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

[astarkchoice]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This is exactly what the Dothraki did in the battle of Qohor though...

Thats the same mistake in one battle though

Different to a city hearing that another went out and got slaughterd by dothraki and deciding they want the same

[Craving Peaches]

32 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Qohor is three hundred years ago.  The Dothraki may have adapted since then.

They may well have done but there is no evidence to suggest they did since no siege engines are ever mentioned as being used or possessed by the Dothraki. They clearly weren't learning from their mistakes at Qohor because they kept on charging.

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

They may well have done but there is no evidence to suggest they did since no siege engines are ever mentioned as being used or possessed by the Dothraki. They clearly weren't learning from their mistakes at Qohor because they kept on charging.

I was thinking more that they may have learned to manoeuvre, rather than charge head on, repeatedly.

[Craving Peaches]

44 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I was thinking more that they may have learned to manoeuvre, rather than charge head on, repeatedly.

I would think they would have learnt that earlier but...I mean they must have had to manoeuvre to beat people before they came to Qohor, surely?

[Jon Fossoway]

Even if I try to bust my mind visualizing the Unsullied and the dothraki in westerosi soil, I just can't. The show scenes where they fought in Westeros seems false and unreal. I entertain the mild notion that Daenerys will arrive to Westeros followed by a handful of loyalists and there she will gather more swords to her cause. And the unsullied and the dothraki will melt in that bloodbath Essos is about to become.

[astarkchoice]

37 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I would think they would have learnt that earlier but...I mean they must have had to manoeuvre to beat people before they came to Qohor, surely?

Sometimes even the best forces can be frigged by one crappy commander....rome for example took some massive losses at times.due to morons in charge 

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

They come out and face enemies in pitched battles yes as do the westeroi, this is a fedudal  setting you must if possible contest the very lands you claim to rule. Theres 0 evidence that the various cultures whos citys were sacked didnt have full guarding forces, even the sanori who lost a hige pitched battle may still have had city guard forces plus one battle.doesnt mean they cant replenish their ranks esp over the years it took for them all to fall.

Nor do they as cultures not use their fortifications we know many sanori cities took sieges to fall, the qaathi obvioisly are very fond of avoiding direct engagement, the valaryians of course would have had their fused stone and ibbenese if i recall still ahve a fort city in dothraki striking range and as dany showed the ghiscari will use fortifications too

No, you don't. In fact, your "idea" of how feudal forces operate is the exact opposite of reality. Feudal armies did fight field battles, but they were seen as risky. Majority of field battles happened when either a) an army intercepted the enemy raiding party (Crecy, Poitiers, Valmont, Jerez, Lalakaon, Manzikert, Krbava) or b) an army arrived to relieve a siege of a fortified place (city, town, castle, fort).

We see this in A Song of Ice and Fire as well. We do have a relatively large numbers of significant field battles, but these too are usually a result of either a raiding army being intercepted (Golden Tooth, Mummer's Ford, Duskendale), a result of a siege (Whispering Wood, Camps, Torrhen's Square, Blackwater, Wall), or a feint/delaying action (Green Fork, Trident). Only field battles that are not either due to raids or sieges are battles of Oxcross and Fords.

Also keep in mind that we are talking about a civil war here. Much like War of the Roses, contestants may well want to fight a field battle in order to preserve the resources they are fighting over (cities, population etc.), though obviously other considerations still matter. But if the enemy is seen as a foreign invader, that consideration too goes out of the window.

We see in history that when a major field battle is lost, this results in a very rapid loss of a large number of cities, unless there are territorial defense forces remaining intact (say, Byzantine themata or else feudal retinues and city militias). But Sarnori were neither a Byzantine nor a feudal force, and even feudal states were not immune to negative effects of major field battles. After Battle of Yarmouk, Byzantine Empire lost entirety of Syria and Middle East - cities simply surrendered due to lack of defenders. Battle of Mohacs in 1526. resulted in literal dissolution of Kingdom of Hungary, though western part survived and joined the Habsburg Empire. Why do you assume Sarnori are somehow this magical force that would have been able or willing to continue fighting despite destruction of their army in the field? Especially if these forces were all they had - strongest walls are useless if you do not have defenders to man them.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

We are literaly told the walled towns outside the free cities are bigger than kings landing, volantis inside(far inside) walls are 200 ft high.and thick enough for horse races,  quarth easily  outshines everything in westeros ,the ghiscari buildings let downnonly by their crubmbling bricks and of course we are explicitly told the valyrians made better stoneworks than westerosi (for obvious reasons due to their pets) the level of building is both at least westerosi level or beyond , more modern and far grander in essos everywhere except slavers bay

 

And Free Cities do not fear the Dothraki for that very reason. Ghiscari though? Nope, just no. At least if we are talking about the current Ghiscari - the Empire may have been better.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Bravos would easily dominate the seas , assasinate leaders at will  and mercs who can raid as they like in westeros will find plunder enough to be paid. Thats before we even metion its more modern economy advantages

 

You mean like Venice dominated Hungary, Austria and Ottoman Empire... oh wait. It didn't. In fact, Venice was very careful not to piss off Hungary, unless Hungary itself was having massive internal troubles.

Of course, Braavos has the advantage in that it is located on another continent, so it doesn't have to fear Westerosi invasion. But conversely, Westeros is self-sufficient enough that it does not have to fear anything Braavosi navy may be able to do to it. Any war between Westeros and Braavos would end up literally this:

https://i.imgflip.com/51kk03.png

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Scipios campaign in spain was the counterpoint to hannibals inital sucess, his breathtaking wins in spain are what kept romes allies loyal and kept huge reinforcements  from comming to dominate italy. Once spain was done so was hannibal.

So again unsupported pikemen  vs spearmen or swordsmen get slaughtered thats what we mentioned so yes you have conceded that part.

The roman formation and agressive centurion officer structure meant it always had the advantage...to strip off men from cohorts  and plunge  them into  any gaps or flanks  vs the defencless at close range sarissa wielders!! 

Greek hopites  and various other infantry are some of  what alexander flanked his  sarissa forces with to protext them (later sucessors forgetting the more mixed nature of this army is part of what  lost the sucessors their empires) and one of his most costly wins was vs greek mercs hoplites who got in among his sarissamen...not that we even know the unsullied are fully them given we hear of '3 spears' training and the fact (winds of winter the new ghis legions) they can form squares vs knights

What kept Rome's allies loyal is the fact that a) Roman rule was not very oppressive - if anything, Roman Republic was more similar to Holy Roman Empire than to absolutist monarchies at this point and b) Hannibal was not able to besiege cities. If Hannibal had been successful in Italy, Scipio's campaign would have been irrelevant. Roman dominance of the sea meant that Hannibal was not able to receive much reinforcement from Spain in any case - his entire strategy hinged on "convincing" Roman allies to abandon Rome, but he lacked tools to do the convincing.

Stop bullshitting me. Unsupported pikemen vs unsupported spearmen leads to spearmen being slaughtered. Why do you think any force which could choose between fielding pikemen and spearmen, fielded pikemen?

And again, you are missing the point. Several points, in fact. First, ancient sarissa phalanx is not medieval pike formation. It was never intended to win a battle on its own (though it could do it, in some circumstances): its entire purpose was to pin the enemy for flanking attack by cavalry. It also had to be protected by skirmishers, cavalry and missile troops. Medieval pikemen however could and were expected to fight unsupported, even if they too performed the best when supported by combined arms. Second, medieval pikemen lacked literally all weaknesses which Romans exploited against the phalanx. Medieval pike formations were fully capable of fighting on uneven terrain, could not be outflanked, were as aggressive as a hornet's nest, had (usually) very good armor, and had integral support troops such as close-quarters and missile infantry - and pikemen themselves were very capable of close-quarters combat (though they would need to drop the pike). Macedonian pike phalanx fell apart on uneven terrain, was very vulnerable to being outflanked, was very slow and unwieldy, had very bad armor and had no integral support troops (Alexander's phalanx did have support troops, but these were not integral and in any case Alexander's phalanx was not what Romans faced). Literally the only point that Macedonian phalanx has in common with medieval pike formations is the fact that it used pikes. In every other regard, it was decisively inferior.

So yeah, unsupported pikemen vs spearmen or swordsmen leads to pikemen slaughtering everybody else. Why do you think swordsmen were only support troops in medieval pike formations, and were eventually phased out altogether? Why nobody used spearmen if they were able to field pikemen? But of course, you know better than people with centuries of warfighting experience.

