Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amras Oronar
Why not a 2 year siege? because all the armies the Witch King gathered were destroyed by a fractions of the Gondorian armie 30 years ago... no matter how small that pass is, Minas Ithil is a big city, and it seems very unlogical that the Witch King can get a army big enough to defeat Gondor, because why would he then have not gathered that troops in Angmar?
And about the motivation, Minas Ithil is still locatted on the Gondorian side of the mountains, it is defintly Gondor, and no matter how much it is on Gondor's border, it was a major city, it just wouldn't make sence that Gondor would just do practicly nothing to keep one of their major settlements...
|
Yes, but the Angmar armies appear to have been relatively self-sufficient. And it is logical that that would be the case, as Mordor is rather far from Angmar. To gather up troops and march them through hostile territory just to assemble them for a northern war would be a disaster. Also, any sighting of Mordor's armies marching north would give the Gondorians reason to assail and crush Sauron once again.
Ithil may indeed be 'Gondorian', but it does not reside in Gondor-proper. By that, I mean in the heartland, not the periphery of its territory. Logistically, it would be difficult when under siege to supply Ithil properly with enough troops and materials. While let-ups in the siege (which seemingly would have to occur based on the amount of time it took) would provide moments to re-supply and garrison the city, Gondor would not be able to effectively control the terrain as it would need to. The terrain easily obstructs such activity, giving the siegers a tactical advantage. And if the siegers can control the mountain passes effectively (and it could very well be done with a small number of troops), then that gives the Nazgul yet another hand up in victory (as well as the fear they themselves bring to the table).