Forced a rewatch of the "ToJ" showdown on Ser LadySage. He mused that if SAD ISN'T a southpaw, then his fighting stances were "suicidal". AND that it was "hard to tell", if he was in fact, a lefty. - hmmm...- *Mods- please edit title to SAD's not DAD's. I'm challenged...
Last Edit: May 13, 2016 17:16:44 GMT by Lady Dyanna
I'm ashamed to admit this, but I've only seen each episode once...
I really like the idea of SAD helping Ned out a bit with his stance. When I rewatch I'll definitely keep an eye out for it.
Also, whitewolfstark and markg171 are familiar with this one dude on youtube who breaks down the fight scenes. He's a consultant on medieval tactics and swordplay, and perhaps he has offered a breakdown on this particular scene. If not, I'm sure he will be soon. I tag my fellow mods because I can't remember his name. LOL
Also, I moved this thread to the Episode Three: Oathbreaker subforum to make it easier to find.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Also, whitewolfstark and markg171 are familiar with this one dude on youtube who breaks down the fight scenes. He's a consultant on medieval tactics and swordplay, and perhaps he has offered a breakdown on this particular scene. If not, I'm sure he will be soon. I tag my fellow mods because I can't remember his name. LOL
Here you go
Haven't watched it myself yet as he just uploaded it, but I'm gonna start now
Edit: Okay so for whatever reason the video's not embedding, but here's a link to his breakdown of the fight
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Also, whitewolfstark and markg171 are familiar with this one dude on youtube who breaks down the fight scenes. He's a consultant on medieval tactics and swordplay, and perhaps he has offered a breakdown on this particular scene. If not, I'm sure he will be soon. I tag my fellow mods because I can't remember his name. LOL
Here you go
Haven't watched it myself yet as he just uploaded it, but I'm gonna start now
Edit: Okay so for whatever reason the video's not embedding, but here's a link to his breakdown of the fight
There's a known problem with Proboards for YouTube videos with dashes in their URLs. For some reason there's a coding glitch causing them not to show up when you try to embed them. I saw it the other day, but they didn't expect it to last long so I didn't post it. Supposedly when the glitch gets fixed the videos will appear or reappear.
Why must I always be the isle of crazy alone in an ocean of sensibility? The should to everybody else’s shouldn’t? The I-will to their better-nots?
So scholagladiatora does note that Arthur's switched stance when he's facing Ned alone doesn't make much sense. It completely limited his ability to fight back properly as it took away the offensive advantages he had with that sword and it's ability to stab, and reduced it to something that can really only be used for parrying or as a dagger. It's not something anybody would actually really ever do...
Though as you're suggesting that might be the whole point. That it's not something that somebody would ever actually do if they were trying to win, it might be something someone would do to try and make the fight more even or more likely for them to lose. He can't attack as much, and he's limiting himself to basically just parrying with that sword, when as we'd just seen he's obviously had zero trouble fighting 4 guys at once with both blades in attack position and doesn't really need to worry about his defence.
Arthur does go back to his regular stance fairly quickly, but basically that few moments where he'd switched up his sword positions was a moment of weakness. So maybe there's something there, that Arthur gave Ned an opening and Ned just wasn't good enough or Arthur's instincts were still too good. But according to the expert Arthur did do something when he faced Ned that limited his ability to strike him down.
Also, he mentions that when Arthur disarmed Ned isn't quite what should've happened if Arthur was trying to kill Ned. He argues that Arthur could've possibly disarmed him (he was iffy that that's actually possible from that position, that a disarment wouldn't really be done that way), but really that if he'd already had his blades crossed like that and Ned's sword trapped, that Arthur could've easily just chopped down on Ned's arm and disabled him that way. So again, Arthur possibly held back on actually hurting Ned.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
So scholagladiatora does note that Arthur's switched stance when he's facing Ned alone doesn't make much sense. It completely limited his ability to fight back properly as it took away the offensive advantages he had with that sword and it's ability to stab, and reduced it to something that can really only be used for parrying or as a dagger. It's not something anybody would actually really ever do...
Though as you're suggesting that might be the whole point. That it's not something that somebody would ever actually do if they were trying to win, it might be something someone would do to try and make the fight more even or more likely for them to lose. He can't attack as much, and he's limiting himself to basically just parrying with that sword, when as we'd just seen he's obviously had zero trouble fighting 4 guys at once with both blades in attack position and doesn't really need to worry about his defence.
Arthur does go back to his regular stance fairly quickly, but basically that few moments where he'd switched up his sword positions was a moment of weakness. So maybe there's something there, that Arthur gave Ned an opening and Ned just wasn't good enough or Arthur's instincts were still too good. But according to the expert Arthur did do something when he faced Ned that limited his ability to strike him down.
