If Drogo Invaded Westeros *long*

[Morienthar]

And yet there is a recent thread where George says they are the equivalent of Mongols in his eye.

40,000 mounted men with plenty of reserves vs. a Westorosi culture which is 1 in 10 for the most part bodes ill. The sheer number give them the advantage.

He also goes on to say that the Mongols became disciplined and advanced....Early steppe riders were quite similar to the Dothraki sure but they aren't the same mongols who conquered half the world.

20,000 heavy cavalry vs 40,000 light Cavalry??

I'll take those odds.

Hit and run tactics only work when you know the area very well and it suits your style of fighting there are far too many mountainous regions in Westeros for the Dothraki to take on horse back and once they are forced to get down they will be slaughtered.

[enoofu]

People are forgetting that sailing with horses makes the horse sick for days, so the only place they could land is probably Dorne.

But I doubt Dorne would help if the other 6 kingdoms aren't infighting.

[OuterZan]

Dothraki are not Mongols and Drogo is not Subutai. Mongols campaigned in the winter, using frozen rivers as roads. I dont know how the Dothraki sea looks in winter, but by the looks of it, Dothraki are not very familiar with cold weather. They dont know how to siege, Mongols did.

They would do some damage, but long term conquering would not happen. In the long run, it would be disastrous for the Dothraki.

[Randyll Flowers]

I definitely think a lot of the weaknesses highlighted of the Dothraki are true, but I think people have over-stated the strength of Westerosi. OK, so this isn't medieval-land, it's GRRM-fantasy-land, but as others have pointed out it is likely that only a relatively small fraction of the armies quoted are mounted knights, the remainder being squires, men at arms and peasant levies of one sort or another. The knights would indeed be extremely skilled fighers, honed through tournaments and melees and simply enjoying the art of sword play as a past-time. The remainder of the army wouldn't have had the luxury of free time to become a trained warrior. And the other issue is that knights were not always that disciplined; very skilled fighters, but each was a noble (of some sort) in their own right, more used to giving commands than receiving them, and not used to working together as a unit. It took great leadership and discipline to hold an army together, which can be illustrated with two contrasting examples:

At the Battle of Hastings (or Battle of Battle if you prefer!), the decisive move seems to have been when William of Normandy's cavalry fled after failing to break the Saxon shield wall. Sources are split on whether it was genuine rout or a feint, and whether it happened once or multiple times, but they are consistent in describing the result. Despite the efforts of Harold Godwinson, some of the saxon shield wall (made up of huscarls, the saxon social equivalent of Westerosi knights) broke to pursue; William rallied the Norman cavalry who turned, destroyed their pursuers and shattered the now broken shield wall.

100 years later at the Battle of Arsuf, Richard I was harried over a number of days by Saladin's horse archers, but refused to break formation. When battle was finally met, he insisted that the knights all hold their lines. Many knights were dismounted, possibly on Richard's orders, possibly to protect their horses from the archers, possibly because their horses had been killed, but probably a combination of all three. Several attacks were resisted, and as Saladin's cavalry wheeled off, Richard's forces held solid and didn't ride out in pursuit. Eventually, the Hospitallers (one of the three holy orders and highly experienced knights) could take no more and finally broke, charging Saladin's forces. Richard knew that if he didn't support the break, the Hospitallers would be slaughtered, and so the general charge was ordered, mounted knights passed through the crossbowmen and footmen of the front ranks and charged into Saladin's forces, which were routed.

Two contrasting examples. In one, breaking formation led to defeat. In the other, it led to victory. Key differences in the latter case include the commander reacting to the breaking of discipline by launching a full counter attack, and the counter attack using heavy cavalry vs. light cavalry and infantry, rather than heavy infantry vs heavy cavalry.

