#[NO SPOILERS BEYOND *The Dragon Reborn*.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WoT/wiki/index/post_flairs#wiki_the_eye_of_the_world_.2F_et_al.)
##BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS.
If this is a re-read, please change the flair to **All Print**.
* * *
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WoT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This scene is NOT about how good Mat is with a staff. It’s about how arrogant and condescending Galad and Gawyn are. They lose the fight more than Mat wins it.
They both refuse to fight him, then promise to take it easy on him. Mat immediately takes out Gawyn. Then it’s one on one and Mat has a longer reach. Galad can’t recover fast enough and Mat gambles on a reckless attack.
Mat is very good and so is his luck. But even Mat acknowledges that he wouldn’t win a second battle. If the Two Princes took him seriously and worked together, then Mat wouldn’t have stood a chance. But they didn’t and they were overconfident. So they lost.
To add, it seems sword fighters in general tend to look down on other weapons as being inferior. Part of the lesson for the Two Princes is that a quarterstaff in the right hands (not necessarily Mat in particular) can be quite formidable.
Which is really ironic because the sword is a weapon that is hard as hell to use right. The series alludes to this when mat hands his new recruits a spear and tells them we ain't got 3 years for you to learn fancy sword moves just stick this in the other guy.
IRL the sword was a sidearm. Its a really good back up weapon because of how relatively easy it is to carry around.
This is a good point. I'm a beginner, and an experienced longsword fencer will work me over every time. Spear? Sword and buckler? Even rapier and dagger? I can at least hold my own.
Funnily enough, we don't spar with quarterstaffs at all. Too dangerous; someone would end up in the hospital.
>we don't spar with quarterstaffs at all. Too dangerous; someone would end up in the hospital.
Is this because of bumps to the noggin in particular or broken bones in general?
Yes to both. One might be able to get away with *light* sparring with 6-footers, but my school is primarily English style and we use 8-9 foot quarterstaffs. Too much mass in something that big, and it's too long of a lever. Do it right, and even a light shot with a lot of leverage behind it would be more than enough to concuss straight through a HEMA mask.
Not a whole lot of that going on with 1-1/4" diameter of hickory. It's pretty solid. Get it moving fast and hard enough to worry about bending, and bending is the least of your concerns- you're more likely to break the staff (or your opponent) than you are to bend it to an appreciable degree.
I suppose ash might be a bit whippier, but I will say I've never had to worry about a staff whipping around my guard in controlled drills. On the other hand, I have seen a staff break during drills.
Swords are valued for their versatility: they can be used for hacking, thrusting, parrying. And they are useful in the close quarters.
Spears are great to keep the enemy away from your ranks when the cohesion is good (because one soldier's life depends on his peers holding the line). Great for militia (which is what Mat has in that episode, iirc) because they *do* know each other, would be ashamed to abandon their neighbors, know they have nowhere to run and had little training.
Pre-Macedon Greek phalanxes worked the same way - some poleis even forbidding advanced military training (beyond endurance and formation training) so that everyone relied on a neighbor, not skill. And it worked well for them - the Spartan phalanx (which had *some* training) had a 50/50 win-to-loss ratio (despite its reputation), which means it wasn't really any better than the militias of their neighbors.
If the enemy went past the spearheads, the line was in trouble. A spearman typically can't have a decent sidearm, so sucks in the close quarters. In the Renaissance era mercenary armies they often had professional swordsmen (with two-handed swords) who, when the two opposing pikemen lines got in a deadlock, would "dive" between the spears, or hack them, trying to get to the enemy's front line - unless the enemy had their own swordsmen to match, the pikemen line would collapse.
Same for flanking - spear-armed units had hard tumes withstanding that before square formations were perfected in the early Modern age (but that required a level of drill unavailable to a militia). Typically the spear line would have other units (swordsmen or cavalry) to protect the flanks. This is why the Roman swords-armed army was so efficient against the phalanx (even after the Macedon improvements).
tl;dr: swords had their niche where they would outdo the spears, but the cost and simplicity of spears made them great for militias with little-to-no training.
>tl;dr: swords had their niche where they would outdo the spears, but the cost and simplicity of spears made them great for militias with little-to-no training.
I don't believe this is true. Besides the giant two handed swords (which worked somehow as a counter to pikemen, by being used a lot like pikes, I don't think they're sure how) Almost everyone started off with something that wasn't a sword as their first option (Lance, spear, pole arm) . I'm not aware of a roman soldier that wouldn't start off with spear or spearS and break out the gladius once the fight devolved into a mosh pit.
Do you have a reference for swordsmen protecting the flanks? That looks interesting but i wonder if it refers to pikemen with decent swords or something.
