Syrio Forel - the neverending fight

[Errant Bard]

Ok, all your arguments start from the premise that Syrio is the Flash or Yoda, and thus he could have ninja-ed away, kept summersaulting around Trant until Trant had enough, when the text specifically shows us that he has not, in fact, such superpowers, and has to parry half of Trant's blows with his wooden stick; why? Because he cannot dodge them all.

So no, he could not have declined to engage, he has not "another course" to choose, and Arya is shooed away because the risk is too great to stay in the room.

But that's not correct, is it? The dead Stark guardsmen were described in fairly gory detail, I thought ... just not Syrio Forel, whom we were watching the most closely.

That's totally correct. You were arguing about showing their "noble death" for some "impact", we don't see any deaths, we see a few cadavers, and we only see it because it's safe to have a PoV pass by without endangering her narrative, without her being even seen by anyone.

How could Martin have shown it? Arya could easily have waited until Syrio was actually harmed, disabled; she could still have escaped by simple virtue of mobility compared to the encumbered knight, who would need to first extract his sword from the quivering body of Syrio Forel before he could even begin to pursue Arya.

Only that's utterly stupid. Armour doesn't encumber anyone as much as you think, and if Arya never leaves Trant's vision, GRRM has to pull something out of his ass to make her vanish without Trant shouting to anyone in earshot to grab or follow her.

Doubly stupid in that it doesn't allow for Syrio's lessons to really kick in. That's the really important part of that scene, that's even the main purpose of Syrio in the narrative: giving Arya the advice that will differentiate her from her sister, and shape her story arc from now on, as soon as seconds after, where she goes to the cellar instead of out of the door, where no doubt guards are waiting. You deny her that, you make a mockery of what Syrio taught and what Arya learned, AND you prevent Arya from shaking off pursuit by hiding in that unexpected place.

The fight was totally gratuitous once Arya was gone.

No it was not. You didn't notice that all the Stark retainers died that day, did you? Or maybe you didn't notice that Syrio stood between the knight and the way Arya went, or maybe it is that you didn't see that Syrio was actually trying to buy the most time he could.

Either way you just cannot argue that after a time, one or both of the combatants would say "fuck it, I'm out of here" and the other would let him flee/pursue Arya, that would be totally moronic from either of them.

Had the fool bloodriders chosen to keep their distance until they wore down Jorah, he'd have cooked.

Armour doesn't kill your mobility or stamina like you think it does. But anyway it so happens Syrio didn't keep his distance, you know. It's in the text, it's shown, it's canon, so your objection is void.

I don't remember the details of the Brienne scene you mention, but it seems consistent with my position that armor is an advantage but not insurmountable, and not without drawbacks.

The point was that you can be the bee's knees in duelling and still be taken down by a slow, heavy guy. It's what happens to Oberyn despite spear and poison, and it's what happens to Brienne. I remind you Syrio has no Valyrian sword, no spear, no poison, no buckler, no statue to topple, and is forced to be in close range.

it's hard to believe it wouldn't have caught her attention and registered. I think the textual evidence favors a conclusion that Trant probably did not say he slew Forel:

No it's not. Did you fail to see how she even dismisses Arya's probable death, so many were the corpses that day? Why would Cersei even care for city guards, when Meryn's only comment about them getting killed was "bloody oafs"?

First, "omniscient" Varys should have known if Trant reported killing Forel to Cersei, but he fails to mention it to Ned: "The younger girl escaped Ser Meryn and fled. I have not been able to find her." (632 AGOT Bantam PB) It would be at least somewhat surprising that Varys did not mention the six associated deaths if he was aware of them.

Ridiculous. Not only five guardsmen but "a great many people", among them all of Ned's friends, did die in any case and he didn't mention them, why would the addition of a dancing master force him to mention it? How does that make it more likely that Syrio lived, anyway? How are the accessory death even important, when his message is about Arya's flight?

merely saying "her wretched dancing master interfered" would be an extreme understatement if she knew six people died in the process, and it would be a highly flippant remark if she knew "the wretched dancing master" had been killed for his interference. Cersei seemed to be earnest in that discussion with Tyrion (58 ACOK).

It's not an understatement, and it is flippant, it's totally in character.

From the standpoint of second-guessing the author, the fact that Martin chose not to show any gore, plus the total omission of any POV confirmation of even a report of the death, especially given that there were contexts in which such mention would naturally be expected

Actually there were no situation where it was "naturally expected". We never had a report about any fight that went on during the coup.

[Rakka]

Armour doesn't kill your mobility or stamina like you think it does.

Do you think this discussion would have dragged this long if AAF knew anything factual about swordfights? ;)

I remind you Syrio has no Valyrian sword, no spear, no poison, no buckler,

Sorry, but he does have a makeshift buckler in the form of a guardman's helmet. I wish we knew if the guards had kettlehats or a bascinet-type helmets without visor. The latter wouldn't have any rim that would prevent the opponents sword from just sliding along the surface into your arm. It was obviously some use, but I don't know how much it would have helped against Trant.

[chuck norris 42]

As I understood it the whole point of the scene is that Arya learns to face unpleasant realities without any foolish dreams. However maybe I am overlaying emotions from other scenes such as Arya watching her father die or working out her mother died,

Maybe he dodged the sword a few times and trant decided to not waste a few seconds killing him.

Maybe a faceless man can "fake" a suicide really well.

Maybe he said he said he had relatives that would pay a ransom or gave some other reason why he should have been taken to the black cells. And once he was in the black killed some random prisoner, bashed his face in and assumed his identity and since Rorge and Biter saw this they became his followers.

