|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor"
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47255] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 07:26 |
|
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:34:05 +0100, "Raven"
<jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
>"Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2002 [at] nospamyahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:t12ls051ppo4n5mu00t10jia8p3lvp0ebe [at] 4ax.com...
>
>> [1] This is significant because Pippin is the only hobbit who meets
>> Boromir, Faramir AND Denethor. Do you think that this influences his
>> decision to become a knight of Gondor?
>
> Well, he becomes a knight before he ever sees Faramir. He becomes a
>knight of Gondor in payment of his debt. Presumably Merry would have done
>so as well, had he been there too. Of course eventually Merry comes to
>Gondor too, but by then he already serves Théoden - and Théoden being dead
>at the time does not change that.
Well, Denethor had technically released Pippin from his service.
Pippin replied that he did not wish to be released from his oath, of
course, but I am not sure whether the oath was still legally binding.
I wonder if Pippin renewed the oath to King Elessar. It is unlikely
that Aragorn would have insisted on it, but hobbits were sticklers for
formalities in such matters. :)
>
>> [2] "Pippin looked ruefully at the small loaf and (he thought) very
>> inadequate pat of butter which was set out for him, beside a cup of
>> thin milk." This choice of milk as a beverage is rather puzzling.
>> Most medieval European societies consumed wine or beer since it was
>> safer than unpasteurized milk. Moreover, Pippin had been drinking
>> wine, beer and water for at least several months (possibly since
>> leaving the Shire and certainly since departing from Rivendell.) Was
>> this menu chosen by Gandalf as a thoughtful gesture to make Pippin
>> feel more at home in a strange environment or was it yet another
>> example of Denethor's mockery?
>
> We don't know if Minas Tirith had milch cows and hay for them even during
>a siege.
That is precisely why the choice of milk puzzled me. The existence of
the milk can be explained by the butter: It is hard to make butter
without milk. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to
think that it was a thoughtful gesture by Gandalf to both make Pippin
feel more at home and yet simultaneously remind him that he was not in
the Shire and needed to be careful about what he said and thought.
Denethor might not be able to resist mocking Pippin when an
opportunity arose, but I cannot see him as so mean-spirited as to
actively seek such an opportunity.
> Also we don't know that the Gondorians didn't know how to
>pasteurize milk and why it is a good idea. As a process it is not a very
>complex one requiring advanced technology.
I can't imagine Gondor pasteurizing milk on an industrial scale, but I
could accept that the healers and loremasters of the Houses of Healing
might know how to do that. Since there was a mountain peak with
(presumably) ice and snow on it quite near, it may have been possible
to fetch ice regularly in order to preserve food and beverages longer.
>> [3] Anybody else ever wonder how the tailor managed to craft a
>> uniform that fit perfectly without measuring Pippin? I also wonder
>> how often Pippin had to replace the livery and gear over the years and
>> whether he had to order it from Minas Tirith or from local merchants.
>> :)
>
> Perhaps the tailor was very skilled, enough to very quickly make the
>livery from mere eye measurement. Or perhaps the livery was there already -
>like Bilbo's mithril mailshirt, that had been made for a child prince but
>fitted Bilbo and later Frodo well. For that matter Gondor may have had
>hobbits in its service long ago, perhaps of a branch different from those
>who eventually went to Eriador - perhaps kinsmen to the Stoors that Sméagol
>came from. While hobbits were quite a novelty to the Gondorians, they knew
>them by their Sindarin name, which does not prove but does open the
>possibility that earlier Gondorians had had personal experience with
>Periain.
> As for replacing it over the years, I get the impression that the
>craftsmanship that had gone into the livery was such that with care it might
>last for generations of wear.
I suppose that is possible, but considering that Pippin wore it during
battles as well as the journey back to the Shire and quite regularly
after that, I just figured that it would have to be replaced every so
often especially since the Shire did not yet have a dry-cleaning
service. Or maybe the King had had a few spare outfits prepared for
him before Pippin departed from Minas Tirith. Or Perhaps had one set
for ceremonial occasions and another for daily use?
I have also recently been reminded that Bilbo had entire rooms
dedicated to clothes at Bag-End, so evidently the Shire possessed
skilled tailors who could duplicate the clothing if they had access to
the right materials.
>
>> [7] This point has been debated before, but it is worth mentioning
>> again. "...but it seemed to Pippin that he raised his hand, and from
>> it a shaft of white light stabbed upward." Was this an example of
>> Narya [the Ring that Gandalf bore] in action or just another example
>> of the knowledge acquired by Gandalf during his studies of fire and
>> explosives? It is interesting to note that there is no mention of
>> Gandalf's staff in this passage.
>
> I would not presume that the shaft of white light had anything to do with
>Narya, which was not a weapon of war. It might simply be one of the powers
>of Olórin the Maia.
I think it is the fact that Narya was known as the Ring of Fire that
is what causes so much confusion--especially fire is one of the
primary weapons of war. I agree that Narya was not intended to be
used in that matter and probably only amplified or accentuated
Olorin's native abilities.
>
>> [11] Why did Denethor abruptly back down? Did he simply realize
>> that he had nothing to gain from a confrontation or did Gandalf subtly
>> influence his mood somehow? Did the presence of Faramir and Pippin
>> make any difference?
>
> He might have known well enough that although he had the authority to
>command even Gandalf within the territory of Gondor, Gandalf was innately
>the stronger. I do not think that the presence of Faramir and Pippin made a
>difference, since Denethor was not one to be swayed by the opinions of
>others, and very probably not concerned with "face". He would be concerned
>with being this and that, not with seeming this and that.
It just struck me as curious. Denethor is still grieving over the
loss of his eldest son and had just learned that his worst enemy now
has an excellent chance of recovering the one weapon that would make
him absolutely invincible and, as if that was not enough, he has been
betrayed by his own son. In other words, Denethor's mood is already
perilous and Gandalf provokes him by asserting that Boromir would have
betrayed his father as well had he taken the Ring. Yet Denethor
masters his wrath rather suddenly and becomes almost conciliatory.
>
>> [12] Was Denethor's military strategy right or wrong? Should Faramir
>> have kept his forces within the walls of Minas Tirith and reserved his
>> strength for a possible counterattack or was it wiser to contest the
>> fields of the Pelennor with the enemy?
>
> Faramir did not contest the fields of the Pelennor against the enemy, but
>the passage of the river. That strategy was sound enough, since during the
>crossing the invaders would be vulnerable, first to the arrows of the
>defenders and then they would have to scramble in disarray from boats up a
>riverbank against prepared enemies. Their much larger numbers and the
>unexpectedly strong effect of the presence of the Black Captain ensured
>their victory, but they paid dearly. We are not given numbers of enemies
>fallen, but it may well be that this defence of the bank reduced the enemy
>in numbers sufficiently to make a positive difference when the counterattack
>from the Rohirrim and the men from Pelargir came. The strategy was of
>course also risky, since once the enemy did win across and once other
>enemies pressed from the north, where they had taken Cair Andros and passed
>on, the surviving defenders had some miles to retreat to the City. And but
>for the counterattack of Gandalf and the knights of Dol Amroth they would
>indeed have been destroyed. Denethor may have had his personality issues,
>but he was no military fool.
That strategy is founded on the assumption that reinforcements would
arrive. You must remember that Denethor himself doubted that the
Rohirrim would come and that he had no reason at all to think that the
men of southern fiefs could quickly overcome the corsairs and come to
the aid of Minas Tirith. Faramir and Imrahil, both seasoned warriors
well schooled in military tactics, seem to think that contesting the
passage of the river with only the limited forces available was
unwise. Denethor himself later admits the battle was "needless."
You are correct that it was difficult for any besieging army to cross
the river. You overlook two facts, however: The enemy had their own
archers (who were much more accustomed to shooting in darkness and dim
light than the archers of Gondor) and it was impossible to defend
every foot of the Rammas Echor. That wall was at least thirty miles
long and the enemy had sufficient forces to make assaults at different
points. (That was how the wall was taken, in fact. Faramir's men
were unable to prevent the forces of Mordor from placing charges that
blew breaches in the wall.) Your argument about the attrition of the
enemy works both ways: Every man that died on the ramparts of Rammas
Echor was one less man to defend Minas Tirith. "For he can afford to
lose a host better than we can to lose a company."
>
>> [21] I wonder what happened to Grond? I presume it was destroyed
>> after the battle, of course, but how? It could not be easily burned
>> and presumably would have required quite a bit of fuel and time to
>> turn it into ash and slag. Perhaps the "spells of ruin" that lay upon
>> it were nullified by the fall of Sauron? Or perhaps it was just
>> dumped into the Anduin?
>
> Grond was well protected against stonecast and fire from the defenders.
>This does not imply that it could not be easily destroyed once the defenders
>had seized it. They may have found it easy to set fire to it once they were
>able to get some torches *beneath* the roof.
That is true. I never imagined Grond being protected in that manner.
I always assumed that "housing" referred to the wheels and carriage of
the massive ram and that some spell had been placed upon it to prevent
it from being burned.
Morgoth's Curse
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47275 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 20:15 |
|
"Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2002 [at] nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iovv819pescl2v2p2tl3atbc7i4stupak0 [at] 4ax.com...
(snip)
> Well, Denethor had technically released Pippin from his service.
> Pippin replied that he did not wish to be released from his oath, of
> course, but I am not sure whether the oath was still legally binding.
> I wonder if Pippin renewed the oath to King Elessar. It is unlikely
> that Aragorn would have insisted on it, but hobbits were sticklers for
> formalities in such matters. :)
>
It's my personal opinion that Pippin renewed his oath with Aragorn sometime
during those missing two weeks between the battle at teh Black Gate and the
time Sam awakened at Cormallen.
>>
>>> [2] "Pippin looked ruefully at the small loaf and (he thought) very
>>> inadequate pat of butter which was set out for him, beside a cup of
>>> thin milk." This choice of milk as a beverage is rather puzzling.
>>> Most medieval European societies consumed wine or beer since it was
>>> safer than unpasteurized milk. Moreover, Pippin had been drinking
>>> wine, beer and water for at least several months (possibly since
>>> leaving the Shire and certainly since departing from Rivendell.) Was
>>> this menu chosen by Gandalf as a thoughtful gesture to make Pippin
>>> feel more at home in a strange environment or was it yet another
>>> example of Denethor's mockery?
>>
>> We don't know if Minas Tirith had milch cows and hay for them even
>> during
>>a siege.
Minas Tirith is not on an exact parallel with Medieval Europe. For example,
they seem to have held on to the healing technologies of lost Numenor. So
it is quite possible that they *did* know how to pasteurize--although of
course it would not be called that, since there was no Louis Pasteur, LOL!
The fact that it was "thin milk" makes me think it was "skim milk"--skim
milk at one time was thought only of use as livestock food, but if they were
making butter from the cream, they would not have wanted to waste the milk.
>
> That is precisely why the choice of milk puzzled me. The existence of
> the milk can be explained by the butter: It is hard to make butter
> without milk. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to
> think that it was a thoughtful gesture by Gandalf to both make Pippin
> feel more at home and yet simultaneously remind him that he was not in
> the Shire and needed to be careful about what he said and thought.
> Denethor might not be able to resist mocking Pippin when an
> opportunity arose, but I cannot see him as so mean-spirited as to
> actively seek such an opportunity.
I don't see it as mockery or anything else significant. He ate what was
available and on the menu. Milk just happened to be. They might have been
rationing the ale or wine to the soldiers in order to avoid drunkeness.
>
>> Also we don't know that the Gondorians didn't know how to
>>pasteurize milk and why it is a good idea. As a process it is not a very
>>complex one requiring advanced technology.
>
> I can't imagine Gondor pasteurizing milk on an industrial scale, but I
> could accept that the healers and loremasters of the Houses of Healing
> might know how to do that. Since there was a mountain peak with
> (presumably) ice and snow on it quite near, it may have been possible
> to fetch ice regularly in order to preserve food and beverages longer.
>
They wouldn't necessarily have needed ice. Carved into the side of a
mountain, and with everything of stone, they could possibly have managed a
cold room. Especially if there was a stream or spring of fresh cold water.
Leaving containers of food submerged in cold running water is a long-time
low-tech method of keeping food cold.
And I could imagine that the Houses of Healing might have had leave to keep
one or two milk cows or even goats, since they might need it for the
patient's diets. It's possible the quartermaster of the Guardsmen had leave
as well. You will notice that they call the place Beregond and Pippin go
for food the "buttery".
(snip)
Or perhaps the livery was there already -
>>like Bilbo's mithril mailshirt, that had been made for a child prince but
>>fitted Bilbo and later Frodo well.
This is my opinion. Mention is made that at one time pages were used at the
Citadel. I would think that they would have had livery. I am sure there
would have been some stored away against future need, even if they had not
been used in a long while.
For that matter Gondor may have had
>>hobbits in its service long ago, perhaps of a branch different from those
>>who eventually went to Eriador - perhaps kinsmen to the Stoors that
>>Sméagol
>>came from. While hobbits were quite a novelty to the Gondorians, they
>>knew
>>them by their Sindarin name, which does not prove but does open the
>>possibility that earlier Gondorians had had personal experience with
>>Periain.
It's possible, of course, but I find it very unlikely.
>> As for replacing it over the years, I get the impression that the
>>craftsmanship that had gone into the livery was such that with care it
>>might
>>last for generations of wear.
>
> I suppose that is possible, but considering that Pippin wore it during
> battles as well as the journey back to the Shire and quite regularly
> after that, I just figured that it would have to be replaced every so
> often especially since the Shire did not yet have a dry-cleaning
> service. Or maybe the King had had a few spare outfits prepared for
> him before Pippin departed from Minas Tirith. Or Perhaps had one set
> for ceremonial occasions and another for daily use?
I think the latter suggestion makes sense. If the uniforms had belonged to
pages, they would have needed something sturdy, possible linsey-woolsey or
some such, for when they were doing their daily tasks, and something a bit
fancier for when they did such things as serving at a feast.
>
> I have also recently been reminded that Bilbo had entire rooms
> dedicated to clothes at Bag-End, so evidently the Shire possessed
> skilled tailors who could duplicate the clothing if they had access to
> the right materials.
I would think that likely. Both Merry and Pippin would have filled out a
bit in their maturity, and would be unlikely to fit in their same livery at,
say fifty or sixty, as they had when they returned from the Quest. And I
would be certain that they wore livery on visits to the King at Annuminas,
or even on possible visits to the South before they permanently retired
there in their later years.
(snip)
>>> [11] Why did Denethor abruptly back down? Did he simply realize
>>> that he had nothing to gain from a confrontation or did Gandalf subtly
>>> influence his mood somehow? Did the presence of Faramir and Pippin
>>> make any difference?
