Jump to content

How do y'all think the Unsullied and Dothraki will perform in Westeros?


Jaenara Belarys

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Not even close. We don't even know military capabilities of free cities, nor do we know military capabilities of dragon-less Valyrian colonies. What we do know are military capabilities of Sarnori - whom I am discussing here - and of the cities of Slaver's Bay, and both of these are basically nonexistent compared to Westeros.

OK, we know that Volantis uses Tiger cloaks, who are slave soldiers. That alone is rather damning of Free Cities' potential military capabilities, considering what we know of Essosi treatment of slave soldiers. These are no Janissaries, although how good Tiger cloaks is as of yet unknown. Braavos has a major navy, but no indication of how powerful its ground troops are. Qohor uses Unsullied, who are a joke compared to Westerosi pikemen. Pentos has no army, just a city watch. Myr, Lys and Tyrosh use mercenaries - which are likely Westerosi - though they seem to have some native military capability as well.

We do however know that the Golden Company as well as other truly successful mercenary companies in Essos are organized along the Westerosi lines. That should tell you something about relative military capabilities of Westeros vs Essos.

You do understand what castles are for? Dothraki are utterly incapable of proper siege warfare. Why would any Westerosi lord bother facing them in the open battle?

Look at how Hungary - a far from unified kingdom at the time - behaved when faced with actual Mongols:

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/18/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-1-overview-of-the-invasion/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/09/mongol-siege-of-klis-fortress/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

Notice something in the last article? Reforms implemented by Bela IV following the first Mongol invasion - building of stone castles, creation of nobility, new military organization with focus on heavy cavalry provided by landed nobility, recruitment of crossbowmen - are exactly how Westerosi military is organized to begin with. In other words, Westeros is already nearly perfectly set up to defeat Mongol invasion. Why do you think discount Mongols would somehow present a major threat?

And when Dothraki are neutralized, it will come down to Unsullied + Essosi mercenaries against Westerosi forces and... well, unless Daenerys gains major support of Westerosi noble houses and their armies, that is simply not something Essosi forces can win.

Of course, Martin could always turn Daenerys into Mary Sue that will win every battle regardless of logic, with her hordes of freed slaves barehandedly ripping apart Westerosi knights, but somehow I don't think that is what he is going for. She will face major setbacks in Westeros, that will make her question everything she believed in.

You don't lose a khal amid the collapsing troops when you are executing a pre-planned ambush.

No, it was not an ambush. It was a collapse, a defeat which turned into the opportunity which was then exploited - but fact remains that Dothraki were losing the battle early on. Either that, or Dothraki were in fact utterly incapable of properly executing a false retreat - something European feudal armies did on occasion, while Byzantines, Turks and Mongols did it regularly.

One way or another, it does not suggest high degree of military capability and coordination on the part of the Dothraki. They proved somewhat better than Sarnori, but, well... damned with faint praise and all that.

That is not how sieges work, and it is not how foraging works either. Army within a castle will have had the luxury of being prepared for the siege, which means that they already will have stripped the countryside clean of anything useful. This means that yes, besieging army can forage - but it may have nothing to forage in the first place. Countryside is stripped clean, it has nothing useful left, no food, nothing. Where is besieging army going to get food from?

Sure, it can try to bring food from further afield... but that means using either ships - which can be intercepted - or, if there is no river handy, it means using oxen carts - and oxen will be eating the very food they are transporting. These are no diesel trucks. Which means that even if there is food within the forage range, there is no guarantee there will be enough of it to maintain the army for long enough time for the defenders to starve.

Most of the time, sieges failed because besieging army starved. Yes, you read that correctly.

Mongols had more than one failed siege. In fact, literally every time they faced a Western-design stone castle - be it in Croatia in 1241/2., in Levant, or in Poland and Hungary in 1285. - they failed. In Korea and China too, attempts to besiege castles generally failed - but these countries were close enough to Mongol heartlands that Mongols could try again, and again, and again. More importantly, in China Mongols managed to recruit masses of native Jin infantry - and it was Chinese infantry which conquered Chinese castles and cities for Mongols, not Mongols themselves. Jin infantry was also utilized in Korea. Needless to say, this infantry was not available in Mongol western campaigns, and as a result, Mongol attempts to conquer European stone castles were doomed to failure.

Drogo may have dreamed of whatever he wanted. Doesn't mean he was capable of actually doing it. Mongols also dreamed of conquering Hungary, and their first attempt failed, while second attempt was such an embarrassing failure that most people don't even remember it any more.

1)we know their building capabilities tyrion clears up that  their walled towns and cities are way beyond most westerosi ones and slavers bays are described as vast too.

Military wise they have  professional forces not feudal levies so are a little further along than westeros. The bravosi naval potential to rule the world is untapped and we know the triarchy contested with westeros for control of the stepstones which was resolved with dragons. As for unsullied vs pikemen that would be a one sided slaughter if the pikemen are unsupported...pikes/long spear phalanx  alone vs normal spears/short swords has never ended well for the pikemen up close and flanked

 

As for losing a khal yes officers and leaders die in battles all the time esp.if.leading from the front, the other khals where waiting at both sides and to.circle.around the sanori after they persued into the centre

 

2) the entire point of a castle is to have a strong.point to waste your enemies strength agaisnt and sally out to win or harass from....its not to be hunkered down in for  unless you are very outmatched in open warfare or are expecting reinforcements.

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/69edsm/why_were_the_mongols_so_bad_at_taking_stone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Well  we have already covered they must be capable of siege warfare otherwise they couldnt have taken so many massive walled cities! we know the hun were excellent at siege warfare as where the mongols,.not that it matters as for both mongols,huns  and europeans most forts where taken by siege not storming/smashed down walls

 

while if well.organised  stripping the area outside can hurt attackers  generaly its still  easier to live off the land outside than on rations inside  esp.given cramped.conditions+ bad  made disease a real threat in medieval.times ,spoilage, vermin,betrayal , riots  etc...bear in mind most sieges were ended with surrender due to starvation INSIDE or negotiation. The dothraki dont have to sit their whole.horde outside just enough to maintain the siege while some.of the rest forgage far away or even move  most of the rest  onto the next target!

The link  i posted sorta covers annexcellent discussion on  mongol failures  esp theres an excellent article halfway down i couldnt link here

.1st attempt in europe was before 1268 when they got the counterweight trebuchet which pretty.much the  everyones main way to take down proper stone walls....2nd attempt was by an  unadvanced  region offshoot.of the mongol into a well prepared country and with fortifications dug into the frigging carpathian mountains...literaly a hard rock for any force to.crack!  Outside of mongols   we know the hun were excellent at sieges  and in this universe the dothraki have taken walled cities from people whos towns look like westeros cities!

 

Drogo had planned it and as we see hungary was a mixture of factors including lucky timing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Dothraki aren't all that. Any good leader would face them in some boggy ground or a narrow strip of land with a river or mountain ridge blocking one side and simply force them into a death trap of archers and pikes. And all the way to the battleground they'd be forced to move in columns on roads instead of riding like a horde and doing so be exposed to countless small ambushes and sorties with the attackers quickly retreating to fortified stone castles or thick woodland. Meanwhile, their horses will die and their provisions will dwindle rapidly as they have no sophisticated baggage train that follows.

An effective leader could use a Westerosi army a third their size and through the course of 2-3 months wipe them out completely.

 

The Unsullied are effective infantry but they are physically smaller. a combined army of cavalry and infantry could take a good chunk of them and afterwards in reduced numbers they won't achieve much at all. twenty thousand unsullied is a threat, two thousands are a sitting duck 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

1)we know their building capabilities tyrion clears up that  their walled towns and cities are way beyond most westerosi ones and slavers bays are described as vast too.

Military wise they have  professional forces not feudal levies so are a little further along than westeros. The bravosi naval potential to rule the world is untapped and we know the triarchy contested with westeros for control of the stepstones which was resolved with dragons. As for unsullied vs pikemen that would be a one sided slaughter if the pikemen are unsupported...pikes/long spear phalanx  alone vs normal spears/short swords has never ended well for the pikemen up close and flanked

 

As for losing a khal yes officers and leaders die in battles all the time esp.if.leading from the front, the other khals where waiting at both sides and to.circle.around the sanori after they persued into the centre

That is indicative of administrative capacity, not necessarily military capacity. Ancient Greeks built buildings that could rival anything from 15th century Europe, yet any significant kingdom from 15th century Europe would easily conquer entirety of ancient Greece and Asia Minor.

Professional forces are not necessarily superior to feudal levies in actual combat. What they are superior in is the fact that you can use them well beyond the borders of your kingdom. But when it comes to combat, equipment and tactics matter far more than whether force is "Professional" or not. Swiss pike militia wiped out professional army of Charles the Bold because Charles himself was an idiot.

Medieval pikemen are a far cry from Macedonian phalangites that you seem to be thinking of. And Macedonians were winning against Romans until they got drawn to unfavorable terrain. Hannibal used phalanx to wipe out several Roman field armies. And again, medieval / Westerosi pikemen are far superior to these examples - and will have support of longbowmen and light and heavy cavalry. Unsullied on the other hand are closest to Sumerian phalanx, if anything.

Yes, Unsullied vs pikemen alone will be one sided slaughter. Unsullied will get wiped out.

