One Thing That I Think Tolkien Did Wrong and Jackson Did Right

[TheAzn]

I am not sure how useful my responses will be, but I will give it a try.

Originally Posted by jallanite

One difficulty is that the physics you showed in your original diagram is nonsense.

I would suggest that you re read all of my arguments carefully again. My very first diagram would indeed be nonsense if they were all firing the same load and experiences the same air friction. As I clarified later on, the combination of height, lighter loads and less air friction on the higher walls can increase range significantly. I have admitted that it was partly my fault for mentioning only height as a significant factor in my first post. I have since then gone out of my way to provide greater clarifications. I do not understand how you could have unintentionally missed all of this.

Originally Posted by TheAzn

Hey Galadriel55. Besides a few things, I pretty much agree with what you said, but there are a few problems. Before expressing your opinion on who is more accurate, please have the courtesy to wait and ask for more clarity. Before I continue, I would like to say that I am at fault also. I should have been more clearer in my OP. As stated in my later post, there is less air friction the higher up you go. My drawing takes this fact into account. But more important is the fact that the catapults in my drawing were meant to not shoot the same loads. I guess I have to make some edits for my drawings.
And yes, I am saying that the Gondorians can use even lighter loads than the Mordorians to bombard , while the Mordorians can only cause “little” damage with their light but still heavier loads. I will explain more below in what will be my great responses to the general arguments made against me.

.................................................. ...............................

Galadriel55 produced a much better image and your new image does little more than copy it, without acknowledgement that you were very, very, very wrong.

I made my revised edition similar to Galadriel55’s drawing partly because she is more right in a certain aspect, and partly because I don’t want to cause any more tension. In my revised drawing, all of the Gondorian artilleries at the back were handicapped by shooting the same load as the artilleries on the front, though all are lighter than the projectiles of the Mordorians. If I have wanted to, I could change this aspect and make each artilleries fire lighter loads the further back they are. For example, those in the Lower Levels can fire 9 lbs stone; meanwhile, those in the far back can fire 4 lb stones, twice as light. Given the fact that there is a limit to how weak the Gondorian artilleries can be (and how strong the Mordorian artilleries can be) not only is it possible for 3 levels (not including the Upper Deck) of Gondorian artilleries to outrange the Mordorian ones, it is possible that they might even outrange the Mordorians as spectacularly as is illustrated in my first crude drawing. I did not post this idea at first because I do not want to create fights. But now I must post. This is not to say that Galadriel55’s drawing is very inaccurate; she is accurate as long as she is talking about artilleries firing the same heavy projectiles. But her simulation cannot be stated as being more accurate than mine since she is missing a lot of important factors that I have included. If I have made some mistakes I am not much worse than Gal, contrary to some arrogant person’s statements.

Claiming that criticisms of your arguments have been disputed without indicating where doesn’t work with me.

Usually, I said that because it is true. Most people here seems to be very impatient. They tend to argue with me even when I am not done with another person. Often, the "new arguments" of the second person is the same as the that of the first. Still, I will try to respond to every single person on the threads. But sometimes I don't feel like reiterating things, and will let the "new debator" know that his arguments have already been refuted. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to read the posts carefully and understand who is responding to who. You may ask kindly for help if there is too much to read.

Mostly you appear to just ignore criticism and jump to irrelevancies that a falling palantír would almost certainly kill a man if it hit him straight on.

Ignore criticism? I spend some of my valuable time responding and refuting most of the people’s post and yet I am ignoring criticism? I would kindly suggest that you retract your statements.

And what irrelevancies? In case you do not remember, one of the points that miss Gal kept on repeating was that, because they only need to fling light materials like human heads, the Mordorians can outrange the Gondorians. I refuted her arguments by stating what should have been the obvious: the Gondorians most likely used light projectiles as well. There is of course, a problem with this rebuttal. The Mordorian projectiles were not meant to cause physical damages, while the Gondorian projectiles must. This is when I brought in the palantir as an easy to understand example. Can light Gondorian projectiles cause substantial damages? The answer is absolutely yes, and most of the last page are dedicated to me giving the evidences.

