A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings III / quasi-feudalism

Next 20 Messages

Richard
User ID: 2212414 May 24th 10:14 PM
One of the things I've really liked about aSoIaF is that the social and political structure has seemed more genuinely feudal than that of many fantasy novels which attempt to establish a medieval setting. Far too many fantasy writers have people charging around on horses with swords, and yet also seem to believe that armies of such men would exist in the service of a modern territorial state.
The Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, however, do seem to depart somewhat from the feudal model. The Sept, unlike the medieval Church, wields no power of its own. There do not seem to be any septon-lords, nor do any of the septs seem to hold any lands, nor have any armies. Also, while there are guilds, there do not seem to be any towns or villages governed by these guilds as municipal corporations, as was a common practice in medieval Europe.
Lastly, I think it's interesting how heavily armed Westeros, given that all its wars seem to be civil wars. On the one hand, that might seem perfectly natural, given that it would be much harder to have civil wars and rebellions and so forth if there weren't lots of semiautonomous lords with their own personally loyal military forces. On the other hand, Westeros hasn't been at war with a foreign power that we know of since Aegon the Conqueror. The Wildlings might be a minor exception to this, but only a minor one. One would think, then, that every king who could would try to rein in the lords, and transform them more into landlords and administrators, which real feudal monarchs were almost constantly trying to do. Even an outright traitor like Balon Greyjoy was not disarmed to any extent after his defeat. I could understand leaving him in power in the Iron Islands, and taking Theon certainly provided some surety against him, but otherwise, nothing was done to defang him at all. All this I find peculiar.
Does any of this matter? I don't know. Just thought I'd share some thoughts I've been having.

Brady
User ID: 0721754 May 24th 10:47 PM
There was intermittent warfare with Dorne before it joined the Seven Kingdoms, and the wildlings in the Mountains of Moon constantly raid the Vale.
I also found it odd that no action was taken after Greyjoy was defeated. Granted, his eldest sons were dead, Pyke was breached and his army was decimated, he was still a traitorous lord.
Robert however was a notoriously generous king. He forgave the lords Tyrrell and Redwyne, and probably thought taking Balons last son as hostage was action enough.
The reasons for the sept not having the power of the medieaval church is the diversity of other religions in Westeros. In the North, worship of the old gods is still predominant, and the ironmen pray to the Drowned God. I believe there was talk that Dorne also had a different religion. The Citadel seems to be a more powerful political force than the Sept, which I thimk was only founded 200 years ago by Baelor the Blessed

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 25th 5:20 AM
Richard, many of your points above are, as you say, "seems" -- we haven't seen enough to decide whether there are guilds that govern villages or towns, or whether there are septon-lords, or whether the Faith has an army of its own -- or rather, that various septons have to provide military levies. In truth, I shouldn't be surprised if there were some men of that sort.

I don't think it's really part of its concern, myself. The Faith currently seems to be weaker than the Roman Catholic church ever was -- given the ease with which Tyrion was able to push a chosen septon into the crystal crown -- but the Roman church had some very low points all the same.

Brady,

The Faith has existed for 5,000 years in Westeros, brought by the Andal adventurers. The Great Sept of Baelor is now its headquarters and is, indeed rather recent (builtabout 140 years ago, I think), but the Faith itself has been around a lot longer.

The point about the diversity of religion is a good one, though.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 May 25th 9:11 AM
I think perhaps the Red priests are more involved or like to be more involved in the mundane business than those of the Faith.

We see Thoros of Myr hanging around in court, out fighting in the field, and involved in the fighting against Balon, as well. It wouldn't surprise me if he has been granted some land in Westeros, either.

There's Melisandre, of course - she has no lack of ambition or lack of means to see them fulfilled.

And there was also mention of the Red priests in Pentos, where the rulers lent half an ear to their advice, although not much more than that. :P

MILEN
User ID: 0658904 May 25th 9:52 AM
Two questions, first would the lengthy winters be a reason for Westeros not to advance much past basic feudalism? Second, when the Targaryens conquered Westeros, did they already operate under a feudal system or did they adopt the goverment of the natives?

