Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: Argent on September 08, 2010, 06:29:35 PM
-
Can someone explain, simply, how Kaladin an Bridge Four carry their bridges, before and after the change? Somehow I am having hard time visualizing this...
-
I think the bridges are pretty long (200'+?) and are set down before a chasm and then pushed across to create a path to cross the chasm. Don't the bridges require 26+ bridgemen to carry?
-
I think the bridges are pretty long (200'+?) and are set down before a chasm and then pushed across to create a path to cross the chasm. Don't the bridges require 26+ bridgemen to carry?
Yeah, but if that's the case, it's impossible to get onto a plateau that's higher than the one you're already on.
-
I had a hard time visualizing it as well...maybe something that Inkthinker can show us what Brandon's vision is? I was thinking it would be something that would be illustrated in the book, but then realized that Shallan wasn't on the Shattered Plains, so her visualization wouldn't have been shown. Maybe when she gets there we'll get a picture? If they still have bridge crews by then? With Dalinar in charge, not sure what kind of bridge crews will crop up or disappear.
-
It is impossible to get onto a plateau that's higher than your current one. When they're crossing, they pick a spot that's lower on the other side. The bridges are somewhat over 40' long.
-
It is impossible to get onto a plateau that's higher than your current one. When they're crossing, they pick a spot that's lower on the other side. The bridges are somewhat over 40' long.
I guess the only problem with that would be that they would have to get back onto the higher levels on the way back.
I mean, they could just find an even lower plateau and go from there, but that seems really convenient that there's a path "downhill" there and a path "downhill" back...
Either way, I didn't have a problem with that at all. I just took it for granted that it worked and didn't question the hows or whys of it.
-
I had actually pictured the bridges being an elongated "V" shape so that one end was elevated as it was pushed across and the point dipped into the chasm in the middle.
Peter, I envy you your brainstorming sessions with Brandon.
BTW, you've got a "gift" coming back with him from his D.C. signing. Thanks for the insights here and there to keep us straight as we "supposes what we supposes".
-
It's not so much that there's a "downhill" both up and back, but rather that the plateaus are not at all level with each other, meaning that adjacent plateaus may each have higher and lower points. You don't cross over at the same place each way. One reason that Sadeas's bridge crews are faster and more effective than Dalinar's mobile bridge towers is that it's easier to direct 25 men carrying a 40-50' bridge over rough terrain than to tow bridge towers in relays.
It's a subject that I haven't talked with Brandon about much, but from what I can tell the gaps between plateaus is rarely more than 20', at least in the territories that the crew traverse (the gaps get wider the deeper in you go) and the bridges are usually twice that length.
-
It's not so much that there's a "downhill" both up and back, but rather that the plateaus are not at all level with each other, meaning that adjacent plateaus may each have higher and lower points. You don't cross over at the same place each way. One reason that Sadeas's bridge crews are faster and more effective than Dalinar's mobile bridge towers is that it's easier to direct 25 men carrying a 40-50' bridge over rough terrain than to tow bridge towers in relays.
I understand that, but then they wouldn't be able to arrive exactly back in Sadeas' camp every time, or at least it doesn't make much sense.
- If they leave over Plateau A and want to get to Plateau B, then logically Plateau A will be higher than B.
- To get to Plateau C, B will have to be higher than C
- To progress, they would always have to find a lower plateau.
- Eventually, they have to come back to platform A, or some other Plateau, which will be higher than any Plateau around it, since the path they take gets continually lower and lower. They literally cannot keep finding plateaus that go continually lower and expect to wind all the way up at the camp again.
Wouldn't they eventually come to a point where they would HAVE to go upward? Unless you're going to say "well the land is just so uneven that there's always a way to go down that will lead to a way up" or "there are some plateaus that have a low end and a high end." Which I can buy, but just how many?
But then, this conundrum can be oh-so-easily explained by the permanent Bridges, couldn't it? :)
Still, I think there would come a point where it would be impossible to reach certain plateaus or return to certain camps. Interesting thought.
-
sdelu: you missed what inkthinkr said, crossing from plateau A to plateau B you find a spot where A is higher than B, going back you find a spot where B is higher than A as they're not at all even.
-
sdelu: you missed what inkthinkr said, crossing from plateau A to plateau B you find a spot where A is higher than B, going back you find a spot where B is higher than A as they're not at all even.
No, I understand that. But out of all those plateaus, it's really going to be that convenient?
As I said, I don't really care if it makes sense or not. There's an explanation and I can certainly "suspend my disbelief" that everything works out so cleanly, but I was now just thinking of the implications this could have on the story.
What IF an army got stuck out on the plains, much like Dalinar almost did? What if they couldn't get back to their camp, but had to go through another? See, it could be used in some way, some how. Maybe one of the highprinces will be stuck and they won't save them from the Parshendi without an alliance, yada yada.
So I'm not just thinking in terms of "is this possible" as much as "what would this mean"? And I find the possibilities interesting!
-
My issue actually was with the two types of bridge carrying. I can't pull the book right now, but if I recall correctly the "standard" way to carry a bridge is... shoulder carry? Does that mean that the entire crew is spread somewhat evenly around the sides of the bridge, carrying it on their left or right shoulder? I don't think they can be underneath, I think Kaladin tried that later on.
Also, the new model was... bridge on the side? So lifting the bridge vertically? I may be just retarded here, but "side carry" of an object with 3 different sides didn't make much sense my foreign mind...
-
Standard, it's on their shoulders, I think they're under the edges of it.
Side carry, they bunch up and carry it at an angle so it almost reaches the ground at one side and sticks up quite a bit at the other side, I did wonder how it worked myself, probably part of it has to do with there being more space underneath it than at the edges, so you can have your arms at the same height in the middle as someone at an edge and be holding it at a lower height.
-
From what I recall, and the way I pictured it When Kaladin was in front he had people on each side, so I would say they are under the bridge 3+ across, and that some of the crews had many mor 40? men on them at least on the way out, The description of the Yokes and shoulder cary, is just like a canoe yoke for portaging.
(http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/Buffalo/images/pf043257.jpg)
-
Remember as well that the bridge is hollow inside, with sections reinforced and separated by supports. It's these that the men hold onto when using the side-carry strategy (which is admittedly awkward, but serves to use the bridge as a makeshift shield).
The canoe portage analogy isn't bad, if it were a canoe that was 10 feet wide and 40 feet long.
Something else I've been assuming about the bridges is that they're heavily weighted to the rear in order to allow them to be pushed out over the gap without tipping.
-
Inkthinker, if there weight is equally spread along them they shouldn't tip unless the gap they're being pushed accross is just over half their length.
-
And we know that some of the gaps are that large... there were several descriptions that said the bridge barely reached across the gap, especially once they neared the Plateau.
-
As far as the pushing goes - they just drop the bridge before the chasm, and push/slide it over?
-
And we know that some of the gaps are that large... there were several descriptions that said the bridge barely reached across the gap, especially once they neared the Plateau.
That could mean barely reached without tiping, i.e. the gap being about half the length of the bridge.
Otherwise, yes the bridges would need to be weighted at the rear.
-
"barely reach" might mean "barely reach without tipping" rather than that the gap itself is nearly equal to the length of the bridge. I'd have to re-read the text to see for certain.
-
And we know that some of the gaps are that large... there were several descriptions that said the bridge barely reached across the gap, especially once they neared the Plateau.
That could mean barely reached without tiping, i.e. the gap being about half the length of the bridge.
Otherwise, yes the bridges would need to be weighted at the rear.
either situation could be true, however, if *I* were building these bridges, i'd rather make them weighted to be able to "barely reach" something further than halfway across the bridge.
Also, doesn't kaladin mention to himself at some point that its easier/lighter carrying at a certain position on the bridge? This could be an indication of weighting (it may have been an "easier to carry" towards the middle than the edge or something, rather than front-to-back, which could just indicated "it's easier because i have dudes on both sides of me" rather than weighting)
-
Why didn't they Soulcast permanent bridges across the chasms? They mentioned briefly that the Parshendi were pulling down or burning some of the wooden permanent ones. Stone ones have got to last longer. It seems they could spread out farther, go longer without needing the mobile bridges. They'd still likely need the mobile bridges for the final assault (especially if they want bait).
They can't be worried about giving the Parshendi an easy path to the warcamps since the Parshendi can just hop across chasms with no bridges needed.
They could Soulcast permanent bridges as wide and as thick as they need. It might be expensive, but surely the speed benefit would help them get more gemhearts to balance out. They could even Soulcast over entire chasms, and make outposts out on the plateaus. Yes, they'd be less protected from the highstorms, and more vulnerable to Parshendi raids, but they could Soulcast stronger barracks and fill the outposts with the equivalent of bridgemen - scum, criminals and rejects who need someplace to go and die.
Perhaps Dalinar as the new Highprince of War will commission Soulcast bridges?
-
Isn't soulcasting considered to be incredibly holy by Vorinism? It seems like using it for war might violate their beliefs.
