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

[JonathanTheBold]

riding, firing arrows at static infantrymen and watching them drop like flies on each pas with the occasional accurate arrow fired back from the limited amount of enemy archers

http://silverhorde.viahistoria.com/research/tactics.html

they won't be dropping like flies your severely underestimating their amour and over estimating the power of their bows once again

[LordQorgyle]

It depends: The North, Westerlands and The Vale are unconquerable (they are mountainous, hilly and The North is cold) and they'd be slaughtered like sheep by the Crannogmen, the tribesmen and the Lannister army :).

They can easily conquer the Riverlands, The Reach and Crownlands because they are very flat lands and not very well defended.

The Reach as the biggest westeros army and some of the best commandants, the 100000 Reach soldiers could beat 1 million dothraki in their lands with their fortresses and castles, and Riverlands were only dizimated by the Westerlands while they only had one single commander(Jason Mallister) so they both could easily defeat a hord of 300000 dothraki

[Pallantides]

'No' historic evidence at all?

https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/mail-armour

Having said that, my impression was that the prevalent construction pre-15th c. was partially riveted mail (either one riveted link to four butted or welded links, or alternating rows), hence why I say 'fully riveted mail' was not the norm. My info may be bad on this, though.

As to whether butted mail is 'absolutely useless', it's undoubtedly inferior (as I noted). But 'inferior' doesn't mean 'absolutely useless'. It provides protection against cuts, if not thrusts.

The idea that it would fall apart under its own weight is one I find strange. Some modern re-enactors use wholly butted mail, and while I'd never wear it myself (because it does indeed split if you take a thrust), and there are caveats such as the links on modern reproduction shirts being lighter, I've never seen such a shirt literally fall apart under its own weight. If you have evidence of that happening, I'd like to see it. (Genuinely. It would be great to have another argument as to why people should not be wearing them on the field...)

While that link is interesting, none of the pdf files which are linked are accessible. There is no way to verify if what the individual is saying regarding the mail armour is true or not. I'm inclined to think that the information presented on that website is outdated. Considering the most common threat on all battlefields of the time were from spear thrusts, butted mail would have been a waste of material. It affords absolutely no protection from thrusts, and that is the most likely attack to have performed on a soldier of the time. Not to mention that there has been recent scholarship on a lot of early findings of Roman and Celtic mail that was originally thought to have been butted, but it turns out that it was riveted or welded. I also won't discount that butted mail might have resulted from field repairs. But because I cannot analyze the findings from that website, there's no way to actually tell. The other instance is that they might be funerary gear. Butted mail is for all intents and purposes absolutely useless. For it to provide any sort of adequate protection, the links need to be significantly thicker than normal, and that increases the weight of the shirt, which also facilitates in it being more likely to fall apart under its own weight..

I do know for a fact from Germania magazine though, that the mail from Ciumesti linked there for example was originally thought to be butted. After more analysis was done on it, it turned out that the links were welded, and there was only one small part of it which had any butted links. Most likely from a repair.

Regarding it falling apart of its own weight, I've worn butted mail before, and after some intense combat drills, the armpits had burst links simply from striking at a wooden pell. This wasn't even tightly fitting to me, it was a hauberk I borrowed from a man who is much larger than I am. I've also had a hauberk fall apart completely full of holes just from some light sparring cuts with blunted metal swords. We weren't hitting each other hard, and after a 20 minute sparring session the armour was useless.

The ability to set the bone afterwards is not the issue when it comes to combat, though. The aim in combat is not to kill the other guy. It's to take him out of the fight, make him not a threat. A broken collarbone or shoulder will do that very effectively.

That is true, but swords don't have the sort of heft that is capable of doing that sort of thing. A mace or an axe certainly, or a polearm or any other two handed weapon. But a one handed sword simply doesn't have the kind of weight required to even do that. The damage from swords comes from cutting, and if flesh is not being cut, then the person being fought is not taken out of the fight. Especially if they're wearing any sort of metal armour.

True, but true also of a man armed with a longsword.

I'm still puzzled as to the suggestion that the arakh is so markedly inferior to a longsword or arming sword in combat against a man in armour and/or with a shield as to be absolutely useless. This appears to be based on assumptions about characteristics of the weapon that aren't actually covered in the text. We can say it's not a thrusting weapon, but that's all we can say. The main thing we know about the weapon is that it has a curved blade. And that's it! That's all we know. We don't even know for certain whether it's curved like a scimitar or like a khopesh. (Though IIRC, GRRM has indicated it's the former.)

