Battles of the late Third Age

[Kuruharan]

I think you are on to something here. However, I might take it a step farther.

Rohan on the other had permanent settlements that required defending (Settlement of westfold, Meduseld and Helmsdeep etc).

I think that the Rohirrim were semi-nomadic to a degree. Yes, they had permanent settlements, but I kind of think of them as being a people who moved about some with their horse herds. I picture them as kind of in a similar vein to the cattle drives of the American West, if you'll grant me the loose comparison.

Now, admittedly, there is really no evidence of this except the lifestyle of their kin in Rhovanion back in the day, but I kind of enjoy the picture.

In Tolkien's world the heavy infantry non-par excellence was the Gondorian infantry.

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

As an example of a potential example of other heavy infantry, and I realize that I am probably going to raise some eyebrows here by bucking a long held fantasy assumption, but I don't think that just because Wood Elves lived in the woods meant that they did not have heavy infantry. I point to the large numbers of elven spearmen at the Battle of Five Armies. I think they were at least "heavyish."

And, well, then...*cough* (how to say this without seeming like a homer) what about the dwarves? However, they don't seem to have fought on the plains too much.

*EDIT* I forgot the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.

Then there were the heavily armored axe-men-orcs that Saruman used...

The fact that the Rohirrim was lacking both infantry and artillery and possessed only light cavalry goes to show how deficient the army was.

As it is presented in the books it could certainly be a bit problematic. However, if the Rohirrim would go all out for horse archers that would change the situation a bit.

(Full disclosure time here: I should say that I personally believe that a well armed horse archer was the most effective type of fighter prior to the advent of gunpowder.)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A few random observations, after a note that I hope that Rumil will eventually consider broadening the subjects to battles of the First and Second Ages(especially the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, which has some interesting parallels to problems the French and Russians had in 1914 vis-a-vis the German Empire).
-----------------------

My impression is that for JRRT the Rohirrim were the heavy cavalry of Middle-earth.
-----------------------

An interesting speculation is how skilled and numerous were the archers of the Rohirrim. In the chapter "The Uruk-hai":

A few of the riders appeared to be bowmen, skilled at shooting from a running horse.

(note a few )
-----------------------
Given that the Dunlendings were distant relatives, it seems remarkably foolish of the Rohirrim to alienate them.
------------------------
I especially like the suggestion above of "trading space for time", which would play into both the strengths of the Rohirrim and minimize a key weakness, the need of time to mass their forces. Plus, it would move the field of action into ones more advantageous, that is, open fields or strongholds, as opposed to a fairly open ford situation. (shades of Stalin insisting on defending the extreme western borders of Russia?)

[Rumil]

Hi all,

welcome to Saurreg, what a great post! As for the first one - Methinks he doth protest too much

I was going to post 'Eomer's Battle' tonight, but thought that such in-depth discussion deserved some continuation before proceeding, so Eomer will be on soon, hopefully! (You all know me far too well to believe that I am capable of committing to a specific day, month or, occasionally, year)

Saurreg raised some excellent points on the tactics and strategy that could have been more successful for the Rohirrim, I especially liked the desciption of the 'hammer and anvil' Macedonian system. Also the criticism of the deployment at the fords, the cavalry attack on pikemen and the scouting deficiency is entirely justified in my view.

On the 'heaviness' of the Rohirrim cavalry and infantry, I'd differ in interpretation, and of course with Tolkien's battles these are almost totally subjective opinions! For the uninitiated, some explanation is probably due. 'Light' troops are usually considered as those deploying in loose skirmish formations, wearing little armour and relying more on mobility than fighting power. 'Heavy' troops, conversely, are well armoured, deploy in dense formations and are expected to perform most of the hand to hand fighting in ancient battles. Obviously, there's a whole spectrum of in-betweens and much is dependent on the psychology and culture of the armies under consideration.

