Blood Knives vs. Fades vs. Gawyn

[Entreri]

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.

 

No. Lan is far better now than before with the sword. Most certainly Lan >> Ryne. Lan was quite a bit younger than Ryne and was not a Warder back then, and they were very close in skill already way back. The way Valda handled Galad and from what Morgase said I would put Valda >= Ryne. In the real world fighters peak at around 30-35 years.

 

Lan > Rand, Valda and Ryne are probably all about the same level > Galad > Gawyne > Sleete

 

 

As for someone saying that the quarterstaff was a superior weapon to the sword overall, that is unlikely, given the history of said weapons. If the quarterstaff was indeed superior, than the armies of the world would have used it in battle instead of mostly sword type weapons.

[Ananta]

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.

 

No. Lan is far better now than before with the sword. Most certainly Lan >> Ryne. Lan was quite a bit younger than Ryne and was not a Warder back then, and they were very close in skill already way back. The way Valda handled Galad and from what Morgase said I would put Valda >= Ryne. In the real world fighters peak at around 30-35 years.

 

Lan > Rand, Valda and Ryne are probably all about the same level > Galad > Gawyne > Sleete

 

 

As for someone saying that the quarterstaff was a superior weapon to the sword overall, that is unlikely, given the history of said weapons. If the quarterstaff was indeed superior, than the armies of the world would have used it in battle instead of mostly sword type weapons.

If Rand still had his hand, I'd say he might beat Lan now. Because he has Lews Therin's memories, and Lews Therin was said to have been the greatest blademaster of his time. So I'd say Lews Therin's 400 years of sword play would make him pretty darn good.

[Entreri]

Indirect proof of why Lan is the best:

 

The best fighters in the world are who? The Aiel. Generally 1 average Aiel = 3 average soldiers. This is roughly the number that is put out in the series.

 

Who is one of the best fighters among the Aiel, top tier? Rhuarc. According to Moraine, they was no difference between Lan and Rhuarc (before Lan lost Moraine and went another level, beyond Jearom imo). Keep in mind that Jearom took out 10 at once.

 

 

Fighting prowess of elite Aiel?

 

Example: Gaul. Gaul (unarmed) took out around 8 armed Whitecloaks. Bruce Lee has nothing on Gaul. Perrin and him were fighting 12 Whitecloaks, and Perrin said Gaul took out most of them.

 

Certainly Gaul should be able to take more than 8 at once if he was armed, if not 9-10 (which is the level of Jearom, 10 at once). Perrin was "amazed" at Gaul's fighting prowess.

 

And Lan back then (20 years ago) had some trouble taking out 6 assassins at once.

 

Clearly Lan is far better now than before, otherwise he would not be compared to the best of the Aiel/Rhuarc.

[Canis Rufus]

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.

 

No. Lan is far better now than before with the sword. Most certainly Lan >> Ryne. Lan was quite a bit younger than Ryne and was not a Warder back then, and they were very close in skill already way back. The way Valda handled Galad and from what Morgase said I would put Valda >= Ryne. In the real world fighters peak at around 30-35 years.

 

Lan > Rand, Valda and Ryne are probably all about the same level > Galad > Gawyne > Sleete

 

 

As for someone saying that the quarterstaff was a superior weapon to the sword overall, that is unlikely, given the history of said weapons. If the quarterstaff was indeed superior, than the armies of the world would have used it in battle instead of mostly sword type weapons.

 

 

"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." Sorry to repeat but you seem to have overlooked this.

 

Gary, "Sheinarians ride around all day in full plate," can you provide a quote (book and chapter) to prove they are in full plate all day? I looked back quickly but everything I scanned just says armor, not full plate, it’s not that I doubt you but I am shocked that RJ wrote that. It was common that they would have breast plate and gauntlets plate then the rest would be leather or chain. Seriously it’s a factor of the skin simply not being able to survive in full plate for a whole day, there is no breathing with the layers of leather, possible chain and then plate on top of that the skin will rub and with the sweat and moisture it will break and get infected. The back of a horse would buy you some time but I doubt enough to go a full day in full plate.

