Blood Knives vs. Fades vs. Gawyn

[Terrel88]

I like how many people dismissed what BS said (Lan>Galad>Gawyn). Yes, Gawyn had an epic battle against those Bloodknives, but as he said- He's luckier than he thinks. People forget the immense duel Galad had with Valda (known to be one of the greatest swordsman in Randland, as said by Morgase), and Lan's general awesomeness(beating everything but Forsaken with his sword,e.g Fades, Toram Riatin etc). Where Rand would fit in is interesting. He is undoubtedly a blademaster and his integration with Lews Therin may have given him even greater knowledge of the sword, but since he has 1 hand, he goes to the bottom of the pile in my book. Good thread

Oh, another reason why Mat beat the bros is that they were using wooden swords. He had a big ass quarterstaff, although yeah, he did kick some serious ass

[johthohar]

At least, I sure hope so. That would be one step down from porn.

 

You are either female... Or seriously need to examine your lifestyle. ( joking)

 

Edited to add lighthearted smile so mods won't think I'm being a jerk again.

[Ananta]

The whole Gawyn vs Bloodknives fight left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

 

As others have stated, they were supposed to be completely dedicated suicide corps, that would wreak havok like none have seen before. Then they end up fighting 3 vs 1 on against a blademaster level fighter, ignoring their sole purpose. And then getting killed in the progress.

[Nooska]

The whole Gawyn vs Bloodknives fight left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

 

As others have stated, they were supposed to be completely dedicated suicide corps, that would wreak havok like none have seen before. Then they end up fighting 3 vs 1 on against a blademaster level fighter, ignoring their sole purpose. And then getting killed in the progress.

Well that ties very neatly in with the overarching message and failure of groups in the series - people aren't all that they and people around them think they are. And Gawyn did figure out how to neutralize their advantage by turning out the lights.

[akira.taylor]

By the way, does anybody know whether or not it is true, in the real world, that a master of the quarterstaff could easily defeat a master of the sword? Bows I know about; staves and swords not so much.

 

I know that in the Middle Ages, no one would have carried an axe, hammer, or mace who could afford to or was not prohibited from carrying a sword. But I don't have any idea about a quarterstaff.

 

Actually, it depends on when during the Middle Ages (a vague period) you look, and what the person is intending to do. I understand that at one point (fairly late), the standard armaments of a French knight were warhammer and rapier (swords by then were poor instruments for hurting fully armored knights).

[Ananta]

By the way, does anybody know whether or not it is true, in the real world, that a master of the quarterstaff could easily defeat a master of the sword? Bows I know about; staves and swords not so much.

 

I know that in the Middle Ages, no one would have carried an axe, hammer, or mace who could afford to or was not prohibited from carrying a sword. But I don't have any idea about a quarterstaff.

 

I'd imagine that Yes, quarterstaff would beat sword. Why? Because it's faster, has longer reach and it's more versatile...

 

I don't have any real knowledge about it, but that's just my take on it.

[gary0044187]

There is a claim by practitioners of a staff school in japan that Miyamoto Musashi was defeated by their founder. That sounds like the source for the tale in the story.

 

edit- Musashi was the founder of a dual sword style in japan, the writer of "The Book of Five Rings," won 60 or more duals, and is considered one of the best swordsmen of medieval japan.

[Jong]

I also voted for Lan. Because that's what RJ said.

 

The idea that a 47 YO can compete with guys in their mid 20s means that the sport is mostly based on skill not on physical prowess. The fights we see are described as physically draining. Galad vs. Valda, Galad won based mainly on cunning and nerve it seems. Towards the end Glada is physically spend and about to puke his guts out and Valda is dancing around and taunting Galad. Valda is in his 40s I think. Its sort of unbelievable that this were the case but its only a story.

