How good are the unsullied?

[Nine of Spades]

I wonder how good they would be against the others... Something tells me that the unsullied would get killed pretty easily.

Quite well against others themselves if you cave the dragonglass spears.

Wights might be a different story. Depends on how effective fire is, or if the unsullied were skilled with hacking weapons in addition to stabbing ones.

[Xcorpyo001]

I wonder how good they would be against the others... Something tells me that the unsullied would get killed pretty easily.

Better than anyone else.

Sam(and I don't think he was the only one) pissed himself when the Others attacked. The U. don't have to worry about that, because they aren't scared of anything.

They also don't feel the cold, which can be a good thing, or a very bad one. Cold is a signal that the Others are near, but if you can't feel cold, well, let's just hope they have good scouts, or they'll be ambushed by the Others.

[Talleyrand]

I thought it was a continuous thing, although I'm not sure. The Wiki is unclear on this. They do seem much more individualistic now, like the one who visited whores, e.g., and especially their new commander (Something Flea.)

The Slaver states that by the time they complete their training they no longer feel any pain regardless of drinking the potion thingy. And how would one of them vist a whore, Unsullied have nothing below, everything is cut off so they won't rape when taking a city. Dany orders them to take fixed names. She says that many go back to what they were called before they became unsullied or God's names. Grey Worm and others stick with what they had the day she freed them as it holds a special meaning to them

[Nukelavee]

Plus, y'know, no Unsullied will ever get taken out by a cheap and desperate nut-shot.

[Tyler Snow]

Ha, Unsullied = The U. Anyone else think of the University of Miami when they read that? Just because they won't rape of their own volition, the problem I forsee with The U is that they do not think for themselves and are going to be as tactically effective, sadistic, or merciful as their commander. And unquestioning force of trained killers can lead to some issues down the road.

[BrowncoatGR]

^That's the kind of stupidity I'm talking about. You don't charge head on, on horseback, into a wall of spears unless you enjoy death. If the Westerosi were that dumb, then yes, they'd be demolished.

Well actually armored cavalry did just that. Pikes were the first weapon that could reliably pose a threat to an armored knight.

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.

Actually the Romans lost quite a few battles throughout their history. They are usually significantly overrated because most of the information we have about most of the period comes from the romans themselves. Their biggest strength was actually that they learned from their defeats and quickly adapted their fighting style to better combat their enemies.

[Xenophon]

Actually the Romans lost quite a few battles throughout their history. They are usually significantly overrated because most of the information we have about most of the period comes from the romans themselves. Their biggest strength was actually that they learned from their defeats and quickly adapted their fighting style to better combat their enemies.

Yes, and that they had a ton of men to replace the soldiers they lost. As Machiavelli points out, the Romans could always bounce back from defeat, because unlike the small republics (Sparta and Venice, in particular) they never had to commit almost all of their forces to a single battle. And, from that perspective, Dany's army looks a lot more like Sparta and Venice than it does Rome.

[Xanrn]

The Dorathki are nothing like the Huns or the Mongols, when thoose 2 were kicking arse. They are a bunch of idiots on Horseback, who fight the Lamb People, each other, Sellswords(but not the decent companies) and Slaveswords.

Lets look at the 300(0) of Qohor, 20000 Dorathki, 3000 Unsullied, 12000 dead Dorathki, 2400 dead Unsullied. 5 dead Horseidiots for 1 dead Eunochpuppykiller.

The Unsullied were not 1 rank deep, because 1 rank deep of anything short of Giants doesn't stop crap. 1 Rank deep would have trouble stopping a charge of kids on ponies.

They could have easily been flanked, showing once again Dorathki suck and are not Huns/Mongols.

So no its not suprising the Dorathki lost charging 1000(3 ranks) to 500(6 ranks, most likely than 4 or 5) wide formation of spearmen, given the size of horses, it was probably 2 Unsullied to 1 Dorathki at the contact point.

Its a good bet most of the Unsullied Casualties came from missile fire and the outer files where the Dorathki weren't attacking at a disadvantage.

All the 3000 of Qohor prooves is the Dorathki are freakin useless morons, who do nothing but beat up people who don't know how to fight back.

Khal Drogo would have won using the same tactics easily and still had enough men to smash the city. 600 more dead Unsullied equals 3000 more dead Dorathki leaving Khal Drogo 25000 men.

If the Khal in the story had not got himself killed and pressed the attack, he would "won" with 5000 men left and the Unsullied all dead.

20,000 Westeros armoured lancers, would win easily.

Robb Stark/Tywin Lannister and their 20,000 armies(with hardly any peasant leavies) would win easily.

How good are the Unsullied?

Hard to tell, 1 battle they barely won isn't enough evidence.

I wouldn't count on the Unsullied in the long term, Dany's plans are about to go to shit.

I very much doubt many if any Unsullied will step foot on Westeros.

