When you play the Game of Thrones...

[Closet_Skeleton]

Westeros is supposed to be a full blown continent, but a lot of it is north of the wall and under an ice cap.

Its a pre-industrial society so the cities wouldn't be that big. I don't think we've been given a real population size statistics.

[Zmflavius]

By the way, how big is Westeros? I mean given the population figures that get thrown around I assume it's fairly small. But someone on TVTropes said it was the size of South America, which would mean a ludicrously small population density. (Although admittedly the TVTropes pages on ASoIaF are ludicrous in general).

That's the official canon, but most canon numbers are fairly ludicrous. GRRM is bad with numbers.

Spoiler

Show

For example, in the books, the wall is 700-feet tall, but people on it manage to get shot anyhow (it's not actually possible for an arrow to reach that high up in the first place anyhow), castles with walls thirty feet high, the height of the Great Wall, are considered average, the largest cities are close to 500k in population, but in times of war, during which the lords draw significant numbers of smallfolk from their jobs, most lords can't muster more than 30k men all told, and even the most populous region has perhaps 70k men.

[Axolotl]

Westeros is supposed to be a full blown continent, but a lot of it is north of the wall and under an ice cap.

Its a pre-industrial society so the cities wouldn't be that big. I don't think we've been given a real population size statistics.

Some Book 2 spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

I remember a part in book 2 where Renly boasts of having 100,000 soldiers, and he pretty much says it's more than enough to easily win him the war. This would mean an upper limit of less than 500,000 armed men in all Westeros. Now that's alot but it's by no means the amount one would expect from a whole continent.

[Closet_Skeleton]

By World War standards those armies are small. But by medieval standards they're respectable (normal armies were about 3000-12000 fighting men but could near 40,000). Soldiers only made up a third or so of medieval warhosts, so 100,000 men means 300,000 on the march.

The first Crusade only numbered 35,000 men. The third crusade, representing the expeditionary forces of the two greatest warlords in Europe, the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France, was 110,000. A thousand years earlier the Roman Empire held onto most of Europe and the middle east with a mere 440,000 men but that varied a lot.

[Anarion]

Some Book 2 spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

I remember a part in book 2 where Renly boasts of having 100,000 soldiers, and he pretty much says it's more than enough to easily win him the war. This would mean an upper limit of less than 500,000 armed men in all Westeros. Now that's alot but it's by no means the amount one would expect from a whole continent.

The continent is pretty sparsely populated. First off, the area above the wall actually has a lot of people, but they're all wildlings and they don't come down from the wall

Spoiler

Show

Unless Manse Rayder is leading them

The North around Winterfell when gathered together as a whole army is a little smaller than the Lannister army, so I think it's fair to say that the Northlands are well spread out (they're quite big) and probably number less than 200,000 total, including women and children.

The West is likely similar, and the East a bit larger due to King's landing, while the Southern part of the continent only has the Baratheon holdings and is kind of tiny, so I doubt it numbers above 100k. So, perhaps 800,000 total population across the whole continent including all men, women, and children, or maybe closer to 900,000 if you also count wildlings.

The Eastern kingdoms are a bit harder to size since they're all independent cities and small landholdings, but given that 40,000 Dothraki was a huge horde, it's probably in the same ballpark as the whole of the West.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Rereading the books...because I wound up putting them down after Book 2, back in high school. (Had a much lower tolerance back then for sex/bloody violence)

Still as good as I remembered, possibly better. And it's great, now, being able to hear about the series, and people speculating on the outcomes of the first book.

[Axolotl]

The first Crusade only numbered 35,000 men. The third crusade, representing the expeditionary forces of the two greatest warlords in Europe, the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France, was 110,000.

And they all failed to defeat a subcontinent,

A thousand years earlier the Roman Empire held onto most of Europe and the middle east with a mere 440,000 men but that varied a lot.

The Roman Empire struggled to hold half a continent with that army,

Spoiler

Show

Renly

expects to win Westeros with a quarter that number.

Looking at other continents, the Inca Emperor Atahualpa was followed by a personal army of 80,000 and this was in the middle of a smallpox epidemic, in a country far less advanced than Westeros. Various chinese civil wars include much larger armies, and that's just a single subcontinent.