Point I was making was that Dothraki were losing the battle until Sarnori charged in like idiots.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

2) the entire point of a castle is to have a strong.point to waste your enemies strength agaisnt and sally out to win or harass from....its not to be hunkered down in for  unless you are very outmatched in open warfare or are expecting reinforcements.

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/69edsm/why_were_the_mongols_so_bad_at_taking_stone/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Well  we have already covered they must be capable of siege warfare otherwise they couldnt have taken so many massive walled cities! we know the hun were excellent at siege warfare as where the mongols,.not that it matters as for both mongols,huns  and europeans most forts where taken by siege not storming/smashed down walls

Yeah, no. Even if troops remain in the castle, threat alone makes castle a valuable asset.

Mongols were not excellent at siege warfare. As a matter of fact, they sucked ass at siege warfare - just look at how many Mongol khans were killed in the sieges. What Mongols did was coopt services of other people who were actually good at siege warfare. But when those were not available, they failed utterly at besieging anything made of stone.

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/18/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-1-overview-of-the-invasion/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/09/mongol-siege-of-klis-fortress/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/232/ucalgary_2012_pow_lindsey.pdf?sequence=2

Huns learned siege warfare from the Romans. In fact, their siege warfare was performed by Roman defectors - much like Mongols conquered China thanks to Chinese siege engineers. Dothraki, with their belief that non-nomadic people are worthless, are rather unlikely to do anything like coopting settled people to employ their siege knowledge. They only won against Sarnori because latter faced them in open battle with no preparation.

So if Daenerys brings siege experts with her, or else finds some in Westeros, she can besiege cities and castles. But Dothraki will be useless in that.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

while if well.organised  stripping the area outside can hurt attackers  generaly its still  easier to live off the land outside than on rations inside  esp.given cramped.conditions+ bad  made disease a real threat in medieval.times ,spoilage, vermin,betrayal , riots  etc...bear in mind most sieges were ended with surrender due to starvation INSIDE or negotiation. The dothraki dont have to sit their whole.horde outside just enough to maintain the siege while some.of the rest forgage far away or even move  most of the rest  onto the next target!

The link  i posted sorta covers annexcellent discussion on  mongol failures  esp theres an excellent article halfway down i couldnt link here

.1st attempt in europe was before 1268 when they got the counterweight trebuchet which pretty.much the  everyones main way to take down proper stone walls....2nd attempt was by an  unadvanced  region offshoot.of the mongol into a well prepared country and with fortifications dug into the frigging carpathian mountains...literaly a hard rock for any force to.crack!  Outside of mongols   we know the hun were excellent at sieges  and in this universe the dothraki have taken walled cities from people whos towns look like westeros cities!

 

Drogo had planned it and as we see hungary was a mixture of factors including lucky timing.

No, Hungary had nothing like lucky timing. That was an excuse given by Mongols to cover up their failure.

And no, it is not "easier to live off the land outside than on rations inside". That makes no sense. People in castle or city will have taken everything from the surrounding land in preparation for the siege - they have food right there, in the city. Besiegers will have only food they bring with themselves (which cannot be much) or that they scavenge from the countryside. And latter means expending time, energy and food itself to find and gain more food - and further they have to go to find food, more food goes to finding and bringing food in. Past certain point, they cannot even break even and the entire army dies of disease and starvation. The end.

Even diseases are more frequent in camps than they are in cities. Sure, disease can break out among the besieged - but it will just as easily break out among the besiegers. In fact, nomadic peoples such as Mongols were especially vulnerable to this problem because they simply didn't know how to maintain hygiene while remaining in one place for a prolonged period of time. And even for settled peoples, doing so in a camp was extremely difficult. Dothraki will die of disease.

In 1241. invasion, Hungary had TEN stone castles. Ten. In the entire kingdom. And in the 1285., Hungary had 66 stone castles. Mongols ended up being devastated by shortage of food thanks to Hungarian castle warfare strategy, failed to capture any fortified places, and ended up being defeated in a field battle in western Transylvania. Why would Dothraki fare any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

That is indicative of administrative capacity, not necessarily military capacity. Ancient Greeks built buildings that could rival anything from 15th century Europe, yet any significant kingdom from 15th century Europe would easily conquer entirety of ancient Greece and Asia Minor.

Professional forces are not necessarily superior to feudal levies in actual combat. What they are superior in is the fact that you can use them well beyond the borders of your kingdom. But when it comes to combat, equipment and tactics matter far more than whether force is "Professional" or not. Swiss pike militia wiped out professional army of Charles the Bold because Charles himself was an idiot.

Medieval pikemen are a far cry from Macedonian phalangites that you seem to be thinking of. And Macedonians were winning against Romans until they got drawn to unfavorable terrain. Hannibal used phalanx to wipe out several Roman field armies. And again, medieval / Westerosi pikemen are far superior to these examples - and will have support of longbowmen and light and heavy cavalry. Unsullied on the other hand are closest to Sumerian phalanx, if anything.

Yes, Unsullied vs pikemen alone will be one sided slaughter. Unsullied will get wiped out.

Point I was making was that Dothraki were losing the battle until Sarnori charged in like idiots.

Yeah, no. Even if troops remain in the castle, threat alone makes castle a valuable asset.

Mongols were not excellent at siege warfare. As a matter of fact, they sucked ass at siege warfare - just look at how many Mongol khans were killed in the sieges. What Mongols did was coopt services of other people who were actually good at siege warfare. But when those were not available, they failed utterly at besieging anything made of stone.

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/18/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-1-overview-of-the-invasion/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/09/mongol-siege-of-klis-fortress/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/232/ucalgary_2012_pow_lindsey.pdf?sequence=2

Huns learned siege warfare from the Romans. In fact, their siege warfare was performed by Roman defectors - much like Mongols conquered China thanks to Chinese siege engineers. Dothraki, with their belief that non-nomadic people are worthless, are rather unlikely to do anything like coopting settled people to employ their siege knowledge. They only won against Sarnori because latter faced them in open battle with no preparation.

So if Daenerys brings siege experts with her, or else finds some in Westeros, she can besiege cities and castles. But Dothraki will be useless in that.

No, Hungary had nothing like lucky timing. That was an excuse given by Mongols to cover up their failure.

And no, it is not "easier to live off the land outside than on rations inside". That makes no sense. People in castle or city will have taken everything from the surrounding land in preparation for the siege - they have food right there, in the city. Besiegers will have only food they bring with themselves (which cannot be much) or that they scavenge from the countryside. And latter means expending time, energy and food itself to find and gain more food - and further they have to go to find food, more food goes to finding and bringing food in. Past certain point, they cannot even break even and the entire army dies of disease and starvation. The end.

Even diseases are more frequent in camps than they are in cities. Sure, disease can break out among the besieged - but it will just as easily break out among the besiegers. In fact, nomadic peoples such as Mongols were especially vulnerable to this problem because they simply didn't know how to maintain hygiene while remaining in one place for a prolonged period of time. And even for settled peoples, doing so in a camp was extremely difficult. Dothraki will die of disease.

In 1241. invasion, Hungary had TEN stone castles. Ten. In the entire kingdom. And in the 1285., Hungary had 66 stone castles. Mongols ended up being devastated by shortage of food thanks to Hungarian castle warfare strategy, failed to capture any fortified places, and ended up being defeated in a field battle in western Transylvania. Why would Dothraki fare any better?

They arent building temples or pyramids here we are talking walled cities + forts in which we cleary see free cities are superior at building, the quaathi obviously so (look at quarth) the ibbense we know of their capital is so far beyond westerosi building its a joke (cobbled streets and oil lamps), the rhoynar we know were skilled builders of vast stone cities  as are the ghiscari (for all their other faults)  and of course valyria we know of their fortifications as they built dragonstone and are specifaly told they could shape stone like no one else.....all these various civilisations lost multiple walled cities and forts to the dothraki.....like it or not in grmms universe  they have taken fortifications before  therefore they can take fortifications! 

 

Professional forces are superior man thats why we moved to them, and no the romans always would have beaten the macedonean phalanx.... the triplex acies formation and their command structure gave it far more flexibility to win.

 

As for pikemen vs unsullied/spearmen given the small number of unsullied and vast  numbers of dothraki we can assume if danys army faces westerosi forces in a set piece battle the archers will be busy protecting pike squares (in the middle) from horse archers , the unsullied will be engaging any infantry stupid enough to not be formed up to protect itself from cavalry or trying to flank pike squares all  while the westerosi cavalry will be off the field engaging equal or greater numbers of dothraki in a mobile cavalry battle.

 

The other unknown is grmm has said the unsullied fight with short sword and train in the '3 spears' making them a confusing mess of possible greek to macedoian to even roman style ( are 2 of the spears  throwing ones like a roman  pilum?  Does he mean short spear ,throwing spear and long pike like spear ? ...Grmm hasnt cleared this up ) 

If were talking field of crows again then by the same logic hannibal was losing vs the romans at canne until he sprung his trap and could equaly have been killed himself if unlucky.

 

We have covered the mongol invasions dude, had they been with timed when the mongols got the trebuchet then most  euro castles would have fallen like eastern ones did and the 2nd one the golden horde was  a backward spin off cut off from the tech of the rest of the empire and up against castles that no force could take easily. The hun and mongols enployed siege emgineers yes..the bulk of their forces where non nomads promoted on merit and/or  well paid professionals...the facts are the hun did extremely well vs forts and the mongols only failed   forts in europe at specific times.