So long as we accept that a longsword is a viable threat - and I think we have to, at least as far as ASOIAF goes, because the author treats it as one - we should accept that an arakh is potentially a threat too.

I only deem an arming sword as a viable threat given its ability to thrust (although even then, it's not entirely likely to defeat mail, the armour itself is more vulnerable to thrusts, and if there is a weak point in the armour, the thrust will exploit it). That being said, one handed swords have always been sidearms in warfare. The main weapon of a knight is their lance. Most fights if they went to the sword, on foot at least, would devolve into grappling and the other person getting on top of the other and sticking a dagger into their face (either through an eye hole or the open faced helm. The sword only really comes into its own against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents (for example soldiers wearing textile armour), or short hauberks that only protect the chest, and offer no arm or forearm protection. But once the development of the knightly class happened, they weren't using this sort of armour.

[Drth Fel]

What on earth is this thread? 300k Dothraki invasion? That's twice as large as the Normandy invasion, the largest amphibious assault IN HISTORY!!! And it only was over a distance of 22mi. This is so unreal as to beggar belief. Where do all the offensive naval forces come from, the transportation forces, the fire support ships, not to mention addition forces to replace the ones that died or are injured? What about supplies to feed, clothe, and replenish munitions? Not to mention replacement horses and their requisite caloric requirements. This is so unrealistic. And then everyone starts debating whether armor is arrow-proof. It's called armor for a reason. Against an unarmored opponent. Because that makes sense. The clown riding around without a shirt on has a magical force field to protect him against arrows and siege projectiles. Right. I don't even know where to start. I'm out. (Drops the mic)

[First Warden]

An arrow doesn't stand a chance against plate armor + a padded coat.

[hodorisfaclessman]

they won't be dropping like flies your severely underestimating their amour and over estimating the power of their bows once again

At 1ooyards or under with 110lbs+ bows and given the videos weve seen of modern horse archers and the accuracy and rate of fire possible

yeah they are. The foot archers reply volleys and knights are their only protection

[Pallantides]

At 1ooyards or under with 110lbs+ bows and given the videos weve seen of modern horse archers and the accuracy and rate of fire possible

yeah they are. The foot archers reply volleys and knights are their only protection

Except at 100 yards, they're not going to be getting any sort of effective shots that could kill or disable someone. To defeat armour with a bow requires the archer to be at least 30 yards away. That's really close, and that gap can easily be closed by knights on horseback.

And foot archers have more range than horse archers. Foot archers are one of the things that ended up pushing the Mongols from ever advancing into Western Europe. At long ranges, not having armour is a bad thing, because those shots don't have to defeat anything that offers protection. Those ranged arrows will be ripping through the flesh of both the Dothraki horsemen and their horses. The Chinese utilized formations of foot crossbowmen to disrupt Xiong Nu (who are the forebears of the Huns and were using similar style tactics that you're describing). Chinese sources routinely state that their crossbows had more range than any of the bows used by the Xiong Nu, and the Xiong Nu couldn't stand against them at all.

Horse archers are only really effective on an open field, against an immobile army that has no ranged capability whatsoever. Not to mention there's nothing relating to the Dothraki that states they're horse archers on a grand scale. From what we know about them, they're far more likely to close in with their swords in a wild charge than use any kind of skirmishing tactics (or any tactics at all for that matter). You really cannot use the Mongols tactics, discipline, and organization and apply it to the Dothraki, even if the Mongols were one of the influences behind the creation of the culture. For that matter, pretty much none of the real world nomadic tribes and horse culture peoples that inspired the Dothraki are even remotely close to how we know the Dothraki operate in the series.

[melx]

no !

they cold run through it do some carnage & distraction (destroying things better men have built is all they do) but moment they stop they are done

[Universal Sword Donor]

Except at 100 yards, they're not going to be getting any sort of effective shots that could kill or disable someone. To defeat armour with a bow requires the archer to be at least 30 yards away. That's really close, and that gap can easily be closed by knights on horseback.

And foot archers have more range than horse archers. Foot archers are one of the things that ended up pushing the Mongols from ever advancing into Western Europe. At long ranges, not having armour is a bad thing, because those shots don't have to defeat anything that offers protection. Those ranged arrows will be ripping through the flesh of both the Dothraki horsemen and their horses. The Chinese utilized formations of foot crossbowmen to disrupt Xiong Nu (who are the forebears of the Huns and were using similar style tactics that you're describing). Chinese sources routinely state that their crossbows had more range than any of the bows used by the Xiong Nu, and the Xiong Nu couldn't stand against them at all.

