The White Council

Re: Gondor at the end of the Third Age

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: [snip]

: : : First, there were fifty great ships and many smaller vessels : : : at Pelargir. We are not told the numbers of ships (or : : : relative size) at Linhir, though the greater force was at : : : Pelargir. "Smaller vessels beyond count" are the exact words : : : Legolas used. Well, "beyond count" is pretty inspecific but : : : it must be greater than 50. So there were more than 100 : : : ships (50 big ones and at least 50 smaller ones) at Pelargir.

: : Tolkien uses the word "drumond," a small medieval galley, to : : describe these small ships.

: [snip]

: I recall seeing "dromund" somewhere but I'm not sure of where. I could not find it in "The Last Debate", I was rushing through.

Well, now I'm at work, so I can't quote it, but I believe it was during the Battle of the Pellenor, where Eomer is looking south at the fleet coming up the Anduin, describing a fleet of drumonds, accompanied by great ships with many oars, or something to that effect. That's the only place where "dromund" is used that I'm aware of; Legolas does not use the term.

: Legolas speaks of the masted ships hoisting sail when the wind changes, implying that some were not masted. He also says some of the ships were "drawn up" at Pelargir while others were anchored in the harbor. And many of the smaller ships were burned, it seems.

Right. It's possible that some of the smaller ships were not dromunds...being pirates, they could have had a number of different small vessel types. Possibly dromunds were the dominant small ship type.

: I have a book on ships somewhere, but I may have left it in Albuquerque. It had some information on dromund capacities, but I suspect there were many types of ships in the harbor.

Looks like I jumped ahead of you...I'm typing as I'm reading here.

: : : Secondly, you're assuming there is a medieval connection, and : : : there is none. Tolkien compared Gondor to classical : : : civilizations, and the Corsair fleets are more similar in : : : their threat and history to the great pirate fleets which had : : : roamed the Mediterranean Sea during the classical period. : : : 20-30,000 men would not have been uncommon among such forces.

: : Medieval maritime technology was not significantly different : : from that of the ancients, however. As for numbers...I think : : 20,000+ men transported for maritime invasion would have been : : atypical (though not impossible) for the ancient world.

: These large numbers are recorded in ancient texts and apparently accepted. The numbers I cite came from John Warry's WARFARE IN THE CLASSICAL WORLD. Classical armies and navies were considerably larger than medieval armies and navies.

I do not find it unlikely that the Carthaginians or the Romans, in their days of strength, could have fielded large fleets with such large numbers of soldiers. As for the pirates...hmmmm, I wonder. It _IS_ true that classical armies and navies were larger than their medieval components -- the Roman Army, for example, at its height was composed of over 300,000 men, a total that would not be reached by major European States for over a millenia. Which is why I used the example of the Armada, when Spain had reached a level of power comparable in many ways to ancient Rome. The technology that the Normans and the Vikings used was not too dissimilar, even if the numbers were somewhat smaller.

: [snip]

: : : Pompey is said to have raised 500 warships and 125,000 men to : : : go against the 1,000 ships of the pirates. He captured 90 : : : warships with full equipment in his campaign to clear the : : : seas of their menace.

: : I have always found the claims for Pompey's force, like so many : : of the ancient world, difficult to accept. Most historians : : tend to shave the numbers claimed for ancient armies.

: I'm aware of this tendency. However, recent research bears up some of the claims, and I cannot tell if Warry accepts them or merely provides his own numbers. I suppose I could look for my Suetonius, but I'm pretty sure I left that in Albuquerque, too. When I moved across country I only brought a few books with me.

The problem is that documentation is so scanty for much of the ancient period, and archeology may not hold all the answers. For example, for a long time it was believed that Darius III employed nearly a million men against Alexander, but historians (I can only quote Wilcken off my head) generally accept a much lower number now, perhaps 100-200,000 at most.

