Well, no I didn't miss that actually, I think I got the spirit of your 'respect' message clear enough anyhow.

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

Nothing to do with respect and all to do with intelligence.

 

But anyway, I'm sure you'll seize on some other minor detail here and use it to try and mount another defense.

I also recall that you told another poster, frenchie, that he was a moron in response to his own post (while I did not agree that he used names such as Weiramon to apply to others, he nevertheless had a valid point) You had no reason to be calling him a moron, and yes that IS arrogant. I also recall Mr Ares pointed out to you when you claimed that you had never called anyone stupid and you responded by saying you wanted to have and I quote "a reasonable debate". In the same post, you said that frenchie need to be told where to shove it. I don't call that reasonable debate, I call that having a temper tantrum.

That's not having a tantrum it's called having a spine. I have not spoken thus to everyone who has disagreed with me have I, therefore your assertion:

you, Miltiades, are having a temper tantrum because hardly anyone agrees with you over your opinion of the Aiel.

Is obviously and demonstrably incorrect. There must be some other reason for my hostility toward certain posters and we both know what that is as I have told you. It is people not answering in good faith but being snide and openly insulting. If someone behaves that way toward me then they need to be told where to shove it. I was retaliating, the only motive of frenchie and Mr Ares is insolence.

Also, as I said to Mr Ares when I said i never intended to insult anyone it was clearly referring to my original post, the one he was complaining about. Anybody can see that, YOU can see that but you're being intentionally disingenuous again.

As regards channeling. Jordan makes up the rules for channeling. It is a fantasy element applied to the humans who inhabit the world and that is made clear. Right from the start we are told that the humans in this world can channel, that is how it works. The Aiel masquerade as normal humans when they clearly are superhuman, and it is only the Aiel. Everybody else is just a normal human. If in the context of WoT we say a human is the same as real world channel plus the ability to channel, then we still need another name for the Aiel who surpass them in every way.

The point I wanted to make about the Aiel is that they have several clear deficiencies in their equipment and tactics, deficiencies that could be disastrous, downright ruinous, in some circumstances. This being the case I, personally, find it unsatisfying how they hands down thrash everyone with seemingly very little effort.

 

Two counterpoints, or rather a counterpoint and qualifying remark.  Your term 'deficiencies', in my opinion is not accurate.  And I hereby acknowedge that this is completely subjective from various points of view, and again hinges on adding more details.  Lightly-armored, fleet-footed, infantry-archers (aka. skirmishers), and more specifically, the elite version of such (like the Aiel) would not consider their equipment to be a 'deficiency'.  Yes, there are senarios wherein the Aiel could be defeated by an effort of combined arms and/or cavalry, but the Aiel seem remarkably able to avoid those hypothetical situations through the use of reconnaissance and their endurance.  In my opinion, the ground would have to be perfect and the tactics would have to be flawless.  I don't really see their equipment or their tactics to be a sole deciding issue; rather, I believe it would irrelevant in comparison to the ground, visibility, etc.

 

One other thing, we really haven't touched on too much is numbers.  In Randland, an 'army' is a few thousand men.  And a big one at that.  If memory serves (I don't have my books here at this time), Rand brought nearly 200,000 spears our of the three-fold-land.  I'm not sure how big the force was that Janduin led out to kill Laman, but I know it was bigger than any Randland 'armies'.  My point is, the Aiel also have the numbers advantage.

 

Two more of my coppers...

Of course, for skirmishing, the Aiel gear is perfect, because that is what it is for. The problem is that skirmishing is a supporting role in full scale warfare, and it leaves you very vulnerable. What are the peltoi to do if they cannot retreat behind the phalanx? What happens to velites if they cant fall back behind the maniples? Simple, they get cut to pieces.

I accept your point about the Aiel theoretically being able to avoid getting caught in the open. I am also pleased that you don't try to deny as some others do that men, armed as the Ail are, caught in open ground by cavalry would be immediately annihilated with very little fuss or fanfare. However I cant see how much could be achieved by such tactics other than the avoidance of annihilation. If you're always on the backfoot, always running away trying not to get caught out in a bad situation(that situation being any kind of open battle), how can you carry out an invasion properly? How can you achieve your objective of killing the king?

