Jump to content

What were really the chances of success for Viserys or Daenerys if the original plan with Khal Drogo had come to fruition ?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

But with both of these examples they are noted to be especially brutal, so above normal levels of brutality. The Dothraki are that brutal by default.

The Dothraki never flay or burn people alive. Bolton and Stannis are eyebrow raisers (doesnt stop them from gaining allies and more soldiers), sure, but Tywins not. When Robb sacked the west its seen as conventional warfare. War itself is brutal by default.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because there is a complete lack of fodder and water for their horses. We see how Daaenrys' khalasar fares in the Red Waste.

Yea but Dany was leading a sortie of vagabonds not a royal army thats equipped with a supply train

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I disagree because they have no experience with Westerosi conditions, they haven't ridden through snow before, they would find it very cold etc.

You dont think it snows on the sea? I always thought of the sea as like Americas Great Plains, and according to my sister in law the blizzards there are so bad snow literally rises past the front door leaving you a prisoner in your own house. Now the seas probably not that bad, because scary winter is a northern thing, but I think they get snow sometimes, why not. And again, theyd just adapt. Maybe not like Liddle with ski shoes but outside of scary north heavy snows not a thing.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

When they are against opponents in plate armour or not on open, level ground.

I see no reason for either of those things to be true. Close combat sure, but Dothraki fight with bows and lances

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

How long would it last though before they got really fed up and tried to challenge Drogo's leadership?

If theyre willing to follow him across the Narrow theyll listen to his battle plans, like they always have

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

If he gives in to Daenerys' will too many times he would look weak.

This assumes a level of control over the Dothraki which Viserys or Daenerys won't have in this scenario.

Shes not exactly a weak person either, true her dragons gives her that glow of Mother of Dragons, but shes still that shrewd clever manipulative Stormborn.
Viserys would be awful, agreed. Totally would fail under his leadership.

 

38 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

t does not seem so to me, since the Westerosi use long bows that are only beaten by goldenheart tree bows and dragonbone bows. Jon Connington comments upon that when talking about the archers of the GC, saying that essosi bows are inferior to the westerosi longbow. So the Dothraki dont have the archery advantage.

Jorah says they do

Quote

They are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly

 

40 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

To add upon that historically mounted archer are alot less effective then their foot counter part, so in archery the westerosi have a serious advantage. In fact they have a serious advantage in all aspects exept ligth cavalery wich is not that effective outside scouting, raiding and pursuit.

Thats a strange thing to say when the Mongols conquered half the world, even hundreds of years later long after the invention of gunpowder the Comanche were able to defeat standing armies of Spain and Mexico, and countless bands of Confederate and American militias. 
Being the greatest rider and the greatest shot is a deadly combination. (Also definitely with the Comanche but I think even with the Mongols too, the Dothraki far outnumber their real life counterpart)

44 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Sure against someone like Stafford the dothraki could win, but against Stannis ?

Stannis is an impressive commander, but would he fight with Lannister? They just murdered his brother and put an abomination on the throne, I dont see Stannis risking his life for Joffrey

46 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Robert ?

I thought this was post Robert, but Ima be honest (even if I know ima receive flack) Roberts kinda meh. From my understanding most battles were won when half of his opponents switched sides in the battle, then theres the Trident where some nut with a Jesus complex decides to cross a river in front of an enemy army.  
The clearest battle we see Robert in was the Bells, which made him look kind of like a joke,

48 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Eddard

Again, I thought he was dead, but yea hes dangerous. So his his son uncle and brother in law. (still known enemies of Lannister)

49 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Randyll

Hes supposed to be a big deal because he beat Robert (he didnt, Mace did, lol jk), but I dont think thats that impressive. I wish we saw more of the Chuck Norris of Westeros so I can judge him clearer.

51 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

 Or any of the many good generals that Westeros as to offer I dont think so.