I could see either example applying in Westeros. I find it hard to believe that a Dothraki force under the leadership of Khal Drogo, Daenerys, Mormont or Selmy would even attempt a full-frontal assault (unless the terrain was extremely advantageous). I would expect that a Dothraki horde would be well used to skirmish tactics, and many arrogant knights would respond by charging out, to be slaughtered. I think the Dothraki archers would have similar issues to Saladin's Ayyubid turks, in that they would have limited success in piercing armour. Having said, Crusader commanders had learned many lessons over the last 100 years, including ensuring they protected their horses, they wore akheton (jack, or padded armour) over the top of their mail to absorb the impact of arrows and silk beneath (arrows striking mail directly could force chain links into the flesh, causing infection and death; the jack absorbed the initial impact, and silk didn't tear easily, helping to keep wounds clean). I don't believe Westerosi commanders would have the benefit of these same lessons, having never fought Dothraki before, so the archers would have more impact than Saladin's did.

Where the Westeros may have some strength is in the quality of their commanders. An army led by Randyll Tarly or Stannis might be well disciplined, much as Richard's was. Even then, there are no guarantees - Harold Godwinson was no slouch, loved by his men and victorious against a superior foe at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.

To win, the Westerosi would need discipline and maximise their advantages, including strong leadership and home advantage. Both sides would need to be very careful in picking their battles, as terrain would probably be a decisive factor. As others have said, I think the Dothraki would be slaughtered if they ventured into the Neck or the Vale, but a Targaryen-led Dothraki army that conquered the Riverlands, Westerlands and Reach would probably have done enough to secure the Iron Throne anyway (especially if allied by Dorne).

[cealicu_ca]

Correction Heavy cavalry is superior to infantry when used well.

Horses what ever you have seen in movies cant mow down people and kill them with a single hit.

Arrows especially broad heads don't pierce mail and I'm sure people who don't use armor don't have Bodkin Tips.

The Jorah Rhakaro scene was show only and yes Jorah is wrong that Swords can be used effectively against mail,But he isn't wrong in regards to the arakhs inability to slash open Mail or plate.

Mail is designed to stop slashing.

There is just no real reason to believe the Dothraki are superior to Westrosi knights and Men at Arms.

and if you think that Westrosi armies are farmers with pitch forks you are sadly mistaken.

Read this once...http://asoiaf.wester...re-in-westeros/

Dany was a Kid.(She still is but that's another thing)

And do you really think Drogo would have listened to the Andal.

even if he did Westeros has Ned,Tywin,Bobert,Randyll,Stannis...These guys on a battlefield could think circles around Jorah.

But they didn't at the time Drogo was planning his invasion did they??

The maximum they would have gotten is a few thousand spears from dorne but the Tyrells would jump at the opportunity to stamp them down.

"Horses what ever you have seen in movies cant mow down people and kill them with a single hit." - A Heavy Cavalry charge was used to break the lines. The most damaging part was this (breaking the lines), afterwards the scattered infantry was easy picking for mounted knights using long swords or maces or whatever. But yes, movies often get it wrong. Still, Heavy Cavalry were the "tanks" of the era, and if an infantry man would end up under a fully equipped Heavy Cavalry horse's hoof he would most likely end up dead.

Very true about the arrows. Yet again, only a small percentage of the Westerosi army is comprised of Plate armor wearing knights. Plate Mail <> Chain Mail.

Jorah said that the broadsword is used at piercing armor. That is misleading, at best. Yes, you could try to pierce Chain Mail or even Plate Mail, but you'd be stupid in doing so. Not least because a broadsword (or better yet Longswords, as Jorah's seems to be. broadsword is a term... broadly used to describe many types of swords) is NOT made for piercing the enemy. Needle is such a weapon. He said nothing about slashing, but about piercing.

And yes, the Arakh is superior to the Longsword when it comes to Chain Mail, because the Arakh can easily pierce (not slash) and then hack away through Chain Mail (as any curved, sharp, pointy weapon would). You can't effectively use the Longsword to pierce enemies. It's long and heavy so even if it could (and it could) pierce through Chain Mail it's not something you'd likely try against a moving, fighting enemy.

Arakh is a bit inferior when it comes to Plate Mail (because the Longsword is heavier and thus capable of exploiting one of the few weaknesses of Plate Mail.

