Professionalism of Westerosi Armies - discussion

[Aldarion]

10 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Yeah I disagree as it is literally in the Sworn Sword, that's one of the themes of the story.

 

Except even in Sworn Sword we see that his situation is, in fact, atypical.

Guy was a failed knight defending his land against an overwhelming force, of course he is going to call in all available men.

But do you really think a major lord like Stark or Bolton going to campaign hundreds of miles away from his own lands would do the same?

That is like saying that 15th century Hungarian Army was comprised of pitchfork-armed peasants because John Capistrano led masses of peasants to assist in defense of Belgrade in 1456.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, but desperate measures are, by their very nature, atypical.

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

But do you really think a major lord like Stark or Bolton going to campaign hundreds of miles away from his own lands would do the same?

Yah. Specifically Bolton. 

.

Steelshanks Walton commanded Jaime's escort; blunt, brusque, brutal, at heart a simple soldier. Jaime had served with his sort all his life. Men like Walton would kill at their lord's command, rape when their blood was up after battle, and plunder wherever they could, but once the war was done they would go back to their homes, trade their spears for hoes, wed their neighbors' daughters, and raise a pack of squalling children. Such men obeyed without question, but the deep malignant cruelty of the Brave Companions was not a part of their nature.

.

They're all just in between smallfolks. The great lords pack more heat then Bolton or Osgrey, no doubt, but the average Westerosi soldier be as smallfolk as you can get. One step above the chain gang in Meereen

[Aldarion]

37 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yah. Specifically Bolton. 

.

Steelshanks Walton commanded Jaime's escort; blunt, brusque, brutal, at heart a simple soldier. Jaime had served with his sort all his life. Men like Walton would kill at their lord's command, rape when their blood was up after battle, and plunder wherever they could, but once the war was done they would go back to their homes, trade their spears for hoes, wed their neighbors' daughters, and raise a pack of squalling children. Such men obeyed without question, but the deep malignant cruelty of the Brave Companions was not a part of their nature.

.

They're all just in between smallfolks. The great lords pack more heat then Bolton or Osgrey, no doubt, but the average Westerosi soldier be as smallfolk as you can get. One step above the chain gang in Meereen

That is literally what English yeomen or Byzantine thematic troops did, yet nobody is suggesting that these were an undisciplined rabble of untrained peasants.

https://notesfromtheuk.com/2021/01/15/english-history-the-yeoman/

[Lord Varys]

Why can't we put this at rest?

Yes, there is a small elite of castle-trained men who fight with castle-forged steel. Men who are trained at war by their lords.

But the bulk of every major army that is raised during one of the very rare civil or succession wars is made of untrained or badly trained rabble.

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yah. Specifically Bolton. 

.

Steelshanks Walton commanded Jaime's escort; blunt, brusque, brutal, at heart a simple soldier. Jaime had served with his sort all his life. Men like Walton would kill at their lord's command, rape when their blood was up after battle, and plunder wherever they could, but once the war was done they would go back to their homes, trade their spears for hoes, wed their neighbors' daughters, and raise a pack of squalling children. Such men obeyed without question, but the deep malignant cruelty of the Brave Companions was not a part of their nature.

.

They're all just in between smallfolks. The great lords pack more heat then Bolton or Osgrey, no doubt, but the average Westerosi soldier be as smallfolk as you can get. One step above the chain gang in Meereen

Steelshanks Walton is actually a very noteworthy example for this, as the guy is apparently one of Roose's most trusted lieutenants. Yet the man is not, in fact, a paid man-at-arms nor the Northern equivalent of a household knight.

He is a peasant who has the feudal obligation to follow his lord to war when he calls on him. Which he likely does only once or twice per generation.

If such a man plays such a crucial role in Roose's army this does tell us a lot about how military matters work.

Jaime differentiates between such guys and the likes of professional soldiers who are basically sellsword/freerider scum.

Whenever George actually portrays details we get the 'the lords draft (untrained) peasants to war' narrative, while the notion that there is some kind of invisible well-trained class of feudal levies outside the lordly/landed knight sphere is literally based on nothing but projections into summary descriptions of battlefields.

Also, by the very fact of the history and world we talk about here - large scale wars are effectively unheard of, happen but once or twice a century (and then they only last 1-2 years). There is no foreign enemy to fear, merely certain local or regional threats to some people in the vicinity of Westeros (Ironborn at certain times, wildlings in the North/Vale, Dornish conflicts).

That means this society doesn't need many professional soldiers. They are needed to guard and man a castle, to keep the peasants in line, to put down local rebellions, and to hunt down brigands and outlaws. Every lord is called upon to keep the King's Peace in his own domains, so his liege lord doesn't need a force strong enough to do his bannerman's job on his bannerman's domains.

And with there being effectively little to no wars, most knights and such have effectively no battle or war experience. The great warriors Daemon Blackfyre and Robert Baratheon most likely had no actual war or battle experience prior to their respective rebellions. Aside from tourneys and, perhaps, outlaw hunting.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why can't we put this at rest?

Yes, there is a small elite of castle-trained men who fight with castle-forged steel. Men who are trained at war by their lords.

But the bulk of every major army that is raised during one of the very rare civil or succession wars is made of untrained or badly trained rabble.

We can't put it at rest because lot of people insist on frankly bullshit view of Westerosi armies which you have just presented here.

Even if we assume that majority of Westerosi armies are "conscripted peasants", actual descriptions of battles - and even soldiers outside battle - show that average Westerosi soldier is the furthest thing from "badly trained rabble" that you can imagine. These are well-trained and well-equipped soldiers, professionals in all but name.

Either that, or the "small elite of castle-trained men" you are talking about actually accounts for over 80% of Westerosi soldiers. Which still means that majority of Westerosi soldiers are professionals.

