Cavalry Charge

I have alwasy been curiouse about how a real life charge would work. Its pretty easy to imagine the impact the horse will have running at say 40 miles an hour ( 65 kilometers ) and slamming into a human being. But what i have a hard time imagining is how the rider fights while the horse is in ful charge. He has his spear which he thrusts into the enemy. Now if he does this at that speed can he hold on to the spear as it makes contact with the enemy? or did they let go of the spear as soon as it made contact. Im also guessing that once the charge was over they didnt have use of their spears becasue it wold have been in the bodies of the enemy. I have an idea of how the charge worked, but im not quite sure. If any one knows about this topic i would appricated if u would inform me thanks.

i know in medieval period, the knights charged with their spears and after 1st impact most lances were broken and throwed away if not broken just dropped. after that they drawed their swords, and fought on. that's why most knights were used later on cause they were weakened after their 1st charge if you used them too soon, their effect was wasted because the other side was still strong enought to recover from the blow while the knights had no lances anymore for another charge. but in battles that lasted for days, the went back to get new lances

I think that some of your thoughs could be true, as that the spears should be broken or simply stuck in someone's body, so they should try to use a secondary weapon. That is not represented in the game, so it's probably not very realistic in this aspect.

Anyway, I don't believe that the horses charged at 65 km/h. They were not race horses, they were wearing some armour tehmselves and the rider on them surely wasn't as light as a jockey, and he also weared armour and hold some quite heavy weapons. Additionaly, the ground wouldn't probably be flat enough to allow maximum speed. In roman times, considering they hadn't stirrups, they surelly wasn't able to charge at that speed without falling themselves to the ground on impact. I think a quite large horse at about 30 km/h would be more than enough to effectively knock off some men and be able to get advantage of the disrupted formation.

that lance breaking thing is actually there, but i doesn works that right. after a charge they don't switch to secundairy but only after a while, and by then most fights are over. i you dan't like that push "alt+right click at the unit" for switching to secundairy weapons. highly recommended for catapharact camels and normal cataphracts as they have a mace that has Armour Piercing

I suspect that simply having a heavy horse and rider hit a group of people would knock over and break quite a few of them straight out. Add to that a lance and a disrupted or unprepared formation...

You lift the lance upwards right after the charge, then lower it again. That way you get another type of collission. If the target is lightly armored and the lance sharp enough the energy is transformed into destruction energy rather than movement energy and the impact isn't that problematic.

The big problem is that horse and rider isn't one unit. Using the lance will throw the rider out of the saddle, backwards upwards, which means a faster, stronger horse isn't necessarily an as big improvement as some people think. Which also, in return, means that the ancient charges weren't necessarily that much less powerful than the Medieval charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZZR Puig

I think that some of your thoughs could be true, as that the spears should be broken or simply stuck in someone's body, so they should try to use a secondary weapon.

In roman times, considering they hadn't stirrups, they surelly wasn't able to charge at that speed without falling themselves to the ground on impact.

---

Stirrups are not necessarily needed for a strong charge. It`s the saddle that gives the rider most hold. Also if the lance break or not on impact depends on the used tactic.


http://img213.echo.cx/img213/6574/la23xa.th.jpg

Ever been around a horse?

They don't need to be going very fast to have a devastating effect on you. From what I know of cavalry, charges at top speed were unheard-of. A little faster than a quick trot was preferred.

This is, incidentally, a major problem I have with the game. Certain "elite" units (an unwelcome throwback from hit point-based RTS games) seem able to stand up to a cavalry charge despite being hit from behind or the flank, at full charge. Many times I have watched my cavalry charge a group of marching hoplites from behind (or even skirmishers), impact, and watch as the hoplites stop leisurely, turn, and defend.

If cavalry, or any unit, really, hits you from the rear, that unit should immediately rout, period.

And thanks to the Delayer for the excellent photograph.

Real life charges were intended to skewer an enemy (or two) with one thrust, then the secondary weapon would be deployed. If a lance was used, and broken, it could be used as an effective club, but generally, some secondary weapon was equipped.

I think RTW cavalry charges will break any infantry unit (even elite ones) if the attack is from the rear, and wedge formation is used. It is also much better to have 2 units charging from different angles to consistently demolish some heavy infantry units.

I've been experimenting recently with Numidian Cavalry, and found that they can effectively destroy Principes when 2 units charge from the rear using the Alt+Attack with skirmish and missile options turned off. This works even in regular formation, which is surprising with such a light cav unit.

SPartans are so unrealistic, when they are charged from the side and the rear, they don't even rout. They were amazing warriors, amazingly trained and disciplined to have the best courage of all the Greeks but I think a cavalry charge from the side and the back would break them.

If you use 2 units to charge, the Spartans will break every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Livius

This is, incidentally, a major problem I have with the game. Certain "elite" units (an unwelcome throwback from hit point-based RTS games) seem able to stand up to a cavalry charge despite being hit from behind or the flank, at full charge.

---

Um, first time I have heard someone say cavalry charges are too weak in RTW. Did you ever play MTW? They seem massively stronger now despite the cavalry being historically weaker.

I tend to regard RTW units as representing bigger units. So I agree a cavalry charge against hoplites who were only say four men deep would be pretty horrendous (although I still have trouble thinking about horses charging into a solid wall of men). But presumably historically, ancient infantry were in more dense - ie deeper - units. In which case, you would have thought the cavalry would lose momentum and the conflict become a little more even.

