Of elves and their skills for battle - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Ar-Luman · 10-09-2002, 02:00 AM

When the elves first come to valinor they learn many different skills from the valar, jewel making, different crafts, ect. ect. Maybe I just missed the part where they were taught how to fight. It seems the me that out of no where we have Feanor wielding a sword trying to chase down Melkor. Where did he, or any of the elves for that matter, learn to fight. Elves in general seem to be somewhat profieceint warriors. I can see elves in the latter ages being battle ready, they have had thousands of years of practice, but I am talking early on.

bombur · 10-09-2002, 04:58 AM

I think the Eleves did not know how to fight. Not really. When Noldor came to valinor, the aqqured many skills, power of charachter and presence that followed seeing the trees etc. Likely they also had many sports keeping up and enhanceing their physical proves. I can somehow see Feanor ****ed off by having lost the Valinor Wrestling championship to Tulkas. They hunted, propably with bows and spears. But when they made swords and weapons of war for the family feud, they hid them from Valar, knowing that Valar would not have approved of their existance.

I think Tolkien shared my view of what combat and battle is.

When Noldor came back to Middle Earth, they decimated the orcs they encountered. If you are twise as quick and strong as you opponent is, full of rage and a thing that your opponent fears... It matters little that you do not have black belt in kung fu with sword kata. Noldor were smart enough to know theoretically how sword was supposed to be wielded and their own inner qualities made them efficient, not martial training.

I think we view many things in the saga through the shades of people too influenced by marvel comics and action movies. This is evident for example in discussion of maiar. Someone commented there that "why would sauron be able to fly." In epic sagas flight wiothout functional wings is impossible no matter how powerful one is. Only in marvel comics can one fly with power instead of flying with wings [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] In viewing combat we make the same errors, having seen too many kung fu movies. Think for a moment who Tolkien was. When he was young man, he had bee trained to parade on a school yard and then he was sent to Belgium. It is rather likely that he discovered first hand that the issue of who has a bayonet in ones belly is decided by other factors then "training" for the use of bayonet.

Things like "combat skills" come to matter only when two people face each other in so much an equal ground that neither turns tail and runs to get it in the back, that neither has surprise, that neither is strong enough just to punch through others defence and go on, that neithers hand is pushed to the side by the flow and ebb of medieval battlefield, etc.

Janne Harju

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

Eol · 10-11-2002, 12:21 PM

If my memory serves me well, in the Silmarillion, the Noldor in valinor were taught the art of war from the whispering of Melkor. He placed contention in their hearts thus beginning the first of several uprisings among the Noldor against the Valar. He was essentially the father of contention and lies.

Feanor was one of the first to make items for war: great helms, shields and swords. Along with his skills, he was a great orator and could rally up the people to his cause, or so thought what was his cause.

Amarie · 10-11-2002, 12:41 PM

The only conclusion I came to is that they were very quick to learn. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Baran · 10-12-2002, 06:50 AM

I have to totally disagree with Bombur, you couldn't be more wrong when you say that it is enough to be full of rage to win at the battlefield. The vikings where warriors full of rage, they weren't afraid of dying, but if you set 500 vikings up against 50 top trained crusaders the Vikings would not stand a chance. This of course has much to do with battle tactics as well, not only skill with the weapons. But anyway I find you whole reasoning very wrong, if you haven't been practising very much with weapons and face a army that have there is no doubt who would win.

Eol · 10-12-2002, 10:02 AM

Quote:

is enough to be full of rage to win at the battlefield

As soon as you do that, you have lost the battle. Rage does nothing but give that fun little hormone called Adrenaline. That does not give you instantanious victory.

It is obvious no one has served in any form of military( especially myself!) but common sense should tell you that any emotional burst that is not controled will hinder your forcus. Once that happens, the opponant will have the chance to srike you down during that moment.

bombur · 10-12-2002, 07:44 PM

I cannot remember myself having written that "being full of rage" is the only or even primary requirement for victory. I was refering to the eleves returning to the middle earth "Being full of rage". In this case I meant extreme motivation = courage. I did not consider the "berserk factor" much.

The idea of pitting 500 vikings versus 50 crusaders with the result of the vikings getting decimated, is a claim not supported by history. Vikings were able to vanguish larger number of knights even when the knights were defending behind city walls.

The main Viking adwantage was rather strategic surprise then rage. Their longships were so low... shallow, whichever is the correct term, that they were able to approach consealed by the coastline to acchieve surpirise. Actually the only land not ravaged by Vikings in Europe was their eastern neighbour Finland, and that is most likely due to a functioning "watchfire" system that ofset this adwantage of strategic surprise. It is interresting perhaps for this discussion to note that losing the surprise element stopped the vikings even though finns were not a warrior people nor equally well equipped. (Archaeologic evidence suggesting absense of metal armor and domestically produced pattern welded swords in Finland till latest period of viking era 1000AD or so.)

