Um ... Did anyone do a body count?

[aeromancer he/him]

IMPORTANT: Due to feedback, the original number of 525,000 dead bridgemen total has been revised.

 

So ... bridgemen. The Stormlight Archive version of redshirts. (If you don't know what a redshirt is, that's OK.) But how many of them actually died in the books?

 

Well, there were 40 bridge crews, and half of those went, per run. Each bridge crew had an average of 35-40 bridgemen. Let's say 35. We also know that on the good runs the loss was between a third to a half. That's an average of 41% casualty per good run, say around 50% casualty rates on all runs. Every year, according to the conversation between Shallan and Adolin, 150 chasmfiends were spotted. Sadeas is very aggressive, so let's say he went on a third of them. So, 50 runs a year.

 

20 crews x 35 members x 50 runs x 50% casualty rate = 17,500 dead bridgemen per year, or 175,000 total (ten years)

 

Oh, and that's just Sadeas. Oh, and that's just his bridgemen, not even his actual army. Meaning, supposed they all were trained, the Parshendi seemingly had no problem keeping him, and nine other armies, some larger them him at bay during a war of attrition.

 

Way of Kings claim that the Alethkar army is well over 100,000. The bridgemen corpses are under 200,000. From Sadeas.

 

Anyone care to correct my math? Math updated. Correct my new math.

Edited February 15, 2016 by aeromancer

[king of nowhere]

yes, your math is probably incorrect. some factors you may have not considered:

 

- First, in a normal bridge run, many bridges weren't focused and had no casualties at all. So I'd estimate the casualty rate for a bridge run to be lower, to no more than 20%.

- Second, sometimes the alethi arrived first and the bridgemen took no casualties at all.

- Third, 150 chasmfiends were killed in total, every year. That's the total count from all 10 highprinces. It also includes the ones that were so far that the alethi didn't try to go for them.

 

Considering all that, the casualty rate is probably close to a couple hundred thousands, for all highprinces, for all the war. Still huge numbers for a preindustrial society, though. The alethi land must be heavily populated to sustain those losses.

[Plaeggs he/him]

 Not all crews went on all runs, maybe about 10, and I doubt that Sadeas would have gotten half of them. Maybe a third, but even that seems unrealistic. So that's 525,000x(2/3)/4 = 87500 bridgemen losses for Sadeas. Also, Sadeas was one of the more callous highprinces sin terms of bridgemen lives. It goes to both extremes. Sadeas, with huge losses in bridges, and Sebarial and Dalinar, with little to no losses. 

 

And sniped by King of Nowhere. Considering both of our points, losses are nowhere near 5,000,000. Math corrected!

[aeromancer he/him]

yes, your math is probably incorrect. some factors you may have not considered:

 

- First, in a normal bridge run, many bridges weren't focused and had no casualties at all. So I'd estimate the casualty rate for a bridge run to be lower, to no more than 20%.

"Kaladin had not been assigned to Bridge Four by chance. Out of all the bridge crews, Bridge Four had the highest casualty rate. That was particularly notable, considering that average bridge crews often lost one-third to one-half of their number on a single run." - Way of Kings

 

That's one way to calculate, the other is that half the bridges went down every run they were under attack.

 

The point isn't that there were 5,000,000 million casualties the point was that 5,000,000 million casualties could be sustained, judging from the amount Sadeas took, which is ludicrous.

 

Also, they still kept fighting skirmishes with each other the entire time adding to the body count. Evidence by Kaladin's backstory!

Edited February 14, 2016 by aeromancer

[sheep]

I think your numbers are on the high side of estimation. 

