Khal Drogo vs Sandor Clegane

[littlespider]

This thread makes me so sad that Sandor is essentially crippled now.

Yes but it's fun because then Martin can work in a cripple-fight! Bran vs. Sandor, anybody?

CRIPPLE FIGHT!! That was one of the best moments of South Park, ever.

(I know, I know. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am a bad person, et al.)

[Mailedhorseman]

I have read many many false claims about armour on this thread. Plate armour as used in the late middle ages was never as heavy as some have claimed. It NEVER reached a hundred pounds. Anything that heavy would have been solely reserved for jousting not battle. On average suits of plate armour ranged in weight from 50 to 70 lbs. This was hardly debilitating for a fit trained warrior. Plate armour's main two weaknesses are their restriction of flexible movement and their poor handling in hot and very cold weather. Weight was not that big of an issue.

And no not even the sharpest curved blade can cut through steel plate. It may not be wholly impossible but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even the greatest katana weilders today can only cut through a helmet if it is fixed on a solid static object and they cut at a perfect angle. In a battlefield situation where your oponent is a moving target that is highly unrealistic.

Armour worked and it pros FAR OUTWEIGHED its cons. Even societies that fielded mobile warriors recognized the importance of armour. Many Mongol cavalrymen wore iron lamellar suits that would have been heavier than mail covering an equivalant area. Those who did not wear armour were either too poor to afford it or they functioned mainly as skirmishers in battle.

[Makes No Sansa]

The Hound is as big as Drogo, as strong as him, he's very fast and is well protected by his armour. Drogo wouldn't stand a chance, I'm sorry, add to that the fact that Sandor Clegane fights with the rage of a hundred men.

[Ponys123]

No slash/cut/chop with a sword will ever penetrate plate or mail armor. Any tests on history channel which might suggest otherwise make use of substandard quality armor.

To be honest, even the large majority of thrusts fail to penetrate armor. "Even" mail, which, if padded, was the second best form of protection after plate. And mail had the advantage of being easy to maintain and ver versatile. However, it was pretty bloody expensive.

[Reznak mo Reznak]

like all vs fights, the winner would be one that was necessary for the story at that point.

[Mailedhorseman]

No slash/cut/chop with a sword will ever penetrate plate or mail armor. Any tests on history channel which might suggest otherwise make use of substandard quality armor.

To be honest, even the large majority of thrusts fail to penetrate armor. "Even" mail, which, if padded, was the second best form of protection after plate. And mail had the advantage of being easy to maintain and ver versatile. However, it was pretty bloody expensive.

I couldn't agree more. Mail is perhaps the most underrated armour today. Historical mail was more than capable of withstanding very powerful thrusts. The mail that is mass manufactured today has little to do with historical mail. Unfortunately fantasy writers like GRRM make it sound like you can cut through mail like a knife through butter. If that was true I wonder why it was used for over 2000 years.

[jcahill1]

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.

That's not true. Longbows were capable of punching through plate and crossbows never truly replaced them.

[Mailedhorseman]

That's not true. Longbows were capable of punching through plate and crossbows never truly replaced them.

Longbows could only pierce through plate from close range (like 20-30 yards or so).

[Lord Warhammer]

Gotta go with Sandor here iirc he did kill 2 guys drunk off his ass. Drogo would definetly make it a fight though.

[Booknerd2]

Still angry at him that he downed the wine like it was going out of style in front of Polliver and the Tickler of all people and git himself messed up and in a vulnerable position with poor Arya.

But hearing that Tyrion married his bird and then flew the coop and was missing in Westeros really burned him. LOL!

[Loon Lord]

I doubt anyone in the series could defeat Khal Drogo in single combat, armour or no.

We saw in aGoT when Jorah fought Qotho that fighting in armour that it is not easy for the person wearing armour, if Qotho hadn't made some key mistakes he would've killed Jorah easily, despite Jorah being a fantastic fighter. I think if Drogo had been in such a situation he would've easily made the kill, no matter who he's against.

Sandor is a good swordsman but he has far too many weaknesses in a fight (fire, he's usually drunk) and Khal Drogo could easily exploit these and kill him within minutes.

