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

[JonathanTheBold]

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

you keep trying to say mail and padding had to be 100% effective to matter and that's simply not the case it just has to be effective enough for the bow of the dothraki to not have a big impact couple that with their bows being out ranged by the westirosie and their lack of armor and you get a clear victory for westeros

[Lion Of The Night]

you keep trying to say mail and padding had to be 100% effective to matter and that's simply not the case it just has to be effective enough for the bow of the dothraki to not have a big impact couple that with their bows being out ranged by the westirosie and their lack of armor and you get a clear victory for westeros

Kevlar vests are not 100 % bullet proof, so I guess its useless police officers and soldiers wear them right?

[hodorisfaclessman]

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.

says men and horses

[hodorisfaclessman]

you keep trying to say mail and padding had to be 100% effective to matter and that's simply not the case it just has to be effective enough for the bow of the dothraki to not have a big impact couple that with their bows being out ranged by the westirosie and their lack of armor and you get a clear victory for westeros

If you had bothered to read the 1st thread this all started with a comment that the chainmail and padding made the standard infantry arrowproof

We have already covered that the westerosis bows have a longer range, thats only gonnab be a factor if both forces stay still and trade long range volley shots plus few of their opponenets will be archers

[hodorisfaclessman]

Kevlar vests are not 100 % bullet proof, so I guess its useless police officers and soldiers wear them right?

again feel free to actualy read the 1st thread, this sidetrack about arrows vs chanmail padding began as one poster said they made infantry arrowproof which i argued agaisnt

[JonathanTheBold]

If you had bothered to read the 1st thread this all started with a comment that the chainmail and padding made the standard infantry arrowproof

We have already covered that the westerosis bows have a longer range, thats only gonnab be a factor if both forces stay still and trade long range volley shots plus few of their opponenets will be archers

that's right because only armies with horse archers move right

[Lord Reaver]

says men and horses

Not as it reads in the part I quoted, no.

[Lion Of The Night]

again feel free to actualy read the 1st thread, this sidetrack about arrows vs chanmail padding began as one poster said they made infantry arrowproof which i argued agaisnt

Look, let's be reasonable here....

We can all agree that mail and padding is not 100% arrow proof. Really nothing is. A shot to an unprotected area, or one from close range, or even a pretty lucky shot that gets through could kill the soldier. However we know from contemporary accounts, and from modern testing that they are indeed pretty effective. The armour wil absorb quite a lot of damage from arrows, and even ones that get through are not always lethal.

Now as for the Dothraki style of archery, they would not have great aim off a galloping horse, they would have to be in range of westerosi archers, who even if there are not many would still be raining down arrows among the horses, causing casualties among the horses, and a falling horse can not only kill the rider, but also trip up any formation they have. So they have to ride in, loose, then ride out, while taking fire.

Yes they wil kill plenty of soldiers, but not enough.... The Westerosi will suffer far less casualties.

[Falstaff_Stark]

Maybe we need a pro and con master list.

I think too many people are missing the point. How many Dothraki would it take to conquer Westeros, and the O/U. 300,000 Dothraki warriors(plus chattel)is on scale with Napolean invading Poland, d-day, and the Persian War. Just pretend financing is there. Pretend how ever many drown, or how many points soldiers land. 300k Dothraki are raping and pillaging, can it be stopped at that point.

No.

[Falstaff_Stark]

that's right because only armies with horse archers move right

You try coordinating the movements of foot soldiers, the majority of who. Only take their lords orders and never saw each other before. Once gaps open in infantry lines, horse will annihilate them. Whatever your opinion on the outcome is you are beggaring the imagination if you think anything other than a static battlefield will work for westeros.

[Universal Sword Donor]

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

I would revise my opinions and sources if I were you

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

[mormont]

Now as for the Dothraki style of archery, they would not have great aim off a galloping horse

Well, two points come to mind, there.

1. They have aim exactly as good as the author wants it to be. Rule of cool again: if the author says the Dothraki have deadly aim firing from the saddle, that's what they have. Jorah's assessment implies that their aim is fine.

2. It doesn't matter anyway. As we've discussed, on the battlefield you don't aim arrows at specific targets. You loose volleys at a packed mass of infantry or riders.

they would have to be in range of westerosi archers

Again, going back to Jorah's quote, he says that Dothraki bows 'outrange ours'. Whether that makes sense to you or not, it's the only solid information we have on the point. It would be an odd thing for Jorah to exaggerate about: I suppose he could be mistaken, but we have no substantial reason to think he is. And again, if the author decides the Dothraki have some weird type of horse bow that outranges a longbow, that's just how it is in his world. How it is in our world doesn't matter.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

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.

Could have been arrows fired from a very long range, as was posted on the previous page.

Even if armor won't fully protect against arrows it would still be of use. By slowing down and blunting projectiles enough so that many shots that would have killed or crippled an unarmored man might now only wound him, perhaps so lightly that he can even keep fighting throughout the battle (though at reduced capacity because he has arrows stuck in him, even if they don't go very deep and haven't hit any vital organs). There is a lot of room between "instant death" and "completely unscathed" when talking about battle wounds, after all. Not just in medieval combat either.

