How good are the unsullied?

[Tyler Snow]

Combat between Richard the Lionheart and a Roman legion would be decimation of the Roman forces. It's a bit unfair to compare the two, however, since the technology so heavily favors the medieval English army. Longbows and heavy cavalry would be the biggest issues and, as we saw with Hannibal, the ability to control and organize cavalry, even the light horse of the Carthaginians, to turn the flanks of the Roman legion would lead to their utter destruction. I feel the infantry would be a tougher match up and may even favor the Roman discipline and formation versus the largely frenzied attack of Medieval armies.

In the end, however, the Romans were designed to be a much more capable defensive force (i.e. wait for the enemy to rush forward and be cut down) and, I think, would do fairly well against Richard's infantry. However, the ability of light troops and bowmen would be devastating and the ability to command heavy horse would spell disaster.

In this way, I imagine the Unsullied being the same in the field. If kept at center, with secure flanks and a contingent of cavalry they'll be very effective.

[Talleyrand]

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...

Actually i wouldn't mind to see Mace Tyrell fail in his grand dream to make himself look like a competent military commander in a situation like the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Repeatedly ordering to men over the bridge and onto Unsullied spears.

Also while people are doubting the Unsullied's abilities they seem to be overplaying the armies of Westeros. They are mainly peasants without armour and even the mounted knights aren't much use against an army trained extremely well with long spears

[Toe]

Everyone seem to be assuming that hypothetical Roman legionnaires would fight hypothetical medieval knights on a level field. Likely on any other terrain less favorable to horses and archers, as was the case for most of Europe during this period, a Roman army would win easily.

Ok. Lets assume we are fighting on a level field. A Roman legion is going to have a large amount field artillery such as ballistas. Something not seen in again until Gustavus Adolphus after the end of the medieval period. Ballistas will certainly be able to push through knight armor.

Another point, a thrown pilum (spear) is going to have a LOT of punching power if thrown in a high arc. Certainly more than an arrow. Can plate armor really withstand that?

Furthermore, a Roman army is going to be accompanied by an equal number of auxiliaries providing troops for other roles than heavy infantry. Such as archers, slingers, cavalry, and light skirmishers. It will not be just heavy infantry.

Now, the really interesting thing is, could a Roman shield wall withstand a heavy cavalry charge based on the new technology of stirrups? The Romans go into turtle formation. Would the horses charge that?

[Nukelavee]

And a roman slinger was nothing to laugh about.

Plus, Roman infantry kit included stakes, meant to create a barricade.

The next question is - what happens to the horsemen once they have to stop? If the Unsullied have the ability to react and fight as smaller units, any knight who stops moving is toast.

Last - decimation. you know that means 10% losses, right? (classically, the punishment for cowardice - 1/10 legionaires killed by their own men).

[Talleyrand]

Last - decimation. you know that means 10% losses, right? (classically, the punishment for cowardice - 1/10 legionaires killed by their own men).

That always seemed a wee bit harsh to me especially the way they chose it. Helmet full of pebbles with every 1/10 being white. If you pulled out a white one you got it. Now just imagine if they managed to get to the last 10th without a single white pebble being found. i think you'd have the most pissed off sigh from those final 10th. Also just remember that there were about 5,400 men in a legion IIRC so if the legion was full strength when it was decimated that was 540 men getting killed for something they may not be responsible for

[shapur]

There is no way a Roman legion would be able to defeat a medieval army. There was a reason that the mainly foot legions were replaced by more cavalry oriented forces, even before the Roman Empire finally collapsed completely. And the Eastern half of it, that survived, did indeed bolster it's cavalry forces even more. There was no way the Romans could defeat a medieval knight. I mean, really, how are you going to fight a knight in mail, holding a lance and charging at you, with a short stabbing sword?

