Professionalism of Westerosi Armies - discussion

[Aldarion]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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).

Yet any time we actually see conscription of peasants during the 15th century, it happens during the times of military emergency.

If anything, longer period of peace would mean greater professionalization of the army, since you don't need to have many soldiers - meaning you can focus on having soldiers who are actually loyal to yourself.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Yet Tywin was quite ready to start playing said game while Robert was still alive.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

It has bearing because Martin is basing things on real history. He isn't just pulling crap out of his backside; and if I remember it well, he has even provided a list of history books he has consulted while writing.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Right, we don't know. But we do know how conscripted civilians perform in battle - not very well at all. Tyrion doesn't expect his "travesty of a battle" to hold the left wing at all, and when King's Landing's City Watch is expanded with fresh recruits, that is not taken as a good thing.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

The only time we actually see a Westerosi army and can actually count the types of troops, it is some 90% actual (professional / semi-professional) soldiers and only 10% conscripted peasants. I did an exact breakdown here:

https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/4/

And whenever we actually see armies, vast majority of them are trained and equipped troops. Sure, there are some conscripted peasants, but they never are a majority of the army.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Maybe. But at best, the evidence from that situation is inconclusive. It is definitely not a proof that conscripting peasants is something typical of Westerosi warfare.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

No, it is not clear at all. You might want to reread the books: we do in fact see them do far more than just "march well and show off their weapons". Read these passages:

Quote

and suddenly the enemy was there before them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields and pikes.

OK, so this is just marching. Still, notice the "over the tops of the hills" part. Terrain there was uneven. And to maintain formation while advancing over uneven terrain takes training.

Green, untrained infantry can do only two things in such terrain: advance in a mob and then redress ranks just before contact, or not move at all and passively wait for the attack.

And we don't see either happen. But far more important is what we see soon afterwards:

Quote

As the horns died away, a hissing filled the air; a vast flight of arrows arched up from his right, where the archers stood flanking the road. The northerners broke into a run, shouting as they came, but the Lannister arrows fell on them like hail, hundreds of arrows, thousands, and shouts turned to screams as men stumbled and went down. By then a second flight was in the air, and the archers were fitting a third arrow to their bowstrings.

Quote

A crescent of enemy spearmen had formed ahead, a double hedgehog bristling with steel, waiting behind tall oaken shields marked with the sunburst of Karstark. Gregor Clegane was the first to reach them, leading a wedge of armored veterans. Half the horses shied at the last second, breaking their charge before the row of spears. The others died, sharp steel points ripping through their chests. Tyrion saw a dozen men go down. The Mountain’s stallion reared, lashing out with iron-shod hooves as a barbed spearhead raked across his neck. Maddened, the beast lunged into the ranks. Spears thrust at him from every side, but the shield wall broke beneath his weight. The northerners stumbled away from the animal’s death throes. As his horse fell, snorting blood and biting with his last red breath, the Mountain rose untouched, laying about him with his two-handed greatsword.

Untrained men do not fight in such a situation. Charge by heavy cavalry is scary. An army of conscripted peasants will have broken and ran long before the horses had reached them. Hell, I am fairly certain I could find examples where trained troops did the same, if I went looking. I remember that when they were filming a movie about Napoleon (forgot the name, sorry, but I think it was Soviet): they had cavalry charge straight at infantry squares. Despite knowing that the cavalry is not going to charge at them, some of the men still broke and fled. And infantry in the squares were actual soldiers, not just some extras swept off the street the way you believe Westerosi infantry is recruited.

Yet here, Northern infantry does not break. They suffered several arrow salvoes followed by a heavy cavalry charge, and they still stood and fought.

Those are trained men.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Why not? There are still bandits around, and life of a medieval peasant wasn't 18-hours-a-day-7-days-a-week-toil that you apparently imagine. And if winter is the same proportion (1/4) of time as it is in our world - which it apparently is - then the surplus they would have to make each year is about the same as the peasants had to make in our world. Or, they could make less surplus normally and then compensate in the last year of summer. Not a very smart strategy, but apparently something they actually do, considering importance of the last harvest.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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

OK, thanks.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Just because "camp follower" is a term for camp whore, doesn't mean actual camp followers aren't there. They HAVE to be, because every pre-industrial army actually needs camp followers to function. Even Roman armies had them, and they were as professional as you could get.

Again: we know that they took a lot of men from the fields, but that doesn't automatically prove that 90% of Westerosi armies are peasants.

And the only place where we know that lordly seats failed to harvest the crops is the North, which basically mobilized whatever they could at as short timeframe as possible. Hardly a normal situation:

Quote

Hother wanted ships. “There’s wildlings stealing down from the north, more than I’ve ever seen before. They cross the Bay of Seals in little boats and wash up on our shores. The crows in Eastwatch are too few to stop them, and they go to ground quick as weasels. It’s longships we need, aye, and strong men to sail them. The Greatjon took too many. Half our harvest is gone to seed for want of arms to swing the scythes.”

