In the books (Working from memory, I don't have my copy of RoTK here) Faramir leads his men to re-take Osgiliath at the behest of Denethor. Gandalf thinks it's a bad idea, but Faramir goes anyway.
You don't get to see the actual battle, only overhear a few scattered reports that Pippin hears; fighting takes place over about a day and a half, the charge fails, they fall back to a smaller fortification (the causeway forts) and when the baddies attack there, they fall back to the city itself.
Over the course of all the fighting, Faramir is badly wounded, and about a third of the men with him don't make it back.
One thing I would note is that despite the heavy cost paid, it probably saves everyone's necks; that extra day and a half buys a lot of time for Rohan and later Aragorn to show up with reinforcements.
Oh, and one other thing, the bulk of the force is on foot. Denethor kept most of his cavalry under the command of a guy named Imrahil, they only show up within a very short distance of the city of Minas Tirith, and their charge stops the pursuit of Faramir's battered force.
>>500270 >am I the only one who gets annoyed by absolut idiotic depiction of battles in movies? it's a trope by now, and it's done that way so the heroes can look good while "saving the day" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybaAtxltjA&t=3m44s
>>500329 >In the books (Working from memory, I don't have my copy of RoTK here) Faramir leads his men to re-take Osgiliath No he actually is there to defend Osgiliath, not retake it. He loses either way
>>500391 We heard of the horns in the hills ringing, the swords shining in the South-kingdom. Steeds went striding to the Stoningland as wind in the morning. War was kindled. There Théoden fell, Thengling mighty, to his golden halls and green pastures in the Northern fields never returning, high lord of the host. Harding and Guthláf, Dúnhere and Déorwine, doughty Grimbold, Herefara and Herubrand, Horn and Fastred, fought and fell there in a far country: in the Mounds of Mundburg under mould they lie with their league-fellows, lords of Gondor. Neither Hirluin the Fair to the hills by the sea, nor Forlong the old to the flowering vales ever, to Arnach, to his own country returned in triumph; nor the tall bowmen, Derufin and Duilin, to their dark waters, meres of Morthond under mountain-shadows. Death in the morning and at day’s ending lords took and lowly. Long now they sleep under grass in Gondor by the Great River. Grey now as tears, gleaming silver, red then it rolled, roaring water: foam dyed with blood flamed at sunset; as beacons mountains burned at evening; red fell the dew in Rammas Echor.
I really wish the Pelennor fields looked inhabited. In the book it's not just a big empty plain, but a series of rolling fields full of crops and little villages and flocks of sheep, with a low wall encircling the part closest to Minas Tirith itself.
>>500341 >proceed to royally shit the bed when an actual cavalry force shows up >dont plant the pikes, dont set up stakes, dont have scouts on the hill >magic birds cant spot army of cavalry coming to Helms Deep
Amazing how not one horse hit a pike. Not fucking one. No broken legs on those piles of corpses the horses are charging over, not one animal chickens out in the face of horsey armageddon
Fuck trolls and eagles and magical beings, the horses of middle earth are lean, mean, charging machines that effortlessly glide through mountains of bodies and pointy objects completely unscathed and unwavered. They defy all logic, all physics. Aint nobody fucking with those animals, should have brought them to the black gate, lolcharged in when they opened it and paved the way to middle earth themselves.
>>500291 Elves use plate armor and always did since the First Age, afaik. They probably invented it in Valinor (along with the first weapons) and brought it with them. The mail was invented by dwarves I think.
>>500270 >At 7.30am on 1 July 1916, officers blew their whistles to signal the start of the attack.
As 11 British divisions clambered out of their trenches and walked slowly towards the enemy lines, German machine guns opened fire, causing wholesale carnage.
The first day of that battle was the bloodiest in the whole history of the British Army. By the end of the day, the British had suffered 60,000 casualties; almost 20,000 were dead, including 60% of all the officers involved.
One of those who survived that horrific first assault, and who endured the prolonged ghastliness of the months of fighting that followed, was the young JRR Tolkien.
>>500620 >target horse >knight is thrown >gets concussion and dies >breaks collar bone and dies >relatively uninjured from fall >killed by english man at arms considering the horrific losses for the french at Crecy I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by calling longbows a meme weapon
>>501043 They had essentially won the battle at that point. All that was left was a handful in the final keep, their mentality at that point was of a force pursuing a routed enemy, they didn't give a fuck about anything except slaughtering whoever was left inside.
