the case if he makes himself the new Lord Regent after Kevan's death since this would give him unprecedented power and authority at court and he might enjoy it prancing around as the man who is effectively king now rather than fighting some campaign.

Quote

Most castles were not taken by assault historically. So no, we do not know how many, if any, castles the Ironborn assaulted.

For all we know, they could have bought them (unlikely, yes, but point is, we don't know anything).

Which doesn't negate the fact that castle was much more weakly held than usual.

I suggest you reread the chapters in question on the Ironborn.

Quote

Getting hired was considered and rejected. It is what I would have done, but fact is, they - that is, Golden Company's leadership - rejected that option. Until Aegon made suggestion of going to Westeros, the only option they seriously considered was giving up.

Strickland and (sort of) Maar argue against going to Daenerys, but Rivers, Edoryen, and Flowers all suggest ways how to do it. They don't actually have reached a decision by the point Aegon speaks up - and if he had said they should go, they would have likely gone, just as they would have if Connington had forced the issue. But he no longer has the time and patience to do this.

And Strickland, quite correctly, points out what a stupid course their idea to go to Westeros without Daenerys actually is. He knows that Aegon isn't worth much all by himself (and possibly knows who he actually is, unlike Connington), and he knows that they cannot prevail in the end without the dragons.

Which is true. They cannot really win. They will have a lot of success at first because George really had Cersei fuck up the administration, but he is building up other people instead, most prominently Euron.

Even if Dany wouldn't come west, Aegon would likely not rule long nor successfully.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Exactly. The hard answer that no one wants to face is that Dany has to stay there and rule, if she wants to do anything worthwhile. She can't solve this problem by burn-them-all. It makes her just as bad as them if she takes that approach. Imagine if people protesting police brutality right now were seriously pushing for "eye for an eye" justice to an entire social group. No trials. Just kill everyone wearing a police uniform. 

Dany's impulses just lead to barbarism. 

Slavery is barbarism. Drowning slavers in blood is justice and proper revenge.

And of course one can resolve this kind of thing by killing them all. You might not like that, but it certainly can be done, and it would work if done properly and without mercy.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Happy you like it. Feel free to tell me your thought when you have finished.

I really like the whole approach to put the sources in context first and citing of earlier precedents to put Augustus' politics in context. That works pretty well. I also find her arguments in relation to his childhood and youth (that he wouldn't have been with Atia and his stepfather but rather his Octavius grandfather and his grandmother Iulia (also explaining why he was chosen to give her eulogy).

It would have been interesting if there had been some more on his later life, since the final chapter only seems to cover his position in the new system he created, but I guess there will also be something about the succession and stuff.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Yes, of course. How cursory depends when they were drafted and how much time their lord had, so the first draft better than the following, because you may have more time and because the men you get are of the right age and fitness. And this men would of course get better the longer they survived.

Yeah, that was my point as well. We see that illustrated pretty well with those Umber green boys/greybeards.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

I can imagine Tywin putting in some labour into his men; essentially it would depend on the lord (and the circumstances) how much training his men get before they face the first battle.

Yeah, and I'd expect that the amoung of well-trained men due to the amount of castles and towns we can expect to exist in the West, the Riverlands, and the Reach should be pretty high compared to less densely populated areas like the North or the Stormlands (outside the Dornish Marches).

But that doesn't change the fact that lords actually raise men from outside their castles when they ride to war. That is how the feudalism à la GRRM works.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

I exaggerated.

But as you said, they are better trained and more experienced, and because a sellswords dies if he isn't good enough rather quickly, they have more really good men, especially if we talk about old and famed companies like the GC.

Yeah. The downside of that is that the sellswords don't like dying for a lost cause, but in that regard they are not that different from the average lord or knight.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

And their average fighters will still be better than big parts of a Westeroi army, simply by experience and the necessaries of living by the sword in an environment of professional armies.

Yes, the best soldiers to be found should actually be those who constantly fight in the Disputed Lands and among the Dothraki. In Westeros, the Marchers and the Red Mountains should have produced the best soldiers prior to the union with Dorne, and perhaps also some regions of the Vale where people had to constantly fight the clansmen. Constant fighting in the Riverlands back in the day (before the Conquest) should also have made them into pretty fierce fighters, as well as all people living in the border regions of the old Seven Kingdoms (that's effectively confirmed for the old Osgreys who guarded the western borders of the Reach against the West), and so forth.

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 6/17/2020 at 1:04 AM, Aldarion said:

I already explained what it means for Westeros. She will apply lessons learned in Slaver's Bay to Westeros - which will be a mistake. Westerosi society is not comparable to that of Slaver's Bay.

Basically, she will end up having used Westeros-appropriate approach in Slaver's Bay and Slaver's Bay-appropriate approach in Westeros.

You explained your interpretation, and I explained why it's flawed. This whole time, you've been asserting Dany will Maegor Westeros because she will have little support. Your reasoning for this is she's gonna go all fire and blood on the slavers. Why? What is the connection between slavers and Westeros?

On 6/17/2020 at 1:04 AM, Aldarion said:

I would really like to know what he is basing that on. There is simply no logical basis on which Dothraki will be a massive threat - or a threat at all - to Westeros. And Jorah is hardly a realist himself. I think what changed his opinion of Dothraki is not that he saw them up close, but that he fell in love with Daenerys, and since Daenerys has Dothraki in her army...

Dothraki would not be a deal breaker in a clash between Robert and Daenerys, simply because Targaryen with Dothraki > Baratheon, for Targaryen loyalists. But if she faces Aegon, they may well be.

I just told you what it was based on. Jorah, an experienced knight, gave a balanced assessment of the Dothraki, and no other characters or events in the story have contradicted him. That he is in love with Dany has no bearing on the objectiveness of his opinions here. If he were just saying what she wanted to hear, he wouldn't have added that the Dothraki were useless in siegecraft.

Bobby B and his council's reaction to Dany marrying a Dothraki further support Jorah's view. That he fears houses will rise for Viserys or Dany's half-Dothraki (!) son with a Dothraki army shows nobody is going to be turned away just because they have a "barbarian" army. He fixates on the number of Drogo's khalasar, and the event that pushes him to order an assassination is Dany's pregnancy, so it's not just about a Targ returning.

On 6/17/2020 at 1:04 AM, Aldarion said:

This means that, no, history is not irrelevant in "a world where battles can be won with shadow babies and dragons and magical wolves". In fact, with the exception of dragons, none of these fundametally change battlefield. Knight is still a knight, and both shadow babies and magical wolves replicate the roles which actually existed historically - assassins and scouts (such as Roman speculatores and exploratores), albeit with added magical twist.

We already went through this. GRRM takes inspiration from history but he isn't writing a text book. You've already agreed upthread that he hasn't always conformed to realism or historical accuracy in his depictions, so it is silly to assume he will in the future. You also are not GRRM and do not know what knowledge of history you share, or if your interpretations are the same. If you make a claim, you must be able to prove it through the text.

[Morte]

On 6/17/2020 at 6:13 PM, Aldarion said:

There is a reason why democracy only appeared in city-states until relatively recently. Even Roman Republic was aristocratic system - and was also a city-state, just one which ruled other city-states, so it doesn't really count.

