How did the Dothraki conquer so much?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So how did the Dothraki manage Mongol levels of conquest given that:

- They don't have a shred of discipline

- Their cavalry is incredibly light with no armor

- They are incapable of using their defeated foes, unlike say the mongols that assimilated defeated hosts

- They are incapable of siege warfare due to their horse obsession

- Even for nomadic hordes they succumb to infighting extremely quickly, basically every time a Khal dies, which is their world of leading from the front and shit for hygiene, is quite often

- Even for barbarians, they seem particularity ignorant and close minded.

So given all that how did they manage to conquer half of Essos?

[The Grey Wolf]

@Alyn Oakenfist

Authorial fiat.

[Back in Black-Snow]

24 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Alyn Oakenfist

Authorial fiat.

You beat me to it. My response was, "Because George said so."

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So how did the Dothraki manage Mongol levels of conquest given that:

They didn't do Mongol-like conquests considering they didn't take over anything, they destroyed it. The Mongols ruled a vast empire because they wanted to rule an empire. The Dothraki never did.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- They don't have a shred of discipline

On what do you base this weird claim? We never see them fighting in the books but what we hear about them indicates tremendous discipline, for instance, when they continued to charge and charge against the Unsullied of Qohor even when they realized that this must have been stupidity.

You seem to confuse the Dothraki here with the wildlings ... which they are not.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- Their cavalry is incredibly light with no armor

This is a factor that would only come into play if/when they fight against armored knights - which they never did, as far as we know. Also, we have no idea what kind of wardrobe the Dothraki wear in autumn or winter, or how well-armored they can be if they feel they have to. Again, we never saw a khalasar in battle against a armored foes. But even there their dragonbone bows and their ability to shoot arrows on horseback in general might make short work out of armored knights, too. Armor is irrelevant if you kill the men wearing it before they can reach you.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- They are incapable of using their defeated foes, unlike say the mongols that assimilated defeated hosts

They would only have to do stuff like that if they wanted to build and rule an empire - which they never wanted.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- They are incapable of siege warfare due to their horse obsession

That is factually incorrect and nonsense based on the would-be expert, Ser Jorah Mormont. A single look in TWoIaF reveals that the Dothraki besieged and starved out quite a few Sarnori cities. They had a lot of patience there.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- Even for nomadic hordes they succumb to infighting extremely quickly, basically every time a Khal dies, which is their world of leading from the front and shit for hygiene, is quite often

That is also wrong, since there is definitely not infighting 'basically every time a khal dies' - only when there is no clear heir, i.e. a khalakka old enough to succeed his father. Sure, them not being a decadent hereditary monarchy allows for some ko to also challenge the rise of a khalakka to khal, one assumes, but there is no indication that this happens all that often - and as Dany points out the whole bloodriders thing might help to keep that kind of thing a rather rare occasion.

Again - the Dothraki are not the wildlings.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

- Even for barbarians, they seem particularity ignorant and close minded.

That is also a rather daring claim. We only meet Dothraki slave girls closely who are about as educated as Pia or Shae, whereas the great Viserys III definitely is the most ignorant and close-minded man in Drogo's khalasar in AGoT. Even if we took them as representative for the entire people (which we should not) then the fucked-up xenophobic, racist, and superstitious Kingslanders from FaB certainly are in no way better than the Dothraki - and neither are nobility of Westeros who believe stuff like 'bastards grow faster than trueborn children'.

That said, they are an insular culture who do their own thing and don't concern themselves much with people who are usually just their prey when they enter into their lands.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So given all that how did they manage to conquer half of Essos?

Easy enough - because their enemies were all stupid and weak. Also, they did not really conquer 'half of Essos'. Most the Dothraki Sea was their land, anyway, and when their expansion began the Valyrian colonies had their own wars to fight in the Century of Blood.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So how did the Dothraki manage Mongol levels of conquest given that:

- They don't have a shred of discipline

- Their cavalry is incredibly light with no armor

- They are incapable of using their defeated foes, unlike say the mongols that assimilated defeated hosts

- They are incapable of siege warfare due to their horse obsession

- Even for nomadic hordes they succumb to infighting extremely quickly, basically every time a Khal dies, which is their world of leading from the front and shit for hygiene, is quite often

- Even for barbarians, they seem particularity ignorant and close minded.

So given all that how did they manage to conquer half of Essos?