A heavy blow to the chest means that even if it will not break your ribs you will have a hard time breathing as the Plate Mail is deformed and presses on your chest) Plate Mail is vulnerable to such things. Piercing or slashing weapons don't do well, because the Plate will deflect the blows (within reasonable limits). It's weakness is that it is heavy and once you get hit hard it will deform, thus further restricting the mobility, injuring or even killing the person wearing it.

Against lightly armored - again the Arakh comes on top.

Those weapons (sharp, curved, pointy tip) are capable of doing extremely horrific injuries to anything but Plate Mail. It can be used as piercing or slashing, and to a degree (depending if it's one handed or two handed like the heavy Falx) bludgeoning.

About the link... i've read it. Sorry to say this, but he assumes too much:

- Heavy Cavalry is expensive. Very expensive. Not everyone can afford it but the richest lords. You need special armor, special saddle, special horse, horse armor and whatnot. Why would he assume that the Karstarks would use heavy cavalry?

- "some twenty odd knights and as many squires, two hundred mounted lances, swordsmen, and freeriders, and the rest foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents." Emphasis on the "rest foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents". When i say a "peasant" army i am referring to the fact that even of the men are equipped (the Lord provides them with weapons or even some pieces of basic armor) they are not trained nor experienced. The Dothraki are born, they live and die in conflict. They are trained fighting men. The Westeros army (like most medieval armies) have most of it's troops made of "unregulars", with a strong core of knights and/or veterans. Those "unregulars" might receive some form of training - that i will concede. The point is that if you think that medieval armies consisted mainly of trained professional soldiers... you're sadly mistaken. This is why sometimes they would hire mercenaries, who's loyalty was questionable compared to the "peasant" army (more or less lol), but they needed the strong arm and the experience.

And many other stuff.

A peasant, farmer, blacksmith etc. wearing basic armor (not even chain mail, more likely leather), using pikes, tridents, spears (some of the most cheap weapons) is not a peasant army. It's a peasant army in disguise :))

And in the end - the fact that the Dothraki were a homogeneous group would be a huge advantage. Westeros (king or any lord) has no standing army (correct me if i am mistaken).

"And do you really think Drogo would have listened to the Andal."

No, Drogo would have probably roared and said he would give the throne to his beloved silver hair queen and smashed his head against the walls of KL. So yes, you are right in this, there would probably never have been a chance for them because of the lack of leadership. Hell, Tyrion would have probably used a scorched land tactic that would have killed more than half of the Khal's forces before even putting a strong foothold in Westeros :))

[cealicu_ca]

He also goes on to say that the Mongols became disciplined and advanced....Early steppe riders were quite similar to the Dothraki sure but they aren't the same mongols who conquered half the world.

20,000 heavy cavalry vs 40,000 light Cavalry??

I'll take those odds.

Hit and run tactics only work when you know the area very well and it suits your style of fighting there are far too many mountainous regions in Westeros for the Dothraki to take on horse back and once they are forced to get down they will be slaughtered.

Depends on what you want to achieve. And where do you get those 20,000 heavy cavalry? And why do you presume that Westeros would unite and fight as one? :)

[cealicu_ca]

Dothraki are not Mongols and Drogo is not Subutai. Mongols campaigned in the winter, using frozen rivers as roads. I dont know how the Dothraki sea looks in winter, but by the looks of it, Dothraki are not very familiar with cold weather. They dont know how to siege, Mongols did.

They would do some damage, but long term conquering would not happen. In the long run, it would be disastrous for the Dothraki.

Precisely.

[Lala]

Not to mention that I don't think anyone in the series except for Viserys and perhaps, Drogo, seriously entertained the possibility that an army comprised of solely Dothraki horsemen could ever effectively conquer the 7K. I generally inferred that the motivation for getting the Dothraki army was to have a army, which would, upon landing, hopefully encourage potential allies to come forwards with forces as well rather than just showing up in the 7K all herpaderpicanhazkingdomplz

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Westerosi knights would be at a huge advantage versus a Dothraki (even a very good one) in one on one mounted combat, however, the knights would be hugely outnumbered. Westerosi infantry would have to deploy pikes and archery to defeat Dothraki in the field.