Horse archers are only really effective on an open field, against an immobile army that has no ranged capability whatsoever. Not to mention there's nothing relating to the Dothraki that states they're horse archers on a grand scale. From what we know about them, they're far more likely to close in with their swords in a wild charge than use any kind of skirmishing tactics (or any tactics at all for that matter). You really cannot use the Mongols tactics, discipline, and organization and apply it to the Dothraki, even if the Mongols were one of the influences behind the creation of the culture. For that matter, pretty much none of the real world nomadic tribes and horse culture peoples that inspired the Dothraki are even remotely close to how we know the Dothraki operate in the series.

He believes an arrow can go through an iron cuirass, leather padding, a man's leg, a wooden saddle seat, and then kill a horse, so take that for what it's worth.

[Captain of the Guard]

I think to get a good wider understanding on this we need to look at the real worlds history. Lets consider D-Day WW2 - the biggest military operation in history - which involved the exportation of over 150,000 soldiers, 5,000 ships and landing craft, 50,000 vehicles and 13,000 planes. I think the most significant part of those stats is the amount of naval vessels (approximately 5,000).
Now lets consider an army of 300,000 Dothraki. Firstly, the ships in Westeros can not be compared to the size and speed of modernized armored ships, so therefore we already have one problem. Secondly, the Dothraki are going to need at least over 10,000 vessels to transport themselves and their horses across a much wider and hostile stretch of water. Thirdly, lets say that they transport army over in separate parts (ferry the army back and forth across due to lack of ships) they wont have a sufficient foothold on Westeros. The Lords of Westeros will rise together in face of this new threat to the whole continent and drive them back into the ocean with, once fully mobilized, larger force and homeland advantages. Fourthly, they will be extremely vulnerable through lack of food and supplies, and they certainly would not be able to live off the land providing the Lords of Westeros have scoured the land dry of its recourses. Fifthly, once the first assault has began the Lords will assemble their fleets (Stannis, Paxter, Redwyne) of powerful warships and combat the Dothraki trying to cross the Narrow Sea and do major damage to either troop carrying or supply vessels.

I could add a few more points but I am sure all of you can see the point! The logistically challenge of transporting an army of that magnitude is just not feasible!

[DavosSeaworthy]

Let us use the 300K starting out in Essos as the starting point, with ships ready to go. Trade between Westeros and Essos happens all the time, there is no way the Dothraki are able to move a force that size unnoticed. The NW has ravens that can fly from ships to Castle Black to relay messages, so we can assume that KL would have the same thing, so you could send scouts to sea to verify the rumours that would be coming with the traders who would be reporting a massive amount of Dothraki in a city or many cities boarding ships/buying ships. Patrols would be constant, looking for signs of a pending invasion. Westeros is going to be ready, in normal situations. Moving 300K men, plus supplies, horses, etc, would be a massive undertaking. Unless they got an uncontested landing, they are not going to land all of their men, the weather at sea will take a few thousand men out.

Culturally, the Dothraki are not ideal for this type of project, since they tend to favour rule by strength as opposed to hearldry. Look at what happened whe Drogo died, in fighting occured and splintering occured. They seem to travel together, so they would not be useful to split up and coordinate attacks, they would likely stay together, which as outlined throughout both threads, creates supply and mobility issues. Now imagine if the Khal of 300K dies on route or early into the invasion, they are going to rip each other apart for control before they attempt to retreat or continue.

Logistically, trying to land all in one group is near impossible, the Golden Company proved this, so their forces would be spread out, assuming they sail from one location. Even if they did manage to land their force, rendezvous, and establish a base camp, keeping a supply line going for this amount of people would be a nighmare. This is the problem that the allies ran into during WW2 after d-day. So they would have to live off the land, which if the lords were notified, could prep the land for it to be less ideal for foraging. The terrian of Westeros is varried, as other had pointed out, and navigating the land would be difficult. The Riverlands would be hell, let alone Dorne, the Vale, or the North. The Dothraki have thrived because they live in a grasslands area that is ideal for their lifestyle and tactics. Westeros is not.

