Dothraki Army - Incompetent Huns

[Angel Eyes]

33 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

1 id disgaree there it strikes me more dany is specificaly describing the 1st time he connects in graphic detail, the noise and sparks image as the bloodrider begins  hits home as jorahs defence is passed.

Like any real fight or sparring  itl begin with some feints and movement to disguise the 1st real blow when it comes, life and death on the line so  thats expected. qotho spins the blade above his head and it describes jorah goes in on the offensive..for what it was worth.

2 come on now jorah is a pretty good knight..just not elite as his early showings at pkye and the tourney he won hinted he  could be but hes from a tougher than normal great  house and has spent  part of his life chasing any little border clash that could help him keep his golddigging harpy 1st wife!

3 theres plenty of variation of the draw weights bur recurve>>standard  ..and of course the advantage of being a horse archer is unlike regualr archers you can ride very close  to infantry (or a knight if you avoid their lance ) and loose. When you see grown  men who took it up in their 30s onwards bullseyeing tennisballs or loosing 3- 4 shots in a single gallop pass it boggles the mind the mind what cordinated  1000s of  them practiced from birth could do!

 

4 the book is a must read for that period and meticulously researched, they started as just anther largely horse archer tribe who co-opted heavy cavalry centric tribes into their ranks by victory and diplomacy where others had failed.... extra draw weight bows and loosing a few dozen  metres or so closer than their similar rivals gave them wins that others   couldnt achieve with weaker bows and more nervous (longer range)  shooting.

5 part of it is georges handwaving of siege warfare..which is a facinating subject.

 

 

6 well as iv said they COULD be its just it requires all the right conditions (open non muckyfield)  AND them to be super skillful   as individuals  AND have teamwork wayyyy  beyond the vastly superior nomads we discussed  AND be willing to eat heavy casulties to win!!! 

OR for  battle hardened westerosi infantry to suddenly become cowards and flee, men who have eaten  volleys of longbow arc/ballistic shots and stood!

2. Second wife; his first one was a Glover who died.

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

2. Second wife; his first one was a Glover who died.

Damn wrong and i bad mouthed a glover lol

[Aldarion]

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It says rattling off the armor in the middle of a schilltrom, men on horse, and men in plate, and men in chainmail. Nothing to be taken from that when the opening volley a page before shows men in chainmail charging and going down under the Lannister arrow volleys.

It is talking about Tyrion's assault on schiltron, which is infantry - meaning mail-armored, as only cavalry in Westeros seems to use plate:

Quote

A flight of arrows descended on them; where they came from he could not say,
but they fell on Stark and Lannister alike, rattling off armor or finding flesh. Tyrion lifted his
shield and hid beneath it.
The hedgehog was crumbling, the northerners reeling back under the impact of the mounted
assault. Tyrion saw Shagga catch a spearman full in the chest as the fool came on at a run, saw
his axe shear through mail and leather and muscle and lungs.

Tyrion's cavalry itself was lightly armored cavalry - which again means that only few people will have had mail.

Regarding page before, I believe you are talking about this?

Quote

As the horns died away, a hissing filled the air; a vast flight of arrows arched up from his right,
where the archers stood flanking the road. The northerners broke into a run, shouting as they
came, but the Lannister arrows fell on them like hail, hundreds of arrows, thousands, and shouts
turned to screams as men stumbled and went down. By then a second flight was in the air, and
the archers were fitting a third arrow to their bowstrings.

Nothing there to indicate arrows pierced armor. And in any case, these will have been longbow arrows - not arrows from Dothraki cavalry bows.

Now, in real life, padded gambeson can stop a longbow arrow (bodkin at least - broadhead may have cut through. But then again, mail is better at stopping broadheads than bodkins - mail armor was essentially a composite armor). Situation may be different in MartinWorld, but above does not conclusively prove that Dothraki bows will be armor piercers.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

1 id disgaree there it strikes me more dany is specificaly describing the 1st time he connects in graphic detail, the noise and sparks image as the bloodrider begins  hits home as jorahs defence is passed.

Like any real fight or sparring  itl begin with some feints and movement to disguise the 1st real blow when it comes, life and death on the line so  thats expected. qotho spins the blade above his head and it describes jorah goes in on the offensive..for what it was worth.

I don't think that is the case. And in a real fight, you don't use many feints... here and there to misdirect opponent's guard, but you don't have a flurry of feints before a single strike. It is simply a useless waste of energy.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

2 come on now jorah is a pretty good knight..just not elite as his early showings at pkye and the tourney he won hinted he  could be but hes from a tougher than normal great  house and has spent  part of his life chasing any little border clash that could help him keep his golddigging harpy 1st wife!

 

I don't recall anything showing him to be particularly good. The tournament he won was jousting, and it was implied he was more lucky than good anyway.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

3 theres plenty of variation of the draw weights bur recurve>>standard  ..and of course the advantage of being a horse archer is unlike regualr archers you can ride very close  to infantry (or a knight if you avoid their lance ) and loose. When you see grown  men who took it up in their 30s onwards bullseyeing tennisballs or loosing 3- 4 shots in a single gallop pass it boggles the mind the mind what cordinated  1000s of  them practiced from birth could do!

 

Not really. Recurve bow can achieve higher draw weight than a normal bow all other things being equal. But things are not equal here. Dothraki are horse archers, and when in saddle, stance and need to control the horse significantly limit the draw weight person can achieve - even with the exact same bow. Because of this, historically, horse archer bows tended to be smaller and less tightly strung (=weaker) than infantry bows. As I noted here:

Quote

Byzantine infantry bows could be some 1,4 to 1,6 meters tall with maximum range of up to 330 meters and killing range of 200 meters. For comparison, cavalry bows were 115 – 125 cm tall with maximum range of 135 meters and killing range of 60 – 80 meters. Killing range here is against unarmored target: against target wearing lamellar armor, penetration was impossible even at range of 20 meters, while even mail armor was safe at distance of at least 30 – 40 meters. In fact, against relatively weak bows of horse archers, simple cloth armor such as gambeson could be counted on to reliably stop the arrow. Infantry that used such armor also generally used shields, which by themselves were already good protection from arrows.

In short, horse archers have to ride very close to infantry to have any chance of getting through armor. And when they do... well, they are a large target, often unarmored, and each horse archer takes a lot of space to maneuver.

Against infantry archers in formation, horse archers will get slaughtered. Even the Mongols preferred to dismount and fight as infantry - or else send in heavy cavalry - when faced with foot archers.