-
I really need to get an idea in my head of how wide the chasms between plateaus are, because I'm thinking sometimes we imagine them to be very wide, and they don't need to be.
Think about it, though... a gap of 10 feet is too far for most people, especially weighed down with armor and weapons, to jump with any reasonable expectation of success. For scale, I think the average US residential street (two lanes, no dividing line, no shoulder) is about 20-25 feet wide, which seems a lot wider than any of the spaces that Bridge Four was exploring down below, so it sounds reasonable to say that's probably about the widest gap a bridge crew covers, (unless the text of the book directly contradicts me). That's sufficient distance for a 50-foot bridge, weighted to the rear, to cover if the opposing edge is just slightly lower, and lets remember that ANY gap wider than maybe 6 feet probably requires the bridge crews to drop their bridge.
Does someone with a ebook version want to keysearch and actually transcribe or C&P what is actually written about the dimensions and shape of the bridges, as well as the dimensions of the gaps? I remember vague details such as the wedge-shaped ends and the hollow interior and that it's something like 5 men across and 10 rows deep, but that's not solid measurement.
On the issue of soulcasting bridges:
Soulcasting is more than holy, it's expensive. Wood and lives are cheaper.
-
Inkthinker, a 50-foot bridge would not need to be weighted at the rear to handle a 25 foot gap, it would need to be for a wider gap, but not for a 25 foot one.
-
Inkthinker, a 50-foot bridge would not need to be weighted at the rear to handle a 25 foot gap, it would need to be for a wider gap, but not for a 25 foot one.
Actually, for a 25-foot gap, it might need to. Because if the gap itself is 25 feet, after the 25 foot point, the bridge will start teetering and being unruly in general, and you're gonna need several feet beyond that 25 feet to make the bridge stable between the two edges (i would say at least a good 5 feet or so, otherwise the bridge is just going to slip/buckle/crumble off the ground and fall)
If the bridge falls too early from going over the half way point, they might not be able to guide out as far as they need to to make it stable on both edges.
-
If you think about the physics of it, a bridge could probably make a distance slightly more than half its length. First, the bridge is in movement, so it has forward momentum that could carry it further. Second, the opposing plateau should be lower in height than the one the bridgemen are on. If the bridge were stationary between two plateaus of equal height, it would tip at the halfway mark. Since the bridge is in motion and the plateaus are different in height, it'll carry over a couple more feet once it starts to tip.
-
If you think about the physics of it, a bridge could probably make a distance slightly more than half its length. First, the bridge is in movement, so it has forward momentum that could carry it further. Second, the opposing plateau should be lower in height than the one the bridgemen are on. If the bridge were stationary between two plateaus of equal height, it would tip at the halfway mark. Since the bridge is in motion and the plateaus are different in height, it'll carry over a couple more feet once it starts to tip.
right, but it needs to make it far enough to be stable, not just make it. The bridges are heavy, and can likely plummet downward if they don't hit far enough on the edge of the plateau to be stable, they'll either slip or something from their momentum.
Also, this vastly changes depending on if we're talking 25 feet horizontal or diagonal. If it's 25 feet horizontal across the chasm (i.e. the chasm is 25 feet wide) then there's no way a 50 foot bridge could make it across, because the diagonal distance is too great.
I dont know if its ever specified, but if we're saying its a "25 foot gap" i would have to assume the chasms are 25 feet wide, because otherwise we would say something like "its 25 feet edge-to-edge" or something similar, i would think. I've been going with the assumption "25 foot gap" means "Chasm opening of 25 feet"
-
Remember you ahve bridgemen pushing it out. a 50ft unweighted bridge will go horizontal 25 foot before it starts going down, the bridgemen pushing it out probably mean that it will get a bit further. And it only has to be just on the other side when it touches intially, as they can keep pushing it.
-
And bear in mind, I'm saying 25 feet would be the widest gap. Like, the chasms around the Tower might be that wide at their thinnest point, hence the limited options for approach that played such an important role in that battle.
More common chasms would be less than that. The average is probably around 15 feet (again, I'm guessing unless we find contextual statements or clues), which a 50-foot long, rear-weighted bridge should be able to handle with (relative) ease. And even gaps where a single person might reasonably attempt to jump, say only 6 feet or so, become quite another obstacle when you try to move an army across them.
Another good visual exercise, if you live in a city (or just care to do some Street View touring) is to take a look at the width of the alleys between tall buildings you pass by. If it's wide enough to admit a single vehicle, that may only be 10-12 feet wide, but its more than you would want to try and cross unaided if you were 5 or 6 stories up.
-
Another good visual exercise, if you live in a city (or just care to do some Street View touring) is to take a look at the width of the alleys between tall buildings you pass by. If it's wide enough to admit a single vehicle, that may only be 10-12 feet wide, but its more than you would want to try and cross unaided if you were 5 or 6 stories up.
A bridge of 50 feet couldn't cross this particular chasm dimension without being weighted. Even then it might be a stretch.
Why? Because the diagonal distance required would be at least 46 feet. A typical "story" in height is between 9-15, (pending on ceiling height and flooring, etc), so that's at least 45 feet vertical distance, and with a 10 foot horizontal distance, using our handy pythagorean theorem (a^2+b^2=c^2), 100+2025 = 2125, or 46.1 feet, for our hypotenuse (diagonal distance).
You're going to need to go way past half way for the arc of the bridge swing to hit even remotely NEAR the edge.
Edit: and just a note, these are the minimum calculations given the supplied amounts. If it's 6 stories up (calculation was with 5) it wouldn't be possible to cross a 10 foot gap, as even at smallest story size (9 feet) we have a length of 54 feet to cover
-
Eerongal, you missed Inkthinker's point, he was suggesting nominal vertical difference, but both where you're crossing from and where you're crossing to are effectively six stories up, so you don't want to try and jump the gap even if it is only 10-12 feet.
-
Eerongal, you missed Inkthinker's point, he was suggesting nominal vertical difference, but both where you're crossing from and where you're crossing to are effectively six stories up, so you don't want to try and jump the gap even if it is only 10-12 feet.
I'm fully aware that was his point, however, he's making it sound like this is about the dimensions of the "average" chasm they'd be crossing. I just wanted to point out that if this is, then they aren't using 50-foot bridges. The vertical distance plays a huge role in what can actually be done with the bridges (weighted or not)
-
The bridges couldn't be weighted otherwise they'd fall into the chasms when they were pulled across from the other side.
-
The bridges couldn't be weighted otherwise they'd fall into the chasms when they were pulled across from the other side.
Not necessarily. as has been stated, the side you're coming from is higher than the side you're going to. When they pull the bridge over, they could rest the weighted end on the cliff face, and pull out the front, letting the weighted side (resting on the cliff face) slide down, until they can just pull it over.
-
I'm fully aware that was his point, however, he's making it sound like this is about the dimensions of the "average" chasm they'd be crossing. I just wanted to point out that if this is, then they aren't using 50-foot bridges. The vertical distance plays a huge role in what can actually be done with the bridges (weighted or not)
I think you're misunderstanding the situation he's describing. You're reading it as a bridge connecting the top of the building and the street. What he meant was a bridge connecting the top of one building to the top of another. The number of stories was supplied only to support that you really wouldn't want to risk falling that far from trying and failing to just jump across. The building tops, the places the bridge would actually connect, are within 1 or 2 stories vertical distance from each other at most.
-
I see what he means though... it's not just the horizontal distance, but the distance added by the drop to the lower plateau. I think Pythagoras solves this one for us... if a=across and b=down, then a²+b²=c², where c is the length of the bridge needed to settle on both sides
But unless the drop distance is more than a few feet I don't think it should dramatically affect the numbers.
EXAMPLE: Bridge Four comes to a chasm 20' wide, where the other side is 5' lower than the side they're on (a good sized drop). The length of bridge they would need is about 20.6' (20² + 5² = 425, square root of 425 is 20.6155blahblahblah). Even if the drop was 10', they would only need 22 feet of bridge to get across. Once they push it past the halfway point, it tips down and drops onto the other side.
But your point was entirely valid, you have to consider the vertical drop in addition to the horizontal distance. An ideal bridging point is one that's less than 25 feet across, and less than 10 feet below your higher position.
And since we know the bridges are an effective traversal method (or Sadeas wouldn't use them), we can assume that finding locations which match this criteria going there and back is not that difficult. It's also possible that there are additional methods for getting the bridge across which are not described by Kaladin for whatever reason (such as extending the bridge most of the way, then sending over a couple bridgemen to jump the remaining gap and haul up the other end with ropes) that would allow you to bridge gaps which are level with or even slightly above your position. I'd even suggest lifting the bridge until the front end is higher and allowing it to drop onto the other side, but this would probably shatter the structure upon impact (or maybe not, depending on how its built).
-
Nono, I see what he means... it's not just the horizontal distance, but the distance added by the drop to the lower plateau. There is probably solid math to determine the length of the gap (pythagoras? if a=across and b=down, then a²+b²=c², where c is the length of the bridge needed to settle on both sides
But unless the drop distance is more than a few feet I don't think it should dramatically affect the numbers.