 

Also, as a sports man, I can tell you that when I am doing a sport that I am proficient at, I never ever have a running internal play by play about technical minutiae of the experience. I see what is coming at me and I react to that appropriately with out thinking about it. The swordsmen in the books are all in the moment using the void. I think the POVs for the fight scenes are much too dense with wordy play by play of the event. I don't think that is how a blade master would really intemperate the events in their own POV.

[gary0044187]

I also voted for Lan. Because that's what RJ said.

 

The idea that a 47 YO can compete with guys in their mid 20s means that the sport is mostly based on skill not on physical prowess. The fights we see are described as physically draining. Galad vs. Valda, Galad won based mainly on cunning and nerve it seems. Towards the end Glada is physically spend and about to puke his guts out and Valda is dancing around and taunting Galad. Valda is in his 40s I think. Its sort of unbelievable that this were the case but its only a story.

 

Also, as a sports man, I can tell you that when I am doing a sport that I am proficient at, I never ever have a running internal play by play about technical minutiae of the experience. I see what is coming at me and I react to that appropriately with out thinking about it. The swordsmen in the books are all in the moment using the void. I think the POVs for the fight scenes are much too dense with wordy play by play of the event. I don't think that is how a blade master would really intemperate the events in their own POV.

but at the same time, the effect would be lost if we got, "parry block thrust stab, Valda dies." There is a style to the way the Blademasters fight that is not in perrin's or in Mat's fights. It implies greater skill through the naming of the moves, even if the blademasters would never think of the name of the move consciously while fighting. But you can bet that if they really were focused on what they were doing and skilled enough, they would probably be able to do a play by play of a short fight just after doing it with "boar rushes down hill used against fish in flight."

[Jong]

Gary, you are right. The play by play makes the fight scenes seem much more interesting, even though I have no idea what "river under cuts the bank" or "parting the silk" is.

 

One of the things that I like about both RJ and Sanderson is that each has the ability to write good play by play battle scenes with out me left totally confused about whats happening.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

By the way, does anybody know whether or not it is true, in the real world, that a master of the quarterstaff could easily defeat a master of the sword? Bows I know about; staves and swords not so much.

 

I know that in the Middle Ages, no one would have carried an axe, hammer, or mace who could afford to or was not prohibited from carrying a sword. But I don't have any idea about a quarterstaff.

 

I'd imagine that Yes, quarterstaff would beat sword. Why? Because it's faster, has longer reach and it's more versatile...

 

I don't have any real knowledge about it, but that's just my take on it.

 

 

Depends. I would say it has certain advantages however also strong disadvantages. For example a sword is much more lethal and incapacitating. A quarterstaff is a blunt weapon.

 

 

Honestly against a fencing sword or a dueling blade from the 19th century a quarterstaff doesn't stand a chance. But against a more unwieldy larger blade a la medieval age? Tough to say. But remember that most people who wielded such things were also covered from toe to head in chainmail and armor. Making your quarterstaff largely ineffective.

[Yates_]

The Sword is much more versatile than the staff. In an open field, mano a mano, the staff has the edge. But in close quarters, or on a crowded battlefield, the staff loses a lot of its advantages due to restricted space, which prevents swinging the staff.

 

In ToM, Galad notes that on a battlefield, the only swings are brute force maneuvers. There simply isn't room to swing a staff. In TDR, during the storming of the Stone, Mat has some trouble in that regard.

 

In a duel with plenty of room, the quarter staff is king. But in battle, or in close quarters, the sword is better.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

The Sword is much more versatile than the staff. In an open field, mano a mano, the staff has the edge. But in close quarters, or on a crowded battlefield, the staff loses a lot of its advantages due to restricted space, which prevents swinging the staff.

 

In ToM, Galad notes that on a battlefield, the only swings are brute force maneuvers. There simply isn't room to swing a staff. In TDR, during the storming of the Stone, Mat has some trouble in that regard.

 

In a duel with plenty of room, the quarter staff is king. But in battle, or in close quarters, the sword is better.

