Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

True Masters of the Blade


Recommended Posts

Yes and no , Rand was not a blademaster , far from it but he got the athlete background , Matt , Perrin and Rand where already exceptionable archer the day they left Edmond field . I don't have the quote on hand .

Then he was trained by Lan and he get into it almost day and night , he never stopped training even in the waste among Aiel .

But yes the story needed them to grow strong fast so they are exceptional fighter at the core , that is the Ta'veren nature .

 

Umm...

 

Isn't a blademaster a post breaking thing? So while LTT may be an expert swordsman, he admitted as much, he's no "Blademaster." Since that name occured after he died.

 

Nevermind, apparently I'm wrong. Actually, the wiki said I'm wrong, do we ever see in the text where Lews says he was a Blademaster? I recall Ishhy saying we took the tame game called swords and learned to kill with it, and how the forms are based on that game, but that doesn't make him a blademaster.

Edited by Vardarmus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes and no , Rand was not a blademaster , far from it but he got the athlete background , Matt , Perrin and Rand where already exceptionable archer the day they left Edmond field . I don't have the quote on hand .

Then he was trained by Lan and he get into it almost day and night , he never stopped training even in the waste among Aiel .

But yes the story needed them to grow strong fast so they are exceptional fighter at the core , that is the Ta'veren nature .

 

He defeated a blademaster, book 2, thus he is a blademaster. No questions about it. Them's the rules.

technically no, there was no witnesses. Rand states this himself

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no , Rand was not a blademaster , far from it but he got the athlete background , Matt , Perrin and Rand where already exceptionable archer the day they left Edmond field . I don't have the quote on hand .

Then he was trained by Lan and he get into it almost day and night , he never stopped training even in the waste among Aiel .

But yes the story needed them to grow strong fast so they are exceptional fighter at the core , that is the Ta'veren nature .

 

He defeated a blademaster, book 2, thus he is a blademaster. No questions about it. Them's the rules.

technically no, there was no witnesses. Rand states this himself

 

There were two witnesses, they died. Mat, Perrin and Hurrin are technically witnesses, they left the room, no one entered, they came back he was dead.

 

You may be right, but it doesn't change the defeat any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no , Rand was not a blademaster , far from it but he got the athlete background , Matt , Perrin and Rand where already exceptionable archer the day they left Edmond field . I don't have the quote on hand .

Then he was trained by Lan and he get into it almost day and night , he never stopped training even in the waste among Aiel .

But yes the story needed them to grow strong fast so they are exceptional fighter at the core , that is the Ta'veren nature .

 

Umm...

 

Isn't a blademaster a post breaking thing? So while LTT may be an expert swordsman, he admitted as much, he's no "Blademaster." Since that name occured after he died.

 

Nevermind, apparently I'm wrong. Actually, the wiki said I'm wrong, do we ever see in the text where Lews says he was a Blademaster? I recall Ishhy saying we took the tame game called swords and learned to kill with it, and how the forms are based on that game, but that doesn't make him a blademaster.

The institution of blademasters as known in the Third Age didn't exist in the AoL. In the AoL, heron marked swords were reserved for army commanders, with other power wrought swords given to ordinary soldiers (one of these swords became the sword of Malkieri kings - Lan doesn't use a heron-marked sword). While LTT might have a level of skill equivalent to a blademaster, he is not a blademaster per se.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no , Rand was not a blademaster , far from it but he got the athlete background , Matt , Perrin and Rand where already exceptionable archer the day they left Edmond field . I don't have the quote on hand .

Then he was trained by Lan and he get into it almost day and night , he never stopped training even in the waste among Aiel .

But yes the story needed them to grow strong fast so they are exceptional fighter at the core , that is the Ta'veren nature .

 

Umm...

 

Isn't a blademaster a post breaking thing? So while LTT may be an expert swordsman, he admitted as much, he's no "Blademaster." Since that name occured after he died.

 

Nevermind, apparently I'm wrong. Actually, the wiki said I'm wrong, do we ever see in the text where Lews says he was a Blademaster? I recall Ishhy saying we took the tame game called swords and learned to kill with it, and how the forms are based on that game, but that doesn't make him a blademaster.

