How could the Nazgul take Minas Morgul?

[CaptainofDespair]

A supply line of 600 miles through desolate landscape to an equally desolate battlefield…hmmm…can’t think of any example like that off the top of my head during a comparable period of our history.

I can think of several examples of long supply lines being maintained. The degree of success may vary in the individual cases, though. Napoleon maintained long supply lines (though at the very end of what was a several thousand mile long line) in both Egypt and in Russia. While he ended up losing both, that was more to his own faults and declining mindset than to the fault of his supply line. He could have realistically held both, but he made poor choices that ended up cutting them up. The Crusaders, a comparable period of time, managed to do much with a combination of stretched supply lines and 'living off the land' tactics.

While Mordor and Gondor were certainly no Levant, Ithilien could have been foraged in for some supplies, especially early in the campaign.And while Rhun and Mordor were desolate, Napoleon had managed to ship supplies (but his mistakes ruined any good that could have happened with the logistics) in both the cases of Egypt and Russia. The Witch-King had a smaller line of supply, then, and could thus do it as well (and I doubt he was as foolish as Napoleon in the case of logistics).

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Perhaps you think too little of them…

No, I give them credit where credit is due. But there are several decades between Angmar and Ithil, and I do not think they were quite the same force. I also think that you might be placing on them an aura of greatness that they in truth may not have had.

Is it really so very hard to believe that the prolonged presence of the Nazgûl could cause the inhabitants of Minas Ithil to start going out of their minds and fleeing in droves? The king wouldn’t know what to do because the city was not under attack, its people were just collectively going insane. After a fairly short time of this exposure, I think the more faint-hearted residents would start heading west. Given more time and the stout-hearted would start to have the urge as well. Eventually, I think that the only people in Minas Morgul would be the garrison soldiers. They too would have experienced their share of desertions, but we’ll give them some credit for bravery or a devotion to duty that was greater than their fear. The king still wouldn’t understand what was happening because nothing intelligible was happening. Undoubtedly he would send reinforcements, but they would suffer just like the rest of the troops. After two years of this process, I imagine that the garrison would be in utter shambles and reduced in strength. The Nazgûl would then summon up a strike force sufficient to storm the (probably ill-manned) walls one night, or they would induce some terror-stricken individual to open the gates for them…and PRESTO!! City fallen.

How imaginative. But where is that stout heartedness you earlier attributed to the Gondorians, and not just their soldiers? Hadn't they only decades before faced the Witch-King, who not only caused fear himself but infested the Barrows of Cardolan with evil spirits from Carn-Dum? Should not Gondor have had some sense of what was happening, then?

Now, how is two years good enough for the Gondorians to get over the shock of a "siege" and the possibility of attack from elsewhere, and yet not enough for them to come to grips with something they had recently just seen in the Wights, which was a comparable situation? And add to that they know about the Nazgul, or at least the Witch-King, and the properties he brings to the table.

I also think that this manner of conquest could go a long way toward explaining the unique properties of Minas Morgul. The rest of Mordor was not like that (although we admittedly don’t know what Barad-dûr was like, but Shagrat and Gorbag talk about serving in the city as if it is a unique experience). I think this haunting manner of conquest could explain a lot about why the city turned out the way it did.

I think the properties of Morgul are not so much changed by the manner of conquest, but by the inhabiting that followed. The Nazgul, I agree, can haunt places. But I do not think their effect is enough to drive the 'stout' defenders of Gondor, especially at this time, into abandoning the city of Ithil. Abandonment, I think, does not fit with the use of "Siege", as well.

How? His passage was blocked.

There are other ways into Gondor besides the Morgul pass, ya know.

[Kuruharan]

Napoleon maintained long supply lines (though at the very end of what was a several thousand mile long line) in both Egypt and in Russia. While he ended up losing both, that was more to his own faults and declining mindset than to the fault of his supply line.

Collapsing supply lines had a lot to do with why Napoleon retreated. But…Age of gunpowder. Incomparable periods of history. Irrelevant.

The Crusaders, a comparable period of time, managed to do much with a combination of stretched supply lines and 'living off the land' tactics.

Except for that irritating fact that the sea was right there and the Crusaders were supplied by sea (and wouldn’t have taken Jerusalem in the first place without it.

The Witch-king had no such option.

Try again.

Ithilien could have been foraged in for some supplies, especially early in the campaign.

Supposing the Witch-king even had access to it. Yet again your theory rests on the utter and complete inertia of Gondor, something I find difficult to believe in.

and I do not think they were quite the same force.

