Could the Dothraki take all of Westeros with 300000 men? v 2.0

[hodorisfaclessman]

Where is valaryan steel arakhs coming from? If we are just going to give them infinity plus 1 swords why not let them all carry AK 47s?

Back to the arakh... The description of sword/scythe makes it sound mor like a Falx, or maybe even a Shotel rather than a Sabre. Either way they are slashing weapons, and not effective against plate or mail....

What I'm surprised at is why wouldn't the Dothraki use a calvery spear, like a Kontos. They were popular with calvery heavy armies like the Parthians?

The post I was responding too said 7 examples of arkh use where they were all useless agaisnt armour , I could only find 2 where jorah faces them, the incident with jamies hand and coggo the merc with a valyrian steeel arkh

so not even 7 of their use overall.

Iv always pictured it as a schimitar ..if grmm says schimitar -like then so sayeth the GOAT westeroswise

With regards to their use bear in mind in the crusades both arabs and europeans employed them for many years

heres a good article on the subject

http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

''In the Middle Ages specialized thrusting swords such as the estoc (tuck or stocco) were developed specifically to fight articulated plate armor by stabbing into gaps and joints with their rigid blades. Medieval fighting texts are full of warnings as to the effectiveness of the thrust and how it was "deadly as a serpent." Still, a variety of curved Medieval sword forms such as the falchion, badelaire, malchus, storta, and messer were commonly used among both knights and foot-soldiers in Medieval Europe (which could most all be employed in thrusting).''

A straight sword is of course better for thrusting into joints in plate but thats not to say you cant do the same with a more sabre style blade ad vice versa with slashing with a straight blade vs sabre.

[Lord Reaver]

''In the Middle Ages specialized thrusting swords such as the estoc (tuck or stocco) were developed specifically to fight articulated plate armor by stabbing into gaps and joints with their rigid blades. Medieval fighting texts are full of warnings as to the effectiveness of the thrust and how it was "deadly as a serpent." Still, a variety of curved Medieval sword forms such as the falchion, badelaire, malchus, storta, and messer were commonly used among both knights and foot-soldiers in Medieval Europe (which could most all be employed in thrusting).''

A straight sword is of course better for thrusting into joints in plate but thats not to say you cant do the same with a more sabre style blade ad vice versa with slashing with a straight blade vs sabre.

A falchion is really quite different from a scimitar. It is as a rule of thumb much wider, and heavier, balanced towards the front, making it an exceptionally brutal weapon for cutting. It is not well suited for cavalry use at all. Pretty much all depictions we have of falchions being used are from footsoldiers.

While most (not all, mind you) have a point, and could thus be used for thrusting, they would be inferior in this regard due to being one-handed, as opposed to the long-sword, which could be half-handed for inscreased power and thus penetration.

As a result, the falchion was likely a destructive weapon against foes armored in textile and mail, capable of cutting and crushing bones both. Against a foe armored in plate, however, it would have been much less effective. Again, this conforms with the depiction of it as primarily a weapon used by footsoldiers.

[Lion Of The Night]

Don't forget that is not the style of fighting the Dothraki is used to.

The Dothraki hone their skills on unarmoured and lightly armoured troops, against such armies slashing and cutting is very effective. It is the style of martial arts they train in.

That style of fighting is not effective in westeros. Yes a soldier can adapt, but he will not be as good. Having to think about your every move against an opponent that is protected against your style of fighting will make you slower and more apt to make mistakes.

The Westerosi will not have that disadvantage.

[hodorisfaclessman]

A falchion is really quite different from a scimitar. It is as a rule of thumb much wider, and heavier, balanced towards the front, making it an exceptionally brutal weapon for cutting. It is not well suited for cavalry use at all. Pretty much all depictions we have of falchions being used are from footsoldiers.

While most (not all, mind you) have a point, and could thus be used for thrusting, they would be inferior in this regard due to being one-handed, as opposed to the long-sword, which could be half-handed for inscreased power and thus penetration.

As a result, the falchion was likely a destructive weapon against foes armored in textile and mail, capable of cutting and crushing bones both. Against a foe armored in plate, however, it would have been much less effective. Again, this conforms with the depiction of it as primarily a weapon used by footsoldiers.

