Jump to content
Karabin

Why Asha such a terminator?

Recommended Posts

In the DWD chapter The wayward bride, asha was fighting with a northmen in the forest and killed like 7 of them or something. Was really strange to read this chapter and kinda confusing. i mean Asha is a women and lack in strenght alot. All should end probably on this moment - "To me!” she called, but whether she was calling to her own men or the foes even Asha could not have said for certain. A northman with an axe loomed up before her, swinging with both hands as he howled in wordless fury. Asha raised her shield to block his blow" and Asha realised what she is like 2-3 times weaker than the northmen and shield could stand the strike but Asha couldnt. Her legs lost balance and she fell hited by the ground and stunned, after what northmen finished her with one more strike to the head. The end.
I dont get it. Martin write whole 5 books trying to be as realistick as he can be and now we got this.  The terminator killing huge barbarians one after another?  i mean the Brienne at least got the lore behind her, we got told the whole 2-5 books what she unnaturally strong for a women and actually even stronger than majority of males, so some sort of mutant, okay, and whats why she can fight with a full grown men , because she NOT lacking the strengh and stamina either. But Asha was described just like athlety women, theres no way she can stand against full grown male who is bigger and much stronger than her.
Wtf Martin!? He just becomed some Abercrombie tier writer with this chapter(not saying this as a bad thing, but about differences in writing stories). Even Brienne never could kill so many warriors in such a short time. So strange.


 

Edited by Karabin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation was that it was not a short time span, and that it was a scrappy affair in the mud and mess and half light where she was more lucky than she was skilled and more opportunistic than strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upper body strength is not the only factor in a sword fight. Skill at arms, agility and a quick mind have a lot to do with it. She is the daughter of the King Reaper, raised in fighting and seamanship, whereas her foes were mostly common fighting men -- strong, brave, to be sure, but not very well-trained. Also, Asha is wearing mail and I believe an iron helm while most of her foes are in leather and fur -- except for the last guy who finally takes her down.

But I'll wait and see what some of the ladies on this board think of the notion that a woman could not possibly win a fight against a man unless she is some kind of freak. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole chapter reads like a joke to me a sarcastic homage to the Legolas and Gimli fighting Orcs at Helm's Deep chapter.

It's stupid and if you exercise Quentyn from the book, that's my least favourite chapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:38 AM, John Suburbs said:

'Upper body strength is not the only factor in a sword fight. Skill at arms, agility and a quick mind have a lot to do with it. She is the daughter of the King Reaper, raised in fighting and seamanship, whereas her foes were mostly common fighting men -- strong, brave, to be sure, but not very well-trained. Also, Asha is wearing mail and I believe an iron helm while most of her foes are in leather and fur -- except for the last guy who finally takes her down.

But I'll wait and see what some of the ladies on this board think of the notion that a woman could not possibly win a fight against a man unless she is some kind of freak. :D

Medieval swords were more like axes and clubs and were used as such, strength absolutely was critical. The damage came primarily from the shock of focussed impact rather than cutting itself. The edge of the sword is not intended to cut through armor, rather it serves to focus all of the swords energy on a very small area. The idea was to knock your opponent down and incapacitate/stun them, then finish them off through a weak point in their armor. Fighters would have carried specialized weapons, such as Rondel daggers, for this purpose in the age of plate armor. In the age of mail and gambeson (no one wore leather armor, because it doesn't work) they would have used the point of their sword as a spear against exposed areas, such as throats and such

A smaller woman, no matter how athletic and well armored, would have been finished off in seconds by half a dozen woodsmen type warriors in this kind of combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tugela said:

Medieval swords were more like axes and clubs and were used as such, strength absolutely was critical. The damage came primarily from the shock of focussed impact rather than cutting itself. The edge of the sword is not intended to cut through armor, rather it serves to focus all of the swords energy on a very small area. The idea was to knock your opponent down and incapacitate/stun them, then finish them off through a weak point in their armor. Fighters would have carried specialized weapons, such as Rondel daggers, for this purpose in the age of plate armor. In the age of mail and gambeson (no one wore leather armor, because it doesn't work) they would have used the point of their sword as a spear against exposed areas, such as throats and such

A smaller woman, no matter how athletic and well armored, would have been finished off in seconds by half a dozen woodsmen type warriors in this kind of combat.

