Game of Thrones earned a reputation for its ambitious, visceral battle scenes, many of which captured the imagination of viewers with their cinematic scope and emotional intensity. But how do these fantasy conflicts measure up against the real methods, logistics, and brutality of medieval warfare?
The answer is mixed. At times, the show draws directly from historical battles and tactics. In other moments, it sacrifices realism for narrative drama or spectacle. Below is a comparison between key aspects of Game of Thrones battles and the realities of medieval combat.
Tactics and Formations
Some of the show’s most memorable engagements, such as the Battle of the Bastards, the Battle of Blackwater, and the Loot Train Attack, borrow heavily from real-world tactics. For example, the encirclement of Jon Snow’s forces by the Bolton shield wall resembles Roman or Macedonian infantry tactics more than medieval ones, but the sense of suffocating close combat was historically accurate.
In contrast, medieval commanders relied more on positioning, terrain advantage, and momentum than on cinematic heroics. Battles like Agincourt or Bannockburn were defined by strategic deployment and the weather’s influence, rather than the direct charges of named champions. Commanders rarely fought on the front lines, and individual duels had little impact on the outcome.
Sieges and Fortifications
The show’s depiction of siege warfare is among its more grounded aspects. The Battle of Blackwater, for example, accurately reflects the combination of naval elements, defensive walls, fire weapons (like Greek fire), and the psychological strain of siege. Similarly, the defence of Winterfell in the earlier seasons involved realistic preparation and rationing.
However, the final-season siege of King’s Landing veers sharply into fantasy. The ease with which Daenerys’s dragon decimates the city’s defences ignores the painstaking efforts real armies would face against well-fortified positions. In reality, sieges could last months or years, involving starvation, disease, mining, bombardment, and diplomacy, rather than a swift obliteration by fire.
Weapons and Armour
The show generally handles arms and armour with a degree of accuracy, especially in earlier seasons. Characters wear mail, plate, or gambesons appropriate to their rank and region. Weapons include longswords, arming swords, polearms, and bows, all commonly used in the medieval period.
However, the effectiveness of weapons is sometimes exaggerated for drama. Heavy plate armour is shown as providing little protection, with swords cutting through it far too easily. In reality, full plate was nearly impervious to slashing and required crushing blows, thrusts to gaps, or specialised weapons like poleaxes to defeat.
Additionally, the portrayal of archery, such as in the Battle of the Bastards, overemphasises volume over accuracy. English longbowmen at battles like Crécy and Agincourt used highly coordinated volleys from disciplined ranks, not loose masses of individual fire.
Numbers, Logistics, and Command
Medieval armies were often smaller than their fictional counterparts suggest. A medieval “great host” rarely exceeded 20,000, given the limitations of supply, transport, and feudal levies. By contrast, Game of Thrones sometimes conjures tens of thousands with little explanation for how they are fed, armed, or moved.
The show tends to ignore logistics almost entirely. Marching an army required extensive baggage trains, foraging rights, and political coordination. Even a siege demanded a clear line of supply and seasonal planning. Few battles were fought without months of preparation.
Real commanders such as Edward III or Saladin had to account for morale, disease, deserters, and alliances. In Game of Thrones, commanders often appear to make split-second decisions with entire armies instantly obedient and always present at the right time.
Death and Brutality
Where the show excels is in capturing the grim, exhausting nature of medieval war. The terror, noise, and panic of the Battle of the Bastards, for instance, give a rare sense of what melee combat may have felt like: claustrophobic, chaotic, and arbitrary. Death often came not from duels but from trampling, suffocation, or exhaustion.
This depiction is closer to truth than the romanticised or chivalric versions of war common in earlier fiction. Medieval warfare was brutal, but often less cinematic. Men died from infected wounds, starvation, and disease more often than sword blows.
The Seven Swords takeaway
Game of Thrones blends historical influences with fantasy, creating battles that sometimes echo medieval warfare but also diverge for narrative impact. When it stays grounded, it reflects the logistical strain, moral ambiguity, and physical toll of real conflict. But as the series progressed, spectacle increasingly outweighed realism.
While the world of Westeros is fictional, its wars are most compelling when they hint at the messy, unpredictable nature of the real battles that shaped history.
Watch Battle of the bastards:
