Aldarion Posted August 19, 2023 Author Share Posted August 19, 2023 On 8/9/2023 at 11:08 PM, csuszka1948 said: Which ones? She only calls Ned and Tywin Usurper's dogs maybe once in ADWD, and they are dead. She won't blame their children. She does twice just in ADWD: Quote The Usurper will kill you, sure as sunrise, Mormont had said. Robert had slain her gallant brother Rhaegar, and one of his creatures had crossed the Dothraki sea to poison her and her unborn son. They said Robert Baratheon was strong as a bull and fearless in battle, a man who loved nothing better than war. And with him stood the great lords her brother had named the Usurper’s dogs, cold-eyed Eddard Stark with his frozen heart, and the golden Lannisters, father and son, so rich, so powerful, so treacherous. Quote “Ned Stark a traitor?” Ser Jorah snorted. “Not bloody likely. The Long Summer will come again before that one would besmirch his precious honor.” “What honor could he have?” Dany said. “He was a traitor to his true king, as were these Lannisters.” It pleased her to hear that the Usurper’s dogs were fighting amongst themselves, though she was unsurprised. The same thing happened when her Drogo died, and his great khalasar tore itself to pieces. “My brother is dead as well, Viserys who was the true king,” she told the Summer Islander. “Khal Drogo my lord husband killed him with a crown of molten gold.” Would her brother have been any wiser, had he known that the vengeance he had prayed for was so close at hand? On 8/9/2023 at 10:20 PM, Alester Florent said: Well, either that or you've now edited the article since my post earlier to correct the mistake. Which is fine, you know, it is a mistake and there's no harm in correcting it. But editing out the mistake and trying to pretend it wasn't there and therefore I haven't read the article properly is just plain bad faith, if not outright gaslighting. Maybe you didn't. But it's remarkably coincidental that the version saved on Wayback has the "Henry" error in the same paragraph you quote above: As far as I can remember, I edited only the introduction, which is to say, the exact part that you pointed out. I might have noticed the mistake in the body of the article and fixed it at an earlier date. But at the time of our discussion, that was the state of the article as it was. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -agreed they are a cheap knock off and slave engineers werent slaves...yet in this world apparently they are and are freely available which is all that matters On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -coveres before the clanker lords managed it so can the dothraki and whatver allies they bring Do we know that? I mean, we only really know that Dothraki conquered cities during the Century of Blood,and that these cities were fighting against each other and using Dothraki as mercenaries until the final decisive battle. We do not know how exactly they did it, and we know that the Free Cities for example don't exactly fear the Dothraki. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -they understand they jsut reject it jsut as amish reject electric dude. Nope most of their various opp wore armour even the sanori were ate told silk under steel as will the sellswords theyve most likely fought against ( and some alongside them) since the centrury of blood Amish however manage to live without electricity. Dothraki rejecting armor is beyond retarded. Sarnori horsemen were said to have worn armor, yes, I remember. Nothing on their infantry that I can recall though. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -weve covered this in depth the 1st 3 men are formed like bayonet men who defended much larger horses of cavalry lancers (with at least 3 ranks behind giving depth and in this case throwing spears) muskets helped keep them at bay at a distance and helped somewhat with disrupting charges (didnt stop them as theres reports of horse charging on with blood squirting from musket wounds plus obviously they cant reload in time before the next man and beast behind the 1st row hits) so it was actualy the triple bayonett hedge that as often drove heavy cavalry with lances back. Now sometimes they did break through but thats true of pikes too. Again only a moron would send them against such a wall anyway ! heavy cavalry are supposed to hit gaps in formations not walls esp as in this period heavy cavalry arent just a unit to be sent vs suicidaly hard reisistance , they are politicaly important vassals and sons of vassals........even robbs successful cavalry campaign takes losses which have political impacts ! So yes while its posible to break a shield and spear wall or pike with heavy infantry only a moron would risk the politicaly sensitive losses to kill some slaves/former slaves. And yeah throwing spears will work just fine sport. That simply will not work against what is basically 15th century heavy cavalry. Yes, heavy cavalry will hit the gaps if it can. Of course it will - you seek every advantage you can get. You don't send heavy cavalry into a frontal charge against infantry if you can avoid it. But to say that "only a moron would send them against such a wall" is simply not true. Heavy cavalry was very frequently deployed precisely to smash enemy infantry formations. Again, you avoid it if you can, but even so, heavy cavalry did charge against ordered infantry throughout history, and oftentimes with significant success. In fact, several of the attacks on the list below were made against the pikes: Gaugamela, 313 BC: Persian heavy cavalry charged and penetrated Macedonian phalanx. Then they proceeded to loot the Macedonian train instead of engaging the phalanx from behind. Alexander's Companion cavalry then charged and smashed Darius' royal guard and the Greek mercenaries guarding the king, basically winning the battle then and there. Alexander's tactics in general were basically built around "and then heavy cavalry smashed stuff". Carrhae, 53 BC: After horse archers forced the Romans to bunch up, cataphracts charged Roman infantry multiple times, inflicting heavy casualties. Nisibis, 217 AD: Persian cataphracts charged the front of Roman legions, but their charge was broken up by caltrops. Still, after several more charges, Roman army was at the verge of collapse by the time truce had been agreed. Byzantine military manuals specifically state that cataphracts will smash spears with their armor: Nikephoros Phokas introduced menavlotoi (pikemen) specifically because he expected Arabs to outfit their cavalry with armor “so that the spears of the infantrymen will be smashed to pieces by these men, and by using these horsemen the enemy will shatter the infantry units” (Praecepta Militaria) And again later in the same text: “the spears of the enemy infantry in the front lines will be smashed by the kataphraktoi, while their arrows will be ineffective, as will the menavla of their javeliners. Then, with the help of God, they will turn to flight. When they do turn to flight, it is not the kataphraktoi who should undertake the pursuit but their two accompanying units trailing behind them.” Nikephoros Outanos in Taktika also requests menavlotoi because “If the enemy has learned of our infantry units and they prepare kataphraktoi so as to protect themselves and their horses with armor, these kataphraktoi will shatter the spears of the infantrymen and break up our units, so, in that event, the menavlatoi must be at the ready in the back and on whichever side they see the enemy kataphraktoi attacking, these menavlatoi must immediately move out through the aforementioned intervals and take their places in front of the infantry formation.”. Again Ouranos, this time writing on Byzantine cavalry tactics: “On the assumption that the enemy infantry force is of heavy infantrymen, if they are standing in front of their cavalry units, out kataphraktoi must not be afraid but should instead proceed very calmly and aim the front of the triangular formation directly at the spot where the enemy leader is standing. Then the spears of the enemy infantrymen standing in front of their cavalry will be smashed by our kataphraktoi, while their arrows and the menavla of their javeliners will be ineffective because of the armor of our kataphraktoi. And so, with the help of God, the enemy will be routed.”. Battle of Raj, 811 AD: Amin's army, numbering 50 000, was destroyed by Mamun's army which numbered 5 000. Reason for Mamun's victory was a charge by Khwarazmian heavy cavalry which killed commander of Amin's forces. Battle of Ramla, 1101: Crusader army under Balwin had only 260 heavy cavalry and 900 infantry against some 3 000 – 5 000 Egyptian soldiers. Crusader infantry was nearly wiped out, but when Egyptians were pursuing the third division, Baldwin ordered a counter-attack. Egyptian forces were broken up by cavalry charge and dispersed. Battle of Jaffa, 1192: Saladin's horse archers refused to charge Crusader infantry, instead simply shooting arrows from close range. Battle of Bordeaux, 732: Umayyad heavy cavalry easily broke Aquitaine infantry. Battle of Tours, 732: Umayyad heavy cavalry managed to break through Frankish lines after several charges, but just as they were doing that their camp got attacked. They withdrew to defend the camp, and this withdrawal quickly turned into a rout. Legnano, 1176: Imperial cavalry charged Lombard infantry multiple times. Lombards won in the end due to a strong defensive position and timely reinforcement. Falkirk, 1298: English heavy cavalry repeatedly charged Scottish pikemen, losing 111 horses. These charges failed to destroy the Scottish schiltron until English brought in their own archers to bombard Scottish positions. Bannockburn, 1314: English cavalry was disordered by crossing the river and got destroyed by advancing Scottish pikemen. Nancy 1477: Burgundian cavalry was largely seen off by Swiss cavalry. Nevertheless, last desperate charge by Burgundians against Swiss pikemen nearly penetrated to the banners. Cerignola, 1503: French cavalry charges repulsed by Spanish arquebus and artillery fire. Ravenna, 1512: French gendarmes charged Spanish pikemen multiple times and eventually defeated them. Marignano, 1515: Both the artillery and the pikemen failed to stop the advance of Swiss pikemen. Swiss were only pushed back by successive charges of French heavy cavalry. When it comes to infantry squares, they defeated cavalry charges by musket fire. Note that you do not need to stop cavalry charge dead in its tracks to defeat it: a formation that had been disordered has automatically lost most of its impact. Bayonets may have been important in defending against cavalry, but bayonets alone were not enough. Infantry square that failed to shoot, or failed to shoot at correct time, was nearly always defeated by cavalry charge: Triconopoly, 1753: Maratha cavalry repelled by British firepower without ever engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Koln, 1757: Prussian 1st Dragoons mounted a head-on charge against the Austrian Botta regiment. Charge repelled by a salvo fired at ten paces, followed by a counterattack by several Saxon cavalry squadrons. Later in battle, Austrian dragoons attacked and completely destroyed the Infanterie Regiment 15, which was actually the Liebgarde (Royal Guard). Final cavalry charge of 56 squadrons completely overran the IR22 before throwing back the Prussian cavalry. Pyramids, 1798: Mamluk cavalry repelled by point-blank musket fire. Alexandria 1801: French cavalry charge mauls the 42nd Regiment of the Foot. Several other French cavalry charges were repelled earlier in the battle - and all were repelled by musket fire. Salamanca, 1812: British cavalry destroyed an infantry square, specifically that of 15th of the Line. Garcia Hernandez, 1812: British Third Squadron of the 1st Dragoons destroyed a square belonging to a battalion of 76th of the Line. Lutzen, 1813: nine Prussian cavalry squadrons destroyed infantry square of the French 37th Light Infantry. Second Prussian cavalry attacked was defeated by combined firepower of multiple interlocking French infantry squares. Haynau, 1813: twenty squadrons of Landwehr cavalry nearly destroyed six battalions of Maison's division. Mockern, 1813: several French infantry squares were destroyed by cavalry. Waterloo, 1815: Ney's cavalry charge failed, largely due to being literally bogged down in mud (and also attacking uphill). On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -there seems to be literaly 10s of thousands of them available at any time period in planetos Do we even see any large formations of the Unsullied beyond the 10 000 that Daenerys had bought? On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -no but they can get hold of the same slaves the clanker lords got hold of so the result is the same Those slaves wouldn't be able to hold against Winterfell's kitchen staff armed with cooking utensils... On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -the romans did send men charging after routed infantry and cavalry, just because they are running doesnt mean theyve decended into a mindless blob of men and all dicipline snd formations have gone somehow. The dothraki broke and ran it makes sense to persue and kill as many as possible before they can scatter or worse reform. The heavy infantry would persue+ kill for as long as the 100%cavalry enemy werent all at a distance + running too fast to be realistly chased, which will take time you can just get 10s of thousands of horses to trot back in the opposite direction...theres no reverse gear!!! thus for a while they will be a block of cavalry getting in each others way to run and heavy infantry can slice though that for a while thus ensuing they do run and keep running!!! No, they did not. Cavalry is faster than infantry. Romans themselves didn't exactly write military manuals, but Byzantine manuals make it clear that when the enemy is running away, cavalry is to be used for pursuit. Infantry, especially heavy infantry, is to stay in the rear and serve as a refuge should cavalry be counterattacked and forced back. In fact, Byzantines didn't even use heavy cavalry for pursuit - they too were to be held in reserve, while pursuing a defeated enemy was to be exclusively the provinence of light cavalry. As for cavalry getting into each others' way - true to an extent, but you don't need to sprint to catch cavalry that is at a literal standstill. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -actualy you want multiple forts, mixed heavy and light cavalry, lords that co ordinate ann stick to on a grand strategy , crossbowmen galore and it helps if the leader of the horde comming isnt a great leader at all. Many of the forified cities + fortresses that fell to dothraki were clearly close an interlinked to each other anyway. I'll need some evidence for that "clearly". All of the forts I remember falling to Dothraki were in fact fortified cities and towns, which by their very nature prevents them from being closely interlinked. And Westeros basically has exactly what you have noted here. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -they dont normaly besiege places either but they do use slaves tk do what they cant, just like the clanker lords did ....again like it or not grmm has established essosi slaves can just set up trench positions and make+ operate trebuchets here! Yeah, I guess that is a possibility. In the end, GRRM will just pull things out of his backside to get the results he wants. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -no ome ever said they were going alone ....shit i dont even think they will go i honestly think dany will just learn to bond with drogo the way they do with their horses and thats them finished from the story. True... On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -they still had at least half their known major forts and cities before they decided to focus up on the horselords and even before that by your constant sticking point that they could easily have hired westerosi style sellswords to drive them odf And? Cities and forts are useless with no defenders, and whatever remained of Sarnori military following the constant civil warfare was destroyed at the Field of Crows. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -lol so backtracking then? So the bloodrider DID know how to deal with someone in armour . He didnt rrpeatedly smash plate he bypassed jorahsnsword and went straight fornwhat his arkh could hurt ie face, mail and hand/wrists I'm not backtracking, you just do not understand what I am saying. Or are intentionally obfuscating. Read the description again: Quote Qotho wrenched the blade free. “Horselord,” Ser Jorah Mormont called. “Try me.” His longsword slid from its scabbard. Qotho whirled, cursing. The arakh moved so fast that Quaro’s blood flew from it in a fine spray, like rain in a hot wind. The longsword caught it a foot from Ser Jorah’s face, and held it quivering for an instant as Qotho howled in fury. The knight was clad in chainmail, with gauntlets and greaves of lobstered steel and a heavy gorget around his throat, but he had not thought to don his helm. Qotho danced backward, arakh whirling around his head in a shining blur, flickering out like lightning as the knight came on in a rush. Ser Jorah parried as best he could, but the slashes came so fast that it seemed to Dany that Qotho had four arakhs and as many arms. She heard the crunch of sword on mail, saw sparks fly as the long curved blade glanced off a gauntlet. Suddenly it was Mormont stumbling backward, and Qotho leaping to the attack. The left side of the knight’s face ran red with blood, and a cut to the hip opened a gash in his mail and left him limping. . Qotho screamed taunts at him, calling him a craven, a milk man, a eunuch in an iron suit. “You die now!” he promised, arakh shivering through the red twilight. Inside Dany’s womb, her son kicked wildly. The curved blade slipped past the straight one and bit deep into the knight’s hip where the mail gaped open. All Qotho did was throw random slashes until something finally caught. Had Mormont donned his helmet, that "fight" will have been much shorter than it was, because the only obvious vulnerability - and the only vulnerability Qotho may have attempted to exploit at all (assuming that wasn't just a random strike) - will have been gone. "The crunch of sword on mail", "sparks fly"... yeah, this guy wasn't even trying to stab through armor, which is what you do unless you can find a clear opening. Makes me think even that cut against Jorah's face may have been a fluke rather than attempt at exploiting obvious vulnerability. And no, arakh cannot hurt mail, wtf are you talking about? Yes, he managed to open one gash in the mail... after Jorah's mail defeated several of his cuts. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -yes round and round we f#£ing go ! Cavslry can penetra pike and spear, pike is better to repel with than spear but spear can repel cavalry Spear can repel cavalry... if cavalry doesn't have lances, or armor for horses which can smash spears, or archer support. Basically, spearmen can repel light cavalry. Westerosi heavy cavalry has all three of those. They have lances, they have barding for horses, and they have archer support. So for spearmen to repel Westerosi knights, they will need either field fortifications, major terrain advantage, or a blessing of the Seven Faced God, R'hllor, The Great Other, Cthulhu, Zeus, Krishna, and half a dozen other major deities combined. Yes, spearmen repelling knights is not impossible. But there is a major chasm between not impossible and this: On 7/31/2023 at 12:23 AM, astarkchoice said: The rest you typed is the same incorrect stuff we have covered already , spears can clearly do what bayonetts did and yes unsullied would need backing by kther mixed units...s would any westerosi infantry On 7/17/2023 at 5:14 PM, astarkchoice said: At qohor in grmms world 3k of these guys stood vs 50k cavalry..now minus lances or armour thats still fucking giant mass/momentum imbalance that shouldnt hold regardlesss of pike or anything but it did!! The unsullied will IN GRMMS world thus be just fine vs cavalry if given time to form up On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: - we were talking swiss pros vs fueudal paer timers , but in this case the pikemen are the part timers Swiss pikemen only became professional mercenaries because they performed so well back when they were part-time soldiers. Essentially, they cashed in on their reputation. So I'm not sure that really matters all that much, so long as they are trained. Of course, Westerosi pikemen won't be the Swiss, but still. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -semantics ..pike, spear and lance all pretty much the same thing modified No, they are not. Spear is held in one hand and is primarily a weapon for personal combat. This means that it must be light and short enough to be wielded in one hand, and also to be used in one-on-one scenarios. In order to remain useful, spear cannot be more than nine feet in length, and there is also a limit to how thick its shaft can be. Pike is held in two hands and is meant exclusively for formation fighting. If it comes to individual combat, pikeman will have to drop the pike. As a result, pikes absolutely require well-drilled and disciplined (semi)professional soldiers "Lance" is basically a name for cavalryman's spear, so yeah, it can be a spear or a pike... but the two are not the same. Early on lances were held the same as spears and used in a stabbing motion. This made it difficult for them to penetrate even mail, let alone something heavier. Later lances were more like pikes, in that they were unwieldy for single combat and had to be held under the armpit to stabilize them (lance arrest may have helped with this as well). On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -1) this was actualy as much to do with the feudal vs mass single army as well as the damage causes by nee missle types as anything all....and both could be flexible with numbers there My point was that the phalanx Romans had faced did not have its primary striking arm. A medieval army would have destroyed a Roman legion of similar size. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: 2) both where vunerable to flanking hence mixed infantry deployed alongside ,or within them. The smaller medieval.l ones could form anti cavalry squsres or schiltrons but thats not really a tactic thatl work vs infantry esp missle troops Actually, that is a tactic that will work against infantry - including the missile troops, assuming pikemen have good enough armor. Both the Swiss pike squares and Spanish tercios were notable for being able to fight even when completely surrounded. Hell, even Scottish schiltrons could do that - their problem was that they used a circular formation and were thus unable to act offensively. Medieval pike square was only vulnerable from flanking if it was already engaged by another pike square from the front. And even then, success was not guaranteed. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: 3)no if anything they were MORE vunerable to missle fire as firearms and cannon were comming into use (the real reason they didnt use sheilds too as guns where making them obselere everywhere) plus even ignoring that the slight increase in armour your talking about from alexanders time wasnt enough to compensate for the much larger jump in bow/crossbow punching power! Early firearms were not able to penetrate plate armor - even pikemen munitions armor - beyond very short distance. Swiss and even non-Swiss pike formations were able to simply charge the arquebusiers and wipe them out. Bow or crossbow cannot really penetrate even munitions plate from any useful distance. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: 4)at alexanders peak the macedon one had infantry at its flanks And cavalry, but that was not my point. My point was that medieval (and post-medieval) pike formations had contingency against Roman-esque penetration of their ranks that Macedonian phalanxes did not. For example, they often had halberdiers or spearmen at their center, and even if they did not, pikemen could simply drop the pikes and take up the sidearm... for a phalangite, that was far more difficult as their shields were crap for individual combat. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: 2) i love the "go pick up a history book" and 'the romans lucked out vs sucessors .....take your own advice their chum, even alexanders much more balanced force would have stuggled vs the legions You mean like Hannibal did? Guy basically used Alexander's tactics - in fact, a very simplified and watered down version of Alexander's tactics - and basically wiped the ground with Romans up until they copied his tactics. Hannibal used Alexander's tactics to defeat Romans while using second-rate infantry and first-rate cavalry. Alexandrian phalanx will have had not only infantry that was as good as Roman legions, but also cavalry that was easily as heavy if not heavier than anything Hannibal had fielded. Alexander will have wiped the floor with Romans. Reason why Romans managed to conquer the Successors is because Successors essentially did away with the cavalry arm. Without a cavalry arm, phalanx - which itself was far more unweildy than anything Alexander fielded - was simply incapable of forcing the decision on its own the way later Swiss pike squares could. Which then gave Romans enough time to delay until they got lucky. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: 3)you mean part timers vs people trained from birth and with marvel levels of stamina ...thatl end well for the feudal types lol Eunuchs will not have "marvel levels of stamina" regardless of how they are trained. And part-timers historically quite often wiped the floor with full-time professional armies: - Roman legions defeated the professional mercenary armies of Successors - Roman legions managed to defeat (tactically superior) professional army of Hannibal - Arab militias defeated professional Byzantine forces sent to face them - Byzantines stopped Arab conquests by transforming their army of full-time professionals into part-time landed troops - Ottoman armies which conquered central Europe in fact had greater proportion of conscripted or militia troops than the European feudal armies they faced, and their main striking force were feudal sipahis - Swiss militia pikemen defeated several professional armies, which then gave them enough clout to become professionals themselves On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -sigh lemme hand hold you though it again. The unsullied and iron legions clearly use elephants thus THEY must be drilled at flanking to avoid becomming roadkill Uh, citation. On 8/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, astarkchoice said: -can i borrow the one that convinced you knights were tanks and pikes were invincible and every thing else was basicaly paper? I never said anything about "invincible", so that will be hard since such a book doesn't exist. As for the rest: Eric McGeer - Sowing the Dragon's Teeth George T Dennis - Three Byzantine Military Treatises George T Dennis - Maurice's Strategikon Michael J Decker - The Byzantine Art of War Tamas Palosfavi - From Nicopolis to Mohacs On 8/9/2023 at 10:09 PM, SaffronLady said: Not like they did much better against Carthage's Gallic and Numidian light cavalry. Also, don't the Sassanids usually not take part in "High Empire" discussions? Rome's cavalry (both light and heavy) did get significantly better in Late Antiquity, after the High Empire era. They actually did quite well against Numidian light cavalry at Cannae. It was on the other flank, where they faced heavy Gallic and Spanish cavalry, that the Equites got defeated. Once that was done, Hannibal's heavy cavalry merely circled around and caught the Roman cavalry on the opposite flank in the rear. And yeah, Sassanids are the late Empire. I included them because it was their heavy cavalry which forced Romans to introduce changes (such as introducing heavy cavalry of their own). On 8/9/2023 at 11:08 PM, csuszka1948 said: When? I think you are confusing him with a member of the Golden Company who suggested it but Jon Connington shut it down: "The captains of the Golden Company exchanged glances. “If Storm’s End is still held by men loyal to Stannis, we will be taking it from him, not the Lannisters,” objected Brendel Byrne. “Why not make common cause with him against the Lannisters?” “Stannis is Robert’s brother, of that same ilk that brought down House Targaryen,” Jon Connington reminded him. “Moreover, he is a thousand leagues away, with whatever meagre strength he still commands. The whole realm lies between us. It would take half a year just to reach him, and he has little and less to offer to us" Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted August 19, 2023 Share Posted August 19, 2023 48 minutes ago, Aldarion said: She does twice just in ADWD: These are not in ADWD, Jorah has been exiled at the end of ASOS. She mentions it maybe once in ADWD, and connects their guilt to her guilt in the death of Hazzea, viewing herself as bad as them. It's not like she really cares about it or they matter when it comes to conquest since Ned and Tywin are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaffronLady Posted August 19, 2023 Share Posted August 19, 2023 1 hour ago, Aldarion said: They actually did quite well against Numidian light cavalry at Cannae. It was on the other flank, where they faced heavy Gallic and Spanish cavalry, that the Equites got defeated. Once that was done, Hannibal's heavy cavalry merely circled around and caught the Roman cavalry on the opposite flank in the rear. Ok, understood. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: These are not in ADWD, Jorah has been exiled at the end of ASOS. She mentions it maybe once in ADWD, and connects their guilt to her guilt in the death of Hazzea, viewing herself as bad as them. It's not like she really cares about it or they matter when it comes to conquest since Ned and Tywin are dead. 3 times, actually. Quote Dany had wanted to ban the tokar when she took Meereen, but her advisors had convinced her otherwise. "The Mother of Dragons must don the tokar or be forever hated," warned the Green Grace, Galazza Galare. "In the wools of Westeros or a gown of Myrish lace, Your Radiance shall forever remain a stranger amongst us, a grotesque outlander, a barbarian conqueror. Meereen's queen must be a lady of Old Ghis." Brown Ben Plumm, the captain of the Second Sons, had put it more succinctly. "Man wants to be the king o' the rabbits, he best wear a pair o' floppy ears." The floppy ears she chose today were made of sheer white linen, with a fringe of golden tassels. With Jhiqui's help, she wound the tokar about herself correctly on her third attempt. Irri fetched her crown, wrought in the shape of the three-headed dragon of her House. Its coils were gold, its wings silver, its three heads ivory, onyx, and jade. Dany's neck and shoulders would be stiff and sore from the weight of it before the day was done. A crown should not sit easy on the head. One of her royal forebears had said that, once. Some Aegon, but which one? Five Aegons had ruled the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper's dogs had murdered her brother's son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him. Aegon would have been closer to my age than Viserys. Dany had only been conceived when Aegon and his sister were murdered. Their father, her brother Rhaegar, perished even earlier, slain by the Usurper on the Trident. Her brother Viserys had died screaming in Vaes Dothrak with a crown of molten gold upon his head. They will kill me too if I allow it. The knives that slew my Stalwart Shield were meant for me. She had not forgotten the slave children the Great Masters had nailed up along the road from Yunkai. They had numbered one hundred sixty-three, a child every mile, nailed to mileposts with one arm outstretched to point her way. After Meereen had fallen, Dany had nailed up a like number of Great Masters. Swarms of flies had attended their slow dying, and the stench had lingered long in the plaza. Yet some days she feared that she had not gone far enough. These Meereenese were a sly and stubborn people who resisted her at every turn. They had freed their slaves, yes … only