The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
A Game of Thrones LCG: Sacred Bonds
A Game of Thrones LCG: Sacred Bonds
Amazon.com
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Khal Drogo vs Sandor Clegane


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
125 replies to this topic

#1 Andhaira

Andhaira

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 06:40 AM

Suppose these two fought each other in a one on one combat in their primes. Both are afoot, bows are not allowed.

Who would win?

My $$$ is on Drogo.

#2 Screaming Turkey

Screaming Turkey

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 08:35 AM

People on this forum are really getting bored, aren't they?

#3 Teren_Kanan

Teren_Kanan

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 01:31 PM

People on this forum are really getting bored, aren't they?



Sandor would be Fully armored vs a nearly unarmored Droggo.

Droggo is good, possibly even better in pure skill, but he still fights with a sword, so he has no advantage over Sandor, and certainly not skillful enough to out do Sandors plate armor advantage.

Now if It's ahorse.. Droggo all the way.

#4 AquariumDrinker

AquariumDrinker

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:17 PM

An armored Knight(for all practical purposes) against a horse archer without his horse and bow?

#5 The OTHER other

The OTHER other

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:19 PM

I would have to go with Sandor if he's armored. Drogo is supposed to be a huge badass but armor is just too big an advantage. With horses and choice of weapon I presume Sandor would take a lance and Drogo a bow; I doubt Sandor would get within 100 yards of Drogo.

#6 StarkofWinterfell

StarkofWinterfell

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:12 PM

Many of you seem to forget two very important things.

The disadvantages of armor:
  • Other fighter can just dance around you
  • Vision slits in helmets are very small, decreasing visibility
  • You tire easily
  • Armor is very heavy, limiting movement

Bronn had success dueling Ser Vardis
Prince Oberyn had success dueling Gregor Clegane (could've killed Gregor and walked away had he not played around with him)

The other thing you guys have forgotten:
The bow is not Khal Drogo's only weapon. He was very skillful with the arakh as well and slew Khal Ogo. Khal Drogo's braid had also never been cut, meaning he had never lost a battle.


All in all, I think it is a pretty even match. Sandor fights with a ruthlessness that could surprise Khal Drogo, but Khal Drogo's fighting experience could be a challenge for Sandor. Although, Sandor did have trouble fighting down below the hill and in the inn. He nearly lost his life in both occurrences.

Now that I think about it, I don't think either fighter has seen very much of the other culture's fighting style.

Sandor had his Westerosi style and Khal Drogo had the Dothraki fighting style.

Without them ever meeting and fighting and having an excerpt to go back and look at and use as a reference for this post, no one really knows how the fight would go down.

I'd say its about even, with the upper hand going to Khal Drogo.

Edited by StarkofWinterfell, 29 November 2009 - 06:13 PM.


#7 Forve

Forve

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:31 PM

I am not sure ( am am re-reading ASOIF right know), but as far as I remember Sandor prefers to fight lightly armored, Like Bronn, and i dont remember him using full Heavy amour ( well except of tournaments i suppose) and he relies on speed and strength equally. So khal Drogo is not superior in speed, at least they are equal. Both are strong and tall man, so i think the fight will be in balance, but i would go For Sandor cause of his Rage :P

Khal Drogo is Experienced indeed, but it's not like Sandor has taken sword yesterday...

#8 chill

chill

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:46 PM

assuming they are in a standardized space (mma octagon maybe) where drogo can't run away for 2 miles, then clegane wins hands down. sandor does use mail/plate and drogo uses leather, it's really a huge, huge difference. i've also always pictured the arakh as a sort of scimitar, very sharp and light and effective against lightly armored people... but useless against plate. meanwhile, sandor uses a broadsword, which is HEAVY and hits like a truck.

i think some of you guys have been watching too much hollywood. fancy, technical fighting only gets you so far (karate anyone?). brute strength is a huge factor. heavy armor has disadvantages, but the pros far outweigh the cons, or why else would humans use armor for hundreds of years?

reminds me of an anecdote i once heard about... when King Richard was off fighting the Crusades, he met a sultan. The sultan took out his sword and dropped a piece of silk on it, and the sword parted the silk. The sultan, taking pride in the sharpness of his blade asked if Richard's blade could do the same. King Richard said nothing, took out his sword, and clove a boulder in two.

Edited by chill, 29 November 2009 - 06:48 PM.


#9 PuroGeo

PuroGeo

    Squire

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:57 PM

Sandor Clegane would crush Drogo.