17 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

4 the book is a must read for that period and meticulously researched, they started as just anther largely horse archer tribe who co-opted heavy cavalry centric tribes into their ranks by victory and diplomacy where others had failed.... extra draw weight bows and loosing a few dozen  metres or so closer than their similar rivals gave them wins that others   couldnt achieve with weaker bows and more nervous (longer range)  shooting.

Which book?

17 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

6 well as iv said they COULD be its just it requires all the right conditions (open non muckyfield)  AND them to be super skillful   as individuals  AND have teamwork wayyyy  beyond the vastly superior nomads we discussed  AND be willing to eat heavy casulties to win!!! 

OR for  battle hardened westerosi infantry to suddenly become cowards and flee, men who have eaten  volleys of longbow arc/ballistic shots and stood!

Agreed.

[astarkchoice]

58 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

 

1 i don't think that is the case. And in a real fight, you don't use many feints... here and there to misdirect opponent's guard, but you don't have a flurry of feints before a single strike. It is simply a useless waste of energy.

2 I don't recall anything showing him to be particularly good. The tournament he won was jousting, and it was implied he was more lucky than good anyway.

3 Not really. Recurve bow can achieve higher draw weight than a normal bow all other things being equal. But things are not equal here. Dothraki are horse archers, and when in saddle, stance and need to control the horse significantly limit the draw weight person can achieve - even with the exact same bow. Because of this, historically, horse archer bows tended to be smaller and less tightly strung (=weaker) than infantry bows. As I noted here:

In short, horse archers have to ride very close to infantry to have any chance of getting through armor. And when they do... well, they are a large target, often unarmored, and each horse archer takes a lot of space to maneuver.

3 Against infantry archers in formation, horse archers will get slaughtered. Even the Mongols preferred to dismount and fight as infantry - or else send in heavy cavalry - when faced with foot archers.

4 Which book?

Agreed.

1 nope  it can disguise where your first real strike is comming from , draw out a strike and counter and   to feel out your opponents reactions. Literaly any boxing match, mma fight, swordfight etc there will be a lot of movement before anyone connects with anyone significantly...theres almost always a feeling out process

2 mormonts tend to be better than most (shit even their women are warriors) due to the threat of raiding, mormont grew up there and his showing at pyke and lannisport made them think hed be something special....he wasnt obviously but between his background and surbiving as a merc to the back end of middle age strongly suggests better than adverage, the saying is  being beware old men in young mens professsions!!

3 you mean in combo with pikes out on  their own vs charging horeses thed be dead meat!  and even then they have an advantage in accuracy and being ser targets behind shield + pike or spear walls but speed and movement have their uses too when used tacticaly

4' fall of the roman empire' by peter heather dude, again as the book says  hun horseback archers could penetrate mail cataphracts (decent quality mail)  and their recurve bows where like kids toys compared to mongol horseback ones.! ..the larger dismounted ones are a step up again but the ones from horseback can penetrate mail and padding just fine......plate armour of course is very a different story but i posted a educational  vid on longbows vs armour and many mongol longbows will be in that punching range. 

Theres other variables they dont cover of course like close range shooting , the impact of one arrow after another hitting the same armour/mail thus damage increases and for obvious reasons we can knly guess what it actualy felt like

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

1 nope  it can disguise where your first real strike is comming from , draw out a strike and counter and   to feel out your opponents reactions. Literaly any boxing match, mma fight, swordfight etc there will be a lot of movement before anyone connects with anyone significantly...theres almost always a feeling out process

There is a difference between making a few feints and making a flurry of strikes. Feints, yes, but it is never a protracted exchange. Observe:

Also, in sword fighting, "feeling out process" is often done by locking the swords together and trying to guess opponent's next move by literally feeling pressure on the sword.

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

2 mormonts tend to be better than most (shit even their women are warriors) due to the threat of raiding, mormont grew up there and his showing at pyke and lannisport made them think hed be something special....he wasnt obviously but between his background and surbiving as a merc to the back end of middle age strongly suggests better than adverage, the saying is  being beware old men in young mens professsions!!

Jorah succeeded at Lannisport, but even he admits that was his peak. At best he is slightly better than average, but that's about the highest I'd put him like ever.

And wasn't his mercenary work in Essos? For Westerosi, that is like playing a game at beginner difficulty level.

Point is, Jorah looks good because he is basically surrounded by jobbers.

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

3 you mean in combo with pikes out on  their own vs charging horeses thed be dead meat!  and even then they have an advantage in accuracy and being ser targets behind shield + pike or spear walls but speed and movement have their uses too when used tacticaly

 

??? I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but what I am saying is that Dothraki simply do not have a solution for pikemen + longbowmen combination. They do not have the heavy cavalry that can attempt to punch through the pikemen lines, and they do not have armor and heavy infantry bows to win missile exchange against Westerosi foot archers.

Horse archers can be extremely useful... but they have always been a supporting arm. Even long into the era of gunpowder, you simply had to come in close to make a decisive result.

3 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

4' fall of the roman empire' by peter heather dude, again as the book says  hun horseback archers could penetrate mail cataphracts (decent quality mail)  and their recurve bows where like kids toys compared to mongol horseback ones.! ..the larger dismounted ones are a step up again but the ones from horseback can penetrate mail and padding just fine......plate armour of course is very a different story but i posted a educational  vid on longbows vs armour and many mongol longbows will be in that punching range. 

Theres other variables they dont cover of course like close range shooting , the impact of one arrow after another hitting the same armour/mail thus damage increases and for obvious reasons we can knly guess what it actualy felt like

I am looking at it, and he also specifies that that was only possible because Hunnic bows were asymmetric, much like Japanese yumi (Samurai were horse archers). Horseback longbows, basically. I have seen no implication or statement that would indicate that Dothraki bows are asymmetric, however.

Mongol bows are overrated. They were a powerful weapon, sure, but bows alone did not really bring them the successes they had. Even tactically, Mongol heavy cavalry was the decisive arm, though one should not underestimate importance of horse archers in preparing the ground for their employment. Thing is, Dothraki have no heavy cavalry. Both Huns and Mongols had heavy cavalry, and Dothraki lack of it means that you cannot really use them for comparison.

I have seen that video, multiple times. And it is much less useful than you think. Longbow vs armor depends on longbow and armor... and you cannot use longbow as basis for a short cavalry bow.

Also, here you have arrows penetrate gambeson:

Yet here gambeson stops them:

And you have to consider that armor in tests will always perform worse than in reality, because in these tests it is stretched across a flat surface, there is no movement and arrow hits directly... pretty much ideal conditions for the bow. In real combat however, arrows will arrive at an angle and armor itself may move, both of which would limit ability of arrow to penetrate armor.

