Inturalde (Full Spoilers)

[Muad Cheade]

Rand wasn't giving Ituralde the Asha'man to fight the Seanchan anyway. The point was a Great Captain thought with 50k troops and 100 Asha'man he could defeat hundred's of thousands of Seanchan soldiers and hundreds/thousands of Damane.

It is unlikely he could have done it when Rand and Bashere were unable to do the same on a similar scale.

 

They got told by Suroth, via Darkfriends/Forsaken when and how Rand would be attacking them. I'm sure almost any army given forewarning of the attacking enemies tactics would do well.

Like I said, the Seanchan change their tactics once they have analyzed what they did wrong and what the enemy did right.

 

As a similar situation flipped around for the Seanchan versus a superior force - a small force attacking a larger one using mobility, imagine how poorly the attack on the White Tower would have gone if Egwene had known it would involve Raken/To'Raken and she was fully in control of the AS. They'd have been in Circles and wiped the floor with the Seanchan.

That is a hypothetical scenario. It is like saying "don't you think Rand would have lost at Falme without the Heroes of the Horn and him appearing in the sky?" Or don't you think he would have been defeated in Ebou Dar without Callandor? Or would Mat have been successful in KoD without those amazing crossbows?

 

If a war between two political parties ends, then five years later starts up again, is it the same war or a new war?

Wars end either through a peace treaty of some sort or the complete and total defeat of one of the political groups. Neither has happened in the WoT. And it has only been two years at the most between Falme and the battle in tPoD.

 

Rand beat the Seanchan at Falme. Almost their entire armed forces were forced off of the mainland, in a complete and total rout. I say they lost that war.

It was their scout force, not their entire armed force. Also, the fact the Heroes of the Horn fought for Rand could not have been expected and was key in the victory. It wasn't the end of a war; only the end of the battle.

 

My point is, the "Ever Victorious Army" is a sham. When you are defining the terms in question, it becomes ridiculously easy to claim things.

What terms? The Seanchan know they lose battles. They don't hide that. The fact is, they don't lose wars.

 

Besides, considering just how big the Empire is in Seanchan, I'd say there's a different reason than military strategy that causes the Ever Victorious Army to win every time. For one thing... it probably outnumbers any foe by about two hundred to one.

Actually, the rebellions in Seanchan we have heard of seem to be fairly large. Assid Bakuun's POV in TPoD, Chapter 22 says: "...while there had been the occasional rebellion by some mad upstart with eyes on the Crystal Throne...some of those rebellions had not been small. Two years fighting on Marendalar, thirty thousand dead, and fifty times that shipped back to the mainland as property." That means there were 1,530,000 or more rebels, the majority of which were combatants.

 

If it doesn't, the army probably split between two claimants for the Crystal Throne... which means both sides would be the Ever Victorious Army. Actually, I'm pretty sure most conflicts would involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides in some capacity or other.

I don't think the rebels would call their army the Ever Victorious Army because that would link themselves with the Empire they were trying to escape from. Also, the loyalists always won, so the "true" Ever Victorious Army still earned that name.

 

Wasn't it in Path Of daggers at the end where the guy was crying becuase he was going to have to go back with the news the ever victorious army was beaten?

Yes, because that is the second time they had lost in the Westlands.

 

They have won when people like the white cloaks road out to meet them in battle or when they can sneak in like when they took Amadica, anytime someone has used quick strikes hitting here and there their respone is always the same gather a huge army and go after them.  Overwhelm them with numbers and damane.  Not saying their generals are idiots.  But their tatics don't seem to vary much.

Would you not do the same in order to completely smash an enemy's forces? Also, their reaction times seem to be very fast. Ituralde remembers that they learned quickly and adapted to his tactics, which made him end his raiding early.

 

In TGS, even Rand fully expected the Seanchan to conquer the majority of the Westlands soon.

[dholm]

If a war between two political parties ends, then five years later starts up again, is it the same war or a new war?

