How many in Battle of 5 Armies?

[Sauron the White]

The text tells us that a froce of 500 Dwarves marched to the Mountain. But how many others made up the various forces in the Battle of Five Armies in THE HOBBIT? Laketown does not seem overly large and I cannot imagine the Men would have any more than 300 to 400. And ideas here?

[The Sixth Wizard]

If the dwarves were seriously considering a pitched battle between them and the Elven-Laketown alliance, the latter force could have been no more than say 350 men a piece, and I could imagine that number outside the gates of Erebor yet unable to break through. Maybe a 450-250 split in Mannish favour.

Compared to the 10,000 orcs at Helm's Deep and the tens of thousands at the Pelennor Fields, seems rather a skirmish, does it not?

[skip spence]

Now this is conjecture but I think the numbers of elves and men were far greater than Dain’s 500. We are told for certain that their numbers were greater, just not by how much. Something about the situation convinces at least me that the dwarves don’t pose a credible military threat to the elves (nor an easy victory mind you). Out in the open the hosts of men and elves would surely win had it come to battle, but no one wants this, especially not the (somewhat) wise Thranduil. If they were set on reclaiming their part of the treasure (or more) at any cost they could have stormed the Mountain before Dain arrived for a quick but expensive victory. Now the elves were loath to fight dwarves, natural allies against Mordor, but more importantly, Thranduil knew well he could not afford the cost of a victory. Had he killed Thorin in his own halls a bitter war with the longbeards would surely be the outcome and that’s the last thing Thranduil wants. Thorin knows all of this too of course, and he’s confident Thranduil won’t dare open the can of worms battle is whatever the outcome. He’s hoping that Dain can reach the Mountain without too much bloodshed, and with him in his ranks he could fortify the mountain well enough to make an assault upon it near impossible. Then, no one could make any demands of him. Neither now they can, he’s thinking, overcome with greed and pride.

When Dain finally arrives it all boils over quickly. Thranduil and Bard realise the dwarves cannot be allowed to reach the mountain halls. If they do, they might as well go home again empty-handed, as they can’t not besiege a whole mountain. Of course Dain is well aware of the situation and the stakes involved. But as soon as he spots confusion and weakness he goes all in and makes for the gate without further delay, realising his chance is now. He’s hoping it won’t come to blows too, but if it does, he has no hesitation as his duty is clear to him: he’s coming to the aid of his kinsman and lord; other concerns are secondary. Now Tranduil and Bard has the choice of fighting a battle they in all likelyhood would win, but to a cost unaffordable (T. understands this, B. does not), or to let the dwarves have their way. The wise desicion would be to leave them and the treasure be but greed and pride, ever the deadliest sins in Middle Earth, stands in the way once again. We will never know what would’ve happened had the goblins not attacked, but I’m guessing a hard and bitter fight on the slopes where the three to five thousand elves and men fought and killed most of the 500 dwarves, to a terrible cost in lives, there and more importantly later, when the word had gotten around to other vindictive dwarves. Sauron would rub his hands like Monty Burns. *Excellent.*

Did the goblins save middle earth? Maybe, says this poster

[Groin Redbeard]

Very good point skip spence.:)

Although I don't consider Thraundil to be wise I don't believe him to be stupid. I'm sure that as soon as he heard about Thorin reclaiming the Lonely Mountain he would empty his hall, which cannot be more than 1000, and set out for Esgaroth.

I thought that his lust for the jewels was completely unfounded. He treated Thorin, chief of Durin's folk, as no more than common vagabond, and then when all the dirty work is done he is at the slopes of Esgaroth with an army ready to take the mountain by force if neccasary and he didn't give an ounce of help!

[Eönwë]

No, I think Thranduil is wise. The only problem is that he is also very greedy. He seems to me like one of the Sons of Feanor, willing to get the treasure (Though the Sons had a more personal reason, and it wasn't just any treasure, but you saw what happened to them when they did recover the last 2) at any cost. He has a weakness for gold and jewels, and can't help himself. He has to increase his already enormous (and ever growing) horde of treasure

[Gwathagor]

One could conceivably estimate the population of Laketown, based on the size of the lake and the extent of the industries thereabouts and the need for labor, but how do we begin to guess the size of the Elvish army? Tolkien's description of the caves doesn't give us much to go on. However...Thranduil only had one butler, so I suppose he couldn't have had TOO many people living down there...and they certainly weren't all warriors. I might be inclined to say that Groin's estimate of around 1000 soldiers in the Elvish army might even be too high. I'd guess around half that.

[skip spence]

I just browsed this episope in The Hobbit and found another mention of numbers. Now my copy is in Swedish, but I assume the translator hasn't taken the freedom to invent a number. If someone's up to digging out the proper quotes I'd appreciate it.

It is told that Elven archers first let arrows rain over the Ork host and that a thousand spearmen charged in afterwards. These spearmen are presumably only a part of Thranduils army. It is also told that the elves' spears and swords shone in the evening sun, indicating that not all Elven melee fighters used spears as their primary weapon, further supporting the theory that the thousand spearmen were not the entire elven army.

So I think my assumtion that Thranduil brougth several thousand elves out of Mirkwood holds out fairly well.

Also, would Thranduil feel comfortable that their superiour numbers would be enough if the Dwarves of Dain had only slightly fewer warriors then he did? I think not. These dwarves were veterans of the Ork wars with superiour equipment and strength compared to the rustic and frail woodland elves. Out in in the open Thranduild would not have been so cocky had his men not had a great numerical advantage.

As for the men of Lake Town it is hard to say. I'd definitely say fewer than a thousand, if not only a few hundred.

[Gwathagor]

It is told that Elven archers first let arrows rain over the Ork host and that a thousand spearmen charged in afterwards. These spearmen are presumable inly a part of Thranduils army. It is also told that the elven spears and swords shone in the evening sun, indicating that not all Elven melee fighters used spears as their primary weapon, further supporting the theory that the thousand spearmen were not the entire elven army.

So I think my assumtion that the Thranduil brougth several thousand elves out of Grenwood holds out fairly well.

That's a good point. It sounds like 1000 would actually be a low estimate.

[Groin Redbeard]

It looks like either way we go I was wrong.;)

I've been looking up some pictures of Laketown and I've come across a painting from Alan Lee that would suggest that Laketown was like the city of Venice in our world. I've also been looking at some pictures of the battle and there seems to be no shortage of men fighting. Therefore I believe that Laketown was larger than we think and that Bard's men were about as numerable as the dwarve's force.

[Morthoron]

These dwarves were veterans of the Ork wars with superiour equipment and strength compared to the rustic and frail woodland elves. Out in in the open Thranduild would not have been so cocky had his men not had a great numerical advantage.

Please supply a reference to the Elves of Mirkwood being frail. These same Elves followed Oropher and Thranduil into the War of the Last Alliance, and then later fought along with Celeborn's Lothlorien forces in the War of the Ring. By Tolkien's description, they seem well-equipped and fierce at the Battle of Five Armies. I would say the Dwarves were at a definite disadvantage in the open, and there are references to the fact they are much more dangerous in the close environment of their subterranean realms (where the bulk of the Dwarf and Orc War was fought).

