Jump to content

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


Jaenara Belarys

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Aldarion said:
12 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

 

Agreed, but this thread is specifically about "Unsullied and Dothraki"

Indeed, it is. And how they'll perform in Westeros. 

This argument, entertaining as it is, doesn't seem like it, but do carry on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Do we have any evidence of the dothraki trading and dealing with settled peoples...erm yes the slave traders, the free city pay offs, dothraki are said to mix in the free cities , them allying with various  sanori in their civil wars , them using slaves to build the closest thing to  houses they have and doing all the work in their capital. Do we see them besieging cities no but we dont see valyrians ridong dragons until the very end either but we know its happened before too......also no the huns like mongols employed siege engineers and promoted on merit they didnt enslave engineers to do their evil bidding they brought them in.

Theres 0 evidence they dont build as well or better either , and yes we see forts and smaller walled towns linked or subservient to larger walled cities in essos too. The sanori we know were a king based feudal.system just as you described  as were the valyrians , the ghiscari more a oliigarchy and the ibbensse we think also have a king only the free cities and qaarthi seem.to have a  more evolved (and thus more resiliant social set up) 

Rome took tribute  and paid off small barbarians to fight one another but its large scale pay offs to keep barbarians from the doors (as we are discussing here  in relatiom to the dothraki) didnt happen until those barbarians were an actual threat! 

You are sorta again conceding the point there ...hannibal didnt have enough men thus losing spain where he could have been sent army after army  from as well as the silver that fuled  carthages chief economic recovery was the critical issue ! Hasdrubals force landing would have altered history  yes as would any of the other forces scipio brilliantly smashed or  even just 2-3 times their numbers over the years  simple replacement recruits lost as spain was , or just the overall loses  forcing allies to reconsider..taking cities was never an issue major southen towns and cities opened their gates willingly when all was going carthages way.

Spearmen/swordmen can carry shields and are more mobile thus can exploit gaps in pike formations  though thats how they get  through, the weakness of the pike/sarissa remained constant throughout history westerosi  regular infantry  (swords spears,archerd  and other weapons) will be needed to protect the pikemen at this stage of warfare that westeros seems.to be at...it sure as hell isnt at the elite  swiss pikemen stage nor pike and shot

 

At assuf though thosw bows did enough damage to worry richard if he could even muster the counter charge..again it was a close run battle and not one that diaproves the overal trend of horse archers being excellent flexible battle units

Theres a breakdown of the massive number of persian-rome wars somewhere but persians actualy  forced rome to terms slightly  more than the other way round!...if romes capital had been as close to the  persian-roman border as the persians was itd have probably been sacked just as many times. The heavy cavalry was always a part of the persian army the fact the rich warrior nobles took over doesnt mean they were military superior given they were subjects for almost as long (bear in mind huns and mongols.subdued heavy cavalry peoples too ..and yeah the romans adopted horse archers too.

 

They didnt have them yet and had they had them it would have been hard yes but its daft to thinknthey couldnt have taken those castles with the same.tools and specalists others took simiar castles in europe

Yes  light cavalry can run men down..armour is useful but ultimately its the weight,speed and size of the horses thats the scary thing if they catch you out of formation or plunge into gaps in a square etc

 

Changing plauge bodies for stones in a trebuchet isnt hard and its clear they have the engineers to make and work them and fire at a constant rate, and no every castle and fort lost changes a war..changes opinions of how a war is going  allegiences can change as we have seen in both real life and the books we are discussing based on how someomes chances look...for every fort that falls a few others will suddenly remember their oath to targayrans etc or vice versa.

 

Yeah it seems.to be a planetos wide thing ..as possibly are the others (the forts and huge walls in yi ti)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Do we have any evidence of the dothraki trading and dealing with settled peoples...erm yes the slave traders, the free city pay offs, dothraki are said to mix in the free cities , them allying with various  sanori in their civil wars , them using slaves to build the closest thing to  houses they have and doing all the work in their capital. Do we see them besieging cities no but we dont see valyrians ridong dragons until the very end either but we know its happened before too......also no the huns like mongols employed siege engineers and promoted on merit they didnt enslave engineers to do their evil bidding they brought them in.

 

OK.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Theres 0 evidence they dont build as well or better either , and yes we see forts and smaller walled towns linked or subservient to larger walled cities in essos too. The sanori we know were a king based feudal.system just as you described  as were the valyrians , the ghiscari more a oliigarchy and the ibbensse we think also have a king only the free cities and qaarthi seem.to have a  more evolved (and thus more resiliant social set up) 

 

Sarnori never had a unified kingdom, and only united after the fall of Mardosh. Until then they were busy fighting each other, and also used Dothraki to do so. In fact, when their cities started falling, other cities sent armies to lay claim to plunder of cities destroyed by the Dothraki. So rather than feudal system, it seems clear that they had a system more akin to Sumerian city-states.

And Sarnori actively helped Dothraki to conquer other Sarnori cities. As Sathar burned, Kasath and Gornath fought a pitched battle for plunder. Dothraki conquest of Kasath was assisted by Gornath, that had made a common cause with Dothraki. As time went on, Dothraki conquered Sarnori cities one by one - often with Sarnori help - and Sarnori did not bother unifying, but rather continued fighting among each other. Mardosh lasted for six years, but by that time the grasslands surrounding it had become Dothraki territory, and well - a city cannot last for long with no food coming in.

We also never hear of Sarnori castles or forts. And definitely nothing akin to Westeros.

So it is rather obvious that Sarnori cities have no parallel to Westerosi feudal system. These are the system of city-states, akin to Sumeria or Greece before their semi-unification. They may have had a High King, but he clearly had no authority to unify city states, nothing like a Lord Paramount commands obedience of an entire kingdom in Westeros.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Rome took tribute  and paid off small barbarians to fight one another but its large scale pay offs to keep barbarians from the doors (as we are discussing here  in relatiom to the dothraki) didnt happen until those barbarians were an actual threat! 

 

Ah, yes, because paying barbarians is not paying barbarians.

You make a payoff based on the scale of the threat. Obviously you won't pay same sum of money to a chief of a tribe and to king ruling dozens of tribes. But principle is the same: you are paying for peace.

In short: fact that somebody is being paid off does not mean they are an existential, or even a serious, threat. It only means that the payment being made is cheaper than the expense of raising an army to crush him.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

You are sorta again conceding the point there ...hannibal didnt have enough men thus losing spain where he could have been sent army after army  from as well as the silver that fuled  carthages chief economic recovery was the critical issue ! Hasdrubals force landing would have altered history  yes as would any of the other forces scipio brilliantly smashed or  even just 2-3 times their numbers over the years  simple replacement recruits lost as spain was , or just the overall loses  forcing allies to reconsider..taking cities was never an issue major southen towns and cities opened their gates willingly when all was going carthages way.

 

How the hell will have Hannibal received army after army from Spain? First, Carthage did not have control of the sea. Second, Carthage relied on mercenaries, which are expensive. Sure, Spain was crucial to Carthage as a source of money as well as mercenaries, but again, mercenaries are expensive. And moving them from Spain to Italy was expensive.

Taking cities was always an issue. Yes, southern towns and cities willingly joined Hannibal... but nobody else did. Remember that these southern cities were Greek, and were rather unhappy with Roman rule. But cities in central and northern Italy were perfectly fine with Rome, and Hannibal proved unable to threaten fortified cities at all. By the end, Hannibal spent 15 years contained in the southern Italy, unable to do anything.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Spearmen/swordmen can carry shields and are more mobile thus can exploit gaps in pike formations  though thats how they get  through, the weakness of the pike/sarissa remained constant throughout history westerosi  regular infantry  (swords spears,archerd  and other weapons) will be needed to protect the pikemen at this stage of warfare that westeros seems.to be at...it sure as hell isnt at the elite  swiss pikemen stage nor pike and shot

 

Yes, that worked oh so well for people facing pike formations... nope. Properly maintained pike formation has no gaps to exploit, and you are again forgetting that medieval pike formation is far more mobile, far better equipped and far better defended than Macedonian phalanx. Pike formation is not necessarily a long line or a massive square - though it can be. Swiss pike square consisted of a hundred men, which is actually a relatively small and exceptionally mobile formation. Spanish companies were larger - some 250 men. And these units could easily maneuver individually, or be further split as needed.

Hell, Alexandrian phalanx was far more mobile than the phalanx Roman faced. Late Macedonian phalanx was a steamroller, capable of only moving forward in a massive unwieldy mass, and if something came upon its flanks, it was screwed. It was essentially ancient Greek phalanx except using pikes instead of spears. Compared to this, Alexandrian phalanx could split up into smaller units, have them maneuver independently, and then join up again. Or else open ranks, admit light infantry or cavalry, then close ranks, and then form a square - all the while being under attack. But compared to Roman legion, Swiss pike square and Spanish tercio, even Macedonian phalanx was clumsy and unwieldy. And keep in mind that Alexandrian phalanx managed to do something Roman legions never could: penetrated into central Iran and conquered entirety of Persia.

