Now this disturbed me - numbers

[Thorn]

 

 

According to your math, it would simply take 5 years to construct 1,000 ships at a rate of 200 a year. That's feasible as the  Seanchan could first gather the supplies, timber, weapons, selecting those who were going to undertake the journey etc before finally constructing the ships.

 

More importantly, the Seanchan could use damane in the construction. It's really a mistake to compare Seanchan industrial capability with other wooden-ship navies -- they're more analogous to a steam-powered navy that never developed cannon or steam power because they already had "magical" solutions that worked better. You don't need iron ship sides when nobody has cannon because they're using damane instead; you don't need steam power for reliability when damane give you perfect maneuverability.

 

I think it's safe to assume that the Seanchan could build more ships, faster, of better quality than a comparable "historical" wooden-ship navy, and those ships would also be more durable and easier to maintain.

 

A half million or more Seanchan just aint a happening thing given a few hundred ships and 17th Century technology.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "several hundred ships" figure is for the Forerunners, not the full Return?

 

Anyway, just to reiterate -- the Seanchan aren't at 17th century level of technology. I suspect they're at 18th or 19th century level of "function," just with damane instead of metallurgy and chemistry.

[Mr. Micawber]

Let me reiterate what I said before, Thorn.

 

This kind of mass movement over these kinds of distances simply did not occur pre-industrialization.

 

You could make the case that 18th or first half of the 19th Century tech could send a fifty thousand man army plus naval units across the ocean. The British basically did this.

 

But 500,000 is out of the realm of possibility.

[Bob T Dwarf]

If you believe the annotated map and combine the Seanchan fleets at Ebou Dar and Tanchico, they might have 1000-1500 ships.

 

That's up to 500 people plus all their food and supplies per ship.  We're talking 600 foot plus passenger steamer capacities here.  A sailing ship that large would require about 20 masts and a crew of about 200 just to hoist sail or wear ship.

 

Other than a ( very few ) passenger liners, commercial vessels didn't exceed 350 feet and maybe 15,000 tons until after WWII.

 

Like I said, not a happening thing.

[Muad Cheade]

Zheng He's voyages were through East and South Asia, where he could put in to port regularly. Apart from Gavin Menzies, pretty much no one thinks that he crossed the Pacific.

 

The Seanchan are crossing an uninterrupted body of water thousands of miles long.

 

I'd say there's a difference between what his junks did and what the Seanchan do.

 

His fleets also visited East Africa and India. From mainland China to India by sea is 6,000 miles, a distance that is very much longer than the distance from Seanchan to the Westlands (also remember the Seanchan ported at Aile Somera which is relatively distant from th Westlands).

 

Your 1,000 per ship number is for the riverboats, not the Coasters.  You know, the ones that remained in China.

 

His first expedition consisted of about 300 ships and 28,000 men.  So, for 280,000 men he would have needed 3,000 ships.  For 500,000, he would have needed close to 5,000 ships.  That doesn't take into account all of the various kinds of livestock and their requirements.

 

A half million or more Seanchan just aint a happening thing given a few hundred ships and 17th Century technology.

 

You're assuming Zheng He set out with the maximum number he could. He did not set out to conquer, rather he set out to explore. Very different than the Seanchan's intention and the former does not require you to utilize the maximum amount of space.

 

And, no. 1,000-person ships were capable of of traveling for long periods of time throughout Southeast Asia. Atleast, according to Niccolò de' Conti (writing a term paper on Italian exploration barely pays off).

 

Also, the Chinese were capable of building junks in the first century that could hold 700 people and over 260 tons. I know you're very familiar with ships so if a junk (a ship that's made for ocean voyages) can handle  hundred of people and cargo, that early in history, don't you think the Seanchan could?

 

Regardless, even a figure as large as 1,500 ships supports the plausibility. And like you said, they could build 200 sips a year and that would be 7.5 years, so there would be no wood-rot.

 

And yes, Micawber, such wide-scale mobilizations did not happen prior to mobilization, but it is plausible if a very well-organized and centralized government undertook that endeavor over a period of centuries.

