[Rumil]

Hi all,

glad to see some debate has been stirred up!

Of the eagles, I agree that their attacks on the goblns climbing the mountainside would have been rather effective, as they simply grabbed the unfortunate snagas and dropped them from a great height! No soldiers like to encounter something they have no means of defence against and I'd imagine these attacks shattered the morale of this force. However, I'd agree that they were less likely to be effective against steady, spear or pike armed troops, but perhaps, like cavalry, would induce them to form a dense 'hedgehog' and inhibit their movement. The eagles are noted as being wary of the 'great bows of men' (perhaps Smaug should have followed their example!), so would also have been less keen on attacking formations of bowmen (or bow-orcs).

Wolves are, I feel, rather tricky to pin down. Ordinary wolves are far too sensible to go anywhere near a large number of people, and, as far as I know, will only attack vulnerable humans, such as children or exhausted travellers, and then very rarely. (Alaskan, Canadian and Russian BD-ers, we could do with your wolfly knowledge here!). However we're really dealing with 'Uber-wolves', the Wargs or 'Hounds of Sauron'. As has been said, their major ability was attacking isolated settlers and, probably, fleeing or disorganised troops. In a battle, they seem to have become distracted and often attacked their orcish allies in the heat of the moment. Wolves are said to be loyal to their pack-leader, perhaps the loss of this individual would cause them to turn tail? I don't think they would have had great effect on steady troops in a shieldwall, for example.

I'd agree with Numenorean that Beorn appears as quite exceptionally powerful in this battle. As he was said to be 'something of a sorceror', I wonder if he 'magically' enhanced the size and strength of his bear-form, as Gandalf and Galadriel seem to do at times? As it was he charged directly into the rear of Bolg's bodyguard, presumably catching them by surprise at a time when the rest of the goblin forces were already committed, losing their leader Bolg disheartened the whole army, a common enough occurrence amongst less professional troops.

Not to get deeply into the Faramir question(all in good time!), I'd agree with Gwaihir that in the medieval period (and other times), a leader was often expected to charge with his men. Even Alexander the Great felt this to be necessary. Many medieval armies were not sufficiently organised or disciplined for them to be controllable by couriers with messages from high command. Additionally, it was a matter of prestige for the commander to be seen as exceptionally valiant. More organised armies could be more effectively controlled by generals behind the line of battle, eg. the Romans and horse-and-musket period forces.

I'd agree with Mans about the difficulty of maneuvering medieval troops on the battlefield. In the main, they were simply pointed in the right direction and told to get on with it! As someone said, 'he who maneuvers in the face of the enemy is disordered'. I'd also agree on the paramount importance of morale at such battles, a good example being the successful relief of Vienna from the Turks by the Polish Hussars who were outnumbered at least 10 to 1, but were fighting an army which chained their gunners to artillery pieces to stop them running away!