Strength of the Northern Houses

[Siddard Stark]

Well they wanted Bran to go north of the wall so winterfell, its troops and smallfolk all had to die by Bolton hands. And for the plot to continue Robb had to die and alot of the Northern houses become weaker for the Bolton-Frey Arc to continue.

[Muggle]

in the threads i have seen that extensively discuss this. House Stark has a smaller amount of forces then most hoses in the north.

[Game Of Thrones]

in the threads i have seen that extensively discuss this. House Stark has a smaller amount of forces then most hoses in the north.

Not true. House Stark (4500 men) can probably summon more men than House Bolton (4000 men), and House Manderly is not 'most Houses in the North', it's one House.

[Lord Reaver]

Yeah, but as BBE just said, it wasn't so much that they were kids as that the Bran-Rodrik-Luwin team were forced by the plot to "carry the idiot ball" and first let Winterfell get taken by the Ironborn (which makes no sense) and then allow Ramsay to massacre all their troops.

Heh. Gotta love how when something happens that goes against the Starks, it "makes no sense". Even though it's explained in the books in a completely reasonable manner.

Yet, when something happens to benefit the Starks, out of the blue and with little explanation or even attempt at making it logical, say a Direwolf suddenly finding a magical shortcut or heck, a group of three kids, one woman and a half-wit making it all the way past the wall, then it makes perfect sense. Go figure.

[James Arryn]

Cerwyn would seem to (improbably) be among the more powerful houses. They have at least one subject House themselves, and the early spat between a Bolton and Cerwyn man is discussed in terms of the potential to set off the kind of divide that would seem to require roughly proportional strength.

[Arakan]

Before I go into further detail I just want to clarify one thing (valid for all those "house strength" threads); when we speak of raising troops, do we all have the same understanding what that actually means? I am always missing the time component in those threads...

When a figure like 45k is mentioned for instance, I understand this as the number of troops who could be deployed more or less simultaneously (of course not in one host). Which means the above stated figure is not static and absolute but limited to a relatively narrow time window.

Which brings me to my final point: if we want to establish the true potential of the respective regions/houses, wouldnt it be more reasonable to start with establishing the population potential (absolute and density), the socio-economic structure and the socio-cultural structure? And when we have established that, to estimate possible house strengths?

I know this might sound like nitpicking but otherwise I always have the feeling those figures or at least some of them are rather arbitrarily chosen.

[Dragon88]

Before I go into further detail I just want to clarify one thing (valid for all those "house strength" threads); when we speak of raising troops, do we all have the same understanding what that actually means? I am always missing the time component in those threads...

When a figure like 45k is mentioned for instance, I understand this as the number of troops who could be deployed more or less simultaneously (of course not in one host). Which means the above stated figure is not static and absolute but limited to a relatively narrow time window.

Which brings me to my final point: if we want to establish the true potential of the respective regions/houses, wouldnt it be more reasonable to start with establishing the population potential (absolute and density), the socio-economic structure and the socio-cultural structure? And when we have established that, to estimate possible house strengths?

I know this might sound like nitpicking but otherwise I always have the feeling those figures or at least some of them are rather arbitrarily chosen.

Well according to GRRM those are the numbers and they are when they are in full strength. Now because of the war and everything, obviously the North can't raise 45,000 anymore.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Heh. Gotta love how when something happens that goes against the Starks, it "makes no sense". Even though it's explained in the books in a completely reasonable manner.

Yet, when something happens to benefit the Starks, out of the blue and with little explanation or even attempt at making it logical, say a Direwolf suddenly finding a magical shortcut or heck, a group of three kids, one woman and a half-wit making it all the way past the wall, then it makes perfect sense. Go figure.

Meh. I'd be with you in every other instance. But that passage is just a giant fuck-up by GRRM courtesy of plot.

Before I go into further detail I just want to clarify one thing (valid for all those "house strength" threads); when we speak of raising troops, do we all have the same understanding what that actually means? I am always missing the time component in those threads...

When a figure like 45k is mentioned for instance, I understand this as the number of troops who could be deployed more or less simultaneously (of course not in one host). Which means the above stated figure is not static and absolute but limited to a relatively narrow time window.

