Jump to content

War of the five kings death toll


Recommended Posts

I believe that the death toll of the war of the five kings is this:

Riverlands:50 percent of population is dead: 3 million

Stormlands: 10 percent of the population is dead: 0.35 million

Westerlands: 25 percent is dead:1.35 million

North: 15 percent is dead:0.525 million

Westeros: 13.125 percent dead: 5.25 million

 

What do you think? How many people died in the deadly war of the five kings? 

Edited by Daenerysthegreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think those percentage figures are too high.

We've got an idea of the impact of total war, waged by the Mongols.  The population of Northern China fell by two thirds, but that was over the course of 21 years.

John Mann estimates that over the course of three years, the population of Khwarazem (Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan) fell by 25%.

The War of the Five Kings is brutal, but not even Tywin Lannister is as brutal as Genghis Khan.

I would estimate losses at 10-15% for the Riverlands.  The  Riverlands suffered the worst.  I think estimates for the population are plausible at  4 to 8 million.  So a minimum of 400,000 to a maximum of 1.2 m.

The Westerlands took heavy losses in battles (perhaps 40,000) and suffered a harsh raid from Robb Stark.  But, there was not much fighting otherwise.  Robb's Chevauchee lasted a matter of weeks,  Including starvation through pillage, I find it hard to envisage more than 100,000 dead. Assuming a similar population to the Riverlands, that's 2 to 3%.

The North suffered 15,000 deaths of fighting men, but few civilian casualties.  That's under 1%.

Ditto the Stormlands.  Add in assorted civilian casualties at Kings Landing, the Kingswood, the Crownlands, I think you're looking at 600,000 to 1.4 m in total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

 

The North suffered 15,000 deaths of fighting men, but few civilian casualties.  That's under 1%.

 

That feels too low. It might account for the army that went south, but they also took losses in the North itself regarding the infighting and the Ironborn attacks. There’s no mention of civilian death figures, but we can assume that some got caught up in the fighting. Plus there was talk of crops going unharvested, which means plenty will starve or freeze, if they haven’t already begun doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end this is basically guesswork to the point of being subjective. Martin tends to treat economic and demographic numbers as something to be pulled out at random to support the needs of the plot. But most war casualties do tend to be a result of things other than the actual battles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

That feels too low. It might account for the army that went south, but they also took losses in the North itself regarding the infighting and the Ironborn attacks. There’s no mention of civilian death figures, but we can assume that some got caught up in the fighting. Plus there was talk of crops going unharvested, which means plenty will starve or freeze, if they haven’t already begun doing that.

On reflection, you’re right.  The loss of 15,000 men of working age will mean that fields go untended, resulting in famine.

60,000 may be a fair estimate for Northern deaths.  And perhaps Western deaths need to be revised upwards to more like 250,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eu coloquei o total de matado em torno de 5% da população de Westeros, no máximo. Os Riverlands provavelmente foram os que mais sofreram, com perdas de até 3% da população total, o que já é muito. Stormlands deve ter sofrido uma perda de até 1% na Batalha de Blackwater, mas eu estimo que esse número seja ainda menor. Se cada público receber perda de substâncias com mais de 10 ou 15% seriamente uma catástrofe, e é algo irreal na Europa Medieval, onde isso só será possível com anos e anos de luta + epidemia e massacres em massa. Não houve doenças, foram massacres em algumas regiões, mas não a ponto de dizimar tanta gente e a guerra foi reduzida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Italo21 said:

Eu coloquei o total de matado em torno de 5% da população de Westeros, no máximo. Os Riverlands provavelmente foram os que mais sofreram, com perdas de até 3% da população total, o que já é muito. Stormlands deve ter sofrido uma perda de até 1% na Batalha de Blackwater, mas eu estimo que esse número seja ainda menor. Se cada público receber perda de substâncias com mais de 10 ou 15% seriamente uma catástrofe, e é algo irreal na Europa Medieval, onde isso só será possível com anos e anos de luta + epidemia e massacres em massa. Não houve doenças, foram massacres em algumas regiões, mas não a ponto de dizimar tanta gente e a guerra foi reduzida.

We put the total killed around 5% of the population of Westeros at most. The Riverlands were probably the ones that suffered the most, with losses of up to 3% of the total population, which is already a lot. Stormlands must have suffered a loss of up to 1% at the Battle of Blackwater, but I estimate that number is even lower. If every public receives loss of substances with more than 10 or 15% seriously a catastrophe, and it is something unreal in Medieval Europe, where this will only be possible with years and years of struggle + epidemic and mass massacres. There were no diseases, there were massacres in some regions, but not to the point of decimator so many people and the war was reduced.

 

- been brushin' up on my Portuguese 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

- been brushin' up on my Portuguese 

Ookay, Google Translate, :) .

 

Anyway. There's NO WAY that these numbers are realistic @Daenerysthegreat. First off, I highly doubt the overall population for each region is that high. Westeros is a feudal society, not the best sanitary systems and the maesters seem to only really treat the nobles and people wounded in battles. Also, keep in mind that it took until 1800 for the population of Earth to reach 1 billion people and they aren't as "advanced" as we were back then. 

 

My estimates: 

The North: Maybe 5-15000

Riverlands: 10,000-20000, and that's pushing it IMHO

Stormlands and Crownlands: I'll put that at 10000, with the Blackwater. (Tyrion's thoughts during the Battle of the Blackwater: Baruk khazad! Khazad ai-menu!)

Reach: Light, probably within....5000

Dorne: One man, our dear Prince Oberyn

Vale: None known

Iron Islands: Ehhh, maybe between within 500, idk

Westerlands: Take your pick, 8000-15000

Adds up to about: 42500-72500 dead, roughly. What do you guys think about my estimate? Maybe more

Edited by Jaenara Belarys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Ookay, Google Translate, :) .