The thing is, i don't think the tactics would have to be perfect, they would just have to textbook. Point your pikemen or heavy infantry or whatever at the enemy, protect your archers so they can shoot down the squishy Aiel and if they advance just plow over them with your cavalry. It is they who would have to bring perfect tactics to the table to avoid being engaged by your cavalry, avoid engaging your infantry block head on and avoid being cut down by a hail of arrows.

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.

Perhaps you didn't read it careful enough. I was not the person who stated ''I'll tell you this for free, I am smarter than you''. Maybe you missed that, maybe you're being intentionally disingenuous, I do not know. I was never the arrogant one, I simply told someone that my respect for them had declined in the face of their employing ad hominem attacks. Maybe you missed that, maybe you're being intentionally disingenuous, I don't know, though I'm leaning toward the latter.

As for it being a fantasy novel, I already explained my position on this. Whatever fantasy elements the author wishes to include are entirely their business, and fine by me. But when including things from the real world you have to stick fairly close to the limits of that thing, otherwise you need to make it something else. I don't complain about any of the crazy stuff Myrdraal can do. Why? Because Myrdraal are not real, Jordan made them up, so whatever he says, goes. But the Aiel are apparently human, yet even an average Aiel is capable of feats nigh on impossible for an actual human being, and worse yet, doesnt even seem to expend a great deal of effort doing it.

Your saying I'm having a temper tantrum is laughable, I have remained calm in the face of repeated personal attacks and ridicule. Maybe you missed that, though you're probably just being intentionally disingenuous.

 

Unfortunately for all you equestrian lovers out there, the best tactic for a medieval infantryman versus a mounted, armored opponent is to take out the horse.  A mounted, armored knight is really only invulnerable from the front.  After the first charge, unless he's managed to plow through and turn about, he'll be flanked, and the underside of his mount will be a prime target for the unchivalrous infantryman.

 

The Aiel are meant to seem somewhat, I don't want to say superhuman so I'll say "the pinnacle of human physicality."  ALL algai'd'siswai were trained from a very young age in martial arts and the Aiel methods of combat & tactics.  No other nation in the WoT series is described in this fashion, unless you count Lan (aan'allein).  So, they seem superhuman, but they're not.  They're just the best, physically, you can be as a human.

 

Militiades, what I read you posting is that you believe without cavalry, a military force should not be able to resoundingly defeat another.  Or, in other words, "If you don't have cavalry, you're gonna lose."  That's the summed up version of what I get from your postings.

What Mr. Ares and I (and several others) are trying to get you to acknowledge is that your stance on cavalry is incomplete.  There are many factors, senarios, situations, etc. wherein cavalry is worthless at best, and sometimes a liability.  Scads of factors have to be considered; terrain, visibility, composition of enemy forces, reconnaissance, etc. before making the overarching statement that, "If you ain't got cavalry, you ain't got nuthin'."  I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, I'm trying to show you that your stance is not founded on a complete picture.

 

Anyway, that's all just my opinion.  I could be wrong.   ;D

That is exactly what I said about armoured cavalry. The horse is the vulnerable part. Anyway I never said that you will lose if you don't field cavalry, I was very careful not to say that and have clarified that I didn't mean to say that numerous times. Of course this thread has become a bit cumbersome with some very long posts not really meant to be read other than by the people they were addressed to, so I'm not going to hold it against you for not having known that.

The point I wanted to make about the Aiel is that they have several clear deficiencies in their equipment and tactics, deficiencies that could be disastrous, downright ruinous, in some circumstances. This being the case I, personally, find it unsatisfying how they hands down thrash everyone with seemingly very little effort.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fighting Aiel isn't even fair.  They're a race of superhumans.  Every single on of them is either six foot tall+ weighing 200 lbs. of muscle if they're guys or 150 lb.s if they're girls.  The guys that are shorter than 6 ft. are usually only just under it and weigh at least the same 200+ lbs. of muscle.  They don't eat a huge amount of meat nor do they have gyms or creatine or muslce milk or anything like that.  Its just stupid.  Also, everyone's going on and on about those poor, poor, wetlander infantry armed only with a pike.  The pike was the height of warfare before the advent of gunpower(I realize the Swiss weren't "untrained" militia, but a pike isn't all that complicated to learn) and plowed through both infantry and cavalry.