Wars end either through a peace treaty of some sort or the complete and total defeat of one of the political groups. Neither has happened in the WoT. And it has only been two years at the most between Falme and the battle in tPoD.

Wars do not have to end in that matter at all. As long as there is no armed conflict taking place -- no siege, no battles, nothing -- there is no war. Regardless, I can easily claim the "complete and total defeat" of the Forerunners happened at Falme.

 

The fact that a war can end and later start up again involving the same combatants does not mean the war was not ended in the meantime.

 

Rand beat the Seanchan at Falme. Almost their entire armed forces were forced off of the mainland, in a complete and total rout. I say they lost that war.

It was their scout force, not their entire armed force. Also, the fact the Heroes of the Horn fought for Rand could not have been expected and was key in the victory. It wasn't the end of a war; only the end of the battle.

That's completely wrong. The Forerunners was an army sent by Seanchan to make contact with what they hoped would be the descendants of Artur Hawkwing's empire -- but it was an army. Not merely scouts.

 

My point is, the "Ever Victorious Army" is a sham. When you are defining the terms in question, it becomes ridiculously easy to claim things.

What terms? The Seanchan know they lose battles. They don't hide that. The fact is, they don't lose wars.

The term "war". That which you're doing right now.

 

Besides, considering just how big the Empire is in Seanchan, I'd say there's a different reason than military strategy that causes the Ever Victorious Army to win every time. For one thing... it probably outnumbers any foe by about two hundred to one.

Actually, the rebellions in Seanchan we have heard of seem to be fairly large. Assid Bakuun's POV in TPoD, Chapter 22 says: "...while there had been the occasional rebellion by some mad upstart with eyes on the Crystal Throne...some of those rebellions had not been small. Two years fighting on Marendalar, thirty thousand dead, and fifty times that shipped back to the mainland as property." That means there were 1,530,000 or more rebels, the majority of which were combatants.

Yeah.... those would fall under what I said just below this. A conflict that large would definitely involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, otherwise it would never have gotten that large.

 

If it doesn't, the army probably split between two claimants for the Crystal Throne... which means both sides would be the Ever Victorious Army. Actually, I'm pretty sure most conflicts would involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides in some capacity or other.

I don't think the rebels would call their army the Ever Victorious Army because that would link themselves with the Empire they were trying to escape from. Also, the loyalists always won, so the "true" Ever Victorious Army still earned that name.

... okay, you are clearly completely misunderstanding what it is I am saying.

 

First off, the rebels were not trying to "escape" from the Empire. They were trying to conquer it, for their claimants to rule instead of the sitting ruler. There would also be splinter groups, yes, trying to form out kingdoms of their own -- but they would be relatively small and eventually defeated.

 

It is an endless loop. If a conflict has soldiers from the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, the winner will simply be accepted as the "true" army and the loser would be the rebels, regardless of the actual events. If a conflict does not have soldiers from the army, it is most likely relatively small and would be relatively easily defeated.

 

This is where the old adage about how winners write history comes from.

[Diederichos]

You're facing the Dragon Reborn and the Heroes of the Horn, not some shmuck army from nowhere, two -legendary- and near-unbeatable forces on their own combined to defeat you. I would hardly call Falme a normal battle, and additionally, didn't Suroth get a lot of ranking because she was able to regroup the Forerunners and create order and subsequently strike back? Wasn't the Correne(the main force) what arrived later on in the books and Suroth was able to consolidate Seanchan early forces in Cantorin? And wars do not end because there is no fighting, they end when one side gives up or is not able to wage a war anymore. The Hailene retreated to Cantorin, a retreat is not the same as complete destruction.

 

Also, saying 'wouldn't Egwene have won if she knew about the raken and could form full circles' is sorta like saying 'wouldn't I be able to win if I knew what my enemy's plan of attack is and all my forces were in perfect shape'. Things don't work like that in the real world, you adapt. In this case, Egwene did and prevented massive destruction within the Tower, but the Seanchan plan was great enough that they were still able to pull it off successfully(to them anyway) even despite facing sa'angreal and circles and yadiyadi.