I'm not an expert on medieval swords, but all of the ones I see in the actual book are honed to a razor's edge. When fighting foes armored in fur and leather, the sharpness of the blade would most definitely be it's most lethal quality. Asha, meanwhile, is wearing mail and an iron helm.

Also, Asha starts the battle with a throwing axe, which we've already seen she is highly skilled at. Then she has her wooden shield and dirk (turn the opponent's attack with the shield and get in close with the dirk -- again, they are only wearing "furs and hides and piney branches"). Finally, she picks up a short sword that is more like a cleaver than a sword.

And for most of the time, she has a number of competent fighters at her back: Qarl, Quenton, Grimtongue and Tris, who is horsed. Once she loses them, she is taken by the axeman.

So all in all, it's not that unbelievable. She is highly skilled with the light weapons she has, she has better armor, and she has protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:40 PM, John Suburbs said:

I'm not an expert on medieval swords, but all of the ones I see in the actual book are honed to a razor's edge. When fighting foes armored in fur and leather, the sharpness of the blade would most definitely be it's most lethal quality. Asha, meanwhile, is wearing mail and an iron helm.

Also, Asha starts the battle with a throwing axe, which we've already seen she is highly skilled at. Then she has her wooden shield and dirk (turn the opponent's attack with the shield and get in close with the dirk -- again, they are only wearing "furs and hides and piney branches"). Finally, she picks up a short sword that is more like a cleaver than a sword.

And for most of the time, she has a number of competent fighters at her back: Qarl, Quenton, Grimtongue and Tris, who is horsed. Once she loses them, she is taken by the axeman.

So all in all, it's not that unbelievable. She is highly skilled with the light weapons she has, she has better armor, and she has protection.

Real warriors did not wear simple leather armor because it offers very little protection. That is the point I was making. Leather armor is a creation of fantasy because it looks sexy, but it was not actually used as armor. People may have had leather garments as protection against the elements, but not as protection against weapons. 

People in the middle ages who could not afford mail wore gambeson, which is a padded fabric made of dense wool. It is simple to make and very effective against the sorts of weapons used at the time because it absorbs the impact of the weapon. It is type of armor used by common soldiers since at least from the early Greek period all the way through to the advent of firearms, and it is used because it really works. Of course chain is preferable since it suffers from less attrition in battle, but it would not afford you an advantage beyond that. If you were in single combat, or facing multiple enemies, winning would entail you knocking your enemies down or stunning them, then going for a weak spot to finish them off. If you did not knock them down or stun them, there is no way you were going to kill them, no matter what armor they were wearing and no matter what your skill was. This was NOT fencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound as if every man would be stronger than Asha, or any woman for that matter. Swords aside for the moment, I'd like to see an average, ordinary man take on 5'7" 135 lb Ronda Rousey in hand to hand combat. Women can just as easily be trained to fight as well as a man. I don't think GRRM states Asha's height or weight, but why should she automatically be weaker than any man of the same height or weight?

Lets move on to a few, real life female soldiers who demonstrate that women have the physical capacity, strength, and abilities equal to a man.

Major Lauren Edwards US Marine Corps. Her physical fitness rivals any man. She can run a perfect male physical fitness test, which includes running three miles in 18 minutes, doing 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes, a feat even males find it incredibly difficult to do. She led more than 150 Marines and several vehicles in defensive maneuvers during the invasion of Iraq.

Sergeant Sherri Gallagher US Army is a shooter in the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit. She beat out 11 other competitors for the title of Soldier of the Year. She bested her competition — mostly male — in events such as hand-to-hand combat, urban maneuvers, detainee operations, casualty evaluation, weapons familiarization, and night firing.

Another sergeant, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester US Army killed several enemy combatants while under attack in Iraq, saving American lives. Hester is one of the few women to be awarded for valor in close-quarters combat. When she and her squad came under fire by enemy combatants while stationed in Iraq, Hester helped repel more than two dozen Iraqi insurgents. Amazingly, Hester walked directly into the line of fire to kill at least three enemy combatants at close range.

