Proof that Westerosi armies are professionals

[Aldarion]

Full text:

https://militaryfantasy.home.blog/2020/08/21/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Shortened notes for sake of readability:

• SOCIETY - Most Westerosi soldiers are socially peasants, but this does not mean that they are untrained. Historically, peasants would be grouped and one in the group would be equipped and trained at the expense of the group - similar to Byzantine pronoiars. Yeomen had high-quality equipment, and were expected to regularly train with it.
• Westerosi feudal system is also socially opposed to mass conscriptions. Serfs get no political vote, not much stake in the system itself, nor meaningful integration into structures of power. Thus it makes no sense to assume mass conscription. Rather, serfs which are mobilized are given stake in political system as well as integrated into structures of power by turning them into semi-professional troops, who are trained to fight, equipped to fight, and given campaign pay. Westeros cannot be feudal system - let alone illogically grimdark version of feudal system it is presented as - yet still use peasant conscripts for war. In best case scenario, such conscripts would desert en masse; in worst case, they would rebel.
• MOBILIZATION AND EQUIPMENT - Robb Stark has 300 knights among 3 000 mounted men-at-arms. Infantry consists of pikemen, longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms, while Winterfell itself is guarded by crossbowmen. Tywin's infantry also consists of pikemen, longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms. This is important because none of them can be conscripts. Pikemen have to be highly drilled and disciplined to maintain formation, especially over broken terrain (which we do see). Dismounted men-at-arms are equipped similarly to knights, and thus have to be professionals. Archers could be longbowmen or crossbowmen. Longbowmen have to regularly practice, while crossbow is very expensive and is only used by professional troops. All of them are socially peasants, but all of them have to be part-time professionals or well-drilled militia at least.
• At Oxcross, it takes missile bombardment and heavy cavalry charge, and then again missile barrage and pike attack to break Northern pikemen. Even then, they don't actually break but stage a fighting withdrawal, as shown by the fact that majority of Northern foot actually survives the battle. This is something only well-trained troops can do. Every northman Tyrion mentions is also seen as wearing mail, which is very expensive type of armour - more expensive than munitions plate, in fact. A good mail shirt takes several years' wages of average medieval peasant, and thus can only be afforded by a person drawing income from several households - a professional soldier, in other words, if not necessarily a full-time professional.
• All troops are trained. Lannister host at Oxcross and reinforcements Cassel was going to send to Robb were both in the process of training. Stafford's Oxcross army was not deemed ready for battlefield despite having been in the process of training for several months.
• Rhaegar's army at Trident did not in fact flee, and was even less an undisciplined rabble (Ser Liar's assertions otherwise notwithstanding). By the time Rhaegar had died, other three commanders of the army were already incapacitated or dead. Rhaegar's death would have left army leaderless - in such conditions, even Roman or Byzantine armies would have broken (e.g. Carrhae, Manzikert). Even so, elements of Rhaegar's army had managed to stage an orderly retreat all the way to King's Landing. Difficulty of doing so is often understated, and fact that Rhaegar's (relatively green) army was able to perform such a feat puts it among most disciplined forces seen in Planetos.
• Stannis army at Wall consists of knights, freeriders, mounted bowmen and men-at-arms. Only conscripts present are wildlings.
• At Green Fork, Tywin's army is 9 500 infantry and 10 500 cavalry and mounted infantry; Jamie's host is 12 000 foot and 3 000 cavalry. Total is thus 21 500 infantry and 13 500 cavalry, for 39% cavalry. Reach army mustered for Renly is 25% cavalry (20 000 cavalry, 60 000 infantry). Robb's army is 4 500 cavalry out of 19 500 (23%), and Edmure's 3 000 out of 11 000 (27%). In general, with exception of Westerlands, cavalry is usually a quarter of the army. Majority of these appear to be heavy cavalry (out of 10 500 Tywin's cavalry, 6 500 or 62% are heavy cavalry). Thus there would be some 15% heavy cavalry and 10% light cavalry / mounted infantry in average Westerosi army.
• Population of Westeros can be anywhere from 8,5 million to 75 million. With those, army of 400 000 men would result in mobilization rate of 4,7% at lowest population or 0,53% at highest. Former implies army with a mix of full-time professionals, part-time professionals and conscripts, or else comprised mostly of part-time professionals with some conscripts (feudal states such as Hungary could mobilize armies of 1,2 - 2% of population when consisting mostly of part-time professionals). Note that my own estimates for plausible population of Westeros are a fair bit higher than those, which is why I did not use them. For comparison, conscript armies such as those of middle Roman Republic could achieve mobilization rates between 6% and 10% in times of crisis.
• However, fact remains that there are peasants mentioned in the armies. Thus, Westerosi armies must consist of a mix of full-time professionals, part-time professionals and peasant levies, with last group playing a comparatively minor role.
• Fact that lords "call the banners" implies that armies are raised by a system similar to Hungarian banderial system: private armies of professional levies and mercenaries maintained by nobility, and raised at request of a liege lord (senior noble, king). The language used in the text, socio-economic system of Westeros, as well as political consequences of the system all point to banderial system being used, or at least a system fairly similar to banderial system. And this means professional soldiers - but predominantly part-time professionals. Banderial soldiers are professionals, and while they are normally supported from estates of nobles who raise them, when campaigning they are paid campaign wage.
• Field armies are simply too large to be anything but professional establishments. You can't go running around with tens of thousands of soldiers if your army is comprised of tribal levy or conscripted peasants - lack of standardization in regards to army organization would make logistics impossible.
• Hungary managed to achieve 1,2 - 2% of population with armies that were in some cases supposed to be comprised exclusively of cavalry. Westeros has cca 25% cavalry and armies that are around 1% population, yet somehow majority of Westerosi armies are supposed to consist of conscripted peasants? While there are undeniably peasants in the army, most of professional levy would be socially peasants. Conscripted peasants (such as Septon Meribald) could only have been camp followers.
• Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc., though they would only use cheap armour (such as textile armour) or simply have no armour and rely on shields instead. They were also only ever used for local defense, and would never go far away from home - definitely not on campaigns spanning half the continent. Donal Noye's quote suggests that only 1/20 peasants own swords - meaning they are not expected to fight.
• When peasants were conscripted for campaigns, even short ones, they tended to desert. But Westerosi armies stay in the field for many months without desertion becoming a problem.
• BATTLEFIELD TACTICS - At Oxcross, Tywin's army has cavalry on wings and infantry in the center, which is not deployment you want with untrained infantry. And again, most of troop types described - archers, pikemen, men-at-arms, heavy horse - will have been semi-professional banderial soliders, as equipment is too expensive and also requires too much drill to be utilized in battle in manners described. Exception were some of troops deployed on the left wing, as a bait. But fact that infantry is deployed in the center, and that it is expected to pivot and take Northmen in the flank after left wing breaks, means that pikemen deployed are professional troops. Neither is there confusion typical to conscripts evident in descriptions of troops shown. Pikemen also advance to contact, which also indicates well-trained troops - especially as advance is done over fairly uneven terrain.
• Northern infantry is subjected to missile barrage followed by a heavy cavalry charge, yet they still hold for a time. And when Northern army does retreat, it is not a rout but rather an orderly retreat - and after the battle, said army is still in the field, cohesive and combat-capable. All and all, this is behaviour of well-trained troops.
• LOGISTICS - Westerosi armies cannot be composed of peasants for one simple reason: distances are too large. Distance from Winterfell to Riverlands is around a thousand miles, so one-way trip would take 80 - 125 days. Crops take 90 days to grow, meaning that simply two-way trip for a peasant host would lose at least two harvests - nevermind all the marching and fighting within area of operations, which would lose several harvests more (three to six harvests in total, maybe).
• Armies themselves are huge. Even in Dark Age, "peasants with pitchforks" armies were rare, but they did appear - and were small. Typical such army was numbered in dozens, and at upper end might have been in high hundreds to low thousands (and latter were usually professional anyway). But armies in Westeros are huge - smallest field armies generally do not go below 10 000, and most are in low-to-mid tens of thousands, with Tyrells going to high tens of thousands. 15th century field armies - consisting of semi-professional banderial troops - could be in low tens of thousands. Hungarian armies were typically 20 000 - 30 000 strong, with strongest field armies fielded during reign of Matthias Corvinus numbering up to 40 000 troops. Meanwhile, English armies of 100 Years War were typically less than 20 000, with French armies a shade stronger. Largest Westerosi armies are easily two or three times the size of these armies. Armies this large require logistical support of a well-organized system: system thus capable of ensuring availability of trained soldiers (be it part-time or full-time professionals).
• PEASANTS IN THE ARMY - Of course, above does not mean that there are no peasants present. Torches-and-pitchforks mobs may be mobilized when a lord needs more warm bodies right now, though they would only be useful as arrow fodder. Historically, levies could only stay in the field for some 15 days, which - considering distances in Westeros - would make them completely useless for any sort of offensive campaigning.
• Historical armed levy was also much better equipped than what armed peasants in Westeros show. Hungarian Generalis Exercitus assumed that people would have weapons – bows, spears, swords etc. – and be trained in their use; as noted, original Generalis Exercitus was a levy of minor nobles who with time became wealthy peasants. Swedish peasant levy (ledung) were supposed to be equipped with a shield, a sword or an axe, helmet or mail coif, mail shirt or breastplate, and a bow or crossbow with three dozen arrows. This equipment is completely out of means for average peasant, and would require cooperation of several households to provide - which means that soldiers so raised would have training.
• Levies could indeed be "crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners", but this does not mean they were undertrained or underequipped. Such troops would be equivalent to medieval city militia, Byzantine thematic infantry or modern-day US National Guard: troops whose job is fighting, but who have jobs other than fighting as well. Levies would thus be part-time professionals: not exactly on the level of full-time professionals such as knights or mercenary companies (e.g. Golden Company), but very definitely not an untrained rabble, and fully capable of holding their own in a battle.
• Meribald's speech is worthless. In a world consisting of liars and dishonourable scum, we are supposed to trust words of a septon over internal thoughts of multiple characters? Further, while he does describe peasants being conscripted to serve in the army, at no point does he indicate that such conscripts form majority of the army, or even participate in fighting as a rule. Him and his friends had only one kitchen knife and no other equipment which is seen in all descriptions of actual soldiers - they were camp followers, work hands, but they were not soldiers. Any premodern army depended on large numbers of civilian camp followers - both contracted and conscripted - to function properly. A Roman legion (10 000 men - 5 000 legionaries, 5 000 auxilliaries) might have a trail of camp followers as numerous as soldiers - 10 000 civilians at least. Bavarian army in 1648. - thus early Modern army and not medieval one - had 40 000 soldiers but 100 000 camp followers. And these followers could be armed as necessary. Frey army is 4 000 strong both before and after battles it had fought, but gains peasants with sticks in latter case where they are nowhere in evidence in the original contignent.
• When broken down by numbers - and some assumptions - Tywin's army has 88% professional soldiers and 12% armed camp followers. This is much less than French army at Agincourt, which had 15 000 professional soldiers and 10 000 armed followers (so 60% - 40%). Moreover, Tywin deploys said camp followers as a bait, expected to break, with Tyrion (not aware of the plan) shocked that he would even consider utilizing such a rabble:

  • He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers’ rusted swords, half- trained boys from the stews of Lannisport and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen.

    Crow food,” Bronn muttered beside him, giving voice to what Tyrion had left unsaid. He could only nod. Had his lord father taken leave of his senses? No pikes, too few bowmen, a bare handful of knights, the ill-armed and unarmored, commanded by an unthinking brute who led with his rage… how could his father expect this travesty of a battle to hold his left?

• Frey army likewise may have some 87% professional troops and 13% armed camp followers. It is however true that both estimates (Lannister and Frey) involve a fair bit of guesswork.

• Ser Eustace does deploy conscripted peasants, but it is a desperation move - and nobody expects them to actually hold in a battle.

• Vulture King of Dorne rasises 30 000 troops, without support from Dorne itself. It is clear this could not have been major proportion of Dornish army, let alone most of it - but it is also clear that Dorne itself doesn't have much more than 25 000 - 30 000 troops. The only solution is that Vulture King indeed has peasant rabble, whereas nominal strength of Dornish army refers only to professional soldiers.

• Evidence for peasants in the army is that Glovers and Karstarks face a loss of harvest due to too many men going south - but this does not mean that soldiers themselves are peasants. As noted, army will have had significant number of camp followers, who will have been conscripted peasants. And their numbers being much greater than that of actual soldiers, it makes more sense to assume that their presence would have impact home than to assume that soldiers themselves are peasant conscripts. Robb's army of 18 000 would have had 50 000 - 100 000 camp followers.

• In AdwD, Karstarks and Umbers have “old men and green boys”. This actually fits both explanations. If "peasants with pitchforks" explanation is taken, then that is all that remains of Northern male population. If however Northern army follows typical feudal model, then these "old men and green boys" would be what remains of North's soldiering caste - veterans and soldiers-in-training, but not the remnant of whole male population as such. This explanation is more likely, as first explanation would mean that North has not only suffered genocide, but is also suffering through self-inflicted starvation.

Overall, Westerosi armies consist of professional soldiers - be it full-time or part-time professionals. Peasant levies are present only as camp followers, and though they may be pressed into combat as necessary, they do not form any (or at least major) part of initial lineup. And these troops are not necessarily inferior to full-time professionals, especially where defensive warfare is concerned.