 

Look at it this way, the Seanchan position is very comparable to the Roman position during the Second Punic War as was mentionned before. The Romans suffered tremendous early losses at Trebia, Cannae and Tresimene. Still, the Romans adapted their tactics to the conditions of the combat and eventually completely defeated Carthage. You can suffer tremendous losses in certain battles and still be considered a victorious army because you win the actual war. It's sorta like during the American Civil War. Yes, the North lost quite a few battles, yes it suffered immense casualties, it does not change the fact that it was a victorious army when all was said and done.

[Muad Cheade]

Wars do not have to end in that matter at all. As long as there is no armed conflict taking place -- no siege, no battles, nothing -- there is no war. Regardless, I can easily claim the "complete and total defeat" of the Forerunners happened at Falme.

 

The fact that a war can end and later start up again involving the same combatants does not mean the war was not ended in the meantime.

That is not accurate. One famous example is the Hundred Years' War between France and England. It lasted for 116 years and during that period, there were large stretches time where no battles were being fought. A war begins from the first military engagement or declaration of war to the signing of some sort of peace treaty or the complete defeat of one of the political groups

 

That's completely wrong. The Forerunners was an army sent by Seanchan to make contact with what they hoped would be the descendants of Artur Hawkwing's empire -- but it was an army. Not merely scouts.

Nope. If you read the BWB's definition of "Hailene," it says it is the "advance scouts for the Seanchan invasion forces" (I believe something similar is in the books' glossary under "Hailene").

 

The term "war". That which you're doing right now.

The EVA has not lost a war.

 

Yeah.... those would fall under what I said just below this. A conflict that large would definitely involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, otherwise it would never have gotten that large.

1. You are assuming that the EVA was split in two. In history, rebel armies do not usually contain the government's army. Civil wars usually do, but we have not been told of any civil wars. 2. Seanchan is larger than the Westlands. I am sure there are an abundance of men who could rebel against the Cristal Throne.

 

First off, the rebels were not trying to "escape" from the Empire. They were trying to conquer it, for their claimants to rule instead of the sitting ruler. There would also be splinter groups, yes, trying to form out kingdoms of their own -- but they would be relatively small and eventually defeated.

You have a point but we are only told they are "rebellions." Not every rebellion is a civil war.

 

It is an endless loop. If a conflict has soldiers from the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, the winner will simply be accepted as the "true" army and the loser would be the rebels, regardless of the actual events. If a conflict does not have soldiers from the army, it is most likely relatively small and would be relatively easily defeated.

As I said, the loyalists (you would say they were the "true" EVA), never lost the civil wars or rebellions, so they were in fact undefeated.

[dholm]

Wars do not have to end in that matter at all. As long as there is no armed conflict taking place -- no siege, no battles, nothing -- there is no war. Regardless, I can easily claim the "complete and total defeat" of the Forerunners happened at Falme.

 

The fact that a war can end and later start up again involving the same combatants does not mean the war was not ended in the meantime.

That is not accurate. One famous example is the Hundred Years' War between France and England. It lasted for 116 years and during that period, there were large stretches time where no battles were being fought. A war begins from the first military engagement or declaration of war to the signing of some sort of peace treaty or the complete defeat of one of the political groups

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The Hundred Years' War is separated into three distinct phases:  the Edwardian War (1337–1360), the Caroline War (1369–1389), and the Lancastrian War (1415–1429). It was NOT a single war. The term "Hundred Years' War" was invented by historians after the fact to refer to that entire period.

 

That's completely wrong. The Forerunners was an army sent by Seanchan to make contact with what they hoped would be the descendants of Artur Hawkwing's empire -- but it was an army. Not merely scouts.