I had already written on this:

https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/

• Robb Stark's infantry is comprised of pikemen, men-at-arms and archers. 
• Later on, Stark infantry again is described as “pikes and archers and great masses of men at arms on foot”.
• Lannister infantry: "His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad. Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe."
• Northern infantry in the same battle initially holds against the Lannister heavy cavalry charge.
• Every single Northern soldier Tyrion fights is described as wearing mail armor.
• Northern army, despite being defeated, manages to withdraw from battle in good order - something even professional armies often failed to do.
• When Lannisters conscript new recruits, these recruits spend time training. Again, trained soldiers are clearly a must in Westeros. Peasants with pitchforks are not expected to stand in a battle.

Face it, these are not untrained peasant rabble. These are professional soldiers: sure, they may be doing farming to survive - I seriously doubt infantrymen have enough lands to support themselves merely from the work of their serfs the way cavalrymen likely can - but these are still well equipped, well trained and well disciplined soldiers whose job is fighting. Maybe not the only job, but a job nonetheless.

When we actually see "peasant conscripts" in the books - be it new Kings Landing City Guard recruits or the Wildling host - literally nobody expects them to stand against actual soldiers. And indeed they do not.

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

We can't put it at rest because lot of people insist on frankly bullshit view of Westerosi armies which you have just presented here.

Even if we assume that majority of Westerosi armies are "conscripted peasants", actual descriptions of battles - and even soldiers outside battle - show that average Westerosi soldier is the furthest thing from "badly trained rabble" that you can imagine. These are well-trained and well-equipped soldiers, professionals in all but name.

Either that, or the "small elite of castle-trained men" you are talking about actually accounts for over 80% of Westerosi soldiers. Which still means that majority of Westerosi soldiers are professionals.

You just jump to the conclusion that people have to be well-trained to behave the way (some of) them do in a novel. George's view of professionalism in the soldiering department and yours are not the same. He thinks it is enough to get a crash course in fighting during a march, similar to a 18-year-old drafted to go to Vietnam.

13 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I had already written on this:

https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/

• Robb Stark's infantry is comprised of pikemen, men-at-arms and archers. 
• Later on, Stark infantry again is described as “pikes and archers and great masses of men at arms on foot”.
• Lannister infantry: "His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad. Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe."
• Northern infantry in the same battle initially holds against the Lannister heavy cavalry charge.
• Every single Northern soldier Tyrion fights is described as wearing mail armor.
• Northern army, despite being defeated, manages to withdraw from battle in good order - something even professional armies often failed to do.
• When Lannisters conscript new recruits, these recruits spend time training. Again, trained soldiers are clearly a must in Westeros. Peasants with pitchforks are not expected to stand in a battle.

Of course men are trained and men use weapons, but we don't know what they did when the POV looked the other way. And it is a silly over-interpretation to assume 'pikemen' in Westeros are more than barely trained rabble with sticks.

And for the hundredth time: It is quite clear that unlike real world feudal levies, rich Westerosi lords do clothe and arm their levies. We see this with the Frey men wearing Frey colors rather than their own (which they would have if they were part of the noble feudal hierarchy). Ditto with Manderly or Lannister leivies. That men on a battlefield are armed and decently equipped doesn't mean they bought those arms and equipment themselves.

You are fooled by general descriptions which you take at face value. It is like saying that Renly actually did have 100,000 professional soldiers at Bitterbridge.

13 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Face it, these are not untrained peasant rabble. These are professional soldiers: sure, they may be doing farming to survive - I seriously doubt infantrymen have enough lands to support themselves merely from the work of their serfs the way cavalrymen likely can - but these are still well equipped, well trained and well disciplined soldiers whose job is fighting. Maybe not the only job, but a job nonetheless.

LOL, men like Steelshanks Walton do not have 'the job' of a soldier. They do fight as part of their feudal contract. Their actual job description is peasant. That is made crystal clear by a man in-universe who, unlike you, is actually an expert on Westerosi military matters.

13 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

When we actually see "peasant conscripts" in the books - be it new Kings Landing City Guard recruits or the Wildling host - literally nobody expects them to stand against actual soldiers. And indeed they do not.

The City Watch thing is part of bad world-building on George's part: Why should a feudal levy from some village or country estate who most likely will never fight in an actual war be a better soldier than a man who works 24/7 at a trained standing militia which keeps the peace in city hundreds of thousands strong?

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You just jump to the conclusion that people have to be well-trained to behave the way (some of) them do in a novel. George's view of professionalism in the soldiering department and yours are not the same. He thinks it is enough to get a crash course in fighting during a march, similar to a 18-year-old drafted to go to Vietnam.

Of course men are trained and men use weapons, but we don't know what they did when the POV looked the other way. And it is a silly over-interpretation to assume 'pikemen' in Westeros are more than barely trained rabble with sticks.

And for the hundredth time: It is quite clear that unlike real world feudal levies, rich Westerosi lords do clothe and arm their levies. We see this with the Frey men wearing Frey colors rather than their own (which they would have if they were part of the noble feudal hierarchy). Ditto with Manderly or Lannister leivies. That men on a battlefield are armed and decently equipped doesn't mean they bought those arms and equipment themselves.

You are fooled by general descriptions which you take at face value. It is like saying that Renly actually did have 100,000 professional soldiers at Bitterbridge.

LOL, men like Steelshanks Walton do not have 'the job' of a soldier. They do fight as part of their feudal contract. Their actual job description is peasant. That is made crystal clear by a man in-universe who, unlike you, is actually an expert on Westerosi military matters.

The City Watch thing is part of bad world-building on George's part: Why should a feudal levy from some village or country estate who most likely will never fight in an actual war be a better soldier than a man who works 24/7 at a trained standing militia which keeps the peace in city hundreds of thousands strong?

Wealthier peasants have the money and time to train with weapons.  People at the bottom of the heap could never have set aside time to train with longbows or pikes.  The Franklin/Yeoman/minor gentry class can.  They’re the people farming 30-100 acres, who can afford servants and farmhands

 Despite the lack of any standing army, this society is heavily militarised.

Edited December 20, 2023 by SeanF

[Floki of the Ironborn]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

 

• Northern army, despite being defeated, manages to withdraw from battle in good order - something even professional armies often failed to do.

