Castles and sorts

[Ungatt Trunn]

Ze only reazon vhy 'e vaz able tae take over ze mountain vaz zat it vaz filled vith mostly old beaztz. Durin' ze timez like ze Long Patrol or Zalamandaztron, zat never vould o' 'appened.

Ha! Ungatt Trunn still could have taken it easly enugh!

[Rusvul]

Not really. 90% of his beasts were starving, and the other 10% were officers, who didn't ever get on the front lines.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Not really. 90% of his beasts were starving, and the other 10% were officers, who didn't ever get on the front lines.

Thats just because (for the starving part) they lived by the sea, a place were not much food grows. But, say, if they had taken over Redwall, were there was plenty of food...things would be alot different!

[HeadInAnotherGalaxy]

An' ov, pray tell, vould ze 'ave taken over Redwall?

[Ungatt Trunn]

An' ov, pray tell, vould ze 'ave taken over Redwall?

by force, that's how! They had like 20 times as many creatures as many creatures as Redwall had. Also, they were fighers, were, on the other hand, most of the Redwallers were peaceful creatures. They could take it over easy!

[HeadInAnotherGalaxy]

'az many a varlord az zaid...

[Ungatt Trunn]

'az many a varlord az zaid...

But Ungatt was more powerful than any other Warlord. He had like 5 times the creatures that Cluny had, and Cluny, I must say, had a pretty powerful hord, though it was nothing compaired to Ungatt's.

[The Shade]

Castle marl because if you can sink the enemys boats they get eaten by the pike.

Yep, I agree with ya

[Rusvul]

Erm, Ungatt, you're saying that if you took over Redwall, you'd be strong and well fed, but
1) How would you take over Redwall if you weren't well fed and strong?
2) An army is useless without food. One well-fed strong warrior is worth 20 weak, hungry, tired, dying ones. To quote Basil Stag Hare, "Army marches on it's stomach, wot!". Err, well, to quote lots of hares, actually.
3) Ungatt Trunn had more soldiers, but that didn't mean he was stronger. There was NO WAY he could EVER feed all of those warriors. Say, there are roughly three hundred Redwallers, and you said there are twenty times as many horde-members, so by your estimate, and mine, that'd be 6,000 soldiers, and the Redwallers, in times of peace, were struggling somewhat to feed the five hundred visiting long patrol hares, plus their own number. I'd say the maximum amount of beasts that the Redwallers could have fed would be 1,000, and that's without the hinderance of slavers. Name one set of circumstances where Ungatt could have everybeast in his army well fed. And be specific, back it up with verbal proof.

'az many a varlord az zaid...

But Ungatt was more powerful than any other Warlord. He had like 5 times the creatures that Cluny had, and Cluny, I must say, had a pretty powerful hord, though it was nothing compaired to Ungatt's.

You contradict yourself. Cluny had 500 beasts, as the book tells us, 5 times that, would be 2,500. Also, had Ungatt been able to feed all his troops and care for them well, he would have been much more powerful than anybeast else. But, again, that is virtually impossible.

[Leatho Shellhound]

Erm, Ungatt, you're saying that if you took over Redwall, you'd be strong and well fed, but
1) How would you take over Redwall if you weren't well fed and strong?
2) An army is useless without food. One well-fed strong warrior is worth 20 weak, hungry, tired, dying ones. To quote Basil Stag Hare, "Army marches on it's stomach, wot!". Err, well, to quote lots of hares, actually.
3) Ungatt Trunn had more soldiers, but that didn't mean he was stronger. There was NO WAY he could EVER feed all of those warriors. Say, there are roughly three hundred Redwallers, and you said there are twenty times as many horde-members, so by your estimate, and mine, that'd be 6,000 soldiers, and the Redwallers, in times of peace, were struggling somewhat to feed the five hundred visiting long patrol hares, plus their own number. I'd say the maximum amount of beasts that the Redwallers could have fed would be 1,000, and that's without the hinderance of slavers. Name one set of circumstances where Ungatt could have everybeast in his army well fed. And be specific, back it up with verbal proof.

They would eat the pike.

'az many a varlord az zaid...

But Ungatt was more powerful than any other Warlord. He had like 5 times the creatures that Cluny had, and Cluny, I must say, had a pretty powerful hord, though it was nothing compaired to Ungatt's.

You contradict yourself. Cluny had 500 beasts, as the book tells us, 5 times that, would be 2,500. Also, had Ungatt been able to feed all his troops and care for them well, he would have been much more powerful than anybeast else. But, again, that is virtually impossible.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Erm, Ungatt, you're saying that if you took over Redwall, you'd be strong and well fed, but
1) How would you take over Redwall if you weren't well fed and strong?
2) An army is useless without food. One well-fed strong warrior is worth 20 weak, hungry, tired, dying ones. To quote Basil Stag Hare, "Army marches on it's stomach, wot!". Err, well, to quote lots of hares, actually.
3) Ungatt Trunn had more soldiers, but that didn't mean he was stronger. There was NO WAY he could EVER feed all of those warriors. Say, there are roughly three hundred Redwallers, and you said there are twenty times as many horde-members, so by your estimate, and mine, that'd be 6,000 soldiers, and the Redwallers, in times of peace, were struggling somewhat to feed the five hundred visiting long patrol hares, plus their own number. I'd say the maximum amount of beasts that the Redwallers could have fed would be 1,000, and that's without the hinderance of slavers. Name one set of circumstances where Ungatt could have everybeast in his army well fed. And be specific, back it up with verbal proof.

They would eat the pike.

'az many a varlord az zaid...

But Ungatt was more powerful than any other Warlord. He had like 5 times the creatures that Cluny had, and Cluny, I must say, had a pretty powerful hord, though it was nothing compaired to Ungatt's.

You contradict yourself. Cluny had 500 beasts, as the book tells us, 5 times that, would be 2,500. Also, had Ungatt been able to feed all his troops and care for them well, he would have been much more powerful than anybeast else. But, again, that is virtually impossible.

How so? It said in Lord Brocktree that when he first arrived, he brought a lot of ships with a lot of vermin soldiers in then, and, if we had taken residence in a place that was plentiful in food, couldn't that make it possible?
And about the whole thing about his army being 5 times larger than Cluny's: I was just exaggerating a bit to make a point

[Rusvul]

My point is, there is nowhere with enough food to feed such a large army.

[Ungatt Trunn]

My point is, there is nowhere with enough food to feed such a large army.

If you could conquer a large distance of plentiful land, like Mossflower, and you had, say, a 1100 soldiers, it would be possible.

[Leatho Shellhound]

Like I said they would eat the pike!

[Rusvul]

If you could conquer a large distance of plentiful land, like Mossflower, and you had, say, a 1100 soldiers, it would be possible.

You said you had twenty times the amount of creatures as Redwall does, thus making 6,000, not 1,100. Also, how would you conquer such a large span of plentiful land if your beasts were starving? No doubt somebeast would be defending it. And don't say that they're "Just peaceful creatures, not fighters" We've seen all too well, many times over, how fierce peaceful creatures can be.