Jump to content

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


Jaenara Belarys

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So you say these armors would be undamaged even though their users have died, not rusty despite the fact they were just sitting around for maybe decades and most importantly there will be enough of these to support thousands upon thousands when fighting in the pits takes place with just a few individuals. Sure!

Rusty and damaged  over quilted tunic armour > quilted tunic  armour alone no? Doesnt take much for a skilled blackmsith to fix holes or dents either..rust not so.much but few medieval forces will be  using entirely non rusty 

Numbers? We could expect each noble family that has  a pit and/or owns a few gladiators to own a school with a well.stocked armoury room with multiple pieces built up over centuries probably not enough to armour them all but probably a decent  start. We are told these pits cover the city like pockmarks so theres a lot of them

And the fact they have armourers capable of working steel and lots of out of work labourers to assit them to get the rest done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly believe that the Pit Fighters (with the possible exception of Strong Belwas) would be somewhat of a joke in a real battle. One-on-one combat who's primary purpose is entertainment is not going to serve them particularly well in an actual war. Nor do they seem to have any experience with heavily armoured opponents like Westerosi kinghts. Khrazz, the supposed champion of the pit fighters, the best of the best, struggles to get through Barristan's armour and is defeated in short order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I strongly believe that the Pit Fighters (with the possible exception of Strong Belwas) would be somewhat of a joke in a real battle. One-on-one combat who's primary purpose is entertainment is not going to serve them particularly well in an actual war. Nor do they seem to have any experience with heavily armoured opponents like Westerosi kinghts. Khrazz, the supposed champion of the pit fighters, the best of the best, struggles to get through Barristan's armour and is defeated in short order.

Yeah, there are a few exceptions who are legendary warriors such as Sandoq the Shadow, but the dude was able of taking on big beasts with nothing but rocks, but most pit fighters aren't trained or don't live and learn long enough to be able of taking on profesionnal soldiers or of working with others in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Could be but this was also a society  that managed to survive and wage war in a period of high magic ,dragons(and grmm knows what else) and vs  the seeming endless masses of ghiscari and rohynr and  the highly inventive qaathi . We know  while  they did have ridiculous elements like  chariots  and slingers  they  also near their end could field  10k heavy cavalry covered with steel backed by spider silk (p4p stronger than kevlar!) mixed with light cavalry and spearmen infantry (again nothing to suggest these guys didnt also have steel arnour and spider silk) all suggesting a highly orgainsed military and huge logistics  society to back that up.

 

Spider silk is a terrible armor because natural spider silk comes in very thin filletes, and is much weaker than steel in terms of mechanical strength. It is effective against bullets - not so much against low-velocity weapons such as arrows, and is completely useless against blades. There is a reason why kevlar body vests have to include ceramic or steel plates - while kevlar stops bullets, something like an arrow or a knife would go straight through.

And "surviving and waging war in period of high magic and dragons" actually speaks against their armies being all that good in a conventional clash. Tactics required against dragon would be very different from those required against actual armies. In fact, presence of dragons may well be the reason why modern Essosi militaries are such garbage.

And there is nothing to suggest their infantry had steel armor. Or any armor at all - if anything, their behavior suggests very light infantry.

14 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Then theres the other cultures whos cities fell

The valyrian fort/fortress city  we know will have had the distinctive superior dragon fused stonework to westerosi stonework + at bare minimum its elite armed in v.steel

Dothraki were never a threat to Valyrians. At best they conquered a single city, which is not that much of a feat.

14 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The ibbenese seem.to somehow be semi neanderthals but with a huge stone fortress capital city and already have  cobbled streets with  oil lamps, described as skilled craftsmen   so can build at least as well as westeros forts , their individual military capabilites  is largely unkown but as fabled shield and axemen and reportedly  'excel over westerosi at wrestling' 

 

Which tells us absolutely nothing how good they are at war.

14 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The qaathi we know  have built a city far in excess socialy, economywise and in terms of sheer defensive capability and scale  far beyond    anything (bar the wall) in westeros so again we can assume their outter forts and fortified cities were at least as good as westeros 

 

And again, tells us nothing about how good their defensive capabilities are. You are focusing on "who has the biggest stick" (wall, castle, whatever), but you don't really understand the purpose of castles.

Especially against an enemy such as Dothraki, a hundred shitty castles is actually better than one extremely powerful castle. Westeros has both.

14 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

And yet somehow everyone of these cultures lost large defended city after city to the 'savages' somehow.....it cant all just be bad luck. The simplest explanation seems.to be staring us in the face in the books that essosi slaves/tradesmen that can work siegecraft well are easy to come by either by payment or force! We see this with the clanker lords.

 

The simplest explanation is that they conquered themselves. We know Sarnori did precisely that - initially, they used Dothraki as auxilliaries while they besieged each others' cities. And yeah, I already agreed that they probably hired help somewhere at least in some cases.

But that just brings me back to my point that, without local support, both Unsullied and Dothraki alone will not amount to much.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The southern cities and towns (and yes ports ) surrendered to hannibal and while he had a large enough force to smash romes legions it wasnt big enough to siege major cities...something spain (or even the half hearted carthaginian senate out of their own pockets ) could have provided....while rome beat some non hannibal led forces this wasnt a given and those forces  could have potentialy altered the war, as would the  huge forces scipios victories robbed  them of. 

 

How large do you think you need a force to be for a siege? Hannibal had 50 000 men, which is more than Magnentius had when he besieged Mursa. And most cities in Italy at the time were not as well-fortified as Mursa of late Antiquity.

You might say that he lacked siege equipment, but that could have been provided by his allied cities. And if neither siege equipment nor numbers were an issue, why do you think those reinforcements could have altered the war on their own?

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Hell if the carthagian force sent to break romes siege of syracuse hadnt caught the plauge hannibal.would have had access to the finest siege engineering minds on earth at the time,the punic war like.manh others if filled with dozens of what ifs but yes unquestionably losing its main economic and military base (spain) ended the war as a contest.

 

And losing Spain only came about because Hannibal was unable to take Roman cities. So however you turn it, fortifications played a decisive role.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

It was superior to even.alexanders phalanx man hence they won the wars  often in spite of their commnders.....while alexanders phalanx has more mixed forces and balance it still lacks the tactical and command flexibility of the legion. Once  commited its stuck with alexander at the head of his companion cavalry choosimg where to strike as gaps forming from the forward pressure of the sarissa which must maintain rigid lines ...by contrast the legions commanders are almost never near the danger and each maniples gaps allow.men to peel off where gaps form, while the phalanx has some advantages esp in forward pressure overall the legions more fluid + adaptable structure is better

 

Not even close. Roman legion was flexible and could do a lot of things. Alexander's phalanx was even more flexible than Roman legion. You cannot compare it to Diadochi phalanxes, which were reenactment of Greek phalanx with pikes.

I had shown you examples of tactical flexibility of Alexander's phalanx, which you continue to ignore. 

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*EPfI8IehLF-NEkhz7skhIQ.jpeg

https://about-history.com/battle-of-gaugamela-331-bc/

https://medium.com/@robert.f.williams/the-macedonian-army-exhibited-a-tactical-brilliance-that-set-a-precedent-in-the-employment-of-9f8548657045

King Pyrrhus used a rough imitation of Alexander's phalanx to repeatedly beat the Roman legions. Hannibal did the same thing.

