House Army numbers?

[ihatebrienne]

We talking about the beginning of the ASOIF books? If so I would guess something like this:

Stark - 35,000

Lannister - 40,000

Baratheon - 20,000

Tyrell - 50,000

Tully - 20,000

Arryn - 30,000

Martell - 50,000

Greyjoy - 15,000

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Aren't they just partially descended from those kings? In any case the Greyjoys weren't ruling anything until Aegon Targaryen came along, and I'd say that "King of the Iron Islands" isn't a particulary prestigous title in the first place, given how bleak and poor they are. They don't even seem to be regarded as Lords Paramount by the rest of Westeros. That the Iron Islands can muster as many ships and men as they do really stretches belief. If GRRM had wanted to portray them as a credible threat he should have made them two or three times as large.

The wealth of the Iron Islands isn't important for their reputation. How old and noble their line is, that is important. And apart from the Starks and maybe the Lannisters, no one is. That commands respect.

PS: The Iron Islands are somewhere between Ireland and entire GB in size.

We talking about the beginning of the ASOIF books? If so I would guess something like this:

Stark - 35,000

Lannister - 40,000

Baratheon - 20,000

Tyrell - 50,000

Tully - 20,000

Arryn - 30,000

Martell - 50,000

Greyjoy - 15,000

In each case (far) to few, except the Martells who you estimated twice as high as they are.

[King Aerys the Just]

The wealth of the Iron Islands isn't important for their reputation. How old and noble their line is, that is important. And apart from the Starks and maybe the Lannisters, no one is. That commands respect.

PS: The Iron Islands are somewhere between Ireland and entire GB in size.

It's important if the kingdom they held was equivalent to a lordship in the rest of the world. I don't see anyone referring to the rulers of the Neck, Cracklaw Point and the Three Sisters with any degree of respect, even though they all probably have a bit of old King's blood in them as well.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SniTwfm5BwE/TN7cr_nFGXI/AAAAAAAAC_0/Za-Q7s9SUtk/s1600/Westeros%2B-%2BEurope%2BComparison%2BSize.jpg

Is this map accurate? In that case the Iron Islands are more like Northern Ireland in size, not Ireland proper and definately not Great Britain.

[Ran]

The population density of the southern half of the North is far greater than that of the Northern half.

That's a curiously absolute statement for what amounts to opinion without actual supporting evidence.

What do we really know about the southern half of the North? What's actually said about the density of the population across this region?

Robert snorted. "Bogs and forests and fields, and scarcely a decent inn north of the Neck. I've never seen such a vast emptiness. Where are all your people?"

The rising sun sent fingers of light through the pale white mists of dawn. A wide plain spread out beneath them, bare and brown, its flatness here and there relieved by long, low hummocks.

Both of these suggest that on either side of the kingsroad -- the main trade and travel artery of the North, where you would expect relatively dense population to reflect trade opportunities -- is an unusual emptiness, an emptiness speaking of an extremely low population density.

There is in fact no evidence that the southern regions are any more populace than the northern regions of the North. There are spots with high density -- Barrowton, White Harbor -- but it may well be that in the North, most population is clustered near forested regions (which are much more extant in the northern half) and the coast, and that the windswept plains that make up such a significant chunk of its southern area feature extremely few people per square mile.

[King Aerys the Just]

That's a curiously absolute statement for what amounts to opinion without actual supporting evidence.

What do we really know about the southern half of the North? What's actually said about the density of the population across this region?

Both of these suggest that on either side of the kingsroad -- the main trade and travel artery of the North -- is an usual emptiness, an emptiness speaking of a very low population density.

There is in fact no evidence that the southern regions are any more populace than the northern regions of the North. There are spots with high density -- Barrowton, White Harbor -- but it may well be that in the North, most population is clustered near forested regions and the coast, and that the windswept plains that make up such a significant chunk of its southern area feature extremely few people per square mile.

Not to mention rivers. There's a very strong correlation between large rivers and population density even today, and it should have been even stronger in an agricultural society, where the advantages to farming they offer become critical.