Even if they were not, they must have still had sufficient force to make a powerful effort at rousting the besieging forces.

Hadn't they only decades before faced the Witch-King, who not only caused fear himself but infested the Barrows of Cardolan with evil spirits from Carn-Dum? Should not Gondor have had some sense of what was happening, then?

Not necessarily. And I doubt that the Gondorians had much to do with or heard much about the Barrow-downs. They had other things on their minds when they were there.

and yet not enough for them to come to grips with something they had recently just seen in the Wights

As I said, I doubt they had any contact with them.

And add to that they know about the Nazgul, or at least the Witch-King, and the properties he brings to the table.

I’m not sure how much the Gondorians of that day and age would have known about them. Only the Wise seemed to be deeply versed in the lore and much of the past was forgotten in Gondor as the ages wore on. True, they had just defeated the Witch-king, but I’m not sure that experience would give them a realistic assessment of Nazgûl capabilities. Remember by the time we see the Gondorians talking about the Nazgûl they have had centuries of experience with them.

I certainly think that they would not have been clearly versed in what the Nazgul were capable of doing if they were unclad (which is what my theory rests upon). At some point the Gondorians may have had some inkling about the Nazgul, but what are you supposed to do against an enemy that you can’t see?

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Collapsing supply lines had a lot to do with why Napoleon retreated. But…Age of gunpowder. Incomparable periods of history. Irrelevant.

Quite foolish of you. Whether it is the Age of Gunpowder or not makes no difference. They still relied on horses to pull everything from cannon to supply wagons.

Except for that irritating fact that the sea was right there and the Crusaders were supplied by sea (and wouldn’t have taken Jerusalem in the first place without it.

The Witch-king had no such option.

You are not listening, again. I never said he'd use the sea. I was focused mainly on the ability to forage. Also, the Crusaders received very little in the way of supplies, especially in the First Crusade. I don't suppose you got the message that they were starving when they were sieging Antioch, as well as other fortifications. Had the Muslim armies managed to actually join together and isolate the Crusaders, what little aid the Byzantines provided wouldn't have helped either.

Try again.

Perhaps you should "try again".

Supposing the Witch-king even had access to it. Yet again your theory rests on the utter and complete inertia of Gondor, something I find difficult to believe in.

No, it does not rely on the complete inertia of Gondor. You only think that.

Even if they were not, they must have still had sufficient force to make a powerful effort at rousting the besieging forces.

Perhaps, but that does not mean they, the Gondorians, could not be beaten. They are not invulnerable. You seem to be attempting to give them an aura akin to that.

Not necessarily. And I doubt that the Gondorians had much to do with or heard much about the Barrow-downs. They had other things on their minds when they were there.

Why? Because Tolkien doesn't mention it? People did not stop traveling in this time period. Word would get around, and I imagine it would not take too long.

Remember by the time we see the Gondorians talking about the Nazgûl they have had centuries of experience with them.

And yet no mention of a 'Haunting' of Ithil. How odd...

[Kuruharan]

Whether it is the Age of Gunpowder or not makes no difference. They still relied on horses to pull everything from cannon to supply wagons.

A valid point. And the fact that since Napoleon's campaign also failed has nothing to do with me conceding this point.

You are not listening, again. I never said he'd use the sea. I was focused mainly on the ability to forage. Also, the Crusaders received very little in the way of supplies, especially in the First Crusade. I don't suppose you got the message that they were starving when they were sieging Antioch, as well as other fortifications. Had the Muslim armies managed to actually join together and isolate the Crusaders, what little aid the Byzantines provided wouldn't have helped either.

I’m afraid I have to strongly object to this. You are the one who is not listening and failing to comprehend the situations.

Of course, you didn’t say the Witch-king would use the sea. He had no access to the sea, it would be irrelevant to the campaign. My point was that he couldn’t where as the crusaders had access to the sea and the First Crusade would probably have failed without it (see the arrival of the Genoese and English ships on 17 June 1099). The mere presence of the sea utterly changes the strategic situation and makes the siege of Minas Ithil and the siege of Jerusalem utterly different in nature (Now there’s a statement I never thought I would have to utter).

No, it does not rely on the complete inertia of Gondor. You only think that.

As far as I can tell, you don’t think Gondor did anything except hunker down for fear that the assault on Minas Ithil was some sort of bizarre two-year diversion. Perhaps you have some different definition of the words “utter inertia” in mind.

They are not invulnerable.

No, but I think the strategic situation heavily favored them in a conventional military campaign at that time.