Yes, there is one reason for democracy first appearing in city-states (and even that isn't really true, if one also drops consensus-democracies into the discussion), and one only - logistics, and even that could and was worked with: though an imperative mandate.

Beside: Roman Republic an aristocratic system? Hu?

The Roman Republic was a ... Republic! The fucking invention of the republic. A republic is a mix-constitution with elements from aristocracy, democracy and monarchy. That's the very definition of a Republic, and that's what the Roman Republic was. And guess why it failed? Not because of the plebs, not because of some dictator or censor tried to become king, no - it failed because of aristocratic morons didn't want to part with even a little of their wealth and influence for the greater good. The Republic died a long time before the first triumvirate, it died with the Gracchus-brothers and it died with the invention of the proscriptions by Sulla.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I really like the whole approach to put the sources in context first and citing of earlier precedents to put Augustus' politics in context. That works pretty well. I also find her arguments in relation to his childhood and youth (that he wouldn't have been with Atia and his stepfather but rather his Octavius grandfather and his grandmother Iulia (also explaining why he was chosen to give her eulogy).

It would have been interesting if there had been some more on his later life, since the final chapter only seems to cover his position in the new system he created, but I guess there will also be something about the succession and stuff.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense, because it would be strange for such a young boy to do eulogy if he would not have been close to her.

Well, I must say I liked the whole approach on his character in the book, and I think it was also the main focus, so there isn't that much on the succession etc.... But I don't want to spoil it, finish it first.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah. The downside of that is that the sellswords don't like dying for a lost cause, but in that regard they are not that different from the average lord or knight.

Yes, but I get the notion that the GC is not the only one having/developing a political agenda. I don't know if the Storm Crows still fight for money? What purpose will the Second Sons get, if they survive? And the Windblown seem to be the personal army of a commander who at least has a plan (whatever that might be)...

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, the best soldiers to be found should actually be those who constantly fight in the Disputed Lands and among the Dothraki. In Westeros, the Marchers and the Red Mountains should have produced the best soldiers prior to the union with Dorne, and perhaps also some regions of the Vale where people had to constantly fight the clansmen. Constant fighting in the Riverlands back in the day (before the Conquest) should also have made them into pretty fierce fighters, as well as all people living in the border regions of the old Seven Kingdoms (that's effectively confirmed for the old Osgreys who guarded the western borders of the Reach against the West), and so forth.

Yes, the problem of Westeros is more that they will be spend by the time Dany arrives; at least the good troops. The Reach will through a lot of their troops on the GC and loose them by doing so; the Riverlands are already spend, the Battle of the Ice will kill a lot of the remaining veterans in the North and we have still Euron spreading mayhem. So it leaves the Vale and the West, and the West had already drafted men, so their next army will not be as good as the last (but a lot of their men are at least still alive).

[Aldarion]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point there is that those men all fought because they really had a cause they believed in, meaning those men wouldn't have included the poor people lords drafted into service, but rather men whose trade was killing.

That simply does not follow. There were many times when whole armies of poor people fought for the cause they believed in. Such "rabble armies" appeared in the First Crusade (peasant army of Peter the Hermit - slaughtered by Seljuks in Anatolia) and 15th century Hungary (peasant army of John of Capistrano - played a key role in defense of Belgrade in 1456). And there were others as well.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, it is utter ridiculousness to claim that the Poor Fellows - a military order of religious fanatics - weren't professional warriors.

 

They were part of Faith Militant, which appears to be a popular movement, not a military organization.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It also makes no sense to assume that men whose trade had nothing to do with fighting were keen of going to war - that would be true in any scenario, but especially if going to war meant to go against the will of your king or your lord (some pious lords fighting against Maegor would have taken their own men, of course, but all those volunteers would have left their homes to march to war - that's not something people who have no experience in warfare do).

And it is the same with the Vulture King. Dorne suffered at the hands of the dragons, but you have to be mobile and you have to afford it to journey from the Sands to the Dornish Marches. If no lord actually forces you to do this, you wouldn't do it unless you had some sort of reason to expect to be successful.

That depends on what they expected to gain. Would not be the first time peasants mounted a campaign in hope of spoils, or some less earthly reward.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It also makes no sense to assume that men whose trade had nothing to do with fighting were keen of going to war - that would be true in any scenario, but especially if going to war meant to go against the will of your king or your lord (some pious lords fighting against Maegor would have taken their own men, of course, but all those volunteers would have left their homes to march to war - that's not something people who have no experience in warfare do).

And it is the same with the Vulture King. Dorne suffered at the hands of the dragons, but you have to be mobile and you have to afford it to journey from the Sands to the Dornish Marches. If no lord actually forces you to do this, you wouldn't do it unless you had some sort of reason to expect to be successful.

Killing people is useless when something is ingrained into society, unless you are aiming for a genocide.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You forget the tens of thousands of Volantene soldiers in that reckoning. And the freedmen aren't exactly arrow fodder. Barristan is already training new knights, and we'll have to wait and see how the companies of the freedmen fare in the coming battles. I expect them to turn out to be pretty good, but we will have to wait and see.

And it won't be 20,000 Dothraki - it will be all the Dothraki of Essos. Or rather: The potential of all the Dothraki. Daenerys Targaryen could, if she wanted, pull a Vietnam on Westeros US style. She is a dragonrider. She can lose entire wars, and just fly back to Essos to pick up another couple of khalasars. Her resources will be effectively limitless.

But again - half of Westeros or more will declare for her, anyway. She will make more sense than Euron, Aegon, or 'King Stannis'.

She will make more sense than Euron. That's it. As for the rest, 'King Stannis' actually has more right on the Iron Throne than either her or Aegon, seeing how Targaryens were removed from power in Robert's Rebellion. Regarding Aegon, it comes down to their relative PR.

And you are contradicting yourself. First you say that Westerosi soldiers cannot stand up to Daenerys' army because they are not full-time professionals, and now you say that Daenerys' companies of freedmen will likely turn out pretty good. Which one is it?

"All Dothraki of Essos" means likely millions of Dothraki. Mongols had trouble feeding relatively modest armies (compared to what you are proposing here) in Pannonian plain, in summer. Martin would have to be bloody ignoramus to pull off something like that. Granted, that doesn't mean he won't do it, but you cannot claim he will, either. As I noted, he does tend to at least skim through historical events which serve as an inspiration.

As for Volantene soldiers, between losses in battle and desertions - not all will be willing to serve her - that army will not be particularly large.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You forget the tens of thousands of Volantene soldiers in that reckoning. And the freedmen aren't exactly arrow fodder. Barristan is already training new knights, and we'll have to wait and see how the companies of the freedmen fare in the coming battles. I expect them to turn out to be pretty good, but we will have to wait and see.

And it won't be 20,000 Dothraki - it will be all the Dothraki of Essos. Or rather: The potential of all the Dothraki. Daenerys Targaryen could, if she wanted, pull a Vietnam on Westeros US style. She is a dragonrider. She can lose entire wars, and just fly back to Essos to pick up another couple of khalasars. Her resources will be effectively limitless.

But again - half of Westeros or more will declare for her, anyway. She will make more sense than Euron, Aegon, or 'King Stannis'.

Reason why modern states like to have exclusive right on violence is because it helps keep system running smoothly. But that does not mean feudalism "doesn't work".