The Dothraki raid.  They don't use much discipline for that.  They need to make sure all of the slaves get to market is all.  It's easy to see why they're so effective.  Fighting is their profession.  They don't do much of anything else.  The people they fight are laborers and farmers who are about as good with weapons as the average recruit of the Night's Watch.  Not very good.  Whereas the Dothraki are very effective with their weapons.  They excel at riding and are good with the Arakh and the bow.  They have numbers and experience on their side.  The Dothraki would compare favorably with the armies of Westeros which are made up mostly of part-time soldiers.  

 

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Even for nomadic hordes they succumb to infighting extremely quickly, basically every time a Khal dies, which is their world of leading from the front and shit for hygiene, is quite often

They have procedures for succession but it is unlike the hereditary laws of Westeros.  They follow the strongest.  A man who would be khal will have to prove himself.  Now, as terrible as that may sound to an office worker, it is better than right-by-blood.  At least there is a relevant criteria in place to decide who is most fit to lead.  Joffrey would have been kicked to the side instead of given a khalasar.  

 

[House Of Wolves]

The simple answer is Essos has  become very weak militarily.  Just look at the amount of damage Danny has done in Essos. There best groups of fighters are the Unsullied which is a  fairly small in # group of elite slave warriors and then probably sell-swords like the golden company.  The Dothraki on the other hand  are large in numbers, The best horse riders in that entire world, and live lives dedicated to fighting and killing.  it pretty easy to see why Essos has been powerless to do anything about them.  In order for them to defeat a host like the Dothraki they would need to either significantly increase the amount of salve warriors they have ( something they smartly don't want to do), or  require mandatory military service of there free men.  Something they should do but  when you become soft  like they have, you are not going to  want yourselves or  your sons to do something like go off and die in war.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

when they continued to charge and charge against the Unsullied of Qohor even when they realized that this must have been stupidity.

That's not really discipline though, isn't it. Discipline means they follow orders even when it's against their natural instincts. At Qohor their natural instinct was to charge, as for all their faults they are incredibly brave, too brave actually.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a factor that would only come into play if/when they fight against armored knights - which they never did, as far as we know. Also, we have no idea what kind of wardrobe the Dothraki wear in autumn or winter, or how well-armored they can be if they feel they have to. Again, we never saw a khalasar in battle against a armored foes. But even there their dragonbone bows and their ability to shoot arrows on horseback in general might make short work out of armored knights, too. Armor is irrelevant if you kill the men wearing it before they can reach you.

You say that knights can be vulnerable to arrows, and that is true, but the Dothraki should bee even more so. Horses are decently resistant against arrows, especially from long range. Unarmored Dothraki would die very quickly against concentrated arrow fire.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They would only have to do stuff like that if they wanted to build and rule an empire - which they never wanted.

It's useful regardless. For example in the case of the Mongols their greatest general Subutai was a former enemy recruited into their army, and the siege engineers they captured from the Chinese were crucial in making them extremely good at siege warfare. Incorporating enemies is always a good idea in the case of nomadic hordes, and something almost all of the great ones did, like the Huns, Xiongnu or the Mongols.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is also wrong, since there is definitely not infighting 'basically every time a khal dies' - only when there is no clear heir, i.e. a khalakka old enough to succeed his father. Sure, them not being a decadent hereditary monarchy allows for some ko to also challenge the rise of a khalakka to khal, one assumes, but there is no indication that this happens all that often - and as Dany points out the whole bloodriders thing might help to keep that kind of thing a rather rare occasion.

Well as I said given that the Dothraki khal leads from the front and that their medicine is horrible, I think Drogo is the usual outcome, not the other way around. The chances of a khal surviving till his sons maturity are probably very low. Not to mention a smooth succession only occurs if the son is a great warrior. So all in all I think smooth successions are the minority. Compare this to the Xiongnu for example that lasted for centuries due to the fact that they didn't blindly follow the strongest person they could find.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Easy enough - because their enemies were all stupid and weak.

That's called plot convenience.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is factually incorrect and nonsense based on the would-be expert, Ser Jorah Mormont. A single look in TWoIaF reveals that the Dothraki besieged and starved out quite a few Sarnori cities. They had a lot of patience there.

Besieged and starved out. The thing is not all castles can be starved out. A lot have to be stormed, something which with their hatred towards fighting on foot would be quite hard. A small determined garrison could probably delay the for years with proper supplies.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is also a rather daring claim. We only meet Dothraki slave girls closely who are about as educated as Pia or Shae, whereas the great Viserys III definitely is the most ignorant and close-minded man in Drogo's khalasar in AGoT. Even if we took them as representative for the entire people (which we should not) then the fucked-up xenophobic, racist, and superstitious Kingslanders from FaB certainly are in no way better than the Dothraki - and neither are nobility of Westeros who believe stuff like 'bastards grow faster than trueborn children'.

