Unpopular Opinions You Have?

[SaffronLady]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

When it comes to spear squares, cavalry broke through and into them fairly regularly. So regularly in fact that Byzantine manuals describing a hollow square formation required the commander to place spearmen at not just the outside but also the inside of the infantry line forming the square. And we are talking here about the 10th century Byzantine heavy infantry, which was some of the best in the world at the time. They were also quick to introduce a form of a pike as well (the menaulion). You cannot say "spear or pike" formations as if they are the same in terms of their ability to resist cavalry - they are not, not even close.

 

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

No knight is gonna be able to charge into a wall of spears (if they arent smart enough to stop their horses  usualy will be)  esp agaisnt packed infantry, after some intal carnage the cavalry must move on or be slaughtered. The general use of heavy cavalry was undefended flanks and the openings that happen naturaly as infantry blocks move over ground  OR clash agaisnt each other.

Imma just let the 2 of you duke it out.

[Craving Peaches]

Drogon has red eyes and black scales. That would make Drogon a Red Eyes Black Dragon. Now there has been speculation that an ice dragon will appear at some point. If so we would expect it to have a suitable colour scheme, maybe something like white scales and blue eyes - a Blue Eyes White Dragon. As we all know, a Blue Eyes White Dragon has 3000 attack points and 2500 defence points, while a Red Eyes Black Dragon only has 2400 attack points and 2000 defence points. This is clear foreshadowing that Daenerys will lose 600 Life Points when the Ice Dragon attacks.

[astarkchoice]

47 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

 

Imma just let the 2 of you duke it out.

Huh? A packed/lockstep infantry would suggest not a hollow square

[Corvo the Crow]

6 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The book said it dude the ironborn didnt have any heavy cavalry they formed a shieldwall , took a few charges from.vastly superior forces  and then broke and ran. Meanwhile theon took winterfell. 

 

No it doesn't.

 

Quote

It was too late for that now, however. Theon had no choice but to lead Asha to Ned Stark's solar. There, before the ashes of a dead fire, he blurted, "Dagmer's lost the fight at Torrhen's Square—"

"The old castellan broke his shield wall, yes," Asha said calmly. "What did you expect? This Ser Rodrik knows the land intimately, as the Cleftjaw does not, and many of the northmen were mounted. The ironborn lack the discipline to stand a charge of armored horse. Dagmer lives, be grateful for that much. He's leading the survivors back toward the Stony Shore."

 It just says that Rodrik broke his shield wall, it doesn't say anywhere at all that it took multiple charges to perform it, neither does it say that Rodrik had more cavalry than Cleftjaw had infantry.

 

[Alester Florent]

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

No it doesn't.

 

 It just says that Rodrik broke his shield wall, it doesn't say anywhere at all that it took multiple charges to perform it, neither does it say that Rodrik had more cavalry than Cleftjaw had infantry.

 

It also doesn't say that it was a frontal charge by the horsemen, and the implication is that the ironborn failed to stand their ground in the face of the charge. If the shieldwall breaks formation during the charge, that's a very different prospect to a shieldwall holding its ground in good order. The former is exactly the situation that cavalry are great at exploiting; the latter is a recipe for a terrible mess and lots of dead or injured horses.

[astarkchoice]

51 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

No it doesn't.

 

 It just says that Rodrik broke his shield wall, it doesn't say anywhere at all that it took multiple charges to perform it, neither does it say that Rodrik had more cavalry than Cleftjaw had infantry.

 

Cleftjaw had 100 at the very most 

Rodrick has 900 , most of the time about 10%-20%  of the  forces  we see are cavalry, asha literaly says many of them were mounted indicating a good %...and even then its at  least 9:1  odds man.

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

It also doesn't say that it was a frontal charge by the horsemen, and the implication is that the ironborn failed to stand their ground in the face of the charge. If the shieldwall breaks formation during the charge, that's a very different prospect to a shieldwall holding its ground in good order. The former is exactly the situation that cavalry are great at exploiting; the latter is a recipe for a terrible mess and lots of dead or injured horses.

To be fair given the huge  numbers imbalance it doesnt prove much either way esp as the ironborn had 0 motivation to make it  any kind of fight  as they were juat  there just as a distraction

[astarkchoice]

Deeply unpopular one here

 

Balons wot5k northern assault  plan was just fine ...his execution of it was seemibnly  boneheaded!

-not using theon ..wtf!!!

