The Way We War

[davem]

Crossbows were very much second-best against the Longbow in terms of range & speed of shooting (hence the use of pavises by crossbowmen - & their vulnerability without them (as with the Genoese at Crecy)). No medieval army would employ crossbowmen if they had trained Longbowmen. Of course, the English dominance in the medieval period depended on the use of the longbow in conjunction with men at arms on foot (again, Crecy dealt the death-blow to the mounted cavalry charge

The battle of Crećy where a 16-year-old Edward the Black Prince would earn his spurs, was no chivalric battlefield. By 1346 the English had lost interest in chivalry as a military occupation. The English were massively out numbered, and the French had assumed that the knights on both sides would battle it out on horseback, and that the smaller English force would be overwhelmed, ransomed and go home ruined. But the English were playing by a new rulebook, when they arrived at the battlefield most of the knights dismounted ready to fight on foot. They were relying on the support of their non-noble longbow men. The English Longbow was not a noble weapon, and not wielded by rich young nobles, in the right hands it was to prove to be a weapon of mass destruction; The French and their allies charged with full pageantry in the first five minutes the English loosed more than 3,000 arrows, the flower of French and Genoese chivalry was cut down by archers on sixpence a day. The French Knights mercilessly rode down the survivors of their own ineffective crossbowmen soon after their Genoese allies had succumbed to the English arrow storm. Here the notion of chivalry can be seen as a means by which to avenge so-called cowardice, even though the French Knights were doomed to suffer a similar fate, annihilated by the English cloth-yard arrow. They lost 5,000 men the English a few hundred.
http://www.authorsden.com/categories...id=17&id=18826

So, the Dwarves' choice of Longbow or Crossbow probably depended on what weaponry their enemies chose).

As to the 'shieldwall' theory - probable in some cases, but its essentially a defensive tactic. You certainly can't charge in a shieldwall formation. Again, it depends entirely on the tactics of your opponents. Certainly by the time of the English Civil Wars it had been found that shieldless pikemen were more effective than any kind of shieldwall. Shields disappeared from the battlefield when armour became effective enough to require two handed weapons like poleaxes/glaives to inflict injuries. If Orcish (or Elvish come to that) armour was strong enough to ward off a blow from a one-handed sword or axe then heavier, two-handed weapons would have been called for, & you can't then use a shield (unless, as pointed out earlier, you sling it across your back -

The dwarves are exceedingly strong for their height, but most of these were
strong even for dwarves. In battle they wielded heavy two-handed mattocks; but each of them had also a short broad sword at his side and a round shield slung at his back. Their beards were forked and plaited and thrust into their belts. (The Clouds Burst)

Seems that Tolkien envisioned both tactics - two-handed mattock for 'offence' & shield/short-sword for 'defence'.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

Crossbows are hypothetical in Middle Earth but I agree Dwarves (or possibly bad-guys) seem likeliest candidates if anyone used them.

They do have some advantages over longbows. The key point was that crossbows could be effective when used by poorly-trained troops but longbows needed archers with practically lifelong experience to be most effective (see Elves ). The crossbow can be more powerful, but is slower to load, however it can be kept 'cocked' for a while. This could be very useful in sieges or perhaps underground fighting when waiting for an appearing target. The relatively flat trajectory of the crossbow bolt means it can be easily fired indoors, and if necessary through small holes etc.

Saying that, the Iron Hills Dwarves included some bow-armed troops.

As Elmo commented, Bard disparaged the Dwarves' military abilities above-ground but I think he's referring to their tactics, being unaware that the Allies had concealed the bulk of their forces in ambush.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Wouldn't the plusses of crossbows cited above make
them advantageous also, not just for dwarves and
orcs, but also for the comparatively advanced
technology of Gondor? Useful in defending cities and also
in street fighting if , say, old Grond poked an opening
into Minas Tirith.

