Syrio Forel - the neverending fight

[corbon]

#10 So your expert opinion is that since he was in close, it was now impossible for him to get farther away? Can you tell me where Trant's sword went after it sheared the stick? I think we can be pretty sure it wasn't into Syrio, can't we ... because Arya wouldn't fail to register (and thus report to the reader) that fact.

Did I say that? No. I didn't say it was impossible for him to get further away. I didn't even come close to saying anything like that!

I gave two reasons it's not a decision point to simply end the fight right then.

The first, more a physical factor, is that he is right now committed, and in close. He has to 'dance away', which is part of fighting, before he can be in a position to decide to end the fight. Again, it might be a decision point on how to conduct the fight from now on, but it is not yet a decision point on whether to end the fight.

The second is more the ... moral? factor. As before, his primary reason for fighting at all is Arya. And she is still there, so that primary reason hasn't changed, so it is not a decision point from that point of view.

The only way it is a decision point over continuing is if Syrio is a coward who only fights when he knows he will win and since the fight situation has changed, he has a decision point over whether to continue. I don;t think that fits anyone's vision of Syrio!

Once again, you state a position I never took and then argue against it. Not impressed. :thumbsdown:

#11 I didn't say endlessly. Can he dance away until Trant seeks to disengage? Because if Trant disengages, there's nothing to stop Forel from picking up a real sword and chasing him. Or knocking him down; or whatever.

No, you didn't say endlessly. I might very well be guilty here of what I complain about from you, and if so, I apologise.

But this, as far as I can tell, is your line of reasoning.

i) Syrio can dance away, enough to mean he 'wins' the fight

ii) if he dances away enough eventually Trant will disengage to chase Arya (because, ironically, you have Trant as a mindless automaton just because he follows orders without regard to their morality)

iii) when Trant disengages Syrio will have an opening to either escape or incapacitate Trant

I simply don't see Trant initiating disengaging. He is not a 'great' swordsman, and certainly not a particularly moral man, but he's an experienced warrior and not exceptionally stupid.

Therefore if Trant doesn't disengage, Syrio has to dance around 'endlessly' or disengage himself (possibly turning it into a mutual disengage as Trant chooses to go after Arya). But that situation has Syrio 'running' - he is disengaging from the fight when Arya is not yet known to be safe, and Syrio Does Not Run. I absolutely cannot see a Syrio who could accept his pupil being captured because he didn't keep the pursuit as busy as he could.

#12 So you are saying that it is unreasonable for Syrio to dance around Trant because that is effectively running from the fight. But it isn't; dancing isn't running, it's seeking tactical advantage - of which there's plenty around. And it is certainly incorrect to say that if Trant disengages then Syrio is running. That's just backwards. Mind you, if Trant went after Arya too fast I expect Syrio would grab a sword and delay him more, but in any event it's not a question of Syrio running from the fight. I'm sorry if you're happy with these weak arguments, which seems to be all you have to support the contention you are expertly proving.

If dancing away allows Trant to disengage and chase Arya, then it is Running From The Fight. If it does not, then it is not running from the fight. If you read back what I actually wrote, I did say that dancing away was running away only "as soon as Trant stops running after him".

What this is getting back to, is that we were (at least I thought) discussing how Syrio got out of the fight alive (which means stopped the fight).

So my discussion has been entered around stopping the fight, not around changing or adapting the manner in which the fight was being fought. I think it is clear that we have had a serious disconnect with each other here.

#13 So in your expert opinion, the more burdened a man is, and the more obstructed his vision, the relatively easier it is for him to maneuver around an irregularly cluttered room? And that conversely, the less burdened a man is, and the less obstructed his vision, the harder it is for him to maneuver around said room? Or perhaps you think that it's disadvantageous to be more maneuverable if you're trying to dance around your opponent? Just wondering. We could have a "battle of the experts", because I think I could find some to disagree with you.

No. This is utterly wrong.

What I wrote, is that mobility hindrances hinder the one who relies on mobility more than the one who doesn't.

There are two reasons why the clutter hurts Syrio more than Trant.

The first can be demonstrated with some math as an example.

A has 'mobility factor' of +6. B has 'mobility factor' of +2. A has a mobility advantage of +4.

Both enter terrain where mobility is restricted by 50%.

A now has mobility factor 3, B has mobility factor 1. A now has a mobility advantage of only +2 - half as much as he had before.

Now mobility isn't necessarily a simple mathematical factor like this, but the principle is sound. Infantry would rather fight cavalry in woods, not because the infantry are not disadvantaged in woods, but because the cavalry are disadvantaged more and have their comparative advantaged reduced.

The second reason has already been mentioned by others. Syrio has to maneuver in directions he is not looking - back, sideways etc. That's more dangerous than Trant, who simply turns to face wherever Syrio is (simple) and moves in the direction he is already facing (relatively simple).

Neither of those make Syrio necessarily less maneuverable than Trant, but they do a) cut down his maneuver advantage (while he is in the clutter) and b ) increase Syrio's odds of a fatal mistake more than they increase Trant's odds of a (less fatal) mistake.

Your argument is supposed to be that it's unreasonable for Syrio to dance away from Trant; now you seem to be saying that Syrio's superior mobility is a disadvantage at close range, or something ... I think you've kinda lost the thread here.

First, its unreasonable (by my argument) to assume Syrio danced around Trant until Trant basically just lost interest. Not unreasonable for Syrio to try and dance round Trant at all.

Second, the fact that you can leap from 'clutter hinders those relying on mobility more than those relying on brute force' as 'superior mobility is a disadvantage at close range' sadly speaks volumes for your ability to reason logically. It does at least explain a lot...

I'll repeat my contention: it's entirely plausible for Syrio to dance around Trant if Trant is attacking him; Syrio would be aided in such an effort by the fact that it is relatively more difficult for a fully armored, vision-impaired man to maneuver around a room cluttered with irregular obstacles than it is for a fast and unencumbered man to maneuver around said room; and maneuverability is rather the point of dancing around somebody while avoiding allowing them to successfully hit you.

It is entirely plausible Syrio could dance around Trant. Not guaranteed, but plausible. He will probably still be able to do it even as he moves backwards and sideways over cluttered terrain, though almost certainly not as easily as he could do it were he given full freedom of movement.

#14 You're saying that wearing armor didn't wear Trant out because he survived? That's quite off topic; we know Syrio did NOT choose to dance around Trant, at least while Arya was watching, but instead chose to engage rather closely.

I'm saying that wearing armour clearly didn't wear out Trant enough to make him lose to Syrio.

This whole argument is about a hypothetical, which I repeat again: Syrio had at least one very reasonable alternative course of action, which he might have pursued if he thought Trant was a serious danger to him: he could have danced around him, out of reach until Trant tried to disengage.

It isn't very reasonable, not because he wasn't capable, but because it goes against his very reasons for fighting in the first place.

Trant can't afford to disengage, because as you yourself have admitted, that could make him vulnerable to Syrio (and he's just seen what can happen to 5 guardsmen who were vulnerable to Syrio).

Even if Trant could afford to disengage, Syrio can't allow him to disengage because he doesn't know Arya is safe yet. If he disengages and Trant goes after Arya, and Arya gets caught, then Syrio hasn't done all he could to protect his pupil. That would be shameful, IMO (and in the Syrio I envisage) akin to Running, and Syrio Does Not Run.

Yes, Syrio might be able to dance around. But dancing around doesn't achieve anything (yet) until Arya is definitely safe or Stark reinforcements arrive. Since Arya never gets definitely safe and I think it is safe to conclude that Stark reinforcements never arrived, at some stage the dancing had to end, one way or another, and not with 'escape'.

And anyway, Trant would likely have survived had Syrio taken the more conservative "wear them down" option; Trant would have eventually disengaged - it's just another route to my overall contention that it is probable that Trant broke off the fight, not Syrio.

I've only seen you use Trant disengaging as a reason for Syrio surviving, not an actual decent argument (oh, the Trant is a mindless automaton that follows orders?) for Trant actually disengaging.

Frankly, I can't see it.

Trant knows he is in a dangerous fight, and disengaging is risky for him.

Syrio doesn't want Trant to disengage and go after Arya, so isn't likely to let him.

