Syrio Forel Compared to Westerosi Swordsman

[Me262]

Ah, I see the fandom still continues... still people cannot seem to see how Syrio got plot shielded when random household guards had a NUMERICAL advantage, and decided to attack one by one, if they did attack alltogether, Syrio limbs would of been going in different directions, no doubt it was easy to suprise and fool these guards who think this man is nothing but a dancing master with a stick.

All the hardcore fans seem to be going off topic too, and using that scene to provide scenario advanatges against knights, which doesn't work out, because he got killed by a knight who isn't remotely impressive, wooden sword or not, the technique he still used was his own. It doesn't work, nor will it ever work in reality, if he used his own smaller version of a rapier, not only would the knight have a REACH and ARMOUR adavantage over Syrio, he could even have a shield, I find it hilarious reading lectures from people who don't under the first thing about sword play.

Next you'll be saying Syrio could take the mountain on. (Please make my day, he wields a sword bigger than the average height on this forum and literally has no equal in westeros.)

They were not attacking him one by one! What a stupid thing to say. Please read the books. And they knew after he broke the wrist of the first guy that he was a real threat. Syrio could take on any fighter from the Westeros 1 on 1. Deny this and you are basically lying to your self. And no, he did not get killed. You just repeat this to your self, because you want to belive it. He will be back in book 6. Count on it.

[Storms End]

They were not attacking him one by one! What a stupid thing to say. Please read the books. And they knew after he broke the wrist of the first guy that he was a real threat. Syrio could take on any fighter from the Westeros 1 on 1. Deny this and you are basically lying to your self. And no, he did not get killed. You just repeat this to your self, because you want to belive it. He will be back in book 6. Count on it.

I don't think this really warrants much of a response, clearly deluded, I believe even Tumnas would agree with that.

[Arkantos]

By the way guys, Syrio didn't kill those Lannister house guards...

[Me262]

I don't think this really warrants much of a response, clearly deluded, I believe even Tumnas would agree with that.

Deluded may be my statement that Syrio will return in book six, as it is only my hunch, backed by much evidence, though. Check AvengingAryaFan for those. As for taking on any fighter from Westeros 1 on 1, I think it is the least deluded statement on this forum.

[Me262]

By the way guys, Syrio didn't kill those Lannister house guards...

You mean to say, they were only sleeping? Arya POV says that she was watching them on the floor dead or dying. So Arya and GRRM are lying or are at least misguided? Come on!

[Grip]

They were not attacking him one by one! What a stupid thing to say. Please read the books. And they knew after he broke the wrist of the first guy that he was a real threat. Syrio could take on any fighter from the Westeros 1 on 1. Deny this and you are basically lying to your self. And no, he did not get killed. You just repeat this to your self, because you want to belive it. He will be back in book 6. Count on it.

What makes you think he could take on any fighter in Westeros in a one on one fight? Where is the evidence for that? Because he defeated five Lannister guardsmen? We know that these kind of men arent the elite when it comes to fighting, as we have seen with the Goldcloaks and the garrison at Winterfell etc. Because he was the first sword? That, as Errant Bard has shown, doesnt really say anything. How would he fare against say Gregor, Sandor, Victarion? Or Bronn, Garlan etc? Oh and I am sure Trant killed him and that he wont make another appereance, but thats imo..

[mormont]

[mod] If you want to have a private conversation, use PM. (Wait until it's back up.) Don't have private conversations in-thread.[/mod]

[Me262]

What makes you think he could take on any fighter in Westeros in a one on one fight? Where is the evidence for that? Because he defeated five Lannister guardsmen? We know that these kind of men arent the elite when it comes to fighting, as we have seen with the Goldcloaks and the garrison at Winterfell etc. Because he was the first sword? That, as Errant Bard has shown, doesnt really say anything. How would he fare against say Gregor, Sandor, Victarion? Or Bronn, Garlan etc? Oh and I am sure Trant killed him and that he wont make another appereance, but thats imo..