>>500311 >orcs didn't have spears I'm pretty damn sure they did in the films at least. I recall ar least one cavalry charge where they literally ride right into their spears and somehow still utterly destroy the defending masses of orcs
>>501638 >>501043 You lads are forgetting that at the Battle of Helms Deep Gandalf lead the charge just as the sun rose over the crest of the hill, blinding the orcs just moments before the cavalry charge makes contact. Also remember that orcs are sensitive to sunlight and sperged out when it hit them, meaning that few, if any, of them actually had spears at the ready.
>>501234 I'm calling them a meme weapon because people often point at Crecy and Agincourt with "lulz longbows kill knights" implying they have a chance in hell at penning steel plate from anywhere but point blank range. When in reality it was more "Knights charge through shitty terrain, horses get bogged down, shot to pieces, knights suffer broken bones and bruises, get finished off with dagger to the throat".
They died in massive numbers against an overwhelming numerical superiority and the time they saved was insignificant because it was for a river town that wasn't even Sauron's focus, Denethor thought Rohan wasn't coming when ordered the defense, and it was the oath ghosts that saved the day anyways.
In Hackson movies only. In the books, the ghosts only frighten the pirates, so they leave their ships in terror and are killed by the southern troops of Gondor. Then Aragorn lead an army of southern gondorian and former pirates' slaves to Minas Tirith, on the pirates ships.
The ghosts are released way before the pelennor battle, which is won by humans only in the book.
In the book, the populous southern provinces of Gondor only send 1/10th of their troops to Minas Tirith before the siege, because they are afraid of a huge pirate invasion in the south. That's why Aragorn can lead the remaining 9/10th later to save the day.
I'm pissed of Hackson didn't show the scene you see the various provincial troops coming to Minas Tirith just before the siege, with Pippin watching it.
Gondor has no real cavalry, they are infantrimen, so obviously they dont know how to fight on horse, they are just mounted infantry. And the Seneschal is a madman who sents his son into an obvious suicide mission.
>>501828 No they had a cavalry force. Gondor just didn't specialize in cavalry like Rohan. They were a mixed force. The bulk was heavy infantry obviously, then there were the rangers. They had engineers, elite fountain guards and an elite cavalry force called the Knights of Dol Amroth.
Gondor was a feudal society, so they kind of soldiers (and quality) depended on the region they came from.
>>500270 >>500284 But this battle was supposed to be idiotic though. Faramir had no other soldiers for the charge but his own, the guys who just had retreated from the city. He had only those soldiers under his command.
Dont give me that shit 1)What kind of soldier doesnt train against his greatest weakness? Michael Jordan wants to talk to you about defense. It aint about practicing for the easy days 2)blind? Who cares its a pikewall. Dont need eyes, just plant the pike and hold. Can literally function blind and its impossible to not kill horses 3)didnt bring stakes to a rohan fight? Ahohoho
>>503086 Theyre being led by a magical wizard. With magical spotting birds Simply no excuse for failing to plant s r akes during the night, what, they just thought rohan's undefeated elite cavalry force would fuck off with the elves or something? Well they should have thought something was up when they saw elves there.
>>503086 So youre telling me that sunlight is literally painful to them and yet they dont train in the sunlight?
This is what i never understood about the evil armies. Why are you giving them such an easy time with training? You have all the resources and control to be even more organized and yet they dont train for their ultimate weakness, aka the other 12 hours in a day? Some army, dont know why anyone was scared. The horses certainly werent
>>500620 >>Knights were not felled by arrows, longbows could not penetrate plate/coat of plate armor and would only cause bruising. That is wrong, after salvaging a Tudor ship they found a load of Longbows, upon testing them, they noticed that the Longbow was pretty lethal from about 30 metres. Considering the Knight and Horse would look like a porcupine.
>>503547 Except you're wrong. Most testing shows that firing on a man in plate is a fucking crapshoot until he's at point blank range, and by that pioint, you're (finally) harming the FIRST rank.
The other ranks will roll over you.
Which is exactly what fucking happened in a straight longbow v cavalry fight at patay- the archers got to fight french knights without any heavy infantry or fortifications to protect them, and they got fucking massacred.
On top of this, the man LEADING the cavalry assault at agincourt survived and reached the English lines. We have contemporary accounts of men throwing their arms out and exposing their chests in mockery of the archers.
Longbows were effective because the men using them would engage in hand to hand combat when the enemy got close, and because the french fought like retards against the english.
Not because they were some wonderweapon that readily defeated armor.
>>503596 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aMoCAypos 34 minutes. The same experts say you're fucking wrong.
>At 20 metres they were lethal, and if you understood how they formed for battle, you would understand how they were lethal. You mean in a V on the flanks of their heavy troops, relying on the french to ignore them in favor of assaulting the men at arms exclusively so they could fire for a much longer period than otherwise possible, and then charge the flanks in hand to hand because the bows were NEVER-not once-enough to win?
