if the dothraki invaded westeros?

[hodorisfaclessman]

It seems most here are assuming that a) the dothraki have never seen winter..very odd to assume they dont have other clothing or that a nomadic people cant cope with bad weather , in fact it clearly states that when in the free cities they are covered in rich fabrics and perfumes.

b )they will fight exactly the way they did once at qohor

[Dukhasinov]

Not this argument again...

Let's approach it from a scientific perspective. The laws of physics rule the known universe: ours, the Star Wars galaxy, and assumably Westeros. An archer on a horse will have a much shorter range than a dismounted archer using the exact same bow since the dismounted archer is able to brace himself against an immoveable object (the ground). He can use all his muscles to draw the bow, unlike the rider who can only use his arms. Also, the dismounted archer is able to fire the arrow in an optimal ballistic arc, 40-55°. The mounted bowman can mainly fire in a flat trajectory, let's say at max 15° above the horizontal. The arrows begin to fall to the ground immediately due to gravity. If the mounted bowman tries to shoot in a ballistic arc, he runs the risk of riding into his own target area since the forward momentum imparted immediately slows due to air resistance. The rider continues to move forward at a consistent velocity, ie into his arrow's flight path. To avoid this effect, the rider must ride perpendicular to the point of attack, thus imparting lateral movement to his arrow. This alters the aiming point since the bowman cannot aim directly at the target. The dismounted bowman suffers none of these variables. He is able to utilize the full capabilities of his musculature, stand on the ground and brace himself, and simply fire at the same point repeatedly. As the target approaches, he simply aims lower or higher. Aiming higher shortens the distance but increases the terminal velocity of the arrows. Aiming lower increases point accuracy but reduces terminal ballistics. The dismounted archer, however is utilizing a saturation technique: place as many arrows in the same area as possible, not necessarily going for point accuracy. A RL comparison would be the 120mm main gun of the M1A2 Abrams tank. Compared to a field artillery piece of the exact same diameter and munitions type, the tank has a much shorter range. Why? It fires in a flat plane, maybe 15° elevation at max. The tank has an effective range of 10-15km. A comparable artillery piece has a range triple the tank simply because it fires in a ballistic arc.

Let's compare armor.

The nylon and ceramic plate (CP) armor I wear as a soldier is built upon a layered defense philosophy. It has the same purpose as the plate, linked mail, and padding worn by Middle Ages forces. Ballistic nylon w/ CP slows the bullets down first thru impacting the plate, then the nylon absorbing and distributing the impact over a broad area. I would much prefer the Dragonskin armor, but that's another story. My body armor is quite heavy and awkward. The armor in the Middle Ages was very maneuverable. Soldiers were able to perform cartwheels and handstands wearing it. I wouldn't dream of doing that in my armor. The plate mail, chain mail, and padding serve a similar purpose: stop, slow and distribute the impact. In addition, the metal armor is designed to resist slashing stabbing (chain mail resists slashing but is vulnerable to stabbing). Metal armor is particularly effective against swords used to slash, since the edge of the sword simply slide and grinds off the plate. Chain mail is still used today by divers, butchers, and metal workers, simply because it is so effective at resisting slashing. My armor does not resist any edged weapons. Plate armor was outclassed by firearms only. Mythbusters proved that the plate armor used at this time period was resistance to pistol ammunition up to .45 ACP. Very effective, wouldn't you say? The Dothraki DON'T WEAR ARMOR!!! Chain mail resists arrows quite effectively, and plate is impervious to firearms up to .45 ACP. I think we can give this to the armor wearers...

Cavalry slashing vs. Lance

The only edged weapon attack the Dothraki can do is a massed cavalry charge. The cavalry would extend their swords straight out to the side and utilize a slashing attack as they rode past the foe. They are limited to the reach of their arm and sword. Much of the kinetic energy is lost as the rider passes and the blow slides by the target. The Westerosi use lances, a 2.5m shaft of wood with a pointed end. All the kinetic energy of the horse and rider is focused into a point 1cm x 1cm. That's 700kg of mass traveling at 40+ km/hr. You do the math. The Dothraki don't use this at all. How on earth can they be effective at mounted warfare if they only use a sword to slash unarmored opponents?

