How could the Nazgul take Minas Morgul?

[Kuruharan]

However long the Morgul lines of supply, Minas Ithil had no lines of supply at all: that was its problem.

But not in the sense of Gondor being able to launch a relief expedition. To me that is the issue at play here; why Gondor does not appear to have sent a considerable relief expedition at least on the scale of the armada they sent to the north. I’m not the least bit surprised that Minas Ithil would fall because it was cut off from supplies. It is a truism of warfare that a besieged stronghold will ultimately fall if not relieved.

The exercise is not to negate what he wrote, but to explain it, is it not?

That is what I am trying to do.

The problem was, I think, that the Dúnedain of Gondor were first unprepared for any attack at all, believing that having vanquished both the Wainriders and the Haradrim, they faced no risk of attack; and in the second place, they had no idea what tactical problems they faced in combating the Ringwraiths.

But they had two years to learn. This is plenty of time to assemble, equip, and dispatch a significant relief effort.

Eärnil lacked the insight and experience to deal with the Nazgûl

I don’t believe this description of him lines up with his description in the book.

· The Ringwraiths could move invisibly through the lines to spy upon their opponents.
· The Ringwraiths could move invisibly through the lines to attack or assassinate their opponents.
· The Ringwraiths could terrify their opponents. Tolkien says, in fact, that this was their primary advantage, and that they had not other particular physical advantages, aside from invisibility.
· The Ringwraiths possessed Morgul-knives, a weapon apparently well-known to the Northern Dúnedain, well enough that Aragorn knew about them and how to deal with them 1,000 years later. The effect of these weapons must have been frightening and demoralizing to the soldiers of Gondor.

I doubt they could assassinate while being invisible. I think they had to have a form to be able to do things like that.

As for the terror they generated, I don’t think that at this time it would have been as great as it became later. As I said in my above post, their master was still rebuilding his power. Also, it does not seem to have done much for the Angmarian forces at Fornost.

You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Gondorians gained successful experience fighting against Nazgul commanded forces at Fornost. Nothing breeds confidence like success.

In any case, I believe Tolkien indicates that the reason the complete victory of the allies over Angmar was because the Witch-king erred in coming out into the plain to meet their attack rather than waiting for them to approach Fornost, which he held: it seems that he might have been more successful had he waited for them there.

True, but the terror he inspired doesn’t seem to have done him much good. For some reason he did not choose to appear until it was too late. (As an aside, I’ve never been particularly impressed with the military ability of the Witch-king, but that is a topic I’ve discussed elsewhere.)

You are in error about the Persian victory at Thermopylae. Xerxes never broke the Greek blockade of the pass despite repeated frontal assaults. The Greeks were betrayed by Ephialtes of Trachis, who is remembered as one of the great traitors of history.

*groan* Oh please! A win, is a win. It doesn’t matter how it comes.

a well-trained, well-prepared, well-led group can often fend off repeated attacks from a much larger force because it is impossible for the larger force to bring its numbers to bear.

Have any Mordorian forces ever impressed you as being well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led? They are the ones who rely on numbers. It could possibly be argued that such tight fighting in the pass would work to Gondor’s advantage because they would have the better soldiers.

I think you are overlooking the outcome of any fortifications

You mean their aggravating propensity to fall to sustained pressure if not relieved? No, I have that outcome firmly in mind, along with the nagging issue of where did the volume of supplies for the allegedly substantial Mordorian forces come from.

I don’t understand your point. The initial attack was a surprise, and a two-year siege followed.

I don’t see how it could be clearer. If the initial attack was a surprise, the fact that there was a two year siege indicated that the initial attack was a failure. The two year siege would give Gondor ample time to assemble a relieving force if that was their inclination and I believe it was in their power and they would have done so if it was a conventional military challenge.

Tolkien’s explanation makes perfectly good sense to me.

Tolkien gave no real explanation, hence the lively discussion.