EXAMPLE: Bridge Four comes to a chasm 20' wide, where the other side is 5' lower than the side they're on (a good sized drop). The length of bridge they would need is about 20.6' (25² + 5² = 425, square root of 425 is 20.6155blahblahblah)
But your point was entirely valid, you have to consider the vertical drop in addition to the horizontal distance.
Exactly. It's not just the horizontal distance we're concerned with here, but the diagonal distance created where the bridge will be going. The bridge needs to be able to be pushed out far enough that the arc of the bridge falling lands solidly and in a stable position to continue on.
And yes, we would need to use the Pythagorean theorem to figured this out (a and b are the horizontal and vertical, in no particular order, and C is the length out bridge needs to be able to reach to)
It's true that a 5 foot or so drop isnt a big deal, but it all depends on how all this is actually measured out. We don't really have dimensions for anything, so its kinda hard to say, but both horizontal and vertical distance are going to play into how the bridges need to be worked. If it's a huge drop, even though it isnt more than say 15 feet on average, we're gonna need to go out pretty far before we can let the bridge drop.
edit: also, inkthinker, your math is wrong. 25^2 is 625, plus 25 (5*5) added to it is 650, which is a diagonal distance of about 25.5 feet after rounding. When dealing with right triangles, your hypotenuse (The diagonal distance) is always gonna be greater than each side. So if there's a drop involved, you're always gonna need more length than your horizontal distance.
Further edit: wait, i see what happened. In the equation you put 25, in the text you said 20. your math is correct with 20 feet, just not 25 feet :P
-
Heh... I should know better than to re-edit a post after I post it, but yeah. I don't think vertical variance is a huge factor in crossings... a gap that was 20 feet wide and 10 down would be make a heck of a slope, but it would only require 22 feet of bridge to traverse. A drop of 15 feet seems extreme.
When I mentioned being 5-6 stories up, I mean up from the bottom of the chasm, not up to the next plateau... I was saying you wouldn't want to jump a ten-foot gap when, if you miss, you're looking at a 60-foot fall.
I can see how that was misunderstood, but I can't think of any time when they cross up or down to that extreme.
I've been more curious as to how the bridge men get out of the way and then reassemble near the rear as the part of the bridge they're manning goes over the gap. If you don't get out of the way fast enough, your own men could push you over the lip while they're running out the bridge. And if you hang onto the bridge as it goes over the chasm, you're adding weight that throws out the balance... you're lucky if they don't shoot you just to keep your weight from tipping it down prematurely (after all, the bridge is worth a LOT more than you are).
I think I can envision it, but it's a heck of a relay.
-
They drop the thing then push it out. As their carry points are at least partly, if not wholy under the bridge, they have to be moved from carry points for it to be on the ground.
-
Heh... I should know better than to re-edit a post after I post it, but yeah. I don't think vertical variance is a huge factor in crossings... a gap that was 20 feet wide and 10 down would be make a heck of a slope, but it would only require 22 feet of bridge to traverse. A drop of 15 feet seems extreme.
Yeah, that would be a 45 degree angle, which, i think, is still walkable, but difficult. Beyond that, it's gonna start becoming a "happy fun slide into battle!" situation.
-
Isn't soulcasting considered to be incredibly holy by Vorinism? It seems like using it for war might violate their beliefs.
And the Soulcast barracks?
-
Heh... I should know better than to re-edit a post after I post it, but yeah. I don't think vertical variance is a huge factor in crossings... a gap that was 20 feet wide and 10 down would be make a heck of a slope, but it would only require 22 feet of bridge to traverse. A drop of 15 feet seems extreme.
Yeah, that would be a 45 degree angle, which, i think, is still walkable, but difficult. Beyond that, it's gonna start becoming a "happy fun slide into battle!" situation.
Umm, actually a 45 degree angle would be if it were x feet down and x feet wide (for any given x).
20 feet wide and 10 feet down, is closer to (though not) 30 degrees.
-
Don't the Parshendi jump all the distances? If that's the case, I bet there aren't any 20 foot chasms.
-
Don't the Parshendi jump all the distances? If that's the case, I bet there aren't any 20 foot chasms.
The Parshendi even jump to the tower which apparently at the narrowest point would be risky for someone in shardplate to jump. So question, how much does shardplate enhance jumping ability. Parhsendi clearly have super jumping ability...
-
Heh... I should know better than to re-edit a post after I post it, but yeah. I don't think vertical variance is a huge factor in crossings... a gap that was 20 feet wide and 10 down would be make a heck of a slope, but it would only require 22 feet of bridge to traverse. A drop of 15 feet seems extreme.
Yeah, that would be a 45 degree angle, which, i think, is still walkable, but difficult. Beyond that, it's gonna start becoming a "happy fun slide into battle!" situation.
Umm, actually a 45 degree angle would be if it were x feet down and x feet wide (for any given x).
20 feet wide and 10 feet down, is closer to (though not) 30 degrees.
err....yeah, you're right. for some reason i was thinking 20'x20', not 20'x10'
-
The bridges couldn't be weighted otherwise they'd fall into the chasms when they were pulled across from the other side.
Not necessarily. as has been stated, the side you're coming from is higher than the side you're going to. When they pull the bridge over, they could rest the weighted end on the cliff face, and pull out the front, letting the weighted side (resting on the cliff face) slide down, until they can just pull it over.
I'm not sure that I understand what you trying to say. What do you mean rest the bridge against the cliff face?.
-
I think that pulling them across after you probably does come with some risk of them falling in, but it could be done with enough people working together. Have a couple guys stand on the light end to weigh it down, for instance.
It doesn't have to be heavily weighted off-center. Heck, we're only supposing it is so that it can cross gaps more than half the length of the bridge, which may not be necessary if the chasms being crossed rarely exceed 20 feet in width.
I think that right there is part of the problem, envisioning the chasms they cross as being wider than they are. I can see I may have to make some diagrams or something at some point.
;D
-
That is part of why I'd assume they wouldn't be weighted, so that the pulling accross part wouldn't be a problem.
-
I'm not sure that I understand what you trying to say. What do you mean rest the bridge against the cliff face?.
I get what he's trying to say. However, don't think that any of the drops are that big. A bridge is basically flat when the cavalry are charging across it. Basically. It will go down very slightly, but not so much that it will affect the length of the bridge much at all. If there's a big drop, the top end would be sticking up in the air, which isn't the case.
-
Someone said that soulcasting was holy and war might violate the holiness of the reliegion. Just wanted to remind everyone that being a soldier is a high calling in vorrinism and war would not be considered unholy, quite the opposite in fact.
-
Someone said that soulcasting was holy and war might violate the holiness of the reliegion. Just wanted to remind everyone that being a soldier is a high calling in vorrinism and war would not be considered unholy, quite the opposite in fact.
Of course, even if the tenets support it, that doesn't necessarily mean the priests want to go out on the front lines in the middle of the battle.
Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if the ardents weren't allowed to directly take part.
-
Plus, it's expensive. You have to burn up storm-infused spheres to do it. That makes some sense if you're creating semi-permanent structures like the barracks in the camp, but for bridges that may be destroyed by Parshendi raiders it's a waste of money. Easier and cheaper to build wooden structures that can be replaced/repaired.
-
Of course, even if the tenets support it, that doesn't necessarily mean the priests want to go out on the front lines in the middle of the battle.
Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if the ardents weren't allowed to directly take part.
I'm not suggesting they build the final assault bridges. Just slowly replace all the wooden bridges with Soulcast ones. They'd start really close to the warcamps.
And yes, it'd be expensive, but it'd be harder for the Parshendi to take down. And like I said earlier, they could put Soulcast-barrack outposts out there. Slowly push out, even throw up a significant base on the Tower. Chasmfiends would be more of a problem, but I get the feeling that they do avoid the warcamps and well-traveled plateaus.
Maybe it's not a sure-fire idea, but I'm surprised it was never brought up in the books. Have a character suggest it, and another shoot it down right away if nothing else.
-
if I recall rightly, the existence of soulcast buildings was unusual in and of itself.
-
if I recall rightly, the existence of soulcast buildings was unusual in and of itself.
I don't think so. I thought I remembered it being treated as regular military procedure, for any kind of extended campaign. The fact that Sadeas made Soulcast barracks for his bridgemen seems to indicate they're not unusual or outrageously expensive. Otherwise I would bet Sadeas would make the bridgemen shelter under their bridges or in some crummy "shelter" built like Tvlakv's wagons.
-
Plus, there was that scene where Dalinar (i think it was Dalinar) was talking about price-fixing of the lumber imported to make soulcasting lumber and such more economical to make reliance on the king's soulcasters. This lends credence to the idea that soulcasting the bridges wouldnt be so taboo
Edit: so this tells us that they'd be soulcasting for the lumber anyways, so wouldnt just straight soulcasting the bridges be easier? This train of logic leads me to believe that it isn't POSSIBLE (or at least economically possible) to soulcast the bridges, but making the raw materials and building the bridges are no problem. Maybe soulcasting cant make something that complex? Do we see anything that contradicts this?
