Best Fighters of Westeros

[Chirios]

In Ned's case yes it does. There is no indication that he isn't one of the most exceptional fighters in the realm. The evidence that exists: Ned surviving an encounter with 3 of the best swords in the known world.

A fight that was seven against three. A fight that ended with only two people walking out alive. A fight that Ned admits to his son that he would have died in, had someone not attacked Arthur Dayne while Arthur Dayne was attacking Ned.

The fact that he was trained from birth to fight by people of great skill.

Irrelevant. Lots of kids trained with Cus D'Amatio, not all of them ended up being Mike Tyson.

Fought in multiple wars that he won and came out alive.

The thing about the battlefield is that it's different from duelling, which is what we're talking about. On the battlefield Ned was more likely to fight while riding a horse. Plus he was a nobleman, so he was more likely to be captured than killed. Consider the fight between the nobleman and Tyrion in Game of Thrones, the nobleman has Tyrion pinned down and repeatedly tells Tyrion to yield. Plus Ned was a commander, and thus he would've been disengaged from most of the fighting in order to manouvere his troops, like Robb or Tywin do.

Add that with Ned going head to head against the Kingslayer (pre stump), then there is no question that Ned is a highly skilled, competent swordsman.

Jaime wasn't trying to kill Ned. Like they said, if Jaime killed Ned then Tyrion might've died. Jaime was playing with Ned. Throughout that whole fight you saw Jaime smiling and laughing, mostly because Ned was trying his hardest to kill him and Jaime wasn't, yet they still looked about equal.

What makes him even scarier would be the fact that he would never underestimate his opponent in a battle. The thing is, we see Ned from his point of view. And Ned is one of the most modest men in all of Westeros. Just because he doesn't fight for fame and glory in tournaments does not take away from skill. Yet Ned survived. Dayne is as dead as it gets. And again, Ned is as modest a man you'll see in the books. We don't know the details of the encounter. The fact remains, Ned survived which is a testament to his prowess as a fighter. Yes it does. If Ned wasn't meant to be a stellar fighter he would have been slaughtered by Jaimie. Martin still has influence on how the show is written and admitted that the show will have future implications on how he finishes the series.Renly was flaming gay in the books. Nothing in the show changed that. Martin's take on Ned > your unsupported theory

Martin's take on Ned is that Ned was an average fighter at best. Don't get me wrong, Ned is a brave man, Ned is an honourable man, but his bravery and his honour lead him to ignore overwhelming danger because it's "the right thing to do". We don't know exactly what Howland Reed did to stop Arthur Dayne from killing Ned, but we do know that the fight went something like this:

5 fighters + Ned + Howland Reed

2 of the Kings Guard + Arthur Dayne

Fight commences

At some point Arthur Dayne has Ned on the ropes and is about to kill him

Howland Reed does something

Arthur Dayne dies.

^ That above sequence is canon. There is no reason to think that in a one on one fight Ned wouldn't be utterly destroyed by Arthur Dayne. We have Ned's own admission that Arthur Dayne did beat him, we have the fact that in a seven against three fight, that's two people for each of the Kings Guard, only two walked out alive. Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower and Oswell Whent were what Samuel L Jackson would describe as Bad Mutha Fuckers. Ned was not.

[SerFelixCulpa]

A fight that was seven against three. A fight that ended with only two people walking out alive. A fight that Ned admits to his son that he would have died in, had someone not attacked Arthur Dayne while Arthur Dayne was attacking Ned.

Irrelevant. Lots of kids trained with Cus D'Amatio, not all of them ended up being Mike Tyson.

The thing about the battlefield is that it's different from duelling, which is what we're talking about. On the battlefield Ned was more likely to fight while riding a horse. Plus he was a nobleman, so he was more likely to be captured than killed. Consider the fight between the nobleman and Tyrion in Game of Thrones, the nobleman has Tyrion pinned down and repeatedly tells Tyrion to yield. Plus Ned was a commander, and thus he would've been disengaged from most of the fighting in order to manouvere his troops, like Robb or Tywin do.

Jaime wasn't trying to kill Ned. Like they said, if Jaime killed Ned then Tyrion might've died. Jaime was playing with Ned. Throughout that whole fight you saw Jaime smiling and laughing, mostly because Ned was trying his hardest to kill him and Jaime wasn't, yet they still looked about equal.