I’ve also had another thought. Earlier CaptainofDespair mentioned that the Witch-king would be in the mood for a violent and quick victory. His later behavior at Minas Tirith gives some indication of what he liked to do in war. Yet this is exactly the sort of thing that did not happen. It was a loooong drawn out process.

I think i have read somewhere that the Nazgul have some power to influence or take control of people.

I don’t recall reading that before. Maybe I missed something.

[Farael]

About the "invisible" Nazghul attacking and killing their foes... there was one little detail. While the Nazghul might be invisible, their swords are very much real. A walking sword is likely to be seen. Sure, they COULD carry along just a smaller weapon and kill one or two people... but how long until they are cornered and attacked (even if you can't see them, if enough people gather around a spot and hack away they are bound to hit some mark)

And it seems we forget that the Nazghul were very much "killable" (meaning, they can be killed). The seer said that the Witch King would not be killed by a man (but he was killed by a Woman and with a Hobbit drawing an "assist") but the other eight might have been killed. I'm not sure they'd dare to attack an army by themselves. Sure, they might kill ten people each... but eventually they will be found, cornered and ultimately killed.

With regards to the catapults, keep in mind that the Gondorian army could also fortify their positions... Dig a trench, put up a palisade... and THEN assemble the catapults. Even if the Nazghul have catapults themselves, they can get out of catapult range and then engineer stronger catapults. They have two years to do so. On the other hand, we have all agreed (I believe) that the Nazghul had limited resources, so how likely are they to be able to build new catapults and the like? or for that matter, how likely were they to have catapults at all? I think we are all discussing a siege that the Nazghul did not mean to break by force... So why bring along complicated machinery if you are going to sit and wait them out anyway?

Furthermore, about the bandits in Mordor not daring to disturb the plans of the Nazghul... I think it is a clear theme in Tolkien's work that the efforts of the bad guys were never concentrated, unless clear orders came from a higher-authority. And even then, there is a lot of dissension and discontent among the ranks. At this point in time, the only authority high enough to command ALL bandits would have been Sauron himself, who we all know was not back in Mordor and commanding the peoples there. Therefore it is possible (if not likely) that the supply caravans would have been waylaid by bandits that fought for no other than themselves, as we see they often do.

Finally, while Minas Ithil could not re-supply until the siege was lifted, the forces from Gondor COULD and MUCH more easily than the forces from Mordor (if they could re-supply at all, which I'm not conceding since I still think they couldn't). In my opinion, if Gondor had had a mind, they would have lifted the siege for they had the numbers, better supply routes, better fighting skills and they had some experience, for even in these times the peoples of Gondor were likely to live longer than 30 years, were they not? The defeat of Angmar, with a fraction of Gondor's forces, had not happened THAT long ago at all. Therefore the question is "why didn't they do it?" rather than "why couldn't they do it?".

So I still stand by my theory, even though your arguments are perhaps better expressed than mine. I blame it on English being a Second Language, or my science background rather than Literature

If Minas Ithil was besieged, without a large force (for we all agree that there was no large force in Mordor available at this time) and yet Gondor did not lift the siege it is because it was in some way "unconventional". To me, it'd be better explained by a haunting and guerrilla-type warfare (For example, like Faramir did before the War of the Ring) to discourage the garrison and small population at Minas Ithil than by a conventional "YOU (supplies and reinforcements) SHALL NOT PASS" siege.

[Břicho]

In the Two Towers, doesn't Faramir mention something about treachery having been Gondor's greatest foe in the long wars with the Enemy?

I think treachery could have very well helped yield up the Tower to the Nazgul--and all the more demoralizing if so.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I’ve also had another thought. Earlier CaptainofDespair mentioned that the Witch-king would be in the mood for a violent and quick victory. His later behavior at Minas Tirith gives some indication of what he liked to do in war. Yet this is exactly the sort of thing that did not happen. It was a loooong drawn out process.