As I said: armies still need hands beyond just soldiers. So either Westerosi know some "secret technique to instantly become a professional soldier!", or else the issue is that they took too many farmhands as camp followers. Who, by the way, could actually outnumber actual soldiers, sometimes by as much as 2:1 or 3:1.

Meaning that professional armies actually provide a better explanation for lack of hands around castles than "peasant conscription: GO" armies do.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

First, just because it is a problem in North, doesn't mean it is true elsewhere. North is uniquely shitty:

Quote

Catelyn had almost forgotten. In the north, the rain fell cold and hard, and sometimes at night it turned to ice. It was as likely to kill a crop as nurture it, and it sent grown men running for the nearest shelter. That was no rain for little girls to play in

Second, as I said: any army needs civilians to help. Call them whatever you want, but they will be there. So while "conscript peasant army" explanation certainly is possible, it is not necessary to explain them having these issues.

On 12/24/2023 at 3:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Feudal society means conflict. Sure, it will be small-scale, but it will be endemic. Even medieval Byzantine Empire, an entity far more centralized than any feudal society could ever hope to be, had civil wars and insurrections regular as clockwork.

Even dragons may have prevented major conflicts where armies march on the capital or similar, but not stopped them altogether. And dragons had been dead for a long time even before the Robert's Rebellion, and militarily useless for an even longer time still.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yet any time we actually see conscription of peasants during the 15th century, it happens during the times of military emergency.

If anything, longer period of peace would mean greater professionalization of the army, since you don't need to have many soldiers - meaning you can focus on having soldiers who are actually loyal to yourself.

But the thing this is a static, peaceful society. Nobody there needs a lot of military men, especially not local lords. The Iron Throne doesn't face outside threats, especially not any who are even able to challenge it.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yet Tywin was quite ready to start playing said game while Robert was still alive.

I guess now we are saying that Tywin is representative of the average lord in this world, right?

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Right, we don't know. But we do know how conscripted civilians perform in battle - not very well at all. Tyrion doesn't expect his "travesty of a battle" to hold the left wing at all, and when King's Landing's City Watch is expanded with fresh recruits, that is not taken as a good thing.

The latter is a problem more because those men are not necessarily loyal or willing to die for Joffrey.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

The only time we actually see a Westerosi army and can actually count the types of troops, it is some 90% actual (professional / semi-professional) soldiers and only 10% conscripted peasants. I did an exact breakdown here:

https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/proof-that-westerosi-armies-are-professionals/4/

And whenever we actually see armies, vast majority of them are trained and equipped troops. Sure, there are some conscripted peasants, but they never are a majority of the army.

Again, all you go back to is the Battle of the Green Fork thing which is problematic both because it is from AGoT where a lot of world-building details are yet vague, but also because, obviously, Roose Bolton - who did the attacking there in the wake of the night march - only sent experienced and capable men to do the fighting there. He had effectively no cavalry facing the Westermen, so to have even a remote chance the contingents of his army doing the attacking would have to have been pretty professional.

That said - the guy obviously lost or even blatantly sacrificed thousands of men in that battle. What we should imagine happened there was that Roose had the best men of all the non-Dreadfort men in his army do the attacking, hoping they would either win or die.

And, of course, Tywin Lannister's reservoir of well-trained men should be among the highest in the Realm. The Westerlands are rich as hell, meaning the lords and landed knights there can afford to clothe and train and feed scores and hundreds of men-at-arms. Landless Kevan Lannister claims he can feed thousands of knights in need be, so some of the richer Lords of the West should be able to do something similar.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Why not? There are still bandits around, and life of a medieval peasant wasn't 18-hours-a-day-7-days-a-week-toil that you apparently imagine. And if winter is the same proportion (1/4) of time as it is in our world - which it apparently is - then the surplus they would have to make each year is about the same as the peasants had to make in our world. Or, they could make less surplus normally and then compensate in the last year of summer. Not a very smart strategy, but apparently something they actually do, considering importance of the last harvest.

I guess now we also imagine that it is totally fine in a medieval setting to eat five-year-old bread which lived through a hot-as-hell summer...?

Winter length is completely unpredictable there - it could last a year or six years, and you also have no clue how long spring, summer, or autumn will last. You are very much fucked in this world.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again: we know that they took a lot of men from the fields, but that doesn't automatically prove that 90% of Westerosi armies are peasants.

I'm sure I never gave that number.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

As I said: armies still need hands beyond just soldiers. So either Westerosi know some "secret technique to instantly become a professional soldier!", or else the issue is that they took too many farmhands as camp followers. Who, by the way, could actually outnumber actual soldiers, sometimes by as much as 2:1 or 3:1.

