How good are the unsullied?

[zmflavius]

Rome fought against the antique equivalent/precursor of armored knights - the Persian Cibinarii.

IIRC, I think Rome lost many of its battles against Persia.

Carrhae springs to mind, though it was actually against Parthia, and the entire enemy army was horsed, while Rome's army was mostly foot. According to wikipedia, the Parthians did have 1000 cataphracts, roughly equivalent to knights I suppose, but they also had 9000 horse archers, who were used effectively to whittle down the Roman forces, while cataphracts broke apart the disrupted formations.

And the Romans even had a 4 to 1 numerical advantage.

Now, let's suppose 2000 crossbows and 500 cataphracts are used against the Unsullied, who are all foot. If the general has brains, and uses the crossbows effectively, and has the sense to avoid engaging unsullied formations that haven't been broken apart by crossbows, then he could repeat Carrhae.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Now, let's suppose 2000 crossbows and 500 cataphracts are used against the Unsullied, who are all foot. If the general has brains, and uses the crossbows effectively, and has the sense to avoid engaging unsullied formations that haven't been broken apart by crossbows, then he could repeat Carrhae.

All this assumes that Daenerys makes no adjustments to her forces to make them more suitable for fighting armored knights and crossbowmen... which would be inconsistent with her leadership style up to this point. She is quite adaptable, and with Barristan's help, they'll come up with a way to use the unsullied to defeat armored horse.

How about longbows, for example? Have half the unsullied train in longbow, and the other half pikes? Use the Dothraki as scouts/raiders to lure the enemy to wherever the longbowmen are, then rain down arrows. If Jaime Lannister hates archers, that's a good reason to use them, IMO. There's plenty of time in Meereen to train a dedicated military force in the use of a new weapon.

Anyway I'm no expert in military history, but I think there have been examples of all-foot forces beating armored knights - provided they adapt with the right technology for the job.

[Lummel]

I think the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 is the example you are looking for.

Here Robert the Bruce trained up his army to fight in tight formations of spearmen. He took advantage of the land to use swampy/marshy ground and forest to cover his flanks and was able to use his formations of spearmen to advance against the knights of Edward II's army and to defeat them.

The Scots had a tradition of fighting defensively in dense formations of spearmen but as discussed above they were vulnerable to being broken up by archers and then charged down by knights. Robert the Bruce trained his men, over a period of months rather than years, to be able to take the offensive and was able to force the English to risk battle against him by besieging Stirling castle which was in English hands at the time - this allowed Robert to pick a battlefield which gave him a tactical advantage.

Dany is in a similar position to Robert, she is weak in cavalry and holds no castles or towns in Westeros and will have to defeat Westerosi armies that are strong in Knights and have archers. So she has to train her disciplined troops to fight in formations armed with spears or pikes and choose cities or castles in Westeros to attack which will force King Tommen or whoever to send an army against her to fight on a battlefield that she has chosen to give her the maximum advantage. Then she just needs some means to counter or neutralise any force of archers...

[Talleyrand]

IIRC, I think Rome lost many of its battles against Persia.

Carrhae springs to mind, though it was actually against Parthia, and the entire enemy army was horsed, while Rome's army was mostly foot. According to wikipedia, the Parthians did have 1000 cataphracts, roughly equivalent to knights I suppose, but they also had 9000 horse archers, who were used effectively to whittle down the Roman forces, while cataphracts broke apart the disrupted formations.

And the Romans even had a 4 to 1 numerical advantage.

Carrhae was a huge disaster for the Roman's for a few reasons.

1) They had never fought an all cavalry force before. They just weren't suited for it. All their previous opponents were like the Romans infantry armies with some supporting cavalry.

2) At Carrhae all the Roman Cavalry and horsed mercenaries were taken out first. They were mostly cavalry and not much of a match for Cataphracts so it was just the Legions bulling their way towards the enemy which just melted away and kept firing arrows at them.

3) Crassus was an idiot and jealous. The two other members in the Triumvirate were both war heroes and so Crassus wanted to be one as well so instead of pulling back and putting up a defense or just retreating in an orderly fashion he kept ordering his men on and on.

Now, let's suppose 2000 crossbows and 500 cataphracts are used against the Unsullied, who are all foot. If the general has brains, and uses the crossbows effectively, and has the sense to avoid engaging unsullied formations that haven't been broken apart by crossbows, then he could repeat Carrhae.

The unsullied managed to survive 20,000 guys shooting arrows at them i reckon they can withstand 2000 crossbow. Plus the armies of Westeros don't make a good comparison to the Parthians. As far as we've seen they have no horse archers to speak of and not that many normal ones anyway. It's mainly the levies and then the men at arms and knights.

A huge plus of Mounted knights was the fear of it. Most levies would be scared into nearly running just by the sight of a line of horses charging towards them. (i do historical re-enactments and it's scary as hell) but Unsullied don't have fear, they won't run and not to many horses are willing to charge into a line of spears.

[Rodrik the Reader]

All this assumes that Daenerys makes no adjustments to her forces to make them more suitable for fighting armored knights and crossbowmen... [...]How about longbows, for example? Have half the unsullied train in longbow, and the other half pikes?