• Not all bridgeruns led to casualties.  Whenever they got to the plateau first or too late, they went home without having to fight.  The casualties only come from the final approach, when the Parshendi are already there with their archers set up, and the bridge crews need to lay out the bridges for the cavalry to step in before the Parshendi get away with the gemheart.  I would say at least half of runs ended up without a battle.
• The war has been going on for not even 6 years
• All of the crews aren't going to all of the battles.  It was unusual for Hashal to order Bridge Four to start going on all the runs since crews usually alternated in going.   Started reminding me a bit of Ender's Game at that point.
• Everyone used chull pulled siege bridges in the beginning.  Sadeas started using bridgemen first because he didn't care about casualties, but I think it would be safe to say there were at least two years at the start where he used the mechanical folding bridges.
• Sebarial and Dalinar are confirmed not to use bridge crews.

 

So here are my estimates:

25 crews x 35 members x 35 runs with battles x 50% casualties x 4 years = 61 250 dead bridgemen

 

 

Though you have to wonder about certain things, like how a medieval feudal society managed to field these sorts of losses.  The bridgemen are mostly slaves and criminals, with many foreigners.  Are the slavers draining the numbers out of the rest of Roshar?  I estimated that there were 100 000 - 150 000 people on the Shattered Plains, including the civvies by the time of the Everstorm.  Seems pretty high if Sadeas is getting 15 000 men killed a year, and perhaps 3 other Highprinces are doing the same.  What is Roshar's population?  If you look at the size of families, most married couples in canon have been producing 2 kids at a time: there are so many pairs of siblings out there in the main cast.  Tien and Kal, Gavilar and Dalinar, Jasnah and Elhokar, Adolin and Renarin.  The Davars are pretty weird for having 5 kids.  Are the darkeyed people making up for the numbers and producing 6 kids per couple (all of whom survive to adulthood because Rosharans don't get sick like Earthers do) because the lighteyes aren't?  Otherwise I don't know how Alethkar survives at all with their crazy battlelust and constant fighting if they're only producing children at replacement rate.

[aeromancer he/him]

If I could get quote confirmation on any corrections, I'll revise my calculation up top, and credit the guy who brought me the quote.

 

Just to note, the ratio is usually 7-to-1, workers needed to soldiers fielded.  Of course, with Soulcasters, it's probably less. My point remains that if Sadeas can take these losses, then everyone else could as well.

[Vander]

(all of whom survive to adulthood because Rosharans don't get sick like Earthers do) 

Wait. Are you being sarcastic here, talking theoretically, or is this actually a thing?

[sheep]

Wait. Are you being sarcastic here, talking theoretically, or is this actually a thing?

 

There was a discussion about the Purelake and how all those people got sick. 

http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/21599-random-speculation-the-plague-in-the-purelake/?hl=medicine

 

There was a WoB linked in there:

 

"rosharans investiture makes it so they’re usually a healthy bunch so something like the cold is kind of frightening."

 

 

And you if you read Warbreaker, having Breath makes someone more resistant to illness.  Having regular Highstorms, drinking water that has crem in it, and being surrounded by infused spheres all the time might give a similar effect.  Also having Heralds pop in every Desolation and infodump the tech tree and science helps, which is why medicine is advanced enough that Kaladin can easily diagnose Renarin's epilepsy.  They can see painspren and rotspren, and Lirin washes his hands and swabs with alcohol, so infections which killed a lot of women giving birth wouldn't be so common.  And everywhere except Shinovar has no soil, so there's probably no tetanus either.

Epidemic illnesses seem to be a rarity.  But that means Rosharans don't have immunity antibodies.

[ecohansen]

First, didn't the bridge crews have morning duty and evening duty, at least under Gaz (i.e. pre-Maral)? And wasn't only one of those two slots bridge duty? So, at any given time, only half of the crews would be available to run. A standard run would have at MOST 20 bridge crews, so the early calculations can be halved. Also, you can't say that Sadeas claimed half the the runs, and then multiply his total by 10 to arrive at the total for all highprinces If Sadeas went on half the runs, then the most you could multiply his total by is 2--but we know that his tactics were more mortality-inducing than any of the other princes' were, so it would have to be less than that. Sadeas' bridgeman death toll would be lower than 25,000/year (250,000 over your 10-yer period), and the total army's bridgeman deathtoll would be lower than 50,000/year.
......