[Dienekes]

And they all failed to defeat a subcontinent,

The Roman Empire struggled to hold half a continent with that army,

Spoiler

Show

Renly

expects to win Westeros with a quarter that number.

Well, territory can be won with a lot less of an army than it takes to hold, and

Spoiler

Show

all Renly needs to do is win a few victories to be declared the hegemonic power and gain the throne. He's not actually going to go a conquering.

Also, we all understand we're using Renly as our template. Renly, the guy who we have no evidence to show he has any military intelligence, Renly the guy who thought it would be a good idea to stop the campaign and have a tournament. Pardon me if I don't take what he says as absolute truth.

[Anarion]

And they all failed to defeat a subcontinent,

The Roman Empire struggled to hold half a continent with that army,

Spoiler

Show

Renly

expects to win Westeros with a quarter that number.

Looking at other continents, the Inca Emperor Atahualpa was followed by a personal army of 80,000 and this was in the middle of a smallpox epidemic, in a country far less advanced than Westeros. Various chinese civil wars include much larger armies, and that's just a single subcontinent.

Rome struggled because its army was spread out over multiple legions all around the continent. On top of that, Rome actually did a pretty good job holding onto its territory until successive emperors starting seizing power by calling in all the legions back to Rome. One can only march half the army to the capital and back so many times before it starts to wear on the soldiers.

I'm not sure about the Inca's so I won't comment much there.

In general though, 100,000 is a very significant army. It's much larger than most of the battles in Europe prior to the French revolution and with

Spoiler

Show

Renly

It was entirely concentrated in one place, making it much more effective.

[Axolotl]

In general though, 100,000 is a very significant army.

But it's not a continent defeating army and even if all sides had similarly sized armies (which they don't) it still gives all of Westeros a smaller army than Rome had.

[Kellhus]

Medieval armies weren't generally limited by the number of able bodied men available, but rather logistical factors such as how long it took to gather them, how long they could realistically be held togethe, how many could be fed and paid, etc. In the Hundred Year's War, France kept having losing armies, but could also gathering new ones (though part of that was rallying the remnants of the old ones), which caused quite a bit of trouble for the English. The Romans managed much larger armies not because their population was that much greater, but rather because they were much more organized.

The North could easily support larger armies than are gathered, but because it's so big and time is valuable, they don't gather them. Westeros as a whole is hardly emptied.

Spoiler

Show

To reiterate, Renly did not need to occupy all 7 kingdoms, just get the Great houses to swear fealty. He'd already gotten 2, 2 were staying neutral, and he was deliberately marching slowly so that the other 3 exhaust themselves so that he could intimidate them into submitting without a battle.

[Axolotl]

The North could easily support larger armies than are gathered, but because it's so big and time is valuable, they don't gather them. Westeros as a whole is hardly emptied.

Spoiler

Show

To reiterate, Renly did not need to occupy all 7 kingdoms, just get the Great houses to swear fealty. He'd already gotten 2, 2 were staying neutral, and he was deliberately marching slowly so that the other 3 exhaust themselves so that he could intimidate them into submitting without a battle.

Yes but my point was even if other armies were of comparable size and you counted the Greyjoys and wildlings you still have only around 500,000 fighting men. Which seems small for a whole continent especially one as war-like as Westeros.

[Mauther]

But it's not a continent defeating army and even if all sides had similarly sized armies (which they don't) it still gives all of Westeros a smaller army than Rome had.

Army sizes are relative. Cortez used around 600 spaniards to knock off the Aztecs and Pizzaro fielded somewhere north of 200 on the Incans. A lot of factors contribute into what is a large army including the wealth of the society fielding the army, the population base, the efficiency of economy of the culture, and the cost of the troops being fielded. Taking the Spanish/Inca comparison, the Incans were able to field a lot more troops than the Spanish, but a large part of that was based on the relative populations and the lower cost of those troops. Fielding essentially stone age troops is infinitely less costly than armored conquistadores. But, as Atahualpa found out, you get what you pay for. Westeros is pretty much a pseudo-medieval society, so its best to keep the references in those numbers. There are mitigating factors when stepping out of those parameters and instead comparing them with Rome, China, India or the Incas which exist in their own environments.