(I might add (editing the post) that the viking disadwantages included total lack of cavalry, which required them to take cavalry attacks defensively covering behind shieldwalls or terrain. The finns did not seem to have cavalry either, but on the other hand, we are indeed the only people who have laid a claim on the dubious honor of inventing the devilish tool called crossbow [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] . The building of it is described in kalevala.)

Over emphasis of the berserk myth is misleading. Vikings were often very proficient warriors. Not in the sense that they had been practiceing swordplay terribly lot, but otherwise. By the crusade period, the vikings were wearing hauerback chainmail to a man exactly as the crusaders were, and usually were not charging to combat naked and chewing their shields. They were diciplined and cunning.

It may be worth note that most of successfull armies of the European history did not devote exessive amount of time to mastery of weaponskills. For example the Roman army spent 90% of its trainingtime on maintaining and making formations and shieldwalls, practiseing combat engineering, creating dicipline and group solidarity etc. And of this 10% most was training the use of Pilum-javelin. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that a rebel slave Spartacus took an army of gladiators and slaves trained by gladiators to fight the roman army. They were likely superior individual combatants, but in the end they died. Even their initial success I would attribute to their superior motivation, not their weaponskills.

Here in Finland we have compulsory military service. (1000km of border with Russia for 5 million people nation may just require it. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) I as pasifist chose to pass this and went to civilian service. However I did spend some time in the army.

I can tell you that there was drilling, marching, training for entrenchment, Training for "incamp dicipline", training for moving in the forest, training for the use of specialised weaponry (AA-gun, handgrenade and LAW-rocket), training for maintanance of personal weapon, training for combat cover, training for...

Well anyways, during my month there we were in the range with the personal weapon all of once and had two more times scheduled for the rest of the basic training. Only military police had any close combat scheduled for training.

The army of the British empire in its height in the late 1800's considered maintaining "fire dicipline" to be a thousand times more important then individual accuracy of the soldiers. Though a German diplomat said that the British army was good for fighting savage tribes as German was good for fighting the French, he mant their lack of organisation above the regimental level. Their small unit performance of the time was the envy of all the Europe. And it was not based on individual "combat skill."

The point is and was this, "weapon skill" good soldier makes not.

You get better soldier during any time period by emphasisin different aspects in training. The aspects that the Noldor might have had practically built in to them.

Janne Harju

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

10-09-2002, 02:00 AM	#1
Ar-Luman Animated Skeleton Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Irving, Tx Posts: 27	Of elves and their skills for battle When the elves first come to valinor they learn many different skills from the valar, jewel making, different crafts, ect. ect. Maybe I just missed the part where they were taught how to fight. It seems the me that out of no where we have Feanor wielding a sword trying to chase down Melkor. Where did he, or any of the elves for that matter, learn to fight. Elves in general seem to be somewhat profieceint warriors. I can see elves in the latter ages being battle ready, they have had thousands of years of practice, but I am talking early on. __________________ "and I, I took the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference."

10-11-2002, 12:21 PM	#3
Eol Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The Pacific Northwest - Tir Nan Og Posts: 306	If my memory serves me well, in the Silmarillion, the Noldor in valinor were taught the art of war from the whispering of Melkor. He placed contention in their hearts thus beginning the first of several uprisings among the Noldor against the Valar. He was essentially the father of contention and lies. Feanor was one of the first to make items for war: great helms, shields and swords. Along with his skills, he was a great orator and could rally up the people to his cause, or so thought what was his cause. __________________ Mes sana in corpec sano- (lt.) A sound mind in a sound body

10-09-2002, 04:58 AM	#2
bombur Wight Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: finland Posts: 126	I think the Eleves did not know how to fight. Not really. When Noldor came to valinor, the aqqured many skills, power of charachter and presence that followed seeing the trees etc. Likely they also had many sports keeping up and enhanceing their physical proves. I can somehow see Feanor ****ed off by having lost the Valinor Wrestling championship to Tulkas. They hunted, propably with bows and spears. But when they made swords and weapons of war for the family feud, they hid them from Valar, knowing that Valar would not have approved of their existance. I think Tolkien shared my view of what combat and battle is. When Noldor came back to Middle Earth, they decimated the orcs they encountered. If you are twise as quick and strong as you opponent is, full of rage and a thing that your opponent fears... It matters little that you do not have black belt in kung fu with sword kata. Noldor were smart enough to know theoretically how sword was supposed to be wielded and their own inner qualities made them efficient, not martial training. I think we view many things in the saga through the shades of people too influenced by marvel comics and action movies. This is evident for example in discussion of maiar. Someone commented there that "why would sauron be able to fly." In epic sagas flight wiothout functional wings is impossible no matter how powerful one is. Only in marvel comics can one fly with power instead of flying with wings [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] In viewing combat we make the same errors, having seen too many kung fu movies. Think for a moment who Tolkien was. When he was young man, he had bee trained to parade on a school yard and then he was sent to Belgium. It is rather likely that he discovered first hand that the issue of who has a bayonet in ones belly is decided by other factors then "training" for the use of bayonet. Things like "combat skills" come to matter only when two people face each other in so much an equal ground that neither turns tail and runs to get it in the back, that neither has surprise, that neither is strong enough just to punch through others defence and go on, that neithers hand is pushed to the side by the flow and ebb of medieval battlefield, etc. Janne Harju [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]