Maybe the whole thing was set up by the faceless men to be a training exercise for Arya because they think she is going to be the

mother or bride of Azor Ahai.

None of these really ring true to me

[AvengingAryaFan]

Ok, all your arguments start from the premise that Syrio is the Flash or Yoda, and thus he could have ninja-ed away, kept summersaulting around Trant until Trant had enough, when the text specifically shows us that he has not, in fact, such superpowers, and has to parry half of Trant's blows with his wooden stick; why? Because he cannot dodge them all.

I think you are mistaken: I don't believe the text says that he cannot dodge them. It is true that he DOES not dodge them. If I knock on a door, does that mean that I have no choice but to knock on that door? Of course not. The text tells what he DID, not what he was forced to do.

But, as I have pointed out before, there is substantial textual evidence that it is common wisdom to avoid and wear down a dangerous and fully armored opponent. The fact that Forel did NOT pursue that cautious strategy does not mean that he had no choice, but rather that he chose an alternative. In fact, I argue that the fact that he made this less cautious choice suggests he was very little afraid of Trant.

So no, he could not have declined to engage, he has not "another course" to choose, and Arya is shooed away because the risk is too great to stay in the room.

I've explained a perfectly good, more cautious alternative course ad nauseum; plus I'd expect a fighter of Syrio's caliber to always be able to come up with alternatives; so I truly cannot understand how you can say that Syrio has no other choice to choose. However, it's crystal clear to me that you DO say that, so I'll simply accept that no matter how many ways I present it, you will continue to refuse to agree. It's an effective policy, sometimes; for example, it worked pretty well for the minority party in the US Congress these last two years.

But that's not correct, is it? The dead Stark guardsmen were described in fairly gory detail, I thought ... just not Syrio Forel, whom we were watching the most closely

That's totally correct. You were arguing about showing their "noble death" for some "impact", we don't see any deaths, we see a few cadavers, and we only see it because it's safe to have a PoV pass by without endangering her narrative, without her being even seen by anyone.

Well, yes, if a POV can't be there then we can't see it, we agree that far. However, Arya was told a couple of times to leave: before he began seriously fighting the Lannister guards (533), and again before he began fighting Trant. She didn't ultimately leave until the famous stick shearing; why couldn't she have remained just a few moments longer, which surely the "Syrio is dead" fans believe would have been sufficient to see Trant eviscerating Forel? How would that endanger her narrative significantly more than her delay to that point? The fully armored knight couldn't disengage Syrio, get to the door, and successfully chase her through the kitchens if she waited just long enough to see Syrio being slaughtered. So it would be quite simple for Arya to continue to watch long enough to see gore or a definitive death. Like Syrio, Martin had options that he chose not to use, and his choice tells us something - that he didn't want us to see the end of the fight.

Only that's utterly stupid. Armour doesn't encumber anyone as much as you think, and if Arya never leaves Trant's vision, GRRM has to pull something out of his ass to make her vanish without Trant shouting to anyone in earshot to grab or follow her.

Doubly stupid in that it doesn't allow for Syrio's lessons to really kick in. That's the really important part of that scene, that's even the main purpose of Syrio in the narrative: giving Arya the advice that will differentiate her from her sister, and shape her story arc from now on, as soon as seconds after, where she goes to the cellar instead of out of the door, where no doubt guards are waiting. You deny her that, you make a mockery of what Syrio taught and what Arya learned, AND you prevent Arya from shaking off pursuit by hiding in that unexpected place.

Sigh. No, it's not stupid. But your suggestion that Trant is going to fight Syrio - even with a stick - while watching Arya, now THAT is unlikely. If Trant doesn't realize how quickly Syrio could put him on the floor, he should - so he most certainly shouldn't be watching Arya. And I don't think Arya ever heard Trant screaming for someone to grab or follow her, which, according to your version, she should have.

Syrio telling her all those rules, Arya repeating and practicing them - that shows the advice that will differentiate her from her sister. I agree that's the important part - but the part of Syrio's role, NOT the important part of that particular scene. That one example, in which Arya in fact fails rather badly to truly "see with her eyes", is hardly the essential part of those lessons. That Arya didn't do what Syrio taught, but instead panicked, hardly makes a mockery of the lessons, nor am I mocking them: she keeps absorbing after she leaves Syrio, reinforcing them by repetition. And how in the world did you get to that assertion that I prevented Arya from shaking off pursuit by hiding? That's canon, and I have never, and have never had reason, to deny it.

The fight was totally gratuitous once Arya was gone.

No it was not. You didn't notice that all the Stark retainers died that day, did you? Or maybe you didn't notice that Syrio stood between the knight and the way Arya went, or maybe it is that you didn't see that Syrio was actually trying to buy the most time he could.

Either way you just cannot argue that after a time, one or both of the combatants would say "fuck it, I'm out of here" and the other would let him flee/pursue Arya, that would be totally moronic from either of them.

Saying "this is totally stupid ... that's moronic" doesn't seem like effective argument to me, but YMMV.

Of course Trant can leave. If Trant turns to leave, what's Syrio going to do? He presently has no weapon that can hurt Trant inside his armor. If Trant is going the opposite direction from Arya, I'm not sure Forel would even bother to try to knock him down, or to pick up a real sword and worry him. But even if Syrio picked up a real sword, it would not be easy to prevent Trant from leaving. Protection is the whole point of armor, and it's pretty effective for that purpose. Syrio could harass Trant quite a lot, even knock him down and become a real danger if Trant turned away from him to follow Arya; but why would he harass him it if was clear Trant was going the other way? Syrio can hardly afford to stay with him as Trant goes toward reinforcements.