And again, sarissa wielders are not medieval pikemen. Yes, Alexandrian pike phalanx absolutely had to have its flanks protected. If it got ouflanked, the entire line would get rolled up as it was only able to face the enemy to its front. Meanwhile, medieval pike squares were immune to flanking attacks. Literally only weakness they had were a) sustained missile bombardment, or b) heavy cavalry attacking them at points of the squares. But Swiss pike squares and Spanish tercios were fully capable of fighting their way out of complete encirclement, with no outside help.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

They do seem to be based on  horse archer cultures though so until we see otherwise itd be silly to think of them as say slingers or heavy axemen no? And no nomads vs horse archers we know the nomads had some spectacular sucesses and losses...nwother had any advantage over the other (most interaction was actualy trade =  raw food for refinned goods)

Well that would mean wed have to assume in every single engagement the dorhtaki somehow got the defenders to send out the bulk.of their forces AND beat them in battle every time and every single time despite hearingnof other losses fotified cities still chose suicide by pitched open battle! Makes far more sense to just  assume they can take  fortified cities either through starvation, surrender or hiring essos plentiful  siege engineers  to take doen the walls/doors!

Dothraki are not based on any horse archer cultures I am familiar with, except maybe Plains Indians. Who themselves had trouble taking temporary wooden palisade forts, forget anything made of stone. Dothraki lack literally everything that made Eurasian horse archers so successful - especially the heavy, armored cavalry which Eurasian nomads were so fond of. All Eurasian horse archer cultures fielded heavy armored cavalry (cataphracts):

• Scythians fielded cataphracts
• Sarmatians fielded cataphracts
• Alans fielded cataphracts
• Parthians fielded cataphracts
• Sassanids fielded cataphracts
• Mongols fielded cataphracts

Yes, they utilized horse archers. But it was heavy cavalry employed in shock charge that was the decisive arm of all "horse archer" cultures. Vaunted horse archers were there basically to create conditions for a successful heavy cavalry charge, by harassing the enemy, taunting them out of formation and trying to lure enemy cavalry away from supporting infantry.

Dothraki do not have heavy cavalry. Therefore, they are physically incapable of replicating the successes of nomadic horse archer armies because the only thing they can is harass the enemy: they are completely unable to force a decision unless the enemy does something monumentally stupid. Like what Sarnori did, charging at the enemy with no regard for formation, tactics or really anything. But if the enemy has archers and/or holds formation, Dothraki are screwed - as we see at Qohor.

And no, I am not suggesting that every single city sent out its forces after hearing what Dothraki did - although that is far from impossible, considering general stupidity that is Essos. I am suggesting that they sent out all they had in bulk (numbers at Field of Crows certainly suggest that), had that army slaughtered, and afterwards had nothing to defend the cities with. And city with big walls and no army is an easy prey.

But yes, hiring siege engineers is possible. And heavy infantry to storm the city. And crossbowmen to suppress the city's defenders while engineers do the work. But... that is no longer a Dothraki army.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

That would.assume a perfectly coordinated utter devasation of food,water and grass for 100s of miles around , a hard task even by modern logistics hence why it rarely worked . Even dany found enough to live on in the slavers dessert like scoured outsides. Westeros pasture vs nomadic would be far far lusher than what the nomads are used to..a literal bounty to them. The dothraki like many old armies jsut nned to leave enough to besiege their enemies and the rest of their forces moves right on

 

Mongols starved in Hungary despite Hungarians having had no time to implement any form of scorched earth strategy. Twice. And Daenerys will be invading in winter, which means that Westerosi don't have to devastate anything: they just have to take everything they have into castles - which they will do anyway, at least whatever wasn't destroyed in warfare - and Dothraki won't have anything to use.

And no, Westerosi pasture will not be "far lusher" than what nomads are used to... where are you getting that from? Daenerys will be invading in the middle of winter. And remember that Mongols starved in Hungary and Poland, which were certainly "far lusher" than what they were used to... but also much smaller than the steppe, with forests and hills and mountains, and many, many fortified cities and castles.

Remind me which area of Planetos is like that?

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yepnits grmms book and while the unsullied are daft and sorta a mix of ancient militaries and dothraki a very poor mans hun/mongol  in his world they did take cities..so we can assume there were special circumstances for each one.or the simple awnser is they took them...just as real medieval sieges  probably by simple starvation/betrayal or surrender instead of cool sieges engines or by getting slaves/paid professionals to make what  they possibly cant

 

Or Essosi are just stupid. All we really know is that:

1) Dothraki defeated the Sarnori and some other civilizations of Central Essos

2) Dothraki were defeated by the Unsullied at Qohor in cca 100 BC

3) Golden Company sacked Qohor under Aegor Rivers, so between 197 and 211 AC - 300 years after the Unsullied had become Qohor's main army

So crudely put, Dothraki beat the Sarnori, Unsullied beat the Dothraki, Westerosi beat the Unsullied. Now, this sort of X > Y > Q doesn't exactly work in the real world, but Unsullied and the Westerosi infantry are not so dissimilar that we can assume the Unsullied have some sort of unique advantage that allows them to beat the Dothraki where Westerosi cannot, while themselves being outmatched by Westerosi armies.

Everything else is just extrapolation, or to put it more crudely, pulling stuff out of our asses.

[astarkchoice]

21 hours ago, Aldarion said:

No, you don't. In fact, your "idea" of how feudal forces operate is the exact opposite of reality. Feudal armies did fight field battles, but they were seen as risky. Majority of field battles happened when either a) an army intercepted the enemy raiding party (Crecy, Poitiers, Valmont, Jerez, Lalakaon, Manzikert, Krbava) or b) an army arrived to relieve a siege of a fortified place (city, town, castle, fort).

We see this in A Song of Ice and Fire as well. We do have a relatively large numbers of significant field battles, but these too are usually a result of either a raiding army being intercepted (Golden Tooth, Mummer's Ford, Duskendale), a result of a siege (Whispering Wood, Camps, Torrhen's Square, Blackwater, Wall), or a feint/delaying action (Green Fork, Trident). Only field battles that are not either due to raids or sieges are battles of Oxcross and Fords.

Also keep in mind that we are talking about a civil war here. Much like War of the Roses, contestants may well want to fight a field battle in order to preserve the resources they are fighting over (cities, population etc.), though obviously other considerations still matter. But if the enemy is seen as a foreign invader, that consideration too goes out of the window.

We see in history that when a major field battle is lost, this results in a very rapid loss of a large number of cities, unless there are territorial defense forces remaining intact (say, Byzantine themata or else feudal retinues and city militias). But Sarnori were neither a Byzantine nor a feudal force, and even feudal states were not immune to negative effects of major field battles. After Battle of Yarmouk, Byzantine Empire lost entirety of Syria and Middle East - cities simply surrendered due to lack of defenders. Battle of Mohacs in 1526. resulted in literal dissolution of Kingdom of Hungary, though western part survived and joined the Habsburg Empire. Why do you assume Sarnori are somehow this magical force that would have been able or willing to continue fighting despite destruction of their army in the field? Especially if these forces were all they had - strongest walls are useless if you do not have defenders to man them.

And Free Cities do not fear the Dothraki for that very reason. Ghiscari though? Nope, just no. At least if we are talking about the current Ghiscari - the Empire may have been better.

You mean like Venice dominated Hungary, Austria and Ottoman Empire... oh wait. It didn't. In fact, Venice was very careful not to piss off Hungary, unless Hungary itself was having massive internal troubles.

Of course, Braavos has the advantage in that it is located on another continent, so it doesn't have to fear Westerosi invasion. But conversely, Westeros is self-sufficient enough that it does not have to fear anything Braavosi navy may be able to do to it. Any war between Westeros and Braavos would end up literally this:

https://i.imgflip.com/51kk03.png

What kept Rome's allies loyal is the fact that a) Roman rule was not very oppressive - if anything, Roman Republic was more similar to Holy Roman Empire than to absolutist monarchies at this point and b) Hannibal was not able to besiege cities. If Hannibal had been successful in Italy, Scipio's campaign would have been irrelevant. Roman dominance of the sea meant that Hannibal was not able to receive much reinforcement from Spain in any case - his entire strategy hinged on "convincing" Roman allies to abandon Rome, but he lacked tools to do the convincing.

Stop bullshitting me. Unsupported pikemen vs unsupported spearmen leads to spearmen being slaughtered. Why do you think any force which could choose between fielding pikemen and spearmen, fielded pikemen?

