[GENERAL DISCUSSION] [SPOILERS] HBO's Game of Thrones Series

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

The thing that bothered me the most is that the Lannister-Tarly army was taken by surprise by an ENTIRE Dothraki horde and a big ass dragon. You mean to tell me that Jaime and Randyll didn't have outriders to scout ahead or behind them? Jaime in the books ,after his defeat at the Wispering Wood, adopts a strategy to always use scouts even if he is in friendly territory. Also about the scorpion, the thing that they didn't deploy it earlier didn't bother me, what bothered me was that they had only ONE, so you have created a weapon capable of wounding a dragon and you didn't mass produce it? WTF?

[Parafix]

I presume mass production was for Kings Landing. With the expectation that Dany would fly directly to the Red Keep.

[IBSXYPNTS]

The thing that bothered me the most is that the Lannister-Tarly army was taken by surprise by an ENTIRE Dothraki horde and a big ass dragon. You mean to tell me that Jaime and Randyll didn't have outriders to scout ahead or behind them? Jaime in the books ,after his defeat at the Wispering Wood, adopts a strategy to always use scouts even if he is in friendly territory. Also about the scorpion, the thing that they didn't deploy it earlier didn't bother me, what bothered me was that they had only ONE, so you have created a weapon capable of wounding a dragon and you didn't mass produce it? WTF?

Im sure there are several mounted all over the red keep.

And to the scouting, the show is perhaps one of the worst offenders when it comes to military tactics and accuracy, literally 90% of the battles ssome big army somehow ssneaks sup and takes the other by 'surprise'. Without being too nitpicky there is Stannis at the wall, where he somehow ambushed a hundred thousand people with thousands of charging horses. We also have Stannis at winterfell where he somehow didnt see the boltons coming, we also have ramsay at battle of bastards who had the vale do the same to him. and now this. It seems literally every army in Westeros marches totally blind even though they have commanders with decades of warfare experience leading them or at least men who have fought before. I also dont think that was the entire Dothraki horde, even half of it would be more than enough to do take on the odds at the moment. I think the show is being kinda silly with numbers of troops, everyone seems to have 10,000 as if its some kind of godly number. IE jon and north (which makes sense lore and casualty wise) Lannister (somehow down from 40,000 back in season two even tho they had help of tyrells in past.) blah blah blah. She probably took almost all of them to the mainland to help feed them for sure, but im pretty sure all of them werent there in this battle.

As to the lannister lines. I think it held up just fine. Until a chunk of it was literally evaported. Remember its TV they cant show us all the events happenng simultaneously. I think they show us the break in the line then fighting andd then Bronn running to scorpion as event that are all happening within a minute or two of eachother, not ten minutes apart. And as was said, if you seen all your friends burned alive by a ddragon besidde you and men riding horses charging at you to kill you chances are your gunna make for safer position aka run. From the shots from above it seemed like most of the line did hold except right where dany an Drogon punched through with fire literally scorching holes in it that the cavalry could run through. Its basically an ancient blitzkrieg with dragons and horses instead of tanks and airplanes.

Also, even with the Dragon its still not as epic of a cavalry charge as Theodens riders in LotR.

EDIT: Had to do it.

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

I presume mass production was for Kings Landing. With the expectation that Dany would fly directly to the Red Keep.

I hope so. Also something else i noticed, as we know Euron and his feet sailed to the Rock and destroyed the Unsullied ships, but wouldn't it be logical to take only half his fleet for that? I mean the Unsullied had around 100+ ships so 500 Greyjoy ships would be more than enough and also by doing that you would have 500 ships back to Kings Landing in case Dany tries to land and siege/attack ( as she did). They basically sent the Iron Fleet away leaving Dany free to do what she wants. This whole " war " feels rushed and forced to get it over with, i still enjoy it but sometimes the mistakes are to stupid to ignore

[IBSXYPNTS]

I hope so. Also something else i noticed, as we know Euron and his feet sailed to the Rock and destroyed the Unsullied ships, but wouldn't it be logical to take only half his fleet for that? I mean the Unsullied had around 100+ ships so 500 Greyjoy ships would be more than enough and also by doing that you would have 500 ships back to Kings Landing in case Dany tries to land and siege/attack ( as she did). They basically sent the Iron Fleet away leaving Dany free to do what she wants. This whole " war " feels rushed and forced to get it over with, i still enjoy it but sometimes the mistakes are to stupid to ignore

They damn well could have done exactly that. There are more places to land on the Southeast of Westeros than Kings landing. We seen Dany at war, we can assume they are going to now lay seige to the city but until it happenss we dont know thats what they did.

