Jump to content

Is jousting skill related to martial prowess?


Recommended Posts

I am currently working on a list ranking the warriors of Westeros and Essos by fighting skill, or at least organize them into separate tiers, for role-playing purposes. Though in many cases, a character's only notable victories come from jousts, not melees or actual combat. So how closely are jousting skill and overall fighting skill related, if at all? Is defeating someone in a joust any indication whatsoever that you'll also defeat them on the battlefield?

For example, Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Oberyn Martell in a joust, but does that mean he should be ranked above Oberyn as an overall warrior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not simple. Arthur Dayne and Barristan Selmy are both brilliant warriors and brilliant jousters. Robert Baratheon is a man for the melee rather than the joust, while Rhaegar defeated Arthur and Barristan at the jousts but died in battle with Robert.

There's skill at jousting, there's a skill in fighting in a melee, and fighting dirty at both those things. That's why so many people can make different lists of the greatest warrior. Because there are a variety of factors too complex to calculate, and then add in a whole lot of luck to consider as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fancy game for fancy lads!

From what I gather in my very limited knowledge of medieval warfare, jousting was meant to simulate heavy cavalry. All the items needed to be a part of the cavalry (chargers/destriers, lance, armor, etc.) limited their numbers to the highborn. So jousting was a way for the nobles to show their effectiveness as heavy cavalry. Also, leading a vanguard was an honored and sought after position, so jousting is a chance to show off to a king or lord how good you are.

However, in battle, once they have charged, they would need to switch to close quarter combat weapons. With that in mind, I would say jousting is not related to overall martial prowess. That is to say, a great jouster may not be so great if they also participate in a melee.

Highborn martial prowess in general is questionable because they learn to fight in an "honorable" way rather than in the way that is more likely to win. Fighting honorably often assumes that the other person will fight that way as well. Bronn wins Tyrion's trial by combat because he fought to win, not for honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Traverys said:

A fancy game for fancy lads!

From what I gather in my very limited knowledge of medieval warfare, jousting was meant to simulate heavy cavalry. All the items needed to be a part of the cavalry (chargers/destriers, lance, armor, etc.) limited their numbers to the highborn. So jousting was a way for the nobles to show their effectiveness as heavy cavalry. Also, leading a vanguard was an honored and sought after position, so jousting is a chance to show off to a king or lord how good you are.

However, in battle, once they have charged, they would need to switch to close quarter combat weapons.

Or break off and charge again. Repeat if necessary, sometimes several times.

41 minutes ago, Traverys said:

With that in mind, I would say jousting is not related to overall martial prowess. That is to say, a great jouster may not be so great if they also participate in a melee.

Highborn martial prowess in general is questionable because they learn to fight in an "honorable" way rather than in the way that is more likely to win. Fighting honorably often assumes that the other person will fight that way as well. Bronn wins Tyrion's trial by combat because he fought to win, not for honor.

No, I don't think that's true. First, Bronn won the fight, because he was younger, faster, more agile, while Ser Vardis was old.

And, generally, a medieval knight would be an expert on fighting dirty. "Honorable" was for sporting events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alexander Targaryen said:

I am currently working on a list ranking the warriors of Westeros and Essos by fighting skill, or at least organize them into separate tiers, for role-playing purposes. Though in many cases, a character's only notable victories come from jousts, not melees or actual combat. So how closely are jousting skill and overall fighting skill related, if at all? Is defeating someone in a joust any indication whatsoever that you'll also defeat them on the battlefield?

For example, Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Oberyn Martell in a joust, but does that mean he should be ranked above Oberyn as an overall warrior?

Over a population they are extremely correlated. When comparing two individuals they are pretty worthless as the idiosyncratic variables would far outweigh the correlation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mounted combat is a form of martial art. So yes, they were martial but the joust is ceremonial and the presence of jousting is seen by kingdoms engaged in armored cavalry. 

Typically no man on foot is as awesome as a rider attached to a 2,500lb war steed moving at 30MPH. The might of the sword or spear at that weight and acceleration would be quite awesome to behold. The ceremonial version would be wooden spears designed to break away. In a war they would use a stronger wood with a metal tip that would bend and move the hit target some distance. 