-bear fucking island? Literaly the one place the ironborn should easily toss back the northerners ignored utterly

- holding back the full force of the ironborns 25k or so men

-not sending live feedback to theon (esp after he takes winterfell)  vic,cleftjaw or asha once they have taken their positions!

Those points made though his assult was cut short by his death so who knows how he planned to follow up the inital assaults.

Edited July 10, 2023 by astarkchoice

[Alester Florent]

30 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Deeply unpopular one here

 

Balons wot5k northern assault  plan was just fine ...his execution of it was boneheaded!

-not using theon ..wtf!!!

-bear fucking island? Literaly the one place the ironborn should easily toss back the northerners ignored utterly

- holding back the full force of the ironborns 25k or so men

-not sending live feedback to theon (esp after he takes winterfell)  vic,cleftjaw or asha once they have taken their positions!

Yes and no, for me. The problem is how it fits together with his overall joined-up strategy. In isolation, his plan to send his best troops to hit Moat Cailin was excellent, thereby trapping Robb in the south. If his goal is to disrupt Robb's operations, great.

But that's not his goal. His goal is to be recognised as king. In that context, grabbing a load of territory that you can't hold in the long term isn't particularly useful, and against a coordinated northern fightback (like the one Robb was launching before his betrayal) the ironborn couldn't have held on: they don't have the men, they don't have local support and they have minimal cavalry meaning, so their reconnaissance is also likely to be poor - something Robb has made a speciality of exploiting.

And then the assault itself is kind of half-cocked, as you point out. The big, spectacular strategic prize, the one which could have brought Robb to the negotiating table, was Winterfell, which wasn't part of Balon's actual plan and even once Theon pulls off his miraculous capture of it, Balon makes no attempt to exploit this unforeseen advantage. He ignores the Rills, Barrowtown and Flint's Finger, not to mention Bear Island, in favour of the Stony Shore, an area of no value, and this wasn't for want of troops because he had plenty in reserve.

Presumably his intention was to undermine Robb so that he could then negotiate with the Lannisters for recognition of his independence. But if he was going to take that approach, the time to do it was before he attacked the Starks. In the event, he's already serving Tywin's purposes, so Tywin ignores his overtures of an alliance and recognition of kingship.

By contrast, Robb had proactively offered Balon an alliance and recognition of his standing, which should have been exactly what Balon wanted. When Robb made the offer, he was winning the war on the ground, and a coordinated attack on the Westerlands by Robb and Balon would likely have smashed the Lannister resistance, and probably resulting in a Stark/Greyjoy victory. Instead, Balon chose to attack his prospective ally in the hope he could later seek a deal from that ally's enemies, which was a bad plan that didn't work.

Overall then, I'd say that Balon's plan to attack the North was about adequate (but flawed) if we assume that attacking the North is a worthwhile goal, but that it was in fact an attack against the wrong enemy at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, and was therefore overall a bad plan.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Alester Florent

[astarkchoice]

1 minute ago, Alester Florent said:

Yes and no, for me. The problem is how it fits together with his overall joined-up strategy. In isolation, his plan to send his best troops to hit Moat Cailin was excellent, thereby trapping Robb in the south. If his goal is to disrupt Robb's operations, great.

But that's not his goal. His goal is to be recognised as king. In that context, grabbing a load of territory that you can't hold in the long term isn't particularly useful, and against a coordinated northern fightback (like the one Robb was launching before his betrayal) the ironborn couldn't have held on: they don't have the men, they don't have local support and they have minimal cavalry meaning, so their reconnaissance is also likely to be poor - something Robb has made a speciality of exploiting.

And then the assault itself is kind of half-cocked, as you point out. The big, spectacular strategic prize, the one which could have brought Robb to the negotiating table, was Winterfell, which wasn't part of Balon's actual plan. He ignores the Rills, Barrowtown and Flint's Finger, not to mention Bear Island, in favour of the Stony Shore, an area of no value, and this wasn't for want of troops because he had plenty in reserve.

Presumably his intention was to undermine Robb so that he could then negotiate with the Lannisters for recognition of his independence. But if he was going to take that approach, the time to do it was before he attacked the Starks. In the event, he's already serving Tywin's purposes, so Tywin ignores his overtures of an alliance and recognition of kingship.