Your viewpoint that women cannot be as strong as a man is biased and factually inaccurate to say the least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think men overestimate upper body strength and size. And it's sad.

How many times do we have to watch a faster, smarter, more resourceful, better equipped, better rested, more agile, more versatile fighter curbstomp opponents who are stronger and/or bigger than them before we realize that the battle doesn't necessarily belong to the strong.

The vast majority of people who know how to fight in theory alone can work around an upper body strength or size advantage. How much more for people who are battle-tested.

The very fact that you (and many others like you) think that a woman who is capable of fighting toe-to-toe with a man like any other man is, as you say, a mutant....

I don't get it.

Do small men stand no absolutely chance against larger or average-sized men? If so, then why hasn't their been a height and/or weight requirement to join the armed forces? Are the martial abilities of small men any less valuable because they are men?

Why should it be so for women?

I will grant that women's bodies are built differently (hygiene, childbearing, breast tissue, etc.) and that the average woman will have to work harder than the average man in their quest to become a physical threat. But I don't think that the average woman will have to work too hard. After all, science and common sense has proven that women are not only just as dangerous as men but that there is not that much of a strength/size difference between the average man (who is 5'9") and the average woman (who is 5'5"). It's not like the majority of men are 6'0"+ and majority of women round out at 5'3". Moreover, the average woman will get an additional leg-up in a fight because people like @Karabin will underestimate her...at their own peril.

I'll go even further: the reality that most women don't think that women, by in large, are capable of defeating or just fighting a man is because most women don't believe they are capable of fighting or defeating a man. That's half the battle. You are what you think.

Being physically weaker (and/or smaller) than someone doesn't mean that you are physically powerless. It just means you're physically weaker/smaller than the other person and you just have to take a different approach if you want to stand a chance of not being hurt or killed by them.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2017 at 10:51 PM, Karabin said:

In the DWD chapter The wayward bride, asha was fighting with a northmen in the forest and killed like 7 of them or something. Was really strange to read this chapter and kinda confusing. i mean Asha is a women and lack in strenght alot. All should end probably on this moment - "To me!” she called, but whether she was calling to her own men or the foes even Asha could not have said for certain. A northman with an axe loomed up before her, swinging with both hands as he howled in wordless fury. Asha raised her shield to block his blow" and Asha realised what she is like 2-3 times weaker than the northmen and shield could stand the strike but Asha couldnt. Her legs lost balance and she fell hited by the ground and stunned, after what northmen finished her with one more strike to the head. The end.
I dont get it. Martin write whole 5 books trying to be as realistick as he can be and now we got this.  The terminator killing huge barbarians one after another?  i mean the Brienne at least got the lore behind her, we got told the whole 2-5 books what she unnaturally strong for a women and actually even stronger than majority of males, so some sort of mutant, okay, and whats why she can fight with a full grown men , because she NOT lacking the strengh and stamina either. But Asha was described just like athlety women, theres no way she can stand against full grown male who is bigger and much stronger than her.
Wtf Martin!? He just becomed some Abercrombie tier writer with this chapter(not saying this as a bad thing, but about differences in writing stories). Even Brienne never could kill so many warriors in such a short time. So strange.


 

 

 What's the size difference between The Mountain and Oberyn Martell again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tugela said:

Real warriors did not wear simple leather armor because it offers very little protection. That is the point I was making. Leather armor is a creation of fantasy because it looks sexy, but it was not actually used as armor. People may have had leather garments as protection against the elements, but not as protection against weapons. 

People in the middle ages who could not afford mail wore gambeson, which is a padded fabric made of dense wool. It is simple to make and very effective against the sorts of weapons used at the time because it absorbs the impact of the weapon. It is type of armor used by common soldiers since at least from the early Greek period all the way through to the advent of firearms, and it is used because it really works. Of course chain is preferable since it suffers from less attrition in battle, but it would not afford you an advantage beyond that. If you were in single combat, or facing multiple enemies, winning would entail you knocking your enemies down or stunning them, then going for a weak spot to finish them off. If you did not knock them down or stun them, there is no way you were going to kill them, no matter what armor they were wearing and no matter what your skill was. This was NOT fencing.