Also: they could have soulcasted stone bridges into existence as permanent structures. Much less prone to burning and (easily) damaging. Heck, i'll bet they could do this wherever they went and the parshendi would leave it alone because of the relative difficulty that would arise in destroying a giant bridge of stone connecting two plateaus.
-
Could be right. I'm trying to remember any example of complex soulcast structures, or the details involved in the ones they have.
-
I remember several offhand observations about how the Soulcast buildings had started out extremely plain and simple and had then been improved with windows and carvings and other decorations and "fancy" features by more mundane work. I think defining shapes for Soulcasting is very limited, and in any case where "entire object" is not an option the result has to be simple.
-
There is a section that talks about Soulcasting buildings from the air itself (I believe it was a barracks they were going to make). I have no idea where in the book that is so I can't get a quote, but if they could Soulcast a building from air, why not a bridge?
-
There is a section that talks about Soulcasting buildings from the air itself (I believe it was a barracks they were going to make). I have no idea where in the book that is so I can't get a quote, but if they could Soulcast a building from air, why not a bridge?
This brings up another good question. I'm pretty sure you're right, buildings were talked about being made out of thin air, however, everything else that i can remember was turned into X from Y. Why was this necessary when they could make stuff out of thin air? Is it more difficult to do that? Or can they only do it with stone (buildings were stone)? Or is it maybe more time consuming?
Crazy theory: When making the buildings, they obviously didn't have some huge box to change into stone to be a structure, so they had to do the more difficult procedure of making it from thin air. My guess is that making the stone from thin air wasn't instant, and took some time. Possibly building it by adding layer by layer of sediment to the building to create it. This would be terribly time consuming. Possibly more time consuming than just plain building a bridge. We never actually see any buildings being soulcast, nor is the process ever described beyond something like "Our ancestors soulcast this place X thousand years ago!" or "We soulcast this place so many years ago, and have slowly been adding/changing it!"
Edit: Further thought - Maybe soulcasting something into existence requires a reduplicating of the natural process to create it (e.g. depositing stone layer by layer like sedimentary runoff would do, creating an apple requires creating a bud, which flowers, then becomes and apple, etc.) and is either more difficult and/or time consuming than going "Hey, stone, you're now a loaf of bread"
-
I think we have some precedent for logical reasoning that would make producing buildings from air time consuming. When Jasnah changes a boulder into smoke, it's noted that the smoke explosively expands because it starts out with the same density as the stone it used to be, but smoke is never naturally that dense. Turning this the other way, making stone from air would result in ridiculously fragile structures that would crumble from a light touch if you tried to do it all at once in an instant. I'd guess it has to be done by making an extremely thin shell of air-turned-stone, which would almost instantly shrink its thickness to bring its density up, then waiting for air to fill the void left by the shrinking stone, adding another thin layer merging with the first, and repeating many times. It has nothing to do with the process by which stone is normally formed and everything to do with enormous differences in density between the input and output materials.
-
I forgot about that density thing. With that in mind, it would be reasonable to assume that they can't Soulcast bridges because the amount of time it takes, and the Parshendi would easily destroy such a bridge before it was completed. However, it can't be too lengthy of a process, as any structure they could Soulcast would need to be completed before another highstorm passed by. So since they probably couldn't Soulcast one out of air, why not Soulcast one of the bridgemens bridges into rock while it's over a chasm?
-
I think we may be looking at the issue from the wrong side. The reason that there are not soulcast bridges has nothing to do with how the magic works. They probably could soulcast bridges if they have the right materials to hand.
But individual Highprinces determine what goes into their camps, and they pay to have those buildings cast on an individual basis at their own expense. And that's an expensive process 'cause it eats up spheres and requires a specialist with a near monopoly on the process.
Bridges aren't cast out on the Plains because no one faction wants to shoulder the responsibility or expense of creating and maintaining them, especially if anyone else was allowed to use them. Remember, the Highprinces are only loosely allied under the King, and they're rarely interested in working together. Competition is at the heart of the Alethi nature, right?
It's possible that the lack of soulcast bridges is a factor of selfish politicking and bureaucracy rather than an issue of feasibility. All you have to do is look to real-world politics to see how easy it is for smart ideas to fall to the wayside.
-
I forgot about that density thing. With that in mind, it would be reasonable to assume that they can't Soulcast bridges because the amount of time it takes, and the Parshendi would easily destroy such a bridge before it was completed. However, it can't be too lengthy of a process, as any structure they could Soulcast would need to be completed before another highstorm passed by. So since they probably couldn't Soulcast one out of air, why not Soulcast one of the bridgemens bridges into rock while it's over a chasm?
Because rock is relatively brittle. When you make a bridge out of stone, it needs supports. Wood can flex with impacts, and is more resilient to everything but fire.
-
I think we may be looking at the issue from the wrong side. The reason that there are not soulcast bridges has nothing to do with how the magic works. They probably could soulcast bridges if they have the right materials to hand.
But individual Highprinces determine what goes into their camps, and they pay to have those buildings cast on an individual basis at their own expense. And that's an expensive process 'cause it eats up spheres and requires a specialist with a near monopoly on the process.
Bridges aren't cast out on the Plains because no one faction wants to shoulder the responsibility or expense of creating and maintaining them, especially if anyone else was allowed to use them. Remember, the Highprinces are only loosely allied under the King, and they're rarely interested in working together. Competition is at the heart of the Alethi nature, right?
It's possible that the lack of soulcast bridges is a factor of selfish politicking and bureaucracy rather than an issue of feasibility. All you have to do is look to real-world politics to see how easy it is for smart ideas to fall to the wayside.
Thinking a bit ahead, if Dalinar manages to unite the Highprinces, perhaps this is something we could see in the books to come (barring any other story elements that removes everyone from the Shattered Plains).
-
Because rock is relatively brittle. When you make a bridge out of stone, it needs supports. Wood can flex with impacts, and is more resilient to everything but fire.
Oh come on! Yes, in thin sheets or other instances rock can be brittle and worse than wood, but rock and stone are always better building materials, provided you have the capability to work them.
The Soulcast barracks withstand the highstorms easily. When Kaladin is out in the highstorm, he mentions boulders smashing into the roof by him. I'm assuming the rock can handle impacts just fine.
The Greeks didn't build great stone temples because they were too dumb to use wood :P.
-
Because rock is relatively brittle. When you make a bridge out of stone, it needs supports. Wood can flex with impacts, and is more resilient to everything but fire.
Oh come on! Yes, in thin sheets or other instances rock can be brittle and worse than wood, but rock and stone are always better building materials, provided you have the capability to work them.
The Soulcast barracks withstand the highstorms easily. When Kaladin is out in the highstorm, he mentions boulders smashing into the roof by him. I'm assuming the rock can handle impacts just fine.
The Greeks didn't build great stone temples because they were too dumb to use wood :P.
Those structures are built on a foundation, though. The bridges stretch over empty air.
For a good comparison, look at how they used to construct buildings out of solid concrete. They could withstand an impact from an airplane (look it up), but they tended to be a safety nightmare in case of earthquakes.
-
Like what Inkthinker said earlier:
Remember as well that the bridge is hollow inside, with sections reinforced and separated by supports.
The supports and reinforcements are already there. I think it would be quite sturdy (even if they made the bridges extra thick before running them out to the field). But as Inkthinker also said, I agree with his take on the Highprinces not wanting use such a tactic.
-
Supports that work for wood wouldn't necessarily work for stone.
Take a log cabin and replace the wood with stone, and it'll be incredibly unstable. Take a brick house and turn the bricks into wood, and you have the same problem.
Nails work to hold wood together. Not so much for stone. They'd need to build the bridges in a very specific way that I can't even conceptualize for it to work as both stone and wood.
-
Supports that work for wood wouldn't necessarily work for stone.
Take a log cabin and replace the wood with stone, and it'll be incredibly unstable. Take a brick house and turn the bricks into wood, and you have the same problem.
Nails work to hold wood together. Not so much for stone. They'd need to build the bridges in a very specific way that I can't even conceptualize for it to work as both stone and wood.
I agree with that.
I'm also starting to think that Soulcasting a bridge might not be possible (under current conditions). Given the circumstances (Parsheni attacks/raids, highstorms), the time it would probably take to Cast, and that Dalinar would probably have tried to implement it already (he only one not thinking about wealth, and he's always concerned for the well-being of the bridgemen), leads me now to think that as long as there's a war on the Shattered Plains we won't see Soulcasted bridges.
-
They don't have to Soulcast the wood into stone (though I imagine they could, with some thinking). They could slowly Soulcast from thin air.
And it's mentioned that each highprince was responsible for the bridges closest to them. I don't know if that was official, or if they just protected their route to the plateaus. But even if there was no unified effort led by the King to establish Soulcast bridges, I would still expect to see a highprince try it out (especially Dalinar). That and the Soulcast outposts.
