A topic on height in swordfighting

[dxft43rto]

My question is -What is the importance of height in fighting with swords and what is the best height range.I mean we have all heard that a weapon is a great equalizer and moreover every haeight has its disadvantages and advantages.For example in MMA (where i think height is of greater importance than in swordfighting): "Shorter fighters on the other hand, tend to be stronger than taller opponents of equal weight and tend to pack a heavier punch. Shorter fighters often have the advantage while grappling defensively. Their lower centre of gravity makes it difficult to take them down and their shorter limbs make it harder to submit them."One of the greatest fighters are in the 5'9-6ft range-Feodor,GSP,Mark Hunt,Cormier,Igor Vorschyanin (who at 5'7 fought in heavyweight and had remarkable success.Also taller people tend to be slower(the nerve impulse has to travel a longer way to reach the limb).I think that in swordighting speed and balance combined with agility will win over the height advantage,considering their strength is equal.Moreover even in sports where reach is of utmost importance -like boxing one of the greatest boxers were:Mike Tyson (5'9-5'10),Rocky Marciano(unbeaten in HW with 50 wins-5'10)and Joe Frazier.So,personally i think that the best height is probably from 5'10-6-That way you combine sufficient reach,agility,explosiveness,centre of gravity,strength(one of the greatest powerlifters are actually below average height because shorter limbs means less work to do)and athleticism.I also think taht reach can work both as an advantage and disadvantage -for example if you manage to get inside a taller guy's reach you can harder and faster than him(just look at Tyson).So what is your opinion on the subject -what is the optimal height for swordfighting?

[falcotron]

First, from a few things like the description of Syrio's last stand, I get the feeling that Westerosi sword fighting is more like movies, where people take dozens of strikes before anyone makes contact, than real life. If that's true, I'd think that stamina would win out over everything else. It may not look like it, but a fencer's lunge is a lot more work than a boxer's, and minutes on minutes of those will wear out anyone. And if you've ever tried swinging a greatsword—my shoulders would need a weekend's rest after three swings before the fourth one. A fight that went on as long as in the movies, the one who's panting less and can still hold up his position is going to win.

Also, Westeros seems to have a much wider variety of weapons and styles coexisting than any real-life medieval society. So, you never know who you're going to be fighting. Being short can be an advantage in rapier on rapier, and I can imagine it working even better rapier on battleaxe, but rapier on cutlass? I don't know.

If we're talking battlefield fighter, I'd go tall, like 6'3". There's a reason Robert was a melee champion and a force of nature on the battlefield. When you're wading through a mass of people, being able to knock anyone back with a blow they can't even parry without being pushed aside, before they get into range, that's pretty useful. But there are apparently enough 6'6"+ warriors in Westeros that 6'3" isn't enough to stand out from across the field and make a target of yourself.

But if we're talking duelist, assuming you get to choose your own weapon but could end up fighting anyone from a waterdancer to a pit fighter to Arthur Dayne, I think I'd go short, around 5'3". There's a reason Robert wasn't a duelist—one miss, and a skilled fencer will get inside his reach and carve him up like Zorro. Also, if you go big, there's always someone bigger, and nobody's big enough to smash down the Mountain, but if you go small, well, I don't think you have to worry about a dwarf outfencing you unless he's also just a better fencer than you.

[dxft43rto]

I would think that Robert was such a monster on the battlefield mainly because he was so damn STRONG(Ned Stark said that he could scarcely lift the hammer with two hands while Robert wield it with one).Also he used an unconvencional weapon as a lord(most of the high-born used swords) which allowed him to smash plate armor like it was a paper (sword can't go through plate ).And height doesn't always go with strength (there is a reason most great powerlifters are short- it allows you to lift more weight for a shorter distance thus less work).Alsp i get the image that most great fighters in Westeros  aka Jaime,Dayne,Barristan,Dragonknight,etc. are between 5'10-6'2.

[Damon_Tor]

For weapons you swing (as opposed to thrust) like axes, hammers, and many swords, height is extremely important because it changes the angle of impact. If your shoulders are at the same height as the other guy, that weapon is going to connect at 45 degrees, at effectively half its potential power. But if you've got 12 inches on him it's going to connect coming closer to straight down. That means it's more likely to break a shield, the arm behind it, the helmet, the skull, etc. And at the same time, that guy a foot shorter than you swings at you it's going to connect at an extremely high angle, having virtually no chance to regain momentum from the upswing.