I think theres more bad then good, for every one Imp you get a Jaime and an Imrey. (Because like the enemies of Meereen the Sunset fight with politics in mind, therefore the half cousin half wits will usually command of the army)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jorah says they do

 

Thats a strange thing to say when the Mongols conquered half the world, even hundreds of years later long after the invention of gunpowder the Comanche were able to defeat standing armies of Spain and Mexico, and countless bands of Confederate and American militias. 
Being the greatest rider and the greatest shot is a deadly combination. (Also definitely with the Comanche but I think even with the Mongols too, the Dothraki far outnumber their real life counterpart)

Stannis is an impressive commander, but would he fight with Lannister? They just murdered his brother and put an abomination on the throne, I dont see Stannis risking his life for Joffrey

I thought this was post Robert, but Ima be honest (even if I know ima receive flack) Roberts kinda meh. From my understanding most battles were won when half of his opponents switched sides in the battle, then theres the Trident where some nut with a Jesus complex decides to cross a river in front of an enemy army.  
The clearest battle we see Robert in was the Bells, which made him look kind of like a joke,

Again, I thought he was dead, but yea hes dangerous. So his his son uncle and brother in law. (still known enemies of Lannister)

Hes supposed to be a big deal because he beat Robert (he didnt, Mace did, lol jk), but I dont think thats that impressive. I wish we saw more of the Chuck Norris of Westeros so I can judge him clearer.

I think theres more bad then good, for every one Imp you get a Jaime and an Imrey. (Because like the enemies of Meereen the Sunset fight with politics in mind, therefore the half cousin half wits will usually command of the army)

Well I have to be honest in the fact that I dont consider Jorah a good judge of the effectivness of the Dothraki or any other military force, but even then Jorah does not comment on the fact that dothraki archers are better but more mobile. Mobility is great but a entrenched opponent that has a range advantage is going to destroy the Dothraki even if the keep moving. Jorah does not say that Dothraki bows are better just that they use them diffirently and can have a edge against westerosi army, but I believe Jorah is exagerating that advantage.

It is a historical misconception to see the mongols as only mounted archers, in fact they also had very effective heavy cavalery and more importantly were extremely organized after Genghis. But even then the mongols lost when they faced proper late medieval combined arms european tactics, and from what GRRM shows us westeros is very much like late medieval europe. Sure the mongols had victory's against the Hungarians and Poles, but they at the time had not fully transition to the tactics and armour that western europe was using. When the mongols came back they were beaten back. Someone else has posted a couple essay's explaining this in alot more details, I could try and find them again for you if you wish, but the end of it is that the mongols were not a match for the late medieval europeans wich is what Westeros seems to be based on. And the mongols are alot better then the Dothraki. The Comanche are a completely different case since fire arms made armour useless mobility gained alot of value so it is really not possible to compare them to the Dothraki's

Well since alot of the discussion included Viserys I assumed it was before the whole war of the 5 kings, but even then. Westerosi nobility as a group is geared towards war and military matters, sure some are alot better then other but Westeros as alot of capable commander's. Rowan is a respected leader too. Lord Royce of Runestone is most likely a capable leader. Bryce Caron and Balon Swann are both capable knigths and most likely leaders. Addam Marbrand, Kevan Lannister and Daven Lannister are all capable men of war. Just like the Umbers or the Karstark. The Riverlands has Jason Mallister and Tytos Nesbroc that are capable leaders. The westerosi nobility is filled with capable leaders since that is they're whole identity, even Jaime is a capable commander despite is many flaws, alot of great leaders were caugth by surprise more then once.

So sure they is alot of incapable nobles in the art of war but they're is also alot more that are capable or even quite good at it, adding on the fact that westerosi army's are superior in flexibility, armour and with the home terrain advantage as well as fortification's, it becomes worse and worse for the Dothraki, even against a disunited Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

The Dothraki never flay or burn people alive. Bolton and Stannis are eyebrow raisers (doesnt stop them from gaining allies and more soldiers), sure, but Tywins not. When Robb sacked the west its seen as conventional warfare. War itself is brutal by default.

No, they just take slaves, which incidently is the one thing the entirety of Westeros minus Ironborns agree is evil and an offense against the Seven and the Old Gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Bolton and Stannis are eyebrow raisers (doesnt stop them from gaining allies and more soldiers), sure, but Tywins not

I have to disagree, as the sack of KL is noted for its brutality, as well as Tywin's ruthless suppression of the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion. The damage he causes to the Riverlands is also above normal brutality levels, he hires the Brave Companions specifically to loot and raid and spread fear. I imagine the Dothraki would look like them on a larger scale, at best.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea but Dany was leading a sortie of vagabonds not a royal army thats equipped with a supply train

It's not necessarily about a supply train, quite simply the horses can't graze there and it would take a lot of effort to supply enough to feed them all.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Stannis is an impressive commander, but would he fight with Lannister? They just murdered his brother and put an abomination on the throne, I dont see Stannis risking his life for Joffrey

Well he's either risking his life for Robert or himself and his own kingdom so either way I'd expect him to fight the Dothraki. 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Shes not exactly a weak person either, true her dragons gives her that glow of Mother of Dragons, but shes still that shrewd clever manipulative Stormborn.
Viserys would be awful, agreed. Totally would fail under his leadership.

