How good are the unsullied?

[Nukelavee]

Hunh - interesting, Job.

Interesting enough to make me go looking things up myself, but, not quite enough to count as disproving (I need way more sources, lol).

[zmflavius]

Respons:

That's all for now, I'm happy to look up more later.

As you see it did happen but only after quite some time did it get that function and it didn't really stuck, as the late roman armies used plumbatae rather than pila.

Hmmm...interesting. I didn't know that.

[Alcatur]

I have heard that at least some of the pila bent in different manner - the iron part was connected with two bolts to wooden; one of them was of metal the other - wooden. At the moment of hit the wooden one broke, thus while the iron part did not bent, the enitre javelin did and was useless; in case of salvage after the battle wooden bolt was easily replaceable.

It would connect both theories nicely, i am not sure though how accurate it is; given that we are talking about a period of hundreds of years (roughly since 320 BC? Only Samuels places it at 212 BC) its certainly possible that various techniques were used at various points in time.

So that it will not be entirerly off-topic - as I said earlier, propably the unsullied are capable of all the classical phalanx manuevres - straight line, "stairs" and square (square was demonstrated by macedonian phalanx of Antioch III at Magnesia, 190 BC)

I still wonder about the arrows at the battle of Quohor - since Unsullied arrived late in battle, wouldn't the Dothraki have already used most of their supply to that point? This would explain their head-on charges; I do not see any way for Unsullied to be particularly resistant to ranged weapnry

[Nukelavee]

At the same time, I don't see the Dothraki as being particularly "skilled" at all aspects of war. They seem pretty much an overwhelm with numbers, and go nuts kind of people, not a subtle foe.

[Talleyrand]

At the same time, I don't see the Dothraki as being particularly "skilled" at all aspects of war. They seem pretty much an overwhelm with numbers, and go nuts kind of people, not a subtle foe.

And that's what people thought about the Mongols and look how that went for them

[zmflavius]

And that's what people thought about the Mongols and look how that went for them

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that there was a slight distinction between the Dothraki and the Mongols, is that while both placed heavy emphasis on cavalry, the Mongols were led by brilliant and able generals, who had a great deal of experience in siegecraft, both of which are in stark contrast to the Dothraki. Also, the Mongols did possess heavy cavalry, which was also critical to their success. Light horse archers are all very well, but it's difficult, as we can see from the 3000 of Qohor, for them to completely destroy enemy armies without a heavy cavalry component to mop up the disrupted formation or to weaken a formation enough for the horse archers to pick off the broken up groups with arrows.

[Talleyrand]

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that there was a slight distinction between the Dothraki and the Mongols, is that while both placed heavy emphasis on cavalry, the Mongols were led by brilliant and able generals, who had a great deal of experience in siegecraft, both of which are in stark contrast to the Dothraki. Also, the Mongols did possess heavy cavalry, which was also critical to their success. Light horse archers are all very well, but it's difficult, as we can see from the 3000 of Qohor, for them to completely destroy enemy armies without a heavy cavalry component to mop up the disrupted formation or to weaken a formation enough for the horse archers to pick off the broken up groups with arrows.

Fine, i was hoping no one was going to call me on that. Well as a backup:

that's what they said about the Huns and look how that went for them

[Tyler Snow]

I'd say in both cases of the Huns and the Mongols, while they were excellent at conquest and destruction, they could not hold an Empire beyond their respective enigmatic and now most celebrated leaders Atilla and Ghengis Khan. This is emphasized in the dissolution of the khaalasar when Khal Drogo dies.

HOWEVER, you take the numbers and prowess of the Dothraki in the field and couple that with the garrison and defending capabilities of the Unsullied, well, you've got yourself a pretty formidable army that could seize and hold fixed positions.

On a side note: Anyone else surprised that the Dothraki aren't really mentioned as formidable mounted bowmen? I was surprised that the focus was much more on the arahk and swordplay but, I suppose, having them be renowned for their marksmanship on horseback would be too cookie cutter and have them be almost a direct copy of the Mongols/Huns.

[Talleyrand]

I'd say in both cases of the Huns and the Mongols, while they were excellent at conquest and destruction, they could not hold an Empire beyond their respective enigmatic and now most celebrated leaders Atilla and Ghengis Khan. This is emphasized in the dissolution of the khaalasar when Khal Drogo dies.

