Jump to content


Photo

Unsullied comparable to Janissaries


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:29 PM

This is my first here so I apologize if this has been covered.

Janissaries were the elite Ottoman soldiers and I belive are the real life version of unsullied.

Similarities 

-Both trained from a very young age to be professional warriors.

 

-Janissaries were often forcefully conscripted as children ( even though some villages welcomed their children being taken)

 

- Janissaries were often referred to as slave soldiers even though they were socially above slaves

 

- Fought as infantry

 

-Had lighter armor than their European enemies

 

- Both were considered elite in their armies

 

-Both were considered extremely hard to route

Difference

 

- Janissaries had a lot more diversity in warfare and employed swordsmen, halberd, composite bowmen ect.

 

- Janissaries made use of modern technology like rifles and early grenades

 

-Castration

 

- Janissaries do not have unsullied super human tolerance for pain

 

- Janissaries were not known for fighting in tight formations

 

-Janissaries trained more as individuals

 

If the  Janissaries did have the  right support such as cavalry in the form of Tartars (sort of like Dothraki) and Saphi’s (light horse often Turk nobles, kinda sorta like knights or Second Sons) and given the right conditions they could defeat any European army at the time (1400-1500 to keep it in the late medieval period like Westros is in)

 

The reason why this I think this is relevant is that the Janissaries historically defeated many European armies that conducted warfare in a similar style to Westros. They proved that in many cases professionally trained soldiers can be more than a match for Knights and levies.

 

Some historians would argue that the success of the Janissaries contributed to the decline of the feudal system of warfare. Europeans began to employ more professional armies instead of peasants levied at the last moment.

 

Because of this I believe that if used properly the unsullied can enjoy great success in Westros.   Like the Janissaries they are considered the elite center of Dany’s army.

 

I realized I made some stretches because the unsullied are kind of one trick pony and do not have the diversity that the Janissaries have but they make of for it with their refusal to route. Often times the victor is the side that refused to route in medieval warfare.

 

What do you think?



#2 Bright Blue Eyes

Bright Blue Eyes

    Scaring Crows

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,760 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:38 PM

Welcome to the forums. You have opened a can of worms. Discussions about Unsullied (or Dothraki) never end well.

 

Basically, no. The Unsullied are a completely overrated force. They fight with weapons, tactics and organization outdated for two millennia (greek phalanx). And they are physically much weaker than any other soldier. Nothing can make up for all these disadvantages. That they won't be routed only means that they'll die where they stand. Because they have no chance to win, ignoring the stiltwalkers other jokes currently running around Meereen.



#3 Ingelheim

Ingelheim

    I've never paid my debts.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,426 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:42 PM

Welcome to the forums. You have opened a can of worms. Discussions about Unsullied (or Dothraki) never end well.

 

Basically, no. The Unsullied are a completely overrated force. They fight with weapons, tactics and organization outdated for two millennia (greek phalanx). And they are physically much weaker than any other soldier. Nothing can make up for all these disadvantages. That they won't be routed only means that they'll die where they stand. Because they have no chance to win, ignoring the stiltwalkers other jokes currently running around Meereen.

 

This one puts it clearly.



#4 The Bittersteel

The Bittersteel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:44 PM

Welcome to the forums. You have opened a can of worms. Discussions about Unsullied (or Dothraki) never end well.

 

Basically, no. The Unsullied are a completely overrated force. They fight with weapons, tactics and organization outdated for two millennia (greek phalanx). And they are physically much weaker than any other soldier. Nothing can make up for all these disadvantages. That they won't be routed only means that they'll die where they stand. Because they have no chance to win, ignoring the stiltwalkers other jokes currently running around Meereen.

Actually in terms of fighting in an outdated manner they were exactly like the janissaries who were the main opposition towards reformation of the ottoman empire's military structure and reorganisation to a more advanced, European standard. More than anything else the janissaries came to represent stagnation of military tactics.

 

I believe the key difference is the political aspect. Jannisaries became heavily involved and entrenched in the politics of the Ottoman Empire, is their any examples of the unsullied having anything other than military power? 



#5 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:49 PM

I know later the janisaries became out dated but in the medieval period they were Pretty cutting edge.

#6 The Bittersteel

The Bittersteel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:52 PM

I know later the janisaries became out dated but in the medieval period they were Pretty cutting edge.

That's not the point, I'm sure at some stage the Unsullied's military tactics were cutting edge. However, neither organisation succeeded in adapting and evolving with the times and new military advances.