 

Theres only so much you can take into a city its a vast amount of planning and co ordination to strip miles of land in a short time and can never equal the food outside for 100s of miles around ,nor can being cramped into city/forts be less prone to disease/vermin  and as for living off scarce land and finding food its literaly what nomads  do......the siege can be maintained by a small force while the rest roam far away in one or many units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do y'all think the Unsullied and Dothraki will perform in Westeros?

Her Forces

Before the Battle of Fire, Barristan is in command of around 8,600 trained Unsullied, 5,000 not-fully-trained Unsullied, 2,000 Windblown (mix of horse and foot), 500 Stormcrows (horse), 500 Second Sons (mostly foot?)[turncloak], hundreds of pit fighters, thousands of freemen split into multiple companies, a few dozen squires, and the Brazen Beasts. So maybe 20,000+ foot of varying type and a couple thousand horse. 

Victarion also joins the fighting with his 62 ships and a few thousand reavers. 

Now, assuming a good chuck of this force survives, be it from some Dothraki horde led by Daenerys, or her riding Drogon, or some excellent strategy, or a combination of them all. Daenerys will have a large army with no clear means of getting them to Westeros. Victarion's longships will have little room to carry her army. His captured merchant ships and any Ghiscari, Meereenese, or Qartheen ships may allow Daenerys to transport some of her forces but certainly not tens of thousands of horses and men. So short of all the cities around Slaver's Bay paying Daenerys a tribute of ships, she is not sailing with the majority of her force. 

Westerosi Allies

The places where you'd assume Daenerys would land her armies are still fairly strong. Pre (f)Aegon's landing, Dorne and the Reach were untouched by war, and the Stormlands were near unspent. For Daenerys to have any hope of winning against a large Westerosi army, she would need Westerosi allies. Obviously a large number of nobles would side with a Targaryen pretender but there already is one. (f)Aegon leads an army of Westerosi and has a stronger claim. Daenerys leads an army of foreigners and has a weaker claim. The only thing going for her is her dragon/s. So, she'll have little Westerosi support. 

Logistics and Force Comparison

I think the greatest hurdle for Daenerys is feeding and equipping this army. By the time she lands in Westeros, winter would be even worse. The Unsullied and Dothraki she would have with her would be completely outmatched by a large united Westerosi army. If she does win, it won't be because she has Unsullied and Dothraki. 

Side Note: Her Dragons

People act as if she can control all three dragons, she cannot. Her mount looks to be Drogon and the three dragons are in no way comparable to those of Aegon I and his sisters. But without a doubt, Drogon seems to be her best asset.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

They arent building temples or pyramids here we are talking walled cities + forts in which we cleary see free cities are superior at building, the quaathi obviously so (look at quarth) the ibbense we know of their capital is so far beyond westerosi building its a joke (cobbled streets and oil lamps), the rhoynar we know were skilled builders of vast stone cities  as are the ghiscari (for all their other faults)  and of course valyria we know of their fortifications as they built dragonstone and are specifaly told they could shape stone like no one else.....all these various civilisations lost multiple walled cities and forts to the dothraki.....like it or not in grmms universe  they have taken fortifications before  therefore they can take fortifications! 

 

Irrelevant. It is literally the same thing. Also, these cities are for the most part relic of the empire.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Professional forces are superior man thats why we moved to them, and no the romans always would have beaten the macedonean phalanx.... the triplex acies formation and their command structure gave it far more flexibility to win.

 

Nope. Romans lost against Macedonian phalanx time and again when it was commanded by Hannibal, and the "Macedonian phalanx" they beat in Macedon and Greece... was not actually Macedonian phalanx because it lacked things that made actual Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's time so superior: light infantry, cavalry and close cooperation between the two.

Professional forces are not superior in defensive warfare, at least not if by "professionals" you mean "full-time standing army" - because, frankly, Westerosi knights are also professionals - they are paid for service. Byzantine Army of full-time professionals was devastated by Arabs in their initial expansion, losing them 3/4 of their empire, and Anatolia was only saved when Byzantines transformed field armies into territorial defense forces, giving soldiers land instead of pay... you know, exactly how feudal troops are recruited. And even in the offensive warfare they are not necessarily better. Ottoman conquests were facilitated not by the full-time professionals of their Jannissary Corps - as glamurous as these may have been - but rather by the irregular Martolok and Akinci troops. Janissaries and Sipahis only served to provide a final blow against an already devastated enemy.

By the way, Romans won against Carthage precisely because Carthage was using full-time professional troops whereas Romans were not. Roman soldiers were landed soldiers - small landowning citizens (assidui) who were expected to equip themselves from their own income from land. This was almost the same system that we see in Byzantine thematic and European feudal systems. Carthagenian soldiers were mercenaries. And yes, under Hannibal at least, they proved superior in direct battle - though how much of that was troops and how much Hannibal is hard to say. But they couldn't be replaced, whereas Romans would just go "We lost an army? OK, let's raise another one". By the end of Hannibal's Italian campaign, he was rendered impotent, isolated in southern Italy.

And do not forget that you are comparing Bronze-age phalangites to 15th century troops here. That is like saying that professionals of the Prussian army would defeat US National Guard in a direct confrontation simply because they are professionals.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

As for pikemen vs unsullied/spearmen given the small number of unsullied and vast  numbers of dothraki we can assume if danys army faces westerosi forces in a set piece battle the archers will be busy protecting pike squares (in the middle) from horse archers , the unsullied will be engaging any infantry stupid enough to not be formed up to protect itself from cavalry or trying to flank pike squares all  while the westerosi cavalry will be off the field engaging equal or greater numbers of dothraki in a mobile cavalry battle.

 

Yes. And archers will neutralize Dothraki rather comprehensively, while Unsullied will be unable to do anything against pikemen.

Honestly, the only real threat in Daenerys' army are potential Westerosi-style mercenaries.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The other unknown is grmm has said the unsullied fight with short sword and train in the '3 spears' making them a confusing mess of possible greek to macedoian to even roman style ( are 2 of the spears  throwing ones like a roman  pilum?  Does he mean short spear ,throwing spear and long pike like spear ? ...Grmm hasnt cleared this up ) 

If were talking field of crows again then by the same logic hannibal was losing vs the romans at canne until he sprung his trap and could equaly have been killed himself if unlucky.

Yeah, Unsullied make no sense. Welcome to ASoIaF. I mean, having three spears would suggest that the Unsullied fight either as Roman legions or else as light infantry... BUT their training which is aimed at comprehensively destroying any notion of individuality or individual thought would rather preclude that, as that type of training is aimed at formation fighting akin to phalanx.

Hannibal was not losing against the Romans until he sprung his trap - he was aiming at encirclement from the beginning, and when you know what he was doing, you can see how his initial deployment was designed to facilitate that. At no point was Hannibal's center in danger of breaking - had it broken, he may well have lost the battle before managing to complete the encirclement.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

We have covered the mongol invasions dude, had they been with timed when the mongols got the trebuchet then most  euro castles would have fallen like eastern ones did and the 2nd one the golden horde was  a backward spin off cut off from the tech of the rest of the empire and up against castles that no force could take easily. The hun and mongols enployed siege emgineers yes..the bulk of their forces where non nomads promoted on merit and/or  well paid professionals...the facts are the hun did extremely well vs forts and the mongols only failed   forts in europe at specific times.

 

As I said: it was the Chinese who conquered Chinese cities for the Mongols, not the Mongols themselves. Also, it wasn't trebuchet in general which facilitated Mongol conquest of Song, but specifically double counterweight trebuchet which was developed in Europe and then spread eastwards. In other words: European artillery manned by Chinese engineers and transported on Chinese ships, protected by Chinese infantry. And even then, Chinese may have been able to resist, but they didn't even try: after the first few cities fell, remaining cities just defected en masse.

Golden Horde was hardly a "backwards spinoff". They utilized all the siege technology that eastern Mongols had, including Chinese stuff such as gunpowder rockets.

Huns and Mongols were successful precisely because they utilized know-how of the settled peoples, specifically siege engineers. Other nomads did not do so, and so were not a threat. And Dothraki, with their contempt of settled peoples, are a far cry from Huns and Mongols. They will only be a threat to cities if Daenerys manages to acquire siege engineers from Free Cities or Westeros - Dothraki on their own, or Dothraki with Unsullied even, won't even warrant notice otherwise.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Theres only so much you can take into a city its a vast amount of planning and co ordination to strip miles of land in a short time and can never equal the food outside for 100s of miles around ,nor can being cramped into city/forts be less prone to disease/vermin  and as for living off scarce land and finding food its literaly what nomads  do......the siege can be maintained by a small force while the rest roam far away in one or many units.

Nomads are nomads. In other words, they keep moving. Which is precisely what they CANNOT do when they are besieging a city. For a siege, they have to settle down in a camp - and that will make them vulnerable to diseases, far more so than armies of settled peoples who are already used to diseases and other consequences of a mass of people living in a limited area for a long time.

Even disregarding that an impromptu camp cannot have everything a city has, Dothraki and other nomads will be far more vulnerable to disease precisely because they usually live as nomads. And no, the siege "cannot be maintained by a small force", because if you do that, the enemy will either destroy it or slip past it to bring in reinforcements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Irrelevant. It is literally the same thing. Also, these cities are for the most part relic of the empire.

Nope. Romans lost against Macedonian phalanx time and again when it was commanded by Hannibal, and the "Macedonian phalanx" they beat in Macedon and Greece... was not actually Macedonian phalanx because it lacked things that made actual Macedonian phalanx of Alexander's time so superior: light infantry, cavalry and close cooperation between the two.