Regardless, the text clearly states that the foes she was fighting were wearing "furs and hides and piney branches" whereas she was wearing mail and an iron helm. So criticize the realism of the northmen's armor if that's your thing (these are woodland fighters, after all, so they use what they have), but there is no reason to think that Asha's axes, shield and dirk, plus her close proximity to multiple fighting men who would gladly die for her, were not enough to see her through the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still does not make the fight realistic. 

"Barbarians" on occasion overran Roman legions when the Romans were decked out in plate armor and they were wearing cloth/fabric/natural materials armor (which, as I have pointed out, is actually very effective for melee combat from that era). Without the advantage of fighting in fixed formations, Roman soldiers were quickly taken out by less well armored opponents, even though they were far better trained and equipped. The fact remains that in the style of fighting in medieval and pre-medieval eras, combat was centered mostly around knocking your opponent down/out, then finishing them off with some sort of piercing weapon.

Taking a blow from a heavy battle axe can kill you from the impact alone, even if you were wearing chain. Especially so if you were more gracile. Large people can absorb impact blows to a greater extent. Roman gladiators for example actually had special diets to promote the development of surface body fat, which acted as a type of natural armor to this sort of damage.

Unless Asha was in a shield wall formation, her armor would not have afforded her any advantage over her opponents, and could even have been a serious disadvantage due to the weight and consequent reduction in mobility. Combine that with the strength differential versus her likely opponents, she would not have stood much chance of surviving in real combat in a melee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:52 PM, tugela said:

It still does not make the fight realistic. 

"Barbarians" on occasion overran Roman legions when the Romans were decked out in plate armor and they were wearing cloth/fabric/natural materials armor (which, as I have pointed out, is actually very effective for melee combat from that era). Without the advantage of fighting in fixed formations, Roman soldiers were quickly taken out by less well armored opponents, even though they were far better trained and equipped. The fact remains that in the style of fighting in medieval and pre-medieval eras, combat was centered mostly around knocking your opponent down/out, then finishing them off with some sort of piercing weapon.

Taking a blow from a heavy battle axe can kill you from the impact alone, even if you were wearing chain. Especially so if you were more gracile. Large people can absorb impact blows to a greater extent. Roman gladiators for example actually had special diets to promote the development of surface body fat, which acted as a type of natural armor to this sort of damage.

Unless Asha was in a shield wall formation, her armor would not have afforded her any advantage over her opponents, and could even have been a serious disadvantage due to the weight and consequent reduction in mobility. Combine that with the strength differential versus her likely opponents, she would not have stood much chance of surviving in real combat in a melee.

Well, she did lose the battle. She was skilled enough to take out some northman before finally falling. It is also likely that Stannis, or even whomever was in charge of that force, gave orders not to kill any women warriors they found at Deepwood because Asha would undoubtedly be one of them, and she is more valuable alive than dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/19/2018 at 10:37 PM, John Suburbs said:

She was skilled enough to take out some northman before finally falling.

It is worth mentioning that unlike trained Asha, these northmen are probably shit at fighting. This is Westerosi conscription described by Alys Karstark:

"Not well." Alys sighed. "My father took so many of our men south with him that only the women and young boys were left to bring the harvest in. Them, and the men too old or crippled to go off to war.

This isn't medieval army or even levee en masse, this literally grabbing anyone who can march.

So at best, Asha is fighting some random peasants who qualify as "fit enough not to die of natural causes while under arms".

At worst, Asha is fighting random peasants whose didn't pass that qualification and were drafted after the former category ended up Red-Weddinged in the south.

Edited by Myrish Lace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

It is worth mentioning that unlike trained Asha, these northmen are probably shit at fighting. This is Westerosi conscription described by Alys Karstark:

"Not well." Alys sighed. "My father took so many of our men south with him that only the women and young boys were left to bring the harvest in. Them, and the men too old or crippled to go off to war.

This isn't medieval army or even levee en masse, this literally grabbing anyone who can march.

So at best, Asha is fighting some random peasants who qualify as "fit enough not to die of natural causes while under arms".

At worst, Asha is fighting random peasants whose didn't pass that qualification and were drafted after the former category ended up Red-Weddinged in the south.

Yup, I think I made that point above, along with the fact that she is wearing mail and an iron helm while they are dressed in fur and leather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×