Unpopular Opinions You Have?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Or maybe their enemies were just as useless...

Well, looking at this now, I have another possibly unpopular opinion: it is entirely possible Martin knows absolutely nothing about medieval military tactics.

Spearmen can be useful, but there is a reason why pikemen historically dominated. And a three-ranks-deep anti-cavalry formation is completely useless even if you are using pikes: cavalry will just physically smash right through it on a first charge.

That last part comes down to bluff and psychology.  Horses won’t charge home if the infantry remain in situ.  In the Napoleonic wars, infantry who’d run out of ammunition could still stop a cavalry charge by forming a square and presenting two ranks of men armed with bayonets.  Cavalry had to either catch them out of formation or turn their flank, or the infantry had to break and flee.

Squares only broke if the infantry lost their nerve or if a horse was killed very close to the square and its momentum caused it to smash through the line, creating a gap.

A line of infantry whose flanks are secure are in a similar position to a square.

Horses won’t throw themselves on to sharp obstacles.  Throw the front ranks of the cavalry into confusion, and the rear ranks are useless.

Edited July 9, 2023 by SeanF

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Spearmen can be useful, but there is a reason why pikemen historically dominated.

Aren't pikes just spears so long you had to hold them with two hands though?

[frenin]

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-they can be exiled or made wards of..its not just death or wall

Why don't they declare Aegon king and be done with it? If they are so apprehensive to the Targlings having a bad fate, they should not have made the one move that guaranteed them having a short piss poor life.

1. Exiled is unfeasible for the aforementioned reasons.
2. Wards? To what end exactly? Theon was made hostage  ward with the explicit purpose of keeping Balon in line and raising a more amiable  to the Crown ruler of the Ironborn, what's the endgame with Aegon? Wards have to b let go some day, why the hell would Ned be having an enemy to the Crown in his own house, and before you say Jon he was his own blood and his identity was hidden to everyone for that same very reason.
3. The Wall however offers an uncomplicated end that it is socially accepted by all parties involved.  

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-yeah sending kids to a gualag isnt neds style

Didn't he send his own son there or i'm misremembering a huge plot point?

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-doesnt have to be the biggest just big enough (giggity) and no robert isnt killing ned over this

He can be overwhelmed, Robert is not letting Ned taking and raising an enemy to the Throne.

Why do you actually think Ned hid Jon's identity?

 

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Dorne and the reach are still pro targ as is dragonstone and the crownlands as well as the substantial royal fleet off dragonstone (to be wrecked early next year in a storm as dany is born). So overall its even more awkward to keep them alive but with ned ,jon and robert generaly being honourable men theyl take their chances with a future threat over soing something.wicked now.

You're only giving reasons for the Targlings to be dealt with asap, having huge chunks of the land and huge armies still predisposed against you and towards the kids is a mighty reason for the kids, well kid Rhaenys being a girl could be assimilated into the new dynasty tho Robert would rather drink hemlock, to disappear them.

 

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Side note jamies thoughts if i recall was that he was there in maegors keep and busy but had he the time he  feels he would have safeguarded rhaegars kids  thus another important figurehead would be there saying they arent to be killed.

Jaime is 15 and completely irrelevant to this topic, he holds neither lands nor is he expected to be and his own father is determined to kill the children, so whatever sway he'd have over the Lannister troops is gone.

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Another issue is the oaths..would people still see oaths taken by those too young to understand them as to be honoured? Id  doubt it 

Yes they would, as stated, infants have taken the black before.

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

More and more seems far more likely the kids would have been  comfortably exiled or taken as wards. The garrison on dragonstone told to stand down and deals worked out.  Doran will not side idely by if his living nephew and neice are givenndeath or the watch as options

You're wholly optimistic.