Professional forces are not superior in defensive warfare, at least not if by "professionals" you mean "full-time standing army" - because, frankly, Westerosi knights are also professionals - they are paid for service. Byzantine Army of full-time professionals was devastated by Arabs in their initial expansion, losing them 3/4 of their empire, and Anatolia was only saved when Byzantines transformed field armies into territorial defense forces, giving soldiers land instead of pay... you know, exactly how feudal troops are recruited. And even in the offensive warfare they are not necessarily better. Ottoman conquests were facilitated not by the full-time professionals of their Jannissary Corps - as glamurous as these may have been - but rather by the irregular Martolok and Akinci troops. Janissaries and Sipahis only served to provide a final blow against an already devastated enemy.

By the way, Romans won against Carthage precisely because Carthage was using full-time professional troops whereas Romans were not. Roman soldiers were landed soldiers - small landowning citizens (assidui) who were expected to equip themselves from their own income from land. This was almost the same system that we see in Byzantine thematic and European feudal systems. Carthagenian soldiers were mercenaries. And yes, under Hannibal at least, they proved superior in direct battle - though how much of that was troops and how much Hannibal is hard to say. But they couldn't be replaced, whereas Romans would just go "We lost an army? OK, let's raise another one". By the end of Hannibal's Italian campaign, he was rendered impotent, isolated in southern Italy.

And do not forget that you are comparing Bronze-age phalangites to 15th century troops here. That is like saying that professionals of the Prussian army would defeat US National Guard in a direct confrontation simply because they are professionals.

Yes. And archers will neutralize Dothraki rather comprehensively, while Unsullied will be unable to do anything against pikemen.

Honestly, the only real threat in Daenerys' army are potential Westerosi-style mercenaries.

Yeah, Unsullied make no sense. Welcome to ASoIaF. I mean, having three spears would suggest that the Unsullied fight either as Roman legions or else as light infantry... BUT their training which is aimed at comprehensively destroying any notion of individuality or individual thought would rather preclude that, as that type of training is aimed at formation fighting akin to phalanx.

Hannibal was not losing against the Romans until he sprung his trap - he was aiming at encirclement from the beginning, and when you know what he was doing, you can see how his initial deployment was designed to facilitate that. At no point was Hannibal's center in danger of breaking - had it broken, he may well have lost the battle before managing to complete the encirclement.

As I said: it was the Chinese who conquered Chinese cities for the Mongols, not the Mongols themselves. Also, it wasn't trebuchet in general which facilitated Mongol conquest of Song, but specifically double counterweight trebuchet which was developed in Europe and then spread eastwards. In other words: European artillery manned by Chinese engineers and transported on Chinese ships, protected by Chinese infantry. And even then, Chinese may have been able to resist, but they didn't even try: after the first few cities fell, remaining cities just defected en masse.

Golden Horde was hardly a "backwards spinoff". They utilized all the siege technology that eastern Mongols had, including Chinese stuff such as gunpowder rockets.

Nomads are nomads. In other words, they keep moving. Which is precisely what they CANNOT do when they are besieging a city. For a siege, they have to settle down in a camp - and that will make them vulnerable to diseases, far more so than armies of settled peoples who are already used to diseases and other consequences of a mass of people living in a limited area for a long time.

Even disregarding that an impromptu camp cannot have everything a city has, Dothraki and other nomads will be far more vulnerable to disease precisely because they usually live as nomads. And no, the siege "cannot be maintained by a small force", because if you do that, the enemy will either destroy it or slip past it to bring in reinforcements.

Not really irrelavent if they clearly build fortifcations at least as well as westerosi(often better) and those forts fell to the dothraki...therefore we are debating somethimg that has already happened! The dothraki HAVE taken huge fortified stone defensive structures before therefore they can take forts again.

 

Romans also beat those carthage formations many times too unless.you forgot how the punic wars turned out  also you are Sorta making my point for me there You said pikemen would beat the unsullied ....i pointed out pikemen/sarissa wielders alone would be slaughtered vs spearmen as they can be flanked  and cut to pieces at close quarters if unsupported.

 

Professionals overall are better hence.why warfare evolved to use them, feudal armies gave way to them.for solid reasons overall the free cities would beat westeros in a total war just due to their naval power alone.

Rome won and it was a close run thing (the idea.rome would never surrender is debunked by the fact we know they did before(gauls) and did after (various barbarians)) it won  due to its manpower depths but more so due to the freak  luck of an equally brilliant  commander in scipio rising to counter hannibal (and the famous sword and shield of rome.consols before him beimg allowed to.skirt all.roman tradition and not fight hanibal direct to prevent romes collapse)

 Archers will make up a small.part of ech westerosi army whereas.every  other dothraki is a horse archer

 

Again it seems the dothraki where set up that way too with 2 khals waiting on the flanks to envelop

Yes they were part of the mongol.force as.were.engineers in the hun, the bulk of both these famous forces.where not full hun/mongols but they were part of their armies hence its spliting hairs...same.as.with the dothraki we.dont know how they brought down the   valyrian forts whch are.superior.to westerosi only that they did ..which is all that matters!

 

The horde.were.cut off from.the tech and resources.of the rest.of the empire and again anyome.would have stuggled.with stome forts built.into the carpathian mountains

No it.means they can leave enough to besige while the rest roam for food (good luck slipping.past a force on horseback on foot) plus disease wise cramped conditions will always be worse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

Not really irrelavent if they clearly build fortifcations at least as well as westerosi(often better) and those forts fell to the dothraki...therefore we are debating somethimg that has already happened! The dothraki HAVE taken huge fortified stone defensive structures before therefore they can take forts again.

 

When have they done so? All we know is Dothraki conquest of the Sarnori - who 1) opted to face Dothraki in the field 2) while fielding a Bronze Age military and at the same time 3) being complete morons - and of the Lhazareen, who are your average moronic pacifists. Qohori decided to go outside the walls and face Dothraki in the field as well, though we do not have details of the battle. Even the Unsullied went outside Qohor to face Dothraki in the field - they were saved only by stupidity of Dothraki, who refused to use tactics against lowly footmen and decided a headlong charge against the phalanx was just the thing to do. Seems to me that Essosi do not actually use their city walls as a defense, but rather prefer to come outside the walls and fight in the field, a la Illiad. City whose army has been wiped out in the field will be rather difficult to defend.

Also, what proof do you have of Essosi fortifications are better than high-level Westerosi ones? Because from what I remember, it is actually the opposite, with possible exception of some of the Free Cities (Braavos has no walls at all) and the Yi Ti. Pentos has square towers built of brick, Lamb Men's town that Drogo's khalasar sacks in AGoT has walls of dried mud, Old Ghis had walls of brick, Astapor's walls are crumbling brick (and in ADWD this was noted as a factor in city's fall), Yunkai's walls are crumbling brick as well. Mereen's walls were in better repair and taller but still brick. Qarth does have three thick stone walls, but these are lower than walls of e.g. Winterfell. By comparison, Winterfell's walls are of granite (80 and 100 feet tall), Red Keep is built of red stone, Moat Cailin was built of black basalt, Riverrun is built of sandstone, Pyke is a "crescent of dark stone", Harrenhall had "great walls of stone", Torrhen's Square's walls are 30 feet of stone, Casterly Rock has stone walls but most of the castle is actually dug inside the rock, Acorn Hall has stone walls and oaken keep, Maidenpool has pink stone walls, even a towerhouse of Sow's Horn has stone walls eight feet thick. We also see that mangonels have no effect at all against the Storm's End, though that castle is stronger than many. Harlon Stark took two years to starve Dreadfort out. And these are castles, making them easier to defend than cities, and also better at countering Dothraki strategy. Westerosi fortifications are, on average, decidedly superior to Essosi ones. Even Daenerys recognizes as much, despite not having seen Westeros:

Quote

If I let Meereen’s old brick walls defeat me so easily, though, how will I ever take the great stone castles of Westeros?

And it is not just quality either. In Essos, we see fortified cities and nothing more. Westeros? You have cities, towns, castles, keeps... even villages are fortified, and quite a few villages have stone holdfasts. And as Mongols will attest, this makes a difference:

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

But of course, as we have seen, Essosi do not bother actually using their fortifications for defense. So even fortifications they do have are completely worthless. By comparison, even if lord's forces are away, Westerosi cities have City Watch which can participate in defense - we know (AFFC) that a large city such as Oldtown can have thousands of men defending it, and King's Landing also has City's Watch numbering in thousands.

Also, in literally every single war between Westerosi and Essosi factions (Argilac vs Volantis, Daemon vs Three Sisters, War of the Ninepenny Kings), Westeros won. So you cannot take an Essosi faction that does well in Essos, transport it to Westeros, and expect it to continue doing well.

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

Romans also beat those carthage formations many times too unless.you forgot how the punic wars turned out  also you are Sorta making my point for me there You said pikemen would beat the unsullied ....i pointed out pikemen/sarissa wielders alone would be slaughtered vs spearmen as they can be flanked  and cut to pieces at close quarters if unsupported.

 

Romans lost as often as they won against Carthage. Reason why they won the wars was not that their army was superior in battle - it wasn't - but rather because they had reserves. Carthage relied on mercenaries, Romans relied on landowning troops - which meant they had far more of them.