I suspect a typical Roman legionnary formation of the period might be able to survive a rear charge by most cavalry of the day, if their morale held. More historically knowlegeable members might be able to correct me on this, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Um, first time I have heard someone say cavalry charges are too weak in RTW. Did you ever play MTW? They seem massively stronger now despite the cavalry being historically weaker.

I tend to regard RTW units as representing bigger units. So I agree a cavalry charge against hoplites who were only say four men deep would be pretty horrendous (although I still have trouble thinking about horses charging into a solid wall of men). But presumably historically, ancient infantry were in more dense - ie deeper - units. In which case, you would have thought the cavalry would lose momentum and the conflict become a little more even.

I suspect a typical Roman legionnary formation of the period might be able to survive a rear charge by most cavalry of the day, if their morale held. More historically knowlegeable members might be able to correct me on this, however.

---

Calvary charges are definitely overpowered if anything in this game. In this period calvary was only really good for fighting other calvary and harrassing the flanks/rear of enemy units. Even if calvary were left free to attack an enemy formation from behind, it would be (from what I've read) strictly a hit and run, skirmish type attack than the full speed rush that plows into the middle of the group. As for legionaries holding formation from a rear calvary attack, it would certainly be more likely than a phalanx type formation, but getting flanked by any kind of unit was usually lethal, even to the Romans.

In this game calvary is also often devastating charging non-spear units head on, which also is pretty inaccurate given our source material. However, given that the developers had to make some fun vs realism choices, I don't have a big problem with them making calvary more general purpose than it actually was.

Correct. In fact, the charge in those days were really just a collision of horse and flesh. The lance never came into it. I.e. the lance was not employed in such a way as to take advantage of the shock of collision. They would simply fly off their horses if they tried a charge with lances levelled. They used the lances for stabbing after the horses knocked away a few bodies. In other words, the initial contact didn't kill anyone unlike in the medieval days. It was the stabbing that happened later that did. Of course, the horses' hooves were also some pretty mean weapons, but most of it was poke poke poke while galloping around, not 'charge!'-CRASH-poke if you get my idea.

It is interesting that every now and then we have to debunk the 'stirrup'-myth. Stirrups are indeed not needed for a proper charge, they will help you keep your balance and it will most certainly keep strain down on the rider in a twirling melee.

Read this about the saddle and stirrups.
The link not only proves that stirrups are not needed, but more surprisingly even a saddle seems to be less important than believed. But then again the Companions and the Thessalians rode bareback.

Anyway, cavalry in the period we play weren't too keen on shock tactics, they were not armed or trained for that. A few were, Companions and the eastern cataphracts, but the vast majority were there to screen the infantry (that includes scouting and attacking skirmishers), protect them in retreat and chase the enemy in victory. Classical cavalry tactics.
Most of the horses in the period wouldn't be up to the task of running at a formed block of men.

Remember this when you complain that the cavalry can't run everything down from the rear.
Also remember that we have a major advantage in that our scales are much much more manageable (try getting a few thousand nobles on horses to stop chasing a fleeing enemy, wheel about and form ranks again... not easy) as well as we have perfect relations of orders. In these environments we can do things that would never have been possible back then.

hahaha guess we forget again the difficulties CA must juggle with. Oh well. I like shock cavalry if it's shock cavalry. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

SPartans are so unrealistic, when they are charged from the side and the rear, they don't even rout. They were amazing warriors, amazingly trained and disciplined to have the best courage of all the Greeks but I think a cavalry charge from the side and the back would break them.

---

One thing the game also does not show is the ability of infantry to form a square. Or for Spartans the many different formations within a single unit they could form.

Square seems more like the Napoleonic formation counter to cavalry.

Anyhow, lances can still be used without stirups and saddle. One just typically did not couch the lance. Instead, one would hold it and let go upon impact as to no get knocked off. Even this weakened punch is still enough to skewer a man.

The horseman also needs tremendously strong thighs and back to hold himself on the horse for this riding bareback.

It disturbs me when I see about 30-40 guys in chainmail and shorts with short spears riding on horses plow through SEVERAL HUNDRED other trouser-wearing types. Is it me or are cav charges way more effective in RTW than in MTW even though the cav are relatively weaker in comparison with the infantry of the times???

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

---

Well, the orcs were being flanked, and that was a LOT of horses. :charge:

The role of cavalry has alwasy been prized ever since ancient times. For example the Parthian and Armenian heavy cataphracts were known and feared for their devistative impact on the battle field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

It disturbs me when I see about 30-40 guys in chainmail and shorts with short spears riding on horses plow through SEVERAL HUNDRED other trouser-wearing types. Is it me or are cav charges way more effective in RTW than in MTW even though the cav are relatively weaker in comparison with the infantry of the times???

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

---

Heavy Orc 120kg, Light Horse 800kg.

Then times the mass by the speed and you soon see that a horse has a lot of momentum.

Quote:

---

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu......

---

Yeah, even more realistic was the fact that the horses were able to charge down a near vertical incline [Helm's Deep] without breaking their forelegs, but I suppose they had magic or some crap get-out like that. Or how the Orc's armed with pikes [Pelenor Fields] don't just skewer the horses so they throw their riders. Even the Scots had worked out that trick.
It makes much more sense in the book, but Peter Jackson doesn't seem to understand how battles work so you just have to try and imagine them being a bit better. I think he believes what we all thought when we were about 5 that the knight on horse back must beat the person on foot because the knight has a horse and a lance and is nobler.

