if the dothraki invaded westeros?

[E-Ro]

I am spanish, and when the muslims invaded us, they destroyed our armies with their riders, their bows...and their swords too. During 700 years they were fighting us, even against crusaders, and they losed....but they won also. A simitar can break bones, can cut flesh, yes, but the chainmail is not a perfect defense against that kind of swords as you think. Of cours, the chainmail represented one of the mayor differences between being hurt and being dead, but I truly believe that an arakh could slash, even cut, the chainmail..

Then you should know that spain was severely divided when the muslims invaded, and easy prey to a united group of foes. As well the muslims were expelled during the reconqista(spelling?) Im with blue eyes on this, short of a miracle or a plot screw up, you wont be slashing through mail.

[Erudain]

Probably, was just giving a plausible explanation for that scenario :cheers:

[Ingelheim]

Then you should know that spain was severely divided when the muslims invaded, and easy prey to a united group of foes. As well the muslims were expelled during the reconqista(spelling?) Im with blue eyes on this, short of a miracle or a plot screw up, you wont be slashing through mail.

Of course I know it, but the chainmail can be traversed. The curve swords are so weak against plate armors and chainmail too, but that doesn't mean that the chainmail is perfect itself. It's too difficult to cut a mail, but is posible, even with curve swords. I am sure that Drogo could have cut Jorah's chainmail, for example.

[Light a wight tonight]

Nope. You could pierce mail, you could break bones through mail, but you couldn't cut through chainmail. And still can't, that's the reason butchers wear chainmail gloves and aprons while handling electric saws.

Not sure how proof against swords medieval mail actually was. I recall reading in a book called "The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England" (or something very similar, it was in the mid-60s) that the best European swords were made by the Franks in the Rhine valley and that there were many examples of mail that suffered horrendous gashes from sword cuts.

To be workable the iron in the links must be fairly soft and the sword edges were quite sharp and hard. Smiths would routinely cut iron with a cold chisel, and cold chisels are not notably sharp.

As to arrows, archers would use a bodkin point (small diameter with a chisel tip) instead of a broadhead to defeat chainmail. Worked like a charm at Crécy and Agincourt.

[NewJeffCT]

I think one-on-one, an experienced Dothraki fighter would be a match for a knight. However, I think the knights have better overall discipline than the Dothraki hordes.

The problem is if you have 5,000 knights, another 10,000 squires, freeriders and sellswords, and then you have more lightly armored foot (25,000), who are often peasants and smallfolk that are levied by their lords. If that is what is going up against a Dothraki horde of 40,000 screamers, I might like the Dothraki if the terrain is right. Remember, Jorah said Robert would ride out to meet them in open battle...

[E-Ro]

Not sure how proof against swords medieval mail actually was. I recall reading in a book called "The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England" (or something very similar, it was in the mid-60s) that the best European swords were made by the Franks in the Rhine valley and that there were many examples of mail that suffered horrendous gashes from sword cuts.

To be workable the iron in the links must be fairly soft and the sword edges were quite sharp and hard. Smiths would routinely cut iron with a cold chisel, and cold chisels are not notably sharp.

As to arrows, archers would use a bodkin point (small diameter with a chisel tip) instead of a broadhead to defeat chainmail. Worked like a charm at Crécy and Agincourt.

Mail armor is extremely good protection against slashes. A heavy blow from a longsword will cause blunt force damage but the mail wont actually be cut open. A lighter blade, such as a scimitar or an arakh will have an even harder time of it. So, the sharpness of the blade wont matter much, but the weight and force of the blow will.

As for agincourt, the arrow played little part. A combination of mud, and poor leadership caused the french to make a stupid move that cost them dearly. The arrows panicked the horses and caused little if any casualties among the french themselves(who at this point in history would be armored all in plate) the combination of mud and arrow allowed the english to run up to the strugling french and kill or capture them. The myth of the arrows import in this battle has been dispelled.

[The Red Pope]

The problem is if you have 5,000 knights, another 10,000 squires, freeriders and sellswords, and then you have more lightly armored foot (25,000), who are often peasants and smallfolk that are levied by their lords. If that is what is going up against a Dothraki horde of 40,000 screamers, I might like the Dothraki if the terrain is right. Remember, Jorah said Robert would ride out to meet them in open battle...

