info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Dothraki Suck
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Will in New Haven
Aug 9, 2017, 12:26:26 PM8/9/17
to
Back when there were books, Martin kept having characters _say_ how baddass the Dothraki are and that tradition continues in the TV show. The Dothraki say it themselves and make statements like "your people can't fight" to Tyrion, I think, when it is clear that they would have had no chance in that battle without the dragon.
People bring up the Mongols and their successes but the Mongols did _not_ have a tradition of hair on fire charges. They were disciplined and relied on their bows and maneuver. When melee became necessary, they often used conquered peoples as soak-off troops.
In the alleged books, their use of bows is mentioned but their obvious lack of discipline and eagerness to close with the enemy makes their resemblance to Mongols very tenuous. In the TV show, despite some great stunt-riding, they looked like no problem for steady infantry. Some of them may have used bows but the general idea was hay-diddle-diddle-straight-down-the-middle. As for their usefulness against knights, Jorah had a scene where a bloodrider or screamer or whatever attacked him and his armor sufficed to stop the attack. Multiply that by x and you have x knights vs x Dothraki.
Ah, someone will say, but the Dothraki hordes are so numerous. Well, that is fairly hard to believe. They have no economy but tribute and conquest. Until blondie united them, they had no real nation. What do they and their horsies live on?
Like the Klingons and a zillion warrior cultures before them, they are baddass by authorial fiat.
--
Will in New Haven, now in Pompano Beach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules
People bring up the Mongols and their successes but the Mongols did _not_ have a tradition of hair on fire charges. They were disciplined and relied on their bows and maneuver. When melee became necessary, they often used conquered peoples as soak-off troops.
In the alleged books, their use of bows is mentioned but their obvious lack of discipline and eagerness to close with the enemy makes their resemblance to Mongols very tenuous. In the TV show, despite some great stunt-riding, they looked like no problem for steady infantry. Some of them may have used bows but the general idea was hay-diddle-diddle-straight-down-the-middle. As for their usefulness against knights, Jorah had a scene where a bloodrider or screamer or whatever attacked him and his armor sufficed to stop the attack. Multiply that by x and you have x knights vs x Dothraki.
Ah, someone will say, but the Dothraki hordes are so numerous. Well, that is fairly hard to believe. They have no economy but tribute and conquest. Until blondie united them, they had no real nation. What do they and their horsies live on?
Like the Klingons and a zillion warrior cultures before them, they are baddass by authorial fiat.
--
Will in New Haven, now in Pompano Beach
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules
Platypus
Aug 10, 2017, 1:29:40 PM8/10/17
to
A detail I remember from the books is that a Dothraki wedding is considered dull without at least 3 warriors dying in fights. I guess this was supposed to show how badass the Dothraki were. But I could not help thinking that any such culture would be quickly overrun and destroyed by any other competing tribe that was less wasteful of manpower. Either that, or weddings must be extraordinarily rare.
Dothraki cooking fires are so hot they can melt pure gold. And Dothraki are so tough they can grab pots of melted gold with their horsehair mittens.
---------------------x
I'm finding the dialogue rather uninspired, and often silly. Nor can I see what Tyrion was doing standing on that hill at all.
I try not to worry too much. I assume it will all be very silly. I just look out for the broad plot points, in the hope of getting some closure on this series.
But I must say something good: That flying dragon wreaking havoc was very well done! Peter Jackson's feeble attempt to do Smaug over Laketown has been put to shame, IMHO.
Dothraki cooking fires are so hot they can melt pure gold. And Dothraki are so tough they can grab pots of melted gold with their horsehair mittens.
---------------------x
I'm finding the dialogue rather uninspired, and often silly. Nor can I see what Tyrion was doing standing on that hill at all.
I try not to worry too much. I assume it will all be very silly. I just look out for the broad plot points, in the hope of getting some closure on this series.
But I must say something good: That flying dragon wreaking havoc was very well done! Peter Jackson's feeble attempt to do Smaug over Laketown has been put to shame, IMHO.
Will in New Haven
Aug 10, 2017, 10:32:45 PM8/10/17
to
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:29:40 PM UTC-4, Platypus wrote:
> A detail I remember from the books is that a Dothraki wedding is considered dull without at least 3 warriors dying in fights. I guess this was supposed to show how badass the Dothraki were. But I could not help thinking that any such culture would be quickly overrun and destroyed by any other competing tribe that was less wasteful of manpower. Either that, or weddings must be extraordinarily rare.
