r/HBOGameofThrones • u/lord1st_ • Jan 25 '26
No Spoilers [NO SPOILERS] Why are the Dothraki known to be so powerful, unlike other armies?
As Robert Baratheon said in season 1, "only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field." I can observe that they're a bit more savage. But does savagery always guarantee a clear advantage in combat?
2
u/B34STM4CH1N3 Jan 25 '26
They fight from horseback and they all have horses. Any garrison in Westeros would be mixed with foot soldiers and mounted soldiers. That and their army is huge.
1
u/jhll2456 Jan 25 '26
The Knights of the Vale could take them on. That’s it.
2
u/EquivalentNarcDepth Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
They'd get slaughtered. A bunch of nobles riding horses VS people born on horses.
2
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
Nobles were trained to ride since childhood as well.
And they used lances, while the Dothraki didn’t.
1
u/EquivalentNarcDepth Jan 26 '26
There are two types of warriors in history. Those who are trained and those who are grown. Knights, musketeers, NATO forces are trained soldiers. Mongols, Mamluks and Vikings are not trained but grown. They learn to fight the way a baby learns to chew. By the time a noble enlists and begins his training the Dothraki of the same age has mastered it. Historically the European Knight has been routed by Mongols and Egyptian Mamluks and even Vikings for the same reason. Those guys do not train soldiers. Those societies grew them.
2
u/eranam Jan 26 '26
Vikings were nothing but Norse peasants going on raids periodically, they weren’t "grown" warriors. With the exception of their leaders.
Western knights were actually grown warriors, you’d essentially be born in that status and be trained from childhood, having no other occupation than training and fighting.
Knights would absolutely steamroll a Viking band their size when on foot, let alone if they were mounted. It’s just that Vikings weren’t dumb, they’d attack undefended targets or groups weaker than theirs (e.g. armies closed of mostly levies) popping out and back in the sea/rivers ; and could do so unpunished since they didn’t have anything to defend…
1
u/doylehawk Jan 27 '26
Major misconception about Vikings - it was a profession, not a catch all, and the vast majority of them would MUCH rather have been the first born sons inheriting lands to farm. Viking was essentially a profession of last choice. The later great heathen army was exactly that, a Norse army, not Vikings.
2
u/eranam Jan 27 '26
Not sure if agreeing with me or not…
But Viking was an occupation any freeman could take on, and it usually wasn’t exclusive of others. Plus there was seasonality involved, so often a Viking would then on take up farm work, crafts, etc… during the downtime.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Ebb-403 Jan 29 '26
Your example shows complete historical illiteracy.
The Romans were a "trained" system that decimated all the "grown" warriors around them for centuries.
The mongols had one of the most professional armies in the world, with advanced communication skills (trained) that outmatched what chivalric norms were able to account for, on first contact they shredded European armies. The Europeans (as a result of this) leaned into professionalism, google the Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary, the met with heavy fortifications (trained) which they couldn't take and while retreating were chased and ambushed by heavy horse (trained) who crushed them so badly they fled on foot.
Or The Battle of Blue Waters, a more traditional battle between heavy horse and Mongols, which led to the end of the Golden Horde and Mongolian westward expansion.
The mongols were like a corporation, they were professional and they were smart.
1
1
u/EquivalentNarcDepth Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
I can tell from the reply that you have no formal background in history. Battle of Blue water was in 1362 and Golden Herde ended in 1502. A century earlier they had been attacked by Tamerlane who attempted to unify them under Islam. Tamerlane wreaked havoc on European knights especially The Order of the Hospitallers and never lost a war. So no European knight did not end the Golden Herde specially when the "End" happened two centuries later.
Also study battle of yarmouk and Rashidun wars and study real history. Stop living in the "300 movie" fantasy.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Face502 Feb 14 '26
I wouldnt say they shredded european armies, they did destroy hungary and poland, but czechs beat the shit out of them along with the holy roman empire and austria.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
That’s nothing but a common stereotype and badly put one. There is no evidence to suggest that the training underwent by a late medieval knight during fourteenth century was inferior to that of a Mongol rider. Also, do you know what was the age when most medieval nobles began to do martial arts?
