Active Users:454 Time:18/09/2025 02:34:24 AM
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge AgentOrange Send a noteboard - 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM
Though it depends on the era. Cannons made old style fortresses obsolete. Before that they were very hard to capture. This problem usually led to a king prefering to negotiate with local strongmen who held the castles. Resulting in feudalism.
It's not by chance that the strong central governments emerged after gunpowder weapons became mature. What I'm trying to say is that even in the real world it was very hard to capture castles. Siege weapons before gunpowder were ineffectual and usually it came down to starving your opponent.
OTOH fantasy does have it's offensive perks, like trolls or dragons. But you usually have something to negate them with.
Still, I can think of some rare examples of the bigger army winning.
Have you seen the original Heavy Metal movie? The evil horde of the green stone easily sacks a city.
You have the fight over the oil well in Road Warrior. Though it's sort of a tie.
I think Rand's Aiel had the number advantage on the Shaido in WoT.
The moredhel broke the defense of Armengar in A Darkness in Sethanon.
Reply to message
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins? - 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM 1366 Views
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge - 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM 1009 Views
It's an essential plot device - 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM 1010 Views
Yeah but... - 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM 985 Views
I don't quite agree - 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM 942 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that... - 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM 870 Views
Fail. - 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM 1072 Views
Agreed. - 21/09/2009 04:59:39 AM 955 Views
Well there are plenty of authors not in their right minds - 21/09/2009 05:49:22 PM 893 Views
True. - 21/09/2009 06:50:43 PM 964 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins? - 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM 1130 Views
That, and... - 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM 982 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby! - 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM 909 Views
That is not even fantasy... - 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM 912 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM 385 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM 376 Views
Doubleplusungood. - 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM 899 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM* - 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM 388 Views
Who knew? ¯\(°O)/¯ *NM* - 25/09/2009 02:07:19 AM 374 Views
I... don't know what those symbols mean. *NM* - 26/09/2009 07:04:13 AM 402 Views
Wheel of Time? - 20/09/2009 11:52:36 PM 902 Views
I have not found that to be always true - 21/09/2009 12:52:00 AM 864 Views
The smaller army doesn't always win - 21/09/2009 02:47:07 AM 885 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win. - 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM 944 Views
everybody loves an under dog *NM* - 21/09/2009 03:51:12 PM 391 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM* - 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM 407 Views
Exactly what I was going to say - 27/09/2009 02:55:02 PM 1082 Views

Reply to Message