>
> Dothraki cooking fires are so hot they can melt pure gold. And Dothraki are so tough they can grab pots of melted gold with their horsehair mittens.
>
> ---------------------x
Since GRR Martin is the wedding designer, I don't think _anyone_ has many weddings.
> A detail I remember from the books is that a Dothraki wedding is considered dull without at least 3 warriors dying in fights. I guess this was supposed to show how badass the Dothraki were. But I could not help thinking that any such culture would be quickly overrun and destroyed by any other competing tribe that was less wasteful of manpower. Either that, or weddings must be extraordinarily rare.
>
> Dothraki cooking fires are so hot they can melt pure gold. And Dothraki are so tough they can grab pots of melted gold with their horsehair mittens.
>
> ---------------------x
Butterbumps@Home
Aug 11, 2017, 4:13:16 AM8/11/17
to
keskiviikko 9. elokuuta 2017 19.26.26 UTC+3 Will in New Haven kirjoitti:
> Back when there were books, Martin kept having characters _say_ how baddass
> the Dothraki are and that tradition continues in the TV show. The Dothraki
> say it themselves and make statements like "your people can't fight" to
> Tyrion, I think, when it is clear that they would have had no chance in that
> battle without the dragon.
I think a lot of these forces, like the Dothraki and the Unsullied, fell victim to being so lovingly described as a fighting force and so massively talked up, there was no real way they could *be* that hardcore.
> Back when there were books, Martin kept having characters _say_ how baddass
> the Dothraki are and that tradition continues in the TV show. The Dothraki
> say it themselves and make statements like "your people can't fight" to
> Tyrion, I think, when it is clear that they would have had no chance in that
> battle without the dragon.
> People bring up the Mongols and their successes but the Mongols did _not_
> have a tradition of hair on fire charges. They were disciplined and relied on
> their bows and maneuver. When melee became necessary, they often used
> conquered peoples as soak-off troops.
> In the alleged books,
Your bitterness is strong.
> their use of bows is mentioned but their obvious lack of discipline and
> eagerness to close with the enemy makes their resemblance to Mongols very
> tenuous. In the TV show, despite some great stunt-riding, they looked like no
> problem for steady infantry. Some of them may have used bows but the general
> idea was hay-diddle-diddle-straight-down-the-middle. As for their usefulness
> against knights, Jorah had a scene where a bloodrider or screamer or whatever
> attacked him and his armor sufficed to stop the attack. Multiply that by x
> and you have x knights vs x Dothraki.
> Ah, someone will say, but the Dothraki hordes are so numerous. Well, that is
> fairly hard to believe. They have no economy but tribute and conquest. Until
> blondie united them, they had no real nation. What do they and their horsies
> live on?
> Like the Klingons and a zillion warrior cultures before them, they are
> baddass by authorial fiat.
Now, apparently, even after all those hideously high-fatality battles (didn't the Blackwater kill everybody with wildfire?), there's still approximately twelve trillion war-ready armed, armoured and provisioned knights in Westeros. So ... yeah, the Dothraki are fucked.
B@w
--
Yes, I'm at work! In the middle of Worldcon! I had to come in and do a half-day! Gah! Leaving in 46 minutes and counting...
Will in New Haven
Aug 12, 2017, 12:42:09 AM8/12/17
to
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:13:16 AM UTC-4, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> keskiviikko 9. elokuuta 2017 19.26.26 UTC+3 Will in New Haven kirjoitti:
>
> > Back when there were books, Martin kept having characters _say_ how baddass
> > the Dothraki are and that tradition continues in the TV show. The Dothraki
> > say it themselves and make statements like "your people can't fight" to
> > Tyrion, I think, when it is clear that they would have had no chance in that
> > battle without the dragon.
>
> I think a lot of these forces, like the Dothraki and the Unsullied, fell victim to being so lovingly described as a fighting force and so massively talked up, there was no real way they could *be* that hardcore.
The Unsullied are portrayed as disciplined, armored infantry. They might eventually fail to live up to the hype but it is easier to believe than the idea that undisciplined light cavalry is a threat to anyone.