By contrast, Robb had proactively offered Balon an alliance and recognition of his standing, which should have been exactly what Balon wanted. When Robb made the offer, he was winning the war on the ground, and a coordinated attack on the Westerlands by Robb and Balon would likely have smashed the Lannister resistance, and probably resulting in a Stark/Greyjoy victory. Instead, Balon chose to attack his prospective ally in the hope he could later seek a deal from that ally's enemies, which was a bad plan that didn't work.

Overall then, I'd say that Balon's plan to attack the North was about adequate (but flawed) if we assume that attacking the North is a worthwhile goal, but that it was in fact an attack against the wrong enemy at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, and was therefore overall a bad plan.

 

As far as he and 99% of lords see concerned though robb cannot get back once moat catlin (hes wrong here but wasnt crazy/stupid  to think it). 

As for northern fightback i think theres like 20k left troops in the north and as he says not the best they all went south)  and whats left are  spread out over  incredibly vast distances ,most lords as balon said are south (he underestimates manderly as most do here which is a mistake) thus chances of that limited manpower being led into a concentrated fighting block of men for a resistance  seems scarce (esp given so much of the strongest houses are.100s of miles away  on the east coast anyway).

Balons plan seems to be to follow up the inital assaults and take the skelton crew occupied west coast castles piecemeal with overwhelming force one at a time (except winterfell) which is very doabale, itl also wipe out a lot of that remaining  northern manpower and giventhe ironborn  strongly defendable bases that can be supplied by sea/river....again all seem very achieveable.

[Alester Florent]

1 minute ago, astarkchoice said:

As far as he and 99% of lords see concerned though robb cannot get back once moat catlin (hes wrong here but wasnt crazy/stupid  to think it). 

As for northern fightback i think theres like 20k left troops in the north and as he says not the best they all went south)  and whats left are  spread out over  incredibly vast distances ,most lords as balon said are south (he underestimates manderly as most do here which is a mistake) thus chances of that limited manpower being led into a concentrated fighting block of men for a resistance  seems scarce (esp given so much of the strongest houses are.100s of miles away  on the east coast anyway).

Balons plan seems to be to follow up the inital assaults and take the skelton crew occupied west coast castles piecemeal with overwhelming force one at a time (except winterfell) which is very doabale, itl also wipe out a lot of that remaining  northern manpower and giventhe ironborn  strongly defendable bases that can be supplied by sea/river....again all seem very achieveable.

Robb might not be able to assault Moat Cailin from the south, but it is known to be vulnerable from the north, and there remain forces in the north who will eventually assemble to attack it. These forces will take a while to gather but they do exist: Winterfell, the Dreadfort and the Last Hearth between them can likely muster a few thousand, without accounting for White Harbor and Barrowton, and Balon's plan doesn't include an attack against any of those. Supplying Moat Cailin may be easier said than done given that the crannogmen seem to be able to disrupt their supply routes.

So Balon can hold Moat Cailin for a while, but not I think indefinitely.

I don't think holding the entire North is possible even if he could take it, for the same reasons as the Targaryens never managed to hold onto Dorne. The hostility of the local population will just be too great for the limited manpower of the ironborn to maintain their grip on power. Even if the Starks are gone, In the face of a liberation force from the Vale or the Riverlands, the ironborn garrisons will be isolated and picked off one at a time (as even Stannis with his motley crew manages - albeit after some of those garrisons have been reduced).

And even if they do somehow manage to hold the North... what then? Balon's an Old Way junkie. He has no interest in holding the land and farming or doing anything else worthwhile with it. Holding the North doesn't actually get him anything he wants.

Thinking about it, Harrenhal was a strange place for Harren to build his capital. The Riverlands are a great base for the ironborn because the rivers give convenient waterborne transport to all sorts of places, but Harrenhal isn't actually on any of them.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

Daenerys knew she was sacrificing Rhaego to “save” Drogo. “If I look back, I’m lost.” Is straight up admitting that MMD was right in telling Dany she knew. You could also interpret it as her refusing to think about the fact that she knew.

[astarkchoice]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Robb might not be able to assault Moat Cailin from the south, but it is known to be vulnerable from the north, and there remain forces in the north who will eventually assemble to attack it. These forces will take a while to gather but they do exist: Winterfell, the Dreadfort and the Last Hearth between them can likely muster a few thousand, without accounting for White Harbor and Barrowton, and Balon's plan doesn't include an attack against any of those. Supplying Moat Cailin may be easier said than done given that the crannogmen seem to be able to disrupt their supply routes.