Fact is, Roman legion is not more flexible than Alexandrian phalanx. It is somewhat more flexible if you look at only heavy infantry comparison (Roman centuries of 80 men were smaller and more flexible than Macedonian syntagma of 256 men), but as a system the phalanx was far superior. And even only in infantry battle, Romans never really overcame the phalanx with their infantry.

Heavy infantry is always "stuck" when committed, phalanx and legion are not different in that regard. You can't exactly disengage once you are already in combat.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Soo we  see most of the infantry are  actualy armed with spears, swords and axes. The pikemen arent invincible they can be engaged by other infantry types sucessfully...the swiss hilly landscape wasnt suitable for large volumes of heavy cavalry to be easily raised hence the rise of a weapon that could both nulify expensive knights and push back other infantry but until later eras  ALWAYS  suppported by other types of melee and missle troops to prevent disaster.

 

"Can be" is quite different from "will be". Any type of troops can be beaten by any other type of troops... you just need to have the right circumstances. But that doesn't mean that relying on it is a good idea. And as I said: Westerosi pikemen have a backup of heavy melee infantry behind them. Unsullied are at a starting disadvantage (hoplite spearmen vs medieval pikemen) and have nothing behind them for a backup.

Peasants can beat knights, but if you tried to rely on an army of peasants against knights, you would lose in a very short order.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

That assume the dothraki dont focus all their firepower on one square at a time riding to areas to keep out of range of the the rest lets say 10 squares right to left...the dothraki stay to the far right of the furthest right one and avoid almost all the arrows from.the other 9 squares while making it rain on their nearest one and moving on.

 

Even if they can do that, they will still have a very unfavorable exchange ratio. I do not think you realize how big of an advantage armor is. And even if they do get armor, horse archers are still disadvantaged against foot archers.

Army cannot "avoid arrows". The best they can is stay out of range, but that will limit the effectiveness of their own archery.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Or they move around in small bands of dozens..each time.a block of foot archers fires  at one small group the reload time allows another dotraki block slightly behind time to ride past and pick head and neck shots in the pike line, very quickly opening gaps for larger volumes of horsmen to flow.into and begin breaking the square up.

 

To pick "head and neck shots" in the pike line Dothraki would need to come to the point blank range.

That would be a very bad idea.

Also, we see that Westerosi pikemen utilize pavise shields. That would make Dothraki archery rather ineffective even against unarmored infantry.

Dothraki also lack the heavy cavalry to exploit any breaches in the line. Even if gaps are opened, Dothraki do not have the capacity to exploit them.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Or like many horse archers did they'd carry 2 bows one for shooting on the move and another more powerful one for dismounting roughly equal to their foot archer foes

 

That could actually work. In fact, it is the best idea so far. They would however need armor for that to be a viable option. Or one could employ them as foot archers behind the Unsullied.

That being said, considering how much of Essos is still stuck in antiquity, it is unlikely even Dothraki foot bows are equal to Westerosi longbows. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Never said armour wasnt an advantage just in grmms world we have seen arkhs can find gaps in them, sellswords who fight people in armour use them thus they cant be all bad vs knights.(and yeah pommel can single strike ko  but you can still be battered seneseless quickly with blade too in armour .....watch those.modern knight fighting comps!) And yeah knights are trained fighters but so are the dothraki...shit its the one of the only things they seemingly constantly focus on.

Except for the Golden Company and other Westerosi sellswords, I don't think many sellswords use heavy armor. As for arakh, that is basically a scimitar: light cavalry used them because they are easier to use from the horseback, and this was true even in 15th century.

I am well aware how swords can be used to fight people in armor. Point is, Dothraki are not equipped to deal with armored opponents in melee, and while arakhs are not completely useless in such a scenario, armor is still a massive advantage. Especially plate armor: fighting an unarmored opponent is completely different from fighting one in plate armor.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Add in her messiah like.status for the slaves and you have a potential army of millions of fanatics!

That would be perfect!

.

.

.

For her enemies. They would all starve to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 12:10 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

The question presents an unrealistic and biased scenario because Daenerys has the use of her dragons to add the element of an air force to her team

That's true....to a degree. Dany first has to learn how to control her dragons, wait for them to get big enough for a war, etc. Then she has to be able to teleport, in order for her to be at every single battle. This is a war to retake a throne, but it'll also have to be a war of conquest in order to muster local levies and logistics. 

20 hours ago, Ring3r said:

Even if the Unsullied aren't that great, if they can form a line and the enemy is temporarily forced to adopt a wide front, to break that line....wouldn't that be a really nice target for a dragon?

Yeah, but these dragons, if they keep growing at their current rate will take some time to come to their show size. Logically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

That's true....to a degree. Dany first has to learn how to control her dragons, wait for them to get big enough for a war, etc. Then she has to be able to teleport, in order for her to be at every single battle. This is a war to retake a throne, but it'll also have to be a war of conquest in order to muster local levies and logistics. 

Yeah, but these dragons, if they keep growing at their current rate will take some time to come to their show size. Logically. 

Agreed, their size is an issue, only Drogon is big enough to ride, and only barely.  It'll be interesting to see how GRRM deals with that.  He really should have stuck to his 5 year gap, because it would have solved a lot of logistical issues.  That's probably one of the reasons he's taking so long on WoW.  I'd actually not be surprised he does end up doing the 5 year gap, but have it occur between WoW and ADoS.  A 5 year gap, with the new Long Night starting at the end of WoW and finally ending in ADoS would be pretty epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ring3r said:

Agreed, their size is an issue, only Drogon is big enough to ride, and only barely.  It'll be interesting to see how GRRM deals with that.  He really should have stuck to his 5 year gap, because it would have solved a lot of logistical issues.  That's probably one of the reasons he's taking so long on WoW.  I'd actually not be surprised he does end up doing the 5 year gap, but have it occur between WoW and ADoS.  A 5 year gap, with the new Long Night starting at the end of WoW and finally ending in ADoS would be pretty epic.

A Dream of Spring taking place over the course of five years (or even a two- or three-year time period) is a brilliant idea.

I know that's not what you are saying but a five-year time gap between Winds and Dream is too much. One year is a very good idea and two years is not so bad...but five?! You run into the same problems putting a five-year gap in between Winds and Dream as you do when you put it between Storm and Feast. Granted, it's not so bad as you can simply write it in a way where the weather is so bad that everyone is hibernating...but you run into the issue of what makes everyone come out of wherever they have been holding out into the bitter subzero temperatures of the Long Night. And there's still the issue of the Others. Sitting around for five years doing pretty much nothing when they were pretty active in Dance.

The only place that a five-year gap could have worked was in between A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2022 at 6:09 PM, Aldarion said:

Spider silk is a terrible armor because natural spider silk comes in very thin filletes, and is much weaker than steel in terms of mechanical strength. It is effective against bullets - not so much against low-velocity weapons such as arrows, and is completely useless against blades. There is a reason why kevlar body vests have to include ceramic or steel plates - while kevlar stops bullets, something like an arrow or a knife would go straight through.

And "surviving and waging war in period of high magic and dragons" actually speaks against their armies being all that good in a conventional clash. Tactics required against dragon would be very different from those required against actual armies. In fact, presence of dragons may well be the reason why modern Essosi militaries are such garbage.