P.S I kill the first person that points out it was a fantasy film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

P.S I kill the first person that points out it was a fantasy film.

---

It was a fantasy film.

But then the orcs on the Pelennor seemed a rather small breed (smaller than the Uruk-hai at least) and had shorter spears than the uruks at Helm's Deep. On top of that, they had some serious morale issues, as evidenced by their facial expressions. And from what we can see, there may only have been a few lines facing the charge - a charge by a cavalry force of 6000 men who happen to be the best and most experienced riders in the world at that time.

So, I can easily see them breaking through the first ranks of orcs. It becomes more problematic for me when they subsequently rout all 200 000 orcs on the battlefield (perhaps a bit less, what with the fighting over the city, but still). That's an incredible feat for only 6000 riders.

But no-one ever claimed mister Jackson was a military genius. Cavalry charge on a ruined city?

In the game though, some allowance has to be made for unrealistic aspects for the sake of fun. Many people love big, epic cavalry charges (especially after the LotR movies), therefore they must be in the game.

Quote:

---

But then the orcs on the Pelennor seemed a rather small breed (smaller than the Uruk-hai at least) and had shorter spears than the uruks at Helm's Deep..... And from what we can see, there may only have been a few lines facing the charge - a charge by a cavalry force of 6000 men who happen to be the best and most experienced riders in the world at that time.

---

True they were smaller, but this lot seemed to be armed with pikes rather than spears, which if used correctly are far more effective at bringing down a mounted soldier. The ones in the film wouldn't be too difficult to ram into a horses neck, making it stop suddenly and innevitably throwing its rider, who would be easy pickings while stunned if not dead from the fall. The horses behind the front ranks would most likely falter on the carnage infront of them or turn in terror. The orcs are also in a very deep column formation, as deep as it is long it seems. They have plenty of time to turn and meet the charge, so its not a flanking manouver and it wouldn't take more than 4 lines of pikemen/orcs to stop the charge.

Quote:

---

On top of that, they had some serious morale issues, as evidenced by their facial expressions.

---

A race created entirely for killing has morale issues? Are they frightened they won't live to see their lovely semi-detached home, with an ash-black picket fence in Mount Doom Springs or their darling wife and strapping young orclings again?

The real reason is simple. In fantasy or attempts at historical films, cavalry always beats infantry unless the infantry comes up with some wily tactic involving sharpened bits of wood (never actual pikes - BRAVEHEART GRRR) or fire pits. Because they never would've been able to get away with it as family film if it had horses being skewered like a kebab on the end of a pike and their riders stabbed repeatedly to death.

In the LOTR-universe orcs hate being outside by day, and are notoriously prone to running away if the going gets tough. Not the Uruk-Hai though.

In the movie that charge gave every person watching a rush - in my oppinion one of the best scenes ever, so who cares if it makes military sense.

Uruk Hai were dead humans and elfs that's why they were big

Orcs are also dead elfs, that's what I tohught anyway? ~:confused: ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

In the game though, some allowance has to be made for unrealistic aspects for the sake of fun. Many people love big, epic cavalry charges (especially after the LotR movies), therefore they must be in the game.

---

In interviews back in September, CA employees were claiming that RTW was like a movie such as Gladiator or Braveheart. MikeB took exception when I repeated those claims in this forum as if they were untrue because at the time marketing was still trying to portray RTW as having somewhat realistic gameplay. However, we can see now that RTW gameplay is more fantasy than reality. Even before RTW was released, LongJohn confirmed that elements were being put in the game to conform to popular conceptions.

Now the players who wanted an historical game are written off as hardcore when they point out issues. The irony is that despite CA's claim that gameplay comes before historical accuracy or realism, they failed to get the gameplay anywhere near the potential that the engine allows. Is the player who simply wants the RPS to function properly too hardcore now? It seems so. The gameplay is supposed to be RPS isn't it?

orcs were actually created by (melkor??) in mockery of the elves.

uruk-hai were simply a stronger breed, and i believe, as written in the appendices, were created with armour already attatched to their bodies.

Wow, thanks for that. I never heard about that.

Quote:

---

SPartans are so unrealistic, when they are charged from the side and the rear, they don't even rout. They were amazing warriors, amazingly trained and disciplined to have the best courage of all the Greeks but I think a cavalry charge from the side and the back would break them.

---

Maybe the game is leaning towards the legend of Spartan invincability abit much, but the classic example of Thermopylae demonstrates the power of the Spartans, there are examples of Spartans fleeing the battle-field but I think its right the Spartans are *over-powered* in the game though to be honest I have seen Spartans rout from Cavalry charges from the flank or rear, but alot of high class units dont rout, most just take the charge turn around and butcher the foolish cavalry.

It was my understanding the Uruk-hai were a mix of Goblin and Orc atleast thats the impression I got from the movies.

There are a few things in LOTR that are abit bizarre, the momentum of the charging Rohirrim 6000 in all surely couldnt pile through so many ranks of Orcs without losing cohesion and momentum. Also I remember the lead Orc at Pellenor saying Pikes in front archers behind, yet when the Orcs kneel down there wasnt a pike in sight, more like a mixture of poor standard spears and assorted arms.

Furthermore, I question the varying abilities of Orcs, one minute they are cutting Heavily armoured Gondorian knights up with their sub-standard weaponry whilst the Gondorians with thick armour from head to toe, and heavy weapons get annihilated, and yet outside the black gate totally enveloped the same Gondorian knights not only charge the Orcs but somehow manage to avoid the same catastrophe they experienced when defending their own city. Gah! im being picky but it is abit strange and a foolish oversight. ~:)

:duel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Aetius_

There are a few things in LOTR that are abit bizarre, the momentum of the charging Rohirrim 6000 in all surely couldnt pile through so many ranks of Orcs without losing cohesion and momentum. Also I remember the lead Orc at Pellenor saying Pikes in front archers behind, yet when the Orcs kneel down there wasnt a pike in sight, more like a mixture of poor standard spears and assorted arms.

Furthermore, I question the varying abilities of Orcs, one minute they are cutting Heavily armoured Gondorian knights up with their sub-standard weaponry whilst the Gondorians with thick armour from head to toe, and heavy weapons get annihilated, and yet outside the black gate totally enveloped the same Gondorian knights not only charge the Orcs but somehow manage to avoid the same catastrophe they experienced when defending their own city. Gah! im being picky but it is abit strange and a foolish oversight. ~:)

:duel:

---

It's a movie based on a fantasy story in which magic exists. The idea is that through cooperation the forces of good overcome the forces of evil. It doesn't matter how many Orcs there are or how they are armed. They are going to loose once that cooperative effort is carried out against them. I don't expect Jackson or Tolkein to get the use of medieval weapons correct since that isn't relavent to the story. The orcs loose due to an added mystical element which makes them relatively ineffective against the cooperating forces of good, but correct use of weapons is relavent to Total War games unless CA's intent is to make fantasy games disguised as historical games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Livius

If cavalry, or any unit, really, hits you from the rear, that unit should immediately rout, period.

---

Yup, I'd be screaming my ass off before I even knew what happened. Then if I saw knights chasing me with swords......

Not unless you were a highly trained unit trained to expect what was about to happen. So your training would kick in and you would turn around and hack away at the rear-chargers, but even then you should run if you saw more horses around you than your sacred band gay partners, for example. Okay, the sacred band was an exception, but. Units with training shouldn't immediately run, but it'd be just a matter of a slow count of 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

But then the orcs on the Pelennor seemed a rather small breed (smaller than the Uruk-hai at least) and had shorter spears than the uruks at Helm's Deep. On top of that, they had some serious morale issues, as evidenced by their facial expressions. And from what we can see, there may only have been a few lines facing the charge - a charge by a cavalry force of 6000 men who happen to be the best and most experienced riders in the world at that time.

So, I can easily see them breaking through the first ranks of orcs. It becomes more problematic for me when they subsequently rout all 200 000 orcs on the battlefield (perhaps a bit less, what with the fighting over the city, but still). That's an incredible feat for only 6000 riders.

But no-one ever claimed mister Jackson was a military genius. Cavalry charge on a ruined city?

In the game though, some allowance has to be made for unrealistic aspects for the sake of fun. Many people love big, epic cavalry charges (especially after the LotR movies), therefore they must be in the game.

---

Orcs started with 10k, so you are looking at more like a 1:1 matchup at this point.

[QUOTE=Al Khalifah]Yeah, even more realistic was the fact that the horses were able to charge down a near vertical incline [Helm's Deep] without breaking their forelegs, but I suppose they had magic or some crap get-out like that. Or how the Orc's armed with pikes [Pelenor Fields] don't just skewer the horses so they throw their riders. Even the Scots had worked out that trick.

QUOTE]

Usually horses won't impale themselves, instead they'll just run amok. It is when the enemy runs into the misfortune of a disruption or a whole in there line that the horse will pour through

Quote:

---

I don't expect Jackson or Tolkein to get the use of medieval weapons correct since that isn't relavent to the story.

---

I do expect Tolkien to get it correct, because Tolkien and not-correct simply don't match. And he did provide a pretty detailed account of the Battle of the Pelennor, recounting troop movements and positions and the such. About the orcs having too lose simply because they're evil and fighting the good guys, that makes sense to a certain degree, but if you look beyond the events narrated in the LotR, you'll see a lot of good guys, no matter how much they cooperate, having their behinds handed to them by the baddies.

Quote:

---

Orcs started with 10k, so you are looking at more like a 1:1 matchup at this point.

---

That was at Helm's Deep. It has been stated many times by the filmmakers that there are about 200k orcs at the siege of Minas Tirith. 6k horsemen would have found themselves bogged down in that huge mass pretty soon. Orcs have bad morale, but not that bad.

I won't get into the whole Uruk-hai/goblin-men/half-orcs thing here, it's a pretty complicated thing and might be a wee bit off-topic here. ~:)


I haven't yet been so lucky of having to face Spartans in battle, so I don't have anything useful to contribute there. I wanted to say, though, that in my Seleucid campaign most of my battles were won by my cavalry, with my phalanxes often just standing there watching the show. At any rate the infantry was often not the deciding factor, even if it did join in the fighting. I just marched my entire line forward (or waited for the enemy to do that) and then flanked them, or simply charged weaker units head-on with heavy cavalry or scythed chariots. Seeing as how I had started this campaign thinking I'd be using mainly phalanxes, I did get the impression that perhaps cavalry was just a wee bit too good (more so because I'd been doing this even before I could train cataphracts). But then sometimes I also suffered some horrendous casualties among my mounted forces, so I dunno really...

Halfways through my first campaign with Carthago, I realized that my infantry units most often never even moved in most non-siege battles. All time was spent micromanaging flank and rear charges with my cavalry. After a while, I got bored and tried to just charge ahead with my cavalry and see what would happen. Sure, I took more casualties, but the enemies were trounced. Cavalry is definately overpowered, most forces can crush their enemies easily with unsupported cavalry (Germania being the only exception, which I played through more or less entirely with spear warbands, and the Greek).

