Jump to content

Dothraki vs Westeros


Aldarion

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Jorah is hardly extraordinary fighter, whereas Quotho was a bloodrider. Also, looking at their duel, Jorah had a) not worn his helm and b) had donned what must have been really shitty-quality mail, seeing how Quotho managed to cut through it. This is guy trying to cut through mail. Even with nothing underneath, only results would be slight cuts and bruises. Yet Quotho managed to cut Jorah to the bone, through mail.

But more importantly, there is difference in military organization and culture. Dothraki culture is based around glory; unlike Mongols, they do not have combined arms approach (no heavy cavalry, no artillery, no infantry, no military engineering) and do not use tactics (that famed "feigned retreat" against Sarnori looks more like a rout which worked out than a deliberate feint). While Westerosi also have similar mindset (in some areas such as Reach), they a) still have highly varied military capable of combined-arms operations, b) have significant technological advantage and c) are capable of complex tactics (unless commanded by the likes of Mace Tyrell). Daenerys will have all elements of a combined-arms army, but fact remains that hers will be a highly heterogenous force, comprised of elements which likely will never have worked together before coming under her - Unsullied, Dothraki, freedmen, sellswords. Westerosi meanwhile have the experience of regularly fielding armies numbering multiple tens of thousands of troops and comprised of multiple combat arms. Realistically, Daenerys should not be able to win even against a significantly weaker enemy army, let alone one that matches hers numerically. Dothraki would fare even worse, as they have shown no ability to besiege cities beyond "sticking around in general area until city starves" and would not be capable of countering Westerosi pikemen + longbowmen mix.

Eh, "every peasant" getting a sicle or a fork would easily mean 4 000 000 troops and potentially more - Roman Republic managed to mobilize up to 10% of population going all-out, feudal societies could do the same if they wanted to (but rarely did).

Also, population of Westeros can go anywhere between 12 000 000 and 98 000 000, but personally I would put it towards higher end of the range - so cca 50 to 100 million.

Read everything there, and you may find it more realistic than 50 to 100 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pre- industrial society can’t mobilise more than 1.5% of the population, for any length of time.

On top of that, there’s a limit to army sizes, imposed by the ability to feed thousands of men and horses.

Few individual armies would exceed 30,000, and most would be 5-15,000.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert seems to think it's foolish to face the Dothraki in battle.  The lords of Westeros would hide behind their castle walls and pray to their gods that the Dothraki get bored and call off the siege.  Khal Drogo's khalasar on its own could not take Westeros.  But put several of the larger khalasars together and they can do it.  The whole kingdom does not have to fall all at once.  Each of the kingdoms will fall eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think a dothraki invasion of Westeros would go very well, the logistics just are not there for them to do it their own, though if 200k dothraki actually united into one force and did manage to get to Westeros it might be different. Conversely, I don't really think a Westerosi invasion of the Dothraki Sea would go all that well either, and for similar reasons( logistics and factional infighting).

Used as part of a combined force under Danys command is a totally different story though. Just their numbers alone could provide a large advantage. Especially if(when) she actually starts using her dragons in combat. Just the Unsullied are 4 times the number of soldiers Aegon the Conquerer had when he landed and built the aegonfort.

Edit: So I kinda realized you were going for a for realistic discussion so I'll expand on some of my first paragraph and ignore the dragons as a force multiplier part for now.....

Unless dothraki bows are vastly superior than we believe,(like we know from Drogo has a drgonbone bow,, but we have no indication of how effective they are or how common)they don't have much of a shot in a pitched battle no matter where its fought.

Someone earlier in the threadmentioned that they don't use arrowheads? I don't remember that, I don't think they make metal ones but they surely trade(they have to get something for all those slaves) for them, the arahks too for that matter, think about it, they are nomads, they don't work metal to our knowledge, where do all those arahks come from?

Regarding the composition of Westerosi forces, I agree that in the main novels they do on average seem better equipped and more competent than we give them credit for, however, remember the restrictions on the novels, we see specific soldiers through a specific characters point of view(of greatly varying degrees of tactical experience), so just because Tryrion doesn't come across or mention a group of unwashed peasants wielding pitchforks, doesn't mean there are not any there for example.

The only real advantages the dothraki could have are numbers and mobility, both of those kinda get negated in Westeros vs The Dothraki Sea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Robert seems to think it's foolish to face the Dothraki in battle. 

Show Robert certainly does, but tbf the Dothraki in the show are savages.

 

4 hours ago, Allardyce said:

The lords of Westeros would hide behind their castle walls and pray to their gods that the Dothraki get bored and call off the siege.

I don't really think that the show it's the book.

 

 

4 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Each of the kingdoms will fall eventually. 

How so?? They are having a good time trying to take the the Westerlands, the Vale and the North.

And the kingdoms can just band together and smash them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

A pre- industrial society can’t mobilise more than 1.5% of the population, for any length of time.

On top of that, there’s a limit to army sizes, imposed by the ability to feed thousands of men and horses.

Few individual armies would exceed 30,000, and most would be 5-15,000.

 

 

Depends. What do you mean on "mobilization"? Percentage you wrote is true if you are going for full-time professional soldiers. But Byzantine Empire which relied on part-time professionals had between 1,5% and 2,5% of people under arms, and if you went with conscripts (as Roman Republic did), then 7,5% to 10% of populace could be mobilized. And this could be supported for rather significant periods of time, though not permanently.

Individual armies, yes - they were usually (especially in Middle Ages) in 5 000 - 10 000 range, with larger armies being 20 000 - 30 000. But even then, you had outliers going up to 50 000 - 100 000 range (that was mostly Roman Empire thing, but even in Middle Ages you occasionally got armies of such a size). I wrote on Hungarian army here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Depends. What do you mean on "mobilization"? Percentage you wrote is true if you are going for full-time professional soldiers. But Byzantine Empire which relied on part-time professionals had between 1,5% and 2,5% of people under arms, and if you went with conscripts (as Roman Republic did), then 7,5% to 10% of populace could be mobilized. And this could be supported for rather significant periods of time, though not permanently.

Individual armies, yes - they were usually (especially in Middle Ages) in 5 000 - 10 000 range, with larger armies being 20 000 - 30 000. But even then, you had outliers going up to 50 000 - 100 000 range (that was mostly Roman Empire thing, but even in Middle Ages you occasionally got armies of such a size). I wrote on Hungarian army here.

Even in the Roman Republic/ Empire, attempts to deploy huge armies could end in disaster, as generals lost control of the army (eg Arausio, Cannae, Julian's Persian campaign).

Typically, a consular army would be 20,000 (two Roman legions, 2 Allied legions).  In the Empire, generals would usually be leading 10-20,000 against enemies, (eg Julian had 13,000 when he defeated the Alemanni).

Martin does go for inflated sizes, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light to no armored short distance melee cavalry and archers. They don't last a campaign season. At worst they beat a bunch of unorganized armies and cause terror, sacking and incurring losses of their own in the Riverlands, Crownlands, and/or Reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Robert seems to think it's foolish to face the Dothraki in battle.  The lords of Westeros would hide behind their castle walls and pray to their gods that the Dothraki get bored and call off the siege.  Khal Drogo's khalasar on its own could not take Westeros.  But put several of the larger khalasars together and they can do it.  The whole kingdom does not have to fall all at once.  Each of the kingdoms will fall eventually. 

They'd starve to death and cease to function as a unified army within a year, if not much sooner. Not to mention they'd basically be unable to get into Dorne, the North, or the Vale, and they'd have a helluva time in the Westerlands and the Stormlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...