Which brings me to my final point: if we want to establish the true potential of the respective regions/houses, wouldnt it be more reasonable to start with establishing the population potential (absolute and density), the socio-economic structure and the socio-cultural structure? And when we have established that, to estimate possible house strengths?

I know this might sound like nitpicking but otherwise I always have the feeling those figures or at least some of them are rather arbitrarily chosen.

The problem is that we lack information about the population potential and the other factors. Actually, our best bet on getting that is reverse-engineering the army numbers, they are somewhat reasonably established.

Well according to GRRM those are the numbers and they are when they are in full strength. Now because of the war and everything, obviously the North can't raise 45,000 anymore.

Nope. Never saw a credible source for that. If you got one, I'd be overjoyed to see it.

[The Fallen]

Heh. Gotta love how when something happens that goes against the Starks, it "makes no sense". Even though it's explained in the books in a completely reasonable manner.

Yet, when something happens to benefit the Starks, out of the blue and with little explanation or even attempt at making it logical, say a Direwolf suddenly finding a magical shortcut or heck, a group of three kids, one woman and a half-wit making it all the way past the wall, then it makes perfect sense. Go figure.

I try not to do that. It's unfair to Martin and the story. He had to come up with something to get Theon in Winterfell and weaken the Starks and I think he did a decent job. So yes, he had to make Rodrik Cassell carry the idiot ball and we have to suspend our disbelief.

By the way, how is a predator sniffing out a goat track magical? Any self-respecting predator would have done the same.

Arakan,

Those issues; population, economy, has come up in earlier threads. But I agree that there should be some criteria for the makeup of armies and navies and such.

[Arakan]

Well according to GRRM those are the numbers and they are when they are in full strength. Now because of the war and everything, obviously the North can't raise 45,000 anymore.

But what does "full strength" in a realistic pre-industrial setting mean?

I always understood it this way that when GRRM (?) gave those figures he wanted to establish some general dimensions of maximum active troops which is reasonable, not the overall and total recruiting potential. Without further context those figures dont help that much. For instance what about replenishments after a reasonable time? As I said I dont see those figures as absolute.

We have to take more dynamic factors into consideration especially the longer the war goes on.

ETA: it's actual all about static (short-term) vs. dynamic (long-term). The long-term potential of the North for instance must be much higher than the Iron Islands due to a larger population reservoir, even considering a presumably much higher mobilization rate for the Ironborn. So the maximum active IB strength might be 50% of that North but the replenishment potential will be much higher for the North so that in the long-term the North should be able to field many times more men than the IB.

[Pecan]

in the threads i have seen that extensively discuss this. House Stark has a smaller amount of forces then most hoses in the north.

I've seen people claim this. It may be true of Manderly, but is almost certainly untrue of the other houses.

[Pecan]

Well they wanted Bran to go north of the wall so winterfell, its troops and smallfolk all had to die by Bolton hands. And for the plot to continue Robb had to die and alot of the Northern houses become weaker for the Bolton-Frey Arc to continue.

Right. Exactly. And for that to happen, Rodrik and Luwin had to basically be incompetent at their jobs, not to mention Robb acting the idiot and breaking a marriage alliance with a key ally.

[Arakan]

I've seen people claim this. It may be true of Manderly, but is almost certainly untrue of the other houses.

I would like to support this.

there are simply not enough information to jump to such a conclusion that the Starks can muster less troops than most of the Northern Houses.

It's a hypothesis and as such justified. But it must be supported by valid arguments, not further opinions.

[Pecan]

Heh. Gotta love how when something happens that goes against the Starks, it "makes no sense". Even though it's explained in the books in a completely reasonable manner.

Yet, when something happens to benefit the Starks, out of the blue and with little explanation or even attempt at making it logical, say a Direwolf suddenly finding a magical shortcut or heck, a group of three kids, one woman and a half-wit making it all the way past the wall, then it makes perfect sense. Go figure.

