Warrior tiers

[eggs]

It means that one is playing chess, and the other is playing draughts. You can't judge ability on that basis.

comparing board games to fighting? that doesn't make any sense.. when fighting, the objective is the same regardless of style.

[ckal]

thats only cause the Fiddler sucked though.

what does that mean? Its basically "can they win this fight or cant they." Style doesnt matter much.

What makes you think this wasn't common among other past Royal contestants through the history of the Seven Kingdoms?

It is even stated when Bob tries to enter the melee at Joff's name day tournament that no man in their right mind would hit or hurt the king (pretty sure this was in the book not just the show, although I could be misremembering).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Put it this way: including Drogo and Syrio, you might as well include archers like Theon. Would an archer kill a water dancer? If yes, does that make Theon a greater warrior than Syrio? What about Jaime? Or, is the question a nonsensical one because you have to compare apples with apples?

We're judging people by ability, and to do that we need to work within a frame of reference. Otherwise random guy with a time machine and machine gun is a better warrior than Arthur Dayne.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Put it this way: including Drogo and Syrio, you might as well include archers like Theon. Would an archer kill a water dancer? If yes, does that make Theon a greater warrior than Syrio? What about Jaime? Or, is the question a nonsensical one because you have to compare apples with apples?

We're judging people by ability, and to do that we need to work within a frame of reference. Otherwise random guy with a time machine and machine gun is a better warrior than Arthur Dayne.

I think the machine gun vs Arthur Dayne not being a reasonable comparison is fair, but it's at the extreme end of things. I don't think it quite gets at just how dissimilar equipment and style have to be for the comparison to become unreasonable. Why is Robert Baratheon with a warhammer compared to Arthur Dayne with Dawn an ok comparison, but Syrio with, idk whatever kind of sword he uses I don't know much about this stuff, not an ok comparison?

[eggs]

What makes you think this wasn't common among other past Royal contestants through the history of the Seven Kingdoms?

It is even stated when Bob tries to enter the melee at Joff's name day tournament that no man in their right mind would hit or hurt the king (pretty sure this was in the book not just the show, although I could be misremembering).

People mostly just avoided challenging royalty. Rhaegar even lost to Barristan in a tourney. If no one actually put any effort into fighting a prince, how could the prince's prowess be praised and how could the prince take pride in his ability?

[Iona]

What makes you think this wasn't common among other past Royal contestants through the history of the Seven Kingdoms?

It is even stated when Bob tries to enter the melee at Joff's name day tournament that no man in their right mind would hit or hurt the king (pretty sure this was in the book not just the show, although I could be misremembering).

I'm more interested in what makes you think it was common, since the D&E story is one specific event with one very specific rebellious plan behind it?

The Bobby incident was during the Hand's Tourney - and we have no evidence whether that was the real honest truth, or if Barry and Ned justifiably came up with it to stop the drunken oaf from embarrassing himself. Could very well be that the other melee contestants would have felt too ashamed to attack a shit-faced king, but could be that if he was still in tip top shape he might have been able to enter the melee on equal basis with all the other fighters.

I you also brought up the alternative form of trial by battle in your earlier post. The Trial by Seven was a whole different game - fought until death of either the accused or accuser or* until the accuser withdraws. It really cannot be compared to a tourney jousting or melee.

eta: *

[eggs]

Put it this way: including Drogo and Syrio, you might as well include archers like Theon. Would an archer kill a water dancer? If yes, does that make Theon a greater warrior than Syrio? What about Jaime? Or, is the question a nonsensical one because you have to compare apples with apples?

We're judging people by ability, and to do that we need to work within a frame of reference. Otherwise random guy with a time machine and machine gun is a better warrior than Arthur Dayne.

now you're just being silly. the basis for comparison is obviously armed, close quarters combat.

[ckal]

People mostly just avoided challenging royalty. Rhaegar even lost to Barristan in a tourney. If no one actually put any effort into fighting a prince, how could the prince's prowess be praised and how could the prince take pride in his ability?

When it comes to challenging royalty in anything, the results may need to be taken with a grain of salt if they are victorious. I believe that most tournaments are fought honorably and I don't doubt that many times they are beaten fairly.

Edit: My thoughts explained more in my post below.

[ckal]

I'm more interested in what makes you think it was common, since the D&E story is one specific event with one very specific rebellious plan behind it?

The Bobby incident was during the Hand's Tourney - and we have no evidence whether that was the real honest truth, or if Barry and Ned justifiably came up with it to stop the drunken oaf from embarrassing himself. Could very well be that the other melee contestants would have felt too ashamed to attack a shit-faced king, but could be that if he was still in tip top shape he might have been able to enter the melee on equal basis with all the other fighters.

I you also brought up the alternative form of trial by battle in your earlier post. The Trial by Seven was a whole different game - fought until death of either the accused or until the accuser withdraws. It really cannot be compared to a tourney jousting or melee.

Common was the wrong word to use, but thinking about it more I believe I'll change my view on it.

It's possible it has happened before and could happen again, but it must come down to each individual jouster. If they have the ability to avoid fighting royalty, some may do that, but if they are matched in the lists, it is most likely they will try to the best of their ability to unhorse the prince to distinguish themselves among the contestants and potentially win a massive amount of gold for winning and as ransom for their horse and armor.

I was thinking about the Mystery Knight when the Cat (?)'s agenda was to flop against a young Lord in hopes of entering his service based on a prior connection to him. This backfired because the Lord stated one who falls as easily as the Cat was not worthy of a place in his household knights.

