Winning Northern independence

[Frey Pie]

The difference is that the Russians could raise armies that matched or outnumbered their foes. In WWII, at its peak there were about 3.5 million German troops against 6 million Soviets. When Napoleon invaded, he only had a small numeral advantage (500.000-600.000 French and allies against 400.000-500.000 Russians). So while Russia's climate may be similar to ASoIaF's North, it wasn't nearly as outnumbered as the North would be in the event of a Southern invasion.

The only land way into Russia isnt the Neck though, a small piece of land easily defended, and horrible to attack. Russia could be invaded with multiple armies far easier, although you are correct there is a big diff in numbers

[Free Northman]

The Russians were a vastly inferior army to the Germans. Russian T55 tanks couldn't even penetrate the armor of the German Tiger tanks. And the German army was far better trained, commanded and equipped than the Russians. That's why the Russians needed large numbers.

The Northern armies in contrast are every bit as fierce, astutely commanded and equipped as the average southern army - but far more hardy in the northern conditions. Hence the need for huge southern numerical advantages to even think of evening the odds.

[Gurkhal]

Which three points? Thing is if the Northerners really wanna hold out theres not much the South can do i think. Their army is big enough to be dangerous to any force and spread out over that amount of land can land hundreds of pinpricks all throughout the enemy armies. At least three armies will be needed to conquer the North but how do you coordinate these and keep them supplied over hundreds of miles? How many men can the Iron Throne afford to bring to bear on them? The neck cant be taken from the south hence the need for an army from the west coast. WH also has to be taken, hence the possible need for another. WF and the Dreadfort are two of the strongest castles in Westeros, and with a sizeeable garrison can be self sufficient. It would be a nightmare. Possible for a brilliant general perhaps but i dont think it would be worth it

1. Stay in the North

2. Fight to preserve numbers

3. Be saved by a supernatural miracle

In terms of coordination the communications available at the times means that most unites will act independent but knowing their part of a larger strategy. You can see that this happened several times in the books and without any larger problem. Most senior lords who would be chosen to command would be well suitble for commanding without someone looking over their shoulder.

As to supplies, I belive that the term used is a combination of sea transports and living off the land. Given that the North has a huge coastline and with most major castles situatied near the waterways I think that most of the population is also likely to be close to the water. From that on its reaving style where the superior Southern fleets can rampage almost at will while the Northmen must spread out or find the economical base on which their warfare depends is demolished.

[Free Northman]

T34 tanks, I meant.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

As to supplies, I belive that the term used is a combination of sea transports and living off the land. Given that the North has a huge coastline and with most major castles situatied near the waterways I think that most of the population is also likely to be close to the water. From that on its reaving style where the superior Southern fleets can rampage almost at will while the Northmen must spread out or find the economical base on which their warfare depends is demolished.

Sea transports drop their load at ports. The Northern ports are several weeks of travel from the important castles of the North. Hardly any supply train would reach the southern armies. And for living off the land you'd need sufficient farms to plunder, but these are spread out over a huge area, distinctly lowering the max army sizes possible - if they aren't burned in advance.

White Harbour may be the most vulnerable castle in the North, but it's strong enough to withstand any half-assed siege and sufficient forces couldn't be supplied across the Bite. The besieging forces would starve before the garrison.

[Frey Pie]

1. Stay in the North

2. Fight to preserve numbers

3. Be saved by a supernatural miracle

In terms of coordination the communications available at the times means that most unites will act independent but knowing their part of a larger strategy. You can see that this happened several times in the books and without any larger problem. Most senior lords who would be chosen to command would be well suitble for commanding without someone looking over their shoulder.

As to supplies, I belive that the term used is a combination of sea transports and living off the land. Given that the North has a huge coastline and with most major castles situatied near the waterways I think that most of the population is also likely to be close to the water. From that on its reaving style where the superior Southern fleets can rampage almost at will while the Northmen must spread out or find the economical base on which their warfare depends is demolished.

So you would split your fleet into many small fleets? Its pretty easy to combat this though tbh and i cant see it no being done-either have your smallfolk migrate inland or pull them into the local holdfasts. The Souths advantage is in their ships, true, but once they get onto land they are vulnerable. Also as has been pointed out, a beach landing is extremely hard. If they plan to disembark somewhere and the Northern forces catch them theyll pay a high price. People talk about the North building a fleet but im not sure what the point is. Theyre never going to be able to match the South in numbers or experiece. Id keep some hidden for a possible counterattack but no major naval engagement. Also for your live off the land and resupply from sea-ships will constantly be lost and your foraging parties will constantly be attacked.