Another advantage of the Dothraki is their mobility, all of them travel on horseback with a minimum of supplies. While the westerosi have huge slow moving bagage trains and thousands of foot soldiers to slow them down. The screamers could easily march three times as fast and that is a decisive advantage.

[King Aemon I]

I always dreamed it like this:: (Or actually,this is what I dreamed what Varys and Illyrio's plan would be)

Viserys lands Westeros with 40.000 horsemen and some sellswords on his back.. Starts fighting rivermen and Westermen, waiting for men of the Vale and North, (all with Illyrio's advices) Riverlands destroyed by Dothraki screamers who have never seen so many harvest and herds and towns without protection, it would be like a heaven to them.. Westermen are either defeat (since that they can call for 40.000 tops, and that is what they have as an enemy, but this horde is all riders, not even Lord Tywin wouldn't dare confront this horde) or hiding behind Golden Tooth.. Fifty thousand men passes the Trident from Horroway's Town(20k Stark, 20kArryn, and 8-10k Rivermen joined them from riverlands by passing through Twins) but I hardly think they would confront Dothraki horde either, since that they have like 15k horsemen top, and at least 20k would be men who never fought before in their lives, against Dothraki, who fights at least in every 6 months.. They would try to unite with Westermen or go south to unite with Baratheon or Tyrell, but a whole-rider horde would easily catch them on the road..

And in south; Stormlords are defeated with a surprise attack of GC.. Then they pass to Reach, which holds a lot of men from distant lands, men that would take months to unite as we saw in Renly's case, South of Reach would be in fight with Dornishmen and north of the reach would be fighting GC, which is hard since that they have elephants, which is perfect for making horses flee and run against soldiers in large plains of Reach.. If they have problems defeating them, Dothraki would join them easily, since that they move very fast as a all rider horde... And with Dothraki gone south, Stark-Arryn-Lannister and a little of Tully would unite into 90-100k of a host, against 30k Dornish, 10k GC, and 40k dothraki.. Almost equal numbers, but so much quality on Targaryen side, like 50k riders, and elephants, they would most likely win.. And after that Aegon would bend his knee to his uncle, taking him as his rigthful king, and accepting children Viserys would have over him on line of succession, gaining his affection.. And I think Viserys already loved his nephew, with his crown safe, he would take Aegon as his heir, until a son is born to him.. Then ,somehow, Viserys dies before having children, Aegon coronates as Aegon VI.. This is how realm takes Aegon as real Aegon, I think...

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

Dorne would for certain I think, as would many houses from the reach and stormlands. it would be like aegon's conquest were you have all these smaller houses like tully and tyrell sided with the invader to benefit themselves.

[Light a wight tonight]

Mail armor is extremely good protection against slashes. A heavy blow from a longsword will cause blunt force damage but the mail wont actually be cut open. A lighter blade, such as a scimitar or an arakh will have an even harder time of it. So, the sharpness of the blade wont matter much, but the wight and force of the blow will.

As for agincourt, the arrow played little part. A combination of mud, and poor leadership caused the french to make a stupid move that cost them dearly. The arrows panicked the horses and caused little if any casualties among the french themselves(who at this point in history would be armored all in plate) the combination of mud and arrow allowed the english to run up to the strugling french and kill or capture them. The myth of the arrows import in this battle has been dispelled.

First, please explain the hacked-up chain mail, then. Good swords were labor-intensive and relatively expensive. Why bother with them if they were ineffective? A plain iron bar would be just as good for breaking bones. Do we hear about knights having it out with iron bars? Are there museum exhibits of iron bars used in combat? This really sounds like moderns making statements about ancient weaponry without being thoroughly acquainted with it. As another example you get "scientists" claiming that slings were ineffective because they can't sling, but the Romans deveoped medical tools for extracting sling bullets from wounds.

And why would arrows panic trained war horses? Mud? One common tactic would be to somehow soften up or otherwise make unfavorable the path cavalry would charge across. Also, if arrows were so ineffective why did the French hire all those Genoese crossbowmen? So that they could brag about how much they spent?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Not sure how proof against swords medieval mail actually was. I recall reading in a book called "The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England" (or something very similar, it was in the mid-60s) that the best European swords were made by the Franks in the Rhine valley and that there were many examples of mail that suffered horrendous gashes from sword cuts.