 

The reason they did not happen prior to industrialization was because conflicts were not on a large scale if you understand what I'm saying. They combat was not across large bodies of water. Look at it this way, as everyone is familiar, Xerxes I readied 200,000 men and hundreds of ship to invade Greece. However, the distance was not "far." The English invaded Holland and Napoleon did Egypt which were both farther than the distance Xerxes transported his troops, but their army sizes weren't as large as Xerxes.

 

So I'm saying the reason invasions such as the Seanchan had did not occur in "real-life" because they it wasn't feasible, it was because the warfare was localized. Even when you had a large army (like Xerxes) you did not need to transport them far (Thrace), when you transferred them far (Napoleon to Egypt) you had a smaller army. The Seanchan had the capability for a large army (like Xerxes) and the capability for a long voyage (like Napoleon (Malta to Alexandria)).

[Bob T Dwarf]

His fleets also visited East Africa and India. From mainland China to India by sea is 6,000 miles, a distance that is very much longer than the distance from Seanchan to the Westlands (also remember the Seanchan ported at Aile Somera which is relatively distant from th Westlands).

 

By hedgehopping along the coast, not sailing direct.

 

Because somebody is silly enough to crowd 700 people onto a riverboat or coaster does not mean such an overloaded vessel is capable of safely navigating the open ocean.  Judging by modern day news reports they sometimes aren't capable of safely crossing a harbor.

 

IIRC, more than once in their history China attempted to send invasion fleets the relatively short distance to Japan.  On each occasion they suffered sufficient naval catastrophe that they eventually gave up the idea.

 

Sorry, that was Kublai Khan a bit earlier:  The Mongols lost up to 75% of their invading troops and supplies both times on the oceans because of huge storms.

[Muad Cheade]

His fleets also visited East Africa and India. From mainland China to India by sea is 6,000 miles, a distance that is very much longer than the distance from Seanchan to the Westlands (also remember the Seanchan ported at Aile Somera which is relatively distant from th Westlands).

 

By hedgehopping along the coast, not sailing direct.

 

Because somebody is silly enough to crowd 700 people onto a riverboat or coaster does not mean such an overloaded vessel is capable of safely navigating the open ocean.  Judging by modern day news reports they sometimes aren't capable of safely crossing a harbor.

 

IIRC, more than once in their history China attempted to send invasion fleets the relatively short distance to Japan.  On each occasion they suffered sufficient naval catastrophe that they eventually gave up the idea.

 

Yeah...Somehow I don't think that's the case as they were also able to carry 260 tons of cargo in addition to the 700 people. So it is very, very unlikely they were overloaded.

 

And yes, Kublai Khan's fleets were repulsed twice. However, it was the weather that caused their doom in both cases, not the enemy (although in the first, the Japanese did finish off soldiers that were on shore.. I don't really get what they had to do with the Seanchan though...Both were not on the scale of the Seanchan invasion and the weather was already acting up in the Westlands, so there was no reason for it to be a factor.

[Bob T Dwarf]

OK.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Given the choice between wishful thinking and the realities of 17th century technology and agriculture, I'll go with reality.

[WWWwombat]

The Mongols knew nothing of maritime travel so bringing them in is kind of humorous.  The Mongols were only ever defeated by three peoples.  Two of those (Java and Japan), defeated them in naval contests (although during the second invasion, Japan managed to hold out for quite some time on land).  Mongols didn't even know had to build seafaring ships so they had to rely on the subjugated Chinese and Koreans for that.  Historical evidence shows that the Mongol ships used in invading Japan were sabotaged by Chinese and Korean shipwrights, which is why so many of them foundered when the typhoon came.  Furthermore, the Sea of Japan is notoriously rough.

[WWWwombat]

Also, I'm not sure if assuming that pre-industrial societies supported smaller proportions of soldiers is a good idea.  Our economy is largely focused on things other than the military, but during the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, that may not have been true.

[Bob T Dwarf]

During the latter half of the 19th century after the invention of the steel plow, the cultivator, the reaper, the first hay balers, and steam tractors had greatly increased agricultural productivity the highly productive farmland in Iowa was only capable of feeding 10 people per acre.  And still 80% of the people lived on farms.

