The numbers of the battle of the Trident don't make sense

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So we're told that the loyalists had around 40k troops while the rebels slightly less. How?

First the loyalists. Given that we know Dorne sent 10k spears, and that Mace sat watching pain dry at Storm's End, that leaves 30k forces from the crownlands. Boy, sure could have used those in the Wot5K.

Second the rebels. The North can easily raise 20k, men but probably even more. Let's say 20k and be generous. The Vale we're told has equivalent numbers, so let's say another 20k. The stormlanders and the riverlands must have had at least 10k each. That means that over 20k, or over half the rebel army was missing at the least.

So what do you say, how can we rationalize these numbers?

[The Young Maester]

30,000 from the crownlands, Reach, riverlands, stormlands, and Vale

wiki says the 30k were between those kingdoms. Most of it probably being from crownlands and reach.

We can imagine that the vale took heavy casualties when they sieged gulltown. Robert most have lost 2 thirds of his fighting force after summerhall, Ashford, and the bells.

Tully probably didnt provide that many soldiers seeing as the riverlands were probably split. The only army that was at full force before the bells was the north. So we can assume most of the fighting men at the trident were northmen, and the valemen as 2nd.

[Loose Bolt]

There could have been problems of feeding any larger armies. After all there had been some battles, skirmishes  and raids between loyalists, rebels and even some houses of Riverlands and so finding enough food to feed any larger armies should have been almost impossible. Or all armies were like swarms of locust which ate or destroyed all food they could find.

[Aldarion]

@Alyn Oakenfist

It is logistics. Westeros is a feudal society, and while it often does not act as such, these numbers actually make sense in such a context. Kingdom of Hungary in 15th century had an army that numbered in total between 80 000 and 100 000 troops. Yet typical field army (which is what we are talking about here) was around 20 000 men. Only exceptionally could larger numbers be mobilized.

I remembered I actually made notes on sizes of some 15th century field armies, which might give you a guideline of what was practical with military organization and logistics of that level:

• Italian armies

  • Fornovo 1495 (Gonzaga's army)

    • 11 000 heavy cavalry

    • 2 000 light cavalry

    • 8 000 professional infantry

• army of John Hunyadi

  • cavalry

    • lance: 2 heavy cavalrymen (lancers), 2 mounted crossbowmen

  • Campaign 1443. - 1444.

    • 35 000 men and 600 battle wagons main army

    • 12 000 cavalry advance guard

  • Varna 1444

    • 15 000 cavalry + 4 000 Drakul's

    • 1 000 infantry

    • 100 battle wagons

    • 2 000 transport wagons

  • Kosovo 1448

    • 24 000 Hunyadi

      • 22 000 cavalry

      • 2 000 – 3 000 puskars

    • 8 000 Dan (cavalry)

• Skanderbeg's armies

  • Mokra 1445

    • 2 000 cavalry

    • 1 500 infantry

  • Kruje 1450

    • 6 000 cavalry

    • 2 000 infantry

  • Oranik 1456

    • 6 000 cavalry

    • 4 000 infantry

• army of Matthias Corvinus

  • Jajce 1463

    • 14 000 cavalry

    • 5 000 infantry

  • Bosnia 1464.

    • 17 000 cavalry

    • 6 000 infantry

    • 7 000 crusaders

  • 1468

    • 17 000 men

    • 50 cannons

    • 2 000 war wagons ?

  • 1474

    • 10 000 men

    • 900 war wagons ?

  • 1475

    • 60 000 – 70 000 men

    • 1 000 supply wagons

    • 100 ships

  • 1480

    • 60 000 men

Of course, most of these are rather cavalry-heavy, so I suspect that infantry-heavy armies such as ASoIaF ones could in fact be somewhat larger - but not massively so. And that advantage would be lost through general incompetence of just about everyone in ASoIaF.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

@Alyn Oakenfist

It is logistics. Westeros is a feudal society, and while it often does not act as such, these numbers actually make sense in such a context. Kingdom of Hungary in 15th century had an army that numbered in total between 80 000 and 100 000 troops. Yet typical field army (which is what we are talking about here) was around 20 000 men. Only exceptionally could larger numbers be mobilized.