[astarkchoice]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

-There is a difference between making a few feints and making a flurry of strikes. Feints, yes, but it is never a protracted exchange. Observe:

Also, in sword fighting, "feeling out process" is often done by locking the swords together and trying to guess opponent's next move by literally feeling pressure on the sword.

-Jorah succeeded at Lannisport, but even he admits that was his peak. At best he is slightly better than average, but that's about the highest I'd put him like ever.

And wasn't his mercenary work in Essos? For Westerosi, that is like playing a game at beginner difficulty level.

Point is, Jorah looks good because he is basically surrounded by jobbers.

-??? I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but what I am saying is that Dothraki simply do not have a solution for pikemen + longbowmen combination. They do not have the heavy cavalry that can attempt to punch through the pikemen lines, and they do not have armor and heavy infantry bows to win missile exchange against Westerosi foot archers.

Horse archers can be extremely useful... but they have always been a supporting arm. Even long into the era of gunpowder, you simply had to come in close to make a decisive result.

-I am looking at it, and he also specifies that that was only possible because Hunnic bows were asymmetric, much like Japanese yumi (Samurai were horse archers). Horseback longbows, basically. I have seen no implication or statement that would indicate that Dothraki bows are asymmetric, however.

Mongol bows are overrated. They were a powerful weapon, sure, but bows alone did not really bring them the successes they had. Even tactically, Mongol heavy cavalry was the decisive arm, though one should not underestimate importance of horse archers in preparing the ground for their employment. Thing is, Dothraki have no heavy cavalry. Both Huns and Mongols had heavy cavalry, and Dothraki lack of it means that you cannot really use them for comparison.

-I have seen that video, multiple times. And it is much less useful than you think. Longbow vs armor depends on longbow and armor... and you cannot use longbow as basis for a short cavalry bow.

Also, here you have arrows penetrate gambeson:

Yet here gambeson stops them:

And you have to consider that armor in tests will always perform worse than in reality, because in these tests it is stretched across a flat surface, there is no movement and arrow hits directly... pretty much ideal conditions for the bow. In real combat however, arrows will arrive at an angle and armor itself may move, both of which would limit ability of arrow to penetrate armor.

-theres plenty of more  stuff that shows their will be more of a feeling out process esp for 2 men fightingnto the death not slapping each other in padded suits,   if you look up youtube with sabre stuff where more feints and 'spinny stuff' for want of a better word is required. From polosh sabre stuff to chinese dao forms to kalipayattu

Heres  live drills from one  the worlds oldest martial arts with swordplay involved

-hes def not elite no bit you are clearly tryinf to undersell his skills there. Mormonts are clearly raisee toughee than most in westeros and in essos hel be fighting other professional  sellswords so if anything hes been on hard mode.

-i think we sorta mixedup there  overall we agree  dothraki DO have a solution to pike and foot archer  its just minus  heavy cavalry  backup or armour  its just   wayy wayy bloodier for them!! 

-ooh yeah the dothraki have shown no mixed arms skill agreed . Now the mongol bow is still an amazing weapon it cant be downplayed (or vast series of  handmade weapons to be acccurate) with plenty capable being fired from horseback with incredible power.

The tests it could be argued also miss the importance  what  repeated strikes couls potentiay do nor will we ever know what it feels like to be in a suit getting pelted with them or they missed from horseheight aiming down at neck etc  but they do show whata longbow or a recurve bow with around  the same punching power can do esp if aimed well at certain points or from the sides etc......not that  any of  that matters for dothraki as minus armour circling.knights/infantry   and firing means even glancing arrow/quarrel blows comming back  will maim or de-horse.

Edited February 23 by astarkchoice

[Aldarion]

1 minute ago, astarkchoice said:

-theres plenty of more  stuff that shows their will be more of a feeling out process esp for 2 men fightingnto the death not slapling each other in padded suits,   if you look up youtube with sabre stuff where more feintd and 'spinny stuff' for what of a better word is required. From polosh sabre stuff to chinese dao forms to kalipayattu

Heres  live drills from one  the worlds oldest martial arts with swordplay involved

That looks more like a dance than anything. And tiring yourself out for no reason is really not a smart thing to do, not to mention that it is kinda useless against a person in armor. So either way, Dothraki are dumb.

1 minute ago, astarkchoice said:

-hes def not elite no bit you are clearly tryinf to undersell his skills there. Mormonts are clearly raisee toughee than most in westeros and in essos hel be fighting other professional  sellswords so if anything hes been on hard mode.

 

Most sellswords are not that better than Westerosi soldiers, and vast majority of Essosi sellswords are likely far worse.

And we already know that Dothraki are literally no threat to any city that actually utilizes said sellswords.

2 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

-i think we sorta mixedup there  overall we agree  dothraki DO have a solution to pike and foot archer  its just minus  heavy cavalry  backup or armour  its just   wayy wayy bloodier for them!! 

 

I wouldn't say that they "have a solution to pike and foot archers".

I mean, what would be their solution?

Consider:

1. Dothraki have no armor for themselves or horses, which means that archers will slaughter them on approach. This is bad because it means that:
   1. Dothraki will take losses during the entire approach to enemy lines;
   2. fact that they are vulnerable to archers means that they cannot try and deplete Westerosi troops through attrition - they will take far more losses in any missile exchange;
   3. if they charge, they will be disordered by arrows, making them unable to even attempt to penetrate the lines;
2. Dothraki also have no long-reach weapons or lances, which means that they cannot even attempt to charge through the kill zone and sweep away enemy infantry in one massive charge.

The only solution they may even attempt is to try and overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers... but even ignoring the fact that we know how it goes for them historically (the Stand of the 3 000), that is simply not a sustainable solution.

1 hour ago, astarkchoice said:

-ooh yeah the dothraki have shown no mixed arms skill agreed . Now the mongol bow is still an amazing weapon it cant be downplayed (or vast series of  handmade weapons to be acccurate) with plenty capable being fired from horseback with incredible power.

The tests it could be argued also miss the importance  what  repeated strikes couls potentiay do nor will we ever know what it feels like to be in a suit getting pelted with them but they do show whata longbow or a recurve bow with around  the same punching power can do.

Agreed, but my point is that bows never were decisive weapons. Even Mongols relied on close-in engagement to force the decision - and Dothraki don't really have that option.