• Robert had zero intention to exile the Targlings, they escaped and he accepted it as a lesser evil since he didn't want to kill them till it was absolutely necessary. "Comfortably exiled" is dogwhistle for "rebels are still taking care of them and planning rebellions", this is the same country that just came from half a century of Blackfyre rebellions.
• Wardship is towards an specific goal, Theon was a hostage but he was treated as a ward because it was Ned's and Robert's intention someday he'd come back to rule, the only Wardship Aegon nwould see is being thrown to a cell for the rest of his life and then disappears.
• Well he certainly did in the first case and he turned out to be pretty maneageable for the rebels and in the latter case... how is he going to do anything about it? Is he going to take his nonexistent fleet and invade the North before the child pledge? 
• You're ignoring what happened in the actual books.

 

18 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

and  theres elia i suppose in this scenario too!  if the kids survived she must surely do so  too.....is she also to be sent to the watch?

Why? She gives absolutely no problems dynastically speaking, she can be safely returned to Dorne as a token of good will.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why don't they declare Aegon king and be done with it? If they are so apprehensive to the Targlings having a bad fate, they should not have made the one move that guaranteed them having a short piss poor life.

1. Exiled is unfeasible for the aforementioned reasons.
2. Wards? To what end exactly? Theon was made hostage  ward with the explicit purpose of keeping Balon in line and raising a more amiable  to the Crown ruler of the Ironborn, what's the endgame with Aegon? Wards have to b let go some day, why the hell would Ned be having an enemy to the Crown in his own house, and before you say Jon he was his own blood and his identity was hidden to everyone for that same very reason.
3. The Wall however offers an uncomplicated end that it is socially accepted by all parties involved.  

 

Didn't he send his own son there or i'm misremembering a huge plot point?

 

He can be overwhelmed, Robert is not letting Ned taking and raising an enemy to the Throne.

Why do you actually think Ned hid Jon's identity?

 

 

You're only giving reasons for the Targlings to be dealt with asap, having huge chunks of the land and huge armies still predisposed against you and towards the kids is a mighty reason for the kids, well kid Rhaenys being a girl could be assimilated into the new dynasty tho Robert would rather drink hemlock, to disappear them.

 

 

Jaime is 15 and completely irrelevant to this topic, he holds neither lands nor is he expected to be and his own father is determined to kill the children, so whatever sway he'd have over the Lannister troops is gone.

 

Yes they would, as stated, infants have taken the black before.

 

You're wholly optimistic.

• Robert had zero intention to exile the Targlings, they escaped and he accepted it as a lesser evil since he didn't want to kill them till it was absolutely necessary. "Comfortably exiled" is dogwhistle for "rebels are still taking care of them and planning rebellions", this is the same country that just came from half a century of Blackfyre rebellions.
• Wardship is towards an specific goal, Theon was a hostage but he was treated as a ward because it was Ned's and Robert's intention someday he'd come back to rule, the only Wardship Aegon nwould see is being thrown to a cell for the rest of his life and then disappears.
• Well he certainly did in the first case and he turned out to be pretty maneageable for the rebels and in the latter case... how is he going to do anything about it? Is he going to take his nonexistent fleet and invade the North before the child pledge? 
• You're ignoring what happened in the actual books.

 

Why? She gives absolutely no problems dynastically speaking, she can be safely returned to Dorne as a token of good will.

I agree with all that, save the last.  The best that Elia (and Rhaella, if captured) could hope for is confinement to a Motherhouse.  Any mother will seek to avenge her children.  Killing them is safer.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I agree with all that, save the last.  The best that Elia (and Rhaella, if captured) could hope for is confinement to a Motherhouse.  Any mother will seek to avenge her children.  Killing them is safer.

Elia is toothless and without the backing of Doran, which she won't have, she's powerless.

For once I agree with Tywin, by herself she was nothing. Mistreating her would be simply adding salt to the injury.

[Aldarion]

5 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Aren't pikes just spears so long you had to hold them with two hands though?

Yes and no.