15th century pikemen are not sarissa wielders. There is a reason why no good army used spearmen or swordsmen when pikemen were an option. Original Spanish tercio consisted of pikemen, swordsmen and crossbowmen/arquebusiers... they dropped swordsmen quite fast because they were simply useless. Having more pikemen turned out to be a better option.

And even when you compare pikemen vs spearmen of same era... look at how many victories did Greek phalanx have against Macedonian one. That is the closest equivalent we can find of the Unsullied vs Westerosi troops. Personally, I cannot recall a single one.

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

Professionals overall are better hence.why warfare evolved to use them, feudal armies gave way to them.for solid reasons overall the free cities would beat westeros in a total war just due to their naval power alone.

Rome won and it was a close run thing (the idea.rome would never surrender is debunked by the fact we know they did before(gauls) and did after (various barbarians)) it won  due to its manpower depths but more so due to the freak  luck of an equally brilliant  commander in scipio rising to counter hannibal (and the famous sword and shield of rome.consols before him beimg allowed to.skirt all.roman tradition and not fight hanibal direct to prevent romes collapse)

 Archers will make up a small.part of ech westerosi army whereas.every  other dothraki is a horse archer

Professionals are better in offensive warfare and to enforce the rule of the government against its own people. That is the reason why they are so popular. But for defensive warfare, part-time soldiers are often superior: doesn't matter whether it is Roman assidui, Byzantine thematic troops, medieval feudal troops, or modern-day National Guard / Territorial Defense... they are far better than professional troops in strictly defensive roles. They are cheaper and thus more numerous, better motivated, and know terrain better.

No, not "every other" Dothraki is a horse archer. In fact, majority of Dothraki are not horse archers. If you look at actual descriptions of the Dothraki, as opposed to whatever image you have created of them in your head, it is the arakh - curved sword - that is the centerpiece of Dothraki martial culture. Archery is barely even mentioned:

Quote

Dany looked away from the coupling, frightened when she realized what was happening, but a
second warrior stepped forward, and a third, and soon there was no way to avert her eyes. Then
two men seized the same woman. She heard a shout, saw a shove, and in the blink of an eye the
arakhs were out, long razor-sharp blades, half sword and half scythe. A dance of death began as
the warriors circled and slashed, leaping toward each other, whirling the blades around their
heads, shrieking insults at each clash. No one made a move to interfere.

 

Quote

A small army of slaves had gone ahead to prepare for Khal Drogo’s arrival. As each rider
swung down from his saddle, he unbelted his arakh and handed it to a waiting slave, and any
other weapons he carried as well. 
- note how arakh is the cultural centerpiece, all other weapons are just extras

 

Quote

Many of the men were drunk on clotted mare’s milk, yet Dany knew no arakhs
would clash tonight, not here in the sacred city, where blades and bloodshed were forbidden

Quote

Dothraki hooves had torn the earth and trampled the rye and lentils into the ground, while
arakhs and arrows had sown a terrible new crop and watered it with blood.

 

Quote

Eighteen times the Dothraki charged, and broke themselves on those shields and spears like
waves on a rocky shore. Thrice Temmo sent his archers wheeling past and arrows fell like rain
upon the Three Thousand, but the Unsullied merely lifted their shields above their heads until the
squall had passed.

 

As you can see, arakh is the primary weapon of the Dothraki - archery is in fact rather underrepresented, both culturally and tactically. Considering the obvious disbalance, I find it rather unlikely that Dothraki would be able to win a missile duel against Westerosi longbowmen and crossbowmen - especially since foot archers actually have advantage (more stable firing position, ability to use stronger weapons) in combat against mounted archers. And Dothraki have cultural aversion to armor, which means that they would get slaughtered even against force using same bows as the Dothraki use, let alone one using longbows and crossbows.

And as for Dothraki successes against Essosi armies, there are many ways in which Essosi militaries are inferior to Westerosi ones:

  • Riders of Quarth wear scale copper armor even today. I will note here that Thenns use bronze scale, which means that some of the Wildlings actually have better armor than Quartheen.
  • Mereeneese "hero" also worse scale copper armor and fourteen foot lance. I will note that 15th century lances were commonly 14 feet long, but knights had a lance arrest and could thus carry lance in one hand. By comparison, 11th century Byzantine kontarion lance was 13 feet long and had to be used in two hands.
  • Unsullied wear no armor, but as is provided. Dothraki wear no armor at all.
  • Corpse of Butcher King of Astapor was clad in copper armor. Which means that was likely best that was available, as the point of mummery was to make the undertrained Unsullied believe he was alive.
  • And of course, armies of the Slaver's Bay consist of slaves, are predominantly (except for the Unsullied) badly trained, and are without exception badly equipped. But Dothraki didn't touch them because they were a good place to sell slaves.

By comparison, in Westeros:

  • Most of the armor is steel - be it plate or mail. Leather and gambesons are used as well.
  • Lords wear plate armor. Rhaegar, Robert, Loras, Hoster, Jast, Marlon etc. Plate is worn over mail and padding. Dornish lords wear "heavily enameled" armor "inlaid with burnished copper".
  • Kingsguard wear scale armor - but that is steel, not copper.
  • Even Northerners wear plate armor, at least knights and men-at-arms do. Also, we know that while Robb took 300 knights with him, he had some three thousand armored lances in total. We see later that horses, too, are armored. This seems to be typical, in fact - cavalrymen are armored in plate, and horses also have plate armor. Nearly every mention of armored cavalry in Westeros I could find has armored men riding barded horses.
  • Lower-ranking soldiers wear mail - Payne does, "Red Cloaks" wear mail over boiled leather (which is BS).

Westerosi armies also have literally everything they need to counter Dothraki cavalry tactics. They have pikemen, armored infantry, longbowmen and crossbowmen. Crossbowmen are regularly used as part of garrison of fortified places. In terms of cavalry, Westerosi have mounted bowmen, mounted crossbowmen and knights equipped with armor for both men and horses. How are Dothraki supposed to counter that?

Free Cities do not fear the Dothraki:

Quote

The Free Cities were always generous with the horselords. “It is not that we fear these
barbarians,” Illyrio would explain with a smile. “The Lord of Light would hold our city walls
against a million Dothraki, or so the red priests promise... yet why take chances, when their
friendship comes so cheap?”

And remember what I said about defenders starving out the attackers? It is normal approach in Westeros, at least for competent commanders:

Quote

A Lannister army already invested the
castle, and an even larger force of Freys; the last bird they’d received suggested that the
besiegers were having difficulty keeping themselves fed. Brynden Tully had scoured the land
clean before retiring behind his walls.

A Feast for Crows

 

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

Again it seems the dothraki where set up that way too with 2 khals waiting on the flanks to envelop

Yes they were part of the mongol.force as.were.engineers in the hun, the bulk of both these famous forces.where not full hun/mongols but they were part of their armies hence its spliting hairs...same.as.with the dothraki we.dont know how they brought down the   valyrian forts whch are.superior.to westerosi only that they did ..which is all that matters!

When exactly did Dothraki bring down Valyrian forts? And yes, it does matter how they did it, because otherwise, how can we know they will be able to repeat that success?

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

The horde.were.cut off from.the tech and resources.of the rest.of the empire and again anyome.would have stuggled.with stome forts built.into the carpathian mountains

They didn't struggle just with stone forts built into Carpathian mountains - there were no stone forts built into Carpathian mountains, as a matter of fact, there were barely any forts in Carpathian mountains to begin with:

https://www.academia.edu/39219546/Hungarys_Castle_Defense_Strategy_in_the_Aftermath_of_the_Mongol_Invasion_1241_1242_

Hungary before 1241. had a total of ten (10) stone castles - and five of those were in the west of the kingdom, to counter the threat of the Holy Roman Empire. Remaining five were located within the Mongol-occupied territory - and all five survived the Mongol invasion with minimal damage.

You know, you might want to study things a little instead of just making up whatever claims you believe would support your argument the best.

On 10/12/2022 at 9:48 AM, astarkchoice said:

No it.means they can leave enough to besige while the rest roam for food (good luck slipping.past a force on horseback on foot) plus disease wise cramped conditions will always be worse!

Enough to besiege being how many? And you do understand that foraging parties a) have a limited range at which they can forage and b) are vulnerable to being destroyed? How long before Dothraki run out of the food within the foraging range? How long before they run out of foraging parties? And considering that Dothraki are indeed based on Mongols, with all that implies - it is very likely that they will run out of food to forage long before castle runs out of its food stores.

So no, the approach you have noted is just a wishful thinking. It may work against cities - which have enormous population to feed - but against castles? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2022 at 1:35 AM, Aldarion said:

When have they done so? All we know is Dothraki conquest of the Sarnori - who 1) opted to face Dothraki in the field 2) while fielding a Bronze Age military and at the same time 3) being complete morons - and of the Lhazareen, who are your average moronic pacifists. Qohori decided to go outside the walls and face Dothraki in the field as well, though we do not have details of the battle. Even the Unsullied went outside Qohor to face Dothraki in the field - they were saved only by stupidity of Dothraki, who refused to use tactics against lowly footmen and decided a headlong charge against the phalanx was just the thing to do. Seems to me that Essosi do not actually use their city walls as a defense, but rather prefer to come outside the walls and fight in the field, a la Illiad. City whose army has been wiped out in the field will be rather difficult to defend.