See the thing is strategy rarely stays the same in war, just like a battle plan in battle. What if Tywins coming up the west depending on Randyll having taken MC and instead is caught between two Stark armies? Robb Starks strategy changed, as did Tywins and Stannis during the war. Yet all were in charge of just one army and so could adapt. This wouldnt be the case in the North.

To invade the North i would ignore WH for now. March the bulk of your army to just south of the neck. Im not sure if this is possible but attempt to take it. Possibly flood the neck with an army of thousands lightly armoured men staying away from MC. Take out the crannogmen if possible and then pincer MC and march up the causeway. The lightarmoured men would all have to be experts at tracking, archery etc. It will be costly but this is the only sure way to get a supply chain going. At the same time id have sent a fleet to anchour at Lannisport and Seagard getting the attention of the North. Simultaneously send a fleet towards Braavos and swing back. Dont play by the rules. Anchor at Eastwatch by the Sea, march to the Kingsroad and take out WF. Try to find a beachhead ont he west then and take the castles. WH can eventually be invested by sea and land and should fall. Flood the North with money and food to get the people back on side if possible and respect their religion.

Thats a seriously hard plan to pull off though.Im not even sure of the Neck can be taken at all, except with a concerted attack like what Robb planned.The Reeds and Manderlys are important to the Norths success

[Lord Varys]

On that population raising thing in the North or in Westeros in general:

We don't have any numbers about the military strength or the population pre-Conquest, so this is all conjecture, but the fact alone that there is no longer a constant threat of war should have enabled the population to grow especially if the Iron Throne created a better overall infrastructure.

Then we have to consider that the North lost pretty much no one during Aegon's Conquest, was most certainly not involved in the Faith Militant uprising. Yes, it's possible that the Starks participated in/suffered through the Dance of Dragons, but what we know about the First Blackfyre Rebellions indicates that the Starks stayed out of this one.

GRRM stated that House Stark had its decent share of trouble during the last century (Skagos rebelled, wildling attacks, Ironborn raiding during Aerys's I reign etc.), but generally speaking the life in the North must have been way better during the Targaryen reign than before.

[Free Northman]

On that population raising thing in the North or in Westeros in general:

We don't have any numbers about the military strength or the population pre-Conquest, so this is all conjecture, but the fact alone that there is no longer a constant threat of war should have enabled the population to grow especially if the Iron Throne created a better overall infrastructure.

Then we have to consider that the North lost pretty much no one during Aegon's Conquest, was most certainly not involved in the Faith Militant uprising. Yes, it's possible that the Starks participated in/suffered through the Dance of Dragons, but what we know about the First Blackfyre Rebellions indicates that the Starks stayed out of this one.

GRRM stated that House Stark had its decent share of trouble during the last century (Skagos rebelled, wildling attacks, Ironborn raiding during Aerys's I reign etc.), but generally speaking the life in the North must have been way better during the Targaryen reign than before.

The evidence disputes that, actually.

We see abandoned holdfasts all along the Stony Shore, which is far less populated than in the past. We see abandoned holdfasts throughout the Gift, which is less populated than in the past.

And we hear that Torhenn Stark took a 30,000 strong Northern host south beyond the Neck, compared to Robb's 20,000 today. This when 55,000 was the greatest host ever raised in the history of Westeros, and only achieved by combining the forces of the Reach and the West.

All of the above indicates that the North had a comparatively higher population pre-Targaryen conquest than after it.

[The Red Pope]

On that population raising thing in the North or in Westeros in general:

We don't have any numbers about the military strength or the population pre-Conquest, so this is all conjecture, but the fact alone that there is no longer a constant threat of war should have enabled the population to grow especially if the Iron Throne created a better overall infrastructure.

Then we have to consider that the North lost pretty much no one during Aegon's Conquest, was most certainly not involved in the Faith Militant uprising. Yes, it's possible that the Starks participated in/suffered through the Dance of Dragons, but what we know about the First Blackfyre Rebellions indicates that the Starks stayed out of this one.