 

As others have stated this is an expensive unit on the battlefield. Armor and horses aren't cheap. But used well they will ruin standing armies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Or break off and charge again. Repeat if necessary, sometimes several times.

No, I don't think that's true. First, Bronn won the fight, because he was younger, faster, more agile, while Ser Vardis was old.

And, generally, a medieval knight would be an expert on fighting dirty. "Honorable" was for sporting events.

Good to know about the charging and recharging. Like I said, I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable about battle from any period of time. I've always been more interested in politics and culture when it came to history. It makes me wonder how much "friendly fire" (friendly impalement?) occured in a typical battle if they're charging into the fray over and over.

But I'll stand by my statements about the highborn handicapping themselves, especially when it came to Bronn fighting Ser Vardis. Not all knights are highborn, as we know from Ser Duncan the Tall and the knight he used to squire for (forget his name). But in regards to Bronn vs. Vardis:

Catelyn predicts Bronn is about fifteen years younger, so yeah Vardis is no spring hen. Probably old by the average life span of the time. But Bronn is also also faster because Vardis is wearing full plate. A squire even had to help Vardis stand back up when the septon's prayer for the trial was complete, emphasizing the restrictions his choice of armor put on him. I'm sure his age didn't help. Bronn begins the fight by just leaping away from all of Vardis' advances. The crowd begins yelling at Bronn, calling him craven, and he doesn't care. Rodrick points out to Catelyn that Bronn is waiting for Vardis to tire.
  

Quote

 

“The man is craven,” Lord Hunter declared. “Stand and fight, coward!” Other voices echoed the sentiment.

Catelyn looked to Ser Rodrik. Her master-at-arms gave a curt shake of his head. “He wants to make Ser Vardis chase him. The weight of armor and shield will tire even the strongest man.”

Martin, George R.R.. A Game of Thrones: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book One (p. 424). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Vardis does tire and becomes clumsy and gives Bronn and opening, queuing Bronn to begin actively fighting instead of passively. Because he didn't stand his ground and trade blows, Bronn wasn't fighting in the manner highborns are accustomed to. Thus, I would say highborns were taught to fight in a way that was not purely based on winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Helikzhan said:

Mounted combat is a form of martial art. So yes, they were martial but the joust is ceremonial and the presence of jousting is seen by kingdoms engaged in armored cavalry. 

Typically no man on foot is as awesome as a rider attached to a 2,500lb war steed moving at 30MPH. The might of the sword or spear at that weight and acceleration would be quite awesome to behold. The ceremonial version would be wooden spears designed to break away. In a war they would use a stronger wood with a metal tip that would bend and move the hit target some distance. 

 

As others have stated this is an expensive unit on the battlefield. Armor and horses aren't cheap. But used well they will ruin standing armies. 

Damn, never thought about how much horses must weigh! Of course they're bound to be heavy... but wow.

Aren't there are anti-cavalry units as well? Or is that an artifact of video games? At least in video games, they emphsize polearms as effective at dealing with cavalry. I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those things that is easier said than done, considering it's two heavy things riding at you and you're trying to poke a spear at them. Talk about learning to stand your ground...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traverys said:

Damn, never thought about how much horses must weigh! Of course they're bound to be heavy... but wow.

Aren't there are anti-cavalry units as well? Or is that an artifact of video games? At least in video games, they emphsize polearms as effective at dealing with cavalry. I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those things that is easier said than done, considering it's two heavy things riding at you and you're trying to poke a spear at them. Talk about learning to stand your ground...

They did. That's where the story in Braveheart comes from. Typically they would anchor a very long spear into the ground, so the horse would be impaled and the rider thrown. 

But terrain matters. If the cavalry could flank it they would. So spear walls were used at chokepoints with not much use elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It correlates somewhat. Jousting is the ceremonial, entertainment based version of a heavy cavalry charge, so if you're a good jouster then you'd probably be alright in a pitched battle, providing you were heavy cavalry. However, on the whole the jousting in Westeros is largely ceremonial and doesn't contribute all that much to the overall skill of a fighter in a close quarters fight. For example, Jorah was able to tie with Jaime in a joust, but would get trounced in a sword fight. Loras also beat Jaime at a joust, but again I doubt he'd win with swords and the same can be seen when Loras beats Gregor; in a sword fight against the Mountain, Loras would be cut in two.