[Bernie Mac]

Counterargument

 

• And yet there was sense in what they said. This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. When their lords called, they came … but not forever.  - Cat VIII AGOT

 

• I'd say these three kingdoms were roughly equal in the force they could assemble... but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords. - GRRM on the strength of the regions

 

• The singers love to sing of good men forced to go outside the law to fight some wicked lord, but most outlaws are more like this ravening Hound than they are the lightning lord. They are evil men, driven by greed, soured by malice, despising the gods and caring only for themselves. Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends. They've heard the songs and stories, so they go off with eager hearts, dreaming of the wonders they will see, of the wealth and glory they will win. War seems a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know. - Speton Meribald Brienne V AFFC

 

• He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers' rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport … and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen.  - Tyrion AGOT VIII

 

 

Seems GRRM is pretty clear that it is a mixture of professional and amateur.

 

 

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

• And yet there was sense in what they said. This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. When their lords called, they came … but not forever.  - Cat VIII AGOT

 

Already addressed: these are feudal levy, the part-time professionals. As I wrote in the post:

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

• Fact that lords "call the banners" implies that armies are raised by a system similar to Hungarian banderial system: private armies of professional levies and mercenaries maintained by nobility, and raised at request of a liege lord (senior noble, king). The language used in the text, socio-economic system of Westeros, as well as political consequences of the system all point to banderial system being used, or at least a system fairly similar to banderial system. And this means professional soldiers - but predominantly part-time professionals. Banderial soldiers are professionals, and while they are normally supported from estates of nobles who raise them, when campaigning they are paid campaign wage.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

• However, fact remains that there are peasants mentioned in the armies. Thus, Westerosi armies must consist of a mix of full-time professionals, part-time professionals and peasant levies, with last group playing a comparatively minor role.

Quote

• PEASANTS IN THE ARMY - Of course, above does not mean that there are no peasants present. Torches-and-pitchforks mobs may be mobilized when a lord needs more warm bodies right now, though they would only be useful as arrow fodder. Historically, levies could only stay in the field for some 15 days, which - considering distances in Westeros - would make them completely useless for any sort of offensive campaigning.

Quote

• Levies could indeed be "crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners", but this does not mean they were undertrained or underequipped. Such troops would be equivalent to medieval city militia, Byzantine thematic infantry or modern-day US National Guard: troops whose job is fighting, but who have jobs other than fighting as well. Levies would thus be part-time professionals: not exactly on the level of full-time professionals such as knights or mercenary companies (e.g. Golden Company), but very definitely not an untrained rabble, and fully capable of holding their own in a battle.

 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

• I'd say these three kingdoms were roughly equal in the force they could assemble... but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords. - GRRM on the strength of the regions

 

"Beating plowshares into swords" is a general expression for going to war footing. And as I have explained in the post, army still needs camp followers - which means that civilians will be taken off the fields. It does not mean however that said civilians will form the bulk of the combat force.

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

• The singers love to sing of good men forced to go outside the law to fight some wicked lord, but most outlaws are more like this ravening Hound than they are the lightning lord. They are evil men, driven by greed, soured by malice, despising the gods and caring only for themselves. Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends. They've heard the songs and stories, so they go off with eager hearts, dreaming of the wonders they will see, of the wealth and glory they will win. War seems a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know. - Speton Meribald Brienne V AFFC

 

Septon Meribald is part liar, part demagogue, part confused, part misunderstood. Again, I have adressed that argument in the OP itself:

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

• Meribald's speech is worthless. In a world consisting of liars and dishonourable scum, we are supposed to trust words of a septon over internal thoughts of multiple characters? Further, while he does describe peasants being conscripted to serve in the army, at no point does he indicate that such conscripts form majority of the army, or even participate in fighting as a rule. Him and his friends had only one kitchen knife and no other equipment which is seen in all descriptions of actual soldiers - they were camp followers, work hands, but they were not soldiers. Any premodern army depended on large numbers of civilian camp followers - both contracted and conscripted - to function properly. A Roman legion (10 000 men - 5 000 legionaries, 5 000 auxilliaries) might have a trail of camp followers as numerous as soldiers - 10 000 civilians at least. Bavarian army in 1648. - thus early Modern army and not medieval one - had 40 000 soldiers but 100 000 camp followers. And these followers could be armed as necessary. Frey army is 4 000 strong both before and after battles it had fought, but gains peasants with sticks in latter case where they are nowhere in evidence in the original contignent.

 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

• He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers' rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport … and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen.  - Tyrion AGOT VIII

 

Quote

 

When broken down by numbers - and some assumptions - Tywin's army has 88% professional soldiers and 12% armed camp followers. This is much less than French army at Agincourt, which had 15 000 professional soldiers and 10 000 armed followers (so 60% - 40%). Moreover, Tywin deploys said camp followers as a bait, expected to break, with Tyrion (not aware of the plan) shocked that he would even consider utilizing such a rabble:

It seems to me that you have posted a kneejerk response without even reading the OP.

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Seems GRRM is pretty clear that it is a mixture of professional and amateur.

 

I actually never disagreed with that - read my note on Tywin's army. What I disagree with is the idea that majority of Westerosi soldiers are peasants swept off the fields, given sticks and told to go kill and die for their lords. That is simply not true.

Also, fact is that many on the forum misunderstand what "professional" means and automatically equate "professional soldiers" with "standing army", which is simply not correct. With the exception of city guard and mercenary companies, you do not have a standing army in Westeros - but that does not mean that Westeros does not have large numbers of professional soldiers.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

As always, good job!!! I will say however that in this whole debate, one can see the problems of mainly adapting the War of the Roses, but having the society stuck in High Middle Ages

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Also, fact is that many on the forum misunderstand what "professional" means and automatically equate "professional soldiers" with "standing army", which is simply not correct.

Have you polled the forum on their understanding on what professional and amateur soldiers means? I may be giving many people the benefit of the doubt, but I think they understand the difference.

 

I just think the words GRRM has used, both in interviews and text, shows that a notable percentage (though clearly not the majority) of the armies we have seen are not what most people would understand as professional but an untrained militia. That there are poorly trained and poorly equipped men, called up to make up the numbers when Lords and landed knights need bodies for war.

 

I read your opening post, but your title is claiming something that is not represented in the series. Quibbling if a semi-professional soldier is closer to professional than amateur is kind of missing the point when your topic's headlines is so absolute.

 

The armies are built up of professional, semi-professional and untrained. The untrained are mostly a last resort, but we have seen plenty of them notably in the armies of Stafford Lannister and Rodrik's host back in the North.

 

 

[Trigger Warning]

The world building aint that deep 

[Aldarion]

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Have you polled the forum on their understanding on what professional and amateur soldiers means? I may be giving many people the benefit of the doubt, but I think they understand the difference.

 

It is just impression I have had from discussions so far. Already several times I have had to explain that difference, and had people assuming that by talking about professional soldiers I automatically mean the standing army.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I just think the words GRRM has used, both in interviews and text, shows that a notable percentage (though clearly not the majority) of the armies we have seen are not what most people would understand as professional but an untrained militia. That there are poorly trained and poorly equipped men, called up to make up the numbers when Lords and landed knights need bodies for war.

