Jump to content

Dayne dual wielding


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't think that was true:

from wiki

That is basically what I had said. You said thrust, where I tried to give a debate. Earlier and I think this topic has changed, from why Dual Swords weren't used on the field of war, until now it has become mine is better then yours? I was debating that a thrust was only going to knock an opponent in full plate armor onto their back causing them to flounder about like that turtle on its back. So they employed the lance to knock them over from a charging horse. They used the flail and mace to get in close to those Great weapons, often from a horseback, because they targeted helmets effectively with them. Depending on how that Great Sword was used, that wiki reads fine. I agree it can hack away pieces of an armored suite, yes it can also bounce back disarming you, and it can also dent damaging and impacting that metal like a mace or flail, instead of just scraping at it, and it can also target specific weak spots. Training, tactics, kill spots etc. However to state thrust was the primarily use of Great weapons, was questionable, this is where I tried to debate using my own words and that Wiki hasn't provide me with that term of thrust. It said swords changed, did they get bigger, or smaller? When Swords later changed, armor must have also changed again, because didn't we start using bullets and cannons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2016 at 6:44 PM, Tianzi said:

Oh, come on.

'This is my father! :o'

'He stabbed him in the back! :o'

 

About dual wielding... accuse me of whining, but when you call someone the SWORD (singular) of Morning, you don't make fighting with TWO swords his signature style.
 

Agreed. Also, as fun as it was to watch, those two swords were too heavy and he would have been killed in a second if it were a real battle. If anything, his wrists would be sprained after a few swings and twirls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, House Toad said:

 

Not if you are felling trees, the power from a weapon weighing up to 20kilos or more, a single swing is going to chop through armor. Yes the thrust works fine when you are holding a lance riding upon a charging animal versus other plate. Otherwise there is going to be a tug of war until the other combatant loses ground, or they turtle from being stuck in the mud but cannot get back up because their armor weighs too much, because all you did was thrust them onto their back. The thrust weapon came from ShortSwords combined with a buckler. The Romans used them when thrusting through formations. Also specifically some thrust weapons come from certain cutlasses and fencing weapons favored in targeting kill spots or kinks in the armor by their rogues often hiding in the shadows for a dose of back stab, or from their duelists. Sometimes in other arena games we saw dual weapons, because hey everything was a weapon in the arena. Not the same slashing weapons employed by a calvary charge, again held in one hand, because the other was holding the reigns. Dual swords weren't often used on the field of war, except by some pirates. I agree the mace and flail was great at head shots battering through helms with ease, but you had to get in close enough.

20 kilos is over forty pounds! 

No sword ever used in battle weighed that. Not even half that. You didn't chop through armor, you used your blade to find weak points in it, joints where there was no covering, elbows, armpit, etc. Also you could get up fine in armor after being knocked down. A sword was still use in the time of plate armor, because it was still versatile, and a lot of people couldn't afford full plate, and that allowed you to take out a person only wearing a gambeson with ease using a sword. Swords were always secondary though, and I knight would usually have a halberd, or some other polearm to use before his sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10-5-2016 at 3:41 PM, The Unborn said:

This.

Having him dual wield made him stand out, and showed he was dangerous with both hands, something Jaime is not, Dayne was the best swordsman who ever lived and GRRM said Dayne would beat Jaime, and it would be even vs Selmy without Dawn. Having Ned stand his ground for a while against him makes him more than a decent fighter, IMO. 

 

The thing is, people were ready t shit on this scene from the get go. Some people wanted the exact same TOJ scene from the book, but Martin said this regarding the TOJ : http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Concerning_the_Tower_of_Joy

Some are disappointed in how Reed helped Ned, even though that was the most logical explanation. Did you guys expected Howland to do some magic trick ? Or did you expect Dayne to die, poisoned by his enemies ? :P

 

No Ice ? Well Ice is never mention in the TOJ chapter, and GRRM said Ned didn't fight with it, even though I THINK he used it in the Grejoy Rebellion.

My only complaint is that there was no Whent, and even if it didn't ruin anything for me, I would like to have an explanation. Unless he is in the tower.

For me this was one scene where I did not want the exact book conversation, for the simple reason that the book conversation is dream conversation. It's stilted, paced, and symbolical, but not an actual conversation. As the ToJ scene wasn't a dream scene, but an actual flashback it would have required a normal actual conversation. In that sense, the scene failed as dream conversation and as real convo. Only Dayne made it believable he didn't need to explain himself and was not going to bother.

I'd have preferred a greatsword scene rather than the dual wielding, but again as a stunt scene it was still done well and pleasing to the eye (except the swords dipped in red paint really threw me off).

What I actually regret is that they missed the boat on portraying the tragedy of Ned and Arthur being quite similar in attitude, who knew each other (at least as acquaintances) and could have been friends in another life, if they hadn't end up at opposing sides. And thus both Ned Stark and Arthur would have felt regret about it, whle at the same time realizing there was nothing they could do about it. Ned returning Dawn to Starfall is testament that Ned felt like this as his unwillingness to say much about it (aside from Lyanna), other than that he would have been dead if not for Howland Reed. Dayne conveys this type of regret to Ned, but Ned in the GOT scene does not. For me the tragedy of that battle isn't just how a great badass fighter like Dayne died that day, but that Ned and Dayne were at opposing sides, while they could have been friends in another life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheKnightOfJests said:

20 kilos is over forty pounds! 

No sword ever used in battle weighed that. Not even half that. You didn't chop through armor, you used your blade to find weak points in it, joints where there was no covering, elbows, armpit, etc. Also you could get up fine in armor after being knocked down. A sword was still use in the time of plate armor, because it was still versatile, and a lot of people couldn't afford full plate, and that allowed you to take out a person only wearing a gambeson with ease using a sword. Swords were always secondary though, and I knight would usually have a halberd, or some other polearm to use before his sword.

How much did the suite of plate armor weigh? There are swords and weapons made out of everything, that was quite a statement, no never. How much do some guns weigh. It was a question using a vague figure, some Great Swords weighing 20 kilos or more, are going to chop through armor. Yes you can chop through armor. Just like the various lances they used would pierce armor, depending on which type of lance was used where, tourneys or war. But chainmail is armor, yes?

If the armor weighed as much as 50-100 kilos, some people aren't getting up, they are going to be a turtle on their back, and forget about swimming. A knight wasn't a beefeater or pikeman they were the calvary.

Possibly why armor changed again, with the advancement of guns and cannons due to a lack of maneuverability? Although hadn't the weapons gotten bigger with armor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2016 at 5:28 PM, Wynafryd Manderly said:

I also loved the fact that that they were all going at Arthur Dayne at once. It was realistic. As for the lack of armor for the northmen...I actually can't remember Ned Stark ever wearing armor, I just remember him in that leather "vest". Robb did wear armor, so it's probably not a northmen thing.

What I love about the fight is that you don't know who to be rooting for: none of the parties are evil, and the eventual winners are unchivalrous.

As to Ned not wearing armor in season one, I think it's probably because we was never leading an army.  There is no reason to wear it unless you expecting a fight.  Rob was wearing armor because he was leading troops in battle.  Of course the kings guard would have their armor on, like the secret service or a police officer has a bullet proof vest on, but Robert, Ned, Joffrey etc. would not have armor on when not heading to battle. 

I think they put the same vest on Ned in this scene so when we watched there was a visual clue that connected him to his appearance in season one.  Just my take

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of Dayne's swords are covered in blood before he even kills anyone, so impressive. Somewhere between Ned fighting Arthur and Arthur knocking him away Arthur's swords became bloody. Can anyone explain this to me? Only one Stark soldier had died at this stage and that was from the other KG, not Dayne, I know he injured Howland but it was just a slash, not enough to get that much blood on one of his swords. Even though both were blood steeped at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A curious question passed by, what is the difference between Dawn and Lightbringer? Two names but seemingly the same description? Maybe nothing in it?

Both glow, except one in the right hands burned. Dawn was made out of the fragments of a falling star, one of the oldest swords in the realm, living with the Dayne's for thousands of years, sharing features almost similar to the Whitewalker's weapons, when having the description of the Palesword?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, House Toad said:

How much did the suite of plate armor weigh? There are swords and weapons made out of everything, that was quite a statement, no never. How much do some guns weigh. It was a question using a vague figure, some Great Swords weighing 20 kilos or more, are going to chop through armor. Yes you can chop through armor. Just like the various lances they used would pierce armor, depending on which type of lance was used where, tourneys or war. But chainmail is armor, yes?

If the armor weighed as much as 50-100 kilos, some people aren't getting up, they are going to be a turtle on their back, and forget about swimming. A knight wasn't a beefeater or pikeman they were the calvary.

Possibly why armor changed again, with the advancement of guns and cannons due to a lack of maneuverability? Although hadn't the weapons gotten bigger with armor?

Except a knight will have a time wielding a 20 kilo sword, and sure if he hits someone with it it will do loads of damage, but that will be slow, and if he misses, he'll surely die.
No sword ever recorded used in battle has weighed that much. A regular greatsword at max weight would maybe be 14 pounds, and that's the biggest ones, for the biggest people. Only one is recorded as weighing that much. All regulars are from 6-8 pounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheKnightOfJests said:

Except a knight will have a time wielding a 20 kilo sword, and sure if he hits someone with it it will do loads of damage, but that will be slow, and if he misses, he'll surely die.
No sword ever recorded used in battle has weighed that much. A regular greatsword at max weight would maybe be 14 pounds, and that's the biggest ones, for the biggest people. Only one is recorded as weighing that much. All regulars are from 6-8 pounds

Thank you for the clarity. The great Hammers and Axes must have added to the weight confusion of Great Swords, when playing Seigfried and loving Manga like the gunblades.The fantasy. Big blades are slower then small blades undoubtedly, although having a more powerful swing, any damage would have chopped the head clean off, instead of breaking the tips on that armored thrust, upon being lightweight? And we never debated plated sheilds either? :P it must be hammer time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good that people here paid attention. Some were distracted too much by the ambidexterious Dayne.

1. Ser Arthur Dayne does wield his family's famous sword,  Dawn.

Watch carefully...Dayne shows his sword before fight. There is a sign of a rising sun in the hilt of that sword. That sword is Dawn.

It's not as impressive as imagination and legends let people to expect it to be. It's not a "light saber" (sigh, realism, this is ASOIAF). The steel however is almost white. Perhaps the real Dawn isn't shining it's own light, but maybe the steel would stand out.Therefore there is Dawn in GOT TV show.

2. And Ned did take Dawn. So there might be a trip to Starfall ahead although I doubt it will be relevant in the GOT TV plotline.

3. Ned executes Arthur Dayne with his own sword. What goes around, comes around. Puts Ned's execution with Ice in perspective.

4. Underlining the fact that Dayne is best ever swordsman is the fact that he is ambidexterious. So far the best swordsman we have been introduced to is Jaime. He very clearly is no good with his left hand. Dayne is far better than Jaime too. Well established.

5. Also Ned Stark did not beat Dayne. He lost. And Dayne was killed by back stabbing sidekick. Now remember what Jaime did when his side kick "helped" him in a duel with Ned Stark. H e was furious by someone stealing him his victory. And he didn't go on to execute Ned then and there . Tywin asked why is Ned stil alive. "It wouldn't have been clean." So, Jaime would've kicked Howland Reed in the ass for interfering. Also Jaime would not have executed Dayne. But Ned did.

5. Jaime and Ned both have refused to try to correct false accounts of their actions. Jaime has declined to give any honourable reasons for kingslaying to defend his honour. Also the account of what hapened at Tower of Joy is false, but Ned has not corrected stories of his fighting and skill with sword, beating Sword of the Morning. Greates knight ever. Now, Jaime if anyone knew how good Dayne was. He must have suspected that story of Ned beating Dayne was a lie. Thus Ned was receiving and accepting an honour that he did not deserve. This would make him despise Ned even more. "The Honourable" Ned Stark as Jaime put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Gloer said:

Good that people here paid attention. Some were distracted too much by the ambidexterious Dayne.

1. Ser Arthur Dayne does wield his family's famous sword,  Dawn.

Watch carefully...Dayne shows his sword before fight. There is a sign of a rising sun in the hilt of that sword. That sword is Dawn.

It's not as impressive as imagination and legends let people to expect it to be. It's not a "light saber" (sigh, realism, this is ASOIAF). The steel however is almost white. Perhaps the real Dawn isn't shining it's own light, but maybe the steel would stand out.Therefore there is Dawn in GOT TV show.

2. And Ned did take Dawn. So there might be a trip to Starfall ahead although I doubt it will be relevant in the GOT TV plotline.

3. Ned executes Arthur Dayne with his own sword. What goes around, comes around. Puts Ned's execution with Ice in perspective.

4. Underlining the fact that Dayne is best ever swordsman is the fact that he is ambidexterious. So far the best swordsman we have been introduced to is Jaime. He very clearly is no good with his left hand. Dayne is far better than Jaime too. Well established.

5. Also Ned Stark did not beat Dayne. He lost. And Dayne was killed by back stabbing sidekick. Now remember what Jaime did when his side kick "helped" him in a duel with Ned Stark. H e was furious by someone stealing him his victory. And he didn't go on to execute Ned then and there . Tywin asked why is Ned stil alive. "It wouldn't have been clean." So, Jaime would've kicked Howland Reed in the ass for interfering. Also Jaime would not have executed Dayne. But Ned did.

5. Jaime and Ned both have refused to try to correct false accounts of their actions. Jaime has declined to give any honourable reasons for kingslaying to defend his honour. Also the account of what hapened at Tower of Joy is false, but Ned has not corrected stories of his fighting and skill with sword, beating Sword of the Morning. Greates knight ever. Now, Jaime if anyone knew how good Dayne was. He must have suspected that story of Ned beating Dayne was a lie. Thus Ned was receiving and accepting an honour that he did not deserve. This would make him despise Ned even more. "The Honourable" Ned Stark as Jaime put it.

We don't know how Howland helped in the books though, he may not have done something as drastic as the throat stab. Ned never had the attitude of "I'm the best ever cause I killed Dayne" he always explained that he had help, and that he would have died without it. He may not have actually executed Dayne, and thus not be so dishonorable.

Then again we may see a scene like the one in this episode in  he next book, and it may go like the show version so whatever happens will happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheKnightOfJests said:

We don't know how Howland helped in the books though, he may not have done something as drastic as the throat stab. Ned never had the attitude of "I'm the best ever cause I killed Dayne" he always explained that he had help, and that he would have died without it. He may not have actually executed Dayne, and thus not be so dishonorable.

Then again we may see a scene like the one in this episode in  he next book, and it may go like the show version so whatever happens will happen

But that is not how the story would circulate. The story would be "Ned Stark beat Sword of The Morning in a dual at Tower of Joy". Messy  "unclean" stuff is bound to be edited from the version that would circulate and establish Ned Stark as a near mystical swordsman. Something Jaime would despise as he would know it is a lie. How bad a lie? He wouldn't know. Propably it would bother him enough to seek a duel to prove Ned's reputation fraudulent.

Besides Ned executed Dayne to take him out of misery of dying slowly. It was a mercy kill and honourable. But who would explain that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I've only just watched it.

I read through this thread to see if anyone made the point that I was thinking and I can't really find it, although a few of you came close.

Finishing this fight with a dagger to the back was stupid. Perhaps it would have been different if the show hadn't already shown it ninety six million times already, but this felt like a tired and overused plot device.

I don't really mind Arthur Dayne fighting with two swords, I'm just bothered by why he had a sheathed and unsheathed sword. Does he walk around carrying a sword all the time... ?

The decision to make the fight six versus two instead of seven versus three was peculiar - why make that tiny change? I think it would've made more sense to have Dayne begin with one sword and then pick one up from a fallen combatant during the fight. This would also escalate the battle a bit, rather than beginning with maximum tension.

Choosing to show the fight as Dayne mowing through everyone in about five seconds was a great choice - then the dagger really brought it down. Also, Howland was already taken down in the battle and it was cheating to cheekily say, "Ha ha! He wasn't actually dead!"

Instead, they should have just made him fight with a spear, as the Reeds are implied to do. They placed too much emphasis on Ned needing a "dirty" tactic to win. For one thing, they already had a ready made tactic: if Howland used a poisoned spear or arrows, and kept firing at Dayne until Ned realised the blows were poisonous, causing him to hesitate, it would've been the same effect. After all, Ned did seem to be disturbed by Dayne's defeat. But it was too rushed.

Consider this instead: Ned is still being badly beaten by Dayne and Reed slips in and jabs Dayne a small cut. Then another. And another. Ned suddenly notices Dayne is faltering and looks to Howland, who is reapplying black gooey stuff into the point of his spear. Ned notices Dayne's wounds are festering, and Dayne stumbles, but aims to keep fighting.

That would tell so much more story as the fight goes on.

The fight itself was okay, it just showed the show's inability to include storytelling at the same time as action. It put the story on pause while the fight happened, when it could've told the story at the same time. It would also do away with the show's appalling habit of always always ALWAYS relying on plot twists as its one and only staple narrative device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the scene was not very well done. The fighting koreography was excellently done with the scenario they've been given. But I think the scenario itself was not well done.

First of all, when the scene begins you do not understand that it is a flashback. My father was like "What the fuck? Who are these people? What's goin on o_O?" The transition and the mood is not done well.

There's also something wrong about Ned, the company and the king's guard. First of all, I think they are way too energetic for their current circumstance. Ned and the company does not look like they are coming from a war and were on horseback for days. The king's guard do not seem like they were just idle until they see a company approaching 5 minutes ago. Sharpening swords and what not did not seem like an idle sharpening sword one normally expect. Their acting abilities were pretty lackluster. It felt exactly like what it was, just a bunch of guys filming a fighting scene. It all felt like a fan-made project.

The delivering of lines exactly felt like delivering of lines, not people actually having a conversation.

"Now it ENDS!" t00 edgy 4 me.

6vs2 instead of 7vs3. Just... why? It's not such a big deal, but... why?

The dual wielding dayne was unnecessary. Just have him fight with dawn and make us understand it is dawn.

How the fighting occured was not really well done. Dayne fighting 1v5, cleaving left and right. Then 1v1 Ned went on for quite long. It does not add up. If Dayne was that good, Ned shouldn't be able to stand that long. If Dayne was not that good, then Ned would have ended him rightly (just unscrew your pommel) when it was 1v5. That's why the decision Hightower going down so early was not well thought.

Also it is worth mentioning that Dayne did not really try to use footwork to make the fight more fair. When you face enemy that is quantitavily superier to you, you always have to be on the move to make 1v5 into at least 1v2 throughout the fight. Instead, Dayne just allowed himself to be circled, literally stood and waited.

The ending of the fight. Oh my fucking god are you kidding me. No "best" knight in the realm would turn his back on enemy to get stabbed in the back. To many people, this is a tired trope. For me it is stupid. You have to have a bit of a strategical mind to be the best knight in a kingdom, and being aware of your surroundings is a part of it (remember Batman). An avarage vetaran would have tried to force Ned into changing places, so that his own back would face the tower where no enemy is present EXACTLY for the reason to not get stabbed in the back.

If it was up to me, I'd just make it so that Dayne used footwork to best his enemies 1 by 1, until Ned and Howland remained. Which then beat Dayne in a decent 2vs1, by possibly forcing him to fight at unfavorable odds and overall tiring him. It would be just as unfair like a stab in the back, and the scene would went down logically.

And oh... "it is time to go". Dırıdırıdınnnn. Wait for the next episode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Forlong the Fat said:

In the sample chapter released today, there's a stray reference to a member of the golden company called "Two Swords" (who apparently likes red headed women--who doesn't?). 

GRRM's tacit approval of the almighty dual wield?

Daario has his ladies, the Dothraki skirmishers wear light armor, so cleaving blades like the Arakh make a better dual wield for an otherwise brigand, although the size of that weapon on the show. But Selmy and Mormont have fully commented on this topic in the show, saying wait till they are fielded against Westerosi knights in armor charging upon warhorse, now watch their ranks disperse, something like 10 to 1 odds, meaning 10 dead Dothraki for one knight. We have seen how Mormont handled himself in the arena, and also against Drogo's bloodriders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Primalsplit said:

I think the scene was not very well done. The fighting koreography was excellently done with the scenario they've been given. But I think the scenario itself was not well done.

First of all, when the scene begins you do not understand that it is a flashback. My father was like "What the fuck? Who are these people? What's goin on o_O?" The transition and the mood is not done well.

There's also something wrong about Ned, the company and the king's guard. First of all, I think they are way too energetic for their current circumstance. Ned and the company does not look like they are coming from a war and were on horseback for days. The king's guard do not seem like they were just idle until they see a company approaching 5 minutes ago. Sharpening swords and what not did not seem like an idle sharpening sword one normally expect. Their acting abilities were pretty lackluster. It felt exactly like what it was, just a bunch of guys filming a fighting scene. It all felt like a fan-made project.

The delivering of lines exactly felt like delivering of lines, not people actually having a conversation.

"Now it ENDS!" t00 edgy 4 me.

6vs2 instead of 7vs3. Just... why? It's not such a big deal, but... why?

The dual wielding dayne was unnecessary. Just have him fight with dawn and make us understand it is dawn.

How the fighting occured was not really well done. Dayne fighting 1v5, cleaving left and right. Then 1v1 Ned went on for quite long. It does not add up. If Dayne was that good, Ned shouldn't be able to stand that long. If Dayne was not that good, then Ned would have ended him rightly (just unscrew your pommel) when it was 1v5. That's why the decision Hightower going down so early was not well thought.

Also it is worth mentioning that Dayne did not really try to use footwork to make the fight more fair. When you face enemy that is quantitavily superier to you, you always have to be on the move to make 1v5 into at least 1v2 throughout the fight. Instead, Dayne just allowed himself to be circled, literally stood and waited.

The ending of the fight. Oh my fucking god are you kidding me. No "best" knight in the realm would turn his back on enemy to get stabbed in the back. To many people, this is a tired trope. For me it is stupid. You have to have a bit of a strategical mind to be the best knight in a kingdom, and being aware of your surroundings is a part of it (remember Batman). An avarage vetaran would have tried to force Ned into changing places, so that his own back would face the tower where no enemy is present EXACTLY for the reason to not get stabbed in the back.

If it was up to me, I'd just make it so that Dayne used footwork to best his enemies 1 by 1, until Ned and Howland remained. Which then beat Dayne in a decent 2vs1, by possibly forcing him to fight at unfavorable odds and overall tiring him. It would be just as unfair like a stab in the back, and the scene would went down logically.

And oh... "it is time to go". Dırıdırıdınnnn. Wait for the next episode. 

A couple of points. They had a scene in the previous episode to let you know how flashbacks work. They have Bran stand up, which he can't do other than in a flashback, so you will have no doubt whatsoever. If you dint get its a flashback I think it's on you. For future reference, Brand standing up, next to Bloodraven = flashback. 

Second, the lines you are complaining about are verbatim from the book. You complain about using those lines, then you complain about deviating by omission of two people who have no known importance either to the fight or any further plot element. 

Third, I suspect that .01% of viewers were concerned about the footwork in the scene, or are interested in footwork of any sort. (I suspect this is also the proportion of viewers who had any trouble discerning the flashback nature of the scene.) I also suspect that you know a good deal less than you think you know about optimal footwork for 5 on 1 sword fighting. 

Finally, Dayne let Reed get behind him because he appeared to be dead. While I agree that allowing live opponents behind one's back is a serious mistake, I don't agree as to dead ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayne made a mistake by assuming that Reed was dead. Didn't Ser Barristan make that very point about about good warriors being killed by fate or a brief error in judgment.

Bran is learning some harsh realities about knighthood and combat. It also looked likely that Dayne was going to kill an unarmed foe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...