Worldbuilding/history chatter: the Nights Watch from ASoIaF/GoT/HotD don't actually make a lot of sense.
The basic problem here isn't fantasy at all: how to keep a permanent security presence on a distant and potentially inhospitable border is an old problem. 1/
And because it is an old problem that recurs a lot, there are historical patterns for how it is solved.
The main problem is not how to generate the force, so much as how to keep it on the frontier (rather than either dissolving into the peasantry or marching on the capital). 2/
In practice, you see three recurring solutions to the problem. The Night's Watch is clearly patterned off of the least common of these: a 'military order,' which is to say a knightly religious order, like the Teutonic Knights or the Knights Hospitaller. 3/
Here the solution to 'what holds them to the frontier' is 'religious devotion,' which is a very powerful force.
And you can see this pattern for the Night's Watch: they're called brothers, they take vows, and they serve for life. 4/
The problem is that the organization lacks a singular religion (being split between Westeros two major religions, the Faith of the Seven and the Old Gods), which is a real problem if 'religious devotion' is the main source of cohesion and purpose for an organization. 5/
To be frank, this fits with a broader problem in GRRM's worldbuilding, which struggles with the implication of people believing in their own religions.
Martin is a secular agnostic and so imagines secular societies, but secular societies don't produce religious orders. 6/
Actual religious knightly orders derive their cohesion in no small part from the monastic elements of the life-style - these guys get up every morning and pray together and believe their service is recompense for their sins moving them towards the heaven they all believe in. 7/
Absent that religious motivation, all you have is a highly cohesive body of armed men, with no real ties of loyalty to the crown or the church, but with control of land and peasants (the 'Gifts').
They're going to set up a state. And then march on Winterfell. 8/
Ok, you might say, what about a system where a society just dumps its undesirables up on the frozen frontier.
That exists too and is a subset of the far more common solution to this problem than religious orders: long-service professionals. 9/
And at various points (Han China, Early Modern Europe) you do see the prisons emptied to fill the ranks of professional armies (not, generally speaking, the Romans, though).
But even if you do that, there's a problem: you have to pay these guys and let them retire. 10/
Why? Because you are creating a large, highly cohesive (out of conditions of shared suffering and service) group of armed men with common interests and valuable skills (in violence).
If you do not pay them - and no one pays the Night's Watch - they'll march on Winterfell. 11/
The problem with this is of course Westeros is explicitly the kind of low-state-capacity society incapable of producing or paying long-service professional armies.
If it was that kind of society, you'd have very different politics (appointed governors, not vassal lords). 12/
This gets a bit more directly at the most fundamental worldbuilding problem: Westeros is too big for the kind of vassalage-based polity we're told it has. GRRM has taken War-of-the-Roses Britain, blown it up to the size of a continent, but not dealt with the scale problem. 13/
But the upshot is, in both the shows and the books, this kind of long-service professional army is explicitly beyond the capabilities of the Iron Throne (or Winterfell). 14/
Option 3, for the curious, is 'military settlers' - these guys would be permanently relocated, but w/ land they farmed. You'd very much want them to marry, with land and service being hereditary.
Professionals retiring would, likewise, produce a permanent population. 15/
How would one 'fix' this bit of worldbuilding? I think the answer is that the Night's Watch needs to be structured like an actual religious order.
It needs one religion, which the brothers believe in a lot and which binds them together. 16/
If that's the Old Gods, then the NW would be a creature of Winterfell. If it's the Seven, they'd be creatures of the Iron Throne.
In either case, a highly cohesive body of armed men is not going to be politically neutral the way they often are in the books 17/
Instead, like actual religious orders, they have a lot of land (and presumably peasants on it; the 'Gifts' make no sense unless there are farmers up there), which means they have a lot of wealth and power to throw around, along with, you know, armed men. 18/
This would thus almost certainly be a high status, rather than low status organization, since it would be a wealth, landholding order of sacred warrior-brothers, which - people in the past believed their own religion - is going to garner a lot of respect. 19/
That may well be insufficient: the military orders of the East that emerged in and after the Crusades were never able to retain enough manpower to make the Crusader States viable in the long-term.
But they did wield a lot of influence and wealth! 20/
But as it stands, you have a highly cohesive order of trained, armed, secular warriors (many of whom are former criminals with grudges!) sat up in the frozen north and asked to stay there for no pay.
These guys try to sack Winterfell 11 times out of 10. 21/
And, I should note, they probably succeed! Sure, their numbers have dwindled to less than a thousand, but a core of well-armed, highly cohesive trained fighting men in a society like Westeros - tend to win battles.
They just wouldn't be fighting wildlings or the Others. /end
Addendum: to go by some of the replies, I may not have stressed enough - it doesn't matter how you get the guys for the Watch (though different structures will imply different recruiting pools).