Armour doesn't kill your mobility or stamina like you think it does. But anyway it so happens Syrio didn't keep his distance, you know. It's in the text, it's shown, it's canon, so your objection is void.

I totally agree that Syrio DIDN'T keep his distance. I've been saying it over and over again. Because he COULD have kept his distance, as recommended and practiced by Bronn and Oberyn, it's pretty clear that Syrio believed engaging was a superior strategic choice over, for example, keeping his distance. Which means he believed engaging was some combination of lower risk and higher effectiveness, compared to the choice(s) he didn't pursue.

The point was that you can be the bee's knees in duelling and still be taken down by a slow, heavy guy. It's what happens to Oberyn despite spear and poison, and it's what happens to Brienne. I remind you Syrio has no Valyrian sword, no spear, no poison, no buckler, no statue to topple, and is forced to be in close range.

Except for the "forced to be in close range" part, I agree! So Syrio could be dead, if he did something stupid like Oberyn did. He could be dead if he failed to avoid Trant's sword. But looking at his success engaging five guardsmen while avoiding being cut, and that he chose engagement with Trant over a more cautious approach, it seems unlikely he would fail to avoid Trant's sword. And I can't see Meryn Trant biting him to death or crushing his head with his powerful arms.

"it's hard to believe it wouldn't have caught her attention and registered. I think the textual evidence favors a conclusion that Trant probably did not say he slew Forel:"

No it's not. Did you fail to see how she even dismisses Arya's probable death, so many were the corpses that day? Why would Cersei even care for city guards, when Meryn's only comment about them getting killed was "bloody oafs"?

Cersei said Arya is probably dead; I don't know how that's germane.

They weren't city guards, they were Lannister guards, and Cersei has two reasons to care about them: because a dancing master shouldn't have been able to kill five of them, and because they're a loss to Lannister strength. And Trant failed to capture Arya despite those deaths, making them a total waste.

First, "omniscient" Varys should have known if Trant reported killing Forel to Cersei, but he fails to mention it to Ned: "The younger girl escaped Ser Meryn and fled. I have not been able to find her." (632 AGOT Bantam PB) It would be at least somewhat surprising that Varys did not mention the six associated deaths if he was aware of them.

Ridiculous. Not only five guardsmen but "a great many people", among them all of Ned's friends, did die in any case and he didn't mention them, why would the addition of a dancing master force him to mention it? How does that make it more likely that Syrio lived, anyway? How are the accessory death even important, when his message is about Arya's flight?

Because in that immediate context, "escaped Ser Meryn and fled" would be such an understatement, would beg for a little explanation, if (he had known that) the escape had entailed the death of five Lannister guardsmen and the girl's dancing master.

I'm not saying he would unquestionably have mentioned it; I'm saying that in that discussion it seems likely he'd have mentioned it if he'd known. It somewhat suggests that he didn't know.

It's not an understatement, and it is flippant, it's totally in character.

Simply "interfered" rather than "killed five guardsmen" isn't understatement? Our opinions often seem to conflict.

Cersei is certainly capable of flippancy, but in that scene she seemed to be earnest: she was explaining the rather embarrassing fact that she'd felt it necessary to lie about having Arya - admitting that she'd tried and failed to capture her. It's pretty pathetic that a dancing master could prevent a knight of the Kingsguard from capturing a mere 9 yo girl.

From the standpoint of second-guessing the author, the fact that Martin chose not to show any gore, plus the total omission of any POV confirmation of even a report of the death, especially given that there were contexts in which such mention would naturally be expected

Actually there were no situation where it was "naturally expected". We never had a report about any fight that went on during the coup.

I've explained the reasons that Trant should have told Cersei if he killed Forel, Varys should have heard that and mentioned it to Ned, and Cersei should have mentioned it to Tyrion in their discussion of her effort and failure to capture Arya. But YMMV, as it does on every other point.

[Rakka]

Isn't it cute when someone puts their hands on their ears and tells you you're not listening to their explanations?

[AvengingAryaFan]

Do you think this discussion would have dragged this long if AAF knew anything factual about swordfights? ;)

If it were relevant, I would concede if you were truly an expert. Are you? Have you engaged in a sword fight to the death, with one party a superior fighter but lightly armored, the other heavily armored, in a hall with five dead men strewn about? Or have you merely playacted with a sword, under different circumstances than those of the Trant/Syrio fight?

But even if you are truly an expert, your expertise is irrelevant unless Martin based his decisions on your opinion. He's the ultimate, indeed the only, arbiter of how swordfights go in ASOIAF. But maybe he should listen to you, because it's pretty clear he's screwing it all up, according to you:

Martin has Bronn, one of his most competent fighters, advising Tyrion that he might be able to kill Gregor by wearing him down and getting him off his feet. He has Bronn actually fight that way against Vardis Egen. He has Oberyn fight that way against Gregor. And this is out of relatively few fights that have been described at length. No, they aren't perfect analogies. But I think there are actually more situations in which the more lightly armored fighter actually defeats the more heavily armored.

Your insult would be more effective if I was trying to substitute my judgment for Martin's, the way you are. But I'm not that arrogant.

[Rakka]

I'm getting really fed up with your persistance in ignoring actual knowledge about sharp steel vs. wood, the practicals of parrying vs. only dodging, and then insisting that you are not arrogant, dug in your position, or saying things over and over and pretending it makes them true, as you claim others to be.