The institution of blademasters as known in the Third Age didn't exist in the AoL. In the AoL, heron marked swords were reserved for army commanders, with other power wrought swords given to ordinary soldiers (one of these swords became the sword of Malkieri kings - Lan doesn't use a heron-marked sword). While LTT might have a level of skill equivalent to a blademaster, he is not a blademaster per se.

 

Exactly what I thought. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a blademaster by any other name still be as skilled?

 

yes, however in theory you can be more skilled than a blademaster and not be a blademaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a blademaster by any other name still be as skilled?

 

yes, however in theory you can be more skilled than a blademaster and not be a blademaster.

only if we are using the term bladdmaster as a title and not as a description - master of the blade. If it is a description, then you are a blademaster based on your level. Lan does not use a heron-marked sword, but anyone who fought him would consider him a blademaster even if they had no idea that he actually was one. The title is useless, only skill matters.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a blademaster by any other name still be as skilled?

 

yes, however in theory you can be more skilled than a blademaster and not be a blademaster.

only if we are using the term bladdmaster as a title and not as a description - master of the blade. If it is a description, then you are a blademaster based on your level. Lan does not use a heron-marked sword, but anyone who fought him would consider him a blademaster even if they had no idea that he actually was one. The title is useless, only skill matters.

 

Umm. The entire topic isn't about blademasters, but the last page was just blademaster, the title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a blademaster by any other name still be as skilled?

 

yes, however in theory you can be more skilled than a blademaster and not be a blademaster.

only if we are using the term bladdmaster as a title and not as a description - master of the blade. If it is a description, then you are a blademaster based on your level. Lan does not use a heron-marked sword, but anyone who fought him would consider him a blademaster even if they had no idea that he actually was one. The title is useless, only skill matters.

 

Umm. The entire topic isn't about blademasters, but the last page was just blademaster, the title.

i was responding to your statement about someone being better than a blademaster while not being one themselves. That is only possible if we use blademaster as a title only. If it is a description then they would both be blademasters
Link to post
Share on other sites

well sorry for chiming in with something irrelevant but I think that Elan said it for me a few pages back from the textual evidence given Gawyn is a better swordsman then Galad and if BS thinks otherwise. He should have shown it in text and not made a snide comment on luck and all that crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well sorry for chiming in with something irrelevant but I think that Elan said it for me a few pages back from the textual evidence given Gawyn is a better swordsman then Galad and if BS thinks otherwise. He should have shown it in text and not made a snide comment on luck and all that crap.

 

Problem is the textual evidence does no such thing and when posters such as yourself are asked to proove it they can never do so. More screen time does not make Gawyn a better fighter. The only time in the text we can compare the two Galad was superior in both objective results and character's opinions. After that point we have no idea how Gawyn would have fared against Valda, or how Galad would have fared against the bloodknives. We do know Galad is the better natural fighter and Gawyn is worked " nearly to death to learn half what Galad does without trying.” Lastly and perhaps most important we have word of God from both authors stating Galad is better. End of.

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but...

 

Really, any time Galad touches a sword, EVERYONE around him makes note of how he is graceful, beautiful death on 2 legs. Kind of like a young, pretty Lan.

dont have to be graceful to be effective

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you actually read the passages where Gawyn fights the Bloodknives and don't get all wrapped up in the drama of one pretty good blademaster vs 3 supernaturally-enhanced assassins, you can actually see where and how Gawyn gets lucky in his fight. The only part of what BS said that was snarky was the "than he thinks he is" part. I think Gawyn was pretty aware in that fight of how lucky he was getting, and exactly how he was relying on luck. Perhaps what BS should have said is "Gawyn was luckier than you think he is." Re-read it and pay closer attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but...

 

Really, any time Galad touches a sword, EVERYONE around him makes note of how he is graceful, beautiful death on 2 legs. Kind of like a young, pretty Lan.

dont have to be graceful to be effective

 

No, you don't. I could beat an average man to death with a shoe if I really wanted to, and there'd be nothing graceful about it. MY point was that when he is killing, it is so smooth and effortless and...good...that he still comes across as graceful and beautiful. Warders and Aiel and Tam and Rand are all described as having a wolf's graceful way at some time or another, so for Galad to be so damned good and graceful (how many times can I get away with using graceful?) that he awes people who are used to warders' graceful movement speaks volumes, even when people aren't saying "Galad is the finest swordsman I've ever seen! I would never bet against him. He's amazing!!!" every time he walks past.