Grip, I am only coming here from a real life experience. And I will repeat this as many times, as I have to: it is more difficult to fight 5 average guys at the same time, than one single master. Numbers matter. A lot! Why do you think Nazi Germany lost WWII. The ratio of tanks being destroyed was 1 to 5 in German favour. Military historians have said that it would have to be 1 to 10 in German favour for Germany to win the war. Do we understand each other? Please say yes, since I do not have anything else to add to this subject.

[Arkantos]

You mean to say, they were only sleeping? Arya POV says that she was watching them on the floor dead or dying. So Arya and GRRM are lying or are at least misguided? Come on!

You can't kill a guy in one whack with a wooden sword, especially if he's a wearing padded vest & chainmail (which they should've been).

[Grip]

Grip, I am only coming here from a real life experience. And I will repeat this as many times, as I have to: it is more difficult to fight 5 average guys at the same time, than one single master. Numbers matter. A lot! Why do you think Nazi Germany lost WWII. The ratio of tanks being destroyed was 1 to 5 in German favour. Military historians have said that it would have to be 1 to 10 in German favour for Germany to win the war. Do we understand each other? Please say yes, since I do not have anything else to add to this subject.

Sure I can understand that argument, numbers can be descisive in a fight. Hovewer that doesnt mean that someone like Sandor etc couldnt have defeated five opponents aswell. Or not, since circumstances certainly plays a part aswell. What I am saying is that yes he defeated five opponents but that is not enough, on its own, to say that he is the best fighter around. If you think so then fine, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Errant Bard]

Check AvengingAryaFan for those.

You mean the guy who claimed that evidence showed Arya didn't kill Dareon and Syrio would come back in ADWD, and then never showed his face again on this forum again after ADWD was released? I don't think this is a credible support.

[Eejit]

Syrio could probably 'do a Bronn' (or a version thereof) and defeat all but the very highest tier of armored Westerosi knights if armed with an actual sword rather than a stick. Jaime, Selmy and a few others would be his equal.

[Elfangle]

Syrio Forel is good. Real good! One does not become the first sword of Braavos by dealing with just Lannister soldier all the time. So he probably has remarkable skill with the sword. When protecting Arya he clearly shows this. People who are saying that that doesn't mean anything are kidding themselves. I would see anyone else in the series do the same thing. People who state that Loras could take him need to remember that, while he is very good with the sword, this is not his best weapon ( the javelin is). He also stated that Garlan is better than him and practices against 3 opponents at the same time. This still is not 5 and he probably doesn't use a wooden sword in those cases. Maybe Garlan has trained against 5 but we have no proof of that. We know that Syrio took out 5 warriors.

Syrio's style of fighting is very different from anything normal fighters in Westeros encounter. Everyone automatically assumes that he is the one who will be in trouble because he can't handle their tecchniques. It might very well be the other way around. His style is much faster and agile and he uses his entire body as a weapon. I think it was the immortal Bronn who said something like. The trick is to get them on the ground. We see Syrio do stuff like this.

And you can't compare Dothraki fighting with waterdancing. So Jorah fighting the dothraki is no proof that an armored knight will prevail. Jorah is loosing the fight because he is not fast and agile enough in his armor. He got lucky that the arakh got stuck in his hip bone (maybe the dothraki should have sharpened his weapons). But the point is that the arakh is a weapon designed only for slashing. It can't reach the vulnerable spots in armor. The braavosi sword on the other hand is a stabbing weapon which basically screams tickling to me. If a wielder is good enough he will be able to land some stabs at the knights weak spots.

Btw, Syrio killed the guards. This is entirely possible with a wooden stick. You don't need that much force to crush a skull or windpipe. He lost to Trant because his sword was cut in half (which would be far more difficult with a real sword).

What does this whole monologue mean? I think Syrio is a fighter right up there with the top tier. Does this mean that he will be able to beat Jaimy or Garlan? Maybe, maybe not. At least it would be an epic fight with no clearly set winner at the beginning.

