Syrio Forel

[The SmilingKnight]

I did qoute the same passage from the book first time i said it.

[jjames36]

I did qoute the same passage from the book first time i said it.

Oops. Must have forgotten that. My bad. Please forgive.

j

[The Mance]

<Expertly supported treatise on why I am wrong, for which I am feeling a little guilty because I was really only kidding>

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If there was a *stir the pot* emoticon I would have used it. :blushing:

[cybroleach]

I appreciate your support for the idea of wrestling - something I've wondered, and it recognizes that there may have been a reason for Syrio to get in close.

But George provides a lot of textual evidence on how various fights might go, and I try to stay with his guidance because he's the last word on the event.

And one thing George has demonstrated and described repeatedly is that a more lightly armored man can overcome a more heavily armored man by dancing around and wearing him down - Bronn's words to Tyrion, his actions vs. Vardis Egen, and Oberyn vs. Gregor.

The scene is set for us with five dead/dying guardsmen and their arms littering the hall. Trant is less mobile because he's fully armored, and his visor is down so he has less visibility, plus Syrio has been demonstrated to be extremely fast. Therefore, it should be a slam dunk for Syrio to dance around Trant, forcing him to negotiate the dead guardsmen, staying out of sword range, while providing ample opportunity for Arya to escape. No need to run, no need to die.

But we know that Syrio did NOT follow that strategy! Instead he went in close. That is a surprise that requires careful consideration. Given Syrio's undoubted knowledge of his exceptional abilities, I can only conclude that he believed he would be even more successful by going in close than by dancing around.

In wondering exactly what he had in mind, we look to the techniques we saw Syrio display with the guardsmen. Some of them involved reaching throat, knee, bare skin, so aren't applicable to Trant. But one of his main techniques was to off-balance and knock down his opponents. And lo and behold, that is a technique that works even better with a fully armored man than with the less armored guardsmen. So while he might have been moving in to wrestle, we have textual evidence that Syrio tends to successfully use balance to knock over the heavy-sworded Westerosi fighters.

Added to the reasonable conclusion that he thought going in close was a better alternative than dancing around a cluttered room, I think it's very likely that Syrio was at least trying to knock Trant over.

So now we need to explain Trant surviving: Syrio was probably about to knock Trant over - I'd have to guess that he sacrificed his stick for a reason, and I can certainly see how going through the stick would throw Trant's balance. But even knocked down, Trant was safe - unless Syrio got a real sword. Once Trant realized that the guardsmen were killed NOT because they were incompetent, but because Syrio is terrific - which he would realize when Syrio promptly knocked him over - the somewhat cowardly Trant was unlikely to stick around to find out if Syrio could kill him, but instead would go for reinforcements.

And why not? It wasn't TRANT who said he wouldn't run; and he'd already missed his chance to get Arya. Why would he continue to risk his life once he determined that Syrio's success with the guardsmen wasn't just a fluke?

Is anyone else comfused by this guys thought process? I don't mean to be rude & if I'm fundamentally wrong somewhere please correct it.

But your whole thesis is on the babsis: Syrio is better than Trant. Which we can all agree to. Therefore Syrio must have won a fight that we can all agree looked hopeless, right?

But the author is intetionally misleading us but leaving clus such as two elaborate battles where these underdogs were needed to win or almost to advance the plot and heighten suspense thus surving a very literal need, are evidence that this one was a ruse he's been holding for 3 books.

But the battles where such a counterpoint cold be made doesn't count because Syrio is clearly more skilled then the unarmoured men who lost those fights, because he's is a waterdancer. Now because thematically you have said proff, you can prove this to solve the mechanics of the situation.

Now as a waterdance of great skill he has a massive amout of forsight knowledge, because thinking anything less than he could kill 6 armed men one of them being a KotK fully armoured who he'd have never really seen before, since he's not sucidal & if he thought he was going to die he would have said 'sory Arya' and stepped aside because fighting would be sucidal? So he knows he's going to win, plans to take out the 5 weak guys first.