That is when things break down. If you insert your definition of camp followers - which we don't see in the books, actually - then we also have no clue if the army numbers we get in the books actually refer only to 'proper soldiers' or if they also include your camp followers. And then all things go down the toilet.

The thing is - we do see the Northmen raising new troops now and it mostly sucks, despite the fact that the campaigns are now in the North itself and we also know that the North's strength is (supposedly) not completely spent. Yet the men with Roose and Stannis now weren't enough to bring the harvest in back in ACoK, ASoS, and early ADwD.

Also, of course, quotes as such given about Steelshanks Walton and Bonifer Hasty suggest that proper soldiers in the world actually are peasants or would like to be peasants after a campaign is over.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Meaning that professional armies actually provide a better explanation for lack of hands around castles than "peasant conscription: GO" armies do.

Actually, no, as the North's army would be mostly feudal levies rather than professional castle men-at-arms since, obviously, there are not many big castles in the North. Again, look at the Deepwood Motte as an example. The Glovers are the crucial house in their region and they live in a wooden joke of a castle.

Since there is but one city and one town in the North, most Northmen would live in small villages and, in outlying regions, even in solitary farms and the like. Think of the lonely old man in the Gift Ygritte murders or what we are told about the Glover men living in the Wolfswood. Those men are not likely to live in proper villages.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

First, just because it is a problem in North, doesn't mean it is true elsewhere. North is uniquely shitty.

Yeah, but certain places in the Reach are not much better, either, so that is not just a regional problem. Although the North would have more such problems.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

.Feudal society means conflict. Sure, it will be small-scale, but it will be endemic. Even medieval Byzantine Empire, an entity far more centralized than any feudal society could ever hope to be, had civil wars and insurrections regular as clockwork.

I guess then you should rewrite the Targaryen reign. Because we got a pretty detailed history of the first half of that, and there is no endemic small-scale warfare there.

But you know what? Even if it was - lords would resolve such issues with their own standing castle militia. Like Lady Rohanne tries to do. Like Ser Rodrik Cassel does in ACoK. You do not call your bannermen or feudal levies for that. That would mean war, and if you do that to fight your neighbor you are a bloody rebel.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Even dragons may have prevented major conflicts where armies march on the capital or similar, but not stopped them altogether. And dragons had been dead for a long time even before the Robert's Rebellion, and militarily useless for an even longer time still.

Again, there are no big wars that we know of. And even the big wars didn't involve necessary all the houses and regions. Dorne and the Tyrells stayed out of the Dance, and there was no fighting in the Vale (nor did the Vale men who came in the end do any fighting). Most of the Blackfyre Rebellions didn't involve a lot of fighting, either.

We can safely say that the reigns of Daeron I, Baelor the Blessed, Aegon IV, Daeron II, Aerys I, Maekar, Jaehaerys II, and Aerys II won't involve any bigger campaigns and wars than the ones we know already. Aegon III should have to do some larger campaigns, and then there are the rebellions against Aegon V. But the latter is a very special case as the men antagonized many of his lords with his own reform ideas. His reign is not representative of the reign of any other Targaryen king.

[SaffronLady]

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

they took too many farmhands as camp followers. Who, by the way, could actually outnumber actual soldiers, sometimes by as much as 2:1 or 3:1.

That's kind of lower than what I would expect. It may be because I'm brushing up on Chinese history though, they have 1:5 to 1:10 ratios of combatants: non-combatants in the pre-industrial age.

[astarkchoice]

It seems grmm hasnt really padded this out to well.

It would seem that theres clearly a skeleton of full time professionals castle men and knights , below that a semi professional class that make up the bulk of the army.

Now bear in mind its said roughly (again remeber roughly) even serfs actualy only worked half the days in a week! thus for men in the westerosi military its very plausible they met for a day/2 days of drills in small groups of hundreds etc 

Finaly in times of war it would make sense that calling up poorly trained extras could make sense, for all the cost of losing a worker the possibility that an extra few k men carry a battle in your favour could be worth 10x more! Plus you cant really afford to assume.your enemy wont do the same!

 

Each region of course will have some variations.

We can assume given the dangers of the north most northmen are familiar with hand weapons! They probably have a decent level.of.personal training  and  the mental hardness that comes with knowing you may have to kill  wildlings/ironborn/skagosi/freys at any point ..they probably are also very good at  marching long distances (everything is soo far away) and living off harsh land and weather!  Their cavalry we can assume are great at scouting vast distances as well given the sheer massive land their lords rule over and hunt in!

The stormlands have a strong martial tradition and the marsh lords and their vassals/knights probably kept sharp skirmishing dornish.