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

They damn well could have done exactly that. There are more places to land on the Southeast of Westeros than Kings landing. We seen Dany at war, we can assume they are going to now lay seige to the city but until it happenss we dont know thats what they did.

Well, we'll see. However the dothraki don't exactly strike me as an seiging army and even if Dany decides to use her dragons on Kings Landing, unless she wants to burn the whole city and the red keep and be queen of the " melted throne " she has to send the dothraki to take it.

[Roma_Victrix]

Exactly , and many people think the dothraki would win against the full lannister army , but in reality a well equipped army like the lannister army would slaughter those savages , because armor, shields and helmets are the most important thing in a medieval battle...

Really? The mongols were quite ed when they conquered half the known world, wait...

Why are you assuming the Mongols were equipped like the Dothraki? Just because they're both steppe nomads? The Mongols were adept at adopting some of the military tactics of conquered foes like the Persians, Russians, and Chinese; meanwhile, the Dothraki don't seem to care much for the fighting styles or equipment of neighboring peoples in Essos. In addition to their horse archers, the Mongols also had heavy lancers as well as light infantry for fodder and pinning their enemies so they could flank them with cavalry. Their overall cavalry tactics were also more or less a means to aggravate an enemy, with missile barrages from a distance, encouraging him to lose his temper and pursue the Mongols hotly, right into a trap.

Compare that to the Dothraki, a bunch of lightly armored cavalrymen who rode headfirst into a shield wall of well-armored heavy infantry wielding spears. Where were the tactics here? That's basically a suicide mission, albeit far less effective than a WWII Kamikaze pilot trying to take out a US battleship. I will grant that the battle at least depicted an alleyway and breach in the Lannister/Tarly formation caused by the napalm-like dragon fire, allowing the horsemen to ride and punch through it. I will also grant that they showed the horses dying and being flipped over when they tried to ride against the shield wall, with javelins taking them down as well, but I fail to understand why they would want to attack such a formation in the first place, instead of flanking pinned troops and screening stragglers, the chief role of light cavalry throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. From the looks of them, the Dothraki don't have any real shock cavalry and heavy lancers, so these headlong charges make little sense.

To someone unaccustomed to medieval battle tactics, the battle itself probably looked super cool. Especially with a giant dragon flying around and blowing everything to bits, including the convoy and wagon train, reminiscent of the US Air Force destroying Saddam's fleeing armored convoy along the "Highway of Death" in Iraq/Kuwait.

Considering it was an ambush, on a stretched line, with a horde of dothraki screamers lead by a dragon, expecting the scorpion to be deployed and ready on a moving convoy is a bit silly.

I see your point, but I also see his about immediately deploying it once the real threat was properly assessed. Jaime was busy commanding his lines of infantry, but he could have sent a quick messenger somewhere for the engineer corps to man the scorpion/ballista. I'm actually surprised they only had one, when several scorpions/ballistae firing at once would have made it more likely for a single bolt to hit the dragon, which was flying around pretty rapidly.

If you're wanting to use historic examples to state the Dothraki would lose against an armed "medieval" army, is a tad unrealistic. Medieval warfare generally relied on masses of peasants and lightly armored troops with the nobles and professional military being well equipped. Even still, if every one of them was well armed and trained, they're still out numbered, they lacked cavalry to take on the Dothraki. The key in this form of "era" in warfare, is troop numbers and most importantly morale. One section of the line breaks and flee's, the rest will follow or get flanked. Most casualties normally came from a route, and battles where rarely ever equal in numbers.

Right, when it comes to strategy it's all about logistics and, in medieval warfare, sieges were far more common than open field battles. When it comes to tactics, though, having better equipment on average was a huge advantage. Look at how well-armored the ancient Roman army was, for instance, with virtually every legionary wearing iron chain mail (or scale mail, and during the Principate period, lorica segmentata, a type of laminar armor). Your assessment of medieval armies being made of mostly peasant levies is true in many cases, especially with the recruitment of pikemen and crossbowmen in the Late Middle Ages, but even they were at the very least equipped with a helmet for goodness sake. Forget body armor: the helmet and shield combo is a necessary set of equipment for medieval battles, something the producers of Game of Thrones don't seem to get. For heavy infantrymen and frigging commanders like Jaime Lannister, what is the point of wearing all that impressive body armor, when you're not even going to protect your head? I get it; fans want to see the faces of the main actors. From a realistic standpoint, however, it makes little sense, and there are plenty of helmet types that can still show the face to a fair degree.