And there is nothing to suggest their infantry had steel armor. Or any armor at all - if anything, their behavior suggests very light infantry.

Dothraki were never a threat to Valyrians. At best they conquered a single city, which is not that much of a feat.

Which tells us absolutely nothing how good they are at war.

And again, tells us nothing about how good their defensive capabilities are. You are focusing on "who has the biggest stick" (wall, castle, whatever), but you don't really understand the purpose of castles.

Especially against an enemy such as Dothraki, a hundred shitty castles is actually better than one extremely powerful castle. Westeros has both.

The simplest explanation is that they conquered themselves. We know Sarnori did precisely that - initially, they used Dothraki as auxilliaries while they besieged each others' cities. And yeah, I already agreed that they probably hired help somewhere at least in some cases.

But that just brings me back to my point that, without local support, both Unsullied and Dothraki alone will not amount to much.

How large do you think you need a force to be for a siege? Hannibal had 50 000 men, which is more than Magnentius had when he besieged Mursa. And most cities in Italy at the time were not as well-fortified as Mursa of late Antiquity.

You might say that he lacked siege equipment, but that could have been provided by his allied cities. And if neither siege equipment nor numbers were an issue, why do you think those reinforcements could have altered the war on their own?

And losing Spain only came about because Hannibal was unable to take Roman cities. So however you turn it, fortifications played a decisive role.

Not even close. Roman legion was flexible and could do a lot of things. Alexander's phalanx was even more flexible than Roman legion. You cannot compare it to Diadochi phalanxes, which were reenactment of Greek phalanx with pikes.

I had shown you examples of tactical flexibility of Alexander's phalanx, which you continue to ignore. 

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*EPfI8IehLF-NEkhz7skhIQ.jpeg

https://about-history.com/battle-of-gaugamela-331-bc/

https://medium.com/@robert.f.williams/the-macedonian-army-exhibited-a-tactical-brilliance-that-set-a-precedent-in-the-employment-of-9f8548657045

King Pyrrhus used a rough imitation of Alexander's phalanx to repeatedly beat the Roman legions. Hannibal did the same thing.

Fact is, Roman legion is not more flexible than Alexandrian phalanx. It is somewhat more flexible if you look at only heavy infantry comparison (Roman centuries of 80 men were smaller and more flexible than Macedonian syntagma of 256 men), but as a system the phalanx was far superior. And even only in infantry battle, Romans never really overcame the phalanx with their infantry.

Heavy infantry is always "stuck" when committed, phalanx and legion are not different in that regard. You can't exactly disengage once you are already in combat.

"Can be" is quite different from "will be". Any type of troops can be beaten by any other type of troops... you just need to have the right circumstances. But that doesn't mean that relying on it is a good idea. And as I said: Westerosi pikemen have a backup of heavy melee infantry behind them. Unsullied are at a starting disadvantage (hoplite spearmen vs medieval pikemen) and have nothing behind them for a backup.

Peasants can beat knights, but if you tried to rely on an army of peasants against knights, you would lose in a very short order.

Even if they can do that, they will still have a very unfavorable exchange ratio. I do not think you realize how big of an advantage armor is. And even if they do get armor, horse archers are still disadvantaged against foot archers.

Army cannot "avoid arrows". The best they can is stay out of range, but that will limit the effectiveness of their own archery.

To pick "head and neck shots" in the pike line Dothraki would need to come to the point blank range.

That would be a very bad idea.

Also, we see that Westerosi pikemen utilize pavise shields. That would make Dothraki archery rather ineffective even against unarmored infantry.

Dothraki also lack the heavy cavalry to exploit any breaches in the line. Even if gaps are opened, Dothraki do not have the capacity to exploit them.

That could actually work. In fact, it is the best idea so far. They would however need armor for that to be a viable option. Or one could employ them as foot archers behind the Unsullied.

That being said, considering how much of Essos is still stuck in antiquity, it is unlikely even Dothraki foot bows are equal to Westerosi longbows. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Except for the Golden Company and other Westerosi sellswords, I don't think many sellswords use heavy armor. As for arakh, that is basically a scimitar: light cavalry used them because they are easier to use from the horseback, and this was true even in 15th century.

I am well aware how swords can be used to fight people in armor. Point is, Dothraki are not equipped to deal with armored opponents in melee, and while arakhs are not completely useless in such a scenario, armor is still a massive advantage. Especially plate armor: fighting an unarmored opponent is completely different from fighting one in plate armor.

That would be perfect!

.

.

.

For her enemies. They would all starve to death.

The mongols used silk under their armour dude, it added an extra layer to help absorb arrows or stabs and more importantly if armour was penetrated by an arrow it allowed easier removal of the arrow intact.....spider silk would actualy be better (stronger) but is commericaly unviable to do en masse (esp in medieval times) and it actualy bizzarely has medicinal properties when used as deessing!

 

Seems there was plenty of conventional clashes happening and on a grand scale thus the idea of them not building fortifications  for strategic positions with interlinking command and logisitcs  etc doesnt hold up.

Nope. It specificaly doesnt say light infantry. Now we know all their enemies wore armour so it would stand to reason their infantry wore it  too , commonsense would say its  the same armour as their numerous heavy cavalry and we know they already had light skirmishing troops (slingers) so matching historical armies theyd be far more likely to be  heavy infantry in steel armour with their slingers as the light skirmishing infantry.

They took a single valryian  fortitied city yes which again unless there were special circumstances or we assume all inside were idiots it IS  likely to have been a decently defended place.

There nonreason to assume those other cultures are worse at defensive warfare than westeros though no? And if they can easily hire/press gang siege engineers   the result is still the same no? 

Had their been reinforcements to defend allies as hannibal.still.racked up battle.wins many more would have defected esp as the massive  economic and manpower toll.of the war went on. Scipio was released on spain as part of a strategy to releive pressure (and only.got the job due to the literal decimation of romes officer class...talk abput long shots paying off) omce he was therr he cut off carthage from its main economic and manpower hub...from that point on the war was over but before that it was anyones to win with various huge 'what ifs' that could have won the war for either side.

Im.well aware of alexanders and phyrus forces layout they were much more balanced than later sucessor  phalanxes but still lacked the legions overall flexibility. Once commited it that was virtualy it whereas most of a legions forces are free to rest or be redeployed by officers to enemy flanks or  and rear while its front engages . Even then 1st meeting vs phyrus 7  times the phalanx failed to push the legion back and it was the elphants that won the battle, phyrus victories vs the legions as.much to do with his brillance in choosing ground, deployment and the elephant novelyy and even then his 2 victories where famously costly and 3rd arguably a draw. Time and again if enough open ground when the legions engaged a phalanx men were able to flow into unprotecred flanks and rear and slaughter. The phalanxs long spears and much deeper compacted formation gave it more pushing power but also made it unwieldy and helpless when not supported correctly.

 

Agrees getting past the pikes could be tricky but not impossible then it will.come.down to the westerosi infantry superior armour and strength vs  the physicaly impossoble in real life for euncuhs    endurance levels  and skill of the unsullied.