[Morienthar]

Depends on what you want to achieve. And where do you get those 20,000 heavy cavalry? And why do you presume that Westeros would unite and fight as one? :)

We don't but as this is under Bob's rule,Most of Westeros hadn't collapsed into anarchy and they would have united against an outsider,barbarian horde.

And in the end - the fact that the Dothraki were a homogeneous group would be a huge advantage. Westeros (king or any lord) has no standing army (correct me if i am mistaken).

The Dothraki unity will be called into question the moment Drogo falls and that would probably be his first battle in Westeros.

The Lannisters,Baratheons,Hightowers and Tyrells seem to have professional soldiers in their employ most of the time and they can raise up to and over 150,000 soldiers of which I'd say one in 5 is mounted which gives you 30,000 horse and I'd say at least 40% of this is heavy cavalry the rest being men at arms,free riders and older squires.

[MoscQuetier]

Guys, Robb had around 2000 "Knights" with him in his campaign, a mix of Knights, Squires and Northmen heavy lances. Now, the north is not the richer nor the most "knightly" region. and even then, that was without the full strength of white harbour. Put 15.000 heavy horses with Robb or Garlan (or both) at the front. Good bye Drogo, see you in hell.

[cealicu_ca]

We don't but as this is under Bob's rule,Most of Westeros hadn't collapsed into anarchy and they would have united against an outsider,barbarian horde.

The Dothraki unity will be called into question the moment Drogo falls and that would probably be his first battle in Westeros.

The Lannisters,Baratheons,Hightowers and Tyrells seem to have professional soldiers in their employ most of the time and they can raise up to and over 150,000 soldiers of which I'd say one in 5 is mounted which gives you 30,000 horse and I'd say at least 40% of this is heavy cavalry the rest being men at arms,free riders and older squires.

You're right about their unity when Drogo's dead. It would have happened just like when he really (?!?) died. The Khalasar would have... disbanded, broken into other Khalasars etc.

[Lord Reaver]

Jorah said that the broadsword is used at piercing armor. That is misleading, at best. Yes, you could try to pierce Chain Mail or even Plate Mail, but you'd be stupid in doing so. Not least because a broadsword (or better yet Longswords, as Jorah's seems to be. broadsword is a term... broadly used to describe many types of swords) is NOT made for piercing the enemy. Needle is such a weapon. He said nothing about slashing, but about piercing.

Terms such as 'broad' and 'long' sword are largely misleading anyway. The only real difference we can find is in the manuals describing medieval fighting styles, where the 'long-sword' (langes schwert) has clearly different style, and is what most fantasy authors calls 'bastard' or 'hand and a half' swords. As such, the best distinction is whether you're using a sword and shield or just the sword. Now, on piercing armor, one must realize that sword technology was not static, and that blade profiles changed radically over time during the entire medieval period. Most characteristically is the transition from a fuller-type profile to a diamond one. This is largely held to be a development brought on by the increased use of armor (both mail and plate), since a diamond profile is much better at piercing. This, combined with the techniques called half-swording (holding your long-sword with one hand haflway up the blade) made it possible to pierce both mail and plate with this weapon. So, to say that a sword is not made for piercing is a gross oversimplification at best.

And yes, the Arakh is superior to the Longsword when it comes to Chain Mail, because the Arakh can easily pierce (not slash) and then hack away through Chain Mail (as any curved, sharp, pointy weapon would). You can't effectively use the Longsword to pierce enemies. It's long and heavy so even if it could (and it could) pierce through Chain Mail it's not something you'd likely try against a moving, fighting enemy.

This is just plain wrong. There are techniques for using a long-sword to do exactly this, as I said above. And no, they are not particularly heavy, this is yet another myth. Most good swords weigh in around the 1-2 kg range.

