[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

A valid point. And the fact that since Napoleon's campaign also failed has nothing to do with me conceding this point.

That he ultimately failed in the campaign in Russia (or Egypt) is irrelevant, I think. For thousands of miles, either by land or sea, the French had managed to keep the supply lines fairly open. It was only after Napoleon made the mistake of marching towards Moscow, rather than St. Petersburg (which could ended the war if it fell, as the Czar was there), that he stretched his lines too far. Regardless of his own failure with the situation, Napoleon had managed to keep supplies coming in until his fateful choice of attack. With Egypt, he failed to take in even more logistical problems (such as checking for bread ovens) before arriving. Why, despite being across a sea which the British controlled, the French managed to get some supplies past.

If Napoleon could do that, over a much greater distance for a much larger army, it is then feasible that the Witch-King could have done so with a smaller distance, and then properly maintained it, as he had no worries of the Gondorians encircling him effectively, as the Russians had done to Napoleon after he fled Moscow on the Death March.

Of course, you didn’t say the Witch-king would use the sea. He had no access to the sea, it would be irrelevant to the campaign. My point was that he couldn’t where as the crusaders had access to the sea and the First Crusade would probably have failed without it (see the arrival of the Genoese and English ships on 17 June 1099). The mere presence of the sea utterly changes the strategic situation and makes the siege of Minas Ithil and the siege of Jerusalem utterly different in nature (Now there’s a statement I never thought I would have to utter).

I still think you are ignoring what I am looking at (which actually may not have been entirely clear, for which I apologize). I am certainly not looking at the entire Crusade period, only a select few moments, which is all I need. The arrival of the Genoese/English ships does not concern my argument, because they were not present at Antioch (which is my main example for this). When the Crusaders arrived and laid siege to city, they were already low on food. Over the course of the siege, they ran out of food, and were forced to forage what they could in the countryside or were forced to eat dogs/horses/other pack animals. Also, the situation at Antioch (location, ect) is similar enough to Ithil to provide a decent comparison.

I do not see the orcs having much of a problem with this (and it might be preferred over their usual food). I also do not see them having a problem with eating the bodies of the dead if need be. And there would be plenty, either of their own side or of the Gondorians. Of course, Ithilien would provide a small amount of forage material in the early weeks and months of the campaign.

As far as I can tell, you don’t think Gondor did anything except hunker down for fear that the assault on Minas Ithil was some sort of bizarre two-year diversion. Perhaps you have some different definition of the words “utter inertia” in mind.

Hunkering down requires something more than being inert. But that is not the point. I'm not saying the entire siege was a diversion, but with the thought in their minds, they still had to plan for it early. As the siege wears on, and it becomes clear it is not a diversion, the planning then must shift to defending the relief forces that are trying to dislodge Mordor's forces. A small force coming out of the Morannon or elsewhere might very well be able to do that under certain circumstances, or if not, at least inflict enough confusion and casualties that the Gondorians need to withdraw some troops to cover their flanks and rear. Gondor does not have the potential numbers for conscription that Mordor and Rhun do.

No, but I think the strategic situation heavily favored them in a conventional military campaign at that time.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not think so highly as you do of the Gondorian "advantages". Most of their victories seem to be very lucky. With the later siege of Osgiliath, it is Boromir that maintains the defense. In his absence, the city fell much more easily than it might have. At Minas Tirith, it was the arrival of Theoden and the Rohirrim. Had they not come, or had arrived but an hour later, the Witch-King certainly could have taken the city.

It seems that without a superior warrior, such as Boromir, in their midst, Gondorian soldiers of the later Third Age don't seem to fair so well. While the same certainly goes for the Mordor armies, they did have the Wiki and the other Nazgul at Ithil.

The Gondorians that were there were not there to sightsee. They were soldiers on campaign. And why would anybody mention the Barrow-downs. Who would have been interested in it at the time?

Not necessarily the Gondorian soldiers. Several decades passed between Angmar and Ithil. I think that is quite the reasonable amount of time for word to spread around.

By that time they understood what had happened.

Yet, no mention of some unconventional method of taking the city.