Come Into My Castle: The Ways of Warfare in Westeros updated, and PSA regarding troop quality

[Vesemir]

So because R. Lee Ermy hacked at a European breast plate with a Kitana that's evidence for the Dothraki beating the Westerosi? Got it!

For the record...http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130316025031/turtledove/images/e/ee/Katana3.jpg

http://www.dothraki.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Arahk2.jpeg

Why?! THEY'RE PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL!!

Not to mention all the various idiosyncrasies involved in smithing, to say they're practically identical is ridiculous.

I am pretty sure he wasn't serious :P

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Do you want the full list?

Yes please.

[To catch a Lannister]

Indeed. Keep beating that myth of longbow decisiveness whenever it rears it's ugly head.

You can't say it didn't play a part though, without them the English wouldn't have won the battle. The mud/terrain, and the general congestion of the french forces as the men in the front were pushed from the back and so on were big factors too though I didn't mean to omit that.

[To catch a Lannister]

I am pretty sure he wasn't serious :P

If you're gonna troll at least be funny

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

If you're gonna troll at least be funny

I thought it was pretty funny, c'mon, the guy from Full Metal Jacket with a katana?

Getting back on track: I'd heard that the legendary "folding the steel X amount of times" tradition with katanas was an attempt to produce a better quality steel given the poor quality of what was available to the Japanese at the time.

Planetos doesn't seem to have this problem - the Wildlings have no steel at all but the Thenns mine bronze. Otherwise, it seems like everyone has good sword making ore - with no mention (of which I'm aware) of trading for better quality sword making metals. GRRM just deciding to keep a complex story simple where he can?

[Lord Reaver]

You can't say it didn't play a part though, without them the English wouldn't have won the battle. The mud/terrain, and the general congestion of the french forces as the men in the front were pushed from the back and so on were big factors too though I didn't mean to omit that.

Of course they played a part. But no more than say the french crossbowmen. But I never hear people harping on that. I disagree about the part that without them the English would have won. Without them, the english probably wouldn't have been there, since longbowmen were cheaper than hiring crossbowmen, like the french did. The fact the english forces were entrenched and had the battlefield so clearly on their side, and the apparent lack of discipline among the french are the main reasons for the english victory.

As I said, there are numerous examples of french knights soundly thrashing the english. In Patay, the french vanguard alone did it before the rest of the army caught up.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

...Without them, the english probably wouldn't have been there, since longbowmen were cheaper than hiring crossbowmen

Why's that?

[Lord Reaver]

Getting back on track: I'd heard that the legendary "folding the steel X amount of times" tradition with katanas was an attempt to produce a better quality steel given the poor quality of what was available to the Japanese at the time.

Indeed. It's a method for coping with the fact you have low-grade iron ore. In fact, europeans used to do so as well, see "damasced" steel. Vikings, whose iron ore was fairly inferior to the rest of europe were masters of this.

[Lord Reaver]

Why's that?

The main reason why the english employed so many longbowmen was that they were dirt cheap and available in relatively large numbers.

The french feudal levies were undeniably larger and better equipped than the english (as evidenced as the war progressed), so the only way for the english to compensate was to recruit cheap and numerous longbowmen from among the peasantry. The french, meanwhile, had to rely on crossbowmen, who were largely professional mercenaries, and thus, more expensive.

[To catch a Lannister]

Of course they played a part. But no more than say the french crossbowmen. But I never hear people harping on that. I disagree about the part that without them the English would have won. Without them, the english probably wouldn't have been there, since longbowmen were cheaper than hiring crossbowmen, like the french did. The fact the english forces were entrenched and had the battlefield so clearly on their side, and the apparent lack of discipline among the french are the main reasons for the english victory.

As I said, there are numerous examples of french knights soundly thrashing the english. In Patay, the french vanguard alone did it before the rest of the army caught up.

Yeah without them Henry probably wouldn't have had an army, as it composed about 75%, give or take, of his forces. Anyway, carry on.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Yes please.

If you insist. Just the actual errors in handling, not the BS he is spouting apart from that:

4.02 - Where is the cut? You either draw the blade towards you, or push it forward, so that the sword actually cuts.

4.25 - Why does that *unspeakable* use the lower fifth of the blade? Never heard of leverage? By the way, this part was often deliberately left unsharpened. And again, no cut at all.

5.20 - Ridiculous attack. He even moved the sword away before he cut. Of course it wouldn't cut anything but air this way. And it's a less powerful attack than the zornhau he performs with the katana anyway.

6.30 - Again. Using the lower third and not even trying to cut.

6.40 - Why the hell no halfswording? And by the way, gripping it like a lefty would, while actually being right-handed. Not even going into the skewed position where the longsword and the katana hit the armor.

And that's ommitting the fact that the longsword was never sharpened but is intentionally dull and the ridiculous armor they are are using for dummy practice, probably made out of some old couches or a wrecked car.

I thought it was pretty funny, c'mon, the guy from Full Metal Jacket with a katana?

Getting back on track: I'd heard that the legendary "folding the steel X amount of times" tradition with katanas was an attempt to produce a better quality steel given the poor quality of what was available to the Japanese at the time.