[Toe]

There is no way a Roman legion would be able to defeat a medieval army. There was a reason that the mainly foot legions were replaced by more cavalry oriented forces, even before the Roman Empire finally collapsed completely. And the Eastern half of it, that survived, did indeed bolster it's cavalry forces even more. There was no way the Romans could defeat a medieval knight. I mean, really, how are you going to fight a knight in mail, holding a lance and charging at you, with a short stabbing sword?

If it was that simple to defeat a legion, then legions would never have conquered the world. Cavalry, lances, and chain mail certainly existed before the medieval period. Horses generally dislike running into an organized pointy wall although they may charge into a flock of peasants with training. Stirrups was a new invention, yes, allowing a much heavier punch, but the question is if it was enough of a difference to break a legion.

[shapur]

If it was that simple to defeat a legion, then legions would never have conquered the world. Cavalry, lances, and chain mail certainly existed before the medieval period. Horses generally dislike running into an organized pointy wall although they may charge into a flock of peasants with training. Stirrups was a new invention, yes, allowing a much heavier punch, but the question is if it was enough of a difference to break a legion.

But Legions did not conquer the world. They conquered large parts of Europe, true enough, yet they fought against mostly infantry forces, and especially in the west, poorly armored for the most part. In the east they had a really tough time defeatin the hellenistic kingdoms, and it took roughly two centuries to subdue them. And that was all against people with a similar level of technology, mind you. Also, while lances, chain mail and horses did exist, it wasn't the same with knights. By the time of Richard the Lionheart, they had been the main battle line for centuries, and their techniques were very different from ancient cavalry. Plus, if you don't count the Parthian Cataphracts, there were no horsemen armored from head to toe in the ancient world. And they didn't have had the arming sword of a medieval knight.

[Toe]

But Legions did not conquer the world. They conquered large parts of Europe, true enough, yet they fought against mostly infantry forces, and especially in the west, poorly armored for the most part. In the east they had a really tough time defeatin the hellenistic kingdoms, and it took roughly two centuries to subdue them. And that was all against people with a similar level of technology, mind you. Also, while lances, chain mail and horses did exist, it wasn't the same with knights. By the time of Richard the Lionheart, they had been the main battle line for centuries, and their techniques were very different from ancient cavalry. Plus, if you don't count the Parthian Cataphracts, there were no horsemen armored from head to toe in the ancient world. And they didn't have had the arming sword of a medieval knight.

After the end of the Punic Wars the Romans controlled the Mediterranean. The legions had no problems repeatedly defeating the Hellenistic armies despite often being greatly outnumbered. That they did not immediately occupy the eastern half was for internal political reasons and increasing unrest and since they for a long time were occupied with conquering Spain. The only Hellenstic ruler who put up some interesting resistance was Mithridates VI of Pontus because he reformed his army along Roman lines.

True, the Romans had difficulty with Parthians, but they used light horse archers + heavy cavalry which is quite different from heavy cavalry + light infantry. Also, the Parthians were only successful and able to hold territory in the terrain that favored horses.

You seem to think there were a general technological development which explained that the legions disappeared. It is more likely instead that a technological regression happened that explained that the legions disappeared. Just like aqueducts, good roads, sewers, and much else. Less skilled engineers and craftsmen, less large scale field artillery. Lower population and fewer artisans means fewer good arms and armor which means that only a few knights may have good armor and arms instead of large legions. No standing infantry armies, no trained infantry armies. And so on.

[TrueMetis]

Aren't the unsullied using little buckler's right now? Which would be all but useless against both arrows and knights. And It would be hugely expensive to equip them all with really good armour so that's a problem. Also IIRC Westeros has arrowheads meant for piercing armour so even if the unsullied do get armour good use of that would do serious damage, and if they don't bring armour use it do destroy the buckler's they are using.

[zmflavius]

Aren't the unsullied using little buckler's right now? Which would be all but useless against both arrows and knights. And It would be hugely expensive to equip them all with really good armour so that's a problem. Also IIRC Westeros has arrowheads meant for piercing armour so even if the unsullied do get armour good use of that would do serious damage, and if they don't bring armour use it do destroy the buckler's they are using.