Lodengarl
User ID: 1822634 May 25th 10:13 AM
Excellent comments Richard - your point about Balon are excellent - if you put down a rebellion and defeat traitors, you must still keep eyes on them. As far as feudal lords being de-militarized, you have a good point, but in places like the North, it is still too rural and harsh for a more advanced system, and I have never gotten the impression that Winterfell was large and influential, even though it is the seat of the north...it always seemed like a "family" castle to me. I enjoy the less-advanced fedual system Martin presents, and how the high Kings must scramble to call on each "sworn" lord - it makes it quite interesting.

I think we see more of your feudal control in the south, Highgarden, etc. which we will see more of in the next stories - I think there we will see more influence from the Citadel and a closer knit feudal system.

Does anyone know what kind of government the Targaryens had before they conquered Westeros?? Interesting question...if they follow the same pattern as the eastern cities, you would think they would claim the land and bring a much different structure of government - yet it is written often that many houses are still loyal to the Targareyen banner...

Padraig
User ID: 1258494 May 25th 1:27 PM
IIRC there was a reference to the free-holding of Valyria or something similar. Not anyway the Valyrian kingdom or empire. Which suggests that in the Targaryens former home they weren't part of some monarchy.

Balon's return to prominence is a bit of a freak IMHO. Without the second civil war in 15 years he would never have got a chance to make war again.

I'm not sure was the lack of social and industrial advancment ever really explained.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 25th 2:49 PM
GRRM says that it has to do both with the fact that, up until recently (i.e., three hundred years ago), magic was a pretty real thing in Westeros and that the long winters acted as brakes. Now you've got three hundred years in which magic has lessened, and in some ways Westeros seems to be on a cusp of advancement . . . but then magic returns, and you have all this civil warfare.

As for the Freehold of Valyria, it's not really very clear. The Targaryens were said to have been Valyrian nobility. Whether there were Valyrian kings and queens, or emperors and empresses, isn't clear -- though, the Valyrians did build the "straight roads" that Dany mentions, and I've a suspicion that the Free Cities were all part of the Valyrian domain.

Werther
User ID: 8910463 May 25th 3:35 PM
Good point about Balon, Padraig. You guys cover everything. I've been looking at the different board posts for some opinions on the comet. I know its had to have been discussed. if someone could tell me were to look I'd apprecciate it.

Lodengarl
User ID: 0875014 May 25th 10:48 PM
The comet is another brilliant addition by GRRM - for the simple comedic fact that through every chapter in aCoK each person or group sees it as a boon for their glory and success - makes you ponder real life religion and other seperatist phenomenons....I laughed everytime someone twisted it into their own banner...

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 May 25th 10:53 PM
My own screwed up theory on that comet is that it somehow triggered the "warming" of the dragon eggs.

Richard
User ID: 2212414 May 26th 3:12 AM
Wow. That is all interesting. The only thing I'd like to add to this discussion is that one shouldn't look at feudalism as synonymous with basic or non-advanced. While it is certainly true that feudal societies are by our standards, bear in mind that feudalism only developed in the medieval era, and really only in Western Christendom. There were plenty of other ways of organizing society in both the medieval and ancient periods. So the issue is not so much why Westeros isn't more advanced; in some respects, particularly medecine, Westeros seems actually to be very advanced. Admittedly, perhaps the North is too wild to have really centralized authority. But in the South, the threat from Dorne disappeared was only on one front, and was eliminated about a century ago. The Clans in the Mountains of the Moon have only been a very minor threat to a very limited area until now. Why then, has Westeros persisted as such a heavily armed, decentralized state? Allowing all these lords to have their own armies in the absence of a major foreign threat is just begging for there to be rebellions and civil wars, which has in fact been the case. Just a thought.

Padraig
User ID: 1564944 May 26th 5:49 PM
I looked up Freehold in the dictionary. It seems to be land held for life with the right to pass it on the one�s heirs. Which doesn't really explain Freehold of Valyria.

At a guess I suppose the heavily armed lords is a legacy of the time when Westeros was truly 7 kingdoms. And it seems that one of the hardest things in the world is getting people to give up the weapons they think are rightfully theirs.

Blackstone
User ID: 9858163 Jun 5th 10:53 AM
I like Martin's system too. In our world there was no real fuedalism, there was an ideal that found imperfect expression in different areas of Europe.

Northern France was probably the closest to true or ideal feudalism that we have had.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jun 5th 11:54 AM
One thing that seems a bit strange is the number of pikemen around Westeros. In order for pikemen to be really effective, there have to be a pretty good number of them and they have to train together. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of guys with long spears.