I think you forgot you were supposed to be demonstrating that Syrio had no option of dancing around Trant - that it was impossible, or, as you have it, unreasonable.

It isn't possible to prove a negative. :rolleyes:

You also said that if Trant disengages then that means Syrio is running; I trust you'll withdraw that, but one can never be sure.

Your trust is misplaced, at least at this time.

If Trant withdraws, and goes after Arya, and Syrio lets him, Syrio is effectively Running. He is giving up his fight objective to the enemy.

If Trant withdraws and retreats away from Arya, then it is more uncertain, but since Trant can then raise the alarm over Arya's escape, I'd still lean toward that counting as Syrio Running.

[cybroleach]

Just so.

Except: Syrio has an annoying habit of stepping out of the way of such charges, as Martin expressly described in his fight with the +5. And of taking advantage of the charger's miss:

The last red cloak shouted a curse and charged, hacking down with both hands on his sword. Syrio rolled right, and the butcher's cut caught the helmetless man between neck and shoulder ... Before [he] could wrench free his blade, Syrio jabbed him in the apple of his throat.

and

The third guard came leaping over them, slashing at the water dancer's head. Syrio ducked under his blade and thrust upward [into his eye].

I'm confident you won't let those imperfectly identical situations discourage your expert speculation; after all, what could Syrio do to Trant if Trant's charge should miss? Surely he couldn't unbalance him and knock him down from behind - except in the unlikely event Syrio would do approximately what he already did to another guardsman:

He checked one sword and whirled away from a second. Off balance, the second man lurched into the first. Syrio put a boot to his back

[editor's query:

however

did Syrio get

behind

him?]

and the red cloaks went down together.

But, of course, such behavior by Syrio is clearly impossible now, because ... he's facing one man, rather than five? Because Trant is more heavily armored, and therefore more difficult to knock over if he misses a charge? No? Well, I'm sure you have a suitable reason, because that's part of what makes an opinion expert.

Please don't let Martin's writing get in the way of your expert opinion!

And though it seems to me that inconsistency with what he's already written would be one of several reasons Martin might disregard your expert opinion, I realize my personal opinion counts for nothing. As such, I'll simply accept your opinion as expertise unless and until some yet-more-expert poster changes your opinion by disagreeing with it.

Well earlier today I stumbled on a real expert OP of how much better Meryn is vs these gurads Syrio makes bloody oafs out of. He's another calibur of fighter.

"In Westeros, a boy of noble birth began training almost as soon as he could walk. He served years as a page and then a squire, training every day for long hours, first with wooden swords and then with blunted tourney steel, practicing until his hands were hard with callous and every move and cut and stance became second nature to him, and fighting came as easily as breathing. Few farm boys could ever hope to equal that, no matter how big or strong or fast they might be. It was not something a man could master between plowing fields and milking cows." GRRM

[aimlessgun]

Frankly I think that all these openings for Syrio to possibly be alive (especially the argument that Trant doesn't explicitly mention his death) are actually an argument for his death. It shows that he's just not particularly important, he served a purpose as a bit character and it wasn't necessary to write about his fight to the death, or have any character mention it.

I mean good lord, look at all the thought that has been put into this thread. I have a lot of respect for GRRM and the detail he puts into his writing, but I can't believe he would have put this much thought into the things you guys are hashing over. Do you really think he thought long and hard about Syrio vs Trant? I bet he just thought "Armor + actual sword vs wooden sword. Conclusion will be obvious to readers"

[Rakka]

So your expert opinion is that though Syrio got close to the five guardsmen concurrently, and unbalanced some of them, he is stupid to believe he can get close to Meryn Trant yet avoid the sword of Meryn Trant alone?

Considering that Trant has poleyns, gorget and other fun stuff that prevent smashing kneecaps and stabbing throats, and Syrio doesn't have a proper weapon, yes. He can't easily knock down Trant like he did with the guards. The highlighting of the difference of the armour in text should be big enough "textual hint", as should Syrio's failed attempt to cause damage by hitting those points. But then again I'm just reading the regular version, not the super duper annotated version with extra "textual hints" that you seem to be reading.

And that, at the same time, the reason Trant must have killed Syrio is because if Syrio picked up a real weapon he'd be such a threat to Trant that if Syrio lived then Trant would without question be dead - that Trant could not have hoped to retreat from Syrio once Syrio got a real sword?

It'd give him damn more better chances to actually engage Trant instead of avoiding him. At which point it'd be fairly similar swords against each other, so the difficulty of parrying with a much lighter weapon wouldn't be an issue, and Syrio continuously takes initiative in the fight against the guards and attempts to do it with Trant, without success due to his much lighter, blunt weapon. If he gets a proper, sharp weapon THEN he can close in and try some ninjutsu on Trant, due to having something to protect himself with that has more mass and edge than a wooden stick.

Somehow I get the feeling I've explained this before.

It's theoretically possible Trant's commander wouldn't be interested in knowing the full raport on the issue. Not one that I find likely though.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Corbon...you just won my vote for being the PtwP. Sound reasoning. AAF please respond to Corbon. I think your discussion resides wit him.

my thoughts? forget about trants sword....all he WOULD have to do is bodily reach syrio and just plow him over. Fall on him, break his hip.

P.S. my iPhone wants to correct Syrio into syrup. that alone shows him as dead.

Oh, you must mean this one of Corbon's posts - sorry, missed it in the shuffle:

Trant being an instruction follower who was told to get Arya doesn't necessarily have any bearing on Trant fighting with Syrio. It's deadly combat and clearly not to be taken lightly given the fate of the guardsmen. Further, Syrio has been openly goading Trant. It seems to me to be astoundingly illogical to assume that Trant would just walk away from a deadly fight, even though Syrio can't hurt him directly through his armour - at least not with his practice weapon.

This seems, IMO, to be you taking an argument made by the opposition and extrapolating it out in illogical ways. Not credible. :frown5:

It seems astoundingly illogical to you that Trant could walk away from goading? Even though he's described as not caring about goading, such as Sansa saying he's no true knight? Even though Cersei cares so much about securing Arya that she publicly lies about her failure to do so? Even though he's watching her dash out a door right on the other side of the room? Well, I just have to accept this as your expert opinion.

Whereas you have clearly stated that my opinion is astoundingly illogical and an illogical extrapolation of an opposition argument, I would not make such a statement about your opinion. Instead, I would point out some curious aspects of your opinion, which seems to state (correct me if I'm mistaken) that:

Trant would certainly not walk away from a fight precisely because it is deadly combat, particularly in view of the fact that Forel cannot hurt him directly through his armor ... and

Fighting Forel is not to be taken lightly, in view of the dead +5, and this recognition of Syrio's dangerous ability is a reason for Trant to continue to fight Syrio while Arya escapes?

Trant must truly be a brave man - willing not only to risk his life merely because Forel pisses him off, but willing to risk his life even though his failure to pursue Arya is likely to annoy Cersei, and even though he ordinarily follows orders. He must be extremely anxious indeed to fight Syrio - because Syrio is dangerous, I think you said.

I won't assert that your opinion is illogical in a couple of places, though I must confess that I fail to grasp your logic (confirming that I'm astoundingly illogical?).

Hereafter I think the argument settles into a little less provocatively confrontational tone.

Sure. Note though, that Syrio is only as extraordinarily talented as GRRM made him, not as extraordinarily talented as you decide. It doesn't take an invincible super-swordsman to do what Syrio has done so far. He just took advantage of extreme surprise (its an old (maybe) man, a dance instructor rather than a warrior, unarmoured, with no real weapon, against 5 armoured guardsmen) and sudden decisive action made with considerable skill.

Your expert opinion is that the demonstration with the +5 merely shows Syrio to have "considerable skill", making him a bit above average? And his stint as First Sword was probably due primarily to his recognizing a cat as a cat? Fortunately, I think you state this somewhat more fairly below.

But what we see after that is a skilled swordsman who gains nothing more in the fight against Trant but in fact whose position gets worse.

Well, we certainly don't see what was ultimately gained or lost; we know that Trant wasn't killed, so I suppose that's a bit of a comedown for Syrio, compared at least to his demolition of the guardsmen. We do NOT know if Syrio sacrificed his stick on purpose, or what happened immediately after the shearing. On the one hand, such a sacrifice would be consistent with Syrio's demonstrated adaptability (given the demonstrated ineffectiveness of the sword); but on the other hand, how can we believe Syrio could intentionally give up a stick that has some finite value? (Easily, though I don't claim it's more likely than not.)

