The Way We War

[Kuruharan]

I was playing The Fourth Age (http://www.thefourthage.org)the other day when something hit me.

I think Tolkien got the dwarven way of war all wrong.

I think in a way he stumbled on this little bit of an issue himself in the battle of the Hornburg when he has Gimli say…

“but I looked on the hillmen and they seemed overlarge for me”

The axe is not exactly a handy weapon for fighting people taller than you are as you expose yourself even more when you make your stroke.

I think a better way would have been if the dwarves fought more along the lines of the Roman legionaries whose fighting style was made to order (literally) for short people fighting taller ones.

There is some evidence of dwarven equipment of this type…speaking of the dwarves of the Iron Hills

“but each of them had a short broad sword at his side and a round shield slung at his back”

Now I’m not suggesting that there is really anything in that to support my idea. I’m presenting this as an idea that I had rather than something that is in any way supported by Tolkien.

[BGreg]

That is a very interesting topic. How did the dwarves fight? We know nothing other then they were good in fighting below ground. What about the battles above ground? The Battle of Azanulbizar was very costly for the dwarves, because the orcs held the high ground and the greater numbers. However, the dwarves fought bravely despite all odds and eventually won the battle. In the Battle of Five Armies 500 Dain's dwarves charged on a combined host of elves and men, who again had the high ground. If it weren't for the goblins' attack, there would be another massacre.

Apparently the dwarves here didn't care much for the odds or enemy's superiority in numbers (or even in size for that matter). I always imagined the dwarves fighting the enemy with no more than sheer bravery, endurance and physical strength. So in my opinion it would be no problem for a band of dwarves to beat a band of hillmen or whomever. Maybe Gimli didn't attack them just because there were no more dwarves around. And if there were, I'm sure they would have beaten the Dunlendings. I thought of dwarves as very strong, possibly as strong as the hillmen, and that they do not retreat. Ever. Quite the contrast of Romans, who were physically weaker then the barbarians. And they retreated when outnumbered.

[Morthoron]

In regards to Dain's folk...

In battle they wielded heavy two-handed mattocks; but each of them had also a short broad sword at his side and a roundshield at his back.

Tolkien never claimed all dwarves used axes, or even used them generally in battle, that is an accretion piled on Tolkien lore from elsewhere (like dwarves speaking in a Scot's accent, laddie). Mattocks are a miner's tool, and would be readily available to any dwarf (axes not being of much use in the type of subterranean manses dwarves engineered). Also, there is a tradition of dwarvish sword-making that goes back to Telchar of Nogrod.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Apparently the dwarves here didn't care much for the odds or enemy's superiority in numbers (or even in size for that matter). I always imagined the dwarves fighting the enemy with no more than sheer bravery, endurance and physical strength. So in my opinion it would be no problem for a band of dwarves to beat a band of hillmen or whomever. Maybe Gimli didn't attack them just because there were no more dwarves around. And if there were, I'm sure they would have beaten the Dunlendings. I thought of dwarves as very strong, possibly as strong as the hillmen, and that they do not retreat. Ever. Quite the contrast of Romans, who were physically weaker then the barbarians. And they retreated when outnumbered.

I agree. I think the Dwarves usually won because of their ferocity and toughness (and let's not forget about their good armor - and also the quality of their weapons, which was superior to the simple things made by Men, or even Orcs). Gimli very likely didn't have that much experience with fighting Men - tall Men - even before, he said something of similar sort to Éomer (that he would chop his head off, if only it was a bit lower - it was a sort of saying, but still probably reflected what he thought. Of course, not to mention that against a mounted opponent, it would have to be something completely different).

As for when he didn't attack the Dunlanders, another thing was probably simply that he did not want to interfere when tall men were fighting tall men - he was not coordinated with Éomer and Aragorn, he could be useful, but he could also make a mess. Had he been with a group of Dwarves, they would all use similar tactics in battle and it would have been very different.

Tolkien never claimed all dwarves used axes, or even used them generally in battle, that is an accretion piled on Tolkien lore from elsewhere (like dwarves speaking in a Scot's accent, laddie). Mattocks are a miner's tool, and would be readily available to any dwarf (axes not being of much use in the type of subterranean manses dwarves engineered). Also, there is a tradition of dwarvish sword-making that goes back to Telchar of Nogrod.

Exactly. I believe this is never emphasised strongly enough. Gimli had an axe, and there was also some Durin's Axe etc., but that by no means suggests that Dwarves were using axes overall. We don't know any legends about Durin, but perhaps he just stumbled upon an axe somewhere in his youth and became skilled with this weapon, and using an axe was sort of specialisation thing for the Dwarves, a symbol of honor, something pointing towards their ancestor (and perhaps this concerned only the tribe of Durin?). Maybe it was a kind of special fighter thing, really, just like, I can't recall any good example from the Middle Ages now, but for example among the ancient Israeli warriors there has been a caste of special fighters trained to fight left-handedly, or such, you have all sorts of special groups of warriors trained to fight with some unusual weapon or in some unusual style throughout the cultures and times, so perhaps the Dwarven axemen were something of that sort, too? And Gimli (and Dáin, for example - battle of Azanulbizar) were of that sort too. Certainly they were both quite young, but skilful with that, so perhaps indeed they were trained since their youth?

Certainly the Dwarves used axes above ground, though: around their settlements and cities, they used them to get wood (as Aulë says). Treebeard and people from other cultures seemed to have some experience with Dwarves using axes, so it must not have been that unusual: however, I would like to propose here that it supports my theory about the axes being an item used by a special caste of warriors by that it became something specific for the Dwarves, and thus well known. Meaning: in a battle where you saw some Dwarves, let's say 90% of them would have had some other weapons, but then there would be this special group of axemen (or perhaps individuals), but they would be so skilled in their use of the axes, that in some way it will make the impression (I have no idea how they could use the axes to really be so much feared - I am no weapon specialist, somebody else tell us what could that be, if it could) and people will forever remember "yea, Dwarves, these are those with the axes". The same way as people in the Middle Ages remembered the longbowmen or such, even though of course the whole army was not composed of longbowmen.

Another possibility is that Dwarves using axes (i.e. normal woodcutters) in Beleriand were at some times attacked, and they just had to learn to use axes for their defense. And since they were probably the few Dwarves that other races have ever seen (others were hidden underground all the time), they simply learned to associate Dwarves with axes (since mostly every Dwarf they have seen had an axe).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

One thing I have been wondering about, ever since the Dwarf vs. Balrog thread: Is there any evidence that the Dwarves used distance weapons of any kind? Bows, javelins, catapult, trebuchet, slingshot, whatever? If not, that might have some bearing on the way they fight, I should think. Just wondering....

[Kuruharan]

Tolkien never claimed all dwarves used axes, or even used them generally in battle, that is an accretion piled on Tolkien lore from elsewhere (like dwarves speaking in a Scot's accent, laddie).

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think we do have evidence that Tolkien thought of the axe as being the primary dwarven weapon.

Gimli used an axe (obviously). Thorin used an axe at the Battle of Five Armies and Azanulbizar. When speaking of Thorin's condition in exile Tolkien used the phrase "the axes of his people were few." The dwarves whalloped Glaurung with "their great axes."

I can't recall any good example from the Middle Ages now, but for example among the ancient Israeli warriors there has been a caste of special fighters trained to fight left-handedly, or such, you have all sorts of special groups of warriors trained to fight with some unusual weapon or in some unusual style throughout the cultures and times, so perhaps the Dwarven axemen were something of that sort, too?

