Parts of the Series You Have Trouble Taking Seriously

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 4/13/2016 at 5:10 PM, Danelle said:

GRRM also believes that. He had once said that there several factors which define a fighter's performance, including trainign, morale and even the weather. 

This is why even men, who are not as physically powerful as their opponents can defeat them.

 

 

Exactly. 

Also, to put up my actual complaints about unrealistic things in the books, I'll go with Slaver's Bay. Mereen, Astapor, and Yunkai are almost cartoonishly evil cities sometimes. It seems a little overdone on how different their societies are to the free cities or Westeros as well. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

5 hours ago, Elaflynts said:

I agree with some of the things others have already mentioned but-one thing for me (minor ad it is) is, their horse situations. Everywhere anyone goes they're provided with "fresh mounts". Like..what is there some kind of Avis-horse trade in program? I thought riders usually have a particular horse they like to ride that has been bread and trained specifically for their use...I come from a family of cattle ranchers, barrel racers and trainers...yeah, an experienced rider can ride just about any horse but..just trading in your prized mount-assumably a very well bread and trained mount, at the first inn because they are  "tired" from being ridden too hard ....that really makes no sense. A rider who is bonded to a specific horse won't just be trading them in every time they get to a new town. 

Riders and their horses are bonded. Period. And, if nothing else? The high born are not giving their "tired" well bread horse up for some farmers less than average, yet "well rested" best offer of a mount.

Just want to say, as a side note- I am not a horse person. I don't ride, I don't even actually like horses. But, I know many who are and every one of them would be DAMNED  Before giving up their trusty stead. I am surprise GRRM didn't put some emphasis on the bond between riders and their mounts, he makes it seems like any horse is disposable and replacable at a whim. Weird. 

 

Before anyone says it- I am aware there are a few characters who's specific mounts are important to them. No need to bring them up, I've got it. IJS-how does the horse trade In program work when highbornes are giving their well bread, highly trained horse up for whatever the "freshest" mount available is?

no sense. 

Changing out tired horses for fresh mounts is extremely common in actual history.  A lot and leaders such as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan used a system of fresh mounts so they could ride long distances faster. 

[Charerg]

I kind of agree on principle with Miss CS that modern fantasy does tend to have a thing about exaggerating female involvement in warfare, compared to their historical presence. Personally I didn't get the "sexist vibe" from her opinions (actually I kind of applaud her courage for taking the "politically incorrect" stance).

More on topic, I can accept Brienne as a "realistic character", though I admit Asha feels a touch more "unrealistic" (though that's not only because of her sex, fighting with a "dirk and axe" sounds rather suicidal if you ask me...there's a reason why the actual Vikings used shields). Though the fact that an Ironborn noblewoman might lead a warband isn't itself necessarily unrealistic (there were after all several noblewomen from various cultures who did that).

[NutBurz]

3 minutes ago, Charerg said:

though I admit Asha feels a touch more "unrealistic" (though that's not only because of her sex, fighting with a "dirk and axe" sounds rather suicidal if you ask me...there's a reason why the actual Vikings used shields). 

Er, certain vikings used shield, for a certain role, which was not when encircled and outnumbered by enemies. 

Although the notion that shields are generally better than dual-wielding for warfare in general is correct, the notion that shields generally protected a single person better than dual-wielding is not. Large shields that could parry a blunt blow better than a small sword or axe were also clumsy and cumbersome; bucklers that could be used offensively and to parry cutting blows better than a second weapon would be easily disarmed by blunt blows.

Shields work in formations, and against small projectiles. Arena Melee fighters would use predominantely two-handed weapons, but dual-wielding presents the most advantages against it when compared to shields and bucklers, so they would be the number 2 choice. Bolognese infantry iirc were also trained in sword dual-wielding for charging tactics intended to break tight shield formations, and the vikings you mentioned had axe dual-wielding berserkers, although I admit the majority used that typical two handed axe of theirs.

So I personally don´t have a problem when a well-trained character decides to go dual-wielding when outnumbered and actually outperforms many less-trained opponents trying a safer single wield without the elements to make proper use of a shield.

[Sigella]

The social and technological stagnation of planetos should, in my mind, be a consequence of magic. (Bran: "I don't want to be a maester, I want to be a wizard.")

