forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Beran wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote: ...rather than those that make sense from the viewpoint of military/historical analysis.

Considering the emphasis that Tolkien placed on history when designing ME I find this statement a little odd.

Well, sure, taken out of the context of rest of the post it sure does seem a little odd.

The greater point, of course, is that Tolkien (or any great storyteller) doesn't restrict his tales to things unfolding in predictable ways. He weaves tales about how things deviated from predictability, as you pointed out with the reference to the Palantir.

He drew great inspiration from actual history of course (but even more from fictional history) and spent a lot of time detailing his own made-up histories, but I don't think he ever said, "Gosh, I have this great story idea, but it's improbable from a military realism perspective so I guess it won't work..."

Not to devalue folks' interest in analyzing things from that perspective. If that's what turns you on that's cool. Just saying that I think this thread/topic could also explore themes other than military inevitability.

When Fingolfin challenged Morgoth I don't think he was worrying about force multipliers. He was just pissed.

Elfcrusher wrote:When Fingolfin challenged Morgoth I don't think he was worrying about force multipliers. He was just pissed.

Probably, but it is also an excellent example of two champions facing off to help decide the out come of a battle. Which happend quite often in ancient warfare or myths. It is Hector and Achilles, David and Goliath by another name. In a way it was a force multiplier as the winner would be the chosen of the gods, and the loss of a general or well known warrior would have a demoralizing effect on the rest of the army...which I believe was the out come to the above example.

And since he got his ass spanked it sure shows the futiltity of challenging, what amounts to, a god to a duel.

Elfcrusher wrote: The greater point, of course, is that Tolkien (or any great storyteller) doesn't restrict his tales to things unfolding in predictable ways. He weaves tales about how things deviated from predictability, as you pointed out with the reference to the Palantir.

He drew great inspiration from actual history of course (but even more from fictional history) and spent a lot of time detailing his own made-up histories, but I don't think he ever said, "Gosh, I have this great story idea, but it's improbable from a military realism perspective so I guess it won't work..."

Of course he didn't. It's the good mix in his stories that make them so popular and fascinating. On the one side you have the great storytelling part, but this isn't alone, but immersed and embedded in a rich and believable secondary world, that follows the laws of our own so closely that we really have the feeling it could be "real".
Both the storytelling part as well as the meticulously developed secondary history/world would stand out much poorer if each lacked the other.

Coming back to the subject, there is a basic and always correct rule to military operations: No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. It is normal that not everything works out the way the general/leader thought they will. Sometimes the changes are minor, sometimes they upset your whole strategy. That is why battles are lost and won against the odds or probabilities. Therefore every military commander with a minimum of ability should keep sufficient reserves at hand to deal with unforeseen developments. And he must be prepared to react flexible to changing tactical or operational situations.

This is clearly recognisable in Tolkien's books as well: The Battle of Five Armies develops in an unforeseen direction, with the tide of battle turning from one side to the other several times and each side using their resources skillfully.
Even more so, the LotR shows that Tolkien did it right: Sauron (through the Witch-king) expects the Rohirrim will aid Gondor (as they have done for centuries) and so he puts a sufficient force in the way to block their advance. The Rohirrim are not caught unprepared either (e.g. stumbling upon the blocking force), but scout ahead and gain sufficient intelligence to find a solution. Then comes the unexpected help in the person of Ghan-buri-ghan which enables the Rohirrim to bypass the blocking force.
On the Pelennor Fields, the Witch-king has planned the assault with great care. Especially he has a tool at hand to deal with the incredibly strong gate. Then comes the unexpected attack of the Rohirrim, but instead of panicking or losing his head in face of a change in the situation, he reacts professionally to the new threat (Tolkien emphasises this especially). Even when he is defeated, his second-in-command skillfully uses the reserves to deal with the new (and wholly unforeseen) situation. In the end the West wins, but it is a hard-fought and dearly-bought victory, since the Enemy was a professional one, well led and fighting hard (a major difference to the bad guys in Star Wars for example who often make the impression of being bloody amateurs).

In the context of the subject of this thread, we can work out what would be the most likely plan of each side given their situation and level of intelligence. We should also have an idea about the level of skill of both commanders to see how they will react to a change in plans and situation. What exactly will go awry and not according to plan is an entirely other matter of course.

Cheers
Tolwen

Well said Tolwen. An example of how you can have proper military thinking and a good story.

Tolwen wrote:In the end the West wins, but it is a hard-fought and dearly-bought victory, since the Enemy was a professional one, well led and fighting hard (a major difference to the bad guys in Star Wars for example who often make the impression of being bloody amateurs).