Also, what proof do you have of Essosi fortifications are better than high-level Westerosi ones? Because from what I remember, it is actually the opposite, with possible exception of some of the Free Cities (Braavos has no walls at all) and the Yi Ti. Pentos has square towers built of brick, Lamb Men's town that Drogo's khalasar sacks in AGoT has walls of dried mud, Old Ghis had walls of brick, Astapor's walls are crumbling brick (and in ADWD this was noted as a factor in city's fall), Yunkai's walls are crumbling brick as well. Mereen's walls were in better repair and taller but still brick. Qarth does have three thick stone walls, but these are lower than walls of e.g. Winterfell. By comparison, Winterfell's walls are of granite (80 and 100 feet tall), Red Keep is built of red stone, Moat Cailin was built of black basalt, Riverrun is built of sandstone, Pyke is a "crescent of dark stone", Harrenhall had "great walls of stone", Torrhen's Square's walls are 30 feet of stone, Casterly Rock has stone walls but most of the castle is actually dug inside the rock, Acorn Hall has stone walls and oaken keep, Maidenpool has pink stone walls, even a towerhouse of Sow's Horn has stone walls eight feet thick. We also see that mangonels have no effect at all against the Storm's End, though that castle is stronger than many. Harlon Stark took two years to starve Dreadfort out. And these are castles, making them easier to defend than cities, and also better at countering Dothraki strategy. Westerosi fortifications are, on average, decidedly superior to Essosi ones. Even Daenerys recognizes as much, despite not having seen Westeros:

And it is not just quality either. In Essos, we see fortified cities and nothing more. Westeros? You have cities, towns, castles, keeps... even villages are fortified, and quite a few villages have stone holdfasts. And as Mongols will attest, this makes a difference:

https://historyandwar.org/2021/11/21/why-1241-mongol-invasion-of-hungary-failed-part-2-reasons-for-mongol-withdrawal/

https://historyandwar.org/2021/12/16/how-mongol-invasion-shaped-hungarys-defense-strategy/

But of course, as we have seen, Essosi do not bother actually using their fortifications for defense. So even fortifications they do have are completely worthless. By comparison, even if lord's forces are away, Westerosi cities have City Watch which can participate in defense - we know (AFFC) that a large city such as Oldtown can have thousands of men defending it, and King's Landing also has City's Watch numbering in thousands.

Also, in literally every single war between Westerosi and Essosi factions (Argilac vs Volantis, Daemon vs Three Sisters, War of the Ninepenny Kings), Westeros won. So you cannot take an Essosi faction that does well in Essos, transport it to Westeros, and expect it to continue doing well.

Romans lost as often as they won against Carthage. Reason why they won the wars was not that their army was superior in battle - it wasn't - but rather because they had reserves. Carthage relied on mercenaries, Romans relied on landowning troops - which meant they had far more of them.

15th century pikemen are not sarissa wielders. There is a reason why no good army used spearmen or swordsmen when pikemen were an option. Original Spanish tercio consisted of pikemen, swordsmen and crossbowmen/arquebusiers... they dropped swordsmen quite fast because they were simply useless. Having more pikemen turned out to be a better option.

And even when you compare pikemen vs spearmen of same era... look at how many victories did Greek phalanx have against Macedonian one. That is the closest equivalent we can find of the Unsullied vs Westerosi troops. Personally, I cannot recall a single one.

Professionals are better in offensive warfare and to enforce the rule of the government against its own people. That is the reason why they are so popular. But for defensive warfare, part-time soldiers are often superior: doesn't matter whether it is Roman assidui, Byzantine thematic troops, medieval feudal troops, or modern-day National Guard / Territorial Defense... they are far better than professional troops in strictly defensive roles. They are cheaper and thus more numerous, better motivated, and know terrain better.

No, not "every other" Dothraki is a horse archer. In fact, majority of Dothraki are not horse archers. If you look at actual descriptions of the Dothraki, as opposed to whatever image you have created of them in your head, it is the arakh - curved sword - that is the centerpiece of Dothraki martial culture. Archery is barely even mentioned:

As you can see, arakh is the primary weapon of the Dothraki - archery is in fact rather underrepresented, both culturally and tactically. Considering the obvious disbalance, I find it rather unlikely that Dothraki would be able to win a missile duel against Westerosi longbowmen and crossbowmen - especially since foot archers actually have advantage (more stable firing position, ability to use stronger weapons) in combat against mounted archers. And Dothraki have cultural aversion to armor, which means that they would get slaughtered even against force using same bows as the Dothraki use, let alone one using longbows and crossbows.

And as for Dothraki successes against Essosi armies, there are many ways in which Essosi militaries are inferior to Westerosi ones:

  • Riders of Quarth wear scale copper armor even today. I will note here that Thenns use bronze scale, which means that some of the Wildlings actually have better armor than Quartheen.
  • Mereeneese "hero" also worse scale copper armor and fourteen foot lance. I will note that 15th century lances were commonly 14 feet long, but knights had a lance arrest and could thus carry lance in one hand. By comparison, 11th century Byzantine kontarion lance was 13 feet long and had to be used in two hands.
  • Unsullied wear no armor, but as is provided. Dothraki wear no armor at all.
  • Corpse of Butcher King of Astapor was clad in copper armor. Which means that was likely best that was available, as the point of mummery was to make the undertrained Unsullied believe he was alive.
  • And of course, armies of the Slaver's Bay consist of slaves, are predominantly (except for the Unsullied) badly trained, and are without exception badly equipped. But Dothraki didn't touch them because they were a good place to sell slaves.

By comparison, in Westeros:

  • Most of the armor is steel - be it plate or mail. Leather and gambesons are used as well.
  • Lords wear plate armor. Rhaegar, Robert, Loras, Hoster, Jast, Marlon etc. Plate is worn over mail and padding. Dornish lords wear "heavily enameled" armor "inlaid with burnished copper".
  • Kingsguard wear scale armor - but that is steel, not copper.
  • Even Northerners wear plate armor, at least knights and men-at-arms do. Also, we know that while Robb took 300 knights with him, he had some three thousand armored lances in total. We see later that horses, too, are armored. This seems to be typical, in fact - cavalrymen are armored in plate, and horses also have plate armor. Nearly every mention of armored cavalry in Westeros I could find has armored men riding barded horses.
  • Lower-ranking soldiers wear mail - Payne does, "Red Cloaks" wear mail over boiled leather (which is BS).

Westerosi armies also have literally everything they need to counter Dothraki cavalry tactics. They have pikemen, armored infantry, longbowmen and crossbowmen. Crossbowmen are regularly used as part of garrison of fortified places. In terms of cavalry, Westerosi have mounted bowmen, mounted crossbowmen and knights equipped with armor for both men and horses. How are Dothraki supposed to counter that?

Free Cities do not fear the Dothraki:

And remember what I said about defenders starving out the attackers? It is normal approach in Westeros, at least for competent commanders:

 

When exactly did Dothraki bring down Valyrian forts? And yes, it does matter how they did it, because otherwise, how can we know they will be able to repeat that success?

They didn't struggle just with stone forts built into Carpathian mountains - there were no stone forts built into Carpathian mountains, as a matter of fact, there were barely any forts in Carpathian mountains to begin with:

https://www.academia.edu/39219546/Hungarys_Castle_Defense_Strategy_in_the_Aftermath_of_the_Mongol_Invasion_1241_1242_

Hungary before 1241. had a total of ten (10) stone castles - and five of those were in the west of the kingdom, to counter the threat of the Holy Roman Empire. Remaining five were located within the Mongol-occupied territory - and all five survived the Mongol invasion with minimal damage.

You know, you might want to study things a little instead of just making up whatever claims you believe would support your argument the best.

Enough to besiege being how many? And you do understand that foraging parties a) have a limited range at which they can forage and b) are vulnerable to being destroyed? How long before Dothraki run out of the food within the foraging range? How long before they run out of foraging parties? And considering that Dothraki are indeed based on Mongols, with all that implies - it is very likely that they will run out of food to forage long before castle runs out of its food stores.

So no, the approach you have noted is just a wishful thinking. It may work against cities - which have enormous population to feed - but against castles? No.

Again read the century of blood they took all minds of fortified cities including valyrian which we know have both superior steel and building to westerosi

 

Yes generaly the buildings in essos are on a much grander scale , the high walled towns around the free cities alone are bigger tyrion says than kings landing,quarth is triple walled around a giant city of slendor far beyond westeros , , the rohyr ruins are vast and complex, the valryians we know wiedled stone better due to their '  pets' even the friggin ibbenese have a 'massive stone castle' and cobbled streets + oil lamps !  The sanori cities are also said to be soild stone ...its only the crumbling  ghiscari culture that has old slave built crumbling walls and even then they are described as being quite formidable  compared to all but westeros main  house castles! They all seem to have large guard forces of varying quality too

 

They lost most wars due to facing dragons as you well know, potential wise bravos alone is a sea superpower waiting to be fully  realized.

 

Numbers alome didnt win rome those wars it was  the luck of having one  brilliant general and the genius who inventing the corvus to win the sea war.

 

No but rarely from alexanders father to medieval.times where sarissa or pikemen fielded without other melee type fighters to protect them! The  famousmacedonian phalanx at its peak  you mention was never just sarissa users if anything it was the sucessors who forgot the secret to alexanders sucess was mixed infantry!

 

Dothraki all carry arkhs yes but that doesnt mean they cant also be archers man, grmm has clearly modeled them (badly) on  a mix of various nomad horse archer cultures. Dany is given a  symbolic bow at her wedding, jorah specificaly states vs westerosi his main concern is the arrows will fall like rain...they are clearly largely supposed to be horse archers !