[Torben]

I have been reading through this bit, and I must admit I am a little bit confused by the mingling of varying degrees of knowledge of real-world fighting to deduce possible outcomes of battles in ASOIF. It is probably closer to reality than most fantasy, but as typical for the genre, weapons, arrmour and fighting styles from different eras that never had to compete in a real-world scenario are present at the same time. In a setting as unrealistic as this, I fully accept the outcome of any battle to be what Martin wants it to be, even the hilarious ones.

[Kittyhat]

As a former fencer, I disagree.

Okay, right off the bat, modern sport fencing =/= real swordfighting, or even real dueling. If you're talking about sport fencing, and your post strongly suggests you are, then you're operating on a whole host of misconceptions.

The advantages of the long/greatswords are greatly reduced when one considers that the Bravosi doesn't block like the Westerosi does. He parries, he redirects. A Bravosi blade would block another Bravosi blade, forte to forte, but it's just not done.

It's not normally done with longswords or greatswords, either. They also parry and redirect wherever possible, and there are lots of good reasons for that.

Broadswords, longswords, greatswords and such don't usually need much of an edge.

No, wrong. The "blunt sword" myth is just that -- a myth. Popular myth, but all the same a myth. The blade is there to be a blade; it's not just for show or because medieval and renaissance warriors were stupid.

Armoured knights bash each other senseless until they make an opening.

Also wrong. The preferred method for fighting plate armor with a sword was to make thrusts aimed at the relatively vulnerable joints, as plate armor was functionally bladeproof. The use of this tactic was also the reason for the development of weapons like the estoc, which were specialized toward that purpose.

There were weapons suitable for "bashing senseless" a plate-armored foe, but those weapons were, not surprisingly, designed for bashing -- war hammers, for example, which were able to deliver damaging and even potentially fatal shock through the plate armor without needing to be able to actually penetrate it. Far from being, by the way, mindless bashing, this was a perfectly reasonable and scientific solution to the problem presented by plate armor.

Heavy weapons require full commitment to an attack. A little push to the side, the sword keeps going, now in a safer path, counter attack.

They weren't heavy. Longswords weighed around 3 pounds or so. Two-handed swords were around 6 pounds, or maybe a bit more for the real monsters. They were light, surprisingly agile weapons capable of using precisely the tactics you endorse. A longsword is capable of being every bit as fast as a rapier and is a perfect match for it in an unarmored duel, and the zweihander (two-handed sword) used by the doppelsoldner was such a complex weapon (capable of both long-range attacking and close-in techniques that resemble staff-fighting) that its use in battle was considered an elite skill worthy of double pay.

Modern sport fencing foils, sabers and epees are not weapons. They are toys designed for a game, a sport.

And incidentally, a real (combat capable) rapier weighs barely less than a real longsword.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Id have to agree with Groat. Overall technical ability hed be as good as any if not better i believe

I'd have to say that Syrio would die pretty quickly to someone like Garlan or a 2 handed Jaime. Main reason is armor. The Knights of Westeros train their whole lives to fight in armor, whereas Braavosi do not. So if Syrio doesn't where armor, he is probably going to lose. If he does where armor, his lack of training would be obvious and he is probably going to lose.

I don't think we'll ever know. If we had only seen him with an actual bravo's blade in hand... Surely, the slim swords they are described using would be utterly ineffectual, if used Westerosi-style against armor. I don't imagine Syrio would be capable of 'piercing plate', or hammering his way throught it. But perhaps the water-dancer's sword might be able to exploit any weakness in a suit of Westerosi plate that would be too small for a typical Westerosi weapon? After Syrio made such short work of those Lannister men with only a wooden sword, I tried to imagine what he might be able to do with a bravo's blade. Could he get around the edges or fastenings of all that steel? Could his blade find its way through eye slits, and other narrow openings? Armed with true steel, could he have dispensed with Trant just as quickly and gracefully as he did the crimson cloaks? Maybe, but we'll never know, because all he had was a wooden sword.