You're seriously saying nobody can have any experience in something and can have nothing to say about the mechanics of the issue unless they've done it personally in the exact same circumstances as the fictional piece of writing they're talking about? If that's true, how can you justify your opinions of the Syrio-Trant fight when you have not even the small amount of experience or technical knowledge as I? If there were someone on the board with more years of fighting and more knowledge in medieval swordsmanship*, I would of course heed their wisdom in the issue. As nobody has come forth (maybe they're smarter and know better than getting involved with someone who clearly can not see evidence against their theories) I have to rely on what I know and what's in the text.

If Oberon's spear was dull and unpoisoned and we were seen him repeatedly hit Gregor with it, without penetrating the gaps in Gregor's armour and we saw the spear shorn in half, would you seriously be claiming Oberyn could have walked away? If he had told his protege to flee before engaging, twice?

* I'm really surprised there apparently aren't any Windsor's students here. I'd totally take his class if I had the extra money.

[Errant Bard]

AAF, I'm done arguing. Your argument is basically "Syrio is Yoda, and Yoda can definitely not be killed, so of course everything he does he chose to, so he definitely escaped, why don't you see the logic of that argument". All I can see is the circular logic and the implausibility of your premise, that you nevertheless use to dismiss some part of the canon text as lies (oh, excuse me, "misdirections")

So I'll use that theory of mine: You are wrong, therefore you cannot be right. Substantial evidence in your posts show it clearly for those who wish to see. That's all.

* I'm really surprised there apparently aren't any Windsor's students here. I'd totally take his class if I had the extra money.

If memory serves, I think it was Mormont (or was it Wert?) who talked about it in a previous incarnation of this thread: he did reenacts fights in armour, and made much of the same argument we do. AAF dismissed his opinion.

Of course, you just have to pick any historical manual or ask people who fence about it and you'll have the same answer: plate wins, light sword unarmoured duelling is for rich, young and bored civilians. Gregory Keyes, an accomplished fencer himself, makes the point again and again and again in his Kingdom of Thorns and Bones series.

[Rakka]

If memory serves, I think it was Mormont (or was it Wert?) who talked about it in a previous incarnation of this thread: he did reenacts fights in armour, and made much of the same argument we do.

Ah, cool. I must have missed that post then.

AAF dismissed his opinion.

You know, somehow I fail to be surprised by that.

[mormont]

On the 'realism' point, I have (for interest's sake) argued the realism of the fight based on my re-enactment experience, yes. However, AAF is completely correct about one thing - it doesn't matter. GRRM is not an expert, and is free to take liberties even with what he does know about fighting, for dramatic effect. Authors do.

(By the same token, of course, this means that the notion that any one fight is a deliberate clue to the outcome of another is unsustainable. Each fight, as I said in the last thread, comes out as the author decides.)

[Wh0resbane]

AAF, I'm done arguing. Your argument is basically "Syrio is Yoda, and Yoda can definitely not be killed, so of course everything he does he chose to, so he definitely escaped, why don't you see the logic of that argument". All I can see is the circular logic and the implausibility of your premise, that you nevertheless use to dismiss some part of the canon text as lies (oh, excuse me, "misdirections")

So I'll use that theory of mine: You are wrong, therefore you cannot be right. Substantial evidence in your posts show it clearly for those who wish to see. That's all.

you can't prove her wrong. Really all you can do is say how unlikely her theory is, claiming that she is full out wrong is quite a statement. Syrio (for whatever reason) could be alive, however unlikely it is.

So rather than calling someone's arguments stupid, likening it to a "ninja" "somersaulting" around. Take a step back a say to urself "hey, maybe i can show some minimal respect for people and realize that blasting someone for supporting a theory that you are so sure is wrong, is as feeble as blasting someone who believes they will win the lottery (unlikely but not impossible)"

for someone who is throwing the word stupid around you don't seem to be getting that in the end know one really knows whats going on except GRRM.

[cybroleach]

Well, yes, that's possible. The tone of Cersei's comment didn't seem to hint at any awareness of five or six deaths associated with trying to capture Arya, but it's only the tone and the absence of mention. We have no POV proof that Trant failed to claim he had killed Syrio.

Still: If Trant told Cersei that six people died in an unsuccessful attempt to capture a 9 yo girl, that would be pretty astonishing, even in a day of massive bloodletting; it's hard to believe it wouldn't have caught her attention and registered. I think the textual evidence favors a conclusion that Trant probably did not say he slew Forel:

First, "omniscient" Varys should have known if Trant reported killing Forel to Cersei, but he fails to mention it to Ned: "The younger girl escaped Ser Meryn and fled. I have not been able to find her." (632 AGOT Bantam PB) It would be at least somewhat surprising that Varys did not mention the six associated deaths if he was aware of them. Second, it seems unlikely that the death of the interfering dancing master, or especially the death of Forel +5 Lannister guardsmen, would fail to register in Cersei's then-rational mind. Third, in the context it seems Cersei would have mentioned any such death in her report to Tyrion, because she was clearly not happy about Arya escaping her - so unhappy that she felt it necessary to lie publicly: "I've given it out that I have the younger brat as well, but it's a lie. I sent Meryn Trant to take her in hand when Robert died, but her wretched dancing master interfered and the girl fled. No one has seen her since. Likely she's dead. A great many people died that day." (58 ACOK Bantam PB) Moreover, her tone is wrong if she had such knowledge: merely saying "her wretched dancing master interfered" would be an extreme understatement if she knew six people died in the process, and it would be a highly flippant remark if she knew "the wretched dancing master" had been killed for his interference. Cersei seemed to be earnest in that discussion with Tyrion (58 ACOK).