To be workable the iron in the links must be fairly soft and the sword edges were quite sharp and hard. Smiths would routinely cut iron with a cold chisel, and cold chisels are not notably sharp.

As to arrows, archers would use a bodkin point (small diameter with a chisel tip) instead of a broadhead to defeat chainmail. Worked like a charm at Crécy and Agincourt.

Well, if you put the iron on an unmovable anvil, put the chisel on and gave it a whack with a 20-pound hammer, that's one thing. But a two-pound scimitar going up against flexible chainmail on a flexible body that's quite a difference.

I think one-on-one, an experienced Dothraki fighter would be a match for a knight. However, I think the knights have better overall discipline than the Dothraki hordes.

The problem is if you have 5,000 knights, another 10,000 squires, freeriders and sellswords, and then you have more lightly armored foot (25,000), who are often peasants and smallfolk that are levied by their lords. If that is what is going up against a Dothraki horde of 40,000 screamers, I might like the Dothraki if the terrain is right. Remember, Jorah said Robert would ride out to meet them in open battle...

Funny that prodigy Dothraki (or pitfighters with arakhs) stand hardly a chance against Westerosi knights no more than average or 30 years beyond their prime. Make that 10 Dothraki to a single knight or the like.

Another advantage of the Dothraki is their mobility, all of them travel on horseback with a minimum of supplies. While the westerosi have huge slow moving bagage trains and thousands of foot soldiers to slow them down. The screamers could easily march three times as fast and that is a decisive advantage.

Only for three days. Fact is, horses lack endurance. They would gain a headstart during the first three days, but an all-foot army would be back at their heels after a week and pull ahead.

First, please explain the hacked-up chain mail, then. Good swords were labor-intensive and relatively expensive. Why bother with them if they were ineffective? A plain iron bar would be just as good for breaking bones. Do we hear about knights having it out with iron bars? Are there museum exhibits of iron bars used in combat? This really sounds like moderns making statements about ancient weaponry without being thoroughly acquainted with it. As another example you get "scientists" claiming that slings were ineffective because they can't sling, but the Romans deveoped medical tools for extracting sling bullets from wounds.

And why would arrows panic trained war horses? Mud? One common tactic would be to somehow soften up or otherwise make unfavorable the path cavalry would charge across. Also, if arrows were so ineffective why did the French hire all those Genoese crossbowmen? So that they could brag about how much they spent?

Good swords cost about the same as proper armor. And no, the knights did not went for broken bones with their swords, that's what warhammers are for. They stabbed through the chainmail with their points. An arakh has no point.

[E-Ro]

First, please explain the hacked-up chain mail, then. Good swords were labor-intensive and relatively expensive. Why bother with them if they were ineffective? A plain iron bar would be just as good for breaking bones. Do we hear about knights having it out with iron bars? Are there museum exhibits of iron bars used in combat? This really sounds like moderns making statements about ancient weaponry without being thoroughly acquainted with it. As another example you get "scientists" claiming that slings were ineffective because they can't sling, but the Romans deveoped medical tools for extracting sling bullets from wounds.

First of all, swords were more of a sidearm. No one started battle with a sword out, since pole weapons are far more effective. And yes swords are ineffective against armor, good for lightly or unarmed men though. And no, no iron bars, but maces, hammers, and other blunt force weapons were very common, far more common then swords.

And why would arrows panic trained war horses? Mud? One common tactic would be to somehow soften up or otherwise make unfavorable the path cavalry would charge across. Also, if arrows were so ineffective why did the French hire all those Genoese crossbowmen? So that they could brag about how much they spent?

Arrows panick horses because getting hit with an arrow hurts, the mud slows men down, especially men in plate armor. Also there is a difference between arrows and bolts, a crossbow and a bow are two different things. A crossbow at close range can peirce plate, a bow cannot.

[E-Ro]

Only for three days. Fact is, horses lack endurance. They would gain a headstart during the first three days, but an all-foot army would be back at their heels after a week and pull ahead.