 

Unfortunately, the world of the WoT is very contrived.  Cavalry are still considered the creme de la creme, but only wear breastplates and don't use lances(excluding Shienarans)?  Pikeman can mess up anything that doesn't have guns, but they're still undeveloped and scoffed at, wtf?  In all reality, a charge of heavy cavalry against Aiel would be hugely sucessful, the cavalry would have way better reach with their lances and their heavy armor would turn the Aiel arrows and spear thrusts.

 

Also, you can't beat up someone in heavy armor(Gaul v. WC), you'll break your hands trying to and then most likely die when a mailed fist connects with your face.

 

Guerilla tactics only work in the jungle, like Vietnam.  During the peninsular war, the Spanish trid it, but it was the English bailout that made the French leave.  The Zulus got their asses handed to them.  Their only real major victory was Islandlwana (can you really call it winning when it takes several thousand of your guys to kill a hundred of their's and you still lose just as many if not more?).  They speak English in South Africa, not Zulu.  The Spartans were not the warriors of three hundred and I hate the misconception people have about them after seeing the movie.  They lost to both Macedonion cavalry and Theban phalanxes.  The Scots only beat the English when the King was an idiot.  The French won the Hundred Years War when they stopped being idiots. 

 

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

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. A race of 6ft+ muscle bound demi-gods who can outrun horses and defeat 10 armoured guys with their bare hands doesnt seem human. That is why I figured that they were a separate species like the Ogier.

A lot of people don't understand how strong chain mail is. Even with a sword it's actually VERY hard to cut through. Gaul defeating 10 Children of the Light with his bare hands was an almost unbelievable feat for a human and he it's never mentioned that he is any more formidable than your run of the mill Aiel.

The references to Spartans annoyed me as well. they had almost the entire southern part of the Greek peninsula enslaved just to feed them so they could spend all their time training and fighting. Plus they lived in Greece which is actually fairly lush. There is no way the Aiel could sustain a population of full time warriors like they have in a desert. It isnt stuff like that that annoys me though, it's when each individual Aiel is basically a Conan. Anyway, as you said even the Spartans got crushed when their opponents fielded good cavalry.

As for Gaul, I do think he is one of the more exceptional fighters of the Aiel. Also, he is being groomed towards becoming a clan chief and if you recall the current chief's prowess in battle, you will understand why. I'm hazy on the chapter where Perrin freed Gaul but did the actual chapter say Gaul fought with his fists? If so, then I doubt the Whitecloaks were all killed. It's not a suspension of belief to believe that two very agile, exceptional warriors could defeat 10 cavalrymen on foot(the Whitecloaks are an all cavalry force) weighed down by armor.

 

As for how the Aiel Waste can provide enough nourishment to arm hundreds of thousands of people and provide food for the entire Aiel Nation, you must remember that they have lived there for nearly 3,000 years so they have developed ways. I remember one Aielman (possibly Aviendha) said that they are not nearly as wasteful as wetlanders. They find uses for everything. Also except for the past 20 years they traded consistently with the Cairhienin and still trade with the Sharans which explains how they get the iron for weapons. I'm pretty sure there are also mines in the Aiel according to Aviendha. I'll try to find the passage.

 

You must remember that the Aiel's clothes are created to give them absoulute mobility which augments their natural athletic build and ability to run long distances. Their cadinsor also camouflages very well which is a prime advantage in warfare.

 

You keep saying, Militades, that their weaponry and clothing is infrear and are pajama clothes." One example I previously gave was the Zulus who the Aiel are partially based on. They defeated the British Empire wearing only "loincloths" for lack of a better word and wielding large shields and spears while the British had rifles. They used the same tactics as the Aiel. That is engaging from the front while sending large groups to attack the flanks. Very effective and deadly which is why both the Zulus and the Aiel were victorious. Also, interesting is that the Aiel could in fact run as fast and as far as the Zulus.