In a Lepanto he'd be fine, in a Towton he wouldn't. The Free Cities seem to mostly fight naval or marine type engagements, and his style is perfect for that. But yeah, he's not suited to taking on heavy infantry, cavalry, etc. Someone the other day used the analogy shark vs. lion, and its apt.

Are you people all fucking crazy? Did we Syrio take on five armored opponents with a stick? Obviously, he was skilled enough to find the gaps in their armor. And why do they get to wear armor anyway? But in that scenario, they'd end up like Ser Vardis Egan. And I presume Syrio (or if not someone like Arya) would poison his blade for good measure.

[James Arryn]

The advent of small-swords/rapiers etc. is directly linked with gunpowder.

Gunpowder made armor increasingly obsolete, and as it became obsolete, the need to carry weapons that accounted for armor did likewise.

And, so, smaller, easier to carry and pretty much as effective against unarmored opponents small-swords became common.

And as those also became the sword of the gentleman/officer corps in the age of gunpowder, those proficient with small-swords became much more proficient with those swords one-to-one than people still wielding weapons from the age of armor; the latter were almost exclusively poorer, regular troops, regional clan type weapons which would still do bloody damage in something like a Highland charge, but were no longer weapons with which the wielder was trained in a regular fashion.

So, generally speaking, by the time small-swords became the norm, the 'knights' of the age all used them, and the 'peasants' used long-swords or cutlasses or clay-mores or w/e. Which gave rise to the idea that the small sword was deadlier in and of itself. It wasn't; the practitioners were.

But there has never been any suggestion I have seen that a small-sword has any kind of advantage against an armored opponent. In fact, against an opponent in scale, a longsword itself wasn't even the best weapon....war hammers or pole-arms or the like were much more effective...and when used on foot, the sword itself was much more likely to be used two-handed, with one hand about halfway up the blade, intending to drive the point into weak spots or areas damaged in the fight. It required so much force because even 'weak' spots in plate..good plate, in good repair, anyway...was still pretty well protected. A small sword or similar wouldn't be able to sustain the force required.

Now we know GRRM isn't real, so history only has so much impact, but to address some of the notions people are using. An armored foe vs. an unarmored foe with a small sword or whatever...assuming any kind of relative skill...has an incredible advantage.

In the Egen vs. Bronn fight, a couple things should be noted:

1) Bron wasn't using a small-sword. So when he was in any way cornered, he could meet blade to blade enough to gain entry and use leverage to get out of the clinch. Someone using a small-sword wouldn't be able to do that...angling the force, redirecting is would be what they try to do, and that won't get you out of a corner against anyone who knows what he's doing. If they try and meet it as Bronn was able to do, their blade is itself in immediate danger.

2) Egen was forced to constantly 'pursue' due to the Queen's insistence, honor code, etc. In a normal fight like that, a skilled knight woul fight like Mormont or Barristan did. Either wait for you opponent to attack, or calmly use angles to corner him. You wouldn't need to constantly lunge and charge. Articulated plate actually supported its own weight much more than people think, far better than mail or similar. A knight wouldn't exhaust himself unless he was acting as Egen did, and that was more a result of honor/pressure than tactics. Dismounted knights in full plate have fought for hours and hours. Towton alone was over 3 hours, and there are no recorded periods of let-up.

Remember, a knight of the age put more time since childhood into fighting with armor than a professional athlete now puts into his sport. Especially an elite knight...armor wasn't a disadvantage as some seem to suggest.

If you're at sea or gunpowder exists, get rid of it and learn the use of a rapier or w/e, but there's a reason that didn't happen until gunpowder dominated the field of battle; it wasn't as good. It's not like small-swords used new technology or anything. And in 19th C Japan, where gunpowder was outlawed, and the whole range of conventional arms available, the elite knights used a type of long sword and armor.

