Northern soldiers' competence/fighting ability

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now you do mention the Sicilian Expedition two times, and yes that particular piece of genius was less the Athenians shooting themselves in the foot and more the Athenians shooting themselves in the liver, however afterwards the Spartans did properly capitalize on it. What's more once they could contest the Athenian Navy, they did so mostly cleverly, using their advantages to slowly chip away at the Athenian Empire, eventually crushing it for good at Aegospotami. It wasn't rocket science but it was a good strategy. Before that, the Northern expedition too was a rare moment of Spartan tactical and strategical (albeit slightly unintentional) good thinking as it removed over a third of the Athenian incomes.

All of that was thanks to one guy, Lysander - and even then, it would be impossible without Persian gold. But look at basically all conflicts where Lysander was not in command. For much of the Peloponesian wars, Spartan strategy consisted of basically raiding Attica and hoping it would knock the Athens out of the war. As I pointed out, it took them years to realize that to defeat Athens, they would have to defeat its army, not its olive trees. These raids were in Attica, 230 km from Sparta and 90 km from Corinth (a major Spartan ally). Every time, they leave because they had ran out of supplies. Meanwhile, Romans were able to mount operations in Spain, Sicily, Illyricum and Macedon while fighting Carthage on their own home turf - all at the same time. Medieval armies? John Hunyadi led an army, far larger and more powerful than any force any Greek polis put to the field, from Belgrade all the way to Adrianople. Yes, it ended in disaster - but not due to logistics.

So Spartan logistics were crap. Now let's look at the strategy.

I have already mentioned that Spartan attempts to maintain any form of alliance or Greek order were a failure whenever they could not force an issue with military force. Spartan diplomacy was, as I said, bad even by Greek standards (unless it was run by Lysander - guy was a genius). During Persian wars, Spartan planning was basically "find a choke point, fortify it, and wait for Persians to smash themselves against it". It failed at Thermopylae, and after it failed there Spartans wanted to recreate the same unsuccessful plan at the far less defensible Corinthian Isthmus.

During the Peloponnesian war, both Sparta and Athens made fundamental strategic mistakes. Sparta misunderstood Athenian strategic capacity and the economic and political foundations of its power, while Athens misunderstood Spartan motivations and will to wage war. Now, such misunderstandings are nothing unusual; what is unusual here is that they happened between two powers which shared a common culture, were in geographical proximity and spent decades fighting a war. Byzantines and Crusaders did similarly misunderstand each other, but they had a cultural, theological, strategic and linguistic gap which simply did not exist between Sparta and Athens. Basically, neither Sparta nor Athens were successful at finding, let alone attacking, opponent's center of gravity - despite the fact that said centres were basically out in the open. By contrast, Arabs immediately understood the importance of Constantinople to the Byzantine Empire.

No, it was not good strategy. Sparta got lucky in that they had Lysander, but Lysander's strategy was fundamentally opposed to normal Spartan strategy. And after Lysander died, Sparta went straight back to being strategically inept during the Corinthian war. During the war against Thebes, Agesilaus II gave what was basically this speech... and then Sparta promptly lost the war due to lack of allies.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

46 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

So Spartan logistics were crap. Now let's look at the strategy.

Damn, who pissed on your cheetos?

46 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

During the Peloponnesian war, both Sparta and Athens made fundamental strategic mistakes. Sparta misunderstood Athenian strategic capacity and the economic and political foundations of its power, while Athens misunderstood Spartan motivations and will to wage war. Now, such misunderstandings are nothing unusual; what is unusual here is that they happened between two powers which shared a common culture, were in geographical proximity and spent decades fighting a war. Byzantines and Crusaders did similarly misunderstand each other, but they had a cultural, theological, strategic and linguistic gap which simply did not exist between Sparta and Athens. Basically, neither Sparta nor Athens were successful at finding, let alone attacking, opponent's center of gravity - despite the fact that said centres were basically out in the open.

Now, while I agree the cultural differences weren't there, there was one very important factor that I think explain the countless strategic blunders on both sides. Neither had any experience.

Let me elaborate. The Greek City states, were fundamentally fortified cities surrounded by farmlands. As such, war was usually a quick race for a decisive battle. After all, if one side refused to fight, the other could torch it's farmland, leaving it to starve. Similarly, once one side lost said battle, it's farmlands would be up for the taking. Therefore Greek war were quick affairs centered on one setpiece battle. This was the meta of the Greek warfare.

Now, concerning this, there were two cities that broke the meta, Sparta and Athens.

- Sparta did it, by fully militarizing itself, and making vassals and tributaries supply the food and resources. This not only made them less vulnerable strategically as they could always lean on others for resources, but it also meant that their soldiers were better and more experienced, capable of crushing most other armies in the field.