And no, "the weakness of the pike/sarissa remained constant throughout history" is not true. Sarissa phalanx was vulnerable to outflanking in a way that pike square was not. It was vulnerable to archers in a way that well-equipped pike square was not, although far less vulnerable than commonly assumed. It was clumsy and immobile compared to pike square, even though it was far more mobile and agile than commonly assumed.

And even if you manage to penetrate into pike square (which Unsullied cannot)... pikemen are armored, and have short-range weapons such as swords. And they may also have support of dedicated short-ranged troops as well, such as men-at-arms which Westerosi seem to position behind the pike squares.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

At assuf though thosw bows did enough damage to worry richard if he could even muster the counter charge..again it was a close run battle and not one that diaproves the overal trend of horse archers being excellent flexible battle units

 

This is what Richard had:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/e6/ed/27e6edf0fdda4b67f916b230fd3da8d1.jpg

This is what Westeros has:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/6c/a0/a26ca0608ebb1ee6b04de3dd90f35db8.jpg

Richard kept losing horses to arrows because horses were unarmored, and yes, losses were heavy enough to bring viablity of the countercharge in question. But Westerosi knights ride barded horses, in other words, they look much like the knight in the second link. That will serve to make them largely immune to horse archers.

Horse archers are excellent and flexible units, yes, but they are hardly the golden goose. And as we see at Arsuf, while horse archers were able to cause some damage to unarmored horses, both knights and infantry themselves were rather immune to arrows thanks to their mail armor. Meanwhile, Byzantine cataphracts - which rode fully armored horses, albeit using lamellar armor which is inferior to plate - were able and willing to use their mounts to physically break spear shafts of the enemy infantry. Arrows were simply laughed off.

Horse archers, when employed on their own, were never successful. It takes a combination of horse archers and heavy armored cavalry for the former to actually achieve anything.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Theres a breakdown of the massive number of persian-rome wars somewhere but persians actualy  forced rome to terms slightly  more than the other way round!...if romes capital had been as close to the  persian-roman border as the persians was itd have probably been sacked just as many times. The heavy cavalry was always a part of the persian army the fact the rich warrior nobles took over doesnt mean they were military superior given they were subjects for almost as long (bear in mind huns and mongols.subdued heavy cavalry peoples too ..and yeah the romans adopted horse archers too.

 

Both Parthians and Sassanids had heavy cavalry, but Sassanids had more and better heavy cavalry. And Sassanids were a far greater threat to Rome, because Parthian reliance on cavalry meant that they were incapable of actually taking Roman cities, whereas Sassanid military had siege capabilities comparable to those of Rome.

Also:

Carrhae - Parthian victory

Pompeian-Parthian invasion - Roman Republic victory

  • Cilician Gates 39 BC - Roman victory
  • Amanus Pass 39 BC - Roman victory
  • Mount Gindarus - Roman victory

Antony's Parthian invasion - Parthian victory

  • Ambush at Atropatene - Parthian victory
  • Siege of Praaspa - Parthian victory

Parthian war of 58 - overall a draw, technically Roman victory

  • Artaxata - Roman victory over Armenians (so technically doesn't count)
  • Tigranocerta - Roman victory over Armenians, Romans take control of Armenia
  • Parthian Siege of Tigranocerta - Armenian victory
  • Battle of Rhandeia - Parthian victory
  • Corbulo's invasion - no contest, Parthians accept Roman demands

Trajan's Parthian campaign - Roman military victory, but overall a draw

Roman-Parthian War of 161 - Roman military and political victory

  • Cornelianus campaign - Parthian victory
  • Siege of Edessa - Roman victory
  • Siege of Nisibis - Roman victory

Invasion of 198 - Roman victory, Ctesiphon sacked

War of Caracalla - Parthian victory on technicality (Caracalla assassinated)

  • Battle of Nisibis - stalemate

Battle of Nisibis 217 - Parthian victory

Siege of Nisibis 235 - Sassanian victory

Siege of Hatra - Sassanian victory

Battle of Resaena - Roman victory

Battle of Misiche - Sassanian victory

Siege of Nisibis - Sassanian victory

Battle of Barbalissos - Sassanian victory

Siege of Antioch 253 - Sassanian victory

Siege of Dura Europus 256 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Edessa - Sassanian victory

Aftermath of Edessa - Roman victory (Macrianus and Ballista routed Persian army returning from Cilicia)

Siege of Caesarea - Sassanian victory

Battle of Ctesiphon 263 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Carrhae 296 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Satala 298 - decisive Roman victory; end of war

Perso-Roman Wars of 337 - 361 - indecisive

  • First War 337 - 350 - stalemate, Roman strategic victory
    • Persian invasion of Armenia 336 - Roman victory
    • Siege of Nisibis 337 - Roman victory
    • Battle of Singara 343 - unknown
    • Siege of Nisibis 346 - Roman victory
    • Sassanian Invasion 348 / Siege of Singara - Roman victory
    • Siege of Nisibis 350 - Roman victory
  • Second War 359 - 361 - stalemate
    • Siege of Amida 359 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Singara 360 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Bazabde 360 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Virtha 360 - Roman victory
    • Roman Siege of Bazabde 360 - Sassanid victory

Julian's Invasion of Persia - Sasanian victory

  • Siege of Pirisabora 363 - Roman victory
  • Siege of Maoizamalcha - Roman victory
  • Battle of Ctesiphon - Roman victory
  • Battle of Maranga - Roman victory
  • Battle of Samarra - draw / disputed

Note how Romans lost the war despite winning most battles. Entirely because they had invaded and ran out of supplies.

Roman-Sassanian War of 421 - 422 - draw

  • Battle near Arzanene - Roman victory
  • Siege of Theosodiopolis - Roman victory

War of 440 - draw

Anastasian war - draw

  • attack on Theodosiplos - Sassanid victory
  • attack on Martyropolis - Sassanid victory
  • Roman attack on Nisibis - Sassanid victory
  • battle near Apadna - Sassanid victory
  • attack on Constantia - Roman victory
  • attack on Edessa - Roman victory
  • attack on Amida - Roman victory
  • Battle of Amida 503 - Roman victory
  • Siege of Amida - Roman victory

 

So we have (assuming I counted correctly):

Parthians

  • field battles
    • 5 Parthian victories
    • 4 Roman victories, 1 Roman victory by default (no contest)
    • 1 stalemate
  • sieges
    • 1 Parthian victory
    • 2 Roman victories
  • overall wars
    • 3 Parthian victories
    • 6 Roman victories

Sassanids

  • field battles
    • 5 Sassanid victories
    • 9 Roman victories
  • sieges
    • 10 Sassanid victories
    • 6 Roman victories
  • overall wars
    • 1 Sassanid victory
    • 1 Roman victory
    • 5 draws

In short, Sassanids were much more of a threat to Romans than Parthians were - because they were better at besieging cities. But they were, if anything, less successful at field battles than Parthians.

Huns and Mongols heavily relied on heavy cavalry of their own. About 40% of Mongol cavalry were heavy cavalry - which had lamellar armor and armored horses, and thus were far more heavily armored than European heavy cavalry of the time.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

They didnt have them yet and had they had them it would have been hard yes but its daft to thinknthey couldnt have taken those castles with the same.tools and specalists others took simiar castles in europe

 

Mongols utterly failed at taking European stone castles. And European wars consisted mostly of raiding with occasional siege and even rarer battle - precisely because major castles were so difficult to take. You make it sound as if taking a castle is easy, but that is not the case. It was only the appearance of the counterweight trebuchet and later cannon that shifted the balance towards the attacker - and even that a) did not happen immediately and b) lasted only for a couple of decades until fortification design adapted.

And Mongols are an army of steppe nomads. If they decided to take European castles the way Europeans did, they would have had to either a) abandon the whole "steppe nomad" schtick and field an army identical to European armies - which is precisely what they did in China, by the way - or b) starve to death.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yes  light cavalry can run men down..armour is useful but ultimately its the weight,speed and size of the horses thats the scary thing if they catch you out of formation or plunge into gaps in a square etc

 

Light cavalry can run men down if they break. Problem is, light cavalry is incapable of making them break in the first place.

Pike square has no gaps unless they are artificially created. And even if it did, so long as men are in formation, light cavalry cannot harm them. You need heavy cavalry for that. A charge by light cavalry can be stopped by ordinary spearmen, because light cavalry has neither the armor nor the weapons to survive a headlong charge against heavy infantry (unless latter are already running away).

And keep in mind, every vulnerability that pikemen have against cavalry is far more pronounced in spearmen. And Westerosi cavalry is far better at this "plunging into gaps" thing than the Dothraki are.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Changing plauge bodies for stones in a trebuchet isnt hard and its clear they have the engineers to make and work them and fire at a constant rate, and no every castle and fort lost changes a war..changes opinions of how a war is going  allegiences can change as we have seen in both real life and the books we are discussing based on how someomes chances look...for every fort that falls a few others will suddenly remember their oath to targayrans etc or vice versa.