[Gwathagor]

The dwarves would absolutely be at a disadvantage in the open 1) because there were fewer of them and so could be surrounded and 2) because the elves had archers. Darn good ones, too.

Legolas is described by Tolkien as being and tall and strong as a young tree, able to string a Great Bow of Lorien with ease. That hardly sounds "frail and rustic." I mean...rustic maybe (Thranduil did wear a crown of forest flora) but frail, not at all. If anything, their forest life would have made them tough and resilient.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Please supply a reference to the Elves of Mirkwood being frail. These same Elves followed Oropher and Thranduil into the War of the Last Alliance, and then later fought along with Celeborn's Lothlorien forces in the War of the Ring. By Tolkien's description, they seem well-equipped and fierce at the Battle of Five Armies. I would say the Dwarves were at a definite disadvantage in the open, and there are references to the fact they are much more dangerous in the close environment of their subterranean realms (where the bulk of the Dwarf and Orc War was fought).

Well...

Just as the Dwarves were at a disadvantage underground, the Elves were at a disadvantage out of the forest. I doubt the Elves had the metal of the dwarves to protect themselves at a common soldier level, and their bows, however strong, would not I think be an armour piercing variety, but rather designed to kill "soft" objects like the spiders and beasts of Dol Guldur.

The men themselves had lived on a raft town and had not traded with dwarves for years, so no metal or cavalry for them either.

Thus the mixed army of men and elves was essentially an archer army, perhaps only double the size of Dain's. They were poor at hand to hand combat, yet forced to stay by the gate of the mountain for fear of a breakthrough. They were fraught with indecision over whether or not to fight; by comparison we know Dwarves are not famed for peacemaking when a liegelord and pile of jewels is in danger.

What I believe would have happened at the supposed battle between the Dwarves and the allies: Dain charges through in a direct path to either the gate or the two leaders' camps. The men and elves are either taken by surprise, or are ready to stand and fight, and are slaughtered (sadly) by metal weaponry and armour. Dain either cuts his way to the gate before the Men and Elves can regroup, or kills either King and their forces flee. The End.

Examples of this happening in history:

Age of Alexander - Alexander crushes Darius' light archer-based armies with a strong corps of heavy infantrymen at Issus and Gaugamela.

Roman period - Often outnumbered, Roman legions win consistently against larger but lighter forces of barbarians.

Dark Ages - This is the period of myths which Tolkien bases his legendarium upon. Tough men (Vikings) with axes, armour and shields are superior to other opponents. Which side does this description remind you of?

Middle Ages - The heavy knight is king, save for the armour piercing crossbow, which neither side in the Battle for Erebor possessed.

I'm open to other viewpoints... :D

[skip spence]

Please supply a reference to the Elves of Mirkwood being frail. These same Elves followed Oropher and Thranduil into the War of the Last Alliance, and then later fought along with Celeborn's Lothlorien forces in the War of the Ring. By Tolkien's description, they seem well-equipped and fierce at the Battle of Five Armies. I would say the Dwarves were at a definite disadvantage in the open, and there are references to the fact they are much more dangerous in the close environment of their subterranean realms (where the bulk of the Dwarf and Orc War was fought).

I didn't take the word frail from any of Tolkien's writings and it's merit here is debatable. Maybe they weren't particularly frail, no. Compared to the dwarves however I think they were at a disadvantage man-to-man. It is true that the Greenwood elves fought in the last alliance and they were said to be brave and fierce in battle. But they were also said to be poorly equipped, especially in armoury, and rather ill-disiplined at that. I believe most of their warriors perished in that war, and that this could have been avoidable had they known more about war and arrived better prepared.

In contrast the dwarves were considered toughest in battle of all the speaking people, and unrivalled in the crafting of metals. Perhaps the Noldor of old could give them a match but Thranduil's lot were not even close to their level in physical prowess and craftmanship. But like I said earlier, Thranduil's attitude suggests their numerical advantage would have brought them victory despite all of this.
And yes, Thranduil does state that the dwarves made a tactical mistake at the beginnig of the battle due to their inexperience with this terrain.

[skip spence]

Legolas is described by Tolkien as being and tall and strong as a young tree, able to string a Great Bow of Lorien with ease. That hardly sounds "frail and rustic." I mean...rustic maybe (Thranduil did wear a crown of forest flora) but frail, not at all. If anything, their forest life would have made them tough and resilient.

To be fair, Legolas is not just any Mirkwood elf. In fact, he doesn't even belong to the Silvan people as he is the son of Thranduil, a Sindarin elf who can trace his ancestory back to Doriath(?) and probably with a somewhat noble family tree at that. Why else would he be king?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I do not belive that the Elves of Mirkwood was frail in any way, but to say that the forrest life made them "tough and resilient" is probably too much.

In many ways the life of the Mirkwood Elves seemed decadent, but that does not mean that they are poor fighters.

[Gwathagor]

Well...

Just as the Dwarves were at a disadvantage underground, the Elves were at a disadvantage out of the forest. I doubt the Elves had the metal of the dwarves to protect themselves at a common soldier level, and their bows, however strong, would not I think be an armour piercing variety, but rather designed to kill "soft" objects like the spiders and beasts of Dol Guldur.

The men themselves had lived on a raft town and had not traded with dwarves for years, so no metal or cavalry for them either.

Thus the mixed army of men and elves was essentially an archer army, perhaps only double the size of Dain's. They were poor at hand to hand combat, yet forced to stay by the gate of the mountain for fear of a breakthrough. They were fraught with indecision over whether or not to fight; by comparison we know Dwarves are not famed for peacemaking when a liegelord and pile of jewels is in danger.

What I believe would have happened at the supposed battle between the Dwarves and the allies: Dain charges through in a direct path to either the gate or the two leaders' camps. The men and elves are either taken by surprise, or are ready to stand and fight, and are slaughtered (sadly) by metal weaponry and armour. Dain either cuts his way to the gate before the Men and Elves can regroup, or kills either King and their forces flee. The End.

Examples of this happening in history:

Age of Alexander - Alexander crushes Darius' light archer-based armies with a strong corps of heavy infantrymen at Issus and Gaugamela.

Roman period - Often outnumbered, Roman legions win consistently against larger but lighter forces of barbarians.

Dark Ages - This is the period of myths which Tolkien bases his legendarium upon. Tough men (Vikings) with axes, armour and shields are superior to other opponents. Which side does this description remind you of?

Middle Ages - The heavy knight is king, save for the armour piercing crossbow, which neither side in the Battle for Erebor possessed.

I'm open to other viewpoints... :D


One last historical example:

Agincourt - Henry V's small English force armed with longbows (not crossbows) and pikes devastates Charles the Good's much larger army of infantrymen and heavy knights.

There are a few key similarities with the Battle of 5 Armies: the elves use weapons similar to those use by the English, and the dwarves are heavily armored, like the French knights. However, there are several important differences as well. The elven host was at least twice as large as Dain's army, and the dwarves had no horses, which only further emphasized their natural lack of height, speed, and reach.