Planetos doesn't seem to have this problem - the Wildlings have no steel at all but the Thenns mine bronze. Otherwise, it seems like everyone has good sword making ore - with no mention (of which I'm aware) of trading for better quality sword making metals. GRRM just deciding to keep a complex story simple where he can?

That's a method invented first in the Hallstadt-culture, Europe ~500 BC. It wasn't used in Europe anymore, because the Franks developed techniques to create better monosteels ~500 AC.

Basically, the great advantage the katana fans claim was phased out in Europe a millenium before it was introduced in Japan, because it was already outdated.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

It seems that the Dornish favour bronze armor - hell even Prince Oberyn uses bronze armor in his fight with the Mountain. Is there any utility to this, I was under the impression that bronze is a poor substitute for steel in any case?

Even Daenarys Dunderhead knows that in battle she'd be better off with steel than bronze, what gives?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It seems that the Dornish favour bronze armor - hell even Prince Oberyn uses bronze armor in his fight with the Mountain. Is there any utility to this, I was under the impression that bronze is a poor substitute for steel in any case?

Even Daenarys Dunderhead knows that in battle she'd be better off with steel than bronze, what gives?

Nope, they don't.

What they use is copper. But only as a purely ceremonial part. Where the Lannisters gild their armor, the Dornish coat them with copper.

[SeanF]

Indeed. Keep beating that myth of longbow decisiveness whenever it rears it's ugly head.

Massed volley fire by archers was, if not decisive, certainly very useful at disrupting the momentum of enemy attacks, on foot or on horse. English archery was deadly, not just at Crecy and Agincourt, but at battles like Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, and Flodden. But, what made the English archer so effective was that he was trained to fight in hand to hand combat, as well as archery. Every battle was eventually decided by hand to hand combat.

[To catch a Lannister]

Massed volley fire by archers was, if not decisive, certainly very useful at disrupting the momentum of enemy attacks, on foot or on horse. English archery was deadly, not just at Crecy and Agincourt, but at battles like Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, and Flodden. But, what made the English archer so effective was that he was trained to fight in hand to hand combat, as well as archery. Every battle was eventually decided by hand to hand combat.

And they only reason the French won at Patay(the umpteenth time they'd tried a mass cavalry charge to win a battle) was because they English hadn't fortified their position yet and the French charged the bowman without stakes in place and men-at-arms support. If they'd gotten ready in time who knows?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Massed volley fire by archers was, if not decisive, certainly very useful at disrupting the momentum of enemy attacks, on foot or on horse. English archery was deadly, not just at Crecy and Agincourt, but at battles like Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross, and Flodden. But, what made the English archer so effective was that he was trained to fight in hand to hand combat, as well as archery. Every battle was eventually decided by hand to hand combat.

Definitely very useful. But not very lethal. Those two attributes are often confused.

[SeanF]

Definitely very useful. But not very lethal. Those two attributes are often confused.

That's right. Few arrows will penetrate plate or mail (and fewer will kill) but a charge depends on momentum for its success, and being hit by an arrow can knock you over, or at least disrupt that momentum. Attacking forces will naturally bunch together and slow down in the face of an arrow storm.

[E-Ro]

"The above" is common "knowledge". It is, actually, not quite the whole truth. A horse will avoid obstacles if it can and has the time and opportunity to. Thing is, horses aren't all that smart. I know of people who'se horses have killed themselves by running straight into trees, for no other apparent reason than having been in the stable for a while and wanting to stretch their legs and just not seeing or being aware of the tree before it was too late.

And, even while most horses won't do that on their own, infantry was not alone in using massed formations, cavalry did as well, as seen e.g in this painting of polish hussars: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Husaria_pod_Kluszynem.jpg

A horse in a tight cavalry formation has nowhere to go but forward. There are horses on every side. So once they get up speed, there's no going away from the "wall" of people, and no stopping. The momentum alone will make sure the horse and it's rider hits the infantry.

I agree, so with all the above being said what human in their right mind would decide to charge a strong infantry formation with cavalry? The answer of course, is that units of infantry would only be charged by horse in very particular circumstances. Which is all im really trying to get across here.

As for this whole arrows debate, yeah, arrows vs armor goes badly for the arrows. I would say the amount of men killed or incapacitated enough to not be able to fight anymore from arrow wounds alone would be negligible in most battles from the time period being discussed.

[Tankbuster]

Yeah, pretty much 100% accurate.

Lately this has been a point of much contention though. There are a small few vocal posters that think the dothraki could take westeros or cause a ton of problems if they invaded. That simply is not the case. Charging a disciplined grouping of infantry is a surefire way for light cavalry to get butchered. The horses will stop just short of the infantry, then the infantry will step forward and the butchery starts. Spears, pikes, halberds and poleaxes all rising and falling in unison, cutting horse and man alike.

Elephants on the other hand, especially of the armored variety,would be a different thing altogether for the average pike formation.

[Lord Reaver]

Elephants are big as...well, elephants, really. Any army with adequate missile and support weaponry should not fear elephants much. With the penetrating power of crossbows as longbows, elephant skin isn't as impressive as it is against slings and lesser bows (which was what most armies facing elephants had).