It's the best option if you're not facing a gun.

Edit: however, I would like to note that people are underrating the effect of Syrio only having a wooden sword. A small sword is a puncturing weapon. The wooden sword with the lead core was mostly used to strike. Of course it made a huge difference. It would be like saying someone with a six-shooter and blanks didn't really miss having live fire because he clubbed people to death with it.

No on the other hand, Syrio had an advantage in that confrontation in that by the time they took him seriously, most of his adversaries were on the floor. I forget if it was in the book or just in the show, but in addition to being a better fighter and in plate, the KG who does, we presume, kill him is also the first to really take him seriously, and demonstrates that by immediately attacking Syrio's weak point: his wooden sword can't stand up to any kind of direct strike from a steel long-sword.

Edit: having keyboard issues, sorry for all the typos.

[Kittyhat]

The advent of small-swords/rapiers etc. is directly linked with gunpowder.

... snip.

Just wanted to say ... finally, someone who knows what he's talking about. Thanks for that post!

The crazy myths out there about swords and armor really drive me up the wall.

Also, no offense to Syrio, who I loved, but he'd have been more or less torn to shreds by any of the elite Westerosi knights unless they were also unarmored.

And the best of them, unarmored, may well still have killed him. Again, a longsword is a perfectly capable match against a rapier (or smallsword) in unarmored combat.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

The advent of small-swords/rapiers etc. is directly linked with gunpowder. Gunpowder made armor increasingly obsolete, and as it became obsolete, the need to carry weapons that accounted for armor did likewise. And, so, smaller, easier to carry and pretty much as effective against unarmored opponents small-swords became common. And as those also became the sword of the gentleman/officer corps in the age of gunpowder, those proficient with small-swords became much more proficient with those swords one-to-one than people still wielding weapons from the age of armor; the latter were almost exclusively poorer, regular troops, regional clan type weapons which would still do bloody damage in something like a Highland charge, but were no longer weapons with which the wielder was trained in a regular fashion. So, generally speaking, by the time small-swords became the norm, the 'knights' of the age all used them, and the 'peasants' used long-swords or cutlasses or clay-mores or w/e. Which gave rise to the idea that the small sword was deadlier in and of itself. It wasn't; the practitioners were. But there has never been any suggestion I have seen that a small-sword has any kind of advantage against an armored opponent. In fact, against an opponent in scale, a longsword itself wasn't even the best weapon....war hammers or pole-arms or the like were much more effective...and when used on foot, the sword itself was much more likely to be used two-handed, with one hand about halfway up the blade, intending to drive the point into weak spots or areas damaged in the fight. It required so much force because even 'weak' spots in plate..good plate, in good repair, anyway...was still pretty well protected. A small sword or similar wouldn't be able to sustain the force required. Now we know GRRM isn't real, so history only has so much impact, but to address some of the notions people are using. An armored foe vs. an unarmored foe with a small sword or whatever...assuming any kind of relative skill...has an incredible advantage. In the Egen vs. Bronn fight, a couple things should be noted: 1) Bron wasn't using a small-sword. So when he was in any way cornered, he could meet blade to blade enough to gain entry and use leverage to get out of the clinch. Someone using a small-sword wouldn't be able to do that...angling the force, redirecting is would be what they try to do, and that won't get you out of a corner against anyone who knows what he's doing. If they try and meet it as Bronn was able to do, their blade is itself in immediate danger. 2) Egen was forced to constantly 'pursue' due to the Queen's insistence, honor code, etc. In a normal fight like that, a skilled knight woul fight like Mormont or Barristan did. Either wait for you opponent to attack, or calmly use angles to corner him. You wouldn't need to constantly lunge and charge. Articulated plate actually supported its own weight much more than people think, far better than mail or similar. A knight wouldn't exhaust himself unless he was acting as Egen did, and that was more a result of honor/pressure than tactics. Dismounted knights in full plate have fought for hours and hours. Towton alone was over 3 hours, and there are no recorded periods of let-up. Remember, a knight of the age put more time since childhood into fighting with armor than a professional athlete now puts into his sport. Especially an elite knight...armor wasn't a disadvantage as some seem to suggest. If you're at sea or gunpowder exists, get rid of it and learn the use of a rapier or w/e, but there's a reason that didn't happen until gunpowder dominated the field of battle; it wasn't as good. It's not like small-swords used new technology or anything. And in 19th C Japan, where gunpowder was outlawed, and the whole range of conventional arms available, the elite knights used a type of long sword and armor. It's the best option if you're not facing a gun. Edit: however, I would like to note that people are underrating the effect of Syrio only having a wooden sword. A small sword is a puncturing weapon. The wooden sword with the lead core was mostly used to strike. Of course it made a huge difference. It would be like saying someone with a six-shooter and blanks didn't really miss having live fire because he clubbed people to death with it. No on the other hand, Syrio had an advantage in that confrontation in that by the time they took him seriously, most of his adversaries were on the floor. I forget if it was in the book or just in the show, but in addition to being a better fighter and in plate, the KG who does, we presume, kill him is also the first to really take him seriously, and demonstrates that by immediately attacking Syrio's weak point: his wooden sword can't stand up to any kind of direct strike from a steel long-sword. Edit: having keyboard issues, sorry for all the typos.