 

 

Really? Put a Knight in battle armor with a sword in a duel against a farmer with a quarterstaff. I doubt it's much of a contest.

[Canis Rufus]

.... I'll be your huckleberry.

 

First I'd have range as the quarterstaff would far out reach your sword (yes even the two handed broadsword.)

 

Second I'd have speed, no armor (you did say full armor that would weigh about 45lb on the low end and up to 55+ on the high end. All depending on period and tech you want to choose.)

 

Third I would have all of your blind spots to hide (again you said full plate which will kill all of your peripheral vision that visor is to protect against splintering in a joust you would never use that on the ground. Well unless you’re in a movie. )

 

Fourth depending on which full armor you want to use the quarter staff would punch you like a juice box with straight jabs. The armor was designed to stop blades (read slicing) and slow down small arrows check you history you’ll find that the original plate mail were amazingly thin (due to the weight and resource issue ) and only offered a chance to stop arrows. They were more for slowing down the damage to keep it from sinking in to the barbs that would cause the removal to be worse and increase the chance of infection which back then would more or less equal death.

 

Lastly and I only offer this as I can see it as a rebuttal, if you are wearing chain under your plate then you can go ahead and add about 60lb to your ‘armor’ so all in all you would be loaded down with at least 100 extra pounds. I would just stay out of your way until your were exhausted while repeatedly beating your head until concussion set in (put a small metal trash can over your head , run into a wall and tell me how it feels) then its only one strike to your larynx which should do the job with this periods med tech.

 

 

You would have done better to leave the armor at home but then I’d just crack you bones until you yielded. That’s assuming I don’t have any attachments at the end of that ‘stick’ like a spike.

 

No you should bring a shield and a short sword if you want to try to take down a quarter staff not armor. You’re going to need the speed and then hope that the staff is only made of wood (yes even as early as the 15th century there is reports of full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs). Lastly hope that the quarterstaff man is not well trained, then you have a chance.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

.... I'll be your huckleberry.

 

First I'd have range as the quarterstaff would far out reach your sword (yes even the two handed broadsword.)

 

Second I'd have speed, no armor (you did say full armor that would weigh about 45lb on the low end and up to 55+ on the high end. All depending on period and tech you want to choose.)

 

Third I would have all of your blind spots to hide (again you said full plate which will kill all of your peripheral vision that visor is to protect against splintering in a joust you would never use that on the ground. Well unless you’re in a movie. )

 

Fourth depending on which full armor you want to use the quarter staff would punch you like a juice box with straight jabs. The armor was designed to stop blades (read slicing) and slow down small arrows check you history you’ll find that the original plate mail were amazingly thin (due to the weight and resource issue ) and only offered a chance to stop arrows. They were more for slowing down the damage to keep it from sinking in to the barbs that would cause the removal to be worse and increase the chance of infection which back then would more or less equal death.

 

Lastly and I only offer this as I can see it as a rebuttal, if you are wearing chain under your plate then you can go ahead and add about 60lb to your ‘armor’ so all in all you would be loaded down with at least 100 extra pounds. I would just stay out of your way until your were exhausted while repeatedly beating your head until concussion set in (put a small metal trash can over your head , run into a wall and tell me how it feels) then its only one strike to your larynx which should do the job with this periods med tech.

 

 

You would have done better to leave the armor at home but then I’d just crack you bones until you yielded. That’s assuming I don’t have any attachments at the end of that ‘stick’ like a spike.

 

No you should bring a shield and a short sword if you want to try to take down a quarter staff not armor. You’re going to need the speed and then hope that the staff is only made of wood (yes even as early as the 15th century there is reports of full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs). Lastly hope that the quarterstaff man is not well trained, then you have a chance.