I'm quite tempted by the Rohirrim as light cavalry, but I think that I'm going to stick with my concept of them as akin to Norman or Frankish knights of the eleventh to twelfth centuries. Why so? Well first of all, their equipment appears similar; lance, sword, long chainmail coat and shield, with good horse. On horses, it should be remembered that the Normans' horses were considerably smaller than the great chargers of later medieval knights, and I'd be inclined to imagine the horses of Rohan to be similar 'general purpose' horses, if you like, rather than the purpose-bred warhorse. The psychology of the Rohirrim also appears to favour the dramatic initial charge rather than the 'harass them then charge them when they're disordered' sort of tactic one might expect from lighter cavalry. I would certainly agree that they did not deploy as densely as the ancient cataphracts, nor can I find any mention of them using horse-armour (though they did have stirrups). Conversely, the long ride to Minas Tirith would imply a lighter cavalry type, which may simply argue against the use of specialist warhorses as these were notoriously difficult to keep in good condition on a march, most medieval knights rode lesser horses then tranferred to the chargers only before battle. A small proportion of the cavalry also carried bows, which could be considerd unusual for a 'Frankish knight' type, but was common amongst, for example, Byzantine heavy cavalry.

On the infantry, I'm probably influenced by the Anglo Saxon fyrd. It seems that anybody who was anybody in Rohan would have ridden a horse, so these local militias were probably drawn from the 'peasantry'. Of course this doesn't mean that they couldn't fight stoutly when the time came, but would argue against them possessing good quality armour and being able to carry out the complex maneuvers of more professional soldiers. I'd see them as forming a defensive shieldwall, 'stiffened' perhaps with local leaders and dismounted cavalry on occasion. The shieldwall may not be an aggressive attacking formation but could perhaps have provided the 'anvil' to pin the opposition, allowing the cavalry to deliver the 'hammer blow' - shades of Sun-Tzu maybe? There also seem to have been some bowmen, who I would regard as light infantry skirmishers, supporting the main infantry line.

On the whole, the Rohirrim could be compared with 'settling-down' Goths. Their early leaders had Gothic-sounding names whereas by the time of the War of the Ring they have more Anglo-Saxon names. This was an intentional philological development by JRRT and I think it represents a change from a nomad to settled culture. Rohan is certainly horse country, wide open rolling grasslands, and only four settlements are named in the book. Therefore I see the Rohirrim as in transition, some aspects nomadic, some tied to the land, as Kuruharan pointed out.

I particularly liked Kuruharan's description of Wood-Elves as 'heavy-ish' and I think it illustrates a point that a well trained unit could be capable of switching battlefield tactics dependent on the situation. The elven spearmen would surely have operated as skirmishers in the forest, but could form up and act as shock troops in more open terrain if the situation demaded it. I'm tempted to think of Roman auxilia here! (btw, just to dangle some bait - LMI or LHI anyone?)

[Rumil]

Hi Tuor,

I see we cross posted a minute ago!

As for battles of the first and second ages - why don't you start a new thread? I think the 3rd age thread will turn out to be a monster, especially by the time we get to the Battle of Bywater! (I wonder how many years hence?).

Although I've read the Sil many times, I don't go back to it very often and am not as 'au fait' as I could be. If you take the lead I'm sure I'll follow on.

Meanwhile, I see we have the horse-archer reference in - I'd guess that its a difficult skill to learn so could maybe be confined to those Rohirrim brought up more in the nomad than settled tradition maybe? Of the eight (or so) eoreds that Theodred led over the Isen, one was comprised of horse archers, so that could indicate the relative proportions amongst the Rohirrim. I wonder if they were like the 'light company' of Napoleonic infantry - every batallion had some, but on special occasions they could be brigaded togther from a number of batallions where the general saw fit.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

Like what, exactly? It seems (at least to my mind) that the Gondorians were quite definitely oriented towards heavy infantry.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

(Full disclosure time here: I should say that I personally believe that a well armed horse archer was the most effective type of fighter prior to the advent of gunpowder.)

I would disagree with this statement, and instead posit that a fully armoured knight in plate was the most effective.

[Kuruharan]

Like what, exactly?

Like the things I listed immediately below my statement.

It seems (at least to my mind) that the Gondorians were quite definitely oriented towards heavy infantry.

And I tend to think the Gondorians were a more well-rounded force. I inquire regarding your source.

I would disagree with this statement, and instead posit that a fully armoured knight in plate was the most effective.

Ahh, well fortunately this is not a matter for which we have only theoretical speculation upon which to rely. We have a grand instance of this very confrontation in history.

The Mongols shot up the heavily armored knights of Europe just as effectively as they shot up everybody else. As a matter of fact, they made the Europeans look like a bunch of blundering buffoons and the medieval European military system as a whole look (to put it gently) "incapable."