Actually, I'd say their defeat was pretty much a disaster. They had nearly 18,000 men, and the next time we learn their numbers, they're down to 10,000. That's nearly half their forces dead or missing in a retreat all the way back to the Neck.

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Wealthier peasants have the money and time to train with weapons.  People at the bottom of the heap could never have set aside time to train with longbows or pikes.  The Franklin/Yeoman/minor gentry class can.  They’re the people farming 30-100 acres, who can afford servants and farmhands

 Despite the lack of any standing army, this society is heavily militarised.

Sure, but those would then be (semi-)professional archers. We know such exist, that isn't an issue. But they, too, would be a thing in larger villages/proper towns, where people actually have some kind of culture, not the kind of hovels full of shit where Eustace Osgrey's villagers rot.

The place there is rather significant - the Reach is the most populous and most fertile region of Westeros. Yet on the lands next to the lordship where the finest horses in the Reach are bred the peasants pretty much live like animals.

But we should also not overdo the archery thing. George definitely thinks men who train at archery don't do that for a living. It would be part of village or town culture - archery contests on every other harvest feast, etc.

These people mostly work 24/7 on their farms and fields as peasants do. Even things like tourneys rarely draw actually peasants from the region as spectators. For instance, the innkeep's lad in THK runs away to watch the tourney, but we don't hear anything about the Ashford peasantry collectively forgetting to work so they can watch how their lord's maiden daughter honor is defended by the champions.

I'd also suspect that most good archers are actually part of the household guards/standing men-at-arms of the lords in their castles. We see this, I think, to a point in the first Jaime chapter of ASoS.

Obviously, archery is not as professionally done in Westeros as being popular or thorough enough to do away with or at least seriously challenge armored knights. Which would imply that it doesn't really exist much as a culture independent of the lordly castle culture.

We also have to note that we actually never see yeomen (they are mentioned once in the speech by the traitor septon in TMK), nor do we see people who could reasonably be constructed coming from such a class. What we do have is a kind of petty nobility that are scarcely above the peasant level. But such people do have their own colors and heraldry, so they cannot be the class/group of people from which the likes of the Freys and Manderlys and Lannisters take the men-at-arms who wear they colors and bear their arms.

And it is quite clear, I think, that the richest houses of Westeros are, in the end, insanely rich who can indeed afford to and do clothe and arm and feed the men who fight for them. We can deduce this from the allowance/wealth a guy like Leo Tyrell has. The guy wastes a lot of money in the inns and brothels of Oldtown. And while he is a first cousin of Mace Tyrell, he is still an acolyte of the Citadel, training to be a maester, so technically Mace should not drown him in money. If he does, it means the family really has a lot of money.

[Alester Florent]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Obviously, archery is not as professionally done in Westeros as being popular or thorough enough to do away with or at least seriously challenge armored knights. Which would imply that it doesn't really exist much as a culture independent of the lordly castle culture.

I don't think that's an entirely reasonable conclusion. England was probably the country where (infantry) archery as a cultural fixture peaked highest in the Middle Ages, throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, indeed well into the 16th, with archery practice mandatory and high-quality archers being turned out, but at no point did England stop producing armoured knights as well, or indeed stop holding tourneys etc. England did gradually move towards those knights' fighting dismounted, but that was in large part because the English tactical model was essentially a defensive one, and infantry were more use to hold the defensive lines than cavalry were. But there were still English cavalry actions (sometimes after the enemy were broken and the knights remounted) at Crécy, Halidon Hill and Baugé, among others. The ideal English army included substantial components of both archers and knights.

The English archers were never so spectacularly successful against French opponents as at Crécy, where they were presented with a turkey-shoot of underequipped crossbowmen followed by a disorganised cavalry charge (thanks largely to the incompetent failure to clear the defeated crossbowmen from the field before advancing). It's debatable though how many knights the archers actually killed, as opposed to the English infantry who engaged the knights in melee. The armour of French knights remained largely effective against English archery for the rest of the war.

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I don't think that's an entirely reasonable conclusion. England was probably the country where (infantry) archery as a cultural fixture peaked highest in the Middle Ages, throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, indeed well into the 16th, with archery practice mandatory and high-quality archers being turned out, but at no point did England stop producing armoured knights as well, or indeed stop holding tourneys etc. England did gradually move towards those knights' fighting dismounted, but that was in large part because the English tactical model was essentially a defensive one, and infantry were more use to hold the defensive lines than cavalry were. But there were still English cavalry actions (sometimes after the enemy were broken and the knights remounted) at Crécy, Halidon Hill and Baugé, among others. The ideal English army included substantial components of both archers and knights.

The English archers were never so spectacularly successful against French opponents as at Crécy, where they were presented with a turkey-shoot of underequipped crossbowmen followed by a disorganised cavalry charge (thanks largely to the incompetent failure to clear the defeated crossbowmen from the field before advancing). It's debatable though how many knights the archers actually killed, as opposed to the English infantry who engaged the knights in melee. The armour of French knights remained largely effective against English archery for the rest of the war.

I know that this is historically more complex, of course, but we talk the fantasy setting of Martinworld.

Jaime notices that archers suck as they can attack from a distance and breach shields and armor alike. That is no small thing.

Culturally, it is clear that the chivalry is as presented in the late(r) Middle Ages is the frozen and eternal culture of Westeros since (sometime) after the Andal Conquest, i.e. for thousands of years.

Archery as practiced has never changed or affected that, there is no competing or alternative new elite of, say, a landed gentry of archers, we don't see the Crown or great houses create and maintain strong and powerful militias of archers to challenge or curtail the power of (other) lords, etc.

That is even more remarkable in light of the 'magical bows' we do have in this setting. There are normal longbows, presumably similar to the English longbows, then there are the Goldenheart bows of the Summer Islanders which are better than the former, and then there are finally the most powerful bows of all, the dragonbone bows of the Dothraki ... which might come in handy in the future (not necessarily in so small a number).

