I've had this book on my shelf for years after picking it up for a dollar at an old bookstore. I didn’t actually read it until last summer, and that was a major mistake on my part. It was the perfect easy, comforting read after finishing A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. Martin.
Brian Jacques does a great job, understated by no other way to say it: The Redwall series is well done.
Now that my daughter is reading at an ever-increasing rate, I think it’ll be on her radar soon. I’m really looking forward to sharing it with her. It’s a wonderful introduction to fantasy: well-told, not overly violent (very cartoonish in that regard), and full of heart.
The story follows the classic “unlikely hero on a voyage of self-discovery” trope. In this case, it’s a young mouse named Matthias instead of Luke Skywalker. There are even interesting parallels: the ghost of Martin the Warrior guiding Matthias is reminiscent of Obi-Wan. Instead of a galaxy far, far away, the setting is Redwall Abbey and its surrounding countryside, populated by mice, rats, badgers, birds, and other creatures, each with their own distinct perspectives.
Brian Jacques was incredibly prolific, writing 22 books in the main series plus several more set in the same world.
Right now I’m starting Mattimeo. If you haven’t read the Redwall series yet, I give it a strong thumbs up. This first book in particular gets 4 out of 5 stars from me.
(One quick note for new readers: the series jumps around in time. Check the wiki or publication order if you want to read chronologically.)
To be quite honest, I really don’t care what edition (or game) someone wants to play. 3rd edition D&D? Castles and Crusades? Lamentations of the Flame Princess, or anything in between? It’s not my cup of tea to rain on someone else’s parade. Now if we are talking FATAL then yeah, that goes out the window.
Enter the anti-2e crowd.
Suffice it to say my opinion of them is about as high as a kobold in good standing, which is to say, not much. And now that leaves the abuse that’s sure to come your way. My best defense against these clowns is a good offense.
With that said, I feel a strange kinship with 4th edition D&D fans right now. A four-year print run for the “current edition” of D&D is shockingly short. Wow, the shortest of them all actually. 4th edition has officially taken the mantle of whipping boy.
I’m not going to golf-clap at the funeral in classic grognard style, though. Your game might not have been my game, but I have a good deal of sympathy for you. My best advice: go on the offensive. When grognards tell you your edition sucks, point out the very real flaws of 1st edition AD&D (there are plenty). Don’t let them fool you. Initiative, horrible organization, psionics, and more, there’s plenty of fodder there. And this is from someone who likes 1st Edition very much.
Am I promoting edition wars? Some might see it that way. But I like to point out that most of us 2e folks were generally “live and let live”… until we got online and ran into the rabid neck beards (see definition #6). Then we learned real quick. Want proof? There are people online who actually believeTerrible Trouble at Tragidore is somehow representative of 2nd edition module quality.
Meanwhile, they’ve never laid eyes on the run of Dungeon magazine from issues #18–81, which rank among some of the best modules of all time. Modules like The Iron Orb of the Duergar, The Mud Sorcerer’s Tomb, and Kingdom of the Ghouls are insanely great to name but a few.
If you stay the course for your favored edition, then by all means do so, and don’t let anyone tell you different. Your game is not my game, but I can’t help but feel a kinship. Your edition is now going to be the least supported of them all:
0e, Basic, 1st, and 2nd are more or less interchangeable despite what anyone may think.
3rd had a mountain of material, and Pathfinder can easily fill the gap.
That leaves 4th on its own island…
I say this because it looks like 5th edition is (allegedly) going back to its roots. Time will tell there.
In closing its going to be a lonely road, but if it's your course steer it: "Second star to the right... and straight on until morning."
Normally I’m the type of guy who will let things play out rather than rush to condemn. But the recent announcement of 5th Edition over at the Wizards of the Coast website made me throw that approach out the window.
I’m generally a “live and let live” kind of guy, but I also like to call out idiocy when it rears its ugly head. All over the web people are talking about what the announcement means. The main question I keep coming back to is simple: Did D&D really need a new edition?
