Jump to content

Finally, the Dothraki confirmed as best army


Alfonso Sánchez

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Alfonso Sánchez said:

In westeros, there is one guy who is the prototype of a knight, who has met the best recent knights (Arthur Dayne, Barristan Selmy, Hound, Gregor, Brienne, Himself, etc) and has seen the 7 armies of westeros, the Greyjoy's raiders, the Northmen of house Stark, the well supplied and trained army of the Lannister, the exotic Dorne armies, the extravagant armies of the riverlands and highgarden, and the might of house Baratheon up close, and Jaime Lannister himself declared that any army would be defeated by the Dothraki.

Unsullied nonwhistanding, do you think this is true?.

I think this is a quip in an otherwise good dialogue, or a manner of saying "this is desperate and we are doomed", the Dothraki army until now has not proven itself against a proper phalanx, (only the unsullied and they owned the Dothraki), they are light cavalry for god sake, and their weapons wouldn't fly in real life as shock troops, they do not attack in formation, and whilst using fancy acrobatics when raiding, they aren't that good against other knights, one that would use a long spear, for example.

After all, this is a show, and hyperboles are bound to happen.

Well stated question.

The Dothraki would be useless against well-trained & equipped soldiers. Fine for looting and raping hapless peasants perhaps, but they simply couldn't stand toe-to-toe with armored Westerosi knights, even levies.

I mean, the Dothraki are completely unarmored , close to bare naked-- their casualties rates would be astronomical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alfonso Sánchez said:

So a consensus is met?, Dothraki are the best just because the plot require it, not because their weapons/tactics or else?

Basically. People used to do things like wear armour, use tactics beyond 'charge' and use mixed unit armies because it worked. The Dothraki are supposed to be the Westeros equivalent of the Mongols, but they actually have almost nothing of what made the Mongols successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

The Dothraki are good fighters and they will naturally win against any infantry as they fight from horseback

That is, unfortunately, a widespread but major misunderstanding. I can't go into all the details now, but let me just point out that there is a reason that (heavy) cavalry went out of fashion as pikemen took over (very simplified). And where heavy cavalry cannot charge into troops in orderly formation, light cavalry such as the dothraik has no way of doing that to any effect.

A second point is that even in 1v1 combat, it is arguable whether the horserider is at an advantage, especially once the charge is done and you are mostly circling around a particular spot. The person on foot is much more mobile in their movements.

12 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Basically. People used to do things like wear armour, use tactics beyond 'charge' and use mixed unit armies because it worked. The Dothraki are supposed to be the Westeros equivalent of the Mongols, but they actually have almost nothing of what made the Mongols successful.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One-on-one horseman has an advantage of speed, reach etc.. There is a reason infantry formed into compact, dense blocks, be it with pikes or with muskets - infantry caught in line was doomed (but not because the cavalry would break the line - because the cavalry would flank the line. 

 

However... Regiment of cavalry against well trained regiment of infantry in square would not even attempt to charge (there are few exceptions, most notable Garcia Hernandez, but they are remembered because breaking a square was not something that happened often).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Runaway Penguin said:

One-on-one horseman has an advantage of speed, reach etc.. There is a reason infantry formed into compact, dense blocks, be it with pikes or with muskets - infantry caught in line was doomed (but not because the cavalry would break the line - because the cavalry would flank the line.

Reach (assuming the same weapon, obviously) is limited by the fighter's arm length, whether on horseback or on foot, and on horseback you cannot move as well, so if anything your reach is likely to by worse. Same with speed (at least indirectly due to hampered movement)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Unhit said:

That is, unfortunately, a widespread but major misunderstanding. I can't go into all the details now, but let me just point out that there is a reason that (heavy) cavalry went out of fashion as pikemen took over (very simplified). And where heavy cavalry cannot charge into troops in orderly formation, light cavalry such as the dothraik has no way of doing that to any effect.

A second point is that even in 1v1 combat, it is arguable whether the horserider is at an advantage, especially once the charge is done and you are mostly circling around a particular spot. The person on foot is much more mobile in their movements.

I'm sure that's true. i know next to nothing about these things, and what I know comes from Hollywood. 

Again, in the defense of horse charge scenes in this show and other motion picture. It looks cool and it's easy to believe and most people know next to nothing about how this should actually work. So they just roll with the very simple horseman > footman equation. 

