rohan v.s. gondor

[gayare'dion]

i was just wondering, who do you guys think would win in a war, rohan or gondor ? rohan is much more advanced in calvary tactics of course, and gondor is more of an infantry based warfare type, and gondor also probobly more suitable for defense

[burrahobbit]

It depends on the time period. At it's height Gondor would have won with little trouble. At the time of the LotR, though, I don't know who would have won.

[steve]

it would be close, because gondor, does have alot more settlements and cities then rohan does, but rohan does have the advantages of that their cities are built in the mountains and gondor's arent plus rohan's armies are quicker to go from place to place, but yet, im partial to rohan, so i might be a lil bias

[Iargwath]

I have no idea who would have won, since both are very powerful. But i would want Gondor to be more likely to win!

[O'Boile]

I would probably guess Gondor as they have better Captains/Leaders and are also supposed to be larger. However, I'm not entirely sure.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I would say Gondor, but Rohan's tactics can be loosely compared to those of the Mongols, in which case, under the right leader, they could sweep over Middle Earth, living off of the blood and milk of their horses, and conquer the world! Muahahaha... [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Sarin Elfarmour]

it would depend on the leaders of both sides, stratedgy would play a large part as well as any alies either side might have

[Kuruharan]

With all due respect to their "Mongolian tactics," (not entirely true, but their mobility on the field would be comparible) the Rohirrim lacked the numbers to pull it off. Gondor's population was much greater than Rohan's. Thus, their economic base was greater, their pool of replacements was greater, and their initial forces would be greater. There would not really be that much of a contest, Gondor would win even if they had to slowly grind over their enemies, which they probably would have to.

[Lindolirian]

It all depends on where the might fight. If Rohan assailed Minas Tirith, Gondor would certainly be victorious. However, if Gondor were to attack the open plains of Rohan, the superior calvary of the Rohirrim would overwelm most of Gondor's forces.

[Kuruharan]

Not necessarily. Infantry can withstand cavalry if they are properly positioned and can keep their formation. However, in mobility the Gondorians would be at a disadvantage. The best way for cavalry to defeat infantry without taking a lot of damage is using horse archers (i.e. Mongolian tactics). However from the description in the book that was something the Rohirrim were not big on. Eomer is described as only having a few horse archers in his company, which I would take to be typical of their armies.

If it were me, I would not fight the Rohirrim out on the open plains at all if I could help it. I'd march my army carefully along, building a series of fortified camps to protect my road. My target would be the cities and settlements of Rohan. I'd pick them off one by one until I had cut the economic base out from under the Rohirrim. At that point their eventual demise would be inevitable.

It's slow and not very glamorous, but effective.

[O'Boile]

Actually, until the invention of Pikes, Calvalry was incredably effective against infantry in the middle ages. That stuff they say in Braveheart about no army standing up to a charge by heavy horse is true. No ifantry army could withstand a charge by mounted knights. The Engilsh were successful against French cavalry using archers at Agincourt. So if Gondor had enough of those it could be successful, or if it had pikemen. Otherwise, I think Rohan would probably win in a battle on the open plains. Still think Gondor would win the war as it had more capable leadership and more resources.

[Kuruharan]

No infantry army could withstand a charge by mounted knights.

That's probably true in many instances. Although it has something to do with the exceedingly poor quality and discipline of most of the infantry during much of the Middle Ages. They tended to break and run before the cavalry would impact, which was actually worse for them than if they had stayed in formation. Horses are, by and large, smarter than the men riding them, and even at a full gallop they will try to avoid obsticles, like a formed body of men, rather than just crash into them. The main purpose of cavalry, with regards to infantry, always was pursuit after the enemy had been disrupted and/or broken. They were less successful against infantry formations that stood their ground and kept their shieldwall intact. However, the primary opponents of cavalry were enemy bodies of cavalry.

And, the Rohirrim were not heavily armored knights in the way that it is commonly conceived. They were not nearly as heavily equipped; just wearing hauberks of mail, a helmet, with lance, sword, and shield. They had far more in common with the Norman knights of 1066 than with anything that came later.

Perhaps a historical instance of what I am talking about will be illuminating.

At the Battle of Hastings the Norman knights failed to breach the line and were driven back with heavy losses, several times. They were not really intended for "shock" charges being too lightly equipped, they were charging uphill against an enemy shieldwall, and they had that problem about their horses being smarter than they were and not wanting to charge the English shieldwall. The reason why they won the battle was the English would not keep formation. The undisciplined English fyrdmen kept breaking formation to pursue the retreating Normans. Then the cavalry could, and did pounce on them and cut them to pieces. As a matter of fact, William saw this and deliberately retreated from his attacks to draw more of the gullible fyrdmen down to be killed. Eventually there were too few Englishmen left to defend the hill and they were outflanked. The English still kept their formation until Harald was killed by an arrow. That's when they broke and the Norman cavalry could finally do their thing.