Nope. If you read the BWB's definition of "Hailene," it says it is the "advance scouts for the Seanchan invasion forces" (I believe something similar is in the books' glossary under "Hailene").

I said "Not merely scouts". Yes, they were sent to scout. But they were still a full army -- warships, soldiers, damane, raken, etc.

 

The term "war". That which you're doing right now.

The EVA has not lost a war.

So they claim. Whether or not that's the truth remains to be seen.

 

Yeah.... those would fall under what I said just below this. A conflict that large would definitely involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, otherwise it would never have gotten that large.

1. You are assuming that the EVA was split in two. In history, rebel armies do not usually contain the government's army. Civil wars usually do, but we have not been told of any civil wars. 2. Seanchan is larger than the Westlands. I am sure there are an abundance of men who could rebel against the Cristal Throne.

In history, rebel armies are usually made up of discontent elements, regardless of where said elements come from. Some will almost inevitably have been soldiers, or at least commanders of soldiers.

 

First off, the rebels were not trying to "escape" from the Empire. They were trying to conquer it, for their claimants to rule instead of the sitting ruler. There would also be splinter groups, yes, trying to form out kingdoms of their own -- but they would be relatively small and eventually defeated.

You have a point but we are only told they are "rebellions." Not every rebellion is a civil war.

Eh, yes, considering what a rebellion is and what the definition of a civil war is... yes, it would be. A civil war is a conflict within the confines of a nation, and as all of Seanchan is under one Empire, any rebellion against the Crystal Throne which results in war would by definition be a civil war.

 

It is an endless loop. If a conflict has soldiers from the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, the winner will simply be accepted as the "true" army and the loser would be the rebels, regardless of the actual events. If a conflict does not have soldiers from the army, it is most likely relatively small and would be relatively easily defeated.

As I said, the loyalists (you would say they were the "true" EVA), never lost the civil wars or rebellions, so they were in fact undefeated.

How do you know this? Any army that beats the Ever Victorious Army could simply claim to be the Ever Victorious Army, as the leader of said army would end up on the Crystal Throne (and technically, it would even be true!). It is a title, and an utterly meaningless one at that.

 

The Seanchan are capable military commanders, don't get me wrong -- they are far more disciplined, far more well-trained, and far better equipped than most of the armies we've seen, and anyone would do well in respecting them. But the title means nothing, especially since Rand already defeated them. Twice.

[Muad Cheade]

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The Hundred Years' War is separated into three distinct phases:  the Edwardian War (1337–1360), the Caroline War (1369–1389), and the Lancastrian War (1415–1429). It was NOT a single war. The term "Hundred Years' War" was invented by historians after the fact to refer to that entire period.

Yes, yes. Depending on the person, it is split into three or four sections. Overall, it is condensed into one single war. Just like the "Napoleonic Wars." However, there was continual conflict between France and England, somewhat through proxies (the Castillian Civil War and the Armagnac–Burgundian Civil War). Like I said before, there were periods of time where the two nations did not fight, yet they were still in conflict with each other.

 

I said "Not merely scouts". Yes, they were sent to scout. But they were still a full army -- warships, soldiers, damane, raken, etc.

They were an expeditionary force sent to a foreign land. If you notice the size of the Hailene, it is a small fraction of the Corenne. The Hailene was sent to scout out the Westlands and see if it was still a single empire and if not, they were to establish a foothold with a small force The size of the force does not change its purpose.

 

So they claim. Whether or not that's the truth remains to be seen.

The truth.

 

In history, rebel armies are usually made up of discontent elements, regardless of where said elements come from. Some will almost inevitably have been soldiers, or at least commanders of soldiers.

That scenario is possible, but not to the extent that both sides are equally made of the nations standing army as you implied.

 

Eh, yes, considering what a rebellion is and what the definition of a civil war is... yes, it would be. A civil war is a conflict within the confines of a nation, and as all of Seanchan is under one Empire, any rebellion against the Crystal Throne which results in war would by definition be a civil war.