See, I would agree with you, until you remember Renly. If Renly was able to support 100k men moving slower then Bran, though tbf in friendly territory, then the Rebels would have had no problem in having a larger army, say 50k to 60k, moving appropriately fast so as not to burn the land.

Also while this is a great answer, it doesn't explain how the Royal Army was so big, with the Reach counting sheep outside Storm's End, there were only the 10k Dornishmen, whatever splinters from the Riverlands they had and the Crownlands. Best case scenario, it would still require over 20k men from the Crownlands, men we never even get a hint of the Crownlands having.

[James Steller]

48 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Best case scenario, it would still require over 20k men from the Crownlands, men we never even get a hint of the Crownlands having.

Well, given how many casualties there were at the Battle of the Trident, given that a good chunk of them were divided between the Iron Throne and Stannis during the WOTFK, others stayed home, and yet more presumably died at places like Duskendale, the Crownland numbers seem reasonably justified.

[Trigger Warning]

It's feudalism, lords send token forces all the time or keep men back for the harvest or out of disdain for the cause. Logistics and the urgency of the campaign might affect how many men can be raised, bad harvests, plagues, weather, the finances of a lord or town. Military numbers fluctuate constantly due to many different factors especially without rigid systems of conscription. 

Regarding the Royal army, they could have mercenaries, loyal men from different regions that wish to serve the crown or seek the favour of the king, they could have pushed men into service from King's Landing, the city is huge. There's plenty of options. 

[Aldarion]

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

See, I would agree with you, until you remember Renly. If Renly was able to support 100k men moving slower then Bran, though tbf in friendly territory, then the Rebels would have had no problem in having a larger army, say 50k to 60k, moving appropriately fast so as not to burn the land.

Also while this is a great answer, it doesn't explain how the Royal Army was so big, with the Reach counting sheep outside Storm's End, there were only the 10k Dornishmen, whatever splinters from the Riverlands they had and the Crownlands. Best case scenario, it would still require over 20k men from the Crownlands, men we never even get a hint of the Crownlands having.

Renly was on the road, close to sea, close to Reach, far away from any enemy army that might interrupt the supply, and had an explicit goal of starving King's landing into submission. You will note that when riding to battle, he only took 20 000 with him, and no other field army is larger than that (I think Lannisters get the first place with 20 000 deployed with Tywin and later reinforced with 3 000 mountain clans).

And even then, feat he managed should have been impossible with medieval logistics, but well... Martin's world falls apart as soon as you scratch below the surface anyway, so try not to think too hard about it.

RE: Royal Army, a lot of it was from Reach, if I remember it correctly. Considering total armed strength of Reach is cca 100 000, giving 10 000 - 20 000 men to the King would be pocket change for them, even if they happened to be politically split between Loyalists and Rebels.

[broken one]

Even Romans rarely issued armies larger than 50 000. I deny to believe in medieval field army bigger than 30 000 men - as for Renly and his alleged 100k. Just imagine lenght of the marching column

[Daeron the Daring]

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

@Alyn Oakenfist

It is logistics. Westeros is a feudal society, and while it often does not act as such, these numbers actually make sense in such a context. Kingdom of Hungary in 15th century had an army that numbered in total between 80 000 and 100 000 troops. Yet typical field army (which is what we are talking about here) was around 20 000 men. Only exceptionally could larger numbers be mobilized.

I remembered I actually made notes on sizes of some 15th century field armies, which might give you a guideline of what was practical with military organization and logistics of that level:

• Italian armies

  • Fornovo 1495 (Gonzaga's army)

    • 11 000 heavy cavalry

    • 2 000 light cavalry

    • 8 000 professional infantry

• army of John Hunyadi

  • cavalry

    • lance: 2 heavy cavalrymen (lancers), 2 mounted crossbowmen

  • Campaign 1443. - 1444.

    • 35 000 men and 600 battle wagons main army

    • 12 000 cavalry advance guard

  • Varna 1444

    • 15 000 cavalry + 4 000 Drakul's

    • 1 000 infantry

    • 100 battle wagons

    • 2 000 transport wagons

  • Kosovo 1448

    • 24 000 Hunyadi

      • 22 000 cavalry

      • 2 000 – 3 000 puskars

    • 8 000 Dan (cavalry)

• Skanderbeg's armies

  • Mokra 1445

    • 2 000 cavalry

    • 1 500 infantry

  • Kruje 1450

    • 6 000 cavalry

    • 2 000 infantry

  • Oranik 1456

    • 6 000 cavalry

    • 4 000 infantry

• army of Matthias Corvinus

  • Jajce 1463

    • 14 000 cavalry

    • 5 000 infantry

  • Bosnia 1464.

