Generals and armies

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Farael's point is well made in a sense. It sure is true, that old texts refer only to the leaders of armies, not so often to the number of soldiers coming behind them. Think of Shakespeare (Earl of Leicester came to the battlefield: meaning he and his men) or icelandic sagas (Njall went to Thingvellir: meaning he and his people).

But I think it's another matter to talk about Tolkien's usage of language. Although Tolkien was pretty serious with his characters, middle-earth languages, people etc. being so old-storylike than he was, his prose is quite modern. Or to be more exact, modern and romantic at the same time. He did not write like the venerable Bede or Snorri Sturluson, but as a twentieth century author.

I think you are right *admits partial defeat* it might have not been Tolkien's style, even if it would have been "historically correct"

With respect to Raynor's comment I still think that two hundred men (under the mentioned captain's command) would not alter greatly the odds and yet make a little more sense. But as Nogrod said, I am not taking Tolkien's style into account.