As Clausewitz observed, “The War of a community--of whole Nations, and particularly of civilised Nations--always starts from a political condition, and is called forth by a political motive. It is, therefore, a political act. [...] If we reflect that War has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in its conduct.”
Aragorn’s political objective, of course, was to claim the throne of Gondor. It would have been a grievous error both politically and strategically for Aragorn to press on from Pelargir with the Shadow Army (assuming he even could). He would forge a reputation as the “King of the Dead” (RotK, V, 2) and frighten and alienate friendly forces (not to mention the subjects he aspired to rule) instead of cementing key political alliances at the Pelennor and beyond as he did.
Quote:
|
Militarily speaking there would be no difficulty. Holding the land would be the least of their problems, there would have been nobody left to challenge Aragorn's hold, which is the highest goal of a campaign of conquest.
|
If we’re talking about the tactical use of the Shadow Army in a vacuum free of political considerations, there are still problems: the enemy forces are not destroyed or captured, only scattered. But likewise, your own living allies are also scattered, and your moral authority in leading them severely damaged. You might be able to hold ground indefinitely as long as you control the Shadow Army, but what good does it do you? One might surmise that Sauron, aka “The Necromancer”, would have soon found some solution to this problem, and even if not, you have to release them sooner or later and deal with living friends and foes.