Another example is Rhaegar. He was a great jouster, able to beat Barristan and Arthur who would both annihilate him with swords and then lost to Robert in a melee on the Trident. So overall I'd say the melee's, duels and battles are far more indicative of a person martial capability than the jousting is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it jousting is a sport. And like any sport it requires quite a large degree of skill and training. Anyone who's seen the movie A Knight's Tale staring Heath Ledger would have seen how difficult jousting is. Ledger's character did a training montage where he charged at dummies and little rings suspended in the air and it took a while for him to get good at it even though he had a talent for the sport in the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a search on GRRM's use of the word "brilliant" in ASoIaF. It features prominently in Tourneys.

Reading Game of Thrones as a stand-alone, it means "exceptionally talented" and seems to have no meaning beyond that. The word is applied exclusively to tourney knights and their accoutrements in Game of Thrones: 

Quote

One knight wore an intricate suit of white enameled scales, brilliant as a field of new-fallen snow, with silver chasings and clasps that glittered in the sun.

(AGoT, Ch.15 Sansa I)

Quote

The Kingslayer rode brilliantly. He overthrew Ser Andar Royce and the Marcher Lord Bryce Caron as easily as if he were riding at rings, and then took a hard-fought match from white-haired Barristan Selmy, who had won his first two tilts against men thirty and forty years his junior.

(AGoT, Ch.29 Sansa II)

Barristan and Jaime are both brilliant tourney knights, and both have proven themselves on the battlefield as well. If only the first book was considered, 'brilliant' means no more than 'exceptionally talented'. Although the person who describes them as such is Sansa, who soon discovers her first impressions of knights in shining (another loaded word associated with Sansa, and also Bran) armour and of the golden beauty of Joffrey, were false.

Also, the word is applied exclusively to tourney knights, and in the whole series, more than half the uses of the word 'brilliant' are tourney-related. Also, the first knight described as brilliant is unhorsed at tourney the sentence after the word is used a second time, to describe a second knight.

Barristan and Jaime have not died so far. Jaime has had victory at the battle of the Gold Tooth, and Riverrun, before being imprisoned by Robb. He shows himself a capable strategic general as well as a brilliant soldier and leader of men in ADwD, and he's not dead yet.

Barristan also goes on to exhibited soldiery talents beyond jousting. He saves Dany from the manticore and Mero armed only with his staff, does capable officer and soldier work in the siege of Meereen, effects a successful coup d'tat against King Hizdahr, and forms a council that seems to be working out, to govern in Hizdahr's place, although he personally feels such a task is well outside his skill-set, and there are others on his council that thoroughly agree with him. Also not dead yet.

The first two uses of the word brilliant in Clash are very similar to what Game has led us to expect:

Quote

He limped toward the gallery. At close hand, the brilliant blue armor looked rather less splendid; everywhere it showed scars, the dents of mace and warhammer, the long gouges left by swords, chips in the enameled breastplate and helm.

(ACoK, Ch.22 Catelyn II)

Quote

He had replaced his tattered tourney cloak with a new one; the same brilliantly striped silk of Renly’s Rainbow Guard, clasped with the golden rose of Highgarden.

(ACoK, Ch.22 Catelyn II)

But this time we are given a glimpse of the tawdry consequences of the melee (not a joust) and we can see how there are scars. Both of these could be making allusions to sell-sword companies we are still to meet - the tattered cloak (yet another loaded word) of the Windblown, and 'beneath the gold, the bitter steel' - although the brilliant armour is sapphire blue, not gold.

We see the man Brienne defeated, restored to his place as commander of Renly's kingsguard in the second mention. It isn't quite the same as unhorsing her, although Loras still has Renly's heart, which is what they are really fighting for. He is also now Brienne's commanding officer, his defeat on the tourney-field having as little material difference to the battlefield command as to the true love of their King.