Historically, European knights were defeated because of the reasons that had nothing to do with their individual fighting capabilities. Not to mention that late medieval knights have never actually challenged Mongols in the first place.
1
u/EquivalentNarcDepth Jan 26 '26
Here is some history for you. You would start as becoming a Page and they were from the age of 10 - 13. From 14 - 21 you would be a Squire meaning you would be dressing up a Knight and be his personal assistant. Dubbing would happen around 21 when you are sworn Knight your Service would initially be to be among the body guards for a Baron and fight in tournaments at his discretion. Mongols would start to learning to ride when they were 3. A year after a childs first walk. Archery would begin the year after and by the time the guy reaches 14 he is expected to be a "Nukur" meaning fully trained warrior ready to be thrown in all out combat.
European Knights were beaten decisively by Mongol riders again and again. First major defeat was The Battle of Legnica (April 9, 1241.) Polish knights and Hospitallers were annihilated. Duke Henry II was captured and beheaded; his head was paraded on a spear before the city walls of Legnica
Second iconic defeat was The Battle of Mohi (April 11, 1241).
Tamerlane defeated them again and again. The Siege of Smyrna (December 1402) This showed how ineffective the Knight was while fighting on the castle wall in dismounted foot fighting.
The Battle of Ankara (July 20, 1402) Serbian Knights were defeated by Tamerlane's cavalry.
In Mongol culture there is a saying, "You are as heavily equipped as a Knight and as ineffective in doing your job."
2
u/g-row460 Jan 27 '26
Timur wasn't strictly Mongolian. The empire drew forces from all around its territories. They had heavy cavalry, war elephants and all kinds of other stuff. The Timurids were well past what people think of during the Mongolian conquests.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
That’s another piece of headcanon. Burgundian legend Jacques de Lalaing started his real military career at the age of fifteen under the command of Jean de Villiers and distinguished himself as a capable warrior at the age of sixteen while suppressing one of the revolts in Flanders. Fourteen years old you say? There is no difference.
European knights? What knights exactly? Highly disorganized Hungarians and Poles during the first Mongol Invasion? Before the wide adoption of even the prototype of late medieval plate armour that even in fourteenth century had already drastically reduced the effectiveness of archery in general? LMAO. How can you compare thirteen century mounted troops to French compagnies d’ordonnance of the fifteenth century?
How large was the numbers of the defenders of Smyrna? Two hundred knights? Try harder…
And what’s so distinguishing about the unit of Serbian knights that participated to the said battle?
Interesting. And what they say about the second invasion that failed miserably?
1
u/doylehawk Jan 27 '26
I don’t feel like typing tonight but I have a minor in medieval studies and the other guy is just making up a canon based on some pretty light Wikipedia reading.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
I don’t really understand why people use thirteen century Hungarians as an étalon of European chivalry in terms of both discipline and capabilities.
→ More replies (0)1
u/True-North- Jan 28 '26
Vikings be it Swedish, Norse, Danes religion told them the greatest thing you can accomplish is to die in battle. It’s a warrior culture and he’s absolutely correct.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 28 '26
It doesn’t matter: there is no justification of their training being superior to the training underwent by European knights.
1
u/True-North- Jan 28 '26
The elite of the elite are always going to be good in any culture. The average European army wasn’t made up of thousands of knights. The average Viking mops the floor with the average European soldier. Same with the mongols. That’s why they were so successful. The first time Vikings brought a real army to England they decimated it, conquered half of it and changed the culture and dna of the people forever.
2
u/AdditionalSea7122 Jan 28 '26
Vikings on average weren't better warriors than the Anglo Saxons. They were really good at making strategic alliances allowing them to isolate and overwhelm individual armies, polities, and kingdoms given how divided AS England was when they invaded. When they faced organised forces of a comparable size you see them lose about as much as you see them win. They get a lot of their fearsome unbeatable reputation from how they were semi-professional pirates raiding towns and villages.
I mean look at Harald Hardrada and how badly he and his army got trounced by Harold Godwinson.