Back in Middle earth, the Gondorian infantry would want to place themselves on a steep hill, thus slowing any charges made at them, and they would want to have woods or something on their flanks and in their rear to prevent being encircled. Their own cavalry would probably be on the flanks of the infantry to help secure them, but would probably want to avoid a head on clash with the Riders since I personally would rate the Rohirrim as better cavalry. The Rohirrim had infantry, but it was not their primary military arm. Their infantry could attempt to skirmish with the Gondorian line to disrupt it before a cavalry charge, but in the end it would probably come down to a shield-wall vs. cavalry charge clash in which if the infantry could keep together they stood a fairly good shot of winning.

The basic trick would be to advance along the line of the White Mountains and stay out of the plains altogether. Why go to the plains at all? Most of the important settlements were in or near the mountains. There would be little reason to leave the area where your army would have the advantage in a pitched battle, so there would be little danger of getting caught in a disadvantagous position for fighting.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[O'Boile]

Kuruharan good post. I was thinking about how well equiped the riders of Rohan are, and figured they were more like light cavalry then armoured knights, but for some reason I forgot to post that.
Certainly one of the reasons cavalry was so effective was that the infantry were not disciplined enough. Its hard to stay in formation when a bunch of huge animals are about to run you over... kind of like a big game of chicken.
In the books, Theoden talks several times about charging the enemy and sweeping through them. I'm guessing that is how the riders prefered to fight.

[Sarin Elfarmour]

Have you guys ever seen Braveheart? the scottish tactics proves better than those of the trained, more numerous english. Gondor would win, being better prepared for seiges having more numbers and in some cases better stratedgic minds, unless Rohan was very lucky and had alies of some kind

[Kuruharan]

Have you guys ever seen Braveheart? the scottish tactics proves better than those of the trained, more numerous english.

One should always be cautious when using a movie to validate an interpretation of history. Braveheart was far from historically accurate. (Although it probably was closer to the truth than many "historical" movies that have been spewn out over the years.)

Wallace's army was not entirely made up of untrained clansmen, there was an element of "professional" soldiers in his force. Secondly, Wallace made very good use of terrain to force the English to fight on his own terms. The movie's portrayal of the Battle of Stirling was inaccurate in most every way. What Wallace did was force the English to fight him in a place where they could not use their numbers. Not in the middle of a wide open plain. He was a good general at taking advantage of the material available to him.

Back in Middle earth, you are certainly correct about Gondor being better prepared for seiges. That would be another big disadvantage for Rohan if they did launch an offensive they would be forced to fight a seige. A mode of warfare that by their own admission they were not too good at.

Its hard to stay in formation when a bunch of huge animals are about to run you over... kind of like a big game of chicken.

That is a pretty good analogy. That's pretty much exactly what it is. If the enemy ran, or was disrupted enough to give the cavalry enough room to maneuver, then they could just sweep right through them the way that Theoden mentioned.

In Unfinished Tales at the Disaster of the Gladden Fields Isildur's forces formed an effective shield wall and inflicted heavy losses on the Orcs attacking them. While I doubt this would be as effective against Rohirrim cavalry, Isildur only had 200 soldiers with him. I'm sure that with more soldiers Gondorian forces could have made a more effective, phalanx-like shield wall to defend against cavalry. However, in TTT it states(about Rohirrim cavalry) "A few of the riders appeared to be bowmen, skilled at shooting from a running horse." I have no idea how many cavalry archers were in Rohan's army, but they would be effective against large masses of infantry.

[Kuruharan]

have no idea how many cavalry archers were in Rohan's army, but they would be effective against large masses of infantry.

Yes, indeed they would. However, I don't think that they had enough. That just doesn't seem to be the Rohirrim's thing. Not manly enough for them I suppose. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm not sure why you all suppose Gondor has better leaders than Rohan.

[Kuruharan]

I never did. Or were you referring to me?

[Sarin Elfarmour]

im sorry, but at many times gondor did have better leadrs, as said before that it would depend on who the leaders were, i didn't say gondor would definatly win all the time

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Yeah, it would definitely depend on who was leader. The situation can change so easily.

For example, after Denethor, it was going to be Boromir leading, then it changed to Faramir, and then, of course, Aragorn....or Elessar. I always wondered why he called himself that and not Aragorn.

Each of those leaders would have approached a war in different ways, and that was all withing a year or so.

(I'm sorry if that was incoherent, I know what I'm talking about but I don't explain well. Oh well...)

[O'Boile]

I saw a show on the learning channel about the whole braveheart thing and it said that Robert the Bruce was in fact a much better tacticion than William Wallace. Hence the Scottish victory that you see at the end of the movie.

As far as Gondor having better leadership, Gandalf remarks to Pippin about how the lineage of the stewards is much higher than that of the kings of rohan. Knowing how tolkein places a great deal of emphasis on lineage, it would be safe to assume that Gondor had better leadership. Plus, read unfinished tails, Eorl the Young is definately subordinate to the steward (Cirion I think).

[Tarthang]

In response to Kuruharan's first post on this thread. Superiority of numbers doesn't necessarily alway's win the day, the American Revolutionary War is one such example where the smaller numbers won (although the French did help play a key part among other factors). Though I'm not trying to imply that you meant superior numbers will win out as an absolute.
Anyhow, I'm not sure who would win (Gondor or Rohan), I guess it's a matter of who was more determined to win. Though Gondor's larger economic and population seems to stack up in their favor.