I'm not going to get into the leadership capabilities since we saw how intelligently the Dothraki rodeo clowns preformed against the Unsullied at Qohor. The evidence speaks for itself.

Ohhhh...... You`re smart. I like you. Wish I had seen your post 6 months ago. You would be poorly served by Dragonskin. The rigidity of the SAPI plate that makes it such a pain in the ass to wear is an indispensable part of its protective ability. Dragonskin is supple and flexible, and is capable of stopping rifle bullets as well as a SAPI plate, but its flexibility leaves the wearer unprotected from the kinetic force of the impact. Both forms of armor will stop the bullet, but only the rigid, inflexible SAPI plate will stop the kinetic energy from shattering your ribs and rupturing your organs. And your armor does offer plenty of protection against edged weapons. I once put a bowie knife through the groin protector of an INTERCEPTOR vest, but only by putting the piece of kevlar on the ground and coming down on it with all of my weight. And even then, it only penetrated about a quarter inch.

Anyway, back to the epic fantasy...... Your analysis of mounted vs. foot archery is very interesting, but ignores several factors harder to quantify mathematically. Yes, the foot archer has a more stable base (the ground) from which to draw his bow, is more accurate (due to being stationary) and has a longer range. It`s generally agreed that an infantryman`s longbow had a considerably heavier draw weight than a cavalryman`s composite bow. However, range is less important to the mounted archer, because he can safely get much closer to his target without fear of being closed with. His lighter bow will nevertheless be able to hit with much greater force, since he is shooting from a shorter range, and from a flat trajectory.

Your estimations of accuracy are fundamentally flawed by assuming the mounted archer needs point accuracy. He is, admittedly, firing from a more-or-less flat trajectory, and likely moving laterally to his target, but point accuracy is irrelevant. He is firing not at an individual man, but at a whole formation of men. The saturation effect still applies. Let`s also not forget volume of fire. What percentage of an average Westerosi army consists of archers? 10? Maybe 15? Every Dothraki warrior is an archer. Therefore, between two armies of equal size, the Dothraki would have an 85 or 90 percent advantage in shear volume of fire.

The armor variable is more problematic. Yes, plate armor will laugh at both sabers and arrows, but how many of Westeros` warriors will have it? Many knights cannot afford full suits of plate armor. You seem to assume that the Dothraki are wild animals that can`t adapt to new situations. They aren`t stupid. They would figure out quickly that maces and hammers are effective against armor, and the bodkin arrow isn`t a big technical leap. They`ll find plenty of them scattered over battlefields, and in the quivers of dead Westerosi archers.

Your descriptions of the impact of a knight`s lance is very interesting, but not really relevant, as Westerosi knights would not be able to come to grips with the Dothraki horsemen. We aren`t given detailed descriptions of Dothraki horses, so I think we can go with either the short, shaggy Mongolian pony or the tall, greyhound-like Akhal-Teke as a model. Either breed has incredible endurance compared to a hulking charger, and would also not be carrying the added weight of an armored man.

An armored knight can also be handily dragged from his horse by a lasso, (or whip) a tactic used by many historical steppe peoples.

[Kyll.Ing.]

It'd be interesting to see, for sure. It seems to me that the Dothraki is shown to accept foreign culture and technology, but not to use much of it themselves. They don't like sheep, they don't like salt water, they don't like cities, the concept of alliances don't seem to appeal to them, and so forth. All in all, they don't seem to be very adaptable. If the battle of Qohor is anything to go by, even changing their tactic when faced by a near-perfect counter is out of the question.

