Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard
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.