No royal army?

[Aldarion]

There is (another) thing I do not understand about Westeros: Royal army is weak to nonexistent. Stannis did have 5 000 men, and there is 6 000 strong City Watch, but these 11 000 troops are lightly armed and lack heavy cavalry (there is only 400 light horse, making whole "army" somewhat of a joke). They would also number around 3% of total Westerosi forces. Worse, most of Stannis' troops are not actually from Crownlands, but are mercenaries, while City Watch is... city watch, and not a field army. Meanwhile, (Royal) fleet numbers over 40 000 troops, and that is not counting hugely expensive ships. If Crown had cut fleet in half, it could have raised at least 10 000 - 20 000 additional troops, for end result of 30 000 ground troops with a good mix of heavy infantry, archers, heavy and light cavalry. And yes, these fleets are standing formations: ships used are explicitly purpose-built warships, and the fact that galleys are used as primary warships in Westeros pretty much precludes them from being anything else anyway.

Looking at history, Kingdom of Hungary had total armed strength of 80 000 - 100 000 troops raised by magnates. In addition to this, kingdom also fielded a standing field army of mercenaries: 5 000 infantry and 2 000 cavalry in 1463., raising to 8 000 infantry and 20 000 cavalry in 1487. (I gave overview here). So standing army was some 7% to 35% of total strength of the kingdom. Byzantine Empire, which was far more centralized, had imperial Tagma. In 745., army had 18 000 tagmatic troops out of total strength of 80 000 (so 22,5%). In 840. there were 24 000 tagmatic and 96 000 thematic soldiers (so 120 000 troops, of which 20% tagma). In 1025., numbers were 250 000 for total army and 42 000 for tagma (so 17%). This means that, going by lowest Hungary number (7%), royal army in Westeros could number 28 000 men - more than twice its current strength.

Yet no such army is in evidence. But if we assume that Westeros has no permanent military formations, we would also have to assume that all the war galleys shown are actually hallucinations. If we assume that is not the case, question again presents itself: where is the army? Army would be far less expensive for same manpower while being far more useful in maintaining royal power. So why no Royal Army? Could it be some constitutional limitation that king can only raise troops from Crownlands and not have standing mercenary army such as Matthias Corvinus had? Or maybe Targaryens never saw need for an army since they had dragons - but why no attempt to establish such a force once dragons died out? If anything, need to preserve royal power post-dragons would make such an attempt more likely. Or Westeros lacks administration for such a thing - but if that is so, how did Seven Kingdoms stay together for last 300 years?

Thoughts?

[Lord Lannister]

Well if you start delving too deep into things like this you're going to end up frustrated as the answer usually goes back to.... this is what the plot requires. Martin is sometimes weak on things like demographics, commerce, manpower distributions and so on.

To the question, I guess your best in world explanation would be small things like armies are cheaper like you say, and can be outsourced to local lords. A fleet is more expensive and needs a collective funding and manpower to maintain as each coastal lord having to provide for their own fleet isn't practical. Otherwise the Seven Kingdoms would never be able to do something like project power to Essos in the Ninepenny King War.

[Aldarion]

6 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

To the question, I guess your best in world explanation would be small things like armies are cheaper like you say, and can be outsourced to local lords. A fleet is more expensive and needs a collective funding and manpower to maintain as each coastal lord having to provide for their own fleet isn't practical. Otherwise the Seven Kingdoms would never be able to do something like project power to Essos in the Ninepenny King War.

That explains why fleets would be domain of major lords, such as House Redwyne. But it doesn't explain why there is no royal army.

[Nevets]

A standing army to do what?  They have no neighbors to worry about, except maybe by sea.  The only thing it would be useful for would be internal security, and there doesn't seem to be much need for that.  And standing armies are very expensive to maintain.  So they're probably like pre-1940 America.  Minimal army and big navy.  for the same reason - no land threats.  

[Hugorfonics]

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

why no attempt to establish such a force once dragons died out? If anything, need to preserve royal power post-dragons would make such an attempt more likely. Or Westeros lacks administration for such a thing - but if that is so, how did Seven Kingdoms stay together for last 300 years?

Thoughts?

So its not 300 years, its more like 150.

Blackfyres helped. Gave the lords a villain to distract them

41 minutes ago, Nevets said:

So they're probably like pre-1940 America

Id say theyre even closer to pre 1860 America. No standing army, just faith that their state armies dont turn treasonous. Obviously things didnt work out.

Fortunately Dany has a royal army of her own, which none of her kingly ancestors truly had

[Ser Leftwich]

Pretty simple really: Westeros =/= 1463 Hungary

[Aldarion]

6 hours ago, Nevets said:

A standing army to do what?  They have no neighbors to worry about, except maybe by sea.  The only thing it would be useful for would be internal security, and there doesn't seem to be much need for that.  And standing armies are very expensive to maintain.  So they're probably like pre-1940 America.  Minimal army and big navy.  for the same reason - no land threats.  