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

Forget body armor: the helmet and shield combo is a necessary set of equipment for medieval battles, something the producers of Game of Thrones don't seem to get. For heavy infantrymen and frigging commanders like Jaime Lannister, what is the point of wearing all that impressive body armor, when you're not even going to protect your head? I get it; fans want to see the faces of the main actors. From a realistic standpoint, however, it makes little sense, and there are plenty of helmet types that can still show the face to a fair degree.

And that's GoT logic for you, from dothraki warriors wearing nothing but hides charging a well formed spear wall, massive armies spawing out of thin air and main chars always not wearing helmets, not even half-helms. By the way is Dany stupid or what? She burned all the grain/food during the battle and i mean they weren't burned from the fire being out of control, she specifically targeted the food carts during the battle even though minutes before she said herself that her army needs food. Burning all the food of the Reach when you have a massive army, little food yourself and winter coming hard on you is not exactly smart. Well done Dany. I would understand ,if she had a smaller army and little chances of winning the war, doing a sabbotage mission like this, with the though being " i may not win but you army will starve to death ". Doin' that when you have a bigger army and there's not any more food for hunders of miles is just plainly stupid.

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

all you haters complaining and pointg out logic holes with likely explanations, all I can think about is

[TomSrx]

Why are you assuming the Mongols were equipped like the Dothraki? Just because they're both steppe nomads? The Mongols were adept at adopting some of the military tactics of conquered foes like the Persians, Russians, and Chinese; meanwhile, the Dothraki don't seem to care much for the fighting styles or equipment of neighboring peoples in Essos. In addition to their horse archers, the Mongols also had heavy lancers as well as light infantry for fodder and pinning their enemies so they could flank them with cavalry. Their overall cavalry tactics were also more or less a means to aggravate an enemy, with missile barrages from a distance, encouraging him to lose his temper and pursue the Mongols hotly, right into a trap.

Compare that to the Dothraki, a bunch of lightly armored cavalrymen who rode headfirst into a shield wall of well-armored heavy infantry wielding spears. Where were the tactics here? That's basically a suicide mission, albeit far less effective than a WWII Kamikaze pilot trying to take out a US battleship. I will grant that the battle at least depicted an alleyway and breach in the Lannister/Tarly formation caused by the napalm-like dragon fire, allowing the horsemen to ride and punch through it. I will also grant that they showed the horses dying and being flipped over when they tried to ride against the shield wall, with javelins taking them down as well, but I fail to understand why they would want to attack such a formation in the first place, instead of flanking pinned troops and screening stragglers, the chief role of light cavalry throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. From the looks of them, the Dothraki don't have any real shock cavalry and heavy lancers, so these headlong charges make little sense.

To someone unaccustomed to medieval battle tactics, the battle itself probably looked super cool. Especially with a giant dragon flying around and blowing everything to bits, including the convoy and wagon train, reminiscent of the US Air Force destroying Saddam's fleeing armored convoy along the "Highway of Death" in Iraq/Kuwait.

I was referring to the fact that he said armor, helmets, etc. Were the essential in a medieval battle, where it is clear that it is not the most important thing. Sure, for example a knight was like a mini tank in his era and made for excellent shock cavalry, but they were few, and it was not exactly them that tipped the balance in a battle. Mongols weren't as nearly as well armored as the Eastern European armies or Persian armies; you described pretty much their main tactics, one of the main things they were so successful on the field, they relied on mobility and psychological warfare. Dothraki are similar on those approaches, albeit more primitive, proving that being the most well armored tank is not going to win you the battle. If you want another example that doesn't rely on the hypothetical parallel between dothraki and mongols, I give you agincourt where the English longbows pretty much mowed down the French heavy cavalry, something consistent during the 100 years war.

On the battle itself, I pretty much did not comment on it so I don't know why are you ranting to me how the dothraki won and why I think you are assuming I'm not "accostumed" to medieval battle tactics by how you started your third paragraph.