Now he knows the KotK is easy pickings since he can easily dance around him grab a discarded sword, and defeat him handidly since earlier he already figured out he could beat him + the others, so he tells Arya to run since it is somehow theoretically possible he could lose, but in his head he's LOL at how easy he'll beat this slow joker? Now he's so overconfident of this he will ignore what you already established as proff of how he won, beacuse hey he knows this is money in the bank, so he'll just trick Meryn into attacking him with his stick, allow it to be chopped in half, then springs his trap, just after Arya stopped watching and it appears all but hopeless, since now his 1/2 is way better for triping Meryn now that he's overconfident now that Syrio has 1/2 a stick that he will overcommit and unbalance himself, now after eveything that HAS just happened, Meryn has an "oh shit" moment where due to his own foresight he now realises this old man has dupped him in his overconfidence and his low opinion of his men who were actually skilled fighters who just looked sloppy beacuse Syrio was toying with them & him, now as a coward Meryn realising he can't win isn't sucidal so he scurries to his feet lucky Syrio was off grabbing a real sword or his own that he flung away being unbalanced and tripped, which Syrio could easily use to completely dominate Meryn, so he runs for help. Now we have Syrio slink away into the shadows.

Now Meryn a man not known to care for anything espically his reputation atleast as far as anyone in the book who thinks about him is concerned, is actually concerned about such so covers up his failure by being vague about what really transpired, causing him to run. This is all planned by the author for his readers to figure out when he reaveals in book 5-7 that Syrio didn't die as we were led to beleive.

This is all more or equally as plauable than Syrio Died as we're led to beleive?

[arrowfan]

GRRM said he's dead so that's the end of that.

Eh well I don't know about that, is that info from a fan-con or....? From the story i'd say: its pretty clear Syrio could have made it out alive (kill some guard fodder and sneak away) and on the other hand, he could die the heroic death. So the actual results in the story are yet to be seen.

Considering how much attention Syrio has gotten among the ASOIAF fan base, it seems like something GRRM might want to elaborate on - if only the tale from the only guard who survived the confrontation with Syrio.

Me personally, I think Syrio is dead, but wouldn't mind an account of his final heroics.

[Swordfish]

So... If I'm reading this thread correctly, Syrio is Gandalf the Grey, and Trant is actually a Balrog?

And JH is the flying spaghetti monster?

Does that pretty much summarize it?

[Errant Bard]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If there was a *stir the pot* emoticon I would have used it. :blushing:

The pot was stirred waaaaaay before your post. It was a good opportunity to post my Syrio=Sandor theory, besides. :P

So... If I'm reading this thread correctly, Syrio is Gandalf the Grey, and Trant is actually a Balrog?

And JH is the flying spaghetti monster?

Does that pretty much summarize it?

No, JH would be something like Galadriel.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

Only if Gandalf didn't really kill Barlog, but only hit him on the head and then run away. Or got himself arrested by Barlog.

We do learn from this thread that Gandalf was suicidal when he faced Barlog. I mean, he was sure he would die.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...[emphasis added]

I think he likely wrote the scene without realizing the likely outcome--that people would debate Syrio's death. He wrote the scene in such a way as to show Arya's suffering, the difficult choices she had to make and the emotion she'd have felt as she did so. Syrio, a minor character, probably didn't enter his thoughts much. (Generally, character centric writers like Martin define their protagonists and antagonists in great detail. They craft the minor characters with just enough intent so as to make them seem real, but these minor characters are almost never as well fleshed out as the major ones.)

Then the readers started debating Syrio's death. It's instructional to note that Martin has said he doesn't understand why he receives so many questions about Syrio. This is my evidence for the above paragraph--he didn't expect it to be a controversy, and when it became one he was surprised (as, again, he himself has stated). But now that it is one, he doesn't want to end it. Why would he? What benefit does he, the author, get from stopping conversation about his book? The more conversation, the more interest, the more likely people will start reading him, the more money he makes, the more personal gratification he gets and so forth. There's all the reason in the world to answer questions on Syrio evasively. I have a hard time developing reasons to end the conversation.

Hey, I like your writing and evidence-centric analysis! But of course I'm writing to disagree with the above point.

Martin has demonstrated consummate skill in setting up uncertainties and hints - the TOJ, the brief Bran/Rickon murders, the RW, the Stark errors about Tyrion - pick almost any topic at random and you will find fans arguing two opposing interpretations. As such, your assumption that he just set up a scene to tug at Arya's (and the reader's) heart, and didn't realize he was setting up a highly inconclusive scene that would provoke argument, seems to seriously underestimate him.