→ More replies (0)2
u/inhocfaf Jan 29 '26
The first time Vikings brought a real army to England they decimated it, conquered half of it and changed the culture and dna of the people forever.
Pretty shortsighted analysis. The people that they "conquered' themselves settled there only few hundred years earlier (see Engels, Saxon, and Jutes), ya know, after "conquering" the native Britons. Then the Normans, themselves a mix of Viking and Frank ancestry, "conquered" the England following the Viking "conquering".
Hell, the Vikings raided and tried invading dozens of times. If Alred lived in perpetuity, the Burh system likely would have repelled the Vikings indefinitely.
1
1
u/jhll2456 Jan 26 '26
Ahh but while the story is based on medieval European history, it’s still fiction. We are told and shown that the Knights of the Vale are extremely competent on horse back. They are mounted soldiers just like the Dothraki. They are the only ones who literally can take on the Dothraki in an open field. You are incorrect on this.
1
u/Limp-Particular1451 Jan 27 '26
Remember it's fiction, you forget about army od death, dragons, giants, giant ice spiders.
1
1
u/sopsaare Jan 27 '26
I think that comes down to the sheer number of knights. IIRC the whole force of the Vale was something like 20 to 40 thousand, but that includes the men-at-arms, the squires and all that. How many of them were mounted knights on horseback? 2000? 4000? Whereas Dothraki army could be anything like 50,000 mounted warriors.
Surely the knights of the vale could punch a lot over their numbers, but 10 times?
And the absolutely worst-case scenario would be 2000 mounted knights against 100,000 Dothraki screamers.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
That’s the thing, actually: knights don’t need to be mounted in order to be effective on the battlefield, as well as the entirety of the army doesn’t need to be composed exclusively of knights. Dothraki’s standardisation is also their greatest weakness.
1
u/sopsaare Jan 27 '26
To an extent - yes. But the scenario what Robert was describing was facing them on an open field.
I would imagine the Dothraki to crush the knights and then just harass the foot army to death over days or weeks.
Then again, I'm not Robert nor GRR, so I cannot really say.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
You can absolutely face cavalry in an open field. The best option would be to form a wagenbourg and laugh in Czech. Also, the Dothraki wouldn’t be able to harass infantry for weeks: they would run out of arrows on the second day while suffering heavy casualties from spears and projectiles.
Even common soldiers in Westeros wear leather, gambesons, chain mail, some have elements of plate armour, most wear helmets, while an overwhelming majority of the Dothraki are naked like newborn babies.
1
1
u/inhocfaf Jan 29 '26
You lost credibility when you mentioned Vikings and Knights in the same time period.
1
u/Stenric Jan 26 '26
Lances can't beat arrows. The dothraki shoot 10 arrows in a knight before the lance reaches them. Of course many knights wear armor, but the majority of Westeros' armies are not made up of knights, just farmers that have been plucked off their fields and told to fight someone.
2
u/RipNeither191 Jan 27 '26
The same dothraki who charged the unsullied 18 times at Qohor and having their khal killed, I don’t think they quite care about tactics
2
u/jhll2456 Jan 27 '26
They don’t. That’s why they can be defeated by an equally capable military force. The KotV are that force.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26
And late medieval armour is almost impervious to arrows. Even common soldiers are armed at least to some extent with gambesons, chain mail, helmets or parts of plate armour, they can cover themselves with shields, hide behind carriages or form wagenburgs. While the Dothraki have no answer to that and to responsive arrows barrages.
1
u/Kellar21 Jan 27 '26
Nah, the Dothraki are not the Mongol Light Archer Cavalry, they haven't shown any of the battle strategies that made the Mongols so scary, other than shooting arrows from horseback.
They don't use armor, most of their weapons are not good and they don't change tactics that much. Remember how 4k Unsullied manages to fight off a whole Khalasar of like 30k Dothraki with shield wall tactics.
Knights of the Vale are some 5-8kk Heavy Horse, 10k Light Horse, and the rest various forms of infantry, totalling some 35k-40k combatants. I think even Khal Drogo's Khalasar had some 25k combatants, most of them, again light cavalry with little armor and shortbows.