The Third Servile War (Spartacus) was a rebellion. The Great Roman Civil War (Caesar) was a civil war. There is a very big difference between the two examples. By your logic, the American Revolution was in fact a civil war.

 

How do you know this? Any army that beats the Ever Victorious Army could simply claim to be the Ever Victorious Army, as the leader of said army would end up on the Crystal Throne (and technically, it would even be true!). It is a title, and an utterly meaningless one at that.

No. Because that would mean, the EVA lost a war, which they have never done. Also, Tuon has a direct line to Luthair Paendrag. If a rival claimant took the throne, the Empress would not be of Hawkwing descent. 

 

The Seanchan are capable military commanders, don't get me wrong -- they are far more disciplined, far more well-trained, and far better equipped than most of the armies we've seen, and anyone would do well in respecting them. But the title means nothing, especially since Rand already defeated them. Twice.

They lost two battles. Not a war. Two battles. You should ask Hannibal if the decisive victories he won in Italy were any relevant when he faced and was defeated by Scipio Africanus at Zama (which ended the Second Punic War in favor of Rome not Carthage).

 

Rand had won two battles but he still fully expects to lose the war.

[Hallow]

 

How do you know this? Any army that beats the Ever Victorious Army could simply claim to be the Ever Victorious Army, as the leader of said army would end up on the Crystal Throne (and technically, it would even be true!). It is a title, and an utterly meaningless one at that.

No. Because that would mean, the EVA lost a war, which they have never done. Also, Tuon has a direct line to Luthair Paendrag. If a rival claimant took the throne, the Empress would not be of Hawkwing descent. 

 

 

While I agree with your overall point, I just have to point out a flaw here. You assume that any conflict over the throne would be conducted between people of different descent, why? Why could it not be two siblings, both direct descendants of Luthair? From what we know of Tuon's childhood this does not seem far fetched.

[Sharaman]

Has Lan passed through Saldaea yet? If not, Ituralde will have an interesting time. Lan's Malkieri volunteers and the Domani forces could end up fighting each other or ending up joining hands. I'm assuming Lan and Ituralde know each other by reputation at least from the Aiel War days, 20 years ago.

 

 

 

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

A war is a military conflict between two political groups.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. However, it is possible to win a war despite losing the majority of the battles. Just look at the examples of the Romans in both the Second Punic War and Pyrrhic War.

Actually, if we’re being pedantic (and we clearly are), then there’s no accepted definition of war:

Here’s one:

"War is the use of organized, socially-sanctioned, armed violence to achieve a political, social, or economic objective."

 

Note, that can include a political group, though it does not have to. And then of course, there’s the difficult part, what does “socially sanctioned” mean? A democratic vote? A authoritarian leader’s decision?

 

Here’s another two, from Merriam Webster:

“1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3”

 

Number 2 makes no mention of political groups.

 

In any case, your definition is by no means absolute.

It is unlikely he could have done it when Rand and Bashere were unable to do the same on a similar scale.

Rand lost control through using Callandor. With a more applied approach, who’s to say they wouldn’t have won?

 

Besides, Ituralde isn’t Bashere. Bashere himself is stated as wondering if he could beat him. What does this imply if not a lack of certainty as to who’s better?

 

The simple answer is, we don’t know what results Ituralde could achieve. He has, however, shown himself to be very talented at a war of maneuver against superior forces. Beyond that, we don’t know much.

Rand beat the Seanchan at Falme. Almost their entire armed forces were forced off of the mainland, in a complete and total rout. I say they lost that war.

It was their scout force, not their entire armed force. Also, the fact the Heroes of the Horn fought for Rand could not have been expected and was key in the victory. It wasn't the end of a war; only the end of the battle.

Exactly.

 

When does a battle end and a campaign begin? A campaign (which might be a war in itself or part of a larger war) ends with victory. Which has not been achieved by either side at this point.