 

In the 17th century, all they had for a plow was some wood.  They either pulled that plow themselves or if they were really fortunate they might have an ox or a mule to help.  Cultivation was with a hoe.  Harvest was accomplished with a scythe or sickle.  In a good year a farmer might produce enough to feed his own family.  In a really good year he might have enough to sell to feed 2 more people.  In a bad year, everybody starved.

 

The only farms we see in Randland are clustered around the towns and cities or along the major trade routes.  Get 5 miles off any road, much less in many areas, and you're in open wilderness.  Nobody and nothing, not even cattle or sheep.

 

How are so few farmers feeding so many people with 17th century technology?

 

None of the numbers we're given make sense.  It's all magic.

[Muad Cheade]

You're mistaken. In fact, the borders of each nation have shrunk as nations found it unnecessary to guard territory that wasn't populated. So the current borders are not sparsely populated as you think.I'm not sure where you get the thinking that villages are only close to towns and cities? Is it because Jordan only went into detail about those close to cities? Would you rather him go into villages that were not near the action or population centers? Even the Two Rivers is relatively far from the nearest city, Baerlon and is fairly isolated.

 

You are severly underestimating the people of the Westlands. They are not only capable of irrigation, cattle and livestock are mentioned in nearly every instance of a farm, and the weather supports it (atleast in the south).

 

The agriculture methods you dismiss so heavily were effective. The population continued to grow increasingly from the late middle ages to the early modern period (375 million in 1300 to 600 million in 1700 despite the Black Death killing 75 million).

 

So we know there are farms away from cities (Perrin's pov post-aCoS, Mat's pov on the way to Salidar/Tear and post-WH etc) and we know that historically the same agricultural methods increased the population of Europe, logically it's plausible to support large armies.

 

Look at Tear, its granites were so full they were able to send grain to both Cairhien and Illian. See, if the entire world was like Cairhien, you'd be right. Cairhien's population was reduced following the Aiel war and the subsequent civil war that destroyed farms, granaries and coupled with the farms close to the Aiel waste, the populace suffered. That's what happens when the agricultural output is insufficient to feed the population. That only happened in Cairhien though.

 

However, now that the Dark One is really affecting the Patter and foodstuffs an, maintaining large armies will be difficult, which is why the Sea Folk are sending food to Bendar Eban (in Arad Doman), where a million people are starving.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Every time Perrin or Mat leaves the beaten path they are in wilderness, not threading their way through farmland.

 

Europe's population grew in spite of wars, pestilence, and disease because everywhere you looked their were productive farms and estates, not vacant wilderness.

[WWWwombat]

During the latter half of the 19th century after the invention of the steel plow, the cultivator, the reaper, the first hay balers, and steam tractors had greatly increased agricultural productivity the highly productive farmland in Iowa was only capable of feeding 10 people per acre.  And still 80% of the people lived on farms.

 

In the 17th century, all they had for a plow was some wood.  They either pulled that plow themselves or if they were really fortunate they might have an ox or a mule to help.  Cultivation was with a hoe.  Harvest was accomplished with a scythe or sickle.  In a good year a farmer might produce enough to feed his own family.  In a really good year he might have enough to sell to feed 2 more people.  In a bad year, everybody starved.

 

The only farms we see in Randland are clustered around the towns and cities or along the major trade routes.  Get 5 miles off any road, much less in many areas, and you're in open wilderness.  Nobody and nothing, not even cattle or sheep.

 

How are so few farmers feeding so many people with 17th century technology?

 

None of the numbers we're given make sense.  It's all magic.

I think you're exaggerating there.  I haven't studied Early Modern Europe much, but I find it hard to believe that significant aristocratic and merchant classes could be supported with yields so low as you describe.  Even if livestock were as rare as you describe, the Japanese managed to support a large warrior class with little to no indigenous livestock.

[Mr. Micawber]

Yields were pretty low in Europe, relative to what came later.