This tourney was intended to lure Barristan to Renly's banner. It's observed by Catelyn, who looks a little deeper than Sansa, although, like Sansa, she proves capable of holding false impressions, being deceived. deceiving.

Still, Loras has the Battle of Blackwater to his credit, and has broken the siege of Dragonstone, although not without damage to himself. He is still alive (to the best of our knowledge) so far.

Brienne successfully evades the Riverrun pursuit, and survives Harrenhal, defeats Jaime when his right hand was still intact, and delivers him to Kings Landing. She wins against the three mummers and knows that Arya lives, she defeats the other mummers, with help from Gendry and the BwB. She too is still alive, but scarred.

So from the first two books, we would learn that brilliant tourney knights are capable in the field, able street fighters. but fair.

In Storm of Swords, though, the word brilliant has an abrupt heel turn, announced by Jorah Mormont (himself a sell-sword soldier and onetime tourney knight.

Quote

On feastdays they fight mock wars in the pits to demonstrate what brilliant commanders they are, but it’s the eunuchs who do the dying.

(ASoS, Ch.23 Daenerys II)

Here, brilliant does not mean brilliant. The eunachs are what keeps Astapor from invasion, not their commanders. What happens in the fighting pits is a mockery of war, a folly.

Quote

The air shimmered around it, and no jewel had ever sparkled so brilliantly. But when Stannis touched it to Davos’s shoulder, it felt no different than any other longsword.

(ASoS, Ch.36 Davos IV)

We suspect that Lighbringer is a mummers trick, a glamour of Melisandre's, and not the true sword of Azor Ahai from the start. Sallador and Maester Aemon, who know the history, know it is just a burnt sword, a phantomine.

Stannis, who had previously proved himself to be a competent commander, albiet one incapable of making a peace, and one who through no fault of his own, has been consistently robbed of unambigous victory. After this blessing ceremony, however, he lands his forces on the tourney-field of Kings Landing, where they are smashed by Lord Tywin's larger army, swollen by his brother's forces, led by the ghost of King Renly.

Between the above two references, there is also the first use of the word 'brilliant' in a way that is unrelated to tourney champions and war generals, referring to that part of the Wall, immediately before it sheds the raid commander Jarl and his team. But we soon get back to the tourney-field:

Quote

“He won some tourneys, surely,” said Dany, disappointed.
“When he was young, His Grace rode brilliantly in a tourney at Storm’s End, defeating Lord Steffon Baratheon, Lord Jason Mallister, the Red Viper of Dorne, and a mystery knight who proved to be the infamous Simon Toyne, chief of the kingswood outlaws. He broke twelve lances against Ser Arthur Dayne that day.”
“Was he the champion, then?”
“No, Your Grace. That honor went to another knight of the Kingsguard, who unhorsed Prince Rhaegar in the final tilt.”
Dany did not want to hear about Rhaegar being unhorsed. “But what tourneys did my brother win?”
“Your Grace.” The old man hesitated. “He won the greatest tourney of them all.”

(ASoS, Ch.42 Daenerys IV)

Like the melee at Bitterbridge, Barristan's description of the Tourney of Storms End seems to be foreshadowing future battles. I'm not sure if the future battles are the ones we have had in Clash, where the Lannisters triumphed over Baratheon, Mallister, Dorne and the BwB, or if it is a future battle where Aegon (or JonCon) will be facing off against Jaime Lannister (or some kind of Lannister).

Twelve broken Lances. Well, if five of them are the tourney-derived ones on the Wydmen sigil  ( Redfort, Lydnderly, Waynwood, Brax, Lannister), that leaves a sacred seven for the rest. Twelve is also a significant number. There were five days of jousting and a seven-sided melee at the tourney of Harrenhal, and the reigning queen of beauty had her five Whent champions...but the scope for guessing the symbolism is endless here.

However confusing the foreshadowing, the point that Rhaegar won the tourney of Harrenhal, and lost the battle on the Trident, is not lost in it. Rhaegar was a brilliant tourney knight and a competent commander, but when he died the war was won. And not by him.