Apart from mobility, this is part of what makes fighting from horseback so effective: guys on the ground have a garbage angle at which to attack you, but your angle of attack against them is ideal.

[mormont]

In the books? GRRM knows a little bit about sword combat but it's second hand and partial, and what he does know he is happy to ignore for effect, so height has whatever effect GRRM decides it should have in a particular scene.

In real life? It's a complicated subject but it comes down to 'measure' - your effective combat reach, which is dictated by your height among other factors (eg weapon length).

[GyantSpyder]

In terms of boxing, I would hesitate to say it was an advantage for Tyson and Marciano to be 5'9"-5'10", to the extent that it would necessarily enable them to beat taller fighters. Tyson had problems with taller fighters, and in particular he dodged them and avoided fighting them when he could. Tyson gets kind of mythologized, of course, and sure, he was vicious and precise with a ton of explosive power, but Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis, both at 6'5", I think could have each taken on even prime Tyson and won. Tyson of course lost his huge upset to Buster Douglas, who is about 6'4".

Although it's not fair to say Tyson dodged Bowe - Tyson and Bowe grew up in the same neighborhood, and it's more likely Tyson did not want to fight Bowe because Tyson really liked to hate and punish his opponents, and he couldn't see doing that to somebody he felt that much of a connection with. And of course both their careers were unexpectedly curtailed. But Don King paid Lennox Lewis millions of dollars not to fight Mike Tyson in 1996, so that Tyson could fight Bruce Seldon, who was only 6'1".

But yeah, I'm not as familiar with Marciano as I am with Tyson, but a big part of Tyson's "success" is, arguably, that he didn't fight any of the top heavyweights of his era who were 6'4" or taller.

Although, to play devil's advocate against myself, he did fight Andrew Golata in 2000 and nearly killed him. So when we're talking about who Mike Tyson "can" or "can't" beat, I mean, it's Mike Tyson. I wouldn't count him entirely out against anybody. But even beyond their 2002 fight, I don't like Tyson's matchup against Lewis.

You bring up Joe Frazier, but let me bring up Big George Foreman, one of the hardest hitters of all time, who beat Frazier, and who was, according to (dubious) legend, the only man Mike Tyson was actually scared to fight. And who was 6'3"-6'4.

Nowadays, with the overall improvement in athleticism across sports (you know, due to training and "medicine"), the advantage of the short heavyweight boxer is virtually gone. The Klitschko brothers, Anthony Joshua, Deontay Wilder, even Tyson Fury are all over 6'6".

In the lower weight classes, could argue that part of GGG's power comes from his height and leverage - and he's 5'11". Canelo was 5'9".

Canelo might be the kind of fighter you're talking about, a puncher with a more compact stance who looks to pick and choose his shots. If Canelo's fists had knives on them, then sure, maybe him being a couple of inches shorter than GGG and thus maybe better able to protect himself might be an advantage.

But yeah, in a little boxing tangent, when you're looking at what made Tyson and Marciano such dominant fighters is pretty complicated and I'm not sure involves a big structural advantage against larger fighters as much as the traditional narrative might indicate.

Just my opinion of course

[elder brother jonothor dar]

There is a reason combat sports have a weight range, the big guy has the advantage in power more often than not.  There are freaks of nature where the small guy has more power but the true freaks of nature are the giants with reflexes of a cat.

[dxft43rto]

