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

[Second Bogatyr]

My point was simple: siege weapons can be created.

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.

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.

Aye,they never fled but they also never moved out of their spear formation(they just stood there).The thing is,the Dothraki kept charging and charging at the front line without any attempts to flank them or to lure them out.

They also have no true enemies in Essos.Essos is not even remotely militarised as Westeros is and thus they cannot aquire any true military experience there.There is the Golden Company but the Dothraki would not dare to attack them.

[PatrickStormborn]

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?

I've already stated numerous times that it's pointless to argue with the premise that the Dothraki will be invading independently. They would never do that. With a Westerosi leader and Westerosi generals, siege weapons would not be a problem.

I've also already stated that - if for whatever reason the Dothraki invaded Westeros independently - they would simply not bother with sieges. They would raid and pillage the land, enticing the lords to meet them in open battle.

[OldGimletEye]

I've already stated numerous times that it's pointless to argue with the premise that the Dothraki will be invading independently. They would never do that. With a Westerosi leader and Westerosi generals, siege weapons would not be a problem.

The topic of the thread was whether 300,000 Dothraki could take Westeros, not what kind of forces Dany would arrive with in Westeros. I agree that she will likely have other forces with her, than just the Dothraki. But she won't be bringing 300,000 of them with her either.

I guess the entire thread is kind of pointless. Maybe we should just talk about how many Dothraki Dany will have with her or the mix of forces she will have. 300,000 Dothraki getting to Westeros is kind of absurd.

I've also already stated that - if for whatever reason the Dothraki invaded Westeros independently - they would simply not bother with sieges. They would raid and pillage the land, enticing the lords to meet them in open battle.

And can't Westerosi commanders do the same thing when faced with an opponent who takes refuge in a castle or behind a fortification? Does this mean castles and fortifications have no military value? Are the Westerosi completely irrational for building castles and fortifications?

[PatrickStormborn]

The topic of the thread was whether 300,000 Dothraki could take Westeros, not what kind of forces Dany would arrive with in Westeros. I agree that she will likely have other forces with her, than just the Dothraki. But she won't be bringing 300,000 of them with her.

And can't Westerosi commanders do the same thing when faced with an opponent who takes refuge in a castle or behind a fortification? Does this mean castles and fortifications have no military value? Are the Westerosi completely irrational for building castles and fortifications?

I know the topic of the thread, but the Dothraki would never cross the poison water without a Westerosi leader. Who knows how many Dothraki she will be bringing with her? If she truly is the stallion that mounts the world, she'll most likely be bringing the vast majority of them with her.

I never said castles had no military value... But if the Dothraki were to invade alone, they would not be conducting sieges. With a Westerosi leader and generals, however, sieges would be conducted.

[First Warden]

lmfao. I thought the title said: '30000' Dothraki men and not 300,000. Yeah that changes everything. The Dothraki would most likely raid every village, forcing the lords to come out their castles and meet them in the open. Here even a small group of Dothraki could easily overpower a large army because they're so adapt to fighting in the open that it's almost a second nature to them. I still doubt they would march further than the Twins though but they could def conquer the rest of the seven kingdoms. Westeros without unity and military commanders like Robb and Tywin would get rekd.

[OldGimletEye]

I know the topic of the thread, but the Dothraki would never cross the poison water without a Westerosi leader. Who knows how many Dothraki she will be bringing with her? If she truly is the stallion that mounts the world, she'll most likely be bringing the vast majority of them with her.

Seriously, you think she is going to get 300,000 men across the sea? That is pretty wishful thinking. And I seriously doubt she'll get most of the Dothraki across the sea.

I never said castles had no military value... But if the Dothraki were to invade alone, they would not be conducting sieges. With a Westerosi leader and generals, however, sieges would be conducted.

And whether those seiges will be successful depends on the mix of forces that can be brought to Westeros and their number. A lot depends on specific details.