And personally, I don't think you can say that a system "works" if it does not have a self-corrective system (read: possibility of defenestrating rulers) built into it. And monopoly on force is one of ways in which system can be corrupted.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no. We see that with the Northern levies - they all have to bring the harvest in, which means even the more professional men-at-arms there cannot afford to leave their homes in harvest season - which makes no sense if you imagine them as professional soldiers who are paid soldiers.

It is explicitly stated, for the North, that they do not fight for coin, but because it is their duty in the feudal system they live in.

Again, I am only using professional soldiers as in "people whose job is fighting". It does not mean they fight for coin, and doesn't even mean that fighting is the only job they have.  So if nobles have to oversee harvests (for whatever reason) then it means that even they would need to go home. And soldiers could be given grants of land in exchange for service, from which to draw income. Which would then neatly explain why they have to go home post-harvest: Byzantine thematic infantry could only campaign defensively precisely because their holdings were too small for them to rely merely on hired hands. But cavalry and (maybe - not certain about it) heavy infantry could campaign year-round, because they had estates large enough that they could continue to function in their absence.

In short, fact that Northern troops need to bring their harvest in does not mean they are conscripted peasants. I believe English longbowmen were in a similar situation, but I do not know enough about English military system in 15th century to make a definite claim. And seeing how Robb does not, in fact, lose his entire infantry to harvest means that even Westerosi infantry is lot more professional than you think.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no. We see that with the Northern levies - they all have to bring the harvest in, which means even the more professional men-at-arms there cannot afford to leave their homes in harvest season - which makes no sense if you imagine them as professional soldiers who are paid soldiers.

It is explicitly stated, for the North, that they do not fight for coin, but because it is their duty in the feudal system they live in.

Nuisance hardly justifies something on the scale that you proposed. At best, there would have been punitive campaigns launched by Night Watch and/or marcher lords.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm sorry, but don't bother with such calculations. The author doesn't care about any of that. I mean, how the hell did Renly's 20,000 horse survive the ride to Storm's End without the baggage train? It wasn't a day's ride from Bitterbridge to Storm's End. How could Stannis feed men who joined him without having any provisions and his own provisions being cut out for his meager army, not thousands of knights and squires and their many horses?

 

Bitterbridge to Storm's End is some 500 miles (maybe 520). 1 2 This would be 800 kilometers. Cavalry can move some 50 - 100 kilometers per day, and that is in hostile terrain. So Renly's army would have taken - considering it is rather large force - 10 days to move that distance. Ridden cavalry horses can carry 34 kg of barley, and require 15 kg of barley per day (for destriers). Mule can carry up to 120 kg while requiring 7,5 kg per day. So for 10 days, a mule would have 45 kg "extra" beyond its own requirements. This means that for 8 days (10 days minus 2 which destriers can carry fodder for themselves), 20 000 horse (assuming an all-destrier force) would require 2 400 000 kg of barley, which would require 54 000 mules. So getting there is possible, even if it is on the outer edge of plausible. Surviving after it, is not.

Overall, I expect that George reads up on historical battles and campaigns, and then goes with what his "gut feeling" tells him afterwards.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The food for Dany's people will be in Essos, and they can use the same ships over and over again if they just cross the Narrow Sea. That is not that difficult.

I mean, George didn't bother explaining how the hell there were enough ships for the Golden Company to get to Essos - there just were, without the Volantenes themselves even bothering to use their proper navy.

You seem to miscalculate the numbers of ships we are to expect to be in the harbors of the Free Cities - those are larger than life renaissance states. Pentos, Myr, Lys, Tyrosh, and Volantis will have thousands, possibly tens of thousands of ships between them.

My point isn't about whether it is physically possible to transport an army - in fact, I believe I have already noted that it is. Problem here is organization: if Golden Company had its ships scattered all across Stormlands by storms, how will Daenerys' - much larger, and likely more heterogenous - fleet fare?

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were not scattered, they were just dumbed wherever the ships landed. The captains didn't bother to take them back on once they landed on Estermont or Tarth.

 

I was talking about ships being scattered, which did happen. Leading thus to bolded.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they are not professional soldiers, regardless how they look, and their inferior compared to all professional warriors - meaning sellswords, Unsullied, Dothraki, Ironborn, etc.

Not necessarily. First, as I noted, standing army =/= professional army. Second, you cannot just assume that they are automatically inferior to "all" professional soldiers, especially in a world as heterogenous as ASoIaF. Tactics matter, doctrine matters, equipment matters. Unsullied are Roman legion at best, Sumeran phalanx at worst - such a group will not be able to stand up to guys who field a 15th century army. And while I do agree that fact that something appeared later does not mean it is necessarily superior, fact is that difference here is simply too large. Unsullied may have discipline and training, but they do not have equipment, support and tactics to actually allow their advantages to show.

Dothraki are poor man's Mongols, and thus not a threat to essentially 15th century continent-spanning empire. And unlike historical Mongols, Dothraki are not actually professional army. Same for Ironborn.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That isn't confirmed - they might be rare, but much more common than, say, Valyrian steel in Westeros. I mean, it is ridiculous to argue that George would introduce this rather poignant hierarchy of bows - longbows, goldenheart bows, and dragonbone bows for that not having any effect.

The first time the goldenheart bows will make their mark on Westerosi military history is when the Golden Company use them against the Tyrell army, and the second time will be when the Dothraki use them against whoever they will crush.

Or whoever crushes them. It is not clear that Dothraki will even be a major military threat, let alone that they will "crush" Westerosi armies.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You are grasping at straws if you really have/want to use this as evidence to build your case against the Dothraki.

You are not exactly one to talk, you know.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps that's not the case in Westeros. I mean, go back to the Watch. It is a huge point that smallfolk don't get training at arms by professionals at all. And it is a huge point that you only get such professional training at castles.

We don't see anyone living in a village getting any sort of training at arms. That doesn't happen.

Which, again, does not preclude Westerosi from having trained infantry. It just means you don't have city/village militia, but lords could easily maintain corps of trained infantry.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And as I acknowledged a couple of times already - there are professional men-at-arms in castles, and, if an entire region calls the banners, then those men add up and are a considerable force. Winterfell has a large garrison originally, and we see how Rodrik trains the new recruits after Ned and Robb have depleted the castle of men-at-arms. Smaller castles would do that, too, but to a smaller degree, since they would actually need a master-at-arms for that kind of training, which not every castle has.

However, it is also clear that those men are only a pretty small part of the overall military force of any given lord - especially if he raises a large army - because the men from the villages who are drafted as well simply do not have any training of that sort.

In that sense - your 'seemingly professional guys' equal then only those men who got their training in a castle or a city.

My problem is that equipment and tactics we see utilized - pikes, longbows, pike squares and lines, offensive use of pikemen - all require training. Not necessarily a standing, fully professional army, but:

1) longbow requires basically a lifetime of training - you need to develop muscular strength, coordination, technique etc.

2) pike requires highly disciplined infantry - peasants will have utilized axes, spears, various polearms etc., but never pikes, because pike has to be used in a highly-drilled formation to be effective

3) crossbows are way too expensive to be used by anyone but professional soldiers (or city militia at worst)

Also, we see even Northern infantry clad in mail, and that armour is expensive. Peasants would have used quilted armour, not metal. Which we also see, admittedly; but fact that at least some of infantry uses mail means that at least some of infantry consists of professionals.