It's not such an easy "adjustment" to make though. The English held their advantage with their archers in medieval times because it takes a very long time to become a competent archer, and no other country started train their lads young enough (as opposite to the english, where it was, as I understand it, common for boys among the smallfolk to practice with the longbow from tender age). Instead, the french used crossbowmen, since they are a lot easier to train.

And it would seem like a waste to start training a company of Unsullied for archery when they are already formidable with their customary arms, since they have been intensively trained with the spears and sword and shield since they were five years old. Not to mention that their unmatched discipline is much better put to use on the front lines, in a shieldwall, than at range.

By the way (I presume you made an unintentional mistake), the Unsullied (ordinarily; they aren't, as far as we know, trained for it) don't use pikes either - they use spear(s) and shortsword.

[Gurkhal]

I think that the biggest addition of support to the Unsullied will be of Westerosi Targaryen loyalists and mercenaries brought from Essos. Daenerys has after all already started to gather cavalry to complement the Unsullied.

[Ahimsa]

I think if the Unsullied were supplemented by the forces of Dorne, the rest of Westeros would be in pretty big trouble.

[Nukelavee]

ummmm

The Unsullied aren't really warriors, they are soldiers; there is a difference. The Unsullied work together as a team, or a machine. They aren't out for glory, they don't care for honour.

That alone is a huge advantage over the Dothroki or Westerosi.

They don't actually need "pikes" to stop a calvary charge, heavy spears alone would serve well enough.

Crassus and his troops lost primarily because they let the Parthians bait them, and were out in the desert with no cover, marching, with no way to respond to the horse archers. Had Crassus picked a spot with water to make a stand, and built the usual camp...he still might have lost, but it would have been far more expensive for teh Parthians.

Plus, the Romans didn't have stirrups, and so couldn't maximize the use of calvary (I forget if the Parthians had them or not).

Tactically - The Dothroki are totally undisciplined in battle, archers can have their effect minimized by use of a turtle formation, and........the Unsullied use shortswords. Everybody else seems to rely on edge in swordplay, teh Unsullied will be using the tip, and that is what kills most effeciently.

Assuming the commander isn't a complete idiot, and has some other troops to add options, having a block of 8k unbreakable infantry to anchor you? Yeah, you would like need at least a 3 to 4 to 1 advantage in numbers to beat them...if they had a prepared position.

[feardeathbywater]

With a similar corps of highly disciplined (mercenary) spearmen to anchor his polygot army Hannibal beat the Romans over and over again.

[Crrr]

Hi all I love the board you have here, so many interesting things to read!

In a fantasy setting I think obedient and disciplined basically means they're just tools and only as good as their commanders.

They held ground against mounted foes but that's only a tiny aspect of warfare and even if they were the vesy best force with swords, shields and spears there are many ways they could still be on the losing side.

Dany doesn't take them just to be a lynchpin elite unit of her army, she takes them in large because they wouldn't rape and pillage after battles. If you were in her position and had limited resources to spend and a limited willingness to include unsavoury elements in your army would it really be that important to incorporate a sword/ shield/ spear short range army with no training with mounts, projectiles and sea- faring combat?

Dany is going to have to attack a continent and unsullied will do a job versus fierce vanguards but they're a very small and not very important part of the army that would be needed to win offensive battles and a wider war throughout a whole continent.

[elanmorin]

IIRC, I think Rome lost many of its battles against Persia.

Carrhae springs to mind, though it was actually against Parthia, and the entire enemy army was horsed, while Rome's army was mostly foot. According to wikipedia, the Parthians did have 1000 cataphracts, roughly equivalent to knights I suppose, but they also had 9000 horse archers, who were used effectively to whittle down the Roman forces, while cataphracts broke apart the disrupted formations.

And the Romans even had a 4 to 1 numerical advantage.

Now, let's suppose 2000 crossbows and 500 cataphracts are used against the Unsullied, who are all foot. If the general has brains, and uses the crossbows effectively, and has the sense to avoid engaging unsullied formations that haven't been broken apart by crossbows, then he could repeat Carrhae.

To be honest Romans feared the hit and run partian tactics much more than their heavy cavalry (although cataphractii were added to roman armies later on). Btw under Trajan Rome was able to conquer the partian capital, although that didn't last cause Adrian ordered to retreat to the original boundaries. Septimius Severus defeated the partians several times and put most of Mesopotamia under roman control too, his son, Caracalla, had some successes too, but he was killed before he could start the campaign he had planned against them.

[Talleyrand]

Something else, I could see Randall Tarly coming off a bit like the Dothraki when pitched up against the Unsullied. They felt contempt because the Unsullied were infantry. And seeing how Tarly reacted to Brienne i could see him having contempt for the Unsullied as not being 'men'

[The Undead Martyr]

I think if the Unsullied were supplemented by the forces of Dorne, the rest of Westeros would be in pretty big trouble.