But I'll cheerfully admit my bias - I'm in awe of Martin's ability to mislead without cheating: he sets up highly visible facts leading to an easy conclusion, but includes adequate contrary hints so a careful reader can draw the correct conclusion if they see past the obvious. The Bran/Rickon murders and the death of the Hound leap to mind as examples. Once they've been told the truth, people gradually forget how completely misled they were initially. Upon reread, the hints that Theon was lying about killing Bran and Rickon, and doing something else instead, become clear, as do the hints when Elder Brother describes himself as having "died" and been "reborn", referring to the man he buried only as "the Hound", and the other hints of Sandor's survival. But initially, the only possible conclusion seems to be that Theon has found and killed Bran and Rickon, or that the Hound finally died of his wound and was buried by Elder Brother, as he seems to state so forthrightly.

People often say that Martin would never leave a cliffhanger unresolved for so long, and thus the time since Syrio was last seen proves he must have died. But that argument forgets the vast change in scope of the series subsequent to AGOT. Martin had initially planned to have a multi-year hiatus so he could go back and pick up his protagonists older and wiser (and better trained, in Arya's case). Instead he dropped the hiatus and exploded the scope; so now we find ourselves coming up to four books later, and still no Syrio.

But consider some things that were going on: the FM were Braavosi and so was Syrio (no, I don't think Syrio=Jaqen, for many reasons). Arya was slated to end up in Braavos being trained as a ninja assassin. I have to believe that Martin initially planned a reunion between Arya and Syrio in Braavos. The hints for this include: Arya looks like a street urchin and calls herself Cat or no one, but Syrio makes a point of seeing past misleading superficialities. Having lost his appointment with the Starks, the most logical place for Syrio to go is back to Braavos, and Arya is really quite visible on the waterfront for a perceptive acquaintance. Arya's screen time proves she's an important character, and thus she must logically be reconnected to the main story at some point; but she is extremely young and dependent on the House of B&W, so some assistance in extracting her from the FM and returning her to the main storyline in Westeros seems warranted.

Because so much has changed, Martin might now have a better way to get Arya back into things, or might feel returning Syrio after so much time would be anticlimactic. He could decide to allow Syrio to have died after all. But looked at from the perspective of George writing the first book oh so long ago, I have to believe he wrote Syrio with at least a tentative plan to use him later with Arya in Braavos.

There are just so many contradictory hints: Trant reports that he failed to carry out his orders to capture Arya "because her blasted dance instructor interfered" but fails to mention that said dance instructor destroyed five Lannister guardsmen in seconds using only a wooden stick, AND fails to mention that he slew the rogue? He had motivation, to enhance his reputation by truthfully pointing out the difficulty of the task and his overcoming of a very impressive person. In context we can reasonably infer that Cersei was not told the dance instructor was killed, or the other facts surrounding that incident. That is consistent with (my theory) that Trant had to run for his life, NOT with the theory that Trant laid to rest a former First Sword of Braavos who had just killed five guardsmen. Just a hint, a strange omission. Then there's the strange omission of failing to show Syrio's gory death, when Martin otherwise revels in gore. Plus all the other hints pointed out by the OP, and by me and others upthread.

When you have so many contrary hints, combined with just a couple of highly visible big fat hints sufficient to convince the vast majority of readers that Syrio has sacrificed his life for Arya, I step back and say to myself: he's done it again.

BTW, you acknowledge that you are relying on Martin's comments about the controversy for your conclusions about the underlying facts. And in the same breath you acknowledge that Martin has motivations to be evasive. You conclude it's for monetary reasons - not ending the argument draws readers. I respectfully dispute that more than one person has chosen to read the series due to the controversy over Syrio's "death", simply because it is not something a person would understand before reading the book, plus it's only one of literally scores of controversies. But he needs to be evasive to keep his options open, and to keep from becoming predictable. That being the case, I submit that you are entirely correct to rely on textual evidence, but ill advised to rely one way or the other on extratextual statements that are unquestionably evasive.

And as to textual evidence, if your standard for evidence is too high you will filter out the best hints. I mean, how compelling is the mere fact that Elder Brother refers only to "the Hound" or "that man" when saying he buried him? How compelling the mere fact that he (after all, a religious man!) describes himself as having "died"? Personally, again, I think it's highly amusing to attempt to put together all the small hints that Martin spreads around these events that are not as they initially appear - just as he did with the TOJ, or with Selmy's introduction to Dany, etc.