[First Warden]

Seriously, you think she is going to get 300,000 men across the sea? That is pretty wishful thinking. And I seriously doubt she'll get most of the Dothraki across the sea.

And whether those seiges will be successful depends on the mix of forces that can be brought to Westeros and their number. A lot depends on specific details.

That's not the point. The title says: could the Dothraki take all of Westeros with 300,000 men. With the current state of the Realm, certainly. I however think that if Robert was still alive, they wouldn't stand a chance.

[OldGimletEye]

That's not the point. The title says: could the Dothraki take all of Westeros with 300,000 men. With the current state of the Realm, certainly. I however think that if Robert was still alive, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Yes, I get that. But, the subject got kind of changed from "Could the Dothraki Take Westeros With 300,000 Men?" to "Could The Dothraki Take Westeros With 300,000 men plus additional forces?" or to "Could Dany With Her Dothraki and Other Forces Take Westeros?"

[First Warden]

Yes, I get that. But, the subject got kind of changed from "Could the Dothraki Take Westeros With 300,000 Men?" to "Could The Dothraki Take Westeros With 300,000 men plus additional forces?" or to "Could Dany With Her Dothraki and Other Forces Take Westeros?"

Yeah you're right. getting 300,000 dothraki in Westeros won't go unnoticed.

[JonathanTheBold]

'No' historic evidence at all?

https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/mail-armour

Having said that, my impression was that the prevalent construction pre-15th c. was partially riveted mail (either one riveted link to four butted or welded links, or alternating rows), hence why I say 'fully riveted mail' was not the norm. My info may be bad on this, though.

As to whether butted mail is 'absolutely useless', it's undoubtedly inferior (as I noted). But 'inferior' doesn't mean 'absolutely useless'. It provides protection against cuts, if not thrusts.

The idea that it would fall apart under its own weight is one I find strange. Some modern re-enactors use wholly butted mail, and while I'd never wear it myself (because it does indeed split if you take a thrust), and there are caveats such as the links on modern reproduction shirts being lighter, I've never seen such a shirt literally fall apart under its own weight. If you have evidence of that happening, I'd like to see it. (Genuinely. It would be great to have another argument as to why people should not be wearing them on the field...)

The ability to set the bone afterwards is not the issue when it comes to combat, though. The aim in combat is not to kill the other guy. It's to take him out of the fight, make him not a threat. A broken collarbone or shoulder will do that very effectively.

True, but true also of a man armed with a longsword.

I'm still puzzled as to the suggestion that the arakh is so markedly inferior to a longsword or arming sword in combat against a man in armour and/or with a shield as to be absolutely useless. This appears to be based on assumptions about characteristics of the weapon that aren't actually covered in the text. We can say it's not a thrusting weapon, but that's all we can say. The main thing we know about the weapon is that it has a curved blade. And that's it! That's all we know. We don't even know for certain whether it's curved like a scimitar or like a khopesh. (Though IIRC, GRRM has indicated it's the former.)

So long as we accept that a longsword is a viable threat - and I think we have to, at least as far as ASOIAF goes, because the author treats it as one - we should accept that an arakh is potentially a threat too.

except we have several examples of arakh being useless against armor and none of a long swords being useless against the dothraki

[Lord Reaver]

Having said that, my impression was that the prevalent construction pre-15th c. was partially riveted mail (either one riveted link to four butted or welded links, or alternating rows), hence why I say 'fully riveted mail' was not the norm. My info may be bad on this, though.

As to whether butted mail is 'absolutely useless', it's undoubtedly inferior (as I noted). But 'inferior' doesn't mean 'absolutely useless'. It provides protection against cuts, if not thrusts.

If you have evidence of butted ring mail, kindly present it. I've never seen any.

What you seem to be referring to is the use of punched (or stanced) rings, being used, which is not uncommon. Such rings would actually be stronger than the riveted kind, having no inherent weakn point. The construction with a 1:4 or 1:6 pattern, or alternating rows is correct.