The point being the curved swords have their uses too as the various ones the article listed were used by westerners not just arabs/turks etc

Personaly for me if GRMM says they are schimitar- like then its his world thus thats how i picture them

[Lord Reaver]

The point being the curved swords have their uses too as the various ones the article listed were used by westerners not just arabs/turks etc

Personaly for me if GRMM says they are schimitar- like then its his world thus thats how i picture them

Point is that falchions aren't really "curved swords" in the same fashion scimitars are. They're not that curved, really (most of them only curve towards the end) and they weren't developed to be used from horseback. They were designed to be rather heavy, cutting implements for footsoldiers.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Don't forget that is not the style of fighting the Dothraki is used to.

The Dothraki hone their skills on unarmoured and lightly armoured troops, against such armies slashing and cutting is very effective. It is the style of martial arts they train in.

That style of fighting is not effective in westeros. Yes a soldier can adapt, but he will not be as good. Having to think about your every move against an opponent that is protected against your style of fighting will make you slower and more apt to make mistakes.

The Westerosi will not have that disadvantage.

Given essos is awash with westerosi style mercs its highly unlikely they havent encountered any in the centuries they have been there

[Lord Reaver]

Given essos is awash with westerosi style mercs its highly unlikely they havent encountered any in the centuries they have been there

If they have, they certainly haven't adapted their tactics or weaponry to them. So why assume they will during an invasion ?

[hodorisfaclessman]

Point is that falchions aren't really "curved swords" in the same fashion scimitars are. They're not that curved, really (most of them only curve towards the end) and they weren't developed to be used from horseback. They were designed to be rather heavy, cutting implements for footsoldiers.

Falchions were one example from the article there are others, overall curved blades still had their place in western arsenals as well as the turk/arab use of them.

overall if grmm says they are like schimitars then thats what they are for me not the HBO series version.

[hodorisfaclessman]

If they have, they certainly haven't adapted their tactics or weaponry to them. So why assume they will during an invasion ?

They havent adapted hinting they havent needed to

[Universal Sword Donor]

-George Vernadsky adveraged recurve at 166lbs but lets says 110lbs...do you feel at 100yards chainmail and padding means you will unqestionably be safe? I'd feel as safe as I could be short of wearing plate armor. And I'm assuming I'm dressed in chainmail with associated padding, helmet, padded legs, gloves and a shield. And that's still just a really, really high number given the relative strength of contemporary and successor bows used by the Turks, Byzantines, and Chinese, usually around 100 on average.

Yes actual historian studies debunked by folks on the interwebz......good one , feelfree to post an actual study countering them showing chainmail and padding cannot be penetrated with arrows and il have a look , iv asked for this a few times now from anyone. I've posted multiple contemporary acounts, and the studies you've posted are just ridiculously flawed, which is even acknowledged by the guy doing the tests.

Iv posted contemporary accounts of heavier of armour being penetrated with arrows and yet we still have people assuming you can penetrate a padded jack with a spear and the strength of your own arm but not with a powerful bow and arrow. The contemporary accounts you're posting are along the lines of Gerald of Wales, ie an arrow went through a knight's hauberk and pinned him to his horse

-Ok fair enough ...did you agree with him though ...do you feel chainmail and padding alone can make you arrowproof? See above

I agree those numbers sound about right , thats what iv been saying all along foot archers will have an adantage over horse archers in a missle fight but they will be few and hidden (if the general commanding them has any brains) behind rows of foot) I was using earthly examples because you specifically asked for them from me on multiple occasions.

The city states are more like essos than westeros

[Universal Sword Donor]

They havent adapted hinting they havent needed to

Yes because all they do is get paid off by the Free cities, as it'd be too expensive to go genocidal on them, rape/pillage the Lhazareen, and attack each other.

[Lion Of The Night]

They havent adapted hinting they havent needed to

Thats how you end up dead....

Look at the American Civil War, one of the reasons (and note is said one reason, as there are many) that there were so many casualties was that neither side adapted well to new technology that was introduced and used full scale durring the war.

Generals were used to the style of fighting with muscats, but when they were introduced to the gatling gun...

There is no indication that the Dothraki fought massive numbers of Westerosi armed Mercs. Sure they would have fought, but the mercs would be a small contingent. Chances are they would have lost far more against these sellswords than any other group....

[Universal Sword Donor]

Thats how you end up dead....

Look at the American Civil War, one of the reasons (and note is said one reason, as there are many) that there were so many casualties was that neither side adapted well to new technology that was introduced and used full scale durring the war.

Generals were used to the style of fighting with muscats, but when they were introduced to the gatling gun...

There is no indication that the Dothraki fought massive numbers of Westerosi armed Mercs. Sure they would have fought, but the mercs would be a small contingent. Chances are they would have lost far more against these sellswords than any other group....