But we must remember, at Minas Tirith the Wiki had essentially all of Sauron's power at his finger-tips. Since Sauron is still rebuilding out of Dol-Guldur (if my memory is correct), it makes sense that the Lord of the Nine would not have such powerful resources at his command. While he would love to just break the gate and kill everything inside as he had done at Fornost, he did not have the siege machinery capable of crushing such fortifications quickly, hence the siege.

I would also like to bring up a semi-new point against the idea of a haunting/guerilla campaign: that guerilla warfare does not win wars, or even sieges, by itself. We see this throughout history, from Napoleon in Iberia to Vietnam. Guerilla forces are guerillas because they do not have resources or manpower to deal with a larger threat. While they may control the countryside (as with Vietnam) through terror, it cannot be used to take cities (there are exceptions I suppose, but even then the besiegers are aided by more conventional means).

With Vietnam, Saigon did not fall until the US left, which allowed the conventional North Vietnamese army to march in unopposed. With Napoleon, his forces held numerous cities, while the Spanish and British pestered the French in the countryside, moving from hot spot to hot spot. Eventually, more conventional British and Spanish troops were deployed to reconquer Iberia. While the guerillas played a major role, they cannot lay siege without conventional assistance.

If the Nazgul and a small force were using guerilla warfare, at some point a larger conventional army would have to be used to actually take Minas Ithil.

And while I do not outright dismiss the potential for guerilla tactics to be used in some way in conjunction with conventional means, I do not think using it as the reasoning for Tolkien's use of 'siege' is correct.

When do we actually see the forces of the Enemy using such tactics in instances of warfare that are more than just skirmishing? And what types usually do this? The Haradrim would seem to be most in-line with this tactic, while Easterlings and Orcs seem to be more of the backbone infantry types of a traditional army. I cannot see the Nazgul being able to deploy these troops, especially in a desolate land such as Mordor, in such a fashion. It seems to go against the very way the Enemy fights in every other major confrontation.

[Kuruharan]

While the Nazghul might be invisible, their swords are very much real.

Hmmm…for some reason I seem to have some vague recollection of some reference that Nazgul had to have a visible form to affect the visible world i.e. they had to have a visible form to hold a sword. I might be mistaken in this recollection.

In the Two Towers, doesn't Faramir mention something about treachery having been Gondor's greatest foe in the long wars with the Enemy?

Hmmm…there definitely might be something to this, although we still have the two year siege to ponder.

Since Sauron is still rebuilding out of Dol-Guldur (if my memory is correct), it makes sense that the Lord of the Nine would not have such powerful resources at his command.

Which is exactly the reason why he couldn’t conduct a two-year long formal siege in the conventional sense.

I would also like to bring up a semi-new point against the idea of a haunting/guerilla campaign: that guerilla warfare does not win wars, or even sieges, by itself.

A good point. However, my theory always encapsulated a final attack by Mordorian forces that were significant enough to quickly overrun the weak garrison already crippled by two years of Nazgul inspired malaise and hit-and-run attacks by small forces. I find Břicho’s suggestion of treachery to be particularly appealing as a potential end game here.

When do we actually see the forces of the Enemy using such tactics in instances of warfare that are more than just skirmishing? And what types usually do this? The Haradrim would seem to be most in-line with this tactic, while Easterlings and Orcs seem to be more of the backbone infantry types of a traditional army. I cannot see the Nazgul being able to deploy these troops, especially in a desolate land such as Mordor, in such a fashion. It seems to go against the very way the Enemy fights in every other major confrontation.

I’m afraid I disagree with you on this, particularly on the use of orcs. They are in many places portrayed as raiders and I believe that this was the area of warfare in which orcs excelled. They are not such great stand-and-fight soldiers, by and large.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I’m afraid I disagree with you on this, particularly on the use of orcs. They are in many places portrayed as raiders and I believe that this was the area of warfare in which orcs excelled. They are not such great stand-and-fight soldiers, by and large.

I'm not quite saying they couldn't raid, and nor am I really saying that standard infantry types don't engage in raiding. However, orcs do not seem to be very good at guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare and raiding, while not mutually exclusive, are different in certain respects.