    • 17 000 cavalry

    • 6 000 infantry

    • 7 000 crusaders

  • 1468

    • 17 000 men

    • 50 cannons

    • 2 000 war wagons ?

  • 1474

    • 10 000 men

    • 900 war wagons ?

  • 1475

    • 60 000 – 70 000 men

    • 1 000 supply wagons

    • 100 ships

  • 1480

    • 60 000 men

Of course, most of these are rather cavalry-heavy, so I suspect that infantry-heavy armies such as ASoIaF ones could in fact be somewhat larger - but not massively so. And that advantage would be lost through general incompetence of just about everyone in ASoIaF.

At the Battle of Mohi(1241), where mostly Hungarian forces allied with Austrian forces managed to finally push back the mongols, went into battle with 80.000 men!

In 1526, at the Battle of Mohács the Ottomans faced Hungary's 30.000 men with 70.000! 

During the reign of Mathias Corvinus, the crown had 20.000-30.000 men-at-arms( it went up to 30.000 during war). Not to mention the amount of levies. The Reach being able to rally 100.000 or even more man is accurate.

The Ottoman Empire also managed to lay siege at Eger(1552) for 40 days with 40.000 men (Historical accounts claim the double of it, but modern science says more than 40.000 is not possible). 

At the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains(451), where (these are modern-age estimations) 80.000 roman soldiers of the Western Roman Empire faced Attila the Hun's nomad army. It ended with a draw, but the WRE's losses bere bigger. This might come to the conclusion that the Hunnic army was even bigger, but it is not verified. In the book The Slave of the Huns by Géza Gárdonyi more than 100.000 men are mentioned being in Attila's Army.

At the Battle of Tours(734, it think, but not sure), 60.000 French and Aquatainien men faced and ended the Umayyad conquest of Europe.

(I was mentioning mostly battles related to Hungarian history because I am hungarian too.)

See, @Alyn Oakenfist, @broken onesupplying 100.000 men, even if it's hard, is still manageable. Only 80.000 men were from the Reach, and I doubt the Stormlands rallied their troops without being able to supply them.I know, mostly the Tyrells supplied Renly, but still.The last 10 years have been only harvesting without any war. Also, the Reach rallied most of his troops because Renly's cause was theirs too, trough Margaery.

While Wot5K happened after 10 years of Summer/Spring, RR happened after a 3 years of Winter. 

[Thandros]

The thing about the Rebels is one some of the Vale sided with Aerys and more importantly they had sustained losses in the battles beforehand. The Trident was the culmination of at least a weeks long campaign of small clashes and skirmishes that probably bled both sides to a point and probably gave the initial upper hand to the Loyalists which is why Rhaeger decided to push his luck and cross the Trident to try and win a decisive victory over the Rebels. It didn't work out but that neither here nor there.

For the Loyalists we know from Word of God that some Reach forces were on the Trident which help narrow the gap plus Loyalist Riverlords and other loyalists from the Stormlands maybe and they could probably muster the 40,000 men with men to spare. 

[broken one]

@HerbIYY I would divide all the numbers by 3. I think medieval commanders had rather foggy idea of number of their own forces when it reached several thousands. The rest is fantasy of chroniclers and apologists.

 

[TheLastWolf]

Haven't you heard, GRRM sucks at numbers. Else he would be a theoretical physicist and not an internationally bestselling fantasy author. 

[Daeron the Daring]

23 minutes ago, broken one said:

@HerbIYY I would divide all the numbers by 3. I think medieval commanders had rather foggy idea of number of their own forces when it reached several thousands. The rest is fantasy of chroniclers and apologists.

 

What I've just wrote you down are actually the numbers historians assume in the 21st century. I doubt they're doing it without competence.

The exact number of an army is never clear. Only Renly and Mace might have known how many people were in his army. He said 100.000, but it could've been a lie, since only they knew how many troops were given by each of.their vassals. Between 80.000 and 100.000 noone could make difference. But I doubt he had less than 80.000. Not to mention about mass desertion in such a big army. 

