Hobbits as soldiers?

[ManofDale]

We know the Hobbits lended their aid in the use of archers in the battle against the witch of Angmar, what other kinds of soldiers do you think that the hobbits would make? I see them especially good as trackers, scouts (like Bilbo was used in the Quest of Erebor).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I believe it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said that an army marches on its stomach. Of course, he was rather short and round, and may have had hobbit blood, which is why his statement about army catering could have been drawn straight from the Thain's Regulations and Shire Field Manual (Gen. B. "Bullroarer" Took, ret.) Of course, this brings me to the very nub of my gist: Hobbits are indeed excellent scouts and competent archers, but their true field of excellence is catering. Hobbit cuisine is simple, healthy and served in large portions; they can live off the land effectively, and cooking is the most important art in their society. The one problem would be restraining their enthusiasm during a siege or when rations were short.

I suspect that the King's Own Shire Battalion was seconded to the Third Ithilien Division's catering corps in the early Fourth Age, although I have no evidence for this whatsoever.

[Bêthberry]

I believe our estimable The Squatter has it correct that Napoleon made such an observation, no doubt based upon his own predilections during battle.

However, this did not hinder the little Frenchman from buying army boots from the English, even during war time. How the English mercantile class missed this opportunity to aid the war effort and deliver substandard boots instead of their superior boots is probably a strategic debate related more to late Seventh Age military tactics than early Seventh Age. However, it does raise another aspect of Hobbit nature.

Hobbits, of course, gambolled, walked, ran, danced and marched shoesless. Think of the great costs saved in not having to import boots and buy them at a premium price from an enemy! The usual ills and infections normally associated with footware would also be lessened by this airy habit, although I suppose there might be the added difficulty of dealing with body lice in hairy feet.

I think there would indeed be room for them in the basic infantry, where the added benefit of their short stature would enable hobbits to run easily between the tall hulks of orc bodies.

(I do hope this particularly detailed reply does not offend our usual Downs Syndrome of decorum and I apologise prolylactically for any offense some may feel at these thoughts.)

[mormegil]

The Shire-folk survived, though war swept over thema nd most of them fled into hiding. To the help of the king they sent some archers who never returned; and others went alos to the battle in which Angmar was overthrown.

This is from the appendix and would indicate, to me at least, that hobbits did not make great soldiers in general.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

To be fair, Tolkien doesn't say that the first group were killed in the battle: they might have been so deadly that they began a lucrative career as mercenaries and assassins. The second group were fighting in a victorious army, so I'm not sure that says much other than that hobbits are good at choosing sides. It does seem unlikely that hobbits would ever have enough martial spirit to make good soldiers, though. Sadly, it's also quite probable that any money saved on footwear would have to be sunk into rations, so I'm not sure how much of an advantage their barefoot predilections would be either. I suppose one could always feed them their boots.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

"Fobbits" in Todays Army

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mormegil

This is from the appendix and would indicate, to me at least, that hobbits did not make great soldiers in general.

I would beg to differ. It does not follow from their failure to return that they were not effective in the battle.

We know from Concerning Hobbits that they were difficult to daunt or kill and that they could “survive rough handling by grief, foe or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and well-fed faces”. It is also said that they could still handle arms at need and, indeed, that they routed an Orcish invasion at the Battle of Greenfields. They are said to be particularly useful with the bow, being “keen-eyed and sure at the mark”, and that, if ever a Hobbit stoops to pick up a stone, trespassing creatures would do well to take cover.

I would suggest that there are qualities in Hobbits that would make them very good soldiers, if organised to play to those qualities. Being difficult to daunt or kill is an admirable quality in a soldier and it seems to me that they would likely have a higher than average morale, both in terms of the conditions they might have to put up with and in terms of their ability to hold firm in the face of the enemy.

Their small stature and therefore lesser physical strength would limit their effectiveness in hand-to-hand combat (unless against weaker foes) and preclude their use as cavalry (unless on dog-back ). But they clearly made effective ranged troops, armed with short-bows or perhaps slingshots. Such weaponry would limit their effectiveness against heavily-armoured foes, but they would undoubtedly have their uses.