 

It is actually very hard. You see, to take down a castle (or city) wall, it is not enough to just sling stones the way you can sling plague bodies. You need to be able to aim trebuchets, so that stones from multiple trebuchets (or a single massive one) are hitting the same place on the wall again, and again, and again. Only repeated heavy impacts will bring down a good curtain wall; single hits are useless against anything that is not wood or very thin brick. "Firing" a trebuchet at a constant rate can be done by slaves; using it in an aimed manner cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

OK.

Sarnori never had a unified kingdom, and only united after the fall of Mardosh. Until then they were busy fighting each other, and also used Dothraki to do so. In fact, when their cities started falling, other cities sent armies to lay claim to plunder of cities destroyed by the Dothraki. So rather than feudal system, it seems clear that they had a system more akin to Sumerian city-states.

And Sarnori actively helped Dothraki to conquer other Sarnori cities. As Sathar burned, Kasath and Gornath fought a pitched battle for plunder. Dothraki conquest of Kasath was assisted by Gornath, that had made a common cause with Dothraki. As time went on, Dothraki conquered Sarnori cities one by one - often with Sarnori help - and Sarnori did not bother unifying, but rather continued fighting among each other. Mardosh lasted for six years, but by that time the grasslands surrounding it had become Dothraki territory, and well - a city cannot last for long with no food coming in.

We also never hear of Sarnori castles or forts. And definitely nothing akin to Westeros.

So it is rather obvious that Sarnori cities have no parallel to Westerosi feudal system. These are the system of city-states, akin to Sumeria or Greece before their semi-unification. They may have had a High King, but he clearly had no authority to unify city states, nothing like a Lord Paramount commands obedience of an entire kingdom in Westeros.

Ah, yes, because paying barbarians is not paying barbarians.

You make a payoff based on the scale of the threat. Obviously you won't pay same sum of money to a chief of a tribe and to king ruling dozens of tribes. But principle is the same: you are paying for peace.

In short: fact that somebody is being paid off does not mean they are an existential, or even a serious, threat. It only means that the payment being made is cheaper than the expense of raising an army to crush him.

How the hell will have Hannibal received army after army from Spain? First, Carthage did not have control of the sea. Second, Carthage relied on mercenaries, which are expensive. Sure, Spain was crucial to Carthage as a source of money as well as mercenaries, but again, mercenaries are expensive. And moving them from Spain to Italy was expensive.

Taking cities was always an issue. Yes, southern towns and cities willingly joined Hannibal... but nobody else did. Remember that these southern cities were Greek, and were rather unhappy with Roman rule. But cities in central and northern Italy were perfectly fine with Rome, and Hannibal proved unable to threaten fortified cities at all. By the end, Hannibal spent 15 years contained in the southern Italy, unable to do anything.

Yes, that worked oh so well for people facing pike formations... nope. Properly maintained pike formation has no gaps to exploit, and you are again forgetting that medieval pike formation is far more mobile, far better equipped and far better defended than Macedonian phalanx. Pike formation is not necessarily a long line or a massive square - though it can be. Swiss pike square consisted of a hundred men, which is actually a relatively small and exceptionally mobile formation. Spanish companies were larger - some 250 men. And these units could easily maneuver individually, or be further split as needed.

Hell, Alexandrian phalanx was far more mobile than the phalanx Roman faced. Late Macedonian phalanx was a steamroller, capable of only moving forward in a massive unwieldy mass, and if something came upon its flanks, it was screwed. It was essentially ancient Greek phalanx except using pikes instead of spears. Compared to this, Alexandrian phalanx could split up into smaller units, have them maneuver independently, and then join up again. Or else open ranks, admit light infantry or cavalry, then close ranks, and then form a square - all the while being under attack. But compared to Roman legion, Swiss pike square and Spanish tercio, even Macedonian phalanx was clumsy and unwieldy. And keep in mind that Alexandrian phalanx managed to do something Roman legions never could: penetrated into central Iran and conquered entirety of Persia.

And no, "the weakness of the pike/sarissa remained constant throughout history" is not true. Sarissa phalanx was vulnerable to outflanking in a way that pike square was not. It was vulnerable to archers in a way that well-equipped pike square was not, although far less vulnerable than commonly assumed. It was clumsy and immobile compared to pike square, even though it was far more mobile and agile than commonly assumed.

And even if you manage to penetrate into pike square (which Unsullied cannot)... pikemen are armored, and have short-range weapons such as swords. And they may also have support of dedicated short-ranged troops as well, such as men-at-arms which Westerosi seem to position behind the pike squares.

This is what Richard had:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/e6/ed/27e6edf0fdda4b67f916b230fd3da8d1.jpg

This is what Westeros has:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/6c/a0/a26ca0608ebb1ee6b04de3dd90f35db8.jpg

Richard kept losing horses to arrows because horses were unarmored, and yes, losses were heavy enough to bring viablity of the countercharge in question. But Westerosi knights ride barded horses, in other words, they look much like the knight in the second link. That will serve to make them largely immune to horse archers.

Horse archers are excellent and flexible units, yes, but they are hardly the golden goose. And as we see at Arsuf, while horse archers were able to cause some damage to unarmored horses, both knights and infantry themselves were rather immune to arrows thanks to their mail armor. Meanwhile, Byzantine cataphracts - which rode fully armored horses, albeit using lamellar armor which is inferior to plate - were able and willing to use their mounts to physically break spear shafts of the enemy infantry. Arrows were simply laughed off.

Horse archers, when employed on their own, were never successful. It takes a combination of horse archers and heavy armored cavalry for the former to actually achieve anything.

Both Parthians and Sassanids had heavy cavalry, but Sassanids had more and better heavy cavalry. And Sassanids were a far greater threat to Rome, because Parthian reliance on cavalry meant that they were incapable of actually taking Roman cities, whereas Sassanid military had siege capabilities comparable to those of Rome.

Also:

Carrhae - Parthian victory

Pompeian-Parthian invasion - Roman Republic victory

  • Cilician Gates 39 BC - Roman victory
  • Amanus Pass 39 BC - Roman victory
  • Mount Gindarus - Roman victory

Antony's Parthian invasion - Parthian victory

  • Ambush at Atropatene - Parthian victory
  • Siege of Praaspa - Parthian victory

Parthian war of 58 - overall a draw, technically Roman victory

  • Artaxata - Roman victory over Armenians (so technically doesn't count)
  • Tigranocerta - Roman victory over Armenians, Romans take control of Armenia
  • Parthian Siege of Tigranocerta - Armenian victory
  • Battle of Rhandeia - Parthian victory
  • Corbulo's invasion - no contest, Parthians accept Roman demands

Trajan's Parthian campaign - Roman military victory, but overall a draw

Roman-Parthian War of 161 - Roman military and political victory

  • Cornelianus campaign - Parthian victory
  • Siege of Edessa - Roman victory
  • Siege of Nisibis - Roman victory

Invasion of 198 - Roman victory, Ctesiphon sacked

War of Caracalla - Parthian victory on technicality (Caracalla assassinated)

  • Battle of Nisibis - stalemate

Battle of Nisibis 217 - Parthian victory

Siege of Nisibis 235 - Sassanian victory

Siege of Hatra - Sassanian victory

Battle of Resaena - Roman victory

Battle of Misiche - Sassanian victory

Siege of Nisibis - Sassanian victory

Battle of Barbalissos - Sassanian victory

Siege of Antioch 253 - Sassanian victory

Siege of Dura Europus 256 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Edessa - Sassanian victory

Aftermath of Edessa - Roman victory (Macrianus and Ballista routed Persian army returning from Cilicia)

Siege of Caesarea - Sassanian victory

Battle of Ctesiphon 263 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Carrhae 296 - Sassanian victory

Battle of Satala 298 - decisive Roman victory; end of war

Perso-Roman Wars of 337 - 361 - indecisive

  • First War 337 - 350 - stalemate, Roman strategic victory
    • Persian invasion of Armenia 336 - Roman victory
    • Siege of Nisibis 337 - Roman victory
    • Battle of Singara 343 - unknown
    • Siege of Nisibis 346 - Roman victory
    • Sassanian Invasion 348 / Siege of Singara - Roman victory
    • Siege of Nisibis 350 - Roman victory
  • Second War 359 - 361 - stalemate
    • Siege of Amida 359 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Singara 360 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Bazabde 360 - Sassanid victory
    • Siege of Virtha 360 - Roman victory
    • Roman Siege of Bazabde 360 - Sassanid victory

Julian's Invasion of Persia - Sasanian victory

  • Siege of Pirisabora 363 - Roman victory
  • Siege of Maoizamalcha - Roman victory
  • Battle of Ctesiphon - Roman victory
  • Battle of Maranga - Roman victory
  • Battle of Samarra - draw / disputed

Note how Romans lost the war despite winning most battles. Entirely because they had invaded and ran out of supplies.