GRRM stated that House Stark had its decent share of trouble during the last century (Skagos rebelled, wildling attacks, Ironborn raiding during Aerys's I reign etc.), but generally speaking the life in the North must have been way better during the Targaryen reign than before.

I think that the best improvement is that in proparbly became a lot richer as well. Without custom fees between the kingdoms and a common currency, trade is alot more simple and free. Leading to higher profits for the tradesmen and in turn, more money for the commoners. I imagne that the North was much more of a backwater in trading terms before the conquest.

[King Aerys the Just]

I think that the best improvement is that in proparbly became a lot richer as well. Without custom fees between the kingdoms and a common currency, trade is alot more simple and free. Leading to higher profits for the tradesmen and in turn, more money for the commoners. I imagne that the North was much more of a backwater in trading terms before the conquest.

I agree. Not to mention the fewer wars.

[Frey Pie]

The evidence disputes that, actually.

We see abandoned holdfasts all along the Stony Shore, which is far less populated than in the past. We see abandoned holdfasts throughout the Gift, which is less populated than in the past.

And we hear that Torhenn Stark took a 30,000 strong Northern host south beyond the Neck, compared to Robb's 20,000 today. This when 55,000 was the greatest host ever raised in the history of Westeros, and only achieved by combining the forces of the Reach and the West.

All of the above indicates that the North had a comparatively higher population pre-Targaryen conquest than after it.

The numbers are fairly easily explained by the fact that Torrhen had plenty of time to raise men. Robb had diddly squat. We know the North has far more men then 20000. As for the Stoney Shore-explained by Ironborn raids, especially during Dagon Greyjoys time, while the Gift can be explained by the weakening of the Watch and possibly because with a King Beyond the Wall raiding has become more concerted

[The Red Pope]

We see abandoned holdfasts throughout the Gift, which is less populated than in the past.

The reason for that is the shrinking NW wich in turn is (at least in part) due to fewer wars where the defeated take the black. So overall that might not be a bad thing.

[E-Ro]

And we hear that Torhenn Stark took a 30,000 strong Northern host south beyond the Neck, compared to Robb's 20,000 today. This when 55,000 was the greatest host ever raised in the history of Westeros, and only achieved by combining the forces of the Reach and the West.

I think the more northern men at arms pre conquest issue is due to monetary reasons, not population issues. For example when manderly withholds his taxes from kl he is able to build a fleet, I have said it before the norths issue is economic not the population.

[Lord Varys]

The decline of the Night's Watch has nothing to do with a (supposed) population raise in the overall North. In fact, it has already been said that the Gift was depopulated due to the inability of the Night's Watch to protect the people living there. They went down south and settled in Umber land, or joined the mountain clans.

As to the Stony Shore, well, it's big time was most likely over when Brandon the Burner burned his father's fleet. Remember, Brandon the Shipwright explored the Sunset Sea and never returned. The North once had a harbor and a fleet at its west coast.

Dagon Greyjoy's raids would have had an impact as well.

As to the 55,000 of the Gardener-Lannister host: Ran already stated that it's quite likely that both kings mistrusted each other and did not muster their full strength to march against the Targaryens. And we should also keep in mind that the effects of a united Realm and the peace it brought should be felt mostly in the fertile Reach, which before had to protect its borders to the Westerlands, the Stormlands, the Riverlands/Ironborn, and Dorne. After the Conquest only Dorne was left, and Dorne faced a united front, which should have enabled the Reach men to be even more fertile than before, if you get my meaning. And the same would also be true for the West, although likely to a lesser degree.

So it's quite likely that the Gardeners full strength was not the 80,000-100,000 the Tyrells command now, simply because the Tyrells reaped the benefits of the lasting peace.

[King Aerys the Just]

What you said about the Reach makes a lot of sense, Lord Varys!

In addition to being surrounded by foreign states and lacking good natural borders, the famed fertility and wealth of the Reach would have made it an even more tempting target for its enemies. Perhaps its situation pre-Aegon used to be similar to that of the Riverlands during the latest wars ; the battleground of Westeros. In that case the "Pax Targaryana" may very well have benefitted the Reachmen (?) most of all, yes.

[Free Northman]

I'm not suggesting that the Reach and Westerlands raised their full strength on the Field of Fire, just like I'm not suggesting that Robb Stark raised his entire strength for the War of the Five Kings.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander though, and I insist that Torhenn Stark didn't raise his entire strength either.

