Dothraki vs westerosi infantry

[Bright Blue Eyes]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

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.

That hits the Dothraki worse than the Westerosi. Home ground advantage and all that.

 

Nevermind that 50,000 aren't supportable anyway, about 20,000, mixed cavalry and infantry, seems to be the maximum possible in Westeros, some really rare and rather theoretical circumstances excluded.

[Victor Newman]

On 7/7/2016 at 3:41 PM, Tarellen said:

Who would win. 50000 westerosi infantry comprising men at arms on foot, pikemen, and archers vs 50000 dothraki. Both are led by average comanders. Who wins?

The Dothraki are cavalry.  A better pairing are The Unsullied vs. Westerosi. 

The Unsullied wins over the Westeros infantry.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Sorry, but: No. Simply no.

 

The Unsullied are tactically and strategically outdated by two millennia, with inferior equipment and physically weaker. Their only selling point is their blind obedience, even if that gets them massacred to the last man. Which would happen to them rather quickly.

[Adam Yozza]

6 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

That hits the Dothraki worse than the Westerosi. Home ground advantage and all that.

 

Nevermind that 50,000 aren't supportable anyway, about 20,000, mixed cavalry and infantry, seems to be the maximum possible in Westeros, some really rare and rather theoretical circumstances excluded.

It doesn't hit the Dothraki worse. They'd steal the supplies meant for the Westerosi. Or did you forget both Tywin and Robb using similar tactics. 'Home ground advantage didn't help when the Lannisters burnt the RIverlands, when Robb raided the West or when the Ironborn attacked (either Reach or the North)

Not really. We've seen Renly pull together a host of nearly 100,000. Even if that is exaggeration (and it probably is) they must have at least more than half that number for such a claim to be feasible.  The Lannister's had 35000 men in the Riverlands; in separate hosts to be sure but that still shows that the Westerlands alone can support that many men, plus another 10k later, at Oxcross. Mance assembled 100k wildlings to march on Castle Black in the harshest part of the continent. Therefore, in the fantasy world of Westeros, armies of 50k, are supportable. 20k is in no way the limit.

Hell, the Trident was something like 35k vs 40k.

[house of dayne]

Depends on the tactics...if the dothraki simply charged into the westrosi, they would surely be destroyed by entrenched infantry...however, the dothraki are far more mobile and such an open charge would the stupidest thing to do..the mogols favorite tactic was to engage and then feign defeat...as they fled, the infantry would break formation to pursue..the mongols were skilled horse archers who could launch arrows backwards as they fled..once their enemies were sufficiently stretched out, they would regroup and outflank their pursuers and slaughter them..if the dothraki had a leader who could exploit the mobility of the hordes, the battle would be very close...

[fenr1s]

14 minutes ago, house of dayne said:

Depends on the tactics...if the dothraki simply charged into the westrosi, they would surely be destroyed by entrenched infantry...however, the dothraki are far more mobile and such an open charge would the stupidest thing to do..the mogols favorite tactic was to engage and then feign defeat...as they fled, the infantry would break formation to pursue..the mongols were skilled horse archers who could launch arrows backwards as they fled..once their enemies were sufficiently stretched out, they would regroup and outflank their pursuers and slaughter them..if the dothraki had a leader who could exploit the mobility of the hordes, the battle would be very close...

Even the Mongols who are a thousand years ahead in technology of the Dothraki suffered high casualties in China and central Europe. The Mongolian tactics worked best in the Eurasian Steppe.

While Westeros is more like central Europe with hillsides many rivercrossings and woodlands.

 

Lets say an incompetent Commander like Mace Tyrell leads a 20000 man strong army (5000 Cavalry, 5000 Archers/Crossbowman, 10000 Infantry) against 50000 thousand Dothraki.

The Dothraki attempt their standard tactics to shoot arrows of horseback against the Westerosi which puts them in range of the crossbows and arrows.

The Westerosi will take minor casualties because of armor and shields while inflicting heavy casulties on the unprotected Dothraki.

Next the Dothraki feign retreat which leads Mace to order his vanguard in this case his cavalry to give chase.

The Dothraki harass the cavalry with arrows which will injure or kill many horses and would cause some casualties amongst the armored riders.