And more generally speaking - if we look at the ratio between infantry and cavalry in Westerosi armies then it is even more odd that there are not more professional archers and crossbowmen. Even more so if you were to - wrongly - assume that most of the men we see on battlefields are actually well-trained and equipped professional soldiers.

In the frozen/timeless martial culture of Westeros where the longbow might be a thing for millennia it is very odd indeed that archery is not a very refined and very common practice among more people than it is. It is a craft that is relatively easy to learn and doesn't need all that money or resources to be maintained compared to the knightly arts ... which is why it should have been more widespread among the commoners than it clearly is.

[Aldarion]

11 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Actually, I'd say their defeat was pretty much a disaster. They had nearly 18,000 men, and the next time we learn their numbers, they're down to 10,000. That's nearly half their forces dead or missing in a retreat all the way back to the Neck.

Right.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You just jump to the conclusion that people have to be well-trained to behave the way (some of) them do in a novel. George's view of professionalism in the soldiering department and yours are not the same. He thinks it is enough to get a crash course in fighting during a march, similar to a 18-year-old drafted to go to Vietnam.

George also based a lot of his books on the histories of 100 Years War, however, which was a war that was fought largely by professional and semi-professional troops.

Therefore, I expect that - whatever George's intention may have been - armies of Westeros will behave like essentially semi-professional medieval armies. Because that is what George is basing them on.

Also, as I pointed out:

https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/

Quote

Feudal society could mobilize 10% of their population if going all-out. But population of Westeros, ignoring estimates derived from size of military forces to begin with, should be between 75 million and 100 million people (though 43 million to 54 million is not unlikely). Comparing this with army sizes (~388 000 troops), the resulting proportion of troops as percentage of population goes from 0,4% to 0,5%. In 1189., Frederick I Barbarossa raised an army of 15 000 men, including 4 000 knights, according to modern estimates, or 100 000 men including 20 000 knights according to contemporary sources. Population of Holy Roman Empire around 1200 AD was some 5 000 000 people, making for proportion of 0,3% according to today’s estimates or 2% according to contemporary sources. Smaller army is likely, as only 5 000 troops arrived to Holy Land after most of the army went home. But even 2% would still assume professional army – and at worst plausible population density of 7 people per km2, population of Westeros would still be 37 700 000 people, which at 388 000 troops would give army proportion of 1%. This proportion cannot be explained in any way other than assuming that all troops are at least part-time professionals.

Quote

An agricultural society could mobilize significant portion of population for short periods of time if it went full “peasant conscription” route. Roman Republic was able to mobilize 10% of population for Second Punnic War and 6% for Second Mithridatic War. This was because even in summer no more than half of available population could be done without on the farm, so 7,5-10% of population was absolute maximum which could be mobilized; only for local (town, village) defense could up to 15% population be raised. For North, with army of 40 000 troops in total, this proportion would mean population of 400 000 to 700 000. Resultant population density would be 0,2 to 0,35 people per square kilometer. This is just around the density of Sahara desert – a place, it should be noted, not well known for highly developed feudal societies.

If he truly is going for "conscripted peasants" route, then Westeros is simply too damn large for the armies he is describing.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course men are trained and men use weapons, but we don't know what they did when the POV looked the other way. And it is a silly over-interpretation to assume 'pikemen' in Westeros are more than barely trained rabble with sticks.

And for the hundredth time: It is quite clear that unlike real world feudal levies, rich Westerosi lords do clothe and arm their levies. We see this with the Frey men wearing Frey colors rather than their own (which they would have if they were part of the noble feudal hierarchy). Ditto with Manderly or Lannister leivies. That men on a battlefield are armed and decently equipped doesn't mean they bought those arms and equipment themselves.

You are fooled by general descriptions which you take at face value. It is like saying that Renly actually did have 100,000 professional soldiers at Bitterbridge.

We also see that they train them.

Remember that army under Stafford Lannister which Robb Stark destroyed? That was a second call-up, and men were in the process of training.

Clearly, lords of Westeros are not in the habit of throwing untrained or minimally trained troops against their enemies. And while I guess it is possible Martin imagines troops to be equipped from lord's armory and "trained along the way", realistically, such an attitude would also produce a sort of system which would furnish trained and equipped troops.

But even if he takes the unrealistic route, fact remains that we are still dealing with well-equipped and well-trained troops. Very, very far from the "rabble with sticks" that some people here see Westerosi armies as.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, men like Steelshanks Walton do not have 'the job' of a soldier. They do fight as part of their feudal contract. Their actual job description is peasant. That is made crystal clear by a man in-universe who, unlike you, is actually an expert on Westerosi military matters.

That man being?

Also, Byzantine thematic infantry were technically peasants. Doesn't mean they were just "conscripted peasants with sticks".

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The City Watch thing is part of bad world-building on George's part: Why should a feudal levy from some village or country estate who most likely will never fight in an actual war be a better soldier than a man who works 24/7 at a trained standing militia which keeps the peace in city hundreds of thousands strong?

While I agree that normally any City Watch ought to be relatively well-trained, King's Landing's City Watch had recently saw a massive expansion.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

George also based a lot of his books on the histories of 100 Years War, however, which was a war that was fought largely by professional and semi-professional troops.

Therefore, I expect that - whatever George's intention may have been - armies of Westeros will behave like essentially semi-professional medieval armies. Because that is what George is basing them on.

The idea that because GRRM is taking some inspiration for the events and politics of the series from the Hundred Years' War, therefore he must be basing his army structure on those wars, is fundamentally flawed. It simply doesn't follow. GRRM is mixing a lot of different influences and ideas, from history (all across the medieval period, and into the Renaissance) but also fantasy and elsewhere.

It's absolutely credible that he can take some inspiration from the Hundred Years' War and have a completely different set of influences when it comes to the behaviour and structure of the armies involved.

It's also quite credible that he simply hasn't worked out all the details of those questions or that he has decided to ignore certain historical facts in service of the story. Similar things happen all across the books.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Right.