The last reference to brilliance in Storm of Swords continues in this distinctly pejorative vein:

Quote

“It does not matter how brave or brilliant a man is, if his commands cannot be heard,” Lord Eddard told his sons, so Robb and he used to climb the towers of Winterfell to shout at each other across the yard. Donal Noye could have drowned out both of them.

(ASoS, Ch.55 Jon VII)

Although, in the end, Robb died because his Bolton bannerman didn't want to hear him, and Robb failed to hear the crossbows loading under the Rains of Castamere.

Feast continues to disabuse us of the notion that victory at tourney equates to victory in battle

Quote

which tourney was it where you fought so brilliantly, ser?”
He smiled modestly. “That affair at Duskendale six years ago?

(ASoS, Ch.24 Cersei V)

Although it is doubtful Ser Balman Byrch actually won at tourney, and it is not clear 'that affair at Duskendale' even took place on the tourney field, it is crystal clear that Bronn is going to kill Ser Balman, not vise versa.

Dance continues to associate brilliance with tourney pageantry and mummery, deceit and defeat

Quote

The big man pointed out the Butcher King to him, sitting stiff and tall upon an armored horse in a suit of copper scale that flashed brilliantly in the morning sun.

(ADwD, Ch.25 The Windblown)

This is from Quentyn's ill-fated point of view, and associates all the murky depths that GRRM has imbued brilliance with, with the hollow/risen knight metaphor, and Dorne.

The word is only used one other time, apparently unrelated to tourney

Quote

Alayne rubbed at one with the heel of her hand, enough to glimpse a brilliant blue sky and a blaze of white from the mountainside.

(AFfC,Ch.41 Alayne II)

The blue and white are Arryn colours.

Spoiler

Winds of Winter

Spoiler

Coincidentally, there is going to be a tourney at the Eyrie, apparently the first since the mummer joust at Joffrey's wedding feast (or perhaps the first since Dany rode off on Drogon) to select the eight knights of SweetRobin's guard, who will have the honour of wearing his colours, and his winged helm.

There were also eight Lords declarant, all of whom are in the vale for the tourney, along with dubious characters like the Mad Mouse, who proudly claims he is 'no tourney knight'. And there are a few dead knights already waiting to take a posthumous bow,  like Hugh of the Vale, and Ser Vardis and especially Ser Mandon Moore. Eight knights minus one equals seven, so I'm anticipating a bolt from that brilliant blue sky.

 

ETA: When comparing successful tourney knights to knights successful in battle, there is a strong prejudice against the the former, even by tourney knights themselves: “By defeated, you mean unhorsed, in tourney. Tell me who he’s slain in battle if you mean to frighten me.” Oberyn tells Tyrion in Ch.28 of Storm. Later he, the tourney knight, dies at the hand of Gregor Clegane, who lost so memorably at the Tourney of the Hand.

Still, the men who can afford to play at tourney are training for battle, and participate in them. Tourney does require skill in arms, which doesn't hurt in battle.

When it comes to the way GRRM treats tourney skills, I think Barristan puts it rather well: "I have seen a hundred tournaments and more wars than I would wish, and however strong or fast or skilled a knight may be, there are others who can match him. A man will win one tourney, and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot in the grass may mean defeat, or what you ate for supper the night before. A change in the wind may bring the gift of victory.” He glanced at Ser Jorah. “Or a lady’s favor knotted round an arm.” (ASoS,Ch.08 Daenerys I)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the portrayal on GoT and in most Hollywood productions is a fairly inaccurate one.  In the actual Middle Ages the tornament was quite a bit different.  It started with the melee which you almost never see.  In the melee teams would fight one another in fairly open combat, often covering miles of countryside.  That whole GoT thing that there would be a "last man standing" didn't happen.  Instead you had teams, leaders, sometimes great nobles, would work to attract warriors to their team and alliance would be made and broken on the field.  In England and France in the 13th Century William Marshal was a highly sought after Knight.  Often he fought for Henry IInd's son, the young King Henry.  Marshal in fact made a very good living beig a tournament knight, ransoming his prisoners and either ransoming or selling their armor, horses and weapons  But to get to your point, what made a good tournament knight generally made a good warrior.  William Marshal was not only considered one of the greatest tournament knights but in fact one of the great soldiers of his time.  In fact once, to cover when Henry IInd was retreating from Richard Lionheart William not only faced him down but unhorsed him.