>>
>> He might have known well enough that although he had the authority to
>>command even Gandalf within the territory of Gondor, Gandalf was innately
>>the stronger. I do not think that the presence of Faramir and Pippin made
>>a
>>difference, since Denethor was not one to be swayed by the opinions of
>>others, and very probably not concerned with "face". He would be
>>concerned
>>with being this and that, not with seeming this and that.
>
> It just struck me as curious. Denethor is still grieving over the
> loss of his eldest son and had just learned that his worst enemy now
> has an excellent chance of recovering the one weapon that would make
> him absolutely invincible and, as if that was not enough, he has been
> betrayed by his own son. In other words, Denethor's mood is already
> perilous and Gandalf provokes him by asserting that Boromir would have
> betrayed his father as well had he taken the Ring. Yet Denethor
> masters his wrath rather suddenly and becomes almost conciliatory.
I think that at this point he simply did not wish to force the issue. And
remember at one point Gandalf accuses him of "using" his grief--and I think
Gandalf would have been fairly perceptive on that point.
Barbara
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47282 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 22:34 |
|
"Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2002 [at] nospamyahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:iovv819pescl2v2p2tl3atbc7i4stupak0 [at] 4ax.com...
[In reply to me]
> Well, Denethor had technically released Pippin from his service.
> Pippin replied that he did not wish to be released from his oath, of
> course, but I am not sure whether the oath was still legally binding.
> I wonder if Pippin renewed the oath to King Elessar. It is unlikely
> that Aragorn would have insisted on it, but hobbits were sticklers for
> formalities in such matters. :)
I suppose that since Pippin had sworn an oath of allegiance to the Lord
of Gondor and been released from it by a madman, he held himself bound by
it - and Aragorn agreed.
> > Faramir did not contest the fields of the Pelennor against the enemy,
> >but the passage of the river. That strategy was sound enough, since
> >during the crossing the invaders would be vulnerable, first to the
> >arrows of the defenders and then they would have to scramble in
> >disarray from boats up a riverbank against prepared enemies. Their
> >much larger numbers and the unexpectedly strong effect of the
> >presence of the Black Captain ensured their victory, but they paid
> >dearly. We are not given numbers of enemies fallen, but it may
> >well be that this defence of the bank reduced the enemy in
> >numbers sufficiently to make a positive difference when the
> >counterattack from the Rohirrim and the men from Pelargir
> >came. The strategy was of course also risky, since once the
> >enemy did win across and once other enemies pressed from the
> >north, where they had taken Cair Andros and passed on, the
> >surviving defenders had some miles to retreat to the City. And
> >but for the counterattack of Gandalf and the knights of Dol Amroth
> >they would indeed have been destroyed. Denethor may have had
> >his personality issues, but he was no military fool.
> That strategy is founded on the assumption that reinforcements would
> arrive. You must remember that Denethor himself doubted that the
> Rohirrim would come and that he had no reason at all to think that the
> men of southern fiefs could quickly overcome the corsairs and come to
> the aid of Minas Tirith. Faramir and Imrahil, both seasoned warriors
> well schooled in military tactics, seem to think that contesting the
> passage of the river with only the limited forces available was
> unwise. Denethor himself later admits the battle was "needless."
Denethor doubted that the Rohirrim would come, but was not certain that
they would not. He must similarly have at least hoped that the men from
Pelargir would win and send reinforcements. At any rate, in a battle such
as that your hope of victory hinges on the number of enemy casualties you
inflict. If Denethor could slay a large number of enemies on the west bank
of Anduin then this would be in his interest, whether he was hoping for
external succour or merely to endure a siege until the besiegers gave up and
left - or even if he hoped only to make Sauron's victory as expensive as
possible.
> You are correct that it was difficult for any besieging army to cross
> the river. You overlook two facts, however: The enemy had their own
> archers (who were much more accustomed to shooting in darkness and dim
> light than the archers of Gondor) and it was impossible to defend
> every foot of the Rammas Echor. That wall was at least thirty miles
> long and the enemy had sufficient forces to make assaults at different
> points. (That was how the wall was taken, in fact. Faramir's men
> were unable to prevent the forces of Mordor from placing charges that
> blew breaches in the wall.) Your argument about the attrition of the
> enemy works both ways: Every man that died on the ramparts of Rammas
> Echor was one less man to defend Minas Tirith. "For he can afford to
> lose a host better than we can to lose a company."
The enemy archers in the boats would be at a disadvantage compared to the
Gondorian archers on the river bank, presumably behind some sort of
fortification. And Faramir apparently did not try to defend the entirety
of the Rammas, but the much shorter "front" of the riverbank, the one place
where the River was narrow enough to be crossed in force. Or even if he
wanted to defend the Rammas as a whole, he would not have needed to dispatch
strength to all of it. Not when the strike against Minas Tirith came
through Anórien and across the River. Enemies could not attack the southern
and south-western parts of the Rammas Echor in force, unless they came
marching from a victory in the south. Since the south and south-east of the
Rammas was built upon the riverbank, the hosts from the Morannon and Morgul
could not simply spread south and west and encircle it. Judging by the
detailed map in my copy of the RotK, about two fifths of the Rammas would be
inaccessible to the Morannon and Morgul hosts.
This said, when I look at the map I wonder why the Rammas was not built
upon the river bank along a much greater distance. It would have been a
small additional effort to build the entire western face of the wall upon
the bank, all the way to West Osgiliath, rather than leaving a strip of
land, narrow but wide enough for enemy armies to maneuver in, from the bend
opposite Emyn Arnen to West Osgiliath. Then only the north face of the wall
would have needed to be strongly defended, and the enemy could have breached
the wall only in the north. As it happened, they breached it both in the
north and the north-east, adding entry points from which they could pursue
the retreating defenders.
Perhaps they could even have dug a moat along the north face of the wall.
They had been threatened by Mordor for generations, and they certainly had
the historical understanding to undertake a labour that would take many
years. But this depends on how steeply the land rose from the River to the
eastern end of the White Mountains. It would have been too difficult if
they would have had to dig the moat hundreds of feet deep most of the way.
Voron.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47283 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 22:49 |
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:34:22 -0500, Raven wrote
{snip}
> The enemy archers in the boats would be at a disadvantage compared to the
> Gondorian archers on the river bank, presumably behind some sort of
> fortification. And Faramir apparently did not try to defend the entirety
> of the Rammas, but the much shorter "front" of the riverbank, the one place
> where the River was narrow enough to be crossed in force.
{snip}
One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle at
the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER before fighting them.
What's the point of trying to hold a river crossing if you let the enemy
cross before fighting?
---
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47288 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 23:10 |
|
Graham Lockwood <g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote in
news:0001HW.BEB8FD8C00718B6DF0284600 [at] news.x-privat.org:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:34:22 -0500, Raven wrote
> {snip}
>> The enemy archers in the boats would be at a disadvantage
>> compared to the
>> Gondorian archers on the river bank, presumably behind some sort
>> of fortification. And Faramir apparently did not try to defend
>> the entirety of the Rammas, but the much shorter "front" of the
>> riverbank, the one place where the River was narrow enough to be
>> crossed in force.
> {snip}
>
> One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's
> battle at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
> before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
> crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
One of the classic methods of river defence to allow part of the
enemy force across before hitting them. By defending the banks and
not letting any across, one is committed to defending an entire
stretch of land. By letting some across, the enemy is committed to
crossing in that area. One then hits the fraction that has crossed,
and any reinforcements that make it across will be vulnerable and
good for little except dying.
Can't remember if Sunzi explicitly makes the point, but Clausewitz
certainly does in detail.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47289 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 23:16 |
|
Raven <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
<snip>
> when I look at the map I wonder
> why the Rammas was not built upon the river bank along a much greater
> distance.
<snip>
> But this depends on how steeply the land rose from the River
> to the eastern end of the White Mountains. It would have been too
> difficult if they would have had to dig the moat hundreds of feet
> deep most of the way.
This sounds like a plausible reason. Some others might be because they
built the quays of the Harlond there, or that the course of the river
changed slightly over the centuries, edging away from the Rammas and
depositing new land. But I don't find any of these theories totally
satisfactory.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47294 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 23:39 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Graham Lockwood <g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BEB8FD8C00718B6DF0284600 [at] news.x-privat.org:
>>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's
>>battle at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
>>before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
>>crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
>
>
> One of the classic methods of river defence to allow part of the
> enemy force across before hitting them. By defending the banks and
> not letting any across, one is committed to defending an entire
> stretch of land. By letting some across, the enemy is committed to
> crossing in that area. One then hits the fraction that has crossed,
> and any reinforcements that make it across will be vulnerable and
> good for little except dying.
But this is not what happens in the movie. Instead Faramir lets
the enemy across, lets them advance, and then engages in man to
orc combat with the the advace troops, all the while new enemy
troops keeps pouring in freely. In addition, he makes no actual
use of his archers, and his men seem to be so poorly trained
that they appear to lose in most of the one-on-one combats -
it's no wonder Denethor has so low opinion of his abilities. <g>
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47296 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 00:07 |
|
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d706uc$gk9$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>> Graham Lockwood <g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote in
>> news:0001HW.BEB8FD8C00718B6DF0284600 [at] news.x-privat.org:
>
>>>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's
>>>battle at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
>>>before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
>>>crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
>>
>> One of the classic methods of river defence to allow part of the
>> enemy force across before hitting them. By defending the banks
>> and not letting any across, one is committed to defending an
>> entire stretch of land. By letting some across, the enemy is
>> committed to crossing in that area. One then hits the fraction
>> that has crossed, and any reinforcements that make it across will
>> be vulnerable and good for little except dying.
>
> But this is not what happens in the movie. Instead Faramir lets
> the enemy across, lets them advance, and then engages in man to
> orc combat with the the advace troops, all the while new enemy
> troops keeps pouring in freely. In addition, he makes no actual
> use of his archers, and his men seem to be so poorly trained
> that they appear to lose in most of the one-on-one combats -
> it's no wonder Denethor has so low opinion of his abilities. <g>
Then it's a poor execution of a tactic, not a bad tactic in itself.
The idea of the tactic is to fix the enemy in place without allowing
swift and free reinforcement. Reinforcement of the enemy isn't a bad
thing in itself, since it can mean that more of them can be killed in a
single engagement, but the reinforcements should not be allowed to
overwhelm the defence.
For Christopher Kreuzer: the Time Commanders episode Tigranocerta
illustrated this almost to perfection, if stumbled upon by accident by
the team playing the Armenians. The Romans took the initiative by
crossing the ford, but the players had rushed units of archers and foot
to a nearby hillock. The advance guard of Roman horse was allowed to
cross, but the Armenian archers opened up once the legionaries started
to enter the water. As a result, the horse were isolated on the
Armenian bank while their infantry were losing order and crossing
slowly. Meanwhile, the rest of the Armenian army was marching up. By
the time enough Romans had crossed the river and wiped out the Armenian
van on the hill, they were disordered and in pieces, and the team
obligingly took them apart.
IIRC the dictum in the miscellaneous section of On War, where
Clausewitz discusses the correct use of the different arms, how to deal
with terrain, etc. I can't recall offhand an exact parallel in The Art
of War, but I do recall a Chinese example of the tactic in the notes of
my copy, recounted here in aft a few weeks back.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47300 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 03:43 |
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:49:32 -0500, Graham Lockwood
<g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote:
>
>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle at
>the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER before fighting them.
>What's the point of trying to hold a river crossing if you let the enemy
>cross before fighting?
>
Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Pop psychology is from
Uranus. Deal with it.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47312 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 10:42 |
|
aelfwina wrote:
> And I could imagine that the Houses of Healing might have had leave
> to keep one or two milk cows or even goats, since they might need it
> for the patient's diets. It's possible the quartermaster of the
> Guardsmen had leave as well. You will notice that they call the
> place Beregond and Pippin go for food the "buttery".
They must have bottled the milk, then, since "buttery" comes from
"botelerie" (bottle store). :)
--
Speaking Clock
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47318 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 15:08 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...Faramir lets
>> the enemy across, lets them advance, and then engages in man to
>> orc combat with the the advace troops, all the while new enemy
>> troops keeps pouring in freely. In addition, he makes no actual
>> use of his archers, and his men seem to be so poorly trained
>> that they appear to lose in most of the one-on-one combats -
>> it's no wonder Denethor has so low opinion of his abilities. <g>
>
> Then it's a poor execution of a tactic, not a bad tactic in itself.
And remember, it's not an army trying to fight another, possibly larger,
army. It's one small unit trying to harrass as much as possible an
enormous army. He obviously was in no position to defend the whole
riverbank, so he lets enough come across that he's got something to chew
on, then retreats when it gets too overwhelming. Given Faramir's
resources, I don't think there were really any opportunities for "good"
executions of tactics.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47325 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 17:42 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>
>
>>Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...Faramir lets
>>>the enemy across, lets them advance, and then engages in man to
>>>orc combat with the the advace troops, all the while new enemy
>>>troops keeps pouring in freely. In addition, he makes no actual
>>>use of his archers, and his men seem to be so poorly trained
>>>that they appear to lose in most of the one-on-one combats -
>>>it's no wonder Denethor has so low opinion of his abilities. <g>
>>
>>Then it's a poor execution of a tactic, not a bad tactic in itself.
>
>
> And remember, it's not an army trying to fight another, possibly larger,
> army. It's one small unit trying to harrass as much as possible an
> enormous army. He obviously was in no position to defend the whole
> riverbank, so he lets enough come across that he's got something to chew
> on, then retreats when it gets too overwhelming. Given Faramir's
> resources, I don't think there were really any opportunities for "good"
> executions of tactics.
Agreed, but again, this is not what happens in the movie.
Instead Faramir lets too many orcs across before encountering
them, and is unable to retreat in time, which results in high
losses in his troops, including his second in command.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47339 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 22:05 |
|
"the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:gvl791p7akug9dvbvfk677b7t4qajr8vmu [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:49:32 -0500, Graham Lockwood
> <g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote:
> >One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle
> >at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
> >before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
> >crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
> Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
What has Tolkien to do with this?
Hrafn.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47361 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 21:11 |
|
Morgil wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> And remember, it's not an army trying to fight another, possibly larger,
>> army. It's one small unit trying to harrass as much as possible an
>> enormous army. He obviously was in no position to defend the whole
>> riverbank, so he lets enough come across that he's got something to chew
>> on, then retreats when it gets too overwhelming. Given Faramir's
>> resources, I don't think there were really any opportunities for "good"
>> executions of tactics.
>
> Agreed, but again, this is not what happens in the movie.
> Instead Faramir lets too many orcs across before encountering
> them, and is unable to retreat in time, which results in high
> losses in his troops, including his second in command.
I don't think you can know whether he let "too many" across or not. Faramir
isn't concerned about retreating - they're at the end of the line. It's a
matter of taking out the most orcs possible with the resources at hand -
and knowing they're going to cross in the end, no matter what.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47362 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 14:50 |
|
Morgil wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Yuk Tang wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...Faramir lets the enemy across, lets them advance, and then
>>>> engages in man to
>>>> orc combat with the the advace troops, all the while new enemy
>>>> troops keeps pouring in freely. In addition, he makes no actual
>>>> use of his archers, and his men seem to be so poorly trained
>>>> that they appear to lose in most of the one-on-one combats -
>>>> it's no wonder Denethor has so low opinion of his abilities. <g>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then it's a poor execution of a tactic, not a bad tactic in itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> And remember, it's not an army trying to fight another, possibly larger,
>> army. It's one small unit trying to harrass as much as possible an
>> enormous army. He obviously was in no position to defend the whole
>> riverbank, so he lets enough come across that he's got something to chew
>> on, then retreats when it gets too overwhelming. Given Faramir's
>> resources, I don't think there were really any opportunities for "good"
>> executions of tactics.
>
>
> Agreed, but again, this is not what happens in the movie.
> Instead Faramir lets too many orcs across before encountering
> them, and is unable to retreat in time, which results in high
> losses in his troops, including his second in command.
>
> Morgil
The movie isn't a documentary! The book gives no clues about Faramir's
tactics, we just know that Sauron's army had overwhelming numbers and
crossed the river despite heavy casualties inflicted by Faramir's force.
The book makes clear that Faramir was a gifted commander so presumably
his tactics were good. The movie just dramatises thing for a good
picture. I remember viewing a movie about the battle of the Bulge in
world war 2. It showed the Americans building a wall of logs around this
town in belgium, then the German tanks just drove through it. No such
tactics would have been used in the real battle, the movie director just
made them up.
Jim Harker
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47370 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 16:47 |
|
Jim Harker wrote:
>
>
> Morgil wrote:
>> Agreed, but again, this is not what happens in the movie.
>> Instead Faramir lets too many orcs across before encountering
>> them, and is unable to retreat in time, which results in high
>> losses in his troops, including his second in command.
>>
>> Morgil
>
> The movie isn't a documentary! The book gives no clues about Faramir's
> tactics, we just know that Sauron's army had overwhelming numbers and
> crossed the river despite heavy casualties inflicted by Faramir's force.
> The book makes clear that Faramir was a gifted commander so presumably
> his tactics were good. The movie just dramatises thing for a good
> picture.
The book Faramir and the movie Faramir are two different characters.
What was showed in the *movie* was bad tactics leading to poor
results at high price. So the movie Faramir was clearly far less
gifted then the book Faramir. He had other poor qualities as well,
so it's not really surprising either.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47372 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 17:07 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>And remember, it's not an army trying to fight another, possibly larger,
>>>army. It's one small unit trying to harrass as much as possible an
>>>enormous army. He obviously was in no position to defend the whole
>>>riverbank, so he lets enough come across that he's got something to chew
>>>on, then retreats when it gets too overwhelming. Given Faramir's
>>>resources, I don't think there were really any opportunities for "good"
>>>executions of tactics.
>>
>>Agreed, but again, this is not what happens in the movie.
>>Instead Faramir lets too many orcs across before encountering
>>them, and is unable to retreat in time, which results in high
>>losses in his troops, including his second in command.
>
>
> I don't think you can know whether he let "too many" across or not.
They were clearly far too many for him to handle.
So if he "let" them across, he let in too many.
Faramir
> isn't concerned about retreating - they're at the end of the line.
How do you figure that? He most definetely should have been.
The city defences were seriously undermanned, and there were
even fewer able leaders at hand. The more people he could
have brought back the better.
It's a
> matter of taking out the most orcs possible with the resources at hand -
> and knowing they're going to cross in the end, no matter what.
It has been the point all along that more orcs could have been
taken out with less casualities if he had used better tactics.
In the movie it does not look like he gets hardly any more orcs
killed then the losses on his own side.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47373 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 18:05 |
|
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d74nic$mb3$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Jim Harker wrote:
>>
>> The movie isn't a documentary! The book gives no clues about
>> Faramir's tactics, we just know that Sauron's army had
>> overwhelming numbers and crossed the river despite heavy
>> casualties inflicted by Faramir's force. The book makes clear
>> that Faramir was a gifted commander so presumably his tactics
>> were good. The movie just dramatises thing for a good picture.
>
> The book Faramir and the movie Faramir are two different
> characters. What was showed in the *movie* was bad tactics leading
> to poor results at high price. So the movie Faramir was clearly
> far less gifted then the book Faramir. He had other poor qualities
> as well, so it's not really surprising either.
So the book Faramir was clearly far more gifted because the tactics
that led to the retreat weren't shown, even though the end result was
the same as the movie's? Is this your latest approach in the anti-
movie crusade?
On War 6:18 (p522-536 in my Everyman edition) discusses river
crossings in some detail.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47377 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 19:04 |
|
Wes ðu Yuk Tang hal!
>
> So the book Faramir was clearly far more gifted because the tactics
> that led to the retreat weren't shown, even though the end result was
> the same as the movie's? Is this your latest approach in the anti-
> movie crusade?
We know the book Faramir is a good captain because characters who have
had the ability to judge him - including Denethor - say he is. The
books also explain that he lost the battle for the river because the
enemy had built far more barges and floats to cross the river than they
had expected. Neither of these are apparent in the movies (which, by
the way, I liked overall). I certainly got the feeling that part of the
"denoblification" of Faramir effected by PJ was making him less capable
in addition to less wise.
--
Arvind
Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #47379 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 19:17 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d001022d475759f989f60 [at] news.individual.net:
> Wes ðu Yuk Tang hal!
>>
>> So the book Faramir was clearly far more gifted because the
>> tactics that led to the retreat weren't shown, even though the
>> end result was the same as the movie's? Is this your latest
>> approach in the anti- movie crusade?
>
> We know the book Faramir is a good captain because characters who
> have had the ability to judge him - including Denethor - say he
> is. The books also explain that he lost the battle for the river
> because the enemy had built far more barges and floats to cross
> the river than they had expected. Neither of these are apparent
> in the movies (which, by the way, I liked overall). I certainly
> got the feeling that part of the "denoblification" of Faramir
> effected by PJ was making him less capable in addition to less
> wise.
It was my impression in the film that they were overwhelmed by forces
more willing than expected to endure casualties and continue to
cross. Which isn't that far from the above - if anything, misjudging
enemy logistics, which is quantifiable, is more heinous than
misjudging enemy morale, which isn't.
There were many things which the film got obviously wrong. This
wasn't one of them.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49630 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 20:21 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:d74nic$mb3$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Jim Harker wrote:
>>
>>>The movie isn't a documentary! The book gives no clues about
>>>Faramir's tactics, we just know that Sauron's army had
>>>overwhelming numbers and crossed the river despite heavy
>>>casualties inflicted by Faramir's force. The book makes clear
>>>that Faramir was a gifted commander so presumably his tactics
>>>were good. The movie just dramatises thing for a good picture.
>>
>>The book Faramir and the movie Faramir are two different
>>characters. What was showed in the *movie* was bad tactics leading
>>to poor results at high price. So the movie Faramir was clearly
>>far less gifted then the book Faramir. He had other poor qualities
>>as well, so it's not really surprising either.