Of course, those silly Mongols did that to most everybody. Darn those well-armed horse archers.

[Saurreg]

Ahh, well fortunately this is not a matter for which we have only theoretical speculation upon which to rely. We have a grand instance of this very confrontation in history.

During Alexander's campaign in Bactria and Sogdiana, he did encounter a Scynthian raiding party comprising of solely horse-archers and defeated them soundly through a combination of ruse and maneuver. It is interesting to note that the linchpin of his strategy was heavy infantry.

[Kuruharan]

I based my claim on the UT whereby in notes 7 and 16 of "The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields" Note 7 stated that the Númenóreans were large of stature and when they went to war, they (the infantry) were accustomed to be fully equiped in heavy armour and weapons.

That is a fairly good source for extrapolation. My source for believing the Gondorians were less specialized in their military is the high quality of the Knights of Dol Amroth.

In the first place we hardly knew what tactics they used and neither do we know if they were heavily armored (which also contributes to the dual shock effect). Where they able to withstand shock and did they deliver shock?

In the Battle of Five Armies the elven spearmen did both to some extent.

The story of the last Alliance mentioned that Oropher and his contingent were nearly annihilated when they attacked too soon without support from the rest of the army. If we are to speculate that the armies of both Thrandruil and his father were of similar organisation, then they might imply a poor ability to withstand shock.

I don't think that proves anything about their equipment. Attacking too soon and without support is a recipe for getting cut all to pieces no matter how heavily armed your troops.

However, I do have vague recollections of some mention being made that the Wood elves were "lighter" armed than other folk. Although who they were being compared to I can't remember. I also can't remember where the reference is, so maybe I just imagined it.

You might classify dwarves as heavy infantry if you must. But to say they were better than Gondorian heavy infantry is also guessing too much. I would say that given the constituent, height and reach of a standard Númenórean, Gondorian heavy infantry offers better flexibility on the battlefield.

The dwarves would also have been much stronger and much better armed. These would both have been true even in the days of the "height" of Nùmenórian power. (Note the clever pun, har har )

If the dwarves are not heavy infantry, then what are they?

I'm also not clear that the axe-men-orcs were disadvantaged in height, though they likely were in quality of armor.

During Alexander's campaign in Bactria and Sogdiana, he did encounter a Scynthian raiding party comprising of solely horse-archers and defeated them soundly through a combination of ruse and maneuver. It is interesting to note that the linchpin of his strategy was heavy infantry.

Yes, but wasn't he using his own horse archers by that point? However, you do point out something I forgot to mention. By some monumental oversight I left out the staggeringly important fact that I meant a stirruped well-armed horse archer.

Imagine me making an oversight like that.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

That is a fairly good source for extrapolation. My source for believing the Gondorians were less specialized in their military is the high quality of the Knights of Dol Amroth.

Within a well trained and lavishly equiped army, there are bound to be certain units that are more elite. The First, Second, tenth and fourteenth legion of the Imperial Roman Army, the Imperial Guards of the Grande Armee and the winged hussaria of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth armies are such examples. But that does not mean that the rest of the army are of low quality or less specialised.

In the Battle of Five Armies the elven spearmen did both to some extent.

I don't think that proves anything about their equipment. Attacking too soon and without support is a recipe for getting cut all to pieces no matter how heavily armed your troops.

However, I do have vague recollections of some mention being made that the Wood elves were "lighter" armed than other folk. Although who they were being compared to I can't remember. I also can't remember where the reference is, so maybe I just imagined it.

I will take your word on the deeds of the elven spearmen though I still reserve significant doubt.

When I think about the elves getting annihilated soon after attacking, I question their ability to deliver and withstand shock. Those two attributes above all seperate heavy infantry from light infantry. The fact that the elves were not even able to fight an ordered withdrawal from the battle gives doubt to their cohesiveness and staying power.

I would suspect that due to the lack of shock, the elves were unable to make an impression on the enemy front and dashed themselves to pieces. With poor cohesion and still numbed by the unsucessful attack, the elves soon found themselves overwhelmed and indeed overran by the shock delivered by the enemy.

You did not imagine that part about the lightly armored wood elves. I have read it somewhere before.

The dwarves would also have been much stronger and much better armed. These would both have been true even in the days of the "height" of Nùmenórian power. (Note the clever pun, har har )

If the dwarves are not heavy infantry, then what are they?

