Could the Dothraki take all of Westeros with 300000 men?

[Universal Sword Donor]

That assumes they all stay in one huge unit and stay in one place bear in mind the sheer scale westeros is supposed to be

Wouldn't really matter. Just means they starve slower in different places.

And if they break up into smaller forces, they are more likely to be attacked and defeated by Westerosi armies.

[OldGimletEye]

Yeah, like I mentioned.

If we take the mongol example, their horses would be smaller but have greater endurance, European horses were larger, to carry the weight of a fully armored knight.

It would stand to reason the Dothraki would take captured horses, and not have a problem with them.

Still 1.2 million horses is a lot of horses to take care of. But, I guess we have one strategy that Westeros could use and that would be kill all the spare horses. Make the Dothraki fight as infantry, where upon they would be dead meat.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Perhaps, but that doesn't do them much good on a terrain without much fodder, or when lords gather up all the produce and food sources in an area, the way the Blackfish did to deprive the Freys and Lannisters at Riverrun. And horses are pretty resource-heavy, when you consider that, in theory, each of the 300,000 Dothraki in this scenario will be showing up with at least one horse.

Like the nomad armies of old they seem to take about 3 or so horses each so itl be a lot of grass...easy for westeros to support(maybe not the giant force thread stared advocated but a drogo sized khalassar ) in summer not so much in winter

Taking fodder in the immediate area is a time honoured tradition for hurting an infanty army besieging a castle (hence why siege forces usaly send out what little cavalry forces to forage further afield for more) but the dothraki would be idiots to besiege the heavy castles of westeros anyway or even stay in one spot for long allowing infanty to be deployed properly.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Like the nomad armies of old they seem to take about 3 or so horses each so itl be a lot of grass...easy for westeros to support(maybe not the giant force thread stared advocated but a drogo sized khalassar ) in summer not so much in winter

Taking fodder in the immediate area is a time honoured tradition for hurting an infanty army besieging a castle (hence why siege forces usaly send out what little cavalry forces to forage further afield for more) but the dothraki would be idiots to besiege the heavy castles of westeros anyway or even stay in one spot for long allowing infanty to be deployed properly.

You seem to be under the impression that there is any scenario where this hypothetical invasion is successful. I think that's a pipe dream. As other people have said, the terrain is too varied, the naval protection is too strong, the resources too easily depleted and held back, the castles too tough to siege, unless you think they're going to stack their 1.2 million horses to get up to the top of the Eyrie? Would they do some damage, sure. Would they succeed in taking over the whole continent, no.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That assumes they all stay in one huge unit and stay in one place bear in mind the sheer scale westeros is supposed to be

And be slaughtered piecemeal.

Like the nomad armies of old they seem to take about 3 or so horses each so itl be a lot of grass...easy for westeros to support(maybe not the giant force thread stared advocated but a drogo sized khalassar ) in summer not so much in winter

Taking fodder in the immediate area is a time honoured tradition for hurting an infanty army besieging a castle (hence why siege forces usaly send out what little cavalry forces to forage further afield for more) but the dothraki would be idiots to besiege the heavy castles of westeros anyway or even stay in one spot for long allowing infanty to be deployed properly.

No, it is not easy to support. Because Westeros sports forests, fields, fishponds and way, way more stuff not providing grass.

[Lion Of The Night]

Like the nomad armies of old they seem to take about 3 or so horses each so itl be a lot of grass...easy for westeros to support(maybe not the giant force thread stared advocated but a drogo sized khalassar ) in summer not so much in winter

Taking fodder in the immediate area is a time honoured tradition for hurting an infanty army besieging a castle (hence why siege forces usaly send out what little cavalry forces to forage further afield for more) but the dothraki would be idiots to besiege the heavy castles of westeros anyway or even stay in one spot for long allowing infanty to be deployed properly.

A 30,000 to 50,000 khalassar would be more reasonable to support logistically, they could indeed live off the land, but they woud be stymied by even small castles, and as they moved, they can be caught in difficult to cross rivers or valleys.

Again they would cause a lot of damage, particularly to the small folk, but it would be defeated before long.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Like the nomad armies of old they seem to take about 3 or so horses each so itl be a lot of grass...easy for westeros to support(maybe not the giant force thread stared advocated but a drogo sized khalassar ) in summer not so much in winter

Taking fodder in the immediate area is a time honoured tradition for hurting an infanty army besieging a castle (hence why siege forces usaly send out what little cavalry forces to forage further afield for more) but the dothraki would be idiots to besiege the heavy castles of westeros anyway or even stay in one spot for long allowing infanty to be deployed properly.

When the mongols invaded, their armies were 30K or fewer. Horses need more than grass, and there are a bunch of mountains and forests. The Stormlands are 3/4 forested or mountains. The West is almost entirely mountains or forest, except the coast and around Lannisport. The Reach is flat and farmland, but they are also the most able to resist large invading armies. The Riverlands are flat too, but the Dothraki aren't going to be able to ford a lot of the rivers.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Gras is an issue because 300,000 horses would need about 1,500 tons per day and as much grain. Working horses need about 50% of their feed in grain and other high energy feed.

That stuff doesn't grow in such masses.

...which requires about 10% of the food and feed than riding. And men eat way more types of food than horses. Ever tried to feed a goose to a horse? Or even a turnip.

300k id say would be too high to feed easily i agree esp if they were dumb enough to remain one unitf

flipside of that is they travel murch further and grass is easier to find than food men can eat

Wouldn't really matter. Just means they starve slower in different places.