[Kuruharan]

In response to Kuruharan's first post on this thread. Superiority of numbers doesn't necessarily alway's win the day

They may not always win the day but they will usually win the war.

With regards to the American Revolution, you have to remember that it was being fought on American soil thousands of miles away from Great Britain. So in a sense the couple thousand British soldiers and active militant Loyalists were outnumbered by a couple million Americans who were actively fighting (few), those who were latently supportive of the revolutionary movement (many), those who were apathetic enough to not commit to either side (many), and those who were loyal to the Crown but unwilling to risk anything in spite of it (many).
In a very real way the British were heavily outnumbered.

[Galorme]

Re: Eomer's comment of Elessar's name. Aragorn was named after the original Elessar ("elfstone") which was forged by Ernerdhil of Gondolin during the First Age of the Sun. This jewl was considered one of the most wonderous creations of that time, for it had the ability to heal that which was old or weary. Later on a replica was made that could make things LOOK young and new, which was later given to Aragorn by the Noldor of Valinor (or more acuratly Nolder -> Gandalf -> Galadriel -> Aragorn). He, like the jewl, could preserve the memory of the eldar, as well as having the toutch of healing. Hence Kind Elessar.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I know about the Elfstone, but it wasn't Elessar son of Arathorn son of.......so on.......son of Isildur.

It was Aragorn son of Arathorn.....so on...

But he's not the only King who's had different names so we'll leave it.

About the lineage, I do agree with whoever made the point. It is strange that a Steward should be higher than a King. I guess Gondor is just that good.

[O'Boile]

For the lineage thing, one of the reasons is that the stewards are Numenorean in descent. Also, Rohan had no king, until they were given their land by the steward of Gondor, so the line of the kings of Rohan owes its existance (as kings) to the stewards. Before that they were Cheiftains I think.

[RiderOfRohan]

All depends on where they fight. on the open fields Rohan would have a big advantage but they could not pull off a direct attack on Minas Tirith.

[the real findorfin]

About the whole Aragorn/Elssar thing...

I believe that in changing his name to something new, Aragorn was trying to say that things would be new and different from his reign onwards.

[Manwe Sulimo]

Aragorn wasn't trying to change anything; the name "Elessar" was already given to him, with or without his input.

Heh...I remember seeing this thread when I first joined the B-Ds...good times.

[Túroch]

Most likely these close allies would never fight of course, buit it's an interesting question. Bladorthin said

I have no idea how many cavalry archers were in Rohan's army, but they would be effective against large masses of infantry.

This is an important point. Throughout the ancient, medieval, and renasiance (sp?) world the horse archers was one of the most feared units on the battle feild. They can inflict heay loss, keep troops pinned down, while moving at great speed and having only light causualties in most engagements. Their is only one problem. You can't train horse archers. They have to be taught since birth. Therefore these units are more precious then gold due to the small amount of horse archers availible and the amount of time it takes to create them. If Rohan got it's horse archers killed. Well thats the end of that for at least 2 to 20 years. However being the Rohirrim lover that I am (can you tell from my avatar [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) I woulld put my money on the Rohirrim.

[Rumil]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how many troops the Rohirrim and Gondorians raised (or could raise) at the time of the War of the Ring.

Theoden led 5500 or 6000 cavalry to Gondor, but claims he could have raised 10,000 given enough time and secure flanks. Added to those should be the militia on foot as at Helms Deep, perhaps another 3000+ ?

Gondor is more tricky, we know that the outcompanies (Imrahil et al) brought 3000 to Minas Tirith, Aragorn brought about 3000 (certainly over 2000), Angbor led 4000 from Pelargir.

What we don't know was how many men garrisoned Minas Tirith, including the Ithilien rangers, garrisons of Cair Andros, Osgiliath and the causeway forts and the Stewards' Guards (in at least 3 companies), plus some cavalry. I'd guess about 5000?

The people of Mians Tirith moaned that the outcompanies only sent a tithe (10th) of their strength, but I reckon this must be an 'underexaggeration' as this would put their full strength up to 30,000.

From this guesswork, I'd think that Gondor slightly outnumbered Rohan, but of course was infantry based rather than cavalry.

[zacattack]

In my opinion it would be where the battle was and when abouts in time it was.

In the open the Gondorian forces have the numbers but nothing can withstand a chraging,full-clad knight on his loyal steed [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

But then again the Gondorian forces have alot more warriors so it could go either way.

The only way anybody could tell would be seeing the armies,statistics and tactics of the two armies.

[Melkor89]

The army that would claim victory in a war between Gondor and Rohan is not apparent. It all depends on what kind of war it was. If there was a siege of Gondor, Rohan would be beaten down pitifully. Minas Tirith is a huge city from which the inhabitants can defend themselves as well as keep massive stores of supplies. Although Helm's Deep can do this also, I was under the impression from reading the book that Helm's Deep was smaller than Minas Tirith and would have less room for supplies.

However, if the armies of the two kingdoms met outside of their main fortresses, Rohan would have the upper hand with their superior horses and riding skill.