Yes, when it comes to basic design, pikes are just very long spears. However, the fact that you have to hold them with both hands means that their tactical utilization is very, very different. For one, pikemen have far greater offensive and defensive power against other melee troops - especially cavalry - but the length of pike also made them far more vulnerable up close, and also vulnerable to missile troops up to the point where plate armor became widespread. This meant that pikemen usually had dedicated close-quarters troops behind them to counter any potential enemy breakthroughts - early tercios consisted of pikemen, harquebusiers and either halberdiers or swordsmen (really sword-and-buckler men). We actually see this in Westeros, with men-at-arms and other close-quarters infantry positioned behind the pikemen.

The length of pike also means that pikemen are far more reliant on unit cohesion, and were thus almost always professional soldiers. Essentially, pikemen had to maintain good formation during the entire advance - and that is something that is incredibly difficult to do. While other heavy infantry types are still dependant on good formations, they are far more forgiving in that regard than pikes are, as they can reform much more quickly.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

That last part comes down to bluff and psychology.  Horses won’t charge home if the infantry remain in situ.  In the Napoleonic wars, infantry who’d run out of ammunition could still stop a cavalry charge by forming a square and presenting two ranks of men armed with bayonets.  Cavalry had to either catch them out of formation or turn their flank, or the infantry had to break and flee.

Squares only broke if the infantry lost their nerve or if a horse was killed very close to the square and its momentum caused it to smash through the line, creating a gap.

A line of infantry whose flanks are secure are in a similar position to a square.

Horses won’t throw themselves on to sharp obstacles.  Throw the front ranks of the cavalry into confusion, and the rear ranks are useless.

That is a modern (and rather dumb) misconception that is easily dispelled if you read accounts of people who actually fought against cavalry.

Byzantine manuals hold several references to armored horses physically smashing spear shafts, to the point that menauvlion - a short but very thick pike - had to be introduced to resist the cataphract charge.

Ottomans, despite having the most disciplined infantry in Europe at the time, were still so afraid of European heavy cavalry that their Janissaries were regularly positioned behind obstacles such as stakes, ditches, chained cannons and similar, just so they would be able to resist the charge.

In Napoleonic wars themselves, you have several accounts of cavalry penetrating infantry squares despite latter commonly using bayonets.

As a matter of fact, it is relatively easy to train a horse to charge full-tilt straight into a solid wall. Nobody sane would do it, but it can be done.

Reason why infantry squares were so successful against cavalry was because infantry, as a rule, could and did have longer weapons than cavalry. A pike is nearly always longer than a lance, and thus pikemen could generally disrupt and stop cavalry charge before it really hit home. But in (rare) cases when cavalrymen had longer weapons than infantry, infantry was screwed. Cavalry penetrated them easily, no matter how well infantrymen may have stood their ground.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA406969.pdf

Quote

Typically, these units were armed with a lance, a saber, and a pistol. The lance was approximately nine feet long, one inch in diameter, made of a hard wood, such as ash or walnut, and weighed approximately seven pounds.8 With its extended length, the lance also afforded its owner three distinct advantages over the saber. First, during cavalry on cavalry melees, the lance increased the shock effect on the opponent by being able to engage the enemy before he could effectively use his saber. Second, the lance proved superior to the saber when attacking the infantry squares. The infantry would typically form into squares to defend themselves against cavalry charges and relied on their bayonets once they had expended their rounds. Because of the lance’s extended reach, lancer units were sometimes employed as the breach force unit to penetrate the infantry squares. This was especially true in the case of foul weather. During the 1813 battle of Dresden, heavy rains dampened the gunpowder, thus decreasing the chances for discharge. Consequently, the Austrian infantry formed in squares and was able to withstand initial French attempts at penetration. To overcome this, the French cavalry commander, Marshal Murat, effectively used his lancers as the breach force element to successfully penetrate the enemy line. He then followed through the penetration with his heavy cavalry, the cuirassiers, as the assault force to destroy the infantry squares.

Unsullied can be as disciplined as they want (and there are signs their discipline is breaking down), but so long as they are trained and equipped to use spears and not pikes like Westerosi do, they will be useless in Westeros. Against pikemen, against lancers... doesn't matter.

