Jump to content
Canon Claude

Why was Bloodraven allowed to take Dark Sister to the Wall??

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

A VS sword doesn't automatically turn you into superman. The impact of the improved edge of a VS sword would be minimal in the chaotic environment of a battlefield, especially against a fully armored opponent like Robert. The main advantage Rhaegar would've had with Dark Sister is it would be lighter than a regular sword, and thus he might tire more slowly. Even so, Rhaegar was dressed in full armor as well, so the impact of a slightly lighter sword isn't going to make him that much faster.

I always thought valyrian steel cut through people like butter. That's the way the Brienne chapters in AFFC made it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sifth said:

I always thought valyrian steel cut through people like butter. That's the way the Brienne chapters in AFFC made it out to be.

 

No normal sword would be able to cut through plate armor (and I mean normal to be a non-magical construct, unlike the shadow blade that butchered Renley). For that you would need something heavier, like an ax with a good amount of force behind it. However, with the right kind of tip and a magically "enhanced" blade, such a VS, I'm thinking that you could probably puncture plate armor and run someone through with decent effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Why should not the sword go where it is needed?  Maybe Aegon V thought that fighting for the Nights Watch was a good cause.

 

I suppose the same could be said for the Mormont's blade. The only reasons I can think that Jeor didn't leave it to Jorah with all of his other possessions and title was that he didn't trust Jorah not to sell it off to keep his wife happy or Jeor felt that it would be better used at the Wall. Now, this flies in the face of the logic that at the Wall the blade was more likely to be lost or fall into obscure hands somehow. But, of course, that didn't happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

 

No normal sword would be able to cut through plate armor (and I mean normal to be a non-magical construct, unlike the shadow blade that butchered Renley). For that you would need something heavier, like an ax with a good amount of force behind it. However, with the right kind of tip and a magically "enhanced" blade, such a VS, I'm thinking that you could probably puncture plate armor and run someone through with decent effort.

I am not sure if a very Sharp couldn t cut through plate.

I know that we are talking about hard to imagine phisics but depending on the sharpness of the sword you need to make less force for it to cut. So with the right combination of weight and thiness of the cutting edge it should be possible. Like a greatsword for example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, divica said:

I am not sure if a very Sharp couldn t cut through plate.

I know that we are talking about hard to imagine phisics but depending on the sharpness of the sword you need to make less force for it to cut. So with the right combination of weight and thiness of the cutting edge it should be possible. Like a greatsword for example...

 

Sharpness isn't really the issue, it's mass versus available force. Even a greatsword is only about 6-7 lbs. Also, with a sword, the force is spread out along the length of the blade. This is why an ax is better for that. It can be a little heavier at the business end and focuses the force into a smaller area. I don't know if you've ever been to a machine shop, but even a non hydraulic sheet metal shears (up to 1/16" thick) is a sizeable piece of equipment with a very thick blade. And that's cutting from the edge. Trying to cut from the middle would be a problem.

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that we don't get accounts of VS axes, but I guess they are like lightsabers. They only come in one form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trefayne said:

VS axes

It goes back to your argument of mass and force ... a heavier axe would pierce armor better than a lightweight VS axe.

A VS axe would look cool, but the lighter the weapon is, the more likely it would just bounce off heavy armor.

 

A VS sword being lighter than a regular sword would give a swordsman on foot advantages in quickness, precision and stamina...which is a lot.

But going back to Rhaegar & Robert...they dueled on horseback, and having a VS sword may be a disadvantage there. Any landed swing from Robert's hammer would do the job. That can't be said about Rhaegar swinging Dark Sister...esp on horseback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloodraven was a bad ass back in his days. He has done a lot for the Targaryen name. But Bloodraven did mess up with that baiting thing. Aegon probably let him keep Dark Sister when he was sent to the NW as a "thank you" for his services, but he still needed to do this. Aegon was probably thinking Dark Sister may be returned to King's Landing after Bloodraven has ended his watch...but nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark sister was slender, light and very very sharp.  It would have been well suited to the style of swordplay employed by soldiers who fought with rapiers and epees.  Rather than swinging and hacking at their opponents with long heavy blades with long sharpened edges, the soldiers who wielded these types of swords focused on a strategy of driving the tip of their blade straight at their opponent in an effort to pierce their armour.  Super sharp, strong and light Valyrian steel would have been excellent for this thrusting style of swordplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Trefayne said:

 

I suppose the same could be said for the Mormont's blade. The only reasons I can think that Jeor didn't leave it to Jorah with all of his other possessions and title was that he didn't trust Jorah not to sell it off to keep his wife happy or Jeor felt that it would be better used at the Wall. Now, this flies in the face of the logic that at the Wall the blade was more likely to be lost or fall into obscure hands somehow. But, of course, that didn't happen...