to hire them back as servants at wages so meagre that most could scarce afford to eat. Those too old or young to be of use had been cast into the streets, along with the infirm and the crippled. And still the Great Masters gathered atop their lofty pyramids to complain of how the dragon queen had filled their noble city with hordes of unwashed beggars, thieves, and whores. Quote "You have no lack of enemies, Your Grace. You can see their pyramids from your terrace. Zhak, Hazkar, Ghazeen, Merreq, Loraq, all the old slaving families. Pahl. Pahl, most of all. A house of women now. Bitter old women with a taste for blood. Women do not forget. Women do not forgive." No, Dany thought, and the Usurper's dogs will learn that, when I return to Westeros. It was true that there was blood between her and the House of Pahl. Oznak zo Pahl had been cut down by Strong Belwas in single combat. His father, commander of Meereen's city watch, had died defending the gates when Joso's Cock smashed them into splinters. Three uncles had been among the hundred sixty-three on the plaza. "How much gold have we offered for information concerning the Sons of the Harpy?" Dany asked. "One hundred honors, if it please Your Radiance." Quote "Never. That was Lannister work, Your Grace." "Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …" The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, "I have to see the pit," in a voice as small as a child's whisper. "Take me down, ser, if you would." A flicker of disapproval crossed the old man's face, but it was not his way to question his queen. "As you command." Aldarion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted August 19, 2023 Share Posted August 19, 2023 2 hours ago, Aldarion said: -Do we know that? I mean, we only really know that Dothraki conquered cities during the Century of Blood,and that these cities were fighting against each other and using Dothraki as mercenaries until the final decisive battle. We do not know how exactly they did it, and we know that the Free Cities for example don't exactly fear the Dothraki. -Amish however manage to live without electricity. Dothraki rejecting armor is beyond retarded. -Sarnori horsemen were said to have worn armor, yes, I remember. Nothing on their infantry that I can recall though. -That simply will not work against what is basically 15th century heavy cavalry. Yes, heavy cavalry will hit the gaps if it can. Of course it will - you seek every advantage you can get. You don't send heavy cavalry into a frontal charge against infantry if you can avoid it. But to say that "only a moron would send them against such a wall" is simply not true. Heavy cavalry was very frequently deployed precisely to smash enemy infantry formations. Again, you avoid it if you can, but even so, heavy cavalry did charge against ordered infantry throughout history, and oftentimes with significant success. In fact, several of the attacks on the list below were made against the pikes: Gaugamela, 313 BC: Persian heavy cavalry charged and penetrated Macedonian phalanx. Then they proceeded to loot the Macedonian train instead of engaging the phalanx from behind. Alexander's Companion cavalry then charged and smashed Darius' royal guard and the Greek mercenaries guarding the king, basically winning the battle then and there. Alexander's tactics in general were basically built around "and then heavy cavalry smashed stuff". Carrhae, 53 BC: After horse archers forced the Romans to bunch up, cataphracts charged Roman infantry multiple times, inflicting heavy casualties. Nisibis, 217 AD: Persian cataphracts charged the front of Roman legions, but their charge was broken up by caltrops. Still, after several more charges, Roman army was at the verge of collapse by the time truce had been agreed. Byzantine military manuals specifically state that cataphracts will smash spears with their armor: Nikephoros Phokas introduced menavlotoi (pikemen) specifically because he expected Arabs to outfit their cavalry with armor “so that the spears of the infantrymen will be smashed to pieces by these men, and by using these horsemen the enemy will shatter the infantry units” (Praecepta Militaria) And again later in the same text: “the spears of the enemy infantry in the front lines will be smashed by the kataphraktoi, while their arrows will be ineffective, as will the menavla of their javeliners. Then, with the help of God, they will turn to flight. When they do turn to flight, it is not the kataphraktoi who should undertake the pursuit but their two accompanying units trailing behind them.” Nikephoros Outanos in Taktika also requests menavlotoi because “If the enemy has learned of our infantry units and they prepare kataphraktoi so as to protect themselves and their horses with armor, these kataphraktoi will shatter the spears of the infantrymen and break up our units, so, in that event, the menavlatoi must be at the ready in the back and on whichever side they see the enemy kataphraktoi attacking, these menavlatoi must immediately move out through the aforementioned intervals and take their places in front of the infantry formation.”. Again Ouranos, this time writing on Byzantine cavalry tactics: “On the assumption that the enemy infantry force is of heavy infantrymen, if they are standing in front of their cavalry units, out kataphraktoi must not be afraid but should instead proceed very calmly and aim the front of the triangular formation directly at the spot where the enemy leader is standing. Then the spears of the enemy infantrymen standing in front of their cavalry will be smashed by our kataphraktoi, while their arrows and the menavla of their javeliners will be ineffective because of the armor of our kataphraktoi. And so, with the help of God, the enemy will be routed.”. Battle of Raj, 811 AD: Amin's army, numbering 50 000, was destroyed by Mamun's army which numbered 5 000. Reason for Mamun's victory was a charge by Khwarazmian heavy cavalry which killed commander of Amin's forces. Battle of Ramla, 1101: Crusader army under Balwin had only 260 heavy cavalry and 900 infantry against some 3 000 – 5 000 Egyptian soldiers. Crusader infantry was nearly wiped out, but when Egyptians were pursuing the third division, Baldwin ordered a counter-attack. Egyptian forces were broken up by cavalry charge and dispersed. Battle of Jaffa, 1192: Saladin's horse archers refused to charge Crusader infantry, instead simply shooting arrows from close range. Battle of Bordeaux, 732: Umayyad heavy cavalry easily broke Aquitaine infantry. Battle of Tours, 732: Umayyad heavy cavalry managed to break through Frankish lines after several charges, but just as they were doing that their camp got attacked. They withdrew to defend the camp, and this withdrawal quickly turned into a rout. Legnano, 1176: Imperial cavalry charged Lombard infantry multiple times. Lombards won in the end due to a strong defensive position and timely reinforcement. Falkirk, 1298: English heavy cavalry repeatedly charged Scottish pikemen, losing 111 horses. These charges failed to destroy the Scottish schiltron until English brought in their own archers to bombard Scottish positions. Bannockburn, 1314: English cavalry was disordered by crossing the river and got destroyed by advancing Scottish pikemen. Nancy 1477: Burgundian cavalry was largely seen off by Swiss cavalry. Nevertheless, last desperate charge by Burgundians against Swiss pikemen nearly penetrated to the banners. Cerignola, 1503: French cavalry charges repulsed by Spanish arquebus and artillery fire. Ravenna, 1512: French gendarmes charged Spanish pikemen multiple times and eventually defeated them. Marignano, 1515: Both the artillery and the pikemen failed to stop the advance of Swiss pikemen. Swiss were only pushed back by successive charges of French heavy cavalry. -When it comes to infantry squares, they defeated cavalry charges by musket fire. Note that you do not need to stop cavalry charge dead in its tracks to defeat it: a formation that had been disordered has automatically lost most of its impact. Bayonets may have been important in defending against cavalry, but bayonets alone were not enough. Infantry square that failed to shoot, or failed to shoot at correct time, was nearly always defeated by cavalry charge: Triconopoly, 1753: Maratha cavalry repelled by British firepower without ever engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Koln, 1757: Prussian 1st Dragoons mounted a head-on charge against the Austrian Botta regiment. Charge repelled by a salvo fired at ten paces, followed by a counterattack by several Saxon cavalry squadrons. Later in battle, Austrian dragoons attacked and completely destroyed the Infanterie Regiment 15, which was actually the Liebgarde (Royal Guard). Final cavalry charge of 56 squadrons completely overran the IR22 before throwing back the Prussian cavalry. Pyramids, 1798: Mamluk cavalry repelled by point-blank musket fire. Alexandria 1801: French cavalry charge mauls the 42nd Regiment of the Foot. Several other French cavalry charges were repelled earlier in the battle - and all were repelled by musket fire. Salamanca, 1812: British cavalry destroyed an infantry square, specifically that of 15th of the Line. Garcia Hernandez, 1812: British Third Squadron of the 1st Dragoons destroyed a square belonging to a battalion of 76th of the Line. Lutzen, 1813: nine Prussian cavalry squadrons destroyed infantry square of the French 37th Light Infantry. Second Prussian cavalry attacked was defeated by combined firepower of multiple interlocking French infantry squares. Haynau, 1813: twenty squadrons of Landwehr cavalry nearly destroyed six battalions of Maison's division. Mockern, 1813: several French infantry squares were destroyed by cavalry. Waterloo, 1815: Ney's cavalry charge failed, largely due to being literally bogged down in mud (and also attacking uphill). -Do we even see any large formations of the Unsullied beyond the 10 000 that Daenerys had bought? -Those slaves wouldn't be able to hold against Winterfell's kitchen staff armed with cooking utensils... -No, they did not. Cavalry is faster than infantry. Romans themselves didn't exactly write military manuals, but Byzantine manuals make it clear that when the enemy is running away, cavalry is to be used for pursuit. Infantry, especially heavy infantry, is to stay in the rear and serve as a refuge should cavalry be counterattacked and forced back. n fact, Byzantines didn't even use heavy cavalry for pursuit - they too were to be held in reserve, while pursuing a defeated enemy was to be exclusively the provinence of light cavalry. As for cavalry getting into each others' way - true to an extent, but you don't need to sprint to catch cavalry that is at a literal standstill. -I'll need some evidence for that "clearly". All of the forts I remember falling to Dothraki were in fact fortified cities and towns, which by their very nature prevents them from being closely interlinked. And Westeros basically has exactly what you have noted here. -And? Cities and forts are useless with no defenders, and whatever remained of Sarnori military following the constant civil warfare was destroyed at the Field of Crows. -I'm not backtracking, you just do not understand what I am saying. Or are intentionally obfuscating. Read the description again: All Qotho did was throw random slashes until something finally caught. Had Mormont donned his helmet, that "fight" will have been much shorter than it was, because the only obvious vulnerability - and the only vulnerability Qotho may have attempted to exploit at all (assuming that wasn't just a random strike) - will have been gone. "The crunch of sword on mail", "sparks fly"... yeah, this guy wasn't even trying to stab through armor, which is what you do unless you can find a clear opening. Makes me think even that cut against Jorah's face may have been a fluke rather than attempt at exploiting obvious vulnerability. -And no, arakh cannot hurt mail, wtf are you talking about? Yes, he managed to open one gash in the mail... after Jorah's mail defeated several of his cuts. -Spear can repel cavalry... if cavalry doesn't have lances, or armor for horses which can smash spears, or archer support. Basically, spearmen can repel light cavalry. Westerosi heavy cavalry has all three of those. They have lances, they have barding for horses, and they have archer support. So for spearmen to repel Westerosi knights, they will need either field fortifications, major terrain advantage, or a blessing of the Seven Faced God, R'hllor, The Great Other, Cthulhu, Zeus, Krishna, and half a dozen other major deities combined. Yes, spearmen repelling knights is not impossible. But there is a major chasm between not impossible and this: -Swiss pikemen only became professional mercenaries because they performed so well back when they were part-time soldiers. Essentially, they cashed in on their reputation. So I'm not sure that really matters all that much, so long as they are trained. Of course, Westerosi pikemen won't be the Swiss, but still. No, they are not. -Spear is held in one hand and is primarily a weapon for personal combat. This means that it must be light and short enough to be wielded in one hand, and also to be used in one-on-one scenarios. In order to remain useful, spear cannot be more than nine feet in length, and there is also a limit to how thick its shaft can be. Pike is held in two hands and is meant exclusively for formation fighting. If it comes to individual combat, pikeman will have to drop the pike. As a result, pikes absolutely require well-drilled and disciplined (semi)professional soldiers "Lance" is basically a name for cavalryman's spear, so yeah, it can be a spear or a pike... but the two are not the same. Early on lances were held the same as spears and used in a stabbing motion. This made it difficult for them to penetrate even mail, let alone something heavier. Later lances were more like pikes, in that they were unwieldy for single combat and had to be held under the armpit to stabilize them (lance arrest may have helped with this as well). -My point was that the phalanx Romans had faced did not have its primary striking arm. A medieval army would have destroyed a Roman legion of similar size. Actually, that is a tactic that will work against infantry - including the missile troops, assuming pikemen have good enough armor. -Both the Swiss pike squares and Spanish tercios were notable for being able to fight even when completely surrounded. Hell, even Scottish schiltrons could do that - their problem was that they used a circular formation and were thus unable to act offensively. Medieval pike square was only vulnerable from flanking if it was already engaged by another pike square from the front. And even then, success was not guaranteed. Early firearms were not able to penetrate plate armor - even pikemen munitions armor - beyond very short distance. Swiss and even non-Swiss pike formations were able to simply charge the arquebusiers and wipe them out. Bow or crossbow cannot really penetrate even munitions plate from any useful distance. -And cavalry, but that was not my point. My point was that medieval (and post-medieval) pike formations had contingency against Roman-esque penetration of their ranks that Macedonian phalanxes did not. For example, they often had halberdiers or spearmen at their center, and even if they did not, pikemen could simply drop the pikes and take up the sidearm... for a phalangite, that was far more difficult as their shields were crap for individual combat. -You mean like Hannibal did? Guy basically used Alexander's tactics - in fact, a very simplified and watered down version of Alexander's tactics - and basically wiped the ground with Romans up until they copied his tactics. Hannibal used Alexander's tactics to defeat Romans while using second-rate infantry and first-rate cavalry. Alexandrian phalanx will have had not only infantry that was as good as Roman legions, but also cavalry that was easily as heavy if not heavier than anything Hannibal had fielded. -Alexander will have wiped the floor with Romans. Reason why Romans managed to conquer the Successors is because Successors essentially did away with the cavalry arm. Without a cavalry