Yeah, I understand it perfectly, you fucking dilettante.
Again, when forced to fight alone, archers VS knight, they got slaughtered at patay. Slaughtered.
And last, maybe you shouldn't take a british public TV program that ONLY talks about English victories in a war they lost at face value.
>>503625 You literally repeated exactly what I said.
Learn some basic reading comprehension, realize watching a TV show and maybe browsing Wikipedia for 30 minutes doesn't make you informed, and fuck off.
NOTHING you're posting supports your premise.
"Thsi weaposn is really effective because the people it was used against let themselves get flanked consistently" is a non-sequitor.
Javelins, and crossbows would prove effective given extended periods to fire on an unresponsive force.
Crossbows in particular would likely prove more effective.
Even then, one of the most consistent features of the hundred years war is "and then the archers engaged in hand to hand combat" because they could run out of arrows without breaking french forces.
You're describing a total failure of tactics on the part of the french, not a triumph of the longbow in defeating armor.
Were it the wonder weapon you think it is a few htings would have changed.
>the continent would have stopped paying for crossbows and fucking expensive mercenaries who used them >the longbow would have caught traction outside of england >the english at patay wouldn't have lost and suffered casualties at a rate of 25:1 >Marshal Boucicaul would have died at agincourt >the archers at agincourt wouldn't have needed to charge the french >the archers at vernuil wouldn't have been beaten and scattered at the first charge
>>503714 The Killzone was a result of the poor terrain combined with English fortifications already present. When it came down to the actual fight, the technicalities didn't matter. Agincourt itself was a result of tactical brilliance on the part of the British. The effect of the Longbow in that battle was the early harassment from extreme range that enticed the French to attack into the killzone in the first place.
It's hard to be critical of movie cavalry charges because nobody knows how they really worked. Prior to the 1800s people didn't really wrote blow-by-blow battle accounts.
Horses probably did not literally collide with formations of men at galloping speeds. That would trip over the horse and not advantage the rider either. It is more likely that they charged at trotting speed and relied on their lance, sword or pistol to break up the enemy into chunks that could be navigated around.
>>503806 How about you watch the fucking movie. You clearly see the sunrise crest over the hill which blinds the Uruk-Hai and they drop their pikes to cover their eyes in pain plus it is implied there is some Gandalf light magic seeing as he is a wizard and the fire ring bearer. p.s. it's a fantasy movie
sarumans uruk are immune to the fear of light, fairly obvious considering how they attack in daylight quite often in the films. Gandalfs magic attack is probably the equivalent of a flashbang but still the horses leap through that shit like it does not matter
>>503932 Funnily enough, getting the rising sun (that has literally just crested the hill) in your fucking eye as an unknown number of fresh cavalry charges at you after a whole night's worth of combat might cause you to panic a little.
The stupidest thing in the films is this, and it was Bernard Hill's (actor playing Theoden) idea that Peter Jackson approved: https://youtu.be/Ryy5U2mNTJU?t=2m55s This is just pants-on-head stupidity. It would damage Theoden's sword and his men's spears. You could argue that Theoden's sword was ceremonial and he was going to throw it away and use his real sword or some shit like that, but his men's spears? Did they all bring some kind of ceremonial spears? Jackson is touched in the head.
>>506209 >>506174 Only the area around mount doom is the volcanic wasteland you see in the movie. To the east and south of the volcano there are farmlands supplying mordor. Around the sea of Nurnen If I recall correctly
>>507444 Funily enough, after 1917 most armies started using collumns again. Not in the way 19th century soldiers would have done it, marching massed in a massive formation. But a column on the individual level. Every soldier would walk a few meters behind the soldier in front of him, like modern soldiers still do. This is was also referred to as a column
Yea..it's stupid but what was the alternative here? Behind the Orcs was Helms Deep, which would prevent them from being surrounded. Flanking maneuvers seemed to be impossible/difficult as well as there was a mountain to the sides of the Orcs.
>>507494 Exactly. Horses are gigantic, powerful beasts and yet they have a prey-animal's mindset. They run from danger, fighting is so fucking low on their instinct list, they might defend their young but thats about it. Theyre not bloodthirsty at all, they simply wont charge into a pointy mass of men, no matter what the rider wants, that horse is going to break the illusion of control in a heartbeat and youll remember that compared to this animal, youre like a Chihuahua.
