Ramsay B. Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 :cheers: It baffles me when people don't wanna give Jaime his due when it comes to combat. He was one of the best.Yeah, if you hate his character then fine but the fact is he was one of the best. GRRM said it, argument over. One of the best scenes described in the books is when Robb fooled Jaime and Jaime knew he was fucked so he just made a beeline for Robb while cutting down his best guys, awesome. As for Arthur vs. Bob...Bob would kill him because I like him better. Sound logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alayne's Shadow. Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Arthur Dayne is the best warrior that has ever lived. GRRM said he is unbeatable with Dawn. How is this a question? If he was at the Trident, Robert would be dead and buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerHaHa Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 E Ro is correct in the last few posts IMO. A sword in the middle ages, and during the age of chivalry, was very, VERY expensive. Comparatively extremely expensive with regards to virtually every other common form of hand held weapon. Blunt force weapons being probably the cheapest, followed by spears, pole weapons, even bows, and knives and daggers - all much cheaper, and thus more common to the average soldier, whether he was equipping himself or being equipped by a lord or commander. The cost is the most prohibitive thing regarding swords in common usage, the next, and almost equally important was it's utility, specifically versus advancing armor technology of the age. As stated, an edged weapon, be it sword, knife, what have you, had and has a pretty difficult time penetrating any metal constructed armor, plate, mail, whatever, with the slashing edge. Versus plate and more advanced chain, even thrusting with the point/tip was unlikely to penetrate enough to do any damage to the body. During Agincourt for example, yes, many of the men at arms and archers WERE equipped with edged weapons like short swords, daggers, even a large number of "arming swords". This wasn't for them to engage in Television like dancing about "hah!, hah!, hah!" parry and slash sword fights. It was to finish off fallen opponents that were either unable to get up and fight on due to wounds, being mired in the terrain - whatever. Sure, fighting was possible with the arming sword, and likely DID happen, but it wasn't something that was sought out, lightly armored archers and men at arms wouldn't have chosen to engage a fully armored threat in a stand up fight. Back to the cost of the sword, obviously this meant a certain class of person typically was armed with a longsword or other lengthy blade, and they certainly WOULD have used it in combat, but NOT against other similarly armored opponents as themselves, not if they had another option such as a blunt force or ranged weapon, such as the mentioned hammer, spike, club, lance, spear, pole arm, whatever. Running down lightly armored or unarmored enemy troops with a sword - it's a certainty that a sword was in its element then. IMO and in most books I've read it's a pretty common theme that the threat level of the opponents armor would dictate the type of preferred weapon if the user had the time and option to make such a choice. Of course, like anything in life and combat, you fight with what you've got, but if "what you've got" includes options other than a sword, it would be those options exercised to fight against an armored opponent instead of the sword, given the choice. One of the books on GRRM list regarding medieval warfare and such, many from the Osprey series, makes mention of the recorded duels and fights in the age of chivalry between armored knights. It states that most of them ended up with both opponents scrapping it out on the ground, trying to out endure the other, and slip small knives into spots once the opponent was immobilized on the ground - this AFTER a fight which began standing with various weapons. It was specifically stated in several of these books that it was due to the swords not being lethal enough vs typical armor, and even short ranged hand held blunt force weapons giving a good bit of defense to both fighters. Even today, a majority of 1v1 fights end up on the ground, so not much has changed. Arthur Dayne is the better warrior that has ever lived. GRRM said he is unbeatable with Dawn. How is this a question? If he was at the Trident, Robert would be dead and buried. Yes, that has been stated, but that is in a 1v1 duel or fight. In battle, things are much more random and unpredictable. Arther Dayne is just as likely to die from an errant arrow through the eyeball as anyone else standing and fighting on a major field of engagement with tens of thousands of men and things flying about. If you follow the thread of how GRRM writes this theme of how anyone can die at anytime throughout his works in ASOIAF, it has to track that even the wonder knights and heroes of various ages could have a bad day, or fall pray to that golden BB that has killed so many highly skilled warriors throughout our own history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyBanana Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 @SerHaha Your point is...? It's still going to be a fight Robert and Arthur can win. No matter how hard you try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Even Lancel could beat Robert it's extremely improbable but is possible, but in The fight between Dayne and Robert i would say its 65-35 to Dayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I don't think Jamie is all that good of warrior even if he is the best swordsman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Being a good swordsman is not the same as being an accomplished warrior. Just means that your good with a sword and can probably beat any other sword fighter. A good comparison is I could be the best batter in baseball but that doesn't mean I am the best overall player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 He killed three of the best Northern Warriors in a single battle if that doesn't make him a good warrior... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 He killed three of the best Northern Warriors in a single battle if that doesn't make him a good warrior... Northerns wear chain mail not plate and we don't actually know if he killed them( I assume your referring to the tower of joy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Northerns wear chain mail not plate and we don't actually know if he killed them( I assume your referring to the tower of joy). I think he's talking about Jaime in the Whispering Woods, when he nearly get to Robb, but the Karstarks stopped him (with their lifes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I think he's talking about Jaime in the Whispering Woods, when he nearly get to Robb, but the Karstarks stopped him (with their lifes) those were 3 green boys in their first battle( thanks for the clearing that up btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Northerns wear chain mail not plate and we don't actually know if he killed them( I assume your referring to the tower of joy).Because chainmail is made out of butter. All he did was cut through a lord's retinue whilst surrounded, what a pussy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Your argument is not valid since you can say the same about hammers..a good guy with a hammer could not be good overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Green boys that were from the personal guard of the king.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twenty of House Goodmen Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Your argument is not valid since you can say the same about hammers..a good guy with a hammer could not be good overallWell, Robert was good with a sword as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 That has never been said in the books that he is good with a sword Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Because chainmail is made out of butter. All he did was cut through a lord's retinue whilst surrounded, what a pussy. their are more weak links in chain mail. And he never cut his way through he lead a charge and got many of his men killed and himself captured because of it Edit: good point though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryanfury Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Green boys that were from the personal guard of the king.. I don't know what point you're trying to make. That becoming a guard to a king magically boosts your swordsmanship and riding ability? Because it doesn't. The boys had likely never seen combat before. That has never been said in the books that he is good with a sword The book never said he is poor with one either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion'sNose Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Your argument is not valid since you can say the same about hammers..a good guy with a hammer could not be good overall my argument was that just because it says that a character is the best swords man doesn't mean he can kill everyone. And Robert was never called a good hammer man he was called a good WARRIOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 If you are guarding a king that means you have an hability..Robb wouldn't put a guy that can't hold a sword in his guard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.