And I kinda don't mind that. I mean this is intersting and I always wanted to major in history (or should I say, I always wanted to be a wizard), but this is tv and entertainment and the horse charges look great and I just want to believe them. :eek::blush: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

I'm sure that's true. i know next to nothing about these things, and what I know comes from Hollywood. 

Again, in the defense of horse charge scenes in this show and other motion picture. It looks cool and it's easy to believe and most people know next to nothing about how this should actually work. So they just roll with the very simple horseman > footman equation. 

And I kinda don't mind that. I mean this is intersting and I always wanted to major in history (or should I say, I always wanted to be a wizard), but this is tv and entertainment and the horse charges look great and I just want to believe them. :eek::blush: 

I agree, it was definitely fun to watch. I absolutely didn't intend to take away from that :D (apologies if I did)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the scene was pretty good.

The Dothraki caught the Lannister army spread out and vulnerable which helped the Dothraki a great deal.

Tarly and Jamie had just been discussing how they were in a very vulnerable location due to having to cross the river (I assume over a small bridge) which meant the army was in effect cut in two.  They even mentioned that the rear would not be able to reinforce the front if it came under attack and we can assume the opposite is true as well (the front would not be able to reinforce the rear).

The Dothraki also had dragons which made the battle more of a slaughter than actual battle.

I don't think the Dothraki could win against any of the armies of westeros without a great numerical advantage unless they had dragons.  If they caught them by surprise then sure.  But if the westerosi army had any time to prepare (even a few hours) then the army would easily defend their unorganized charges without any protection from armor.

To me this seems very obvious but tv is tv.  Jorah already showed us how an old man could take out a blood rider just based on having better equipment and training.  We also know that just 3000 Unsullied had defeated a far larger Dothraki force long ago.  My point is that the Dothraki are great at sacking the unprepared and untrained but when they face a well trained army that is properly equipped without the element of surprise then they aren't that effective at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RhaenysB said:

Well... They are at least supposed to be, aren't they? In the books the Dothraki are supposed to mirror that kind of culture and society and fighting style. I guess the show is playing the Wild West card in the Dothraki scenes, I think somebody even said that, going for Indians vibe... not sure who or when, Maybe it was Just a random opinion I read online. 

That's what I said too, that longswords (whatever the accurate term is) are more efficient than curved arakhs, Jorah even discusses that with Rakharo in season 1. 

I don't know, that must be true. I don't see the show making a distinction between light cavalry and heavy cavalry and horse archers. It's just horses > foot soldiers. I would say that's a usual approach in historical / medieval series and films, I've never seen that distinction portrayed on screen. 

It was more or less portrayed on the battle of bastards, whilst not accurate, the wall shield and spear phalanx portrayed by the boltons is more or less what stopped cavalries in all of history...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Unhit said:

Reach (assuming the same weapon, obviously) is limited by the fighter's arm length, whether on horseback or on foot, and on horseback you cannot move as well, so if anything your reach is likely to by worse. Same with speed (at least indirectly due to hampered movement)

Not exactly. For one, you have a big advantage in offense due to the height advantage, anyone trying to reach the horse has to expose himself - and same when he tries to reach you, you can pick your fight. Add to that greater momentum of a rider and a horse and if you are on your own, you are going to get severely knocked off balance if you can parry (and if you attack, the horseman will get out of range and set up another charge).

At the same time, in real battle you would have a horse running into 8 bayonets (at least). Horses do not like that and in the cases of broken squares usually it  was broken by a dying or dead horse, shot too close to the square face. Same would apply to pike squares. 

 

If we take a Dothraki in 1v1 combat though,.. Arakh is a slashing weapon, that could be stopped reasonably well by gambeson, let alone armor Lannister first rank wears. And Arakh is a very bad weapon for actual combat against infantry, with shorter reach. Great for cutting down fugitives and clashing with other light cavalry, but... Not for breaking a line.

Then again, this is a magical kingdom of Westeros Away where battle can be dominated by a 10 meter high heap of dead bopdies who just accumulated there, so what do I know? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

Well stated question.

The Dothraki would be useless against well-trained & equipped soldiers. Fine for looting and raping hapless peasants perhaps, but they simply couldn't stand toe-to-toe with armored Westerosi knights, even levies.