My answer is no. And this isn’t some reactionary knee-jerk response. Wizards has managed to screw up D&D — or succumb to edition churn — at an ever-alarming rate. Take your pick. In fact, it might be both. This is simply the latest chapter.
"I come in brown AND I "squirt."
Some will say, “How can you know it’s going to be bad before you see it?” Sorry, but I didn’t have to reserve judgment to know that Justin Bieber, the Microsoft Kin, Google Buzz and Wave a ave, and the Microsoft Zune were going to be craptastic. Some things are just born to suck.
First, some history is in order for those not in the know. Wizards of the Coast is not the originator of the game. Wizards is a subsidiary of Hasbro that subsumed TSR, thereby acquiring the rights to D&D.
The history of D&D is a sordid one stretching back to its roots in the 1970s. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are credited with jointly creating the game, but a sealed settlement and both men being deceased means we may never know the full details of what actually went down. Enter the Blumes, and later Lorraine Williams, and you have a situation where the main creative driver of the game never really had control — or had it for exceedingly short periods of time.
1st Edition succeeded in spite of the efforts of those fighting against Gary (as near as I and others can figure). TSR went belly-up in the ’90s through mismanagement (again, largely Lorraine Williams promising to “show how real companies are run”). But I digress. Wizards snatched it up, only to be bought by Hasbro in turn. There you have it: a game of IP hot potato where the name itself became more important than the content.
And there is one of the main reasons Wizards of the Coast is churning out yet another edition of D&D. (For those counting: 3.0 in 2000, 3.5 shortly thereafter, and the miserable failure that is 4e in 2008.) The IP is simply too valuable to ignore, and the best way to exploit it is a new edition. There, I said it.
My suspicion is that this endless edition churn is about money, plain and simple. First off, I have no issue with a company wanting to make money — people have families to support, I get that. But call it what it is.
It’s no different than the Iraq War. Had Bush Jr. just said the real reason we went in was to get rid of Saddam for trying to whack his father, I’d have been fine with it. Instead we got weapons of mass destruction. Wizards is in the same boat: call it like it is, guys.
4e went out the gates destroying everything that came before it Attila the Hun style — and they did it gleefully. The only problem with scorched-earth tactics is that you ravage the countryside… and then you get a peasant revolt for good measure. That revolt’s name was Pathfinder. As I wrote about last year, the Pathfinder rift vs. 4e was the biggest shift since the 1st/2nd edition transition. The difference is that the move to 2e was a minor tremor compared to the earthquake of customers jumping ship to a competitor.
You created the madness that led to your own fractured customer base.
Edition churn is nothing new. D&D never reached truly self-sustaining numbers even in its heyday, so the only way for publishers to stay afloat is new editions. I’ve talked about this before at Dragonsfoot — the game was always a rather wobbly business model, and it has repeated itself nearly every iteration. In my opinion, the model is not sustainable and requires a reboot every so often to survive.
So now we get to the crux of all this: 5th Edition D&D, which is supposed to be the big tent that brings everyone back in to play. Do they really think we’re that dumb? That their olive-branch “D&D détente” is anything more than a PR move?
Had they really been interested in offering a D&D for all editions all along, they would have done so. Instead they took the approach of trying to force customers to the new edition by cutting off support for the old, reasoning that with no official material we’d come crawling back anyway.
Except that didn’t happen. The peasants banded together, formed their own communities, wrote their own material, and said “thanks, we’ll go it alone.”
The problem only became dire once the money spigot turned off and Wizards was forced to look around for new (old) customers. Prior to the 4e debacle they were doing just fine and wrote us off as lost causes. As I wrote last time, they had already lost the Pathfinder crowd. Those people weren’t coming back, and the industry couldn’t attract enough brand-new players to make up the difference.
So somewhere in the bowels of Wizards someone had a “come to Jesus” moment. Hypothetical Marketing Employee: “I know, let’s release a new edition that promises an old-school feel! Even better, we’ll market it at all those folks we discarded years ago. I’m sure they’ll buy whatever we shovel out. Better yet, they’ll be so grateful!”
