Which of these two contradictory statements is right?

[Lord Stormer]

Found a light oddity while reading Well of Ascension last night, and came to a claim where I knew the same topic was mentioned in Oathbringer when I read it last year, but obviously at least one must be false.

The quotes talk about military science, so if any of you are acquaintanced in this topic, I would like to hear your opinions.

"Even on a battlefield, most armies will break if they take thirty or forty percent casualties in the course of an entire day's fighting."

- Ham, taken from The Well of Ascension, chapter 44

"Many armies would break after suffering ten percent casualties, but here - reportedly - the Vedens had continued fighting after losing more than half their numbers."

- Dalinar, taken from Oathbringer, chapter 100

Which one is right, or if any? The circumstances of the battle in Luthadel and Vedenar are obviously not similar, but these statements are a reference to military knowledge. I would personally favor the general Dalinar than crewmember Ham being right, and that the Oathbringer passage was written around 2015-2016, about 10 years after the Well of Ascension.

I'm curious, not only which statement is right, but why the two differ at the time of writing.

[KnightSkye Reforged They/Them]

It is possible that they are both true on the different planets. Remember, Roshar has much harsher weather and terrain, but also no need for supply lines, so can retreat faster as well. Not to mention shards.

Scadrial on the other hand, has no soulcaster or shardbearers, and didn't seem to militarize allomancers much in era 1, and also has genteler terrain and weather conditions (an ashfall is much nicer than a highstorm) and so the dynamic could be very different on different worlds.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

12 minutes ago, Lord Stormer said:

Found a light oddity while reading Well of Ascension last night, and came to a claim where I knew the same topic was mentioned in Oathbringer when I read it last year, but obviously at least one must be false.

The quotes talk about military science, so if any of you are acquaintanced in this topic, I would like to hear your opinions.

"Even on a battlefield, most armies will break if they take thirty or forty percent casualties in the course of an entire day's fighting."

- Ham, taken from The Well of Ascension, chapter 44

"Many armies would break after suffering ten percent casualties, but here - reportedly - the Vedens had continued fighting after losing more than half their numbers."

- Dalinar, taken from Oathbringer, chapter 100

Which one is right, or if any? The circumstances of the battle in Luthadel and Vedenar are obviously not similar, but these statements are a reference to military knowledge. I would personally favor the general Dalinar than crewmember Ham being right, and that the Oathbringer passage was written around 2015-2016, about 10 years after the Well of Ascension.

I'm curious, not only which statement is right, but why the two differ at the time of writing.

One is in a day, one is over longer time.

30% of a day's troops is gonna be less since you can pick it up the next day

but 10% of your prolonged army?

[Nitpicking]

The statements are not contradictory. "Most" armies break at by 30-40%. "Many" do so at 10%. 

 

Most > Many.

[BinarySecond]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Knight said:

It is possible that they are both true on the different planets. Remember, Roshar has much harsher weather and terrain, but also no need for supply lines, so can retreat faster as well. Not to mention shards.

Scadrial on the other hand, has no soulcaster or shardbearers, and didn't seem to militarize allomancers much in era 1, and also has genteler terrain and weather conditions (an ashfall is much nicer than a highstorm) and so the dynamic could be very different on different worlds.

I would echo this.

Also 30-40% vs The Lord Ruler (or for him) makes more sense. You're likely to be hunted and killed if you lose to you may end up fighting like hell to avoid that.

[Treamayne]

6 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

Found a light oddity while reading Well of Ascension last night, and came to a claim where I knew the same topic was mentioned in Oathbringer when I read it last year, but obviously at least one must be false.

The quotes talk about military science, so if any of you are acquaintanced in this topic, I would like to hear your opinions.

Quote

 

"Even on a battlefield, most armies will break if they take thirty or forty percent casualties in the course of an entire day's fighting."

- Ham, taken from The Well of Ascension, chapter 44

 

Quote

 

"Many armies would break after suffering ten percent casualties, but here - reportedly - the Vedens had continued fighting after losing more than half their numbers."

- Dalinar, taken from Oathbringer, chapter 100

 

Which one is right, or if any? The circumstances of the battle in Luthadel and Vedenar are obviously not similar, but these statements are a reference to military knowledge. I would personally favor the general Dalinar than crewmember Ham being right, and that the Oathbringer passage was written around 2015-2016, about 10 years after the Well of Ascension.

I'm curious, not only which statement is right, but why the two differ at the time of writing.

It's all hearsay and is likely based on their world's doctrine. In real life, the common phrase is separated by Attacking armies and Defending armies and is hugely complex. 

Reference (Blog link - one book is Understanding Defeat by Trevor Dupuy):

Quote

What has been done is studies on breakpoints, and over time, a rule of thumb that at 40% a unit “breaks” appears to be widely accepted. It appears that this rule has then been transferred to measuring unit effectiveness.

