The Way We War

[Farael]

Well, the topic has shifted away from Bezerkers (spelling?) but forgive me if I bring this up again.

As far as I know, we don't have any dwarven-centric stories except perhaps for the Hobbit (which was mostly hobbit-centric). However, what DO we know about dwarves?

-They mastered metalworking and fine crafting
-They were very long-winded and formal (think about Thorin's speech!)
-They COULD be greedy and haughty, but then this behaviour was increased by Sauron's rings, so it was perhaps not their NATURE

From the crafting I'd say they are a very technologically advanced people. However, you can't craft fine things if you are prone to fits of rage. They were clearly detail-oriented and patient. From their manner of speech I'd say there is further clue they were patient. Theoden, a masterful speaker of Rohan, has a far more... direct way of expressing himself than Thorin. Heck, HE would be a great Berzerker!

Furthermore, we have indications that the rings that Sauron gave the dwarves made them more prone to greed, which could be the reason why some of the dwarves we hear of (mostly ring owners or sons of ring owners) were rash.

Now, from a militaristic perspective. I am certainly not an expert on medieval fighting, but wouldn't fighting with a pole-arm require GREATER coordination than a shorter weapon?

You see, if you have a short weapon that can be retrieved easily after a swing, and a weapon that does not throw you off-balance or expose you greatly, you can afford to look after yourself. However, the longer a weapon is the harder it is to set up for another strike thus I'd expect the more you need to work with the people near you!

So while the image of a dwarf going insane swinging his axe in a great round circle is very enticing, I'd expect that fighting with heavy weapons was done more in formation than as individuals. They all group together and present you with a "wall of axes". If you get close by yourself you'll get chopped to pieces. If you rush them in formation they'll chop up your first line, and by the time the second line is ready to step up they've recovered their weapon.

Conversely, if you had a dwarf by himself, you approach him with two people and he's done for, because while he kills one the other has a wide open target.

So there's my ramble in the matter, i don't think that dwarven psychology or choice of weaponry really supports the idea of the lone, battle-raged dwarf.




As for the example of the thirteen dwarves rushing out of the Lonely Mountain, I'm a fairly mild-mannered individual, but if you siege me for a week or two and then start a battle with my cousin, I don't think I will be too composed when I try to chop your head off with my axe. Not to mention that thirteen dwarves can hardly make a "formation". Their best bet then was to punch a hole through the enemy and get to the OTHER dwarves so they would not be isolated!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

You see, if you have a short weapon that can be retrieved easily after a swing, and a weapon that does not throw you off-balance or expose you greatly, you can afford to look after yourself. However, the longer a weapon is the harder it is to set up for another strike thus I'd expect the more you need to work with the people near you!

Tell you what - we'll try it out. You get a pen knife & I'll get hold of a broadsword & if you're right you'll win hands down with that short little swing....

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by davem

Tell you what - we'll try it out. You get a pen knife & I'll get hold of a broadsword & if you're right you'll win hands down with that short little swing....

And the implication, then, is if he is wrong, he will lose - and obviously he would lose, so he must be wrong? Obviously he is not entirely wrong - in some circumstances, a shorter weapon would be better than a longer weapon - so your example must be at fault.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by davem

Tell you what - we'll try it out. You get a pen knife & I'll get hold of a broadsword & if you're right you'll win hands down with that short little swing....

Funny, but you seem to have missed the point of my post. Not to mention, the fact that a broad sword would probably not throw an experienced fighter out of balance, it is an example of a SHORT weapon. The fact that you can find an even SHORTER weapon proves nothing.

I still stand by my idea, the longer your weapon the more you need to work with those around you, because as soon as your enemy gets within your swing, you essentially have a top-heavy club, the sharp end does you no good. Thus, you need to keep the enemy at a distance, and what best way to do so than by having your buddy chopping him up if he gets too close when you are busy?

Which leads to organized, formation-style fighting, which conflicts with the idea of a bezerker.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

Which leads to organized, formation-style fighting, which conflicts with the idea of a bezerker.

Nope. People have been fighting with 'long' weapons (like spears) for a very long time. The point of a long weapon is that it is designed to prevent your enemy getting close to you. It has more momentum in a swing - & you don't have to hold a spear or pole-weapon by the end furthest away from the blade. You can hold it part way down the shaft.

Poleaxes appear to have been very versatile weapons, with the ability to crush, cut or thrust. Some poleaxes even sported a spike on the butt of the haft, as illustrated in the various works of the famous fencing master Hans Talhoffer. In other words, the poleaxe (or fussstreiaxe, or bec-de-corbin or Lucerne Hammer or whatever the modern enthusiast wants to call these marvels of engineering) was a combination of the best of what several different weapons had to offer. It is worth noting that the poleaxe was very well-suited to deal with heavily armed opponents which seemed to abound after the end of the 14th century. There is little wonder then that poleaxes were employed both on the dueling ring, during knightly bouts and during pitched battles. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html

Any kind of pole weapon would be designed for use against a specific enemy - if you were confronting riders you would have a weapon with a longer shaft, if an enemy on foot it would be shorter. Men at arms would train from early childhood with different weapons & were highly proficient. A pole weapon could be used in many ways - not simply the obvious one of swinging blows to sever head or limbs. You have a spear with the top spike, a staff weapon, a hook for bringing down an opponent, as well as a 'short' axe if you hold the thing part way down the shaft. And the whole point of a longer weapon is that you don't let your opponent get as close as you're envisioning. Your enemy would also probably be using a longer weapon,

Pole axe fight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOrHKfYuxk

[Farael]

Originally Posted by davem

And the whole point of a longer weapon is that you don't let your opponent get as close as you're envisioning. Your enemy would also probably be using a longer weapon,

Yes, but how many enemies can you keep away at the time? One? Two? As many as they come? (This is an honest question, I BELIEVE you can only keep one or a couple at bay, but I could be wrong)

In almost all situations, the "good guys" (Dwarves, men of Gondor, elves...) were heavily out-numbered. If each acted as an individual, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers but if they kept together and acted as a unit in formation they'd have a chance to defend themselves from an enemy that was (very likely) using poorer weapons and armour as well as (possibly) less trained.

