Unsullied comparable to Janissaries

[DanyTheSaltWife]

look at polish Pospolite ruszenie or English fyd in fact the European levy system really did not see an end until Napoleons conquest.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

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

Without a weapon? Please reread that passage, and pay attention to the things left unsaid.

[E-Ro]

From the battle of tours in 732, in which the heavily elite, and superbly trained Frankish infantry withstood charge after charge of Muslim cavalry, to the end of medieval times in the 1500s armies were small and elite things. I have provided a historical source, as well as a link for you to read to educate yourself. You have provided nothing but the most juvenile of insults which just makes you look like a clown. Cite one historic source that backs your claims of untrained levies being the norm in medieval times. You wont find any.

The polish system(ruszenie) created competent forces of infantry, it only declined later towards the 1500s, and compared to merc companies which everyone else was using. Whats also worth noting, poland is eastern europe, not western, the systems were slightly different. In fact, the kingdom of Hungary under Bella IV made numerous changes to make his kingdom more like their western european counterparts. He levied more tax and required more money put towards the raising of men(heavy cavalry in particular) As for "enlgish fyd" I have no idea whgat you are referencing here. English armies in the middle ages were ALWAYS well trained. From the battle of hastings were they fought william to the, crusades, to the battles in france in the hundred years war, all the way up to the wars of the roses.

It is economically unwise to march farmers away from their land because if they aren't farming, you get a shortage of food. Whats more, many of them are likely to die, and many are likely to run at the first sign of trouble and account of not being trained. It is cheaper to pay men for military service then it is to take your farmers off of their land and away from their families.

[Talleyrand]

The polish system(ruszenie) created competent forces of infantry, it only declined later towards the 1500s, and compared to merc companies which everyone else was using. Whats also worth noting, poland is eastern europe, not western, the systems were slightly different. In fact, the kingdom of Hungary under Bella IV made numerous changes to make his kingdom more like their western european counterparts. He levied more tax and required more money put towards the raising of men(heavy cavalry in particular) As for "enlgish fyd" I have no idea whgat you are referencing here. English armies in the middle ages were ALWAYS well trained. From the battle of hastings were they fought william to the, crusades, to the battles in france in the hundred years war, all the way up to the wars of the roses.

The fyrd is the saxon system of defending in which a (supposed) militia of commoners was raised to supplement the nobles and their Housecarls. Though even now the idea's come under scrutiny and several historians see it as far more likely that they weren't commoners but minor landowning nobilty who didn't have their own personal armies rather than the peasants

[E-Ro]

The fyrd is the saxon system of defending in which a (supposed) militia of commoners was raised to supplement the nobles and their Housecarls. Though even now the idea's come under scrutiny and several historians see it as far more likely that they weren't commoners but minor landowning nobilty who didn't have their own personal armies rather than the peasants

Ahhh, I see. Do you happen to know what the timeline for that system is? When it was first put into effect and when it stopped being used? I admit I have never heard of it before.

[jon stark I]

Two are completely different.Janissaries were taken from their family but if a family had a son or family member as janissary then that family wouldn't have to give up one more child and it was considered a really good job at the time.Jannisaries were very powerful you can see that from the way they behaved against the Sultans of the Ottomon empire.Many times they rebelled and changed the Sultan who did't pleased them.Because of their wish to see Yavuz as their Sultan they made his father Beyazid the second pass the throne to his son Yavuz(And Yavuz was defeated by his father at that war).Janisaries were paid handsomely and they had jobs in the peace times also they had high power among the Ottoman empire.I don't know if they were immune to pain like Unsullied but they practised their "Ottoman slap" on oiled marble to toughen up their palms from a very young age(Ottoman slap is kind of painful I had plenty of that and believe me you won't like it it hurts for hours and you can literally see the hand mark on your cheek for an hour).

Unsullied are very different you can't find someone like them but you can find similarities between every special force of every empire(city, kingdom) and unsullied.