[astarkchoice]

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

-That looks more like a dance than anything. And tiring yourself out for no reason is really not a smart thing to do, not to mention that it is kinda useless against a person in armor. So either way, Dothraki are dumb.

-Most sellswords are not that better than Westerosi soldiers, and vast majority of Essosi sellswords are likely far worse.

And we already know that Dothraki are literally no threat to any city that actually utilizes said sellswords.

-I wouldn't say that they "have a solution to pike and foot archers".

I mean, what would be their solution?

Consider:

1. Dothraki have no armor for themselves or horses, which means that archers will slaughter them on approach. This is bad because it means that:
   1. Dothraki will take losses during the entire approach to enemy lines;
   2. fact that they are vulnerable to archers means that they cannot try and deplete Westerosi troops through attrition - they will take far more losses in any missile exchange;
   3. if they charge, they will be disordered by arrows, making them unable to even attempt to penetrate the lines;
2. Dothraki also have no long-reach weapons or lances, which means that they cannot even attempt to charge through the kill zone and sweep away enemy infantry in one massive charge.

The only solution they may even attempt is to try and overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers... but even ignoring the fact that we know how it goes for them historically (the Stand of the 3 000), that is simply not a sustainable solution.

-Agreed, but my point is that bows never were decisive weapons. Even Mongols relied on close-in engagement to force the decision - and Dothraki don't really have that option.

Its an drill  dude the middle ground between sparring and single technique practice. Its from one of the oldest martial arts alive and gets them used to live steel and running through a series of techniques at differing speeds. The spinning and feinting exists in other sword styles too

Note the end the spining of the sabre to feint and hinde the true attack

 

I mean i could post these all year but you get the point. For a sword minus a stabby bit you need to get some movement in to hide the angle.of your slash..or to bait someone to attack right into one! Its in swordplay worldwide from chinese dao forms to western sabres to indian martial arts.

 

- theyl be full time professionals so theyl be at least as good. P4p the golden company wipes the floor with literaly any westerosi force of the same numbers.Jorah is clearly better than adverage but not elite.

-their solution is the same way proper horse archer forces would try and  deal ie create gaps in tbe pike/spear wall with missle fire and flow into them letting the momentum and mass of the horses do the work....but minus armour or spears/lances (and again we are assuming they domt use spears)  itl be far far bloodier than a sensibly equipped cavalry force would suffer. Foot archers cold take a toll yes but their most effective technique(arced/ballistic shot) is cancelled out vs moving targets esp if they have space to spread out AND doing direct targetting (tricky with longbows)  is hard enounb without needmg to retreat back and forth quickly behind the shields/pike wall

 

-by that measure nothings a decisive weapon. Generaly mixed arms >>> single weapon for sure.

[Aldarion]

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

I mean i could post these all year but you get the point. For a sword minus a stabby bit you need to get some movement in to hide the angle.of your slash..or to bait someone to attack right into one! Its in swordplay worldwide from chinese dao forms to western sabres to indian martial arts.

 

Some movement yes, but limited.

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

- theyl be full time professionals so theyl be at least as good. P4p the golden company wipes the floor with literaly any westerosi force of the same numbers.Jorah is clearly better than adverage but not elite.

 

Golden Company is probably by far the best fighting force in Planetos, so no surprise there.

As for mercenaries, I agree that Westerosi origin mercenaries will be better than Westerosi average. But Essosi origin mercenaries will be a mixed bunch, depending on where they come from.

And if we look at the Essosi mercenary groups and their origin:

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Adventurers - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Brave_Companions - unknown, multicultural - 100

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Bright_Banners - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Company_of_the_Cat - unknown, likely Free Cities - 3 000

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Company_of_the_Rose - Westerosi (Northern)

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Free_Company_(sellsword_company) - unknwon

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Gallant_Men - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Golden_Company - Westerosi; widely noted to be the "finest" Free Company - 10 000

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Iron_Shields - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jolly_Fellows - unknown, likely Free Cities

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Long_Lances - unknown - 800 riders

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Maiden's_Men - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Men_of_Valor - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Ragged_Standard - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Second_Sons - Essosi - 500 men

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Stormbreakers - Westerosi

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Stormcrows - Essosi (Free Cities) - 500 horse

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Windblown - Essosi (Free Cities) - 2 000 horse and foot

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Wolf_Pack - Westerosi (North)

It seems likely that the largest and the best mercenary companies come from Westeros and the Free Cities.

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-their solution is the same way proper horse archer forces would try and  deal ie create gaps in tbe pike/spear wall with missle fire and flow into them letting the momentum and mass of the horses do the work....but minus armour or spears/lances (and again we are assuming they domt use spears)  itl be far far bloodier than a sensibly equipped cavalry force would suffer. Foot archers cold take a toll yes but their most effective technique(arced/ballistic shot) is cancelled out vs moving targets esp if they have space to spread out AND doing direct targetting (tricky with longbows)  is hard enounb without needmg to retreat back and forth quickly behind the shields/pike wall

 

Proper horse archer forces had heavy cavalry. Parthians, Sassanids, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Mongols... all of them had heavily armored cavalry to act as a strike force.

And yes, what you described is how they did it. But thing you are missing is that, without heavy cavalry, it isn't just more difficult to penetrate heavy infantry lines... it is nearly impossible.

Let's look at how actual horse archers did it:

• Horse archers were a harassing force. They would close in, shoot arrows from close range, and then disengage. Alternatively, they could harass from distance.
• But light (unarmored) horse archers only engaged infantry if infantry had no slingers or archers of their own. This is what happened at Carrhae, allowing Persians to simply wear down Roman infantry by alternating horse archer harassment with cataphract charges.
• We see during Crusades that horse archers could indeed engage even in presence of foot archers... but they were essentially ineffective. Horse archers were forced to stay at distance, causing few casualties despite having overwhelming numerical superiority in both battles.
• By and large, foot archers are a hard counter to horse archers. Romans won victories against Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alani and the Huns. Mongols countered this weakness by equipping their horse archers with armor and two bows, allowing them to dismount and fight as foot archers in presence of enemy foot archer force.

So essentially, horse archers faced with foot archers are helpless. They need either armor to be able to close in to their own effective range (which is shorter than that of foot archers), or they need heavy cavalry to take the hits for them. And even armored horse archers still need heavy cavalry (or ability to act as heavy cavalry) to actually finish off the enemy infantry.