It's no coincidence that the earliest large civilizations arose around rivers, such as Eufrat and Tigris is Mesopotamia, the Nile in Egypt, the Yellow River in china, the Indus river in India etc.

The Northern houses that seem to be the most important also are the ones with sizeable rivers passing through their lands; The White Knife for the Manderlies and Starks, the Weeping Water for the Boltons, the Last River for the Umbers and Karstarks. If the Northern population is mainly clustered around such arteries it would explain why these lords are the powerful ones, while others such as Glovers, Torrhens and Rills seldom are spoken of as much. Even though they hold lands of similar sizes.

[Frey Pie]

Not to mention rivers. There's a very strong correlation between large rivers and population density even today, and it should have been even stronger in an agricultural society, where the advantages to farming they offer become critical.

It's no coincidence that the earliest large civilizations arose around rivers, such as Eufrat and Tigris is Mesopotamia, the Nile in Egypt, the Yellow River in china, the Indus river in India etc.

The Northern houses that seem to be the most important also are the ones with sizeable rivers passing through their lands; The White Knife for the Manderlies and Starks, the Weeping Water for the Boltons, the Last River for the Umbers and Karstarks. If the Northern population is mainly clustered around such arteries it would explain why these lords are the powerful ones, while others such as Glovers, Torrhens and Rills seldom are spoken of as much. Even though they hold lands of similar sizes.

Everything you say is correct but i dont see the lack of rivers in the Rills or the Barrowlands looking at the map http://gameofthrones.net/images/Westeros_Maps/map_of_westeros.jpg

Saltspear is as big as the Last River

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It's important if the kingdom they held was equivalent to a lordship in the rest of the world. I don't see anyone referring to the rulers of the Neck, Cracklaw Point and the Three Sisters with any degree of respect, even though they all probably have a bit of old King's blood in them as well.

http://1.bp.blogspot...arison+Size.jpg

Is this map accurate? In that case the Iron Islands are more like Northern Ireland in size, not Ireland proper and definately not Great Britain.

Well, the Ironborn once ruled every single coast of Westeros and later the entire Riverlands. Even today, their army (actually fleet) is of a similar size to the Baratheon or Martell one.

The map is off at least four times. Westeros is as big as South America, which is roughly 1.7 times bigger then entire Europe, and this map only covers west and part of central Europe.

[Daemul]

What is the population of each region, that would help us get an accurate reflection of army size. I don't think anyone has more then 100k though.

Westeros is as big as South America.

What? Are you sure? I don't think its anywhere near that big. Trips would take months instead of the weeks they take already.

[King Aerys the Just]

Everything you say is correct but i dont see the lack of rivers in the Rills or the Barrowlands looking at the map http://gameofthrones...of_westeros.jpg

Saltspear is as big as the Last River

Not necessarily, I don't think the map is meant to accurately show how wide they are. Even then, the fact that Barrowton is situated next to it should indicate that a lot of the Barrowland population is clustered around it too, given that large towns don't spring up without reason.

[King Aerys the Just]

Well, the Ironborn once ruled every single coast of Westeros and later the entire Riverlands. Even today, their army (actually fleet) is of a similar size to the Baratheon or Martell one.

The map is off at least four times. Westeros is as big as South America, which is roughly 1.7 times bigger then entire Europe, and this map only covers west and part of central Europe.

I know, and it doesn't make sense that they can field that many men, and more importantly ships.

http://awoiaf.wester...ex.php/Westeros

This Wiki gives the length of Westeros as 3000 miles, which is about 2/3rds of South America. Given that Westeros seems to be significantly slimmer as well, I don't see how it could be the size of that continent at all. More like half.

[Frey Pie]

Not necessarily, I don't think the map is meant to accurately show how wide they are. Even then, the fact that Barrowton is situated next to it should indicate that a lot of the Barrowland population is clustered around it too, given that large towns don't spring up without reason.