You are only assuming that Minas Tirith even had siege engines.

Yes, I am assuming, the same way I am assuming that the peoples of the Middle Earth do have a need to release waste, which is not an assumption at all.

The text doesn’t back up your assumption anywhere.

Actually it does. Professor Tolkien does not have to explicitly write everything before we can logically and reasonably assume that such things exist. The need for Men to defecate is just one example.
So what are my evidences?
1) Even without the threat of Mordorian artilleries, there are still overwhelming incentives for the Gondorians to build the best artilleries possible. These incentives are the threats of the Mumakils,armored trolls and siege towers, all of which the archers themselves cannot handle alone. Like all human beings, I presume that the Gondorians would respond to strong incentives. And this presumption is most likely sound, for a lot of ancient cities with sizeable walls very likely had artilleries on them. See post below for evidence.
2) Although Minas Tirith has not been besieged in a long time, the other important cities surrounding the area most likely experienced sieges frequently. This alone creates many chances for artilleries to be invented (if they are not already) and enhanced.
3) Despite the incentives, it is true there would not be much artilleries if there are no spaces. Non-essential building could have been torn away create more space. The Ship Rock is secure and is enhanced by the “a mighty craft”. Based on the description of the book itself, there are no lack of spaces on the Upper Deck. With such overwhelming incentives to use artilleries, and not much reasonable hindrances, Gondor most likely did use artilleries on Minas Tirith.
4) Finally, it is a fact that building respectable ancient artilleries is not really hard. Even Highschool students can build such devices. With such overwhelming incentives to use artilleries, and not much reasonable hindrances, Gondor most likely did use artilleries on Minas Tirith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXEqJlj8pM

Quite likely it can be taken as something that should go without saying, but in medieval accounts of siege warfare that I have read almost all the siege engines were in the hands of the attackers, not in the hands of the defenders.

Then the account that you have read is not quite accurate. It was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

Seemingly siege engines were far more useful for attackers to use against fortress walls than for defenders to use against moving targets, as seems reasonable to my thinking and to those of some others here.

Ah, this same point again. No, what you are thinking is not reasonable. As stated, artilleries on walls are more common than what you just give them credit for.

Diagrams of siege engines on the top of Minas Tirith don’t prove anything when an accurate diagram shows that a siege engine lobbing a rock would lob it just as far if the siege engine was on an outer wall. The first throw might well kill 10 or 20 of the foe at most. Then the foe would see the stones were coming and get out of the way. When using a catapult to lob stones at the walls, walls don’t run away. The foe can find somewhere they think there is a weak point, and keep lobbing at the same place, hoping that the stone will crack there.

I think that this is the clearest example demonstrating the problems of your post. You haven’t been reading my arguments carefully at all. I have already talked about range countless times, and will not go through with this again. As for killing 10 or 20 people, I believe that you are mistaken. Yes, I did say that the Gondorian artillery can be use to kill individual soldiers with the help of archery. However, the main purpose was to destroy or kill large targets like Mumakils, armored trolls, siege towers and artilleries. Sure, all of these are mobile, but they are relatively slow, and are easy targets for the Gondorian Artillerymen.

But Tolkien explains clearly why this tactic is not used at Minas Tirith. Here the walls had been built too strongly.

Correct. I did not disagree with this.

It seems to be a fact in medieval and older battles that siege engines were not greatly used by the defenders in a siege.

Again, you are quite mistaken. To reiterate, it was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

If you think I and others are wrong, and in theory we might be, then point out historical counter-examples.

Sure. No problem.

Just saying Tolkien was wrong in his writing, was horrendous beyond words, doesn’t convince me at all. Those are only the empty words of someone who has provided no evidence that Tolkien was wrong.

Right, and I never said those words without evidence. The quote that you cite is my conclusion after several posts worth of arguing my points.

That historically defenders of a besieged fortress didn’t greatly rely on siege engines seems to be the best evidence that siege engines were less useful in the defense of a fortress than you imagine.