The dwarves, while heavily armored, would have been slow to actually reach the elven army, during which time the elven bows would have wreaked havoc. Hand-to-hand, the elves' long spears would cause problems for the height and reach impaired dwarves. Once, however, the dwarves broke through that first line of spears and managed to get up close, the elves doubtless would have incurred a lot of casualties. In the end, though, I think the elves' superior numbers and superb archers would have tipped the blance in their favor.

The strange terrain would not have worked in favor of either army, as both were out of their element and therefore both at a disadvantage. The elves were used to forest and the dwarves to caves.

[Eönwë]

The strange terrain would not have worked in favor of either army, as both were out of their element and therefore both at a disadvantage. The elves were used to forest and the dwarves to caves.

I think that just about sums it up. They would have both had many casualties due to unfamiliarity of the terrain.

[Groin Redbeard]

Great idea's guys, I really like the way that this discussion is turning out.:)

The dwarves, while heavily armored, would have been slow to actually reach the elven army, during which time the elven bows would have wreaked havoc. Hand-to-hand, the elves' long spears would cause problems for the height and reach impaired dwarves.
I don't think that the dwarves would have any trouble in reaching the elven army. Elf arrows would be a problem, but the spearmen wouldn't pose much of a threat to the dwarf axes. The dwarf's stature would be an advantage, since they are so small they can adapt to tight fighting places, giving them more room to fight than a Man. Once the dwarves got into a melee with the elves they would hack them apart, I don't know about you but I think that dwarves excel in close quarter fighting. Also, I don't imagine the wood elves as being heavily armored; after all, Legolas wore almost no armor when he was with the fellowship.

The woodland elves, I imagine, would have almost no armor on them when they fight, since they kill their enemies by ambushing them from trees. Is it possible however that the dwarves had archers with them? We know that Thorin handled a bow, and would it be possible that they had some in Dain’s army? After all, how did dwarves get their food? Certainly not by beating a deer to death with their axes. :D If they elves gave them any trouble with their arrows, I’m certain that the dwarves could get close enough and keep the elves occupied.

One more interesting point that I'd like to bring up. We know that the Laketown men and the woodland elves outnumbered the dwarves, but is it possible that the dwarves might have brought along some of their war machines?

[Gwathagor]

All things being equal, if the battle consisted only of hand-to-hand combat between the elves and the dwarves, the dwarves would undoubtedly win. However, I think the key advantage of crack-shot archers would give the elves the upper hand because of the long, open distance the dwarves would have to cover before reaching the elven army. The casualties inflicted by the elven archers upon the slow dwarves would only exaggerate the already existing differences in numbers between the two armies. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, I'm sure the dwarves would inflict very heavy casualties, but at that point the elves would be able to overwhelm the dwarves simply by virtue of having, by that point, more than twice as many soldiers as the dwarves. The dwarves would be surrounded and then overrun.

I emphasize again that the elves would doubtless incur very heavy casualties during the close combat phase.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

We are turning more to a tactical talk instead of the actuall topic: How many where in the battle

Before I return to this I would like to say a few thing about the tactics. . . Agincourt is not the best of examples, as the major problem for the French was the tactics or rather the fact that the heavily amoured nobility did not want to fight pessants armed with bows. (not much glory or gain in that)

Anyways even though dwarves are tougher in close combat than elves, pikes still make an excelent defence weapon and good for keeping foes at bay. . .together with a bunch of archers I think they would have the upper hand against the dwarves.

I think they where confident they would win, the question would have been how many casualties they where ready to accept.

Also I belive that the elves would have been armoured. . .as you said they normally fought from the safty of the trees, in the woods mobility and camuflage was key. If they knew they where going to the open, where there are plenty of unknown factors. . .surely they would wear armour.

Anyways back to the topic:

I always pictured the elves numbers being somewhere between 1000-2000, the men of laketown only a few hundreds. I cannot remember what the book said about the amount of orcs and wargs, but I always imagined them as being of same amount or maybe a bit larger.

But this is based on nothing, only loose memories, it has been years since I read the Hobbit.

[Gwathagor]

Agincourt has its limitations as an example, but it demonstrates well the potential of archers and pikes against heavy armor, even when vastly out-numbered. Which was the point I was making.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Agincourt has its limitations as an example, but it demonstrates well the potential of archers and pikes against heavy armor, even when vastly out-numbered. Which was the point I was making.

I got that and I do not dispute that pikes and archers can be a good combo against heavily armoured troops, but I thought it important to point out that it several important factors that decided the outcome of Agincourt. . . .

One could say that I was trying to present a more diverse picture of the events. . .that sounded fancy enough for my liking. :smokin:

[Groin Redbeard]

I emphasize again that the elves would doubtless incur very heavy casualties during the close combat phase.

Hmm... well I don’t see how they could. The spear is not a weapon that is made for the close combat phase, seeing how you need some space to stab or to swing with it. Besides I doubt that this phase would occur since Dain’s main objective is to make it into the mountain. If the elves were so mighty shots why didn’t they storm Esgaroth while there were only the thirteen dwarves in there? Says quite a bit about the elves don’t it? ;)

Soldiers are most effective when they have a cause to believe and fight for. What where the elves fight for? They were fighting for their king and his greed and want of jewels, not much of a cause. However, the dwarves were fighting to reclaim their long lost home; they were fighting for what was theirs. They had a cause to fight for, this would make them unconquerable in battle.

[Groin Redbeard]

Also I belive that the elves would have been armoured. . .as you said they normally fought from the safty of the trees, in the woods mobility and camuflage was key. If they knew they where going to the open, where there are plenty of unknown factors. . .surely they would wear armour.


But the question is: do they have the armor. You can't just make it appear out of thin air, and I don't think that the Mirkwood elves ever fought out of their woods, since they had enough problems with Dol Goldur. Even if they did have armor I would imagine it would be light, made out of leather or something. That is hardly sufficient to stop a Dwarf's axe from killing you.:)

[Gwathagor]

Hmm... well I don’t see how they could. The spear is not a weapon that is made for the close combat phase, seeing how you need some space to stab or to swing with it. Besides I doubt that this phase would occur since Dain’s main objective is to make it into the mountain. If the elves were so mighty shots why didn’t they storm Esgaroth while there were only the thirteen dwarves in there? Says quite a bit about the elves don’t it? ;)

Soldiers are most effective when they have a cause to believe and fight for. What where the elves fight for? They were fighting for their king and his greed and want of jewels, not much of a cause. However, the dwarves were fighting to reclaim their long lost home; they were fighting for what was theirs. They had a cause to fight for, this would make them unconquerable in battle.