That's silly. most of Syrio's strikes were at gaps in the armor. Eyes, fingers, throat, ect. Also, I'm assuming a Bravo's blade is sufficiently thick that a long sword cannot cut through it. Lastly I would not consider a katana a long sword.

The red cloaks came at him from three sides with steel in their hands.

They had chainmail over their chest and arms, and steel codpieces sewn into their pants,

but only leather on their legs. Their hands were bare, and the caps they wore had noseguards, but no visor over the eyes.

Syrio did not wait for them to reach him, but spun to his left. Arya had never seen a man move as fast.

He checked one sword with his stick and whirled away from a second. Off balance, the second man lurched into the first. Syrio put a boot to his back and the red cloaks went down together. The third guard came leaping over them, slashing at the water dancer’s head. Syrio ducked under his blade and thrust upward.

The guardsman fell screaming as blood welled from the

wet red hole where his left eye had been.

The fallen men were getting up. Syrio kicked one in the face and snatched the steel cap off the other’s head. The dagger man stabbed at him. Syrio caught the thrust in the helmet and shattered the man’s kneecap with his stick.

The last red cloak shouted a curse and charged, hacking down with both hands on his sword. Syrio rolled right, and the butcher’s cut caught the helmetless man between neck and shoulder as he struggled to his knees. The longsword crunched through mail and leather and flesh. The man on his knees shrieked.

Before his killer could wrench free his blade, Syrio jabbed him in the apple of his throat.

The guardsman gave a choked cry and staggered back, clutching at his neck, his face blackening.

Five men were down, dead, or dying by the time Arya reached the back door that opened on the kitchen. She heard Ser Meryn Trant curse. “Bloody oafs,” he swore, drawing his longsword from its scabbard.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

... snip. Just wanted to say ... finally, someone who knows what he's talking about. Thanks for that post! The crazy myths out there about swords and armor really drive me up the wall. Also, no offense to Syrio, who I loved, but he'd have been more or less torn to shreds by any of the elite Westerosi knights unless they were also unarmored. And the best of them, unarmored, may well still have killed him. Again, a longsword is a perfectly capable match against a rapier (or smallsword) in unarmored combat.

I really really disagree. With the exception of maybe Sandor, I think Syrio would take just about every knight in Westeros. I don't know why there would be some scenario where he's wearing no armor and the knight is completely armored. That's an utterly ridiculous scenario to begin with. (Why no just say, Syrio has a plastic toy sword and the other guy can't die, who would win then?) But in the case Syrion has no armor and the opponent is fully armored, I assume Syrio would runaway and put on some armor.