Martin's take on Ned is that Ned was an average fighter at best. Don't get me wrong, Ned is a brave man, Ned is an honourable man, but his bravery and his honour lead him to ignore overwhelming danger because it's "the right thing to do". We don't know exactly what Howland Reed did to stop Arthur Dayne from killing Ned, but we do know that the fight went something like this:

5 fighters + Ned + Howland Reed

2 of the Kings Guard + Arthur Dayne

Fight commences

At some point Arthur Dayne has Ned on the ropes and is about to kill him

Howland Reed does something

Arthur Dayne dies.

^ That above sequence is canon. There is no reason to think that in a one on one fight Ned wouldn't be utterly destroyed by Arthur Dayne. We have Ned's own admission that Arthur Dayne did beat him, we have the fact that in a seven against three fight, that's two people for each of the Kings Guard, only two walked out alive. Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower and Oswell Whent were what Samuel L Jackson would describe as Bad Mutha Fuckers. Ned was not.

I think "average at best" is not a fair assessment of Ned, certainly not a canon assessment. What is certain is that GRRM has been repeatedly very clear that Ned does not belong in the top rank of Westerosi swordsmen. So yes, Jaime Lannister, Arthur Dayne, Barristan Selmy, Robert Baratheon, Rhaegar Targaryen, Brandon Stark, and numerous others more or less contemporary with Ned would clearly be better at dueling.

That being said, I think it more likely (though essentially unknowable without an ex cathedra statement from GRRM) that a proper analogy would be to a professional sport: there are players who are transcendently great, who are great simply because they are naturals and it all comes to them easily. Then there are players who work very hard and diligently, have some natural ability, and belong in the ranks of professional players...but won't ever be in the hall of fame. We could argue all day about whether Ned is a low level hitter for the Red Sox, or high level for a minor league team...but I think it is just as unsupported to say that Ned is "average at best" as it is to place him on the all star team.

[wolfeyoung]

I don't understand why people say that Bronn is a great sword fighter? Who has he killed? A no-name knight in the Vale and then some old man that was stupid enough to challenge him? Someone above offered prof of Bronn's fighting skill because he is still alive. Hello? Sellsword. As has been stated in the books, there are brave sellswords and there are old sellswords, but no old, brave sellswords. Bronn was smart enough to not fight the Mountain, but so am I. Would that make me a good swordsman? And Tyrion's opinion of Bronn is pointless. Tyrion isn't a fighter either. I can't fly a plane, so I can't judge fighter pilot skill.

Bronn is just a sellsword that is smart enough to pick fights he can win. A true fighter picks those that he may lose but loves the challenge. If all you do is pick easy fights, then you'll never improve.

Robert is a true fighter. If given the option to attack some peasants with pitchforks, or a horde of knights, I'd say Robert would charge the knights. And that is how he gets good. By challenging himself. Bronn, however, would attack the peasants. If you don't push the limits of your skill, you'll become great. Bronn, as a sellsword, will never push the limits of his skill. Ever.

Until Bronn actually kills some one in a duel of noteworthy skill, he's just a sellsword with limited skill.

[SerFelixCulpa]

I don't understand why people say that Bronn is a great sword fighter? Who has he killed? A no-name knight in the Vale and then some old man that was stupid enough to challenge him? Someone above offered prof of Bronn's fighting skill because he is still alive. Hello? Sellsword. As has been stated in the books, there are brave sellswords and there are old sellswords, but no old, brave sellswords. Bronn was smart enough to not fight the Mountain, but so am I. Would that make me a good swordsman? And Tyrion's opinion of Bronn is pointless. Tyrion isn't a fighter either. I can't fly a plane, so I can't judge fighter pilot skill.

Bronn is just a sellsword that is smart enough to pick fights he can win. A true fighter picks those that he may lose but loves the challenge. If all you do is pick easy fights, then you'll never improve.

Robert is a true fighter. If given the option to attack some peasants with pitchforks, or a horde of knights, I'd say Robert would charge the knights. And that is how he gets good. By challenging himself. Bronn, however, would attack the peasants. If you don't push the limits of your skill, you'll become great. Bronn, as a sellsword, will never push the limits of his skill. Ever.