That said, they are an insular culture who do their own thing and don't concern themselves much with people who are usually just their prey when they enter into their lands.

They put dung on their wounds, what else do you need to know?

8 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The Dothraki raid.  They don't use much discipline for that.  They need to make sure all of the slaves get to market is all.  It's easy to see why they're so effective.  Fighting is their profession.  They don't do much of anything else.  The people they fight are laborers and farmers who are about as good with weapons as the average recruit of the Night's Watch.  Not very good.  Whereas the Dothraki are very effective with their weapons.  They excel at riding and are good with the Arakh and the bow.  They have numbers and experience on their side.  The Dothraki would compare favorably with the armies of Westeros which are made up mostly of part-time soldiers.  

I do agree in that regard, but I'm not really wondering how they manage to survive, but how they managed to almost completely wipe out both the Sarnori and the Qarteen.

8 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

They have procedures for succession but it is unlike the hereditary laws of Westeros.  They follow the strongest.  A man who would be khal will have to prove himself.  Now, as terrible as that may sound to an office worker, it is better than right-by-blood.  At least there is a relevant criteria in place to decide who is most fit to lead.  Joffrey would have been kicked to the side instead of given a khalasar.  

I disagree on that regard. Right by blood is not a particularly good option and can lead to pretty nasty succession wars, but it's way better then survival of the strongest. With right by blood you have only occasional succession wars, and leaders that are at least groomed for leadership (I'm not saying their good guys, but at least they do know how to read and write). The Dothraki on the other hand probably splinter every time the Khal dies, and have succession wars constantly, not 4 in 300 years.

3 hours ago, House Of Wolves said:

The simple answer is Essos has  become very weak militarily.  Just look at the amount of damage Danny has done in Essos. There best groups of fighters are the Unsullied which is a  fairly small in # group of elite slave warriors and then probably sell-swords like the golden company.  The Dothraki on the other hand  are large in numbers, The best horse riders in that entire world, and live lives dedicated to fighting and killing.  it pretty easy to see why Essos has been powerless to do anything about them.  In order for them to defeat a host like the Dothraki they would need to either significantly increase the amount of salve warriors they have ( something they smartly don't want to do), or  require mandatory military service of there free men.  Something they should do but  when you become soft  like they have, you are not going to  want yourselves or  your sons to do something like go off and die in war.

So basically the after effects of Pax Valyriana. That is a good explanation honestly, but it doesn't quite explain how in the aftermath of the Doom the Essosi didn't militarize properly.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's not really discipline though, isn't it. Discipline means they follow orders even when it's against their natural instincts. At Qohor their natural instinct was to charge, as for all their faults they are incredibly brave, too brave actually.

It is nobody's natural instinct to charge into a row of spears when he knows he will die. Which the Dothraki would have known as soon as they first realized the Unsullied would not break.

But that's just one example. The entire history of their wars with the Sarnori shows they are cunning military minds and warriors.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You say that knights can be vulnerable to arrows, and that is true, but the Dothraki should bee even more so. Horses are decently resistant against arrows, especially from long range. Unarmored Dothraki would die very quickly against concentrated arrow fire.

One assume the crucial fact here is that the Dothraki are very fast and mobile, unlike the knights they are accustomed to fight men on horseback who do shoot at them while they are riding, too. There are decent archers and crossbowmen in Westeros, but they do not have either goldenheart or dragonbone bows.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It's useful regardless. For example in the case of the Mongols their greatest general Subutai was a former enemy recruited into their army, and the siege engineers they captured from the Chinese were crucial in making them extremely good at siege warfare. Incorporating enemies is always a good idea in the case of nomadic hordes, and something almost all of the great ones did, like the Huns, Xiongnu or the Mongols.

Well, perhaps they did that with other peoples from the grasslands that they integrated into their culture. But again - the Dothraki aren't a people that builds empires. They destroy them and continue to live their lives as they always have.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well as I said given that the Dothraki khal leads from the front and that their medicine is horrible, I think Drogo is the usual outcome, not the other way around. The chances of a khal surviving till his sons maturity are probably very low. Not to mention a smooth succession only occurs if the son is a great warrior. So all in all I think smooth successions are the minority. Compare this to the Xiongnu for example that lasted for centuries due to the fact that they didn't blindly follow the strongest person they could find.

The history of the Dothraki shows that Drogo isn't the natural outcome since many a khal was followed by his son. In fact, even Drogo counts the khalakka he slew as a khal, indicating that Dothraki culture does indeed see it as normal that a khal's son follow him.

Whether every khal leads from the front is also not clear. Drogo insisted on slaying the enemy khal(s) himself.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's called plot convenience.