An arrow wont even knock a man on his ass most of the time, to a horse its like getting shanked with a half-inch blade. Sure it hurts, but youre still gonna run away for a bit because your adreneline and survival instinct want to avoid another injury. The horse goes into an instinctual "run the fuck away" mode, it will hardly notice the arrow in the panic. A human might die in a few hours from a wound like that, but a horse? Probably walk it off.
>>506078 Aside from a sword's flat tapping a spear's socket not doing much damage to either, people have historically done stupid things to their weapons for the sake of morale. The Almogavars famously struck rocks with their spears to make sparks fly. This damages the weapon, but in battle the effect of encouraging themselves and frightening the enemy is more important than keeping your weapon in good condition.
> huge gaping face > unarmored horse that would break the users neck if fell > thousands of arrows > thin armor, look > also this happened in real life in a fight between the French and British > probably composite bows from abundance of killing and lack of wood in mordor
Most charges failed. In fact almost all charges failed. A horse will almost never willingly charge into a group of people. There are notable instances where cavalry have broken an enemy formation but this is very rare (and an exciting read).
Most of the time Cavalry would run down fleeing enemies who had broken formation.
>>509333 Blaisse de Montluc memoirs (battle of Ceresole specifically) (Charging through a fully formed unhurt pike block, thrice) The memoirs of Bayard are well worth the short read. If you can read German I recommend the memoirs of Georg von Ehingen If you can read French then Le Jouvencel is your go to book on knightly matters, thought Christine de Pizan is also worth the read if you're into that sort of stuff.
Roman and Ancient Greek stuff is a little less specific but still good.
Then there are a ton of Napoleonic writers who discuss the merits of heavy and light cavalry and specifically say why heavy horses are good in formed charges.
Here is an interesting bit from a recent osprey publications:
"While the difficulty of finding suitable horses could inhibit the formation and maintenance of the heaviest cavalry, many commentators remarked on the power of the heavier mounts. A light cavalry officer, William Hay, observed the charge of the Union Brigade at Waterloo at close hand: They came down the slope … like a torrent, shaking the very earth, and sweeping everything before them … the heavy brigade from their weight went over [the infantry] and through them … it struck me with astonishment, nor had I till then, notwithstanding my experience as a cavalry officer, ever considered what a great difference there was in the charge of a light and heavy dragoon regiment, from the weight and power of the horses and men"
Then there are some even more recent accounts of (I believe Texan cavalry) who had a commander tell his men to use their horse as weapon "Let the flesh and bone of your horse be your weapon" or something along that line.
Modern day experimentation has also shown horses will charge people if you train them too, at Hastings reenactment a guy actually did it on his own (much to the annoyance of the guys getting hit). Proffesor Junkelman has trained a horse to charge shield walls too for his Roman studies.
>>509407 He started the whole "horses won't charge a solid body of men" thing while primary sources of several millenia and practical experiments can disprove that in an instant.
Just because a horse is not naturally inclined to do something doesn't mean you can't train him, really you could teach them to do anything but flying. Movies horses are trained to jump through flames and glass, can sit around with pistols being fired near their ear and such. Same goes for humans who can cope with high stress environments we aren't naturally designed for. Like riding unicycle a few hundred meters above the ground on a rope between two skyscrapers.
I'm sure you're one of those people who subscribes to the "horsemen only pursued and never charged into formations." If that's the case, why would heavy cavalry have existed for thousands of years?
Take this battle (located in modern day Albania) between a Norman force, infamous for their heavy cavalry charges, and a mixed Greek and Varangian force. The Normans ended the battle with a ~500 man strong heavy cavalry charge, completely routing the Byzantine army.
I can't even envision the terror that those Greek soldiers felt.
Which was the entire point of Shakespeare's Henry V. The French were representatives of the old medieval order fighting by old methods - honourable but doomed. Henry was using modern methods and represented the future, and of course England's domination of it in the context of the play. Henry was showed as merciless but inevitable.
If cavalry charges relied on what you say it's essentially a game of chicken.
In that case the size, speed or armor of a horse and rider, hell even his weapon would be totally irrelevant. You would also rarely have a successful charge against everyone who has fought a single battle. That wasn't the case in real life.
Guys like Machiavelli even said pikes were needed to stop a cavalry charge even though he disliked pikes. If a horse won't charge a solid formation holding a butter knife towards horses would be enough to scare them off right?
>>509452 >The issue is when they do their job properly.
The effectiveness of a cavalry charge is not the casualties caused in the first contact or the few enemies killed in the moments of confused melee afterwards. It's a matter of breaking unit cohesion and routing the enemy. Basically to turn a formation of 500 men into 500 panicked individuals in disorder. Key elements in this unit cohesion were officers and banners/flags which provided a rallying point.