Until Bronn actually kills some one in a duel of noteworthy skill, he's just a sellsword with limited skill.

I think GRRM gives us plenty of evidence that Bronn is an exceptional fighter. In particular I recall the scene in the Red Keep in ACoK (don't have it with me or I'd find the page numbers) where Bronn is watching the knights train. He mentions to Tyrion both that a certain one of them was the best of the lot...and that he had a tendency to use the same attack pattern, and therefore, he would die if he ever fought Bronn. Somehow, I believed Bronn on that one.

I think you are conflating the definitions of "brave" and "good" as regards fighting. Bronn is repeatedly presented as calculating, observant, and extremely meticulous as regards his craft. No, he'll not engage in a fight where he thinks the risks outweigh the rewards. If that is not "brave," well then, Bronn is not brave. This does not mean that he is not an exceptional fighter, and declining to fight the Mountain (which would have had a whole lot of unpleasant consequences for Bronn under the circumstances apart from the possibility of death) proves nothing.

I also have to take issue with your assertion that Tyrion is unqualified to judge a fighter because he isn't one himself. That's just obviously false: GRRM is not a football player, and yet, I suspect his opinions on who is and who is not a good football player carry some weight, n'est ce pas?

[Talleyrand]

I don't understand why people say that Bronn is a great sword fighter? Who has he killed? A no-name knight in the Vale and then some old man that was stupid enough to challenge him? Someone above offered prof of Bronn's fighting skill because he is still alive. Hello? Sellsword. As has been stated in the books, there are brave sellswords and there are old sellswords, but no old, brave sellswords. Bronn was smart enough to not fight the Mountain, but so am I. Would that make me a good swordsman? And Tyrion's opinion of Bronn is pointless. Tyrion isn't a fighter either. I can't fly a plane, so I can't judge fighter pilot skill.

Bronn is just a sellsword that is smart enough to pick fights he can win. A true fighter picks those that he may lose but loves the challenge. If all you do is pick easy fights, then you'll never improve.

Robert is a true fighter. If given the option to attack some peasants with pitchforks, or a horde of knights, I'd say Robert would charge the knights. And that is how he gets good. By challenging himself. Bronn, however, would attack the peasants. If you don't push the limits of your skill, you'll become great. Bronn, as a sellsword, will never push the limits of his skill. Ever.

Until Bronn actually kills some one in a duel of noteworthy skill, he's just a sellsword with limited skill.

Catelyn admits that they wouldn't have made it though the vale if it wasn't for Bronn. Plus he fought at the front at Green Fork and The Blackwater. And didn't he also invite every Sellsword he hired to try and kill him and as we know none of them succeed

[wolfeyoung]

Wow, Bronn sees a no-name knight/soldier?? fight and understands that he's isn't very good and all of a sudden that makes Bronn great. No, that makes him smart. Bronn knows enough about sword fighting to know who he can kill or not kill.

Your football analogy is terrible. No, Martin can't judge if a football player is good. Martin isn't god. He's just a fat man that likes football, there are millions of them; that doesn't make them all knowledgeable of football skill. Also, using your analogy, Martin likes football, Tyrion doesn't like fighting, he likes books.

[Kaitscralt]

wolfeyoung, has it been awhile since you've read the novels? Bronn's swordplay is described with total badassery every time he uses it. We have to go by the authors words, and Bronn is made out to be easily one of the living best in Westeros. You keep focusing on his individual duals and noting his opponents, instead of the actual battles where he slays multiple nameless men at once, over and over again.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Wow, Bronn sees a no-name knight/soldier?? fight and understands that he's isn't very good and all of a sudden that makes Bronn great. No, that makes him smart. Bronn knows enough about sword fighting to know who he can kill or not kill.

Your football analogy is terrible. No, Martin can't judge if a football player is good. Martin isn't god. He's just a fat man that likes football, there are millions of them; that doesn't make them all knowledgeable of football skill. Also, using your analogy, Martin likes football, Tyrion doesn't like fighting, he likes books.

