Hobbits as soldiers?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mormegil

This is from the appendix and would indicate, to me at least, that hobbits did not make great soldiers in general.

I would beg to differ. It does not follow from their failure to return that they were not effective in the battle.

We know from Concerning Hobbits that they were difficult to daunt or kill and that they could “survive rough handling by grief, foe or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and well-fed faces”. It is also said that they could still handle arms at need and, indeed, that they routed an Orcish invasion at the Battle of Greenfields. They are said to be particularly useful with the bow, being “keen-eyed and sure at the mark”, and that, if ever a Hobbit stoops to pick up a stone, trespassing creatures would do well to take cover.

I would suggest that there are qualities in Hobbits that would make them very good soldiers, if organised to play to those qualities. Being difficult to daunt or kill is an admirable quality in a soldier and it seems to me that they would likely have a higher than average morale, both in terms of the conditions they might have to put up with and in terms of their ability to hold firm in the face of the enemy.

Their small stature and therefore lesser physical strength would limit their effectiveness in hand-to-hand combat (unless against weaker foes) and preclude their use as cavalry (unless on dog-back ). But they clearly made effective ranged troops, armed with short-bows or perhaps slingshots. Such weaponry would limit their effectiveness against heavily-armoured foes, but they would undoubtedly have their uses.

Finally, the fact that they not only defeated, but routed, the Goblin invasion led by Golfimbul shows that they could be highly effective against certain types of enemy and when well-organised by one such as Bandobras Took. Similarly at the Battle of Bywater, when organised by Merry and Pippin. I should imagine that they made particularly resolute foes when on home ground and defending their homes.

[mormegil]

Hobbits seem to be very one dimensional and therefore aren't great soldiers especially in the type of warfare of Middle-earth. They might do well as archers in a protected fort or citadel, however if on an open field they are very limited. The short bow and sling have a range that is far less than a long bow, and you admitted their ineffectiveness against armor. Now Hobbits, would seem, can handle themselves against a band of orcs, probably of the smaller breed. However, throw them against the Easterlings and I think you would see a much different result.

I agree with ManofDale in that they could be good scouts and spies but they are limited in the amount of space they can travel in that they generally cannot ride horses.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Actually, I believe Tolkien says it's a hobbit belief they
fought against the witchking, a view unsubstantiated
by any other race. So maybe this was an example
of hobbit "spin control" to put their occupation of the
shire in a stronger position.

[the phantom]

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

But they clearly made effective ranged troops, armed with short-bows or perhaps slingshots.

That's all fine and dandy if you are going to war against poorly armed and untrained morons, but "short-bows and slingshots" wouldn't cut it against a true military force.

Let's say General Pippin orders his hobbits, "Go over there and pelt that Gondorin army with short-bows and slingshots."

As soon as the arrows starting flying, King Aragorn would say, "Everyone fall back out of their range, get out your longbows, and kill those little hobbits."

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

So, when you pit long-range+high-damage versus short-range+low-damage, who wins every time?

I don't think I need to give you the answer to that. A group of men or elves with bows would absolutely destroy a group of hobbit archers.

Similarly at the Battle of Bywater, when organised by Merry and Pippin.

We must remember that the Battle of Bywater was not army versus army. If my memory serves me right, it was a collection of dimwitted, outnumbered men walking straight into a trap. The outcome could not have been anything other than a victory for the hobbits. Actually, it is rather disappointing that so many of them died in the victory. I think that shows their inferiority as fighters.

I mean, just imagine for one minute- what if the entire scenario of the Battle of Bywater was kept exactly the same, only instead of hobbits there were Noldorin soldiers fighting against Saruman's men. Heh- you want to talk about a slaughter. I doubt a single elf would get killed.

The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

. . . .

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

. . . .
The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

Well, hmmm. Do we know that short, small types cannot wield a long bow? And, often, victory goes not to the physique but to the technology. Is there a technology other than catering hobbits would shine at?

Originally Posted by Squatter

Sadly, it's also quite probable that any money saved on footwear would have to be sunk into rations, so I'm not sure how much of an advantage their barefoot predilections would be either. I suppose one could always feed them their boots.

Well, don't sniff at the possibility. I understand that there were polar expeditions which survived by stewing their boots.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

You're rather missing the point here. I said that they would be useful in combat roles that played to their strengths. Undoubtedly, an entire army of Hobbits would be no match for stronger and well armoured foes. But, as a battalion within a greater force (as they were at the Battle of Fornost) and properly placed on the field, their qualities would almost certainly make them useful. Detachments of shortbowmen and slingers were used to great effect in battles of the ancient world.

One should never underestimate Hobbits. They have great capacity to surprise. As Gandalf knew, and Sauron discovered too late ...

[mormegil]

I just thought of a useful yet comical situation for Hobbits. Forming an archer line you could have one hobbit in front of every man/elf forming a team of high and low shooters.