Does anyone else loathe the Aiel?

[frenchie]

I am glad the TC(whom I shall now refer to as Weiramon) has thoroughly read the series so far. I mean, the best General in the book, Mat, seems to quote some old General who states that speed, knowledge of the enemy and of the terrain are the most important factors in a battle. Weiramon also seems to forget that in New Spring, one of the most knowledable people on military matters(Lan) says that the Aiel aren't reckless, and that they will refuse battle if the numbers are to great against them. As to Weiramon's insistance that even the Spartan Phalanx lost to cavalry, well yes, as the phalanx is not very versitile. It works well against other Phalanxes, or disorganized foot soldiers. Weiramon does seem to be a great student of real world military history though( Shaka Zulu says hi, by the way). As to your comment about an unarmored combatant taking on an armored one in hand to hand combat, well, good thing the Okinawans had well armed and armored troops against the Japanese, oh wait, they didn't. Weiramon has so far refused to listen to any counter arguement or evidance that he is wrong, so at this point, it is notworth arguing with a brick wall. Thank you, and have a good day, sir. KYS

[Barmacral]

Y'know, considering that RJ is a military expert and has studied a number of sources before writing this series, including the Art of War... maybe when he makes the Aiel tactics work, just maybe he's right about them working.

[Miltiades]

I am glad the TC(whom I shall now refer to as Weiramon) has thoroughly read the series so far. I mean, the best General in the book, Mat, seems to quote some old General who states that speed, knowledge of the enemy and of the terrain are the most important factors in a battle. Weiramon also seems to forget that in New Spring, one of the most knowledable people on military matters(Lan) says that the Aiel aren't reckless, and that they will refuse battle if the numbers are to great against them. As to Weiramon's insistance that even the Spartan Phalanx lost to cavalry, well yes, as the phalanx is not very versitile. It works well against other Phalanxes, or disorganized foot soldiers. Weiramon does seem to be a great student of real world military history though( Shaka Zulu says hi, by the way). As to your comment about an unarmored combatant taking on an armored one in hand to hand combat, well, good thing the Okinawans had well armed and armored troops against the Japanese, oh wait, they didn't. Weiramon has so far refused to listen to any counter arguement or evidance that he is wrong, so at this point, it is notworth arguing with a brick wall. Thank you, and have a good day, sir. KYS

 

I don't listen to counter argument? You mean of course that I didn't immediately change my mind in the face of disagreement. Nobody has decisively proved me wrong, they've disagreed and given reasons, which is fair enough and I can respect that, that is why I asked this question.

 

You on the other hand are a moron who doesnt know nearly as much as he thinks he does and moreover has a bad attitude.

 

I'm going to strip down my points and so you might be able to understand them.

 

Not fielding cavalry is a disadvantage.

 

Not having any kind of protection suitable for a full scale battle is a disadvantage.

 

Not fielding at least some close order infantry is a disadvantage in a full scale battle.

 

Although most people here seem utterly convinced of the idea that not fielding cavalry, not having armour, and not fighting in close order are in fact advantages, it is simply untrue. All these things were major advancements in warfare. Warfare of course, the kind that is necessary to launch an invasion, or defence, of an actual nation. Nobody tried out cavalry and thought ''hey, you know what, cavalry sucks lets go back to not having them''.

 

 

Of course all of these things can be overcome with planning, but they remain weaknesses. They have to be overcome, so you're at a disadvantage if you're the one without them. Yes you can cherry pick examples where the underdog wins but the fact remains the usual pattern is that guy with no cavalry gets crushed, or the guy with no close order infantry gets crushed, or the guy with worse equipped troops gets crushed. Now as the Aiel take ALL these disadvantages into EVERY battle, I find it unsatisfying that they still annihilate everything in their path. Whatever people say about guerrilla tactics and knowledge of terrain, from the books it is clear that the Aiel win because they are Aiel are therefore 10,000 times more badass than anyone else. Like when those 2 Aiel maul a dozen guys even when THEY are the ones who are surprised. Or 5 minutes later when Gaul casually decimates 10 whitecloaks like it's no problem.

 

 

The bottom line is this, when it comes to the Aiel, Jordan doesnt seem to observe the real world limits of what actual humans are capable of. I can't really see how anybody can deny this. It isn't just heavily armed and armoured troops against non heavily armed and armoured troops. It's ONE unarmed, unarmoured, hungry, tired, dehydrated guy annihilating TEN fully equipped, heavily armoured professional soldiers with his bare hands, without breaking a sweat and it being no big deal.

 

It doesnt matter how many almost plausible explanations you offer. The Aiel win all the time because they are Aiel, a race of superhuman demigods posing as ordinary human beings. That is why I don't like them.

 

If Jordan had just come out and said ''yeah, the Aiel are a super-race of godlike killing machines who therefore have no need of a combined arms military or decent equipment when launching invasions into much more densely populated lands with much better technology'' then I wouldn't be saying any of this.

[Auld Manriva]

I don't loathe the Aiel.. I loathe the Shaido Aiel.

 

You don't have to outrun a horse, you can't outrun one. You can however outdistance one. That is what the Aiel do. And yes they are a genetically mutated bunch. They came from a relatively small genetic group and then adapted over millenia to survive and thrive in a hostile environment, which combined with their hostile, warlike culture selected/developed a specific type human. What's so unbelievable about that. It's proven scientific fact.

 

They don't live in exposed hovels out in the open land. It's inferred or actually said (too lazy to look for it) that Cold Rocks hold where Rand goes with Rhuarc and the rest is not anything especially rare, in fact they were common. There was plentiful food grown there vegetable and livestock.. Why would they be starving and not able to grow.

 

White Cloaks as a rule did not wear complete plate. And Gaul is a huge man even for Aiel it's stated. Aiel used their bodies as well as weapons and if you knock down some knothead in armour, even mail if the normal WC even had it, then a skilled fighter or even a pitchfork wielding peasant with a bit of determination can gig em like a frog. Show me in WoT where any of the Cavalry units used fully armored 13th century Euro style junk. They do not, plus their tactics weren't tactics at all, outside of the Borderlanders, (who were known to whup Aiel frequently but at serious cost) until Mat showed up.

 

 

 

Not only that, but "What Barmy said!" It's RJ's story and if you can't buy into it, then WHY BOTHER READING IT. And I for one take great offense that you seem to think we're a bunch of lunkheads for taking the friggin story at face value. It's a flippin FANTASY for chris'sakes...

 

 

 

[Miltiades]

I don't loathe the Aiel.. I loathe the Shaido Aiel.

 

You don't have to outrun a horse, you can't outrun one. You can however outdistance one. That is what the Aiel do. And yes they are a genetically mutated bunch. They came from a relatively small genetic group and then adapted over millenia to survive and thrive in a hostile environment, which combined with their hostile, warlike culture selected/developed a specific type human. What's so unbelievable about that. It's proven scientific fact.

 

They don't live in exposed hovels out in the open land. It's inferred or actually said (too lazy to look for it) that Cold Rocks hold where Rand goes with Rhuarc and the rest is not anything especially rare, in fact they were common. There was plentiful food grown there vegetable and livestock.. Why would they be starving and not able to grow.

 

White Cloaks as a rule did not wear complete plate. And Gaul is a huge man even for Aiel it's stated. Aiel used their bodies as well as weapons and if you knock down some knothead in armour, even mail if the normal WC even had it, then a skilled fighter or even a pitchfork wielding peasant with a bit of determination can gig em like a frog. Show me in WoT where any of the Cavalry units used fully armored 13th century Euro style junk. They do not, plus their tactics weren't tactics at all, outside of the Borderlanders, (who were known to whup Aiel frequently but at serious cost) until Mat showed up.

 

 

 

Not only that, but "What Barmy said!" It's RJ's story and if you can't buy into it, then WHY BOTHER READING IT. And I for one take great offense that you seem to think we're a bunch of lunkheads for taking the friggin story at face value. It's a flippin FANTASY for chris'sakes...

 

 

 

 

What? I never said anybody was stupid, and I never meant to imply it either, I did actually enjoy the books you know, I wouldn't be reading through them again if I didn't. I just asked if anyone shared this particular opinion of mine. opinion.

 

Also, I stated I can accept the fantasy elements. I have no problem with the ''I win'' channeling. But other than that I'm going to assume that  a human is a human. Jordan can say whatever he wants about Trollocs or Myrdraal or whatever, but humans are real so unless otherwise stated we're obviously going to assume they have the same attributes as real world humans. Same with horses and cattle and any other creature that exists in the real world.

 

In a fantasy book you can make up whatever you want, but if you put something from the real world in then it's the same as it is in the real world unless you specifically state otherwise. In a way there are no humans in WoT because humans cant channel. So the people in Randland are humans+channeling, which is something other than human. So the Aiel are human+a shedload of superpowers and better in every single way.

 

It is just my opinion that the Aiel are not believable as human beings, they are clearly superhuman.

[Yiceman]

Lan gave a strategy that the Sheinarans, the only really heavy cavalry in the series, use frequently when fighting Aiel, which basically involved immediately sending out parties to squish the flanking groups that Aiel constantly send out.

 

Rhuarc even remarks that it works fairly well against them.

 

Basically, the reason "the charge" doesn't work so well against the Aiel is because they don't all stay in the same place. If all of the clans were clumped together then maybe a massive charge would do some good. But look at the battle in Fires of Heaven...it describes a series of skirmishes, with groups of maybe 3000 Aiel roaming around.

 

Their scouts are better, so the odds of catching them off-guard are slim. And the first thing they'll do when they find you is flank. So when the cavalry goes in for it's great charge, there's suddenly a whole lot of Aeil on either side of them. So that strung out line of horsemen suddenly finds enemies exactly where they don't want them to be.