Also, the examples I gave you are some of the biggest armies ever raised in Hungarian history (I am talking about the middleages). 

China (in the middleages) was also able to supply 300.000 men during a war. This is the biggest force ever raised in middleages. No, the people weren't all in the same army, of course. There were several separate armies/camps. But they were on the same region, so the supply train came from mostly the same place. 

And, it is mostly not supplies what destroyed these big armies, but diseases. Renly's wasn't even standing for half a year. Not even 3 months, if I remember well.

[broken one]

40 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Haven't you heard, GRRM sucks at numbers. Else he would be a theoretical physicist and not an internationally bestselling fantasy author. 

Sapkowski is an economist, he worked as fur merchant before he became bestselling fantasy author ;-)

@HerblYY I see estimations vary a lot (from 25k to 80k at Mohi). This is what I mean. Reminds me of estimates of Polish/allied forces at Grunwald - from 11k to 50k. I have encountered even number 100 000 (!!!) the information form medieval propaganda, but I guess nobody has taken it serious since then.

Let's leave Chinese out of this, they make civilisation and class of their own.

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

At the Battle of Mohi(1241), where mostly Hungarian forces allied with Austrian forces managed to finally push back the mongols, went into battle with 80.000 men!

In 1526, at the Battle of Mohács the Ottomans faced Hungary's 30.000 men with 70.000! 

During the reign of Mathias Corvinus, the crown had 20.000-30.000 men-at-arms( it went up to 30.000 during war). Not to mention the amount of levies. The Reach being able to rally 100.000 or even more man is accurate.

The Ottoman Empire also managed to lay siege at Eger(1552) for 40 days with 40.000 men (Historical accounts claim the double of it, but modern science says more than 40.000 is not possible). 

At the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains(451), where (these are modern-age estimations) 80.000 roman soldiers of the Western Roman Empire faced Attila the Hun's nomad army. It ended with a draw, but the WRE's losses bere bigger. This might come to the conclusion that the Hunnic army was even bigger, but it is not verified. In the book The Slave of the Huns by Géza Gárdonyi more than 100.000 men are mentioned being in Attila's Army.

At the Battle of Tours(734, it think, but not sure), 60.000 French and Aquatainien men faced and ended the Umayyad conquest of Europe.

(I was mentioning mostly battles related to Hungarian history because I am hungarian too.)

See, @Alyn Oakenfist, @broken onesupplying 100.000 men, even if it's hard, is still manageable. Only 80.000 men were from the Reach, and I doubt the Stormlands rallied their troops without being able to supply them.I know, mostly the Tyrells supplied Renly, but still.The last 10 years have been only harvesting without any war. Also, the Reach rallied most of his troops because Renly's cause was theirs too, trough Margaery.

While Wot5K happened after 10 years of Summer/Spring, RR happened after a 3 years of Winter. 

1) Numbers for Mohi are disputed. Most widely cited number however is 25 000 men for Hungarian-allied army.

2) Ottoman Empire was not a feudal society, so their field armies are irrelevant. What is relevant is inability of Western states to match the Ottoman armies even when fighting as part of alliances - precisely due to their feudal military organization.

3) Hungary of Matthias Corvinus could actually raise between 60 000 and 100 000 men in total. But field armies were, with few exceptions, between 20 000 and 30 000. Even largest did not come close to 100 000 men in the field. Not to mention that it is not the best example, seeing how Hungary actually had extremely well organized military for the time, including two parallel standing armies (Black Army and garrisons of border forts). In fact, if it weren't for the Ottoman Empire, Matthias' Hungary might have been the greatest military power in entire Europe.

4) And, again, Western Roman Empire is irrelevant for discussion of military potential of Westerosi feudal society.

5) Frankish army at Tours was a relic of Ancient Roman military organization. It had nothing in common with later armies of feudal Europe.

Problem you have here is that you are just choosing "large premodern armies" without understanding the socioeconomic systems which supported armies in question. Literally none of the armies you have listed are a nested "retinue of retinues" army which Westeros should utilize, based on their descriptions and terminology ("calling the banners", existence of "banners" in the first place, and so on). Hungary did have something similar, but even that included large numbers of mercenaries as well as a full-time professional army - neither of which is in evidence in Westeros.

