1 v 1 v 1 v 1 In case the forum decides to kill the image in the future, here are the rules as depicted in the the image above: Movie/TV versions only all in their prime their swords cannot break mid fight location: abandoned village everyone has neutral armour And no teams ups or allies. As depicted in the picture, Achilles gets his shield as it is naturally paired with his short sword (but not his spear as this is a sword fight). Who wins the sword fight most often?
To be fair, I think you can make an argument for Achilles or Geralt. In a sword fight though, I'm not picking against Achilles, even when factoring in Geralt's magical/physiological advantages. Achilles is too skilled, too precise and far too deadly. He walked through everyone he faced in the movie Troy and was only killed when not fighting and dealing with the girl. Even against Hector, who was his worthiest challenge, he was never in any danger. I can't see anyone landing a decisive blow on him. While his sword is shorter than the rest of the combatants, the pairing with his shield more than makes up for this. I'd rank them this way: Achilles Geralt Aragorn Conan I'm guessing there will be a few of you making the case for Geralt or Aragorn.
I'd say: Achilles Geralt Conan Aragorn If we count what's shown in the book, Conan could beat Geralt... but I don't know about the abilities of Geralt in the books. IMO aragorn is good, but not Conan-good.
It's got to be Achilles... even ignoring the Brad Pitt performance in Troy who was allowed to last longer in the story than the figure actually did, in the original Greek myths he is still far too good. Having a dip in the River Styx is well and truly the golden ticket to martial success. Poor Hector is still a highly-skilled fighter in his own right and is extraordinarily brave - arguably far more courageous than Achilles himself - for choosing to take him on despite his reputation, but no mortal swordsman, no matter how gifted, will be able to defeat Achilles' immortality, as a result of his neo-divine blessing, through bladework alone. The only way to kill him, of course, is to cut into his heel, an extremely small area of his body that would be constantly moving thanks to his footwork, and would require pure luck, or a divine blessing of one's own, to hit - as Paris very much had in every version of the legend, written or filmed (and in his case, he had to use a bow at range to achieve that). As for the others... don't know much about Geralt, but Conan's far better-known for his dumb brawn than anything else, and Aragorn is overrated as a fighter - he is much more capable as a leader, motivator and all-round good guy. Even with the mighty Anduril in his hands he is still easily bested by a troll (a bigger and brawnier but slower and dumber opponent, without the divine blessing of the River Styx at its back) and would have been quickly killed if it wasn't for Gollum and Frodo's respective addictions to the One Ring. None of them would have much hope of taking down Achilles.
And here I thought that I'd have to being debating on behalf of Achilles over Geralt and Aragorn. Like I said, I can see an argument for Geralt (he consistently fights against monsters and dangerous creatures and is magically/physically enhanced) but Achilles is just so skilled in the Troy movie. He's got my vote. Aragorn and Conan stand no chance at all. In the original mythology he is an actual demi-god. Brad Pitt's version is fully mortal and more grounded in comparison. Mythological Achilles solos the whole field.
Achilles. Even though he's my least favourite character on that list. Geralt is the close second. I suppose if he had time to prepare and imbibe the right... oh, TV version only. Been a while, but while the tonics were a thing, they weren't nearly as prevalent as in the games, so he loses that possibility. Still second place. Conan is a tank, but Achilles and Geralt both dance around him and destroy him. A big sword and big muscles mean nothing when you can't hit the opponent. Frell, Achilles will probably do the same thing he did to that one dude in the opening duel and just one-shot him without a second thought. Movie Aragorn is not a great fighter. Book Aragorn might have stood a chance, being a perfect specimen of a man with his giant posture and his having trained specifically to one day reclaim the crown. But moviegorn not only lacks the physique, he was also too busy being the reluctant king in exile to train up to the standards that Bookagorn did.
A badass intro doesn't - because yes, agreed, easily one of the best movie intros ever - doesn't automatically mean I'll particularly like the character. Nothing against him, he just didn't really tick the boxes for me. Good film though, and credit to the Pitt for his depiction.
honest question: are you sure about that? I've had the impression that was only when the arrow hits him in the heel that he becomes "vulnerable". Or was just a nod to the myth? Because i remember that he carries a shield because he wants protection, but that could be because wounds hurt the same.