It seems like it would be a good idea to try to estimate how many people die in Alethkar each year, and compare our Shattered Plains death toll to that.

Super rough estimates--I'm sure people can improve on them.

Let's say Roshar has a population density similar to medieval europe. Medieval Europe had a peak population of 73 million. Since Roshar is a supercontinent on a world that's probably about two-thirds as big as ours (since, given equal density, surface area scales with surface gravity ), let's guesstimate that it is about three times as big as Europe, and so has three times medieval Europe's population. Since Alethkar is geographically the largest kingdom on Roshar, let's say it has one-ninth the total population of the contintinent. So, let's guess an Alethi population of 25 million. Now, given the high health citede above, we can assume low childhood mortality, so adult mortality can be the main thing we're concerned with. Average lifespan and mortality rate are linked: if absolutely everyone died on their hundredth birthday, then 1 person in 100 would die every year--if absolutely everyone died on their thirtieth brthday, then one person in thirty would die every year. Since we didn't see lots of pregnant teens in Kaladin's home village, and most teenagers entering adulthood still had living parents, it seems like people who survived to be parents would have to live at least 30 years--15 years for their own childhood, and 15 years for their children's. If we give Alethkar an average life expectancy of 30 years, then one person in thirty dies each year. So, in total, I'd guess that about .75 million Alethis die each year. My guesses are so rough that I could see it actually varying by a factor of 5, but I'd be surprised if the annual death toll in Alethkar was higher than 4 million, or lower than 150,000.

So yeah. Given those numbers, It seems reasonable to guess that out of all deaths in Alethkar in any given year, about one death in fifty will be from bridgerunning. That still seems too high to be right.

Edited February 14, 2016 by ecohansen

[aeromancer he/him]

,,,The point wasn't the body count... Why'd I make that the title? I'm an idiot, thank you.

 

Fact is, in order for Sadeas to be competitive with the rest of the Highprinces in terms of army size, that means that they all must incur similar losses, not necessarily in bridgemen deaths, but in terms of time, and money, which roughly will translate to (at ecohansen's estimates) the equivalent of 250,000 deaths a year. I'm more talking in terms of expended resources.

 

Way of Kings claims the army size is 100,00, by the way! I'm going to update that up top!

[Esaias he/him]

The war had been going on for about 5 years (and 8 months) when Kaladin shows up in the Way of Kings. Chapter One says "Five Years Later", Chapter Two says "Eight Months Later".

 

Also:

 

"There seemed to be quite a lot of them. Around fifty barracks, with—perhaps—twenty or thirty men in each…that would make nearly as many bridgemen in this army as there had been soldiers in Amaram’s entire force."

 

When Kaladin first shows up.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Esaias

[aeromancer he/him]

My point is still valid...

[king of nowhere]

,,,The point wasn't the body count... Why'd I make that the title? I'm an idiot, thank you.

 

Fact is, in order for Sadeas to be competitive with the rest of the Highprinces in terms of army size, that means that they all must incur similar losses, not necessarily in bridgemen deaths, but in terms of time, and money, which roughly will translate to (at ecohansen's estimates) the equivalent of 250,000 deaths a year. I'm more talking in terms of expended resources.

 

Way of Kings claims the army size is 100,00, by the way! I'm going to update that up top!

Actually, sadeas was the most succesful highprince. he alone took some half of the gemhearts. So it makes sense that he alone takes half the losses of the whole army. Since he also get half the gemhearst, he has the means to recruit more and make food for all. And he's probably recuiting from other princedom. I don't think there's any law against it. So, it's not like all the highprinces coult take those kind of losses. Alethkar as a whole can.

 

As for the actual number of bridgemen dieing in a run, that's actually unclear. Yes, that quote says one third to a half. On the other hand, several scenes have runs where a few bridge crews are focused, and others are untouched.

[aeromancer he/him]

So why do both Dalinar AND Aladar have a larger army than him?