 

Over time the joust became a part of tournaments.  But, as the joust evolved it could probably be more closely associated with a "skills competition" at a professional sport all star game.  Special, heavier armor was developed and special lances were used.  The point of jousting was not so much to unhorse your opponent but rather to break your lance on his armor. 

 

Numerous Kings and the Church tried to outlaw the tournament but it would continue into the renaissance.  I have seen "scorecards" from jousts from the 14th Century.  And over time the joust gained in prominence.  Henry VIII would joust.  The tournament and even more so the joust mimicked skills necessary to be a great knight.  But like any sporting events you can't take a small sample as representative of the whole.  Just because knight 'A" beat knight "B" in one joust doesn't make him the better warrior.  And in later years the jousting became more stylized.  The goal in jousting was different from the goal in battle, breaking lances vs. killing your opponent.

 

But weapons skill is and has always been vital to being a good soldier.  One of the primary weapons of a Knight was the lance and while there may be some question as to whether someone who was good with a lance in a joust was also good with it on the filed it is pretty certain that if you couldn't handle a lance well in a joust it was pretty certain that you were no good with one on the battlefield.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's related, but not necessarily a complete indicator.  Jousting requires horsemanship and the ability to control a lance.  As others have mentioned, those are completely useful skills as part of a calvary charge.  A great jouster would have an advantage in the charge, but what happens after that?  Who knows?

In a way, jousting reminds me of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu/Submission Wrestling tournaments.  It's not a "fight" it's a competition with rules involving an aspect of fighting and other tactics removed.  There are World Champions in this field who didn't do so well when they tried MMA, but there are some who did.

I'd even say that MMA is a competition not war.  Maybe akin to a melee?  Yet, there are still rules.  They use blunted weapons etc.

In a real battle there aren't any rules.  Thinking back to the Dunk and Egg stories, Aerion spiked Ser Humphrey's horse and pretty much everyone considered it shameful.  Now, if he had done the same thing against one of the Blackfyres, everyone would have praised Aerion.

To me, jousting is a way to engage in battle with less dire consequences.  It's a proxy for war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both historically and in the books, jousting simply means how good a guy is at jousting, nothing more, nothing less. It has practically nothing to point to a character's martial ability. 

The part that does that is the melee, which lost to the joust in terms of interest in tournaments in real life history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Walda said:

Like the melee at Bitterbridge, Barristan's description of the Tourney of Storms End seems to be foreshadowing future battles. I'm not sure if the future battles are the ones we have had in Clash, where the Lannisters triumphed over Baratheon, Mallister, Dorne and the BwB, or if it is a future battle where Aegon (or JonCon) will be facing off against Jaime Lannister (or some kind of Lannister).

...

When it comes to the way GRRM treats tourney skills, I think Barristan puts it rather well: "I have seen a hundred tournaments and more wars than I would wish, and however strong or fast or skilled a knight may be, there are others who can match him. A man will win one tourney, and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot in the grass may mean defeat, or what you ate for supper the night before. A change in the wind may bring the gift of victory.” He glanced at Ser Jorah. “Or a lady’s favor knotted round an arm.” (ASoS,Ch.08 Daenerys I)

"Brilliant" analysis, Walda. I enjoyed your insights.

Edit: By the way, I wonder whether the "brilliant" knights are supposed to be compared to stars or other lights. We have this quote from Ser Uthor Underleaf (who has a very Petyr Baelish feel to him, in my opinion): "I follow tourneys from afar as faithfully as the maesters follow stars." (from The Mystery Knight, Dunk & Egg story).

As you probably know but others in this thread may not, sweetsunray (and probably others) did an analysis of tournament outcomes and showed that they foreshadow not only battles, but other events. For instance, her surmise that there will be a landslide or earthquake at the Eyrie is based in part on the death of Ser Hugh of the Vale in a tournament when he is impaled on the lance of Gregor Clegane. The mountain on which the Eyrie is built is called The Giant's Lance and Ser Hugh is a symbol of the Vale itself.