[johthohar]

As for someone saying that the quarterstaff was a superior weapon to the sword overall, that is unlikely, given the history of said weapons. If the quarterstaff was indeed superior, than the armies of the world would have used it in battle instead of mostly sword type weapons.

 

Go back and read Canis Rufus's posts. Dude did his research. I would have given the edge to the quarterstaff before. But now I'm utterly convinced.

[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.

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.

what I was referencing was the fact that the shienarans said that there were occasional raids by the aiel through the mountains. The members of the shienaran party that escorted rand even said how hard it was to fight them. Remember that the Shienarans are horse archers.

 

Zulu only beat the british when they outnumbered them a great deal and caught them out in the open.

 

As to finding a quote to prove the shienarans where plate all day, I can't do that. I suppose I will retract it. I remember reading heavy armor and thinking that they must have warn plate. My mental image of them originally was plated armor, but after my more recent readings they have resembled more of a japanese lamellar. I still thought they were in plate though.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

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.

 

 

You kidding me? You going to paint the Zulu as something more than a dismal military force, compare them to the Aiel who are considered among the greatest military force? The Zulu armies were so bad they actually got slaughtered and defeated by poor farmers moving in caravans with their families and children. A notable example;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

 

Of course the Voortrekkers were hardy people and put up a stiff resistance against the Zulu. Seeing that the Zulu had no concept of honor, dignity and were for lack of a better term brute savages. Common occurrences such as these were the result if the Voortrekkers did not succeed in defending themselves from Zulu attacks;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenen_massacre

 

Or peace negotiations were also not exactly possible with the Zulu either;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Retief#Death

 

 

 

Hence I find it rather reprehensible to compare a noble people such as the Aiel to the Zulu who were scum at best considering their unadulterated savagery and brutality.

[johthohar]

You kidding me? You going to paint the Zulu as something more than a dismal military force, compare them to the Aiel who are considered among the greatest military force? The Zulu armies were so bad they actually got slaughtered and defeated by poor farmers moving in caravans with their families and children. A notable example;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

 

Of course the Voortrekkers were hardy people and put up a stiff resistance against the Zulu. Seeing that the Zulu had no concept of honor, dignity and were for lack of a better term brute savages. Common occurrences such as these were the result if the Voortrekkers did not succeed in defending themselves from Zulu attacks;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenen_massacre

 

Or peace negotiations were also not exactly possible with the Zulu either;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Retief#Death

 

 

 

Hence I find it rather reprehensible to compare a noble people such as the Aiel to the Zulu who were scum at best considering their unadulterated savagery and brutality.

 

Good points. But I find it a little odd that you get so offended at a slight to a fictional people.

[Muad Cheade]

what I was referencing was the fact that the shienarans said that there were occasional raids by the aiel through the mountains. The members of the shienaran party that escorted rand even said how hard it was to fight them. Remember that the Shienarans are horse archers.

The majority of the Shienaran cavalry are lancers and are primarily heavy cavalry. Their armor is "a combination of leather, mail, and plate, often covered by a surcoat with the Black Hawk upon it." This information is in the BWB.

 

Zulu only beat the british when they outnumbered them a great deal and caught them out in the open.

I referenced the Anglo-Zulu War because it shows that the Zulu/Aiel tactics work and did work against a technologically superior foe.

 

As to finding a quote to prove the shienarans where plate all day, I can't do that. I suppose I will retract it. I remember reading heavy armor and thinking that they must have warn plate. My mental image of them originally was plated armor, but after my more recent readings they have resembled more of a japanese lamellar. I still thought they were in plate though.

As the BWB indicates, the Sheinaran cavalry is primarily heavy and light heavy cavalry so their armor reflects that.

