Generals and armies

[Farael]

Well, let's hope I have better luck with this thread than the one I started last time... I couldn't find anything that dealt with these issues before.

I was reading the "Do you think Tolkien would be insulted by the LoTR movies? thread and I noted a little side-conversation with regards to the elves in Helms Deep.

Now, while in the books (thanks Boromir88) there is absolutely no mention what so ever of elves in Helms Deep (besides Legolas of course) on the battle of the fields of Pelenor we know that Elrond's sons are present.

Yet on the battle at the Black Gate we have this quote

Upon the one hill he stood with Gandalf, and there fair and desperate was raised the banner of the Tree and Stars. Upon the other hill hard by stood the banners of Rohan and Dol Amroth, White Horse and Silver Swan. And about each hill a ring was made facing all ways, bristling with spear and sword. But in the front towards Mordor where the first bitter assault would come there stood the sons of Elrond on the left with Dunedain about them, and on the right the Prince Imrahil with the men of Dol Amroth tall and fair, and picked men of the Tower of Guard

Even though they were great fighters, I don't think the sons of Elrond with a few Dunedain could defeat a force that outnumbered them by the thousands. Then we read that Prince Imrahil with some picked men were with them as well and I understood it as if saying that the captains were Elladan and Elrohir with men as their soldiers. Yet a friend of mine who happens to be a History major told me that a king or a general was present (without mentioning anything about his soldiers) and yet it would be implied that along with them were their armies.

If I thought this was the explanation for the elves at Helms Deep I would have posted this in the movie forum yet I'd like to focus the discussion away from PJ's work and into Tolkiens.

Have the elves really given up on humanity? If I'm not mistaken, the elves at Mirkwood were fighting a powerful enemy at the time, the elves of Lorien and Rivendel had to work hard to protect their domains.... and yet it is possible that they sent two armies to the rescue of Gondor (Namely, with Elladan and Elrohir). I know the bases for this argument are rather weak because when Elladan, Elohir and the Dunedain meet with Aragorn and the Rohorrim it is said that there are thirty of them, if I'm not mistaken. Yet I always thought that Tolkien had not quite managed to show the massive amounts of people present in the battle of Pelenor and the Black Gate. Maybe, if we consider the names of the people mentioned as the name of a general and his soldiers (Not necessarily whole armies but maybe a couple hundred fighters) the battle will seem more crowded all of a sudden. IT will also explain how only thirty Dunedain and two elves were THAT much of a difference makers.

I know there will be quotes that say exactly how many they are and if I'm not mistaken there is a quote by Theoden saying that each of those men are worth a hundred of his (or something along those lines) yet for a moment assume that maybe they were excelent yet under-manned field generals and that their names represent them and their soldiers. Doesn't the battle of Pelenor seem more terrible, crowded and realistic?

Feel free to say "No, not really... I like it how it is" if those are your thoughts.. and let's hope this has not been discussed before. If it has, maybe someone should give me lessons of forum searching.

[Boromir88]

I'm not exactly sure if this is what you are looking for, but I'll give it a shot...First though:

Now, while in the movies there is absolutely no mention what so ever of elves in Helms Deep (besides Legolas of course) on the battle of the fields of Pelenor we know that Elrond's sons are present.(emphasis mine)

I think you mean books.

Have the elves really given up on humanity? If I'm not mistaken, the elves at Mirkwood were fighting a powerful enemy at the time, the elves of Lorien and Rivendel had to work hard to protect their domains.... and yet it is possible that they sent two armies to the rescue of Gondor (Namely, with Elladan and Elrohir).