Again AGoT, Lannister army:

Quote

In the dawn light, the army of Lord Tywin Lannister unfolded like an iron rose, thorns
gleaming.

His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad.
Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to
east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed
squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe. Three hundred
heavy horse surrounded Ser Kevan and the lords bannermen Lefford, Lydden, and Serrett with
all their sworn retainers.

The right wing was all cavalry, some four thousand men, heavy with the weight of their armor.
More than three quarters of the knights were there, massed together like a great steel fist. Ser
Addam Marbrand had the command. Tyrion saw his banner unfurl as his standardbearer shook it
out; a burning tree, orange and smoke. Behind him flew Ser Flement’s purple unicorn, the
brindled boar of Crakehall, the bantam rooster of Swyft, and more.

His lord father took his place on the hill where he had slept. Around him, the reserve
assembled; a huge force, half mounted and half foot, five thousand strong. Lord Tywin almost
always chose to command the reserve; he would take the high ground and watch the battle unfold
below him, committing his forces when and where they were needed most.

1) Foot archers are stringing their bows. Which means archers, not crossbowmen - and this matters because while town militia may use crossbowmen (though not ones equipped with windlass crossbows which would be required in age of plate armour) - longbowmen need to be basically under continuous training regime.

2) Pikemen are positioned in squares, in the center. As I have pointed out before, a) pikemen are also a type of troops which have to be well-drilled to be effective and b) you do not place unreliable troops in the center of formation. If Westerosi infantry really are half-trained peasants, no sane commander would have placed them in the center. You envelop an army, they can still fight (unless the press is too much); you destroy the center, army is gone.

3) Men-at-arms are positioned behind the pikemen. Which means that Martin actually means dismounted men-at-arms whenever he uses said term - which means that a portion - and possibly significant portion - of Westerosi infantry are full-time professionals. Assuming all groups are equal, 25% of infantry would be full-time professionals and 75% would be highly-trained militia.

4) Army has 4 000 heavy cavalry on right wing, 2 500 heavy cavalry in reserve plus 300 heavy cavalry with Kevan. As Tywin's total force numbers 20 000 men, this means that 6 800 troops or 34% of the army is heavy cavalry (6 500 / 32,5% if you don't count Kevan's bodyguard). Out of remaining 13 200 / 13 500 troops, 2 500 are infantry in reserve. This leaves 11 000 men "unaccounted for". "Van" was "massing on the left". Now, van was some 1/5 to 1/3 of total army, depending on whether you were talking Byzantine (1/5) or Western European (1/3) army. So vanguard was some 4 000 - 6 000 men. This consisted of "sweeping of the west" - mounted archers, freeriders, sellswords, fieldhands and half-trained boys. Now, fact that "half-trained boys" are specifically noted means that such a thing is unusual - thus directly going against your assumption that all of Westerosi troops except for knights are half-trained. Anyway, so far we have 9 000 fully trained troops and 6 000 potential conscripts (in reality less, as I will explain). Remaining 5 000 would be in center division, the only one not explicitly noted - this means pikemen, foot archers and dismounted men-at-arms. All of these are professional troops. All-and-all, out of army of 20 000 troops, we have 6 500 heavy cavalry and 7 500 trained infantry out of Lannister own army, a total of 14 000 trained troops. In vanguard, mounted archers, freeriders and sellswords would all be at least somewhat trained. Assuming they make up half of the force, this is additional 3 000 trained men. This leaves 3 000 drafted peasantry.

Overall, anywhere between 70% and 85% of Lannister army consisted of trained (professional) soldiers.

Now, this is Northern army at Winterfell:

Quote

The Karstarks came in on a cold windy morning, bringing three hundred horsemen and
near two thousand foot from their castle at Karhold. The steel points of their pikes winked in the
pale sunlight as the column approached. A man went before them, pounding out a slow, deep-
throated marching rhythm on a drum that was bigger than he was, boom, boom, boom.

(...)

“How many is it now?” Bran asked Maester Luwin as Lord Karstark and his sons rode through
the gates in the outer wall.
“Twelve thousand men, or near enough as makes no matter.”
“How many knights?”
“Few enough,” the maester said with a touch of impatience. “To be a knight, you must stand
your vigil in a sept, and be anointed with the seven oils to consecrate your vows. In the north,
only a few of the great houses worship the Seven. The rest honor the old gods, and name no
knights... but those lords and their sons and sworn swords are no less fierce or loyal or
honorable. A man’s worth is not marked by a ser before his name. As I have told you a hundred
times before.”
“Still,” said Bran, “how many knights?”
Maester Luwin sighed. “Three hundred, perhaps four... among three thousand armored lances
who are not knights.”

Again, things to be noted:

1) Karstark troops consist of horsemen and pikemen. Pikemen require strict drill to be effective on battlefield - which means that they are well-trained troops.

2) Northern army had 3 000 armoured lances out of 12 000 men, though nature of mobilization means that this likely overstates actual proportion of armoured cavalry in the North.

This is Renly's host:

Quote

All the chivalry of the south rides with me, and that is the least part of my power.
My foot is coming behind, a hundred thousand swords and spears and pikes. And you will
destroy me? With what, pray? That paltry rabble I see there huddled under the castle walls? I’ll
call them five thousand and be generous, codfish lords and onion knights and sellswords. Half of
them are like to come over to me before the battle starts. You have fewer than four hundred horse,
my scouts tell me—freeriders in boiled leather who will not stand an instant against armored
lances.

Again, infantry contains pikemen. And note that Renly does not mention "peasants" among Stannis' "rabble", yet talks desparagingly of "codfish lords and onion knights and sellswords".

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There might be training going on at the Rock, but Lord Tywin doesn't train the men of his lords and landed knights. They train their men themselves ... or not. It isn't his call what his retainers do with their own men.

But again - this story, correctly, differentiates between bloodied men/veterans and green boys. The latter do know what warfare means, the former don't. They may have (some) training but they could lack the stomach for the work. Their mettle will be tested in battle. We see this even with Brienne, whose first kill takes place in AFfC.

Differentiation will always exist. And most of troops in Westeros are likely to be veterans by this measure, after War of the Five Kings and Aegon's invasion.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, in light of the fact that they are only mustered when the need for war arises they cannot receive a thorough training. That is just not possible. Which means that George thinks that whatever little training they might get while they wait for the marching order, etc. is sufficient for them to do their jobs.

Except what we actually see in battle indicates that majority - though not all - infantrymen are not "only mustered when the need for war arises". Or at least not in the sense that you randomly select men, give them spears and throw them to fight. Remember what I wrote about insurrectio banderialis. Westerosi military system is based on "calling the banners" and would thus be similar to that system. And it is a system which was used as late as Napoleonic wars:

https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/organization/Austria/ArmyStudy/c_AustrianInsurrection.html

Quote

In order to push back enemies through the borders and in order to achieve the so called “Tregua Domini” (by the Lord a Truce), the higher Prelates, the royal barons and the hereditary lands barons (landowners) had to raise their own troops, under their own standards (Fähnlein) or Banderia. This was the:

- Insurrectio Banderialis: noblemen and the Holy-orders had to raise hussars regiments (banderia. Singular Banderium) according to their financial wealth. These men were organised into the "Banderia" (at least 50 men, namely 1/8 of the full 400 men banderium force) of the noblemen owner (or Holy-order). It fought under the colour (standard) of the "Owner". If the noble was not so wealthy to raise 50 hussars, the eventual enrolled men were sent under the colour of the County (Banderium of the county). The King, the Queen, the Lords, Higher Prelates and some Holy-order could retain their own Banderia.

