Could the Dothraki take all of Westeros with 300000 men? v 2.0

[First Warden]

Also, do the Dothraki have siege weapons? How would they take castles for example?

[PatrickStormborn]

Alright, assuming the Dothraki land in Dorne and go from there, i think they'd be able to take Dorne. They would have a good advantage over the Dornish lords because if they would meet the Dothraki in the open (Dorne has the only desert in Westeros), they would get rekt. It would get a lot more difficult for them once they enter The Reach. Assuming the Dothraki lost quite a few men taking the whole of Dorne, i just don't see them win against the Tyrells. According to a semi canon source in 2005, the Reach could raise an army of between eighty and one hundred thousand soldiers. That i reckon would be enough to slaughter atleast 80% of the remaining Dothraki army and send the rest home with their tails tucked between their legs.

Well, are we talking pre-AGoT Reach, or post-ADwD? By the end of ADwD, the Reach forces are separated and are facing multiple threats: the High Sparrow in King's Landing, Aegon in the Stormlands, and Euron in the Reach.

[Second Bogatyr]

Alright, assuming the Dothraki land in Dorne and go from there, i think they'd be able to take Dorne. They would have a good advantage over the Dornish lords because if they would meet the Dothraki in the open (Dorne has the only desert in Westeros), they would get rekt. It would get a lot more difficult for them once they enter The Reach. Assuming the Dothraki lost quite a few men taking the whole of Dorne, i just don't see them win against the Tyrells. According to a semi canon source in 2005, the Reach could raise an army of between eighty and one hundred thousand soldiers. That i reckon would be enough to slaughter atleast 80% of the remaining Dothraki army and send the rest home with their tails tucked between their legs.

That is true but i highly doubt that the Tyrell family would wage war against the Targaryen host.They were avid supporters of the dragon dynasty and i believe that they would either remain neutral in the conflict or they would join the Targaryen army.

[mormont]

You're right that an arakh is more similar in design to a scimitar, which is advantageous to the Dothraki because they only fight on horseback.

I'm not, though.

At least, I can think of no textual reference that makes this a fact, as opposed to an assumption. Certainly, the HBO show came to the opposite conclusion, so I'm fairly sure there's nothing that makes me 'right' about this. It's what I believe, and it makes a lot of sense, but that don't make it a fact.

That's my point, really. People will blather on about what arakhs can and can't do, but the only non-cultural information we have about them is that they have curved blades. What kind of hilt do they have? What length of blade? How curved is the blade? We don't know. So arguments based on what they can or can't do, are inherently weak.

[First Warden]

Well, are we talking pre-AGoT Reach, or post-ADwD? By the end of ADwD, the Reach forces are separated and are facing multiple threats: the High Sparrow in King's Landing, Aegon in the Stormlands, and Euron in the Reach.

Okay but still, the Dothraki would find themselves in land that is completely foreign to them. No deserts but woods. No seas but rivers. Hills instead of plains, i think this would greatly hurt their battle plans. I mean, i don't know how good the Dothraki are when it comes to tactics but they would have to come up with something real quick if they want to take over one of the biggest kingdoms in Westeros.

[First Warden]

That is true but i highly doubt that the Tyrell family would wage war against the Targaryen host.They were avid supporters of the dragon dynasty and i believe that they would either remain neutral in conflict or they would join the Targaryen army.

That is a different discussion entirely. But yes, if the Dothraki are led by Dany then their odds of winning would skyrocket of course.

[First Warden]

I just think that if the Dothraki somehow manage to march all the way up north, they'll most likely leave the North alone. The cold, the snow and mountains would be impossible for them to conquer.

[OldGimletEye]

They would certainly be a "rabble" compared to a united khalasar where every warrior fights on horseback. 40,000 riders against 4,000 knights and 36,000 men on foot? I'd put my money on the riders.

But anyway, my point is that Jorah seems to think the arrows would be a serious threat.

No they wouldn't be a "rabble" against the Dothraki. Whether the Dothraki would prevail depends upon the discipline of the infantry troops, the terrain, and the mix of missile troops to heavy infantry.

[Second Bogatyr]

They would certainly be a "rabble" compared to a united khalasar where every warrior fights on horseback. 40,000 riders against 4,000 knights and 36,000 men on foot? I'd put my money on the riders.

But anyway, my point is that Jorah seems to think the arrows would be a serious threat.

