Dothraki vs westerosi infantry

[redtree]

This thread just makes me wonder about Varys and Illyrio's initial plan, say Viserys were less dramatic and Khal Drogo agreed to march after Rhaego's birth, they'd still be lost to Joffrey or whoever who holds the Iron Throne. Even if Dorne support them, they'd still be outnumbered. But Varys is very intelligent, it'd be interesting to know his first scheme pre-dragons

[Kaibaman]

1 hour ago, Lord Giggles said:

Yes I know that Westerosi infantry are going to be capable of dealing with such tactics. However, to attempt to break the Westerosi formation is really the only viable option the Dothraki have. 

By the time the Huns showed up the Roman army was no longer the disciplined fighting force it had once been. 1/3 of the "proffessional" army(the Comitatanses) were drawn from amongst the germanic tribes who had settled within the Empire's borders. Discipline was no longer anywhere near what it had been several centuries before, neither was morale and equipment ranged from decent to just barely tolerable. The Roman army when it was called upon to fight the Huns was a far cry from what it had once been. And the cavalry of most of the "barbarian" tribes the Romans fought in the 4th and 5th centuries were more akin to later knights than the Hunnic light cavalry, hence the rise in the amount of heavy cavalry used by the Romans in the Western Empire's twilight years. 

Westerosi infantry are not levied peasants but rather semi professionals, who are well equipped and likely well motivated. Both myself and E-Ro wrote rather extensive examinations of Westerosi infantry and both came to this conclusion.

 These kinds of tactics are alien to them that's true. But that doesn't change the fact that in order to aim accurately they'd need to sacrifice their rate of fire and probably get in closer than they'd wish to. And a charge by light cavalry against heavy infantry is never going to end well for the light cavalry. Even if they get the best of it on the charge, the infantry will gain the upper hand in a protracted engagement

Ok perhaps the Huns weren't the best example given that the Romans did begin relying more on barbarian forces to fight against them most of the time. However an even better example I can think of are the Mongols and how they gave the armies of eastern Europe hell in the 13th century. Granted the Mongols were far more versatile than the Huns but like their predecessors they were archers and light cavalry first and foremost. And like the Huns their tactics worked effectively against the armies of Hungry who like the Romans weren't accustomed to their ways of waging wars. 

Also the Mongols have shown that in a protracted battle, light cavalry can take on and defeat large armies of infantry. What the Mongols usually did was send in their cavalry archers to shoot arrows to force the enemy to disperse or go on the defensive, or make a false rout to make the enemy give chance and go out of position, which would be followed by cavalry hitting them once they are out of formation. And the Mongols and Huns did have a form of heavy cavalry. Like the Dothraki they had lancers that specialized in frontal charges. Just because horseman aren't armored doesn't mean they don't count as heavy cavalry.

 

[Poupsi]

Well the dothraki can raise khalasar with great numbers of men, because they ruled the dothraki sea, the vastest plains of Essos.

For the duel, well the dothraki shall probably be regarded as a wasted force.

But in case you wonder, the dornishmen fight quite like the dothraki up to some fashions. They are light-armored, on light horses, use conventional weapons, or small curved bows and throwing spears and whip ahorse, with small shields.

Their nemesis were supposed to be the marchers knights with their great skills at arms and their longbows.

[Lord Giggles]

1 hour ago, Kaibaman said:

Ok perhaps the Huns weren't the best example given that the Romans did begin relying more on barbarian forces to fight against them most of the time. However an even better example I can think of are the Mongols and how they gave the armies of eastern Europe hell in the 13th century. Granted the Mongols were far more versatile than the Huns but like their predecessors they were archers and light cavalry first and foremost. And like the Huns their tactics worked effectively against the armies of Hungary who like the Romans weren't accustomed to their ways of waging wars. 

Also the Mongols have shown that in a protracted battle, light cavalry can take on and defeat large armies of infantry. What the Mongols usually did was send in their cavalry archers to shoot arrows to force the enemy to disperse or go on the defensive, or make a false rout to make the enemy give chance and go out of position, which would be followed by cavalry hitting them once they are out of formation. And the Mongols and Huns did have a form of heavy cavalry. Like the Dothraki they had lancers that specialized in frontal charges. Just because horseman aren't armored doesn't mean they don't count as heavy cavalry.