The riverlands will have areas that must be sharp constantly like  seaguard. Like stormlamds very woody so many have good %of archers

 

Westerlands : like anywhere with a large city  or port theyl have a professional standing force guarding it onntop of each lords own professionals  , the westerlands economy probably means they can afford to put have more full time pros and spare a few extra farmhands to bulk up the main army! Strong backs to work their mines probably means lots of potential there

 

Ironborn:slave labour and a scummy raiding culture allows all their free men to be potentinaly professionals 

Etc etc

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

It seems grmm hasnt really padded this out to well.

It would seem that theres clearly a skeleton of full time professionals castle men and knights , below that a semi professional class that make up the bulk of the army.

Now bear in mind its said roughly (again remeber roughly) even serfs actualy only worked half the days in a week! thus for men in the westerosi military its very plausible they met for a day/2 days of drills in small groups of hundreds etc 

Finaly in times of war it would make sense that calling up poorly trained extras could make sense, for all the cost of losing a worker the possibility that an extra few k men carry a battle in your favour could be worth 10x more! Plus you cant really afford to assume.your enemy wont do the same!

Problem mostly, though, is that we cannot really assume that the average rural petty lord or landed knight would really need his feudal levies to train much. They wouldn't be called in for outlaw hunts and minor skirmishes, anyway, and proper war are effectively never a thing as there is no outside enemy.

Even a succession war only affects you if you your lands are either in the center of Westeros and/or you and your liege lord cares to take a side in the succession war. Look at the Dance. The Tyrells didn't give a damn, so no fighting close to Highgarden. The Stormlords reluctantly took a side and no fighting in the Stormlands. The Vale did take a side, but still no fighting in the Vale, etc.

And if you check the books there is clearly a big difference between the rural and the castle smallfolk. The latter do get some training at arms, but the likes of Mycah or Pyp, Grenn, and the other commoner NW recruits training with Jon had literally no chance of training at arms before they got to the Wall.

If we had a broad or at least common tradition/practice of training at arms in country we would have heard about that. There would be commoners joining the NW who would be professional archers, say, or trained pikemen, etc. But we don't see any of that anywhere.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

We can assume given the dangers of the north most northmen are familiar with hand weapons! They probably have a decent level.of.personal training  and  the mental hardness that comes with knowing you may have to kill  wildlings/ironborn/skagosi/freys at any point ..they probably are also very good at  marching long distances (everything is soo far away) and living off harsh land and weather!  Their cavalry we can assume are great at scouting vast distances as well given the sheer massive land their lords rule over and hunt in!

That would be true for some regions like those close to the Wall (although they seem to be a bit wimpy as they are all fleeing the Gifts rather than trying to defend their lands) and also, historically, in the places that were threatened by the Ironborn. And, of course, the Northmen would also be harder in general, having to deal with a lot of deaths in winter and, historically, having to deal with more infighting in the North. We hear, for instance, that the clansmen are very quarrelsome, etc.

But that doesn't mean that most of the smallfolk fighters there are overall very professional. The fighting they are doing would rarely, if ever, involve large campaigns and pitched battles, but local raids and skirmishes. Some rare fights among some northern houses, rare issues with the Skagosi, not so rare issues with the wildlings (although they would be badly armed, badly armored enemies lacking discipline).

At least since the Conquest.

[Nittanian]

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Ironborn:slave labour and a scummy raiding culture allows all their free men to be potentinaly professionals 

GRRM did say:

Quote

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1001

The ironborn come from a culture with a very strong warrior tradition -- much more so than mainland Westeros. The rest of the Seven Kingdoms have a warrior caste (the knights) on top of a larger base of peasants, farmers, craftsmen, merchants, etc. The "Old Way" of the islands encouraged almost all men (and some women, like Asha) to take up raiding, at least if they were young and healthy.

additionally,

Quote

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1174

What is the relative composition of archers (or horse-archers), infantry and cavalry?

Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined, and the City Watch of Lannisport is well trained as well... much better than their counterparts in Oldtown and King's Landing.

Will they be able to support their armies with larger groups of archers (say, thousands of archers) in an effort to withstand or prevent attacks from flying dragons?

If they can find thousands of archers... depends on the season, of course...

and

Quote

AGOT Catelyn VIII

This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. When their lords called, they came … but not forever.

 

[Aldarion]

On 12/26/2023 at 5:34 AM, SaffronLady said:

That's kind of lower than what I would expect. It may be because I'm brushing up on Chinese history though, they have 1:5 to 1:10 ratios of combatants: non-combatants in the pre-industrial age.

I'm not really familiar with the Chinese history, but that ratio kinda surprises me.

