Timewaster's Guide Archive

Well, if we accept the theory that the Parshendi are not trying to win the war and are merely matching forces to the Alethi to make a "good" fight (for whatever ulterior reason), then we must also accept that the Parshendi are far more advanced in the art of war than the Alethi believe.  This would mean that, contrary to the Alethi-held belief, the Parshendi are not simple barbarians who are only able to use rudimentary wartime tactics.  And that most likely there are FAR more Parshendi out there than any Alethi actually believes there are, ready and willing to jump into the fight whenever the time is right.  I hold that this would also mean that the Parshendi know of ways to neutralize or destroy the bridges that they are NOT using yet because for some reason only they know at the moment they WANT the Alethi to place the bridges and reach them to fight hand to hand.

Yeah, I think you are. Felling them sooner means Sadeas forces have to try to come across fewer bridges. If they waited until the bridgemen got there, it just means that there are 20+ bridges ready to go at the same time, arrows pretty much still already spent and the soldiers pushing the bridges across would be heavily armored. Think about defending ground against 8 bridges or 20 bridges.

I think you are getting too caught up in the limited exposure you have to the battles, it is a 6 year war after all. Perhaps they attempted fire arrows but they failed. Perhaps Alethi troops tried to sneak behind once and it worked but now any troops that try it are ambushed and killed. Perhaps they tried to wait until the bridges got to the chasms but then had to defend against many more troops at a time coming across. Perhaps it is strategy of Parshendi to lull the Alethi (and you, lol) into thinking that winning the battle is more important than winning the war.

You're probably right.  I honestly don't know why I'm obsessing over the bridgemen charging the chasms so much.  I know that it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the book so I should probably just "get over it" and move on.  Maybe I can come to terms with it after another read-through.  Lord knows I couldn't put it down the first two times!

One thing I'd like do though, is say "Thank you" to everyone here.  Since I came here and voiced my thoughts I've realized that just because I might think something makes perfectly logical sense doesn't mean the rest of the thinking world will.  You've all been very understanding and thoughtful in your responses and not once did anyone taunt, flame or mock with malice.  Thank you all for making my first post a pleasant experience.  I hope to be around this board for as long as Mr. Sanderson continues to write, if not longer.

Thanks!

Quote from: GeekMan on September 30, 2010, 10:28:05 PM

The Parshendi could use caltrops on the likely Alethi approaches which would disable the bridgemen, or at least slow them considerably.  They could use fire arrows on the bridges, and even if most of the bridges themselves didn't catch fire immediately, the arrows would still kill bridgemen and might set fire to other nearby bridgemen or even the bridges themselves causing them to collapse during the assault.  They could set up a simple spearwall on the opposite edge of the chasm (the attacker side) to slow the assault giving them more time to shoot arrows.  Lastly, and most simply, they could wait for the bridges to be placed and then push them into the chasm.  They are mobile after all.

I think other people have addressed the issue of burning the bridges pretty thoroughly, but there is a point that's been touched on that I'd like to flesh out a bit.  You ask why they don't use caltrops, or set up a spear wall.  Besides possibly not having caltrops, the way they fight precludes them.  The Parshendi do not fight on more than one plateau at a time.  If you attack them, lose, and retreat, they let you go.  They don't have to.  They could jump chasms and harry you and bleed you white.  But they don't.  Similarly, they bring one one force to any given fight.  Chasmfiend shows up, you get your army, they get their army, they meet you at the designated combat zone, and they fight you until one of you wins.  That's it.  We don't know exactly why they do this, but it clearly has to do with their beliefs about how combat is conducted.

I think the same thing explains why they don't use advanced troop formations.  They fight in pairs, and each pair picks a guy, and takes him on.  If they get beat, another pair might step up.  And then another.  But they don't do formations.

And you're right, BTW, that this isn't very smart.   They know where these battles are going to take place.  They don't need bridges to cross most chasms.  They could send one force to a gemheart fight, and then have two more show up halfway through, attack the staging plateau, cut off the Alethi escape, and then overwhelm them.

But instead, they fight fair.  One army of yours, one army of mine.  Two armies of yours, two armies of mine.  Each of your warriors gets to challenge a warpair, even if your warriors fight as a unit.

We don't know exactly what their code of honor is, but I think their way of conducting war is tied up in it, and that's why they fight the way they do.

This actually makes the most sense to me.  It almost seems as if the Parshendi are either teaching or learning how to fight with some sort of honor code.  Now I feel the individual fights make sense and maybe I can stop pulling out my hair and let it all grow back... if it can.   

Alright.  Let's say I accept all the reasoning so far and believe that the war has actually become a giant game of capture the flag with "rules" both sides are following for their own reasons about how to fight.  For example; it's okay to shoot bridgemen with arrows, but not fire arrows and once the bridge is laid down they are to be ignored.  Fine.

Then why doesn't someone other than Sadeas try smaller bridges that armored and armed men carry to the chasms?  A ten-man team could carry a 30' walkway-type bridge while a few other warriors hold shields to deflect arrows.  Lay the bridge and the small group of men cross to create a staging area for more bridges and men.  Slower, larger bridges arrive later.  The smaller bridges could even interlock to make a larger bridge for more men.  That would be faster than a large bridge.

I don't know.  I guess I'm just having trouble comprehending how the bridges and bridgemen survive even ONE assault when in every other piece of fantasy I've ever read and assault like that would fail spectacularly.  As I said before, this is the one thing about the book that is causing me to pull my hair out in frustration.

I can't imagine why Dalinar hasn't gone berserk yet!