And again, you are missing the point. Several points, in fact. First, ancient sarissa phalanx is not medieval pike formation. It was never intended to win a battle on its own (though it could do it, in some circumstances): its entire purpose was to pin the enemy for flanking attack by cavalry. It also had to be protected by skirmishers, cavalry and missile troops. Medieval pikemen however could and were expected to fight unsupported, even if they too performed the best when supported by combined arms. Second, medieval pikemen lacked literally all weaknesses which Romans exploited against the phalanx. Medieval pike formations were fully capable of fighting on uneven terrain, could not be outflanked, were as aggressive as a hornet's nest, had (usually) very good armor, and had integral support troops such as close-quarters and missile infantry - and pikemen themselves were very capable of close-quarters combat (though they would need to drop the pike). Macedonian pike phalanx fell apart on uneven terrain, was very vulnerable to being outflanked, was very slow and unwieldy, had very bad armor and had no integral support troops (Alexander's phalanx did have support troops, but these were not integral and in any case Alexander's phalanx was not what Romans faced). Literally the only point that Macedonian phalanx has in common with medieval pike formations is the fact that it used pikes. In every other regard, it was decisively inferior.

So yeah, unsupported pikemen vs spearmen or swordsmen leads to pikemen slaughtering everybody else. Why do you think swordsmen were only support troops in medieval pike formations, and were eventually phased out altogether? Why nobody used spearmen if they were able to field pikemen? But of course, you know better than people with centuries of warfighting experience.

And again, sarissa wielders are not medieval pikemen. Yes, Alexandrian pike phalanx absolutely had to have its flanks protected. If it got ouflanked, the entire line would get rolled up as it was only able to face the enemy to its front. Meanwhile, medieval pike squares were immune to flanking attacks. Literally only weakness they had were a) sustained missile bombardment, or b) heavy cavalry attacking them at points of the squares. But Swiss pike squares and Spanish tercios were fully capable of fighting their way out of complete encirclement, with no outside help.

Dothraki are not based on any horse archer cultures I am familiar with, except maybe Plains Indians. Who themselves had trouble taking temporary wooden palisade forts, forget anything made of stone. Dothraki lack literally everything that made Eurasian horse archers so successful - especially the heavy, armored cavalry which Eurasian nomads were so fond of. All Eurasian horse archer cultures fielded heavy armored cavalry (cataphracts):

• Scythians fielded cataphracts
• Sarmatians fielded cataphracts
• Alans fielded cataphracts
• Parthians fielded cataphracts
• Sassanids fielded cataphracts
• Mongols fielded cataphracts

Yes, they utilized horse archers. But it was heavy cavalry employed in shock charge that was the decisive arm of all "horse archer" cultures. Vaunted horse archers were there basically to create conditions for a successful heavy cavalry charge, by harassing the enemy, taunting them out of formation and trying to lure enemy cavalry away from supporting infantry.

Dothraki do not have heavy cavalry. Therefore, they are physically incapable of replicating the successes of nomadic horse archer armies because the only thing they can is harass the enemy: they are completely unable to force a decision unless the enemy does something monumentally stupid. Like what Sarnori did, charging at the enemy with no regard for formation, tactics or really anything. But if the enemy has archers and/or holds formation, Dothraki are screwed - as we see at Qohor.

And no, I am not suggesting that every single city sent out its forces after hearing what Dothraki did - although that is far from impossible, considering general stupidity that is Essos. I am suggesting that they sent out all they had in bulk (numbers at Field of Crows certainly suggest that), had that army slaughtered, and afterwards had nothing to defend the cities with. And city with big walls and no army is an easy prey.

But yes, hiring siege engineers is possible. And heavy infantry to storm the city. And crossbowmen to suppress the city's defenders while engineers do the work. But... that is no longer a Dothraki army.

Mongols starved in Hungary despite Hungarians having had no time to implement any form of scorched earth strategy. Twice. And Daenerys will be invading in winter, which means that Westerosi don't have to devastate anything: they just have to take everything they have into castles - which they will do anyway, at least whatever wasn't destroyed in warfare - and Dothraki won't have anything to use.

And no, Westerosi pasture will not be "far lusher" than what nomads are used to... where are you getting that from? Daenerys will be invading in the middle of winter. And remember that Mongols starved in Hungary and Poland, which were certainly "far lusher" than what they were used to... but also much smaller than the steppe, with forests and hills and mountains, and many, many fortified cities and castles.

Remind me which area of Planetos is like that?

Or Essosi are just stupid. All we really know is that:

1) Dothraki defeated the Sarnori and some other civilizations of Central Essos

2) Dothraki were defeated by the Unsullied at Qohor in cca 100 BC

3) Golden Company sacked Qohor under Aegor Rivers, so between 197 and 211 AC - 300 years after the Unsullied had become Qohor's main army

So crudely put, Dothraki beat the Sarnori, Unsullied beat the Dothraki, Westerosi beat the Unsullied. Now, this sort of X > Y > Q doesn't exactly work in the real world, but Unsullied and the Westerosi infantry are not so dissimilar that we can assume the Unsullied have some sort of unique advantage that allows them to beat the Dothraki where Westerosi cannot, while themselves being outmatched by Westerosi armies.

Everything else is just extrapolation, or to put it more crudely, pulling stuff out of our asses.

Yes pitched battles and sieges are/were to be avoided but this IS a civil war , the fact there is a living targaryan  contesting control of westeros and many will already be aware of that

The sanori field of crows happened after most of their cities and forts  ...it was their last stand so to speak (note one of their great fortress cities held for 6 years before falling to starvation and this was prior to the field of crows)  Plus no a few months or years is more than enough time to recoup lost forces , nor would the field of crows have affected the valyrian, ghis, quaathi,rohynr  city defensive forces.

The free cities pay them rather than risk siege...that alone hints they arent 0 threat to great walled cities if the merchant lords will part with good money rather than sit inside and laugh at the savages

Roman  southern  allied cities turned to carthage including major ones, allegence and control ebbed and flowed based on romes harassment and taking of carthages allied cities/towns. Had carthage not been losing spain or been able to land more of its larger forces smashed by scipio the war would have been very different..word.alone of his wins would have had  a serious effect on many an allies esp the fickle numidians

 

Pikemen even at their absolute zenith of swiss and german mercs has supporting troops or themselves carried swords and knives to engage at close range, spearmen were common in medieval times too although phased out by the far more effective  polearms  which westeros doesnt seem.to have moved en masse to yet. The unsullied we know train with 3 different spear types + sword but have quilted tunics and can form square(winds of winter new ghis legions )   so arent really a match with any historical armed force

Agreed they dont fully match any , most nomads were mixed forces and many allied/co opted all kinds from infantry to heavy cavalry into their ranks but no there was no decisive arm , if the dothraki are a mix of archers and light cavalry we can assume harassment and mixed tactics are their MO...once gaps form in ranks even light cavalry en masse can cause havoc.

 

Erm no again the field of crows was AFTER many of the sanori cities fell and obviously didnt affect the other non sanori forts. The huns,.mongols,goth ,assyrians and  literaly every force in history assimilated skilled specalists into its ranks they were still called by one name

 

 the vale , the reach,riverlands,lower vale ,crownlands we are told are lush(esp the vast breadbasket of the reach) ...only the stormlands and maybe upper vale would be like hungary etc. Now yes  'winter is comming' but we can assume essos has seen winters too

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaenara Belarys]

46 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

The huns,.mongols,goth ,assyrians and  literaly every force in history assimilated skilled specalists into its ranks they were still called by one name

Yes, but the Dothraki don't seem to do so. Look at their chapters in AGOT, aside from merchants and the sellswords that protect the caravans, no specialist group comes along with the Dothraki khalasars, as far as we see. 

51 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

The unsullied we know train with 3 different spear types + sword but have quilted tunics and can form square(winds of winter new ghis legions )   so arent really a match with any historical armed force

There's a difference between a pike square and some square formed by phalangites/hoplites/whatever the Unsullied are. Possibly the fact that they're thousands of years apart. 

Westerosi pike squares are capable of maneuvers  and fighting on rough ground. Those formations above cannot (hoplites and phalangites). 

[astarkchoice]

9 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Yes, but the Dothraki don't seem to do so. Look at their chapters in AGOT, aside from merchants and the sellswords that protect the caravans, no specialist group comes along with the Dothraki khalasars, as far as we see. 

There's a difference between a pike square and some square formed by phalangites/hoplites/whatever the Unsullied are. Possibly the fact that they're thousands of years apart. 

Westerosi pike squares are capable of maneuvers  and fighting on rough ground. Those formations above cannot (hoplites and phalangites). 

Again that in our limited pov we know of,.we know they use slaves to make stuff and we know the same essosi slaves built lines and lines of trenchworks around mereen and 6 trebuchets! 