 

Without armour yes i agree but of they are all horse archers doubling as light cavalry then sheer volume can beat quality esp if squares are deployed and cannot move freely thus leaving some out of the battle while others are swarmed

Nope if the archers have already fired at one small group galloping past the following group have that reload time  to ride outside of pike range and aim for necks and head etc pallisides will help if they have them 

 

Not really they can still explot the gaps , its still hundreds of guys on horses ! its just minus armour  theyl take far more casulties than a knight charge into an infantry blocks gaps would take true but def still a threat to infantry who have been unlucky enough to open a gap.

 

Pretty.much every sellsword company we have seen deploy westerosi style. Yes theyd do poorly in a melee crush like many.light cavalry  theyd do better in a spread out open  moving fluid cavalry battle (again cartgages famous unarmoured  numidians come to.mind killing their well armoured  roman counterparts with ease) daarios cockiness with one must indicate hes rather good at killing with them..but then again thats when combined with the much more sensible  tailor made knight killer ..his stileto blade

Hey never said armour wasnt a big advantage but it doesnt mean someone wearing it will be racking up double.figure kills lile a medieval john wick easily either..we know the dothraki are aware of armour .have probably facede swellswords wearing it for years and of course in grmms  world those sabres can apparently penetrate armour and almost mortaly wound a main character (jorah) of not for his 'luck' of the  hipbone catching the blade for him.

 

At this stage feel.weve been back and forward over the same.points and wont agree anytime soon but thanks.for keeping it civil  so few  on forums do these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

The mongols used silk under their armour dude, it added an extra layer to help absorb arrows or stabs

Unless the silk was several layers thick, how could it do that? Silk is also quite pricey.

9 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

They took a single valryian  fortitied city yes which again unless there were special circumstances or we assume all inside were idiots it IS  likely to have been a decently defended place.

The special circumstances were that Valyria had collapsed completely and there was mass chaos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The mongols used silk under their armour dude, it added an extra layer to help absorb arrows or stabs and more importantly if armour was penetrated by an arrow it allowed easier removal of the arrow intact.....spider silk would actualy be better (stronger) but is commericaly unviable to do en masse (esp in medieval times) and it actualy bizzarely has medicinal properties when used as deessing!

 

Silk that Sarnori use is specifically stated as spider silk in the World of Ice and Fire:

Quote

Their riders wore steel and spider silk and rode coal-black mares
 

Which is bullshit by the bucket. But, well, magic? Problem is, magic is unquantifiable.

As for Mongols, yes, they used silk, you don't need to teach me what I already know... that silk however has nothing in common with spider silk. And it is also useless as armor.

Unless it is literally gambeson thickness, in which case... well, not much difference between European style and Mongol style gambesons. Europeans also had textile armor under mail to help absorb arrows and blunt force blows, though it was usually linen or wool (cotton gambesons were also used, but very rarely).

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Seems there was plenty of conventional clashes happening and on a grand scale thus the idea of them not building fortifications  for strategic positions with interlinking command and logisitcs  etc doesnt hold up.

 

Seems...?

Also, "building fortifications for strategic positions with interlinking command and logistics" does not result in European feudal "each hill has its own private castle" system of fortifications. China did precisely what you describe, yet their fortifications were quantitatively - and in many ways qualitatively - inferior to European fortifications.

In fact, following the system you described was a disadvantage because Chinese fortifications at the time of Mongol invasion were located in easily-accessible positions, making them exceptionally vulnerable. European castles in contrast were usually located on hills, in marshes, and similar positions which made them even more difficult to take than their structure would suggest.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Nope. It specificaly doesnt say light infantry. Now we know all their enemies wore armour so it would stand to reason their infantry wore it  too , commonsense would say its  the same armour as their numerous heavy cavalry and we know they already had light skirmishing troops (slingers) so matching historical armies theyd be far more likely to be  heavy infantry in steel armour with their slingers as the light skirmishing infantry.

 

Look at how they behave in battle.

Quote

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

 

That is not how heavy infantry behaves... especially not heavy infantry in armor.

Common sense is no substitute for historical knowledge. Persians had heavy cataphract cavalry which was armored in iron or steel head-to-toe - riders in scale, mail or lamellar, horse in scale or lamellar, depending on the period (Achaemenid cataphracts used primarily scale armor, whereas Sassanid cataphracts used mail and scale - see below):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ancient_Sasanid_Cataphract_Uther_Oxford_2003_06_2(1).jpg

By contrast, Persian infantry, especially during Achaemenid era but also during Sassanid era with some exception, wore no armor and their only defense were large wicker shields, which could be easily penetrated even with short bows.

In short:

- Persian heavy cavalry: extremely heavy bronze or iron armor

- Persian heavy infantry: wicker shields and no armor at all

- Persian archers and slingers: no shields and no armor at all

'Nuff said.

Not all heavy infantry is created equal. In the end, main difference between light and heavy infantry are tactics - differences in equipment result from differences in tactics. Looking just at equipment, Persian Immortals were light infantry by Greek standards, yet they were actually heavy infantry due to the way they fought.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

They took a single valryian  fortitied city yes which again unless there were special circumstances or we assume all inside were idiots it IS  likely to have been a decently defended place.

 

And again, keep in mind the point I have been making the whole time, about fortification system as opposed to individual fortifications.

Lots of small castles are better than few fortified cities. If you only have few massively fortified cities, they can be easily cut off and starved into submission even with relatively primitive siege techniques, and with no danger to your own forces. But when you have a castle on this hill, another castle on a neighboring hill, a watchtower few miles further, then another half a dozen small castles in close proximity... that is a completely different strategic problem.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

There nonreason to assume those other cultures are worse at defensive warfare than westeros though no? And if they can easily hire/press gang siege engineers   the result is still the same no? 

 

Actually, there is a very big reason to assume so: Westeros is a feudal society and has very advanced fortifications building capabilities. Even if you had a China-equivalent in Essos, a centralized state with equal or superior fortification techniques to Westeros... it would still have inferior fortifications system due to differences in administration.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Had their been reinforcements to defend allies as hannibal.still.racked up battle.wins many more would have defected esp as the massive  economic and manpower toll.of the war went on. Scipio was released on spain as part of a strategy to releive pressure (and only.got the job due to the literal decimation of romes officer class...talk abput long shots paying off) omce he was therr he cut off carthage from its main economic and manpower hub...from that point on the war was over but before that it was anyones to win with various huge 'what ifs' that could have won the war for either side.

 

The entire reason why Hannibal had victories was because Romans - for internal political reasons - wanted to confront him in the field. But there was no way for him to win the war. Because he was unable to take the cities.

Yes, releasing Scipio to Spain was good strategy. Doesn't mean that Rome would have lost the war had Scipio remained in Italy. Hannibal already was cut off from Spain (and from Africa), Carthage was hardly supporting him, and what reinforcements he was receiving were a) not that significant and b) easily destroyed by the Romans.

And even if you assume that taking Spain was decisive... Romans went to Spain in 218 BC, were defeated in 211 BC, and only managed a decisive victory in 206 BC... after Hasdrubal had left with his entire army for Italy. And despite that, in 203 BC Carthage still managed to recruit thousands of mercenaries from Iberia.