I can't recall any significant pike forces that were part of any feudal levy in the RL. The Swiss and Germans had the best pikemen, but those really were mercenaries and a more or less permanent force. The Flemish were city-based and thus also a more homogenous force. The Scots might be one exception, but even then the original scottish pikemen weren't very good, and they really weren't a feudal levy anyway.

One reason for this is that, trained properly, pikemen are a very good counter to armored knights. They upset the normal balance of power that has knights as unchallenged on the battlefield. It just always strikes me as a bit odd to see these hedgehog pike formation, able to wheel in place and commit a flanking attack, among Westerosi feudal armies.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 5th 12:02 PM
Of course, if you've got cities, then it's not hard to have that place provide mostly pike as part of its levy. Hence, I suspect it was Lannisport pike who Ser Kevan was supposed to use to wheel on Bolton's forces after they smashed the left.

As far as the North, I'd consider their examples of pike to be rather more like the Scots.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jun 5th 1:11 PM
Granted about the cities. But that still seems a bit funny from a social perspective. There were cities in medieval France and Britain, but they didn't produce effective pikemen. It was really only the independent cities that did that, somewhat along the lines of the phalanxes of the old Greek city-states. Military power = political power, and a large pike force made up of non-nobility could be quite destabilizing. Plus, how do you support all those guys through training? The city could produce the pikemen, but equiping, maintaining, and training them would be quite expensive.

Maybe, as you say, the Lannisters are the exception. They've got the cash to support a fairly large standing army, which is what those pikemen would be. Maybe the only real standing army in Westeros, which could explain why they are such a powerful family despite the ability of the Tyrells to summon more swords.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jun 5th 1:40 PM
The English could have turned out effective pike, but the conflicts they took part in (against the Scots and Welsh) would find pike rather useless. So, they turned out the premiere archers in Europe (which map fairly well to pike, since bowmen are useless unless they're trained to work in unison), and it just happened that they were also killer against knights.

Given the long history of Westeros, with plate armor seeming to exist for at least five hundred years, I think the development of pike rather than massed archers seems fairly reasonable.

Verbruggen agrees with you on the issue of military and political power and being from the Netherlands, his _The Art of Warfare in Western Europe_ (highly recommended) gives particular, detailed study to the foot-soldiers of Flanders, as well as Switzerland, Lieges, Scotland, etc.

To take one example: France had movements in which communal armies of organized foot came about, usually led as "brotherhoods" by local ecclesiasts (and on some occassion were created by the French nobility themselves to combat Henry II, wo was allowing the French cities he controlled to make their own armies to threaten the French.)

Problem was, these armies soon realized their own power and came into conflict with the nobility, and soon enough they were broken up only to see the process repeated some years down the line.

On the other hand, as you say, in Switzerland and Flanders -- where the nobility were for all more or less impotent to curtail urban power -- these communal armies were able to develop relatively freely.

Given the proximity of Casterly Rock to Lannisport, for example, I think it's not difficult to see how the Lannisters weren't terribly bothered with the idea of using Lannisport as a center for maintaing a core of well-trained foot. And, as you say, they certainly have the wealth to maintain something of a standing army.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jun 5th 2:09 PM
Ran, I recall doing my final paper in a military history class at the Academy on the social link between the development of massed pikemen in Ancient Greece and in medeival Europe. In both cases, those forces came from a sort of "middle class" that really didn't exist in many other societies. Pretty interesting stuff. I probably bumped up against Verbruggen at that time but the name doesn't ring a specific bell right now. Don't have the damn paper anymore, either.

Your point about England is a good one. England really was much more centralized in terms of political power than the rest of feudal Europe. The English King had more power and could more easily maintain a "standing" force. That is somewhat comparable with the power money gave the Lannisters in the west.

The link with the Lannisters seems particularly appropriate. Most of the English (as opposed to Welsh) longbowmen were from Lancashire. And I think its fairly clear that the Lancastrians and Yorkists were part of the inspiration for the Lannisters and Starks. Plus, the armies the English sent to fight on the Continent during the Hundred Years War contained a great many _mercenary_ archers. So there we have the Lannister monetary connection as well.

haaruk Jun 5th 4:44 PM
Richard, feudalism was alive and well in China and Japan.