In Europe, armies that most frequently had such a high ratio of camp followers to actual soldiers were Greek hoplite armies - especially Spartan ones. Hoplite equipment was heavy, and Greek logistics were... shit, to put it bluntly. Spartiates especially were essentially nobility, and each Spartiate would be accompanied by several slaves who would carry his (rather heavy) equipment. And then you add to that the food, water... you could indeed have ten times - or more - as many camp followers as actual soldiers. That was one of reasons why Greek armies were so short-legged and rarely went on to longer campaigns. In fact, that trope of "no campaigning during winter" was fully in effect for ancient Greeks in a way that it never was for Roman, Byzantine or even medieval feudal armies - in part precisely because they had so many camp followers.

But Romans and Byzantines especially did their best to minimize the number of camp followers. Gaius Marius reduced the number of camp followers to around 1:1 ratio (so a force of 10 000 soldiers would have 10 000 camp followers). This then increased in feudal Europe (and to, lesser extent, Byzantine Empire). To my knowledge, commanders still did their best to minimize the number of camp followers, but medieval armies were less well organized than Roman ones. Among other things, many functions that were normally performed by legionary troops and administrative staff were now "outsourced" to the camp followers.

Better organized medieval and early modern armies however also approached or even surpassed this ratio. Ottoman army in Battle of Sisak had 18 000 soldiers and some 12 000 camp followers, for a total of 30 000 men in the field.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

But the thing this is a static, peaceful society. Nobody there needs a lot of military men, especially not local lords. The Iron Throne doesn't face outside threats, especially not any who are even able to challenge it.

First, even if we assume that Westeros is a "static, peaceful society", that doesn't mean they would just recruit peasants for internal warfare.

Roman Empire didn't disband its - fully professional - army even during the Pax Romana.

And if nobody there needs a lot of military men, that is actually an argument against recruitment of peasants. Remember what I said about Hungarian peasant troops: they did exist, but they were merely an emergency measure against a vastly superior enemy.

But if Westeros as a whole is a static, peaceful society, then that means that - as a rule - they don't invade each other. Which means primary threat would actually be of internal uprising. And this means they would want troops loyal to themselves, first and foremost.

And that means either fully professional soldiers, or affinity. Which still provides kinda-sorta professional soldiers, and not peasant mobs.

If they truly don't need a lot of military men, then that will just mean that any armies they do field will be small relative to potential recruitment capacity.

Only if there is acute need for many military men will peasants be recruited. But even then, unless situation is outright desperate, you will have situation closer to the Assize of Arms than anything else:

https://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4MJPU3F3L5GRLEX

Quote

1. Whoever has the fee of one knight let him have a coat of mail and a helmet, a sword and a lance; and let every knight have as many coats of mail and helmets, swords and lances, as he has knights’ fees in his demesne.

2. Any free layman who has in chattels or in income to the value of sixteen marks, let him have a coat of mail and helmet, sword and lance; but any free layman who has ten marks in chattels or income is to have a hauberk, an iron headpiece, and a lance.

3. Also all burgesses and the whole body of free men are to have a doublet of mail, an iron headpiece, and a lance.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

I guess now we are saying that Tywin is representative of the average lord in this world, right?

There is no need to suggest anything like that. Rather, if a major lord - who is definitely going to draw attention of the throne - is so ready to start crap, why would minor lords who may well be beneath notice of even a Lord Paramount, let alone the Iron Throne, be perfectly peaceful?

I mean, if we assume fifty direct vassals per level, then we have four levels between a Lord Paramount of an average-ish kingdom (4 million people) and a landed knight or even somebody like Lady Webber. And that is about the maximum number of men that a person can know directly. More likely, it is far more. If we take average size of medieval retinue - five men - as indication of how many direct vassals a lord has, then we have nine levels. And then additional level on top of that for the king, meaning there are a minimum of five levels and ten levels, respectively.

For reference, in Byzantine Empire, you had a maximum of five levels (village - city - banda - tourma - thema), six if you include the Emperor. In Roman Empire of Diocletian, there were again five levels (village - city - province - diocese - praetorian prefecture) with additional for the Emperor. And both of them were far better organized than your feudal society.

Why would Robert or anyone care about some minor knight or even a minor lord starting crap somewhere?

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

The latter is a problem more because those men are not necessarily loyal or willing to die for Joffrey.

Wrong.

Loyalty may be part of the problem, but primary issue is that nobody (definitely not Tyrion) expects untrained, raw recruits to actually hold in battle:

Quote

He found Ser Jacelyn on the ramparts, watching several hundred new recruits drilling in the field below. With so many seeking refuge in King’s Landing, there was no lack of men willing to join the City Watch for a full belly and a bed of straw in the barracks, but Tyrion had no illusions about how well these ragged defenders of theirs would fight if it came to battle.

So we see that a) new recruits are being drilled and b) despite that, Tyrion clearly does not expect them to hold against actual soldiers.