 

It's not that they're remarkably better at warefare, it's just that the wetlanders expect their enemies to stay neatly in one place and meet them head-on. Wetlanders like the Cairhenien.

 

So if you poo-poo the Coalition's efforts, just remember that the great generals wouldn't have even been active in the war until around Tar Valon. There's no Pedron Nialls or Basheres in Carhien, no one to really say "hey, this isn't working."

[Siuan]

What I don't understand is how there can be SO MANY of them!  They live where there is little food and no water and I wouldn't put it past the maidens to eat their young as part of a joke on the father's of the children! (Aiel humor) ;)

[elmis]

I've been reading this thread, and like Militades I do enjoy the series - heck I don't even have a problem with the Aiel. That said, you all can't disagree with what he's saying though. The Aiel kicks ass, without too much valid explenation as to why. As to how they are built, take Bruan, one of the Aiel chiefs (just one example in many across the books when it comes to Aiel), he's bigger than Perrin across the shoulders, and huge. Reading it, I'm thinking of a Arnold Swarzenegger type of guy, with red hair - like a ginger Arnie.

 

How can you be a marathon runner (to outlast horses) and still look like that? Anyone seen Haile Gebrselassie? In his prime, I bet he could outlast a horse in a run, but he weighs 50-60 kg! I fail to see how you can have a bodybuilderesque physique and still do that.

 

Militades is right when it comes to the Aiel, hands down. I disagree with him when he says loathing them, as as far as I'm concerned it's fantasy and RJ can do whatever he wants. You already have the conniving Cairhiens, the expert negotiating Sea Folk, the promiscuous Domani, the stupid Tear(ians?), ect. Jordan wanted the different regions to have the same type of people, so why not super badass Aiel. However saying it's plausible in a real world setting, which some seem to suggest, is flat out wrong.

[Beli Tsar]

A few points to make about the Aiel:

*They were pajamas- Going into battle in coat and breeches or dressed liked a Tinker is one thing. Coming into battle dressed in CAMOFLAUGE so that you can blend in at ALL times with your surroundings (brings to mind warder cloaks) is another.

 

*No armor is a HUGE disadvantage- True. For the TYPICAL soldier. However, they are not. By this reasoning all Warders should be chopped down immediately seeing as the never wear armor and are constantly facing overwhelming odds. Except there's the fact they are the most highly trained swordsmen and that's all they do. Kinda like Aiel no? Basically having no armor suits Aiel tactics. They are all about speed and maneuverability. The whole point of using short spears is because they can strike quicker with those than a man can with a sword, and as we've seen most wetland soldiers, while competent with swords, aren't quite blademasters.

 

You have to take into account the effect of intimidation. They not only completely tower over the people of all the other nations, but come garbed in a way that makes them seem inhuman with only eyes showing. Battles have been lost time and time again before blows were struck because of the terror an opposing force has caused. Wetlanders on the whole FEAR death and cling to life, while Aiel see it as nothing more than waking from a dream. This is not to say they might never know a moments fear but it allows them to accept whatever may come and face it bravely, rather than being slightly paralyzed by it.

 

*Cavalry is the end all of fighting- Having great cavalry is a HUGE bonus true, but in CONJUNCTION with other troops. As has been stated by many others cavalry, especially heavy cavalry, is only suitable when it can charge a not so fluid infantry squad or another force of cavalry. But the key is being able to close to grips while maintaining the unit cohesion with the charge. The Aiel, who have been compared to light cavalry by mat and lan, are anything but a force that will just stand still while you ride them down. The simple truth is that Wetlander armies rarely seem to maintain such cohesion. You say the Aiel have no tactics but we've never seen one instance of them rushing forward all willy-nilly like the Persians at Thermopylae. If anything its the "civilized" armies, and more importantly the cavalry that do so. The nobles leading them seem far more interested in the glory they can personally achieve on the field of battle than with maitaining cohesion. Just look at Mat's first battle leading men against Shaido when he's cursing the fact that several nobles and their retainers are scattered around the battle flailing their swords left and right being "brave" rather than sitting inside the box of pikemen awaiting his and Talmanes's charges. The leadership is just flawed for the most part because it is given to nobles by right of birth (Weiramon!) and not because they have the best strategies and tactics. The Aiel do nothing but study warfare, seek to perfect their mode of it, and don't allow thirst for glory to make them sloppy.

 

Lastly, I will say this. The Aiel are by no means invincible. Besides all the aforementioned reasons there are quite a few more as to why they succeed in battle: There are maybe 5 or so great captains on this side of the ocean, where as it can easily be argued that while not all the chiefs are great captains, the foremost leaders among them are. They have to be to lead such a society.

 

When is the last time Aiel truly faced a great captain in a full on confrontation? Most of those in command they face are fools like Weiramon or Laman, or nobles in lands like Ghealdan that never see real battles and war. Were this during the trolloc wars or the war of the hundred years they would still have successes, but not nearly so much. Afterall, Cairhien is no Manetheren. The closest thing to those armies is the Borderlanders but we haven't seen these Aiel do battle with them on any kind of notable scale. However, we DO hear from the Seanchan who probably have the best organized army that they've found ways to beat Shaido once they'd engaged a few times.

 

Don't forget Mat's remark in the Janghai pass (can't remember the sacked city's name) that the town should have been able to hold out for quite some time if they had guards posted who were keeping watch and doing their duty. That shows how complacency and a false sense of security will allow an invading force to conquer quickly (Alexander the great and caesar both prized speed and experience more than anything else), and that is just what they did during the aiel war. Fully formed resistance was slow in coming, and their was far too much clashing of leadership ideas among the nations. They had to settle on rotating days of command between the generals, and we all saw how well that worked out for Romans against Hannibal.

 

Numbers. If nothing else, you have to acknowledge that in the current age Wetland armies (excepting the borderlanders) just don't have the numbers, not when 10,000 men is considered a huge army. The Aiel came across in their previous war with 3 full clans, and even giving a lowest possible estimate i'd say that meant at least 60,000 men. But from what we know of the clans numbers it must've been far more seeing as the shaido came with a good 100-150k (though many were deserters from other clans), and Rand's group at least doubles that. Now seems to me vastly superior numbers who are ALL extremely trained (no militia here), greater speed and structure (arriving sooner than expected always and NOT a milling mass of troops), superior leadership (can you really compare any cairien or tairen lord to Rhuarc or Bael?), and having a preceding reputation that induces terror before you even strike would make winning not all that hard.

 

[Mr Ares]

I don't know what I'm talking about?

No, you don't.

The Aiel DO have rubbish equipment, that is a fact, no matter how much you all protest.

No, it isn't. And you have yet to provide an example of when it is. Their equipment is never unfit for purpose. It is never inadequate.

They use simple animal skin bucklers

So? Simple and rubbish are not the same. Their shields seem fine.

wooden spears

What else would you make a spear from? Wood is a traditional material, and a very good choice. If their spears kept breaking, perhaps, but they don't. They seem to hold up quite well.

and wear pajamas.

Ah, you're jealous that they can wear pajamas while out and about and you can't. It all makes sense now. Their clothes prevent them from overheating inthe hot desert, they permit flexibility of movement, speed, the provide camouflage. Sounds a long way off rubbish to me.

 

You can't just brush aside all the weaknesses in the Aiel military.

What weaknesses? Whatever they lack, they have no need for as they are still quite capable of delivering victory regardless.

You can't rely on your enemy not hitting you to counter archers.

What about shooting back? You didn't address that.

 

I know Aiel DO stand up to cavalry charges, my point is that this is completely unrealistic.

But you don't say why.

Loosely formed light infantry do not stand up to cavalry charges, they get demolished.

Again, you lack the why.

 

Lastly, the Aiel are not professional soliders.

Yes, they are. For the algai'd'siswai, that is their job. The Westlands do not maintain large standing armies, the Aiel do.

They are a force of individually talented warriors.

With good leaders, capable of operating in concert. Much like an army.

 

Also' date=' define "proper battle."[/quote']"Whatever I say it is."

 

It is just well made from simpler and inferior materials.

You say it, but where's the evidence? Nowhere to be seen.

 

How do you defeat 10-1 odds?

Concentration of force. Make sure you have more people in any given engagement. Or sheer force of will, if you prefer the Ares method. A surprise attack against unprepared enemies who aren't even out of bed is a lot easier.

 

The Zulu's defeated the British by massively overwhelming numerical superiority. They just had way' date=' way too many men. The rebellion was put down eventually when the British actually got a decent number of troops into the theater.[/quote']Now, take away the well trained British troops, the superiority of weapons to a roughly equaivalent level, except the Zulus are better trained and better led. Who wins?

 

CAVALRY WINS!!!!  CAVALRY WINS!!!!  CAVALRY WINS!!!!

A ludicrous generalisation that says nothing of any use. The question is why? Why did cavalry win when they did, and lose when they did? What are the strengths and weaknesses of cavalry?

 

During the peninsular war, the Spanish tried it [guerilla warfare], but it was the English bailout that made the French leave.

An oversimplification. The British (note, British, not english, the Act of Union being signed about a century prior to the beginning of the war; if you don't even know the belligerents in the conflict, how can we take your opinions of it seriously?) couldn't have achieved victory on the peninsula, or it would have taken longer and been at a far greater cost of British life, had the Spanish not been there to force the French to divert forces away from Wellington's army. Likewise the Spanish couldn't have won against the French without the British intervention, although they could certainly make things a lot harder on the French. They couldn't focus on one foe because the other remained.

 

Guerilla tactics only work in the jungle

Just plain wrong.