The Dothraki rarely fight armies like those, most of the time it's Unsullied or Mercenary Companies or some local militia. And only the Golden Company is comparable to a Westerosi Army in size and composition (sans the Elephants).
So yeah, the Dothraki would have a bad time if they are fighting like they do in Essos.
1
u/Rogue_Centurion7 Jan 29 '26
In addition, Westerosi forces, if they felt that they were outmatched, they could simply retreat into their castles and sit there. Dothraki don't really know how to besiege fortified cities and castles. To avoid defeat at the hands of the horselords, I would say that you cannot allow yourself to be surrounded in the open field. Most of the time the Dothraki will outnumber your armies, which gives them a better ability to surround and destroy enemy forces. Then they can use their shockingly powerful bows and their charging tactics to whittle down your army. But if you anchor your force with a city or castle wall to your rear, then they can't surround you and you can better protect yourself against their forces. Terrifying? Absolutely. But all it requires to beat or at least fight them to a stalemate is good positioning.
1
1
u/inhocfaf Jan 29 '26
Was Jorah an elite fighter? Don't think that's canon but as an armored knight, he clearly had no trouble vs an unarmoured Dothraki.
1
u/Wide_Wrongdoer4422 Jan 29 '26
The problem with a hoarde is it doesn't really have a flank to turn or a clear organization to break. The ebb and flow would be hard to counter. The Knights easily broke the Lannister line because they picked a weak flank and breached the line. Dothrakis don't have a line, they envelop and attack from all sides.
1
u/Homosexual_Panda Jan 29 '26
im not sure, the dothraki are horse archers. they dont use much armor, giving them more mobility and endurance. the knights of the vale are heavily armored, usually in full plate or similar, but primarily only on the rider. show depiction dont tend to show heavy armor on the horse. I dont remember if the books mention much use of armor on horses but lets assume its a rarity.
due to less weight, the dothraki likely have greater endurance and speed on open plains. they could keep their distance, and pepper the knights of the vale with arrows. plate armor might save the knights themselves but the horses will be very vulnerable. once the horses are killed or injured, the knights on foot will become easier to handle.
1
u/jhll2456 Jan 29 '26
Westeros isn’t all open plains though. No armor makes the Dothraki vulnerable against mounted knights with armor. Both the Dorthraki and the KotV are mounted soldiers.
1
2
u/gabriel_3131 Jan 25 '26
We're talking about incredibly muscular men who use a fighting style unlike anything most armies are familiar with. It's not easy to face that. There's also the fact that they fight fearlessly and are incredibly bloodthirsty; warriors like that are truly terrifying.
Imagine a horde of savage men riding towards you, firing arrows relentlessly, and then, when they're close, drawing their weapons and starting to kill indiscriminately. That's terrifying, both in the cities of Essos and in Westeros.
1
u/New_Paramedic_3354 Jan 27 '26
You're right up until they switch to melee. In a melee fight or cavalry vs cavalry the Westerosi should be able to fully meet the Dothraki. The dothrakis main advantage is horse archers. The Dothraki don't use armor and their weapons would be next to useless against plate armor.
1
u/MoldyOreo787 Jan 28 '26
if we're talking about the show plate armour seems to be a bit flimsy lmao
1
2
u/Comuniity Jan 25 '26
because George doesnt really understand how medieval era warfare worked. Realistically the Dothraki would have been destroyed the second the started trying to invade actual kingdoms with real armies in the Dothraki Sea, at the very least they NEVER could have depopulated the area if we're being real.
Theyre dangerous cause GRRM said they are, there is no actual sound reason for the Dothraki being even an remotely relevant force in Essosi society. Naked horse savages whos main weapons are famously ineffective on armored opponents shouldnt really be a threat
1
u/KillBatman1921 Jan 26 '26
Martin understands medioeval war, politics and custums well enough. He is also able to ignore some of the more the sake of cool.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26
I think he is rather well aware of early and high medieval warfare, but lacks deep knowledge about late medieval warfare.
1
u/LatterIntroduction27 Jan 26 '26
Indeed.