There seems to be a rash of people misunderstanding my posts.

sigh

I think, Groin, that the word "incur" may have thrown you off. :) To incur means to take, to acquire, to bring upon oneself, to receive...something like that.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Hmm... well I don’t see how they could. The spear is not a weapon that is made for the close combat phase, seeing how you need some space to stab or to swing with it. Besides I doubt that this phase would occur since Dain’s main objective is to make it into the mountain. If the elves were so mighty shots why didn’t they storm Esgaroth while there were only the thirteen dwarves in there? Says quite a bit about the elves don’t it? ;)

Soldiers are most effective when they have a cause to believe and fight for. What where the elves fight for? They were fighting for their king and his greed and want of jewels, not much of a cause. However, the dwarves were fighting to reclaim their long lost home; they were fighting for what was theirs. They had a cause to fight for, this would make them unconquerable in battle.

I don't know why on earth the elves would want to storm Esgaroth, that would make no sence at all. . . it makes more sence to talk about why they did not storm Erebor :p

I am quite sure that they did not want any casualties if it could be avoided, so why storm a fortified position? They could just starve them! I am also quite sure that the elves recognised Thorin's claim and so had wish to kill him or any of the dwarves, but wanted an agreement with them.

About spears: remember that the dwarves was the attackers and spears are excelent as a defence weapon.

and you simply cannot just create a rule about when soldiers are most effective. . .soldiers can also get carried away and do foolish things because they belive in the cause.

But the question is: do they have the armor. You can't just make it appear out of thin air, and I don't think that the Mirkwood elves ever fought out of their woods, since they had enough problems with Dol Goldur. Even if they did have armor I would imagine it would be light, made out of leather or something. That is hardly sufficient to stop a Dwarf's axe from killing you.:)

Elves live for a long time. . .there was a time before Dol Guldur, where the enemy was elsewhere. To think that you would never engage in combat outside your own little green patch would be foolish and just plain weird. As far as I remember the elves of Doriath had armour and they seldome ventured out in the open. . .
Anyways the fact is that we are never told about elves who never used armour, it is the standard that elves have armour of some sort and therefor it would be an obvious thing to mention if they did not have any armour.

I would also like to add that quite heavy armour is seldom going to keep you alive after a direct blow, it is more likely to save you from minor injuries and so keep you in the fight longer.

[Groin Redbeard]

I would also like to add that quite heavy armour is seldom going to keep you alive after a direct blow, it is more likely to save you from minor injuries and so keep you in the fight longer.

By minor injuries do you mean like, oh say, an arrow? Either way the elves are screwed, nothing can withstand a heavy battle axe!:D

[Morthoron]

Hmm... well I don’t see how they could. The spear is not a weapon that is made for the close combat phase, seeing how you need some space to stab or to swing with it.

The use of spear and pike, particularly when an army has the advantage of higher ground (as was the case of the Elves), is lethal in an en masse charge (as at the battle of Sempach, or with the Flemish bourgeois against French chivalry during the 14th century). It is noted by Tolkien that the Elves charged the Orcs twice with spear, to great effect. This, in tandem with hails of arrows, is a proven medieval strategy (far more effective than countless cavalry charges or with unmounted, heavily armored knights -- as was the French downfall at Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt during the 100 Year's War).

Besides I doubt that this phase would occur since Dain’s main objective is to make it into the mountain. If the elves were so mighty shots why didn’t they storm Esgaroth while there were only the thirteen dwarves in there?

It was not the intent of the Elves and Men to slaughter the thirteen in Erebor, the text is quite clear in that regard.

ays quite a bit about the elves don’t it?

Elvish restraint saved the situation from getting far uglier sooner (which would have led to chaos and an Orkish victory). The text supports that the Elves and Men had a decisive advantage against the Dwarves both numerically and from strategic positioning:

"Fools!" laughed Bard, "to come thus beneath the mountain's arm! They do not understand war above ground, whatever they may know of battle in the mines. There are many archers and spearmen now hidden in the rocks upon their right flank. Dwarf-mail may be good, but they will soon be hard put to it, Let us set on them now from both sides, before they are fully rested!"

But the ElvenKing said: "Long will I tarry, ere I begin this war for gold. The dwarves cannot pass us, unless we will, or do anything that we cannot mark. Let us hope still for something that will bring reconciliation. Our advantage in numbers will be enough, if in the end it must come to unhappy blows."

The text shows the Dwarvish strength at 500, whereas Tolkien speaks of 1000 Elvish spearmen in the initial charge against the Orcs (and reserves for a second charge, plus countless Elvish archers, and an unquantified host of Men under Bard). In addition, the Elves and Men held the high ground and were assembled in the plain below (the classic pincer movement).

But the question is: do they have the armor. You can't just make it appear out of thin air, and I don't think that the Mirkwood elves ever fought out of their woods, since they had enough problems with Dol Goldur. Even if they did have armor I would imagine it would be light, made out of leather or something. That is hardly sufficient to stop a Dwarf's axe from killing you.:)

The Elves of Mirkwood fought under Oropher and Thranduil in the War of the Last Alliance (in Mordor), so yes, they do have experience fighting outside the forest (Elves being immortal and all). Plus they have a distinct height and reach advantage over the dwarves, particularly with spears. Add to this their renowned archery ability and the dwarves would be cut to little, hairy ribbons.

[Groin Redbeard]

and you simply cannot just create a rule about when soldiers are most effective . . . soldiers can also get carried away and do foolish things because they believe in the cause.
Who’s making up a rule? I was stating that a soldier actually fighting for something will have a better chance of winning the battle. That is mainly why the dwarves fought to such great affect in the War between Dwarves and Orcs.
If that’s not clear to you then let me ask you this: who here amongst ya’ll would like to mess with an angry dwarf? :D


You bring up some interesting points, Morthoron ; I now believe that the alliance of men and elves would outmatch the dwarf force.

The dwarf force must be much smaller than the alliance's, and Bard and Thranduil had the chance to seek out the best ground before the dwarves arrived. I'm not sure that the archers would do much harm, but reading back up on my history I see that the spears would be a much greater threat.

However, I'm not sure that you all fully comprehend the capabilities of a dwarf. From what I gather, you see the battle as: shoot dwarves and stab them if they get too close. A mere mindless rabble of tiny men, I think not!

I would also like to bring up the subject of pole arms such as the halberd. Now mostly dwarves consider any other weapon besides a sword, mace, or axe as sissy and cowardly weapons (especially range weapons), but I think that we can make an exception with the halberd. Therefore I think that both sides would have weapons to keep the enemy at bay, and making it a contest of range weapons.

Therefore I do think that the elves and men would win, but not big enough to call it a victory. Much like the battle of Azanulbizar.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

intersting thread! Here's an earlier one with some details and speculation on the Battle of Five Armies-

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1511&highlight=battles+late

Scroll down a bit for the Five Armies section.

To summarise, the dwarves had 500 heavily armed soldiers with a few archers. The elves had 1000 spearmen at least, and I believe that their archers would have outnumbered the spearmen, so I guessed at a total elven force of 2500. The men of Laketown (and presumably the surrounding area) are not numbered, but were assigned the dwarves to bolster their flank of the battle, if you guess at an even split of forces that makes up-to 2000 Lakemen, though I admit this is a complete guess.