 

They speak English in South Africa, not Zulu.

From wikipedia: Official languages of South Africa:

Afrikaans

English

Southern Ndebele

Northern Sotho

Southern Sotho

Swazi

Tsonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Zulu

So, some of them do speak zulu, some don't speak either english or zulu. Might as well say they don't speak french in Canada. Wikipedia also says: "According to the 2001 National Census, the three most spoken first home languages are Zulu (23.8%), Xhosa (17.6%) and Afrikaans (13.3%). Despite the fact that English is recognised as the language of commerce and science, it was spoken by only 8.2% of South Africans at home in 2001, an even lower percentage than in 1996 (8.6%)." So, more speak zulu at home than english. You were saying? It didn't take me long at all to find that out. You didn't even bother with the most cursory research, did you?

 

Also, you can't beat up someone in heavy armor(Gaul v. WC), you'll break your hands trying to

Only if you punch them in the armour. Aim for weak parts.

 

I think we can safely disregard your comments as those of someone who is completely ignorant. Please stop talking until you know what you are talking about.

 

who can defeat 10 armoured guys with their bare hands and the help of a guy with an axe doesn't seem human.

Corrected for you, and it seems perfectly human to me. It's not like he kills them all by himself. He moves fast, takes them off balance, then a few moments later Perrin gets involved with his axe. Not long after, they're all down - some are still alive - and Gaul leaves. Tough, but not impossible. Now, people regurlarly find themselves with fighting skills turned up to 11 in fantasy or mythology, but the Aiel are at heart built on a solid, plausible foundation. Taking the example of the Zulu, or the Dervishes, or similar, and we see that the idea of "foot cavalry" is not unheard of. Far worse in this respect is Mat - Gaul trained as a fighter all his life, and had help, against people of uncertain skill. Mat, fresh out of bed, beats two talented young trainee Warders, wiothout any liek the level of skill required from an Aiel. He becomes a great-captain over night, and gains instant proficiency with a weapon he has never seen before. And you loath the Aiel? Please. Mat is the worst offender in this regard in the series. Do you loathe him as well? The Aiel are based on real peoples, who are tough fighters.

 

even if you wear a steel helmet' date=' a kick to the head will still knock you out.[/quote']Liar, I just tried this and now my shin is broken...thanks a lot.

He did say use your feet, he said nothing about shins. Let that be a lesson to you - learn how to kick properly.

 

I don't listen to counter argument?

No' date=' you don't.

Although most people here seem utterly convinced of the idea that not fielding cavalry, not having armour, and not fighting in close order are in fact advantages, it is simply untrue.

That is not what people have said. That said, these things are not inherently advantageous, that would depend on the circumstances. Even if circumstances where it would be and advantage, it is still quite possible to overcome them, so they are not necessary for victory - that is what people have said. Now, cavalry are an advantage, according to you, so you field you cavalry against my city walls. See where your charge gets you. Or how about against my machine gun nests? See what good armour does you sweltering in a desert, or when you're sinking in a swamp, or I get my rifle and put a bullet in you. Now, you have said it is implausible, so the burden of proof is on you to show it. Saying they have inferior equipment doesn't make it so, saying they would lose to cavalry doesn't make it so. You need to show how a short spear is inferior to a sword, how cavalry would beat them.

 

Nobody tried out cavalry and thought ''hey, you know what, cavalry sucks lets go back to not having them''.

Maybe if they had they wouldn't have wasted so much on them in the Great War. Cavalry is not the be all and end all of warfare. What advantage does cavalry bring you? Is it because they are scary? The Aiel won't run because they are scared. Is it because they are fast? Aiel can outpace them over distance, and they won't retreat n the face of them anyway. Come on, you need to say what advantage cavalry brings, not simply that it is one, because there are plenty of circumstances when it isn't.

 

It's ONE unarmed, unarmoured, hungry, tired, dehydrated guy

Can't count. It's two guys, one armed and in good condition, the other experienced in fighting unarmoured, and probably unarmed as well, meaning these aren't disadvantages to him like they would be to an unarmed, unarmoured Whitecloak. Also, he lives in a desert. Used to a shortage of water.

 

The Aiel win all the time

Except Cairhien, Malden, Dumai's Wells. Just in the series. The Aiel are tough, but not invincible.

If Jordan had just come out and said ''yeah, the Aiel are a super-race of godlike killing machines who therefore have no need of a combined arms military or decent equipment when launching invasions into much more densely populated lands with much better technology'' then I wouldn't be saying any of this.

No, you'd be imagining something else to annoy you.

 

I never said anybody was stupid, and I never meant to imply it either

You on the other hand are a moron who doesnt know nearly as much as he thinks he does

So that's not saying that the person you're responding to is stupid?

 

However saying it's plausible in a real world setting, which some seem to suggest, is flat out wrong.

No, it isn't - the basis of it is very plausible, and their abilities are hardly the most exaggerated in the series.

[Mutsumi]

As far as the gaul&friend vs. X opponents goes, I would argue that the type of armor that the whitecloacks use is more or a hindrance than a benefit as far as hand to hand goes. Yeah it's not a nice feeling to bruise your knucles against a breastplate, but who told you to hit him with a closed fist in the chest anyway? There are after all a lot of different ways of unarmed hand to hand, and things like grappling, twisting and throwing would only be more effective against armoured targets. Not to mention that we aren't exactly talking about a gothic plate here, so there are quite a few gaps to strike at and there is also the slowing factor, while not major it would still be a hindrance. And at the end it is a trained combatant vs those that might not have that much experience against proper unarmed fighting.

 

As far as cavalry usefullness goes, was it not mentioned that the shienarans were the only ones to utilize lances? That alone takes away lot of the hitting power of the normal cavalry especially against opponents that don't give you a solid front to charge against. Now if I have understood correctly the main benefits of cavalry charge are the shock effect and the weight of the charge. Against enemies that both don't fear death and that can dilute or nullify the weight of the charge those advantages aren't really that hot. So even in the ideal circumstance where they would get an unhindered charge (not often I assume) I would imagine the that aiel response would be something on the lines of giving way to to the charge deliberately while striking from the flanks and rear and them binding them into melee once the cavalry loses their momentum, all the while peppering them with both arrows and thrown spears, propably aimed at the zero armor horses.

 

And you have to remember that a cavalry charge isn't exactly the most sublte tactic so the enemy would see it coming long before it happens which gives ample time to prepare and charging cavalry won't really charge very far, so if you can either bog them down before they gather momentum or give way so they lose momentum while wheeling, either way the advantage is largely negated. And all that is in the cavalry ideal situation.

 

[dholm]

Y'know, considering that RJ is a military expert and has studied a number of sources before writing this series, including the Art of War... maybe when he makes the Aiel tactics work, just maybe he's right about them working.

 

This.

 

Really, unless you have studied military tactics and strategy yourself, how can you shoot down someone who has? There are tons of factors that you do not even consider (because you don't know they matter!).

[Miltiades]

No, it isn't. And you have yet to provide an example of when it is. Their equipment is never unfit for purpose. It is never inadequate.

 

The plastic forks you get on airplanes are not unfit for purpose. The metal ones you and I both use at home are just MUCH fitter for that same purpose. I can eat my dinner much faster and more effectively with the superior tool. The fact that the plastic fork gets the job does is irrelevant.

 

So? Simple and rubbish are not the same. Their shields seem fine

 

Their shields are made out of sub-standard materials, that means they are inferior. This isn't even my gripe though. Their bucklers were clearly designed for parrying in the duel-based skirmishes the Aiel fight in the waste, unsuitable for field warfare.

 

What else would you make a spear from? Wood is a traditional material, and a very good choice. If their spears kept breaking, perhaps, but they don't. They seem to hold up quite well

 

I didn't point out they were wooden to try and say they were bad, I just put it in because the sentence flowed better when I said it in my head. Not your fault for taking it that way of course.

 

What weaknesses? Whatever they lack, they have no need for as they are still quite capable of delivering victory regardless.

 

I'm realy not seeing what part of this you don't understand. They have no cavalry, no close order infantry, and a simple hide buckler as their only protection. Troops who fought as the Aiel do would have been deployed as loose order skirmishers by a real world general, in support of his core force which would have consisted of close order heavy infantry and some cavalry. If you fight a battle against a proper combined arms military force and your entire army is Aiel warriors you are at a HUGE disadvantage. I'm not saying that makes defeat inevitable, only that the Aiel would have started every battle from a position of having to somehow mitigate all these large disadvantages and that therefore the idea that they could sashay over the dragonwall and open a can of wupass on everyone with no problem is profoundly unsatisfying, at least that's my opinion.

 

What about shooting back? You didn't address that

 

You may be able to shoot back, but you're still at a large disadvantage if your enemy's melee infantry is properly protected from your shooting (say by having a helmet and a proper shield) and yours isn't. If you're using allowing Aiel fighters to be tied up countering some peasants with bows you're still at a disadvantage. While you're damaging a peripheral part of his force, he's tearing out the heart of your close combat troops, because you haven't protected them properly to do the job infantry needs to do on a battlefield.

 

But you don't say why.

 

Ok, once stirrups were invented cavalry became much, MUCH  more effective. Cavalry started using lances and charging headlong into infantry lines. The weight behind a charge of armoured horsemen regularly broke close order infantry. That is why cavalry DID dominate. There are many instances of people foolishly thinking that an advantage in cavalry translated into an automatic victory and suffering defeat as a result, the French at Agincourt are a good example of this, but still, people didn't just pull this cavalry>infantry stuff out of their asses. It did have a basis in reality.