Suffice to say, your idea that fortifications did not play a decisive role in defeating Hannibal simply doesn't stand. Even if we assume that Scipio's campaign in Spain was indeed the decisive blow (which I do not agree with for reasons above), that campaign was at all possible only because Hannibal was not able to take fortified cities.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Im.well aware of alexanders and phyrus forces layout they were much more balanced than later sucessor  phalanxes but still lacked the legions overall flexibility. Once commited it that was virtualy it whereas most of a legions forces are free to rest or be redeployed by officers to enemy flanks or  and rear while its front engages . Even then 1st meeting vs phyrus 7  times the phalanx failed to push the legion back and it was the elphants that won the battle, phyrus victories vs the legions as.much to do with his brillance in choosing ground, deployment and the elephant novelyy and even then his 2 victories where famously costly and 3rd arguably a draw. Time and again if enough open ground when the legions engaged a phalanx men were able to flow into unprotecred flanks and rear and slaughter. The phalanxs long spears and much deeper compacted formation gave it more pushing power but also made it unwieldy and helpless when not supported correctly.

 

Doesn't matter whether it is a phalanx or a legion, troops in contact stay in contact. Yes, a traditional legion has three lines, but you are forgetting that Alexandrian phalanx was always deployed with a reserve.

Pyrrhus modeled his phalanx on Alexander's model, and won all his battles against the legions except the last one. And no, it was not "elephants that won the battles" for Pyrrhus, that is just pop culture history. In fact, Pyrrhus lost Beneventum because his elephants panicked. Sure, elephants played a large role in a number of his victories against Romans - but Romans (after Pyrrhus) also utilized elephants, and several of their victories against phalanxes are attributable to usage of elephants. According to your argument, this would mean Roman legion is inferior to phalanx and relies on luck and elephants to win.

Difference between legion and phalanx is that legionary infantry can act as its own flanking force - which was a must for Romans who had very few (and not very good) cavalry - whereas phalanx relied on cavalry to provide a flanking force. But even then, a well-drilled phalanx can easily prevent being outflanked - either relying on reserves, or forming a pike square. Which is what happened at least once - I gave you examples already - and phalanx proved utterly invulnerable to legion's attacks until elephants contained within panicked. Frankly, your focus on elephants is rather silly considering they were more often a disadvantage to their own side than to the enemy. They were a status symbol, nothing more, and very difficult to control. They could panic cavalry that was not used to them, but even then they were usually deployed against infantry.

But yes, phalanx by itself could not force a decision - it was not a medieval pike square which was a pretty much self-contained formation. Phalanx required support to force a decision, medieval pikemen could do it on their own even if they too performed far better with support. Phalanx was there to pressure the enemy, but decision was always made by cavalry. Which is why unsupported phalanx armies (which is what Romans predominantly faced) could not actually achieve anything.

And yes, late DIadochi phalanx could be - and often was - unweildy and helpless. But that is not Alexandrian (or Carthagenian) phalanx: Alexandrian phalanx could and did operate in individual units and detachments, could carry out extremely complex maneuvers (more complex than what Romans ever did), and could counter a wide array of foes. Including horse archers, which is something Romans tended to struggle with.

Romans didn't win by having a superior military organization or tactical system, they won by a combination of barbarian fighting spirit, ability to replace losses and willingness to beat their head against the wall until the wall broke. To be sure, their system wasn't bad, but it wasn't inherently superior to Macedonian phalanx.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Agrees getting past the pikes could be tricky but not impossible then it will.come.down to the westerosi infantry superior armour and strength vs  the physicaly impossoble in real life for euncuhs    endurance levels  and skill of the unsullied.

 

Agreed.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Without armour yes i agree but of they are all horse archers doubling as light cavalry then sheer volume can beat quality esp if squares are deployed and cannot move freely thus leaving some out of the battle while others are swarmed

Nope if the archers have already fired at one small group galloping past the following group have that reload time  to ride outside of pike range and aim for necks and head etc pallisides will help if they have them 

Sheer volume can beat quality, but issue here is that Dothraki have volume... Westerosi will have both volume and quality.

That again will not work. First, archers usually do not "fire" in salvoes. It can be done, but it usually isn't, because longbows cannot be held drawn for long. Instead, they pick targets individually and loose arrows as soon as they are drawn. So what you have is a constant and very dense stream of arrows. Crossbowmen can perform salvoes, but I am uncertain whether that was ever done, and in any case Westeros seems to have longbowmen more than crossbowmen. Second, even if salvoes are used (and in Westeros, it does appear they are), longbowmen still have a very high rate of fire. By the time second group comes into range, longbowmen are ready to engage again.

Third, you fail to appreciate how much difference even light armor makes. In order for a Dothraki group to do what you are suggesting, they will have to a) charge at longbowmen who have likely superior absolute range, b) keep charging under bombardment in order to reach their own (very meagre) effective range, c) engage enemy infantry at what is basically point blank range, d) disengage while under bombardment and e) do it all over again.

Mongols suffered heavily even against 13th century, predominantly lightly equipped Hungarian army at Mohi. They also suffered heavy losses at Czarna river. And yes, they won both engagements - but remember, Mongols were an army that had heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy and light infantry, combat engineers, and one of the best command and control systems in the world at the time. Out of everything Mongols had, the only thing Dothraki have is light missile cavalry.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Not really they can still explot the gaps , its still hundreds of guys on horses ! its just minus armour  theyl take far more casulties than a knight charge into an infantry blocks gaps would take true but def still a threat to infantry who have been unlucky enough to open a gap.

 

That simply doesn't work that way. Dothraki do not have armor, or lances, or tactics to perform a cavalry charge (remember, they were unsuccessful against spearmen). Yes, it is true that they will be a threat to infantry that had opened a gap - but only if there really is a major gap, as opposed to weakening of the line that can be fixed.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Pretty.much every sellsword company we have seen deploy westerosi style. Yes theyd do poorly in a melee crush like many.light cavalry  theyd do better in a spread out open  moving fluid cavalry battle (again cartgages famous unarmoured  numidians come to.mind killing their well armoured  roman counterparts with ease) daarios cockiness with one must indicate hes rather good at killing with them..but then again thats when combined with the much more sensible  tailor made knight killer ..his stileto blade

 

Which should tell you something about relative quality of Westerosi vs Essosi military organizations and formations.

Roman equites were not "well armored" compared to eastern cataphracts. Their horses for one were completely unarmored. And yes, they did struggle against Numidian horse archers, but Hannibal did not win these victories "with ease". 

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Hey never said armour wasnt a big advantage but it doesnt mean someone wearing it will be racking up double.figure kills lile a medieval john wick easily either..we know the dothraki are aware of armour .have probably facede swellswords wearing it for years and of course in grmms  world those sabres can apparently penetrate armour and almost mortaly wound a main character (jorah) of not for his 'luck' of the  hipbone catching the blade for him.

 

Armor will serve to make the men more-or-less invulnerable to missiles. Even against longbows, French men-at-arms actually reached English infantry, and lost mostly because they got outflanked. And I have already provided you example of how heavy armor and longbowmen kept Richard's army from suffering heavy losses against Saladin.

Yeah, if sabres in GRRMord can penetrate armor then Dothraki are in a somewhat better position.

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

At this stage feel.weve been back and forward over the same.points and wont agree anytime soon but thanks.for keeping it civil  so few  on forums do these days

Agreed. Still, I think both of us learned something, and it should be good reading for others.

5 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Unless the silk was several layers thick, how could it do that? Silk is also quite pricey.