Thus, even given that it is a mere omission of a mention of his death, the context and the tone of Cersei's report leads me to believe it is more likely than not that Trant did NOT report killing Forel - or Syrio killing the five Lannister guardsmen, for that matter. But while I believe a preponderance of the evidence says Trant did NOT tell Cersei he killed Forel, I wouldn't go so far as to say the evidence is "clear and convincing". I agree there's a significant possibility that Trant told her, but both Varys and Cersei neglected to mention this detail.

If, as I conclude, it is more likely than not that Trant did not tell Cersei he killed Forel, then we should consider this probability together with other textual facts and probabilities. That doesn't mean we forget that it is NOT a POV-proven fact. It is what it is: a bit of textual evidence that points somewhat in the direction of Trant not having killed Syrio.

From the standpoint of second-guessing the author, the fact that Martin chose not to show any gore, plus the total omission of any POV confirmation of even a report of the death, especially given that there were contexts in which such mention would naturally be expected, is at the very least highly suspicious. It makes all my GRRM-deception senses tingle.

I'm interested to know what you think was told to Cersei by Meryn here. Because if the inverse is true Cersei is going to care ALOT more about our dancing instructor who killed five of these guards (you think she cares about so much*), eludes Meryn and then vanishes from a locked down RK, and then a locked down KL, while helping Arya excape no less, IF he were alive the assumption would be more of him getting Ayra away, or hiding her, but if he's dead there is no point in wasting time remebering him, he's just one of the bodies that day. He would & should be a hunted man at this point. She has men tracking down Gendery but nothing for this guy who defies all their security and walks away.

*I would say your grasp on Cersei's character is off if you while their losses wern't heavy the RC & GC lost that day are just the price of the coupe. I really can't see how it's in Cersei character to care more for these 5 dead guys then the X killed at the Hand's tower, or the throne room.

[cybroleach]

If it were relevant, I would concede if you were truly an expert. Are you? Have you engaged in a sword fight to the death, with one party a superior fighter but lightly armored, the other heavily armored, in a hall with five dead men strewn about? Or have you merely playacted with a sword, under different circumstances than those of the Trant/Syrio fight?

That's a pretty snide remark. If we find the greatest sword exert in the world he woln't fit your criteria.

But even if you are truly an expert, your expertise is irrelevant unless Martin based his decisions on your opinion. He's the ultimate, indeed the only, arbiter of how swordfights go in ASOIAF. But maybe he should listen to you, because it's pretty clear he's screwing it all up, according to you:

Martin has Bronn, one of his most competent fighters, advising Tyrion that he might be able to kill Gregor by wearing him down and getting him off his feet. He has Bronn actually fight that way against Vardis Egen. He has Oberyn fight that way against Gregor. And this is out of relatively few fights that have been described at length. No, they aren't perfect analogies. But I think there are actually more situations in which the more lightly armored fighter actually defeats the more heavily armored.

Your insult would be more effective if I was trying to substitute my judgment for Martin's, the way you are. But I'm not that arrogant.

While this is valid I have read alot of interviews on GRRM & in "Dreamsongs" espically he goes into alot of detail on his process. He is someone who's researched alot about these fights during midevil europe. And he also expressly states how he likes to make his stories (or characters) more real, which includes the fight scenes, now granted you can always find parts of flair to keep it interesting. So arguing fantasy notions against people with RL experences in swordplay is not a winning battle unless you ignore who GRRM is.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Do you think this discussion would have dragged this long if AAF knew anything factual about swordfights? ;)

However snidely, this implies that you are vastly more knowledgeable than I in regard to swordfights.

Isn't it cute when someone puts their hands on their ears and tells you you're not listening to their explanations?

And this suggests that you feel I was unfair to imply that EB was simply ignoring my explanation.

Would you please demonstrate your claimed expertise to do what EB has not, and explain the following:

Given (canon) a room littered with five dead and dying guardsmen, their blood, their weapons, and bits of their armor;

given Trant wearing full plate armor, with his visor down;

given Syrio's clearly displayed speed and maneuverability in his slaughter of said five guardsmen, his lack of encumbrance and his unobstructed vision;

explain one thing: why is it NOT POSSIBLE, in your expert opinion, that Syrio could have danced around Meryn Trant in that room, remaining out of his effective sword range, for a substantial period of time?

Ideally, you would explain this impossibility at each of three distinct junctures: as of the beginning of the Trant/Syrio fight, when Syrio still had his whole stick; after Syrio has rapped his stick off Trants helm, gauntlet and gorget, when he likewise had his full stick; and after Trant has sheared Syrio's stick. The first two junctures are the most relevant, as they constitute decision points for Syrio prior to our loss of POV description.

I hope your extensive expertise will enable an exposition that is more erudite than your cute one-liners.

[Pallantides]

Armour doesn't kill your mobility or stamina like you think it does. But anyway it so happens Syrio didn't keep his distance, you know. It's in the text, it's shown, it's canon, so your objection is void.

Not entirely true. Continuous fighting in plate armour (proper plate, coupled with chainmaille, and a gambeson), will tire you out rather quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3qqfrL8Frk&feature=related

You might want to watch the first part of that video. Sure he's not entirely used to the armour, but he is reasonably fit, and he only lasted 2 minutes and 16 seconds. Even without armour, take a look at boxers who aren't wearing armour at all and exert themselves to the utmost and are completely exhausted when they go for the full 12 rounds and that's with resting a minute in between each round. Even during the 6th round, they're usually quite tired.

Armour is definitely not as heavy as people make it seem, but it will certainly cause you to become more exhausted in a fight than if you're not wearing it.