[davem]

Part of the effect of the longbow in battle was rate of fire - an English archer could loose anything from 15-20 arrows a minute. Records for Towton in 1461 (where both sides had archers) estimate that half a million arrows were loosed in 10 minutes

English archers have attained a mythic status down the ages because of the showy underdog victories at Crécy and Agincourt. They were nation-specific – only the English and the Welsh took on the discipline, the plebeian odium and the round loathing that came with a bow. None of the continental countries deigned to partake, preferring to be nobly kebabbed. They relied on specialist Genoese crossbowmen – the Polish plumbers of medieval battlefields. Not even the bellicose Scots and Irish could be bothered with bows, but when used in sufficient numbers and with discipline, the longbow was the lethal arbiter of battlefields for 300 years.

It was slowly replaced by gunpowder . Any terrified peasant could point and pull a trigger, but it took a lifetime of aching, deforming practice to muscle up the 100lb of tug needed to draw a yew bow to dispatch a cloth yard of willow-shafted, goose-feathered, bodkin-tipped arrow 200 yards through plate, through chain, through leather and linen and prayers, into a man’s gizzard. The longbow was the most lethally efficient dealer of death on European battlefields until the invention of rifling and the Gatling gun.

The archers stepped forward and together chucked up what they call the “arrow storm”. An English archer could fire 15 to 20 arrows in a minute – that’s what made the opening moments of battle so horrific. The eclipse of arrows would have crossed high in the frozen air, and in that moment Edward and the House of York had their touch of luck.

The thick, stinging curtain of snow slashed the faces of the Lancastrian line, making it difficult to aim or judge distance, pushing their arrows short. And it carried the arrows of York further and deeper into the Lancastrian line. God howled and cracked for Edward that morning, searing the cheeks and freezing the eyes of Lancaster.

The metal-detectors have found the long, broad trench of bodkin points, showing where the first appalling fusillade was loosed. Emptying their own quivers, they began firing back the arrows wasted by their enemies. There may have been half a million arrows fired in 10 minutes that day – the largest longbow shafting in history http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tra...ffset=0&page=1

Now, compare that with what thus guy is doing for most of that time which would mainly be adding to the colour of the battlefield with his pretty pavise.....

The success of the archer in battles like Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt & Towton was down to rate of fire & the number of arrows that could be loosed - it depended little on accuracy - basically it was like charging into a solid, but very spiky, wall. The impact would knock you over, & then you'd have virtually no chance of getting up again before you were trampled to death (usually by your own side). Yes, you can carry a crossbow loaded & cocked, but if you missed, then once your first shot was loosed an archer could put a dozen arrows into you before you could get off a second shot. Also you have the problem of weather - at Crecy there had been a sharp rainstorm just before the battle which had weakened the strings of the crossbows carried by the Genoese, whereas the English carried spare bowstrings in their helmets which were nice & dry & could re-string their bows quickly. It was the gun which put paid to the bow, not the crossbow, & it took a long time for guns to develop to the required standard of reliability & effectiveness.

[Alfirin]

While we're on the subject of bows, I had one quick question.

While watcing a program on the Crusades some time ago. I remeber them talking long about somthing called the "Saracen Draw", a method of firing a bow using the thumb rather than the first two fingers to draw the string back. I seem to recall them saying that, while generally less effective than the english method, it did have one or two advantages (it think its advantage was that while you couln't shoot quite as far, the force at which your shot hit was more reliably predictable) so my question is which draw do you think the people of ME used or did they use both? I keep think that while the west would have used the English, the sourthernly people like the Haradrim might have used the Saracen.

[Farael]

Well, the topic has shifted away from Bezerkers (spelling?) but forgive me if I bring this up again.

As far as I know, we don't have any dwarven-centric stories except perhaps for the Hobbit (which was mostly hobbit-centric). However, what DO we know about dwarves?

-They mastered metalworking and fine crafting
-They were very long-winded and formal (think about Thorin's speech!)
-They COULD be greedy and haughty, but then this behaviour was increased by Sauron's rings, so it was perhaps not their NATURE

From the crafting I'd say they are a very technologically advanced people. However, you can't craft fine things if you are prone to fits of rage. They were clearly detail-oriented and patient. From their manner of speech I'd say there is further clue they were patient. Theoden, a masterful speaker of Rohan, has a far more... direct way of expressing himself than Thorin. Heck, HE would be a great Berzerker!