 

However, an example that fits better into the context of the Aiel defeating the Wetlanders during the Aiel War, is that of Khalid ibn Walid. He was one of the greatest military commanders of all time. One of Muhammad's (the creator of the religion of Islam) close friends and his personal general, he defeated two of the most powerful military forces, that of the Persian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. His armies consisted of nothing more than the desert nomads that inhabited the Saudi Arabia peninsula. He was never defeated yet in every battle he was always outnumbered. It proves that even with "poor clothing" and "inferior weapons," great generalship, mobility, and hardy, courageous warriors can win battles. There are countless more examples.

 

Once again, cavalry is not the end all of warfare. The Aiel can run as fast as horses and eventually farther. That pretty much erases the need for cavalry and makes them more deadly due to the fact that a group of pikemen can defeat a cavalry charge while the same group would be eviscerated by charging Aiel since pikes are not effective up close. That is part of the reason they won. Their tactics and methodology were not the same as the Westlanders were used to. Also, as I pointed out. The majority of troops especially the infantry in the Aiel War were conscripts which is in stark contrast to the Aiel Warriors.

But human beings cant run faster than horses. It is simply impossible. And I am fairly sure that Jordan only ever says that they can outrun horses over long distances. A human being may be physically fitter than a horse, I suppose that just might be possible. But if we're accepting that Aiel run faster than horses then this entire debate is moot because they clearly aren't human beings then.

The Zulu's defeated the British by massively overwhelming numerical superiority. They just had way, way too many men. The rebellion was put down eventually when the British actually got a decent number of troops into the theater.

I remember the part you're talking about as for the Aiel tactics. Lan says they travel in a column split up into four parts. The first attacks the front while the next two go against the flanks and the last waits to engage where the enemy is weakest. A good strategy assuming a quarter of your army can hold the line against all of theirs. If that is the case you're going to win no matter what you do.

I dont actually know about those desert nomads, but my guess would be they fielded a lot of mounted archers. Mounted archers have always been incredibly difficult to deal with if you don't bring a counter to the field, as the Romans learned at Carrae. Still, the Aiel dont use horses so it's a moot point.

As someone else said, maintaining a level of fitness in which you could outrun a horse would require a superabundance of nourishment, something the waste doesnt have. But I'm even willing to ignore that. It's just that the Aiel always seem to win just by virtue of them being Aiel.

The equipment of choice not being your preference does not make it rubbish. Aiel equipment that they use IS well made, if it wasn't, then it would be rubbish.

 

So you are wrong in saying rubbish, saying it is a poor choice would be far more accurate.

Oh no doubt it's well made. It is just well made from simpler and inferior materials.

Plus they are completely unarmoured, not even a helmet for god's sake. Their shields would be of very little use against anything you would face on a battlefield. It would be ineffective against massed missile fire, ineffective in a tight infantry engagement and ineffective against a lance point.

Infantry with proper body shields in close formation would just bash you aside and trample you underfoot, no matter how good you are with a spear.

In a proper battle, it comes down far more to things like the cohesion and weight (which the Aiel would lack wearing pajamas) of your formations rather than down to how skilled each of your men is.

This is why the Cairhienin, Tairen, etc. suck at warfare.  They focus on one aspect rather than taking into account every possible factor.

 

Also, define "proper battle."

Well, everyone seems to be making out that the Aiel win because they use ambushes and guerrilla tactics and stealth and whatnot. But never is this explicitly stated, and even when this is obviously not the case, the Aiel still crush everything. Look at Gaul and the whitecloaks.

In Randland, a battle between a wetlander army and Aiel is basically just a larger version of the fight between Gaul and those whitecloaks. They have all the advantages, yet he annihilates them without breaking a sweat just because he's Aiel and Jordan says the Aiel are invincible.

So by proper battle I mean a large pitched battle where two armies face each other at the start of the day and one of them is driven from the field by the end of it. Essentially anything you could call ''the battle of X''.

I mean, how the hell can a bunch of nomads with crappy equipment, no armour, no cavalry and no cities defeat the wetland nations?

Their equipment isn't that bad, cavalry can be beaten, neither cities nor fixed abodes are necessary to be able to destroy civilisations. Even armour isn't a necessity.

 

What would be the Aiel's answer to archers?

Shoot back.

if you get shot at under those circumstances you are going to die.