1 hour ago, HerblYY said:

What I've just wrote you down are actually the numbers historians assume in the 21st century. I doubt they're doing it without competence.

 

You are giving them too much credit, I think.

Having studied Byzantine army (albeit not professionally), I can tell you that a lot of historians prefer to draw conclusions based on how they think things should be rather than on what evidence tells them things have been. Haldon for example, while generally a highly competent Byzantine historian, dismisses large Middle Byzantine armies (both field and total) because he assumes that no Medieval state could have supported such large armies. Whittow also echoes his argument, except assuming even smaller Byzantine army. But in order to reach that conclusion, they also had to throw out plentiful evidence that Byzantine Empire was not, in fact, your "typical" Medieval state. It was a relict of an ancient empire, and it acted as such - and this included highly professional army, very numerous and with highly standardized organization and efficient logistical support. Because of this, we actually do know how large exactly Byzantine army was, thanks to primary sources (80 000 in 773., 90 000 in 809., 120 000 in 840. and 124 000 in 899.).

And things are much worse when studying Western armies. For things such as Middle Byzantine military establishment, we have exact numbers due to the fact that it was a professional army supported by a modern state apparatus. But Western European armies, especially feudal ones? Forget it. The best we have are eyewitness accounts and, in case of particularly well organized states such as England or Hungary, campaign accounts. But latter only really start appearing in 14th - 15th centuries, to my knowledge.

[SeanF]

In response to the O/P, there's a difference between total army strength, and the size of an army at any one battle.

There were about 30,000 on each side at the battle of Towton, in 1461, but that was exceptional.  Forces of 5 - 15,000 were the norm for an English army.

It would be very hard to supply an army of 40,000, and even harder to keep it under control, once battle started.  The Trident was the decisive battle, but there was fighting elsewhere.  The Tyrells must have had thousands of men in the Stormlands, other than Storms End itself.

[Daeron the Daring]

27 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

1) Numbers for Mohi are disputed. Most widely cited number however is 25 000 men for Hungarian-allied army.

2) Ottoman Empire was not a feudal society, so their field armies are irrelevant. What is relevant is inability of Western states to match the Ottoman armies even when fighting as part of alliances - precisely due to their feudal military organization.

3) Hungary of Matthias Corvinus could actually raise between 60 000 and 100 000 men in total. But field armies were, with few exceptions, between 20 000 and 30 000. Even largest did not come close to 100 000 men in the field. Not to mention that it is not the best example, seeing how Hungary actually had extremely well organized military for the time, including two parallel standing armies (Black Army and garrisons of border forts). In fact, if it weren't for the Ottoman Empire, Matthias' Hungary might have been the greatest military power in entire Europe.

4) And, again, Western Roman Empire is irrelevant for discussion of military potential of Westerosi feudal society.

5) Frankish army at Tours was a relic of Ancient Roman military organization. It had nothing in common with later armies of feudal Europe.

Problem you have here is that you are just choosing "large premodern armies" without understanding the socioeconomic systems which supported armies in question. Literally none of the armies you have listed are a nested "retinue of retinues" army which Westeros should utilize, based on their descriptions and terminology ("calling the banners", existence of "banners" in the first place, and so on). Hungary did have something similar, but even that included large numbers of mercenaries as well as a full-time professional army - neither of which is in evidence in Westeros.

You are giving them too much credit, I think.

Having studied Byzantine army (albeit not professionally), I can tell you that a lot of historians prefer to draw conclusions based on how they think things should be rather than on what evidence tells them things have been. Haldon for example, while generally a highly competent Byzantine historian, dismisses large Middle Byzantine armies (both field and total) because he assumes that no Medieval state could have supported such large armies. Whittow also echoes his argument, except assuming even smaller Byzantine army. But in order to reach that conclusion, they also had to throw out plentiful evidence that Byzantine Empire was not, in fact, your "typical" Medieval state. It was a relict of an ancient empire, and it acted as such - and this included highly professional army, very numerous and with highly standardized organization and efficient logistical support. Because of this, we actually do know how large exactly Byzantine army was, thanks to primary sources (80 000 in 773., 90 000 in 809., 120 000 in 840. and 124 000 in 899.).