 

Yeah infantry other than pikes still formed up on medieval battlefields fir many years man and many of them still had spears! The sort of uber drilled professional merc swiss/german pikemen able to stay  in perfect formation to attack or defend without supporting infantry with closer range weapons (not that those 'pure'  pikemen didnt carry swords  + knives too to survive  when people got close) isnt something we see in westeros yet (esp as theyd be called sellswords there)

 

 

 

[Aldarion]

14 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yes pitched battles and sieges are/were to be avoided but this IS a civil war , the fact there is a living targaryan  contesting control of westeros and many will already be aware of that

 

Depends. Daenerys will be seen largely as a foreign invader, at least at first, even despite some lords joining her.

And by the time / if she has enough legitimacy to not be seen as a foreign invader, Westerosi recruits will be her primary fighting force, rendering this entire question (Dothraki and Unsullied in Westeros) largely irrelevant for the outcome of the campaign.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The sanori field of crows happened after most of their cities and forts  ...it was their last stand so to speak (note one of their great fortress cities held for 6 years before falling to starvation and this was prior to the field of crows)  Plus no a few months or years is more than enough time to recoup lost forces , nor would the field of crows have affected the valyrian, ghis, quaathi,rohynr  city defensive forces.

The free cities pay them rather than risk siege...that alone hints they arent 0 threat to great walled cities if the merchant lords will part with good money rather than sit inside and laugh at the savages

Fact that they managed to field an army of over hundred thousand means that Sarnori were not that depleted. Also, you are forgetting the fact that prior to unifying, Sarnori had been using the Dothraki as mercenaries in their own internal wars. How many of these cities had been sacked by the Sarnori themselves?

Yeah, no. Romans regularly paid off barbarians despite Roman army being far superior to any barbarian horde. Tribute is usually much cheapter than war. And Dothraki don't need to be a threat to walled cities to warrant a tribute: these are merchant lords. They will do anything to preserve their trade. And last time I checked, trade roads and rivers are not protected by tall walls.

That much was explained in the books themselves. Illyrio literally spells out why the Free Cities pay off the Dothraki:

Quote

The nine-towered manse of Khal Drogo sat beside the waters of the bay, its high brick walls
overgrown with pale ivy. It had been given to the khal by the magisters of Pentos, Illyrio told
them. 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?”

 

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Roman  southern  allied cities turned to carthage including major ones, allegence and control ebbed and flowed based on romes harassment and taking of carthages allied cities/towns. Had carthage not been losing spain or been able to land more of its larger forces smashed by scipio the war would have been very different..word.alone of his wins would have had  a serious effect on many an allies esp the fickle numidians

 

Southern allied cities, and Roman mass of allies as well as mastery of siege warfare meant that they never managed to reach the critical mass necessary. Further, largest cities in southern Italy - meaning major ports - remained loyal despite that, and Hannibal was not able to take them.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Pikemen even at their absolute zenith of swiss and german mercs has supporting troops or themselves carried swords and knives to engage at close range, spearmen were common in medieval times too although phased out by the far more effective  polearms  which westeros doesnt seem.to have moved en masse to yet. The unsullied we know train with 3 different spear types + sword but have quilted tunics and can form square(winds of winter new ghis legions )   so arent really a match with any historical armed force

 

The hell are you talking about? Spearmen in medieval armies were phased out by pikemen, which is precisely what Westeros fields. Those "far more effective polearms" were also phased out by pikemen, by the way - Swiss originally used halberds and similar polearms, but stopped using them as primary weapons as soon as they switched to pikes. Halberdiers etc. were retained until gunpowder weapons became a significant factor, but only as supporting troops within the pike squares. And Westerosi pikemen are supported by close-range heavy infantry, although that is positioned behind the pike squares instead within them.

Quote

Between them, pikemen formed squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe.

Yes, spearmen were used - but only when pikemen were not available. Anybody who could use pikemen, used pikemen. And those "far more effective polearms" were used as backup for pikemen, basically to defend pike squares should anybody manage to get in close (which was possible, but only if the pikemen were distracted - by, say, enemy pike square).

Yeah, Unsullied make no sense.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Agreed they dont fully match any , most nomads were mixed forces and many allied/co opted all kinds from infantry to heavy cavalry into their ranks but no there was no decisive arm , if the dothraki are a mix of archers and light cavalry we can assume harassment and mixed tactics are their MO...once gaps form in ranks even light cavalry en masse can cause havoc.

 

No, it cannot. Light cavalry can force the enemy to open ranks, but unless the formation completely falls apart (to the point of it resembling a not very dense crowd) it cannot actually wipe out the enemy infantry by itself.

Which I suspect is precisely what happened to Sarnori, considering the way their infantry is described as behaving.

Quote

The fall of Mardosh finally awakened the remaining Sarnori kings to the depth of their peril.

Putting aside their own quarrels and rivalries at last, the Tall Men gathered from up and down the Sarne, assembling a great army beneath the walls of Sarnath, intent on breaking the power of the khals for good and all.

Led by Mazor Alexi, last of the High Kings, they struck out boldly to the east.

In the tall grass halfway between Sarnath and the ruins of Kasath, they met the assembled power of four khalasars on what forever after was known as the Field of Crows.

Khal Haro, Khal Qano, Khal Loso (the Lame), and Khal Zhako commanded almost eighty thousand horsemen between them, we are told.

The great host of the High King of Sarnor was led by six thousand scythed chariots, with ten thousand armored riders behind them, and another ten thousand light horsemen (many of them women) on the flanks.

Behind them marched the Sarnori foot, close to a hundred thousand spearmen and slingers, giving the Tall Men a great advantage in numbers.

As battle was joined, the Sarnori chariots threatened to carry all before them.

Their earthshattering advance smashed through the center of the Dothraki horde, the spinning blades on the wheels of their chariots slicing through the legs of the Dothraki horses.

When Khal Haro himself went down before them, cut to pieces and trampled, his khalasar broke and fled.

As the chariots thundered after the fleeing horsemen, the High King and his armored riders plunged in after them, followed by the Sarnori foot, waving their spears and screaming victory.

Their elation was short-lived. The rout was feigned.

When they had drawn the Tall Men deep into the trap, the fleeing Dothraki turned suddenly and unleashed a storm of arrows from their great bows.

The khalasars of Khal Qano and Khal Zhako swept in from north and south, while Loso the Lame and his screamers circled round and attacked the Sarnori from the rear, cutting off their retreat.

Completely encircled, the High King and his mighty host were cut to pieces.

The World of Ice and Fire

Basically, Sarnori infantry were light infantry. Heavy infantry - regardless of their actual equipment - would not have been following the riders in such a manner.

Anyway, I have a few more thoughts on the Dothraki here:

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/tactical-overview-dothraki/

Note that full 40% of Mongol armies was heavy cavalry. Compare this to Dothraki who are 100% light cavalry.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Erm no again the field of crows was AFTER many of the sanori cities fell and obviously didnt affect the other non sanori forts. The huns,.mongols,goth ,assyrians and  literaly every force in history assimilated skilled specalists into its ranks they were still called by one name

 

Which would provide a good explanation for how Dothraki conquered fortified cities... except we never actually see Dothraki assimilating skilled specialists. Whenever a Dothraki army is mentioned, it is just a horde of light cavalrymen.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

 the vale , the reach,riverlands,lower vale ,crownlands we are told are lush(esp the vast breadbasket of the reach) ...only the stormlands and maybe upper vale would be like hungary etc. Now yes  'winter is comming' but we can assume essos has seen winters too

 

Hungary is lush, in fact, by nomadic standards. So is Poland. And you are forgetting that Huns (another nomadic group) settled in the Great Hungarian Plain. So did many other nomadic groups, though all of them eventually were forced to become settlers.

But the Hungarian plain that Huns settled in was not dotted with castles. The one which Mongols invaded was, even if the castles in the first invasion were not up to scratch.

And despite Hungary being far lusher than the steppe, Mongols still starved when the winter came.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

The Unsullied and the Dothraki will do just fine in Westeros.  The west has nothing that can win against them.  Read the other discussion comparing Ghis to Westeros.  Ghis had the same military style as the Unsullied and they forced Valyria to fight hard.  Aegon barely broke a sweat before the Targaryens broke the backs and will of Westeros.  He conquered with only three dragons.  Valyria had hundreds and Ghis was still competitive. 

[astarkchoice]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Depends. Daenerys will be seen largely as a foreign invader, at least at first, even despite some lords joining her.