[AvengingAryaFan]

AAF, I'm done arguing. Your argument is basically "Syrio is Yoda, and Yoda can definitely not be killed, so of course everything he does he chose to, so he definitely escaped, why don't you see the logic of that argument". All I can see is the circular logic and the implausibility of your premise, that you nevertheless use to dismiss some part of the canon text as lies (oh, excuse me, "misdirections")

Oh, EXCELLENT summary, EB! Hats off! Why, it's almost the same as my summary at the beginning of this thread, except for ... well, everything.

So I'll use that theory of mine: You are wrong, therefore you cannot be right. Substantial evidence in your posts show it clearly for those who wish to see. That's all.

Compelling ...

If memory serves, I think it was Mormont (or was it Wert?) who talked about it in a previous incarnation of this thread: he did reenacts fights in armour, and made much of the same argument we do. AAF dismissed his opinion.

Ah yes, Mormont's expert opinion: Syrio must be dead. He believes it, and therefore I should not have the temerity to look to the text written by Martin to gainsay him. Sorry. It's a book, not a Ren Faire reenactment; the author is the arbiter.

Of course, you just have to pick any historical manual or ask people who fence about it and you'll have the same answer: plate wins, light sword unarmoured duelling is for rich, young and bored civilians. Gregory Keyes, an accomplished fencer himself, makes the point again and again and again in his Kingdom of Thorns and Bones series.

The problem, of course, is this: Gregory Keyes isn't writing this series of books. George Martin is. Which is why all this outside expertise is quite irrelevant.

Would Gregory Keyes have a man with a wooden stick able to kill five fully armed and partly armored guardsmen of even moderate competence? Would he have the same man unable to even avoid Trant? If Gregory Keyes wants to analyze the fights and tell George Martin that he really kinda has his head misplaced to think a more lightly armored man, such as Bronn, could overcome a fully armored and competent fighter, such as Vardis Egen, fine.

Otherwise, in GRRM's world, with him writing the scenes, I believe it is he who decides how the fights transpire. I therefore look for textual support for my positions, not expert fencing support. RW expertise is interesting, but should not be weighed heavily in a literary analysis.

But then, I suppose you'll also insist that it's impossible that men and animals can be un-dead - decayed, yet moving purposefully. I mean, ask any expert! And then go inform Martin of all his errors, and get him to write a different book, one that conforms to your experts' opinions ;-)

edited to reduce snark

[corbon]

explain the following:

Given (canon) a room littered with five dead and dying guardsmen, their blood, their weapons, and bits of their armor;

given Trant wearing full plate armor, with his visor down;

given Syrio's clearly displayed speed and maneuverability in his slaughter of said five guardsmen, his lack of encumbrance and his unobstructed vision;

explain one thing: why is it NOT POSSIBLE, in your expert opinion, that Syrio could have danced around Meryn Trant in that room, remaining out of his effective sword range, for a substantial period of time?

Ideally, you would explain this impossibility at each of three distinct junctures: as of the beginning of the Trant/Syrio fight, when Syrio still had his whole stick; after Syrio has rapped his stick off Trants helm, gauntlet and gorget, when he likewise had his full stick; and after Trant has sheared Syrio's stick. The first two junctures are the most relevant, as they constitute decision points for Syrio prior to our loss of POV description.

Not possible? Not possible. :rolleyes: ;)

But not reasonable...

First, your three junctures. I don't agree that those are the decision points. I think only the first is a decision point.

At that stage, Syrio chooses to fight, because a) he feels a need to protect Arya, and b ) it is required of him by his lifestyle and honour code.

I don't think survival or lack or survival actually enters his decision making process. Not at this or at any time. He is a Bravo, was First Sword, Does Not Run etc etc.

So he chooses to fight, and having chosen, will not back down until the fight is done. Not only to give Arya his best in order to boost her chances for escape back to her father, but also because that is who he is.

The second juncture is not a decision point because Syrio should have already known that he couldn't seriously hurt Trant with that sort of attack. It was nothing more than a goading attack - "look, I'm so much better than you that I can hit you at will. So much better in fact that you need your full attention on me, not the escaping girl..." (and to make him angry, because angry people make more mistakes).

The third juncture is not a decision point simply because the fight is already committed, in close, and Arya is not away safely yet. He can't simply dance away endlessly because that will free Trant to go after Arya, and she hasn't even left the room yet! Furthermore, Syrio Does Not Run. Having lost his weapon, dancing away is effectively running from the fight - if not immediately, then as soon as Trant stops going after him.

As for the 'littered' room - that should, if anything, hinder the combatant relying on mobility more than the combatant relying on brute force. In general, but we don't know for specifics in this fight. If anything, it is (IMO) an argument against Syrio surviving, given he is already at close range in the midst of the mess, but we don't know, so we shouldn't count on it either way.

Trant wearing full plate, with visor down, might make a difference in the long run, or hamper him if he wasn't already at close range. But we have already seen that Trant didn't suffer any major ill effects from the fight, so unless Syrio effectively Ran From The Fight, it doesn't make any negative difference to Trant. He is already close, everybody's mobility is restricted, and Syrio cannot flee the fight without repudiating everything he is. We have also already seen that Trant isn't as immobile as might be thought (we isn't described as clanking around, or lumbering awkwarding into the room etc). This isn't necessarily late 15th C German plate with winching onto horseback etc. This is Trant's normal 'working' armour and he doesn't display noticeable mobility disadvantages in everyday scenes. Yes, its heavy, and yes, he is 'slow for a knight' (though that sound more like a personal jibe than a comment on how immobile he is), but that doesn't make him particularly useless in a fight.

Syrio's speed and unrestricted movement etc was shown mostly early in the fight, and especially with the element of surprise and with an uncluttered surface to work with. He has lost, or at least reduced, both of those advantages.