And things are much worse when studying Western armies. For things such as Middle Byzantine military establishment, we have exact numbers due to the fact that it was a professional army supported by a modern state apparatus. But Western European armies, especially feudal ones? Forget it. The best we have are eyewitness accounts and, in case of particularly well organized states such as England or Hungary, campaign accounts. But latter only really start appearing in 14th - 15th centuries, to my knowledge.

First, before going into any discussion: You're right, even modern historical assumptions could be wrong, since they go with the option they like more. With this, we can assume that they could over- or underestimate army sizes. We weren't there to see it with our own eyes. We could be wrong. 

But here's the thing: You're telling me we could only compare Westeros to medieval feudal systems. If we decide to think this way, I'm saying we couldn't compare Westeros to any other feudal or not feudal system, since these given kingdoms of Westeros seem to be using feudalism for several thousand years. At least since the andal invasion!  

For example: the Liege Authority given in Westeros was only reached in Europe by the time cannons were invented. Even guns. Absolutism became a thing in the 14th-15th century, primogeniture in feudalism mostly the same time (And people weren't even ready for it, that's why Mathias Corvinus' son was captured and forced to give up his claims, because of the such high crown authority and taxes/absolutism). Yet, cannons were invented in China in the 11th century and reached Europe in second half of the 13th century. We have primogeniture for at least several hundreds of years, yet I doubt Planetos will ever meet gunpowder. 

In medieval feudalism there was a thing called "feudal contract". We've never heard of such a thing in Westeros. 

If we look this way, Westeros cannot be compared to any feudal medieval kingdom ever. And I'm not saying that it's George's incompetence. He imagined something and made it happen the way he wanted. This is fantasy, after all. I know Westeros resembles mostly Europe, but the two are different in many-many ways.

The problem had never been raising such an army, it was maintaining it. Maintaining an army has always been the same. Raiding foreign territories with the supply train non-stop arriving with the food. 

Maintaining doesn't change, wether it's a feudal-type government or clan-type, or even nomadic-tribal-type government. What I am trying to say with this, is that there were examples for such big armies, but not really in feudal system (only hundreds of years later), where levy contribution wasn't as high as it was at the case of the mongols or ottomans, or the Roman Empire. In the case of nomads, entire nations went into battles and died at the battlefields. For example, the majority of the Hunnic and Mongol forces weren't even huns/mongols, but other nation conquered by them. The Romans and Ottomans recruited worldwide, mostly among their own folk and captured people from foreign territories. Anyway, this did not change maintenance.

What I am saying with this is that (mostly) each of the 7 kingdoms are standing for thousands of years, and this might gave them the organization of Empires or such early-modern monarchies. This might allow them to be able to form big armies that in the medieval ages were only reachable by empires or only by the biggest realms. And armies could have collaborated, and so they did. There are given examples. (Siege of Eger, 1552, again, two ottoman armies, 40000 men(these are the smallest assumptions), collaborated for 38 days, and they finally gave up because of the major losses and the diseases spreading in the siegecamp)

What George did not do well was maybe placing (let's not call it 100k) 80.000 men in the same camp. But, of course we don't know the potencials of a several thousand-years-old kingdom.

 

 

[Daeron the Daring]

@Aldarion, I've just read the page you've linked, and it just simply described what I was thinking (maybe in a more understandable way, since I'm not a native english speaker).

[Aldarion]

35 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

First, before going into any discussion: You're right, even modern historical assumptions could be wrong, since they go with the option they like more. With this, we can assume that they could over- or underestimate army sizes. We weren't there to see it with our own eyes. We could be wrong. 

But here's the thing: You're telling me we could only compare Westeros to medieval feudal systems. If we decide to think this way, I'm saying we couldn't compare Westeros to any other feudal or not feudal system, since these given kingdoms of Westeros seem to be using feudalism for several thousand years. At least since the andal invasion!  

For example: the Liege Authority given in Westeros was only reached in Europe by the time cannons were invented. Even guns. Absolutism became a thing in the 14th-15th century, primogeniture in feudalism mostly the same time (And people weren't even ready for it, that's why Mathias Corvinus' son was captured and forced to give up his claims, because of the such high crown authority and taxes/absolutism). Yet, cannons were invented in China in the 11th century and reached Europe in second half of the 13th century. We have primogeniture for at least several hundreds of years, yet I doubt Planetos will ever meet gunpowder. 

