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

[JonathanTheBold]

- 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

so your prefer flawed test over actual historical accounts by people who saw the real thing in action

[Universal Sword Donor]

- 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

I'll put it this way. I'd be hardly worried about my torso and far more worried about my legs and head.

The tests that were conducted are akin to seeing if a car can drive through water but testing it with Duck. The contemporary accounts saying the arrows were heavily effective are either heavily biased or from stories that are clearly not true, whereas the ones I presented were from neutral observers.

[Howlin' Howland]

The Dothraki probably wouldn't have local allies (although there are some Targ loyalists) and they would be unlikely to have logistical support (supplying from across the Narrow Sea would require a large fleet with naval supremacy. So they would have to plan to live off the land.

An army of 300,000, or even 50,000 would starve to death if they relied on scavenging to feed themselves. For the invasion to be effective they'd need to split up into about 15 separate groups with about 20,000 men landing in different locations at about the same time. That would be challenging even with modern technology (GPS). But if they could pull it off they might be able to live off the land long enough to try to conquer the realm.

But because they'd need to land in smaller groups they would open themselves up to being taken out one by one by a smaller, but more adept, army. My guess is that 5,000 knights backed up by 25,000 well equipped infantry could rout a Dothraki horde of 20,000 not wearing armor and not knowing the terrain.

Unless the Dothraki developed the technology for siege craft (which the Mongols were excellent at contrary to some comments on this thread) they would have been isolated, picked off piecemeal and starved into submission no matter how large their army was.

[Lion Of The Night]

so your prefer flawed test over actual historical accounts by people who saw the real thing in action

Oooohh I got an idea, let's get the guys from Deadliest Warrior to do a test once and for all, those guys sure did acurate, conclusive testing..... ;)

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I'll put it this way. I'd be hardly worried about my torso and far more worried about my legs and head.

The tests that were conducted are akin to seeing if a car can drive through water but testing it with Duck. The contemporary accounts saying the arrows were heavily effective are either heavily biased or from stories that are clearly not true, whereas the ones I presented were from neutral observers.

A dutch medieval chronicler is a neutral observer to the Battle of the Golden Spurs?

[Universal Sword Donor]

A dutch medieval chronicler is a neutral observer to the Battle of the Golden Spurs?

He's widely regarded as having by far the best, most complete account. You don't spend time interviewing french survivors if you're making it a one-sided affair.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

He's widely regarded as having by far the best, most complete account. You don't spend time interviewing french survivors if you're making it a one-sided affair.

He could still have exaggerated a lot for dramatic purposes.

Anyway the idea that arrows were useless against armor runs into some logical problems. Why would medieval people have bothered to develop (and widely use, for a long period of time) different specialized anti-armor types of arrowheads, if arrows couldn't penetrate armor anyway? To pick their teeth with?

[Universal Sword Donor]

He could still have exaggerated a lot for dramatic purposes.

Anyway the idea that arrows were useless against armor runs into some logical problems. Why would medieval people have bothered to develop (and widely use, for a long period of time) specialized anti-armor types of arrowheads, if arrows couldn't penetrate armor anyway? To pick their teeth with?

He didn't exaggerate. I'm not lying when I say his account is basically taken wholesale. His presentation is a bit dramatic and he adds some flair, but the actual facts (numbers, terrain, tactics, prominent casualties, et al) are all spot on and confirmed by Italian and French accounts.

I'll try to briefly address what has already been tackled quite a bit in the thread:

1) Not all armor is equal and arrows can and will pierce lesser types of armor. You didn't really individually aim arrows. You were part of a mass volley aimed at an area.

2) The arrows don't have to pierce the armor to be effective. Something moving that fast and hitting you in the arm, leg, or head is not going to feel good, and arrow fire was great for breaking up horse formations.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

He didn't exaggerate. I'm not lying when I say his account is basically taken wholesale. His presentation is a bit dramatic and he adds some flair, but the actual facts (numbers, terrain, tactics, prominent casualties, et al) are all spot on and confirmed by Italian and French accounts.