Winterfell has supposedly stood for thousands of years, yet Theon and a handful of Ironborn are able to just take it? How is that reasonable? And then Rodrik, a professional soldier who's lived in the north his entire life and knows all about the Boltons and Ramsay Snow, is simply killed and his entire force massacred. I'll go back and re-read it but it sure seems like a lot of bad luck for Team Stark.

[Nihlus]

Well GRRM stated that the actual strength of Dorne is 25k spears.

He stated that exact number? Where?

As Far as The North is corcerned Robb raised 18k could have raised more if he had time, then Rodrik raised 2k, Ramsey abt 1k, Northern tribes+Morment and Glovers add 4k men to stannis's army later on.

Wasn't Robb's host 18k BEFORE the Manderlys sent 1,500 additional men? That would then make it about 20k. Also, Stannis reports that he has 5,000 men after Deepwood Motte with the additions of the mountain clansmen (minus the ones who died in the battle), Mormonts, Glovers, and survivors of Rodrik's host that was routed by Ramsay's 600. These, plus maybe 1,300 of his own Reachmen/Crownlanders (he lost a few at the Wall, and left some there, from his original force of 1,500) brings his total host to 5,000. So then the new men the North mustered would be moderately less than 4,000; more like 3,000-3,500, maybe 2,000-2,500 of which would be mountain clansmen (Jon estimated their available power as "2,000 men, perhaps 3,000", and they may have taken some notable casualties in the battle, so this seems reasonable). I don't count mountain clansmen when doing a count like this, as they are just not on par with average men-at-arms. They're basically wildlings. I don't count Skagos, either.

Anyway, a few minor questions about Northern strength:

Would 13-14 thousand be a reasonable number for overall Madnerly men at the moment? 6,000 troops, 1,000 city watch (White Harbor has one, right?), and 6,000-7,000 to operate those war galleys?

How many men have the Manderlys lost in the war so far?

This may have been explained and I missed it... but at the Red Wedding, Roose has ~3,500 men, mostly his own Boltons, with some Karstarks. After, while he's marching back to the North, he has 4,000 men, which are stated to be mostly Dreadfort men. Who were those other 500? Red Wedding survivors?

Are there any Karstark troops ready to fight for Roose at Winterfell right now?

Winterfell has supposedly stood for thousands of years, yet Theon and a handful of Ironborn are able to just take it? How is that reasonable? And then Rodrik, a professional soldier who's lived in the north his entire life and knows all about the Boltons and Ramsay Snow, is simply killed and his entire force massacred. I'll go back and re-read it but it sure seems like a lot of bad luck for Team Stark.

The most improbable part I find about this whole thing is that Ramsay managed to butcher the entire 2,000 man army, with only his 600 man host, while only losing like 30 men himself. I don't think the element of surprise can account for such a massacre.

[Universal Sword Donor]

He stated that exact number? Where?

Wasn't Robb's host 18k BEFORE the Manderlys sent 1,500 additional men? That would then make it about 20k. Also, Stannis reports that he has 5,000 men after Deepwood Motte with the additions of the mountain clansmen (minus the ones who died in the battle), Mormonts, Glovers, and survivors of Rodrik's host that was routed by Ramsay's 600. These, plus maybe 1,300 of his own Reachmen/Crownlanders (he lost a few at the Wall, and left some there, from his original force of 1,500) brings his total host to 5,000. So then the new men the North mustered would be moderately less than 4,000; more like 3,000-3,500, maybe 2,000-2,500 of which would be mountain clansmen (Jon estimated their available power as "2,000 men, perhaps 3,000", and they may have taken some notable casualties in the battle, so this seems reasonable). I don't count mountain clansmen when doing a count like this, as they are just not on par with average men-at-arms. They're basically wildlings. I don't count Skagos, either.

Anyway, a few minor questions about Northern strength:

Would 13-14 thousand be a reasonable number for overall Madnerly men at the moment? 6,000 troops, 1,000 city watch (White Harbor has one, right?), and 6,000-7,000 to operate those war galleys?

How many men have the Manderlys lost in the war so far?