I don't think they've given up on Middle-earth. They seem to play more of a defensive position in Middle-earth. Their realms are being attacked, and so they can't send out armies of Elves to go fight alongside men. Also, as Tolkien wanted to show this was the time of men, the time when they would rise and soon begin to "take control" of Middle-earth. The ancient races are fading/going away, and the Elves are leaving Middle-earth to Men. However, I don't think the Elves are the type to just give up on Men. If they wanted to they could have said "Screw you guys we're going home and leaving you here. Au Revoir." But, they didn't, they stayed and they fought. And though they played a much less limitted role as they did in the events of the Second Age, we have to consider there's also much less Elves from that time, and also they are being attacked as you mentioned. So, they can't just go out in forces as they did in the Second Age.

This is becoming the Age of Men, and so they have to do the grunt work of the fighting. Though the help of Legolas, Elladan, and Elrohir, kind of backs up that, though this is Men's time to run Middle-earth, they aren't alone.

As for the other part. We are given the numbers of the Dunedain, along with Elladan and Elrohir, so I just don't see how it can be assumed there were more than that.

[Farael]

This is becoming the Age of Men, and so they have to do the grunt work of the fighting. Though the help of Legolas, Elladan, and Elrohir, kind of backs up that, though this is Men's time to run Middle-earth, they aren't alone.

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.

As for the other part. We are given the numbers of the Dunedain, along with Elladan and Elrohir, so I just don't see how it can be assumed there were more than that

Again, if you read it from the standpoint that they are mentioning only the generals and assuming the rank soldiers, it might mean that "Thirty" was actually "thirty hundred" (i.e. a hundred each, yet I'm just guessing numbers... it might as well be three hundred over all so each captain with ten of his best soldiers)

If you have a quote that proves that idea completely wrong, don't shy away from posting it... as I've read the books in Spanish it is possible that when it was translated that certainty was lost. From my readings of the book, there is nothing to indicate that it is not possible that Tolkien talked of the generals/captains as individuals when they were actually leading a few of their men.

[Raynor]

Well, their number appears in the Last debate, RotK:

and another company of five hundred horse there should be, among which should ride the sons of Elrond with the Dúnedain and the knights of Dol Amroth

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, their number appears in the Last debate, RotK:

I'm not sure if that settles it... again, the sons of Elrond and the Dunedain could each have a couple dozen men. I guess barring a quote saying "Well, there were EXACTLY X Dunedain" This could be argued endlessly... but what I was trying to get at is whether you see it possible (and perhaps logical) that more men would have been commanded by them.

Then the precense of the sons of Elrond would be much more strongly felt, the couple of hundred of Dunedain would be really a devastating army by themselves... 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.

[Raynor]

Even though they were great fighters, I don't think the sons of Elrond with a few Dunedain could defeat a force that outnumbered them by the thousands

That is a wrong idea to start with; it is stated throughout the Last debate what the purpose of this _would be suicide_ attack is: a bait, to divert Sauron's attention:

Victory cannot be achieved by arms, whether you sit here to endure siege after siege, or march out to be overwhelmed beyond the River
...
His Eye is now straining towards us, blind almost to all else that is moving. So we must keep it. Therein lies all our hope. This, then, is my counsel. We have not the Ring. In wisdom or great folly it has been sent away to be destroyed, lest it destroy us. Without it we cannot by force defeat his force. But we must at all costs keep his Eye from his true peril. We cannot achieve victory by arms, but by arms we can give the Ring-bearer his only chance, frail though it be.
...
We must push Sauron to his last throw. We must call out his hidden strength, so that he shall empty his land. We must march out to meet him at once. We must make ourselves the bait, though his jaws should close on us. He will take that bait, in hope and in greed, for he will think that in such rashness he sees the pride of the new Ringlord
...
We must walk open-eyed into that trap, with courage, but small hope for ourselves. For, my lords, it may well prove that we ourselves shall perish utterly in a black battle far from the living lands; so that even if Barad-dûr be thrown down, we shall not live to see a new age
...
Indeed the force that we lead east need not be great enough for any assault in earnest upon Mordor, so long as it be great enough to challenge battle.

They went to their almost certain death, because this is what they perceived was their duty - or else, no new age shall be.

[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.