The English used a close-knit formation, usually on the flanks and rear of their army. They were trained in formation-firing, and after years of such work they were able to fire over the heads of their own men and hit the enemy consistently, through the orders of a captain who directed them. The elves would not have been drilled like this for a major battle, and were not the mercenary fighters (i.e people who did it all their lives, not peasants) that the English companies were. The Last Alliance was nearly three thousand years before this battle and the significance of Mirkwood's contribution even then was of debatable nature.

However I take into account that they were immortal, so they would have had plenty of time to learn one sunny weekend... :D

I would just like to point out that at the time of Agincourt, life expectancy for folks was 35-40 years (good King Henry V died rather early himself), and for soldiers much less so. So, what your saying is that the average ill-fed, stunted, pock-marked and goiter-ridden English archer was better drilled and was a better marksman than an immortal elf? Just checking.

At formation- and mass-firing, yes, I'm offering that point of view. I also doubt elves grew massive shoulders like the men did, as elves seem too eternal to change in that way.

I suppose I dislike the Paolini-esque view that elves are superior in every way to the other two races. I might even subconciously try to find weaknesses in their culture, such as their apparent aimlessness and their inability to change. Elves (in very broad terms) do not seem like the kind of creature to change in a hurry, or to fully commit to any course of action, as Dwarves do.

Hmmm...early 15th century Englishmen with massive shoulders? They'd be lucky to be 5 1/2 feet tall (vitamin deficiencies and poor diet, you know). I'm not trying to demean English soldiery, but English success in the 100 Years' War had more to do with French foolhardiness (and in some cases, abject stupidity), than English ability. Had the French encircled Henry V's starving army and just waited, there would be nothing for Shakespeare to crow about.

It is not merely a Paolini view, it is a Tolkien view. Please refer to Legolas of Mirkwood as far as visual acuity, hearing, heartiness (sloughing off a blizzard), and I believe Tolkien referred to him as being strong as a hale, young tree.

Aha! I have found it: the reference to the dwarves wearing plate body armor. I found it in the Durin's Song, the one that Gimli sang in the mines of Khazadum. I've provided the entire verse where it is mentioned.

A corslet is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "a piece of defensive armour covering the body." In Ancient Greek armies, the 'hoplite', or heavy infantryman, wore a bell-shaped bronze corslet or 'cuirass', to protect his chest area. The corslet consisted of two plates connected on the sides via hinges and bronze pins. It was made up of a gorget, breast, back and tassets, full arms and gauntlets.

In the sixth verse it also mentions something like a mail shirt, but I just wanted to make the point that dwarves CAN wear plate armor.

But this was at the end of the Second Age. I don't know about you, but after three thousand years I'd be a little rusty in fighting like that again.

Here's a picture of the corslet armor. Greek Hoplite

.

Hate to burst your bubble, Groin, but if you do some more research (like Googling 'mail corslet') you will find countless references to mail or scale mail corslets (also pressed leather ones). Considering Beowulf was said to have a 'mail corslet', I would think that Tolkien was considering mail rather than plate (Anglo-Saxon point of reference as opposed to Greek, Roman or later medieval plate).

Davem --

I have seen those internet references regarding the incredible draw force of 14th-15th century longbows, and I won't debate them (although there are other 'internet experts' who disagree with the references you pointed out), but then again, that doesn't in any way discount the draw or pull of Elvish bows and their accuracy (given their physical gifts superior to Men as Tolkien pointed out). I have never argued the great impact of the archer in the 100 Year's War; however, in each of the England's greatest victories (Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt), it was lack of any coherent French strategy, and the congenitally moronic hubris of their knights (it must have been inherent, as it kept recurring) that caused their destruction. If they had not charged and merely waited on English supplies to run out, then King Phillip would not have run blindly alone through the night, King Jean would not have been captured and sent to London (rather the Black Prince may well have taken his turn in Paris), and Henry V's little army would have been starved into submission.

English fortunes declined readily enough when Charles V, in tandem with Du Guesclin, refused direct battle and took to scorched earth tactics. But then, Charles V was a tactician and not a preux chevalier like his father (who, of course, died in London for his inability to control his forces).

Then why did the song not say mail shirt instead of corslet. You're are making your argument on an assumption not fact. There is no proof that he is refering to mail shirts or plate body. Wouldn't it then be logical that since he didn't refer to either armor specifically that perhaps he was refering to both?:)

The line previous to 'corslet' refers to 'metal wrought like fishes' mail', which, not surprisingly is referring to the scale mail evident in corslets worn in Europe during the Dark Ages. This would include the Franks, Danes and the Anglo-Saxons. The corslet reference in no way implies plate.