Yeah… good luck with that, WotC.
Given my background and interest in computer history, there is one recent company that Wizards of the Coast is doing their best imitation of: Quark. The parallels between QuarkXPress losing the desktop publishing wars to Adobe InDesign are eerily similar. For a good read on the subject, check this article from 2005. It talks about Vista, but look past that and focus on Quark’s history: they made every customer-related mistake in the book and invented a few new ones for good measure. Worse, they didn’t realize it until far too late and alienated a ton of people in the process.
Sound familiar?
Wizards should have read up on this, because they followed the same failed strategy to their folly. Basically, put Wizards in place of Quark, and Paizo with Pathfinder in place of Adobe, and you have the same story in the making. Or as I like to say: “Same circus, different clowns.”
Next up, I keep hearing about the “big tent” approach for 5th Edition D&D. Big tents don’t work, because by their very nature they are a compromise. And compromises, by definition, mean no one walks away from the table truly happy.
Some have countered with “Well, what’s the alternative?” I postulate that maybe there isn’t one. The genie is out of the bottle. It came out in 1985 and isn’t being stuffed back in anytime soon. There is far too much damage to repair and far too much baggage.
And on top of all that, I’m still not convinced a new edition needed to be created in the first place.
On the subject of style of play, I keep hearing that 5th Edition will have a “retro feel.” Well, no kidding? What else are they going to say? Until I see it with my own eyes, color me skeptical. Are they going to admit it plays more like World of Warcraft than traditional D&D?
And if we really need a D&D version that has that old-school feel, then just pick up a copy of Castles & Crusades. No matter what the d-bags and naysayers like to paint it as, it delivers that old-school feel.
Again: is a new edition of D&D needed? Again, no.
Want retro with some new rules? Here it is.
I should hasten to add, as I’ve stated on Dragonsfoot, that I have no beef with how people want to get their D&D/role-playing entertainment. Go scratch your gaming itch however you want. Unlike some of the ass-hats in the OSR community (some of whom are now quietly deleting their flame-bait, frothing neckbeard incendiary bombs on various sites), I won’t tell a newer gamer that they’re “wrong” for liking what they like. I’ve had that hurled at me for endorsing 2nd Edition, and I’m not passing it on to others.
I’m a big proponent of newer gamers playing what they will look back on fondly years later as their “golden age of gaming.” My game is not their game, and I’m fine with that.
But that leads to the overall point: Why even do this?
By its nature, a modular approach is going to mean that even if you somehow got everyone to stop playing their current edition and move to 5th, they’re still only going to buy the parts that recreate the game they actually want. It also limits who will buy any given add-on. Or, put another way, this is what TSR did with all the campaign settings back in the ’90s that helped lead to its demise.
Wizards will (whether they know it or not) put everyone into separate buckets. It was Bill Slavicsek who said: “It’s raining money outside and you want to catch as much of it as you can. You can either make a really big bucket or waste your time and attention by creating a lot of really small buckets — either way, you’re never going to make more rain.”
In this case, Wizards is hoping to get some people who haven’t spent money on them in years to do so. Call me foolish, but while this is similar to the 1st/2nd Edition split, it’s far worse. It’s like they forgot the whole episode that led to the decline of 2nd Edition. At least 1st and 2nd are nearly compatible.
And that is about the only area where Wizards has a shot with me personally: stuff that I could use with my existing 1st/2nd Edition material for adventures. I’m highly unlikely to buy the core rules. Maybe that is their intention, but either way it’s unlikely that all players will belly up to the same table.
"Still need some help lugging this! Where's Nodwick?
Tangentially related to all this is the matter of style, look, and feel. To me this has never been a major issue the way it is for some. I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the manga dragonborn/tiefling goth assassin/warforged “over-sized weaponry, armor, and more gear than a U.S. Marine” aesthetic (see left), but it’s not enough to make me refuse to buy something on that alone.