Answer to Damon_Tor                                        Whether you break a shield or penetrate armor depends MOSTLY on your strength and the weapon you are fighting with.If you have the strength you can swing an axe to person a foot taller than you by just making the swing bigger (you are going to do it from behind your shoulder) .By swinging at a guy who is the same height as you the weapon will not connect with half its power because it mostly relies on your kinetic power (the foce you are using to move it).Potential powe palys a negligible role considering that most axes were around 1-3 kgs heavy.Also who says that you should hit a taller guy  straight up-you can hit him in the legs,torso,chest.Also once you are inside his reach he loses his advantage and it becomes disadvantage (like in boxing ,mma etc-such a technique was used by tyson emelianenko and many others)because he will not be able to extend his arm to the fullest and thus hit you with all his strength.Also you will have view on his chin and neck and you could evectively take him out (by sticking the pointy end of an axe,sword in his neck or chin -just like an uppercut but with a weapon).Anyway my question is what would be the perfect height RANGE for a medieval warrior.You have to consider that fighting also has ringen (wrestling) where a guy with a shorter gravity centre has better stability and thus the advantage over a guy who has a higher centre of gravity and thus less stability.IF you have the strength you could get him to the ground and put a dagger through his throat.Another thing to consider is that if they are the same weight-the shorter guy has more muscle because taller guys have more bone(source WIKI)thus a shorter man will be able to hit harder with his weapon.Another point you have to consider is that due to the fact that the nerve impulse travels less time to a shorter guy he is faster and more durable.Another major thing is that he has an advantage in weightlifting because due to his shorter arm he does less work.                                   Anyway my  question is about the height range in which your reach isn't too short but you can still use the advantages of shorter gravity centre.Personally for me it is :5'9-5'10 to 6'1-6'2.Basically that's the height range in which  most great warriors in Westeros (aka Jaime,dayne,Barristan,Rhaegar,Loras and his brother,Jon Snow,Iron Emett,oberyn and others im too lasy to name)Basically consider a height range in which you still have the reach but also the quickness,rotational movement and agility.                                                                                                                               

[dxft43rto]

GyantSpyder-          Mike Tyson was specialized in beating 6'3+ boxers -Alfonso Ratliff,Tony Tucker,Tyrell Biggs,Tony Tubbs,etc im too lazy to name all of Iron Mike victories.Basically he always used their reach for his advantage -he closed in,got into their reach and from there battered their chins while they were unable to extend their arms and hit tyson hard enough.He was super fast and had one of the best defences in the boxing world.Don't tell me about Foreman if you see in Wikipedia his wins- nearly 3/4 were fucking nobodies-amateurs trying to breakthrough in boxing,they don't even have wiki pages.Tyson fought with all the big names of the day and he fucking destroyed them.He only has 6 losses and 5 of them were AFTER his jail time,rape conviction,substance and drug abuse,changing of his trainer,etc..Also Tyson was Above 40 years so you should count his older age too.His only loss in his 1984-1992 was to Buster Douglas and was controversial at best :Within the last 10 seconds of the 8th round, Tyson, who had been backed onto the ropes, landed a big right uppercut that sent Douglas to the canvas. Douglas got up after a 9-second count (the validity of which Tyson promoter Don King would later argue in vain).Mike Tyson never never  and i mean NEVER FUCKING feared anybody.In 2/3 of his fights you can see that his opponents are shitting themselves at the sight of him.His loss to Lenox Lewis had nothing to do with reach disadvantage as was evident in the first three rounds in which  Tyson started obliterating him.However he didn't have his old resilience and endurance and by the time of the 6th round he was super tired and couldn't even counterpunch.EVERYONE agrees that 1985-1990 Tyson was probably the best example of boxing in boxing history.Tyson is probably the hardest puncher in boxing -he is the only boxer i have seen who knocked down people not from a hit in the CHIN but from a hit in the temple.As far as Klitschko and Joshua -they both know that in Tyson's era they would have been nothing more than sparring partners.Even Joshua admitted that Tyson would have eaten him alive in the ring.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         As far as Rocky Marziano goes -he was basically the Floyd Mayweather in heavyweight- he was the undefeated champion with 50-0 wins-- "he lacked the skills and finesse of most heavyweight champions, but he made up for it in brute force and raw power. Early in his career, he was notorious for his punching power, holding 11 first-round knockouts to his name. As the opposition got better, Marciano relied on his incredible stamina, relentlessness, and ability to fight rough and swarm on the inside to get him through fights just as much as the power."           Of course there is MMA but that's another topic and the fighters in heavyweight who were below 6 ft and are considered the greatest fighters of all time are just too many to list.