Actually, Jeor did leave it to Jorah when he entered the NW. Jorah gave it back to Jeor when he ran. The sword reminded Jeor of Jorah's shame and that is why he kept it in a closet. He was just as happy to give it to Jon.

My opinion on the swords is that they are the personal property of whoever owns them. They can be given away in whatever manner the owner would like. It is honorable to give the swords back to family, but not necessarily required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, White Ravens said:

Dark sister was slender, light and very very sharp.  It would have been well suited to the style of swordplay employed by soldiers who fought with rapiers and epees.  Rather than swinging and hacking at their opponents with long heavy blades with long sharpened edges, the soldiers who wielded these types of swords focused on a strategy of driving the tip of their blade straight at their opponent in an effort to pierce their armour.  Super sharp, strong and light Valyrian steel would have been excellent for this thrusting style of swordplay. 

 

That never happened. Rapiers and epees weren't used on the battlefield (they were for personal protection and dueling). Rapiers weren't in use until heavy armor was well on the outs (circa 1630s) and the most you might see is the cavalry officers with their cuirass' (or just the breastplate) and helm. Epees are later still. You might be thinking of the sword-rapier, which was a transition weapon and was popular for about thirty years or so in the latter part of the 16th and early 17th centuries.

 

1 hour ago, bent branch said:

Actually, Jeor did leave it to Jorah when he entered the NW. Jorah gave it back to Jeor when he ran. The sword reminded Jeor of Jorah's shame and that is why he kept it in a closet. He was just as happy to give it to Jon.

My opinion on the swords is that they are the personal property of whoever owns them. They can be given away in whatever manner the owner would like. It is honorable to give the swords back to family, but not necessarily required.

 

Thanks. I don't know what it is about the Mormonts, but I seem to have a black hole in my head when it comes to my recollections of them. Things go in, but don't seem to come out. I need to pay more attention on my next reread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

It goes back to your argument of mass and force ... a heavier axe would pierce armor better than a lightweight VS axe.

A VS axe would look cool, but the lighter the weapon is, the more likely it would just bounce off heavy armor.

 

All one would need do is leaden the haft. They used to do it with mundane battleaxes all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

A VS sword doesn't automatically turn you into superman. The impact of the improved edge of a VS sword would be minimal in the chaotic environment of a battlefield, especially against a fully armored opponent like Robert.

FaB proves that a VS sword provides significant advantage to somebody who knows how to use it - yes, even against an armored opponent. Armor has weak points, after all, and a VS sword is ideally suited to exploit them. These things didn't cost fortunes just because they looked pretty. So, there is every reason to think that Rhaegar would have been victorious if he had one at the Trident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, King Aegon I Targaryen said:

1/8 Dayne . . . . If all it takes is a drop of Dayne blood to wield Dawn, I imagine half of Westeros could claim the bloody sword.  xD

If maesters concluded, that Robert, being 1/4 Targaryen (thru female line, thru Egg's youngest daughter), is enough, to become King of 7K, then why not? 1/8 for the sword, is not as preposterous, as 1/4 for the Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Megorova said:

If maesters concluded, that Robert, being 1/4 Targaryen (thru female line, thru Egg's youngest daughter), is enough, to become King of 7K, then why not? 1/8 for the sword, is not as preposterous, as 1/4 for the Throne.

For both the sword and the throne, the line of succession (inheritance) is what matters, not these fractions of blood. And power, if one wants to challenge the line of succession or appropriate the sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Jon wielding Dark Sister is pretty cool, but he already got Longclaw which is probably more suited to his style, and I doubt anyone without Targaryen blood will use it for long..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maia said:

FaB proves that a VS sword provides significant advantage to somebody who knows how to use it - yes, even against an armored opponent. Armor has weak points, after all, and a VS sword is ideally suited to exploit them. These things didn't cost fortunes just because they looked pretty. So, there is every reason to think that Rhaegar would have been victorious if he had one at the Trident.

One, FaB isn't exactly an objective unbiased history. Two, you didn't quote the part of my post that rebuffs your argument. The edge isn't going to make that much of a difference. Yes, Rhaegar knew what he was doing. He managed to wound the armored Robert even with an ordinary sword. The superior edge of a VS sword had nothing to do with Rhaegar finding a weak point in Robert's armor though. Speed is Rhaegar's weapon against an opponent like Robert who has a longer reach with who warhammer. A VS sword is lighter than an ordinary sword, yes. But as I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, considering Rhaegar was also fully armored. The weight of full plate mail, especially in the environment of Ruby Ford would have definitely slowed him down. It isn't like the movies where people are ducking and dodging in plate armor, that stuff hinders your movement. A lot. I don't see having a lighter sword speeding him up any.  I don't see it enough to stop Robert from landing his killing blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Speed is Rhaegar's weapon against an opponent like Robert who has a longer reach with who warhammer.