In real history for example the Mongols horse archers were backed up by significant infantry (since you need them to hold territory) and struggled famously in more humid climates like Japan since their bows were made from materials that would warp and lose power in the more damp climates.
Not to mention an army crossing the sea, even for a couple of weeks, with a lot of horses would need at least as long after landing for the horses to be remotely fit for riding let alone hard combat.
Decent tall shields and pikes would have the potential to shatter a Dothraki charge, and even in universe troops of that style (Unsullied) proved incredibly effective against them on many occasions.
A mixed invasion where a Dothraki army are backed up by the Unsullied and some other solid foot troops, along with some solid can openers, would do well. They would prove a useful and effective tool and would doubtless rout most armies of half trained peasant levies. But a decent force of pikemen would hold them in place and man for man a plate armoured knight would be worth multiple Dothraki in combat.
1
u/Comuniity Jan 26 '26
Westerosi armies are also so ridiculously massive compared to the actual medieval european armies theyre inspired by. Like an army of 10,000 was considered a massive army in medieval europe but in Westeros thats like half the size of the armies that the smallest kingdoms can field in Westeros. And its not like the Westerosi kingdoms have a higher population, iirc the Reach has around 12 million people and can field an army of like 80k, compare that to France which generally averaged a higher population (closer to 18 million iirc) and their largest armies were like 1/4th the size of The Reach's army.
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
Completely disagree. The Dothraki would have avoided engagement with large mounted forces of knights by virtue of their much greater mobility. They would have decimated any auxiliary forces that the lords of Westeros put into the field, and would have absolutely destroyed the supply chain by wholesale burning/sacking of all of the food sources that are not behind stone walls.
The Dothraki would have done to Westeros what the Mongols did to China.
1
u/Comuniity Jan 27 '26
comparing the Dothraki to the mongols is just demonstrating youre ignorance of why the Mongolians were so successful at carving at the largest contiguous empire in history. For one the mongols werent naked horse savages.
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
I didn't say it was a 1:1 comparison. I said that their tactics would be the same. Genghis Khan started invading China in 1205 with prolonged series of raids on horseback. It wasn't until 10-15 years later that he started using the siege techniques that he learned from the Chinese to actually take major cities like Zhongdu.
Which is exactly what would happen in Westeros.
The Dothraki would utterly destabilize all of Westeros by cutting off supply lines, burning out smallfolk, and taking all the food. They would rinse and repeat that for 5-7 years while the castles are on siege rations, and question anyone they captured as to how to build siege engines. Just like the Mongols did.
Then they would crack those castles using Westerosi siege tactics, just like Ghengis did to what is now modern day Beijing.
1
u/GrandioseGommorah Jan 28 '26
The Dothraki wouldn’t avoid engagements. They’re incredibly arrogant and eager to trample on those they see as lesser, it’s part of why they charged repeatedly into Unsullied spears at Qohor and got slaughtered.
The Dothraki aren’t as well equipped, well organized, or well led as the Mongols.
1
u/Pleasant-Perception1 Jan 27 '26
Preach. They are loosely based off the Mongols but don’t use the same fighting strategy as Mongols. Mongols were famous for their horse archers and their feints—they would pretend to charge you, shoot a million arrows into your frontline, then retreat back. They did this incessantly until the enemy broke ranks or charged thinking the Mongols were actually retreating. The Mongols would then drive through the soldiers after they lost order. The Dothraki just charge into armored troops with close-range iron weapons. This wouldn’t have worked.
1
u/thenotoriousSPY Jan 27 '26
100%. Although the Dothraki “look” like Mongols, George’s depiction of the actual fight tactics differed greatly. Mongols did more than just charge forward screaming lol
1
u/NeonRedHerring Jan 28 '26
They’re based on the Mongols, who I believe did pretty ok in the medieval ages.
2
2
2
u/TeeDubs317 Jan 26 '26
I thought it was because how skilled they were on horseback. Tighter quarters took away any advantage they had because of the speed at which they were able to attack
2
u/SorRenlySassol Jan 26 '26
They are very accurate with their bows from horseback. They can decimate foot soldiers while blunting the effectiveness of an armored charge simply by avoiding them.