 

 

You kidding me? You going to paint the Zulu as something more than a dismal military force, compare them to the Aiel who are considered among the greatest military force? The Zulu armies were so bad they actually got slaughtered and defeated by poor farmers moving in caravans with their families and children. A notable example;

I am well-versed on the Zulu Empire and their interactions with Europeans, primarily the British Empire, and despite taking my quote and running in the wrong direction, I will address them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

 

Of course the Voortrekkers were hardy people and put up a stiff resistance against the Zulu. Seeing that the Zulu had no concept of honor, dignity and were for lack of a better term brute savages.

Why are the Zulu's savages? For that matter, I suppose I should ask why did the Greeks call everyone else "barbarians?" I digress. Anyways, the Zulu were fighting a losing batter even with their few victories. Asymmetrical warfare rarely benefits the "technologically primitive" party.

 

You also decline to mention the Voortrekkers lost the previous Battle of Italeni, so I'm not sure what you were attempting to imply.

 

Common occurrences such as these were the result if the Voortrekkers did not succeed in defending themselves from Zulu attacks;

Isn't defeat the result if anyone doesn't succeed in "defending himself?"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenen_massacre

 

Or peace negotiations were also not exactly possible with the Zulu either;

Is that the first (and certainly not the last) time a group has massacred another? And why are you implying the Zulu should be singled out even more for committing on? Murder is always a truly horrible act, but I do not get your point. The U.S. massacred Native Americans several times and I don't think I have the time to list them all, so...

 

On a side note, I hope we do find out who massacre the Tinkers Mat and Verin found in LoC.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Retief#Death

My rebuttal is basically the same point I made above.

 

Hence I find it rather reprehensible to compare a noble people such as the Aiel to the Zulu who were scum at best considering their unadulterated savagery and brutality.

Why are you so indignant about the Zulu's being compared to the Aiel? They are one of the inspirations Robert Jordan crafted the Aiel from. For example:

1). Their tactics, the three-pronged, flanking attack (with a reserve group in the rear) are exactly the same.

2). Polygamy.

3). Warfare being the central part of their culture and all able-bodied men are in the army.

4). Their weaponry. Primarily their short spears, "iklwa."

5). Their physical prowess, such as their endurance and being able to out-distance horses.

6). "Washing the spears." That is the most striking one to me and makes me appreciate RJ all the more.

 

Hence, your disgust is not well-founded.

 

Wow. This is really off-topic.

[gary0044187]

what I was referencing was the fact that the shienarans said that there were occasional raids by the aiel through the mountains. The members of the shienaran party that escorted rand even said how hard it was to fight them. Remember that the Shienarans are horse archers.

The majority of the Shienaran cavalry are lancers and are primarily heavy cavalry. Their armor is "a combination of leather, mail, and plate, often covered by a surcoat with the Black Hawk upon it." This information is in the BWB.

 

latest book said the shienaran cavalry with lan were archers. Masema didn't like the two rivers long bow because it couldn't be used from horseback, etc, etc. Just saying they have horse archers. The problem with using the zulu as the basis for a fictional warrior culture is that they never ran into any Euro or Asian medieval force. They fought a colonial force that rarely fielded an equal number of men but had a major technological advantage. There is no telling what would have happened if the zulu after shaka had fought mongols, crusaders or a mamluk army for instance, which all three would be contemporary to the in story armies. The only thing we get is the author saying that this one nation is superior to the rest of the world in fighting skill at a ratio of 3 to 1. which is enough explanation for me, just like the fact that I don't really question how the entire shienaran army is heavy or light cavalry (where do they get all the horses?).

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

what I was referencing was the fact that the shienarans said that there were occasional raids by the aiel through the mountains. The members of the shienaran party that escorted rand even said how hard it was to fight them. Remember that the Shienarans are horse archers.

The majority of the Shienaran cavalry are lancers and are primarily heavy cavalry. Their armor is "a combination of leather, mail, and plate, often covered by a surcoat with the Black Hawk upon it." This information is in the BWB.

 

Zulu only beat the british when they outnumbered them a great deal and caught them out in the open.