- Athens by contrast, broke the meta by becoming a naval super power, also leaning on other cities for resources, however unlike Sparta, their military might was pored into the navy, with them not having to actually engage the enemy, only doing it when convenient, and often using economic and political means to defeat their enemies.

So, not only was the Peloponnesian War something new for them, in that they were no longer fighting simple city states, but the two methods in which the states broke the meta were canceling each other out, with the Spartans unable to force a decisive engagement to leverage their superior military might, and the Athenians unable to wait the Spartans out or deprive them of the economic power.

In this light, many of the mistakes done by the two sides, like the Spartan eternal but useless raiding of Attica, start to make sense, when considering that that had been how they had waged war for centuries. So while the mistakes aren't any less egregious, they are understandable given the history.

 

Edit: lol, just as I posted this I got a notification for a video about a battle in the Peloponnesian War.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Damn, who pissed on your cheetos?

 

It annoys me that Spartans get all the glory for nothing, while many people don't even know about Byzantine Empire, Hungary, Wallachia, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Szekelys, Cumans, Hussites... and dozens of other states, peoples and groups who deserve a reputation for military badassery a lot more than Spartans do.

Spartans were professionals who barely broke even with amateur militia. Hussites were peasants who beat up trained knights. Yet Spartans are glorified, and more than one person on this very forum has suggested that Unsullied will win against Westerosi knights because they are based on a hoplite phalanx... when that should be exactly the reasion they will lose.

This Spartan-glorifying brainwashing has to stop.

As for your comment on the Pelopponesian war, I agree with it. Though I would add that in case of Sparta and Athens both, their extreme political systems may also have played the part. Athens was a victim to a baying mob pressure, whereas Sparta was an extreme oligarchy where Spartiates ruled over a very slave-intensive society. In fact, helots - who basically were slaves - outnumbered the free class to such a high point that one could say Sparta was the only real historical state that in any way resembled Slaver's Bay states:

https://acoupdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/social-classes-in-sparta1.png

[saltedmalted]

16 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I'm talking about the Roman army post Marian reforms, not before. Veeery different.

Marian reforms dropped the property requirement which formed the basis of recruitment, beyond that we do not know much. Contemporary sources do not give detailed breakdown of precisely what Marius did beyond the obvious

The change to a professional amy wasn't abruptly done by him, and the difference between Roman armies before and after is unknown.

16 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It means that the romans could march 20 miles in a day with ease or fight for 12 hours straight without tiring too much.

Vegetius mentions this but he is extremely unreliable when it comes to practical matters.

The sustained rates of march were much lower (10 rather than 20 miles a day) as tends to be the case. Forced marches are a different case.

16 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Hannibal lost because he sat with his thumb up his ass in Southern Italy after Cannae

A wrong interpretation but that is another derail.

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yes to an extent, but that was merely a side effect of their diplomatic and political skill.

Perhaps, but diplomacy did not make the crucial difference during the Punic Wars when Rome looked to be on the border of defeat. 

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

But while it is true, it is also true that reality was lot more complex than "Rome loses an army, Rome raises another army".

Reality is more complicated but we can isolate and study the salient issues.

 

[CamiloRP]

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Damn, who pissed on your cheetos?

Don't know, but I think they were trying to make them taste better.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Unsullied will win against Westerosi knights because they are based on a hoplite phalanx... when that should be exactly the reasion they will lose.

Well, I'd say they're based on a phalanx alright, just it's the meat shredder that was the macedonian phalanx.

In general Dany's forces give a very Alexanderesque vibe, from the cav to the phalanx.

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Though I would add that in case of Sparta and Athens both, their extreme political systems may also have played the part

Nicias especially seemed to make it his life's ambition to sabotage the athenians, be it by refusing to support Demosthenes and Alcibiades, or by transforming the Sicilian Expedition from a small recon mission into the resource hole that we know and love.

[Aldarion]

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well, I'd say they're based on a phalanx alright, just it's the meat shredder that was the macedonian phalanx.

 

Unsullied a) do not use pikes, b) do not have plate armour, c) tend to use passive tactics from what we know and d) will not be familiar with terrain of Westeros. Look at Manzikert: all it took was for Byzantines to botch a single maneuver, and then what was not even all that heavy cavalry penetrated into their formation and things fell apart.