I don't disagree but in neither scenario will Daenerys be commanding the Dothraki.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

If theyre willing to follow him across the Narrow theyll listen to his battle plans, like they always have

But this isn't about battle plans, it's about the Dothraki taking women after after battle, something that they have always done. They don't like it when Daenerys stops them from doing it, they relent when Drogo orders them to but they don't like it so sooner or later I think they'd get frustrated and someone would try to challenge Drogo for leadership or he'd have to just let them have their way.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

You dont think it snows on the sea?

It may do, but certainly nowhere near North snow levels. Other Westerosi have trouble adapting to the northern snow, I think Dothrkai would struggle even more, not just with the snow but with the cold. They'd be loosing horses like Stannis was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lady Misery said:

No, they just take slaves, which incidently is the one thing the entirety of Westeros minus Ironborns agree is evil and an offense against the Seven and the Old Gods.

(ironborn loath it too, at least Vic does)
For sure and this would definitely be a breaking point with the populace, but they dont have a say. However even the lords who turn a blind eye to polygamy and incest might balk at full on slavery.
Thing is, slavery wont make sense. The Dothraki live like they do because of Slavers Bay, thats where they get their horses, steel and everything else they need in life. There is no Slavers Bay in Westeros however, and while the Dothraki probably like raiding more then farming, it just wont be sustainable to sell their subjects. 

 

37 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Well I have to be honest in the fact that I dont consider Jorah a good judge of the effectivness of the Dothraki or any other military force

Hes a brilliant tactician strategist and an on field general, why dont you find him a good judge?

38 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

but even then Jorah does not comment on the fact that dothraki archers are better but more mobile.

He says they can out shoot Westerosi 

39 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

It is a historical misconception to see the mongols as only mounted archers, in fact they also had very effective heavy cavalery and more importantly were extremely organized after Genghis. But even then the mongols lost when they faced proper late medieval combined arms european tactics,

Dothaki do too. And Mohi was like 20 years after Genghis. Its true thats the closest they got (with thanks to Bela who build mad defenses to deter the future Mongol advance, but not the Germans or Turks) but Id chalk that up to having a population, of like, idk, 500k? Ruling, like, 2 billion? Its mind boggling to think of their might. Plus Christendom just kept paying them tribute for like hundreds of years (although it was mostly to convince them to attack the Muslims)

49 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

and from what GRRM shows us westeros is very much like late medieval europe.

Depends on your definition. Most people say my definition of medieval europe is ridiculously off (they got a point), Id put the time frame from Milvian Bridge to the Bastille, so 19th century isnt really GRRM like lol. But im guessing you mean like War of Roses time, so 15th century?

54 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Sure the mongols had victory's against the Hungarians and Poles, but they at the time had not fully transition to the tactics and armour that western europe was using. When the mongols came back they were beaten back. Someone else has posted a couple essay's explaining this in alot more details, I could try and find them again for you if you wish, but the end of it is that the mongols were not a match for the late medieval europeans wich is what Westeros seems to be based on.

It was largely a numbers game and far from home problem, but for sure. They were viewed as the invader, the Dothraki however would have Targaryen in their back pocket

57 minutes ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

owan is a respected leader too. Lord Royce of Runestone is most likely a capable leader. Bryce Caron and Balon Swann are both capable knigths and most likely leaders. Addam Marbrand, Kevan Lannister and Daven Lannister are all capable men of war. Just like the Umbers or the Karstark. The Riverlands has Jason Mallister and Tytos Nesbroc that are capable leaders. The westerosi nobility is filled with capable leaders since that is they're whole identity,

I dont wanna judge until I see them in action. (Lord Umber was not chosen to lead becasue hes thought rash)

1 hour ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

even Jaime is a capable commander despite is many flaws, alot of great leaders were caugth by surprise more then once.

Nothing is certain in warfare

1 hour ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

, it becomes worse and worse for the Dothraki, even against a disunited Westeros.

Id say it depends on the disunification, and with Lannister on the throne the pieces fall into play.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I imagine the Dothraki would look like them on a larger scale, at best.