Please understand: it doesn't matter whether Syrio sacrificed his stick for a strategic advantage, or lost it by accident. It could matter, but only if Syrio was insufficiently skilled to avoid all of Trant's future blows. In that circumstance (which is unlikely in view of Martin's description of Forel's sword evasion thus far), Syrio gaining net strategic advantage by the stick loss would provide an alternative route to my conclusion that Trant disengaged, rather than Syrio.

Which means the available evidence of Syrio's (current) capabilities are that he did extremely well when he had all the advantages, reasonably well when he still had some advantages (Trant still thinking he wasn't much threat but that the guardsmen were just oafs) and achieves little or nothing once he loses those advantages (can get some hits in, but they achieve nothing except to show Trant that he needs to take this fight seriously) and the last thing we see is him actually losing his weapon (about as bad as it can get in a fight without being hit yet).

Or said evidence means that Syrio, with his stick, easily killed five armed, trained fighters who had minor vulnerabilities, but did not actually kill the fully armored Trant. Which we knew with certainty anyway, because Trant survived. It may mean that Syrio merely defeated, or even merely survived, Trant, as opposed to slaughtering each and every one of his opponents. A "trend" or deviation down from the lethal success of his spectacular dismantling of the guardsmen, but still a success (Syrio survived and did not run). Your "trend" starts from such extreme success that even overwhelming success is "down" if it doesn't result in Trant dying (we know he did not).

In the short time we have watched, Trant has taken (I think) five swings at Syrio, none of which has touched him. Yes, Syrio lost or sacrificed half his stick; and if he gained nothing thereby (something we do NOT know), then it put him in somewhat worse shape - probably obliging him to pick up a sword. Terrible thing, that. You may SAY that Trant's next swing will surely cut Syrio down, but such statement not only assumes that Syrio gained nothing when Trant sheared his stick (a reasonable possibility but far from a certainty), more importantly it almost entirely flies in the face of the evidence of Syrio's successful evasions thus far. Not quite entirely, because Syrio now has less stick to parry with, at least until he picks up a sword, but almost. So you blow past alternative possibilities (intentional sacrifice by Syrio) AND insist that the loss of half a stick has reduced Syrio's evasive capabilities to near zero.

I can only acknowledge your opinion, and admit that I cannot share it.

Thus the actual literary evidence is of Syrio starting brilliantly and declining thereafter. There is no actual literary evidence for a recovery, though it is certainly not impossible.

Looking bleak for Syrio is the point of cliffhangeriness.

I really like your trend theory. It's a fun, if misleading, way of trying to extrapolate from literary data points to a conclusion. Let's consider it in detail:

Consider each of the three data points informing your "trend" in turn:

_First, Syrio's success against the guardsmen. Do you truly believe that Syrio's very success can properly serve as evidence that he should fail? This fact, independently addressed by all theories, strongly supports Syrio's survival. It is misleading to turn it on its head by making it the anchor for a "trend" that can never be quite so positive again. Stated differently, the fact of outrageous success does not predict failure simply because it is virtually impossible to ever exceed such level of success.

_Second, the fact that Syrio cannot readily harm Trant with his stick. Every argument for Syrio's survival must, and does, address this fact independently (mine states: that is why it didn't matter that Syrio lost his stick, and is one of the main reason Trant survived while the guardsmen died).

_Third, the fact that Syrio has lost half his stick. Again, every theory of Syrio surviving addresses this glaringly salient point independently; and moreover, this data point is incomplete because we don't know the net effect of this loss - it could well be a pawn sacrifice that gains important strategic advantage, even if that is less than 50% likely.

Now you repackage those three bits of evidence, each of them independently addressed, into a "Syrio failing" trend, and then attempt to draw conclusions based on such "trend". The "Syrio failing trend" does not constitute independent evidence; it does not define a line, because there are NO points in between, and nothing mathematical about the relationship between the points. It may graphically suggest a next point, but as with the stock market, past performance does not guarantee future performance (as technical investors who forget learn to their chagrin). I know some of your objections; I think you'll find some of them answered below.

Next let's look at a "Syrio succeeding trend" that is more fairly compelling for at least two reasons:

_First we have Syrio facing Trant+5;

_Second we have Syrio defeating some of the +5; (this could be fairly expanded to 3d and 4th data points as the guardsmen are defeated)

_Third (or Fifth, if you wish) we have Syrio defeating the last of the +5 and facing Trant alone.

Obviously, an extrapolation of my trend of Syrio's remaining opponents indicates that Syrio will soon defeat Trant as well.

But why do I say this is MORE fairly compelling than your trend? 1. None of the "Syrio succeeding" data points can be mere appearance, like the third of the three "Syrio failing trend" data points, which is so close to lights out that we can't know its net effect. Each and every guardsman that is defeated is one less that Syrio has to face, and unquestionably leaves him in a stronger position. 2. No "Syrio succeeding" data point is paradoxical or deceptive - none falsely creates the impression of a favorable trend for Syrio by sole virtue of the fact that it is strongly unfavorable for Syrio: Trant+0 is less dangerous than Trant+1 is less dangerous than Trant+2, etc. The first of the three "Syrio failing" data points IS paradoxical and deceptive. 3. A minor point: my trend line arguably has five data points, where yours has only three. For all these reasons, the "Syrio succeeding" trend" paints a truer picture of Syrio progressively, steadily eliminating his opponents, thus implying that he will likely finish eliminating his opponents, than the "Syrio failing trend" paints the opposite picture.

For interest, here is an alternative trend data set: I could describe the fight as one trending heavily in favor of Syrio for most of the time, and then taking a (probable) dip as Syrio probably suffers a setback. This alternative trend is more fair but more ambiguous - just like the real situation.

You may argue that your last trend point is fair (i.e., it probably favors Trant), and is closer to the end of our knowledge; and that therefore better implies the next (unknown) point, as closer in time and thus with less room for deviation. However, it is equally true that said last evidence point is SO close to the end of our knowledge that it omits crucial information about the net outcome of that event, so we don't actually know if it represents a trend up or down for Syrio, only that it is (slightly) more likely than not a (short term) trend down.

If the "Syrio failing trend" reflected an actual underlying smooth mathematical curve, one could fairly argue that proximity makes the last data point closer to our sought unknown. However, the data points are essentially discrete, and the curve far from smooth. If Syrio knocked Trant over directly after Trant's sword sheared the stick, the result would be an instantaneous improvement in Syrio's circumstances. But though the discontinuous nature of the underlying curve precludes extrapolation based on the "trend", the uncertainty of the last data point blurs the prediction range regardless of the mathematical shape (or lack of shape) of the underlying distribution. Sorry, that required some engineerese that may put some off. I'm not trying to be obscure, only accurate.

Well, this has been fun. The take-away is "my trend is better than your trend". Anybody can contradict me, but I challenge anybody to set forth a thorough presentation leading fairly to the opposite conclusion. Though I believe it is probably possible to discount both trends as misleading redundant reliance on already-fully-considered data; but that demonstration is too troublesome for any benefit to the argument.

Let me state the overall conclusion differently: there is more literary support for recovery (e.g., failure to be touched by six blades, speed, maneuverability, fighting close in by choice, expert reputation, etc.) than there is for a failure to recover (only two bits of independent evidence: Syrio now has only half a stick, and Trant is hard to kill (and survived). If you like we can add extrapolation from our respective "trends" to our respective literary evidence collections; I believe it's improper, but it favors "Syrio survives", so why should I complain?

I have to agree, that it looks very much like you are starting from the premise that Syrio is brilliant and unbeatable (which is an exaggerated inference from limited evidence, but goes well with his general coolness - just so), and moving from there in what is effectively a circular argument.

The supporting evidence for that premise is the great start, and the clearly inferred history as a very skilled swordsman.

But that ignores the evidence of the bad finish.