 

Graceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but...

 

Really, any time Galad touches a sword, EVERYONE around him makes note of how he is graceful, beautiful death on 2 legs. Kind of like a young, pretty Lan.

dont have to be graceful to be effective

 

No, you don't. I could beat an average man to death with a shoe if I really wanted to, and there'd be nothing graceful about it. MY point was that when he is killing, it is so smooth and effortless and...good...that he still comes across as graceful and beautiful. Warders and Aiel and Tam and Rand are all described as having a wolf's graceful way at some time or another, so for Galad to be so damned good and graceful (how many times can I get away with using graceful?) that he awes people who are used to warders' graceful movement speaks volumes, even when people aren't saying "Galad is the finest swordsman I've ever seen! I would never bet against him. He's amazing!!!" every time he walks past.

 

Graceful.

said it one too many times there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but...

 

Really, any time Galad touches a sword, EVERYONE around him makes note of how he is graceful, beautiful death on 2 legs. Kind of like a young, pretty Lan.

dont have to be graceful to be effective

 

No, you don't. I could beat an average man to death with a shoe if I really wanted to, and there'd be nothing graceful about it. MY point was that when he is killing, it is so smooth and effortless and...good...that he still comes across as graceful and beautiful. Warders and Aiel and Tam and Rand are all described as having a wolf's graceful way at some time or another, so for Galad to be so damned good and graceful (how many times can I get away with using graceful?) that he awes people who are used to warders' graceful movement speaks volumes, even when people aren't saying "Galad is the finest swordsman I've ever seen! I would never bet against him. He's amazing!!!" every time he walks past.

 

Graceful.

 

I think them quoting his "gracefullness" was more a point of his beauty than just his form work.

 

And Sutt, that's not entirely true. Quotes were provided a few pages back that directly and strongly implies Gawyn beat Hammar and Couldin single-handed in a to the death contest, soon after the time Galad was still at his 3/5 and Gawyn was at his 2/5 which would lend support to the whole, Gawyn thinks to himself how much better Galad is not because he actually is, but because he's his older brother who he looks up too and he doesn't want to be better than him.

 

You do have it on the word of God part, but I'd still agrue with the context of the book, regardless of who had more screen time, Gawyn had the better opponents to fight against in the last year to get better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still very much like to entertain the thought that the one who secretly is using the title "Master of the Blades" is actually Moridin.

Now I'm not implying he is that good with a sword at all, but hear me out:

 

M'hael means Leader in the Old Tongue. What does "Taim" lead? Asha'man.

Pull those together as was done with Tsorovan'm'hael (in the Old Tongue it means Storm Leader) and you get:

 

Asha'm'hael

 

You might recall that right at the start of his story RJ wrote that Ishamael would "make men kneel and worship the name they gave him"

 

Considering how "Taim" wants to turn people into weapons and how he rules the Black Tower with an iron fist and considering that the Old Tongue 'doesn't translate easily' and often Old Tongue words have sligthly variying meanings due to it's flexibility.

I think this is another hint that Ishamael is transmigrated into Taim's body and this is RJ's way of making what Ishamael said in the Prologue reality;

 

Ishamael poses as Taim and as the Asha'm'hael -as the Master of the Blades- makes men kneel and worship him (all his Asha'man cronies).

 

Cheerio,

Mik

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vardarmus

Actually we don't know which have had better opponents.

 

We know both Hammer and Valda were blade masters, but as they never fought each other then there is no way to directly compare them.

 

Just because person A beat person B and person B beat person C, does not mean that person A can beat person C. Can only know that if they actually fight.

 

Plus you are comparing, a person that has spent the last how long as nothing but a trainer with no life and death situations to keep him sharp, to a professional soldier that does fight and kill pretty regularly; and comparing a person that trains with nothing but warder class people to a soldier that uses fear against mostly innocent farmers and citizens. These two people cannot be looked at to be the same, with out them fighting to the death no one knows who would have beaten who.

So we have the book evidence, and the word of god to go by... and since the book evidence isn't conclusive you kinda have to take RJ and BS word.

Edited by Kamin_Majere
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vardarmus

Actually we don't know which have had better opponents.

