Game of Thrones is many things: a political thriller, a fantasy epic, a character drama, and a showcase for some truly stunning cinematography. But if there’s one thing it isn’t particularly concerned with, it’s historical accuracy about medieval warfare. And honestly? That’s completely fine. Game of Thrones was never trying to be a documentary. It was trying to tell an entertaining story set in a fantasy world that borrowed heavily from medieval aesthetics. But for those of us interested in how actual medieval warfare worked, the show provides an absolutely fascinating study in how historical accuracy takes a backseat to narrative drama and spectacle.
The Problem with Siege Warfare
One of the most glaring inaccuracies in Game of Thrones is how the show depicts siege warfare. Sieges in the show tend to be relatively quick affairs, with armies arriving at a castle, perhaps doing some battering, and then either breaching the walls quickly or being fought off. In reality, medieval sieges were often grotesquely long, boring, and about as unglamorous as warfare gets.
Consider the historical Siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade. The crusaders sat outside the city for months, suffering from dysentery, starvation, and disease. The actual breaking of the siege came about after a lucky combination of circumstances and the crusaders’ ability to build siege towers, which took weeks of labor to construct. It wasn’t quick, it wasn’t clean, and it involved far more people dying from disease than from actual combat.
Game of Thrones glosses over this entirely. When we see Stannis Baratheon’s army outside King’s Landing, or when Daenerys sieges various cities, the show implies that these are relatively brief affairs. But in reality, a properly fortified city with adequate supplies could hold out for months or even years. The show needs to move its narrative forward, so sieges become essentially skipped over or compressed into single episodes.
A more realistic depiction would involve armies sitting outside cities for extended periods, their supplies running low, disease spreading through the camps, morale deteriorating, and the eventual decision to either abandon the siege or stage a final desperate assault. That’s not very dramatic television, which is why the show skips over those details.
The Inaccuracy of Giant Siege Weapons
The show depicts siege weaponry that’s often anachronistic or simply impossible. The massive trebuchets and catapults that we see deployed in various battles might look impressive, but they often don’t match historical siege weapon specifications. Medieval siege weapons were complex, fragile, and required sophisticated engineering to build and maintain.
The Trebuchet shown destroying the walls of various castles in Game of Thrones appears almost magical in its destructive capability. In reality, trebuchets had to be aimed carefully, required enormous crews to operate, and were unreliable at best. They could potentially breach walls, but it took many attempts, and they were as likely to malfunction as to succeed. The show treats siege weapons as reliable tools of destruction, when in reality, they were temperamental, difficult to maintain, and often produced disappointing results.
Furthermore, the show often depicts castles being breached far too easily by siege weapons. Real medieval fortifications were designed specifically to withstand exactly this kind of assault. Castle walls were made of stone in a way that, while certainly not impenetrable, was far more resilient than the show suggests. A well-designed castle might require months of battering before its walls came down, not the hours or days that the show implies.
Hand-to-Hand Combat Gets Romanticized
Perhaps the most cinematic inaccuracy in Game of Thrones is in depictions of actual hand-to-hand combat. The show loves its duels—Jaime versus multiple enemies, Jon versus the wildlings, countless other one-on-one or one-on-few battles. These are entertaining television, but they’re historically inaccurate in several important ways.
First, most medieval combat wasn’t about duels. Battles were chaotic, confusing affairs where large groups of men fought in formation, trying to break the enemy’s line. The individualistic “warrior versus warriors” combat that the show loves is largely a fantasy element. Medieval soldiers fought in groups, relied on their neighbors for protection, and depended on formation discipline to survive. The idea of one skilled swordsman taking on multiple opponents at once and surviving through skill is mostly fantasy.
Second, medieval armor was much better than the show often depicts. A properly armored knight in full plate armor was nearly impossible to kill with a sword unless you struck in one of the few vulnerable areas—the joints, the neck, the face. The show often depicts swords cleaving through armor and bone with ease, which is simply not how it worked. A sword, no matter how sharp, can’t cut through steel plate armor. You’d need either a specialized weapon like a war hammer or pike, or you’d need to strike at one of the vulnerable points.
In reality, medieval combat would look far less graceful and more like brutal grappling matches, often ending with one man pinning another to the ground and either stabbing him in a vulnerable spot or slowly choking the life out of him. It’s not as visually interesting as what Game of Thrones shows, which is why the show opts for more cinematic sword duels instead.
The Cavalry Charge Problem
Game of Thrones is obsessed with cavalry charges, and they’re almost always depicted as devastatingly effective. The moment where the Vale’s knights charge into battle at the Battle of the Bastards is thrilling television, but it’s not particularly historically accurate as a decisive military maneuver.
Cavalry charges did happen in medieval warfare, and they could be effective, but they had to meet specific conditions. Cavalry worked best against already-broken infantry who were fleeing or disorganized. Cavalry charging into a disciplined, formed-up infantry line with pike and spear would actually be suicide. That’s why, as military technology advanced, cavalry became less effective—formation discipline and polearm weapons (pikes, spears, halberds) could absolutely devastate a cavalry charge.
