|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
Yay, I got a discussion going, point me =D
Two more things to consider. One is that when the council was talking about the Dothraki being a mortal threat, they were under the assumption that it was 100k fighters (as per Robert's talk with Ned, if they state different numbers in the show feel free to point it out, I'm at work and can't check), not 40k fighters. While still obviously a threat, I believe that the armies of Westeros could have put that down.
Two, the Mongols may have beaten better odds, but did they have to sail their army across an ocean to fight? Think of the massive amount of ships it would take to move just the 40k men and their horses. Now imagine organising a fleet like that, across an ocean, through storms, and finally against the Naval forces of Westeros.... it's an insane thing to accomplish. Sure, if there was a land bridge and the Dothraki just trotted over unannounced it would be a mortal threat to the realm, but organising that many ships, I think it'd be absolutely amazing if half of them landed at the same place at the same time.
And a final point (so I guess I had 3 things, sue me) is that a decent amount of Westeros' 200k men were in fact trained. Knights, sellswords, common soldiers, etc. They're not trained to fight as a unit, true, but their far from all being peasents with pitchforks.
|
I thought the divide between Westeros and wherever the Dothraki live was just a sea though? It wouldn't be that hard provided they could hire a bunch of ships. Now this was before the dragon eggs hatches, so weren't they planning on selling them to buy a fleet of ships?
|
I couldn't find how long it takes to travel the Narrow Sea in my quick search, and I can't really comment further as it quickly starts delving into knowledge I didn't have at this point in the series. All I can really do is point to the fact that I believe it would be very difficult for an army this size (especially one that fears the sea) to cross in any semblance of an organized fashion. PS: I wish TL had an auto spellcheck thing, because I know I've been butchering words, lol.
|
On June 02 2012 19:19 Azera wrote:If only somebody with the 1080p version of S02E09 can make a wallpaper of this scene + Show Spoiler +
Made a wallpaper from the scene for myself. Figured I should post in case you want it. I used Pkkktz's altered version.
+ Show Spoiler + 1920x1080
+ Show Spoiler + 1280x1024
EDIT- added 1280x1024
|
The Dothraki are rich. They don't need to organize a feet, they can actually hire one - and an army, to boot.
Now I don't think Robert was talking about 100 000 warriors but just 100 000 men, in the sense that it's a war machine, they take everything they need with them.
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Think about it. Among 100 000, westerosi can probably only get 10 000 decent horsemen, and this is heavy cavalry too, they can't do much against the Dothraki's mobility.
|
Courtesy of Reddit
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/smr2p.jpg)
|
On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
The Dothraki are rich. They don't need to organize a feet, they can actually hire one - and an army, to boot.
Now I don't think Robert was talking about 100 000 warriors but just 100 000 men, in the sense that it's a war machine, they take everything they need with them.
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Think about it. Among 100 000, westerosi can probably only get 10 000 decent horsemen, and this is heavy cavalry too, they can't do much against the Dothraki's mobility.
Dothraki don't believe in buying (although I see your point) but you're still ignoring the fact that have to sail those 40k men in hundreds upon hundreds of ships across a sea that is known for autumn storms. I contend that there is no way they would have landed all 40k at the same location at the same time.
You also imply that Westerosi don't have archers, which we know clearly isn't the case. In fact, they are likely to have archers capable of easily outranging the generally shorter range horsebows. To say they'd have no chance is a vast overestimation of Dothraki power in my eyes.
EDIT: And if you're talking about them taking the whole 100k with them then you're more than doubling the ships, exponentially increasing the logistical problems, and lowering the chances even further of having a sizable fighting force landing. 100k men and their horses plus supplies to bring them all across... that's an insane number of ships.
|
On June 03 2012 07:20 Critter wrote:
Yay, I got a discussion going, point me =D
Two more things to consider. One is that when the council was talking about the Dothraki being a mortal threat, they were under the assumption that it was 100k fighters (as per Robert's talk with Ned, if they state different numbers in the show feel free to point it out, I'm at work and can't check), not 40k fighters. While still obviously a threat, I believe that the armies of Westeros could have put that down.
Two, the Mongols may have beaten better odds, but did they have to sail their army across an ocean to fight? Think of the massive amount of ships it would take to move just the 40k men and their horses. Now imagine organising a fleet like that, across an ocean, through storms, and finally against the Naval forces of Westeros.... it's an insane thing to accomplish. Sure, if there was a land bridge and the Dothraki just trotted over unannounced it would be a mortal threat to the realm, but organising that many ships, I think it'd be absolutely amazing if half of them landed at the same place at the same time.
.
To answer; no, the mongols tried to bring their army over the sea (into japan) twice, and failed both times (though only really due to horrible weather (tsunamis and they lost huge armies)).