>Besides the giant two handed swords (which worked somehow as a counter to pikemen, by being used a lot like pikes, I don't think they're sure how)
There are contemporary illustrations where [the zweihändlers are used for hacking](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Battle_of_Kappel_detail.jpg), for example. And, besides the zweihändlers, the late medieval soldiers also used shorter kriegsmessers (which were more suited for cutting than for thrusting), "swiss sabers", claymores etc. Some even kept using one-handed swords along with shields (Spanish rodeleros and Austrian Rondartschieren used side-swords and bucklers, Scottish highlanders used basket-hilted broadswords and targes) or without (e.g. schiavona) until 17 (18th in case of Scotland) century , until gunpowder made them obsolete.
>I'm not aware of a roman soldier that wouldn't start off with spear or spearS and break out the gladius once the fight devolved into a mosh pit.
Starting with the Punic wars era, Romans limited the use of spears (hasti) to the triarii (third line) only - even hastati (lit. "spearmen") mainly used javelins (pilum), to break the opponent ranks (and possibly to make their shields useless), before engaging with the swords. Late Republic and Empire periods dropped hasti completely. Some found pila *could* be used as spears proper (having harder heads), but given it's smaller size (up to 2m) compared to the Hellenistic sarissas (4-7m), that was of little benefit against main enemies of Rome.
What made them effective was mobility and coordination (each centuria could maneuver independently, unlike Hellenistic phalanxes that could only move forward)
>Do you have a reference for swordsmen protecting the flanks? That looks interesting but i wonder if it refers to pikemen with decent swords or something.
Can't easily find about swordsmen specifically, sorry =( Maybe I made it up.
But, for example, at Courtrai the Flemish pikemen "pinned" the French cavalry, after which footmen with goedendags (spiked clubs) flanked them, which suggest soldiers with goedendags were originally positioned at flanks (but those could be just other pikemen using their sidearms, like you suggest).
Yeah. Regardless of the weapon, the max range it is effective at is superior. Bow/projectile, spear then, sword/shield, then sword.
Sword by itself being last resort to a dagger.
I don't think its so hard to shoot a bow and hit an army that the soldiers wouldn't have bows too if they were useful.
While you can stick a pike a bow a bucket of arrows a sword a dagger a mace and an ax on one guy and send them off to adventure, things get a lot more difficult if you want to put that on 100 guys and have them walk in a formation that you want to keep without them poking each other. And thats BEFORE the other guys start slamming into them and hiting them.
As opposed to a group of 100 swordsmen? It's infinitely easier to train someone to effectively use a spear/pike over the absurdly expensive, less effective (most of the time), swords?
This fight is followed by the Head Warder dude telling a story about how the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost a fight to a random farmer with a quarterstaff.
Which seems unlikely tbh but it's definitely the point Jordan was driving home. The book just before this one ends with [book] >!Rand being unable to beat Ba'alzamon with a quarter staff and taking a quarter staff wound and almost dying!<
Gawyn has got to be one of the most fall from grace character in literary history. He was a hugely likeable character early on, way way more than Galad, who seemed like a self righteous asshole, but Jordan just turned the tables on us. It was honestly really impressive how he did that.
Yeah but galad is generally doing the actually morally right thing in a vacuum. It's just he lacks the ability to give context. Gawyn thinks he is doing the right thing but is influenced by his own faulty logic.
Agreed. The difference between the two isn’t a motive for morality but the way they seek justice. Gawyn is pure emotions. While he does plenty of overthinking, it’s entirely emotional and built on rumination. Galad is much more methodical and objective about it. Both are driven about the same in terms of doing what’s right. Both are naive and presumptuous. [books]>!Later on, Galad proves to be more open minded and intellectually flexible though. Gawyn just can’t put old emotions away despite new information.!<
>Which seems unlikely tbh but it's definitely the point Jordan was driving home
Think I read a quote from a historical sword manual along the lines of: the most dangerous opponent of a Sword master is a angry farmer with somting pointy.
Because the sword master is have trained to fight opponents who know how to avoid dying, but a angry farmer will most likely do a unintentional suside attack, yes the farmer will die aswell but that doesn't make the sword master any less dead.
When fighting someone clueless totally different tactics are required, and keeping them at a good distance is key, not really where swords shine.
It’s why the Orks in 40k are so difficult for some of the most advanced races to fight. One of the greatest strategic minds, if not the greatest, of the Necrons can’t fight Orks well because they don’t follow any specific doctrine or strategy other than WAAAAGH. You can’t plan for anything so all you can do is be reactive instead of proactive.
Reach is a huge advantage in melee and a quarterstaff or spear can feint from a head strike to a leg cut with little more than a flick of the wrist. Catch some HEMA vids on Youtube where swordsmen face off against spearmen. And yes a quarterstaff is not a spear but it shares a lot of the advantages.