Once Maces vanguard is sufficiently stretched out and away from the main army        the Dothraki who in the meantime outflanked them turn and attack.

The Westerosi take major casualties but at the same time the Dothraki would fare much worse engaging armored enemies.

The Westerois infantry tries to support the vanguard which gives the Dothraki the opportunity to outflank and engage those forces too.

Again both sides would suffer major casualties and even if the battle leads to a Westerosi rout, the dorhraki would only win a pyrrhic victory suffering tremendous casualties.

 

The Dothraki would need such an unlikely numerical advantage due to their inferior technology that they could never subdue even one of the Seven Kingdoms.

 

 

[Bright Blue Eyes]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

It doesn't hit the Dothraki worse. They'd steal the supplies meant for the Westerosi. Or did you forget both Tywin and Robb using similar tactics. 'Home ground advantage didn't help when the Lannisters burnt the RIverlands, when Robb raided the West or when the Ironborn attacked (either Reach or the North)

That's standard procedure for both sides. But the guys with the home advantage gets more of the supplies (language, local knowledge, loyalty...). The ultimate loser is the smallfolk the supplies are taken from.

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Not really. We've seen Renly pull together a host of nearly 100,000. Even if that is exaggeration (and it probably is) they must have at least more than half that number for such a claim to be feasible.  The Lannister's had 35000 men in the Riverlands; in separate hosts to be sure but that still shows that the Westerlands alone can support that many men, plus another 10k later, at Oxcross. Mance assembled 100k wildlings to march on Castle Black in the harshest part of the continent. Therefore, in the fantasy world of Westeros, armies of 50k, are supportable. 20k is in no way the limit.

Hell, the Trident was something like 35k vs 40k.

...and never marching that host into contested territory. That, he did with only about 20,000.

Two separate hosts being the keyword. It wasn't the Westerlands that supported these hosts, it was the Riverlands in about 20 miles radius around each of them. Transportation beyond these distances is de facto impossible (unless there's a convinient port).

Mance's 100,000 were starving.

The forces at the Trident marched in six different columns, uniting only shortly before the battle, and splitting up again right afterwards, distributing the load upon a larger area.

1 hour ago, house of dayne said:

Depends on the tactics...if the dothraki simply charged into the westrosi, they would surely be destroyed by entrenched infantry...however, the dothraki are far more mobile and such an open charge would the stupidest thing to do..the mogols favorite tactic was to engage and then feign defeat...as they fled, the infantry would break formation to pursue..the mongols were skilled horse archers who could launch arrows backwards as they fled..once their enemies were sufficiently stretched out, they would regroup and outflank their pursuers and slaughter them..if the dothraki had a leader who could exploit the mobility of the hordes, the battle would be very close...

The mongols also had heavy cavalry armored from head to toes exploiting that situation. Unarmored horse archers can't.

Furthermore, the Dothraki eschew tactics beyond "Charge".

[GravyFace]

I'd place my money on the Dothraki.

6 of 10 Mongols were light cavalry, just like the Dothraki. And they destroyed.

Jon Con btw has not lived with the Dothraki, his remarks about their archery ability is wrong. Jorah, who HAS lived with Dothraki and seen them fight said this:

 

Quote

They are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly … and there are so many of them, my lady. Your lord husband alone counts forty thousand mounted warriors in his khalasar.”

Quote

How long do you imagine such a rabble would stand against the charge of forty thousand screamers howling for blood? How well would boiled leather jerkins and mailed shirts protect them when the arrows fall like rain?”

 

[[Deleted]]

58 minutes ago, GravyFace said:

I'd place my money on the Dothraki.

6 of 10 Mongols were light cavalry, just like the Dothraki. And they destroyed.

Jon Con btw has not lived with the Dothraki, his remarks about their archery ability is wrong. Jorah, who HAS lived with Dothraki and seen them fight said this:

 

 

I came here to basically write this. The Dothraki have good archers with superior bows, and can fire from horseback, much like the Mongols. Depending on tactics, they could win. But if they are stupid enough to get within range of the Westerosi arrows, or engage hand-to-hand, they will lose.