 

Rice yields are much higher, but require enormous central control (for irrigation projects) and an enserfed peasantry to do the back breaking labor.

 

Look, if you want to see what Early Modern Europe tended to look like (at least in idealized form) outside cities, then look at the Two Rivers. The Two Rivers, as we learn during TSR, is actually an enormously densely populated region.

 

The problem, as Bob points out, is that the vast majority of the land in Randland is fallow, it's flaming wilderness as soon as you get a few miles beyond the cities.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Livestock, a fondness for meat, and the resulting close contact with animals and a much lower standard of hygiene is why Europe experienced so much pestilence and disease that the Orient did not.

 

The problem isn't that 17th century agriculture is incapable of feeding people it's that it takes lots and lots of farmers using 17th century methods to feed people.  There are not lots and lots of farmers in Randland.

[WWWwombat]

I'm pretty sure there was plenty of wilderness in Europe as late as the High Middle Ages.  There were even people who lived there.

[Muad Cheade]

Every time Perrin or Mat leaves the beaten path they are in wilderness, not threading their way through farmland.

 

Europe's population grew in spite of wars, pestilence, and disease because everywhere you looked their were productive farms and estates, not vacant wilderness.

 

They're not vacant. You only think they are because Jordan does not go into detail about each nation's agricultural capabilities and the countryside.

 

You're mistaken about Perrin and Mat. The entire time Mat was with Luca's Show they passed farms, villages, and towns. The same goes for Perrin when he was hunting the Shaido.

 

I just pointed out why the nations' sizes shrunk. They found it not necessary to guard unpopulated lands. Their current borders reflect their population sizes. If you go outside the national borders, that is in fact the wilderness.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Heck, if you go far enough north in Norway, Sweden, or Finland there's still wilderness in Europe.  It's wilderness because the growing season is too short.

 

What parts of Europe west of the Urals do you feel were underpopulated in the 17th century?

[Mr. Micawber]

Every time Perrin or Mat leaves the beaten path they are in wilderness, not threading their way through farmland.

 

Europe's population grew in spite of wars, pestilence, and disease because everywhere you looked their were productive farms and estates, not vacant wilderness.

 

They're not vacant. You only think they are because Jordan does not go into detail about each nation's agricultural capabilities and the countryside.

 

You're mistaken about Perrin and Mat. The entire time Mat was with Luca's Show they passed farms, villages, and towns. The same goes for Perrin when he was hunting the Shaido.

 

I just pointed out why the nations' sizes shrunk. They found it not necessary to guard unpopulated lands. Their current borders reflect their population sizes. If you go outside the national borders, that is in fact the wilderness.

 

No, nations' sizes shrunk because humanity is failing.

 

That's what drives Ingtar to convert, and it's something that Moiraine deplores all the way back in New Spring.

 

This was, of course, part of Elan Morin's plans.

 

He tried to wreck humanity during the Trolloc Wars, but, as we have been told countless times, far more was lost during the War of A Hundred Years. Essentially, he started that war by sending off Hawkwing's ridiculous expeditions to Seanchan and Shara, and then preventing Hawkwing from receiving healing, and then finally by killing off the top contenders to succeed him.

 

After that, it was just a matter of allowing humanity to destroy itself.

[WWWwombat]

Yields were pretty low in Europe, relative to what came later.

 

Rice yields are much higher, but require enormous central control (for irrigation projects) and an enserfed peasantry to do the back breaking labor.

 

Look, if you want to see what Early Modern Europe tended to look like (at least in idealized form) outside cities, then look at the Two Rivers. The Two Rivers, as we learn during TSR, is actually an enormously densely populated region.

 

The problem, as Bob points out, is that the vast majority of the land in Randland is fallow, it's flaming wilderness as soon as you get a few miles beyond the cities.

 

Rice agriculture does require tons of water but that doesn't require "enormous central control."  The Japanese were farming rice well before they even adopted the feudal system.  Also, iirc rice agriculture doesn't allow for as many secondary crops as other kinds of agriculture.  Even in Premodern Japan, rice yields were high enough for authorities to take half the crop without starving the peasants to death.