I referenced the Anglo-Zulu War because it shows that the Zulu/Aiel tactics work and did work against a technologically superior foe.

 

As to finding a quote to prove the shienarans where plate all day, I can't do that. I suppose I will retract it. I remember reading heavy armor and thinking that they must have warn plate. My mental image of them originally was plated armor, but after my more recent readings they have resembled more of a japanese lamellar. I still thought they were in plate though.

As the BWB indicates, the Sheinaran cavalry is primarily heavy and light heavy cavalry so their armor reflects that.

 

 

You kidding me? You going to paint the Zulu as something more than a dismal military force, compare them to the Aiel who are considered among the greatest military force? The Zulu armies were so bad they actually got slaughtered and defeated by poor farmers moving in caravans with their families and children. A notable example;

I am well-versed on the Zulu Empire and their interactions with Europeans, primarily the British Empire, and despite taking my quote and running in the wrong direction, I will address them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

 

Of course the Voortrekkers were hardy people and put up a stiff resistance against the Zulu. Seeing that the Zulu had no concept of honor, dignity and were for lack of a better term brute savages.

Why are the Zulu's savages? For that matter, I suppose I should ask why did the Greeks call everyone else "barbarians?" I digress. Anyways, the Zulu were fighting a losing batter even with their few victories. Asymmetrical warfare rarely benefits the "technologically primitive" party.

 

You also decline to mention the Voortrekkers lost the previous Battle of Italeni, so I'm not sure what you were attempting to imply.

 

Common occurrences such as these were the result if the Voortrekkers did not succeed in defending themselves from Zulu attacks;

Isn't defeat the result if anyone doesn't succeed in "defending himself?"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenen_massacre

 

Or peace negotiations were also not exactly possible with the Zulu either;

Is that the first (and certainly not the last) time a group has massacred another? And why are you implying the Zulu should be singled out even more for committing on? Murder is always a truly horrible act, but I do not get your point. The U.S. massacred Native Americans several times and I don't think I have the time to list them all, so...

 

On a side note, I hope we do find out who massacre the Tinkers Mat and Verin found in LoC.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Retief#Death

My rebuttal is basically the same point I made above.

 

Hence I find it rather reprehensible to compare a noble people such as the Aiel to the Zulu who were scum at best considering their unadulterated savagery and brutality.

Why are you so indignant about the Zulu's being compared to the Aiel? They are one of the inspirations Robert Jordan crafted the Aiel from. For example:

1). Their tactics, the three-pronged, flanking attack (with a reserve group in the rear) are exactly the same.

2). Polygamy.

3). Warfare being the central part of their culture and all able-bodied men are in the army.

4). Their weaponry. Primarily their short spears, "iklwa."

5). Their physical prowess, such as their endurance and being able to out-distance horses.

6). "Washing the spears." That is the most striking one to me and makes me appreciate RJ all the more.

 

Hence, your disgust is not well-founded.

 

Wow. This is really off-topic.

 

 

Italeni was a phyrric victory for the Zulu since they only killed 10 Voortrekker and probably lost a few dozen men themselves only to harass a scouting party. Also obviously they couldn't have been all that fast or able to outdistance horses since the Voortrekkers were able to ride away safely on their mounts, comfortably outdistancing the Zulu.

 

That aside you know very well that my point wasn't "defeat" happens if you get beat in battle. It's along the lines that the Zulu were despicable insofar that they had no concept of humanity, dignity or chivalry. They took no captives and always executed every man, woman and child regardless of age. Even worse mutilation of corpses also wasn't that uncommon among them. It wasn't odd for a Voortrekker party to venture across a bunch of wagons completely destroyed and with 5 year old kids conspicuously missing something between their shoulders.

 

So it's common and acceptable to slaughter and mutilate a party bearing the white flag wishing for peace negotiations and coming to you on good intentions? My condolences for your conscience.