[AvengingAryaFan]

As for the deliberate sacrifice of his weapon - before the fourth blow he'd parried and deflected several blows, so the stick was already weakened. Even a partial parry is enough to save your life if you sidestep though, and it would have been silly to intentionally lose reach if the goal in the fight was to survive for as long as possible, so I don't think Syrio's breaking weapon was intentional. It's a pity we don't see further in the fight as Arya turns to flee, it'd give a little more information whether Syrio tried to go for a win and close in (a bad idea, since Trant is probably better at wrestling, and isn't seen to be wounded afterwards) or keep his distance and keep Trant occupied with the makeshift buckler. If it was me I'd go for the latter option and not put everything on a single card if my intention was to buy someone time to escape.

Wrestling is not impossible, but there's no textual evidence to suggest Syrio wrestled with fighters. Going in close and bashing Trant with the shortened stick is in this category of possible but unsupported.

However, Syrio engaged fairly closely with the guardsmen while off-balancing them and knocking them over - in one case with a foot on his back, which makes clear it was no accident. So there is textual evidence for what we might call the "judo" approach.

The stick was highly effective against the guardsmen, but had been tried and found ineffective against Trant's full armor. Yes, it was still of some use for parrying, but not much. If the stick was now of limited value, permitting it to be cut for some strategic advantage becomes a very reasonable choice. Once Trant goes down, Syrio can presumably pick up a loose sword (five are about) before Trant can regain his feet and balance.

Syrio MAY have been going in close - I've envisioned him with his hand over his head and his stick shearing away above him, so the sword is passing him, but I don't know how the shearing actually took place. So rather than assume Syrio was going in close, I'll back up a bit and merely say he was actively engaging Trant. I believe Syrio's goal was to knock Trant over because that's what he was doing with the guardsmen, and about all he could do (without a real sword) to a fully armored knight; even wrestling would presumably have the same net goal. Allowing his stick to be sheared could quite possibly have caused Trant's sword to travel unexpectedly, thus off balancing him.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Textual support for the conjecture? Perhaps (though I'm not yet ready to concede the point). But it is not evidence. There is no evidence that Trant ran from the fight.

No, there is only my conjecture. But that conjecture is consistent with many textual facts: Trant lives, Trant is probably a coward, Trant is not a great fighter, Trant admits failing his orders to get Arya but his only apparent excuse is "the dancing instructor interfered" with no apparent mention of Trant's heroic defeat of a man who killed five Lannister guards, deaths and Syrio is a great fighter, Syrio off balances and knocks over better-armed fighters by engaging them, etc., etc.

I also find it interesting that you glossed over my more meaty point: there is also some textual support for the conclusion that Trant probably has some skill with a blade, given that Kingsguard knights we've seen fight aren't weaklings. Is there direct evidence for that conclusion? Not as far as I can remember--I don't think we've ever seen Trant fight.

My basis for saying Trant is mediocre is that he seemed to acquiesce with Barristan's claim that he could "cut through them all like a knife through cheese", "them all" refering to Trant and a couple other Kingsguards that were present in the throne room, but excluding Jaime, the Hound, and Loras; plus Syrio's own insult that Trant is "slow, for a knight"; I think there's more, but I'm pretty sure there is NO evidence that Trant is especially skillful, e.g., like Jaime, the Hound, or Barristan Selmy, etc.; while on the other side, there are compelling indications that Syrio is extraordinary: his position as First Sword of Braavos, for one, plus his demonstration with the five guardsmen, reinforce each other.

Either way, I actually contradicted your textual support, not agreed with it. I dismissed Jaime's comments, because--really--he criticizes exceptionally gifted warriors (the Cleganes) in much the same way. I agree that Trant was cowardly with Barristan, but I think there's more analysis to do before we conclude that Trant's refusal to fight Selmy means he's a coward that would avoid all fights at all times. Using these questionable pieces of evidence to say Trant ran from Syrio does not make me conclude that that's what happened. It makes me conclude you're guessing in much the way OiL guessed that Syrio was willing to die (which was also a guess, to be sure, and thereby not a conclusion I'm supporting).