I'm convinced our world would stagnate as well if there had been magic.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 4/14/2016 at 4:11 PM, Miss CS said:

Do you care to back up that claim that trained women can and do best men? Because I've absolutely never seen it. Sure, there's going to be a female out there who can beat some men, but only small, weak, pathetic men who are completely untrained. The problem with Asha Grayjoy is, whilst a woman can realistically beat some men, she's going up against professional soldiers - alpha males. There's no way she'd still be alive. You don't find weaklings on a battlefield unless they're conscripts, and certainly not amongst Stannis's veterans or such. So, whilst some women can beat some men, they're still useless on the battle-field because the men fighting wars aren't those men...

Fighting is fully about strength, too. It's a very physical thing… haven't you noticed that part? I'm guessing you've never been in a proper fight or something. It was even more physical in the medieval times. Are you aware how much armor weighs? Do you know how taxing it is walking around in metal clothing, let alone fighting in it?! How do you propose to put an axe through a man's breastplate if you're not strong? Things like that. Yet all forms of striking and grappling rely on strength. Speed is also only possible with great strength, and stronger men are faster. Go look at the muscles on Olympic sprinters.

Modern media is full of feminist fantasy. Looking for real-life proof of women fighting men will shatter the delusion. Also bear in mind that females using steroids are injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this - they don't represent what females are actually capable of (nor do roided men represent men, for that matter), even less so in a medieval pre-steroid environments.

There's a basic biological point that explains why this is true. It should be obvious, but… women are egg carries and control human reproduction because of this. Men have to be selected by females - absent of rape, of course - otherwise they don't reproduce. Due to this, the reproduction pressures on men are staggering in comparison to women. Most men fail to reproduce. Most children are sired by just 40% of men, compared to 80% of women. Male-male competition has subsequently forced men to evolve in a different direction than women, which is obvious in sex differences. Men have evolved to be better fighters, because their reproductive success depended on out-doing their rivals, often in combat, but men were also more relied on as hunters and such, or for any physical labor. Females are also attracted to physically imposing men - alpha males, good fighters, so on. Females having been choosing alpha males as preferred mates since before we were even homosapiens sapiens. The result is there to see for anybody who opens their eyes and looks at it.

(Shaking my head) "Modern media is full of feminist fantasy". Do we live in the same society and culture? We are still living in a patriarchal society, wake up dude. Sword fighting is not only about strength. The book has several examples using John Snow and Oberyn Martell which you are not complaining about. You are just sexist. "injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this" no, just no. Just please look up what a transsexual is on google or something. Just....no. Wow, you are a bigot. 

On 4/14/2016 at 11:58 PM, imopatis said:

All this however has nothing to do with question if a specific very talented women could in the right circumstances be fighter who wins against men.

 

In the actual ASOIAF books there are no Amazon tribes, only two individuals, Asha and Brienne. It is often and elaborately explained that these two are very unusual and almost without parallel in Westeros. Brienne is constantly derided and challenged by men. In the context of a fantasy novel where male heroes routinely fight multiple opponents successfully, a women like Brienne is no more unrealistic than these. When Oberin Martell defeated The Mountain, who was by far his superior in size and strength, no one complained it was not realistic.

 

Exactly. It is two talented individuals. 

On 4/14/2016 at 3:26 AM, Winter Rose Crown said:

Yes, exactly.

 

I'm sure I'm wasting my breath but... if you want evidence that this is possible, you don't need to go back to the vikings or medieval europe... there are plenty of women in the military today. They can, and do, fight men. Some are better than others. The first women are even enlisting in the infantry after years of fighting to overcome the sexist rules that kept them out. But I wouldn't expect someone who describes weak men as "pathetic" and generalizes all women's attraction to alpha-males to understand that.

"But I wouldn't expect someone who describes weak men as "pathetic" and generalizes all women's attraction to alpha-males to understand that." Exactly again. The raging misogynist above probably has trouble understanding much of anything, other then how to defend the incredibly delicate male ego. 

[Charerg]

13 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

Er, certain vikings used shield, for a certain role, which was not when encircled and outnumbered by enemies. 

Although the notion that shields are generally better than dual-wielding for warfare in general is correct, the notion that shields generally protected a single person better than dual-wielding is not. Large shields that could parry a blunt blow better than a small sword or axe were also clumsy and cumbersome; bucklers that could be used offensively and to parry cutting blows better than a second weapon would be easily disarmed by blunt blows.