 

So the US always murdered every man, woman and child when it came to natives? I doubt that considering the existence of reservations and events such as the trail of tears. Even analyzing this though, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also fail to see how the US is relevant to this debate, since I harbor no connection to the US anyway seeing that I am not a US citizen nor do I live there.

 

Needless to say though. Obviously the Zulu were less than honorable considering a modern politician of the ANC actually publically apologized to the modern-Boer for past transgressions and exclaimed hopes for national unity.

[Muad Cheade]

latest book said the shienaran cavalry with lan were archers. Masema didn't like the two rivers long bow because it couldn't be used from horseback, etc, etc. Just saying they have horse archers. The problem with using the zulu as the basis for a fictional warrior culture is that they never ran into any Euro or Asian medieval force. They fought a colonial force that rarely fielded an equal number of men but had a major technological advantage. There is no telling what would have happened if the zulu after shaka had fought mongols, crusaders or a mamluk army for instance, which all three would be contemporary to the in story armies. The only thing we get is the author saying that this one nation is superior to the rest of the world in fighting skill at a ratio of 3 to 1. which is enough explanation for me, just like the fact that I don't really question how the entire shienaran army is heavy or light cavalry (where do they get all the horses?).

You rasie some very good points there.

 

 

Italeni was a phyrric victory for the Zulu since they only killed 10 Voortrekker and probably lost a few dozen men themselves only to harass a scouting party. Also obviously they couldn't have been all that fast or able to outdistance horses since the Voortrekkers were able to ride away safely on their mounts, comfortably outdistancing the Zulu.

To be frank, every victory the Zulu Empire achieved was Pyrrhic, so yeah.

 

That aside you know very well that my point wasn't "defeat" happens if you get beat in battle. It's along the lines that the Zulu were despicable insofar that they had no concept of humanity, dignity or chivalry. They took no captives and always executed every man, woman and child regardless of age. Even worse mutilation of corpses also wasn't that uncommon among them. It wasn't odd for a Voortrekker party to venture across a bunch of wagons completely destroyed and with 5 year old kids conspicuously missing something between their shoulders.

 

So it's common and acceptable to slaughter and mutilate a party bearing the white flag wishing for peace negotiations and coming to you on good intentions? My condolences for your conscience.

 

So the US always murdered every man, woman and child when it came to natives? I doubt that considering the existence of reservations and events such as the trail of tears. Even analyzing this though, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also fail to see how the US is relevant to this debate, since I harbor no connection to the US anyway seeing that I am not a US citizen nor do I live there.

 

Needless to say though. Obviously the Zulu were less than honorable considering a modern politician of the ANC actually publically apologized to the modern-Boer for past transgressions and exclaimed hopes for national unity.

What my point was why do you feel the Zulu should be singled out especially? Murder, genocide, cruelty etc has been occurring since the dawn of time (a sad fact, but true). There's nothing new under the sun.

[johthohar]

**loud break squealing noise**

 

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about blade masters? I can see how it got derailed but discussing the Zulu isn't really productive to this topic is it? Were they dicks? Yea, I'm sure they were. What does it have to do with Gawyn and his skill with a sword?

[marathdamane]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My background: Martial artist for 16 years, quite a few of those years involving weapons training with one of the most well known historical european martial arts groups learning Medieval and renaissance german longsword and related weapons, though I've also played with escrima practitioners using their toys. When I was active in weapons training I was... more then decent :) I was given a teaching position for a while and a lot of the training I did was sparring.

 

 

So from experience I'll just say that a staff has a tremendous advantage over a sword if you have room to use it properly. A very skilled swordsman can have a lot of difficulty getting past the reach advantage of even a halfway competent hand at the staff. It's also worth noting that a lot of staff fighting isn't big arcing swings, it's quick deceptive feinting thrusts at the face and body, they're lightning fast and require very little commitment of energy to throw but hit with a lot of force. Also staff strikes don't have to be big dramatic movements, with one hand pushing and the other pulling with a little body movement you can throw hard hits with out a big swing. You can throw a hard strike to the head and with little more then a twist of the arms transition that strike into a crippling hit to the leg within a split second.