It is an interesting theory. I'm not sure its one I can agree with, but it is interesting.

Is there any evidence that the Dwarves used distance weapons of any kind? Bows, javelins, catapult, trebuchet, slingshot, whatever?

Thorin used a bow that just happeend to be lying around (implying that the dwarves kept stockpiles of them to use) to shoot at the messenger. The dwarves did use (without much success) the bows Beorn gave them...which I think has largely led to the stereotype that dwarves can't use bows effectively.

Slings would be an interesting weapon for dwarves to use if they were incapable of using a bow effectively, but I don't think there is a single example in Tolkien of a sling being used.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Gimli used an axe (obviously). Thorin used an axe at the Battle of Five Armies and Azanulbizar. When speaking of Thorin's condition in exile Tolkien used the phrase "the axes of his people were few." The dwarves whalloped Glaurung with "their great axes."
Well, as for the Thorin thing, that could be a very nice way of Dwarven phrasing, a saying, if the axes were something specific. It would only emphasise that Thorin was not doing very well, he "did not reach the status of nobility" in the exile, beside that his men just were small in numbers. Of course, here I am unleashing my imagination.

As for the other occassions, Glaurung - that could be one of these occassions when the "special forces" with axes managed to do something.

And in either case, we have the evidence of the Battle of the Five Armies, like Morth pointed out - I believe the equipment of a regular soldier - i.e. not the elite, but also not the random "armed civilians" - could have been like the one described there.

As for the missile weapons, I would believe the Dwarves would be capable of using bows at least, like Kuru said, and I think it's not necessary that they would be bad in it - but one has to bear in mind that the primary fighting condition for a Dwarf would be underground. And, except for some really large underground caverns or long corridors, not mentioning the darkness, the missile weapons are not really built for that.

[BGreg]

I'm pretty sure the dwarves did use missile weapons. How else would they defend the Bridge of Khazad-dum, which seems to be built exactly to be defended with arrows.
Of course, there would be axe-wielding dwarves on the western end, but archers were certainly needed to pepper the attackers and not to allow them to form their own bowmen line on the eastern side of the bridge.

Besides, Thorin was pretty accurate with a bow, killing that deer over the Enchanted Stream, and firing an arrow directly to the messenger's shield. He didn't mean to kill him, I'm sure. Why the other dwarves weren't succesful shooting the animals in Mirkwood, I cannot say. Perhaps something was afoul with the squirrels there. :)

[davem]

"...the battle cry which (Gimli) uttered in the siege of the Hornburg. That at least was not secret, and had been heard on many a field since the world was young. Baruk Khazad! Khazad aimenu! 'Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!'" - LotR Appendix F

My feeling is that the axe is the favoured weapon - though there are many kinds of war/battle-axe http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/ba/BATTLE-AXE.HTM & most can be thrown - some were designed for that purpose. I don't see that the height of an opponent comes into it - you just need a longer haft to extend your reach.

None of which rules out the use of other weaponry - the sword was always the weapon of a knight, even down to the fifteenth century, when development of plate armour had rendered it all but useless against all other knights. The sword was the symbolic weapon of a knight - but in battle he would be more likely to use a pollaxe, battle hammer or shortened lance, etc.

The problem with swords is that the Dwarves are too short to use anything longer than a foot or two, which would allow their enemies to get too close. And a long hafted axe is probably the ideal weapon for bringing an enemy down to your size - you just cut them off at the knees.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I would think a devastating dwarf weapon,
especially for use against cavalry would be
something akin to the Swiss halberd.
Obviously shortened for Middle-earth dwarf use.
[A halberd (also called halbert or Swiss voulge) is a two-handed pole weapon that came to prominent use during the 14th and 15th centuries. Possibly the word halberd comes from the German words Halm (staff), and Barte (axe). The halberd consists of an axe blade topped with a spike mounted on a long shaft. It always has a hook or thorn on the back side of the axe blade for grappling mounted combatants. It is very similar to certain forms of the voulge in design and usage. The halberd was 1.5 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) long.

[davem]

I would think a devastating dwarf weapon,
especially for use against cavalry would be
something like the Swiss halberd.

I think this is an important point - as I've indicated, the term 'axe' covers a wide range of bladed weapons, & the halberd/pollaxe 'hook' could be used to bring an orc off a warg, but equally could be used to hook a taller opponent around the neck or leg & bring them down to earth, where they could be quickly dispatched.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I would think a devastating dwarf weapon,
especially for use against cavalry would be
something akin to the Swiss halberd.
Obviously shortened for Middle-earth dwarf use.

Ha, yes, that actually sounds good. Indeed, it would have been shortened a lot, though.

Still, we have to count on the one thing - that the battle against tall Men or even cavalry, and archery combat were really not regular forms of battle for the Dwarves. 90% of their battles were against Orcs and underground. Sure, as BGreg says, circumstances like Durin's bridge supported the use of ranged weapons, but these were rare cases. The Dwarves did for sure use bows, they knew how to use them - but most of their time, they simply were not in the circumstances to even use them. Though I believe they made sure, as dilligent as they were, to train their own kin to use them to the best of their ability just for the case when it would be handy.

[davem]

Another point to be considered when looking at possible types of weapon - on a medieval battlefield the main concern was taking your opponent out of action - it didn't matter whether or not you killed them, only that they couldn't kill you. So, a quick death in battle was often the exception rather than the rule (hence the 'misericorde' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon) carried by warriors to dispatch wounded foes with a quick stab through the eye socket into the brain after the main fighting was over). A heavy weapon like an axe will do that more quickly & effectively than a sword (short or long), particularly if your opponent is wearing armour - an axe or hammer blow would break bones even beneath plate armour, let alone mail.

[Kuruharan]

It would only emphasise that Thorin was not doing very well, he "did not reach the status of nobility" in the exile

An interesting interpretation.

"...the battle cry which (Gimli) uttered in the siege of the Hornburg. That at least was not secret, and had been heard on many a field since the world was young. Baruk Khazad! Khazad aimenu! 'Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!'" - LotR Appendix F

:o

I'd forgotten that one.

The problem with swords is that the Dwarves are too short to use anything longer than a foot or two, which would allow their enemies to get too close.

That's where the Roman fighting method comes into play. Hunkering down behind a big shield and quickly punching out with a short sword (stabbing not slicing).

I would think a devastating dwarf weapon,
especially for use against cavalry would be
something akin to the Swiss halberd.
Obviously shortened for Middle-earth dwarf use.


Also a valid idea.

Ha, yes, that actually sounds good. Indeed, it would have been shortened a lot, though.

Maybe, although dwarven strength might allow them to manage weapons that might at first glance look like they were too long.

[davem]

That's where the Roman fighting method comes into play. Hunkering down behind a big shield and quickly punching out with a short sword (stabbing not slicing).

To my mind that's too 'organised' & regimented an approach for Dwarves - unless in extremis. I have always seen the Dwarves as more 'Berserker' in their approach to battle - charging at their enemies & screaming their famous battle-cry. Shields would be worn protectively across the back in battle, leaving both arms free to swing an axe/shoot a bow. Of course, if they had developed plate armour sufficiently there would be no need for shields at all.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ditto. An axe requires a fair bit of room, especially since (if Gimli is representative) they favored a horizontal swing.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

By Davem: To my mind that's too 'organised' & regimented an approach for Dwarves - unless in extremis. I have always seen the Dwarves as more 'Berserker' in their approach to battle - charging at their enemies & screaming their famous battle-cry.