I'm also not clear that the axe-men-orcs were disadvantaged in height, though they likely were in quality of armor.

I never claimed that the dwarves had no heavy infantry. In my post I typed,

Originally Posted by Saurreg

You might classify dwarves as heavy infantry if you must.

I simply stated that if you, Kuruharan wished to state that dwarves had heavy infantry, then feel free to do so.

Flexibility is the key word I was looking into here. The dwarves might have been better armored, but the Gondorians with their reach and stride would make for more flexible soldiers, giving their commanders better options. For example if a quick violent dash is needed, the greater strides of the towering Dunedain would give them an advantage over dwarves. Similarly when there is a need to cross waters chest high to the Dunedain height, no bridges need to be put up if the rocks in the bed offer traction and the flow not to swift. Equally important is the climbing of siege ladders and such other equipment swiftly.

As for the the hybrid berserkers, I should think that their main advantage was their frenzied state of mind in battle. They can deliver shock, but how well can they withstand shock and also offer flexibility?

Yes, but wasn't he using his own horse archers by that point? However, you do point out something I forgot to mention. By some monumental oversight I left out the staggeringly important fact that I meant a stirruped well-armed horse archer.

Imagine me making an oversight like that.

No he did not. At that point of time he was pursuing the renegade Bessus and securing the north eastern frontier of his newly won empire. As such what cavalry he had were still macedonian and grecian in nature. There were javelin-throwing cavalry but no horse archers at all. The Perisian Epigoni was still in an embryonic stage.

[Saurreg]

Rumil, I think now's a good time for you to steer this thread onto a new discussion of you're still interested in doing so.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Ahh, well fortunately this is not a matter for which we have only theoretical speculation upon which to rely. We have a grand instance of this very confrontation in history.

The Mongols shot up the heavily armored knights of Europe just as effectively as they shot up everybody else. As a matter of fact, they made the Europeans look like a bunch of blundering buffoons and the medieval European military system as a whole look (to put it gently) "incapable."

Of course, those silly Mongols did that to most everybody. Darn those well-armed horse archers.

Ohhhhhhhhh, so you're a Mongol fan are you? Well,that explains a lot.

One crucial point I want to emphasize here is that full plate is invulnerable to arrows, whether loosed from horseback or not.

I disagree with the contention that the Mirkwood elves may have been heavy infantry on the basis that they were, I believe, primarily Silvan, and were therefore less likely to bear heavy armour and weapons than their technophile Noldor cousins.

[Kuruharan]

One crucial point I want to emphasize here is that full plate is invulnerable to arrows, whether loosed from horseback or not.

Sacre blu! It is?!! Then I must fly with all haste to my lord Constable d'Albret who is at this very moment arranging his troops at Agincourt!! I must most earnestly entreat his lordship to sound the onset!! He cannot possibly lose!!!

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Sacre blu! It is?!! Then I must fly with all haste to my lord Constable d'Albret who is at this very moment arranging his troops at Agincourt!! I must most earnestly entreat his lordship to sound the onset!! He cannot possibly lose!!!

Oh please. The French knights at Agincourt didn't have full plate, and besides that, the majority of their casualties were caused by suffocation in the mud, and the English dismounted knights and men-at-arms. The "invincible longbow" is a quaint English myth.

[Kuruharan]

The French knights at Agincourt didn't have full plate

The battle was fought in 1415. If full plate was not around by then, please enlighten my bottomless ignorance as to when it was in use.

However, be careful. Too many more years into the future and you get into the Gunpowder Age, and my statement was specific to the ages before that really began exploding on the scene (even though by this point it was already in some use).

the majority of their casualties were caused by suffocation in the mud, and the English dismounted knights and men-at-arms.

What difference does that make? Even ignoring the fact that I disagree with your statement that plate armor could not be penetrated, your contention is that the heavily armed knight was the most effective fighter in the whole era before the advent of gunpowder. This is one of many instances where the heavily armored knight just did not fare too well.

If you would like another instance, aside from Mongols, of the mailed chivalry of France (considered for some unfathomable reason to be the best, I think they just thought they were best) "not doing too well" look at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396.

The "invincible longbow" is a quaint English myth.

Well, something certainly tilted the battlefields of the Hundred Years War in their favor against most reasonable expectations to the contrary for a considerable period of time.

