Why are all best sword fighters high born?

[Grissom]

Not really.

Yeah really. He's right, genetics play a part in the highborn battle superiority.

[eyenon15]

Most Important reason: Fighting is like any other sport that relies a lot on technique. Take ice hockey for example; to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single professionnal hockey player who started playing later than 7 year old. Most started when they were 5, in fact. Your parents told you you can do anything if you put your mind to it? They were lying. If you are 15 and decide to start playing hockey and reach the NHL, you'll never pull it off, no matter how hard you work. You could hope to become good, even very good, but you would never reach the top of the pyramid, that ship has already sailed long ago, before you were even of an age to make the conscious decision that this is what you wanted to do. Any truly elite hockey player started his path when his parents decided, while he was still very young, to pay the hefty fees and equipment cost required to play hockey. Which is why elite hockey players usually come from middle class families at least.

Fighting is much the same. All these great fighters have started training with master swordsmen dozens of hours a week when they were extremely young. Children of aristocrats have that opportunity, poor children don't.

I wonder if any Westeros Lords actually do prebubescent scouting.

I don't know shit about hockey but in basketball, youth coaches and scouts watch a bunch of 8-9 year old kids play a sport and they can already see which ones have the slightest chance to ever play professionally. They pluck these kids out and begin to groom and train them for the higher levels imediately. Usually the only exceptions are if a kid has some abnormal growth spurt in his teen years because height matters a lot in basketball. LeBron James was actually discovered by a youth football coach at age 9 while he was playing tag with friends.

[JonSnow4President]

Yeah really. He's right, genetics play a part in the highborn battle superiority.

It plays a little. A 6'3" broad shouldered lord marrying a 5'4" dainty lady can throw off a bunch of different phenotypes. It plays the tiniest of tiniest of rolls.

Not counting me, the biggest, broadest, strongest man in both sides of the extended family has the closest thing physically to a runt out of any of the males on either side of the family. My dad is a full head shorter than me, and my mom is not tall for a woman (5'6").

Better access to nutrition, and even better access to training are what really drive the gap.

[Grissom]

It plays a little. A 6'3" broad shouldered lord marrying a 5'4" dainty lady can throw off a bunch of different phenotypes. It plays the tiniest of tiniest of rolls.

Not counting me, the biggest, broadest, strongest man in both sides of the extended family has the closest thing physically to a runt out of any of the males on either side of the family. My dad is a full head shorter than me, and my mom is not tall for a woman (5'6").

Better access to nutrition, and even better access to training are what really drive the gap.

So you're saying just because the ladies that marry the lords are small and "lady-like" genetics are not significant? That doesn't make any sense.

Your particular example is also not significant at all, for example I could use also my own family as example: my father is shorter than my uncle, and i'm also shorter than my uncles sons. That doesn't mean a thing, it's just a single ocurrence.

Better access to nutrition and training are more important, but genetics should still not be disregarded.

It is known.

[JonSnow4President]

So you're saying just because the ladies that marry the lords are small and "lady-like" genetics are not significant? That doesn't make any sense.

Your particular example is also not significant at all, for example I could use also my own family as example: my father is shorter than my uncle, and i'm also shorter than my uncles sons. That doesn't mean a thing, it's just a single ocurrence.

Better access to nutrition and training are more important, but genetics should still not be disregarded.

It is known.

We have no indication how often Lords are taller than smallfolk. For the truly elite, the luck of being born 6+ feet (IIRC, Lannister is described as tall, the Cleganes are obviously better because of their genetic lottery results, Bobby B is benefited by his natural strength and length), but for the other Lords, the genetic lottery matters very, very little in their ability to dominate the smallfolk at war.

[Mal Malenkirk]

It plays a little. A 6'3" broad shouldered lord marrying a 5'4" dainty lady can throw off a bunch of different phenotypes.

I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that the nobles as a group are descended from warriors. That includes the women. So no matter what she looks like, a noble lady likely has just as many great warriors in her ancestry as her husband and she contributes equally to increasing the odds their son will be a superior physical specimen. For example, Sansa is no warrior but she brings just as much to the genetic table as any top tier fighter.

I'm not saying it's the most important factor, in fact I clearly labelled it as the least important factors, but it is a factor.

[JonSnow4President]

I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that the nobles as a group are descended from warriors. That includes the women. So no matter what she looks like, a noble lady likely has just as many great warriors in her ancestry as her husband and she contributes equally to increasing the odds their son will be a superior physical specimen. For example, Sansa is no warrior but she brings just as much to the genetic table as any top tier fighter.