George also based a lot of his books on the histories of 100 Years War, however, which was a war that was fought largely by professional and semi-professional troops.

Therefore, I expect that - whatever George's intention may have been - armies of Westeros will behave like essentially semi-professional medieval armies. Because that is what George is basing them on.

That is a completely wrong comparison as the Hundred Years' War was a number of ever more escalating campaigns, fought in part during an era of civil war in both countries, which concentrated on an ever more war-torn region of modern France.

Westeros' big wars last only 1-2 years and usually don't affect a large portion of the land in a similar way. 

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We also see that they train them.

Remember that army under Stafford Lannister which Robb Stark destroyed? That was a second call-up, and men were in the process of training.

We have discussed this in the past. Training is also part of raising new troops in general, e.g. Prince Rhaegar training his army before marching to the Trident. Connington didn't lose thousands of men at Stoney Sept, nor is there even an indication that his army mainly consisted of Crownland contingents.

Also, of course, it is a joke to assume that in this patchwork feudal setting every lord and landed knight trains his or her men in the same manner as their neighbor. There is no central management of the system, nor are feudal levies directly beholden to the liege lord or their liege lord. If their liege doesn't care much about training and military matters, they won't be well-trained or well-prepared.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Clearly, lords of Westeros are not in the habit of throwing untrained or minimally trained troops against their enemies. And while I guess it is possible Martin imagines troops to be equipped from lord's armory and "trained along the way", realistically, such an attitude would also produce a sort of system which would furnish trained and equipped troops.

It is quite clear that there is a pretty large contingent of castle men. Just look at the map and then assume there are, say, some hundred men-at-arms for the very rich castles, and scores for the lesser houses. If we get to the levies of petty lords and landed knights then it would approach the Osgrey situation.

A good number to use as a template would be, say, the size of the garrison of Dragonstone at the beginning of the Dance.

Again, there are effectively no large scale wars in Westeros and there is no constant small scale fighting outside a few special places. The average petty lord or landed knight doesn't need a strong militia. And when their liege calls the banners for one of the one time in a century succession wars then they will call in men they neither know nor would ever want to use under normal circumstances.

And if you check, say, Roose's take on things, then the smart lord wouldn't necessary send his best men to war, anyway. His feudal obligations extend only to call in his levies and sent some men, they don't demand he leave his castle, his farms and fields and people undefended.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

But even if he takes the unrealistic route, fact remains that we are still dealing with well-equipped and well-trained troops. Very, very far from the "rabble with sticks" that some people here see Westerosi armies as.

You repeat this as if anyone has said the infantrymen are all just peasants with sticks. We only say that most of them are, and that basically means they are in no way professional or experienced soldiers unless they are, for some miraculous reason, veterans of earlier wars.

And all that means that most Westerosi armies are not very professional. We might see this play out when Westerosi infantry has to fight directly against the Golden Company infantry, the Unsullied, and, especially, the Dothraki.

The Westerosi armies work because they fight alongside and under the command of more experienced and professional men-at-arms and knights.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

That man being?

Also, Byzantine thematic infantry were technically peasants. Doesn't mean they were just "conscripted peasants with sticks".

The crucial part about Walton is that he is a trusted lieutenant in Roose's army - the man he entrusts both Jaime and 'Arya' with - while actually being a peasant. If that is the backbone of Roose's troops then most of his men won't be professional soldiers in the sense that they trained at castles and do live off warfare as a trade.

He clearly does the job of a trusted household knight/sworn sword there ... while not actually being such a person.

But of course Walton, the person, is a well-trained soldier. One would imagine that he is man sworn directly to the Dreadfort, living at a farm a couple of miles up and down the Weeping Water, say.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

While I agree that normally any City Watch ought to be relatively well-trained, King's Landing's City Watch had recently saw a massive expansion.

But we should also expect that a city would have enough good sellswords and veterans who could fill up the ranks of a professional militia. Not to mention the time, money, and resources to train and equip them compared to men who actually are peasants.

Not to mention that small campaigns like outlaw hunts, etc. which would comprise the bulk of 'the battles' the Westerosi fight in peace times would be mostly organized from towns, larger castles, and, especially, cities. So experienced fighters and soldiers would be found there rather than in the countryside where little to nothing should happen.

The hunt of the Kingswood Brotherhood, for instance, was organized from KL. And in that context it is actually quite fun that the big super soldier and general Robert Baratheon is nowhere to be found in that campaign. Jaime seems to have had more battle experience prior to the Rebellion than Robert himself. Did the Lord of Storm's End think it was great that some outlaws were roaming the forest that starts literally outside the walls of his castle?

Addendum:

The fact that the Starks often enough cannot bring many men to war during harvest effectively confirms that many feudal levies not only are peasants but actually do work on the fields. If they had farmhands and servants doing the harvest work and the subsequent crop counting, etc. ... then the soldiering guys would be free to go at any time. But they clearly are not.

This is even better confirmed by the smallfolk of the Glovers and Karstarks being unable to bring in the harvest because they all went to war with Robb. If sufficient men had been left behind, then the crops wouldn't have died unharvested outside the very walls (!) of Deepwood Motte.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Lord Varys

[SeanF]

My own view is that if anything, Martin draws inspiration from The Thirty Years War/The Deluge/Time of Troubles (absent the firearms), for army sizes, ruthless tactics, and devastation.

[Aldarion]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:22 PM, mormont said:

The idea that because GRRM is taking some inspiration for the events and politics of the series from the Hundred Years' War, therefore he must be basing his army structure on those wars, is fundamentally flawed. It simply doesn't follow. GRRM is mixing a lot of different influences and ideas, from history (all across the medieval period, and into the Renaissance) but also fantasy and elsewhere.

It's absolutely credible that he can take some inspiration from the Hundred Years' War and have a completely different set of influences when it comes to the behaviour and structure of the armies involved.

It's also quite credible that he simply hasn't worked out all the details of those questions or that he has decided to ignore certain historical facts in service of the story. Similar things happen all across the books.