Of course Arakhs aren't Khopeshes, that TV series just has idiots for the Arms and Armour department.

[zmflavius]

The Dorathki are nothing like the Huns or the Mongols, when thoose 2 were kicking arse. They are a bunch of idiots on Horseback, who fight the Lamb People, each other, Sellswords(but not the decent companies) and Slaveswords.

Lets look at the 300(0) of Qohor, 20000 Dorathki, 3000 Unsullied, 12000 dead Dorathki, 2400 dead Unsullied. 5 dead Horseidiots for 1 dead Eunochpuppykiller.

The Unsullied were not 1 rank deep, because 1 rank deep of anything short of Giants doesn't stop crap. 1 Rank deep would have trouble stopping a charge of kids on ponies.

They could have easily been flanked, showing once again Dorathki suck and are not Huns/Mongols.

So no its not suprising the Dorathki lost charging 1000(3 ranks) to 500(6 ranks, most likely than 4 or 5) wide formation of spearmen, given the size of horses, it was probably 2 Unsullied to 1 Dorathki at the contact point.

Its a good bet most of the Unsullied Casualties came from missile fire and the outer files where the Dorathki weren't attacking at a disadvantage.

All the 3000 of Qohor prooves is the Dorathki are freakin useless morons, who do nothing but beat up people who don't know how to fight back.

Khal Drogo would have won using the same tactics easily and still had enough men to smash the city. 600 more dead Unsullied equals 3000 more dead Dorathki leaving Khal Drogo 25000 men.

If the Khal in the story had not got himself killed and pressed the attack, he would "won" with 5000 men left and the Unsullied all dead.

20,000 Westeros armoured lancers, would win easily.

Robb Stark/Tywin Lannister and their 20,000 armies(with hardly any peasant leavies) would win easily.

How good are the Unsullied?

Hard to tell, 1 battle they barely won isn't enough evidence.

I wouldn't count on the Unsullied in the long term, Dany's plans are about to go to shit.

I very much doubt many if any Unsullied will step foot on Westeros.

Of course Arakhs aren't Khopeshes, that TV series just has idiots for the Arms and Armour department.

For a start, to gather 20000 armoured lancers would require virtually half the armoured horse in all Westeros.

You mention that Robb Stark and Tywin Lannister had armies of roughly 20000 but you ignore the fact that those armies were heavily composed of peasant levies, and were not "hardly any peasant levies." Robb Stark could gather barely 5000 horse, heavy and light both, and Lord Tywin had about that much heavy horse. The vast majority of their armies were peasant levies, who are good for fighting other peasant levies, but not much else.

Secondly, while you might be correct about the Dothraki being "freaking useless morons" this hardly proves anything. The armoured horse attacking the Unsullied would actually be at a greater disadvantage, because textual evidence shows that barding armour has not yet been invented, making a knight about as vulnerable to an unsullied as a Dothraki, and without the bonus of arrows, which would be far fewer and less effective, due to the lower quality of Westerosi bowmen.

In addition, Jorah says that they could easily have been flanked, but I doubt the Unsullied would have been too stupid to figure out the concept of a square formation, or a schiltrom, which would be difficult to break with cavalry, and which inferior westerosi infantry could not break. Archers would be a problem, and is really the only Unsullied weakness.

Hence, it would surprising if a Westerosi army could defeat a pure unsullied army of the same size, because the knights would be too few to be effective, and the infantry not good enough to defeat an Unsullied.

[Ealasaid]

I think the unsullied will do to the mounted knights exactly what Bronn did to Falyse's mounted spouse, Kill the horse, swarm over the fallen. If I can't have the Mossad on my side, I would want the unsullied.

[Sir Tobi]

The armoured horse attacking the Unsullied would actually be at a greater disadvantage, because textual evidence shows that barding armour has not yet been invented, making a knight about as vulnerable to an unsullied as a Dothraki,

Hows that? TMK sais on page 709: "Tommard Heddle wore black plate over boiled leather ... . His horse was three hands taller than Thunder and two stone heavier, a monster of a beast armored in a coat of ringmail. Tha weight of all that iron made him slow, so Heddle never got past a canter..."

and heddle was a simple household knight in service to a normal lord. If his horse was armored in ringmail, than you can bet, that every third knight in an average army would have horse armor.

[Talleyrand]

Hows that? TMK sais on page 709: "Tommard Heddle wore black plate over boiled leather ... . His horse was three hands taller than Thunder and two stone heavier, a monster of a beast armored in a coat of ringmail. Tha weight of all that iron made him slow, so Heddle never got past a canter..."

and heddle was a simple household knight in service to a normal lord. If his horse was armored in ringmail, than you can bet, that every third knight in an average army would have horse armor.