[Korpskog]

So to be clear, Tywin Lannister is the only character to wear a helm? Except for some jousters in season 1? Oh and the poor fool Ser Vardis Egen..

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

So to be clear, Tywin Lannister is the only character to wear a helm? Except for some jousters in season 1? Oh and the poor fool Ser Vardis Egen..

And Loras during the battle of the Blackwater...

[stevietheconquer]

the dragons will wear too a helmet and armor soon!

[ExtremeBG]

On a TV show with magic, dragons, undead armies and tiny wizard-hobbits y'all arguing about who wears a helmet ? C'mon people, it's a fantasy show - it would be great to be more realistic as compared to medieval Europe, but it's not even a real world. I get that it might break the immersion for most of us and be kinda annoying at times, but try to enjoy it for what it is.
On a side note - what's happening with cleganebowl ? If it doesn't happen i'm gonna loose my ....

[breton_knight 31]

Actually in the books the dothraki are not invincible , once they tried to attack a slave city i think it was Yunkai then the slavers hired the unsullied - that can form a great shield wall -, and every time the dothraki charged with there light cavalry the unsullied repelled them and after a day of fighting the dothraki army was destroyed and the unsullied lost half of their forces , so you can see that George RR Martin has a good grasp of the history of medieval warfare , something the show runners don't have...

[Stannis TheMannis - Baratheon]

Actually in the books the dothraki are not invincible , once they tried to attack a slave city i think it was Yunkai then the slavers hired the unsullied - that can form a great shield wall -, and every time the dothraki charged with there light cavalry the unsullied repelled them and after a day of fighting the dothraki army was destroyed and the unsullied lost half of their forces , so you can see that George RR Martin has a good grasp of the history of medieval warfare , something the show runners don't have...

The city was Qohor and the battle was 3.000 Unsullied vs 25.000 Dothraki cav. This battle made the Unsullied known as the best infantry in the world due their skill, discipline and unbroken formation ( spear wall ).

[Roma_Victrix]

And that's GoT logic for you, from dothraki warriors wearing nothing but hides charging a well formed spear wall, massive armies spawing out of thin air and main chars always not wearing helmets, not even half-helms. By the way is Dany stupid or what? She burned all the grain/food during the battle and i mean they weren't burned from the fire being out of control, she specifically targeted the food carts during the battle even though minutes before she said herself that her army needs food. Burning all the food of the Reach when you have a massive army, little food yourself and winter coming hard on you is not exactly smart. Well done Dany. I would understand ,if she had a smaller army and little chances of winning the war, doing a sabbotage mission like this, with the though being " i may not win but you army will starve to death ". Doin' that when you have a bigger army and there's not any more food for hunders of miles is just plainly stupid.

Yeah, she's not exactly a logistical mastermind. She could have wiped out the formations of soldiers guarding the gain convoy and then looted the baggage train once the battle was done. That's what any sensible army has ever done throughout history, in cases where they simply weren't employing scorched earth to starve their opponents.

I was referring to the fact that he said armor, helmets, etc. Were the essential in a medieval battle, where it is clear that it is not the most important thing. Sure, for example a knight was like a mini tank in his era and made for excellent shock cavalry, but they were few, and it was not exactly them that tipped the balance in a battle. Mongols weren't as nearly as well armored as the Eastern European armies or Persian armies; you described pretty much their main tactics, one of the main things they were so successful on the field, they relied on mobility and psychological warfare. Dothraki are similar on those approaches, albeit more primitive, proving that being the most well armored tank is not going to win you the battle. If you want another example that doesn't rely on the hypothetical parallel between dothraki and mongols, I give you agincourt where the English longbows pretty much mowed down the French heavy cavalry, something consistent during the 100 years war.

I think you're underestimating the importance of both shock cavalry and well-armored knights in the era before gunpowder weaponry, where crossbow bolts and artillery bolts were by far the best option you had to take down a heavily-armed opponent if you weren't also a heavily-armored, mounted knight yourself. Look what happened to the lightly-armored Muslim armies once they encountered the Crusader knights in the 11th-13th centuries. They got mauled, at least in the earlier engagements before the master of logistics and psychological warfare Saladin entered the fray. When the Saracen armies tried to fire arrows at well-armored European knights, even simple coats of chain mail armor were enough to deflect most arrows (although the neck and face were in danger of being exposed if a knight wasn't wearing a proper helmet, just a hood with chain mail).