But again, these were whole rings, not butted ones, and I'm fairly certain not welded either (it's simply much more work welding rings than punching them out).

The reason butted mail was not used is almost certainly that if you're going to go through the bother of making metal armour, rather than say the much cheaper and quite good textile armour, you might as well do it right. After all, this is your life depending on it. In light of that, adding rivets isn't such a big deal as it is for the casual reenactor making stuff in his basement/garage.

[mormont]

If you have evidence of butted ring mail, kindly present it. I've never seen any.

I already did. The link is in that very post! Granted, most of it is very early, but it seems somewhat rude to ask for something that's already been provided...

The point is not an important one, in any event. It's a minor aside to a point we all agree on. There's no particular reason I can see to be pursuing it... well, none that don't involve some form of bad etiquette.

[hodorisfaclessman]

I'm not a medieval infantryman, but I wouldn't be too worried if you were 100 yds away with a 180lb bow sitting down. That said, I'd be more worried about you being 100 yards away with a recurve bow. I'd also be wondering how on GRRM's green planetos you got a 180 lb draw weight recurve bow, considering that's the upper limit of a English longbow. A horse bow is maybe half that, a bit more maximum.

Your accounts and studies have been debunked, and the other half of your sources are random forum posts with no citations.

That was not me. That was a different poster. I said we have no idea since we never get any concrete numbers. In an army of 20K, I'd be a bit surprised if it exceeded 2K bowmen. That is going to change depending on the nationality of the army. A french or burgundian army isn't going to have tons of bowmen, but it will hire a ton of crossbowmen. Same with the Italian city-states. HRE might be a bit less. Really depends on where they were.

A force of 50K would be overly large for Westeros or Earth. Too many mouths to feed.

-George Vernadsky adveraged recurve at 166lbs but lets says 110lbs...do you feel at 100yards chainmail and padding means you will unqestionably be safe?

Yes actual historian studies debunked by folks on the interwebz......good one , feelfree to post an actual study countering them showing chainmail and padding cannot be penetrated with arrows and il have a look , iv asked for this a few times now from anyone

Iv posted contemporary accounts of heavier of armour being penetrated with arrows and yet we still have people assuming you can penetrate a padded jack with a spear and the strength of your own arm but not with a powerful bow and arrow.

-Ok fair enough ...did you agree with him though ...do you feel chainmail and padding alone can make you arrowproof?

I agree those numbers sound about right , thats what iv been saying all along foot archers will have an adantage over horse archers in a missle fight but they will be few and hidden (if the general commanding them has any brains) behind rows of foot)

The city states are more like essos than westeros

[Lord Reaver]

I already did. The link is in that very post! Granted, most of it is very early, but it seems somewhat rude to ask for something that's already been provided...

I tried those links, they all seem to be dead. So no, you haven't provided much at all.

[hodorisfaclessman]

except we have several examples of arakh being useless against armor and none of a long swords being useless against the dothraki

7?

We have jorah killing a nameless dothraki pre battle who mocked his armour, we have his fight with a bloodrider where he survived due to an arkh getting caught on his bone

we have the magic of valyrian steel allowing an arkh to render a breastplate 'like silk'

wheres the others?

The problem here seems to be we have no idea what ana arkh is supposed to look like, grmm thought of a schimitar style weapon dany describes it as half a sword and half a scythe

[Stannis's Lawyer]

The scenario provided by the OP is ridiculous.

First, the Dothraki are useless without horses. They can't even walk properly. So 125,000 horses mean that only 125,000 Dothraki (41%) are actually useful. The Reach alone has up to 100,000 soldiers, and the Stormlands have about 35,000. 135,000 > 125,000

Second, the Dothraki cannot take all of Westeros, which includes the Iron Islands and the lands beyond the Wall. How would a Dothraki army survive for just a month beyond the Wall? How would any Dothraki ships defeat the Ironborn?