The starting point for “breakpoints” study is Dorothy Clark’s study of 43 battalions from World War II done in 1954. That study showed that the average casualties for these battalions was around 40%, although the ranged from around 1% to near 100%. Her conclusion was that “The statement that a unit can be considered no longer combat effective when it has suffered a specific casualty percentage is a gross oversimplification not supported by combat data.” She also stated “Because of wide variations in data, average loss percentages alone have limited meaning.”.

<snip>

The next point is the U.S. Army’s Maneuver Control manuals (FM 105-5) which in 1964 set the attacker’s breakpoint at around 20 percent casualties and the defender’s breakpoint at around 40 percent at the battalion-level. Charts in the 1964 Maneuver Control field manual showed a curve with the probability of unit break based on percentage of combat casualties. Once a defending unit reached around 40 percent casualties, the chance of breaking approached 100 percent. Once an attacking unit reached around 20 percent casualties, the chance of its halting (type I break) approached 100 percent, and the chance of its breaking (type II break) reached 40 percent. These data were for battalion-level combat. 

Hope that helps

[Through The Living Ash he/him]

7 hours ago, Lord Stormer said:

Found a light oddity while reading Well of Ascension last night, and came to a claim where I knew the same topic was mentioned in Oathbringer when I read it last year, but obviously at least one must be false.

The quotes talk about military science, so if any of you are acquaintanced in this topic, I would like to hear your opinions.

"Even on a battlefield, most armies will break if they take thirty or forty percent casualties in the course of an entire day's fighting."

- Ham, taken from The Well of Ascension, chapter 44

"Many armies would break after suffering ten percent casualties, but here - reportedly - the Vedens had continued fighting after losing more than half their numbers."

- Dalinar, taken from Oathbringer, chapter 100

Which one is right, or if any? The circumstances of the battle in Luthadel and Vedenar are obviously not similar, but these statements are a reference to military knowledge. I would personally favor the general Dalinar than crewmember Ham being right, and that the Oathbringer passage was written around 2015-2016, about 10 years after the Well of Ascension.

I'm curious, not only which statement is right, but why the two differ at the time of writing.

I believe Adolin mentions a similar figure somewhere in Wind and Truth, but I may be misremembering. 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

Oh cool, new data for people who want to keep theorycrafting Roshar vs Scadrial war stuff. Turns out the Scadrians have a higher morale stat. Not what you would expect from the vibes of each planet.

[Lord Stormer]

21 hours ago, Ookla the Dokja said:

One is in a day, one is over longer time.

30% of a day's troops is gonna be less since you can pick it up the next day

but 10% of your prolonged army?

 

19 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

The statements are not contradictory. "Most" armies break at by 30-40%. "Many" do so at 10%. 

 

Most > Many.

If we compare both quotes literally, taking into account what the words define, I'd easily agree. The problem is that Brandon might wrote them very much in a passing glance. Unlikely did he meant every word to be exact, so I interpreted the quotes as what they are essentially about, not literally verbatim. Talking context, Ham added "entire day's fighting" because he was commenting on how Vin inflicted 300 losses on Lord Cett's army out of his 1000 in 10 minutes. The italic quote is on the book, and it's purpose is to emphasize contrast.

15 hours ago, Treamayne said:

It's all hearsay and is likely based on their world's doctrine. In real life, the common phrase is separated by Attacking armies and Defending armies and is hugely complex. 

Reference (Blog link - one book is Understanding Defeat by Trevor Dupuy):

Hope that helps

Thanks for the research. Some years ago I read a figure of about 10%, and that's why I initially believed Dalinar's claim more, alongside with its recency. But I am curious why would Brandon changed the figure when he intended to say essentially the same thing in both - which I do.

[+Oltux72 he/him]

On 12/2/2025 at 3:40 PM, ParaTulip said:

Oh cool, new data for people who want to keep theorycrafting Roshar vs Scadrial war stuff. Turns out the Scadrians have a higher morale stat. Not what you would expect from the vibes of each planet.

• The Scadrians have soothers and rioters
• Showing a brave face for the sake of the men is impossible on Roshar. You will draw the spren showing your true feelings

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 12/6/2025 at 10:21 AM, Oltux72 said:

• The Scadrians have soothers and rioters
• Showing a brave face for the sake of the men is impossible on Roshar. You will draw the spren showing your true feelings

So, you are saying Roshar just has a terrain based moral debuff, and Scadrians have units that can alter unit morale. Fascinating. Too bad the RTS genre is dead.

[Qianweilian He/him]

47 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Too bad the RTS genre is dead.

Eu5 just came out and was visible on top seller lists on steam. I don't think RTS is "dead" quite yet.