How many in Battle of 5 Armies?

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Rune

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?


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/showthr...t=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.

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

*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]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

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...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

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...

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.