Shields work in formations, and against small projectiles. Arena Melee fighters would use predominantely two-handed weapons, but dual-wielding presents the most advantages against it when compared to shields and bucklers, so they would be the number 2 choice. Bolognese infantry iirc were also trained in sword dual-wielding for charging tactics intended to break tight shield formations, and the vikings you mentioned had axe dual-wielding berserkers, although I admit the majority used that typical two handed axe of theirs.

So I personally don´t have a problem when a well-trained character decides to go dual-wielding when outnumbered and actually outperforms many less-trained opponents trying a safer single wield without the elements to make proper use of a shield.

Dual-wielding Berserkers? I wonder where you read about those? Even the idea if "Berserkers" existed is kind of controversial, and if they did they didn't have any "special weaponry".

This is also the first I've heard of Bolognese dual-wielding swords. If you have an actual source for these, that would be great, since this is the first I've heard of dual-wielding being used in a military context.

In any case, if you're against spear-wielding foes without a shield (or plate armour), you'd be kind of screwed simply because your opponents can easily outrange you and it's not like you're going to parry the blows (effectively) with just a dirk and an axe.

Edit:

Oh, and btw, I don't think the Vikings ever fought shieldless (unless using a bow or Dane-axe), even in duels the fighters used a shield. Simply put, it really helps a person to stay alive.

Edit2:

Regarding Dane-axes, they would typically be deployed behind the front rank of a shieldwall. It was more of a weapon for "team combat" than a duelling weapon.

[Clegane'sPup]

52 minutes ago, lancerman said:

<snip>

Just take it as humor.

And add some salt, lime juice & tequila with a side shot of Scottish whiskey. Gotta have the bitter with the sweet.

[RoamingRonin]

On 4/22/2016 at 9:55 AM, Fisch said:

As nice a ring as the names of Westeros have to them, it's a bit of a stretch that in eight  thousand years, no one's been creative enough to come up with anything other than geographic references. The North, the Westerlands, the Riverlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, the Vale...I'm surprised Dorne's not just called the South.

Well... there is Sothoryos (which is to the south) and Essos (which is to the east) and Westeros (which is west of Essos).

The falcon family live in the Eyrie.

And what's the place that's really cold called? The Lands of Always Winter

Everyone is strangely literal, it seems.

[NutBurz]

6 minutes ago, Charerg said:

Dual-wielding Berserkers? I wonder where you read about those? Even the idea if "Berserkers" existed is kind of controversial, and if they did they didn't have any "special weaponry".

This is also the first I've heard of Bolognese dual-wielding swords. If you have an actual source for these, that would be great, since this is the first I've heard of dual-wielding being used in a military context.

In any case, if you're against spear-wielding foes without a shield (or plate armour), you'd be kind of screwed simply because your opponents can easily outrange you and it's not like you're going to parry the blows (effectively) with just a dirk and an axe.

Berserkers, the magical monsters immune to pain surely didn´t exist. Berserkers, the huge guys on drugs who jump over shield lines to break formations surely did. And although, like I said, they preffered a large axe with a sort of grippling device, not every one was able to afford one. I can´t precise a single link for this, but any serious documentary about vikings would tell you that.

You just have to google Bolognese Swordsmanship really. I believe there´s something called Florentine style too, but I heard that was just a misconception.

Ottoman-Turks would use double rapiers too.

I´ve tried holding a shield up effectively for 20 min. I can totally undertsand why I wouldn´t want to do that surrounded by enemies.

[Jasta11]

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The "kill count competition" that Legolas and Gimli held at the battle of Hornburg is actually as written by JRRT himself.  I think Legolas "wins" 43 - 42 or something along those lines.  It's definitely over 40 "points" each.

This passage in ADWD stood out glaringly for me because it seemed a conscious JRRT tribute / reference despite the difference in writing style and GRRM went out of his was earlier at battles like The Greenfork and The Whispering Wood to show that noblemen / leaders are just as likely to take a fatal blow in the chaotic melee of a battle as any ordinary soldier and so to make battles realistic by showing individuals dying rather than just an undifferentiated mass of nameless peasants.  The volte face to this competition where combat is turned into a game and the men of the moutain clans are utterly dehumanised into mindless cannon fodder who rush to impale themselves on Asha and Qarl's weapons really disappointed me.  It seemed to go agaisnt everything GRRM has tried to inject into battles.  Those men all had families and lives to return to yet they end up like nameless kamakazes (or orcs) without a thought of tactics, using their numbers, defensive fighting or self-preservation.  Utterly unrealistic and one of the few poor choices I feel GRRM has made. 