>
>
> So the book Faramir was clearly far more gifted because the tactics
> that led to the retreat weren't shown, even though the end result was
> the same as the movie's? Is this your latest approach in the anti-
> movie crusade?
Is this everything you are able to do these days - twist my words
around to make reasonable arguments to seem like "anti-movie crusade"?
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49632 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 20:41 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d001022d475759f989f60 [at] news.individual.net:
>>We know the book Faramir is a good captain because characters who
>>have had the ability to judge him - including Denethor - say he
>>is. The books also explain that he lost the battle for the river
>>because the enemy had built far more barges and floats to cross
>>the river than they had expected. Neither of these are apparent
>>in the movies (which, by the way, I liked overall). I certainly
>>got the feeling that part of the "denoblification" of Faramir
>>effected by PJ was making him less capable in addition to less
>>wise.
>
>
> It was my impression in the film that they were overwhelmed by forces
> more willing than expected to endure casualties and continue to
> cross. Which isn't that far from the above - if anything, misjudging
> enemy logistics, which is quantifiable, is more heinous than
> misjudging enemy morale, which isn't.
The book says the enemy paid less then expected from the crossing
because of the rafts, but they still paid heavily. In the movie
they suffered only minimal casualities, and the rafts were in
fact only a meaningless decoration since they also had built
bridges across the ruins and crossed through there as well.
> There were many things which the film got obviously wrong. This
> wasn't one of them.
Amusingly, this seems to be your answer to *any* specified point
of criticsm against the movies. It gets less and less credible
every time.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49641 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:06 |
|
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d7559j$3qe$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>> TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d001022d475759f989f60 [at] news.individual.net:
>
>>>We know the book Faramir is a good captain because characters who
>>>have had the ability to judge him - including Denethor - say he
>>>is. The books also explain that he lost the battle for the river
>>>because the enemy had built far more barges and floats to cross
>>>the river than they had expected. Neither of these are apparent
>>>in the movies (which, by the way, I liked overall). I certainly
>>>got the feeling that part of the "denoblification" of Faramir
>>>effected by PJ was making him less capable in addition to less
>>>wise.
>>
>> It was my impression in the film that they were overwhelmed by
>> forces more willing than expected to endure casualties and
>> continue to cross. Which isn't that far from the above - if
>> anything, misjudging enemy logistics, which is quantifiable, is
>> more heinous than misjudging enemy morale, which isn't.
>
> The book says the enemy paid less then expected from the crossing
> because of the rafts, but they still paid heavily. In the movie
> they suffered only minimal casualities, and the rafts were in
> fact only a meaningless decoration since they also had built
> bridges across the ruins and crossed through there as well.
So movie Faramir was different from book Faramir. Everyone knows that.
How was the tactic that movie Faramir used, that of allowing a section
of the enemy army across before attacking them, intrinsically bad? I
repeat the question, was it a bad tactic, or a bad execution of a good
tactic? Or even a good execution of a good tactic, rendered inadequate
by the enemy forces?
A Publius Claudius Pulcher was once blockading an enemy fleet when he
received news that enemy reinforcements were arriving. He decided that
he needed to force the issue, and took omens. The sacred chickens
refused to eat, upon which he threw them into the sea, remarking,
"Well, let them drink." His ships were stretched out and pinned
against the shore, and most of the fleet was lost. Was it a bad
decision to fight early, or was it a good decision rendered inadequate
by bad execution?
A Gaius Flaminius was following the superior Carthaginian army,
refusing to be drawn into a fight, but never allowing the enemy to rest
and driving them into an eventual junction with his fellow consul
Gnaeus Servilius. Hannibal found an ideal place and conditions for an
ambush beside the Trasimene lake, and having prevented adequate Roman
reconnaisance with his cavalry, caught Flaminius in the fog.
Flaminius's army was annihilated, and detachments from Servilius were
also destroyed as they tried to link up with the other army. Were
Flaminius's tactics bad, or were they good but badly executed, or were
they good and well executed, but rendered inadequate by enemy forces?
There aren't many examples in recorded history of minor forces holding
river crossings against overwhelmingly superior numbers (Clausewitz
notes that one's ambitions must be limited in those circumstances), but
Hannibal allowed some of the Romans to cross the Trebia before hitting
them. IIRC Caesar described the crossings of the Medway, Thames and
other rivers in his Commentaries, and Arrian also gives a fairly
detailed account of Alexander's crossing of the Hydaspes. These
examples all have a numerically superior force defending the crossing,
but they also have a common thread of extremely light patrols, if that,
watching the river while the bulk of the defence was held in reserve
waiting for the enemy to commit itself.
Criticisms of Faramir's tactics in the film are coloured by the modern
era of conscription warfare, in which the line can be strongly held in
all places, and mechanised weapons allow a few defenders to hold off an
attack for long enough to allow reinforcements to be rushed in from
another sector. One can criticise PJFaramir's tactics for not being
the same as JRRTFaramir's, but the original incredulity at allowing the
enemy to cross is misplaced.
>> There were many things which the film got obviously wrong. This
>> wasn't one of them.
>
> Amusingly, this seems to be your answer to *any* specified point
> of criticsm against the movies. It gets less and less credible
> every time.
I posted my thoughts on the portrayals of the characters soon after
seeing RotK, in which I described things I found unconvincing. I've
also done so on other aspects of the films in other posts. Ie. I've
listed things which I thought the films did wrong, and discussed (in
give and take fashion) them with others. How is this incredible?
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49644 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 23:43 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:d7559j$3qe$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Yuk Tang wrote:
>>>It was my impression in the film that they were overwhelmed by
>>>forces more willing than expected to endure casualties and
>>>continue to cross. Which isn't that far from the above - if
>>>anything, misjudging enemy logistics, which is quantifiable, is
>>>more heinous than misjudging enemy morale, which isn't.
>>
>>The book says the enemy paid less then expected from the crossing
>>because of the rafts, but they still paid heavily. In the movie
>>they suffered only minimal casualities, and the rafts were in
>>fact only a meaningless decoration since they also had built
>>bridges across the ruins and crossed through there as well.
>
>
> So movie Faramir was different from book Faramir. Everyone knows that.
Really? So it wasn't just my "anti-movie crusade" to claim that?
> How was the tactic that movie Faramir used, that of allowing a section
> of the enemy army across before attacking them, intrinsically bad? I
> repeat the question, was it a bad tactic, or a bad execution of a good
> tactic? Or even a good execution of a good tactic, rendered inadequate
> by the enemy forces?
IMO it was not a good tactic. It definetely was a bad execution
of the tactic, because too many humans and not enough orcs died.
The enemy forces acted as they would be expected to have, they
landed in numbers and rushed ahead attacking everyone they saw.
Good tactician would have been prepared for this.
> A Publius Claudius Pulcher was once blockading an enemy fleet when he
> received news that enemy reinforcements were arriving. He decided that
> he needed to force the issue, and took omens. The sacred chickens
> refused to eat, upon which he threw them into the sea, remarking,
> "Well, let them drink." His ships were stretched out and pinned
> against the shore, and most of the fleet was lost. Was it a bad
> decision to fight early, or was it a good decision rendered inadequate
> by bad execution?
It was bad tactics from him not to make sure the chickens were
hungry enough when he took the omens.
> Criticisms of Faramir's tactics in the film are coloured by the modern
> era of conscription warfare, in which the line can be strongly held in
> all places, and mechanised weapons allow a few defenders to hold off an
> attack for long enough to allow reinforcements to be rushed in from
> another sector.
