How many wildlings and Westerosi are there?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Guessing. It's a little island less than 1/200 of Westeros' size. On the maps in my Feast softcover, a very rough estimate of Westeros estimates at 208 square centimeters and the Iron Islands at 1.5 square centimeters. Assuming roughly similar losses on the Iron Islands and Westeros, that is still bigger than Ireland and leaves wiggle room for the roughness of the estimate and the Iron Islands loosing way more landmass than the mainland in measuring.

Oh, and measuring may be taken with several spoons of salt - I didn't care for coast lines and all that shit.

[BinkyBonks]

Quit trying to square this circle of a population of 40 million. That figure is a complete and utter trainwreck of an estimate. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even if we assume that 1% of the population are involved in the fighting, that would still mean 400,000 soldiers. There aren't that many in the story. 50,000 for the Lannisters, 30,000 for the North, 70,000 for the Reach, 20,000 for the Stormlands, 10,000 for Pyke, 10,000 for Dorne. We only have about half of this supposed 400,000.

But the truth is that 1% of the population involved in the fighting simply won't do, as we're led to believe from the text that peasants as well as paid swords have gone off to join armies. There are literally no healthy men of fighting age left in Winterfell, for example. Only a small garrison is left in Storm's End. Oldtown is threatened by Pyke forces which must be fewer than ten thousand. To reflect the text, you'd need a figure of 5% at the very least. Even then, the figure is highly dubious -- e.g. WW1 had a conscription rate of 1 in 4 men, or 12.5% of the total population...even though in the Middle Ages, the proportion of men between 18 and 41 would be tremendously larger. And of course, in Westeros you're a "man grown" at 14 or 15.

Taking into account these two factors, the 40 million estimate is off by at least a factor of 10. With a population of 4 million, maybe we can make sense of the text. 40 million is just insane thoughtlessness, and if they're really going to publish that as the official figure, it will make the series logically inconsistent.

[Jedi Master Hot Pie]

Quit trying to square this circle of a population of 40 million. That figure is a complete and utter trainwreck of an estimate. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even if we assume that 1% of the population are involved in the fighting, that would still mean 400,000 soldiers. There aren't that many in the story. 50,000 for the Lannisters, 30,000 for the North, 70,000 for the Reach, 20,000 for the Stormlands, 10,000 for Pyke, 10,000 for Dorne. We only have about half of this supposed 400,000.

But the truth is that 1% of the population involved in the fighting simply won't do, as we're led to believe from the text that peasants as well as paid swords have gone off to join armies. There are literally no healthy men of fighting age left in Winterfell, for example. Only a small garrison is left in Storm's End. Oldtown is threatened by Pyke forces which must be fewer than ten thousand. To reflect the text, you'd need a figure of 5% at the very least. Even then, the figure is highly dubious -- e.g. WW1 had a conscription rate of 1 in 4 men, or 12.5% of the total population...even though in the Middle Ages, the proportion of men between 18 and 41 would be tremendously larger. And of course, in Westeros you're a "man grown" at 14 or 15.

Taking into account these two factors, the 40 million estimate is off by at least a factor of 10. With a population of 4 million, maybe we can make sense of the text. 40 million is just insane thoughtlessness, and if they're really going to publish that as the official figure, it will make the series logically inconsistent.

