|
I think some people are being too quick in choosing strenght over tactics. True, hobbits would not have been able to wield long-bows or big axes yet if used properly they could have been great scouts (they were almost just as silent as an elf and by the end of the third age there weren't many elves around) and if they could sneak up on the enemy they wouldn't need long bows.
Think about this scenario. The two armies meet and stand right out of long-bow range from each other. The opposing captains are meassuring their strenghts and weaknesses and then the "enemy" decides to attack. They approach and the expected rain of arrows falls on target. The soldiers raise their shields and all of a sudden a small group of hobbits which was hidden nearby starts shooting arrows at them. That would create quite a bit of mayhelm so that before they could react, the "good guys" could attack them.
Of course, the only problem is that it would be hard indeed to motivate Hobbits to go to war.... yet if possible they might be useful allies.
After all, many wars had been won over superior tactics than sheer strenght. If my little knowledge of history helps me Warning: here is when Farael makes a mistake and someone corrects him, invalidating his whole argument during the 100 year war, France had a much stronger heavy cavalry than England yet the English had lighter, more movile troops and the terrain was swampy and the heavily equiped frenchmen were outmanuvered by the English, who won the day.
|