Thus far, I've broken all non-phalanx units with frontal cavalry charges, even with light cavalry. And let's not start about the Scythians... ;) So yes, it's pretty safe to say that cavalry is horribly overpowered. However, when I'm lazy and want to get through the battle quickly, they work wonders.

Oh, and about the Uruk-Hai and the Orcs: this far, noone has gotten it entirely right. Long version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Mi...origin_of_Orcs

Short version: Uruk-Hai are crossbreeds (orcmen), while Orcs were *supposedly* created from elves. Where did all this "dead men" and "dead elves" debacle came from? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

I do expect Tolkien to get it correct, because Tolkien and not-correct simply don't match. And he did provide a pretty detailed account of the Battle of the Pelennor, recounting troop movements and positions and the such. About the orcs having too lose simply because they're evil and fighting the good guys, that makes sense to a certain degree, but if you look beyond the events narrated in the LotR, you'll see a lot of good guys, no matter how much they cooperate, having their behinds handed to them by the baddies.

---

Well, did Tolkien get it correct? I know he was a medieval scholar. I have the book. I could read about the battle tonight, but I've never heard of LoTR being used as a historical reference to medieval battles. In the movie, there is a ghost army of previously fallen warriors that comes and saves the day. Is that in the book? What is the correct effectiveness of a ghost army?

I think the large number of good guy casualties is related to Tolkien's exerience in the Battle of the Somme.

Quote:

---

It's a movie based on a fantasy story in which magic exists. The idea is that through cooperation the forces of good overcome the forces of evil. It doesn't matter how many Orcs there are or how they are armed. They are going to loose once that cooperative effort is carried out against them. I don't expect Jackson or Tolkein to get the use of medieval weapons correct since that isn't relavent to the story. The orcs loose due to an added mystical element which makes them relatively ineffective against the cooperating forces of good, but correct use of weapons is relavent to Total War games unless CA's intent is to make fantasy games disguised as historical games.

---

I know its a film and especially in fantasy type films you expect characters to be able to do things real people couldnt possibly do, e.g Aragorn effortlessly killing hordes of Orcs in all three of the movies, and more often than not leaves the battle unscathed.

However they could atleast have bothered to be consistant, Orcs with assorted arms, no real appreciation for tactics and strategy, less than impressive armour and absolutely zero discipline, against well trained, fully armoured, excellently well-armed knights behind massive walls, logic and common sense would say that the Orcs would stand little chance in battle against them.

Even including the element of fantasy its ridiculous that Orcs can defeat these knights as if they are nothing and yet as soon as Aragorn turns up the Orcs turn into the Total war equivilant of peasants.

I think they should have tried to be abit more consistant, and lets face it how many sieges of massively defended fortresses end as fast as the one in Return of the king? not many, there are elements that dont exist in reality, ringwraiths dive bombing the defenders for example but its still daft the way varyng extremes of skill, abilty, strength and weakness run right through the film. One minute, Orcs are invincable, the next they are pathetic, one minute armour seems to mean nothing the next it seems utterly unpenetreble.

Aetius:

"And these blast points, too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise." followed by three movies of not hitting anything, even at point-blank range. It's not like he's the first. ;)

heh that one always cracks me up ~D

"It was my understanding the Uruk-hai were a mix of Goblin and Orc atleast thats the impression I got from the movies."

haha here's my long hidden tolkien-nerdisms coming out.

according to tolkien, goblins and orcs were interchangeable. the mention of goblins in LoTR is rare (if any), they are however seen in The Hobbit, which is as tolkien stated more of a child's stories. A child's story where the word 'goblin' was more at home than Orc.

some tolkien-ites assume that Orcs and Goblins are one and the same, but Goblins are generally seen as the smaller ones...

"yet when the Orcs kneel down there wasnt a pike in sight, more like a mixture of poor standard spears and assorted arms."

DO NOT go by the movie. Again, as a closet tolkien-fanatic, there are so many things 'wrong' or incongruant with the book.

"Short version: Uruk-Hai are crossbreeds (orcmen), while Orcs were *supposedly* created from elves. Where did all this "dead men" and "dead elves" debacle came from? :)"


i know i've seen in LoTR, possibly the appendices, or maybe the Silm.... And I've seen it has been said that orcs are simply 'fallen elves' (i.e. through torture) but there are several points about that are inconsistent.

*keeps up the tolkien nerdism*

The problem is that Tolkien rewrote both smaller and major parts of his universe, and since the majority of texts that are published are simply notes and incomplete texts, they are understandably incoherent. Goblins were discarded to remove some of the most obvious connections to folklore, together with fairies and gnomes. Since this decision was made after The Hobbit, the confusion has (and propably will) not end. :)

Quote:

---

Well, did Tolkien get it correct? I know he was a medieval scholar. I have the book. I could read about the battle tonight, but I've never heard of LoTR being used as a historical reference to medieval battles. In the movie, there is a ghost army of previously fallen warriors that comes and saves the day. Is that in the book? What is the correct effectiveness of a ghost army?