But sailing an army over the narrow sea? I wouldnt know the difficulty. The real life mongols werent sea people and had no real navy powe. It's really not possible to know what the dothraki could to in that regard.
|
Dothraki's main strength tbh is their maneuverability. They would just go from town to town, city to city ransacking and pillaging, not caring to occupy anything, whilst the westeros armies have lands to protect and could never pursue.
|
On June 03 2012 10:19 IamVirGin wrote:
To answer; no, the mongols tried to bring their army over the sea (into japan) twice, and failed both times (though only really due to horrible weather (tsunamis and they lost huge armies)).
But sailing an army over the narrow sea? I wouldnt know the difficulty. The real life mongols werent sea people and had no real navy powe. It's really not possible to know what the dothraki could to in that regard.
Considering they fear the 'poison water' I can't imagine them doing any better than the Mongols. All speculation, of course, but a discussion I'm quite enjoying to make the work day go by faster =D
|
On June 03 2012 10:24 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 10:19 IamVirGin wrote:
To answer; no, the mongols tried to bring their army over the sea (into japan) twice, and failed both times (though only really due to horrible weather (tsunamis and they lost huge armies)).
But sailing an army over the narrow sea? I wouldnt know the difficulty. The real life mongols werent sea people and had no real navy powe. It's really not possible to know what the dothraki could to in that regard. Considering they fear the 'poison water' I can't imagine them doing any better than the Mongols. All speculation, of course, but a discussion I'm quite enjoying to make the work day go by faster =D
WORKDAY!?!?!?! WORKDAYY!!!!!!!!!!!!??????
IT'S A SATURDAY, WHAT IS THIIIIIIIIIS
|
On June 03 2012 10:28 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 10:24 Critter wrote:On June 03 2012 10:19 IamVirGin wrote:
To answer; no, the mongols tried to bring their army over the sea (into japan) twice, and failed both times (though only really due to horrible weather (tsunamis and they lost huge armies)).
But sailing an army over the narrow sea? I wouldnt know the difficulty. The real life mongols werent sea people and had no real navy powe. It's really not possible to know what the dothraki could to in that regard. Considering they fear the 'poison water' I can't imagine them doing any better than the Mongols. All speculation, of course, but a discussion I'm quite enjoying to make the work day go by faster =D WORKDAY!?!?!?! WORKDAYY!!!!!!!!!!!!??????IT'S A SATURDAY, WHAT IS THIIIIIIIIIS
Night shift, Tues-Sat. The life of a tech support trainee =P
At least I have Sundays off so I can watch the episodes instead of being stuck on the phones at work, lol.
|
On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Great Alexander's infantry would like a word with you. They were fewer than the persians(1/5) and on top of that the persian "elite" unit was apparently some epically renowned cavalry. Yet they won.
But it's not fair bringing them into the discussion since they could handle easily a 5.5meters spear, like wtf how strong were they.
So you realise that a cavalry force storming down on them would have to break through a wall of spears every 50cm for 5.5m and that's just to begin the close combat.
Real life is not as simple as rts affixes where x unit counters y.
|
On June 03 2012 11:20 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Great Alexander's infantry would like a word with you. They were fewer than the persians(1/5) and on top of that the persian "elite" unit was apparently some epically renowned cavalry. Yet they won. But it's not fair bringing them into the discussion since they could handle easily a 5.5meters spear, like wtf how strong were they. So you realise that a cavalry force storming down on them would have to break through a wall of spears every 50cm for 5.5m and that's just to begin the close combat. Real life is not as simple as rts affixes where x unit counters y.
The armies of Alexander the Great defied conventional wisdom with Alexanders amazing tactical mind and positioning. War is all about position. If your defensive position is stronger then the attacks position(swordsmen with a river on their flank vs calvalry as an example) you can overcome what is normally a bad matchup. The thing that makes calvalry so strong is that anything resembling flat ground and a wide open space is advantage calvalry. That basiclly covers 75% of settled lands, maybe more.
|
On June 03 2012 11:20 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Great Alexander's infantry would like a word with you. They were fewer than the persians(1/5) and on top of that the persian "elite" unit was apparently some epically renowned cavalry. Yet they won. But it's not fair bringing them into the discussion since they could handle easily a 5.5meters spear, like wtf how strong were they. So you realise that a cavalry force storming down on them would have to break through a wall of spears every 50cm for 5.5m and that's just to begin the close combat. Real life is not as simple as rts affixes where x unit counters y.
They were immobile though with the 5.5meters spear and the cavalry couldn't go around in that particular case else they could have easily conquered everything else.
|
On June 03 2012 11:20 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Great Alexander's infantry would like a word with you. They were fewer than the persians(1/5) and on top of that the persian "elite" unit was apparently some epically renowned cavalry. Yet they won. But it's not fair bringing them into the discussion since they could handle easily a 5.5meters spear, like wtf how strong were they. So you realise that a cavalry force storming down on them would have to break through a wall of spears every 50cm for 5.5m and that's just to begin the close combat. Real life is not as simple as rts affixes where x unit counters y.