[Knight Of Winter]

I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards Westerosi, but I think it's a far more closed call than most of people here assume - and I could easily be wrong. Here's a quote from a Westerosi war veteran who certainly knows how both armies work and is familiar with their composition:

 

"Now," the knight said, "I am less certain. They are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly … and there are so many of them, my lady. Your lord husband alone counts forty thousand mounted warriors in his khalasar."

"Your brother Rhaegar brought as many men to the Trident," Ser Jorah admitted, "but of that number, no more than a tenth were knights. The rest were archers, freeriders, and foot soldiers armed with spears and pikes. When Rhaegar fell, many threw down their weapons and fled the field. How long do you imagine such a rabble would stand against the charge of forty thousand screamers howling for blood? How well would boiled leather jerkins and mailed shirts protect them when the arrows fall like rain?"

 

[house of dayne]

everyone who assumes the dothraki are fodder for the westrosi have a poor understanding of cavalry tactics..why would the dothraki send their 50 k against the entrenched 50 k in the first place? they are the more mobile army and can choose when and where to engage, if at all..or they could split their forces and engage from multiple fronts..the heavy infantry would always be slow to react...simply forcing them to march from one battlefield to another would take their tolls on the westrosi...the dothraki could also simply evade the westrosi army with immunity and  all the foot soldiers with all their superior armour would be useless in their dust...dothraki hordes need only ride and plunder the lands the army is not in and force them to pursue

furthermore, if the dothraki are willing to cross the sea against their traditional customs, whose to say they wont learn to use and employ armour in their campaigns..

[goomba]

King Robert was shitting his pants at just the thought of 30,000 dothraki that Khal Drogo had.

He also stated no force would be stupid enough to fight the Dothraki on a open field, so im guessing the general thought was that a dothraki soldier is substantially better than a westerosi soldier individually.

Atleast thats how the show made it to be.  

[goomba]

5 hours ago, GravyFace said:

I'd place my money on the Dothraki.

6 of 10 Mongols were light cavalry, just like the Dothraki. And they destroyed.

Jon Con btw has not lived with the Dothraki, his remarks about their archery ability is wrong. Jorah, who HAS lived with Dothraki and seen them fight said this:

 

 

they are a little different than the mongols, mongols relied much more on archery than people seem to think.

where as the dothraki seem to rely more on charging than the mongols did.

[hodorisfaclessman]

1 hour ago, goomba said:

they are a little different than the mongols, mongols relied much more on archery than people seem to think.

where as the dothraki seem to rely more on charging than the mongols did.

To be fair thats one battle where they were led by a stupid khal we cant use it as the norm

The deciding factor will be numbers of archers the westerosi have as a % of infantry to reply to dothraki arrows , the battlefield chosen  and if the knights can stay diciplined and not go off 

Abother issue  though is nailing them down to fight a fixed battle given how  mobile they will be

[Kaibaman]

3 hours ago, goomba said:

they are a little different than the mongols, mongols relied much more on archery than people seem to think.

where as the dothraki seem to rely more on charging than the mongols did.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. As Jorah had pointed out in AGOT, they are like the Mongols when it comes to their reliance on horse archery over simply charging at the enemy.

Quote

They are better riders than any knight and utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly...and there are so many of them

 

[Bright Blue Eyes]

9 hours ago, GravyFace said:

6 of 10 Mongols were light cavalry, just like the Dothraki. And they destroyed.

Jon Con btw has not lived with the Dothraki, his remarks about their archery ability is wrong. Jorah, who HAS lived with Dothraki and seen them fight said this:

And the other 4 of 10? They were heavy cavalry. The Mongols used combined arms to great benefit. The Dothraki don't. They have nothing beyond the lightest cavalry ever.

Jorah has not seen them fight, and he presumably shares the Westerosi nobles' disdain and disinterest in archery. JonCon doesn't, he knows what he's talking about. See: arrow weight.

As to boiled leather and chainmail protecting the Westerosi: pretty good. There are reliable accounts of crusaders, just wearing gambesons, not even their mail, being stuck with 20+ arrows without being bothered. Unless the Dothraki hit the face between the rim of the open-faced helm and the collar, no problem. And that's just utterly bad luck.

