Jump to content

How many wildlings and Westerosi are there?


romantic

Recommended Posts

I repeat.

The southern North MUST be far more populous than the northern North. The northern North brought 12,000 men to Winterfell. And that excluded the 3000 Mountain Clansmen, and it excluded any forces that Skagos could raise.

The entire southern North brought only 6000 in contrast, to bring the total army up to 18,000.

That is a clear discrepancy, as most of the population would inevitably live in the more fertile southern half of the North. Hence, the contribution from the South should have far outnumbered the contribution from the North, given a similar territorial size, but a much higher population density.

This is just one very strong argument in favor of a much higher armed potential for the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely true. And that would put the Hornwood, Reed, Rhyswell, Dustin, Cerwyn potential even higher than I estimated.

I think the Hornwoods and Cerwyns were part of the 12,000. But the Mountain Men and the Skagosi weren't. And together they number at least 6000.

But the Manderlys, southern Flints, Dustins, Ryswells, Locke's and all the other southern lords were not part of the 12,000, and they contributed a measly additional 6000. This from the most fertile and most densely populated part of the North by far.

It doesn't make sense. Thankfully, the answer is provided to us. Manderly kept his forces back to protect the East Coast, and Lady Dustin kept her Dustin and Ryswell forces back for ulterior reasons.

Bottomline:

Including the Moutain Men and Skagosi, the northern lords should be able to contribute at least 18,000.

Meaning the southern lords could not possible number less than 24000-30000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1812 during Napoleon's invasion of Russia the French population would have been around 30 million.

The Grand Armee that invaded Russia fielded about 300,000 French soldiers.

So Napoleon only managed to field 1% of the population.

The North is significantly larger than France.

The North is less politically centralised than France.

The North has vastly inferior technology.

The North has less time to prepare.

It would be amazing if the North can match Napoleonic France in terms of fielding 1% of it's population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1812 during Napoleon's invasion of Russia the French population would have been around 30 million.

The Grand Armee that invaded Russia fielded about 300,000 French soldiers.

So Napoleon only managed to field 1% of the population.

The North is significantly larger than France.

The North is less politically centralised than France.

The North has vastly inferior technology.

The North has less time to prepare.

It would be amazing if the North can match Napoleonic France in terms of fielding 1% of it's population.

Well said.

The North is at Richard the Lion Heart or William Wallace's level of technology and sophistication. It is incomparable to the Napoleanic era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? How often does the USA get summer snows?

I think he should rather have said Scandinavia or Russia. For instance its snowing at certain place in Norway at the moment. But I think the same would be true for northen parts of Canada and USA, or?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he should rather have said Scandinavia or Russia. For instance its snowing at certain place in Norway at the moment. But I think the same would be true for northen parts of Canada and USA, or?

The snow in Summer may well be due to the "normal" seasons trying to force their way through the magical season.

Meaning that a magical Summer may last 5 years, but within those 5 years, the normal seasons are still continuing on an annual basis, but are just blocked out by the magic of the whatever force is causing the multi year Summer or Winter.

Hence, a "spirit summer" may be the normal summer briefly forcing its way through the Magical Winter, just as a summer snow may be the normal winter forcing its way through the Magical Summer.

Thus, the fact that summer snows occur in the North should not be an indication of its latitude, but rather than it should be winter, if not for the Magical Summer that is blocking it, and some snows managed to push through briefly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The snow in Summer may well be due to the "normal" seasons trying to force their way through the magical season.

Meaning that a magical Summer may last 5 years, but within those 5 years, the normal seasons are still continuing on an annual basis, but are just blocked out by the magic of the whatever force is causing the multi year Summer or Winter.

Hence, a "spirit summer" may be the normal summer briefly forcing its way through the Magical Winter, just as a summer snow may be the normal winter forcing its way through the Magical Summer.

Thus, the fact that summer snows occur in the North should not be an indication of its latitude, but rather than it should be winter, if not for the Magical Summer that is blocking it, and some snows managed to push through briefly.

