Battles of the late Third Age

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Rumil

... I'd agree that the scouting abilities of Rohirrim appear really poor in this battle, no doubt the mist contributed, was this maybe a 'device' instigated by Saruman?

On the eastern force, I can only speculate that the 3 eoreds and the levies were stationed south-east of the ford and were carried away by the rout of Theodred's cavalry returning over the ford, who were surprsed and caught in the flank. As you say, after the pursuing Isengarders drew off, these forces showed their courage by their willingness to return to the fight. I guess the cavalry mostly survived the fighting, but the levy foot might well have been sadly massacred.

As to what the Rohirrim could have done, I guess the first thing is to 'get there fastest with the mostest', they had a powerful army and if it had all ben mobilised and perhaps caught Saruman's forces on the plains of Rohan, I doubt that Saruman could have won, even if he did have significantly more than 10,000 troops. Shows you how important Wormtongue was!

I think the Rohirrim's overall tactic was flawed from the beginning. Did they not realize Sarumann could send forces down the east side of the river from Isengard? This in itself makes the Fords somewhat indefensable. Of course this was never a problem in history, with Sarumann at one time friendly, and before that, Isengard was a fortress of Gondor.

On the second Battle of the Fords, I think a solid command structure was missing, due in part to Theoden's state of mind, and the death of Theodred in the first battle. Both Battle of the Isen were solid victories for Sarumann.

[Aiwendil]

Regarding the Dunlendings:

. . . many of the forest-dwellers of the shorelands south of the Ered Luin, especially in Minhiriath, were as later historians recognized the kin of the Folk of Haleth; but they became bitter enemies of the Numenoreans, because of their ruthless treatment and their devastation of the forests, and this hatred remained unappeased in their descendants, causing them to join with the enemies of Numenor. In the Third Age their survivors were the people known in Rohan as the Dunlendings ("Of Dwarves and Men", HoMe XII).

So they are neither barbarians nor Numenoreans, but descendants of those of the second house of the Edain who did not go to Numenor.

[Kuruharan]

neither barbarians...but descendants of those of the second house of the Edain

These two are not mutually exclusive.

[Saurreg]

Good points people! Excellent discussion going on here. Since I'm quite a novice in military affairs, I'll stay in the wings and continue reading as these fine posts come pouring in.

My compliments to Rumil for resurrecting this great thread!

[Saurreg]

Here's a little thought I have. I do hope Kuruharan and other knowlegeable military enthusiaists can expound or maybe even expostulate on it.

Strategic Comment

Cavalry of Rohan

It is in my view that despite being big men on big horses (that itself is subjective), the Rohirrim soldiers were light cavalry men on the lines of Khazar, Sarmatian and Scynthian light horsemen as well as the Sicilian cavalry during the Hellenistic era. The ways in which they were deployed as well as the weapons they used closely resembled the recorded doctrine of the three people as well as other riders from central asia and the Iranian plateau.

Heavy cavalry on the other hand had been used exclusively as a shock weapon on the battlefields to drive fear into the enemy through sheer momentum and size and hopefully generate a rout. Thessalian and later Macedonian heavy cavalry were antiquity's prime examples of lance mounted men trained to charge and overwhelm the enemy in a critical moment. The extreme example of the heavy cavalry would be the eastern cataphracts and their heavily armored successors. In any case heavy cavalry was the least flexible and most difficult branch of the mounted arm to command due to their impetuosity and low stamina.

Mongolian heavy cavalry was an exception but I do not think Tolkien based the Rohirrim on them. The battle of the Fords of Isen and the Rohirrim journey to Gondor were carried out at great speeds and the riders were battle-ready when they arrived at the battlefield - another characteristic trademark of the light horse men.

Force structure of Rohan and Its Inherent Deficiencies

If we are in agree that the generally the force structure of Rohan was based on the light cavalry with perhaps some exceptions such generals' bodyguard's etc, than the army of rohan would greatly resemble that of the Sarmatians and Scynthians.