And if they break up into smaller forces, they are more likely to be attacked and defeated by Westerosi armies.

They only starve if you can deny them every single piece of grass and food and they stop moving

Smaller forces will be more mobile increasing their advantage not lessening it

[hodorisfaclessman]

You seem to be under the impression that there is any scenario where this hypothetical invasion is successful. I think that's a pipe dream. As other people have said, the terrain is too varied, the naval protection is too strong, the resources too easily depleted and held back, the castles too tough to siege, unless you think they're going to stack their 1.2 million horses to get up to the top of the Eyrie? Would they do some damage, sure. Would they succeed in taking over the whole continent, no.

I agree the naval problem makes it impossible anyway(unless all of esso wants this)

but they dont have to take castles directly..far more castles fell to starvation and betrayl than any direct assault

[Universal Sword Donor]

I agree the naval problem makes it impossible anyway(unless all of esso wants this)

but they dont have to take castles directly..far more castles fell to starvation and betrayl than any direct assault

Who's going to betray the castles to invading Dothrakis?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I agree the naval problem makes it impossible anyway(unless all of esso wants this)

but they dont have to take castles directly..far more castles fell to starvation and betrayl than any direct assault

If a castle hordes up all the available food to deny it to the Dothraki, and if there's no one politically sympathetic to the Dothraki to betray the castle, I fail to see how either of these are an issue.

[hodorisfaclessman]

And be slaughtered piecemeal.

No, it is not easy to support. Because Westeros sports forests, fields, fishponds and way, way more stuff not providing grass.

Or do the same to their enemies , given the mobility difference its far more likely to be the other way round

forrests full of game for nomads to hunt, fields full of food and livestock , rivers full of fish and water to drink

[Lion Of The Night]

300k id say would be too high to feed easily i agree esp if they were dumb enough to remain one unitf

flipside of that is they travel murch further and grass is easier to find than food men can eat

They only starve if you can deny them every single piece of grass and food and they stop moving

Smaller forces will be more mobile increasing their advantage not lessening it

You dont have to deny them EVERY piece of grass or fodder! They will eat it all anyways. Besides we have already seen some in westeros wage a scorched earth policy with far less people attacking (the Blackfish vs the Freys) even if they don't get everything, they will severely handicap the dothraki. They would be forced to move jyst to eat, never stopping to try and take a town. All that time they are getting weaker. And its not like the Westerosi cant send a message ahead to tell other areas where the dothraki are moving to burn their fields, they do have ravens.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Or do the same to their enemies , given the mobility difference its far more likely to be the other way round

forrests full of game for nomads to hunt, fields full of food and livestock , rivers full of fish and water to drink

I think you're overestimating the mobility here, especially when, again, the terrain isn't all that conducive to a massive horde of wandering pillagers. Kind of hard to be mobile in a desert, in a dense forest (especially on horseback), in the middle of a bunch of rivers that need to be crossed, in a snowstorm, across a body of water, or a mountain range.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Who's going to betray the castles to invading Dothrakis?

This is westeros we're talking about betrayl is pretty much expected. If 300-100k show up in westeros many will unite to fight them .....but other lords will see oppertunity.

Starvation as siege tactic however is very plausible

[Lion Of The Night]

I agree the naval problem makes it impossible anyway(unless all of esso wants this)

but they dont have to take castles directly..far more castles fell to starvation and betrayl than any direct assault

Again they can not stay in an area long enough to siege a castle, they would starve themselves. Unless they set up long coordinated supply lines, something they don't seem to have ever done or know how.

[The Mother of The Others]

What would they do with Westeros after they had it? So many horse plops. Since they're a big deal, we're supposed to believe they can get it done, or else they wouldn't be such a big deal.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This is westeros we're talking about betrayl is pretty much expected. If 300-100k show up in westeros many will unite to fight them .....but other lords will see oppertunity.

Starvation as siege tactic however is very plausible

That's not really an answer. If you're going to argue betrayal, you also need to explain why it would be in anyone's interest to assist the Dothraki. "Just because" doesn't cut it.

And starvation as a siege tactic only works if those carrying out the siege have more supplies and food than the besieged, like the Tyrells and Redwynes at Storm's End. But if a castle has horded up as much of the available fodder and such as they can, leaving the people besieging with little or nothing, then the people outside the castle will starve sooner than the ones inside.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I agree the naval problem makes it impossible anyway(unless all of esso wants this)

but they dont have to take castles directly..far more castles fell to starvation and betrayl than any direct assault

...only if they stay in the area in force. While they are not even able to do that for a single week!

Or do the same to their enemies , given the mobility difference its far more likely to be the other way round

forrests full of game for nomads to hunt, fields full of food and livestock , rivers full of fish and water to drink

Yeah, and feed the fish to your horses. Ever tried that? By the way, needing 30 times the food per sword limits that ability somewhat...

[Lion Of The Night]

That's not really an answer. If you're going to argue betrayal, you also need to explain why it would be in anyone's interest to assist the Dothraki. "Just because" doesn't cut it.

And starvation as a siege tactic only works if those carrying out the siege have more supplies and food than the besieged, like the Tyrells and Redwynes at Storm's End. But if a castle has horded up as much of the available fodder and such as they can, leaving the people besieging with little or nothing, then the people outside the castle will starve sooner than the ones inside.

No secure supply lines for besiegers = no long term siege.

And the dothraki have no siege weapons.