 

 

Throw a blade on the end of that staff ala Mat's ashanderi and you've taken a weapon that already has a huge advantage over a sword and suddenly made it much more deadly and versatile. From a historical weapons combat trained background I'd have to say Mat would be very likely to get the better of all the randland blademasters because of his expertise coupled with the tremendous advantage of his weapon of choice.

[marathdamane]

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.

 

 

 

Actually you'd fare better with a larger medieval/renaissance style longsword sword. In fact your best chance would probably be using half-sword techniques to defend from the staff while rushing in from an offset blow because it would make it much easier to put yourself in a position to get past the sweet spot of the staffs striking and thrusting ability and come into range to employ "wrestling at the sword" to make yourself a real threat inside the staffs effective range. (Edit: On second thought you probably wouldn't want to start in half-sword, but you would probably want to make that transition when you close the distance because it gives more leverage for working on the inside, admittedly it's been a while since I've picked up a waster and gone head to head with a staff :) )

 

The closest actual weapon counterpart to what they use in the olympics would be the smallsword and defeating a smallsword with a staff would be easy pickings. Reason being; A small sword would not have the range or quickness to outdo the staffs quick feinting thrusts and devastating striking ability. It also wouldn't have the mass or leverage to have much chance of displacing a staff strike to give you a chance to close the distance. As for the toys in the olympics, they are just toys, made to be wickedly light for a game of tag. They bear little resemblance to actual weapons. In any case; A smallsword or rapier might be more apt to kill if you could actually get the thrust in. But a staff can thrust to with about the same speed as and from a much safer distance. It might not run you through, but a staff thrust is more then enough to double someone over, trying to suck air, or to make them eat their teeth :)

 

 

 

 

As for someone saying that the quarterstaff was a superior weapon to the sword overall, that is unlikely, given the history of said weapons. If the quarterstaff was indeed superior, than the armies of the world would have used it in battle instead of mostly sword type weapons.

 

 

 

Poleweapons WERE the primary weapons of most infantry. Swords were more expensive and require much more training to use effectively. Even ye olde knights in shining armor would primarily rely on a polearm when on foot, probably a poleaxe or polehammer. A sword is generally a backup weapon or a personal use sidearm, depending on the context and type of sword. Pointing out that armies didn't use staffs is a little disingenuous because armies would use spears (a staff with a blade on the end) or halberds of some sort (a staff with a more complex blade on the end, but still easier to make and learn then a sword).

 

 

Anyways, back on topic, I feel like the text has given more examples of Gawyn showing his skills but I'm inclined to believe the author on the relative skills of the characters. In any case I love the way Galad just kind of casually said that he really didn't want to have to kill the shienarians and the shienarians took him seriously. That was a pretty badass scene.

 

As far as gawyn and the bloodknives, I'd have to call gawyn lucky (not that he's not badass), I'd also have to say that Gawyn was using a sword and I think the blood knives had long knives at best, right? Pretty big weapon advantage if you're going head to head.

[Ananta]

Best way to beat Quarterstaff would be going Drizzt Do'Urden on the Quarterstaff user.

 

That is, using 2 sabres, one in each hand.

[johthohar]

Best way to beat Quarterstaff would be going Drizzt Do'Urden on the Quarterstaff user.

 

That is, using 2 sabres, one in each hand.

 

Ugh...... Someone HAD to bring D&D crap into the forum and ruin it for me.

[marathdamane]

Best way to beat Quarterstaff would be going Drizzt Do'Urden on the Quarterstaff user.

 

That is, using 2 sabres, one in each hand.

 

Ugh...... Someone HAD to bring D&D crap into the forum and ruin it for me.