This.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Quit trying to square this circle of a population of 40 million. That figure is a complete and utter trainwreck of an estimate. It makes no sense whatsoever. Even if we assume that 1% of the population are involved in the fighting, that would still mean 400,000 soldiers. There aren't that many in the story. 50,000 for the Lannisters, 30,000 for the North, 70,000 for the Reach, 20,000 for the Stormlands, 10,000 for Pyke, 10,000 for Dorne. We only have about half of this supposed 400,000. But the truth is that 1% of the population involved in the fighting simply won't do, as we're led to believe from the text that peasants as well as paid swords have gone off to join armies. There are literally no healthy men of fighting age left in Winterfell, for example. Only a small garrison is left in Storm's End. Oldtown is threatened by Pyke forces which must be fewer than ten thousand. To reflect the text, you'd need a figure of 5% at the very least. Even then, the figure is highly dubious -- e.g. WW1 had a conscription rate of 1 in 4 men, or 12.5% of the total population...even though in the Middle Ages, the proportion of men between 18 and 41 would be tremendously larger. And of course, in Westeros you're a "man grown" at 14 or 15. Taking into account these two factors, the 40 million estimate is off by at least a factor of 10. With a population of 4 million, maybe we can make sense of the text. 40 million is just insane thoughtlessness, and if they're really going to publish that as the official figure, it will make the series logically inconsistent.

Make that 55,000 Lannister, 55,000 North, 70,000 Reach, 30,000 Stormlands, 25,000-35,000 Pyke, 30,000 Dorne, 40,000 Riverlands, 40,000 Vale, 10,000 Crownlands.and that's about 360,000. Better? And in some instances it's the lower loundary.

And for the 1% argument, go read a history book. And there was a little thing called industrialization and trains between 1700 and 1900 which changed some small matters.

Just for record: My initial estimation was around 70 millions.

[BinkyBonks]

Make that 55,000 Lannister, 55,000 North, 70,000 Reach, 30,000 Stormlands, 25,000-35,000 Pyke, 30,000 Dorne, 40,000 Riverlands, 40,000 Vale, 10,000 Crownlands.and that's about 360,000. Better? And in some instances it's the lower loundary. And for the 1% argument, go read a history book. And there was a little thing called industrialization and trains between 1700 and 1900 which changed some small matters. Just for record: My initial estimation was around 70 millions.

I've read plenty of history, but perhaps you should acquire some basic critical thinking.

No matter what your reading of history, the text of ASoIaF does not allow for this interpretation of "1% of the population fighting in the war". We're told on many, many occasions that the peasantry is participating in the war to the point of leaving their crops untended. Most castles and towns in the later novels have hardly any healthy adult men left to defend them. Essentially the entire population of healthy adult males is given the draft, and that is far, far higher than 1%. As I already argued, it's more like 12% at the very least.

The difference between ASoIaF and history is that the peasantry didn't participate in most wars in the Middle Ages. That's the only reason the English Civil War and most other wars in the Middle Ages were fought between armies of maybe 20,000 soldiers on each side -- the peasantry wasn't there. When the peasantry did get involved, like in ancient Rome, or when there was no conception of peasantry, like with the Mongols, you have standing armies well into the hundreds of thousands. Martin has stipulated that the peasantry is joining in the wars (that's what Meribald was going on about), so the army to population ratio has to be much higher than the corresponding ratio for Medieval Europe. 1% doesn't work.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

In subsistence farming, even 1% of the population missing is a pretty big hit and the maximum what could be achieved without the economy crashing.

Rome isn't an agrarian economy like Westeros, it's a city state.

And even with 40 million inhabitants Westeros is less populated than Europe at its all time low around 500. Compared to 1340 Europe, Westeros should have 150 million inhabitants.

[BinkyBonks]

Make that 55,000 Lannister, 55,000 North, 70,000 Reach, 30,000 Stormlands, 25,000-35,000 Pyke, 30,000 Dorne, 40,000 Riverlands, 40,000 Vale, 10,000 Crownlands.and that's about 360,000. Better?

As for this...no, I'm afraid it won't do. 25,000-35,000 for Pyke? You taking the Mickey? If that were true, they'd have no problem capturing the North. They wouldn't have to resort to dastardly (and ultimately unsuccessful) backstabbing strategies. 55,000 widely scattered troops could not possibly fight a two front war.

40,000 for Vale? If that were true, then Robb getting the Vale on his side would mean instant victory. He doesn't say that. He says something along the lines of, "Those Vale knights could make all the difference in this war." He does not say Vale means instant victory.