 

 

This is why Knights were generally powerful men. Also the armor gives you extra weight and size which are always a benefit in a fight. You simply cut down the playroom of the quarterstaff wielder and force him into a corner. You can simply wait out his dancing antics as he exhausts himself. Also armor is generally grooved and plated, the quarterstaff is meant to smack into flesh which is soft and yielding. Enough thwacks and the staff will start to splinter.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

OR

 

 

 

VS

 

 

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

This is of course using medieval large swords as the basis of what is a sword. If we take 19th century sabres and dueling swords the man with the quarterstaff would be dead within seconds. Anyone just need look at professional fencers at the Olympics to see how nasty fast those featherlight blades will kill you.

[Canis Rufus]

.... I'll be your huckleberry.

 

First I'd have range as the quarterstaff would far out reach your sword (yes even the two handed broadsword.)

 

Second I'd have speed, no armor (you did say full armor that would weigh about 45lb on the low end and up to 55+ on the high end. All depending on period and tech you want to choose.)

 

Third I would have all of your blind spots to hide (again you said full plate which will kill all of your peripheral vision that visor is to protect against splintering in a joust you would never use that on the ground. Well unless you’re in a movie. )

 

Fourth depending on which full armor you want to use the quarter staff would punch you like a juice box with straight jabs. The armor was designed to stop blades (read slicing) and slow down small arrows check you history you’ll find that the original plate mail were amazingly thin (due to the weight and resource issue ) and only offered a chance to stop arrows. They were more for slowing down the damage to keep it from sinking in to the barbs that would cause the removal to be worse and increase the chance of infection which back then would more or less equal death.

 

Lastly and I only offer this as I can see it as a rebuttal, if you are wearing chain under your plate then you can go ahead and add about 60lb to your ‘armor’ so all in all you would be loaded down with at least 100 extra pounds. I would just stay out of your way until your were exhausted while repeatedly beating your head until concussion set in (put a small metal trash can over your head , run into a wall and tell me how it feels) then its only one strike to your larynx which should do the job with this periods med tech.

 

 

You would have done better to leave the armor at home but then I’d just crack you bones until you yielded. That’s assuming I don’t have any attachments at the end of that ‘stick’ like a spike.

 

No you should bring a shield and a short sword if you want to try to take down a quarter staff not armor. You’re going to need the speed and then hope that the staff is only made of wood (yes even as early as the 15th century there is reports of full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs). Lastly hope that the quarterstaff man is not well trained, then you have a chance.

 

 

This is why Knights were generally powerful men. Also the armor gives you extra weight and size which are always a benefit in a fight. You simply cut down the playroom of the quarterstaff wielder and force him into a corner. You can simply wait out his dancing antics as he exhausts himself. Also armor is generally grooved and plated, the quarterstaff is meant to smack into flesh which is soft and yielding. Enough thwacks and the staff will start to splinter.

 

 

metal doesn't splinter, 'full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs.'

 

You would assume that, a- you have a corner to back into and b- you would have the energy to get him there. I gave your ‘knight’ the credit of having skill you should do the same for the quarterstaff-er. I mean if you’re assuming they’re an idiot then why did you put on all that armor in the first place? As for your ‘big man’ concept check your history most knights had scribes/squires/good men and so on, not because it was cool to have a side kick but because they could barely move if off a horse. I’m not trying to say quarterstaff beats everything but in the given parameters of the fight the knight would lose… badly.

 

Second I only pointed out the weight problem as to not completely humiliate the fact that real period plate only had two points of movement (read back and forth) not three so no side to side so in order to turn you would have to swing your whole body, not too much different from a body cast. Remember you have to consider the metal working abilities of the time, universal hinges where not even invented yet. Basically there was only one hinge and no pivot. Please don't confuse what you see in the Movie's with fact, otherwise the argument is mute. There is a reason they did away with plate mail. Firstly impracticality of cost verses return. They just had a low ROI. Secondly, gunpowder ruined all remaining practicality of use. Bullets ripped them to shreds and the weight made long distance impossible without a cart for the armor. Knights had to string several horses together to go longs distances in any type of armor. (On a side note ‘long’ distance is a relative term, I am speaking period relativity.) At the end of the day plate armor was used for the same thing it is used for today to decorate and impress visitors.