Syrio is also an old (relatively) man. In general, that means that his stamina, or conditioning, will reduce, probably faster than his outright speed and agility. So even unarmoured and in a relatively short fight, he is more likely to tire quickly, and make mistakes or miscalculations that he wouldn't normally (like getting his training sword destroyed). We don't know how much he is affected by age, so we can't be sure how, or if at all, this will affect this fight, but it is another unknown to throw into the possibilities mix, and it can't be good for him, even if it is not necessarily bad.

You conclusions are not impossible. But I, and many, do not find them consistently credible.

As I follow through your arguments, one by one, I consistently find myself thinking thoughts like "no way" (not meaning impossible, just my take on the same piece of evidence is the opposite from yours), "but that's the wrong way around", "nope, this means that" or "no, it infers this, not that".

It seems very much a case of MVVWI (mileages varying very widely indeed).

So I repeat, your case is not impossible, but it seems very, very weak to me, and in fact gets consistently weaker the more you argue it!

That doesn't mean that everyone else's behaviour has been ideal of course. Different people get exasperated at different times, and given how much MVVWI, exasperation isn't unlikely.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I'm interested to know what you think was told to Cersei by Meryn here. Because if the inverse is true Cersei is going to care ALOT more about our dancing instructor who killed five of these guards (you think she cares about so much*), eludes Meryn and then vanishes from a locked down RK, and then a locked down KL, while helping Arya excape no less, IF he were alive the assumption would be more of him getting Ayra away, or hiding her, but if he's dead there is no point in wasting time remebering him, he's just one of the bodies that day. He would & should be a hunted man at this point. She has men tracking down Gendery but nothing for this guy who defies all their security and walks away.

*I would say your grasp on Cersei's character is off if you while their losses wern't heavy the RC & GC lost that day are just the price of the coupe. I really can't see how it's in Cersei character to care more for these 5 dead guys then the X killed at the Hand's tower, or the throne room.

My guess is that Meryn told Cersei what Cersei told Tyrion: that Arya escaped because her dancing instructor interfered. That he said nothing else because any further admission would be embarrassing - would require a lot of explanation.

If Trant said no more, and with so many other things to think about, Cersei might very well not have pressed for more information.

I'm not saying Cersei would freak out about five dead Lannister guardsmen; I'm saying that losing them to a dancing master in the process of trying - and failing - to capture a 9 yo girl is notable, surprising, unexpected, and would therefore be remembered. As for caring, I didn't mean in a sympathetic human sense, but simply caring about a loss of useful military personnel.

As for vanishing from a locked-down RK, I don't disagree it could have been a challenge. The argument has focused on the Trant/Syrio fight; I've conjectured about Syrio in Braavos in response to objections that he has no further part to play; but I haven't given much thought to his escaping a locked-down RK and KL. If he didn't know the secret passages, if Varys didn't help him (who recommended him to Ned, anyway?), and if all exit from the RK was prevented by gold cloaks, it could be a problem. An unknown, unarmored bald man would at least have an advantage of surprise if a fight was needed to escape. The problem, however, is so unknown that I can't really do anything but assume he would be resourceful enough to find a way to escape. It's perfectly reasonable to doubt he could escape the RK - quite possibly more of a problem than surviving Trant (but then, I don't think of surviving Trant as much of a problem).

In terms of plot, it would be odd if Martin intended Syrio to survive his "cliffhangery" fight with Trant, but then would allow him to be prevented from escaping the RK. There are hints that he died (the sheared stick and survival of fully armored Trant), and there are hints that he survived (set forth above), but no hints at all to help the reader figure out if or how he escaped the RK and KL. I can only say: if he wants him alive, Martin would have the resourceful Syrio find a way.

I've combed Arya's scenes in KL looking for some hint that Syrio found her and helped her, and could find none. How could he find her, when she had entered the secret passages? Nobody seems to have helped her at all until she ran into Yoren. I can't say Syrio wasn't looking for her, but in any event not successfully.

Cersei has people searching for Gendry - not very successfully, given that Yoren got him out of KL - but Gendry has been a known risk to Cersei for a very long time, now a bigger problem because she got Robert killed. But she'd have no interest in a dancing master unless Trant caused her to have interest; and Trant is probably loathe to discuss Syrio because he can't say anything true that isn't likely to anger Cersei. Best just leave it: the dancing master interfered.

[AvengingAryaFan]

That's a pretty snide remark. If we find the greatest sword exert in the world he woln't fit your criteria.

Yes, and I regret it already, and a couple of other slightly snarky things I said. I try to be civil, I object to ad hominem attacks, but ... I have more of a temper than many, and am constantly tempted to respond to incivility in kind. Sometimes I avoid the temptation, sometimes not. I don't think I ever initiate such incivility, FWIW.

Perhaps the greatest sword expert in the world would not fit my criteria; yet my criteria specify the parameters of the fight scene in question. If somebody hasn't experienced very nearly that same situation, they are not in a very good position to comment authoritatively on that situation. The experts on this forum are armchair and padded training experts, fighting in controlled situations against people who are probably less than mediocre by the standards of people who train in swordplay their whole lives, and whose lives depend on making NO mistakes. RW expertise today is a pale shadow of "RW expertise" in Westeros. The scene in question appears to have a truly great swordsman fighting a well-armored but mediocre fighter, one-on-one.

But there are two important points: first, it's literary analysis of literary swordplay, so Martin's text is far more relevant than RW expertise. Second, Trant has no reason to pursue Forel once Arya has left, because Arya is his target, not Syrio, who is merely a deadly interference. It's been established, by a member of the Syrio is dead camp, that Trant does what he's told, and seems to care about nothing else. He's been told to get Arya. Forel is just wasting Trant's time, and the longer he fights with him the farther away Arya gets.