#10 Forve

Forve

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:01 PM

Chill

I think you are underestimating speed, and how much Armour slow you down compared to leather. The Clear example of Speed importance at least In ASOIAF world, is the fight in Vale between Bronn and the guys whose name i forgot :D

Anyway I still go for Sandor :D

#11 StarkofWinterfell

StarkofWinterfell

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:13 PM

assuming they are in a standardized space (mma octagon maybe) where drogo can't run away for 2 miles, then clegane wins hands down. sandor does use mail/plate and drogo uses leather, it's really a huge, huge difference. i've also always pictured the arakh as a sort of scimitar, very sharp and light and effective against lightly armored people... but useless against plate. meanwhile, sandor uses a broadsword, which is HEAVY and hits like a truck.

i think some of you guys have been watching too much hollywood. fancy, technical fighting only gets you so far (karate anyone?). brute strength is a huge factor. heavy armor has disadvantages, but the pros far outweigh the cons, or why else would humans use armor for hundreds of years?

reminds me of an anecdote i once heard about... when King Richard was off fighting the Crusades, he met a sultan. The sultan took out his sword and dropped a piece of silk on it, and the sword parted the silk. The sultan, taking pride in the sharpness of his blade asked if Richard's blade could do the same. King Richard said nothing, took out his sword, and clove a boulder in two.


If an arakh is very sharp, it most surely would be able to cut through plate. A Zantetsuken (type of Japanese sword used by samurais) is quite capable of cutting through plate, although I believe Valyrian swords are the closest thing to a samurai sword in ASOIAF. We only have an idea of what we think arakhs are based off of a short little description in one of the books, but I too think of it as sort of a long, curved scimitar. But the thing about plate is that is has weak spots. Under the arms, behind the knees, and possibly the neck.

As the weight of the armor will begin to wear the fighter down, so too would as you said yourself a HEAVY broadsword. Swings would get slower, more clumsy, and less powerful until eventually you couldn't swing anymore. Armor was worn because it protected the soft and frail body of a human from direct cuts and stabs that skin can not block. That is it's only "pro" and the cons far outweigh the pro's. Why do you think that no one wears armor anymore? Fighting in close quarters (shoulder to shoulder with those around you) as was the style of battle for a very long time, armor helps a ton. In a duel; however, it is very impractical.

Its not hollywood, its very much real. It used to be common knowledge, but living in the sort of suburbia society we do today, we have forgotten much of that. You go out, throw on over 100 pounds of steel over your body, grab one of those heavy broadswords, and start swinging the sword. Maybe even try running for a bit, jumping around, dodging invisible swords. Basically, duel yourself. See what that weight does to you over time versus someone in normal garb or leather that can dance around all day.


I would think it was not the blade itself that broke the boulder, but the weight and the force coming down on the boulder. I haven't cut any boulders in two, but I have been able to smash a few rocks with a sledgehammer.

Edited by StarkofWinterfell, 29 November 2009 - 07:18 PM.


#12 chill

chill

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:17 PM

@forve

i think you are overestimating speed and maneuverability. when you are in an enclosed space, all you have to do is turn and corner your opponent in. you don't have to waste a lot of unnecessary energy moving about. and if the opponent has speed, he still has to close the distance to make a hit, and the slower fighter can make a hit too because they are at the same distance

i really think that the bronn fight was a fluke. the knight was old, wasn't using his own sword, was under pressure from his annoying liege lord egging him on, and the room was full of obstacles that made for poor terrain. i mean bronn won with a statue, not his sword. that's why i said in a level playing field and enclosed ring, clegane wins easily. and if speed is so important why do we have armor in the first place? why don't people just fight naked, that seems to be the lightest of all

@starkofwinterfell

i think japanese swords are renowned for having high quality, but i'm still skeptical. an arakh is not a katana, and i doubt ANY sword is sharp enough to cut through steel plate with chainmail underneath. do you have a source? i think maybe mythbusters did a test or something.

the reason nobody wears armor anymore.. is because of gun powder. plain and simple

weight obviously has an effect. but you are dealing with people who have worn a hundred extra pounds since childhood and have practiced for a lifetime. and think about a boxing ring, it is very possible to corner your opponent while conserving energy and making few movements

yes, that was the point of the anecdote, that it is the power/mass/momentum of the weapon and not the sharpness of the edge that has a bigger effect

Edited by chill, 29 November 2009 - 07:28 PM.