It doesn't, actually, unless it is literally a European-style gambeson / arming doublet. In which case, I don't see much difference between European and Mongol armor.

Mongols did have advantage against arrows - because they used lamellar, which is a much better defense from arrows than mail. Not that mail is bad defense, but it is not as good. It less able to prevent penetration in the first place, and it weakens much more quickly with repeated impacts. It is however superior in that it is easier to achieve full body coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Unsullied and the khalasars will conquer Westeros for their Queen.  I just do not see any army on Westeros who are strong enough to win against them.  They have trained every day for ten years.  All of the weak among them have been culled.  The Dothraki are the best riders and second only to the Summer Islanders in archery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

The Unsullied and the khalasars will conquer Westeros for their Queen.  I just do not see any army on Westeros who are strong enough to win against them.  They have trained every day for ten years.  All of the weak among them have been culled.  The Dothraki are the best riders and second only to the Summer Islanders in archery. 

Literally every army in Westeros is strong enough to win against the Dothraki and the Unsullied, at least if Martin sticks to facts and logic.

And yes, by every army, I mean the Ironborn too. The only ones they would win against are the Wildlings.

Also, LOL @ "all of the weak among them have been culled".  Unsullied are universally weak, and as for the Dothraki, macho strength-based champion warfare does very, very poorly against organized armies, as barbarians found out time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2022 at 6:57 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Unless the silk was several layers thick, how could it do that? Silk is also quite pricey.

The special circumstances were that Valyria had collapsed completely and there was mass chaos...

Who says it wasnt or  stuffed like a gambeson? But no id imagine grmm is shooting for mongol style the thick silk is under the steel armour....and yes if  regualr silk is expensive farming spiders would be insanely difficult and expensive in medieval times( the reason we are only talking spider silk armour now is that we can make it syntheiticaly)

 

Unless you are suggesting rhe dothraki attacked at exactly the same time as the doom man, the fort city fell in the century after and before that was a semi independent freehold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Silk that Sarnori use is specifically stated as spider silk in the World of Ice and Fire:

Which is bullshit by the bucket. But, well, magic? Problem is, magic is unquantifiable.

As for Mongols, yes, they used silk, you don't need to teach me what I already know... that silk however has nothing in common with spider silk. And it is also useless as armor.

Unless it is literally gambeson thickness, in which case... well, not much difference between European style and Mongol style gambesons. Europeans also had textile armor under mail to help absorb arrows and blunt force blows, though it was usually linen or wool (cotton gambesons were also used, but very rarely).

Seems...?

Also, "building fortifications for strategic positions with interlinking command and logistics" does not result in European feudal "each hill has its own private castle" system of fortifications. China did precisely what you describe, yet their fortifications were quantitatively - and in many ways qualitatively - inferior to European fortifications.

In fact, following the system you described was a disadvantage because Chinese fortifications at the time of Mongol invasion were located in easily-accessible positions, making them exceptionally vulnerable. European castles in contrast were usually located on hills, in marshes, and similar positions which made them even more difficult to take than their structure would suggest.

Look at how they behave in battle.

That is not how heavy infantry behaves... especially not heavy infantry in armor.

Common sense is no substitute for historical knowledge. Persians had heavy cataphract cavalry which was armored in iron or steel head-to-toe - riders in scale, mail or lamellar, horse in scale or lamellar, depending on the period (Achaemenid cataphracts used primarily scale armor, whereas Sassanid cataphracts used mail and scale - see below):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Ancient_Sasanid_Cataphract_Uther_Oxford_2003_06_2(1).jpg

By contrast, Persian infantry, especially during Achaemenid era but also during Sassanid era with some exception, wore no armor and their only defense were large wicker shields, which could be easily penetrated even with short bows.

In short:

- Persian heavy cavalry: extremely heavy bronze or iron armor

- Persian heavy infantry: wicker shields and no armor at all

- Persian archers and slingers: no shields and no armor at all

'Nuff said.

Not all heavy infantry is created equal. In the end, main difference between light and heavy infantry are tactics - differences in equipment result from differences in tactics. Looking just at equipment, Persian Immortals were light infantry by Greek standards, yet they were actually heavy infantry due to the way they fought.

And again, keep in mind the point I have been making the whole time, about fortification system as opposed to individual fortifications.

Lots of small castles are better than few fortified cities. If you only have few massively fortified cities, they can be easily cut off and starved into submission even with relatively primitive siege techniques, and with no danger to your own forces. But when you have a castle on this hill, another castle on a neighboring hill, a watchtower few miles further, then another half a dozen small castles in close proximity... that is a completely different strategic problem.

Actually, there is a very big reason to assume so: Westeros is a feudal society and has very advanced fortifications building capabilities. Even if you had a China-equivalent in Essos, a centralized state with equal or superior fortification techniques to Westeros... it would still have inferior fortifications system due to differences in administration.

The entire reason why Hannibal had victories was because Romans - for internal political reasons - wanted to confront him in the field. But there was no way for him to win the war. Because he was unable to take the cities.

Yes, releasing Scipio to Spain was good strategy. Doesn't mean that Rome would have lost the war had Scipio remained in Italy. Hannibal already was cut off from Spain (and from Africa), Carthage was hardly supporting him, and what reinforcements he was receiving were a) not that significant and b) easily destroyed by the Romans.

And even if you assume that taking Spain was decisive... Romans went to Spain in 218 BC, were defeated in 211 BC, and only managed a decisive victory in 206 BC... after Hasdrubal had left with his entire army for Italy. And despite that, in 203 BC Carthage still managed to recruit thousands of mercenaries from Iberia.

Suffice to say, your idea that fortifications did not play a decisive role in defeating Hannibal simply doesn't stand. Even if we assume that Scipio's campaign in Spain was indeed the decisive blow (which I do not agree with for reasons above), that campaign was at all possible only because Hannibal was not able to take fortified cities.

Doesn't matter whether it is a phalanx or a legion, troops in contact stay in contact. Yes, a traditional legion has three lines, but you are forgetting that Alexandrian phalanx was always deployed with a reserve.

Pyrrhus modeled his phalanx on Alexander's model, and won all his battles against the legions except the last one. And no, it was not "elephants that won the battles" for Pyrrhus, that is just pop culture history. In fact, Pyrrhus lost Beneventum because his elephants panicked. Sure, elephants played a large role in a number of his victories against Romans - but Romans (after Pyrrhus) also utilized elephants, and several of their victories against phalanxes are attributable to usage of elephants. According to your argument, this would mean Roman legion is inferior to phalanx and relies on luck and elephants to win.

Difference between legion and phalanx is that legionary infantry can act as its own flanking force - which was a must for Romans who had very few (and not very good) cavalry - whereas phalanx relied on cavalry to provide a flanking force. But even then, a well-drilled phalanx can easily prevent being outflanked - either relying on reserves, or forming a pike square. Which is what happened at least once - I gave you examples already - and phalanx proved utterly invulnerable to legion's attacks until elephants contained within panicked. Frankly, your focus on elephants is rather silly considering they were more often a disadvantage to their own side than to the enemy. They were a status symbol, nothing more, and very difficult to control. They could panic cavalry that was not used to them, but even then they were usually deployed against infantry.