[Talleyrand]

Ahhh, I see. Do you happen to know what the timeline for that system is? When it was first put into effect and when it stopped being used? I admit I have never heard of it before.

We have no definite on when it first showed up but it begins getting mentioned regularly when the vikings show up and start fucking about with everyone.

I'm pretty much stopped being used after the conquest with it being called once or twice in the early Norman rule when they thought they might get invaded - with it definitely having died out by the time the Anarchy came around

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

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.

If by professional you mean full time, or a "standing army" so to say, then neither the Greeks nor the Romans (except for fairly late in their history in the Roman case) had professional soldiers either. In fact "Legion" literally means levy.

[Talleyrand]

If by professional you mean full time, or a "standing army" so to say, then neither the Greeks nor the Romans (except for fairly late in their history in the Roman case) had professional soldiers either. In fact "Legion" literally means levy.

"late" - in terms of the republic. Rome (West for later on) had a standing army for 107BCE to the 470's AD. East had one for another 1000 years or so

[Fire Eater]

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.

Except they are well-trained and disciplined. Their weapons and tactics are still appropriate for their time period given they also draw inspiration from the Swiss pikemen which were formidable in the Middle Ages. They still fight in a world using infantry spearmen and horse cavalry.

They can most likely withstand an armored charge. If infantry made up of peasants poorly trained can do it then so can Unsullied who were trained their whole lives. The success of a cavalry charge depended on psychology, breaking the infantry before they break you, and the Unsullied don't break very easily.

[E-Ro]

We have no definite on when it first showed up but it begins getting mentioned regularly when the vikings show up and start fucking about with everyone.

I'm pretty much stopped being used after the conquest with it being called once or twice in the early Norman rule when they thought they might get invaded - with it definitely having died out by the time the Anarchy came around

Ahhh I see so it pretty much stopped after the late 1000s. That probably explains why im ignorant of it. I will search around on the internets for some more info on this. Chances are it is a better system then the op of this thread is implying, but I wont jump to conclusions.

[E-Ro]

Except they are well-trained and disciplined. Their weapons and tactics are still appropriate for their time period given they also draw inspiration from the Swiss pikemen which were formidable in the Middle Ages. They still fight in a world using infantry spearmen and horse cavalry.

They can most likely withstand an armored charge. If infantry made up of peasants poorly trained can do it then so can Unsullied who were trained their whole lives. The success of a cavalry charge depended on psychology, breaking the infantry before they break you, and the Unsullied don't break very easily.

when did poorly trained peasants stand up to a cavalry charge?

[Ser Lepus]

The Janissaries where forcefully recruited as children and heavily indoctrinated, and they were legally slaves all their lives, but psychologically were very much free men with a strong sense of individuality. A large part of the army, bureocracy, central government and local governors were technically the Sultan's slaves in the Ottoman Empire. They were slaves, but all those people were in fact part of the elite, and many were rich and powerful.

Turkish and Argelian sea captains hated to have Janissaries as part of their combat crews, despite their skill and valor, because they behaved like vain nobles, demanding that everybody showed deference to them, and were quick to draw their weapons to any slight, real or imagines.

They fought as individuals, competing with each other to show greatest bravery, and it was almost impossible to teach them to fight the same way western armies did because of that.

Also, while they couldn't marry, they had an active sexual life and kept female slaves as concubines.

Also, they got involved in politics and revolted when they felt their interests threatened.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

"late" - in terms of the republic. Rome (West for later on) had a standing army for 107BCE to the 470's AD. East had one for another 1000 years or so

More like early empire. The Marian reforms gave Rome a semi-standing army of sorts with some professional soldiers (drawn from the poorest classes who hadn't been allowed to serve before) but they were still heavily reliant on part time citizen soldiers until Augustus reformed the military.

Anyway very few pre modern states had true standing armies, usually only the large empires did. Not living in an army camp all your life doesn't mean that you are a peasant with a sharpened scythe though, it's perfectly possible to have well trained soldiers even if they aren't constantly mobilized. The advantage the Unsullied would have in that regard should primarily be that they are much better at large maneuvers during battles than Westerosi troops (which should admittedly be pretty important), since they have been able to exercise in several thousand men large units during their entire training, which Westerosi troops wouldn't have as many chances to do.