As such, transported to Westeros the Dothraki would face problems they would have no idea how to solve. Their strenght is on the steppe, with flat lands and cities with large hinterlands to loot. The Dothraki make for a highly mobile army, but not a particularly flexible one. They might be able to pillage and plunder small towns, in the short run (heck, a random thug such as Rorge managed to basically destroy Saltpans), but in the long run they'd face all sorts of problems. It'd be fun to break it down by regions, so I'm going to do just that:

Landing in the North, the Dothraki would have a field day. Or week. Months. The region is so sparsely populated that they would spend some time finding out even where pillage is to be found. They might come across the occasional village in the areas east of the White Knife, but fighting in bogs or forests would be no fun for them, and they would have a hard time attacking cities or holdfasts. And then winter would come and it'd be all downhill from there.

In the Riverlands, it'd be no fun to be a peasant once the Dothraki came. Flat, open lands crisscrossed by rivers are pretty much what the Dothraki are used to along the sub-rivers of the Rhoyne. Still, the Riverlands might be a little more rainy than the Rhoyne, and the Riverlords know how to defend the fords - which would serve as major chokepoints against the Dothraki. If Edmure managed to hold Tywin back, he'd certainly make a bloody mess out of a khalasar trying to cross.

The Vale would also fare well. Narrow mountain passes make the area filled with chokepoints, which is no fun for a mobile army. Steep mountainsides, cold winds, and not enough grass to sustain the horses - and with some time to barricade the passes, the Dothraki would find themselves charging near-impenetrable walls while starving. And if one choke point fails, you can always fortify another around the next bend of the river. If landing elsewhere, the Dothraki would never make it into the Vale via the Bloody Gate. If landing in the Vale, they would never make it out.

The Iron Islands - lol. Assuming they even got ashore in the first place (and that's an enormous if), the Islands are too barren to sustain a large army of horses, too rocky for cavalry to be utilized efficiently, and the Iron Fleet would make any attempt at transport between the islands a suicide. Taking a Dothraki army to the Iron Islands would be a horrendously stupid idea.

In the Reach, the Dothraki would feel the most at home, but they'd also face the heaviest opposition. Pikeman armies, armoured knights, crossbowmen and fortified castles... other users in this thread have described at length why that would be no fun.

In the Westerlands, the story would be a mix of the Vale and the Reach. Attacking from the east would yield huge losses and a march of hunger through the mountains. Coming from the south they'd have the terrain on their side, but they'd be locked between the coast and the mountains - and the Westerlands lords will be able to ferry their (well-equipped) armies south and land behind the Dothraki.

In the Crownlands, the flat terrain favours cavalry, and King's Landing is absolutely dependent on a food supply not to go the way of the dodo. The Dothraki would face moderate to high success here, with the obvious exception of Crackclaw Point. The only thing holding them back would be the military of the neighbouring regions, which has been documented in detail to be a hard fight.

In the Stormlands, things would be miserable. Harsh mountains, stony shores, bad weather, too much forest for steppe tactics to work, and martial locals. The Dornish Marches would feel just like home for the Dothraki, though.

And last, Dorne. Dorne would be the end of the Dothraki if they tried going there. Rocky, mountainous, arid and dry. Kind of like the Red Waste, only with militant locals. Horses would die like flies from exhaustion and dehydration. Wells are too few and far apart, and could easily be poisoned by retreating Dornishmen. The locals would flee to the mountains, where the terrain strongly disfavours steppe warriors. Also, there would be nowhere to land the army in the first place, as Dorne has very few harbours. A steppe army would face a hot, hungry end in the Dornish deserts.

And on top of all this - the ships taking the Dothraki to shore could be intercepted or sunk by storms. All in all, any Dothraki invasion would be very strongly dependent on local support not to go haywire.

[LionOfCasterlyRock]

Any exchange of arrows between Wsterosi army and a Dthraki one would see Dothraki taking appalling casualties.

Even if Dothraki had longer range bows (which they probably don't anyway) they would have to get closer in order for them to be effective against armor at all, which would give a chance to all those longbowmen and crossbowmen to retaliate. Thousands upon thousands arrows falling upon unarmored men and horses tuning their battle cries into screams of pain and death.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Any exchange of arrows between Wsterosi army and a Dthraki one would see Dothraki taking appalling casualties.