But yes, phalanx by itself could not force a decision - it was not a medieval pike square which was a pretty much self-contained formation. Phalanx required support to force a decision, medieval pikemen could do it on their own even if they too performed far better with support. Phalanx was there to pressure the enemy, but decision was always made by cavalry. Which is why unsupported phalanx armies (which is what Romans predominantly faced) could not actually achieve anything.

And yes, late DIadochi phalanx could be - and often was - unweildy and helpless. But that is not Alexandrian (or Carthagenian) phalanx: Alexandrian phalanx could and did operate in individual units and detachments, could carry out extremely complex maneuvers (more complex than what Romans ever did), and could counter a wide array of foes. Including horse archers, which is something Romans tended to struggle with.

Romans didn't win by having a superior military organization or tactical system, they won by a combination of barbarian fighting spirit, ability to replace losses and willingness to beat their head against the wall until the wall broke. To be sure, their system wasn't bad, but it wasn't inherently superior to Macedonian phalanx.

Agreed.

Sheer volume can beat quality, but issue here is that Dothraki have volume... Westerosi will have both volume and quality.

That again will not work. First, archers usually do not "fire" in salvoes. It can be done, but it usually isn't, because longbows cannot be held drawn for long. Instead, they pick targets individually and loose arrows as soon as they are drawn. So what you have is a constant and very dense stream of arrows. Crossbowmen can perform salvoes, but I am uncertain whether that was ever done, and in any case Westeros seems to have longbowmen more than crossbowmen. Second, even if salvoes are used (and in Westeros, it does appear they are), longbowmen still have a very high rate of fire. By the time second group comes into range, longbowmen are ready to engage again.

Third, you fail to appreciate how much difference even light armor makes. In order for a Dothraki group to do what you are suggesting, they will have to a) charge at longbowmen who have likely superior absolute range, b) keep charging under bombardment in order to reach their own (very meagre) effective range, c) engage enemy infantry at what is basically point blank range, d) disengage while under bombardment and e) do it all over again.

Mongols suffered heavily even against 13th century, predominantly lightly equipped Hungarian army at Mohi. They also suffered heavy losses at Czarna river. And yes, they won both engagements - but remember, Mongols were an army that had heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy and light infantry, combat engineers, and one of the best command and control systems in the world at the time. Out of everything Mongols had, the only thing Dothraki have is light missile cavalry.

That simply doesn't work that way. Dothraki do not have armor, or lances, or tactics to perform a cavalry charge (remember, they were unsuccessful against spearmen). Yes, it is true that they will be a threat to infantry that had opened a gap - but only if there really is a major gap, as opposed to weakening of the line that can be fixed.

Which should tell you something about relative quality of Westerosi vs Essosi military organizations and formations.

Roman equites were not "well armored" compared to eastern cataphracts. Their horses for one were completely unarmored. And yes, they did struggle against Numidian horse archers, but Hannibal did not win these victories "with ease". 

Armor will serve to make the men more-or-less invulnerable to missiles. Even against longbows, French men-at-arms actually reached English infantry, and lost mostly because they got outflanked. And I have already provided you example of how heavy armor and longbowmen kept Richard's army from suffering heavy losses against Saladin.

Yeah, if sabres in GRRMord can penetrate armor then Dothraki are in a somewhat better position.

Agreed. Still, I think both of us learned something, and it should be good reading for others.

It doesn't, actually, unless it is literally a European-style gambeson / arming doublet. In which case, I don't see much difference between European and Mongol armor.

Mongols did have advantage against arrows - because they used lamellar, which is a much better defense from arrows than mail. Not that mail is bad defense, but it is not as good. It less able to prevent penetration in the first place, and it weakens much more quickly with repeated impacts. It is however superior in that it is easier to achieve full body coverage.

Which would actualy be stronger but an absolute nightmare to  produce in big volumes (hence why we are only getting spider silk used for future body armours now as we can make it artificaly instead of the unimaginable hassle of farming spiders en mass ) 

 

Video tells us nowt,  he uses one thin layer without plate over it. Iv read of thais using thai silk alone in around  16 layers to absorb a 9mm! That said  true it most likely used as a stronger gambeson or just thick layers under steel. Either way a pretty good if expensive defensive material.

We have 0 idea of these arent built to take advantage of  local geography  too,  in fact generaly fortified cities grow up from small defendable towns in strategic defendable areas . The quaathi ruins are the ones we know best thanks to the books and we know these are solidly built, in a dessert and  within a day or so ride from each other  to reinforce themselves

 

Not heavy infantry cause they charge ? Heavy infantry charge man and again all their enemies  (ghiscari, qaathi, etc) wear armour so it makes sense that theyd wear it too. 

Hanibal was still racking up  wins as he still had to be engaged or at least shadowed to avoid his force taking towns at will and avoid the perception that the romans were weak and carthage were the side to back. Reinforcements still arrived in italy late into the war so  that wasnt an issue, so  had carthages senate taken the war a little.less half assed and/or  had its major source of men+its central  economic engine cut from it (spain largely being loyal to hanibals family 1st before carthage thus wernt affected by their stingy attitude to him waging war) the war was very winnable...minus the bulk of their reinforcement pool and their main economic base they were doomed.

Troops still.stay in contact on front lines yes but whereas the phalanx men are densely packed  the legions men are much looser ,they form up much faster, arent as affected by uneven ground and within each maniple men can be peeled off to form new lines or attack gaps. The elephants won phyrus his 1st major battle though vs romans though and he famously never won an easily vs them. 

The idea romans won by just capt zapp branigan human wave tactics is utter rubbish ,the legions triumphed time and again for good reasons.

Volume though is a question as we can assume most of the dothraki are archers vs a small % of westerosi forces where they will be a well paid minority(unless crossbows become more popular than seen in the books so far) plus theyl be spilt into small possibly static/slow moving  blocks 

Those blocks could be pinned with arced fire from some while.others rode close(but still out of pike range) to pick off pikemen until.gaps emerge, they can multiply the effectiveness of it by using their mobility to stay im.areas out of range to the other pike/archer/infantry blocks.

 

Tactics wise we know they only fought stupidly at thw qohor battle.once amd as.foe breaking up infantry theyd be fine omce they get into gaps, bear in mind rhey asre still on horseback and non armoured cavalty with sabres where killing spear block infantry  right into napoleonic times,armour and lance are useful but a.few.hundred  horse riding into a gap of infantry not formed up.will alwsys be hard to stop

 

The equites were armoured though vs the numidians and yes pretty much every engagement of the roman cavalty vs them was described as being pretty one sided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Video tells us nowt,  he uses one thin layer without plate over it. Iv read of thais using thai silk alone in around  16 layers to absorb a 9mm! That said  true it most likely used as a stronger gambeson or just thick layers under steel. Either way a pretty good if expensive defensive material.

 

Well yeah, but as I said: if it is gambeson, then there is functionally no difference from what Westerosi troops (including infantry) wear.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

We have 0 idea of these arent built to take advantage of  local geography  too,  in fact generaly fortified cities grow up from small defendable towns in strategic defendable areas . The quaathi ruins are the ones we know best thanks to the books and we know these are solidly built, in a dessert and  within a day or so ride from each other  to reinforce themselves

 

No, cities usually grow up on trade routes. Sure, they will look for a defensible position if possible, but many cities aren't actually in that defensible positions: medieval Paris did begin as a refuge on an island, but it expanded onto plains along the river. Medieval London is located on less defensible side of the river. Ancient Mursa is in open plain with absolutely no natural defenses, and this also continued with medieval Osijek. Medieval Belgrade is also on a plain near a river. Even Rome grew into a city because it was located on a fordable part of the river - fact that there were some hills there was an accident. Zadar (ancient Iadera) is on a peninsula, but terrain there is not actually very defensible (whole area is completely flat). Vinkovci (ancient Cibalae) do have river... on one side. Remaining three sides face the open, completely flat plain.