A classic example (in tactics and in short-term
positive results) being Thorin's charge at the
Battle of Five Armies.

Of course, if they had developed plate armour sufficiently there would be no need for shields at all.
But another argument against dwarf open field
warfare could be their use of chain mail.
Even as good as mithrail mail was, it wouldn't help
with a key problem with chain mail, internal
injuries inflicted by either projectile weapons or heavy
swords.
Btw, meaning Frodo in Moria was either very lucky or hobbits
were really tough.

[Kuruharan]

To my mind that's too 'organised' & regimented an approach for Dwarves - unless in extremis. I have always seen the Dwarves as more 'Berserker' in their approach to battle - charging at their enemies & screaming their famous battle-cry. Shields would be worn protectively across the back in battle, leaving both arms free to swing an axe/shoot a bow. Of course, if they had developed plate armour sufficiently there would be no need for shields at all.

That is a valid interpretation. However, mine is rather different as I do think the dwarves were more regimented and organized than the berzerker model, even given their descriptions in Tolkien as being axe-wielding.

However, when it comes down to interpretations like this on rather sparse evidence one is as good as another.

But another argument against dwarf open field
warfare could be their use of chain mail.
Even as good as mithrail mail was, it wouldn't help
with a key problem with chain mail, internal
injuries inflicted by either projectilee weapons or heavy
swords.

The problems of chain mail are true, but I don't recall any place where anything more advanced is described anywhere in Tolkien. It would have been a problem everyone was dealing with.

[Morthoron]

Thorin used a bow that just happeend to be lying around (implying that the dwarves kept stockpiles of them to use) to shoot at the messenger. The dwarves did use (without much success) the bows Beorn gave them...which I think has largely led to the stereotype that dwarves can't use bows effectively.

Slings would be an interesting weapon for dwarves to use if they were incapable of using a bow effectively, but I don't think there is a single example in Tolkien of a sling being used.

Thorin seized a bow of horn and shot an arrow at the speaker. It smote into his shield and stuck there quivering.

A pretty good shot, indicative of a dwarf who had used a bow previously.

As far as slings, I thought I remembered Hobbits using slings, but apparently they only were deadly accurate at throwing things (in a cursory glance over the books, I couldn't find anything else of value sling-wise).

And in either case, we have the evidence of the Battle of the Five Armies, like Morth pointed out - I believe the equipment of a regular soldier - i.e. not the elite, but also not the random "armed civilians" - could have been like the one described there.

Well, 500 dwarves of the Iron Mountains under Dain used mattocks and sword, so it is evident that the use of axes was not universal in battle among dwarves. Perhaps it was a familial thing, with the Iron Hill folk preferring mattocks over the Erebor folks use of axes (and as Gimli's father was Gloin of Erebor, he would follow his direct kin's example).

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps it was a familial thing, with the Iron Hill folk preferring mattocks over the Erebor folks use of axes

I wonder if there was an interesting story behind that.

[Formendacil]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this catalogue of Dwarven battle-preferences harkens back to the First Age. From the Silmarillion:

Therefore he called upon Denethor; and the Elves came in force from Region beyond Aros and from Ossiriand, and fought the first battle in the Wars of Beleriand. And the eastern host of the Orcs was taken between the armies of the Eldar, north of the Andram and midway between Aros and Gelion, and there they were utterly defeated, and those that fled north from the great slaughter were waylaid by the axes of the Naugrim that issued from Mount Dolmed: few indeed returned to Angband.

And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghal, Lord of Belegost, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghal drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him.

But now at last they had dwindled and died out of Middle-earth, all save Mîm and his two sons; and Mîm was old even in the reckoning of Dwarves, old and forgotten. And in his halls the smithies were idle, and the axes rusted, and their name was remembered only in ancient tales of Doriath and Nargothrond.


Though not necessarily conclusive, these texts definitely support the supposition that the axe was the main weapon of the Dwarves--and it is a case outside Durin's Line. It's also interesting to note that the armouries of Thingol were partially filled by Dwarven smiths, listing axes as first among the weapons of the Sindar's armoury.

At this time therefore the Sindar were well-armed, and they drove off all creatures of evil, and had peace again; but Thingol's armouries were stored with axes and with spears and swords, and tall helms, and long coats of bright mail; for the hauberks of the Dwarves were so fashioned that they rusted not but shone ever as if they were new-burnished. And that proved well for Thingol in the time that was to come.

Indeed, it seems to me that the Sindar have a preference for axes as their chief weapon, and since they learned the making of weapons not from the Noldor but from the Naugrim, this may be why. As evidence of the Sindar's preference:

Then Beleg Strongbow, chief of the marchwardens of Thingol, brought great strength of the Sindar armed with axes into Brethil; and issuing from the deeps of the forest Halmir and Beleg took an Orc-legion at unawares and destroyed it

Actually, from a related quote, it seems that the Halethrim, the people of Halmir, had a predilection for axes too... but this would seem natural, given that they were a nation of foresters:

. In the forest of Brethil Halmir, lord of the People of Haleth, gathered his men, and they whetted their axes; but Halmir died ere the war came, and Haldir his son ruled that people.

And, apart from a mention of the Noldor forging axes when they were busy with their initial forging of weapons in the unrest in Valinor incited by Melkor, that's it that I could find for axes in the Silmarillion. It definitely seems to show a Dwarven bias for the weapon.

[Kuruharan]

This may come as a shock to some...but I'm not particularly up on my metalsmithing.

But it seems to me that an axe would be a lot easier to make than say a sword.

Kind of odd for a race that prides itself on its metalsmithery.

[Boo Radley]

Since no one's mentioned it yet, I'd like to say that the thread title, "The Way We War" is punnishly delicious and I applaud the author, Kuruharan.

[davem]

This may come as a shock to some...but I'm not particularly up on my metalsmithing.

But it seems to me that an axe would be a lot easier to make than say a sword.

Kind of odd for a race that prides itself on its metalsmithery.

Depends on the kind of axe. If you look at the pic I linked to in my first post you'll see a number of variations. aside from the main blade you could have a hook or hammerhead on the back & a spike on the end (or both ends) of the haft.

A sword is an effective weapon against an unarmoured opponent, but its slashing effect is useless against mail, Brigandine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine or even a basic Jack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson. An axe has the advantage over a sword in that its heavier blade (as has been noted) will break bones or damage internal organs even when there is no penetration. And swords blunt (& bend) more easily than an axe or battle hammer. And we're talking actual combat here, so its all to do with effectiveness. A knight may have carried a sword for all kinds of symbolic reasons (it was the weapon of a knight, as I said, & the blade & hilts formed a nice 'Cross' shape for a Christian Knight) but on the field, particularly in the late medieval period when the development of plate armour had reached its apogee, it was fairly useless, & most knights would favour something with more weight & power like a poleaxe or battlehammer - remember, on the field you're not concerned with killing your opponents so much as with taking them out of the fight (they can be left to die, or despatched afterwards with a dagger). You'd go for something heavy which would do the job in as few blows as possible so that you could move on to the next guy.

[Eönwë]

Well, other than what has been said, I think that Tolkien preferred axes, or used them as a symbol of power.

I mean, the dwarves (after the first age Noldor and debatably during the time of the first age Noldor) were the best craftsmen around, so it would make sense that they would create the best weapons. After all, they created the best armour ever, and the best non-magical swords as well (not to mention the fact that Eöl learned his sword-making from the dwarves too). It would also follow that after such experience, they would make the best weapons possible for themselves.