In addition to what Lothbrok and Kaitscralt added above (which was substantial and undercuts your point even more), the knight at the Red Keep was not a no-name, he was the best knight training there that day. The knight was in fact good: there was a flaw in his style which Bronn recognized and knew he could exploit. I agree with you, however, that Bronn is intelligent enough to know who he can and can't kill. We disagree on where to set that level.

Please. My analogy was right on target: one certainly does not need to be a fighter (or a football player, or a basketball player, or violinist) to be able to recognize talent. This is particularly true in endeavors which are common or which a given person has a lot of exposure to even if they don't do it themselves. Even more particularly true for people who are observant and intelligent. Tyrion is arguably the most observant and intelligent person in the novels, and he had been around and observed fighters all his life...his brother is (or at least was) one of the best swordsmen in all of Westeros. If you seriously think Tyrion is unqualified to judge the ability of a fighter on these terms...well, then I don't think you are serious.

[wolfeyoung]

Okay. I did some reading. The battle where Tyrion was the vanguard, it reads like this. "Bronn reined up and looked down on him. 'Small use you turned out to be.' Tyrion told him. 'It would seem that you did well enough on your own' Bronn said." There are no descriptions of Bronn fighting in that battle. I've read, it's not there. Bronn effectively disappears.

In the battle at Kings Landing, again there are no descriptions of Bronn fighting. He is actually at the winch towers above the fighting on the castle wall. Arrows were the only danger he faced.

As far as fighting the savages at the Mountains of the Moon. Big deal, he killed rusted armored, rusty weaponed, untrained killers; mean, yes, are they at the same skill level of the top 10% of the knights in Westeros" Hell no!!

I didn't say he sucked. I said he wasn't great. Yes, he's a good fighter, but to be compared to the greats. No. There is no prof of that anywhere in the books. You just like him and you allowing your bias to taint your opinion.

Now, I'm going to go read about the knight that Bronn fought in the Vale and see if Serfelix in full of BS about saying that he was the best knight there. I doubt it. But I'll see. And at the moment, this is the only potential prof of Bronn's skill, assuming that the knight was great. And remember, to put Bronn on the level of Robert, Jaime, Dayne, this Vale knights needs to be damn good.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Okay. I did some reading. The battle where Tyrion was the vanguard, it reads like this. "Bronn reined up and looked down on him. 'Small use you turned out to be.' Tyrion told him. 'It would seem that you did well enough on your own' Bronn said." There are no descriptions of Bronn fighting in that battle. I've read, it's not there. Bronn effectively disappears.

In the battle at Kings Landing, again there are no descriptions of Bronn fighting. He is actually at the winch towers above the fighting on the castle wall. Arrows were the only danger he faced.

As far as fighting the savages at the Mountains of the Moon. Big deal, he killed rusted armored, rusty weaponed, untrained killers; mean, yes, are they at the same skill level of the top 10% of the knights in Westeros" Hell no!!

I didn't say he sucked. I said he wasn't great. Yes, he's a good fighter, but to be compared to the greats. No. There is no prof of that anywhere in the books. You just like him and you allowing your bias to taint your opinion.

Now, I'm going to go read about the knight that Bronn fought in the Vale and see if Serfelix in full of BS about saying that he was the best knight there. I doubt it. But I'll see. And at the moment, this is the only potential prof of Bronn's skill, assuming that the knight was great. And remember, to put Bronn on the level of Robert, Jaime, Dayne, this Vale knights needs to be damn good.

Read my commentary more closely, wolfeyoung. It was not the knight in the Vale to which I was referring: it's a scene early on in ACoK (obviously, sometime after Tyrion and Bronn arrive at the Red Keep) where Bronn is observing the knights training at the Red Keep. Bronn notes which one of them is the best, and states that he'd beat him because as good as he was, he had a tendency to repeat an attack pattern.

[wolfeyoung]

Alright. I reread the fight between Ser Vardis and Bronn at the Vale. No where does it say that Vardis was the best knight (Tyrion does say it, but that is him telling bard to write a song stating that Lysa refused Tyrion's champion of Jaime and forced him to fight a knight). The man got the honor as Lysa's champion because he was Jon's right hand man for years, wiki states the he was Caption of the Guard. Catelyn remarks that Vardis is 15 years older than Bronn. Martin gives lots of description of Vardis suiting up in his armor, making many mentions of either weight, or at least giving the impression the armor very heavy. Also, Lysa makes Vardis fight with a ceremonial sword that Jon would wear while he sat the Iron Throne as Hand. Catelyn remarks that Ser Vardis might feel more comfortable using his own sword.

