Mercs/sellswords and sellsails

[Aldarion]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, the difference is not that big, as feudal obligations also only last for a time and can't be drawn out indefinitely. Which is why during really long campaigns and constant warfare you inevitably got a professionalization of warfare by way of a mercenary industry.

"Classic" feudal obligation lasts for a time, yes. But that is only one type of obligation. In Hungary for example there were several types of recruitment. First one was familiares, which is basically nobles and their retinues, and had no time limit so long as it was used for defense, but I do believe time limit was otherwise 40 days. Second one is dispositio, which was pretty much identical to English indenture system. This was a system where king would pay a baronial contractor to equip a number of lances (lance being a standardized unit of recruitment) which then served on a pretty much permanent basis. Third type was general levy of nobility, which was time-limited to 40 days.

And on top of that you also had mercenaries, militias and so on.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Aldarion said:

"Classic" feudal obligation lasts for a time, yes. But that is only one type of obligation. In Hungary for example there were several types of recruitment. First one was familiares, which is basically nobles and their retinues, and had no time limit so long as it was used for defense, but I do believe time limit was otherwise 40 days. Second one is dispositio, which was pretty much identical to English indenture system. This was a system where king would pay a baronial contractor to equip a number of lances (lance being a standardized unit of recruitment) which then served on a pretty much permanent basis. Third type was general levy of nobility, which was time-limited to 40 days.

And on top of that you also had mercenaries, militias and so on.

In Westeros we pretty much hear that this thing is pretty simple: Namely, that a lord can call his banners only for 'a time'. It might have been different back before the Conquest when there was continuous warfare but that would also have allowed every lord to just bend the knee to a different king if his lands were in the border region between, say, the Reach and the West.

This also makes it clear that long campaigns and wars are pretty much impossible in this setting. We even see this in the Targaryen days when Theo Tyrell pretty much tells Aegon the Conqueror to fuck off when he wants to continue the war after Theo's father Harlan disappeared with his entire army in Dorne. There would have been feelings of revenge, etc. with Theo to be sure ... but if the guys in charge lack both the right and means to force their bannermen and vassals to fight for a longer time then they simply don't.

Ditto with Daeron's Conquest. His war lasted pretty long already, and the good thing was that it was successful at first. But it stands to reason that the army he raised to crush the Dornish insurrection was but a fraction of the forces he marshaled for the original invasion.

I guess the Crown and very wealthy lords could maintain years-long-campaigns by way of hiring landless second sons and the like as Prince Daemon does (with his brother's help) for his Stepstones campaigns. But such a war could not be maintained for long by way of the king calling his banners.

I'm actually looking forward to the details of the War of the Ninepenny Kings as that actually was the only known Targaryen war on foreign soil which was conducted as an invasion army. It will be interesting to see how Aegon V and Jaehaerys II after him convinced the lords to raise men for this war. Dorne and the Stormlands may have felt mildly threatened by the Band of Nine, but the rest of the Seven Kingdoms should have just shrugged and said that this wasn't their problem.

We can also expect the Starks eventually crushing that Skagos Rebellion in the North would have been a nightmarish operation as it apparently was a long war of attrition and most Northmen shouldn't have cared much about Skagos and would have thus refused to fight and die there once they had done their feudal duty. It might have been different in regions where the Skagosi invaded in turn, but since they lack ships that shouldn't have happened much (or at all).

[astarkchoice]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In Westeros we pretty much hear that this thing is pretty simple: Namely, that a lord can call his banners only for 'a time'. It might have been different back before the Conquest when there was continuous warfare but that would also have allowed every lord to just bend the knee to a different king if his lands were in the border region between, say, the Reach and the West.

This also makes it clear that long campaigns and wars are pretty much impossible in this setting. We even see this in the Targaryen days when Theo Tyrell pretty much tells Aegon the Conqueror to fuck off when he wants to continue the war after Theo's father Harlan disappeared with his entire army in Dorne. There would have been feelings of revenge, etc. with Theo to be sure ... but if the guys in charge lack both the right and means to force their bannermen and vassals to fight for a longer time then they simply don't.

Ditto with Daeron's Conquest. His war lasted pretty long already, and the good thing was that it was successful at first. But it stands to reason that the army he raised to crush the Dornish insurrection was but a fraction of the forces he marshaled for the original invasion.

I guess the Crown and very wealthy lords could maintain years-long-campaigns by way of hiring landless second sons and the like as Prince Daemon does (with his brother's help) for his Stepstones campaigns. But such a war could not be maintained for long by way of the king calling his banners.

I'm actually looking forward to the details of the War of the Ninepenny Kings as that actually was the only known Targaryen war on foreign soil which was conducted as an invasion army. It will be interesting to see how Aegon V and Jaehaerys II after him convinced the lords to raise men for this war. Dorne and the Stormlands may have felt mildly threatened by the Band of Nine, but the rest of the Seven Kingdoms should have just shrugged and said that this wasn't their problem.

We can also expect the Starks eventually crushing that Skagos Rebellion in the North would have been a nightmarish operation as it apparently was a long war of attrition and most Northmen shouldn't have cared much about Skagos and would have thus refused to fight and die there once they had done their feudal duty. It might have been different in regions where the Skagosi invaded in turn, but since they lack ships that shouldn't have happened much (or at all).

The skagosi rebellion like most would probably have largely fallen on the starks and their immediate bannermen to subdue as they did with the rest if the north. That said saying no to the starks of old would take some balls.