[kiba]

From various influence? It appears that the Dothraki is based more on stereotype than any real historical influence.

Even if we judge the Dothraki by itself, they lacks verisimilitude. They are not believable as a society, fantasy or otherwise.

[dragontamer]

I always saw Daenerys Targaryen's plot to be a "cartoon", so to speak. Everything about her: from the dragons, to the royal bloodline, to the "slaves are bad Imma save everyone" plots was cartoonishly shallow. She's practically the "Dungeons and Dragons Murder Hobo Adventuring Party".

In effect, Daenerys was the "typical" fantasy plotline, happening elsewhere. Eventually, when Daenerys arrived on Westeros, where actual politics / actual history is going on (aka: more real), her fantasy methodologies just don't work out very well.

---------

But that's my reading (of the HBO series. I never actually read the books). I recognize that there are people out there who might think that the Dothraki were somehow realistic.

[pmoriarty]

"I recognize that there are people out there who might think that the Dothraki were somehow realistic."

Those people apparently include George R.R. Martin himself.

[funnybeam]

The books are the same. Every time the focus switches to Daenerys the quality plummets.

If I were to re read them I’d be strongly tempted to skip all the non-Westeros chapters

[watwut]

> her fantasy methodologies just don't work out very well.

I don't think that happened in the show. Like, she did not even tried her previous methodologies. When she came to westeros, writers had no idea what to do and lost the plot.

[dragonwriter]

> From various influence? It appears that the Dothraki is based more on stereotype than any real historical influence.

Dothraki are influenced by a number of different real, historical stereotypes of different steppe dwelling cultures known for their mounted-but-not-heavily-armored warriors.