Tactically and weapon wise, they have no chance. They have shown they are not good at seige warfare, and their size prohibits them from the long game, which is not their style anyways. They have no armor, and people are debating their weapons versus Westrosi weapons and it appears Westrosi weapons are better. Trying to attack a castle without armor is suicide, and if the lords did their prep, they would be well provisioned and would only have to hold out for a few days before the Dothraki would have to move on, due to their size. Basically, they would attck a fortification, lose a bunch of guys, move on to the next to be able to forage. Sure they may capture a few castles near their landing site, but eventually they will have to face a counter force, they would be low on supplies and be outmatched. It is not going to end well, and this is if things started well. There is no way a Dothraki force could take Westeros. Now, a mixed Essos force may stand a chance, but that was not the question.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Let us use the 300K starting out in Essos as the starting point, with ships ready to go. Trade between Westeros and Essos happens all the time, there is no way the Dothraki are able to move a force that size unnoticed. The NW has ravens that can fly from ships to Castle Black to relay messages, so we can assume that KL would have the same thing, so you could send scouts to sea to verify the rumours that would be coming with the traders who would be reporting a massive amount of Dothraki in a city or many cities boarding ships/buying ships. Patrols would be constant, looking for signs of a pending invasion. Westeros is going to be ready, in normal situations. Moving 300K men, plus supplies, horses, etc, would be a massive undertaking. Unless they got an uncontested landing, they are not going to land all of their men, the weather at sea will take a few thousand men out.

Culturally, the Dothraki are not ideal for this type of project, since they tend to favour rule by strength as opposed to hearldry. Look at what happened whe Drogo died, in fighting occured and splintering occured. They seem to travel together, so they would not be useful to split up and coordinate attacks, they would likely stay together, which as outlined throughout both threads, creates supply and mobility issues. Now imagine if the Khal of 300K dies on route or early into the invasion, they are going to rip each other apart for control before they attempt to retreat or continue.

Logistically, trying to land all in one group is near impossible, the Golden Company proved this, so their forces would be spread out, assuming they sail from one location. Even if they did manage to land their force, rendezvous, and establish a base camp, keeping a supply line going for this amount of people would be a nighmare. This is the problem that the allies ran into during WW2 after d-day. So they would have to live off the land, which if the lords were notified, could prep the land for it to be less ideal for foraging. The terrian of Westeros is varried, as other had pointed out, and navigating the land would be difficult. The Riverlands would be hell, let alone Dorne, the Vale, or the North. The Dothraki have thrived because they live in a grasslands area that is ideal for their lifestyle and tactics. Westeros is not.

Tactically and weapon wise, they have no chance. They have shown they are not good at seige warfare, and their size prohibits them from the long game, which is not their style anyways. They have no armor, and people are debating their weapons versus Westrosi weapons and it appears Westrosi weapons are better. Trying to attack a castle without armor is suicide, and if the lords did their prep, they would be well provisioned and would only have to hold out for a few days before the Dothraki would have to move on, due to their size. Basically, they would attck a fortification, lose a bunch of guys, move on to the next to be able to forage. Sure they may capture a few castles near their landing site, but eventually they will have to face a counter force, they would be low on supplies and be outmatched. It is not going to end well, and this is if things started well. There is no way a Dothraki force could take Westeros. Now, a mixed Essos force may stand a chance, but that was not the question.

This is a succinct summation of the entire thread.

[juanml82]

I think to get a good wider understanding on this we need to look at the real worlds history. Lets consider D-Day WW2 - the biggest military operation in history - which involved the exportation of over 150,000 soldiers, 5,000 ships and landing craft, 50,000 vehicles and 13,000 planes. I think the most significant part of those stats is the amount of naval vessels (approximately 5,000).

Now lets consider an army of 300,000 Dothraki. Firstly, the ships in Westeros can not be compared to the size and speed of modernized armored ships, so therefore we already have one problem. Secondly, the Dothraki are going to need at least over 10,000 vessels to transport themselves and their horses across a much wider and hostile stretch of water. Thirdly, lets say that they transport army over in separate parts (ferry the army back and forth across due to lack of ships) they wont have a sufficient foothold on Westeros. The Lords of Westeros will rise together in face of this new threat to the whole continent and drive them back into the ocean with, once fully mobilized, larger force and homeland advantages. Fourthly, they will be extremely vulnerable through lack of food and supplies, and they certainly would not be able to live off the land providing the Lords of Westeros have scoured the land dry of its recourses. Fifthly, once the first assault has began the Lords will assemble their fleets (Stannis, Paxter, Redwyne) of powerful warships and combat the Dothraki trying to cross the Narrow Sea and do major damage to either troop carrying or supply vessels.

