Fishfeed Casualties; Way Too Low

[James Steller]

Regardless of whether you believe that "2,000 on both sides" refers to 2,000 or 4,000 dead, it's still way too low of a number for the bloodiest battle of the Dance. The entire castle/town of Tumbleton was razed and decimated over the course of two bloody battles. How can we be expected to believe that fewer than 2,000 or 4,000 died there? Same with the Muddy Mess or the Butcher's Ball. I don't know how GRRM overlooked such a detail when he's created such devastating battles before and after the Dance with higher casualties. 

Edited February 3 by James Steller

[Vaegon the dragonless]

I just checked the wiki since I dont have my copy if FAB, but it seem like the whole numbers are actually problematic, but first the dead, it seem like the 2 000 numbers is actually only the Black casualties, that would mean that we dont know the casualty's for the Greens but since the battle is suppose to be the bloodiest and that the Westerlands are a none facter after it, we can assume that they were completely destroyed. But again from the wiki, it does seem that the number given for the Westerlander host, just 8 000 is quite low and could actually be closer to 30 000, so the fishfeeds casualty could be between 10 000 and 32 000 thousand men, wich would make a lot more sense for the bloodiest battle of the bloodiest conflict in the history of Westeros (not counting the WoT5K and the long night)  but I think that ties in with the bigger problem of the numbers for army's in during the Dance being a bit weird, all of them seemingly being quite small, especially when put next to the enormous army's that we see in the main series.

[EggBlue]

Numbers and GRRM don't work together all that well. The same goes for ages and some other logistic parts of the world building ( I still don't know how the North survives in winter. one would assume silos or some different plan should be in order, which doesn't seem to exist in the North). So the casualties of the Dance are the last thing I worry about.

[Loose Bolt]

I assume that number only includes nobles. After all only those actually matter. Or most VIPs simply do not care how many peasants died during those battles. But losing couple thousand nobles would wipe out large part of ruling elite in all kingdoms who take part of those battles.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

The wiki has already been updated to correct this, and Elio has verified that the 2000 number only refers to the blacks’ casualties. The Lannister host is annihilated, which means that the casualty number is well over 10,000 at the very least. 

[James Arryn]

I think GRRM with numbers is variable; sometimes he seems to be intentionally leaning Delbruk as a response to the medium’s usual trend of erring in the other direction. Then at other times he goes really, really, really, really, really, really, really big. I wonder if we could find correlations to what kinds of numbers he uses after reading sources X and Y vs. Z or w/e. 
 

Anyways, I think the point is to arrest our attention, and leaning into Delbrukian numbers is probably the best way to do that when (almost) everyone else goes the other way. 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Speaking of low numbers, one that doesn’t make sense is the fact that the Stormlands are not only united for one of the only times in their existence, but they apparently can only muster 6,000 men total. 

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

20 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Speaking of low numbers, one that doesn’t make sense is the fact that the Stormlands are not only united for one of the only times in their existence, but they apparently can only muster 6,000 men total. 

Borros led 6K against that random Vulture King but when he marched on KL he had only 4K foot and 600 knights, which means the Lads probably outnumbered him at the Muddy Mess.

That being said, it doesn't do one any good to dwell on numbers with regards to the Dance because they really do lend credence to the meme, "GRRM can't math."

Edited February 5 by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back