A united force made of unarmoured,undisciplined,superstitious horse lovers invading an unknown continent could inflict medium or high casualties to the indigenous armies but they could never conquer the land because they don't know anything about that place.

Jorah was subjective when it came to the evaluation of the Dothraki military prowess in order to get on Dany's good side.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm not, though.

At least, I can think of no textual reference that makes this a fact, as opposed to an assumption. Certainly, the HBO show came to the opposite conclusion, so I'm fairly sure there's nothing that makes me 'right' about this. It's what I believe, and it makes a lot of sense, but that don't make it a fact.

That's my point, really. People will blather on about what arakhs can and can't do, but the only non-cultural information we have about them is that they have curved blades. What kind of hilt do they have? What length of blade? How curved is the blade? We don't know. So arguments based on what they can or can't do, are inherently weak.

There's no textual reference, true, but GRRM has compared the arakh to a scimitar - that's what I said you were right about.

Okay but still, the Dothraki would find themselves in land that is completely foreign to them. No deserts but woods. No seas but rivers. Hills instead of plains, i think this would greatly hurt their battle plans. I mean, i don't know how good the Dothraki are when it comes to tactics but they would have to come up with something real quick if they want to take over one of the biggest kingdoms in Westeros.

That's true. But it only works on the assumption that the Dothraki are invading completely by themselves, which would never happen.

Also, do the Dothraki have siege weapons? How would they take castles for example?

They don't have siege weapons, but neither did Daenerys when she took Meereen.

The Dothraki would not besiege any castles - they would pillage across the land, forcing the lords to meet them in open battle.

[OldGimletEye]

They don't have siege weapons, but neither did Daenerys when she took Meereen.

And you think this was a good example of how to conduct a seige operation? She got pretty lucky there.

[PatrickStormborn]

A united force made of unarmoured,undisciplined,superstitious horse lovers invading an unknown continent could inflict medium or high casualties to the indigenous armies but they could never conquer the land because they don't know anything about that place.

Jorah was subjective when it came to the evaluation of the Dothraki military prowess in order to get on Dany's good side.

Jorah also told Dany that Viserys could not sweep a stable with ten thousand brooms - I think we can safely say he's openly blunt towards her. If he had told Viserys this information, I would agree that he was not being particularly objective. But to argue that he was being subjective here completely contradicts his characterisation in AGoT.

But anyway, since when were the Dothraki "undisciplined"? And they may be superstitious, but so is the vast majority of Westeros.

You're right that they could not conquer the land by themselves, but they would never invade by themselves anyway so that's kind of a moot point. With a Westerosi leader and Westerosi generals, the Dothraki would not need knowledge of the land.

And you think this was a good example of how to conduct a seige operation? She got pretty lucky there.

My point was that she made siege weapons out of what she had. She would no doubt be capable of doing the same when she lands in Westeros with a Dothraki army.

[First Warden]

There's no textual reference, true, but GRRM has compared the arakh to a scimitar - that's what I said you were right about.

That's true. But it only works on the assumption that the Dothraki are invading completely by themselves, which would never happen.

They don't have siege weapons, but neither did Daenerys when she took Meereen.

The Dothraki would not besiege any castles - they would pillage across the land, forcing the lords to meet them in open battle.

A 30k Dothraki force, with another 10k Unsullied plus loyalist from the Reach AND 3 dragons...yes, that would be able to take all of Westeros.

[SeanF]

They would certainly be a "rabble" compared to a united khalasar where every warrior fights on horseback. 40,000 riders against 4,000 knights and 36,000 men on foot? I'd put my money on the riders.

But anyway, my point is that Jorah seems to think the arrows would be a serious threat.

OTOH, the foot soldiers we encounter at the Battle of Green Fork are highly disciplined and competent.

Their lack of armour makes the Dothraki vulnerable to armoured opponents (we see both Jorah and Barristan kill faster unarmoured opponents), and their tactics are unsophisticated.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's remain civil, people. [/mod]

[OldGimletEye]

My point was that she made siege weapons out of what she had. She would no doubt be capable of doing the same when she lands in Westeros with a Dothraki army.

Your point isn't a very good one. Dany got lucky at Mereen because of the undefended sewer system. Against a competent enemy, one make shift battering ram isn't probably going to cut it.

[Second Bogatyr]

Jorah also told Dany that Viserys could not sweep a stable with ten thousand brooms - I think we can safely say he's openly blunt towards her. If he had told Viserys this information, I would agree that he was not being particularly objective. But to argue that he was being subjective here completely contradicts his characterisation in AGoT.