And if your formation is only three ranks deep, cavalry can just ride them over even without using lances. Even three ranks of pikemen would not be guaranteed to resist a charge of 14th / 15th century heavy cavalry. Three ranks of spearmen? Might as well not be there for all the good they will do.

[SeanF]

47 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Yes and no.

Yes, when it comes to basic design, pikes are just very long spears. However, the fact that you have to hold them with both hands means that their tactical utilization is very, very different. For one, pikemen have far greater offensive and defensive power against other melee troops - especially cavalry - but the length of pike also made them far more vulnerable up close, and also vulnerable to missile troops up to the point where plate armor became widespread. This meant that pikemen usually had dedicated close-quarters troops behind them to counter any potential enemy breakthroughts - early tercios consisted of pikemen, harquebusiers and either halberdiers or swordsmen (really sword-and-buckler men). We actually see this in Westeros, with men-at-arms and other close-quarters infantry positioned behind the pikemen.

The length of pike also means that pikemen are far more reliant on unit cohesion, and were thus almost always professional soldiers. Essentially, pikemen had to maintain good formation during the entire advance - and that is something that is incredibly difficult to do. While other heavy infantry types are still dependant on good formations, they are far more forgiving in that regard than pikes are, as they can reform much more quickly.

That is a modern (and rather dumb) misconception that is easily dispelled if you read accounts of people who actually fought against cavalry.

Byzantine manuals hold several references to armored horses physically smashing spear shafts, to the point that menauvlion - a short but very thick pike - had to be introduced to resist the cataphract charge.

Ottomans, despite having the most disciplined infantry in Europe at the time, were still so afraid of European heavy cavalry that their Janissaries were regularly positioned behind obstacles such as stakes, ditches, chained cannons and similar, just so they would be able to resist the charge.

In Napoleonic wars themselves, you have several accounts of cavalry penetrating infantry squares despite latter commonly using bayonets.

As a matter of fact, it is relatively easy to train a horse to charge full-tilt straight into a solid wall. Nobody sane would do it, but it can be done.

Reason why infantry squares were so successful against cavalry was because infantry, as a rule, could and did have longer weapons than cavalry. A pike is nearly always longer than a lance, and thus pikemen could generally disrupt and stop cavalry charge before it really hit home. But in (rare) cases when cavalrymen had longer weapons than infantry, infantry was screwed. Cavalry penetrated them easily, no matter how well infantrymen may have stood their ground.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA406969.pdf

Unsullied can be as disciplined as they want (and there are signs their discipline is breaking down), but so long as they are trained and equipped to use spears and not pikes like Westerosi do, they will be useless in Westeros. Against pikemen, against lancers... doesn't matter.

And if your formation is only three ranks deep, cavalry can just ride them over even without using lances. Even three ranks of pikemen would not be guaranteed to resist a charge of 14th / 15th century heavy cavalry. Three ranks of spearmen? Might as well not be there for all the good they will do.

The outcomes of Crecy, Bannockburn, Courtrai, Pharsalus, and of course, Waterloo, all argue against that.  Hastings was a Norman victory, but not one caused by their cavalry breaking the English infantry, who repelled their attacks quite brutally.

That’s why good cavalry commanders were always looking to turn a flank, or catch infantry out of formation.  Charging head on against disciplined infantry, whose flanks were secure, was usually the act of a fool.  Ney at Waterloo was the Bravest of the Brave, but he was not an intelligent commander, and he wasted the French cavalry with fruitless charges.

Of course, much turns on the choice of ground, whether the infantry are carrying wooden stakes and caltrops, whether they have wagons (laagering is an excellent tactic) whether there are bowmen and dismounted knights among their ranks, etc. , but I’d expect whoever is in charge of the Unsullied to know this stuff.

Edited July 9, 2023 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The outcomes of Crecy

Did that not have very specific field conditions which are unlikely to be utilised in Westeros, given it is now Winter and so the ground will be frozen, not muddy? This also doesn't solve the issue of Unsullied using bronze age weapons and tactics.