Finally, the fact that they not only defeated, but routed, the Goblin invasion led by Golfimbul shows that they could be highly effective against certain types of enemy and when well-organised by one such as Bandobras Took. Similarly at the Battle of Bywater, when organised by Merry and Pippin. I should imagine that they made particularly resolute foes when on home ground and defending their homes.

[mormegil]

Hobbits seem to be very one dimensional and therefore aren't great soldiers especially in the type of warfare of Middle-earth. They might do well as archers in a protected fort or citadel, however if on an open field they are very limited. The short bow and sling have a range that is far less than a long bow, and you admitted their ineffectiveness against armor. Now Hobbits, would seem, can handle themselves against a band of orcs, probably of the smaller breed. However, throw them against the Easterlings and I think you would see a much different result.

I agree with ManofDale in that they could be good scouts and spies but they are limited in the amount of space they can travel in that they generally cannot ride horses.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Actually, I believe Tolkien says it's a hobbit belief they
fought against the witchking, a view unsubstantiated
by any other race. So maybe this was an example
of hobbit "spin control" to put their occupation of the
shire in a stronger position.

[the phantom]

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

But they clearly made effective ranged troops, armed with short-bows or perhaps slingshots.

That's all fine and dandy if you are going to war against poorly armed and untrained morons, but "short-bows and slingshots" wouldn't cut it against a true military force.

Let's say General Pippin orders his hobbits, "Go over there and pelt that Gondorin army with short-bows and slingshots."

As soon as the arrows starting flying, King Aragorn would say, "Everyone fall back out of their range, get out your longbows, and kill those little hobbits."

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

So, when you pit long-range+high-damage versus short-range+low-damage, who wins every time?

I don't think I need to give you the answer to that. A group of men or elves with bows would absolutely destroy a group of hobbit archers.

Similarly at the Battle of Bywater, when organised by Merry and Pippin.

We must remember that the Battle of Bywater was not army versus army. If my memory serves me right, it was a collection of dimwitted, outnumbered men walking straight into a trap. The outcome could not have been anything other than a victory for the hobbits. Actually, it is rather disappointing that so many of them died in the victory. I think that shows their inferiority as fighters.

I mean, just imagine for one minute- what if the entire scenario of the Battle of Bywater was kept exactly the same, only instead of hobbits there were Noldorin soldiers fighting against Saruman's men. Heh- you want to talk about a slaughter. I doubt a single elf would get killed.

The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

. . . .

And of course, we know how that would turn out. Because of their handicap in the areas of size and strength, hobbits cannot wield weapons that reach as far as those wielded by men and elves. Not only that, but they don't do as much damage either.

. . . .
The fact is, there is not a single military operation that hobbits have ever done that wouldn't have been executed better by elves or men. Scouting is the only thing that hobbits would be good for.

Well, hmmm. Do we know that short, small types cannot wield a long bow? And, often, victory goes not to the physique but to the technology. Is there a technology other than catering hobbits would shine at?

Originally Posted by Squatter

Sadly, it's also quite probable that any money saved on footwear would have to be sunk into rations, so I'm not sure how much of an advantage their barefoot predilections would be either. I suppose one could always feed them their boots.

Well, don't sniff at the possibility. I understand that there were polar expeditions which survived by stewing their boots.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Let's not kid ourselves here, people. A force of hobbits would be useless in roles that required actual combat.

You're rather missing the point here. I said that they would be useful in combat roles that played to their strengths. Undoubtedly, an entire army of Hobbits would be no match for stronger and well armoured foes. But, as a battalion within a greater force (as they were at the Battle of Fornost) and properly placed on the field, their qualities would almost certainly make them useful. Detachments of shortbowmen and slingers were used to great effect in battles of the ancient world.

One should never underestimate Hobbits. They have great capacity to surprise. As Gandalf knew, and Sauron discovered too late ...