And by the time / if she has enough legitimacy to not be seen as a foreign invader, Westerosi recruits will be her primary fighting force, rendering this entire question (Dothraki and Unsullied in Westeros) largely irrelevant for the outcome of the campaign.

Fact that they managed to field an army of over hundred thousand means that Sarnori were not that depleted. Also, you are forgetting the fact that prior to unifying, Sarnori had been using the Dothraki as mercenaries in their own internal wars. How many of these cities had been sacked by the Sarnori themselves?

Yeah, no. Romans regularly paid off barbarians despite Roman army being far superior to any barbarian horde. Tribute is usually much cheapter than war. And Dothraki don't need to be a threat to walled cities to warrant a tribute: these are merchant lords. They will do anything to preserve their trade. And last time I checked, trade roads and rivers are not protected by tall walls.

That much was explained in the books themselves. Illyrio literally spells out why the Free Cities pay off the Dothraki:

 

Southern allied cities, and Roman mass of allies as well as mastery of siege warfare meant that they never managed to reach the critical mass necessary. Further, largest cities in southern Italy - meaning major ports - remained loyal despite that, and Hannibal was not able to take them.

The hell are you talking about? Spearmen in medieval armies were phased out by pikemen, which is precisely what Westeros fields. Those "far more effective polearms" were also phased out by pikemen, by the way - Swiss originally used halberds and similar polearms, but stopped using them as primary weapons as soon as they switched to pikes. Halberdiers etc. were retained until gunpowder weapons became a significant factor, but only as supporting troops within the pike squares. And Westerosi pikemen are supported by close-range heavy infantry, although that is positioned behind the pike squares instead within them.

Yes, spearmen were used - but only when pikemen were not available. Anybody who could use pikemen, used pikemen. And those "far more effective polearms" were used as backup for pikemen, basically to defend pike squares should anybody manage to get in close (which was possible, but only if the pikemen were distracted - by, say, enemy pike square).

Yeah, Unsullied make no sense.

No, it cannot. Light cavalry can force the enemy to open ranks, but unless the formation completely falls apart (to the point of it resembling a not very dense crowd) it cannot actually wipe out the enemy infantry by itself.

Which I suspect is precisely what happened to Sarnori, considering the way their infantry is described as behaving.

Basically, Sarnori infantry were light infantry. Heavy infantry - regardless of their actual equipment - would not have been following the riders in such a manner.

Anyway, I have a few more thoughts on the Dothraki here:

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/tactical-overview-dothraki/

Note that full 40% of Mongol armies was heavy cavalry. Compare this to Dothraki who are 100% light cavalry.

Which would provide a good explanation for how Dothraki conquered fortified cities... except we never actually see Dothraki assimilating skilled specialists. Whenever a Dothraki army is mentioned, it is just a horde of light cavalrymen.

Hungary is lush, in fact, by nomadic standards. So is Poland. And you are forgetting that Huns (another nomadic group) settled in the Great Hungarian Plain. So did many other nomadic groups, though all of them eventually were forced to become settlers.

But the Hungarian plain that Huns settled in was not dotted with castles. The one which Mongols invaded was, even if the castles in the first invasion were not up to scratch.

And despite Hungary being far lusher than the steppe, Mongols still starved when the winter came.

Dunno she's a  targ , rumours of her will have circulated from even prior to the books and shes already got barristan (dudes presence alone adds prestige)  at her side and dorne will unquestionable be abuzz with her return (given they had a prince bbq'd for her)

Yeah it seems.obvious shel have westeroso forces too..the men in crownlamds  from brienes pov seem freakishly loyal

 

It specificaly says the dothraki took them.though and of most where before the field of crows it shows the forts/fortified cities must have probably been fully manned even the 6 year starvation one

 

Actualy more we learn of the 'barbarians' (a term becoming more daft with every sophisticated thing we learn of them) by the time rome was paying them off  instead of slaughtering them they werent much different to rome itself in military or even societywise! A great quote i read was that if you could time travel to a barbarian vs later roman army you probably couldnt tell them apart with weapons, armour, tactics and proto germanic chants!!!

 

He also jokes the lord of light would keep them from getting into their walls which he clearly doesnt believe

Hannibal  did get port cities and even got light reinforcements  from a few but again it was the war losing in spain that lost carthage that 2nd war, after the 1st spain pretty much was everything that made them a power equal-ish to rome again...once lost anyone could see the war was over competively.

Phased out by professionals drilled to hold formations while advancing and defending perfectly (who still used had sword and knives for close up combat and still had losses) westeros isnt at that level yet (and theyd call such professional mercs sellswords anyway) ,their pikemen are a little further back needing supporting melee infantry  hence yes theyd be slaughtered entirely on their own.....with suppport agreed much more of a contest

 

Light cavalry can still open them up esp if the formations are forced to move or even  worse caught marching/forming... even standing still being peppered with arrows and charges into gaps, slashing at pike heads as they gallop past etc. 

We never seen them doing it doesnt mean they dont when they have a city to take

 

 

Yes.the huns had proper siege engines for their time thus did well , the mongols 1st wave did well regardless of not having the tebuchet yet  to deal with what few castlles hungary had and the 2nd one was the weak golden horde spin off ......the dothraki however we know live inan area where slaves can build trebuchets though,6 so far outside of mereen

 

literaly no one will do well in westeros winter agreed but before the snow falls the nomads will have the lush reach (described as the  breadbasket of westeros), riverlands, lower vale , crownlands plus every small towns remaining food reserves

 

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

35 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

A great quote i read was that if you could time travel to a barbarian vs later roman army you probably couldnt tell them apart with weapons, armour, tactics and proto germanic chants!!!

The Dothraki aren't really like the Germanic tribes with Rome though. They haven't adopted anything from anyone. They certainly don't seem to have adopted anything from Valyria, the Rome equivalent in-universe.

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

It specificaly says the dothraki took them.though and of most where before the field of crows it shows the forts/fortified cities must have probably been fully manned even the 6 year starvation one

 

And most people talk about Mongol conquest of China in the exact same way, yet when you read more detailed accounts, you realize that the Chinese had conquered China for the Mongols and that Mongols themselves were actually rather inept at siege warfare. Mongols actually had a professional corps of siege engineers... comprised entirely of the Chinese, and, later, other settled peoples as well. Mongols depended entirely on local (and, sometimes, Chinese) siege expertise to take cities, and where they weren't able to either acquire it locally (Europe) or to bring the Chinese infantry with them (Europe again), they failed utterly.

Much like "Mongol" armies that had conquered China consisted predominantly of Chinese infantry, and Chinese siege engineers, and so on... It is likely that the "Dothraki" armies that had conquered fortified cities consisted predominantly of settled peoples. Either that, or there were no sieges at all and everybody indeed did go out of the city walls like an idiot.

We just cannot know, because both the conquest of the Sarnori and the stand of 3 000 had been given appearance of a legend, making it difficult to know what exactly had happened.

Mongols weren't the only nomads whose success was based on the skills of settled peoples. Huns, too, depended on Roman engineers (mostly captives) to take Roman cities. And just like Mongols with their Chinese infantry, Huns also recruited infantry in barbaricum - infantry that was in equipment (if not entirely in organization and skills) equal to Roman legions of the time.

Nomads that did not recruit infantry and engineers among the settled peoples, never became a serious threat to begin with.

And there is another issue here which I am not sure I have touched upon. Irrespective of how Dothraki conquered Sarnori, their success there is hardly indicative of their potential performance in Westeros. There is a very large difference between conquering a system of city-states or centralized urban bureaucracy where cities themselves are the only thing that is fortified and you can easily reduce them by either siege or starvation, and conquering a feudal or thematic system where immediately after conquering a castle, you have three more castles just over the next hill.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Actualy more we learn of the 'barbarians' (a term becoming more daft with every sophisticated thing we learn of them) by the time rome was paying them off  instead of slaughtering them they werent much different to rome itself in military or even societywise! A great quote i read was that if you could time travel to a barbarian vs later roman army you probably couldnt tell them apart with weapons, armour, tactics and proto germanic chants!!!