 

Yes, I have mentioned that: Tywin's army (which IIRC is the only one we have detailed breakdown for) consists of 88% professional troops and 12% armed camp followers (which would be untrained militia you mention). But point is, these are a) a clear minority and b) not actually expected to hold in battle (Tyrion was shocked at their mere presence, and Tywin put them on his left wing as a bait, expecting them to break).

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I read your opening post, but your title is claiming something that is not represented in the series. Quibbling if a semi-professional soldier is closer to professional than amateur is kind of missing the point when your topic's headlines is so absolute.

 

I put that title because, as I mentioned, I have noticed a tendency to have binary professional vs non-professional view, in some posters at least. And in that division, semi-professional troops would be clearly closer to professional ones.

I probably should have titled it "proof that Westerosi armies are not amateurs", though.

EDIT: There are other reasons as well. I have seen US National Guard troops termed professionals while they are obviously part-time, and I myself am closer to considering Byzantine thematic troops as being professional than not. So basically, "professional" means "person to whom warfare is a profession", regardless of whether it is the only one or not.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The armies are built up of professional, semi-professional and untrained. The untrained are mostly a last resort, but we have seen plenty of them notably in the armies of Stafford Lannister and Rodrik's host back in the North.

 

Agreed.

[Shierak Qiya]

The soldiers of Westeros are mostly not full-time.  The city watch is full-time as well as the Nights Watch.  Most are farmers and laborers with varied levels of training.  Wealthy families who can support and train their people will be more organized.  But they do not come to the level of training and dedication as The Unsullied and the Golden Company.  Soldiering is not what they do for a living in Westeros. 

[Aldarion]

12 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

The soldiers of Westeros are mostly not full-time.  The city watch is full-time as well as the Nights Watch.  Most are farmers and laborers with varied levels of training.  Wealthy families who can support and train their people will be more organized.  But they do not come to the level of training and dedication as The Unsullied and the Golden Company.  Soldiering is not what they do for a living in Westeros. 

And, again, not full-time =/= not professional. You can have professional soldiers who have "day job" alongside their job as a soldier. So he has duties as a soldier but also has another job which helps support him, and has drills and practice certain number of days in a month. There were and are quite few such troops throughout history:

http://www.warfareeast.co.uk/main/Hungarian_Armies.htm

Quote

        The decline in the Generalis Exercitus increasingly lead to the responsibility for providing sufficient military forces shifting to the senior Nobles of the realm. As with almost all feudal societies the Nobility of Hungary had their own armed retinues. These retinues were originally made up of kinsmen called Familiaris or Servientes. This gave rise to the term familiaries to describe a Noble's armed following. Unlike western practises though those that served as familiaris were not automatically vassals of their chosen Noble. Service was not equated to vassalage, the familiaris only committed himself and not his own family, lands or retainers. It also fell to the Lord in question to equip and supply his familiaries. In this way the majority of the retinues tended to be made up of Hungary's lesser Nobility. The break down in Royal authority in the 13th and 14th Century saw an increase in the size of these familiaries. No longer were they comprised solely of trusted kinsmen but included anyone willing to serve. The name of these retinues also changed, they became Vexillum (flag/banner) and they also became a significant threat to the King's power. Vexillum came into use as it was customary for the familiaries to be fielded under their Noble's personal standard and leadership. The requirement for vexillum to provide the King with troops also brought about the risk of civil war. A situation clearly shown at the end of the 13th century with the death of the last Arpad King. The Nobles of Hungary used their Vexillum in the power struggle for the throne and created a myriad of 'little Caesars' in Hungary.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Medieval_levies

Quote

In medieval Scandinavia the leiðangr (Old Norse), leidang (Norwegian), leding, (Danish), ledung (Swedish), lichting (Dutch), expeditio (Latin) or sometimes leþing (Old English), was a levy of free farmers conscripted into coastal fleets for seasonal excursions and in defence of the realm.

The bulk of the Anglo-Saxon English army, called the fyrd, was composed of part-time English soldiers drawn from the freemen of each county. In the 690s Laws of Ine, three levels of fines are imposed on different social classes for neglecting military service.[10] Some modern writers claim military service was restricted to the landowning minor nobility. These thegns were the land-holding aristocracy of the time and were required to serve with their own armour and weapons for a certain number of days each year. The historian David Sturdy has cautioned about regarding the fyrd as a precursor to a modern national army composed of all ranks of society, describing it as a "ridiculous fantasy":

The persistent old belief that peasants and small farmers gathered to form a national army or fyrd is a strange delusion dreamt up by antiquarians in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries to justify universal military conscription.[11]

https://www.todaysmilitary.com/ways-to-serve/full-part-time-options

Quote

Reservists are part-time service members, allowing them time to pursue a civilian career or college education while simultaneously serving their country. Members of the Reserve attend boot camp and are required to participate in training drills one weekend a month as well as a two-week program each year. Reservists can be deployed to serve alongside active-duty service members for special missions.

While I agree that Golden Company is likely (maybe?) superior to most Westerosi armies, Unsullied would get eaten alive even in a purely infantry clash.

@Bernie Mac Yeah, it definitely needs explaining.

[Back door hodor]

Yea in the War of the five kings it seems that the core of most of the major armies we see are either professionals or semi pros...... mentions of household guards, city watches, and sworn swords/shields come to mind, we don't even really see forced conspriction of peasants even in very desperate times.....the biggest example I can think of is the battle of kings landing, almost no arming of peasants using them to bolster the cities defesnes.(Tryrion does increase the size of the standing city watch, but that's it).

The army sizes themselves speak to this also, exampl, Manderly, who controls the only real city in the North and a very wide swath of land besides, brings what like 3k men to Robbs host? He could probably realistically bring twice that number just from the small folk of White Harbor alone.

Edit....i guess we do start to see a little more of itas the war goes on and things become more desperate, but even than its not all that explicit.

I would guess I was more common in the past, say the era of the Dance, and maybe some of Aegon Vs unspecified laws/reforms now largely prevent this practice.

[Bernie Mac]

56 minutes ago, Back door hodor said:

 

The army sizes themselves speak to this also, exampl, Manderly, who controls the only real city in the North and a very wide swath of land besides, brings what like 3k men to Robbs host?

Almost 1,500 men.

Ser Wylis and his brother Ser Wendel followed, leading their levies, near fifteen hundred men: some twenty-odd knights and as many squires, two hundred mounted lances, swordsmen, and freeriders, and the rest foot, armed with spears, pikes and tridents. Lord Wyman had remained behind to see to the defenses of White Harbor.

[Lord Varys]

For me there are basically two issues with this thing:

1. The fact that 'professional soldier' cannot mean all that much in as, well, peaceful a culture as Westeros, where there essentially are no wars to speak of. That is more of a meta-issue, though, sprung from weirdo assessments like Randyll Tarly (veteran of exactly one pitched and a single military campaign prior to the War of the Five Kings) which aren't worth much in a world where war is pretty rare.