But as I say, I can accept a slightly higher ceiling on troop estimates in LOTR. The problem is that there's so little to go on, and that being the case, I tend to employ a modification of Occam's Razor -- in this case, rather than tending to reject unnecessarily complicated explanations, I'm inclined to be skeptical of things we have no evidence of in the text. Such as lots and lots of extra soldiers, whether employed by Gondor or Mordor.

What we're engaging in here is extrapolation -- fairly reasonable extrapolation in many cases, but it's still guesswork just the same. We KNOW the Southlands held back troops -- Lossarnach, apparently sent only 200 out of 2000 or so troops to Minas Tirith. Maybe the same ratio applies to the other fiefs, but we just don't know. Even having a population estimate might not help us, because many might have been unable or unwilling to take up arms -- quite often the case in late imperial Italy (though there's no evidence that the conditions in question were present in late Gondor). Without more evidence or more detail, and given the picture of Gondorian decay that Tolkien goes to such lengths to paint, I simply hold to a more conservative estimate. We may just have to agree to disagree here. :-)

: : : What can you possibly know about the population of Harad, : : : and where do you get your information? Tolkien says : : : virtually nothing about Harad except that it has many : : : countries and kings.

: : It was mostly desert, for one. I think that if Gondor (to : : accept your numbers) had difficulty mustering over 30,000 men, : : a more primitive, less organized society in far less hospitable : : land (over an admittedly larger area) would have difficulty : : raising such a massive force.

: Harad was not desert. The only place where "desert" occurs is on one map referring to the "debatable and desert land" of Harondor between the Anduin-Poros and Harnen rivers. However, "desert" in this context does not necessarily imply desert (sand, scrub, brush) -- it could just as easily imply a deserted land where no lives any longer.

: Harad had to support forests and grasslands. Otherwise the Mumakil would not have had a habitat in which to live, and the horses as well. Also, the Haradrim had to have wood for their ships, and the Numenoreans conquered many lands in Harad, building many cities and fortresses down there. The lands had to be appealing to them.

Now, I don't have my resources with me, but my impression was that much of nearer Harad was generally arid, with forests and jungles further south. I agree with you on the multiple possible meaninings of "desert" in the reference to Harondor, however. Yet most Middle Earth maps I've seen -- and I don't rule out that they're guessing as much as we are -- depict near Harad, at least, as Arid. It's quite likely if the trade winds are in the right configuration, in which case the Harad might be similar to North Africa.

The question of wood for the ships is an excellent one, for the kinds of large deciduous and fir trees necessary for ship timber are almost always found, in our world, in temperate climates. Harad and Far Harad appear to be tropical or subtropical, at any rate, so I am wondering where the trees came from -- tropical trees generally possessing poor quality wood. Again, a lack of data, leaving us to extrapolate. Possibly the coastal regions around Umbar were similar to Lebanon -- a largely arid region which nonetheless supported some significant hardwood forest, from whence the ancient Phoenicians (and later civilizations) were able to construct their fleets. Even for a 100+ ship fleet, a relatively small forest might suffice. Whether it would support a population comparable to Gondor is another story. There may also have been extensive deforestation by the ancient Numenoreans, as there was in Enedwaith and Minhiriath, leaving Harad less attractive than it once was. Just speculation, however.

: : For the moment, I think I could stretch and accept a total : : Corsair force up to... 15,000 or so. We have little to go on, : : so I can't really argue against raising the ceiling a little.

: If you mean 15,000 warriors on top of the rowers and mariners you mentioned previously (I inadvertently cut that from the text), we may be able to compromise there. But I would accept that only as a bare minimum. 15,000 men could easily have been overwhelmed by Gondor's forces in a pitched battle.

Well, again, you're assuming a larger Gondorian Army than I am. :-)

Hey, I can't rule it out completely. But I am skeptical. Tolkien simply doesn't talk about so many extra troops -- he might have considered it an unecessary bit of detail, but then again maybe there just weren't that many of them.