Bringing down the banner and routing the unit was the goal because standing still and fighting a melee contest against (the more numerous) infantry is always going to work out bad for the cavalry. That is why repeated charges were the bread and butter of heavy shock cavalry. Sometimes the first charge did the trick and routed the enemy but if the enemy was experienced and had a high morale you would need multiple or you could not succeed at all.
After the Battle of Marignano the French king wrote home of how he charged the Swiss no less than 10 (or 20) times. Each time the Swiss managed to retain their unit cohesion and reform.
>>509481 From Verbrugge the art of war in the medieval world:
>Saladin's son is a valuable witness for the tactical significance of the standard. He described the annihilation of the royal army of the kingdom of Jerusalem by the lake of Tiberias at Hattin in 1187: 'I found myself next to my father in battle… When king Guy de Lusignan was on the hill with his knights, they made a tremendous charge against our troops and drove them back to my father. I looked at him and noticed that he had become sad and pale, and was holding his beard in his hand.
>Suddenly he ran forward shouting ''Show that the devil is a liar!" The Moslems then charged the Franks, who retreated and rode back up the hill. As soon as I noticed that the Franks were withdrawing and the Moslems were pursuing them, I shouted joyfully, "We have put them to flight!" But the Franks returned and made a second charge, and drove our troops back to where my father was. He did as he had done before, and again our men drove the enemy down the hill. I cried out again >"We have driven them off!" But my father turned and said to me, "Be quiet, and do not say that they are beaten until you see the king's banner is down." A little later we saw the banner go down: then my father sprang off his horse and threw himself on the ground to thank God, and wept with joy
>>509457 all of his information is speculative. I didn't like his "Roman Hastati only carried two Pilum" argument.
We know that they had two types of Pilum, the lighter and heavier ones made of iron and lead respectively (or to be more accurate, was weighed down with a lead ball). His argument was that they carried one light and one heavy, the light one for a long-range volley and the heavy one for a pre-charge volley to disrupt enemy lines, similar to how the Frankish throwing axes were used.
While it's a fair assumption to make, that's all it is. A pure assumption with no evidence backing it up at all. Just what he THINKS is what HE would have done.
This account by a soldier who was actually on the battlefield is confirmed by the Rule of the Templars. The flag was not just a useful and practical assembly-point round which the troops regrouped themselves, but also the symbol of resistance, for the troops fought on as long as the banner was flying. The Rule of the Templars stated explicitly that a knight who was cut off from returning to his own banner in battle had to continue the fight under the first Christian banner he came to. If the Christian army were defeated, no Templar might leave the field as long as a Christian banner was still flying. When no banners were left flying he could then seek refuge
>>509506 Besides ensuring that the banner was guarded, the Templars had other rules. It was strictly forbidden to attack with the lance to which the banner was attached, and even the lance itself, round which the reserve banner was rolled, might not be used against the enemy. Violation of this rule meant risking the loss of the Templar's habit If any damage resulted from his action, he was dismissed from the Order, and might even be put in irons and thrown into prison. He could never act as a commander of the knights again. It was dangerous for the course of the battle to let the flag fall, and the Rule of the Templars emphasised this: 'If the banner comes down, the men on the edge of the battle do not know why this is, and may think the Turks have cut it down. Besides, the enemy can more easily lay hands on the banner if it is used as a lance than if it is waving freely in the air. If the troops lose their banner, they are shocked, and this can lead to terrible defeat. For this reason it is most strictly forbidden to strike with the lance of the standard.'
The Landsknecht pikemen had ensigns with banners and after one of the bloody battles in the Italian wars a young ensign was found with both arms chopped off and the banner clenched between his teeth, again showing how critically important those things could be.
The Rule of the Templars and Landsknechte were about 3 centuries apart.
Romans had banners for Centuries IIRC and they were partly deified or at least held in high esteem, higher up you had the legionaries with their golden Aquila standard. We all know how important those were.
Cavalry regulations at the end of the nineteenth century emphasised that the cavalry was at no time more vulnerable than just after a charge. Order had to be restored forthwith, and the units had to be formed up again. 'In an army of knights, the unit round the banner serves the same purpose in some measure, but there is no question whatever of grouping, of signals and commands during a battle, any more than there is of an outflanking movement during an attack, or of protection against an outflanking movement of the enemy, of a second wave, or of reserves, for the deciding factor lies in the hand-to-hand fighting. Then there is no more leadership, the fighting is left entirely to the knight himself, to do whatever damage he can to the enemy, where and how he can.'