40,000 Riverlands? If that were true, then Robb would have greater numbers than the Lannisters, even if you don't count 35,000, by your reckoning, troops he left behind.

I don't think Dorne has 30,000 men. Doran thinks it fields the smallest army of all the seven kingdoms. 10,000-15,000 seems a more sober estimate.

[BinkyBonks]

In subsistence farming, even 1% of the population missing is a pretty big hit and the maximum what could be achieved without the economy crashing. Rome isn't an agrarian economy like Westeros, it's a city state. And even with 40 million inhabitants Westeros is less populated than Europe at its all time low around 500. Compared to 1340 Europe, Westeros should have 150 million inhabitants.

Even if I compromise to 2% of the population and allow your corrections to bump the total number of soldiers up to 300,000, we're still off by a factor of 3. Which reduces 40 million to 13 million.

Anyway, back on topic: Where do all these wildlings come from? 50,000 Mance wilings, yet maybe hundreds of thousands that have been turned to wraiths by the Others. How do they get such a big population in the unliveable, Arctic conditions beyond the wall? Either Martin hasn't thought through the figures, or beyond-the-wall is a whole bunch bigger than he's been letting on.

[romantic]

Originally this title was 'How many wildings are left' but as the discussion has moved to the broader discussion about the population of Westeros, I've changed the title. I hope this doesn't upset anyone but as the wildings are part of the population of Westeros, I thought it still fits ok.

[Kim87]

I think this is one of the weak points of the story, the population numbers does not add up. That the north would have been left so depopulated by losing 20 thousand men is just silly. The place is freaking huge. Yet we are told so several times in the books. So it must be true.

By the numbers given in the book, it also would appear that there were more wildlings then people in the north. Though having a harsh and cold north, that can for some reason supply an endless horde of men/monsters bent on ravaging the land, seems to be a common theme in fantasy books.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I think this is one of the weak points of the story, the population numbers does not add up. That the north would have been left so depopulated by losing 20 thousand men is just silly. The place is freaking huge. Yet we are told so several times in the books. So it must be true.

By the numbers given in the book, it also would appear that there were more wildlings then people in the north. Though having a harsh and cold north, that can for some reason supply an endless horde of men/monsters bent on ravaging the land, seems to be a common theme in fantasy books.

By the numbers given in the book, there are less than 100,000 Wildlings compared to 10,000,000 Northerners (extrapolated). At least 95% of the Wildlings, men, women, children and everything between with their entire livestock were with the Mance (or in his diversions). Jon sees them altogether. It's a last resort: either they cross the Wall or they die.

And the North isn't depopulated in the slightest way. It just seems this way because the tiny, tiny fraction of fighting men and nobles took a big hit at the Red Wedding. And that is the fraction every PoV is from. Or could you name a PoV not of the highest nobility? Well, except Areoh Hotah and Melisandre, but they live in the same circle.

[Free Northman]

I've read plenty of history, but perhaps you should acquire some basic critical thinking.

No matter what your reading of history, the text of ASoIaF does not allow for this interpretation of "1% of the population fighting in the war". We're told on many, many occasions that the peasantry is participating in the war to the point of leaving their crops untended. Most castles and towns in the later novels have hardly any healthy adult men left to defend them. Essentially the entire population of healthy adult males is given the draft, and that is far, far higher than 1%. As I already argued, it's more like 12% at the very least.

The difference between ASoIaF and history is that the peasantry didn't participate in most wars in the Middle Ages. That's the only reason the English Civil War and most other wars in the Middle Ages were fought between armies of maybe 20,000 soldiers on each side -- the peasantry wasn't there. When the peasantry did get involved, like in ancient Rome, or when there was no conception of peasantry, like with the Mongols, you have standing armies well into the hundreds of thousands. Martin has stipulated that the peasantry is joining in the wars (that's what Meribald was going on about), so the army to population ratio has to be much higher than the corresponding ratio for Medieval Europe. 1% doesn't work.