I could add a few more points but I am sure all of you can see the point! The logistically challenge of transporting an army of that magnitude is just not feasible!

Well, the comparison with D-Day is flawed because it was a modern force, which requires stuff like oil and ammunitions (plus oil for the trucks carrying the oil inland, etc) so the logistical tail is larger.

Still, even keeping an army of 300,000 men is a logistical nightmare, if not impossibility. It's an entire medieval city, and an economically unproductive one at it. Shipping it across the sea looks like an invitation to disaster. OTOH, I guess it would be easier for them to establish a beachhead of sorts, as there won't be a line of bunkers waiting for them. Making sure the ships land at the beach head is another matter though.

Let us use the 300K starting out in Essos as the starting point, with ships ready to go. Trade between Westeros and Essos happens all the time, there is no way the Dothraki are able to move a force that size unnoticed. The NW has ravens that can fly from ships to Castle Black to relay messages, so we can assume that KL would have the same thing, so you could send scouts to sea to verify the rumours that would be coming with the traders who would be reporting a massive amount of Dothraki in a city or many cities boarding ships/buying ships. Patrols would be constant, looking for signs of a pending invasion. Westeros is going to be ready, in normal situations. Moving 300K men, plus supplies, horses, etc, would be a massive undertaking. Unless they got an uncontested landing, they are not going to land all of their men, the weather at sea will take a few thousand men out.

Culturally, the Dothraki are not ideal for this type of project, since they tend to favour rule by strength as opposed to hearldry. Look at what happened whe Drogo died, in fighting occured and splintering occured. They seem to travel together, so they would not be useful to split up and coordinate attacks, they would likely stay together, which as outlined throughout both threads, creates supply and mobility issues. Now imagine if the Khal of 300K dies on route or early into the invasion, they are going to rip each other apart for control before they attempt to retreat or continue.

Logistically, trying to land all in one group is near impossible, the Golden Company proved this, so their forces would be spread out, assuming they sail from one location. Even if they did manage to land their force, rendezvous, and establish a base camp, keeping a supply line going for this amount of people would be a nighmare. This is the problem that the allies ran into during WW2 after d-day. So they would have to live off the land, which if the lords were notified, could prep the land for it to be less ideal for foraging. The terrian of Westeros is varried, as other had pointed out, and navigating the land would be difficult. The Riverlands would be hell, let alone Dorne, the Vale, or the North. The Dothraki have thrived because they live in a grasslands area that is ideal for their lifestyle and tactics. Westeros is not.

Tactically and weapon wise, they have no chance. They have shown they are not good at seige warfare, and their size prohibits them from the long game, which is not their style anyways. They have no armor, and people are debating their weapons versus Westrosi weapons and it appears Westrosi weapons are better. Trying to attack a castle without armor is suicide, and if the lords did their prep, they would be well provisioned and would only have to hold out for a few days before the Dothraki would have to move on, due to their size. Basically, they would attck a fortification, lose a bunch of guys, move on to the next to be able to forage. Sure they may capture a few castles near their landing site, but eventually they will have to face a counter force, they would be low on supplies and be outmatched. It is not going to end well, and this is if things started well. There is no way a Dothraki force could take Westeros. Now, a mixed Essos force may stand a chance, but that was not the question.

The problem is, 300,000 Dokrathi when? At the start of AGOT? By mid TWOW? Which fleet is going to meet them at the sea during TWOW? The GC landed unopposed. The Royal Fleet no longer exists. The Redwyne Fleet is fighting the Ironborn and the Iron Fleet (or what remains of it) is likely to support the invasion. The Manderly fleet, besides being too small, won't bother.

So they land. And once they do, which army is going to stop their chevaucheé? The Lannisters are bled out. The River Lords are in a similar position and won't bother unless the Dokrathi break into the Riverlands. The Tyrells are busy with the Ironborn and, if Margery's trial goes wrong, with the Faith Militant. Aegon will look at the Dokrathi as allies. Are we counting in Baelish sending the Knights of the Vale to the rescue?

So yes, they won't be able to take a single casualty. They will take horrendous looses. But there is none to fully stop them.