Also Tuor, who was arguably one of the greatest Men of all time, wieled an axe.


Just some thoughts from your friendly neighbourhood Eönwë.

[Groin Redbeard]

Ha, yes, that actually sounds good. Indeed, it would have been shortened a lot, though. I don't see why. Thorin (by the way, I love that everyone is using him as an analogy so often:D) wielded Orcrist, an elven sword, which was made to fit the stature of a tall elven king.

An axe has the advantage over a sword in that its heavier blade (as has been noted) will break bones or damage internal organs even when there is no penetration. And swords blunt (& bend) more easily than an axe or battle hammer. Exactly! thank you Davem for making that point. Not only does the axe have the power to wound its opponents upon the battle field, but it can also be crafted into different uses. As it has been mentioned, a Dwarf could take up a halberd for against calvary such as warg riders and wain riders; or a Dwarf could take up a small throwing axe (as seen in the trilogy) or a larger Francisca type axe.

Perhaps it was a familial thing, with the Iron Hill folk preferring mattocks over the Erebor folks use of axes. It seems to be that this just proves that the Dwarves were in a hurry to get to Erebor and to aid Thorin. Mustering an army of 500 Dwarves in so short a time is no small feat and I'm sure they could not all be armed in time, ergo they would grab the closest fighting tool. What is a miners favorite tool (I mean besides dynamite): a pickaxe, or a mattock. Some interesting things about a mattock is that it has a flat edge for scooping at dirt and a pointed end (sometimes three pronged). With that sharp end on it, a Dwarf could easily pierce through plate and shield alike.

Continuing Eonwe's thought about Tuor, it is also worth noting that the most valiant and numerous house of the elves of Gondolin were the house of the House of the Hammer(Hammer of Wrath). They were great smiths and craftsmen, and revered Aulë. In battle they carried great maces like hammers, and heavy shields, for they had strong arms. The device of this people was the Stricken Anvil, and a hammer that smites sparks about it; this was set upon their shields, for red gold and black iron was their delight. So again we see the relationship between smiths and Aulë, to whom the Dwarves were obviously close to, and their favored weapon: the mace, or axe.

I would have to agree with those who say that Dwarves have the nature to go berserk in battle instead of fighting Roman style. The warriors of The House of the Hammer were certainly berserk in their fighting style and the reference to the Dwarves of the Iron Hills don't strike me as the organized type. Of course, if the Dwarves were to be fighting in an organized fashion, the Roman/Greek style would be the one that would make the most sense.

[Morthoron]

It seems to be that this just proves that the Dwarves were in a hurry to get to Erebor and to aid Thorin. Mustering an army of 500 Dwarves in so short a time is no small feat and I'm sure they could not all be armed in time, ergo they would grab the closest fighting tool.

So, you're saying that they had no time to grab their axes, but had time to grab their short swords and shields and don their iron helmets and their chain mail hauberks and mail hose?

Ummm...no, Groin.

Mattocks would seem to be the preferred weapon for the Dwarves of the Iron Hills, with a sword as an auxiliary stabbing weapon for close quarter combat.

[Kuruharan]

I don't see why. Thorin (by the way, I love that everyone is using him as an analogy so often) wielded Orcrist, an elven sword, which was made to fit the stature of a tall elven king.

A very good point.

It must be remembered that Tolkien's dwarves were not as short as people tend to think they were.

They were certainly much taller than Lewis' dwarfs, for example.

I would have to agree with those who say that Dwarves have the nature to go berserk in battle instead of fighting Roman style. The warriors of The House of the Hammer were certainly berserk in their fighting style and the reference to the Dwarves of the Iron Hills don't strike me as the organized type. Of course, if the Dwarves were to be fighting in an organized fashion, the Roman/Greek style would be the one that would make the most sense.

Not sure that I see the connection there between the House of the Hammer and the dwarven fighting style. True there is the reverance for Aule and smithcraft, but other than that elves and dwarves tended to be very different peoples.

I don't think a berzerk fighting style would serve the dwarves very well given their generally shorter stature than their foes...yes I remember what I said above. ;)

[davem]

A very good point.

It must be remembered that Tolkien's dwarves were not as short as people tend to think they were.


Even if Thorin was about 3-4 feet tall he would still have been capable of using a full size (3-3 1/2 ft sword) - take a look at this piece on Long sword fighting, particularly the bottom two pictures http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm

[Eönwë]

Not only does the axe have the power to wound its opponents upon the battle field, but it can also be crafted into different uses. As it has been mentioned, a Dwarf could take up a halberd for against calvary such as warg riders and wain riders; or a Dwarf could take up a small throwing axe (as seen in the trilogy) or a larger Francisca type axe.
Exactly, and as I was saying, Dwarves would have no problem making such weapons (or ones more adjusted to their way of fighting, or even just better- think they way we'd have gone with no gunpowder/explosives/greek fire). And as they are so strong and hardy, I suppose they could carry heavy weapons that humans of a similar size (or really tall hobbits) couldn't, and not get tired.

On Dain's small army, if you think about, mattocks aren't actually that bad for fighting with. They can cause crush injuries through armour, and could also probably pierce it.

I like the image of them being beserker warriors (not actually wearing bear skins, or being Beorn, but you ge t the idea), but I think they'd be a bit more organised (though not like the Roman and Greek phalanxes.

[Groin Redbeard]

So, you're saying that they had no time to grab their axes, but had time to grab their short swords and shields and don their iron helmets and their chain mail hauberks and mail hose?

You seem to be doing just fine assuming what I said, why ask? Don’t assume. But you are right about the Iron Hill Dwarfs using Mattocks. :)


I don't think a berzerk fighting style would serve the dwarves very well given their generally shorter stature than their foes...yes I remember what I said above.One reason why I think that the Dwarf style of fighting would be more independent (I that is a better style to describe them than berserk) is the need for shields used by the Romans and Greeks. While it mentions the use of shields with the Dwarfs of the Iron Hills (and let us not forget Thorin Oakenshield) the book also mentions the use of two handed weapons. How are Dwarfs suppose to fight in an organized fashion with no means of defense.

On Dain's small army, if you think about, mattocks aren't actually that bad for fighting with. They can cause crush injuries through armour, and could also probably pierce it. Exactly, Nain the son of Gror used a mattock in his duel with Azog. So the mattock must have been somewhat sophisticated for a King to have used it. Though, Dain II Ironfoot is described as wielding a “red axe” so the use of a mattock wasn’t universal with Iron Hill Dwarfs.

In my opinion, the battle axe is an offensive weapon made for keeping your foes at bay. Unlike the sword, it does not allow for stabbing (well you can, as seen by the movie Gimli:D) and needs to be swung or chopped in order to hit your foe. If the Dwarfs are to fight in groups they would constantly be in danger of hitting one another.

[davem]

Exactly, Nain the son of Gror used a mattock in his duel with Azog. So the mattock must have been somewhat sophisticated for a King to have used it. .

Of course, the 'mattock' may not have been the actual mining/digging implement, but a weapon developed from it, as the medieval 'Bill' grew out of the agricultural implement of the same name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(weapon). In other words, I suspect that the 'mattock' used could well have been a weapon based on the traditional mattock because that had a symbolic meaning to the dwarves, but with 'extras' - metal strips down the haft to prevent it being cut through, top spike, so that you'd end up with something similar to the war hammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer.