On Dain's potential 'blue-on-blue' it seems clear that the Elven-Laketown alliance had concealed the majority of their forces, confusing the dwarves who were not experienced in above-ground battles. If this calamity had happened then the dwarves would surely have lost, though must have inflicted heavy losses on the allies.

[Morthoron]

However, I'm not sure that you all fully comprehend the capabilities of a dwarf. From what I gather, you see the battle as: shoot dwarves and stab them if they get too close. A mere mindless rabble of tiny men, I think not!

Wearing mail, no matter how well it is made, does not confer invincibility (and these Dwarves weren't all decked out in mithril). In fact, mail was eventually abandoned in favor of plate during the Middle-ages because it did not protect adequately enough.

I would also like to bring up the subject of pole arms such as the halberd. Now mostly dwarves consider any other weapon besides a sword, mace, or axe as sissy and cowardly weapons (especially range weapons), but I think that we can make an exception with the halberd. Therefore I think that both sides would have weapons to keep the enemy at bay, and making it a contest of range weapons.

Hmmm...interesting Dwarvish theory equating ranged weapons with sissification. I would think that the Dwarves eschewed archery simply because they lived primarily underground where ranged weapons would prove useless (the whole business of shooting around corners and such). Besides, Dain's Dwarves carried mattocks for the most part, which would be only effective for a Dwarf at very close range; thus, keeping them a goodly length away eliminates their vaunted battle prowess. One can't hit what one can't reach.

[Formendacil]

It's quite clear that the Elves and Men outnumbered the Dwarves, no question there. I also think most are willing to concede that individually, the Dwarves would have been more formidable than any/all of their adversaries, though they seem to have been outnumbered to an extent that they would probably have lost a battle, though decimating the enemy forces.

What is not being asked is whether or not a pitched battle was the Dwarven intention.

We know from the book that the Dwarves were seeking to get to the Lonely Mountain, and the Elven/Mannish intention was the prevent the same, and the battle that might have occurred would have been fought over this question. Now, it seems to be a good bet that Dáin's men would have lost--but I question whether or not this would have been a concern for them in the long run.

How many men would it take to hold the Lonely Mountain? Thorin's company of thirteen were able to man it well enough, once they walled in the main gate, that the Elves and Men weren't quite ready to throw themselves against it without talk, and it sounds as if Dáin's army was enough to make it impregnable. How much of Dáin's army was necessary to accomplish this feat? Considering also that a large reason the Iron Hills contingent was wanted was for provisions, it does not seem that a particularly large portion of the army would have needed to have made it to the gate.

What then, if the Dwarven battle plan was simply to win at all costs through the enemy lines and reinforce their kin in the mountain? I think we can already agree this would have been devastating to the Dwarves, and nearly suicidal, but let us say that a mere fifty Dwarves made it. Personally, given that thirteen was enough to give the Elven-Mannish alliance pause, I think this would have been enough to hold the mountain indefinitely. Fifty is a pretty paltry remnant of an army of five hundred, but given that they'd have to smash their way through the enemy lines and flee to the mountain, it doesn't seem too amiss.

Now, for any conventional army, such tactics might seem like wasteful suicide, unacceptable losses, but I think we need to recall that Dwarves don't seem to exactly have that mindset. Azanalbizar has been mentioned a couple times on this thread as a comparable battle, and one should look at the the Dwarves involved there. They would do anything to avenge a grudge; imagine how they would fight to regain the treasure and fortress of their people? 90% losses, I think, would be fully acceptable losses, and with the Mountain reinforced and reprovisioned, and with winter about to set in, Thorin would have been in place to entrench himself in for months, until spring, when it would be entirely possible for a much larger force to amass from the Iron Hills and the Dwarf houses in the east (the few Dwarves in the Blue Mountains would not have been able to come, given the problems with Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains). Would the Elves and Men have had such reinforcements? Maybe a few from the Men to the south, kinsmen of the Lakemen, but not many I would think, and certainly no one from Rivendell or Lothlórien.

[Groin Redbeard]

Wearing mail, no matter how well it is made, does not confer invincibility (and these Dwarves weren't all decked out in mithril). In fact, mail was eventually abandoned in favor of plate during the Middle-ages because it did not protect adequately enough.
We're not talking about the Middle Ages, we are talking about dwarves: the best smiths the world has ever known. Who knows some of them might have plate armor. ;)

Formendacil, you make some excellent points! These dwarves that are fighting are also experienced battle hardened warriors from the War of Dwarves and Orcs; the men of Laketown, I imagine would be pretty green, and the elves might have some who survived from the Last Alliance. Everyone seemes to be under the assumption that the battle would commence as soon as the dwarves arrived, but what if they waited until dark. The dwarves can see very well in the dark and this might aid them in their attack, and they might also produce some mischief with their many skills with fire.

[Morthoron]

We're not talking about the Middle Ages, we are talking about dwarves: the best smiths the world has ever known. Who knows some of them might have plate armor. ;)

*shrugs* No references in any Tolkien book regarding Dwarves making plate. It just wasn't their bag. As far as being the 'best smiths the world has ever known', I believe you have to offer the Elves the begrudging title of the 'best archers the world has ever known', particularly with their advanced visual acuity and immortality (lots of time to practice hitting Dwarven targets).

I will not debate the anachronistic nature of Tolkien's work, but all weaponry and armaments tend toward the early Middle-ages (or Dark Ages, if you prefer). There are no hand-held crossbows (so perhaps previous to the Battle of Hastings), and there is chain mail, but virtually no plate whatsoever, save for helms and a few dubious accoutrements worn by the Knights of Dol Amroth. The time period of Anglo-Saxon England was very much Tolkien's forte; ergo, the weapons employed mirror his experience. Therefore, my references to medieval strategy are sound.

Formendacil, you make some excellent points! These dwarves that are fighting are also experienced battle hardened warriors from the War of Dwarves and Orcs; the men of Laketown, I imagine would be pretty green, and the elves might have some who survived from the Last Alliance. Everyone seemes to be under the assumption that the battle would commence as soon as the dwarves arrived, but what if they waited until dark. The dwarves can see very well in the dark and this might aid them in their attack, and they might also produce some mischief with their many skills with fire.

It is not an assumption, the battle did commence -- Elvish bows began twanging -- the Dwarves did not wait till nightfall. If Gandalf had not arrived and shown each side their predicament, the battle would have begun full force.

[The Sixth Wizard]

One last historical example:

Agincourt - Henry V's small English force armed with longbows (not crossbows) and pikes devastates Charles the Good's much larger army of infantrymen and heavy knights.

There are a few key similarities with the Battle of 5 Armies: the elves use weapons similar to those use by the English, and the dwarves are heavily armored, like the French knights. However, there are several important differences as well. The elven host was at least twice as large as Dain's army, and the dwarves had no horses, which only further emphasized their natural lack of height, speed, and reach.

Sure, the elves use bows, but these were composite bows, not longbows which were much more resilient. And there is another key difference. The English archers and Agincourt and Crecy were highly skilled warriors fighting in formation, used to killing in open ground at range. The elves are most proficient fighting in a forest, i.e at short range, and so their bows would be short range bows, and probably not armour piercing, because an orc or other enemy wearing armour in a forest is impractical.

