Jump to content

Why do the Parshendi shoot at the bridgemen?


Shardlet

Recommended Posts

I was reading the Tor WoK reread for chapter 15 and Carl included the following quote as the quote of the chapter:

 

“You see, Dalinar? The Parshendi are too tempted by the exposed bridgemen to fire at anyone else! Yes, we lose a few bridge crews in each assault, but rarely so many that it hinders us. The Parshendi just keep firing at them—I assume that, for whatever reason, they think killing the bridgemen hurts us. As if an unarmored man carrying a bridge was worth the same to the army as a mounted knight in Plate.”

 

We know the Parshendi fight in an honorable fashion.  For example,

at the battle of the Tower, the Parshendi largely ignore Skar and Teft who are wounded and choose to focus on Kaladin, Moash, and other bridgemen who demonstrate the most skill.

 

 

So, if the Parshendi are being honorable fighters and choose not to fight the wounded, and the bridge runners are not armed or armored, and bringing down a few bridges rarely affects the effectiveness of Sadeas's armies, why then do the Parshendi fire on the spearmen preferentially when unarmored and don't shoot at them when armored?

 

As I see it, one of two things are at play here:

1) A bit of a continuity error (although firing on the bridge crews is such a siginificant plot point, this alternative seems rather unlikely.

 

or

2) There is something that I, at least, am missing in the Parshendi's motivation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its just battle tactics. If they could drop enough bridges they win a plateau outright. Also they leave everyone else out of bow shot during the bride approach. They'd be fools not to take easy pickings that could give them a legitimate battle advantage. Even if its not honorable I think the real deficit in honor is on Saddeus since he's the one as

Essentially offering them up to slaughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the Parshendi have no cavalry and are extremely vulnreable to a cavalry charge over the well placed bridges.

 

When Kaladin first does the side carry and causes the attack to fail, it is because there are not enough bridges to mount a successful cavalry charge.

 

The best way to guard against this is to disrupt the bridges before they are set to stop entry of the the enemy (partiicularly heavy cavalry) on the plateau.

 

So shooting the bridgmen is sound battle tactics.

 

As for the honor of the Parshendi actions. They have no way of knowing that the bridgemen are coerced / slaves. I an not sure that the notion of 'cannon fodder' would even be understood as a concept by the Parshendi.

 

From their perspective, the birdgemen are active particpants in the battle and so are legitimate targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the Parshendi might not really have a proper grasp of the concept of variable worth on the battlefield. A trained heavy infantryman is more valuable than a bridgeman, in terms of training, effectiveness, and cost of replacement. He's also more valuable at any given moment on the battlefield. The Parshendi are apparently rooted in a tribal society without large-scale warfare (as seen from their lack of battle formations and whatnot), so might not really "get" that some people on the battlefield are inherently less valuable than others, and so try to kill the maximum number, which happens to be best brought about by shooting those half-naked people with the bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those answers seem too easy for me.  Tactically, if you have a wounded soldier who can still use his weapon, then he should be rapidly incapacitated so as to not be a distraction or a surprise attack while fighting more capable soldiers.  Further the Parshendi do not coordinate beyond pairs.  The fighting appears to be largely one-on-one.  The only soldiers they apparently try to overwhelm are the shardbearers since this seems to be the only semi-effective tactic.  The Parshendi seem to routinely eschew tactical advatages in favor of other considerations.  Consider, they completely ignore everything and everyone else to take down one man when he ways pieces of Parshendi carapace as armor.

 

Tactically, it would make a lot of sense to have some Parshendi jump the chasm and cut down the spearmen.  It would also make strong tactical sense to take an uncommitted body of Parshendi over the chasm once the opposing forces are committed on the plateau and cut through the archers and bridge crews, drop the bridges into the chasm and strand the army on the plateau.  Also, if you wanted to stop a cavalry charge, bottle-neck them on the bridge.  If you clog the bridge with a few horses and soldiers then the cavalry charge is effectively stopped before if begins.  (I think I have played too many video games).  This coupled with the fact that bringing down the bridge crews is rarely an effective tactic for stopping the charges.  

 

I think you are selling the Parshendi's observational abilities short.  They clearly recognize when bridgemen are armored.  They would also be able to discern that they dress poorly, look like crap (especially as compared with the regulars), and don't participate in the battle beyond bridge running.  This would certainly suggest to them that these are not regular troops.  I also doubt that, after six years of fighting, the Parshendi have not noticed the relative effects and abilities of various troop types (i.e., cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry, archers, etc.).  With that much fighting experience, what to expect and what tactics would be best employed to counter each type of troop.  

 

Edit:  Also we must consider the cost of the arrows used by the Parshendi.  They must be made somehow from something, but they live isolated on a plateau with no apparent lines of supply.  To produce sufficent arrows for a tactic which is rarely effective would be extremely costly in these circumstances.  Another likely more effective tactic would be to use archers as support and cover for Parshendi troop who manually interfere with the setting of the bridges and even attenpt to shift them to the side to push them into the chasms.  With this tactic, the only thing that could be used to counter it would be fire from the Alethi archers.  It wouldn't matter how many Alethi soldiers the Alethi had on the other end of the bridge, they would not have the leverage to counter a shift of the Parshendi end of the bridge to the side.