 

At least Legolas and Gimli were defending one of the most powerful fortifications in Middle-Earth while they had their competition, saw their enemies coming, and Tolkin explicitely has several important characters be almost super-powered badasses in combat as a matter of course.

Asha and her crew were tired warriors fleeing a siege, never said to be exceptionally skilled warriors Qarl aside, and were ambushed by people who likely knew the terrain better than them and had an obvious numerical advantage, in a clearing, in the dark of night. And the Ironborn still went on about that body count competiton nonsense while massacring their enemies left and right. I get that the clansmen had poorer equipment, so the Ironborn inflicting more casualties than they took would make sense, but them suddenly turning into overpowered fantasy heroes, cliché in-battle dialog included, was really grating. Martin even had one of their captive girls join the battle naked and kill people out of the blue, just to add to the entire thing's surrealism.

[Charerg]

1 minute ago, NutBurz said:

Berserkers, the magical monsters immune to pain surely didn´t exist. Berserkers, the huge guys on drugs who jump over shield lines to break formations surely did. And although, like I said, they preffered a large axe with a sort of grippling device, not every one was able to afford one. I can´t precise a single link for this, but any serious documentary about vikings would tell you that.

You just have to google Bolognese Swordsmanship really. I believe there´s something called Florentine style too, but I heard that was just a misconception.

Ottoman-Turks would use double rapiers too.

I´ve tried holding a shield up effectively for 20 min. I can totally undertsand why I wouldn´t want to do that surrounded by enemies.

There's a lot of fiction and myth surrounding 'berserkers', and not a lot of fact. Although some tv documents (that aren't very well researched) make a big deal out of them, the actual "hard evidence" is really scarce. What they probably weren't, is huge guys jumping over a shieldwall since that's another "fail tactic". In any case, I don't want to turn this into a "berserker debate" thread, so I'll simply recommend watching Lindybeige's video on the matter:

 

Regarding the wikipedia link on Bolognese Swordsmanship, there was nothing about dual-wielding in the article, although I guess in a civilian context it might work. In a military context...the Italians put crossbowmen behind a wall of Pavisiers, so I doubt anyone would be suicidal enough to march into crossbow fire without a big shield or heavy armour. I guess the closest equivalent to dual-wielders would be the Spanish sword-and-buckler "Rodeleros" who had some success against pike squares.

I kind of doubt double rapiers were used as well...perhaps you meant double sabres (as you refer to the Ottomans)? I'm not too familiar with the Ottoman military, but again I'm very sceptical whether this was an actual effective military tactic.

[John Doe]

13 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

 

At least Legolas and Gimli were defending one of the most powerful fortifications in Middle-Earth while they had their competition, saw their enemies coming, and Tolkin explicitely has several important characters be almost super-powered badasses in combat as a matter of course.

Asha and her crew were tired warriors fleeing a siege, never said to be exceptionally skilled warriors Qarl aside, and were ambushed by people who likely knew the terrain better than them and had an obvious numerical advantage, in a clearing, in the dark of night. And the Ironborn still went on about that body count competiton nonsense while massacring their enemies left and right. I get that the clansmen had poorer equipment, so the Ironborn inflicting more casualties than they took would make sense, but them suddenly turning into overpowered fantasy heroes, cliché in-battle dialog included, was really grating. Martin even had one of their captive girls join the battle naked and kill people out of the blue, just to add to the entire thing's surrealism.

Asha was probably on drugs. You have no clue what they grow in the wolfswood. 