Grognards need to get over the fact that nudity was going to be excised from the game, as were its more violent elements, in any edition that came after 1st. 1st Edition was created during the free-wheeling 1970s. The conservative 1980s were a reactionary phase, and thus the more toned-down feel of 2nd Edition was very much a product of the times. In short, don’t expect it to look like it did in First Edition.
I must confess that Bill Willingham was my favorite TSR artist back in the day for either First or Second Edition, but I don’t expect he’s getting hired back anytime soon.
In closing, a version of D&D designed to appeal to all players of all editions is likely going to satisfy none of them. I hear talk of a modular approach — a core game with optional parts you can add? What, you mean like people have been doing since RPGs began?
While I may end up being wrong about this, I don’t think that will be the case. And if I’m to shift my opinion on this and open my wallet, then Wizards of the Coast had better be bending over backwards to make up for the treatment we (I’ve) received as customers since 2000.
Until they do, I’ve got this, mixed with First Edition — and Wizards can’t do a thing to stop me.
In June of 1973, one of the most important comic book arcs of all time reached a devastating conclusion — The Night Gwen Stacy Died.
I was only four months old when that issue hit shelves, and I wouldn’t read it until years later while raiding my older brother’s comic book stash. At age eight, it didn’t fully register. But decades later, when I picked it up again via a Spider-Man DVD-ROM collection, it hit like a gut punch. Gwen’s fall from the George Washington Bridge hurled her into comic book immortality, and left a mark on the medium that still echoes today.
More Than Just a Love Interest
Gwen Stacy wasn’t just Peter Parker’s girlfriend. For many fans, and creators, she was the one. Not Mary Jane. Not Felicia Hardy. Not Betty Brant. Gwen. Introduced early in Amazing Spider-Man #33, she was Peter’s equal: smart (chemistry major), kind, elegant (Stan Lee wanted her to be “a lady”), and drop-dead gorgeous: a former beauty queen with the classic girl-next-door vibe. The boots, the dresses, the signature black headband; she was iconic even before her death.
Stan intended for Peter to marry her. But fate, and the editorial team — had other plans.
Gwen's death
The Moment
In Amazing Spider-Man #121–122, Gwen is kidnapped by the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) and thrown from a tower of the George Washington Bridge. Spider-Man’s webbing catches her...but the sudden stop snaps her neck. Whether it was the Goblin who killed her or Peter’s attempt to save her, it didn’t matter. Gwen was gone.
Gwen’s death mattered because it was the first time a superhero truly failed, and not in a “lost the fight” kind of way. This was personal. Tragic. Devastating. The hero didn’t just lose the girl. His actions directly caused it. Uncle Ben died due to Peter’s inaction, but Gwen died because he tried to save her.
That kind of emotional complexity was unheard of at the time. And it shattered the illusion that superheroes always win.
The impact was so great, Marvel received a tidal wave of letters: angry, heartbroken, confused. Editors later tried to walk it back with the Clone Saga and other retro-cons, but the damage (and brilliance) was done.
Gwen’s death defined the Silver Age and led to the Bronze Age. It ushered in darker themes, morally gray heroes, and stories where the good guys didn’t always get the girl...or win at all.
While not exactly like the comics, her death in the movie is extremely done. This is mainly because the chemistry of Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield was near perfect.
Peter’s Greatest Loss
Here’s the thing: Gwen wasn’t just important to readers. She haunted Peter Parker far more than Uncle Ben ever did. Ben’s death was formative, but Gwen’s was personal. She was real. Developed. Beloved. Her death had weight — not just for Peter, but for the entire comic book world.
Years later, even when Peter was married to Mary Jane, it was Gwen who lingered in his thoughts — as if he still sought her approval from beyond the grave.
Of course, the Big Two can’t resist a resurrection. Gwen’s been cloned, revived, rebooted, and retconned more times than Kenny from South Park. But the truth is: she’s never truly come back — and that’s why her death still resonates.