The Mongol lasted for over 100 years after Temujin's death and got bigger than it was under his control

[Nukelavee]

Actually, I'm pretty certain that people totally shit themselves when ANY of the steppe peoples came round, because they knew just how good they were. That's the reason the Goths, Celts, Vandals, etc, all moved west off the plains.

No, people were/are aware of just how sophisticated the steppe peoples were at warfare...

I'm saying I haven't seen anything about the Dothraki that implies the same thing; it just sounds like they zerg a lot.

and, their swords...what the hell? are we looking at scimitars, or those funky african sickle type blades? cause the african ones would be about as bad a choice for a weapon for horseman as you could imagine.

[Tyler Snow]

@Lothbrok

100 years is a relatively short period of time for a conquest as massive and impressive as the Mongol Empire was. Though, I do see your point.

@Nukelavee

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Those swords are in, no way, shape, or form, effective for a mounted warrior. Another thing I noticed about the Dothraki; No shields?! It sounds like they wield the arahk as a two handed weapon which, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know many mounted troops that operated with two handed weapons, other than bows.

[zmflavius]

On a side note: Anyone else surprised that the Dothraki aren't really mentioned as formidable mounted bowmen? I was surprised that the focus was much more on the arahk and swordplay but, I suppose, having them be renowned for their marksmanship on horseback would be too cookie cutter and have them be almost a direct copy of the Mongols/Huns.

They aren't? In AGOT (really, the only book where we receive substantial info on the Dothraki), Jorah says that they make a practice of shooting from horseback and then riding off, and that their bows outrange westerosi bows. You know, like mongols/huns.

[Amae Koromo]

Sometimes I wonder why people overrate Romans so much in this kind of discussion.

I wonder if two thousand years from now people will say that Nazi Germany would beat Obama's America.

With comments such as "Nazi Germany had better generals, a much larger number of planes and they had the Bismarck, while America has no Battleships"

[Tyler Snow]

They aren't? In AGOT (really, the only book where we receive substantial info on the Dothraki), Jorah says that they make a practice of shooting from horseback and then riding off, and that their bows outrange westerosi bows. You know, like mongols/huns.

Though I don't recall the quote, I'm sure Jorah may have mentioned something like that. But you would think their ability with the bow would be noted in more than a passing statement in only the first entry in the series. The arahk is mentioned in every book I think as well as the skill in which the Dothraki use them. I mean, even Theon gets a kill in the book with a bow, I think all of the Dothraki fighting/killing mentioned in the book is noted or highlighted by the arahk.

[Xenophon]

Sometimes I wonder why people overrate Romans so much in this kind of discussion.

I wonder if two thousand years from now people will say that Nazi Germany would beat Obama's America.

With comments such as "Nazi Germany had better generals, a much larger number of planes and they had the Bismarck, while America has no Battleships"

Lol, you should give that to the US Navy as a talking point next time their trying to get money out of congress.

Re. the arahks on the show, I think they're supposed to be sharp on both sides, so you could use the outside curve like a sabre. They do seem to be a ridiculous bad fantasy "our swords are different" trope, though.

[zmflavius]

Sometimes I wonder why people overrate Romans so much in this kind of discussion.

I wonder if two thousand years from now people will say that Nazi Germany would beat Obama's America.

With comments such as "Nazi Germany had better generals, a much larger number of planes and they had the Bismarck, while America has no Battleships"

The comparison is actually flawed, because there actually was a technological regression between the Roman era and the Middle Ages. However, a Nazi Germany comparison with 21st century America is flawed, because there has been no technological regression, but rather a gradual technological progression, so it would be more like comparing a pre-Marian reforms legion with a post-Marian legion, which would mean very different recruitment, training, and equipment, though in essence, the Marian legion was an outgrowth of the best elements of the Pre-marian legion. However, a Marian Legion could easily defeat a pre-marian legion, because it was better trained and equipped, just as a 21st century military could easily defeat one from 150 years before. The Marian Legion only had to over come like 250 years of tradition.

And the Bismarck/Battleship is a moot point, because the Bismarck was destroyed in battle for a start, and because battleships were obsolete anyways then and now. The battleship was an inefficient waste of resources by the time of the invention of the aircraft carrier, and any worthwhile military historian discounts their value in WWII.

And finally, to return to my first point, a Roman Legion could outfight a Medieval army of the same size because the core of the army was much more disciplined, well-trained, and possessed no major technological advantage in comparison to the infantry, and the cavalry component of the medieval army, which would be the only remotely threatening part, would be only a comparatively minor proportion of the army.