[Pitchwife]

Even if Thorin was about 3-4 feet tall he would still have been capable of using a full size (3-3 1/2 ft sword)

Hobbits were 3-4 feet, and LotR Prologue says they were smaller than Dwarves. Personally, I imagine Tolkien's Dwarves as something between 4 and 5 feet (maybe a little closer to 5), which would mean that an exceptionally tall Dwarf might well pass as an exceptionally short Man (of non-Numenorean descent); and even an average-sized Dwarf would be able to use a Mannish or Elven sword like a claymore.

As for missile weapons, I wonder whether Dwarves had crossbows. If anybody in Middle-Earth had discovered this rather advanced weapons technology, I'd guess it would be Aule's inventive children. (On the other hand, this may well be just an idée fixe left over from countless hours of playing Elder Scrolls III and IV, where a Dwemer crossbow was one of the best ranged weapons you could get your hands on...;))

Last not least, I'm not convinced that most of the Dwarves' fighting was being done underground. Unless they were really busy fighting nameless things gnawing at the roots of the world all the time, I'd rather think that any battle that had them facing the enemy within their own subterranean homes was already half lost. Wouldn't they do their damnedest to repel any enemy way before they came close to their gates?

[The Mouth of Sauron]

Hobbits were 2-3 feet (except Merry and Pippin), NOT 3-4 feet.

[Kuruharan]

While it mentions the use of shields with the Dwarfs of the Iron Hills (and let us not forget Thorin Oakenshield) the book also mentions the use of two handed weapons. How are Dwarfs suppose to fight in an organized fashion with no means of defense.

I wouldn't propose that they do at all. However, the shield appears to have been a fairly standard piece of dwarven equipment. Their standard practice may well have been to swap back and forth.

Unlike the sword, it does not allow for stabbing (well you can, as seen by the movie Gimli) and needs to be swung or chopped in order to hit your foe. If the Dwarfs are to fight in groups they would constantly be in danger of hitting one another.

However, when you are shorter and outnumbered, which they ususally were, fighting individually isn't a prudent course to pursue.

I wonder whether Dwarves had crossbows.

Never any reference to them in the books.

Hobbits were 2-3 feet

Two feet...that seems just a bit too small.

[mark12_30]

As I recall, a range of four feet max down to two feet min, and commonly three to three-six.

From the prologue:

For they are a little people, smaller than Dwarves: less stout and stocky, that is, even when they are not actually much shorter. Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure. They seldom now reach three feet; but they have dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller. According to the Red Book, Bandobras Took (Bullroarer), son of Isengrim the Second, was four foot five and able to ride a horse. He was surpassed in all Hobbit records only by two famous characters of old; but that curious matter is dealt with in this book.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by Pitchwife
Last not least, I'm not convinced that most of the Dwarves' fighting was being done underground. Unless they were really busy fighting nameless things gnawing at the roots of the world all the time, I'd rather think that any battle that had them facing the enemy within their own subterranean homes was already half lost. Wouldn't they do their damnedest to repel any enemy way before they came close to their gates?

I believe there were numerous dwarf/orc battles fought
underground.

LOTR, Appendix A
Thrain...stood up and said: 'This cannot be borne!'
That was the beginning of the War of the Dwarves and the
Orcs, which was long and deadly, and fought for the most
part in deep places beneath the earth.
...When all was ready they assailed and sacked one by one
all the strongholds of the Orcs that they could find from Gundabad
to the Gladden. Both sides were pitiless, and there was death
and cruel deeds by dark and by light. But the Dwarves had the
victory through their strength and their matchless weapons,
and the fire of their anger, as they hunted for Azog in every
den under mountain.

[Alfirin]

...even an average-sized Dwarf would be able to use a Mannish or Elven sword like a claymore.


I though a claymore was a super-sized sword, at least double the size and weight of a standard longsword, and only usable by unusally large and strong men.

[Morthoron]

I though a claymore was a super-sized sword, at least double the size and weight of a standard longsword, and only usable by unusally large and strong men.

I believe Pitchwife was referring to an average-size sword seeming like a claymore in the hands of a dwarf; rather like Sting -- a knife -- seemed to be a short sword in the hands of Bilbo.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I dunno- I think I can imagine Dwarves making and deploying curved plastic housings packed with C-4 and shrapnel, detonatable either by remote command or tripwire.......

[davem]

I dunno- I think I can imagine Dwarves making and deploying curved plastic housings packed with C-4 and shrapnel, detonatable either by remote command or tripwire.......

Ha! I thought you'd read all of HoM-e. The Dwarves' use of anti-personel mines against Moria Orcs was an idea Tolkien was playing with in a late '60's re-write of LotR. Of course, the 'plastic housings' were to be made of 'imperishable crystal' & the tripwire made from single strands of Elven hair. The idea was that Gimli's request for a single hair from Galadriel's head was to provide said wire, which would have been set in the crystal housing of the mine & hopefully would have been strong enough to be retrieved & reused. An alternate idea involved his shaving Legolas' head one night to obtain a large stock of said tripwire material. Obtaining the explosive would have been more difficult - Gandalf would have been a possible source of gunpowder (Gimli would have offered him a contract to supply 'fireworks' for the Lonely Mountain's Durin's Day Hop in the hope that Gandalf wouldn't realise their true intention - in this version G. would have had serious debt problems after a late night gambling session with some drunken Elves & been left with a price on his head & Glorfindel on his tail for the cash).

The whole idea, sadly, fell by the wayside....:smokin:

[Pitchwife]

Hobbit Height, once more

UT, The Disaster of the Gladden Fields, Appendix on Númenórean Linear Measures:
The remarks [on the stature of Hobbits] in the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings are unnecessarily vague and complicated, owing to the inclusion of references to survivals of the race in later times; but as far as The Lord of the Rings is concerned they boil down to this: the Hobbits of the Shire were in height between three and four feet, never less and seldom more.

[Kuruharan]

I dunno- I think I can imagine Dwarves making and deploying curved plastic housings packed with C-4 and shrapnel, detonatable either by remote command or tripwire.......

I find myself reminded of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC7ZDpKrVKw).

[The Sixth Wizard]

Who cares what Dwarves used, they were such tanks it didn't MATTER! :D I mean am I the only person who thinks the 500 dwarves armed to the teeth with the finest weapons available in the world would cut through the soppy Laketowners and the wimpy Wood-Elves like butter? 13 dwarves alone cut through to Bolg's bodyguard after all... Haha :).

Anyway, to contribute to the Roman debate, Roman warfare was designed for Men and would not suit Dwarves. It was designed to simply be as efficient as possible on a grand scale. They didn't have the finest weapons or armour available but these items were mass produced and protected the most important parts of the body. Tactics were to minimise casualties and maximise kills but tactics were very generalised. However the Roman machine's best attribute (in my opinion) was the logistical system including road building, and scouting/camping tactics. This is what really gave the Romans the edge, their efficient administration overall.

However with Dwarves it's different. The dwarves have a small and slowly growing population. Dwarven warriors are specialist troops covered in fine armour and weapons instead of mass produced mediocrity (obviously if the battle is lost the enemy gets all the armour and weapons). They can't exactly afford to fight wars of attrition with a few battles lost. So the axe is designed to take out the enemy with one stroke and win battles relatively quickly.

And dwarves were really freakin' tough. So I think they could take some beating under chainmail that would usually damage organs. Not to mention deal with a scratch from a sword which would make advantage of the lack of Dwarven shield. So axe = awesome dwarf weapon.

As for whether or not dwarves could shoot bows, bit of a stupid question. French knights didn't just learn how to ride with lances and English longbowmen didn't just learn how to draw back a bow. A lot of the time they would have to adapt for the circumstances.