> keskiviikko 9. elokuuta 2017 19.26.26 UTC+3 Will in New Haven kirjoitti:
>
> > Back when there were books, Martin kept having characters _say_ how baddass
> > the Dothraki are and that tradition continues in the TV show. The Dothraki
> > say it themselves and make statements like "your people can't fight" to
> > Tyrion, I think, when it is clear that they would have had no chance in that
> > battle without the dragon.
>
> I think a lot of these forces, like the Dothraki and the Unsullied, fell victim to being so lovingly described as a fighting force and so massively talked up, there was no real way they could *be* that hardcore.
>
> > People bring up the Mongols and their successes but the Mongols did _not_
> > have a tradition of hair on fire charges. They were disciplined and relied on
> > their bows and maneuver. When melee became necessary, they often used
> > conquered peoples as soak-off troops.
>
> True, there's a big problem with the general culture of the Dothraki, it seems strange that they would have been able to coexist with the slavers, let alone that there would be any of the sheep people (or whever they were) left at all. It just seems like an unsustainable level of high-consumption savagery.
>
> > In the alleged books,
>
> Your bitterness is strong.
>
> > their use of bows is mentioned but their obvious lack of discipline and
> > eagerness to close with the enemy makes their resemblance to Mongols very
> > tenuous. In the TV show, despite some great stunt-riding, they looked like no
> > problem for steady infantry. Some of them may have used bows but the general
> > idea was hay-diddle-diddle-straight-down-the-middle. As for their usefulness
> > against knights, Jorah had a scene where a bloodrider or screamer or whatever
> > attacked him and his armor sufficed to stop the attack. Multiply that by x
> > and you have x knights vs x Dothraki.
>
> Ah, but the Dothraki hordes are so numerous-
>
> > Ah, someone will say, but the Dothraki hordes are so numerous. Well, that is
> > fairly hard to believe. They have no economy but tribute and conquest. Until
> > blondie united them, they had no real nation. What do they and their horsies
> > live on?
>
> The rolling steppes?
>
> > Like the Klingons and a zillion warrior cultures before them, they are
> > baddass by authorial fiat.
>
> True enough. I did get the impression from that first fight with Jorah that a Westerosi knight was way more than a match for a Dothraki. The issue was that there were (I thought) only a couple of thousand knights in the entire unified seven kingdoms, and there were tens or hundreds of thousands of Dothraki (logistics be damned).
>
> Now, apparently, even after all those hideously high-fatality battles (didn't the Blackwater kill everybody with wildfire?), there's still approximately twelve trillion war-ready armed, armoured and provisioned knights in Westeros. So ... yeah, the Dothraki are fucked.
--
Will in New Haven, now in Pompano Beach
Butterbumps@Home
Aug 14, 2017, 3:00:29 AM8/14/17
to
lauantai 12. elokuuta 2017 7.42.09 UTC+3 Will in New Haven kirjoitti:
> > I think a lot of these forces, like the Dothraki and the Unsullied, fell
> > victim to being so lovingly described as a fighting force and so massively
> > talked up, there was no real way they could *be* that hardcore.
>
> The Unsullied are portrayed as disciplined, armored infantry. They might
> eventually fail to live up to the hype but it is easier to believe than the
> idea that undisciplined light cavalry is a threat to anyone.
Yeah, I've fallen into the trap of thinking of the TV show version of the Unsullied as being canon(ish), and the TV show Unsullied constantly get their arses handed to them and it's a wonder there are any left. Disappointing.
> > I think a lot of these forces, like the Dothraki and the Unsullied, fell
> > victim to being so lovingly described as a fighting force and so massively
> > talked up, there was no real way they could *be* that hardcore.
>
> The Unsullied are portrayed as disciplined, armored infantry. They might
> eventually fail to live up to the hype but it is easier to believe than the
> idea that undisciplined light cavalry is a threat to anyone.
> > > In the alleged books,
> >
> > Your bitterness is strong.
>
> Of what use would be weak or subtle bitterness?
> > True enough. I did get the impression from that first fight with Jorah that
> > a Westerosi knight was way more than a match for a Dothraki. The issue was
> > that there were (I thought) only a couple of thousand knights in the entire
> > unified seven kingdoms, and there were tens or hundreds of thousands of
> > Dothraki (logistics be damned).