 

Rome was always paying off barbarians. The only times Rome decided to slaughter barbarians was when they a) wanted to take their land (which was rare - most of the cultures Rome conquered were fairly urbanized and Rome rather quickly gave up on conquering rural / barbarian lands such as Scotland or Germania), or b) these barbarians were causing trouble. Other times? Rome paid those barbarians off. And yes, with time, these barbarians did become more Romanized and urbanized, and also took their knowledge with them to barbaricum - so by the 4th century, barbarians had pretty much the same equipment and fought the same way the Romans did. But that is not how it started: Roman legions of the Principate era had a very much guaranteed tactical and material superiority over every opponent they faced that was not Persians. But even then, Rome preferred to pay the barbarians off (be it with money, titles or else) rather than fight them.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

He also jokes the lord of light would keep them from getting into their walls which he clearly doesnt believe

 

Lord of Light or no, he clearly doesn't believe them to be much of a threat.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Hannibal  did get port cities and even got light reinforcements  from a few but again it was the war losing in spain that lost carthage that 2nd war, after the 1st spain pretty much was everything that made them a power equal-ish to rome again...once lost anyone could see the war was over competively.

 

Losing war in Spain may have lost Carthage the war, but Hannibal's campaign itself was lost in Italy. Firstly, he never received much support from Spain - distance was simply too great. Secondly, his entire strategy hinged on gaining support of Rome's allies in Italy. Once that failed, his campaign was over.

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Phased out by professionals drilled to hold formations while advancing and defending perfectly (who still used had sword and knives for close up combat and still had losses) westeros isnt at that level yet (and theyd call such professional mercs sellswords anyway) ,their pikemen are a little further back needing supporting melee infantry  hence yes theyd be slaughtered entirely on their own.....with suppport agreed much more of a contest

 

Swiss canton pikemen weren't mercenaries (though they would eventually become such). Flemish urban militia weren't mercenaries.

And pikemen always had supporting melee infantry, at least until firearms became the primary weapon on the battlefield anyway. Hell, Spanish tercio has its name from the fact that it consisted of three types of troops - pikemen, swordsmen and crossbowmen (who were soon replaced by arquebusiers). Fact that pikemen are supported by men-at-arms is hardly indicative of how organized they are or how they would perform against spearmen. Spanish tercio consisted of 50% pikes, 33% swords, 17% firearms in 1502, and 10% halberds, 30% pikes, 60% firearms by the end of the 16th century. 

So yeah, fact that Westerosi pikemen "need supporting melee infantry" is completely irrelevant to their performance against what is, at best, ancient Greek phalanx.

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Light cavalry can still open them up esp if the formations are forced to move or even  worse caught marching/forming... even standing still being peppered with arrows and charges into gaps, slashing at pike heads as they gallop past etc. 

 

If they try slashing at pike heads, they will get murdered. And even if they don't get murdered, pike shaft is not that easy to cut through. In fact, with a sword it is nearly impossible.

And while peppering pikemen with arrows is something that would work against pike-only army... maybe... we see that pikemen are supported by longbowmen. And in a duel between horse archers and foot archers, former lose. If Dothraki attempt to outshoot longbowmen... with only short bows and no armor, they will get slaughtered.

As for formations at march? Tell that to Richard the Lionheart, or literally any Byzantine or Crusader or Hungarian commander who marched his army, in good order, despite constant harassment by the horse archers. Foot archers are still lethal even while on march, and it is entirely possible for an army to maintain formation while marching.

8 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

We never seen them doing it doesnt mean they dont when they have a city to take

 

There is no "when they have a city to take". They either do it or they don't.

8 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yes.the huns had proper siege engines for their time thus did well , the mongols 1st wave did well regardless of not having the tebuchet yet  to deal with what few castlles hungary had and the 2nd one was the weak golden horde spin off ......the dothraki however we know live inan area where slaves can build trebuchets though,6 so far outside of mereen

 

Mongols in the first wave did well for one simple reason: Hungary had a grand total of ten stone castles. All other "castles" were literally just this:

https://www.castlesworld.com/img/motte-and-bailey-castle.jpg

Cities were also protected with wooden walls at best.

So what Mongols did was to surround the castle (or a town) with masses of troops, burn down the wooden walls, and with no walls remaining they could just storm the place. But occasionaly, there would happen to be a stone keep... and when there was, they usually were not able to take it, or could only take it after massive casualties.

And those ten stone castles? Five of them ended up in the Mongol-occupied territory for a year. Not a single one of them fell to the Mongols.

Yeah, but how likely are Dothraki to actually use that expertise? And just being able to build a trebuchet is not enough.

8 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

literaly no one will do well in westeros winter agreed but before the snow falls the nomads will have the lush reach (described as the  breadbasket of westeros), riverlands, lower vale , crownlands plus every small towns remaining food reserves

 

Um... snow is already starting to fall in the last chapters. In King's Landing.

Quote

The three men walked together from the throne room. Outside the snow was swirling round the
outer ward, a caged beast howling to be free. “Have you ever felt such cold?” asked Ser Harys.
“The time to speak of the cold,” said Grand Maester Pycelle, “is not when we are standing out in
it.” He made his slow way across the outer ward, back to his chambers.

Quote

The dry moat surrounding Maegor’s Holdfast was three feet deep in snow, the iron spikes that
lined it glistening with frost. The only way in or out of Maegor’s was across the drawbridge that spanned
that moat. A knight of the Kingsguard was always posted at its far end.
 

Quote

The messenger was a boy of eight or nine, so bundled up in fur he seemed a bear cub. Trant had
kept him waiting out on the drawbridge rather than admit him into Maegor’s. “Go find a fire, lad,” Ser
Kevan told him, pressing a penny into his hand. “I know the way to the rookery well enough.”
The snow had finally stopped falling. Behind a veil of ragged clouds, a full moon floated fat and
white as a snowball. The stars shone cold and distant. As Ser Kevan made his way across the inner ward,
the castle seemed an alien place, where every keep and tower had grown icy teeth, and all familiar
paths had vanished beneath a white blanket. Once an icicle long as a spear fell to shatter by his feet.
Autumn in King’s Landing, he brooded. What must it be like up on the Wall?

Quote

The rest was shrouded in shadow … except beneath the open window, where a spray of ice
crystals glittered in the moonlight, swirling in the wind. On the window seat a raven loitered, pale, huge,
its feathers ruffled. It was the largest raven that Kevan Lannister had ever seen. Larger than any hunting
hawk at Casterly Rock, larger than the largest owl. Blowing snow danced around it, and the moon
painted it silver.
Not silver. White. The bird is white.
The white ravens of the Citadel did not carry messages, as their dark cousins did. When they
went forth from Oldtown, it was for one purpose only: to herald a change of seasons.
“Winter,” said Ser Kevan. The word made a white mist in the air. He turned away from the
window.
 

So yeah. Not much "lush" to be had.

[astarkchoice]

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Dothraki aren't really like the Germanic tribes with Rome though. They haven't adopted anything from anyone. They certainly don't seem to have adopted anything from Valyria, the Rome equivalent in-universe.

They seem to be sucessful though

[Craving Peaches]

42 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

They seem to be sucessful though

In the past, but it doesn't look like they've done anything significant since the century of blood.

[astarkchoice]

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And most people talk about Mongol conquest of China in the exact same way, yet when you read more detailed accounts, you realize that the Chinese had conquered China for the Mongols and that Mongols themselves were actually rather inept at siege warfare. Mongols actually had a professional corps of siege engineers... comprised entirely of the Chinese, and, later, other settled peoples as well. Mongols depended entirely on local (and, sometimes, Chinese) siege expertise to take cities, and where they weren't able to either acquire it locally (Europe) or to bring the Chinese infantry with them (Europe again), they failed utterly.

Much like "Mongol" armies that had conquered China consisted predominantly of Chinese infantry, and Chinese siege engineers, and so on... It is likely that the "Dothraki" armies that had conquered fortified cities consisted predominantly of settled peoples. Either that, or there were no sieges at all and everybody indeed did go out of the city walls like an idiot.

We just cannot know, because both the conquest of the Sarnori and the stand of 3 000 had been given appearance of a legend, making it difficult to know what exactly had happened.

Mongols weren't the only nomads whose success was based on the skills of settled peoples. Huns, too, depended on Roman engineers (mostly captives) to take Roman cities. And just like Mongols with their Chinese infantry, Huns also recruited infantry in barbaricum - infantry that was in equipment (if not entirely in organization and skills) equal to Roman legions of the time.

Nomads that did not recruit infantry and engineers among the settled peoples, never became a serious threat to begin with.

And there is another issue here which I am not sure I have touched upon. Irrespective of how Dothraki conquered Sarnori, their success there is hardly indicative of their potential performance in Westeros. There is a very large difference between conquering a system of city-states or centralized urban bureaucracy where cities themselves are the only thing that is fortified and you can easily reduce them by either siege or starvation, and conquering a feudal or thematic system where immediately after conquering a castle, you have three more castles just over the next hill.