In fact, it is precisely their inexperience and lack of training that is the main issue here:

Quote

The gold cloaks were almost as uncertain a weapon. Six thousand men in the City Watch, thanks to Cersei, but only a quarter of them could be relied upon. “There’s few out-and-out traitors, though there’s some, even your spider hasn’t found them all,” Bywater had warned him. “But there’s hundreds greener than spring grass, men who joined for bread and ale and safety. No man likes to look craven in the sight of his fellows, so they’ll fight brave enough at the start, when it’s all warhorns and blowing banners. But if the battle looks to be going sour they’ll break, and they’ll break bad. The first man to throw down his spear and run will have a thousand more trodding on his heels.”

What is more, Tyrion outright states that even the experienced watchmen are not true soldiers:

Quote

To be sure, there were seasoned men in the City Watch, the core of two thousand who’d gotten their gold cloaks from Robert, not Cersei. Yet even those... a watchman was not truly a soldier,Lord Tywin Lannister had been fond of saying. Of knights and squires and men-at-arms, Tyrion had no more than three hundred. Soon enough, he must test the truth of another of his father’s sayings: One man on a wall was worth ten beneath it.

Knights, squires and men-at-arms are considered soldiers. Even well-experienced men of King's Landing's City Watch, neither Tyrion nor Tywin consider them soldiers, or even a match for soldiers.

Why would Tyrion be so concerned about quality of King's Landing's City Watch if majority of Westerosi armies truly were conscripted peasants?

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

Again, all you go back to is the Battle of the Green Fork thing which is problematic both because it is from AGoT where a lot of world-building details are yet vague, but also because, obviously, Roose Bolton - who did the attacking there in the wake of the night march - only sent experienced and capable men to do the fighting there. He had effectively no cavalry facing the Westermen, so to have even a remote chance the contingents of his army doing the attacking would have to have been pretty professional.

That said - the guy obviously lost or even blatantly sacrificed thousands of men in that battle. What we should imagine happened there was that Roose had the best men of all the non-Dreadfort men in his army do the attacking, hoping they would either win or die.

And, of course, Tywin Lannister's reservoir of well-trained men should be among the highest in the Realm. The Westerlands are rich as hell, meaning the lords and landed knights there can afford to clothe and train and feed scores and hundreds of men-at-arms. Landless Kevan Lannister claims he can feed thousands of knights in need be, so some of the richer Lords of the West should be able to do something similar.

All I go to is the Battle of the Green Fork because it is the only battle we see that actually provides a somewhat-detailed overview of an entirety of Westerosi army in combat. All other accounts are either very limited viewpoint accounts, too narrow in scope to offer much of use, or both.

And Tywin is also the most callous lord in the realm, which means he would be most willing to just send dregs to die as well. Which is precisely what he does.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

I guess now we also imagine that it is totally fine in a medieval setting to eat five-year-old bread which lived through a hot-as-hell summer...?

Winter length is completely unpredictable there - it could last a year or six years, and you also have no clue how long spring, summer, or autumn will last. You are very much fucked in this world.

I am assuming typical medieval society because it is clear that Martin had never even considered the implications of Westerosi seasons on societal development.

You haven't either, I think. You are just using winters as an excuse to push whatever you want Westerosi society to be.

Fact is, with multiple-year winters and completely unpredictable seasons, Westeros should be a wasteland. Ten-year winters could be planned for... if seasons were predictable so you knew when winter will come and how long it will last; if food could be preserved to last for these ten years or more; if you could collect enough food to last for said ten years.

Also, you have obviously never been in a proper cellar. I have. Such cellars are constructed underground - ceiling never goes above the ground level. Thick stone walls isolate them from the ground, and living rooms above them serve to isolate them from the air. Such cellars are never hot. Even when temperature outside might reach 40, 50 degrees Celsius, temperature in a cellar will not be above 10 - 15 degrees.

Bread perhaps not, but wine and hardtack should survive well enough for years in such conditions. Good hard salted cheese, stored cold, will keep basically forever. Pickled vegetables can also be kept for years if kept cold - which, again, cellars.

Speaking of, I tried to find exact values:

• Hardtack can last for 25 years or so, and that is a minimum. Some Civil War hardtack is probably still edible.
• Wine in a barrel can be aged for a few years in a proper cellar.
• Wine in a glass bottle can last for decades if stored in a wine cellar. It is not unusual for wines to last over 100 years in such conditions, though 20 - 50 years seems a good average.
• I had found info that Royal Navy used meats that were ten years old in 18th and 19th centuries, but was unable to confirm it. So take it with a pinch of salt.
• In a cellar as described, full wheel of hard cheese will stay good essentially forever. This is especially true for acidic cheeses such as cheddar and mozzarella.
• Brined cheese such as feta can be preserved for a long time even at room temperature.
• Grain like corn and wheat can apparently last for over ten years.