I am normally more polite, but responding to you in a similar tone to yours, you're talking through your arse.

Based on medieval statistics, Westeros would be rather sparsely populated, even with a population of 40 million.

And let's not even get started on city sizes.

Just accept it: This issue has been resolved. And the answer is 40 million.

[Jedi Master Hot Pie]

I am normally more polite, but responding to you in a similar tone to yours, you're talking through your arse.

Based on medieval statistics, Westeros would be rather sparsely populated, even with a population of 40 million.

And let's not even get started on city sizes.

Just accept it: This issue has been resolved. And the answer is 40 million.

No, it isn't.

I've read the thread where these statistics were formed and it's just half a dozen people agreeing with the numbers.

You could try to estimate the population using historical statistics to form a basic estimate, but you're ignoring dozens of quotes from the books of people complaining about something along the lines of, "We have no men. We need more farmhands. There are no healthy men left". Facts and conversation rates from medieval Europe don't apply to Westeros as Westeros is fantasy and Europe is non-fiction.

Quotes from the books > A bunch of stats churned up by a few forum users using medieval European statistics.

[Darth Rivers]

In feudalism, 1% is nearly unreachable. Look at medieval France. A population of 20 million or so, yet it never put more than 30-40 thousand men in the field, at the same time, until after the renaissance and the introduction of professional armies.

You know why? There is this little thing called "logistics", which prevents fielding every able bodied man in the army. Not to mention feudal politics.

[Free Northman]

In feudalism, 1% is nearly unreachable. Look at medieval France. A population of 20 million or so, yet it never put more than 30-40 thousand men in the field, at the same time, until after the renaissance and the introduction of professional armies.

You know why? There is this little thing called "logistics", which prevents fielding every able bodied man in the army. Not to mention feudal politics.

Indeed.

The Reach alone should exceed France's population, as it is very fertile and much bigger than France.

Westeros as a whole should have much, much more.

[Darth Rivers]

My estimate for the Reach is 25-30 million population. Which makes the whole of Westeros much more populous than 40 million.

[Free Northman]

My estimate for the Reach is 25-30 million population. Which makes the whole of Westeros much more populous than 40 million.

The Reach is between 30-40% the size of the North. I've got the North at about 1.2 million square miles, putting the Reach at roughly 400,000 square miles.

That's 50% larger than France.

France's population varied widely during the Middle Ages, so I'm not sure which estimate to go with.

Either way, a fertile medieval setting should have a population density of about 40 people per square mile (England, for example).

If you go with that estimate, the Reach should have about 16 million people. If you go with just 30 people per square mile, you're looking at about 12 million.

I think 12 million is the correct estimate. With the North at about 6 million.

That gives the Reach a population density of 30 vs the North's 5.

That means the Reach has 6 times the population density of the North, which seems fair.

[Kim87]

By the numbers given in the book, there are less than 100,000 Wildlings compared to 10,000,000 Northerners (extrapolated). At least 95% of the Wildlings, men, women, children and everything between with their entire livestock were with the Mance (or in his diversions). Jon sees them altogether. It's a last resort: either they cross the Wall or they die.

And the North isn't depopulated in the slightest way. It just seems this way because the tiny, tiny fraction of fighting men and nobles took a big hit at the Red Wedding. And that is the fraction every PoV is from. Or could you name a PoV not of the highest nobility? Well, except Areoh Hotah and Melisandre, but they live in the same circle.

I agree what everything you wrote. It would make sense.

But you really are ignoring the facts that we are getting from the books. We know that several northern houses have more or less lost everything. There are no more fighting men. They all died. Something that does of course not makes any sense at all, but we have to judge the facts we get from the books. Not real life.

For me at least it’s more a case of certain parts of the story being less developed then others. Things like economy and population numbers seems to be less thought out.

[Free Northman]

I agree what everything you wrote. It would make sense.