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Bannockburn

Again, I think that required specific field conditions and the English army making several really stupid mistakes, also the Scots were fighting in schiltrons which is not what the Unsullied do, they are in rows. And the Scots used caltrops to weaken the Cavalry, there is no suggestion the Unsullied or Daenerys have these. And I think the Scots got quite lucky. In the Battle of Bannockburn Experience in Stirling they had a sort of game thing where you had to win it for the Scots, and supposedly it was hard to do so. And the Scots were defending, whereas Daenerys will be attacking.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Courtrai... Waterloo

I don't know if they are good battles to use in favour of the Unsullied given the infantry had guns at that point and there was also artillery, none of which are present in Westeros, and Unsullied are an outdated model even by Westeros standards.

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Pharsalus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the armour available for the horses and riders would be anything like the solid plate armour available for knights in Westeros. I assume such armour would make their charge more effective than what happened here. 

 

[Aldarion]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The outcomes of Crecy, Bannockburn, Courtrai, Pharsalus, and of course, Waterloo, all argue against that.  That’s why good cavalry commanders were always looking to turn a flank, or catch infantry out of formation.  Charging head on against disciplined infantry, whose flanks were secure, was usually the act of a fool.

Of course, much turns on the choice of ground, whether the infantry are carrying wooden stakes and caltrops, whether there are bowmen and dismounted knights among their ranks, etc. , but I’d expect whoever is in charge of the Unsullied to know this stuff.

Those battles are notable precisely because the outcome was unexpected. Also:

1) Crecy - cavalry was attacking a prepared defensive position. That is something that always goes badly, doesn't matter if you use cavalry, infantry or whatever.

2) Bannockburn - English army was surprised by the Scottish attack (this was the first time ever that a Scottish schiltron carried out an offensive maneuver) and was thus unable to actually develop a proper attack. The hasty attack which they mounted was indeed relatively easily repulsed.

3) Courtrai - terrain was marshy and dotted with ditches. Forget knights, tanks will have had a difficult time in such a terrain.

4) Pharsalus - Pompey's cavalry was outflanked and attacked as they fought with Caesarian cavalry. Anything will have routed in such circumstances.

5) Waterloo - we are talking musket infantry here, and French cavalry made multiple tactical errors anyway.

Lastly, most of these examples are pikemen against heavy cavalry lancers, and at Waterloo of course we have infantry armed with muskets. Absolutely none of these are a proof, not even merely an indication, that the Unsullied - who are spearmen - would be able to counter the Westerosi lancers.

Best choice for the Unsullied would be to put stakes into ground ahead of their own positions, but that is something any infantry can do.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

The truth about Aegon's true identity will never be revealed

[SeanF]

33 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Did that not have very specific field conditions which are unlikely to be utilised in Westeros, given it is now Winter and so the ground will be frozen, not muddy? This also doesn't solve the issue of Unsullied using bronze age weapons and tactics.

Again, I think that required specific field conditions and the English army making several really stupid mistakes, also the Scots were fighting in schiltrons which is not what the Unsullied do, they are in rows. And the Scots used caltrops to weaken the Cavalry, there is no suggestion the Unsullied or Daenerys have these. And I think the Scots got quite lucky. In the Battle of Bannockburn Experience in Stirling they had a sort of game thing where you had to win it for the Scots, and supposedly it was hard to do so. And the Scots were defending, whereas Daenerys will be attacking.

I don't know if they are good battles to use in favour of the Unsullied given the infantry had guns at that point and there was also artillery, none of which are present in Westeros, and Unsullied are an outdated model even by Westeros standards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the armour available for the horses and riders would be anything like the solid plate armour available for knights in Westeros. I assume such armour would make their charge more effective than what happened here. 

 

The accounts of Pharsalus state that Caesar equipped his infantry with spears that were longer than the usual pila, to repel Pompey’s excellent cavalry.

British artillerymen could only flee before the French cavalry at Waterloo, else they’d just be cut down. Artillery were used to break up infantry, but were not worth much against fast-moving targets.  Muskets certainly shot down Ney’s cavalry, but it was the bayonets of the infantry in squares, that really kept them at bay.