Criticism is based only on what we are shown on the screen and
not coloured by anything. Faramir could gladly have used whatever
tactic he wanted, as long as it would have resulted into some
serious orc-ass kicking, instead of orcs kicking his ass.
One can criticise PJFaramir's tactics for not being
> the same as JRRTFaramir's, but the original incredulity at allowing the
> enemy to cross is misplaced.
Concentrate the archers around the landing spot, rain the
landing troops with arrows, then hit the remains and retreat
quickly would have worked 10 times better. Allowing the
enemy to land freely and then advance into your lines was
clearly the wrong way to go.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49653 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 02:45 |
|
Morgil wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you can know whether he let "too many" across or not.
>
> They were clearly far too many for him to handle.
> So if he "let" them across, he let in too many.
But you can't tell that it was a bad tactic, because...
> Faramir
>> isn't concerned about retreating - they're at the end of the line.
>
> How do you figure that? He most definetely should have been.
> The city defences were seriously undermanned, and there were
> even fewer able leaders at hand. The more people he could
> have brought back the better.
Not necessarily. We have no way of telling if he got more value out of
killing what orcs he could at Osgiliath than he would have got from saving
more of his men. Clearly in the books, his prime concern was to eliminate
as many of the enemy as possible, at _any_ cost, before they got to Minas
Tirith.
>
> It has been the point all along that more orcs could have been
> taken out with less casualities if he had used better tactics.
Ah, well in that case it's purely a matter of opinion, and I don't think
you're right.
> In the movie it does not look like he gets hardly any more orcs
> killed then the losses on his own side.
Well, it wouldn't. It would make for a damn poor movie (I know, you think
it was one) if they simply showed the good guys endlessly killing the bad
guys. So they showed us the essence of what was in the book - Faramir lost
almost all of his men.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49657 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 03:45 |
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:43:14 -0500, Morgil wrote
> Yuk Tang wrote:
{snip}
> One can criticise PJFaramir's tactics for not being
>> the same as JRRTFaramir's, but the original incredulity at allowing the
>> enemy to cross is misplaced.
>
> Concentrate the archers around the landing spot, rain the
> landing troops with arrows, then hit the remains and retreat
> quickly would have worked 10 times better. Allowing the
> enemy to land freely and then advance into your lines was
> clearly the wrong way to go.
MovieFaramir didn't use any archers that I recall (it's been a while). He
also didn't seem to actually do any defending. He had no defensive line at
all. Read "The Disaster of the Gladden Field" in UT to get a good
descriptions of Numenoreans inflicting devastating casualties on a FAR
numerically superior force on (more or less) open ground. And they did it by
sticking together and holding a line. What MovieFaramir did was split up,
hide, wait until his ranks were completely inundated by Orcs, and then attack
one-on-one. Whether that was a "poorly executed good tactic" or a "poorly
executed bad tactic" or a "well executed bad tactic" or whatever is a matter
of semantics IMO. It was a bad idea.
---
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49664 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 09:07 |
|
Yuk Tang wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> There aren't many examples in recorded history of minor forces holding
> river crossings against overwhelmingly superior numbers (Clausewitz
> notes that one's ambitions must be limited in those circumstances), but
> Hannibal allowed some of the Romans to cross the Trebia before hitting
> them. IIRC Caesar described the crossings of the Medway, Thames and
> other rivers in his Commentaries, and Arrian also gives a fairly
> detailed account of Alexander's crossing of the Hydaspes. These
> examples all have a numerically superior force defending the crossing,
> but they also have a common thread of extremely light patrols, if that,
> watching the river while the bulk of the defence was held in reserve
> waiting for the enemy to commit itself.
>
Robert Bruce's defeat of Edward II at Bannockburn in 1314 is a
notable example of an inferior force winning a river defence. The
English outnumbered the Scots by nearly three to one (25,000 to
9,000) and included substantial forces of armoured knights and of
archers, neither of which the Scots had in significant quantity.
Although the stream, before Stirling Castle, was small (nothing like
the lower Anduin!) it was surrounded by bogs and pools. On the second
day of the battle Bruce allowed the English heavy cavalry to gain the
firm ground on his side of the burn; his _schiltrons_ (pike
formations) were able to withstand the initial charge, which had
little concentration or momentum because of the difficulty of the
approach. They then counterattacked, driving the disorganized knights
back into the mass of infantry still negotiating the ford and narrow
gaps in the marsh, while the Scottish cavalry attacked the English
archers who threatened their flank. With no manoeuvring room between
the ranks of pikes and the boggy ground behind them, the large size
of the English force actually became a disadvantage, and their
confusion soon turned to panic and a complete rout.
--
Odysseus
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49666 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 11:58 |
|
Graham Lockwood wrote:
> MovieFaramir didn't use any archers that I recall (it's been a while). He
> also didn't seem to actually do any defending. He had no defensive line at
> all. Read "The Disaster of the Gladden Field" in UT to get a good
> descriptions of Numenoreans inflicting devastating casualties on a FAR
> numerically superior force on (more or less) open ground. And they did it by
> sticking together and holding a line. What MovieFaramir did was split up,
> hide, wait until his ranks were completely inundated by Orcs, and then attack
> one-on-one. Whether that was a "poorly executed good tactic" or a "poorly
> executed bad tactic" or a "well executed bad tactic" or whatever is a matter
> of semantics IMO. It was a bad idea.
Precisely. :-)
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49670 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 12:38 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Faramir
>>
>>>isn't concerned about retreating - they're at the end of the line.
>>
>>How do you figure that? He most definetely should have been.
>>The city defences were seriously undermanned, and there were
>>even fewer able leaders at hand. The more people he could
>>have brought back the better.
>
>
> Not necessarily. We have no way of telling if he got more value out of
> killing what orcs he could at Osgiliath than he would have got from saving
> more of his men. Clearly in the books, his prime concern was to eliminate
> as many of the enemy as possible, at _any_ cost, before they got to Minas
> Tirith.
Clearly in the books it was *not* so:
"he can afford to lose a host better than we to lose a company".
In the movies situation was even worse since Denethor apparently
had completely neglected to prepare for the attack.
"Where are Gondor's armies?", "foreseen and done nothing".
>>It has been the point all along that more orcs could have been
>>taken out with less casualities if he had used better tactics.
>
>
> Ah, well in that case it's purely a matter of opinion, and I don't think
> you're right.
They did a poor job. That is not a matter of opinion - it is
what we are shown in the screen.
>>In the movie it does not look like he gets hardly any more orcs
>>killed then the losses on his own side.
>
>
> Well, it wouldn't. It would make for a damn poor movie (I know, you think
> it was one) if they simply showed the good guys endlessly killing the bad
> guys.
It was even worse to have bad guys endlessly killing the good guys.
So they showed us the essence of what was in the book - Faramir lost
> almost all of his men.
Incorrect. In the book Faramir lost one third of his men, and
the enemy paid dear for the crossing. Not so in the movie.
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49674 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 12:45 |
|
Wes ðu Derek Broughton hal!
> Well, it wouldn't. It would make for a damn poor movie (I know, you think
> it was one) if they simply showed the good guys endlessly killing the bad
> guys. So they showed us the essence of what was in the book - Faramir lost
> almost all of his men.
Faramir lost a third of his men in the book. That's not "almost all" by
any measure.