So Balon can hold Moat Cailin for a while, but not I think indefinitely.

I don't think holding the entire North is possible even if he could take it, for the same reasons as the Targaryens never managed to hold onto Dorne. The hostility of the local population will just be too great for the limited manpower of the ironborn to maintain their grip on power. Even if the Starks are gone, In the face of a liberation force from the Vale or the Riverlands, the ironborn garrisons will be isolated and picked off one at a time (as even Stannis with his motley crew manages - albeit after some of those garrisons have been reduced).

And even if they do somehow manage to hold the North... what then? Balon's an Old Way junkie. He has no interest in holding the land and farming or doing anything else worthwhile with it. Holding the North doesn't actually get him anything he wants.

Thinking about it, Harrenhal was a strange place for Harren to build his capital. The Riverlands are a great base for the ironborn because the rivers give convenient waterborne transport to all sorts of places, but Harrenhal isn't actually on any of them.

He can hold it a while but from his pov  robbs  seemingly unable to besige moat catlin from the south as tywin would  clearly take advantage of any siege ! The riverlands clealry have other problems and the vale seem out (and would need to traverse past tywins at the time.current position to get to the north)

Now there are forces left in the north yes but spread out and most will be on the stronger houses on the far far east coast...half a.dozen castles could have fallen by then.

I gebunely dont think the whole nort was ever the plan its the east coast regions the  jronborn used  to hold,minsu a navy even at full strength it could take generations to claw that back (bear island possoibly never....the ironborn losing that  in the 1st place without an opposing  navy makes 0 military  sense!!!)

I think  one possible balons plan with deepwood motte was to draw the remaining forces towards an ironborn fortified place surrounded with woods,   (here heavy cavalry cant work well) nearish the sea  and destroy them in an open wooded area battle. A concentrated force of the  ironborns finest vs a few thousand of whats left of the norths best go be cut to pieces.

As.for holding the lands taking a few salt wives here and there would be no different to what the boltons do (and possibly skagos and umber of we believe roose) and 99% of people would go about their hard thankless serf lives inthe cold grey north as normal.....shit we know the ironborn occupied large portions of it for generations (the stoney shore supposedly being mixed and the farwynds clearly from northern warging stock) 

 

Agreed on the last part if anything if they wanted an empire they should think like many europeans did and think global! Take a summer island here and there  some of the basilsk isles, aegon rhaenys and visenya (islands) are literaly behind them and are supposedly lush! 

Edited July 10, 2023 by astarkchoice

[Aldarion]

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

1) thats once from a suprise attack 10k vs 3k(and one side with mixed arms, heavy cav and elephants!!)  Itd be crazy to think theres been 0 other intereactions in all that time and yet they are still sold as a valuable bodyguard/military unit. The dothraki would have went the way of all indigenous peoples by now if they were useless in combat  too....itd be sellswords  bringing slaves from the plains to  slavers bay  instead  cutting out the middlemen and marching over the bleached bones of long dead khalassars!

 

Considering it was attack on a fortified city, side with 3k should have won even if it were a surprise attack. And it wasn't - Qohor had refused payment, they will have known what was coming.

And of course Unsullied are sold as a valuable bodyguard unit! Firstly, they are expensive, which means that they are useful as a status symbol. Even Daenerys observes that the bodyguard Unsullied do not look capable of fighting, which should tell you something about priorities of the people buying them. Secondly, they are mostly bought by rich people who do not actually expect facing a proper military attack.

Why would anyone bother wiping out Dothraki? They are not much of a threat, and nomatic people are a pain to track down and destroy. Nearly impossible, in fact, because they can disappear into the uninhabited plains where sedentary army simply cannot follow. And not to forget that Dothraki provide a good source of slaves (though no answer where and how they capture them).

12 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

2)perhaps in need to reread toilken cause i remeber him being awesome at describing scenes (esp sooi much nature)  but battles..not so much , green fork seems.to have more detail than most of his battle descriptions.

I was talking about worldbuilding and realism in worldbuilding, not battle descriptions. In descriptions themselves, Tolkien went for poetic effect over Martin's detailed droning... but the fundamentals of what he is describing are far more solid than in Martin's case (and where he does make mistakes, they are usually a result of outdated scholarship available at the time rather than him not being aware). For example, Tolkien's battles are far more similar to Illiad than anything else - but organization and recruitment of armies makes much more sense than similar systems we see in Martin's world.