[dxft43rto]

Answer to elder brother jonothor dar -They have WEIGHT range not HEIGHT range because reach in itself could be turned into disadvantage.Shorter fighter of the same weightclass also have more muscle (thus heavier punch),are less likely to be put on the ground(shorter gravity centre).ULTIMATELY what makes a guy big is his MUSCLE WEIGHT not height.Just look at some of the most famous MMA fighters who were 5'9-5'10-5'11(we can't be sure about their heights because MMA federations are always adding 1-1'5 even up to 2 inches to a fighter sometimes)-GSP,FEODOR Emelianenko(considered the best mma fighter of all time,Daniel Cormer,Igor Vorschyanin (a fucking monster on the ring who stood at 170 cm and fought in heavyweight),Mark Hunt,Blagoi Ivanov,etc

[elder brother jonothor dar]

1 hour ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

WEIGHT range not HEIGHT range because reach in itself could be turned into disadvantage.Shorter fighter of the same weightclass also have more muscle (thus heavier punch),are less likely to be put on the ground(shorter gravity centre).ULTIMATELY what makes a guy big is his MUSCLE WEIGHT not height

You are missing my point Gregor and Oberyn are in the same "weight class" as well as every other adult and child in the books.

Gregor is a top 5 fighter, his size is his advantage, he can be beaten but more often than not he will win hence top 5.  Oberyn combats his size by choosing a weapon that gave him superior reach and zero close quarter maneuverability.

Nobody mentions that if only Gregor where shorter he would be the complete fighter, nor do they comment on anyone being too short, good is good but generally bigger is better.

2 equal fighters the big guy will win most of the time.

[dxft43rto]

1 hour ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

You are missing my point Gregor and Oberyn are in the same "weight class" as well as every other adult and child in the books.

Gregor is a top 5 fighter, his size is his advantage, he can be beaten but more often than not he will win hence top 5.  Oberyn combats his size by choosing a weapon that gave him superior reach and zero close quarter maneuverability.

Nobody mentions that if only Gregor where shorter he would be the complete fighter, nor do they comment on anyone being too short, good is good but generally bigger is better.

2 equal fighters the big guy will win most of the time.

No Gregor and Oberyn are hardly in the same WEIGHT class -they may be in the same world in which a dog eats dog but they are definitely not in the same weight class.Gregor is way too far from a top 5 fighter he ain't even top 10 (everyone who lists top 5 fighter omits gregor ).Oberyn choose the weapon not only for reach but due to the fact that he is Dornish and they fight better with spears.Jaime,Barristan,Dayne,White Bull,Aemon dragonknight,Loras Tyrell's brother etc.-they could have all beaten the mountain by using their speed and better manoeuverability when inside the range of the Mountain.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2 equal fighters the big guy will win most of the time.-What an utter complete nonsence.2 equal fighters the faster will win.2 equal fighters the more skilled will win.2 equal fighters the stronger will win.2 equal fighters the one who has slept the night before the fight will win.2 equal fighters the one who has drunk more coffee  will win.2 equal fighters the one who is more hydrated will win.I could go on and on and on with this bullshit.The point is that if everything is equal then they would be in the same weight class-then according to wikipedia: "Shorter fighters on the other hand, tend to be stronger than taller opponents of equal weight and tend to pack a heavier punch. Shorter fighters often have the advantage while grappling defensively. Their lower centre of gravity makes it difficult to take them down and their shorter limbs make it harder to submit them." Due to the fact that the nerve impulse has to travel less time you will also be faster and have greater agility and rotational capability.So what do we have in the end of the equation-a stronger faster more agile guy vs a guy who has a reach advantage that turns into a huge disadvantage when you get inside his reach (watch Mike Tyson matches).In the end you just have to see that some of the greatest heavyweight mma fighters of all time are below 6ft-most notabLy Feodor Emelianenko,Mark Hunt,Cormier,George st pierre,Igor vorschyanin,etc.

[mormont]

Now, I am not a boxer, but fellas, boxing ain't swordfighting.

[GyantSpyder]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Now, I am not a boxer, but fellas, boxing ain't swordfighting.

Just like a Stark, to bring a punch to a stab fight.

You want to get the Throne? If he draws a sword, you bring a dragon. If he hands one of your cities to Vargo Hoat, you burn one of his to the ground. That's the Targaryen way. That's how you get the Throne. 

[Fencer]

The reality is that there is no optimal height.  The interplay of physical strength, speed and reaction, style, and choice of weapon all contribute to success or failure.  Poor choices in those combinations will result in poor outcomes, while selection of weapon or strategy can offset other inherent disadvantages.