Due to all of this, I feel that Martin is telling the reader that the battle is already lost. Vardis is old, in too heavy of armor and using a sword that is not his own (ie, he'll be off balance), also, the sword was decorative and not made to fighting (but that's debatable).

Also, as I've said earlier, Bronn will only fight a fight he knows he can win. Vardis is chosen as champion BEFORE Bronn steps up for Tyrion.

So again, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the books that point to Bronn being a great sword fighter. None. Show me if you can, but don't say "I remember reading blah, blah, blah". Find it in the books and put me in my place.

There are no descriptions of him fighting in any of the battles. He fights two old men only. And he fights poorly equipped mountain men (and when the mountain men do fight well in the later battles, they all had been equipped with better weapons, armor and healthier horses).

I don't understand the insistence that Bronn is on the level as Jaime, Gregor, Robert, Loras, when that is no prof of it being true. Bronn is not a great swordsman. He is competent and no more. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. I don't mean to be the bad guy. Bronn just isn't great, good yes, but not great.

[wolfeyoung]

@Serfelix was it a knight or a common soldier that Bronn was referring to? I believe it was just stated as some soldiers training and not a knight. Big deal, Bronn can beat a common foot soldier. That doesn't make him as good as Jaime or the others.

[wolfeyoung]

I found the scene that Serfelix was referring to. Bronn asks Tyrion who the young boy was. Tyrion tells him the boy is a hedge knight named Tallad. Wiki states that he is "considered a promising knight". Well, does that mean that Tallad the Tall is a great knight? Nope. He is young and could be a great knight if given that chance. Bronn stating that he could beat him does not make Bronn one of the greats AND is not prof that Bronn could win.

The day that Bronn actually fights someone that is great is the day that Bronn is great. He has not proven it in the least at the moment.

[sentence]

I don't understand the insistence that Bronn is on the level as Jaime, Gregor, Robert, Loras, when that is no prof of it being true. Bronn is not a great swordsman. He is competent and no more. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. I don't mean to be the bad guy. Bronn just isn't great, good yes, but not great.

well, you are right 110%

I like Bronn character. A skilled and capable sellsword, a very dangerous opponent. He is not, definitely at the top as a fighter. People likes him and tend to see him not properly.

Is the case (sorry for the off-topic) of LF: He is not the clever-intelligent-smartest guy ever, as many readers believe. Obviously, he is not a dumb, but, mainly, he got information (a network at least equal as Varys')and he is lucky. And it's pretty clear that Martin likes him. That's all.

[sentence]

..

[wolfeyoung]

Hey sentence, is that sarcasm. If it is, you're terrible at it. All I'm asking is an example of Bronn fighting someone with known skill. Not him see a nobody and saying "I can beat that guy" or saying that Bronn can kill half starved mountain men in rusty armor fighting with rusty weapons, so therefore he's great. Show me a fight were he killed or at least survived someone with actual skill. It doesn't exist. Period. Bronn is a sellsword and he'll never fight someone that has a good chance of beating him, therefore, it would be impossible for him to develop the skills to compete against the greats of the realm. You don't become a expert swordsman fighting footmen and peasants.

Please, just show me him fighting someone of skill. Please. Two old knights don't count. Bronn is a good fighter, better than the average fighter yes, but to be great, it takes someone that will test their skills against someone of equal talent. Bronn never fights anyone that might be hard for him. He picks his battles carefully as a smart sellsword should. He fights only when he is confident he'll win. He wants the gold, not the kills.

Use your sarcasm if you must, because you have no actual evidence to prove your bias. You have nothing to back your assumption.

[Kaitscralt]

All I'm asking is an example of Bronn fighting someone with known skill.

We don't have examples of everyone on your list either. You mentioned Jaime, Gregor, Robert and Loras as being above Bronn. I don't believe every one of those individuals has been noted as defeating an opponent of great skill. Some yes, but all?