 

 

 

Double sabers are serious.....almost as serious as double staffs ;)

[Hadilmir]

Actually, if I were to be forced to fight a quarterstaff wielder without also wielding a polearm myself, I very well would chose to use either a Case of Rapiers style fighting or more likely a Ssang gum. That is one of the only ways I can see a swordsman defeating a similarly proficient staff wielder. The necessity of two weapon fighting always using one blade to attack as the other defends becomes a crucial skill when fighting against a single weapon that can also be used in the same manner. Still, the time it would take just to learn a two blade fighting style could easily produce a master-at-arms with a staff, twice. The difference in time required to train the two opponents may be measured in months if not years depending on what level of proficiency we're talking about.

 

I'd give a practiced Ssang gum swordsman 2 matches in 5 against a staff wielder of equal skill.

 

 

Anyways-

 

A Fade would beat a Bloodknife, but the Bloodknife would fair better against a human than the Fade. Still, Gawyn wins, I'd choose him over two fades working in tandem any day and give him a fair chance against three fades.

[Barid Bel Medar]

I really dont see how anyone could vote other than Lan in this topic.

 

As I am sure it has been mentioned earlier, Brandon has already confirmed the rank goes Lan -> Galad -> Gawyn

[Entreri]

"A Fade would beat a Bloodknife, but the Bloodknife would fair better against a human than the Fade. Still, Gawyn wins, I'd choose him over two fades working in tandem any day and give him a fair chance against three fades."

 

Probably the first part is likely, given that a Fade's stare can stop most men in their tracks and possibly the Fade can see through the shadow and his attacks would not miss the bloodknife.

 

I doubt that any man can take on 2 Fades at once with the possible exception of Lan or Jearom. Nobody would be able to take on 3 at once. Each Fade appears to have the skill of a blademaster, carry's a truly lethal sword (smallest cut with kill without being Healed), plus they can take a lot of punishment (many times that of a human) before dying. We have not seen anyone in the series taking out more than 1 Fade at a time, this includes the likes of Lan, Rhuarc, Gaul, Mat, Rand and Perrin. According to Mat, you have to overwhelm the Fade before it overwhelms you.

 

 

Iturlade (a blademaster) said that a Fade could take out 12 men. I don't see any bloodknife taking out 12 men at once. Probably 1/2 of that is due to the Fade's stare, freezing men in fear = easy kills. I believe that 3 died taking out the remaining bloodknife in the WT, including a Warder.

 

So upon further consideration, Fade > Bloodknife. Although the Bloodknife would be close behind. Hopefully we see them fighting each other in AmOL.

 

Fade =~ 12 men who are afraid of it or about 6 men who are not

Bloodknife =~ 4-5 men

 

What Gawyn did is amazing indeed. Lucky for him the Bloodknife's weapons were not poisonous.

[Entreri]

Best way to beat Quarterstaff would be going Drizzt Do'Urden on the Quarterstaff user.

 

That is, using 2 sabres, one in each hand.

 

Did someone say dual wielding? :) That little man with the little stick has no chance against Drizzt, let alone the likes of Entreri.

[Hadilmir]

I doubt that any man can take on 2 Fades at once with the possible exception of Lan or Jearom. Nobody would be able to take on 3 at once. Each Fade appears to have the skill of a blademaster, carry's a truly lethal sword (smallest cut with kill without being Healed), plus they can take a lot of punishment (many times that of a human) before dying. We have not seen anyone in the series taking out more than 1 Fade at a time, this includes the likes of Lan, Rhuarc, Gaul, Mat, Rand and Perrin. According to Mat, you have to overwhelm the Fade before it overwhelms you.