Roman-Sassanian War of 421 - 422 - draw

  • Battle near Arzanene - Roman victory
  • Siege of Theosodiopolis - Roman victory

War of 440 - draw

Anastasian war - draw

  • attack on Theodosiplos - Sassanid victory
  • attack on Martyropolis - Sassanid victory
  • Roman attack on Nisibis - Sassanid victory
  • battle near Apadna - Sassanid victory
  • attack on Constantia - Roman victory
  • attack on Edessa - Roman victory
  • attack on Amida - Roman victory
  • Battle of Amida 503 - Roman victory
  • Siege of Amida - Roman victory

 

So we have (assuming I counted correctly):

Parthians

  • field battles
    • 5 Parthian victories
    • 4 Roman victories, 1 Roman victory by default (no contest)
    • 1 stalemate
  • sieges
    • 1 Parthian victory
    • 2 Roman victories
  • overall wars
    • 3 Parthian victories
    • 6 Roman victories

Sassanids

  • field battles
    • 5 Sassanid victories
    • 9 Roman victories
  • sieges
    • 10 Sassanid victories
    • 6 Roman victories
  • overall wars
    • 1 Sassanid victory
    • 1 Roman victory
    • 5 draws

In short, Sassanids were much more of a threat to Romans than Parthians were - because they were better at besieging cities. But they were, if anything, less successful at field battles than Parthians.

Huns and Mongols heavily relied on heavy cavalry of their own. About 40% of Mongol cavalry were heavy cavalry - which had lamellar armor and armored horses, and thus were far more heavily armored than European heavy cavalry of the time.

Mongols utterly failed at taking European stone castles. And European wars consisted mostly of raiding with occasional siege and even rarer battle - precisely because major castles were so difficult to take. You make it sound as if taking a castle is easy, but that is not the case. It was only the appearance of the counterweight trebuchet and later cannon that shifted the balance towards the attacker - and even that a) did not happen immediately and b) lasted only for a couple of decades until fortification design adapted.

And Mongols are an army of steppe nomads. If they decided to take European castles the way Europeans did, they would have had to either a) abandon the whole "steppe nomad" schtick and field an army identical to European armies - which is precisely what they did in China, by the way - or b) starve to death.

Light cavalry can run men down if they break. Problem is, light cavalry is incapable of making them break in the first place.

Pike square has no gaps unless they are artificially created. And even if it did, so long as men are in formation, light cavalry cannot harm them. You need heavy cavalry for that. A charge by light cavalry can be stopped by ordinary spearmen, because light cavalry has neither the armor nor the weapons to survive a headlong charge against heavy infantry (unless latter are already running away).

And keep in mind, every vulnerability that pikemen have against cavalry is far more pronounced in spearmen. And Westerosi cavalry is far better at this "plunging into gaps" thing than the Dothraki are.

It is actually very hard. You see, to take down a castle (or city) wall, it is not enough to just sling stones the way you can sling plague bodies. You need to be able to aim trebuchets, so that stones from multiple trebuchets (or a single massive one) are hitting the same place on the wall again, and again, and again. Only repeated heavy impacts will bring down a good curtain wall; single hits are useless against anything that is not wood or very thin brick. "Firing" a trebuchet at a constant rate can be done by slaves; using it in an aimed manner cannot.

Most of westeros fortifications were made in a similarly disjointed period and few of them robust enough to hold for 6 years, if the fortress city only fell as it was surrounded by grasslands then most of westros is in danger

 

Paying enemies far away to kill one another is very different to paying protection money to stay away from the gates

 

Hannibal recieved  reinforcments for most of his italian campaign man! Many cities open gates willingly, and probably more would have if many saw the carthagiansnwere stable and not losing their powerbase

 

Like the sword and buckler men.specificaly employed to get in and  kill pikemen up.close then!  They do form.gaps esp when moving and  again westeros isnt the sort of late medieval period military that will.field pikemen alone diciplined enough to fight off other melee infantry all on their lonesome theyl need.suport troops. As for how the unsulied will do when they get in its an unknown granted..with  no testosterone yet also somehow will also be trained to insane levels of personal skill and unit cohesion.

Actualy we know the hun and mongols beat heavy cavalry forces into their ranks and the crusaders (mainly the infanty) suffered badly vs horse archers.. the knights not as much but the did lose men in mobile cavalry clashes where while armour is an advantage its actualy horsemanship thats the main decider.... and we are specifcaly told the dothraki ride better on adverage that most knights

 

Yes.had they the trebuchet they could have taken them..we know the dothraki live in an area where slaves can build and operate them. The actual aiming isnt too hard at all esp once they begin hitting on target its rinse and repeat more than anything.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Most of westeros fortifications were made in a similarly disjointed period and few of them robust enough to hold for 6 years, if the fortress city only fell as it was surrounded by grasslands then most of westros is in danger

 

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is not just about individual fortifications. Most Hungarian fortifications were not robust enough to hold for six years, in fact most of them were made of earth and/or wood and so could be reduced by Mongols in days, yet they still presented a serious problem. Because there were a fuckton of them:

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://www.academia.edu/13943616/Deep_Ditches_and_Well-built_Walls_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Mongol_Withdrawal_from_Europe_in_1242?email_work_card=title

A lot of small castles supported by few big ones is better, strategically speaking, than a few massive fortified cities. Latter simply do not have the area denial capability to deal with the nomads, as the Chinese found out.

And if the fortress city only fell as it was surrounded by grasslands, most of the Westeros is fairly safe because Dothraki will starve by the time that happens.

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Paying enemies far away to kill one another is very different to paying protection money to stay away from the gates

 

Not really. Romans repeatedly paid off barbarians, as did Byzantines. Not because they couldn't slaughter them, but because paying barbarians off was cheaper.

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Hannibal recieved  reinforcments for most of his italian campaign man! Many cities open gates willingly, and probably more would have if many saw the carthagiansnwere stable and not losing their powerbase

 

No he did not. He only received reinforcements once, and his brother Hasdrubal also attempted to reach him but was defeated en route. Other than that, he received absolutely no reinforcements - not even from the southern Italian cities that decided to ally with him. And he could not have received reinforcements from Carthage in any way because a) Rome held dominance of the sea, and even if not b) Hannibal had failed to take any of the port cities, meaning that establishing any sort of supply line was impossible.

In fact, neither Spain nor Carthage itself were relevant for Hannibal's defeat. What caused his defeat was his inability to take Capua in 211. After that point, Hannibal was only able to retain "allegiance" of communities by force, and his forces slowly wasted away without Romans having to engage him in a battle. Had Hasdrubal arrived to Italy, that would have changed nothing: at most, it would have enabled Hannibal to last a few more years, but that would have been it.

After taking Capua, Romans also invested and took Tarentum, and this is what Livy states:

Quote

With [Tarentum] taken from him … the enemy, beaten back on every side, and having no place where he might make a stand nor any loyal support to look to, would also find no reason for lingering in Italy.

And we see importance of Capua in the fact that the Romans employed four fewer legions in 210 and 209 than they had in 211. Further, fall of Capua had proven to Hannibal's Italian allies that Hannibal could not protect them from Rome.

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Like the sword and buckler men.specificaly employed to get in and  kill pikemen up.close then!  They do form.gaps esp when moving and  again westeros isnt the sort of late medieval period military that will.field pikemen alone diciplined enough to fight off other melee infantry all on their lonesome theyl need.suport troops. As for how the unsulied will do when they get in its an unknown granted..with  no testosterone yet also somehow will also be trained to insane levels of personal skill and unit cohesion.

 

Sword and buckler men were intended for, and were employed during, the push of the pike. In other words, to successfully employ them, you first had to procure your own pike block to oppose the enemy pike block and pin it down. Whenever the rodeleros (sword and buckler mean you mentioned) engaged a pike block on their own, without being supported by their own pikemen, they were slaughtered without being able to even fight back. Pikemen against any other type of melee troops results in victory for the pikemen, unless their formation gets disrupted - but disrupted formation generally means death for any type of heavy infantry, it is not unique to pikemen.

And no, medieval pikemen do not (usually - there are always exceptions) form gaps as they are moving, because they are often (though not always) employed in fairly small pike blocks. And large pike formations are just collections of small pike blocks. Even Alexandrian phalangites were able to advance over rough terrain in good order; fact that phalangites of diadochi were unable to do so comes down to lack of training and, maybe, usage of much larger units that was the case with Alexandrian phalanx (Alexandrian phalanx had as a standard unit the 256-man syntagma). Alexander's phalangites were able to do things like attack across a river (during the night!), attack and rout an enemy holding an elevated position in the hills, fight off an ambush (granted, they didn't use pikes for that), rapidly spread and close ranks, outflank the enemy at a tactical level, reinforce the flagging line, close a gap in the line... There is a reason why pikemen were most effectively utilized by the Swiss, where Switzerland consists entirely of the mountains. Scottish pikemen in 14th century were also fully capable of offensive action, as demonstrated by Robert the Bruce (previously, they were only employed in circular defensive schiltron, but Robert introduced a rectangular schiltron - in reality a pike block - capable of offensive action). Flemish pikemen were also highly effective against non-pike infantry in 13th and 14th centuries. And during the 16th century, Ottomans were completely incapable of overcoming Austrian pike-and-shot blocks, with most of Austrian losses being essentially "we slaughtered the enemy, took their camp, started to plunder it, and then they came back and killed us".