It’s also why Sins Past — the infamous storyline that tried to tie Gwen romantically to Norman Osborn (ugh) — was retconned out of continuity almost immediately. Fans rejected it because it spat in the face of everything Gwen was and stood for.
When she died, she became untouchable — forever preserved as perfect, untainted by years of character drift or editorial meddling.
That's not to say many wouldn't try, or turn her into Spider-Gwen. All the while missing just why she is so iconic and important.
Why Not Mary Jane?
It’s ironic: in the ’80s, Marvel decided Peter needed a wife — and they turned Mary Jane into Gwen Stacy to make it work. MJ, once the carefree party girl, was re-imagined into a grounded, sensible, supportive partner. The bad girl became the good girl…which raises the question: if you wanted Gwen, why not just leave Gwen?
Even in the Sam Raimi films, they mashed the characters together. That wasn’t Mary Jane on-screen — that was Gwen with red hair.
Which is why The Amazing Spider-Man reboot felt so promising. Enter Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy — smart, strong, stylish — and finally, the real deal. And for once, no Mary Jane in sight. (Though for the record, where was the black headband? EDIT: it would indeed be shown later in the movies.)
All kinds of amazing indeed.
A Story That Shouldn’t Change
Gwen’s death is comic book tragedy done right. It still hurts. It still matters. And that’s what gives it power. If they had saved her — or worse, just “faked” her death — the whole arc would’ve felt cheap. Instead, it hit like a freight train — and set the standard for emotional stakes in superhero storytelling.
If the movies ever go back and really tell that story — the real version — they could make cinematic magic. Think Castaway levels of heartbreak. Peter standing on that bridge, Gwen’s body in his arms. No snappy comeback. No win. Just silence. Just failure. Just loss.
That’s powerful.
Gwen Stacy was amazing. Still is.
In a sea of anti-heroes, edgy brooding types, and sunglasses-at-night clichés, she reminds us of a time when superheroes were noble, when tragedy meant something, and when comics weren’t afraid to make us feel something real.
As long as comic book fans are out there, there will always be some of us who remember her — not just for how she died, but for what she represented.
Gwen Stacy: the first, the best, and the one who never came back.
And in trying to kill off the character the writers ensured she became something different.
Ahhh Stoneskin... I've thought I had this spell down pat over the years then looked at others' interpretations of it and thought they were right and then went back to the source and wondered if there is no clear-cut definition on perhaps the most abused spell in 2nd edition AD&D.
I must admit I've played 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for years and thought I knew this spell inside and out. But much like a quirky politicians language in a law it's a bit puzzling in its phrasing. There is one pertinent part that is unclear or at least hinges on how it's interpreted. By this I mean consider the following:
Stoneskin
4th level Mage spell (page 163 in the 2nd Edition Players Handbook) Range: Touch Components: V, S M Duration: Special Casting Time: 1 Area of Effect: 1 creature Saving Throw: None
When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile or the like. even a sword of sharpness cannot affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor can a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magical attacks from such spells as fireball. magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth have their normal effects. The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of of experience of the caster has achieved. This limit apples regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five and eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage.
The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin.
Now I'm no rules lawyer, but the section that says "This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical."
Now you can interpret it to say: Attack rolls whether the hit or not remove one "skin" from the spell.
Or you could say it doesn't, much...
So what did Sage Advice have to say about it?
Stoneskin:
"This spell is subject to considerable abuse by player characters. Multiple stoneskins placed on a single creature are not cumulative. If two or more stoneskin spells are cast on the same creature, roll normally for the number of attacks each spell protects against. If a new spell protects against more attacks than the present spell does, the recipient gets the benefit of the increased protection; otherwise there is no effect. The caster does not necessarily know how many attacks the spell can shield him from.
Stoneskin protects only against blows, cuts, pokes, and slashes directed at the recipient. It does not protect against falls, magical attacks, touch-delivered special attacks (such as touch-delivered spells, energy draining, green slime, etc.), or non-magical attacks that do not involve blows (such as flaming oil, ingested or inhaled poisons, acid, constriction, and suffocation). Stoneskin lasts for 24 hours or until the spell has absorbed its allotment of attacks."