No, if you get hit you might die. There is a world of difference between getting shot at and getting hit. Getting hit hurts a lot more, for one. Even then, it's survivable. I'm still here, aren't I?

 

Not fielding cavalry is another massive disadvantage, that is an entire arm of your military that you just don't have.

And just don't need.

You only have to look at our history to see that no matter how good your infantry is, you'll get your ass handed to you if your enemy fields cavalry and you don't.

You only need to look at our history to find any number of examples of cavalry being slaughtered. By infantry. Cavalry can be beaten, and Aiel know how to beat them. The Battle of Taginae saw cavalry slaughtered by infantry. In fact, the age of cavalry ended a long time ago. Right equipment, right tactics, cavalry lose. They're weak against infantry squares, for example.

 

I can't think of ever hearing where guierrilla tactics didn't work.

The Boer's lost the Second Boer War, and they used guerilla tactics. We used concentration camps and scorched earth.

 

Simply put, the Aiel are possessed of good equipment, good tactics, good soldiers, good leadership. With all that, it is quite possible to sweep all before you. Especially when your opponents tend not to have large standing armies.

 

Just shoot them. What are they going to do?

Shoot back. Keep coming.

 

Or alternatively have some close order heavy infantry with proper equipment take the charge.

Of course, that's never been tried. The Aiel do know how to deal with heavy infantry.

Or just counter charge with some cavalry and mow them down.

Despite Weiramon's insistence to the contrary, Aiel can and do stand up to cavalry charges. That wouldn't work.

 

I'm saying it completely unbelievable that people with rubbish equipment, no armour, no cavalry, no knowledge of large scale warfare and only one kind of solider could smackdown all the wetland nations that have proper militaries without breaking a sweat.

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. They don't have rubbish equipment, for one thing. If the Wetlanders had the same advantages as the Aiel, in terms of leadership, quality of soldiers (not just peasant levies, trained professionals), then they could beat them. They don't. So beating an army of trained professionals who are well led is a lot harder.

I don't know what I'm talking about? Well let's see. The Aiel DO have rubbish equipment, that is a fact, no matter how much you all protest. They use simple animal skin bucklers, wooden spears and wear pajamas. Their equipment sucks. Compare that to the Children of the light who have mail and sometimes plate armour, horses with saddles and stirrups, helmets (which after a shield is the most important piece of protection for melee infantry) swords, lances and probably proper body shields though off the top of my head I can't remember shields really being mentioned a whole lot.

The other wetlanders will no doubt have similar equipment to them.

You can't just brush aside all the weaknesses in the Aiel military. Dont need cavalry? Yes it is possible with planning and a stupid opponent to doesnt realize what an enormous advantage he has to overcome a deficiency in cavalry but for every battle you can name where that happened there are 10 or 20 or 50 even where the probable thing happened and the force without cavalry got smashed to pieces. That's what Phillip II did to the Greeks anyway. Yes, armour isnt a necessity, it just helps a lot.

You can't rely on your enemy not hitting you to counter archers. The fact remains that with such poor protection being shot at would be devastating.

I know Aiel DO stand up to cavalry charges, my point is that this is completely unrealistic. Loosely formed light infantry do not stand up to cavalry charges, they get demolished.

Lastly, the Aiel are not professional soliders. They are a force of individually talented warriors. They are not a standing professional army, and you never actually see them train. They just fight all the time, that is why they are good. I can accept that that is good for skirmishing over scarce resources in a desert, but in a pitched battle your going to be slaughtered if you show up with a horde of light infantry with inferior equipment.

In a proper battle, it comes down far more to things like the cohesion and weight (which the Aiel would lack wearing pajamas) of your formations rather than down to how skilled each of your men is.

Also, though your examples are valid, are we to assume then that Lan was just talking crap? That it's actually fairly easy to stop an Aiel charge, just have bows that outrange theirs or field some proper infantry in a proper formation. All this is basic stuff. How have Trollocs not overrun the entire world outside the waste if the wetlanders are so utterly incompetent at warfare?

