Khal Drogo vs Sandor Clegane

[StarkofWinterfell]

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

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

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

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

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

Tamahagane steel, the steel used for traditional swords, is supposed to be very high quality steel.

The process by which smiths would fold the blade over not only made the blade stronger and more durable, but also lightened the steel as well, not make it heavier. A european sword would break before a katana ever did if you took two perfectly new and unused ones and sent them through the same trials. And you're right, katanas didn't break bones, they sliced right through them. But there were many different ways to make a katana, with all of them giving the blade an advantage.

Different Ways To Make Katanas

40-50 lbs is about average, yes. But that is light plate. Heavy plate weighed upwards of 100 pounds, and sometimes more. Gregor and Ser Vardis were both in heavy plate.

I wouldn't quite say Drogo would be useless. We all saw how that turned out with Ser Vardis and Gregor.

[Lesionaire]

I didn't say katanas were shitty swords, they just required a lot more work to make in comparison. Broadswords were more of a battering weapon; they could and would break bones through plate. Even they were rather inferior in the face of full plate mail.

I'm going to do a little more research about heavy vs. light plate and report back here on that.

It just seems like people underestimate the effectiveness of plate mail. It completely revolutionized combat in the medieval ages. If it made its wearer so slow and cumbersome, and if it could be severed by slashing weapons, which it was specifically made to repel, no one would have worn it.

One complaint I have about combat in ASOIAF is the lack of grappling, which was expected in medieval combat, and especially in duels. I'm sure George knows this, but writing about grappling isn't quite as exciting as two swordsman crossing blades.

[Teren_Kanan]

Viper won (kinda) due to his RANGE + Speed advantage. There is no range difference in this fight.

Lets not use that fight as an example, it's a bad one.

Now for the Vardis vs Bronn fight. Vardis was in heavy plate, Sandor wears light plate, looking at a 40 to 50 pound difference.

Next, do you think if Vardis was wearing the same gear as Bronn he would have won?

[Forve]

Viper won (kinda) due to his RANGE + Speed advantage. There is no range difference in this fight.

Lets not use that fight as an example, it's a bad one.

Now for the Vardis vs Bronn fight. Vardis was in heavy plate, Sandor wears light plate, looking at a 40 to 50 pound difference.

Next, do you think if Vardis was wearing the same gear as Bronn he would have won?

I doubt he would have won, but it would have been harder( or maybe longer) for bronn I guess...

It all depend on vardis skills on fighting without Armour...If your are wearing heavy Armour (like most knights do) i am guessing u become too confident and depend on it too much :P ( that's just my idea)

I would think that fighting with armor or without it requires different skills

[AquariumDrinker]

The biggest problem with comparing the various weapons and armor, is what era the weapons and armor came from.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an essay on the European Knight vs. Feudal Japanese Samurai (the answer of the essay is that there are too many variables to answer that question.)

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.

Without the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills).

I seriously doubt, based on the opponents that Dothraki typically face, that his arakh was good at defeating plate armor. We are looking at two of the best warriors in the world with Drogo and Sandor, all of Drogo's advantages were stripped with the premise set out by the OP and none of Sandors were touched.

[Eurytus]

The biggest problem with comparing the various weapons and armor, is what era the weapons and armor came from.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an essay on the European Knight vs. Feudal Japanese Samurai (the answer of the essay is that there are too many variables to answer that question.)

Thanks for posting that essay which I have seen before. It effectively rebuts a lot of the misinformation being presented on this thread. Drogo is almost certainly toast.

[Forve]

So are we considering one essay from thousands as a certain proof :D ? weird

it's seems that people are forgetting that we are not talking generally Knights against Samurais

It's two fighters with different styles, It's duel were thousand factors take place...

guys with a dagger can kill a armored knight if circumstances and luck are on his side, but that doesn't means that We should send 100 guys with daggers against 100 armored knights...