I don't think the rebels would call their army the Ever Victorious Army because that would link themselves with the Empire they were trying to escape from. Also, the loyalists always won, so the "true" Ever Victorious Army still earned that name.

Agreed.

 

Do we have any evidence that the royal family has ever been replaced by another through a rebellion? I can’t recall.

 

If not, then it would appear EVA is a apt moniker.

Not saying their generals are idiots.  But their tatics don't seem to vary much.

Would you not do the same in order to completely smash an enemy's forces? Also, their reaction times seem to be very fast. Ituralde remembers that they learned quickly and adapted to his tactics, which made him end his raiding early.

Agreed.

 

Why fix something if it ain’t broken?

Wars do not have to end in that matter at all. As long as there is no armed conflict taking place -- no siege, no battles, nothing -- there is no war.

Or, it could be a lull in the fighting.

Regardless, I can easily claim the "complete and total defeat" of the Forerunners happened at Falme.

And yet the Seanchan are still there.

 

So, you could easily claim that they lost the campaign, but hardly the war.

The fact that a war can end and later start up again involving the same combatants does not mean the war was not ended in the meantime.

The timeframe for the entire WoT is less than that of WW2… yet, despite there being numerous cessations in violence, WW2 is seen as a single war.

Yeah.... those would fall under what I said just below this. A conflict that large would definitely involve the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, otherwise it would never have gotten that large.

Would it perhaps help if you referred to the EVA as the legitimate armed forces of the Empire?

 

If the ruling family has never been dethroned, then the legitimate force must have emerged victorious.

 

It is an endless loop. If a conflict has soldiers from the Ever Victorious Army on both sides, the winner will simply be accepted as the "true" army and the loser would be the rebels, regardless of the actual events. If a conflict does not have soldiers from the army, it is most likely relatively small and would be relatively easily defeated.

Is there any evidence at all that the ruling family of Seanchan had ever been dethroned?

 

At the end of the day, to the best of our knowledge, the EVA has never lost a war. A battle? Sure, see Ituralde’s campaign. A entire campaign? Yep, Falme and the Forerunners. A war? i.e. the efforts to retake Randland? Nope.

 

Has Lan passed through Saldaea yet?

We don't know. As far as I know, we've not seen him since Nyn. dropped him off.

If not, Ituralde will have an interesting time. Lan's Malkieri volunteers and the Domani forces could end up fighting each other or ending up joining hands. I'm assuming Lan and Ituralde know each other by reputation at least from the Aiel War days, 20 years ago.

I would hope that they'd see sense.

[Diederichos]

Didn't Mishima mention a battle where there were large numbers of damane on either side? If there are civil wars, it would most likely happen between one group of the Imperial Family and another(remember that the BWB said that the scheming of Seanchan while lessened somewhat for the most part was just between the members of the Imperial family and the blood). So technically there would be an unbroken line between Luthair and Tuon even if that were to occur. Additionally, yes, whoever wins that conflict would be the EVA as of that point.

 

It's unlikely that all of the EVA could be brought together for a single conflict let along a single battle, and so if one force were to march on Seandar and capture it, then they would hold the throne and would command the loyalty of the other parts of the EVA that did not participate if only because they hold the commanding heights.

 

But, yes as was previously said. The EVA has not lost a war from all the records that we have to go on.

[DemandredFO]

I would expect Lan to be close to where he's supposed to be.  I don't remember, do we see Ituralde getting the Asha'Man from Rand?  Even if he does have the Asha'Man I'd expect there to be dreadlords with the trolloc army; all that is needed is for the dreadlords to blunt the AM long enough for the trollocs and what not to get into range and massacre the army.  Also, we have no idea what surprises Shaitan has to fling through Tarwin's Gap, things that only the forsaken and maybe super highup DF's know about.

Where exactly is the Gap in relation to the Waygate that was lost because if it is beyond the Gap then the trollocs could bypass the army entirely.