You have to have the right wood for the bow.  You have to train your men in the use of bow.  And most importantly (from the Shienaran POV) you give up mobility to use a longbow.  The Shienarans use horsebows because they frequently face up with Trollocs.  Don't forget the Two Rivers was (until recently) a pretty secluded place with no experience in warfare.  Also, I pointed out that Perrin had the advantage of the high ground and the Aiel backed down and waited for him to attack them.  That doesn't mean he won the battle, he just stopped their charge.

 

As for the proper formation, I pointed out that it worked under the circumstances.  Why?  Because Couladin was crazed with his desire to kill Rand and because Mat told the Cairhienin to shut up and stand their ground, rather than charge aimlessly at the Aiel.

 

Wetlanders aren't incompetent at warfare.  They know one form of warfare that works against mostly undisciplined conscripted pikemen, and they use it blindly.  They aren't methodical, and they just don't think outside the box enough.  Whereas the Seanchan do.  The Aiel do.  The Borderlanders do.  The Great Generals do.  But Cairhien, Tear, even Andor do not.

So use crossbows. Any peasant given 15 minutes instruction can be proficient with a crossbow, that is why it was popular in Europe despite being clearly inferior to good bows. A large crossbow can also outrange most bows.

Also, as I keep pointing out the Aiel were the invaders. You cant wait for the enemy to come to you, that defeats the whole point of an invasion. The Aiel crossed the Dragonwall to kill Laman. What exactly did they plan on doing when the Cairhienin put an army in between them and Cairhien? How would they get past it? However you look at it not using cavalry is a massivedisadvantage, not having armour is a massive disadvantage. Not fighting in close order is a massive disadvantage. Even not using swords is a massive disadvantage, if you don't fight in a rigid formation spears are unwieldy and ineffective against swords. And if Aiel ever formed a rigid formation they could be easily cut down by simply shooting them as they don't have proper shields and wear pajamas into battle, as I pointed out before.

Basically, all I'm saying is that there are too many glaring holes in the Aiel style of warfare (no doubt excellent though it is for desert skirmishes) for me to be able to accept that they could just sashay over the Dragonwall and cream all the wetlanders without breaking a sweat. Jordan constantly tells us the Aiel didn't even consider it a war, he always makes it clear that they simply annihilated everything sent against them, hands down, easily, no problem.

Thats just too much to believe from a bunch of desert dwelling nomads in pajamas.

The whole reason Perrin killed those whitecloaks was because it was pitch black and he had the advantage of his nigh vision from his golden eyes. So they didn't know what they were doing, also IIRC he got kind of temporarily taken over by the ''wolf within'' which you could say it like when Rand suddenly is able to channel like a master because Lews Therin takes over.

Gaul on the other hand just walks in and kicks and whole lot of ass. He is Aiel, therefore he wins, no further explanation required.

Also, though your examples are valid, are we to assume then that Lan was just talking crap? That it's actually fairly easy to stop an Aiel charge, just have bows that outrange theirs or field some proper infantry in a proper formation. All this is basic stuff. How have Trollocs not overrun the entire world outside the waste if the wetlanders are so utterly incompetent at warfare?

I think everyone is overplaying the whole guerrilla/unconventional tactics thing. Were it made clear that this was how they won I would be far more willing to accept an overwhelming Aiel victory in the Aiel war. But in the books, the Aiel win every fight just out of personal badassedness.

For example, I can't remember where this is said but at one point Lan says something to the effect of ''Have you seen a charge by Stone Dogs or Red Shields? As well try to stop an avalanche''.

Really? Why? Just shoot them. What are they going to do?

Or alternatively have some close order heavy infantry with proper equipment take the charge. Or just counter charge with some cavalry and mow them down.

There's also the time when Gaul and his friend pummel 20 well armed and armoured soldiers just before Perrin meets him when THEY were the ones who were surprised. Or five minutes later when Gaul whoops 10 well armed and armoured professional soldiers (The children of the light) with his bare hands after having been stuck in a cage without food or water for a day.

In the books the Aiel win just because they're badass, not because they use any kind of brilliant tactics. I'm saying it completely unbelievable that people with rubbish equipment, no armour, no cavalry, no knowledge of large scale warfare and only one kind of solider could smackdown all the wetland nations that have proper militaries without breaking a sweat.

