Battles of the late Third Age

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

Ohhhhhhhhh, so you're a Mongol fan are you? Well,that explains a lot.

One crucial point I want to emphasize here is that full plate is invulnerable to arrows, whether loosed from horseback or not.

I disagree with the contention that the Mirkwood elves may have been heavy infantry on the basis that they were, I believe, primarily Silvan, and were therefore less likely to bear heavy armour and weapons than their technophile Noldor cousins.

[Kuruharan]

One crucial point I want to emphasize here is that full plate is invulnerable to arrows, whether loosed from horseback or not.

Sacre blu! It is?!! Then I must fly with all haste to my lord Constable d'Albret who is at this very moment arranging his troops at Agincourt!! I must most earnestly entreat his lordship to sound the onset!! He cannot possibly lose!!!

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Sacre blu! It is?!! Then I must fly with all haste to my lord Constable d'Albret who is at this very moment arranging his troops at Agincourt!! I must most earnestly entreat his lordship to sound the onset!! He cannot possibly lose!!!

Oh please. The French knights at Agincourt didn't have full plate, and besides that, the majority of their casualties were caused by suffocation in the mud, and the English dismounted knights and men-at-arms. The "invincible longbow" is a quaint English myth.

[Kuruharan]

The French knights at Agincourt didn't have full plate

The battle was fought in 1415. If full plate was not around by then, please enlighten my bottomless ignorance as to when it was in use.

However, be careful. Too many more years into the future and you get into the Gunpowder Age, and my statement was specific to the ages before that really began exploding on the scene (even though by this point it was already in some use).

the majority of their casualties were caused by suffocation in the mud, and the English dismounted knights and men-at-arms.

What difference does that make? Even ignoring the fact that I disagree with your statement that plate armor could not be penetrated, your contention is that the heavily armed knight was the most effective fighter in the whole era before the advent of gunpowder. This is one of many instances where the heavily armored knight just did not fare too well.

If you would like another instance, aside from Mongols, of the mailed chivalry of France (considered for some unfathomable reason to be the best, I think they just thought they were best) "not doing too well" look at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396.

The "invincible longbow" is a quaint English myth.

Well, something certainly tilted the battlefields of the Hundred Years War in their favor against most reasonable expectations to the contrary for a considerable period of time.

*Cough* anyway, back to warfare in the Third Age of Middle earth...

Saurman's followers seem to have been of a rather plodding sort or Saruman did not encourage them to take initiative themselves. It is probably some combination of both. The Isengarders could have caused much more havoc had they reordered themselves and pressed an attack rather than drawing off in the first battle.

[Neurion]

Ohhh no, you're not getting away that easily.

I'll ignore your intended slight and try to state my case a little better

I should have perhaps said that the knight was the ultimate weapon on the medival battlefield, rather than saying the mounted knight.

Losing to the English at Agincourt was not the fault of the French knights, nor their training. To charge headlong through a muddy morass like that was simple foolishness on the part of the commanders.

Neither longbows nor crossbows could penetrate the best plate armor. Striking at a 45 degree angle, a bodkin-headed arrow or quarrel might dent or scratch armor plate, but hitting at any other angle the projectile would simply deflect.

Again, I say that the French knights did not yet have the advantage of full plate armor, as full plate only became availabe around 1450.

About the longbow tilting the balance of the hundred years war, I never said it was not an effective weapon, I merely said it was not invincible.

One contemporary record states that archers would be directed to release their arrows upward at a very high angle to try and disrupt a charge by knights. In this way, the falling arrows "might" just possibly peirce the armor plate in some instances, but in any case the primary intention was to kill the horses or cause them to become unmanageable through inflicted arrow wounds. Unhorsing them would, of course, make the knights slower, but no less deadly.

English longbowmen were primarily used to provide "suppresive fire" against the enemy, rather than attacking them straight on. Their primary function at Agincourt seems to have been to force the French kinghts to bunch up, making their charge less effective.

Also, according to John Keegan's "Face of Battle", the English archers were unable to stop the French knights in any case. What saved the English position was the stakes placed around their position.

Finally, simply stating that the heavily-armed and armored knights did not fare too well at Agincourt does not somehow prove that knights were ineffective, as you seem to be saying. In that instance the French knights lost mainly to the English knights, not to archers.

[Rumil]

Aha that put a smile on my face!

Nice reference by Saurreg to descriptions of Nuemenorean heavy infantry tactics, though, of course they appear to have declined somewhat by the end of the third age.

On full plate armour, I think its not so applicable to Middle Earth, but anyway. As Kuruharan points out, plate armour of the 14th to early 15th centuries could be penetrated with comparative ease by arrows from experienced longbowmen. However, by the end of the 15th century, advances in metal working had led to the introduction of specially hardened 'blue-steel' armour, which was far more difficult to pierce with longbow arrows. This, however, was incredibly expensive stuff at the time and probably limited to only the richest knights. I believe that in one battle (name escapes me!) towards the end of the Hundred Years War, English longbowmen were comprehensively ridden over by Genoese mercenary knights equipped in this new high-tech gear.

Of course, soon enough the improved plate was being defeated by gunpowder weapons.

I don't think this sort (or maybe any sort?) of plate armour is relevant to the late Third Age period, though I seem to remember Elrond commenting on armour of ancient times, perhaps the Noldor had the trick of making it after hints and tips from Aule? Could explain some of their prowess in the First Age battles?

I don't particularly want to be drawn into any arguments about which troops or equipment were 'best' as these things generally depend on the circumstances. Perhaps Neurion's 'weapons and armour' thread would be more appropriate for this sort of thing?

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Rumil

I don't particularly want to be drawn into any arguments about which troops or equipment were 'best' as these things generally depend on the circumstances. Perhaps Neurion's 'weapons and armour' thread would be more appropriate for this sort of thing?

Oh crap. Sorry.

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps you and I should continue this discussion via PMs...

[Neurion]

I highly doubt Kuru's hypothesis that mounted archers would have made up the bulk of an Eored. In RotK, Tolkien's references are quite clearly on lancers, e.g. "More skilled was their Knighthood with long spears and bitter", Theoden shattering his lance against the Haradhrim chieftain, etc.

[Kuruharan]

I highly doubt Kuru's hypothesis that mounted archers would have made up the bulk of an Eored.

I don't recall saying that...

...but let me go quote myself.

However, if the Rohirrim would go all out for horse archers that would change the situation a bit.

There it is. I said "would" as in something they could have done but did not.

I did not mean to imply I thought the Rohirrim were primarily horse archers.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I don't recall saying that...

...but let me go quote myself.

There it is. I said "would" as in something they could have done but did not.

I did not mean to imply I thought the Rohirrim were primarily horse archers.

Right. My mistake.

AS I have said before though, to me, the Rohirrim seem most reminiscient of the Carolingians in battle.