 

Anyway the point is, Aiel don't fight in tight formation and are a very ''light'' kind of warrior. Even back in ancient times before cavalry was effective enough to take on proper infantry lines it was used to destroy troops like this. Before lances, before barding, before stirrups, cavalry, at the time ineffective as a branch of the military were used to mowing down loose order light infantry with little trouble. The idea that such troops could withstand a charge from HEAVY cavalry is simply absurd barring the acceptance of the Aiel are superhuman warriors.

 

With good leaders, capable of operating in concert. Much like an army.

 

Your potential for concerted attacks are is severely limited without a combined arms military.

 

You say it, but where's the evidence? Nowhere to be seen.

 

Chainmail offers fantastic protection. The Aiel wear pajamas. It's just like the Persians against the Greeks. That style of light warfare works wonders in an arid or desert environment, but if you try and stand toe to toe with properly equipped heavy infantry in a vest and breaches with only a small buckler for protection you're going to take three foot of steel to the sternum after about 15 seconds.

 

Now, take away the well trained British troops, the superiority of weapons to a roughly equaivalent level, except the Zulus are better trained and better led. Who wins?

 

So you're statement remains correct then provided we leave out most of the evidence and control for all the variables that render it incorrect?

 

Corrected for you, and it seems perfectly human to me. It's not like he kills them all by himself. He moves fast, takes them off balance, then a few moments later Perrin gets involved with his axe. Not long after, they're all down - some are still alive - and Gaul leaves. Tough, but not impossible. Now, people regurlarly find themselves with fighting skills turned up to 11 in fantasy or mythology, but the Aiel are at heart built on a solid, plausible foundation. Taking the example of the Zulu, or the Dervishes, or similar, and we see that the idea of "foot cavalry" is not unheard of. Far worse in this respect is Mat - Gaul trained as a fighter all his life, and had help, against people of uncertain skill. Mat, fresh out of bed, beats two talented young trainee Warders, wiothout any liek the level of skill required from an Aiel. He becomes a great-captain over night, and gains instant proficiency with a weapon he has never seen before. And you loath the Aiel? Please. Mat is the worst offender in this regard in the series. Do you loathe him as well? The Aiel are based on real peoples, who are tough fighters.

 

He does not ''take them off balance'' he casually viels himself as they advance like he all the time in the world. That is because Gaul is Aiel and therefore 10 puny, antlike human beings are no challenge regardless of how well armed or prepared.

 

It is stated in TDR that Mat was exceptionally good with the quarterstaff. I believe he trained with his father. That is how he defeats Galad on Gawyn in that wager. It is also stated that he wields his long bladed spear as though it were a quarterstaff, and if he's good enough to beat Galad and Gawyn he's pretty damn good. Also, Mat has supernatural luck, so he DOES have superpowers. The comparison is invalid on many levels, you obviously didn't think too carefully about that before writing it.

 

That is not what people have said. That said, these things are not inherently advantageous, that would depend on the circumstances. Even if circumstances where it would be and advantage, it is still quite possible to overcome them, so they are not necessary for victory - that is what people have said. Now, cavalry are an advantage, according to you, so you field you cavalry against my city walls. See where your charge gets you. Or how about against my machine gun nests? See what good armour does you sweltering in a desert, or when you're sinking in a swamp, or I get my rifle and put a bullet in you. Now, you have said it is implausible, so the burden of proof is on you to show it. Saying they have inferior equipment doesn't make it so, saying they would lose to cavalry doesn't make it so. You need to show how a short spear is inferior to a sword, how cavalry would beat them.

 

hey are inherently advantageous. They are not insurmountable advantages, although all of them at once is pretty close. The Aiel have neither walls nor machine guns so those assertions are invalid. I also said numerous times that the aiel would most certainly have the advantage on their home ground, but they arent there in the aiel war are they? You saying they don't have inferior quipment doesnt make it so, I've offered explanations numerous times, but nobody has done anything other than say ''they're equipment is not inferior'' with no evidence or explanation whatsoever. Explain to me how bucklers and pajamas are the equal of chainmail, helmets and body shields in open warfare then.

 

Can't count. It's two guys, one armed and in good condition, the other experienced in fighting unarmoured, and probably unarmed as well, meaning these aren't disadvantages to him like they would be to an unarmed, unarmoured Whitecloak. Also, he lives in a desert. Used to a shortage of water.

 

Fair point, I got carried away there and forgot about Perrin's contribution. However it is made fairly obvious that Perrin's involvement did not make the difference, I think he took down 2, and Gaul didn't suffer a scratch, had Perrin done nothing Gaul would still have won. From his behaviour it seems gaul does stuff like this on a regular basis, it's no big deal.

 

No, you'd be imagining something else to annoy you.

 

And what are you basing that on? All the other threads I've started complaining about stuff I don't like? You know nothing about me, let's not pretend you do. This was a baseless assertion attempting to undermine my argument by painting me as some kind of serial whiner never satisfied with anything. But anyway, let's not dwell, I will simply readjust my regard for your intelligence downward and move on.

 

So that's not saying that the person you're responding to is stupid?

 

At first I was thinking you merely didn't read what was actually written properly. But your intentional disingenuity in the above quote leads me to believe this was willful deception.

 

The first of the two quotes was directed at Auld Manriver, as you are well aware, he believed I was slighting everyone here by saying that you are all morons for taking this Aiel business seriously. My intention was to do nothing of the sort, I never meant to offend anybody, only have some reasonable debate and hear if anyone shared my views.

 

The second quote was directed at frenchie who, rather than politely voicing his disagreement in good faith like everyone else, immediately came in with an attitude and made a post that comprised almost entirely of denigrating me. He needed to be told where to shove it, and so obviously that second quote applies to nobody but him.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

The plastic forks you get on airplanes are not unfit for purpose. The metal ones you and I both use at home are just MUCH fitter for that same purpose. I can eat my dinner much faster and more effectively with the superior tool. The fact that the plastic fork gets the job does is irrelevant.

So is your point, unless you canshow how the Aiel weapons are rubbish, or just inferior.

 

Their shields are made out of sub-standard materials

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Their bucklers were clearly designed for parrying in the duel-based skirmishes the Aiel fight in the waste, unsuitable for field warfare.

They can still be used to parry. They also allow for great mobility.

 

I didn't point out they were wooden to try and say they were bad, I just put it in because the sentence flowed better when I said it in my head. Not your fault for taking it that way of course.

So your point was that spears are inferior? Again, saying it doesn't make it so.

 

If you fight a battle against a proper combined arms military force and your entire army is Aiel warriors you are at a HUGE disadvantage.

Given you keep bringing up that Aiel always win, then evidently you are not. Quality of troops counts for a lot, as does quality of leadership. You bring up a couple of advantages people might have over the Aiel in certain circumstances, but not the advantages the Aiel would have. You just stack the deck, insist that it's implausible, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is because you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

You may be able to shoot back, but you're still at a large disadvantage if your enemy's melee infantry is properly protected from your shooting (say by having a helmet and a proper shield) and yours isn't.

A helmet isn't a lot of protection, and if you are holding a big shield, you can't shoot back.

If you're using allowing Aiel fighters to be tied up countering some peasants with bows you're still at a disadvantage.

What happens when the peasants with bows have an army of Aiel charging at them? Will they stand, or will they run? When they are getting shot to pieces? And most all of your men (and women) are trained archers. They can massacre your entire force before most of it can get close.

While you're damaging a peripheral part of his force, he's tearing out the heart of your close combat troops, because you haven't protected them properly to do the job infantry needs to do on a battlefield.

Your close combat troops will not have the guts torn out of them, they will massacre anyone you send against them.

 

The weight behind a charge of armoured horsemen regularly broke close order infantry.

But they are not fighting close order infantry, as you keep saying. What happens when they get in close? What happens if they don't? Archers can slaughter heavy cavalry before they can close. And foot soldiers, if they hold formation, survive against cavalry. The Aiel won't break. It is said that they know how to fight cavalry. Evidently, they know how to deal with cavalry.

That is why cavalry DID dominate.

Not nearly to the extent you believe. It's a distorted perception - as cavalry was often formed from the higher echelons of society, historians would focus on them and their achievements, often to the exclusion of other formations. Cavalry have their uses, but like anything else they have their limitations. Understanding those strengths and weaknesses and how to counter them is all important. The Aiel know how to deal with cavalry, so they do so. Infantry are more than capable of slaughtering cavalry. Whatever advantage cavalry have is rooted in the circumstances of a given encounter. It is not innate. People did not pull this infantry>cavalry stuff out of their arses.

 

Your potential for concerted attacks are is severely limited without a combined arms military.

No, it isn't. Your potential for concerted attacks relies on people being able to work together. That is something the Aiel do better than their opponents - most nobles are out for themselves in the battles we have seen.

 

Chainmail offers fantastic protection.

It also slows you, reduces mobility. Doesn't protect all of you.

The Aiel wear pajamas.

The Aiel wear camouflage. That makes them harder to see, so it is easier to surprise your opponents. Simply saying pajamas over and over won't make your point any more valid.

you're going to take three foot of steel to the sternum after about 15 seconds.

Then kill your opponent in the first 14 seconds.

 

Now, take away the well trained British troops, the superiority of weapons to a roughly equaivalent level, except the Zulus are better trained and better led. Who wins?

So you're statement remains correct then provided we leave out most of the evidence and control for all the variables that render it incorrect?