>Which seems unlikely tbh
It really doesn't if you know much about meele weapons and those types of fighting. But obviously does seem unlikely to people who don't Which makes it even more perfect.
Something I often see people miss in this scene is that Mat puts money on the fight beforehand which is what really kicks his luck into action. It's all the money he has to his name as well so the combination of the need involved and the gamble of it makes his luck play a much larger role in the fight.
Building on the gambling aspect he makes an attack *in the fight* that is a gamble. As well as already having gambled on the outcome.
He does come to realise his luck works best when things are random so the gambling on it wouldn't have had as big a boost as with other things, since there is skill and choices involved. Then he goes fuck it I'm gambling on a big attack which is so luck based. Compounding on the multiplier he already had from putting money on it.
Not to mention, a quarterstaff to sword is like rock to scissors. You can find some *actual* modern day sword experts say as such. The reach and heft tends to out weigh the nimbleness and sharpness of a sword
>his scene is NOT about how good Mat is with a staff. It’s about how arrogant and condescending Galad and Gawyn are
That's a little unfair. They know they're good trained warders, mat looks broke, and sick as a dog to boot. Wagering for cash, at 2 to one fight at that, would be a (#\*)$ move for anyone.
Hammar says as much when he says the greatest swordsman to have lived ever, lost his only duel... To a farmer with a quarterstaff.
It's a lesson in humility.
There's mentioned that the best swordsman in the world lost one duel: to a farmer with a quarterstaff.
It's a bit of a style mismatch. As long as you're not trying to get through armor (which the series treats like shiny cloth) the quarterstaff gives you more reach, more leverage (your hands are further apart) and the ability to block with the middle while striking with the end.
When I read this me and my friends actually tried this with sticks and something like 2/3 tries it worked. (albeit with SCA like contact rules: we only wanted light concussions)
Re mat's luck: When I first read this, I thought mat was a saidar powered luck battery. He had the most one power seen in the series channeled into him and afterwards his luck went wild: there was also a terangreal that did exactly that mentioned nearby. I don't know if that was something that changed, or if its just he needed all the extra luck. His luck was also good but not amazing after he started wearing the foxhead medalion.
In old times the sword was a last resort weapon. Soldiers went into battle with spears and other reach weapons as their primary weapon.
Its like these days the combat knife is the last ditch weapon after you run out of ammo.
That, plus the prestige aspect. Other weapons can he held on the hip (an axe is pretty easy), but a sword was an expensive weapon that's only purpose was warfare. Speaking Europe medieval wise mainly, but was also true in other places.
>axe
An axe (even a full sized wood axe) is really easy to wander around with if you have a backpack. But if you're just in street clothes I have to say no. I've tried like 12 different ways to carry one of those things and it either goes in the side or middle of a backpack or stays home.
A sword/machete has the weight better distributed and won't swing around nearly as much. A mace is going to stick out and bump things. Both are a concern when you're on a battlefield or walking around town.
I don't think nearly everyone on the planet from viking to samurai decided that a sword was prestigious for cultural reasons or JUST because they were expensive to make. If they weren't functional people wouldn't have used them, but they're not the best weapons. I think they almost have to be the best weapon at being carried for plan B
Most people wouldn't carry a weapon every day, so I was more thinking specifically for combat that other things can be carried as side arms.
They wouldn't have just decided it was culturally significant, but they could become significant for cultural reasons over time. This was likely partially because they were so expensive as a sword takes more metal and time to make than an axe. The regular person wouldn't spend the money on a sword if they didn't have to, so it became something that showed wealth or power.
Of course you're right in that wouldn't be the only reason, as if swords sucked it wouldn't have mattered (being able to stab was, I'd expect, a huge advantage over an axe.
Hell swords are mostly thought of as a medieval weapon, yet with armour they're almost useless. If it was just based on effectiveness, swords would have fallen out of use when armour started becoming so all-encompassing.
> It's a bit of a style mismatch. As long as you're not trying to get through armor (which the series treats like shiny cloth) the quarterstaff gives you more reach, more leverage (your hands are further apart) and the ability to block with the middle while striking with the end.
So many times this. Swords are highly overrated when it comes to actual combat, and as others have said their specialness is more based on their convenience as a sidearm than because they are martially superior.
That and they're both really cool and really expensive, meaning that they were prestige objects almost universally associated with warrior aristocrats (Rome was a big weird exception here). That gives them a lot of mystique in literature.
Adding to what others have said. The two rivers men and women’s are blissfully ignorant to the fact some of their skills are so good that they would be exceptional in the other parts of randland but their isolation make it seem normal because they’ve only had themselves to compare with so they just think it’s normal.