#13 Forve

Forve

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:29 PM

i think you are overestimating speed and maneuverability. when you are in an enclosed space, all you have to do is turn and corner your opponent in. you don't have to waste a lot of unnecessary energy moving about. and if the opponent has speed, he still has to close the distance to make a hit, and the slower fighter can make a hit too because they are at the same distance

i really think that the bronn fight was a fluke. the knight was old, wasn't using his own sword, was under pressure from his annoying liege lord egging him on, and the room was full of obstacles that made for poor terrain. i mean bronn won with a statue, not his sword. that's why i said in a level playing field and enclosed ring, clegane wins easily. and if speed is so important why do we have armor in the first place? why don't people just fight naked, that seems to be the lightest of all

lol, we had Armour because keeping our asses alive is more important than killing someone/causing damage...It's for protection and is only a minus for attacker...

Armour makes you slow and tires you fastly, that is well know fact, but those disadvantages were ignored because of great pluss of armour of saving asses... :D


I hope u understand what i mean :cheers:

#14 StarkofWinterfell

StarkofWinterfell

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:32 PM

i think you are overestimating speed and maneuverability. when you are in an enclosed space, all you have to do is turn and corner your opponent in. you don't have to waste a lot of unnecessary energy moving about. and if the opponent has speed, he still has to close the distance to make a hit, and the slower fighter can make a hit too because they are at the same distance

i really think that the bronn fight was a fluke. the knight was old, wasn't using his own sword, was under pressure from his annoying liege lord egging him on, and the room was full of obstacles that made for poor terrain. i mean bronn won with a statue, not his sword. that's why i said in a level playing field and enclosed ring, clegane wins easily. and if speed is so important why do we have armor in the first place? why don't people just fight naked, that seems to be the lightest of all


And yet both the Bronn duel and the Prince Oberyn duel were in enclosed spaces. Its almost impossible to close someone in when they can just dance around behind you. If they are good, they wouldn't let themselves get boxed in. (Think of boxing, the modern day duel)

You won't always be face to face like in that game we all used to be play when we were kids where you'd have two figures hitting each other and until one of the figure's heads pops out. The advantage a smaller, quicker fighter has over a big man weighed down by armor is that he can just dance behind, make a quick cut, dance out, move around again, etc. It sounds to me like you need to go back and reread those two duels to really grasp the concept.

You wouldn't need to ask why we have armor if you had read through my whole post. I'll paste it into here for you.

StarkofWinterfell said:
Armor was worn because it protected the soft and frail body of a human from direct cuts and stabs that skin can not block. That is it's only "pro" and the cons far outweigh the pro's. Why do you think that no one wears armor anymore? When you're fighting in close quarters (shoulder to shoulder with those around you) as was the style of battle for a very long time, armor helps a ton because those battles just used to be a steel chaos. In a duel; however, it is very impractical.

#15 StarkofWinterfell

StarkofWinterfell

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:36 PM

@starkofwinterfell

i think japanese swords are renowned for having high quality, but i'm still skeptical. an arakh is not a katana, and i doubt ANY sword is sharp enough to cut through steel plate with chainmail underneath. do you have a source? i think maybe mythbusters did a test or something.

the reason nobody wears armor anymore.. is because of gun powder. plain and simple

weight obviously has an effect. but you are dealing with people who have worn a hundred extra pounds since childhood and have practiced for a lifetime. and think about a boxing ring, it is very possible to corner your opponent while conserving energy and making few movements

yes, that was the point of the anecdote, that it is the power/mass/momentum of the weapon and not the sharpness of the edge that has a bigger effect



I do have a source. Its a video of someone witha samurai sword cutting through a thick piece of bamboo, a steel pipe, and steel plate. Clean cuts, straight through. Youtube has it under "Samurai Challenge! Samurai Sword ( Katana ) Cutting Steel Pipe & Steel Plate -Zantetsuken-"

Gun powder? Quality steel can block the impact of most caliber rounds, though not all. Gun powder has very little to do with why plate armor is no longer worn, but is partly the reason. Kevlar is an armor and it is still worn.

#16 chill

chill

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:46 PM

in that youtube video, the "steel plate" is a flexible sheet... it is extremely thin

http://www.spike.com...s-samurai/31558

here's the episode of deadliest warrior where a samurai's katana proved ineffectual against armor

katanas are slicing weapons. the best way to go through steel is with a punching action like bullets, a warhammer, etc. steel armor was made to stop slicing motions, while kevlar is made to stop punching motions, they are designed differently.

oberyn won because of 1) poison and 2) extreme range advantage

also, i guess i have been thinking of this fight in "real world" terms. in "asoif" world then drogo may very well win. but this topic of knights vs samurai or european broadsword vs katana or katana vs armor has been done to death in a million other places. just take a look around the internet, i don't want to keep arguing because it seems like neither side is willing to budge

Edited by chill, 29 November 2009 - 07:49 PM.