The difference is that the two historical people were generally semi-nomadic. They lived within fixed regions but aside from burial mounts, they had no permanent settlements, as such their armies were centered on versatility and mobility as according to their lifestyle. Rohan on the other had permanent settlements that required defending (Settlement of westfold, Meduseld and Helmsdeep etc). Generally when there are fixed objectives to defend, an immoblie force is needed. Not immobile as in totally stationary but rather, a force centered on the ability to withstand impact without shifting rather than high mobility. Infantry is the most versatile branch of the armed forces and itself can be divided into heavy and light types.

Heavy infantry are classified as infantry that is able to withstand shock and deliver some shock of its own. Greek hoplites and roman legionnaires are good examples of heavy infantry as well as Swiss pikemen from medieval ages. In Tolkien's world the heavy infantry non-par excellence was the Gondorian infantry. Light infantry on the other hand were skirmishers, missile troops and lighter armored foot soldiers whose main feature is versatility and flexibility.

Of the two types, heavy infantry offers higher survivability on the open battlefield (the presence of other arms such as artillery and cavalry provide of course) whereas light infantry should not be deployed without other branches of the army out in the open but are more economical in fortifying settlement defences.

This brings us back to Rohan. Despite its achievements with the light cavalry arm, it is essential an unstable force devoid of an effective infantry. There were infantry militias of course, but they lack the staying power of well-trained heavy infantry and would be at best second rate light infantry. History has shown such outfits as totally ineffective on the battlefield and the weaklink of the army against a capable foe.

The most effective armies of antiquity from Philip's Macedonian war machine to Surenas' Parthian war host operated on the principles of combined arms. It was the job of the heavy infantry to hold while the cavalry pushed. The artillery had the vital task of effecting the above maneuvers with their awesome (hopefully) firepower. None of the three could perform well without the other. Without infantry, the enemy would flow with the push. Without cavalry, the enemy would simply pull and without effective artillery, hold and push may not occur.

The fact that the Rohirrim was lacking both infantry and artillery and possessed only light cavalry goes to show how deficient the army was. It was their fortune that Tolkien decided not pit them against an army with an Alexander or his immediate successors in his fable.

Campaign Comment

First battle of The Fords of Isen

(I shall be using Rumil's Excellent post and information for a stage by stage commentary. He has done such a fine job.)

We know Theodred mustered the troops of his own household and went forth to Isengard while Elfhelm remained for the continuing muster other available troops. This would leave Theodred with over 1400 light horsemen and over 800 militia light infantry of dubious quality for his "invasion force".

What was his primarily objective? Was it to destroy the army of isengard itself during its lax pax state of readiness? Or to lay siege and capture Isengard?"

We do not know except to speculate the the first objective was most probable and that it was Theodred's intention to preemptively assault Saruman and deal him a crippling blow. That it self is impossible since we know the great strength of the latter's army and the fact that the Rohirrim were lacking in infantry and artillery (the hold and push effect comes into play here). Even if possessing supreme skill and courage, the little force would simply dash itself to pieces in the initial charge.

Throughout the entire cause of the battle, the Rohirrim have displayed an incredible ineptitude in reconnaissance and information gathering. This was unlikely in light cavalry since scouting was one of their chief missions. It was either the Rohirrim cavalry like Gallic cavalry were of low quality and at best mediocre or to give Tolkien's prized horsemen a benefit of a doubt, Theodred knew his force was too small and hence arrayed his riders in close ranks, placing a higher premium on force security and battle-readiness over intelligence. If that was the case why did he still commence his mission? Either way, he had committed the ultimate fatal error of going into battle blind.

After scattering the mounted force of his enemy (most probably a scouting force), Theodred rode on in pursuit until he encountered enemy pikemen and ground fortifications in a narrow defile. The battlefield was then clearly an infantryman's battle. If the Rohirrim had a band of tough light infantry like Macedonian Hypasists on call, they could have been sent to clear the trenches and make way for heavy infantry. However Theodred had none of those. What he had was an outfit on unsuitable terrain against unsuitable defences and enemies. A defeat is expected.