People did not stop traveling in this time period. Word would get around, and I imagine it would not take too long.

The Gondorians that were there were not there to sightsee. They were soldiers on campaign. And why would anybody mention the Barrow-downs. Who would have been interested in it at the time?

And yet no mention of a 'Haunting' of Ithil. How odd

By that time they understood what had happened.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

A valid point. And the fact that since Napoleon's campaign also failed has nothing to do with me conceding this point.

That he ultimately failed in the campaign in Russia (or Egypt) is irrelevant, I think. For thousands of miles, either by land or sea, the French had managed to keep the supply lines fairly open. It was only after Napoleon made the mistake of marching towards Moscow, rather than St. Petersburg (which could ended the war if it fell, as the Czar was there), that he stretched his lines too far. Regardless of his own failure with the situation, Napoleon had managed to keep supplies coming in until his fateful choice of attack. With Egypt, he failed to take in even more logistical problems (such as checking for bread ovens) before arriving. Why, despite being across a sea which the British controlled, the French managed to get some supplies past.

If Napoleon could do that, over a much greater distance for a much larger army, it is then feasible that the Witch-King could have done so with a smaller distance, and then properly maintained it, as he had no worries of the Gondorians encircling him effectively, as the Russians had done to Napoleon after he fled Moscow on the Death March.

Of course, you didn’t say the Witch-king would use the sea. He had no access to the sea, it would be irrelevant to the campaign. My point was that he couldn’t where as the crusaders had access to the sea and the First Crusade would probably have failed without it (see the arrival of the Genoese and English ships on 17 June 1099). The mere presence of the sea utterly changes the strategic situation and makes the siege of Minas Ithil and the siege of Jerusalem utterly different in nature (Now there’s a statement I never thought I would have to utter).

I still think you are ignoring what I am looking at (which actually may not have been entirely clear, for which I apologize). I am certainly not looking at the entire Crusade period, only a select few moments, which is all I need. The arrival of the Genoese/English ships does not concern my argument, because they were not present at Antioch (which is my main example for this). When the Crusaders arrived and laid siege to city, they were already low on food. Over the course of the siege, they ran out of food, and were forced to forage what they could in the countryside or were forced to eat dogs/horses/other pack animals. Also, the situation at Antioch (location, ect) is similar enough to Ithil to provide a decent comparison.

I do not see the orcs having much of a problem with this (and it might be preferred over their usual food). I also do not see them having a problem with eating the bodies of the dead if need be. And there would be plenty, either of their own side or of the Gondorians. Of course, Ithilien would provide a small amount of forage material in the early weeks and months of the campaign.

As far as I can tell, you don’t think Gondor did anything except hunker down for fear that the assault on Minas Ithil was some sort of bizarre two-year diversion. Perhaps you have some different definition of the words “utter inertia” in mind.

Hunkering down requires something more than being inert. But that is not the point. I'm not saying the entire siege was a diversion, but with the thought in their minds, they still had to plan for it early. As the siege wears on, and it becomes clear it is not a diversion, the planning then must shift to defending the relief forces that are trying to dislodge Mordor's forces. A small force coming out of the Morannon or elsewhere might very well be able to do that under certain circumstances, or if not, at least inflict enough confusion and casualties that the Gondorians need to withdraw some troops to cover their flanks and rear. Gondor does not have the potential numbers for conscription that Mordor and Rhun do.

No, but I think the strategic situation heavily favored them in a conventional military campaign at that time.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I do not think so highly as you do of the Gondorian "advantages". Most of their victories seem to be very lucky. With the later siege of Osgiliath, it is Boromir that maintains the defense. In his absence, the city fell much more easily than it might have. At Minas Tirith, it was the arrival of Theoden and the Rohirrim. Had they not come, or had arrived but an hour later, the Witch-King certainly could have taken the city.

It seems that without a superior warrior, such as Boromir, in their midst, Gondorian soldiers of the later Third Age don't seem to fair so well. While the same certainly goes for the Mordor armies, they did have the Wiki and the other Nazgul at Ithil.

The Gondorians that were there were not there to sightsee. They were soldiers on campaign. And why would anybody mention the Barrow-downs. Who would have been interested in it at the time?

Not necessarily the Gondorian soldiers. Several decades passed between Angmar and Ithil. I think that is quite the reasonable amount of time for word to spread around.

By that time they understood what had happened.

Yet, no mention of some unconventional method of taking the city.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by CaptainofDespair

Gondor does not have the potential numbers for conscription that Mordor and Rhun do.