Edited by Shardlet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have been somewhat unclear in my intention for my post. Beyond simple ignorance, the Parshendi could well just be better people than the Alethi, and possess a generalized notion of egalitarianism that extends to the battlefield. If, in general, each (Parsh)man is worth just as much as any other, then a society very dedicated to this egalitarianism could hold that each (Parsh)man on the battlefield is equally valuable. Thus, depriving your enemy of the most possible men is the best possible tactic, as they are all equally valuable.

 

It's a bit irrational, in terms of pure battlefield calculus, but people do irrational things to uphold their principles (such as focusing fire on a single man who happens to be wearing bones).

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point Kurkistan.  I agree that, given their transient forms, Parshendi would have a stronger view of equality of individuals.  And I agree that people do irrational things to uphold their values (focusing on Kaladin so exclusively emphasizes the strength of their feelings at the defilement of their dead). 

 

However, given the weakness in effect of targeting bridgemen (once again, Sadeas says the tactic rarely hinders his armies), it doesn't seem that in any sense of the situation, given what we know about Parshendi so far, to be advantageous, beneficial, honorable, or anything currently apparent, to target the bridgemen.  Unless after 7 years, the Parshendi don't have any recognition of the differences in physical nature (ability to change forms or lack thereof) between the humans and themselves.  From the Eshonai POV, this seems very unlikely.  It seems that she has been studying the humans for quite a while in a way that Dalinar is only beginning to study the Parshendi.

 

 

Also, your idea that they may be simply trying to kill as many men as possible seems to ascribe tactical ignorance to the Parshendi.  Even a casual observer of a few of Sadeas's battles would recognize that the bridgement aren't coming accross the bridge.

 

 

The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense is that it is a long-term strategy.  Perhaps the Parshendi, because of their honor, have a blind spot to Sadeas’s callousness.  If that were the case, then perhaps the Parshendi would be trying to deplete the overall supply of bridgemen in order to make Sadeas’s bridges untenable.  This largely depends on how long Sadeas has been running the bridges this way.  We know that this is a newer tactic of Sadeas’s, but there is a sense of routineness and past trial and error (bridgemen at least at one time were given some kind of shielding) that suggests that is has been in practice at least a few months by the time Kaladin arrives at the plains.  In any case, this is the only way so far that I can reconcile what we read about the Parshendi's battle honor and the targeting of the bridge crews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the bridgemen are the only people in easy range, I think it would be rather difficult to prevent your (rather uncoordinated) archers from attacking a target, when the alternative is not shooting.

 

Who's uncoordinated archers?  If you mean the Parshendi, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate a lack of coordination.  If anything, they seem to be exceedingly coordinated with their chanting.  In any case, the bridgemen are not the only ones in range.  Recall, if the bridgemen are armored the Parshendi choose to fire on the regular troops and completely ignore the bridgemen.  This indicates that the bridgemen are not the only ones within range.  If they were firing on the regulars and the arrows were falling short and hitting nothing, then Sadeas would be pleased with not having to replace the bridgemen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shardlet

 

First of all, I have to say this: Your avatar is creepy  :unsure:. No hard feelings, but I've been wanting to get that one off my chest. Now a terminator-cat, that I can understand. But an uncomfortable closeup of a human eye with a double pupil *shudder*.  ^_^

 

Second, in regard to your reply to Phantom, I believe that they bridgemen simply had shieldbearers running out ahead, but were not themselves armored. A minor point, but it most likely resulted in even lower causalities for any given volley fired at a shielded bridge than from firing into massed troops who were not perfectly protected from above as well as being adequately protected horizontally.

 

Third, in regard to your reply to me, you make some good points as well.

 

I don't think trying to kill as many men as possible needs to be a case of tactical ignorance. I'm really just going to latch onto this egalitarian ideal of each man being equal, and say that the Parshendi follow it to a T, overriding tactical concerns that they are well aware of. I do like your thoughts on why the Parshendi might hold such a view, by the way.

 

If I may try again, I would hypothesize that the Parshendi view all active combatants equally, for their own sake. That they are honoring the bridgemen by killing them, by treating them equally as warriors on the field of battle. When the bridges have been laid, the bridgemen retire from the battle, and so are no longer combatants, and equal treatment of all no longer demands that they be treated as such. It's a bit of a play on the Kantian idea that a we owe it to the dignity of a man who commits a crime to punish him, rather than attempt "rehabilitation" that would disrespect his agency. The Parhsendi owe it to the bridgemen to try to kill them.

 

This could either be presented in lieu of or parallel to the "kill as many as possible" argument, with the killing of any warrior being both honorable and of the same "value" as killing any other.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, I think your terminator-cat is pretty slick.  I just thought you guys might get a kick out of a representation of the double-pupil eye from the book.  I never thought of it as creepy looking since I always had that context in mind.  Incidentally, you are the first person to comment on it.  Maybe I should put up a poll in the general discussion to see if people think it is creepy or cool :P.