And yet the Mongols did wear armour. Not western plate armour but layers of silk and armour of leather which could stop arrows and to some degree swords. There's a vast difference between the Mongols and the Dothraki. Unlike the Mongols, the Dothraki wear no armour and do seem to rely on hand to hand combat as the deciding factor. And one of the main factors involved in the Mongols continued success was their use of infantry auxiliaries from conquered nations. Both they and the Huns did this on the grounds that light cavalry cannot defeat heavy infantry in a protracted hand to hand engagement, or rather they can't defeat trained and equipped heavy infantry. 

[Protagoras]

5 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

Yet in the twilight years of their empire the Romans often got thrashed by barbarian tribes who had numerous and far more skilled cavalry than they did. The Huns who were mostly made up of light cavalry with composite bows were able to destroy the far better equipped and better armored Roman infantry on many occasions. And keep in mind the Roman army was a professional military force that could equip its soldiers with good arms and armor. The armies of Westeros on the other hand are mostly just levied peasants who most of the time aren't given very good quality weapons or armor and usually don't have the discipline to withstand a cavalry charge.

Except the cavalry are far more maneuverable and flexible than infantry. Also large bodies of infantry are only effective most of the time if they're tightly grouped together in organized formations. However a lot of times when a cavalry charge fails if they're being harried by enemy arrows, the infantryman (especially if they're hotblooded and undisciplined) sometimes have a tendency to charge at the enemy thus breaking up their formation and allowing the enemy cavalry to pick them off. Retreat and harry tactics to draw enemy forces away where they became vulnerable was a favorite tactic used by the Mongols.

 Again most of Westerosi men don't have very good equipment. I'm not saying the majority of them don't, however in such a massive battle you can bet that a lot of them wouldn't be very well equipped to take hits from barrage after barrage of enemy missiles. Also what the Huns used to do against large armies mostly made up of infantry was to first send their horse archers to fire at the enemy. Although the arrows they used weren't really that powerful and couldn't penetrate armor, the archers themselves were very skilled and could aim for parts of the body that weren't so protected. Of course the main purpose of firing at the enemy wasn't to go for the easy kill (although that would be a bonus) but to force the enemy to focus on protecting against incoming fire (such as changing their stance and raising their shields) which would make them vulnerable from a direct cavalry charge that would come next. Yes I agree Westeros are able to deal with direct cavalry charges, but these kinds of tactics are alien to them. 

Thanx!

That summarizes up about my response to BBE too.

In addition, I have a distinct memory (when JonCon discusses the types of bows) that the double-curved bows the dothraki use can match draw-weights to longbows? And where is it written that the arrows are lousy?

[fenr1s]

5 hours ago, redtree said:

This thread just makes me wonder about Varys and Illyrio's initial plan, say Viserys were less dramatic and Khal Drogo agreed to march after Rhaego's birth, they'd still be lost to Joffrey or whoever who holds the Iron Throne. Even if Dorne support them, they'd still be outnumbered. But Varys is very intelligent, it'd be interesting to know his first scheme pre-dragons

The plan was probably similar to what he did to aid Aegon.

Go on a Assassination spree to cause instability and war so his enemies would be weakened enough to not defeat the Dorthraki decisively and then count on the Dothraki to harry the countryside undermining the ruling authority.

 

[fenr1s]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

Thanx!

That summarizes up about my response to BBE too.

In addition, I have a distinct memory (when JonCon discusses the types of bows) that the double-curved bows the dothraki use can match draw-weights to longbows? And where is it written that the arrows are lousy?

Horsearchers naturally have shorter range because its alot harder to draw a bow on horseback.

Historically armys of mainly mounted archers didnt fare well when they had to fight enemies with large amounts of ranged troops, mongolian archers would often dismount to make use of the full strength of their bows.