 

We know both Hammer and Valda were blade masters, but as they never fought each other then there is no way to directly compare them.

 

Just because person A beat person B and person B beat person C, does not mean that person A can beat person C. Can only know that if they actually fight.

 

Plus you are comparing, a person that has spent the last how long as nothing but a trainer with no life and death situations to keep him sharp, to a professional soldier that does fight and kill pretty regularly; and comparing a person that trains with nothing but warder class people to a soldier that uses fear against mostly innocent farmers and citizens. These two people cannot be looked at to be the same, with out them fighting to the death no one knows who would have beaten who.

So we have the book evidence, and the word of god to go by... and since the book evidence isn't conclusive you kinda have to take RJ and BS word.

 

As Warders, Hammar and Couldin are actually soldiers. And how often does a professional soldier of Valad's rank fight? Like Mat said, good Generals don't lead from the front lines. Claiming he's a soldier so he has more life and death situations than a warder is stretching it.

 

You're correct with your A,B,C thing, but it can still be seen that the book strongly implies things, which was my point. Saying it's totally inconclusive is not entirely truthful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True warders are soldiers, but they are very limited in their engagements. Valda on the other had has more than likely been on quite a few campaigns if the banners on Naill's wall were truly collected over his time as Lord Commander. (though no evidence shows he [valda] was ever in a battle)

 

There is just to many empty spots to give a conclusive answer. If we go by things that are strongly implied in the books then the stories would be quite different... As it is we have no "real" evidence one way or another. The only thing we know for sure is that Gawyn has had more battles on screen, the difficulty levels of these battles are uncertain.

 

If we go by propaganda then his battle with the blood knives surely means Gawyn is a living god of combat and short of a full army against him Gawyn is unbeatable, but because this is propaganda we dont know if blood knives are really all they are cracked up to be. Good assassins yes, good fighters its unknown. The same goes for Valda and Hammer and every other battle the two have had, with no evidence one way or another its just "word of mouth" from characters surrounding the situations we have and thats not good proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but...

 

Really, any time Galad touches a sword, EVERYONE around him makes note of how he is graceful, beautiful death on 2 legs. Kind of like a young, pretty Lan.

dont have to be graceful to be effective

 

No, you don't. I could beat an average man to death with a shoe if I really wanted to, and there'd be nothing graceful about it. MY point was that when he is killing, it is so smooth and effortless and...good...that he still comes across as graceful and beautiful. Warders and Aiel and Tam and Rand are all described as having a wolf's graceful way at some time or another, so for Galad to be so damned good and graceful (how many times can I get away with using graceful?) that he awes people who are used to warders' graceful movement speaks volumes, even when people aren't saying "Galad is the finest swordsman I've ever seen! I would never bet against him. He's amazing!!!" every time he walks past.

 

Graceful.

 

I think them quoting his "gracefullness" was more a point of his beauty than just his form work.

 

And Sutt, that's not entirely true. Quotes were provided a few pages back that directly and strongly implies Gawyn beat Hammar and Couldin single-handed in a to the death contest, soon after the time Galad was still at his 3/5 and Gawyn was at his 2/5 which would lend support to the whole, Gawyn thinks to himself how much better Galad is not because he actually is, but because he's his older brother who he looks up too and he doesn't want to be better than him.

 

You do have it on the word of God part, but I'd still agrue with the context of the book, regardless of who had more screen time, Gawyn had the better opponents to fight against in the last year to get better.

 

Ok you lost me here. Nothing says he fought them 2 on 1(or maybe you meant by himself but seperately) and we have no idea how Galad would have fared against either. What we do know is Galad was faring much better against them a short time before. In addition backing up Gawyn's opinion is Nyn, Mats(who said Galad was obviously the deadlier of the two) and others that says Galad is better. So it's not just an older brother thing.

 

If you think the text is more than "screen time" and you think Gawyn has somehow vaulted past Galad despite being less naturally talented and learning slower by all means provide the evidence and we can discuss. the two warders Gawyn beat we're "trainers" at this point in their career while Morgase cited Valda as one of the best blade masters in the world. Take that for what you will but there is zero way to prove how either would have fared against the other opponents(although Galads previous record in training hints he would have had little trouble). So yes, it is inconclusive. Using a fight that happened off screen with zero proof of how it played out isn't that persuasive of an argument.