What? Is that a response to what I said? Or just a sequence of random words? The British possessed certain advantages over the Zulus. The Westlands lack many of those advantages, so if the Aiel are Zulus, we need to adjust the British forces so they are comparable to the nations invaded during the Aiel War. So, no firearms. Both sides are armed with pointy bits of metal. Rough parity in technological levels. No artillery. Armed forces composed primarily of peasants with only limited training, opposing a force of full time soldiers. The discipline of British troops, and the technological advances were two major advantages they had fighting the Zulus, and that would not be present in any Westlands v Aiel conflict. So, poorly trained, poorly led troops armed with weapons of similar technological levels to their opponents, facing highly skilled, highly trained, well led soldiers. It is absolutely no surprise that the Aiel would be victorious in most battles. When they face fortified positions, competent opponents, then they have a much harder job, and in those circumstances it is quite plausible that they would lose. A rabble with pikes led by idiots on horses deafeating some of the finest infantry in the world? Unlikely.

 

He does not ''take them off balance''

Yes, he does. "For an instant they were caught by surprise." It says it quite distinctly. They didn't expect one unarmed man to charge them, and it took them off balance, giving him an advantage that he was able to capitalise on.

 

It is stated in TDR that Mat was exceptionally good with the quarterstaff.

He was quite good, yes. He was also fresh out of bed and barely able to stand. "His laughter cut off abruptly as he turned to the nearest stand that hel quarterstaffs and his knees almost buckled." He does collapse afterwards: "He slid down the staff to his knees." So, someone barely able to stand, beating two of the best fighters in the Tower at once is perfectly plausible, but the best infantry in the world beating an ill-disciplined rabble isn't. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about, or you've just been brainwashed by the Mat is awesome myth, to the extent that is all you see.

It is also stated that he wields his long bladed spear as though it were a quarterstaff

But it isn't. It is a different weapoon, with a different balance, and a different style of use. True, his experience with a quarterstaff would give him a solid grounding, but he masters this weapon the first time he uses it, no practice required. None at all. As anyone who has ever handled a weapon similar to the ashandarei and a quarterstaff will tell you, that is a little unlikely. The two are sufficiently dissimilar that he should need a measure of practice with it before he is that good.

The comparison is invalid on many levels, you obviously didn't think too carefully about that before writing it.

I did think it through, you're just stupid. The comparison is not at all invalid. The Aiel are far more plausible than Mat, yet you are willing to accept the one but not the other. And let's not forget Rand's instant blademastery. No, what you have a problem with is that the most disciplined soldiers, the soldiers with the best leaders, would be capable of besting an ill disciplined, ill led rabble because the rabble have more horsies.

 

They are inherently advantageous.

No they are not. Try charging a pike formation and see where it gets you, or a castle wall. The advantage they provide is one of circumstance. Put some men on horses. They're now cavalry. What advantage do they have? None at all, unless the men and horses are well trained, unless they have the right equipment, unless they are on ground that favours cavalry, unless your opponents lack the equipment or discipline to deal with cavalry. There is a reason why "cavalry" so often fought on foot in the Mediaeval era.

You saying they don't have inferior quipment doesnt make it so

You saying they do doesn't make it so, and the burden of evidence lies with you. Your examples are sadly lacking, and you do not do enough to prove your assertions.

with no evidence or explanation whatsoever.

It is up to you to provide the evidence to show how they are inferior. The burden lies with you.

Explain to me how bucklers and pajamas are the equal of chainmail, helmets and body shields in open warfare then.

Explain to me how full plate and tower shields is effective for guerilla fighting, ambushes, and keeping mobility and speed at a maximum.

 

However it is made fairly obvious that Perrin's involvement did not make the difference, I think he took down 2, and Gaul didn't suffer a scratch, had Perrin done nothing Gaul would still have won.

That is purely your invention, not something from the book. It says most of the men down were due to Gaul, but that's it. Not just two. It could mean up to five were downed by Perrin. And he could wound someone who was finished off by Gaul. No wounds were mentioned on either man, and it says nothing at all along the lines of Gaul being guaranteed victory had Perrin donenothing. It says that Gaul caught them off balance. He had the initiative in the fight, but it does not say he would have maintained it, that he would almost certainly have still won had Perrin not got involved.

From his behaviour it seems gaul does stuff like this on a regular basis, it's no big deal.

Aiel are stoic. You should probably have noticed that at some point.

 

And what are you basing that on?

That you've invented something to whine about and completely failed to provide any evidence to show why anyone should support you, and clearly shown your knowledge of warfare is lacking.

I will simply readjust my regard for your intelligence downward and move on.

A mistake many fools have made. You know nothing about me, let's not pretend you do. I'll tell you this for nothing: I am smarter than you.

 

At first I was thinking you merely didn't read what was actually written properly.

Actually, I did. You said you never called anyone stupid, yet you did. Also, you remain dismissive of any counter-argument. You simply maintain that it is utterly implausible, yet the reasons why are inadequate. That seems to be exactly what Auld Manriva meant, being dismissive of those who disagree with you because they can buy that something with a plausible foundation is actually fairly plausible, if slightly exaggerated.

 

I meant to have some reasonable debate and hear if anyone shared my views.

And not listen to anyone who doesn't. Hardly reasonable debate.

[Braus]

This thread is all about stubbornes.

 

What exactly doesnt you get when it comes to wetlander armies. Reread the book and you will see how many trained armsmen usually were around, except in the borderlands.

 

 

 

Soldiers in the wetlands was doing other things when it wasnt war, feeding their family/farming/crafting etc. Unless they were acting as bodyguards or defenders of citywalls/gates etc.

 

Soldiers in the Aiel clans, were divided into societies and they were only soldiers. All the water carrying/farming/cleaning/washing or w/e for the soldiers were made by Gaishain. The soldiers only had one duty, to defend their sept/clan etc and the fact that prisoners of other clans became gaishan, servants, made it possible to keep a much bigger number of soldiers AND alot less of them died and could become soldiers once again once 1 year and a day had passed.

 

Wetlands nations isnt always one. Just look at Carhien, where you could proberly find people planning at anytime to gain power, without caring for the country itself. Internal struggle to a whole other level compared to Aiel, not even the shaido is close because they seem to still follow certain rules.

 

While the Aiel on the other hand got a whole other way of thinking. Which makes their goals much more clearer, their leadership more focused and their society more open.

 

Wetlanders uses horses the most time when going somewhere, they live in a land that gives them alot easier access to water etc.

 

Aiel never uses horses ever. Child, Women, Man, Blacksmith or w/e all go by foot, or run. Their whole life this has been the case. Now this is really without facts, but i bet that alot of the indians that lived in America back in the days would completly beat any of nowadays running sportsmen. Comparing a person from a background(family) who maybe never had any big athletic people, who suddenly at a early age starts going to the local club and starts practising running 7 days a week, to someone who comes from a family who done the same for along time and lived his whole life with walking/running forced onto him from birth, is kinda silly. I would bet alot of money that the best runners from the village who got it in them genetic, could beat any other runner who just happened to like to run as a sport and started go to a school and become good. And im certain that the average people from the village, would be far far better than the average "wetlander".

 

When did the Jen Aiel enter the waste? abit after the breaking right? Thats alot of years of walking and running. You could proberly compare aiel and wetlanders, like how they compare horses from different bloodstocks in the books. Horses from Andor, from Tear, from Arad Doman(razors) etc. Its not SUPERHUMAN POWERS to be able to be faster/stronger/more endurant compared to people who lived a whole other way.

The Gaul/Perring vs Whitecloaks, why wouldnt they be able to fight off some whitecloaks? What exactly does it mean to be a whitecloak anyway, you start seeing darkfriends everywhere so you decide to join the order, you ride around the world intimidating and killing innocent people. Who said you'd become a extremly skilled soldier. Besides, odds like 2 vs 10, or even 20 isnt that unusuall in books. Just look at Mat armed with 1 knife, vs 8 people or so in KOD(the chapter about a hell with Tuon). Or especially Galad vs riot people in that city before Nyn and Elayne reach Salidar.

 

And another thing about the Aiel genetics, i bet that they are gonna become as they say "alot" softer if they stay in the wetlands, they are still humans and i think any kind of "human race" so to say, would get favourable genetics if they did like the Aiel, lived the way they did. Actually i read the prophecy like this. The only Aiel that will still be Aiel after the last battle will be the Shaido, who returned. The other clans will adapt into the Wetlands and become something, not the old kind of Aiel.

 

was gonna write alot more and reread what i wrote and give a try on organizing it but i just cba since its a idiotic arguement, though the whole Cavalry vs Infantry debatte is just silly. I dont know how it is really, but im sure Jordan knew enough. And im sure that NOONE in this forum ever got any real life experience with old school cavalry vs infantry, its not enough to play Age of Empire, or Empire Earth. And even if all the information that you need is in books and papers etc, i doubt there is alot of people on these forums who studied as much as Jordan.

 

My personal opinion after reading the books is that the Aiel had great weapons, great tactics and alot of experience. They were also extremly skilled. Usually its like comparing one of the last battles in KOD, where Mat faces 11k or so horseman, with less men, and barely loosing any men. What would you think would happen if he had to fight those 11k horsemen in some other way, with them closing or attacking on another spot. Its all about planning/tactics and the training of your soldiers. And the reason why Aiel is often superior vs Wetlanders, is because they are able to stealth/ambush/choose battlefields/counter tactics etc alot better than wetlanders. And because they are better trained soldiers.

[Braus]

AND you cant really fully compare Aiel to anything that happened in our history. Their society and way of leading/organizing/fighting/thinking etc is unique. In a whole other world, compared to us.