Even the men whose trade is war, cannot have much experience at that trade because there simply aren't many wars. That includes rather crucial things you only do in war - like storming a city/castle, besieging a castle, building and using siege equipment, actually charging at the enemy, etc. - meaning those people cannot be particular good at what they are doing when they do it for the first time in real life.

Also, just consider how much of a joke some of those professionals actually are. Dunk is a lousy jouster in the stories we read so far, yet he clearly is a hedge knight and a sworn sword and would ride to war if there was a war in his time.

2. The way things are described especially in the North make the assumption pretty far-fetched that most of the men going to battle there are men whose profession is fighting or who have been trained to eventual fight on behalf of their village or settlement. Such men would not be crucial harvest workers ... but they are, since it has been mentioned again and again and again that fighting men are needed to bring in the harvest. And that the Glovers and Karstarks and others failed to bring their harvest in because of the war. And many Riverlanders, too. This wouldn't be the case if the men marching to war with Robb or Cregan Stark wouldn't be needed for the harvest. And it just is the case that professional or semi-professional soldiers from the real middle ages were not part-time field hands who actually needed to be on the fields, bring in the crops, thresh and grind them, etc.

But the impression certainly is that they are needed for that kind of thing. I mean, it is glaringly obvious who went to war with the Glovers, for instance. Obviously the men who would have brought in the crops which died on the field right outside Deepwood Motte. If a military campaign means that you do not have the men needed to bring in crops within sight of your own castle then ... well, that means you do have neither professional soldiers nor professional peasants.

You also see that with the threat the wildling raiders - who are undisciplined and poorly equipped - pose to the smallfolk in the Gifts and in the Umber and clansmen lands. If there were actual professional or semi-professional soldiers among them, one should assume them to be able to deal with wildling bands. But they apparently cannot do that.

It is not so much different in the Riverlands where they were also not able to bring in harvests during the war, independent of the fact that crops and provisions were also burned and stolen.

It may be that things are different in the West and the Vale and the Reach, but so far we don't know that.

[SeanF]

The professionals are the sellswords, free riders, Nights Watch, and gold cloaks. 

Over and above that, there are a lot of people who have training in arms, and some experience of fighting in formation, as in fourteenth century England.

The knights, the men at arms, archers (who simply have to spend a lot of time practising) yeomen, form a potentially enormous class of soldiers.  The only things that limit their numbers are the fact that a pre-industrial society can't keep more than about 4% of adult males under arms without crashing the economy, and the difficulty of feeding and supplying huge numbers of troops.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The professionals are the sellswords, free riders, Nights Watch, and gold cloaks. 

Over and above that, there are a lot of people who have training in arms, and some experience of fighting in formation, as in fourteenth century England.

The knights, the men at arms, archers (who simply have to spend a lot of time practising) yeomen, form a potentially enormous class of soldiers.  The only things that limit their numbers are the fact that a pre-industrial society can't keep more than about 4% of adult males under arms without crashing the economy, and the difficulty of feeding and supplying huge numbers of troops.

My take on that would be that so far we only know of garrisons and sworn swords and knights and squires living in castles to continually train at arms. Depending on how high the percentage of 'castle men' in any given army is, the number of professional soldiers could greatly vary ... but not so much for the North (Manderlys excluded) because we do know that many of the men there were folk bringing in the harvest.

Whatever men humbler landed knights like Eustace Osgrey would bring to an army would be almost exclusively unprofessional drafted men. From any such household there might be half a dozen or a dozen professional men - sworn swords, the knight himself and his heirs/some kin, perhaps a couple of men-at-arms. But that would be it.

And it is not that there would be any landless knights outside the most wealthy families (like Lannisters, Hightowers, etc.) who could feed and pay hundreds of knights. Ser Kevan is a huge exception ... just as Lazy Leo isn't your average acolyte at the Citadel, is he?

Yeomen are confirmed only for the Riverlands and specifically there for Stoney Sept which, so far, is without a lordly house I know of, perhaps indicating that the town is ran by commoners (to a point) rather than relevant noble houses.

[The Green Bard]

On 8/21/2020 at 10:09 AM, Aldarion said:

Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc., though they would only use cheap armour (such as textile armour) or simply have no armour and rely on shields instead. They were also only ever used for local defense, and would never go far away from home - definitely not on campaigns spanning half the continent. Donal Noye's quote suggests that only 1/20 peasants own swords - meaning they are not expected to fight.

I don't follow your logic here.  Noye's quote is:

Quote

Donal Noye leaned forward, into Jon's face. "Now think on this, boy. None of these others have ever had a master-at-arms until Ser Alliser. Their fathers were farmers and wagonmen and poachers, smiths and miners and oars on a trading galley. What they know of fighting they learned between decks, in the alleys of Oldtown and Lannisport, in wayside brothels and taverns on the kingsroad. They may have clacked a few sticks together before they came here, but I promise you, not one in twenty was ever rich enough to own a real sword." His look was grim. "So how do you like the taste of your victories now, Lord Snow?"

I assume you are referring to the part about 1 in 20 owning a sword.  If I take it as truth that George is in agreement with your assertion that "Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc." you have 2 "facts" that logically drive to one conclusion. They were armed from their lord's smithy (by a man like Noye, in fact) but with weapons are owned by the lord and not retained by the conscript once the war is completed.  We have further evidence that the Lannister's certainly owned a fair bit of the steel carried by their army, given Tyrion's scheme to trade surplus of these arms for his own freedom. 

I think for you to step further and say that these people wouldn't be taken on a campaign is certainly not evidenced in the text, and I would need a lot more evidence that GRRM knows/agrees that the historical ones you cite didn't travel to war before agreeing with your conclusion. 

Further, the one quote that you supply,  

On 8/21/2020 at 10:09 AM, Aldarion said:

He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers’ rusted swords, half- trained boys from the stews of Lannisport and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen.

... suggests that certainly some of them did travel to battle with Lord Tywin.  

Now, obviously he presence of knights and trained cavalry, etc. suggests that there are certainly men whose livelihood is 100% to be a fighting man, but I think you are stretching to clain that most of an army in the field in ASoIaF is a standing army.  You mention the pitiful militia that Ser Eustace assembles, but before he is among the poorest of landed knights, before the Blackfyre rebellion, he was still taking "Woths" and other men like that to war with him, and most of those men died.  

I also take huge exception to your dismissal of Meribald's firsthand account.  He is presented as among the most honest of characters in the story.  We can't just go off and dismiss the testimony of honest characters just because what they say is inconvenient to our own ideas.  

To me, the obvious answer is that it is a mix.  Sure, there were professionals, like standing militiamen, guardsmen, knights, freeriders, mercenaries, companies-for-hire (i.e. the brave companions), but there were also also peasants, craftsmen, and other conscripts.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

I don't follow your logic here.  Noye's quote is:

I assume you are referring to the part about 1 in 20 owning a sword.  If I take it as truth that George is in agreement with your assertion that "Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc." you have 2 "facts" that logically drive to one conclusion. They were armed from their lord's smithy (by a man like Noye, in fact) but with weapons are owned by the lord and not retained by the conscript once the war is completed.  We have further evidence that the Lannister's certainly owned a fair bit of the steel carried by their army, given Tyrion's scheme to trade surplus of these arms for his own freedom. 