English archers, mixed with Welsh spearmen, and knights, fighting on foot, simply destroyed the French at Crecy.

Bruce was a far better commander than Edward II, and chose his ground with care.

In every case, these battles were won by capable commanders, who used ground, weather conditions, and training, to extract every advantage, and pounced on every mistake made by their opponents.

But, why should one suppose the commanders of the Unsullied would not do the same?  Sellswords know their business, and will provide archers, and the heavy cavalry necessary to provide all the arms of battle that Daenerys needs.  Ser Barristan has plenty of experience in battle, as does the Tattered Prince.

Only the very wealthiest Westerosi will wear full plate.  Mail and brigandines will be more common among them, and most foot would wear padded jacks.

Edited July 9, 2023 by SeanF

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Those battles are notable precisely because the outcome was unexpected. Also:

1) Crecy - cavalry was attacking a prepared defensive position. That is something that always goes badly, doesn't matter if you use cavalry, infantry or whatever.

2) Bannockburn - English army was surprised by the Scottish attack (this was the first time ever that a Scottish schiltron carried out an offensive maneuver) and was thus unable to actually develop a proper attack. The hasty attack which they mounted was indeed relatively easily repulsed.

3) Courtrai - terrain was marshy and dotted with ditches. Forget knights, tanks will have had a difficult time in such a terrain.

4) Pharsalus - Pompey's cavalry was outflanked and attacked as they fought with Caesarian cavalry. Anything will have routed in such circumstances.

5) Waterloo - we are talking musket infantry here, and French cavalry made multiple tactical errors anyway.

Lastly, most of these examples are pikemen against heavy cavalry lancers, and at Waterloo of course we have infantry armed with muskets. Absolutely none of these are a proof, not even merely an indication, that the Unsullied - who are spearmen - would be able to counter the Westerosi lancers.

Best choice for the Unsullied would be to put stakes into ground ahead of their own positions, but that is something any infantry can do.

I’d say what made knights (and men at arms who fought like knights) so valuable on 14th-16th century battlefields, is they were were not just a one-trick pony, capable of a massed charge, and nothing more.

They usually fought on foot, but were expected to fight as cavalry when required. They were expected to act as officers, when required. They were expected to be familiar with strategy, tactics, and logistics.

Done on the right terrain, at the right time, a charge of steel-clad horsemen could be devastating.  Get these things wrong, and it would be suicidal.

Edited July 9, 2023 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The accounts of Pharsalus state that Caesar equipped his infantry with spears that were longer than the usual pila, to repel Pompey’s excellent cavalry

But I doubt Pompey's cavalry had late medieval plate armour like the knights of Westeros will. Obviously not every single unit of cavalry will be a knight, but I think a fair chunk of them should be, since they are what Westeros was known for. Renly was able to get ~20,000 out of the Reach and Stormlands (I assume they are knights since we see his army was full of young nobles), and there are only 10,000 Unsullied and Daenerys cannot replace them.

38 minutes ago, SeanF said:

But, why should one suppose the commanders of the Unsullied would not do the same?

They can try, but this doesn't change the fact that Unsullied themselves are using bronze age weapons and formations against late medieval armies. Now they could give Unsullied different weapons and put them in a different formation but the Unsullied have not been trained to do this so the effectiveness will be weakened. The cavalry we see the Unsullied beat were unarmoured Dothraki favouring for the most part a short range weapon, and this cavalry did not appear to try and flank but rather just charged right at them.

Also, we have to bear in mind that Grazdan, who is trying to sell the Unsullied to Daenerys, says this:

Quote

Even Unsullied may be losing battles to savage steel knights of Seven Kingdoms.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But I doubt Pompey's cavalry had late medieval plate armour like the knights of Westeros will. Obviously not every single unit of cavalry will be a knight, but I think a fair chunk of them should be, since they are what Westeros was known for. Renly was able to get ~20,000 out of the Reach and Stormlands (I assume they are knights since we see his army was full of young nobles), and there are only 10,000 Unsullied and Daenerys cannot replace them.