I mean, the Dothraki are completely unarmored , close to bare naked-- their casualties rates would be astronomical.

Omg donaldys I Trumpagar made a compliment to a sourthern mexicaling of  Dorne!! Hehehe i would guess that the show makers do not know anything about huns, mongols or dacian strategies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RhaenysB said:

I mean what are you expecting? Why is Cersei queen? Because the "plot" (hbo fanfiction) requires it. No logic necessary. 

Well, not to be too stubborn, but Cersei is queen after showing her savvy tactics in the game of thrones, murdering and outsmarting her enemies, in a more or less believeable way...

Those Dothraki charges wouldnt break any heavy line convincingly, much less become the most powerful army in westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Alfonso Sánchez said:

It was more or less portrayed on the battle of bastards, whilst not accurate, the wall shield and spear phalanx portrayed by the boltons is more or less what stopped cavalries in all of history...

Yeah though the Vale did break through that shield wall and save the day. 

8 minutes ago, Alfonso Sánchez said:

Well, not to be too stubborn, but Cersei is queen after showing her savvy tactics in the game of thrones, murdering and outsmarting her enemies, in a more or less believeable way...

Nooooooo. Don't start with me. Seriously? It's more believable that Cersei's queen than the Dothraki breaking through a line of armed infantry? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

Well stated question.

The Dothraki would be useless against well-trained & equipped soldiers. Fine for looting and raping hapless peasants perhaps, but they simply couldn't stand toe-to-toe with armored Westerosi knights, even levies.

I mean, the Dothraki are completely unarmored , close to bare naked-- their casualties rates would be astronomical.

So not true

 

The Roman army of the 1st Century was more equipped in terms of armor and shielding but the army of 4th century yielded better results against tougher opponents. The Greek and Macedonian army was more equipped in terms of weapons and armor than the Roman Infantry/Legionaries but could not yield results that Romans could. The parthian cavalry that defeated the Roman infantry were less equipped and with smaller numbers. The Mongolian army was not as equipped as some of the European armies but destroyed them in battle. 

You can pick out battles and armies throughout history that lost or won against opponents who were more or less equipped. The bottom line is, being more heavily armored does not always make you better. It comes down to tactics, logistics, morale, and discipline. Nothing we have been shown about the Dothraki suggest they lack any of those

I think GRRM has hinted that the Dothraki are influenced by a lof Asian countries. Atilla the Hun, and Gehgis Kan come to mind. 

So from what we have seen so far, the Dothraki have numbers roughly at 50,000. No one else in Westeros can field an army that large. As far as morale goes, they aren't paid like Lannisters, id assume they are more loyal for this. Furthermore, they live nomadic and warlike lifestyle which mean they don't start to be homesick or resent war like the Northmen suggested to Robb. They are also the only army so far that have light cavalry archers which in  both antiquity and medieval period was considered to be the best type of army. Why? Mostly because a knight on a horse, or a foot solider can never decide the battlefield. It's the lightly armored cavalry archers who can pick and choose where he can make a stand or run. The bow and arrow means that the charging infantry or heavy cavalry can never march to chase without being picked or harassed. 

The Dothraki are also great warriors because it's mostly being a warrior that is their proffession. In Westoros, outside of the North, it seems to follow the feudal system which means only knights are really trained.

With that said, as GRRM and the director seem to have hinted towards, the Dothraki are the kings of all, but the Unsullied at the best infantry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RhaenysB said:

Yeah though the Vale did break through that shield wall and save the day. 

Nooooooo. Don't start with me. Seriously? It's more believable that Cersei's queen than the Dothraki breaking through a line of armed infantry? 

 

From behind... which is what we are expecting the dothraki to do... cavalry was always used as shock troops, one would fix the othrr army with the infantry and then flank them with the cavalry, (hammer and anvil) which ironically, is what happened on the battle of bastards, there are other tactics, specially involving specialized chsrging units such as the winged hussars and the hetaroi, but i think the point is made.

I would like to hear your opinion on Cersei merit to the throne, this is a forum and I would be pleased to learn your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alfonso Sánchez said:

It was more or less portrayed on the battle of bastards, whilst not accurate, the wall shield and spear phalanx portrayed by the boltons is more or less what stopped cavalries in all of history...