And we actually do see Northern infantry advance in a good order over a fairly uneven terrain:

Quote

He had no time to think about it. The drums were so near that the beat crept under his skin and
set his hands to twitching. Bronn drew his longsword, and suddenly the enemy was there before
them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields
and pikes.

Further, we also do see that Westerosi pikemen are supported by other troops, and are deployed in squares as opposed to a massive blob:

Quote

His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad.
Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to
east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed
squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe.

Granted, Lannister men-at-arms are not part of the pike squares themselves, but the point is, even if the enemy manages to get past the pikes and the pikemen, now-largely-disorganized enemy will have to face the heavily armored infantry equipped with close-range weapons. There is no way lightly equipped hoplites such as Unsullied can win this.

10 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Actualy we know the hun and mongols beat heavy cavalry forces into their ranks and the crusaders (mainly the infanty) suffered badly vs horse archers.. the knights not as much but the did lose men in mobile cavalry clashes where while armour is an advantage its actualy horsemanship thats the main decider.... and we are specifcaly told the dothraki ride better on adverage that most knights

 

Huns and Mongols both had heavy cavalry themselves, and used it as a decisive arm. Horse archers were there to create opportunities for employment of heavy cavalry.

Crusaders suffered badly vs horse archers, when exactly? Sure, there is Dorylaeum, but that just reinforces my point: yes, Crusaders suffered badly in that battle... because they were taken by surprise, and in any case did not have enough foot archers to counter the horse archers. But once they reformed, Crusader heavy infantry held the line and proved impossible to dislodge or defeat through horse archer tactics, with casualties they did suffer being almost exclusively among the light infantry and unarmed support personnel. And when Raymond arrived with his heavy cavalry, he caught the Turks in a bad position (what with them being focused on Bohemond's force) and Turks eventually fled.

After this battle, Turks did not try facing the Crusaders in battle again. In future crusades (Second and Third especially), Turkish horse archers never again had anywhere close to the impact they had at Dorylaeum. During the Second Crusade, they harrassed Crusaders as they retreated from the failed siege of Damascus, to no much effect. Horse archers did destroy Crusader army in the Second Battle of Doryaelum, but that was as much a result of thirst and Crusaders marching through desert - fact is, Seljuks only managed to do it because Crusader discipline broke down. At Hattin, exact same thing happened. But after Hattin the Crusaders again adjusted their tactics, and at battle of Arsuf Crusaders defeated Saladin's army of horse archers that had them outnumbered 2:1. At Jaffa, Richard - aware of the vulnerability of his horses - had his knights dismount, while his foot archers slaughtered Arab horse archers. Yes, it is true that Turks developed ways of dealing with knights after Dorylaeum, but point is that Crusaders also developed ways of dealing with Turkish horse archers as well.

And both Romans and Byzantines regularly defeated horse archer armies. So sure, horse archers may - may - win some battles in Westeros due to novelty, but as we see with Golden Company and some others, many Westerosi go as mercenaries to Essos. Which means they probably have some idea of how to deal with the horse archers. And keep in mind that successes of horse archers against Crusaders were in large part because Crusader horses wore no armor and were thus vulnerable to arrows. This placed a significant pressure on Crusaders to launch their charge as quickly as possible, before their striking power got destroyed - but such hasty charges were easily evaded or defeated by their enemies. But Westerosi knights ride barded horses, which means that not just men but horses too are immune to arrows. They can simply sit there and take it until horse archers either run out of arrows or make a mistake of engaging at close quarters.

Dothraki horsemanship is hardly enough to offset their lack of armor or common sense.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yes.had they the trebuchet they could have taken them..we know the dothraki live in an area where slaves can build and operate them. The actual aiming isnt too hard at all esp once they begin hitting on target its rinse and repeat more than anything.

 

Possibly, but it still takes time.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is not just about individual fortifications. Most Hungarian fortifications were not robust enough to hold for six years, in fact most of them were made of earth and/or wood and so could be reduced by Mongols in days, yet they still presented a serious problem. Because there were a fuckton of them:

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://www.academia.edu/13943616/Deep_Ditches_and_Well-built_Walls_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Mongol_Withdrawal_from_Europe_in_1242?email_work_card=title

A lot of small castles supported by few big ones is better, strategically speaking, than a few massive fortified cities. Latter simply do not have the area denial capability to deal with the nomads, as the Chinese found out.

And if the fortress city only fell as it was surrounded by grasslands, most of the Westeros is fairly safe because Dothraki will starve by the time that happens.

Not really. Romans repeatedly paid off barbarians, as did Byzantines. Not because they couldn't slaughter them, but because paying barbarians off was cheaper.

No he did not. He only received reinforcements once, and his brother Hasdrubal also attempted to reach him but was defeated en route. Other than that, he received absolutely no reinforcements - not even from the southern Italian cities that decided to ally with him. And he could not have received reinforcements from Carthage in any way because a) Rome held dominance of the sea, and even if not b) Hannibal had failed to take any of the port cities, meaning that establishing any sort of supply line was impossible.

In fact, neither Spain nor Carthage itself were relevant for Hannibal's defeat. What caused his defeat was his inability to take Capua in 211. After that point, Hannibal was only able to retain "allegiance" of communities by force, and his forces slowly wasted away without Romans having to engage him in a battle. Had Hasdrubal arrived to Italy, that would have changed nothing: at most, it would have enabled Hannibal to last a few more years, but that would have been it.

After taking Capua, Romans also invested and took Tarentum, and this is what Livy states:

And we see importance of Capua in the fact that the Romans employed four fewer legions in 210 and 209 than they had in 211. Further, fall of Capua had proven to Hannibal's Italian allies that Hannibal could not protect them from Rome.

Sword and buckler men were intended for, and were employed during, the push of the pike. In other words, to successfully employ them, you first had to procure your own pike block to oppose the enemy pike block and pin it down. Whenever the rodeleros (sword and buckler mean you mentioned) engaged a pike block on their own, without being supported by their own pikemen, they were slaughtered without being able to even fight back. Pikemen against any other type of melee troops results in victory for the pikemen, unless their formation gets disrupted - but disrupted formation generally means death for any type of heavy infantry, it is not unique to pikemen.

And no, medieval pikemen do not (usually - there are always exceptions) form gaps as they are moving, because they are often (though not always) employed in fairly small pike blocks. And large pike formations are just collections of small pike blocks. Even Alexandrian phalangites were able to advance over rough terrain in good order; fact that phalangites of diadochi were unable to do so comes down to lack of training and, maybe, usage of much larger units that was the case with Alexandrian phalanx (Alexandrian phalanx had as a standard unit the 256-man syntagma). Alexander's phalangites were able to do things like attack across a river (during the night!), attack and rout an enemy holding an elevated position in the hills, fight off an ambush (granted, they didn't use pikes for that), rapidly spread and close ranks, outflank the enemy at a tactical level, reinforce the flagging line, close a gap in the line... There is a reason why pikemen were most effectively utilized by the Swiss, where Switzerland consists entirely of the mountains. Scottish pikemen in 14th century were also fully capable of offensive action, as demonstrated by Robert the Bruce (previously, they were only employed in circular defensive schiltron, but Robert introduced a rectangular schiltron - in reality a pike block - capable of offensive action). Flemish pikemen were also highly effective against non-pike infantry in 13th and 14th centuries. And during the 16th century, Ottomans were completely incapable of overcoming Austrian pike-and-shot blocks, with most of Austrian losses being essentially "we slaughtered the enemy, took their camp, started to plunder it, and then they came back and killed us".

And we actually do see Northern infantry advance in a good order over a fairly uneven terrain:

Further, we also do see that Westerosi pikemen are supported by other troops, and are deployed in squares as opposed to a massive blob:

Granted, Lannister men-at-arms are not part of the pike squares themselves, but the point is, even if the enemy manages to get past the pikes and the pikemen, now-largely-disorganized enemy will have to face the heavily armored infantry equipped with close-range weapons. There is no way lightly equipped hoplites such as Unsullied can win this.

Huns and Mongols both had heavy cavalry themselves, and used it as a decisive arm. Horse archers were there to create opportunities for employment of heavy cavalry.

Crusaders suffered badly vs horse archers, when exactly? Sure, there is Dorylaeum, but that just reinforces my point: yes, Crusaders suffered badly in that battle... because they were taken by surprise, and in any case did not have enough foot archers to counter the horse archers. But once they reformed, Crusader heavy infantry held the line and proved impossible to dislodge or defeat through horse archer tactics, with casualties they did suffer being almost exclusively among the light infantry and unarmed support personnel. And when Raymond arrived with his heavy cavalry, he caught the Turks in a bad position (what with them being focused on Bohemond's force) and Turks eventually fled.