[Muad Cheade]

You have a good point on the definition of war, Thin Inn Keeper.

 

Has Lan passed through Saldaea yet? If not, Ituralde will have an interesting time. Lan's Malkieri volunteers and the Domani forces could end up fighting each other or ending up joining hands. I'm assuming Lan and Ituralde know each other by reputation at least from the Aiel War days, 20 years ago.

I think Lan has already left Saldaea as neither Ituralde's forces nor the Asha'man mentioned him, then again we weren't privy to the scouting reports. However, Rand and Nynaeve's conversation implied that we was well on his way to Tarwin's Gap or he would atleast be there by the time Rand had mustered his forces.

 

Where exactly is the Gap in relation to the Waygate that was lost because if it is beyond the Gap then the trollocs could bypass the army entirely.

According to this map (http://img156.imageshack.us/ifs/5647/img85/4/wotannotatedmap.jpg), it positions them to the east of the Gap, in the mountainous regions near the Niamh Passes. I think the Shadow plans on using the Gap to invade the Borderlands while using the Way Gates near the Gap and also the ones at Worlds End to send them deeper into the Westlands

[Sharaman]

Nyn said in conversation with Rand when they went to meet Tuon that she reckoned Lan would take "another 2-3 months maybe longer" to reach Tarwin's Gap. She'd left him at World's End on the ocean shores of Westernmost Saldeea. If Ituralde was in Eastern Sald, it's possible he and Lan will cross paths. By inference, Ituralde has the 100 Ashaman and they have orders to obey him because RaT expects him to return to Arad Doman immediately when he hears the state of the nation. Presumably, Ituralde has the capacity to Travel. I can't see the necessity for Ituralde to stay in the plotline unless there's some sort of meeting with the Malkieris.

 

 

 

 

[Muad Cheade]

Nyn said in conversation with Rand when they went to meet Tuon that she reckoned Lan would take "another 2-3 months maybe longer" to reach Tarwin's Gap. She'd left him at World's End on the ocean shores of Westernmost Saldeea. If Ituralde was in Eastern Sald, it's possible he and Lan will cross paths.

Moving with a large army takes longer. I think he's in Kandor by now.

 

By inference, Ituralde has the 100 Ashaman and they have orders to obey him because RaT expects him to return to Arad Doman immediately when he hears the state of the nation.

Rand's next big item on his itinerary is to deal with the Black Tower and Taim. To do so, he will need all the loyal Asha'man he can get. It is unlikely he will give continued use of those men to Ituralde. Also, it is unlikely they will help him go back to Arad Doman by Traveling as that is against Rand's current orders. Most likely Ituralde will head back to Arad Doman the old fashioned way. By the time he arrives, the Seanchan should control the nation.

 

Presumably, Ituralde has the capacity to Travel. I can't see the necessity for Ituralde to stay in the plotline unless there's some sort of meeting with the Malkieris.

He's a Great Captain. The Light will need every sword (his is  bldemaster's) it can get.

[Sharaman]

Sure the Light needs every sword. But I don't see the point of Ituralde floating around guarding Saldaea or wandering around Arad Doman scrapping with the Ever Victorious Army (why on Earth did RJ pick that name out of all the historical ones?), while hell is going down in Tarwin's Gap.

The obvious way to introduce him to the action would be for his forces to ally with Lan's army.

 

[mbuehner]

If the Last Battle lives up to billing, surely Tarwin's Gap won't be the only place overrun with shadowspawn hoards. From a grand strategy point of view, piling up your ocean of baddies in a small gap is about the last thing you want to do. Flooding the entire Borderlands with armies so that the kingdoms can't help each other is the way to go. If you can break through anywhere you can flank the entire Borderlands.

 

I think Ituralde will be holding down the leftmost flank personally and it will be awesome.  Giant mega-battles at TG are fun, but there is something inherently cool about some hopeless little army with perhaps the greatest general of them all running circles around a vast trollec hoard. 