There, that's the whole issue. At least with me, I can't speak for Kuruharan. As far as I know (which admittedly is not everything) there was no possible conscription from Mordor. I believe I have read that Mordor was desolate until the coming of Sauron and desolate means very few, if any, inhabitants. The WK cannot conscript orcs from Mordor quite simply because there are none.

And following up on that "desolate" idea... while you chose to use Napoleon and the Crusades as an example, let me use a more modern one. World War 2, Hitler's attack on the USSR. They too had an extremely long supply line, and that was their downfall. When winter came around, it acted pretty much as a "scorched earth" policy. The Russians retreated and left behind no resources for the Nazi armies, who had to ship everything from Germany. In the end, this turned out to be impossible, even though they had trucks and trains and airplanes.

What does this have to do with all of this?

Oh, very simple... Mordor was constantly desolate, it wasn't just one season in the year, it was a barren wasteland all year round.

Not to mention that the same thing happened to Napoleon, winter came around and all of a sudden his (already stretched thin) supply line just couldn't cut it.

So you chose to look at the "possitive side" but you are ignoring the fact that these armies fell... within a year!! How could the WK hold such long supply lines to support his siege for twice as long?

And also...

Yet, no mention of some unconventional method of taking the city.

There is almost no explanation for whatever happens. We just get one brief line of text and a lot of guesswork. Yet what is a "conventional" method? In Middle Earth we have seen situations such as the "gods" coming down from "heavens" (ok, Valar coming from Valinor) to smack the hell out of Morgoth in his fortress... we have seen dragons and balrogs, we have seen little rings that keep whole realms safe and sound... We have seen weird tree-creatures tossing boulders as if they were pebbles... so howcome all of a sudden "conventional" can only be an army camped out outside a fortress' doors?

And in the light of those "unconventional" situations, what is so rare about a haunting that demoralises the troops and leads a few scared souls to open the doors to an enemy that, otherwise, would not have been enough to besiege the city without being driven off by near-by Minas Tirith/Osgiliath forces?

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by Farael

Oh, very simple... Mordor was constantly desolate, it wasn't just one season in the year, it was a barren wasteland all year round.

When we come to the War of the Ring, there are thousands and thousands of troops there. All of that is despite the desolation. And the mountains surrounding Mordor could very well harbor the orcs in their many caves. I doubt the Ephel Duath or the Ash (?) Mountains are places the Gondorians want to check.

Not to mention that the same thing happened to Napoleon, winter came around and all of a sudden his (already stretched thin) supply line just couldn't cut it.

Napoleon's supply lines were only broken after being stretched to Moscow. Had the French not gone towards Moscow, and had rather gone towards St. Petersburg, that breakage may very well not have occurred. The line to the Russian capital, while still thousands of mile long, could have held. Going to Moscow, however, leads one deep across long stetches of nothingness. Both Napoleon and Hitler made that mistake. That is an error the Witch-King would not have to contend with.

So you chose to look at the "possitive side" but you are ignoring the fact that these armies fell... within a year!! How could the WK hold such long supply lines to support his siege for twice as long?

The Wiki's supply line was nowhere near as long, and nor did he have to contend with armies nipping at his lines, as those only ran through Sauron-dominated regions. It's not hard to maintain a longer supply line if you only go through friendly territory. Combined that with the larger potential manpower over Gondor, and it becomes much, much more feasible for the Nazgul to lay siege for a longer time, and resist the relief efforts.

There is almost no explanation for whatever happens. We just get one brief line of text and a lot of guesswork.

I think Tolkien's mentioning of the fall of Ithil is quite enough explanation. The word "Siege" says it all. There is no guesswork in that, to me.

And in the light of those "unconventional" situations, what is so rare about a haunting that demoralises the troops and leads a few scared souls to open the doors to an enemy that, otherwise, would not have been enough to besiege the city without being driven off by near-by Minas Tirith/Osgiliath forces?

What is rare about it? That is the point. It is rare, to the point of being unheard of. And I do not recall a haunting being another meaning for the word 'siege'.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. While there are some pitfalls in explaining the fullness of either argument, the idea of a traditional "siege" fits more easily with what Tolkien wrote, and is thus the simplest explanation (in going with exactly what Tolkien wrote). A Haunting requires so much more flushing out and it does not really fit with the definition of the word that Tolkien chose. I doubt Tolkien would have come up with an entirely new meaning for "siege" without explaining it. And Tolkien obviously did not write anything to the effect of the situation of a Haunting occurring. Thus, it is far more likely that the simplest idea, that of the traditionally defined siege, is the most correct and feasible one.