 

 

Another kinda special point. What do you think would have happened if people from South america or central america back in the Inka days, meet Europeans before they stopped using bows etc. Thats how i see Aiel vs Wetlands. Because of the breaking of the world, EVERYONE started at 0 once again, and neither Aiel or wetlanders got guns(tho they will proberly get there soon because of Mat/Alruda + Rands Schools). Aiel got just as advanced society as the Wetlands. No big differences at all. They are just as advanced imo and lets toy with the idea that the Wetlands would be in war with teh Aiel for lets say 50 years, and noone wins. Im sure the wetlands will have just as experienced soldiers by then, or alot earlier.

[The Doctor]

I've got to side with Ares on this one.  Not only that but RJ graduated from the Citadel and toured in 'Nam, so he was someone who had more than just a casual hobby like interest in warfare, it is possible he knew what he was writing about.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

He did say use your feet, he said nothing about shins. Let that be a lesson to you - learn how to kick properly.

Great, now my right shin and left foot are both broken!  I used proper form and everything...

[Thor]

i've kicked through many things, doors, gates, bookshelves, even cracked a brick wall.  never felt like my feet hurt.

 

even if you wear plate, it's not going to be stronger than those things, else it would be so heavy you can't even move anyways.

[Yiceman]

It seems like a lot of the arguments against the Aiel are based around our history...such as "if the cavalry is information with pikes" and "if the archers are well protected."

 

But read the books...most cases they aren't.

 

Most cases the wetland armies are a bunch of farmers in bits of shoddy armor who barely know one end of a sword from the other. They're led by nobles who have little to no sense of military strategy, who often compete with men on their own side due to petty rivalries.

 

That's why they lose.

 

If you go on saying that Aiel shouldn't be able to stand up to a good cavalry or a formation of pikes...you're absolutely right.

 

Which is why Mat was able to beat them. He use the horse and foot exactly how they should have been used, and the Aiel couldn't stand up to it.

 

It's all in the leadership and organization. If the wetland armies all got organized like the Band, the Aiel wouldn't seem so invincible. Their individual abilities would be countered by the wetlander army's ability to work as a unit.

 

But that's all a lot of "if."

[Epic]

Ok, where to start?

 

Languages in South Africa I guess.  First, if your going to throw statistics out at me, at least get them from CIA World Factbook, not Wikipedia, where if I wanted to, I could go and say that the Exxon Valdez oil spill had no lasting affects on the environment and probably not get caught for a while.  Wikipedia is simply unreliable.  You ask why I didn't even do the most passing or fleeting research on languages in SA?  My dad was in SA for a month last year, went all over the country and all echelons of society.  Not once did he have to ask for an English translator.  Also, it doesn't matter if you're speaking Zulu at home, your still speaking English at work.  I live in Ottawa, if I go across the river to Hull, I will have to try very, very, very hard to find someone who doesn't speak English, despite the fact that French is an official language of Canada and is one of the major languages spoken at home.  My point is that it doesn't matter if you speak another language at home if you speak the same one as everyone else at work, cause that's the one that matters as a whole and will have the most people that are able to speak it.

 

Your little Act of the Union bit there.  By that I'll assume that you meant that the British Army consisted of troops from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland and that because it consisted of troops from different countries/kingdoms then it should be called English, not British.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here and without condescension, cause for this paragraph at least I'm trying not to condescend either.  I have a couple of problems with calling it the English Army.  One, it was under British leadership with Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington.  Two, the Act of the Union (1707) formed the Kingdom of Great Britain and the 1800 added Ireland, so why shouldn't it be called the British Army if it comes from the Kingdom of Great Britain?  So you would be wrong in calling them English forces, seeing as how they come from Great Britain.  Once again, I assume that this is what you meant (note, British, not english, the Act of Union being signed about a century prior to the beginning of the war; if you don't even know the belligerents in the conflict, how can we take your opinions of it seriously?) even though continue to use British, rather than English for the rest of your paragraph.  If I've misinterpreted your meaning, then please correct me and enlighten the rest of the Dragonmount posters to your actual meaning.

 

Chainmail doesn't hinder you a great deal, it was made to be lightweight and provide great defense.  That's why it was the next step in armour's evolution.  It was easily flexible and provided great defense against edged weapons in slashing blows and against thrusts from edged or piercing weapons, like say, I don't know?  An Aiel shortspear or arrows?  Its weakness was with blunt weapons like a mace, as it wouldn't cushion the body from a blow and bones would still break, and we all know how Aiel love to use blunt weapons in battle.

 

Plate Armor is very heavy and limits the wearers maneuverability.  That's why it was only worn by knights, the horse could maneuver for them.  Practically impenetrable except at the inside elbow and knee joint and the armpits, none of which would be very exposed during mounted combat while using a lance.  As long as your horse has barding and you don't run into a pike, you should be relatively invulnerable on the battle field.

 

Put a zulu army down against a medieval European army of equal number and the Zulus lose.  Their iron assegais killed the British troops 'cause the Brits were just wearing cloth that provided no protection.  An assegai would only scratch plate armor and would do mutch more to chain mail.  Both armours are made from steel while assegais are iron.  The better metal wins hands down and even if they were steel assegais, I'd still give it to the Europeans 'cause the zulus have no armor....like the Aiel. 

 

I'll try and explain what I think Militiades meant by his talk about helmets, shields, and exchanging arrows between armies.  Over long distances, you can't fire arrows straight at someone because it won't reach them.  You have to fire them up in a parabola so they rain down overhead.  Helmets would protect your head from these arrows, and as has been seen in the books, most farmers (who are quite able archers) have helmets lying around upstairs in their attics.  Raise your shields overhead like a testudo and that will also stop the arrows from killing your good, heavy, core infantry while they march toward the Aiel to start the killing.  Your peasent archers will be able to kill the Aiel warriors with ease at a distance as they have no armor with which to stop the arrows and their bucklers are small and would give very, very, very little protection.  If Aiel archers kill your peasant archers with their own arrows, who cares, they're only peasants and can shoot and kill the Aiel archers with just as much ease.  The Aiel archers are more versatile than the peasant archers and therefore, if = numbers of archers are lost, than the loss is still greater for the Aiel whose archers are more versatile than the peasents.  I don't mean to put words into Militiades mouth, but this is what I think (he/she?) meant.   

 

As has been said a whole bunch throughout this thread, the Aiel don't fight in tight formations, or any formations at all and therefore cavalry charges are ineffective 'cause they can't charge home unless its against an actual, visible formation.  This would be wrong.  The Aiel would just be easy pickings.  The only infantry that can withstand a cavalry charge has either pikes/long spears/halberds or has depth in ranks to absorb the charge and bod it down.  Things like the square formation.  If you feel that I've misinterpreted the meaning, please enlighten me so I understand.

 

The Aiel did technically win at Cairhien 'cause it was mostly Aiel v. Aiel and Mat doesn't count 'cause he's one of the book's superheroes and has magical luck and memory.  No one beats Asha'man (so Dumai's Wells shouldn't count either) not Aiel, not Seanchan, not Aes Sedai, and not Trollocs.  Malden I'll give, but it fealt like Jordan just recreated Agincourt, substituting Aiel for cavalry; still very cool though.

 

Mat's superpowers are explained by Jordan, he has the magic luck, the memories, and the medallion.  That's why I find him plausible, 'cause its explained.  I want to know how a million people are all tall, jacked, (fair eyed, skinned and haired, but live in the dessert?  That only happens in Northern climates, your darker if you live somewhere where its hotter and sunnier) and exceptional athletes.  Genetics doesn't explain that well enough for me.   

   

[Miltiades]

So is your point, unless you can show how the Aiel weapons are rubbish, or just inferior.

 

I've already told you, spears are a poor choice of weapon when fighting in loose order. That is why troops who chose the spear (as opposed to it being the only available weapon) almost always carried swords in case it came to that. For example the Kopesh was popular amongst troops who fought as a phalanx, both the original Greek style with the Dori, or the later Macedonian with the Sarissa.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

Me saying it isn't what makes it so. It being so is what makes it so. Hide over wood is the most primitive and therefore ineffective type of shield that humans ever created. While it may not be explicitly stated that the wetlanders use higher quality shields are we to assume that their technology in this department is much worse than elsewhere? The use metals with their armour, so it is reasonable to assume they utilize it in the shield design.

 

They can still be used to parry. They also allow for great mobility.

 

Mobility is not what frontline infantry are for. They are for closing with and defeating the enemy. At some point you actually have to fight, and at that point you're going to notice that your enemy is very well protected with a proper shield and a helmet and you are virtually naked.

 

So your point was that spears are inferior? Again, saying it doesn't make it so.

 

My point was to accurately describe the Aiel equipment. Spears are not inherently worse, but relying on them 100% in melee is a mistake. Other weapons are often better, such swords.

 

Given you keep bringing up that Aiel always win, then evidently you are not. Quality of troops counts for a lot, as does quality of leadership. You bring up a couple of advantages people might have over the Aiel in certain circumstances, but not the advantages the Aiel would have. You just stack the deck, insist that it's implausible, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is because you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

Honestly are you actually making this point? This never actually happened, you realize that right? Jordan could say that in Randland a salmon killed a bear that was trying to fish it out of the water. Does that mean that ''evidently'' salmon can handle bears? Because it happened in a fictional story?

 

Also, I have acknowledged the advantages the Aiel have, which is more than you've done for their disadvantages. I've just said that all these things would make Aiel excellent skirmishers or raiders, not soldiers, as in people who engage in open warfare. The kind of open warfare you would need to employ against a nation on it's home ground.

 

You bang on about how the advantage offered by cavalry can only be utilized in certain situations. Well yes, the situations under which the Aiel fought the wetlanders, when they didn't have pikes, didn't have guns, and weren't in castles. I know cavalry can be countered, but the Aiel manifestly don't HAVE anything to counter it. Give a counter to cavalry that the Aiel actually have.