Update (July 2026): Since the conclusion of the television series, I have gone back and reworked all of the “Top 10 Warriors of Westeros” posts. What began as a Top 10 has now expanded to a full Top 20 in light of additional material and perspective we gained.
This original Top 10-20 list stays as is for historical purposes, as it has been superseded by the overall new and updated Top 20 ranking. The core arguments and personal opinions remain largely unchanged. With George R.R. Martin’s remaining books still unwritten, these rankings are still a mix of book canon and informed speculation. I’ve simply improved formatting, clarity, spelling, and flow so the series reads better and holds up as a proper archive piece.
The original Top 11-20 is as follows:
I realize that any list put forth is going to be tough and not everyone will agree, but as I stated with my first post in this series about Brynden Tully: that's the fun! There are so many warriors here that I shuffled around my list a number of times before deciding on who I did. So without further delay: warriors #11-20.
#11- Victarion Greyjoy. I actually had him listed in the Top 10, but he didn't survive the final cut-down to 10. He is certainly the most deadly warrior of the Iron Islands. One can easily make the case of Victarion being somewhere between #6 and 10 in the Top Ten. Every time I've read the series I've gotten the feeling that there are not to many people that would want to cross swords with him. He is surprisingly a thinking warrior and not a hulking brute like The Mountain calm off the battlefield and deadly on it.
#12- Ser Garlan Tyrell- Unfortunately I can't place him higher. He is widely acknowledged as one of the finest swordsmen living in the Seven Kingdoms, but we have nothing more to go on. Even his brother, Loras (in talking to Sansa) admits that Garlan is the better swordsman.
#13- Prince Rhaegar Targaryen- Admittedly I had a hard time with him. Prince Rhaegar was apparently a splendid jouster, but when he took the field against Robert on the Trident it was Robert that prevailed; to me looking at this point there is nothing wrong in that combat: Robert in his prime was just that good. Rhaegar represents the unfulfilled promise of many characters in the book (least of all his own) from Cersei, to Lynna Stark to his younger brother Viserys. He is the sum of all of those characters "what might have beens."
#14- The Knight of Flowers- Probably controversial being placed this low, but here's why: if the list was for best jouster and showman then he vaults to the top of the list bar none. But it's not. Loras plays at war and his Grandmother the Queen of Thorns says as much. Despite his bezerk fury at Renly's death Loras can't really be placed higher in my honest opinion. He has flashes of brilliance, but interestingly enough when it comes time to lead in battle he utterly fails a the Siege at Dragonstone.
#15- Qhorin Halfhand- he leads off the "bottle-neck" of northerns on my list. He is probably the best warrior living north of the Neck. Certainly he is the greatest warrior the Black Watch. GRRM loves to parallel characters and stories in the book so it will be interesting to see if Jaime's switch to his opposite hand parallels Qhorin's.
#16- Greatjon Umber- every time I think of Greatjon Umber I get the impression of bezerk fury! At the Red Wedding it takes 8 men to subdue him!
#17- Eddard Stark- Eddard never engages in combat in the series, but he somehow managed to walk out of the Tower of Joy alive one of only two men to do so out of 10 in that epic battle. However, until the details of that fateful encounter are fully known then he's in limbo. He also falls further because GRRM has stated that his brother Brandon was the better warrior.
#18- Brienne of Tarth- well, the warrior maiden is massive and bigger then Jaime, but not quite as large as Ser Gregor. At over 6 feet tall she is worthy of a spot on this list as she has taken out a few bad guys in the series. She does fight Jaime, but then again Jaime wasn't really trying to hurt her either. She almost gets killed by Biter of all characters... that actually hurts her standing in my opinion.