#7 Bright Blue Eyes

Bright Blue Eyes

    Scaring Crows

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,760 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:54 PM

Actually in terms of fighting in an outdated manner they were exactly like the janissaries who were the main opposition towards reformation of the ottoman empire's military structure and reorganisation to a more advanced, European standard. More than anything else the janissaries came to represent stagnation of military tactics.

True, but in the case of the jannisaries, it's more like outdated by a single generation, not outdated by a hundred.



#8 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:10 PM

I have always considered professional trained soldiers superior to medieval levies. A Roman or greek city state army would crush a medieval levies even with the technology gap. But if you throw knights into the picture it's a different story.

As for the phalanx being "obsolete" . It began to see a a resurgence in the late medieval period when putting armor piercing crossbow men behind a wall of spears was seen as a effective counter to heavy cavalry.

#9 Bright Blue Eyes

Bright Blue Eyes

    Scaring Crows

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,760 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:21 PM

I have always considered professional trained soldiers superior to medieval levies. A Roman or greek city state army would crush a medieval levies even with the technology gap. But if you throw knights into the picture it's a different story.

Professional trained soldiers made up 90+% of medieval armies. The cliche of the farmer marching to war with a sicle is just an invention of the Victorian Age (and Marx, by the way).

As for the phalanx being "obsolete" . It began to see a a resurgence in the late medieval period when putting armor piercing crossbow men behind a wall of spears was seen as a effective counter to heavy cavalry.

Rather the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of the phalanx who has barely any resemblance left. As much resemblance as a Fokker and a F-16, for example.



#10 The Bittersteel

The Bittersteel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:27 PM

 

I have always considered professional trained soldiers superior to medieval levies. A Roman or greek city state army would crush a medieval levies even with the technology gap. But if you throw knights into the picture it's a different story.

Professional trained soldiers made up 90+% of medieval armies. The cliche of the farmer marching to war with a sicle is just an invention of the Victorian Age (and Marx, by the way).

As for the phalanx being "obsolete" . It began to see a a resurgence in the late medieval period when putting armor piercing crossbow men behind a wall of spears was seen as a effective counter to heavy cavalry.

Rather the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of the phalanx who has barely any resemblance left. As much resemblance as a Fokker and a F-16, for example.

 

Just to support Blue Eye's point with a historical example, the English population of the medieval Age was, by law, to practice with the longbow to a proficient standard so they were more effective levies.



#11 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:44 PM

Professional is hardly the term I would use. At best the "trained" levies are comparable to reservists. And any serious war would see a great influx of untrained levies. The closest thing feudal warfare had to professional troops were sergeants most archers and knights.And I would say unsullied are at a minimum comparable to sergeants. In most cases standards for troops greatly differed from lord to lord even in the same kingdom. And a Fokker to a F-16 may be a little extreme.

#12 E-Ro

E-Ro

    Guttersnipe

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,050 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:54 PM

Professional is hardly the term I would use. At best the "trained" levies are comparable to reservists. And any serious war would see a great influx of untrained levies. The closest thing feudal warfare had to professional troops were sergeants most archers and knights.And I would say unsullied are at a minimum comparable to sergeants. In most cases standards for troops greatly differed from lord to lord even in the same kingdom. And a Fokker to a F-16 may be a little extreme.

LOL no. Medieval armies(especially by the time of the jannisaries in the mid 1300s) were small, elite, and well equipped and trained. No serious war would see an influx of untrained levies, you either made that shit up on the spot or are using a flawed source for your info. 

 

Feudal armies are made of large retinues of paid men, employed by the magnates or lords and nobility. Its a system known as livery and maintenance. Livery, as in the lords symbols, and maintenance as in the maintaining of large bodies of men. 

 

It is not just the sergeants and archers and knights that are professional, but the vast majority of the infantry as well. No lord would ever think to march untrained men into battle, that would be daft as well as economically unfeasible. 



#13 Drake Heath

Drake Heath

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 02:54 PM

From what I remember the phalanx became obsolete by the time of the Romans and whenever they used it outside of Greece.

 

It's a terribly inflexible formation, good for fighting in mountain passes, not for anything else.



#14 E-Ro

E-Ro

    Guttersnipe

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,050 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:00 PM

Here for further reading on the subject. 



#15 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:14 PM

Even today a country enter a serious war they will see an influx of undertrained conscripts.... you have to be joking? This is seen several times even in the book.
1) the north gets less men because of the harvest.
2) the influx of gold cloaks
3) the septens rant about broken men to(the one with the dog)

Any feudal army at any time most likely had undertrained men especially wen compared to janisaries. It is much cheaper to have a large army of reservists than a small one of professional. This has been true throughout human history. Don't believe me? Look at
Greece today. It is cheaper to have a larger army of conscript than better trained professionals.