>>509539 We shall soon prove that this categorical assertion of Hans Delbrück is entirely erroneous. First of all, we have the evidence of the chansons de geste, and rather than draw a general conclusion from those which we have studied, we will let a scholar who has studied them very closely speak about this. L. Gautier, in his book La chevalerie, says: 'In general, from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, there is no true strategy (for this read tactics) employed in large encounters or small skirmishes. The commander of the ost (host, or army) invariably splits his knights into a certain number of units, called batailles or échelles. He groups them, so far as possible, according to their nationality or regional origin … In front of all his units, which he deployes in a single line stretched across the field, he places his vanguard, his attack force. Behind his échelles, he places his rearguard, a true reserve383 which must not take part in the battle until towards the end of the day or in case of desperate need, to precipitate the resolution or hasten the victory
>>509549 There is a parallel example in the victory of Simon de Montfort in the battle of Muret in 1213, which was remarkable for several reasons. The commander gave the order to make a mass attack right through the enemy units: 'Do not stop to fight with the front line of the enemy, but press on, like Christian knights, into the enemy formations'. When they went into battle, 'they all charged as they were ordered and penetrated right through to the king of Aragon.'415 While two units were thus forcing their way into the enemy ranks, Montfort attacked the flank with the reserve, and during the pursuit this corps resumed its role of reserve to be able to stand by the pursuing knights. At Bouvines, too, victory went to the better-ordered French units, who defeated Ferdinand's and Otto's army, which had advanced too quickly. Many reliable sources show the importance of good order. Nithard attributes the defeat of count Wido to it in 834. The Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal demonstrates its importance in tournaments. Villehardouin gives it as the reason for the defeat of the emperor Baldwin I and for the deliverance of the remnants of his army, and we have quoted descriptions of close and smartly ordered formations in the chansons de geste. There are other equally remarkable examples.
Read the wiki for giggles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret
>>509569 Breaking through an enemy formation could however result in the annihilation of the small units who were carrying out this manoeuvre. This was especially true if the unit that broke through was too small, and it clashed with troops from the second enemy battle line, as the example of Berthout of Malines at Worringen shows.432 Therefore the knights preferred to turn back immediately after the break-through. In other cases they attacked the enemy from the rear, to break through again, as at Bouvines. There are descriptions of this in many of the epic poems. 'Strike, kill, turn everything upside down in the mêlée until you have pushed through the enemy ranks and then attack them again all together', is the advice in Girart de Roussillon433 But a flank attack was well thought of too. The crusaders' enemy in the East systematically sought to encircle the opposing army, and the soldiers in the First Crusade took appropriate countermeasures. They always tried to protect their own flanks while attacking the enemy in the rear or flank. The first important battle in this crusade, at Dorylaeum in 1097, was decided by a flank attack
>>509599 Well I am going to bed now but the book I was copying that from is quite good.
It's old and written in a time when people still thought Germans had an innate lust for war but really good when it comes to analyzing primary sources and disproving everything Victorians have written about medieval warfare.
>>503861 Well, prior to the war, the European powers did know exactly what the machine gun was capable of, and were training their armies in fire and move tactics. However, the war broke out before anyone was really for it, so they never really finished getting everyone up to scratch.
At the Somme, the British figured that they could compensate for their woefully untrained conscripts by throwing a huge amount of artillery at Jerry, at which point the infantry just had to mop up and hold against any counter attacks. This didn't work, because they had no idea how to properly use artillery. The reason they kept going is that, grisly as it was, they really did make gains, and they figured the Germans would cracks first. Failing that, they could at least take some pressure off Verdun
>Knights of Dol Amorth > anything Rohan has to offer right?
This is a tougher question than you might think at first, because quite simply, what you read in Lord of the Rings isn't necessarily "What happened" for a given value of "happened" since we're talking about a work of fantasy.
Tolkien created a kind of fake mythological arc, not a fake romance or a fake history. And he's very concerned with the "historiography" for lack of a better word, how stories get told and retold and eventually written down, and then translated and re-copied through the ages until Tolkien came along and translated what he had into English, if you believe the frame tale set out in the Introduction to the Fellowship.
The stuff concerning Rohan is especially iffy, whether by deliberate lying of his fictional authors to exaggerate the impact of the human-group they bear close linguistic kinship to, or just ignorance of a lot of stuff due to not riding themselves: but a lot of the descriptions of the Rohirrim cast doubt on their actual chops as horsemen. In both the Battle of the Fords of Isen, and at Pellenor once the chips go down, they're all suddenly on foot and fighting in shield-walls. When they march on mordor, Eomer is all gung-ho that an unhorsed Rohirrim is as good as an infantryman. The ride from Edoras to Mundburg is 306 miles by the road, which they think they can do in a week, but then they take a detour around the roadblock force, on a narrow forest path, and THEN fight for about a day and a half straight, and somehow, their horses don't drop dead of exhaustion through all of this.