Even if Dothraki had longer range bows (which they probably don't anyway) they would have to get closer in order for them to be effective against armor at all, which would give a chance to all those longbowmen and crossbowmen to retaliate. Thousands upon thousands arrows falling upon unarmored men and horses tuning their battle cries into screams of pain and death.

Really depends on the ratio of foot archers in your force though

Lets say u have 10k men vs 10k dothraki if you have barely 1k or so archers ur dead, while foot archers have an advantage over horse archers thats simply too big a gap if every arrow is being awnsered by 10 (esp if your geneal was dumb enough to group them together for the dothraki to concentrate their fire on ) ...3 k + and your in buisness

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

Really depends on the ratio of foot archers in your force though

Lets say u have 10k men vs 10k dothraki if you have barely 1k or so archers ur dead, while foot archers have an advantage over horse archers thats simply too big a gap if every arrow is being awnsered by 10 (esp if your geneal was dumb enough to group them together for the dothraki to concentrate their fire on ) ...3 k + and your in buisness

Why do foot archers have an advantage over horse archers? Or do you mean just in this particular case, because dothraki have no armor?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Really depends on the ratio of foot archers in your force though

Lets say u have 10k men vs 10k dothraki if you have barely 1k or so archers ur dead, while foot archers have an advantage over horse archers thats simply too big a gap if every arrow is being awnsered by 10 (esp if your geneal was dumb enough to group them together for the dothraki to concentrate their fire on ) ...3 k + and your in buisness

...and 999 out of 1000 arrows the Dothraki fire would go "clang" against the armor of the foot archer. Or maybe "tchok", and stuck in his gambeson without penetration.

Why do foot archers have an advantage over horse archers? Or do you mean just in this particular case, because dothraki have no armor?

Body mechanics. A horse archer can draw only from his arms while a foot archer can use all the muscles down to his ankles. Furthermore, he can use a longer, less curved bow, which translates to better force conversion (barring some modern inventions).

Lastly, he shoots way faster.

[TheOne-EyedHound]

I doubt they would be able to conquer one Castle, the Deepwood Motte maybe, but a High Lord's Castle or ones like Moat Cailin orThe Twins, forget about it.

The Dothraki just need the Golden Company under leadership along with some Khals to be legit.40,000 Dothraki,10,000 TGC(knightly trained), and 30,000+ Dornishmen would most likely be a big threat, especially when you got people who really want vengeance leading your armies.

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

Body mechanics. A horse archer can draw only from his arms while a foot archer can use all the muscles down to his ankles. Furthermore, he can use a longer, less curved bow, which translates to better force conversion (barring some modern inventions).

Lastly, he shoots way faster.

Doesn't composite bow negate that need for length while retaining power? Supposedly people could release 10 shots a minute from a composite bow too. Is longbow that much faster?

I'm not arguing about that part, I don't know for sure, so I'm curious.

What I would argue, is that horse archers have the obvious advantage of mobility. Unless there's a disadvantage in terrain, horse archers will be riding and shooting at stationary targets. Foot archers will be trying to hit moving targets spread in all directions.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Partially. Modern composite bows negate it entirely, but these kind of materials are not available to the Dothraki. 10 shots a minute is rather bad, by the way. Arabian archers were expected to shot two or three arrows per second if I remember correctly. A mad minute.

But arrows will run out in the end.

Horse archers also present a way bigger target than foot archers. Way bigger. And armoring horses is way more difficult. In battle you don't aim anyway, going for salvos into an area.

[hodorisfaclessman]

...and 999 out of 1000 arrows the Dothraki fire would go "clang" against the armor of the foot archer. Or maybe "tchok", and stuck in his gambeson without penetration.

Clang? I cant see westerosi archers in full plate

Gambeson is more like it and while decent protection its not arrow proof

The fact they are foot archers and wearing gambesons/mail/ boiled leather etc vs nothing means they are at a big advantage yes but not so big that if they are outnumbered 5:1 + that they will win.

Its all down to tactics ..will the dothraki be dumb enough to stay in a static block far away and trade missles or in bulky attack waves or break up in to small units and use mobility is the question

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Gambesons are damn decent protection. Not absolutely, but very decent. Not one hit out of two, more like one out of twenty. That's worsened by the Dothraki using hunting arrows instead of proper battle arrows, which suck in penetration.