I'll try to briefly address what has already been tackled quite a bit in the thread:

1) Not all armor is equal and arrows can and will pierce lesser types of armor. You didn't really individually aim arrows. You were part of a mass volley aimed at an area.

2) The arrows don't have to pierce the armor to be effective. Something moving that fast and hitting you in the arm, leg, or head is not going to feel good, and arrow fire was great for breaking up horse formations.

Yes, and describing how totally covered people were with arrows sounds like a dramatization.

Your two points don't address what I said at all. If arrows can't pierce armor, there would have been no need to have dedicated anti armor heads mounted on them (broadheads for textile, bodkins for mail etc) but they were used like that. If all you could do with arrows was break up horse formations or bump people on their helmets they might as well have stuck rocks on their arrows, or just have had them be sharpened wood. No difference.

[Lord Reaver]

Yes, and describing how totally covered people were with arrows sounds like a dramatization.

Your two points don't address what I said at all. If arrows can't pierce armor, there would be no need to use dedicated anti armor heads on them (broadheads for textile, bodkins for mail etc) but they were used like that. If all you could do with arrows was break up horse formations or bump people on their helmets they might as well have stuck rocks on their arrows, or just have had them be sharpened wood. No difference.

Only we have such descripitions from the opposite side, as it were, in the accounts by arab sources during the crusades.

The answer to your second question is obviously that it wasn't 100% foolproof. And even taking out a fraction of your enemies before they get close to you, is worth it.

However, if archery was as effective as some here claim, there'd be no use for close quarter weapons, and we'd see armies much more like modern ones, where everyone pretty much only carry missile weapons.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Yes, and describing how totally covered people were with arrows sounds like a dramatization.

Your two points don't address what I said at all. If arrows can't pierce armor, there would have been no need to have dedicated anti armor heads mounted on them (broadheads for textile, bodkins for mail etc) but they were used like that. If all you could do with arrows was break up horse formations or bump people on their helmets they might as well have stuck rocks on their arrows, or just have had them be sharpened wood. No difference.

Read the French and Italian accounts of Courtrai and point out where they wax poetically about the efficacy of their archery and crossbowmen.

You're not going to find it.

[hodorisfaclessman]

so your prefer flawed test over actual historical accounts by people who saw the real thing in action

Yeah point me to the tests showing that chainmail and padding stops arrows completely

and lets just ignore any accounts from the time saying arrows penetrate

[hodorisfaclessman]

I'll put it this way. I'd be hardly worried about my torso and far more worried about my legs and head.

The tests that were conducted are akin to seeing if a car can drive through water but testing it with Duck. The contemporary accounts saying the arrows were heavily effective are either heavily biased or from stories that are clearly not true, whereas the ones I presented were from neutral observers.

Those can be hit too

feel free to post tests showing chainmail and padding makes you arrowproof

aaaah yes the old ignore any accounts that differ from your point and big up the ones that agree with it....gotcha

[Universal Sword Donor]

Those can be hit too

feel free to post tests showing chainmail and padding makes you arrowproof

aaaah yes the old ignore any accounts that differ from your point and big up the ones that agree with it....gotcha

I don't have any tests. You know that. No tests are not worse than flawed tests.

The accounts that you brought up were basically fiction. The ones I brought up are from the most reputable account o the Battle of Courtrai and from Arab historians regarding the crusades. The Arabs aren't exactly going to go out of their way to make the invading crusaders look awesome, and the French and Italian accounts of Courtrai agree with the one I posted.

[hodorisfaclessman]

I don't have any tests. You know that. No tests are not worse than flawed tests.

The accounts that you brought up were basically fiction. The ones I brought up are from the most reputable account o the Battle of Courtrai and from Arab historians regarding the crusades. The Arabs aren't exactly going to go out of their way to make the invading crusaders look awesome, and the French and Italian accounts of Courtrai agree with the one I posted.