The foregoing addresses this, but for those who gave up on it in disgust, I'll restate it differently and more succinctly: the trend showing that Syrio's circumstances are improving is far more fair than your misleading trend in which the better Syrio does initially, the worse your trend appears. Any benefit of your last (of only 3!) datapoints being closer to the unknown we are "solving" for is more than offset by the incompleteness/uncertainty of the meaning of that last data point. And besides, it's not a smooth mathematical function, but one that can change very suddenly and extremely from instant to instant. E.g., Trant could suddenly cut off Syrio's head, or, as I suspect, Syrio could suddenly upend Trant.

For the EEs: the stated trends are not useful in analyzing such data because the frequency content of the underlying data is vastly higher than the frequency of the data points. It's like trying to extract 10kHz music from 30 bps data. If the high frequency outputs aren't destructively filtered, they will yield only noise.

My argument is not circular - you are misrepresenting it. In a simple form, it relies on 1. unimpeachable evidence that Syrio is able to fight Westerosi swordsmen without being hit; and 2. on evidence that Trant's duty is to capture Arya, not to kill Syrio; to draw a conclusion that it is not in Trant's interest to fight with Syrio unless he can dispatch him immediately - which is unlikely in view of 1. - so Trant is likely to leave to seek Arya. In progressively more expansive forms it draws in various threads of evidence to demonstrate that numerous alternative theory details provide even more paths, and thus probabilities, by which Syrio can survive Trant. Thus, for example, details of the Syrio/guardsmen fight demonstrate specific abilities that favor Syrio; that details of Syrio's fight with Trant, considered with textual "common wisdom", suggests Syrio does not fear Trant; and so on. Of course I rely on Syrio being a superior fighter, but that is, as you admit yourself, a pretty well-established textual fact.

My argument is set forth in the first post of this thread, and if you wish to attempt to demonstrate that it is circular, you should quote it in full (it's surprisingly short), rather than attacking a "straw theory" of your own devising, which does not fairly represent my position.

In particular, my theory does NOT require that Syrio cannot be beaten, or even that Trant cannot beat him; because even if Trant CAN beat Syrio, it isn't worth his time to continue to engage Syrio once Arya has fled. He has other fish to fry. On the other hand, unarmored Syrio being superior to Trant is another way to the same result of Trant leaving, rather than Syrio. The better Syrio is, the more likely he survived, but he likely survived if he was merely good enough to avoid Trant's blade for a few moments after Arya left. It's a pretty low requirement.

If you start with the knowledge that Syrio is good.

Then look at what we see in the fight we see that he starts well and finishes badly (that we saw).

We compare that with the circumstantial evidence that Syrio is old(I may be wrong here, but my vague memory is the guardsmen calling him old man?), which fits the good start/not sustained evidence perfectly.

We chuck in the 'Trant is alive and apparently undamaged' later evidence, combined with the 'Syrio is a Bravo and Does Not Run' evidence.

The circumstantial evidence about conversation with Cersei can be dismissed as reasonable interpretations are open either way.

We shade our analysis with the fact that Syrio has disappeared from the books for an unprecedented time, and GRRM would quite definitely had to have hidden the story (of Syrio's escape from the sealed Red Keep) behind his back, even if Syrio winning the fight is considered to have enough clues to be credible.

Yes, Syrio could have won the fight, or run away, and could have escaped the Red Keep.

No, it isn't credible on the evidence presented.

IMO.

What part of the immediately foregoing evidence favors Syrio having been killed by Trant?

1. 
   
2. Not that Syrio is good, of course.
   
3. Not your trend argument: I demonstrate above in gory detail that your "trend" less compellingly suggests Syrio failing - EVER, never mind after a few moments, which is all I require - than my trend suggests Syrio succeeding over Trant - even if Trant never pursues Arya!
   
4. Not a physical comparison (e.g., age) of Syrio and Trant. That Syrio is old is probably true (he's bald, and called "old man"), but Trant is 'baggy eyed' and thus also reasonably presumed old; we don't know how old they actually are; and we DO know that Syrio retains blazing speed and skill, while Trant is widely held in contempt. Thus, a physical comparison of the two favors Syrio, if anything.
   
5. That Trant is alive and Syrio does not run could appear, if combined with unwarranted assumptions such as "if Trant is alive then Syrio must be dead", etc., to favor a conclusion that Syrio was killed; however, those circumstance are BOTH entirely explained by my conclusion - as required by any of several different theories that together account for the vast majority of probable outcomes - that Trant disengaged Syrio, rather than the other way around.
   
6. Not the evidence of what Trant said, which I agree is not very helpful (while submitting that it is at least suspicious in a literary sense, and somewhat favors Syrio surviving Trant overall).
   
7. Not Syrio's extended absence. I grant that Syrio's extended absence increases the probability that he will not reappear, but NOT the probability that Trant killed him. The need to escape the RK and KL similarly reduces the likelihood of his return (though not much, given authorial fiat), but does not affect the probability he survived Trant. I disagree Martin "hid the story behind his back" because of all the evidence I have cited that supports a conclusion that Syrio survived that cliffhangery scene, and because he didn't, after all, have a POV to report on Syrio in the meanwhile, nor any contribution for Syrio to make in that meantime.
   

Thus, only item 4 of the evidence you choose to summarize even appears to support your contention that Syrio must be dead; and that is easily rebutted. In fairness, you forgot to mention your strongest evidence, which is Trant shearing Syrio's stick, so I'll add that here.

But your argument quite fails to rebut my theory, as set forth in post #1, and as elaborated above. For example, you do not consider Syrio's specific demonstrated ability to avoid Westerosi swords; nor do you consider the effect on his behavior of Trant's motivations - whether fearing Syrio may kill him (wise man), or simply realizing his duty is to capture Arya rather than to kill Syrio (dutiful man). And while you mention Syrio's extended absence (which doesn't affect the probability Trant killed Syrio), you fail to consider the implications of Martin setting up a scene so loaded with cliffhangeriness, with no apparent reason for a lack of resolution.

I've demonstrated some of the many different paths - evidence-based conjectures of the fight - that all independently lead to a conclusion that Syrio most likely survived, while only Trant's easily explained survival, the very emotional (and quite possibly misleading) fact that Trant sheared Syrio's stick, and the atextual "expert" opinions about RW swordfighting, even suggest that Trant killed Syrio (OK, the "experts" often insist rather than suggest).

Opposite conclusion, and, if I do say so myself, more thoroughly argued. But after the first few paragraphs, at least your argument became more civil and interesting; this turned into one of the fairest presentations I've seen. Of course that's NOT a withdrawal of my many disagreements!

[AvengingAryaFan]

I'll have to accept your claim that you aren't mocking, but I have to say it feels very much that you are. Perhaps a different technique is in order?

I respond to insulting statements in similar tone, sometimes. I toned down my last post, simply because your own was less inflammatory. However, this is the first feedback on my new policy of somewhat mockingly treating everybody else's opinion is "expert" while mine is worthless. It's what all the swordfight "experts" kept saying, which as you can imagine I found a trifle annoying and missing the literary point. In view of the insulting nature of that arrogance, it seemed fair to adopt the insults thrown at me and make them my own.

But if YOU aren't putting yourself forward as an expert, I will avoid (in future!) suggesting you are. Incidentally, your arguments, however wrongheaded, are as good as those of anybody from your camp, and better than most.

I'll note that having been classy enough to revise the 'suicidal' position, you still haven't responded to being shown that even your revised position was practically opposite to what was actually written?

My response: accusing my revised position of being practically opposite to what was actually written is a far cry from "being shown", and I do NOT agree that the accusation is warranted.

OiL's presentation asked rhetorically if bravos behaved so foolishly (and what else can you call fighting to the death over who is the most beautiful courtesan?) because they were suicidal, and answered her question "no". That is NOT a statement about SYRIO is not suicidal, but only about bravos generally - presumably younger bravos (and BTW I think the "bravo culture" she cites is drawn from the attitudes of stupid camel cunts and bravo wannabes, rather than reflecting the cultural ethics of real, superior bravos like Syrio).