#16 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:22 PM

From what I remember the phalanx became obsolete by the time of the Romans and whenever they used it outside of Greece.
 
It's a terribly inflexible formation, good for fighting in mountain passes, not for anything else.



#17 E-Ro

E-Ro

    Guttersnipe

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,050 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:22 PM

Even today a country enter a serious war they will see an influx of undertrained conscripts.... you have to be joking? This is seen several times even in the book.
1) the north gets less men because of the harvest.
2) the influx of gold cloaks
3) the septens rant about broken men to(the one with the dog)

Any feudal army at any time most likely had undertrained men especially wen compared to janisaries. It is much cheaper to have a large army of reservists than a small one of professional. This has been true throughout human history. Don't believe me? Look at
Greece today. It is cheaper to have a larger army of conscript than better trained professionals.

umm, no, im sorry but this is not accurate. I can tell you are arguing this from a position of ignorance. 

 

It is not economically intelligent to march men that could be bringing in crops away from said crops, that is how you get a famine. furthermore, the books are not real life, this is a fantasy series. So while the authot uses the trope of farmer marched off to battle a few times in the novels, that is no indication of how things happened in real life. 

 

Name one battle in which there were "under-trained men" involved. I can think of only one off the top of my head, the battle of visby. Here is some documentation

 


As has been well documented, the famous excavations at the site of the battle of visby on gotland off the coast of sweden have revealed a tremendous wealth of archaeological evidence about the nature of medieval battle wounds(as well as armor) In July 1361, a small peasant force was defeated in three battles by danish soldiers. Over 1200 corpses were left in grave pits outside the city of visby. Likely because of high temperatures on the day of the summer battle, the corpses were not stripped of their armor as usual but quickly dumped in mass graves. The mass graves show a wide range and diversity of armor types. Everything from soft and hard leather to differing sizes of mail and "coat of plate" was discovered. No two pieces are identical, with each having been made for the individual. Both noble and commoner appear to have been armored in at least some way.

 

The gutes made use of untrained men because they were being invaded, the enemy was at the gates. This is the only time untrained men will be used, in cases of emergency. The vast majority of the time armies will be mostly trained men. Another thing worth noting, all of the gutes had armor of some kind, equipment was easier for the gutes to get access to then trained men to use it. The fact that the danish soldiers MASSACRED even a well equipped force of peasants shows us that it is pretty much useless to make use of untrained men. They dont last. they break, and they break hard. 



#18 Starspear

Starspear

    Vayder and Stargwarger - King-Beyond-the-Forum-Wall

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:27 PM

Slave army. That's a fair comparison, but that really ends there.

 

The Janissary became a caste of their own kind, eventually becoming a real power within the realm.

 

Let's see how the Unsullied evolve... though I doubt they'll ever NOT obey their master.



#19 Bright Blue Eyes

Bright Blue Eyes

    Scaring Crows

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,760 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:35 PM

Even today a country enter a serious war they will see an influx of undertrained conscripts.... you have to be joking? This is seen several times even in the book.
1) the north gets less men because of the harvest.

That applies a) locally and B) is attributed to the huge manpower needed for the harvest. 80+% of the total population. And the adult males away soldiering would pull way above the average of that.
2) the influx of gold cloaks

And how Ironhand and Bronn complained about it...
3) the septens rant about broken men to(the one with the dog)

The one who was a camp follower, not an actual fighting man?

Any feudal army at any time most likely had undertrained men especially wen compared to janisaries. It is much cheaper to have a large army of reservists than a small one of professional. This has been true throughout human history. Don't believe me? Look at
Greece today. It is cheaper to have a larger army of conscript than better trained professionals.

It's true throughout certain periods of human history. Not the Middle Ages.



#20 DanyTheSaltWife

DanyTheSaltWife

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 03:51 PM

 

Even today a country enter a serious war they will see an influx of undertrained conscripts.... you have to be joking? This is seen several times even in the book.
1) the north gets less men because of the harvest.

That applies a) locally and B) is attributed to the huge manpower needed for the harvest. 80+% of the total population. And the adult males away soldiering would pull way above the average of that.
2) the influx of gold cloaks

And how Ironhand and Bronn complained about it...
3) the septens rant about broken men to(the one with the dog)

The one who was a camp follower, not an actual fighting man?

Any feudal army at any time most likely had undertrained men especially wen compared to janisaries. It is much cheaper to have a large army of reservists than a small one of professional. This has been true throughout human history. Don't believe me? Look at
Greece today. It is cheaper to have a larger army of conscript than better trained professionals.

It's true throughout certain periods of human history. Not the Middle Ages.

 

He was not a camp follower.... he was a soldier.