--
Arvind
Synonym: a word you use when you can't spell the other one.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49676 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 14:28 |
|
TT Arvind wrote:
> Wes ðu Derek Broughton hal!
>> Well, it wouldn't. It would make for a damn poor movie (I know, you
>> think it was one) if they simply showed the good guys endlessly killing
>> the bad
>> guys. So they showed us the essence of what was in the book - Faramir
>> lost almost all of his men.
>
> Faramir lost a third of his men in the book. That's not "almost all" by
> any measure.
Ah, memory. I didn't have the books at hand, but my recollection was that
he returned with about as many men as in the movie (though I do recall that
he describes deploying other survivors elsewhere).
> Synonym: a word you use when you can't spell the other one.
LOL
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49682 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 17:32 |
|
Raven wrote:
> "the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:gvl791p7akug9dvbvfk677b7t4qajr8vmu [at] 4ax.com...
>
>
>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:49:32 -0500, Graham Lockwood
>><g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle
>>>at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
>>>before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
>>>crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
>
>
>>Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
>
>
> What has Tolkien to do with this?
The Battle of Maldon, a poem in Old English, that was an influence on
Tolkien in many ways. Certainly B allowed the enemy Norse to cross
over, in this case a small channel rather than just a river, before
engaging in battle.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49694 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 22:25 |
|
"Larry Swain" <theswain [at] operamail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:IumdnbIR3-ARoArfRVn-gg [at] rcn.net...
> Raven wrote:
> > "the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:gvl791p7akug9dvbvfk677b7t4qajr8vmu [at] 4ax.com...
> >>On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:49:32 -0500, Graham Lockwood
> >><g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote:
> >>>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle
> >>>at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
> >>>before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
> >>>crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
> >>Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
> > What has Tolkien to do with this?
> The Battle of Maldon, a poem in Old English, that was an influence on
> Tolkien in many ways. Certainly B allowed the enemy Norse to cross
> over, in this case a small channel rather than just a river, before
> engaging in battle.
This is well known to any regular on the Tolkien NGs. My point was
another. I was being facetious.
Craban.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49696 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 00:21 |
|
God, how I love to read these arm-chair generals! Related to Gilbert's
'Major-general', aren't we? Or the Duke of Plaza-Toro? Of course you
guys all have much more experience than PeeJay. And JRRT knew
*nothing*!
Carry On!
Carry Forth!
Excelsior!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"Aim towards the enemy." - Instruction printed on U.S. Army
rocket launcher
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49700 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 00:37 |
|
Wes ðu Raven hal!
> > >>>One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's battle
> > >>>at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE RIVER
> > >>>before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a river
> > >>>crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
>
> > >>Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
>
> > > What has Tolkien to do with this?
>
> > The Battle of Maldon, a poem in Old English, that was an influence on
> > Tolkien in many ways. Certainly B allowed the enemy Norse to cross
> > over, in this case a small channel rather than just a river, before
> > engaging in battle.
>
> This is well known to any regular on the Tolkien NGs. My point was
> another. I was being facetious.
*I* thought you were engaging in a bit of irony about what the movies
have to do with Tolkien, O feathered one.
--
Arvind
How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None:
"We'll fix it in software."
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49702 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 00:39 |
|
Wes ðu the softrat hal!
> God, how I love to read these arm-chair generals! Related to Gilbert's
> 'Major-general', aren't we? Or the Duke of Plaza-Toro? Of course you
> guys all have much more experience than PeeJay. And JRRT knew
> *nothing*!
Is this addressed to all who've generally claimed an acquaintance with
the military arts? Or just to a special kernel?
--
Arvind
How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49703 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 00:39 |
|
Larry Swain <theswain [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> Raven wrote:
>> "the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> skrev:
>>> Graham Lockwood <g-ng [at] yeehawgropes.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> One of the things I thought odd in the move version of Faramir's
>>>> battle at the river was that Faramir LET THE ORCS CROSS THE
>>>> RIVER before fighting them. What's the point of trying to hold a
>>>> river crossing if you let the enemy cross before fighting?
>>
>>> Ask Byrhtnoth. Tolkien knew him well.
>>
>> What has Tolkien to do with this?
>
> The Battle of Maldon, a poem in Old English, that was an influence on
> Tolkien in many ways. Certainly B allowed the enemy Norse to cross
> over, in this case a small channel rather than just a river, before
> engaging in battle.
I think he meant: "What has the movie to do with Tolkien"?
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49705 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 01:39 |
|
"TT Arvind" <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1d01b188184e171989f66 [at] news.individual.net...
> *I* thought you were engaging in a bit of irony about what the movies
> have to do with Tolkien, O feathered one.
Good.
> How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None:
> "We'll fix it in software."
How many religious fanatics does it take to change a light bulb?
One. He holds it still. Then God obediently turns the Universe around
him.
Hraban.
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49707 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 02:15 |
|
"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> A Publius Claudius Pulcher was once blockading an enemy fleet when
he
> received news that enemy reinforcements were arriving. He decided
that
> he needed to force the issue, and took omens. The sacred chickens
> refused to eat, upon which he threw them into the sea, remarking,
> "Well, let them drink." His ships were stretched out and pinned
> against the shore, and most of the fleet was lost. Was it a bad
> decision to fight early, or was it a good decision rendered
inadequate
> by bad execution?
There were those who said it was divine punishment for
his impiety!
:-)
--
Jette
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
"Organised religion is a disease and the most dangerous symptom is
that
those suffering from it believe that infecting others is a Good Thing"
|
|
|
| Re: LOTR, Book 5, Chapter 4: "The Siege of Gondor" [message #49709 ] |
Sa, 28 Mai 2005 08:27 |
|
"Jette Goldie" <jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in news:PKOle.41161
$G8.28951 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>> A Publius Claudius Pulcher was once blockading an enemy fleet when
>> he
>> received news that enemy reinforcements were arriving. He decided
>> that
>> he needed to force the issue, and took omens. The sacred chickens
>> refused to eat, upon which he threw them into the sea, remarking,
>> "Well, let them drink." His ships were stretched out and pinned
>> against the shore, and most of the fleet was lost. Was it a bad
>> decision to fight early, or was it a good decision rendered
>> inadequate
>> by bad execution?
>
> There were those who said it was divine punishment for
> his impiety!
It's one of the more amusing stories from the early-mid republic. In
an early version of Nelson, the Gaius Flaminius whom I'd mentioned
earlier refused to read instructions ordering him to return and
instead fought a Gallic army and won. According to ancient sources
(which were strongly biased against him), his deployment was
tremendously risky, backing his legions against a river and forgoing
the customary Roman freedom of manouevre. Was this a good execution
of a bad tactic? Did the fact that he won mean that the tactic was
good?
In another battle from slightly later on, Hasdrubal Barca fought
against the Scipio brothers in Spain, using the same tactics his
brother Hannibal deployed at Cannae. His Spanish centre crumpled
before his African wings could complete their manouevre, and his
valuable African troops lost heavily. Was it a bad tactic to hold a
weak centre and outflank with strong wings?
Those who snipe at PJFaramir's defence of Osgiliath should read some
accounts of river defences, plus Sunzi or Clausewitz's thoughts on
the matter. Clausewitz is better, since he writes more material on
the subject. If JRRTFaramir lost fewer troops in exchange for
heavier enemy losses, does that mean that PJFaramir was a buffoon, or
does it mean that JRRTFaramir was unrealistic? Or could it mean
both?
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:25:55 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06324 Sekunden |