Small units need space. In which case the foot archers could put like a hundred times the arrows into the air than the Dothraki in range.

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

Gambesons are damn decent protection. Not absolutely, but very decent. Not one hit out of two, more like one out of twenty. That's worsened by the Dothraki using hunting arrows instead of proper battle arrows, which suck in penetration.

Small units need space. In which case the foot archers could put like a hundred times the arrows into the air than the Dothraki in range.

That's an assumption though, or is it mentioned in the books? My assumption would be the opposite, since they've seen armored opponents before.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Gambesons are damn decent protection. Not absolutely, but very decent. Not one hit out of two, more like one out of twenty. That's worsened by the Dothraki using hunting arrows instead of proper battle arrows, which suck in penetration.

Small units need space. In which case the foot archers could put like a hundred times the arrows into the air than the Dothraki in range.

Id say its more like 1 in 5 and we dont know what types of arrows they have

space is something theyd have unless their commander is an idiot , if they choose to fight in a small enclosed battlefield with lots of bottlenecks instead of bypassing they are dead smashing into pikemen and heavy cavalry etc

If they fight as coordinated small units on a wide open space its different (as ud expect a light cavaly force to pick) now if you have them in groups of say 20-30 your archers must either waste time firing salvos at a small group mobile groups on a large field or get them up close to the front lines to target individuals as they ride close by.

So again it comes down to numbers...if you have enough archers and diciplined foot , maybe some dismounted knights as extra cover for them you will pick them off like those old cowboy films as the 'indians ' ride past. easy

if not then youl watch as the odd salvo catches somebody and they ride past your pike square plugging guys in the face , upper body and neck just outside pike range.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's an assumption though, or is it mentioned in the books? My assumption would be the opposite, since they've seen armored opponents before.

Implied in the books. If you remember, Jorah in the first book states the Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones. JonCon five books later states the opposite.

The most likely explanation is a difference in weight. War arrows are stiffer and heavier. That way they loose way less energy on their flight and translate into a vastly higher impact energy. The trade-off is their smaller range.

Jorah as a proper noble with disdain for archers didn't pay attention to the details of the arrows :cool4:

Id say its more like 1 in 5 and we dont know what types of arrows they have

space is something theyd have unless their commander is an idiot , if they choose to fight in a small enclosed battlefield with lots of bottlenecks instead of bypassing they are dead smashing into pikemen and heavy cavalry etc

If they fight as coordinated small units on a wide open space its different (as ud expect a light cavaly force to pick) now if you have them in groups of say 20-30 your archers must either waste time firing salvos at a small group mobile groups on a large field or get them up close to the front lines to target individuals as they ride close by.

So again it comes down to numbers...if you have enough archers and diciplined foot , maybe some dismounted knights as extra cover for them you will pick them off like those old cowboy films as the 'indians ' ride past. easy

if not then youl watch as the odd salvo catches somebody and they ride past your pike square plugging guys in the face , upper body and neck just outside pike range.

You can put an archer on a square meter. Pikes you can put four to six on a square meter. Mounted archers in small groups need way more.

And by the way, hitting a group is damn easy.

[Victor227]

The Dothraki are led from the front by a man with no armor, and upon his death collapse into infighting, with the main bodyguard (bloodriders) supposed to commit suicide alongside him, but more often dragging off parts of the horde to form their own Khalassars.

They are not a credible threat. Unless Khal Drogo has the reflexes to dodge a volley of arrows, he-

Wait, how the heck do the Dothraki even fight each other? Can you imagine the sheer butchery of two sides composed of thousands of unarmored mounted archers lobbing volleys at each other? It seems impossible that they would put themselves through that. Either they would slaughter eachother impossibly quickly, or their bows and arrows are of the absolute worst quality.

Come to think of it, the only time we've ever seen Dothraki fight, it was when Khal Drogo basically jumped another Khalassar that was already in the middle of looting, and he still sustained an injury in the process that became infected and killed him.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Implied in the books. If you remember, Jorah in the first book states the Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones. JonCon five books later states the opposite.

