Howland Reed saved Ned at the ToJ by...

[Darkstream]

4 hours ago, devilish said:

<snip>

Bronn's on the other hand was a low life petty criminal who got lucky when he was at the right time at the right place. Martyn is a Cassel at the service of House Stark. How honourable uptight can one be more then that? 

Oops, sorry Devilish. I initially misunderstood what you meant, and was going to comment. I now realize the folly was my own, not yours. Couldn't delete quote for some reason.

 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

22 hours ago, bent branch said:

These are the words that captured my attention. I have always thought that Howland made the ground under Dayne's feet unstable and thereby giving Ned an advantage.

Quicksand or just mud?

[JLE]

Another possibility is that Reed didn't save Ned during the fight, but after it, in other words Ned Stark fought Arthur Dayne and killed him, but received in return injuries that should have caused his own death, and Reed had some ability, either magical or herbal, to treat Ned's injuries.

We do know that it is reputed, and not necessarily by Eddard Stark himself, that Stark fought and killed Dayne in single combat. I can hardly think he would himself have spread this rumour if it were not true (and, probably not even if it WERE true): nor allowed it to be spread just to keep Howland Reed's name out of public view. For a start, there was no reason - other than glorification of his own sword fighting ability, and he is not the type of man to do so - for Ned Stark to ever announce that the final battle *did* come down to a single combat at all between himself and Dayne, when (if Reed had intervened at any point) it clearly did not.

So either (a) the single combat story is a lie, and knowingly spread around by Reed himself as the sole "witness" to big up his master undeservedly, since Ned Stark would not have bragged about it as such.

Or (b) it is the truth, and again, Reed is probably the source.

Or (c) Reed is not the source of that rumour: implying that, although seven against three took place in the final fight, there were one or more non-combatants present - assistants, squires or other men-at-arms who stood back and did not fight (possibly on their masters' orders), or indeed civilian staff at the Tower who did not fight, and *they* are the source of the story of "Stark fought Dayne in single combat", and therefore it must be true, therefore Reed did not attack or impede Dayne, therefore his saving of Ned's life must have been through post-combat healing of a nature that nobody else was capable of doing, or simply nobody else was present to do.

[kissdbyfire]

Many interesting possibilities! I think what makes the most sense to me in this scenario is what @Happy Ent suggested, Howland's skinchanging is just enough to make Dayne hesitate or trip or feel dizzy etc etc etc for a couple of seconds, giving Ned the opportunity to finish it then and there. 

[bent branch]

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Quicksand or just mud?

Mostly just shifting the ground quickly under his feet. If the affect had been too obvious, then Ned would have noticed. Of all the people in the story, Ned was one of the biggest skeptics. Actually, thinking about it, the people who say Howland just used a net or attacked Dayne from behind are probably right. If Ned had seen something that was more weird or unexplained he probably wouldn't have been such a huge skeptic.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

46 minutes ago, JLE said:

Another possibility is that Reed didn't save Ned during the fight, but after it, in other words Ned Stark fought Arthur Dayne and killed him, but received in return injuries that should have caused his own death, and Reed had some ability, either magical or herbal, to treat Ned's injuries.

We do know that it is reputed, and not necessarily by Eddard Stark himself, that Stark fought and killed Dayne in single combat. I can hardly think he would himself have spread this rumour if it were not true (and, probably not even if it WERE true): nor allowed it to be spread just to keep Howland Reed's name out of public view. For a start, there was no reason - other than glorification of his own sword fighting ability, and he is not the type of man to do so - for Ned Stark to ever announce that the final battle *did* come down to a single combat at all between himself and Dayne, when (if Reed had intervened at any point) it clearly did not.

So either (a) the single combat story is a lie, and knowingly spread around by Reed himself as the sole "witness" to big up his master undeservedly, since Ned Stark would not have bragged about it as such.

Or (b) it is the truth, and again, Reed is probably the source.