So, if a dwarf with an axe can keep three or four orcs at bay (or seven or eight) then I'll concede the point, I started off my discussion by saying I didn't know much about medieval fighting.

Morthoron, Michelangelo may have been a very special person, and as I said before, Thorin was the son of a ring-bearer and we know that the rings brought out the worst of the dwarves.

Even if Thorin never wore a ring himself, you'd expect him to learn less-than-stellar behaviours from his parents, eh? So I wouldn't say he is representative of dwarves as a whole.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

In almost all situations, the "good guys" (Dwarves, men of Gondor, elves...) were heavily out-numbered. If each acted as an individual, they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers but if they kept together and acted as a unit in formation they'd have a chance to defend themselves from an enemy that was (very likely) using poorer weapons and armour as well as (possibly) less trained.

.

I think you're getting too caught up in specifics. Assuming Dwarvish were like medieval human armies I'd assume they would vary their tactics to suit the circumstances. If attacked en masse they would surely have formed some kind of shield wall to fight behind. But circumstances are all. I think you're also forgetting how quickly battles would descend into free-for alls. Once the adrenalin starts pumping & the bodies start piling up (do you know that at Towton time out was called more than once to allow the bodies to be removed from the field as it was impossible to fight for all the corpses?) things can get chaotic very swiftly. add to that weather conditions (there's a story - which I can source if you like - of a troop of men at arms frying in their armour as a result of repeated lightning strikes during a thunder storm. Towton was fought during a blizzard, & some battles would take place in fog so thick that it was impossible to see more than a few feet), disease, lack of ordinance, incompetent (or dead) comanders, & you move further & further from the kind of 'perfect' conditions you seem to imagine.

[Farael]

Hmmm, you do have a point there. I still think the Bezerker aura comes from non-Tolkien sources, but I don't really have any evidence for either position. No, Thorin is ONE example. Furthermore, if we take Davem's word, battles grew rather chaotic and fighting desperately for one's life does not really qualify as going bezerk.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Farael

Morthoron, Michelangelo may have been a very special person, and as I said before, Thorin was the son of a ring-bearer and we know that the rings brought out the worst of the dwarves.

Even if Thorin never wore a ring himself, you'd expect him to learn less-than-stellar behaviours from his parents, eh? So I wouldn't say he is representative of dwarves as a whole.

Guilt by proximity? Hmmm...I suppose that would depend on whether you were an adherent of Hobbes or Locke. I would think Thorin was fairly representative of the Dwarvish aristocracy, as he was not a run-of-the-mill Dwarf, even while in exile. But then he was not an inherently evil Dwarf, as were those that did commerce with Orcs, or allied with Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I don't know that even Thorin went "full berserker." I get the impression that the Thirteen drove through the Goblin-host in a tight wedge formation (or at least as tight as axe-swinging would allow). Tolkien of course was capable of envisioning such a formation, as the Numenorean dirnaith was of the type.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Farael

From the crafting I'd say they are a very technologically advanced people. However, you can't craft fine things if you are prone to fits of rage.

Hmmm...Michaelangelo was prone to fits of rage. Artists are often passionate in extremis -- in Michaelangelo's case, he's lucky that Pope Julius did not afix his head to a pole at the gates of Rome for his petulance.

Originally Posted by Farael

They were clearly detail-oriented and patient. From their manner of speech I'd say there is further clue they were patient. Theoden, a masterful speaker of Rohan, has a far more... direct way of expressing himself than Thorin. Heck, HE would be a great Berzerker!

Thorin's grandiloquence was only used in formal speaking engagments. He got his nick 'Oakenshield' for beating Orcs with a branch, which is definitely a sign of his 'battle fury'.

Originally Posted by Farael

Now, from a militaristic perspective. I am certainly not an expert on medieval fighting, but wouldn't fighting with a pole-arm require GREATER coordination than a shorter weapon?

In the late Middle-ages (particularly in the 14th and 15th centuries where my historical experience centers) halberds, pikes and bills required less formal training than shorter weapons such as swords and were often used by militias and rebel peasants to offset the great advantages of highly-trained armored knights on horseback. The stunning defeat of mounted French at the Battle of Courtrai by Flemish rebels, the Scottish victory over the English at Sterling, and the Swiss' crushing routs of Austrians at Laupen, Morgarten and Sempach and the Swiss again against the Charles the Bold in the Burgundian Wars, all relied on the halberd or pike (or a combination of the two as used by the Swiss).

So, the use of the halberd or pike required less formal training and was used to greatest effect in phalanxes, or in the Scottish case 'schiltrons'. It was indeed an infantry tool used defensively and offensively (particularly by the Swiss and later the German landsknecht) in formations. For close combat, the Swiss and landsknecht used swords and halberds (the lange spiess, or long pike was ineffective at close range).