:agree:

Dorne specializes in javelins/spears, horsemen and bowmen, often in combination. Adding in teh Unsullied (Spartan spearmen/line infantry) and you've got one hell of an army. Harass the enemy with bows & spears and position your rock carefully, then maneuver the enemy into a corner or ambush. Add in mercenaries, Dothraki scouts/raiders and "conventional" loyalist forces (Littlefinger*) and frankly she wouldn't need dragons at all.

GRRM is going to find a way to mess this up, or else there won't be a war at all, as no sane lord would fight against those odds, particularly in winter

*Adding the Vale's 40K men, untouched harvest (which is said to be as great, if not greater, than Highgarden- "even in Highgarden the [yielded crops] were not larger or sweeter") defensive position to Dany's army would convince just about any sane lord to yield to her might

[Gurkhal]

*Adding the Vale's 40K men, untouched harvest (which is said to be as great, if not greater, than Highgarden- "even in Highgarden the [yielded crops] were not larger or sweeter") defensive position to Dany's army would convince just about any sane lord to yield to her might

I don't think that the Vale will join Daenerys, no matter how much bullshit Littlefinger manages to spread around. LF is far from a charismatic leader and most of the senior lords of the Vale fought to dispose the Targaryens, I doubt that many of them would risk their lives to put one back. So no, I don't think that the Vale will join up with Daenerys. And even if they did, the Crownlands, Stormlands and the Reach lies between Dorne and the Vale.

[Lasair]

Good point about horses not wearing plate. If there was a straight charge of Westerosi knights into Unsullied ranks, I'd tentatively put some money on the spearmen who don't feel pain against the armoured knights.

It's the archers that'd really mess them up.

[The Undead Martyr]

I don't think that the Vale will join Daenerys, no matter how much bullshit Littlefinger manages to spread around. LF is far from a charismatic leader and most of the senior lords of the Vale fought to dispose the Targaryens, I doubt that many of them would risk their lives to put one back. So no, I don't think that the Vale will join up with Daenerys. And even if they did, the Crownlands, Stormlands and the Reach lies between Dorne and the Vale.

Dragons and others might make them reconsider. :P

Besides, as Tyrion said, "A good lord never lets pride" get in the way of ambition. I can see some of the houses holding grudges- the ones who suffered casualties, or who had a greater affection for Jon Arryn- but if Dany shows up with 10,000 Dornishmen, ~8000 unsullied, 5+ mercenary companies and 3 dragons, I think that they would come around sooner or later, especially if she offers to wipe out the Lannisters or somesuch (IIRC the lords were chomping at the bit to help Robb, so they clearly don't have any love for lions).

[Tyler Snow]

I'm imagining that the Unsullied are inspired from the Spartans/Sacred Band of Thebes. If that is the case I'd have to imagine that they are, while in formation, probably the most formidable force in the world. However, much like others have said, if their flanks can be turned and they can be isolated I believe they would get cut down. It sounds like they would not be very well suited for dueling combat but are much stronger as a unit and a defensive one at that.

Only problem with the Unsullied, much like the Spartans and the Sacred Band, is that there is a very limited number of them and trying to take an entire continent will not work out. Also, as far as I can tell, they don't have siege engines. Also, without any real ability to lead themselves (follow impromptu commands) and never been utilized in the numbers they currently have, I feel that they are in unknown waters so we don't really know their capabilities. If Dany and her commanders falter in anyway I feel that the Unsullied will be annihilated.

In the end, I feel like the Unsullied are such a boon and source of power that they will be destroyed for dramatic effect and to make Dany's situation that much more dire. Either that, or they will be used as a garrison force, I don't see them being used for offensive operations but will be entrusted with defending, to the last man, fixed positions, which we've seen they can do better than anyone. She'll use the Dothraki, sellwords, and most likely other forces from the Free Cities to support her claim, as well as an Westrosi that come to her banners (Dorne as we know will cross and the Iron Islands are making a bid for an Alliance).

I guess, to answer the question, I'd say the Unsullied are the best defense force in the world and, if controlled by a competent commander could be effective in the field.

[Amae Koromo]

I'd be interested to know how a Roman legion - which was so disciplined that 4000 legionaries defeated Gallic barbarian hordes 10 times their number - would do against European knights that reached their peak about a 1000 years after the Legions faded from history.

Surely the knights were much more formidable than the barbarian hordes of Vercingetorix's time. To me the Unsullied are a Roman legion, and the Westerosi knights are the armies of Richard the Lionheart.

Would the Roman discipline be as effective against armored knights as it was against unwashed, fur-clad primitives?

I wonder.

Richard the Lionheart's army would most likely rapestomp a Roman army.

[zmflavius]

Richard the Lionheart's army would most likely rapestomp a Roman army.

Not necessarily. The bulk of RtL's army would almost certainly would have consisted of less disciplined infantry, who would have been poorly equipped and trained, and would have stood no chance against the Romans, the longbow not having come into widespread use until the 13th century, while RtL lived in the 12th. Admittedly, the Roman army was never trained or designed to fight cavalry, as they were always an infantry based army, and their only spear weapon was a pila, a javelin. However, there were incidences of Romans defeating cavalry when properly deployed.

[Nukelavee]

caltrops.

there -horses aren't an issue anymore, lol.