As I said, a phalanx would simply crumble under the Dothraki arrows just like Roman legions were decimated by Attila's horde. Why? Because the infantry here is defending something. They are seeking a confrontation while the Dothraki can simply move on, much faster. Horsement are never forced to fight in any spot, to the contrary of infantry (and the macedonian phalanax had no mobility at all, which is why it disappeared).
I mean, history has spoken : Attila alone caused massive barbarian migrations and was never severly defeated. His expansion was stopped by his death. Aetius' army, after gathering a wide number of barbarians and romans alike, only managed to inflict a small loss to the Mongolian war machine.
And about that crossing, well, Stannis managed to put 100 000 men on boats, nothing stops the Dothraki doing the same. Of course, the whole fleet could sink but it's a matter of luck, it's like saying that the Spanish invicile armada couldn't defeat England just because of the massive storm that destroyed part of it in 1588. Luck.
|
On June 03 2012 12:04 Kukaracha wrote:
As I said, a phalanx would simply crumble under the Dothraki arrows just like Roman legions were decimated by Attila's horde. Why? Because the infantry here is defending something. They are seeking a confrontation while the Dothraki can simply move on, much faster. Horsement are never forced to fight in any spot, to the contrary of infantry (and the macedonian phalanax had no mobility at all, which is why it disappeared).
I mean, history has spoken : Attila alone caused massive barbarian migrations and was never severly defeated. His expansion was stopped by his death. Aetius' army, after gathering a wide number of barbarians and romans alike, only managed to inflict a small loss to the Mongolian war machine.
And about that crossing, well, Stannis managed to put 100 000 men on boats, nothing stops the Dothraki doing the same. Of course, the whole fleet could sink but it's a matter of luck, it's like saying that the Spanish invicile armada couldn't defeat England just because of the massive storm that destroyed part of it in 1588. Luck.
The way the show portrayed it, that last part is probably close to accurate, although he had lost all of the men from the Reach when the Tyrells left. He put the Stormlanders on his boats (with no horses, mind you) and sailed up the coast, not across the Sea.
Also, the Westerosi don't have to rely on the luck of storm to scatter the theoretical Dothraki fleet, they could simply bring to bear their warships and do significant damage before they were ever allowed to land. This is Westeros, 7 kingdoms under 1 rule. I firmly believe they would have more war capable ships than the Dothraki could hope to buy from the Free Cities.
|
interesting discussion.
two big factors to consider as mentioned in various guises in the above comments.
1) The quality of the general in charge. In September 218 BC, Hannibal's army numbered 38,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry, and 37 war elephants when it crossed the Alps. That army managed to stay alive for over a decade ravaging the Roman countryside with the aid of Gauls and other allies they were able to convince to join them. However they were never able to threaten Rome and other walled cities before being recalled back to Carthage.
2) The terrain is a major factor. The huns and mongols were plains peoples whose skirmishing calvary tactics required space and mobility. Their westward advance were basically halted at the edge of the plains and the hills/forest. Most of Rome was basically taken out by the Goths who were forced westward by the eastern invaders.
As such, I would foresee a Dothraki victory over Westeros, not even considering the logistics of crossing the narrow sea, if and only if they were able to recruit some of the locals who would be faithful to House Targaryeon. It would require a great leader and whether Daenyris is that, we'll see.
|
|
|
On June 03 2012 12:04 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2012 11:20 Steveling wrote:On June 03 2012 09:46 Kukaracha wrote:
Not only that, but Parth archery gives a huge advantage over troops on foot. There is actually no way to defeat 40 000 horsemen in battle without any sort of technology. The phalanx dies under the arrow, spikement are flanked. It's just... too much.
Great Alexander's infantry would like a word with you. They were fewer than the persians(1/5) and on top of that the persian "elite" unit was apparently some epically renowned cavalry. Yet they won. But it's not fair bringing them into the discussion since they could handle easily a 5.5meters spear, like wtf how strong were they. So you realise that a cavalry force storming down on them would have to break through a wall of spears every 50cm for 5.5m and that's just to begin the close combat. Real life is not as simple as rts affixes where x unit counters y. (and the macedonian phalanax had no mobility at all, which is why it disappeared).
Argh, that's so wrong I cringed upon reading it.
*also it's called phalanx. xP
Anyway this argument is pretty pointless since the focus in that scenario would be the dragons and in how many seconds they would obliterate everything and not some horses and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tOW7V.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0D6k7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mX5lQ.png)