> >
> > Now, apparently, even after all those hideously high-fatality battles
> > (didn't the Blackwater kill everybody with wildfire?), there's still
> > approximately twelve trillion war-ready armed, armoured and provisioned
> > knights in Westeros. So ... yeah, the Dothraki are fucked.
>
> They have the dragons, the Mother of Dragons and the Unsullied on their side
> but they are far from the force that was expected when Dany's brother traded
> her for one of their armies. On the other hand, I think Dany gave full value.
B@w
--
Mother of Bargains.
kraksy...@gmail.com
Jul 27, 2019, 7:16:01 AM7/27/19
to
Dothraki suck.
They have no armour, no bows (or at least do not make proper use of them during battles) and they rely on frontal charge. With no lance.
Also they embody the most toxic kind of masculinity imaginable (see the battle of Qohor when they were too proud to bypass or even flank the unsullied... so they perished in countless frontal charges). They are dumb rapists that charge straitghforward with no armour (because it is for cowards) and not even lances. On everyone. Because what could go wrong?
And they are direct opposition of the real Steppe nomads in everything but raping and pillaging. Real life Tartars/Mongols seldom charged straitghforward (unless the enemy was significantly weaker or they had no choice). They perefered to wear down the enemy with arrows and constant decoy charges. Or to attack at enemy's flank or rear. or to simply bypass the enemy forces and pillage the land without even facing any larger enemy forces (they were that good in bypassing them). They could be considered barbaric or even evil (hey they made their living, robbing things and enslaving people!), but their warfare was (as for middle ages) extremly sophisticated and they were anything but stupid. And that made them formidable opponents from Viet Nam and Japan to Hungary and Poland. DOthraki are retarded image of how leftist do imagine "toxic msculinity". They are too stupid to be a serious threat. And my ancestors would wear them down, shoot one third of them with arrows, then charge (at their rear of course), slay the second third; then took all their horses, and cattle, bond the survivors together like a cattle and sell them as a slaves at Crimea to some Jewish merchants. they would make great oarsmen at galleys. Or eunuchs.
They have no armour, no bows (or at least do not make proper use of them during battles) and they rely on frontal charge. With no lance.
Also they embody the most toxic kind of masculinity imaginable (see the battle of Qohor when they were too proud to bypass or even flank the unsullied... so they perished in countless frontal charges). They are dumb rapists that charge straitghforward with no armour (because it is for cowards) and not even lances. On everyone. Because what could go wrong?
And they are direct opposition of the real Steppe nomads in everything but raping and pillaging. Real life Tartars/Mongols seldom charged straitghforward (unless the enemy was significantly weaker or they had no choice). They perefered to wear down the enemy with arrows and constant decoy charges. Or to attack at enemy's flank or rear. or to simply bypass the enemy forces and pillage the land without even facing any larger enemy forces (they were that good in bypassing them). They could be considered barbaric or even evil (hey they made their living, robbing things and enslaving people!), but their warfare was (as for middle ages) extremly sophisticated and they were anything but stupid. And that made them formidable opponents from Viet Nam and Japan to Hungary and Poland. DOthraki are retarded image of how leftist do imagine "toxic msculinity". They are too stupid to be a serious threat. And my ancestors would wear them down, shoot one third of them with arrows, then charge (at their rear of course), slay the second third; then took all their horses, and cattle, bond the survivors together like a cattle and sell them as a slaves at Crimea to some Jewish merchants. they would make great oarsmen at galleys. Or eunuchs.
Butterbumps@Home
Jul 29, 2019, 6:45:09 AM7/29/19
to
lauantai 27. heinäkuuta 2019 14.16.01 UTC+3 kraksy...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Dothraki suck.
I tend to agree.
> They have no armour, no bows (or at least do not make proper use of them
> during battles) and they rely on frontal charge. With no lance.
Yep. I did wonder what was so formidable about them, I guess in the books they sort of had this "extra fast and savage lots of horses and really good at fighting" thing but then Mormont pounded them in his full plate and pretty much the same thing would happen on a large scale during an invasion which was why Daenerys needed more of an army.