[mormegil]

I just thought of a useful yet comical situation for Hobbits. Forming an archer line you could have one hobbit in front of every man/elf forming a team of high and low shooters.

[the phantom]

You're rather missing the point here. I said that they would be useful in combat roles that played to their strengths.

And my counterpoint is that, even if used for their strengths, anything they could be deployed to do involving weapons could be done better by non-hobbits. I can't think of a military combat task that I would select a company of hobbits for over a company of men or elves.

Do we know that short, small types cannot wield a long bow?

You can only draw a bow back so far and still aim properly. You aren't really "wielding" a long bow if you have to stretch both of your arms as far as you can in opposite directions, because you wouldn't be able to control and aim the bow properly. I mean, the only way a hobbit could draw back one of those large five foot bows is if he sat down on his butt, placed his big hairy feet on the bow, and pulled the string back with both hands, and that is not terribly practical or efficient. Also, a powerful bow that is difficult to draw back for a man would be impossible for a hobbit to draw back.

I just thought of a useful yet comical situation for Hobbits. Forming an archer line you could have one hobbit in front of every man/elf forming a team of high and low shooters.

Yes, that would be comical. I would find it particularly amusing to watch all of the hobbits' arrows thud into the ground far short of where the mens' arrows fell.

[Farael]

I think some people are being too quick in choosing strenght over tactics. True, hobbits would not have been able to wield long-bows or big axes yet if used properly they could have been great scouts (they were almost just as silent as an elf and by the end of the third age there weren't many elves around) and if they could sneak up on the enemy they wouldn't need long bows.

Think about this scenario. The two armies meet and stand right out of long-bow range from each other. The opposing captains are meassuring their strenghts and weaknesses and then the "enemy" decides to attack. They approach and the expected rain of arrows falls on target. The soldiers raise their shields and all of a sudden a small group of hobbits which was hidden nearby starts shooting arrows at them. That would create quite a bit of mayhelm so that before they could react, the "good guys" could attack them.

Of course, the only problem is that it would be hard indeed to motivate Hobbits to go to war.... yet if possible they might be useful allies.

After all, many wars had been won over superior tactics than sheer strenght. If my little knowledge of history helps me Warning: here is when Farael makes a mistake and someone corrects him, invalidating his whole argument during the 100 year war, France had a much stronger heavy cavalry than England yet the English had lighter, more movile troops and the terrain was swampy and the heavily equiped frenchmen were outmanuvered by the English, who won the day.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I can't think of a military combat task that I would select a company of hobbits for over a company of men or elves.

Well, it depends what you have available to you doesn't it? If I was assembling an army in Middle-earth with unlimited resources, then I would choose Ents as my shock troops, Elves for my archers, Dwarves as my sappers, a large helping of Rohirrim cavalry etc etc. But they are unlikely all to be willing and/or available. And, even then, I am sure that I could find a strategic use for a detachment of Hobbit archers. Farael make a good point here. Topography willing, a cunningly hidden group of Hobbit archers could well cause mayhem when an advancing enemy comes within their range.

Tolkien makes a specific point of telling us that Hobbits were difficult to daunt or kill and that they were particularly keen-eyed. Which suggests to me that the average Hobbit surpassed the average Man in these qualities. Certainly, were I assembling an army, I would not turn them away if they were willing and able to fight, however wonderful my other troops were.

Of course, the only problem is that it would be hard indeed to motivate Hobbits to go to war....

Well, they were willing to go to war in support of the King at Fornost. And they could no doubt be sufficiently motivated to defend the Shire, which would occupy a rather strategic position were the enemy trying to reach the Elven Havens to the west.

[Thinlómien]

Hobbits were good at hiding, so they'd make good spies. They'd also make good striking-troops. When camped near an enemy army, the hobbits could sneak to the enemy camp and kill some people/ steal goods/ destroy goods/ steal plans/ spy or steal plans/ whatever. (And don't say that Elves would be even better in that than Hobbits or I get depressed. You know, Elves can maybe move silently, but they can't hide because they shine... )