Next 20 Messages

Richard User ID: 2212414	May 24th 10:14 PM One of the things I've really liked about aSoIaF is that the social and political structure has seemed more genuinely feudal than that of many fantasy novels which attempt to establish a medieval setting. Far too many fantasy writers have people charging around on horses with swords, and yet also seem to believe that armies of such men would exist in the service of a modern territorial state. The Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, however, do seem to depart somewhat from the feudal model. The Sept, unlike the medieval Church, wields no power of its own. There do not seem to be any septon-lords, nor do any of the septs seem to hold any lands, nor have any armies. Also, while there are guilds, there do not seem to be any towns or villages governed by these guilds as municipal corporations, as was a common practice in medieval Europe. Lastly, I think it's interesting how heavily armed Westeros, given that all its wars seem to be civil wars. On the one hand, that might seem perfectly natural, given that it would be much harder to have civil wars and rebellions and so forth if there weren't lots of semiautonomous lords with their own personally loyal military forces. On the other hand, Westeros hasn't been at war with a foreign power that we know of since Aegon the Conqueror. The Wildlings might be a minor exception to this, but only a minor one. One would think, then, that every king who could would try to rein in the lords, and transform them more into landlords and administrators, which real feudal monarchs were almost constantly trying to do. Even an outright traitor like Balon Greyjoy was not disarmed to any extent after his defeat. I could understand leaving him in power in the Iron Islands, and taking Theon certainly provided some surety against him, but otherwise, nothing was done to defang him at all. All this I find peculiar. Does any of this matter? I don't know. Just thought I'd share some thoughts I've been having.
Brady User ID: 0721754	May 24th 10:47 PM There was intermittent warfare with Dorne before it joined the Seven Kingdoms, and the wildlings in the Mountains of Moon constantly raid the Vale. I also found it odd that no action was taken after Greyjoy was defeated. Granted, his eldest sons were dead, Pyke was breached and his army was decimated, he was still a traitorous lord. Robert however was a notoriously generous king. He forgave the lords Tyrrell and Redwyne, and probably thought taking Balons last son as hostage was action enough. The reasons for the sept not having the power of the medieaval church is the diversity of other religions in Westeros. In the North, worship of the old gods is still predominant, and the ironmen pray to the Drowned God. I believe there was talk that Dorne also had a different religion. The Citadel seems to be a more powerful political force than the Sept, which I thimk was only founded 200 years ago by Baelor the Blessed
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 25th 5:20 AM Richard, many of your points above are, as you say, "seems" -- we haven't seen enough to decide whether there are guilds that govern villages or towns, or whether there are septon-lords, or whether the Faith has an army of its own -- or rather, that various septons have to provide military levies. In truth, I shouldn't be surprised if there were some men of that sort. I don't think it's really part of its concern, myself. The Faith currently seems to be weaker than the Roman Catholic church ever was -- given the ease with which Tyrion was able to push a chosen septon into the crystal crown -- but the Roman church had some very low points all the same. Brady, The Faith has existed for 5,000 years in Westeros, brought by the Andal adventurers. The Great Sept of Baelor is now its headquarters and is, indeed rather recent (builtabout 140 years ago, I think), but the Faith itself has been around a lot longer. The point about the diversity of religion is a good one, though.
KAH User ID: 0541004	May 25th 9:11 AM I think perhaps the Red priests are more involved or like to be more involved in the mundane business than those of the Faith. We see Thoros of Myr hanging around in court, out fighting in the field, and involved in the fighting against Balon, as well. It wouldn't surprise me if he has been granted some land in Westeros, either. There's Melisandre, of course - she has no lack of ambition or lack of means to see them fulfilled. And there was also mention of the Red priests in Pentos, where the rulers lent half an ear to their advice, although not much more than that. :P
MILEN User ID: 0658904	May 25th 9:52 AM Two questions, first would the lengthy winters be a reason for Westeros not to advance much past basic feudalism? Second, when the Targaryens conquered Westeros, did they already operate under a feudal system or did they adopt the goverment of the natives?