Alright, the fire thing may be a moot point if there's no equivalent to Greek fire and as I stated earlier the attack from the chasm idea wasn't fully thought through on my part.  However, if the bridge crews were worried about fire, then I don't think it's too farfetched to believe that there's some Greek fire equivalent that could be used to burn attacking wooden structures.   But let's look at this from another angle.

If the bridges are made of wood and they're the most important thing needed by the Alethi to get to a plateau quickly and efficiently, then by definition they become the linchpin of every battle.  They are the one weak point in every attack made on the plateaus.  As such, both the Parshendi and the Alethi would focus their efforts on those bridges.  The Parshendi on destroying them quickly and the Alethi by protecting them.  So, with that established here's a few simple but effective ideas for both sides.

The Parshendi could use caltrops on the likely Alethi approaches which would disable the bridgemen, or at least slow them considerably.  They could use fire arrows on the bridges, and even if most of the bridges themselves didn't catch fire immediately, the arrows would still kill bridgemen and might set fire to other nearby bridgemen or even the bridges themselves causing them to collapse during the assault.  They could set up a simple spearwall on the opposite edge of the chasm (the attacker side) to slow the assault giving them more time to shoot arrows.  Lastly, and most simply, they could wait for the bridges to be placed and then push them into the chasm.  They are mobile after all.

The Alethi should have built the bridges with the thought of protecting the bridgemen by encasing them inside the bridge completely.  Then, the only thing the Parshendi could possibly shoot at would be their feet or the bridge itself.  The people inside carrying the bridge should also have been able to run directly over the chasm, those in front lifting their legs while those behind pushing the bridge over the chasm.  Each bridge would need to be longer and heavier, but with more men carrying it it would be quicker to get across.  And those who are in the front could climb out from the sides and defend the bridge until the cavalry made it across.  If people like Sadeas wanted to give the Parshendi something to shoot at then he could include an outer layer of slaves, murderers, etc, that could help carry the bridge and be the focus of arrows.

My ideas are simple and not fully fleshed out, but no matter how I look at it, it seems like the bridges would have HAD to be better protected than they seemed to be.  30 unprotected bridges running towards a chasm with no real support and the Parshendi never tried any other tactic than "shoot the bridgemen?" 

Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn't make ANY sense?

brycex99
OK, the attacking from below was a little forced on my part, but I still stand by the other points.  As for catapults not being useful, how about a few bucketfuls of Greek Fire (or similar)?  Surround the plateau, shoot burning pitch all over it and the Parshendi, wait for the flames to die and then waltz over to harvest the gemheart.  Seems like that might lead to a pretty decisive win to me.  Especially since the Parshendi jump over chasms and thus couldn't bring their own catapults with them to return fire.

JustTee
The Parshendi may have a sense of honor that prevents them from using fire on the bridgemen, but why not on Kaladin after he started wearing their dead?  It seems to me that the Parshendi saw Kaladin and the crew of bridge 4 as so vile that they were willing to change their tactics just for them by jumping across the chasm to fire on the bridgemen.  Somehow, I don't think using fire against them is too hard to see happening in the future.

The siege weapon idea may have problems due to transport if you're trying to get to the plateau first, but if you only need to get there before the Parshendi can escape with the gemheart then I don't see why it wasn't used.  As I said above, surround the plateau, shoot burning pitch all over it and the Parshendi, wait for the flames to die and then waltz over to harvest the gemheart.  Seems like a good idea to me.

Hey all, this is my first post here so if I'm out of line, please be gentle.   

I'm not too crazy about any of the current theories on Shallan's father's death and how she acquired a Shardblade so I'd like to present my own theory.

Based on Shallan's reaction to Jasnah's murder of the theives, and her complete aversion to any type of confrontation, it doesnt seem plausible to me that she has ever killed in the past, even by accident.  ESPECIALLY if she hed killed her father.  She seems too soft spoken, timid, distraught and emotional.  She didn't comprehend how someone could take another's life even when threatend by four knife-weilding brutes in a dark alley.  And all this even though she completely understands that "The men Jasnah had killed were terrible creatures, and she had little doubt that they would have killed her."  Plus, taking into account that she completely froze during the attack, remember she is described as being paralyzed with fear, how could she have attacked and killed her father?

My current theory is similar to some others here, in that I believe there is a third player in the death of her father.  We are all missing (or overlooking) some important aspects of what happened, but it's the best solution I can come up with.  Here's my thought on how it might have happened;

Ghostblood visitor is conversing secretly with father and possibly Nan Balat, perhaps trying to recover the lost Blade and Plate given to Helaran (which is another theory I believe is correct).  Meeting goes poorly and visitor decideds that Nan Balat might have the items (or perhaps just to coerce more info from Father) so he begins torturing Nan Balat for information or compliance.  This would explain the shattered leg and how near death/unconscious Nan Balat was.  Somehow able to get close to the visitor, Father uses the fabrial to change the visitor to smoke, but not before being fataly wounded.  Blade materializes, slicing fabrial, perhaps also killing father.

At some point during this event Shallan, hearing the commotion, enters.  Perhaps this was when Father had his chance to kill visitor, perhaps after Father had already vanquished him and been wounded.  Father orders her to give him the Blade, or give it to Nan Balat, or even perhaps for her to keep it.  She picks it up, the knowledge of it's use infuses her causing her to drop it, and it turns to mist.  Father slowly bleeds out his life while Shallan watches.  The important part is that Shallan sees her father dying and instead of helping him she stands by and lets him die.  Maybe the knowledge infusing her put her into shock, or perhaps she saw it as a way to end the family's torture.  Whatever the reason, she let him die and that's why the Blade is the fruit of her sins and something she never wants to use.

Right now, based on Shallan's current character, this is the only explanation that makes sense to me.