 

That is mostly because we've never seen two fades fighting side by side. However, Gawyn beat Sleete and Marlesh at the same time, both of which I'd place above a myrddraal. Remember, he beat them both solidly several times with no losses or injuries as far as I recall. The Fades' speed is problematic though; I'd say no matter how skilled, no man can defeat four myrddraal at once. Lan could beat three Fades for the majority of the fights, but I give him an incredibly small chance to beat four at once and that would only be due to both luck and his amazing swordsmanship being at their absolute peaks. (Note: I'm only saying he could beat the three or four, he could die later from the Thakan'dar blade wounds just as easily)

[Entreri]

I doubt that any man can take on 2 Fades at once with the possible exception of Lan or Jearom. Nobody would be able to take on 3 at once. Each Fade appears to have the skill of a blademaster, carry's a truly lethal sword (smallest cut with kill without being Healed), plus they can take a lot of punishment (many times that of a human) before dying. We have not seen anyone in the series taking out more than 1 Fade at a time, this includes the likes of Lan, Rhuarc, Gaul, Mat, Rand and Perrin. According to Mat, you have to overwhelm the Fade before it overwhelms you.

 

That is mostly because we've never seen two fades fighting side by side. However, Gawyn beat Sleete and Marlesh at the same time, both of which I'd place above a myrddraal. Remember, he beat them both solidly several times with no losses or injuries as far as I recall. The Fades' speed is problematic though; I'd say no matter how skilled, no man can defeat four myrddraal at once. Lan could beat three Fades for the majority of the fights, but I give him an incredibly small chance to beat four at once and that would only be due to both luck and his amazing swordsmanship being at their absolute peaks. (Note: I'm only saying he could beat the three or four, he could die later from the Thakan'dar blade wounds just as easily)

 

Sleete would be able to defeat 1 Fade, I highly doubt Marlesh could. If Fades were that easy to defeat, essentially most Warders could, then they would not be that feared. Most Warders while great, are not blademaster level.

 

If memory serves me correctly, Rhuarc and about 4 other Aiel confronted 2 Fades...Rhuarc said the 2 Fades could have killed them all, if not for Nynaeve et al and balefire. Rhuarc=Lan, prior to Moraine dying and Lan going to another level (level 99 Warder?). Rhuarc certainly would have killed his Fade, so that left 4 on 1...Thus this implies that Rhuarc could not take on 2 Fades at once, and that even with 4 Aiel on 1 Fade, it was no guarantee of victory.

 

Rhuarc is certainly top tier Aiel fighter, should be able to take on 8-9 soldiers at once, possibly 10. We saw somebody like Gaul unarmed finishing off about 8 armed Whitecloaks (him and Perrin with an axe took out a dozen, and Gaul took out most of them, Perrin was "amazed"). So I would certainly say that the very best Aiel are at or near Lan/Jearom level. Jearom having taking out 10 at once.

 

From the various fights throughout the series, I estimate:

 

1 Fade = 6 'fearless' soliders

 

1 average Warder = 3 average soliders, thus taking more than 2 to finish a Fade.

 

1 average Aiel = at least 2 average soliders, thus taking more than 3 to finish a Fade. We have seen a Fade kill 2 Aiel at once (then Mat finished it off...)

 

There is no way Lan could take on 3, let alone 4, unless he uses a bloodknife ter'angreal, even then he would get cut badly and eventually die from the 'poison' of the Fades sword well before the ter'angreal kills him.

 

Thus, even to take on two Fades at once, Lan would have to be at his peak and be lucky. Given that 2 Fades = 12 soliders and their weapons are so deadly and they are hard to kill/taking many hits.

 

To take on 3 Fades at once, Lan would have to be more than Gawyn lucky.

[Hadilmir]

To take on 3 Fades at once, Lan would have to be more than Gawyn lucky.

 

You can't compare Lan fighting Fades and Rhuarc fighting Fades for one extremely important reason: Lan fights with a sword, Rhuarc a spear. Against a myrddraal, that spear is extremely inefficient. Lan and Rhuarc may be equals in fighting ability, but the nature of each respective fighting style plays a huge part in this. To be more specific, I mean Lan against 3 Fades would be a 3:5 win ratio whereas Lan against 4 would be a 1:500 ratio. As for surviving his victories against 3 myrdraal? Not likely, I'd say the ratio against 3 and surviving is 3:50 and surviving against 4 at effectively 0.