There is maybe less than 2-3 occasions in history where a cavalry actually charged into a phalanx or shield wall formation. The reason it almost never occurred in history is because a horse no matter how train will not do that. It will stop prior to impact or it will change direction. We know this because in medival times, even fully equipped knights would not be able to get their horse to charge without putting blinds on the horses eye

 

with that said, the phalanx formation has shown to be good in only small period in history. It was effective in antiquity because of the mountainous region in Greece. Outside of here, we have seen them lose to more versatile or more equipped armies like the Persians, romans, and Parthians. Those formations are slow moving, nor can they cannot change directions very easily. A more versatile army will attack the flanks, like history has shown.

with that said, outside of Phillip and Alexander, no one was able to utilize the Phalanx formation wel again. The formation itself is only good if you have very strong cavalry and cover the flanks

The Dothraki wouldn't even have to attack  the Lannister army with horse, just pick them off to the point that their formation breaks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

So not true

 

The Roman army of the 1st Century was more equipped in terms of armor and shielding but the army of 4th century yielded better results against tougher opponents. The Greek and Macedonian army was more equipped in terms of weapons and armor than the Roman Infantry/Legionaries but could not yield results that Romans could. The parthian cavalry that defeated the Roman infantry were less equipped and with smaller numbers. The Mongolian army was not as equipped as some of the European armies but destroyed them in battle. 

You can pick out battles and armies throughout history that lost or won against opponents who were more or less equipped. The bottom line is, being more heavily armored does not always make you better. It comes down to tactics, logistics, morale, and discipline. Nothing we have been shown about the Dothraki suggest they lack any of those

I think GRRM has hinted that the Dothraki are influenced by a lof Asian countries. Atilla the Hun, and Gehgis Kan come to mind. 

So from what we have seen so far, the Dothraki have numbers roughly at 50,000. No one else in Westeros can field an army that large. As far as morale goes, they aren't paid like Lannisters, id assume they are more loyal for this. Furthermore, they live nomadic and warlike lifestyle which mean they don't start to be homesick or resent war like the Northmen suggested to Robb. They are also the only army so far that have light cavalry archers which in  both antiquity and medieval period was considered to be the best type of army. Why? Mostly because a knight on a horse, or a foot solider can never decide the battlefield. It's the lightly armored cavalry archers who can pick and choose where he can make a stand or run. The bow and arrow means that the charging infantry or heavy cavalry can never march to chase without being picked or harassed. 

The Dothraki are also great warriors because it's mostly being a warrior that is their proffession. In Westoros, outside of the North, it seems to follow the feudal system which means only knights are really trained.

With that said, as GRRM and the director seem to have hinted towards, the Dothraki are the kings of all, but the Unsullied at the best infantry.

 

 

Mostly correct, our issue with the cavalry is that they are not using the strategies and tactics that made the mongols powerful, and they are not charging like a proper shock unit like the hussars, hetaroi or else.

If i am correct, the men of arms used as infantry were also very well trained, the use of zweihanders, halberds, partisans and lances required several degrees of training, and tower shields required marching drills and so.

We are complaining about a light infantey, without armor, clashing directly against a heavy armored infantry, something that would end badly for the cavalry, we know that armor is not the cure for bad tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

There is maybe less than 2-3 occasions in history where a cavalry actually charged into a phalanx or shield wall formation. The reason it almost never occurred in history is because a horse no matter how train will not do that. It will stop prior to impact or it will change direction. We know this because in medival times, even fully equipped knights would not be able to get their horse to charge without putting blinds on the horses eye

 

with that said, the phalanx formation has shown to be good in only small period in history. It was effective in antiquity because of the mountainous region in Greece. Outside of here, we have seen them lose to more versatile or more equipped armies like the Persians, romans, and Parthians. Those formations are slow moving, nor can they cannot change directions very easily. A more versatile army will attack the flanks, like history has shown.

with that said, outside of Phillip and Alexander, no one was able to utilize the Phalanx formation wel again. The formation itself is only good if you have very strong cavalry and cover the flanks

The Dothraki wouldn't even have to attack  the Lannister army with horse, just pick them off to the point that their formation breaks

What about the swiss guard and the pike infantries in the late medieval period? Indeed it is known that the manipular formation of the romans defeated the phalanx, but many people over historia forums argue that bad generalship damaged the romans chances.

Nevertheless, very interesting points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...