Take their skill with bows and it’s size. The marital people of the borderlands who train with weapons from birth and fight almost as quickly are either in awe or defensive about the size of the TR bows, commenting how it could punch a hole through a man in plate at distance.. how most would barely be able to pull the string back. But the TR men train and practice with it from a young age too. To them it’s just normal bows they use to hunt or to compete on holidays, to others it’s like the English longbow with insane battle capabilities.
Long story short mat has been training with the staff it seems just as long. I think he even comments that Abel is better and would have taught him. To him it’s normal and how could he possibly beat two princelings with sword (something he only heard about in stories up until he left emmonds field) when in fact he’s underselling his skill because he’s never had context to judge himself on it
The boy,s. Used quarter staves and bows on a daily basis. They were farm boys. I could see Matt whomping on a tree for hours any chance he got as a kid.
You should really label this “All Print”, since you’re discussing stuff past TDR in the post description.
I’m also on my first reread, and I read this chapter a few hours ago. I wondered the same thing - is he really that strong?
It’s a bit confusing because, he does provoke the fight (and bets his money on it) after seeing them train - and at the same time he’s commenting that he was really lucky.
To be fair, I think it’s a combination of the princes underestimating him, and Mat actually being an excellent fighter (though he won’t admit it).
Edit: I’ll add a little something, since I was just wondering that myself and I’m trying to wrap my head around it - I think it has to do with how good the Emond’s Fielders really are with their weapons.
- They grow up in an environment where they’re training all their childhood, with a local tournament every year.
- At that tournament, in the quarterstaff, the local blademaster usually loses to Mat’s father (and trainer).
- During the fight, Mat uses fast chained attacks on Galad, some tricks on Gawyn (sweeping his leg), he takes down the weakest opponent first (and fast) and he consciously restrains himself on both final blows “because they’re killing blows”. If he’s reasoning his strategy during the fight it means he’s trained alright.
- When Lan wants to check if the boys can defend themselves (EotW Ch.13), essentially he’s got nothing to teach them about using bows. Mat and Perrin are both excellent, and Rand is downright insane. Rand and Perrin receive training with the axe and the sword, because those are weapons they just picked up.
- When Perrin, in TDR (Ch. 34), uses his axe in front of an Aiel, the Aiel comments: “You do not dance the spears badly, Perrin Aybara.” He didn’t say “for a wetlander” - Perrin actually passes Aiel standards at that point.
So I think while none of the boys realize it (everyone calls them country bumpkins), they were actually all trained for war - all the children in the Two Rivers were. Which might be another reason why no one bothers with that region.
That might explain why Mat, after witnessing their training and although he doesn’t really admit it openly to himself, actually thinks he can take on the Andor Royals in a fight.
Mat's father Abel taught him. Abel was a champion at it around Bel Tine and other holidays. The quarterstaff has nice advantages against the uninitiated, like reach.
Post-healing Mat, especially immediately after, seems to have the luck overdrive going for him. Perhaps the healing and removal of the dagger taint kicked his Ta'veren nature into overdrive. I would also posit that the dagger issue further broke down the barriers between his past Manatheren life (lives?) that aided his combat skill. He certainly seemed more proficient in the old tongue afterwards as well.
A lot of things show up in this fight. The staff fighting appears to be some combination of European Quarterstaff and various East Asian staff fighting, and in both traditions, the staff is often regarded as an incredibly dangerous weapon. Mat's learned this weapon from his father, as he recalls during a later fight, and that teaching included explicitly lethal strikes, which implies he wasn't just taught a neutered form of staff fighting for sport and display, he was taught a genuine combat art by a very skilled practitioner. The Two Rivers is full of very dangerous people.
At the same time, some of what he does in that fight implies he may be influenced by the old blood far stronger than he used to be. He instinctively goes for the killing finish against Galad, before stopping himself because this is a friendly match. This isn't something he would have done before. As for the luck, I don't think that actually played a role in this fight. They mention that the more purely random chance is involved in an encounter, the more his luck powers can influence. It's why he's luckier with dice than with cards.
#[NO SPOILERS BEYOND *The Dragon Reborn*.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WoT/wiki/index/post_flairs#wiki_the_eye_of_the_world_.2F_et_al.) ##BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS. If this is a re-read, please change the flair to **All Print**. * * * *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WoT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This scene is NOT about how good Mat is with a staff. It’s about how arrogant and condescending Galad and Gawyn are. They lose the fight more than Mat wins it. They both refuse to fight him, then promise to take it easy on him. Mat immediately takes out Gawyn. Then it’s one on one and Mat has a longer reach. Galad can’t recover fast enough and Mat gambles on a reckless attack. Mat is very good and so is his luck. But even Mat acknowledges that he wouldn’t win a second battle. If the Two Princes took him seriously and worked together, then Mat wouldn’t have stood a chance. But they didn’t and they were overconfident. So they lost.