She in fact singled SYRIO out as having nothing to look forward to but watching his teeth fall out one by one, plus other choice descriptions (such as saying of course he is looking for a chance to "go out in a blaze of glory"), all completely unsupported by any textual hint. Her implications are tantamount to suggesting that SYRIO has no reason to live, whether or not bravos in general are suicidal. The fact that she also suggests Syrio is brave and heroic is NOT a contradiction; indeed, the idea that it is easier to risk one's life heroically when there is no reason to live is precisely the seductive appeal of her presentation, which attempts thereby to convince us that Syrio was happy to throw his life away fighting impossible odds. Even more, she grossly demeaned the very heroism she attributed to Syrio by suggesting he had nothing, really, to give up, and everything to gain, by getting himself killed!

I gotta tell you, that presentation by OiL riles me up because it is so disarmingly misleading, mixing heroism with completely unfounded hopelessness. Asserting that it suggests that Syrio "has no reason to live" is ENTIRELY fair. I do not deny that she also gives lip service to his heroism, but contend that she so demeans the sacrifice she says he's making as to negate the "hero" part. Grr. Don't get me started again - I thought we'd gotten past this, and had finally agreed that the only reasonable assumption is that Syrio has as much love of life as the next person. Ya know, in RL it's generally the KIDS who commit suicide, not the old people. Older folks may technically have less to live for, but they WANT it twice as much! Come to think of it, do you think kids are more likely to give their lives heroically, as compared to adults who have more ... perspective, not to say "cynicism"? Robb's honor requiring he marry Jeyne simply because he screwed her under odd circumstances - an older person would see that of the two sacrifices of honor, the sacrifice of his promise to marry a Frey was the vastly more important one. See what I mean about young vs. old? If such an age effect applies to bravos, then Syrio is LESS likely to sacrifice his life unnecessarily than a younger bravo, and MORE likely to know the difference between necessary and unnecessary. (But never mind, there's simply no text making any love-of-life implication for Syrio compared to others.)

Moving on. I gotta go, I've been writing all night, mostly responding to your posts. I'll try to address the rest of your points in this post - very civilly - later. And how in the world do YOU write so much?

[AvengingAryaFan]

Well earlier today I stumbled on a real expert OP of how much better Meryn is vs these gurads Syrio makes bloody oafs out of. He's another calibur of fighter.

"In Westeros, a boy of noble birth began training almost as soon as he could walk. He served years as a page and then a squire, training every day for long hours, first with wooden swords and then with blunted tourney steel, practicing until his hands were hard with callous and every move and cut and stance became second nature to him, and fighting came as easily as breathing. Few farm boys could ever hope to equal that, no matter how big or strong or fast they might be. It was not something a man could master between plowing fields and milking cows." GRRM

OK. And where does it say that Meryn Trant is of noble birth? Not saying he's not, just wondering. And, BTW, that doesn't change the fact that Selmy, Forel and Jaime all express contempt for him.

[jjames36]

Your expert opinion is that the demonstration with the +5 merely shows Syrio to have "considerable skill", making him a bit above average? And his stint as First Sword was probably due primarily to his recognizing a cat as a cat?

Corbon said it earlier, Avenging Arya, and he was right. You saying your repetition of "your expert opinion" isn't mocking doesn't mean it's not. I would agree with Corbon that a different approach might be in order.

Second, and more to the point, Corbon never said that Syrio's success with the +5 means he is a bit above average. Just as Rakka never said that Trant is better at moving around a cluttered room than Syrio. This is another thing Corbon illustrated: your primary tactic in this debate has been to twist the other posters' positions into something that is easier to rebut. You're not using Strawmen per se, because you're not extrapolating their positions into some absurd condition, but you are coming to close to using them.

Now, I happen to know that this technique your using is commonly used by attorneys when cross examining experts in front of jurors. There it is both effective and sensible; if you can frustrate the expert, and/or make her or him look foolish, the jurors will be less impressed by her or him and thereby less likely to accept his or her contention. Some of your other posts have led me to think that you either have some experience in law or are working toward said profession, which makes me think you occasionally use the approach when it's appropriate (and to be sure, you're very good at it). Now, whether I'm right or wrong on this is irrelevant, if only because you are not appealing to a jury here, which means these subtle perversions of positions isn't helping move the conversation forward.

Moving on.

Please understand: it doesn't matter whether Syrio sacrificed his stick for a strategic advantage, or lost it by accident. It could matter, but only if Syrio was insufficiently skilled to avoid all of Trant's future blows. In that circumstance (which is unlikely in view of Martin's description of Forel's sword evasion thus far)

No swordsmen, whether in Martin or the real world, is sufficiently skilled to avoid all future blows without the aid of a weapon or shield to parry with. When Syrio avoided the +5, he frequently parried with his sword. Check the text. It wasn't all dodging.

Ditto that for avoiding Trant's blows. He frequently parried.

Ditto that for Bronn's fights (even the one in the Vale). And Oberyn's (even the one against Gregor). And Brienne's. And Jaime's. And Jon's. And. Need I go on?

The conclusion: if Syrio doesn't have something to parry with (and he's lost his sword, though I can't remember if he's holding a helmet), he better darn well go find something. And right quick. Because mobility ain't going to be enough. (Incidentally, Corbon's mathematics as related to mobility were quite interesting, methinks.)

In the short time we have watched, Trant has taken (I think) five swings at Syrio, none of which has touched him.

Some of which were parried. See my above point.

AND insist that the loss of half a stick has reduced Syrio's evasive capabilities to near zero.

To zero? No. he might avoid some blows, yes. But eventually he will guess wrong after Trant feints, or he will make a misstep or he will trip on all of the bodies in his way, or whatever, and he will get hit. Unless he has something to parry with. That's how fights work. In the real world and in Martin. (See above.)

Let me state the overall conclusion differently: there is more literary support for recovery (e.g., failure to be touched by six blades, speed, maneuverability, fighting close in by choice, expert reputation, etc.) than there is for a failure to recover (only two bits of independent evidence: Syrio now has only half a stick, and Trant is hard to kill (and survived). If you like we can add extrapolation from our respective "trends" to our respective literary evidence collections; I believe it's improper, but it favors "Syrio survives", so why should I complain?

Assuming this point is true, which frankly, I'm not sure I do, it requires that we accept all literary evidence is equal on its face. I.E. That some pieces of evidence are not stronger than others. I don't think anyone will accept that point. So therein is the difference: you think the support for recovery is more important. Those who disagree with you think the support for failure is more important. The quantity of those supports is irrelevant. We're debating the quality.

One last thing. (Okay this isn't a quote--just wanted a visual break between arguments.

You repeatedly reference the fact that Martin gave little to no gore in Syrio's fight with Trant as evidence that Syrio is alive. You asked someone what reason Martin had for presenting no such gore.

EB already provided that reason. It wouldn't have been safe for Arya to stick around once Syrio's stick was sheared.

Let me extend that argument a little. Look at it from Arya's perspective, and you have your answer as to why there was no gore. Assuming Syrio was about to die, as she did, she couldn't afford to hang out any longer. If her assumption was correct, then Trant was going to kill Syrio and instantly turn his attention on her, meaning she--at least in her opinion--wouldn't have had time to get away. It doesn't matter what you think Martin could have done with the scene. Nor does it matter what I think he could have done. It only matters what Arya thought was going to happen.

She thought her mentor and protector was going to die. She thought that upon his death she was going to be captured. She didn't want to be captured. And perhaps more importantly, Syrio didn't want her to be captured. Given these thoughts and motivations (both intrinsic and extrinsic), the only in-character choice she had was to flee. And upon her flight, the only option the author had (given how he limits himself to a particular person's perspective) was to leave the end of the Syrio and Trant fight un-described. And that is why there was no gore.

The lack of gore, then, is evidence of nothing. It doesn't prove Syrio is dead. It doesn't prove Syrio is alive.

j

P.S. You suggested once that Corbon contends Syrio is dead. For clarification, he makes no such contention. He contends only that your theory is unlikely.

[jjames36]

OK. And where does it say that Meryn Trant is of noble birth? Not saying he's not, just wondering.

He has to be of noble birth. Only nobles have last names.

This we learn repeatedly throughout the novels, but several Arya scenes (including when she meets Tyrion's squire) jump to mind.

And, BTW, that doesn't change the fact that Selmy, Forel and Jaime all express contempt for him.