When referencing the Crusades, don't forget while they were fighting over a subcontinent, they weren't fighting the forces of a subcontinent. Just as the crusader forces were drawn from across christendom, the muslim forces were drawn from large parts of the Ummah. Plus the 3rd Crusade is wack anyways since 95000 of the 100000 German troops went home largely without fighting after Frederick Barbarosa drowned. Anyways, what I'm getting at is numbers often don't tell the whole story, or even much of the story, so you need to be careful tossing them back and forth.

I would be interested in seeing any official or at least well researched ToE for the armies in Game of Thrones.

Spoiler

Show

As mentioned, Renly claims some where around 100,000 but I'd be shocked if he could even count that high. I don't recall the books giving a number, but the TV series puts the Lannisters around the same number (Jaime is sent out with 30,000 men, and they mention that Tywin is sitting on twice that number in the West so 30k+60k. The last episode gave the north's numbers as 20,000 on the march although nothing is said about how many are left in garrison (and that is before all the river lands drama). All the sudden Drogo's 40,000 proto-Mongols don't sound so intimidating. And while I don't recall specifics, I thought I recalled Danny's army and the cities they fight fielding some pretty big numbers. I'm assuming Stannis and the Greyjoys are fielding a lot more modest numbers, and lord only knows what Dorne's sitting on.

{- spoilers just to be safe.}

[Mauther]

Yes but my point was even if other armies were of comparable size and you counted the Greyjoys and wildlings you still have only around 500,000 fighting men. Which seems small for a whole continent especially one as war-like as Westeros.

Its a fair point, but as others have pointed out large sections aren't really all that populated. The north beyond the wall effectively doesn't count (yet), The North, the StormLands and the Vale are sparsely populated and Dorne is practicaly empty. So most of the population are in the Crownlands (King's Landing), the Westernlands (Lannister), and the Reach (Tyrells). In other words theres a lot of open land, with much of the population squeezed into the most hospitable land.

[Artemis97]

speaking as to the size of Westeros, I've noticed it's basically a relabled map of the UK. Don't know if it's been scaled up or anything, but I'l going to assume not. Of course, the climate's a little messed up, too. I don't remember England having any deserts, and I don't think Scotland is consistantly locked in snow and ice. But when you have summers that last years and winters that last generations, of course the climate's going to be a bit messed up.

[Closet_Skeleton]

And they all failed to defeat a subcontinent,

By sucking majorly, not by being outnumbered.

The Roman Empire struggled to hold half a continent with that army,

They managed pretty well for 200 years. A hundred of those were full of wars an an average Imperial reign of 2 years but no real long term territorial loss.

Southern Europe + entire meditarianian coast is a bit more than "half a continent".

Looking at other continents, the Inca Emperor Atahualpa was followed by a personal army of 80,000 and this was in the middle of a smallpox epidemic, in a country far less advanced than Westeros. Various chinese civil wars include much larger armies, and that's just a single subcontinent.

Westeros is based on Europe. Other continents had differant fighting styles.

Based on Asian population density, Westeros is rediculously under populated. That doesn't really seem to be a strike against its realism to me.

But it's not a continent defeating army and even if all sides had similarly sized armies (which they don't) it still gives all of Westeros a smaller army than Rome had.

Rome had massive frontiers. Westeros is a continent wide empire. Rome could have a massive horde of guys they're never heard of come up from Russia, scandanavia or central Africa and take them completly by surprise. Westeros only has to worry about naval incursions, in which case unless there's an exiled heir to the throne around all of Westeros will unite against or guys they know all about rebelling.

[Zmflavius]

The continent is pretty sparsely populated. First off, the area above the wall actually has a lot of people, but they're all wildlings and they don't come down from the wall

Spoiler

Show

Unless Manse Rayder is leading them

The North around Winterfell when gathered together as a whole army is a little smaller than the Lannister army, so I think it's fair to say that the Northlands are well spread out (they're quite big) and probably number less than 200,000 total, including women and children.

The West is likely similar, and the East a bit larger due to King's landing, while the Southern part of the continent only has the Baratheon holdings and is kind of tiny, so I doubt it numbers above 100k. So, perhaps 800,000 total population across the whole continent including all men, women, and children, or maybe closer to 900,000 if you also count wildlings.

The Eastern kingdoms are a bit harder to size since they're all independent cities and small landholdings, but given that 40,000 Dothraki was a huge horde, it's probably in the same ballpark as the whole of the West.