I cant imagine anything more brutal then Tywin, he spreads fear and terror to scare his enemies (hear me roar), Dothraki do it because thats the only way they know how to get paid

38 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not necessarily about a supply train, quite simply the horses can't graze there and it would take a lot of effort to supply enough to feed them all.

Yea I guess, Mongols did it lol. But they were an impressive lot. Anyway, unless theyre needed for defense I dont see why theyd be in Dorne. The Prince and especially his brother would love to fight alongside the Targaryens, even if its next to Dothraki or seemingly the Others

41 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Well he's either risking his life for Robert or himself and his own kingdom so either way I'd expect him to fight the Dothraki. 

Its extremely difficult to imagine Dany let alone her brother pardoning her jailor. But from the other side, I think Stannis betraying his king always bothered him and with his purity of the law at heart I think he could be talked into bending the knee (like I suspect he'll do with Jon)

42 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't disagree but in neither scenario will Daenerys be commanding the Dothraki.

No, not command. But perhaps they could still respect/fear her

44 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But this isn't about battle plans, it's about the Dothraki taking women after after battle, something that they have always done.

Something everyone always does. Renlys camp wanted to take Brienne before the battle

45 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

they relent when Drogo orders them to but they don't like it so sooner or later I think they'd get frustrated and someone would try to challenge Drogo for leadership or he'd have to just let them have their way.

Oh. All he has to do is awkwardly slide off his saddle and half the army will mutiny. Theres definitely many chances of things to go wrong when you travel the distance of the globe to conquer unknown land. I just think they gotta decent shot. 

48 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It may do, but certainly nowhere near North snow levels. Other Westerosi have trouble adapting to the northern snow, I think Dothrkai would struggle even more, not just with the snow but with the cold. They'd be loosing horses like Stannis was.

I mean, theyre warm blooded too. And I think it gets cold there, or at least cool. Dany is always draped in that white lion that Drogo killed for her. Seems kinda heavy, nothing to wear in the heat.
If you look at a map the sea looks parallel to like Riverlands, so not northern weather but not dornish either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I cant imagine anything more brutal then Tywin, he spreads fear and terror to scare his enemies (hear me roar), Dothraki do it because thats the only way they know how to get paid

The Dothraki seem to do it because they enjoy it and see it as their right as well, they think they are entitled to people and their property because they are stronger than them.

8 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its extremely difficult to imagine Dany let alone her brother pardoning her jailor. But from the other side, I think Stannis betraying his king always bothered him and with his purity of the law at heart I think he could be talked into bending the knee (like I suspect he'll do with Jon)

I don't know, I did have a big discussion about how Donal Noye's description of the brothers wasn't very accurate, his comparison for Stannis could be better but I still think he is mostly right when he says Stannis will break before he bends. I can't see him bending to anyone now, he's gone to far, he's killed his brother, was going to burn his nephew alive and may end up burning his daughter, the way I see it he's fully commited to being king so I don't think he'll pull out now, or everything he's done in pursuit of the throne would be for nothing.

12 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

No, not command. But perhaps they could still respect/fear her

I doubt it unless she has dragons, but she can't get them because the necessary sacrifices can't be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Of course they were. What? Mohi was the definition of a wiped floor. Bela IV and frankly all of Central Europe (consequently soon to be Western Europe) only got saved when Batu went back home to press his claim for khan. 

Hungarians at Mohi:

1) made a massive tactical blunder

2) didn't have crossbowmen, large numbers of heavy cavalry, any plate armor, or literally anything that defines your average Westerosi army

And you know what they did the moment Mongols retreated? Organized feudal heavy cavalry, hired crossbowmen and built stone castles.

Result?

They completely wiped the floor with the Mongols when second Mongol invasion happened in 1285. There is a reason why 1285. invasion is much less known than 1241. one: it was simply not worth mentioning much, because it was a massive disaster for the Mongols. They came, they saw, they were conkered.

But even in the first invasion, Mongols weren't able to deal with the castles. In fact, claim that "all of Central Europe (consequently soon to be Western Europe) only got saved when Batu went back home to press his claim for khan" is a bald-faced lie which Mongols promoted in order to save face.

Elections for khan had nothing to do with Mongols leaving Europe. European castles and knights, however, did. In fact, they were decisive.

Second link is the most relevant for your claim, but I suggest you read all of it:

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Hungarians at Mohi:

1) made a massive tactical blunder

2) didn't have crossbowmen, large numbers of heavy cavalry, any plate armor, or literally anything that defines your average Westerosi army

And you know what they did the moment Mongols retreated? Organized feudal heavy cavalry, hired crossbowmen and built stone castles.