The most likely explanation is a difference in weight. War arrows are stiffer and heavier. That way they loose way less energy on their flight and translate into a vastly higher impact energy. The trade-off is their smaller range.

Jorah as a proper noble with disdain for archers didn't pay attention to the details of the arrows :cool4:

You can put an archer on a square meter. Pikes you can put four to six on a square meter. Mounted archers in small groups need way more.

And by the way, hitting a group is damn easy.

Jorah isnt really that sort of look down on the common man etc noble though hes from a dirt poor plot of land and has spent most of his life as a merc , more likely its just another small detail grmm didnt think about as he had such a complex set of books to write

I agree theyd need space , if they choose the wrong battle field they are toast

a slow moving/static group of infantry yes hence why indirect salvos are so dammed effective but a series of small groups thundering towards you is hard to time right for indirect volleys(the standard archer tactic of the day) esp over a huge battlefield so getting the guys up closer to the front lines to directly aim is whats needed ,then it comes down to numbers

if you have enough they will outfire , have better accuracy and better protection and are smaller targets so will get the job done ..if they are too few then its a different story.

[hodorisfaclessman]

The Dothraki are led from the front by a man with no armor, and upon his death collapse into infighting, with the main bodyguard (bloodriders) supposed to commit suicide alongside him, but more often dragging off parts of the horde to form their own Khalassars.

They are not a credible threat. Unless Khal Drogo has the reflexes to dodge a volley of arrows, he-

Wait, how the heck do the Dothraki even fight each other? Can you imagine the sheer butchery of two sides composed of thousands of unarmored mounted archers lobbing volleys at each other? It seems impossible that they would put themselves through that. Either they would slaughter eachother impossibly quickly, or their bows and arrows are of the absolute worst quality.

Come to think of it, the only time we've ever seen Dothraki fight, it was when Khal Drogo basically jumped another Khalassar that was already in the middle of looting, and he still sustained an injury in the process that became infected and killed him.

given they are both unarmoured it would stand to reason they both fire and get amongst each other with the arkhs ...but yeah even then sounds like bloody slaughter before you even get into the sheer amount dying from infected medium to small cuts afterwards like drogo himself.

The lack of any armour at all for a so called warrior culture is prob the most unreaslistic thing about them by far, anytime i think of them facing each other with no protection I think of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJGyxBgf0Is

[Poodle Pup From Astapor]

The Dothraki are led from the front by a man with no armor, and upon his death collapse into infighting, with the main bodyguard (bloodriders) supposed to commit suicide alongside him, but more often dragging off parts of the horde to form their own Khalassars.

They are not a credible threat. Unless Khal Drogo has the reflexes to dodge a volley of arrows, he-

Wait, how the heck do the Dothraki even fight each other? Can you imagine the sheer butchery of two sides composed of thousands of unarmored mounted archers lobbing volleys at each other? It seems impossible that they would put themselves through that. Either they would slaughter eachother impossibly quickly, or their bows and arrows are of the absolute worst quality.

Come to think of it, the only time we've ever seen Dothraki fight, it was when Khal Drogo basically jumped another Khalassar that was already in the middle of looting, and he still sustained an injury in the process that became infected and killed him.

Haha good point. Internal dothraki fighting would be so devastating.

[Jon Flow]

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/83985-why-the-dothraki-pose-no-threat-to-the-seven-kingdoms

Look the Dothraki are WAY overrated. What everyone fails to realize is that it is mentioned in several of the books that the cities of Essos often pay off the Dothraki because it is cheaper than hiring a company to fight them. So there you have it... Just one of the mercenary companies can take on a Carousel... or Kalosar... or whatever you want to call a group of foul smelling savages. The second sons are currently invading Westeros and how many people expect them to end up on the throne? Not I.

Want a clearer explanation? Well Robert B pretty much said what would happen. They could run amok and kill a bunch of small folk and small villages, but lacking siege weapons or a supply chain, the Dothraki would break on every tall wall.