They can try, but this doesn't change the fact that Unsullied themselves are using bronze age weapons and formations against late medieval armies. Now they could give Unsullied different weapons and put them in a different formation but the Unsullied have not been trained to do this so the effectiveness will be weakened. The cavalry we see the Unsullied beat were unarmoured Dothraki favouring for the most part a short range weapon, and this cavalry did not appear to try and flank but rather just charged right at them.

Also, we have to bear in mind that Grazdan, who is trying to sell the Unsullied to Daenerys, says this:

Again, only the very wealthiest fighters wore full plate.  It was very expensive.  Full Milanese or Augsburg plate was about £7 to £8 in England, in 1468.  That would be twice the average wage for a skilled labourer.  Add in the cost of horses, weapons, armour for the horses, your servants, and you’re up to £20 or so.  That’s about half the annual income of a typical landed knight, but knighthood was a much more exclusive honour in England than Westeros.  Westerosi knights are mostly the equivalent of English gentry, who’d be earning rents of £5-£20 a year.  For them, plate armour would be a huge expense, and they’d go for cheaper alternatives.

Bear in mind, too, many of Westeros' best fighters and commanders are now dead.

Edited July 9, 2023 by SeanF

[SaffronLady]

46 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Again, only the very wealthiest fighters wore full plate.  It was incredibly expensive.

The Dothraki wear NO ARMOR. That's kind of like a huge negative regardless of what the opponent is wearing.

And yes, there is such a thing as cloth armor.

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

The Dothraki wear NO ARMOR. That's kind of like a huge negative regardless of what the opponent is wearing.

And yes, there is such a thing as cloth armor.

Which makes zero sense.

Martin’s background is TV, which treats armour as decorative.

Even wearing silk shirts and boiled leather would give the Dothraki considerable protection.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Again, only the very wealthiest fighters wore full plate.  It was very expensive.  Full Milanese or Augsburg plate was about £7 to £8 in England, in 1468.  That would be twice the average wage for a skilled labourer.  Add in the cost of horses, weapons, armour for the horses, your servants, and you’re up to £20 or so.  That’s about half the annual income of a typical landed knight, but knighthood was a much more exclusive honour in England than Westeros.  Westerosi knights are mostly the equivalent of English gentry, who’d be earning rents of £5-£20 a year.  For them, plate armour would be a huge expense, and they’d go for cheaper alternatives.

Vast majority of the knights we see in the main series wear plate armour though. Even people who should not be able to afford it, like the random old guy at Joffrey's name-day tourney or Ser Shadrich and his friend. The only knights portrayed as being at risk of not affording standard armour are hedge knights or nobles who are really destitute. The plate that seems to be limited to only the really rich is the elaborate coloured plate made by Tobho Mott. So while I understand what you are saying and it makes sense from a realistic perspective, I expect almost all knights will be wearing plate. The knights myself and I assume Aldarion are talking about are the heavy cavalry, not just anyone on a horse.

Supposedly GRRM said this:

Quote

Armor worn by Westerosi knights and warriors does not correspond one to one with any single period in European history, according to George R. R. Martin. Instead, it corresponds a mix of armor styles from several different time periods. Armor tends to "later" styles in southern Westeros. For example, plate is more common in the Reach, while mail is more the rule in the north. The armor used by free folk living beyond the Wall is rather primitive.[1]

So I expect most of the Knights to be wearing plate, since most of them aren't from the North. And we are given the value of a good set of armour:

Quote

At the time of the tourney at Ashford Meadow in 209 AC, a plain yet complete set of good steel armor with greaves, gorget, and greathelm could cost eight hundred stags,[17] which equals almost four golden dragons

I don't know how much that is in pounds, but looking at the value of ransom payments, it seems to me that most nobles should be able to afford that, so I would assume most of them are wearing plate.