In Game of Thrones, cavalry appears to charge into all manner of situations and emerge victorious. In reality, the infantry that had the best response to cavalry charges was infantry armed with long spears or pikes, arranged in a formation where their weapons extended beyond the horses’ reach. A cavalry charge against such a formation would result in the horses being impaled, the riders thrown, and the cavalry unit suffering significant losses.
The show’s love of the cavalry charge is purely for narrative and visual reasons—horses and armored men charging are inherently exciting to watch. But militarily, they were far more limited in their application than the show suggests.
Armor and Movement
Game of Thrones often depicts its characters moving in full plate armor with remarkable agility. Characters perform acrobatic moves, climb, jump, and fight with extensive mobility while fully armored. This is somewhat inaccurate, though not entirely unrealistic. A man in full plate armor was heavy and restricted in mobility, but he wasn’t immobilized—medieval knights trained their entire lives to fight in armor.
However, the show sometimes makes it look easier than it was. Full plate armor, while permitting significant movement compared to popular perception, did require specific training and strength to move in effectively. A person in plate armor couldn’t move as quickly or as agilely as the show sometimes suggests. They would tire more quickly from the exertion. And their ability to perform complex movements while fighting would be significantly limited compared to an unarmored opponent.
This is one of those cases where the show’s depiction isn’t entirely wrong, but it’s optimized for cinematic effect rather than realistic accuracy. A fight scene where the armored character was noticeably slower and tireder than the unarmored opponent wouldn’t be as visually exciting as what we get in the show.
Formation and Discipline
Perhaps the biggest systematic inaccuracy in Game of Thrones’ depiction of warfare is the relative lack of emphasis on formation discipline. Medieval armies won battles by maintaining formation, protecting their neighbors, and applying coordinated pressure. Individual heroics, while they happened, were far less important than the collective action of the army as a whole.
In the show, battles tend to become melees where individuals fight one another, and the outcome depends largely on the number of troops and the presence of heroes who can single-handedly turn the tide. In reality, battles were decided by which side could maintain discipline, keep their formation, and systematically push forward or hold the line. A general who could keep his troops in formation and move them effectively as a unit would beat a general with superior individual fighters almost every time.
Game of Thrones shows us some of this—the show isn’t entirely ignorant of formation warfare—but it tends to emphasize individual combat more than historical accuracy would suggest. This is partly because individual combat is more cinematic and partly because following the experience of individual characters is more dramatically satisfying than showing us abstract formations maneuver.
The Reality of Logistics
One absolutely crucial aspect of medieval warfare that Game of Thrones almost completely ignores is logistics. Armies can’t just march around the countryside indefinitely—they need food, water, shelter, and rest. A marching army loses effectiveness the longer it marches without rest. Foraging for supplies as you move destroys the surrounding countryside and slows your movement. Supply lines become vulnerable to enemy action. These logistical concerns are why many medieval campaigns failed despite having superior forces—the logistical challenges simply became insurmountable.
Game of Thrones occasionally acknowledges logistics—Tyrion mentions the cost of feeding an army, there are references to supply lines being cut—but mostly the show ignores it. Armies simply appear where they need to be, fight their battles, and we don’t think too hard about how they got there or how they sustained themselves. In reality, half the effort of medieval warfare was figuring out how to supply your army while denying supplies to your enemy’s army.
A more historically accurate Game of Thrones would show far more time spent on logistics, movement, and preparation, and far less time on actual combat. But that would be a very different show—one that spent more time on strategy meetings and supply management than on spectacle.
Why These Inaccuracies Exist
The important thing to understand is that these inaccuracies aren’t failures of the show. They’re conscious creative choices. Game of Thrones was always trying to be entertaining television first and historically accurate second. The producers knew that actual medieval siege warfare is mostly about sitting around, waiting, and dealing with dysentery. They chose to skip to the exciting parts.
The show also knew that formation warfare and logistics, while historically accurate, aren’t as cinematically exciting as individual duels and cavalry charges. So it emphasized those elements instead. A show that was perfectly historically accurate would be far less entertaining, because medieval warfare wasn’t conducted the way Hollywood typically portrays warfare.
This is why discussing the historical inaccuracies of Game of Thrones isn’t about criticizing the show—it’s about appreciating how the show made different choices than history would have suggested, and those choices made for better television. The show understood its medium and optimized for spectacle, drama, and individual character moments rather than historical verisimilitude. That’s the right choice for a fantasy television show, even if it means that anyone with knowledge of medieval history has to suspend their disbelief about how warfare actually worked.
Game of Thrones created a fantasy world that feels grounded and real, but it did so by selectively choosing which details of medieval warfare to emphasize and which to downplay. The result is a show that feels authentic without being historically accurate, which is exactly what a fantasy show should aspire to be.
Discover more from Anglotees
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.