Rome was always paying off barbarians. The only times Rome decided to slaughter barbarians was when they a) wanted to take their land (which was rare - most of the cultures Rome conquered were fairly urbanized and Rome rather quickly gave up on conquering rural / barbarian lands such as Scotland or Germania), or b) these barbarians were causing trouble. Other times? Rome paid those barbarians off. And yes, with time, these barbarians did become more Romanized and urbanized, and also took their knowledge with them to barbaricum - so by the 4th century, barbarians had pretty much the same equipment and fought the same way the Romans did. But that is not how it started: Roman legions of the Principate era had a very much guaranteed tactical and material superiority over every opponent they faced that was not Persians. But even then, Rome preferred to pay the barbarians off (be it with money, titles or else) rather than fight them.

Lord of Light or no, he clearly doesn't believe them to be much of a threat.

Losing war in Spain may have lost Carthage the war, but Hannibal's campaign itself was lost in Italy. Firstly, he never received much support from Spain - distance was simply too great. Secondly, his entire strategy hinged on gaining support of Rome's allies in Italy. Once that failed, his campaign was over.

Swiss canton pikemen weren't mercenaries (though they would eventually become such). Flemish urban militia weren't mercenaries.

And pikemen always had supporting melee infantry, at least until firearms became the primary weapon on the battlefield anyway. Hell, Spanish tercio has its name from the fact that it consisted of three types of troops - pikemen, swordsmen and crossbowmen (who were soon replaced by arquebusiers). Fact that pikemen are supported by men-at-arms is hardly indicative of how organized they are or how they would perform against spearmen. Spanish tercio consisted of 50% pikes, 33% swords, 17% firearms in 1502, and 10% halberds, 30% pikes, 60% firearms by the end of the 16th century. 

So yeah, fact that Westerosi pikemen "need supporting melee infantry" is completely irrelevant to their performance against what is, at best, ancient Greek phalanx.

If they try slashing at pike heads, they will get murdered. And even if they don't get murdered, pike shaft is not that easy to cut through. In fact, with a sword it is nearly impossible.

And while peppering pikemen with arrows is something that would work against pike-only army... maybe... we see that pikemen are supported by longbowmen. And in a duel between horse archers and foot archers, former lose. If Dothraki attempt to outshoot longbowmen... with only short bows and no armor, they will get slaughtered.

As for formations at march? Tell that to Richard the Lionheart, or literally any Byzantine or Crusader or Hungarian commander who marched his army, in good order, despite constant harassment by the horse archers. Foot archers are still lethal even while on march, and it is entirely possible for an army to maintain formation while marching.

There is no "when they have a city to take". They either do it or they don't.

Mongols in the first wave did well for one simple reason: Hungary had a grand total of ten stone castles. All other "castles" were literally just this:

https://www.castlesworld.com/img/motte-and-bailey-castle.jpg

Cities were also protected with wooden walls at best.

So what Mongols did was to surround the castle (or a town) with masses of troops, burn down the wooden walls, and with no walls remaining they could just storm the place. But occasionaly, there would happen to be a stone keep... and when there was, they usually were not able to take it, or could only take it after massive casualties.

And those ten stone castles? Five of them ended up in the Mongol-occupied territory for a year. Not a single one of them fell to the Mongols.

Yeah, but how likely are Dothraki to actually use that expertise? And just being able to build a trebuchet is not enough.

Um... snow is already starting to fall in the last chapters. In King's Landing.

So yeah. Not much "lush" to be had.

Yeah the mongols and hun like all nomads traded with settled peoples and individuals.spwmt time in cities etc so where well aware of the tech needed, the engineers hired/recruited innwar times were part of the mongol and hun armies though as both uncharacteristicly for their time where meritocratic with promotion and rank and generous with spoils for those who did well....we can assume the dothraki are the same at least with spoils.

 

As for the sanori no we are specifcaly told the field of crows comes after the great  fortress city starved for 6 years falls...a wake up call for what was left of the sanori to band together

Well they seem to have reduced a whole bunch of city states of differing cultures and enviroments most of whom (bar ghis) build forts at least as well.as westerosi if not better

 

Rome took tribute from its surrounding states and tribed before its decline,paying off came more when the 'barbarians' were no lomger wasily brushed aside

Maybe but he wouldnt surrender good gold to someome who's 0 threat either

Hanibals campaign in spain of course failed precisely as he didint have enough men to stop romans harassing those who turned to carthage and later perceptions that carthage was losing....both would have been solved with keeping spain and its reinforcments/loot comming ,hell if the massive army his brother lost to scipio alone had landed....different history timeline altogether!!

 

So again we agree  unless later age profesionals ,pikemen alone vs spearmen isnt gonna end well good!

Sorta ... the unsullied seem to be an ungodly mix of phalanx , they can form.squares vs knights , they train with 3 spears and short sword(late roman legion) are eunchs (no good army ever) and of course wear quilted tunic armour which sorta could be greek linnorax but generaly when we say quilted tunic we mean the simple but useful gambeson (would make sense if it was wool too given they live next to the lamb men)

 

Their lack of armour will be issue vs normal archers, westeros doesnt seem to be like medieval england or the crusader states with a heavy % of their infantry as archers though so the dothraki do have that in their favour in a missle contest. They can focus fore on the pike and other melee infantry to open gaps to ride into (again lack of  armour could make this messier than real battles but sheer weight of numbers of cavalry into any gap created will create havoc regardless

On the march even the ultra diciplined armoured roman legions  were shredded by persian archers and no  for most hostorical.clashes caught out of formation foot usualy get ridden down by cavalry .....its the entire point of forming squares!!!

 

So again had they waited a little til they had tebuchets none of those stone forts would have stood , the 2nd invasion was the knock off golden horde

How likely ? Dude even the clanker lords managed to form.trench lines ans begin trebichet fire on mereen ...the khals we can.assume would be fine

 

Thats ok im sure essos doesnt have winters and the dothraki just go extinct every decade or so! Yes its an issue as grmm hasnt cleared up yet how any medieavl.culture outlasts planetos odd seasons!

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

In the past, but it doesn't look like they've done anything significant since the century of blood.

We can assume drogo was.set to change that..they seem to have gotten into a comfortable profitable rut just as the ghiscari etc have.

If the clankerords could get their slaves tk ser up.trench lines and firing trebuchets and dany got hers to form battering rams and from ships  we can assume at least  essosi slaves seem to have siege engineering down!

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yeah the mongols and hun like all nomads traded with settled peoples and individuals.spwmt time in cities etc so where well aware of the tech needed, the engineers hired/recruited innwar times were part of the mongol and hun armies though as both uncharacteristicly for their time where meritocratic with promotion and rank and generous with spoils for those who did well....we can assume the dothraki are the same at least with spoils.

 

Agreed, but this thread is specifically about "Unsullied and Dothraki" so... also, do we have any actual implications of Dothraki doing that? Because it is the only way to logically explain them conquering anything, yet I do not remember anything about them allying with settled peoples in actual text. Of course, they could have always forced them to build siege equipment, much like Huns did.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

As for the sanori no we are specifcaly told the field of crows comes after the great  fortress city starved for 6 years falls...a wake up call for what was left of the sanori to band together

Well they seem to have reduced a whole bunch of city states of differing cultures and enviroments most of whom (bar ghis) build forts at least as well.as westerosi if not better

First, we have no indication Sarnori etc. built forts better than the Westerosi.

Second, some individual cities in Essos may have had better forts than Westeros, but that does not mean their fortification system is better than Westerosi. A system of fortified manors + towers + small castles + large castles + fortified cities is far better than just a system of fortified cities, even if latter system's cities are far better fortified on average.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Rome took tribute from its surrounding states and tribed before its decline,paying off came more when the 'barbarians' were no lomger wasily brushed aside

Maybe but he wouldnt surrender good gold to someome who's 0 threat either

Wrong. Rome was always paying off the barbarians. This was not necessarily tribute as such, but gifts, titles, monetary payments, trade agreements and so on were always made to keep the barbarians happy and peaceful. It is simple logic: even if barbarian invasion is easily crushed, paying them off is still much cheaper than raising an army. And if you can pay barbarians not to attack you, then these barbarians also become a sort of a shield against other barbarians.

And it wasn't just the Romans. All empires did that. Chinese regularly paid off barbarian tribes close to their borders. Assyrians paid tribute to the Cimmerians and then the Scythians, Medes paid off the Scythians, Chin paid Xiongnu (and lot more besides), Tang paid off Uighur and the Gokthurk, and so on.