Swords - too short and can't pierce armour or cut through tendons that well. They were designed for slashing at necks and torsos (dwarves are too short) or stabbing (dwarves have not got long enough reach). Also swords are all metal, while an axe is half wood. An axe saves precious dwarven metals.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by Kuruharan
The axe is not exactly a handy weapon for fighting people taller than you are as you expose yourself even more when you make your stroke.

I think a better way would have been if the dwarves fought more along the lines of the Roman legionaries whose fighting style was made to order (literally) for short people fighting taller ones.

This is semi-off topic, but that's one bit in PJ's FOTR prologue
that seemed absurd, the elves using very long scythe-type
weapons. It looks impressive but after one swipe they'd be
helpless to attack. Far better in such an orc melee charge would
be legionairre tactics and use of the gladius and a small shield.

[Elmo]

Doesn't Bard mention something about Dwarves not being suited for battle out of their caves? Maybe that was just taunting but it was certainly what the dwarves were to! So I don't think have beaten the Elves and Men so easily as you say Sixth Wizard. but I'd imagine an axe on a dwarf would be a lethal weapon swinging upwards. They're just the right height to attack umm more delicate areas of the body.

[Kuruharan]

13 dwarves alone cut through to Bolg's bodyguard after all... Haha

What?

Roman warfare was designed for Men and would not suit Dwarves.

Roman tactics were designed in large measure to allow smaller physically weaker chaps form up behind nice large shields that are easy to hide behind and let the often larger enemy waste his time and energy whacking away at the shield and then suddenly punching out with shield and sword to knock over an enemy and to stab with the sword to deliver a disabling wound. Note that it was not necessary to kill the opponent, only disable them because writhing critically wounded people make a very effective barrier given enough additions to the pile.

The stabbing part is key because it is a lot easier to kill or seriously wound with a stab than it is with a slash and stabs expose much less of the body.

This style of warfare answers to the requirements and needs of the dwarves rather well in a number of respects. First of all there is the size issue. Secondly there is…

The dwarves have a small and slowly growing population.

…which this particular style works rather well for in minimizing casualties, especially in light of the fact that the dwarves would almost always be rather outnumbered.

stabbing (dwarves have not got long enough reach)

Hence the punching out with the shield to knock the foe off balance.

Also swords are all metal, while an axe is half wood. An axe saves precious dwarven metals.

I rather imagine wood was a scarcer material for them than metal.

Doesn't Bard mention something about Dwarves not being suited for battle out of their caves?

Not sure Bard had a whole lot of practical experience with them.

I'd imagine an axe on a dwarf would be a lethal weapon swinging upwards.

That wouldn’t be a very handy way to swing.

[The Sixth Wizard]

The thirteen Dwarves who cut through to Bolg's guard were the Thorin's company.

Thorin and his companions then charged out to join the battle, covered from head to toe in the finest armour and weapons contained in the treasure hoard of Erebor. Thorin advanced through the Goblins' ranks all the way up to the gigantic Goblins that formed the bodyguard of Bolg, who he could not get past. He was outflanked and surrounded, and was forced to form his troops into a great circle.

Taken from Wikipedia, as I don't have the book on hand. But I suppose it is accurate.

[Kuruharan]

Taken from Wikipedia, as I don't have the book on hand. But I suppose it is accurate.

Not a statement to fill one with confidence.

Down heedless of all order (aside...hmmm, ponder the implications of that for a moment those who think the dwarves favored a berzerker style of combat) rushed all the dwarves of Dain to his help. Down too came many of the Lake-men, for Bard could not restrain them; and out upon the other side came many of the spearmen of the elves.

-The Clouds Burst

Thorin and Company didn't cut their way through to Bolg's bodyguard all by themselves.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As to bows:

I'm not sure how any Dwarven bow would be a "long" bow ;) However, I can see the possibility that Dwarves could still be very effective archers, assuming that they accepted the years of training and practice required.

With a simple or "self" bow, both its power and its draw-weight are direct functions of its length. The classic English longbow, which was fitted to the archer by matching the length of his outstretched arms, managed (probably as a result of trial and error) to come up with the most efficient possible configuration for a simple bow, one where at full draw the bowstring makes essentially a right angle. This maximises the power available for a given draw-weight, which in English examples was as heavy as a trained man could manage.

It's certainly possible to get equal power from a shorter bow using composite construction- but the tradeoff is that, since the bow is shorter and therefore provides less leverage at the tips, the draw weight for a given power is considerably heavier; or, looking at it from a different point of view, since a short composite bow on the Asian pattern can still have a draw no heavier than a man can handle its effective power is less. In other words, a shorter bow is simply less efficient, no matter how clever its construction.

Having said all that, though, these are Dwarves- which means they might well be able to handle a draw far heavier than the 180-200 lb-f a strong man can master, and thus potentially equal a longbow's power in a dwarf-sized weapon.


Still, it seems to me that the Dwarven love of devices would have attracted them rather to the crossbow- which also doesn't require the training and practice (archery ranges underground????). Moreover, one would expect Dwarves to be able to handle hook-and-stirrup cocking of much heavier crossbows than human examples, and thus avoid the rate-of-fire penalty of the various crank systems.

[davem]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Rumil]

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

[Tuor in Gondolin]

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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

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

The metal-detectors have found the long, broad trench of bodkin points, showing where the first appalling fusillade was loosed. Emptying their own quivers, they began firing back the arrows wasted by their enemies. There may have been half a million arrows fired in 10 minutes that day – the largest longbow shafting in history http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article4572704.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Now, compare that with what thus guy is doing for most of that time http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Balestriere1.jpg which would mainly be adding to the colour of the battlefield with his pretty pavise.....

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

[Alfirin]

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

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

[Farael]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

[davem]

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

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

[Gwathagor]

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

And the implication, then, is if he is wrong, he will lose - and obviously he would lose, so he must be wrong? Obviously he is not entirely wrong - in some circumstances, a shorter weapon would be better than a longer weapon - so your example must be at fault.

[Farael]

Tell you what - we'll try it out. You get a pen knife & I'll get hold of a broadsword & if you're right you'll win hands down with that short little swing....
Funny, but you seem to have missed the point of my post. Not to mention, the fact that a broad sword would probably not throw an experienced fighter out of balance, it is an example of a SHORT weapon. The fact that you can find an even SHORTER weapon proves nothing.

I still stand by my idea, the longer your weapon the more you need to work with those around you, because as soon as your enemy gets within your swing, you essentially have a top-heavy club, the sharp end does you no good. Thus, you need to keep the enemy at a distance, and what best way to do so than by having your buddy chopping him up if he gets too close when you are busy?

Which leads to organized, formation-style fighting, which conflicts with the idea of a bezerker.

[davem]

Which leads to organized, formation-style fighting, which conflicts with the idea of a bezerker.

Nope. People have been fighting with 'long' weapons (like spears) for a very long time. The point of a long weapon is that it is designed to prevent your enemy getting close to you. It has more momentum in a swing - & you don't have to hold a spear or pole-weapon by the end furthest away from the blade. You can hold it part way down the shaft.