Very true, horses only move faster then men for a little while, eventually men become faster because horses have to rest. This is something many do not know.

Good swords cost about the same as proper armor. And no, the knights did not went for broken bones with their swords, that's what warhammers are for. They stabbed through the chainmail with their points. An arakh has no point.

And once again bright blue eyes you explain things very well, a longsword can thrust as well as slash. A scimitar or arakh cant.

[peasantboy]

So if Dany did bring a Dothraki horde ... and she defeats the westerosi ... what then?

The Dothraki aren't just going to settle down and become her peasants, they are going to continue growing and raiding settlements. Pretty soon you would have a situation similar to essos with roving bands of pillagers going from city to city.

What would Dany do with her horde?? Destroy them? Send them home?

[NewJeffCT]

Well, if you put the iron on an unmovable anvil, put the chisel on and gave it a whack with a 20-pound hammer, that's one thing. But a two-pound scimitar going up against flexible chainmail on a flexible body that's quite a difference.

Funny that prodigy Dothraki (or pitfighters with arakhs) stand hardly a chance against Westerosi knights no more than average or 30 years beyond their prime. Make that 10 Dothraki to a single knight or the like.

Only for three days. Fact is, horses lack endurance. They would gain a headstart during the first three days, but an all-foot army would be back at their heels after a week and pull ahead.

Good swords cost about the same as proper armor. And no, the knights did not went for broken bones with their swords, that's what warhammers are for. They stabbed through the chainmail with their points. An arakh has no point.

Jorah 30 years past his prime? I don't think so.

And, while Ser Barristan may be old, he was still what, in the final 8 of the Hand's Tourney at the beginning of A Game of Thrones? So, one of the top 8 knights in Westeros still. Krazz was a gladiator who fought against other gladiators in pits with set dimensions, and not used to going up against armored foes. The Dothraki go up against all types of opponents, and are also used to fighting in groups and in the open.

And, for lightly armored warriors against more heavily armored knights, you have Bronn vs Ser Vardis Egen, Strong Belwas vs Oznak zo Pahl, and The Red Viper vs Gregor Clegane. Oznak was the champion of all Meereen. Martell would have won and basically been untouched if he hadn't gotten cocky in the end. And, Egen was the captain of the guard for the Eyrie, so was one of the better knights in the Vale. And, if the Dothraki arakh looks anything like what they carry on the TV show, it's got a pretty nasty point on the end. And, if you're swinging that down from horseback at a knight on foot whose horse has been shot out from under him, you have some pretty good targets in the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist... not to mention top of the legs.

[E-Ro]

And, for lightly armored warriors against more heavily armored knights, you have Bronn vs Ser Vardis Egen, Strong Belwas vs Oznak zo Pahl, and The Red Viper vs Gregor Clegane. Oznak was the champion of all Meereen. Martell would have won and basically been untouched if he hadn't gotten cocky in the end. And, Egen was the captain of the guard for the Eyrie, so was one of the better knights in the Vale. And, if the Dothraki arakh looks anything like what they carry on the TV show, it's got a pretty nasty point on the end. And, if you're swinging that down from horseback at a knight on foot whose horse has been shot out from under him, you have some pretty good targets in the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist... not to mention top of the legs.

The dothraki dont use longswords and they dont use spears. So the bronn, and the red viper comparison does not work. They use arakhs, a curved weapon, you cannot slash with a curved weapon, I have seen the show version impossible to thrust with such a blade. And whats more you assume every dothraki is as good as the best of the westerosi, since jorah an average knight can defeat an above average dothraki with the help of armor I think the results would be simmilar with other fights.And if you ar attacking from horesback at a man on foot how are you aiming at the joints? Elbows? Wrists? These dothraki must have some damn good aim. There is a reason armor was and is so widely used, even the mongols who the dothraki are often compared to used heavy armor.

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

None, they would lock themselves up in their castles and the Dothraki wouldn't do anything

Dothraki don't know how to siege a castle, a city, nothing.