arm, phalanx - which itself was far more unweildy than anything Alexander fielded - was simply incapable of forcing the decision on its own the way later Swiss pike squares could. Which then gave Romans enough time to delay until they got lucky. -Eunuchs will not have "marvel levels of stamina" regardless of how they are trained. -And part-timers historically quite often wiped the floor with full-time professional armies: - Roman legions defeated the professional mercenary armies of Successors - Roman legions managed to defeat (tactically superior) professional army of Hannibal - Arab militias defeated professional Byzantine forces sent to face them - Byzantines stopped Arab conquests by transforming their army of full-time professionals into part-time landed troops - Ottoman armies which conquered central Europe in fact had greater proportion of conscripted or militia troops than the European feudal armies they faced, and their main striking force were feudal sipahis - Swiss militia pikemen defeated several professional armies, which then gave them enough clout to become professionals themselves -Uh, citation. -I never said anything about "invincible", so that will be hard since such a book doesn't exist. As for the rest: Eric McGeer - Sowing the Dragon's Teeth George T Dennis - Three Byzantine Military Treatises George T Dennis - Maurice's Strategikon Michael J Decker - The Byzantine Art of War Tamas Palosfavi - From Nicopolis to Mohacs -no only the sanori were fighting amongst themselves theres various other cultures whos cities were sacked -i agree they should use armour but the sources do seem to show they clearly understand it -we are told their warriors wore steel...itd be odd to assume only some did unless it specificaly says otherwise - right no one said heavy cavalry cant penetrate spear/pike just that a straight on charges were wasteful esp in this period where we see many of that heavy cavalry are the very vassals who make up your power base.....robbs sucesful opening gambit vs lannisters for example had political fallout due to havy cavaly deaths. -so again musket can only get the 1st line of cavalry lancers incomming and even then muskets werent that accurate and we hear time abd again of horses charging on with blood pumping from wounds! These were much bigger horses thus even minus armour these lancer charges would gave wayy more momentum than anything a medieval charge could have...all stopped by bayonetts ! -we are talking about sellswords , theres 10s of thousands of sellswords thus by your logic no city had to fall. -were talking about the slaves who built the trenches , scorpions and trebuchts etc -yes cavalry are faster but as they rout and turn the other way to run the heavyb infantry would charge to kill as many as humanly possible in the short time before their foes can get to greater distances! -most seem to be fortress cities close to one another esp the ghiscari, quarthi and sanori ones. -again you are speculating these cities didnt have sufficent forces to defend themselves -several is a number you grasped from nowhere, the fight also clearly describes a fighter not getting lucky but clearly knows how to deal with an armoured opp His opening strike is to jorahs unarmoured face blocked by his longsword, then theres slashs that jorah PARRIES ie sword vs sword. This is followed by a crunch of sword on mail and a strike to a gauntlet. One to the unarmoured face again then one hits through the mail to a hip and finaly a follow up to the mail opening!! -??? We literaly read and u posted an exert where we see the arkh clearly has enough weight to get through mail! -yeah weve done this to death now spear can defeat heavy armoured lancers, not as easily as pike and yes the cavalry can still win vs both straight on byt again thats a waste of lords and knights. -pike is a long spear, you are getting into semantics here ..youd gave to graps a long enough spear with 2 hands - a late roman army vs the more mixed arms of a medieval army then yes..... but infantry alone vs infantry then pretty even -cool but no one here is wearing anti munitions plate theys ve wearing at very best the armour in the vid i posted a few pages back -right so FINALY we get to the fact pikemen could be flanked and infiltrated thus had weapons or specalists amonst them to deal with that -hanibal? You mean phyrus sport hannibals tactics didnt resemble alexanders at all (bar zamma where he was making the best of being dealt a bad hand) and both those men had 1st rate infantry. -alexander was a genius but the roman maniple systems strength was that it worked often IN SPITE of its leadership , its much more flexible and mobile than even alexanders phalanx. Alexander wouldnt have had an east time with them no esp if a genius emerges among their leaders (as often did in emergencies) .......not that it would have mattered rome and alexanders empire wernt in the same weight class when they were around the same time! rome was still a pygmy international terms when alexander was at his peak -sigh..enuchs shouldnt have but we are told these ones DO ...so for the sake of this forum thats all that matters!.somehow they have these levels of stamina despite it not being physicaly possible for eunuchs. -so you are actualy somehow trying to suggest being a part timer is better than being a full time professional here....our own armies disgree -so by training to an extent they were wsy slahead of their peers innterms of cohesion, skill and speed of moving and workign formation...as the unsullied will be -we are told the new ghis legions use elphants and are the poor mans unsullied thus logicaly the ghiscari legions training will consist of being able to split up and flank to avoid being pancakes -thats ok you have already conceded pikemen ..even late era professionals needed different weapons or troops with other weapons among them due to infitrations and flanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted September 12, 2023 Author Share Posted September 12, 2023 On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -no only the sanori were fighting amongst themselves theres various other cultures whos cities were sacked And we have no clue how they did it, so it is useless for estimating how good Dothraki were back then. Also, what are these "various other cultures"? We know that e.g. Qarth survived specifically because of its impressive city walls. Also, even if we assume that Century of Blood Dothraki were in fact competent military, current Dothraki are essentially resting on the laurels, collecting tribute and bullying the Lhazareen. Dothraki, as they are, are not an army - they are mafia dons running a protection racket. And people are paying them because it is cheaper than maintaining constant war readiness to chase them off, plus, destroying Dothraki is impossible as they can just run away into the Dothraki Sea. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -i agree they should use armour but the sources do seem to show they clearly understand it They don't use armor, they don't use weapons that were specifically designed to deal with armor - in fact, all weapons that Dothraki use are designed specifically for use against unarmored opponents. So what exactly is there to show that Dothraki "clearly understand" armor? On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -we are told their warriors wore steel...itd be odd to assume only some did unless it specificaly says otherwise Uh, what? Armor is expensive. You cannot just "assume" that the entire army is armored - or unarmored, for that matter - unless we know. There were cases where everybody was completely unarmored (e.g. Picts), where only nobility wore armor while commoners were completely unarmored (e.g. Gallic tribes), where cavalry were armored in metal but infantry wore gambesons at best (e.g. Byzantine Empire), where basically the entire armies were armored in plate armor (e.g. late 15th century and 16th century Europe)... even in-universe, we see significant differentiation. In Westeros, cavalrymen wear typically full plate armor, while infantry are limited to mail armor at best But the only thing that indicates one way or another is this passage: Quote As the chariots thundered after the fleeing horsemen, the High King and his armored riders plunged in after them, followed by the Sarnori foot, waving their spears and screaming victory And this clearly indicates that no, Sarnori foot did not wear armor. You simply do not run in full armor for long distances: it is hot, it is uncomfortable and it is heavy. Now, you can sprint for short distances if needed: hoplites at Marathon did so, for example. But running after retreating enemy? Yeah, no. Sarnori infantry were undisciplined light infantry. The end. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: - right no one said heavy cavalry cant penetrate spear/pike just that a straight on charges were wasteful esp in this period where we see many of that heavy cavalry are the very vassals who make up your power base.....robbs sucesful opening gambit vs lannisters for example had political fallout due to havy cavaly deaths. And I have already pointed out that generally, head-on charge into ordered infantry was not done. But if the Unsullied overwhelm Westerosi infantry (which by itself is already highly unlikely), then yes, heavy cavalry charge is an option. And it is likely to be successful. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -so again musket can only get the 1st line of cavalry lancers incomming and even then muskets werent that accurate and we hear time abd again of horses charging on with blood pumping from wounds! These were much bigger horses thus even minus armour these lancer charges would gave wayy more momentum than anything a medieval charge could have...all stopped by bayonetts ! And you are making stuff up again. Cavalry charge could be stopped by the bayonetts if and only if it was previously disordered (by musket fire, by physical obstacles, whatever). It doesn't matter that muskets can only get the first line of lancers: what matters is that their momentum is broken and formation disordered. Essentially, the goal was to a) cause confusion and disorder in the enemy ranks while b) creating a rampart of horse flesh just in front of the infantry formation. Because infantry knew that if the cavalry got within sabre range, it will penetrate the square. Disciplined infantry would hold fire until the last moment: at Koln in 1757, Botta regiment fired a salvo when Prussian dragoons were dozen paces away, and it was this salvo, not Botta's bayonets, that stopped Prussian charge. On Prussian side however, IR15 and IR22 were completely destroyed by cavalry charge. Whenever infantry was unable to fire (e.g. wet gunpowder), or fired too early or too late, cavalry penetrated the infantry square relatively easily. That happened at Garcia Hernandez, Lutzen (when Prussian cavalry destroyed French infantry square), Mockern (several infantry squares destroyed by cavalry)... Disciplined infantry being invulnerable to cavalry is a myth. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -we are talking about sellswords , theres 10s of thousands of sellswords thus by your logic no city had to fall. Sarnori were using Dothraki as sellswords. Capisci? And by the time they realized what was happening, there may simply have been no time or resources to find some other sellswords. You will have to prove that Sarnor had access to sellswords before making such wide statements. And the same goes for the other cities. I mean, we literally don't know what happened. Dothraki may have had the help of settled populations (unlikely considering their attitude towards said populations, but possible, I guess). Or maybe these other cultures were much like Sarnori and decided to fight out in the open regardless of how much that might have disadvantaged them, leaving undefended cities to be taken by the Dothraki hordes with no opposition. In fact, looking at what we do know, latter is very likely: Sarnori marched out to meet Dothraki in the open time and again, no matter how much they lost. Qohori met Dothraki in the open and lost, and then when the Unsullied arrived they again marched out into the open and were only saved by Dothraki being idiots that despised infantry. We also don't know much about Dothraki from back then either. I mean, we assume that they were the same "mocking people for wearing armor, shirtless moronic horse archers" (though current Dothraki do wear painted leather vests, which may be just vests akin to what Native Americans wore, but may also be some form of light armor... we simply don't know). But all we really have from back then are legends. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -were talking about the slaves who built the trenches , scorpions and trebuchts etc Yeah, that is a possibility - though do note that slaves would not be enough. You need somebody to direct them. A large trebuchet is a complex machine to build, and even more so to properly use. Largest trebuchets looked like this: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71GVbkOPWFL.jpg And you need to know where to aim. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -yes cavalry are faster but as they rout and turn the other way to run the heavyb infantry would charge to kill as many as humanly possible in the short time before their foes can get to greater distances! That simply doesn't work in this case. This is what the text says: Quote As the chariots thundered after the fleeing horsemen, the High King and his armored riders plunged in after them, followed by the Sarnori foot, waving their spears and screaming victory It wasn't the case of Dothraki attacking infantry in melee and breaking, in which case pursuing them for a short distance may make sense... it was a case of Sarnori infantry following their own chariots into the breach that those very chariots had created. That will have required them to run for long distances which, again, is not something heavy infantry ever does. Or is physically capable of doing. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -most seem to be fortress cities close to one another esp the ghiscari, quarthi and sanori ones. Proof? I have seen no indication of them being close to one another, and even if they are - they still don't seem to have any fortifications beyond cities. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -again you are speculating these cities didnt have sufficent forces to defend themselves I am not speculating at all here. We are outright told that the entire Sarnori army had been destroyed on the Field of Crows. Quote The fall of Mardosh finally awakened the remaining Sarnori kings to the depth of their peril. Putting aside their own quarrels and rivalries at last, the Tall Men gathered from up and down the Sarne, assembling a great army beneath the walls of Sarnath, intent on breaking the power of the khals for good and all. Quote Bereft of defenders, Sarnath of the Tall Towers fell to Loso the Lame less than a fortnight later. Not even the Palace With a Thousand Rooms was spared when Khal Loso put the city to the torch. The remaining cities of the grasslands followed one by one, as the Century of Blood drew to its close. Sarys, at the mouth of the Sarne, was the last to fall but yielded little in the way of slaves or plunder, for the people of the city had largely fled by the time that Khal Zeggo descended upon it Fall of Essaria and of Quaathi cities may indicate that Dothraki are in fact capable of besieging cities, but again: we know literally nothing beyond the fact that: Quote In the south, other khals led their hordes into the Red Waste, destroying the Qaathi towns and cities that once dotted that desert, until only the great city of Qarth remained, protected by its towering triple wall. Quote Yet the lands in the south of Essos proved more inhospitable than those the Qaathi had vacated, turning to desert even as they established their foothold there. The Qaathi people were already well on their way to collapse when the Doom struck, and any hopes of using the chaos in the Summer Sea to their advantage vanished when the Dothraki attacked, destroying all the remaining Qaathi cities save for Qarth itself. So Dothraki destroyed one Bronze Age civilization that had come out to fight in the open plain, and another that was already about to collapse anyway. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -several is a number you grasped from nowhere, the fight also clearly describes a fighter not getting lucky but clearly knows how to deal with an armoured opp His opening strike is to jorahs unarmoured face blocked by his longsword, then theres slashs that jorah PARRIES ie sword vs sword. This is followed by a crunch of sword on mail and a strike to a gauntlet. One to the unarmoured face again then one hits through the mail to a hip and finaly a follow up to the mail opening!! First, yes, there were several strikes. Quote Qotho whirled, cursing. The arakh moved so fast that Quaro’s blood flew from it in a fine spray, like rain in a hot wind. The longsword caught it a foot from Ser Jorah’s face, and held it quivering for an instant as Qotho howled in fury. The knight was clad in chainmail, with gauntlets and greaves of lobstered steel and a heavy gorget around his throat, but he had not thought to don his helm. Qotho danced backward, arakh whirling around his head in a shining blur, flickering out like lightning as the knight came on in a rush. Ser Jorah parried as best he could, but the slashes came so fast that it seemed to Dany that Qotho had four arakhs and as many arms. She heard the crunch of sword on mail, saw sparks fly as the long curved blade glanced off a gauntlet. Suddenly it was Mormont stumbling backward, and Qotho leaping to the attack. The left side of the knight’s face ran red with blood, and a cut to the hip opened a gash in his mail and left him limping. Having a brain does not equal "knowing how to deal with an armored opponent". Jorah didn't have a helmet - so his face was an obvious target. But what would have that Dothraki have done if Jorah had had a helmet? Prayed to the Gods? He clearly had no clue how to deal with an armored opponent, as proven by that "crunch of sword on mail and a strike to a gauntlet". Where were attempts to stab the opponent, which is how you dealt with mail with sword? Where were strikes at presumably unarmored legs? Where were attempts at stabbing underneath the mail? There were none. All that the bloodrider did was attack the obviously exposed face and then slash uselessly against the mail until one slash got lucky. And yes, he did exploit that gash - but what will have happened if the mail hadn't failed? Will he have just continued slashing? Looks like it. Considering how much better Qotho was than Jorah, if Qotho had known how to deal with mail, Jorah will have died. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -??? We literaly read and u posted an exert where we see the arkh clearly has enough weight to get through mail! Does it? Because Jorah's mail defeated at least one (if we are generous) and possibly multiple strikes from arakh before it failed. Literally any sword can cause such a failure in mail armor, that is a consequence of the way mail armor is made rather than any special property of a sword. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -yeah weve done this to death now spear can defeat heavy armoured lancers, not as easily as pike and yes the cavalry can still win vs both straight on byt again thats a waste of lords and knights. Spearmen will lose against heavily armored lancers nearly 100% of the time, unless there is something else to balance things out (such as terrain advantage, physical obstacles such as ditches and/or ramparts, and so on). But yes, throwing cavalry against infantry right away is usually a waste: not just because of the losses (which will not be that heavy - plate armor is effective!) but also because it tires out the horses. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -pike is a long spear, you are getting into semantics here ..youd gave to graps a long enough spear with 2 hands It is not semantics, it is a distinction with major difference. Spear can be used in single combat after formation is broken. Pike cannot. Spear has a limit to how thick shaft can be to be useful as it is held in one hand. Pike also has, but that limit is much higher because it is held in two hands. Thus pike is structurally stronger. Spear is too short to be set into the ground and still be effective against cavalry, especially lancers. As a result, it has to be held in the hand - which means it is more easily pushed aside. Pike however is long enough to be set into the ground, meaning that impacting a pike can unseat a knight (even though pike is unlikely to penetrate plate armor). "Long enough spear" is pike, but since we don't have term for "short enough spear", it is easier to simply talk about "spear" and "pike". On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: - a late roman army vs the more mixed arms of a medieval army then yes..... but infantry alone vs infantry then pretty even True, if you are talking late Roman army vs early / High medieval army. When it comes to late medieval armies however, even infantry vs infantry alone, Romans would get pasted. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -cool but no one here is wearing anti munitions plate theys ve wearing at very best the armour in the vid i posted a few pages back I actually did a whole post on Westerosi armor: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/military-of-westeros-3-weapons-and-equipment/ And yes, Westerosi infantry wears mail. Which is still far better than what either Dothraki, or any of the enemies Dothraki had fought, wear. It does mean that they are more vulnerable to e.g. arrows, though. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -right so FINALY we get to the fact pikemen could be flanked and infiltrated thus had weapons or specalists amonst them to deal with that Yes, they could be infiltrated. But you are assuming that just because something could be done, that it was automatically easy and that e.g. Unsullied could do it. Which is just wrong. Generally speaking, to infiltrate a pike formation, you had to: a) get a pike formation of your own b) smash said pike formation into enemy pike formation c) wait for the right moment to send forward the specialist infiltration units (e.g. rodeleros) d) have your infiltration units win a fight against enemy infiltration units right in between engaged pike blocks e) and now you can try and infiltrate enemy pike block And even when you did infiltrate enemy pike block, the goal was usually merely to disrupt their cohesion and make them more vulnerable to your own pikemen, not to outright destroy enemy pikemen with your swordsmen. Unsullied, though? They are spearmen with light armor, and lack literally all of the elements (pikemen, good armor) that one would need to infiltrate a pike block. As for flanking. That only works against Macedonian phalanx. Medieval and early modern pike blocks were specifically noted for their ability to resist flanking attacks. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -hanibal? You mean phyrus sport hannibals tactics didnt resemble alexanders at all (bar zamma where he was making the best of being dealt a bad hand) and both those men had 1st rate infantry. Yeah. But it was Alexander and Pyrrhus who had first rate infantry; Hannibal had to do with basically dregs. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -alexander was a genius but the roman maniple systems strength was that it worked often IN SPITE of its leadership , its much more flexible and mobile than even alexanders phalanx. Alexander wouldnt have had an east time with them no esp if a genius emerges among their leaders (as often did in emergencies) .......not that it would have mattered rome and alexanders empire wernt in the same weight class when they were around the same time! rome was still a pygmy international terms when alexander was at his peak True to an extent. Thing is though that Roman legion wasn't really all that tactically flexible in battle, though that would vary based on the period - Republican legion was probably the apogee of the classical legion. And Alexander's main striking force was his cavalry, which was heavier than anything Romans fielded at the time. Point is however that the phalanx Romans had faced was absolutely nothing like the original phalanx devised by Phillip II and used by Alexander. Original Macedonian phalanx was very different from the lumbering mass that Romans fought at Cynoscephalae and in other encounters. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -sigh..enuchs shouldnt have but we are told these ones DO ...so for the sake of this forum thats all that matters!.somehow they have these levels of stamina despite it not being physicaly possible for eunuchs. Except they don't - sure, they are probably far better than actual eunuchs would be, but we are still told they are physically disadvantaged against the normal men (though that is mostly couched in terms of strength, not stamina, but eh). On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -so you are actualy somehow trying to suggest being a part timer is better than being a full time professional here....our own armies disgree They disagree because West has not fought a defensive war in decades. Full-time professional armies are ideal for expeditionary warfare, which is to say, warfare of conquest. And that is literally everything West has fought lately. Last time United States have fought a defensive war was in the Second World War. Korea and Vietnam were both fought to help the allies, and Gulf Wars and war in Afghanistan were purely offensive wars. For all of these, professional army is ideal. And last time US mainland has been under threat was during the War of 1812. Last time United Kingdom has fought a defensive war was the Falklands, but that was mostly naval issue. Last time mainland UK was under threat was World War II. Last time France has fought a defensive war was World War II. See the pattern? All countries that promote the idea of full-time professional armies are ones that do not expect to fight a defensive war in the foreseeable future. But when you need to defend yourself, part-timers are actually superior. Ukraine managed to hold Russia back precisely thanks to large numbers of Territorial Defense forces. Byzantine Empire survived thanks to the theme system of part-time landowning soldiers. In the Hungarian - Ottoman wars, majority of troops on both sides were part-time landowning soldiers. Army comprised of full-time professional soldiers is not automatically superior to one comprised of part-time soldiers. That is just a misconception. It is better at certain tasks, yes - but army of part-timers is better at different tasks. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -so by training to an extent they were wsy slahead of their peers innterms of cohesion, skill and speed of moving and workign formation...as the unsullied will be Will they be? Even the meme Unsullied are hardly decisively superior to what we have seen from Westerosi armies so far, and we know that Unsullied are being gradually depleted... Daenerys had not used them a single time in a pitched battle, yet they are incurring casualties - which are being replaced by half-trained green boys. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -we are told the new ghis legions use elphants and are the poor mans unsullied thus logicaly the ghiscari legions training will consist of being able to split up and flank to avoid being pancakes We don't know if even the Unsullied can do that. Also, splitting up to avoid elephants is a different skill compared to being able to flank the enemy. On 8/19/2023 at 11:26 PM, astarkchoice said: -thats ok you have already conceded pikemen ..even late era professionals needed different weapons or troops with other weapons among them due to infitrations and flanking. I have conceded nothing of what you have written here, you are just making shit up as usual. Late-era pike formations are essentially invulnerable to flanking in a way that phalanx formations such as the Unsullied cannot hope to be. And yes, pikemen do need help if the enemy manages to get past the rows of pikes... and guess what? Westerosi pikemen have backup of dismounted men-at-arms armed with weapons meant for close quarter fighting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted September 12, 2023 Share Posted September 12, 2023 2 hours ago, Aldarion said: -And we have no clue how they did it, so it is useless for estimating how good Dothraki were back then. Also, what are these "various other cultures"? We know that e.g. Qarth survived specifically because of its impressive city walls. Also, even if we assume that Century of Blood Dothraki were in fact competent military, current Dothraki are essentially resting on the laurels, collecting tribute and bullying the Lhazareen. Dothraki, as they are, are not an army - they are mafia dons running a protection racket. And people are paying them because it is cheaper than maintaining constant war readiness to chase them off, plus, destroying Dothraki is impossible as they can just run away into the Dothraki Sea. -They don't use armor, they don't use weapons that were specifically designed to deal with armor - in fact, all weapons that Dothraki use are designed specifically for use against unarmored opponents. So what exactly is there to show that Dothraki "clearly understand" armor? -Uh, what? Armor is expensive. You cannot just "assume" that the entire army is armored - or unarmored, for that matter - unless we know. There were cases where everybody was completely unarmored (e.g. Picts), where only nobility wore armor while commoners were completely unarmored (e.g. Gallic tribes), where cavalry were armored in metal but infantry wore gambesons at best (e.g. Byzantine Empire), where basically the entire armies were armored in plate armor (e.g. late 15th century and 16th century Europe)... even in-universe, we see significant differentiation. In Westeros, cavalrymen wear typically full plate armor, while infantry are limited to mail armor at best But the only thing that indicates one way or another is this passage: -And this clearly indicates that no, Sarnori foot did not wear armor. You simply do not run in full armor for long distances: it is hot, it is uncomfortable and it is heavy. Now, you can sprint for short distances if needed: hoplites at Marathon did so, for example. But running after retreating enemy? Yeah, no. Sarnori infantry were undisciplined light infantry. The end. -And I have already pointed out that generally, head-on charge into ordered infantry was not done. But if the Unsullied overwhelm Westerosi infantry (which by itself is already highly unlikely), then yes, heavy cavalry charge is an option. And it is likely to be successful. And you are making stuff up again. -Cavalry charge could be stopped by the bayonetts if and only if it was previously disordered (by musket fire, by physical obstacles, whatever). It doesn't matter that muskets can only get the first line of lancers: what matters is that their momentum is broken and formation disordered. Essentially, the goal was to a) cause confusion and disorder in the enemy ranks while b) creating a rampart of horse flesh just in front of the infantry formation. Because infantry knew that if the cavalry got within sabre range, it will penetrate the square. Disciplined infantry would hold fire until the last moment: at Koln in 1757, Botta regiment fired a salvo when Prussian dragoons were dozen paces away, and it was this salvo, not Botta's bayonets, that stopped Prussian charge. On Prussian side however, IR15 and IR22 were completely destroyed by cavalry charge. Whenever infantry was unable to fire (e.g. wet gunpowder), or fired too early or too late, cavalry penetrated the infantry square relatively easily. That happened at Garcia Hernandez, Lutzen (when Prussian cavalry destroyed French infantry square), Mockern (several infantry squares destroyed by cavalry)... -Disciplined infantry being invulnerable to cavalry is a myth. -Sarnori were using Dothraki as sellswords. Capisci? And by the time they realized what was happening, there may simply have been no time or