After this battle, Turks did not try facing the Crusaders in battle again. In future crusades (Second and Third especially), Turkish horse archers never again had anywhere close to the impact they had at Dorylaeum. During the Second Crusade, they harrassed Crusaders as they retreated from the failed siege of Damascus, to no much effect. Horse archers did destroy Crusader army in the Second Battle of Doryaelum, but that was as much a result of thirst and Crusaders marching through desert - fact is, Seljuks only managed to do it because Crusader discipline broke down. At Hattin, exact same thing happened. But after Hattin the Crusaders again adjusted their tactics, and at battle of Arsuf Crusaders defeated Saladin's army of horse archers that had them outnumbered 2:1. At Jaffa, Richard - aware of the vulnerability of his horses - had his knights dismount, while his foot archers slaughtered Arab horse archers. Yes, it is true that Turks developed ways of dealing with knights after Dorylaeum, but point is that Crusaders also developed ways of dealing with Turkish horse archers as well.

And both Romans and Byzantines regularly defeated horse archer armies. So sure, horse archers may - may - win some battles in Westeros due to novelty, but as we see with Golden Company and some others, many Westerosi go as mercenaries to Essos. Which means they probably have some idea of how to deal with the horse archers. And keep in mind that successes of horse archers against Crusaders were in large part because Crusader horses wore no armor and were thus vulnerable to arrows. This placed a significant pressure on Crusaders to launch their charge as quickly as possible, before their striking power got destroyed - but such hasty charges were easily evaded or defeated by their enemies. But Westerosi knights ride barded horses, which means that not just men but horses too are immune to arrows. They can simply sit there and take it until horse archers either run out of arrows or make a mistake of engaging at close quarters.

Dothraki horsemanship is hardly enough to offset their lack of armor or common sense.

Possibly, but it still takes time.

 

 

 

Thats not really an issue though as we have seen in essos many of the major walled.cities have multiple  huge walled towns(as big as westerosi cities) linked to them. Nor does.it explain their sucess vs other cultures

 

Again theres a.huge difference in paying enemies off that you could destroy yourself easily + playing them against each other (such proxy wars  are still fought today) vs paying for protection..the late western roman empire paid off the 'barbarians' to avoid being sacked by them

Had spain been fine that 'one reinforcement' was supposed to be of a much greater size allowing hannbal to protect his allies   (actualy had couple of attempts to be reinforced) , italy as we  know was ripe for later rebellion vs rome in many areas (hence the later civil wars)and had carthage been precieved to be wining or capable of long term war things would gave been different. To discount the loss of carthages main financial and military base at the time in the war is insane.

 

Bar late era well.drilled pikemen(usualy armed with swords and knives too)from sarissa to mid medieveal times (westeros) pikemen alone always had supporting infantry to protect them given how helpless they are up close esp as they wont be anywhere near the drill level of the legendary  swiss pikemen....so no they cant survive unaided (they are depicted as being backed by other troops at this stage for a reason) 

As for the unsullied getting in  close grmm has depicted them.somehow as having stupidly intense training so are probably exceptionaly well.drilled as units and individuals and are some.daft mix of spartan, late roman legion(3 spears), silver shields and what sounds like medieval  quilted tunic armour .As with legionaries to medieval troops  even if the flanks are protected or the enmey is  ready formed up in a perfect  squsre/circle they can get close using their shields,throwing spears to create gaps( if they do train from birth in the '3 spears' we can assume the ones that survive are crackshots with them) and the other main weakness of the pikemen are missles... so again given the dothraki dont have armour to charge we can assume.they are largely all  horse archers with arkhs so fill that role

So the idea pikemen alone as you said could.survive vs spearmen alone is unlikely ..but as westeros pikemen wil have back up i suppose it doesnt matter.

 

Even if we discount how well knights will.survive that still leaves the bulk of the rest of the infantry who arent as well defended at all.

 

Vs the knights unarmoured dothraki cant win a straight charge BUT as we see if it becomes a moving fluid cavalry battle horsemanship becomes the single most important factor(which they reportedly are on adverage better at)  , we also.know from jorah the dotraki can find gaps in armour with their arkhs (daario wouldnt cockily  use one if they didnt work vs his fellow westerosi style armoured sellswords either) , theres  youtube footage of test confirming  old medieval dueling manuals that a single sword pommel.strike can knock even full armoured knight senseless ....the best real.world example matching this.matchup  of sucess would be the well armoured roman cavalry losing time and again easily to unarmoured numidian cavalry in the very carthage war we dicussed again.due to being vastly superior horsemen.

 

To realistly have sucess vs fully armoured knights we can assume the dothraki like daario have their arkhs but also a stileto knife or something similar  and of course have a solid wrestling/grapping side to their culture that we havent seen yet (as we now know grappling  is more.important that pure swordplay in one on one fighting vs armour)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

and are some.daft mix of spartan

 The Spartans were not special, simply average, so I don't see how this is an advantage in fighting terms. Mentally, possibly, but not practically. 

25 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

late roman legion(3 spears), silver shields and what sounds like medieval  quilted tunic armour

I assume you mean round shields. And as for their "armor," Westerosi soldiers will be wearing that as well, under  proper mail, plate and brigandines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

 The Spartans were not special, simply average, so I don't see how this is an advantage in fighting terms. Mentally, possibly, but not practically. 

I assume you mean round shields. And as for their "armor," Westerosi soldiers will be wearing that as well, under  proper mail, plate and brigandines. 

The Spartans had a pretty good run.  They outclassed their opponents for about 150 years.  But, they also caused their own downfall.

1.  Their absurd social system meant that the vast majority of (and growing proportion of) the population was disenfranchised.  Between 480 and 330 BC, the number of Spartiates fell from 8,000 to 1,000.  8,000 was a decent-sized army, 1,000 was neither here nor there.  Increasingly relying on non-Spartiates to fight undercut the whole system.

2.  Their army was meant to hold down the helots.  It was not designed to pursue an aggressive imperial foreign policy, for which they had nowhere near sufficient numbers.

3.  After decades of war, much of it initiated by Sparta, Greece was awash with men with lots of military experience, who were just as good as Spartans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Spartans had a pretty good run.  They outclassed their opponents for about 150 years.  But, they also caused their own downfall.

 

Directly from ACOUP:

Quote

Spartan Victories: 18.5

Spartan Defeats: 18

Draws: 1.5

Spartan Batting Average (victories/battles): 0.486

Sparta wins slightly more battles than it loses, but the borderline cases are enough to push Sparta below coin-flip odds. Breaking it down as percentages win/lose/draw, it runs 48.7%/47.4%/3.9% (figures rounded; please note that Philip’s invasion in 338 is not counted in this math, since no battle took place, meaning the above list has 38 battles, not 39. Counting it as a defeat (no contest) would put the Spartans properly underwater, with more defeats than victories. The Spartan record against Macedon is worse: Sellasia (222) falls outside of my date brackets, but is a crushing Macedonian victory. Sparta never actually defeats a Macedonian field army, the Spartans lose every time).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

After 371, they lost most of the time.  For 150 years before that, they mostly won.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean they're better soldiers. They're just another phalanx, and those odds are just a coin flip. 

Possibly slightly more maneuverable due to better unit cohesion and more officers, but still just a phalanx.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanF said:

The Spartans had a pretty good run.  They outclassed their opponents for about 150 years.  But, they also caused their own downfall.

 

They actually never "outclassed" their opponents. That was basically a lie crafted by Herodotus. They were slightly better than average, and that was it. At best. FFS, they don't even manage a winning record against other hoplite phalanxes. Against something like a Macedonian phalanx, they don't even manage a single victory. Posts below have more detail.

https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/

https://acoup.blog/2019/09/27/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vii-spartan-ends/

In the end, Spartans are slightly better than other Greek phalanxes, and that is enough to assure them some sort of winning record against other hoplite phalanxes. But the moment they face something like light infantry skirmishers, or God forbid a combined-arms army, they fall apart.

5 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Thats not really an issue though as we have seen in essos many of the major walled.cities have multiple  huge walled towns(as big as westerosi cities) linked to them. Nor does.it explain their sucess vs other cultures

 

Actually it does, unless you think there are cultures in Essos that have a clearly feudal system which would promote building an entire array of castles - and that Dothraki actually conquered them.

Again, having massive urban fortifications surrounding your cities is a little help against a discount Mongol culture if these are not supported by a network of castles. Name of the game here is area denial, not point defense.

1 hour ago, astarkchoice said:

Had spain been fine that 'one reinforcement' was supposed to be of a much greater size allowing hannbal to protect his allies   (actualy had couple of attempts to be reinforced) , italy as we  know was ripe for later rebellion vs rome in many areas (hence the later civil wars)and had carthage been precieved to be wining or capable of long term war things would gave been different. To discount the loss of carthages main financial and military base at the time in the war is insane.

 

Those wars you are referring to here are Social wars, which happened well over a hundred years after Hannibal, and may have been partly a result of the devastation he had caused. But during the Punic War, Roman allies stayed pretty damn loyal, with the exception of the southern Italian cities.

And later civil wars were a consequence of professionalization of the military, which made it loyal to the general instead of the state. But that again was a result of the processes which started with Second Punic War, and happened a century after said war's end.

I am not "discounting" the loss of Spain. It did have big effect - especially on the finance. I am however saying that it was not decisive - or rather, it wouldn't have mattered had Hannibal proven himself capable of taking cities.