[NutBurz]

from the bolognese school link- " The Dardi school focused primarily the single-handed side-sword still used for both cutting and thrusting. The side-sword was used in combination with various defensive weapons, including a shield (brocchiero, rotella or targa), a dagger, a gauntlet or a cape. The two-handed sword or spadone was also still taught, although losing its prominence. In addition, instruction on fighting with the poleaxe and other polearms was given "

from Parrying dagger - " The parrying dagger is a category of small hand-held weapons from the European late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. These weapons were used as off-hand weapons in conjunction with a single-handed sword. As the name implies they were designed to parry, or defend, more effectively than a simple dagger form, typically incorporating a wider guard, and often some other defensive features to better protect the hand, as well. It may also be used for attack if an opportunity arises. "

from Dual Wielding - " The main advantage of using two weapons is the user can use one as a holding weapon after contact is made and use the other to attack the open area of the opponent. "

from Rapier - " Albeit rapiers are single-handed weapon, they were often employed with off-hand bucklers, daggers, cloaks and even second swords to assist with defense. A buckler is a small round shield that was used with other blades as well, such as the Arming-sword. " - although I have to admit I did confuse it with scimitars in the case of the ottomans.

 

I won´t go any further in the subject too, I just want to make it clear - I´m not saying dual-wielding is effective in warfare in general, I´ve said the opposite, that´s what shields are for. I´m only arguing that it was historically used in situations of close quarters and numerical inferiority, and it does present advantages, even if in theory, which is enough for me to accept it in a fantasy setting.

 

edit - I even found a very fitting video that supports my point (spoilers). he mentions the florentine/bolognese thing. - 

Spoiler

 

 

[Charerg]

Oh yeah, rapier and dagger (or something similar) was definitely used. My understanding is that this was more of a "civilian thing" as dagger and rapier are easy to carry. Or used in duels, as they were more of a "sports" kind of thing with set rules and specific choice of arms and armour.

Though interestingly a Medieval Norwegian manual (the King's mirror) recommends knights to train with both bucklers and larger shields (probably heater shields in this period, 1250). From what I understand, the Norwegian military laws of the era also required knights to be equipped with both bucklers and large shields. So perhaps Medieval knights did actually go to battle using a buckler instead of the larger shield in some situations. Though the 13th century Norwegian bucklers were slightly different from the late Medieval fully metallic ones (here's a reconstruction).

 

Edit: But yeah, I agree that we should probably stop derailing the discussion.

[GraveWorries]

2 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

(Shaking my head) "Modern media is full of feminist fantasy". Do we live in the same society and culture? We are still living in a patriarchal society, wake up dude. Sword fighting is not only about strength. The book has several examples using John Snow and Oberyn Martell which you are not complaining about. You are just sexist. "injecting male hormones and are technically partially transsexual because of this" no, just no. Just please look up what a transsexual is on google or something. Just....no. Wow, you are a bigot. 

Exactly. It is two talented individuals. 

"But I wouldn't expect someone who describes weak men as "pathetic" and generalizes all women's attraction to alpha-males to understand that." Exactly again. The raging misogynist above probably has trouble understanding much of anything, other then how to defend the incredibly delicate male ego. 

1) Look up the word bigot and learn to use it properly.

2) There is not now and never has peen a patriarchal society anywhere on Planet Earth outside of Islam.  SJW apologists for misandry make me sick.

3) Women like S Williams and the E German athletes with massive steroid abuser muscles are in fact partly male. Which is why they end up having to shave, stop menstruating and can become infertile.  Hence the factually correct use of the term, "partly trans-sexual.

4) Men are stronger, faster, more intelligent, better reflexes and have a higher pain threshold than women.  Please to be explaining how inferior fighters will survive endless encounters where the odds are stacked against them?

[Orphalesion]

The way the Unsullied are created. When I first read it actually sent me into a laughing fit. I wonder if the first draft had them also kill a newborn kitten and a bunny rabbit in additional to the baby and the dog they have raised from a pup.

The Moorish Swamp.

And "Queen Whore"

[Elaflynts]

14 hours ago, VVSINGOFTHECROSS said:

Whilst I agree with your statement, just wanted to point out that it should be bred, and steed.

......I may have written this after a half a bottle of wine lol 

[HexMachina]

4 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

Well... there is Sothoryos (which is to the south) and Essos (which is to the east) and Westeros (which is west of Essos).

The falcon family live in the Eyrie.

And what's the place that's really cold called? The Lands of Always Winter

Everyone is strangely literal, it seems.

Except Dorne  

[Winter Rose Crown]

3 hours ago, GraveWorries said:

 

4) Men are stronger, faster, more intelligent, better reflexes and have a higher pain threshold than women.  Please to be explaining how inferior fighters will survive endless encounters where the odds are stacked against them?

Now tell me you're not a sexist. Lol.