Nor were the barbarians only recipients of this. Rome paid rulers a yearly stipend for looking after its interests. And it didn't matter whether these were rulers of powerful states, minor kingdoms and duchies bordering the Empire, or chiefs of minor barbarian tribes: if they had something of value or Rome wanted them to do something, then Rome would pay them.

Yes, nobody would pay somebody who is no threat. But threat to what? Dothraki hardly need to be able to threaten the cities themselves to be a serious annoyance. And they don't even need to be a serious annoyance to warrant paying a tribute. Raising armies is expensive.

And in fact, 10th century Byzantine manual states that a ruler should not be afriad to pay tribute.

8 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Hanibals campaign in spain of course failed precisely as he didint have enough men to stop romans harassing those who turned to carthage and later perceptions that carthage was losing....both would have been solved with keeping spain and its reinforcments/loot comming ,hell if the massive army his brother lost to scipio alone had landed....different history timeline altogether!!

 

Hannibal's campaign, period, failed because he didn't have enough men. And he didn't have enough men because Carthage was relying on mercenaries while Rome was relying on landowning troops and her own allies. This in turn allowed Rome to isolate Hannibal while wiping out Carthaginian armies elsewhere.

So no, it wasn't any campaign specifically that won Rome the war. What won Rome the war was its political and military system which allowed her to raise army after an army while engaging Carthage simultaneously on multiple fronts.

Hannibal, to give him credit where credit is due, was aware of this problem. The entire reason why he invaded Italy was to put pressure on Rome and "convince" her allies to defect. But that plan failed because he was not able to threaten fortified cities. He could win field battles, but without ability to seize - or even threaten - cities, he could only gain few allies in the southern Italy. 

Hannibal's campaign in Spain did fail for the reasons you noted. But different outcome there would not have affected the fundamental problems noted above. Now, had Hasdrubal joined with Hannibal, then yes, things could have gone very differently. Could have, but not necessarily, as that alone would not have solved Hannibal's problem of "cannot take cities". Now, if that changed due to Hasdrubal joining him, then yes, he might have succeeded.

Fabius basically defeated Hannibal by avoiding battle.

9 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

So again we agree  unless later age profesionals ,pikemen alone vs spearmen isnt gonna end well good!

 

Pikemen do require much higher degree of training and organization than spearmen do in order to be used effectively (spear is basically a weapon for idiots), which means that you can't just slap together a bunch of dudes and expect them to be effective in a way that you can just give spears to peasants / citizens and get a relatively effective force of spearmen. At best, hastily assembled pikemen will be able to act as an immobile defensive hedgehog. Nevertheless, there have been multiple cases of effective pike militias, most notably Flemish urban and Swiss cantonese pike militias, both of which were capable of offensive action. But these still had to be well-drilled and highly trained: which is why I see presence of pike squares in Westerosi armies as a pretty conclusive evidence that majority (not entirety, but majority) of Westerosi infantry are not a bunch of village idiots that got conscripted, but are rather well-trained part-time soldiers (in other words, not conscripts but rather militia / National Guard). Much like longbowmen, pikemen require a training regime to be used at all in anything other than static defensive role.

But if pikemen have enough training to be used offensively at all, they will walk all over the spearmen. Even if they cannot be used offensively, spearmen will not be able to breach a pike formation (say, a schiltron) without help (such as extended longbowmen barrage). Large reach of pike is simply too big of an advantage to be overcome. Forget any discussion about armor and close-quarters weapons: spearmen will not be able to even get close enough. The only way they could is if the pike formation falls apart, but that is very difficult to achieve.

Problem happens when you have two pike squares going at each other. In such a "push of the pike", pikemen are distracted by enemy pikemen. And that is where close-range troops come in. What they do in such a situation is to use the distraction that their own pikemen are providing to try and slip around/below the pikes, and use their weapons to either break / force away pike shafts or kill pikemen themselves. Various troops had been used for this purpose: Spanish used the sword-and-buckler rodeleros for this purpose, while Germans used men-at-arms with axes or else soldiers armed with zweihanders.

But just spearmen against just pikemen? Spearmen get slaughtered.

10 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Sorta ... the unsullied seem to be an ungodly mix of phalanx , they can form.squares vs knights , they train with 3 spears and short sword(late roman legion) are eunchs (no good army ever) and of course wear quilted tunic armour which sorta could be greek linnorax but generaly when we say quilted tunic we mean the simple but useful gambeson (would make sense if it was wool too given they live next to the lamb men)

 

So in other words:

1) they have no effective weapons against late Medieval cavalry (late Roman legion)

2) are physically weak and will die of disease (eunuchs)

3) have only most basic armor (Westerosi infantry would be wearing quilted tunic underneath the mail we see them wear)

They'll get slaughtered in Westeros.

10 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Their lack of armour will be issue vs normal archers, westeros doesnt seem to be like medieval england or the crusader states with a heavy % of their infantry as archers though so the dothraki do have that in their favour in a missle contest. They can focus fore on the pike and other melee infantry to open gaps to ride into (again lack of  armour could make this messier than real battles but sheer weight of numbers of cavalry into any gap created will create havoc regardless

On the march even the ultra diciplined armoured roman legions  were shredded by persian archers and no  for most hostorical.clashes caught out of formation foot usualy get ridden down by cavalry .....its the entire point of forming squares!!!

As I have shown you with the example of Battle of Arsuf, you don't need to have majority of your infantry (or army) comprised of archers to keep horse archers at bay. What did concern Saladin was not numbers but rather difference in power between Crusader crossbows and his own horse archers' recurse bows. Crusaders in their mail were marching with up to dozen arrows sticking out of them in no apparent discomfort, whereas single hits from Crusader crossbows could bring down men and horses alike. Which is exactly what we should see in a contest of unarmored Dothraki using short bows against mail-armored Westerosi infantry wielding longbows and/or crossbows.

"Ultra disciplined Roman legions being shredded by horse archers" is nothing but a stupid myth. Yes, everybody remembers Carrhae, but that was not a consequence of superior Persian military, but rather Crassus' stupidity. And after Carrhae, Romans proceeded to go and sack Ctesiphon about a dozen times. When Romans went up against Parthians, Romans won 90% of the time. So much for horse archers being superior to heavy infantry and foot archers. By the way, even at Cannae, decisive blow was provided by heavy cataphract cavalry, not by horse archers - horse archers merely kept the legionaries pinned (mainly thanks to Crassus not having enough foot archers) while actual killing was done by Persian cataphracts.

And then Persians proceeded to get tired of having their capital sacked every decade or so, and Parthians got overthrown, to be replaced by Sassanids. And you know what Sassanids did? Created an army based around heavy noble cavalry (aswaran) a.k.a. cataphracts, which were supported by horse archers. But it was cataphracts which were the main striking force of the Sassanid army, not horse archers.

Contest between Romans and Sassanids was not a contest between legions and horse archers, but a contest between legions and knights. And you know what Romans did? Introduced their own cataphracts, although never in significant numbers.

And yes, it is true that infantry caught out of formation would get ridden down by cavalry... but that was task of heavy cavalry. Light cavalry could do it, especially if infantry were running away (pursuit was always the main task of the light cavalry), but was nowhere as effective.

10 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

So again had they waited a little til they had tebuchets none of those stone forts would have stood , the 2nd invasion was the knock off golden horde

They had no trebuchets and they had no engineers of their own. If they had, then yes, they might have been able to take castles... but they had neither siege engines nor time. And stone castles are not easy to take even with trebuchets, although that depends on the trebuchet and the castle.

Second invasion did not necessarily have significantly smaller numbers than the first invasion. Contemporary sources place both at somewhere around 30 000 cavalry, though first invasion may have had a larger force.

10 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

How likely ? Dude even the clanker lords managed to form.trench lines ans begin trebichet fire on mereen ...the khals we can.assume would be fine

 

As I said, just being able to build trebuchets is not enough... from what I remember, clankers' trebuchets are basically used to spread plague. And while trebuchets can bring down walls, remember what I said about Westerosi preponderence of castles. Even if individual castles can be taken (and while smaller castles are definitely vulnerable, major castles such as seats of lords Paramount... not so much), fact that Westeros is a feudal society means that there would be too much time lost and too many casualties for too small of a gain.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Thats ok im sure essos doesnt have winters and the dothraki just go extinct every decade or so! Yes its an issue as grmm hasnt cleared up yet how any medieavl.culture outlasts planetos odd seasons!

Essos may have winters, but Westerosi winters are implied to be magical in nature. And again, issue is not winter alone, but terrain: nomads being able to survive a winter in a massive steppe does not mean they will be able to do so in a hostile country dotted with castles and European-style terrain.

I mean, look how well Mongols "fared" in European winter...