Furthermore, we have indications that the rings that Sauron gave the dwarves made them more prone to greed, which could be the reason why some of the dwarves we hear of (mostly ring owners or sons of ring owners) were rash.

Now, from a militaristic perspective. I am certainly not an expert on medieval fighting, but wouldn't fighting with a pole-arm require GREATER coordination than a shorter weapon?

You see, if you have a short weapon that can be retrieved easily after a swing, and a weapon that does not throw you off-balance or expose you greatly, you can afford to look after yourself. However, the longer a weapon is the harder it is to set up for another strike thus I'd expect the more you need to work with the people near you!

So while the image of a dwarf going insane swinging his axe in a great round circle is very enticing, I'd expect that fighting with heavy weapons was done more in formation than as individuals. They all group together and present you with a "wall of axes". If you get close by yourself you'll get chopped to pieces. If you rush them in formation they'll chop up your first line, and by the time the second line is ready to step up they've recovered their weapon.

Conversely, if you had a dwarf by himself, you approach him with two people and he's done for, because while he kills one the other has a wide open target.

So there's my ramble in the matter, i don't think that dwarven psychology or choice of weaponry really supports the idea of the lone, battle-raged dwarf.




As for the example of the thirteen dwarves rushing out of the Lonely Mountain, I'm a fairly mild-mannered individual, but if you siege me for a week or two and then start a battle with my cousin, I don't think I will be too composed when I try to chop your head off with my axe. Not to mention that thirteen dwarves can hardly make a "formation". Their best bet then was to punch a hole through the enemy and get to the OTHER dwarves so they would not be isolated!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

You see, if you have a short weapon that can be retrieved easily after a swing, and a weapon that does not throw you off-balance or expose you greatly, you can afford to look after yourself. However, the longer a weapon is the harder it is to set up for another strike thus I'd expect the more you need to work with the people near you!

Tell you what - we'll try it out. You get a pen knife & I'll get hold of a broadsword & if you're right you'll win hands down with that short little swing....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Farael

From the crafting I'd say they are a very technologically advanced people. However, you can't craft fine things if you are prone to fits of rage.

Hmmm...Michaelangelo was prone to fits of rage. Artists are often passionate in extremis -- in Michaelangelo's case, he's lucky that Pope Julius did not afix his head to a pole at the gates of Rome for his petulance.

Originally Posted by Farael

They were clearly detail-oriented and patient. From their manner of speech I'd say there is further clue they were patient. Theoden, a masterful speaker of Rohan, has a far more... direct way of expressing himself than Thorin. Heck, HE would be a great Berzerker!

Thorin's grandiloquence was only used in formal speaking engagments. He got his nick 'Oakenshield' for beating Orcs with a branch, which is definitely a sign of his 'battle fury'.

Originally Posted by Farael

Now, from a militaristic perspective. I am certainly not an expert on medieval fighting, but wouldn't fighting with a pole-arm require GREATER coordination than a shorter weapon?

In the late Middle-ages (particularly in the 14th and 15th centuries where my historical experience centers) halberds, pikes and bills required less formal training than shorter weapons such as swords and were often used by militias and rebel peasants to offset the great advantages of highly-trained armored knights on horseback. The stunning defeat of mounted French at the Battle of Courtrai by Flemish rebels, the Scottish victory over the English at Sterling, and the Swiss' crushing routs of Austrians at Laupen, Morgarten and Sempach and the Swiss again against the Charles the Bold in the Burgundian Wars, all relied on the halberd or pike (or a combination of the two as used by the Swiss).

So, the use of the halberd or pike required less formal training and was used to greatest effect in phalanxes, or in the Scottish case 'schiltrons'. It was indeed an infantry tool used defensively and offensively (particularly by the Swiss and later the German landsknecht) in formations. For close combat, the Swiss and landsknecht used swords and halberds (the lange spiess, or long pike was ineffective at close range).