Those structures are built on a foundation, though. The bridges stretch over empty air.
For a good comparison, look at how they used to construct buildings out of solid concrete. They could withstand an impact from an airplane (look it up), but they tended to be a safety nightmare in case of earthquakes.
A good point, but look at the Roman Aqueduct then. Still standing, still functioning, after ~2000 years. Built on a foundation, but much more like a bridge than a building. I'm sure it's seen a few earthquakes in its time.
And surviving impacts like boulders or Parshendi attacks is a more useful feature than surviving earthquakes. They can always repair the bridges after the rare earthquake.
I'm also starting to think that Soulcasting a bridge might not be possible (under current conditions). Given the circumstances (Parsheni attacks/raids, highstorms), the time it would probably take to Cast, and that Dalinar would probably have tried to implement it already (he only one not thinking about wealth, and he's always concerned for the well-being of the bridgemen), leads me now to think that as long as there's a war on the Shattered Plains we won't see Soulcasted bridges.
They don't have to Soulcast the final assault, or even any distant plateaus. They can go out at night (since most Soulcasting is done at night to hide it from the common soldier), and Soulcast the plateaus close to camp. Then move outward. When they're far enough away that they start to worry about Parshendi raids, they can send a force with mobile bridges to hold the surrounding plateaus, and Soulcast in safety (and if privacy is still a concern, erect quick tent-like walls to hide their work).
It's not easy, but after hearing about the Parshendi burning the occasional bridge (even if it was happening less and less frequently), and the fact that they're staying in the warcamps and taking forever to get to the gemhearts, I expected to at least see Soulcast bridges mentioned. I think it's an effective method, but even if it was dismissed in the books, I'd be happy.
-
They don't have to Soulcast the wood into stone (though I imagine they could, with some thinking). They could slowly Soulcast from thin air.
And it's mentioned that each highprince was responsible for the bridges closest to them. I don't know if that was official, or if they just protected their route to the plateaus. But even if there was no unified effort led by the King to establish Soulcast bridges, I would still expect to see a highprince try it out (especially Dalinar). That and the Soulcast outposts.
Those structures are built on a foundation, though. The bridges stretch over empty air.
For a good comparison, look at how they used to construct buildings out of solid concrete. They could withstand an impact from an airplane (look it up), but they tended to be a safety nightmare in case of earthquakes.
A good point, but look at the Roman Aqueduct then. Still standing, still functioning, after ~2000 years. Built on a foundation, but much more like a bridge than a building. I'm sure it's seen a few earthquakes in its time.
And surviving impacts like boulders or Parshendi attacks is a more useful feature than surviving earthquakes. They can always repair the bridges after the rare earthquake.
Right, but that still requires a very different structure than a wooden bridge. For one thing, the bridge couldn't be hollow, which would make it MUCH harder to get the bridge into position.
Also, look at the roman aqueduct. It has supports. What you're suggesting would basically be the aqueduct without any of the arches.
Stick a piece of stone flat over a gap, then march hundreds of men in heavy armor over it, and it'll snap.
Also, the concrete buildings withstanding plane crashes... you misunderstand. It left a plane-shaped hole in the building at the top, but the building didn't collapse. Stick a boulder-sized hole in a stone bridge, and it'll fall apart.
-
I dunno, going with what inkthinker was saying earlier, with gaps being on average about 10-25 feet across with maybe no more than a 5-10 foot drop, stone bridges might be possible. Afterall, relatively sturdy stone bridges of these sizes to exist in the real world (that's not to say how they'd take a highstorm)
example:
(http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/stone-bridge-across-minnehaha-creek-mn233.jpg)
This bridge is maybe 10-15 feet long, possibly 20 at max. An arch anchored on both sides of the chasm could prove quite strong. My only issue is with the drops. Those could cause problems with building like this, though i suppose they could try to find areas they're relatively close to being level.
Also: i still think that there was a reason why permanent soulcast bridges were never even considered during the course of the book. I think it likely had to do with cost, time, or soulcasting difficulty as i stated before.
-
Remember as well, we haven't seen a structure being soulcast. We saw a rock converted to smoke, men converted to fire and glass (I think?) and something (I forget what... a vase?) converted to blood.
I don't think soulcasting a building works like, (for example) Fullmetal Alchemist "alchemy" magic, where a fully formed structure emerges from the ground. Until we know more about it, I'm going to reckon that there's some reason for it, whether its related to restrictions in the magic or it's something more mundane like politics or expense.
-
Remember as well, we haven't seen a structure being soulcast. We saw a rock converted to smoke, men converted to fire and glass (I think?) and something (I forget what... a vase?) converted to blood.
I don't think soulcasting a building works like, (for example) Fullmetal Alchemist "alchemy" magic, where a fully formed structure emerges from the ground. Until we know more about it, I'm going to reckon that there's some reason for it, whether its related to restrictions in the magic or it's something more mundane like politics or expense.
Yeah. I'm convinced there's some quirk with soulcasting making creating stuff from thin air less than desirable. Otherwise, why would you need to transmute things in the first place? Why not make everything from nothing?
-
I think Brandon's already covered this, either in the book, in interviews, or at signings.
It's covered by the economic concept of opportunity cost (every resource used has an opportunity cost equal to the other uses it could've been used for). In this case, the resources are the gemhearts used for Soulcasting. The army has enough gemhearts to Soulcast food. Using the gemhearts for this purpose means they don't require supply lines. If they used the gemhearts for Soulcasting bridges, they might have to develop supply lines to bring in food from outside.
In the end, it's cheaper to Soulcast rocks into food and use manual labor to make bridges than it is to Soulcast air into bridges and use manual labor to transport food to the warcamps.
-
In the end, it's cheaper to Soulcast rocks into food and use manual labor to make bridges than it is to Soulcast air into bridges and use manual labor to transport food to the warcamps.
But the wood for the bridges is being created by soulcasting, as pretty much explicitly stated in the book. :P
This is where the conundrum lies, which is why i say there has to be some quirk with soulcasting we arent aware of, i.e. bridge from nothing is more costly, timely, or impossible for this or that reason.
-
Or what about the interlude chapter (don't have my book with me... ) dealing with the traders. There is definitely mention in there about turning wood into metal... and that they wouldn't make a complex structre out of metal, but would carve it out of wood and then soulcast it into metal.
Why not build the wooden bridges, carry them into place, THEN soulcast them into metal? A metal bridge would be stronger than a stone bridge, heavier than a wooden bridge, able to withstand the elements, and impossible to burn. Granted, they could possibly still push them off the edge, but depending on how heavy the metal is, that may not be possible either and would require a LARGE group of Parshendi that the scouts would notice in time to prevent.
Best of both worlds?
-
Or what about the interlude chapter (don't have my book with me... ) dealing with the traders. There is definitely mention in there about turning wood into metal... and that they wouldn't make a complex structre out of metal, but would carve it out of wood and then soulcast it into metal.
Why not build the wooden bridges, carry them into place, THEN soulcast them into metal? A metal bridge would be stronger than a stone bridge, heavier than a wooden bridge, able to withstand the elements, and impossible to burn. Granted, they could possibly still push them off the edge, but depending on how heavy the metal is, that may not be possible either and would require a LARGE group of Parshendi that the scouts would notice in time to prevent.
Best of both worlds?
I can understand why they didnt do this. Cost. They would have to create the wood, pay the carpenters to build bridges, and then pay the soulcasters to transmute it, the last probably seemed like it was more expensive than it was worth.
Plus, Sadea's bridge crews were considered way more than fast enough, so this could also be the reason they didn't do it. However, for Dalinar, i could see him considering it, since his siege bridges were so slow.
If your car runs perfectly fine, you dont usually consider getting a new car (unless you're rich and wanna show off, but thats a different scenario from the bridge crews)
-
They can arch the bridges, they can build them out of wood-then-metal, they can anchor them deep in the plateuas, they can augment stone bridges with metal struts, there are many ways they can get around this.
And as for the car analogy, it seems more like having a car that runs, but it isn't fast enough to win many races, and it breaks down easily. It would make a lot of sense to get a new car, one that's faster and more reliable, even if it is more expensive.
And going back to what Vanstorm pointed out, the merchant got the scrap metal cheap because it was easier and cheaper to build things out of other materials to Soulcast later than it is to melt the scraps down and build them the regular way. It sounds like Soulcasting is fairly economical to me.
Munin:
Also, the concrete buildings withstanding plane crashes... you misunderstand. It left a plane-shaped hole in the building at the top, but the building didn't collapse. Stick a boulder-sized hole in a stone bridge, and it'll fall apart.
Except that the boulders don't leave boulder-sized holes in the barracks. They can build these bridges as strong and as supported as they need to. They're not limited to conventional building techniques. Maybe Soulcasting is slow, maybe it's hard to do. But we've seen no indication that they've even tried.