Read again what I wrote.

He can seriously state that Westerosi armies are indeed conscripted peasants (which I don't think is actually supported by the evidence, but still) and still have them behave like professionals.

I just don't think that is what he actually did, because it doesn't make sense from demographic perspective. But one way or another, outcome is the same.

On 12/21/2023 at 9:09 PM, SeanF said:

My own view is that if anything, Martin draws inspiration from The Thirty Years War/The Deluge/Time of Troubles (absent the firearms), for army sizes, ruthless tactics, and devastation.

True. And one of major reasons why said devastation happened is because you had huge professional armies that often would not be paid on time and thus had to look elsewhere to survive. Meaning that civilians often suffered.

Though to be fair, "devastation" part was not exactly uncommon in Medieval warfare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauchée

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is a completely wrong comparison as the Hundred Years' War was a number of ever more escalating campaigns, fought in part during an era of civil war in both countries, which concentrated on an ever more war-torn region of modern France.

Westeros' big wars last only 1-2 years and usually don't affect a large portion of the land in a similar way. 

Wars of the Roses were a civil war and armies were just as professional as those of the 100 Years War.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

We have discussed this in the past. Training is also part of raising new troops in general, e.g. Prince Rhaegar training his army before marching to the Trident. Connington didn't lose thousands of men at Stoney Sept, nor is there even an indication that his army mainly consisted of Crownland contingents.

Also, of course, it is a joke to assume that in this patchwork feudal setting every lord and landed knight trains his or her men in the same manner as their neighbor. There is no central management of the system, nor are feudal levies directly beholden to the liege lord or their liege lord. If their liege doesn't care much about training and military matters, they won't be well-trained or well-prepared.

Except they will. Because if you don't train your men well, your neighbour who does can easily take your land. So while not every lord will train his men well, most of them will.

And we see in historical "patchwork feudal settings" that men are predominantly well-trained and highly disciplined. Look at how Hungarian armies behaved during the Ottoman Wars. They had issues with logistics and command and control, but that was simply because kingdom itself lacked resources. But armies themselves showed a high degree of discipline. And when they did fail, it was due to issues with commanders, not the troops.

In fact, it was the Ottoman superiority in irregular, "peasant conscript" troops which ensured their dominance in battlefield scenarios, because it provided them with hordes of disposable fodder with which to do maneuvers which Hungarians, for lack of numbers, could not match.

Also, you are wrong about Rhaegar's army. His army is specifically identified as new levies, in other words, second callup:

Quote

The royalist forces were left reeling and scattered by such victories though they did their best to rally. The Kingsguard were dispatched to recover the remnant of Lord Connington’s force, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south to take command of the new levies being raised in the crownlands.

It is stated outright that royalist armies were scattered, which again shows that Rhaegar's army was not the first callup of Crownlands, but rather the second one. And we know that the second callup of men has to be trained. But that is nothing unusual: Romans did the same. After Cimbri and Teutoni routed three Roman armies in short order, Gaius Marius was brought back from Africa to train the new legions. And then he spent two years training them.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is quite clear that there is a pretty large contingent of castle men. Just look at the map and then assume there are, say, some hundred men-at-arms for the very rich castles, and scores for the lesser houses. If we get to the levies of petty lords and landed knights then it would approach the Osgrey situation.

A good number to use as a template would be, say, the size of the garrison of Dragonstone at the beginning of the Dance.

Again, there are effectively no large scale wars in Westeros and there is no constant small scale fighting outside a few special places. The average petty lord or landed knight doesn't need a strong militia. And when their liege calls the banners for one of the one time in a century succession wars then they will call in men they neither know nor would ever want to use under normal circumstances.

And if you check, say, Roose's take on things, then the smart lord wouldn't necessary send his best men to war, anyway. His feudal obligations extend only to call in his levies and sent some men, they don't demand he leave his castle, his farms and fields and people undefended.

Again, when we see Westerosi armies at war, they are predominantly trained and equipped, likely semi-professional soldiers. If you believe that they are all just "castle men", then that would mean that normal Westerosi armies consist nearly exclusively of castle men. Which is not impossible, I guess.

Osgrey situation is not representative of Westerosi large-scale warfare, nor is it the first thing a Westerosi lord would do. Ser Eustace is significantly outnumbered by Lady Webber - Eustace has two men-at-arms, Lady Webber has 33. Of course he would look for any ways to level the odds. I will again point you to the Siege of Belgrade in 1456: Hungarian army consisted of 17 000 - 19 000 professional soldiers and 30 000 to 60 000 mobilized peasants. Why? Because they needed numbers, and they needed them now. But that doesn't mean that when Ser Hedervari or whomever went to fulfill his feudal obligation, his first instinct was to arm peasants.

Peasants are fodder, and nobody uses them so long as they have any other choice. This was true in our world, and it is true for Westeros. But just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you won't do it if you have no other choice.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

You repeat this as if anyone has said the infantrymen are all just peasants with sticks. We only say that most of them are, and that basically means they are in no way professional or experienced soldiers unless they are, for some miraculous reason, veterans of earlier wars.

And all that means that most Westerosi armies are not very professional. We might see this play out when Westerosi infantry has to fight directly against the Golden Company infantry, the Unsullied, and, especially, the Dothraki.

The Westerosi armies work because they fight alongside and under the command of more experienced and professional men-at-arms and knights.

And your statements are wrong. Because the infantry we actually see are predominantly well-trained and well-equipped soldiers. Meaning they are either "castle men", or they are recruited peasants who were then equipped and trained.

One way or another, Westerosi armies consist of trained soldiers. And that is basically what matters.

Also, "especially the Dothraki"? Out of the three groups you had noted, Dothraki are the least dangerous for average Westerosi army. Golden Company likely is superior to Westerosi army of similar size, and Unsullied... who knows? Absolutely nothing about them makes sense anyway. Realistically, however, they should get trashed in a direct encounter with Westerosi infantry.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

The crucial part about Walton is that he is a trusted lieutenant in Roose's army - the man he entrusts both Jaime and 'Arya' with - while actually being a peasant. If that is the backbone of Roose's troops then most of his men won't be professional soldiers in the sense that they trained at castles and do live off warfare as a trade.

