rohan v.s. gondor

[Kuruharan]

Have you guys ever seen Braveheart? the scottish tactics proves better than those of the trained, more numerous english.

One should always be cautious when using a movie to validate an interpretation of history. Braveheart was far from historically accurate. (Although it probably was closer to the truth than many "historical" movies that have been spewn out over the years.)

Wallace's army was not entirely made up of untrained clansmen, there was an element of "professional" soldiers in his force. Secondly, Wallace made very good use of terrain to force the English to fight on his own terms. The movie's portrayal of the Battle of Stirling was inaccurate in most every way. What Wallace did was force the English to fight him in a place where they could not use their numbers. Not in the middle of a wide open plain. He was a good general at taking advantage of the material available to him.

Back in Middle earth, you are certainly correct about Gondor being better prepared for seiges. That would be another big disadvantage for Rohan if they did launch an offensive they would be forced to fight a seige. A mode of warfare that by their own admission they were not too good at.

Its hard to stay in formation when a bunch of huge animals are about to run you over... kind of like a big game of chicken.

That is a pretty good analogy. That's pretty much exactly what it is. If the enemy ran, or was disrupted enough to give the cavalry enough room to maneuver, then they could just sweep right through them the way that Theoden mentioned.