Not sure how that is plot convenience when there isn't much of a plot there. It is a background detail. Plot convenience would it be if a person or people which we had reason to expect to be much smarter and more capable wasn't for some unexplicable reason. But this isn't the case with the Sarnori.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Besieged and starved out. The thing is not all castles can be starved out. A lot have to be stormed, something which with their hatred towards fighting on foot would be quite hard. A small determined garrison could probably delay the for years with proper supplies.

Well, there are no castles in Essos, but considering the size and power of some of the cities the Dothraki already sacked and burned we can be pretty sure they know their stuff there. Aside from Harrenhal, Oldtown, and KL no Westerosi city is even comparable in size and power to a Valyrian town, much less one of the Free Cities or the Sarnori cities of old. If the Dothraki could crack such nuts they should have little to no problem dealing with the average Westerosi castle.

Jorah's error is that he sees the fact that there are no cities/castles the Dothraki besiege in Essos as confirmation that they cannot do this kind of thing. But that is historically just wrong.

[Putin]

And which big city they actually conqured ? Is there record of them defeating Volantis , Braavos , Astapor , Qarth some big players ?

There are many other smaller towns , places among nine free cities, we know couple of them belong to Volantis , and there are ruins of couple of them around Qarth . Most likely Dothraki sack those smaller places.

Majority of Essos uses sellswords and army of pure slaves and I dont mean soldiers slaves but common slaves and those are easy targets for Dothraki warriors . Literally no one has a army of full plate armour soldiers and same goes for horses . Unless opponent is in full plate Dothraki would wreck them with their vastly superior riding and archery skills, On top of that each Dothraki has a horse , while from shown examples in Westeros less that 1/4 of army is cavalry , in Essos its even worse.

Only known example of Dothraki facing true adversary is in battle of Qohor where 3 000 unullied killed 12 000 Dothraki riders. From that time  Dothraki learned their lesson and never fought unsullied again.

[Brandon Ice-Eyes]

I'd always assumed that Western Essos as a whole wasn't very militarily strong considering they didn't need to be for thousands of years because they had Valyria protecting them and Valyria had dragons and could send 300 dragons to there aid as did in the Rhoynish wars and so because of this, they never developed strong armies and a military tradition and culture which left them weak against The Dothraki. Also The Dothraki were very cunning and smart when conquering Sarnor and didn't just conquer them solely because of their military power.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So how did the Dothraki manage Mongol levels of conquest given that:

- They don't have a shred of discipline

- Their cavalry is incredibly light with no armor

- They are incapable of using their defeated foes, unlike say the mongols that assimilated defeated hosts

- They are incapable of siege warfare due to their horse obsession

- Even for nomadic hordes they succumb to infighting extremely quickly, basically every time a Khal dies, which is their world of leading from the front and shit for hygiene, is quite often

- Even for barbarians, they seem particularity ignorant and close minded.

So given all that how did they manage to conquer half of Essos?

If you look at Dothraki history, they never actually conquered all that much. The biggest prize was the Kingdom of Sarnor, which wasn't exactly a unified kingdom anymore but a collection of warring city-states. Some of them used the Dothraki to raid and plunder their rivals, so when the end came for Sarnor itself, the other kingdoms didn't exactly rush to defend their brethren but took part in the plunder.

The Qaathi, meanwhile, were already on the verge of extinction when the Doom hit.

Beyond that, their "conquests" consisted of small settlements and other nomadic people like the lamb men.

[Universal Sword Donor]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

On what do you base this weird claim? We never see them fighting in the books but what we hear about them indicates tremendous discipline, for instance, when they continued to charge and charge against the Unsullied of Qohor even when they realized that this must have been stupidity.

You can call that particular farce discipline, but I would question the merit of it. However given their false retreats and whatnot, they definitely have strategy, tactics, and martial discipline. 

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You seem to confuse the Dothraki here with the wildlings ... which they are not.

This is a factor that would only come into play if/when they fight against armored knights - which they never did, as far as we know. Also, we have no idea what kind of wardrobe the Dothraki wear in autumn or winter, or how well-armored they can be if they feel they have to. Again, we never saw a khalasar in battle against a armored foes. But even there their dragonbone bows and their ability to shoot arrows on horseback in general might make short work out of armored knights, too. Armor is irrelevant if you kill the men wearing it before they can reach you.

The Sarnori wore steel armor and were, in legend, among the first to forge things with iron. Sarnori kingdom did last for 2K years.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They would only have to do stuff like that if they wanted to build and rule an empire - which they never wanted.