I acknowledge that my conjecture (that Trant ran) relies on his having been some combination of cowardly (so that he would run if the odds against him became sufficiently bad) and inferior as a fighter (his inferiority determining just how bad the odds against him really were), PLUS it relies on Syrio having convinced Trant about those odds, which means he essentially won the encounter. The conjecture "Trant ran" thus relies not only on factual conclusions (Trant coward, Trant inferior fighter), but also on another conjecture (Syrio put Trant in fear for his life). I'm happy to have any and all of these challenged. Just don't forget: the conjecture that Trant killed Syrio also relies on factual conclusions plus conjecture.

The first two points I agree with. The third I take some umbrage to, not because it's in itself wrong, but because you're overextending it. Syrio threw previous combatants off balance, yes. So what? That doesn't mean he's going to do it again.

It doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's going to do it again, no. But if we're going to evaluate the outcome of a fight, can you think of a better basis for prediction than Syrio's immediately preceding fight? If you deny the usefulness of such obviously relevant textual facts as a basis for conjecturing about what we cannot know conclusively, then you are in Mormont's camp: the author decides, every fight is different, so nothing that happened before matters. That's just punting.

Just like the fact that I shoplifted a few times in my life is not evidence that I'm going to steal something the next time I walk into a store. Might I? I doubt it, but you never know. Similarly, might Syrio try to throw Trant off balance? Maybe, but you never know. Martin gave us no observation from Arya, no comment from Trant or Syrio, no description of any kind, in fact, to lead us to the conclusion that this was Syrio's intent. You've concluded, in four or five posts now, that it's logical to guess it was, to which Mormont, OiL and I are saying, essentially, "Why is that logical? I don't care that he did it before. Said fact has no bearing on whether or not he'll do it again."

Tell that to the judge and jury; I think they'll respectfully disagree with you as they throw you in jail because stuff disappeared and you had motive(stuff), opportunity (you were there), plus proven history of theft. Previous behavior is not evidence? Of course it is. Proof by itself? Of course not.

OF COURSE we never know - that's why we're conjecturing. The movie stopped at a critical juncture, and we're trying to guess what happened with only that which happened before to guide us. Martin is free to switch the ball behind his back (though I don't think anybody has ever successfully pinned a charge of such "cheating" on him).

Why is it logical? Well, because Syrio has the capability to knock fighters off balance and down; because knocking Trant down would put Trant at a severe disadvantage and might result in an opportunity to kill him (though Syrio would have to get one of the swords lying around first); because knocking him down is one of the few things that an unarmored, practically unarmed man can do to a fully armored knight; and because he did exactly that in his immediately preceding fight! If that's not enough ... (shrugs).

In fact, I think we could make the argument that it actually means he won't. I've not done a ton of swordplay, but I have fenced with a rapier and an epee a few times. That limited experience has provided me this insight: if you're fighting someone that is moderately skilled, you'd better take different approaches over the course of your duels. In one five point duel, I got up four points to zero by using the same maneuver. Then my opponent figured it out and identified a counter. I was a better fencer and beat him every other time we dueled, but in this particular fight, I was too slow to adjust and wound up losing the match. Trant has seen Syrio's Knock Them off Balance Maneuvers. Syrio might guess that while Trant is slow, he's also skilled and so try something different.

The fencing sounds like fun. You can see the problem; KnockThemOffBalance isn't a technique so much as a goal or result that can be achieved by many techniques. I didn't say Syrio used the exact same technique to off-balance and knock Trant down. In fact, he probably didn't: Syrio definitely did NOT sacrifice his stick when fighting the guardsmen. So if he did that to off-balance Trant, then he was using a different technique to achieve a similar result.

BTW, put yourself in Syrio's place, and assume that you have a plan that you believe will enable you to overcome Trant. What is the plan? I'm open to better ideas, especially if they comport with the text.

Now. Do I know he tried something different? No. There's zero evidence to suggest he did. Just as there's zero evidence to suggest he did not. That is, using previous fights to guess how the next fight is going to go is not using evidence. It's just guessing.

This is a matter of fact, and you're mistaken. This is not zero evidence, and I hope you will look up "evidence" on Wikepedia. YOU'RE just guessing, but I'M making an evidence-based guess - a conjecture. I have a hint. You have none; you essentially deny that hints exist.