He clearly does the job of a trusted household knight/sworn sword there ... while not actually being such a person.

But of course Walton, the person, is a well-trained soldier. One would imagine that he is man sworn directly to the Dreadfort, living at a farm a couple of miles up and down the Weeping Water, say.

Good thing I never claimed that Westerosi troops are "professional soldiers in the sense that they trained at castles and do live off warfare as a trade".

All I ever said is that they are well-trained and well-equipped, and that it is likely they are professionals in a sense that fighting is their job.

Basically, this:

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://nationalguard.com/guard-faqs

Quote

You'll train (also called “drill”) one weekend per month plus a two-week period each year. For most of the training weekends, you'll be with us Saturday and Sunday only, though occasionally you'll be asked to report for duty on a Friday night. Annual training can run slightly longer, depending on your Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). In case of Active Duty, you will serve whenever you are needed and called.

You seem to believe that soldiers can only ever be either mercenaries or conscripts, but that is not true at all.

On 12/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

The fact that the Starks often enough cannot bring many men to war during harvest effectively confirms that many feudal levies not only are peasants but actually do work on the fields. If they had farmhands and servants doing the harvest work and the subsequent crop counting, etc. ... then the soldiering guys would be free to go at any time. But they clearly are not.

This is even better confirmed by the smallfolk of the Glovers and Karstarks being unable to bring in the harvest because they all went to war with Robb. If sufficient men had been left behind, then the crops wouldn't have died unharvested outside the very walls (!) of Deepwood Motte.

No, it does not.

First, I will need citation on "Starks often enough cannot bring many men to war during harvest".

Second, Tyrells for example manage just fine. So even if true, that doesn't mean rest of Westeros has the same problem. Or maybe it had to do with distance: even if all soldiers Starks employed were actually fully professional mercenaries, army still needs support. Camp followers are essential for an army to function, and they are civilians.

Third, Hungary employed professional soldiers during the Ottoman wars, and they couldn't bring men to war during harvest either. And it had nothing to do with "soldiers being peasants who work in the fields", it had to do with finances. Taxes would come in only after the harvest, and without money, you can't field an army.

Fourth, even if Stark soldiers work in the fields, that still doesn't mean they are just conscripted peasants. Byzantine thematic infantrymen had to work in the fields too, despite their ownership of the land being based on their military service (thus making them de facto professional soldiers). Reason? Infantryman owned lands that had some 2 - 5 tennants at most - himself included. He simply couldn't afford to be away for long, even though he technically wasn't the only one working the land.

[Aldarion]

11 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

-- "Ser Bonifer raised a gloved hand. 'Any man who remains with me shall have a hide of land to work, a second hide when he takes a wife, a third at the birth of his first child.'"

Not saying Bonifer is not the exception rather than the rule, and I don't know about "majorities".  Just offering a piece of data for your consideration.

Thanks. Interesting datapoint, though it does not actually say much one way or another. Roman soldiers for example received wages during the war, and land when they retired.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Thanks. Interesting datapoint, though it does not actually say much one way or another. Roman soldiers for example received wages during the war, and land when they retired.

That’s actually a lot of land he’s offering, although perhaps “a hide” means something different in Westeros.

 

 

[Aldarion]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That’s actually a lot of land he’s offering, although perhaps “a hide” means something different in Westeros.

Definitely.

Hide is four virgates, and virgate is amount of land needed to support a peasant family. On average, a peasant family would require cca 120 000 m2, though it could vary from 80 000 to 160 000 m2. So a hide is 480 000 m2.

For reference, in 15th century Germany and Hungary, one generally needed ten plots (so 1 200 000 m2) to support a light cavalryman. Meaning that after getting his first child, every man who remained with him would become wealthy enough to serve as a light cavalryman.

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Wars of the Roses were a civil war and armies were just as professional as those of the 100 Years War.

That war partially coincided with the Hundred Years War and continued shortly thereafter. Like the Hundred Years' War led to a militarization of England, the civil war escalated that even more.

Nothing like that has ever happened in the Westeros history we know in great detail (the Targaryen reign).

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Except they will. Because if you don't train your men well, your neighbour who does can easily take your land. So while not every lord will train his men well, most of them will.

That is a silly argument as such campaigns are unlawful and would see the lord playing this game suffer the fate of the Tarbecks and Reynes (or be fed to a dragon back in the earlier days). The Targaryens by and large enforced the King's Peace created by the Conqueror, so local warfare effectively died out.

Rohanne Webber plays a pretty dangerous game ... and her hope to get away with this seem to rest mostly on the fact that Eustace Osgrey is a former traitor. Bloodraven and Aerys I won't care much if she puts him down. But this kind of thing isn't the rule.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And we see in historical "patchwork feudal settings" that men are predominantly well-trained and highly disciplined. Look at how Hungarian armies behaved during the Ottoman Wars. They had issues with logistics and command and control, but that was simply because kingdom itself lacked resources. But armies themselves showed a high degree of discipline. And when they did fail, it was due to issues with commanders, not the troops.

In fact, it was the Ottoman superiority in irregular, "peasant conscript" troops which ensured their dominance in battlefield scenarios, because it provided them with hordes of disposable fodder with which to do maneuvers which Hungarians, for lack of numbers, could not match.

How has that any bearing on a fantasy setting where there is usually peace and quiet aside from the very rare succession wars? Why should the nobility be forced or even encouraged to train men-at-arms they don't need?

I mean, I'm with you that soldier peasants from border regions would be well-trained and experienced fighters. Their lives would depend on that. But where can we reasonably expect such people to be? On the Shield Islands, perhaps, in the Vale/Riverlands regions close to the Mountains of the Moon, the clansmen and Umbers of the North close to the Wall, and in the Dornish Marches (even more so before the union).