[Capt Captain]

I know the topic of the thread, but the Dothraki would never cross the poison water without a Westerosi leader. Who knows how many Dothraki she will be bringing with her? If she truly is the stallion that mounts the world, she'll most likely be bringing the vast majority of them with her.

I never said castles had no military value... But if the Dothraki were to invade alone, they would not be conducting sieges. With a Westerosi leader and generals, however, sieges would be conducted.

Who says they'll survive long enough to conduct a siege? Version 1 of this thread talked about how the Dothraki would starve, and someone posted with a good bit of detail that the Dothraki wouldn't even be able to get most of their forces across, let alone safe and together. It wouldn't be 300000 horsemen fighting the westerosi, it'll be 50,000. What's to stop the Westerosi from attacking the dothraki as they land at the beaches? They'd be separated from their horses and seasick.

[OldGimletEye]

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

You know, I think you're under the very mistaken impression that castles and fortifications only offer tactical advantages. But, that really just isn't the case. They offer advantages at the operational and strategic level too.

If you are an invader, most likely, you will have to reduce castles and fortifications in order to advance or to maintain control of a territory. Laying siege normally takes a great deal of time. The upshot is that a system of castles and fortifications can slow down and tie up an invader. They permit a defender to practice a great deal of economy of force. With a minimal amount of troops in a castle or fortification, a defender can tie up a significant proportion of invading forces. Also, a system of fortifications and castles can help to "fix" the enemy so they can be engaged by the defender's mobile field forces.

You argument concerning the the Dothraki has been "but, but, the Dothraki can just pillage, making castles and fortifications irrelevant." But here is the thing: Conventional Westorsi forces can do the same thing. The Dothraki are not unique in this regard. Yet, even though pillaging surrounding areas seems like an easy tactic to defeat a system of fortifications, the nobility of Westeros still continue to build and maintain them, much like their European counterparts. If defeating a system of fortifications was so easy, then both the nobility of Westeros and Europe must have been complete irrational morons.

If a Dothraki army, along with it's auxiliary troops, decide to lay siege to a town or castle, then surely the Dothraki would have to provide a covering force in order to protect the besieging forces. Those covering forces would be essentially "fixed", unless they decided to abandon the the besieging forces. If they did leave the besieging forces, then the besieging forces would be vulnerable to attack by the defender's mobile field forces.

It is true, that the Dothraki, like any other army, can do a great deal of damage through pillaging. However, it doesn't follow that a competent commander will fall for the bait in the manner Edmure Tully did when he dispersed his forces to deal with Tywin's forces that went on a pillaging and raping spree.

Eventually, however, there will be nothing to rape or pillage. When that happens, the invading force may not be able to find forage. If the invading forces have no supply system, then they will have to move on. If they do establish a supply system, then that supply system is vulnerable to attack by the defenders. In the Dothraki's case, it wouldn't appear that they are capable of establishing any kind of supply system.

In short, defeating a system of fortifications isn't as easy as you suppose.

[Lion Of The Night]

we have the magic of valyrian steel allowing an arkh to render a breastplate 'like silk'

wheres the others?

The problem here seems to be we have no idea what ana arkh is supposed to look like, grmm thought of a schimitar style weapon dany describes it as half a sword and half a scythe

Where is valaryan steel arakhs coming from? If we are just going to give them infinity plus 1 swords why not let them all carry AK 47s?

Back to the arakh... The description of sword/scythe makes it sound mor like a Falx, or maybe even a Shotel rather than a Sabre. Either way they are slashing weapons, and not effective against plate or mail....

What I'm surprised at is why wouldn't the Dothraki use a calvery spear, like a Kontos. They were popular with calvery heavy armies like the Parthians?

[OldGimletEye]

Where is valaryan steel arakhs coming from? If we are just going to give them infinity plus 1 swords why not let them all carry AK 47s?

Maybe Dany will get a Russian/Soviet Airborne Corps along with her 50000000000000 Dothraki troops?