Battles of the late Third Age

[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.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I tend to agree it's time to move on to another battle.

As for woodelves (silvan elves) being comparatively lightly armed, from UT:

The Silvan Elves were hardy and valliant, but ill-equipped with armour and weapons in comarison with the Eldar of the West; also they were independent, and not disposed to place themselves under the supreme command of Gil-Galad. Their losses were thus more grevious than they need have been, even in that terrible war. Malgalad and more than half his following perished in the great battle of the Dagorlad, being cut off from the main host and driven into the Dead marshes. Oropher was slain in the first assault upon Mordor, rushing forward at the head of his most doughty warriors before Gil-Galad had given the signal for the advance.

And I believe that woodelves were so severely decimated in the First Battle of Beleriand that they were largely bystanders in later Beleriand wars.

[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.

[Neurion]

Ohhh no, you're not getting away that easily.

I'll ignore your intended slight and try to state my case a little better

I should have perhaps said that the knight was the ultimate weapon on the medival battlefield, rather than saying the mounted knight.

Losing to the English at Agincourt was not the fault of the French knights, nor their training. To charge headlong through a muddy morass like that was simple foolishness on the part of the commanders.

Neither longbows nor crossbows could penetrate the best plate armor. Striking at a 45 degree angle, a bodkin-headed arrow or quarrel might dent or scratch armor plate, but hitting at any other angle the projectile would simply deflect.

Again, I say that the French knights did not yet have the advantage of full plate armor, as full plate only became availabe around 1450.

About the longbow tilting the balance of the hundred years war, I never said it was not an effective weapon, I merely said it was not invincible.

One contemporary record states that archers would be directed to release their arrows upward at a very high angle to try and disrupt a charge by knights. In this way, the falling arrows "might" just possibly peirce the armor plate in some instances, but in any case the primary intention was to kill the horses or cause them to become unmanageable through inflicted arrow wounds. Unhorsing them would, of course, make the knights slower, but no less deadly.

English longbowmen were primarily used to provide "suppresive fire" against the enemy, rather than attacking them straight on. Their primary function at Agincourt seems to have been to force the French kinghts to bunch up, making their charge less effective.

Also, according to John Keegan's "Face of Battle", the English archers were unable to stop the French knights in any case. What saved the English position was the stakes placed around their position.

Finally, simply stating that the heavily-armed and armored knights did not fare too well at Agincourt does not somehow prove that knights were ineffective, as you seem to be saying. In that instance the French knights lost mainly to the English knights, not to archers.

[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.

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps you and I should continue this discussion via PMs...