But that's it. And those are not exactly the most populous regions of Westeros.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, you are wrong about Rhaegar's army. His army is specifically identified as new levies, in other words, second callup:

It is stated outright that royalist armies were scattered, which again shows that Rhaegar's army was not the first callup of Crownlands, but rather the second one. And we know that the second callup of men has to be trained. But that is nothing unusual: Romans did the same. After Cimbri and Teutoni routed three Roman armies in short order, Gaius Marius was brought back from Africa to train the new legions. And then he spent two years training them.

Rhaegar's army was the second Targaryen army marching against the rebels, but we don't know that Connington's men were all or even mostly Crownlands men. They could have come from the Reach, from Connington's own lands, from the Targaryen loyalist Riverlands (from the lands controlled by Harrenhal, Maidenpool, and Darry).

And we also do know that Reach men and Dornishmen fought with Rhaegar at the Trident.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, when we see Westerosi armies at war, they are predominantly trained and equipped, likely semi-professional soldiers. If you believe that they are all just "castle men", then that would mean that normal Westerosi armies consist nearly exclusively of castle men. Which is not impossible, I guess.

Those men you point towards all the time and claim are pretty much all the soldiers, yes, those would be such men. Because in this world nobody properly trains at arms outside castles. We see and hear this again and again. It is what sets castle people apart from village people. And that extends not only to nobility as even the likes of Rolly Duckfield have the opportunity to train at arms at a castle. Villagers can't do that in the same way.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Osgrey situation is not representative of Westerosi large-scale warfare, nor is it the first thing a Westerosi lord would do. Ser Eustace is significantly outnumbered by Lady Webber - Eustace has two men-at-arms, Lady Webber has 33. Of course he would look for any ways to level the odds. I will again point you to the Siege of Belgrade in 1456: Hungarian army consisted of 17 000 - 19 000 professional soldiers and 30 000 to 60 000 mobilized peasants. Why? Because they needed numbers, and they needed them now. But that doesn't mean that when Ser Hedervari or whomever went to fulfill his feudal obligation, his first instinct was to arm peasants.

Of course you can also overdo the mobilization of peasants. But the thing is - Osgrey doesn't conscript his peasants. He forces them to do their duties as his feudal levies. They sit and live on his lands, so it is their duty to fight for him when he calls on them. They are his vassals.

Lady Rohanne's men are not her levies as such, they are her paid men-at-arms and sworn swords. The men who man and guard her castle full time. She didn't call on the help of any landed knights or other men sworn to Coldmoat. Such men she would call upon when her liege lord calls his bannermen.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And your statements are wrong. Because the infantry we actually see are predominantly well-trained and well-equipped soldiers. Meaning they are either "castle men", or they are recruited peasants who were then equipped and trained.

What we see is that men march well and show off their weapons. Whenever we actually see the common soldiers it is clear that the individuals are mostly badly trained and conscripted men who suck at soldiering and who learned the trade by doing it, not by way of fighting in the many non-existent earlier campaigns prior to the War of the Five Kings.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Good thing I never claimed that Westerosi troops are "professional soldiers in the sense that they trained at castles and do live off warfare as a trade".

Soldiering in a medieval setting would be costly and extensive. There is no chance that peasants who need to make a huge surplus harvest every year to have sufficient provisions for freak winters do have the luxury to train at arms at the weekends. And if they don't do that, they are not professional soldiers.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

First, I will need citation on "Starks often enough cannot bring many men to war during harvest".

It happens twice during the Dance and also earlier during the Conquest where harvest is slowing down Torrhen Stark's march.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Second, Tyrells for example manage just fine. So even if true, that doesn't mean rest of Westeros has the same problem. Or maybe it had to do with distance: even if all soldiers Starks employed were actually fully professional mercenaries, army still needs support. Camp followers are essential for an army to function, and they are civilians.

Camp followers are exclusively female in this world. It is a term for camp whore as I told you repeatedly. You can check that yourself by actually checking the context in which the word is used in the novels you are talking about.

The fact that even crucial lordly seats - which would the largest and most important structures in any lordship - failed to harvest the crops right outside their fucking gates (!) is all you need to know how 'professional' the military men of such lords were. And in that context it is irrelevant if the fighting men left the fields and farms or other men also 'ran off to war'. No sane society should and would permit either.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Third, Hungary employed professional soldiers during the Ottoman wars, and they couldn't bring men to war during harvest either. And it had nothing to do with "soldiers being peasants who work in the fields", it had to do with finances. Taxes would come in only after the harvest, and without money, you can't field an army.

Who cares about that? The fantasy setting we are talking about makes it clear that the problem is much more basic than taxes. If Lord Glover goes to war, Lady Glover and her people don't have enough men left to harvest the crops right outside their own castle.

And as we know from Alys Karkstark this is a widespread problem in the North. Despite the fact that Robb Stark didn't actual take the strength of the entire North.

18 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Fourth, even if Stark soldiers work in the fields, that still doesn't mean they are just conscripted peasants. Byzantine thematic infantrymen had to work in the fields too, despite their ownership of the land being based on their military service (thus making them de facto professional soldiers). Reason? Infantryman owned lands that had some 2 - 5 tennants at most - himself included. He simply couldn't afford to be away for long, even though he technically wasn't the only one working the land.

For the hundredth time - such people would then either be soldier peasants or live in a society where there is constant or at least regular warfare. Where is that the case in Westeros after the Conquest?

Comparing the Targaryen Realm to any real world society insofar as warfare is concerned makes no sense.

You could do that if you wanted to describe the situation of the old Osgrey heroes Ser Eustace talks about in TSS. They were guarding the northwestern flank of the Reach against incursions from the Westerlands. There was constant or always constant warfare there in that region ... but assuming things didn't change in that region is ludicrous. You don't maintain border garrisons and such if there is no longer a fucking border.

Back when there was constant warfare we can assume that a very martial culture existed there. Everybody was always kept ready for war. But not in our era.