That makes a lot of sense.Probably one of the best theories I have seen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1812 during Napoleon's invasion of Russia the French population would have been around 30 million.

The Grand Armee that invaded Russia fielded about 300,000 French soldiers.

So Napoleon only managed to field 1% of the population.

The North is significantly larger than France.

The North is less politically centralised than France.

The North has vastly inferior technology.

The North has less time to prepare.

It would be amazing if the North can match Napoleonic France in terms of fielding 1% of it's population.

You are hugely offbase. At the height of the Napoleonic wars the peak strength of the french army was over a million. The revolution and frances population led to Napoleon fielding armies far larger than any before.

The figures are skewed because what was considered a frenchman at the height of Napoleons power wasn't one in 1789. Napoleons conquests increased the number of frenchmen from 25 million in 1789 to 44 in 1810. Napoleon wasn't fielding 1%, the wars lasted years and attrition was high. When invading Russia many of the soldiers were other nationalities. At the same time he had forces everywhere in 1811 he had over 300,000 men in Spain still!

Over the course of the Napoleonic wars he fielded more, far more than 1%. Just look at the losses.15,000 at eylau, 12,000 friedland, 40k Aspern, 30,000 Wagram. Massena lost 25k just marching on Portugal. This isn't including naval, warfare or Russia or smaller engagements.

To put it in perspective the total of number of frenchmen who fought is thought to be around 3 million though a whole generation passes over the course of the wars its far higher than 1%. In 1793 alone 650,000 frenchmen were under arms for example.(kennedy, rise and fall of the great powers ch.3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are hugely offbase. At the height of the Napoleonic wars the peak strength of the french army was over a million. The revolution and frances population led to Napoleon fielding armies far larger than any before.

The figures are skewed because what was considered a frenchman at the height of Napoleons power wasn't one in 1789. Napoleons conquests increased the number of frenchmen from 25 million in 1789 to 44 in 1810. Napoleon wasn't fielding 1%, the wars lasted years and attrition was high. When invading Russia many of the soldiers were other nationalities. At the same time he had forces everywhere in 1811 he had over 300,000 men in Spain still!

Over the course of the Napoleonic wars he fielded more, far more than 1%. Just look at the losses.15,000 at eylau, 12,000 friedland, 40k Aspern, 30,000 Wagram. Massena lost 25k just marching on Portugal. This isn't including naval, warfare or Russia or smaller engagements.

To put it in perspective the total of number of frenchmen who fought is thought to be around 3 million though a whole generation passes over the course of the wars its far higher than 1%. In 1793 alone 650,000 frenchmen were under arms for example.(kennedy, rise and fall of the great powers ch.3)

The overaching point is that whatever the case in the Napoleonic wars, that cannot be applied to a medieval setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia, which admittedly is only a quick reference guide, but I think it clarifies the situation as it applies to Westeros:

Under the feudal conditions for holding land in the medieval period, most peasants and freemen were liable to provide one man of suitable age per family for military duty when required by either the king or the local lord. The levies raised in this way fought as infantry under local superiors. Although the exact laws varied greatly depending on the country and the period, generally these levies were only obliged to fight for one to three months. Most were subsistence farmers, and it was in everyone's interest to send the men home for harvest-time.

In medieval Scandinavia the 'leiðangr' (Old Norse), 'leidang' (Norwegian), 'leding', (Danish), 'ledung' (Swedish), 'lichting' (Dutch), 'expeditio' (Latin) or sometimes 'leþing' (Old English), was a levy of free farmers conscripted into coastal fleets for seasonal excursions and in defence of the realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overaching point is that whatever the case in the Napoleonic wars, that cannot be applied to a medieval setting.

Absolutely. Some people seem to believe a far higher % has been conscripted than may be the case. Throughout the series we see many unconscripted peasants all the time. Some lords due to geography, pop density, even loyalty will be able to recruit a higher % of their domains manpower. Some will consider the harvest, some won't so much. Many have held back.

