How many in Battle of 5 Armies?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

"Corslet" appears to refer to the type of clothing piece, its material may then be varied. Tolkien uses the word in "A Journey in the Dark" (FotR):

Bilbo had a corslet of mithril-rings that Thorin gave him.

That is definitely chain mail.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I have never argued the great impact of the archer in the 100 Year's War; however, in each of the England's greatest victories (Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt), it was lack of any coherent French strategy, and the congenitally moronic hubris of their knights (it must have been inherent, as it kept recurring) that caused their destruction. If they had not charged and merely waited on English supplies to run out, then King Phillip would not have run blindly alone through the night, King Jean would not have been captured and sent to London (rather the Black Prince may well have taken his turn in Paris), and Henry V's little army would have been starved into submission.

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

VI, VI, VI...It wasn't just hundreds of Elvish archers, it was hundreds of men under Bard's leadership, and it was more than 1000 Elvish spearmen (with and unspecified number of sword-carrying Elves as well). The Elves and men held both the high ground and the valley. There were only 500 Dwarves. They were walking into a trap...both Thranduil and Bard stated so in the text.

And where anywhere do you find the Elves were backed into a corner? Where does it say they were underarmed? The text states they were absolutely ferocious against the orcs, not to mention their arrows burned with a preternatural flame (my adjectives, please read the text yourself).

If anything, the Dwarves were being rather 14th century French, don't you think?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

Man-for-man, an elf and a dwarf would each have their own advantages and weaknesses, but I imagine these would balance out giving them a more or less equal chances of defeating their opponent.

The dwarf's lack of height and the elf's greater reach and agility would be counteracted by the dwarf's strength and hardiness. In the Battle of Five Armies, it is hard to say whether the dwarven army would have been superior, man-for-man. Granted, they probably had superior armor and better weapons for close combat, but elvish archers are notoriously effective - I think that this, as well as the elves' greater numbers, at the very least levels the playing field, if not actually tipping it in the favor of the elves. And then, of course, as Morthoron pointed out, the elves have a large force of swordsmen under Bard fighting alongside them. The dwarves would have been vastly, vastly outnumbered, even if the Laketown men were inferior warriors to the elves and dwarves (which seems likely).

It is debatable whether the dwarves would have been better warriors than the elves on a man-for-man basis (I find it unlikely), but give the enormous difference in size between the armies, I don't think it matters.

[Groin Redbeard]

These arguments are beginning to make no sense. First we say that the elf strength is around 2500 men with the majority being archers, but Morthoron says that there was more than 1000 spearmen plus a large number of swordsmen, both elf and man. It seems that the number of elves grow every few posts.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And where anywhere do you find the Elves were backed into a corner? Where does it say they were underarmed?

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

A lot of our arguments, including yours, Morthoron, are just speculations and educated guesses. How much supplies do you think that the men of Laketown could gather from their burnt and runed city, probably not much more than what they were wearing. The elves had to move fast in order to get to Erebor quickly, so they probably didn't take much supplies prefering to travel light and fast.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

It is debatable whether the dwarves would have been better warriors than the elves on a man-for-man basis (I find it unlikely), but give the enormous difference in size between the armies, I don't think it matters.

Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

These arguments are beginning to make no sense. First we say that the elf strength is around 2500 men with the majority being archers, but Morthoron says that there was more than 1000 spearmen plus a large number of swordsmen, both elf and man. It seems that the number of elves grow every few posts.

Read the book. They had at least 1000 spearmen (and enough reserves for a second full charge against the orcs), swordsmen and a large contingent of archers. This does not even account for the men under Bard.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

Again, read the book. That would be a start.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

A lot of our arguments, including yours, Morthoron, are just speculations and educated guesses. How much supplies do you think that the men of Laketown could gather from their burnt and runed city, probably not much more than what they were wearing. The elves had to move fast in order to get to Erebor quickly, so they probably didn't take much supplies prefering to travel light and fast.

Conjecture on your part. They were fully armed with spear, sword and bows. What makes you think the Dwarves spent much time supplying themselves?

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

I never agreed to anything. That is a figment of your imagination.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

I don't know about the elves having more archers than they did spearmen, as the distinguishing characteristic of this particular army seems to be the spearmen, but they certainly had a substantial number of archers.

I had thought that we decided that Dain brought less than 500 with him...I may have made that up?

Why the change of thought? Ohhh...willingness to change my mind when presented with a persuasive argument, I suppose.

I have to agree, Groin, that most of your arguments do seem to be driven by an intense anti-elf bias, rather than careful reason. That's ok, though, we all have our biases, admitted or not.

[Gwathagor]

Hey, hope you enjoy that vacation, Groin. Tell us about it when you get back.