Courts of law typically do what we do here: they evaluate evidence and argument to conclude the truth of a proposition. Opposing sides present their bits of evidence, and argue how the evidence should be interpreted and what conclusion should be drawn; the jury (or judge, in some trials) evaluates all the competing evidence, weighing that which favors one conclusion against that which favors the opposite conclusion. A judge can always decide whether the proposition is "most probably true according to a preponderance of the evidence"; the evidence always points, in balance, one way or the other.

Conclusions about what one has not seen need not be "just guessing", or our criminal justice system would be horribly arbitrary. Conclusions about the unseen are based on knowledge; the knowledge is based on an analysis weighing each of the relevant bits of evidence and combining the results. Imperfect knowledge can be far more than a guess, even if it admits the possibility of error.

Like courts and other people evaluating propositions, I try to be persuaded only by the position that better conforms to the facts (textual facts, in this case). You're welcome to not care about textual support; but then some people, like me, won't find your conclusions persuasive or interesting.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I don't know what Syrio did when he closed in on Trant.

He didnt close in on Trant.

He was backing away.

Excuse me, "closed with" Trant, or simply "engaged" Trant. It's neither clear nor important precisely how close Syrio gets to Trant; we know they've engaged their swords, so I'll hereafter call it "actively engaging" to distinguish it from the expected alternatives of "avoiding" or "dancing around". Syrio also actively engaged the guardsmen; we know he got close to one, when he put his foot on him, but he obviously was at differing distances at different times, as with Trant.

[The SmilingKnight]

The text is pretty clear that he was in fact backing away trying to parry Trants swings, out of which the last one severed his wooden sword.

As far as i can see the only possible option Syrio had to defeat Trant is to stab him through the visor of the helmet - which Syrio is more then capable.

btw im not convinced Syrio died but if we are to have some theories about it, it would be better to base them on what little facts we do have.

Which gets me back to my Syrio/Trant theory.

The only way i can make complete sense of Trants report to Cersei is if it was in fact a faceless man saying it not wanting to raise suspicions and further inquiries into the matter.

Further, we see Trant often described as someone not really there, someone who is missing character in his eyes or behaviour and someone who never puts himself forward in any way. No friends, no family who could notice anything strange.

Perfect for a faceless man.

And what better moment to kill him and take his face then that event with no witnesses around and no need for acounting bodies later on?

Its hard for me to accept that someone who "was" Syrio would go on to beat Sansa as he did but if we suppose Syrio did in a way die when the faceless man shed his face to take Trants then it may not be so impossible.

It would be a bit hard to stomach but Songs are full of such things anyway.

[Rinso]

Further, we see Trant often described as someone not really there, someone who is missing character in his eyes or behaviour and someone who never puts himself forward in any way. No friends, no family who could notice anything strange.

Perfect for a faceless man.

No, that's Mandon Moore. Trant is often described as sour and thick-headed, IIRC.

Anyway, I'm in the Syrio-is-dead camp. Assuming I get it right, there are two opportunities for the "Syrio-is-a-Faceless Man" theory. One is "Syrio-is-Jaqen", the other is "Syrio-is-Trant", correct?

Well, neither makes sense, IMO.

While Jaqen was a Faceless Man, that subtheory is putting the horse before the cart. So, Syrio/Jaqen/the Alchemist gets himself arrested (as Syrio) thanks to his battle with Trant, then changes his face into Jaqen's in the Black Cells (thus scaring off Rorge and Biter), then he is conveniently conscripted into the NW, travels to the Riverlands where he changes into the Alchemist and escapes, then he goes to Oldtown for his true mission in the Citadel. See how convoluted it seems now that I worded it? Yeah... Way too many things in that scenario can go wrong. The biggest trouble is that there was never a guarantee that Trant will bother to arrest him. The Lannisters killed all the Stark men without blinking an eye, and Syrio had just proven himself dangerous by defeating the redcloaks. If he was counting on just getting arrested, he might have well gotten himself killed.

As for Syrio-is-Trant... Why? What would be the point? Why would he take his identity as early as AGOT and then continue well after AFFC. Trant never does anything than just stand there. He doesn't have access to anything important, doesn't have connections to important people. He's just an aging bodyguard. Furthermore, whatever he did with realTrant's corpse? He ate it? How do you hide the corpse of a relatively well-known, big, grown man in a busy place like the Red Keep?

