Syrio Forel Compared to Westerosi Swordsman

[Menos Grande]

I think Syrion Is the greatest swordsman ever showed, he killed like 5 guys withouth armor and if a wooden sword! I don't think he would object to use an armor to fight, he was not ready to fight when he had to, so he was not armed and died. He is not arrogant and has a fine respect and fear for death, so I strongly think he would won of any Knight in a 1X 1 fight.

[Eejit]

It required so much force because even 'weak' spots in plate..good plate, in good repair, anyway...was still pretty well protected. A small sword or similar wouldn't be able to sustain the force required.

In the Egen vs. Bronn fight, a couple things should be noted:

1) Bron wasn't using a small-sword. So when he was in any way cornered, he could meet blade to blade enough to gain entry and use leverage to get out of the clinch. Someone using a small-sword wouldn't be able to do that...angling the force, redirecting is would be what they try to do, and that won't get you out of a corner against anyone who knows what he's doing. If they try and meet it as Bronn was able to do, their blade is itself in immediate danger.

2) Egen was forced to constantly 'pursue' due to the Queen's insistence, honor code, etc. In a normal fight like that, a skilled knight woul fight like Mormont or Barristan did. Either wait for you opponent to attack, or calmly use angles to corner him. You wouldn't need to constantly lunge and charge. Articulated plate actually supported its own weight much more than people think, far better than mail or similar. A knight wouldn't exhaust himself unless he was acting as Egen did, and that was more a result of honor/pressure than tactics. Dismounted knights in full plate have fought for hours and hours. Towton alone was over 3 hours, and there are no recorded periods of let-up.

Remember, a knight of the age put more time since childhood into fighting with armor than a professional athlete now puts into his sport. Especially an elite knight...armor wasn't a disadvantage as some seem to suggest.

Oberyn managed a similar (almost) victory over Gregor, though fighting more aggressively than Bronn and using a spear to counter Gregor's reach.

I find it quite plausible that Syrio would be able to beat most armored knights - particularly if he is well practiced with other blades somewhat longer and tougher than that he teaches young Arya to use, able to pierce through the weakest points in the armor.

The smartest and best knights the highest quality armor would probably be beyond him however... though they would have no more capability of killing him quickly than he would of them if he was fighting just as carefully as they. I expect an unencumbered master water-dancer would be able to avoid being cornered very well. It could be a greatly extended contest of endurance and concentration.

[Pallantides]

They compensated for a lack of quality iron. It was impressive adaptation to bad circumstances to be sure, but there was nothing inherently superior about the Japanese longsword. In fact, it would have been an inferior weapon against plate armor due to its relative lack of thrusting utility, but that's another matter.

Edit: And in fairness, it was never designed to defeat plate armor. If the Japanese at that time had had to deal with plate-armored foes, they would naturally have developed suitable weapons for the task.

The katana was perfectly fine for thrusting. The tip is of course designed for cutting, but it is a very capable thrusting weapon.

The Japanese did however have a weapon designed for defeating plate armoured foes (imported breastplates from Europe), but was also greatly effective against the lamellar armour (which is an excellent armour to be sure) known as the Sankaku Yari. It was essentially an estoc on a spear shaft.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

Also I'd recommend for anyone to check out this particular thread on My Armoury showing the defensive properties of maille and cloth armour. I think people will be rather surprised at how well the 30x padded jack fared against European style swords.

Note: These swords used in it are mid-late 15th century designs, and are not the swords I would expect to be used in Westeros, at least for single handed swords, (although Westeros is not exactly historical, and the weapon types used throughout the series are an odd amalgamation/anachronism of different swords from very different periods that would not have been paired against one another).

They (at least from what I can glean, in regards to technological levels regarding armour and weaponry from the books) would be 11-12 century style swords, perhaps at the latest 13th century. These styles were predominantly not thrusters; but were cutting weapons designed to be used on horseback; although it wouldn't have mattered if you cut someone or not with one of these things, if you hit them from atop your moving horse while they're on their feet running away from you. If you got hit with a good square blow, even with a helmet your day is pretty much going to be over. These style swords perform decently well at the thrust, but not to the extent of the 15th century swords tested in that thread, and likely thick cloth would have fared quite well as armour against it. And indeed most historical accounts support this notion.

[Kittyhat]

The katana was perfectly fine for thrusting. The tip is of course designed for cutting, but it is a very capable thrusting weapon.

Perfectly fine, yes, but my understanding is that the European longsword was a better thrusting weapon.

The Japanese did however have a weapon designed for defeating plate armoured foes (imported breastplates from Europe), but was also greatly effective against the lamellar armour (which is an excellent armour to be sure) known as the Sankaku Yari. It was essentially an estoc on a spear shaft.

Interesting. I did know they got hold of European breastplates sometimes; I confess I didn't know they'd specifically adapted weapons to fight that armor. I'll read up on it.

Thanks in general for the information.

[greywindsrage]

He'd probably be chanceless if clad in armour. His style is way too dependent on speed and agility to not be hampered fatally. We also have a nice precedent to armour vs. unarmoured ferocity when a then 63 y.o. Barristan fairly effortlessly slays the pit fighter Khrazz.

Syrio's chance is that he's a lot more disciplined and that Khrazz had almost no experience against armoured knights. He'll fare much better and will certainly beat any average Westerosi knight. His problem is that a single good hit kills him, so I'd say men like Jaime, Garland and possibly the Mountain and Oberyn will win.