 

I am using the outline set up Q man on man in full plate. It’s crazy silly. Now you put that knight on the horse and you have increased your chances. The horse will likely die, but you should be able to take out the quarterstaff in the wake. There is a reason we have pike men you know, they didn’t just show up one day.

 

As for the notion that a rapier “slender, sharply pointed sword, ideally for thrusting attacks.” I would have to answer, as I stated as before, not unless you have a shield. You should look up Richard Peeke for that answer, I believe history states he took on three Spaniards with rapiers while armed with a Quarterstaff and won, (I think he used a metal Quaterstaff or metal coated depending on the stories.)

 

RJ did some research on this the facts hold unless you have a shield to block the quarterstaff it will continue to have the advantage against the sword every time.

[akira.taylor]

.... I'll be your huckleberry.

 

First I'd have range as the quarterstaff would far out reach your sword (yes even the two handed broadsword.)

 

Second I'd have speed, no armor (you did say full armor that would weigh about 45lb on the low end and up to 55+ on the high end. All depending on period and tech you want to choose.)

 

Third I would have all of your blind spots to hide (again you said full plate which will kill all of your peripheral vision that visor is to protect against splintering in a joust you would never use that on the ground. Well unless you’re in a movie. )

 

Fourth depending on which full armor you want to use the quarter staff would punch you like a juice box with straight jabs. The armor was designed to stop blades (read slicing) and slow down small arrows check you history you’ll find that the original plate mail were amazingly thin (due to the weight and resource issue ) and only offered a chance to stop arrows. They were more for slowing down the damage to keep it from sinking in to the barbs that would cause the removal to be worse and increase the chance of infection which back then would more or less equal death.

 

Lastly and I only offer this as I can see it as a rebuttal, if you are wearing chain under your plate then you can go ahead and add about 60lb to your ‘armor’ so all in all you would be loaded down with at least 100 extra pounds. I would just stay out of your way until your were exhausted while repeatedly beating your head until concussion set in (put a small metal trash can over your head , run into a wall and tell me how it feels) then its only one strike to your larynx which should do the job with this periods med tech.

 

 

You would have done better to leave the armor at home but then I’d just crack you bones until you yielded. That’s assuming I don’t have any attachments at the end of that ‘stick’ like a spike.

 

No you should bring a shield and a short sword if you want to try to take down a quarter staff not armor. You’re going to need the speed and then hope that the staff is only made of wood (yes even as early as the 15th century there is reports of full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs). Lastly hope that the quarterstaff man is not well trained, then you have a chance.

 

 

This is why Knights were generally powerful men. Also the armor gives you extra weight and size which are always a benefit in a fight. You simply cut down the playroom of the quarterstaff wielder and force him into a corner. You can simply wait out his dancing antics as he exhausts himself. Also armor is generally grooved and plated, the quarterstaff is meant to smack into flesh which is soft and yielding. Enough thwacks and the staff will start to splinter.

 

 

metal doesn't splinter, 'full metal and metal tipped quarterstaffs.'

 

You would assume that, a- you have a corner to back into and b- you would have the energy to get him there. I gave your ‘knight’ the credit of having skill you should do the same for the quarterstaff-er. I mean if you’re assuming they’re an idiot then why did you put on all that armor in the first place? As for your ‘big man’ concept check your history most knights had scribes/squires/good men and so on, not because it was cool to have a side kick but because they could barely move if off a horse. I’m not trying to say quarterstaff beats everything but in the given parameters of the fight the knight would lose… badly.