Cool none then show me a perfect test in this field or even a flawed one showing chainmail and padding always stops arrows 100%

adam murimuth is fiction now? john lydgate was around in the 13th century so would have heard accounts of the battle field and the socurce of the quote about penetrating armour pinning a knight to his horse is the welsh wars ......not arab souurces at all.

Heres another article on it citing more sources

http://militaryrevolution.s3.amazonaws.com/Primary%20sources/Longbow.pdf

[Lord Reaver]

not arab souurces at all.

No, the arab sources are the ones showing just how well protected mailed warriors were from arrows. One example is Baha ad-Din's account of the battle of Hattin, where he describes the franks as looking like porcupines, walking around with twenty arrows or more stuck in their padding.

[Jasta11]

Remember when the wildlings were able to shoot arrows to reach the top of the Wall?

Yeah. The Dothraki will be exactly as formidable as GRRM wants them to be, accuracy be damned. And what are we told in the text about the Dothraki?

Jorah's logic applies to both sides. How often have Dothraki faced pikes and full plate? Plus, if Rheagar was a weakness, imagine what Drogo is. The guy dies of a glancing wound from a sword infecting itself. How long do you imagine an unarmored guy fighting on the front lines against lances, pikes and longbows would last? One well placed volley of arrows or cavalry charge and the entire Khalassar breaks up overnight.

Plus, sorry, but I think he's sucking up to Dany.

[hodorisfaclessman]

No, the arab sources are the ones showing just how well protected mailed warriors were from arrows. One example is Baha ad-Din's account of the battle of Hattin, where he describes the franks as looking like porcupines, walking around with twenty arrows or more stuck in their padding.

Boha-ed-Din describing a knight "quilled like porcupines with twenty shafts".

yes but bear in mind this is a battle where the archers chose to stay off at a distance to outside the range of the western crossbowmen

W. F. Paterson's "The Archers of Islam", published in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. Paterson describes the great effectiveness and high penetration power of Muslim composite bows at the time, while also discussing the apparent failure of Muslim archers according to Beha ed-Din's account of the Battle of Arsuf

"What is more likely is that the Crusaders' archers forced the Moslem cavalry to keep its distance at this stage of the engagement and shoot from long range. Coupled with this it may have been that the arrows were too light for such a purpose or that too much use was being made of the light darts shot with the aid of the arrow-guide (majrd). Later, when the Saracens began to press home their attacks the Itinerarium records: "That day our own losses and the sufferings of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts...". And again: "With deadliest effect they kept launching forth their darts and arrows". Such statements suggest that with the reduced range the arrows became effective due to the higher velocity on impact and supports the idea that the arrows were too light rather than the bows being too weak. [...] Such a bow should drive a war arrow through any armour or mail up to a range of about 100 yards given, in the case of armour, a reasonably square hit on the surface of the plate. The surprisingly high penetration of arrows has been shown on many occasions."

[Lord Reaver]

"That day our own losses and the sufferings of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts...".

I cut away the author's opinion drivel, to the actual cited material. Which shows what we've been saying all along: Archery was primarily to kill horses and disrupt formations. Note how it's the horses that are being pierced, not the men.

[kimim]

Civil War: Westerosi could put aside their differences to kill off the Dothraki, sure, but there's an equal chance that only some would unite, while others tried to use the Dothraki against their foes, pay them off, etc.

Famine: Thanks to the civil war+winter, much of Westeros is looking at starvation. Some can shelter and find food in walled towns, castles. Most won't have that option, however, as Westeros is medieval, agricultural. Most who live in Westeros are Dothraki bait.

The heavily armored knights and trained archers make up only a minority of Westerosi armies. Majority are peasants, armed with their own weapons, with makeshift armor. In a land suffering famine, how many people can the lords who decide to fight gather for their armies?

Westeros is vulnerable to invasion, and that vulnerability is part of the plot. This is why a wildling or Other incursion is so dangerous. Same would go for the Dothraki.