The point is, as his first host, Tywin Lannister today can raise 35,000 men. As a first host, Torhenn Stark 300 years ago could raise 30,000.

That means 300 years ago, the North could raise virtually an identical host to what the West can raise today. Today, the balance seems to have swung somewhat.

I agree that the reason is most likely economic, in that under Tywin the Lannisters have become much richer, while since the Conquest, the North has become much poorer thanks to taxes being paid to the Iron Throne for nothing in return.

[King Aerys the Just]

I agree that the reason is most likely economic, in that under Tywin the Lannisters have become much richer, while since the Conquest, the North has become much poorer thanks to taxes being paid to the Iron Throne for nothing in return.

They get more peace, free trade, and royal protection (especially in the form of a huge national navy). Sounds like a decent deal to me, even if guys like Manderly, Stark and co. can't get as large mountains of gold to wallow around in as they did before.

It's not as if the Crown can have all that large expenses anyway (the disastrous reign under Robert notwithstanding) since the King has so little direct power. He has his Fleet, some Gold Cloaks, and throws tournaments now and then. Alot of that should be possible to finance from his personal fief the Crownlands alone, to be honest.

[Lord Varys]

Both Tywin and Robb had to raise their (original) armies rather quickly. Tywin could not foresee what was going to happen, he reacted to Tyrion's abduction just as Robb reacted to Ned's imprisonment (and Tywin's original plan was to lure Ned into a trap and exchange him for Tyrion).

Considering that the North is vast and sparsely populated whereas the West is much smaller, it's rather evident that Tywin could raise much more troops in less or roughly the same time Robb had. All Robb did was raise the men sworn directly to Winterfell, and command his bannermen to join him as soon as possible with as many men as possible.

Assuming that King Torrhen Stark called his banners the moment he heard that the Targaryens and their dragons had invaded Westeros he would have had time enough to gather most if not all his forces. And if Torrhen was not as stupid as Robb all he need do to protect his rear was to leave a strong garrison at Moat Cailin. Considering that there was an alliance between the Gardeners and the Lannisters, it's not impossible that Torrhen marched south because he answered a call for help from either Argilac Durrandon or Harren Hoare. Keeping in mind that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch at this time was Harren's brother, I'd bet that Torrhen marched south to help King Harren.

But it might also be the case that this whole dragon killing weirwood plan was the motivation, we don't know that yet. Either way, it would make little sense for Torrhen to march into enemy territory (the the South was enemy territory in any case!) not in his full strength.

[Ingelheim]

I always thoguth that the army which Robb comanded was only a part of his entire army.

[Free Northman]

Both Tywin and Robb had to raise their (original) armies rather quickly. Tywin could not foresee what was going to happen, he reacted to Tyrion's abduction just as Robb reacted to Ned's imprisonment (and Tywin's original plan was to lure Ned into a trap and exchange him for Tyrion).

Considering that the North is vast and sparsely populated whereas the West is much smaller, it's rather evident that Tywin could raise much more troops in less or roughly the same time Robb had. All Robb did was raise the men sworn directly to Winterfell, and command his bannermen to join him as soon as possible with as many men as possible.

Assuming that King Torrhen Stark called his banners the moment he heard that the Targaryens and their dragons had invaded Westeros he would have had time enough to gather most if not all his forces. And if Torrhen was not as stupid as Robb all he need do to protect his rear was to leave a strong garrison at Moat Cailin. Considering that there was an alliance between the Gardeners and the Lannisters, it's not impossible that Torrhen marched south because he answered a call for help from either Argilac Durrandon or Harren Hoare. Keeping in mind that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch at this time was Harren's brother, I'd bet that Torrhen marched south to help King Harren.

But it might also be the case that this whole dragon killing weirwood plan was the motivation, we don't know that yet. Either way, it would make little sense for Torrhen to march into enemy territory (the the South was enemy territory in any case!) not in his full strength.

Based on the facts, the largest Westerlands host we've seen raised was 35,000. And the largest Northern one was 30,000. The 30,000 was an army projected south of the Neck.

The reserves Stafford raised that were slaughtered at Oxcross were the "sweepings of Lannisport", and not part of what Tywin deemed suitable for his frontline army. If Torhenn's host needed more men, he could no doubt likewise have resorted to the "sweepings of the North" as well.

Based on the above, the North and West's total forces seem pretty similar.