10-11-2002, 12:41 PM	#4
Amarie Animated Skeleton Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 33	The only conclusion I came to is that they were very quick to learn. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

10-12-2002, 06:50 AM	#5
Baran Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Mordor/Lothlorien Posts: 71	I have to totally disagree with Bombur, you couldn't be more wrong when you say that it is enough to be full of rage to win at the battlefield. The vikings where warriors full of rage, they weren't afraid of dying, but if you set 500 vikings up against 50 top trained crusaders the Vikings would not stand a chance. This of course has much to do with battle tactics as well, not only skill with the weapons. But anyway I find you whole reasoning very wrong, if you haven't been practising very much with weapons and face a army that have there is no doubt who would win.

10-12-2002, 07:44 PM	#7
bombur Wight Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: finland Posts: 126	I cannot remember myself having written that "being full of rage" is the only or even primary requirement for victory. I was refering to the eleves returning to the middle earth "Being full of rage". In this case I meant extreme motivation = courage. I did not consider the "berserk factor" much. The idea of pitting 500 vikings versus 50 crusaders with the result of the vikings getting decimated, is a claim not supported by history. Vikings were able to vanguish larger number of knights even when the knights were defending behind city walls. The main Viking adwantage was rather strategic surprise then rage. Their longships were so low... shallow, whichever is the correct term, that they were able to approach consealed by the coastline to acchieve surpirise. Actually the only land not ravaged by Vikings in Europe was their eastern neighbour Finland, and that is most likely due to a functioning "watchfire" system that ofset this adwantage of strategic surprise. It is interresting perhaps for this discussion to note that losing the surprise element stopped the vikings even though finns were not a warrior people nor equally well equipped. (Archaeologic evidence suggesting absense of metal armor and domestically produced pattern welded swords in Finland till latest period of viking era 1000AD or so.) (I might add (editing the post) that the viking disadwantages included total lack of cavalry, which required them to take cavalry attacks defensively covering behind shieldwalls or terrain. The finns did not seem to have cavalry either, but on the other hand, we are indeed the only people who have laid a claim on the dubious honor of inventing the devilish tool called crossbow [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] . The building of it is described in kalevala.) Over emphasis of the berserk myth is misleading. Vikings were often very proficient warriors. Not in the sense that they had been practiceing swordplay terribly lot, but otherwise. By the crusade period, the vikings were wearing hauerback chainmail to a man exactly as the crusaders were, and usually were not charging to combat naked and chewing their shields. They were diciplined and cunning. It may be worth note that most of successfull armies of the European history did not devote exessive amount of time to mastery of weaponskills. For example the Roman army spent 90% of its trainingtime on maintaining and making formations and shieldwalls, practiseing combat engineering, creating dicipline and group solidarity etc. And of this 10% most was training the use of Pilum-javelin. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that a rebel slave Spartacus took an army of gladiators and slaves trained by gladiators to fight the roman army. They were likely superior individual combatants, but in the end they died. Even their initial success I would attribute to their superior motivation, not their weaponskills. Here in Finland we have compulsory military service. (1000km of border with Russia for 5 million people nation may just require it. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) I as pasifist chose to pass this and went to civilian service. However I did spend some time in the army. I can tell you that there was drilling, marching, training for entrenchment, Training for "incamp dicipline", training for moving in the forest, training for the use of specialised weaponry (AA-gun, handgrenade and LAW-rocket), training for maintanance of personal weapon, training for combat cover, training for... Well anyways, during my month there we were in the range with the personal weapon all of once and had two more times scheduled for the rest of the basic training. Only military police had any close combat scheduled for training. The army of the British empire in its height in the late 1800's considered maintaining "fire dicipline" to be a thousand times more important then individual accuracy of the soldiers. Though a German diplomat said that the British army was good for fighting savage tribes as German was good for fighting the French, he mant their lack of organisation above the regimental level. Their small unit performance of the time was the envy of all the Europe. And it was not based on individual "combat skill." The point is and was this, "weapon skill" good soldier makes not. You get better soldier during any time period by emphasisin different aspects in training. The aspects that the Noldor might have had practically built in to them. Janne Harju [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: bombur ]