Raiding is very much a piece of guerilla warfare, but it is not the entire puzzle. This sort of activity can be engaged in by traditional armies, and actually is quite often. It serves as a method of procurring provisions and loot when both are low in supply. I agree orcs could excel at this particular piece of the puzzle. And while they are able to terrorize, they are not so good at carrying at the other aspects of a guerilla war.

Guerilla fighters are not entirely self-sufficient. They often resort to using a sympathetic populace to feed them when they are on the move. Orcs, in contrast to this, are brutal, and in-fight amongst each other even when united by a power like Sauron. This greatly reduces their effectiveness in garnering supplies from a partly willing populace. And with Mordor mostly desolate, I see it being very difficult for them to win over Easterlings or Haradrim. That sort of thing is left to the Nazgul.

The Nazgul, too, I do not see being very good at guerilla warfare. It is rather difficult for them, it would seem, to engage in it effectively with their...unique...physical properties. And this manner of warfare goes against the very tactics we see the Witch-King using time and again.

Based on the types of forces he might have at his disposal, and the way the Witch-King himself is portrayed, I find the proposition of a "Haunting" to be highly improbable. Maybe the action was part of a lesser form of intimidation, but his tactical mind does not seem to be set for a guerilla-type war. The most probable explanation of Tolkien's writings, to me, then seems to be what he wrote, that it was certainly a siege in the traditional use of the word.

[Farael]

I honestly do not see where you find that the Nazghul would not have been inclined towards using subtler tactics. I think that the Witch King was a very competent military leader and thus he would have used the best tactic according to the situation. If he did not have enough forces and supplies for a conventional siege, I'm sure he would have opted for something else.

If you are thinking about either the fall of Arnor or the Siege of Minas Tirith later on (which I'm sure we all agree WAS a conventional siege, until broken) in both cases the WK had superiority in numbers and he was fighting a disheartened, weakened foe. While the garrison in Minas Ithil was certainly weak and disheartened, Minas Tirith and Osgilliath were close enough that he knew he would have had to deal with them. Therefore, it's completely plausible that he chose an alternative method.

Furthermore, with regards to your comments on supplies for guerrilla warfare, they did not need to win the love of the Haradim or other evil men as long as they could scare them into doing what they wanted. And I'm sure both orc and Nazghul can be rather scary.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Farael

Furthermore, with regards to your comments on supplies for guerrilla warfare, they did not need to win the love of the Haradim or other evil men as long as they could scare them into doing what they wanted. And I'm sure both orc and Nazghul can be rather scary.

Unless I am mistaken, I thought there was an entry in regards to the orcs and Easterlings, and their hatred of one another.

As another thought on orcs, are they ever really effective when they don't have great numbers over their foes? In most cases, no. They are mainly a mass attack group, whether in raiding or standard combat. Their effectiveness in combat seems to be diminished when in smaller numbers.

And about Wiki's 'plausible' alternative: Cite sources of where the Witch-King, as a military commander, chooses subtler methods over his favored option of traditional combat. In most, if not all, of the Witch-King's mentioned confrontations that are military in manner, he favors overt over subtle action.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by CaptainofDespair

And about Wiki's 'plausible' alternative: Cite sources of where the Witch-King, as a military commander, chooses subtler methods over his favored option of traditional combat. In most, if not all, of the Witch-King's mentioned confrontations that are military in manner, he favors overt over subtle action.

As well, in all situations but this one, as far as I know, he has superiority in numbers, has he not? Cite sources of where the WK, as a military commander, chooses overt action over subtler methods when he does not have superiority in numbers (and when he is choosing the way of engagement... when Angmar is destroyed he was overpowered but he was put in a defensive position, reacting to the forces of Gondor and not choosing how and when to attack).

Also, Břicho is dead on with his mentioning of treachery... I'd say that that is a clear indication that at least at some point in time, subtler tactics were used.