[Tyler Snow]

The comparison is actually flawed, because there actually was a technological regression between the Roman era and the Middle Ages. However, a Nazi Germany comparison with 21st century America is flawed, because there has been no technological regression, but rather a gradual technological progression, so it would be more like comparing a pre-Marian reforms legion with a post-Marian legion, which would mean very different recruitment, training, and equipment, though in essence, the Marian legion was an outgrowth of the best elements of the Pre-marian legion. However, a Marian Legion could easily defeat a pre-marian legion, because it was better trained and equipped, just as a 21st century military could easily defeat one from 150 years before. The Marian Legion only had to over come like 250 years of tradition.

And the Bismarck/Battleship is a moot point, because the Bismarck was destroyed in battle for a start, and because battleships were obsolete anyways then and now. The battleship was an inefficient waste of resources by the time of the invention of the aircraft carrier, and any worthwhile military historian discounts their value in WWII.

And finally, to return to my first point, a Roman Legion could outfight a Medieval army of the same size because the core of the army was much more disciplined, well-trained, and possessed no major technological advantage in comparison to the infantry, and the cavalry component of the medieval army, which would be the only remotely threatening part, would be only a comparatively minor proportion of the army.

I would have to agree. A Roman legion, at its peak of discipline and experience, would trounce a medieval army of its same size, or even larger. Medieval armies were, mostly, consisting of undisciplined men pressed into service and given, largely, inferior equipment. The Roman legion was the finest fighting force in the classical world and trounced armies many times its size over its existence on a number of occasions. I think cavalry is often pointed out as the weakness of the Roman army because, so to speak, Italy was not renowned for its horses and, in the later Roman legions, any horse was usually derived from Gallic or Spanish peoples/provinces.

[Amae Koromo]

The comparison is actually flawed, because there actually was a technological regression between the Roman era and the Middle Ages. However, a Nazi Germany comparison with 21st century America is flawed, because there has been no technological regression, but rather a gradual technological progression, so it would be more like comparing a pre-Marian reforms legion with a post-Marian legion, which would mean very different recruitment, training, and equipment, though in essence, the Marian legion was an outgrowth of the best elements of the Pre-marian legion. However, a Marian Legion could easily defeat a pre-marian legion, because it was better trained and equipped, just as a 21st century military could easily defeat one from 150 years before. The Marian Legion only had to over come like 250 years of tradition.

And the Bismarck/Battleship is a moot point, because the Bismarck was destroyed in battle for a start, and because battleships were obsolete anyways then and now. The battleship was an inefficient waste of resources by the time of the invention of the aircraft carrier, and any worthwhile military historian discounts their value in WWII.

And finally, to return to my first point, a Roman Legion could outfight a Medieval army of the same size because the core of the army was much more disciplined, well-trained, and possessed no major technological advantage in comparison to the infantry, and the cavalry component of the medieval army, which would be the only remotely threatening part, would be only a comparatively minor proportion of the army.

Military technology didn't regress.

The Roman legion was the finest fighting force in the classical world

But not the strongest of its own time. Reason: China

[Queen in the North]

Military technology didn't regress.

It pretty much did. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the legions disappeared and tribes like the Gauls, Celts, ect. fought for control of Europe. They were very poorly equipped, much more like the medieval levies (though probably with slightly better training) than the Roman legions.

[Nine of Spades]

I would have to agree. A Roman legion, at its peak of discipline and experience, would trounce a medieval army of its same size, or even larger. Medieval armies were, mostly, consisting of undisciplined men pressed into service and given, largely, inferior equipment. The Roman legion was the finest fighting force in the classical world and trounced armies many times its size over its existence on a number of occasions. I think cavalry is often pointed out as the weakness of the Roman army because, so to speak, Italy was not renowned for its horses and, in the later Roman legions, any horse was usually derived from Gallic or Spanish peoples/provinces.

In both cases your compressing hundreds of years of histories and many changes into a blanket statement, that isn't always true. The late medieval period for instance was defined by highly professional mercenary forces, the two most notable being the Swiss Pike and the German Landsknect. These units were if anything more disciplined and more heavily armed then their roman counterparts. The Swiss in particular were able to do things with Pike that would have been unthinkable to the roman generals. Rather then a static line that risked being pulled apart, the Swiss often operated in independent columns that could support each other and outmaneuver their opponents.