There were really only a handful of battles where missile power played a critical role, and contrary to your beliefs they didn't cause that many casualties and were used more for frustrating and distracting one's enemy. In both ancient and medieval times, the most casualties occurred during the end of a battle when an enemy tried to flee and were consequentially cut down. At the 1097 AD Battle of Dorylaeum, for instance, the Seljuk Sultanate used arrows from composite bows to kill unarmored horses and unarmored/lightly armored soldiers on the Crusaders' side, but the knights themselves were hardly affected on account of their armor. It caused a lot of disorientation for the Crusaders, but they ended up winning that battle anyway. At the 1415 AD Battle of Agincourt, which you have cited, it wasn't the arrows of the English longbows that killed most of the French heavily-armored knights; it was the crushing weight and suffocation of the human stampede towards the end of the battle. The longbows were necessary in killing off lightly-armored French troops and generally causing the enemy to panic and angrily drive harder towards the English, which was typical for missile weapons in many contemporary field battles.

I'll also point to two ancient Roman examples against the Parthian Empire: the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC and the Battle of Mount Gindarus in 38 BC. The Romans lost at Carrhae mainly due to Crassus' stupid decision to march out into the arid, flat terrain of what is now southeastern Turkey, without much logistical support. Crassus also led his army against a foe that not only used horse archers and missiles effectively to harass the big solid blob of Roman infantry (supported by only a small amount of Gallic cavalry auxiliaries), but lured some of his separated, dispatched troops into traps where they were flanked by Parthian heavy cataphract cavalry. Does that perhaps remind you of something I said above about the Mongols? In either case, the Romans also lost that battle due to the demoralization of Crassus basically breaking down after learning that his son Publius was killed in the melee after sending him out with a contingent to drive the Parthians away from the main body of troops. As for the Battle of Mount Gindarus, the Romans won simply by taking a defensive hill with hastily-made blockades and fortifications that made the Parthian cavalry pretty useless, especially with slingers on the Roman side raining rocks down onto them. Missiles were fairly important here, but most of the casualties were actually caused by the Parthian cavalry attempting to fight the Romans uphill and in tight quarters, and when they attempted to flee and crashed into their own troops behind them, stampeding and crushing them. Sound familiar to another battle I just mentioned?

Want non-European and non-Islamic examples? Try the Battle of Mobei in 119 BC, a fight between the Chinese Han Dynasty and the nomadic Xiongnu confederation in the Orkhon Valley of Mongolia. The Chinese made use of both archers and crossbowmen to great effect when it came to shorter-range engagements around makeshift fortifications (a solid ring of war chariots propped up like a defensive wall), but the real winner of this battle was the use of cavalry fighting melees and flanking the Xiongnu, almost half of whom were mounted. In fact, it was a sandstorm that allowed the Han Chinese to surprise their nomadic enemies and rout most of them as they fled. Again, sound familiar to something I said above? The Han Chinese also weren't very impressed by the standard Xiongnu bow; the previous Imperial Councilor Chao Cuo (200-154 BC) said that it had its uses, but had limited use against heavy armor and was ultimately inferior to the punch and puncturing power of the improved, long-range Chinese crossbow.

[stevietheconquer]

i think this season is very good,and i think it's gonna get better and better

[TomSrx]

I think you're underestimating the importance of both shock cavalry and well-armored knights in the era before gunpowder weaponry, where crossbow bolts and artillery bolts were by far the best option you had to take down a heavily-armed opponent if you weren't also a heavily-armored, mounted knight yourself. Look what happened to the lightly-armored Muslim armies once they encountered the Crusader knights in the 11th-13th centuries. They got mauled, at least in the earlier engagements before the master of logistics and psychological warfare Saladin entered the fray. When the Saracen armies tried to fire arrows at well-armored European knights, even simple coats of chain mail armor were enough to deflect most arrows (although the neck and face were in danger of being exposed if a knight wasn't wearing a proper helmet, just a hood with chain mail).