This is basically the opposite of what occurred in real life. Though in England in the 14th century some villages and churches did keep communal equipment for war and the men produced by the community.

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

I think for you to step further and say that these people wouldn't be taken on a campaign is certainly not evidenced in the text, and I would need a lot more evidence that GRRM knows/agrees that the historical ones you cite didn't travel to war before agreeing with your conclusion. 

Further, the one quote that you supply,  

... suggests that certainly some of them did travel to battle with Lord Tywin.  

There are always camp followers. Following historical precedent it wasn't uncommon for English kings to summon the vassals and then dismiss men who were ill equipped or unable to serve. Henry V did so to many before Agincourt when they were still at Southampton before they sailed.

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

Now, obviously he presence of knights and trained cavalry, etc. suggests that there are certainly men whose livelihood is 100% to be a fighting man, but I think you are stretching to clain that most of an army in the field in ASoIaF is a standing army.  You mention the pitiful militia that Ser Eustace assembles, but before he is among the poorest of landed knights, before the Blackfyre rebellion, he was still taking "Woths" and other men like that to war with him, and most of those men died.  

Ser Eustace was able to furnish 3 fighting men at arms before emergency his entire peasant levy. If he went to war with Lord Rowan, he'd only have brought Dunk or Bennace and no one would have looked twice. He prolly could have gone alone

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

I also take huge exception to your dismissal of Meribald's firsthand account.  He is presented as among the most honest of characters in the story.  We can't just go off and dismiss the testimony of honest characters just because what they say is inconvenient to our own ideas.  

Re-read that monologue and then look at every single portrayal of an army we see. Things do not jive

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

To me, the obvious answer is that it is a mix.  Sure, there were professionals, like standing militiamen, guardsmen, knights, freeriders, mercenaries, companies-for-hire (i.e. the brave companions), but there were also also peasants, craftsmen, and other conscripts.  

It's obviously a mix but the guys like Meribald were generally not brought along bc they weren't worth the effort or food. If you can't arm or armor yourself youre a liability to the army. Most of the army would be peasants in the technical sense, but that doesn't mean that they are literal dirt poor peasants. They would be anything from a steward of a landed knight to the most suitable choice to fight off a large family farm or a few young men from a village. We don't know but we can look at historical comparisons, the actual canon text and make some observations.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

I don't follow your logic here.  Noye's quote is:

I assume you are referring to the part about 1 in 20 owning a sword.  If I take it as truth that George is in agreement with your assertion that "Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc." you have 2 "facts" that logically drive to one conclusion. They were armed from their lord's smithy (by a man like Noye, in fact) but with weapons are owned by the lord and not retained by the conscript once the war is completed.  We have further evidence that the Lannister's certainly owned a fair bit of the steel carried by their army, given Tyrion's scheme to trade surplus of these arms for his own freedom. 

Yeah, one should imagine that the rich houses - to which the Freys definitely have to be numbered, especially if compared to a poor house of considerable power like the Sunderlands who control the Three Sisters (whose lord is so poor as per ADwD that he has struggle to afford that all his seven sons become knights - compare that to the number of Freys Lord Walder allowed to become/made into knights!) - actually do have the equipment to arm and clothe the men in their service, be they conscripted levies or sworn swords/freeriders/sellswords in their service.

We also hear about groups of men-at-arms walking around in Frey colors, indicating that those would either be men-at-arms permanently in Frey service or levies they raised from their lands who were then given Frey equipment.

This is a tendency contrary to the feudal framework since the normal framework would be that a man with his own sigil and banner would wear his own colors and depict his own arms on his equipment rather than those of his liege lord or liege lord's liege lord. It is more evocative of the Wars of the Roses setting where the powerful magnates of England could raise private armies very easily as well as afford to keep hundreds and thousands men under arms all the time ... who were marked as such by wearing their livery.

But this is not something people do in Westeros. There people usually wear their own arms if they have any. That is why the Freys themselves were their own colors and not those of the Tullys of Riverrun.

Obviously in Westeros chain mail is also not as costly nor as rare as it was in the real world, considering how many people are wearing it.

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

Now, obviously he presence of knights and trained cavalry, etc. suggests that there are certainly men whose livelihood is 100% to be a fighting man, but I think you are stretching to clain that most of an army in the field in ASoIaF is a standing army.  You mention the pitiful militia that Ser Eustace assembles, but before he is among the poorest of landed knights, before the Blackfyre rebellion, he was still taking "Woths" and other men like that to war with him, and most of those men died.  

Yeah, it is quite clear that Osgrey raised the levies he dragged to the Redgrass Field also from his villages. He may have had some more land back then, but it is made quite clear that the men from those villages actually are obliged to follow their master into battle and did so in the past.

And they do not train at arms in peace time, that much is clear.

The feudal tapestry would also make it pretty much impossible that any lord but the truly wealthy can develop or maintain a sizable militia. Lords do have the right of pit and gallows on their own lands ... which means even petty lords would do justice on whatever meager lands they hold, refusing to allow their own liege lords to interfere in their affairs. Depending how much of a patchwork rug the feudal tapestry is - i.e. how many different petty lords sit on, say, a couple of square miles in any given location - it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to raise a sizable 'regional host' or work together in military matters ... because people would view their neighbors as potential enemies, not allies.

We see how this goes with the Crackclaw Point folk and the Celtigars on Claw Isle and their other neighbors.

If a big thing comes, a huge campaign when they have to answer the call of the great lord of their region or the king, then they sort of work together, but those are very rare occasions.

Vice versa, the average liege lord of a score or so of petty lords wouldn't want them to work well together, either ... because that could mean they might band together, stage a rebellion, and make one of their own peers their new liege lord.

Not to mention that, again, all proper training-at-arms seems to take place in proper castles, not just somewhere in the wilderness. The smallfolk cannot be sheep to degree they are if many of them actually have training at arms. There may be some regions where this happens - the Dornish Marches, for instance, places in the Vale and the Riverlands were clansmen attacks are common, places where historically the Ironborn were a constant threat.

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

I also take huge exception to your dismissal of Meribald's firsthand account.  He is presented as among the most honest of characters in the story.  We can't just go off and dismiss the testimony of honest characters just because what they say is inconvenient to our own ideas.  

Yeah, that just doesn't work. Especially if you try to dismiss rather crucial passages of the series - and Meribald's speech is pretty much the core of AFfC - by playing up obscure battle description details (which are clearly portions of the story the author doesn't really care about that much - remember: this is a guy who thinks arrows shot by wildling bows can fly up seven hundred feet and kill people!).

Meribald's speech tells us crucial things about how the feudal society and the wars within that society work - and the smallfolk suffer because of the way they are fought. That is a crucial element of the series, pointing how the feudalism of Westeros sucks. You cannot ignore that in favor of some personal preference even if that would better fit with whatever real world medieval society you have in mind.