While this is valid I have read alot of interviews on GRRM & in "Dreamsongs" espically he goes into alot of detail on his process. He is someone who's researched alot about these fights during midevil europe. And he also expressly states how he likes to make his stories (or characters) more real, which includes the fight scenes, now granted you can always find parts of flair to keep it interesting. So arguing fantasy notions against people with RL experences in swordplay is not a winning battle unless you ignore who GRRM is.

It's hardly "denying who Martin is" to point to the features of the swordfights he actually writes, and the advice he actually sets forth about such swordfights, in the very series in which the Syrio/Trant fight takes place.

Your argument fails logically. From these two premises: 1, Martin tries to be realistic; and 2, RW experts have opinions about fights in ASOIAF; it draws the wholly illogical conclusion that therefore Martin's own writing is a less valid source of analysis of Martin's fights than is the opinion of anyone calling themselves a RW expert.

If Martin always tries to be realistic in his swordfights, then we can conclude that each and every swordfight he describes is written to be realistic by his lights. As such, the best source of what MARTIN believes is realistic is to be found in the text of ASOIAF swordfights. If Martin says Syrio is so good he can kill five guardsmen with a stick, then he's simply that good. If he says Syrio overbalances and knocks down Westerosi fighters, then we can conclude that's one of the techniques that Syrio skillfully employs against Westerosi fighters. If he has Syrio being extremely fast, and avoiding being hit at all by any of the many sword cuts we've seen made at him, then that's what Syrio can do. What a hypothetical average unarmored man could do against some (equally average?) fully armored man just has nothing to do with it; these are Martin's characters, and they are as extraordinarily talented (Syrio) or as mediocre (Trant) as he decides and describes them as being. Anybody can claim that Trant's NEXT sword cut will nail Syrio, but all we've seen thus far is Syrio avoiding ever being hit by a Westerosi sword. And now he has only Trant to watch out for.

[corbon]

Second, Trant has no reason to pursue Forel once Arya has left, because Arya is his target, not Syrio, who is merely a deadly interference. It's been established, by a member of the Syrio is dead camp, that Trant does what he's told, and seems to care about nothing else. He's been told to get Arya. Forel is just wasting Trant's time, and the longer he fights with him the farther away Arya gets.

Trant being an instruction follower who was told to get Arya doesn't necessarily have any bearing on Trant fighting with Syrio. It's deadly combat and clearly not to be taken lightly given the fate of the guardsmen. Further, Syrio has been openly goading Trant. It seems to me to be astoundingly illogical to assume that Trant would just walk away from a deadly fight, even though Syrio can't hurt him directly through his armour - at least not with his practice weapon.

This seems, IMO, to be you taking an argument made by the opposition and extrapolating it out in illogical ways. Not credible. :frown5:

these are Martin's characters, and they are as extraordinarily talented (Syrio) or as mediocre (Trant) as he decides and describes them as being. Anybody can claim that Trant's NEXT sword cut will nail Syrio, but all we've seen thus far is Syrio avoiding ever being hit by a Westerosi sword. And now he has only Trant to watch out for.

Sure. Note though, that Syrio is only as extraordinarily talented as GRRM made him, not as extraordinarily talented as you decide. It doesn't take an invincible super-swordsman to do what Syrio has done so far. He just took advantage of extreme surprise (its an old (maybe) man, a dance instructor rather than a warrior, unarmoured, with no real weapon, against 5 armoured guardsmen) and sudden decisive action made with considerable skill.

But what we see after that is a skilled swordsman who gains nothing more in the fight against Trant but in fact whose position gets worse. Which means the available evidence of Syrio's (current) capabilities are that he did extremely well when he had all the advantages, reasonably well when he still had some advantages (Trant still thinking he wasn't much threat but that the guardsmen were just oafs) and achieves little or nothing once he loses those advantages (can get some hits in, but they achieve nothing except to show Trant that he needs to take this fight seriously) and the last thing we see is him actually losing his weapon (about as bad as it can get in a fight without being hit yet).

Thus the actual literary evidence is of Syrio starting brilliantly and declining thereafter. There is no actual literary evidence for a recovery, though it is certainly not impossible.

I have to agree, that it looks very much like you are starting from the premise that Syrio is brilliant and unbeatable (which is an exaggerated inference from limited evidence, but goes well with his general coolness - just so), and moving from there in what is effectively a circular argument.

The supporting evidence for that premise is the great start, and the clearly inferred history as a very skilled swordsman.

But that ignores the evidence of the bad finish.

If you start with the knowledge that Syrio is good.

Then look at what we see in the fight we see that he starts well and finishes badly (that we saw).

We compare that with the circumstantial evidence that Syrio is old(I may be wrong here, but my vague memory is the guardsmen calling him old man?), which fits the good start/not sustained evidence perfectly.

We chuck in the 'Trant is alive and apparently undamaged' later evidence, combined with the 'Syrio is a Bravo and Does Not Run' evidence.

The circumstantial evidence about conversation with Cersei can be dismissed as reasonable interpretations are open either way.

We shade our analysis with the fact that Syrio has disappeared from the books for an unprecedented time, and GRRM would quite definitely had to have hidden the story (of Syrio's escape from the sealed Red Keep) behind his back, even if Syrio winning the fight is considered to have enough clues to be credible.

Yes, Syrio could have won the fight, or run away, and could have escaped the Red Keep.

No, it isn't credible on the evidence presented.

IMO.