Agreed. Even if he's been trained well, and he almost certainly has been, he might not be particularly good. (Though I still question how bad he can possibly be given that he somehow made the Kingsguard, the most prestigious group of swordsmen in Westeros.)

j

[jjames36]

Nevermind, per Lady Blackfish's comment below.

j

[Manakhkubar]

He has to be of noble birth. Only nobles have last names.

This we learn repeatedly throughout the novels, but several Arya scenes (including when she meets Tyrion's squire) jump to mind.

j

Maybe he earned that title during his lifetime, because he himself was such a noble and skilled swordsman that he was not only granted a noble title and manor, but also a place in the Kingsguard under Robert.

[Lady Blackfish]

<mod>This is getting to be a mess, the conversation is more about the conversation than the actual topic. Everyone stop insulting everyone and stick to the books.</mod>

[jjames36]

Maybe he earned that title during his lifetime, because he himself was such a noble and skilled swordsman that he was not only granted a noble title and manor, but also a place in the Kingsguard under Robert.

That's certainly possible. Though if it is the case, then the premise that Trant is an average or lesser swordsman would lose some credibility, wouldn't it?

j

[cybroleach]

OK. And where does it say that Meryn Trant is of noble birth? Not saying he's not, just wondering. And, BTW, that doesn't change the fact that Selmy, Forel and Jaime all express contempt for him.

I figured that he's a TRANT is enough to conclude his noble birth. But to explain it more: "House Trant of Gallowsgrey, banner is a hanged man, black on blue their motto is, So End Our Foes. The only member of the house to appear is Ser Meryn Trant, a member of the Kingsguard." from the citadel.

Semly and Jaime are big at dishing out contemt though they treat each other with it. :smoking:

[AquariumDrinker]

For some reason, I keep thinking of this quote:

“Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”

I also wish someone would come up with a good new crackpot theory, other than "Syrio Lived"

[Mad Monkey]

There was a fantastic one involving Renly Baratheon, murderously homophobic Tyrells, and a rigged up gorget a while back. You can probably find it, if you dare.

[AquariumDrinker]

There was a fantastic one involving Renly Baratheon, murderously homophobic Tyrells, and a rigged up gorget a while back. You can probably find it, if you dare.

The little birds are birds!

[AvengingAryaFan]

General decisions are up for revision at all times and under every change of circumstance. Including mid fight.

OTOH, I'm arguing that Syrio's decision to fight is based on factors outside the fight itself - a) to protect Arya and b ) because of his stated Syrio Does Not Run, which I've described here as a lifestyle and/or honour code, Since these factors are outside the fight, and are not changed at any time we are still witnessing the fight, then there is no reason to assume that there is an effective new decision point (assuming these are the critical factors - which should go without saying, since this is my position I'm explaining, but I don't trust you any more to not simply jump in here and that since they aren't relevant neither is this argument).

Relieved you agree Syrio can change his tactics at any time. I grant NotRun, but dancing around, as well as a fighting retreat, are options (Syrio did NOT choose them while we watched, which is interesting).

Not trusting me was the best decision you made since coming to KL, er, I mean, these boards. But seriously, I disagree: even granting NotRun is constant, here are several things that DO change during the fight (and Syrio's responsive tactical decision): 1. Trant enters the fray in full armor (Syrio decides to engage); 2. Syrio completes goading Trant and/or testing for exploitable weaknesses (Syrio finds none and still decides to remain engaged); 3. Syrio's stick is sheared (Syrio's response, and indeed the net effect, are unknown); 4. Arya leaves (response and net effect unknown).

I submit that any of those changes might reasonably change Syrio's tactical response. For example, if Syrio believes that Trant's sword and armor render him highly dangerous (as compared to five guardsmen), I would expect Syrio to change to a dancing, defensive posture when Trant enters the fight in order to protect his life (while continuing to stall to allow Arya to escape). He did not; but if his engagement was unsuccessful (no exploitable weaknesses) or his goal satisfied (Trant goaded), AND Trant looked formidable, I'd expect him to dance away at that time. He did not; but if his stick getting sheared was a catastophe, rather than a successful tactical sacrifice, I'd certainly expect him to dance away then. Finally, once Arya is gone Syrio has no reason to keep fighting Trant for long, except to preserve his life (which could have involved endangering Trant's life and/or dancing out of range).

The end of this post appears to show that we had different understandings of "decision point". You seem to consider it something only regarding a decision to fight or not. Whereas, I meant a point at which ANY relevant decision might be taken. I was mostly thinking of tactical decisions (how to conduct the fight), such as: engage? try to trip? dance away? rap helm? pick up steel sword? Any of those, and many other things, would be a tactical decision. And while tactical decisions are made all the time, a change in understanding (I can't hurt him with this stick) or circumstance (he seems to have sheared my stick) is a likely time (decision point) to make a tactical decision (and possibly even a tactical change). And that seems to be just one of MANY misunderstandings, too many of them mine.

View Postcorbon, on 20 December 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

At that stage, Syrio chooses to fight, because a) he feels a need to protect Arya, and b ) it is required (#2) of him by his lifestyle (#3) and honour code (#4).

AAF replied:

#2 , #3, #4

: What is "required" of Syrio is unknown, so this is unsupported conjecture. The idea that he is obligated to certain behavior by his lifestyle and honor code is doubly unsupported: not only do you NOT know his lifestyle and honor code (he is different from and superior to the vast majority of bravos) you DO know that he has successfully avoided losing a fight to the death for quite a long time. His longevity as a fighter strongly suggests that his lifestyle does NOT include, and his honor does NOT require, arbitrarily engaging in hopeless fights. You would have him be a robot programmed to blindly follow an "ideal" of bravo behavior that has textual support only in the behavior of some bravo wannabes. You insist he is unable to evaluate the present circumstances with intelligence and freewill. You describe Syrio as a mockery of a bravo, rather than the paragon that he is. What we know of his wit and intelligence in regard to fighting, and of his success and longevity, requires that he is in fact extremely intelligent and adaptable, and does NOT engage in hopeless fights to the death.

It is conjecture - else I would be describing my position as 100% sure.

But it is not unsupported.

It is supported by Arya's later description of Bravos.

It is primarily supported by Syrio's own words, that he Does Not Run.

Nothing about a hopeless fight is suggested, and you are perfectly aware that I've already stated that not only is the fight not 'hopeless' when it began (the decision to take it on), but it is still not entirely 'hopeless' even when we leave it at it's currently worst point. Which makes you dishonest in suggesting that my argument is that he is a mindless robot programmed to fight hopeless fights. You did it again. You took an opponents point, reinvented it as something entirely different, and then demolished that instead. Not impressed. :thumbsdown:

I accept his personal statement that SyrioDoesNotRun; but there is no support for a conclusion that "his lifestyle and honor" "require" anything in particular of Syrio. There is no suggestion that bravos are "required" to follow any particular code, and indeed, how would that be enforced? What you have support for is that Syrio might be inclined to do certain things. That's fine, until the "certain things" start involving taking stupid risks. Because there are old bravos and there are stupid bravos, but there are no old, stupid bravos.

If you are talking about what Syrio might be inclined to do, I'll grant you have some support. I'll challenge the sufficiency of support when it matters, which it may not.

Because your position that the fight isn't initially hopeless might make this a rather moot point. Others' contentions about Syrio being "required" to follow bravo culture have been set forth to explain why Syrio would take on Trant+5 when Trant alone was guaranteed to kill Syrio. [bTW, I'm sorry I seem to have confused your positions with others' - it's hard to keep track - but while I'm subject to mistake (!), I'm NEVER dishonest (which requires intent to deceive) on these boards, so would you please stop saying that? Golden Rule and all that.]

Anyway, it (others' contention, previous paragraph) was an unreasonable argument. No "lifestyle and honor" can require Syrio to do stupid things, such as compulsively fight to the death against insurmountable odds, because Syrio's success and longevity prove he did NOT engage in stupidly, excessively self-endangering behaviors. Theoretically, his duty might someday force him into a fight to the death he can't win, but he's certainly avoided that situation for a long time, despite a high profile professional fighting career. Moreover, the dancing master's "duty" to Arya is ill-defined.

General principles: there may be a "bravo ethic" involving lifestyle and honor, but it is not precisely defined like a legal document (let alone precisely defined by the behavior of some stupid bravo wannabes). No code of behavior can be all three of inflexible, self-destructive, and consistently binding on Syrio Forel. His success and longevity precludes it (he wouldn't have survived to be a wise old Yoda).