I think Dany has more chance with the immaculates than with the Dothraki, Dothrakis are good in the field, fight in the open, but to siege they are useless

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If the Dothraki tried to invade Westeros, Stannis (as Master of Ships) would've met their fleet in the Narrow Sea and probably would have destroyed a fair number of ships. Robert was also expecting 100,000 Dothraki, when in fact Drogo had only 40,000 in his horde and had only promised Viserys 10,000 to invade Westeros. So Robert would be facing 10% of the number he thought he'd be facing, minus whatever number was taken out on the water.

I think you can figure out how it would go, no? This is why I have a hard time taking any "Dothraki would've successfully invaded Westeros" arguments seriously.

[Dr. Pepper]

The idea of the Dothraki being fearsome warriors is sort of ridiculous. What we see of them in the books shows them to be nothing more than a nuisance, deadly only amongst themselves or to unarmed Lambs. They'd never stand a chance in Westeros.

Yes, this again. I really should write an extensive essay and store it to copy it into each incarnation of this thread. Would save time :cool4:

I'm with you on this.

[Cornishman]

With regards to the bit about the Arakhs being unable to slash, I will say this. GRRM has stated in several sources I read that the TV adaptations of the Arakh sword wasn't at all how he saw them in his vision. They were much more like the curved swords of the middle ages around the crusades that the Arabs used. The damascus sword more or less is how GRRM explained it, a long curved sword similar to these that could be used on horseback.

I've seen a documentary recently of a guy who decided to try and make one of these damascus swords with modern tech, and he could indeed cut silk clothes thrown in the air like Saladin supposedly did in from of the King of Jerusalem once. He also did many tests with this and other authentic period damascus swords with regards to THRUSTING with the point, not slashing as would be typical with these types of single edged swords. Well, the results were pretty surprising to me, and they thrust through mail and other light armor nearly as well or as well as their European counterpart long/arming/etc swords. As for the slashing through mail, I have no doubt that at TIMES it was possible with any swords, but more often than not mail, and especially plate/mail combination armor would stop many slash attacks with any type of sword. This being the case, in sword vs sword combat the lightly armored Dothraki would be at a massive disadvantage in any fight versus armored Westerosi soldiers/knights, as we see GRRM write into the Jorah/vs Dothraki fights he had in the books. Also, I agree with what previous posters have said regarding the TV version of the Dothraki swords - the are all far too curved to be of ANY use thrusting, which would put them at even further disadvantage if these swords were the ones being used in a hypothetical invasion. They would be superb for whacking milk maids and the like as the Dothraki charged through villages, but that's about it. They would have less reach than the Westorosi long/broad/arming/etc swords, and lack the ability to thrust, giving any Westoros soldier two major advantages when fighting Dothraki.

Another MAJOR point nobody has mentioned, is the fact that the Westeros armies, particularly the heavy horse, use LANCES, an extremely long range impact weapon, only really outranged by bows/xbows, and hits far far harder than either of these. I realize a lot of people speak to the fact that GRRM has written that the Dothraki have beat many opponents by the skills of their mounted bowmen, sort of like the hordes of Ghengis Khan etc in our world, and other examples of middle eastern riding archers. But warfare is about maneuver, deception, and using the terrain, and if a Westerosi army could ever charge into a mounted Dothraki force by surprise without having to withstand the rain of arrows, the lance armed cavalry would have their way with the lance-less Dothraki in a huge way IMO. It seems from the books that combat with the lance is one of THE most important skills riders learn, train, and compete in tournaments with, so it stands to reason that the armies of the West would be very proficient in mass lance charges, and a Dothraki army that is mounted or dismounted with little or no armor would make a very very good target. Another point regarding Dothraki archers is that attacking on horseback with bows is a great offensive tactic when you have the enemy army on the run, or static at least, but versus a charging opponent it becomes far less effective, at least in real world history that has been the case historically. Static archers is another thing (Agincourt etc), but being mounted makes things much tricker what with having to group and marshall the defending (Dothraki in this case) calvary in order to get a launch of massed arrows at the charging Westorosi army, and targetting other mounted forces that are bearing down on you in full plate with armored horses and lances reaching out for you...well I woudln't put my 100 gold dragons on the Dothraki, let's put it that way. I just don't get the sense from reading the books that the Dothraki have much experience in the defensive side of battle, which would be the case when facing a charge of the Van of heavy armored cavalry, which would be inevitable if they ever landed in the West.