resources to find some other sellswords. You will have to prove that Sarnor had access to sellswords before making such wide statements. And the same goes for the other cities. I mean, we literally don't know what happened. Dothraki may have had the help of settled populations (unlikely considering their attitude towards said populations, but possible, I guess). Or maybe these other cultures were much like Sarnori and decided to fight out in the open regardless of how much that might have disadvantaged them, leaving undefended cities to be taken by the Dothraki hordes with no opposition. In fact, looking at what we do know, latter is very likely: Sarnori marched out to meet Dothraki in the open time and again, no matter how much they lost. Qohori met Dothraki in the open and lost, and then when the Unsullied arrived they again marched out into the open and were only saved by Dothraki being idiots that despised infantry. We also don't know much about Dothraki from back then either. I mean, we assume that they were the same "mocking people for wearing armor, shirtless moronic horse archers" (though current Dothraki do wear painted leather vests, which may be just vests akin to what Native Americans wore, but may also be some form of light armor... we simply don't know). But all we really have from back then are legends. -Yeah, that is a possibility - though do note that slaves would not be enough. You need somebody to direct them. A large trebuchet is a complex machine to build, and even more so to properly use. Largest trebuchets looked like this: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71GVbkOPWFL.jpg And you need to know where to aim. That simply doesn't work in this case. This is what the text says: It wasn't the case of Dothraki attacking infantry in melee and breaking, in which case pursuing them for a short distance may make sense... it was a case of Sarnori infantry following their own chariots into the breach that those very chariots had created. -That will have required them to run for long distances which, again, is not something heavy infantry ever does. Or is physically capable of doing. -Proof? I have seen no indication of them being close to one another, and even if they are - they still don't seem to have any fortifications beyond cities. I am not speculating at all here. We are outright told that the entire Sarnori army had been destroyed on the Field of Crows. Fall of Essaria and of Quaathi cities may indicate that Dothraki are in fact capable of besieging cities, but again: we know literally nothing beyond the fact that: So Dothraki destroyed one Bronze Age civilization that had come out to fight in the open plain, and another that was already about to collapse anyway. -First, yes, there were several strikes. Having a brain does not equal "knowing how to deal with an armored opponent". Jorah didn't have a helmet - so his face was an obvious target. But what would have that Dothraki have done if Jorah had had a helmet? Prayed to the Gods? He clearly had no clue how to deal with an armored opponent, as proven by that "crunch of sword on mail and a strike to a gauntlet". Where were attempts to stab the opponent, which is how you dealt with mail with sword? Where were strikes at presumably unarmored legs? Where were attempts at stabbing underneath the mail? There were none. All that the bloodrider did was attack the obviously exposed face and then slash uselessly against the mail until one slash got lucky. And yes, he did exploit that gash - but what will have happened if the mail hadn't failed? Will he have just continued slashing? Looks like it. Considering how much better Qotho was than Jorah, if Qotho had known how to deal with mail, Jorah will have died. Does it? Because Jorah's mail defeated at least one (if we are generous) and possibly multiple strikes from arakh before it failed. Literally any sword can cause such a failure in mail armor, that is a consequence of the way mail armor is made rather than any special property of a sword. -Spearmen will lose against heavily armored lancers nearly 100% of the time, unless there is something else to balance things out (such as terrain advantage, physical obstacles such as ditches and/or ramparts, and so on). -But yes, throwing cavalry against infantry right away is usually a waste: not just because of the losses (which will not be that heavy - plate armor is effective!) but also because it tires out the horses. -it is not semantics, it is a distinction with major difference. Spear can be used in single combat after formation is broken. Pike cannot. Spear has a limit to how thick shaft can be to be useful as it is held in one hand. Pike also has, but that limit is much higher because it is held in two hands. Thus pike is structurally stronger. Spear is too short to be set into the ground and still be effective against cavalry, especially lancers. As a result, it has to be held in the hand - which means it is more easily pushed aside. Pike however is long enough to be set into the ground, meaning that impacting a pike can unseat a knight (even though pike is unlikely to penetrate plate armor). "Long enough spear" is pike, but since we don't have term for "short enough spear", it is easier to simply talk about "spear" and "pike". -True, if you are talking late Roman army vs early / High medieval army. When it comes to late medieval armies however, even infantry vs infantry alone, Romans would get pasted. I actually did a whole post on Westerosi armor: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/military-of-westeros-3-weapons-and-equipment/ And yes, Westerosi infantry wears mail. Which is still far better than what either Dothraki, or any of the enemies Dothraki had fought, wear. It does mean that they are more vulnerable to e.g. arrows, though. Yes, they could be infiltrated. But you are assuming that just because something could be done, that it was automatically easy and that e.g. Unsullied could do it. -Which is just wrong. Generally speaking, to infiltrate a pike formation, you had to: a) get a pike formation of your own b) smash said pike formation into enemy pike formation c) wait for the right moment to send forward the specialist infiltration units (e.g. rodeleros) d) have your infiltration units win a fight against enemy infiltration units right in between engaged pike blocks e) and now you can try and infiltrate enemy pike block And even when you did infiltrate enemy pike block, the goal was usually merely to disrupt their cohesion and make them more vulnerable to your own pikemen, not to outright destroy enemy pikemen with your swordsmen. Unsullied, though? They are spearmen with light armor, and lack literally all of the elements (pikemen, good armor) that one would need to infiltrate a pike block. -As for flanking. That only works against Macedonian phalanx. Medieval and early modern pike blocks were specifically noted for their ability to resist flanking attacks. -Yeah. But it was Alexander and Pyrrhus who had first rate infantry; Hannibal had to do with basically dregs. -True to an extent. Thing is though that Roman legion wasn't really all that tactically flexible in battle, though that would vary based on the period - Republican legion was probably the apogee of the classical legion. And Alexander's main striking force was his cavalry, which was heavier than anything Romans fielded at the time. Point is however that the phalanx Romans had faced was absolutely nothing like the original phalanx devised by Phillip II and used by Alexander. Original Macedonian phalanx was very different from the lumbering mass that Romans fought at Cynoscephalae and in other encounters. -Except they don't - sure, they are probably far better than actual eunuchs would be, but we are still told they are physically disadvantaged against the normal men (though that is mostly couched in terms of strength, not stamina, but eh). -They disagree because West has not fought a defensive war in decades. Full-time professional armies are ideal for expeditionary warfare, which is to say, warfare of conquest. And that is literally everything West has fought lately. Last time United States have fought a defensive war was in the Second World War. Korea and Vietnam were both fought to help the allies, and Gulf Wars and war in Afghanistan were purely offensive wars. For all of these, professional army is ideal. And last time US mainland has been under threat was during the War of 1812. Last time United Kingdom has fought a defensive war was the Falklands, but that was mostly naval issue. Last time mainland UK was under threat was World War II. Last time France has fought a defensive war was World War II. See the pattern? All countries that promote the idea of full-time professional armies are ones that do not expect to fight a defensive war in the foreseeable future. But when you need to defend yourself, part-timers are actually superior. Ukraine managed to hold Russia back precisely thanks to large numbers of Territorial Defense forces. Byzantine Empire survived thanks to the theme system of part-time landowning soldiers. In the Hungarian - Ottoman wars, majority of troops on both sides were part-time landowning soldiers. Army comprised of full-time professional soldiers is not automatically superior to one comprised of part-time soldiers. That is just a misconception. It is better at certain tasks, yes - but army of part-timers is better at different tasks. Will they be? Even the meme Unsullied are hardly decisively superior to what we have seen from Westerosi armies so far, and we know that Unsullied are being gradually depleted... Daenerys had not used them a single time in a pitched battle, yet they are incurring casualties - which are being replaced by half-trained green boys. -We don't know if even the Unsullied can do that. Also, splitting up to avoid elephants is a different skill compared to being able to flank the enemy. -i have conceded nothing of what you have written here, you are just making shit up as usual. Late-era pike formations are essentially invulnerable to flanking in a way that phalanx formations such as the Unsullied cannot hope to be. And yes, pikemen do need help if the enemy manages to get past the rows of pikes... and guess what? Westerosi pikemen have backup of dismounted men-at-arms armed with weapons meant for close quarter fighting! -right so we dont know how they did it but they did so and in grmms worlds cultures exibit little change over even centuries. Your idea ks they have changed and you are making that assumption with 0 evidence whatsoever -their swords seem to deal with mail ok and we'ce seen multiple sellswords ehondeal with armour om the regular use them and their bows for all we know could be very decent vs armour (see the vid i posted a fee pages back for education there) - we are told their warriors wore armour , that their troops were famous for a particular type of armour and when theres differences we are usualy again told of these differrnces (ie westeros foot in mail and cavalry in plate) so again simplest explanation unless told otherwise they wore armour ! -no now you grasping . You cannot call them undiciplined based.on one battle nor can you say diciplined heavy infantry wouldnt chase them as you dont know the distance and a handful of chariots brraking up the dothraki frontline and causing a slight retreat os far from a battle won...youd get the men stuck into the cavalry to inflict as many deaths as possible until the khalassar can get itself.turned around retreat orderly without blocking each other....slow or static cavalry in front of lines of heavy infantry is tailor made for the foot to slaughter!! Chasing them once they get orgainised and disperse getting a good distance away THAT would be daft as horses are faster but before it comes to that you let your men kill the rabble. -it could be sucessful but it also could be hugely wasteful and equaly it could be beaten back and now you lost all your lords -sigh no again the muskets could only fire once before impact theyl do nothing for the lancers right behind, nor again is a direct hit guaranteed to stop a horse(again reports of them charging with blood pumping from shot wounds) or that a musket aimed at a charging horse will hit...the bayonett wall held time and again -NO ONE IS SAYING INVUNERABLE BUT YOU! You are the one saying cavaly will unquestionably beat spear walls -7 is an exact number in your head sport theres no indication of how many slashes or stabs attemted. Why doesnt he do this or that?....he did just fine doing exactly what he did jorah parried some.attacks and then when the bloodrider.got past him hit him on chainmail, face, gaintlet , chainmail again then hip in the chainmail.gap..youhave now backtracked on saying the bloodrider wss lucky and jorahs mail.was weak. At this stage it looks clarly like.the arkh has enough weight to deal.with mail at least and this guy knew what to aim for. -b.s now you are makig up 65.789% of all your stats.....spearmen will do just fine -no again its the losses those are nit just units dying but lords and their sons -so long enough spear is a pike just as we said.....ffs you go around the houses to just not admit you were wrong -infantry vs infantry alone? No that badly misunderstands the progress made in early medieval armies but also the ways they were a step back from late roman -no you need to flank them or break up their formation with missles ( expertly aimed throwing spears would work) and no the point of getti among them is to kill them....pike works great at a distance but up close its a weapon that leaves you helpess vs short spear or sword (hence real pikemen had other melee types among them and/or carried other weapons) -no medieval pikemen could be flabked just fine hence they were always part of a mixed arms force and the sort of later medieval super drilled pilemen that could move without creating gaps dont exist in westeros nor did even the famous swiss not get flanked at times. -educate yourself on history sport hannibal had 1st rate professionals -nonetheless its still more flexiblw than ancient phalanxes simply due to its nature. -vs normal.men they will be weaker but we are also told few.will.match them.at skill at arms, they wont break or feel.pain or fear and they have stamina for days which in the adrenaline fueled grind of melee is huge ! -professionals are better though thats why we use them, if it had been usmc in ukraine the russians would have retreated home bloodied babdly by now -neither side will be fighting alone man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted October 2, 2023 Author Share Posted October 2, 2023 On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -right so we dont know how they did it but they did so and in grmms worlds cultures exibit little change over even centuries. Your idea ks they have changed and you are making that assumption with 0 evidence whatsoever It is either Dothraki have changed, or everybody in Essos is a moron. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -their swords seem to deal with mail ok and we'ce seen multiple sellswords ehondeal with armour om the regular use them and their bows for all we know could be very decent vs armour (see the vid i posted a fee pages back for education there) Define "OK". What we have seen is that Dothraki have no clue how to fight armored opponents. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: - we are told their warriors wore armour , that their troops were famous for a particular type of armour and when theres differences we are usualy again told of these differrnces (ie westeros foot in mail and cavalry in plate) so again simplest explanation unless told otherwise they wore armour ! We are told Sarnori cavalry wore armor. That is all. We are not told if their infantry did so - but we are told how their infantry behaved in battle, and that implies that they had no armor. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -no now you grasping . You cannot call them undiciplined based.on one battle nor can you say diciplined heavy infantry wouldnt chase them as you dont know the distance and a handful of chariots brraking up the dothraki frontline and causing a slight retreat os far from a battle won...youd get the men stuck into the cavalry to inflict as many deaths as possible until the khalassar can get itself.turned around retreat orderly without blocking each other....slow or static cavalry in front of lines of heavy infantry is tailor made for the foot to slaughter!! Chasing them once they get orgainised and disperse getting a good distance away THAT would be daft as horses are faster but before it comes to that you let your men kill the rabble. I am not grasping, I am calling it how it is. Literally the entire Unsullied reputation is based on one battle. Dothraki reputation is also largely based on one battle. So what is this "one battle is not enough" stuff? Dothraki retreat was not "orderly". You don't lose a khal in an orderly retreat. And given that Dothraki were running away, and we are specifically told that Sarnori infantry was running in after the chariots, yes, what they did was quite daft. And also something that heavy infantry will have never done. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -it could be sucessful but it also could be hugely wasteful and equaly it could be beaten back and now you lost all your lords And that alone should show you how effective heavy cavalry charge is, considering that lords regularly mounted such charges. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -sigh no again the muskets could only fire once before impact theyl do nothing for the lancers right behind, nor again is a direct hit guaranteed to stop a horse(again reports of them charging with blood pumping from shot wounds) or that a musket aimed at a charging horse will hit...the bayonett wall held time and again Wrong. Bayonett wall held time and again only when cavalry charge was disordered by the musket fire. Yes, muskets would not necessarily stop the cavalry charge on their own... but bayonetts definitely would not. They had to work in conjunction to be successful. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -NO ONE IS SAYING INVUNERABLE BUT YOU! You are the one saying cavaly will unquestionably beat spear walls I am saying that PROPERLY EMPLOYED heavy cavalry will beat spear walls. You are the one insisting that heavy cavalry will not penetrate an ordered spear wall even if everything else is in their favor. Properly employed = in formation and on favorable terrain. If spear wall is deployed in marshlands or a forests, of course it will be different situation compared to it being deployed on cavalry terrain (hard and relatively level ground). Capisci? On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -7 is an exact number in your head sport theres no indication of how many slashes or stabs attemted. Why doesnt he do this or that?....he did just fine doing exactly what he did jorah parried some.attacks and then when the bloodrider.got past him hit him on chainmail, face, gaintlet , chainmail again then hip in the chainmail.gap..youhave now backtracked on saying the bloodrider wss lucky and jorahs mail.was weak. At this stage it looks clarly like.the arkh has enough weight to deal.with mail at least and this guy knew what to aim for. OK, just what are you drinking? I never said anything about him attempting a certain number of slashes - that is all just in your head. What we do know is that he did multiple slashes which glanced off Jorah's mail before he got lucky and opened a gap. How many slashes? Could have been three, five, ten, a hundred... we don't know. All we know is he did several slashes, eventually got lucky to open mail, then got unlucky to get his arakh stuck, and then he died. And that was a bloodrider. Dothraki equivalent of a Kingsguard. Against average Westerosi knight in mail and not wearing a helmet. Average Dothraki going against average-but-fully-equipped knight - or even average infantryman, probably - would not have survived long enough to even open that gash in mail. "Aiming for unarmored head and gap in armor" is not high math. Even a child would understand that much. But otherwise, bloodrider was acting as if he was fighting an unarmored opponent: there is no mention of a single attempt at stabbing, and stabbing is what you want to do if you want to get through mail. Bloodrider had no clue about how to fight an armored opponent. And you are just making up excuses. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -b.s now you are makig up 65.789% of all your stats.....spearmen will do just fine No, you just have no clue about history and are making shit up to make Unsullied look good. Spearmen against heavy lancers results in a lot of dead spearmen. Why do you think Ottomans dug ditches and placed cannons connected with chains only to avoid having their Janissary infantry face Western heavy cavalry? If spearmen will do just fine, then certainly such trouble is not worth it? https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/09/17/heavy-cavalry-versus-infantry-charging-the-lines/ Battle of Raj - 5 000 cavalry against 50 000 infantry - cavalry won. Largely thanks to charge of 700 heavy cavalry. Battle of Ramla - 200 Crusader knights against 3 000 Egyptian infantry - knights won. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -no again its the losses those are nit just units dying but lords and their sons First you need to kill them. And killing a guy in full plate armor is incredibly difficult. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -so long enough spear is a pike just as we said.....ffs you go around the houses to just not admit you were wrong No, you just have no clue what you are talking about and are making shit up and playing semantics to look good. Long enough spear is a pike, that is the technical definition. And long enough knife is a sword, long enough pistol is a musket (or a rifle), and large enough rifle is a cannon. Large enough puddle is a lake, large enough lake is a sea, large enough sea is an ocean. And large enough rock is a planet. So I guess you want to open a Puddle Cruise Line company and have people pay for cruising on puddles, when size doesn't make a difference in your mind? Do you use machette to cut bread? Just because "long enough spear is a pike" does not mean that they are the same. Size matters, and it matters a lot, because it affects how something is used. It affects characteristics, utilization and effectiveness in different circumstances. If you can't understand a concept as simple as that, bow out instead of making yourself look ridiculous. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -infantry vs infantry alone? No that badly misunderstands the progress made in early medieval armies but also the ways they were a step back from late roman LOL. Read again: Quote True, if you are talking late Roman army vs early / High medieval army. When it comes to late medieval armies however, even infantry vs infantry alone, Romans would get pasted. LATE medieval armies. THIS is what late medieval infantry was: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/64/71/64/64716429b1774a4423151a1b0d240ebd.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/7d/6e/a57d6efea2cea1885b4d3b4eefa80d98.jpg They had better equipment than Romans - better weapons, better armor - and were just as tactically adept. I literally wrote on late medieval armies: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/07/22/army-of-john-hunyadi-and-matthias-corvinus/ Explain, how would Romans beat something that gave trouble to Ottomans? On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -no you need to flank them or break up their formation with missles ( expertly aimed throwing spears would work) and no the point of getti among them is to kill them....pike works great at a distance but up close its a weapon that leaves you helpess vs short spear or sword (hence real pikemen had other melee types among them and/or carried other weapons) On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -no medieval pikemen could be flabked just fine hence they were always part of a mixed arms force and the sort of later medieval super drilled pilemen that could move without creating gaps dont exist in westeros nor did even the famous swiss not get flanked at times. FFS, you really have no clue. Medieval pike formation is not a Macedonian phalanx. FLANKING WILL NOT WORK. Hell, Byzantines have figured out how to solve the whole "flanking" thing in 10th century, and medieval pike formations only improved on it. Surrounding a pike formation merely means splitting up your forces which can now be overran individually. This is pike schiltron, such as existed since 11th century: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-dea8f33510337be0207c42f609fd31e9-pjlq This is how it compares to Macedonian phalanx: https://i0.wp.com/www.militaer-wissen.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Unbenannt.jpg Forget about Macedonian phalanx and whatever BS you have read in popular history. Medieval pike formation is a completely different beast. Outflanking it won't work - it can engage you no matter what side you come from. Breaking it up with missiles will not work - pikes alone are a good defense against missiles, and medieval pikemen wore armor. And short spear and sword won't work - attempting that against a pike formation is suicide, and even if it does work, pikemen have specialized close-quarters infantry on call for precisely such a contingency. Congratulations. You just got your entire army killed with your outstanding generalship. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -educate yourself on history sport hannibal had 1st rate professionals Hannibal had to do with whatever was at hand. He recruited a lot of mercenaries and also did with a lot of dregs. His army included Phoenician, Libyan, Libyophoenician, Numidian, Greek, Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian, and Italian soldiers. Only true professionals were North African and Iberian recruits, though yeah, mercenaries can be counted as professionals. Carthage did have large body of professional troops, but these were mostly in North Africa and not used by Hannibal as Carthaginian Senate's support of Hannibal was limited. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -nonetheless its still more flexiblw than ancient phalanxes simply due to its nature. True. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -vs normal.men they will be weaker but we are also told few.will.match them.at skill at arms, they wont break or feel.pain or fear and they have stamina for days which in the adrenaline fueled grind of melee is huge ! Uh, proof that they have stamina? Because testosterone also affects endurance. So the Unsullied will be weaker physically, have less endurance, less aggressiveness, be more vulnerable to diseases. They also don't show initiative and have no flexibility, which means they cannot adapt to something unknown. Against Westerosi men-at-arms, Unsullied will die. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -professionals are better though thats why we use them, if it had been usmc in ukraine the russians would have retreated home bloodied babdly by now If it had been USMC in Ukraine, they will have run out of bodies very, very quickly, and Russia will have had not just Kyiv but Lviv as well. Attrition is a thing. Full-time professionals are better for complex tasks: offensive actions, maneuvers and so on. But if you are defending territory, especially large territory (and all medieval territories were "large", due to travel speeds and population density), you need numbers. Hence why medieval armies were a mix of full-time professionals, part-time professionals and militia. And part-time professionals is precisely what Westerosi armies are. Also, just saying army are "professionals" is not enough to assess its quality. Professional hoplites still did not fare well against Roman levy legion. Professional Byzantine army got absolutely demolished by Muslim Arab tribesmen, and the Empire only survived by transforming its army into semi-professional territorial defense. On 9/12/2023 at 5:30 PM, astarkchoice said: -neither side will be fighting alone man True. But Unsullied, alone or part of an army, are nothing special. Willam Stark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaffronLady Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 On 10/2/2023 at 10:57 PM, Aldarion said: Because testosterone also affects endurance. So the Unsullied will be weaker physically, have less endurance, less aggressiveness, be more vulnerable to diseases. Leaving aside GRRM's magical stamina for Unsullied issue, IIRC doesn't high testoterone content reduce immunity to diseases due to reducing fat content in the body (which interacts with the immune system somehow, I forgot the specifics)? On 10/2/2023 at 10:57 PM, Aldarion said: Professional Byzantine army got absolutely demolished by Muslim Arab tribesmen, TBF the army of the Eastern Roman Empire was a mish-mash of mercs from the Greater Armenia area and raw recruits when the Muslims invaded, not really the army of Justinian and Constantine anymore. It's a more special circumstances than general principles thing. I genuinely find it difficult to imagine the army of even Maurice losing that bad when looking at records of the battles. Unless Maurice, with his permanent paying problem, orders Phokas to winter south of the Yarmouk and Phokas decides "screw it I'll defect from the old scrooge". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted October 11, 2023 Author Share Posted October 11, 2023 11 minutes ago, SaffronLady said: Leaving aside GRRM's magical stamina for Unsullied issue, IIRC doesn't high testoterone content reduce immunity to diseases due to reducing fat content in the body (which interacts with the immune system somehow, I forgot the specifics)? It is the inverse actually. High testosterone levels have no effect on immunity, but strong immune system response reduces testosterone levels due to reallocation of resources: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/221/16/jeb177683/341/Trade-offs-between-immunity-and-testosterone-in 19 minutes ago, SaffronLady said: TBF the army of the Eastern Roman Empire was a mish-mash of mercs from the Greater Armenia area and raw recruits when the Muslims invaded, not really the army of Justinian and Constantine anymore. It's a more special circumstances than general principles thing. I genuinely find it difficult to imagine the army of even Maurice losing that bad when looking at records of the battles. Unless Maurice, with his permanent paying problem, orders Phokas to winter south of the Yarmouk and Phokas decides "screw it I'll defect from the old scrooge". Agreed. SaffronLady 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 46 minutes ago, Aldarion said: It is the inverse actually. High testosterone levels have no effect on immunity, but strong immune system response reduces testosterone levels due to reallocation of resources: but people in robust health have higher immunity due to more resources Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted October 11, 2023 Author Share Posted October 11, 2023 11 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said: but people in robust health have higher immunity due to more resources Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, Aldarion said: Yes. and on that basis who would you give the advantage to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted October 11, 2023 Author Share Posted October 11, 2023 1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said: and on that basis who would you give the advantage to? Normal men. Either low or high testosterone levels are bad for the immune system: https://tctmed.com/testosterone-immune-system/#:~:text=Low testosterone levels seem to,impact on your overall health. https://ltmensclinic.com/low-testosterone-related-to-your-immune-system/ Basically, there is a "sweet spot", and anything that causes hormonal irregularities is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 On 10/2/2023 at 3:57 PM, Aldarion said: It is either Dothraki have changed, or everybody in Essos is a moron. Define "OK". What we have seen is that Dothraki have no clue how to fight armored opponents. We are told Sarnori cavalry wore armor. That is all. We are