*Cough* anyway, back to warfare in the Third Age of Middle earth...

Saurman's followers seem to have been of a rather plodding sort or Saruman did not encourage them to take initiative themselves. It is probably some combination of both. The Isengarders could have caused much more havoc had they reordered themselves and pressed an attack rather than drawing off in the first battle.

[Rumil]

Aha that put a smile on my face!

Nice reference by Saurreg to descriptions of Nuemenorean heavy infantry tactics, though, of course they appear to have declined somewhat by the end of the third age.

On full plate armour, I think its not so applicable to Middle Earth, but anyway. As Kuruharan points out, plate armour of the 14th to early 15th centuries could be penetrated with comparative ease by arrows from experienced longbowmen. However, by the end of the 15th century, advances in metal working had led to the introduction of specially hardened 'blue-steel' armour, which was far more difficult to pierce with longbow arrows. This, however, was incredibly expensive stuff at the time and probably limited to only the richest knights. I believe that in one battle (name escapes me!) towards the end of the Hundred Years War, English longbowmen were comprehensively ridden over by Genoese mercenary knights equipped in this new high-tech gear.

Of course, soon enough the improved plate was being defeated by gunpowder weapons.

I don't think this sort (or maybe any sort?) of plate armour is relevant to the late Third Age period, though I seem to remember Elrond commenting on armour of ancient times, perhaps the Noldor had the trick of making it after hints and tips from Aule? Could explain some of their prowess in the First Age battles?

I don't particularly want to be drawn into any arguments about which troops or equipment were 'best' as these things generally depend on the circumstances. Perhaps Neurion's 'weapons and armour' thread would be more appropriate for this sort of thing?

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Rumil

I don't particularly want to be drawn into any arguments about which troops or equipment were 'best' as these things generally depend on the circumstances. Perhaps Neurion's 'weapons and armour' thread would be more appropriate for this sort of thing?

Oh crap. Sorry.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

As an example of a potential example of other heavy infantry, and I realize that I am probably going to raise some eyebrows here by bucking a long held fantasy assumption, but I don't think that just because Wood Elves lived in the woods meant that they did not have heavy infantry. I point to the large numbers of elven spearmen at the Battle of Five Armies. I think they were at least "heavyish."

And, well, then...*cough* (how to say this without seeming like a homer) what about the dwarves? However, they don't seem to have fought on the plains too much.

*EDIT* I forgot the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.

Then there were the heavily armored axe-men-orcs that Saruman used...

I based my claim on the UT whereby in notes 7 and 16 of "The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields" Note 7 stated that the Númenóreans were large of stature and when they went to war, they (the infantry) were accustomed to be fully equiped in heavy armour and weapons.

Note 16 introduced two open-field infantry arrays. The first was the Thangail which was a defensive formation used to recieve shock. The second was the Dirnath which was a wedged formation used to deliver shock over a short distance. To maneuver large bodies of men on the battlefield in the heat of battle is difficult but the fact that these people were able to implied very high training in cohesive fighting. The first formation was used to great effect in the Gladden Fields before the Númenóreans were overwhelmed by superior enemy numbers and the lack of support.

If we go by Rumil's definition in regards on the attire of heavy infantry as well as my earlier where I posted MG J.F.C Fuller's own definition of ancient heavy infantry, Gondor and its lost sister Kingdom of Arnor could thus be assumed to possess excellent heavy infantry.

Elves with long spears may be or may not be heavy infantry. In the first place we hardly knew what tactics they used and neither do we know if they were heavily armored (which also contributes to the dual shock effect). Where they able to withstand shock and did they deliver shock?

In ancient times when situations became desperate, anybody that could wield a weapon was pressed into service. Were simple craftsmen and farmers armered with hedgeforks, scythes and polearms considered heavy infantry? I do not think so.

The story of the last Alliance mentioned that Oropher and his contingent were nearly annihilated when they attacked too soon without support from the rest of the army. If we are to speculate that the armies of both Thrandruil and his father were of similar organisation, then they might imply a poor ability to withstand shock.

You might classify dwarves as heavy infantry if you must. But to say they were better than Gondorian heavy infantry is also guessing too much. I would say that given the constituent, height and reach of a standard Númenórean, Gondorian heavy infantry offers better flexibility on the battlefield. The same argument can also be applied to saruman's hybrid berserkers.