Eh a better example of that would be WWI, when belt-fed weapons had been around for almost twenty years. The Gatling gun didn't actually see much use in the civil war.

The weaponry had definitely improved from the War of 1812 to the Civil War (minie balls and grapeshot), not so much the tactics. Civil war was really the first experience the US had in trench warfare. The biggest reason it was so bloody was because it was the last war before hygiene and medicine really started catching up to weaponry and tactics. Grant realizing he had to essentially push men into a meat grinder didn't keep the casualty count down either.

[mormont]

I'm slightly amused that we have, perhaps inevitably, got to debating sword typology after all. ;)

My understanding is that falchions weren't as heavy as people think: only marginally heavier than an arming sword, allowing for individual variation, of course. The Conyers falchion, for example, weighed only 1300 grams.

http://www.foxtail.nu/bjorn/h_conyers_eng.htm

However, there are few archaelogical finds of falchions, IIRC, so it's hard to be sure. The weight isn't necessarily greater: it's more that the balance is different.

We do have more pictures, but they're unreliable guides. Some falchions are depicted straight and some curve to various degrees, though typically not to the same degree as a scimitar, it's true. Principally, though, the point is that they're not thrusting weapons - but they were employed against men in armour.

And, again, we know virtually nothing about arakhs, including the degree of curvature of the blade, or their weight, or their typical blade length. It's possible that, depending on all these factors, they could be as effective as a falchion.

Now, you might say I'm bending over backwards to give the author the benefit of the doubt here, and quite honestly, I am. But, this is one of those occasions where it's the best thing to do. ;) As I said in the last thread (and Patrick said upthread), the fact is, the author has characters who are experienced warriors say that the Dothraki are a threat. So, we have to assume that they are, and handwave a bit. It's that, or simply sit back and invoke the Rule of Cool as an explanation instead.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

[hodorisfaclessman]

- The numbers online seem to vary but supposing 100lbs id say chainmail and padding is decent protection but still miles away from arrowproof which was the original post I was responding to

-Both sides have contemporary accounts. The tests by the defence academy,bane and dr willams arent perfect no, testing in this field never is but until theres a counter one showing chainmail and padding is arrowproof then il take their word that yes an arow can kill a man in chainmail+padding

[hodorisfaclessman]

Yes because all they do is get paid off by the Free cities, as it'd be too expensive to go genocidal on them, rape/pillage the Lhazareen, and attack each other.

The expense of going all out on them and their essential part of the slave trade is part of it yes

[SeanF]

The Dothraki are first class, as light cavalry. They can raid, scout, pillage, harass, their enemies.

But, can they beat a large force of armoured knights, men at arms, professional infantry, commanded by a general who knows his business?

No.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Thats how you end up dead....

Look at the American Civil War, one of the reasons (and note is said one reason, as there are many) that there were so many casualties was that neither side adapted well to new technology that was introduced and used full scale durring the war.

Generals were used to the style of fighting with muscats, but when they were introduced to the gatling gun...

There is no indication that the Dothraki fought massive numbers of Westerosi armed Mercs. Sure they would have fought, but the mercs would be a small contingent. Chances are they would have lost far more against these sellswords than any other group....

That assumes the westerosi can also adapt to their new enemies too and they dont say go blundering on after their scouts have vanished into an ambush.

[Consigliere]

I went on about this in the previous thread but anyone who thinks the Dothraki will land in Westeros with 300k warriors is delusional. The logistics of getting 300k Dothraki plus horses, fresh water, food and fodder etc across the Narrow Sea is mind boggling. This cannot be done and furthermore it cannot be done in secret. Storms are not a certainty but there is a high probability that those ships will encounter storms based on the text. Also it is more than likely that the Dothraki will face Westerosi fleets in naval battles and the Dothraki would be less than useless in such a situation. In short, the Dothraki would lose the war before setting foot on Westeros. Not with 300k men or half a million could the Dothraki hope to conquer Westeros.

[JonathanTheBold]

7?

We have jorah killing a nameless dothraki pre battle who mocked his armour, we have his fight with a bloodrider where he survived due to an arkh getting caught on his bone

we have the magic of valyrian steel allowing an arkh to render a breastplate 'like silk'

wheres the others?

The problem here seems to be we have no idea what ana arkh is supposed to look like, grmm thought of a schimitar style weapon dany describes it as half a sword and half a scythe

you forgot about Barristan