That is factually incorrect and nonsense based on the would-be expert, Ser Jorah Mormont. A single look in TWoIaF reveals that the Dothraki besieged and starved out quite a few Sarnori cities. They had a lot of patience there.

The only mention we get of a starvation siege is a fortress, but once it is demonstrated they do it. Most of the rest of the text refers to cities being overwhelmed and destroyed, not besieged in the typical medieval way.

 

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You can call that particular farce discipline, but I would question the merit of it. However given their false retreats and whatnot, they definitely have strategy, tactics, and martial discipline. 

That was my point. They are a hierarchical society and know how to follow orders.

20 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The Sarnori wore steel armor and were, in legend, among the first to forge things with iron. Sarnori kingdom did last for 2K years.

The only mention we get of a starvation siege is a fortress, but once it is demonstrated they do it. Most of the rest of the text refers to cities being overwhelmed and destroyed, not besieged in the typical medieval way.

Mardosh the Unconquerable was besieged for six years. The Dothraki know how to do that. And this wasn't a fortness.

[Texas Hold Em]

The Dothraki people are actually organized and structured.  Major conquests is not really their lifestyle.  It's not fair to judge them based on conquests.  They would rather accept payment to leave a city alone instead of attacking that city.  They have rules and customs as deeply rooted as that of the western people.  Take the retirement plan for widowed khaleesis for an example.  They have markets and slaves.  Khal Drogo owns his own manse.  The Wildlings in Westeros are disorganized, unwashed, and backwards.  The Dothraki are not.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That was my point. They are a hierarchical society and know how to follow orders.

And part of martial discipline in a hierarchical society is knowing when to challenge foolish order. It's not as if challenging the Khal is unheard of. We saw in live and in living color in the first book in the series. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mardosh the Unconquerable was besieged for six years. The Dothraki know how to do that. And this wasn't a fortness.

“The fortress city Mardosh the Unconquerable defied the horselands the longest. For close unto six years the city endured, cut off from its hinterlands, encircled by a succession of khalasars. ”

So maybe it's a Constantinople type of city, but it's definitely fortified and called a fortress.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

And part of martial discipline in a hierarchical society is knowing when to challenge foolish order. It's not as if challenging the Khal is unheard of. We saw in live and in living color in the first book in the series. 

Well, it is said that the Dothraki as a cultural insisted on doing what they did. They knew they could have done things differently, but it wasn't their khal who made them do that.

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

“The fortress city Mardosh the Unconquerable defied the horselands the longest. For close unto six years the city endured, cut off from its hinterlands, encircled by a succession of khalasars. ”

So maybe it's a Constantinople type of city, but it's definitely fortified and called a fortress.

It was a fortress city, not a fortress. A fortress is a fortress and not a fortress city.

And anyone who can besiege a city can also besiege a castle or fortress who are most definitely smaller than a (fortress) city - especially if we talk in Essosi dimensions which put Westeros to shame.

[Universal Sword Donor]

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is said that the Dothraki as a cultural insisted on doing what they did. They knew they could have done things differently, but it wasn't their khal who made them do that.

second hand vs first hand. words vs action. We literally see someone challenge an undefeated khal because of a decision he made.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It was a fortress city, not a fortress. A fortress is a fortress and not a fortress city.

And anyone who can besiege a city can also besiege a castle or fortress who are most definitely smaller than a (fortress) city - especially if we talk in Essosi dimensions which put Westeros to shame.

It truly is an amazing feat to take a dual noun and say one half doesn't matter. A city state is both a city and a state just as a fortress city is both a fortress and a city.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

second hand vs first hand. words vs action. We literally see someone challenge an undefeated khal because of a decision he made.

Not sure what you mean by that. Khal Temmo and his sons died at Qohor.

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It truly is an amazing feat to take a dual noun and say one half doesn't matter. A city state is both a city and a state just as a fortress city is both a fortress and a city.

Of course it matters. But it just as well matters that a fortress city is a city, and no mere fortress. The name also doesn't tell us whether it was built as a fortress or had truly fortress-like characteristic, or whether it was merely called the 'fortress city' because it was used as a fortress or was seen as one such.

And the implication I care about is that a city is vast in dimension, meaning that whoever can besiege and starve out a city can also besiege and starve out smaller places like smaller cities, towns, villages, castles, fortresses, and the like.

All one needs to do to prove that the Dothraki can besiege and starve out cities is to point to one where this was done. And that I have done.

I mean, think about it - if the Dothraki have the patience and the power to besiege a single vast city for six years, they can stave out anyone (aside from, perhaps, places with access to the sea if they lack their own fleet).