And no, "most effective technique" is not "cancelled out vs moving targets", where are you getting that from? Foot archers saturate area anyway, especially when shooting at range. They won't be trying to hit individual targets until the enemy is close, but several thousand foot archers can easily create a killing field for anything without armor. Meanwhile, because Westerosi infantry do have armor, Dothraki will have to get very deep within the longbow killing range to the point where their arrows can start punching through mail. 

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-by that measure nothings a decisive weapon. Generaly mixed arms >>> single weapon for sure.

Wrong. Pike can, depending on its utilization, indeed be a decisive weapon. As in, pikemen can win battles on their own, without support. Swiss pikemen were famous for this, but there are even few examples of Macedonian phalangites decisively winning a battle, though by and large heavy cavalry was Alexander's decisive arm.

Sword can be a decisive weapon - just look at the Roman Legions. While Romans used javelins heavily, sword was what made decision.

Lance can be a decisive weapon, as can mace. Heavy cavalry is indeed capable of winning battles without support, and often did so.

And yes, it is always better to have combined arms. But pikemen, swordsmen and heavy cavalry can all decide a battle by themselves, and even without support.

In contrast, bow and other pre-gunpowder ranged weapons were never decisive (unless we are talking something like Neanderthal vs Cro-Magnon). Even in battles which are used as examples of strength of archers, be it foot archers (Crecy, Agincourt) or horse archers (Carrhae, Manzikert), archery was not a decisive force. Rather, it was a shaping force, influencing the battle in a more favorable direction which could then be exploited by the melee elements of the army. Without presence of the close-range troops, archers will generally run out of arrows long before they manage to achieve a decisive outcome, even assuming the enemy just sits there and takes it.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

 

In contrast, bow and other pre-gunpowder ranged weapons were never decisive (unless we are talking something like Neanderthal vs Cro-Magnon). Even in battles which are used as examples of strength of archers, be it foot archers (Crecy, Agincourt) or horse archers (Carrhae, Manzikert), archery was not a decisive force. Rather, it was a shaping force, influencing the battle in a more favorable direction which could then be exploited by the melee elements of the army. Without presence of the close-range troops, archers will generally run out of arrows long before they manage to achieve a decisive outcome, even assuming the enemy just sits there and takes it.

Most of the time, I don't think archery was - on its own - all that lethal.  What archers could do, firing in volleys, very effectively, was to ruin the momentum of an infantry advance or cavalry charge, and to just demoralise the enemy (getting struck repeatedly by arrows is painful and unpleasant, even if few can penetrate armour).  You may have got more people being injured by splinters, as the arrows shattered on impact, than by the arrowheads themselves.

[Aldarion]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Most of the time, I don't think archery was - on its own - all that lethal.  What archers could do, firing in volleys, very effectively, was to ruin the momentum of an infantry advance or cavalry charge, and to just demoralise the enemy (getting struck repeatedly by arrows is painful and unpleasant, even if few can penetrate armour).  You may have got more people being injured by splinters, as the arrows shattered on impact, than by the arrowheads themselves.

Precisely. In several cases, battles were won by archers causing a premature charge... they basically annoyed the enemy to death.

[astarkchoice]

59 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

1 Some movement yes, but limited.

2 Golden Company is probably by far the best fighting force in Planetos, so no surprise there.

As for mercenaries, I agree that Westerosi origin mercenaries will be better than Westerosi average. But Essosi origin mercenaries will be a mixed bunch, depending on where they come from.

And if we look at the Essosi mercenary groups and their origin:

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Adventurers - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Brave_Companions - unknown, multicultural - 100

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Bright_Banners - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Company_of_the_Cat - unknown, likely Free Cities - 3 000

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Company_of_the_Rose - Westerosi (Northern)

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Free_Company_(sellsword_company) - unknwon

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Gallant_Men - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Golden_Company - Westerosi; widely noted to be the "finest" Free Company - 10 000

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Iron_Shields - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jolly_Fellows - unknown, likely Free Cities

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Long_Lances - unknown - 800 riders

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Maiden's_Men - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Men_of_Valor - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Ragged_Standard - unknown

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Second_Sons - Essosi - 500 men

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Stormbreakers - Westerosi

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Stormcrows - Essosi (Free Cities) - 500 horse

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Windblown - Essosi (Free Cities) - 2 000 horse and foot

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Wolf_Pack - Westerosi (North)

It seems likely that the largest and the best mercenary companies come from Westeros and the Free Cities.

3 Proper horse archer forces had heavy cavalry. Parthians, Sassanids, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Mongols... all of them had heavily armored cavalry to act as a strike force.

And yes, what you described is how they did it. But thing you are missing is that, without heavy cavalry, it isn't just more difficult to penetrate heavy infantry lines... it is nearly impossible.

Let's look at how actual horse archers did it:

• Horse archers were a harassing force. They would close in, shoot arrows from close range, and then disengage. Alternatively, they could harass from distance.
• But light (unarmored) horse archers only engaged infantry if infantry had no slingers or archers of their own. This is what happened at Carrhae, allowing Persians to simply wear down Roman infantry by alternating horse archer harassment with cataphract charges.
• We see during Crusades that horse archers could indeed engage even in presence of foot archers... but they were essentially ineffective. Horse archers were forced to stay at distance, causing few casualties despite having overwhelming numerical superiority in both battles.
• By and large, foot archers are a hard counter to horse archers. Romans won victories against Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alani and the Huns. Mongols countered this weakness by equipping their horse archers with armor and two bows, allowing them to dismount and fight as foot archers in presence of enemy foot archer force.

So essentially, horse archers faced with foot archers are helpless. They need either armor to be able to close in to their own effective range (which is shorter than that of foot archers), or they need heavy cavalry to take the hits for them. And even armored horse archers still need heavy cavalry (or ability to act as heavy cavalry) to actually finish off the enemy infantry.

4 And no, "most effective technique" is not "cancelled out vs moving targets", where are you getting that from? Foot archers saturate area anyway, especially when shooting at range. They won't be trying to hit individual targets until the enemy is close, but several thousand foot archers can easily create a killing field for anything without armor. Meanwhile, because Westerosi infantry do have armor, Dothraki will have to get very deep within the longbow killing range to the point where their arrows can start punching through mail. 

5 Wrong. Pike can, depending on its utilization, indeed be a decisive weapon. As in, pikemen can win battles on their own, without support. Swiss pikemen were famous for this, but there are even few examples of Macedonian phalangites decisively winning a battle, though by and large heavy cavalry was Alexander's decisive arm.

Sword can be a decisive weapon - just look at the Roman Legions. While Romans used javelins heavily, sword was what made decision.