Pickled vegetables however can "only" last for 1 - 2 years in cool conditions. So what this means is that while hunger won't kill you during your ten-year winter... scurvy most definitely will. Now, you can actually get vitamine C from animals - just check the Inuit. But years-old salted beef? Not likely.

Thing is however, if something is going to hold for 10 years, it likely will last for 20 or 30 years as well. So there is no reason to assume that only the last year's harvests are stored.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm sure I never gave that number.

Not you personally, but it is a number either implied or outright stated by most people I've met who support the "Westerosi armies consist of peasants" argument.

It probably comes from Jorah's little diatribe here:

Quote

“Your brother Rhaegar brought as many men to the Trident,” Ser Jorah admitted, “but of that number, no more than a tenth were knights. The rest were archers, freeriders, and foot soldiers armed with spears and pikes. When Rhaegar fell, many threw down their weapons and fled the field. How long do you imagine such a rabble would stand against the charge of forty thousand screamers howling for blood? How well would boiled leather jerkins and mailed shirts protect them when the arrows fall like rain?”

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

That is when things break down. If you insert your definition of camp followers - which we don't see in the books, actually - then we also have no clue if the army numbers we get in the books actually refer only to 'proper soldiers' or if they also include your camp followers. And then all things go down the toilet.

The thing is - we do see the Northmen raising new troops now and it mostly sucks, despite the fact that the campaigns are now in the North itself and we also know that the North's strength is (supposedly) not completely spent. Yet the men with Roose and Stannis now weren't enough to bring the harvest in back in ACoK, ASoS, and early ADwD.

Also, of course, quotes as such given about Steelshanks Walton and Bonifer Hasty suggest that proper soldiers in the world actually are peasants or would like to be peasants after a campaign is over.

Typically, army numbers given would refer only to soldiers. That is why it is difficult to estimate how many camp followers were typically in an army: we only know about Romans because they wrote outright legislation on the topic. Medieval armies, it is mostly guesswork. We know how many soldiers were there - if that - and that is then starting point to estimate numbers of camp followers.

Men with Stannis now are his own men and the mountain clans. And if you think that removing few thousand men from the fields will have meant not bringing in the harvest, then North must be a wasteland. They should be on the level of development of the Wildlings, not have castles and armies armed in steel.

I mean, 10th century Croatia could, doing this "nation under arms" approach, raise 100 000 men from perhaps 600 000 people. North can raise 45 000 men, which would mean population of 270 000. Area of North is some 2,93 million square kilometers. That is density of 1 person for every 11 square kilometers, or some 0,092 people per square kilometer. For comparison, Sahara desert has 0,4 people per square kilometer, and Gobi has 1 person per square kilometer. If we assume average medieval village size of 250 people, that would make it one village per 2 750 square kilometers. You can't have medieval society in such conditions.

For reference, 2 750 square kilometers is the area of Simlipal National Park. There are 10 000 people living in said park, yet said people never advanced beyond basic tribal organization.

We are talking about 250 people living in the same area here. Forty times less people, and they are supposed to maintain a feudal society with that? Impossible.

Also, you cannot raise a proper army from peasants - feudal lords wouldn't in any case. Any new troops raised in the North will be raised from the same warrior class which had provided them previously, and that had been severely depleted by wars in the South.

Just the fact that wars are in North now means that, if we really go with your "peasant soldiers" route, then both Roose and Stannis should be drowning in new recruits. Yet that is not what we see.

You can either go "peasant troops" route or "North being spent militarily" route. Not both at the same time.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

Actually, no, as the North's army would be mostly feudal levies rather than professional castle men-at-arms since, obviously, there are not many big castles in the North. Again, look at the Deepwood Motte as an example. The Glovers are the crucial house in their region and they live in a wooden joke of a castle.

Since there is but one city and one town in the North, most Northmen would live in small villages and, in outlying regions, even in solitary farms and the like. Think of the lonely old man in the Gift Ygritte murders or what we are told about the Glover men living in the Wolfswood. Those men are not likely to live in proper villages.

Uh, "feudal levies" are not "conscripted peasants" either. The closest thing you get to "regularly conscripted peasants" is Hungarian Insurrectio, and these are still a well-organized militia, nearly part-time professionals akin to Byzantine thematic troops:

https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/organization/Austria/ArmyStudy/c_AustrianInsurrection.html

Quote

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.

