Cavalry Tactics at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields

[Erpingham]

I take that to mean an acceptance that knights are going to break into the , but be slowed by the spears, battered down by the goedendags and despatched by the falchions.

I believe the orcs had studied this and based their tactics on it.  What they had failed to grasp is you needed not to panic

The point about acceptance is a good one.  We do have quite a few little vignettes of cavalry v infantry combat where the cavalry penetrate the infantry formation .  Provided these break ins are small and the infantry are determined, they can survive.  If your tactical doctrine is this will happen but when it does, all hands on deck to repel the invader, its the difference between a surprise and an expected development, morale wise. 

If we look at Courtrai and the death of Robert of Artois, we see this in action.  Artois penetrates the Flemish formation and lays hand on one of the banners.  He is attacked from all sides.  Eventually, a monk and a lay brother rush him from opposite sides and one of them takes down his horse with a mighty blow with a godendag. Grounded, he is killed by the mob (who forgot they had orders to capture him, apparently). 

[Howard Fielding]

I'm a bit skeptical about using the film as a model, since the film dramatically increases the visual effect.

Definitely this. Throw out the film completely and just reference the book.

[Imperial Dave]

absolutely. The book is far superior

[Erpingham]

absolutely. The book is far superior

It is a very long time since I last read this (Christmas 1974, I think) so I can't say I recall its description and how well it mirrors actual medieval practice.  I vaguely recall it was reminiscent of early chivalric romances (like the Song of Roland), which, while not useless as a source, do have some issues.  But then, Tolkein wasn't trying to reflect real warfare anymore than Jackson was.

[Jim Webster]

absolutely. The book is far superior

It is a very long time since I last read this (Christmas 1974, I think) so I can't say I recall its description and how well it mirrors actual medieval practice.  I vaguely recall it was reminiscent of early chivalric romances (like the Song of Roland), which, while not useless as a source, do have some issues.  But then, Tolkein wasn't trying to reflect real warfare anymore than Jackson was.

Also for Tolkein, 'real warfare' was the trenches.
I suspect he had a lot of insights we haven't got, but on the technicalities of cavalry charges his only advantage is that he could well have known people of an older generation who'd taken part in them

[Erpingham]

I suspect he had a lot of insights we haven't got, but on the technicalities of cavalry charges his only advantage is that he could well have known people of an older generation who'd taken part in them

He may have had some insight into cavalry from his officer training that we don't have - it was still a real, if obsolescent, arm of service - and, unlike us, undoubtedly saw cavalry moving about.  How much he cared to use this to inform his writing about heroic cavalry charges, I've no idea.

[Imperial Dave]

I seem to remember from some distant reading of sources, that he used the Goths as his template for the Rohirrim

[Erpingham]

I seem to remember from some distant reading of sources, that he used the Goths as his template for the Rohirrim

I think I have also seen that and it makes sense.  However, we don't have much Gothic epic poetry describing cavalry charges to build on, so I suspect he had to cast the net wider on that.

[Mark G]

I'm slightly sceptical about T using the Goths.
He was trying to build a parallel to our "dark ages" certainly, but I think the langobards were closer to what he had in mind.

Something from pre Norman Western European history anyway, but the Goths seem too late to fit the model, I think.

[Imperial Dave]

I'll try and dig up the reference but you may be right. In any case Tolkien used to mash together different cultures to help build his narratives and people

[Howard Fielding]

The thing about the books vs the film:

1) Oliphants are more believable, being "merely" elephants;

2) The book includes the Harads, which PJ couldn't seem to fit in after he created his abominations;

3) Orcs are portrayed by their creator as he thought they ought to be, and not by some hack filmmaker whose head has gotten too big.

[Imperial Dave]

dont get me started on the oliphants!

[Mark G]

I think there were some cultural appropriation type considerations with the Harads in the films.

It's pretty tricky to put what are in the books basically every Islamic stereotype masher together on to film, without characterising a single one of them.  No named characters, no roles past an extra, only on the bad guys side and only ever as bad guy soldiers.  That's hard to get past any censor even 20 years ago.

Nazis and zombies are the only bad guys you are allowed to film as always bad and one dimensional- and you can kill as many in screen as you like.  Any other culturally identifiable group has its defenders and is treated as such by the censors.

Action elf and the oiliphants however ... let's be generous and supposed he had to put in something to allow more CGI

[Imperial Dave]

true enough....a fine line to tread these days!

[Howard Fielding]

They depicted Easterlings fine.