- "some twenty odd knights and as many squires, two hundred mounted lances, swordsmen, and freeriders, and the rest foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents." Emphasis on the "rest foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents". When i say a "peasant" army i am referring to the fact that even of the men are equipped (the Lord provides them with weapons or even some pieces of basic armor) they are not trained nor experienced. The Dothraki are born, they live and die in conflict. They are trained fighting men. The Westeros army (like most medieval armies) have most of it's troops made of "unregulars", with a strong core of knights and/or veterans. Those "unregulars" might receive some form of training - that i will concede. The point is that if you think that medieval armies consisted mainly of trained professional soldiers... you're sadly mistaken. This is why sometimes they would hire mercenaries, who's loyalty was questionable compared to the "peasant" army (more or less lol), but they needed the strong arm and the experience.

No, that's not quite how the 'feudal' system works (let's not get into the debate on whether to call it 'feudal' here). The very basic assumption of the system is that some people do the fighting in return for them not having to do the field labor. Lords have men-at arms, and these men are indeed trained for battle. That is, after all, what they are tasked to do, the very reason for their (and thus by extension, their Lord's) position. You are making the usual assumption that someone armed with a spear and on foot must automatically be poorly armored and without training. This is a common misconception, but one that GRRM happily does not suffer from too badly. This has been shown in several threads where people have cited GRRM's description of the northern foot, which are pretty much all mail-armored. This isn't something you toss to an untrained peasant (a suit of mail costs the equivalent of a high-end car in todays money) along with a pitchfork, this is high-end gear for trained soldiers.

A peasant, farmer, blacksmith etc. wearing basic armor (not even chain mail, more likely leather), using pikes, tridents, spears (some of the most cheap weapons) is not a peasant army. It's a peasant army in disguise :))

Nothing in the passage you quoted says anything about the day-to-day occupation of the foot. Your assumption that they are farmers or blacksmiths is just that: Assumption. As is your assumption that they are wearing low-grade armor (which wouldn't be leather, but cloth). As I have pointed out, it is actually much more likely that these are trained men-at-arms equipped with mail.

[Sir Tan Lee]

We don't but as this is under Bob's rule,Most of Westeros hadn't collapsed into anarchy and they would have united against an outsider,barbarian horde.

I seriously doubt its under Robert Baratheons rule. By the time Drogo would have found the ships and sailed across the sea it would probably be around the time of ASOS. In which case there wouldn't be any counter fleet to stop them. Every one would be far to busy fighting each other to deal with the Dothraki fleet.

There is no way in seven hells Robb would ally with the Lannisters as long as Joffrey lives. He wouldn't have to any ways. If the Dothraki land in Dorne they wouldn't be a serious threat to the north until much later. That would leave the Lannisters and Tyrells trapped between to bitter enemies.

Khal Drogo doesn't appear to be a bimbo either. Hes never lost a battle so that shows he isn't a clueless savage when it comes to tactics. I think its a misconception that the Dothraki aren't organized. They wouldn't be able to hold a shield wall but that's not what they train to do any ways. They are clearly adept at hit and run tactics which seem to be unappreciated on this forum.

[cealicu_ca]

Terms such as 'broad' and 'long' sword are largely misleading anyway. The only real difference we can find is in the manuals describing medieval fighting styles, where the 'long-sword' (langes schwert) has clearly different style, and is what most fantasy authors calls 'bastard' or 'hand and a half' swords. As such, the best distinction is whether you're using a sword and shield or just the sword. Now, on piercing armor, one must realize that sword technology was not static, and that blade profiles changed radically over time during the entire medieval period. Most characteristically is the transition from a fuller-type profile to a diamond one. This is largely held to be a development brought on by the increased use of armor (both mail and plate), since a diamond profile is much better at piercing. This, combined with the techniques called half-swording (holding your long-sword with one hand haflway up the blade) made it possible to pierce both mail and plate with this weapon. So, to say that a sword is not made for piercing is a gross oversimplification at best.

This is just plain wrong. There are techniques for using a long-sword to do exactly this, as I said above. And no, they are not particularly heavy, this is yet another myth. Most good swords weigh in around the 1-2 kg range.