#19- Jon Snow. Like Robb we get the sense that he is good, but we are never sure just how good, at least not yet... Obviously he has outstanding leadership qualities and if this list were for that alone he would be in the top 10. He leads the Black Watch ably, but he is one of those characters that there is more to come namely in A Dance of Dragons.
#20- Robb Stark. We never get a sense of just how good of a warrior he is with a sword, but it's obvious that he is an outstanding leader on the battlefield, too bad his promise is cut short.
Update (July 2026):(Since the conclusion of the television series, I have gone back and reworked all of the “Top Warriors of Westeros” posts. What began as a Top 10 has now expanded to a full Top 20 in light of the additional material and perspective we gained.
With George R.R. Martin’s remaining books still unwritten, these rankings remain a mix of book canon and informed speculation. The core arguments and personal opinions are unchanged, I’ve simply improved formatting, clarity, spelling, and flow so the series reads better and holds up as a proper archive piece.)
The overall Top 20 Greatest Warriors of the Westeros can be found here.
We’ve made it from #10 down to #1 on the list of Greatest Warriors of Westeros, and only one warrior remains. And that one warrior is only told through recollections via the main characters, and interestingly enough, by two of the main antagonists. It is also interesting further still that for different reasons, both come to the same conclusion.
But, as a movie once said, in the end “There can only be one,” and that choice is Ser Arthur Dayne, The Sword of the Morning.
The Sword of the Morningis by consensus the greatest knight that ever lived. It’s not just one person saying this, it’s everyone in the whole damn series. The main problem is that as of now we know precious little about him. So how can he be number one? Easy. Read on.
#1- Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning
Ser Arthur was a member of the Kingsguard and is widely considered one of the greatest knights of that order. Now that is saying something when you consider some of the men that have worn the white: Gerold Hightower, Duncan the Tall, (read the Dunk and Egg stories for more info), Ser Ryam Redwyne, Ser Serwyn of the Mirror Shield, amongst others. When one can mention the Sword of the Morning in the same breath as these legendary fighters…you know you are talking about someone special.
Ser Arthur was instrumental in defeating the Kingswood Brotherhood as well as slaying the Smiling Knight. While fighting the Smiling Knight, the man’s sword broke. Ever the chivalrous knight, Ser Arthur let him retrieve another before recommencing combat.
Jaime Lannister was made a knight at that point and was deeply impressed by Ser Arthur. So is it simple hero worship on Jaime’s part? Doubtful? Hero worship? Consider Jamie's own words:
"That boy had wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, but someplace along the way he had become the Smiling Knight instead."
It was Ser Arthur who brought the grievances of the smallfolk to Aerys II during the time of the Kingswood Brotherhood. Because of this, he became beloved by the smallfolk, and they turned their support away from the Brotherhood. Couple this with his actions against the Smiling Knight. Would anyone let The Mountain that Rides get another sword if he broke it? Again, doubtful.
In short, Ser Arthur was the real deal when it came to living and breathing what a knight should do and be. Martin loves contrast, so he uses Ser Arthur as the epitome of knighthood, then casts this against the events of the books.
Now from here it takes a bit of reading and then deductive reasoning on the part of… well, everyone everywhere. Look at the list so far: Is there anyone on the list that Ser Arthur couldn’t beat? Ser Arthur is one of those warriors that comes along once every thousand years. He is designed to be legend. The fact that he was one in his own time just makes everything add up. There is no one listed so far that he would fear and have a better than everage chance of beating outright. Think about those that I haven’t listed — is there anyone there who could beat him? I say no. Those I have listed? No again.
If for no other reason, Ser Arthur Dayne gets the top spot when you consider the words from none other than the Kingslayer himself, when he says this to Ser Loras Tyrell about Ser Arthur in A Feast for Crows:
“I served with Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, who could have slain all six of you with his left hand while taking a piss with his right.”
Now Jaime is no slouch himself when it comes to a blade (He was #3 on this list) and this is pretty high praise from someone who is about as arrogant as they come prior to his sword hand being lopped off.