-
They're not limited to conventional building techniques. Maybe Soulcasting is slow, maybe it's hard to do. But we've seen no indication that they've even tried.
But we also haven't seen any indication that they HAVEN'T tried it. As the late Carl Sagan said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
-
In the end, it's cheaper to Soulcast rocks into food and use manual labor to make bridges than it is to Soulcast air into bridges and use manual labor to transport food to the warcamps.
But the wood for the bridges is being created by soulcasting, as pretty much explicitly stated in the book. :P
This is where the conundrum lies, which is why i say there has to be some quirk with soulcasting we arent aware of, i.e. bridge from nothing is more costly, timely, or impossible for this or that reason.
I'm nearly positive there is mention of nearby sources for wood. I'll have to re-read to find it for sure, but I though for sure there was something mentioned, either as Kaladin was coming in to the camps or while he was wandering about.
For some reason I thought it was stumpweight trees (though they may not be mentioned by name), but maybe that's 'cause when he described those I thought, "these are perfect for lumber" and I made a connection that isn't there.
Just the same, I'm pretty sure they're not getting all their wood through soulcasting.
-
In the end, it's cheaper to Soulcast rocks into food and use manual labor to make bridges than it is to Soulcast air into bridges and use manual labor to transport food to the warcamps.
But the wood for the bridges is being created by soulcasting, as pretty much explicitly stated in the book. :P
This is where the conundrum lies, which is why i say there has to be some quirk with soulcasting we arent aware of, i.e. bridge from nothing is more costly, timely, or impossible for this or that reason.
I'm nearly positive there is mention of nearby sources for wood. I'll have to re-read to find it for sure, but I though for sure there was something mentioned, either as Kaladin was coming in to the camps or while he was wandering about.
For some reason I thought it was stumpweight trees (though they may not be mentioned by name), but maybe that's 'cause when he described those I thought, "these are perfect for lumber" and I made a connection that isn't there.
Just the same, I'm pretty sure they're not getting all their wood through soulcasting.
It was said at one point that Sadeas held more lumber resources than any other Highprince (and that other Highprinces would try to make deals for that lumber), indicating they all used lumber for one thing or another.
-
One more point: How many bridges would you need to soulcast before cost/benefit makes the practice impractical? The bridge crews have to drop and raise dozens, possibly hundreds of times before they reach a destination. Maybe you could cast a few nearby bridges, but what would be the point? Wooden ones work just as well, cost less, and don't require the local priesthood to help you out.
Perhaps the issue is one of volume as much as anything?
-
In the end, it's cheaper to Soulcast rocks into food and use manual labor to make bridges than it is to Soulcast air into bridges and use manual labor to transport food to the warcamps.
But the wood for the bridges is being created by soulcasting, as pretty much explicitly stated in the book. :P
This is where the conundrum lies, which is why i say there has to be some quirk with soulcasting we arent aware of, i.e. bridge from nothing is more costly, timely, or impossible for this or that reason.
I'm nearly positive there is mention of nearby sources for wood. I'll have to re-read to find it for sure, but I though for sure there was something mentioned, either as Kaladin was coming in to the camps or while he was wandering about.
For some reason I thought it was stumpweight trees (though they may not be mentioned by name), but maybe that's 'cause when he described those I thought, "these are perfect for lumber" and I made a connection that isn't there.
Just the same, I'm pretty sure they're not getting all their wood through soulcasting.
It was said at one point that Sadeas held more lumber resources than any other Highprince (and that other Highprinces would try to make deals for that lumber), indicating they all used lumber for one thing or another.
Actually, it was talk about sadeas owning the most lumber, but he was also inflating his price so that the high princes would rely on the king's soulcasaters for wood. :P
It was at the same point that Dalinar said he would proclaim that all those who were caught up on their dues would get a discount on soulcasting, because people were behind on their payments.
-
Actually, it was talk about sadeas owning the most lumber, but he was also inflating his price so that the high princes would rely on the king's soulcasaters for wood. :P
I knew it was something like that, thanks for the correction ;D.
-
A bit of a jump back in the conversation, but I recall we were discussing bridges being 50 feet long, When Kaladin first sees a bridge on page 101 it is said to be around 30 feet long.
-
A bit of a jump back in the conversation, but I recall we were discussing bridges being 50 feet long, When Kaladin first sees a bridge on page 101 it is said to be around 30 feet long.
Well, considering inkthinker was talking about the longest gaps they'd be seeing at 25 feet, this doesnt really hinder too much. In fact, it makes it a bit easier in the bridges not being so unwieldy.
-
A bit of a jump back in the conversation, but I recall we were discussing bridges being 50 feet long, When Kaladin first sees a bridge on page 101 it is said to be around 30 feet long.
Well, considering inkthinker was talking about the longest gaps they'd be seeing at 25 feet, this doesnt really hinder too much. In fact, it makes it a bit easier in the bridges not being so unwieldy.
But they wouldn't be able to push a 30 foot bridge out accross a gap 25 feet without it toppling, not easily anyway...
-
A bit of a jump back in the conversation, but I recall we were discussing bridges being 50 feet long, When Kaladin first sees a bridge on page 101 it is said to be around 30 feet long.
Well, considering inkthinker was talking about the longest gaps they'd be seeing at 25 feet, this doesnt really hinder too much. In fact, it makes it a bit easier in the bridges not being so unwieldy.
But they wouldn't be able to push a 30 foot bridge out accross a gap 25 feet without it toppling, not easily anyway...
Oh, right, i fogot about that issue we were talking about. Yeah, i guess they would have to be weighted somehow.
-
A bit of a jump back in the conversation, but I recall we were discussing bridges being 50 feet long, When Kaladin first sees a bridge on page 101 it is said to be around 30 feet long.
Well, considering inkthinker was talking about the longest gaps they'd be seeing at 25 feet, this doesnt really hinder too much. In fact, it makes it a bit easier in the bridges not being so unwieldy.
But they wouldn't be able to push a 30 foot bridge out accross a gap 25 feet without it toppling, not easily anyway...
Unless it was weighted in the back, but I don't think we know whether it was or not.
-
Bear in mind, I was guessing at chasm widths based on estimations of bridge lengths.
He's right, on 101 it describes a bridge as 30 feet long and eight feet wide, wooden, sloping at the front and back and without railings. 5 men across (three beneath, one on each side) and 8 rows deep. The thickest boards run down the center for support.
He also describes the first chasm that they bridge (next page) as being about half as wide as the bridge is long, so maximum widths of 15-20 feet (at bridging points) are probably more accurate.
"About 30 feet" leaves us some room to play, of course.
Unless someone finds a wider chasm being described (and crossed by the bridge crew) I think the math is still valid.
-
Ermm... They would be able to push a 30 foot bridge over a 25 foot chasm because it is weighted. By the Bridgemen. :o It would be a simple, even a necessary matter to push down slightly while pushing the bridge over the chasm. This pushing down would keep it sticking out horizontally. Of course, if many bridgemen died the bridge would topple over the edge, but I suspect that that wouldn't be too much of an issue. (The bridges could be replaced with new ones)
To prove my theory, with one hand push a hardcover book to the edge of a table. See how far you can push it without it tipping over, while only using one hand. (Don't grab it.)
You'll be able to get surprisingly far! (Please don't use, WOK, not only is it far too thick for an accurate comparison, the risk of damage to said great tome is too great.) ;)
-
Ermm... They would be able to push a 30 foot bridge over a 25 foot chasm because it is weighted. By the Bridgemen. :o It would be a simple, even a necessary matter to push down slightly while pushing the bridge over the chasm. This pushing down would keep it sticking out horizontally. Of course, if many bridgemen died the bridge would topple over the edge, but I suspect that that wouldn't be too much of an issue. (The bridges could be replaced with new ones)
To prove my theory, with one hand push a hardcover book to the edge of a table. See how far you can push it without it tipping over, while only using one hand. (Don't grab it.)
You'll be able to get surprisingly far! (Please don't use, WOK, not only is it far too thick for an accurate comparison, the risk of damage to said great tome is too great.) ;)
That's a good point, it hadn't even crossed my mind.
At the end when Kaladin was running across the bridge, he probably would have tipped it over but having weight in the back might have been the reason the bridge didn't topple into the chasm. Keep in mind, this is the Tower and we were assuming the length of the chasm around the Tower to be roughly 25 feet, as it was noted that the bridge just barely fit. It would have to have weight, I think, otherwise Kaladin would have just brought the bridge, and himself, down.
-
Ermm... They would be able to push a 30 foot bridge over a 25 foot chasm because it is weighted. By the Bridgemen. :o It would be a simple, even a necessary matter to push down slightly while pushing the bridge over the chasm. This pushing down would keep it sticking out horizontally. Of course, if many bridgemen died the bridge would topple over the edge, but I suspect that that wouldn't be too much of an issue. (The bridges could be replaced with new ones)
To prove my theory, with one hand push a hardcover book to the edge of a table. See how far you can push it without it tipping over, while only using one hand. (Don't grab it.)