This is also rather crucial considering the War of the Ninepenny Kings was actually a war the Targaryens fought outside their own territory ... and subsequently nobody fighting in there would have been a guy defending his home or the honor of his lord or the noble house he was sworn to (which, as we see during the War of the Five Kings, can motivate people fight with in greater numbers and with greater ferocity). Jaehaerys II fought a preeptive war to prevent an invasion that may not have happened. And he called in men from all or at least many of the Seven Kingdoms, meaning that not that many men from the individual regions would have answered his call.

All that makes it rather unlikely that Meribald and his brothers ended up joining the campaign on a whim. Instead, it stands to reason they were drafted by their lord.

1 hour ago, The Green Bard said:

To me, the obvious answer is that it is a mix.  Sure, there were professionals, like standing militiamen, guardsmen, knights, freeriders, mercenaries, companies-for-hire (i.e. the brave companions), but there were also also peasants, craftsmen, and other conscripts.  

Yeah, and one has to keep in mind that apparently even the most powerful houses - even the Targaryens in their most powerful era, before the Dance - didn't keep many men under arms. Which, in turn, means there cannot be that many. Because if you have a society with a lot of soldiers then you will inevitably have a lot of war ... because this people will want to fight wars to earn a living. This is what the free companies do in the Disputed Lands. But we don't have that in Westeros. Just as we don't have a powerful outside enemy.

And if you look at the North then it is clear that war is pretty much a no go during harvest season - meaning there cannot be many truly professional soldiers there, most likely because there aren't that many big castles up in the North, either. However, you would have more 'soldier-peasants' up there, men who sort of train at arms while also working the land. In fact, the clansmen seem to be such people, the Umbers, too, to a point.

But as I pointed out above ... it is not enough to keep the undisciplined, poorly equipped wildling raiders out of their lands. Which puts this into perspective again.

[The Green Bard]

45 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

This is basically the opposite of what occurred in real life. Though in England in the 14th century some villages and churches did keep communal equipment for war and the men produced by the community.

My understanding, such as it is, is that serfs basically didn't have property rights.  What am I missing?  Can you explain with evidence?  Logically I am still struggling with the assertion that they were well-armed, owning their own weapons, but they were actually peasants and did not go off to war.  

45 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Re-read that monologue and then look at every single portrayal of an army we see. Things do not jive

I've read it.  You are going to have to do a better job explaining what is incongruent.  It is definitely the picture the author wants to paint. Perhaps the issue is more in the earlier POVs account of the actual situation on the ground.  Every single one of our POVs, save Melisandre and some of the Epilogue / prologue character, are high-borne.  What I see is that he is shredding their biased view of the world.  We also get a lot of this in Dunk and Egg which is primarily in DUnk's POV.  Also, it's not like Brienne took issue with anything he said.  

Also, desertion is a problem in both Stannis and Robb's armies.  Perhaps we don't see it in Bolton and Tywin's armies because of the inherent risk associated to their ruthlessness and proclivity for foraging parties.  It also clearly happens in battle when the defeated side breaks.  I just don't see what about Meribald's story does not fit with this?

45 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's obviously a mix but the guys like Meribald were generally not brought along bc they weren't worth the effort or food. If you can't arm or armor yourself youre a liability to the army. Most of the army would be peasants in the technical sense, but that doesn't mean that they are literal dirt poor peasants.

I really think that the misunderstanding between us here is that I am reading and basing my understanding of the wars in this story based upon what the author has written, but y'all are applying a lot of RL logic to it, which might be logical to you, but might not be how the author views it, and in Westeros, the authors opinion matters more.  To me, the text definitely states that these types of people are brought along on these campaigns. 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa, the average liege lord of a score or so of petty lords wouldn't want them to work well together, either ... because that could mean they might band together, stage a rebellion, and make one of their own peers their new liege lord.

This is a really good point.  This would be crucial in feudal society.  Any standing militia would have to be under the firm control of the high and mighty.  

 

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

remember: this is a guy who thinks arrows shot by wildling bows can fly up seven hundred feet and kill people!

Hah, yeah, I have a lot of trouble with suspension of disbelief in some of those sections, lol.  Physics matters to me, an engineer. 

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Meribald's speech tells us crucial things about how the feudal society and the wars within that society work - and the smallfolk suffer because of the way they are fought. That is a crucial element of the series, pointing how the feudalism of Westeros sucks.

Truth. Utter truth.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which, in turn, means there cannot be that many. Because if you have a society with a lot of soldiers then you will inevitably have a lot of war ... because this people will want to fight wars to earn a living. This is what the free companies do in the Disputed Lands. But we don't have that in Westeros. Just as we don't have a powerful outside enemy.

Sure, It's very clear that the author's intent is to show that militarism is not a good way to go, and that when there are large armies, the only outcome can be suffering of the common folk. It ties back your earlier point quite tidily.

As an aside, the whole idea of the free companies being under constant flowing contracts in a state of constant war is really illogical, if it weren't for what is actually happening in the Middle East today, with a constant state of war there, right down to the fre companies as stand-ins for NGO fighting forces (contractors in the parlance of mainstream media) ...  and you know who loses the most?  The common people in the countries that are currently conflict-ridden.  The high and mighty are just fine, aside from the assassination and purges that happen from time to time, but that is bad for business.  To me, this is clearly the real world analog.

[Aldarion]

6 hours ago, The Green Bard said:

I assume you are referring to the part about 1 in 20 owning a sword.  If I take it as truth that George is in agreement with your assertion that "Historical peasant levies were well-armed, with swords, spears, axes etc." you have 2 "facts" that logically drive to one conclusion. They were armed from their lord's smithy (by a man like Noye, in fact) but with weapons are owned by the lord and not retained by the conscript once the war is completed.  We have further evidence that the Lannister's certainly owned a fair bit of the steel carried by their army, given Tyrion's scheme to trade surplus of these arms for his own freedom. 

I think for you to step further and say that these people wouldn't be taken on a campaign is certainly not evidenced in the text, and I would need a lot more evidence that GRRM knows/agrees that the historical ones you cite didn't travel to war before agreeing with your conclusion. 

Text shows us troops which are both well-equipped and well-trained, with only a minority of untrained rabble. And it doesn't matter which army it is, it is clear that most troops are relatively high-quality.

6 hours ago, The Green Bard said:

Now, obviously he presence of knights and trained cavalry, etc. suggests that there are certainly men whose livelihood is 100% to be a fighting man, but I think you are stretching to clain that most of an army in the field in ASoIaF is a standing army.  You mention the pitiful militia that Ser Eustace assembles, but before he is among the poorest of landed knights, before the Blackfyre rebellion, he was still taking "Woths" and other men like that to war with him, and most of those men died.  

Why are you trying to argue about my claim when you have clearly not taken time to try and understand it? I never claimed that Westerosi armies are standing armies. I did claim, and still claim, that majority of troops in Westerosi armies are professionals.