The Mountain is terrifying because of his sheer size and strength, which he properly combines with weapons and armor matched to the same.  He didn't win his fights with finesse and patience.  Oberyn (nearly) killed him not by trying to outmatch the physical strength of the Mountain, but by selecting a weapon that allowed him to exploit other aspects--longer reach and faster attacks (well, and poison).

Jaime doesn't have the strength or size of someone like Robert or the Cleganes, but could conceivably overcome one of the with technique and speed.  Likewise, Bronn demonstrated that he could offset the advantages an opponent gained from heavier armor with finesse and patience.

Ultimately, it is all about what is referred to as asymmetry.  You don't engage an adversary on their own ground, but instead attempt to identify and exploit weaknesses.  This is as true on a personal combat level as it is on a tactical or strategic level.  One would not try to match Gregor blow for blow with great swords, and one would not attempt a technical engagement with a fully functional Jaime.  So, there is no "right" answer or optimal size, only the ability to adapt and evolve faster than the adversary.

[elder brother jonothor dar]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

Now, I am not a boxer, but fellas, boxing ain't swordfighting.

Yeh I'm confussed too I thought he wanted to discuss sword fighting in asoiaf, but I need to go watch Tyson fight.

9 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

.2 equal fighters the faster will win.2 equal fighters the more skilled will win.2 equal fighters the stronger will win.2 equal fighters the one who has slept the night before the fight will win.2 equal fighters the one who has drunk more coffee  will win.2 equal fighters the one who is more hydrated will win.I could go on and on and on with this bullshit.

I agree especially that last bit but it's your thread.

You seem to think that big people are slow and small people are strong.  Sure Tyson was good but how come every heavy weight is not his height? Maybe because bigger is generally better? And Tyson is the exception to your rule?

Btw half the ppl you named are dead, Gregor 1 on 1 Gregor on the battle field Gregor with a lance is for arguments sake top 20 (alive), this despite his disadvantage of being bigger and stronger than everyone else south of the wall.

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

3 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

this despite his disadvantage of being bigger and stronger than everyone else south of the wall.

That's why giants are mocked for their fighting prowess instead of being feared. They are tall AND strong, so they must be practically useless in a fight. 

[dxft43rto]

12 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Yeh I'm confussed too I thought he wanted to discuss sword fighting in asoiaf, but I need to go watch Tyson fight.

I agree especially that last bit but it's your thread.

You seem to think that big people are slow and small people are strong.  Sure Tyson was good but how come every heavy weight is not his height? Maybe because bigger is generally better? And Tyson is the exception to your rule?

Btw half the ppl you named are dead, Gregor 1 on 1 Gregor on the battle field Gregor with a lance is for arguments sake top 20 (alive), this despite his disadvantage of being bigger and stronger than everyone else south of the wall.

 

1. -Boxing and swordfight are kinda connected -both use strength,cardio,reach,explosiveness,quickness as their main weapon.The difference is that in swordfight no matter how long your arm is you can still hit his arm with your blade once you are past the length of your weapon(which is equal to yours)                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I don't think this -that is what wikipedia thinks.Shorter limbs are advantage in powerlifting and bodybuilding because the weight travels less distance you do less work and thus are not easily tired.Every heavyweight is not his height because there are weight classes.Basically in the past (50-60s)the most paid boxing was the heavyweight division-that's why you can see that then most boxers were 5'8-6 feet tall(that's in heavyweight).However today things have changed -if you fight good in middleweight,flyweight,etc you can effectively gett the same amount of money as someone who fights in Heavyweight(maybe even more)-just look at Floyd Mayweather-the richest living boxer -he is richer than all the heavyweight boxing champions combined.So,now you come to the rational question-why fight in one of the hardest divisions when you can effectively fight in much lower weight class and get the same amount of money.BTW due to this there are many fucking pussies in bantamweight,flyweight super lightweight categories in mma-people who are 6'2+ and could fight in middleweight but are too scared and too big pussies.Oh,another thing-Tyson wasn't just good he is a fucking legend -just consider that he has more KOs than Muhammad Ali.                          Gregor Clegane was a fucking lackwit and brute who could only kill armed peasants and when faced with a knight he got his ass whooped.His greatest advantage was not so his Strength and size but his inhumane fucking ARMOR(which btw is totally impossible in real life as is an 8 foot muscle bound person-at that height in medieval times you would be a fucking STICK -even today ppl who are 6+ with regular modern day nuition,supplements and even steroids need at least 3+ years to fill their frames (not be muscle bound just not walking sticks)).His armor effectively turned him into a tank-without it even Meryn Trant could have taken on GC.                                                                                                         

[elder brother jonothor dar]

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make nor what answer or for that matter what question you are trying to ask.