No, that's not quite how the 'feudal' system works (let's not get into the debate on whether to call it 'feudal' here). The very basic assumption of the system is that some people do the fighting in return for them not having to do the field labor. Lords have men-at arms, and these men are indeed trained for battle. That is, after all, what they are tasked to do, the very reason for their (and thus by extension, their Lord's) position. You are making the usual assumption that someone armed with a spear and on foot must automatically be poorly armored and without training. This is a common misconception, but one that GRRM happily does not suffer from too badly. This has been shown in several threads where people have cited GRRM's description of the northern foot, which are pretty much all mail-armored. This isn't something you toss to an untrained peasant (a suit of mail costs the equivalent of a high-end car in todays money) along with a pitchfork, this is high-end gear for trained soldiers.

Nothing in the passage you quoted says anything about the day-to-day occupation of the foot. Your assumption that they are farmers or blacksmiths is just that: Assumption. As is your assumption that they are wearing low-grade armor (which wouldn't be leather, but cloth). As I have pointed out, it is actually much more likely that these are trained men-at-arms equipped with mail.

Taken from someone that knows stuff like that:

"A sword cutting plate armor is very very unlikely. To the point most people will just tell you flat-out 'NO!" A dent, maybe if conditions are just right.

As for penetrating with a thrust, it really depends on the sword and the armor, and the armor would have to be rather thin. Considering that even then you'd have to strike so your thrust lands square-on the armor, otherwise you'd run the risk of just skipping off, in a fight it's likely be a better option to go for the gaps, anyway."

and

"As for thrust through a breastplate, it might be possible if you're using a rigid sword against low-quality armor. A test of a halberd against a 16th-century harness managed penetration of the breastplate with the halberd's top spike."

and

"If my opponent was wearing plate armor and all I had was a sharpened sword, I would airm for the armor's joints or gaps. I'd utilize the tip to pierce through the weak areas and the maille. As far as using the edge to cut or slice into the armor, bonne chance! You'd likely cause more damage to the sword, mainly because this is just what plate armor is designed to withstand. Swords are designed to cut through flesh and bone, not quarter-inch-thick metal.

The optimal choice would be a weapon that is hardest and heaviest at its end -- in this case, a mace would do. Other logical choices would be a flail, warhammer, or a heavy axe. Those of later periods, say the Renaissance, would probably employ a firearm.

If the use of a sword is a must, you could always use one of the aforementioned pole weapons to breach the armor, then finish the poor guy off with a sword thrust."

You are right when you say that swords were made to accommodate more than one type of move, thrusts being one of those. But against Plate armor...

And this is why i say that the weapon of Dothraki is not inferior to the sword (longsword or bastard sword or whatever you'd like to call it - it was quite a large sword, not Ice though ;-) ). As for the rest - maybe you're right, though the mere mentioning of "a suit of mail costs the equivalent of a high-end car in todays money" only strengthens my argument that most armies a strong core of those well equiped, well trained fighters. It was not affordable (of course, the Lannisters may afford such). :)

edit: i know that we're mainly talking about the novels, but in the tv-show Jorah explains how the sword is superior to the Arakh because it can pierce armor (and even presses the tip of his sword against his palm to exemplify). That i don't agree with because:

1. Against plate armor - both weapons are just as bad (or good).

2. Against chain mail - both weapons are good, but a curved weapons is even better. Like the Arakh.

3. Against light armor/unarmored - both weapons are devastating.

one last quote:

"One reason why we don't see swords designed to punch through plate armor was because the users saw no need for such. They already had effective techniques (like half-swording and wrestling) that they could use to defeat the enemy either by forcing open the gaps in his plate armor or by subduing him without attempting to get past his armor as all. Throw a gendarme down head-first into the ground and he'll get stunned all the same in spite of all that armor."

[Lord Reaver]

Taken from someone that knows stuff like that:

And your assumption that this person knows this 'stuff' better than myself is what, exactly ? You offer no credentials, and you do not know mine.

"A sword cutting plate armor is very very unlikely. To the point most people will just tell you flat-out 'NO!" A dent, maybe if conditions are just right.