Lance can be a decisive weapon, as can mace. Heavy cavalry is indeed capable of winning battles without support, and often did so.

And yes, it is always better to have combined arms. But pikemen, swordsmen and heavy cavalry can all decide a battle by themselves, and even without support.

In contrast, bow and other pre-gunpowder ranged weapons were never decisive (unless we are talking something like Neanderthal vs Cro-Magnon). Even in battles which are used as examples of strength of archers, be it foot archers (Crecy, Agincourt) or horse archers (Carrhae, Manzikert), archery was not a decisive force. Rather, it was a shaping force, influencing the battle in a more favorable direction which could then be exploited by the melee elements of the army. Without presence of the close-range troops, archers will generally run out of arrows long before they manage to achieve a decisive outcome, even assuming the enemy just sits there and takes it.

1) nope a little spin can also help you warm up, show off  as well as helping feint 

2)thats all we know of current and historic..many stsrted by a few westerosi but the bulk of those companies will be essos born and bred, even the golden comlany with its unique qlmsot 100%, westerosi officers will be majority essosi at the foot level!

3) nope a mass of foot thats been saturated with arrows and gaps created  can still be charged , heavy kr light it is still essentialy the mass and momentum of loads of men om horses doing the work then plain butchery with whatever they have as weapons.....its jsut minus armour or spears they will def lose a much much higher %, of men.

4)yes thata called arc or balistic shooting (most famous from the braveheart opening battle start) your archers fire volleys high at masses of men. In a large  open field thats essentialy worthless vs a galloping block of horses ...no amount of training will let you time that one so the arrows land just where the horses will be mind gallop and that assumes they will ride tight together. It is essentialy what most longbowmen did.

No they must wait til they get close enough for individual fire targetted from behind.pike/spear men ir at least a sheildwall  to avoid being ran down. 

Now foot archers have an advantage over  cavalry at aiming range yes but again thats a light year away from an 

5)im actualy awestruck that you would cite those battles and not say the archers were not  the decisive factor! Carrhae? Like 90% of the non roman force were horse archers they did the  bulk  of the killing esp as the had camels bring them.arrows all day, agincourt the hail of incomming arrows as much as the mud took the french advantage in knights away and turned it into a disadvantage they were literaly what saved the english that day.  crecy etc

Falkirk  was another before we even get to multiple  persian, hun, mongol battles. Han forces could be up to 1/3 crossbow and archers , indian forces a large %  of archers too, archers on foot and horseback shape battles  yes but they also 'decisively 'kill a fuckton of people too!

Now they arent a 'superunit' by any means but i think your desire to mick the dothraki is seriously warping yout opinion of a highly sucessful and adaptable historical war unit 

[Aldarion]

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

1) nope a little spin can also help you warm up, show off  as well as helping feint 

 

Yet when you look at actual swordfighting, there is no wild slashing about:

 

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

2)thats all we know of current and historic..many stsrted by a few westerosi but the bulk of those companies will be essos born and bred, even the golden comlany with its unique qlmsot 100%, westerosi officers will be majority essosi at the foot level!

 

Will it? Also, what matters here are organizational culture, equipment or tactics. Where cannon fodder comes from is irrelevant to relative military capabilities of Westeros vs Essos.

15 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

3) nope a mass of foot thats been saturated with arrows and gaps created  can still be charged , heavy kr light it is still essentialy the mass and momentum of loads of men om horses doing the work then plain butchery with whatever they have as weapons.....its jsut minus armour or spears they will def lose a much much higher %, of men.

 

You know, it would actually help if you actually read what I wrote.

Against an infantry force which has archers itself, Dothraki will not be able to saturate them with arrows to begin with. There will be no gaps for them to charge. And even if there are gaps... infantry can simply turn flank or about-face if necessary. Any attempt by Dothraki to engage armored infantry at close range will end badly for them, because they will be outranged by infantry weapons and have no armor to compensate for the range disadvantage.

Yes, it will be "plain butchery"... of the Dothraki themselves.

Sure, they can indeed overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers. But that just mean you will run out of Dothraki after a few battles.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

4)yes thata called arc or balistic shooting (most famous from the braveheart opening battle start) your archers fire volleys high at masses of men. In a large  open field thats essentialy worthless vs a galloping block of horses ...no amount of training will let you time that one so the arrows land just where the horses will be mind gallop and that assumes they will ride tight together. It is essentialy what most longbowmen did.

No they must wait til they get close enough for individual fire targetted from behind.pike/spear men ir at least a sheildwall  to avoid being ran down. 

Now foot archers have an advantage over  cavalry at aiming range yes but again thats a light year away from an 

No, it is not worthless. You appear to think that a galloping block of horses will tap dance and teleport all over the place, which is wrong. Horses can run at 50 kph at most (that is ignoring specifically bred race horses). That is 14 meters per second. At 300 meters, flight time of an arrow is some 7 - 8 seconds. That means galloping horse may cover 112 meters at most. So a saturation fire from massess of foot archers can still hit them, though individual aiming is obviously impossible. But at that distance, horse archer bow cannot even reach the target with a war arrow, let alone penetrate armor. In order for horse archers to have any effect against even unarmored infantry with shields, they have to close to distance where they can actually aim at, and hit, individual targets. And if infantry is wearing mail, they have to close to basically point-blank range. That is the problem.

And as I said, even Mongols preferred to shoot dismounted against enemy foot archers.

16 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

5)im actualy awestruck that you would cite those battles and not say the archers were not  the decisive factor! Carrhae? Like 90% of the non roman force were horse archers they did the  bulk  of the killing esp as the had camels bring them.arrows all day, agincourt the hail of incomming arrows as much as the mud took the french advantage in knights away and turned it into a disadvantage they were literaly what saved the english that day.  crecy etc

Falkirk  was another before we even get to multiple  persian, hun, mongol battles. Han forces could be up to 1/3 crossbow and archers , indian forces a large %  of archers too, archers on foot and horseback shape battles  yes but they also 'decisively 'kill a fuckton of people too!

Now they arent a 'superunit' by any means but i think your desire to mick the dothraki is seriously warping yout opinion of a highly sucessful and adaptable historical war unit 

I never said they were not important. But there is a difference between "important" and "decisive". Fact is that archers never brought a decision by themselves.

It was in fact the Parthian cataphracts which did bulk of the killing at Carrhae. Horse archers served to pin the Roman infantry down, but it was the cataphracts which actually inflicted casualties. Horse archers were important, but they were in a strictly supporting role at Carrhae.