You'll be able to get surprisingly far! (Please don't use, WOK, not only is it far too thick for an accurate comparison, the risk of damage to said great tome is too great.) ;)
Except that every foot or so is going to be literally hundreds of pounds of weight added opposing the bridgemen holding on to it. an 8 foot wide bridge is going to be heavy per foot of it. Plus, as they push it forward, less people are able to help, because there's less room for holding on to.
-
If it's weighted by anythign other than bridgemen they can't pull it accross after crossing it, of course this doesn't matter for the tower(or any other battle plateau), where they're crossing to fight then crossing back, but for the intermediate plateaus where they need to cross onto the plateau and cross a different gorge off of the plateau ahving the bridge weighted to enable them to cross would mean they couldn't then pull it accross. Unless it's just weighted by the bridge men, remember though, that a wooden bidge that's 30 foot by 8 foot would be pretty heavy, would 20-30 men be enough to weight it? Especially with only 5 feet to weight it in (if they're crossing a 25 foot gorge, just before the bridge reaches the other side it would ahve a mere 5 feet left on the near side, I guess 5 foot by 8 foot is a large-ish area...)
-
If it's weighted by anythign other than bridgemen they can't pull it accross after crossing it, of course this doesn't matter for the tower(or any other battle plateau), where they're crossing to fight then crossing back, but for the intermediate plateaus where they need to cross onto the plateau and cross a different gorge off of the plateau ahving the bridge weighted to enable them to cross would mean they couldn't then pull it accross. Unless it's just weighted by the bridge men, remember though, that a wooden bidge that's 30 foot by 8 foot would be pretty heavy, would 20-30 men be enough to weight it? Especially with only 5 feet to weight it in (if they're crossing a 25 foot gorge, just before the bridge reaches the other side it would ahve a mere 5 feet left on the near side, I guess 5 foot by 8 foot is a large-ish area...)
Well, an 8 foot long 2x4 weighs about 10 pounds. So that would lead us to presume the part people walk across (to say nothing of the rest of the bridge) would weigh at least 30 pounds on its own per foot. Then we have to figure in all the wood connectors, and and bracing that goes into building a bridge. That's going to get very heavy, very quickly.
-
While it's never specifically mentioned, I always imagined the bridgemen moving closer together as the bridge crossed, with everyone having a hand in it until the end. This could easily account for chasms up to about 23 feet wide. Once you start hitting 24-26, things would get very, very difficult, requiring a lot of momentum and a small height advantage to get you over the last foot or so. 27-29 would be basically impossible (only feasible with a full bridge crew, a running start and a major height advantage), and 30 would be impossible. (This is what my experimentation with hardcovers has shown me)
Now, how heavy can the bridges really be? Consider; 25 malnourished, maltreated men, generally the scum of the earth before they were thrown into the bridges, can carry a bridge for hours at a time, at a jog. I don't think this would be possible if the men were carrying more than about 75 pounds each. Under those circumstances, and for that length of time, 75 pounds each would be pushing it, more would be nearly impossible. Less, around 50-60, would be likely. So, the heaviest the bridge could be would be approximately 1875 pounds. A more likely figure would be 1250. As the bridges are likely made from the lightest woods available, this seems an accurate figure. (I am, of course, no woodworker. If someone with more experience in that field could comment on the accuracy of my figures, please do). As the average man, even under those circumstances, would weigh between 150-200 pounds, It would only take 10 men to equal the weight of the bridge. Ten men leaning and pushing the bridge would be able to keep it upright right up to the end. For the very long chasms, you could have more men pile on top of the end of the bridge, keeping it stable. (As such behavior isn't mentioned in the book, I take it to have been unnecessary. Likely they were able to get enough people holding on to the end to anchor it to the plateau.)
As such, it seems likely that the bridges could cross chasms up to 25 feet wide without too much trouble, unless the bridge is overwhelmed by enemy arrows, leaving a bare handful of men to push.
-
speaking of "using the lightest wood available", i'd bet dimes-to-dollars that wood in roshar is heavier than just about all wood here. Because the weight of wood depends on the moisture in the environment, and roshar is a very moist climate.
Anywho, like i said before, it would be about 30 pounds per foot of just the walking area of the bridge. This is 900 pounds for the part you walk on alone. This includes none of the supporting structure nor anything connecting this wood together. 350 pounds of building and structural support is very little on a 30 foot length of wood if you ask me.
-
That's assuming they use modern weighted thicknesses and planks. With proper supports, you could make the wood relatively thin, even the crossbeams. 1250-1500 could easily be the weight of the bridge.
Yes, Rosharan wood is likely heavier. But if it is denser, it is also likely stronger, so it doesn't have to be nearly so thick, leaving the weight roughly the same. Of course, even if it were heavier, just add more people to the end. That equals more weight at the end, making the bridge effective over long chasms.
-
That's assuming they use modern weighted thicknesses and planks. With proper supports, you could make the wood relatively thin, even the crossbeams. 1250-1500 could easily be the weight of the bridge.
Yes, Rosharan wood is likely heavier. But if it is denser, it is also likely stronger, so it doesn't have to be nearly so thick, leaving the weight roughly the same. Of course, even if it were heavier, just add more people to the end. That equals more weight at the end, making the bridge effective over long chasms.
I'm pretty sure using a 2X4 like i was saying (with 4 inches long ways) is all ready incredibly thin for the walking area of a bridge that's 8 feet wide. Regardless of how dense it is, over the length of 8 feet, it'll make it have a lot of give if its thinner.
I know most of the pedestrian bridges in my area use planks a good 4-6" thick on the walking plane on a bridge thats about 4 or 5 foot wide. (at least the ones i played under as a kid did) I'm not saying this is the most efficient bridges ever, but im pretty sure the 2" i gave on the 2x4 would have to probably be a very low minimum thickness to even be possible.
Edit: especially when you consider the fact that mounted cavalry will be charging over it.
-
Properly crossbraced, it should be possible. Still, if you are right and it is indeed some 2000 pounds, it would still be manageable up to about 25 feet by a group of 10-15 men. The weight can't be greater than 100 pounds per person for 25 carriers, or it would never get to the battlefield. So my original upper estimate of 1500-1650 still stands as the heaviest feasible weight, with some 1250-1350 more likely.
-
Properly crossbraced, it should be possible. Still, if you are right and it is indeed some 2000 pounds, it would still be manageable up to about 25 feet by a group of 10-15 men. The weight can't be greater than 100 pounds per person for 25 carriers, or it would never get to the battlefield. So my original upper estimate of 1500-1650 still stands as the heaviest feasible weight, with some 1250-1350 more likely.
Actually, now that you mention it, you're right, it couldn't possibly be more than 100 pounds per person for it to realistically carry it. However, a bridge that size with that weight restriction, i couldnt see it being reinforced enough to support cavalry. I'm honestly really starting to doubt the physics behind it as being possible.
bear with me here, this is just off the cuff, but wikipedia concerning horses in war, back in ancient times a "Light" war horse was anywhere from 800-1000 pounds. However, for it to use an armored rider (im pretty sure it mentioned his cavalry was armored, right), at least a medium horse is required, which weighs in about 1000-1200 pounds. Add in an armored rider, and we're looking at 1300-1700 or so pounds for a SINGLE cavalry man (200-300 or so for the man, and 100-200 for the armor).
Obviously, for a cavalry charge, we're going to have more than one cavalry man on the bridge, and they wont be moving single file. Realisticly, i would bet they're either moving double or triple file, considering the bridge width of 8 feet (beyond that, its going to get very crowded very fast)
So likely scenario, cavalry will be charging in double file. that's anywhere from 2600-3400 pounds on the bridge at any given moment.
To put that in perspective, a 2001 Nissan Altima weighs about 2945 pounds (so sayeth a quick google search)
So per rank of cavalry man, we're looking at the weight of a good-sized sedan or more depending on what file they use.
This is going to utterly crush your average pedestrian walking bridge (which earlier i estimated at about 4-6" in thickness for the walking part).
I cant honestly see a 30 foot long bridge weighing a mere 2000 pounds able to hold so much weight, however, as established, it cannot possibly weigh more than this for carrying purposes.
I just can't see these numbers working themselves out.
Honestly, i think this is just going to have to be one of those issues where we just agree that suspension of disbelief takes over, and we just assume "it works", because the author said so (i'm sure brandon didnt do terribly much research into the mechanics of it, and just wrote it as is because its a believable situation at face-value)
-
Properly crossbraced, it should be possible. Still, if you are right and it is indeed some 2000 pounds, it would still be manageable up to about 25 feet by a group of 10-15 men. The weight can't be greater than 100 pounds per person for 25 carriers, or it would never get to the battlefield. So my original upper estimate of 1500-1650 still stands as the heaviest feasible weight, with some 1250-1350 more likely.