When Theodred drew his forces back and decided to make a stand at the fords, he made the ultimate tactical blunder - committing unsuitable forces to unsuitable terrain fighting in an unsuitable manner. The Fords of Isen on either bank and on the island offered little protection for his light infantry militia of dubious quality. As commented before, I believe that only heavy infantry could hold open ground on their own indefinitely. Erkenbrand's militia were not heavy infantry and for them to hold a static line and recieve shock is tantamount to suicide. Theodred must have also ordered some cavaliers to dismount and fight as infantry. Ditto. As for the rest of the riders, they were positioned near to the static line at the east bank to act as missile troops most likely. This is a tactical error - the worth in cavalry is fundamentally maneuver and mobility. By placing them in such close vicinity as the static line, the riders have had their attributes greatly reduced.

It is in my opinion that Theodred should have traded space for time and mobility for shock. His main advantage over his enemy was mobility and he should have made full use of it. A withdrawal eastwards followed by a razed down policy could keep his enemy in check. Also when the time came the Rohirrim could adopt Sun Tzu's dictum of pinning down the enemy front with an ordinary force while outflanking with an extraordinary force. In that maneuver the center of gravity and objective of the maneuver would be the enemy's point of weakness, the one would would cause the total psychological collapse of the enemy - easily the Isen fords again.

[Kuruharan]

I think you are on to something here. However, I might take it a step farther.

Rohan on the other had permanent settlements that required defending (Settlement of westfold, Meduseld and Helmsdeep etc).

I think that the Rohirrim were semi-nomadic to a degree. Yes, they had permanent settlements, but I kind of think of them as being a people who moved about some with their horse herds. I picture them as kind of in a similar vein to the cattle drives of the American West, if you'll grant me the loose comparison.

Now, admittedly, there is really no evidence of this except the lifestyle of their kin in Rhovanion back in the day, but I kind of enjoy the picture.

In Tolkien's world the heavy infantry non-par excellence was the Gondorian infantry.

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

As an example of a potential example of other heavy infantry, and I realize that I am probably going to raise some eyebrows here by bucking a long held fantasy assumption, but I don't think that just because Wood Elves lived in the woods meant that they did not have heavy infantry. I point to the large numbers of elven spearmen at the Battle of Five Armies. I think they were at least "heavyish."

And, well, then...*cough* (how to say this without seeming like a homer) what about the dwarves? However, they don't seem to have fought on the plains too much.

*EDIT* I forgot the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.

Then there were the heavily armored axe-men-orcs that Saruman used...

The fact that the Rohirrim was lacking both infantry and artillery and possessed only light cavalry goes to show how deficient the army was.

As it is presented in the books it could certainly be a bit problematic. However, if the Rohirrim would go all out for horse archers that would change the situation a bit.

(Full disclosure time here: I should say that I personally believe that a well armed horse archer was the most effective type of fighter prior to the advent of gunpowder.)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A few random observations, after a note that I hope that Rumil will eventually consider broadening the subjects to battles of the First and Second Ages(especially the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, which has some interesting parallels to problems the French and Russians had in 1914 vis-a-vis the German Empire).
-----------------------

My impression is that for JRRT the Rohirrim were the heavy cavalry of Middle-earth.
-----------------------

An interesting speculation is how skilled and numerous were the archers of the Rohirrim. In the chapter "The Uruk-hai":

A few of the riders appeared to be bowmen, skilled at shooting from a running horse.

(note a few )
-----------------------
Given that the Dunlendings were distant relatives, it seems remarkably foolish of the Rohirrim to alienate them.
------------------------
I especially like the suggestion above of "trading space for time", which would play into both the strengths of the Rohirrim and minimize a key weakness, the need of time to mass their forces. Plus, it would move the field of action into ones more advantageous, that is, open fields or strongholds, as opposed to a fairly open ford situation. (shades of Stalin insisting on defending the extreme western borders of Russia?)

[Rumil]

Hi all,

welcome to Saurreg, what a great post! As for the first one - Methinks he doth protest too much

I was going to post 'Eomer's Battle' tonight, but thought that such in-depth discussion deserved some continuation before proceeding, so Eomer will be on soon, hopefully! (You all know me far too well to believe that I am capable of committing to a specific day, month or, occasionally, year)

Saurreg raised some excellent points on the tactics and strategy that could have been more successful for the Rohirrim, I especially liked the desciption of the 'hammer and anvil' Macedonian system. Also the criticism of the deployment at the fords, the cavalry attack on pikemen and the scouting deficiency is entirely justified in my view.

