You’re basically saying Robert could beat any of the GOAT warriors if they were given castle forged swords which is an asinine opinion that
contradicts even what the creator of these very characters has said.
In the Battle of the Trident Robert suffered grave injuries in his duel with Rhaegar, so much so that it was Ned who marched to King’s Landing in his place to secure the throne. And Rhaegar didn’t even have a Valyrian steel sword (just a common longsword), neither is he anywhere near a top 10 fighter in the story
Rhaegar almost killed him posthumously, but Arthur Dayne wouldn’t be able to beat Robert without Dawn??
Stop it breh
I get some yall book readers are passionate (I am too. Have read every source material), but yall gotta chill with random name droppings and stop coming with this superiority complex when casuals are just trying to enjoy a show
Robert was fighting a war for the better part of a year with multiple battles along the way and Rhaegar came from literally months of rest n relaxation, smutting out his teenage thing thing.
How are you gonna hold the fact that Robert was wounded fighting in the biggest battle of the era against him, when his opponent was fresh and had some of the best trained knights as his steadfast companions?
He was wounded yes, as he'd been wounded before but he wasn't gravely wounded, especially since he was able to send his own maester to see to Barristan Selmy in turn.
Selmy who was actually severely wounded in that fight but nobody is holding it against him, especially since we're never told who did it.
Yes, imo Robert is the odds on favorite to beat most anybody coming at him with a sword, especially since his armor as a lord paramount is gonna be the best around so thick and reinforced to hell and back.
Rhaegar didn't almost kill him, he wounded him but you're vastly embellishing the damage breh, stop it.
Do I think Dayne could beat a viciously skilled man who's 6⁶ and 280 with thick armor and hammer and shield with a castle forged sword 8/10? Could he definitely win some?
Sure.
But 8/10 tells me you're not understanding what Robert Baratheon was on the field.
He's literally supposed to be Aragon from Lotr. The peerless warrior of his day.
Irl knights used mauls/flails/maces/hammers/poleaxes more because they did vastly better against armor, whereas swords forced you to aim at joints and flaps or resort to half handing it, which means you're in close.
And for the record Martin was asked about swordsmen, and that's his answer.
When there's a whole hierarchy of weapons and swords are on the bottom next to hoes and pitchforks, why would I rate that highly?