 

Also, these calculation are him trying (but not succeeding) for a third of the gemhearts. If you want him to get half the gemhearts, triple my number. Which is around 50,000, half of the army. Armies do not sustain those kinds of losses, no they do not. Read Mistborn, specifically, well spoilers, so I'll just say in the second book where Ham talks about casualties.

 

Also, point: No, I don't have a point in making this post. I'm hoping I made an egregious error, but even still, potential corpsecount is really high. Someone please ask Brandon about this during the Calamity tour.  

[DreamEternal]

I knew there was something fishy about Sadeas' tatics.

And from am economical standpoint, shouldn't it be more expensive to sustain a massive slave trafic across the frostlands than it would be for him to use armored and shielded soldiers to run the bridges? While outfiting trained soldiers is expensive, I can't see how it is so much cheaper to sustain the use of slaves as arrow bait when the deaths reach so extravagant numbers.

And the limitations on population imposed by the need of shelter from Highstorms mean Alethkar shouldn't have enough people to sustain such losses in the long term, specialy with the perpetual infighting among brightlords. Worse, if most Bridgemen come from Sadeas Princedom, them he is crippling his own land because of the gemheart rush.

But, on the plus side, if it wasn't by the events of book two, by the time the war was over Sadeas would have the weakest princedom and his gemhearts would be of little use because of inflaction. Hah, that should teach him, in an AU in which he didn't die or start a civil war.

Edited February 15, 2016 by DreamEternal

[king of nowhere]

So why do both Dalinar AND Aladar have a larger army than him?

 

Size of the armuy and size of the bridgemen forces are unrelated. Each highprince had an army of trained soldiers that was roughly 10k strong, totaling the 100k of the whole alethi army on the shattered plains. Bridgemen are not part of the army. they are slaves, or they are poor people who came to enroll hoping to find a job. sadeas had up to 1600 of those, with a high turnover. but his army was't big. his bridgemen kept dieing and being replaced, but he never had a large number at the same time.

 

I knew there was something fishy about Sadeas' tatics.

And from am economical standpoint, shouldn't it be more expensive to sustain a massive slave trafic across the frostlands than it would be for him to use armored and shielded soldiers to run the bridges? While outfiting trained soldiers is expensive, I can't see how it is so much cheaper to sustain the use of slaves as arrow bait when the deaths reach so extravagant numbers.

And the limitations on population imposed by the need of shelter from Highstorms mean Alethkar shouldn't have enough people to sustain such losses in the long term, specialy with the perpetual infighting among brightlords. Worse, if most Bridgemen come from Sadeas Princedom, them he is crippling his own land because of the gemheart rush.

But, on the plus side, if it wasn't by the events of book two, by the time the war was over Sadeas would have the weakest princedom and his gemhearts would be of little use because of inflaction. Hah, that should teach him, in an AU in which he didn't die or start a civil war.

Yes, the reason good will win in the end is that large-scale evil is not sustainable in the long run . It's pretty much implied by the definition of evil; if it didn't have some bad repercussions that will eventually screw up everyone it probably wouldn't be evil.

 

Phylosophical considerations apart, since a medieval-like society has a shortage of economic resources and trained people, but it produces a constant stream of poor people, then it makes some sense that sadeas would want to save the people who had the expensive training and expensive equipment at the cost of those who were in large supply. But, without knowing details about the alethi demographics, the exact amount of losses and their provenience, and the net flux of people to the shattered plains, it is impossible to determine how sustainable the thing is in the long run. And I doubt brandon is going to give exact numbers; if he did, it would be more likely that it would make for an unsustainable demographics.

By the way, speaking of unsustainable, also the harvesting of gemhearts is unsustainable in the long run. the chasmfiends already have no newborns for the last five years. can't be long before they become endangered, then critically endangered, then extint.

[DreamEternal]

Phylosophical considerations apart, since a medieval-like society has a shortage of economic resources and trained people, but it produces a constant stream of poor people, then it makes some sense that sadeas would want to save the people who had the expensive training and expensive equipment at the cost of those who were in large supply.