At Agincourt, French were attacking through the mud into the teeth of well-prepared defensive position. In such conditions they will have lost even had English had zero archers. Crecy had the exact same conditions as Agincourt. Falkirk was in fact won by English knights, archers merely helped with a mop-up operation. Huns and Mongols used heavy cavalry as their decisive arm.

Same goes for all the other examples. Byzantine armies had more than a third archers in their infantry (11 200 heavy infantry, 4 800 archers of which 3 600 in battle line, 2 400 slingers and javeliners - so battleline is 1/4 archers, overall infantry is 40% ranged troops) - yet they never expected to repulse heavy cavalry attacks with just archers. Instead, that was the role of the pikemen and the spearmen.

You are watching too much pop history, I think.

[astarkchoice]

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

-Yet when you look at actual swordfighting, there is no wild slashing about:

 

-Will it? Also, what matters here are organizational culture, equipment or tactics. Where cannon fodder comes from is irrelevant to relative military capabilities of Westeros vs Essos.

-You know, it would actually help if you actually read what I wrote.

-Against an infantry force which has archers itself, Dothraki will not be able to saturate them with arrows to begin with. There will be no gaps for them to charge. And even if there are gaps... infantry can simply turn flank or about-face if necessary. Any attempt by Dothraki to engage armored infantry at close range will end badly for them, because they will be outranged by infantry weapons and have no armor to compensate for the range disadvantage.

Yes, it will be "plain butchery"... of the Dothraki themselves.

Sure, they can indeed overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers. But that just mean you will run out of Dothraki after a few battles.

-No, it is not worthless. You appear to think that a galloping block of horses will tap dance and teleport all over the place, which is wrong. Horses can run at 50 kph at most (that is ignoring specifically bred race horses). That is 14 meters per second. At 300 meters, flight time of an arrow is some 7 - 8 seconds. That means galloping horse may cover 112 meters at most. So a saturation fire from massess of foot archers can still hit them, though individual aiming is obviously impossible. But at that distance, horse archer bow cannot even reach the target with a war arrow, let alone penetrate armor. In order for horse archers to have any effect against even unarmored infantry with shields, they have to close to distance where they can actually aim at, and hit, individual targets. And if infantry is wearing mail, they have to close to basically point-blank range. That is the problem.

And as I said, even Mongols preferred to shoot dismounted against enemy foot archers.

-I never said they were not important. But there is a difference between "important" and "decisive". Fact is that archers never brought a decision by themselves.

It was in fact the Parthian cataphracts which did bulk of the killing at Carrhae. Horse archers served to pin the Roman infantry down, but it was the cataphracts which actually inflicted casualties. Horse archers were important, but they were in a strictly supporting role at Carrhae.

At Agincourt, French were attacking through the mud into the teeth of well-prepared defensive position. In such conditions they will have lost even had English had zero archers. Crecy had the exact same conditions as Agincourt. Falkirk was in fact won by English knights, archers merely helped with a mop-up operation. Huns and Mongols used heavy cavalry as their decisive arm.

Same goes for all the other examples. Byzantine armies had more than a third archers in their infantry (11 200 heavy infantry, 4 800 archers of which 3 600 in battle line, 2 400 slingers and javeliners - so battleline is 1/4 archers, overall infantry is 40% ranged troops) - yet they never expected to repulse heavy cavalry attacks with just archers. Instead, that was the role of the pikemen and the spearmen.

You are watching too much pop history, I think.

-at this stage iv posted enough videoes from a wider variety of cultures  proving you wrong and that before we talk spinning the blade as a warm up or someone showing off  and you are  still choosing to pick non sabre.videos too where the rotating of the wrist is essential to feint and hide the angle.of slash with 

-erm yeah the knight culture came from essos originaly or did you forget that? Plus the essosi side has evolved from the feudal model to using professional merc companies.

-which is odd as we have already covered while foot archers have an aiming  advantage thus are the best counter  it doesnt negate the effectiveness of horse.archers at the aiming distance (theres still factors like numbers,  how they are deployed and how the othe rinfantey is dwployed around them to factor in)    nor does it change the fact an infantry block is a much much easier target for massed ballistic/arc volleys whereas aiming for moving targets over miles of open  space for the foot is a nearly  impossible shot unless the horse  archers stop or dismount thus holding still

 

-soo you think a mass.of archers can time a ballistic volley  shot .on  targets moving that fast? Are they elves.now ? Do their arrows have AI? Will the arrows self guide now? Get 1000 moden olympic calibre archers and give them drones to help time that and they.STILL wouldnt make that hail mary shot.

No sport  foot Archers use their advantages over horse archers with aimed volleys when the cavalry get close enough from behind pike or sheild walls or actual.walls not ballistic  volleys into massive.open  square.miles.hoping theyl randomly get them thats just common sense. And once again the mongols and others had recurve bows  useable on horseback that can deal with what most  infantry will be wearing just fine, the knights as we.saw.ve longbow( or a recurve bow with similar punch)  is another matter yes but the rest of the infantry wont be so lucky

-erm no the cataphracts made up barelt 1/10 of the force we are specificaly told the horse archers killed the romans at carrhae, cataphract charges helped but as a.'shaping force '.helpling  break up the already arrow saturated leaderless inured legionares....if it has been  100%  persian horse archers the romans would still all be as dead. Its actualy kinda bizzare youd say otherwise when we are literaly told in graphic detail how badly the arrows were affecting romans and how the persians had arrnaged their to be no lack of arrow replacements.

At agincourt the hail of arrows was unquestionably a deciding factor esp now we've seen the video showing theblongbows effects on contemporary armour from the side angles and its effect on those trying to move forward. . Falkirk was won by the archers dude again the same.english knights failed vs scottish schiltrons before this time the same schiltrons had to stay still and be murdered en mass by ballistic arced volley after.volley

 

Very little of this applies to the dothraki mind you minus armour or any sort of the amazing logistics and coordination we read of sucessful nomad forces and yes combined arms.would be wayy more effective but doesnt mean dothraki victories would be impossible in huge wide.open.fields just insanely  insanely costly AND or requiring legolas levels of skill per man

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-at this stage iv posted enough videoes from a wider variety of cultures  proving you wrong and that before we talk spinning the blade as a warm up or someone showing off  and you are  still choosing to pick non sabre.videos too where the rotating of the wrist is essential to feint and hide the angle.of slash with 

Sabre video then:

Quote

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.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-erm yeah the knight culture came from essos originaly or did you forget that? Plus the essosi side has evolved from the feudal model to using professional merc companies.