This may have been explained and I missed it... but at the Red Wedding, Roose has ~3,500 men, mostly his own Boltons, with some Karstarks. After, while he's marching back to the North, he has 4,000 men, which are stated to be mostly Dreadfort men. Who were those other 500? Red Wedding survivors?

Are there any Karstark troops ready to fight for Roose at Winterfell right now?

The most improbable part I find about this whole thing is that Ramsay managed to butcher the entire 2,000 man army, with only his 600 man host, while only losing like 30 men himself. I don't think the element of surprise can account for such a massacre.

Robb's house was something like 12K when it left WF. They gathered more as they marched south and camped at MC.

Their force consists of near 1,500 men, including some 20 knights with their squires, 200 mounted lances, swordsmen and freeriders, and the remaining foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents.

Manderly, at worst, has lost about 1500 men. That would leave his present strength 5K to 6K, and he's aggressively recruiting: "Any boy stands five feet tall can find a place in his lordship’s barracks, long as he can hold a spear.” We don't specifically know if WH has a city watch, but we know their are barracks in the city. That makes it fairly safe to assume that it does.

As to the WF massacre, well I don't see it as that big of a stretch. Rodrik's force was on mostly foot and relatively inexperienced. The Dreadfort garrison seems to have been mostly mounted. Rodrik was the first casualty. Cerywin is 14 and Tallhart was left behind as castellan for a reason. They weren't particularly deep (or well off) in the leadership department. Once the trap had been sprung, cavalry routing unformed infantry isn't really that surprising. The only part I found a bit unbelievable was losing 30 guys.

[Nihlus]

Yeah, that's what I said (or meant, at least). I can (reluctantly) buy the idea that 600 mounted men can surprise and rout 2,000 troops who just lost their leader. What I can't buy is that Ramsay's troops would take next to no casualties.

Didn't Manderly also send men to Rodrik's 2,000 man host?

[Universal Sword Donor]

Yeah, that's what I said (or meant, at least). I can (reluctantly) buy the idea that 600 mounted men can surprise and rout 2,000 troops who just lost their leader. What I can't buy is that Ramsay's troops would take next to no casualties.

Didn't Manderly also send men to Rodrik's 2,000 man host?

Yeah we don't know how many though. Definitely not enough to make a difference in a pitched battle. At least half of the 2K men were Cerwyn, Stark, or Tallhart. Probably a few hundred.

[Lord Reaver]

Winterfell has supposedly stood for thousands of years, yet Theon and a handful of Ironborn are able to just take it?

Having stood for thousands of years doesn't mean it hasn't ever been taken. And Theon knows it in and out, something very, very few attackers would.

How is that reasonable? And then Rodrik, a professional soldier who's lived in the north his entire life and knows all about the Boltons and Ramsay Snow, is simply killed and his entire force massacred. I'll go back and re-read it but it sure seems like a lot of bad luck for Team Stark.

Rodrik knows the Boltons as someone who haven't rebelled in a long, long time. It is very unlikely he knows what Ramsay looks like, though, because Roose had kept him a secret up until recently. It's not like he's been introduced into polite society.

Finally, that was my point. Bad luck happens just as good luck. The goat trail can only be explained as a fantastic bit of good luck. The sack of Winterfell is an example of the opposite. If you have a problem with one, then you ought to have a problem with the other.

[Kingmonkey]

When a figure like 45k is mentioned for instance, I understand this as the number of troops who could be deployed more or less simultaneously (of course not in one host). Which means the above stated figure is not static and absolute but limited to a relatively narrow time window.

Which brings me to my final point: if we want to establish the true potential of the respective regions/houses, wouldnt it be more reasonable to start with establishing the population potential (absolute and density), the socio-economic structure and the socio-cultural structure? And when we have established that, to estimate possible house strengths?

I know this might sound like nitpicking but otherwise I always have the feeling those figures or at least some of them are rather arbitrarily chosen.

Not nitpicking, absolutely vital to the question!

We can only really guess and take our own pick of what historical parallels to use, but I think it's fair to assume that there are multiple components to the military forces being raised.