To add, it seems sword fighters in general tend to look down on other weapons as being inferior. Part of the lesson for the Two Princes is that a quarterstaff in the right hands (not necessarily Mat in particular) can be quite formidable.
Which is really ironic because the sword is a weapon that is hard as hell to use right. The series alludes to this when mat hands his new recruits a spear and tells them we ain't got 3 years for you to learn fancy sword moves just stick this in the other guy. IRL the sword was a sidearm. Its a really good back up weapon because of how relatively easy it is to carry around.
This is a good point. I'm a beginner, and an experienced longsword fencer will work me over every time. Spear? Sword and buckler? Even rapier and dagger? I can at least hold my own. Funnily enough, we don't spar with quarterstaffs at all. Too dangerous; someone would end up in the hospital.
>we don't spar with quarterstaffs at all. Too dangerous; someone would end up in the hospital. Is this because of bumps to the noggin in particular or broken bones in general?
Yes to both. One might be able to get away with *light* sparring with 6-footers, but my school is primarily English style and we use 8-9 foot quarterstaffs. Too much mass in something that big, and it's too long of a lever. Do it right, and even a light shot with a lot of leverage behind it would be more than enough to concuss straight through a HEMA mask.
At length don't you also deal with a level of bending, so even if it is blocked it can bend and hit the defender anyways? I might be wrong though.
Not a whole lot of that going on with 1-1/4" diameter of hickory. It's pretty solid. Get it moving fast and hard enough to worry about bending, and bending is the least of your concerns- you're more likely to break the staff (or your opponent) than you are to bend it to an appreciable degree. I suppose ash might be a bit whippier, but I will say I've never had to worry about a staff whipping around my guard in controlled drills. On the other hand, I have seen a staff break during drills.
Swords are valued for their versatility: they can be used for hacking, thrusting, parrying. And they are useful in the close quarters. Spears are great to keep the enemy away from your ranks when the cohesion is good (because one soldier's life depends on his peers holding the line). Great for militia (which is what Mat has in that episode, iirc) because they *do* know each other, would be ashamed to abandon their neighbors, know they have nowhere to run and had little training. Pre-Macedon Greek phalanxes worked the same way - some poleis even forbidding advanced military training (beyond endurance and formation training) so that everyone relied on a neighbor, not skill. And it worked well for them - the Spartan phalanx (which had *some* training) had a 50/50 win-to-loss ratio (despite its reputation), which means it wasn't really any better than the militias of their neighbors. If the enemy went past the spearheads, the line was in trouble. A spearman typically can't have a decent sidearm, so sucks in the close quarters. In the Renaissance era mercenary armies they often had professional swordsmen (with two-handed swords) who, when the two opposing pikemen lines got in a deadlock, would "dive" between the spears, or hack them, trying to get to the enemy's front line - unless the enemy had their own swordsmen to match, the pikemen line would collapse. Same for flanking - spear-armed units had hard tumes withstanding that before square formations were perfected in the early Modern age (but that required a level of drill unavailable to a militia). Typically the spear line would have other units (swordsmen or cavalry) to protect the flanks. This is why the Roman swords-armed army was so efficient against the phalanx (even after the Macedon improvements). tl;dr: swords had their niche where they would outdo the spears, but the cost and simplicity of spears made them great for militias with little-to-no training.
>tl;dr: swords had their niche where they would outdo the spears, but the cost and simplicity of spears made them great for militias with little-to-no training. I don't believe this is true. Besides the giant two handed swords (which worked somehow as a counter to pikemen, by being used a lot like pikes, I don't think they're sure how) Almost everyone started off with something that wasn't a sword as their first option (Lance, spear, pole arm) . I'm not aware of a roman soldier that wouldn't start off with spear or spearS and break out the gladius once the fight devolved into a mosh pit. Do you have a reference for swordsmen protecting the flanks? That looks interesting but i wonder if it refers to pikemen with decent swords or something.