It was also why the Dothraki never really spread out of the wasteland or took over any cities, aside from the occasional one they sacked and dragged back trophies into the sea of grass.
> Also they embody the most toxic kind of masculinity imaginable (see the
> battle of Qohor when they were too proud to bypass or even flank the
> unsullied... so they perished in countless frontal charges). They are dumb
> rapists that charge straitghforward with no armour (because it is for
> cowards) and not even lances. On everyone. Because what could go wrong?
>
> And they are direct opposition of the real Steppe nomads in everything but
> raping and pillaging. Real life Tartars/Mongols seldom charged
> straitghforward (unless the enemy was significantly weaker or they had no
> choice). They perefered to wear down the enemy with arrows and constant decoy
> charges. Or to attack at enemy's flank or rear. or to simply bypass the enemy
> forces and pillage the land without even facing any larger enemy forces (they
> were that good in bypassing them). They could be considered barbaric or even
> evil (hey they made their living, robbing things and enslaving people!), but
> their warfare was (as for middle ages) extremly sophisticated and they were
> anything but stupid. And that made them formidable opponents from Viet Nam
> and Japan to Hungary and Poland.
*nod* Seems like Martin could have researched that more, or he did and that was what he was aiming at but he couldn't quite hit the mark?
I mean, if he'd made them too effective we'd all be asking why the Dothraki hadn't taken over the entire continent and required a Great Wall to be built to keep them out. And that would basically be Easteros only with the bad guys *below* the Wall, and also Easteros sounds like a place with a lot of chocolate eggs.
> DOthraki are retarded image of how leftist do imagine "toxic msculinity".
Well, that "imagining" comes from somewhere, I don't find the Dothraki attitude to be all that alien although it is certainly contemptible and way overblown. Even Drogo, who was a relative progressive among Dothraki, was an absolute thug.
> They are too stupid to be a serious threat. And my ancestors would wear them
> down, shoot one third of them with arrows, then charge (at their rear of
> course), slay the second third; then took all their horses, and cattle, bond
> the survivors together like a cattle and sell them as a slaves at Crimea to
> some Jewish merchants.
>
> they would make great oarsmen at galleys. Or eunuchs.
Wonderful singing voice.
B@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/
> Dothraki suck.
I tend to agree.
> They have no armour, no bows (or at least do not make proper use of them
> during battles) and they rely on frontal charge. With no lance.
It was also why the Dothraki never really spread out of the wasteland or took over any cities, aside from the occasional one they sacked and dragged back trophies into the sea of grass.
> Also they embody the most toxic kind of masculinity imaginable (see the
> battle of Qohor when they were too proud to bypass or even flank the
> unsullied... so they perished in countless frontal charges). They are dumb
> rapists that charge straitghforward with no armour (because it is for
> cowards) and not even lances. On everyone. Because what could go wrong?
>
> And they are direct opposition of the real Steppe nomads in everything but
> raping and pillaging. Real life Tartars/Mongols seldom charged
> straitghforward (unless the enemy was significantly weaker or they had no
> choice). They perefered to wear down the enemy with arrows and constant decoy
> charges. Or to attack at enemy's flank or rear. or to simply bypass the enemy
> forces and pillage the land without even facing any larger enemy forces (they
> were that good in bypassing them). They could be considered barbaric or even
> evil (hey they made their living, robbing things and enslaving people!), but
> their warfare was (as for middle ages) extremly sophisticated and they were
> anything but stupid. And that made them formidable opponents from Viet Nam
> and Japan to Hungary and Poland.
I mean, if he'd made them too effective we'd all be asking why the Dothraki hadn't taken over the entire continent and required a Great Wall to be built to keep them out. And that would basically be Easteros only with the bad guys *below* the Wall, and also Easteros sounds like a place with a lot of chocolate eggs.
> DOthraki are retarded image of how leftist do imagine "toxic msculinity".
> They are too stupid to be a serious threat. And my ancestors would wear them
> down, shoot one third of them with arrows, then charge (at their rear of
> course), slay the second third; then took all their horses, and cattle, bond
> the survivors together like a cattle and sell them as a slaves at Crimea to
> some Jewish merchants.
>
> they would make great oarsmen at galleys. Or eunuchs.
B@w
--
https://hatboy.blog/
0 new messages