The problem is that training men to carry a bridge while armored, with other men trained to protect them with shields, shouldn't be more expensive in the long run than replacing countless slaves, considering that the risk of travelling throught Eastern Roshar should raise prices.

Not only are there powerful Highstorms, but there are also constant border skirmshes inside the supposedly unified kingdom of Alethkar and desertors and bandits on the lawless Frostlands.

Even if a third of the bridgemen came from inside the camps because of offenses, and the ones from outside were cheaper because of an history of bad behavior, buying able-bodied slaves from Akethkar should be expensive.

Edited February 15, 2016 by DreamEternal

[Pathfinder]

The problem is that training men to carry a bridge while armored, with other men trained to protect them with shields, shouldn't be more expensive in the long run than replacing countless slaves, considering that the risk of travelling throught Eastern Roshar should raise prices.

Not only are there powerful Highstorms, but there are also constant border skirmshes inside the supposedly unified kingdom of Alethkar and desertors and bandits on the lawless Frostlands.

Even if a third of the bridgemen came from inside the camps because of offenses, and the ones from outside were cheaper because of an history of bad behavior, buying able-bodied slaves from Akethkar should be expensive.

The impression i was given was gem hearts are ludicrously lucrative first of all. Second, we are talking about slaves who are untrained. All that matters is carrying a huge chunk of wood from point A to point B. So when purchasing slaves they do not need to be skilled, they just need to be able to move something, so they can buy the slaves at a premium. Add to the fact that they get the bare essentials (gruel, one towel either for warmth or pillow, and leather jerkin), and high mortality rate resulting in not having to actively maintain the population would be cost effective. It is the difference of taking 10 men, paying them ten bucks a day, paying ten bucks a day to provide them with food, and 20 bucks a day for armor and training (2,800 per week earth time, and using 10 for a random small and easy to manage number) vs, taking 10 men, paying them 2 bucks a day, paying 2 bucks a day for gruel, and then 5 bucks for a new slave anytime one dies. Now assuming 8 men out of 10 die every run, it still comes to 870 bucks, which is 2000 dollars cheaper than the first option, and you get the added bonus of getting a huge pay day to balance it. Now I know I way over simplified things, and there is probably a lot I am not accounting for. I never was a big math guy, I oversimplified it for my own benefit and to help illustrate my point. The main thing is these individuals are untrained, unskilled, barely have to be maintained, and can be purchased for a pittance, especially when compared with the amount of money gained from winning most of the gem hearts. 

[DreamEternal]

@Pathfinder:

But carrying a chunk of wood armored also takes almost no training, and the slaves still need to be physically fit. And you already need trained soldiers for fighting a war, so you could put some shieldbearers in front of the bridges with little trouble. And no matter how expensive armor may be, I fail to see how slaves will be cheaper. Plus, you wouldn't need to pay for training, since the soldiers generaly come to the Plains already trained, and you wouldn't pay as much per for maintaining them confortable and armored as you would to keep them fed, as much of the infrastructure already exists.

And the mortality rates do not remove the need to actively maintain the population, since new Bridgemen eat as much as the ones they replaced.

Plus, a new slave would cost much more than 5() bucks, if a soldier must be paid 10 bucks a day. In fact, in societies with heavy use of slavery, being able to afford owning slaves, whatever you choose it or not, is the halmark of the high class. Even if we consider that part of the price of maintaining slaves is keeping them under watch, a simple task in the warcamps, they still must cost more than what a simple soldier makes in a day. And carrying slaves throught so dangerous territories is bond to make them much more expensive.

Finaly, if we suppose the bridgemen are slaves primarily because they are arrow bait, we run into the rationale that replacing bridgemen that die is easier than replacing soldiers that die. But bridgemen only die so often because unlike soldiers, they are unshielded, unarmored, untrained, abd focused by the enemy. I would be shocked if more than one soldier's death was prevented by each fifteen bridgemen who died.