The "real" Rohirrim very probably didn't fight from horseback at all, and were more like the Saxons in real life rather than the mythological construction that you see on the pages.
>Why do the rangers of Illethien (you know what region I mean) wear masks? Are they afraid an orc is going to recognize them from a wanted poster?
The probable real reason is that the sort of imagery Tolkien usually associates with Gondor is from the late WRE and early ERE periods, and battle-masks were at least something associated with the imagery of that period. (I don't feel qualified to discuss whether or not they really wore them into battle)
As for "in-universe" reasons, orcs are hardly the only forces Sauron has at his disposal, and remember, he's regarded much akin to an evil god, not just an enemy king they're warring against. This is a world where the forces of Evil really can fuck you up on a personal basis if they're pissed off enough (See: Hurin and family), and one whom every crow and raven could be a spy for. Hiding your identity might not be such a bad idea.
Ok, so this is the First Age, where you have an even longer and possibly less accurate chain of transmission, since everything that's written down is "Bilbo's rendition of Elvish poems about the Elder Days"
BUT, assuming everything written is true:
>Big Bad Morgoth (Sauron's boss) steals a trio of ultra-important gems and fucks off to the far north of the world. >A bunch of Elves swear undying revenge and follow after him. >Kick the ass of a lot of his orcs and other monsters, but can't break down his fortress of Angband >Roughly 400 years of siege >In this period of time, humans make it over to Beleriand, and the Elves befriend them, in part because the humans can help swell out their armies. >One of the main human chieftains is a guy named Hurin, who has the usual heroic traits of brave and strong and mighty in battle and steadfast, etc. >Eventually, Morgoth gains the upper hand, launches a limited successful offensive, and then really, really kicks the crap out of the good guys at a battle called Nírnaeth Arnoediad (Sindarin for "Unnumbered tears") In the course of the retreat from the battle,, Hurin is captured trying to buy time for some of the few elven lords to make it off the field. He manages to bring down 70 trolls while doing it. >Morgoth is pissed at this defiant human brought to him, and puts a curse on his entire family (A wife, a son, and a daughter) >Who then make a series of tremendously bad mistakes made worse by having absolutely awful luck, whenever anything that possibly can go wrong, it will go wrong. >Turin goes on to become probably an even greater warrior than his father, but his impatience to do battle with Morgoth's forces always ends badly, and while he does slay the first dragon ever, his antics lead him to the accidental deaths of some of his best elven friends, the destruction of the single biggest Noldor kingdom in Beleriand, and incest marriage to his sister when they both lose their memories.
Theyre the biggest pussies in the world. A rat will stand its ground longer than a horse, their first instinct is to run the fuck away. Hence why they run so fast and have no clear offensive weapons besides pure size
>>510069 Warhorses were well known for being viscous cunts who liked to kick, bite, and fight. You still see a few horses that behave that way today.
Members of the SCA have tried mounted fighting somewhat recently, and found it is impossible to do safely, because the horses are too active-either they don't like it and bolt, rider and all, or they REALLY like it and do shit like bite the other guy and pull him out of the saddle or attack the other horse.
>>509434 This is also reflected in how most of Henry's army was comprised of either levy archers or professional Men-at-Arms who also didn't charge randomly like cobbled together nobles. Noble Knights were most effective during the 12th and 13th centuries, the "Golden Age" of chivlary. Post that point IMO, they only really showed their use again as Gendarmes, professional knights who were trained as a military unit rather than cocky young adults lusting for glory.
>>500284 There were like 500 french knights there, and there was no massive charge. And probably around 5% of the french actually were injured or died, the battle ended with a retreat since morale broke.
>>501043 >Amazing how not one horse hit a pike. Not fucking one. No broken legs on those piles of corpses the horses are charging over, not one animal chickens out in the face of horsey armageddon wait a minute buddy, some of the horsemen are killed when the Èored slams into Gothmog's forces. they are instantly tossed around and trampled.
RoTK's Gothmog is almost certainly named after the the first age Balrog, there's nothing in the books stating he was an orc.
We only get one line about him, how Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, takes over command after the Witch-King falls, and calls for their reserves to enter the battle, but two things about that one scant statement I'd like to point out:
1) He's a "Lieutenant" of a major Mordor citadel and second in command overall of the force. Given how untrustworthy and stupid most orcs are, this is highly odd.