 

5 hours ago, house of dayne said:

everyone who assumes the dothraki are fodder for the westrosi have a poor understanding of cavalry tactics..why would the dothraki send their 50 k against the entrenched 50 k in the first place? they are the more mobile army and can choose when and where to engage, if at all..or they could split their forces and engage from multiple fronts..the heavy infantry would always be slow to react...simply forcing them to march from one battlefield to another would take their tolls on the westrosi...the dothraki could also simply evade the westrosi army with immunity and  all the foot soldiers with all their superior armour would be useless in their dust...dothraki hordes need only ride and plunder the lands the army is not in and force them to pursue

furthermore, if the dothraki are willing to cross the sea against their traditional customs, whose to say they wont learn to use and employ armour in their campaigns..

Sure. For a while. But they can't win that way, just postpone the inevitable loss until the Westerosi trap them against a river or whatever.

Marching from battlefield to battlefield would be worse for the Dothraki. Horses lack endurance, or rather humans evolved as the toughest perseverance predator on Earth. One week's advantage, that's what their horses get the Dothraki, afterwards it's the other way round. And of course the Westerosi can take the short path, where Dothraki have to circle castles and towns.

If the Dothraki change to that amount, they wouldn't be the Dothraki anymore. That's a fundamentel shift (and one that takes literally generations).

56 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

I wouldn't be too sure about that. As Jorah had pointed out in AGOT, they are like the Mongols when it comes to their reliance on horse archery over simply charging at the enemy.

 

Jorah is trying to get into Dany's pants. Please re-read that passage and take note of the ~10 ridiculous assumptions Jorah makes. He's telling Dany what she wants to hear (and tries to convince himself of it).

[Bright Blue Eyes]

11 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

50000 mounted warriors would splatter 50000 men on foot, idc how much armor they have. There's a reason that cavalry pretty much dominated all schools of military strategy in the middle ages. This is especially the case since the OP gave them both "average" commanders.

Armored cavalry. With lances.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Westeros got cavalry too. Both heavy and light cavalry. And even the light cavalry is armored.

 

Pure cavalry armies retain their mobility advantage for no more than three days. Afterwards, the horses are too tired to keep up. Furthermore, that entire harrying scheme works while defending, but not while invading. Castles, towns, fords, bridges, all that is and will be controlled by the Westerosi and the Dothraki can neither attack them successfully nor ignore them forever.

[Kaibaman]

13 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Westeros got cavalry too. Both heavy and light cavalry. And even the light cavalry is armored.

 

They do. But as Jorah had pointed out, not even the best knights in the Seven Kingdoms can match the equestrian skills of the Dothraki who essentially grew up in the saddle. And there would be more of them than there are knights in any given battle. 

[house of dayne]

1 hour ago, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Westeros got cavalry too. Both heavy and light cavalry. And even the light cavalry is armored.

 

Pure cavalry armies retain their mobility advantage for no more than three days. Afterwards, the horses are too tired to keep up. Furthermore, that entire harrying scheme works while defending, but not while invading. Castles, towns, fords, bridges, all that is and will be controlled by the Westerosi and the Dothraki can neither attack them successfully nor ignore them forever.

I think you made numerous assumptions..dothraki would surely ride with multiple mounts..mongols could have up to three horses each..the speed and mobility of these armies could not be matched by foot soldiers and was in no way limited by three days..an army of heavy foot soldiers 50k large is a clumsy and slow moving beast...simply avoidingit and forcing it to move without allowing it to establish an entrenched position, would put tremendous pressure on its leaders to feed and maintain its order...what if the dothraki split their forces into two or thee columns? Who would the foot soldiers pursue? westetos is huge and it would be impossible for a foot army to corner or even manipulate the position of the mounted armies...a good dothraki leader would wait until inevitably the foot army begins to unravel under the constant and useless marching fatigues them and saps morale..engage their stretched out marching columns and supply trains with limited forces and deny the foot army any chance to fully engage..

Because it is in westeros, the impetus is on thefoot army to find and destroy the invaders...the dothraki could content themselves simply plundering the land and provoke the westrosi to respond on their terms