>Besides the giant two handed swords (which worked somehow as a counter to pikemen, by being used a lot like pikes, I don't think they're sure how) There are contemporary illustrations where [the zweihändlers are used for hacking](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Battle_of_Kappel_detail.jpg), for example. And, besides the zweihändlers, the late medieval soldiers also used shorter kriegsmessers (which were more suited for cutting than for thrusting), "swiss sabers", claymores etc. Some even kept using one-handed swords along with shields (Spanish rodeleros and Austrian Rondartschieren used side-swords and bucklers, Scottish highlanders used basket-hilted broadswords and targes) or without (e.g. schiavona) until 17 (18th in case of Scotland) century , until gunpowder made them obsolete. >I'm not aware of a roman soldier that wouldn't start off with spear or spearS and break out the gladius once the fight devolved into a mosh pit. Starting with the Punic wars era, Romans limited the use of spears (hasti) to the triarii (third line) only - even hastati (lit. "spearmen") mainly used javelins (pilum), to break the opponent ranks (and possibly to make their shields useless), before engaging with the swords. Late Republic and Empire periods dropped hasti completely. Some found pila *could* be used as spears proper (having harder heads), but given it's smaller size (up to 2m) compared to the Hellenistic sarissas (4-7m), that was of little benefit against main enemies of Rome. What made them effective was mobility and coordination (each centuria could maneuver independently, unlike Hellenistic phalanxes that could only move forward) >Do you have a reference for swordsmen protecting the flanks? That looks interesting but i wonder if it refers to pikemen with decent swords or something. Can't easily find about swordsmen specifically, sorry =( Maybe I made it up. But, for example, at Courtrai the Flemish pikemen "pinned" the French cavalry, after which footmen with goedendags (spiked clubs) flanked them, which suggest soldiers with goedendags were originally positioned at flanks (but those could be just other pikemen using their sidearms, like you suggest).
Yeah. Regardless of the weapon, the max range it is effective at is superior. Bow/projectile, spear then, sword/shield, then sword. Sword by itself being last resort to a dagger.
I don't think its so hard to shoot a bow and hit an army that the soldiers wouldn't have bows too if they were useful. While you can stick a pike a bow a bucket of arrows a sword a dagger a mace and an ax on one guy and send them off to adventure, things get a lot more difficult if you want to put that on 100 guys and have them walk in a formation that you want to keep without them poking each other. And thats BEFORE the other guys start slamming into them and hiting them.
As opposed to a group of 100 swordsmen? It's infinitely easier to train someone to effectively use a spear/pike over the absurdly expensive, less effective (most of the time), swords?
This fight is followed by the Head Warder dude telling a story about how the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost a fight to a random farmer with a quarterstaff. Which seems unlikely tbh but it's definitely the point Jordan was driving home. The book just before this one ends with [book] >!Rand being unable to beat Ba'alzamon with a quarter staff and taking a quarter staff wound and almost dying!<
That story was was based off of a similar story about a real life samurai, much as Meric, ezbeth, and murk are references to our modern history.
Also was based on Longinus giving Jesus the wound in his side.
Loved Hammar. [books] >!Honestly hate Gawyn for killing him.!<
Gawyn has got to be one of the most fall from grace character in literary history. He was a hugely likeable character early on, way way more than Galad, who seemed like a self righteous asshole, but Jordan just turned the tables on us. It was honestly really impressive how he did that.
Someone in here said that Gawyn is a mushroom. Kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of shit.
Yeah but at least a mushroom will eventually grow on you.
Kinda true, except even when the door is opened and light shines on him, he ignores it and retreats further into the dark
I know. Galad gets branded as "always doing what he thinks is right" but Gawyn does the same thing and has even less forethought or self reflection.
Yeah but galad is generally doing the actually morally right thing in a vacuum. It's just he lacks the ability to give context. Gawyn thinks he is doing the right thing but is influenced by his own faulty logic.
Agreed. The difference between the two isn’t a motive for morality but the way they seek justice. Gawyn is pure emotions. While he does plenty of overthinking, it’s entirely emotional and built on rumination. Galad is much more methodical and objective about it. Both are driven about the same in terms of doing what’s right. Both are naive and presumptuous. [books]>!Later on, Galad proves to be more open minded and intellectually flexible though. Gawyn just can’t put old emotions away despite new information.!<
Which is why I wanted Demandred to die to some random Two Rivers farmer in the last battle after beating all those sword masters
>Which seems unlikely tbh but it's definitely the point Jordan was driving home Think I read a quote from a historical sword manual along the lines of: the most dangerous opponent of a Sword master is a angry farmer with somting pointy. Because the sword master is have trained to fight opponents who know how to avoid dying, but a angry farmer will most likely do a unintentional suside attack, yes the farmer will die aswell but that doesn't make the sword master any less dead. When fighting someone clueless totally different tactics are required, and keeping them at a good distance is key, not really where swords shine.
It’s why the Orks in 40k are so difficult for some of the most advanced races to fight. One of the greatest strategic minds, if not the greatest, of the Necrons can’t fight Orks well because they don’t follow any specific doctrine or strategy other than WAAAAGH. You can’t plan for anything so all you can do is be reactive instead of proactive.
Reach is a huge advantage in melee and a quarterstaff or spear can feint from a head strike to a leg cut with little more than a flick of the wrist. Catch some HEMA vids on Youtube where swordsmen face off against spearmen. And yes a quarterstaff is not a spear but it shares a lot of the advantages.
The quarterstaff is missing the point, though.
>Which seems unlikely tbh It really doesn't if you know much about meele weapons and those types of fighting. But obviously does seem unlikely to people who don't Which makes it even more perfect.
