total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Aegon used three dragons against an army 60,000 strong and literally set the battlefield on fire. But only 5000 actually died. How did so few die? Did they all just run when they saw the 3 D&D scale collossal dragons flying towards them? Even then, how'd they outrun a dragon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A wilding Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I imagine most of them did run after the first couple of passes. And once they ran, why should Aegon want to hunt down and burn all those 45000 fleeing men, even if it was logistically possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Thomas Derpingham Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 They very likely did break and run. All the peasant levies must have thrown their shit down and routed at the first dragon's roar. The rest who stayed and got killed were probably knights who had more honor than common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Aegon used three dragons against an army 60,000 strong and literally set the battlefield on fire. But only 5000 actually died. How did so few die? Did they all just run when they saw the 3 D&D scale collossal dragons flying towards them? Even then, how'd they outrun a dragon?If you wipe out every single person in one fell swoop, then that's not conquering. It's extermination. Presumably Aegon wanted to be a King over people, not over burned carcasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 I imagine most of them did run after the first couple of passes. And once they ran, why should Aegon want to hunt down and burn all those 45000 fleeing men, even if it was logistically possible?So you think Aegon the Conquerer was actually being merciful; despite his later reputation? :)Well, these dragons just at a guess. The skull Arya saw its mouth was about 2m wide and probably double that in height. If we assume the effective spread is five times that then a single breath could immolate a twenty metre by ten metre square in a heartbeat. If they can sweep the battlefield and if dragonfire is like napalm so that it doesn't go out, one of the dragons could melt plate armour so probably yes Aegon could have killed every last one of them had he been inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 If you wipe out every single person in one fell swoop, then that's not conquering. It's extermination. Presumably Aegon wanted to be a King over people, not over burned carcasses.Genghis Khan would disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StannisBamfatheon Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 hah I'm notta coward but I'm not stupid. If I saw three dragons overhead and all I have is like....a mace, I'd look to my lord and be like "sorry boss" and then skedaddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinso Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 So you think Aegon the Conquerer was actually being merciful; despite his later reputation? :)What's his later reputation? There were plenty of viscious Targs after but Aegon himself was pretty reasonable and totally was merciful to those who gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 5,000 is alot of casualties for a medieval battle, it doesnt sound like alot but it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 5,000 is alot of casualties for a medieval battle, it doesnt sound like alot but it is.Its a lot even for an Eighteenth Century battle. But they didn't have dragons the size of godzilla spewing napalm that could melt plate armour over everything. Kinda ceases to be a historical battle at that point. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Its a lot even for an Eighteenth Century battle. But they didn't have dragons the size of godzilla spewing napalm that could melt plate armour over everything. Kinda ceases to be a historical battle at that point. ;)You got me there I cant argue with this. But perhaps he called the dragons off after the inital attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Even then, how'd they outrun a dragon?They would scatter. Some would survive. Besides, killing them all wasn't the point of the exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Towers Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Maybe he was aiming for the kings? The rest are the poor fellows that were near them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Its a lot even for an Eighteenth Century battle. But they didn't have dragons the size of godzilla spewing napalm that could melt plate armour over everything. Kinda ceases to be a historical battle at that point. ;)Killing off 10% of an opposing force in one fell swoop is A LOT no matter what time period we're discussing. It's a historical battle because it was the first battle in Westerosi history (as far as anyone knows) where a weapon of mass destruction was employed. The atomic bombs the US dropped on Japan didn't kill anywhere close to 10% of the population, but it was still historic and still enough to have commanded surrender. Also, it's not as though dragons are bombs that will unleash a stream of fire that will explode and keep exploding in a domino effect. It most probably took quite a few passes for 10% of the opposing force to be killed. By this time, it was probably pretty obvious to Aegon that he had the unquestionable advantage and that they may be willing to bend the knee. What's the point of killing them all? 10% obviously sufficed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 On the wiki theres a piece of fan-art of a dragon firing at Harrnehal and it essentially covers all of the castle. Thats probably not too far off considering the scale of the dragon and stereotypically how far a dragon can project its flame. We're told it can melt plate armour and certainly kill individual men or horses. If the spread of the breath is wide enough it wouldn't need to be explosive. If you've ever watched reign of fire and how the Bull dragon in that incinerates an entire armoured column just by hovering and dousing a large area in fire that could kill huge numbers of men; especially packed together in massed pike squares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Rivers Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Aegon used three dragons against an army 60,000 strong and literally set the battlefield on fire. But only 5000 actually died. How did so few die? Did they all just run when they saw the 3 D&D scale collossal dragons flying towards them? Even then, how'd they outrun a dragon?5000 is a notable casualty figure. Unless you didn't know, battles are won not by wiping the loser out, but by forcing them to flee. The victorious side usually suffered almost no casualties, because most men were killed or captured when fleeing or surrendering. And dragons are not the most effective means of chasing scattered foes, or capturing them - Aegon's land host had fled already.ETA: How the battle porgressed:1. A charge by the Westerosi mounted men-at-arms, including the nobility, breaks Aegon's mercenaries;2. Aegon springs the trap by attacking burning the pursuers;3. Seeing their liegelords toasted, the Westerosi army disintegrates, because feudal armies consist of individuals with their followers rather than standing units of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 5000 is a notable casualty figure. Unless you didn't know, battles are won not by wiping the loser out, but by forcing them to flee. The victorious side usually suffered almost no casualties, because most men were killed or captured when fleeing or surrendering. And dragons are not the most effective means of chasing scattered foes, or capturing them - Aegon's land host had fled already.For a regular battle yeah. I think the 18th century battle I remembered was the Russians beating Fred the Greats Prussians and he only lost a few thousand from a 70,000 strong army. But these are D&D scale dragons and would be able to burn so much ground so quickly that running probably wouldn't work. But I think we all agree that Aegon let them run once he had them beat. Which is odd coz normally Martin pushes that the ammoral action is the strongest and most likely to achieve victory. It also suggests that Aegon had a similar mindset to Daenerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fightbringer Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 given the fact they have over 50,000 troops and you have only about 5,000, and they'll probably swear you fealty after the battle, and also taking into account the fact that Aegon still had 4 or 5 other kingdoms to take over, it'd make more sense in the long run not too pursue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Rivers Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 5000 is a notable casualty figure. Unless you didn't know, battles are won not by wiping the loser out, but by forcing them to flee. The victorious side usually suffered almost no casualties, because most men were killed or captured when fleeing or surrendering. And dragons are not the most effective means of chasing scattered foes, or capturing them - Aegon's land host had fled already.ETA: How the battle porgressed:1. A charge by the Westerosi mounted men-at-arms, including the nobility, breaks Aegon's mercenaries;2. Aegon springs the trap by attacking burning the pursuers;3. Seeing their liegelords toasted, the Westerosi army disintegrates, because feudal armies consist of individuals with their followers rather than standing units of any kind.^The above, again. Really, you can't argue with me about warfare. I am pretty damn sure not a single person on this forum can, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 ^The above, again. Really, you can't argue with me about warfare. I am pretty damn sure not a single person on this forum can, really.You've studied battles with dragons in? Which were they? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.