So I think you are right that flopping against royalty is a rare occurrence. Like I stated in my comment above, competition such as jousts does seem to be a point of pride for all contestants, including royalty, where it is done honourably. Similar to the KG, the prince may want to be bested by the KG to know they are being protected by competant men.

About Bob, that's certainly possible. Some reverse psychology to get him to back out and not embarrass himself since the competitors may have kicked his ass.

[eggs]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Style is immensely important. If some styles are naturally advantageous over others then it is not a fair to say that one person of the better style is a better fighter than the other person of a less successful style, because it completely ignores the actual skill of the contestants.

Meryn Trant vs Syrio is the perfect example of this, because Syrio is clearly at the top of his game (First Sword of Pentos) whereas Meryn Trant is supposedly only a mediocre fighter. And yet, Meryn (apparently) won that fight, so by your reasoning he is also a better fighter.

wow. unless water dancing is meant to be performed with a wooden sword, you're not even capable of supporting your own argument.

and yes, Meryn is better than a wooden sword wielding Syrio.

[Sansa_Stark]

Anyways. You guys underate Loras. He is clearly among the best warriors of Westeros

[Ser Areo Mace]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Style is immensely important. If some styles are naturally advantageous over others then it is not a fair to say that one person of the better style is a better fighter than the other person of a less successful style, because it completely ignores the actual skill of the contestants.

Meryn Trant vs Syrio is the perfect example of this, because Syrio is clearly at the top of his game (First Sword of Pentos) whereas Meryn Trant is supposedly only a mediocre fighter. And yet, Meryn (apparently) won that fight, so by your reasoning he is also a better fighter.

wow. unless water dancing is meant to be performed with a wooden sword, you're not even capable of supporting your own argument.

and yes, Meryn is better than a wooden sword wielding Syrio.

The same principle applies to Jorah vs Drogo, or any given Dothraki.

No, Meryn is clearly not a better fighter than Syrio. He was highly advantaged.

Syrio was the First sword of Braavos. Syrio also was in a major disadvantage due to being armor less and wielding a wooden sword, where Ser Meryn Trant was in full armor and had real steel. The armor and sword was enough to put them on equal footing.

[ladytiger]

Hrmm?

S rank - Arthur, Barristan, Jaime, Robert, Gregor Sandor

A - Garlan, Victarion, Thoros, Geat Jon, Bronze Yon, Gerold Dayne

B - Brienne, Loras, Mance, Oberyn, Drogo, Lyn Corbray

C - Renly, Jorah, Beric, Balon Swann, Jon Snow, Randyl

D - Aegon, Robb, Lancel, Average Westrosi Knight

F - Boros Blount, Puddles, Sam

That's basically how I'd rank them as well but I'd add Ned to tier C and Rhaegar to tier B.

[Morienthar]

The Best warrior in Westeros is Tyrion. I thought everyone knew this,The bastard has impenetrable armor.

[C0bR]

Precisely, the outcome of a fight can be altered down to circumstantial things like style or lack of equipment, but when defining how good a fighter is you'd be best to look at their individual characteristics such as strength, speed, skill etc.

Physical capabilities, skill and equipment are one package that makes a warrior. You can't divide those and call those who profit from better equipment weaker fighters. If the equipment makes the difference between life and death, then the one who survives thanks to a plate armor is a better warrior than the one who dies thanks to a lack of it.

[Morienthar]

Physical capabilities, skill and equipment are one package that makes a warrior. You can't divide those and call those who profit from better equipment weaker fighters. If the equipment makes the difference between life and death, than the one who survives thanks to a plate armor is a better warrior than the one who dies thanks to a lack of it.

At the end of the day that one is alive. You can have all the skills in the world but in a sword fight equipment matters.

[C0bR]

Wearing better equipment does not make you a weaker fighter.

The bold part is what I disagree with. As I stated with the Dothraki/Westerosi knight example; you can be stronger, faster and more skilled and still lose. By your line of reasoning, (as an example) Boros Blount is a better fighter than Drogo.

Well, he is, because he would most likely wreck him. Just like about every other Westerosi knight. Dothraki's lack of armor is what makes them the most overrated fighters in the series. I have no problem standing behind that opinion.

[C0bR]

So if you gave Tyrion a machine gun he would automatically be a better fighter than Arthur Dayne?

Well, a machine gun is certainly not easy to handle. I would not be too opitimistic about our dwarf.

But, yeah, I know where you are heading. As I said, for me the equipment is the part of the whole package.

Random WWII conscript with two weeks of drill with a machine gun > the best 14th century knight

I think we see it differently so I would end it here. We are arguing in circles.

[Ser Areo Mace]

Well, he is, because he would most likely wreck him. Just like about every other Westerosi knight. Dothraki's lack of armor is what makes them the most overrated fighters in the series. I have no problem standing behind that opinion.

Boros is too fat and slow. He would tired out before Drogo does even without the armor.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Well, a machine gun is certainly not easy to handle. I would not be too opitimistic about our dwarf.

But, yeah, I know where you are heading. As I said, for me the equipment is the part of the whole package.

Random WWII conscript with two weeks of drill with a machine gun > the best 14th century knight

I think we see it differently so I would end it here. We are arguing in circles.

That should depend on what kind of machine gun I think. Give him a light Russian one with an hour of practice on how to load and remove the safety and firing, and to hold it with the butt in the armpit and aiming by watching where the bullets strike ground when shooting from a standing position (sunglasses and cigarr optional), and it should be enough to blow away ser Arthur before he gets close enough to use his sword, unless Tyrion gets too frightened from the noise and recoil to keep firing it I guess.