Tower of the Hand: The Blacks and Reds, Part II

joannalannister:

SNIP

Maybe this is a stupid question of mine, but I don’t quite understand how Daemon could set up his government in the Reach if the Tyrells opposed him? (At least I think that a lack of Tyrell support is what racefortheironthrone was getting at – I thought that key sentence was a little vaguely worded.) And what was the most likely castle in the Reach for Daemon to choose as his capital?

Aha. The explanation for this part is in my first essay on the Blackfyres. I think the Tyrells were secretly on the Blackfyres’ side (or at least leaning that way) and deliberately didn’t do anything about the rebel government – hence why Leo Longthorn doesn’t show up at the Battle of the Mander or at Redgrass Field. But, I think Leo had more in common with Margaery than Loras – he promised his army to Daemon, but then dragged his heels until he saw who was on the winning side, then promptly flipped and attacked his own bannermen as they came running back to the Reach after Redgrass to prove his loyalties. 

I love, love, love all of these betrayals in the westerlands, and it just makes so much sense that House Crakehall is the first line of defense from the south. I’ve speculated before that the Crakehalls are pretty powerful and I think this give some good reasons why. The idea of the Blackfyre army just marching uncontested up the Ocean Road all the way to the gates of Lannisport is one of my new favorite things about the Blackfyre Rebellion. (I guess the Reynes were initially providing gold to Daemon in secret – I wonder if there was fear of Reyne treachery during the War of the Ninepenny Kings? Did young Ser Tywin tap Kevan on the shoulder to spy on Lord Reyne?)

As I’ll explain more in Part III, I think the Lannisters bought off the Reynes with engagements – hence the Reynes appearing on the loyalist side during the Peake Uprising around the time that Ellyn Reyne is engaged to Tywald Lannister.

I’m confused about this^^. So, the way most Westerosi military commanders, well, command is from the center? Why is the left traditionally not a good place, and why did Daemon decide the left was a good place? I don’t know anything about battlefields.

Ok, so in medieval warfare, armies tended to be divided into three battles or wards or guards – the vanguard, the main/middle guard, and the rear guard. The vanguard marched at the front of the column, hence it would be the first to come into contact with the enemy – because of this, the vanguard is the place where you put your best troops and thus is the place of honor (hence the lords squabbling over who will lead Renly’s van).  

When armies fell out into line, they almost always fought with the rear on the left, the main in the middle, and the vanguard on the right. It’s not exactly clear why – some people think it has to do with the whole left = sinister thing (hence why the right hand side is the seat of honor at a feast), others that it has to do with sword hands vs. shield hands, etc. But what it means is that armies faced each other like this:

VANGUARD MIDDLE REAR (imagine this side is facing down)

REAR MIDDLE VANGUARD (imagine this side is facing up)

I.E, both sides are putting their strongest element against their enemy’s weakest, hoping to break through first before the other side can.

What Daemon did was to reverse the order and put his strongest division up against the enemy’s strongest division, which is incredibly risky but also if he wins means his vanguard will absolutely tear through the enemy’s weaker middle and rear, while his own right flank is more protected. There’s historical precedent for this – it’s exactly what Edward IV did at the Battle of Tewksbury during the Wars of the Roses. 

There are thousands of knights when the Ironmen are put down under Robert. If there are about 400,000 troops in westeros what’s a good knight to common soldier ratio? One percent knights seems too low but 25% seems really high, if commoners outnumber nobles 100-to1.

A couple things:

  1. 100 to 1 is off. In Medieval Europe, the nobility was almost never only 1% of the population. 5% was more common, although in some places it got as high as 10%. 
  2. 400k is the fighting men of Westeros, where the nobility are disproportionate. Pretty much all able-bodied noblemen in Westeros learn to fight, whereas only some smallfolk ever do. 
  3. 25% is around what we see in the armies – Robb’s heavy horse is around 27% of his army, the Lannister horse is around 30% of their total number, Renly’s 20,000 cavalry is around 20% of his massive army (although I have issues with the numbers there.) 
  4. However, if we take 25%, that’s 100,000 knights in the whole of Westeros, which has a population of around 40 million. In other words, they make up 25% of one percent of the population of Westeros, or roughly 10% of the male nobility of Westeros (assuming 5% of the population as highborn, and thus 2.5% being highborn men).   

So, no, I wouldn’t call it too high. If I recall correctly from the last time I looked it up, around 18% of the male population is in the military age demographic, so it’s a bit below what it might be, but you have to account for lords keeping some of their strength at home and trying to preserve heirs so that the House doesn’t take too much damage in the war, and that some percent of male nobles wind up in the Faith or the Citadel.