Look, I am sorry to say you seemed to be getting your facts quite mixed up. Again, artilleries on walls are actually quite common at least during the Ancient Era.

Claiming that your posts support your arguments when they don’t doesn’t strengthen your arguments.

Yes, I know. This is why I only claim that my posts supported my arguments when they really do.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by TheAzn

I would suggest that you re read all of my arguments carefully again.

I do suggest you stop pushing incorrect and irrelevant arguments.

My very first diagram would indeed be nonsense if they were all firing the same load and experiences the same air friction. As I clarified later on, the combination of height, lighter loads and less air friction on the higher walls can increase range significantly. I have admitted that it was partly my fault for mentioning only height as a significant factor in my first post. I have since then gone out of my way to provide greater clarifications. I do not understand how you could have unintentionally missed all of this.

Differences in air friction for the heights you show do not increase range significantly. Lighter loads which are not mentioned at all in your earlier talk make your earlier diagram a cheat. You were not partially at fault but completely at fault. I did not miss your attempts at special pleading to cover your earlier errors. I reject them as obvious special pleading.

I made my revised edition similar to Galadriel55’s drawing partly because she is more right in a certain aspect, and partly because I don’t want to cause any more tension.

You could change the weights in any of your diagrams in any way you want. But special changing of weight unmentioned in the discussion of the diagrams is only special pleading. You attempted to cover for yourself by claiming that you were imaging different weights before. That looks like a false claim.

Galadriel55 was right and you were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Special pleading only makes your arguments seem worse.

If I have made some mistakes I am not much worse than Gal, contrary to some arrogant person’s statements.

I see mostly arrogant statements from you.

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to read the posts carefully and understand who is responding to who. You may ask kindly for help if there is too much to read.

Ultimately it is your responsibility to present your case cogently. You have not done so. You have failed.

Ignore criticism? I spend some of my valuable time responding and refuting most of the people’s post and yet I am ignoring criticism? I would kindly suggest that you retract your statements.

I do seriously suggest that you have not refuted most criticisms. I will not retract any statement I have made until it is shown to be incorrect.

And what irrelevancies? In case you do not remember, one of the points that miss Gal kept on repeating was that, because they only need to fling light materials like human heads, the Mordorians can outrange the Gondorians. I refuted her arguments by stating what should have been the obvious: the Gondorians most likely used light projectiles as well.

And you really don’t see that your supposed refutation fails. The problem is that the book clearly states:

There was none upon the City walls large enough to reach so far or to stay the work.

It is pressing the words too hard to claim that possibly a load of light gravel might have reached the catapults of Mordor.

But a claim that the catapults on the city walls could have reached the catapults of Mordor with a load heavy enough to have caused damage would only be true in a battle that you are imagining, not in the battle you claim to be discussing. You surely must admit that in the real world some catapults have a longer range than others. Then this should not cause a problem in Tolkien’s world.

That the catapults from the city could not reach the catapults of Mordor is one of the pieces of data in the story. Saying that this data is wrong doesn’t prove a thing when that data is perfectly reasonable. Your refutation fails because it begins by assuming that the data is incorrect when there is no reason to think it is.

1) Even without the threat of Mordorian artilleries, there are still overwhelming incentives for the Gondorians to build the best artilleries possible. These incentives are the threats of the Mumakils,armored trolls and siege towers, all of which the archers themselves cannot handle alone. Like all human beings, I presume that the Gondorians would respond to strong incentives. And this presumption is most likely sound, for a lot of ancient cities with sizeable walls very likely had artilleries on them. See post below for evidence.

Your presumptions are not evidence. You really can’t tell the difference. That is your problem.

Your presumption is that catapults of Minas Tirith must have been of the same strength or stronger than those of Mordor. In this story, you are simply wrong. Sauron had stronger catapults.

That the catapults of Minas Tirith were exactly as strong as those of Mordor or stronger is just something you have made up. Tolkien says differently and there is nothing unreasonable in what Tolkien indicates here. Nothing.