As an additional note: a documentary showed that the arrows used at Agincourt could not pierce French steel armour. Imagine the armour of the dwarves! The English relied on masses of arrows and arrow showers, along with the muddy terrain and confusion, to kill the French, which was not a factor at the Lonely Mountain.

So the elves did not have the training of the English in how to fire even when one could not see the enemy, they did not have the same armour piercing bows, they could not fire effectively at very long range and probably didn't fire in a heavy formation. We can not relate them at all to the English longbowmen and their feat.


Now as for the high ground, Dwarves are the most renowned for steadfastness. Climbing a hill is not a problem for them, as you can imagine the kind of crevasses and huge number of stairs there were to deal with in their mines.


One last thing; I would imagine the lack of horses in the dwarven ranks to be a benefit. These could not be shot out from under the riders if they didn't exist. Their opponents could not have many warhorses either, as one lived in a forest, the other lived on water. In the end, their armour would negate the bows of the elves somewhat, their strong constitution would give them the upper hand in melee, and their only weakness, cavalry, was nonexistant.


Personally, I do actually think that the allies would just win. But it would be a very, very tough fight. The dwarves would stand, maybe to the last man. And if they broke through to the mountain (or even made a dash for the front gate, which was not on high ground I believe) and around half made it inside, I believe the Elves and Men would retreat.

EDIT:

No references in any Tolkien book regarding Dwarves making plate.

That surprises me, as a dwarf in plate was always my mental picture. Perhaps I could revise what I said about the Elves' bows not being able to pierce dwarven armour.

[Gwathagor]

There are a lot of assumptions here I disagree with, so I won't enumerate them all.

I will, however, say this: it's already been pointed out that the Wood-elves had the experience and equipment for fighting in the open, as they participated in the Last Alliance. I assume that they would be superior bowmen than the English peasants in all respects: more naturally talented, better trained, better equipped, etc.

[Groin Redbeard]

*shrugs* No references in any Tolkien book regarding Dwarves making plate. It just wasn't their bag.

I'm not so sure about that. If you take a close look at my avvie you can see that the artist, John Howe, saw Gimli as wearing plate body instead of mail. :)

[Morthoron]

I'm not so sure about that. If you take a close look at my avvie you can see that the artist, John Howe, saw Gimli as wearing plate body instead of mail. :)

*shrugs again*

'The Great Plate Debate' has been argued on other fora (and perhaps buried here somewhere) for decades, costing countless lives and filling pages and pages with armorial minutiae.

Needless to say, the references to chain mail in Middle-earth are overwhelming; whereas the rarity of references to plate can be counted on the pudgy little fingers of a mithril-clad Hobbit.

As far as Gimli, please provide any reference to him wearing anything but mail, and I will gladly concede the point.

[Eönwë]

Wearing mail, no matter how well it is made, does not confer invincibility (and these Dwarves weren't all decked out in mithril). In fact, mail was eventually abandoned in favor of plate during the Middle-ages because it did not protect adequately enough.

Anyway, chain mail allows more speed and flexibility. I know it has been proved that plate armour is not immanoeuvrable, but still, it is not allow as much agile movement. But for some reason dwarves have always seemed to me
to wear plate armour (they can easily carry it because of their immense strength and hardiness).

[Morthoron]

But for some reason dwarves have always seemed to me
to wear plate armour (they can easily carry it because of their immense strength and hardiness).

*Sighs*

Okay, direct quote from Chapter XVII "The Cloud Bursts":

Each one of his [Dain's] folk was clad in a hauberk of steel mail that hung to his knees, and his legs were covered with hose of a fine and flexible metal mesh...

That description was for Dain's folk, and here's one for Thorin's, from Chapter XIII "Not at Home":

Now the dwarves took down mail and weapons from the walls and armed themselves. Royal indeed did Thorin look, clad in a coat of gold-plated rings...

Really, I've been through this debate before. ;)

[The Sixth Wizard]

I will, however, say this: it's already been pointed out that the Wood-elves had the experience and equipment for fighting in the open, as they participated in the Last Alliance. I assume that they would be superior bowmen than the English peasants in all respects: more naturally talented, better trained, better equipped, etc.

The English used a close-knit formation, usually on the flanks and rear of their army. They were trained in formation-firing, and after years of such work they were able to fire over the heads of their own men and hit the enemy consistently, through the orders of a captain who directed them. The elves would not have been drilled like this for a major battle, and were not the mercenary fighters (i.e people who did it all their lives, not peasants) that the English companies were. The Last Alliance was nearly three thousand years before this battle and the significance of Mirkwood's contribution even then was of debatable nature.

However I take into account that they were immortal, so they would have had plenty of time to learn one sunny weekend... :D

[Morthoron]

The English used a close-knit formation, usually on the flanks and rear of their army. They were trained in formation-firing, and after years of such work they were able to fire over the heads of their own men and hit the enemy consistently, through the orders of a captain who directed them. The elves would not have been drilled like this for a major battle, and were not the mercenary fighters (i.e people who did it all their lives, not peasants) that the English companies were. The Last Alliance was nearly three thousand years before this battle and the significance of Mirkwood's contribution even then was of debatable nature.

However I take into account that they were immortal, so they would have had plenty of time to learn one sunny weekend... :D

I would just like to point out that at the time of Agincourt, life expectancy for folks was 35-40 years (good King Henry V died rather early himself), and for soldiers much less so. So, what your saying is that the average ill-fed, stunted, pock-marked and goiter-ridden English archer was better drilled and was a better marksman than an immortal elf? Just checking.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I would just like to point out that at the time of Agincourt, life expectancy for folks was 35-40 years (good King Henry V died rather early himself), and for soldiers much less so. So, what your saying is that the average ill-fed, stunted, pock-marked and goiter-ridden English archer was better drilled and was a better marksman than an immortal elf? Just checking.

At formation- and mass-firing, yes, I'm offering that point of view. I also doubt elves grew massive shoulders like the men did, as elves seem too eternal to change in that way.

I suppose I dislike the Paolini-esque view that elves are superior in every way to the other two races. I might even subconciously try to find weaknesses in their culture, such as their apparent aimlessness and their inability to change. Elves (in very broad terms) do not seem like the kind of creature to change in a hurry, or to fully commit to any course of action, as Dwarves do.

[Morthoron]

At formation- and mass-firing, yes, I'm offering that point of view. I also doubt elves grew massive shoulders like the men did, as elves seem too eternal to change in that way..

Hmmm...early 15th century Englishmen with massive shoulders? They'd be lucky to be 5 1/2 feet tall (vitamin deficiencies and poor diet, you know). I'm not trying to demean English soldiery, but English success in the 100 Years' War had more to do with French foolhardiness (and in some cases, abject stupidity), than English ability. Had the French encircled Henry V's starving army and just waited, there would be nothing for Shakespeare to crow about.