 

Second I only pointed out the weight problem as to not completely humiliate the fact that real period plate only had two points of movement (read back and forth) not three so no side to side so in order to turn you would have to swing your whole body, not too much different from a body cast. Remember you have to consider the metal working abilities of the time, universal hinges where not even invented yet. Basically there was only one hinge and no pivot. Please don't confuse what you see in the Movie's with fact, otherwise the argument is mute. There is a reason they did away with plate mail. Firstly impracticality of cost verses return. They just had a low ROI. Secondly, gunpowder ruined all remaining practicality of use. Bullets ripped them to shreds and the weight made long distance impossible without a cart for the armor. Knights had to string several horses together to go longs distances in any type of armor. (On a side note ‘long’ distance is a relative term, I am speaking period relativity.) At the end of the day plate armor was used for the same thing it is used for today to decorate and impress visitors.

 

I am using the outline set up Q man on man in full plate. It’s crazy silly. Now you put that knight on the horse and you have increased your chances. The horse will likely die, but you should be able to take out the quarterstaff in the wake. There is a reason we have pike men you know, they didn’t just show up one day.

 

As for the notion that a rapier “slender, sharply pointed sword, ideally for thrusting attacks.” I would have to answer, as I stated as before, not unless you have a shield. You should look up Richard Peeke for that answer, I believe history states he took on three Spaniards with rapiers while armed with a Quarterstaff and won, (I think he used a metal Quaterstaff or metal coated depending on the stories.)

 

RJ did some research on this the facts hold unless you have a shield to block the quarterstaff it will continue to have the advantage against the sword every time.

 

Actually, as I understand it, a knight in full plate was fairly mobile (else he died rather quickly). The really heavy armor, with no peripheral vision, was indeed for jousting - not regular combat. In a joust, there will only be one enemy, who will follow certain rules, which you know in advance. If a knight couldn't move very well on the ground, why would anyone have used dismounted knights? By the way, I've never heard of knights not being able to turn in place - and the knight knows all his limitations, practices in that armor rather a lot (several hours a day, I think), and may well just turn for the quarterstaff.

 

Another point - the horse the knight would be riding might be able to take the man with a quarterstaff on its own (warhorses were well trained, and dangerous). Now, I don't know that I'd bet on the horse, but the horse will have armor.

 

I will finish by saying, I honestly don't know who would win. Ask a historian (and cite the historian). (The SCA wouldn't allow the fight, as the knight is a heavy, and heavies fight people with quarterstaffs/other non-heavies by saying "you're dead", or so I understand.)

 

Edit: Plate went out of usage because crossbows (guns to a lesser extent, but at the time guns had rates of fire in the 1 shot per 2 or 3 minutes range, and might not hit the broad side of a barn at decent range). The issue was that crossbows got so powerful that plate thick enough to stop them was too heavy to move in. By then, the plate would stop just about anything else (at least for a while), although bruises would get through.

[Canis Rufus]

‘ Its first incarnations are seen as large bronze chest plates worn by several cultures in the Ancient World. Later evolutions in plate armor include Roman Lorca Segmentations. Plate armor in its most complicated evolution consisted of covering the body with dozens of articulated metal plates. This "Full or Articulated Plate" is the armor that gave rise to the term "Knight in Shining Armor". It is interesting to note that the high mechanical evolution of Articulated Plate armor came to an end with the invention of firearms. Firearms spurred Articulated Plate to evolve full circle into the familiar territory of heavy metal breast plates.”

(Repeated to one degree or another by most every historical society so I cannot site any one person, but Google it for your proof it's widely held as fact. )

 

As for the mobility of it, if you doubt me then you have never tried a set on. Even with today’s advancements in metal work it’s not easy to move around in these things. When you take into consideration the inability to make fine hinges or universal joints then you can only have the degree of turn equal to the contact of the plate. So no there is no quick turning. If you ever watch two men sword fighting in armor they are not in full armor or plate. They may have a breast plate and even gauntlets but that’s going to be about it. They also did not wear this or full armor for hours on end for days on end. That’s the movies. Your body could not be encased it full plate armor (worn correctly) for hours on end unless you want to be in serious pain the next day and luck if don't have a serious infection. (It’s metal it’s not going to give, your skin however will. Think this one through and I think you’ll see the right of it.)