[The SmilingKnight]

Ive went over every mention of Trant in the books before i wrote that, and while maybe i misremembered he does seem to be described as someone lacking character.

Not in the sense of Mandons Moore empty stare.

Syrio/Jaqen:

I had a theory that Syrio got into cells and into Jaqen with the help of his employer Varys. Not that there is anything to connect the two in text but ive seen wilder theories based on less.

My line of thought was that he needed someone to get him into the black cells (through secret passages of the keep) and someone who knew that prisoner Jaqen was going to go into the caravan for the wall.

But that theory creates as much holes as it patches and leaves other gaping as much as before.

Biggest ones being that Yoren took the prisoners before the coup happened and that the Syrio/Jaqen didnt have any idea where will Arya end up. Even with Varys help since not even him could find her.

It could be imagined that Varys wanted a faceless man to be close to Eddard Stark for some reason so he arranged for Jaqen switch etc, etc, etc... even if i cant imagine why.

But prisoners were moved before the coup and after all if that was the case there were better solutions then getting him into the cage from which he could not escape.

If the objective of Syrio FM was simply to escape - then it makes no sense to get himself into black cells and into a damn cell.

Simply put Syrio cannot be Jaqen the faceless man.

Syrio/Trant

Fits better generally. No big holes i can see, It justifies some details (that might not be important really) like Trants report to Cersei (which can be explained in other simple ways too) and it would allow for Syrio to be dead and alive at the same time, in a sense.

Access problem: thats fairly easy. If we suppose that a faceless man wearing Syrios face was put in the position that he was in in order to have access to the most important players of the game - then it was a complete success.

Syrio was in the very heart of the keep, working directly for the Hand of the realm and with little effort he could have gotten to anyone (utilizing his FM abilities and skills).

In my mind he was in a position of a hidden pawn, or better yet a Knight piece, ready to act if necessary.

By taking on Trants face he retains the same position.

Having social contacts for an FM is not necessary.

Hiding a body problem:

Very easy considering the situation and loads of dead bodies everywhere. Nothing easier than to mutilate his face beyond recognition and order someone (being Trant) to just dump it somewhere along with the rest of the killed that day.

But really, its not a serious belief at all. Just thinking out loud, trying to keep an ace up my sleeve so Martin cannot surprise me with it without me going "I knew it all the way!"

Its fa fetched and not very engaging, i know.

It may also be that Syrio survived without being an FM, but also that he most likely died. I just wish we would knew for certain.

[Rinso]

Well, we know that Jaqen and the Alchemist of Oldtown are the same person. So, basically, given what happens in AFFC, this guy has a mission in the Citadel. He has no business with Ned Stark, Arya or anyone else in the Red Keep. That actually made me wonder what he was doing in the Black Cells. Since his goal lies off in Oldtown, what was he doing in King's Landing? The most reasonable and simple assumption (Occam's Razor) is that he had no business as such in the Red Keep and the Black Cells. Perhaps he wasn't there on purpose. Maybe he was arrested along with Rorge and Biter (weren't they involved in some illegal dog fighting pits or whatever?) when he was just a bystantder or something, and he thought it would be easier to allow the goldcloaks to arrest him instead of, you know, using some FM shit to escape and draw attention. So, in a way, everything up until Harrenhal was just a detour for him.

As for Trant... well, since at the time there was an actual Faceless Man in the Red Keep (Jaqen), isn't it a bit of thematic overkill to have another? That road ends in a "Everyone is FM!!!1!! Bloodraven=Red Ronnet=Ygritte!!!1!" type of theory emerging sooner or later. It's a slippery slope.

The easiest, the simplest and the most tematically appropriate way leads to the conclusion that Syrio Forel is dead. We didn't see him dead, because Arya clearly understood what was going to happen and ran away before she was forced to watch her friend and mentor getting butchered. End of story.

[The SmilingKnight]

No. not an end of story. Obviously.

Also, two FMs do not lead into "everyone is FM". It only leads to "there were two FMs".

Which isnt anything impossible by itself.

[Rinso]

Okay, not impossible. But probable? Plausible? Likely?