#17 Forve

Forve

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:59 PM

Of course arguing will never stop, because it is impossible to tell who will will samurai or knight :D

it's all about individuality :P

Though i agree with u about Katana ( my favorite weapon, but i would not stand in front of heavy armored knight with it), it is for slicing, while European sword are more about crushing :P because they had to deal with heavy armor, unlike Japanese...

#18 StarkofWinterfell

StarkofWinterfell

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 08:39 PM

in that youtube video, the "steel plate" is a flexible sheet... it is extremely thin

http://www.spike.com...s-samurai/31558

here's the episode of deadliest warrior where a samurai's katana proved ineffectual against armor

katanas are slicing weapons. the best way to go through steel is with a punching action like bullets, a warhammer, etc. steel armor was made to stop slicing motions, while kevlar is made to stop punching motions, they are designed differently.

oberyn won because of 1) poison and 2) extreme range advantage

also, i guess i have been thinking of this fight in "real world" terms. in "asoif" world then drogo may very well win. but this topic of knights vs samurai or european broadsword vs katana or katana vs armor has been done to death in a million other places. just take a look around the internet, i don't want to keep arguing because it seems like neither side is willing to budge


Its amazing what technology can do. Thin glass holds thousands of gallons of water with very high psi in tanks that contain the sea creatures in our aquariums, specifically the larger creatures. I wouldn't discount high quality Japanese made steel. Plus, the sword cut clean through a steel pipe, which was much thicker than the sheet. The chain-mail test those people did could represent most situations, but by no means is that always the case. Chain-mail has been known to split and break due to a strike from a sword.

Good steel can stop punching motions like bullets pretty easily. But that kind of steel can no way be outfitted on every single soldier, and will also be pretty heavy. (Think of tanks) Lee Ermy of the History Channel did an episode comparing the katana with a cavalry scimitar and the katana was able to make a cut in the steel. I don't doubt Valyrian blades have the same kind of power.

But back to Oberyn and the topic.

He was known as the Red Viper for a reason. But you must note he was able to make a great deal of cuts under the armor and impale Gregor with his spear. As I recall, the spear went straight through and stuck in the ground. If Gregor wouldn't have died from the poison, he surely would've died from the gaping hole from the spear and the various cuts.

The basic thing was heavy armor vs. no armor, or more specifically speed vs. power. I pointed out the weaknesses as well as acknowledged the pros as well. I don't feel like mentioning them again. When you're in a duel, you look for the person's weaknesses and you take advantage of them in order to win. Its the same as a game of football and coaches looking for mismatches and holes to exploit in the defense. But fighting with no armor has its disadvantages as well, that much is true. Someone fighting with minimal armor would be more exposed and have no protection from a blade. The way someone fighting like that would protect themselves would be to avoid the blade altogether. However, I don't think there will ever be a perfect way to fight. The speed vs. power debate is a tiring one and can go on forever.

#19 Lesionaire

Lesionaire

    Commoner

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 10:27 PM

Okay, for one thing, Japanese swords were only sufficient because their creators were so meticulous and patient while crafting them. The iron that went into smithing katanas was well and away inferior to European ore and iron.

A katana could not cut through plate mail. They also weren't thick enough to break bones, which is the way that broadswords inflicted most of their damage against chain and plate. Although, katanas were surprisingly heavier than European broadswords, because of their many folds due to aforementioned inferior material.

Plate was, from what I've heard, about 40 - 50 lbs on average. Spread out over the body, it would certainly make a difference, but it wouldn't turn you into a lumbering, clumsy loon. The advantages of wearing plate heavily (no pun intended) outweighed the disadvantages, before the onset of firearm warfare.

So, even if Drogo were a better fighter, he would be pretty useless against an armored Sandor Clegane.

P.S. Arrows could only rarely penetrate plate, and usually low quality plate at that, contrary to popular belief

#20 Forve

Forve

    Freerider

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 10:43 PM

Making Katana is Long process, not because it's made of shitty metal ( lol), but to gain the qualities that they are famous for and this theory of inferiority of Japanese steel to European is just not true. I am not an expert but it's enough just too google it. If Katana was just cheap ass sword compared to European ones, i Dont see any reason why would it have echeived half-legendary status. + they still remain as symbol of wealth and traditions and there are reasons for it.

I hate to point people to Wikipedia ( I know how shitty it tend to be sometimes) but just check info about katanas, How and from what they are made. If you are interested of course.