It would be expensive, but I think the opportunity cost of not paying that price would be much higher, because the lack of armour would put them at a severe disadvantage. So I think Dany will try to invest in some armour. The armour, is of course, vulnerable to arrows, but would provide initial protection against hand-to-hand units, which could prove critical, because their discipline is no good if their formation is already broken up.

And do we have info on their shield size? I never was really sure, though I assumed that it resembled a legionary shield.

[TrueMetis]

It would be expensive, but I think the opportunity cost of not paying that price would be much higher, because the lack of armour would put them at a severe disadvantage. So I think Dany will try to invest in some armour. The armour, is of course, vulnerable to arrows, but would provide initial protection against hand-to-hand units, which could prove critical, because their discipline is no good if their formation is already broken up.

The cost of armouring them would be very high though, I don't think she has the money to do that.

And do we have info on their shield size? I never was really sure, though I assumed that it resembled a legionary shield.

I remember them being described as pretty small, round shields.

[Nine of Spades]

After the end of the Punic Wars the Romans controlled the Mediterranean. The legions had no problems repeatedly defeating the Hellenistic armies despite often being greatly outnumbered. That they did not immediately occupy the eastern half was for internal political reasons and increasing unrest and since they for a long time were occupied with conquering Spain. The only Hellenstic ruler who put up some interesting resistance was Mithridates VI of Pontus because he reformed his army along Roman lines.

True, the Romans had difficulty with Parthians, but they used light horse archers + heavy cavalry which is quite different from heavy cavalry + light infantry. Also, the Parthians were only successful and able to hold territory in the terrain that favored horses.

You seem to think there were a general technological development which explained that the legions disappeared. It is more likely instead that a technological regression happened that explained that the legions disappeared. Just like aqueducts, good roads, sewers, and much else. Less skilled engineers and craftsmen, less large scale field artillery. Lower population and fewer artisans means fewer good arms and armor which means that only a few knights may have good armor and arms instead of large legions. No standing infantry armies, no trained infantry armies. And so on.

Sorry, but the biggest problem the Roman's would have with Medieval cavalry is they simply lacked weapons with enough reach to break the initial charge, and they lacked the weapons to penetrate medieval armor. Infantry didn't ascend again until more modern pike formations were developed with professional soldiers that could maneuver quickly en masse and protect their own flanks. The unsullied would have the same problem, lances would simply outrange their shorter, 1 handed spears, and there is no way a shield is going to stop a lance braced by 1000lbs of man and horse. If you arent equiped with a polearm that is 9-10 feet long and requires both hands to use, your probably not properly equipped to deal with a medieval cavalry charge. And even if you can break the horse charge, a knight can still dismount, in which case you are facing a fully armored, nigh unkillable man carrying a very nasty spear and a ton of training and experience in using it. This is one way in which the French ended up dealing with the English long bow and bill, simply dismounting, and becoming an ultra heaving infantry force.

That and I think people overestimate the effectiveness of ancient archery in warfare as a killing tool. Everything I've read points to it being more of a demoralizing/formation breaking tool, and less of an outright killer. That said, medieval armies had excellent options with regard to archery, be it the English longbow or the continental use of crossbows.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of unsullied defeating the horse archer Dorthaki however. The biggest issue is that the unsullied can fight purely defensively, whereas the MO of most plains nomads was to wear out the opposing host over time with arrow fire, and only charge when the formations were breaking. Again, I think it very reasonable that the archery had little effect on the unsullied in terms of losses, and in a defensive position they were unlikely to have it cause their formation to break up. The Dorthaki are also lightly armed and armored, making the Unsullied weapons perfectly suitable. Given that arrow fire was inneffective, this gave the Dorthaki 2 options. Give up and go home, or charge. They chose to charge.

Anyways, as for the unsullied, it seems to me that while their chosen armament isn't well suited to a Westerosi campaign, they do have the discipline to be a very potent fighting force. I don't know if they have the more sophisticated organization of the Swiss Pike or Landsknecht, so Im not sure they could dominate the battlefield, but they could be a very useful part of a larger army.

And for the record, the Roman army did well against Greek pike formations by outflanking, but those were very crude compared to the later modern pike formations, and depended on flank support, unlike the more modern European pike formation.

And finally for the record if your talking about pre-gunpowder armed forces, Id go with the Swiss Pike in a direct engagement. Pretty much top notch in terms of organization, discipline, ferocity, mobility, weapons and training. But in any sort of open plain where engagement could be denied, the mongolian cavarly simply could wear down their enemies by retreating/harrassing their enemy until the correct time to strike came along. Not a match for western knights straight up, but the whole point of the tactics was to weaken the opponent to breaking, and their superior mobility meant that they could pick the time to attack at their leisure.

[The Undead Martyr]

The cost of armouring them would be very high though, I don't think she has the money to do that.

I remember them being described as pretty small, round shields.

You're joking, right? She sacked three major "trade" cities; the second city offered her a chest full of gold just to leave them alone, so just think of what she found inside the city. IIRC, Mereen had "been rich beyond imagining" with "even the sellswords" sated. Daario seems to have made himself a lord in all but name (plundered a whole new wardrobe, fingers glittering, etc.) and her bloodriders seem to have gotten in on it as well. Even if she couldn't afford to buy everything she needed, she could easily raid the Mereenese armories and/or have their blacksmiths work for her. It's good to be queen, after all. ;)

[Nine of Spades]

The cost of armouring them would be very high though, I don't think she has the money to do that.

I think this is probably true, but its hard know since this isnt an area that martin has explored. One thing that you saw in the medival period was linen based armors, where by layering multiple layers of fabric so their threads did not align, you could create an effective piece of armor. Not as heavy or as impenetrable as metal plate, it could stop a surprising amount.

Unsullied could compensate for a lack of large shield by having very densely packed fomrations, making a small shield and a 6 foot pole sufficient to block any incoming fire.

[TrueMetis]

You're joking, right? She sacked three major "trade" cities; the second city offered her a chest full of gold just to leave them alone, so just think of what she found inside the city. IIRC, Mereen had "been rich beyond imagining" with "even the sellswords" sated. Daario seems to have made himself a lord in all but name (plundered a whole new wardrobe, fingers glittering, etc.) and her bloodriders seem to have gotten in on it as well. Even if she couldn't afford to buy everything she needed, she could easily raid the Mereenese armories and/or have their blacksmiths work for her. It's good to be queen, after all. ;)

You have no idea how much armour costs do you? Even light armour is really expensive hence the Lannister's giving their levies the little bit of armour they did being a huge deal.

I think this is probably true, but its hard know since this isnt an area that martin has explored. One thing that you saw in the medival period was linen based armors, where by layering multiple layers of fabric so their threads did not align, you could create an effective piece of armor. Not as heavy or as impenetrable as metal plate, it could stop a surprising amount.

Unsullied could compensate for a lack of large shield by having very densely packed fomrations, making a small shield and a 6 foot pole sufficient to block any incoming fire.

We haven't seen any cloth armour though it could exist but I would still prefer to give my guys better shields first and foremost.

[Toe]

Sorry, but the biggest problem the Roman's would have with Medieval cavalry is they simply lacked weapons with enough reach to break the initial charge, and they lacked the weapons to penetrate medieval armor. Infantry didn't ascend again until more modern pike formations were developed with professional soldiers that could maneuver quickly en masse and protect their own flanks. The unsullied would have the same problem, lances would simply outrange their shorter, 1 handed spears, and there is no way a shield is going to stop a lance braced by 1000lbs of man and horse. If you arent equiped with a polearm that is 9-10 feet long and requires both hands to use, your probably not properly equipped to deal with a medieval cavalry charge. And even if you can break the horse charge, a knight can still dismount, in which case you are facing a fully armored, nigh unkillable man carrying a very nasty spear and a ton of training and experience in using it. This is one way in which the French ended up dealing with the English long bow and bill, simply dismounting, and becoming an ultra heaving infantry force.