I don't think that's possible, given that the most common figures quoted for KL population is 500k (probably inflated, but still) and a similar count for Oldtown.

Yes but my point was even if other armies were of comparable size and you counted the Greyjoys and wildlings you still have only around 500,000 fighting men. Which seems small for a whole continent especially one as war-like as Westeros.

Going by the books, the combined total of the Westerosi armies, including wildlings, is no more than 300k soldiers. In addition, Westeros is not actually all that warlike, given that major wars only occur every century or so. Of course, there are occasional robber knights and outlaw lords who might require every lord in the area to contribute forces, but there never seems to be a need for a force larger than 5k men in most cases. In general, full-scale wars seem to be fairly rare.

speaking as to the size of Westeros, I've noticed it's basically a relabled map of the UK. Don't know if it's been scaled up or anything, but I'l going to assume not. Of course, the climate's a little messed up, too. I don't remember England having any deserts, and I don't think Scotland is consistantly locked in snow and ice. But when you have summers that last years and winters that last generations, of course the climate's going to be a bit messed up.

It's actually been scaled up to the size of South America officially, but perhaps somewhat smaller truly.

[Occasional Sage]

I have a feeling next episode will invoke the dream. And as to the spoilered section. You have a valid point about themes and all, but it doesn't bother me because the scene in question just lined up perfectly. It was a very dramatic and poignant moment and yet powerful and hopeful. Overall well done.

Also to support the scene:

Spoiler

Show

Bran has a very close mental and spiritual connection with Summer, and the wolves clearly connect together. The shock of something like Lady's death seems correct to drive him out of his coma.

[Kellhus]

Westeros is based on Europe. Other continents had different fighting styles.

Rome had massive frontiers. Westeros is a continent wide empire. Rome could have a massive horde of guys they're never heard of come up from Russia, scandanavia or central Africa and take them completly by surprise. Westeros only has to worry about naval incursions, in which case unless there's an exiled heir to the throne around all of Westeros will unite against or guys they know all about rebelling.

Also, A medieval state, even if it had the same population as the Roman Empire, would not be able to support as large an army for as long as Rome did. This at least five hundred years before (if we insert Westeros into medieval Europe) Levée en masse. Population isn't going to be main limiting factor for size of armies.

To illustrate: The population of France during the Hundred Years War was in the ballpark of 20 million. The French army during the Battle of Crecy was between 30 and 40 thousand men. During Poitiers it was around 20,000 and during Agincourt, estiamte range between 12,00 and 40,000. It's always around .2% of the total population.

[McStabbington]

Size of armies and population is highly dependent upon technological base and the amount of arable land. A huge reason behind Rome's comparatively small army size was it's formidable technological and logistical advantages: a legion that can walk 20 miles a day on the Roman highway system, for instance, can cover and defend more ground than an army moving half that speed over open terrain, so you need less of them per unit of territory to effectively defend yourself. Similarly, the Roman aqueduct system and food distribution system allowed Rome to grow way beyond what the base carrying capacity of the surrounding land would support. One factor decreases the size of the military, and the other increases the size of the population; both distort using Rome as a basis for comparison.

From the first two books, there's no evidence of any present engineering ability in Westeros that could equal that of Rome, and there's no evidence of any past engineering still in use beyond The Wall. So I doubt that you're looking at base populations similar to that of the Roman empire. Rather, you're probably looking at 1000 - 1200 A.D. England or France as a model. Large towns are probably about 40 - 50,000 people, and since women don't seem to be conscripted, you're probably looking at no more than 20,000 of those people being impressable. Most villages are smaller and cluster around castles and bases of operation for the lords whose land they work. I'm not sure exactly how big Westeros is, but it wouldn't be surprising if you were talking about three million people all told on the continent, of whom a theoretical maximum of about eight or nine hundred thousand could be made into fighters given who they select for their fighting forces. Thirty thousand seems to be a fairly substantial sum of men, and fifty to a hundred thousand is seen as very impressive assemblages.

[DomaDoma]

I'm sorry I think you have it wrong.
Innocence is represented by a Bear, a Bear! All black and brown, and covered with hair.

Wait, you didn't get that the bear represents

Spoiler

Show

the fact that rape is basically a social norm?

Maybe Knaight has more of a point than I would really like.