[SerArthurHeath]

A fight that was seven against three. A fight that ended with only two people walking out alive. A fight that Ned admits to his son that he would have died in, had someone not attacked Arthur Dayne while Arthur Dayne was attacking Ned.

Irrelevant. Lots of kids trained with Cus D'Amatio, not all of them ended up being Mike Tyson.

The thing about the battlefield is that it's different from duelling, which is what we're talking about. On the battlefield Ned was more likely to fight while riding a horse. Plus he was a nobleman, so he was more likely to be captured than killed. Consider the fight between the nobleman and Tyrion in Game of Thrones, the nobleman has Tyrion pinned down and repeatedly tells Tyrion to yield. Plus Ned was a commander, and thus he would've been disengaged from most of the fighting in order to manouvere his troops, like Robb or Tywin do.

Jaime wasn't trying to kill Ned. Like they said, if Jaime killed Ned then Tyrion might've died. Jaime was playing with Ned. Throughout that whole fight you saw Jaime smiling and laughing, mostly because Ned was trying his hardest to kill him and Jaime wasn't, yet they still looked about equal.

Martin's take on Ned is that Ned was an average fighter at best. Don't get me wrong, Ned is a brave man, Ned is an honourable man, but his bravery and his honour lead him to ignore overwhelming danger because it's "the right thing to do". We don't know exactly what Howland Reed did to stop Arthur Dayne from killing Ned, but we do know that the fight went something like this:

5 fighters + Ned + Howland Reed

2 of the Kings Guard + Arthur Dayne

Fight commences

At some point Arthur Dayne has Ned on the ropes and is about to kill him

Howland Reed does something

Arthur Dayne dies.

^ That above sequence is canon. There is no reason to think that in a one on one fight Ned wouldn't be utterly destroyed by Arthur Dayne. We have Ned's own admission that Arthur Dayne did beat him, we have the fact that in a seven against three fight, that's two people for each of the Kings Guard, only two walked out alive. Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower and Oswell Whent were what Samuel L Jackson would describe as Bad Mutha Fuckers. Ned was not.

I don't agree with everything you are saying, but I agree that there is no way Ned can be close to Dayne, on pure numbers alone. If the fight was 3 on 7, unless it was Ned v Dayne and 6 on 2 for the whole time, Dayne must have faced at least 2 men if not more likely 3 from the start. Add in that the other 2 KG died. Unless Ned and Reed (who is not portrayed as a classically good fighter elsewhere) killed off the other KG alone respectively, that means Dayne must have faced at least 4 knights in total probably 5. In fact, unless Ned and Reed killed off all 3 KG in succession which I doubt, there must have been multiple opponents vs Dayne at the end. I suspect Ned started off against Dayne with 2 others who died but that's supposition. All the evidence points to Ned having a considerable advantage over Dayne in numbers at all times (definitely 2 vs 1 at the time of Reed saving him) and only just survived. That means he was outclassed. It doesn't take much thinking to see that. Beating the Sword of the Morning in a 7 on 3 fight that at no point you could ever have had less men than your opponents and you need saving from does not put you in the same class as him.

[SerArthurHeath]

One thing that has annoyed me about Jaime's portrayal is that the White Book implies he has had no real martial experience, but he clearly does in his PoV and when giving Brienne practical advice about charging archers, and in a medieval setting there is no way a knight would not do a lot of fighting in skirmishes in 15 years, or that Robert would not take his KG with him to the Greyjoy rebellion, or that people would be so scared of Jaime's reputation if he didn't have evidence that he could fight and kill.

[Ranzadule]

I think it a mistake to discount Victarion Greyjoy due to reliance on armour. The best fighter should be about [Charlie Sheen Voice]Winning...[/Charlie Sheen Voice] not who is the best at . I do no know if Greyjoy could stand up to the Mountain as he is similar style, relying on strength and the Mountain is likely stronger, but he could certainly go toe-to-toe with anyone if each warrior took their favorite arms and armour. I don't know how much weight this has with the book fans, but Green Ronin's game rates Victarion very highly. Robert is one of the only "4" rated fighters therein, with Victarion (3 axes and brawling) and Jaime among the only "3" rated. I will look thorugh and see what influence GRRM had on this if I can find it.