 

No, it did not. Knight culture developed from Andals, and Andals came from Essos, but there is no proof that anybody else in Essos developed it.

And Westeros uses "professional mercenary companies" as well. Just using mercenaries doesn't mean one group has a more developed military model - mercenaries were used literally from prehistory until today. It just means somebody has money to spare, isn't actually fighting serious wars, or both.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-which is odd as we have already covered while foot archers have an aiming  advantage thus are the best counter  it doesnt negate the effectiveness of horse.archers at the aiming distance (theres still factors like numbers,  how they are deployed and how the othe rinfantey is dwployed around them to factor in)    nor does it change the fact an infantry block is a much much easier target for massed ballistic/arc volleys whereas aiming for moving targets over miles of open  space for the foot is a nearly  impossible shot unless the horse  archers stop or dismount thus holding still

 

It actually does.

The only counters that horse archers have against foot archers are either a) dismounting and using infantry bows themselves or b) avoiding foot archers alltogether.

As for numbers and deployment... you do understand that foot archers will have advantage in both? And no, man on a horse, and especially a group of horsemen, is not very difficult target. And since when do bows have range of "miles"?

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-soo you think a mass.of archers can time a ballistic volley  shot .on  targets moving that fast? Are they elves.now ? Do their arrows have AI? Will the arrows self guide now? Get 1000 moden olympic calibre archers and give them drones to help time that and they.STILL wouldnt make that hail mary shot.

No sport  foot Archers use their advantages over horse archers with aimed volleys when the cavalry get close enough from behind pike or sheild walls or actual.walls not ballistic  volleys into massive.open  square.miles.hoping theyl randomly get them thats just common sense. And once again the mongols and others had recurve bows  useable on horseback that can deal with what most  infantry will be wearing just fine, the knights as we.saw.ve longbow( or a recurve bow with similar punch)  is another matter yes but the rest of the infantry wont be so lucky

No need for any of that. Firepower is a cure for many ills, and so it is here. Foot archers will be far more numerous and have greater range than horse archers. If horse archers stay at distance... they die by mass arrow fire. Or get ignored because they will have no effect anyway, as they are facing enemies in armor and they themselves do not have armor.

In order to have any effect at all, Dothraki will have to close to point-blank range. And if they do so, they get shredded.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

-erm no the cataphracts made up barelt 1/10 of the force we are specificaly told the horse archers killed the romans at carrhae, cataphract charges helped but as a.'shaping force '.helpling  break up the already arrow saturated leaderless inured legionares....if it has been  100%  persian horse archers the romans would still all be as dead. Its actualy kinda bizzare youd say otherwise when we are literaly told in graphic detail how badly the arrows were affecting romans and how the persians had arrnaged their to be no lack of arrow replacements.

At agincourt the hail of arrows was unquestionably a deciding factor esp now we've seen the video showing theblongbows effects on contemporary armour from the side angles and its effect on those trying to move forward. . Falkirk was won by the archers dude again the same.english knights failed vs scottish schiltrons before this time the same schiltrons had to stay still and be murdered en mass by ballistic arced volley after.volley

It was the horse archers who were the shaping force. Romans were in fact managing to maintain order and even withdraw in spite of the horse archer attacks. Without the cataphracts, Romans will have gotten away because there was absolutely nothing horse archers could do to stop them. Sure, they may have inflicted some casualties, but Roman testudo formation was basically impervious to any sort of archers - and this was proven at Carrhae as well. But it was vulnerable to cataphracts, and so Romans had to choose whether to defend against horse archers or against the cataphracts. Without the cataphracts however, Roman army survives and Parthians may even lose.

And keep in mind that Romans had no archers of their own because Carrhus was an arrogant prick. 

At Agincourt, as I said: English will have won, longbow or no longbow. French men-at-arms had in fact reached the English center and were pushing them back hard before English longbowmen attacked them from the flanks using melee weapons.

At Falkirk, yes, archers played a significant role. But they did not actually destroy the Scottish army - heavy cavalry did. And archers could only do anything like that because Scots lacked archers of their own. Not the case in any prospective Westeros vs Dothraki battle.

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Very little of this applies to the dothraki mind you minus armour or any sort of the amazing logistics and coordination we read of sucessful nomad forces and yes combined arms.would be wayy more effective but doesnt mean dothraki victories would be impossible in huge wide.open.fields just insanely  insanely costly AND or requiring legolas levels of skill per man

True.

[astarkchoice]

42 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Sabre video then:

No, it did not. Knight culture developed from Andals, and Andals came from Essos, but there is no proof that anybody else in Essos developed it.

And Westeros uses "professional mercenary companies" as well. Just using mercenaries doesn't mean one group has a more developed military model - mercenaries were used literally from prehistory until today. It just means somebody has money to spare, isn't actually fighting serious wars, or both.

It actually does.

The only counters that horse archers have against foot archers are either a) dismounting and using infantry bows themselves or b) avoiding foot archers alltogether.

As for numbers and deployment... you do understand that foot archers will have advantage in both? And no, man on a horse, and especially a group of horsemen, is not very difficult target. And since when do bows have range of "miles"?

No need for any of that. Firepower is a cure for many ills, and so it is here. Foot archers will be far more numerous and have greater range than horse archers. If horse archers stay at distance... they die by mass arrow fire. Or get ignored because they will have no effect anyway, as they are facing enemies in armor and they themselves do not have armor.

In order to have any effect at all, Dothraki will have to close to point-blank range. And if they do so, they get shredded.

It was the horse archers who were the shaping force. Romans were in fact managing to maintain order and even withdraw in spite of the horse archer attacks. Without the cataphracts, Romans will have gotten away because there was absolutely nothing horse archers could do to stop them. Sure, they may have inflicted some casualties, but Roman testudo formation was basically impervious to any sort of archers - and this was proven at Carrhae as well. But it was vulnerable to cataphracts, and so Romans had to choose whether to defend against horse archers or against the cataphracts. Without the cataphracts however, Roman army survives and Parthians may even lose.

And keep in mind that Romans had no archers of their own because Carrhus was an arrogant prick. 

At Agincourt, as I said: English will have won, longbow or no longbow. French men-at-arms had in fact reached the English center and were pushing them back hard before English longbowmen attacked them from the flanks using melee weapons.

At Falkirk, yes, archers played a significant role. But they did not actually destroy the Scottish army - heavy cavalry did. And archers could only do anything like that because Scots lacked archers of their own. Not the case in any prospective Westeros vs Dothraki battle.

True.

 wel agree to disagree with here as it feels like anever ending circle