Lodengarl User ID: 1822634	May 25th 10:13 AM Excellent comments Richard - your point about Balon are excellent - if you put down a rebellion and defeat traitors, you must still keep eyes on them. As far as feudal lords being de-militarized, you have a good point, but in places like the North, it is still too rural and harsh for a more advanced system, and I have never gotten the impression that Winterfell was large and influential, even though it is the seat of the north...it always seemed like a "family" castle to me. I enjoy the less-advanced fedual system Martin presents, and how the high Kings must scramble to call on each "sworn" lord - it makes it quite interesting. I think we see more of your feudal control in the south, Highgarden, etc. which we will see more of in the next stories - I think there we will see more influence from the Citadel and a closer knit feudal system. Does anyone know what kind of government the Targaryens had before they conquered Westeros?? Interesting question...if they follow the same pattern as the eastern cities, you would think they would claim the land and bring a much different structure of government - yet it is written often that many houses are still loyal to the Targareyen banner...
Padraig User ID: 1258494	May 25th 1:27 PM IIRC there was a reference to the free-holding of Valyria or something similar. Not anyway the Valyrian kingdom or empire. Which suggests that in the Targaryens former home they weren't part of some monarchy. Balon's return to prominence is a bit of a freak IMHO. Without the second civil war in 15 years he would never have got a chance to make war again. I'm not sure was the lack of social and industrial advancment ever really explained.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 25th 2:49 PM GRRM says that it has to do both with the fact that, up until recently (i.e., three hundred years ago), magic was a pretty real thing in Westeros and that the long winters acted as brakes. Now you've got three hundred years in which magic has lessened, and in some ways Westeros seems to be on a cusp of advancement . . . but then magic returns, and you have all this civil warfare. As for the Freehold of Valyria, it's not really very clear. The Targaryens were said to have been Valyrian nobility. Whether there were Valyrian kings and queens, or emperors and empresses, isn't clear -- though, the Valyrians did build the "straight roads" that Dany mentions, and I've a suspicion that the Free Cities were all part of the Valyrian domain.
Werther User ID: 8910463	May 25th 3:35 PM Good point about Balon, Padraig. You guys cover everything. I've been looking at the different board posts for some opinions on the comet. I know its had to have been discussed. if someone could tell me were to look I'd apprecciate it.
Lodengarl User ID: 0875014	May 25th 10:48 PM The comet is another brilliant addition by GRRM - for the simple comedic fact that through every chapter in aCoK each person or group sees it as a boon for their glory and success - makes you ponder real life religion and other seperatist phenomenons....I laughed everytime someone twisted it into their own banner...
Jeff User ID: 8813033	May 25th 10:53 PM My own screwed up theory on that comet is that it somehow triggered the "warming" of the dragon eggs.
Richard User ID: 2212414	May 26th 3:12 AM Wow. That is all interesting. The only thing I'd like to add to this discussion is that one shouldn't look at feudalism as synonymous with basic or non-advanced. While it is certainly true that feudal societies are by our standards, bear in mind that feudalism only developed in the medieval era, and really only in Western Christendom. There were plenty of other ways of organizing society in both the medieval and ancient periods. So the issue is not so much why Westeros isn't more advanced; in some respects, particularly medecine, Westeros seems actually to be very advanced. Admittedly, perhaps the North is too wild to have really centralized authority. But in the South, the threat from Dorne disappeared was only on one front, and was eliminated about a century ago. The Clans in the Mountains of the Moon have only been a very minor threat to a very limited area until now. Why then, has Westeros persisted as such a heavily armed, decentralized state? Allowing all these lords to have their own armies in the absence of a major foreign threat is just begging for there to be rebellions and civil wars, which has in fact been the case. Just a thought.
Padraig User ID: 1564944	May 26th 5:49 PM I looked up Freehold in the dictionary. It seems to be land held for life with the right to pass it on the one�s heirs. Which doesn't really explain Freehold of Valyria. At a guess I suppose the heavily armed lords is a legacy of the time when Westeros was truly 7 kingdoms. And it seems that one of the hardest things in the world is getting people to give up the weapons they think are rightfully theirs.