Insurrectio Portalis: the poorer Vassals (and sometimes with the higher nobles aid) raised hussars and footsoldiers according to what stated by law. The "porta" is a term which means house. The earlier origin is not known. It was, therefore, the taxation standard units, when taking off money from each farmhouse, owned by a landowner. In the Hungarian Kingdom (as above mentioned, they were not the same thing as the lands of the Hungarian Crown) there were 5405,5 Porta. The country-soldiers were formally volunteers, but the recruiting was not always free from violence.

Note that while the system above is described as used during the Napoleonic Wars, it had in fact survived essentially unchanged since the early 15th century.

This is what the "peasant militia" looked like in medieval Hungary - and they were still well-equipped and decently trained troops, closer to Byzantine thematic soldiers than to, say, Bretonnian peasant mobs.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

I guess then you should rewrite the Targaryen reign. Because we got a pretty detailed history of the first half of that, and there is no endemic small-scale warfare there.

Do we know that for a fact?

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

But you know what? Even if it was - lords would resolve such issues with their own standing castle militia. Like Lady Rohanne tries to do. Like Ser Rodrik Cassel does in ACoK. You do not call your bannermen or feudal levies for that. That would mean war, and if you do that to fight your neighbor you are a bloody rebel.

And if you use your own standing castle militia for that, you will likely use them for large-scale warfare as well. Especially because large-scale warfare is so rare in Westeros.

On 12/26/2023 at 4:05 AM, Lord Varys said:

Again, there are no big wars that we know of. And even the big wars didn't involve necessary all the houses and regions. Dorne and the Tyrells stayed out of the Dance, and there was no fighting in the Vale (nor did the Vale men who came in the end do any fighting). Most of the Blackfyre Rebellions didn't involve a lot of fighting, either.

We can safely say that the reigns of Daeron I, Baelor the Blessed, Aegon IV, Daeron II, Aerys I, Maekar, Jaehaerys II, and Aerys II won't involve any bigger campaigns and wars than the ones we know already. Aegon III should have to do some larger campaigns, and then there are the rebellions against Aegon V. But the latter is a very special case as the men antagonized many of his lords with his own reform ideas. His reign is not representative of the reign of any other Targaryen king.

I wasn't talking about big wars. I was talking about conflicts over land as we see with Ser Eustace and Lady Webber.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Aldarion

[astarkchoice]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Problem mostly, though, is that we cannot really assume that the average rural petty lord or landed knight would really need his feudal levies to train much. They wouldn't be called in for outlaw hunts and minor skirmishes, anyway, and proper war are effectively never a thing as there is no outside enemy.

Even a succession war only affects you if you your lands are either in the center of Westeros and/or you and your liege lord cares to take a side in the succession war. Look at the Dance. The Tyrells didn't give a damn, so no fighting close to Highgarden. The Stormlords reluctantly took a side and no fighting in the Stormlands. The Vale did take a side, but still no fighting in the Vale, etc.

And if you check the books there is clearly a big difference between the rural and the castle smallfolk. The latter do get some training at arms, but the likes of Mycah or Pyp, Grenn, and the other commoner NW recruits training with Jon had literally no chance of training at arms before they got to the Wall.

If we had a broad or at least common tradition/practice of training at arms in country we would have heard about that. There would be commoners joining the NW who would be professional archers, say, or trained pikemen, etc. But we don't see any of that anywhere.

That would be true for some regions like those close to the Wall (although they seem to be a bit wimpy as they are all fleeing the Gifts rather than trying to defend their lands) and also, historically, in the places that were threatened by the Ironborn. And, of course, the Northmen would also be harder in general, having to deal with a lot of deaths in winter and, historically, having to deal with more infighting in the North. We hear, for instance, that the clansmen are very quarrelsome, etc.

But that doesn't mean that most of the smallfolk fighters there are overall very professional. The fighting they are doing would rarely, if ever, involve large campaigns and pitched battles, but local raids and skirmishes. Some rare fights among some northern houses, rare issues with the Skagosi, not so rare issues with the wildlings (although they would be badly armed, badly armored enemies lacking discipline).

At least since the Conquest.

Pehaps given the  frequency of warfare in westeros  the part timers are a distinct group.from the ordinary serfs. They still work the lands or a trade 3-4days a week but unlike their counterparts they  may get some decent  extra pay for turning up 1-2 days to drill en masse! The professionals (castle men and knights etc) would pick the guys who get to be in this group probably based  on just size/strength appearance alone.

[SaffronLady]

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In fact, that trope of "no campaigning during winter" was fully in effect for ancient Greeks in a way that it never was for Roman, Byzantine or even medieval feudal armies - in part precisely because they had so many camp followers.

For Chinese armies, unless the unit in question was very highly trained, the 'no winter campaign' trope is also in full effect, too. A highly trained exception is the army Li Jing led against the Eastern Turks in 630, and logic demands them to not contain 1:5 camp followers because this army launched an attack on the khaganate's HQ right after the Turks were hit by a blizzard.