Even the lesser nobility, but enough in wellfare to get money for raising troops, could have their small armies and join the Insurrectio (here called Particularis). These were an Insurrectio mode, which had some character of volunteers-call to arm (at least for the commanders).

In effects, there were two ways to call for Insurrectio:

1. Insurrectio Partialis: whenever only one or two (of the former three feudal Lords) components were called to arms nationwide or in some regions of the country.

2. Insurrectio Generalis: all components were called to arms, nationwide. In this case “all and each” Prelates, hereditary or acquisite barons with their subordinate vassals (for Croatia, the Summalisten), must raise troops paying directly them and for them. The poorer noblesmen had to enroll “personally under the King’s Flags” for the so called:

3. Insurrectio Personalis: where all the hungarian nobles (personalis = persons, but even organizations Ie. the free cities) had to stand up (but this was restricted more times). So the insurrectio personalis was a personal insurrection of the nobles and of all their cities, towns and other corporations, which held the noble title. The nobles didn't pay taxes, but were compelled personally to defend the Country. They had the opportunity to send deputy soldiers instead of themselves; but this, actually, was not common;

In every case there were also standard rules to understand the richness degree of the nobles. They simply counted the number of rural farms (Porta) in order to have a measure of the landowner wellfare. So many paid and raised troops along with this rating value.

4. Insurrectio Portalis: the poorer Vassals (and sometimes with the higher nobles aid) raised hussars and footsoldiers according to what stated by law. The "porta" is a term which means house. The earlier origin is not known. It was, therefore, the taxation standard units, when taking off money from each farmhouse, owned by a landowner. In the Hungarian Kingdom (as above mentioned, they were not the same thing as the lands of the Hungarian Crown) there were 5405,5 Porta. The country-soldiers were formally volunteers, but the recruiting was not always free from violence.

The portalis and the banderialis Insurrections were often mixed and combined. The banderialis and portalis Insurrections had not different Statutes. The Statutes were so complicated that it was impossible to keep them as the original statement. Actually, except in the personalis component, nobles and aristocrats raised as many troops as they wanted; usually more than the number fixed by the Statutes. In reality the laws changed very fastly and the called insurrections were never the same in strenght or in organization.

Westerosi system is akin to "Insurrectio Banderialis" described above. It should be noted that this, or at least very similar system, was used to raise both cavalry and infantry forces from early 15th century up to early 19th century. And Hungary managed to defend itself against Ottoman Empire for over a hundred years before defences broke, so clearly a mix of insurrection + mercenaries was capable of standing up to fully professional army. Ottomans won in the end simply because they managed to expand in all the other directions to the point that Hungary was left woefully outmatched in terms of sheer resources.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they are not really training all that much. Training in castles prepares you for knighthood and sword play and tourneys and exotic weapons and stuff, but outside castles there is no training.

Do we know that? Because, again, battlefield behaviour of Westerosi troops is anything but that of "untrained" troops.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Strickland and (sort of) Maar argue against going to Daenerys, but Rivers, Edoryen, and Flowers all suggest ways how to do it. They don't actually have reached a decision by the point Aegon speaks up - and if he had said they should go, they would have likely gone, just as they would have if Connington had forced the issue. But he no longer has the time and patience to do this.

And Strickland, quite correctly, points out what a stupid course their idea to go to Westeros without Daenerys actually is. He knows that Aegon isn't worth much all by himself (and possibly knows who he actually is, unlike Connington), and he knows that they cannot prevail in the end without the dragons.

Which is true. They cannot really win. They will have a lot of success at first because George really had Cersei fuck up the administration, but he is building up other people instead, most prominently Euron.

Even if Dany wouldn't come west, Aegon would likely not rule long nor successfully.

Actually, Strickland was the one who argued the most for why they needed Daenerys - but he was also the one who argued for decision to go west. Take a look:

- Strickland first pointed out that Daenerys is not going west. 

- Tristan Rivers argued that they need to go help Daenerys.

- Lysono Maar pointed out that getting to Daenerys was physically impossible

- Edoryen argued for accepting Yunkish offer

- Strickland refused that option

- Flowers suggested land route

- Strickland refused that

- Aegon suggested going west

- Flowers accepted that

- Strickland argued that they needed Daenerys to vouch for Aegon's legitimacy

- Griff argued that going West was physically possible, unlike Mereen

- Maar and Rivers argued that they don't need Daenerys to take Westeros

- Peake brought up "friends in the Reach"

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You explained your interpretation, and I explained why it's flawed. This whole time, you've been asserting Dany will Maegor Westeros because she will have little support. Your reasoning for this is she's gonna go all fire and blood on the slavers. Why? What is the connection between slavers and Westeros?

It doesn't matter what connection is between slavers and Westeros. What matters is what Daenerys perceives.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I just told you what it was based on. Jorah, an experienced knight, gave a balanced assessment of the Dothraki, and no other characters or events in the story have contradicted him. That he is in love with Dany has no bearing on the objectiveness of his opinions here. If he were just saying what she wanted to hear, he wouldn't have added that the Dothraki were useless in siegecraft.

Bobby B and his council's reaction to Dany marrying a Dothraki further support Jorah's view. That he fears houses will rise for Viserys or Dany's half-Dothraki (!) son with a Dothraki army shows nobody is going to be turned away just because they have a "barbarian" army. He fixates on the number of Drogo's khalasar, and the event that pushes him to order an assassination is Dany's pregnancy, so it's not just about a Targ returning.

You are misremembering things:

Quote

The king shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. “Perhaps. There are ships to be had in the
Free Cities, though. I tell you, Ned, I do not like this marriage. There are still those in the Seven
Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the
war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed,
and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors
will join him.”
“He will not cross,” Ned promised. “And if by some mischance he does, we will throw him
back into the sea. Once you choose a new Warden of the East—”
The king groaned. “For the last time, I will not name the Arryn boy Warden. I know the boy
is your nephew, but with Targaryens climbing in bed with Dothraki, I would be mad to rest one
quarter of the realm on the shoulders of a sickly child.”

As for the council part, issue is not Dothraki. Issue is Daenerys, and the fact that she is pregnant.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

We already went through this. GRRM takes inspiration from history but he isn't writing a text book. You've already agreed upthread that he hasn't always conformed to realism or historical accuracy in his depictions, so it is silly to assume he will in the future. You also are not GRRM and do not know what knowledge of history you share, or if your interpretations are the same. If you make a claim, you must be able to prove it through the text.

That is true. But it is also true that most of his battles are basically copy-paste of historical battles with a twist or two. And whenever Mongols engaged Western-style armies (that is, with heavy cavaly, knights, crossbowmen etc.), they were unsuccessful. So if he does his research, the only outcome is Dothraki getting defeated.

[Aldarion]

31 minutes ago, Morte said:

Yes, there is one reason for democracy first appearing in city-states (and even that isn't really true, if one also drops consensus-democracies into the discussion), and one only - logistics, and even that could and was worked with: though an imperative mandate.

