" Military Doctrine and Warfare in The Lord of the Rings " Topic

"Alliances are curious beasts, at once abstract and concrete, distant and immediate. They are means of maximizing power, managing allies, and deterring adversaries, but also expressions of communities who identify their own security with the security of others. In the latter case, alliances are based on solidarity, an abstract concept until it's translated into "dying for Danzig," which suddenly makes it very close to one's skin. Recent developments in the Ukraine and the perceived threat to Eastern and Central Europe have forced NATO, the world's most powerful and long-lasting alliance, to face up to these issues again and ask itself what solidarity means. But as the Alliance emerges from the Wales summit, the question of facing up to a common threat—which some see as neither common nor a threat—remains unresolved.

The mixture of the abstract and the intensely personal that make up alliance relations is something that film might capture better than IR theory. And The Lord of the Rings (LOTR), with its anti-Sauron alliance, captures this better than any other film. The potential of the LOTR films to illustrate major issues in international relations has already been noticed: an entire book uses them to introduce and explain IR concepts. There is, however, still room for a few remarks on how alliances are formed; who pays for the common good; military shock and awe; and the significance of personalities and personal relationships in warfare. With all their occasional pomposity and the sweeping good-versus-evil script, which leaves little room for shades of gray, the LOTR films are still brilliant vehicles for thinking about things related to alliances.

This is the first of two posts. Here, I delve into the obstacles to alliances being formed and spurred into action; in the second post, I use LOTR to illustrate a couple of points about what makes them succeed. I should stress that both posts are based on the better-known cinematic version of the story—the three films encompassing Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King—which differs in significant respects from the books. I am also assuming that the reader is familiar with the story and the main characters, and will not recount the plot or explain who Sauron is…"
Full text Part I here
link

"In all discussion of NATO's current plans, two words appear more than others: deterrence and reassurance. We aim to deter the adversary with new, better equipped, and faster forces, say NATO officials. We build them up so that we never have to use them. But this is not enough: the sine qua non of deterrence is not possession of capabilities, but convincing the adversary that one is willing to use them. Morale and decisiveness are key ingredients of credibility and are as important, if not more, than capabilities. Technological shock and awe is insufficient.

Shock and awe is a significant part of American military planning. U.S. troops are not to go to war unless they can utilize a force so much larger and more technologically advanced that an adversary will retreat in shock and awe at the assault. But LOTR offers a curious inversion of this paradigm: shock and awe comes to, not from, those with greater numbers and supreme technology. Twice—once at Helm's Deep and once at the gates of Minas Tirith—are the numerically superior and nearly victorious orcs thrown into disarray by the appearance of a smaller, worse armed, but more determined force from Rohan. True, the Rohan force is based on cavalry, which gives them an edge over orc infantry; they also seem to have the sun behind them, which certainly helps. But this is not decisive: what seems to matter here is not numbers supported by technology, but rather an army with morale and nothing to lose.

Similarly, shock and awe on the part of Sauron and Saruman also only achieve limited effects. When the Grond, the enormous fire-spitting battering ram breaks through the defenses at Minas Tirith and lets through chainmail-adorned trolls, Gandalf's face freezes in horror, but only momentarily. He and the Gondor knights adjust quickly. Even more striking is the sequence on the Minas Tirith battlefield. Facing newly arrived warriors riding elephants, the Rohan cavalry falters, but not for long. They quickly regroup and find ways to neutralize the elephants. Shock and awe are not enough to dampen a stubborn spirit, which may well regroup and find a way to undercut the giant. This is something well worth remembering, and important for NATO: without a glue of community to support its capabilities, it might end up as an empty shell…"
Full text Part II here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Poor tolkien, his great fantasy writtings are once more taken out of context to be remixed in unrelated real-life conflicts !

Not the first time , but here we get into more then the usual racist reading of his great work when far-right extremist tried to take the fantasy races ( elves , orcs , hobbits ….) and apply it to the skin colors of real life humans .

Anyone taking any military lesson from Tolkien needs some help. The combat passages in the LotR are each about a paragraph along the lines of "there was a great battle for Minis Tirith, the good guys won" which is then followed by a 4 or 4 page song.

Gang – READ closely the article – it is NOT based on the source – the BOOKS by Tolkien – but on the stupid MOVIES that don't even FOLLOW THE STORY Tolkien told!

"But as the story progresses, there are also moments of solidarity. Prompted by Galadriel, Elrond sends reinforcements to the Rohan force at Helm's Deep."

ELVES at Helm's Deep – not in the book I READ. Imagine, basing ANYTHING in real life on a freaking movie that could not even tell the story of the BOOK correctly! Just goes to show how far intellect has gone in this world.

Mark

You are right Mark.

Amicalement
Armand

Military Doctrine and Warfare in The Lord of the Rings

Tolkien was an expert on the Dark Ages and various northern European cultures, so warfare and doctrine was basically most orcs were mass formation barbarians, and most Humans and Elves fought in disciplined Shield Walls with archer support, while the Rohirrim were basically Vikings blended with Sarmatians, a mix of light and heavy cav.

*Sigh*

The article isn't about how either Tolkien or Peter Jackson present tactics or strategy or actual military action. Rather, it's about the underlying military considerations relating to alliances, politics, leadership, and human reactions within military situations, and using how these elements are depicted in the films to engender discussion about how such considerations apply in the real world. As films reflect human nature and philosophy (at least of the film makers, if no one else), such can be valuable springboards for highlighting such points, as the article indeed goes on to do. No different, really, than quoting Homer, Livy, etc., etc., to lead off discussion.

At question, therefore, is not whether the films are true to the novels, or if the military actions depicted in either are sound or even reasonable, but rather whether the human behaviors associated with these depictions are indeed sound and believable (even if unwise or downright stupid). Do people act this way in times of war and conflict? If we agree that they do, or even simply that people desire to act that way, then the depiction can help us consider similar behaviors in reality. After all, that is the power of art-- to reflect reality back to us, even if in unreal ways, so that we may consider reality more closely and find either questions or answers or both that can guide us as we face that reality with more open eyes.

SBM, I visited Iceland, and the guide made the point that many of the names in LotR and Tolkien's fiction are/were common icelandic names, like Gimli, etc….

Excellent comment, Parzival.