 

As for being impenetrable just look it up on you tube to dis-prove that. It only ever slowed the arrows down they still stuck in. If the plate was high grade metal then it did a better job of stopping but it not like arrows bounce of it, they still stick in and can still kill.

 

See “The art of war in the Western world” Archer Jones for historical proof not only the arrows but that falsity of the armor all together.

 

 

As for being on the horse being a confirmed kill, well history does not support that argument. Check your history on Pike men against horses. Really you can simply Google that and have it confirmed with raving support. That’s why we had Pike Men on the front lines. I credited that you would fare better but guarantee success, No. The horse as I stated before would die in all likely hood of a well trained hand. I am being fair in my evaluation and historical instances support these ideas.

 

Now if you want to pull in Hollywood then you might as well pit superman against the quarterstaff, it’s equally fantastic assumption. If you site historical tech and training then I think you’ll see as I stated if the ‘Knight’ hopes to stand a chance he’s going to need a shield and a short sword that he can manage with. If he’ll lose the armor then you have an equal fight and it will come down to skill alone.

 

The reason we didn’t have legions of people running around with quarterstaffs is the same reason we have people running around with guns today. You kill quicker with a sword/bullet and you don’t need a lot of training to do it. “Stick the pointy end that way… good luck,” while the quarterstaff would take years or more to be more than adequate at. It really comes back to a lesson in logistics swords where cheaper and quicker to arm men without haveing to give a great deal of training.

[randsc]

Christ, I'm sorry I asked.

[Ananta]

Christ, I'm sorry I asked.

 

Take this as a lesson to never ask a question again. xD Especially if it could even remotely have something to do with real world.

[gary0044187]

Sheinarians ride around all day in full plate. also, RJ seemed to never care whether someone was in full armor or not. They all die about the same. I found it particularly hard to believe that a group of zulu could take on borderlander armies with horse archers, composite bows and heavy armor, but the dude wrote the story how he liked.

[Muad Cheade]

Sheinarians ride around all day in full plate. also, RJ seemed to never care whether someone was in full armor or not. They all die about the same. I found it particularly hard to believe that a group of zulu could take on borderlander armies with horse archers, composite bows and heavy armor, but the dude wrote the story how he liked.

I haven't bothered to read the other long posts, nor do I think I will. I'll just reply to this one.

 

The Aiel are for all intents and purposes the perfect fighting force. They are cavalry (faster than horses), infantry (although their spears aren't as long or effective as pikemen), and bowmen.

 

I don't remember any mentioning of the Aiel facing mounted archers. Could someone provide a reference. I'm drawing a blank.

 

However, they can be defeated. We've seen that several times.

 

After all, the Zulu's did (temporarily) defeat the greatest military of its time.

[fisher80]

in terms of PURE SKILL with the blade:

ryne > lan > valda > rand >= galad >= gawyn > slete > the rest of blademasters (tam, bryne, ituralde etc.) -- come on, you think bryne beats gawyn?

 

for what it's worth, the >= crew are probably very, very close. the only thing that bother's me about lan easily being the best ever is that scumbag ryne was clearly painted as better than lan in new spring when lan was older than gawyn is now, surely already an elite blademaster, and had been trained to fight by malkieri since he was five. not only was ryne much quicker in the sword drawing lessons, he was more skilled than lan and lost only because of mental weakness/arrogance, just like valda losing to galad....valda was better, but galad was almost as good and was tougher/more mental fortitude/had more to lose.

 

BKs are near- or even average b-masters but gawyn is sick, as are rand and galad, any of them COULD have wiped out 2-3 BKs if conditions were right and they were lucky.