[Roi Woodt]

This may seem a flippant response, but truthfully, I take no issue with it whatsoever. Syrio is an old man (at least in Westerosi and Braavosi culture--I'm not sure how old he really is), who is no longer likely to be given high office.

I really like the way how you argument your points, but this is clearly not one of your best. I have no idea how old he is, but beating up 5 lannister guards with a wooden stick is not bad. If he wanted to, I am sure he could have done better than training children.

His choices are simple. Live a dangerous lifestyle as a mercenary. Enter retirement with little to do. Or take cushy jobs that allow him to make some money and have some constructive fun.

Imo there are far more options. It could be this, but to me it's just another backstory that doens't fit very well.

Honestly, were it not for this thread, it's a point I never would have considered.

That's no problem, as long as Martin did.

Then the readers started debating Syrio's death. It's instructional to note that Martin has said he doesn't understand why he receives so many questions about Syrio. This is my evidence for the above paragraph--he didn't expect it to be a controversy, and when it became one he was surprised (as, again, he himself has stated). But now that it is one, he doesn't want to end it. Why would he? What benefit does he, the author, get from stopping conversation about his book? The more conversation, the more interest, the more likely people will start reading him, the more money he makes, the more personal gratification he gets and so forth. There's all the reason in the world to answer questions on Syrio evasively. I have a hard time developing reasons to end the conversation.

You are really discrediting Martin here. First you claim he doesn't think about what he writes, that he is only interested in his main characters. Next to that, you think it's all for the money and he deliberately keeps his readers in the dark for no reason at all, just to make money? I probably misread this, but this is not how I see grrm.

Are you comfortable sticking with the one you cannot support? If so, how are you still selecting the most obvious conclusion based on the evidence at hand?

No, as I said earlier, I choose it to be this way, with a weak argument, above the imaginary scenarios of Rorge and Biter being afraid and the lack of backstory of an important faceless man. If I have to choose to imagine something, I rather imagine a larger dark cell (it's not ruled out) than having to imagine a new scenario where Jaqen scared Rorge and Biter.

I do not agree, no. At least not anymore. Were in they still at a different level, they would have been put in a well adorned tower as Tyrion is when he's imprisoned before his trial. When they're put in the black cells, the message is 'you no longer count as noble born; you are now nothing but a fetid prisoner who might as well be dead.'

I disagree. They still have family. And they are worth far more.

The assumption that Syrio equals Jaqen, as near as I can tell, is grounded on some unanswered riddles. Seems to me the theory develops as supporters attempt to solve these riddles, meaning the conclusion exists before the evidence. The better way to form a theory is to collect so much evidence that eventually you say, "Whoa. Looks like we're being led to this thing. Wow. Cool." Do you disagree?

As I have told already it's the fact that Rorge and Biter are scared of Jaqen, the fact that there is a faceless man in the black cells without a backstory and the fact that grrm doesn't give an explicit (and in your eyes obvious) answer to a simple question that leads me to Jaqen is Syrio. Not the other way around.

If not, I ask again: what evidence am I missing that suggests Syrio equals Jaqen is the most logical conclusion? I have a great deal of evidence suggesting Syrio was not Jaqen prior to entering the black cells. And I have evidence that the black cells are not communal dwellings, meaning Syrio would not have had opportunity to kill the real Jaqen in said cells. I have no evidence that Syrio became Jaqen after the latter was freed by Yoren. I, in fact, have no evidence that Syrio even survived his fight with Trant. Given these evidential facts, isn't the logical conclusion that Syrio is not Jaqen? If not, what evidence am I missing?

What you are missing is the fact that you do not have evidence, only assumptions.

But Martin doesn't write from plot. He writes from character. So it's more prudent, I think, to look at the impact their fear had on characters, specifically on major characters. The only major character it impacted was Arya, and it made Arya respect Jaqen all the more. I would say that was the real objective in writing Rorge and Biter's fear.

First you say he writes from characters, but you fail to see how their fear was totally out of character. And all that, as you think, to make Arya respect Jaqen. Don't you think that would be a bit weak?

[Roi Woodt]

The easiest, the simplest and the most tematically appropriate way leads to the conclusion that Syrio Forel is dead. We didn't see him dead, because Arya clearly understood what was going to happen and ran away before she was forced to watch her friend and mentor getting butchered. End of story.

And we know how good she is at that... ask Sandor (you still can ;-)).