Or (c) Reed is not the source of that rumour: implying that, although seven against three took place in the final fight, there were one or more non-combatants present - assistants, squires or other men-at-arms who stood back and did not fight (possibly on their masters' orders), or indeed civilian staff at the Tower who did not fight, and *they* are the source of the story of "Stark fought Dayne in single combat", and therefore it must be true, therefore Reed did not attack or impede Dayne, therefore his saving of Ned's life must have been through post-combat healing of a nature that nobody else was capable of doing, or simply nobody else was present to do.

This is the first time I've seen that mentioned and I think it's an excellent point. I do like the idea that Howland saved Ned's life by healing him rather than by making a fair fight an unfair one.

Normally the idea is that Arthur was such a superior swordsman that there's no way Ned could have defeated him without some help, especially if he was using Dawn. But what if Arthur got all cocky and said "I'm going to give you a little handicap here. I won't even use Dawn." and grabbed a sword from one of the fallen soldiers? That might have evened things up a bit. And if Arthur was so sure he'd win, maybe he got careless. Every fighter has weaknesses and any fighter can make a mistake.

I think it would be great if it turned out there was no trickery or magic or interference involved, and Ned just happened to come out on top that day. 

[SFDanny]

13 hours ago, JLE said:

We do know that it is reputed, and not necessarily by Eddard Stark himself, that Stark fought and killed Dayne in single combat. I can hardly think he would himself have spread this rumour if it were not true (and, probably not even if it WERE true): nor allowed it to be spread just to keep Howland Reed's name out of public view. For a start, there was no reason - other than glorification of his own sword fighting ability, and he is not the type of man to do so - for Ned Stark to ever announce that the final battle *did* come down to a single combat at all between himself and Dayne, when (if Reed had intervened at any point) it clearly did not.

So either (a) the single combat story is a lie, and knowingly spread around by Reed himself as the sole "witness" to big up his master undeservedly, since Ned Stark would not have bragged about it as such.

Or (b) it is the truth, and again, Reed is probably the source.

Or (c) Reed is not the source of that rumour: implying that, although seven against three took place in the final fight, there were one or more non-combatants present - assistants, squires or other men-at-arms who stood back and did not fight (possibly on their masters' orders), or indeed civilian staff at the Tower who did not fight, and *they* are the source of the story of "Stark fought Dayne in single combat", and therefore it must be true, therefore Reed did not attack or impede Dayne, therefore his saving of Ned's life must have been through post-combat healing of a nature that nobody else was capable of doing, or simply nobody else was present to do.

I think you leave out the most likely possibility. Ned travels to Starfall to return Dawn to the Daynes, during which he tells them of Ser Arthur's death in the combat at the Tower of Joy. After which Ned travels to wherever he left his troops, likely at Storm's End, with baby Jon in tow. This explains the rumors Catelyn hears from returning soldiers in Winterfell about Ashara, and about the combat that killed five of Lord Eddard's bannermen and the three members of the Kingsguard. All that is necessary for the "single combat" version to spread amongst the troops is for Howland's presence to be ignored. The existence of bias against crannogmen amongst Northern Troops easily accounts for this, and add in the tendency of troops to glorify their commanders and High Lords, and it becomes fact that Ned killed Ser Arthur in single combat.

[JonSnow4President]

Personally, I hope it's that he simply used words to convince Dayne to stop, but given the almost vacuum of support in the story so far, it could be anything.  He could have opened a portal to a McDonalds, ordered a coffee, and thrown it on Dayne's face for all we know.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

16 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

Personally, I hope it's that he simply used words to convince Dayne to stop, but given the almost vacuum of support in the story so far, it could be anything.  He could have opened a portal to a McDonalds, ordered a coffee, and thrown it on Dayne's face for all we know.

That would be awesome! Rather obvious product placement but still awesome.

[The Fattest Leech]

17 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That would be awesome! Rather obvious product placement but still awesome.

Hey! I'm lovin' it