My point is that probably in battle of Afooted samurais agains Afooted Knights, last ones would have advantage

But in individual battle Samurai agains Knight, no one can predict who's gonna win...

:D

[Eurytus]

So are we considering one essay from thousands as a certain proof :D ? weird

It very effectively rebuts some of the disinformation on this thread about how cumbersome armour is or how "heavy" a longsword was. Seriously, people need to understand that the Hollywood version of knights in armour is not exactly accurate.

[AquariumDrinker]

So are we considering one essay from thousands as a certain proof :D ? weird

it's seems that people are forgetting that we are not talking generally Knights against Samurais

It's two fighters with different styles, It's duel were thousand factors take place...

guys with a dagger can kill a armored knight if circumstances and luck are on his side, but that doesn't means that We should send 100 guys with daggers against 100 armored knights...

My point is that probably in battle of Afooted samurais agains Afooted Knights, last ones would have advantage

But in individual battle Samurai agains Knight, no one can predict who's gonna win...

:D

I used the excerpt to make a point about plate armor instead of just saying something off the top of my head, at least I showed a source. The point of the excerpt was to illustrate that Drogo didn't have an advantage to being unarmored and that his weapon would not have been sufficient to defeat the armor.

***ETA*** I was afraid of posting that excert, but the info on armor is interesting and applicable due to the arakh being compared to a katana or other Japanese swords at one point. I hope that this doesnt turn into an assinine discussion of eastern martial arts verse western martial arts.

[Forve]

:D Hollywood Knights? ( Have not many of them, at least good ones), so i dont really think anyone here judges by Hollywood standards.

Saying that Armour make you slower, and tires you much faster, Is just common sense and logical ( and doesn't have to do anything with how many movies you watch :D ). Unless u are some kind of superhero (BING, Hollywood) who is not bothered by several kilograms of steel.

AquariumDrinker

He had advantage of speed, that what i am trying to say ( I hope u don't need any source to prove that :D )

Though I'm not gonna argue if Arakh was or wasn't sufficient weapon, cause i don't even know how it looks like ( though i doubt it look like katana and possess same quality)

:cheers:

[AquariumDrinker]

Saying that Armour make you slower, and tires you much faster, Is just common sense and logical ( and doesn't have to do anything with how many movies you watch :D ). Unless u are some kind of superhero (BING, Hollywood) who is not bothered by several kilograms of steel.

You are right, but fighting makes you tired as well. Fighting in armor isnt as bad as you would think, though. Here are two interesting videos, the first is from a series entitled "Weapons that Made Britain" which is a very good series that I recomend anyone watching. The second is fairly light hearted.

[Forve]

Okay, I am gonna watch those videos and make some research about arakh ( just right after i finish my coursework :D ),

but one more point i wanted to make, what about the Helmet? I hate to do that but i still have to make an example from Bronn vs that guy who's name i still don't remember. Remember how helmet narrowed His vision? At one point he could not even see Bronn, that is pretty bad, especially when your opponent is dancing around you :D

P.S i dont even know why i am doing this, I hated Drogo ( and dothraki in general) :D and was quite happy about his death

[Eurytus]

:D Hollywood Knights? ( Have not many of them, at least good ones), so i dont really think anyone here judges by Hollywood standards.

Saying that Armour make you slower, and tires you much faster, Is just common sense and logical ( and doesn't have to do anything with how many movies you watch :D ). Unless u are some kind of superhero (BING, Hollywood) who is not bothered by several kilograms of steel.

And meanwhile the advocates of the unarmoured claim that he could "dance around until the other guy was exhausted" completely ignoring the fact that all this "dancing around" will expend a ton of energy too.

Yes it costs more energy for the guy in the plate mail to move but the point is that he doesn't have to move nearly so much as the unarmoured guy does.

[Forve]

And meanwhile the advocates of the unarmoured claim that he could "dance around until the other guy was exhausted" completely ignoring the fact that all this "dancing around" will expend a ton of energy too.