 

A helmet isn't a lot of protection, and if you are holding a big shield, you can't shoot back.

 

Assuming you have a proper shield, a helmet is the most important piece of amour. With the protection of your shield your head becomes the most vulnerable part of you, so it is better to have a shield and a helmet than a shield and a breastplate or hauberk.

 

As for shooting back, the people with the shields aren't the ones doing the shooting.

 

What happens when the peasants with bows have an army of Aiel charging at them? Will they stand, or will they run? When they are getting shot to pieces? And most all of your men (and women) are trained archers. They can massacre your entire force before most of it can get close.

 

You defend your archers with better protected infantry. Something the Aiel can't do because they have no better protected infantry. Every single man (and woman) is a squishy target. They are all naked against the many threats that the battlefield offers.

 

Your close combat troops will not have the guts torn out of them, they will massacre anyone you send against them.

 

As I've been saying, a tall order for a force of auxiliaries. There is just no ''meat'' to an Aiel army. There is no core. It is a horde of flimsy paper cannons. A bunch of Aiel caught in open ground against cavalry would be slaughtered to a man.

 

But they are not fighting close order infantry, as you keep saying. What happens when they get in close? What happens if they don't? Archers can slaughter heavy cavalry before they can close. And foot soldiers, if they hold formation, survive against cavalry. The Aiel won't break. It is said that they know how to fight cavalry. Evidently, they know how to deal with cavalry.

 

I honestly can't believe you made this point. I explained about loose order infantry and cavalry to you in my last post, the paragraph was right underneath the one you quoted. Of course we both know why you did this, you didn't have answer so you just ignored the bit you didn't like.

 

Still, I'll say it again. Loose order foot gets BUTCHERED by horse. Even before cavalry became the powerhouse it was once stirrups were invented this was the case. In ancient times, this, along with outflanking and chasing routers, was the only real use for cavalry that was a pretty ineffective arm of the military. Light foot standing up to heavy horse just does not happen.

 

Also, archers do not slaughter heavy cavalry before they get close. Archers that have some kind of defense against the charge slaughter heavy cavalry. For example the English did very well against the French knights because they understood that archers, properly protected can defeat heavy horse. But as I said, the Aiel don't have anything to keep the cavalry charge at bay. Once again it is because they don't have combined arms. They have one, easily countered, style of warrior and that is it. They have nothing that could plausibly stand up to a charge from heavy cavalry.

 

 

Not nearly to the extent you believe. It's a distorted perception - as cavalry was often formed from the higher echelons of society, historians would focus on them and their achievements, often to the exclusion of other formations. Cavalry have their uses, but like anything else they have their limitations. Understanding those strengths and weaknesses and how to counter them is all important. The Aiel know how to deal with cavalry, so they do so. Infantry are more than capable of slaughtering cavalry. Whatever advantage cavalry have is rooted in the circumstances of a given encounter. It is not innate. People did not pull this infantry>cavalry stuff out of their arses.

 

The Aiel know how to deal with cavalry? Really? You deal with cavalry by fighting in close order with pikes. Or by holding them at bay with something solid and shooting them. The Aiel don't fight in close order, don't have pikes and don't have anything solid enough to keep a charge from demolishing them. If Aiel know how to deal with cavalry why don't they actually do any of the things that you do to counter them?

 

Infantry are] capable of slaughtering cavalry, given the correct equipment and fighting style. And, minus these things, are guaranteed to be slaughtered by cavalry. The Aiel do not have the correct equipment or fighting style. They are skirmishers, cavalry's preferred target.

 

No, it isn't. Your potential for concerted attacks relies on people being able to work together. That is something the Aiel do better than their opponents - most nobles are out for themselves in the battles we have seen

 

Yes it is. division of labour has made the marketplace massively more productive and in like fashion it makes armies massively more effective. If all your troops carry the same equipment and fight in the same way, your potential for effective concerted attacks is vastly reduced.

 

It also slows you, reduces mobility. Doesn't protect all of you.

 

Nevertheless it proved itself very effective that is why those who had access to it always used it. The only reason for NOT using chainmail was because you could not afford it or there was none available. Those who could equip themselves with chainmail DID.

 

Besides which, speed is not as important as protection in most cases. While some troops can get away with being unarmoured, namely those who fight from a distance, those who are expected to close with the enemy need to be protected. You simply cant have ALL your men wearing nothing but normal clothes. SOMEONE has to do the up close and personal stuff, and when comes down to that, if you don't have protection and your enemy does you have an absolutely enormous handicap. Where this has happened in history you get absolutely horrific massacres. Like The celts losing somewhere around 80,000 to the Romans 400 during the Boudiccan revolt. Or at the battle of Alesia where 60,000 Romans held 80,000 Gauls inside the city and even when a relief force of over 200,000 Gauls arrived the Romans absolutely annihilated them. THAT is what happens if you don't equip your men properly. You might be all right in an ambush but face to face with closed ranks will be a bloodbath.

 

The Aiel wear camouflage. That makes them harder to see, so it is easier to surprise your opponents. Simply saying pajamas over and over won't make your point any more valid.

 

So your not even debating then that the only way the Aiel would have a chance in hell is in an ambush. If they actually let the enemy get to grips with them in good order they would be slaughtered.

 

Then kill your opponent in the first 14 seconds.

 

That is going to be nigh on impossible. This is because the only thing your enemy presents to you is a helmet, peering over four feet of shield. It is for this reason that infantry engagement consisting of two close order formations armed with shields yielded VERY low casualties.  It was not until one side broke ranks that people really started dying. The victor wouldn't expect to lose more than 2-3% of his force. If however, you're facing this without protection, YOU will be dealing out these sorts of casualties but your opponents will be cutting bloody swathes through your unprotected flesh.

 

What? Is that a response to what I said? Or just a sequence of random words? The British possessed certain advantages over the Zulus. The Westlands lack many of those advantages, so if the Aiel are Zulus, we need to adjust the British forces so they are comparable to the nations invaded during the Aiel War. So, no firearms. Both sides are armed with pointy bits of metal. Rough parity in technological levels. No artillery. Armed forces composed primarily of peasants with only limited training, opposing a force of full time soldiers. The discipline of British troops, and the technological advances were two major advantages they had fighting the Zulus, and that would not be present in any Westlands v Aiel conflict. So, poorly trained, poorly led troops armed with weapons of similar technological levels to their opponents, facing highly skilled, highly trained, well led soldiers. It is absolutely no surprise that the Aiel would be victorious in most battles. When they face fortified positions, competent opponents, then they have a much harder job, and in those circumstances it is quite plausible that they would lose. A rabble with pikes led by idiots on horses deafeating some of the finest infantry in the world? Unlikely

 

Very well, while we're at it take away the Zulu's huge advantage in numbers and expert knowledge of their home terrain and add armour and heavy cavalry to the British forces. You see it is a foolish comparison, the two situations are absolutely nothing alike. Anyway the wetlanders do have a significant technological advantage over the Aiel. We see them use catapults in the Two Rivers not to mention the enormous advantage that mail armour confers. There is no parity in equipment, the wetlanders have a significant edge.

 

Yes, he does. "For an instant they were caught by surprise." It says it quite distinctly. They didn't expect one unarmed man to charge them, and it took them off balance, giving him an advantage that he was able to capitalise on.

 

But that is exactly what I am saying sounds foolish to my ears. Men coming to attack somebody don't get taken by surprise. Both parties know there is going to be a fight, the element of surprise is lost.

 

That said, I do accept that a sudden attack like that can give an advantage. But only against the first opponent, even assuming ''an instant'' is enough to take down an armoured man with nothing but your hands.

 

He was quite good, yes. He was also fresh out of bed and barely able to stand. "His laughter cut off abruptly as he turned to the nearest stand that hel quarterstaffs and his knees almost buckled." He does collapse afterwards: "He slid down the staff to his knees." So, someone barely able to stand, beating two of the best fighters in the Tower at once is perfectly plausible, but the best infantry in the world beating an ill-disciplined rabble isn't. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about, or you've just been brainwashed by the Mat is awesome myth, to the extent that is all you see.

 

He was not barely able to stand. He was almost fine when he started the fight he just knew that his strength would not last long. And this is just 2 guys. Gawyn goes down before he even knows whats going on because he thinks the whole thing is stupid and unfair and isn't ready. That leaves only Galad, who has not finished training. So really it's a one on one thing.

 

Anyway its a moot point because as I pointed out before Mat has supernatural luck. Once again you chose to skip over that part because you have absolutely nothing to say to counter it. Once we've accepted that things like supernatural luck exist in the world almost anything Mat does is plausible. As I said, if Jordan had just come out and said the Aiel were superhuman I would have no problem with them because then in the context of a world where superhumans exist everything the Aiel do is believable.

 

But it isn't. It is a different weapoon, with a different balance, and a different style of use. True, his experience with a quarterstaff would give him a solid grounding, but he masters this weapon the first time he uses it, no practice required. None at all. As anyone who has ever handled a weapon similar to the ashandarei and a quarterstaff will tell you, that is a little unlikely. The two are sufficiently dissimilar that he should need a measure of practice with it before he is that good.

 

See above. Mat is supernaturally lucky and has hundreds of other mens experiences and memories in his head. If we first accept those things about him his prowess with the spear is believable. The Aiel have no qualifier, they are just basic humans.

 

I will note at this point that you are no longer really arguing against my original position. You are merely saying that it is no more unbelievable than other things which happen. A small change but important, you have implicitly accepted my case. Now the only way to be right is to subtlety reframe the debate to avoid being wrong and losing face. I'm not going to have it, we're debating whether the Aiel are believable or not, stick to the point.

 

I did think it through

you're just stupid.