Edited February 15, 2016 by DreamEternal

[aeromancer he/him]

The cost is actually written in the books if you want to do a side-by-side comparison. I assume it is cheaper to use bridgemen, because Sadeas, while being every expletive in the book (including fictional ones), is not dumb.

 

@DreamEternal: Thanks for the support!

[DreamEternal]

The cost is actually written in the books if you want to do a side-by-side comparison. I assume it is cheaper to use bridgemen, because Sadeas, while being every expletive in the book (including fictional ones), is not dumb.

While I agree it is most likely cheaper, because there is no point otherwise, my point is that it is unrealistic for it to be cheaper. But then, with soulcasters providing food there is less need for farmers, making potential slaves more numerous. Still, I don't think it is realistic to run bridges Sadeas style.

@DreamEternal: Thanks for the support!

You are welcome. I've pondered about this for a while, but only after reading your estimations I realized how far Sadeas took it. Edited February 15, 2016 by DreamEternal

[Pathfinder]

@Pathfinder:

But carrying a chunk of wood armored also takes almost no training, and the slaves still need to be physically fit. And you already need trained soldiers for fighting a war, so you could put some shieldbearers in front of the bridges with little trouble. And no matter how expensive armor may be, I fail to see how slaves will be cheaper. Plus, you wouldn't need to pay for training, since the soldiers generaly come to the Plains already trained, and you wouldn't pay as much per for maintaining them confortable and armored as you would to keep them fed, as much of the infrastructure already exists.

And the mortality rates do not remove the need to actively maintain the population, since new Bridgemen eat as much as the ones they replaced.

Plus, a new slave would cost much more than 5( ) bucks, if a soldier must be paid 10 bucks a day. In fact, in societies with heavy use of slavery, being able to afford owning slaves, whatever you choose it or not, is the halmark of the high class. Even if we consider that part of the price of maintaining slaves is keeping them under watch, a simple task in the warcamps, they still must cost more than what a simple soldier makes in a day. And carrying slaves throught so dangerous territories is bond to make them much more expensive.

Finaly, if we suppose the bridgemen are slaves primarily because they are arrow bait, we run into the rationale that replacing bridgemen that die is easier than replacing soldiers that die. But bridgemen only die so often because unlike soldiers, they are unshielded, unarmored, untrained, abd focused by the enemy. I would be shocked if more than one soldier's death was prevented by each fifteen bridgemen who died.

The slaves do not to be physical fit. It is stated in the book that they have more slaves per bridge than they need to carry to account for losses. If the slaves were physically fit, then Kal wouldn't have needed to do calisthetics with his crew, and those running the bridges wouldn't collapse after every run. Finally if the slaves needed to be physically fit, there would be the issue of different ages of the bridge runner's as well as physical builds (dreyh vs rock for instance). The slaves are literally the bottom of the barrel, because they are seen as expendable. All they need to do is lift the bridge, move the bridge, drop the bridge, and maybe die at some point in between. I was acting on the premise of armoring the individuals themselves but to respond to your point, armoring the bridge weighs it down, requiring a greater staff to lug it. Armored or not, you are still going to lose people, but now although you lose less on an armored bridge, the amount you lose is more important because you need more to move it. Armor is expensive not only to make it, but fit it, repair it, and maintain it. Armor is a "person" all of its own. It takes resources to keep it in fighting condition. The blacksmith you are using to maintain the armor for your bridgemen, could be focused on the armor of your heavy cavalry which are very expensive to maintain, and losing even one is a big loss. As I said I used dollars and small numbers because I do not recall the monetary system in the book, and was using it just to illustrate a point without getting overly bogged down in the math of it. 