 

There is definitely a lot of uninhabited land in the Westlands, but the place is so damn big there is still tons of land being farmed.  The Westlands are pretty big as other people have pointed out.

[WWWwombat]

Heck, if you go far enough north in Norway, Sweden, or Finland there's still wilderness in Europe.  It's wilderness because the growing season is too short.

 

What parts of Europe west of the Urals do you feel were underpopulated in the 17th century?

 

How about forests and/or mountainous regions?

[Bob T Dwarf]

 

They're not vacant. You only think they are because Jordan does not go into detail about each nation's agricultural capabilities and the countryside.

 

You're mistaken about Perrin and Mat. The entire time Mat was with Luca's Show they passed farms, villages, and towns. The same goes for Perrin when he was hunting the Shaido.

 

I just pointed out why the nations' sizes shrunk. They found it not necessary to guard unpopulated lands. Their current borders reflect their population sizes. If you go outside the national borders, that is in fact the wilderness.

 

Luca's Circus is moving via a bunch of big wagons.  Those require roads.  They frequently pass through stretches where there are no farms.  I've already said there are farms along the major trade routes.

 

Now, reflect on the little ride Mat takes with Tuon.  When they see the Tuatha'an ahead, Tuon gallops off into the countryside, and Mat follows her into that wilderness.

 

Wilderness, wilderness, everywhere.  Very few farms.  What there are are clustered around the towns and cities.

 

Nowhere near the number of farms and farmers needed to feed the people we know about let alone those we don't.

 

Magical armies.  Magical settlers.  Magical Trollocs, Magical food stores.  All that food that is supposedly rotting shouldn't really be there anyway because there aren't enough farms and farmers to have produced it.

[WWWwombat]

K I just asked a European friend.  He named north France/rhine/Low countries, Castille, Hungary, the Balkans, Lithuania (pretty big back then), and Scandinavia.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Heck, if you go far enough north in Norway, Sweden, or Finland there's still wilderness in Europe.  It's wilderness because the growing season is too short.

 

What parts of Europe west of the Urals do you feel were underpopulated in the 17th century?

 

How about forests and/or mountainous regions?

 

Hard to grow crops on a mountainside.  Gotta clear a forest before you can plant there.  By the 17th century they were doing just that in parts of the Black Forest.  If the Low Countries were so vacant, why have the Dutch been building dikes to create more land for centuries?

 

Almoth Plain is largely vacant because Tarabon and Arad Doman won't quit fighting over it long enough for anybody to settle there.  Then there's the Caralain Grass.  Even bigger and more vacant than Almoth.  Those magical Seanchan settlers don't seem to be having any problem finding vacant land to settle in Amadicia and Tarabon.  

 

Elayne can now somehow whistle up an army of 130,000 yet the folks in Emond's Field haven't seen a Queens Taxman in generations.

 

It's all nonsense numbers with no basis in the reality of what Jordan painted for us.

[WWWwombat]

Heck, if you go far enough north in Norway, Sweden, or Finland there's still wilderness in Europe.  It's wilderness because the growing season is too short.

 

What parts of Europe west of the Urals do you feel were underpopulated in the 17th century?

 

How about forests and/or mountainous regions?

 

Hard to grow crops on a mountainside.  Gotta clear a forest before you can plant there.  By the 17th century they were doing just that in parts of the Black Forest.  If the Low Countries were so vacant, why have the Dutch been building dikes to create more land for centuries?

 

Almoth Plain is largely vacant because Tarabon and Arad Doman won't quit fighting over it long enough for anybody to settle there.  Then there's the Caralain Grass.  Even bigger and more vacant than Almoth.  Those magical Seanchan settlers don't seem to be having any problem finding vacant land to settle in Amadicia and Tarabon.  

 

Elayne can now somehow whistle up an army of 130,000 yet the folks in Emond's Field haven't seen a Queens Taxman in generations.

 

It's all nonsense numbers with no basis in the reality of what Jordan painted for us.

 

Elayne made gateways all over Andor, and hired tons of mercenaries.  It's not surprising that she could raise large numbers.