Beside: Roman Republic an aristocratic system? Hu?

The Roman Republic was a ... Republic! The fucking invention of the republic. A republic is a mix-constitution with elements from aristocracy, democracy and monarchy. That's the very definition of a Republic, and that's what the Roman Republic was. And guess why it failed? Not because of the plebs, not because of some dictator or censor tried to become king, no - it failed because of aristocratic morons didn't want to part with even a little of their wealth and influence for the greater good. The Republic died a long time before the first triumvirate, it died with the Gracchus-brothers and it died with the invention of the proscriptions by Sulla.

Roman Republic was an aristocratic system. Aristocratic republic is a thing, and republic can go across an entire spectrum without ceasing to be a republic. Otherwise there would have been no conflict between optimates and populares, because there would have been nothing to be conflicted about.

In fact, definition of a republic is that it combines monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements into one whole. So you have:

a) monarchic element: king (in republic: president - consuls of Roman Republic)

b) aristocratic element: nobility (in republic: parliament, and political class in general)

c) democratic element: people (in republic: people in general).

But this fact also means that relative influence of different groups can change while still remaining within republican framework.

[Lord Varys]

@Aldarion

I'm sorry, this discussion is pretty much leading nowhere. You pretty much beg the question, presupposing the things you want to prove and disguising that by citing completely irrelevant real world knowledge.

It is irrelevant how you think people behaved in the real world in the middle ages, when you cannot prove that your knowledge influenced the author or the author actually cares about making his characters behave in a 'realistic real world manner'.

It is fallacious to use real world history stuff to fill in the blanks in George's world - especially when we have evidence that his system is actually different from what the real world 'parallel'.

The only evidence you have for pikemen and infantry and the like behaving the way you think they have to is just that - you don't know how things in this regard are in Westeros. I'd agree that archers do have to train, but unless we actually see people mounting a shieldwall and know what kind of training they got or see pikemen use their pikes and Manderly men their tridents and what not there is just no basis for this idea of yours.

Especially since you completely ignore those portions of the text where George gives us proper background on warfare, meaning in the Meribald speech, the way mustering is depicted in TSS, the way Maegor's wars are depicted, etc.

It is also quite ridiculous to argue that men who effectively have little to no actual experience in warfare are superior to men whose very trade is warfare. That just doesn't make any sense. The entire chivalry of Westeros aren't warriors. They are, to a man, decadent tourney knights since they rarely fight in actual battles or wars. In part this clearly is unintentional on George's part - I'm sure he doesn't intended Randyll Tarly being considered 'the finest soldier in the Realm' to be a completely meaningless statement but that's what it is when the man only fought in a single battle prior to the War of the Five Kings. That's like saying you are the greatest musician in the country on the basis of a single concert.

And as such it is unrealistic to assume they have the stamina or the discipline or the abilities to stand against the Dothraki or professional sellswords. It just doesn't fly that they would be much of a match for such people - especially not after a civil lasting for a couple of years.

How shitty Westerosi are at war you can also see during the First Dornish War - what amateurs Orys Baratheon and his knights are, and how stupid Harlan Tyrell and his men are.

George never anywhere plays up the strength of the Westerosi infantry - there are some trained men there, some competent men, but most of them are seen as insignificant rabble.

And to be sure - I do not think Daenerys has to have all that much success. I'm merely pointing out that she is not going to fail because of a lack of resources or because she doesn't have professional warriors. That is simply not a proclamation one can make at this point.

The idea to play up the competence of the Westerosi infantry is also rather weird to be done at this point considering the author doesn't take any efforts at all to play them up as a powerful force - unlike he did with the Dothraki, unlike he does with the Golden Company (and especially Black Balaq's archers who played a prominent role in the attack on Griffin's Roost).

There certainly is strong infantry in Westeros - for instance, Stannis's clansmen are most likely to fight afoot at the lake. Those men are professional fighters. But they are not men that were drafted for war. They seem to be what one could call soldier peasants - semi-noble clans of men living in a harsh environment where a martial culture prevails (like it does on Bear Island, too, where even the women are drawn into this thing).

As for the Maegor thing:

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

That simply does not follow. There were many times when whole armies of poor people fought for the cause they believed in. Such "rabble armies" appeared in the First Crusade (peasant army of Peter the Hermit - slaughtered by Seljuks in Anatolia) and 15th century Hungary (peasant army of John of Capistrano - played a key role in defense of Belgrade in 1456). And there were others as well.

They were part of Faith Militant, which appears to be a popular movement, not a military organization.

Of course people can also take up arms when they don't know what they are doing - but these people knew they were going against the dragons. That is not something you do when you have no idea how to fight. Also, it wasn't a crusade where you went to some far away place to loot some heathens (or Jews along the way), but rather a movement where you knew you would face knights and lords and dragons and their men in battle.

The Faith Militant consisted of two military orders - the Warrior's Sons were knights, the Poor Fellows humbler but not without skill nor weaponry. Reread AFfC to get a better impression of them, you can seem them at Darry and on the road before they show up in KL. What we know about them is that they control traffic and the roads in the old days, meaning they had the means to blackmail and extort people they met on the road - all stuff that wouldn't work if they were just rabble.

As for the Northmen:

This isn't about the lords who also stay at home to watch over the harvest, but their men. Professional warriors - even such who have a farm of some sort - would have the resources to leave whenever they were called upon because they would have the men to bring in the harvest for them.

20 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You explained your interpretation, and I explained why it's flawed. This whole time, you've been asserting Dany will Maegor Westeros because she will have little support. Your reasoning for this is she's gonna go all fire and blood on the slavers. Why? What is the connection between slavers and Westeros?

There is no connection there. An interesting parallel is there between AGoT Dany and ADwD Dany - both sort of always know deep down what's going to happen and what they will do. Dany dreams of Drogon very early in the story, she knows the dragon eggs need heat to hatch, etc.

In ADwD Dany also knows that she is at the wrong place and doing the wrong things. She knows that deep down, but she doesn't want to hear it. And the visions she has in the Dothraki Sea can be seen as revealing/forcing her to accept the truth the same way Mirri Maz Duur's betrayal and the fact that Drogo was hopelessly lost to her for good did.

This isn't a scene where she succumbs to some nonexisting dark impulses, but rather the moment where she realizes the truth that she made mistakes.

As for George's historical inspirations - those seem to be pretty straightforward and easily to spot. I can only urge anyone who wants to know his sources to read Costain and Druon to see where he got a lot of his stuff.

The idea that George sits at home and reads up historical literature to properly depict his feudal society to the satisfaction of history buffs is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Yes, it makes a lot of sense, because it would be strange for such a young boy to do eulogy if he would not have been close to her.

Well, I must say I liked the whole approach on his character in the book, and I think it was also the main focus, so there isn't that much on the succession etc.... But I don't want to spoil it, finish it first.

I'm through now, I really liked the attempt to ignore hindsight and really try to figure out what may have motivated him back in the beginning and whether it was power which he wanted to cling to and not just a desire to organize stuff.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Yes, but I get the notion that the GC is not the only one having/developing a political agenda. I don't know if the Storm Crows still fight for money? What purpose will the Second Sons get, if they survive? And the Windblown seem to be the personal army of a commander who at least has a plan (whatever that might be)...

