I feel so stupid ... lol missed that :)

Who is Rands Brother/Half Brother? mentioned in tSR [Chapter 34: He Who Comes With the Dawn]

Cadsuane - As pointed out Rand had no idea how to treat her, but as for the constant "meekness" or more pointedly "Civility", the major thing stopping Rand from flying of the handle is Min's viewing "You Need her, She's going to teach you something... You wont like it but you need to learn it"

At least that is how is perceive the change with Cadsuane, and you notice he ante like that around anyone else.

Then there is your comment about Moraine's warning.... Didn't Cadsuane come out of retirement, and thus did not wear the shawl when Moraine gave this warning... Again that's how I perceive it.

Morgase - Here we tend to agree, I think it was overly drawn out, but covers alot that does progress the story and you can not get this info from anyone apart from her. Her abdicating her throne, You have Pedron Niall getting killed and being usurped (OK this was done from his POV be still ;) ), you have the assault on Morgase her self, and you have the Seanchan attack on the Fortress, which lead to her escape, which leads to tying in with Perrin/Faile story arc..

These points alone I see will bring the remnant of the Whitecloaks to Perrin, as they are now lead by Galad, due to the assault on Morgase.  But yeah, I still think it was long and overly drawn out...

I have read the entire thread and find it quite a good read in the majority. I see the debate flowing heavily against the use of cavalry in the books, and this is true. Many times it has been pointed out that the effective use of cavalry comes when certain factors are met.

For instance, a good cavalry charge (Done by Heavy Cavalry) on flat, even ground into a body of men, no matter how they are armoured is a good and viable tactic… But only if that charge is then capitalised on by supporting infantry or else as stated the cavalry will soon be enveloped and be come easy targets for a more nimble foe… In this case Aiel… and the advantage done by the charge is wasted.

A charge by heavy cavalry was use to break a formation (not pike formations obviously), or roll up the flanks, but since the Aiel don’t fight in this manner then this becomes less viable as they are a flexible mass and not a solid wall.

There has also been a reference to when stirrups were in vented, when horses became more important to a make up of a military force. These are true and valid points, but fail to then make the distinction between the different branches cavalry operate in.

These are paint brush comments to make it concise,

The charge was the domain for heavy cavalry, they were too heavily encumbered and expensive to be used just to “mop up the field” This was the domain of light cavalry. They where use to break formations and as “shock troops” so the infantry can get stuck in and capitalise on the gaping wound done by them.

Light Cavalry was used to counter heavy; again this is a paint bush statement but fits, as they were quicker and able to use mobility where heavies could not in comparison. They were also used to mop up duty, routing “units” (Units used very loosely as a body of men) etc. 

i Medieval European Armies: by T. Wise and G. Embleton

Then you have lancers, but these, until the 19th(ish) century was on the whole classified as light cavalry.

Then you need to look, if you are comparing real world history which era fits most closely with the information given in the books (for the comparison on cavalry only.) We can eliminate any era after 13th century as, iirc; there is no mention of plate or even half plate. So we can safely conclude its prior and the dawn of Norman knights.

ii Heavy cavalry - Wearing, chain-skirts, pot hats and steel greaves as the core make up of a squadron). 

ii [The Complete Encyclopaedia of Arms and Armor: by Ed L. Tarrassuk and C. Blaire

So we can safely assume that the cavalry no matter what type is used are using Hand-and-half (Bastard Swords), Two-Hander or Longsword. Neither of these has curved edges for slashing movements to inflict wounds with the minimum of space, energy and momentum. The straight blades require a large arc, momentum, strength or a combination of the above to be effective on horseback. Therefore cavalry tactics require keep speed and space to a maximum and close quarter combat to a minimum. That’s what the supporting infantry is for after all.

So why the history lesson, well as some post state to provide proof, provide evidence on a given subject it needed to be put in black and white in order to refute some statements. There are others quotes and what nots so I will touch on them as also, later.

The only infantry that can withstand a cavalry charge has either pikes/long spears/halberds or has depth in ranks to absorb the charge and bode it down

This statement is true if your fighting an orthodox European style battle. There are some similarities to European cultures, but nowhere, iirc, in the books do two forces line up in formation and fight it out, and then break for tea when the sun goes down. The Wetlanders approach to warfare is as close to orthodox as you can get, but the Aiel they don’t deploy in an orthodox fashion, they don’t fight in an orthodox way.

So a charge can be mounted successfully, but will soon be enveloped by the Aiel as there are loose and agile. They can get “inside” the cavalryman with ease and rip him out of the saddle. They will suffer casualties this is a given, but they have numbers, agility and discipline on their side once the cavalry is in close quarters.

Even if the Wetlanders got over their distain for infantry and used them in a supporting role “as should be” the Aiel will then envelop the infantry and you have a defeated Wetlander army.

The above example is when the Wetlanders “choose” their terrain. Obviously cavalry will get slaughtered in woodlands, uneven terrain and charging up hill.

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.

Counters that Aiel innately have to cavalry are themselves, fighting in a loose cohesive manner. So these alone mitigate the majority of a cavalry force. Then you have the terrain, no sane man will fight in a situation if he can pick his own ground. And with the scouts the Aiel deploy, you can be sure they can pick there own.

But for arguments sake, let’s say they can’t.

Then the above example come into play, can it be called a counter in an orthodox way… Possibly not as like you said they don’t have pikes… But they don’t fight in an orthodox way so that in itself becomes a moot point.

Dam, look at the time, will post more later …..