 

Regarding food, as I said, you do not need to maintain the health of the bridgemen. They do not need a diet that will produce healthy strapping soldiers that can fight. They just need to give the bridgemen fuel enough to get from point A to point B, which means bottom of the barrel gruel. That allows Sadeus to cut costs on feeding them. That is why yes although regardless whether the bridgeman is old or new, they eat the same, since they are expendable, you can cut corners on food, and still get the desired result. So the slaves I would be replacing would still be cheaper than your trained ones based on the quality of food and how often id have to feed them. in the terms we are using, Soldiers are a resource. Each requires a certain amount of investment based on the service they provide. Sadeus found a way to streamline the bridgemen as most as possible. He would probably make an excellent CEO in our modern day world with the way he can just use people to increase his own holdings. 

 

Bridgemen make barely any money at all, when compared to soldiers so Sadeus is also saving there. Apparently slavery is prevalent at the shattered plains enough that of slaves brought, a portion of the less desirable are sent to the bridge crews. So I would liken it to buying a bushel of applies, using some to make and sell apple pie, some to make apple juice and instead of throwing them away taking the ones that are starting to go bad, ground em up and make cider. In fact if you know what you are looking at and can haggle, you could probably get a decent discount because of the apples that are going bad, and make a decent profit because of it. If I recall correctly, the purchase Kaladin and the other slaves that got sold to the bridge crew went exactly like that.

 

Finally the other big reason for the bridge crews being unarmored, and not having an armored bridge is speed. Sadeus gets there before most highprinces and in some cases even before the parshendi. This causes him to get more gem hearts, that are so valuable, it would account for the money spent on the slaves and then some. I liken it to the gold rush. Is it a sustaining practice? Storms no. Once gem hearts become rarer and rarer, the influx will eventually not counter the outgoing. But given the implied difference in value, it can certain last quite some time. Meanwhile Sebarial thinking in the long term has created a sustainable economy. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Pathfinder

[king of nowhere]

why there wasn't some shield bearer running in front of the bridges was specifically addressed in the books: sadeas tried it, and the parshendi then gave up on the bridgemen and focused the rest of the army. sadeass made calculations, decided he lost more money if the parshendi shot the army rather than the bridge crews, so he sent the bridge crews unarmored. that's explicitly stated in WoK.

Maybe in the long run it's not as good, but many economic strategies rely on making a profit in the short term, and reinvest it to deal with the long term consequences. I don't like that way of thinking because I tend to think in the long term, but it appear to work. At least for the people moving the big money, at least.

 

Now, I have considered saving time by using two crews for each bridge: a carrying crew and a charge crew. The carrying crew only carries the bridge to the final plateau, then the charging crew takes the bridge and get killed by the parshendi. You lose just as many bridgemen, but the benefit is that the carrying crew does not take losses, so you can train it; a crew of healty excerciced runners will carry the bridge faster, giving you some extra time to reach the gemheart. The expendable crew will be able to keep up because they don't have a bridge to carry for most of the way. But the problem is how fast the army can move. the soldiers are armored, can't go fast. so it may be that there would be no gain with that strategy. and sadeas would have to feed more bridgemen, the permanent crew with good food.

[natc]

Yeah, it doesn't really matter if training bridgemen to carry bridges armored or use shields is cheaper than training actual soldiers. You'll still lose several actual soldiers' worth of training investments because the bridgemen aren't getting shot at as much anymore.

Absolutely not sustainable, but it's not really the matter of training/preparation cost with regards to the bridgemen, not completely. He just wanted to give the parshendi something to kill while the expensive troops showed up unscathed.

Edited February 16, 2016 by natc

[DreamEternal]

Yeah, it doesn't really matter if training bridgemen to carry bridges armored or use shields is cheaper than training actual soldiers. You'll still lose several actual soldiers' worth of training investments because the bridgemen aren't getting shot at as much anymore.

No. You would lose a couple of soldiers once in a while, but the reason bridgemen die so often is because they are unshielded, untrained and unarmored arrow bait. The losses among trained soldiers would be extremely small compared to the losses the bridgemen face, and even if the crews only get the cheapest slaves of the bunch slaves still shouldn't be so cheap as to justify killing twenty of them for every soldier that is saved from the arrows but may still die to the parshendi blades.