 

As to my reply to Phantom, I was only pointing out there there are soldiers other than bridgemen within ready bowshot.

 

I like your 'I'm killing you because I respect you' line of reasoning.  It seems to me that, given Parshendi battle honor, they would respect the bridgemen highly since they unflinchingly face death in the eye to achieve their goal.  I think this idea has much more traction than your previous line of reasoning.  I like it.  It gels nicely.

 

Edit: typo

Edited by Shardlet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they be searching for an invincible spearman?  If you mean they had noticed that they have not previously been able to hit Kaladin, remember the bridges were a death trap for the bridgemen before Kaladin arrived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has no one suggested they were looking for an invincible bridgeman?

 

I'm just going to assume that that was an intentional Unbreakable reference. Given that assumption, well done.  B)

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First,  who says the eye can't be both creepy and cool Shardlet!   Next, is there any other example of the Parshendi exhibing this sort of behavior with other troops?  Is it possible they acted towards bridge four in the way they did as a sign of respect?   Sure they may hate them for desecration of their dead but I could see also them respecting bridge four at the same time for charging in alone to help Dalinar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Kaladin put on the carapace armor, the Parshendi definitely focus in on him exclusively.  But in the OP I was referring to how the Parshendi fired on all the bridge crews (even before Kaladin arrived at the Shattered Plains) in an apparent effort to prevent them from setting the bridges.  When bridge 4 is fighting on the tower, they are definitely treated with respect by the Parshendi.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the question of the OP, I was just curious if anyone remembers the Parshendi have avoided wounded in major battles?  Also pointing out that perhaps how you treat a few dozen men attacking your army of thousands is a bit different than facing another army of equal numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they be searching for an invincible spearman?  If you mean they had noticed that they have not previously been able to hit Kaladin, remember the bridges were a death trap for the bridgemen before Kaladin arrived. 

 

It's feasible the Parshendi are looking for Dalinar and Kaladin.  Who knows? Maybe the whole war is an effort to draw out those chosen to become the Knights Radiant.  If they have prophecy to guide them, perhaps they know Kaladin will be a bridgeman.  They know their place in it, and they do their best to bring him out.  But with the chaos of war, it seems logical they wouldn't know for sure until the climactic battle.

 

So in other words... Unbreakable.

 

(Which, unfortunately, I didn't reference intentionally but wish with all my soul that I had)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parshendi do seem to recognize at least what Kaladin is doing. When he is infused with Stormlight, they shout, "Neshua Kadal," which I think probably means Knight Radiant, or Surgebinder or something along those lines. They also cease attacking him when they say this.

 

This first one comes immediately after Kaladin pulls the whole volley of arrows into a shield with a reverse lashing.

The groups of archers on both plateaus froze in stunned postures. The ones in front began to call to one another in a language Kaladin didn’t understand. “Neshua Kadal!” They stood up.

And then they fled.

And then later

The Shardbearer screamed even louder, stumbling, then fell to his knees. Kaladin tried to pull his spear free, but the man crumpled on top of it, snapping the shaft. Kaladin dodged back, now facing a ring of Parshendi, empty handed, Stormlight streaming from his body.

Silence. And then, they began speaking again, the words they’d said before. “Neshua Kadal!” They passed it among themselves, whispering, looking confused. Then they began to chant a song he’d never heard before.

Good enough, Kaladin thought. So long as they weren’t attacking him. Dalinar Kholin was moving, sitting up. Kaladin knelt down, commanding most of his Stormlight into the stony ground, retaining just enough to keep him going, but not enough to make him glow. Then, he hurried over to the armored horse at the side of the ring of Parshendi.

The Parshendi shied away from him, looking terrified. He took the reins and quickly returned to the highprince.

I'd love to know what rhythem these Parshendi are chanting to...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we absolutely know from the end of the Battle of the Tower and the reading that Eshonai is specifically looking for Dalinar.  As to Kaladin, I think it would have had to have been a pretty specific prophecy to tune them into Kaladin early on.  As time progressed, they could have recognized that there was a bridgeman who they couldn't hit.  But even this is unlikely given that there are so many bridgecrews.  Now at the Tower, they definitely recognize his nature at least.  So they could have been looking for him generally (i.e., looking for someone who can do what he does).

 

But, if they were looking for someone as a result of a prophecy which indicated that the person would likely be a bridgemen or someone of that ilk, then firing on the bridge crews could be a tactic to flush him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, can someone +1 starlet? I accidentally voted you down.

Next, I'm essentially imagining like you said: if they have a prophecy that he will stand invincible in the fodder, they try to kill bridgemen. But with the chaos of war, this strategy for locating him has proven less efficient than expected. Luckily, he eventually made himself known more blatantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, can someone +1 starlet? I accidentally voted you down.

Next, I'm essentially imagining like you said: if they have a prophecy that he will stand invincible in the fodder, they try to kill bridgemen. But with the chaos of war, this strategy for locating him has proven less efficient than expected. Luckily, he eventually made himself known more blatantly.

Done, assuming you meant Shardlet.

Edited by hoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...