Sidious, Fionwe and I are having a debate in the tail end of an obscure thread further down the board, about the disruption of gateways into a battle zone. I thought I'd give the topic its own thread and bring in more opinions in this regard.

Firstly, here is RJ's quote on which the entire discussion is based.

Week 14 Question: Military strategy in the War of Power must have been odd, indeed. How do the concepts of capturing and holding territory even make sense in a world where forces can Travel?

Robert Jordan Answers: Good question, though not all of the forces involved could use gateways. (Rafo! Rafo!) Think of the ability to Travel in terms of moving troops via aircraft, and you will begin to get the picture. Even with the largest possible circles, there are limits to the size of gateways and thus limits to the front along which you can move troops out through it, the numbers you can commit simultaneously. Of course, you can use multiple gateways, but each is still only so large and can admit only so many soldiers at a time.

So-called front lines were very fluid, but you couldn't fling your forces in anywhere without regard to what would be surrounding them or how you were going to re-supply, reinforce or withdraw them. Although no one has shown it so far in the books, there are ways to interfere with the making of a gateway - and ways to defend against interference - so the battle would take place on many levels. Yes, any area you hold can be attacked by your enemy, and you can attack any area that he holds. (Part of the result was great destruction and a great fall-off in the ability to produce high tech items. By the time the Bore was sealed, soldiers were already much, much more likely to ride horses and carry swords than to ride armored vehicles or aircraft and carry shocklances, which had all become very rare.) But holding an area is not impossible so long as you can successfully disrupt your opponent's attempts to make gateways into it. Even if he manages to get those first soldiers in, if you can disrupt his ability to reinforce, re-supply or withdraw, it becomes another Dien Bien Phu for him. Of course, if you fail, then it becomes Gettysburg or Waterloo, a bloody fight that will be decisive for somebody. At least until the next "decisive" battle is fought. Remember, that designation is always given after the fact, by historians."


Now, the opposing arguments in the debate revolve around the manner in which one can interfere with the creation of gateways into a battle zone.

My view is that in order to secure your base or city - say Tar Valon in this case - from enemy Travellers, the defensive weave MUST somehow involve creating a ward that prevents enemies from making gateways into the secured area.

The opposing side of the debate (Sidious's view) is that such a ward is impossible, and that instead one would have to wait for a specific gateway to be woven, before the defending channeler can target that gateway and try to interrupt it individually.

The battle is then between the defending and attacking channelers, as they try to overcome the interference of the other relating to that particular gateway ONLY. The idea is that if the defending channeler then wins, the gateway is prevented from forming, whereas a victory for the attacker would see the gateway forming succesfully.

I disagree with this view, because it seems highly unlikely that a defending channeler will be able to move fast enough to target individual enemy gateways from forming in obscure areas within his perimeter - like the basement of the Tower, for example, or in some novice quarter or whatever.

Also, we have seen that it takes only a few moments to weave a gateway, whereas RJ's suggestion is that the attempt to interfere with the creation of the gateway, and the resulting counters to that interference, is a lengthy process. What stops the attacker from simply abandoning his attempt to create a gateway once he is discovered, and just opening another one half a mile away?

While the attacker has the luxury of launching all his gateways from the same spot, the defender would have to chase all over the defended area to try and block individual gateways.

I think it is more plausible that some kind of ward can be woven around a defended area, which creates a barrier that prevents gateways from accessing it. Attacking channelers can then still try to attack and penetrate this "interference", but the defender can then try to repel these attacks.

The emphasis is on the fact that this ward or defensive weave, must be able to block ALL gateways targeted at a specific AREA, rather than the channeler having to identify, target and attempt to disrupt each individual gateway that is opening within the perimeter of his camp.

So, what say you all? Which seems to be the more likely answer?