 

What kind of hammer are you thinking of? Most war hammers are one handed affairs of about 24" to 30" long, especially if you're going to be on horseback. I know Robert's hammer is supposed to be on the large size, but I always took that to mean the head of the weapon, not the overall length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, King Aegon I Targaryen said:

1/8 Dayne . . . . If all it takes is a drop of Dayne blood to wield Dawn, I imagine half of Westeros could claim the bloody sword.  xD

I wanted to just respond, but felt I had to mention that this got me to actually lol.

So this question, to me, is kind of like why lando is wearing han's clothing while flying the falcon and the end of empire. At a con pannel discussion it was revealed that there is a real answer and a fan answer. The real answer is "that costume designer John Mollo decided to put them in the same clothes and that it didn't mean anything as they [ford and williams] were sized differently" and " The fan answer or the universe answer is it's actually part of the Corellien Corps group. If you look at Han Solo's pants he's got those red marks on them and stuff it's from the old army basically, so it's the same uniforms."

 

I really do love the why does blood raven get to bring dark sister to the wall after Aegon V stripped him of titles and honors and sent him there rather than putting him to death, but I feel there is a real answer and a fan answer.

The real answer is probably that Dark Sister needs to be beyond the wall and this was as good a way to get it there as any. There won't be any explanation for why BR was allowed to take it, if he stole it, if Aegon let him have it for some reason or other because it is unnecessary. Someone north of the wall will need that sword and it had to be there.

 

The more fun answer I like to think of (though haven't fleshed out entirely) Has to do with Aerys I. Aerys, who was by all accounts bookish, Appointed BR (his uncle) to hand in 209 AC at which point he receded into the library and left most of the ruling to Bloodraven. He also appointed a Grand Maester who was said to dabble in sorcery. I believe it is possible that in his time studying (or perhaps the reason he went into study) was because he understood the threat that was rising beyond the wall (and, if you have seen my other post, had slowly been growing since the conquest when Aegon forced Torrhen Stark to bend the knee and become Lord of Winterfell ending the 8000 year reign of Stark kings and subsequently setting into motion the events that would bring back the Others) and that along with Bloodraven and his Sorcerer/Grand Maester devised a plan that would require BR to go north of the wall (and have Dark Sister with him). 

It is important here to remember what Sephton Sauton said about Aerys I. "His Grace cares more for old scrolls and dusty prophecies than for lords and laws. He will not even bestir himself to sire an heir. Queen Aelinor prays daily at the Great Sept, beseeching the Mother Above to bless her with a child, yet she remains a maid. Aerys keeps his own apartments, and it is said he would sooner take a book to bed than any woman.

Bloodraven knew that this would mean sacrificing his honor and committing a crime that would cause him to be sent to the wall but he knew what the stakes were as well.

I believe Aerys I let his brother Maekar I know about this threat when he named him his heir. I also think naming Maekar heir was conditional on Bloodraven remaining hand. When Maekar died leaving the succession in question Bloodraven saw his chance. Calling the great council of 233 he explained to Aegon V what Aerys I and Maekar I knew before. He also explained that the time was here and when he offered Aenys Blackfyre safe passage only to later have him beheaded it was all part of the larger plan.

It is pointed out very clearly that Aegon V's very first act as king was to send Bloodraven to the wall in the same caravan that had Maester Aemon, escorted by Ser Duncan the tall and was joined by 100 or so of Bloodraven's followers.

Aegon V sent his older brother, Bloodraven and a small army loyal to him to the wall as his very first act. This says to me that the whole thing was agreed upon. That Aenys Blackfyre's head rolled in the process was just a happy side effect for the Targaryns.

So why is bloodraven allowed to keep dark sister and take it to the wall only to go beyond the wall on a ranging and never be seen again? Because it is planned that way going all the way back to when Bloodraven, Aerys I and a Sorcerer figured out the new long night had been triggered once again and Bloodraven would be needed north of the wall, with Dark Sister, to fight the oncoming battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Megorova said:

If maesters concluded, that Robert, being 1/4 Targaryen (thru female line, thru Egg's youngest daughter), is enough, to become King of 7K, then why not? 1/8 for the sword, is not as preposterous, as 1/4 for the Throne.

The throne was Roberts anyway through right of conquest. The whole 1/4 Targaryen thing was just to make it seem like Robert was less of a usurper. 

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

×