[Lord Reaver]

Oh my, this thread delivers. I am only sad I just now noticed it.

To the OP: I am sorry. You are fundamentally wrong when it comes to the social and military (the two are combined) organization of "feudal" european society. Most egregious is the way you assume that modern-day economic models can be applied whole-cloth onto a society which is in many ways different from the one we have today.

To put it briefly: The "standing army" of the time was relatively small and consisted of a section of the people whose "job" it was to fight and pretty much nothing else. Knights were a part of this, but not the entirety. These men were literally professionals (they had no other vocation), though they were of course not drilled along the lines of a modern army.

This was economically sound because it freed up a large portion of the populace for labour, in agriculture and otherwise. They in turn paid for the protection of the "fighters" by giving up a share of their income (more or less willingly, one can assume).

The image of medieval armies consisting largely of unwashed peasants with pitchforks belong in particularly bad fantasy novels and movies.

[Fire Eater]

when did poorly trained peasants stand up to a cavalry charge?

In the Battle of Hastings, where Willam's cavalry charge failed to break Harold's shieldwall.

[GallowsKnight]

Pretty much nope. Jannisaries were the shit. Those guys stopped the Mongol invasions into the middle east dead in their tracks (albeit with huge causalities on both sides).

[Sir Lee knot]

Oh no, This thread again...

The haters have come in mass to spread their biased opinions.

Unsullied aren't limited to the ancient greek phalanx. They are trained in the use of three spears that are said to be the same as the the legions from new Ghis who use short spear, long spear and javelin. Weather or not the long spear is a sarissa formation or a classic European Pikemen formation isn't known I would bet it hardly matters.

The armor includes quilted tunic, shield (maybe optional depending on if they are using long spear or short spear) and a cap (probably some sort of light helmet). While it's not as heavily armored as many Westerosi fighters it's not ridiculously bad like the Dothraki.

The training and discipline are miles better. Westerosi soldiers will vary from either hardly any training to the training of a knight with most soldiers being somewhere in between. Even the training/discipline of a knight isn't equivalent to the Unsullied and not all Knight's are created equal because they all come from different places and are taught to fight by different people with varying levels of difficulty. Where the Unsullied are all put through the most hardcore training you can inflict on a human.

Even the myth that Unsullied would be considerably weaker is wrong. At the least they'll be as strong as a super fit woman but more like a normal man. Testosterone helps with gaining muscle but it is not necessary for it. Yes the guy selling them says they'd be weaker then a "Knight" but a Knight is trained to wear a full suit of heavy armor, your common man isn't.

Example: Grey Worm is described as being stocky, of medium height but square. That's not the description of a ladyboy. More like a guy who works out a lot.

That being said though, I don't think the Unsullied are like Janissaries as some people have already pointed out. It's just really annoying to see everyone jumping on the hate bandwagon and way underestimate the Unsullied.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

Pretty much nope. Jannisaries were the shit. Those guys stopped the Mongol invasions into the middle east dead in their tracks (albeit with huge causalities on both sides).

Ain Jalut? I'm pretty sure that was the Mamluks, unless there's some battle that I'm not informed of? But yeah, Jannisaries were the shit.

[GallowsKnight]

In the Battle of Hastings, where Willam's cavalry charge failed to break Harold's shieldwall.

They did have the advantage of great terrain (having been to Hastings it's deceptively steep) and being bolstered by professional troops of high quality in the Housecarls. They believe this men were put out the front at both the centre and the flanks at Hastings.

Ain Jalut? I'm pretty sure that was the Mamluks, unless there's some battle that I'm not informed of? But yeah, Jannisaries were the shit.

Crap you're right. I just woke up and I'm confusing my middleeastern slave soldiers.

Addenum: Jannisaries and Mamluks were the shit.