Well no-one else seems to have it and seeing as Martin describes his horses quite often either the secret of barding was lost between Mystery Knight and Song of Ice and Fire or Martin forgot that Westeros doesn't have barding

[Sir Tobi]

With Glendon Ball GRRM stresses the point, that his horse ist not barded (because he's poor and cannot afford the armor). Which leads me to the conclusion that barding ist standart for westerosi knights. So standart, that its not explicitly mentioned.

proof me wrong, I didn't reread the hands tourney scene in a long time

[Talleyrand]

With Glendon Ball GRRM stresses the point, that his horse ist not barded (because he's poor and cannot afford the armor). Which leads me to the conclusion that barding ist standart for westerosi knights. So standart, that its not explicitly mentioned.

proof me wrong, I didn't reread the hands tourney scene in a long time

I'm not sure about the tourney, it's big and when i get the chance i'll re-read it but at the Battle of the Green Fork Gregor Clegane's horse is speared in the chest by a Spearman along with the other knights that charge so if they did have barding it would make you wonder why none of the knights in the Van of the richest lord in the seven kingdoms have any.

Again i think that the appearance of barding in TMK is an oversight by George

[Sir Tobi]

I just reread the hands tourney and Jaime was "... riding an elegant blood bay destrier. The horse wore a blanket of gilded ringmail ..."

it seens, that in this case the horse armor is only explicitly mentioned to stress the point that even the horse armor ist golden to match Jaimes lionhead-armor.

Which leads me to the conclusion that barding ist standart for westerosi knights. So standart, that its not explicitly mentioned.

[Talleyrand]

I just reread the hands tourney and Jaime was "... riding an elegant blood bay destrier. The horse wore a blanket of gilded ringmail ..."

it seens, that in this case the horse armor is only explicitly mentioned to stress the point that even the horse armor ist golden to match Jaimes lionhead-armor.

That's not barding, barding is full plate on the horse which would protect it from spear thrusts which mail doesn't do too well

[Sir Tobi]

Tyrion in the battle of the green fork:

"He had to make with oddments ... lobstered greaves and gauntlets and pointed steel boots ... gorget ... breastplate ... greathelm ... By then his groom had brought up his mount, a formidable courser armored as heavily as he was."

"Their (northmen) captains led them on armored warhorses ..."

""Do you yield?" The knight loomed overhead on his armored warhorse."

All the knights warhorses are armored. It's extraordinary if they are not. The armorers in westeros are as good as armorers in the 30years war. There is absolutely no sense or evidence, that they don't bard their horses with plate.

[Talleyrand]

Tyrion in the battle of the green fork:

"He had to make with oddments ... lobstered greaves and gauntlets and pointed steel boots ... gorget ... breastplate ... greathelm ... By then his groom had brought up his mount, a formidable courser armored as heavily as he was."

"Their (northmen) captains led them on armored warhorses ..."

""Do you yield?" The knight loomed overhead on his armored warhorse."

All the knights warhorses are armored. It's extraordinary if they are not. The armorers in westeros are as good as armorers in the 30years war. There is absolutely no sense or evidence, that they don't bard their horses with plate.

"The mountain's stallion reared, lashing out with iron shod hooves as a barbed spearhead raked across his chest"

Well the Mountain who is quite a prominent knight doesn't seem to have any horse armour which seems odd if it was standard.

"Half the horses shied at the last second, breaking their charge before the row of spears. The others died, sharp steel points ripping through their chests"

Neither do the knights in Tywin's van seem to have any. Also as you see not too many horses are willing to charge into a solid line of spears and shields

[Xenophon]

however this is fantasy with element from Hannibal up to the 30years war. So you cant exclude much besides gunpowder.

Yeah, Westeros is definitely in the High Fantasy Ages. Full plate rivaling that of the 16th century in RL, feudal levies seemingly out of the Dark Ages, and nobody seems to use archers much anywhere in the world.

Re. Barding: I didn't remember any of these details, but looking at the quotes you guys put up, it seems like either GRRM is just inconsistent on this point, or the norm is to armor your horse in mail, protecting it from arrows but not spear points, but some knights use more or less, depending on circumstances.

I admit that second option seems insane, given that they have armorers capable of making breastplates for horses, but GRRM isn't shy about handing out the idiot ball (see: Dothraki vs. Unsullied tactics fail) so I can't rule it out.

[Sir Tobi]

"Half the horses shied at the last second, breaking their charge before the row of spears. The others died, sharp steel points ripping through their chests"

Neither do the knights in Tywin's van seem to have any. Also as you see not too many horses are willing to charge into a solid line of spears and shields

thats because Tyrion was on the lighly armored side, that Tyvin set up as a trap

"This wing to was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and havy lancers, the vanguard (Tyrions side) was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers rusted swords ..."

and even they could break the Karstark spearwall (even if Tyvin didn't count on it)

as to the mountain not having an armoured horse. Well it could be, that the armour and the mountain together would have been to havy ... but I'm guessing here.