The Mongolians also had a vast mix of troops and made use of various aligned troops like chinese experts in siegewarfare or Georgian and Armenian Infantry forces.

[dornishdragon]

The Dothraki might have had an important advantage, the fact of most of them being on horses. If we consider that could take on a 1 on 1 against a traditional Westerosi army with bowman, pikeman and knights on horseback and on the ground. 

However on the ground the Dothraki are on a clear disavantage because they have light armour or even no armour at all and ther arakhs have a much smaller range than the westerosi longswords and even more against spears and pikes. In that situation it would be needed 3 Dothraki for each Westerosi soldier. 

[WSmith84]

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Thanx!

That summarizes up about my response to BBE too.

In addition, I have a distinct memory (when JonCon discusses the types of bows) that the double-curved bows the dothraki use can match draw-weights to longbows? And where is it written that the arrows are lousy?

I believe that Jorah does claim that Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones, but Jon Connington later states otherwise. And actual history, as well as common sense, would dictate that a horse archer won't outrange a foot archer.

Their arrows are likely to be designed to kill unarmoured or lightly-armoured opponents (given that their enemies will most likely be equipped with such) and animals. Those arrows are extremely effective against bare flesh, significantly less so against armour.

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, fenr1s said:

Horsearchers naturally have shorter range because its alot harder to draw a bow on horseback.

Historically armys of mainly mounted archers didnt fare well when they had to fight enemies with large amounts of ranged troops, mongolian archers would often dismount to make use of the full strength of their bows.

The Mongolians also had a vast mix of troops and made use of various aligned troops like chinese experts in siegewarfare or Georgian and Armenian Infantry forces.

 

15 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

I believe that Jorah does claim that Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones, but Jon Connington later states otherwise. And actual history, as well as common sense, would dictate that a horse archer won't outrange a foot archer.

Their arrows are likely to be designed to kill unarmoured or lightly-armoured opponents (given that their enemies will most likely be equipped with such) and animals. Those arrows are extremely effective against bare flesh, significantly less so against armour.

Ok, that sounds reasonable.

So basically, the parts about the arrows are educated guesses from our own history? Ok.

[tugela]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 3:22 PM, Lychnidos said:

GRRM really dropped the ball in the realism department, when he made the Dothraki wear no armour, they'll be simply massacred by any army with a good number of missile troops, even before they reach the first line.

Most of their fighting is done against peasant villages with no means to defend themselves. While the Dothraki might be feared raiders for those peasants, they will have considerably more difficulty against the well organized, experienced and heavily armed Westerosi armies.

To get some idea of how they will fare, just look at how well they did against Mormont in his suit of armor. Their light weapons were no match for his armor and longsword.

[tugela]

1 hour ago, dornishdragon said:

The Dothraki might have had an important advantage, the fact of most of them being on horses. If we consider that could take on a 1 on 1 against a traditional Westerosi army with bowman, pikeman and knights on horseback and on the ground. 

However on the ground the Dothraki are on a clear disavantage because they have light armour or even no armour at all and ther arakhs have a much smaller range than the westerosi longswords and even more against spears and pikes. In that situation it would be needed 3 Dothraki for each Westerosi soldier. 

The main application of the Dothraki units would be as light cavalry to burn, rape and pillage the Westerosi countryside in order to deny resources to the enemy and create chaos among the general population, who would flee to the castles and holdfasts, putting further strain on the defenders. In a head on fight they would be slaughtered. Any competent commander would understand that and hence use them for what they are good at, not what the enemy is good at.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

15 hours ago, Protagoras said:

In addition, I have a distinct memory (when JonCon discusses the types of bows) that the double-curved bows the dothraki use can match draw-weights to longbows? And where is it written that the arrows are lousy?

Quite the opposite. JonCon ranks Summer Islands longbows > Westerosi longbows > Essosi composite bows. That's even worsee than it sounds, because JonCon compares infantrymen equipped with these while the Dothraki mounted archers got a real disadvantage in handling those bows due to the restrictions of riding their horses.