---

Obviously (I hope) I'm not trying to use it as a historical reference. It's a fantasy book, no matter how carefully constructed. It has magic. Furthermore, Tolkien could, of course, not get into the technicalities of a battle since he had a story to tell. But we do see Eomer, for instance, leading a furious charge against the enemies on the southern part of the Pelennor, after finding the apparently dead Eowyn (and this is where we get the 'Ride to ruin, and the worlds ending' and 'Death' thingies). His men drive great wedges into the enemy formations, but then they lose momentum and get bogged down, since there's still a lot of the Mordor buggers left and the swan knights of Dol Amroth can't come to their aid immediately as new enemy forces march up to prevent just that. Eomer then dismounts and decides to try and form a shieldwall to fight on foot till the bitter end. So, like ancient cavalry wasn't as overpowered as in RTW, so Rohan's cavalry could not sweep away an entire army as it did in the movie.

The Army of the Dead in the book is nothing like that in the movie. It's effectiveness is in the immense fear it inspires: when Aragorn and his company ride through Gondor with the dead following, people everywhere lock themselves in their houses. The dead are used at Pelargir to scare away the crews of the black fleet of the Corsairs of Umbar (with many of them simply jumping into the river) and are then released by Aragorn, who subsequently mans the fleet with a few thousand Gondorians and sets sail for Minas Tirith.

Quote:

---

lets face it how many sieges of massively defended fortresses end as fast as the one in Return of the king? ... One minute, Orcs are invincable, the next they are pathetic

---

Most real-life sieges don't have a Witch-King breaking the gate and scaring away the defenders. There do seem to be various breeds of 'elite' and lowly grunt orcs, but the thing here is that it is necessary in this movie to have the orcs winning at one time and then losing at another, because that's how the story goes. It's a matter of making very clear just how desperate the situation is (invincible orcs) or how great the victory of the good guys (TW peasant orcs).
Or something like that.

One more thing, for another interesting military action in Middle-Earth, check out the account of the Battles of the Fords of Isen in Unfinished Tales. Some nice details there, on the various phases of the battles and the tactics employed, as well as the military organisation of the Rohirrim.

If you're still with me after all that, I want to apologise for this far too lengthy off-topic (I think at least) post. I'm just a bit of a LotR fanboy, as you may notice. But it's 2am and I need to finish a paper on Alfred the Great's little Viking problem by Friday the 13th (and I only just now realize the horrible implications of that date... :sick: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

That was at Helm's Deep. It has been stated many times by the filmmakers that there are about 200k orcs at the siege of Minas Tirith. 6k horsemen would have found themselves bogged down in that huge mass pretty soon. Orcs have bad morale, but not that bad.

---

First off, sorry, in the preceding paragraph you'd been talking about Helm's Deep and I figured it was a continuation of that.

Secondly, its been proven historically it doesn't really matter the total size of the army once the front ranks disperse and flee, the whole thing is going to take off. There's no real easy way for the group getting charged to get together ~:grouphug: say "OK, look, they scared off thousands of our guys over here, but starting at point X we are going to reform and stop them". Its definitely a chain reaction/wave like effect. If everyone around you is starting to run, you are going to take off too.

That's why casualty rates were often so lopsided in the ancient world. The battle starts turning against you, everyone takes off, and then they are easily slaughtered running away. Certainly if the Persians had decided to all stand and fight, Alexander wouldn't have been able to kill 50,000 of them while his losses only ran in the hundreds.

So more to your point, once the calvary in ROTK had crushed the front line, it is very conceivable that there would be no mass left to get bogged down in, as everyone would likely be running for their lives at that point.

Well yes, but ancient battles did not have the kind of numbers we see in the RotK movie. I still think 6,000 riders would not be able to rout an entire 200,000 army just like that. If nothing else, they'd simply lose momentum because of the thousands of routers, giving the ones further at the back a chance to regroup and attack the bogged down cavalrymen.
All in my most humble opinion, of course.

I must also point out that I adore the movies and simply try to ignore the military implausibilities, because they just feel so damn good.

And I don't know why I'm still not in bed.

My God, I've unleashed a horde of LOTR fans with just one sentence! ~:eek:
Thats okay though, I'm a LOTR geek too.

My thoughts on Helm's Deep:
In the movie, Gandalf finds Eomer with a cavalry only force and leads him to Helm's Deep where they charge down a 60 degree incline. That was ridiculous. Unless the horse were all inspired to charge after their "leader" shadowfax, I don't know any horses that would do something insane like that. That was literally a cliff. Waiting at the bottom of the cliff was a steel wall of 16-18ft pikes. Rows upon rows of them. Now I don't know what Gandalf did, but he apparently flashbangs them with some light right before impact, possibly making the uruks relax their grip??? Even with that said, there should be a pile of dead horses with broken legs and necks at the bottom of that cliff. All the other horses should have tripped over the first few ranks who ate dirt, and suffered the same fate. Uruks on the far side of the ravine should then have come up and cut the dazed and heavily injured survivors into lunch.

In the book however, I don't believe they charged down a cliff, and another marshal was leading the relief force, which was mostly infantry. Eomer was inside Helm's Deep. THey lead a charge of royal knights (probably a couple hundred, not just the fellowship plus King Theoden that is a charge of 6-8 people only?!?!?!). The infantry came from behind and pinned the surviving beseigers between them and the fortress, and it was STILL a close battle. I guess it would be anticlimatic for them to have the "big charge" and the battle is still not decided by it.

