Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rune
and you simply cannot just create a rule about when soldiers are most effective . . . soldiers can also get carried away and do foolish things because they believe in the cause.
|
Who’s making up a rule? I was stating that a soldier actually fighting for something will have a better chance of winning the battle. That is mainly why the dwarves fought to such great affect in the War between Dwarves and Orcs.
If that’s not clear to you then let me ask you this: who here amongst ya’ll would like to mess with an angry dwarf?
You bring up some interesting points,
Morthoron ; I now believe that the alliance of men and elves would outmatch the dwarf force.
The dwarf force must be much smaller than the alliance's, and Bard and Thranduil had the chance to seek out the best ground before the dwarves arrived. I'm not sure that the archers would do much harm, but reading back up on my history I see that the spears would be a much greater threat.
However, I'm not sure that you all fully comprehend the capabilities of a dwarf. From what I gather, you see the battle as: shoot dwarves and stab them if they get too close. A mere mindless rabble of tiny men, I think not!
I would also like to bring up the subject of pole arms such as the halberd. Now mostly dwarves consider any other weapon besides a sword, mace, or axe as sissy and cowardly weapons (especially range weapons), but I think that we can make an exception with the halberd. Therefore I think that both sides would have weapons to keep the enemy at bay, and making it a contest of range weapons.
Therefore I do think that the elves and men would win, but not big enough to call it a victory. Much like the battle of Azanulbizar.