Actually, now that you mention it, you're right, it couldn't possibly be more than 100 pounds per person for it to realistically carry it. However, a bridge that size with that weight restriction, i couldnt see it being reinforced enough to support cavalry. I'm honestly really starting to doubt the physics behind it as being possible.
bear with me here, this is just off the cuff, but wikipedia concerning horses in war, back in ancient times a "Light" war horse was anywhere from 800-1000 pounds. However, for it to use an armored rider (im pretty sure it mentioned his cavalry was armored, right), at least a medium horse is required, which weighs in about 1000-1200 pounds. Add in an armored rider, and we're looking at 1300-1700 or so pounds for a SINGLE cavalry man (200-300 or so for the man, and 100-200 for the armor).
Obviously, for a cavalry charge, we're going to have more than one cavalry man on the bridge, and they wont be moving single file. Realisticly, i would bet they're either moving double or triple file, considering the bridge width of 8 feet (beyond that, its going to get very crowded very fast)
So likely scenario, cavalry will be charging in double file. that's anywhere from 2600-3400 pounds on the bridge at any given moment.
To put that in perspective, a 2001 Nissan Altima weighs about 2945 pounds (so sayeth a quick google search)
So per rank of cavalry man, we're looking at the weight of a good-sized sedan or more depending on what file they use.
This is going to utterly crush your average pedestrian walking bridge (which earlier i estimated at about 4-6" in thickness for the walking part).
I cant honestly see a 30 foot long bridge weighing a mere 2000 pounds able to hold so much weight, however, as established, it cannot possibly weigh more than this for carrying purposes.
I just can't see these numbers working themselves out.
Honestly, i think this is just going to have to be one of those issues where we just agree that suspension of disbelief takes over, and we just assume "it works", because the author said so (i'm sure brandon didnt do terribly much research into the mechanics of it, and just wrote it as is because its a believable situation at face-value)
Remember this isn't our world either. This is a world that takes place in a sort of medieval time. The "average joe" is probably very strong from laboring anyways (and presumably a murderer or convict even more so).
-
I cant honestly see a 30 foot long bridge weighing a mere 2000 pounds able to hold so much weight, however, as established, it cannot possibly weigh more than this for carrying purposes.)
Depends on the materials and how its constructed. I've seen some ridiculously light structures (usually bamboo) hold quite a lot of weight. I'm willing to buy that if the wood is tough and strong and light, then it could work.
Just to throw an additional wrench in the works, Brandon has stated in interviews and such that gravity on Roshar is lower than Earth-normal (0.7 or 0.6, I think?), which does have some effect on all calculations.
I love that you guys are putting this much thought into it. Whether the math works out easily or not, it's fun to see readers get involved to this degree.
-
I cant honestly see a 30 foot long bridge weighing a mere 2000 pounds able to hold so much weight, however, as established, it cannot possibly weigh more than this for carrying purposes.)
Depends on the materials and how its constructed. I've seen some ridiculously light structures (usually bamboo) hold quite a lot of weight. I'm willing to buy that if the wood is tough and strong and light, then it could work.
Just to throw an additional wrench in the works, Brandon has stated in interviews and such that gravity on Roshar is lower than Earth-normal (0.7 or 0.6, I think?), which does have some effect on all calculations.
I love that you guys are putting this much thought into it. Whether the math works out easily or not, it's fun to see readers get involved to this degree.
Actually, that does throw a significant monkey wrench into the works.
Obviously, weight will be reduce to about 70% of what they were.
Also, objects would fall slower, meaning more time to push the bridges over the edge, obviously requiring less weighting.
With this snippet of info, i see no reason why it wouldnt work, and without weighting at the back, honestly.
-
The lower gravity would only affect how easy it is to carry, not how hard it is to push across.
The theory is that they're weighting it down themselves, but with low gravity, they weigh less, as well.
At least, that's how I think it works. It's been a few years since I took a physics class.
-
The lighter gravity matters only if they're pushing it down as opposed to leaning on it to hold it down, as if they're leaning on it, then the lighter gravity means their lean exerts a weaker force as well, also, generally leaning exerts a greater force than pushing.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9924/picture1hag.png)
Bassically for it not to fall the Dwnward force F (exerted by the bridgemen) multiplied by the distance z has to be equal to or greater than the weight of the bridge w multiplied by the distance x, where the distance x is the distance from the middle of the bridge to the edge of the plateau it's being pushed out from.
Let's say that the bridgemen lean on it to put half their weight on it and lets postulate that they weigh about 100 pounds, the bridge weighs 2000 pounds and is 30 foot long and they're trying to push it accross a 25 foot casm.
When the bridge touches the other side they'll have 5 foot of it left, and lets say their downward force is effectively a foot in from the edge meaning they have 4 foot of distance from downward force to edge of casm.
The bridge will currently have it's middle 10 foot out, thereby exerting a moment of 2000 pounds x 10 foot x g (where g is the appropriate gravitational constant) so, 20000g
If we divide 20000g by 4 we get 5000g, that would mean 50 bridge men exerting 100g each to stop it from falling as it reaches the other side.
Maybe they could lean a bit more, three quarters of their weight, 5000g/150g = 33 and a third bridge men, or 34 as we don't have thirds of men lying around.
Not sure how 34 bridge mena re going to crowd around it and manage to lean a third of their weight on the thing...
I'm thinking our casms are probably narrower.
-
Seriously. In light of shorter bridges, the max width should probably be adjusted to 20 feet at most, 15 on average. 25 feet is too long for a 30' bridge (if nothing else, I don't think it would leave enough overlap on either side).
They still need to drop and shove for any gap more than 5-6 feet wide, unless you guys really think having your army constantly trying to long-jump lethal-drop chasms in full kit is a good way to march.
The part that bothers me now is the distance between the crew and the Parshendi shooting at them. From 20 feet away, I don't know how any bridgeman lives through a single charge that isn't fully supported by covering fire.
-
The part that bothers me now is the distance between the crew and the Parshendi shooting at them. From 20 feet away, I don't know how any bridgeman lives through a single charge that isn't fully supported by covering fire.
Maybe the Parshendi have really bad eyesight? Or they're facing the sun?
-
The part that bothers me now is the distance between the crew and the Parshendi shooting at them. From 20 feet away, I don't know how any bridgeman lives through a single charge that isn't fully supported by covering fire.
Maybe the Parshendi have really bad eyesight? Or they're facing the sun?
Nah, they probably have rambo-kinson disease. You know, how the good guy can just stand there and fire away at a huge enemy force and never be hit once?
Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1hKQULa9Y#t=32s) :P
-
If we go for a 20 foot gap, and have the pushing bridgemen lean with half their weight, when the 30 foot bridge is about to be accross:
5 *2000g = 10000g
10000g / 8 = 1250g
Each bridgeman exerts 100g with his lean, so, rounding it up, 13 bridgemen leaning on it with half their weight. (this is assuming that the effective force of their lean can be taken to be two foot from the edge of the bridge)
-
i found the whole bridge thing boring. I understand why it is there but bleh.
bridges with kalidin's whining page after page got old.
could just be me....
-
i found the whole bridge thing boring. I understand why it is there but bleh.
bridges with kalidin's whining page after page got old.
could just be me....
It's just you. Those chapters are some of the best parts of the book, in my opinion.
Especially any lines by Rock.
-
i found the whole bridge thing boring. I understand why it is there but bleh.
bridges with kalidin's whining page after page got old.
could just be me....
It's just you. Those chapters are some of the best parts of the book, in my opinion.
Especially any lines by Rock.
Oh yeah Rock did save that part of the book for me.
-
i found the whole bridge thing boring. I understand why it is there but bleh.
bridges with kalidin's whining page after page got old.
could just be me....
It's just you. Those chapters are some of the best parts of the book, in my opinion.
Especially any lines by Rock.
They were good once they got going, but to be honest I had more fun with Shallan and Dalinar at first.
-
No, Kalidin's character and story are the best ever IMO.
-
hahaaaa... I was just looking for this thread the other day, too. The math is useful. ;D
-
This thread makes me wonder if Jasnah's line about never trying to rediscover something that someone else has worked out for you is a subtle nod to the fandom's tendency to do exactly this...
-
I don't think it's exclusively about that but it most certainly applies.
-
The part that bothers me now is the distance between the crew and the Parshendi shooting at them. From 20 feet away, I don't know how any bridgeman lives through a single charge that isn't fully supported by covering fire.
Maybe the Parshendi have really bad eyesight? Or they're facing the sun?
Nah, they probably have rambo-kinson disease. You know, how the good guy can just stand there and fire away at a huge enemy force and never be hit once?
Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1hKQULa9Y#t=32s) :P
TVtropes references the same thing as the "Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmen Academy"
-
No. 56 on the Evil Overlord List. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlordList)
-
Here's one that whoever runs the Ghostbloods could learn from:
My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as members of my organization, nor will they be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress codes
-
As for the making permanent bridges with soul casting one thing to consider is that the ones who soul cast are very secretive about the process. Therefore they might refuse to create permanent stone bridges for the reason that they could not protect their process. As far as we know that would be a very good reason since they have a strict monopoly right now which really as far as we know generally only requires s piece of specialized equipment or two.