And most of the cities Dothraki destroyed will have had no natural defensive features available to take advantage of in any case, simply due to topography of the place.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Not heavy infantry cause they charge ? Heavy infantry charge man and again all their enemies  (ghiscari, qaathi, etc) wear armour so it makes sense that theyd wear it too. 

 

Because they are described as running with chariots. Heavy infantry does not fight in that way, because running for long distances leaves them tired, unable to fight, and out of formation. They march, and only break out in the sprint for the last few dozen paces - and most heavy infantry don't even do that. Heavy infantry also does not pursue the enemy, especially not the enemy on horse - they leave it to cavalry.

If Sarnori had had some sort of heavy infantry there, it would have stayed far back enough to see what is happening and form some sort of square or circular formation, while leaving pursuit to cavalry. In which case description of battle would have been far different from what we see - Sarnori infantry in the battle is clearly described as pursuing alongside cavalry.

And if we are really going by mythological accounts, then we also know how Dothraki fight infantry: they just charge at it while occasionally pelting it with arrows. If Sarnori had had heavy infantry, and Dothraki fought the way they did at Qohor, then Dothraki would have gotten themselves slaughtered. Even if we assume that Dothraki had somehow gotten mentally retarded in the few years between Field of Crows and attack on Qohor, heavy infantry would have been able to hold out for much longer than what description implies.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Hanibal was still racking up  wins as he still had to be engaged or at least shadowed to avoid his force taking towns at will and avoid the perception that the romans were weak and carthage were the side to back. Reinforcements still arrived in italy late into the war so  that wasnt an issue, so  had carthages senate taken the war a little.less half assed and/or  had its major source of men+its central  economic engine cut from it (spain largely being loyal to hanibals family 1st before carthage thus wernt affected by their stingy attitude to him waging war) the war was very winnable...minus the bulk of their reinforcement pool and their main economic base they were doomed.

 

He was racking up wins, but shadowing his force had nothing to do with engaging towns. He wasn't able to take fortified cities, period. Reason why Romans shadowed his force was to prevent him from foraging and from splitting his army, not because they were afraid he would take cities. Logistics.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Troops still.stay in contact on front lines yes but whereas the phalanx men are densely packed  the legions men are much looser ,they form up much faster, arent as affected by uneven ground and within each maniple men can be peeled off to form new lines or attack gaps. The elephants won phyrus his 1st major battle though vs romans though and he famously never won an easily vs them. 

 

Phalangites when in offense had the exact same space between them as legionaries (one yard or three feet). Dense half-a-yard formation was only used for static defense. So if you think phalangites were "densely packed", well, then so were legionaries.

However, Romans never actually faced a proper phalanx outside Hannibal and maybe Pyrrhus. In Roman battles against Macedon, description shows each legionary faced two files of phalanx - which shows phalanx was using close-packed defensive formation despite being on the offense. No wonder it underperformed!

That is like saying "Roman legionaries fought so densely packed they couldn't use their weapons" because they did so few times they got surrounded.

Everything you describe Roman maniples as doing, properly drilled Macedonian phalanx was capable of doing as well. We know it was, because they actually did everything you describe. But again, Rome never actually faced properly drilled Macedonian phalanx. The closest they came to that was Hannibal and perhaps Pyrrhus.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

The idea romans won by just capt zapp branigan human wave tactics is utter rubbish ,the legions triumphed time and again for good reasons.

 

I never said they won just by human wave tactics. But Roman strengths were logistics and engineering - especially siege engineering. In open field battles, Roman army was actually inferior to fully-arrayed Hellenistic or Iranian armies (note the "fully arrayed" here!). It was only during the Late Empire that Roman army actually becomes a force relying on tactical flexibility to win battles. Before then, anything more complex than "slow advance forward, cycle maniples" was a mark of a tactical genius rather than the way the army was designed to operate. Something like Byzantine tactical flexibility was basically nuclear science to ancient Romans.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Volume though is a question as we can assume most of the dothraki are archers vs a small % of westerosi forces where they will be a well paid minority(unless crossbows become more popular than seen in the books so far) plus theyl be spilt into small possibly static/slow moving  blocks 

 

Why crossbows? Longbows, which seem more popular than crossbows in Westeros for whatever reason, would also offer good counter to horse archers.

And considering how often archers are mentioned, it is unlikely they form a "small proportion" of Westerosi forces.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Those blocks could be pinned with arced fire from some while.others rode close(but still out of pike range) to pick off pikemen until.gaps emerge, they can multiply the effectiveness of it by using their mobility to stay im.areas out of range to the other pike/archer/infantry blocks.

 

That would work if Westeros had only pikemen. But we see foot archers, and even mounted archers, in Westerosi armies. They would, if used properly, rather easily negate the ability of unarmored Dothraki to ride to wintin the range of their own bows, let alone close enough for their arrows to actually be effective against armor. Simply put, Dothraki wouldn't be able to do what they need to do to make your scenario a reality.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

Tactics wise we know they only fought stupidly at thw qohor battle.once amd as.foe breaking up infantry theyd be fine omce they get into gaps, bear in mind rhey asre still on horseback and non armoured cavalty with sabres where killing spear block infantry  right into napoleonic times,armour and lance are useful but a.few.hundred  horse riding into a gap of infantry not formed up.will alwsys be hard to stop

 

And we also know they only fought smartly once - and even that may have been an accident. Fact is, we do not know how Dothraki fight. On one hand, they did defeat armies and conquer cities, which would imply a degree of tactical competence - so we may well use Mongols as a benchmark. On the other hand, Mongols are clearly far more capable than Dothraki: Dothraki do not use armor, have no heavy cavalry, have no artillery except maybe siege artillery manned by slaves (a big maybe!)... which means that even if Dothraki do have brains, many of Mongol tactics simply wouldn't work because they don't have tools necessary to carry them out.

Basically, tactics wise we only have two examples of how Dothraki fight. Neither of which shows some significant degree of tactical proficiency, let alone something approaching the Mongol art of war.

On 10/28/2022 at 11:34 PM, astarkchoice said:

The equites were armoured though vs the numidians and yes pretty much every engagement of the roman cavalty vs them was described as being pretty one sided

They had no armor for horses, which made them highly vulnerable to horse archers. Hannibal also had twice as much cavalry as Romans did at Cannae, and Romans failed to support their cavalry with foot archers - in large part because they had no foot archers to begin with (they had only a few hundred archers at Cannae, out of an army of 80 000).

And as a matter of fact, it was heavy Iberian-Gaulish cavalry which destroyed their Roman opponents first, before going around and crushing Roman equites facing off against the Numidians. So while Roman cavalry definitely did suffer heavily against Numidian horse archers, Numidians were unable to destroy their opposing numbers by themselves. It was Hannibal's heavy cavalry which brought him victory at Cannae, not his Numidian horse archers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...