On topic it appears the vast majority of the wildlings were with Mance. He mentions though they have suffered losses to the Others that the Thenns, hornfoots etc couldn't stand against them. I think from the frustration in Mances words the Wildlings overall population might have taken a hit before they even came south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Some people seem to believe a far higher % has been conscripted than may be the case. Throughout the series we see many unconscripted peasants all the time. Some lords due to geography, pop density, even loyalty will be able to recruit a higher % of their domains manpower. Some will consider the harvest, some won't so much. Many have held back.

On topic it appears the vast majority of the wildlings were with Mance. He mentions though they have suffered losses to the Others that the Thenns, hornfoots etc couldn't stand against them. I think from the frustration in Mances words the Wildlings overall population might have taken a hit before they even came south.

Yes. So the 50,000 Jon saw in the Frostfangs may have been closer to 100,000 initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. So the 50,000 Jon saw in the Frostfangs may have been closer to 100,000 initially.

What I'm thinking is there may be alot of Wights, they swarmed over the fist. Unless a sizeable amount of Wildlings have been wightefied the Others don't seem so threatening. Though to be sure we have no idea how many Others there are nor tricks up their sleeve.

Mance wasn't coming to conquer, he was running. That his 50,000 say was running from the Others suggests a sizeable problem, the Wildlings were losing. So a fair chunk of them may be Wights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are hugely offbase. At the height of the Napoleonic wars the peak strength of the french army was over a million. The revolution and frances population led to Napoleon fielding armies far larger than any before.

The figures are skewed because what was considered a frenchman at the height of Napoleons power wasn't one in 1789. Napoleons conquests increased the number of frenchmen from 25 million in 1789 to 44 in 1810. Napoleon wasn't fielding 1%, the wars lasted years and attrition was high. When invading Russia many of the soldiers were other nationalities. At the same time he had forces everywhere in 1811 he had over 300,000 men in Spain still!

Over the course of the Napoleonic wars he fielded more, far more than 1%. Just look at the losses.15,000 at eylau, 12,000 friedland, 40k Aspern, 30,000 Wagram. Massena lost 25k just marching on Portugal. This isn't including naval, warfare or Russia or smaller engagements.

To put it in perspective the total of number of frenchmen who fought is thought to be around 3 million though a whole generation passes over the course of the wars its far higher than 1%. In 1793 alone 650,000 frenchmen were under arms for example.(kennedy, rise and fall of the great powers ch.3)

I didn't include the non Frenchmen in the Grand Armee (which numbered 600,000 men).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the course of the Napoleonic wars he fielded more, far more than 1%. Just look at the losses.15,000 at eylau, 12,000 friedland, 40k Aspern, 30,000 Wagram. Massena lost 25k just marching on Portugal. This isn't including naval, warfare or Russia or smaller engagements.

To put it in perspective the total of number of frenchmen who fought is thought to be around 3 million though a whole generation passes over the course of the wars its far higher than 1%. In 1793 alone 650,000 frenchmen were under arms for example.(kennedy, rise and fall of the great powers ch.3)

Well, the Napoleonic wars are suspected of having cost 1.5 mio dead Frenchmen.

That's a huge blow to the overall manpower of France and partly explains why the nation that has been the most powerful in Europe for the last 600 years was so badly weakened for the next decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Napoleonic wars are suspected of having cost 1.5 mio dead Frenchmen.

That's a huge blow to the overall manpower of France and partly explains why the nation that has been the most powerful in Europe for the last 600 years was so badly weakened for the next decades.

The main reason was that France did not have the population boom that the rest of the world had during industrialisation.

In 1830 these are the estimated populations of the 5 great powers (not including colonies).

1. Russia 57 million

2. France 35.8 million

3. Austria 30.7 million

4. Great Britain 27.6 million

5. Prussia 16 million (35.9 total for the nations that would form Germany)

In 1910 these are the estimated populations.

