War of the Five Kings Casaulties 2.0

[Daenerysthegreat]

So I am revising my estimations for the destruction and casualties in war of the five kings, 

I firmly believe that the south of the riverlands Riverlands saw the most action in the war so was the most devastated, the northern Riverlands suffered few casualties. I am basing those on the casualties suffered by Poland in WW2 so about 20 percent of the southern Riverlands population, 10 percent of the total population which is 0.45 million.

The northern westerlands also suffered casualties but not as much as the Riverlands, since the raid was comparatively briefer. I estimate around the casualties around 5-6 percent of the total population so around 0.25 million

The Stormlands suffered some casualties since they were the Center of the Baratheon civil war but the civil war itself lasted only two weeks so it’s even lesser than the westerlands so for the casualties I think will be around 2 percent so about 3/50= 0.05-0.06 million.

These figures seem way less for the most devastating war in the history of the seven kingdoms

What does everyone I thing?

[Craving Peaches]

I think the 30 years war casualties in the HRE might provide a better comparison. WW2 was mechanised etc. to a far greater extent. 30 years war is closer to the books in terms of tech and armies living off the land and killing all the civilians. 

[Aldarion]

World War 2 is a very bad comparison, because it is industrial war where roughly some 10% or more of the population had been mobilized.

Considering the technology and nature of warfare, best comparison would likely be 30 Years War. However, issue here is that the 30 Years War was also a religious war, whereas war in Westeros does not have a religious element. Well, not yet, anyway.

[Craving Peaches]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Well, not yet, anyway.

Every time I think about it I come to the conclusion that the continent is doomed. Even without the Others/if/when they are dealt with, so many people will be dead from disease, starvation, being killed in battle/looting, being killed by dragons, being killed by Dothraki, being killed by religious fanatics...

[Bobby B. VIII]

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

 However, issue here is that the 30 Years War was also a religious war, whereas war in Westeros does not have a religious element. Well, not yet, anyway.

Religion may not be central to the war, but it is definitely an element. Stannis Baratheon burns the wooden statues and converts to R'hllor in ACoK, changes his sigil to a burning heart with a Stag in the center, sees visions in the fire, and of course, Melisandre. I also think a good comparison for numbers would be to find casualties from "The Wars of the Roses," which is one of the main influences for ASoIaF, and "crank it up to 11," as GRRM would say.

[Daenerysthegreat]

14 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think the 30 years war casualties in the HRE might provide a better comparison. WW2 was mechanised etc. to a far greater extent. 30 years war is closer to the books in terms of tech and armies living off the land and killing all the civilians. 

The problem is that the thirty years war was well, thirty years long 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

The problem is that the thirty years war was well, thirty years long 

It was, but in terms of proportion of deaths, I think it would make a better comparison than WW2, especially for places like the Riverlands. What Tywin's army was doing was standard modus operandi for the armies during the war, they were burning crops and pillaging places and killing all the commoners.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Aldarion said:

World War 2 is a very bad comparison, because it is industrial war where roughly some 10% or more of the population had been mobilized.

Considering the technology and nature of warfare, best comparison would likely be 30 Years War. However, issue here is that the 30 Years War was also a religious war, whereas war in Westeros does not have a religious element. Well, not yet, anyway.

Martin writes the conflict as being like the Thirty Years War, rather than The Wars of the Roses.

Pillage and arson of enemy civilians are Standard Operating Practice on all sides, so large numbers in the Riverlands, and smaller numbers in the West, Crownlands, will have died of starvation.  Starvation likely kills far more than deliberate murder.

In addition, the Tyrells starved an unknown number at Kings Landing.

[Aldarion]

49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Martin writes the conflict as being like the Thirty Years War, rather than The Wars of the Roses.

Pillage and arson of enemy civilians are Standard Operating Practice on all sides, so large numbers in the Riverlands, and smaller numbers in the West, Crownlands, will have died of starvation.  Starvation likely kills far more than deliberate murder.

In addition, the Tyrells starved an unknown number at Kings Landing.

Agreed. Ottoman Wars may also be a good example, although they do lack frequent massive battles we see in the Wot5K.

[Hugorfonics]

The problem with Ottoman wars, 30 year war, war of the roses and especially wwii is guns. Big ones. Asoiaf doesnt even have small guns, which is why I always resonated it with medieval china, specifically the 3 kingdoms era. Google says that in 150 the population was 56m and by 280 when China was reunified the census read 16m. This is like 100 years + though so Im not sure if thats what your looking for, but either way the death toll is staggering. 

19 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Every time I think about it I come to the conclusion that the continent is doomed. Even without the Others/if/when they are dealt with, so many people will be dead from disease, starvation, being killed in battle/looting, being killed by dragons, being killed by Dothraki, being killed by religious fanatics...

Idk, Poland is still around after all

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The problem with Ottoman wars, 30 year war, war of the roses and especially wwii is guns. Big ones. Asoiaf doesnt even have small guns, which is why I always resonated it with medieval china, specifically the 3 kingdoms era. Google says that in 150 the population was 56m and by 280 when China was reunified the census read 16m. This is like 100 years + though so Im not sure if thats what your looking for, but either way the death toll is staggering. 

Idk, Poland is still around after all

Each of the An Lushan rebellion, and the Mongol Conquests, killed about one tenth of the world’s population.