[hodorisfaclessman]

He believes an arrow can go through an iron cuirass, leather padding, a man's leg, a wooden saddle seat, and then kill a horse, so take that for what it's worth.

why would you assume it has to go through the seat of the sadle and not the skirts/flaps....where a mans leg would be

[joluoto2]

Why do people think the Dothraki would "take" Westeros. They'd pillage it, and then return home with their loot.

[Universal Sword Donor]

why would you assume it has to go through the seat of the sadle and not the skirts/flaps....where a mans leg would be

Because the quote says it goes through the seat:

"... n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.

And for reference, that quote is from the late 1100s, which is about 200-300 years behind Westerosi technology. If you're going to debate something as ridiculous as this, at least get it straight the first time.

[hodorisfaclessman]

Except at 100 yards, they're not going to be getting any sort of effective shots that could kill or disable someone. To defeat armour with a bow requires the archer to be at least 30 yards away. That's really close, and that gap can easily be closed by knights on horseback.

And foot archers have more range than horse archers. Foot archers are one of the things that ended up pushing the Mongols from ever advancing into Western Europe. At long ranges, not having armour is a bad thing, because those shots don't have to defeat anything that offers protection. Those ranged arrows will be ripping through the flesh of both the Dothraki horsemen and their horses. The Chinese utilized formations of foot crossbowmen to disrupt Xiong Nu (who are the forebears of the Huns and were using similar style tactics that you're describing). Chinese sources routinely state that their crossbows had more range than any of the bows used by the Xiong Nu, and the Xiong Nu couldn't stand against them at all.

Horse archers are only really effective on an open field, against an immobile army that has no ranged capability whatsoever. Not to mention there's nothing relating to the Dothraki that states they're horse archers on a grand scale. From what we know about them, they're far more likely to close in with their swords in a wild charge than use any kind of skirmishing tactics (or any tactics at all for that matter). You really cannot use the Mongols tactics, discipline, and organization and apply it to the Dothraki, even if the Mongols were one of the influences behind the creation of the culture. For that matter, pretty much none of the real world nomadic tribes and horse culture peoples that inspired the Dothraki are even remotely close to how we know the Dothraki operate in the series.

Knights on horseback make up a small % of opposing forces and at 30 yards id expect a lot of headshots from halfway decent horsearchers (watch a few videos of the modern revival movement of horse archery ......even kids get some impressive accuracy from further)

Using banes flawed tests(posted) as a rough example , it showed at 250yards a 110lb bow can kill quality mail + very thin padding

flawed test as padding thinner than usual, but while thicker padding would increase protection we can assume moving the archer up to around 100yards will vastly increase pentrating power too.

Check my posts iv agreed that foot archers have the edge over horse archers and are thus the historic best opposition to kill horse archers (as opposed to chasing them with melee weapons while taking arrowfire )

However its a question of numbers ie how many of the westerosi force will be archers,

The han u mentioned had around 1/3 of their foot as crossbowmen (way ahead of their time too weaponwise) westeros by contrast we have no idea

the golden company is the only force we have numbers ..10k men and only 1k of them archers

Westeros has lots of wide open area in westeros plus its hard to trap a mobile light cavalry force into territory that doesnt suit them, they can just flee (assuming leader isnt a idiot )

Its true we know little of how they fight but we cant assume its always like the battle of qhohor otherwise no one would pay them squat, a one pff payment of unsullied would be all thats needed or a limited number of mercs

agreed like most of essos they are a hodgepodge, the armourless part being prob sioux and cheynne GRMM mentions as inspiration too

[Dimples]

The han u mentioned had around 1/3 of their foot as crossbowmen (way ahead of their time too weaponwise)

WTF?

[hodorisfaclessman]

Because the quote says it goes through the seat:

"... n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.

And for reference, that quote is from the late 1100s, which is about 200-300 years behind Westerosi technology. If you're going to debate something as ridiculous as this, at least get it straight the first time.

Fair enough on reread it goes upwards not downwards angle, still not a massive deal if you know a little about medieval saddles

http://www.thejoustinglife.com/2014/03/re-creating-medieval-and-renaissance.html

http://www.thejoustinglife.com/2014/03/re-creating-medieval-and-renaissance_20.html

Westerosi technology is all over the place timewise while george mentions war of roses as one source of inspiration (infighting, houses,factions etc) but westeros is feudal not bastard feudal nor are their handcannons or artillery pieces yet.

[hodorisfaclessman]

WTF?

google han crossbows