[Kuruharan]

I think there are a number of arguments from the text, geography, and the strategic situation that the estimates for the numbers of Easterlings, Bardings and dwarves need to be increased.

First the text as it regards the Easterlings: the way it is phrased it says "a host of the allies of Sauron." We don't know exactly what the nature of the relationship between Sauron and those who worshiped him in the east was, but the way it is phrased gives the distinct impression that this host that assailed the north was not directly Sauron's in the same sense that his orcs were. Make of that what you will, but to me it seems that gives us more liberty to move the estimate of the Easterlings upwards. Then there is the fact that the Battle of Dale lasted for three days. Regardless of the situation regarding Dale (more on that below) three day battles are not fought by 4,000 soldier armies against 6,000 soldier armies, just the duration of the conflict alone argues that there were substantial forces arrayed on both sides that had to be chewed through.

It’s clear from the text that the war in the north proceeded through a couple of stages, although what those stages looked like are open to possible interpretation. Initially, in spite of his earlier wavering, Brand bravely sallied forth and contested the Easterling march across his lands and was repulsed. What Brand's intentions with this were are open to two interpretations. Brand could have intended merely a fighting retreat to cover the evacuation of his people from the plains or he could have intended to hurl his enemies back across the river. The word used to describe his return to Dale is "driven." I personally think the implication of the word "driven" means he intended to drive the Easterlings back across the river and that a battle was fought in the plains, a conflict that probably entailed potentially severe losses for the Bardings and at least some losses for the Easterlings as well. I think this conflict drives up the probable number of combatants on both sides upwards (if for no other reason than for there to be enough of them left on both sides to gleefully be hacking each other's heads off several days later).

The vagueness of the text continues to be frustrating regarding the Battle of Dale itself (blast Tolkien's non-obsession with the dwarves and their doings). The particularly pesky problem is the town of Dale itself. Was an attempt made to defend it or not? This question cannot be answered with any degree of certainty but I think part of the reason why the Battle of Dale lasted for three days is that initially the Bardings and dwarves did attempt to defend Dale and that Dale was either stormed and sacked or was conceded in face of superior opposition. One may take their pick on which of those happened as there truly is no way of knowing, however if one adopts the thesis that Dale was stormed outright and sacked one is by necessity forced to accept that the number of Easterlings involved in the attack must spiral upward to encompass a vast enough host to take a fortified place quickly in the face of what must have been very determined and stubborn opposition and be willing to accept (and even shrug off) the staggering losses they probably took in doing so...and then be able to besiege the mountain afterwards. The besieging the mountain afterwards is key. You can't besiege a mountain with only 6,000 soldiers...it just can't be done. The besieged would (and in this case undoubtedly did) have all sorts of ways of harrying you and harassing you in the rear and attacking you from all different points. The Easterlings must have had the numbers to be able to sustain themselves through this sort of harassment and maintain some sort of blockade around the mountain.

Personally, and based upon no real evidence except my own thoughts on the situation, I think King Brand and King Dain did concede Dale to the enemy in the face of the hopelessness of holding it. The thought progression that I believe they had went something like this. Initially after the decision was made to resist King Brand was not accurately informed as to the size of the enemy confronting him and believed there was some hope in marching out to hurl them back. Obviously this did not go well and he was driven back into Dale. I think the Easterlings probably followed hard upon his heels not giving him much time to evacuate his city. I believe that some kind of stand was made in Dale, not for the purposes of holding the town long term, but to give time for the town to be evacuated and its people transferred into the mountain. Probably part of this action was a lot of carnage surrounding defending the people of Dale as they made their passage from Easterling marauders who bypassed the town to try to get at them. Once the city was evacuated, Dale became more a liability than an asset and was abandoned and a fighting retreat to the mountain by the defenders began. This was the time of the heaviest fighting of the battle as the defenders tried to win to the Gate and the Easterlings tried to stop them. The defenders made it, alas without their two kings. Dain strikes me as the sort who would live and die by the notion of being first in the attack and last in the retreat and given the certainly venerable (and probably more than a little awe-inspiring) nature of the example next to him Brand could hardly do otherwise himself (even if he was inclined to do otherwise and I rather doubt it). I think Dain and Brand were in the rearguard of their armies as they were heading into the mountain and were probably in the very last rank as their troops passed through the door. It was there that Brand fell. Who knows what might have passed through Dain's mind at the time, whether he despaired of ultimate victory and thought that was the time for him to go so he didn't have to live to see his people fall, if he was killed defending the body of King Brand as others were trying to drag it inside and he had no intention of getting himself killed, if he wanted revenge and had no further thoughts in his mind than his wrath or if he simply succumbed to battle-madness. It would be a shame if Dain did give in to despair at the end, but the way the text is phrased it gives the implication of one who no longer has any expectation or desire of living and Dain doesn't seem like one to just simply be overcome by battle-madness.

So...where does this leave us on the question of numbers? I think the strategic as well as geographic considerations necessitate an Easterling force of at least 20,000 and probably more, perhaps including a very high proportion of horsemen. I think King Brand's full force (which he may never have had with him at any one time during the campaign) was probably less than but nearing 10,000ish, remembering that Brand ruled wide lands beyond just Dale itself. I think Dain commanded something on the order of 5,000-6,000, which may seem very high to some, but there are reasons. The text describes the dwarves as having become "strong" again in their new capital. The dwarves had always been the core of the power in that little region and that argues some degree of numbers in itself. True, many dwarves had been lost in the expedition to Moria but there doesn't seem to be any indication that Erebor was cripplingly depopulated as a result although it was diminished.