Result?

They completely wiped the floor with the Mongols when second Mongol invasion happened in 1285. There is a reason why 1285. invasion is much less known than 1241. one: it was simply not worth mentioning much, because it was a massive disaster for the Mongols. They came, they saw, they were conkered.

But even in the first invasion, Mongols weren't able to deal with the castles. In fact, claim that "all of Central Europe (consequently soon to be Western Europe) only got saved when Batu went back home to press his claim for khan" is a bald-faced lie which Mongols promoted in order to save face.

Elections for khan had nothing to do with Mongols leaving Europe. European castles and knights, however, did. In fact, they were decisive.

Second link is the most relevant for your claim, but I suggest you read all of it:

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

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

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

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

And as others and I have said before, it's even worse as the Dothraki don't have most of what made the successes of the Mongols as an army and people, they don't have a true government and administration (something that Geghis Khan made sure to create and cement for the Mongols, being perfectly aware of the necessities for his people to have a true culture, government and military and occupation organisations to create and maintain an empire), nor heavy cavalry nor true infantry nor siege weapons, nor what are the most important aspects of military that are discipline and organized logistics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Hes a brilliant tactician strategist and an on field general, why dont you find him a good judge?

Where did you get that idea ? We dont know if he fougth during Roberts Rebellion, but if he did he was certainly not in charge of anything important. We know he fougth during the Greyjoy rebellion but outside of behind the second past the breach he is not noted to have done anything crucial and again was under other people's command. He then fougth with the free compagny but never in any command role to my knowledge. His only experience in a command position is with Daenerys and outside of the battle in front of Yunkai Daenerys battle's are mainly one-sided affair's decided not by tactic but other reasons. So I strongly disagree about him being brilliant in any other field has perhaps being a warrior.

 

18 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

He says they can out shoot Westerosi 

He does say that yes, but for me Jon Connington contradicts him in the latter books when talking about essosi bows being less effective, but my interpretation of the quote could be wrong. But again Jorah is not a archer and tho he did see quite a bit of figthing him not confident is assessement of military matters and he seems to have a pro-Daenerys bias that make any troop she can get better in is eyes.

28 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Dothaki do too. And Mohi was like 20 years after Genghis. Its true thats the closest they got (with thanks to Bela who build mad defenses to deter the future Mongol advance, but not the Germans or Turks) but Id chalk that up to having a population, of like, idk, 500k? Ruling, like, 2 billion? Its mind boggling to think of their might. Plus Christendom just kept paying them tribute for like hundreds of years (although it was mostly to convince them to attack the Muslims)

They're is no mention of Dothraki heavy horses, in fact they make a point of figthing without armour, the mongols did have armour. It does not change that the mongols lost in 1287 against Poland and in 1285 in Hungary, and that both time they were soundly beaten. I dont really get what you are trying to say tho, are you saying that Christendom was united against the mongols ? Because those two campaign were Poland on its own and Hungary on its own against golden horde wich was much bigger then any of those two kingdoms. So again the Dothraki are a worse version of the mongols and westeros seem to be a later version of the people that defeated them.

 

40 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It was largely a numbers game and far from home problem, but for sure. They were viewed as the invader, the Dothraki however would have Targaryen in their back pocket

I dont see how the dothraki could be seen as anything other then a foreign invasion, Targaryen or not. Actually it would be even worse since the Targaryen, a already pretty foreign dynastie, would by only backed by barbarians not even sellsword wich are semi-accepted in Westeros. And wait until the strongly anti-slavery Westeros learn that all the dothraki want out of it is to kill them, rape their women and enslave their son and the Targaryen is ok with it as long has they let him sit the iron chair.

 

44 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I dont wanna judge until I see them in action. (Lord Umber was not chosen to lead becasue hes thought rash)

Quite a few of them already have seen action, and did show competence. Lord Umber i would agree but you also have to keep in mind that the role of that army was not to actually figth but make it seem that they would, maybe have a quick but very defensive battle, wich Bolton screwed up from my point of view, in that Umber was a very bad choice, but had Robb decided to command the foot he would have made sense to lead the daring relief of Riverrun.

48 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Nothing is certain in warfare

I fully agree with you on that, and its impossible to predict military matters in a fictionnal setting since if GRRM decide that the dothraki need to win no matter what then they will.

 

51 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Id say it depends on the disunification, and with Lannister on the throne the pieces fall into play.