My thoughts on Pelennor:
There were four separate armies assaulting Minas Anor. One from Mordor, Sauron's own men, one from Minas Ithil, the Witch King's own army, one from Far Harad, and one of Easterlings from beyond the sea of Rhun. Plus another army of dark numenoreans from Umbar, better known as corsairs. All these armies totaled up to possibly 200k.
The city was defended by I believe only 4-6k men (it would've been cool if they shown the provincial troops coming into the city like in the book). Add this number to the 6-8k relief force of Rohirrim cav, plus a couple more thousand provincial troops Aragorn brought in the ships.
When the Rohirrim charged, the 6k cav would have probably broken about 20-30k men, but going at the speed they were going, plus going into densely packed infantry formations, it wouldn't have mattered if the infantry ran or not: they would have eventually bogged down hitting all those dead bodies, or tripped over dead bodies, something. The orcs needn't be brave, they just needed to be THERE.
As soon as they broke one army however, there were 3 other armies arrayed against them on other parts of the field. Those could have easily came up and folded the Rohirrim flank while they were charging. 6k men on horses is nowhere NEAR enough men to break 200k.
I don't know if horses can take hitting all those orcs with their chest all day. From the looks of it their armor is sort of jagged: wouldn't the horses have been cut or their chest cavity broken from so many impacts? Remember these horses were UNARMORED.

I'd write more but this is getting too long. We should start a new thread about LOTR. hahahahaah.

P.S.
Major disapointment: In the movie, NO sons of Elrond, Halbarad and the northern Dunedain, Prince of Amroth and the swan-knights of Amroth, and NO provincial troops brought on board ship! That ghost army was extremely disappointing. I think one of the best scenes in the book was when the banner of the King (which the movie producers decided to make "white" the steward's banner color instead of "black" like it should be. I guess they thought it'd confuse people on why the good guys AND bad guys flags were black) was unfurled as the ships sailed into the dock.
Wanted to see how good te Sons of Elrond were. From what I've heard/read, they're supposed to make Legolas look like a weakling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

Well yes, but ancient battles did not have the kind of numbers we see in the RotK movie. I still think 6,000 riders would not be able to rout an entire 200,000 army just like that. If nothing else, they'd simply lose momentum because of the thousands of routers, giving the ones further at the back a chance to regroup and attack the bogged down cavalrymen.
All in my most humble opinion, of course.

I must also point out that I adore the movies and simply try to ignore the military implausibilities, because they just feel so damn good.

And I don't know why I'm still not in bed.

---

I'll challenge you (weakly) on that claim, because it is arguable that in Alex the Great's battle of Gaugamela, his 7000 Companion Cavalry singlehandedly achieved the rout of all 200000 of Darius III's grandest army by a) breaking through the centre, which was weakened, b) aiding Parmenion on the Macedonian left by routing the cavalry units forcing Parmenion back through appearing in their rear, and c) inspiring the fear of Zoroaster in the Persian left (on the Macedonian right) when they saw the rest of their army being run into the dust and Alexander coming for them. It can be done... even if units reform after the first charge, their morale is still significantly lowered. I believe it has something to do with hormones. The successive charges will break through them easier and easier. Not to mention their numbers get lesser and lesser.

in rtr 5.4 i started a campaign as armenia and man was it hard!!! i was playing on medium and i lost everything to the parthians. They kept on comming with full stacks of ha and cataphracts when i read their description card it said that they are auxilaries of the Selucids and their upkeep cost was very low im confused can someone help me on the subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

When the Rohirrim charged, the 6k cav would have probably broken about 20-30k men, but going at the speed they were going, plus going into densely packed infantry formations, it wouldn't have mattered if the infantry ran or not: they would have eventually bogged down hitting all those dead bodies, or tripped over dead bodies, something. The orcs needn't be brave, they just needed to be THERE.
As soon as they broke one army however, there were 3 other armies arrayed against them on other parts of the field. Those could have easily came up and folded the Rohirrim flank while they were charging. 6k men on horses is nowhere NEAR enough men to break 200k.

---

Those orcs were spread out over miles, the Rohirrim didn't have to overrun all of them. Like I mentioned before, once the first major resistance crumbled, its certainly reasonable that all of them would take off, some without even having seen the enemy. And one of those other armies you were talking about DID rally (the southern guys I forget their name), stopping their momentum.

Although I'm a LOTR dork too, my main point is that the battle psychology of any of these troops is very fragile, in real life or the movie. Soldiers in any era are liable to pack it and run if they see their comrades running for it, especially an undisciplined mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

My thoughts on Pelennor:
There were four separate armies assaulting Minas Anor. One from Mordor, Sauron's own men, one from Minas Ithil, the Witch King's own army, one from Far Harad, and one of Easterlings from beyond the sea of Rhun. Plus another army of dark numenoreans from Umbar, better known as corsairs. All these armies totaled up to possibly 200k.
The city was defended by I believe only 4-6k men (it would've been cool if they shown the provincial troops coming into the city like in the book). Add this number to the 6-8k relief force of Rohirrim cav, plus a couple more thousand provincial troops Aragorn brought in the ships.
When the Rohirrim charged, the 6k cav would have probably broken about 20-30k men, but going at the speed they were going, plus going into densely packed infantry formations, it wouldn't have mattered if the infantry ran or not: they would have eventually bogged down hitting all those dead bodies, or tripped over dead bodies, something. The orcs needn't be brave, they just needed to be THERE.
As soon as they broke one army however, there were 3 other armies arrayed against them on other parts of the field. Those could have easily came up and folded the Rohirrim flank while they were charging. 6k men on horses is nowhere NEAR enough men to break 200k.