[Aldarion]

48 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The problem with Ottoman wars, 30 year war, war of the roses and especially wwii is guns. Big ones. Asoiaf doesnt even have small guns, which is why I always resonated it with medieval china, specifically the 3 kingdoms era. Google says that in 150 the population was 56m and by 280 when China was reunified the census read 16m. This is like 100 years + though so Im not sure if thats what your looking for, but either way the death toll is staggering. 

It may be less of a problem than you think. Especially in the 15th century, guns weren't that big of a factor. Sure, they were more lethal than non-gunpowder weapons such as crossbows and trebuchets... but fact is that both crossbows and trebuchets were still used, en masse. Ottomans employed trebuchets alongside cannon artillery in the siege of Constantinople, and Matthias Corvinus also employed trebuchets in his campaigns. Likewise, armies of John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus kept using crossbowmen alongside gunners, and Janissaries kept using bows well into 16th century despite also having guns. This shows clearly that guns were nowhere near the significance they would proceed to gain in the 16th century.

Also, the main reason why armies in Ottoman wars and 30 years war were so destructive was not guns. Main reason were organizational advances, which led to armies growing larger, and also the context of warfare which meant that civilian population was very intentionally targeted. Large armies that had to live off the land and also often had all the reason in the world to murder and/or enslave civilians could easily leave entire swathes of land completely depopulated, guns or no guns.

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

It may be less of a problem than you think. Especially in the 15th century, guns weren't that big of a factor. Sure, they were more lethal than non-gunpowder weapons such as crossbows and trebuchets... but fact is that both crossbows and trebuchets were still used, en masse. Ottomans employed trebuchets alongside cannon artillery in the siege of Constantinople, and Matthias Corvinus also employed trebuchets in his campaigns. Likewise, armies of John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus kept using crossbowmen alongside gunners, and Janissaries kept using bows well into 16th century despite also having guns. This shows clearly that guns were nowhere near the significance they would proceed to gain in the 16th century.

Were trebuchets still built in the 15th cent though? I mean, if you got em, use em. And for sure, guns and cannons exploded or didnt fire or just wasnt mass produced or all the above ant then some, but its still different then like, WW. Or like before when Frey said you didnt say mayhaps, Robb coulda blown em sky high and still meet Tywin for dinner. 

9 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Also, the main reason why armies in Ottoman wars and 30 years war were so destructive was not guns. Main reason were organizational advances, which led to armies growing larger, and also the context of warfare which meant that civilian population was very intentionally targeted. Large armies that had to live off the land and also often had all the reason in the world to murder and/or enslave civilians could easily leave entire swathes of land completely depopulated, guns or no guns.

Word, but as stated also this was because my gods better then yours, and while Stannis does say that he also doesnt do much raiding (coincidental, I dont think Stannis is like a paragon of virtue or anything)

[Aldarion]

13 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Were trebuchets still built in the 15th cent though? I mean, if you got em, use em. And for sure, guns and cannons exploded or didnt fire or just wasnt mass produced or all the above ant then some, but its still different then like, WW. Or like before when Frey said you didnt say mayhaps, Robb coulda blown em sky high and still meet Tywin for dinner. 

Trebuchets are wood. They don't last for a hundred years. Also, they were typically built, or at least assembled, at the siege site. So yeah, they definitely were being still built in the 15th century.

14 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word, but as stated also this was because my gods better then yours, and while Stannis does say that he also doesnt do much raiding (coincidental, I dont think Stannis is like a paragon of virtue or anything)

Agreed.

 

[Craving Peaches]

18 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk, Poland is still around after all

Yes, but I don't think any other countries are really that interested in preserving Westeros...

[Aebram]

The war may be largely over, but the body count will continue to grow.

It's very unfortunate that the war broke out in autumn, just when people should have been preparing for winter. Instead, they burned the farms and killed the farmers, at a time when they should have been harvesting.

In the North, most of the able-bodied men marched off with Robb Stark, and were killed by Bolton's treachery at Duskendale, at the Red Wedding, and of course some in legitimate battles.

Renly assembled a huge army before Stannis killed him. Many of those men joined Stannis's army, and died in the Battle of the Blackwater, or in the fight against the wildlings, or on the long cold march to Winterfell.

So there may be massive starvation during the winter, as a result of the war. Fortunately, some fertile regions such as the Vale and the Reach were relatively untouched; their fields and orchards were not burned. But if all their men were killed in the war, the remaining women, boys, and graybeards won't be able to harvest all the crops.

[Roswell]

War of the 5 Kings is multiple rebellions happening at once.  The effects will be similar to a prolonged civil war.  The total casualties are very high.  100,000 is my guess.  I include indirect casualties from famine and homelessness.  The North suffered the most.  Few of their men returned home.  What is left for them are Bolton men and those who were not physically fit to go south with Robb. 

[Daenerysthegreat]

2 minutes ago, Roswell said:

.  The total casualties are very high.  100,000 is my guess

That’s extremely low

[Roswell]

5 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

That’s extremely low

Westeros has low population.  Didn't George say a million was the total population of the kingdom.

[Daenerysthegreat]

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

Westeros has low population.  Didn't George say a million was the total population of the kingdom.

He said it was 40 million