not told if their infantry did so - but we are told how their infantry behaved in battle, and that implies that they had no armor. I am not grasping, I am calling it how it is. Literally the entire Unsullied reputation is based on one battle. Dothraki reputation is also largely based on one battle. So what is this "one battle is not enough" stuff? Dothraki retreat was not "orderly". You don't lose a khal in an orderly retreat. And given that Dothraki were running away, and we are specifically told that Sarnori infantry was running in after the chariots, yes, what they did was quite daft. And also something that heavy infantry will have never done. And that alone should show you how effective heavy cavalry charge is, considering that lords regularly mounted such charges. Wrong. Bayonett wall held time and again only when cavalry charge was disordered by the musket fire. Yes, muskets would not necessarily stop the cavalry charge on their own... but bayonetts definitely would not. They had to work in conjunction to be successful. I am saying that PROPERLY EMPLOYED heavy cavalry will beat spear walls. You are the one insisting that heavy cavalry will not penetrate an ordered spear wall even if everything else is in their favor. Properly employed = in formation and on favorable terrain. If spear wall is deployed in marshlands or a forests, of course it will be different situation compared to it being deployed on cavalry terrain (hard and relatively level ground). Capisci? OK, just what are you drinking? I never said anything about him attempting a certain number of slashes - that is all just in your head. What we do know is that he did multiple slashes which glanced off Jorah's mail before he got lucky and opened a gap. How many slashes? Could have been three, five, ten, a hundred... we don't know. All we know is he did several slashes, eventually got lucky to open mail, then got unlucky to get his arakh stuck, and then he died. And that was a bloodrider. Dothraki equivalent of a Kingsguard. Against average Westerosi knight in mail and not wearing a helmet. Average Dothraki going against average-but-fully-equipped knight - or even average infantryman, probably - would not have survived long enough to even open that gash in mail. "Aiming for unarmored head and gap in armor" is not high math. Even a child would understand that much. But otherwise, bloodrider was acting as if he was fighting an unarmored opponent: there is no mention of a single attempt at stabbing, and stabbing is what you want to do if you want to get through mail. Bloodrider had no clue about how to fight an armored opponent. And you are just making up excuses. No, you just have no clue about history and are making shit up to make Unsullied look good. Spearmen against heavy lancers results in a lot of dead spearmen. Why do you think Ottomans dug ditches and placed cannons connected with chains only to avoid having their Janissary infantry face Western heavy cavalry? If spearmen will do just fine, then certainly such trouble is not worth it? https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/09/17/heavy-cavalry-versus-infantry-charging-the-lines/ Battle of Raj - 5 000 cavalry against 50 000 infantry - cavalry won. Largely thanks to charge of 700 heavy cavalry. Battle of Ramla - 200 Crusader knights against 3 000 Egyptian infantry - knights won. First you need to kill them. And killing a guy in full plate armor is incredibly difficult. No, you just have no clue what you are talking about and are making shit up and playing semantics to look good. Long enough spear is a pike, that is the technical definition. And long enough knife is a sword, long enough pistol is a musket (or a rifle), and large enough rifle is a cannon. Large enough puddle is a lake, large enough lake is a sea, large enough sea is an ocean. And large enough rock is a planet. So I guess you want to open a Puddle Cruise Line company and have people pay for cruising on puddles, when size doesn't make a difference in your mind? Do you use machette to cut bread? Just because "long enough spear is a pike" does not mean that they are the same. Size matters, and it matters a lot, because it affects how something is used. It affects characteristics, utilization and effectiveness in different circumstances. If you can't understand a concept as simple as that, bow out instead of making yourself look ridiculous. LOL. Read again: LATE medieval armies. THIS is what late medieval infantry was: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/64/71/64/64716429b1774a4423151a1b0d240ebd.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/7d/6e/a57d6efea2cea1885b4d3b4eefa80d98.jpg They had better equipment than Romans - better weapons, better armor - and were just as tactically adept. I literally wrote on late medieval armies: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/07/22/army-of-john-hunyadi-and-matthias-corvinus/ Explain, how would Romans beat something that gave trouble to Ottomans? FFS, you really have no clue. Medieval pike formation is not a Macedonian phalanx. FLANKING WILL NOT WORK. Hell, Byzantines have figured out how to solve the whole "flanking" thing in 10th century, and medieval pike formations only improved on it. Surrounding a pike formation merely means splitting up your forces which can now be overran individually. This is pike schiltron, such as existed since 11th century: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-dea8f33510337be0207c42f609fd31e9-pjlq This is how it compares to Macedonian phalanx: https://i0.wp.com/www.militaer-wissen.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Unbenannt.jpg Forget about Macedonian phalanx and whatever BS you have read in popular history. Medieval pike formation is a completely different beast. Outflanking it won't work - it can engage you no matter what side you come from. Breaking it up with missiles will not work - pikes alone are a good defense against missiles, and medieval pikemen wore armor. And short spear and sword won't work - attempting that against a pike formation is suicide, and even if it does work, pikemen have specialized close-quarters infantry on call for precisely such a contingency. Congratulations. You just got your entire army killed with your outstanding generalship. Hannibal had to do with whatever was at hand. He recruited a lot of mercenaries and also did with a lot of dregs. His army included Phoenician, Libyan, Libyophoenician, Numidian, Greek, Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian, and Italian soldiers. Only true professionals were North African and Iberian recruits, though yeah, mercenaries can be counted as professionals. Carthage did have large body of professional troops, but these were mostly in North Africa and not used by Hannibal as Carthaginian Senate's support of Hannibal was limited. True. Uh, proof that they have stamina? Because testosterone also affects endurance. So the Unsullied will be weaker physically, have less endurance, less aggressiveness, be more vulnerable to diseases. They also don't show initiative and have no flexibility, which means they cannot adapt to something unknown. Against Westerosi men-at-arms, Unsullied will die. If it had been USMC in Ukraine, they will have run out of bodies very, very quickly, and Russia will have had not just Kyiv but Lviv as well. Attrition is a thing. Full-time professionals are better for complex tasks: offensive actions, maneuvers and so on. But if you are defending territory, especially large territory (and all medieval territories were "large", due to travel speeds and population density), you need numbers. Hence why medieval armies were a mix of full-time professionals, part-time professionals and militia. And part-time professionals is precisely what Westerosi armies are. Also, just saying army are "professionals" is not enough to assess its quality. Professional hoplites still did not fare well against Roman levy legion. Professional Byzantine army got absolutely demolished by Muslim Arab tribesmen, and the Empire only survived by transforming its army into semi-professional territorial defense. True. But Unsullied, alone or part of an army, are nothing special. Generally speaking, small (relative to the size of the overall population) professional armies have had the most success in terms of delivering lethal violence, throughout history. For a large part of the period from about about 500 BC to 1750, coalitions of steppe horsemen ran them close. Militias, irregular fighters, and knightly retinues all had their share of successes, but there's a good reason why states have gone for the model of the trained professional army, when they can afford it. As for dense formations of pikemen, they were broken up by archery in medieval battles, such as Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, and Flodden. Armoured cavalry charges against infantry could prove devastatingly effective, or else go disastrously wrong. One can cite plenty of examples of either. A lot turns on the quality of leadership on either side. And, that will be the case in Westeros. But, the one matter that gets overlooked in discussions about armour, tactics, generalship, is the most important of all, namely logistics. The side that can feed, supply, equip and pay its soldiers in timely fashion, will almost always beat the side that is deficient in that respect. astarkchoice 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 55 minutes ago, Aldarion said: Normal men. Either low or high testosterone levels are bad for the immune system: https://tctmed.com/testosterone-immune-system/#:~:text=Low testosterone levels seem to,impact on your overall health. https://ltmensclinic.com/low-testosterone-related-to-your-immune-system/ Basically, there is a "sweet spot", and anything that causes hormonal irregularities is bad. that make sense I mean berserkers make good cannonfodder but only if you can afford to regularly replace them Aldarion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldarion Posted October 11, 2023 Author Share Posted October 11, 2023 57 minutes ago, SeanF said: Generally speaking, small (relative to the size of the overall population) professional armies have had the most success in terms of delivering lethal violence, throughout history. For a large part of the period from about about 500 BC to 1750, coalitions of steppe horsemen ran them close. Militias, irregular fighters, and knightly retinues all had their share of successes, but there's a good reason why states have gone for the model of the trained professional army, when they can afford it. If you look purely at the battlefield effectiveness, yes. But when it comes to ensuring survival of the state / government / society, typical response for states that actually found themselves under existential threat was territorial defense formations. These were still de facto professional soldiers, but they were not full-time professionals of the type you are probably thinking of when talking about professional soldiers. That being said, main reason states have gone for the model of the full-time professional army is because it gives them monopoly on violence. 1 hour ago, SeanF said: As for dense formations of pikemen, they were broken up by archery in medieval battles, such as Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, and Flodden. Armoured cavalry charges against infantry could prove devastatingly effective, or else go disastrously wrong. One can cite plenty of examples of either. As usual, however, archery was not alone decisive in these engagements - and in fact, in none of the battles you cite was a dense formation of armored pikemen "broken up" by archery. Only at Flodden did archers break up a formation of poorly armored auxilliaries. At Halidon Hill, Scottish pikemen were attacking uphill against a well-entrenched defensive position. Archery definitely helped break them up, but probability of success was low no matter how you look at it. At Neville's Cross, you had what was basically a clash of pike, with Scottish schiltrons being faced by dismounted English men-at-arms. Scots were also poorly positioned, and lack of longbowmen allowed the English to harass them with impunity. At Flodden, Scottish artillery was poorly positioned, and so English were able to use artillery against the Scottish infantry. English longbowmen had very little impact initially as in this battle Scots placed best-armored men in the front. Later on they were able to engage essentially unarmored Highlander formations, which did cause casualties. As for cavalry charges, you are correct. However, probability of successful charge must have been high, otherwise nobody will have used heavy cavalry. 1 hour ago, SeanF said: A lot turns on the quality of leadership on either side. And, that will be the case in Westeros. But, the one matter that gets overlooked in discussions about armour, tactics, generalship, is the most important of all, namely logistics. The side that can feed, supply, equip and pay its soldiers in timely fashion, will almost always beat the side that is deficient in that respect. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 32 minutes ago, Aldarion said: If you look purely at the battlefield effectiveness, yes. But when it comes to ensuring survival of the state / government / society, typical response for states that actually found themselves under existential threat was territorial defense formations. These were still de facto professional soldiers, but they were not full-time professionals of the type you are probably thinking of when talking about professional soldiers. That being said, main reason states have gone for the model of the full-time professional army is because it gives them monopoly on violence. As usual, however, archery was not alone decisive in these engagements - and in fact, in none of the battles you cite was a dense formation of armored pikemen "broken up" by archery. Only at Flodden did archers break up a formation of poorly armored auxilliaries. At Halidon Hill, Scottish pikemen were attacking uphill against a well-entrenched defensive position. Archery definitely helped break them up, but probability of success was low no matter how you look at it. At Neville's Cross, you had what was basically a clash of pike, with Scottish schiltrons being faced by dismounted English men-at-arms. Scots were also poorly positioned, and lack of longbowmen allowed the English to harass them with impunity. At Flodden, Scottish artillery was poorly positioned, and so English were able to use artillery against the Scottish infantry. English longbowmen had very little impact initially as in this battle Scots placed best-armored men in the front. Later on they were able to engage essentially unarmored Highlander formations, which did cause casualties. As for cavalry charges, you are correct. However, probability of successful charge must have been high, otherwise nobody will have used heavy cavalry. Agreed. And, logistics is where the Romans really excelled. Aldarion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaffronLady Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 19 minutes ago, SeanF said: And, logistics is where the Romans really excelled. The very same category Maurice failed to manage and ended up having his entire family killed in the process. A dark day for the Romans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, SaffronLady said: The very same category Maurice failed to manage and ended up having his entire family killed in the process. A dark day for the Romans. Replaced by the most vile and inept emperor in the history of the Eastern Empire (okay, perhaps Isaac Angelos and Andronikos II were worse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaffronLady Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 1 hour ago, SeanF said: Replaced by the most vile and inept emperor in the history of the Eastern Empire (okay, perhaps Isaac Angelos and Andronikos II were worse). TBF Phokas was a career soldier, he was at least more a military man than Isaac A and A2. And he did manage to take control of the eastern armies (he was a commander on the Danube before becoming emperor), so that's something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.