From stuff you wrote further below, I think you actually agree with most of the above. In fact, it may be that the Syrio I imagine takes rather more risks than the Syrio you imagine. I don't see how taking on SIX swordsmen at once can be a trivial risk for an unarmored man! And however he evaluated the risk, he took it on merely to give Arya a head start. So he's definitely not risk-averse!

No, you can't conclude with confidence that he is just lucky. You can conclude with confidence that he is good (though not necessarily invincible).

You can guess with a fair degree of confidence that he is smart, and careful. Which means he probably did a lot of work in controlling the circumstances around him, leading to being in greater control of any necessary fights. This is supported by the non-combat stuff he is teaching Arya - about be smart and careful.

At least, for a change, you didn't claim that I insisted he was lucky. Sort of.

I thought your position was that Syrio always engaged in fights without regard to his survival. If he did that all his bravo life, it would have been a short one - UNLESS he was simply extremely lucky that he never happened to engage in a fight he couldn't win.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Syrio couldn't have survived without some discretion, and considering the possibilities of survival is an important aspect of such discretion. If I'm not arguing against your position, then please don't take it as such.

View Postcorbon, on 20 December 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

I don't think survival or lack or survival actually enters his decision making process (#5). Not at this or at any time (#6). He is a Bravo, was First Sword, Does Not Run etc etc.

AAF replied:

#5, #6 Is this your expert opinion - that survival or lack of survival never enters his decision making process? Because we can then conclude with confidence that Syrio has simply been lucky these many years that he never happened to engage in a fight he couldn't win - because he'd have waded in regardless of the value of the fight compared to the chances of survival. It really is not flattering to Syrio Forel to logically require that he has simply been lucky all these years; and it is also contrary to the impression we are given that he has been successful because of his perceptiveness and blade skills, not because of luck.

Bollocks it is unsupported! Syrio Does Not Run. I don't have an ebook or anything to get quotes properly, but that is literally his own words, more or less, is it not?

(If he never said anything like this then I apologise for a whole bunch of mis-supported statements!)

I'm also not talking about a Syrio who gets into fights without considering the chances for survival.

!!!! You JUST SAID "I don't think survival or lack or survival actually enters his decision making process. Not at this or at any time."

Can you see why I'd have argued with you? You're arguing with yourself now (and properly so, I might add).

I don't know what you were thinking, but I took issue with what you said (see quote immediately above). IF survival or lack of survival never entered Syrio's decision making process, then the only reason he would have survived to be old was dumb luck. Regardless of his skill, there must inevitably have been situations he couldn't overcome. If he waded in without regard to survival, he'd have died. He'd have been merely lucky if life never tossed a situation to him that he couldn't win.

But, as I've said and as I think YOU are saying now: of course, he exercises discretion before entering fights (he may also have exercised discretion during fights; certainly, he never got killed!).

I'm not saying "SyrioDoesNotRun" is unsupported - I completely grant that, never meant to dispute it. I tried to be pretty precise as to what I was addressing, but misunderstandings will happen. And I haven't found you claiming any unreasonable "requirement" on Syrio's behavior due to lifestyle and (bravo) honor, so I'm sorry we got sidetracked on that. I was probably shadowboxing.

I'm talking (conjecture here) about a Syrio who doesn't get into any fights if he can control the situation enough to avoid it, because he is smart enough and wise enough to know that fighting is always risky, and anything can happen in a fight just through bad luck. But I'm also talking about a Syrio who, once he has taken on a fight, will fight to the best of his ability, in order to achieve the goal he took the fight on for, regardless of the personal cost. That is implied, IMO, by the Does Not Run.

Ironically, I also think it fits your ideal of Syrio better than your own statements. Despite all the Syrio-is-super-cool-man, IMO you have him acting in cowardly, self-interest when push comes to shove. "I'll hold off the bad guys for Arya a wee while, but not if it actually risks my hide. If I'm in any real danger then I'll run away and let them chase her rather than me".

NOT cowardly. Just not stupid. Highly courageous - even a man who knows his skills has to recognize the possibility of something going fatally wrong (as you said) while he's fighting off SIX swords with a stick! He's seriously badass, but he's also a wise, thinking fighter who doesn't just blunder into fights, but evaluates them carefully - what is my goal? (to allow Arya to escape) - how can I accomplish that and live? (let me count the ways). And he continues to think during the fight, so if he finds Trant shearing his stick then he moves out of range and picks up a sword. That would enable him to prevent Trant from chasing Arya directly. But if Trant starts to back out of the room the way he came, Syrio wouldn't follow, at least for risk of reinforcements.

"I'll let Arya escape. I can probably take these guys, but I can almost certainly survive. If they were 100 guards I might not try to stop them; after all, high-born hostages are hardly even mistreated, and there may not be a safe place for her anywhere. But I'll give THESE morons the surprise of their ... death."

Dancing away is fine, commendable, and likely. But it can't last forever. At some stage the fight has to end. At that stage, either Trant or Syrio must be unable to continue IMO, because if both can continue then Trant is free to go after Arya, which Syrio can't, IMO, allow.

Trant's later state, and lack of apparent disgrace, suggest very strongly that Trant wasn't unable to continue. Not prove, very strongly suggest.

It needn't last forever, by any means. If Trant moves to follow Arya too soon (less than a minute?), Syrio can pick up a sword and harry him - if he hasn't already.

Parsing, I think you mean: The fight won't end with both able to continue, because Trant would go after Arya and Syrio wouldn't allow that. I disagree in principle, because I think it would be fine to let Trant chase Arya after about a minute. We're talking a fully armored knight chasing a little girl who had a big head start. (But in practice, I doubt Syrio let Trant follow Arya directly at all)

I also disagree for the somewhat paradoxical reason that I think you're right, Syrio wouldn't let Trant follow Arya (at least not for a while). If Syrio can dance away then he can pick up a sword; and then he can harass Trant as much as he likes (though it still wouldn't be easy to kill him). A sword should enable Syrio to prevent Trant from following Arya, but he still wouldn't follow Trant back the way he came (if only due to the risk of reinforcements). Trant will be forced not only to disengage, but to return the way he came, seeking others to find Arya. Probably.

The two alternatives by which the fight would end with both able to continue: Syrio delays just long enough (a minute?), then allows Trant to follow Arya; or, Syrio never lets Trant follow Arya directly, so Trant returns the way he came.

It depends,of course, on Syrio being good enough to prevent Trant from killing him. But given how he's avoided hits thus far, and how he chose to engage closely, I don't think Syrio is too worried. But I expect him to pick up a sword, either because he lost his stick, or because he knocked Trant down and would like to finish him, or to prevent Trant from chasing Arya directly.

(AAF, reference # and bold emphasis added): As for giving Arya his best, the only thing Syrio can do for Arya is give her a head start; and he can do that at least one way without losing his life. Given that once he loses his life he can't do anything for Arya, or for anyone else, why, again, would he not choose the option that allows him to live? (My answer is that

1A Syrio does not think Trant has much chance of killing him

, but that's incompatible with your thesis.)

Corbon answers (reference # and bold emphasis added)

He won't choose the option that has him run, because he said he won't.

Nothing in my thesis even suggests that 1B Syrio doesn't think Trant has much chance of killing him, let alone being incompatible. Once more, you are inventing something else and arguing against it, not what has been said.

I do suggest (though I don't think I have before this post, because it never came up) that Syrio is aware that Trant, no matter how badly outclassed, has some chance of killing him. Combat is like that.

Hmm. Your first statement ("Nothing in my thesis ...") appears to violently agree with mine, and then to accuse me of misrepresenting.

But your last statement ("I do suggest ...") is so oddly reasonable that, first, I wonder if I've just entered another universe, and second, I wonder if you simply misstated your objection (meaning to say "Nothing in my thesis even suggests to the contrary [of 1A]"), and that I really DID misrepresent your position - again. Because your last statement sounds highly compatible with my answer 1A.

I know, you're trying to confuse me to death. You may succeed.