What I meant is I dont believe that the Dothraki would win against any of the individual faction, so unity is not needed for Westeros to defeat them.

 

52 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Depends on your definition. Most people say my definition of medieval europe is ridiculously off (they got a point), Id put the time frame from Milvian Bridge to the Bastille, so 19th century isnt really GRRM like lol. But im guessing you mean like War of Roses time, so 15th century?

I would completely agree with most people on that lol. I would put the middle age from around 800, Charlemagne coronation as emperor and 1453 the fall of Constantinople. So yeah when I say late middle age I mean 14th-15th century europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Hungarians at Mohi:

1) made a massive tactical blunder

2) didn't have crossbowmen, large numbers of heavy cavalry, any plate armor, or literally anything that defines your average Westerosi army

And you know what they did the moment Mongols retreated? Organized feudal heavy cavalry, hired crossbowmen and built stone castles.

Result?

They completely wiped the floor with the Mongols when second Mongol invasion happened in 1285. There is a reason why 1285. invasion is much less known than 1241. one: it was simply not worth mentioning much, because it was a massive disaster for the Mongols. They came, they saw, they were conkered.

That's one way of looking at it. I always thought they the fact that nobleman didn't have to technically fight and the fact that they murdered a bunch of cuman nobleman thusly losing their entire auxiliary were the main causes of defeat. 

But facts, mongols didn't take castles and Bela saw that as the answer, by selling out his throne to the cumans and the kingdom to the empire. I don't know much about 1285 other then it happened, it was fought by solely Hungarian nobles not Germans?

39 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Batu went back home to press his claim for khan" is a bald-faced lie which Mongols promoted in order to save face.

Elections for khan had nothing to do with Mongols leaving Europe. European castles and knights, however, did. In fact, they were decisive.

Second link is the most relevant for your claim

Facts. Who the fuck knows what really happened. Its hard to tell in the dark ages, that they called the golden age. But to my understanding the story pushed by Batu was believed by the contemporary Europeans, 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's one way of looking at it. I always thought they the fact that nobleman didn't have to technically fight and the fact that they murdered a bunch of cuman nobleman thusly losing their entire auxiliary were the main causes of defeat. 

But facts, mongols didn't take castles and Bela saw that as the answer, by selling out his throne to the cumans and the kingdom to the empire. I don't know much about 1285 other then it happened, it was fought by solely Hungarian nobles not Germans?

Losing Cumans definitely was a massive blow, and helped Hungarian defeat... along with bad deployment, tactics and some very questionable leadership. But Mongols also had better equipment, which is rather contrary to very frequent image of lightly armored horse archers defeating heavily-clad Western knights. Fact is, between the Mongols and the Hungarians in 1241., it was Hungarian troops who had lighter armor and fewer armored cavalrymen.

Mongols didn't take castles because they couldn't. They destroyed all the towns and castles they could - meaning, wooden castles. Hungary was devastated in the 1241. invasion because the entire kingdom had a grand total of ten - TEN! - stone castles. And most of those were on the western frontier with Germany, and thus largely useless against the Mongols. Other than those ten castles, as well as old Roman / Romanesque castles and cities in southern Croatia, all other fortifications were made out of earth and wood and thus fell to Mongols relatively easily.

But Bela IV. wasn't stupid, and as soon as the Mongols packed up and left, he initiated military reforms.

In 1285., Mongols again invaded Poland and Hungary. But as I said, it was very different beast to 1241. invasion: unlike in 1241., both countries had large numbers of stone castles, as well as large numbers of crossbowmen and heavy knights. So what happened was that they simply retreated into the castles, let Mongols charge around across the countryside before coming out and defeating the (now weakened) Mongols in open battle. In fact, Mongol casualties in the 1285. invasion were so massive that their army had effectively ceased to exist by the time they managed to escape Hungary.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Facts. Who the fuck knows what really happened. Its hard to tell in the dark ages, that they called the golden age. But to my understanding the story pushed by Batu was believed by the contemporary Europeans, 

 

It is already addressed here, but fact is that timeline simply doesn't add up. Nor do the other such examples. Mongols had never - never - stopped the campaign because of the election of the khan, be it either before or after the invasion of Hungary. If that really was the reason for their withdrawal, then Hungary/Poland would be a unique example in Mongol history. It is also almost certain that Mongols were not even aware of khan's death when decision had been made to retreat. And their retreat, once they had left Hungary, showed absolutely no indication that they were in any sort of haste - they wasted time chasing around Cumans, invading Russia and more along the way. All of this suggests that they were either unaware of khan's death, or did not consider it important. Invitation for the khuriltai was only made (or received) in 1243. - and Batu refused to attend.

