I did a recent reread of the series, and one thing I've been reflecting on is how poorly the Parshendi handle their war with the Alethi. They adopted a universal policy of static defence when they got to the plateau first and direct assault when they get there second, but there's no mention of them throwing out a forward defence to delay the Alethi in running fights where they whittle down the number of bridge crews over a series of plateaus or harassing or trying to cut off the Alethi on their way home if the Alethi get there first.

My understanding is that the Parshendi could jump bigger gaps than a light bridge could span, which gives the Parshendi an enormous advantage in mobility over the Alethi and gives them far more options in terms of travel. This could easily be used to cut off Alethi armies and bleed them in skirmishes as they retreat with a gemheart or to use blocking/delaying forces to minimise their casualties and maximize their chance of getting the gemheart free. This would make the tactics of Sadeas less viable and the tactics of Dalinar more viable, and it would also decrease overall casualties for the Parshendi. Attacking from all sides on the retreat would also maximise Alethi casualties.

It just doesn't make sense that the Parshendi would fight with such a static style of warfare, given their disadvantages and ability to quickly adapt to new Alethi tactics (such as Dalinar's pincer movement).

And, if they did want to fight a static battle for whatever reason, why not use stormshields or something similar to them to form a barrier at the edge of the plateau to protect against arrows and to make it harder for bridges to be laid and for a cavalry charge to happen afterwards (you'd need to send in heavy infantry ornament shardbearer to clear the obstacles first). Caltrops could also be used to break up a cavalry charge or delay pursuit while they withdraw to the next plateau.

Have I missed some explanation for the Parshendi fighting methods somewhere along the line?