And seeing how Byzantines - who had experience dealing with Persian, Arab and Turkish cataphracts, for centuries - could not easily defeat 11th century Norman knights, why do you think the Unsullied, who have inferior equipment, inferior tactics, inferior force structure and likely inferior (though more intense) training, will be able to defeat what is 14th-15th century cavalry? 15th century heavy cavalry was capable of penetrating into and defeating pike squares if properly deployed with missile and/or artillery support. Yes, Westerosi heavy cavalry is in many ways significantly inferior to actual 15th century heavy cavalry (Martin doesn't really have a clue about history), but the gap is still too large.

I mean, look at how a Ghiscari legion, which is explicitly identical to Unsullied except for discipline, fight (from TWOW spoilers):

"Barristan has reached the Harridan, but a Ghiscari legion six thousand strong has lined up to protect the huge trebuchet. They are six ranks deep -- the first rank kneels and holds their spears pointing out and up, the second rank stands and holds their spears out at waist height, and and the third rank holds the spears out on their shoulders. The rest have small throwing spears and are ready to step forward when their comrades fall."

Three ranks of spearmen. Three. And these are spearmen, not pikemen, and even pikemen never deployed in such a shallow formation. As a matter of fact, 15th century pike formations tended to be fifteen deep.

Compared to the Macedonian phalanx, Unsullied will be using formation that has one-sixth spear depth and likely one-third overall depth, with spears that are likely one-third to maybe one-half the length of Macedonian pikes. In other words, inferior formation with inferior weapons and inferior tactics. Unsullied are basically Spartans, except they are eunuchs which means they are physically weak and vulnerable to disease.

Westerosi heavy cavalry will defeat them. Westerosi pikemen will defeat them. Westerosi archers will defeat them. And god forbid if enemy commander has all three of those, or even worse, knows how to use them in a combined-arms employment.

 

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well, I'd say they're based on a phalanx alright, just it's the meat shredder that was the macedonian phalanx.

 

Except she is using discount versions made in slave-run sweatshops. An umbrella may resemble a sword, but that does not mean it will be as effective as one.

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Nicias especially seemed to make it his life's ambition to sabotage the athenians, be it by refusing to support Demosthenes and Alcibiades, or by transforming the Sicilian Expedition from a small recon mission into the resource hole that we know and love.

Yeah. Talk about autodestruct mode...

10 hours ago, saltedmalted said:

Perhaps, but diplomacy did not make the crucial difference during the Punic Wars when Rome looked to be on the border of defeat. 

Actually, diplomacy was precisely what made crucial difference. Hannibal knew that he could not defeat Rome by simply killing their armies. His entire strategy was based on the idea that, if he deals Romans several massive defeats, Roman allies will back the winning side, Rome will be denuded of its economic and manpower base, and it will fall. But this did not happen: Roman allies were not interested in abandoning the Rome (with the exception of few Greek cities which were quickly subdued), and so Hannibal spend most of his stay in Italy essentially confined and isolated in the southern Italy. He may not have been defeated in the field, but he was no longer a threat. And then Romans invaded Africa, and Zama happened.

Just look at the battles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Second_Punic_War

Hannibal defeated whoever opposed him... but Romans did not need to oppose him to defeat him. Because their allies stayed loyal, they could simply wait out Hannibal, destroy other Carthagenian armies not commanded by the supergenius, and then force a battle on their terms. Which is exactly what happened.

10 hours ago, saltedmalted said:

Reality is more complicated but we can isolate and study the salient issues.

 

And then completely misunderstand and misrepresent them precisely because you isolated them.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

14 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Compared to the Macedonian phalanx, Unsullied will be using formation that has one-sixth spear depth and likely one-third overall depth, with spears that are likely one-third to maybe one-half the length of Macedonian pikes. In other words, inferior formation with inferior weapons and inferior tactics. Unsullied are basically Spartans, except they are eunuchs which means they are physically weak and vulnerable to disease.

Hey, I'm not saying it's a good comparison GRRM makes, and in general GRRM isn't very good with the details, but I still think it is a comparison he makes, albeit a poor one, kinda like the Dothraki are supposed to be the Mongols but they come out more like discount Huns.

16 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Compared to the Macedonian phalanx, Unsullied will be using formation that has one-sixth spear depth and likely one-third overall depth, with spears that are likely one-third to maybe one-half the length of Macedonian pikes. In other words, inferior formation with inferior weapons and inferior tactics. Unsullied are basically Spartans, except they are eunuchs which means they are physically weak and vulnerable to disease.

Tell that to GRRM, he's the one that hypes the Unsullied like something else.

17 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Westerosi heavy cavalry will defeat them. Westerosi pikemen will defeat them. Westerosi archers will defeat them. And god forbid if enemy commander has all three of those, or even worse, knows how to use them in a combined-arms employment.

I think you just hit the nail on the head for something quite important. That is Aegon vs Dany.