1. Professional soldiery

This would be the household guard attached to each noble house. Full time soldiers/guards, well equipped and trained, far more effective in battle than other troops. In the south and probably Whiteharbour, there would be more of a split between mounted knights and town guards, but in the north in general they're more homogenous, all mounted (though not necessarily as cavalry, that might just be so they can be sent to deal with problems quickly). These are expensive to maintain (especially as after service they would often be granted some land) so you'll get more with the richer houses, the more ambitious houses, and those with large families (good place for younger siblings of the family). It's fair to guess that the Starks would have a much higher ratio of professional soldiers than the other houses. They may raise only similar numbers overall as some of the other houses, but it should be remembered that general levies of all the houses are nominally Stark levies under the command of their local lords. Their professional standing army would likely be much more potent though.

Guesses? Perhaps 4-500 Starks, similar for Manderlay (slightly different military model than the rest; he says 100 landed knights, most of these would have a few men), 250 Bolton (they're ambitious) and a dozen to a hundred or so for the other houses.

2. "professional" levies

The bulk of the soldiery would be levies, and there are a lot of different possible models for the levy system. Let's make a guess and say that the military responsibility of the feudal lords of the North is to raise and train a rotating levy of something like 1 soldier per 5 households for 2 months of each year. For the 4 million population estimate of the north, this comes out as an overall army of about 25,000 at any given time, which fits the figures we have nicely. This is part of the system of feudal taxation based on land holding. While much of the food and equipment would be provided as part of the tax by the peasants who provide the manpower, the lords will provide training and equipment, and maintain horses for a proportion of them. The 2 months of a year figure would be pretty fluid; if you keep people off the land longer then the land becomes less productive, and your expenses higher, if you let them return home sooner you have less soldiers available. Around harvest when more people are needed on the land the figure would be lower, when there's not much else to do or when the kingdom is threatened, it would be higher.

Where this type of levy is really important is the replenishment rate for an army. There's only so much money to go around, and lords can only support a limited number of soldiers at any one time, but it's relatively quick to replace losses as they're trained and ready to be called up. This suggests that from the figures we have for Robb's army, the actual military strength of the North is more like 160,000 men (yep!) but there simply isn't the infrastructure in place to maintain an army of that size at any one time. Thus for example, the Iron Born may have a significant percentage of the North's strength under arms at any given time, but would be able to raise a far smaller number in emergencies and would have much poorer replenishment rates.

3. Mercenaries.

GRRM seems to have looked to the later medieval mercenary model of free companies. These don't seem to exist in Westeros (apart perhaps from some very small ones), unless brought in from Essos. However, if you've got the money and a population that has a duty of seasonal military service, you always have the option to offer money to the locals to sign up outside their duty period. We have a reference to House Manderlay doing this kind of thing when Davos visits.

4. Peasant levy.

In some medieval societies, there was a requirement that each adult male would learn the basics of how to use a weapon and be able to fight if called on. Usually in the later period this would be for skirmish troops and bowmen. Due to the impracticalities of maintaining any kind of army of this size, this would generally be only for local defence as a militia, so that if for example there's a raiding party of Iron Born, the local lord could raise a peasant levy quickly to help out with the fighting. This raises the theoretical military strength of the north to perhaps three quarters of a million men (!), but these are basically poorly trained men who can't be supported in an expedition, and would be unlikely to ever fight more than a day or two's march at most from home. Small numbers might be brought along in extremis, but you can basically ignore this lot.

As for the breakdown for the different houses -- essentially, most of the soldiers for each house are local levies and the numbers represent their responsibility to their overlords (house Stark). Any of the houses could field considerably more men for a limited time if they can afford it, or considerably fewer to save money if they thought they could get away with it. In civil wars, this can get really messy for the poor peasants who have to figure out who they technically owe military duty too, or more likely who's going to be around at the end who might decide to fine them for failing to provide military duty if they don't turn up.

Thus (TL;DR) each house would have a total military force of between 0.5-1% (20-40k-ish total) of their population ready to go at short notice, but could in theory raise up to perhaps 4% (160k-ish total) given enough time and enough wealth to support an army of that size.