In feudal societies, standing army served not just to dissuade external enemies, but also to preserve stability of government. Considering the size of Westeros, latter function would be even more important than in a typical feudal society.

[Back door hodor]

Where would this army be stationed and what would they do during peacetime? And more importantly, can the crown really justify the expense?

The only land border of the 7k is already fortified and manned by a Quasi independent military organization sworn to protect the realm, the only actual city directly under the crowns control has a standing city watch.

Most importantly, what and who would stop the generals of this army from becoming political forces/defacto feudal lords in thier own right?

So in short, I dont think the need justifies the expense and/or the risk

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

Where would this army be stationed and what would they do during peacetime? And more importantly, can the crown really justify the expense?

 

Hungary was able to afford two permanent armies - garrisons of border forts and the Black Army - during reign of Matthias Corvinus. Former were financed from resources of the kingdom itself, while latter was financed by basically keeping them in enemy lands, outside the kingdom.

So yes, it is possible. Which means that we need to look for reasons other than economy.

2 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

Most importantly, what and who would stop the generals of this army from becoming political forces/defacto feudal lords in thier own right?

 

Same thing which stopped commanders of Black Army and earlier of Byzantine tagmata: they would be, essentially, mercenaries. They have no lands, which means that they are wholly dependant on the crown for their income. That is why Byzantine thematic generals themselves had no lands, despite soldiers they commanded being given lands to support themselves: to tie them to the government.

Also, tagmatic troops actually had lands. Meaning that crownlands could have their own army even on a feudal model.

[Tikhunt]

I don't know why how many troops Stannis has, has any relevance to the question. Surely if there was a royal army then it'd answer directly to the Crown? 

Also I was under the impressions that there was previously a Targaryan army that was loyal to the Crown through the bannermen in much the same way as a Lord Paramount would have, surely Robert would have essentially had the Stormlands be loyal to him to the same degree that the Lannister army fight directly for the Crown currently. 

I could be wrong of course. 

[nyser1]

Plot demands it. Reminds me more of the House of Capet at its weakest than late medieval Hungary.

[Hugorfonics]

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Hungary was able to afford two permanent armies - garrisons of border forts and the Black Army - during reign of Matthias Corvinus.

As noted above, old Hungary is not Westeros. Westeros is like the size of China and completely isolated by itself. Hungary is not the size of China and was firmly stuck in between the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman empire during that time

4 hours ago, Tikhunt said:

Also I was under the impressions that there was previously a Targaryan army that was loyal to the Crown through the bannermen in much the same way as a Lord Paramount would have, surely Robert would have essentially had the Stormlands be loyal to him to the same degree that the Lannister army fight directly for the Crown currently. 

The prince of Dragonstone could in theory always be relied upon, after all it usually their son, likewise Summerhall probably provided a decent chunk of fighting men. 

But the king only has seven swords at his disposal, even the soldiers of the Crownlands, i.e Duskendale, owed loyalty to their lord before their king.

We see what Stormland loyalty looks like, four different kings since Robert. Lannister lands may not be too different, Tommen vs Myrcella or Tyrion vs Cersei, who knows how theyll react?

[Tikhunt]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The prince of Dragonstone could in theory always be relied upon, after all it usually their son, likewise Summerhall probably provided a decent chunk of fighting men. 

But the king only has seven swords at his disposal, even the soldiers of the Crownlands, i.e Duskendale, owed loyalty to their lord before their king.

We see what Stormland loyalty looks like, four different kings since Robert. Lannister lands may not be too different, Tommen vs Myrcella or Tyrion vs Cersei, who knows how theyll react?

Yeah that makes sense, cheers for clearing that up. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

18 hours ago, nyser1 said:

Plot demands it. Reminds me more of the House of Capet at its weakest than late medieval Hungary.

It's much more the former than the latter but we know that GRRM based this series on the war of roses.

[nyser1]

4 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's much more the former than the latter but we know that GRRM based this series on the war of roses.

Which ultimately makes Dorne's inclusion in the 7k (particularly East of the Marches) a head scratcher but alas I digress...

[RedDragon]

An uncentralized feudal based military system was a common whereas centralized militaries were more rare even going into the early modern era. 

It’s also  rather hard to have one, for one it makes the nobility less powerful and for two it requires and efficient bureaucracy and lots and lots of cash and the targs never had both of those at the same time . The great elector of Brandenburg-Prussia, a wild guess is his name was  Fredrick had to make tons of concessions to his nobles in order to get one and even then it was a rather small standing army at first. The byzantine empire or eastern rome was an exception to the rule then as much as the legions of old were.

 

 

[Helman Corbray]

When the Black Army of Hungray first came to be, it was a massive revolution, forit was one of the first professional standing armies. It is not likely the levies would want to leave their farms for a long time, unless the Iron Throne decide dto hire something like Black Army, but Hungary was surrounded by Turks, Polish, Italians and Germans. Kings Landing is not.  