The arrows are an educated guess from both Mormont's claim (same range as Westerosi longbows) and JonCon's statement. Mormont most likely did not compare/examine the arrows en detail. Arrows intended for small game, or unarmored humans can be made way lighter, thus achieving greater range. But that flimsy, wobbling shaft looses more energy during flight than a stiffer, more massive one, of whom it never had as much as a heaver one, bouncing from basically anything.

Proper arrows used by Westerosi/Golden Company/similar military outfits are stiff, therefore thick, therefore heavy, with many times the energy on impact, but not as much a range if fired from the same bow.

[Trigger Warning]

Consider the Seljuks at Dorylaeum and that the knights at Dorylaeum were technologically inferior to the Westerosi and that the Dothraki are technologically and militarily inferior to the Seljuks and that men at arms would now be smilingly armoured to the crusader knights and that Westerosi nobles would be in full plate. Then laugh as the Dothraki's main way of war is negated and they get steamrolled. 

The idea that a feudal army of the same size armed and armoured in mid to late middles ages tech would be threatened by men that literally do not wear armour is pretty funny. The longbows would shred their horses and the riders whilst they plink arrows off of the front ranks of Westerosi infantry. Then if they're smart they'd run away, if it comes to swords it's even more laughable. 

[Adam Yozza]

In a straight up battle, the Westerosi would win. It would be hard fought once the Dothraki charge met the spear wall, but the Westerosi would win despite that a majority of their 50k would be levies with only basic training, and basic (though good quality) arms and armour.

However the Dothraki would never fight Westerosi foot in a straight up battle. 50k horselords can move a hell of a lot quicker than an infantry host. They would win a war by attrition.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

5 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

And yet Robert feared a war with the Dothraki.

... while never looking at their technology, tactics or anything. He even misjudged their strength by 250%!

 

Wasn't even about the Dothraki per se, by the way. Only about a Targaryen returning to Westeros, stirring up rebellion.

[Adam Yozza]

2 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

... while never looking at their technology, tactics or anything. He even misjudged their strength by 250%!

 

Wasn't even about the Dothraki per se, by the way. Only about a Targaryen returning to Westeros, stirring up rebellion.

I wrote that and that posted it when I meant to edit it. See above.

Although on the topic of Robert, I doubt he had zero idea about their tactics and tech. But perhaps it was the fear of Targ loyalist's within Westeros aiding the Dothraki that he feared? I don't know. Either way you are right, and that is why I was changing what I said when you replied.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

However the Dothraki would never fight Westerosi foot in a straight up battle. 50k horselords can move a hell of a lot quicker than an infantry host. They would win a war by attrition.

For about a week, afterwards the infantry is faster. More endurant, to tell the truth.

 

But it hardly matters. Even if the Dothraki run rampant, without being caught against a ford or castle or city wall (fat chance), all they can do is kill, murder and rape the smallfolk. Political trouble for Robert, but worse for the Dothraki. They would intentionally run a loser's strategy, without any chance of winning, and will get a nice case of payback/genocide right into the face as soon as their luck runs out. Gettng out of Westeros will be impossible, and the Westerosi will vent their grudges upon them.

[Adam Yozza]

7 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

For about a week, afterwards the infantry is faster. More endurant, to tell the truth.

 

But it hardly matters. Even if the Dothraki run rampant, without being caught against a ford or castle or city wall (fat chance), all they can do is kill, murder and rape the smallfolk. Political trouble for Robert, but worse for the Dothraki. They would intentionally run a loser's strategy, without any chance of winning, and will get a nice case of payback/genocide right into the face as soon as their luck runs out. Gettng out of Westeros will be impossible, and the Westerosi will vent their grudges upon them.

I was thinking less about the morale and political troubles and more about the sudden lack of supplies. Good luck keeping an army of 50k fed when all the fields have been burned, gold stolen and cattle killed.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

... while never looking at their technology, tactics or anything. He even misjudged their strength by 250%!

 

Wasn't even about the Dothraki per se, by the way. Only about a Targaryen returning to Westeros, stirring up rebellion.

At least 250%. Eddard and Robert agree on 100K. Drogo has 40K but Viserys was fine with 10K.