Don't forget Bronn vs Ser Vardis

[Pallantides]

Perfectly fine, yes, but my understanding is that the European longsword was a better thrusting weapon.

Of course. But only later period ones. Earlier swords were surprisingly not as apt for thrusting as it would initially seem, despite the fact that they were double edged. The biggest advantage in thrusting is having a very acute tip (which can mostly be seen on katana), and being very stiff.

Interesting. I did know they got hold of European breastplates sometimes; I confess I didn't know they'd specifically adapted weapons to fight that armor. I'll read up on it.

Thanks in general for the information.

Yes, when the Europeans made contact with the Japanese, there was a good deal of trade going on. Only high ranking samurai would have these European breastplates, but the Japanese did create their own style from it as well. The weapon itself was initially designed to defeat Japanese lamellar, but the design of the weapon is so similar to that of an estoc (being that they both had very acute tips, and were very stiff, though neither of them had a cutting edge), that it's very easy to see how well it would fare against plate armour.

Although one important thing to make note of, is that if the plate armour is harder than the weapon designed to defeat that style of armour, it does not matter the style of weapon. A poorly hardened estoc will not be a very good weapon to use to try and defeat hardened plate armour. Likewise plate armour that is not hardened very well (i.e. munitions grade plate), will not fare as well as it should against a well made/hardened longsword.

[Malpka]

As for katana - it is neither long sword, or two handed sword - it is one and half handed sword.

It's not normally done with longswords or greatswords, either. They also parry and redirect wherever possible, and there are lots of good reasons for that.

No, wrong. The "blunt sword" myth is just that -- a myth. Popular myth, but all the same a myth. The blade is there to be a blade; it's not just for show or because medieval and renaissance warriors were stupid.

Also wrong. The preferred method for fighting plate armor with a sword was to make thrusts aimed at the relatively vulnerable joints, as plate armor was functionally bladeproof. The use of this tactic was also the reason for the development of weapons like the estoc, which were specialized toward that purpose.

There were weapons suitable for "bashing senseless" a plate-armored foe, but those weapons were, not surprisingly, designed for bashing -- war hammers, for example, which were able to deliver damaging and even potentially fatal shock through the plate armor without needing to be able to actually penetrate it. Far from being, by the way, mindless bashing, this was a perfectly reasonable and scientific solution to the problem presented by plate armor.

They weren't heavy. Longswords weighed around 3 pounds or so. Two-handed swords were around 6 pounds, or maybe a bit more for the real monsters. They were light, surprisingly agile weapons capable of using precisely the tactics you endorse. A longsword is capable of being every bit as fast as a rapier and is a perfect match for it in an unarmored duel, and the zweihander (two-handed sword) used by the doppelsoldner was such a complex weapon (capable of both long-range attacking and close-in techniques that resemble staff-fighting) that its use in battle was considered an elite skill worthy of double pay.

Modern sport fencing foils, sabers and epees are not weapons. They are toys designed for a game, a sport.

And incidentally, a real (combat capable) rapier weighs barely less than a real longsword.

You are actually mistaken, at quite few points.

First of all - long sword is in no way able to match rapier with speed, despite similar weight. Main reason for it is - they are balanced differently, to describe the difference, it is comparable to hitting the wall with a hatchet handled normally and hitting same wall with handle of the hatchet while keeping for its blade.

Also sword is slashing weapon which can be used to thrust, while rapier exactly opposite. and generally sword was using against plate armor in the very way Bronn did it - to cat through elbows, or wrists and so on. there is few reasons for that also, most important one - knights most of the time fight mounted and there is no use to fancy thrusting in mounted combat, hence many axes and morning-stars were used also.

Also when you read through the fight descriptions in the book carefully, you will notice that mostly people are cutting - best example will be Jaimie vs Brienne there is no way he would be able to make thrust with chained hands. there is few situational exceptions when the sword are using to thrust.

The other reason for it will be be in Syrio part, below.

As for Syrio vs Westerosi style knight - as long as he would be fighting knight in armor and with long sword, the fight would go for Syrio, even vs the best ones, (I always thought of Braavosi sword as rapier so will stay with it) it is just that rapier is very precise and Syrio as its best user, I believe would be easily able to go through a helm vizier "for the eyes". But this is very unlikely scenario.

The most probable scenario would consider fully armored knight with long sword, and most importantly - shield, and that would be losing position for Syrio even against beginner knight - there is just nothing that rapier user will be able to do against shield, as shield pretty much nullifying anything he can do.

Shield is also the reason for which long swords weren't used for thrust against heavy armor users.

Therefore as for Syrio vs Westerosi knight Syrio would have lost (sadly)

[WhiteWalder]

The most probable scenario would consider fully armored knight with long sword, and most importantly - shield, and that would be losing position for Syrio even against beginner knight - there is just nothing that rapier user will be able to do against shield, as shield pretty much nullifying anything he can do.

Shield is also the reason for which long swords weren't used for thrust against heavy armor users.

Therefore as for Syrio vs Westerosi knight Syrio would have lost (sadly)

I agree totally. Syrio would have been a beast boarding other ships or fighting lightly armored foes. Look how Jorah Mormont stacked up against Qotho, and he was a bloodrider. Syrio may be one of the most skilled men with a sword, but does not make him great on the Westerosi battlefield. I would like to see a Syrio vs. Drogo battle.