Again, going back to Jorah's quote, he says that Dothraki bows 'outrange ours'. Whether that makes sense to you or not, it's the only solid information we have on the point. It would be an odd thing for Jorah to exaggerate about: I suppose he could be mistaken, but we have no substantial reason to think he is. And again, if the author decides the Dothraki have some weird type of horse bow that outranges a longbow, that's just how it is in his world. How it is in our world doesn't matter.

Maybe they use the same bows as the Wildlings. Those can shoot stuff that is atop a 700 foot tall wall.

[Mithras]

I am curious about the bow range hierarchy.

They are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly…and there are so many of them, my lady.

Jorah said that the Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi bows.

Kojja Mo sent her archers to the castles with their great bows of goldenheart that could send a shaft farther and truer than even Dornish yew.

Kojja Mo was the captain’s daughter, taller than Sam and slender as a spear, with skin as black and smooth as polished jet. She captained the ship’s red archers too, and pulled a double-curved goldenheart bow that could send a shaft four hundred yards.

A third of Balaq’s men used crossbows, another third the double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east. Better than these were the big yew longbows borne by the archers of Westerosi blood, and best of all were the great bows of goldenheart treasured by Black Balaq himself and his fifty Summer Islanders. Only a dragonbone bow could outrange one made of goldenheart.

But later we see that the hierarchy goes like this:

dragonbone > goldenheart > (Dornish) yew longbows > double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east

These double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east were not specifically mentioned to be Dothraki bows.

BTW, the Dothraki are not the only horse archers.

When the Dornishmen saw them coming, they spurred their own mounts, banners rippling as they rode. From their ornate saddles were slung the round metal shields they favored, and many carried bundles of short throwing spears, or the double-curved Dornish bows they used so well from horseback.

However, these double-curved Dornish bows should be different that those 6ft. great longbows because it is impossible to use them on horseback.

[Lord Reaver]

Very nice post, Paperwaver, illustrating that things aren't as simple as Mormont would have us believe.

Most likely, Jorah speaks from his experience, which is limited. Being that he's from the north, it's unlikely he's ever seen a Dornish yew longbow. So what he's comparing when he says the Dothraki bows outrange "ours", is the bows used in the north.

[Mithras]

The NW uses great yew longbows but they were not mentioned to be Dornish yew, which should be even superior due to climate.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Again, going back to Jorah's quote, he says that Dothraki bows 'outrange ours'. Whether that makes sense to you or not, it's the only solid information we have on the point. It would be an odd thing for Jorah to exaggerate about: I suppose he could be mistaken, but we have no substantial reason to think he is. And again, if the author decides the Dothraki have some weird type of horse bow that outranges a longbow, that's just how it is in his world. How it is in our world doesn't matter.

JonCon says the opposite.

Personally, I attribute that to the Dothraki using light "hunting" arrows, which behave basically like pebbles against anybody wearing any kind of armor, but are far lighter and thus can be shot further. Good enough for naked Dothraki, Lamb Men and sheep.

While the Golden Company uses the real stuff. Thicker, stiffer, heavier, way more force of impact, but not the same range.

[JonathanTheBold]

You try coordinating the movements of foot soldiers, the majority of who. Only take their lords orders and never saw each other before. Once gaps open in infantry lines, horse will annihilate them. Whatever your opinion on the outcome is you are beggaring the imagination if you think anything other than a static battlefield will work for westeros.

that's what drums are for

[OldGimletEye]

that's what drums are for

Yeah, seriously. Just prior to engaging Roose Bolton, didn't Tywin plan to wheel around his infantry to take the Northern forces in the flank, whom he believed would over commit on his left? I doubt Tywin would have devised such a battle plan if he thought his infantry was an undisciplined rabble, not capable of marching and chewing bubble gum at the same time.

[mormont]

JonCon says the opposite.

Ah, I must have forgotten that quote. Is that in the ADWD chapter where they cross to Westeros? Do we know exactly what he said? Is it the quote below, about Balaq's men?

A third of Balaq’s men used crossbows, another third the double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east. Better than these were the big yew longbows borne by the archers of Westerosi blood, and best of all were the great bows of goldenheart treasured by Black Balaq himself and his fifty Summer Islanders. Only a dragonbone bow could outrange one made of goldenheart.

The language used there is 'better', rather than long range: and as paper-waver notes, the 'double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east' aren't specifically named as Dothraki bows. So, we have five possibilities: 1. they're not Dothraki bows, 2. 'better' means 'better in some other way than range', 3. Jorah is wrong, 4. Jon Connington is wrong, 5. the Dornish yew longbows spoken of are not the norm for Westerosi archers.

I think 4 is the least likely, since the quote above suggests that this opinion is (at minimum) informed by Balaq's, and we should treat a captain of archers' opinion as the best source we have. It's entirely possible that there isn't much in it, in terms of range: or that factors other than the bow itself matter more. I don't know enough about archery to say.