[GyantSpyder]

So, here's the thing about boxing: it's prizefighting. It's not combat. And I don't mean that people don't fight to their limits and don't get hurt, but boxing isn't a test of who lives and who dies, it is a test of a complex of qualities that are seen to be masculine, tailored for people to watch it and bet on it, refined over hundreds of years.

The reality of a fight to the death is that it tends to be brief and unpredictable. Anybody can kill anybody. That's not very well-suited to prizefighting, where you want to take out a lot of - but not all of - the variance. People might erroneously think of it as violence made safe - it's more violence purified and made watchable. And you want it to last a while, and you want it to be spectator friendly and to be closely enough matched that if you gamble on it people will bet on both sides.

So it takes a ton of courage and strength and skill to succeed at boxing, and you do put your life on the line, but in general in disorganized fights where lives are at stake nobody stands there and punches somebody else for 45 minutes (in this way being an offensive lineman is probably more realistic than being a boxer, as shoving somebody else intermittently for two hours in a tightly packed line has had a great deal of historical military relevance).

Boxing isn't lesser as a method for applying force and harm to another human than stabbing someone or strangling them - in certain ways it's greater - but it's not the kind of thing you do if you are actually trying to kill someone whilst being not killed yourself in the absence of rules.

If you want, from a Western tradition of combat sport, a sport that is more geared as to who is more effective in a fight, you're really looking at the tradition of wrestling, and even then you're looking at freestyle wrestling rather than Greco-Roman. And there's a certain convergence of east and west in the reality of that which proves out (like with Jiu-Jitsu), and you see that in MMA, which is, I think, generally worse as a form of prizefighting for a bunch of reasons (though potentially less causing of brain injury, once you start caring about that, which is a big deal), but which people have come to appreciate from a standpoint of perceived greater "authenticity" in effectiveness.

People do seem to care these days a great deal about "authenticity" in their arranged and performative violence. And one way I've described it is that boxing is a fight sport for people who get in fights and want to see it refined, and MMA is a fight sport for people who don't and want to see what it's like.

In terms of being a better soldier, there are other sorts of sports and athletics that are supposed to test that - being an individual fighter to the death doesn't have a tremendous amount to do with being effective in an army. Just being able to walk or run long distances and carry a lot of stuff is pretty important. Discipline, keeping formations and following orders. Familiarity and practice with your equipment. Etc.

It seems like what he is looking for is a sort of Unified Theory of Combat - an ideal, perfect fighter - with ideal physical attributes for all applications. And that doesn't exist, because the various forms of combat - in real life and in sport - are so different. The ideal person depends on the tool, and so many of the variations have so much weird constraint on them that people end up optimizing to fit the constraint more than optimize for overall effectiveness in an abstract a priori sense - if such a thing can be said to exist.

But just a cursory study of fencing shows that especially once you add weapons to the mix, different sorts of equipment lead to different advantages or disadvantages to different body types. The ideal epee fencer is not the ideal saber fencer. And when you throw in actual deadly weapons and actual wars, it gets even more complicated.

There's even something to be said for a soldier's relationship with food and rest being more important for their effectiveness than how well they can kill or not be killed under ideal circumstances, but that also gets beside the point.

I think a lot of people have answered the question in the thread (I think @Damon_Tor's reminder about angle of attack being important to the effectiveness of many but not all of these weapons - whether that means height or horseback or terrain) - that it depends on the weapons, and the technology dictates that, as well. What does the most effective army in the world look like? How do you beat it?

And in that case, a blonde aristocratic teenager who has never done a day of manual labor in her life is the ideal body type for combat if she gets to ride a dragon, even if the other guy is an 8 foot tall zombie dual-wielding valyrian steel Bat'leths.