In medieval feudalism there was a thing called "feudal contract". We've never heard of such a thing in Westeros. 

If we look this way, Westeros cannot be compared to any feudal medieval kingdom ever. And I'm not saying that it's George's incompetence. He imagined something and made it happen the way he wanted. This is fantasy, after all. I know Westeros resembles mostly Europe, but the two are different in many-many ways.

The problem had never been raising such an army, it was maintaining it. Maintaining an army has always been the same. Raiding foreign territories with the supply train non-stop arriving with the food. 

Maintaining doesn't change, wether it's a feudal-type government or clan-type, or even nomadic-tribal-type government. What I am trying to say with this, is that there were examples for such big armies, but not really in feudal system (only hundreds of years later), where levy contribution wasn't as high as it was at the case of the mongols or ottomans, or the Roman Empire. In the case of nomads, entire nations went into battles and died at the battlefields. For example, the majority of the Hunnic and Mongol forces weren't even huns/mongols, but other nation conquered by them. The Romans and Ottomans recruited worldwide, mostly among their own folk and captured people from foreign territories. Anyway, this did not change maintenance.

What I am saying with this is that (mostly) each of the 7 kingdoms are standing for thousands of years, and this might gave them the organization of Empires or such early-modern monarchies. This might allow them to be able to form big armies that in the medieval ages were only reachable by empires or only by the biggest realms. And armies could have collaborated, and so they did. There are given examples. (Siege of Eger, 1552, again, two ottoman armies, 40000 men(these are the smallest assumptions), collaborated for 38 days, and they finally gave up because of the major losses and the diseases spreading in the siegecamp)

What George did not do well was maybe placing (let's not call it 100k) 80.000 men in the same camp. But, of course we don't know the potencials of a several thousand-years-old kingdom.

 

 

Westeros has a bad case of what is often called medieval stasis. That does not deny the fact that it is a feudal society, and one described in sufficient detail to conclude how it functions.

Westeros is definitely a feudal society, even if not necessarily well-constructed one. It has all basic characteristics: wealth from land, hereditary family authority, senior-junior relationships as basis of system of governance, part-time armies comprised of personal retinues... feudal contract is there - and even historically it was an unwritten, self-understandable rule anyway, so why explicitly mention it?

And no, maintaining an army is never the same. It depends on the military organization, which then depends on social organization. In order to field large armies, you have to be able to supply them. This means ability to calculate supplies for an army, at time without computers and very few sufficiently literate people. As a result, there are only two ways to have an army:

1) small, loosely organized one

2) large, tightly organized one

Second option means standardized everything: supplies, unit sizes, equipment and so on. That was what Roman and Byzantine armies did, as well as Ottoman and late feudal armies (which themselves weren't actually feudal, despite serving in context of feudalism). First otption, adopted by many early feudal armies, means that you have armies numbering in high hundreds to low thousands, but no more than that. Definitely nowhere close to 25 000 man armies that Byzantines, Hungarians and apparently Westerosi were running around with.

BTW, when army is in foreign territory, maintaining it is actually much simpler: no train with food can travel very far without pack animals eating all the food. So an army which invaded enemy territory requisitioned supplies from the populace. It was a basic survival tactic. But it also places some upper limits on how big an army can actually get - generally, no more than 20 000 - 25 000 men, and that in a fairly densely settled area. An army of hundred thousand has to rely on its own supplies, which means supply depots organized in advance, supply units to bring in food, and even then relying on supplies will sharply limit where and how far such an army can actually go.

Yes, Seven Kingdoms could have developed into organized empires. But then we would have something much more akin, I suspect, to the Videssos cycle. But with feudal organization, it doesn't matter how large kingdoms are because it simply cannot translate into battlefield strength. Notice how none of the examples you have given for large armies so far include any states that were organized along feudal lines? It is all centralized empires in the vein of the Roman Empire.

 

John Corvinus gave up his claims, because he did not have enough support to fight against the Vladislaus II - who btw had managed to secure the support of the Black Army. And then he was attacked anyway and his forces scattered.  But taxes were only one of issues which people had with Matthias' policies: his wars in Austria were another.