"Corslet" appears to refer to the type of clothing piece, its material may then be varied. Tolkien uses the word in "A Journey in the Dark" (FotR): That is definitely chain mail.

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

VI, VI, VI...It wasn't just hundreds of Elvish archers, it was hundreds of men under Bard's leadership, and it was more than 1000 Elvish spearmen (with and unspecified number of sword-carrying Elves as well). The Elves and men held both the high ground and the valley. There were only 500 Dwarves. They were walking into a trap...both Thranduil and Bard stated so in the text.

And where anywhere do you find the Elves were backed into a corner? Where does it say they were underarmed? The text states they were absolutely ferocious against the orcs, not to mention their arrows burned with a preternatural flame (my adjectives, please read the text yourself).

If anything, the Dwarves were being rather 14th century French, don't you think?

Man-for-man, an elf and a dwarf would each have their own advantages and weaknesses, but I imagine these would balance out giving them a more or less equal chances of defeating their opponent.

The dwarf's lack of height and the elf's greater reach and agility would be counteracted by the dwarf's strength and hardiness. In the Battle of Five Armies, it is hard to say whether the dwarven army would have been superior, man-for-man. Granted, they probably had superior armor and better weapons for close combat, but elvish archers are notoriously effective - I think that this, as well as the elves' greater numbers, at the very least levels the playing field, if not actually tipping it in the favor of the elves. And then, of course, as Morthoron pointed out, the elves have a large force of swordsmen under Bard fighting alongside them. The dwarves would have been vastly, vastly outnumbered, even if the Laketown men were inferior warriors to the elves and dwarves (which seems likely).

It is debatable whether the dwarves would have been better warriors than the elves on a man-for-man basis (I find it unlikely), but give the enormous difference in size between the armies, I don't think it matters.

These arguments are beginning to make no sense. First we say that the elf strength is around 2500 men with the majority being archers, but Morthoron says that there was more than 1000 spearmen plus a large number of swordsmen, both elf and man. It seems that the number of elves grow every few posts.;)

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

A lot of our arguments, including yours, Morthoron, are just speculations and educated guesses. How much supplies do you think that the men of Laketown could gather from their burnt and runed city, probably not much more than what they were wearing. The elves had to move fast in order to get to Erebor quickly, so they probably didn't take much supplies prefering to travel light and fast.

Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

Read the book. They had at least 1000 spearmen (and enough reserves for a second full charge against the orcs), swordsmen and a large contingent of archers. This does not even account for the men under Bard.

Again, read the book. That would be a start.

Conjecture on your part. They were fully armed with spear, sword and bows. What makes you think the Dwarves spent much time supplying themselves?


I never agreed to anything. That is a figment of your imagination.

I said: almost all of us! You keep telling me to read the book, how about you reading my post [correctly]!

This is what I was talking about, Morthoron! It's post 19.

I didn't say that the dwarves had more time and the elves didn't! I don't think either side had much time to gather supplies, only what they might need for an immediate battle. If if consisted of a siege the elves, and perhaps dwarves, would not be capable of lasting long.




I'm done with this discussion for a while so here is my analysis:

The dwarves attack the elves and hand to hand melee ensues shortly with the dwarves losing around a fifth of their overall strength to the elven arrows. The elves and men hold their own for awhile, but soon the dwarves push them back. Around 150-300 dwarves make it into the mountain and a long futile siege begins.

Have fun with it!:D

Groin, I am asking you to read the book because everything you have presented in this thread (save your one post regarding corslets) is based on your conjecture (with a highly anti-elf bias I might add). For me personally, it seems like you haven't read the passages regarding the battle for a while, and are content with relying on stereotypical characterizations from fantasy roleplaying. If I am wrong I apologize in advance.



Fascinating...sort of a fantasy within a fantasy.

I don't know about the elves having more archers than they did spearmen, as the distinguishing characteristic of this particular army seems to be the spearmen, but they certainly had a substantial number of archers.

I had thought that we decided that Dain brought less than 500 with him...I may have made that up?

Why the change of thought? Ohhh...willingness to change my mind when presented with a persuasive argument, I suppose.

I have to agree, Groin, that most of your arguments do seem to be driven by an intense anti-elf bias, rather than careful reason. That's ok, though, we all have our biases, admitted or not.
:cool:

Hey, hope you enjoy that vacation, Groin. Tell us about it when you get back.