12 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

The pits existance means slavers bay  types have also fought knights one on one on of top any possible sellsword vs dothrak battle(and we gotta assume keeping dothraki away  from trade routes has gotta be sellsword bread and buttter)  ...not to mentiom all other kinds of foe  from all.over planetoes ........ and yet the dothraki still have no fear of them! The slavers do  know an unsullied is no match for a knight one one on (dont they describe it as a bull vs wolves or something?) As  one would expect as a knight is almost as well trained, stronger and in thicker armour but again they are westeros elite.

Please explain? Because frankly, what we see in the pits is absolutely nothing like what actual troops will have fough as. And in fact, seeing how "knights" slaughter the "Dothraki" in the pits, Martin seems to have realized that. Maybe he will retcon the Dothraki into something actually dangerous... or maybe he will just have them perform as they objectively should - which is to say, they will get annihilated.

We see time and again that Dothraki are not exactly the brightest bunch. Besides, Mongols, who were far more dangerous than Dothraki, got defeated in Europe.

I doubt Unsullied would be a match for Westerosi pikemen. Knights would be an overkill.

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

The spear would not be used as weapon (eg by the Welsh) if it were not useful.  But, my guess is Unsullied won’t be fighting on their own, or unused to fighting armoured cavalry.  They’ll be fighting alongside archers, firing volleys well before the enemy cavalry are in a position to use their lances, and would know about standard defensive tactics, against heavy cavalry, like placing wooden stakes and caltrops in front of their positions.

 

Yes, that is the only way they can actually win against Westerosi cavalry.

But you have to differentiate between a useful weapon and a counter. Spear is an extremely useful weapon - for infantry, it is the best melee weapon for general use. But that doesn't mean spearmen can effectively defend themselves against lancers.

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Roman legions did not use the pike, in the main, but were not usually broken apart by enemy cavalry.

 

They also never faced mounted lancers, and rarely faced armored heavy cavalry to begin with. And even when they did, heavy cavalry of the time used maces as their primary weapon, 

You are basically saying that "since no triremes ever got sunk by anti-ship missiles, they are obviously immune to modern weaponry". Well, they never faced anti-ship missiles to begin with, just as Roman legions never faced charge of mounted knights.

Byzantines had long experience with cataphracts and fighting against cataphracts. Yet Western mounted knights completely blindsided them, leading to this famous quote:

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-mounted-knight-is-irresistible-he-would-bore-his-way-through-the-walls-of-babylon-anna-komnene-133-96-28.jpg

Even taking poetic licence into account, Anna would have had no reason to say that if heavy lancer cavalry was as easy to resist as you believe it was.

And even against cataphracts, Romans found that the best answer to heavy cavalry is... *drumroll* heavy cavalry of their own! Hence the Equites Cataphractarii and Equites Clibanarii.

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

A cavalry charge depends upon momentum for its success.  Disrupt that momentum, by killing and wounding enemy horses, and/or forcing them to slow to a walk, and the cavalry charge ceases to be effective.

 

Yes. And cavalrymen knew that as well, which is why horses were often protected. We know that Westerosi knights use barding for horses. Unlike the Dothraki.

But even an unprotected horse is not exactly easy to kill.

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

And in turn, the Unsullied have cavalry of their own, like the Windblown, guarding their own flanks.

 

Which would leave the Unsullied facing Westerosi pikemen and dismounted men-at-arms... and get slaughtered by them instead.

I literally cannot think of any force in Westeros, other than the wildlings, against whom Unsullied would be objectively more likely to win than to lose.

13 hours ago, SeanF said:

Basically, the fight between heavy/light infantry, heavy/light cavalry, and archers on each side is like playing a game of rock, scissors, paper.

This is so fundamentally wrong.

First, not all types of heavy infantry are the same, not all types of light infantry are the same, not all types of heavy and light cavalry are the same. For example, pikemen and axemen are both technically heavy infantry - but former are generally a good counter for heavy cavalry while latter are... not. Lightly armored spearmen are helpless against horse archers... equally lightly armored foot archers will slaughter said horse archers with ease.

Second, various interactions in battle can change who is rock, who is paper and who is scissors in very short order. Heavy cavalry would generally not charge well-ordered pikemen... but if pikemen are disordered by missile bombardment or get disordered in march, then they are easy pickings. A unit of horse archers is essentially helpless against a unit of foot archers - unless, of course, horse archers happen to have heavy cavalry on beck and call and foot archers don't have pikement to protect them.