[SoC175]

And they all failed to defeat a subcontinent,

Yeah, but most of the german forces never reached the subcontinetn (simply turned around and went back home after their emperor died during the journey) and then Richard Lionheard managed to alienate the french which also caused them to pack up and return home.

Army sizes are relative. Cortez used around 600 spaniards to knock off the Aztecs and Pizzaro fielded somewhere north of 200 on the Incans. A lot of factors contribute into what is a large army including the wealth of the society fielding the army, the population base, the efficiency of economy of the culture, and the cost of the troops being fielded. Taking the Spanish/Inca comparison, the Incans were able to field a lot more troops than the Spanish, but a large part of that was based on the relative populations and the lower cost of those troops. Fielding essentially stone age troops is infinitely less costly than armored conquistadores. But, as Atahualpa found out, you get what you pay for.

Actually the Inca lost because the Spanish got gather tens of thousands stone age troops of their own to augment their small core of Spanish troops. The Incans were a warlike culture and had subjugated most of their neighbors for whom the Spanish were a much welcome chance to rise up against their oppressors. While the Spanish themselves had a huge technological advantage it would have only allowed them to make the Incans victory over them very costly, not to let them win with their available numbers vs. the numbers the Incans had available. The discrepancy in numbers was simply too huge

[Axolotl]

Going by the books, the combined total of the Westerosi armies, including wildlings, is no more than 300k soldiers. In addition, Westeros is not actually all that warlike, given that major wars only occur every century or so. Of course, there are occasional robber knights and outlaw lords who might require every lord in the area to contribute forces, but there never seems to be a need for a force larger than 5k men in most cases. In general, full-scale wars seem to be fairly rare.

In the last twenty years of Westeros' history they've had Robert's Rebellion, the Greyjoy Rebellion and the War of Five Kings, all of them pretty large conflicts. Maybe there weren't many major wars before them buit there were plenty of minor ones.

[Closet_Skeleton]

A bunch of Targaryan bastards are stated to have caused several horrible wars in the preceding century. So they don't got that long without bloody wars on average.

[BRC]

Yeah, but most of the german forces never reached the subcontinetn (simply turned around and went back home after their emperor died during the journey) and then Richard Lionheard managed to alienate the french which also caused them to pack up and return home.
Actually the Inca lost because the Spanish got gather tens of thousands stone age troops of their own to augment their small core of Spanish troops. The Incans were a warlike culture and had subjugated most of their neighbors for whom the Spanish were a much welcome chance to rise up against their oppressors. While the Spanish themselves had a huge technological advantage it would have only allowed them to make the Incans victory over them very costly, not to let them win with their available numbers vs. the numbers the Incans had available. The discrepancy in numbers was simply too huge

Also, you know, Smallpox.

[Zmflavius]

In the last twenty years of Westeros' history they've had Robert's Rebellion, the Greyjoy Rebellion and the War of Five Kings, all of them pretty large conflicts. Maybe there weren't many major wars before them buit there were plenty of minor ones.

Greyjoy Rebellion is minor, and before Robert's rebellion, there was 80 years of peace since the last major war.

[WNxHasoroth]

So I just watched the latest episode of GoT. I have read the books, cover to cover about three times. I know what happens almost by heart.

The execution at Baelor's sept was so well done that I gasped and almost began to tear up and I am not easily brought to tears.

It says something about the mastery that goes into making the Game of Throne series that they make me feel emotions as strongly as the first time I read through the Song of Ice and Fire.

[Bosh]

Greyjoy Rebellion is minor, and before Robert's rebellion, there was 80 years of peace since the last major war.

The Greyjoy rebellion was after Robert's Rebellion. Before Robert's Rebellion was the War of the Ninepenny Kings, but that wasn't fought in Westeros and wasn't too big.

[Seerow]

Heh, so after today's episode, Larry, the guy who's been running a series of popular GoT reviews from a non-reader's perspective, is so pissed he may drop the series entirely. I imagine he'll calm down after a couple days, but man, the anger in his review video tonight was tangible. Like to the point I think if GRRM were in front of him, I'd fear for GRRM's life.

[Xondoure]

I can't remember, was (book)

Spoiler

Show

The scene with Tyrion burning his arm added in or not? Either way its pretty convincing evidence that he's not one of the three heads of the dragon.