Then the account that you have read is not quite accurate. It was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

Did I say differently? What I do say is that in accounts I have read siege engine have universally been more used by the attackers than the defenders. You distort what other people say and miscall it a refutation.

I think that this is the clearest example demonstrating the problems of your post. You haven’t been reading my arguments carefully at all.

Not true. I recognize that you find it easier to presume that people have not read your arguments. But that is only another presumption by you that is at least mostly not true.

I have already talked about range countless times, and will not go through with this again.

Range is irrelevant when the crux is that Tolkien says that the catapults of Mordor had greater range than those of Minas Tirith. You expect that a perfectly reasonable indication by Tolkien of comparative range is to be ignored because you imagine it to be wrong.

As for killing 10 or 20 people, I believe that you are mistaken. Yes, I did say that the Gondorian artillery can be use to kill individual soldiers with the help of archery. However, the main purpose was to destroy or kill large targets like Mumakils, armored trolls, siege towers and artilleries. Sure, all of these are mobile, but they are relatively slow, and are easy targets for the Gondorian Artillerymen.

Relatively slow but infinitely fast compared to walls.

Again, you are quite mistaken. To reiterate, it was actually quite common even during the Ancient Era for walled cities to have artilleries.

Again your supposed refutation is to misstate the claim. My claim was only that my reading indicates that siege engines were more useful to attackers to defenders, not that defenders had no siege engines. You have not identified any historic battle in which the opposite was true, that the defenders had more siege engines than the attackers.

Possibly there were a few. But I believe that they were not the norm which strongly suggests that siege engine had generally proved to be more useful to attackers than to defenders. Are you perhaps terrified at looking at history?

Look, I am sorry to say you seemed to be getting your facts quite mixed up. Again, artilleries on walls are actually quite common at least during the Ancient Era.

Again, misstating what I claim. You lose.

Yes, I know. This is why I only claim that my posts supported my arguments when they really do.

As far as I can tell your claim amounts to the statement that it is impossible that Minas Tirith could have had catapults fewer and less strong than Mordor. Most of what you put forward does not support that claim at all.

You originally appeared to suggest that since catapults in Minas Tirith could be higher than those of Mordor, that they would have greater ranger than the catapults of Mordor. That argument was entirely fallacious.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Did I say differently? What I do say is that in accounts I have read siege engine have universally been more used by the attackers than the defenders. You distort what other people say and miscall it a refutation.

Same with what I've read. Fortified cities main defense was its walls. It kept unwanted people out, because if they didn't have the ability to break through the defense (the wall) then there really was no threat to the city. Of course, the attackers could find other ways to hurt the city (cut off supplies, starve them out..etc) but this takes far more time, resources, and costs, and the army could be well out of range of anything that might be fired deadly from the city's walls. It brings in other factors that the attackers might not be luxurious to having.

Large siege engines are offensive weapons, designed for the purpose of breaking through a fortified city's main defense (the wall). It does not do much good for the city to place siege engines on its walls if the walls themselves are not strong enough to keep attackers out. Anyway, point is, siege engines were often built on the spot, and could easily be greater than any siege equipment placed on a city's walls for defense. Since, the main purpose of the siege engine was offensive, and to break down walls. A city did not need to break down walls, it just needed to be fortified enough to keep attackers out.

(And now moving back towards the more specific discussion regarding the siege of Minas Tirith).

Minas Tirith's first wall, was in fact indomitable. TheAzn, you may not like this magical explanation in the books, but that's how it was and there is no way around it. Minas Tirith was a foritified city and its primary defense was the impregnable first wall:

At first men laughed and did not greatly fear such devices. For the main wall of the City was of great height and marvellous thickness, built ere the power and craft of Numenor waned in exile; and its outward face was like to the Tower of Orthanc, hard and dark and smooth, unconquerable by steel or fire, unbreakable except by some convulsion that would rend the very earth on which it stood.~Siege of Gondor

At first the defenders laugh, because again, the primary purpose of siege engines is to break through the city's walls. The defenders of Minas Tirith are confident that their wall is indomitable. You may say their pride here shows "sub-human intelligence," but the fact remains if Sauron's army can't break through Minas Tirith's primary defense (the indomitable wall) then Sauron's large army parked out of range is not going to be much threat, unless Sauron's plans were to starve them out (which was not Sauron's plans).

