Generals and armies

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Farael

and as I said before, it should be taken into account that in the times LoTR was set in, saying "King X" or "General Z" meant the king and his army.

Farael's point is well made in a sense. It sure is true, that old texts refer only to the leaders of armies, not so often to the number of soldiers coming behind them. Think of Shakespeare (Earl of Leicester came to the battlefield: meaning he and his men) or icelandic sagas (Njall went to Thingvellir: meaning he and his people).

But I think it's another matter to talk about Tolkien's usage of language. Although Tolkien was pretty serious with his characters, middle-earth languages, people etc. being so old-storylike than he was, his prose is quite modern. Or to be more exact, modern and romantic at the same time. He did not write like the venerable Bede or Snorri Sturluson, but as a twentieth century author.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Farael's point is well made in a sense. It sure is true, that old texts refer only to the leaders of armies, not so often to the number of soldiers coming behind them. Think of Shakespeare (Earl of Leicester came to the battlefield: meaning he and his men) or icelandic sagas (Njall went to Thingvellir: meaning he and his people).

But I think it's another matter to talk about Tolkien's usage of language. Although Tolkien was pretty serious with his characters, middle-earth languages, people etc. being so old-storylike than he was, his prose is quite modern. Or to be more exact, modern and romantic at the same time. He did not write like the venerable Bede or Snorri Sturluson, but as a twentieth century author.

I think you are right *admits partial defeat* it might have not been Tolkien's style, even if it would have been "historically correct"

With respect to Raynor's comment I still think that two hundred men (under the mentioned captain's command) would not alter greatly the odds and yet make a little more sense. But as Nogrod said, I am not taking Tolkien's style into account.

[Boromir88]

Well, three elves is not quite support... if I'm not mistaken, some American soldiers (or was it airplane pilots) fought in WWII before the US joined the war, yet it does not indicate that the US was supporting his allies in a militaristic way.

But unlike the WWII scenario Elladan and Elrohir were actually sent by Elrond. And the Dunedain were summoned by Galadriel and told that Aragorn needed them. So, though the Elves couldn't march out in force (since their kingdoms were being attacked) they still did what they could. Even if it be only two elves, and thirty Dunedain, they will still sent to aid Aragorn by Elrond and Galadriel. Just showing we got your back, so to say.

As far as the Generals/armies thing. Yes, in ancient times the name of a General or King also includes their army. For instance in the Crusades, often it is just "King Lionheart versus Saladin" and the only names as mentioned, but of course it includes their armies. And as Nogrod says, Shakespeare typically did the same. But, it's not a style, as far as I've seen Tolkien used. When naming a General/Commander, Tolkien always gives us atleast an approximated number of their men. As far as I'm aware of that is. Let's take for instance when the outlying lords are coming into Minas Tirith:

"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number..."

And so the companies came and were hailed and cheered and passed through the Gate, men of the outlands marching to defend the City of Gondor in a dark hour; but always too few, always less than hope looked for or need asked. The men of Ringlo Vale behind the son of their lord, Dervorin string on foot: three hundreds. From the uplands of Morthond, the great Blackroot Vale, tall Duinhir with his sons, Duilin and Derufin, and five hundred bow-men. From the Anfalas, the Langstrand far away, a long line of men of many sorts, hunters and herdsmen and men of little villages, scantily equipped save for the household of Golasgil their lord. From Lamedon, a few grim hillmen without a captain Fisher-folk of the Eithir some hundred or more spared from the ships. Hirluin the Far of the Green Hills from Pinnath Gelin with three hundreds of gallant green-clad men. And last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth, kinsman of the Lord, with gilded banners bearing his token of the Ship and the Silver Swan, and a company of knights in full harness riding grey horses; and behind them seven hundreds of men at arms, tall as lords, grey-eyed, dark-haired, singing as they came.

If you look through the Last Alliance and The Black Gate Opens, you will see the same kind of thing. Tolkien may not give an exact number, but his style is different from the typical history. When he names a General he gives some sort of approximated number, or something to give us a idea of how many (few for instance). With that said, I don't see a reason to assume it's different with Elladan, Elrohir, or the Dunedain. If they are named with no number/approximated guess, then I assume they are by themselves.

[Firefoot]

Farael - interesting thoughts and an interesting thread, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.

From "The Passing of the Grey Company":

"All is well," said Aragorn, turning back. "Here are some of my own kin from the far land where I dwelt. But why they are come, and how many they be, Halbarad shall tell us."
"I have thirty with me," said Halbarad. "That is all of our kindred that could be gathered in haste; but the brethren Elladan and Elrohir have riden with us, desiring to go to war."

Okay, so about thirty men go with Aragorn through the Paths of the Dead to Minas Tirith. I highly doubt that any more men showed up after this, as it would have been mentioned. Two or three hundred men would have been a pretty big deal.

Also, even barring that, it wouldn't make sense that the Dunedain would have soldiers with them. They're a scattered, dwindling people, generally scorned by the men of the north and unknown by men of the south. Where are they going to get an army from? As for Elladan and Elrohir, if they had brought an army with them I certainly think it would have been significant enough to mention. We wouldn't just be talking some more troops here, we'd be talking about Elvish troops - unexpected and unusual. As other people have commented about Tolkien's style, it would be extremely strange for him not to have mentioned this - if not upon their arrival, then upon the specific organizing of troops in the Last Debate.

[Farael]

I concede!! but it was an interesting thought to much about. I can't recall the exact quote and I hope you forgive me if I don't go looking through my books for it, but in my Spanish version is not quite as definite. Something along the lines of "With me we are thirty dunedain. We couldn't gather many soldiers in such haste" which could be read as "There is thirty generals and a bunch of soldiers for each... not many"

Although for some reason, the quote I mentioned before of Elrond's sons standing on one hill with the Prince of Dol-Amoroth and some hand-picked soldiers made me think that they were mentioning the captains of each army (i.e. Elven army, Dol-Amoroth army and some 'extra' hand-picked soldiers)

Yet you are right Firefoot.... an army of elven warriors would have been noteworthy.