Chiefspants |
04-29-2019 03:20 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix
(Post 14241625)
That would certainly be better than what they did with them, which was absurd.
Of course, if you have enough troops, you encircle the defenders (here Winterfell) and have separate troops to keep the mobile army away from your besiegers.
There were ALOT of Dothraki, but my sense is that the army of the dead vastly outnumbered them. VASTLY. And if that's the case, you aren't enveloping much of anything unless ALL the dead just pile up 20 deep or whatever against the castle walls. The individual wights were stupid, but they were clearly controlled, on an individual level at need, by the NK. They therefore aren't going to do that.
But still, hit and run, flanking -- ANYTHING -- is better than what they actually did.
And the Dothraki damn well should've known that.
|
Part of what the Dothraki does is explained by Jorah in book 1 ->
Quote:
"[The Dothraki] are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless and their bows outrange ours. [...] The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating it makes no matter, they are full as deadline.
|
Part of the Dothraki strategy has always been to engage, retreat, encircle, and adapt as needed. The plan was to stall, and the hope was that the Dothraki could encircle, retreat, and stall as necessary. They had never fought an army like the army of the dead. No one was, no one had ever engaged them in a battle before.
To try to envelop them would have been fruitless. They weren't going to be hit with the element of surprise, everything in the undead's path is just simply meat - and to stand around and hide would have caused them to get enveloped in the storm, or to be sitting ducks for the NK dragon.
Anyway. I know I've been defending the show a lot, so I'll stop here. I just believe that most all standard military tactics should (and did) go out the window when you have an undead army as a foe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix
(Post 14241642)
It's a fair point. Meh, maybe.
FYI George Washington wasn't a great strategist or tactician. He was a great LEADER, and had many other awesome qualities, but battlefield strategist -- not so great -- though he improved over time.
|
Totally fair about George, I threw him in because he was steadfast in simply "stalling out" the English. He knew if he could outlast his foe, they would eventually move on. Even George "Captain Stall" Washington would have looked at this situation and thrown it out the window.
|