With the exception of the tip of the pyramid*, a noble has more chance to ascend in his social circle if he is a good warrior and will therefore be seen as a better match by other families. He has more chance to die in battle and be removed from the noble genetic pool if he is a mediocre warrior. If you are not a noble, your best chance of ascending is if you are a good warrior (see Bronn). If you are a noble, the most likely scenario where you get kicked out of your class is if you are an inept warrior (see Sam and likely many Maester).

So 'warrior genes' tend to be concentrated in the noble class.

I'm not saying it's the most important factor, in fact I clearly labelled it as the least important factors, but it is a factor.

A lot of the genetic traits that would make a good warrior, like strength, body type, and stamina, are also going to be favorable for the pure farmers. That's not even getting into the fairly frequent wars that a good portion of the smallfolk seem to particpate in, at which point the same genes are going to be favored anyway.

ETA: I really need to get my brother to read the books. Undergrad in genetics, and he has been accepted into MD Anderson's PhD program to study Cancer Biology, particularly the application of genetics to the whole Cancer bit. He'd know more than my haven't-taken-a-science-class-since-Freshman-year-and-that-was-based-all-on-memory-from-high-school Accounting major.

[Fightbringer]

I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that the nobles as a group are descended from warriors. That includes the women. So no matter what she looks like, a noble lady likely has just as many great warriors in her ancestry as her husband and she contributes equally to increasing the odds their son will be a superior physical specimen. For example, Sansa is no warrior but she brings just as much to the genetic table as any top tier fighter.

I'm not saying it's the most important factor, in fact I clearly labelled it as the least important factors, but it is a factor.

really? look at the nobility in places like Britain today, does Prince William look like a man who you would back in a fight? Sure genetics might play a part in special cases in increasing fighting ability, such as Brienne or the Mountain, but even that is not exclusive to the nobility, seeing as Gregor's father was not a nobleman, just the guy who was in charge of the dogs for Lord Tytos.

I think it does have something to do with training and resources available to highborns, but it is also because the people who decide the general consensus on this stuff are usually highborn, so they are going off of what they have seen which can be battles in actual wars, where highborns are much better known to them and so are far easier to identify as great fighters, or, more often, at tourneys, where you pretty much have to be highborn to have the resources to enter. Sure, the average highborn man is probably better with weapons than the average lowborn, but there are far more lowborns than highborns, so statistically there must be quite a large number of good swordsmen from westeros who arent from the nobility. But they rarely get the same exposure as highborns do, they cant afford to enter tourneys, they are busy doing other things serving as mercenaries in essos or in household guards, so they do not get the chance to be entered into the conversation.

There is nothing we see that indicates that Bronn is much better than the average sellsword, yet he is still a formidable fighter, which gives you an idea of just how many others great fighters must be running around elsewhere who we do not know about. In a world like Planetos, no one can see every swordsman in the world

[The Dames do Moan]

To OP,as many have said, agree with the training, $, etc. as being 1 of the biggest reasons we see such a disparity.

However, as someone started to mention up-thread, if we hear of a low-born person with great skill at arms, he most likely will stand out to the nobles and be knighted for it. We as the reader or in-universe characters would them see him as "upper-class" since he was knighted. We identify with Bronn because we got a first hand look at him pre and post knighting. We don't identify with the brothers Clegane as lower-class becasue they rose to promiance prior to ASOIAF starting (I know the Hound isn't a knight but he still rose to prominance being Joff;s Dog).

[Aemond's Eye]

To OP,as many have said, agree with the training, $, etc. as being 1 of the biggest reasons we see such a disparity.

However, as someone started to mention up-thread, if we hear of a low-born person with great skill at arms, he most likely will stand out to the nobles and be knighted for it. We as the reader or in-universe characters would them see him as "upper-class" since he was knighted. We identify with Bronn because we got a first hand look at him pre and post knighting. We don't identify with the brothers Clegane as lower-class becasue they rose to promiance prior to ASOIAF starting (I know the Hound isn't a knight but he still rose to prominance being Joff;s Dog).

I agree with your overall point, but the brothers Clegane were born the sons of a landed knight; they were minor nobles from birth. Tytos Lannister granted their grandfather Fang Tower and the lands of it, as Ser Clegane saved him from a lioness (losing a leg in the process).

[239JMFL34109]

because the high born are usually the ones with the time, learning, and resources to learn how to fight.