Also, he mentions that when Arthur disarmed Ned isn't quite what should've happened if Arthur was trying to kill Ned. He argues that Arthur could've possibly disarmed him (he was iffy that that's actually possible from that position, that a disarment wouldn't really be done that way), but really that if he'd already had his blades crossed like that and Ned's sword trapped, that Arthur could've easily just chopped down on Ned's arm and disabled him that way. So again, Arthur possibly held back on actually hurting Ned.
That's sure what it felt like to me, but I honestly thought that was only because I was hoping to see it. From my extremely biased pov, EXTREMELY biased... it looked like SAD meant to get Ned alone. Then, it looked like he gave Ned his sword.
I've only seen it once though. (Not by choice, just been busy.)
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
From my extremely biased pov, EXTREMELY biased... it looked like SAD meant to get Ned alone.
I'm also reminded that Ned and Arthur had already crossed swords in the fight when there was still multiple opponents, and Arthur just beat him back and Ned was allowed to stumble off whereas Arthur kills everyone else who comes at him. Now maybe he simply wasn't in a position to have landed a killing blow on Ned there, but if not that'd be 3 times that Arthur basically lets off the gas when he's facing Ned compared to everybody else.
Hell, even think about Bran and Bloodraven's statements that Arthur is far better than Ned. Do you actual see it when they fight each other? I don't. It looks like an extremely even fight, give and go between them until Arthur disarms him and gains the upper hand. But what if they're both seeing, given that they'd actually been trained to fight, that Ned's fighting the fight of his life while Arthur's barely even trying?
Also, remember that Arthur started out the fight by addressing Ned specifically. He knows who Ned is personally otherwise he wouldn't have been able to say that that was Ned and not just some Stark men-at-arms like the others were. He knows Ned Stark.
So yeah, I think maybe Arthur actually wasn't trying to kill Ned. He couldn't let Ned win obviously, but he was going to just non-lethally put Ned down.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
Thank you for all the cool feedback. While SAD very well may have intended to "sacrifice" himself, mayhaps is all very well and good, the final blow from Ned with Dawn kinda mucked things up a bit...
Thank you for all the cool feedback. While SAD very well may have intended to "sacrifice" himself, mayhaps is all very well and good, the final blow from Ned with Dawn kinda mucked things up a bit...
I'm thinking the cloaks might have somewhat to do with it.
I posted this on the "As We Watch" thread:
In season one, when Barristan and Ned are looking at Hugh's body, they go out of the tent and a squire is waiting to put Barristan's cloak on. So, he took it off to peruse a corpse--why?
In seasons one, Barristan takes his cloak off when Joff dismisses him from the Kingsguard--an act of protest.
The Hound takes off his cloak for Sansa.
I can't remember if the Hound gives his cloak to Sansa after the Blackwater--I don't think he did.
But in this episode: the Kingsguard remove their cloaks before the fight AND Jon takes off his cloak after executing the prisoners and gives it to Edd. Because he is done.
So. . . removal of the cloak--a sign of resignation? Of death? Is that why Barristan takes his off to see a body?
Any ideas????
Plus, in the books: Barristan takes off his cloak, the Hound removes his and gives it to Sansa when he "quits" (I still think that's an Arthur Dayne reference), and Aerys Oakheart removes his when he goes to see Arianne.
Is the show doing something specific with the removal of the cloaks?
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Thank you for all the cool feedback. While SAD very well may have intended to "sacrifice" himself, mayhaps is all very well and good, the final blow from Ned with Dawn kinda mucked things up a bit...
I'm thinking the cloaks might have somewhat to do with it.
I posted this on the "As We Watch" thread:
In season one, when Barristan and Ned are looking at Hugh's body, they go out of the tent and a squire is waiting to put Barristan's cloak on. So, he took it off to peruse a corpse--why?
In seasons one, Barristan takes his cloak off when Joff dismisses him from the Kingsguard--an act of protest.
The Hound takes off his cloak for Sansa.
I can't remember if the Hound gives his cloak to Sansa after the Blackwater--I don't think he did.
But in this episode: the Kingsguard remove their cloaks before the fight AND Jon takes off his cloak after executing the prisoners and gives it to Edd. Because he is done.
So. . . removal of the cloak--a sign of resignation? Of death? Is that why Barristan takes his off to see a body?
Any ideas????
Plus, in the books: Barristan takes off his cloak, the Hound removes his and gives it to Sansa when he "quits" (I still think that's an Arthur Dayne reference), and Aerys Oakheart removes his when he goes to see Arianne.
Is the show doing something specific with the removal of the cloaks?
It sure seems like it. What it is, I have no idea. But the cloak removals do seem suggestive. It might also just be a matter of practicality...cloaks would only tangle you up in a fight.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."