I think initially Dany will hesitate to use dragons (probably because Aegon has bonded with one) and will trust her Dothraki and Unsullied do win the fight, and that they will get shredded. Aegon's cavalry should be able to cut through the Dothraki like butter, and the Unsullied, like you mentioned will probably fall to the GC's use of combined arms deployment.

Which will probably leave Dany with a Sophie's Choice of losing the war then and there or fighting one of her children.

[saltedmalted]

51 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

And then completely misunderstand and misrepresent them precisely because you isolated them.

It is no misunderstanding. Roman "diplomacy" worked only because they had armies remaining in the field.

A significant part of Carthage's strength got obliterated outside of Italy, so Hannibal couldn't keep the pressure up.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, saltedmalted said:

It is no misunderstanding. Roman "diplomacy" worked only because they had armies remaining in the field.

A significant part of Carthage's strength got obliterated outside of Italy, so Hannibal couldn't keep the pressure up.

And armies could only remain in the field because Roman diplomacy worked. Situation for Rome was bad enough that had her allies rebelled en masse, like they did in the Social War, there would have been nothing to be done - it would be the end of the Republic.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Hey, I'm not saying it's a good comparison GRRM makes, and in general GRRM isn't very good with the details, but I still think it is a comparison he makes, albeit a poor one, kinda like the Dothraki are supposed to be the Mongols but they come out more like discount Huns.

 

It is a possibility. But I still think that Unsullied are supposed to be Spartans, with some Janissaries thrown in. "Training from hell" creating supposedly badass soldiers, short spear, short sword plus shield, lack of organic combined arms... all of that is part of the Spartan mythology. You even have the equivalent to the last stand of the 300. When taken all together, I can only conclude that the Unsullied are plagiarized Spartans.

By comparison, Macedonian phalanx is nothing like the Unsullied - or Spartans. It never got a famous "last stand" like the 300 / 3000. It is an organic combined arms operation, unlike Spartans and Unsullied who are shield-and-spear heavy infantry with maybe some auxilliary troops tacked on. It never had stupidly lethal training procedure. And so on.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It is no misunderstanding. Roman "diplomacy" worked only because they had armies remaining in the field.

A significant part of Carthage's strength got obliterated outside of Italy, so Hannibal couldn't keep the pressure up.

I know. I am however still hoping that it is a setup for them being wiped out in Westeros. Especially since it is Jorah Mormont who hyped them, and him and reality... aren't exactly on talking terms.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I think you just hit the nail on the head for something quite important. That is Aegon vs Dany.

I think initially Dany will hesitate to use dragons (probably because Aegon has bonded with one) and will trust her Dothraki and Unsullied do win the fight, and that they will get shredded. Aegon's cavalry should be able to cut through the Dothraki like butter, and the Unsullied, like you mentioned will probably fall to the GC's use of combined arms deployment.

Which will probably leave Dany with a Sophie's Choice of losing the war then and there or fighting one of her children.

Agreed. She will have to face a choice between using the dragons in a way she originally rejected and losing the throne, or gaining the throne and losing herself. That is a really GRRM conundrum.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

4 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

"Training from hell" creating supposedly badass soldiers, short spear, short sword plus shield, lack of organic combined arms... all of that is part of the Spartan mythology. You even have the equivalent to the last stand of the 300. When taken all together, I can only conclude that the Unsullied are plagiarized Spartans.

Fair enough, though tbf, Grey Worm seems to be unusually competent for a Spartan, and even pretty openminded.

6 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

"Training from hell" creating supposedly badass soldiers, short spear, short sword plus shield, lack of organic combined arms... all of that is part of the Spartan mythology. You even have the equivalent to the last stand of the 300. When taken all together, I can only conclude that the Unsullied are plagiarized Spartans.

I mean yes, he is a person who we shouldn't believe about anything, but he is not the only one hyping the Unsullied like this. I really hope GRRM has Jon Conn and the Golden Company wipe the floor with them, and tbf there is some foreshadowing there with that time the GC sacked Qohor, but I'm still afraid GRRM is going to make them be the Macedonian phalanx on (much needed) steroids.

8 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed. She will have to face a choice between using the dragons in a way she originally rejected and losing the throne, or gaining the throne and losing herself. That is a really GRRM conundrum.

Yes, I think it will be the ultimate confrontation between her desire for home and the Iron Throne vs her identity as mother of dragons and Mysha.

If she choses not to use her dragons, she'd lose everything.

If she choses to use her dragons, she'd be forced to kill one of her children and will likely accidentally light the wildfire, destroying her whole Mysha thing, and result in her being seen as a monster, usurper and kinslayer by Westeros.