[Måns]

The Battle of the fords of Isen seems intriguing, as does the Five Armies... Hmm.. Therefore, I take a different one, the raids into ithilien.

I will do this in a total lack of order as always since this is written in the order it comes into my head but I hope that you will forgive me for my unstructured writings and misplaced letters.

Anyway, what we do now is that there during the last say 50 years of the third age were frequent raids into the area of Ithilien from Gondor, then newly taken by the forces of Mordor. Let us begin on looking at the purpose of these raids. They seem to have come into being as some vain and desperate attempt at showing that they were still at war with the Enemy, like the Britihs did with Dieppe in 1942. Faramir himself sais that these raids and plunderings hve lost all thrir former glory which insinutates that they could have been used as much against the enemy as for the morale of the population in Gondor. Their anture was probably at the beginning quite casual, a company of emn under a stury commander crossed the river, slew some maraudign orcs and quickly withdrew. As the years went by they established firm foothold/s in Ithilien like Henneth annun, where they could hide great many men and stores so taht they could live there for many months, probably. 'tis my guess since they ahd fresh drinking water and large sotrage rooms but I am not very knowledgeable in the art of fortification so anyone with the right details, please share them with us! These hideouts were as you know protected by their secrecy and not strength in amrs, if resupply was neeeded, I would think that it oculd be A: Brought in by boat. B: The men carried as much as they could on the way there. C: Regular caravans from Osgiliath which I think is the least likely because of the obvious danger. Anyway, tehre seems to be have been a well developed system and very well oiled indeed since it worked so well. They were well prepared for forest warfare with their green clothes and bows which makes me think that there msut have been a large support behind this from the Steward, amybe worked out by Boromir who was eager to battle. Anyway, the assaults went on as described in the books whistling arrows and then a ferocious atack to sweep the opponents away in confusion, something that must have been relatively easy since they were not used to forests, in marching order and very surprised.

In this warfare we see that the need of a strong hadned commander is great at the operational level but that the missions required skilled underofficers and soldiers able to take an initiative on their own, if for example isolated which could happen easily. I need not emntion the strength of nerve required to spring a trap in the exactly right moment with the arrow already on the bow. One move too mcuh and it might all be in vain. To look at this at a strategical level we see the leadership fo the army of Gondor facing the fact that their resources were not the same as it used to be and restricting itself to waiting and small raids. This is a conscious change and can only have come about with the planning and strong will of a great commander, probably Boromir in this case. The same we see in the fortification of the plains, the Rammas where not built to achieve a decisive battle once and fro all but too wear down an enemy against an iron hard defence, stranger things have happened.

Personally I think this is a sound strategy since the general that risks a battle is insane. Where there any Great battles in the war of the Ring that was not some kind of a siege or an assault from the beginning? The Hornburg, the fields of Pelennorand even the last battle fo the amry fo the west, they weren't even beleaguering armies drawn of to force a battle, it was a good old siege and relief. Well, why a commander that risks a battle is insane I will now explain. Wehn you sit at home and look at a battle and see those bright arrows moving across your little pretty fold out map with bird perspective, you have a month to decide what to do, with all the beneift of hindsight and a map of it all. When it happened, the commander ahd a very restricted view, three minutes on him to decide and virually very little to do. If eh decided that something needed to be done, how would he get it done? messengers were killed, sound signals drowned in the noise, that is why many commanders were in the front line, not because they wanted to play heros. What today might seem like a fatal and stupid charge into a grossly superior army (for example, Marj Ayyoun) was then sheer logic andthe best and only right thing to do. Thus, battles are disorganized messy and out of control. It oculd reverse a war entirely or decide it, or none of it. Nothing is sure about the winne rtill it's over. We have been FOOLED, ladies and gentlemen, fooled by the Historians and generals during the 19th century! They wanted war to be seen as a rational political instrument to be used if necessary to acquire a world balance which they did through fxing it on persons and simplifying it, like a game of chess. The only difference is that they are totally out of control, those pieces, and they die in reality! Thus, the commander that risked a major battle was amd since it was out of his control, it could og anyway, depending on what men call chance.

Hmm, I have been rambling... it's too late now I guess, and I've run out of tea. Crotte! Now six hours of sleep and then vacation. yay! I wil come back tesday and fix this mess up.. or mess it up even more, then I will haev to tell you about Blücher at Katzbach, my friends! Sorry if the last part might seem a little bit out of topic, but I jsut want everybody to understand what war is really aobut, not sitting in your armchair with a conjac and meditationg over wheter Napoleon did this or that wrong.

Måns

[ July 10, 2003: Message edited by: Måns ]