I can think of lots of battles where the smaller army is steamrolled. However, the battles that count the most tend to be won by the smaller army.
On the other hand I have a book with an interesting take on this. Have you ever read "Legend" by David Gemmel? You might like his take on war in some of his books. It isn't all about winning. His books focus more on how it is fought and the wars within the individual warriors. Educational as well.
On the other hand I have a book with an interesting take on this. Have you ever read "Legend" by David Gemmel? You might like his take on war in some of his books. It isn't all about winning. His books focus more on how it is fought and the wars within the individual warriors. Educational as well.
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM
1341 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:17:00 PM
951 Views
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge
- 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM
986 Views
It's an essential plot device
- 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM
982 Views
Yeah but...
- 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM
960 Views
I don't quite agree
- 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM
915 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that...
- 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM
846 Views
Fail. 
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1042 Views
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1042 Views
Hrmm...guess Miéville failed to follow the script then *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:48:29 PM
347 Views
and a lot of others. But there's a rumour somewhere that it's not the size that matters... *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:53:41 PM
344 Views
It's still a valid point, even if one author doesn't "follow the script." *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:34:48 AM
397 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM
1105 Views
That, and...
- 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM
951 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby!
- 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM
888 Views
That is not even fantasy...
- 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM
888 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM
375 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM
362 Views
Doubleplusungood.
- 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM
857 Views
Oops, sorry. Probably a thoughtcrime to put a space in. Rebellious waste of... pixels? Space? *NM*
- 25/09/2009 04:26:14 PM
390 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM
373 Views
All books should have a point, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point in reading them.
- 25/09/2009 04:32:43 PM
961 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four is unquestionably Science Fiction. *NM*
- 26/09/2009 04:12:47 AM
420 Views
No, it's not. ScyFy does not lay claim to anything and everything that takes place...
- 26/09/2009 07:05:59 AM
856 Views
It's a novel which heavily relies upon futuristic technology. How is it not Science Fiction? *NM*
- 28/09/2009 01:43:23 AM
367 Views
I read it years ago and I don't remember any futuristic technology except...
- 28/09/2009 04:16:21 AM
955 Views
I would say that if a story uses that sort of thing, it has a science fiction element.
- 28/09/2009 05:20:39 AM
741 Views
The smaller army doesn't always win
- 21/09/2009 02:47:07 AM
859 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win.
- 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM
914 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM*
- 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM
396 Views
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom!" "...wrong!" *NM*
- 21/09/2009 11:02:25 PM
334 Views