Hobbits as soldiers?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Actually, I believe Tolkien says it's a hobbit belief they
fought against the witchking, a view unsubstantiated
by any other race. So maybe this was an example
of hobbit "spin control" to put their occupation of the
shire in a stronger position.

[the phantom]

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

But they clearly made effective ranged troops, armed with short-bows or perhaps slingshots.

That's all fine and dandy if you are going to war against poorly armed and untrained morons, but "short-bows and slingshots" wouldn't cut it against a true military force.

Let's say General Pippin orders his hobbits, "Go over there and pelt that Gondorin army with short-bows and slingshots."

As soon as the arrows starting flying, King Aragorn would say, "Everyone fall back out of their range, get out your longbows, and kill those little hobbits."

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

So, when you pit long-range+high-damage versus short-range+low-damage, who wins every time?

I don't think I need to give you the answer to that. A group of men or elves with bows would absolutely destroy a group of hobbit archers.

Similarly at the Battle of Bywater, when organised by Merry and Pippin.

We must remember that the Battle of Bywater was not army versus army. If my memory serves me right, it was a collection of dimwitted, outnumbered men walking straight into a trap. The outcome could not have been anything other than a victory for the hobbits. Actually, it is rather disappointing that so many of them died in the victory. I think that shows their inferiority as fighters.

I mean, just imagine for one minute- what if the entire scenario of the Battle of Bywater was kept exactly the same, only instead of hobbits there were Noldorin soldiers fighting against Saruman's men. Heh- you want to talk about a slaughter. I doubt a single elf would get killed.

The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

. . . .

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

. . . .
The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

Well, hmmm. Do we know that short, small types cannot wield a long bow? And, often, victory goes not to the physique but to the technology. Is there a technology other than catering hobbits would shine at?

Originally Posted by Squatter

Sadly, it's also quite probable that any money saved on footwear would have to be sunk into rations, so I'm not sure how much of an advantage their barefoot predilections would be either. I suppose one could always feed them their boots.

Well, don't sniff at the possibility. I understand that there were polar expeditions which survived by stewing their boots.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

You're rather missing the point here. I said that they would be useful in combat roles that played to their strengths. Undoubtedly, an entire army of Hobbits would be no match for stronger and well armoured foes. But, as a battalion within a greater force (as they were at the Battle of Fornost) and properly placed on the field, their qualities would almost certainly make them useful. Detachments of shortbowmen and slingers were used to great effect in battles of the ancient world.

One should never underestimate Hobbits. They have great capacity to surprise. As Gandalf knew, and Sauron discovered too late ...

[mormegil]

I just thought of a useful yet comical situation for Hobbits. Forming an archer line you could have one hobbit in front of every man/elf forming a team of high and low shooters.

[the phantom]

You're rather missing the point here. I said that they would be useful in combat roles that played to their strengths.

And my counterpoint is that, even if used for their strengths, anything they could be deployed to do involving weapons could be done better by non-hobbits. I can't think of a military combat task that I would select a company of hobbits for over a company of men or elves.

Do we know that short, small types cannot wield a long bow?

You can only draw a bow back so far and still aim properly. You aren't really "wielding" a long bow if you have to stretch both of your arms as far as you can in opposite directions, because you wouldn't be able to control and aim the bow properly. I mean, the only way a hobbit could draw back one of those large five foot bows is if he sat down on his butt, placed his big hairy feet on the bow, and pulled the string back with both hands, and that is not terribly practical or efficient. Also, a powerful bow that is difficult to draw back for a man would be impossible for a hobbit to draw back.

I just thought of a useful yet comical situation for Hobbits. Forming an archer line you could have one hobbit in front of every man/elf forming a team of high and low shooters.

Yes, that would be comical. I would find it particularly amusing to watch all of the hobbits' arrows thud into the ground far short of where the mens' arrows fell.

[Farael]

I think some people are being too quick in choosing strenght over tactics. True, hobbits would not have been able to wield long-bows or big axes yet if used properly they could have been great scouts (they were almost just as silent as an elf and by the end of the third age there weren't many elves around) and if they could sneak up on the enemy they wouldn't need long bows.

Think about this scenario. The two armies meet and stand right out of long-bow range from each other. The opposing captains are meassuring their strenghts and weaknesses and then the "enemy" decides to attack. They approach and the expected rain of arrows falls on target. The soldiers raise their shields and all of a sudden a small group of hobbits which was hidden nearby starts shooting arrows at them. That would create quite a bit of mayhelm so that before they could react, the "good guys" could attack them.

Of course, the only problem is that it would be hard indeed to motivate Hobbits to go to war.... yet if possible they might be useful allies.

After all, many wars had been won over superior tactics than sheer strenght. If my little knowledge of history helps me Warning: here is when Farael makes a mistake and someone corrects him, invalidating his whole argument during the 100 year war, France had a much stronger heavy cavalry than England yet the English had lighter, more movile troops and the terrain was swampy and the heavily equiped frenchmen were outmanuvered by the English, who won the day.