But anyway, since when were the Dothraki "undisciplined"? And they may be superstitious, but so is the vast majority of Westeros.

You're right that they could not conquer the land by themselves, but they would never invade by themselves anyway so that's kind of a moot point. With a Westerosi leader and Westerosi generals, the Dothraki would not need knowledge of the land.

My point was that she made siege weapons out of what she had. She would no doubt be capable of doing the same when she lands in Westeros with a Dothraki army.

You forget that Jorah was and still is in love with her.That clouded his judgement in the beggining but the feeling evened itself out as he grew accustomed to her pressence.

There is only one reliable source of their tactics and that is the battle of Qohor.They disregarded the obvious danger of the spear lines and they kept repeating the same mistakes on and on until most of their troops died.They vehemently chose to follow one of their core beliefs(the one where men without horses are are no true men and thus are easy to kill) instead of regrouping and following logic in order to defeat their enemies.I called them undisciplined because of that.

Dothraki superstitions are highly implemented in their society.The same cannot be said for the people of Westeros.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Oh ffs. Ok, here we go:

The target is stationary and unyielding. Neither of which applies to shooting at moving bodies.

The calculations supposedly simulating arrow fire from a long range apparently do not take drag into account whatsoever. This is a coarse simplification at best, at worst it makes the test completely useless. It also assumes that angle of attack is irrelevant, another gross simplification.

Finally, the armour used is nearly all of it irrelevant: The textile armour is too thin, the mail is in all instances but one, not something you would see worn, and the plates are simply flat sheets of steel, as opposed to angled armour.

To put it mildly, the test is severely skewed towards the archer, both in setup, theory and choice of material.

Not really unyielding, it is just mounted on a hay bale. Why does it being stationary even matter?

The drag would need to be taken into account, yes, so maybe he really simulates a 150 yard shot instead of a 210 one as he claims, or something. It should still be a pretty long range one.

As for the armor if you read the results he got for the high and average quality riveted mail, as well as against the coat of plates, you would see that the arrows posed a threat even if the armor offered some protection. Then take into account that it would be possible to shoot at a good deal closer range than the calculations are for during battle conditions, and that the bow isn't even all that high poundage (100) and it does certainly seem that longbows could be used against armored targets as well. Even if real armor was often a bit better than the samples he uses.

[PatrickStormborn]

Your point isn't a very good one. Dany got lucky at Mereen because of the undefended sewer system. Against a competent enemy, one make shift battering ram isn't probably going to cut it.

My point was simple: siege weapons can be created.

You forget that Jorah was and still is in love with her.That clouded his judgement in the beggining but the feeling evened itself out as he grew accustomed of her pressence.

There is only one reliable source of their tactics and that is the battle of Qohor.They disregarded the obvious danger of the spear lines and they kept repeating the same mistakes on and on until most of their troops died.They vehemently chose to follow one of their core beliefs(the one where men without horses are are no true men and thus are easy to kill) instead of regrouping and following logic in order to defeat their enemies.I called them undisciplined because of that.

He was not in love with her by any means at this point.

Yes, you're right about the battle of Qohor, but they were fighting against Unsullied, who will never flee. I wouldn't really call it "undisciplined", in the same way that the wildlings obviously are. The Dothraki are just less adaptable. But if they could adapt well enough to cross the "poison water", I'd imagine they would be more prepared to challenge their other core beliefs.

OTOH, the foot soldiers we encounter at the Battle of Green Fork are highly disciplined and competent.

Their lack of armour makes the Dothraki vulnerable to armoured opponents (we see both Jorah and Barristan kill faster unarmoured opponents), and their tactics are unsophisticated.

Yes, but how long will they remain highly disciplined and competent against tens of thousands of fearless riders?

Anyway, it's not about how disciplined or competent they are - it's about Jorah's belief that arrows would be a problem regardless of their armour (although obviously plate armour is a different matter).

Do Jorah and Barristan ever kill unarmoured opponents on horseback? In a battle, the Dothraki would not be on foot.

[OldGimletEye]

My point was simple: siege weapons can be created.

By who? The seige engineers among the Dothraki? And conducting full blown seiges takes a little more than just creating the seige weapons. Are the Dothraki going to man the seige weapons? Are they going to dig siege ditches too?

ETA:

I mean if we can just assume that the Dothraki will get all this seige expertise easily, can't we also just assume that the Westerosi will be able to find light calvary forces in order to counter the Dothraki?