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Helman Corbray said:

When the Black Army of Hungray first came to be, it was a massive revolution, forit was one of the first professional standing armies. It is not likely the levies would want to leave their farms for a long time, unless the Iron Throne decide dto hire something like Black Army, but Hungary was surrounded by Turks, Polish, Italians and Germans. Kings Landing is not.  

Actually, Westerosi armies - much like actual 15th century armies - are not based on peasant levies. In fact, they are part-time professionals, with additional smattering of peasants. They are just not a standing army in the vein of the Black Army, but again, that does not mean they are not professionals.

[Corvo the Crow]

On 8/8/2020 at 9:58 PM, Aldarion said:

There is (another) thing I do not understand about Westeros: Royal army is weak to nonexistent. Stannis did have 5 000 men, and there is 6 000 strong City Watch, but these 11 000 troops are lightly armed and lack heavy cavalry (there is only 400 light horse, making whole "army" somewhat of a joke). They would also number around 3% of total Westerosi forces. Worse, most of Stannis' troops are not actually from Crownlands, but are mercenaries, while City Watch is... city watch, and not a field army. Meanwhile, (Royal) fleet numbers over 40 000 troops, and that is not counting hugely expensive ships. If Crown had cut fleet in half, it could have raised at least 10 000 - 20 000 additional troops, for end result of 30 000 ground troops with a good mix of heavy infantry, archers, heavy and light cavalry. And yes, these fleets are standing formations: ships used are explicitly purpose-built warships, and the fact that galleys are used as primary warships in Westeros pretty much precludes them from being anything else anyway.

Looking at history, Kingdom of Hungary had total armed strength of 80 000 - 100 000 troops raised by magnates. In addition to this, kingdom also fielded a standing field army of mercenaries: 5 000 infantry and 2 000 cavalry in 1463., raising to 8 000 infantry and 20 000 cavalry in 1487. (I gave overview here). So standing army was some 7% to 35% of total strength of the kingdom. Byzantine Empire, which was far more centralized, had imperial Tagma. In 745., army had 18 000 tagmatic troops out of total strength of 80 000 (so 22,5%). In 840. there were 24 000 tagmatic and 96 000 thematic soldiers (so 120 000 troops, of which 20% tagma). In 1025., numbers were 250 000 for total army and 42 000 for tagma (so 17%). This means that, going by lowest Hungary number (7%), royal army in Westeros could number 28 000 men - more than twice its current strength.

Yet no such army is in evidence. But if we assume that Westeros has no permanent military formations, we would also have to assume that all the war galleys shown are actually hallucinations. If we assume that is not the case, question again presents itself: where is the army? Army would be far less expensive for same manpower while being far more useful in maintaining royal power. So why no Royal Army? Could it be some constitutional limitation that king can only raise troops from Crownlands and not have standing mercenary army such as Matthias Corvinus had? Or maybe Targaryens never saw need for an army since they had dragons - but why no attempt to establish such a force once dragons died out? If anything, need to preserve royal power post-dragons would make such an attempt more likely. Or Westeros lacks administration for such a thing - but if that is so, how did Seven Kingdoms stay together for last 300 years?

Thoughts?

Stannis did NOT have 5000 men. He had some 3000, including a hundred or so knights among a total of 400 or so cavalry. These came from his garrison, his vassals and mercenaries.

King has his household guard (not KG) of an unknown number, 2000 City Watch(Before Ned and Tyrion recruit more men to it) and  Crownlander Lords, which number some few thousands. Cersei alone has over a hundred guards including a dozen or more knights, so King's household guard should be in the low hundreds.

 

Lords, including the king have their household guards and household knights and vassal lords and knights with their own guards and knights as their "standing army". Lords ruling over towns/cities has more of these as city/town watch. 

 

 

[Aldarion]

54 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Stannis did NOT have 5000 men. He had some 3000, including a hundred or so knights among a total of 400 or so cavalry. These came from his garrison, his vassals and mercenaries.

 

Stannis had a total of 20 000 men at Blackwater. A fifth of Renly's knights had returned to Bitterbridge with Loras, out of initial 20 000 - which means that Stannis' own force numbered same as Loras' getaways. So Stannis had 4 000 men, and gained 16 000 Renly's cavalry. Stannis army when Davos arrives at Dragonstone numbers 3 000, of which many are mercenaries, but do we know it was all of his strength? OTOH, 5 000 estimate comes from Renly, and is likely overestimate.

54 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

King has his household guard (not KG) of an unknown number, 2000 City Watch(Before Ned and Tyrion recruit more men to it) and  Crownlander Lords, which number some few thousands. Cersei alone has over a hundred guards including a dozen or more knights, so King's household guard should be in the low hundreds.

 

Most of Crownlanders' strength appears to be in the navy. FFS, just Royal Fleet would require over 40 000 troops (marines + rowers). Any substantial field army would mean that Crownlands are at least half as strong as Reach. And City Watch is just that - City Watch. It is not a field army.