[Sharaman]

Actually yes, the Borderlanders could also come in useful if another trolloc army or three floods out of the Ways into South Randland. We do know that they've been oozing out near Ebou Dar, given where Tylee was ambushed. Barashta-Ebou Dar must have had Waygates. We know there are a lot of Waygates near Tear, there's probably some on the Maredo Plains near Madding as well since that is also an old settled area like Barashta. Interesting.

Do you think that although the forces of GLoD can't use Gates, they'll make as much use of the Ways as possible and instead of a frontal charge out of the Blight, we'll get GLoD's Shadowspawn forces being 'chuted into various strategic locales? The Waygates in the Blight aren't disabled and while Ogier watch some, they don't watch all the Southern Waygates. We saw with the attack on the Manor House in Tear that even if an army exits near a stedding, there may not be a way to quickly warn people. If they hit locations that are not well defended, fortified, or even uninhabited as much of Randland is, they could do immense damage.

 

 

[Durinax]

Actually yes, the Borderlanders could also come in useful if another trolloc army or three floods out of the Ways into South Randland. We do know that they've been oozing out near Ebou Dar, given where Tylee was ambushed. Barashta-Ebou Dar must have had Waygates. We know there are a lot of Waygates near Tear, there's probably some on the Maredo Plains near Madding as well since that is also an old settled area like Barashta. Interesting.

Do you think that although the forces of GLoD can't use Gates, they'll make as much use of the Ways as possible and instead of a frontal charge out of the Blight, we'll get GLoD's Shadowspawn forces being 'chuted into various strategic locales? The Waygates in the Blight aren't disabled and while Ogier watch some, they don't watch all the Southern Waygates. We saw with the attack on the Manor House in Tear that even if an army exits near a stedding, there may not be a way to quickly warn people. If they hit locations that are not well defended, fortified, or even uninhabited as much of Randland is, they could do immense damage.

 

rand has been working on warding or sealing the ways, remember he sent Loail to do such a job.

 

and there was a civil war in seanchan and when it was briefly mentioned it was stated to be a massacre with no mention of who won. And whoever fought would have rewrote the histories to make them a legitamate part of the royal family. Remember it is not losers who write the history books, but rather the victors

[Sharaman]

Loial was only semi-successful in getting Waygates sealed.

We know that from the scene with Karldin and Loial in CoT.

Elder Haman volunteered to carry on the  task - we don't know how effective he has been.

The Gates that are in Seanchan controlled territories are apparently open - obviously so are the ones in the Blight and on the Shadow Coast since rand can;t get to them.

Even the attack in Tear apparently came through a watched gate near Stedding Shangtai

What has the Seanchan civil war got to do with Ituralde or Waygates?

 

[Muad Cheade]

and there was a civil war in seanchan and when it was briefly mentioned it was stated to be a massacre with no mention of who won. And whoever fought would have rewrote the histories to make them a legitamate part of the royal family. Remember it is not losers who write the history books, but rather the victors

From the soldier's point of view, it was the rebels who were defeated, so obviously he was on the side of the loyalists.

 

Loial was only semi-successful in getting Waygates sealed.

Yes. That not only allows the Shadow to invade the heart of the Westlands but also to flank the forces of Ituralde and Lan.

[Durinax]

We do not know which side the soldier was on, since it is a historical event (before his lifetime I believe)

[Muad Cheade]

We do not know which side the soldier was on, since it is a historical event (before his lifetime I believe)

From Assid Bakuun's POV in tPoD Chapter 22: Gathering Clouds:

 

He had missed the last battles of the Consolidation by two hundred years, but some of those rebellions had not been small. Two years fighting on Marendalar thirty thousand dead, and fifty times that shipped back to the mainland as property.

 

Mishima also references another battle at Semalaren that occurred in the meeting between Perrin and Tylee. However, the Imperial army still won despite it being a Pyrrhic victory.