Third, terrain matters. On a flat ground, heavy cavalry charge will wipe out anything that is not a well-ordered pike formation or another cavalry unit (heavy cavalry can counter-charge, light cavalry can run away). Gentle hills may lead to a similar situation. But if you introduce broken terrain, marshes, waterclogged river beds... heavy cavalry, and cavalry in general, is suddenly much less useful.

11 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

No knight is gonna be able to charge into a wall of spears

Sorry to butt in, but as frequently as repeated as that statement is, it is a lie. There were occasions when men-at-arms charged bloody Swiss pikemen. Granted, these were French gendarmes, some of the best on the continent at the time, but that statement you like to repeat so often is nothing but a myth, generated by people who like to act too smart without looking through actual historical accounts - or figuring out that a modern riding horse is not a good model for behavior of a medieval war horse.

[BlackLightning]

Is this a thread about unpopular opinions or unpopular predictions?

[Alester Florent]

37 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

They also never faced mounted lancers, and rarely faced armored heavy cavalry to begin with. And even when they did, heavy cavalry of the time used maces as their primary weapon,

Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Macedonian, Epirote heavy cavalry made extensive use of the lance. The successors also all used pike infantry. The Romans beat them all: indeed, the successors eventually abandoned the pike in favour of "Roman-style" spear infantry (although they seem to have cocked this up a bit: no pilum and their shields weren't as good).

The cataphracts and clibinarii which the Byzantines used originated in enemies of Rome: Parthians, Alans, Sassanids... The Roman record against them is more mixed but by the time the Alans and Sassanids were on the scene the quality of Roman infantry had declined sharply anyway.

There is a fair amount of debate over how effective the kontos (the ancient lance) would have been without stirrups, which don't appear to have been invented until later, but it was clearly at least quite effective since it saw such widespread use (and when it was first put into use the Macedonians didn't even use saddles, let alone stirrups).

 

Quote

But even an unprotected horse is not exactly easy to kill.

If the horse has a bit of space around it to move and kick, and you don't have any ranged weapons, then yeah it's not at all easy to kill. But when charging in formation it's relatively easy to bring down. Even moderately uneven ground with molehills and divots is dangerous to charge across for horses. And if clattering into a row of armoured men standing their ground, many of those horses are going to trip and fall. They might not be killed, or even seriously injured (although many of them will break legs, which might as well be a fatal injury), but it's bad news for anyone riding that horse if they're thrown from the saddle in the middle of enemy infantry even if they manage to avoid the horse falling on them.

This is a problem even armoured horses face, in fact, because you can't effectively armour a horse's legs and the more armour you pile on the rider and body of the horse, the more top-heavy and vulnerable to tripping the horse becomes.

 

Standard cavalry deployment throughout most of history was on the wing. The cavalry would initially fight the enemy cavalry while the infantry lines met. Then the victorious cavalry would attack the enemy infantry in the flank or rear. Obviously there was quite a bit of variation in exactly how this played out: Alexander's preference for instance was to use the initial engagements to open up a gap in the centre of the enemy line and charge there. But the cavalry were nevertheless charging at gaps, not at the main formed infantry line.

Not to say that cavalry never charged at a formed infantry line, but it was a massive risk that wasn't routinely attempted by competent generals. You could end up with something like at Antioch in 1098 if you were fortunate, but you could also find yourself with a Crécy.

[csuszka1948]

5 hours ago, Jon Snowfyre said:

Daenerys knew she was sacrificing Rhaego to “save” Drogo. “If I look back, I’m lost.” Is straight up admitting that MMD was right in telling Dany she knew. You could also interpret it as her refusing to think about the fact that she knew.

 

The 'I am look back, I'm lost' is refusal to constantly dwell in past traumas and failures (which is an easy mistake to fall into) and moving on.

 

That said, it seems she probably has unconsciously knew that Rhaego will be a sacrifice, not the horse (that's just something she tried to convince herself of), and probably could have made her peace with it if only Khal Drogo survived in a non-vegetative state.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

22 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

The 'I am look back, I'm lost' is refusal to constantly dwell in past traumas and failures (which is an easy mistake to fall into) and moving on.

 

That said, it seems she probably has unconsciously knew that Rhaego will be a sacrifice, not the horse (that's just something she tried to convince herself of), and probably could have made her peace with it if only Khal Drogo survived in a non-vegetative state.