A horse is supposedly worth ~3 dragons:

Quote

when Duncan the Tall sold a horse for the price of 750 silver stags - but was physically paid in the form of 3 gold dragons, the rest in silvers (3 x 210 = 630, but 4 x 210 = 840).

But the price has gone down since then.

Quote

consider one gold dragon to be a fair price for a horse in the war-struck riverlands.

So even if we assume that the weapons cost another 3 gold dragons, and take the higher price for the horse, it seems all the equipment to be a knight costs ~10 gold dragons. That seems to me to be something most upper class people in Westeros could afford...

Using your one dragon = one pound from this thread:

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/86914-how-much-is-a-golden-dragon-worth-in-todays-currency/#:~:text=SeanF,-Gender%3AMale&text=I've always had it,three dragons) for his horse.

It would be around £10 cost, possibly lower.

I know it doesn't quite work with your real-life English figures, but I think it is reasonable to assume that landed knights would have plate armour. If they only have mail they would make themselves look bad at tourneys, and the plate armour is synonymous with knights. A knight not wearing plate armour, especially if they were not from the North, probably wouldn't be thought of as a knight.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Vast majority of the knights we see in the main series wear plate armour though. Even people who should not be able to afford it, like the random old guy at Joffrey's name-day tourney or Ser Shadrich and his friend. The only knights portrayed as being at risk of not affording standard armour are hedge knights or nobles who are really destitute. The plate that seems to be limited to only the really rich is the elaborate coloured plate made by Tobho Mott. So while I understand what you are saying and it makes sense from a realistic perspective, I expect almost all knights will be wearing plate. The knights myself and I assume Aldarion are talking about are the heavy cavalry, not just anyone on a horse.

Supposedly GRRM said this:

So I expect most of the Knights to be wearing plate, since most of them aren't from the North. And we are given the value of a good set of armour:

I don't know how much that is in pounds, but looking at the value of ransom payments, it seems to me that most nobles should be able to afford that, so I would assume most of them are wearing plate.

A horse is supposedly worth ~3 dragons:

But the price has gone down since then.

So even if we assume that the weapons cost another 3 gold dragons, and take the higher price for the horse, it seems all the equipment to be a knight costs ~10 gold dragons. That seems to me to be something most upper class people in Westeros could afford...

Using your one dragon = one pound from this thread:

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/86914-how-much-is-a-golden-dragon-worth-in-todays-currency/#:~:text=SeanF,-Gender%3AMale&text=I've always had it,three dragons) for his horse.

It would be around £10 cost, possibly lower.

I know it doesn't quite work with your real-life English figures, but I think it is reasonable to assume that landed knights would have plate armour. If they only have mail they would make themselves look bad at tourneys, and the plate armour is synonymous with knights. A knight not wearing plate armour, especially if they were not from the North, probably wouldn't be thought of as a knight.

The [1] at the end of the quote about GRRM links to an SSM.  It's a letter GRRM wrote in 2001.  It has lots of interesting information about armor, helms, shields, etc.  You should check it out.  In case you've forgotten, the quote is from the wiki entry for Knight.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Nevets

[astarkchoice]

13 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Cleftjaw got smashed by Rodrik the Whiskerless. Last time Dorne entered a battle, they ended up on the losing side, despite having superior numbers  and being on the defensive on a major river crossing, really speaks volumes on their usefulness.  

Outnumbered on foot vs heavy cavalry led by one  winterfells most  experienced knights and they still took multiple charges despite knowing they where just there as decoys.

Wtf does losing at the trident have to do with anything? A slight numbers advabtage means nothing,other factions where there too ,the battle was supposedly close fought and decided by the 2 star attractions one on one battle

[Craving Peaches]

15 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The [1] at the end of the quote about GRRM links to an SSM.  It's a letter GRRM wrote in 2001.  It has lots of interesting information about armor, helms, shields, etc.  You should check it out.  In case you've forgotten, the quote is from the wiki entry for Knight.

 

I'm thinking it might be worth starting a separate thread for the knight related discussion.