Poleaxes appear to have been very versatile weapons, with the ability to crush, cut or thrust. Some poleaxes even sported a spike on the butt of the haft, as illustrated in the various works of the famous fencing master Hans Talhoffer. In other words, the poleaxe (or fussstreiaxe, or bec-de-corbin or Lucerne Hammer or whatever the modern enthusiast wants to call these marvels of engineering) was a combination of the best of what several different weapons had to offer. It is worth noting that the poleaxe was very well-suited to deal with heavily armed opponents which seemed to abound after the end of the 14th century. There is little wonder then that poleaxes were employed both on the dueling ring, during knightly bouts and during pitched battles. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html

Any kind of pole weapon would be designed for use against a specific enemy - if you were confronting riders you would have a weapon with a longer shaft, if an enemy on foot it would be shorter. Men at arms would train from early childhood with different weapons & were highly proficient. A pole weapon could be used in many ways - not simply the obvious one of swinging blows to sever head or limbs. You have a spear with the top spike, a staff weapon, a hook for bringing down an opponent, as well as a 'short' axe if you hold the thing part way down the shaft. And the whole point of a longer weapon is that you don't let your opponent get as close as you're envisioning. Your enemy would also probably be using a longer weapon,

Pole axe fight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOrHKfYuxk

[Morthoron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Farael]

And the whole point of a longer weapon is that you don't let your opponent get as close as you're envisioning. Your enemy would also probably be using a longer weapon,


Yes, but how many enemies can you keep away at the time? One? Two? As many as they come? (This is an honest question, I BELIEVE you can only keep one or a couple at bay, but I could be wrong)

In almost all situations, the "good guys" (Dwarves, men of Gondor, elves...) were heavily out-numbered. If each acted as an individual, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers but if they kept together and acted as a unit in formation they'd have a chance to defend themselves from an enemy that was (very likely) using poorer weapons and armour as well as (possibly) less trained.

So, if a dwarf with an axe can keep three or four orcs at bay (or seven or eight) then I'll concede the point, I started off my discussion by saying I didn't know much about medieval fighting.

Morthoron, Michelangelo may have been a very special person, and as I said before, Thorin was the son of a ring-bearer and we know that the rings brought out the worst of the dwarves.

Even if Thorin never wore a ring himself, you'd expect him to learn less-than-stellar behaviours from his parents, eh? So I wouldn't say he is representative of dwarves as a whole.

[davem]

In almost all situations, the "good guys" (Dwarves, men of Gondor, elves...) were heavily out-numbered. If each acted as an individual, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers but if they kept together and acted as a unit in formation they'd have a chance to defend themselves from an enemy that was (very likely) using poorer weapons and armour as well as (possibly) less trained.

.

I think you're getting too caught up in specifics. Assuming Dwarvish were like medieval human armies I'd assume they would vary their tactics to suit the circumstances. If attacked en masse they would surely have formed some kind of shield wall to fight behind. But circumstances are all. I think you're also forgetting how quickly battles would descend into free-for alls. Once the adrenalin starts pumping & the bodies start piling up (do you know that at Towton time out was called more than once to allow the bodies to be removed from the field as it was impossible to fight for all the corpses?) things can get chaotic very swiftly. add to that weather conditions (there's a story - which I can source if you like - of a troop of men at arms frying in their armour as a result of repeated lightning strikes during a thunder storm. Towton was fought during a blizzard, & some battles would take place in fog so thick that it was impossible to see more than a few feet), disease, lack of ordinance, incompetent (or dead) comanders, & you move further & further from the kind of 'perfect' conditions you seem to imagine.

[Farael]

Hmmm, you do have a point there. I still think the Bezerker aura comes from non-Tolkien sources, but I don't really have any evidence for either position. No, Thorin is ONE example. Furthermore, if we take Davem's word, battles grew rather chaotic and fighting desperately for one's life does not really qualify as going bezerk.

[Morthoron]

Morthoron, Michelangelo may have been a very special person, and as I said before, Thorin was the son of a ring-bearer and we know that the rings brought out the worst of the dwarves.

Even if Thorin never wore a ring himself, you'd expect him to learn less-than-stellar behaviours from his parents, eh? So I wouldn't say he is representative of dwarves as a whole.

Guilt by proximity? Hmmm...I suppose that would depend on whether you were an adherent of Hobbes or Locke. I would think Thorin was fairly representative of the Dwarvish aristocracy, as he was not a run-of-the-mill Dwarf, even while in exile. But then he was not an inherently evil Dwarf, as were those that did commerce with Orcs, or allied with Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I don't know that even Thorin went "full berserker." I get the impression that the Thirteen drove through the Goblin-host in a tight wedge formation (or at least as tight as axe-swinging would allow). Tolkien of course was capable of envisioning such a formation, as the Numenorean dirnaith was of the type.

[Gwathagor]

I don't know that even Thorin went "full berserker."

Never go full berserker, man!

[Kuruharan]

Somebody else has pondered this question...

Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDt_tIcca-k)

Interesting that he agrees with my initial assessment regarding the usefulness of shields, although not so much on the specific swords dwarves should favor.

However, I don't agree with the video in regards to strength as I think dwarves in Middle-earth are stronger than humans, which might make the big axes and hammers a viable option at least as far as damage potential. What I question is the efficiency/safety of using massive axes and warhammers as the wielder exposes oneself in their use. You don't need to make your opponent burst into ludicrous gibs through hitting them with a blow of massive strength. You need to inflict a disabling wound to them while reserving your own strength for the remainder of the fight.

[Boromir88]

Thanks for bumping an old thread of yours Kuru. First time I've read it and I'm not sure if any of this will provide additional insight but figured I'd just toss up everything I've looked through for consideration.

First to Morth's point about the dwarves of the Iron Hills selection of the mattock. It wasn't just a tool they grabbed in haste to help Thorin, but agree with Morth, their preferred weapon of choice. At the battle of Azanulbizar, the dwarves of the Iron Hills come again with mattocks:

...until at last the people of the Iron Hills turned the day. Coming late and fresh to the field the mailed warriors of Nain, Gror's son, drove through the Orcs to the very threshold of Moria, crying "Azog! Azog!" as they hewed down with their mattocks all who stood in their way.~Appendix A: Durin's Folk

Now, Dain Ironfoot is noted for having a red axe and hewing off the head of Azog. But mattocks weren't just a tool the dwarves of the Iron Hills grabbed in haste. It's noted it took three years for the Dwarves to gather their strength after Azog killed Thror.

Aragorn is awed by Gimli's skill with an axe during the battle of the Hornburg:

"He is stout and strong," said Aragorn. "Let us hope that he will escape back to the caves. There he would be safe for a while. Safer than we. Such a refuge would be to the liking of a dwarf."
...
"If he wins back the caves, he will pass your count again," laughed Aragorn. "Never did I see an axe so wielded."

For what it's worth, when Forlong comes with his men from Lossarnach:

Behind him marched proudly a dusty line of men, well armed and bearing great battle-axes; grim-faced they were, and shorter and somewhat swarthier than any men that Pippin had yet seen in Gondor.~Minas Tirith

If Imrahil had a bit of Elvish blood in him...maybe the Men of Lossarnach had dwarvish blood! :eek: Ok, that's quite a stretch, but then again you have the cries of Forlong the Fat, that are all too reminiscent of Bombur's notable girth. :p

And as far as whether the dwarves fought more berserk-like or more like a Roman unit. Is it possible to fight both in a berserk frenzy and as an organized unite? The Dwarves a tight, secretive bunch. They guard their language and don't even reveal their true names upon their deaths:

Gimli's own name, however, and the names of all his kin, are of Northern (Mannish) origin. Their own secret and inner names, their true names, the Dwarves have never revealed to anyone of alien race. Not even on their tombs do they inscribe them.~Appendix F

Such a close-knit and guarded race, that has protected their language from all others, suggests they would be an organized fighting unit in war as well. But, reading about the Battle of Azanulbizar in the Appendix, several times wrath, anger, vengeance is mentioned about the dwarves. It could be this is just one war of the many Dwarves have fought, so it's kind of an outlier because of the special circumstances, with the death of Thror by the hand of Azog.

