Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Antisocialite99 t1_j3zt8w9 wrote

Reply to comment by Devoidoxatom in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

It was also the thing that made them victorious in battle.

Same with the Sessanid empires horse troops.

Instead dothraki had those stupid sickle things. The fight scene with Jonah Mormont in full armor just not even having to try to trap the guys sickle and easily kill him is it's own demonstration for how useless those are.

And that's key... because they aren't envisioned as having enemies they face in battle that would define their own tactics weapons etc in reaponse to them.

19

KombuchaBot t1_j4081o4 wrote

Yeah fighting against someone in armour necessitates a stabby weapon not a cutting one.

Matt Easton of Scholagladatoria on YouTube is quite informative on this

9

Devoidoxatom t1_j3zun81 wrote

Yeah, afaik those sickle type blades were used against cavalry, not by them

3

meneldal2 t1_j40fysd wrote

They didn't have the best guys for making the fights a bit more realistic.

2

srgonzo75 t1_j43lxk1 wrote

The khopesh (closest thing you’ll see to a Dothraki arakh) wasn’t steel, when it was in use, and it wasn’t used against heavily armored opponents. It was handy for slashing an opponent while one was in a chariot and moving at a good pace. Scimitars and samshirs operate on a similar principle, using a single edge for greater efficacy when riding past an opponent to slash at them or their mount.

1