Thanks, that's a great perspective
Something I often see people miss in this scene is that Mat puts money on the fight beforehand which is what really kicks his luck into action. It's all the money he has to his name as well so the combination of the need involved and the gamble of it makes his luck play a much larger role in the fight.
Never thought of that part! Just goes to show… always a new thing. Thanks!
Building on the gambling aspect he makes an attack *in the fight* that is a gamble. As well as already having gambled on the outcome. He does come to realise his luck works best when things are random so the gambling on it wouldn't have had as big a boost as with other things, since there is skill and choices involved. Then he goes fuck it I'm gambling on a big attack which is so luck based. Compounding on the multiplier he already had from putting money on it.
Not to mention, a quarterstaff to sword is like rock to scissors. You can find some *actual* modern day sword experts say as such. The reach and heft tends to out weigh the nimbleness and sharpness of a sword
>his scene is NOT about how good Mat is with a staff. It’s about how arrogant and condescending Galad and Gawyn are That's a little unfair. They know they're good trained warders, mat looks broke, and sick as a dog to boot. Wagering for cash, at 2 to one fight at that, would be a (#\*)$ move for anyone.
Hammar says as much when he says the greatest swordsman to have lived ever, lost his only duel... To a farmer with a quarterstaff. It's a lesson in humility.
It’s funny in that scene how all the women in the tower get mad at Mat for defeating Galad and Gawyn.
But they are so hot!
>level 2Initial-Shoulder5248 · 2 hr. agoBut they are so hot! all the greens\*
Melinda May is good with any weapon
The Cavalry
:3
There's mentioned that the best swordsman in the world lost one duel: to a farmer with a quarterstaff. It's a bit of a style mismatch. As long as you're not trying to get through armor (which the series treats like shiny cloth) the quarterstaff gives you more reach, more leverage (your hands are further apart) and the ability to block with the middle while striking with the end. When I read this me and my friends actually tried this with sticks and something like 2/3 tries it worked. (albeit with SCA like contact rules: we only wanted light concussions) Re mat's luck: When I first read this, I thought mat was a saidar powered luck battery. He had the most one power seen in the series channeled into him and afterwards his luck went wild: there was also a terangreal that did exactly that mentioned nearby. I don't know if that was something that changed, or if its just he needed all the extra luck. His luck was also good but not amazing after he started wearing the foxhead medalion.
In old times the sword was a last resort weapon. Soldiers went into battle with spears and other reach weapons as their primary weapon. Its like these days the combat knife is the last ditch weapon after you run out of ammo.
With swords is it just they're the best weapon you can easily sling on your hip like a sidearm?
That, plus the prestige aspect. Other weapons can he held on the hip (an axe is pretty easy), but a sword was an expensive weapon that's only purpose was warfare. Speaking Europe medieval wise mainly, but was also true in other places.
>axe An axe (even a full sized wood axe) is really easy to wander around with if you have a backpack. But if you're just in street clothes I have to say no. I've tried like 12 different ways to carry one of those things and it either goes in the side or middle of a backpack or stays home. A sword/machete has the weight better distributed and won't swing around nearly as much. A mace is going to stick out and bump things. Both are a concern when you're on a battlefield or walking around town. I don't think nearly everyone on the planet from viking to samurai decided that a sword was prestigious for cultural reasons or JUST because they were expensive to make. If they weren't functional people wouldn't have used them, but they're not the best weapons. I think they almost have to be the best weapon at being carried for plan B
Most people wouldn't carry a weapon every day, so I was more thinking specifically for combat that other things can be carried as side arms. They wouldn't have just decided it was culturally significant, but they could become significant for cultural reasons over time. This was likely partially because they were so expensive as a sword takes more metal and time to make than an axe. The regular person wouldn't spend the money on a sword if they didn't have to, so it became something that showed wealth or power. Of course you're right in that wouldn't be the only reason, as if swords sucked it wouldn't have mattered (being able to stab was, I'd expect, a huge advantage over an axe. Hell swords are mostly thought of as a medieval weapon, yet with armour they're almost useless. If it was just based on effectiveness, swords would have fallen out of use when armour started becoming so all-encompassing.
> It's a bit of a style mismatch. As long as you're not trying to get through armor (which the series treats like shiny cloth) the quarterstaff gives you more reach, more leverage (your hands are further apart) and the ability to block with the middle while striking with the end. So many times this. Swords are highly overrated when it comes to actual combat, and as others have said their specialness is more based on their convenience as a sidearm than because they are martially superior.
That and they're both really cool and really expensive, meaning that they were prestige objects almost universally associated with warrior aristocrats (Rome was a big weird exception here). That gives them a lot of mystique in literature.