Yes, there certainly is that, but so far we also have the kind of commander we get in Brown Ben who is really not that willing to side with the losing faction.

In his case we see, for instance, how a lack of dragons makes you look unpromising - something which we likely will get in reverse when Dany has (larger) dragons with riders while Aegon doesn't have them (nor any of the other Westerosi pretenders). That will make look her more promising than the others.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Yes, the problem of Westeros is more that they will be spend by the time Dany arrives; at least the good troops. The Reach will through a lot of their troops on the GC and loose them by doing so; the Riverlands are already spend, the Battle of the Ice will kill a lot of the remaining veterans in the North and we have still Euron spreading mayhem. So it leaves the Vale and the West, and the West had already drafted men, so their next army will not be as good as the last (but a lot of their men are at least still alive).

For the West we can expect a lot of veterans from Jaime's early battles as well as those men Cersei sent back home in AFfC to be reactivated, but they as well as the Vale men should involve themselves in the fighting long before Dany even shows up.

And the North is already pretty much spent, but Stannis' victory - if he wins - is likely going to be one of the bloodiest battles so far. They are likely to kill all the Freys with their lake ruse, and since clansmen are pretty much eager to bathe in Bolton blood before they die, we can also expect them to show no mercy and don't allow any of the Bolton men to yield - not at the lake, nor when they finally take Winterfell.

[SeanF]

Well, there are multiple factions vying for control of the Iron Throne.

I expect that Aegon and the Dornish will team up, and succeed in driving the Tyrells and Lannisters out of Kings Landing.  I'm sure that a lot of people there and in the Crownlands will welcome a "Targaryen" king and Queen Arianne, but their authority won't extend very far into the Reach or the West.  I expect to that there will be some grim settling of scores, on the part of Jon Connington and the Sands.  It's hard to know what impact that will have on the new regime's popularity.

Euron wants the Iron Throne, too.  Will he team up with the Tyrells and/or Cersei?  Possibly, although there is historic ill feeling between the Ironborn and the peoples of the Western coast, especially if he destroys the Redwyne fleet.

Dany will almost certainly have potential allies when she arrives in Westeros.  Basically, anyone who has lost out to whoever is in charge at Kings Landing when she gets there.  

[Hodor the Articulate]

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It doesn't matter what connection is between slavers and Westeros. What matters is what Daenerys perceives.

Why would Dany perceive Westeros to the same as slavers then? You said yourself, "Westerosi society is not comparable to that of Slaver's Bay".

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You are misremembering things:

I already made my arguments for Ned, so you can look back at those. The rest of the council, bar Barristan, agreed with Robert that preggo Dany needed to be dealt with. I'm not misremembering anything.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no connection there. An interesting parallel is there between AGoT Dany and ADwD Dany - both sort of always know deep down what's going to happen and what they will do. Dany dreams of Drogon very early in the story, she knows the dragon eggs need heat to hatch, etc.

In ADwD Dany also knows that she is at the wrong place and doing the wrong things. She knows that deep down, but she doesn't want to hear it. And the visions she has in the Dothraki Sea can be seen as revealing/forcing her to accept the truth the same way Mirri Maz Duur's betrayal and the fact that Drogo was hopelessly lost to her for good did.

This isn't a scene where she succumbs to some nonexisting dark impulses, but rather the moment where she realizes the truth that she made mistakes.

Good observation. To add to this, "if I look back I am lost" started when Dany realised MMD betrayed her, and pops it up again when she has conflicting thoughts. In AGOT she uses it to quash her self-doubt so she can hatch the dragons, but in ADWD she repeats the mantra to suppress who she was before she settled in Meereen. In her last chapter, she's literally turning her back on her child, Drogon, and crawling back to Meereen because "if I look back I am lost". But then she has an epiphany: "to go forward I must go back". She's, as you say, finally accepted her mistakes.

I think this is not pointing to Dany becoming carelessly violent or bloodthirsty, but to her returning to being the confident leader she was in ACOK ("if I look back" was absent that book), except now she's also made peace with the fact that war cannot be bloodless. So if anything she will be more deliberate in her violence. That makes her a darker character, but in the same way that Jon "kill the boy and let the man be born" Snow has become darker.

[SeanF]

48 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

I think this is not pointing to Dany becoming carelessly violent or bloodthirsty, but to her returning to being the confident leader she was in ACOK ("if I look back" was absent that book), except now she's also made peace with the fact that war cannot be bloodless. So if anything she will be more deliberate in her violence. That makes her a darker character, but in the same way that Jon "kill the boy and let the man be born" Snow has become darker.

Yes, I agree with that.  

Her big mistake in ADWD was to attempt to compromise with people who wish to restore 80-85% of the population to servitude.  

[Morte]

@Aldarion I will not start a discussion about the self-naming of political systems and whether anybody has to accept it and take it at face value - because we don't (else we would also have to believe Augustus claims about republica restituta...). And a system there the commons don't hold the legislation can call itself republic till it turns purple - it isn't (and even the Optimates would agree with me here). If you think the Roman Republic was an aristocratic system you haven't paid attention to the power-dynamics between concilium and senatus.

One can argue that the history of the Roman Republic is a history of class struggles, yes. But not that it was an aristocratic system per se.

And here I am out, as this has really nothing to do with ASoIaF anymore.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that George sits at home and reads up historical literature to properly depict his feudal society to the satisfaction of history buffs is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Exactly. As was said a hundred times in this and other threads: We can happily rant about him doing history wrong, no problem with this, I will just as happily participate. But we can't say this or that will happen because of history, nor that this or that is impossible because it would be impossible in reality. If Martin wants to see specific events unfold, so he will make them unfold.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm through now, I really liked the attempt to ignore hindsight and really try to figure out what may have motivated him back in the beginning and whether it was power which he wanted to cling to and not just a desire to organize stuff.

It was a very interesting take on him, really. I liked how Pabst put into accounts how old he was then all of it started, and how he wouldn't have been a cynic at that age but more guided by expectations and ideals on how he has to act. He sure was a pragmatic (or turned into one quite quickly), but also a very dutiful person, imho. Someone who functions within the parameters given (or self-given).

And just imho as an Aspie, but I think he had some funny aspergian traits, too.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, there certainly is that, but so far we also have the kind of commander we get in Brown Ben who is really not that willing to side with the losing faction.

In his case we see, for instance, how a lack of dragons makes you look unpromising - something which we likely will get in reverse when Dany has (larger) dragons with riders while Aegon doesn't have them (nor any of the other Westerosi pretenders). That will make look her more promising than the others.

Yes, good observation. But I think Brown Ben also saw how the whole Meereen-situation is leading nowhere. And this is, imho, a very interesting titbit on how the sellswords ready to fight for a agenda think, and also how most likely at least parts of the GC think: They are ready to fight and (to a degree) die for the side they chose, but they will abandon it if the cause seems lost or the agenda changes too much.

In a way: Better to return to the shitty system with as little looses as possible than dying senselessly without even that much a difference made. I don't think the Second Sons would have changed sides if Dany's agenda within Meereen would have been intact, the Harpy crushed, and they were only facing the battle outside it's walls.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Morte said:

 

In a way: Better to return to the shitty system with as little looses as possible than dying senselessly without even that much a difference made. I don't think the Second Sons would have changed sides if Dany's agenda within Meereen would have been intact, the Harpy crushed, and they were only facing the battle outside it's walls.