But your concluding excerpt is key: the outcomes of the tournaments are not a reflection of a knight's skill, necessarily, although that is a major factor. Variables and dirty tricks enter into the outcome in ways the participant or opponent or observers can't anticipate.

In the Dunk & Egg stories, we also learn of Uthor Underleaf, who bribes tourney officials to match him up against specific opponents and who aims only to win prizes and bets, not to come away as the first-place winner. If others approach tournaments this way, it is hard to say whether the outcomes are often compromised by "thrown" jousts. When Sansa descends from the Eyrie with Myranda Royce, Myranda tells her that there was a squire's tournament designed to be won by Harry the Heir, so he could be knighted. So there is apparently quite a bit of stage-managed jousting going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW jousting could still be incredibly dangerous.  Henry VIIIth was knocked unconscious for around half an hour and in 1559 Henry IInd of France was badly wounded in a joust dying in agony some days later.  The historic repercussions of that were that the Knight who wounded the French King had the last name of Montgomerie, he fled France and went to England, one of  his descendants was Field Marshal Montgomery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Seams Thankyou.

No, I had not read @sweetsunray's thread on tourneys, but I would like to. Do you have a title or a link? (I did a quick search but found nothing).

The 'blaze of white' did seem to hint at a landslide/rockslide/avalanche of massive proportions. And the other non-tourney reference was the ice on the wall shedding Jarl and his team. The frozen water of Alyssa's tears seems to be waiting for such an opportunity. "Blaze" is, of course, a fire reference.

'shine' is one for the red god. It is used with reference to Sansa, especially her Auburn hair, several times; the hound, his burnt face, his helm; Marillion's eyes, viewing the Eyrie for the first time;  Maester Aemon's tears; Drogo, when he became a star on his funeral pyre; the eyes of the innkeep at Sherrer, at the sight of Gregor's silver; No stars shine at storms end, but torches move in Stannis's camp; the bronze platter in which Dany spies Fat Belwas and Arstan on the docks of Qarth shines in the sun; Jon with Qhorin is reluctant to leave the fire for the cold silver  shine of the half moon; Melisandre's eyes in the torchlight, when she comes to make Davos hand; her standard prayer to the Red God "Lord of Light shine your face upon us, for the night is dark and full of terrors"; Rossarts eyes, as he plans where to place his substance; Thoros admitting the sun will not cease to shine if they miss a prayer or two; Lady Nym dreaming of the day Casterley Rock is cracked open; Dany on her marriage day; Castle Black full of Queensmen and Kingsmen;  Moqorro's face at prayer.

And, on graduation day at Castle Black, when Jon joins the stewards

Quote

The day was warm and sunny. Rivulets of water trickled down the sides of the Wall, so the ice seemed to sparkle and shine.

(AGoT, Ch.48 Jon VI)

'Shone' has a whole host of meanings, more references to gold and sliver, moonlight, and Sansa in the Arryn colours. But, like 'Bright', there are lots of mentions, so I haven't had time to examine.

Twinkle is also associated with fire, the two times it is referenced.

Luminous refers exclusively to Tywin's eyes.

Sansa looked radiant beside Joffrey, unOther's eyes were a radiant blue, the guildhall of Alchemists a radiant emerald, the ruby at Mel's throat, Lysa in the Arryn wedding cloak, lightbringer in Maester Aemon's solar. Dany is called 'your radiance' by the Meereenese, until the day she marrys Hizdahr and the Meereenese address Hizdahr as 'his radiance'.      

Dazzling is how the reviewers quoted in the blurbs describe GRRM's writing, but not a word he uses himself. Nor scintillating, coruscating, flugent, clinquant, lambent, or lucent (although 'translucent' gets plenty of mentions)

Sparks are often associated with swords, but when I'm done analysing everything that blazes bright, splendid, lustrous, gleaming, glittering, sparkling, shining, I won't post it here. I can already see that only 'brilliant' is associated with the tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...