The Praise would be off putting if it was from just Jaime, but once again Eddard Stark saves the day by taking the same stabce as Jaime about Ser Arthur on a different occasion:
"He was the finest knight I've ever seen and he would have killed me if it were not for Howland Reed."
Strong stuff and coming from Eddard and it's hardly open to interpretation. Think about who Eddard has seen in his lifetime: Ser Barristan Selmy, Bronze Yohn Royce, Robert Baratheon, Prince Rhegar and many more. Yet Eddard gives him the compliment that he does. A way to honor a foe who is insanely heroic? A trick of sorts? Highly unlikely as it's Eddard saying this, a man famous throughout the kingdom for his honor.
Oh and we got to see The Sword of the Morning in action in the television version of Game of Thrones.
No boasting, no threats, simply the quiet confidence of knowing hes about to slay multiple people despite the odds.
Another unusual thing about Ser Arthur is that he is the only character in the series having a mighty blade, but one that is wholly unique: it’s not Valyrian steel.. Now, this could just be an odd coincidence, but GRRM rarely does things for happenstance in the series. Ser Arthur’s sword, Dawn, is actually made from the metal of a fallen meteor and is featured in the house’s coat of arms as a result. Again, this may mean nothing, but then again it could be an interesting angle considering the whole "Prince who was promised" prophecy (although the leading candidate is Daenerys).
More interesting is the fact that after the Tower of Joy (see below), Ned brings his sword to Ser Arthur’s heir. This heir is Edric Dayne, who is wet-nursed along with Jon Snow. That’s interesting… very interesting. Why would Eddard bring Jon Snow to a family to be wet-nursed when said family is one that he just killed its most famous scion? In short, you don’t — at least not without a reason. Even Eddard is not going to do something like this for no reason. It could be Eddard’s famous honor, but I’m doubting that is the reason. In short, Ser Arthur’s story is not done yet, I’m guessing, and it is very much tied up in Jon Snow and Eddard.
Another point is that Ned’s statement about Ser Arthur begs the question: What exactly happened at the Tower of Joy in Dorne? We know (or are pretty certain) that Jon Snow is the son of Lyanna Stark and Prince Rhaegar. Why else would three of the Kingsguard (including its Lord Commander, Gerold Hightower) be guarding it and Lyanna while a war for the crown of the Seven Kingdoms was being waged? Either way, it’s apparent that you don’t send your best warriors and their commander to the end of the kingdom for no reason.
So again — just what happened there? One gets the feeling that it wasn’t your average sword fight. It could turn out that it was nothing like we expected. Howland Reed poisoning Ser Arthur, or any number of other possible explanations? Apparently it was Eddard who killed Ser Arthur Dayne, but to me that seems a bit too tidy. We do know that it was seven against three. Ten men in the fight, and only two walked out alive, with neither ever talking about what happened. With the only one now left alive being Howland Reed…
Obviously, as of the video clip above noted above we know what happened in the television show — but not in the books.
So unless some new characters get introduced in the series, it’s Ser Arthur Dayne that stands as the Greatest Warrior of the Word of Ice and Fire.
That’s right — we know little about him, and none of it directly. But from what we do know, we know this: the Sword of the Morning stands head and shoulders above the rest. How is this so? Two of the main characters of the books, Jaime and Eddard, have the same opinion. That alone is saying something…
Ser Arthur is a mystery with some holes poked through the shroud of his character. He is not a deep history character, and his exploits are well known to the Seven Kingdoms — just not to the reader as of yet.
And there it is. I don’t expect that people will totally agree with my selections, but as I stated, that’s the fun. Something like this makes it impossible to ever reach consensus. But if you don't like my conclusion? Take the word of the man who wrote the books:
If both men had equivalent weaponry, it might be a toss-up.
In the end I wanted to get this done before A Dance of Dragons is out, and I made it with eight days to spare.
My next post will contain my list of warriors #11–20 — i.e. those that didn’t make the top 10. It was tough to get to 10, so there are some excellent warriors that have nothing to be ashamed about being where they are.