Yes but the fact that Barrowton is there doesnt mean that theres not many other smaller villages up and down the tributaries of it. Look where the Dreadfort is. Its got the Weeping river and mountainous areas, yet can field at least 4600 men, from a place that geographically doesnt look as attractive as the Barrowlands

[Daemul]

I know, and it doesn't make sense that they have that many men.

http://awoiaf.wester...ex.php/Westeros

This Wiki gives the length of Westeros as 3000 miles, which is about 2/3rds of South America. Given that Westeros seems to be significantly slimmer as well, I don't see how it could be the size of that continent at all. More like half.

Yeah, I am really struggling to believe that Westeros is anywhere near as big as SA, because the trips by land, even with horses, are much too short. I can believe it being 2/3rds of half it's size though.

[King Aerys the Just]

.

[King Aerys the Just]

Edit: Damn, hit the quote instead of edit button.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I know, and it doesn't make sense that they have that many men.

http://awoiaf.wester...ex.php/Westeros

This Wiki gives the length of Westeros as 3000 miles, which is about 2/3rds of South America. Given that Westeros seems to be significantly slimmer as well, I don't see how it could be the size of that continent at all. More like half.

Well, the Wiki. Not a source I'd trust. The source of the South America comparison is a SSM

Measuring the maps in my copy of Feast I come up with 1.6 cm for the width of the Wall, known to be 300 miles and ~20 cm From the Wall to the southern coast. That's at least 3750 miles. And I neglected the fact that the east-west length of the Wall in the far north would appear way bigger on paper than on a round planet.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Yeah, I am really struggling to believe that Westeros is anywhere near as big as SA, because the trips by land, even with horses, are much too short. I can believe it being 2/3rds of half it's size though.

Like the roughly three months from Winterfell to KL? Or the two years Arya wanders through the Riverlands? Or the better part of a year Brienne spends traveling from KL to Crackclaw Point and towards Riverrun?

Just that there are rarely travelogues shown doesn't mean the travels themselves are short.

[Ran]

Its got the Weeping river and mountainous areas, yet can field at least 4600 men,

Nothing says that the Boltons can raise 4600 men. You're using the 4,000 troops that returned with Roose, but those aren't all Bolton men. Just "mostly" Boltons. "Mostly" could be 2,001 people, for all we know. I'd certainly not place it at over 4,000.

And in contrast to the barrowlands, we literally do know nothing about the lands they rule except what we can extrapolate their military strength. The map may be feeling to reveal all sorts of things that would explain a strong populace in the region they rule as compared to that of the Barrowlands. All we know for sure are... the barrowlands are mostly empty, and the evidence of the barrowlands strength suggests the place isn't on par with a White Harbor or Dreadfort.

And mountainous areas aren't necessarily a bad thing, given what we learn of herding habits related to mountain meadows. And they doubtless help with natural resource extraction -- there's a reason historically that a lot of the more significant exploitation of ore veins happen in mountainous regions. That may not directly help population, but indirectly material wealth and the possibility of extracting it leads to population movement.

In any case, the barrowlands are bare and brown even in the late summer -- not fertile. Their almost empty, even in areas where you would expect the population to be relatively dense. They have one significant river that we know of, and its significance to the population is actually kind of unknown (I don't believe the river is even mentioned when we visit Barrowton!) Evidence of its martial strength is lacking, but there's nothing to suggest that Lady Dustin has thousands of men hiding in those barrows.

The place just doesn't have a great population to draw from, and that's probably because, again, big, windswept, infertile plains lacking other natural resources just aren't all that useful for high density.

[King Aerys the Just]

Well, the Wiki. Not a source I'd trust. The source of the South America comparison is a SSM

Measuring the maps in my copy of Feast I come up with 1.6 cm for the width of the Wall, known to be 300 miles and ~20 cm From the Wall to the southern coast. That's at least 3750 miles. And I neglected the fact that the east-west length of the Wall in the far north would appear way bigger on paper than on a round planet.

Well, I don't know. Measuring the map on that webpage I get the wall to be about 1/11th the length of Westeros, which points at roughly 3000 miles likes it says. I suppose one of these maps is drawn off scale.

[Frey Pie]

Nothing says that the Boltons can raise 4600 men. You're using the 4,000 troops that returned with Roose, but those aren't all Bolton men. Just "mostly" Boltons. "Mostly" could be 2,001 people, for all we know. I'd certainly not place it at over 4,000.