I thought I was arguing with a hard-core "Syrio is almost certainly dead" person; yet the positions you hold (Trant is outclassed, Syrio isn't too afraid of him, if necessary Syrio can dance away and get a sword, the odds for Syrio vs. Trant+5 weren't hopeless) are mostly the same as mine. I guess I REALLY got you mixed up.

But now I'm perplexed: with those positions, do you nonetheless think Syrio is unlikely to have survived Trant? I mean, if you accept Syrio can at least dance away from the sword-shearing and pick up a real sword, and that he seems pretty able to avoid sword hits, then why would you think Trant killed Syrio? I know he faced additional problems getting out of the RK and KL, but it seems you should think he had high odds of surviving Trant.

Hmm. Can we try this again? Somehow I got an awful lot of your positions confused with those of typical "Syrio must be dead" posters. Add in a few imprecisely written comments, and I think I may very well be dying of confusion.

We can agree to disagree here on the decision point. As explained, I don't think it really is a decision point because I am think (am pretty certain, but not 100%) that Syrio's decisive factors in fighting are all about Arya primarily (and having started the fight, Not Running secondarily). Since neither of these have changed, it isn't a real decision point in continuing the fight. It is instead a decision point in the manner of conducting the fight.

But - all I ever meant by "decision point" was a point at which a change in "manner of conducting the fight" (or as I would phrase it, a tactical decision) might be called for! I never meant to suggest that Syrio would run, only that if necessary he would dance; that he'd change tactics as necessary during the fight.

Dang, most of our premises are dangerously similar. Now I'm really unclear as to why our conclusion seems to differ.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Did I say that? No. I didn't say it was impossible for him to get further away. I didn't even come close to saying anything like that!

I'm sorry. I DO seem to have made a number of erroneous assumptions about your positions.

I addressed your previous post in detail, pointing out a number of misunderstandings, many of them my bad. There are so many, in fact, that I don't think it will be very enlightening to address this post in detail. Could you review the post of yours quoted above in light of the mea culpas in my preceding reply, and perhaps just repost anything that you think remains a point of contention?

I know we have differences still, but we have many agreements and I'd like to start fresh, see if we can find where we REALLY differ.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Considering that Trant has poleyns, gorget and other fun stuff that prevent smashing kneecaps and stabbing throats, and Syrio doesn't have a proper weapon, yes. He can't easily knock down Trant like he did with the guards. The highlighting of the difference of the armour in text should be big enough "textual hint", as should Syrio's failed attempt to cause damage by hitting those points. But then again I'm just reading the regular version, not the super duper annotated version with extra "textual hints" that you seem to be reading.

So should I reply with snark, too? I could live without it. It irks me, if that's what you're trying to accomplish, though usually I can step back and realize that it reflects more on you than on me. Anyway, I'm sorry if you can't find the textual hints I rely on; I try to provide quotes and/or page cites for my support. It often helps to read the section in question, because the precise wording matters. The passage I quote below is in the paragraph bridging pages 533-534 of AGOT, BantamPB.

I believe you are one who has frequently implied that your opinions are superior because you're an expert on swordfighting.

So is it your expert opinion that "poleyns, gorget and other fun stuff" improve Trant's balance? If not, would you mind explaining their relevance to knocking Trant down?

Syrio didn't exactly "easily knock down" the guardsmen:

He checked one sword and whirled away from a second. Off balance, the second man lurched into the first. Syrio put a boot to his back

[editor's query:

however

did Syrio get

behind

him?]

and the red cloaks went down together.

Thus, it was his "whirling away from" the second sword that caused the second man to go off balance and lurch into the first.

It doesn't appear that Syrio did anything offensively to either the first or second man until after he whirled away from a swing. So whether the second man had every conceivable piece of armor, or not, would have made no difference to this particular tactic. Syrio invites a sword slash, avoids it, and in the process causes the slasher to be off balance.

Syrio did this while dancing with FIVE men at once.

It did not require the guardsman in question (#2) to have armor vulnerabilities.

Would you be so kind as to explain exactly why Syrio could not do something similar with Trant?

Because in my very humble opinion, it appears perfectly possible. It's well within Syrio's repertoire; he hadn't picked up a steel sword yet, but he did remain engaged, even though he'd found he couldn't injure Syrio with his stick. In those circumstances, off-balancing was about the only thing Syrio could do to Trant. When you only have one tool, that's the tool you use, so I'd expect Syrio to be trying very hard to off balance Trant. But I'm sure your expert opinion will leave no doubt that Syrio could not possibly have done that to Trant.

And that, at the same time, the reason Trant must have killed Syrio is because if Syrio picked up a real weapon he'd be such a threat to Trant that if Syrio lived then Trant would without question be dead - that Trant could not have hoped to retreat from Syrio once Syrio got a real sword?

It'd give him damn more better chances to actually engage Trant instead of avoiding him. At which point it'd be fairly similar swords against each other, so the difficulty of parrying with a much lighter weapon wouldn't be an issue, and Syrio continuously takes initiative in the fight against the guards and attempts to do it with Trant, without success due to his much lighter, blunt weapon. If he gets a proper, sharp weapon THEN he can close in and try some ninjutsu on Trant, due to having something to protect himself with that has more mass and edge than a wooden stick.

Somehow I get the feeling I've explained this before.

It's theoretically possible Trant's commander wouldn't be interested in knowing the full raport on the issue. Not one that I find likely though.

Responding in reverse order: Trant's commander is Jaime, currently indisposed at Riverrun. Cersei has some authority over him, but has many irons in the fire. The wretched dancing master doesn't sound like a high priority for her, while the loss of Arya clearly is, on the evidence of her lying in public to pretend she DID have Arya.

Perhaps you have explained this before. It isn't something I particularly disagree with; I think a steel sword would benefit Syrio, and expect him to pick one up eventually. But the explanation, regrettably, isn't responsive to my point.

My point was that it is very odd to suggest that Trant must have killed Syrio because Syrio is such a terrible threat to Trant that Trant couldn't hope to escape alive. [An assertion you made in the previous post, but which I have not noticed you repeating in this post.]

Do you fail to see the internal tension? It has nothing to do with the probability that a sword would be useful for Syrio, but rather with the seeming logical contradiction of a first man who is killed by a second man precisely because the first man is surely able to kill the second man.

Most people, having seen Syrio avoid a large number of sword cuts, allow that he could probably dance away from Trant.

Most people agree that with five steel swords lying around, Syrio can pretty readily pick one up if he dances away.

Most people have (finally!) agreed that Syrio most likely wants to remain alive as much as the next person.

You add to this that Trant couldn't hope to remain alive if Syrio had picked up a steel sword.

Perhaps my logic is flawed, but if true then it seems Syrio has a very good path indeed to remain alive: dance away, pick up a sword, and kill Trant.

So it's interesting that Syrio, whose expertise is only slightly below your own, chose NOT to do that. Perhaps something is not as it seems?

I also find it odd that you suggest that a fully armored man could probably not even safely retreat from a more skilled but unarmored man with a steel sword that is not his favorite weapon, but instead would undoubtedly be killed. This is another of those expert opinions that I can only acknowledge.

It has seemed to me previously that the experts are always saying that a fully armored man is vastly more deadly than an unarmored man; it seems to contradict your opinion, but perhaps I misremember or am otherwise wrong.

Of course, if you were mistaken about whether or not a fully armored man could successfully retreat from an unarmored man, then there would be no problem with Trant remaining alive; Syrio could pick up a sword, and Trant could retreat. And it would also permit us to avoid the paradox that Syrio, wishing to live and having a perfectly clear path to live by picking up a sword and dispatching Trant, nonetheless chooses NOT to pick up the sword and instead allows Trant to kill him; if killing him would not be easy, Syrio might well try some other tactic, such as ... well, what are his options? Oh yes, knocking Trant down. And THEN getting a sword; and not successfully killing him, but causing him to retreat in a right quick hurry.

I admit that it seems, in my opinion (which is inexpert but based on the glowing descriptions of full armor I've read on these forums by people who identify themselves as medieval swordfighting experts), that full armor ought to be pretty effective in defending a man against attacks by an unarmored man, and at least effective enough to enable a retreat. Perhaps some real expert can weigh in on this matter, but until then I acknowledge your expert opinion that Syrio, having a sword, would almost certainly have killed Trant.