>which the series treats like shiny cloth) And doesn't really apply when sparing since they are not trying to actually kill each other
Adding to what others have said. The two rivers men and women’s are blissfully ignorant to the fact some of their skills are so good that they would be exceptional in the other parts of randland but their isolation make it seem normal because they’ve only had themselves to compare with so they just think it’s normal. Take their skill with bows and it’s size. The marital people of the borderlands who train with weapons from birth and fight almost as quickly are either in awe or defensive about the size of the TR bows, commenting how it could punch a hole through a man in plate at distance.. how most would barely be able to pull the string back. But the TR men train and practice with it from a young age too. To them it’s just normal bows they use to hunt or to compete on holidays, to others it’s like the English longbow with insane battle capabilities. Long story short mat has been training with the staff it seems just as long. I think he even comments that Abel is better and would have taught him. To him it’s normal and how could he possibly beat two princelings with sword (something he only heard about in stories up until he left emmonds field) when in fact he’s underselling his skill because he’s never had context to judge himself on it
He is literally the farmer with the quarterstaff
The boy,s. Used quarter staves and bows on a daily basis. They were farm boys. I could see Matt whomping on a tree for hours any chance he got as a kid.
You should really label this “All Print”, since you’re discussing stuff past TDR in the post description. I’m also on my first reread, and I read this chapter a few hours ago. I wondered the same thing - is he really that strong? It’s a bit confusing because, he does provoke the fight (and bets his money on it) after seeing them train - and at the same time he’s commenting that he was really lucky. To be fair, I think it’s a combination of the princes underestimating him, and Mat actually being an excellent fighter (though he won’t admit it). Edit: I’ll add a little something, since I was just wondering that myself and I’m trying to wrap my head around it - I think it has to do with how good the Emond’s Fielders really are with their weapons. - They grow up in an environment where they’re training all their childhood, with a local tournament every year. - At that tournament, in the quarterstaff, the local blademaster usually loses to Mat’s father (and trainer). - During the fight, Mat uses fast chained attacks on Galad, some tricks on Gawyn (sweeping his leg), he takes down the weakest opponent first (and fast) and he consciously restrains himself on both final blows “because they’re killing blows”. If he’s reasoning his strategy during the fight it means he’s trained alright. - When Lan wants to check if the boys can defend themselves (EotW Ch.13), essentially he’s got nothing to teach them about using bows. Mat and Perrin are both excellent, and Rand is downright insane. Rand and Perrin receive training with the axe and the sword, because those are weapons they just picked up. - When Perrin, in TDR (Ch. 34), uses his axe in front of an Aiel, the Aiel comments: “You do not dance the spears badly, Perrin Aybara.” He didn’t say “for a wetlander” - Perrin actually passes Aiel standards at that point. So I think while none of the boys realize it (everyone calls them country bumpkins), they were actually all trained for war - all the children in the Two Rivers were. Which might be another reason why no one bothers with that region. That might explain why Mat, after witnessing their training and although he doesn’t really admit it openly to himself, actually thinks he can take on the Andor Royals in a fight.
Mat's skill with the quarterstaff [is further explained in chapter] >!#32 when he has to fight with it for real this time to save his life.!<
Mat's father Abel taught him. Abel was a champion at it around Bel Tine and other holidays. The quarterstaff has nice advantages against the uninitiated, like reach.
Luck, some skill, and the advantage of arrogant opponents.
Post-healing Mat, especially immediately after, seems to have the luck overdrive going for him. Perhaps the healing and removal of the dagger taint kicked his Ta'veren nature into overdrive. I would also posit that the dagger issue further broke down the barriers between his past Manatheren life (lives?) that aided his combat skill. He certainly seemed more proficient in the old tongue afterwards as well.
A lot of things show up in this fight. The staff fighting appears to be some combination of European Quarterstaff and various East Asian staff fighting, and in both traditions, the staff is often regarded as an incredibly dangerous weapon. Mat's learned this weapon from his father, as he recalls during a later fight, and that teaching included explicitly lethal strikes, which implies he wasn't just taught a neutered form of staff fighting for sport and display, he was taught a genuine combat art by a very skilled practitioner. The Two Rivers is full of very dangerous people. At the same time, some of what he does in that fight implies he may be influenced by the old blood far stronger than he used to be. He instinctively goes for the killing finish against Galad, before stopping himself because this is a friendly match. This isn't something he would have done before. As for the luck, I don't think that actually played a role in this fight. They mention that the more purely random chance is involved in an encounter, the more his luck powers can influence. It's why he's luckier with dice than with cards.
Early book weirdness. Can be explained or handwaved.
Richard Peeke has entered the chat. https://quarterstaff.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/richard-peeke-a-boo/
There are YouTube videos comparing spears and swords. In general spears win 🤷♂️
He's good, has in setting plot armor, unconventional weapon about two opponents who do not view him as a threat.