And in contrast to the barrowlands, we literally do know nothing about the lands they rule except what we can extrapolate their military strength. The map may be feeling to reveal all sorts of things that would explain a strong populace in the region they rule as compared to that of the Barrowlands. All we know for sure are... the barrowlands are mostly empty, and the evidence of the barrowlands strength suggests the place isn't on par with a White Harbor or Dreadfort.

And mountainous areas aren't necessarily a bad thing, given what we learn of herding habits related to mountain meadows. And they doubtless help with natural resource extraction -- there's a reason historically that a lot of the more significant exploitation of ore veins happen in mountainous regions. That may not directly help population, but indirectly material wealth and the possibility of extracting it leads to population movement.

In any case, the barrowlands are bare and brown even in the late summer -- not fertile. Their almost empty, even in areas where you would expect the population to be relatively dense. They have one significant river that we know of, and its significance to the population is actually kind of unknown (I don't believe the river is even mentioned when we visit Barrowton!) Evidence of its martial strength is lacking, but there's nothing to suggest that Lady Dustin has thousands of men hiding in those barrows.

The place just doesn't have a great population to draw from, and that's probably because, again, big, windswept, infertile plains lacking other natural resources just aren't all that useful for high density.

Where exactly are you getting all the info on how bare the barrowlands are? And how do we know theres empty areas where there should be people? Robert sticks to the kingsroad as far as we know so hes only seeing that part of the North when he asks where all the people are

Well we know that Bolton gathered up a number of Karstarks men. How many we cant say but i cant imagine there were that many of them-they pretty much scattered in all directions. Did Roose bring back any other allied Northerners? Dont think so IIRC. So by the majority i would think its definately over 3000. Then Ramsay gets 600 men pretty much straight away so 4000 isnt unattainable

[Free Northman]

Nothing says that the Boltons can raise 4600 men. You're using the 4,000 troops that returned with Roose, but those aren't all Bolton men. Just "mostly" Boltons. "Mostly" could be 2,001 people, for all we know. I'd certainly not place it at over 4,000.

And in contrast to the barrowlands, we literally do know nothing about the lands they rule except what we can extrapolate their military strength. The map may be feeling to reveal all sorts of things that would explain a strong populace in the region they rule as compared to that of the Barrowlands. All we know for sure are... the barrowlands are mostly empty, and the evidence of the barrowlands strength suggests the place isn't on par with a White Harbor or Dreadfort.

And mountainous areas aren't necessarily a bad thing, given what we learn of herding habits related to mountain meadows. And they doubtless help with natural resource extraction -- there's a reason historically that a lot of the more significant exploitation of ore veins happen in mountainous regions. That may not directly help population, but indirectly material wealth and the possibility of extracting it leads to population movement.

In any case, the barrowlands are bare and brown even in the late summer -- not fertile. Their almost empty, even in areas where you would expect the population to be relatively dense. They have one significant river that we know of, and its significance to the population is actually kind of unknown (I don't believe the river is even mentioned when we visit Barrowton!) Evidence of its martial strength is lacking, but there's nothing to suggest that Lady Dustin has thousands of men hiding in those barrows.

The place just doesn't have a great population to draw from, and that's probably because, again, big, windswept, infertile plains lacking other natural resources just aren't all that useful for high density.

Robert's reference to the Barrowlands as empty is in comparison to the Crownlands and Riverlands he has travelled through up to the Neck. But we know in fact that the lands become even emptier along the King's Road once you pass Winterfell. We know this from Bran and Jon's POV's, where inns basically disappear, and the road becomes a rutted track.

So if Robert was complaining about empty lands in the Barrowlands, he would have been doubly astonished if he dared venture north of Winterfell.

So Roberts comments on the nature of the Barrowlands are irrelevent as far as a comparison between the population density of the Barrowlands and the Karstark or Umber lands are concerned.

The Karstark and Umber lands are not far south of the Haunted Forest, while the Barrowlands and Rills are a thousand miles south of the Wall. As far south of the Umber lands as the Riverlands are from the Barrowlands.