If Gondor's army really WAS so large, we're left with two possible dilemmas: Gondor was caught well before its preparations for war were complete, or the strategy Gondor's captains employed leaves much to be desired -- even assuming a Corsair force of 20-30,000. To deploy only a few thousands against Sauron's main assualt, the one directed at Gondor's capital, if you have upwards of 30,000 troops available, makes little sense. And leaving them deployed piecemal to defend their own fiefs makes no sense either.

And the more I read ROTK, the more I'm convinced that Denethor did not have absolute power over troop deployments, or at least didn't exercise it. Tolkien speaks of the fiefs "holding back" their strength, not "being permitted" to hold their strength. The picture painted is one of Denethor getting whatever bits and pieces the fiefs would lend him.

: [snip]

: : : 10,000 is extremely small by Middle-earth standards.

: : 10,000 is how many soldiers Turgon led from Gondolin into the : : Nirnaeth Arnoediad -- "extremely small" may be an unwarranted : : exaggeration.

: Turgon's army existed in the First Age -- and it was by no means the largest army. The Edain alone probably constituted around 10,000 warriors in Fingon's army -- and I suspect they may have been considerably more numerous than that.

No, Turgon's wasn't the largest, but its arrival on the battlefield is depicted as a major addition to the strength of the Eldar, probably not least due to the fact that a hardened Noldorin warrior was worth quite a bit, man for man. I used the example because it is one of the rare instances where Tolkien gives us a hard number to work with -- and because, of course, it seems to support my case. :-)

: The Second Age armies probably numbered in the hundreds of thousands, especially in the War of the Elves and Sauron and the War of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men.

At Dagorlad? 100,000 or more seems quite possible for the Last Alliance, especially when you add the Eldar, Durin's army, and Thranduil's forces. Perhaps a good deal more.

Numenorean immigration -- at least by the Elf-friends -- to Middle Earth was must have been quite considerable in the latter part of the Second Age to support such a large army for Elendil. There's only so many people you can fit on nine ships. :-)

: : : Sauron had assembled somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 : : : soldiers and Corsairs just for the assault on Gondor by the : : : most conservative of estimates. That doesn't include the : : : forces he sent against Dale, Lorien, the kingdom of Northern : : : Mirkwood, and the Beornings. Nor does it include Saruman's : : : relatively small army of 10,000+ Orcs, Half-orcs, and : : : Dunlendings.

: : You forgot the force sent across the Eastfold, destroyed by the : : Ents. :-)

: Ah, yes. :)

Treebeard would likely rip up my yard if I forgot to mention it. :-)

: : : No. Minas Tirith was just a minor battle.

: : Sorry, I don't agree at all with that. You can say that the : : attack on Minas Tirith was one of many. You can say that a : : majority of Sauron's forces and allies were employed elsewhere : : or held in reserve. But to call it "just a minor battle" : : stretches things too far, and not merely because it marks the : : climax of the action in LOTR.

: The climax of the action should be either the battle on the Dagorlad or the conflict between Gollum and Frodo.

In terms of dramatic structure, I think you can make the argument that the Pellenor marks a valid climax to LOTR -- leaving aside Mount Doom -- because a) Tolkien spends so much time leading up to it and then describing it (a good 5 or 6 chapters, by my count) as opposed to a scant chapter dedicated to the Last Battle; and b) so many of the characters and story threads come together at Minas Tirith. Obviously, the destruction of the Ring marks the final victory over Sauron, and is certainly the climax of Frodo's story -- and to the extent that Frodo's story is THE story, it marks the penultimate climax of LOTR. But the Last Battle seems almost anti-climactic, in view of the little time devoted to it, and its lesser consequences. A defeat at Minas Tirith would almost certainly have meant Gondor -- and most of the West -- is left in ashes even had Frodo destroyed the Ring, whereas, as Gandalf points out, even the annihilation of the Army at Dagorlad could be survived if the Ring was destroyed.