I never suggested a sword could cut plate. They can't cut mail, either, but that's beside the point.

As for penetrating with a thrust, it really depends on the sword and the armor, and the armor would have to be rather thin. Considering that even then you'd have to strike so your thrust lands square-on the armor, otherwise you'd run the risk of just skipping off, in a fight it's likely be a better option to go for the gaps, anyway."

and

"As for thrust through a breastplate, it might be possible if you're using a rigid sword against low-quality armor. A test of a halberd against a 16th-century harness managed penetration of the breastplate with the halberd's top spike."

and

"If my opponent was wearing plate armor and all I had was a sharpened sword, I would airm for the armor's joints or gaps. I'd utilize the tip to pierce through the weak areas and the maille. As far as using the edge to cut or slice into the armor, bonne chance! You'd likely cause more damage to the sword, mainly because this is just what plate armor is designed to withstand. Swords are designed to cut through flesh and bone, not quarter-inch-thick metal.

How is this any different from what I just said? I mentioned techniques for half-swording. These naturally include aiming for gaps, since that increases your chance of success. But your OP portrayed the use of swords against plate as practically impossible, which is not the case.

The optimal choice would be a weapon that is hardest and heaviest at its end -- in this case, a mace would do. Other logical choices would be a flail, warhammer, or a heavy axe. Those of later periods, say the Renaissance, would probably employ a firearm.

Yes, but that wasn't the issue here, was it ? If you'd said 'swords weren't the best choice for penetrating plate' this could be relevant. That's not what you said, however.

If the use of a sword is a must, you could always use one of the aforementioned pole weapons to breach the armor, then finish the poor guy off with a sword thrust."

Assuming you were lugging around an arsenal, sure...

And this is why i say that the weapon of Dothraki is not inferior to the sword (longsword or bastard sword or whatever you'd like to call it - it was quite a large sword, not Ice though ;-) ).

In some ways yes, it would be inferior. There is no way to half-sword such a sword, thus reducing your armor-piercing options. It's all about maximum pressure at minimum area, you see, as well as maximum control. Both of these are improved when half-swording, and to a much greater extent than you would ever get on a weapon such as what the Arakh is described as.

As for the rest - maybe you're right, though the mere mentioning of "a suit of mail costs the equivalent of a high-end car in todays money" only strengthens my argument that most armies a strong core of those well equiped, well trained fighters. It was not affordable (of course, the Lannisters may afford such). :)

Most people these days afford a car. Especially if their livelihood depends on it. These men, being employed to fight, would make sure they were as protected as they possibly could be, because you know, nobody actually WANTS to die or get maimed, let alone the fact their livelihoods and families depended on it. It is thus not far-fetched to assume they would indeed invest in it.

[cealicu_ca]

"If you'd said 'swords weren't the best choice for penetrating plate' this could be relevant. That's not what you said, however." Exactly what i said in my first post (that i don't agree with Jorah since he says that the sword is better than the Arakh because it can pierce armor - exemplified by him putin his hand agaisnt the tip of the sword). The debate with you... i find it tedious. I said i didn't agree with him on that, you seem to say the same. Where's the problem, really?

"In some ways yes, it would be inferior. There is no way to half-sword such a sword, thus reducing your armor-piercing options. It's all about maximum pressure at minimum area, you see, as well as maximum control. Both of these are improved when half-swording, and to a much greater extent than you would ever get on a weapon such as what the Arakh is described as."

Yes, you are right about the techniques employed. But in some ways it would be superior. A curved weapon like the Arakh has it's own techniques that cannot be used when wielding a sword. It can be used for grabbing, or slashing from the back (shield, limbs, legs, weapons), for example. Because of it being curved and pointy, it can transform a slashing into a thrust, allowing the full force of the hit to be concentrated into a single spot, another example. There certainty are ways in which a sword would definitely be better (i can hardly imagine trying to parry with the outer edge of the Arakh... you'd probably end up one limb short off). But this is also valid he other way around. To the point, i was strictly referring when comparing those two weapons against Plate armor (again, i emphasize that i said i did not agree with Jorah's statement).