Very few of westerosi forces will  be archers so in any missle battle they will be vastly outnumbered ,immobile (crammed behind infantry to protdct them getting run down) and modern testing is showing the gap in accuracy between mounted and standing archerd and  isnt as big as we thought...theres a famous hungarian  guy showing now they can fire volleys at almost full.gallop with frightening accuracy!! The lack of armour is an issue yes but they are mobile targets and theres so friggin many of them vs the westerosi archers ....overall horse archers were immensely sucessful in warfare for good reason!

 

Thatl be either the 1st hungarian invasion where they swept over hungary regardless or the 2nd one vs the more backward goldennhorde  failed , either way we know the mongols did well vs sieges , had trebuchets , and were one of the most sucessful militaries of all time, as were the hun who we know did very well vs western sieges too!....not that any of that matters as we are specificaly told the dothraki HAVE taken fortified cities in the century of blood including vayyrian !

 

They can leave enough to hold the siege  and send out foraging forces (vunerable to who? the enemy are locked up and the foraging party is mobile on horseback ) they can range for miles around to feed their horses  (remember  thats what nomads do and these ones eat their spare horses )  most sieges its the people inside who starved or surrendered not the other way round for good reason!! ! 6 months is the longest medieval siege ever recorded so we can assume westeros ones wont be even close to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Again read the century of blood they took all minds of fortified cities including valyrian which we know have both superior steel and building to westerosi

To be fair, the only specifically Valyrian city we know they took was Essaria, and we don't know what kind of state it was in at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

To be fair, the only specifically Valyrian city we know they took was Essaria, and we don't know what kind of state it was in at the time.

True but that works both ways , could have been undermanned and run down or could have been armed to the teeth.

Its described as a semi independent state thus probably wasnt as affected by the doom as valyria central. The fused stone seems to be a valyrian building trademark so we can assume it was solid and as their name suggests we can assume their warriors had  some if not all armour and weapons made of v.steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Unsullied will fare better than the Dothraki. It doesn't matter how mobile and fast the Dothraki are, you can't fight mounted heavy knights with no armor on you at all except some leather.

The Dothraki are not Mongols no matter how many times they are compared to them around these forums. They are quite different.

The Unsullied, on the other hand, seem to be quite disciplined and battle hardened. But they are too few, sadly. 8.000 Unsullied cannot hope to win any large battle in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ingelheim said:

The Unsullied will fare better than the Dothraki. It doesn't matter how mobile and fast the Dothraki are, you can't fight mounted heavy knights with no armor on you at all except some leather.

The Dothraki are not Mongols no matter how many times they are compared to them around these forums. They are quite different.

The Unsullied, on the other hand, seem to be quite disciplined and battle hardened. But they are too few, sadly. 8.000 Unsullied cannot hope to win any large battle in Westeros.

And does Daenerys have the heart to make more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And does Daenerys have the heart to make more?

IIRC there aren't that many Unsullied left in Astapor. Dany took the 8.000 fully trained, and also tried to take the younger ones who hadn't finished their training. Fully formed Unsullied take 15-20 years to make.

Any way, against the tens of thousands of Westerosi soldiers they will face, they have little hope. They are good warriors and seem to be very disciplined, but their armor is weak (short swords, bronze plate, and spear) compared to the average Westerosi knight (even men at arms wear chaimail most of the time), and their numbers are too few. For evey Unsullied, Westeros can field...15-20 knights and soldiers.

I've always said this since I joined this forum, but George never developed the Essos armies and warriors as good as he did with the Westerosi ones. They seem to draw too much on fantasy tropes to be as realistic as the rest. For example, all Unsullied are castrated when they are little boys. That's just plain absurd. They wouldn't grow past 1.60 meters and 50kg, and that's being generous.

EDIT: Another debate would be if they are going to face Westerosi armies alone. I don't think so. The plot around Daenerys will develop in a way in which she gains many allies in Westeros, like the Dornishmen or the Ironborn, and probably the Golden Company as well. Those are more than enough allies to launch a serious threat to the Iron Throne, combined with her Unsullied and Dothraki. And that's not counting her 3 dragons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And does Daenerys have the heart to make more?

I don't think she does. 

Also the one thing with Unsullied is that they need to be used very efficiently, and to not be wasted. Having very disciplined and effective soldiers is both a blessing and a curse as while they can be devastating on the battlefield if used well, it makes their loss even harder and complicated to replace should they die. 

A great example of this was with the real spartan soldiers who indeed were very formidable, but when they were beaten in one or two important battles then Sparta was really doomed, as demonstrated during the Sparta-Theba wars where the thebans inflicted several devastating and humiliating defeats on the spartan army by using much better tactics and superior use of mobility over their foes during the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

IIRC there aren't that many Unsullied left in Astapor. Dany took the 8.000 fully trained, and also tried to take the younger ones who hadn't finished their training. Fully formed Unsullied take 15-20 years to make.

Any way, against the tens of thousands of Westerosi soldiers they will face, they have little hope. They are good warriors and seem to be very disciplined, but their armor is weak (short swords, bronze plate, and spear) compared to the average Westerosi knight (even men at arms wear chaimail most of the time), and their numbers are too few. For evey Unsullied, Westeros can field...15-20 knights and soldiers.

I've always said this since I joined this forum, but George never developed the Essos armies and warriors as good as he did with the Westerosi ones. They seem to draw too much on fantasy tropes to be as realistic as the rest. For example, all Unsullied are castrated when they are little boys. That's just plain absurd. They wouldn't grow past 1.60 meters and 50kg, and that's being generous.

 

Well in at least one case it's supposed to be a parody of 300 (the 100 muscular soldiers who only wear breechclouts and cloaks, carrying bronze shields).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Also once formations ara broken and it’s foto vs foot, average westerosi man would be much more formidable than your average unsullied, who are cut off from their chief supply of testosterone. Pun definitely intended.

Formations are never broken unless you are losing. It will not come down to one-on-one.

But strength still matters in formation fighting. Unsullied, being eunuchs from young age, will be weak, have fragile bones... and also weak immune system. Which means they will die in droves during campaigns and sieges.

20 hours ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

A great example of this was with the real spartan soldiers who indeed were very formidable, but when they were beaten in one or two important battles then Sparta was really doomed, as demonstrated during the Sparta-Theba wars where the thebans inflicted several devastating and humiliating defeats on the spartan army by using much better tactics and superior use of mobility over their foes during the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea. 

 

They weren't; that is just a myth. Historical records do not support the idea that Spartans were significantly superior to other Greek hoplites, and they were decisively inferior to Thebans, Macedonians and Romans.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

Again read the century of blood they took all minds of fortified cities including valyrian which we know have both superior steel and building to westerosi

 

I have read it (both what is available in ASoIAF and in A World of Ice and Fire) and I have found absolutely no indication of Dothraki knowing how to besiege cities.

Can you provide citations? I am not going to look for your proof for you.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

Yes generaly the buildings in essos are on a much grander scale , the high walled towns around the free cities alone are bigger tyrion says than kings landing,quarth is triple walled around a giant city of slendor far beyond westeros , , the rohyr ruins are vast and complex, the valryians we know wiedled stone better due to their '  pets' even the friggin ibbenese have a 'massive stone castle' and cobbled streets + oil lamps !  The sanori cities are also said to be soild stone ...its only the crumbling  ghiscari culture that has old slave built crumbling walls and even then they are described as being quite formidable  compared to all but westeros main  house castles! They all seem to have large guard forces of varying quality too

 

Valyrians and Rhoynar no longer exist, so that is irrelevant. As for the rest, no indication that they are in any way superior to Westerosi fortifications. You are correct about the Free Cities being bigger than Westerosi cities, but that is an exception, not the rule... and also completely irrelevant when it comes to actual military performance. Tenochtitlan had 200 000 inhabitants and was thus larger than any city of Kingdom of Hungary of the time (Buda had 13 500 inhabitants in 15th century), yet if somehow Hungary had ended up transported to America, I would not have bet on Aztecs winning any field engagements. Or a protracted war, seeing how Hungary had managed to hold back the Ottoman Empire for 300 years. Technological and tactical differences, as well as social structure of the states, were simply too different and too favorable to Hungarians.

Also, as I have shown, while cities themselves may on average be larger in Essos, Westeros has superior fortifications - and I don't mean size of city walls here, but the entire setup of how fortifications work within the military culture.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

They lost most wars due to facing dragons as you well know, potential wise bravos alone is a sea superpower waiting to be fully  realized.

 

Braavos is in the position of Venice: it may be sea superpower, but it cannot win wars against land powers alone. War between Westeros (or any single Westerosi kingdom) and Braavos would end up in a stalemate, neither side able to signficantly damage the other.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

Numbers alome didnt win rome those wars it was  the luck of having one  brilliant general and the genius who inventing the corvus to win the sea war.

 

Numbers and forts allowed Rome to win those wars. No, it wasn't a "genius general" which won Rome the Second Punic War. Sure, the final showdown between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal might get publicity for people who like drama, and Scipio was an excellent general. But fact is that Hannibal had been defeated much earlier, when he failed to convince Rome's allied cities to switch sides. By the time he was recalled to Carthage to face Scipio, Hannibal had already long been reduced to a non-entity, with him and his army starving in the southern Italy. Battle of Zama merely made into formality what was already obvious to everybody.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

No but rarely from alexanders father to medieval.times where sarissa or pikemen fielded without other melee type fighters to protect them! The  famousmacedonian phalanx at its peak  you mention was never just sarissa users if anything it was the sucessors who forgot the secret to alexanders sucess was mixed infantry!