Blackstone User ID: 9858163	Jun 5th 10:53 AM I like Martin's system too. In our world there was no real fuedalism, there was an ideal that found imperfect expression in different areas of Europe. Northern France was probably the closest to true or ideal feudalism that we have had.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jun 5th 11:54 AM One thing that seems a bit strange is the number of pikemen around Westeros. In order for pikemen to be really effective, there have to be a pretty good number of them and they have to train together. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of guys with long spears. I can't recall any significant pike forces that were part of any feudal levy in the RL. The Swiss and Germans had the best pikemen, but those really were mercenaries and a more or less permanent force. The Flemish were city-based and thus also a more homogenous force. The Scots might be one exception, but even then the original scottish pikemen weren't very good, and they really weren't a feudal levy anyway. One reason for this is that, trained properly, pikemen are a very good counter to armored knights. They upset the normal balance of power that has knights as unchallenged on the battlefield. It just always strikes me as a bit odd to see these hedgehog pike formation, able to wheel in place and commit a flanking attack, among Westerosi feudal armies.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 5th 12:02 PM Of course, if you've got cities, then it's not hard to have that place provide mostly pike as part of its levy. Hence, I suspect it was Lannisport pike who Ser Kevan was supposed to use to wheel on Bolton's forces after they smashed the left. As far as the North, I'd consider their examples of pike to be rather more like the Scots.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jun 5th 1:11 PM Granted about the cities. But that still seems a bit funny from a social perspective. There were cities in medieval France and Britain, but they didn't produce effective pikemen. It was really only the independent cities that did that, somewhat along the lines of the phalanxes of the old Greek city-states. Military power = political power, and a large pike force made up of non-nobility could be quite destabilizing. Plus, how do you support all those guys through training? The city could produce the pikemen, but equiping, maintaining, and training them would be quite expensive. Maybe, as you say, the Lannisters are the exception. They've got the cash to support a fairly large standing army, which is what those pikemen would be. Maybe the only real standing army in Westeros, which could explain why they are such a powerful family despite the ability of the Tyrells to summon more swords.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jun 5th 1:40 PM The English could have turned out effective pike, but the conflicts they took part in (against the Scots and Welsh) would find pike rather useless. So, they turned out the premiere archers in Europe (which map fairly well to pike, since bowmen are useless unless they're trained to work in unison), and it just happened that they were also killer against knights. Given the long history of Westeros, with plate armor seeming to exist for at least five hundred years, I think the development of pike rather than massed archers seems fairly reasonable. Verbruggen agrees with you on the issue of military and political power and being from the Netherlands, his _The Art of Warfare in Western Europe_ (highly recommended) gives particular, detailed study to the foot-soldiers of Flanders, as well as Switzerland, Lieges, Scotland, etc. To take one example: France had movements in which communal armies of organized foot came about, usually led as "brotherhoods" by local ecclesiasts (and on some occassion were created by the French nobility themselves to combat Henry II, wo was allowing the French cities he controlled to make their own armies to threaten the French.) Problem was, these armies soon realized their own power and came into conflict with the nobility, and soon enough they were broken up only to see the process repeated some years down the line. On the other hand, as you say, in Switzerland and Flanders -- where the nobility were for all more or less impotent to curtail urban power -- these communal armies were able to develop relatively freely. Given the proximity of Casterly Rock to Lannisport, for example, I think it's not difficult to see how the Lannisters weren't terribly bothered with the idea of using Lannisport as a center for maintaing a core of well-trained foot. And, as you say, they certainly have the wealth to maintain something of a standing army.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jun 5th 2:09 PM Ran, I recall doing my final paper in a military history class at the Academy on the social link between the development of massed pikemen in Ancient Greece and in medeival Europe. In both cases, those forces came from a sort of "middle class" that really didn't exist in many other societies. Pretty interesting stuff. I probably bumped up against Verbruggen at that time but the name doesn't ring a specific bell right now. Don't have the damn paper anymore, either. Your point about England is a good one. England really was much more centralized in terms of political power than the rest of feudal Europe. The English King had more power and could more easily maintain a "standing" force. That is somewhat comparable with the power money gave the Lannisters in the west. The link with the Lannisters seems particularly appropriate. Most of the English (as opposed to Welsh) longbowmen were from Lancashire. And I think its fairly clear that the Lancastrians and Yorkists were part of the inspiration for the Lannisters and Starks. Plus, the armies the English sent to fight on the Continent during the Hundred Years War contained a great many _mercenary_ archers. So there we have the Lannister monetary connection as well.
haaruk	Jun 5th 4:44 PM Richard, feudalism was alive and well in China and Japan.