On the 'heaviness' of the Rohirrim cavalry and infantry, I'd differ in interpretation, and of course with Tolkien's battles these are almost totally subjective opinions! For the uninitiated, some explanation is probably due. 'Light' troops are usually considered as those deploying in loose skirmish formations, wearing little armour and relying more on mobility than fighting power. 'Heavy' troops, conversely, are well armoured, deploy in dense formations and are expected to perform most of the hand to hand fighting in ancient battles. Obviously, there's a whole spectrum of in-betweens and much is dependent on the psychology and culture of the armies under consideration.

I'm quite tempted by the Rohirrim as light cavalry, but I think that I'm going to stick with my concept of them as akin to Norman or Frankish knights of the eleventh to twelfth centuries. Why so? Well first of all, their equipment appears similar; lance, sword, long chainmail coat and shield, with good horse. On horses, it should be remembered that the Normans' horses were considerably smaller than the great chargers of later medieval knights, and I'd be inclined to imagine the horses of Rohan to be similar 'general purpose' horses, if you like, rather than the purpose-bred warhorse. The psychology of the Rohirrim also appears to favour the dramatic initial charge rather than the 'harass them then charge them when they're disordered' sort of tactic one might expect from lighter cavalry. I would certainly agree that they did not deploy as densely as the ancient cataphracts, nor can I find any mention of them using horse-armour (though they did have stirrups). Conversely, the long ride to Minas Tirith would imply a lighter cavalry type, which may simply argue against the use of specialist warhorses as these were notoriously difficult to keep in good condition on a march, most medieval knights rode lesser horses then tranferred to the chargers only before battle. A small proportion of the cavalry also carried bows, which could be considerd unusual for a 'Frankish knight' type, but was common amongst, for example, Byzantine heavy cavalry.

On the infantry, I'm probably influenced by the Anglo Saxon fyrd. It seems that anybody who was anybody in Rohan would have ridden a horse, so these local militias were probably drawn from the 'peasantry'. Of course this doesn't mean that they couldn't fight stoutly when the time came, but would argue against them possessing good quality armour and being able to carry out the complex maneuvers of more professional soldiers. I'd see them as forming a defensive shieldwall, 'stiffened' perhaps with local leaders and dismounted cavalry on occasion. The shieldwall may not be an aggressive attacking formation but could perhaps have provided the 'anvil' to pin the opposition, allowing the cavalry to deliver the 'hammer blow' - shades of Sun-Tzu maybe? There also seem to have been some bowmen, who I would regard as light infantry skirmishers, supporting the main infantry line.

On the whole, the Rohirrim could be compared with 'settling-down' Goths. Their early leaders had Gothic-sounding names whereas by the time of the War of the Ring they have more Anglo-Saxon names. This was an intentional philological development by JRRT and I think it represents a change from a nomad to settled culture. Rohan is certainly horse country, wide open rolling grasslands, and only four settlements are named in the book. Therefore I see the Rohirrim as in transition, some aspects nomadic, some tied to the land, as Kuruharan pointed out.

I particularly liked Kuruharan's description of Wood-Elves as 'heavy-ish' and I think it illustrates a point that a well trained unit could be capable of switching battlefield tactics dependent on the situation. The elven spearmen would surely have operated as skirmishers in the forest, but could form up and act as shock troops in more open terrain if the situation demaded it. I'm tempted to think of Roman auxilia here! (btw, just to dangle some bait - LMI or LHI anyone?)

[Rumil]

Hi Tuor,

I see we cross posted a minute ago!

As for battles of the first and second ages - why don't you start a new thread? I think the 3rd age thread will turn out to be a monster, especially by the time we get to the Battle of Bywater! (I wonder how many years hence?).

Although I've read the Sil many times, I don't go back to it very often and am not as 'au fait' as I could be. If you take the lead I'm sure I'll follow on.