The Aiel are far from unsophisticated nor are their weapons poor. As I mentioned earlier, their tactics ar every nearly hard to beat and their weapons fit directly in with that. Arthur Hawkwing, perhaps the greaatest genral of all time was defeated by them as were the Trollocs in the Trolloc Wars.

 

The Westlands were not ready for an invasion as Matsluck pointed out, that factored in with the fact that none except for the Shienarans had ever fought let alone seen the Aiel helped in the devastation that was the Aiel War.

 

Also, prior to the advent of the Dragon Reborn, nations of the "wetlands" did not have standing armies other than the Borderlanders and those were used against the Shadow. The majority of the troops in the Aiel War were retainers of nobles, levies and militia so they were very inferior to the Aiel who were warriors from birth.

 

As for guerilla warfare, Wikipedia says that "guerrilla warfare is the unconventional warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile tactics (ambushes, raids, etc.) to combat a larger and less mobile formal army. The guerrilla army uses ambush (stealth and surprise) and mobility (draw enemy forces to terrain unsuited to them) in attacking vulnerable targets in enemy territory." By that definition, warfare of that type can be offensive or defensive. However, in most cases it is defensive though. I would agree that Mat and Ituralde were undergoing temporary hit and run (guerilla) campaigns as part of a larger plan which, in both cases, they succeeded.

Ok, if what you say is true about the wetlander armies only having half-trained militia, then yes the Aiel would maul them. Are you certain that's the case though? The forces that the Cairheinin and Tairens field against Couladin seem to be comprised of professional soliders. Don't the Cairheinin shave the fronts of their heads when they become soldiers? That certainly suggests that soldiering is a career in Cairhein, where were all those guys?

Guierrilla tactics on American soil worked pretty well for American's in the Revolution. Actually, and I'm no war buff Maude would know better, I can't think of ever hearing where guierrilla tactics didn't work.

Yes, once again, to repel enemies from the terriatory, could the revolutionaries have taken the fight to the British with such tactics? Guerrilla tactics work against invaders. You can't launch an invasion based on guerrilla tactics. Obviously if the wetlanders invaded the waste they'd get owned. My point was how could the Aiel just walk over the Dragonwall and own everyone, considering their military is so unsophisticated and their equipment so poor.

You can always pull up examples where weakness like poor equipment or lack of cavalry were overcome. It's just far more common for you to be slaughtered if you don't have them.

For example, someone else mentioned the battle of Crecy, but it was ultimately French overconfidence and stupidity that lost them that battle. Considering the French knights themselves killed their Italian mercenaries, which was their only counter to the longbowmen. You can't always rely on your enemies army to start killing each other in the middle of the fight.

The Vietnamese were on their turf. No doubt any invasion of the waste would fail utterly. What I am talking about is the Aiel war twenty years before the events of the books where the Aiel march over the Dragonwall and put the smackdown on everybody.

Would the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics have worked on American soil, even if they could get there?

I'm on book 6 in my second read through of the series and I realized that I absolutely hate the Aiel.

I mean, how the hell can a bunch of nomads with crappy equipment, no armour, no cavalry and no cities defeat the wetland nations?

What would be the Aiel's answer to archers? Since they only carry small hide bucklers and wear pajamas into battle. I don't care how skilled a warrior you are, I don't care how young you were when you learned to fight and I don't care how arid and inhospitable your homeland is, if you get shot at under those circumstances you are going to die.

Not fielding cavalry is another massive disadvantage, that is an entire arm of your military that you just don't have. You only have to look at our history to see that no matter how good your infantry is, you'll get your ass handed to you if your enemy fields cavalry and you don't. How would the Aiel deal with armoured knights? They seem to use their spears to fight individually and not in any sort of formation (another terrible idea) so they'd be mowed down by a charge from, let's say, some Shienaran heavy cavalry.

I find it fairly infuriating how Jordan bangs on constantly about how tough the Aiel are. Them and the Asha'man really. But I can accept that the Asha'man are as powerful as he says they are because their power comes from channeling and Jordan decides all the the powers and limits of channeling, so the Asha'man are as badass as he wants them to be.

I think in my first read through I was on book 3 or 4 before I realized the Aiel were meant to be humans. Until then I thought they were a separate species like the Ogier.

Does anybody else feel this way? Or am I just a racist?