How well will the Unsullied do in Westeros?

[Sir Lee knot]

Triple post

[TallTyrion]

Is it really inconceivable that the unsullied could upgrade their weapons and wear chain mail? I doubt that they are planning on marching in the snow in sandals and loin cloths.

[Sir Lee knot]

Is it really inconceivable that the unsullied could upgrade their weapons and wear chain mail? I doubt that they are planning on marching in the snow in sandals and loin cloths.

Hey! Stop using logic! We don't like your kind around here...

Yeah, but seriously. Dany seems to have acquired enough wealth during her conquests to buy the Unsullied armor and extra cloths. Even if she doesn't currently have it she could probably raise funds by sacking some other city.

[GallowsKnight]

/if/

Pray tell how are they going to stop determined knights and men at arms in full armor who push into them practically immune to their short spears?

[A Bastard Snow]

Hey! Stop using logic! We don't like your kind around here...

Yeah, but seriously. Dany seems to have acquired enough wealth during her conquests to buy the Unsullied armor and extra cloths. Even if she doesn't currently have it she could probably raise funds by sacking some other city.

She has so much funds she cant even buy enough food to feed her city.

[TallTyrion]

She has so much funds she cant even buy enough food to feed her city.

Isn't the siege/ the scorched earth what's causing the famine in Meerene? Also she is surrounded by enemies the Lamb Men are the only ones she can trade with

[Sir Lee knot]

Pray tell how are they going to stop determined knights and men at arms in full armor who push into them practically immune to their short spears?

By that definition I guess they aren't but by realistic terms it's a different story.

Spears were used on the battle field up until guns made melee weapons become obsolete. There are plenty of examples of spears being able to go through mail and padded leather tunics. Knight's would be harder to kill but not impossible.

Think of it this way. The Knights charge in the front lines with the regular infantry not far behind. The Unsullied hold firm in a shield wall as both sides clash but then most of the Westerosi men in the front lines get bunched up and squished against the Shield wall by the soldiers in the rear. Before long it becomes shoulder to shoulder and the Westerosi guys are hardly able to swing a sword but the Unsullied phalanx leaves plenty of room to thrust.

This is basically the exact reason the Romans did so well. They would almost primarily stab while their opponents were so tightly packed that their big swinging weapons didn't allow them enough space to really move.

She has so much funds she cant even buy enough food to feed her city.

Well you know, they are being sieged and they can't exactly eat gold but hey. I guess you didn't know...

[GallowsKnight]

By that definition I guess they aren't but by realistic terms it's a different story.

Spears were used on the battle field up until guns made melee weapons become obsolete. There are plenty of examples of spears being able to go through mail and padded leather tunics. Knight's would be harder to kill but not impossible.

Think of it this way. The Knights charge in the front lines with the regular infantry not far behind. The Unsullied hold firm in a shield wall as both sides clash but then most of the Westerosi men in the front lines get bunched up and squished against the Shield wall by the soldiers in the rear. Before long it becomes shoulder to shoulder and the Westerosi guys are hardly able to swing a sword but the Unsullied phalanx leaves plenty of room to thrust.

This is basically the exact reason the Romans did so well. They would almost primarily stab while their opponents were so tightly packed that their big swinging weapons didn't allow them enough space to really move

The westerosi have shields too. They have men with have longer spears, pikes. They have stronger backs if it comes to a pushing fight. Knights can half sword, they have daggers. They can fight at extreme close range.

Armor certainly isn't invincible but its a huge advantage in that sort of fight.

The Romans had armor (mostly mail). There enemies didn't have plate (or partial plate). They also had auxiliaries and other tactics.

[Sir Lee knot]

The westerosi have shields too. They have men with have longer spears, pikes. They have stronger backs if it comes to a pushing fight. Knights can half sword, they have daggers. They can fight at extreme close range.

Armor certainly isn't invincible but its a huge advantage in that sort of fight.

The Romans had armor (mostly mail). There enemies didn't have plate (or partial plate). They also had auxiliaries and other tactics.

They have smaller shields that are used in a different way. Are Pikemen even necessarily better then hoplites? I know they have an advantage over cavalry but I can't figure anything that would suggest they have an advantage over hoplite units.

No, not necessarily true. But it wouldn't really be pushing. The men at arms would just be shoulder to shoulder and unable to swing while they are getting impaled by the Unsullied's spears. Half swording would leave them even more exposed. If they have to take out their daggers they have already lost.

Yeah the Westerosi have their armor but Unsullied have a strong phalanx formation, are more skilled with their weapons, don't feel as much pain and don't route.

If you look at the battle of Agincourt most people would have said that the french are going to have an easy victory because they are better armored and more numerous. But in reality the English had excellent skilled archers, good ground and kept their heads on straight which is probably the ultimate reason they won.

[Lord Reaver]

The Varangian Guard is documented by Byzantines to go into berserking rages - Enoksen, Lars Magnar. (1998). Runor : historia, tydning, tolkning. Historiska Media, Falun. ISBN 91-88930-32-7 p. 135

Well, I haven't read this particular book, but I imagine what he's referring to is De Ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, wherein the Varangians are said to participate in some weird rituals with animal masks. It's hardly indicative of them using drugs to become impervious to pain.

There is a much better source you could have mentioned for arguing berserkering actually being a real thing, though, and I just realized it myself: Grágás. This icelandic lawtext explicitly outlaws going berserk, which suggests it was real, at least to the authors of said text.

So, there being berserkers is arguably factual. The details of how they achieved their status, however, very much is up in the air. It is highly unlikely it was through any substance use.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Hey! Stop using logic! We don't like your kind around here...