Yes it costs more energy for the guy in the plate mail to move but the point is that he doesn't have to move nearly so much as the unarmoured guy does.

That's is a good point actually. But as one dances around you, you have to follow every his movement and follow his dance, or else you might end up him standing behind your back :D

Though if you are in protective position, you will loose less energy than the guys dancing around you, but u will run risk (which i mentioned above)

This might not be strong argument ( even admit it :D ), but still...

Yeah and by You I didn't actually meant you :D :D

[Chanur]

The hound would win 99 out of 100. The bow is all but useless vs plate, at least heavy plate. You would have to basically be close enough for someone with a sword to get to you in order to have a chance to pierce it. This is why crossbows ended up replacing bows, because crossbows could actually punch through plate.

That leaves his arakh. Which frankly would have sucked versus plate and a broadsword. He would have a chance against someone that was fairly in experienced, but lets face it the Hound knows how to fight.

[chill]

@forve

man every single one of these arguments are points i made before! really kind of frustrating for me...

[The OTHER other]

Lesionare is actually on to a good point. Japanese swords were folded they way they were because the Japanese DID have poor raw material to work with; iron sand of extremely variable composition. The forging and folding was a very labor intensive way to overcome this and also make a beautiful and effective weapon.

Completely false to say the folds make the sword heavier; that is MASS of steel, not the folding. Western swords vary from very light foils to very heavy 2-handers, with wildy different centers of balance depending on the job they were supposed to do.

Also completely false to say a sharp sword will cut through armor--it might be possible, but certainly wouldn't be usual. Swords designed to deal with armor were either very heavy, bashing type, or reinforced points for stabbing.

I have seen the "samurai challenge" video, and while that swordsman has amazing skill, cutting a small metal pipe laid on a wooden cutting board is nowhere NEAR cutting through serious armor. An episode of "Deadliest Warrior" featured samurai weapons versus Viking, the samurai sword was mostlly ineffective versus Viking chain mail, which was by no means the heaviest in the West.

The "you can't run around in armor" arguments are absurd. Mankind marched, ran, and fought in armor for many centuries, you 1) get used to the weight, and 2) armor was mostly well designed to distribute weight. There are re-enactors of period arts (I am not talking about silly ren-fair play acting but serious martial artists) that can show great agility while in armor. They stopped wearing armor when guns came on the scene, not because it was too exhausting to fight in.

If armor were nearly as bad as being suggested here, then unarmored civilizations would have trounced those wearing armor; history shows this was NOT the case.

[Forve]

@forve

man every single one of these arguments are points i made before! really kind of frustrating for me...

didn't mean to frustrate anybody :D

[Lesionaire]

I wonder why the katana was equal to larger European swords in weight. I just assumed it was the folding. I've read a fair amount of material however and the only sword that could really pose a threat to plate was the estoc, a sword specifically designed for punching holes.

Anyway, I would take armored Sandor over unarmored Drogo any day. That's my final answer.

[cybroleach]

:D Hollywood Knights? ( Have not many of them, at least good ones), so i dont really think anyone here judges by Hollywood standards.

Saying that Armour make you slower, and tires you much faster, Is just common sense and logical ( and doesn't have to do anything with how many movies you watch :D ). Unless u are some kind of superhero (BING, Hollywood) who is not bothered by several kilograms of steel.

He had advantage of speed, that what i am trying to say ( I hope u don't need any source to prove that :D )

Anyone trained to ware armour woln't tire easily with it on the "hollywood/fictional" aspect of your comments is that this will affect the duel, these aren't hours long contests where this would play a factor, by this point a heated fight would be over, either the fully armoured man would have struck home or the unarmoured fellow would hit a lucky blow threw or around his armour.

But your earlier post is correct there are at least a hundred variables that could change the fight but in say 90 of a 100 armoured Sandor kills Drogo.