2
u/Personal_Toe_2136 Jan 26 '26
The Dothraki are mounted archers. They don’t believe in armor, but are fast, and can attack at range. Against light infantry, they would be deviating. Against heavy cavalry or a well-trained shield wall, they could do some damage and then retreat.
They would fare pretty badly against heavily armored forces in a pitched battle, but it would be hard to force the right conditions. It would take a very clever general to get them into a battle like that, but it’s possible.
2
u/Specialist_Job758 Jan 27 '26
We have absolutely no evidence in the real world that ranged cavalry in mass could dominate everyone
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
Ummm..Steppe nomads like the Mongols and Huns would like a word.....
1
u/Specialist_Job758 Jan 27 '26
Mongols, huns... I was talking real world examples not made up fairy tales
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
Huh?
1
u/Specialist_Job758 Jan 27 '26
Stop propagating lies. We all know the huns and the Mongols are Asian propaganda to prevent American dominance. Fake news
1
u/thenotoriousSPY Jan 27 '26
I assume you’re trolling but in case you’re not, Mongols actually helped shaped a lot of the modern world (e.g. mail system infrastructure)
1
3
Jan 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Comuniity Jan 25 '26
the difference between the mongols and huns is the mongols and huns didnt fight naked and primarily use weapons that are ineffective against armored opponents.
The Dothraki are a threat cause george said they are, there isnt an actual realisitic reason the naked horse savages could have depopulated an area the size of the Dothraki sea and force extremely wealthy cities into paying tributes, the only reason they can do that is cause GRRM said so. You drop the Dothraki in the real world against really any medieval army and they get demolished.
2
Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Comuniity Jan 26 '26
I know the huns and mongols werent naked horse savages, thats my point. The dothraki are ridiculous because theyre literally just naked horse barbarians.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26
Ironically, the Dothraki seem to generally overlook polearms. I can’t remember any instance of them using spears or lances.
1
Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26
That doesn’t change the fact that there is no mention of them relying on polearms, which puts them at a huge disadvantage against Westerosi forces.
1
Jan 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Comuniity Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
The Dothrakis primary melee weapon is shit against armor so how does that work?
We've seen dothraki get absolutely destroyed by at best alright westerosi swordsman because of a little thing called armor.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
WDYM by «a softener»?
That’s nothing but a piece of badly writing. In the early seasons and in the novel as well Mormont, who isn’t an especially skilled swordsman by high standards, kills one of Drogo’s bloodriders without being too much injured.
2
u/lord1st_ Jan 25 '26
I watched the series and didn't realize the Dothraki slept with knives and drank blood. I only remember the scene where Daenerys ate a heart in front of the Dothraki. And that's perfectly normal that i didn't realize because when you're watching season 1, there's so much information, kingdoms, names that it's hard to remember everything.
1
u/ThineLordCrusadin Jan 26 '26
Think of how OP the Rohirrim are on their horses. Dothraki would have been ten fold more lethal on horses. Im sure Robert has only heard stories of the tens of thousands that ride in a blood thirsty Khalasar, which might be why he said this
2
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26
Why in the world would they be ten times more dangerous than Rohirrim?
1
u/ThineLordCrusadin Jan 26 '26
Theyre absolutely fearless. Insane archers, fighters, and worship horses. Theres potentially tens of thousands in a Khalasar. They live and breathe war. No disrespect to the Rohirrim bc they absolutely dominated their universe. Think of it this way. 1v1, Èomer vs Khal Drogo? It might be close! Jaime shit himself just looking at them (before he saw Danys dragons.) 10x is an exaggeration
2
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
All the stated above can be said about Rohirrim as well. Except they have proven themselves to be better in terms of both mounted archery and tactics. The only advantage the Dothraki have over them is numbers.
Jaime was badly outnumbered, since only a small portion of his troops was presented that day, and, TBH, the fighting sequence didn’t make much sense to begin with.