 

No, the secret to Alexander's success was mixed arms. Which, you know, is precisely what Westeros does.

Alexander's army had well coordinated mix of pikemen, light infantry, light cavalry and heavy cavalry. Pike phalanx served to pin the enemy in place while heavy cavalry was used to maneuver and provide decisive blow. Which, again, is exactly how Westerosi armies operate - but not the Unsullied, or any Essosi armies we have seen other than the Golden Company. Which is a Westerosi-style army operating in Essos.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

Dothraki all carry arkhs yes but that doesnt mean they cant also be archers man, grmm has clearly modeled them (badly) on  a mix of various nomad horse archer cultures. Dany is given a  symbolic bow at her wedding, jorah specificaly states vs westerosi his main concern is the arrows will fall like rain...they are clearly largely supposed to be horse archers !

Very few of westerosi forces will  be archers so in any missle battle they will be vastly outnumbered ,immobile (crammed behind infantry to protdct them getting run down) and modern testing is showing the gap in accuracy between mounted and standing archerd and  isnt as big as we thought...theres a famous hungarian  guy showing now they can fire volleys at almost full.gallop with frightening accuracy!! The lack of armour is an issue yes but they are mobile targets and theres so friggin many of them vs the westerosi archers ....overall horse archers were immensely sucessful in warfare for good reason!

GRRM has not portrayed the Dothraki as archers. Yes, they have arakhs, and they have bows. But as I have shown you: Dothraki rely primarily on arakhs in combat, and it is the arakh that has the cultural significance that a bow ought to have in a nomadic horse archer culture. Whatever Dothraki are, horse archers is not it.

Dany is given three weapons at her wedding: a whip, a bow and an arakh. That would suggest all three weapons are seen equally: and two of three are clearly melee weapons. Dothraki are very clearly not horse archers. As for Jorah, that guy is a liar and an idiot. I would not take anything he says seriously at all, considering how often he is proven wrong and how his opinions go against basic logic. He also has rose-tinted glasses when it comes to anything relating to Daenerys, and is in that scene actively trying to kiss up to Daenerys by saying that her husband can take Westeros for her. Jon Connington is a far better authority on Wessosi vs Esterosi armies, considering how he fought in, and against, both.

But even if Martin does fix that mistake...

"Very few of Westerosi forces will be archers" is not what we see. Archers feature prominently in all battles we see - including the (very few) field battles. Whenever we see a force left to defend or garrison a point, it is always either archers or "archers + something" - archers and swordsmen are left to hold the Twins, Northern host consists of "pikes and archers and great masses of men-at-arms on foot", Stannis has "knights, archers, and sellsword captains" at his feast, Catelyn "saw men with spears and men with swords, men in steel caps and mail shirts, camp followers strutting their charms, archers fletching arrows, teamsters driving wagons, swineherds driving pigs, pages running messages, squires honing swords, knights riding palfreys, grooms leading ill-tempered destriers"... Westerosi archers are also good enough to reliable shoot down ravens that are used to send messages. Riverrun crossing was guarded by "a mixed force of archers and pikemen wearing the eagle badge of the Mallisters". Archers also feature prominently in naval battles. And this is just first two books. We also know that Westerosi bows are better than composite bows of Essos, and latter should fall apart in Westerosi climate anyway.

Of course, this doesn't mean that archers will be majority of the army like 100 Years War English army did, but there should be enough of them to keep Dothraki at bay. And even when large portion of army are not archers, that does not mean horse archers will be able to defeat the army: just look at Battle of Arsuf. Saladin had 25 000 cavalry - majority of whom were horse archers - against Richard's 10 000 infantry - of whom majority were spearmen, with some crossbowmen and archers - and 1200 heavy cavalry. Richard could not reply effectively due to lack of archers, while Saladin could freely harass Richard's army. But heavy mail armor and large shields that Richard's troops had meant that Saladin's archery tactics were ineffective, forcing his army into close combat - where it was then defeated.

Mobility doesn't matter in archery duel. In fact, horse archers frequently dismounted when facing archers on foot, in order to gain a more stable firing basis. A horse archer, on horse, will have a) less stable basis and b) usually a weaker weapon as well. As a result, foot archer will significantly outrange him - and mobility hardly matters when facing a mass of arrows. This is not Matrix.

What horse archers are, is overrated. They were successful in warfare, but only when used properly as a part of combined arms force - and they were hardly uniformly successful. As a matter of fact, most of the time the horse archer armies lost against armies on foot. That is why those few examples when they didn't (e.g. Mongols) are so publicized.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

Thatl be either the 1st hungarian invasion where they swept over hungary regardless or the 2nd one vs the more backward goldennhorde  failed , either way we know the mongols did well vs sieges , had trebuchets , and were one of the most sucessful militaries of all time, as were the hun who we know did very well vs western sieges too!....not that any of that matters as we are specificaly told the dothraki HAVE taken fortified cities in the century of blood including vayyrian !

 

In the 1st Mongol invasion of Hungary, Hungarian army was literally a Dothraki horde - it consisted of light cavalry (including horse archers) and light infantry, with almost no heavy infantry, no crossbowmen, and no knights beyond maybe couple hundred that had been provided by the knights' orders. It had no stone castles either - all but ten castles in Hungary proper were made of wood. Mongols were the side that was much closer to Westerosi - while they did indeed have heavy focus on horse archers, they also had heavy cavalry that was more similar to Byzantine kataphraktoi than anything else, advanced artillery and even gunpowder units.

You know what Hungary did after the disaster of 1241.-1242. invasion? Gave nobles land they were to use to raise heavy cavalry, obliged nobility to build stone castles, and introduced a large number of crossbowmen. In order to defeat Mongols, Hungary transformed from light cavalry-centric Dothraki-style army into heavy-cavalry centric Westerosi-style army. I rest my case.

Yes, Dothraki may have taken fortified cities. We still don't know how they did it, meaning that just knowing they did it is useless.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:37 AM, astarkchoice said:

They can leave enough to hold the siege  and send out foraging forces (vunerable to who? the enemy are locked up and the foraging party is mobile on horseback ) they can range for miles around to feed their horses  (remember  thats what nomads do and these ones eat their spare horses )  most sieges its the people inside who starved or surrendered not the other way round for good reason!! ! 6 months is the longest medieval siege ever recorded so we can assume westeros ones wont be even close to that.

Dothraki do not have enough men to besiege every single castle, city, outpost and village in Westeros. So yes, their foraging parties will be vulnerable to destruction, and considering we are talking about Westeros here, not the Dothraki sea, your idea of Dothraki "eating their horses" will not work - and not just because they will run out of horses fast if they do so. Nomadic armies require steppe to sustain themselves - Dothraki sea, in other words. Where, exactly, do you see steppe in Westeros? If Dothraki try to feed themselves with your "what nomads do", they will die of hunger without Westerosi having to lift a finger - much like nearly happened in Hungary and Poland in 1241/1242. and again in 1285. And if they try to split into small parties in order to survive - well, see what I wrote about castles and piecemeal destruction.

No, six months is just English history, perhaps. And even then it is wrong (dear Lord, can you write anything that is not flat-out false?). Siege of Thessalonica lasted from 1422. to 1430. (so eight years), siege of Philadelphia lasted from 1378. to 1390. (so 12 years), siege of Tripoli lasted from 1102. to 1109. (so seven years), siege of Harlech Castle (England!) lasted from 1461. to 1468. (so seven years) and castle was only taken by negotiation, siege of Xianyang by your beloved Mongols lasted from 1267. to 1272. (so six years), siege of Bursa lasted from 1317. to 1326. (so nine years), siege of fort of Gerdkih (again by Mongols, this time in Persia) lasted from 1253. to 1270. (so 17 years). Granted, most of these examples are cities, but that is because cities are usually more strategically significant. In fact castles, if anything, should be able to last for longer - note that the longest example in the list is a fort, not a city. And we are talking real-world castles here, not provisioned-for-magical-ten-year-winter Westerosi castles.

Most sieges ended unsuccessfuly. In fact, they were so risky, that raiding was preferred way of waging warfare during Middle Ages (and well beyond then, in fact) - sieges were only performed when something absolutely had to be taken, while field battles were typically a result of either raiding party being intercepted (those "parties" were generally full-blown armies), an army being intercepted while on a way to besiege a castle or a city, or a besieged castle or a city being relieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those two make a very formidable fighting force.  The Dothraki are the best cavalry on Planetos while the Unsullied are the best infantry.  They can win Westeros for Daenerys.  Resistance will be futile.  Dragon flame should be able to light up the castles and cook the Lords of Westeros inside.  Burn those creepy Weirwoods as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Dothraki are the best cavalry on Planetos while the Unsullied are the best infantry.

I don't know. I think most knights are better cavalry than the Dothraki to be honest. If I were conquering Westeros, I'd rather have 50,000 knights than 50,000 Dothraki.

6 minutes ago, Finley McLeod said:

Burn those creepy Weirwoods as well.  

Targeting one of the major religions on the continent is not a good way for Daenerys to establish herself. Burning things of any kind would likely draw unfavourable comparisons with her father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...