Hannibal's entire strategy against Rome hinged on depriving Rome of its allies. His first victory in the field actually brought the Gauls and Ligurians to his side. But because he was not able to take cities, or even properly threaten them (he avoided attacking the at the time nearly undefended Rome!), Rome was essentially free to do whatever it wanted. Invade Spain, invade Sicily, invade Africa... or maybe all three? Oh, and they also fought the Macedon (the First Macedonian War) at the same time.

In short, defeat in Spain may have brought down Hannibal eventually, but the only reason it could do so was because Hannibal was unable to take Italian cities. Fortifications gave Rome the strategic resilience and freedom of action it required to actually defeat Hannibal.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Bar late era well.drilled pikemen(usualy armed with swords and knives too)from sarissa to mid medieveal times (westeros) pikemen alone always had supporting infantry to protect them given how helpless they are up close esp as they wont be anywhere near the drill level of the legendary  swiss pikemen....so no they cant survive unaided (they are depicted as being backed by other troops at this stage for a reason) 

 

Yes, pikemen did often have close-range infantry to help them... but that doesn't mean they were helpless against short-range infantry as you are suggesting. Yes, pikemen may be helpless up close - but you first need to get up close, and for that you need either pikemen of your own, or some combination of missile troops and armored lancers. The only way for short-range infantry to penetrate into a pike formation is if it is disordered in some way. But if it isn't - again, even against late and not-so-well drilled Macedonian phalanx, there is no example of Roman or any other no-pike infantry winning in a head-on engagement. They won by either using elephants or outflanking the phalanx: reason why Macedonian phalanx required supporting troops is because it wasn't able to protect its flanks. That is a problem which later schiltron and similar types of pike squares didn't have, but late Macedonian phalanx that Romans faced didn't operate the way pike squares did and didn't have supporting troops, and so could be outflanked. But head-on, it was still absolutely deadly, and could not be stopped by anything short of another phalanx.

Just look at how rodeleros and similar close-range troops in pike units were employed. Essentially, they were there to shift balance during the push of the pike - when enemy pikemen were being kept busy by friendly pikemen. But, whenever rodeleros (a sword-and-shield infantry actually kinda-sorta based on Roman legions) faced a pike square without support from a friendly pike square, they were regularly slaughtered.

Of course, Westerosi pikemen are unlikely to be as good as the Swiss pikemen... but "not as good" does not mean "bad". We see them advancing over a fairly rough terrain, and despite that they manage to keep good order. So again - not Swiss pikemen, but nothing to suggest that they are inferior to, say, the Unsullied.

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

As for the unsullied getting in  close grmm has depicted them.somehow as having stupidly intense training so are probably exceptionaly well.drilled as units and individuals and are some.daft mix of spartan, late roman legion(3 spears), silver shields and what sounds like medieval  quilted tunic armour .As with legionaries to medieval troops  even if the flanks are protected or the enmey is  ready formed up in a perfect  squsre/circle they can get close using their shields,throwing spears to create gaps( if they do train from birth in the '3 spears' we can assume the ones that survive are crackshots with them) and the other main weakness of the pikemen are missles... so again given the dothraki dont have armour to charge we can assume.they are largely all  horse archers with arkhs so fill that role

So the idea pikemen alone as you said could.survive vs spearmen alone is unlikely ..but as westeros pikemen wil have back up i suppose it doesnt matter.

Roman legions had excellent shields - roman scutum easily protects the entire body - yet they were unable to get anywhere close to phalangites and found themselves pushed back until the phalanx fell apart due to its own rush, terrain and lack of drill. At Beneventum, they won by panicking Pyrrhus' elephants, which rampaged through the ranks of the phalanx. At Cynoscephale, Romans were routed by the phalanx wherever they faced it head-on; they won because a major part of Macedonian phalanx was routed by Roman elephants. At Pydna, phalanx again routed the Romans; Romans only won because the phalanx - King Perseus having refused to commit his cavalry - broke ranks in order to pursue them. Keep in mind however that sarissa phalanx was never intended to operate alone, yet that is precisely what happened against the Romans. And at Magnesia, phalanx was destroyed when its own elephants panicked and started trampling everyone.

Now, if Unsullied do have throwing spears, that will help - but description of their tactics implies nothing more complex than a Greek phalanx. There is no mention of javelins, and the fact that the Unsullied locked their shields is fairly indicative of a phalanx-type formation:

Quote

“The Dothraki charged. The Unsullied locked their shields, lowered their spears, and stood firm.
Against twenty thousand screamers with bells in their hair, they stood firm.
“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. In the end only six hundred of them remained... but more than twelve
thousand Dothraki lay dead upon that field, including Khal Temmo, his bloodriders, his kos, and
all his sons. On the morning of the fourth day, the new khal led the survivors past the city gates
in a stately procession. One by one, each man cut off his braid and threw it down before the feet
of the Three Thousand

Skirmisher-style infantry such as early Roman legionaries never locked their shields as they required space to actually throw their spears; infantry fighting in a shield wall such as Greek hoplites or late Roman legions however did it regularly.

Also, late Roman legion did not use three spears; late Republican and early Imperial legion did, whereas late Roman legion only had one spear to be used for stabbing; missile power was provided by lead-weighted darts (the plumbata). But the Unsullied are some wierd mix which would not work in reality. One possibility that might work is that front ranks are spearmen while rear ranks are javelin throwers, but such distinction is never mentioned in the text.

Honestly, Romans won against Macedon because Philip V was an incompetent commander. Whenever Romans faced a phalanx under somebody somewhat competent - Phyrrus or later Hannibal - they tended to lose, and only win due to their structural and cultural advantages which had nothing to do with the tactical abilities.

Unsullied, being a phalanx-type infantry, may be able to withstand pikemen's frontal attack better: but they will also be less able to actually inflict damage and exploit opportunities, as they won't be able to get past the pikes.

"Getting close using their shields" is actually what Spanish rodeleros did, but that relied on having a friendly pike formation keeping the enemy pikemen busy. Now:

Quote

and the other main weakness of the pikemen are missles... so again given the dothraki dont have armour to charge we can assume.they are largely all  horse archers with arkhs so fill that role

this is correct. If Dothraki can bombard pike formation with enough arrows to weaken it or force it to break, then it becomes far more vulnerable than a formation of, say, spearmen would. And in such a situation, Unsullied would win (well, against pikemen anyway - supporting men-at-arms would be a challenge). But pikemen will have supporting missile units of their own (most likely longbowmen), and between numbers advantage at actual engagement point and Dothraki lacking armor, I do not see Dothraki winning that exchange.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Even if we discount how well knights will.survive that still leaves the bulk of the rest of the infantry who arent as well defended at all.

 

They still have large shields, mail and I presume gambeson. Which is not that bad of an armor - certainly better than what we see from the Unsullied and Dothraki - even if it is not as good as full plate.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Vs the knights unarmoured dothraki cant win a straight charge BUT as we see if it becomes a moving fluid cavalry battle horsemanship becomes the single most important factor(which they reportedly are on adverage better at)  , we also.know from jorah the dotraki can find gaps in armour with their arkhs (daario wouldnt cockily  use one if they didnt work vs his fellow westerosi style armoured sellswords either) , theres  youtube footage of test confirming  old medieval dueling manuals that a single sword pommel.strike can knock even full armoured knight senseless ....the best real.world example matching this.matchup  of sucess would be the well armoured roman cavalry losing time and again easily to unarmoured numidian cavalry in the very carthage war we dicussed again.due to being vastly superior horsemen.

 

That is true to an extent, and they may win against knights by baiting them. However, their baiting tactics will be far less effective than they were for the Mongols and the Seljuks because we see that - unlike the High Medieval European knights - Westerosi knights regularly have barding (horse armor).

Whether Daario would use arakh depends on who he is usually facing. As for pommel strike, that was a typical longsword technique - and keep in mind that knights would be aware of that vulnerability. Dothraki? Not so much.

Roman cavalry was not "well armoured". Roman cavalry of the time was essentially light to medium melee cavalry - not armored enough to stand up to horse archers, not armored or armed enough to stand up to genuine heavy cavalry. Romans did not in fact have anything comparable to Alexander's heavy Companion cavalry until 3rd century AD or so. And they adapted heavy cataphract cavalry precisely due to repeated wars with Persia. What Roman cavalry was, was disciplined - it wasn't until Hannibal that it actually met its match on the field.

And even there, "well armoured roman cavalry losing time and again easily to unarmoured numidian cavalry" is flat-out wrong. Despite what popular culture may tell you, Hannibal did not field just unarmored Numidian cavalry. He in fact fielded a well-balanced force of light Numidian cavalry, heavy Carthagenian cavalry, and also Iberian cavalry which could be used in both light cavalry and heavy shock cavalry role. In addition, Hannibal fielded 50 000 infantry and 9 000 cavalry when he left Spain - a far greater proportion of cavalry than any Roman army. This combination of various types of cavalry supporting equally diverse infantry (heavy Carthagenian, Iberian and Gallic, light Iberian) gave Hannibal a hithertho unprecedented level of flexibility on the battlefield, something Romans will not face until they come across Parthians much, much later. Essentially, Hannibal used his heavy cavalry to pin Roman cavalry down, while his light cavalry outflanked Romans. Forced to fight on two sides against usually superior numbers, Roman cavalry would break and run.

