astarkchoice Posted October 30, 2022 Share Posted October 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Aldarion said: Well yeah, but as I said: if it is gambeson, then there is functionally no difference from what Westerosi troops (including infantry) wear. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. As its silk itl probably be a slightly stronger gambeson Usualy on the most defensible.places on trade routes and again the idea that only feudal societies know how to build and arra age defensive structures would be ridiculous esp.given the qaathi , valryrian freehold and free cities etc are/were clearly beyond westeros in every way frome.conomy to tech. As for natural.defenses the quaathi cities are in a dessert, the valyrn city they took is said to have montains to 2 sides and a forrest to another and the wiki tv map based on grmms maps.seems to show most of the snoro cities within hills/mountins and almist all sided by rivers. No they are said to be 'led in pursuit' of the seemingly routing dothraki. The chariots seemed to have broken the horsemem thus the rest were led in pursuit of a routing foe...historicaly where the biggest casulties are inflicted so yeah if the horsemen werent fleeing fast enough the infantry would persue too, to slaughter.as.many as possible. The problem is there were 3 other khals formed up to surround the tall men and as for lasting.lomger we dont know how long the held out once surrounded. Yes to stop him splitting his forces to protect his allies ,besieging more towns, burning crops to punish romans allies etc... something reinforcements could have done for him. No generaly the phalangites must operate closer together than the legionares nor can they form up as quickly or deal with rough terrain as well. Blocks of phalangites frontal line cannot easily wheel round and forces behind not dorectly engaged cannot easily take part in the battle..by contrast every legionary not in the front line directly engaging can be easily peeled of and instantly be poured onto gaps/flanks. At its very height under alexander as the infantry moved forward and put pressure on the enemy he would choose where to strike with the companion cavalry which was the decisive arm..excellent forces but once commited alexander himself.was not easily free to be reached (for obvious reasons) and command unlike a roman commander who wouldnt be near front lines except in exceptional circumstances nor did its jr officers need instruction to peel of their non front line troops to exploit gaps. Longbows.will be a good counter but again we know these would be well paid elite forces (3 times.regular infantry salary of i recall from the english) thus be a small % of the force, theyl also be behind pikemen and if the dothraki are concentrating their force on arc firing at single blocks at a time most will be avoiding incomki g.fire not aiming at the closer riding horsemen....also they will be largely arc firing themselves due to being behind pikemen+.shields thus vs moving targets wont be highly accurate. So we have heard of them fight twice , a knight living among them says they do well in westeros , a.warrior king (robert) fears what they could do if well.led and we know somehow they took various fortifified cities and to add to it all they apparently have armour piercing sabres ...againw el.gavebto see what grmm does with them if they even do come to.westeros but of they do ot seems they have the potential to do well. Nope it was the numidians killing them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.