So yeah. On balance, it is a lie made to save face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2022 at 4:30 PM, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

What do you think would have truly happened if the original plan that Viserys Targaryen (in the scenario where he didn't die) or Daenerys (in the scenario where he died but Khal Drogo wasn't wounded) had of crossing the Narrow Sea with Khal Drogo and his entire khalasar had truly happened and that they tried to reconquer the Iron Throne with this dothraki army ?

What would have been Drogo and the Targaryen's genuine chances of success into taking the Iron Throne, or at least King's Landing and a portion of the Seven Kingdoms, against the great houses, either united or divided and at war with each other ?

What would have been their chances if they had landed in the Seven Kingdoms but without the War of the Five Kings happening ?What if they had arrived by the time of the War of the Five Kings, in the case it happened just like at the end of AGO and at the beggining and middle of ACOK ? Which place would it have been better for them to land and to start their invasion ?

What scenarios could you see happening ?

Some of the ruling class of Westeros will hide in their castles.  Their servants will rebel after a weeks of hunger and give them to the Dothraki.  It won't be pretty.  Bad enough to go without food for a week. Naked lords and ladies will take up jogging, behind the Dothraki's horses.  

Most of the ruling class will exercise common sense and support Viserys.  Who is their real king.   Viserys will be installed on the throne and Daenerys will return to Essos to raise the stallion who will mount the world.  Second houses from the kingdoms who opposed Viserys will find themselves replacing their former lords paramount.  Houses Frey, Harlaw, Bolton, and others will be elevated.  Stark, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, and Lannister will be significantly diminished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Only 89 selfies today said:

Some of the ruling class of Westeros will hide in their castles.  Their servants will rebel after a weeks of hunger and give them to the Dothraki.  It won't be pretty.  Bad enough to go without food for a week. Naked lords and ladies will take up jogging, behind the Dothraki's horses

Please explain how the Dothraki will reach them in the first place. Please also explain how they will besiege their castles with no siege weapons.

Just now, Only 89 selfies today said:

Most of the ruling class will exercise common sense and support Viserys. 

That is the opposite of common sense.

Just now, Only 89 selfies today said:

Who is their real king.

No he isn't.

Just now, Only 89 selfies today said:

Houses Frey, Harlaw, Bolton, and others will be elevated.  Stark, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, and Lannister will be significantly diminished.

In your dreams, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Some of the ruling class of Westeros will hide in their castles.  Their servants will rebel after a weeks of hunger and give them to the Dothraki.  It won't be pretty.  Bad enough to go without food for a week. Naked lords and ladies will take up jogging, behind the Dothraki's horses.  

Most of the ruling class will exercise common sense and support Viserys.  Who is their real king.   Viserys will be installed on the throne and Daenerys will return to Essos to raise the stallion who will mount the world.  Second houses from the kingdoms who opposed Viserys will find themselves replacing their former lords paramount.  Houses Frey, Harlaw, Bolton, and others will be elevated.  Stark, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, and Lannister will be significantly diminished.

Right, and this is contingent on Viserys not being stupid enough to blow the plan by trying to have his way with Daenerys in some form and developing fighting skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

I would put the middle age from around 800, Charlemagne coronation as emperor

That's a pretty good start date but it's acting like Pipen wasn't a medieval king which is confusing.

6 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

and 1453 the fall of Constantinople.

Also not bad, my issue with that (similar to date the fall of (real) Rome) is Constantinople was nothing resembling what it was for two hundred years since it was sacked in the crusades. But I like the general line of thinking, so I'll push my end a bit from Bastille to Austerlitz and the final end of the final Roman Empire (Bastille is more romantic, but it's also easier to revolve everything around Rome)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's a pretty good start date but it's acting like Pipen wasn't a medieval king which is confusing.

Also not bad, my issue with that (similar to date the fall of (real) Rome) is Constantinople was nothing resembling what it was for two hundred years since it was sacked in the crusades. But I like the general line of thinking, so I'll push my end a bit from Bastille to Austerlitz and the final end of the final Roman Empire (Bastille is more romantic, but it's also easier to revolve everything around Rome)

I mean the whole concept of different "ages" is mostly bollocks (excuse my french), it is only used for academical purposes not any actual historical one. History is about changes over time and most of them are very gradual so having a definit event or date to mark a passage from one "age" to another is always kind of weird, especially since no one at the time thought of it like that.