2) He has a Sindarin name, which would literally be unique among Orcs, they all otherwise have orcish names.
Best guess is that Gothmog was a human, and my second guess would probably be a Nazgul.
>>512639 I see. I would rate the probability as Nazgul (or evil Maiar of some unknown kind) as #1, and orc as #2, since orcs are (at times) implied to be immortal until killed, making them more convenient.
I still think the most likely probability is he's like the other "lieutenant" we hear about, this time the one of Barad-Dur, who was definitely human, albeit an evil and possibly magically adept human.
>>505044 >Why would you finish off a knight with a dagger when you could become rich and ransom him? The French sacked the English Baggage train and the English thought they were about to be outflanked, having a large amount of prisoners in the heat os a desperate struggle was a huge risk, the prisoners could turn on the English when they were completely stretched.
>>512672 >>512678 I think it most likely that he was human. Sauron had shitloads of humans in his employ, including "black numenoreans" who, though I'm pretty sure they had stopped speaking Sindarin, usually had Sindarin names.
>>513433 >Tolkien hated Protestants and Germans. Tolkien specifically said he disliked allegory and he was a scholar of germanic language and culture so I doubt he had much against either germans or protestants, especially considering most of England is protestant.
Tolkien also thought the Protestant Reformation to be a terrible error, insisting that the cathedrals of England were stolen Catholic property. Neither was he happy that his friend and companion, C. S. Lewis, remained what Tolkien derisively called “an Ulster Protestant.”
" I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride."
>>500341 But they knew the primary force of the Rohirrim was freed from their control so that they would have to deal with cavalry and it would be the enemies primary force. And they where right, but they where attacked mid way through a seige and it broke their morale.
>>513478 >Tolkien was a Catholic He was also an Englishman.
>Tolkien also thought the Protestant Reformation to be a terrible error Tolkien had a lot of similar ideas about the history of England but it's a tremendous leap to say he hated protestants.
Neither was he happy that his friend and companion, C. S. Lewis, remained what Tolkien derisively called “an Ulster Protestant.” Ulster protestants are a particular group who have a reputation for vicious anti-catholic sentiment.
>" I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride." I'm fairly sure I've read that letter, in the same book I read that Tolkien disliked allegory. A nazi asked Tolkien if Northmen were Aryans his books were alegory for a load of /pol/ shit, Tolkien told him to fuck off and that Aryans were persians. He was angry at the nazi rhetoric in your man's comment and responded accordingly. He wasn't wrong either as the German good name has been destroyed by Naziism.
>"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native..... to be Semitic." The dwarves language was based on Semitic grammar and they lived in similar circumstances but they were not directly based on Jews. He said that none of his peoples were based on real-world peoples. He often used real-world cultures as to influence his world and he explained his cultures with reference to real-world people, for example likening Rohan with Anglo-Saxon England without norman influence, using finnish and welsh for elvish, and explaining notions of gondorian kingship with reference to Egypt and Rome.
He said also that none of his peoples were to be seen as allegories for the real world, indeed none of his mythos was a reference to the real world at all, excepting some religious things
He made a point of this in the letters I read, whenever someone asked him.
Not him, but I would not take Tolkien's letters as 100% gospel truth about his own intentions. In one of his letters, he mentions that the Ring can't be an allegory for nuclear weapons: If it was, Saruman would have tried to make his own ring.
He either forgot or didn't want to let the fact that Saruman did in fact try to make his own ring get in the way of his point here.
Theoden's movie speech is actually cribbed from two seperate speeches in the book. It's part of why the tone is so schizophrenic, his actual speech in the books is much more optimistic, the part about death and riding to ruin and the world's ending is spoken by Eomer, when he's surrounded, his horses are mostly played out, and he sees the ships of the Corsairs coming to the battlefield, and he thinks it's all lost.
>"charging into machine guns like retards god everyone was so stupid lions led by donkeys!!!!" >why did they just keep going they should have just turned around >man they're so stupid they could have done _____
How the hell do you expect to take ground if you don't physically move through it no matter the opposition? What did you want them to do? They hit the shit with artillery for like three days straight before the battle and then sent in ground troops.
How else are you supposed to take something? Ask the enemy not to fire anything (it wasn't just machine guns that killed)? Ask them politely to leave? No, the allied high command did the right thing. It was costly, but it was what was necessary.
>>514275 Correct, if faced with an entrenched position, do NOT DO the mistakes the Germans did! Don't use smoke, do not use tanks or spearheads, don't use cover or infiltration, or supressing fire or anything, line up and walk at the enemy! Don't even think of running or taking cover!
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.