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok you lost me here. Nothing says he fought them 2 on 1(or maybe you meant by himself but seperately) and we have no idea how Galad would have fared against either. What we do know is Galad was faring much better against them a short time before. In addition backing up Gawyn's opinion is Nyn, Mats(who said Galad was obviously the deadlier of the two) and others that says Galad is better. So it's not just an older brother thing.

 

If you think the text is more than "screen time" and you think Gawyn has somehow vaulted past Galad despite being less naturally talented and learning slower by all means provide the evidence and we can discuss.

 

On the last point the two warders Gawyn beat we're "trainers" at this point in their career while Morgase cited Valada as one of the best blade masters in the world. Take that for what you will but there is zero way to prove how either would have fared against the other opponents(although Galads previous record in training hints he would have had little trouble).

 

Yes I meant by himself separately. Much better, I wouldn't call it that. (But we'll get back into the 2/5 vs the 3/5 argument not today!)

 

I did, it was the whole who's had the more deadly foes in the last year argument I posted. Gawyn by a long shot. Galad has been at best harrying peasents. So Learning slower (Which I would argue isn't necessairly true, Galad was older at this point), but Gawyn had battlefield experience against Aiel and other foes that Galad has been lacking. Gawyn then had experience against trained soldiers, harrying the Salidar armies, Galad again is harrying peasents (Until his big duel).

 

Anyway, I was just trying to show how there is some evidence in the words pointing it out, and not just, nothing to really prove it.

 

Last paragraph, we know they were trainers, but do we know conclusively that's all they were? Do we even know who's Warders they were? Or that they were too old?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you know, there is a lot in this story we didn't see on screen. Making judgments on only what you have seen when you know more took place is silly. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, you have to go with what the authors say and we have nothing that counts as proof. What we have are a few extraordinary fights and a lot of hearsay from the books themselves, none of which are conclusive, for a variety of reasons.

 

Hearsay, it's impossible to know how much of it is exaggerated and how much just plain, honest truth, but at the same time, when everyone is saying the same thing (i.e., Lan is the best of the Warders and that means the best of the best kind of thing), you have to give it a decent amount of weight, because these are people who know weaponry and combat and their opinions all generally agree, kinda like with the general all around agreement on who the Great Captains are.

 

The fights themselves, the problem is that we don't know how skilled and/or lucky you have to be to pull of what the people in the books do, whether it be Gawyn with the Bloodknives or Galad with Valda or anything else that happened. We don't know how good Hammar and Coulin were in comparison to Lan, though we know that by the time Galad split for the Whitecloaks he could already win a majority of his fights with Hammar. We know Valda was reputed to be one of the best in the world, but we don't know exactly what that means, whether he was almost Lan's equal or no - it does appear he was slightly better than Galad in terms of pure weaponry skills, but it also appears that Galad was a superior thinking fighter. We don't know whether a Bloodknife would be expected to win against a Blademaster in a one on one fight, or how Lan or Galad would have done in a similar circumstance to Gawyn's - Rand would have resorted to the One Power in a situation that desparate and would have won easily, most likely. We know Rand fought Toram to a standstill and the only hit either of them managed was when Fain's fog interrupted the duel, and we know Lan won against him outright later in the series, but we didn't see the fight and don't know how hard it was for Lan to win it, other than Lan took at least one wound in the doing. We don't know what it was Lan fought in the Blight back in TEOTW or how hard that was to kill or how many Trollocs and Fades he killed in the Two Rivers or elsewhere. I seem to recall that Lan might have killed a Darkhound, or it was implied that he had in Illian, and we don't know how difficult that feat is - I freely admit that may be mistaken recall on my part though. But you get the point, it goes on and on, and there is no conclusive proof of anything in what we read other than Lan, Galad, Gawyn and Rand are all really, really good.

 

Too many unknowns, and as I said, in the absence of proof to the contrary, which we do not have, you have to go with what the authors said. /shrug Most of this thread is nothing but speculation based on partial possession of the facts and a lot of hearsay, and while it is entertaining it is ultimately inconclusive. There would likely be a decent argument to be made if we had seen everyone in action, and how they won each of their fights, but we haven't and we won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...