Her thoughts immediately before that line are “Had she? Had she? If she looks back now she’s lost.” It’s literally her contemplating it then knowingly refusing to look back on it. Because she knows that the she knew.

[sifth]

Most of what we saw in the latter seasons of the show, wont happen in the books.

[astarkchoice]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

-Considering it was attack on a fortified city, side with 3k should have won even if it were a surprise attack. And it wasn't - Qohor had refused payment, they will have known what was coming.

-And of course Unsullied are sold as a valuable bodyguard unit! Firstly, they are expensive, which means that they are useful as a status symbol. Even Daenerys observes that the bodyguard Unsullied do not look capable of fighting, which should tell you something about priorities of the people buying them. Secondly, they are mostly bought by rich people who do not actually expect facing a proper military attack.

-Why would anyone bother wiping out Dothraki? They are not much of a threat, and nomatic people are a pain to track down and destroy. Nearly impossible, in fact, because they can disappear into the uninhabited plains where sedentary army simply cannot follow. And not to forget that Dothraki provide a good source of slaves (though no answer where and how they capture them).

-l was talking about worldbuilding and realism in worldbuilding, not battle descriptions. In descriptions themselves, Tolkien went for poetic effect over Martin's detailed droning... but the fundamentals of what he is describing are far more solid than in Martin's case (and where he does make mistakes, they are usually a result of outdated scholarship available at the time rather than him not being aware). For example, Tolkien's battles are far more similar to Illiad than anything else - but organization and recruitment of armies makes much more sense than similar systems we see in Martin's world.

-Please explain? Because frankly, what we see in the pits is absolutely nothing like what actual troops will have fough as. And in fact, seeing how "knights" slaughter the "Dothraki" in the pits, Martin seems to have realized that. Maybe he will retcon the Dothraki into something actually dangerous... or maybe he will just have them perform as they objectively should - which is to say, they will get annihilated.

-We see time and again that Dothraki are not exactly the brightest bunch. Besides, Mongols, who were far more dangerous than Dothraki, got defeated in Europe.

-I doubt Unsullied would be a match for Westerosi pikemen. Knights would be an overkill.

 

-generaly accepted that even a strong defensive postion gives a 3:1 advantage to the defenders..thats still short (10k vs 3k) ...besides we have 0 idea how they were deployed the qohor wlite may have ordered them outside for all we know

-bodyguards are hired to protect from real dangers  only the suicidal would hire a force thats a 'status symbol'  whn in actual peril! Actual  rich people in cities full of slaves , sellswords, assasins ,rivals and the countless  hungry will be in danger ! They are no doubt expensive as they are utterly loyal but thats useless if they dont actualy work vs a threat.

- Why would anyone bother to wipe out an indigenous people who are militarily inferior and rich? Lol like any history book of  anywhere would sorta awnser that one ,the westerosi style   sellswords would have long ago slaughtered them and replaced them as slaver sellers and the free cities sure as hell wouldnt pay tribute when renting sellswords would be cheaper and they are  plentiful.

-no toilken is more flawed there esp with the orcs (different languges and cant speak to each other but form armies with massive logistics?  ) 

-the pits have existed for centuries pitting all kinds of warriors vs each other thus they have seen knights before.  A just as valid counter point to the 'dothraki vs knight ' battle would be belwas vs the ghiscari knight.

-'we see time and again' erm no we see once at qohor. The only other battle we hear of a description is the battle of crows and they do a decent simple encirclement. We know dothraki do leave the khalassars and travel the free cities ..other than the bizzare  no armour b.s they are clearly not the savages the westerosi think they are...and yeah mongols lost in europe but you might have heard they and the huns won a lot too right? 

-vs pikemen on their own? Nope   , the dominace of  SUPPORTED swiss  pikemen owes as much to them being  some of  the 1st professionals vs feudal troops. In this case itd be the other way round meaning the trained from birth troops would be facing by modern standards amatuers/part timers ...theyd be flanked by the much more slicker drilled pros  in next  no time esp as the unsullied have the much easier to move with weaponry and thats before we talk the other weakness of pikemen is  missles...we know the eunchs use throwing spears too so theyd ve walking into volleys from 'men' trained from birth.

 

Vs knights we know they cna form.dense blocks with spearwalls to absorb charges and vs dismounted theyd prob be at a disadvantage..but that said knights are a small.elite of westeros forces thus its expected. 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by astarkchoice