 

Anyway. There's NO WAY that these numbers are realistic @Daenerysthegreat. First off, I highly doubt the overall population for each region is that high. Westeros is a feudal society, not the best sanitary systems and the maesters seem to only really treat the nobles and people wounded in battles. Also, keep in mind that it took until 1800 for the population of Earth to reach 1 billion people and they aren't as "advanced" as we were back then. 

 

My estimates: 

The North: Maybe 5-15000

Riverlands: 10,000-20000, and that's pushing it IMHO

Stormlands and Crownlands: I'll put that at 10000, with the Blackwater. (Tyrion's thoughts during the Battle of the Blackwater: Baruk khazad! Khazad ai-menu!)

Reach: Light, probably within....5000

Dorne: One man, our dear Prince Oberyn

Vale: None known

Iron Islands: Ehhh, maybe between 2000-8000, idk

Westerlands: Take your pick, 8000-15000

Adds up to about: 45000-73000 dead, roughly. What do you guys think about my estimate? Maybe more

How does Iron Islands lose 2000-8000 men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

How does Iron Islands lose 2000-8000 men

TBH, I pulled that number out of my ass. I'll fix. 

1 minute ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Also most of the stormlords just surrendered during Blackwater and no major battles took place in the storm lands sooooo

Yes, they surrendered....after a good deal of fighting. Quite a few were most likely incinerated in wildfire, the battle of the bridge of ships, the ships themselves, then the charge of the Tyrells and Lannisters, lots of the retreating men were left behind, the minor losses against the wildings, the march to Winterfell....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Ookay, Google Translate, :) .

 

Anyway. There's NO WAY that these numbers are realistic @Daenerysthegreat. First off, I highly doubt the overall population for each region is that high. Westeros is a feudal society, not the best sanitary systems and the maesters seem to only really treat the nobles and people wounded in battles. Also, keep in mind that it took until 1800 for the population of Earth to reach 1 billion people and they aren't as "advanced" as we were back then. 

 

My estimates: 

The North: Maybe 5-15000

Riverlands: 10,000-20000, and that's pushing it IMHO

Stormlands and Crownlands: I'll put that at 10000, with the Blackwater. (Tyrion's thoughts during the Battle of the Blackwater: Baruk khazad! Khazad ai-menu!)

Reach: Light, probably within....5000

Dorne: One man, our dear Prince Oberyn

Vale: None known

Iron Islands: Ehhh, maybe between within 500, idk

Westerlands: Take your pick, 8000-15000

Adds up to about: 42500-72500 dead, roughly. What do you guys think about my estimate? Maybe more

It is said that war of the five kings was an catastrophic war, one of the deadliest wats ever. These numbers seem that high. Not even 1 percent is dead. And I think you are just counting the military casualties not civilian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Daenerysthegreat said:

It is said that war of the five kings was an catastrophic war, one of the deadliest wats ever. These numbers seem that high. Not even 1 percent is dead. And I think you are just counting the military casualties not civilian

Darnit, you're right. Well, I can't exactly predict the civilian casualties......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war as described seems catastrophic, both for the armies involved and the populace. What, with the Mountain riding around burning from here to there and every army using the countryside as it's mobile larder there was certainly starvation and disease in addition to any deaths directly related to the actual fighting. A total war on the population to be sure. But, if 5.25 million dead is 13.125% then that indicates a population of 40 million. Too high I think, though I haven't read anything but the five novels and don't know if that kind of number is mentioned elsewhere in his universe. He modeled Westeros on the British isles which had a late medieval population of maybe 5 million.  I could believe the percentages, but the totals might be lower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark of the West said:

He modeled Westeros on the British isles which had a late medieval population of maybe 5 million

The shape of Westeros is definitely modeled off Britain, but in terms of the actual size and scale, Martin has said that it's closer to South America. This would almost certainly necessitate a vastly larger population than 5 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westeros, South of the Wall, is 2.7m square miles.  The total population is well above 5m.

40m is the number often given for the total population.  If so, 4m in the Riverlands is entirely plausible.

But, that still gives a very low population density.  If it has the population density of England, at the time of Domesday Book, it would be 80m.  If it had the population density of England in 1400, it would be 130 m.

So, a number of 4 - 8m in the Riverlands is quite plausible, with casualties running well into the hundreds of thousands.  Far more people would die from famine than in battle, and we know that the Riverlands are going hungry.

Deaths in battle are the tip of the iceberg.  Over and above that are deliberate deaths of civilians at the hands of Lannister, Tully, Stark soldiers,  and the Ironborn.  On top of that, are deaths through exposure, disease, and famine, caused by destruction of property and pillage.  Then, more deaths from famine, caused by losses of men of working age and economic dislocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Westeros, South of the Wall, is 2.7m square miles.  The total population is well above 5m.

40m is the number often given for the total population.  If so, 4m in the Riverlands is entirely plausible.

But, that still gives a very low population density.  If it has the population density of England, at the time of Domesday Book, it would be 80m.  If it had the population density of England in 1400, it would be 130 m.

So, a number of 4 - 8m in the Riverlands is quite plausible, with casualties running well into the hundreds of thousands.  Far more people would die from famine than in battle, and we know that the Riverlands are going hungry.

Deaths in battle are the tip of the iceberg.  Over and above that are deliberate deaths of civilians at the hands of Lannister, Tully, Stark soldiers,  and the Ironborn.  On top of that, are deaths through exposure, disease, and famine, caused by destruction of property and pillage.  Then, more deaths from famine, caused by losses of men of working age and economic dislocation.

Most deaths in a war are caused by disease I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...