If you cannot understand my argument to begin with, it is impossible for us to have discussion.

6 hours ago, The Green Bard said:

... suggests that certainly some of them did travel to battle with Lord Tywin.  

Now, obviously he presence of knights and trained cavalry, etc. suggests that there are certainly men whose livelihood is 100% to be a fighting man, but I think you are stretching to clain that most of an army in the field in ASoIaF is a standing army.  You mention the pitiful militia that Ser Eustace assembles, but before he is among the poorest of landed knights, before the Blackfyre rebellion, he was still taking "Woths" and other men like that to war with him, and most of those men died.  

Yes, some did. But majority of Tywin's army are trained professionals; untrained levies are only present as a bait. Peasants would be present as camp followers, but fighting men are professional soldiers (that is, feudal levies).

6 hours ago, The Green Bard said:

I also take huge exception to your dismissal of Meribald's firsthand account.  He is presented as among the most honest of characters in the story.  We can't just go off and dismiss the testimony of honest characters just because what they say is inconvenient to our own ideas.  

To me, the obvious answer is that it is a mix.  Sure, there were professionals, like standing militiamen, guardsmen, knights, freeriders, mercenaries, companies-for-hire (i.e. the brave companions), but there were also also peasants, craftsmen, and other conscripts.  

I don't dismiss Meribald's account. I dismiss the claim that Meribald's account describes majority of troops employed by Westerosi armies because that interpretation goes against what we actually see in battles. Meribald is a camp follower, plain and simple, and he is describing other camp followers - who may be armed and thrown into battle as needed, but sure as hell do not form the foundation nor the bulk of actual armies.

Again, if you didn't even take time to understand what I am arguing, how are we to have a discussion? It will be like me speaking in Croatian and you in French.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But this is not something people do in Westeros. There people usually wear their own arms if they have any. That is why the Freys themselves were their own colors and not those of the Tullys of Riverrun.

 

Freys however are still major lords. We also see Karstarks use their own sigils. What I do not recall however is landed knights using their own coats of arms. So overall, system appears to be roughly similar to Hungarian banderial system.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that just doesn't work. Especially if you try to dismiss rather crucial passages of the series - and Meribald's speech is pretty much the core of AFfC - by playing up obscure battle description details (which are clearly portions of the story the author doesn't really care about that much - remember: this is a guy who thinks arrows shot by wildling bows can fly up seven hundred feet and kill people!).

Meribald's speech tells us crucial things about how the feudal society and the wars within that society work - and the smallfolk suffer because of the way they are fought. That is a crucial element of the series, pointing how the feudalism of Westeros sucks. You cannot ignore that in favor of some personal preference even if that would better fit with whatever real world medieval society you have in mind.

You also cannot dismiss the fact that Meribald is describing his personal experiences, nor the fact that those personal experiences do not fit description of any army we see in the field (Tywin's and Roose's armies in Battle of Green Fork, Tywin's and Stannis' armies in Battle of King's Landing, Stannis' army at the Wall). Yet you dismiss those facts, despite there being an explanation that is a) logical, b) internally consistent and c) does not require dismissing any evidence. That solution are camp followers.

I never dismissed Meribald's speech. You however are dismissing entire battles in favour of speech which can be easily shown to not be describing actual troops utilized by Westerosi armies.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All that makes it rather unlikely that Meribald and his brothers ended up joining the campaign on a whim. Instead, it stands to reason they were drafted by their lord.

Drafted to serve as camp followers. Not drafted to serve as basis of line of battle.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, and one has to keep in mind that apparently even the most powerful houses - even the Targaryens in their most powerful era, before the Dance - didn't keep many men under arms. Which, in turn, means there cannot be that many. Because if you have a society with a lot of soldiers then you will inevitably have a lot of war ... because this people will want to fight wars to earn a living. This is what the free companies do in the Disputed Lands. But we don't have that in Westeros. Just as we don't have a powerful outside enemy.

And if you look at the North then it is clear that war is pretty much a no go during harvest season - meaning there cannot be many truly professional soldiers there, most likely because there aren't that many big castles up in the North, either. However, you would have more 'soldier-peasants' up there, men who sort of train at arms while also working the land. In fact, the clansmen seem to be such people, the Umbers, too, to a point.

Soldier-peasants are professional soldiers. They are part-time professionals, who have to work their lands in addition to training with weapons, but they are professionals - soldiering is their profession. And they would actually be financed and equipped by several households, not just their own. They are not conscripts, much less untrained and undisciplined rabble.

And North suffering due to harvest does not even mean that troops themselves are peasants (though many may be - but again, they would be trained, equipped, organized and disciplined). Armies need camp followers, and those are easiest to find in proximity of castles - which means that castles will loose hands necessary to bring in the harvest.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But as I pointed out above ... it is not enough to keep the undisciplined, poorly equipped wildling raiders out of their lands. Which puts this into perspective again.

You cannot keep raiders out of your lands in premodern times, no matter what kind of army you have. Romans were not able to keep barbarians or Arabs out of their lands, Byzantines were not able to keep Arabs or Turks, Hungarians and Croatians were not able to keep Ottomans, Americans were not able to keep Indians... fact that North suffers raids does not mean its armies are not professional. In fact, peasant levies would probably be better at keeping raiders out than professional soldiers, simply because there would be more of them (on the order of 150 000 - 250 000 in North alone).

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My take on that would be that so far we only know of garrisons and sworn swords and knights and squires living in castles to continually train at arms. Depending on how high the percentage of 'castle men' in any given army is, the number of professional soldiers could greatly vary ... but not so much for the North (Manderlys excluded) because we do know that many of the men there were folk bringing in the harvest.

Whatever men humbler landed knights like Eustace Osgrey would bring to an army would be almost exclusively unprofessional drafted men. From any such household there might be half a dozen or a dozen professional men - sworn swords, the knight himself and his heirs/some kin, perhaps a couple of men-at-arms. But that would be it.

And it is not that there would be any landless knights outside the most wealthy families (like Lannisters, Hightowers, etc.) who could feed and pay hundreds of knights. Ser Kevan is a huge exception ... just as Lazy Leo isn't your average acolyte at the Citadel, is he?

Yeomen are confirmed only for the Riverlands and specifically there for Stoney Sept which, so far, is without a lordly house I know of, perhaps indicating that the town is ran by commoners (to a point) rather than relevant noble houses.

I think @ran has pointed out that it would be very difficult to keep more than 5-6% of the adult male population under arms for any length of time, without agricultural production crashing.

But, that would still leave a substantial proportion of adult males who had some skill at arms, and owned weapons.  As I mentioned upthread, archers in particular had to practise continuously to be any good.  In England, they were overwhelmingly drawn from the class of prosperous  peasants, who could afford bows, and afford the time to practise. Very few people would be full time soldiers, but many would hold plots of land, or hunting rights, or receive a retainer on the understanding that they would fight when called upon.

But, yes, you'd also get the men who followed Ser Eustace, and the men who are described by Merribald, who just get conscripted.