[Son of the Smiling Knight]

I used to like debating these posts but now I can only stick to one truth. Before SoS only a few percentage of people would say Oberyn Martell could beat Gregor Clegane in single combat. Thats how these books work. So many things determine the outcome.

[Lord Ben]

I doubt anyone in the series could defeat Khal Drogo in single combat, armour or no.

We saw in aGoT when Jorah fought Qotho that fighting in armour that it is not easy for the person wearing armour, if Qotho hadn't made some key mistakes he would've killed Jorah easily, despite Jorah being a fantastic fighter. I think if Drogo had been in such a situation he would've easily made the kill, no matter who he's against.

Sandor is a good swordsman but he has far too many weaknesses in a fight (fire, he's usually drunk) and Khal Drogo could easily exploit these and kill him within minutes.

If we're using book examples to prove our point I'll just say that Sandor would win because Drogo's importance to the plot is less than Sandor's... heh.

[Lord Ben]

I think if Drogo came to Westeros and challenged Sandor to a duel to the death he'd be in Westeros about 5 minutes and go "Holy shit, look at this quality armor!" and come to the duel wearing it. Because people who had access to heavy armor wore it, I can't remember many battles or fights in which a side intentionally chose to leave it's plate at home and wear less armor so they could be more maneuverable....

[balefired-ed]

Drogo would die a quick, ugly death.

[Lion of Judah]

If I'm a betting man I say Drogo.

[Wmarshal]

Sandor's proves a hound can eat a horse.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Many of you seem to forget two very important things.

The disadvantages of armor:

• Other fighter can just dance around you
• Vision slits in helmets are very small, decreasing visibility
• You tire easily
• Armor is very heavy, limiting movement

Bronn had success dueling Ser Vardis

Prince Oberyn had success dueling Gregor Clegane (could've killed Gregor and walked away had he not played around with him)

The other thing you guys have forgotten:

The bow is not Khal Drogo's only weapon. He was very skillful with the arakh as well and slew Khal Ogo. Khal Drogo's braid had also never been cut, meaning he had never lost a battle.

All in all, I think it is a pretty even match. Sandor fights with a ruthlessness that could surprise Khal Drogo, but Khal Drogo's fighting experience could be a challenge for Sandor. Although, Sandor did have trouble fighting down below the hill and in the inn. He nearly lost his life in both occurrences.

Now that I think about it, I don't think either fighter has seen very much of the other culture's fighting style.

Sandor had his Westerosi style and Khal Drogo had the Dothraki fighting style.

Without them ever meeting and fighting and having an excerpt to go back and look at and use as a reference for this post, no one really knows how the fight would go down.

I'd say its about even, with the upper hand going to Khal Drogo.

This all makes sense to me.

I think armor is a huge advantage in war, when you get into a scrum and people are hacking at you from all sides.

1-on-1 is a very different calculation.

We saw one example of this when Jorah defeated Qotho in single combat. Qotho had him until his sword got stuck in Jorah's femur. (Ouch.) That robbed Qotho of his mobility and Jorah killed him instantly. Jorah was lucky as hell to win that fight against an unarmored bloodrider.

[Wmarshal]

This all makes sense to me.

I think armor is a huge advantage in war, when you get into a scrum and people are hacking at you from all sides.

1-on-1 is a very different calculation.

We saw one example of this when Jorah defeated Qotho in single combat. Qotho had him until his sword got stuck in Jorah's femur. (Ouch.) That robbed Qotho of his mobility and Jorah killed him instantly. Jorah was lucky as hell to win that fight against an unarmored bloodrider.

Jorah had piss poor armor, a dothraki blade would never get through armor.

[Talleyrand]

This all makes sense to me.

Well it shouldn't cause half of its wrong - plate armour is not some heavy over burdensome hunk of metal, it weighs about the same as a modern soldier's pack (and they have it all weighing down on their back while plate is evenly distributed across the body)

And you simply can't cut through plate with a sword, thats why the majority of knights IRL in the late medieval period used maces, axes, hammers and polaxes - you need a hevy weighted end to bludgeon a man in plate to the ground, not a cutting sword