[Boarsbane]

It's all a matter of training. Some kid in Africa could have the talent to be the next Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, Peyton Manning, or JJ Watt. But without the free time to play football, access to experienced coaches to teach him how to play football, and some way of getting into a position to play football, he's never going to realize the athletic talent.

And if you insist, Jon is arguably lowborn, and has been mentioned as a good fighter. Daario is supposed to be good. We don't know Grey Worm's skill. The pit fighters seem to be capable, albeit without the experience of taking on armored foes.

Jon Snow? He was raised in a castle by a high Lord and trained by a Master-at-arms.

[eyenon15]

Im thinking of that guy who Selmy is training who he says is the best natural talent with a sword since Jaime Lannister.

natural talent can only take you so far, which is not very far. The training and fundamentals are most important. The earlier in life you are taught the better

There are probably more than a few lowborn kids in Westeros with that kind of natural talent but will never be discovered or trained.

[John Doe]

You think genetics have nothing to do with it?

I don't think highborn people have superior genes.

[John Doe]

Yeah really. He's right, genetics play a part in the highborn battle superiority.

You won't be able to prove this. Remember, Dunacn the Tall was lowborn, for example. Davos isn't notable shorter than the other lord either.

[SomeFremen]

Common people worry for other things... like crops and not dying.. most of them don't have dreams of becoming knights and good fighters.

Noble people have this need for glory (most of them) and since they are able to hold a weapon they dream of being remembered.

This is how the world always worked and works...

Also since the good lowborn fighter mentioned was Bronn, he was a good fighter because most likely he was a sellsword, killer, all his life. He chose the outlaw life and that is what made him a good fighter. But most common people stay at their farms where is warm and nice.

Also lowborns dont have blacksmiths, masters of arms, time, money, etc. so they most likely die trying with only a few rising to a Bronn-like level of skill.

[devilish]

There are some parts that I find a bit unrealistic in AsoIaf and one is highborn sword fighters in Westeros. Nearly all of them are awesome in battle expect of Samwell Tarly, yes I know they have trained with Master at arms at their keeps and has great armor., but surely other boys too get a chance to train with masters? Maybe I have short memory, but only equal good sword fighter that I remember among lowborn is Bronn.

Surely some other a bit richer lowborn with good tactic and some armor should sometimes win these sons of lords? I don't remember a single part where a lords son is slain by a lowborn.

Opinions and fill in lowborn great sword fighters that I have forgot.

Actually the most famous sword fighters are high born. There are plenty of sell swords who are able to go toe to toe against anybody especially in a real war/skirmish etc instead of the artificial conditions built in a trial by combat/joust competition. I am sure that in a 'war' condition the likes of Bronn, Daario, Dunk and the unsullied could make even the best knights sweat.

[JonisHenryTudor]

There are some parts that I find a bit unrealistic in AsoIaf and one is highborn sword fighters in Westeros. Nearly all of them are awesome in battle expect of Samwell Tarly, yes I know they have trained with Master at arms at their keeps and has great armor., but surely other boys too get a chance to train with masters? Maybe I have short memory, but only equal good sword fighter that I remember among lowborn is Bronn.

Surely some other a bit richer lowborn with good tactic and some armor should sometimes win these sons of lords? I don't remember a single part where a lords son is slain by a lowborn.

Opinions and fill in lowborn great sword fighters that I have forgot.

Well for one thing this is a story about the nobility. But in terms of realism, it is not that far off. The best swordsman in the middle ages were in fact members of the nobility. Peasants were given pikes, swords, etc when the need arose. They were not, however, allowed to train whenever they felt necessary. It is not that peasants or artisans could not fight, only that they did not practice as freely and often as they would need to for honing their skills.

Most of the nobility sat back in a fight, especially in the high middle ages. Noble sons were almost always mounted, so the chance that a peasant pikemen would face off against a heavily armed knight was pretty rare. Even rarer that said peasant would fight someone of the high nobility. Could it happen? Yes of course. But let's just say that Edward of York wasn't charging on foot to meet the Lancastrians. He did charge, just on horseback and behind the first wave of troops.

[King Gendry Baratheon]

A common mistake here: Many think i only mean: Peasents, but great houses like Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons for example have plenty of household guards. I don't know how many, but Lannisters seems to have hundreds in duty all time and their only work is to be a soldier. So these men should have time to train? At least in winterfell I think Eddard let them train with Ser Rodrik. Surely some of this men should rise to be very good fighters.

[OldGimletEye]

Because training and weapons are expensive. In general, the only people with wealth to afford weapons and to invest in training are the nobility. It makes sense that they would dominate the production of violent force.