The problem was that Dany thought the Slaver coalition was stronger than it actually was. She had an enemy within (which she could have wiped out if she chose to turn the freedmen loose on them) and an enemy without, which comprised a huge army, but much of which was of doubtful quality. 

People like the Tattered Prince could appreciate that the Yunkish army was a joke, and were willing to switch sides.  Brown Ben realised, in the TWOW sample chapters, just how bad, militarily, the Slavers were, once he switched sides.  And, the Pale Mare is hitting the Slaver army just as hard as it's hitting the residents of Meereen. 

I think the Slavers will break apart like rotten fruit, under combined attack from Ser Barristan, the Ironborn, and the Tattered Prince, in TWOW.

[broken one]

13 hours ago, Morte said:

 

Beside: Roman Republic an aristocratic system? Hu?

 

Roman republic was born as a result of aristocratic coup against kings, who tried to prop up their rule with lower class (by giving plebei minimal political rights). By then the senate was aristocratic council of kings and during whole republic period it was 100% tool of the aristocracy. Position of the senate weakened after 287 bc but until the end of the republic it was the aristocracy (nobilitas) who really run the state.

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, broken one said:

Roman republic was born as a result of aristocratic coup against kings, who tried to prop up their rule with lower class (by giving them minimal political rights). By then the senate was aristocratic council of kings and during whole republic period it was 100% tool of the aristocracy. Position of the senate weakened after 287 bc but until the end of the republic it was the aristocracy (nobilitas) who really run the state.

Although it's off topic, it's a subject that interests me.

Rome was an aristocratic Republic, prior to the Principate.  All (male) citizens had the vote, but the vote of a poor citizen counted for much less than the vote of a wealthy citizen.  They voted by Centuries for Consuls and Praetors.  There were 193 centuries in total.  Six were comprised of Senators, twelve of knights, and seventy five of the First Class.  That was less than 5% of the adult male population.  The citizens without property (proletarii) just had one century.  Poorer citizens only really had an impact on the results if there was a near even division among wealthy citizens - which did sometimes happen.

Other offices were elected by tribes, but rural tribes were hugely overrepresented, and generally, only wealthy citizens could afford to travel from rural areas to vote. 

The costs of campaigning escalated.  No one stood a chance of election unless he was of the knightly class.  Wealth and/or a great family name were almost always required, at least if you wanted to be Praetor or Consul.

[broken one]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The costs of campaigning escalated.  No one stood a chance of election unless he was of the knightly class.  Wealth and/or a great family name were almost always required, at least if you wanted to be Praetor or Consul.

Way of getting money in the late period was to rip a province off as its governor. Senate was, in fact, closed club of aristocratic ex officials who distributed benefits of state's teritorial growth among themselves to obtain large amounts of money. And then invest it in land (or commerce, using equites as middlemen).

"You, SeanF, are a decent bloke (and my brother in law), would you like to govern province Asia for a year? Or do you prefer Sicilia?" ;-)

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, broken one said:

Way of getting money in the late period was to rip a province off as its governor. Senate was, in fact, closed club of aristocratic ex officials who distributed benefits of state's teritorial growth among themselves to obtain large amounts of money. And then invest it in land (or commerce, using equites as middlemen).

"You, SeanF, are a decent bloke (and my brother in law), would you like to govern province Asia for a year? Or do you prefer Sicilia?" ;-)

The joke was that you needed to make three fortunes as governor.  The first, to pay off the debts you'd incurred reaching the rank of Praetor.  The second, for your own benefit.  The third, to bribe the jury when you were inevitably tried for extortion.

Broadly, you were thought a decent bloke if you restricted yourself to fleecing the provincials in various ways.  But, if like Verres, you resorted to rape and murder, you could get into hot water.

[Morte]

3 hours ago, broken one said:

Roman republic was born as a result of aristocratic coup against kings, who tried to prop up their rule with lower class (by giving plebei minimal political rights). By then the senate was aristocratic council of kings and during whole republic period it was 100% tool of the aristocracy. Position of the senate weakened after 287 bc but until the end of the republic it was the aristocracy (nobilitas) who really run the state.

A Republic by definition is a mixed system of elements from aristocratic/oligarchic, democratic and monarchic governments. If it doesn't have that (to whatever degree), it isn't a republic. That's why there aren't "aristocratic republics", no matter how they name themselves (also why the first Rzeczpospolita wasn't a republic, even if it gave the Aristocrats powers and rights similar to democratic assemblies and called itself that way, simply because the plebs weren't involved and had no political rights within the system).

The aristocratic/oligarchic elements of the Roman Republic were too powerful and not willing to part with even a little of their power, sure. But it still wasn't an aristocratic republic, it was a republic with too strong aristocratic elements.

And of course any and every democratic element was fought for by the plebs, not one came cheep or had been given freely or hasn't been tried to undermine again by the aristocracy - see the Twain-quote I posted above on that in general and the French Revolution in particular; it's something people forget today, that their right were fought for, not given to them.

Polybios' accounts on Rome as a republic are very rose-coloured (or better: very Greek), indeed (even with the concilium plebis).

But it wasn't about the short-coming of the Roman Republic with it's too powerful (and idiotic, but that's a constant - with the usual exceptions - in history) aristocracy, which eventually lead to it failure and downfall, it was about the definition of the term.

Edit: Oh, almost forgot that one.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

 The citizens without property (proletarii) just had one century.  Poorer citizens only really had an impact on the results if there was a near even division among wealthy citizens - which did sometimes happen.

Other offices were elected by tribes, but rural tribes were hugely overrepresented, and generally, only wealthy citizens could afford to travel from rural areas to vote. 

Yes, the census suffrage (? should be this in english, please correct me, if I am wrong) within the comitia centuriata and the comitia tributa is of course an oligarchic/aristocratic element to water-down the democratic element of the different people's assemblies.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Morte said:

A Republic by definition is a mixed system of elements from aristocratic/oligarchic, democratic and monarchic governments. If it doesn't have that (to whatever degree), it isn't a republic. That's why there aren't "aristocratic republics", no matter how they name themselves (also why the first Rzeczpospolita wasn't a republic, even if it gave the Aristocrats powers and rights similar to democratic assemblies and called itself that way, simply because the plebs weren't involved and had no political rights within the system).

The aristocratic/oligarchic elements of the Roman Republic were too powerful and not willing to part with even a little of their power, sure. But it still wasn't an aristocratic republic, it was a republic with too strong aristocratic elements.

And of course any and every democratic element was fought for by the plebs, not one came cheep or had been given freely or hasn't been tried to undermine again by the aristocracy - see the Twain-quote I posted above on that in general and the French Revolution in particular; it's something people forget today, that their right were fought for, not given to them.

Polybios' accounts on Rome as a republic are very rose-coloured (or better: very Greek), indeed (even with the concilium plebis).

But it wasn't about the short-coming of the Roman Republic with it's too powerful (and idiotic, but that's a constant - with the usual exceptions - in history) aristocracy, which eventually lead to it failure and downfall, it was about the definition of the term.

The Plebs developed their own aristocracy, families like the Porcii Catones, Caecilii Metelli, Antonii, Livii Drusi, who developed much closer ties with the Patricians than with the lower classes.