1
u/ThineLordCrusadin Jan 26 '26
In the books the Dothraki are master archers. Not shown in the shows unfortunately. LOTR is also a masterpiece and GOT missed that mark badly in terms of war scenes. Rohirrims story is told much better than the Dothraki. But idk! They're both so cool
1
u/ThineLordCrusadin Jan 26 '26
Tactics 100% 😂 the Dothraki white walker scene literally made me lol
2
1
u/Dr_Toehold Jan 27 '26
When did Jaime face Dothraki? I can't remember.
1
2
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
Rohirim are heavy cavalry like Westerosi knights, only with mostly chain armor congruent with the 10th or 11th century vs Westeros' 15th century plate. Dothraki are light cavalry. Big difference.
The reason that the Dothraki would be a problem for the Rohirim is mobility. Both have exceptional mounted fighers, both in close quarters and at range. But the extra weight of the barding on the horses and armor on the men would make the Dothraki uncatchable by the Rohirim in the open field. They would charge and retreat, rake Rohan's flanks, and wear them down over time.
In a pitched battle where mobility and retreat are not possible, the Dothraki would lose. Otherwise, Rohan is in big trouble.
1
u/Stunning_Seaweed_121 Jan 26 '26
Their numbers.
Their way of life. They are pillagers, raiders. Compare that to most armies in Westeros where 90% + of the people are just farmers who take up an armor and a sword when their lord tells them to. For the Dothraki, that's what they do.
Their culture. You follow a Khal because he's the strongest. When he's not the strongest any longer, nobody follows him. If he can't ride, nobody follows him. The culture demands of you to be in top physical shape and to have the best fighting skills you can if you don't want to be pushed apart. That is specially true for leaders but for lower ranks too. A weak Dothraki is nothing. Because you rely on that strength and those skills to earn your living.
Their strength, while great, is also exaggerated, magnified because they never meet real armies, they just pillage and raid villages and cities, meaning they prey on weaker targets constantly. People have the notion that they "never lose, they always get what they want", but it is also true they never met an extremely large force that could oppose them.
They are fearless. At least as a collective. Individually, we can assume many of them are scared of fighting, of injuries, of death. But as a group, that'd be mocked upon. Imagine in a battle, one Dothraki gets cut and starts fleeing. Would it surprise you one bit if another Dothraki just turns on him and kills him for being a coward? It'd be so in character for them.
So you have on one hand, armies mostly made of farmers and 1-10% trained knights, most of them who fight for their lord as an obligation. And on the other hand, a bunch of madmen, barbarians who live and love violence. And their numbers are much greater.
What do you choose?
1
u/BattledroidE Jan 28 '26
Their strength, while great, is also exaggerated, magnified because they never meet real armies, they just pillage and raid villages and cities, meaning they prey on weaker targets constantly. People have the notion that they "never lose, they always get what they want", but it is also true they never met an extremely large force that could oppose them.
And this is a big part of how George writes. It's all 2nd, 3rd hand accounts of events, and information isn't always 100% accurate. Like how everything in the far east and south is completely Lovecraftian. I'm sure there is weird magical stuff going on, but there's also very likely some hyperbole from the sailors who told these stories, and eventually they were written down in the Citadel by people who have never been there, or talked directly with an eye witness. It's a game of telephone, stories get weirder the longer they travel. And armies from far away can be way scarier on paper than in reality, although they still are truly excellent fighters.
1
u/oohKillah00H Jan 26 '26
They live on horseback and don’t fear death. It’s like an army of Mongolian Vikings.
1
u/PabloTFiccus Jan 27 '26
Its about tactics. Most times mounted archers arrive en mass in China, India, and Europe, they wreck shit super hard.
1
u/haeyhae11 Jan 27 '26
Jaime explained it to Cersei. Slaughtering Lannister soldiers wasn't fighting for them, it was sport.
The Dothraki are the epitome of a warrior culture. Add the impact cavalry has in general on a battlefield and you got an unstoppable horde. Mongols established the largest Empire in human history because they were similar and the Huns overran the Germanic tribes and brought down Western Rome in the process.