Once you give them weapons, it's a new game and the question is how you KEEP them.
Because in that moment they've stopped being prisoners or captives or rejects you have control over and are instead a standing professional army with *collective* interests.
You can't treat them as individuals anymore - they'll act as a group.
So individual solutions, like the penalties for desertion, are basically useless.
They're not going to break off onsies-twosies, they're going to march south several thousand strong.
Even if you win the war that results, this is a failure state.
And since this is circulating around, let me note that I have a blog () which includes more of this sort of historical-fantasy analysis, including looks not only at GoT/ASoIaF but also Lord of the Rings (start here: )acoup.blog acoup.blog/2019/05/10/col…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been playing a bit of Total War: Pharaoh Dynasties, which is basically Total War: Late Bronze Age, covering the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and Mesopotamia.
It's particularly interesting to see the fudges they have to make to fit bronze age warfare into total war. 1/
Because there are a lot of fudges here, for instance taking very rare, probably royal heavy armor (like the Dendra panoply) and imagining whole units of it, or pulling Assyrian cavalry forward a few centuries to fit into the game's time frame. 2/
I've talked about this before, but Total War's tactical model is primarily focused on match-ups and positioning, and of the two, match-ups are more important.
You win by arraying and maneuvering your army to create favorable match-up over the field.
3/acoup.blog/2022/05/27/col…
One key that differentiates real historical inquiry from more superficial engagement with the past is learning not merely what was in the past but how we know.
Getting to know the sources and their blindspots.
So let's talk about the sources for the Macedonian Sarisa phalanx!1/
And I won't bury the lede here: the problem with our sources here is that while most folks are really interested in the phalanx of Philip II and Alexander III ('the Great'), our sources mostly didn't see that phalanx.
They mostly saw the Hellenistic phalanx. 2/
The two cornerstone sources here for understanding how the Macedonian phalanx actually works are Polybius (c. 200-118 BC) and Asclepiodotus (?? first cent. BC).
Neither of these guys was a contemporary of Alexander, they're both from the Hellenistic period. 3/
These sorts of accounts are everywhere these days, but what is shocking to me is not just the ideological bent they have, but how poor their grasp of the ancient world is.
They're selling an antiquity riddled with errors.
So, a non-exhaustive list of errors in this thread: 1/
Let's start with chronology: 500 years? No.
Philip II can introduce the Macedonian phalanx no earlier than the start of his reign in 359, the Romans stomp all over it from 200 to 168 and it is basically gone by c. 50 BC.
300 != 500. 2/
Next, a simplification rather than an error - we generally think Philip II is iterating on new military ideas already being tried out in Greece.
The thread briefly mentions Epaminondas, but Iphicrates is more relevant to the emergence of the sarisa phalanx. 3/
There are a lot of problems with this. but I want to highlight the claim that this system lasted "almost 1,000 years" which speaks to how the Middle Ages are extended & essentialized.
The core features of this system emerge in the 8th/ 9th cent. and are mostly gone by the 16th.
More broadly over course, this simplistic vision of 'feudalism' would be insufficient for even an introductory undergraduate survey, equating vassalage (relations between aristocrats) with manorialism (the economic system involving peasants).
These were distinct systems and indeed vassals might not be manorial - cities could be vassals, for instance.
Moreover, aristocratic sources for this period do not resound with a sense of duty towards peasants, but with contempt and disregard for them.
Increasingly feeling like I need to do a Roman Britain version of the 'Why was Roman Egypt such a strange province?' because of how badly Roman Britain distorts the popular understanding of the Roman Empire, but also doing it honestly is gonna upset a bunch of British folks.
Roman Britain is, of course, conquered by the Romans relatively late. It was also both 1) less urbanized when they took and 2) remains less urbanized than the rest of the empire. It was also pretty clearly poor by Romans standards.
Its decline starts earlier and is more complete than almost any other place in the Roman world, because its urbanism was never economically self-sustaining.
But a lot of folks get really upset if you say the place they live now was, at one time, relatively unimportant.
Ptolemies stop creating military units with ethnic signifiers that don't actually signify either ethnic recruitment or culture-specific tactics or equipment challenge.
A: "Ah yes, here is the Hipparchy of the Thessalians."
B: "Ah, so it is made up of Thessalians?"
A: "No. This dude's from Thrace!"
Thracian Guy: ::thick accent:: Χαιρε!
B: "Oh, so they fight like Thessalians?"
A: "Eh, probably not. They're just cavalry."
...sigh.
Of course the real existential horror is realizing we only know that Ptolemaic ethnic unit signifiers are complete BS because we have that papyrus evidence.
Which raises Uncomfortable Questions about Seleucid ethnic unit signifiers, for which we do not have papyrus evidence.