There were really only a handful of battles where missile power played a critical role, and contrary to your beliefs they didn't cause that many casualties and were used more for frustrating and distracting one's enemy. In both ancient and medieval times, the most casualties occurred during the end of a battle when an enemy tried to flee and were consequentially cut down. At the 1097 AD Battle of Dorylaeum, for instance, the Seljuk Sultanate used arrows from composite bows to kill unarmored horses and unarmored/lightly armored soldiers on the Crusaders' side, but the knights themselves were hardly affected on account of their armor. It caused a lot of disorientation for the Crusaders, but they ended up winning that battle anyway. At the 1415 AD Battle of Agincourt, which you have cited, it wasn't the arrows of the English longbows that killed most of the French heavily-armored knights; it was the crushing weight and suffocation of the human stampede towards the end of the battle. The longbows were necessary in killing off lightly-armored French troops and generally causing the enemy to panic and angrily drive harder towards the English, which was typical for missile weapons in many contemporary field battles.

I'll also point to two ancient Roman examples against the Parthian Empire: the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC and the Battle of Mount Gindarus in 38 BC. The Romans lost at Carrhae mainly due to Crassus' stupid decision to march out into the arid, flat terrain of what is now southeastern Turkey, without much logistical support. Crassus also led his army against a foe that not only used horse archers and missiles effectively to harass the big solid blob of Roman infantry (supported by only a small amount of Gallic cavalry auxiliaries), but lured some of his separated, dispatched troops into traps where they were flanked by Parthian heavy cataphract cavalry. Does that perhaps remind you of something I said above about the Mongols? In either case, the Romans also lost that battle due to the demoralization of Crassus basically breaking down after learning that his son Publius was killed in the melee after sending him out with a contingent to drive the Parthians away from the main body of troops. As for the Battle of Mount Gindarus, the Romans won simply by taking a defensive hill with hastily-made blockades and fortifications that made the Parthian cavalry pretty useless, especially with slingers on the Roman side raining rocks down onto them. Missiles were fairly important here, but most of the casualties were actually caused by the Parthian cavalry attempting to fight the Romans uphill and in tight quarters, and when they attempted to flee and crashed into their own troops behind them, stampeding and crushing them. Sound familiar to another battle I just mentioned?

Want non-European and non-Islamic examples? Try the Battle of Mobei in 119 BC, a fight between the Chinese Han Dynasty and the nomadic Xiongnu confederation in the Orkhon Valley of Mongolia. The Chinese made use of both archers and crossbowmen to great effect when it came to shorter-range engagements around makeshift fortifications (a solid ring of war chariots propped up like a defensive wall), but the real winner of this battle was the use of cavalry fighting melees and flanking the Xiongnu, almost half of whom were mounted. In fact, it was a sandstorm that allowed the Han Chinese to surprise their nomadic enemies and rout most of them as they fled. Again, sound familiar to something I said above? The Han Chinese also weren't very impressed by the standard Xiongnu bow; the previous Imperial Councilor Chao Cuo (200-154 BC) said that it had its uses, but had limited use against heavy armor and was ultimately inferior to the punch and puncturing power of the improved, long-range Chinese crossbow.

I'm not going to argue on most of what you said, I'll just accept it and agree with you. Even though I seemed to underestimate the armor importance, in no way I said that missile power was decisive, I only wanted to make an example of Agincourt, "Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armour of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armour, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armor." So we have a problem here. Anyway, you also forgot that in that battle, when the french men-at-arms were closing in there were hails upon hails of arrows falling upon them, that combined with the mud and the weight of their armor basically exhausted them and were ripe for an onslaught. My point is not to undermine armor's importance, just that in medieval warfare, tactics, logistics, leadership>tough chest plate. And that was pretty much in all history of warfare actually... Of course if you've got a of heavily armored troops you got the advantage, but will it be of the same use against an opponent that does not follow the same doctrine as you and it just quite seems to be superior. Really there is just a ton of variables.

Cool history class, I mean it seriously no kidding, but you just got off the rails and you just even prove more my point, what use will your armor and shiny sword when you got a cavalry trampling you, a crossbowman that can puncture your plate like butter from distance, or you just run to save your life, because seeing a whole army of savage dudes in horses charging you regardless if they are armored or not, is going to scare the out of you, and then more follow suit, and its a rout and well you lost the battle. I repeat it, cool shield, awesome helmet, crazy thick plate and a big ing sword is not going to make it an auto win it for you which is the only point I am trying to make.

[IBSXYPNTS]

Can we also ask littlefingers motives for giving his dagger to bran??