So I put 800 because it is the idea of a new western roman empire, even it was now the heart of this empire was along the Rhine and not Italy. Sure Pépin was nothing massively different from Charlemagne but he was never emperor, that is the big change, especialy since the Emperor while be a major figure in europe history from that point on.

And the fall of Constantinople is the same year has the battle of Castillon and the fall of Bordeaux wich marks the end of the hundred years war, wich in turn marks the begining of national identy in Europe. It also is at the begining of the importance of black powder weapon that will completely change war so all in all it is a pretty good date for me.

The problem with going as far has the French revolution for the middle age is that it his just way too big, migth has well throw away the whole concept of historical period at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Some of the ruling class of Westeros will hide in their castles.  Their servants will rebel after a weeks of hunger and give them to the Dothraki.  It won't be pretty.  Bad enough to go without food for a week. Naked lords and ladies will take up jogging, behind the Dothraki's horses.  

Most of the ruling class will exercise common sense and support Viserys.  Who is their real king.   Viserys will be installed on the throne and Daenerys will return to Essos to raise the stallion who will mount the world.  Second houses from the kingdoms who opposed Viserys will find themselves replacing their former lords paramount.  Houses Frey, Harlaw, Bolton, and others will be elevated.  Stark, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, and Lannister will be significantly diminished.

I dont mean to be disrespectful, but you cannot possibly believe that. I mean there is no way anything like that would happen, like literaly no possible way other then "The Targaryen are the best and the perfect heros so they have to win". You can be pro-Targaryen, they actually have quite a few arguments going for them but you just seem disillusional in how it would happen.

Firstly, you dont hide in a castle, you hold a castle and since castle hold the land you need to take each and every castle to control the land, and as soon as you turn your back people can and will revolt, just look at the invasion's of Dorne.

Secondly, castle are literally built to keep you safe for extended amout of time and would most of the time have a garnison and food stocks. Historically castle could be held by a dozen people for a whole years against hundreds of ennemy's, so yeah dont think people will just give up in mere weeks.

Thirdly, the Dothraki would not spare the servants, they would kill and enslave them to, and they're family and friends in the countryside, yeah it will not be pretty, because the dothraki are a savage people who will kill, rape and enslave has much as they can because they can. If one castle does this, well the next will hold until the very end and the one after will too, ect...

Most of the ruling class abandonned the Targaryen because they abused they're power and killed some of the most important lords of the realm without proper justification and/or trial, Aerys was a madman, Rhaegar seemed to think he could just take the daugther of one of the most important man in the land, promised to another one of them, just because and with no explenation. The Targaryen lost they're rigth to rule in the eyes of most of the ruling class.

And its not like Viserys is any better, he is a weak, petty, entitled madman. We see absolutly nobody respect him or value him after they spent more then a day in is presence. At least Aerys was pretty much ok at the begining, Viserys would not last a week on the Iron Throne.

The last part make sense sure, but that only happens if you magically change everything about Viserys. But even then, the bannermen of the Starks, Arryn and Lannister have been loyal for hundreds of year by now, most of them will continue to be, just look at the amount of northern men ready to die for the daugther of they're dead lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Right, and this is contingent on Viserys not being stupid enough to blow the plan by trying to have his way with Daenerys in some form and developing fighting skills.

Even if Viserys wasn't one of the worst 'rulers' in the series the plan still probably would fail.

18 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Naked lords and ladies will take up jogging, behind the Dothraki's horses.  

If Viserys lets the Dothraki treat prisoners like that then basically no one would be on his side. He is showing that he is Aerys 2.0 by allowing tens of thousands of murderous savages to rape, plunder and massacre across the realms. This number will include plenty of innocents as he has no control over the Dothraki because they don't respect him at all. And with this move he shows that he will not accept surrender, which encourages everyone to fight to death/the bitter end against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot had a very good chance of succeeding.  Much better chances than Robb Stark ever becoming king of anything besides Winterfell's chamber potty.  Viserys had a lot going for him.  He was the King of the Seven Kingdoms.  His identity is known.  He will be backed by a formidable army and financed by Mopatis.  He will end up marrying Arrianne and thus have the support of Dorne.  The Riverlands and the Crownlands will support him.  The Reach would have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...