Meanwhile, I see we have the horse-archer reference in - I'd guess that its a difficult skill to learn so could maybe be confined to those Rohirrim brought up more in the nomad than settled tradition maybe? Of the eight (or so) eoreds that Theodred led over the Isen, one was comprised of horse archers, so that could indicate the relative proportions amongst the Rohirrim. I wonder if they were like the 'light company' of Napoleonic infantry - every batallion had some, but on special occasions they could be brigaded togther from a number of batallions where the general saw fit.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

Like what, exactly? It seems (at least to my mind) that the Gondorians were quite definitely oriented towards heavy infantry.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

(Full disclosure time here: I should say that I personally believe that a well armed horse archer was the most effective type of fighter prior to the advent of gunpowder.)

I would disagree with this statement, and instead posit that a fully armoured knight in plate was the most effective.

[Kuruharan]

Like what, exactly?

Like the things I listed immediately below my statement.

It seems (at least to my mind) that the Gondorians were quite definitely oriented towards heavy infantry.

And I tend to think the Gondorians were a more well-rounded force. I inquire regarding your source.

I would disagree with this statement, and instead posit that a fully armoured knight in plate was the most effective.

Ahh, well fortunately this is not a matter for which we have only theoretical speculation upon which to rely. We have a grand instance of this very confrontation in history.

The Mongols shot up the heavily armored knights of Europe just as effectively as they shot up everybody else. As a matter of fact, they made the Europeans look like a bunch of blundering buffoons and the medieval European military system as a whole look (to put it gently) "incapable."

Of course, those silly Mongols did that to most everybody. Darn those well-armed horse archers.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I disagree with this. Or at least I would question what your source for this is.(Ignoring for the moment what the Gondorian army was actually like because that opens up, say it with me now, "a whole other can o' worms" about what Gondor's military and defensive structure was actually like). The statement seems to me to ignore too much.

As an example of a potential example of other heavy infantry, and I realize that I am probably going to raise some eyebrows here by bucking a long held fantasy assumption, but I don't think that just because Wood Elves lived in the woods meant that they did not have heavy infantry. I point to the large numbers of elven spearmen at the Battle of Five Armies. I think they were at least "heavyish."

And, well, then...*cough* (how to say this without seeming like a homer) what about the dwarves? However, they don't seem to have fought on the plains too much.

*EDIT* I forgot the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.

Then there were the heavily armored axe-men-orcs that Saruman used...

I based my claim on the UT whereby in notes 7 and 16 of "The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields" Note 7 stated that the Númenóreans were large of stature and when they went to war, they (the infantry) were accustomed to be fully equiped in heavy armour and weapons.

Note 16 introduced two open-field infantry arrays. The first was the Thangail which was a defensive formation used to recieve shock. The second was the Dirnath which was a wedged formation used to deliver shock over a short distance. To maneuver large bodies of men on the battlefield in the heat of battle is difficult but the fact that these people were able to implied very high training in cohesive fighting. The first formation was used to great effect in the Gladden Fields before the Númenóreans were overwhelmed by superior enemy numbers and the lack of support.

If we go by Rumil's definition in regards on the attire of heavy infantry as well as my earlier where I posted MG J.F.C Fuller's own definition of ancient heavy infantry, Gondor and its lost sister Kingdom of Arnor could thus be assumed to possess excellent heavy infantry.

Elves with long spears may be or may not be heavy infantry. In the first place we hardly knew what tactics they used and neither do we know if they were heavily armored (which also contributes to the dual shock effect). Where they able to withstand shock and did they deliver shock?

In ancient times when situations became desperate, anybody that could wield a weapon was pressed into service. Were simple craftsmen and farmers armered with hedgeforks, scythes and polearms considered heavy infantry? I do not think so.

The story of the last Alliance mentioned that Oropher and his contingent were nearly annihilated when they attacked too soon without support from the rest of the army. If we are to speculate that the armies of both Thrandruil and his father were of similar organisation, then they might imply a poor ability to withstand shock.

You might classify dwarves as heavy infantry if you must. But to say they were better than Gondorian heavy infantry is also guessing too much. I would say that given the constituent, height and reach of a standard Númenórean, Gondorian heavy infantry offers better flexibility on the battlefield. The same argument can also be applied to saruman's hybrid berserkers.