It seems that Brian Jacques wrote the books so that vermin are always worse fighters than goodbeasts, except possibly their leaders. In some books you see inexperienced country bumpkins beating experienced killers. Wouldn't it be more realistic to have the vermin have the advantage sometimes? LIke come on, the goodbeasts also have incredible luck.
example: when Doomeye shoots lord Brocktree. Everybody admit he should have been killed then and there.
The real answer: Plot.
A lot of it come down to the recipe Brian put together for his works: Clear lines of good and evil, and good always wins. If one understands what audience the works were intended for, it is acceptable.
I agree. I honestly don't like the "it's a kids book" excuse. I've seen plenty of kids books that had better villains and such. Brian could have done better with the villains.
I've actually been making plans to create "rewrite" fics for the Series for this very reason, amongst others.
No way some young mouse'd who's never touched a blade in his life could lay out a rat who's entire life's been dedicated to survival.
That, and wouldn't it be all that much more exciting during, and sad and meaningful at the story's end, if there were more woodlander casualties?
If the vermin were actually, on occasion, competent and seasoned killers like they were usually described?
yeah, and for example, when Bane and Tsarminia ambushed the woodlanders, the y actually lost more vermin than the woodlanders?
What the heck? Wasn't it an ambush? The book itself says that they were caught totally unawares.
Quote from: Damug Warfang on November 12, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
yeah, and for example, when Bane and Tsarminia ambushed the woodlanders, the y actually lost more vermin than the woodlanders?
What the heck? Wasn't it an ambush? The book itself says that they were caught totally unawares.
Ugh, yess, that always bothered me. :T
And the vermin had armor and shields.
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on November 12, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
There's always something to give the woodlanders an instant edge, innit...
Vermin backstabbing and squabbling and executing one another, starvation, desertion...
Quote from: Jewel Thief on November 13, 2015, 02:47:30 AM
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on November 12, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
There's always something to give the woodlanders an instant edge, innit...
Vermin backstabbing and squabbling and executing one another, starvation, desertion...
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on November 12, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
But they were still protected by their armor and shields unlike the woodlanders who had nothing but trees which the soldiers also had.
Quote from: Starla1431 on November 10, 2015, 04:25:12 AM
I agree. I honestly don't like the "it's a kids book" excuse. I've seen plenty of kids books that had better villains and such. Brian could have done better with the villains.
Plus, it could really give kids the wrong idea and that courage, determination, and desire to protect your home & loved ones will see you through than actually having strength or skill...
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 13, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on November 12, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
But they were still protected by their armor and shields unlike the woodlanders who had nothing but trees which the soldiers also had.
Mobility is more effective than heavy armour. Ever heard of Genghis Khan?
Quote from: Lord_Ashenwyte on November 14, 2015, 01:33:06 AM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 13, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on November 12, 2015, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: Vilu Daskar on November 12, 2015, 08:23:44 PM
And the vermin had armor and shields.
It was also stressed that the soldiers of Kotir was malnourished and, while good fighters and well equipped, awkward and slow in heavy armor.
But they were still protected by their armor and shields unlike the woodlanders who had nothing but trees which the soldiers also had.
Mobility is more effective than heavy armour. Ever heard of Genghis Khan?
But some of the Woodlanders should have been killed and yes.
Quote from: Lord_Ashenwyte on November 14, 2015, 01:33:06 AM
Mobility is more effective than heavy armour. Ever heard of Genghis Khan?
On the contrary sir, movies and stories would have us believe that armor is useless and simply clutters one's movement however that is completely false. Why do you think armor has been used over the centuries? If all it did was slow someone down then it wouldn't be used.
In fact armor does almost nothing to slow someone down. I have attended several tourneys (Renaissance medieval tournaments.) And I have seen those men and women wearing full plate body armor moving like lightning. I have also tried said armor on, and while it is heavy it does very little to impede movement. Actually the great weight allows for a more powerful blow, the only negative effect is that it wears the soldier out faster. But even then, a someone who works out could fight, and run for a good thirty minutes before being truly exhausted.