"And your assumption that this person knows this 'stuff' better than myself is what, exactly ? You offer no credentials, and you do not know mine." I am sorry, i did not mean to offend you. You certainly seem to know about thins more than i do, so my apologies.

"Most people these days afford a car. Especially if their livelihood depends on it. These men, being employed to fight, would make sure they were as protected as they possibly could be, because you know, nobody actually WANTS to die or get maimed, let alone the fact their livelihoods and families depended on it. It is thus not far-fetched to assume they would indeed invest in it. " - Well, yes and no. You original statement was to compare the level of protection to "high-end cars" - something most people do not afford, which i did agree upon. Of course everyone would make their best to assure their survival, but unless supplied by the Lords (which won't throw the best armors and weapons on them either) they could afford little protection. One of the reasons armor went extinct is precisely because of that (in spite of the common misconception that firearms had the most important part in this). It would be economically unfeasible to equip 100,000 people with Plate or even Chain mail armors. They both were extremely expensive and time consuming to make. Regular armies meant the decline of Plate/Chain Armor.

[SeanF]

Dothraki tactics are no doubt fine on their steppes, where they have thousands of square miles to manoeuvre on horseback, and where they can constantly withdraw from a heavily-armed enemy, while showering them with arrows. In Westeros, they wouldn't always have the advantage of such ground. They'd be facing armoured knights and men at arms; experienced infantry and men-at-arms, often at close quarters, who could withdraw into fortresses and towns if they were beaten, while constantly harassing the Dothraki from them. Drogo could only expect to win if his arrival prompted some influential lords to rebel against Robert.

[Sir Tan Lee]

Dothraki tactics are no doubt fine on their steppes, where they have thousands of square miles to manoeuvre on horseback, and where they can constantly withdraw from a heavily-armed enemy, while showering them with arrows. In Westeros, they wouldn't always have the advantage of such ground. They'd be facing armoured knights and men at arms; experienced infantry and men-at-arms, often at close quarters, who could withdraw into fortresses and towns if they were beaten, while constantly harassing the Dothraki from them. Drogo could only expect to win if his arrival prompted some influential lords to rebel against Robert.

Drogo wouldn't be fighting against Robert, he'd be fighting against the Crown (Lannister and Tyrells), Stannis (part of the Storm lands and dragon stone) and King Robb (riverlands and the North. But not all at once, most of them will still be killing each other before Drogo even gets to them. It would take at least a year for Drogo to get his Khalasar to Westeros which would bring him to about the time of ASOS. Dorne would most likely join with Drogo purely for spite of the Lannisters.

From the Reach to the Crown lands and Casterly rock its mostly open fields. Only the Vale and the North would be a huge issue.

People keep talking about castles as if the Dothraki would simply slam their heads into the brick walls because they don't know what else to do. Essos has castles too and the Dothraki have basically made most of the free cities their bitch. Siege equipment can be built and tactics planned out especially with the help of Dorne.

[Morienthar]

Drogo wouldn't be fighting against Robert, he'd be fighting against the Crown (Lannister and Tyrells), Stannis (part of the Storm lands and dragon stone) and King Robb (riverlands and the North. But not all at once, most of them will still be killing each other before Drogo even gets to them. It would take at least a year for Drogo to get his Khalasar to Westeros which would bring him to about the time of ASOS. Dorne would most likely join with Drogo purely for spite of the Lannisters.

From the Reach to the Crown lands and Casterly rock its mostly open fields. Only the Vale and the North would be a huge issue.

People keep talking about castles as if the Dothraki would simply slam their heads into the brick walls because they don't know what else to do. Essos has castles too and the Dothraki have basically made most of the free cities their bitch. Siege equipment can be built and tactics planned out especially with the help of Dorne.

You realize Drogo and Bob died within two weeks of each other right??

The premise of the thread is that Drogo goes to Westeros as he promised after Viserys's death,Which would mean that Bob is alive.