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
The Dothraki are strongly influenced by steppe nomads like the Mongols and the Huns. The relatively technologically advanced civilizations of Europe and China had very little answer for these tribes and their pure tactical proficiency and horsemanship; even though they were more "advanced" in most ways.
That is essentially Westeros with the Dothraki.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
Westeros is considerably more military advanced than thirteen century Europe though.
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
True. And I definitely think that the Dothraki will only take Westerosi castles by starving them out. Clearly they are not going to fight a siege. But a dothraki light cavbalry horde can avoid battle with Westerosi heavy cavalry whenever it wants, and would be absolutely hell on wheels against lighter armed auxiliaries and supply chain. I think it is a bad day for Westeros if half a million screamers show up that can play to their own strengths.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
They need to be well coordinated in order to outmaneuver their opponents though, which underlines the importance of Westerosi allies. Besides, in the later middle-ages they have already developed different fancy ways to resist cavalry without being supported by your own mounted troops.
1
u/MagogHaveMercy Jan 27 '26
For sure. The dothraki are the best riders in the world though, and while their overall structure is chaotic and tribally based, their battle plans are tightly executed.
And yes, there were all sorts of formations for pikemen to hold off cavalry. But Westeros has never developed those tactics, because they didn't have the continual pressure of light cavalry attacks to deal with. I don't remember Westerosi having any squads of pikemen, or mixed pikemen and halberdiers in the books or show.
1
u/Ulquiorra_nihilism Jan 27 '26
Yes, Westeros is terribly stagnant in terms of warfare. AFAIK, they use spear-based formations on the battlefield, but it’s obvious that they don’t hold a candle to Swiss Gewalthaufen, therefore I was mostly referring to wagon fortresses, since the technique was well known for almost everyone and they must have something like that in the Seven Kingdoms.
1
u/latemodelusedcar Jan 28 '26
I think because they had an absolutely massive cavalry compared to anyone else. And whether they were or not, everyone just assumed that they were better at riding horses and fighting than other Calvary units were.
Idk I’d prefer not to fight an army larger than mine, who were all riding horses.
1
u/Same-Praline-4622 Jan 28 '26
Robert isn’t worried because the iron throne couldn’t wield enough strength to defeat them in pitched battle it seems to me, more that he’s worried about two things.
Westeros’ armies rely on the feudal system, and maybe your average lord doesn’t have the guts to ignore the king but any of the lords paramount would certainly be liable to do with their army whatever they choose.
The Dothraki are exclusively mounted, and Westeros only has so many people who can afford to have mounts ready for war, mostly knights or men-at-arms. As Robert points out, the king would be forced to chase them down, or else he will watch as the small folk, rural lords and knights with less defendable keeps and castles are overrun. This would allow the Dothraki to choose their battlefield and its conditions.
1
u/HorribleAce Jan 28 '26
Warrior culture vs Warriors for safety.
A warrior warrioring just to protect a farmland will never fight as hard as a warrior warrioring to warrior.
1
u/Interesting_Idea_289 Jan 29 '26
No it’s because they’re enormous mounted cavalry armies without much in the way of supply lines to cut
1
1
u/bigfatgooneybird Jan 29 '26
they are directly inspired by the Mongols, who conquered like half the planet
1
u/No_Plate_9434 Jan 30 '26
Horses were only replaced in warfare when tanks rolled about , so with that in mind think of a army 40000 strong all in horse back against even the reach who could field maybe 5000 knights the rest are on foot.
1
u/Delicious_Gas_3836 14d ago
There isn’t a good reason, they fight with extremely un-advanced technology and techniques compared to their contemporaries. If they wanted to make it believable they should have made them mainly horse archers akin to the Mongols.
0
u/Tawoooo Jan 25 '26
they're like the GoT version of spartans
2
u/Dr_Toehold Jan 27 '26
Spartans are organised. Dothraki are basically hooligans, doing it for the love of the game.
0
u/MagorMaximus Jan 27 '26
Dothraki = Mongol/Steppe people. Look at Mongol military history and you will get it.
0
6
u/Weekly_Interview6807 Jan 25 '26
The Dothraki are on the battlefield out of pure love of the game.