I suppose I dislike the Paolini-esque view that elves are superior in every way to the other two races. I might even subconciously try to find weaknesses in their culture, such as their apparent aimlessness and their inability to change. Elves (in very broad terms) do not seem like the kind of creature to change in a hurry, or to fully commit to any course of action, as Dwarves do.

It is not merely a Paolini view, it is a Tolkien view. Please refer to Legolas of Mirkwood as far as visual acuity, hearing, heartiness (sloughing off a blizzard), and I believe Tolkien referred to him as being strong as a hale, young tree.

[Groin Redbeard]

Aha! I have found it: the reference to the dwarves wearing plate body armor. I found it in the Durin's Song, the one that Gimli sang in the mines of Khazadum. I've provided the entire verse where it is mentioned.


There hammer on the anvil smote,
There chisel clove, and graver wrote;
There forged was bladed and bound was hilt;
The delver mined the mason built.
There beryl, pearl, and opal pale
And metel wrought like fishes' mail,
Buckler and corslet, axe and sword,
And shining spears were laid in horde.

A corslet is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "a piece of defensive armour covering the body." In Ancient Greek armies, the 'hoplite', or heavy infantryman, wore a bell-shaped bronze corslet or 'cuirass', to protect his chest area. The corslet consisted of two plates connected on the sides via hinges and bronze pins. It was made up of a gorget, breast, back and tassets, full arms and gauntlets.

In the sixth verse it also mentions something like a mail shirt, but I just wanted to make the point that dwarves CAN wear plate armor.

I will, however, say this: it's already been pointed out that the Wood-elves had the experience and equipment for fighting in the open, as they participated in the Last Alliance.
But this was at the end of the Second Age. I don't know about you, but after three thousand years I'd be a little rusty in fighting like that again.

[Groin Redbeard]

Here's a picture of the corslet armor. Greek Hoplite (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Hop2.jpg)

[davem]

Hmmm...early 15th century Englishmen with massive shoulders? They'd be lucky to be 5 1/2 feet tall (vitamin deficiencies and poor diet, you know).

Unfortunately, virtually no bowstaves from the medieval period have survived. So how do we know how powerful the bows would have been? Some evidence can be obtained from the arrows, which have survived. Because the 'archer's paradox' demands that a particular bow needs an arrow of suitable spine (stiffness) then by measuring the properties of a medieval arrow we can estimate the strength of the bow for which it was designed. When these calculations were done, the answers were almost unbelievable. They suggested that the force needed to draw a medieval longbow could have been in the range 110 to 180 pounds (500 to 800 Newtons). Although these figures are astonishing, they have been confirmed by calculations based on the bows found in the wreck of Henry VIII's ship Mary Rose, which sank in 1545. It seems likely that in 1415, when archery was at its peak in England as a technique of warfare, bows would have been no less powerful than in 1545, when archery was already beginning to lose ground to firearms.....

Henry had approximately 5,000 archers at Agincourt, and a stock of about 400,000 arrows. Each archer could shoot about ten arrows a minute, so the army only had enough ammunition for about eight minutes of shooting at maximum fire power. However, this fire power would have been devastating. Fifty thousand arrows a minute - over 800 a second - would have hissed down on the French cavalry, killing hundreds of men a minute and wounding many more. The function of a company of medieval archers seems to have been equivalent to that of a machine-gunner, so in modern terms we can imagine Agincourt as a battle between old-fashioned cavalry, supported by a few snipers (crossbow-men) on the French side, against a much smaller army equipped with machine guns. http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm

William de Braose, an English knight fighting the Welsh in 1188, reported that an arrow had penetrated his chain mail and clothing, passed through his thigh and saddle and finally entered his horse.

It has been claimed that drawing the bowstring back to your cheek bone is equivalent to lifting a 100lb block of concrete with two fingers. To cultivate the special back and shoulder muscles needed it would have been necessary to medieval peasants to have trained from a very young age. This had long-term consequences for the longbowmen. For example, the skeleton of an archer found in the wreck of the Mary Rose showed he had thicker bones in his right arm than his left and a deformed right shoulder from drawing the bow. Other evidence suggests that using such a high-tension weapon often left longbowmen with physical deformities.http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/YALDlongbow.htm

.

[Morthoron]

Aha! I have found it: the reference to the dwarves wearing plate body armor. I found it in the Durin's Song, the one that Gimli sang in the mines of Khazadum. I've provided the entire verse where it is mentioned.



A corslet is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "a piece of defensive armour covering the body." In Ancient Greek armies, the 'hoplite', or heavy infantryman, wore a bell-shaped bronze corslet or 'cuirass', to protect his chest area. The corslet consisted of two plates connected on the sides via hinges and bronze pins. It was made up of a gorget, breast, back and tassets, full arms and gauntlets.

In the sixth verse it also mentions something like a mail shirt, but I just wanted to make the point that dwarves CAN wear plate armor.

Hate to burst your bubble, Groin, but if you do some more research (like Googling 'mail corslet') you will find countless references to mail or scale mail corslets (also pressed leather ones). Considering Beowulf was said to have a 'mail corslet', I would think that Tolkien was considering mail rather than plate (Anglo-Saxon point of reference as opposed to Greek, Roman or later medieval plate).

Davem --

I have seen those internet references regarding the incredible draw force of 14th-15th century longbows, and I won't debate them (although there are other 'internet experts' who disagree with the references you pointed out), but then again, that doesn't in any way discount the draw or pull of Elvish bows and their accuracy (given their physical gifts superior to Men as Tolkien pointed out). I have never argued the great impact of the archer in the 100 Year's War; however, in each of the England's greatest victories (Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt), it was lack of any coherent French strategy, and the congenitally moronic hubris of their knights (it must have been inherent, as it kept recurring) that caused their destruction. If they had not charged and merely waited on English supplies to run out, then King Phillip would not have run blindly alone through the night, King Jean would not have been captured and sent to London (rather the Black Prince may well have taken his turn in Paris), and Henry V's little army would have been starved into submission.

English fortunes declined readily enough when Charles V, in tandem with Du Guesclin, refused direct battle and took to scorched earth tactics. But then, Charles V was a tactician and not a preux chevalier like his father (who, of course, died in London for his inability to control his forces).

[Groin Redbeard]

Hate to burst your bubble, Groin, but if you do some more research (like Googling 'mail corslet') you will find countless references to mail or scale mail corslets (also pressed leather ones). Considering Beowulf was said to have a 'mail corslet', I would think that Tolkien was considering mail rather than plate (Anglo-Saxon point of reference as opposed to Greek, Roman or later medieval plate).