1. Russia 111 Million

2. Germany 65 Million

3. Austria-Hungary 50 Million

4. Great Britain 45 Million

5. France 39 Million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So according to the estimates 2% of the population would serve in standing armies. So there should be 800,000 soldiers in Westeros, with 120,000 of those being from the North. Robb took 20,000 with him, and possibly another 50,000 are spread between the forces in Winterfell and the Northern lords. They are still missing 70,000 soldiers. Unless the population of the North is closer to 2.5 - 3 million. Also where are these 800,000 soldiers in Westeros, from the numbers being used in battle it seems more likely there are around 400,000 soldiers in Westeros, which means the population should only be 20 million people. Also this is considering standing armies, when Robb took his men south the harvests rotted in the fields. Which means they conscripted the peasants and farmers into the army. This is not adding up. It must be 40 million people in Westeros and Essos.

@ Free Northman

Weren't the Wildlings about 100,000 altogether? I'm not sure where I got this number but it has been spooking around my brain for months.

@ Dreadnaught

Rule of thumb is 1%, not 2%. While 2% is achievable depending on technology and climate, it is an upper limit. And the climate in the North is very harsh, which may put the percentage way down, maybe to 0.5%. Which in turn would put the number of people in the North somewhere around 10 millions. Still just a quarter of the South.

@ Young Wolf's Vanguard

The Iron Islands are the odd one out. They are a naval culture, not an agrarian. Naval cultures could field a larger percentage. And together they have at least the same landmass as Ireland, it's just spread over several islands.

From the way it is told (and the way it used to be in medieval times) there were almost no standing armies in Westeros but some household guards and a few thousend guys a Lord would need so secure his borders and the important roads. But if he really needs an army he would go and start a levy (i.e. the Lord calls his own men and his bannermen which in turn start to call their own man and their bannermen). Especialy in the North I would assume few "fulltime soldiers" and a lot "soldier when called and needed". This would shift the calculation back to the six million given by Free Nortman or even less)

As for the wartorn Riverlands: It is the same thing as, say the Wa r of thirty Years in Germany. From the storys you would belive, there was literally no one left at the end of the war (and the lands, where the war had raged had a severe drop in population) but actually most of the people were uprooted, fugitive and had lost almost everithing but their lifes. But they were still there, fleeing and hiding. I asume, that the same goes for the Riverlands: They had a severe loss of life but at an statistical level that would summe up to, say, thirty or worst case fourty percent of the population. While that is dramatic, it stil leaves at least sixty or seventy percent there to pick up the pieces, when the fighting is over.

The iron Islands have the same landmass as Ireland? It sure doesn't look so in the maps. Where did you get that information?

I supose, that the real size of Westeros has been discussed for ages. But I still have the feeling, that the "real Westeros" - the land GRRM has before his inner eye while writing is a lot smaller then the one he pinns on the maps. It always seems to grow, when Martin needs to establish traveling times and distances. I never bothered to sit down and work it out but the feeling remains. E.g. it takes Brienne and company days to make it from Maidenpool to Crab Claw Point though they are only few and mounted. But on the other hand the King Robert and his huge company make it from Kings Landing to Winterfell in such a reasonable time, that he can allow himself to bring all his court and family on the trip (such a party would travel slow while it starts late and stops early in the day. After all, it takes some time to pack and unpack all that stuff a king, a queen and their lords and ladies think they can't do without). Yet the travel distance seems to be about 900 leagues wich would make for roughly the same distance as New York and Los Angeles (about four two and half thousend miles or four thousend kilometres).

But if we accept e size from the maps, the Iron Ilands have quite a size. And the Damphair in his first chapter even thinks about those poor Ironborn who never come to see the sea, because some of the counties do not touch the shore. They are an exeption but yet it happen.

The trouble is that from it's form we almoust spontaniously compare Westeros to Great Britain and in the same spontanious way unwillingy asume it to have to have the same size which makes the Iron Ilands look much smaller then they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow the like button is gone. So for the protocoll:

@Free Northman: I really like your analyse of the population, military strenght and the way it is raised in the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...