But you really are ignoring the facts that we are getting from the books. We know that several northern houses have more or less lost everything. There are no more fighting men. They all died. Something that does of course not makes any sense at all, but we have to judge the facts we get from the books. Not real life.

For me at least it’s more a case of certain parts of the story being less developed then others. Things like economy and population numbers seems to be less thought out.

Who are the Houses that are supposedly depleted?

It is really just the Umbers who are mentioned in this category.

The Boltons have plenty of men.

The Northern Clansmen have plenty of men.

The Manderlys have plenty of men.

The Dustins and Ryswells have plenty of men.

The Reeds have pretty much all their men.

Men are streaming to Stannis banners from the Stony shore and the wolfswood.

Men are streaming to White Harbor to join Manderly's forces.

Nothing is said of the state of the Mormonts, Karstarks, Glovers and Tallharts populations (except that men are streaming from the depths of the wolfswood to join Stannis, and large parts of the wolfswood fall in Glover territory).

The only House that ever complained that they were low on manpower were the Umbers, and what do you expect? They are the extreme northern most House, and also the most warlike. So it makes perfect sense that the Greatjon would empty his fields to march off to war, despite living in the most infertile part of the North.

The North is by far the most agrarian society in Westeros. Where you could feed a village with the yield of maybe 5 square miles of farmland in the Reach, you probably need 30 square miles of farmland to do the same in the North.

Hence, the people are more spread out. And for each bit of food you need 6 guys working the fields compared to the 1 guy needed in the South.

As a result, the settlements are smaller, the men immediately available are fewer, and the urbanisation rate would be far lower than that in the South.

Meaning that if you have 50,000 people in White Harbor, and say 10,000 in Barrowton and all the other settlements, that probably makes out only 0.5% of the North's population, compared to the 3-5% that Oldtown and other towns make up of the Reach's population.

So this story of the Northern Houses being depleted is a fallacy, based only on the Umbers situation, which is down to their own rash behavior.

[Kim87]

Who are the Houses that are supposedly depleted?

It is really just the Umbers who are mentioned in this category.

The Boltons have plenty of men.

The Northern Clansmen have plenty of men.

The Manderlys have plenty of men.

The Dustins and Ryswells have plenty of men.

The Reeds have pretty much all their men.

Men are streaming to Stannis banners from the Stony shore and the wolfswood.

Men are streaming to White Harbor to join Manderly's forces.

Nothing is said of the state of the Mormonts, Karstarks, Glovers and Tallharts populations (except that men are streaming from the depths of the wolfswood to join Stannis, and large parts of the wolfswood fall in Glover territory).

The only House that ever complained that they were low on manpower were the Umbers, and what do you expect? They are the extreme northern most House, and also the most warlike. So it makes perfect sense that the Greatjon would empty his fields to march off to war, despite living in the most infertile part of the North.

The North is by far the most agrarian society in Westeros. Where you could feed a village with the yield of maybe 5 square miles of farmland in the Reach, you probably need 30 square miles of farmland to do the same in the North.

Hence, the people are more spread out. And for each bit of food you need 6 guys working the fields compared to the 1 guy needed in the South.

As a result, the settlements are smaller, the men immediately available are fewer, and the urbanisation rate would be far lower than that in the South.

Meaning that if you have 50,000 people in White Harbor, and say 10,000 in Barrowton and all the other settlements, that probably makes out only 0.5% of the North's population, compared to the 3-5% that Oldtown and other towns make up of the Reach's population.

So this story of the Northern Houses being depleted is a fallacy, based only on the Umbers situation, which is down to their own rash behavior.

I am more than happy to be proven wrong. House Umber and House Karkstark were the house reporting to have lost so many men that the fields where going to rot.

But if I am not mistaken Stannis has an army of 6000 thousand men, where about half are northmen. So if there are men, they are not really joining in huge numbers.

But like I said, I am happy to be proven wrong. Something I hope happens in the next book, when a Stark rallies the north.