In fact, Hannibal's cavalry tactics were exactly what Mongols later used (well, different to an extent due to different equipment): using light cavalry to bait the enemy out of position before destroying them with heavy cavalry charge. Problem is, Dothraki do not have heavy cavalry, and therefore - barring magic or writer's fiat - cannot use such tactics.

5 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

To realistly have sucess vs fully armoured knights we can assume the dothraki like daario have their arkhs but also a stileto knife or something similar  and of course have a solid wrestling/grapping side to their culture that we havent seen yet (as we now know grappling  is more.important that pure swordplay in one on one fighting vs armour)

 

That is true, but they would have to dismount knights first. And even then, unarmored barbarian vs fully armored knight... yeah, you would need about half a dozen Dothraki for each knight to have a chance of taking him down. Armor is a massive advantage, to the point that a field hand in full armor should be able to kill a Dothraki khal most of the time. And Westerosi knights are full-time professional soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woof!  Good reading, this.  Most of it I've seen....but I suppose the question is....how much does the reality of what happened in the real life past influence GRRM? We can all debate, but really, the story belongs to GRRM.  How closely will he hew to real world events and battles and tech?

He borrows, he doesn't copy. As much as it pains me, since I'm somewhat affluent in weaponry and tactics, current and past....this might be one of those areas that we need to suspend some disbelief.  It's an extremely complex topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ring3r said:

.this might be one of those areas that we need to suspend some disbelief.

I agree. Even though I believe the Dothraki realistically wouldn't be very successful, I expect them to see at least some success in battle in Westeros. However I don't think they will have a clean sweep of their opponents either. That would be bad wrighting. They will be as successful as the plot requires.

Though I do think it would be hilarious if the Dothraki and Unsullied were all wiped out instantly as soon as Daenerys landed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ring3r said:

Woof!  Good reading, this.  Most of it I've seen....but I suppose the question is....how much does the reality of what happened in the real life past influence GRRM? We can all debate, but really, the story belongs to GRRM.  How closely will he hew to real world events and battles and tech?

Who knows? He definitely did some research about Westeros - he listed IIRC some books about 15th century armies and the Wars of the Roses on his resume. As a result, it is actually relatively easy to make guesses as to his inspirations and how these armies actually work from historical models, and have them line up with what he had actually shown. Tactics shown are also... somewhat realistic. Battle of the Greek Fork at least doesn't give me the headache in a way that the Essosi battles do. On the other hand, Unsullied, Dothraki and other Essosi armies are nothing more than vastly inferior caricatures of historical armies.

4 hours ago, Ring3r said:

He borrows, he doesn't copy. As much as it pains me, since I'm somewhat affluent in weaponry and tactics, current and past....this might be one of those areas that we need to suspend some disbelief.  It's an extremely complex topic.

Agreed. And that pisses me off because far more people will read such "pop culture history" than actually study history. Which then leads to utterly wrong ideas to how history really was. Can you believe that I have had a friend argue at me that historical Spartans did not wear armor beyond red capes and their awesome abs? Yeah, I started hating 300 at that very moment.

Tolkien is one of very few authors who actually studied history, even though he too made a lot of compromise on historical accuracy for the sake of making his stories more mythological. Other author who I think is fairly accurate, though I have not even read most of the first book let alone the series, is Harry Turtledove. GRRM? He hasn't got a clue about history.

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Though I do think it would be hilarious if the Dothraki and Unsullied were all wiped out instantly as soon as Daenerys landed.

really hope that will happen. And to be fair, there actually is some foreshadowing that something like that scenario will indeed happen. We even get a "no true Scotsman" fallacy:

Quote

After the beast fights came a mock battle, pitting six men on foot against six horsemen, the
former armed with shields and longswords, the latter with Dothraki
arakhs. The mock knights were clad
in mail hauberks, whilst the mock Dothraki wore no armor. At first the riders seemed to have the
advantage, riding down two of their foes and slashing the ear from a third, but then the surviving
knights began to attack the horses, and one by one the riders were unmounted and slain, to Jhiqui’s
great disgust. “That was no true
khalasar,” she said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

really hope that will happen. And to be fair, there actually is some foreshadowing that something like that scenario will indeed happen. We even get a "no true Scotsman" fallacy:

It might actually improve relations with the rest of Westeros. Her horde of barbarians and slave soldiers gone, they might view her as less of a foreigner. Though showing up with all them in the first place is a bad idea diplomatically...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It might actually improve relations with the rest of Westeros. Her horde of barbarians and slave soldiers gone, they might view her as less of a foreigner. Though showing up with all them in the first place is a bad idea diplomatically...

Yeah, she actually seems to be perfectly set up for Westeros to hate her.

Refusal to acknowledge that Aerys was a monster?

Infantry core comprised of former slave soldiers whose discipline is rapidly breaking down?

Light cavalry (about to) be comprised of barbarians who pillage, rape and plunder for fun?

Psychopathic/sociopathic asshole as a lover?

May decide to support religion whose followers burn people for fun?

Yeah, she may well have a "PR disaster" stamped on her forehead. And I don't think hate will be undeserved.

She should probably leave the Dothraki and the Unsullied to make sure slavery doesn't return to Slaver's Bay and go to Westeros with just sellswords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Yeah, she actually seems to be perfectly set up for Westeros to hate her.

Refusal to acknowledge that Aerys was a monster?

Infantry core comprised of former slave soldiers whose discipline is rapidly breaking down?

Light cavalry (about to) be comprised of barbarians who pillage, rape and plunder for fun?

Psychopathic/sociopathic asshole as a lover?

May decide to support religion whose followers burn people for fun?

Yeah, she may well have a "PR disaster" stamped on her forehead. And I don't think hate will be undeserved.

She should probably leave the Dothraki and the Unsullied to make sure slavery doesn't return to Slaver's Bay and go to Westeros with just sellswords.

Wow, that reads like a wish list from Dany's haters.  I need to make a similar list for Jon Snow.

George Martin wants to create drama and tension.  He will give resistance to Dany's conquest of Westeros.  But remember this, resistance is not insurmountable.   It is merely a challenge.  Westeros will be unified.  And no, they will not unite for a former lord commander who opened the gates for the wildlings, set up the marriage of a noble woman to a wildling, bastard son of an admitted traitor, brother of the rebel Robb Stark, and then betrayed the Night's Watch.  

Dany's infantrymen are the best in that world.  Their discipline will not and has not broken down at all.  And those barbarian Dothraki you speak of will ride through Westeros' finest with ease.  The peasants making up 90% of Westeros' armies will be target practice for Dothraki arrows.  The knights will hide behind their walls and compete for food with their lords.  They will not last long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rondo

You know, if you have such confidence in Dany's forces, why don't you bring up some actual historical reasons for why Dany will succeed with discount Mongols and hoplites, rather than simply closing your eyes and going "blah, blah, blah"?

At least the guy Aldarion keeps arguing about actually tries to use history, even if it's wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Wow, that reads like a wish list from Dany's haters.  I need to make a similar list for Jon Snow.

 

You should. He absolutely deserves it. Well, basically everybody does - Martin is writing basically evil/incompetent/unlucky carricatures of historical rulers.

12 minutes ago, Rondo said:

George Martin wants to create drama and tension.  He will give resistance to Dany's conquest of Westeros.  But remember this, resistance is not insurmountable.   It is merely a challenge.  Westeros will be unified.  And no, they will not unite for a former lord commander who opened the gates for the wildlings, set up the marriage of a noble woman to a wildling, bastard son of an admitted traitor, brother of the rebel Robb Stark, and then betrayed the Night's Watch.  

 

Oh, certainly. But however and whatever Daenerys does to unite Westeros, it will not be due to her "awesome" Essosi forces - not if Martin has any common sense and/or knowledge of history at all. She will need allies in Westeros.

6 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Dany's infantrymen are the best in that world.  Their discipline will not and has not broken down at all.  And those barbarian Dothraki you speak of will ride through Westeros' finest with ease.  The peasants making up 90% of Westeros' armies will be target practice for Dothraki arrows.  The knights will hide behind their walls and compete for food with their lords.  They will not last long.  

And this type of wishy-washy is at least half the reason why I came to dislike Daenerys. No, her infantrymen are nowhere near the best in the world. Northern levy pikemen are far better than the Unsullied. Yes, their discipline is breaking down - just look at that Unsullied that got murdered visiting a brothel. No, those barbarians will not "ride through Westeros' finest with ease" - they will get slaughtered. No, armies of Westeros are not made up of 90% peasants - majority of Westerosi soldiers are professionals, even in infantry. No, they will not be target practice for Dothraki arrows.

And if everything you have listed does indeed happen, that will only mean that Daenerys is a literal Mary Sue who is bending logic and reality to her will by fiat of author, so she can win no matter what. And such characters are rightly hated. You basically want her to become Rey 2.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...