As I stated earlier at least the very large amount of field artillery (ballistas) present in the legions would break through knight armor. What a pilum thrown in a high arc would do against plate armor is unclear but the punching power should be much greater than that of arrows. Will horses really charge into a well-disciplined shield wall with the two stakes that all Roman legionaries carried with them for fortifications placed in the ground as a pike like barricade in front? Furthermore, this assumes that the battle will take place on a level field and not some more unfriendly terrain for horses.

Regarding melee on the ground I find the statement that knight would defeat legionaries dubious. There are openings at the joints which a stabbing weapon can find. As always, the Roman will use their large shield to get so close that longswords or greatswords become useless and use their stabbing swords. Furthermore, Romans use their shields for pushing and breaking open formations between strikes, helped by pushing from their comrades in back ranks, and it seems not unlikely that knights who have almost no training in fighting in formation on the ground will quickly get thrown back into undisciplined splinters, surrounded, cut down from the back, or maybe even toppled over by the coordinated Roman shield pushes.

[Toe]

Duplicate post

[zmflavius]

As I stated earlier at least the very large amount of field artillery (ballistas) present in the legions would break through knight armor. What a pilum thrown in a high arc would do against plate armor is unclear but the punching power should be much greater than that of arrows. Will horses really charge into a well-disciplined shield wall with the two stakes that all Roman legionaries carried with them for fortifications placed in the ground as a pike like barricade in front? Furthermore, this assumes that the battle will take place on a level field and not some more unfriendly terrain for horses.

Regarding melee on the ground I find the statement that knight would defeat legionaries dubious. There are openings at the joints which a stabbing weapon can find. As always, the Roman will use their large shield to get so close that longswords or greatswords become useless and use their stabbing swords. Furthermore, Romans use their shields for pushing and breaking open formations between strikes, helped by pushing from their comrades in back ranks, and it seems not unlikely that knights who have almost no training in fighting in formation on the ground will quickly get thrown back into undisciplined splinters, surrounded, cut down from the back, or maybe even toppled over by the coordinated Roman shield pushes.

While I agree with this post, we should not shy too far from ASOIAF, as we are using Roman legions as a stand in for the Ghiscari.

While the Romans had a great deal of field artillery, Dany does not (Unless you count the dragons). That said, the Ghiscari spear may very well be a true warspear, and not the javelins in use by the Roman legions, which, in combination with their discipline and formational strength, would form an extremely lethal formation to cavalry. And even if it isn't, it wouldn't take too much effort for Dany to have her unsullied cut stakes and use them to halt the cavalry charge, and then have her unsullied engage the stalled horses (I seem to recall it being mentioned that the Westerosi have not yet invented barding).

And in regards to whether she can arm 8000 unsullied, she just sacked 3 cities which are certainly richer than king's landing, which could arm and feed six thousand troops. Yes, I think she can arm her unsullied.

[Xenophon]

What a pilum thrown in a high arc would do against plate armor is unclear but the punching power should be much greater than that of arrows.

On a minor historical note, the pilum was not particularly effective against heavy armor. That's thought to be one of the reasons why the late empire abandoned the weapon. Facing better armored enemies (other Romans, Parthia, Arabs, etc) it was more effective to divide the functions of the multi-purpose pilum into a lighter long-range javalin and handheld spear.

But in general, the late Roman army did quite well against heavy cavalry, due to its discipline. Of course, by that time the Romans were fielding heavily armoured shock cavalry themselves, so that's not a great example for unsullied vs. knights. In fact, if anything, the fact that the Romans adopted the "eastern" tactic of shock charges by armored cavalry suggests that it was highly effective, even against highly professional infantry.