Too true, with the exception of the Battle of Hoth the Imperial forces couldn't find their back sides with a map.

I was trying to gently nudge the thread toward something other than a pissing match between military history buffs, but I seem to have failed.

Have at it, I guess.

Elfcrusher wrote:I was trying to gently nudge the thread toward something other than a pissing match between military history buffs, but I seem to have failed.

Have at it, I guess.

I really don't see it as that. Some of us just like to tell a military story that makes logical sense. Rather then a more fanciful one that has no bearing on logic what so ever. If I want cotton candy fantasy warfare then I'll read a D&D novel.

For anyone interested in what the professor originally envisioned, see if you can find a copy of The Art of the Hobbit & read pp 99-122. You'll be pleasantly surprised to learn that he also changed his mind about the placement & appearance of Dale more than once, & he drew/painted some cool pix & maps.

BTW, Tolkien paid careful attention to the military side of his writing, & having served as a junior officer during the First World War, he had that rare (for most of us today) experience of surviving a war.

Just an observation.

Mim wrote:For anyone interested in what the professor originally envisioned, see if you can find a copy of The Art of the Hobbit & read pp 99-122. You'll be pleasantly surprised to learn that he also changed his mind about the placement & appearance of Dale more than once, & he drew/painted some cool pix & maps.

The good Professor was well known to re write alot of his ME background info and the stories themselves, so this doesn't really surprise me. I'd like to see that book but it is probably as rare as hens teeth.

I guess my point is that I think you should start with a great story first, and then invent/insert what you need to in order to make it believable (e.g. Palantir, traitors, Beorn and the Eagles showing up, orcs being afraid of boats, whatever).

Trying to go the other direction, taking the evidence we have of how cities were built and how large the forces were, and then saying, "Well it must have unfolded this way..." is putting the cart before the horse. IMO.

Take the Siege of Badajoz, as an illustrative example. Before that battle, military experts (armchair and otherwise) would have made all kinds of predictions based on the defenses, the experience of the troops of both sides, force multipliers, etc.

Then the defender's munition dump exploded and the battle completely changed. Bernard Cornwall has a particularly creative take on why exactly that happened, but if the battle were fictional then blowing up the armory would have been a great way to make the battle come out the way he wanted without getting trashed on the forums for being unrealistic.

If we're creating fertile ground for storytelling, I don't think we should limit the plot lines to what we might have learned at Sandhurst or West Point. We should start with what we want to happen, for the sake of the story, and if we need to accidentally blow up an armory or two to make it believable, fine.

Getting back to Laketown, what makes for the best story? A burnt Laketown? (Refugees could make for interesting plot developments.) A besieged Laketown? (As I mentioned before, sneaking across enemy lines and rooting out traitors could be fun.) An occupied Laketown? A Laketown that sides with Sauron?

Pick whatever sounds the most fun and we can come up with 100 different ways to make it believable, in the context of Tolkien's milieu. But starting with, "Well it must have been <insert scenario> because that's the only thing that could have realistically happened" is, frankly, complete horseshit.

But I'll rest my case. If/when I'm running a campaign in the region during the War, I'll start a new thread looking for fun ideas. In the meantime, I would advise the Dwarves of Erebor to not store all their gunpowder in one place.

Elfcrusher wrote:I guess my point is that I think you should start with a great story first, and then invent/insert what you need to in order to make it believable (e.g. Palantir, traitors, Beorn and the Eagles showing up, orcs being afraid of boats, whatever).

You can also view it the other way round. If you first see what is probable, what possible and what unlikely in the setting/situation you have in mind, you can make an educated decision of whether your planned story arc is probable (one end of the spectrum), you'd need a deus ex machina to make it work (the other end of the spectrum) - or something in-between the two extremes. If it is too often and too much of the deus-type, you may have a good story, but people may judge it as too contrived to be really great. If it is too often the probable one, it may become less interesting due to being predictable and uninspiring.
A good mix of likely and improbable events should be the best solution.

Getting back to Lake-town (again) all the options you list are possible even in a possible scenario I developed above (when the Easterlings arrive there, they want it intact as a logistic base): Some fanatic Lake-towners burn it down to avoid it falling into enemy hands (burnt Lake-town), some stubborn Lake-towners don't want to leave their homes behind and are bent on fighting it out (besieged Lake-town, a burnt Lake-town may be the end result), the people of Lake-town (or most of them) accept the realities of their chances and hand the town to the Easterlings to avoid bloodshed (occupied Lake-town).
It may be similar with other premises (Easterlings have other priorities).



Cheers
Tolwen