However, Sauron recognizing the strength of Minas Tirith is in it's outer wall, does not waste time or resources trying to break through it (which was the reason the defenders "At first laughed," believing Sauron had built these large catapults to bring down their wall):

But the engines did not waste shot upon the indomitable wall...As soon as the great catapults were set, with many yells and the creaking of rope and winch, they began to throw missiles marvellously high, so that they passed right above the battlement and fell thudding within the first circle of the City; and many of them by some secret art burst into flame as they came toppling down.
Soon there was great peril of fire behind the wall, and all who could be spared were busy quelling the flames that sprang up in many places. Then among the greater casts there fell another hail, less ruinous but more horrible~ibid

Trust me, by the time Sauron is flinging in fire bombs and decapitated heads the defenders are no longer laughing. Some need to be spared to put out the fires, and most others are fleeing at the horror and despair Sauron has just unleashed in a psychological warfare. Despite this, the fact still remains, if Sauron can't break through the City's primary defense, this psychological warfare is ultimately fruitless. And what is needed to break through the gate? A massive battering ram and an added bit of power from The Witch-King.

As others have argued, the reasons presented in the text for Sauron's army being out of range of Minas Tirith's siege equipment are logical and consistent, within the text. Orcs delighted in building machines and playing with wheels, especially machines that could be implemented for nefarious purposes. Saruman was said to have a "mind of wheels and metal." Saruman was a Maia of Aule, as was Sauron, they were both great craftsman. Maybe you don't think in siege equipment the men of Minas Tirith should have been outmatched by orcs and Sauron, but in LOTR, that's how the story is presented. That is how the story is also consistently explained. So, in my opinion, no plothole exists.

[Aragrax]

The intelligence of the Gondorians might have been excellent, but there is always room for error and unpreparedness! Many, with Jallanite at the fore, have noted T. covered the angles on this subject, for the most part.


Two quotations come to mind of the risks of assuming one's preparedness in war.


The first of these being a song that might very well have had a primitive parallel in Orcish on that day:

"Whatever happens we have got,
The Maxim gun, and they have not".

-Hilaire Belloc


The second, from U.S. Gen. Patton, regarding the use of walls (and, presumably, trenches):

“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity,”


Comfort and safety can lead to hubris!

[Glorthelion]

It would be a mistake to say that Tolkien did something wrong and Jackson did right. I'm not saying that Middle Earth is perfect but there isn't really much that Tolkien can improve on in his world, really.

[Juicy-Sweet]

I don't think artilley was used MUCH by the defenders of castles in medieval battles - for the simple reason that they were not very effective against armies.

It's difficult to hit someone standing 500 metres away hurling a rock at them - they will tend to move Towers, however, do not move, so it makes sense throwing rocks at them.

From my somewhat scant knowledge of medieval warfare archery was effective if you had a big group of bowmen firing at once - this way you get a swarm of arrows, and the other army cant jump away becuse there's arrows everywhere.

I think it would be much more useful for the defending side to put the ressources into archery than artilley - why dedicate 10 men and a lot of wall space to operating a fairly inefficient artillery piece, when you could have instead 30 archers in the same space firing arrows (assuming the pile of rocks and the machine itself takes up the space of 20 men) at a MUCH higher hate. You can fire an arrow every two seconds or so - while i suppose it would take at least several minutes to load an artillery piece.

It means the choice is betwen one rock every two minutes or 1200 arrows being fired continually in the same two minutes.

I don't think the artillery was very maneuverable. Like if you needed to change the angle 30 degrees right because they moved a siege tower - I don't think it was fast.

I'm a bit surprised of the roman castle stuffed with artillery. Maybe there's something special going on here - like an advancing army being forced intp a very tight space by the local geography.

The medieval castles I was - not very many I admit - does not look like a lot of space was dedicated to artillery either. I'll look closer next time I see one