:At Minas Tirith the odds were more in Gondor's favor. They had the element of surprise TWICE come in on their side. And yet by our best estimates, there were fewer soldiers involved in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields than in the Battle of the Morannon.

True, true, and maybe. The West certainly had far fewer troops -- perhaps half as many, or less -- at Dagorlad than at Minas Tirith. Sauron pulled out all the stops at the Black Gate, obviously, and had a larger force -- 60,000 as an absolute minimum -- at Dagorlad. But the West could more easily survive a defeat at Dagorlad than at Minas Tirith, assuming the destruction of the Ring.

: Oddly, Gondor ended up with a much smaller force at Dagorlad than it had at Minas Tirith.

As above...

: : He may have been simply trying to build up his case for : : Theoden, but Hirgon, errand rider for Denethor, makes clear : : Denethor's opinion (which may have been tinged with conceit and : : pride, but true nonetheless): "For it is before the walls of : : Minas Tirith that the doom of our time will be decided..." And : : Beregond: "Here the hammer stroke will fall hardest" -- and as : : he rightly points out, it is where Gandalf makes haste for when : : the war breaks out. It is to save Minas Tirith that Aragorn : : sets out on the Paths of the Dead.

: Yes, but in the event, the battle really didn't decide anything. Sauron's power was not broken. He wasn't even really stopped in his tracks. He was already preparing the next assault.

It bought the West time and space. Nothing more. But in the event, it was crucial. Without the destruction of the Ring, Gondor would have fallen eventually, as we all know. But let Sauron take Minas Tirith and overrun Gondor, and Frodo achieves at best a pyrrhic victory even with the Ring's destruction. The one battle the West could least afford to lose was at the Pellenor.

: : Sauron used considerable forces in attacks on the Eastfold, : : against Lorien, against Thranduil, against Dale and Erebor, : : and of course against the southlands. But there's no evidence : : that any one of these forces matched the army led by the Nazgul : : against Minas Tirith -- collectively, perhaps, but not : : individually. And taking Minas Tirith held for Sauron the best : : chances of capturing the Ring and destroying the new Ringlord : : before his strength was full grown.

: Sauron probably lost around half his Gondorian campaign forces (100,000+) in the battles at Linhir, Pelargir, and Minas Tirith. But those were three separate battles.

True enough.

: But if we assume no more than 10,000 in any army for the other campaigns, we're still looking at at least than 50,000 soldiers (Lorien, Northern Mirkwood, Dale/Erebor, Beornings/Woodmen, Rohan).

And I'd concede even more than that. The forces directed at Dale and Erebor were likely...larger. Maybe 30-40,000? Who knows? But quite considerable, even if not as large as that devoted to Gondor. Makes you think: If Sauron had concentrated all his forces...

: : [snip]

: : : : : The Lord of the Nazgul by no means had the largest army.

[snip]

: : Tolkien says the Lords of the West were outnumbered more than : : ten to one, so Sauron's armies should number more than 60,000.

: Yes, good point. But that also pushes my "conservative" estimates up. At the start of the war, Sauron may have been moving 200,000+ soldiers and mariners into position to strike at the Free Peoples.

I'm not sure what you mean by pushing up your estimates, but...let's see, just for minimums:

60-70,000 at Dagorlad 50,000 or so at Minas Tirith 15,000+ for the Corsairs 5-10,000 for the Eastfold 10,000+ for Lorien 10,000+ for Mirkwood 15-20,000+ for Dale/Erebor

Yes, that's in the 150,000 to 200,000 ballpark. Quite a host. Must have been what Al Haig felt like facing all those Soviet tanks.

: [snip]

: : It seems to me that the exact balance is left ambiguous, but : : certainly a large component was the army of the Easterlings : : "that had waited for the signal in the shadows of the Ered : : Lithui." The rest -- orcs, trolls, Southrons, and possibly : : other Easterlings -- issued from the gates of the Morannon -- : : exact origins and numbers unknown.

: Agreed.

Well, we agreed on something...:-)

Oberon