Yeah, but seriously. Dany seems to have acquired enough wealth during her conquests to buy the Unsullied armor and extra cloths. Even if she doesn't currently have it she could probably raise funds by sacking some other city.

And who would sell the armor? Artisans don't pop out of the bushes, nor can a proper suit of armor be cobbled together in a couple minutes.

Think of it this way. The Knights charge in the front lines with the regular infantry not far behind. The Unsullied hold firm in a shield wall as both sides clash but then most of the Westerosi men in the front lines get bunched up and squished against the Shield wall by the soldiers in the rear. Before long it becomes shoulder to shoulder and the Westerosi guys are hardly able to swing a sword but the Unsullied phalanx leaves plenty of room to thrust.

This is basically the exact reason the Romans did so well. They would almost primarily stab while their opponents were so tightly packed that their big swinging weapons didn't allow them enough space to really move.

That would be utterly stupid. Think of it this way. The dismounted knights advance against the front lines in formation, using their (shortened) lances as pikes. The Unsullied die in their shield wall by the droves, since the knights are numerically superior thanks to utilising more lines at the same time, are stronger, strong enough to push them off their feet, and since the Unsullied are barely armored, being wounded far more easily.

A tad later, the lances are discarded, and maces, longaxes and swords are employed, as well as grappling and daggers. There, the stronger knights have the advantage, as well as the short swords of the Unsullied scraping of their armor impotently.

And yes, that's the reason the Romans did so well: 200 BC! Or, to account for the Unsullied lack of armor: 400 BC! Combat has evolved...

They have smaller shields that are used in a different way. Are Pikemen even necessarily better then hoplites? I know they have an advantage over cavalry but I can't figure anything that would suggest they have an advantage over hoplite units.

Oh yes, they are. Six or seven lines instead of three, two-handed use of the pike, (plate) armor, halberdiers, flexible formations, the ability to turn or to retreat...

[Lord Reaver]

Oh yes, they are. Six or seven lines instead of three, two-handed use of the pike, (plate) armor, halberdiers, flexible formations, the ability to turn or to retreat...

You forgot the Zweihander, as used by the Doppelsoldner. Apparently this was extremely effective in pike warfare (hence the name for the soldiers who wielded them).

[Bright Blue Eyes]

You forgot the Zweihander, as used by the Doppelsoldner. Apparently this was extremely effective in pike warfare (hence the name for the soldiers who wielded them).

Lumped them together with the halberdiers. May as well include the guys carrying rondaches. Similar function all around.

[Lord Reaver]

Helmet and the shield that covers most of their body. It's like you missed half the sentence. I admit it's not super well armored but it's not like they are naked Dothraki.

A shield is not a very good substitute for actual armour, believe me. There's a reason the Romans had both. Shields can be pushed aside, they can be split, pierced etc. etc. Not to mention they severely limit the weapons you can wield and the force with which you can wield them.

Which is another point, the unsullied could never have pikes the length of the westerosi pikemen. The hoplites were limited to spears of about 2.5 m in length. This is because any longer than that, and you're going to struggle wielding it one-handed. Using both hands gives much greater strength, enabling you to have pikes up to 7.5 m (that's three times longer), which means you could have three times as many men fighting at once.

So, in a pikement vs. unsullied engagement, you would have the unsullied being virtually outnumbered 3:1, no matter the respective numbers. Then you'd have to add the fact they are poorly armored, have less force behind their push, have to actually push through the first 5m of the pikemen's weapons and lack anything like the Doppelsoldner to make this easier. It would be a massacre, and one that didn't end until every last unsullied was dead on the field.

[Lord Reaver]

Lumped them together with the halberdiers. May as well include the guys carrying rondaches. Similar function all around.

Fair enough. :) Some guys with slightly shorter, yet extremely powerful weapons, presumably to open holes in the enemy formation.

[Talleyrand]

Surely you have to ask yourself Sir Lee if the phalanx was as superior as you make out, why did we abandon it?

If you look at the battle of Agincourt most people would have said that the french are going to have an easy victory because they are better armored and more numerous. But in reality the English had excellent skilled archers, good ground and kept their heads on straight which is probably the ultimate reason they won.

Agincourt was won by Archers and mud - the former which the unsullied aren't and the later isn't something you want to hinge your entire strategy on finding

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Surely you have to ask yourself Sir Lee if the phalanx was as superior as you make out, why did we abandon it?

Agincourt was won by Archers and mud - the former which the unsullied aren't and the later isn't something you want to hinge your entire strategy on finding

Archers fighting hand to hand at barricades.

[Lord Reaver]

Archers fighting hand to hand at barricades.

Indeed, charging fortified positions head-on never was a very good idea. The englishmen could have been armed with slingshots instead of longbows, and the outcome would probably have been the same (as long as they still had their sidearms, which was actually what they used to kill a majority of the french dead).

[Talleyrand]

Archers fighting hand to hand at barricades.

Yes but the prescense of the archers forced the French knights to dismount - meaning they had to leg it across a massive muddy field, where a bunch of them reportadly drowned and the rest were likely fecking knackered by the time they reached the English lines

[Vesemir]

So, in a pikement vs. unsullied engagement, you would have the unsullied being virtually outnumbered 3:1, no matter the respective numbers. Then you'd have to add the fact they are poorly armored, have less force behind their push, have to actually push through the first 5m of the pikemen's weapons and lack anything like the Doppelsoldner to make this easier. It would be a massacre, and one that didn't end until every last unsullied was dead on the field.

Yeah, Unsullied could never win against a Westerosi army. Unless GRRM makes them win with their plot armor, we have no reason to believe that the Unsullied would win. End of the discussion.