Furthermore armor does its job, it stonewalls swords, and blunts spears, and even deflects arrows. In a fight, all you can do to you're opponent is bruise them, making blunt weapons, like clubs, maces, and flails much more effective the standard sword. Axes don't count because they are the terror of the battle field.
I think what brought about the loss of more soldiers was the fact that they were starving, and they also had very low moral. Sun Tzu says that those that have no wish to fight, and who are unwilling will lose a battle before it begins. (Not a direct quote)
Plus plot.
I remember Bane (I think it was Bane) shaking his head in disbelief at how his forces lost more than the woodlanders.
Agreed, but stronger villains usually equal better plot...so, hrm.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 09, 2017, 01:54:04 AM
Agreed, but stronger villains usually equal better plot...so, hrm.
Mostly only the leaders because Brian is saving them for the end so that the main character can fight and defeat them
I'm saying that the more strong ones there are the more conflict there is, usually bettering the plot.
You know, like Eefera ('s that how you spell it) and that other guy from Taggerung, the fox from Pearls of Lutra, and Cheesethief (though not exactly strong, he was smart enough to survive a long time).
This ties into character development, for a character with more screen time has more time for the readers to get invested in them...again bettering the plot, usually. Unless they're annoying as heck, like Triss.
It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?
Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.
I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.
Quote from: Ashleg on September 09, 2017, 02:01:48 AM
I'm saying that the more strong ones there are the more conflict there is, usually bettering the plot.
You know, like Eefera ('s that how you spell it) and that other guy from Taggerung, the fox from Pearls of Lutra, and Cheesethief (though not exactly strong, he was smart enough to survive a long time).
This ties into character development, for a character with more screen time has more time for the readers to get invested in them...again bettering the plot, usually. Unless they're annoying as heck, like Triss.
The problem is those guys are strong against other vermin but not so much against woodlanders or don't have a scene where they fight against them.
Because Woodlanders are speeshul. ::)
Fight fight fight fight.
Once again, it goes back to the formula of the series: "Goodbeasts" are always going to be good.
Tugga Bruster.
::)
Blaggut.
Conflict between two characters of the same. . . "side" always makes good reading.
Quote from: The Skarzs on September 09, 2017, 02:55:19 AM
It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?
Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.
I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.
Yes but another thing is Brian could have made the series more interesting, in my opinion, if the Redwallers used different methods to defeat the vermin by playing on their weaknesses and not just always defeating them in a massive battle at the end. For example, in the Book Raketty Tam- I found that ending particularly stupid- Tam kills Gulo through sheer luck and divine intervention. Gulo was an extremely skilled and fearsome fighter (just by being a wolverine) but he wasn't exactly a talented thinker. It would of made the book more interesting if he was defeated using strategy or "out thought" rather than "out fought". For example I think it would have been a better ending if the woodlanders realized that he and his horde were too dangerous of opponents to be killed in open battle and that Gulo got killed when his forces fell over the waterfall after being tricked into following the woodlanders down river.
Quote from: Grond on November 25, 2017, 03:25:42 AM
Quote from: The Skarzs on September 09, 2017, 02:55:19 AM
It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?
Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.
I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.
Yes but another thing is Brian could have made the series more interesting, in my opinion, if the Redwallers used different methods to defeat the vermin by playing on their weaknesses and not just always defeating them in a massive battle at the end. For example, in the Book Raketty Tam- I found that ending particularly stupid- Tam kills Gulo through sheer luck and divine intervention. Gulo was an extremely skilled and fearsome fighter (just by being a wolverine) but he wasn't exactly a talented thinker. It would of made the book more interesting if he was defeated using strategy or "out thought" rather than "out fought". For example I think it would have been a better ending if the woodlanders realized that he and his horde were too dangerous of opponents to be killed in open battle and that Gulo got killed when his forces fell over the waterfall after being tricked into following the woodlanders down river.
The problem was Brian wasn't very big on Strategy the only thing the vermin had on their side was numbers
I agree, but light shines in darkness. Good guys should have luck, man.
That's probably not the way I would have put it. I kind of enjoy the fact that good always triumphs over evil but, at the same time, I think it could have been a little more varied in the way it triumphed, rather than having one big battle at the end of every book.
Because tey don't live long enough to take Fighting 101