When all was ready they assailed and sacked one by one all the strongholds of the Orcs that they could find from Gundabad to the Gladden. Both sides were pitiless, and there was death and cruel deeds by dark and by light. But the Dwarves had the victory through their strength, and their matchless weapons, and the fire of their anger, as they hunted for Azog in every den under mountain.~Appendix A: Durin's Folk

Is it possible to be such a close-knit race, that even in their wrath and anger, Dwarves remain an organized fighting force? Although, they achieved victory through strength, matchless weapons, and the fire of their anger...It's all rather puzzling. Perhaps as in history, try as we might to fight battles in an orderly, organized manner, they turn into free-for-alls. And in free-for-alls superior weapons, armor and fury might win the day.

Although, I don't think we can look at the dwarves through our own real-life Mannish eyes. The Dwarves have successfully guarded their language and true names as a treasured secret. It's almost like even in their battle-like fury they manage to fight together as a unit. You see, Men have to be trained to fight together in an orderly and organized unit. Dwarves, being a unit is in their nature, it's in their blood, and in their very language that they guard so close.

Your thread title is perfect brilliance Kuru. By the Way We War, I assume you meant at the time, the way Dwarves war. I am no Dwarf, and so I would say the way Dwarves war is incomprehensible to any Man, Elf, or non-dwarf. ;) There is no human equivalence to the way the Dwarves are able to war even in berserk-fury, they remain a family unit.

[Nerwen]

See, the trouble with this thread is that within a few replies it turns into the favourite nerd pastime of "Let's Play Medieval Warfare Experts By Linking To Wikipedia A Lot". Hence, I suppose, the otherwise inexplicable 3,000 or so posts about the use of the longbow in the Hundred Years' War.:p:D I mean, what does that have to do with anything?

But getting back to the original question:
I was playing The Fourth Age (http://www.thefourthage.org)the other day when something hit me.

I think Tolkien got the dwarven way of war all wrong.

I think in a way he stumbled on this little bit of an issue himself in the battle of the Hornburg when he has Gimli say…

“but I looked on the hillmen and they seemed overlarge for me”

The axe is not exactly a handy weapon for fighting people taller than you are as you expose yourself even more when you make your stroke.

I think a better way would have been if the dwarves fought more along the lines of the Roman legionaries whose fighting style was made to order (literally) for short people fighting taller ones.

There is some evidence of dwarven equipment of this type…speaking of the dwarves of the Iron Hills

“but each of them had a short broad sword at his side and a round shield slung at his back”

Now I’m not suggesting that there is really anything in that to support my idea. I’m presenting this as an idea that I had rather than something that is in any way supported by Tolkien.
Regarding the bolded passage- are Dwarves typically in the position of fighting people significantly taller than themselves? I mean, yes, they can be, but don't Gimli's words suggest he's not accustomed to fighting Men? And indeed most of the references are to Dwarves fighting Orcs, who themselves tend to be on the short side- c.f. the "huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high" in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum".

[Nerwen]

Also, why are "tightly disciplined Roman legionary" and "blood-crazed, rampaging berserker" being presented as the only two possible Dwarven fighting styles?:confused:

[Morthoron]

Also, why are "tightly disciplined Roman legionary" and "blood-crazed, rampaging berserker" being presented as the only two possible Dwarven fighting styles?:confused:

Ummm....because Dwarf ninjas would look kinda funny doing back-flips with Katanas. :D

[Boromir88]

Regarding the bolded passage- are Dwarves typically in the position of fighting people significantly taller than themselves? I mean, yes, they can be, but don't Gimli's words suggest he's not accustomed to fighting Men? And indeed most of the references are to Dwarves fighting Orcs, who themselves tend to be on the short side- c.f. the "huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high" in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum".

I'm fairly sure I recall Orcs being described as roughly the same size as Dwarves, if not smaller, especially Orcs from the Misty Mountains. Also, there's a reference in HoME about it not being uncommon for Dwarves to war with Dwarves of other houses.

So, I think yes, Gimli's remark about the overlarge hillmen is his acknowledgement that Dwarves usually don't war against a significantly taller enemy.

And this battle at the Hornburg is something the movies muddle up. Saruman's attacking force wasn't 10,000 entirely his superior breed of Uruk-hai. It was a mix of Saruman's Uruk-hai, Dunlanders, and your standard/smaller Orcs.

[Zigûr]

I've always had the impression that Orcs varied quite significantly in size, but that in general terms they were shorter than Men. Otherwise the height of Saruman's Uruk-hai would not have been noteworthy. To the same degree, Frodo and Sam were apparently able to convincingly disguise themselves as Orcs in Mordor, which suggests that Orcs could also be rather small. Even the larger soldier-Orcs of Mordor, Sauron's Uruks (which seem to have been different to Saruman's), appear to have been short and broad with long arms, as Grishnákh is described as being.

On the matter of axes, it might be worth noting that Dwarves and the Men of Lossarnach were not the only ones to use them. In the First Age the Elves of Doriath are described as having stores of axes alongside spears and swords, albeit after they met and began working alongside the Dwarves. Beleg brought "great strength of the Sindar armed with axes into Brethil" to the aid of the Haladin.

However, the Noldor smithed axes as weapons in Valinor before they ever met the Dwarves.

Incidentally, it might be possible that the Dwarves would deploy weapons like spears if they encountered Men or taller opponents, and favoured axes in their more common battles, which seem to have been against foes of more manageable size: Orcs and each other.

Nonetheless, I tend to think that the representation of Dwarves as using axes is more a literary device intended to make them seem exotic than a matter of realistic tactics. That is not to say that Professor Tolkien was uninterested in that kind of realism, as I believe he was, but in this case I feel like the concept is perhaps more poetic than necessarily realistic.

Personally I tend to find the idea of the Dwarves of Middle-earth fighting with swords and spears and mattocks alongside the axes more and more appealing as the years go by because knock-offs of Middle-earth have turned the association of Dwarves with axes in Professor Tolkien's work into a tiresome, obsessive cliché. As for Dwarves being depicted fighting with war hammers of all things...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Also, why are "tightly disciplined Roman legionary" and "blood-crazed, rampaging berserker" being presented as the only two possible Dwarven fighting styles?:confused:

Dunno. Since Tolkien was happy to let the Dwarves use Norse names, I have no problem envisioning them fighting in the Viking fashion, which made use of both the shieldwall and berserker rage. And lots of axes.

(NB: although two-handers or "Dane axes" became the principal weapon of Saxon huscarles and the Varangian Guard towards the end of the Viking era, most Viking fighting axes were one-handers of about 14-18", ideal for using from behind a shield. Gimli keeps his tucked into his belt, which means a one-hander rather than the absurd Frazetta fantasy that movie-Gimli carried.)

[Kuruharan]

Another YouTuber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seih9n2MuYc) has posted a video on this issue.

Apparently dwarves are popular right now.

[Nerwen]

Another YouTuber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seih9n2MuYc) has posted a video on this issue.

Apparently dwarves are popular right now.
Aw, how nice for you, Kuru.

[Kuruharan]

Aw, how nice for you, Kuru.

It is...*\o/*...sorta.

[Kuruharan]

Another link. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaUm5Fer0Pc)