The comparison is not at all invalid.

The Aiel are far more plausible than Mat,

 

What is that thing you keep saying again? Oh yes ''just because you you say it, doesnt make it true'' and yet here we have a string of isolated, unsupported statements. Absolutely no attempt to justify or support them, just reeled off like you're saying ''the world is round''. Even with my lessened respect for your intelligence I expected better from you. You expect me to take you seriously when you try to pass that off as reasonable debate?

 

Mat having explicit superpowers completely defeats the point you made, a fool could see that. Just accept it. If it is made explicit in a subsequent book that the Aiel are more than human I will take back everything I have said. Until then, you are simply wrong on this point.

 

It is up to you to provide the evidence to show how they are inferior. The burden lies with you.

 

But I have, several times. My complaint was that people, such as yourself, seem content to just say ''no it is not'' and leave it at that. A primitive buckler, a spear, a bow and pajamas is not suitable equipment for an invasion force. I have explained why this is so many times, if you want to rebut and offer counter evidence, please do so, just don't say ''their equipment is not worse'' as if that settles it.

 

Explain to me how full plate and tower shields is effective for guerrilla fighting, ambushes, and keeping mobility and speed at a maximum.

 

Explain to me how you can invade a country and kill its king with guerrilla fighting and ambushes? What if he wants to stay behind walls? At some point you'll have to wrest control of the countryside from him, that means confronting and defeating his army.

 

You really are overplaying mobility and speed. a far better way to get mobility and speed is simply to sit on a horse but that's another story. I said in another part of my post that you chose to skip over because you have no counter that any real world general would deploy Aiel, such as they are, as skirmishing support troops. Speed and mobility are just not important for the core of your army; your line infantry. They need staying power, they need proper protection and they need to fight in close order not like a bunch of rambos. If not having armour and shields is just as good as having them why were they so popular? Even archers got chain when they could, because it was just much better than not having it. You may not want to accept this, but it is true.

 

No they are not. Try charging a pike formation and see where it gets you, or a castle wall. The advantage they provide is one of circumstance. Put some men on horses. They're now cavalry. What advantage do they have? None at all, unless the men and horses are well trained, unless they have the right equipment, unless they are on ground that favours cavalry, unless your opponents lack the equipment or discipline to deal with cavalry. There is a reason why "cavalry" so often fought on foot in the Mediaeval era

 

Your case would be much stronger if you had listed a couple of things that the Aiel actually have or do. Of course you didn't because you couldn't think of any. That wasn't going to stop you from making the point though was it?

 

Also, with the notable exception of the English, who correctly realized that the longbow was where their power lay, knights fought afoot often because their mounts died. The horse itself was always the most vulnerable part of the mounted knight and disease was rife among armies on campaign

 

That is purely your invention, not something from the book. It says most of the men down were due to Gaul, but that's it. Not just two. It could mean up to five were downed by Perrin. And he could wound someone who was finished off by Gaul. No wounds were mentioned on either man, and it says nothing at all along the lines of Gaul being guaranteed victory had Perrin done nothing. It says that Gaul caught them off balance. He had the initiative in the fight, but it does not say he would have maintained it, that he would almost certainly have still won had Perrin not got involved.

 

Perrin doesnt even enter the fight until after it starts. Bottom line was that for a least a few moments, one unarmed, unarmoured Aiel was owning 10 fully armed and armoured professional soldiers, and that is just very difficult for me to accept of a normal human with no superpowers.

 

Still I accept your point, it was conjecture, I believe it to be reasonable conjecture from the facts as they are written but I'm not going to put too much stock in it.

 

Aiel are stoic. You should probably have noticed that at some point.

 

Yes, they are stoic because they know they can effortlessly overcome any challenge, because they are superhuman.

 

That you've invented something to whine about and completely failed to provide any evidence to show why anyone should support you, and clearly shown your knowledge of warfare is lacking.

 

I haven't invented anything. I made known a single thing that annoyed me. Had I complained about many things in some kind of rambling critique your point would be valid. The fact is, I pointed out that there was ONE thing that I, as a fan, found unsatisfying. You are simply a fanboy who will brook no criticism, even from one who enjoyed the books.

 

It was a baseless and indefensible remark, simply designed to undermine me rather than my argument. Again, I expected better.

 

I also find it funny you think my knowledge of warfare is lacking. Just because I don't feel the need to list off all the books I've studies on the subject (which by the way, is a lot) and proclaim that I am more intelligent than certain other persons doesnt mean I am uninformed or unintelligent. In fact to do so indicates an insecurity in the validity of one's position and the need therefore to compensate by building a shield of orthodoxy around it. I know the facts I espouse speak for themselves to anyone who knows anything about warfare and leave it there.

 

A mistake many fools have made. You know nothing about me, let's not pretend you do. I'll tell you this for nothing: I am smarter than you.

 

Well if it's a mistake its one I'm repeating. That you would not only make, but defend indefensible and inexcusable  ad hominem attacks like your one about me just being a whiner marks you as someone of a lesser intellect that I first imagined.

 

As for you being smarter than me, well, you'll believe as you like. You should try and prove it rather than saying it however, and so far I am not impressed. Most intelligent people can see when they are wrong about certain things, you obviously lack that capacity.

 

Actually, I did. You said you never called anyone stupid, yet you did. Also, you remain dismissive of any counter-argument. You simply maintain that it is utterly implausible, yet the reasons why are inadequate. That seems to be exactly what Auld Manriva meant, being dismissive of those who disagree with you because they can buy that something with a plausible foundation is actually fairly plausible, if slightly exaggerated.

 

No doubt an example of your superior intellect. What I said was directed at a comment that clearly referred to my original post.Auld Manriver felt I was being insulting with my original post, my intent was to assure him that I meant no offense to anyone with my remarks in the original post, a fool could see that, and so could you. You're just holding me to ridiculously rigid semantic rules in order to create an argument out of nothing, one you feel you can easily win by quoting me out of context.

 

I will also say that only a fool is insulted by differences of opinion, and that is all this is. I have not been intentionally insulting to anyone who did initiate this behaviour against me.

 

And not listen to anyone who doesn't. Hardly reasonable debate.

 

So I am obliged to change my mind? Nobody has said anything that convinces me, as I evidently have not convinced you. A couple of people have even agreed, it is not like I am the only one. You really are clutching at straws here.

 

 

I don't expect any of this to change your mind. You have demonstrated an inability to concede even when you have clearly spoken in haste or error. If anything it is this which makes me highly doubtful of your arrogant claims of superior intellect.

 

[Miltiades]

Epic, all of your suppositions of what I intended are correct.

[el Nynaeve]

Having read through all 7 pages of this thread, it seems to me that you, Miltiades, are having a temper tantrum because hardly anyone agrees with you over your opinion of the Aiel.

 

First of all, this is a fantasy work and has no bearing on the real world, whether some parts are based on it or not, it is not real. So I should think Jordan can damn well do as he pleases with his characters and races. Also given that he's studied a lot more warfare than you and been involved in a war, I would also think he knows a hell of a lot more than you do.

 

By repeatedly insisting on saying Aiel have inferior weapons (with no proof to support that) and insisting that they wear "pajamas" you come across as a 5 year old who's mad that this isn't going the way you want it to. Telling someone they have less intelligence than you because they have a different opinion is just plain arrogant. Grow up.

[Braus]

Man you really are ignorant of the books. You should try rereading them. The situation isnt as you describe. IT wasnt like that during the aiel wars, and it isnt like that now when the Aiel returned to the wetlands. This thread started with you thinking Aiel were superhuman, instead it now has turned into some kind of discussion between what kind of real life history type of armsmen win vs who. The situation isnt like that. The book, all the battles, described to you throughly and i still think you are very ignorant, dont change the subject. You still havent explained WHY the Aiel is superhuman, they have done nothing that goes against all logics in the books really. They are just a hard people, a trained people, a people that goes after a certain way of thinking(ji e toh) which makes them alot more dangerous.

Stop talking about ancient battles in Europe or the likes because this thread isnt about this right?, focus on the books, thats the equation you need to look at, what kind of people the Aiel are. And what kind of battles has been, and who had what position, and who got the upper hand, the reason behind that etc etc

 

Aiel dont have great experience fighting wetlanders, some do have experience because of Laman, but normally all their wars has been between the clans. Im sure they will evolve. The clan chief will analyze for sure and adapt/counter.

Wetlanders dont have any great experience fighting Aiel, some do have experience because of Laman, but normally their wars have been between other wetlands - or even against peasants/armies of robbers. And Shadowspawn. They will proberly evolve if they got to face Aiel, people like Mat will make sure of it.

But the last battle is coming. We arent talking centuries of fighting, we are talking a very small time spawn. Everything is happening at once.

 

 

They have one, easily countered, style of warrior and that is it. They have nothing that could plausibly stand up to a charge from heavy cavalry.

 

Stop that really, they are not one kind of warriors. They are extremly adaptable. They got more than one spear. A bow. Knifes. Shields(regardless if its wood or steel, it will still stop an arrow or a sword), im really not sure why a iron/steel shield would be better, at least not for the aiel.

They a can run extremly fast and long, not only because of their clothes, but because of the way they have lived, where they have lived and how they have trained. They obviously know some kind of martial arts and are proberly extremly flexible when it comes to close combat.

 

 

 

 

 

When it comes to real life history different armsmen vs other armsmen, i got no opinion really who wins. And while its interesting, i dont really care about it. Since we are talking about the books, and i got no battle in the books yet that i disagree with. And the knowledge i got is from remembering details from the books, common sense, logics and whatever ive gotten from real life thro history/novels/movies/tv and the likes.