Scale

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

How large are the characters in respect to each other, humans (if there), and the environment?

[Tam and Martin]

I like to imagine them our size but that's just me. If they were compared to us, I would make them rounded about the same size. Like I would make the mouse a bit bigger and the ,say, badger a bit smaller. As for the enviroment scale, I would say they are about our size and height compared to the trees and bushes.

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

I've always thought our size compared to trees and bushes, but the badgers are the biggest. 

[phoenixfoden]

I've always thought our size compared to trees and bushes, but the badgers are the biggest. 

you calling me fat! 
ive always seen foxes to be half the size of a human
cats and mice as big as house cats
Otters taller and slimmer than mice
badgers as big as a large human

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

Hey, I'm a badger too!

[phoenixfoden]

Yay! Badgers are probly my favorite animals

[Buzz_Bumble]

I always just thought they were real animal sizes, although that of course means a mouse or shrew would look small next to a hare or badger ... one of the problems when using a mixture of animals in a story.

The building like the Abbey would then of course also be scaled down to the animal sizes rather than human sizes.

[Sailears]

Disregarding Redwall and the scale of the Abbey, I would say for each species an average (mean, so not reflecting moles like Axtel or tiny squirrels, etc) height in a human context in my mind would be:

Mouse - 5ft
Squirrel - <6ft
Mole - <5ft
Hedgehog - 5ft
Otter - >6ft
Shrew - <4ft
Hare - >6ft
Badger - 10ft

Now take all that and scale it down to the height of a normal squirrel (so trees are much larger for example).

Edit: I should say, they must be scaled down, otherwise how would something like Brockhall be possible.

Edit 2: Also the landscape scales aren't consistent anyway.
If I wasn't typing this from a phone, I'd normalise all those heights above, and have them without any units; so mouse could be 1, squirrel 1.2, mole 0.9, hare 1.4, badger 2.0, and so on.

[Romsca]

Mouse - 5ft
Squirrel - <6ft
Mole - <5ft
Hedgehog - 5ft
Otter - >6ft
Shrew - <4ft
Hare - >6ft
Badger - 10ft

And what about for the vermin?

[Sailears]

Typing in phone => pain to format large posts, hence left out vermin. But for reference:

Rat ~1.1 (5-6ft)
Fox ~1.4 (>6ft)
Weasel ~1.3

These are all of the top of my head and completely arbitrary. I'm not even being accurate with the numbers - all just ballpark figures, for reference.

[Maudie]

I think squirrels and mice and moles would be around 5'5" to 5' 10", hares 6', and badgers 7', with shrews about 5'.

Rats about the same as mice. Weasels, ferrets, stoats, ermine, and sables equal to hares, and wolverines equal to badgers.

[rachel25]

I imagine badgers as really tall like 7 or 8 ft otters a little shorter than an average badger which is about 6 hedgehogs and moles about the same height which is about 5 and mice and squirrels as 4 or 5 shrews as 3 or a tall shrew as 4 or something like that     

[MeadowR]

It's tricky. I imagine that the trees and such grow as they do normally. The characters I kind of think are meant to be the 'natural' sizes that they would be put against each other, and yet it does suit them to be a little more close in size: I just can't picture a large badger lord being able to efficiently run a long with a piddly 'warrior' mouse - it's just too much! If you do put them against natural tree sizes and such, then perhaps they are all meant to be taller. I can't see them as being as tall as humans, not much over five foot, if even that close. I'm really not too sure on this question!

It's very cute to imagine the scale of Redwall Abbey if the animals were of natural size.

[rachel25]

It's very cute to imagine the scale of Redwall Abbey if the animals were of natural size.

awwwwwww that would be sooooooooooo cute 

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

Stoats.... are... SMALLER... than rabbits/hares?
  Stoat is killing a rabbit.