---

I read Tokien's Pelennor battle last night, and it's lacking in tactical detail, but the overall strategic situation is well described. He sets up a hopeless situation for the good guys, but somehow they win anyway after fighting a day long battle as different groups arrive on the battlefield at various times. There aren't 200k enemies. There are "countless" enemies stretching as far as the eye can see, and all of them except for a handful are killed by the end of the day. The mounted knights cut through their enemies the way a "flaming bolt cuts through a forest". I saw no mention of pikes in this battle. He does have infantry coming out from the city and coming in as reinforcements, and the mounted knights eventually dismount and fight defensively on foot behind a shield wall. The relative positions and movements of the various armies is provided, and some of them get flanked or trapped between two enemy armies. So, you can picture this battle on a large scale. The killing of the Dark Lord is described in detail. Other individual's deeds are described in heroic terms.

I guess the problem for Peter Jackson in making the movie is that he pretty much has to show how the good guys won at a more tactical level, but that isn't described in the book. It's paradoxical, because in the book the enemy are made to appear formidable, but end up being killed at a rate that must approach something like 100:1. I liked the way Oliver Stone handled the battle of Guagamela in the movie Alexander by letting it become obscured by clouds of dust because no one really knows how Alexander's forces won that battle at the level of the individual fighing.

I see the ghost army in the LoTR movie was a gimmick so the battle could be wrapped up quickly. It reminds me of the fast battles in RTW. I enjoyed the Battle of the Pelennor field in the movie up to the point where the ghost army arrived because I had never read the book, and the outcome was in doubt. Of course, it wasn't actually in doubt because could Tolkien really have ended his story with the dark forces winning? Could George Lucas allow Darth Vader to win? No! He had to let the relatively weaker Skywalker come out on top. It's practically out of the question to let the bad guys win in a movie, but if you get a chance check out the movie "The Great Silence" someday.

Quote:

---

I'll challenge you (weakly) on that claim, because it is arguable that in Alex the Great's battle of Gaugamela, his 7000 Companion Cavalry singlehandedly achieved the rout of all 200000 of Darius III's grandest army

---

There are other factors, mainly the fact alot of Darius' army wernt of high quality, more like men dragged from farms and cities given a sword and told to kill Macedonians, their loyalty is more than suspect and when things go wrong they flee back home. If all 200,000 men converged on the 7000 cavalry then the cavalry would be annihilated, as this was not so, hitting a section of the persian army routing it, moving on routing it moving on routing it etc etc etc, rolling up the persian line as Alexanders left used the tactics of refusing a flank thus refusing envelopment meant that Darius' superior numbers meant nothing in the end. His cavalry was free to charge and rout portions of the persian line and having time to regroup and charge again aslong as the Persians couldnt envelop them it was only a matter of time before Darius' army buckled especially since alot of them were what id hardly call professional dedicated men.

Back to LOTR, when I mentioned pikes I only brought it up because its bizarre that a character can give the order to put the pikes in front if there are no pikes, its one of numerous silly inconsistancys in the movie. I know the movie doesnt follow the books perfectly but its strange that the mention of pikes is there when there are clearly no pikes in Orc battle line.

I think the ghost army is the biggest most ridiculous end to a battle I have ever seen, I mean I expected the good guys to win but to win with an invincable army that can run through people just took my interest away. The Rohirrim must have been gutted though, most of their army including their king lay dead on the field when if theyd waited abit longer none neednt of died as the ghost army would have just strolled through the enemy.

Kind of made the battle before that point totally meaningless.

Quote:

---

Most real-life sieges don't have a Witch-King breaking the gate and scaring away the defenders. There do seem to be various breeds of 'elite' and lowly grunt orcs, but the thing here is that it is necessary in this movie to have the orcs winning at one time and then losing at another, because that's how the story goes. It's a matter of making very clear just how desperate the situation is (invincible orcs) or how great the victory of the good guys (TW peasant orcs).
Or something like that.

---

There does seem to be various breeds of Orc and what not, but that changes little, you cant take a fortress like that in a couple of days it cant be done, unless the defenders are so incompetant they forgot to put their armour on or something.

All I wanted is for the armies to be consistant, the movie could have shown the Orcs assault on the city fail a few times, as they have more than enough Orcs to keep up the siege, instead it takes one assault to overrun an easily defendable fortress city with well trained well armed and heavily armoured knights. That is daft, especially when 6000 unarmoured cavalry pile through 200,000 of the same Orcs with ease minutes later. Its blatent inconsistancy.

Need i even mention Eowyn's amazing ability to bring an Elephant to its knees using her sword.....considering the Rohirrim had fired hundreds of arrows, thrown dozens of spears into the elephants to little effect, she rides along and with a flick of her sword brings the beast to its knees. Its just stupid.

Finally again, the battle before the black gate, these gondorians and men of rohan have just fought a monumental battle marched all the way on foot to Mordor and then when enveloped by Orcs and trolls miraculously seem to remember how to swing a sword and survive long enough for Frodo to succeed in his task.

Its annoying is all lol. They could have made the same movie but instead of taking the time to make the ghost army they could have made the regular army consistant and realistic, even if it is a fantasy movie.

Wow Lord of the Rings seems to always pop up in a thread at least once a week lol.

Yea, I'm gonna start a LOTR thread in the entrance hall.

please people, stop talking about the movie.

it really was a travesty. do not use it as example for strategic/tactical examples fro the lotr.

if you REALLY want to see an epic siege, see the fall of the hidden city gondolin.

eh? where's that?