Then why did the song not say mail shirt instead of corslet. You're are making your argument on an assumption not fact. There is no proof that he is refering to mail shirts or plate body. Wouldn't it then be logical that since he didn't refer to either armor specifically that perhaps he was refering to both?:)

[Morthoron]

Then why did the song not say mail shirt instead of corslet. You're are making your argument on an assumption not fact. There is no proof that he is refering to mail shirts or plate body. Wouldn't it then be logical that since he didn't refer to either armor specifically that perhaps he was refering to both?:)

The line previous to 'corslet' refers to 'metal wrought like fishes' mail', which, not surprisingly is referring to the scale mail evident in corslets worn in Europe during the Dark Ages. This would include the Franks, Danes and the Anglo-Saxons. The corslet reference in no way implies plate.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

"Corslet" appears to refer to the type of clothing piece, its material may then be varied. Tolkien uses the word in "A Journey in the Dark" (FotR): Bilbo had a corslet of mithril-rings that Thorin gave him. That is definitely chain mail.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I have never argued the great impact of the archer in the 100 Year's War; however, in each of the England's greatest victories (Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt), it was lack of any coherent French strategy, and the congenitally moronic hubris of their knights (it must have been inherent, as it kept recurring) that caused their destruction. If they had not charged and merely waited on English supplies to run out, then King Phillip would not have run blindly alone through the night, King Jean would not have been captured and sent to London (rather the Black Prince may well have taken his turn in Paris), and Henry V's little army would have been starved into submission.

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

[Morthoron]

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

VI, VI, VI...It wasn't just hundreds of Elvish archers, it was hundreds of men under Bard's leadership, and it was more than 1000 Elvish spearmen (with and unspecified number of sword-carrying Elves as well). The Elves and men held both the high ground and the valley. There were only 500 Dwarves. They were walking into a trap...both Thranduil and Bard stated so in the text.

And where anywhere do you find the Elves were backed into a corner? Where does it say they were underarmed? The text states they were absolutely ferocious against the orcs, not to mention their arrows burned with a preternatural flame (my adjectives, please read the text yourself).

If anything, the Dwarves were being rather 14th century French, don't you think?

[Gwathagor]

Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.

Man-for-man, an elf and a dwarf would each have their own advantages and weaknesses, but I imagine these would balance out giving them a more or less equal chances of defeating their opponent.

The dwarf's lack of height and the elf's greater reach and agility would be counteracted by the dwarf's strength and hardiness. In the Battle of Five Armies, it is hard to say whether the dwarven army would have been superior, man-for-man. Granted, they probably had superior armor and better weapons for close combat, but elvish archers are notoriously effective - I think that this, as well as the elves' greater numbers, at the very least levels the playing field, if not actually tipping it in the favor of the elves. And then, of course, as Morthoron pointed out, the elves have a large force of swordsmen under Bard fighting alongside them. The dwarves would have been vastly, vastly outnumbered, even if the Laketown men were inferior warriors to the elves and dwarves (which seems likely).

It is debatable whether the dwarves would have been better warriors than the elves on a man-for-man basis (I find it unlikely), but give the enormous difference in size between the armies, I don't think it matters.

[Groin Redbeard]

These arguments are beginning to make no sense. First we say that the elf strength is around 2500 men with the majority being archers, but Morthoron says that there was more than 1000 spearmen plus a large number of swordsmen, both elf and man. It seems that the number of elves grow every few posts.;)

And where anywhere do you find the Elves were backed into a corner? Where does it say they were underarmed?
Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

A lot of our arguments, including yours, Morthoron, are just speculations and educated guesses. How much supplies do you think that the men of Laketown could gather from their burnt and runed city, probably not much more than what they were wearing. The elves had to move fast in order to get to Erebor quickly, so they probably didn't take much supplies prefering to travel light and fast.

It is debatable whether the dwarves would have been better warriors than the elves on a man-for-man basis (I find it unlikely), but give the enormous difference in size between the armies, I don't think it matters.
Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

[Morthoron]

These arguments are beginning to make no sense. First we say that the elf strength is around 2500 men with the majority being archers, but Morthoron says that there was more than 1000 spearmen plus a large number of swordsmen, both elf and man. It seems that the number of elves grow every few posts.;)

Read the book. They had at least 1000 spearmen (and enough reserves for a second full charge against the orcs), swordsmen and a large contingent of archers. This does not even account for the men under Bard.

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

Again, read the book. That would be a start.

A lot of our arguments, including yours, Morthoron, are just speculations and educated guesses. How much supplies do you think that the men of Laketown could gather from their burnt and runed city, probably not much more than what they were wearing. The elves had to move fast in order to get to Erebor quickly, so they probably didn't take much supplies prefering to travel light and fast.

Conjecture on your part. They were fully armed with spear, sword and bows. What makes you think the Dwarves spent much time supplying themselves?


Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

I never agreed to anything. That is a figment of your imagination.

[Groin Redbeard]

I never agreed to anything. That is a figment of your imagination.
I said: almost all of us! You keep telling me to read the book, how about you reading my post [correctly]!

All things being equal, if the battle consisted only of hand-to-hand combat between the elves and the dwarves, the dwarves would undoubtedly win.
This is what I was talking about, Morthoron! It's post 19.

Conjecture on your part. They were fully armed with spear, sword and bows. What makes you think the Dwarves spent much time supplying themselves?
I didn't say that the dwarves had more time and the elves didn't! I don't think either side had much time to gather supplies, only what they might need for an immediate battle. If if consisted of a siege the elves, and perhaps dwarves, would not be capable of lasting long.




I'm done with this discussion for a while so here is my analysis:

The dwarves attack the elves and hand to hand melee ensues shortly with the dwarves losing around a fifth of their overall strength to the elven arrows. The elves and men hold their own for awhile, but soon the dwarves push them back. Around 150-300 dwarves make it into the mountain and a long futile siege begins.

Have fun with it!:D

[Morthoron]

I said: almost all of us! You keep telling me to read the book, how about you reading my post [correctly]!

Groin, I am asking you to read the book because everything you have presented in this thread (save your one post regarding corslets) is based on your conjecture (with a highly anti-elf bias I might add). For me personally, it seems like you haven't read the passages regarding the battle for a while, and are content with relying on stereotypical characterizations from fantasy roleplaying. If I am wrong I apologize in advance.


The dwarves attack the elves and hand to hand melee ensues shortly with the dwarves losing around a fifth of their overall strength to the elven arrows. The elves and men hold their own for awhile, but soon the dwarves push them back. Around 150-300 dwarves make it into the mountain and a long futile siege begins.

Have fun with it!:D


Fascinating...sort of a fantasy within a fantasy.

[Gwathagor]

Where does it say that the elves outnumbered the dwarves by such a large force? Where does it say that the majority of their army were archers? Where does it say that there were more than a thousand spearmen in the elven ranks?

Not long ago, almost all of us agreed that the dwarves would whoop the elves and men in a hand to hand contest, but the problem was getting close enought; that led into the armor debate. Why the change of thought?

I don't know about the elves having more archers than they did spearmen, as the distinguishing characteristic of this particular army seems to be the spearmen, but they certainly had a substantial number of archers.

I had thought that we decided that Dain brought less than 500 with him...I may have made that up?

Why the change of thought? Ohhh...willingness to change my mind when presented with a persuasive argument, I suppose.

I have to agree, Groin, that most of your arguments do seem to be driven by an intense anti-elf bias, rather than careful reason. That's ok, though, we all have our biases, admitted or not.
:cool:

[Gwathagor]

Hey, hope you enjoy that vacation, Groin. Tell us about it when you get back.